does it really matter?
Well, kinda, I mean the picture was a case-in-point.
Archived M2K2 Forum
lol no way
To explain something we (you guys) seem to be missing:
Dai's idea of Super Metroid being a remake of Metroid is ENTIRELY logical because if, in remaking Metroid they did leave a gap that is referred to in Super Metroid's introduction (but isn't actually a story we've ever experienced), then MZM's being a prequel to Metroid, or, to Super Metroid which now take's Metroid's place in the plot (placed now after Metroid II, which refers also to a mission we've hypothetically not experienced, because remakes CAN change things), is entirely logical and makes sense because Nintendo needed to fill the plothole that is the first Mission on Zebes.
Obviously this is probably not the case, but his logic as for how this can also apply to our arguments for MZM being a remake because they change things, and how that idea (OUR IDEA) is rediculous... well, his logic follows completely in my mind.
Though, I do still believe in the idea, simply because I can't see that unless Super Metroid is indeed a remake of Metroid 1, how MZM can be a prequel. If SM was a remake of Metroid, then I'd believe the prequel argument, because I cannot believe in there being three missions taking place on Zebes.
So his argument is like this:
M1->MII->SM
IF SM is a remake of M1: Replace Metroid 1 with SM on the timeline.
SM->MII->??
There's obviously a problem, as explained away by Dai's applying our own reasoning, that Remakes Change Things. In this case, the thing changed is SM's location on the Metroid timeline, to be after Metroid II. So:
??->MII->SM
Super Metroid, though, refers to a mission we've never experienced, as there's no longer any Metroid 1 (again, applying our own logic). So, with the idea of MZM being NOT a remake of Metroid 1, but rather simply a different story, it can then fill the place of the mission referred to in Super Metroid's intro:
MZM->MII->SM
So it takes the place Metroid 1 used to have, when it applied to the storyline, and fills it. There's no longer any gap.
God.
That's so awesome.
I almost want to believe that SM is a remake of M1 now, because that lets me accept that MZM might be a prequel, because M1 was already remade.
Granted, I can't, because I still see way too many similarities between MZM and Metroid 1, but uh. Well.
Dai's got a good point.
Dai's idea of Super Metroid being a remake of Metroid is ENTIRELY logical because if, in remaking Metroid they did leave a gap that is referred to in Super Metroid's introduction (but isn't actually a story we've ever experienced), then MZM's being a prequel to Metroid, or, to Super Metroid which now take's Metroid's place in the plot (placed now after Metroid II, which refers also to a mission we've hypothetically not experienced, because remakes CAN change things), is entirely logical and makes sense because Nintendo needed to fill the plothole that is the first Mission on Zebes.
Obviously this is probably not the case, but his logic as for how this can also apply to our arguments for MZM being a remake because they change things, and how that idea (OUR IDEA) is rediculous... well, his logic follows completely in my mind.
Though, I do still believe in the idea, simply because I can't see that unless Super Metroid is indeed a remake of Metroid 1, how MZM can be a prequel. If SM was a remake of Metroid, then I'd believe the prequel argument, because I cannot believe in there being three missions taking place on Zebes.
So his argument is like this:
M1->MII->SM
IF SM is a remake of M1: Replace Metroid 1 with SM on the timeline.
SM->MII->??
There's obviously a problem, as explained away by Dai's applying our own reasoning, that Remakes Change Things. In this case, the thing changed is SM's location on the Metroid timeline, to be after Metroid II. So:
??->MII->SM
Super Metroid, though, refers to a mission we've never experienced, as there's no longer any Metroid 1 (again, applying our own logic). So, with the idea of MZM being NOT a remake of Metroid 1, but rather simply a different story, it can then fill the place of the mission referred to in Super Metroid's intro:
MZM->MII->SM
So it takes the place Metroid 1 used to have, when it applied to the storyline, and fills it. There's no longer any gap.
God.
That's so awesome.
I almost want to believe that SM is a remake of M1 now, because that lets me accept that MZM might be a prequel, because M1 was already remade.
Granted, I can't, because I still see way too many similarities between MZM and Metroid 1, but uh. Well.
