A Question on Prime 2's Progression

Edit history:

DJGrenola: 2018-09-27 03:14:54 am

2018-09-27 03:07:24 am

Quote from Zackonark:

As for the Dark Samus, multi-player conspiracy theory. I don’t exactly understand how you came to this conclusion. You even said yourself that you may be drawing lines between the wrong dots. I think you are.

well, "conspiracy theory" is a bit much. I'm not suggesting developers deliberately colluded to secure a nefarious outcome. I'm suggesting developers blindly sleepwalked into a nefarious outcome because multiplayer had forced them down a particular line of thinking and they didn't have the time to reverse course. and it's not a conclusion, more just a suspicion.

Quote:

For me, this was the first Metroid game I’ve ever played.

this probably helps -- I kind of wish I'd played the second one before the first one.

tomatobob

2018-09-27 05:11:00 am

One shall stand, one shall ball.

Quote from Aruki:

For whatever it's worth, I have a strong suspicion Boost Guardian was super rushed. Yknow how most of the bosses in Echoes are giant versions of regular enemies? There's a ton of leftover data in the game suggesting Boost Guardian was supposed to be a giant Inglet. But in the end they scrapped that and reused assets from Jump Guardian for the boss battle. Makes me think they just threw something together because they were running out of time and weren't able to tune it properly.

After reading that interview you posted this 100% tracks. I had no idea development on Prime 2 was so messy, explains a lot of the issues I had with it, and it held together pretty well considering that.

Zackonark

Edit history:

Zackonark: 2018-09-27 09:09:36 am

2018-09-27 08:54:06 am

Quote from Aruki:

see when you say stuff like this it gives me the impression that you're approaching this conversation in bad faith. Like you said to begin with you just wanted to understand peoples' perspectives but then when people try to explain to you you're being super argumentative and trying to shoot everything down. Which makes me think you're trying to argue against criticism, not understand it.

To be clear it's totally fine if you enjoy the game. I like it myself. Just think that you can like a game and also admit it has flaws. And it's cool if those flaws don't bother you. But if you want to look at the game through a neutral lens, if something impacts such a significant number of players, its worth looking at and saying, hey, yeah, there might've been something that could've been designed better. Or etc. For me the flaws the game have don't outweigh the good parts. I certainly think there's things that could've been done differently that would've resulted in a game I personally would've enjoyed more. But I def don't think it's a bad game.

I agree with tbob that you should just talk about why you enjoyed the game and why it worked for you. Reviews are inherently biased, and they should be, they are all about presenting an opinion. You can acknowledge that the game is flawed (from the perspective of some players at least) but then go on to say why those flaws don't bother you. Or just skip them entirely if you don't think they're worth discussing. It's your review, it's up to you, present -your- opinion

Idk what I should say then, because again, I’m arguing the points that confuse me as to why people feel the way they do. I was wrong a few times here and there, and I have said things in Prime 2 were flawed. I’m not trying to pretend the game is perfect or anything. The game is what it is.
And, is it really so wrong to want to be as factually accurate as possible? I guess if so, “review” is prolly not term I was going for. Idk. It’s my first crack at this sort of thing, and I’m taking a lot of inspiration from MauLer as a base line for how to go about this sort of thing.
Maybe my tone could use some work?

Quote from DJGrenola:

well, "conspiracy theory" is a bit much. I'm not suggesting developers deliberately colluded to secure a nefarious outcome. I'm suggesting developers blindly sleepwalked into a nefarious outcome because multiplayer had forced them down a particular line of thinking and they didn't have the time to reverse course. and it's not a conclusion, more just a suspicion.

My apologies. Poor choice of words on my part.
If memory serves, Prime 2 started out as a multiplayer focused title and shifted over to a single player campaign over time. It may have something to do with the final outcome, but I don’t think Dark Samus was really ever a part of that. I can’t say for sure unless I can find some dev log or dev quote saying that Dark Samus was carried over from that initial focus.

[quote="Aruki"]see when you say stuff like this it gives me the impression that you're approaching this conversation in bad faith. Like you said to begin with you just wanted to understand peoples' perspectives but then when people try to explain to you you're being super argumentative and trying to shoot everything down. Which makes me think you're trying to argue against criticism, not understand it.

To be clear it's totally fine if you enjoy the game. I like it myself. Just think that you can like a game and also admit it has flaws. And it's cool if those flaws don't bother you. But if you want to look at the game through a neutral lens, if something impacts such a significant number of players, its worth looking at and saying, hey, yeah, there might've been something that could've been designed better. Or etc. For me the flaws the game have don't outweigh the good parts. I certainly think there's things that could've been done differently that would've resulted in a game I personally would've enjoyed more. But I def don't think it's a bad game.

I agree with tbob that you should just talk about why you enjoyed the game and why it worked for you. Reviews are inherently biased, and they should be, they are all about presenting an opinion. You can acknowledge that the game is flawed (from the perspective of some players at least) but then go on to say why those flaws don't bother you. Or just skip them entirely if you don't think they're worth discussing. It's your review, it's up to you, present -your- opinion[/quote]
Idk what I should say then, because again, I’m arguing the points that confuse me as to why people feel the way they do. I was wrong a few times here and there, and I have said things in Prime 2 were flawed. I’m not trying to pretend the game is perfect or anything. The game is what it is.
And, is it really so wrong to want to be as factually accurate as possible? I guess if so, “review” is prolly not term I was going for. Idk. It’s my first crack at this sort of thing, and I’m taking a lot of inspiration from MauLer as a base line for how to go about this sort of thing.
Maybe my tone could use some work?

[quote="DJGrenola"]well, "conspiracy theory" is a bit much. I'm not suggesting developers deliberately colluded to secure a nefarious outcome. I'm suggesting developers blindly sleepwalked into a nefarious outcome because multiplayer had forced them down a particular line of thinking and they didn't have the time to reverse course. and it's not a conclusion, more just a suspicion.[/quote]
My apologies. Poor choice of words on my part.
If memory serves, Prime 2 started out as a multiplayer focused title and shifted over to a single player campaign over time. It may have something to do with the final outcome, but I don’t think Dark Samus was really ever a part of that. I can’t say for sure unless I can find some dev log or dev quote saying that Dark Samus was carried over from that initial focus.

DJGrenola

2018-09-27 12:20:13 pm

Quote from Zackonark:

Maybe my tone could use some work?

everyone seems to shoot from the hip on the internet nowadays. it's easy to fall into the trap of getting defensive about things. but I'm pretty sure nobody who has replied to you is being deliberately antagonistic. even ark's mostly behaved himself.