Talk:Metroid: Zero Mission

Zero Mission prequel status

Note: This talk page section has been restructured by User:Poiuytman to split this topic into several smaller topics. Some text irrelevant to the discussion (concerning technical editing issues) has been deleted. The talk page before the restructuring can be seen here.

I've reverted the recent changes to Metroid: Zero Mission, Metroid series, and Ridley, which stated that Zero Mission is a sequel. Aside from the numerous in-game similarities to Metroid, Nintendo's site has numerous phrasings that strongly suggest that Zero Mission is a remake:

• Go back to the distant future to explore the full story of Samus Aran's battle against the Mother Brain.
• This February, Samus Aran will return to her roots and relive the story that started it all -- revealing for the first time full details of her meeting with the Metroids
• Samus Aran arrives on Zebes in an adventure that greatly expands on the legendary NES Metroid title.
• Samus Aran's next adventure is a nonstop action masterpiece that puts a new light on the heroine's first visit to Zebes.

--Poiuyt Man ^talk 8 July 2005 21:52 (UTC)

The manual for the original Metroid for NES points out that Metroids are a new airborn life form which has just been discovered-- and then stolen by space pirates. Aside from the obvious marketting as a remake, the first game was the beginning.

On a side note, I wouldn't mind a "Metroid: Ground Zero" for Gamecube that remade Zero Mission in 3D :) --User:Bluefoxicy

Nintendo's word

First I will state that all of the sources listed in the original review for the Metroid series is not canon or reliable. Even Nintendo has changed their theory about the series and now say that they are separate games. A discussion in Nintendo's official forum caused three people to e-mail Nintendo asking if Zero Mission was a remake or not, Nintendo representatives replied differently, but all agreed that Zero Mission was not the mission seen in Metroid. --Dai Grepher 8 July 2005 22:44 (UTC)

The Nintendo e-mail replies in that forum are very ambiguous in the wording, and seem to be written by customer service representatives, for they simply restate the game's promotional material.

For purposes of this article, even if Nintendo's word is unreliable as you say, it still overrules your own theories, for you did not make the game, and you have no idea of the designers' original intent. If the game was truly meant to be a prequel, then why would they word the ads and box description to suggest otherwise, and try to hide the truth through vague semantics? See Occam's Razor; the simplest explanation is likely the most correct one. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 9 July 2005 00:05 (UTC)

You talk about Nintendo's word, but whose word is it that works at Nintendo? For all you know, any information that you get from them is the generic response of a customer service representative that is no authority on the game. You talk about their reliability? Just look at the Zelda series. They have been wrong about that series countless times, and currently have no timeline for it because they cannot create one that is consistent. Who does have any idea of the designer's original intent? Do you? If not then how can you still post a timeline about the series?

I won't deny that some of Nintendo's ads or reviews in Nintendo Power actually called Zero Mission a remake, but again, that was then and this is now. Information has been changed, researched. They have refined their timeline after the addition of new games. There is also the fact that Nintendo has been known to be incorrect about such things in the past. Therefore I submit that the only canon sources are the games and their manuals. Since then there have been fansites that take on the theory that Zero Mission is a remake, and there have also been some to take on the theory that it is a prequel. Both sides read the same information yet draw two different conclusions.

Occam's Razor should be called Occam's Limited Understanding. The simplest solution is not always likely to be correct. You said it applies to statements made by Nintendo and those that worked on the game, suggesting that they lead people to believe that it was a remake so therefore it probably is a remake. I simply disagree with that. I have not seen one quote from anyone who worked on Zero Mission that even suggests that Zero Mission is a remake. I am sure that you could misunderstand what they said about the game, but that doesn't mean that they think of it as a remake. Like I said, there are other review and fansites out there that got the impression that Zero Mission was a prequel. So someone is making a mistake on what was actually said. --Dai Grepher 9 July 2005 01:54 (UTC)

Next thing you should know is that the director of Zero Mission, Sakamoto, never once said that Zero Mission was a remake in his interview about the game. All he said was that Zero Mission was based on Metroid's gameplay. He said nothing of storyline, though he did mention the retelling of Samus' first mission. However, as the box text and manuals show, Zero Mission was Samus' first adventure and Metroid definitely was not! --Dai Grepher 8 July 2005 22:44 (UTC)

A link to this interview would be helpful. Poiuyt Man ^talk 9 July 2005 00:54 (UTC)

http://gameboy.ign.com/articles/488/488084p1.html --Dai Grepher 9 July 2005 02:42 (UTC)

Page 5 of that interview:

"Q: In your mind, what has been the greatest challenge in the development of Zero Mission, and how was it overcome?"

"Sakamoto: Any time you do a remake there's always the possibility that it could be taken negatively as a mere port other than a truly remade game."

Seems pretty clear to me. Are you going to try to argue that Sakamoto is somehow not talking about Zero Mission? --Poiuyt Man ^talk 9 July 2005 19:24 (UTC)

Also, on page 2:

"Q: Metroid Zero Mission is the first remake in the Metroid series, and the most significant addition is the addition of cinematics. Do you see this as a trend in adventure games today, the need for a more fleshed-out storyline?"

Sakamoto goes on to reply about the difficulties of implementing cinematics in the game. If the game was a prequel, I'd think that Sakamoto would correct the statement of the interviewer in saying that "Zero Mission is the first remake in the Metroid series". He certainly says nothing of the sort.

