I still don't understand why people keep thinking MP is an out and out FPS... IT ISN'T!

I guarantee you that the people who state that MP is an FPS will also state that the previous metroid games are 3rd person shooters. :rolleyes:

Is that what you think Null, that Super Metroid is an out and out 3rd person shooter? I should think not. And if you don't (hopefully), then you should understand from 'all' the impressons given, that MP not only 'plays', but 'feels' like previous metroid games...

Hence, if SM is a 3rd person adventure with shooting elements, then MP is an FPA with shooting elements. You cannot seriously tell me that all first person games are shooters. Look at Enclave for instanse, it hasn't even a trace of out and out shooting elements, yet it has a first person view as an option.

That should quash any of your reservations. ;)

quite honestly this argument has nothing to do with you. nor is it fun to argue with you about it. im just havin fun with game. hehe

But to what you said. it all means nothign. cuz once again. People WHO HAVE PLAYED THE GAME SAY FPS.


and to be quite honest I never played any of the Metroid ganes, :) dunno why exactly, guess i just never got around to em.

And all the examples you people put up about other games are TOTALLY MEANINGLESS.. cuz as i pointed out. this isnt mario. this isnt zelda. this isnt ernie the wallazoo goes to england. This is Metroid. past metroids? make no diff. this metroid has obviously changed.


you can put up thoes weak arguments all you want about if mario was first person it would be FPS. Well guess what? Mario isnt first person. Mario sprays water. he does not have a gun to shoot with, Mario jumps on things to kill them for the most part. not using the water to kill them. Zelda perhaps is even lamer then mario. is the bow and arrow links main weap? no. that case is settled. And to step into the future here for what lame thing will prolly be said next "if NHL was in first person it would be FPS cuz you shoot the puck" :rolleyes:

thing is. theres nothing Anyone can say here to end this, untill we've all actually played it. For now tho. people who play the game say FPS. ;)

Yeah, if you actually bothered to read my post:

Really, your 'argument' goes against you, as all the people who have played it says the game is just like previous metroids, but only this time in 3D... Hence, if they say MP is an FPS, then they will say that SM is a TPSm which is 'not' the case. SM is a TPA, hence MP is an FPA... Got it?

Please don't say people say FPS, because I already explained that part to you.

and if you bothered to read my post. This is Metroid prime.

this isnt super metroid.


but by going what you say tho if it plays exactly like super metroid.

NINTENDO SAYS SUPER METROID IS AN ACTION GAME. NOT AN ADVENTURE.


so i guess even you say MP isnt Adventure cuz its exactly like the old one?

and after readying your post above.


No one ever said MP is and out and out FPS, what im saying, and yes, people who have played the game ;) say its more FPS then it is adventure.

I stopped reading this thread somewhere on the second page cause you guys was just saying the same thing over and over again... maybe someone pointed this out before this post but.. in Metroid Prime... your main weapons like charge beam and wave beam and ice beam plasma beam have no ammo... infinite ammo... but the missles and stuff you have a limited amount...

I just felt like posting that after Null asked for a difference between Halo and Metroid... Im assmuming you have a limited amound of ammo in Halo? Ive never played it :(

dont bame ya for stoping reading it. hehe

differences i meant in game style. not actual game play. like maps are differnt, differnt controls differnt characters or differnt ammo stuff.

Yeah, and the official Nintendo website says adventure, I'm sure they played it too... They played the game just as much or more (I'm guessing more) than any IGN or Gamespot editor, and they say adventure.

So please, shut that dumb argument up and come up with another excuse

Yea, nintendo could say its a water polo game and you'd gullibly take thier word on it. nintendo said fps, then changed it to what everyone wants to hear. adventure.


I'll still take what people say its like over what a company wants you to beleive its like.

So i suggest you too come up with a better argument cuz nintendo says this and that is getting rather old also.

Ok, so you say that GameSpot editors who have actually played the game say that Metroid Prime is an FPS. Well, Matt Cassamassina has also played the game, and he says otherwise.

What he says sounds reasonable enough to me. And it is possible that different people will have different opinions (as he points out). But based on what he says and what I have read about the game, Metroid Prime just doesn't seem to be an FPS unless your definition of an FPS is simply first person game in which you have a gun.

When did anybody say they want an adventure more? What makes a FPA better then an FPS? Id like to see another FPS by Nintendo. Your jumping to conclusions...the only reason people say its FPA is because Nintendo has said it is. A FPA is no better or worse then an FPS. Now given, I repect IGN and Gamespot on a level. NP actually works and plays at NOA HQ. Now call me crazy, but maybe, JUST MAYBE, you have to play the game enough to understand that it is very much an adventure. Maybe it just seem like an FPS in the start because the story is unfolding as you play a long.

