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

Dai Grepher: Nintendo also says this:

"The plotline will be familiar to longtime fans of the Metroid series, but the challenges are new, the power-ups are plentiful (taken from several games in the series) and the graphics and sound are supercharged."

"Sent to Zebes to investigate rumors of a deadly alien species, Samus meets her match in the form of the mysterious Metroids -- energy-sapping creatures that emerge from an oversized cerebrum beneath the planet's surface. Samus isn't the only traveler searching for the Metroids. A band of Space Pirates has touched down to extract the curious creatures and use them as weapons. Samus must thwart the pirates, but they are wily and will prove to be more trouble than Samus expects."

This is not the story of Metroid. Dai Grepher 05:10, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nintendo's word[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:

The likely possibility, where I'm saying that Raisin Bran is my favorite breakfast food.
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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

Dai Grepher: He said that it is not a remake of the backstory. It is an expansion of it, which means "prequel".

Dai Grepher 21:02, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're just repeating yourself, instead of replying to what I said. He doesn't specifically say it's not a remake, he says it's not necessarily a remake. Expansion means to add on to something which already exists; Zero Mission adds on the Space Pirate sequence after Mother Brain. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 23:24, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dai Grepher: You may be right. However, my original statement was that Sakamoto never called it a remake or even implied it. So there is no reason to believe that this game is a remake based on this interview. The only thing that is known to be remade is the gameplay from Metroid. At least Sakamoto's statement of not remaking the backstory eliminates the possibility of "retcons" since no old information has been updated or changed.

Dai Grepher 23:47, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Text from the manual and box[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I see, so any statement which doesn't agree with you is an opinion, while any statement you make, no matter how ambiguous, is fact. I'm losing what little respect I had for you. You don't know exactly what "first legendary adventure" means, so therefore you have an opinion on what it means. Stop trying to sound like an authority on the matter when you have no reputation of being one. I'm tired of hearing "clearly" and "undeniable" said about sentences that "clearly" have several interpretations. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 23:32, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dai Grepher: OK look, you said that "legendary adventures" refers to Samus' well-known adventures. Well Zero Mission was not known at all. Therefore it cannot be referring to a different type of mission. The box states that it is her first adventure, and something else I will point out to you now is this quote from the box: "The full story of Samus Aran's first mission finally unfolds...". Now right there is says Zero Mission is Samus Aran's first mission. Like I pointed out before, the Metroid story states that the mission in Metroid is not her first mission because she had missions prior to it. That is true in both versions of the story. So this is undeniable proof that Zero Mission is a prequel. Dai Grepher 21:02, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

:Dai Grepher: You did not reply to this. Please explain how Zero Mission's box can call it Samus' first mission but still have mission come before it.

Dai Grepher 23:47, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Search for "fourth wall" on this page. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 22:59, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Dai Grepher: Don't forget about the manuals. Another fact I will point out is this as follows.

Metroid: "It is now year 20X5 of the history of the cosmos, and something terrible has happened. Space pirates have attacked a deep-space research spaceship and seized a capsule containing an unknown life-form that had just been discovered on Planet SR388."

Zero Mission "In the year 20X5 of the Cosmic Calendar, a terrible incident occurred. The Space Pirates attacked a deep-space research vessel and seized capsules containing samples of an unknown species that had been discovered on planet SR388."

Dai Grepher: As you can clearly see, Metroid is the telling of current events, while Zero Mission is the telling of past events! However, this does not mean that Zero Mission is a sequel. Remember that Zero Mission is all a narration of Samus Aran, since she is the one telling the story. Also, she is telling the story of Metroid in past tense but at the same time refering to events that happen after the actual mission of Zero Mission. This is to set up Metroid as the basis for the prequel! Now consider one last point. The reason why some facts are clearer and why some facts are a little different is because of one thing. Human error. Samus is the one telling the story, so it means that she made a mistake in giving the founding date of the Galactic Federation! This means that Metroid is the true version of its own story, and Zero Mission is not. Zero Mission only restates the story to give that mission basis as a prequel, it does not remake the backstory, as Sakamoto stated!!!

Now surely this is proof enough for you to see that Zero Mission is a prequel.

Dai Grepher 21:02, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I disagree. If Samus is telling the manual intro, then why does she refer to herself in the third person? The only time where it is obvious Samus is narrating is when she refers to herself as "I", in the intro sequences of Zero Mission and Super Metroid. Sakamoto says it doesn't necessarily remake the backstory, because Zero Mission keeps the same basic story as Metroid, with additional elements inserted between the major events of the original story, and with the ending expanded to include events that occured afterwards. The tense changes in the manuals were to clean up the logic. The Metroid manual states in the present tense that the Metroids have just been discovered, when at the same time, Samus has just arrived on Zebes. Doesn't make much sense, right? So the Zero Mission manual clarifies that all that definitely occured in the past, not "just now". --Poiuyt Man ^talk 23:52, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dai Grepher: Samus is just telling the official story that is known to the Federation, not her version. Not referring to herself in third person is irrelevent. Also, if it is not her, then that person would refer to her as Samus Aran. Since Samus is telling Zero Mission, it is logical to assume that she is also the one retelling the story of Metroid in the Zero Mission manual, talking about it in past tense. That was not to clean up any "logic" as you put it. They referred to the events as having already taken place, instead of taking place at that time or just recently as Metroid described it. That shows that it is a different telling of the story. The Metroid manual never implied that Samus landed on Zebes as the Metroids were discovered. It was clear in its telling.

Dai Grepher 23:47, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Dai Grepher: Hello? Do you have a reply for this or not? If not then I think we can accept it as fact and change the Metroid page accordingly.

Dai Grepher 21:02, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Really, when everything else I've said points elsewhere? Nice try. Full story refers to the fact that it was an incomplete story before. This would be accurate, since Metroid never told what happened after she destroyed Mother Brain. Zero Mission does, therefore, it is the full story. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 23:52, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dai Grepher: But Zero Mission is not accurate in telling of Fake Kraid or the fifth Zebetite in Tourian, which it descibes as being yards away from where it should be. Zero Mission does not lead into Super Metroid, and it ommits storyline from Metroid, which makes it the inaccurate version, assuming it is a remake. However, if you see it as a new story, then it is accurate.

Dai Grepher 23:47, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

Dai Grepher: Because they are making it clear for the new Metroid gamer. This is also a case of the Metroid story being told at a later date with slight inaccuracies in some areas. Dai Grepher 21:02, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dai Grepher: You have not replied to this either! I am starting to think that you are trying to dodge the facts that prove Zero Mission to be a prequel.

The box states that this is Samus' first mission, and also that it is her first legendary adventure. Then, by your own theory, Zero Mission's own backstory then states the opposite by saying that Samus had missions prior to her very first. How is that possible? You think that "legendary" actually places Zero Mission in a different category, with it being the first of its kind, but what evidence do you have that proves this? Also, how do you know that Metroid is Samus' first legendary adventure. You only assume all of this because you favor the theory you have believed for so long. Rather than except the fact that what you have believed for so long is incorrect, you continue to make excuses to get around the evidence. But if I am wrong about this, then just reply to my point.

Dai Grepher 23:47, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Map inconsistencies[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I get what you're saying. The elevator from Tourian to Brinstar means that the Morph Ball area can't be very far below Tourian. However, I just noticed this, in the corner of the map screen in Zero Mission:

Image:Zero Mission World Map.gif

This only shows rough outlines of the areas, so it can't be used to gauge elevator positions precisely. However, it does show Tourian approximately to the left of Brinstar, and Brinstar relatively close to the surface of Crateria. This isn't consistent with the Super Metroid map, which shows Brinstar much further below the surface, and not to the right of Tourian. I don't like speculating, but the change in location of Brinstar would suggest it sunk or otherwise became lower than Tourian between Metroid/Zero Mission and Super Metroid. This would allow the Morph Ball location to be connected to Mother Brain's area in Super Metroid. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 22:54, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dai Grepher: The bold is to get your attention. If you agree that Tourian is to the left of Brinstar, then you agree that it is not the same Tourian that is seen in Super Metroid when Samus first lands. Even if it did sink, it is not going to move sideways and place itself between the upper and lower areas of Brinstar. It is also not going to be repaired to look like the damaged Tourian in Super Metroid. The pirates will either rebuild it or leave it.

Dai Grepher 23:47, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Er, no. Tourian is still approximately in the same place in Super Metroid as in Zero Mission, it's just the majority of Brinstar that is lower.

You can see that Tourian is under the left side of Crateria in both maps. In Metroid, Brinstar is also to the right of Tourian:

Image:M1map.gif

This means that Zero Mission and Metroid both conflict with Super Metroid, since Brinstar is lower than it was in either of the games. In fact, Norfair is also lower, to make room for Maridia. To me it looks like Metroid's map is no more consistent with Super Metroid than Zero Mission's is.

"The pirates will either rebuild it or leave it." - completely opinion; give me a source for your extensive knowledge on Space Pirate behavior. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 06:02, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Dai Grepher: This section has not been replied to, so it still stands in favor of a prequel. --Dai Grepher 21:02, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't reply because you provided no additional information with your last reply. I interpret the Super Metroid manual differently from you. Did you write the manual? If not, then you can't really say that your interpretation is the definitive one. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 23:10, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dai Grepher: No, you have lead away from the main issue. The difference in the designs is not artistic interpretation. The new designs are very different and destory continuity between Super Metroid and its old Tourian. You also hypothesized that a new Tourian was built in that location, but then Mother Brain was moved. This is also impossible. The glass of the pod in Super Metroid's old Tourian is broken away and the pipes are ruptured. Also, the Zebetites are broken away from the technology that supports them. So if Mother Brain were moved after being placed there, it would have been moved along with the pod, and the Zebetites would not have been broken. The discussion of the Super Metroid manual was to show that a reconstruction took place after the first documented raid on Zebes. However, that reconstruction created a new Tourian in a new location. It did not move any old Tourians or reconstruct them enough to be comparable to any other ones. You said that the manual proved that a new Tourian was built after the destruction of the original, but assuming the original was Zero Mission's, your theory is still left facing the fact that the Zero Mission Tourian is destroyed and left looking very different and very far away from the one that is seen in Super Metroid. Which means that Zero Mission's Tourian is not Metroid's, and Metroid was built after Zero Mission's was destroyed. As you said, there is the possibility of Tourian being built more than once.

Dai Grepher 23:47, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is something wrong with the Metroid map you provided. All the maps I've seen of Metroid (including the screenshot map on Metroid Database) show that Metroid's map does not match up with Super Metroid perfectly. Compare these two images, particularly the starting location and the room to the right of Mother Brain:

So I disagree with any point you make that Metroid matches up with Super Metroid any better than Zero Mission. Brinstar would have to had to shift to the right between the two games to match up. It would also have to sink for the elevator to be that long. So it's no more implausible that Brinstar would have to sink/shift after Zero Mission. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 03:29, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Metroid Chronicles[edit]

I was not aware of this before. There is a Metroid Prime 2: Echoes bonus disc that is available from one of three sources: theMetroid Prime re-release bundle, by registering 5 GameCube games online, or as an option when you subscribe to Nintendo Power. The disc includes a playable demo of the game, as well as a "Metroid Chronicles" feature that arranges the games (those that had been released at the time, at least) in a historical timeline. The ordering is as follows:

Metroid
Metroid: Zero Mission
Metroid Prime
Metroid Prime 2: Echoes
Metroid II: the Return Of Samus
Super Metroid
Metroid Fusion

According to current sources, Metroid Prime Hunters will be placed between Prime and Prime 2.

While this may not say that Zero Mission is a remake, it definitely proves that Zero Mission is not a prequel of Metroid. I would speculate that it was placed after Metroid on the timeline because Zero Mission contains a large amount of gameplay after the destruction of Mother Brain.

Or perhaps there is some ambiguous text on the disc that faintly contradicts the timeline. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 22:39, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, there is a short text summary that accompanies each game. I obtained this information from this link. Here is the summary for Metroid:

Nintendo Entertainment System ( NES ) Release Date: 1989

"A research vessel dispatched by the galactic federation discovers and captures a strange life-form called a "Metroid" on the planet SR-388. However, on it's way back to federation HQ, the research vessel is attacked by Space Pirates, who steal the Metroid. Once they discover the Metroid's ability to multiply through beta-ray exposure, the Space Pirates conspire to make use of the Metroids in their plot to take over the universe. To stop them, Samus lands on the planet Zebes and single-handedly destroys their underground base -- and their leader Mother Brain — after a series of intense battles."

And for Zero Mission:

Game Boy Advance ( GBA ) Release Date: Febuary 2004

"In an expanded look at Samus' first mission to Zebes, the bounty hunter heads to Zebes to wipe out the Space Pirate threat. However, this story doesn't end after Samus destroys the Mother Brain — As she escapes the planet, her ship is shot down by Space Pirates and she crash lands on the surface of Zebes, near where the Space Pirate Mother Ship has landed. Having lost her power-suit in the crash, Samus must infiltrate the Space Pirate ship and fight her way off the planet."

Ah, it would seem that the summary for Zero Mission supports my speculation. It talks mainly about the events occuring after Mother Brain, which would be why it's placed after Metroid on the timeline. And since it still refers to Zero Mission as her "first mission to Zebes", it seems to suggest that the two games are telling the same story, with Zero Mission expanding on what happens afterwards. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 02:43, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dai Grepher: That does not support you at all! That bonus disc proves that they are not the same mission, otherwise they would occupy the same space in the timeline and the descriptions for each would be the same. That order is also impossible. Zero Mission cannot take place after Metroid according to the game facts. You are taking unrelated information and making baseless claims. Nothing about that supports the idea of a remake.

Dai Grepher 21:02, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How is an official timeline from Nintendo unrelated information? The information may not directly support the idea of a remake (however, it highly suggests it), but it does disprove the possibility of it being a prequel. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 23:07, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You have basically just said that Nintendo's ordering doesn't makes sense because of your theory. Think about that. Nintendo, the developer and publisher, saying that it's one way, while you, a virtually unheard-of Metroid fan (nothing personal; I'm virtually unheard-of as well), directly contradicting that. Who is the more reliable source? --Poiuyt Man ^talk 00:10, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dai Grepher: The unrelated information is what is said about the games. That has nothing to do with the placement of the games or the order of events. That information also says nothing of Zero Mission being the Metroid story retold, and "In an expanded look at Samus' first mission to Zebes, the bounty hunter heads to Zebes to wipe out the Space Pirate threat." does not imply that Metroid was her first visit to Zebes or that this landing on Zebes to wipe out the space pirate threat is after Metroid. The fact that it doesn't describe Metroid at all or have the same story suggests that it is a different game and adventure. You are using information that says nothing about the timeline to support your case.

I never said that Nintendo's order is impossible because Nintendo gave no specific order. What I am saying is that it is impossible for Zero Mission to take place after Metroid. That is because it is described to be the first mission. The first mission cannot take place after an existing one. However, Nintendo never said that or implied it. They could be implying that the telling of Zero Mission takes place at that time. However, that timeline on the bonus disc gives no detail about the order of events, so we cannot conclude that any timeline is right from that information.

Dai Grepher 23:47, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure Nintendo's timeline is saying that Metroid and Zero Mission OVERLAP. Andre (talk) 03:10, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Dai Grepher, it does not give the order of the exact events in the games, but it does place the games themselves in a timeline. So it's reasonable to assume that the events of each of those games occur roughly in that order. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 00:05, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Abstract[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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~~ (whoops, I was thinking of Metroid 2). 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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.

We need for people to read over the evidence and give us their opinion. I think those people should be ones that have never played any of the games, or read anything about them. They have to be people that are not biased to either side, but also those that make conclusions based on facts.

If we cannot find people to do that, then I suggest editing the Metroid information to include a prequel Zero Mission as a different yet equal possibility as a remake Zero Mission. The page should also state the complete quotes of Sakamoto in a link to a separate page so that others can research it for themselves. So in addition to a page that gives both remake and prequel as possibilities, both possibilities should have their own page where evidence for each is posted, again for others to research.

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

I'm willing to wait for unbiased opinions, as they would be taken more seriously.

"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." I was merely providing another possibility. I still believe that the designers were not overly concerned with a contiguous map, but it's very well possible that they were basing the 2D maps off a 3D world.

Dai Grepher, I have tried to argue this logically with you, and it seems that you just have a different sense of logic. I've read through two of the forums you've posted your theory at, and despite losing my temper a bit, it seems that I've been more civil than most of your commentators. That said, I would guess that most Wikipedia users would agree that your theory falls under Wikipedia:No original research, because it was theorized by a single person, has backing from a very small minority, and conflicts with a fact that is widely accepted in the Metroid fanbase. It wouldn't be included for the same reason that I can't just change the McDonald's article to say that they might possibly be a front for a drug-smuggling outfit, even if I had several pieces of evidence that point towards this possibility. If you're going to make a statement in an article that would be highly disputed, then you either need to be someone important in the context of the article, or you need substantial backing from more recognizable sources (which may include major Metroid fansites, in this case). --Poiuyt Man ^talk 22:39, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dai Grepher: The creators took the maps very seriously. Anyone who has played the 10% Hard Mode mission can tell you that, and I just did. They made the maps so that people who were breaking the sequence would not get stuck in later areas but still wouldn't know exactlly what to do next to get around an obstacle. You are saying that the creators didn't care if it matched up to a game it was supposed to lead into, and that is just ridiculous. They made Super Metroid to be consistent with Metroid, so they could have made Zero Mission to be consistent with Super Metroid. They didn't because it wasn't supposed to be a remake of Metroid.

I don't know what the label of "No Original Research" is or what it means on this website, but a more appropriate label would be "Fact", because that is what this information is. Everything that I posted about Zero Mission not being a remake are facts, and the interview with Sakamoto implies a different mission as well. So now I am going to present you with something that proves Zero Mission to be a prequel, and I want a reply to it this time. Don't ignore it like you have done with the other points.

The main fact is this: "The full story of Samus Aran’s first mission finally unfolds..." - Zero Mission

"The space hunter chosen for this mission is Samus Aran. [She] is the greatest of all the space hunters and has successfully completed numerous missions that everybody thought were absolutely impossible." - Metroid

Dai Grepher: Now, Poiuytman, what do these two quotes tell you about Zero Mission?

Dai Grepher 21:02, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's not fact because all your information is based off data that can be interpreted multiple ways. For some reason you think your own view is the only correct way of looking at things. Yet, I have countered nearly every one of your points with an alternative explanation (and in most cases, the more likely explanation). We've already been over those quotes and just like all the quotes, they can be interpreted to mean multiple things.

And I thought the map data was your primary reasoning. It's a lot more concrete than trying to say that sentences mean one thing or another. Language is ambiguous, there's no denying that. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 23:19, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dai Grepher: You didn't answer the question of what those two quotes tell you about Zero Mission. The answer is obvious. Zero Mission states that the story of Samus' first mission unfolds in Zero Mission, but Metroid states that the mission unfolding in Metroid is not Samus' first mission. Even in the new manual it states that Samus had missions prior to the one she was being called for. So if Zero Mission is the mission that she is being called for, then it contradicts the quote stating that it is her first mission. So if you have nothing further, I suggest you bring in a mediator to deside what is the correct timeline so that it may be edited to the Metroid Series page and all others regarding Zero Mission.

Dai Grepher 23:47, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Woo, I'm useful. --12.217.85.76 00:46, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that the opinions are unappreciated. It just might be more helpful if someone commented who has not been involved in a discussion with Dai Grepher or myself before. Just like how jury members are ineligible if they have had prior contact with a person involved in the case. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 02:10, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Did I say that they were unappreciated? And, technically, those comments in the link I provided happened before he came here to troll the Wiki. --12.217.85.76 02:51, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Er, I just thought "Woo, I'm useful" was sarcastic. I guess I misinterpreted that; it's easy to do when you can't really express tone of voice on the Internet. And yes, you're right about the opinions being new when the forum post was initially made. It seems that the VGF forum was the first place Dai Grepher posted his theory. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 03:34, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about that. There's links in there that go to the Nintendo Forums, and I think those were dated before the VGF topic. --12.217.85.76 05:33, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dai Grepher: VGF is the first place that I posted the presentation. But the people in the other forums had not heard a presentation like mine before either. --Dai Grepher 21:02, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is this an argument over whether Zero Mission is a remake or not? Clearly it's not a plain old remake - it's an enhanced remake. "Sometimes extra levels or other features are added, and the game engine may be improved." -- enhanced remake. Andre (talk) 03:07, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Dai Grepher and I both realize the differences in gameplay between Zero Mission and Metroid. The point he is trying to make is that the stories are actually different, while I am saying that they tell the same story, but with Zero Mission also expanding the ending to include the events after Mother Brain. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 04:11, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty clearly the same story, and you're right. Andre (talk) 04:33, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Dai Grepher: No. How are you people still arguing? You have been proven wrong with this: "The full story of Samus Aran’s first mission finally unfolds..." - Zero Mission

"The space hunter chosen for this mission is Samus Aran. [She] is the greatest of all the space hunters and has successfully completed numerous missions that everybody thought were absolutely impossible." - Metroid

End of story! Zero Mission is the first and Metroid is not. That's it. You are done. These are facts that you cannot deny. So I would like to know when the Metroid pages are going to be updated to display the correct information about Zero Mission being a prequel.Dai Grepher 06:29, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One solution to this problem is that, under the spirit of the enhanced remake notion, Zero Mission effectively renders the original Metroid game obsolete. Under that notion, Metroid ceases to exist, and the second quote you provided is rendered moot since it doesn't not exist. That's the alternative hypothesis.

On the other hand, one of the problems that you have to worry about with your argument is the circular logic of the problem. Samus Aran, in Metroid under your timeline, was chosen for the task because she had completed several difficult missions prior to that. What therefore is the rationale for them to select Samus Aran for Zero Mission without prior experience? If this is indeed her first mission, why would they select a lone bounty hunter who has just randomly decided recently she would do this for the mission? The answer is that they wouldn't, especially considering the similarities between the Metroid and Zero Mission scenarios. Eventually, the theory gets counterintuitive.

As a consequence one can always reinterpret the meanings of the sentences to justify the case that both quotes are relevant in the context of the enhanced remake idea. It could be that Zero Mission was indeed Samus' first mission... with the Galactic Federation (or whomever it was). However, the only reason she was selected is that, on her own, she had accepted bounties with other organisations (or indeed on her own) of bringing in high-profile bounties. This would allow both of the quotes to legally apply to Metroid/Zero Mission without creating a contradiction.

Since the English is inherently unclear (and indeed, both of the theories run into impasses further down the road), I truthfully believe that neither theory overrides the other theory. As a result, the popular and more widely accepted theory by default wins.

(Quick edit: One last possibility now that I thought about it. It could be that the mentions of the retelling of the "first mission" is indeed the creators of the game Breaking the fourth wall. That is, the creators are meaning that the first mission that they refer to is the first mission that we the players are aware of, that being the Metroid game.)

The Missing Link 06:45, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The fourth wall theory sounds likely, because Zero Mission's manual also states that Samus has been on previous missions, which conflicts with the "first mission" quote from the box. Dai Grepher's explanation for this is that the ZM manual is explaining the story of the original Metroid, rather than the game it is packaged with. Right. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 11:49, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dai Grepher: This "Fourth Wall" argument has no relevance to the issue. This post from The Missing Link is a complete farce, as it is an attempt to dismiss important facts that prove him wrong. This subterfuge is an insult to the series. The box does not say that this is Samus' first mission in the Federation, or on Zebes, or wearing a blue jumpsuit, it is her first mission ever. If it were not, then the text would have said what type of first it was. It didn't, so it is her first mission and Metroid is not, which makes this a prequel even without all of the other irrefutable proof concerning the structure of the areas. So with that being said, I would like to know when the pages are going to be changed to show that it is a prequel. Every second that passes is one where Wikipedia loses credibility about the Metroid series. Dai Grepher 20:16, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I still find it incredibly humorous how Dai likes to painfully point out "proof" from the Metroid manual, and yet ignores the other blatent errors found within. This is the same Metroid manual that refers to Samas Aran as a "male cyborg"? How can the Metroid manual be concidered to be 100% reliable information on one point, and yet 100% wrong on another? The fact that the Metroid manual incorrectly labels Samas Aran as a male cyborg (which she is neither) should be proof enough that the entire Metroid manual story is an incredible source. I think this debate is over now. Dai is just getting desperate. Can we call it a day?

Dai Grepher: The Metroid manual is not inaccurate at all! It is an accurate telling of the story told by the Federation about the events surrounding Metroid. The line about her being a male cyborg was put into the manual intentionally so that the player would believe that Samus is a male cyborg and be surprised once they see the best ending. Zero Mission's version is of Samus telling the story. Her version is the same as the Federation's, only more clear and accurate with the known facts. Besides, the Zero Mission manual also states that Samus had prior missions. So that story cannot be a prelude to Zero Mission's adventure, which is described to be the first.Dai Grepher 00:15, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

First, to reply what you said directly to my post either. Technically, you misspoke. It does not say "first mission ever". It says "first mission" without any other clarification thereto. The word "ever" would have made it quite clear; the absence of the word leaves the meaning ambiguous. Second, the reference to the fourth wall deserves a better rebuttal than what little you're providing. Passing it off as a farce without any noteworthy explanation is hardly any argument of proof. The argument, despite your passing it off as meaningless, does hold weight, especially since, in the very next post that you made, mention that the manual from which you are taking all of this data is an unreliable narrator. The fact that you just said that the manual could directly lie to the player in order to make the player have false assumptions about Samus Aran. If the manual is able to falsely make the player belive that Samus Aran is a male cyborg, what then forbids the manual in the same breath to forbid the manual from making the player assume that Samus is an experienced bounty hunter having completed successful missions? Simply put, it seems that you're trying to cast the manual as the word of God except when it does not provide evidence that supports your theory, whereupon it is intentionally lying to the player.