If any of Nintendo's word is to be trusted, I would hope that the word of the game's creator, Yoshio Sakamoto, would be held above all else. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 19:30, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

Dai Grepher: It may appear that he is calling Zero Mission a remake when you omit the rest of his statement. Please post the entire quote next time. Page 5 states, "Any time you do a remake there's always the possibility that it could be taken negatively as a mere port other than a truly remade game. One of our biggest challenge[s] was to add enough elements to make the game feel like something that's new, while not straying far from the original Metroid, to lose the meaning of what we were trying to do. We spent a lot of time balancing those two elements in addition to actually working in elements that we hadn't seen before in a Metroid game, finding a way to implement them in Zero Mission...and then finding a way to balance this gameplay and make it into something people would enjoy."Dai Grepher 02:44, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Dai Grepher: Once again in the interview, Sakamoto refers to the gameplay of Metroid, only using it as the basis for Zero Mission but still remaking it into something that people would enjoy. Metroid's gameplay is basic, as it is restricted by the limits of the Nintendo Entertainment system, so most people these days would not find that style to be enjoyable. He also states that their challenge was to make something new using elements never seen before in the Metroid games. This entire quote is a reference to Zero Mission's gameplay, which is made evident by his said goal of making a new experience that is enjoyable. What people enjoy is the fun-factor of the game, or the gameplay. This says nothing of storyline.

Also, he thinks that it is always possible for remakes to be taken negatively, so he made Zero Mission to be completely new without getting far from the original gameplay style, which is what they were trying to do. Keep the style of gameplay and the feel of the original without making it seem like a complete copy by adding new elements.Dai Grepher 02:44, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Dai Grepher: I agree that he should have said, "Well first of all, it isn't a remake..." but the question was about movie clips, and he may not have understood the interviewer's meaning when he called it a remake. Anyway, Sakamoto does not say that it is a remake, it is the interview that calls it that. Sakamoto only intended to answer the question of movie clips, which is why he only talks about that. Just because he does not correct him does not disprove the fact that it is not a remake, just as the fact that he doesn't agree with the interviewer does not prove that it is not a remake.Dai Grepher 02:44, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Dai Grepher: I think it should be as well. Unless he says something that contradicts what is in the game. For example, if he were to say that Samus is a male cyborg, then that wouldn't necessarily make it so.Dai Grepher 02:44, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

The rest of the quote wasn't included because it wasn't relevant. He says it's a remake, how can you misinterpret that? He doesn't say it's a merely a different story that tries to copy the same gameplay, because it isn't. The gameplay feels completely different than the original, and is more like Fusion than anything. The thought that Sakamoto intended a game with numerous similarities (title screen "exterminate Metroids" intro, same starting location, same music, same basic item and area progression), yet intended it to be a different story is ludicrous.

Dai: He never called Zero Mission a remake. He gave his opinion of the possible negative effects of doing remakes, saying that the finished product could possibly be mistaken as a port and not a truly remade game. For that reason he and his staff "added enough elements to make the game feel like something that's new", which indicates a new and unique game. At the same time, "not straying far from the original Metroid, to lose the meaning of what [they] were trying to do", which was "to return to the roots of Metroid gameplay." That is what he said at the beginning of the article. That Zero Mission was based on Metroid's gameplay and that direction is what his staff agreed to, as he also states: "I'll start off by talking about my involvement in the game. Typically with the Metroid games, I will convey a strong message to the staff about what we want to do with the game, and this time with Zero Mission we kind of went about it in a different process where we brought the staff together and I listened to some of their ideas, and it was more back and forth between them about the direction we wanted the game to go."

You say that Zero feels more like Fusion than Metroid, but I disagree. I think it feels like Metroid just with many different and new elements from Super Metroid and Fusion incoreperated into it that makes the original gameplay more fun for the new generation gamers. You also say that the starting point is the same as Metroid but you're wrong. The starting point is the same as Super Metroid, because the game shows Samus landing on the planet then features sounds of her setting foot on the surface and running away. Zero Mission's story matches Super Metroid as much as it matches Metroid. The title screen for both Zero Mission and Metroid are different as well. Metroid says to defeat the Metroids and destroy Mother Brain, while Zero Mission says to exterminate the Metroids and defeat the Mother Brain. So if they really did go into this project to remake an accurate story, then why did they reverse the order around?

One more quote I would like to add to this section: "Q. What challenges did you face in reworking or reinventing a new storyline for the character in Zero Mission? Sakamoto: I wouldn't necessarily call it a remaking of the backstory. We've taken this opportunity to explore the backstory a little bit more. With Metroid Zero Mission not using text-based messaging or language in the game, we've used more visual cinematics to express the story through her recollections or memory. Through that, we've created a story that is open to interpretation to the player, and as people play I think they'll interpret Samus' past based on what they take on those cinematics. So I think in a way it's expanding on the story at the same time retaining some of the mystery of it." Sakamoto does correct the interviewer at this point, because the question was actually about the storyline. He then states that it is not a remake of storyline, it is an expansion of the backstory. This matches the box's explanation of Zero Mission expanding on the story by revealing full details of Samus' first mission. So as you can see, this all indicates a prequel. Sakamoto's statement of leaving the story up to each player to interpret might even be a sign that he did not state outright what Zero Mission was intended to be so that discussions such as this one could form. However, at the same time I think he made certain key components in the game different enough from Metroid to guide the player to draw the correct conclusion upon closer inspection. Dai Grepher 15:13, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Starting the indent back at the left side for readability.

"He never called Zero Mission a remake. He gave his opinion of the possible negative effects of doing remakes, saying that the finished product could possibly be mistaken as a port and not a truly remade game."

This is ridiculous. He was asked a question specifically about Zero Mission; it is highly illogical that he would then start out his answer by talking about something completely unrelated to the game. You are reading a statement and taking the most unlikely interpretation possible. If someone asks me, "What is your favorite breakfast food?" and I reply "I like Raisin Bran more than anything else," there are two interpretations:

1. The likely possibility, where I'm saying that Raisin Bran is my favorite breakfast food.
2. The highly unlikely possibility, where I'm saying that I like Raisin Bran for some other purpose, and I'm just ignoring the question.

It seems that you'd say I mean choice 2, because that's the same stance you're taking with the Sakamoto interview. He talks specifically about Zero Mission and how it relates to Metroid throughout the whole interview, and yet for some reason when he mentions "remake", he's not referring to the game anymore?

