next »

[vinheim3]

Well I'm sure all of us here appreciate a good Metroidvania. You know, games like Lyle in Cube Sector, An Untitled Story, La Mulana, Hero Core, etc. They all have some weird formula that pulls you in everytime you discover a new area or get a new powerup. That feeling when you get a new powerup or upgrade and 10 new areas are now open to you. These sorta games never disappoint me. Even Ainevoltas, a game which did not get a lot of attention from what I've seen on the interwebs, disappointed me. Despite its flaws, it was still addicting to go and keep playing the game.

Because of these games, I went and searched different sites for Metroidvanias and what I found was a lot of people bashing the word "Metroidvania". There was even a Youtube vid of 3 nerds arguing saying that any game could be considered a Metroidvania since the word to them simply means "any game with exploration where items can be gotten to further exploration." There was also mention of games that AREN'T Metroidvanias. So I think it's about time we get a solid definition of the word "Metroidvania".

Here's what I think about the term. There are 2 things that can keep the gamer playing. 1 is exploration. The more vast and different a world is, the better, but even small worlds that have a lot of variety in its areas are good too. Knytt Stories is a good example of a game with a vast world with variety in its areas. The second thing that can keep a gamer hooked is Rewards or Achievements. When a player feels accomplished by getting one of these, it makes that player excited to play more and achieve more Rewards and Achievements. Desktop Dungeons is a good example of a game that constantly rewards. Every time you clear something, you almost always get a reward, even those Challenge Dungeons.

Metroidvania uses these 2 things and puts them on an endless cycle. Metroidvania games are heavy on exploration and usually contain a hefty amount of powerups too. Everytime you explore, you find new powerups (rewards). Everytime you get new powerus, you can explore more. That is the basic gist of the flow of a Metroidvania game. What some people get wrong is what these rewards are. The genre is called Metoidvania because it uses rewards from both Metroid and Castlevania. Metroid games rewards are in the form of increasing the character's innate abilities like how high she can jump, etc. Castlevania gives rewards mostly in the form of new weapons or "collectibles". Collectibles are simply items that aren't supposed to do anything (or do much), especially on their own, but collecting them unlocks something. For example, "Collecting 5 maple leafs scattered throughout the world will unlock a new cinematic". Castlevania did this with Souls.

Now if you say most games have exploration and rewards, well the difference is that Metroidvania games focus SOLELY and STRONGLY on the cycle of exploration and rewards. That sentence is important. The game doesn't need any other requirements like 2D side-scrolling. Hero Core fits in this genre. Also because of that sentence, I wouldn't really consider Legend of Zelda games as Metroidvanias. Despite there being exploration and rewards after every boss or in the world itself, the cycle of exploration and rewards isn't strongly put there. Items usually only allow access to one or 2 new things as opposed to say Hero Core, where getting those cutting powerups can get you to multiple new rooms. I would consider Cave Story a Metroidvania because it is very similar to Castlevania with the exploration and weapons.

So yeah, my thought about Metroidvanias is that it combines exploration with Metroid or Castlevania-type rewards. How about you guys?

[Seth]

I don't know, can something focus 'soley' and 'strongly' on one thing?  Can something focus soley and weakly on one thing?  I think soley excludes strongly because 'soley' takes all the focus, where 'strongly' implies that it just takes up the majority of the focus.  So shouldn't your sentence be "Metroidvania games focus SOLELY or STRONGLY on the cycle of exploration and rewards."

I mean, as long as we're being pedantic.   

[vinheim3]

Oops, by solely, I mean mostly. And I guess you can focus mostly AND weakly on one thing, like imagine a game where the focus is mostly on the cycle of exploration and rewards, but the period you face one of these 2 is so long, the focus on the other one is weak, like a 5 hour exploration period before the next powerup, though I think that's a bit exaggerated.

Should've expected a post about being pedantic coming seeing some arguments on this forum. 

[Saint]

I would agree with the "cycle of exploration and rewards", adding that for the most part a good metroidvania would try to stay away from lock-key game mechanics. Artifacts or new powers should not be there only to open the way for the player but have a function that changes the way the game works - ideally, offering new paths is only a side effect. Consider the energy form of Aquaria - it completely changes how you play the game as you defeat enemies instead of fleeing, but it can also be used to energize crystals and open doors. But the line is really fuzzy regarding what constitutes a pure lock/key mechanic and avoiding it is just my preference.