Beyond this, you yourself have not replied directly to the argument about the possibility of Zero Mission being an enchanced remake and thus rendering Metroid as a game that falls out of canon by consequence. Until you do so, the theory stands as a plausible theory, and since it is the more popular and believed theory, that should remain the text of Wikipedia over yours. The Missing Link 03:08, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dai Grepher: The use of the word "ever" does not matter. The quote states that it is her first mission. If it were her first mission of a different type, then it would have said so. Since it did not, it does make it her first mission of her lifetime. This is proper grammar, not ambiguity. The "fourth wall" has nothing to do with Metroid, so I don't have to explain anything. It does not apply to the series! Metroid's manual holds official information to the player. It is not some storyline that breaks the limits of its own universe to refer to those outside of it. It is information from Nintendo about Metroid and its backstory. It has incorrect information about Samus for an intended reason. That cannot be considered inaccurate information, even in the in-universe description. That information could be from the Federation, which does not know the true history of Samus. The Zero Mission manual clears it all up because at that time the information had been discovered. Even still, this is a case of Nintendo telling us the story of Metroid again, only this time not using intentionally incorrect information because by this time we all know that Samus is female, and there is no surprise to be seen about that fact. Nothing else (except for a minor detail in founding dates) in the manual is wrong, and the Zero Mission version is proof of that. Even in the revised version of Metroid, the story states that Samus had missions prior to the one she would go on. Therefore the fact still remains that the mission she was about to take after the manual backstory cannot be Zero Mission. The Metroid manual supports my factual presentation in every instance.

I have replied time and time again about the possibility of Zero Mission being an enhanced remake. It cannot possibly be a remake of any kind because it contradicts two very important facts. One is that the box describes Zero Mission as Samus' first mission, which Metroid is not. The second is the fact that the Tourian in Zero Mission cannot possibly produce the ruined Tourian that we see in Super Metroid. Super Metroid can only exist if Metroid exists, therefore Metroid can never fall out of canon by consequence. My "theory" as you call it is not a theory. It is a fact. Your theory is a theory, and it is one that is impossible, as proven by the game facts. Dai Grepher 20:57, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Starting at the left again. I'm quoting you, Dai Grepher:

"the fact that the Tourian in Zero Mission cannot possibly produce the ruined Tourian that we see in Super Metroid"

How is this fact? There is no official information on what happened to the old Tourian between the two games. Super Metroid's manual only says that a new Tourian was built sometime after Metroid/Zero Mission. Also:

"the box describes Zero Mission as Samus' first mission, which Metroid is not"

I assume that you are using the manual as evidence that Metroid is not her first mission. However, this is not reliable since the box is talking about the game, within the context of the real world, while the manual is talking about the history within the context of the game.

By the way, your theory is not fact if you are the only one claiming it to be. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 04:44, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dai Grepher: The Super Metroid manual does not say that. It says that a new one was built after Samus destroyed it the first time. Whether you think that first time is Zero Mission or Metroid, either way, the old one was left and a new one was built. The damaged part of Tourian with the brain pod in Zero Mission does not have five Zebetites and it does not have a flat surface. Most of all it is not above Brinstar's lower level and cannot possibly be the one seen in Super Metroid. The brain room from Metroid matches the one from Super Metroid. Metroid takes place and then Super Metroid. That is an in-game fact that you cannot refute.

So now you are calling the box unreliable. All facts that prove you wrong are unreliable. A blatent disregard of facts. The box is talking about in-game facts. The full story of Samus Aran's first mission unfolds in Zero Mission. Metroid proves that its game is not her first mission. If that same story applies to Zero Mission, then it directly contradicts the box. So I would like an explanation of how Zero Mission can be a remake even though it makes the maps inconsistent and contradicts the box description of it being the first mission please.

Dai Grepher 23:24, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Complaining[edit]

I'm not sure about this, but it seems that Dai Grepher is trying to drag this out long enough until I simply give up and quit. I gather this because he is making sure he has the last reply on every subtopic, and stating that since I haven't replied yet to his reply, that his point automatically wins in that section. To put it another way, this is what is happening:

Dai Grepher: point #1
Poiuyt Man: counterpoint #1
Dai Grepher: point #2
Poiuyt Man: counterpoint #2
Dai Grepher: point #1 again
Poiuyt Man: no reply
Dai Grepher: I win!

I've been trying to abstain from personal attacks at all costs, but in my opinion, this is definite trolling. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 00:03, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We found the same thing at VGF. He simply does not listen to other arguements and tends to just ignore them all together. It is very easy to lose one's temper while talking to him, simply because of his "I'm right and I'm not going to listen to you" attitude. He managed to drag out the topic at VGF for 20 some pages by using the same exact strategy you mentioned. It's becoming more obvious that he's just a troll. A troll with way too much free time. I have not found him to show any respect for anyone else's opinion.

Dai Grepher: I wouldn't waste my time here if I knew I was wrong. I am replying to almost everything you post because that is what you do in a debate. You reply to all the points and then wait for your opponent to reply to all of your points. I never stated that I had won when you did not reply, I only stated that my point has gone uncontested. I am listening to what you say, and then replying to it. Just because I prove you wrong on some things or point out times where you ignore facts or twist words around to dodge the evidence doesn't mean that I am doing anything like what you are suggesting. Those at VGF were nothing but sore losers that never gave any evidence to prove that Zero Mission was a remake. They did nothing but insult me, tell me what they thought about it being a remake, and threaten to ban me for having a different opinion. They are immature on VGF. So if you cannot go on discussing this issue maturely and intellectually, then call a non-biased administrator here to review the facts and make a decision. Dai Grepher 23:47, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admire your tenacity and willpower, Poiuyt Man. You've weathered quite a storm, and you've had to do so by yourself, so it's a commendable effort. Unfortunately, as much as I would love to be your third opinion on the issue, I've already waged war with Dai Grepher (partly out of belief, but moreso out of the challenge) on the issue, and so it could easily be claimed that I'm not an unbiased party on the issue. I'd offer my two cents on the matter if you think they'd be helpful, but the best I can do for you until then is to give you my thanks for patrolling the 'pedia. You do a spectacular job here, and I just want to let you know that the efforts of the 'pedia staff do not go unnoticed. Good job. The Missing Link 03:00, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I've just been trying to stick to Wikipedia policy -- avoid personal attacks and cite sources for evidence. It's been mentally exhausting. At least all this evidence-digging has produced several references that can be added to the article. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 11:49, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dai Grepher: Your lack of replying to my evidence is proof that you can not explain why the facts prove a prequel. I offered to take this whole discussion to a forum to avoid confusion with editing but you wanted to discuss it here. So don't start complaining about how hard it was to keep up with, because you were the one that chose to talk about it here. Dai Grepher 20:16, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I know that my opinion does not mean much around here, but I would just like to let you all know that you are doing a very fine job in this debate. Our debate on the Metroid board has gone on for almost a month, and is over 50 pages long. Yes, 506 replies. I admit, some of them are spams and flames by other users, but a big part of the thread is made up of arguments.

Also, I would have to agree with you, he is becoming a troll. He blatently disregards our opinions, calling them mere assumption, while he provides no better evidence on his own and calls it a fact.

Sorry, that became sort of off-topic. But anyway...You have done a very fine job, Poiuytman. I especially like your counterpoint of Occam's Razor. That is something I never thought of, and it makes quite a bit of sense, although it doesn't help the argument, to some degree.

I did find an interesting piece of information, however, and it comes directly from the interview with Zero Mission's producer:

"...at the same time, retell the story of Samus' original mission." That very plainly states that this is a retelling, or remake, of the original Metroid. I could not be any plainer than what I have been.

Once again, thank you Poiuytman, for your continued hard work, and to all you others who have replied with your information as well. It has been very enlightening for me to read your comments. Thanks again. ^_^ Dr.P. 01:52, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I didn't even see that in the Sakamoto's opening speech, and it is more clear than his other quotes that Zero Mission is indeed the same story.

I appreciate the support from everybody; I was getting weary as the only person on this side of the argument. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 07:36, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dai Grepher: You are the only person on that side of the argument that is qualified to discuss this here. Everyone else (except Bluefoxicy at the beginning) that has added their opinion to this topic are people that I have already proven wrong and also refuse to accept the facts.

I have also explained that quote from Sakamoto. It clearly says that they wanted to rework the gameplay from Metroid for Zero Mission, add new elements to it to make it new, and at the same time retell the story of Samus' original mission. What does "retell" mean? Something that is told again. The original mission of Metroid, IF that is what he is referring to, was told again in the manual. So that does not imply that the Metroid game is being retold or that Zero Mission is a remake of Metroid. That is just baseless assumption with no evidence to support it.Dai Grepher 20:57, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again, you take the most unlikely interpretation: that he is referring to the manual when he mentions "retell the story". This is what all your theories are based off of: the most unlikely interpretation of each bit of evidence. That isn't logic, that's nonsense, and that's why I've stopped replying to most of your arguments.

I'm going to make a summary of all the actual facts and quotes. You may do the same, if you wish. Facts do not include "there is no possible way that Tourian could have been rebuilt between Metroid and Super Metroid", or any other of your conjectures. Those are opinions. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 22:28, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dai Grepher: OK, you have ignored the facts that Zero Mission is the first mission and Metroid is not, you have ignored what Sakamoto said about it being a remake of gameplay ONLY and not storyline, and you have ignored the map inconsistencies. Here is a letter from Nintendo of America regarding Zero Mission and its status as a remake or not.

I think Dai is a bit crazy for trying to find a way to make it that Zero Mission is a prequel. Nintendo would of said that Zero Mission was a prequel if it was a prequel, they wouldn't say so many things that obviously point to the game being an enhanced remake and then expect people to believe it is a prequel. It is like me hinting that McDonald's doesn't use beef at all in a hamburger, though I'm ambiguous in my language, and yet I expect you to believe that they use goose meat. Prepostorous. NH

Nintendo's Letter[edit]

http://forums.nintendo.com/nintendo/board/message?board.id=metroid&message.id=264417&view=by_date_ascending&page=66

Nsider Memebr: "Hello. We at NSider are having a debate on whether or not Metroid Zero Mission is a remake of Metroid 1 (located here [you must skim through the entire thread to see what we are talking of]), which has lasted for 632 posts, translating into 64 pages of sensless bickering. Also, another thread, which was locked, contained 188 posts, or 19 pages. Overall, this 73 page debate is getting quite old, if you ask us.

So, I will ask one final time before I resort to sending snail mail to the main division of Nintendo. I hope that whoever reads this resorts to asking someone who worked on the American localization of Zero Mission or even someone from the Japanese team that worked on it.

To my question: Is Metroid Zero Mission a remake of Metroid 1, or is it a brand new adventure? Please do not give me the sales pitch, as I have head it three times before. I am looking for a straight answer at whehter or not Zero Mission is indeed a remake or brand new game. There can be no inbetween, for this debate will continue if there is no straight answer. It is either "yes, it's a remake", or "no, it is not a remake". We debatees will not settle for anything less.

Thank you for your time, and I pray you will give us a straight answer."

Nintendo: "Hello and thank you for contacting Nintendo,

As we told you in our previous email, while there are a lot of similarities between Metroid 1 and Metroid: Zero Mission, and the world is the same one used in the original, there are quite a few new things added. So yes, it is like the first one, but I would also have to say no, as new enemies and other surprises have been added.

I can certainly understand your curiosity, but the best way to answer the questions you have is to either play the game, and make the comparison yourself, or go to www.nintendo.com and check out the information there.

I hope this is helpful.

Thanks for your email!

Nintendo of America Inc. Sharon Matheny

Dai Grepher: That states clearly that it is not a remake. So since Wikipedia is one to hold Nintendo's word as a reliable first source, I guess that means that there is no need for a poll. So if you would kindly admit that I was right this whole time, I will get to the editing of the Metroid pages on Wikipedia. Thank you all for your participation in this discussion.

Wait. So, you say it's not a remake because it has different enemies and events?

Dawn of the Dead - Remake (completely different characters, different ending, fast zombies) Now, are you going to tell me it's not a remake, solely because it's been remade into a different movie? You're saying that Zero Mission could not have been remade from Metroid because they made it with different enemies. No one's claiming it's a port (where they take the game and make it look slightly prettier, or not at all and just slap it on another console). It's a remake, and all of the claims that it's not exactly the same is not an argument against remake. It not being exactly the same is the POINT of the remake; the unwritten definition of remake is a game or movie with the intent of taking a previous game or movie and making a new version of it. They're remaking the original Metroid, with new enemies, new gameplay, new plot additions (with the final plot being blatantly similar to Metroid's) and new areas. Dawn of the Dead a remake by, well, anyone with a lick of common sense. The creator of the game said it was a remake, and he did not mention the manual anywhere. You cite a guy who played the games and works for a separate Nintendo branch with a job answering your emails. The credibility of the NoA employee is very miniscule. She makes the claim that it is not a remake of the original Metroid because this game goes past graphical remake. She says that being different means it's not a remake, when anyone with an ounce of sense will tell you that the point of a remake is to be different. The current Metroid developer remade the original Metroid with his image in mind. You were originally saying that his word was not gold all the time, that if it argued against fact, it can't be true. But you're giving your opinion on legendary mission. You assume that it MUST be her first mission for, Hell, I have no idea why you would come to that conclusion. You claim it as fact, even though you cannot prove what they mean by legendary mission. Do they count saving a cat from drowning as a legendary mission? Probably not. You use the idea that this is her first mission to say that it must take place before Metroid. Metroid's plot is no longer relevant. It can be changed, and it has. Also, why is it that you seem to think that having, oh, say, pretty much, the original opening area be 99% the same in this game? The only difference shown was the visual upgrades. It had the Morph Ball in the exact same position, the rock formation was the same, and the entrance was the same. I realize that I'm rambling, but you must get off of your high horse. You do not define remake, the popular opinion does. Remake is defined as being remade. So the letter saying that it was different (and thusly not a remake) is void; you can't argue that something isn't remade because it was different. -- A Link to the Past 19:54, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Dai Grepher: You cannot argue that something is a remake just because it is different! Different designs and storylines are characteristics of different adventures and different games! All of your irrelevant excuses aside, the woman at Nintendo said that it is not a remake even though the two games are a lot alike. She did not uses differences to explain why it is not a remake, she said "no" to it being a remake. Period. Nintendo's official word is that Zero Mission is not a remake of Metroid. You have been proven wrong on every account, and every bit of evidence from the games, manual, boxes, director, and spokespersons all prove that Zero Mission is not a remake. Whether you two accept these facts or not is not my concern. Posting the correct timeline on Wikipedia is. Dai Grepher 02:47, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Will you do us all a favor and not disregard the entire freaking paragraph? Did you ask her if she went up to Sakamoto's office and asked him this, or do you assume that if her only job at Nintendo was fetching drinks, that just because she works there, she's an official source? You say that slight differences change the fact that Kraid, Ridley and Mother Brain are all major villains in it. The point of a remake it to be different. If it was a direct port of Metroid, then it wouldn't be a remake. It's a retelling! Again, I ask you - can you give me one single reason why them saying this was her first legendary mission is synonymous with the idea that this was her first mission? I mean, sure, one could THINK that saving a cat from drowning is legendary, but it just not is. The legendary moments of Samus would be the games we've seen. Her first legendary mission was Metroid. You explain that because it doesn't reproduce the maps exactly, it's not the same game. The maps are close enough. The intro is almost exactly the same, it's got those tall rooms, and it's got the Metroid room. And can you explain why they would put Metroid on such a similar game as this as an unlockable? Wer have Sakamoto saying this is a remake. You may say that he was speaking of the manual (or some illogical BS), but you cannot prove it. That is the closest thing we have to evidence, and thusly, we should go on that, not some email-answering bimbo at Nintendo's American division. -- A Link to the Past 03:03, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Dai Grepher: I will disregard all irrelevant posts. NOA is an official source, and three others like her also said that Zero Mission is not a remake. That makes 5 to 0 for the prequel side when you include Sakamoto. Kraid, Ridley, and Mother Brain are villains in Super Metroid too, but that isn't a remake of anything. Link has to save Zelda from Ganon/Ganondorf in at least three games, but none of them are remakes of prior games. Similar plots do not mean that the same game is being remade. The "legendary mission" quote is not the issue. The quote I am pushing harder than anything else is, "The full story of Samus Aran's FIRST MISSION finally unfolds...". That quote clearly states that this is Samus' first mission. In my opinion, the "legendary adventure" quote does the same thing, but it is one that you have created a horrible excuse for in order to disregard it, so the "first mission" quote suits my case much better. Legendary adventures mean the adventures that made her a legend. Metroid's manual states that she is a legend by the time Metroid's mission takes place. Therefore she must have had legendary adventures before Metroid. Also notice how the room leading to the Long Beam is a cave that is small and undeveloped? Now look at Metroid, the path to the Long Beam is carved out and smooth with metal floors and ceiling. This is proof that Metroid takes place after Zero, when the pirates expanded many of the areas. Sakamoto also said that they only remade Metroid's gameplay. You misinterpreted him, and he also said that it was not a remake of storyline, yet you ignored that. NOA's word is considered a reliable source to Wikipedia, so regardless of how you or I think about their division, it is still a fact and the Wikipedia pages will be changed to reflect the truth.Dai Grepher 03:21, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1. If the PRESIDENT of NoA said it, maybe I'd be convinced. But you're citing someone who may do nothing BUT answer your emails with HER opinion.

2. Sakamoto, at NO time, said that Zero Mission was not a remake. He SPECIFICALLY called it a remake, so how is it a victory for you?

3. If you took away the new stuff, it would be exactly the same as Metroid.

4. When something is retconned, then it just isn't official anymore. If it turns out to be a remake, it means that the first Metroid's plot has been overrun with this one.

5. Where, exactly, did he claim that they didn't remake the plot?

6. Well, here's the dilemma. You're working with some bimbo as evidence, against dozens of people citing Sakamoto calling Zero Mission a remake of Metroid. -- A Link to the Past 04:12, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Dai Grepher: 1. Nintendo's reps do not give their opinion when answering e-mail. They give the information that has been provided to them. 2. Sakamoto never called it a remake. He did however say the following: "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." He just said that it was not a remake of storyline. The only part of Metroid that he said was remade was the gameplay style. Nothing more. 3. If you took away the "new stuff" in Super Metroid, it would be exactlly the same Metroid. 4. You have no proof that it was "retconned", and besides, Super Metroid relies on Metroid's storyline to exist as its own story, which means that Metroid cannot be "retconned" in a way that destroys the basis of Super Metroid. Zero Mission cannot possibly lead into Super Metroid, thus Metroid must exist. If Zero Mission truely is a remake, then it is inaccurate an non-canon. Thankfully it is a prequel and does not damage continuity. 5. See 2. 6. One Nintendo bimbo that knows the facts overrules dozens of biased fans that say Sakamoto said something that he really did not say.

Dai Grepher 23:24, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, calm down. Link to the Past, God bless you, but at the rate you're going, you're going to start looking like the bad guy very quickly if you keep this up. Dai Grepher, ... I have no idea what to say to you that'll make any difference, so I'll just not.

It should be important to note PouiytMan's update on the main thread for this. He wrote Nintendo himself with regard to the previous letter, and, in short, he received a reply as follows: "Essentially, it's a rewrite of the original story for the millions of fans who enjoyed the original game." This makes a chalk mark in the column for the remake side, effectively canceling out (at the very least) the chalk mark that comes from your letter, Dai Grepher.

Dai Grepher: That makes 4 non-remake statements to 1 supposed remake statement from NOA. Plus, I have already provided evidence from Sakamoto that proves your one NOA source to be incorrect. Sakamoto said that they did not rewrite or remake the storyline, they expanded on it. The NOA person that PouiytMan contacted has faulty information when compared to the other letters from Nintendo alone, but Sakamoto's statement proves it incorrect. On top of that, this new letter does not say it is a remake either. He said that they rewrote Metroid's story and used it in Zero Mission. That does not mean that Zero Mission replaces Metroid in the timeline or that all of Metroid was remade. This only proves that they used Metroid's story as a basis for Zero Mission's, just as they did with Super Metroid. Dai Grepher 23:24, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thus, if we chalk NoA up to not knowing what in the world is going on, if we chalk up Sakamoto's quote to be ambiguous, we are left with the same-old argument. There are at least several people here who support the existing chronology; there is one that supports the new non-remake chronology. If you count strictly us, it's many to one in favour of the article staying as is. If you say that's not correct, then it, by policy, comes back down to a vote. Or at least some administrator ruling. This DOES NOT come down to an arbitrary decision that because a single minority vote exists and cannot be disproven that the minority walks away with everything scot free. (Were that the case, then what truth would ANY of the Wikipedia articles have?)

Dai Grepher: Yes we are left with that old argument, which also prove that I am correct. Metroid is not the first mission, Zero Mission is. If Zero Mission replaces Metroid's story, then I am still right because Zero Mission's backstory also mentions prior missions, which contradicts the box. You have lost at every one of your theory's avenues of possibility, and a few votes from a few uninformed or biased Wikipedians will not change that fact. The fact will change Wikipedia. An administratior ruling will be the only thing that silences the remake side's petty complaining. A hundred people saying that they think the sky is red does not change the fact that it is blue. Dai Grepher 23:24, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dai Grepher, I'm sorry, but it seems as if the LAST thing you want to do is to go with the flow on Wikipedia policy, that just because you believe you have a proof (that no one else believes), thus it should be that your argument should win. Either fall in line (as we've all agreed to do) and let it be taken care of fairly, or let it go.

The Missing Link 04:25, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dai Grepher: Whether you few people believe what I have found is fact or not is irrelevent. The truth is that what I have found are facts that prove a prequel, and both NOA and the director of the game support this fact as well. I have also noticed that PouiytMan never did reply to how Zero Mission can be Samus' first mission but have others take place before it. So I posted the question along with another with my name bolded. If he does not give a straight answer this time, then I will consider it the disregard of evidence of a biased fan. Dai Grepher 23:24, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Even if he had responded, you'd have just tossed away PouiytMan's arguments as irrelevant and not worthy of discussion. I actually don't blame him for not replying to this. I'd also like to note now that you are starting to go borderline on the insults as well, calling the side opposite you, namely "Nintendo bimbo[s]" as you quote, as having nothing to offer other than "petty complaining." What you need to do now is vote in the poll on the other page, state your opinion there, and let the votes cast as they will. If the votes inevitably turn out against your theory, believe that we're "biased fan[s]" all you want; you're not obligated to care about Wikipedia's future, and if we indeed choose to be such demoralised helpless beings, you're quite free to turn around and plug your theory elsewhere. The Missing Link 01:40, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dai Grepher: If PouiytMan submits a logical and factual argument that explains why the box says that Zero is Samus' first mission even though the manual story that supposedly describes Zero Mission states that Samus had missions prior to it, why Zero's Tourian has been changed to be a similar opposite from the Tourian of Metroid ergo the old Tourian in Super Metroid, and now that I think about it, why they would go with a game title that suggests this is Samus' very first mission ("zero" meaning before all others), then I will either concede the point or argue it with facts as I have done through this entire debate. My action will depend on the merit of PoiytMan's explanation.

A Link to the Past was the one to give Sharon the title of "bimbo", I was retorting his statement with the same remark to show her authority over the opinions of the opposition despite his opinion about her. Stating that your side has nothing to offer but petty complaints is stating a fact, not an insult, since those mentioned have proven that fact through their actions.

I have already stated that an administrator decision, or votes among impartial judges of Wikipedia that only wish to find the true information for the website is what will be needed to end this debate. This poll is a complete mockery of scientific and logical analysis of facts because it was created with the sole purpose of disregarding undeniable proof that shows Zero Mission to be a prequel to Metroid. I will have no part in it, because neither anyone else’s opinion nor mine prove something to be a fact. The only thing that this poll will prove is that of the majority of the Wikipedia users that have viewed this debate think that Zero Mission is a remake in spite of evidence to the contrary. It will end when unbiased judges make a decision or if PoiytMan fails to sufficiently explain the inconsistencies and contradictions above that I have brought to his attention.

Dai Grepher 05:45, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion continued (new section for ease of editing)[edit]

Sorry, for some reason I thought I had clicked "watch" on this page when I created it, and I didn't. I didn't know the discussion was going on without me. I'll respond to the three points above.

"why the box says that Zero is Samus' first mission even though the manual story that supposedly describes Zero Mission states that Samus had missions prior to it"

"THE FULL STORY OF SAMUS ARAN'S FIRST MISSION FINALLY UNFOLDS... The first Metroid game just scratched the surface of the cataclysmic events on planet Zebes"

I believe I've said this before: the manual is set within the context of the fictional Metroid universe. In the Metroid universe, these events did not occur within games; they were actual historical events.

However, the description on the back of the box is not limited to the boundaries of the Metroid universe. It refers to the "first Metroid game", which means it's talking about the Metroid games in the real world, and not just the in-game history. In the real world, Metroid was released first, making it the first mission playable by gamers. Therefore, in this context, they may have easily meant "first mission" to be a synonym for "first game".