Dai Grepher: First of all, what he said about remakes applies to the question, because avoiding such a comparison of Zero Mission to a remade port was his greatest challenge according to him. Therefore a brief explanation of the problem he faced is necessary to answer the question thoroughly. Second, your analogy doesn't fit the actual situation that well because you are basically answering the question in the first sentence, while Sakamoto is still leading up to his. A more accurate analogy would be to say, "Cereal that tastes good, such as sugar coated cereal, is what I like the most. However I know I should eat cereal that is healthy as well. So I like to take healthy whole grain cereal and add nutritious fruits to it to make it taste great". That is the other problem with your analogy you do not finish the sentence. In the next part of it you could say "but Honey nut Cheerios is good for the heart, so I like that just a bit more than Raisin Bran". My point all along has been that you should post the entire answer, not just part of it. It is what comes next that shows us what he is talking about. Like he said, he tried to make it new but still not lose the meaning of what they were trying to do (which is stated in the beginning of the interview), and then balance those original elements with the new and produce a gameplay that people would enjoy.

Also, Sakamoto mentioned many things about Zero Mission as well as many things about other Metroid games and the series in general. When talking about Zero Mission, he mentioned remaking gameplay the most, cinema scenes second, and the expansion of storyline at the end. He never once said that they remade Metroid or remade the storyline. The quote where he says that the backstory was not remade is evidence of a prequel story.

Dai Grepher 04:26, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

"I wouldn't necessarily call it a remaking of the backstory" is ambiguous, and not the same as "It's not a remaking of the backstory". The quote could be taken many ways: he could be saying that it's a different story, as you said, or he could just be referring to the point that the extra story elements could also fit into the original Metroid comfortably. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 13:48, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

In response to the gameplay differences, the gameplay starts in the same location. The landing sequence, for all the player's concerns, is just an opening cinematic. Please, can you take the obvious meaning for once? I'm sure you knew what I meant, yet it seems that you are trying to incite more arguing, and bury anything I say with loads of conjecture.

Dai Grepher: I may have misunderstood. You think that just because the control of Samus begins in that spot then it means that it is Metroid? Well I don't see how that is any kind of evidence. What I was trying to say was that Samus got to that point through walking there. Metroid makes it seem like she was teleported to that spot. Zero Mission suggests that she took a path directly down to that spot, like she does in Super Metroid. However, that path is either one way, or was blocked off after she got down there. When I mentioned the cinema scene I meant that it showed where Samus started out on Zebes, not when control of her is given to the player. The cinema transition from landing to playing may have just been the game cutting to the chase, but I think that Samus' mission on Zebes begins when she lands, like it did in Super Metroid. That is what I was saying.

Dai Grepher 04:26, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

The title screen has been translated better, and words possibly switched around for flow. It has the same meaning, obviously. Destroy and defeat can be used synonymously in this context. The manual's story intro also covers most of the same points, but better translated. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 20:54, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Dai Grepher: I won't argue that they aren't the same meaning, even though defeat can refer to simply stopping one from accomplishing a goal or just beating someone at something. I will however argue the possibility that this order can apply to another mission if the same threat resurfaces. So just because these are similar orders doesn't mean that they apply to the same mission. The one could have been stated in Zero Mission, and then again in Metroid in the prequel timeline.

Dai Grepher 04:26, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Although Zero Mission states "defeat Mother Brain" in the intro, the manual states, "As a last resort, the Federation Police decided on a risky strategy: to send a lone space hunter to penetrate the pirate base and destroy the mechanical life-form that controlled the fortress and its defenses - the Mother Brain." So the two words are used synonymously in Zero Mission. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 13:57, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I think his word can be authoritative even if it contradicts the game, in some cases. For example, if he said that in the Metroid timeline, there is no Murder Beam, then I'd take that as canon. You can obtain the Murder Beam in Super Metroid due to a bug, but that doesn't make it an official part of the timeline. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 04:34, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Dai: Apples and oranges. The Murder Beam was not intended to be a weapon in the game or be a part of the storyline. However, if he were to say that in Super Metroid, Samus cannot get the Spazer Beam before getting the High Jump Boots, he would be wrong, and his statement would not make the fact that you can get the one before the other impossible. Dai Grepher 15:13, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

True, it works either way. I'm making the point that there is not one definitive source that can be used above all else in every situation. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 20:54, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Dai Grepher: Definitely not in every situation, and clearly not in this one. For that reason, I have provided screenshots from the games, quotes from the stories, and facts from the text media of the games. We have to look at all the facts and see what truth they all point to.

Dai Grepher 04:26, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Text from the manual and box

Next, I will prove to you that Zero Mission states that it is not Metroid. Zero Mission box: http://www.gameexpress.com/images/product/original/045496733445B.JPG

Metroid manual: "The space hunter chosen for this mission is Samus Aran. He is the greatest of all the space hunters and has successfully completed numerous missions that everybody thought were absolutely impossible". Zero Mission's box says that its game is Samus' first adventure, while Metroid's manual says that its game is not Samus' first adventure. Which means that Nintendo's official timeline is that Zero Mission is a different game.

Nintendo's official review even states that Samus was sent to investigate rumors of the pirates using the Metroids as weapons, and that is definitely not the same story as the one in Metroid. --Dai Grepher 8 July 2005 22:44 (UTC)

If you want to get technical (which you seem very willing to do), the Zero Mission box states "the first of Samus's legendary adventures". "Legendary adventures" suggests to me that it refers only to her well-known missions, not necessarily her first mission altogether. Poiuyt Man ^talk 9 July 2005 00:36 (UTC)

Well this mission was not well known. It wasn’t even known at all until she told it! Metroid also describes her past missions to be those that made her the prime candidate for the mission in Metroid, since it gained her a reputation as the most feared bounty hunter in the galaxy. It said that many feared her power suit. The legendary adventures start before Metroid. You cannot infer that Samus’ first legendary adventure was in Metroid, and that is what your case relies on to get around the quote, that obviously only states one clear fact. --Dai Grepher 9 July 2005 02:42 (UTC)

Dai: I am not sure if you replied to this one yet. Dai Grepher 15:13, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

There's no need, both of our points are based on opinion of what "legendary adventure" refers to. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 21:09, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Dai Grepher: No, yours is an opinion. Plus, I am talking about what “first legendary adventure” refers to. Metroid proves that there were missions before that which earned Samus great admiration and respect. Therefore Zero Mission is the first of those missions mentioned in the manual.

