Would you buy a 2D Metroid for Wii U in 2016?

Because 2D are vastly cheaper to develop than 3D.

Super Meat Boy is better than any of the recent Nintendo 2D platformers and that cost me 5 euro.

It's just Nintendo screwing us, yet again, by charging full price for unambitious games.

They can charge what they like of course. But I don't have to pay them.

Since you seem to care so much about how much it costs to develop a game, do you know for certain if Super meat boy cost the same amount to make as DKC: Tropical Freeze, or any other 2D game made by Nintendo?

Also, what makes a game ambitious? I see so many people use the word and I always wonder how people measure "ambition." What's the reasoning behind using such a word?

Vastly cheaper than an open world game? Sure, cheap that developing a full fledged 2d title with Nintendo's level of polish and their production value? **** and no. That and a lot of those expensive games don't play as well as a game like Donkey Kong. The lack of ambition I agree with, but games with that level of execution and polish are no worse about being worthy of 60 bucks, than triple A tripe like Far Cry 3 or Watchdogs or Arkham Knight.

if there's a 2D Metroid game for Wii U ..it'd be a NES, SNES or GBA version..heck even a re-release Other M (Wii version) ...there won't be a *New* 2D Metroid game...Nintendo already release a New Metroid game, as Reggie would have said ..we heard you want a Metroid game..& we gave it to you..here's Metroid Prime: Federation Force :P

If you really think a 2D sidescroller costs the same as a Mario Galaxy, Zelda, Metroid Prime or Xenoblade, then I don't know what to tell you. It just... doesn't. 2D development is magnitudes simpler and cheaper, it's why so many indies go for it. Literally every 2D game out there is maxing out at 20, except for Nintendo's.

Ambitious - Not releasing the exact same formula/design as the SNES had 25 years ago?

Vastly cheaper than just about any 3D game. 3D graphics and gameplay are just magnitudes more difficult, time consuming and expensive to develop. Even linear level games. Unless you're doing something exceptional like hand animating it or something.

I'm not saying they're bad, nor am I saying a more expensive 3D game must be better. I adore 2D games, I'm just saying I'm not paying full price for them. Super Meat Boy was 5, FTL was 10, Rogue Legacy was 15, Ori was 20. That's all grand. They were all brilliant. But I wouldn't have paid 50 or 60 for any of them. 50 or 60 will get me a GTAV, Skyrim or Dark Souls.

I would like a new Metroid. 2D or 3D. Don't rightly care. As long as it stars Samus and follows the style set by Super Metroid (for 2D) or Prime (for 3D).

It could even be on 3DS for all I care. It's just a cryin' shame it's the 30th Anniversary of the series this year and Nintendo doesn't have some bombastic release lined up for us.

That's fine, but that's on you to find a deal. I have hard a time giving Nintendo or Ubisoft (Rayman) shit for charging me full price for a good game, meanwhile garbage is being sold to me at 60 under the defense "but look at the money they put into making this soulless, poorly made, piece of garbage that represents gamers perfectly". Feels?

I would love nothing more than to see a new 2D Metroid made for the NX home console and not a handheld with a ton of resources, money, people and time thrown in to it in a real labor of love sort of way. We do not live in that kind of universe though. It died after Super Metroid on Snes. We won't ever go back to those glorious days. I would be happy enough with a Metroid Prime like effort for the NX but I think Nintendo hates us and won't do it. They want another Wii Sports mass appeal shit show. As for the WiiU.... it's done, won't happen.

@mark1974: NX is no problem though. Metroid Wii U could easily be ported to NX like Zelda Wii U and enjoyed by all those that didnt find Wii U appealing. Also being a 2D game it wouldnt cost as much as a 3D Metroid Prime which is perfect for the Wii U install base.

@iandizion713: I would be all for it but very much doubt it is going to happen. I would like to be proven wrong. It's going to be like the N64, a Metroid-less Nintendo console. Shudder!

@mark1974: Yeah, would be a dream come true if it did happen. I do think Nintendo will release something on Wii U for the holiday window...just cant think of much else that would make sense yet.

We got Paper Mario for late October, early November most likely. This leaves December wide open. Funny thing is, December is a strange month, its where the more hardcore niche games release. Nintendo could also announce it for NX at TGS 2016.

@iandizion713: They got to have something for the Holiday, they just got to. Keep the faith iandizion713, someone has to.

@mark1974: Yeah, my original guess was Balloon Kid by Sakamoto, but been having second thoughts on that one now.

Of course.

Don't know why you brought up Galaxy Zelda and those other games. I was talking about comparing the development cost of a Nintendo 2D game compared to that of an indie 2D game because I thought that was what you were doing. Perhaps I misread. Really though I don't care about how much money or effort goes into the game, I just care about the end result and what good is in it for me, and I'm willing to bet Nintendo's 2D stuff offers much more content, replayability, quality than a good amount of other games out there that priced themselves for 50-60 dollars.

