Reading through it, his suggestion seems rooted on the idea that Metroidvania carries implications in terms of setting, perspective or combat, which is a complete fabrication of his mind not grounded in reality. It's 2024, the people that would know and care about the Metroidvania tag know very well what that tag implies; your "revelation" that Arkham Asylum is also a Metroidvania has been commonplace in discussions for a decade.
This addresses a confusion and an issue that don't exist, and the tag is so standard at this point that changing it would not catch on and would create way more problems than it would fix.
The previous section hints at something pretty important, but maybe non-obvious: I assert that MetroidVania is not a genre, it’s a framework - a way of structuring games and most specifically the worlds they take place in.
And
This realization that ‘MetroidVania’ is not a genre helps explain why a game like Batman: Arkham Asylum can be thought of as a MetroidVania where its sequels wouldn’t be, even though almost all aspects of the gameplay are very similar.
Really not convinced that you can’t call something a genre because it wouldn’t describe different games in a series.
I’d argue the Wario Land series has mostly changed genres between 1 and 2. First one is a straight platformer that’s basically Super Mario Bros with different abilities, following games are exploration puzzle game things that have a platforming element, but in which platforming is not the main point IMO.
Resident Evil really forgot it was survival horror for a while.
Breath of the Wild/Tears of the Kingdom are almost nothing like the classic Zelda formula. Free-form puzzle solving, free-er movement, almost zero dungeon structures, consumable weapons…
Those are significant, because when it happens it’s very likely some people would be more invested in either the old or new games, which incidentally explains why it doesn’t happen that much in established series.
I know I was initially very disappointed with new Wario, because all I wanted back then was more Mario-style platforming and the intentionally frustrating design of Wario Land 2-3-4 wasn’t for me.
Your example about BoTW is really good. I never played the earlier Zelda games and had near-zero interest in them. Then a friend let me borrow their BoTW cart and I absolutely fell in love with it. Still no interest in playing the earlier ones though.
I happen to like both, but they’re very different. Like a lot of fans of the rest of the series, while playing BotW I missed the classic dungeon experience. A whole divine beast and a dozen shrines stitched together would be maybe like one dungeon in the main series, and it’d have a new item, it would rely on it a lot with clever riddles and it’d have a unique boss, not just another flavour of Ganon.
Of course, a classic Zelda game is also a lot more linear in structure, with a world you can only explore bit by bit, and in a set order (mostly, there is a couple of exceptions).
The worse take i have read in a while, you can say the same about anything, fps, tps, rpg and even visual novels or action adventure, they are more frameworks than genres by their definition, even racing or sports games.
I really enjoyed the story. The battle system was fun at first but then didn’t really offer much depth or player expression as the game progressed. Maybe that’s why you got tired of it?
Yeah perhaps they got bogged down with all the other stuff (graphics, music, settings, etc) and for that the story and mechanics suffered. Now that they have a game engine and experience, a second attempt might leave more time to flesh it out a bit more.
They also perhaps wanted to make it accessible but weren’t skillful at knowing how light to keep it.
This was perhaps the most beautifully crafted jrpg I’ll never finish. While the nostalgia hit me like a truck, after just some 8 hours I just felt I had played it all. The graphics and the music may be the very best in the genre, but the gameplay left much to be desired. Time-based inputs are nice (though they do get tiresome after a while), but there’s just no substance in the gameplay. Progression is slow af, and I didn’t feel there was much to unlock other than higher numbers, which are meh.
I’ll get a steam deck as soon as I can detache the controller and put it on my TV like the Switch. While the Deck is probably amazing, it’s what I need to get one, additional to the gaming PC. I always feel chained in, when my controller is made from one part only.
I have the old one. Next iteration will have the same better display along with better cpu/gpu/ram, current battery is more than enough for a day of my gaming needs and I doubt I will ever need to touch a screw let alone a repair. I’m glad there’s an upgrade at the same price for newcomers but it isn’t “radiant” anything.
I’m thinking some people having more joy at staring at the fps counter then play the game.
I’d like to respectfully say you’re fucking dead wrong. The display is gorgeous, the increased framerate is amazing, the battery life is SO MUCH BETTER and it downloads games and launches faster. On top of having more storage space on the LE edition. And the charge cable is LONGER. I was actually able to play over 3 hours of deep rock on a flight and still have some charge left. If you use the device a lot it’s a massive upgrade.
Ok so let me get this straight. 1-3 more fps, a brighter screen and a bit more battery is now considered revolutionary for portable gaming. If that were the case then the rog ally or one of the other handhelds would be considered more revolutionary for portable gaming.
You got it crooked. 60hz to 90hz is a lot more than 1-2 frames. “A brighter screen” okay guess you don’t know what HDR is and have never seen the difference between LED and OLED. “A bit more battery” got me from 90 minutes of gaming to over 3 hours. For someone who actually uses the thing constantly, it’s huge. But continue to be ignorant because I doubt what I wrote will change that.
If you count 60 to 90hz as increased performance then sure you get more frames. I’ve used an oled switch and it does look good but it’s definitely nothing game changing.
Steamdeck oled has a few nice to haves and nothing more. The release of the steamdeck changed the game for handheld gaming. The release of the steamdeck oled changes nothing. We’ve seen oleds on the switch, we’ve seen handhelds with good battery life and we’ve seen handhelds with high refresh rate monitors.
gamedeveloper.com
Gorące