Dai Grepher 04:26, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

It's the same story rewritten. It's called retroactive continuity. It's where the authors/designers go back and completely change the story for one reason or another, making all previous sources obsolete. DC Comics did it with nearly all their superheroes in the late 1980s (see Crisis on Infinite Earths). The Zero Mission manual already suggests that the original Metroid manual is incorrect, by changing the founding of the Galactic Federation from 2000 to 2003 (see this link for the manuals in text form).

For a more modern example, look at the Batman Begins movie. It essentially starts the Batman movie series over again, which means there's no point in finding the inconsistencies between Batman Begins and Batman Returns. It is a similar case with Metroid. The games Metroid, Return of Samus, and Super Metroid compose the original story told by Gunpei Yokoi, who died in 1997. The new games, Zero Mission, Fusion, and Prime, tell a newer, more updated story, which contains elements of the original story, but should not be compared with it directly.

For all we know, Metroid: Zero Mission could be just the start of an entire 2D Metroid remake series. Perhaps they'll remake Return of Samus and Super Metroid, to bring them more inline with the stories (and maps) of Fusion, Zero Mission, and the Prime series (which occurs between 1 & 2).

Poiuyt Man ^talk 9 July 2005 00:36 (UTC)

Retroactive continuity refers to storyline that gets added to a preexisting plot in a reversed method. Like how Pulp Fiction began with an ending and then showed parts that lead to that ending. You are thinking of a re-envisioning, which takes a series and recreates it to be different. The change in the manuals is to give Zero Mission a basis as a prequel, since it needs something to be a prequel of, but at the same time make it so that a person who is unfamiliar with the series would not be confused over statements such as, “Samus is a male cyborg”. That was added to the original manual so that the ending would surprise players. However, in a time when Samus is known to be female, it would just confuse people. That is why they took it out.

The fact of the matter is that you have no way to prove that the creators intended to re-envision the series. That is just your theory. From what I understood of your post, you seem to think that the new creators wish to make a series that is inconsistent. Perhaps you would be correct if we were discussing Zelda, but that just is not likely with Metroid.

For all we know? We know nothing of future plans. Therefore hypothesizing about what could be is irrelevant to the conversation.

You are not taking into account the fact that the creators may not be doing anything like what you are suggesting. What I am doing is looking at the differences in the games and the story and making a logical conclusion based on facts. --Dai Grepher 9 July 2005 02:42 (UTC)

Fine, let's stop all conjecture about the intent of the creators. The interview of Yoshio Sakamato is the only real source of information on that matter. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 20:33, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

It is a common misconception that the box and text media is suggesting a remake. When you look at the words for what they are, "Experience the first of Samus Aran's legendary adventures..." it is obvious that they prove the existence of a prequel. Compare the quotes of "first adventure" with "had completed missions that other thought impossible" and what you get is a prequel. The other quotes can also be rationalized this way. "The first game just scratched the surface of the events on Zebes, now the rest of the tale has come to light." Easily described to be the in-depth telling of Zebes' history and well as Samus' with new information about the Chozo, Zebes, and Samus' origins, which is something that the Metroid manual referred to but did not describe. "The full story of her first mission finally unfolds", means that this story has not been told until now. However, Metroid's story was told in both Metroid and again in Super Metroid when Samus flashed back to fighting Mother Brain. That flashback also showed a Tourian where Samus had to use the fifth Zeebetite in order to fight Mother Brain. So that would have been another inconsistency for Zero Mission to deal with had it actually been a remake. --Dai Grepher 9 July 2005 01:54 (UTC)

"The first game just scratched the surface of the events on Zebes, now the rest of the tale has come to light."

"The full story of her first mission finally unfolds"

I interpret these quotes to mean that the first game only covered the events from Samus arriving in Brinstar to the destruction of Mother Brain and her escape from Zebes, and Zero Mission shows what happens before (her initial landing on Crateria), and after (the Space Pirate + Chozodia scenario). Although, if we are simply going to "look at the words for what they are", then they are not specific enough to say that the game is a remake or a prequel.

Dai Grepher: And what about the quote stating that this is Samus' first adventure? There is only one interpretation for that.

I'll give you the possibility that the first speaks of her landing and also her fight in Chozodia and on the mother ship. However, the full story comment does indicate a mission other than Metroid. Saying that it finally unfolds, along with Samus' quote of finally telling the tale, suggest that it is not Metroid, since it was told before this. Also, saying that it is the full story of something indicates an accurate telling of an inaccurate original. As it stands, Metroid is still the definitive version of events, and Zero Mission is inconsistent. That is under the assumption that it is a remake though. Since it is a new mission that has never been told before this, then it is accurate.Dai Grepher 02:44, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

The text in the original Metroid manual is intentionally inaccurate, describing Samus as a male cyborg, of which she is neither (see Talk:Samus Aran). It also gives the year of the forming of the Galactic Federation as 2000, which is incorrect according to the Zero Mission manual, which states 2003. These points indicate that the Metroid manual, due to its inaccuracies, cannot be used as evidence for determining the history of the Metroid universe. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 20:27, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

Dai Grepher: Not that it matters, but I don't think that is sufficient evidence that the Metroid manual is inaccurate. The revision could be seen as a clearer presentation of the original's story with a minor change in founding date. Like I said, it does not matter because the Zero Mission manual also states that Samus had missions prior to the one in Metroid. The story in the manual still applies to Metroid and not Zero Mission. Nintendo would not have a story that describes prior missions be the prelude to a mission that is said to be the first. Dai Grepher 02:44, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Dai: It doesn't seem like you replied to this post either. Dai Grepher 15:13, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Please don't troll me. Quite simply, you write a lot of text, in big paragraphs, and I don't have time to respond to it all at once.

