I wasn't trying to be comprehensive. Yeah, I know there's been lots of old-school dungeon-crawler style releases in Japan, especially for handheld and mobile devices. But they're not really what comes first to mind when you say "JRPG". The big names, like Final Fantasy, Dragon Quest, and Tales, are most certainly not true dungeon crawlers, even in their most primitive forms.

 

I personally would have never classified any of Zelda, even Zelda 2, as truly a Metroidvania-style game. To me, strictly speaking, a Metroidvania game consists of a mostly 2D side scroller (really important) action game (fairly important) in which the main character that you control has elements that can be changed or upgraded, but not to the point where you can't finish the game without the basic elements that you started with (fairly important). Additionally, the main character primarily runs and jumps, with limited flying, and you stay with that character throughout the game.

Zelda (and Zelda 2) never really struck me as a Metroidvania for one really significant reason - Link gets more health through the game, like significantly more health that what Samus or Simon get through their games.

 

That seems pretty arbitrary, considering that in Metroid you typically have 20x more HP than you start off with, plus Reserve Tanks, and Alucard can wind up with crazy invincible stats by the end of his game.

I've never played Zelda 2 to form an opinion on it, but I've usually heard it referred to as an honourary Metroidvania. The only reason why it's not regularly is because Zelda is typically its own thing, and that serves to confuse the genre distinctions.

 

I was actually thinking about the 2D (or 2.5D) limitation on the definition before my previous post, which is part of what made me ask the question in the first place. Also, I got to thinking: Metroid Prime is about as Metroidvania as you can get in what is essentially an FPS. IMO, Retro Studios did an exemplary job translating that style to a 3D world.

BUT, I just realized, Metroid Prime does not have an RPG-style experience system. I guess that means it's NOT a Metroidvania, because it's missing that important element.
However, if it did...would it qualify?

Agreed. In both Zelda 2 and SotN, increasing your experience points makes your health go up, the only difference being that in Zelda 2 it's optional which stat to enhance.

As usual in the Zelda series, Zelda 2 is the oddball, with its gameplay so different than any other entry. Makes sense that people would be reluctant to label it a Metroidvania, because the rest of the series does not qualify. I'm still not convinced it does qualify, but I'm not exactly sure why...

 

I think the most important parts of a metroidvania are:

1. It's a platforming action game--usually but not necessarily a side-scroller.
2. All or almost all of the game uses a single, continuous, maze-like map (or at least the illusion of one).
3. The player progresses by gaining items or abilities that act as keys to unlock new areas of the map.

If the game is a solid match for all three of these criteria, then the rest is sort of negotiable. Other important elements like an emphasis on backtracking are naturally implied by the combination of these things. It's just enough to explain why Metroid Prime might be a metroidvania, but Ocarina of Time definitely is not.

Most Zelda games don't have a jump button, which precludes being a platform game pretty much automatically. Zelda II is a platformer, but lacks the illusion of a single continuous map, as do most other Zelda games to some degree. Even in Zelda games that use a single perspective and play style throughout, the dungeons feel deliberately demarcated from the overworld.

Breath of the Wild does have a jump button, and it could be argued that the vast majority of the game uses what seems like a single seamless map. However:

• Platforming is not enough of a focus to call the game a platforming action game. (Same goes for Star Tropics)
• The main map is pointedly open, not maze-like.
• Although you can access new areas by using items to boost your stamina or protect against environmental effects, these tend to be cumulative and interchangeable with other items that have the same effects. You can climb a frozen mountain by purchasing warm clothing and spending orbs on stamina, or you can eat spicy and stamina-boosting food. Most of the abilities that could be considered "keys" are obtained before leaving the tutorial area.

I was  

I don't always reply just for the sake of the person I'm replying to. In this case, I was adding on to your answer.

 

Fair enough. I usually like to preface similar posts with "furthermore" or the like, just to make it clear that I'm supplementing the point, rather than rebutting or interjecting.

 

It is arbitrary, TBH. It's just one person's opinion. <shrug>

Personally, I hated Zelda 2. I hated just about everything about it, and I really can't put my finger on why. I hated in in the 1980s, and I've hated every single time I've tried to get back into it again. But the other Zelda games? I loved them. Some more than others.

 

I just realized my definition precludes the Blaster Master games from being included.  

I guess that's okay though, since the original was trying to be a mash-up of many different action games, and not strictly a Metroid-like one.

 

Tatsunoko vs Capcom > all of marvel vs Capcom games.

 

I don't know maybe there is somebody who thinks the same way as I do but I think that new games are getting even more boring. Humanity created vr/ar game technologies but developers can't provide free access for these games ( or they don't even want to make them). If there were more such games or augmented reality apps for pc I suppose more people would love to try this exciting process.. imao

 

It's not an easy process to create games that utilize VR and /or AR.