Dai's got a good point.
lvl 28 Magic Leper
Yes, it does make sense, but I do find it funny how changes in the game for SM to Metroid can be dismissed as decisions to make the game better, but the same thing can't apply to Metroid and MZM. However I understand that Dai is just speaking hypothetically like I was when I said that MZM is a sequel to Metroid (although I was joking and didn't expect to be taken seriously)
That's all I really have to say for now.
That's all I really have to say for now.
Wow... in a way that DOES makes sense. 
Funny how, even with that idea of the timeline, ZM in affect still takes the original place that Metroid had, which has been the whole focus behind this debate in the first place. I have a feeling, however, that this doesn't change anybody's perspective on the timeline. (Which it shouldn't, since it's merely hypothetical) Still, it does make for a very new and interesting perspective on things.
Funny how, even with that idea of the timeline, ZM in affect still takes the original place that Metroid had, which has been the whole focus behind this debate in the first place. I have a feeling, however, that this doesn't change anybody's perspective on the timeline. (Which it shouldn't, since it's merely hypothetical) Still, it does make for a very new and interesting perspective on things.
Bangaa Bishop
I'm still not getting this here. How can SM's prolouge include information about events we know occured in specific games that came before it, and call it a remake of one of those games?
this rides on weather or not MZM is considered a prequel or a remake. If it's a remake, the above is crap. (and it's a remake to me but thats just what I think) Otherwise, it does hold.
I'd really love it though if some nintendo guy just came and set this straight. heh.
Frankly I think it would be inappropriate to "replace" metroid in any of this timeline discussion simply because all the other metroid games exist because this one did. Weather ZM is a remake or not, it owes it's existence to Metroid I. (and I mean by this that Metroid I is more canon).
Quote:
MZM->MII->SM
So it takes the place Metroid 1 used to have, when it applied to the storyline, and fills it. There's no longer any gap.
So it takes the place Metroid 1 used to have, when it applied to the storyline, and fills it. There's no longer any gap.
this rides on weather or not MZM is considered a prequel or a remake. If it's a remake, the above is crap. (and it's a remake to me but thats just what I think) Otherwise, it does hold.
I'd really love it though if some nintendo guy just came and set this straight. heh.
Frankly I think it would be inappropriate to "replace" metroid in any of this timeline discussion simply because all the other metroid games exist because this one did. Weather ZM is a remake or not, it owes it's existence to Metroid I. (and I mean by this that Metroid I is more canon).
He's just claiming that the same reasoning that the majority employ to determine that ZM is a remake could be applied to determine that SM is a remake of Metroid. His intended inference is that it's as ludicrous to call ZM a remake of Metroid as it is to call SM one.
However, degree and scale are still relevant. Things rarely are as absolute and binary as "if it's not A it must be B". Sure, one could argue that if it's acceptable to add material like Imago and the post-MB section and still call it a remake then it's acceptable to add Phantoon and Draygon and whatnot and call SM a remake...at one resolution. At a different one, the meat of ZM's additions and changes are after the MB part only. M1: fight two sub-bosses to open the path to the third boss, escape. ZM: fight two sub-bosses to open the path to the third boss, escape, go through one more area and fight one more boss, escape again. SM: fight four sub-bosses to open the path to the last, escape. You could throw in blowing up the planet to make the point that there will be no more adventures on Zebes and therefore SM is the last if you want.
Why would I choose that level of resolution rather than Dai's pixel-point one? Several reasons. One, the number of bosses to defeat to get to Tourian is easily quantifiable. (Yes, I know M1's statues can be bypassed, but their number is unambiguous.) Two, several minibosses can be skipped, making their number irrelevant to getting into Tourian.
Three, SM itself, in-game, does not use the level of resolution that Dai is calling significant. The recap of Metroid 1 isn't with NES graphics, it's with the SM sprites and even uses her actual in-game missiles. Likewise with M2. If they weren't concerned with being precisely accurate to the games they are recapping at the time of making SM, I see no reason why they'd change this policy and decide that suddenly it mattered so much to consider M1's layout and graphics to be strictly literal and unchangeable that they'd come up with new graphics for ZM in order to indicate it's a different game. Are the Etecoons and Dachoras in Fusion exact copies of the sprites in SM? Is there any reason to consider those on the BSL different members of the species when their number matches up and Samus recognizes them? If ZM is treated as an independent game and not an update of M1, then why does she have the abilities the Etecoons and Dachoras "helped [her] unlock..which [she] didn't know she had?" That comment makes sense in the context of M1 and M2 coming before Super, since she didn't have those capabilities in those games. It doesn't make sense in the context of her having them in ZM -- but even less does it make sense to take ZM and M1 so literally as to be separate, sequential games and give the earlier one abilities she didn't know she had.