Dai Grepher: This is the second time you’ve accused me of counterproductive behavior. I am only pointing out things you have yet to reply to so that you can see what you need to reply to. It is not fair for my points to go without being challenged or questioned by your side of the argument.

Dai Grepher 04:26, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

No, the story does not refer to the original Metroid, because Zero Mission replaces that game. The ZM manual talks about the same points as in the Metroid manual, but with better translation, a few additions (Zebes is Samus's home), and a few omissions (the odd text about the Zebes fortress walls). Zero Mission refers to previous missions because she has been on them before. Zero Mission is not her first mission altogether, just the first of her "legendary adventures" (i.e., the ones that we've heard of). I find it odd that you are suggesting that the story in the ZM manual is only talking about Metroid, and for some reason they decided to reveal nothing about the game you bought. This is even more far-fetched than your other conjectures. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 21:06, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Dai Grepher: So the story in the Metroid manual does not refer to Metroid? It refers to a game that will replace it 19 years later? Fortress walls? What story are you reading? The manual said that Zebes is a natural fortress of special material. Yes Zero Mission is her first mission ever, that is why it is called a Zero Mission. Her first legendary adventure would be her first mission, seeing as how she must first have missions that make her a legend so that she is chosen for the mission in Metroid. The only farfetched notions being posted her is that “first legendary adventure” means “not the first legendary adventure” and that a story that was made for Metroid is now being used to prelude a game that is completely different. You’re ignoring a crucial fact that proves Zero Mission to be a prequel. Like I said before, the Metroid story was reposted in order to give Zero Mission a basis as a prequel. The reference to past missions is where Zero comes into the story to expand on the story that only scratched the surface of Zebes’ history and Samus’ identity and past.

Dai Grepher 04:26, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

"The planet Zebes is a natural fortress. Its sides are covered with special kind of stone, and its interior is a complicated maze." - from the Metroid manual. The ZM manual doesn't seem to mention this. It also summarizes many points told in the Metroid manual, for example, compressing the second paragraph into two sentences in the first paragraph. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 14:05, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Map inconsistencies

Next you have the obvious differences in Tourian. The differences are not just in appearance, but also in location.

In order for this Tourian to be the one seen in Super Metroid, it must be placed in this location:

• http://img203.echo.cx/img203/12/zmzebesmap26gs.png Copy/paste the url into your browser to see the images.

With that picture you can see that when placed in such a way, the elevator shafts do not line up and even intersect other parts of Tourian. Which means that this cannot be how it is set up. Leaving this:

• http://img203.echo.cx/img203/7405/zmzebesmap12mz.png as the only possibility.

Now that we know that Tourian is in the wrong location, lets look at its appearance compared to Super Metroid.

• http://img203.echo.cx/img203/518/destroyedbrainpod5js.png

OK, now the brain pod is nothing but rubble in Zero Mission, but in Super Metroid it is a solid platform. How? In Super Metroid it should look exactly how we left it, but instead it looks better. That doesn't make sense. Here is more:

• http://img203.echo.cx/img203/2969/pointofattack1ag.png

Notice something missing? It's the fifth Zeebetite that Samus must use as a platform in Metroid to fight Mother Brain. Why isn't it there? Probably because it isn't the same Tourian. Still not convinced?

• http://img203.echo.cx/img203/9697/damagecomparison9yh.png

Right here we see that the area beneath the brain pod is undamaged in Zero Mission, while in Super Metroid it is just as damaged as the rest of the chamber. How can something go from mint condition to destroyed within that time frame? It can't.

• http://img203.echo.cx/img203/9099/mtourainmap8ks.png

This map matches up with Super Metroid perfectly. I would expect nothing less since Super Metroid was crafted to fit Metroid. Zero Mission was not made to fit Super Metroid, which means that if it is a remake then it destroys the continuity of the series. The people that worked on Zero Mission also worked on Super Metroid, so you can’t tell me that they intended for this to be horribly inconsistent or that they made a mistake, especially knowing full well that Super Metroid has Metroid references littered throughout the game. --Dai Grepher 8 July 2005 22:44 (UTC)

All the above details really don't mean much. You're examining the maps as though they are some sort of archaelogical artifacts of a real planet. You're not taking into account the fact that authors of books, movies, and games will often use their creative control to bend logic and continuity, to provide a more entertaining experience.

Incidentally, you don't seem to take into account the third dimension, which can easily account for overlapping rooms and passages. Even if Samus is limited to two dimensions, the third dimension is there; otherwise both Mother Brain and the infant Metroid are just clipping through walls at the end of Super Metroid.

Poiuyt Man ^talk 9 July 2005 00:54 (UTC)

I do mention the third dimension and have tried to apply it to the Zero Mission maps. Though it can prevent intersection, it does not prevent the problem of the elevators not being able to line up. In the third dimension, two points must line up at all angles. If it is not aligned at one angle then it is not a vertical line. Super Metroid was perfectly aligned. Metroid was also perfectly aligned and like I say in my presentation, the Tourian in Metroid must move in the third dimension. --Dai Grepher 9 July 2005 02:42 (UTC)

The third dimension does allow the elevator shafts to match up. If the left side of Crateria angles away from the viewer, and the long shaft on the left side of Tourian gradually angles away from the viewer as it gets higher, the shafts can match up. The right side of Tourian can be said to be behind or in front of Brinstar to prevent intersection. Nevermind this, I misunderstood the point you were making with the first two images. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 05:10, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Dai Grepher: Then you see my point about the map areas near numbers 7 and 8 of that map and the shaft above number 11? The shaft above 11 may not intersect, but would still require it to circle back vertically in order to connect Brinstar with Tourian. At the same time, Tourian must be placed above the starting point, but far enough above it to clear the narrow vertical passage above the starting point. That must then line up with the room just outside of Mother Brain's room. That is the only way that Zero Mission's Tourian can be in the same location as the old one seen in Super Metroid. However, that position causes conflicts with both elevator shafts leading out of Tourian. Dai Grepher 15:13, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I think I understand what you are saying about the elevators. However, if the maps angle towards or away from the viewer at certain points, they can all match up. See this:

• Image:Zero mission map poiuyt.gif

The problem is that those three shafts need be lined up vertically, which is impossible in only two dimensions. However, we can angle certain passages and place areas behind others to make it work:

• Image:Zero mission map poiuyt perspective.gif

Bear with me, manipulating 2D images in 3D space is hard to do. All the angles aren't quite exact, but I'll tell you what it all means so you know my intent. First off, the whole map is skewed so that the bottom edge is closer to the viewer. I did this to give it a starting perspective. The closest area is the right edge of Crateria, and I'm going to say that the rest of the map falls into one of three basic layers.