"why Zero's Tourian has been changed to be a similar opposite from the Tourian of Metroid ergo the old Tourian in Super Metroid"

The lack of a Zeebetite makes it the opposite? I think not. Tourian was changed to make the battle more fun. In the original Metroid, you had to stand on that little Zeebetite to fire missiles into Mother Brain, and if a Rinka knocked you into the acid in front of her, you were pretty much dead unless you could do some skillful freezing and jumping to get out. It was very frustrating, considering that you'd have to start back at the beginning of Tourian with 30 energy. Zero Mission is designed to be a much easier game than Metroid, and the new Mother Brain battle is one element that reflects that.

"why they would go with a game title that suggests this is Samus' very first mission ("zero" meaning before all others)"

I don't know, it sounds cool? Seriously, the title could be interpreted various ways, and doing so is not going to provide a very strong argument. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 13:58, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, a dialogue excerpt from the Nintendo Power comic has been added to the main talk page. Although its story deviates from the actual Super Metroid gameplay, it is obviously based off the series. Several points regarding Samus' past have also been kept entirely in the more recent manga on the Japanese Fusion website. Anyway, in the Nintendo Power comic, Ridley states, "You may have beaten us once... but never again!" If Zero Mission and Metroid were two separate missions, she would have beaten them twice. Response? --Poiuyt Man ^talk 14:26, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dai Grepher: The quote: "The full story of Samus Aran's first mission finally unfolds..." does not refer to the first Metroid game. There is not one word in that quote that refers to a game. You are adding your own words and ideas to the quote that only states one thing.

The box also refers to the Metroid universe because it talks about storyline. The only difference is that it is information to the perspective customer, not the actual player or in-universe character. It mentions cataclysmic events as well. That is a reference to in-game storyline. The first quote of the box is a reference to in-universe events as well. Had it truly referred to Metroid, it would have read, "The full story of Samus Aran's mission in Metroid finally unfolds..." or "...Samus Aran's first game mission/playable mission finally unfolds...". Had this really been a real world reference to a game, then it would have stated the game it was referring to and it would not have stated the word "mission" because in our world we have played the games and not the missions. I think that you know this also, and it seems to me like you are deliberately trying to disregard this fact because you prefer your own theory over this newly discovered timeline.

Dai Grepher: The Zebetite makes it inconsistent with Super Metroid's depiction of it. However, the space beneath Mother Brain's pod is shown to be undamaged by the blast where as Super Metroid shows that the area beneath its brain pod was damaged. There is also the fact that the damaged Zero Mission Tourian has a brain pod that is nothing more than a fragmented mass of twisted and scorched metal, has remnants of only four Zebetites which have been destroyed beyond recognition, it shows that each platform between the Zebetites has been completely vaporized or blown away, and it shows that the elevator leading to Crateria is not the same design as Super Metroid's. All of these differences set Zero Mission apart from Super Metroid's old Tourian and thus Metroid's Tourian. These are all major inconsistencies that can not be seen as "artistic vision" in a logical concept. Changing art is one thing, but making all of these things to be completely different from what is seen in a game that is set to follow it is simply not professional. Knowing that Super Metroid would have to follow Zero Mission if it were a remake, the creators would know that they must make that Tourian look similar to what we have already come to know as the old Tourian. Saying that this was "retconned" to change Metroid and Super Metroid is baseless, because there is no evidence of a re-writing. Explaining all of this as a "retcon" is an excuse to dismiss the facts that prove a remake impossible. It is more logical to conclude that all of these major differences were put there to make these Tourians different and distinguishable.

The Mother Brain battle was designed to be unique. It was not easier than Metroid. It only seemed easier because Samus does not lose as much life in Zero Mission as she did in Metroid and she also has more firepower and energy tanks. Not only that be Tourian was much more compact than Metroid, which means the Zebetites were not set that high up. In Zero Mission Samus could have jumped out of the lava with ease and even if she missed the platform there is still the ability of the Power Grip to aid her escape. You mention starting back at the beginning with 30 EN, but haven't you forgotten that Zero Mission had save points, and more specifically, one right before the fight with the Mother Brain? In that case a death in the pit between Mother Brain and its nearest Zebetite would not be as aggravating. Zero Mission was made easier through other means. A redesign of that room and everything in it would not have been necessary and was not because it is a new Tourian that has never been seen before in a previous game.

Dai Grepher: A "Zero Mission" logically implies the very first mission of one's life. I am also asking why they did not call it Metroid, or Metroid 1, or something to identify it as Metroid.

Dai Grepher: Not only is that comic non-canon information, but it was created before the concept of Zero Mission was even conceived. I am surprised that you would even bring this up as some kind of evidence. I suppose you also believe that Samus' hair is purple, and she was accompanied on her mission by that male captain that sought a relationship with her.Dai Grepher 16:16, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"There is not one word in that quote that refers to a game. You are adding your own words and ideas to the quote that only states one thing."

The whole description must be taken into context, not just the quote. When you read the whole box, it is clear that they refer to both the storyline and the actual game. Therefore, it can't be determined whether the first line refers to either of those specifically. I'm merely providing a possible explanation for why it would refer to "first mission". Yours is not the only interpretation. If you can't acknowledge this, I refuse to discuss this further.

"it seems to me like you are deliberately trying to disregard this fact because you prefer your own theory over this newly discovered timeline."

Nope, I just prefer Nintendo's timeline (as seen on the MP2 bonus disc and the Japanese Zero Mission site) over yours.

The state of Mother Brain's chamber after her defeat is weak evidence. They're different games with different artistic styles. The chamber is destroyed in both games, the rest is minor. Perhaps something happened to it in the indefinite amount of time until Super Metroid. If I wanted to conjecture further, I could say that since Samus is retelling the story, she could be embellishing or distorting the facts, or leaving out certain details.

"Not only that be Tourian was much more compact than Metroid"

The level design in general is more compact than Metroid or Super Metroid. It was designed for the GBA, so Samus is larger on the screen, and the player's field of view is smaller. To compensate for this, horizontal chambers are shorter, and vertical chambers are narrower. This further suggests that the developers put gameplay ahead of continuity. If Zero Mission is a prequel, and we are to take every gameplay detail into account, then all the rooms have somehow grown larger in the time between the games.

"It was not easier than Metroid."

We have differing opinions and gameplay experiences. You're not going to try to argue this statement as fact, are you?

"A "Zero Mission" logically implies the very first mission of one's life. I am also asking why they did not call it Metroid, or Metroid 1, or something to identify it as Metroid."

Hey, I don't know exactly why they named it that. Neither do you. I've never seen any quote from Sakamoto why they named it "Zero Mission", so this is pure speculation.

The comic — why is it non-canon? Metroid also depicts Samus' hair as brown/green, does that make it non-canon because later games show it differently? Metroid Fusion also shows the Omega Metroid to be very large, does that make Metroid 2 non-canon? I do think that the comic has some validity, because Samus' past as described in the comic has been completely retained in the newer Japanese Metroid manga. The other guy that accompanies Samus on Zebes is obviously not there in the game, and is just added for story. However, he parks behind Samus' ship in the comic (where you wouldn't be able to see it in the game), and there is evidence on Zebes that other warriors have come there (the corpse before Kraid's room).

"it was created before the concept of Zero Mission was even conceived"

How do you know when the concept of Zero Mission was conceived? I suppose we can say that is was probably some time after Fusion's release, but there's a flaw in your logic. Metroid and Super Metroid were also created before Zero Mission. Should we disregard those games also as valid parts of the storyline?

--Poiuyt Man ^talk 03:41, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dai Grepher: I know that my explanation is not the only possibility, but it is the most logical, probable, and obviously correct explanation. Whether the first quote refers to a game or a story does not matter. In either case it states that the full story Samus' first mission finally unfolds. Both in this world and in the Metroid universe, Metroid is not Samus' first mission. So you still have not provided an explanation for the box stating that Zero is Samus' first mission thought it is supposedly a remake of a third or fourth mission. All you have done is mentioned the fact that the box refers to both the game and the storyline in certain cases. So you either have to provide evidence that it is referring to Metroid, or provide evidence that it is inaccurate. Those are the only options that I know of that will save your side of the argument and it appears that neither option has any substantial evidence.

Dai Grepher: Then what do you say about Nintendo.com's timeline found here: http://metroid.com/zeromission/launch/index.html (then click the top right box marked "Timeline")? It places Zero Mission at the end of the timeline. You also do not know that Zero Mission's events take place after Metroid. According to the facts, Zero Mission is the first mission, which means that it cannot be placed after another mission. So this could mean that the events of Zero Mission happened before Metroid but are being told afterward by Samus. The premise for Zero Mission is that Samus is telling the story. The Japanese website could be looking at Samus' telling as a flashback to past events but that telling taking place after Metroid. The Zero Mission manual supports this possibility because it refers to Metroid in past tense. This means that the telling is taking place after Metroid.

Dai Grepher: The state of Mother Brain's chamber is the strongest evidence against the remake theory. This is because the chamber ties into the storyline. If it does not look as it is supposed to in Super Metroid, then it is inaccurate and either Super Metroid or Zero Mission become non-canon. Artistic style also has nothing to do with what is there and what is not there. The artists are instructed to draw art over the blocks of game code that represent walls, shootables, characters, etc. The artist allows us to see what is in the game, but the artist does not make what is in the game. Had Zero Mission been intended to be a remake, then they would have created Mother Brain's room to be structured in a similar design, and then the artists would have made it look similar to the appearance of Super Metroid. This is what they did with the area around the Morphing ball, and also other areas. This is also the case with a few areas seen in Super Metroid, such as the path that leads to the ship. Since Mother Brain's room is a part of the series that we experience again later, it must match what we see, like the other areas do. They paid close attention to detail in designing Super Metroid to be similar to Metroid, and they did so again with many areas in Zero Mission. Why then did they make Tourian different from what is seen in later games? Not only is that inconsistent with Super Metroid, but it is also inconsistent with their design concept. They made many other areas similar to the other Metroid games up until Tourian. So again, why would they make it so Tourian would not match after they spent so much time making other areas similar? I do not see any evidence of Samus’ memory being inaccurate. If it is, then how are we to believe anything that we see in Zero Mission? I hope you do not expect me to believe that everything else is right except the parts that prove your theory to be incorrect. All that will say is that yours is a theory of convenience. This is beside the point. The box states that the full story of her first mission unfolds. I want you to focus on the “full story” part of that quote this time. Also, Nintendo.com states that it is told in full detail. So that is evidence that what we see in the game is what really happened. So Samus is right, Tourian is different, and it was not because of art style (which doesn’t effect design or structure anyway).

Dai Grepher: Actually, Samus is much larger on the screen in Super Metroid, yet the old Tourian had similar length and could hold five Zebetites. The distance between the floor and the ceiling was shorter in Super Metroid as it was in Zero Mission. So the point of difficulty jumping out of the pit between Mother Brain and the nearest Zebetite really has no basis because there would have been no difficulty in doing so in Zero Mission. Length of the room also has nothing to do with this because as we have seen the escape shaft that leads to Crateria is too far over as it is. They could have made the room longer and it would not have affected anything. Or they could have made the distance between each Zebetite shorter and added one more. Instead they only made four, and then they created the destroyed Tourian to have no discernable brain pod, no Zebetites, and no platforms. On top of that they made the area beneath the pod look undamaged even though Super Metroid appears to have been affected by the blast. All of these differences and inconsistencies are not because of art or size of the screen. They are all intentional changes to Tourian to make it unique and different.

Dai Grepher: Of course I am going to argue it as fact. First of all, this has nothing to do with gameplay experiences or opinions. I think you are forgetting the main issue with this. You are saying that Tourian was redesigned from Metroid to be an easier battle and I am saying that it was created to be a different and unique fight that was not easier than Metroid's battle. If anything, Zero Mission's battle was more complex because there were more things to dodge. It may have seemed easier to the extent of winning but only because Samus is more powerful in Zero than she is in Metroid. I also refuted your points about Metroid's design being too hard for Zero Mission. Samus had new abilities in Zero Mission that would have enabled her to escape the pit much more quickly and easily. Even if she were to die in that battle, the player would restart at the save point right before it, not at the beginning of Tourian with 30 EN. So your point about it being redesigned because of difficulty has no basis either.

Dai Grepher: They named it Zero Mission because 0 comes before 1 in numerical order.

Dai Grepher: The comic is not canon because it is from Nintendo Power and because it does not match the game events. Samus' hair doesn't make a difference, but in the comic it does because in Super Metroid it is blond. If it doesn't match in the game then the comic is wrong. The comic also omits the part where the metroid saves Samus and dies in the process. I am surprised that you would even consider this comic valid. It shows great desperation on your part, especially when you consider the fact that you forgot about Metroid Prime coming before Super Metroid in your theory as well. So since Ridley states that Samus has only beaten them once, that means that Metroid Prime did not take place either, or is a remake of something, because Samus beat the pirates in Prime as well. Your theory is getting more unbelievable every day and so are you. You are so quick to think of that one line of text as evidence against a prequel that you do not even think of the possibility that Ridley might not know of that mission or may not think of it as a loss. It seems that you want this whole issue of Zero being a prequel to just go away. Back on topic, the comic copied its story of Samus' past from information regarding her past. Long ago I read in some gaming magazine that Samus' past had been revealed. It covered K-2L and the pirates and the Chozo raising her. It also mentioned that she was 16 in Metroid, though I do not know how they arrived at that conclusion. Anyway, the story of how she came to be the best Bounty Hunter in the galaxy has been around longer than that Nintendo Power comic. The comic only copied the story, but it also got a few things wrong, such as the Chozo being weak and passive. Even in their fading hour the Chozo could fight the pirates with their technology. So even in that sense, the comic is wrong and not canon.

Dai Grepher: No, because those are games. Some comic that isn't even correct to begin with isn't going to hold facts on which new games will be based. The fact that Zero Mission was not thought of until after those games does not matter. All following games should be created to be consistent with previous games and the facts found therein, just as Zero Mission was created.Dai Grepher 14:07, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"So you still have not provided an explanation for the box stating that Zero is Samus' first mission thought it is supposedly a remake of a third or fourth mission."

Yes I did, you were just unsatisfied with it. "First mission" is either synonymous with "first game" or "first legendary mission" in the context provided.

Nintendo's US website is obviously displaying the games in release order, since Metroid Prime has been confirmed to occur between Metroid/Zero Mission and Super Metroid (In MP, pirate logs tell of their defeat on Zebes due to Samus, and their efforts to rebuild the underground base). This would make it a release timeline, not a historical timeline set within the Metroid universe, as on the MP2 bonus disc and Japanese site.

"The Japanese website could be looking at Samus' telling as a flashback to past events but that telling taking place after Metroid."

Unlikely. On the descriptions for the games on the MP2 Bonus Disc, they refer to the actual events, not Samus telling those events. The ZM description covers the events happening after Mother Brain, which is probably why they placed it after Metroid.

"The Zero Mission manual supports this possibility because it refers to Metroid in past tense. This means that the telling is taking place after Metroid."

The usage of past tense only confirms that the telling happened some time after the mission; the specific time at which it is told is not mentioned anywhere. The bonus disc description clearly refers to the events that occured, not the telling of those events.

Samus takes up more of the screen on GBA. On 320x240 screenshots, Samus is about 5-10 pixels taller in Zero Mission. She also has a more hunched over position. However, I retract my statement that the rooms were made smaller for Zero Mission. After comparing screenshots of the two games, I realized that the GBA makes up for the larger Samus sprite by having a wider screen ratio than a TV, and by not having the black info bar at the top of the screen like Super Metroid. When you resize the pictures to account for this, Tourian is approximately the same height in both games.

"They named it Zero Mission because 0 comes before 1 in numerical order."

Do you still not get it? I don't care what you think about this, because you have no evidence for it.

"So since Ridley states that Samus has only beaten them once, that means that Metroid Prime did not take place either"

I forgot about Metroid Prime, so I'll agree that the statement is invalid. I did make it clear that it was weak evidence anyway. I'll add that to the Nintendo Power section on the main talk page.

I'll give up the "easier design" theory, since clearly neither of us knows how hard it was intended to be.

--Poiuyt Man ^talk 17:25, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dai Grepher: You may want to rethink that. The second quote says, "...first legendary adventure..." not "mission". It says the same thing about Zero Mission in two different ways. That means two references to Samus' first. The descriptions of each quote match those of the missions mentioned in the Metroid manual. There is also no evidence that Nintendo meant to refer to a game when clearly mentioning a storyline element of the series on two separate accounts.

Dai Grepher: Nintendo's website still calls it a timeline, and not a release order. You also mention logs stating that pirates stayed behind to rebuild their bases in Zebes after their defeat, but this also happened in Super Metroid did it not? It is possible for Prime to come after Super Metroid. Of course, you would also have to conclude by consequence that Zebes was not completely destroyed by the explosion in Super Metroid, which is a possibility that I have found to be quite hard to believe by some people. I have some evidence that it is still a solid mass, but that would be a whole new debate. So instead I will just say that Nintendo's timeline may be correct because they still present it as a "timeline".

Dai Grepher: The issue is about the Japanese website, not the bonus disc. What does the website say about Zero Mission? The bonus disc is not relevant to this particular case because the disc is information about a game. If anything the Zero Mission manual is most relevant because it consists of the actual game and manual. Zero Mission tells Metroid's story in past tense, which means its telling takes place after Metroid. The game also states that Samus is telling the story of her first battle on Zebes, so that indicates a flashback of those events at a later date as well.

Dai Grepher: The bonus disc gives information about the what happened in the game. From what I have read, it gives no information about its place in the timeline. The disc does not even state how one game leads into another or the time differential between each game. However, my point about the manual is that it actually does refer to a prior story or event, which is the Metroid story. That is evidence of the telling date of Zero Mission being after Metroid. That matches the Japanese website's depiction of the game being after Metroid. The length of time after Metroid in which the telling takes place does not matter. This makes it possible for the telling to come before Metroid Prime, like how the Japanese website shows, or after Metroid Fusion like how the American website shows.

Dai Grepher: You retracted your statement so there is nothing more to say about the screen size. However, you still have not addressed the issue of Tourian’s design. Since you now see that the two Tourians are not different in terms of scale, or that scale did not restrict certain crucial elements from being created in Zero Mission, do you admit that Zero Mission’s Tourian was created to be unique and intentionally different from the old Tourian seen in Super Metroid, or do you have some other explanation for the inconsistent remake theory?

Dai Grepher: There is no proof that they named the game Zero because 0 comes before 1, but it is still a very obvious implication that Zero Mission comes before Metroid. Then there is still the fact that they named it something that suggests a prequel though supposedly it was supposed to be a remake, and a title that implied that would have been a wiser choice (i.e. Metroid Advance).

Dai Grepher: You agree because you now see that it does not support your theory. I am sure if your theory stated that Prime came after Super Metroid you would still be arguing that the comic is as canon as the games, just as you suggested earlier.

Dai Grepher: Excellent. So now that you have also admitted that game difficulty did not hinder the design process of Tourian’s Mother Brain room, do you now see that the differences were intended designs to make this Tourian different from the old one in Super Metroid?

Dai Grepher 23:34, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More debate[edit]

This was copy-and-pasted from the Comments section of the main talk page

Not to be antagonistic but I'm having trouble conceiving of how anyone could believe Zero Mission is not a remake. Why would Samus have to redo the same mission twice in a row? The events that take place in Zero Mission are the exact same events that take place in Metroid. Tourian and the Mother Brain are destroyed, and all the Metroids that the Pirates stole/bred are destroyed. Zebes is left intact so that it can be rebuilt in Super Metroid. Nowhere in any of the other games is a previous mission to Zebes indicated. When Samus says in the intro that "Now I will finally tell the TRUE story of this, my so called Zero Mission", the TRUE part is referring to the fact that the first game is no longer canon -- this one overwrites its place. In any other context, the statement of a "true telling of the story" would make no sense, since a story of a supposed third mission to Zebes (before the "first") has never been told before. To me, this is a non-issue based on simple facts, but that's all I'm going to add to this argument.--QuasarTE 09:45, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't enough for Dai Grepher, apparently. I've pretty much exhausted every argument against him, using all the above facts above as evidence. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 18:15, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dai Grepher: Who said that Samus had to do those missions in a row? Metroid could come years after Zero Mission, and they are definately not sequenced one after the other. The manual states that Samus completed numerous missions before the one in Metroid, and if Zero was her first, then there are missions after that and Metroid follows those.

These are not the same events either. Zero Mission and Metroid are not the same. Zero had many more enemies and bosses that Samus had to fight. The storylines are also different. Zero Mission is as similar to Metroid as Super Metroid is to Metroid. Samus must defeat Kraid, Ridley, and Mother Brain and destroy all the Metroids that were stolen/bred and escape Tourian before it explodes in Super Metroid as well. Is Super Metroid a remake of Metroid too?

The fact that no other game shows evidence to a prior visit to Zebes, except Super Metroid, has nothing to do with the possibility and fact that a prior mission to Zebes did exist and that it was Samus' first mission.

Samus does not say that, she says, "Now, I shall finally tell the tale of my first battle here... My so-called Zero Mission". She said nothing of true stories or anything like what you have suggested. So your basis for thinking that "the TRUE part is referring to the fact that the first game is no longer canon -- this one overwrites its place" does not exist. I do not know where you got the idea that Samus said anything like that, but it was not from Zero Mission. The thought of people that have made such mistakes as yours voting on what timeline is placed on an information website is one that makes me ill.Dai Grepher 05:10, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The official timeline is already described on Nintendo's MP2 bonus disc. So yes, we're voting on which timeline is correct — the one released by Nintendo or yours. According to Wikipedia:Reliable sources, Nintendo's timeline is a primary source, whereas yours is a weak secondary source. There is already a consensus that Zero Mission being a story remake of Metroid is fact. The poll is just for formality. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 00:18, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dai Grepher is right that was mistaken about what Samus says at the beginning of the game. I'll admit to going off of memory and my memory failed me that time. However, it still stretches belief to think that Samus had two nearly identical missions to Zebes. The assertion that the events are not the same is very difficult to accept. The fact there are added bosses and a few extra items doesn't mean anything. A remake of a game is free to add whatever it wishes. Those things were not present in the original game because most of them weren't even technically possible.

Super Metroid is obviously not a remake, and raising it as a straw man doesn't help this argument at all. The terrain of Zebes is significantly altered, the game's backstory explicity mentions that it is taking place later in time, and the events that take place in the game do not nearly shadow the original as closely as they do in Zero Mission. Clearly though, if it makes you ill to read one mistake I made, you're not prepared for a reasonable debate, so I will duck out now.--QuasarTE 20:03, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the game description of Metroid Fusion at Nintendo.com (archives of the original at the Internet Archive). It says they are re-doing her origin story. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 04:42, 2005 July 21 (UTC)

Dai Grepher: "Sent to Zebes to investigate rumors of a deadly alien species, Samus meets her match in the form of the mysterious Metroids -- energy-sapping creatures that emerge from an oversized cerebrum beneath the planet's surface. Samus isn't the only traveler searching for the Metroids. A band of Space Pirates has touched down to extract the curious creatures and use them as weapons. Samus must thwart the pirates, but they are wily and will prove to be more trouble than Samus expects." Nintendo describes the backstory to be very different from Metroid's. Thank you very much for your contrabution.Dai Grepher 05:10, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That, my friend, is what's fun with remakes; they don't always feature the same plot. While it has an altered plot, it's NOT that different from the original. Hell, a lot of the areas are really similar. -- A Link to the Past 23:50, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Except for the part about the space pirates (since that sequence didn't exist in Metroid), that sounds very similar to the backstory of Metroid to me. The manuals for Metroid and Zero Mission are also nearly identical. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 13:44, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dai Grepher: OK, you have ignored the fact that Zero Mission is the first mission and Metroid is not, you have ignored what Sakamoto said about it being a remake of gameplay ONLY and not storyline, and you have ignored the map inconsistencies. Here is a letter from Nintendo of America regarding Zero Mission and its status as a remake or not. That states clearly that it is not a remake. So since Wikipedia is one to hold Nintendo's word as a reliable first source, I guess that means that there is no need for a poll. So if you would kindly admit that I was right this whole time, I will get to the editing of the Metroid pages on Wikipedia. Thank you all for your participation in this discussion.Dai Grepher 02:29, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fun fact: Show me why some NoA employee (who did nothing more than play the game) has anymore say in this? They weren't involved in the game, and so it's just one person's opinion. Metroid Zero Mission does NOT say that this is her first mission, and you are mincing words in order to make it seem true. You assume that this is her first mission because they call it her first legendary mission? What the Hell kind of logic is that? For one, you are shoving your interpretation of legendary mission down our throats and calling it fact, when it just isn't fact, it's your opinion. You assume that because they call it her first legendary mission, that they have never given her a mission before. You cannot prove it. You are using the most unlikely scenario with Sakamoto's word; assuming that he was saying it's a remake of the manual when he said it remade Metroid, instead of the game itself. Continue putting your POV on these articles and I'll put you up with a Request for Comment. -- A Link to the Past 02:34, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Dai Grepher, I'm not ignoring those points, I'm just saying that they are heavily outweighed by the more obvioius interpretation in each case. The e-mail is a good piece of evidence, but it conflicts with other Nintendo sources, and is unclear in its wording (it does, however, lean towards your side). I've sent another e-mail (see below) that will hopefully return with a more definitive response. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 06:56, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if anyone is aware of this or if it has been brought up, but Nintendo's Japanese page for Metroid Zero Mission appears to have EXTENSIVE information relating not only to Zero Mission's place in the time line, but also to issues like why the work robot is in the pirate ship and whether or not it's the same as the wrecked ship, and even why power bomb blocks regenerate, all answered directly by Sakamoto. Unfortunately, the site makes heavy use of Flash, which I do not have the latest version of, and it's also in Japanese, so I can only read the parts of it that Google's translator doesn't butcher. If anyone knows Japanese, they could probably extract some useful info from this. I would NOT trust any "translated" interview posted in Nintendo Power or on Nintendo's website. Remember the infamous Miyamoto interview where he claimed the first two Zelda games fit between Ocarina of Time and Link to the Past, among other oddities that nobody understood? It has now been made clear that interview was grossly mistranslated and didn't reflect Miyamoto's own opinion of the Zelda timeline. If someone is quoting Sakamoto as saying Zero Mission is not a remake, they may be mistaken, even if they're from Nintendo. The main page is at http://metroid.jp/metroid_version2/development/faq.html --QuasarTE 03:32, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Sakamoto's word ("at the same time, retell the story of Samus' original mission") is more authoritative than the customer service representatives at Nintendo. However, that e-mail is from Nintendo, and I would hope that they know what they're talking about. So I don't consider it an invalid piece of evidence. But I'm unsatisfied with the wording, because the sender does not clarify what he means by "remake". What we're really interested in is the placement of the story on the timeline. Therefore, I've sent the following to Nintendo:

Attn: Sharon Matheny (if possible)

Hi, I'm asking for a small bit of information to use for the Wikipedia article on Metroid: Zero Mission (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metroid:_Zero_Mission).