That's pretty much all I had to say on that. Well, maybe just one or two other things....
1) Negative "proof" isn't. Saying there's no proof that A =/= B does not prove that A = B.
2) Circular logic doesn't work either. I read that second set as saying that A proves B because B proves A, where A = "Nintendo made a mistake" and B = "Metroid is not the first mission."
And somewhere back beyond the topic review scope there was a comment from Dai to the effect that such-and-such would be an out-of-game explanation, and what's the fun in that? That one sentence shows the problem viewpoint to me. The in-game attempt is to make all the games separate missions, because if you're treating them as "real" then time has to run sequentially rather than parallel. But you're trying to make the out-of-game stuff fit the in-game stuff by playing with semantics. It doesn't work that way. Now, I admit I'm not a huge fan of that approach anyway; I have no trouble seeing Zeldas 1, 3, and 5 as being all the same story and have no need to put them in order. But the Zelda series as a whole illustrates how developers don't really care that much about consistency even when some effort is made to connect the stories, since obviously people have divergent opinions on what the order is. And that with a series where an official timeline really is claimed to exist. With no clear statement stating that ZM and M1 are separate there just isn't a reason to assume that the minor stuff in them and the out-of-game language used are significant enough to show they are.
However, degree and scale are still relevant. Things rarely are as absolute and binary as "if it's not A it must be B". Sure, one could argue that if it's acceptable to add material like Imago and the post-MB section and still call it a remake then it's acceptable to add Phantoon and Draygon and whatnot and call SM a remake...at one resolution. At a different one, the meat of ZM's additions and changes are after the MB part only. M1: fight two sub-bosses to open the path to the third boss, escape. ZM: fight two sub-bosses to open the path to the third boss, escape, go through one more area and fight one more boss, escape again. SM: fight four sub-bosses to open the path to the last, escape. You could throw in blowing up the planet to make the point that there will be no more adventures on Zebes and therefore SM is the last if you want.
Why would I choose that level of resolution rather than Dai's pixel-point one? Several reasons. One, the number of bosses to defeat to get to Tourian is easily quantifiable. (Yes, I know M1's statues can be bypassed, but their number is unambiguous.) Two, several minibosses can be skipped, making their number irrelevant to getting into Tourian.
Three, SM itself, in-game, does not use the level of resolution that Dai is calling significant. The recap of Metroid 1 isn't with NES graphics, it's with the SM sprites and even uses her actual in-game missiles. Likewise with M2. If they weren't concerned with being precisely accurate to the games they are recapping at the time of making SM, I see no reason why they'd change this policy and decide that suddenly it mattered so much to consider M1's layout and graphics to be strictly literal and unchangeable that they'd come up with new graphics for ZM in order to indicate it's a different game. Are the Etecoons and Dachoras in Fusion exact copies of the sprites in SM? Is there any reason to consider those on the BSL different members of the species when their number matches up and Samus recognizes them? If ZM is treated as an independent game and not an update of M1, then why does she have the abilities the Etecoons and Dachoras "helped [her] unlock..which [she] didn't know she had?" That comment makes sense in the context of M1 and M2 coming before Super, since she didn't have those capabilities in those games. It doesn't make sense in the context of her having them in ZM -- but even less does it make sense to take ZM and M1 so literally as to be separate, sequential games and give the earlier one abilities she didn't know she had.
That's pretty much all I had to say on that. Well, maybe just one or two other things....
Quote from Dai:
Fine, but you must still post your evidence that the proof I found does not indicate that Zero Mission is the first mission.
I said one person, not “they”. Also, there is undeniable proof that Nintendo made a mistake in that reference. Fact: “…had completed numerous missions that others thought completely impossible.” – Metroid prologue.
