Metroid Prime 2: Echoes Launches

The sequel to Metroid Prime, Metroid Prime 2: Echoes has been released to consumers. Details on the sequel can be found via a Gamespy hands on look or a Gamespot review. A snip from the review: "If you've played Metroid Prime, you've essentially played Metroid Prime 2. Retro hasn't mucked with the original, winning formula, so veterans of the first game will feel quite at home resuming their position behind Samus' computer-enhanced visor."

WTF?

[oGMo]

Why is it in every review they make the point to emphasize "this is not full of revolutionary new gameplay"? If I get a Metroid game, I don't want revolutionary new gameplay: I want Metroid. Metroid Prime was good despite the new 3D stuff, because it was still essentially Metroid.

What we should be asking is "is this game a new Metroid game with good story, level design, secrets, etc.", and it sounds like it is. After all, the first thing we asked about MP1 was not "does this have revolutionary new gameplay", rather "is this still the Metroid we love?"

Anyhow, point made. I hope this one has more secrets and stuff than the last. Sounds like it does, but that's one of the few things I thought the original (Prime) lacked.

Ah, indeed.

[Rickz0rz]

With HL2, Halo 2, MP:2, and DooM3 (for us people who are lazy to buy games now) to name a few, this shall be a very nice holiday. Wooty. I still have to get Ace Combat 5. And The Minish Cap. And a bajillion other games.

Re:Nintendo

[JohnFromCanada]

"Isn't rooting for a big, monopolistic company thats against free software kind of anti-slashdot?"

Making a game like this for free is just not feasible. Games are often far too complex and involve too much maintenance and work to be free. It also takes a lot more than just programmers to put together a good game by today's standards. There are some free games out there that are very good such as (ie. America's Army, Nethack, Wolfenstein Enemy Territory) however it is just not possible to expect all games to be free software.

Re:Well

[Justin205]

Metroid is NOT about the graphics, or the innovative new ways to play it... Metroid is about the story, mainly.

The philosophy behind this is really "If it isn't broken, don't fix it." The original MP engine worked wonderfully. It is visually impressive, even now, a few years later. Just add a few minor enhancements, and leave it. Concentrate most development on the multiplayer execution and the heart of every Metroid game - the story.

awesome

[grungebox]

Metroid Prime is one of those rare games that got pretty much everything right. The only thing missing was a more engrossing story, as that might draw you into the experience a little bit more, but that was minor. If Echoes is more of the same, then that's fine by me. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. But...there are notable changes such as the light/dark worlds and light/dark weapons, the echo and dark visors.

welly well well

[ImTheDarkcyde]

looks to me like the good folks at gamespot have a case of "halo fanboy-ism"

they honestly do not point out ONE flaw worthy of crippling this game a whopping 0.9 from the sheer perfection it is. Show me a more beautiful game, and i will weep.

Re:Nintendo

[0racle]

Not everyone is a zealot. I choose to use Microsoft products as well. In fact, they are even viable options for deployment. If the product is good, then its good. Its just software so don't let idology blind you.

all sequels..

[Folmer]

What about something completely new?
All ive seen in the last couple of months is sequels:
Half-life 2, Halo 2, GTA:SA, Everquest 2 etc...

Re:Well

[fireduck]

How about "if it isn't broken, make a sequel?"

Based on this, one could surmise you would have told Tolkien to stop writing after the Hobbit came out, because that was a darn good story, and he would just ruin it by writing anything else? There's nothing inherently wrong with a sequel if it is well done and enjoyable. While crappy sequels tarnish a reputation; I fail to see how quality, crafted sequels do anything but provide enjoyment (and strengthen a franchise).

Re:Well

[mcc]

Actually, it seems like Retro Studios is being treated pretty well, there aren't reports of people there getting laid off, and in fact Nintendo keeps asking them to make more games. Meanwhile some of the games they've made-- MP:Hunters and the original Metroid Prime itself come to mind-- have been uncommonly creative.

Whatever they're doing with this one game, it doesn't seem like this one dev house is going with the depressing flow of the rest of the industry in general. So with all they've done, shouldn't Retro get the license to create a game just to make people happy and make some money once in a while?

Meanwhile, I for one am glad they did what they did with MP2. The original MP just felt too unrefined, and the setting was too familiar (Oh gee.. I'm fighting Ridley... again...) for me to really get anything out of it. I rented it once and couldn't be bothered to go back to it, it just wasn't worth it too me. But I'm really looking forward to MP2 because from what I heard they were able to take the formula they experimented with in MP1, refine it to perfection, and put it in a much more interesting setting. This, I want to play.

Re:Nintendo

[Zangief]

They are not anti free software. They are anti piracy. They will fight roms with tooth and nails, because those are simply stealing their most valuable asset: games.

Re:JUSTIN BAILEY

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually... I belive the code stands for "Just in Bailey"
Bailey is slang for a bathing suit

Re:What happened.....

[Elwood P Dowd]

Viewtiful Joe is one of the best side scrollers ever.