A previous e-mail from a NSider forum member asked, "Is Metroid Zero Mission a remake of Metroid 1, or is it a brand new adventure?", to which you responded, "yes, it is like the first one, but I would also have to say no, as new enemies and other surprises have been added."

Sorry to bug you again about it, but I'm asking for a little clarification. I've provided questions that are more specific.

Is the story depicted in Zero Mission, up until Samus destroys Mother Brain, the same story depicted in the original Metroid? More specifically, do these games occupy the same spot on the Metroid timeline? Or does Zero Mission have a different place on the timeline, prior to or after Metroid?

Thanks,

Jason McCay

--Poiuyt Man ^talk 06:41, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I sent it again without the mention of Wikipedia, since I received a reply to fill out a form for "media professionals seeking information", of which I am not. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 22:08, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I received a response today, mostly containing the text copied from the Zero Mission page on Nintendo.com. However, the customer service rep left a short reply at the bottom of the e-mail. I've included it in the above section, "Nintendo's Letter 2". --Poiuyt Man ^talk 03:24, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dai Grepher: "A rewrite of the story" does not mean remake of Metroid. Even so, this rep contradicts what Sakamoto says about the storyline. "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."

Dai Grepher 17:00, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How is this a contradiction? --Poiuyt Man ^talk 23:13, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dai Grepher: "Its a rewrite of the original story" compared to "I wouldn't necessarily call it a remaking of the backstory"? One NOA person says it is a rewrite, the director of the game says it is not. I do not know how much more clear that could have been.

By the way PoyintMan, what e-mail address did you send that letter to? Dai Grepher 23:31, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I used the customer service online form at http://www.nintendo.com/consumer/webform.jsp. I selected the topic "Game & Software Related", and the subtopic of "Other". --Poiuyt Man ^talk 07:52, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're taking it out of context. Check this out:

"Sakamoto: So, to answer the question on why Zero Mission is based on the NES version of Metroid: our basic development concept was that we wanted to return to the roots of Metroid gameplay. I'm sure that you're aware that Metroid Fusion was a different style of game from all the Metroid titles up until then. We wanted to show people who had never played a Metroid game prior to Metroid Fusion, the roots of the Metroid franchise, that this is what Metroid is, this is the style of gameplay that Metroid sprang from...at the same time, retell the story of Samus' original mission."

"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. One of our biggest challenge 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."

"Q: Besides the extra adventure beyond Mother Brain, what would you say are the major differences between Zero Mission and the original NES game?"

"Sakamoto: We've added new enemies, new items, and new puzzles to the game. So if we were to say it was a completely new game we wouldn't be entirely off-base. Obviously we used the original Metroid as the base for Zero Mission, and the concept was to take that original gameplay and rework it into something that felt fresh and new, while still keeping elements from the original game that people would be familiar with."

"Q. What are you most pleased with in the game now that it's drawn to a close?"

"Sakamoto: We had a lot of challenges to face, but the biggest one for me was finding a way to implement this new style of gameplay at the end of the game. We spent a lot of time working on that, and I feel that it was something that turned out to be very good, and something new that feels like Metroid. So I'm glad we were able to get that into the game, in a form that we felt was complete and well done."

"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."

If you'll note, he said things like add and expand. If it's not a remake or retelling, then what is it? What is it adding to? What is it expanding upon? -- A Link to the Past 23:42, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Dai Grepher: The series. I already explained all of the quotes on the discussion page. He never calls it a remake, he only said they remade the gameplay, and he even said it was not a remake of story. Dai Grepher 23:47, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He said that it's not necessarily a remaking of the backstory. Not that it was not a remake of the story. If he never calls it a remake, why is he referring to it as a remake (says 'when you do a remake', obviously referring to this game)? -- A Link to the Past 23:53, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Because vague statements only have one meaning: the meaning that supports Dai Grepher's argument. Dai, I've pointed this out before; can you at least acknowledge the possibility of multiple interpretations? --Poiuyt Man ^talk 08:19, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dai Grepher: It is not so much that the statements support my argument as it is my argument supports the statements. My argument is based off of those statements and facts, not the other way around. Just because he said "necessarily" doesn't mean it might not be a remake of backstory. It is not a remake of backstory according to Sakamoto. He is not referring to Zero Mission as a remake in that part of the interview. If you actually read that paragraph you would see that he never refers to Zero Mission when talking about remakes. This is probably the main problem which has caused so many people to mistake this game as a remake. First he talks about remakes, then he states his answer to the question. That answer involves Zero Mission but it does not involve anything of what he said about remakes. You'll have to read that paragraph again to see what I mean.

Dai Grepher 22:47, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Let's just assume when he's talking about a remake in an interview about a remake (which you refuse to believe), that the remake he's talking about is the game that's supposedly a remake, which is ALSO the focus of the interview. AND, if it wasn't a remake of the backstory, he would not say necessarily. -- A Link to the Past 23:31, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Dai Grepher: I am not going to assume anything. "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. 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."

Dai Grepher: Sakamoto first states the perils of doing remakes, then he answers the question of what challenge he had to overcome. The challenge was to make Zero Mission new enough to where it would not be considered a remake and be taken negatively, but at the same time have it be similar to Metroid so that they would not lose the meaning of what they were trying to do, which was: "...our basic development concept was that we wanted to return to the roots of Metroid gameplay." Like Sakamoto said, the gameplay of Metroid is the only thing that they remade. "Obviously we used the original Metroid as the base for Zero Mission, and the concept was to take that original gameplay and rework it into something that felt fresh and new, while still keeping elements from the original game that people would be familiar with." So if Sakamoto is referring to Zero Mission as a remake in the quote of "Any time you do a remake...", then he is still only referring to the gameplay aspect, not the storyline as he points out later by saying: "I wouldn't necessarily call it a remaking of the backstory. We've taken this opportunity to explore the backstory a little bit more." The use of the word "necessarily" makes no difference to the statement. Sakamoto said that he would not call it a remake of backstory. Necessarily means one of two things in this case: 1. inevitably: inevitably, or in every case; This route isn't necessarily the best one. 2. unavoidably: following as an unavoidable result or consequence; Voting was a necessarily slow and complex process. So either A. He wouldn’t call Zero a remake of story in every case, or B. He wouldn’t call Zero a remake of story as a result of remade gameplay. Either way this statement only means one thing. Zero Mission is not a remake of backstory. The director said that he would not call it that, so neither should we. You should also know that the interview is not about a remake. Sakamoto said countless times that Zero Mission was only based on Metroid's gameplay. It is not a remake of Metroid, it is only based on that game for gameplay aspects.Dai Grepher 15:16, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's a large stretch in logic to assume that Sakamoto is asked a question, starts talking about remakes, and then immediately refers to Zero Mission, with no connection between the two. And yes, "necessarily" makes a difference. "Not a remake" means "not a remake", but "not necessarily a remake" could mean that it has some, but not all the elements of a remake. Please stop asserting that the sentence has only one possible interpretation. You still have not acknowledged this. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 00:11, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dai Grepher: There was a connection. He said that doing remakes had possible negative aspects, and Zero Mission was made so that it would not been taken as a remake, and thus not taken negatively. Read my above post for the definition of "necessarily".Dai Grepher 15:16, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The first part of your last post makes absolutely no sense, Dai Grepher. You argument physically cannot "support[] the statements" because the statements are a known truth. The statements Sakamoto are guaranteed to be true with or without your (or anyone's) argument beneath them. In fact, all of the arguments made here have to be supported by the statements, for the only way to prove any of the arguments are with the logical directive, "Given that the statements are true, then this can/must also be true." Considering that the whole point is to prove a given argument is true, it by sheer logic must be based upon that which is known to be true, not the other way around. That your theory happens to do this doesn't make it more special than another theory since they all must.

With respect to your comments about the Sakamoto interview, I don't think your argument about him just randomly talking about remakes holds any sort of weight. The question he was given was with respect to the greatest challenge to Zero Mission, and so what you're suggesting is that he decided to say, "Well, I know you want to talk about Zero Mission, but let me not answer your question for a little bit, ramble off on something that has nothing to do with the question, and then get back on track." Even the presidential debates of 2004 had more consistency than that. Your interpretation of Sakamoto's reply is, shall we say, extremely unlikely, and you can choose to believe it if you'd like, but that doesn't give you anything close to the right to proclaim it as God-given fact. The Missing Link 02:47, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dai Grepher: That is what I said. What I meant by "...my argument supports the statements", was that I support what was actually said by Sakamoto. The remake side is twisting his words to support their argument, rather than accepting the facts and supporting what Sakamoto is saying. I also added "My argument is based off of those statements and facts, not the other way around." Which means that my argument of it being a prequel is derived from Sakamoto's statements and the game facts. You on the other hand base your interpretation of the statements, and also disregard the facts based on your argument or your belief that Zero Mission is a remake. That is wrong of you to do.

Dai Grepher: I also never said that Sakamoto talks about an irrelevant issue. The paragraph regarding remakes is important to the rest of the quote, but like I said to PoiuytMan in the beginning of the debate, you have to look at the entire quote. With the first part he is stating an example of an obstacle or danger. Then with the next part he is stating the challenge of overcoming that obstacle or avoiding that danger. Then he states the method in which he did that. That method was making Zero Mission to feel new by adding game elements that had not been seen in a Metroid game, but at the same time staying close to the roots of Metroid gameplay that he mentioned a few times throughout the interview. Then he finishes with the statement of balancing the old and the new so that people would know where Metroid came from but also enjoy the game.Dai Grepher 15:16, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dai Grepher: I have also posted my letter from Nintendo. It shows that NOA is not adequately informed to answer the question. This was obvious even before the letter, because previous letters had different opinions about the game and contradicted each other. So I think this is evidence that NOA's word cannot be used as evidence for the games. This brings me back to my original point of Nintendo being an unreliable source.Dai Grepher 15:16, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You continue to misread the man. You think by feel new, he meant be new? And I'm still waiting for an explanation why when he was talking about a certain game being a remake, he couldn't have been speaking of the game in question. -- A Link to the Past 15:40, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Dai: He was speaking in terms of gameplay experience, or what the players feel while playing the game. He said they wanted to make it feel new, but still keep original elements from Metroid. It being a new game is obvious so there is no need for him to mention that they wanted to make a new game. He was not talking about any game being a remake, he was talking about the perils of doing a remake. Then he said the challenge of Zero Mission was to make it feel like a new experience while still having it feel like Metroid's gameplay (thus it being taken negatively). You need to understand that Sakamoto did say that Zero Mission was a remake, but only of gameplay. He then stated that it was not a remake of story. So you are the ones misreading what he said. Dai Grepher 17:40, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He said necessarily. Since you don't understand basic English, lemme 'splain: if he meant that it was not a remake, he wouldn't use the word necessarily, which can also mean that it is. Why is Zero Mission based on the original Metroid more so than Super Metroid? What is ZM expanding on? And what is ZM retelling? The closest thing to ZM is Metroid. You should notice the statement after he said he wouldn't necessarily call it a remake of the backstory; he then says they took the opportunity to explore the backstory a little bit more. Couldn't he have meant that they didn't remake the backstory, but expanded upon it?

And, I had a hard time respecting your argument when it was utter foolishness. After you vandalized The Missing Link's user page, however, it has become impossible for me to respect you, let alone your argument. Wikipedia frowns on vandals, Wikipedia frowns on you. -- A Link to the Past 17:58, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Dai: You are ignoring the dictionary now? The word means, "adj. that which cannot be otherwise; essential; indispensable: n. a thing that cannot be done without; an essential; that which is unavoidable; compulsion; the state of being necessary; a privy or water-closet: pl. things absolutely indispensable to existence, as the necessaries of life; in law, the things requisite to the social situation of the person or persons under consideration." Sakamoto said that it is not essentially a remake just because the gameplay was remade. He said that he would not call it a remake. So if it were a remake, then he would not have said that it was not. This is another example of where the remake side twists his words to suit the theory, rather than basing the theory on what he said. This is reminiscent of the quote on the Zero Mission box describing the first mission.

Dai: It is based on Metroid more because the point was to return to the original style of gameplay. Have you not read the interview? Zero Mission is expanding on the series and the events before Metroid, which Metroid only vaguely mentioned. Zero Mission is retelling the story of Samus' first mission according to the box. They did expand on it, but they did not remake Metroid's story or game. Also, the massive change in Tourian, other areas, and other parts of the story that differ from Metroid cannot be seen as an expansion since it would drastically change the series. So much so that it would make Super Metroid's story inconsistent. So expanding on the backstory is what it was referring to, not changing or remaking Metroid. You should also note that a backstory is a story that comes before something else. Since you agree that Zero Mission is closest to Metroid, then you should not find it difficult to see Zero Mission as Metroid's backstory. Dai Grepher 02:54, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with the way you defined "necessarily". We've all heard it in common usage, and "not necessarily" is synonymous with "not quite", which is not synonymous with "not at all". And if we assume that he actually does mean that the gameplay is remade, and the backstory is not, what does that prove? Zero Mission does have significantly different gameplay from Metroid, while following the same story in the manual and the basic sequence of events. As he said, it also expands upon the story by telling what happened inbetween and after those events. How does this support a prequel? --Poiuyt Man ^talk 22:11, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dai: "Not quite" still means "not". Split hairs, ignore the definition, make up your own, it will not change the fact that Sakamoto said that he wouldn't necessarily call it a remake. If it were a remake, then why would he have said that he wouldn't call it that? A remake of gameplay style but not story equates to it not being a remake of Metroid. Which is really all I have had to prove in this topic. It being a prequel is a consequence of it not being a remake, seeing as how it is the first mission. An expansion of past events is what makes it an expansion. A remake of story would have been to change the story of Metroid, which if done in Zero Mission makes the rest of the timeline inconsistent and contradicts what is on the back of the game's packaging. Finally, the story in the manual is not Zero Mission's. I have already proven this fact. That story was specifically created in 1986 for Metroid. Zero Mission retells that mission's prologue to give Zero Mission a basis as Metroid's backstory. It cannot lead into Zero Mission because it also states that Samus had prior missions, which contradicts the description of Zero Mission being her first mission. That also makes the title of the game somewhat odd, since Zero indicates a prequel. If this were a remake then they would have called it Metroid Advance, or Metroid Mission, or something to indicate that it was Metroid and not a new mission.Dai Grepher 02:54, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note how I removed the word remake from the article, and replaced it with Sakamoto's quote about Zero Mission retelling Metroid's story. I did this because "remake" isn't a clearly defined term, and Zero Mission doesn't fit the definition described in the enhanced remake article. "Retelling" seems to be more appropriate, as Zero Mission merely retells the story again, while expanding upon certain plot elements, and drastically changing gameplay. As for the "first mission" nonsense, I've already argued that on the other page. The box refers to it as the "first legendary mission", so "first mission" can be seen as a shortening of this phrase. It seems that your whole argument is now revolving around the interpretation of this single ambiguous line. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 04:36, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dai Grepher: Fine, now just delete the "retcon" section and change the Metroid Series page as well as other pages related to it. Then change every page that refers to "retcons" and uses Zero Mission as an example. The "first mission" fact is not nonsense. Your excuse for it being there is. You cannot suggest that they meant to refer to a game that exists in the audience's world when they clearly state "mission" which is a story element of the Metroid world. Had they been referring to a game, they would have said "game" and not "mission". Nintendo knows full well that Metroid is not Samus' first mission, so they would not have said that Zero Mission was the first unless it was not a remake. If anything they would have at least called it the original mission, which sounds more like a reference to the first game. Also, no, the box does not say "legendary mission". It states, "Experience the first of Samus Aran's legendary adventures...". Once again, this supports the fact that the box is referring to storyline, and also an absolute first of Samus's adventures. I've heard the excuse for this too, that the word "legendary" suddenly makes this a first of some other category. The word "legendary" exists as a compliment to Samus' adventures. Even if they mean this as a description of what kind of adventures they are referring to, the description fits the missions mentioned in the Metroid manual since they are described to be the missions that made Samus the greatest bounty hunter by the time Metroid took place, and they are what qualified her to be the hunter sent to Zebes for the mission in Metroid. What you have suggested, that the box refers to a game rather than a mission (when it clearly states the word "mission"), has no basis. You have no proof that Nintendo was referring to a game, let alone Metroid. You just have the assumed possibility, which is as possible as Nintendo being the kind of company to deliberately give misleading information about their games. At one point you would have even gone so far as to hold an inaccurate comic book to the same canon as the games just for the chance to prove a prequel impossible. That is until I pointed out that comic contradicted your theory as well. Only then did you disregard it as inaccurate. It seems to me like you are disregarding evidence and making excuses for it just to protect your own personal belief about the game and the series on this information website.Dai Grepher 23:34, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dai, do you remember the difference between denotation and connotation? You can pull words out of dictionaries all you want, but you'll never be able to understand Shakespeare just by going off of strict dictionary definitions of words. The problem is that there is a connotative difference between "not" and "not necessarily".

Dai Grepher: I am not trying to understand Shakespeare, I am trying to make you understand Sakamoto. You should also understand that in speaking to someone and saying "not necessarily" is another way of saying "no it is not" only more politely so that they do not feel inferior. It is a way of softening the blow to "no, you are wrong". That is because it is saying that someone's conclusion is not right just because it seems that it was formed based on the facts. So in other words, it is like saying, "good educated guess, but no". The fact that Sakamoto then explains that it is an expansion of story, proves that it is not a remake of story. So take one word and twist it all you want. What Sakamoto describes the story to be with the rest of the paragraph is an expansion, not a remake.Dai Grepher 23:34, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would not call it a remake. The intent of this is very clear, and this would shoot down any attempts to call it otherwise. This is saying, this is the law of the land. Don't like it? Too bad, so sad.

I wouldn't necessarily call it a remak[e]. The connotation of this statement is very different because there is some wiggle room added in here. This statement says two things. First, it's saying exactly what you're trying to say: "I can't in good conscience call it a remake... because it's so much more than a remake." However, there is something added to this statement that gives it the proper inflection of meaning. "Yet... I can't deny at the same time that it isn't totally unlike a remake." Oh yes, that part is very much there.

Dai Grepher: You are making all of this up. Also, I do not think he said anything like that. He is talking about one subject of the game here, not the entire thing. He said that he, personally, would not call it a remake of story. The story is what is being discussed. He said nothing of it being more than just a remake or a remake in other ways. He said it is not a remake of story. The word "necessarily" does not mean anything like what you are suggesting, and you have nothing to support your own twisted definition of that word. It does not mean that you could still call it that if you wish, it does not mean that it still might be, it does not mean that it is a remake of story in other ways, it means it is not a remake of story.Dai Grepher 23:34, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To ignore the subtle difference that word necessarily makes is to completely miss the entire point of the entire paragraph, and quite possibly the entire interview. Sakamoto is balking at the idea of calling it a remake. Perhaps he doesn't like the word, perhaps he doesn't believe it's so, whatever. He does not come out and say that it's complete crap, that they're insane for asking the question. He basically didn't give an answer whatsoever. He said it wasn't quite what he thought was a remake, but he didn't say it wasn't, and he didn't say what it was. I honestly think you're reading way too much into this and/or missing the point that he's really trying to make here. The Missing Link 04:46, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dai Grepher: At this point I am willing to bet that if Sakamoto came out and said, "Zero Mission is a prequel to Metroid", that you would have an argument for it. Perhaps an assumption of what he thinks a prequel is, or what the definition of "is" is. Or maybe he was mistranslated? So at this point I'm just going to drop the issue with you in particular since you are not making sense or acknowledging a fact.Dai Grepher 23:34, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My last post on this before I'm done. I reference [[1]] for this IGN quote about the game.

We definitely have to start this review off right: Metroid: Zero Mission is not a remake of the original Metroid released on the Nintendo Entertainment System nearly 20 years ago. Instead, team members have taken situations, locations, and enemies from the 8-bit NES adventure, and reformulated an entirely new game design. So while you may recognize some elements in Zero Mission from start to finish, the techniques involved in getting through situations in Zero Mission could never be mirrored in similar areas of the original game. If Samus' first mission was a written tale, the original Metroid is the Cliff's Notes to Metroid: Zero Mission's novel. And even that isn't too apt an analogy, since Zero Mission has significantly more going on after the NES game ends.

I'll even admit that, given the shaky definition of remake, IGN may have it right. But even they will admit that it's much closer to remake than prequel. The Missing Link 03:24, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Final Thoughts[edit]

I am done with the debate part of this issue. I believe I have provided more than sufficient counter-evidence to all of User:Dai Grepher's theories, and further discussion seems to just bring up the same points again. At least 9 Wikipedians agree with me on this issue, and currently there are no voices of support for Dai Grepher's side. I've tried to stay level-headed on the subject, and have even reverted vandalism on Dai Grepher's user page, but he has not shown an equal amount of maturity, and it's wearing out my patience. As a sign of good faith, I've also made a compromise in the text of Metroid: Zero Mission, to stay more ambiguous on the matter. If someone wishes to alter the other articles to maintain a similarly neutral stance on the issue, I'll have no objection. I will have an objection to the game being stated as a prequel in any of the Metroid articles, and will revert it accordingly. Otherwise, unless mediation or arbitration is involved, I'm not going to waste my time debating this anymore.

To the others, mostly User:The Missing Link and User:A Link to the Past, thanks for the help, and I wish you good luck if you wish to continue the argument. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 01:50, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with you on this, Poiuyt Man. There is only so much that can be done with it, and seeing that the concessions seem to be going only one direction, namely "our side" giving into "the other side," I think it's about time we put our foot down and leave it be. I've kept my patience and offered thousands of other alternative theories, and while we have willingly agreed that there is no disproof for his own theory, Dai Grepher refuses to yield on any point of his "argument." This is hardly what I call dispute resolution given that Dai Grepher has violated the rule about no personal attacks when editing my user page (and also refusing to answer an administrative query about it) and refuses to negotiate on the issues. It is a waste of my time to continue this filibuster until the days the cows come home, for indeed there will not be an end to this debate as arguments will be recycled forever and ever in an infinite loop unless further formalities ensue.

I stand with Poiuyt Man on this, and I will be frequently checking the history of the Metroid: Zero Mission page for edits to this page, reverting it if ever it should mention that it is a prequel of Metroid. Other than the edits to the main article, I'm out. And before anyone dares to ask, no, this is not a concession of defeat. The Missing Link 03:24, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

While I haven't been active in this discussion, I would like to plant myself firmly behind both Poiuyt Man and The Missing Link. I'd also like to say that I, too, have Watched Zero Mission, and will aid in reverting any unilateral changes made by editors acting in bad faith; to wit, User:Dai Grepher. jglc | t | c 17:26, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dai Grepher: All you have brought to this issue PoiuytMan, to counter the facts that I have found, are baseless assumptions, illogical theories of convenience, biased interpretations, and non-canon literature, most of which you retracted once proven wrong. What you have shown are more examples of stubbornness and poor sportsmanship. This is another instance of the prequel fact standing up against all opposing suppositions, assumptions, and theories and proving one truth. Just because ten biased Metroid fans do not agree with the facts does not make the facts incorrect. A compromise on my part, even to agree on a neutral set of articles, would be to deny the facts just as blatantly as PoiuytMan and The Missing Link have done. For that reason, I strongly suggest that mediators act as judges in this issue to determine what is posted on Wikipedia regarding the Metroid series. Whether they find the remake theory correct, the prequel fact correct, or decide to leave the articles with non-partisan descriptions, should be up to them and I will not protest any decision they make. According to the rules of mediation, I understand that both parties are to select mediators that they feel will be non-biased and research the issue thoroughly. So I submit that we be given a list of all Wikipedian mediators so that we can resolve the issue, since a compromise on the remake side's part seems unlikely at this point. Dai Grepher 02:40, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was wrong on the Nintendo Power comic, and quickly admitted I was wrong once you provided counter-evidence to it. I don't see why you keep bringing it up, since it was resolved. I also admitted I was mistaken when I said that the Tourians were of different sizes. I don't think that shows poor sportsmanship; here are some better examples::

"Whether you few people believe what I have found is fact or not is irrelevent."
"You are making all of this up."
"I do not care if their are nine or ninety-nine people that think it is a remake, unless Yoshio Sakamoto is one of them. A majority that disregards the facts is still a majority that is incorrect."

