Which, in one sense, is definitely cool. I get the impression that Super Metroid is a game with tons of replay value that encourages playing it in a different way each time.

In another way, to make this happen, I didn’t think it was very fun for first-time players. Bomb jumping is kind of an awkward mechanic and harder to pull off than in Zero Mission, and finding upgrades seemed to rely more on pulling off complex techniques with perfect timing. I don’t remember ever being required to wall jump in Zero Mission or 2. There’s so many beginner’s traps too, with the one-way doors and the noob bridge. In Zero Mission, I felt like upgrades were more clearly telegraphed to the player, so you could get more of them without using a guide. In Super, it’s a lot of bombing random walls and stuff, and the X-Ray Scope feels really limited.

If I got stuck, it would be difficult to consult guides, because many writers seemed to put sequence breaks into the walkthrough as opposed to a “natural” playthrough.

While it might be true that Dread has a lot of “hand-holding” (I don’t know because I haven’t played it yet), part of me wonders if that criticism comes from experienced players who want a harder challenge than Super that lean even farther into advanced-level techniques. I guess I’ll find out when I play it.

I came of age during the PS3 era and the Indie Game Revolution, where people were debating on whether video games could be art, so I personally can’t help but prefer when games have storytelling and ludonarrative and lore.

But for many people, Super Metroid’s lack of a plot will be a draw and not a drawback, and that’s cool. I’d actually really love a new nonlinear Metroid game in the vein of Super someday, and perhaps this time it wouldn’t take place on the planet Zebes.

I have AM2R archived on my computer. I’m very excited to try it!

When I called Zero Mission an asset flip, I was trying to steelman a potenial opposing point in favor of Super. I may not have been successful at this. And I myself don’t actually see it as an asset flip – I loved Zero Mission.

The way I try to understand it is, how would Western women feel if there was a big push to make makeup illegal? On the grounds that some feminists believe it reinforces patriarchal expectations of women.

But other women, including feminists, like wearing makeup and don’t wear it for men. I wouldn’t want others to tell me on my behalf what I should and shouldn’t wear, so we shouldn’t do the same to others.

And when you look at it that way, I think a good deal of the real sentiment is just discomfort with some women wearing different cultural attire.

even if you could theoretically tell a story that sounds somehow “unfair” depending on your storytelling skills.

Yeah, they sure do love pulling the Riley Gaines card even though she came in fifth, making it a total nonsequitur.

And I totally agree that this debate is too big considering it only targets a tiny handful of athletes. I say it’s complicated because some arguments used feel, circumstantial? As in, “Trans women should play with women because there’s only a couple of them anyway?” Would acceptance of that argument lead to tokenism? BWhat if, for whatever reason, a sports team happened to take on a lot of trans woman? I think that would be okay, but I worry it would dredge the debate up all over again.

Or, people often say, “Trans women should be allowed to play with women because they rarely win anyway.” But what if a trans woman ends up on a winning streak and then another controversy erupts? I feel uncomfortable that our condition for entry is framed as our failure to win, and that if we win, then by implication we get othered as opposed to just being a woman who won a sports game one time. This recently happened, actually. https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/ca-school-sports-authority-panders

This is to say, I’m just thinking aboug how we come to a supporting argument that ages with grace? And what argument should that be? Not that I think any pro-trans argument would satisfy some people, with it being the wedge issue that makes TERFS out of people originally left of center. I guess I don’t know the answer at this point.

deleted by creator

It’s a complex issue for sure, but I’m really proud of this thread for consistently using the term “trans women” when talking about the differences between trans women compared to cis women and cis men in sports.

On Reddit, most people on this debate just say “biological males,” “males,” or “men” in situations where they’re clearly talking about trans women, which is a clear tell that it was never about fairness in sports for them.

deleted by creator