Been a while and I don't remember the routing details at all, but I was surprised to find that they weren't much of an obstacle at all for the speedrun. They're designed to scare you on a first playthrough, but on subsequent replays you just go fast and they won't catch you.
Dread. I wasn't sure if it could live up to the high expectations set for it, but they hit it out of the park. Hits all the highs of Super and Zero Mission, then goes on to outdo those games in terms of combat and boss fights. Had a blast going back to speedrun it again and again.
I suppose I should've been clearer there, I really just meant the Koji Igarashi-era games, not Classicvania. As the other comment mentions, the term Metroidvania was actually originally coined to separate the two eras of Castlevania, before the genre exploded in popularity and it became repurposed.
while Castlevanias powerups focus almost entirely on combat.
Castlevania has always (edit: I mean since SotN) had a pretty heavy emphasis on movement abilities to access new areas. Looking at SotN, we have double jump, high jump, swimming, mist form, bat form, wolf form, as well as good ol' keys to literally unlock the environment.
This is why I consider Metroid Fusion, Other M, and Dread to be among the weaker Metroid titles. All three have an obvious, forced always on hand-holding mechanic that you don't find in other Metroid games.
I'll give you Fusion and Other M, but I'm going to have to disagree on Dread here. The game does sort of guide you along an intended first playthrough route, but so does Super! It's a delicate balance to give the player room for exploration while still ensuring they don't get stuck not knowing where to go. That balancing act should not be seen as disqualifying, or else we're throwing out the genre's foundational text too. If anything, the biggest difference between Dread and Super here is that Dread actually has more developer-intended sequence breaks. If you play Super as intended without utilizing any speedrunning tech, you almost always follow the same route in the end.
If it's a fast-paced action game, 60 is a must. If it's turn-based, or otherwise just slow enough to not matter, I'll sometimes accept a stable 30 - but only if it's truly stable, any dips below that are not okay.
Splatoon. You could definitely come up with plenty of cool movement abilities to unlock. And in general I just want to see the IP explored in all kinds of directions. If the franchise had debuted a generation earlier, I keep imagining what kind of straight-to-handheld companion title it would've gotten.
Why do you say that? Lots of other old games get remakes that don't try to completely change genre. Just because a game is old doesn't mean no one would play a faithful remake, that reasoning doesn't make any sense.
Hell, SE themselves have done faithful remakes of games that are much older. Dragon Quest III HD just came out and I hear it's been selling pretty damn well.
Yes it was. Plenty of developers who didn't already have an established audience to rally votes from complained about how difficult it was to even get noticed. And it invited a lot of shady tactics as other developers gamed the system to bribe or even bot votes, because if you're not doing that then your game will be left behind as your competition gets Greenlit first. Many perfectly good games got stuck in "Greenlight Hell" for a very long time.
Greenlight era had a lot of problems, and these problems are well documented. Valve dropped it for a reason. Don't start with the revisionist history.