So many reasons they could be wrong when they say its an FPS.

THANK YOU! (Xantar)


man, it took this long to get a rasonable argument.


Atho he does mainly refer to controls, which the gamespot people did say its got unique controls. unlike other FPS games.


and Matt here doesnt really rule out FPS either.

he too refers to it having shooter elements.

And he has a good opinion on what he defines shooter as. and says its not exactly that.

:)

:rolleyes:

:zzz: boring...

So people who've played it say it's an FPS. Ever thought about that they probably got to play a bit more action lvls and a bit less adventure gameplay??

It's only a name BTW, what's the big deal?
You could call it a FPS, but remember that FPS rely more on linear lvls and a lot of shooting and killing.
Metroid Prime has a inlinear gameplay and relies more on finding stuff to progress, which is typical for an adventure game.
So... although you could call it a FPS, a FPA would describe it better.

Everybody wants to hear Adventure??? Maybe I'm mistaken, but when Metroid had it's first shots shown I was extremely happy because I thought it was a FPS, then when I heard FPA my expectations for the game went down.

I didn't want to hear FPA, apparently you didn't want to hear FPA, so who is this "everyone" you are talking about?

What they want me to believe it is??? I never went to Nintendo.com for Metriod UNTIL you said it wasn't an Adventure. I was like you, listening to second hand sites, and I got the Adventure impression from everybody.

:rolleyes:

Your "Nintendo is Lying" arguement must be a lot worse, seeing that nobody here agrees with you and my worst (forum) enymys agree with me.

nah. i got exactly what i wanted out of this topic. in more ways then one people have admited its not a definate FPA. i never said it was a definate FPS. but more and more its comeing thro that there ARE obvous FPS elements in it.


and maybe you were happy, but i remember a HUGE outcry when they announced first person. people were a wide range of dissapointment to damn upset. there were many topics on the forums about it when it happend. And nintendo came out and tried to explain more on it to settle people down so to speak.

just because nintendo is trying to make it something. doesnt mean the finished product will turn out to be that way. And thier intrupratation of what the game is could be differnt then what the gaming public see's. when you program or make something. its sometimes VERY differnt to you then to others.

har har har... you got what you wanted out of the thread??? Who said it isn't a cut and dry FPA??? Who agreed with you on ANY point???

I think you need to read a little closer. Oh, and you did say it's a FPS, look at your first post.

"wah" ;)


it is a FPS. ;)


its also a Adventure,

and its even a Action.

but its not a cut and dry FPA.

point is which is it more of.


me thinks you need to read a bit closer too :)

:unsure:

I'll let sombody else take over on debating with you, this post you just made makes absolutly no sense.

First of all, what did I miss (besides your point in this post)

and second, what do you mean by "which is it more of"? What it is, is an adventure... an Adventure game that just happens to be in first person, everybody but you agrees on this point. If it has a label, it's FPA, or just Adventure, period.

:( well its no fun then....

thats why i mainly ignored everyone else and didnt even read many of thier posts. i was trying to argue with YOU.


*sniff*

I get that a lot :unsure:

why do people like argueing with me for no reason :(

my topic.... :unsure:

I am dismayed by the fact that some people are saying "Halo and Metroid Prime cannot be compared."

YES THEY CAN. It might not be the best, the most profound or the fairest comparison, but you can still draw analogous elements between the two.

Saying that you cannot is just dumb. It's a logical fallacy.

volare.............whoa oooh.

cantare.........whoa ooh oh.

:unsure:

Let's just compare GTA3 to Mario Sunshine, or Madden 2003 to WWF Wrestlemainia x8 :rolleyes:

They can be compared, yes, but there is no way to draw a conclusion from comparisions except which genre of game you like more.

lol.. i can. :D (once i've played both that is)

Let's do that: they're all videogames!

Is that a comparison? Yes. Is that fair or profound? No. Did I say that they have to be in order to qualify as a comparison? I don't think so. And as a matter of fact, I remember painstakingly pointing out the very fact in my post. Something which you obviously missed so masterfully. Brilliant, genius. Well, wait...no, more like retarded.

Since this sentence says, "there is no way to draw a conclusion from [comparisons] except which genre of game you like more," I'll argue based upon the fact that you're saying that there is no way to draw a conclusion from comparisons in general except which genre of game you like more. Well, actually, I cannot because it's an obvious red-herring. So any comparison at all only allows conclusions that let's people to determine what kind of bias they have for games? So if I were to compare elephants to ants, that comparison would let you determine which genre of game you prefer? Sounds moronic, doesn't it?