--Poiuyt Man ^talk 03:57, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dai Grepher: The poor sportsmanship was ending your part in the discussion, which you obviously only did because you have no argument for it. I did not bring up the comic just now, I only brought up points that you retracted when proven either wrong or contradictory to your own theory. Aside from the hint of desperation of hastily quoting a non-canon source, it also leads one to ponder how many other points you have been incorrect about. This is human though. I do not blame you for not being perfect, but I think it is possible that you were also less than thorough in your research of Zero Mission's place in the timeline. However, the debate has ended. So I will not go into great detail about possibilities. However, I will add that what you quoted of me are not examples of poor sportsmanship. With the first and third quotes I am stating a fact about truths. In the second I am pointing out that The Missing Link made up all of the definitions of the word "necessarily", which was also a fact. To think that the one word changes the content of the entire paragraph or that the meaning is obscured by non-existent definitions is ludicrous. The thought that the remake side would want to believe Sakamoto's statement as being obscure only when proving them wrong is one I found to be dastardly pitiful.Dai Grepher 11:46, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, this goes without saying that this debate should not have been carried to the point where such arbitration was even needed, Dai Grepher. Simply put, no debate should have to succumb to this level. However, from the beginning, you have always insisted that some single godly official (a la Chief Justice of the Supreme Court) should arbitrarily decide the issue rather than leave it up to a group of interested Wiki-peers (who, as we have seen, all happen to be "biased" individuals if for no other reason that they believe in the theory that you don't believe in; speaking of, exactly how can you prove that everyone here is, as you say, biased, when several of the people haven't even shared their thoughts on the matter?). The reason you did this is quite clear; you knew that you would lose the poll. You knew before this began that you would lose every poll on the face of the planet because the support for it just isn't there, and the evidence for your theory just isn't sturdy enough to change these ("biased") fans. So you wished to always circumvent the process by refusing to accept the entire concept of the poll (despite the fact that this is Wiki-policy) by not voting it and simply wishing it to be discarded out of hand because "the vote was rigged by 'biased' votes." I can't say that I'm 100% familiar with the rules of Wikipedia, but my sense of moral judgment would believe that this very belief that you're touting should prevent you the ability to one-up the vote and go to the next phase of dispute resolution. However, que será será.

Oh, and while I'm thinking about it, Dai Grepher, I would like to know something. I would like to know why you felt the need to edit my user page with degrading comments about me. And then once you've done that, I'd like to know why you've ignored an administrator's request to explain those comments. And then once you've done that, I'd like to know how you expect us to overlook this act of immaturity in kind and take you with any seriousness here. Because, honestly, I am quite curious. The Missing Link 10:10, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dai Grepher: I agree, the debate should not have gone this far. Of course that is because the remake side was so stubborn and refused to accept the facts, though I admit that I did not do as much as I could have done to resolve the debate more expediently. The method in which we must post may have hindered that however. I suggested that non-partisan judges that are official Wikipedia staff should decide what should be posted on Wikipedia. That is because no person's opinion on Zero Mission is relevant, not even my own. What is fact is fact, and no number of others believing or disbelieving that fact will change anything. I suspect that those who voted are biased, since they arrived at a conclusion that has been proven to be incorrect by the facts found within the series as well as other sources. Only those with personal preference toward one theory would disregard such undeniable facts and not at least admit that it requires an ambiguous description. Those that have not explained their reasoning for making that conclusion only show that they have not used reason or logic to arrive at it. In one instance, a member stated that the game was a remake and also posted inaccurate information about one of the games. I also remember commenting about how ill the thought of misinformed members like him/her voting would cause me to feel. Although that was not my reason, I did think that the prequel fact would be disregarded in favor of the remake theory. The article has been displayed on Wikipedia for a decent amount of time, and when something is up that long and so many people read it, they assume that it is a fact. A challenging of a theory long believed to be fact is not taken well at times. I admit that if someone were to prove my facts wrong somehow, I would be stubborn to admit defeat at first, because I had put so much effort into it and have believed it for so long. However, I would be wise enough to agree with the facts and acknowledge them as such. About your point about every poll, that is untrue. You do not know the outcome of actions not taken. I will also add that many others believe Zero Mission to be a prequel as well, and for very much the same reasons. Metroid's past tense reference, the many differences in appearances in the game areas, the "first mission" quotes, and most strongly, the fact that seals the deal for many, Tourian's appearance. Of course, they are also not the type of player that disregards the many differences as (the incorrect definition of the word) "retcons". They are also the type of observant player that reads the story and pays close attention to detail. I have found a few on-line shopping websites that use a description of Zero Mission being a prequel to Metroid, and also many player reviews of the game taking place before Metroid. So I am sure that the remake side outnumbers the prequel side considerably, but I also believe that is because so many remake theorists have been misinformed by Nintendo Power and by sites like Wikipedia that present false information. I also agree that the facts I have found are not enough to change the biased fans. That has become obvious in this debate alone. It is not policy to go with what the majority says when deciding what facts are posted on the website. Perhaps polls regarding the Wikipublic's favorite flavor of ice cream, or the number of Wikipedian's that eat dinner while watching television, or in such cases of the fact being the result of the poll, but not determining facts of an official series that only has one truth. You would not say that a poll regarding the existence of God would be a debate ending truth. That is if Wikipedia discussed that issue.

Dai Grepher: To answer your questions, first, I did not post degrading comments about you. I posted current facts about recent actions that you had taken. Second, as far as I am aware, no administrator has asked me about it. Third, it was not immature, and it is already clear that you in particular did not take me seriously to begin with. I expect the others to continue to take me seriously if they wish to resolve the issue.Dai Grepher 11:46, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(1) To quote Wikipedia:User page, "avoid substantially editing another's user page without their permission." Clearly you didn't have my permission to edit my user page, and moreso you edit it, not with an NPOV nor with a but with your own personal perspective, thus constituting an edit not in good faith. The Wikipedia administrator User:Sango123 agreed with me on this point.

(2) The administrator User:Sango123 asked you about this on your talk page (User talk:Dai Grepher). You should have seen this post, especially considering since you read comments on your talk page by User:Jasonglchu as well as replied to these comments. He is still awaiting an answer about this.

(3) I've actually taken you quite seriously for some time, arguing your theories point for point with my own beliefs. To me, those are edits in good faith, and as such, they should have been assumed to have been made in good faith.

So if you would please, answer the outstanding request by User:Sango123 about this issue, I'm sure that will take care of the issue. Thanks in advance, The Missing Link 03:23, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Appearance of Tourian Redux[edit]

I know that I said I was done with discussion, but that was before I thought there was nothing else to discuss. There's one more thing, though, that I noticed when playing Super Metroid recently. The ruins of Tourian may not match Zero Mission's Tourian exactly (5th Zeebetite blah blah blah), but neither do they match Metroid's Tourian. Compare:

See that? The space between the first and second zeebetite is noticeably shortened in Super Metroid, as well as the platform that you stand on. This might have been done to make the elevator in the next room line up properly with the Morph Ball room, since the pre-chamber room is too far over to the right in Metroid. Also, if you try to scale the two images to match each other, Samus' height isn't the same in relation to the room height, the zeebetites and platforms are higher off the ground in Metroid, and the door is lower in Super Metroid.

The point I'm making is that the room structure was altered for aesthetics and/or gameplay reasons in Super Metroid. There's no reason why the same thing couldn't have been done in Zero Mission.

Also, Dai Grepher, I never really responded to your point about the room under Mother Brain's tank, how it's corroded in Super Metroid, yet spotless in Zero Mission. Here's a reasonable theory:

After defeating Mother Brain and returning to the room in Zero Mission, green acid is present instead of lava. The green acid is able to damage Samus' Gravity Suit, even though lava cannot. This suggests that the green acid is more corrosive than lava, possibly strong enough to corrode the metal in this area.
Over the period of time between Zero Mission and Super Metroid, the powerful green acid seeps through the ground, into the secret room, and eats away at the metal. It subsequently absorbs through the cracks in the floor, and into the planet.
Samus returns to Zebes, and the green acid is no longer present in the room, since it has seeped through the secret room, and into the ground.

I invite you to respond to all of this, Dai Grepher, as you claim the appearance of Tourian is your strongest piece of evidence. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 03:31, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Poiuyt Man, I think the more telling part of your argument SHOULD be the right-hand side of the pictures respectively. In Metroid, the picture shows a platform extending over the ground that is the same height as the Zebetite (or whatever it's called). In Super Metroid, it is not a platform but the top of a wall whose height is less than that of the first Zebetite. Thus the argument can be made without having to hassle to show that scaling the image would not help. The Missing Link 13:10, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are numerous structural differences between areas in Metroid and Super Metroid, yet nobody really questions that they are the same areas. For some reason, since Zero Mission's Tourian isn't identical to Super Metroid's (despite the completely different artistic style, and the 10-year window for new ideas to form), we are supposed to accept that they are different. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 14:39, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution[edit]

"Whether you few people believe what I have found is fact or not is irrelevent. The truth is that what I have found are facts that prove a prequel, and both NOA and the director of the game support this fact as well."

The facts are presented clearly on the main talk page, and currently, 9 people believe that they prove Zero Mission to be a remake. As far as I know, aside from The Missing Link and myself, none of them use the VGF forums. It doesn't seem that the consensus is going in your favor.

But from the tone of that first sentence, it doesn't sound like you're interested in the consensus. You have expressed an interest in attaining a non-biased party to assess the situation, so I'm moving to the next step of dispute resolution, mediation. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 04:24, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dai Grepher: Good. I do not care if their are nine or ninety-nine people that think it is a remake, unless Yoshio Sakamoto is one of them. A majority that disregards the facts is still a majority that is incorrect.Dai Grepher 14:07, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Conversely, a minority that disregards the facts is still a minority that is incorrect. jglc | t | c 14:33, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dai, the list of mediators is at the top of the page on WP:RFM. I'm planning on contacting one directly, since the request is currently unanswered. Do you have a mediator you would prefer? User:Andrevan has already made a few comments in the discussion — I'm not sure if that makes a difference or not. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 13:45, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dai Grepher: I will get back to you soon on the mediators I would like to see review this. Right now I would conside Improv to be a good mediator, since his method is for each side to present a summarized argument, and he appears to be able to translate Japanese, which can help in the case of the Japanese website. I will post the other mediators that I will consider for this review some time later.Dai Grepher 19:29, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion below this line was archived later and has not been refactored.

Zero Mission prequel status[edit]

The unbiased facts regarding this issue are listed in the section below, so the readers can form their own opinions. A poll will be added soon. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 23:55, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Summary: facts and evidence[edit]

The purpose of this section is to collect all the facts and direct quotes about the games discussed above. If you are going to add something here, make the statement clear and concise, and provide a source if possible (preferably a link). Do not add any opinions, assumptions, or conjectures; discuss those here. Other comments may be added to the Comments section below.

Once all the information is collected, a poll will be held, and this page will be posted on Wikipedia:Current surveys. Users will be able to review the information below for themselves and determine whether Zero Mission is a prequel, enhanced remake, or something else.

Zero Mission box description[edit]

The main description from the back of the box of Metroid: Zero Mission:

"THE FULL STORY OF SAMUS ARAN'S FIRST MISSION FINALLY UNFOLDS... The first Metroid game just scratched the surface of the cataclysmic events on planet Zebes, and at long last the rest of the tale has come to light. Experience the first of Samus's legendary adventures through all-new cut-scenes and action sequences as the bounty hunter races through the deeps toward her showdown with the leader of the Space Pirates. But will the end of Mother Brain really mean the end of the story...?"

http://www.gameexpress.com/images/product/original/045496733445B.JPG

Metroid and Zero Mission manual comparison[edit]

Excerpts from the manuals of Zero Mission and Metroid, to show similarities and differences:

M: In the year 2000 of history of the cosmos, representatives from the many different planets in the galaxy established a congress called the Galactic Federation, and an age of prosperity began.

ZM: In the year 2003 of the Cosmic Calendar, representatives from the many different planets in the galaxy established a congress called the Galactic Federation, and an age of prosperity began.

M: It is now year 20X5 of the history of the cosmos, and something terrible has happened.

ZM: In the year 20X5 of the Cosmic Calendar, a terrible incident occurred.

M: As a last resort, the Federation Police have decided on this strategy: to send a space hunter to penetrate the center of the fortress and destroy the Mother Brain. The space hunter chosen for this mission is Samus Aran. He is the greatest of all the space hunters and has completed numerous missions that everybody thought were absolutely impossible.

ZM: 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. The space hunter chosen for this mission was Samus Aran. Considered the greatest of all the bounty hunters, Samus had successfully completed numerous missions that others had thought impossible. Despite her accomplishments, much of Samus's true identity remained wrapped in mystery.

M: Samus has now succeeded in penatrazing Zebes. But time is running out. Will he be able to destroy the Metroid and save the galaxy?

ZM: Alone, Samus Aran successfully landed on the surface of Zebes, which was, in fact, the planet where Samus was raised as a child. Burying all memories of the planet, Samus agreed to carry out this mission and face the traps of the Mother Brain. But the question remained: could Samus Aran truly complete this task and return peace and order to the galaxy?

Nintendo.com's description of Zero Mission's prologue[edit]

The prologue of Zero Mission as told by Nintendo.com is as follows. "Sent to Zebes to investigate rumors of a deadly alien species, Samus meets her match in the form of the mysterious Metroids -- energy-sapping creatures that emerge from an oversized cerebrum beneath the planet's surface. Samus isn't the only traveler searching for the Metroids. A band of Space Pirates has touched down to extract the curious creatures and use them as weapons. Samus must thwart the pirates, but they are wily and will prove to be more trouble than Samus expects."

http://www.nintendo.com/gamemini?gameid=m-Game-0000-1856

Nintendo's official Zero Mission commercial[edit]

http://media.nintendo.com/mediaFiles/8fc2b41a-8547-4c17-88cd-cfc5c7ae81a2.mov

It states, "...Zero Mission, her first adventure as an intergalactic bounty hunter." Metroid's manual states that numerous missions have come before Metroid, and in these missions Samus was considered a bounty hunter. Therefore Metroid is not Samus' first adventure as an intergalactic bounty hunter.

Tourian's appearance[edit]

The appearance of Mother Brain's destroyed chamber in Zero Mission consists mostly of rubble and some acid with broken Zeebetite columns. In Super Metroid, which comes chronologically after Zero Mission and/or Metroid, the chamber consists mainly of corroded machinery. SM also differs in that it has horizontal platforms and an extra Zeebetite (the broken vertical column). See these images (ZM on left, SM on right):

The next image is of Zero Mission's Tourian and Super Metroid's Tourian at the location just beneath Mother Brain's pod. Zero Mission is on the left, Super Metroid is on the right. Zero Mission's area is not damaged, while Super Metroid's is.

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

In Super Metroid, the player finds Tourian rebuilt in a new location. According to the manual:

"Tourian - Tourian is the control center for the Zebesian space pirates and the Mother Brain. The original Tourian was located just below the surface. After Samus Aran annihilated the forces of Zebes the first time, this new Tourian was built in a more secure area."

http://metroid.retrofaction.com/resources/m3manual.txt

The reference to the current control center is the working Tourian that Samus must infiltrate in order to destroy Mother Brain. The original Tourian is in reference to the damaged Tourian seen above.

When comparing Tourian from Metroid with the ruins of Tourian in Super Metroid, the fifth zeebetite is present:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v205/LBoogie82583/Metroid/Metroid1End.gif

However, there is another difference in room structure:

Image:Tourian, Metroid.gif

This image shows Tourian before the explosion.

Image:Tourian, Super Metroid.gif

This image shows Tourian after the explosion.

In Super Metroid, the space between the first and second Zeebetite, as well as the platform, is shorter. The door also rests on a solid ledge rather than a platform, and is lower. The middle turrets are missing, and the Zeebetites and platforms are also much closer to the ground. The proportions of the room are significantly off when the pictures are adjusted to give Samus the same height.

The Metroid Tourian was displayed on the Nintendo Entertainment System, an 8-bit system. Super Metroid's depiction of that Tourian was displayed on the Super Nintendo Entertainment System, a 16-bit system. The major difference between the two depictions of Tourian is that the first is before an explosion and the second is after an explosion. Exactly what objects in the room were and were not damaged or destroyed is unknown, as the player does not get to see what the explosion did to this room and others after escaping.

Samus' Memory of Metroid[edit]

In Super Metroid, Samus recalls her battle with Mother Brain in Metroid, then recalls her discovery of the last Metroid on SR388 in Metroid II. In this introduction sequence of Super Metroid images of these events are shown. The following is the memory that Samus recalls of her battle with Mother Brain in Metroid.

http://img203.echo.cx/img203/1694/samusrecallsmetroid8er.png

The Tourian shown in Zero Mission does not match this memory.

http://img203.echo.cx/img203/3612/samuszmbattle4ga.png

There is no Zeebetite to use as a platform. There is no long platform on the right of the screen.

The Tourian in Metroid does match this memory.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v205/LBoogie82583/Metroid/Metroid1End.gif

Not only is Zero Mission's Tourian different after the explosion, but it is also different before the explosion.

Location of Tourian and the Starting Location[edit]

Note to readers: this section is best interpreted if you have played at least some of the games.

A summary of Zebes' layout is shown on the Zero Mission map screen:

Image:Zero Mission World Map.gif

It shows Tourian underneath the left side of Crateria. It also shows Brinstar to the right of Tourian, and close to Crateria.

In order for the individual areas of Zero Mission to be connected together on a two-dimensional plane, then one of two possibilities exist: the areas intersect with each other, or the elevators intersect with other areas, and are not strictly vertical. The latter possibility is shown here:

However, the areas in this example are placed much further apart than the map summary above would suggest.

Unlike Metroid and Super Metroid, there is no direct evidence for the length of the elevators in Zero Mission.

Developer map for Super Metroid, showing elevator lengths

Depicting a three-dimensional world using a two-dimensional map is not unheard of in the Metroid series — Super Metroid has a long transport tube that travels behind several rooms, and the map summary of Metroid Fusion shows that the six sectors in the game are placed in a rough circle around the central elevator. Metroid II: Return of Samus also has several areas that would overlap if the game existed strictly in two dimensions.

Metroid does not have a Crateria, but Brinstar is still located to the right of and partially beneath Tourian:

Image:M1map.gif

According to the Super Metroid map, old Tourian is still underneath the left side of Crateria:

Image:Smmap2.gif

Also, in Super Metroid, the room to the right of Mother Brain is directly above the starting location from Metroid / Zero Mission, and requires a long elevator ride:

Image:Metroid-lineup-2.jpg

This is inconsistent with Metroid, which has the starting location to the left of where the elevator would connect. It is also quite close to Tourian, not as far as SM's elevator ride makes it out to be:

Image:Metroid-lineup-1.gif

It is also inconsistent with Zero Mission; going up from the starting location does not lead to Mother Brain's room:

The room to the right of Mother Brain originally did not have an elevator in either Metroid nor Zero Mission but does in Super Metroid — a game which arguably takes place after both Metroid and Zero Mission.

Metroid Chronicles[edit]

Nintendo has created a Metroid Prime 2: Echoes bonus disc that is available from one of three sources: the Metroid Prime re-release bundle, by registering 5 GameCube games online, or as an option when you subscribe to Nintendo Power. The disc includes a playable demo of the game, as well as a "Metroid Chronicles" feature that arranges the games (those that had been released at the time, at least) in a historical timeline. The ordering is as follows:

Metroid
Metroid: Zero Mission
Metroid Prime
Metroid Prime 2: Echoes
Metroid II: the Return Of Samus
Super Metroid
Metroid Fusion

Additionally, there is a short text summary that accompanies each game:

Metroid:

Nintendo Entertainment System ( NES ) Release Date: 1989
"A research vessel dispatched by the galactic federation discovers and captures a strange life-form called a "Metroid" on the planet SR-388. However, on its way back to federation HQ, the research vessel is attacked by Space Pirates, who steal the Metroid. Once they discover the Metroid's ability to multiply through beta-ray exposure, the Space Pirates conspire to make use of the Metroids in their plot to take over the universe. To stop them, Samus lands on the planet Zebes and single-handedly destroys their underground base — and their leader Mother Brain — after a series of intense battles."

Zero Mission:

Game Boy Advance ( GBA ) Release Date: February 2004
"In an expanded look at Samus' first mission to Zebes, the bounty hunter heads to Zebes to wipe out the Space Pirate threat. However, this story doesn't end after Samus destroys the Mother Brain — As she escapes the planet, her ship is shot down by Space Pirates and she crash lands on the surface of Zebes, near where the Space Pirate Mother Ship has landed. Having lost her power-suit in the crash, Samus must infiltrate the Space Pirate ship and fight her way off the planet."

Super Metroid:

Super Nintendo ( SNES ) Release Date: 1994
"While the base on planet Zebes is being reconstructed by a group of Space Pirates who survived the assault by Samus, Ridley attacks the Space Science Academy and abducts the baby Metroid, the only one left in the universe. Congregating at their rebuilt base on Zebes, the Space Pirates once again concoct a plot to use Metroids as biological weapons. To retrieve the Metroid and stop the Space Pirates' evil plans, Samus once again flies to the planet Zebes. There, Samus destroys Mother Brain — thanks to the sacrifice of the baby Metroid's life — and escapes just as planet Zebes is utterly destroyed by the Space Pirates' self-destruct program."

http://faqs.neoseeker.com/Games/GC/metroid_prime_2_demo_samusx10.txt

Japanese website timeline[edit]

In the History section of the Japanese website for Zero Mission (displayed in Macromedia Flash), what is presumably a timeline shows the Metroid games arranged in this order:

Metroid
Metroid Prime
Metroid II: Return of Samus
Super Metroid
Metroid Fusion

After the initial animation for the timeline is done, another point for Zero Mission splits off from the Metroid point, and places itself slightly after Metroid.

Each game can be clicked for an accompanying description, but the text has not been translated.

http://metroid.jp/metroid_version2/history/index.html

Director roundtable interview[edit]

Various quotes from an official Nintendo Q&A session with Yoshio Sakamoto, the director of Metroid: Zero Mission.

"Sakamoto: So, to answer the question on why Zero Mission is based on the NES version of Metroid: our basic development concept was that we wanted to return to the roots of Metroid gameplay. I'm sure that you're aware that Metroid Fusion was a different style of game from all the Metroid titles up until then. We wanted to show people who had never played a Metroid game prior to Metroid Fusion, the roots of the Metroid franchise, that this is what Metroid is, this is the style of gameplay that Metroid sprang from...at the same time, retell the story of Samus' original mission."

"Q: Besides the extra adventure beyond Mother Brain, what would you say are the major differences between Zero Mission and the original NES game?"

"Sakamoto: We've added new enemies, new items, and new puzzles to the game. So if we were to say it was a completely new game we wouldn't be entirely off-base. Obviously we used the original Metroid as the base for Zero Mission, and the concept was to take that original gameplay and rework it into something that felt fresh and new, while still keeping elements from the original game that people would be familiar with."

"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. One of our biggest challenge 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."

"Q. What are you most pleased with in the game now that it's drawn to a close?"

"Sakamoto: We had a lot of challenges to face, but the biggest one for me was finding a way to implement this new style of gameplay at the end of the game. We spent a lot of time working on that, and I feel that it was something that turned out to be very good, and something new that feels like Metroid. So I'm glad we were able to get that into the game, in a form that we felt was complete and well done."

"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."

"Q: There's a big gap between Metroid Zero Mission, Metroid Prime and Metroid Fusion. Does Nintendo have any plans of building up the franchise to be as big as Mario or Zelda?"

"Sakamoto: I can't say we're at the point where we'll regularly update the Metroid series, but I think if you look at what we've done with the recent Metroid games, you'll see that we've been really building on the series and the gameplay, and offering new experiences. Metroid Prime was obviously a change in the Metroid gameplay, and allowed both people who played Metroid games before to experience it again, as well as the people who may have never played a Metroid game before. And with Fusion what we tried to do was take the Metroid gameplay and use that in a more story-based game. This time with Zero Mission We really wanted to go back to the roots of the Metroid series, and introduce it to those people who are newer to the franchise, while at the same time building that experience and offering a new style of gameplay. I think what we're going to continue to do is to look at different possibilites with the Metroid franchise, ways that we can expand upon it. We don't have any precise plans, but I can definitely say that we are looking at ways to continue to advance the franchise."

http://gameboy.ign.com/articles/488/488084p1.html

Nintendo's Letter[edit]

E-mail correspondence with customer service from Nintendo.com follows:

Nsider Member: Hello. We at NSider are having a debate on whether or not Metroid Zero Mission is a remake of Metroid 1 (located here [you must skim through the entire thread to see what we are talking of]), which has lasted for 632 posts, translating into 64 pages of sensless bickering. Also, another thread, which was locked, contained 188 posts, or 19 pages. Overall, this 73 page debate is getting quite old, if you ask us.

So, I will ask one final time before I resort to sending snail mail to the main division of Nintendo. I hope that whoever reads this resorts to asking someone who worked on the American localization of Zero Mission or even someone from the Japanese team that worked on it.

