The Great Debate!
Metroidvania
Other urls found in this thread:
>debate
I'd play SotN any day of the year over Super Metroid if that's what you're asking.
>debate
What is there to debate? Who in the their right fucking mind would pick Metroid over SotN?
SotN is easily far better.
lol
Melee combat is superior.
both are a bit too easy but they're still great games
what's there to debate about?
>metroid fusion/zero mission in separate tiers
>essentially identical
yeah disregarding this shitlist
Super metroid is an overall better polished game that feels like more thiught went into it. But SotN is more fun than pretty much any other sidescrolling action adventure game (the actual genre, since metroidvania is a buzzword used by morons) so i'd pick it over any metroid any day of the week.
Honestly, mostly only nostalgialords and nintendofags would pick super metroid over SotN...
I fucking hate the word Metroidvania. SOTN doesn't deserve to lick the shit off of Super Metroid's boots.
An interesting analysis of Super Metroid's design.
youtube.com
SOTN
warping
>no OOE
Should be in God tier.
SotN destroys Super Metroid, a better comparison would be Zero mission.
No debate, both are great and worth playing. Which one is better is just a matter of preference.
>When you find Guacamelee better than Super Metriod and Symphony of the Night due to more fun combat and much better platforming
This is probably the best post that will be in this thread.
Main reason I don't like SM is because I hate the heavy and clunky movement, I even prefer the original Metroid to SM.
But that's just a personal problem, considering how many like SM.
Order of Ecclesia > both
It barely even qualifies as a metroidvania. And it isn't better, in any case.
SOTN
It has objectively superior soundtrack, graphics, setting, characters, controls, variety, etc.
I personally cannot think of a single aspect in which Super Metroid is better.
Metroid games are not actual metroivania, for the terms refers to Castlevania games that copied a few mechanics from Zelda 2.
And later on the term was coopted to describe games like those castlevania games.
SOTN is too linear, if you try the sequence break it becomes clear that the game was not even programmed to deal with it. There are some cutscenes that glitch if you sequence break and enter at the side that you were not supposed to enter, for example. Meanwhile you can do a reverse boss run in SM without any glitch.
better level design. not having a broken rpg mechanic.
>implying Super Metroid's abundance of energy tanks isn't gamebreaking as well
most of which are avoidable/hidden
What a terrible argument. It's still available to the player. The same could be said about gamebreaking equipment in SOTN.
I was with you until you put I saw Metroid Prime. I agree with the other 3
SOTN with Richter, Maria and Axe Armor are far less linear than Super Metroid.
You can just rush straight to the final boss, unlike Super Metroid which forces you to fight certain bosses to unlock the final area. You only choose the order in which you fight them, much like in Megaman games, but you still have to go do the chore one by one.
SOTN's equipment is far more game breaking than having more health.
Both allow you to beat the game by button mashing, so there's really no difference in the outcome.
Does Wario Land 3 fit into this somewhere or nah
I just played and beat SotN for the first time a few days ago.
What the fuck was up with the difficulty, part way through the game and everything was hitting me for one damage.
Did I miss some hard mode selection in the beginning?
Probably the backtracking bringing you back to previously beaten areas with weak enemies. The difficulty curve is still all over the place though.
Debate?
yes?