Anyway, related article:
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/1902/game_design_essentials_20_open_.php

[D Krahenbil]

I don't think you can really "define" any genre (such as Metroidvanias).  This is just something you have to use common sense with.  As a gamer, one just intrinsically knows these things.  You can play a game and know what genre it is.  But there are no hard and fast rules.  You can't just list all the characteristics of every Metroidvania (for example).  You just know; either it is a Metroidvania, or it isn't.

So, coming up with a definition is, in my opinion, fruitless.  Any definition will either be too general, and include games it shouldn't, or will be too precise, and not include all of the games.

Metroidvania games focus SOLELY and STRONGLY on the cycle of exploration and rewards.

You continuously find new weapons/powerups in Zelda (by Zelda, I mean the series in general).  You explore areas, find and explore dungeons, and receive rewards.  This is a cycle that the game is built around.  So I would say Zelda focuses strongly on this cycle.  And I would say this is the sole focus of Zelda as much as it is the sole focus of any "real" Metroidvania.  You say the cycle of exploration and rewards isn't strongly put in Zelda, but I disagree.  You say each item/powerup has to provide access to a number of new areas.  But how many?  Say you answer "5".  Well, what if you had a game where each item only allowed access to 4 new areas?  Couldn't that also be a Metroidvania?  You're not being precise enough, and being precise enough would invalidate the definition. 

So yeah, my thought about Metroidvanias is that it combines exploration with Metroid or Castlevania-type rewards. How about you guys?

What exactly are these rewards?  And why are Metroidvanias restricted to these types of rewards?  Couldn't you have a Metroidvania with different types of rewards?  If Metroid and Castlevania have differing types of rewards, than it is completely feasible that you could have another game with even different rewards.

[Paul Eres]

a platformer involving lots of saving and backtracking

-icycalm

I would define metroidvanias as platformers with lock and key exploration where the keys are permanent power ups.

-neoshaman

i think his description of metroidvanias kind of works, although that's not how i'd define the genre -- i'd include the fact that certain paths and areas are closed off without certain items that you need to collect: hence the reason for backtracking is that you can access new areas with new items. also important is that the map is complex, like an interconnected spider web, rather than a series of stages completed in order...

for instance, i don't consider cave story a metroidvania because of how simple its map is: it's a series of linear stages with very few interconnections. whereas la mulana is a metroidvania because it has a much more intricate map with many interconnected passages and obstacles that you return to later.

[...]

that's one reason i prefer my criteria over icycalm's: he says nothing of an interlocking map or of blocked passages in that map which require you to find certain items or powers to get through, which seem to me much more strongly the defining feature of metroidvanias (and zeldalikes).

-myself

i also think the term is confusing because most castlevania games (particularly the early ones) are not metroidvania games, and because metroidvania games are basically applying the zelda formula to platformers (the legend of zelda was basically the first metroidvania, even though it wasn't a platformer). so perhaps they should really be called metroidzeldas. but that doesn't roll off the tongue as well as metroidvania.

[vinheim3]

I don't think you can really "define" any genre (such as Metroidvanias).

True, some people's definitions of shmup or puzzle games can make most games out there considered a shmup or puzzle game (An Untitled Story has elements of both). So I guess I was just giving a brief definition that can be agreed on.

You continuously find new weapons/powerups in Zelda (by Zelda, I mean the series in general).  You explore areas, find and explore dungeons, and receive rewards.  This is a cycle that the game is built around.  So I would say Zelda focuses strongly on this cycle.  And I would say this is the sole focus of Zelda as much as it is the sole focus of any "real" Metroidvania.

I got my argument mixed up a little. Before writing this, I considered Legend of Zelda games Metroidvanias and Cave Story as not a Metroidvania since the cycle isn't felt so strongly in the latter.

What exactly are these rewards?  And why are Metroidvanias restricted to these types of rewards?  Couldn't you have a Metroidvania with different types of rewards?  If Metroid and Castlevania have differing types of rewards, than it is completely feasible that you could have another game with even different rewards.

