Are you going to try to speed run it to get the other end screens?

I didn't realise you could do that. I was going to send my save file into hard mode though.

The Completionist (YouTube channel) got an early copy for review and he wanted to see if the game had the different end screens like classic Metroid and since he was playing it before anyone else, they had to make their own maps of the game to get the best route to beat the game faster.

Out of interest, did the fact that I get 100% give me an extra end scene? Or was that there regardless?

So, is Samus Returns a remake of one of the other games, or is it its own game? And how do the bosses work? Are they still missile-tanks?

[quote]So, is Samus Returns a remake of one of the other games, or is it its own game?[/quote] Yes and yes. It's essentially a remake of Metroid 2, but made so that it better fits with the overall timeline. It feels more like a complete series with Samus Returns, and it feels like the glue between Super, Prime and Fusion. It also does a lot different from a gameplay perspective. Metroid 2 is an oppressive horror about genocide. Samus Returns feels more like a cinematic action game. It's still overtly about genocide, but it's much more on the side of Samus and the Federation, rather than victimising the Metroids. Again, this has been done to make the chapter better fit in with the lore that Retro Studios developed - that of the Chozo [i]creating[/i] metroids, but now the Federation (and more so Samus) have realised that they're too dangerous to exist. This is explored and developed in interesting ways that I won't spoil. [quote]And how do the bosses work? Are they still missile-tanks?[/quote] I mean, you're still going to be blasting them with missiles, but they're much less tanky than they were in Super. Imagine a combination of Luigi's Mansion's boos/portrait ghosts, and Dark Souls boss design. The metroids you're chasing are mostly pace changers. Quick battles that you need to beat in order to progress the game. This is especially true in the first half. In the second half, the world is more dangerous. You still have metroids to hunt, but they've become tough, hulking monsters that require [i]extremely[/i] precise timing in order to dodge, counter and hit with a few missiles, and not merely hop around blasting them with hundreds of rockets like you do in Super. There are also separate boss battles - again, it's about memorising attack patterns and phases, figuring out the puzzle, and having very precise movements and reactions. There are two bosses in particular I loved. I won't spoil them, but they come close to Mother Brain in terms of pure quality.

Oh, I think Mark Brown did a video on that, actually. Or maybe it was Architect. In either case, I actually heard about the whole atmospheric difference! Bosses sound better, though. I’ll have to check it out if I get a chance. $40?

It's about that price, yeah. Mark Brown did a video on it. I just watched it last night. Unfortunately, it was one of the only videos he's ever done that was flat out wrong.

Was it wrong, or just an opinion you disagreed with? I remember it sounding well crafted. :o

His videos are always well crafted, but I'm careful not to call something wrong unless the person in question has genuinely missed the mark. (Pun not intended.) To be fair, his opinion (that of the remakes being bad, especially compared to the original, because they're no longer oppressive, constricting horrors) is perfectly valid, even if I disagree with it. No, what I take issue with is the way he shared out the video's timeframe: He gave the original a fair chunk of the video, and almost exclusively praised it. He gave AM2R a fair chunk of the video, and went over both its strengths and weaknesses before concluding that it was inferior to the original. And before I continue I want to be clear, that it's specifically this next part I take issue with: But when he went over Samus Returns, he near exclusively bashed it, invented a couple of untrue flaws, mentioned almost no strengths of the game, and most importantly missed the point of what the game was trying to be, and then concluded it was bad because it wasn't Metroid 2. And it bothered me in particular because, as I said, his videos are usually very well crafted, mostly objective and, even when critical, they're [i]fair[/i]. But I take issue with someone needlessly and unfairly bashing a product just because they refused to understand what its intention was. /Rant over. Mark Brown is a great YouTuber, and I still respect him even though this video was a mistake.

Ah I see. I guess I remember it slightly differently, then. I remember him talking about it like the others. It’s been a good while since I’ve seen the video, though.

It was more his conclusion that took me by surprise. It was almost very sudden how he turned onto "Samus Returns does nothing right!" His other videos are fantastic though!

He did a similar thing when talking about Roguelikes, actually. He ended up redoing that video, though.

I don't remember much about that. What did he get wrong about roguelikes?

Well, in the original video he said Roguelites were pretty much strictly inferior to Roguelikes. In the redo, he talked about the benefits of Roguelites, while stating he prefera Roguelikes. I actually agree wholehearedly on his stance, though. Roguelites tend to not be as fun, imo.

That makes sense though. Even if he could have worded it better, at least it was logical.

It was kinda the same scenario, though. Calling something objectively bad for not sticking to its roots. Although, on a small side note, a “true” Roguelike version of Dead Cells would be awesome.

True. I do think there's a basis for sometimes calling a product objectively good or bad, but simply being different is not one of them.

Agreed. And that’s coming from someone who does hate games for being different sometimes.

Sort of. A series should probably retain at least one of its main characteristics. But innovation and experimentation are important.

The way I see it, if I’m purchasing a sequel it’s because I liked what the first game was. While a few new ideas here and there are fine, I think as a whole it should be a largely similar experience.

To me, it's just about recognising what the series' main feature is, and retaining that, even when other things change. So to use Metroid as an example again - its main draw is exploration. As long as the series remains an interconnected world, and requires finding new items, abilities and shortcuts to progress, I'm okay with it changing several other aspects - Fusion focused heavily on horror, Prime moved to 3D and first person, Samus Returns focused on combat etc. Aside from that, I think all series should retain continuity - Metroid Other M is widely slated because it turned Samus from a hardened, goal oriented badass into a fearful little girl who unconditionally follows orders. And for a lesser reason, it changed Ridley from a skeletal creature into a muscular creature.

The only problem with that idea is people often disagree on what that core is. That’s why BotW is loved by some and hated ny others, because it kept the core to some folk (adventure), but to others it completely dumped it (dungeons).

Sorry - I never got a notification for this. To me, adventure and dungeons are the same core. Dungeons are just one way of incorporating adventure.