• In the first (closest) layer exists the lower Brinstar area, which aligns with the second Crateria elevator
• In the second layer, the upper portion of Brinstar connect to the right portion of Tourian. The upper portion of Brinstar angles away from the viewer, so that it does not interfere with the elevator in the first layer. The right portion of Tourian angles toward the viewer when traveling right-to-left.
• The third layer is far behind the others, and is where the rest of Tourian exists. The left portion of Crateria angles sharply back to meet the elevator. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 22:08, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Dai Grepher: All right. Well, first of all, good job on making those. However, there is one fundamental truth that those areas must conform to. Remember in Super Metroid how the room right after Mother Brain’s room has the elevator that leads downward? Well that shaft leads to the starting point. Therefore, Zero Mission must place the room right before Mother Brain directly above the starting point, but still a decent amount of distance above since it takes a little bit a traveling for Samus to get from the bottom to the top in Super Metroid. That is what I pointed out in my presentation. The forced placement of that Tourian causes intersection and misalignment in the shafts.

Dai Grepher 04:26, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

As for the third, fourth, and fifth images, regarding the appearance of Tourian. I would personally attribute the changes to different artistic interpretations. The same reason why the Super Metroid flashback of Metroid 2 doesn't look like the exact same area (or the same Samus design, for that matter). I doubt this explanation satisfies you, however, so I'll try something else:

You said, "How can something go from mint condition to destroyed within that time frame? It can't." Err, why can't it? There is absolutely no official information on what happens on Zebes between Metroid 1 and 3. If you are going to conjecture that there is no way that the area could be restored, without proof, I could equally conjecture without proof that perhaps Mother Brain's minions rebuilt the chamber in the same position, and later dismantled it and moved her. Or perhaps another unknown bounty hunter came and destroyed Mother Brain during the time that passes during Metroid Prime, Prime Hunters, Prime 2, and Metroid 2. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 05:10, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Dai: Making backgrounds for games in Super Mario All Stars + World is artistic interpretation. Updating the graphics for those games is artistic interpretation, like making The Princess a blond instead of a brunette. Changing the structure and design of Mother Brain's pod and its room is not a simple art difference. Such a change implies an error in consistency, or to me, a different Tourian.

It cannot go from looking undamaged to looking as destroyed as the rest of the room because the damage was done by the blast explosion. If Zero Mission replaces Metroid, then the blast explosion should have damaged the area beneath the brain pod, as seen in Super Metroid. However, the designers left it looking perfect. Why?

And yes there is official information on what happened after Metroid. Super Metroid's manual states in its description of Tourian that the first blast [known about] caused enough damage to be done that the pirates had to rebuild many of the areas, and they rebuilt Tourian in a new more secure location. That blast is the explanation for the reconstruction and the differences in Super Metroid. The unknown state of Zebes after Metroid is what makes it possible. However, Zero Mission shows us what has changed by allowing us to go back and revisit the areas. Upon revisiting those areas we see that the blast did nothing to alter the structure of Zebes. So the manual proves that a reconstruction took place after Metroid. However, a reconstruction of Zero Mission's Tourian into what we see in Super Metroid is not possible. The manual states that Tourian was rebuilt in a different location, not that it was rebuilt in the same location but only to a less damaged state just to be abandoned anyway. Dai Grepher 15:13, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

The text of the Super Metroid manual still doesn't discount the possibility of Tourian being built more than once. It says, "After Samus Aran annihilated the forces of Zebes the first time, this new Tourian was built in a more secure area." If we pick apart the wording for its core meaning (yes, I'm stooping to your level), then it simply means that the new Tourian location was built some time after the destruction of the original.

Is this particular discussion closed? The wording isn't exact enough to confirm either the rebuild-and-abandon or the different-Tourian theories, and my opinion of artistic reinterpretation differs from yours. We're getting nowhere with this appearance of Tourian sub-topic. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 21:20, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Dai Grepher: Fine with me, since the Tourian in Zero Mission isn’t the one in Metroid or the old one in Super Metroid. However, this was written before Zero Mission. Plus, this is information that may in fact be from the Federation. If Samus did not tell the tale of Zero Mission yet then of course the Federation would think that Metroid’s raid on Zebes was the first and that the explosion in it is what caused the areas to need repair and reconstruction. The fact that Zero Mission’s blast does nothing solidifies that it was Metroid’s mission that Super Metroid is referring to.

Dai Grepher: Closed? No, the Super Metroid manual refers to the new Tourian in Super Metroid being rebuilt after the old one was destroyed in Metroid. That is what it meant in 1991 and that is what it means now.

Dai Grepher 04:26, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Abstract

If you would like to see the full version of my factual presentation, you can go here: http://www.metroid.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=206&sid=7054dbf21035b21a39ff5d96d018abc4

So could you now allow the description of the Metroid series to have accurate information and show that Zero Mission is a prequel? --Dai Grepher 8 July 2005 22:44 (UTC)

From what it seems, you are taking the little details too seriously. The Metroid series, like Mario and other games, puts gameplay ahead of story, and the designers are willing to sacrifice small continuity differences for the sake of entertainment. For example, in Metroid Prime, Samus loses nearly all of her suit upgrades due to being flung at a wall from a minor gas explosion. This, of course, is inconsistent with other game scenarios, where she takes massive damage from enemies, lava, etc., without the loss of abilities. However, it forces the player to re-collect all of Samus' abilities, and makes for good gameplay.