As for ambition, I don't agree with your view of ambition. I don't see ambition as "trying to be different" sort of thing, but I see it as effort as "desire." Maybe a game does rely on an old fornula, but perhaps the developer puts their heart into taking that formula and improving it, adjusting it, and they just overall wish to improving it or freshening it up something they know and perhaps a formula they like quite alot.

I'd buy anything Metroid at this point. If it's a Metroid game, that is. Not that Federation Force bullshit.

Oh they can charge what they want, and good luck to them. The games ARE good and if people are buying them full price, that's a win-win. I'm not a special little snowflake and they don't owe me anything, obviously!

Ambition and quality are two different things, I'm purely talking ambition/scale/cost of dev here. Of course DK is worth more than whatever crappy AAA sequel. But I just don't buy them at all.

Comparing "apples to apples" as much as possible, giant ass awesome 3D adventures like GTAV or whatever cost me 60, and I see that as fair enough. While awesome 2D games, with less ambition and cost of dev, cost me 5 to 20, and I see THAT as fair enough. I'm just not digging the full cost for Nintendo's games only, ESPECIALLY once you move past Retro's ones and get into the Kirby, Yoshi, and Warios of the world!

If retro does it like tropical freeze then, yes.

Perhaps I'm not making myself clear. I'm not counting the exact dollars of a games development. Just that I consider stuff like GTAV, Dark Souls, The Witcher 3, etc, clearly of a much greater scale, detail and ambition, and thus worth more, compared to 2D games which, in my view, rarely even match the SNES games of 25 years ago. It's a comparative thing, in other words. A Yoshi sidescroller for 50 or 60 euro makes no sense to me in a world of 5 euro Super Meat Boy and 50 or 60 euro GTAV, Dark Souls and Withcer 3.

Ambition is about making new, innovative, bigger, better things. I simply can't see how you'd consider 2D sidescrollers following the exact same formula as 25 year old SNES games as ambitious? It's possible for 2D to be ambitious certainly but not if they're just SNES style games.

My point is that just because a developer sticks to an old formula, doesn't mean there cannot be any kind of ambition behind the game. Super Mario Galaxy 2 didn't really do THAT much to differentiate itself from the first Galaxy game, and Galaxy 2's formula was pretty much identical to that of any other 3D Mario game before it, but Galaxy 2 handled it so well and I enjoyed Galaxy 2 much more than any other 3D mario game, that I wouldn't disregard the idea that there may have been ambition when creating Super Mario Galaxy 2.

To put simply I think one could have that "desire" (ie ambition) to want to take something old or tried true and want to improve it and make something even better with it.

@DJ-Lafleur: The Galaxy games were very ambitious in their design though, all the gravity stuff was totally new to Mario and absolutely amazing to experience. The second one less so, but still somewhat.

I'll put it this way, did you consider the New Super Mario Bros games ambitious? Or the recent Star Fox game?

I don't think games should be valued on a per dollar investment basis relative to developmental costs, but more so on a value one. Ori and the Blind Forest I fully would pay $60 for no problem, because it's blatantly obvious the developer put in a lot of effort and care into its creation. I'll pay more in support of that, whereas a lazy 3D attempt, despite it being possibly more costly from an economic point of view, won't get a fifth of that from me. My spending for games is reflected in what the games represent in principle and the whole picture, not just strictly based upon monetary considerations.

This was silly.... your reasoning makes no sense.

But to answer your question TC, (a) I don't want anything resembling a 2D Metroid on a console. I want an HD 3D Metroid in all of it's glory. (b) some of us like the 3D games better than 2D. (c) if the only thing that came out was 2D Metroid...well... I'd buy it, but I still want a 3D game.

I'm not saying "Pay 60 for shit 3D games, refuse to pay 30 for good 2D ones!", obviously.

I'm just saying the standard price for even the best 2D games, Nintendo aside, is 5, 10, up to 20, and that I can't see how stuff like Yoshi and DK with their SNES scale design are worth 60, the same as colossal modern AAA blockbusters like GTAV.

That's all. Buy what you like!

I'm actually kind of glad you brought up Star Fox Zero though, because that brings up something about ambition I wanted t explain, that being that ambition isn't always entirely a good thing and I do believe that one can ambitious and fall flat on their face when it comes to the actual execution. To answer your question, sure, I could see their being some ambition behind Star Fox Zero. It was pretty damn clear that Miyamoto cared a hell of a lot about the controls it went with, and I'm pretty sure the delays the game got were largely due to trying to get the controls to work. Weren't there even stories abvout how Miyamoto stuck with those controls despite what other developers said about them or whatever Platinum said?