To my question: Is Metroid Zero Mission a remake of Metroid 1, or is it a brand new adventure? Please do not give me the sales pitch, as I have head it three times before. I am looking for a straight answer at whehter or not Zero Mission is indeed a remake or brand new game. There can be no inbetween, for this debate will continue if there is no straight answer. It is either "yes, it's a remake", or "no, it is not a remake". We debatees will not settle for anything less.

Thank you for your time, and I pray you will give us a straight answer.

Reply:

Hello and thank you for contacting Nintendo,

As we told you in our previous email, while there are a lot of similarities between Metroid 1 and Metroid: Zero Mission, and the world is the same one used in the original, there are quite a few new things added. So yes, it is like the first one, but I would also have to say no, as new enemies and other surprises have been added.

I can certainly understand your curiosity, but the best way to answer the questions you have is to either play the game, and make the comparison yourself, or go to www.nintendo.com and check out the information there.

I hope this is helpful.

Thanks for your email!

Nintendo of America Inc.

Sharon Matheny

Nintendo's Letter 2[edit]

This is a follow-up e-mail asking for more clarification than simply "is it a remake or not". Most of the text is from the Nintendo site, but Mr. Chandler adds an actual response at the bottom.

Note that this correspondence was started by Poiuyt Man, a Wikipedia editor, and it is not documented anywhere else. As such, it may be considered original research, which would make it invalid as a cited source within the article. However, it is about as verifiable as the above e-mail, as one would need to contact Sharon Matheny or Mike Chandler to check the veracity of the statements.

Attn: Sharon Matheny (if possible)

A previous e-mail from a NSider forum member asked, "Is Metroid Zero Mission a remake of Metroid 1, or is it a brand new adventure?", to which you responded, "yes, it is like the first one, but I would also have to say no, as new enemies and other surprises have been added."

Sorry to bug you again about it, but I'm asking for a little clarification. I've provided questions that are more specific.

Is the story depicted in Zero Mission, up until Samus destroys Mother Brain, the same story depicted in the original Metroid? More specifically, do these games occupy the same spot on the Metroid timeline? Or does Zero Mission have a different place on the timeline, prior to or after Metroid?

Thanks,

Jason McCay

Reply:

Hi,

The following is a description of Metroid: Zero Mission:

Metroid: Zero Mission begins right where the original Metroid game opened, as interstellar bounty hunter Samus Aran infiltrates Mother Brain's massive complex below the surface of planet Zebes. It becomes immediately obvious, however, that this adventure is very different from the first mission: dark corners teem with unfamiliar enemies, a maze of new paths lead into the unknown, and fresh puzzles lie unsolved. Samus herself is equipped with all-new techniques to face the dangers that lurk in the depths of Zebes, and she will need all the powers at her disposal if she hopes to survive. Metroids, Space Pirates, and Mother Brain herself await in the depths of the planet, but their evil designs are just a part of a deeper story that can only now be told...

She's battled baddies on nearly every Nintendo system, cleaned house in the Super Smash Bros. series and recently blasted off for heroic adventures on the GCN (Metroid Prime) and the GBA (Metroid Fusion). 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. The plotline will be familiar to longtime fans of the Metroid series, but the challenges are new, the power-ups are plentiful (taken from several games in the series) and the graphics and sound are supercharged. Plus, if you thought that the original Metroid had a surprise ending, wait until you get past the Mother Brain in Metroid: Zero Mission. A new twist provides a deeper adventure than ever before.

Sent to Zebes to investigate rumors of a deadly alien species, Samus meets her match in the form of the mysterious Metroids -- energy-sapping creatures that emerge from an oversized cerebrum beneath the planet's surface. Samus isn't the only traveler searching for the Metroids. A band of Space Pirates has touched down to extract the curious creatures and use them as weapons. Samus must thwart the pirates, but they are wily and will prove to be more trouble than Samus expects.

In the long-standing Metroid tradition, Zero Mission is a scavenger hunt for dozens of items -- missiles, energy tanks and tools -- that give you the ability to explore wider and deeper. Every time you uncover a device, you'll remember former dead ends that you can finally overcome. The endless chain of breakthroughs and discoveries causes the world to continue to grow and form.

The Metroids are only one of the many menacing species that lurk below the surface. The Zebesian underground overflows with creatures that aim to keep you from invading their turf. Metroid classics Kraid and Ridley hold fort in dark corners, towering over the comparatively small bounty hunter. The planet holds plenty of new threats, too, such as the lava-dwelling serpent that acts as the first line of defense in Kraid's lair and the armored larvae that lurk in the deepest sections of Norfair. The Space Pirates are no pushovers either, and you won't always have the Power Suit to protect you.

Essentially, it's a rewrite of the original story for the millions of fans who enjoyed the original game.

Nintendo of America Inc.

Mike Chandler

Nintendo Letter 3[edit]

(My question) Hello Nintendo, I am an N-Sider member and I have a very important question regarding Metroid Zero Mission. In the official Metroid Forum there is a very heated debate going on regarding Zero Mission. A lot of substantial evidence from Zero Mission including maps and text has been posted and all of this evidence indicates that Zero Mission is meant to take place before the original NES Metroid as a prequel, and was not intended to be a remake of the NES Metroid. For example, the maps show that Zero Mission's Tourian is in the wrong location and looks very different from the one in Super Metroid, which Metroid is supposed to lead into, thus making Super Metroid inconsistent if Zero Mission replaces Metroid in the timeline. Also, the Zero Mission box says, "The full story of Samus Aran's first mission finally unfolds..." while the Metroid manual states that Samus had completed missions before that which others thought to be completely impossible, which implies that Zero Mission is the first mission and that Metroid is a separate mission that takes place much later. Another thing pointed out is that Yoshio Sakamoto, the director of Zero Mission, said that Zero Mission was only a remaking of Metroid's gameplay, not its storyline or the game itself. All of this new evidence disproves the long accepted theory of it being a remake of Metroid. So I was hoping that someone at Nintendo who knows for a fact what place Zero Mission has in the Metroid timeline, or someone that can contact those who made the game, could answer the following question. Does Metroid: Zero Mission take place before the NES Metroid as a prequel, or is it a remake of the NES Metroid? Please do not give the generic response by quoting the Nintendo.com review of the game, because that will not help, as we have already gone over it and have found no answers to our question within it. This is very urgent, so please answer this question, and please literally state in your reply if it is a prequel or a remake, and please be sure to give a clear answer as the game being one or the other. Thank you very much in advance for your help. -Dai Grepher

(Nintendo's answer) Message(#6851-000455-2451\4552451)

Hello,

Thank you for your e-mail. I know you want a definitive answer, but unfortunately we just don't have this information. You'll need to continue debating this in the forums... Our standard response to questions like this, although I know you were hoping for more, is below.

Many of the details about our games remain mysteries. Perhaps some of them will be solved by information revealed on our web site (www.nintendo.com) or in future games or upcoming issues of Nintendo Power. Some answers, however, are left to the active imaginations of our game players.

Sincerely,

Nintendo of America Inc. John Elsberry

Nintendo Power Super Metroid comic[edit]

A comic series based on the events of Super Metroid was published in volumes 57-61 of Nintendo Power. The story is loosely based off the game, with many elements being exclusive to the comic.

In the comic, as in the game, Samus finds Ridley in the Space Colony, clutching the Metroid larva. The following dialogue then takes place:

Ridley: It's been a long time!

Samus: Not long enough!

Ridley: The Mother Brain will reward me handsomely for this prize!

Samus: You won't get away with this!

Ridley: You may have beaten us once... but never again!

http://www.classicgaming.com/mdb/sm/comics.htm
http://www.classicgaming.com/mdb/sm/npcomics_1-5.jpg (page where dialogue occurs)

Addendum: The comic book may no longer be canon, because according to the timelines presented above, Ridley and the Space Pirates have encountered Samus at least twice before the events of Super Metroid. She defeated them in Metroid, Metroid: Zero Mission, and Metroid Prime.

Comments[edit]

I'm not done adding everything yet, I'll finish it in a a few hours. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 23:38, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dai Grepher: I will add my comments later today. However, a poll should not be used to determine the correct timeline in this debate. As soon as it is posted those at VGF will rally together and vote it a remake without regarding any of the proof that shows otherwise, while those that have agreed with me and also initially believed the game to be a prequel will have no knowledge of this poll, thus making it a one sided decision. I say that we present this issue to a few non-partisan administrators and members of this website that have no stance on the issue. That way the issue will not go either way due to biased opinions.Dai Grepher 21:10, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think excluding groups of people is the way to go. Those VGF members are Metroid fans, after all. I seem to be on VGF's good side, so I'd like to politely ask them, if they wish to vote, to cast aside all previous notions of Dai Grepher and the above situation, and review all the evidence above with a neutral point of view.

Wikipedia:Current surveys should expose it to some administrators, but keep in mind that anyone who doesn't know anything about Metroid or video games in general probably won't care enough to vote. I'll post it on Talk:Metroid series also, as that should attract editors of the various Metroid articles. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 00:34, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dai Grepher: The only reason that you are on VGF's good side is because you think Zero Mission is a remake and because you disagree with me. If you believed that it was a prequel, or not a remake, then those at VGF would call you an idiot, a sheep, or some other insult, as they have done to others that have stated their belief of it being a prequel. They are fans to their own ideas first, and fans to the Metroid series second. Therefore they, nor we, should have a vote. This should be presented to an intelligent jury of non-partisan people whose only goal is to have correct information posted on Wikipedia and make it a more perfect encyclopedia. Those that have shown a bitter and hatful attitude toward me on VGF have proven themselves to be underhanded and decietful by following me to other forums just to insult me even more and discredit my presentation. It is as if they have nothing better to do but bash me and stubbornly fight the facts that I have presented. What is stopping them from registaring multiple accounts just to vote against me here?Dai Grepher 05:10, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Current surveys: "The results of a survey are not binding, and may be subject to interpretation". Making sock puppet accounts for voting is against Wikipedia policy, and is easy to detect. If you have 50 votes against you from user accounts that were just created, it will be apparent, and those votes will be discredited.

If you don't mind, I'm going to move everything above the Summary section to Talk:Metroid Zero Mission/prequel-remake, and make a prominent link to it at the top of the talk page. It will make sure that voting users won't consider the volumes of discussion to be part of this vote (although they can freely browse it if they wish). --Poiuyt Man ^talk 23:43, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please, I'm trying to have the above summary section contain only direct material from the game and Nintendo sources — presenting discrepancies is alright, but providing possible explanations of these discrepancies is not. Those can be discussed on the new talk page. I've removed the following from the above Tourian/Starting Location section:

"The actual Zero Mission map cannot be put together in 2D without overlapping areas" and "The Zero Mission areas can be put together without intersection of the map areas. The only parts that will intersect are elevators"
- Replaced with a better summary that covers both points.
"In any case, the Tourian in Zero Mission cannot be placed where it is seen in Metroid because the areas will intersect."
- This assumes that the areas cannot intersect or be located behind or in front of each other in two dimensions.
"However, this overlapping region exists only if the areas that are depicted in the game strictly exist within two dimensions..."
- Counter-paragraph to the above is just speculation explaining Zero Mission's overlap. Replaced with examples of 3D space in other Metroid games.
"However, the Brinstar of Super Metroid is an area that has not yet been discovered... which is called Brinstar as well. Brinstar did not move or switch locations, just to clarify."
- No evidence for this whatsoever. I also have no direct evidence that Brinstar moved. However, there is evidence that Brinstar is further beneath the planet's surface than it is in Metroid or Zero Mission, so that stays.
"That path would actually lead past the Mother Brain's room, but that room is not between Crateria and Brinstar anyway."
- Since there is no official layout for the exact areas in Zero Mission, this statement is not fact.
"Logic would deem it necessary that at least some change must have taken place to the environment, perhaps at the hands of the Space Pirates"
- It's alright to point out that there are no elevators in Metroid or Zero Mission, but providing a possible explanation will prompt a counter-explanation, which will just turn this into another long-winded argument. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 13:21, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, Poiuytman. I think I'm still in the mode of having a debate rather than just presenting facts. ;) The Missing Link 16:36, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the new debate that was forming on this page to a new section on Talk:Metroid: Zero Mission/prequel-remake. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 08:04, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As a compromise, while this poll is running, I've revised the opening paragraph and some other text in the article so it doesn't outright state Zero Mission to be a remake. However, it does quote Sakamoto in the intro, so the readers can decide for themselves. I actually wouldn't mind leaving it like this; it states the facts, and that's all that's really needed. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 16:48, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Poll[edit]

This poll is to form a consensus on the issue of whether Metroid: Zero Mission should be considered a re-telling/remake or a prequel of Metroid. ~~Currently, the article states it as an enhanced remake.~~ Currently, the article is ambiguous on the subject.

Before voting, please read the above section, Summary: facts and evidence. Please sign under the appropriate section with four tildes (~~~~), along with any comments you wish to include. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 05:41, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Metroid: Zero Mission is a re-telling of Metroid's story; the games overlap on the timeline. There is enough evidence to state this as a fact in the article.

Poiuyt Man ^talk 05:41, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A Link to the Past 05:57, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
The Missing Link 06:05, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nifboy 06:20, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Andre (talk) 16:53, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
Gbeeker 17:31, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thunderbrand 22:24, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 10:07, 2005 July 30 (UTC)
Glyph Phoenix 19:09, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
jglc | t | c 14:41, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Agent CH 21:06:35, 2005-08-05 (UTC)
demeteloaf 19:02, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~GMH 08:07, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
K1Bond007 19:46, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
KramarDanIkabu 20:28, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Dr.P. 23:16, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
FlooK 00:58, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
--Sparky Lurkdragon 07:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--EisenKnoechel 08:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Darkpulsaromega 15:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4.242.132.187 09:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Metroid: Zero Mission is a prequel of Metroid, occuring before it on the timeline. There is enough evidence to state this as a fact in the article.

There is not enough evidence to state either of the two possibilities as fact. ~~A more ambiguous statement should be used in the article.~~ The article should remain ambiguous on the subject.

Pirate Ship/Wrecked Ship[edit]

I ran this page through various automatic online translators, and it seems that under question 2, Sakamoto says that the Wrecked Ship from Super Metroid and the Pirate Mothership from Zero Mission are not the same, as many people have speculated. However, automated Japanese-to-English has very uneven results, so there might just be an error in translation. If anyone knows someone who reads and comprehends Japanese well, it'd be helpful. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 11:04, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Poiuytman, your speculation is correct. After commenting on a type of two-legged robot that appears in ZM as well as Super Metroid, Sakamoto says 「しかし、マザーシップとスーパーメトロイドの難破船は別物という設定です。」: "But the situation (settei: setting, scenario) is that the Mother Ship is different from the Wrecked Ship." Heian-794 18:28, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dai Grepher: That is because Zero Mission did not "retcon" or remake anything. Dai Grepher 14:50, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As long as you ignore fact. -- A Link to the Past 14:52, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Dai and Link, I'm not commenting on the correctness of any of the game's theories, only that Poiuytman is correct in interpreting Sakamoto's comments that way. Heian-794 17:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article SHOULD NOT be ambiguous[edit]

Dai Grepher is the only dissenter; it's a fact that Zero Mission is a remake. Andre (talk) 20:34, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

As long as we have one dissenter the problem is not solved. A similar problem existed on the Revenge of the Sith page and the page had to be protected until I found a solution that satisfied both parties. However, this does not have such an easy solution it appears. KramarDanIkabu 21:00, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He could drag it out forever then, and this page would be protected forever. He has failed to provide evidence, and it's a million vs. 1. -- A Link to the Past 21:07, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Until the matter is settled, I have placed a dispute marker on the article. ~ Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:30, 2005 August 11 (UTC)

So what then is our next step, Andre? The Missing Link 00:15, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, here's my plan.

1. CONTACT Yoshio Sakamoto. Write him a snail mail letter explaining a simplified version of the situation, perhaps on Wikimedia Foundation letterhead. We'll write the letter at Talk:Metroid: Zero Mission/Letter (because we can't put it in the article namespace) and I'll take care of the sending/letterhead voodoo. If you can find the address, great, otherwise, I'll pull some strings and find it myself.

2. ORGANIZE all the evidence for both sides in a short list. You can put it at Talk:Metroid: Zero Mission/Evidence. This will come into play later, believe me.

3. MEANWHILE change the page to reflect the view that directly contradicts Dai Grepher's. There is a clear consensus as judging by the poll, so it's fair to do this. I'm confident that Sakamoto's letter will support us in this, so it won't be for long. If Grepher reverts, which he has no right to, we will revert him back until he breaks the 3RR and then I will block him. Make sure you guys don't, or I'll have to block you as well.

Andre (talk) 04:52, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. The letter should be worded as precisely as possible, and should avoid words such as "remake", which may be interpreted multiple ways. Perhaps using Nintendo's Letter 2 above as a starting point? And I don't have any idea where to start looking for the address. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 12:5 , 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Dai Grepher: It is not a fact that it is a remake Andrevan. You obviously have no idea what a fact is in order for you to make such a statement. A fact is a truth proven against all opposing ideas, theories, or information. If a new theory opposing the fact is presented then the fact becomes a theory and cannot be considered a fact again until it disproves the challenging theory. The remake side has done nothing to disprove any of my facts. So at the very least, the remake article cannot be presented as a fact. It must remain non-partisan until the mediators resolve this. You have no right to declare such an order that it be made to "contradict Dai Grepher". That statement alone shows how biased and prejudiced you are in this issue. You will be deliberately committing vandalism on the article page by posting information that is known to be incorrect and unproven. Hope in Sakamoto proving you to be correct is not justification to change the pages, as it is an opinion of yours and not a known fact that Sakamoto shares your idea of what the game is or is not.Dai Grepher 18:21, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is oriented around consensus, and facts. As clearly shown on this page, the consensus is against you. Additionally, or your information, I'm an administrator and a mediator. By "fact," we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." For every sensible fact, there is a Flat Earth Society lurking in the shadows. A single person does not constitute a serious dispute. Andre (talk) 04:12, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Dai Grepher: Are you comparing my factual presentation to the Flat Earth theory? You have no idea what you are talking about. First of all your theory is not a fact, as the fact of the Earth being round is a fact. Second, I have presented facts and evidence from multiple official and canon sources. If it does not prove that the game is a prequel, it does at least disprove the "fact" that it is a remake. So even though it does prove that it is a prequel, you and everyone else disregard those facts. So at the very least it challenges this remake "fact" of yours and makes it a remake theory. Just because 12 people are all in consensus that the world is flat and disregard all evidence to the contrary does not make the world flat. It is your opinion that this is not a serious dispute. The fact that we are looking into a mediator judge ruling proves that this is very serious.Dai Grepher 22:29, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that we are on the round side, you are the flatty. It is obvious that this game is being presented as a remake and is CLEARLY a remake, and yet you're saying your theory is most likely. -- A Link to the Past 22:49, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Your "facts" are merely continuity problems that prove nothing. It's a fact, for the purposes of Wikipedia, that Zero Mission is an enhanced remake of Metroid, as clearly shown by a great deal of evidence. All the ambiguities you pointed out were mistakes, nothing more. Also, you apparently know nothing about the Wikipedia dispute resolution process: there's nothing called a "mediator judge ruling" and mediators don't decide what belongs in an article. Anyway, I'm not compelled to respond to your messages here, so I won't do so if you just continue restating your groundless objections. But, as a warning to you, if you start an edit war on this article you will be blocked for ignoring consensus. Andre (talk) 22:54, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Dai Grepher: Purpose of surveys Surveys may be used as part of dispute resolution, or to solicit opinions before making significant changes. They can be useful in developing consensus when community opinion is not immediately obvious in normal discussion. For example, a survey may bring in opinions from people who agree with one position, but don't join the discussion because they don't feel they have anything original to add.

For ideas on designing a survey, see Wikipedia:Survey guidelines. The results of a survey are not binding, and may be subject to interpretation. A survey may sometimes be called a poll, and it may involve voting for different options, but it is not the same thing as an election. For information on elections related to Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Elections.

Opinion surveys should be used to determine whether a consensus exists, not to decide which side "wins". Successful surveys and polls generate consensus, because some people who disagree will nevertheless recognize and accept the consensus opinion of the community.

Dai Grepher: You are the one misunderstanding what a consensus is. The survey is not there to determine which side wins. I am going to change the pages to be non-partisan in the interest of fairness, and I warn you that if you revert them to favor one side of the debate before arbitration or mediation attempts to resolve this issue, I will report you for vandalism. Dai Grepher 02:37, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

While I do think it's good that you're looking into the rules, Dai Grepher, it's also important to note that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy either. Simply put, the goal is not merely to have some moderator or arbitrator come in to look at this, like you've been wanting all along. The goal is to reach consensus, and while I realise that polls aren't the same thing as consensus, to our knowledge, you're pretty much standing alone on the issue all in all. Since I imagine you intend to fight for your theory until told to cease and desist, eventually there will come to a point somewhere in the process where the almost consensus that we have achieved will win out by default. The Missing Link 05:21, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A poll is a method to show whether or not there is consensus. It is clear that you are the only one at all who disagrees, and that there is a clear consensus. If you continue to revert to your version, you will be blocked for ignoring consensus. Andre (talk) 18:21, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Dai Grepher: The poll shows that there is not a consensus. I have already stated that I do not regard the poll, which means it cannot be used to determine which description gets posted in the article. I do not agree with the others who have voted and I have provided evidence that proves they are wrong in their opinion of the game. I am the only one who disagrees in this microscopic corner of the Internet. There are many others who believe that Zero Mission is a prequel, but they do not know of this poll. Therefore your votes cannot be counted as a clear consensus. I have also not reverted anything. I have made new edits, which under Wikipedia policy do not count as reverts. You also cannot block me unless you have posted vandalism warnings on my talk page, or if I have violated the Three Revert Rule, which is three consecutive reversions within a 24 hour period. I have not made reverts that are more than 24 hours apart, and I have not made the same edits. My edits also do not favor either side of the argument as yours have done, which according to administrator guidelines you are not supposed to do unless the other side is clearly vandalism. I have already warned you once on your talk page. Continue to make edits favoring a side in the article which is clearly under dispute, and I will proceed with other vandalism in progress protocols.Dai Grepher 23:44, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, 100% of the votes being for remake is not a consensus? And whoa whoa whoa - do NOT say that the poll is inapplicable because you do not regard it. Polls ARE used to get consensus, so mister minority, get over it. You say proof, yet you never even quoted Sakamoto EVER saying prequel. How can that be proof if everything is a preview? And, who cares if this is the microscopic portion of the internet? Go to the other 99.9% of the internet if you disagree, okay? And there are people who believe in the world being flat. But there are 1,000,000,000 rounders to each flatters. There are more remakers than there are prequelers. We do not take consensus based on the idea that there may be supporters somewhere else, we take consensus on the Wikipedia community. Ignoring consensus is a blockable offense, so don't hide behind the fact that you haven't reverted four times. If I felt like it, I could go to the Mario page and argue that he's a gay rapist living in New Zealand. Can you explain why I couldn't say there's no dispute? Despite some crazy notion that your opinion is the only one that matters, and the fact that you have no one but a few nut jobs supporting you (nut jobs you don't even know exist, no less), Wikipedia relies on facts and consensus. We provide more facts, and the consensus is in our favor. Tell Jimbo that consensus is unimportant, 'kay? -- A Link to the Past 23:54, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Dai: If there were 1,000,000 flat earth believers to 1 round earth believer, would it be a fact that the world is flat? No. That is the case with this discussion. The remake side disregards facts that prove the game is a prequel. That is why you have reverted to edit wars of the article. You know that the mediation and arbitration group will actually regard the facts and conclude that the game is a prequel. Right now, you want the page to be biased. I want the page to be neutral until a ruling is made. You and Andre are the vandals here. Well, I have requested that the page be protected as a NPOV article until a ruling has been made.

Dai: One more thing. I am asking you to listen to Sakamoto when he says that he would not necessarily call Zero Mission a remaking of backstory. The fact that he never calls it a prequel is irrelevant, because doing so may have spoiled the storyline for gamers. The fact that he never calls it a remake is just as apparent. So unless you can provide some proof that Sakamoto said it is a remake, and not just say that you can or have done, then as far as his word goes, it is not a remake of storyline. I am actually glad that we are organizing separate evidence pages, because now we all get to see how much evidence you really have. Or should I say, don’t have? Dai Grepher 00:44, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, notice how he didn't say "I wouldn't necessarily call it a remake". He specifically said backstory. If you're going to say the gameplay is a remake of Metroid, remember that it's not very different from Metroid Fusion; so if anything, Fusion's a remake. And I guess they didn't care to spoil Metroid Fusion when they called it Metroid IV? -- A Link to the Past 00:51, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Addition to summary[edit]

I added new evidence to the page. Samus' memory of Metroid and Storyline comparison both feature new evidence that support the prequel fact. I also took out this line: ", but Brinstar is now much further beneath the planet's surface" I took this out of the Location of Tourian and the starting location section, because it suggests that Brinstar moved between Metroid and Super Metroid or was redesigned to be in a different place than where it was in Metroid. While it is true that the starting location sank, Brinstar did not move. The Brinstar in Super Metroid is a new part of Brinstar, not the same area seen in Metroid. Evidence of this is seen in Super Metroid. The path leading to Kraid's Hideout is blocked off, and so is the path leading to the Metroid Brinstar (the path leading under the wall just after the Energy Tank hidden in the ceiling). The Brinstar areas seen in Super Metroid are different in appearance to those seen in Metroid. Dai Grepher 18:21, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stop adding bias. The Summary section is for presenting evidence, not stating interpretations of the evidence and passing them off as fact. I've completely removed "Storyline Comparison", since it was just an interpretation of the box and manual descriptions. They are already on the page. Add the Nintendo.com storyline if you wish, but do not state "This story does not match Metroid's story." It sure sounds like Metroid to me, and I'm sure other people would agree.