But let me get back to my original point: we compare things that are totally different from each other all the time. And if you think about it, what's so stimulating about comparing two of the same things? If comparisons are made only to be centered around two of the same things, what the hell good is it?

Jesus Christ, is this so damn hard to grasp?

What I was trying to say (which your dumb ass missed) is that anything can be compared... but... There is a point where comparisons become pointless due to too many differences.

The best comparisons are games that try to create the same image:

NFL 2k vs Madden
NBA 2k vs NBA Live
WWF No Mercy vs WWF WMx8
Mario 64 vs Mario Sunshine

The next Best are games that aren't trying to create the same image, but games that are in the same genre and have similar gameplay mechanics, game settings, or Level design.

Then there are the pointless comparisons. Yes, [b]anything can be compared[b], But some are just plain stupid. Games that have nothing to do with each other. Metriod and Halo fall under this category. The lack of similarities isn't the only thing that makes it unfair. Just think about it, comparing a game that isn't out to (arguably) the best home console FPS is in no way fair.

Just like the retards that used to say Mafia is a GTA killer... Just because Mafia doesn't live up to GTA it now can be classified as crap. If it wasn't compared to GTA 3 it wouldn't be crap, it would be it's own game. Let Metroid be it's own game.

What's so stimulating abut comparing Apples to Oranges??? The way I see it, comparing things that have bigger similarities than it's label. Yes, they are both "games" just like Apples and oranges are both "fruits". It's a lot easier to compare the big orange with the brown spots to the small clean one then it will ever be to compare it to an Apple.

Use this example on games, Tetris vs Madden 2003... both games, how could a person write a comprehensive comparison???

"Well, Madden has a franchise mode and Tetris doesn't, Madden is better"

wtf?

It simply makes no sense. To me, if comparisons are this retarded, I like to just say that the can't be compared. Halo and Metriod can't be compared.

Have you even considered the fact that metroid isn't even out yet? They still can be compared? (keep in mind what I said was something that can't be compared) A couple demo's to a full blown HIT game? If you believe these can be compared, I will quit debating now, because this is simple disagreement, facts have nothing to do with it.

:rolleyes:

Let's take that example and work with it to see if a valuable comparison could be formed between two things that you deem totally different. If such an attempt could be made and validated, wouldn't it prove that comparing two such distant phenomena can be gratifying?

Exhibit A -

Tetris features minimal amount of graphic prowess as opposed to Madden 2003. Whereas Madden 2003's gameplay itself is dependent on the visuals to create a realistic gameplay (since realistic experience would entail the most amount of graphic advances as possible).

Conclusion from A: The gameplay back in the generation of Tetris relied on abstract concepts of mental stimulation, filling the gap of missing realism from the obvious lack of graphic capabilities with imagination of the mind. Gameplay featured in the generation of Madden 2003 strives to create a near-perfect reconstruction of reality as opposed to stimulating the mind to imagine what the game is trying to portray.

Exhibit B -

The controls of Tetris remains simple (D-Pad and 2 buttons used). The way the movement of the blocks and the way of it falling are intuitively designed - meaning, left represents left, right represent right, down represent the fall of the block and so forth).
However, the controls of Madden 2003 present some unnatural tendencies as a means to dictate gameplay. That is Juke may be d-pad and x, pump fake may be R1+x and so forth.

Conclusion from B -

A realistic depiction in videogames inevitably leads to complicated schemes in control and player participation. Remember having to plug controller 2 for one of the boss fights in MGS? In order to portray the overall mood of the game during that fight, the creators had to conjure up a scheme that differed from just using the buttons on the controller. Hence, they added another method of controlling the game that the player had to learn.

Exhibit C -

Tetris is known to be impossible towards the end of the game. Madden can have a steep learning curve due to the exquisite control scheme, but can be mastered and conquered if the right amount of skill is present.

Conclusion from B

The limited amount of freedom in a videogame inevitably leads to physical limitations as a setting for difficulty. Whereas a more complicated game may feature a suave and refined control of the game mechanics as a measure of difficulty.

These comparisons aren't legitimate?

No, they were a waste of time.

Answer this, which game is better?

um, the game you like better is the better game.

if you like tetris better, does that mean you like puzzel games better? hell no you might hate puzzel games and love football games.

ok then, let me re-phrase it

There is no way to draw conclusions from comparisions except which game is better compared to it's own genre, not to each other.

There is no way to directly compare Madden 2003 to tetris. Because some of Madden's strong points can never be used to improve tetris, and wouldn't make sense to be put in Tetris... just like some of tetris's strong points could never be used in a football game. Graphics and sound are the only things that can be compared cross-genre by showing point by point... But cross genre gameplay and features can't be compared reasonably.

