Current Events > Worst 2D Metroid.

(+) Yeah! (+)

I just started Super Metroid. It's a pretty good product of its' time but the GBA game was pretty much the same concept with more plot. I can't quite judge all the 2D games until I beat a few bosses in each installment. I like Super Metroid, though.

What do Metroid fans think?
---

The original because it doesn't hold up at all
---

Troll_cat

Honestly the first one
---

For me, it's the second one.

Return of Samus just seems rather dull. I like the spider ball. I like the design of the Metroid Queen (although I've never made it to her). I lose out to boredom every time I try to make it through.

The NES game isn't great, but it is playable and it has a good soundtrack. The second game is pretty impressive from a technical standpoint, but I just could never get into it.

NES Metroid, only because it aged so horribly. Otherwise, Fusion when weighted for the capabilities of the hardware - garbage plot, railroaded along a set path, hideous art design, forgettable soundtrack. It's a Metroid game in name only.
---

Metroid for the NES is alright. Sure it may not be as good as Fusion, but it's still way better than Super.
---

I don't like Other M at all, but I think the original Metroid is a worse experience because it didn't hold up. Although I think it is a better game when you consider its constraints and age, I think it's overall the worst to play.

Other M is not wholly 2D either, so IDK if it should even count.
---

The original.
It's easily the worst
---

NES Metroid or GB Metroid 2

There is objectively no other correct answer
---

I thought it was general opinion that Return of Samus was the weakest of the games?

It's the reason why fans and Nintendo went and remade it.
---

What's so bad about the first Metroid? Poor controls? Poorly designed?
---

Ki_cat_ posted...

What's so bad about the first Metroid? Poor controls? Poorly designed?

It's a product of its times, mostly. When we remove that from the equation, it's not a bad game. The game that deserves the distinction of "worst 2D Metroid game" is Fusion.
---

Hmm...I only tried Fusion for a short bit, I can see it being bad if you're treated to the other 2D games first.

I can't remember what I played...It might have been Zero Mission lol.
---

Yeah, that's the problem. They restrict what makes Metroid so good in the first place: the ability to go wherever you want so long as you have the abilities or the skill. The set up for the game is pretty good, but then Samus decides to flesh out her character by monologuing a whole bunch about some asshole superior of hers. It's definitely the weakest of the modern-day Metroid games, and why I'll rank Super Metroid and Zero Mission well above the rest of the 2D games.
---

Ki_cat_ posted...

What's so bad about the first Metroid? Poor controls? Poorly designed?

The way it's put together means that even having a printed map doesn't help much against getting lost, especially so outside of the first area.

Each area is built out of a dozen or so unique "rooms" strung together and repeated.
http://www.metroid-database.com/m1/lvldata.php

Fusion is literally one of the best. Don't understand the hate. Easily NES
---

Fusion was fucking awful. The game holds your hand 100% of the time. A monkey could beat Fusion.
---

Ki_cat_ posted...

What's so bad about the first Metroid? Poor controls? Poorly designed?

Definitely a product of its time. Every 2D Metroid past it kept improving the gameplay that by the time Super came out, the 1st game became completely outclassed. It just has stiff controls, only able to aim in three directions, can't crouch, level design with dozens of similar-looking rooms making it very easy to get lost in, and there's quite a few borderline unfair spots in terms of level design and enemy placement.

Zero Mission is just so much better. It's a remake of the first game with even more refinement of Fusion's controls. I just wish it was a little harder because it's incredibly easy.
---

The original was really hard.
---

The original, but Zero Mission was actually a fantastic remake of it
---

Super>AM2R>Zero Mission>Fusion>>>>>2>1
---

Verdekal posted...

The original was really hard.

Nah. It's just really obtuse.

Ki_cat_ posted...

What's so bad about the first Metroid? Poor controls? Poorly designed?

One of the main reasons is that it's a giant game with no map. Even if it was a good game Zero Mission would still be much better.

But the gameplay is bad too. You can only shoot up down left and right. That makes it extremely difficult and not fun.
---

Damn_Underscore posted...

But the gameplay is bad too. You can only shoot up down left and right. That makes it extremely difficult and not fun.

You can't even shoot down, Metroid 2 added that.
---

Banjo2553 posted...

Damn_Underscore posted...

But the gameplay is bad too. You can only shoot up down left and right. That makes it extremely difficult and not fun.

You can't even shoot down, Metroid 2 added that.

You can't even jump up and shoot down? I forget
---

Damn_Underscore posted...

Banjo2553 posted...

Damn_Underscore posted...

But the gameplay is bad too. You can only shoot up down left and right. That makes it extremely difficult and not fun.

You can't even shoot down, Metroid 2 added that.

You can't even jump up and shoot down? I forget

Nope, which was really weird.
---

Other M was so bad that nobody in the topic is even touching it.

So that aside, Metroid 2.
---

NES Metroid for sure, that game is almost completely unplayable nowadays
---

P4wn4g3 posted...

Other M was so bad that nobody in the topic is even touching it.

So that aside, Metroid 2.

Well, we're talking about 2D Metroid. For all intents and purposes Other M is a 3D Metroid.
---

Banjo2553 posted...

P4wn4g3 posted...

