Metroid Switch; probably open world?

[the8thark]

There's absolutely no reason for Metroid to copy what Breath of the Wild did and compete with a fellow IP.

There's absolutely no intelligent for future Metroid games to copy anything Other M and Federation force has done. A fresh different start for the next Metroid game would be a good idea (in my opinion).

Just like Breath of the Wild. It may have gone back to its roots, and for the better too, but other aspects that made the franchise great to many are also lacking for the sake of "changing the conventions" and while most people still enjoy the game as a whole, more and more people tend to share the sentiment that it is indeed lacking some of the charm and concepts that brought them to the series to begin with.

Of cause it's lacking the charm of the older Zelda titles. That's the whole point. BotW is charming in a whole different and amazing way. Those who want an Ocarina of Time clone in game style or charm will be disappointed by BotW. That's the whole point though. Every Zelda game from Ocarina of Time to before BotW is based off the Ocarina of Time model. BotW is a new model, and intentionally so.

Nintendo's next goal shouldn't be how to be more like Breath of the Wild in the future, but more so, how can they implement some of those missed conventions into a massive and fully explorable world like Breath of the Wild.

That is correct but you need to focus of the successes as well as the flaws. BotW does a heck of a lot right. Sequels of any game should improve on the good parts and work on the flaws of the previous game. The Ocarina of Time sequels did this poorly because as time went on they got more and more stale. Skyward Sword is a prime example of this.

It's the same for Metroid. As long as it continues to have top notch game design, great gameplay, and stays true to itself, there's no need for it to try and bank off the success of a different franchise. Nobody wants Metroid to return as something it's not, nor does that mean we don't want to see the series evolve.

What I said about Metroid is nothing to do with trying to clone BotW as a Metroid game. However there is nothing wrong with learning from other IPs. What you need to realise is "what something it not" in your words could also be called "a new and innovative direction for the IP". If you never think outside the box and challenge the traditional conventions of an IP, then that IP never changes and is forever stuck in the past. BotW is only what it is today because Nintendo dared to challenge what a Zelda game should be. The same needs to happen with the next Metroid game.

There is only one thing every game should have/be. That is fun. Everything else is subject to change in the hopes of making a better game. Being too fixed on what an IP should be or should contain can prevent you from seeing possible potential that does not fit within the current constraints of that IP.

 

[Turo602]

There's absolutely no intelligent for future Metroid games to copy anything Other M and Federation force has done. A fresh different start for the next Metroid game would be a good idea (in my opinion).

There's absolutely no reason for Metroid to stray from what it is. The last 2 games flopping is no reason to dismiss why the series has worked before. Especially since the last 2 games could be considered "fresh" ideas for the series.

Of cause it's lacking the charm of the older Zelda titles. That's the whole point. BotW is charming in a whole different and amazing way. Those who want an Ocarina of Time clone in game style or charm will be disappointed by BotW. That's the whole point though. Every Zelda game from Ocarina of Time to before BotW is based off the Ocarina of Time model. BotW is a new model, and intentionally so.

No, that is not the point... You keep acting like Breath of the Wild wasn't meant to be a Zelda game, and that's extremely false. Yes, the goal was to challenge the conventions that they've been following since Ocarina of Time, but not every creative difference was made because they wanted to be different and appeal to non-Zelda fans. Some differences were done to service the game and the world they were creating. For example, the music has been a topic of discussion for Zelda fans because not everyone was a fan of how it was handled in BotW. A change like that wasn't done to be different from the rest of the series but because that was what they felt was best for the game. Breath of the Wild was made for Zelda fans because of feedback from Zelda fans. The open world direction was challenging the point A to point B formula seen in Zelda games since Ocarina of Time but it was also bringing back something Zelda fans wanted, which was the freedom and exploration of the original game.

What I said about Metroid is nothing to do with trying to clone BotW as a Metroid game. However there is nothing wrong with learning from other IPs. What you need to realise is "what something it not" in your words could also be called "a new and innovative direction for the IP". If you never think outside the box and challenge the traditional conventions of an IP, then that IP never changes and is forever stuck in the past. BotW is only what it is today because Nintendo dared to challenge what a Zelda game should be. The same needs to happen with the next Metroid game.

You don't get my point. The topic is if Metroid should be open-world and I don't think so because it goes against the very foundation the series established. Open world is what Metroid isn't just like kart racer isn't Metroid either. Nintendo is free to look at other IPs and learn from them so long it's within the same realm as Metroid. Metroid has inspired many video games throughout the years, so it shouldn't be very hard. Games like Resident Evil 4, Batman Arkham City, Tomb Raider, etc. Just like Breath of the Wild, Metroid needs to go back to its roots so that it won't end up like Other M or Federation Force. That doesn't mean people are asking for it to be an identical clone of previous games with no new ideas. Besides, Metroid is a series that hasn't really been done much, so there's no reason for anyone to act like it's going to be stale.

There is only one thing every game should have/be. That is fun. Everything else is subject to change in the hopes of making a better game. Being too fixed on what an IP should be or should contain can prevent you from seeing possible potential that does not fit within the current constraints of that IP.