Of course, this exact ambition is exactly what lead to Star Fox Zero getting the lukewarm, mixed, and controversial reception it got. Perhaps it was ambition that ultimately hurt Star Fox (atleast from what I hear from some, haven't actually played it).

I guess another thing I feel like bringing up is that ultimately, whatever we feel about a game, ambition is a personal thing and a feeling, and obviously we have no idea what kind of ambitions or feelings a dev has when making games. Of course a game company has multiple people working o project, I could see there being plenty of cases where some people within a team are passionate about a project, and some others primarily being in it for the money. I wouldn't be surprised if there were some people who worked on the New Super Mario Bros games, even the 3DS and Wii U ones, that had some ambition in them.

I was just joking about the 2D being better then 3D. I was just trying to make it more system wars material. I was also joking about Federation Force, i cant wait for the game. But yeah, id love a 3D Metroid or Metroid Prime, not sure which youd do.

I was just seeing no matter what you do, people want 2D Metroid. Even if i tried to get people to vote otherwise, i felt theyd still pick 2D Metroid.

I like 3D too, but the 2D games are my favorite. 2D games can look great, but don't have the camera problems and are less likely to have lag issues like 3D games do. Multiplayer coop seems to work better on 2D games. We need both types of games.

@Collie_Lover: I agree, id loved for them to continue with 2D and 3D. Thats why ive been wanting Retro Studios to do a 3D Donkey Kong.

The controls might have been ambitious but the 3 hour, N64 design sure wasn't.

"ambition is a personal thing and a feeling" - I don't see it possibly can be, when a game like NSMB is literally cop pasting the same formula as 25 year old games.

But we clearly disagree and are just going in circles. Good talks anyway :)

Firstly, claiming Metroid was the first platformer to allow you to go back and forth between areas is total utter bullshit.

I can think of several games on the spectrum alone which allowed you to do that and that's just off the top of my head. I'm sure others can remember similar games on C64 et al. Nintendo fans have a habit of claiming Nintendo invented things they didn't for some reason. Nintendo has always been good at coming along second and doing it better, which is good business practise. There's an old business adage, "Don't be first, be second but be better" and this has applied to Nintendo well over the years. They have innovated some things but not nearly as much as people claim.

Mario was not the first 2D side scrolling platformer, Metroid was not the first platformer to allow you to explore, Mario Kart was not the first kart racer (there are several games which allow combat in cars before it and games like power drift which are indeed colourful characters in karts - although it introduced several standards for all kart racers afterwards.)

That out the way, I think a 2D Metroid would have been a great idea, but for a middle price. I am totally with @locopatho on this. 2D games are cheaply made in abundance elsewhere, but this isn't a bad thing. There is little distinction in real terms between your average indie 2D platformer and donkey kong tropical freeze no matter how much people argue about polish. You think a good indie developer doesn't polish their games? You think Super Meatboy and Salt and Sanctuary were thrown out untested?

A £15 Metroid game would be a wild success for Nintendo. If they had a decent number of these games plus a healthy amount of AAA titles they wouldn't be in the shape they are in.

I wouldn't buy a console for one, but I would buy it if I owned a Nintendo console. It's all about giving people as many reasons as you can to buy your console.

Fair enough. I can agree to disagree. Nice talk. :)

@DocSanchez: I never claimed it invented it or was the first. My source is wiki.

"The original Metroid was influenced by two other major Nintendo franchises: Mario, from which it borrowed extensive areas of platform jumping, and The Legend of Zelda, from which it borrowed non-linear exploration.[3] The game differed in its atmosphere of solitude and foreboding.[3] Metroid was also one of the first video games to feature an exploration to the left as well as the right, and backtracking to already explored areas to search for secret items and paths.[5]"

As for your what youll pay for a game, thats on you. If Nintendo games werent worth my money, i wouldnt buy them.

If it's good, sure why not?

@iandizion713: Wiki is incorrect then. Anyone can edit it.

I was playing 2D platformers before Metroid came along and I know this. Your OTT comments eluded to this game being the first. "Before Metroid came along...". No. No way.

Manic Miner. 1983. and it's sequel Jet Set Willy 1984, both scrolling and allowed you to revisit areas of the game. Pitfall 1982, side scrolling 2D action. These are just two, off the top of my head, that precede Super Mario and Metroid. Don't go waxing lyrical about what we didn't have before Metroid came along if you don't have a basic grasp of history.

@DocSanchez: Its just a play on words. Before Metroid, that was how games were. I never said all games were though.

"Back before she blessed us with her grace, one explored the terrain by going to the right and completing the area never to return. That was until Metroid granted us with the freedom to venture left and backtrack for secrets."

@iandizion713: it's not a play on words. A play on words is a pun. That wasnt a pun.

It was a boast and it deserved to be corrected.