Super Metroid and Symphony of the Night

What would you consider the better designed Metroidvania?

Attached: maxresdefault.jpg (1280x720, 110.94K)

metroid 3

All metroidvania games are boring and lame

super by a country mile

Metroid Fusion

Attached: 66f.jpg (1242x1394, 91.71K)

Super Metroid is the better game by far.

SotN is so mediocre I don't know why we even use the "vania" in Metroidvania.

Super because the movement is more fun. Exploring the castle in sotn is great though. I still love both.

I recently replayed Super and Fusion back to back, and I have to say, Fusion was not that great on replay. There are SO many fucking times where your progress is arbitrarily gated by having to go back and talk to Adam.

Attached: metroid__chozo_logic_by_doodlegarmander-d6dlcog.png (683x1171, 351.68K)

Because SOTN's world design, enemy design, sound design, and atmosphere beats Super Metroid by a massive margin. Having a world that's interesting to explore on aesthetic merits is almost as important as having it be interesting to explore on "unlock more shit" merits.

That's fair. Adam was a mistake for sure and a Metroid game simply shouldn't have that much exposition and handholding. Fwiw though, it at least serves some purpose as the railroading allows for neat things like sectors getting nuked by SA-X while you're elsewhere. And aside from that, the core gameplay and movement just feel so much better in Fusion than Super.
Zero Mission is a good middle ground.

Super Metroid does a better job of actually making you feel like your upgrades change the map. SotN is more a series of locks and keys plus a bat that lets you fuck off if you want. Super just has better level design overall. SotN does have a major edge in that it doesn't feel like garbage to play though.

>world design
Fair, but the pacing (especially with reverse castle) is far inferior, and there's not much utility gating.
>enemy design, sound design, and atmosphere
All are better utilized in Castlevania 1 or 3, recycling assets in a worse context merits no praise. Enemy positioning especially is braindead and wastes the varied enemy designs.

Super is better. SotN gets stupidly easy in a few ways if you don't purposely restrain yourself.

Both still better than most try hard wannabe rip offs.

Oh yeah, the pacing is absolutely worse than Super Metroid. The abundance of "this opens one specific door or type of door and has no other real purpose" is pretty insulting. I'm still mad about the fucking imp familiar and the one button you have to have it press.
That said, the castlevania series not being at its best in SotN doesn't negate that SotN was the first Castlevania game to properly use the structure we now call "metroidvania", and is still better than Super Metroid in all those merits.

Literally everything. Every gba castlevania is better than sotn. Most indie metroidvanias like Axiom Verge or Mummy are better than Super Metroid.
They are good games. But aren't spectacular nowadays.

You MIGHT have a point with atmosphere, but I found the world design in SOTN rather bland by comparison. Seemed flat and less alive.

Axiom Verge sucks.

Maybe it's just a matter of taste. Super Metroid had a lot of variety for being on the SNES but the amount of the game that was just some variety of cave made it less distinct to me. The areas I best recall are the derelict ship and the red tower.

nobody wants to hear this, but SotN has a poorly designed map

Attached: ass.jpg (230x307, 14.29K)

Actual bait

Maybe. It might also be that I was left feeling cold after playing Super 4 as well. Level design in SOTN just didn't draw me in like Super.

Either way I like Prime better than both though.

I don't think anyone would disagree

Eh, first to use it in its own franchise is whatever, when what is unique to the genre is mostly better in Super Metroid. SOTN has a lot to explore and see but the way it's structured and how you explore it isn't anything special, with a lot of dead ends.
Level design, which is what enemy design is used for, is still better in SM so I don't think the good enemy design matters with how wasted it is.
Atmosphere being worse than CV 1/3 I really think is a weak point of the game, even when not directly compared to those. Metroid 1-2 also have better atmosphere but 2 is very different and 1 is only good for a small while.
Sound design I'll give it to SOTN.

>Axiom Verge
redditor leave

Attached: file.png (1200x1199, 1.06M)

people shouldn't compare them. Still, Super Metroid has an actual learning curve and slight difficulty spikes, unlike SoTN where from the start you can smash everything

Most of the stuff that was unique to the genre was done better by Super Metroid. Most of the stuff SotN did was done better by other Castlevanias. And yet, most of the stuff that was done better elsewhere in the Castlevania series was done better in SotN than in Super Metroid.
Maybe I should clarify- Super Metroid has better level design but worse environment design. There are a lot of places that are just caves with some sort of sci-fi platforms floating here and there. SotN at least separates all its areas in a more distinct way visually.

I love them both. Played SOTN way more but after recently replaying Super Metroid for the first time in years it’s a better overall game.

Fusion sucks. I agree with everything this user says.

I like the SOTN map

Both are too bloated.

Attached: Metroid-zero-mission-cover-artwork-gba.jpg (1200x1204, 715.91K)

Both are great for their own reasons :)

I choose SotN, because unlike Super Metroid, SotN and almost every other metroid game is fun.

Super Metroid and it isn't even close.

>Quake and Doom
>What would you consider the better designed QuakeDoom?