Why did Super Metroid and Castlevania SOTN get used label all games like themselves "Metroidvania" when Zelda 2 did it first?
Zelda 2 Clones
Zoldo 2 is always in the side-scrolling perspective
The same reason why normalfags call platformers mario games, table tops D&D, and any military FPS COD. They're the most popular/well known thus making them the go to name.
What about the first metroid and second castlevania? Weren't they already like that? Also Zelda 2 is quite different with the overworld and all.
Zelda 2 is very linear though? I don't know, only fucking faggots use the terms "Metroidvania". I came into this thread hoping OP wanted to talk about Zelda II and other games similar to it like Battle Of Olympus. Now I am just sad.
I'm sorry user. Have this.
Because Link 2 is shit; if it wasn't, it might be half as popular as those other two games you mentioned.
Zelda II is one of the best Nintendo games ever made, which isn't saying much. You need to stop posting.
I just remembered this game. I'm not sure how good it is.
Zelda 2 isn't a metroidvania. You don't unlock any new abilities. Its all flag based progression.
Because Link 2 is shit
Your opinion is fundamentally and utterly wrong.
When you die in the game you start from the beginning everytime you game over and you get new abilities like the up and down stab in towns plus spells which can be considered new abilities. I think you have something mixed up cause Super Metroid better defines flag based progression cause you get save points in it.
Because Zelda 2 didn't do it at all. None of the side scrolling stages are interconnected in Zelda 2.
Zelda 2's not a Metroidvania at all you casual.
cause Super Metroid better defines flag based progression cause you get save points in it
I don't think you understand what flag based progression means.
In Zelda 2, you can't progress unless you've triggered certain flags. Its linear in that way.
Fast travelling to old locations isn't a new ability. Getting double jump or the ability to climb walls is a new ability.
How the hell have I not heard of this game? I even have the rom floating on my HDD. I've been really binging on old mythology lately, and this sounds right up my ally. Thanks guys, you're the best.
Metroidvania is a gay term. It's used to describe a negligible change in Castlevania's design philosophy. SOTN is by all measures a good game, but it's not really all that different than its predecessors. You still have boss battles, a variety of auxiliary weapons, and health management. The only major differences are the added "RPG elements" (another bullshit term) and the level design. Even if you hate the leveling up and equipment customization, the non-linear level design is only a natural evolution for the series, the reason being that games are extremely derivative, which means that developers tend to emulate certain elements that were taken from other titles. You can argue about whether or not this is a good thing, but that conversation isn't really relevant to whether or not "Metroidvania" should even exist as a term, or whether or not Castlevania was the first game to ever borrow elements from Metroid. It's not a genre, it's a pointless descriptive term, similar to "soulslike."
All that aside, Zelda II isn't what could be describe as a "Metroidvania" styled game, it's merely one of the first 2D side scrolling ARPG titles but with an RPG-esque overworld. Yes, the dungeons are non-linear, but they're segmented areas that don't connect to one another. That alone is enough to disqualify it from being described as a "Metroid-like", but it should also be mentioned that Zelda II's overworld and dungeons are locked behind specific item gates that can only be bypassed by using a specific item. Zelda II and Zelda III are similarly linear in this way, which is to say that the flow of progression is built around a very linear path. It can be described as follows:
go to dungeon [X]
collect item [A] from dungeon [X] and defeat the boss
use item [A] to collect item [B]
use item [B] to enter dungeon [Y]
This is what is described as "The Zelda formula" and it's pretty fucking stale at this point. As an example, in Zelda III you need to collect the sword before you can leave Hyrule Castle with the princess. You need to collect the Bow and Arrow that is found inside the Eastern Palace before you can collect the Pegasus Boots, and you need the boots before you can collect the Book of Mudora and use it to enter the Desert Palace. There are more examples like this, but the point is that the game is designed around the player acquiring special items in a certain order, and this is what dictates progression, so even though you can technically go anywhere on the map, you're still limited by your arsenal. Zelda II is designed in a similar way; you need to collect the Jump (and arguably the candle) spell before you can enter Central Hyrule and move on to gain access to Death Mountain and the other Palaces, which means you need to collect the Statue from the cave in Northern Hyrule. You can technically sequence break any one of these intended paths of progression by collecting the necessary items and moving through the game at your discretion, but this is antithetical to the games' design. They just wasn't intended to be played in that way.
You're describing elements of progression that are present in Metroid as well. For example, you need to collect the missile before you can open red gates, and you need to get the Power Bomb before you can explore the Meridian depths
This is true, but the major difference lies in the level design. In Super Metroid, the player is given an open, non linear, and interconnected world in which they can move and explore freely, and there are certain sequence breaks that can be performed without acquiring any special ability. However, I am of the opinion that any arguments that seek to create a distinction between the two aforementioned design philosophies are likely built upon semantics and "splitting hairs."
In truth, Metroid, Zelda and Castelvania are quite similar in a lot of ways, but it's pointless to use made up bullshit words to describe their similarities and differences, when it would be perfectly fine to use normal fucking language and the already existent, corresponding genre term to pigeonhole these games into respective categories. It's not a "Metroidvania", it's a 2D, side scrolling, action platformer that may or may not contain stat management and character building. It's not a "soulslike" it's a 3D ARPG with character building and stat management, some multiplayer functionality, and a "show don't tell" approach at narration and atmosphere.
The power level is real.
So you have never played Zelda II, okay.
ACCEPT FRANKISH RULE YOU PAGAN SHITS
Battle of Olympus is fucking awesome tbh.