Metroid is proven to not be the first mission. Hence calling it that is a mistake.
Quote from Kejardon:
You have no evidence that calling Metroid the 'first mission' is a mistake.
(OOC: One of the things I expected was that you would say they decided it's not a remake. You have very selective reading)
(OOC: One of the things I expected was that you would say they decided it's not a remake. You have very selective reading)
I said one person, not “they”. Also, there is undeniable proof that Nintendo made a mistake in that reference. Fact: “…had completed numerous missions that others thought completely impossible.” – Metroid prologue.
Metroid is proven to not be the first mission. Hence calling it that is a mistake.
1) Negative "proof" isn't. Saying there's no proof that A =/= B does not prove that A = B.
2) Circular logic doesn't work either. I read that second set as saying that A proves B because B proves A, where A = "Nintendo made a mistake" and B = "Metroid is not the first mission."
And somewhere back beyond the topic review scope there was a comment from Dai to the effect that such-and-such would be an out-of-game explanation, and what's the fun in that? That one sentence shows the problem viewpoint to me. The in-game attempt is to make all the games separate missions, because if you're treating them as "real" then time has to run sequentially rather than parallel. But you're trying to make the out-of-game stuff fit the in-game stuff by playing with semantics. It doesn't work that way. Now, I admit I'm not a huge fan of that approach anyway; I have no trouble seeing Zeldas 1, 3, and 5 as being all the same story and have no need to put them in order. But the Zelda series as a whole illustrates how developers don't really care that much about consistency even when some effort is made to connect the stories, since obviously people have divergent opinions on what the order is. And that with a series where an official timeline really is claimed to exist. With no clear statement stating that ZM and M1 are separate there just isn't a reason to assume that the minor stuff in them and the out-of-game language used are significant enough to show they are.
Embarrasing Fact: Power suit made by lowest bidder
This post is going to be highly opinionated. Fair warning. And I am presenting this from the viewpoint that Zero Mission is undeniably a remake, not a prequel.
If you have a problem with this, Dai Grepher, too bad. This post is not a debate, it's a statement of my thoughts.
One last quick note before I start this: when I say instinct, what I mean is somewhere between 'instinct' and 'intuition'. I can't find a good word for it.
I've had something quotable float around in my head years ago:
"People never realize how smart they are, nor do they ever realize how foolish they are."
Everyone is plenty smart; in this case, they know instinctively Zero Mission is a remake of Metroid. Even if they don't know the reasons why.
Then they convince themselves that they can be wiser by not listening to their instincts and instead following a line of logic, simply because it's logic and not instinct. Logic is always better than instinct, right? >_>
The way that people think, though, relies naturally on instinct. Thoughts form because of instinct - without instinct, we wouldn't even have a reason to think. Our logic is based on our thoughts. Ergo, our logic is based on instinct.
Sometimes empirical evidence goes against instinct. This is what makes people learn - they encounter empirical evidence that directly contradicts instinct and adjust their instinct to fit the evidence, and with practice, finetune the new instinct.
On the other hand, blindly defying personal instinct in favor of someone elses logic is absurd. The only time this makes sense is if the other person's instincts are much better at handling the logic of the given situation.
I realize all the above has nothing to do with Zero Mission specifically. But it is very relevant to this debate. I see huge gaping holes in Dai Grepher's logic because my instinct points my thoughts to them.
I will argue remake vs. prequel fairly and impartially. I will judge both sides by the same standards. But I refuse to admit that Dai Grepher's current arguments make sense. In order to do that, I would have to disregard half of my instincts to accept his logic. And none of the empirical evidence presented so far contradicts my instincts.
And just as a side note (feel free to debate this point), Super Metroid clearly cannot be a remake of Metroid I. Unless you accept Dai Grepher's logic to begin with.
Super Metroid has an intro in it. That introduction addresses Metroid I. It can't address it as 'the NES Metroid', but it is undeniably clear to anyone playing it 5 years ago that is what was intended. It then introduces itself as a future event, after the NES Metroid.