Dai Grepher: Everything that I presented were facts. The storyline comparison simply highlights important facts. I think that bringing important facts to the reader's attention should be done so that they are not overlooked. You object to it because they are facts that prove you wrong. The story that Nintendo presents for Zero Mission is of Samus being sent to investigate rumors of Metroids. Metroid has Samus sent to Zebes to destroy Metroids and Mother Brain after the Federation already attempted to invade the pirate fortress. It is a fact that those are different stories. However, I have presented these again with no implications whatsoever in the spirit of fairness.Dai Grepher 22:29, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your bizarre explanation for the wall-jump/shinespark inconsistency is by no means proof to state "this is not a storyline change". Post the statements and screenshots from the games, do not force your interpretation of them on the reader.

Dai Grepher: It is however a sufficient explanation to prove that a storyline change is not a fact. You actually began the section with the words, "Metroid: Zero Mission has possibly altered the Metroid storyline..." That does not sound like a fact to me. You have no evidence that this was a storyline change, so I have deleted the "Other storyline changes introduced by Zero Mission" assumption of yours completely. Not only do you have no evidence of a storyline change, but also with the word "Other" in that statement, you suggest that Zero Mission changed other parts of the Metroid series storyline. So please stop trying to force your interpretations on the readers.Dai Grepher 22:29, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've also added information in "Tourian's appearance" about the inconsistencies between Metroid and Super Metroid. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 03:32, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dai Grepher: This is really pathetic Poiuytman. You know that the old Tourian in Super Metroid is from Metroid, yet with your recent presentation you seem to either be suggesting that they are not the same, or that the creators redesigned it without considering continuity. To do this you completely disregard the fact that Metroid had a significantly lower quality graphics engine than Super Metroid, and you forget that the old Tourian had an explosion happen within it, which would change things in the room. This would easily destroy the middle turrets. You also forget that the room right before the brain room was rebuilt to be an elevator room, which would explain why the door is lower in the brain room and has a platform before it. Have you also forgotten that some of the facts you presented do not match Zero Mission's Tourian either? It appears that you are trying to mislead with this new evidence, which is why I have added some factual clarification to it.

Dai Grepher 22:29, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to mislead, I'm showing that the differences between Tourian in Zero Mission and Super Metroid do not prove that they are different locations, because there are also differences between Tourian in Metroid and Super Metroid. And the arbitrarily condensed space between the first and second zeebetites is not explained by the explosion, or by an enhanced graphical engine. It was obviously done for gameplay reasons, to line up the elevator correctly. The designers aren't as nitpicky over continuity as you make them out to be. Regarding the door platform, it has the same corroded post-explosion look as the rest of the room, which rules out reconstruction. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 17:39, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dai Grepher: Not if that one platform was reconstructed with debris that was blown away from other parts of the room's machinery. The door being lower also proves a reconstruction of that part. As I said, the pirates have no logical reason to rebuild something that they will not use (i.e. brain pod and Zeebetites of Zero Mission). However, the room at the end of the brain room was used and reconstructed. A rebuilding of a platform to access that room would be logical.Dai Grepher 23:44, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Facts are on our side, and so is consensus. Get over it. -- A Link to the Past 02:53, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Dai Grepher: Your side has no facts. Your side only has baseless assumptions that similarities between the games prove a remake, and differences between them are instances of "retcons". You also have no counter arguments to the facts that prove the game is a prequel. Your side says that the inconsistancies are mistakes, yet your side has no evidence of that either. The consensus has been protested and does not affect this debate in the least.

Dai Grepher 03:24, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we do have t he funny little fact that the word remake is, at the very least, often used in the same sentence as Metroid: Zero Mission. No one involved has ever even mentioned the word prequel in the same interview. The inconsistencies? Well, if you haven't realized yet - Gunpei Yokoi is dead. We are to assume he didn't work on Zero Mission. And, any 'moderator' will look at the constant use of remake, the consensus and the fact that you use no quotes from Sakamoto on ZM and insists he agrees with you, and will say "remake" and slap that on. -- A Link to the Past 03:37, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Dai Grepher, I have removed your edits from this page a second time, but before you go accusing me of vandalism (again), let me explain in greater detail why I'm doing this. As I noted in the edit summary last time, the arguments that you posted were DUPLICATED elsewhere in the discussion above. Specifically, your first quote ""THE FULL STORY OF SAMUS ARAN'S FIRST MISSION FINALLY UNFOLDS..." is already posted in the section Zero Mission box description in ¶2 in its entirety (whereas yours is just an excerpt). Your second quote, "The space hunter chosen for this mission was Samus Aran..." is already posted in the section Metroid and Zero Mission manual comparison in ¶7, again, in the same context. There is no need to have it posted a second time, not to mention posted with your added emphasis (which does not exist in the source documentation).

I know this is a stretch for you to believe, but I am acting in a professional manner on this edit, and I'd like for you to for once believe that I just might be acting in good faith. I explained my edit the first time, and I would appreciate if next time I was given the benefit of the doubt. The Missing Link 05:00, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dai Grepher: I belive you. I also believe that any non-biased reader will notice these important facts that prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Zero Mission is a prequel. Besides, my page of facts proving this truth will dwarf the remake side's page in comparison anyway.Dai Grepher 23:44, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Small edit, but according to Wikipedia:Concensus, we do have a supermajority on the issue, and by Wikipedia's definition, that allows for concensus rules to apply. I have re-reverted User:Dai Grepher's edit to the page accordingly. The Missing Link 23:13, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dai: According to the NPOV rules, a consensus cannot be used to overrule a Netral point of view. What I have posted in the article is a description of Zero Mission as a game, not as a remake or a prequel. I have posted a netral point of view.

"Note that consensus can only work among reasonable editors who are making a good faith effort to work together to accurately and appropriately describe the different views on the subject. (e.g. insisting on insertion of an insignificant factoid into an article in opposition to many other editors has been judged a violation of consensus; see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Charles Darwin-Lincoln dispute.)

Specifying exactly what constitutes a reasonable or rational position is difficult. Nearly every editor believes that their position is reasonable; good editors acknowledge that positions opposed to their own are also reasonable. But Wikipedia's consensus practice does not justify stubborn insistence on an eccentric position combined with refusal to consider other viewpoints in good faith. With respect to good faith, no amount of emphasized assertions that you are editing according to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view while engaging in biased editing will serve to paper over the nature of your activities.

Consensus should not trump NPOV (or any other official policy). A group of editors advocating a viewpoint do not, in theory, overcome the policy expressed in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not concerning advocacy and propaganda. However, a group of editors may be able to shut out certain facts and points of view through persistence, numbers, and organization. This group of editors should not agree to an article version that violates NPOV, but on occasion will do so anyway. This is generally agreed to be a bad thing." Dai Grepher 23:44, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Should we believe the theory of the prequel... or should we believe that there's a good reason why Sakamoto has never used the word prequel to represent Zero Mission? -- A Link to the Past 23:54, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Dai: Did he ever refer to Zero Mission as a remake of Metroid? I did not think so. Dai Grepher 00:44, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So, when he was saying remake, he was referring to some nonexistant game then? -- A Link to the Past 00:51, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

You fail to realise that we DO have a NPOV, Dai. We've analysed the facts. We've chosen what we believe, and we didn't just arbitrarily believe in something just because. Therefore, it is a consensus and an NPOV.

Also with regards to round-Earth and flat-Earth, the problem is that you analyse this problem from the 21st century viewpoint. If someone were to tell you in 1450 that the world was round, they'd laugh at you. Were they wrong? Yes, but that was what was believed to be correct. If we're proven wrong by suddenly discoving (via Sakamoto deus ex machina) that Sakamoto meant it to be a prequel, then we'll 'fess up and we'll admit it. But until that happens, the truth is unknown, and thus a what is generally accepted to be true by the community (which is our opinion by an obvious supermajority), is held to be true because that is the current popular belief. You can argue up and down that your theory is better than ours, but you do not know the proof because you do not have the "ultimate first source" evidence. The Missing Link 01:32, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dai Grepher: Wikipedia still favors a NPOV article over one that states a certain stance on an issue, especially when the validity of that stance is questioned considerably. I will also remind you again that Sakamoto never once calls Zero Mission a remake, so it is not as if the interview with him supports your argument. Dai Grepher 03:30, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So, he was not actually referring to anything in particular when he constantly said remake? -- A Link to the Past 03:34, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Something to chew on: Taken from NPOV:

From Jimbo Wales, September 2003, on the mailing list:

If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not (see Wikipedia:Flat earth problem).

We've easily established that the remake-side of the debate is the (super)majority opinion, and thus it deserves its due in the article. You have yet to show that your viewpoint holds a significant minority. Until you do so, consensus overrules NPOV. The Missing Link 17:40, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dai Grepher: Consensus overrules nothing according to consensus policies. While we are on the subject of non-applicable policies, your claim that my presentation is a Flat Earth argument is false. You also misunderstand what the Flat Earth Problem is. "A flat earth problem is the incredulity that arises when someone questions the obvious objective truth and claims it's a valid alternative." The remake theory is not an obvious truth. I do not claim that my presentation is a valid alternative. I prove that it is a valid alternative. The majority of Wikipedia users that have viewed this debate believe that the game is a remake. Some of those who voted are those that spent time contributing to the Zero Mission page. It seems logical that they would want to preserve their own work and efforts. Another thing to remember is that your poll does not represent those outside of this website. These recent attempts to change the article unjustly and subject me to corrective action is just proof of how desperate some on your side are to make the facts I have found to simply go away. I say that this petty edit war that you people have going on should stop, the article should be non-partisan until arbitration has made a decision or until Sakamoto responds with an answer, and we should try to resolve this quickly and peacefully. Dai Grepher 01:00, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sending letters#Poll[edit]

Wikipedia:Sending letters#Poll will need to pass for us to carry through with my plan, so please vote on it. Andre (talk) 20:13, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Dai Grepher has been blocked.[edit]

00:39, August 20, 2005, Andrevan blocked Dai Grepher (expires expires 00:39, August 21, 2005) (contribs) (unblock) (Ignoring consensus, vandalizing user pages. Blocked for 24 hours, as warned.)

RfC[edit]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dai Grepher Andre (talk) 22:37, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Resolving the Issue[edit]

Dai Grepher: I suggest that we move into the mediation step. I think that Improv, and Stevertigo should be mediators in this issue. Improv seems to be knowledgeable of the policies and Stevertigo seems knowledgeable of NPOV. Does the remake side want to request additional mediators or does anyone have any objections to those I selected? If not, then I will contact them and ask them to mediate this dispute. Hopefully we will be able to come to a peaceful understanding and resolve the issue. If not, then we will request arbitration. Dai Grepher 02:41, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Peaceful =/= vandalizing user pages. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:58, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

User:Improv doesn't think mediation is appropriate for this situation. See WP:RFM#Metroid:_Zero_Mission. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 03:02, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dai Grepher: Then we should move on to arbitration. I will also state another problem with the poll that was brought to my attention. This is not a confidential poll where the votes are kept secret until the poll has ended. Many users voting for the same thing influence others to vote the same way, or not vote at all because the outcome seems clear and would cause one to think that their vote will not make a difference. If we take this poll to the Villiage Pump, it should keep the results secret until a certain date when the poll is set to end.Dai Grepher 23:27, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New evidence supporting old points.[edit]

Dai Grepher: http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/5282/zeromissionstaement9re.png This image is of Zero Mission's website in the timeline section. Nintendo clearly describes Zero Mission as being Samus Aran's FIRST MISSION. Metroid's manual clearly states that there are missions before Metroid. This makes Zero Mission a prequel by Nintendo's official word. Therefore arbitration is not necessary and I will change the article to reflect this fact. Dai Grepher 23:27, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot nitpick every single word of text, even it if comes straight from Nintendo. They make mistakes and cannot foresee the future of all of their franchises. The Metroid manual also says about Samus: He is the greatest of all the space bounty hunters ... (emphasis mine) Shall we change the article to state that Samus is male? I wish you would let this issue rest. --Pagrashtak 00:00, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dai Grepher: This is not nitpicking. The statement cleary says that this is Samus' first mission. Your claim that Nintendo makes mistakes is true, but you cannot prove that they made a mistake in this case. Nintendo did not have to foresee anything here. They stated information about an existing game that is clearly a prequel. The Metroid manual states that Samus is a male intentionally to add to the surprise of her being female for those that can complete the game in under two hours. That information can be explained by the fact that no one knew the truth about Samus, and what we heard about her in the manual were rumors. Zero Mission's manual revised the Metroid prologue to state that she is female, so your point has no basis. You are obviously ignoring the facts because you prefer your own theory over the correct timeline. Dai Grepher 02:34, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fire Red and Leaf Green - Undoubtable remakes of Red and Blue. In Fire Red and Leaf Green, the Rival's name is Green, in the originals, his name is Blue. Does that make it not a remake?

What really happened on it? Let me point something out to you. If this is not a remake, why is that "What really happened" statement necessary? The statement indicates that this is a more accurate retelling of an already existing story. Does "What really happened in that story you never heard before" make any sense? - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:03, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Dai Grepher: Pokemon games are irrelevant to this discussion. The "What really happened" statement does not refer to any story, if you would read it correctly. It states, "What really happened on planet Zebes?" That refers to Zebes' history, not a previous Metroid game. Zero Mission shows us the history of Zebes and the Chozo. That statement is refering to Zebes' historical background. Then the next line clearly states that this is Samus' first mission. Metroid is not Samus first mission. These facts prove that Zero Mission is a prequel to Metroid. You cannot refute these facts, and you cannot post false information on Wikipedia. Your theory has been disproven by facts. Therefore the page must be changed to be correct. Dai Grepher 02:34, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For there to be a "real story behind Samus Aran's first mission," there must obviously be a false story behind Samus Aran's first mission. This does not prove that Metroid cannot be that false telling of Samus' first mission. The Missing Link 02:24, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dai Grepher: Who said it was not told within the Metroid universe? Metroid's prologue makes it clear that Samus Aran is the greatest Space Hunter because of her previous missions. Her first mission may have been just as distorted as her personal background of being a male cyborg. Also, this does not mean that a flase story was told. Saying that it is the real story could just be an ephisis of accuracy in a story never told until then. The fact is that Zero Mission is her first mission and Metroid is not according to the makers of the games. You cannot argue with the primary source.Dai Grepher 02:34, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sick of you saying "No, they're not referring to that." You forget to add that you are good friends with Miyamoto, Sakamoto and everyone at Nintendo, since you seem so sure what THEIR statements mean.

Um, so, why did they say "what really happened"? Has this storyline existed in some form and told to us before? The statement shows that this is something we already know. Let me explain - you know the English language? Yeah? Well, this particular piece of English is not used when no one knows what you're even talking about. It's very clear that MZM is a remake of Metroid. You say that it's not because it's different. Well, that's a good argument, as long as you ignore the fact that remakes in games ARE DIFFERENT. Was the Galactic Federation even mentioned in Metroid, or even the manual? If not, how can you say that it's not referring to past missions outside of the Galactic Federation? She is clearly affiliated with the Galactic Federation in this game. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:04, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Dai, you can go and say that there's no proof that they are absolutely referring to Metroid all you want in that sentence. However, it is a two-way street; you can't say for certain that they're not talking about Metroid. As far as the whole missions before Metroid thing, read the arguments below. There is no known proof that completely renders that impossible. The Missing Link 06:28, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dai Grepher: First, to A Link to the Past: Sakamoto did not make that statement. That is from Nintendo.com. I just told you why they said "what really happened". The full quote is, "What really happened on planet Zebes?" That quote does not refer to Metroid or any other game. It is referring to Zebes' past. We know that the Chozo occupied Zebes but certain disasters made them flee or die out. Zero Mission goes back to that history and the events that lead to the destruction of the Chozo and the occupation of the Space Pirates. Zero Mission covers Zebes' past, and that is why Nintendo states that on their website. Remakes of games are a little different, but they do not change the storyline of the entire game and they certainly do not make the timeline inconsistent. The Galactic Federation was mentioned in the Metroid manual and the game, but when you say "how can you say that it's not referring to past missions outside of the Galactic Federation" are you talking about the quote that states, "What really happened on planet Zebes"? In that case I think it is referring to something outside the Federation. I think it is referring to Zebes' history. You next say that she is clearly affiliated with the Federation, and you are right, but that only supports the prequel side. She was chosen for the Metroid mission because of her prior missions. So why would the Federation or Nintendo refer to her next mission as her first mission? That does not make any sense. I doubt you are trying to help my side A Link to the Past, so I must ask you to clarify your point please. Oh wait, you said, “what really happened” but you might have meant to say “the real story” which refers to the real story of Samus’ first mission. This does not mean that there is a false story out there, or that Metroid is that false story. The real story could just be emphasis of this Zero Mission’s accuracy. However, there could have been rumors about Samus’ first mission just as there were rumors of Samus being a male cyborg, and Zero Mission is the real story to those rumors. What is certain is that this is the real story of her first mission, and Metroid is not her first mission.

Dai Grepher: Actually The Missing Link, I can say that it is not referring to Metroid. I will not speculate on what “the real story” infers because I do not know that. Ed Poor asked us to post what we know. What I know is that this is the real story of Samus’ first mission, and Metroid is clearly not her first mission. Dai Grepher 22:22, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What you "know" is, ironically, what you have failed to convince other people to believe in the poll for concensus. The Missing Link 07:09, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dai Grepher: The poll proves the stubbornness of others, not the inadequacies of my presentation. Dai Grepher 04:06, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can't it be both?[edit]

I'm going to just take a guess, here, based on my own experience as a programmer. I think they remade the game as a pre-quel.

In other words, I'm guessing the Zero Mission scenarios represent a prequel to the main storyline, but it may well also be that the created this new game by revising the old one - rather than starting from scratch.

You know, it would be very interesting if someone would investigate how the made the new game from the old. But let's not fight about it. (Or even speculate too much.) Let's just say what we know. Uncle Ed 02:50, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Dai Grepher: That is what I think happened. I agree with you completely. I think they just reused Metroid's story and gameplay but made a new game out of it that is a prequel to the first game.

Japanese people truly made the game, so it would be difficult to find someone that can read and write Japanese and research the issue. Research would involve contacting those that worked on the game and so on, so all we can do is go by what Nintendo has said and the games.

Now, this is what I know: 1. Nintendo said that Zero Mission is the first mission. 2. Metroid states in its prologue that there have been missions prior to the Metroid mission. That clearly indicates a prequel to me. Dai Grepher 03:11, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dai: I simply think that you have picked up on a few small details, and counted that as your entire body of evidence, while multiple pieces of evidence say otherwise. Videogame companies aren't perfect; especially when creating retroactive continuities, they're bound to end up with a few discontinuities here and there, and the other items that you cite (not including your statement above) merely show you nitpicking on small items (such as the placement of certain locations) that weren't perfectly, exactly copied.

However, as for your statement above, I have explained on my talk page how that could be accounted for:

"How do you necessarily know that those "numerous missions" were counted as actual missions when the first statement was written? It is entirely possible that Samus, being a bounty hunter, had completed numerous other dangerous missions BEFORE joining the Galactic Federation, but in the view of the Federation, the mission of Metroid/Metroid: Zero Mission, Samus's mission to Zebes is the "first" mission, which the Federation (in its own records) conveniently assigned mission number Zero, hence, "Zero Mission"."

That should do it. ~GMH 04:47, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I still have a difficult time with this. Dai, you're saying that you think "they just reused Metroid's story ... but made ... a prequel to the first game." I just find this very difficult to believe that the same story, the same series of events (with some minor degree of variation) would happen twice in a row. It just seems so improbable that they build a base, get their butts handed to them by Samus, and then having not learned anything, built a (near-)identical base, and then Samus (in an almost déjà vu experience) does the same thing over again (again, nearly approximately). The question that really hasn't been answered to my satisfaction is why would the Space Pirates build that particular base, with geography very similar to the first base, with a layout very similar to the first base, with regions in the same location as the first base... when Samus soundly defeated them when going through it the first time? The Missing Link 06:34, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dai always seems to omit the glaring errors in his theory. The Metroid manual does indeed say that Samus has been on previous missions, but so does Zero Mission's manual, since it has nearly the exact same prologue (except translated better). This completely contradicts the box and above description by saying that Samus has been on missions before Zero Mission. Dai's flimsy explanation for this is that the prologue in Zero Mission's manual is actually referring to the original Metroid, instead of the game it is packaged with. Absurd. Check the official Nintendo timelines [2][3] — Zero Mission does not come before Metroid. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 14:30, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ed - I appreciate that you're trying to help. However, Metroid: Zero Mission is indisputably a remake that has the same storyline as the original Metroid. The game is essentially the same in every way except for a few picayune details. Andre (talk) 18:53, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't go so far to say it's the same in every way. The background story is obviously the same, and the main sequence of events is similar, but the gameplay is drastically changed, due to influences from the later Metroid games. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 20:31, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The gameplay and graphics are updated, but it's clearly the same game. Andre (talk) 20:34, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Nitpicking aside, I believe the main body of evidence comes from playing the games themselves, not reading the manuals or box text. If Miyamoto himself said that Zero Mission is a remake of Resident Evil, I would still consider it a remake of Metroid based on my experience of playing the games. --Pagrashtak 03:54, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dai Grepher: You GMH, say multiple pieces of evidence say otherwise, but I ask: What pieces? The remake side has next to no evidence at all, and what you do have is vague and uncertain. My evidence has been taken from the game itself, its textual media, and the director of the game. This is all major evidence, and there is a large amount of it for the prequel side. I do not nitpick insignificant locations that were not placed exactly as they appear in Metroid, I am pointing out items and locations that were not placed in Zero Mission at all. The fifth Zeebetite, crucial for continuity in two separate yet equally important cases, as well as the omission of Fake Kraid both prove that Nintendo knowingly designed Zero Mission to be very different and inaccurate from Metroid. You cannot claim that Zero Mission is a "retconned" Metroid just because there are many inconsistencies. You need some proof that it was "retconned". The inconsistencies could very well be proof of a different mission, so you cannot just dismiss all of the overwhelming evidence that the game is a prequel just by claiming that all of these facts are "retcons". You are also saying that Nintendo made mistakes when "remaking" Metroid. So Nintendo knew that Zero Mission was Metroid, and knew that logically it had to lead into Super Metroid since that is a sequel, but made the parts of the game that reappear in Super Metroid completely inconsistent? Basically, you are saying that Nintendo made it inconsistent purposely. That seems like a biased belief to me. As for your supposition that her "first mission" somehow translates into "first mission with the Federation", I must remind you that this is not the Federation telling us that Zero Mission is her first mission. It is the supreme source, Nintendo, telling us the gamers that Zero Mission is Samus' first mission. Period. There is no mention of a Federation on the back of the Zero Mission box, and there is no mention of it on Nintendo's Zero Mission website. Your argument for this point just shows how willing you are to make excuses for your own theory. You create a "could be" scenario without any proof showing that this is even the case, and you neglect to realize that this is the game company and makers of the game speaking to us.

Dai Grepher: The Missing Link, Zero Mission is not the same story by any means. It involves similar events and a similar threat, but how many Zelda and Mario games repeat similar plots? Zero Mission has the basic outline of defeating Kraid, Ridley, and Mother Brain, stopping the Metroid threat, and getting away from the areas before they self-destruct similar to Metroid's plot. However, Super Metroid shares the same similarities in plot yet that is not a remake. Zero Mission features new areas, bosses, and storyline to make it just as different from Metroid as Super Metroid is. Saying only a minor degree of variation exists between Zero Mission and Metroid is something said by someone who has not played both games, or someone who clearly ignores the facts. The bases are not the same at all. Many areas in Zero Mission show that Zebes is at an earlier point in time than Metroid, because Metroid shows much more humanoid-made structures and bases than Zero Mission does. In Zero Mission, the room before Kraid (the boss) is plain. In Metroid that room's ceiling is made to look like the top a lizard's head. Now aside from proving that the two games were not made to be the same mission at all, this also proves that the pirates did reconstruct their bases or build new ones for Metroid. You also cannot say that these bases are in the same location. Zero Mission's map features elevators that must bend or curve at the very least in order for the areas to match up logically. This causes some areas to be placed in different locations than seen in Metroid. The best example is Tourian. In Zero Mission, Tourian is too large to be placed where it is seen in Metroid. Therefore, Zero Mission's overview map places it to the side of Brinstar and somewhat below it. So you really have no evidence that these areas are the same or in the same place. Plus, the fact that the pirates did repeat the same mistakes in Super Metroid counters your argument that the pirates would not repeat the same mistakes from Zero Mission in Metroid. So your point is moot.

