is metroid gona be online

[TortillaChip520]

all that would be fun and all, but that's just not how it's gonna be. whatever's done is done.
although, where's the fun at having an extrememly high advantage??

 

[Wiinter]

all that would be fun and all, but that's just not how it's gonna be. whatever's done is done.

I already said that.

although, where's the fun at having an extrememly high advantage??

I agree. When you're playing against AI, you have an extremely high advantage (of having your own, non-artificial intelligence). What's the fun in that? How many space pirates do you mow down per level without a second glance?

I assume you refer to the player who plays the boss, no? With some care, a balance can be achieved. If progressive difficulty is attached, the boss would actually be weaker at the beginning, and would have to be very clever in setting traps and placing enemy NPCs to survive. Towards the end of the game, that would reverse, and the other player would have to exceed the limits of their own hardware (which should also improve as things progress).

 

[zeon9881]

well i just wanno play metroid against someone while the screens arnt seperated into 2

 

[TortillaChip520]

yes, your advantage is the experience you gain by playing progressively difficult enemies. But when both Boss and her are human, it'd be near impossible to win as the latter. somehow you would have to know who's a weaker player than you that's the boss, and would be impossible for a campaign in that fasion. Does the antogonist just wait for you to arrive at the end of the level? It's a far-fetched, though interesting concept, but makes the game solely multi player.

 

[Wiinter]

yes, your advantage is the experience you gain by playing progressively difficult enemies. But when both Boss and her are human, it'd be near impossible to win as the latter. somehow you would have to know who's a weaker player than you that's the boss, and would be impossible for a campaign in that fasion.

No you wouldn't. The Boss would be designed and balanced for a human player, not for an AI. As such balancing could arrive at a place where it was equally difficult to win as the boss as it was to win as the bounty hunter. Alternatively, in a > than two player story mode, two hunters (even with conflicting endgoals) could try and work together (before turning on each other) while the boss player tried to take them out on his own schedule (again, balancing would make the boss who has to kill two hunters more powerful than a boss going up against one hunter).

My point is not that it should be done this way, merely that it can be done. I'm arguing against the "it isn't Metroid!!!" mantra that I've encountered more elsewhere.

Stop and think before saying that something is impossible. Just because most games fit into a quick and easy sterotype doesn't mean that those few repetitively used functions are the only ones available. With a small amount of imagination, new things can be done.

Does the antogonist just wait for you to arrive at the end of the level?

No. There could be better ways than the one described below, but I believe it has potential.

A two player VS mode could be set up where the second player has access to a different level of a cavern (parallel to the 1st player's access), and their task is the same as a game boss', but they are roving and can choose the point of confrontation, and even stalk the other player until they arrive, using groups of NPCs as fodder and to separate them until he's ready for a final confrontation. He could run ahead, and set traps (explosives, directing NPCs to particular locations) and barriers that the other player would have to try and avoid (in a 1 player game, you learn where all these are done, and the mode loses the surprise value--in this way, it could be different each time, you could never really relax) or bypass. And finally, Samus (or whoever) would need to find their enemy boss, instead of just walking up to the point where he is. Depending on the location the boss player chose, it could change the dynamics of the fight and add layers of challenge. Much of this is uniquely suited to online multiplayer, because screen-peaking would ruin the suspense on offline multiplayer.

It's a far-fetched, though interesting concept, but makes the game solely multi player.

It needn't. Any multiplayer mode (as stated above) should be separate from the single player mode. IF a multiplayer mode had a storyline (which is simply one way of retaining the MP adventure/puzzle experience), it should also be separate from (if related to) the main single player storyline. It should also be flexible (not requiring the protagonist to win, and still progressing (in different ways) if the antagonist takes a particular level). What I was combating above was the poorly thought out idea that the only type of multiplayer possible was the run and gun type. There are other ways of doing it. Some of them could easily make MP3C a better game.

There were other modes mentioned above--selectable, non-storyline maps where players of all types (hunters, pirates, other) have different and conflicting objectives. They have to do their deed and not get killed or duped in the process. Adventure/puzzle can figure into such a mode.

 

[TortillaChip520]

yeah, but with that much effort towards the multiplayer, it's a whole other game in itself

 

[SuppaRoy]

I doubt there will be multiplayer. I want it....but doubt it. If it doesnt have i wont buy it cause im not really into metroid but if it were to have online than the game would never die.

 

[sco0504]

i dont really care but asw long as the campain was as long as the first prime then yh that be fine

 

[madbeanman]

I heard that there would be downloadable content for the game and no online multiplayer. Sorry Ive no link .