The only way it could be a remake of the original metroid is if Zero Mission rewrites Super Metroid's storyline. But wait! According to Dai Grepher, it has to rewrite Super Metroid's storyline, because the reference to the original metroid is now referring to Zero Mission instead.
Unless Zero Mission is a remake of Metroid, and is thus consistent with Super Metroid's storyline.
If you have a problem with this, Dai Grepher, too bad. This post is not a debate, it's a statement of my thoughts.
One last quick note before I start this: when I say instinct, what I mean is somewhere between 'instinct' and 'intuition'. I can't find a good word for it.
I've had something quotable float around in my head years ago:
"People never realize how smart they are, nor do they ever realize how foolish they are."
Everyone is plenty smart; in this case, they know instinctively Zero Mission is a remake of Metroid. Even if they don't know the reasons why.
Then they convince themselves that they can be wiser by not listening to their instincts and instead following a line of logic, simply because it's logic and not instinct. Logic is always better than instinct, right? >_>
The way that people think, though, relies naturally on instinct. Thoughts form because of instinct - without instinct, we wouldn't even have a reason to think. Our logic is based on our thoughts. Ergo, our logic is based on instinct.
Sometimes empirical evidence goes against instinct. This is what makes people learn - they encounter empirical evidence that directly contradicts instinct and adjust their instinct to fit the evidence, and with practice, finetune the new instinct.
On the other hand, blindly defying personal instinct in favor of someone elses logic is absurd. The only time this makes sense is if the other person's instincts are much better at handling the logic of the given situation.
I realize all the above has nothing to do with Zero Mission specifically. But it is very relevant to this debate. I see huge gaping holes in Dai Grepher's logic because my instinct points my thoughts to them.
I will argue remake vs. prequel fairly and impartially. I will judge both sides by the same standards. But I refuse to admit that Dai Grepher's current arguments make sense. In order to do that, I would have to disregard half of my instincts to accept his logic. And none of the empirical evidence presented so far contradicts my instincts.
And just as a side note (feel free to debate this point), Super Metroid clearly cannot be a remake of Metroid I. Unless you accept Dai Grepher's logic to begin with.
Super Metroid has an intro in it. That introduction addresses Metroid I. It can't address it as 'the NES Metroid', but it is undeniably clear to anyone playing it 5 years ago that is what was intended. It then introduces itself as a future event, after the NES Metroid.
The only way it could be a remake of the original metroid is if Zero Mission rewrites Super Metroid's storyline. But wait! According to Dai Grepher, it has to rewrite Super Metroid's storyline, because the reference to the original metroid is now referring to Zero Mission instead.
Unless Zero Mission is a remake of Metroid, and is thus consistent with Super Metroid's storyline.
Mister ...
ok, wow. Here's my understanding of the series.
Metroid 1/Zero Mission -> Metroid Prime 1 -> Metroid Prime Hunters -> Metroid Prime 2 -> Metroid Prime 3 -> Metroid 2 Return of Samus -> Metroid 3 Super Metroid -> Metroid 4 Metroid Fusion
At least, that's the order as far as I know. As for Castlevania, Hell if I know.
Metroid 1/Zero Mission -> Metroid Prime 1 -> Metroid Prime Hunters -> Metroid Prime 2 -> Metroid Prime 3 -> Metroid 2 Return of Samus -> Metroid 3 Super Metroid -> Metroid 4 Metroid Fusion
At least, that's the order as far as I know. As for Castlevania, Hell if I know.
That's how I've always seen the timeline, (Even after this topic) because Nintendo has done a good job in letting us know where the games lie compared to each other. Plus, the Echoes bonus disk DID have it setup the same way, and I still believe that to be the official timeline in 2004.
I notice how Dai hasn't been back since Tahngarthor made that comment on Wednesday...
I notice how Dai hasn't been back since Tahngarthor made that comment on Wednesday...
Mister ...
I still don't see how ZM is a prequal. Although it does tell us how the Wrecked ship in SM got there.
Also, someone should take a screen shot of the opening paragraph and post it. IIRC, it says "I shall finally retell the story of my so-called "Zero Mission". The physical gameplay is almost identical to that of Metroid 1, only not so many tall verticle corridors, going on forever and ever.
I also believe reading somewhere that Zero Mission continues the original Metroid's storyline, as it does, very well I might add.