By saying they were a waste of time and not providing reasons for your assertion, you've already lost your stupid argument.

In any case, how do you define better?

I think everyone knows it is easy to compare things, even when they aren't the same.

But when we talk about games, we usually compare games of the same type, hence making a fair comparison. Sure there can be comparisons made between Halo and Metroid Prime, but will they be fair? Ofcourse not, and that is the point that is trying to be made.

If you were to make a head-to-head comparison between Halo and Metroid from a FPS point of view, then Halo has won the comparsion already. Consider this. Someone can only afford one game, and it's between Halo and Metroid, yet he doesn't know much about either game. If someone compares the games from one point of view, categorising both games under the same genre (FPS), then I assure you that not only would Halo win the head-to-head, but it would also make Metroid sound like a bad game, as it doesn't really have the elements to make it a contender to other high calibur FPS's.


On the other hand, if both games were compared under the assumption that both games were FPA's, then Metroid would be the out and out winner. But since both games are totally different in more ways to one, comparing both games would be unwise.

Put it this way, would you recommend Metroid Prime to a hard core FPS fan? Or would you recommend Halo to an adventure freak? Thought not.

most people would wait to actually PLAY the game before recommending one, or saying one wins or what not.

metroid could very well win a FPS comparason. or maybe it wouldnt. thing is you should wait to PLAY IT first.

i say its rather stupid to say ones a winner when the 2nd isnt even done yet.

Listen to Shadow Link, the man knows what he is talking about. Metroid vs Halo would not be fair if they bothwere compared within the FPS Genre.

Where's Metroid's selection of Weapons? Where's Metroid's Co-Op or Multi-player modes? Things like this are basic needs for a FPS. Halo has them, Metroid doesn't. So it is more than safe to say Metroid would lose a comparision in the FPS genre.

Hate to bring up old fights, but Metroid isn't a FPS, period.

coop and multiplayer would go under the multiplayer comparison. not the FPS comparason.

and hate to bring up old fights but if you cant see Metroid is a FPS your blind.

is it only an fps? no. its also an Adventure, its also an Action.

But it has FPS in it. you can compare that to halo ONCE ITS OUT.

everything in life gets compared. you wouldnt know what type of genre something was in if you didnt compare it to others.

you wouldnt know anything what you like or dont like if you didnt compare stuff. You say metroid isnt fps fine. but how did you come to that conclusion? you compared it to existing FPS and claim its differnt from them.

No, it's a leathal feature for a FPS, so it is an FPS comparision. Just like Franchise mode would be a simulation sports game comparision. Games lacking it suffer a lot in scores.

If I were blind I wouldn't see that Metroid is in First person. But it isn't a FPS, it has little/no elements that can make it a FPS, except the fact it is in 1st person most of the game.

(you are talking about totally different comparisions, I'm talking about defining which game is better, you are talking about general comparisions... look at my older posts, I said anything can be compared)

I came to the conclusion by knowing the definition of a FPS and a Adventure game. I did no comparing to come to my conclusion about the game. The only comparisions made were to make my arguement stronger to you. While you stuck to the "It's in First person, you shoot, it's a FPS" You could say the same for Zelda, or any game that has and first person moments. The whole game of Metroid isn't in First person, at times, the camera drops behind and it becomes 3rd person.

It's not a FPS, FPA, or just plain Adventure is what this should be classified as.

you woudlnt know the difintions without comparing, there would be no difinitions without compareing. everygame would be the same catagory.


and cant really say anything bout your zelda argument, my 3 year old cousin could make a better one, thats just plan stupid. Link has a sword. not a gun :rolleyes:


and you just admited it has fps elimints in it. therfor it has FPS in it. (more then you say but you still say.)

Wow... In Madden, you can run, while you can do the same in Halo, therefore Halo must be a sports simulation. :rolleyes:

Hate to break it to you, but multiplayer isn't a genre... When you 'compare' both Metroid and Halo as FPS's, you will ultimately compare each of the elements inside each game. Lets see, Metroid has compulsory auto-aim, Halo doesn't, Halo has a multiplayer, Metroid doesn't.

Now again, if someone looking into buying a game looks at the FPS genre, and gets the impression that Metroid is an FPS game, what will he think when it is compared to a pure FPS?

'Let's see, this game is an FPS, yet it has NO multiplayer, there's alot of jumping, compulsory auto-aim, aw man, this game is crap!'

If Metroid were going to be an FPS, it would suck wouldn't it?

Now if Metroid were to be placed under a whole different genre, people won't be concentrating on whether it has auto-aim or not, or if it has multiplayer deathmatches, and therefore could be appreciated as being a very good game.