 

[mym6]

No you wouldn't. The Boss would be designed and balanced for a human player, not for an AI. As such balancing could arrive at a place where it was equally difficult to win as the boss as it was to win as the bounty hunter. Alternatively, in a > than two player story mode, two hunters (even with conflicting endgoals) could try and work together (before turning on each other) while the boss player tried to take them out on his own schedule (again, balancing would make the boss who has to kill two hunters more powerful than a boss going up against one hunter).

My point is not that it should be done this way, merely that it can be done. I'm arguing against the "it isn't Metroid!!!" mantra that I've encountered more elsewhere.

Stop and think before saying that something is impossible. Just because most games fit into a quick and easy sterotype doesn't mean that those few repetitively used functions are the only ones available. With a small amount of imagination, new things can be done.



No. There could be better ways than the one described below, but I believe it has potential.





It needn't. Any multiplayer mode (as stated above) should be separate from the single player mode. IF a multiplayer mode had a storyline (which is simply one way of retaining the MP adventure/puzzle experience), it should also be separate from (if related to) the main single player storyline. It should also be flexible (not requiring the protagonist to win, and still progressing (in different ways) if the antagonist takes a particular level). What I was combating above was the poorly thought out idea that the only type of multiplayer possible was the run and gun type. There are other ways of doing it. Some of them could easily make MP3C a better game.

There were other modes mentioned above--selectable, non-storyline maps where players of all types (hunters, pirates, other) have different and conflicting objectives. They have to do their deed and not get killed or duped in the process. Adventure/puzzle can figure into such a mode.

Because I'm lazy and I don't want to quote multiple responses, I'll just quote this one.

Ok, I'll admit two things, I do get freaked out kinda easy and I'm not all that imaginative. But I'm not impotent.

At first you made it sound like the main game should have human players. This doesn't make sense. Now you're talking about a second mode to the game, similar to hunters. While I still don't think Metroid fits as a multiplayer game, I guess that's my opinion.

What gets me riled up is that people throw such a fit and claim that they'll be so upset and they won't buy the game if it isn't multiplayer and what I'm trying to argue is that multiplayer isn't what makes or made Metroid great. It's first and foremost a single player game and distracts from what Metroid really is. But you don't here me or anyone on my side of the camp getting ready to boycott the Metroid series and Nintendo if they do include a multiplayer element.

 

[Avais100]

Online would be nice theres not much reason to not put it in.

 

[Wiinter]

But I'm not impotent.

I didn't say you were, but name calling is the last ditch effort of the desperate--those who can't win on the merits, and so they feel like they need to resort to calling people asses. Doing so makes you look impotent. My recommendation that you avoid appearing so was friendly advice. Your calling me an ass wasn't.

At first you made it sound like the main game should have human players. This doesn't make sense.

My very first description prefaced everything with: "It would be a separate mode, not the 1st person mode." My basic point was that there is no such thing as a game with only one character--if a game can include AI and not be ruined, it can Just as easily include human players.

Now you're talking about a second mode to the game, similar to hunters. While I still don't think Metroid fits as a multiplayer game, I guess that's my opinion.

What gets me riled up is that people throw such a fit and claim that they'll be so upset and they won't buy the game if it isn't multiplayer and what I'm trying to argue is that multiplayer isn't what makes or made Metroid great. It's first and foremost a single player game and distracts from what Metroid really is. But you don't here me or anyone on my side of the camp getting ready to boycott the Metroid series and Nintendo if they do include a multiplayer element.

It's not about boycotting. People have basic expectations of their games, and they should get the games that meet their gaming needs. If someone doesn't want to play through a 1 player world one time and then have no further use of the game, they look for titles with multiplayer. People are still playing the original Halo (which I agree is over-rated) ONLY because it includes a robust multiplayer function--the games' life was extended beyond imagination. Without multiplayer it would have been barely noticed. People who want that type of experience should only buy games that have it. Those people aren't demanding that you can't have your single player experience--but you were demanding that they not have their multiplayer experience, even though despite your claims, it need not detract from the single player mode.

You're right though, the Metroid franchise has proved its worth without multiplayer. Part of the evidence of this is how many non-Metroid fans would love to buy it if it came with a good multiplayer mode. The franchise had a chance to expand its user base (And its sales) dramatically.

What riles me up is that people are so resistant to change, they can't imagine change ever being a good thing. You've yet to say anything about multiplayer that people didn't once say about the 3D first person perspective when it was new. There are impossible things in the world, but creating innovative multiplayer modes that meet the standards of MP universe is not one of them.

But you don't here me or anyone on my side of the camp getting ready to boycott the Metroid series and Nintendo if they do include a multiplayer element.

How generous of you. Out of my own sense of generosity, I'm going to highlight a flaw in your logic.

You said: People not buying a game that doesn't meet their needs is as bad as Me not buying a game because it does meet their needs.

Huh?