With VR, may of the constraints are technical and arise from problems where the visual feedback doesn't strictly match feedback from the inner ear. If the frame-rate is too slow, then you end up with motion sickness - and 60fps is the bare minimum you can get away way with for most cases. If the frame-rate is choppy, you also get issues with disorientation and sickness.

You can't have slopes in VR, or at least, changes in elevation have to be small because the visual feeback to the brain and from the inner ear don't match and, you guess it, disorientation and sickeness occur. You end up with a similar issue with tracking objects at differing distances to the viewer - because the player is trying to focus on objects projected onto a flat plane they eye muscles are trying to do something they weren't designed for because they're both trying to focus on something near, while at the same time, focusing on a plat-plane that's not movement. This causes major eye-strain and headaches.

Then there's the cost and physical space requirements of VR that make it impractical to support on a large scale.

The issues with AR are more to do with overall design rather than technical constraints, although there are some technical issues to overcome. Basically, AR either requires you to be on the move to make the game engaging, or if you're at home, it requires a lot of physical toys/props/cards t stop the game from becoming stale.

 

Two Nintendo ones.

1) No Nintendo direct is like Sony slipping e3 and pax: they got jack with a side of shit to announce. What you want them to show, live-streams for games people have? I’m sure beatemups will make 5 nintendoom videos....

2) No Persona 5 on Switch is a bastard move from atlus :/ Oh what’s that we should be satisfied with a spin-off sequel? Ok yeah, sure, FUCK YOU.

 

There are a lot of people who would agree with this.
There isn't much actual creativity anymore, at least when it comes to the big, hyped releases. The gaming industry is dominated by mega-companies that continually rehash the same ideas and genres, and people buy it. Creativity and innovation seem to be discouraged, because it might end up losing millions.

However, as much as I don't like the idea of digital distribution supplanting physical media, one HUGE advantage to the digital distribution model is it gives smaller developers a chance with more creative and experimental games that normally wouldn't have a prayer of physical release. The opportunity to innovate seems to be at its highest point since the Golden Age of arcades.

 

I get where you're coming from and I agree, but this is humorously ironic considering the origin of the Persona series  

 

The big companies are stagnating for the most part because AAA games are so damned expensive to make. They need to play it "safe". Most attempts at thinking too far outside the box as of late have been shot down hard and cost publishers a pretty penny as a result.

The torch of the old-fashioned rogue spirit has been taken up by the Indie devs.

To some degree I think some publishers have realized this trap they've fallen into by supplementing their big-name franchises with some indie-style products, to raise their brand awareness. I feel that Square Enix has possibly been the best at this, between supplementing their usual Japanese fare with the Eidos/Crystal Dynamics catalogue that they acquired, and fostering a lot of old school-style products like Bravely Default, I am Setsuna, Lost Sphear, and more indie-type games like Life is Strange. Ubisoft also had some interesting projects for a while utilizing the UbiArt engine developed for Rayman Origins, like Child of Light and Valiant Hearts.

 

Hollywood. Video game production has gone the way of the movie industry. And it sucks.

 

Microsoft and Sony making vain attempts at chasing the dragon of photo-realistic graphics probably hasn't helped either. Say what you will about (as an example) Overwatch as a game, and much can be, at least it has a distinct style and some fucking personality. Like I'm not going to confuse Soldier 76 for any of the CoD or MoH protagonists.

 

Exactly. I was going to mention the similarity to the movie industry, but I figured my post was long enough  

Movies are all about remakes, sequels, and franchises nowadays. Games are the same way. But, like @mx-01 archon said, that's where the indie developers come in. One thing I've realized, I spend a lot more time browsing Nintendo Online and PSN for neat indie games than I do at the game store looking for supposed AAA titles. I'd rather play Streets of Rage 4 or River City Girls than the latest Halo or Madden. It sure doesn't help that so many recent AAA titles have been total disasters, like Anthem, Fallout 76, or Mass Effect Andromeda.

Seriously, My favorite game of last year was probably Bloodstained: Ritual of the Night, which would never have had a chance if not for Kickstarter. Up yours, Konami.

 

1)Because they're classified as platform/adventure games. No need to try and retcon them into something they aren't when they already occupy their own niches.

2)Metroidvanias are more maze-like. Sure you've got dungeons in all 3 of them, however if you look at true Metroidvanias you'll find they're constantly in a maze, or more likely indoors.

 

Bit late to the discussion, but the game industry is in great shape creatively and has been for a few years. People need to stop reading headlines about EA/Acti/Ubi and pretending that's the only thing that's going on.

The A-AA market is coming back, Japanese console development is in resurgence, Nintendo have got their mojo back, MS is spending loads of money on all sorts of different stuff to feed gamepass, there's good games coming out of small to medium sized developers all the time and even AAA really isn't as bad as people make it out to be outside of the main franchises.