Poiuyt Man ^talk 9 July 2005 00:05 (UTC)

At best, this could be included in the article as a theory accepted by the minority of fans. Perhaps lumped in with the other consistencies in the Retcon section. Poiuyt Man ^talk 9 July 2005 01:06 (UTC)

At the very least this could be classified as a possible timeline, lumped in with the possibility of a remade Metroid. Of course, the possibility of Nintendo remaking Super Metroid to be consistent is more unlikely than Zero Mission simply being a prequel. --Dai Grepher 9 July 2005 02:42 (UTC)

I find it strange that you profile yourself as someone who favors organization and perfection yet when it comes to observing the facts and details of this issue you want to sweep it all under the rug, so to speak. I see those at Nintendo as those who are capable of creating quality games. Quality covers all aspects. One element should not be sacrificed just to make another element better. So I see the major differences and inconsistencies as proof that Zero Mission is a mission all its own. This is not an over analysis of details, it is a comparison of facts. For one thing, the structure of Tourian in Zero Mission does not fit the frame of Brinstar as Metroid's map did, and this is on a system that is four or more times as advanced! Then there is the issue with structure and design, what is blown up and what is not, where things are and where they aren't. Having seen all of this information one must admit to either one of two things, that this was made inconsistent to prove that it was unique, or that those who worked on the game made huge mistakes or did not care. You seem to think that they did not care, yet tell me that I cannot possibly know the intention of the creators. Well I ask you, can you honestly say for sure that the creators did not care about the mistakes that were being made? Can you definitely say that they held fun factor over continuity? I believe your theory about the creators' intentions is just that, a theory. --Dai Grepher 9 July 2005 01:54 (UTC)

No, I cannot say for sure that they did not care if the maps were inconsistent. However, the fact that the Zero Mission map often overlaps itself in two dimensions is a good indication that they weren't going for map consistency. The only other 2D Metroid game to do this is Metroid II, and that game is generally regarded as a sub-standard work (it also deals with a different planet).

Metroid Prime 2: Echoes also has an area that would physically overlap adjacent areas. This shows that even when given three dimensions to work with, making logical map layouts is not the prime concern with Metroid developers (at least not with the more recent games). --Poiuyt Man ^talk 20:58, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

Dai Grepher: Where does it often overlap except in the case of the elevator shafts, which are set behind in the background anyway? The map on that website is one that was made by a fan, and while that usually has nothing to do with whether it is accurate or not the fact of the matter is that we don't know if it is accurate or not. I think it is unlikely to be the official layout because it seems to be placed in a way so that it will have a smaller file size on the Internet. The elevator shafts seem too complex, and I think a layout that is more organized is the one that is most likely.

Now while no map layout that we construct can be proven to be the one that the creators envisioned, the fact still remains that the creators left no official layout. Therefore we cannot determine if the maps intersect or have impossibilities. So there actually is no basis for the suggestion that the creators might not care about the map consistency because the map layout has intersections within itself.

Also, the issue of building the maps to fit the game itself and the issue of building a map to consistently match references to it made by a later game are two different issues. One does not contradict any other game, while the other must work with information seen in another game in order to be consistent and not contradict.Dai Grepher 02:44, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

The elevator shafts are what I'm talking about. In Super Metroid, Metroid Fusion, and Metroid Prime, the shafts all line up vertically between areas. In Metroid, of course, there are no elevators. In Zero Mission, in order for the elevators/doors between areas to all line up horizontally and vertically (in two dimensions), the right side of Tourian must overlap the left side of Brinstar, and the upper-left room of Kraid must overlap Brinstar and/or Norfair. The fan-made map is accurate, you can check DEngel's map on GameFAQs (can't direct-link), which is made from screenshots of the in-game map. And isn't the in-game map considered official?

My point is that if they allowed inconsistencies to exist in Zero Mission's map alone, then I doubt that they considered matching Super Metroid's map exactly a high priority. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 04:11, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Dai: No elevators in Metroid? Yes there are. That is one way the game bank switches to new color palettes. The fan-made map *http://dw.com.com/redir?asid=914982&astid=8&siteid=19&edid=107&destCat=28587&destURL=http%3A%2F%2Fdb.gamefaqs.com%2Fportable%2Fgbadvance%2Ffile%2Fmetroid_zero_mission.gif does not even connect the areas together. It separates them all into different sections. My map construction also features images taken from the game. *http://img203.echo.cx/img203/12/zmzebesmap26gs.png With this image I want you to notice the points of 7 and 8. *http://img203.echo.cx/img203/5831/downward3jf.png This image shows that In Zero Mission, there is an elevator that leads far below the point where Samus is seen standing. However, in Super Metroid, the distance between Crateria's floor and lower part of Tourian's elevator is just a short jump’s distance apart. Why would they intentionally make the elevator in Zero Mission lead so far beneath that level and also show that the elevator platform is still operational, when Super Metroid shows a much shorter distance and that its elevator platform is destroyed? In addition, the elevator that leads down to Tourian in Zero Mission is actually to the left of that standing point, and it is misaligned with where it should be. Surely you can see that all of these major differences are there to prevent Zero Mission being mistaken as a game that can lead into Super Metroid. Dai Grepher 15:13, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Dai: In addition, I don't think that the maps in Zero Mission are inconsistent with one another. It all depends on how you place them. The map that you were referring to is not accurate because it does not even attempt to make connections between the different areas. Dai Grepher 21:21, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't think the area in the screenshot is supposed to be the same place. The Super Metroid shaft doesn't exist yet in Zero Mission, since as you said it must be to the left of that area to line up correctly. I suggest the possibility that the passage collapsed, and a new one was built to the left of it, lining up vertically with the elevator.