 

[mym6]

I didn't say you were, but name calling is the last ditch effort of the desperate--those who can't win on the merits, and so they feel like they need to resort to calling people asses. Doing so makes you look impotent. My recommendation that you avoid appearing so was friendly advice. Your calling me an ass wasn't.



My very first description prefaced everything with: "It would be a separate mode, not the 1st person mode." My basic point was that there is no such thing as a game with only one character--if a game can include AI and not be ruined, it can Just as easily include human players.



It's not about boycotting. People have basic expectations of their games, and they should get the games that meet their gaming needs. If someone doesn't want to play through a 1 player world one time and then have no further use of the game, they look for titles with multiplayer. People are still playing the original Halo (which I agree is over-rated) ONLY because it includes a robust multiplayer function--the games' life was extended beyond imagination. Without multiplayer it would have been barely noticed. People who want that type of experience should only buy games that have it. Those people aren't demanding that you can't have your single player experience--but you were demanding that they not have their multiplayer experience, even though despite your claims, it need not detract from the single player mode.

You're right though, the Metroid franchise has proved its worth without multiplayer. Part of the evidence of this is how many non-Metroid fans would love to buy it if it came with a good multiplayer mode. The franchise had a chance to expand its user base (And its sales) dramatically.

What riles me up is that people are so resistant to change, they can't imagine change ever being a good thing. You've yet to say anything about multiplayer that people didn't once say about the 3D first person perspective when it was new. There are impossible things in the world, but creating innovative multiplayer modes that meet the standards of MP universe is not one of them.



How generous of you. Out of my own sense of generosity, I'm going to highlight a flaw in your logic.

You said: People not buying a game that doesn't meet their needs is as bad as Me not buying a game because it does meet their needs.

Huh?

I can assure you I have no trouble with my member. I'm not impotent. Maybe you're thinking of incompetent.

I've never played Halo myself but from what I read/hear it is popular only because it is multiplayer. This tells me that the developers didn't give a rip about the single player mode, they were aiming for a great multiplayer mode.

If Retro concentrated on a better multiplayer mode over single player mode, I'd be dissappointed. To *expect* Metroid to have a multiplayer mode is to forget what Metroid is. Hence my "logic" which really wasn't any sort of logic, but a statement based on what I've read. Read the boards. There is thread after thread with people all up in arms about the possibility of Metroid not having an online multiplayer component.

I was out of console gaming, well, any gaming for that matter all while Metroid made its transition to 3D so I don't know what people were saying about it. My entire argument surrounds the single player element of the game. It doesn't need to be multiplayer. If there is a multiplayer tack on then so be it. I have already said that that is my opinion. If you're arguing that the multiplayer is solely a secondary mode or separate feature, then fine.

 

[TJSM]

yea i thik its onlaine

 

[Wiinter]

I can assure you I have no trouble with my member. I'm not impotent.

m-w.com 1 a : not potent : lacking in power, strength, or vigor

Some words have more than one meaning. To wit, no one called you impotent. Resorting to name calling rather than argument does make one LOOK impotent. Can you tell the difference between that and "you are being an ass"? It's not insignificant. One is name-calling, the other is friendly advice.

I've never played Halo myself but from what I read/hear it is popular only because it is multiplayer. This tells me that the developers didn't give a rip about the single player mode, they were aiming for a great multiplayer mode.

The decision to focus on one to the exclusion of the other is not a necessity, it's a choice. Retro could have both if they chose to.

Read the boards. There is thread after thread with people all up in arms about the possibility of Metroid not having an online multiplayer component.

Ah, progress. We've gone from 'online will ruin Metroid' to 'people shouldn't expect online from Metroid'. Well, again, the Metroid Prime subseries has had more multiplayer than not. I didn't start out to defend any whiners, just to contradict your over-the-top anti-multiplayer rant, but their expectations aren't completely unreasonable. MP3C is supposed to be AAA title. People should have AAA expectations. If Nintendo didn't want to deal with those expectations, they shouldn't incited them.

I was out of console gaming, well, any gaming for that matter all while Metroid made its transition to 3D so I don't know what people were saying about it. My entire argument surrounds the single player element of the game. It doesn't need to be multiplayer. If there is a multiplayer tack on then so be it. I have already said that that is my opinion. If you're arguing that the multiplayer is solely a secondary mode or separate feature, then fine.

I've never heard of anyone wanting to remove the single player campaign.

What would be great (but won't happen), is they made the game expandable. Wiiconnect24 begs for expandability and patching, though it has yet to be used. As I mentioned before, MP3C + multiplayer is worth more than 50$ to me, and I'd be happy to pay for a good multiplayer mode after the fact. Then everybody wins. You get your single player mode as soon as it's ready to roll, and everyone gets the possibility of multiplayer vs if they chose to throw down another 10 or 20 for the multiplayer expansion.

yea i thik its onlaine

See, now That is incompetence.