This is extremely false as well. Franchises should be consistent. That is how you establish a fanbase. Plenty of franchises do this and still manage to keep things fresh, new, and better as they go on. You're taking this whole "changing the conventions" philosophy too serious, and it's quite ridiculous. Not everything needs to change, especially when it's not broken. What Zelda did was move the franchise back on course of what it used to be, further adding to the evolution of the series. That doesn't mean that every decision made was "the right one" or somehow "for the better" or even different for the series. Yes, new ideas are always welcomed, but the product at its core needs to be consistent, otherwise, say goodbye to the consumers.

 

[the8thark]

There's absolutely no reason for Metroid to stray from what it is. The last 2 games flopping is no reason to dismiss why the series has worked before. Especially since the last 2 games could be considered "fresh" ideas for the series.

There's no reason for it to stay on the same path either. Innovation within the IP is always a good thing.

No, that is not the point... You keep acting like Breath of the Wild wasn't meant to be a Zelda game, and that's extremely false. Yes, the goal was to challenge the conventions that they've been following since Ocarina of Time, but not every creative difference was made because they wanted to be different and appeal to non-Zelda fans. Some differences were done to service the game and the world they were creating. For example, the music has been a topic of discussion for Zelda fans because not everyone was a fan of how it was handled in BotW. A change like that wasn't done to be different from the rest of the series but because that was what they felt was best for the game. Breath of the Wild was made for Zelda fans because of feedback from Zelda fans. The open world direction was challenging the point A to point B formula seen in Zelda games since Ocarina of Time but it was also bringing back something Zelda fans wanted, which was the freedom and exploration of the original game.

That is the whole point. Nintendo did their research and realised games like Skyrim sold well. So Nintendo looked into why those games sold well at a core gameplay and funtamental level. Those things were incorporated into a game and Nintendo just added the Zelda coat of paint to the end product. The game was meant to be Zelda but really in name only. Everything else was designed in purpose to be totally different.

You don't get my point. The topic is if Metroid should be open-world and I don't think so because it goes against the very foundation the series established. Open world is what Metroid isn't just like kart racer isn't Metroid either. Nintendo is free to look at other IPs and learn from them so long it's within the same realm as Metroid. Metroid has inspired many video games throughout the years, so it shouldn't be very hard. Games like Resident Evil 4, Batman Arkham City, Tomb Raider, etc. Just like Breath of the Wild, Metroid needs to go back to its roots so that it won't end up like Other M or Federation Force. That doesn't mean people are asking for it to be an identical clone of previous games with no new ideas. Besides, Metroid is a series that hasn't really been done much, so there's no reason for anyone to act like it's going to be stale.

CHallenge those core foundationms upon which an IP is founded at times can be a good thing. I believe Metroid needs that now for the next game. Should Metroid be open world in it's next game? Yes. It can be open world and still be a good Metroid game.

This is extremely false as well. Franchises should be consistent. That is how you establish a fanbase. Plenty of franchises do this and still manage to keep things fresh, new, and better as they go on. You're taking this whole "changing the conventions" philosophy too serious, and it's quite ridiculous. Not everything needs to change, especially when it's not broken. What Zelda did was move the franchise back on course of what it used to be, further adding to the evolution of the series. That doesn't mean that every decision made was "the right one" or somehow "for the better" or even different for the series. Yes, new ideas are always welcomed, but the product at its core needs to be consistent, otherwise, say goodbye to the consumers.

It's not ridiculous. It's something you should be understanding of. Sure keeping certain elements the same over multiple games of an IP is important. But when an IP has become stale after 20 years of clone games, it's time for a total rethink. Time for some innovation. Thankfully BotW provided that.

If you clone something for far to long then it is broken. The teams making thr games are broken and lacking new and innovative ways to improve the IP.

 

[Cartoonmaniac]

Metroid games have always had a special kind of "open world" where you can only access a small part of the map at first, and slowly being able to reach new places (some in areas you've already explored) That's a key component of Metroid, and that's why there is a whole genre of gaming named after it. If you make Metroid open world in the sense that Breath of the Wild is open world, then it will take away from what makes the series so special. Yes, I do agree that with new technology the map sizes could be greatly expanded, but don't make a game "open world" just because you can. I can see that Nintendo is starting to get into open worlds with Breath of the Wild and Super Mario Odyssey, but that's only because those two IPs are suited for open worlds.

This is extremely false as well. Franchises should be consistent. That is how you establish a fanbase. Plenty of franchises do this and still manage to keep things fresh, new, and better as they go on. You're taking this whole "changing the conventions" philosophy too serious, and it's quite ridiculous. Not everything needs to change, especially when it's not broken. What Zelda did was move the franchise back on course of what it used to be, further adding to the evolution of the series. That doesn't mean that every decision made was "the right one" or somehow "for the better" or even different for the series. Yes, new ideas are always welcomed, but the product at its core needs to be consistent, otherwise, say goodbye to the consumers.

Finally, someone who shares how I feel! This whole "Breath of the Wild is the new standard for all of gaming, and all games should try something new" thing is getting out of hand.