What I really want to know is how does the game itself prove to be a prequal and not a sequal.
Also, someone should take a screen shot of the opening paragraph and post it. IIRC, it says "I shall finally retell the story of my so-called "Zero Mission". The physical gameplay is almost identical to that of Metroid 1, only not so many tall verticle corridors, going on forever and ever.
I also believe reading somewhere that Zero Mission continues the original Metroid's storyline, as it does, very well I might add.
What I really want to know is how does the game itself prove to be a prequal and not a sequal.
Quote from nn12000:
Also, someone should take a screen shot of the opening paragraph and post it. IIRC, it says "I shall finally retell the story of my so-called "Zero Mission".
I quoted the relevant sentence somewhere in this thread. Didn't you read the whole thing before posting? :P Also, this thread got far beyond "I believe I read somewhere..."
I would have liked to see a reply to my last post, just before Kejardon's. And to Kejardon's. Oh well.
(user is banned)
Quote from Prime Hunter:
That's how I've always seen the timeline, (Even after this topic) because Nintendo has done a good job in letting us know where the games lie compared to each other. Plus, the Echoes bonus disk DID have it setup the same way, and I still believe that to be the official timeline in 2004.
I notice how Dai hasn't been back since Tahngarthor made that comment on Wednesday...
I notice how Dai hasn't been back since Tahngarthor made that comment on Wednesday...
Dai tends to do that. he disappears for a while, then comes back with new evidence. :P
I had a request for him for the nintendo forums, so maybe he's there now. I dunno because im IP banned. -_-
Wow. Just wow. I'm glad I'm as inactive as I am, otherwise I would have posted repies to this thread eariler and, in turn, have been banned for flaming.
This reminds me of most threads discussing God, abortions, homosexuals, and crocodiles. I mean consoles. There are always people who don't have sense enough to have some damn sense.
You, Dai Grepher, are trying to get people to believe your theory based on your "facts" and "evidence," and when people disagree and prove you wrong with real facts you just tell them they're wrong and their facts are lies or miss intercalations. Plain and simply, your a close-minded idiot without any reason.
This reminds me of most threads discussing God, abortions, homosexuals, and crocodiles. I mean consoles. There are always people who don't have sense enough to have some damn sense.
You, Dai Grepher, are trying to get people to believe your theory based on your "facts" and "evidence," and when people disagree and prove you wrong with real facts you just tell them they're wrong and their facts are lies or miss intercalations. Plain and simply, your a close-minded idiot without any reason.
Quote from Dai:
Fine, but you must still post your evidence that the proof I found does not indicate that Zero Mission is the first mission.
I said one person, not “they”. Also, there is undeniable proof that Nintendo made a mistake in that reference. Fact: “…had completed numerous missions that others thought completely impossible.” – Metroid prologue.
Metroid is proven to not be the first mission. Hence calling it that is a mistake.
Quote from Kejardon:
You have no evidence that calling Metroid the 'first mission' is a mistake.
(OOC: One of the things I expected was that you would say they decided it's not a remake. You have very selective reading)
(OOC: One of the things I expected was that you would say they decided it's not a remake. You have very selective reading)
I said one person, not “they”. Also, there is undeniable proof that Nintendo made a mistake in that reference. Fact: “…had completed numerous missions that others thought completely impossible.” – Metroid prologue.
Metroid is proven to not be the first mission. Hence calling it that is a mistake.
Anywhere, everywhere
Quote from Vertigo:
What he is saying is that in the Metroid prologue it says Samus has completed numerous other missions, but in MZM it says that this is her first mission. I hope that clarifies.
Actually, MZM mentions that she has completed numerous missions as well.
Quote from Page 7 of the MZM Manual:
Considered the greatest of all the bounty hunters, Samus had successfully completed numerous missions that others had thought impossible.
See, even here the original and MZM are the same. If you look at the prologue, the story is almost exactly the same. Why would Nintendo make the story so similar if they wanted it to be a different story? Looking at the into of the actual game's manual is much better than looking at a commercial or such. And, as the people have mentioned before, they changed the layout of the game because they didn't want it the exact same game, they wanted to make a little more challenge for the players.