Paper Mario looks fun.

Alien Hominid will rule.

Re:all sequels..

[kid-noodle]

Ok, here's a crazy thing to say:

Who cares? Really. Why does it matter, that we have franchises? Why is it important (and here's my caveat) as long as we innovate and improve within them.

The Mario games are an uber-franchise, Mario 64 was both evolutionary and revolutionary. Metroid Prime is part of the Metroid franchise. Are you going to tell me that it didn't innovate within that?
Half-Life 2, happens to be the sequel to Half-Life. That's a problem?

Here's something - franchises allow innovation with minimal risk for the developer. They can almost certainly know they'll make money, because they've got a huge whack of good will, and brand recognition. They've got carte blanche to experiment within the framework, with minimal risk, which is more of an incentive to take that step. I'd call that a Good Thing.

Re:Oh grrreat

[tgibbs]

Wow, so it wasn't enough that they ruined one of my favourite game series by turning it into a crappy FPS, but they did nothing to rectify their transgressions in the sequel?

I thought Metroid Prime did a wonderful job of translating everything I loved about the original game into 3D. Even my initial reservations about the first-person format were dispelled. I'm no fan of FPS games, but then MP isn't really a FPS. Indeed, I basically bought the GC for Metroid Prime, and found it well worth the cost. And for 2D purists, Nintendo is still turning out Metroid titles for GameBoy.

My 2 Cents

[ripbruger]

I've been reading the comments posted before this one, and I have to agree with a few in that the tag line left behind my gamespot puts a negative slant on the game. At the same time, I've read the complaints that others have posted about how this is just an incremental update; and I don't disagree with that claim either. The way I look at it, however, is that at least when I go to drop $60 (that's Canadian $) on the game, I'm not going to be overly disappointed. I really loved the first game, and I'd be kinda P.O.'ed if the game was way different than the original.
It's the same when playing something like Half-Life 2; while I agree the game is big, and has a lot of hype behind it, it's still a continuation of the gameplay in the original game. The difference between Metroid Prime and Half Life, is that one had a longer development time than the other, so you're going to see more changes on the technical level.
I guess it doesn't matter what the reason is why you like or don't like the game, it's how much fun you have with it, and how much you're willing to invest in future releases. The people who like the series will most likely buy the game. Those that don't, obviously won't. I really can't see why people have to complain about something they're not going to play or bother with.

Re:all sequels..

[Anonymous Coward]

Go play Katamari Damacy.

Actually, seriously. You should. :)

Re:awesome

[Edgewize]

It's only a "horrendous abortion of a control scheme" if you've played a lot of dual-analog games, and gotten so comfortable with that that you've come to expect it.

I love Metroid Prime's control scheme. Sure, you have to use target-lock to be able to strafe around, but how often do you want to strafe when you're not fighting something? Never once in all the times I've beaten the game have I ever felt like I was being limited by the controls. The only minor complaint is that the turning speed could be faster, but then again, you /are/ wearing a giant metal suit.

I'm glad that they haven't changed the control scheme for the sequel. Maybe a dual-analog option could have been added to satisfy the hardcore FPS fans, but I prefer the controls the way they are right now.

Re:all sequels..

[patternjuggler]

All ive seen in the last couple of months is sequels

This argument keeps coming up again and again here and elsewhere on the internets.

There's always this unspoken implication that sequels are inherently bad. I would guess that the reason is that if all the big games are sequels, and all franchises eventually get boring and old and no one buys them anymore, then therefore the industry is in trouble because all the games are sequels and nothing will replace them when they die out. Or, the other reason is this argument keeps coming up is that the proponents of it are incredibly jaded, incredibly nostalgic for their lost youth spent playing more primitive games, or just don't have the same tastes as the majority of the gaming public so therefore anything new is not automatically good, but at least has a greater chance of appealing to their tastes than a tried-and-true formula that they know they'll dislike.

The other thing I hate about this "too many sequels" whining is that there are a lot of original games out there. Granted a lot of them were made on small budgets and don't get a lot of press (and are complete crap)- so what the critics are saying is that they'd like more game companies to make huge investments in experimental games, and that the press should devote more time to it accordingly, but without presenting a business case for why this is superior to making games that consumers unquestionably desire. My suggestion- if you like innovative and original games, go out and spend money on them. Talk them up on websites. Etc. And just ignore all the press the sequels are getting.

In movies there's this whole self-sustaining world called 'independent film' (someone needs to create that for games)- it wasn't created by critics, it was created by film-makers and supported by small but devoted audiences.

Re:WTF?

[Guppy06]

"Why is it in every review they make the point to emphasize "this is not full of revolutionary new gameplay"?"

Because they have to write something in order to justify their paychecks. Things that are different are easier to write about because you can point out how it's different. "It's still good" doesn't fill up a page.

Re:JUSTIN BAILEY

[M3wThr33]

One would want to think that.
Sadly most people never realize the code is actually "Just in bailey." And with a little bit of knowledge of the British culture, you find out "bailey" means "bikini."