Nintendo’s Metroid Series: Proving They Might Care About More Than Just Money

In case you haven’t heard, Nintendo is hard at work developing two brand new Metroid titles, Metroid Prime 4, and the newly announced Metroid Dread, the long-awaited Metroid 5.

A couple years back, Nintendo announced that they would be scrapping a couple years worth of work on Metroid Prime 4, giving Bandai-Namco, the developers on the project, the boot, and replacing them with Retro Studios, the company that made the first three games in the Metroid Prime series. They made this decision because Nintendo felt the game, and the direction it was going, wasn’t really up to snuff, so much in fact, that they had to start completely over.

This move really impressed me. I feel like most companies would just shrug their shoulders, and instead of wasting all the resources up until that point, would just carry on and say, “Hey, so what if the game is crap, it’s a Metroid game, so people will buy it up regardless.”

This shows Nintendo actually care about their customers and are striving to meet expectations, which always seem to be extremely high for these folks thanks to their ridiculously impressive history of routinely making some of the best video games in existence.

This is even more welcome news, because Metroid is a series that doesn’t get nearly as many releases as other Nintendo titans like Mario and Zelda, so at least they are being very delicate and thorough with the first new release in over 10 years, not counting the remake of Metroid 2 in 2017.

And of course, I am sure they are most concerned about their own reputation and how it might be damaged with a bad game, not to mention possibly destroying the following for Metroid.

And then we have Metroid Dread. This name has been popping up since all the way back in 2005, right after Fusion was released.

The developers said they had to put the project on hold because the DS did not have the capabilities and technology to do what they wanted. They then tried again later, I’m assuming for 3DS, only to hit the same walls.

Again, I give Nintendo respect for this. They could have easily changed up their plans to make a game fit within the platform they could develop the game on, but no. They chose to wait it out for the technology to fulfill their vision and ensure they give us the best experience possible.

This also begs the question, why not put it on Wii or Wii U. Certainly at least the Wii U could have done what they were looking for? Then again, what do I know about developing and what hurtles they needed to overcome?

Regardless, judging by the trailer for Dread, the nearly two decade wait looks to be worth it!

So thanks Nintendo, for making sure you give us the best games possible for one of my favorite series.

Multiplayer-Only Games Over-Crowding The Gaming Industry?

Each year, there are tons and tons of game announcements and reveals. But there are not quite as many as when e3 rolls around, which is just getting started at the time of this wrtiting. For years now, it seems about half the reveals are multiplayer-only games, and most of them are first-person-shooters, and if not those, then third-person-shooters.

There are literally like 3-5 of these types of games to every one single-player game. I remember when e3 was something exciting, as it gave gamers something to look forward to. Not so much anymore. We might get like 2-5 interesting single-player games now. Though I suppose if you are into the countless multiplayer games, then things are more amazing in gaming than ever.

But let’s be honest. All these games are designed to play forever, until servers inevitably shut down, which depending on the success of the game, could take over a decade. So it baffles me that they could make so many of these games. If players are being loyal to one or two games, how can there ever be a fanbase large enough to sustain 90% of these endlessly released games, especially when so many of them constantly add on to their games to hold player interest?

And I imagine if a player wants to become really good, they are sticking to one game, so that they can eventually dominate most matches.

Online multiplayer has become such a priority, that games that are thoughtful enough to give us a single player are usually, and sometimes weak little game, but we still have to pay full price, mainly to help the company sustain it’s multiplayer software.

What’s even more baffling, is local multiplayer, aside from Nintendo games, has become practically non-existent in most games. Why can I play every game in the world online if I pay a subscription fee, but I can’t play with a friend in my own living room? Obviously, the games that are solely huge battle arenas and the like, local multiplayer is not possible or necessary, but smaller-scaled games that can allow 2-4 players to play don’t have a local multiplayer option.

And yes, I did answer my own question. It is probably due to the fact that they want you to pay for PlayStation Plus and XboxGold or whatever it’s called.

I just watched Ubisoft’s presentation, and it was pretty much four multiplayer games, 2 single player games, and a game that teaches you guitar, which I guess can be considered  single player.

Happy e3 to you online shooter fans. For a pre-event I also watch contained a large amount of games, more than half of them multiplayer shooters, so you’ve got your great selection of picks, even though you’re probably going to stick to what you’ve been playing the past five years anyway…

Us single players will be treated to maybe 10 AAA single player games and a thousand lame indie titles. Woohoo!

Amazing News Reporting Differences When Attacker Is Black Instead of White

Let me start off by saying I don’t watch the news. I probably see about a minutes worth collectively over each week from when I walk through my living room when I get home from work and my wife has it on. So I don’t see much.

Yet somehow, every few months I manage to see the same type of crime- a black guy sucker-punching some old person in New York City.

Every time, it’s a youthful, say, 20-year-old black guy just walking past a 70-80-year-old white guy, and they just punch said old guy in the back of the head as they walk by. Because, you know, nothing says your tough like knocking out unsuspecting folks who are walking with canes and are 60 years your senior.

But the one I just saw a few days ago changed it up a bit, and this is the one I want to discuss today. This time it was a 40 or 48-year-old black man who sucker punched a 55 or 65-year-old Asian woman. Sorry, I don’t quite remember those age details, but it was definitely one of the those for each of them.

What’s astounding to me is how the news reported it. The attacker was constantly referred to as “a man.” Usually, the terms to describe an attacker are a little more detailed than “the man.” And they had his name, but did not use that either. Not once did they mention the man’s race.

So it seems a little unfair that the victim was immediately identified as Asian. Obviously, the news is trying to rile things up, but as the attacker was black, they could only do so much.

So the news showed footage of the attack, and basically summed it up to, “A man just walked up to a 55-year-old Asian woman and struck her on the back of the head with his fist, leaving her unconscious. Motives behind the man’s attack are unclear at this time. Police are investigating to find if it was racially motivated.”

This astounds me. Because the victim was Asian, everyone immediately jumps to a racial attack, but because the attacker was black, it might not have been. On all the other sucker-punch stories, when it’s a white man attacked, whether it was “racially motivated” or not is never mentioned or even thought of. Hmm…

Now imagine if the attacker was white. Suddenly, in big bold headlines, this story would become “Middle-aged White Male Attacks Senior Asian Woman! Hate Crime! It’s A HATE CRIIIIIIIIIIIME!!!! White Supremacy Must Be Squashed. It’s Burying The Minorities In The Streets Of The Big Apple!”

Following this news report would be all sorts of fun riots and protests.

So yeah, an interesting observation. More evidence that you can’t be racist against white people, but everything a white person does is racist. And fortunately black lives matter, maybe just a little more than Asians.

And by the way, they arrested the attacker. It was his 40th arrest. Why is he still among the living? He has certainly used up his life, and is doing nothing now but wasting valuable resources. They should have drowned him in the Hudson, like…38 arrests ago.