"Surely you can see that all of these major differences are there to prevent Zero Mission being mistaken as a game that can lead into Super Metroid." Ah, so they hid this important plot point in a way that you need to carefully examine and compare the game maps in order to find it? As I said before, the wording of the box and manual, the promotional material, the interview with the creator, and the blatant similarities in the introduction and various gameplay areas point much more towards the game being a remake than it being a prequel. You are saying that the much less likely interpretation of each of these elements is the correct one. This is completely illogical, and I'm about ready to give up. Find me one person that agrees with you, when presented with all your arguments, and all the arguments against you (from me and from other forum users where you've posted it). Otherwise, there isn't any real support for your stance on the internet or in other media, and Wikipedia doesn't cater to crackpot theories unless they are well-known. (Wikipedia:No original research) --Poiuyt Man ^talk 22:29, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Dai Grepher: Well, I said that the Zero Mission shaft is to the left of where it should be, so a new one would have to be built to the right of that one. So if you don’t think that the shaft is the one in Super Metroid then you can see that it is a different Tourian right? I also believe that one was built to the right of that shaft, though not right next to it, the new one was built closer to Crateria’s floor to match Super Metroid, and that shaft was the one in Metroid. After Zero Mission that Tourian was abandoned and the undamaged parts were used to construct the next Tourian. That Tourian was built in Metroid, and that is the one that becomes the old one seen in Super Metroid while the new one was constructed to the left of that. Now an interesting thing to note is that the new Tourian in Super Metroid has something in common with Zero Mission. The room with the statue of the four bosses is actually the room seen in Zero Mission that is set to the left of Crateria’s floor. http://img203.echo.cx/img203/4969/zmtosmmap4gd.png This image shows Super Metroid’s map. The red is Super Metroid only, the navy is Super Metroid and Zero Mission, and the blue is where Zero Mission’s Crateria/Tourian elevator was located. Grey is old Tourian.

Dai Grepher: They probably kept that plot point in the background because newcomers to the series wouldn’t understand it. The goal was to make something that they could have fun playing. Going into detail about something like that might have taken away from that. You would have to have played Metroid and Super Metroid to see the plot in Zero Mission regarding the storyline and the maps. A newcomer would not recognize it, but a veteran of the series would. It is a perfect blend of telling the story of the series without actually creating text to explain it all. You have given your interpretation of all those things, but that is still your opinion. I quoted Sakamoto’s statement of only basing Zero Mission on Metroid for the gameplay aspect, not storyline, and his quote of not changing storyline but exploring the backstory. I have also posted proof that the Tourian in Zero Mission cannot possibly be the one we see in Super Metroid, thus making Metroid a needed element to the series. Also, Zero Mission is just as similar to Super Metroid as it is to Metroid, so I don’t know what you are talking about when you say all of this indicates a remake. It doesn’t. It proves that Zero Mission is a prequel. And where did that insult come from? And since when does the agreement or disagreement of others define what is and what is not a fact? Calling my presentation a “crackpot theory” is in violation of Wikipedia’s no-insult rules. You actually contradicted yourself with that whole theory about the creators not caring about map consistency, and then stating an argument to show that the maps fit together in the third dimension. That indicates that the creators did care about the maps, yet for some reason they neglect the details shown in Super Metroid? That is what does not make sense. Then you insult my side of the discussion? We are here to discuss this peacefully in order to find the true timeline. I have been civil this whole time and you have accused me of counterproductive behavior twice then end with an insult. I’m going to have to report this if you do it again.

Dai Grepher 04:26, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I apologize, this topic is frustrating. However, I feel that while certain points in this discussion are productive, the overall situation is getting nowhere. I'm currently waiting on a third opinion. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 14:16, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

all the opinions you'll need --12.217.85.76 20:05, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Third opinion here. I just wanted to say that this isn't the first place that Dai has spammed with his crackpot theories, but hopefully it'll be the last. He hasn't any actual evidence to back them up, either. Unless you count a couple pieces of data he misinterpreted. Just because somebody from Nintendo calls it a new game with new abilities does not detract from its "remake" status. It is a new game just like Super Mario All-stars is different from the games included in the SMAS collection.^{More information}

Dai seems to think that Nintendo planned all these contrived elements to make Zero Mission into a new game, yet for some reason he completely neglects all the statements that call Zero Mission a remake. Glyph Phoenix 18:48, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Forth opinion. Dai posted his "theory" on our message board, which was linked above ("all the opinions you'll need"). He presented the same "evidence" that he does here, and no one agreed with him, out of about thirty different people. We even brought up many of the same counter-points to his "arguement" that you found, Poiuytman. But he does not listen. We have found that Dai is incapable of logical reasoning. The fact is, the most obvious answer to this question is that Zero Mission is a remake. The concept of a prequel is simply too far-fetched. Plus, the "evidence" that Dai claims to support the prequel (map mistakes and twisting the text on the box) are all not very solid logically. Most of his "evidence" is simply his interpretation of what people say. The best evidence that it's a remake is the fact that the director calls it a remake in an interview that Dai himself posted. I don't see why this needs to be discussed any further. Zero Mission is a remake of Metroid. Everyone in the entire world accepts this except for one person, Dai Grepher. I don't think Dai's incorrect theory deserves to be placed into a site such as Wikipedia, for it will simply confuse new fans of the game.

Dai Grepher: The above is incorrect. The Nintendo boards show that a few people have accepted that the facts that I presented indicate a prequel. Also, the forum that I linked to with my entire presentation had several memebers that liked my work and agreed with me. Not only this, but I have found quite a few review sites and individuals on the net that describe Zero Mission as a prequel to Metroid. There are also fans on GameFAQs that believe it is a prequel. So as I stated earlier, there are many that read the same interview but still arrived at the conclusion that it is a prequel. That is because Sakamoto never called it a remake. He only made statements to the contrary.

Dai Grepher 20:12, 11 July 2005 (UTC)