Rewards are a game design tool used to lure the player to playing more. They are usually in the form of an item (new sword in LoZ), they can be implemented by having the score increased when you do something, but it's generally something the game maker adds to make the player feel accomplished. Mark Overmars, creator of Game Maker, wrote an article once about rewards. In the case of Metroidvanias, I never said they were restricted to these rewards, just that it is the genre which focuses strongly and mostly on the cycle of exploration and rewards.

i also think the term is confusing because most castlevania games (particularly the early ones) are not metroidvania games, and because metroidvania games are basically applying the zelda formula to platformers (the legend of zelda was basically the first metroidvania, even though it wasn't a platformer). so perhaps they should really be called metroidzeldas. but that doesn't roll off the tongue as well as metroidvania.

When I played Castlevania games, it didn't feel like new rewards allowed new access to places. The only thing Castlevania adds to the Metroidvania genre is the "collectibles" part of the game. Like how new weapons and souls are collectibles, but do not necessarily aid you in accessing new areas. Metroid didn't do this in the early games, but it is common in Metroidvanias nowadays (An Untitled Story uses Gold Orbs, Hero Core had the Level 0 Specialist, etc).

[SirNiko]

I feel like the "Metroidvania" genre mostly was a catch phrase to specifically define post-SotN Castlevania games, which had huge, open world maps and a powerup structure very similar to Metroid. Castlevania one-upped Metroid by also introducing a level-up and equipment system that was reminiscent of RPGs, which at the time were tremendously popular. That formula has endured through the hand-held market of Castlevania games, up to and including Order of Ecclesia, though there have been variations (OoE features many smaller 'stages' instead of the traditional continuous castle map).

SotN was / is just an amalgamation of Platformer, Adventure and RPG elements that proved to be tremendously popular. The games that follow it have reconfigured those ratios in wildly varying ways, such as Circle of the Moon scaling back the importance of equipment and Order of Ecclesia greatly reducing the emphasis on lock-and-key powers (access to new areas is usually granted by defeating a boss, not by using a power to reach the exit).

Trying to pin these games to a genre does them a disservice - Metroid Prime 3 and Castlevania: Portrait of Ruin are both defined as Metroidvanias in the general sense, but they offer tremendously different experiences. Judging them by a boilerplate definition of lock and key mechanics is of little value in defining what makes them enjoyable, and who might like to play them.

[ithamore]

I always saw it as a game that held similarities to the original Metroid and Castlevania and that using it to describe a game was more subjective that objective as the result of something felt from a gestalt of experience rather than from an understand informed by a formulaic measuring of criteria. That said, the less linear a Metroidvania is the more it feels like a Metroidvania.

[FrankieSmileShow]

Well, you can always say labeling a game into a genre does them a disservice, like labeling a band into a very specific musical genre can; its simplistic and makes it seem like all games, bands, movies from X specific genre would be the same, gives specific expectations the author might not want you to have. But these categories are useful to describe a game in few words, even if it is possibly a little misleading.

I think Metroidvania doesn't make much sense as a category label, no. It referred to the Castlevania games which looked like Metroid to begin with. So metroidlike would make more sense for a more generic label I think! Zeldalike would also work, but I think Metroidlike is something more evocative of the whole exploration key-and-lock thing.

[Zaratustra]

tl;dr: who the fuck cares

[moi]

I don't think metroidvania are anything more than sophisticated platformer.
Someone just needed to use a childish nintendoid name on something.

[Gimym TILBERT]

I just want to precise that every definition I made is from a design perspective. Like Sirniko said it can be a bit "empty" from a player enjoyment perspective and focus more on structure.

BTW Zelda 2 nes is at least a metroidvania 

[C.A. Sinner]

*Metroidvaniae

[Defsan]

I think Metroidvania started off as a definition that people jokingly associated with later Castlevania games that featured heavier Adventure game elements and a progressive exploration of a big, single level (progressive being, you need to collect a certain power-up or ability to progress a certain way). I guess Metroidvanias are Adventure Platformers with a bit of "whipped cream" on top. That whipped cream is the non-linearity of the level and some RPG elements like leveling up, or equipment.