Other M was so bad that nobody in the topic is even touching it.

So that aside, Metroid 2.

Well, we're talking about 2D Metroid. For all intents and purposes Other M is a 3D Metroid.

"2.5D" as advertised, but it's really a sidescroller with forced first person parts. Unless you are going by the graphics and not the gameplay.
---

Fusion or Metroid 2. Probably Fusion
---

Super
---

The game does not hold your hand in Fusion. All it does is mark out where you have to go and give you a map. You often take detours not listed on the map in order to reach your objective. Additionally, Fusion has some amazingly hidden secrets and one of the hardest things to do in any video game.
---

Damn_Underscore posted...

NES Metroid or GB Metroid 2

There is objectively no other correct answer

This tbh
---

I'd have to say the original. Fusion is good, just different from your typical 2D Metroid game.

Super > Zero Mission > Fusion > AM2R > II > I

I thought about putting AM2R above Fusion, but I dunno, there's something about the former that rubs me the wrong way. The level design seems kinda... off. And Fusion has its plus points really. AM2R is still great though.

Garioshi posted...

one of the hardest things to do in any video game.

Are you talking about skipping the Sector 3 Energy Tank in a 0% run?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSn6yNuk--g

I watched a Let's Play recently where the player tried it and couldn't do it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJjS8-wrBSk

Luckily, there is another way to avoid the energy tank that was discovered more recently.

There's no way I could do that with save states let alone without them.

There's also this shinespark room:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smVdrsOg_uA

I didn't find that *too* bad.

P4wn4g3 posted...

Banjo2553 posted...

P4wn4g3 posted...

Other M was so bad that nobody in the topic is even touching it.

So that aside, Metroid 2.

Well, we're talking about 2D Metroid. For all intents and purposes Other M is a 3D Metroid.

"2.5D" as advertised, but it's really a sidescroller with forced first person parts. Unless you are going by the graphics and not the gameplay.

2D by all accounts only has two dimensions. Other M lets you move in more than 2 dimensions at all times regardless of camera angles. But whatevs, I'm not gonna argue about what genre Other M is in.
---

SM>ZM>RoS>Fusion>Metroid
---

People seem to hate Fusion for alleged hand-holding and praise Zero Mission, while Fusion was much more difficult than ZM. I have a little trouble computing that, to be honest.

Personally, ZM was ultimately pretty forgettable for me (apart from the final mission, which I didn't care for), and Fusion is one of my favorites. I loved it specifically because it took you out of your comfort zone and put a new spin on the franchise - it rewarded your fandom by taking familiar things and turning them on their head, whether it be a super-sudden (and super-freaky) countdown timer event, or good ol' familiar Ridley instantly mutating into badass Mega Ridley. Personally I think people who get too wrapped up in what something 'should be' rather than what it 'is' deserve their disappointment if they can't see far enough past their expectations to recognize quality.
---

masterpug53 posted...

People seem to hate Fusion for alleged hand-holding and praise Zero Mission, while Fusion was much more difficult than ZM. I have a little trouble computing that, to be honest.

It's not the difficulty so much as being limited to where you can go at any particular moment. Both games point you in the right direction, sure, but ZM allows you to go way off the beaten path much more, where those directions don't help so much. Even when you *do* go off the beaten path in Fusion, the game accounts for it (e.g. by giving you the power-up you skipped at the Download Stations / Navigation Rooms).

The difficulty of Fusion is nice though, for the bosses at least, especially in a low % run. ZM has its moments, particularly some of the optional power-ups. Fusion has one or two difficult ones to get, but ZM has more I think.

I personally love both games, but I do think ZM has more longevity for that reason. There are various sequence breaks, just like in Super.

masterpug53 posted...

something 'should be' rather than what it 'is' deserve their disappointment if they can't see far enough past their expectations to recognize quality.

Expectations or no, Fusion was low quality. Prime defied expectations by going first person (to the point that many fans raged about it before its release), but is widely regarded as one of the best games ever made precisely because of the quality and care put into it.
---

luigi13579 posted...

It's not the difficulty so much as being limited to where you can go at any particular moment.

Also this. Hand-holding =/= difficulty. Completely separate concepts.
---

TrevorBlack79 posted...

Expectations or no, Fusion was low quality.

saying something like this makes it pretty clear you just have a hate boner for the game
---

For as terribly linear as Fusion was, the controls were awesome. It's a big reason why I loved Zero Mission so much. Using R to have such easy missile access was brilliant and something Super Metroid could have seriously used.
---

I am noticing some awkward controls with Super Metroid but it holds up for a game made 20+ years ago.
---

Ki_cat_ posted...

I am noticing some awkward controls with Super Metroid but it holds up for a game made 20+ years ago.

The physics are a little counter-intuitive, yes. Otherwise, remap the buttons until it feels comfortable.

drunkmuggle posted...

TrevorBlack79 posted...

Expectations or no, Fusion was low quality.

saying something like this makes it pretty clear you just have a hate boner for the game

You're welcome to respond to my brief list of complaints in post 6 if you like.
---

I thought Fusion was okay but I really dislike how linear it was, the new suit and the plot. I'd be happy if it was completely ignored tbh which is basically has been.
---