SOTN is by all measures a good game
STOP RIGHT THERE FAGGOT
Castlevana: Symphony of the Night has nice graphics and music but the quality stops there. It has terrible overall level design. While it attempts to rip off Super Metroid, it actually has a far more linear structure: you get an ability, move to the usually singular next area of the castle and repeat. Then there's the shitload of abilities that you use once to unlock the next path and never touch again. Then, of course, you get to the halfway point in the game (upside-down castle) and they drop the Metroid facade entirely.
The stat system was an interesting idea but ultimately heavily flawed in execution. The game is absolutely laughably easy for the most part, but there are a couple areas in the upside-down castle with weird difficulty jumps. Then there are the myriad pieces of equipment you can easily stumble upon which break the game utterly.
Ultimately, Symphony of the Night is a game without direction: they simply stuffed as much shit into it as they could. And I do mean shit. The outright majority of bosses are fucking retarded and pointless, the upside-down castle was the worst gimmick ever, and the game is sorely lacking the intense, constrained action that previous Castlevanias had.
It also has some of the worst voice acting ever. But strangely some people find that a positive.
It is interesting how nearly every subsequent Metroid-like Castlevania improved on the gameplay featured in Symphony of the Night, yet some people still hold it on an undeserved pedestal.
WHAT IS A MAN?
I agree, I would rather play Bloodlines.
Zelda 2 has spells that grant new abilities (jump spell, fairy spell), but there's very little required backtracking. And things can be done out of order to an extent, there are only a few areas where you have to do a before you can do b.
Sensible and well put criticism of the over-worshipped SOTN. It ripped off and was worse than Super Metroid in every way, and is not deserving of having its name as the suffix for a sub-genre. They should simply be called "Metroid-likes".
"Metroidvania" is a stupid way to refer to a subset of action platformers. "Metroid-like" is slightly better, but only because Metroid's formula has been the same since the beginning, while Castlevania didn't use a similar formula until SotN. It's not ideal because you're still trying to name a genre after a specific video game. There are better ways to refer to a group of things than to say that it's constituents are like something else.
has it right.
Nice, I forgot about that one. More games need spears.
Dont forget the healer glitch
It's not a "Metroidvania", it's a 2D, side scrolling, action platformer that may or may not contain stat management and character building.
Ah yes, because that's a convenient, easy to use term to quickly describe the general idea of the game in casual conversation or any other form of communication. That's such a great phrase to put in a search engine in order to find other games like that. Do you not know why genres exist? It's not just so you can categorize your library. Genres are there so you can quickly get an idea of what a game is like through a single term or short phrase. When multiple, otherwise unrelated movies, music, games, etc share features that distinguish them as a group among their peers, a new genre is defined. No genre just popped into existence from nothing. Every genre of anything that's ever existed started out as a subset of another. To go "waaaahh, they're just action-platformers with exploration, not their own genre" is to completely misunderstand how genres come about in the first place. There are so many games now that have the main design features Metroid popularized that it's become, at the very least, a sub-genre.
It's not ideal because you're still trying to name a genre after a specific video game.
"Action platformer" isn't a specific enough term to describe Metroidvanias. Contra is an "action platformer". Mega Man is an "action platfomer".
zelda 2 is haaaaaaaaaaarddd though grrrrr
In Super Metroid, the player is given an open, non linear, and interconnected world in which they can move and explore freely
don't have super missiles, can't progress
don't have bombs, can't progress
don't have super bombs, can't progress
don't have hijump, can't progress
don't have grapple, can't progress
don't have enough energy reserves or varia suit, can't progress
Seems like you just ignore the obvious item gating Metroid does.
Many of those can be circumvented by the wall jump, and not all of them have to be done in that order.
Term Metroidania described jack shit. The genre's correct name is called action-adventure.
item gates aren't item gates because you can sequence break
You can sequence break in Zelda 2 as well. The candle isn't necessary for example.
Many of those can be circumvented by the wall jump
Tricky walljumps that the devs probably didn't account for or didn't bother to remove. One thing I notice a lot of people forgetting is that most of the sequence breaks in Super are unintended. It wasn't until Zero Mission that the devs really adopted the mindset of letting the player intentionally avoid upgrades or get them out of the standard order.
Do you realize the broad range of games that fall under that denomination? Action-adventure describes everything from Bomberman Tournament to Hollow Knight, which are two very different games.
The excuse that Zelda 2 has an overworld and its dungeons/caves/towns are not directly interconnected to each other doesn't jive. The overworld in Zelda 2 is just a different method of connecting those places. Brinstar isn't any more connected to Maridia than Palace 1 to the Trophy cave. The only difference is walking through an overworld that only has some encounters and doors vs just going through a door. It is fundamentally the same.
post Katsuya Terada's art
its a thumbnail
(you) are unworthy
It is sad that Link will never go back to looking like some normal dude on a grand adventure to save a princess without any bullshit. Zelda 1-4 is still a great playthrough. Links Awakening was pretty awesome.
You think this dork is any more normal looking than what we have now?
Jesus Christ literally no one says any of these things.
The original Tomb Raider on psx is "action-adventure". What does that have in common with Metroid? Fuck all.
Definitely, also brown hair is better
Are you the same dumbfuck who refused to acknowledge Cavestory as platformer and demanded it be referred to as an "action-adventure" game
the only rule63 im comfortable fapping to is link. and he gets a power to turn in to a fairy in zelda 2. why isnt there more porn of fairy girl link?
Not that user, but if you think it plays at all like Metroid you're an idiot.
pr0n of fairy girl link
I didn't even know this was a thing. Link just turns into an ordinary fairy in Zelda 2, after all. There's not even a special sprite to claim a thing such as 'fairy girl link' was ever even conceived of.