Dai Grepher: Poiuytman, it is your opinion that those are errors in my theory, not fact. They are actually errors in your theory, which is why I would not mention them when explaining why the prequel fact is correct, but instead when explaining why the remake hypothesis is incorrect. As you mentioned, the prologue contradicts the box, and as I have pointed out, the website as well. Of course this is under the assumption that Zero Mission is a remake. All you have shown is that your theory contradicts the facts. A story that is written for Metroid in 1986 still applies to Metroid in 2005. Absurd? What is so absurd about that? The story in the manual has always been Metroid's story. If it now applies to Zero Mission, then why would Nintendo state that Zero Mission is Samus' first mission? What is absurd is the idea that the game makers said to themselves, "All right, Zero Mission is Metroid now that we have remade it, and it follows the same story as Metroid with this being one of Samus' later missions. So now that we know this is not her first mission, lets say that it actually is her first mission on the back of the box and on Nintendo.com's Zero Mission website. Additionally, lets not remake the prologue by taking out the part about prior missions as we did with the whole cyborg rumor. That should really give people the right idea about the game." No, the Metroid story was restated in the Zero Mission manual to be accurate with the known facts and set the stage for Zero Mission being a prior mission. They established Metroid's point in the timeline and intentionally restated the fact that Metroid had missions before it so that people would know that Zero Mission comes before Metroid as the first of those missions mentioned. The fact that Nintendo did not omit the prior missions fact and then also stated that Zero Mission is the first in two separate instances is undeniable proof that Zero Mission is a prequel. You are relying on the slim possibility that Nintendo made a horrible mistake by not omitting the fact or by stating something that was not true in the first place. Yours is the flimsy explanation. As far as those timelines are concerned, you do not know that Nintendo is not saying that the telling of Zero Mission takes place after Metroid's mission has ended. The fact is that Zero Mission is the reminiscence of Samus Aran. So that could be the point in time when she tells of Zero Mission, making the events of the game past tense. If Zero Mission were a remake, then why doesn't it occupy the same point on the timeline as Metroid? The answer is because it is a different mission.

The timeline is not placing the "telling of Zero Mission" at that point on the timeline, it's placing "Zero Mission" there. Nintendo intentionally placing the game in that position on the timeline, yet only meaning to have it refer to the telling of the game is ludicrous.

Everybody, see this: http://metroid.jp/metroid_version2/history/index.html

The animation shows the points on the timeline forming first, then the box images appearing in release order (Metroid->2->3->Fusion->Prime). The Metroid point then flashes, and another point splits off from it, placing itself between Metroid and Prime, but closer to Metroid. Zero Mission's box appears last as the most recent game released at the time. Why is the timeline point separate from Metroid? Simple explanation -- Zero Mission covers a significant portion of events that occur after the destruction of Mother Brain, so it's logical to place the point on the timeline slightly after Metroid. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 18:01, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dai Grepher: Baseless supposition. Can you read Japanese? If so what does the text for Zero Mission say? If you cannot, then how can you claim that it being Metroid plus some is the correct explanation? Ed asked us to post what we know. Do you know that your idea of what that timeline means is a fact? I could use the Metroidhunters.com Zero Mission timeline as the same type of evidence you are trying to submit, but then you would challenge the meaning of that timeline. So please post evidence that you know is proof.Dai Grepher 04:06, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need to read Japanese. "HISTORY" is displayed at the top of the page, along with "Cronicle Time Line" [sic] in the background. The boxes clearly appear in release order, but their placement from left to right along the timeline is not in release order. Since Metroid Prime has already been confirmed to come between Metroid 1 and 2, the only logical conclusion is that this is the in-game chronological order. I don't know exactly what the summaries say for each game, but clicking on Zero Mission displays a bunch of Japanese text with "2003", "20X5", "Space Pirate", suggesting that it's the prologue from the manual. The only speculation here is the reasoning for Zero Mission's point splitting off from Metroid. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 03:14, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dai Grepher: When you say that you do not know exactly what the summaries for each game say, don't you mean to say that you do not know what they say at all? You just said that you do not need to read Japanese, which is strange, seeing as how the summaries and flash movie for Zero Mission are in Japanese. The video for Zero Mission begins with Samus Aran's memories of childhood. How can you be so sure that this is not the point in time when Samus is telling of the tale when she was raised as a child, the Federation was founded, and the Space Pirates rose up as a menace to the galaxy? Moreover, what makes you think that any of those Japanese symbols describe a remake? It is your opinion that they "logically" are. Can you say for certain that all those symbols mean that this is Metroid's story and not a story that comes before it? If you cannot, then you have no evidence. Plus, I would like to challenge the accuracy of that chronology since Metroid Prime: Echoes does not even appear on that timeline. The obscure and uncertain timeline that you are referencing may be outdated! Dai Grepher 19:54, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You miss the point. I did not say that the site proves Metroid: Zero Mission to be a remake, but it definitely rules out the possibility that the game comes before Metroid, as you believe. Metroid Prime 2: Echoes does not appear on the site's timeline because at the time the Zero Mission site went live (May 2004 according to the Internet Archive), Echoes wasn't out yet (possibly not even announced). On the bonus disc, released later, the same timeline is used, with Echoes placed between Prime and Return of Samus (see this link, bottom of page). There is no evidence that this timeline is outdated, since it is the most recent timeline released, and no new Metroid games have come out yet since Prime 2. You have yet to provide a convincing argument for why two official Nintendo timelines would be wrong. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 21:26, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dai Grepher: That does not rule out anything. I said that the timeline could mean that the telling of the Zero Mission events takes place after Metroid. While it is not a fact that this is the case, you cannot disprove that or prove that it means that the Zero Mission events take place at that time. I have not even claimed that they were wrong on the bonus disc... yet. I claimed that Zero Mission's placement is based on the present tense of Samus telling the story of past events that take place before Metroid. Though now that you mention it, that timeline does appear to be incorrect. I can prove this at the bottom of the page. Dai Grepher 16:14, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, are you arguing for the case that Zero Mission is a sequel to Metroid rather than a prequel? Well, I'll be darned. The Missing Link 23:52, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dai Grepher: Zero Mission's events take place before Metroid. Samus Aran's telling of those events takes place after Metroid. Dai Grepher 02:06, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, the Metroid Prime 2 bonus disc presents the exact same timeline, in English. Details are further up on this page. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 03:21, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dai Grepher: Andre says that the fact that Zero Mission is a remake is indisputable. Why then, is there so little evidence for this supposed fact, and why is there so much evidence against it? Poiuytman says that the background story is the same. Why then, does Nintendo.com state a completely different background story for Zero Mission? You can find this here: http://www.nintendo.com/gamemini?gameid=m-Game-0000-1856 Clearly Nintendo thinks that Zero Mission is not like Metroid at all. If they were the same story, then why would Nintendo not present the same prologue on their Zero Mission description page? Why would they create a new backstory for it? Even some of the NOA representatives have said that the two games are very different. Zero Mission also features bosses and areas that were not in the original Metroid. The common excuse is that Metroid was an 8-bit game, and they could not include all of those bosses in the game so Zero Mission remade it to be a more accurate Metroid. If that is the case, then why does Zero Mission neglect to feature a mini-boss from Metroid known as Fake Kraid? Zero Mission also contradicts Super Metroid, the game Metroid leads into, by having a different Mother Brain room design and battle. The room is revisited in Super Metroid, and Zero Mission’s room is nothing like the room that is revisited. Also, the battle with Mother Brain is completely different from Samus Aran’s memory of it in Super Metroid. Zero Mission is completely different from Metroid and it cannot possibly lead into Super Metroid.

Super Metroid's Tourian has significant structural differences from the Tourian in both Metroid and Zero Mission. I've already shown this here. Fake Kraid is not a significant part of Metroid; many players never encountered him because they took an alternate path to Kraid. Saying that Metroid leads into Super Metroid better than Zero Mission is invalid. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 18:01, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dai Grepher: You showed a comparison between the undamaged Metroid Tourian and the damaged Metroid Tourian. Those differences are clearly because of the explosion and reconstruction of the room before Mother Brain's into an elevator room. So again, you have no proof. Your point that Super Metroid's old Tourian was designed differently is moot. Fake Kraid was in Metroid, and he was not in Zero Mission. So if this is supposed to be an accurate telling of Samus' Metroid mission, then why isn't Fake Kraid included but still avoidable by the player as it was in Metroid? Nintendo did not put Fake Kraid in the game because the game is not a remake of Metroid!Dai Grepher 04:08, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Changes like these are what make the game a remake and not a port or upgraded port. --Pagrashtak 04:49, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dai: Changes like those are what cause a remade game to make the entire series inconsistent. Why would Nintendo want to make their last best video game series inconsistent? Dai Grepher 19:54, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dai Grepher: “Nitpicking aside, I believe the main body of evidence comes from playing the games themselves, not reading the manuals or box text.” The games do not go into detail about the storyline though. However, the games do prove that Zero Mission cannot lead into Super Metroid, so that should be enough to prove that it is a prequel. ”If Miyamoto himself said that Zero Mission is a remake of Resident Evil, I would still consider it a remake of Metroid based on my experience of playing the games.” Now let us try a more realistic scenario, such as Yoshio Sakamoto saying that Zero Mission is a prequel. Would you still believe that it is a remake then? Dai Grepher 22:22, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

...WHAT? Yes, that's assuming he said it. You've just proven that you are actually focusing on hypothetical arguments now that you have no real proof! - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:11, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Dai Grepher: I asked someone else a question. That is not proof or evidence regarding the discussion. Stay on topic next time. However, to counter your point, since you would believe Sakamoto, then what do you say to the IGN interview where Sakamoto says, "I wouldn't necessarily call it a remaking of the backstory."? So since Sakamoto does not call it a remake, what do you call it? Dai Grepher 04:06, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, problem: If it's not a remake, why did he say necessarly? For the Hell of it? - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:50, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

When someone says "not necessarily", through connotative usage and common sense, it is not a synonym for "no". Using the dictionary definition for every word in a sentence is not a consistent way to determine the meaning of that sentence. Any automated translation service can demonstrate that. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 03:02, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dai Grepher: Automated translation services? First of all, I am using common sense, not some flawed program. Second, I am not translating anything. Third, "I wouldn't necessarily" does mean "no". "Not necessarily" can mean "perhaps not" but he did not say "not necessarily", he said "I would not" which means "no". Dai Grepher 19:54, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dai, let's place your quote in context:

"What challenges did you face in reworking or reinventing a new storyline for the character in Zero Mission?"

"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."

Sakamoto is not talking about the in-game events, he's talking about the backstory told through cinematics. This refers to her childhood on Zebes, which is shown in particular through the pre-Chozo-suit cinematic. More of these cinematics might have been planned at the time, but it seems that the final game decided to use "text-based messaging" after all, since the intro text now tells us that Zebes was Samus' home. So Samus still grew up on Zebes, raised by the Chozo, as was told in the Super Metroid comic, and the Japanese online manga. So yes, Sakamoto is right in saying that the backstory was not remade; Zero Mission doesn't contradict the story set by these previous sources. However, his quote has nothing to do with the correlation between Metroid, Zero Mission, and Super Metroid. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 15:48, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dai Grepher: The entire game is composed of Samus' recollections and memories. That is what the prologue of Zero Mission establishes at the beginning of the game. Samus Aran states this as she lands on Zebes. "Now, I shall finally tell the tale of my first battle here... my so-called Zero Mission." Then the text involving her escape from the planet show that this is a story that she is remembering. The cinema scenes regarding Kraid and Ridley are the same as the kind regarding her childhood. Sakamoto said that he would not necessarily call this story a remaking of the backstory, more like exploring it more. So in the case of Metroid, the entire storyline does not remake, but rather expands on backstory with a well-made prequel. In response to A Link to the Past, if you would look up the word "necessarily" in the dictionary and would learn what it means, you would know that it makes no difference to Sakamoto's statement of Zero Mission not being a remake of backstory. Dai Grepher 20:16, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In the same paragraph, he says it explores the back story more. More than what?

Dai Grepher: More than the other Metroid games have done, such as Metroid's reference to the Metroids and Samus' origins, Metroid II's reference to the Metroids and the appearance of Chozo statues on SR-388, Super Metroid's reference to Zebes' history like the Wrecked Ship and the acid rain on the surface, Metroid Prime's references to Chozo lore and the creation of the Metroids to combat the X, etc. Zero Mission explores all of that a little more by showing the culture and capabilities that the Chozo once possessed, as well as the time period when control of Zebes shifted from the Chozo to the Space Pirates. Dai Grepher 00:37, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If he thinks it's a prequel, then wouldn't he state it? Or why would he say this game explores the backstory some more? Are you saying that ANYONE on this planet would say "Explore the backstory more" in regard to a backstory that was never expressed? If it were considered the same story but with additional information from Samus, it wouldn't be a remake, it would be expanding on that plot. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:29, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dai Grepher: Why would he want to state the obvious, as well as spoil the game for the readers? Dai Grepher 00:37, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WHAT are you talking about? He explicetly stated that this game explores the backstory mode. So, either the backstory is from a past game, or Sakamoto doesn't understand how to use words properly. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:52, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dai Grepher: You are reading between the lines and putting words in Sakamoto's mouth. "We've taken this opportunity to explore the backstory a little more..." means that Zero Mission explores the backstory more than a game that would not if it were not a prequel. Zero Mission comes before Metroid, therefore it explores the backstory more. This backstory is the backstory of the series, not Metroid. Dai Grepher 19:54, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Because the fans and the game reporters, you know, WANT to hear even the obvious things explicitly. How many times has Nintendo been asked timeline questions about the Zelda series, how many times did they ask did they ask for specific details regarding multiple games' backstories? You're painting yourself into a corner from which you cannot escape, Dai. On one hand, the only thing that will clear up all the argument and allow you to steamroller the argument would be for Sakamoto to have said precisely the obvious "spoiler" the game is to the fans; on the other hand, you've just admitted that that's one thing he would never do. There is no known other bridge which you can use to prove your theory, and you've just admitted that that last bridge can never be there. The Missing Link

Dai Grepher: Who cares what people want to hear? What matters is what Sakamoto wants to reveal. As far as I know, whenever Nintendo has been asked about the Zelda series and its timeline, they have declined to answer, given a completely new and unheard of timeline only to retract it later, or said that they had some mysterious document that detailed the entire timeline. The fact is that game creators do not want to paint themselves into a corner from which they cannot escape. That is why Nintendo has not commented about Zelda's timeline. I did not say that Sakamoto would never do that. I said that he would not do that in the interview before some people have a chance to play the game. How you come up with the things you do is beyond me. Even if Sakamoto never said anything more about Zero Mission, the fact that it is a prequel is still proven correct from all of the game evidence and the facts about the storyline.Dai Grepher 19:54, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nintendo has released at least three Metroid timelines over the past few years, and has not retracted any of them. The team that works on Zelda is not the same group of people that work on Metroid. And unlike Zelda, the Metroid games make obvious references to each other, so the story order is not much of a mystery. Each new Metroid timeline has inserted additional games into the timeline without changing the order of the previous games:

[4] This timeline, from a 2003 version of Metroid.jp, places Prime between Metroid 1 & 2, and Fusion after Super Metroid.
[5] After Metroid.jp was updated in May 2004, this timeline placed Zero Mission between Metroid and Metroid Prime. The Zero Mission point on the timeline splits off from Metroid's point, suggesting a close correlation.
[6] (click Bonus Disc FAQ at bottom of page) This timeline is present on the Metroid Prime 2 Bonus Disc, which was available from three sources: later North American versions of Metroid Prime; as a reward from Nintendo.com for registering five GameCube games; or as an optional bonus for subscribing to Nintendo Power. The timeline is identical to the previous one, with the addition of MP2 inbetween Prime and Return of Samus.

Metroid Prime 3 and Metroid Prime: Hunters have not been released yet, and their place in the timeline is unconfirmed. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 21:59, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dai Grepher: NOA said that information regarding the games and their placement does not exist. That timeline of yours is only a rough draft, a vague idea. Dai Grepher 16:14, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nintendo of Japan overrules Nintendo of America as a primary source when the game is made in Japan. The Missing Link 23:52, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You asked a question, Dai. I answered the question. Just because you don't like my answer doesn't mean that my answer is any less relevant than your question, hypothetical as it may have been, was. The Missing Link 23:32, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dai Grepher: What question did you answer? I did not see an answer of whether or not you would agree with Sakamoto if he were to say that Zero Mission is a prequel. Besides, I did not ask you the question in the first place, so why would you feel obligated to answer it? Dai Grepher 16:14, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, you asked, "Why would he want to state the obvious, as well as spoil the game for the readers?" I answered. The Missing Link 23:52, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New Evidence[edit]

Dai Grepher: I have found new evidence that the remake side has not made excuses for yet. I found this in Metroid Prime and Prime 2. First, Pirate Data shows this: “Fall of Zebes Space Pirate encrypted data decoded. Zebes has fallen. All ground personnel are presumed dead, either killed by the hunter clad in metal or in the subsequent destruction of the underground facilities.”

The underground facilities in Zero Mission were not destroyed! Samus can revisit them and see that only Tourian has been damaged, and even then only in a small portion where there were no Space Pirates to begin with.

“Our research frigates Orpheon, Siriacus and Vol Paragorm were in orbit at zero hour and managed to retreat. Frigate Orpheon is now docked at Vortex Outpost. Orpheon's cargo appears to have a 100% survival rate: Metroids are healthy but on restricted feeding schedules due to uncertain supply status. We are ready to begin researching on Metroids and other promising life-forms. Security status remains at code Blue: no signs of pursuit from the Hunter.”

When Samus goes to Tourian we see a cinema scene of Metroids feeding on a Space Pirate. A closer inspection of Tourian reveals many dead Space Pirates, all killed by Metroids. First, how can this be considered Samus’ handy work or destruction of the facility as the first part of the quote states? Second, how can these pirates get any of these Metroids off-world when they cannot even control them in Tourian? Zero Mission shows a limited understanding of the Metroids, and it shows that the Pirates had little to no control over them. Add to this the fact that the Space Pirate Mother ship was destroyed and was not even able to get off-world. This leaves Metroid to once again hold the entire series together. In Metroid, the Pirates showed advanced knowledge of the Metroids in their plan to expose the Metroids to beta rays. Tourian’s containment was also successful, and the possibility for off-world transportation exists. Moreover, the underground areas of Zebes were destroyed in Metroid, as seen by the rebuilt bases in Super Metroid. Once again, this proves that Metroid must exist as a separate mission in order for the entire series to be consistent.

The next evidence comes from Metroid Prime 2. “Last night at chow, Angseth starts talking about some bounty hunter and how she blew up a planet full of Space Pirates. I told her I didn't believe in fairy tales like that, and she took it personal. I just find it hard to believe that one person took out an entire Space Pirate base, that's all. But if she wants to believe in this Samus, or Bigfoot, or Santa Claus, she can.” –PFC I. Crany

This information is very interesting. This information is likely referring to Super Metroid, since that is the only game with a planetary explosion that destroys Pirates and their bases. Metroid Prime would then have to come after Super Metroid to prevent conflict with the Last Metroid fact, which would place responsibility for the quote from Prime on Super Metroid rather than Metroid. Since pirates are destroyed and have the ability to control Metroids in Super Metroid, it is possible. While this would weaken Metroid’s case for existing as a separate mission, it would also crush any timeline that the remake side has presented thus far. Since Metroid has more to support it as a separate mission, I see no problem with this. So even if you can come up with some excuse for the Primes to come before Super Metroid and save your bonus disc timeline, you still have no argument against the fact that Zero Mission cannot lead into Metroid Prime, as Metroid does. Dai Grepher 16:14, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From Merrian-Webster, to destroy is "to ruin the structure, organic existence, or condition of". That certainly describes Zebes after both Metroid and Zero Mission.

Dai Grepher: The Pirate log clearly states that the ground personnel were killed by Samus or the subsequent destruction of the underground facilities. The bases in Zero Mission are not destroyed at all, except for one small area in Tourian that held no pirates anyway. You can see this if you go back to those areas after obtaining the fully powered suit. The only things that could have killed any Pirates left in the bases are massive cave in's, explosions, quakes and cavern openings, etc, and Zero Mission shows that the facilities are as good as they were the minute Samus first found them. Metroid on the other hand shows nothing, leaving the possibility for great destruction to take place. The fact that many of the facilities are structured differently and have new areas is proof of that. Dai Grepher 02:06, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The primary location for their base of operations was Tourian. Thus, their underground facilities place (Tourian) was destroyed. The Space Pirates got their butts handed to them. Am I not reading something in this that I should be? Simply put, it still is pretty accurate. The Missing Link 04:12, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dai Grepher: More like reading into it. The message does not state that their underground facility or underground facilities place was destroyed. The message says that their underground facilities were destroyed. The means each and every area was destroyed, not a small section of one area. This does not happen is Zero Mission. Therefore Prime cannot be talking about Zero Mission. Dai Grepher 01:56, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Prove that the only Metroids that were in existence at the Zebes station were the ones you saw in the game. Simply put, you can't. Obviously Metroids can be contained by force fields and, to a lesser extent, glass, as seen in Metroid Prime and Metroid Prime 2. However, even were I to ignore that point, how indeed would they get them off-planet if they couldn't control them in either Metroid or Zero Mission? Since you seem to like disregarding the Metroid manual (which claims Samus is a male rather than a female), there is no evidence that the handlers of the Metroids in Metroid did any better a job than in Zero Mission since they're wandering about just as freely as they were in Zero Mission. Furthermore, the quote you referenced from Prime mentions that there were three ships with only one surviving. At best between the two games, only one Space Pirate ship is ever mentioned; thus, it is an easy possibility that the ship that is destroyed in Zero Mission is either Siriacus or Vol Paragorm, and Orpheon, being unmentioned in the original story and the (potential) remake of the story escaping unseen.

Dai Grepher: You are getting off topic. First of all, which time period are you referring to? Zero Mission or Metroid? Second, it does not really matter. What matters is how to contain them. The methods you suggested are correct, however my point is that the Space Pirates did not know what those methods were in Zero Mission. If they did, then why did the Metroids escape their containment and drain the energy from every Pirate in Tourian? Clearly the Pirates had no control, and since this is the case, how then can they transport these newly discovered Metroids off of Zebes? The answer is that they did not. They lost. However, since that part of Tourian was never destroyed, the Pirates could go back and check where they had failed the first time. That data helped them, and once the Space Pirates detected the Galactic Research vessel returning to HQ from SR388 they set out to attack it. Once they did, they found the life-form known as Metroid sealed in a dormant state. The data from the researches gave the Pirates the knowledge and ability to contain the Metroids, and thus control them in Metroid 1. The knowledge of the beta rays revealed ways to control their reproduction and in Metroid their numbers we much more limited. Moreover, Metroid's Tourian has no corpses littering its halls. The fact that they wandered around freely could very well have been to stop Samus Aran from reaching Mother Brain, in which case they were intentionally released. Then we have the Pirate message stating that the underground facilities are destroyed, which can only happen in Metroid. Your hypothesis that Zero Mission must be what the message refers to just because it is the only game with a spaceship is baseless. That ship was never referred to as Siriacus or Vol Paragorm in Zero Mission, and this is in a game that was released after Metroid Prime. If Zero Mission was supposed to connect to Metroid Prime, then why didn't Nintendo make any connection? On top of that, the message says that the ships were in orbit at Zero Hour and were able to retreat. Zero Mission's ship was on the surface and never left. Plus, the message never said that the ships were destroyed, just that only the Metroid cargo of one had a 100% survival rate.

Dai Grepher: You are also forgetting the fact that Zero Mission's order was for Samus to go to Zebes alone and investigate a rumor. Why would the Pirates retreat from Zebes at zero hour? In Zero Mission they stayed on the surface and continued to research Chozodia. In Metroid 1 on the other hand, the manual states that the Galactic Federation unleashed a full assault on Planet Zebes but failed. Mostly because Zebes' rock is a natural fortifier but I believe there were three more reasons. These three reasons are Siriacus, Vol Paragorm, and Orpheon. They provided the counter assault to the Federation when their Zebes bases were still operational. And what else would those three Space Pirate ships want to retreat from except a Federation army once their bases fell? I also do not understand what you mean when you say that I disregard the Metroid manual. That manual is the backbone of my entire presentation. Dai Grepher 02:06, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm referring to both, namely because, in order to prove that the remake theory holds, they become the same game in a rebuttal. Secondly, they could have been purposefully let out by the Space Pirates in order to stop Samus. Perhaps, since Samus had already disposed of Kraid and Ridley and a lot of enemies and a lot of Space Pirates, they thought their best plan was to sic the new untested creatures out on Samus. They would incur losses, but oh well. To stop Samus by losing people would be, inevitably, better than losing completely. Thirdly, the ship had no direct name, so there is no proof to link the two just as there is no proof to say there is no link. As far as why it is without name, I reckon that the development team for Zero Mission and the Primes are different, and thus they have minimal overlap of staff. The games were being built concurrently, after all. And, other than the name of the region, there is no text in the Zero Mission game, and they didn't want to list it in the manual because that was the major surprise of the game.

Perhaps the Space Pirates took off and left Zebes because Samus had succeeded in destroying one of their ships when perhaps the Federation had failed. Now that the Federation had a method to destroy their base AND one of their ships, basic military strategy means that you don't keep your armies where the enemy expects to find you when they are able to destroy you. They knew about Zebes, they probably knew about the other ships too. Thus, they probably hightailed it out of there so, you know, they wouldn't get blown to smithereens. The Missing Link 04:12, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dai Grepher: Just because you think they can become the same does not mean they are the same. You have to pick one or the other as being official. Both stories are very different and both have different ending events. The Space Pirates may have turned the Metroids loose on Samus, but they would have left the area before doing so. It is illogical to think that the Pirates simply let the Metroids out before Samus arrived and did not even consider the fact that the Metroids would feast on their life forces and thus weakening Tourian's defenses. So to answer your question, in Zero Mission's timeframe, I do not know if there were Metroids elsewhere. Samus' objective was to exterminate them, so she probably killed them all. Even if some remained, they were not transported off of Zebes since the Pirates could not even control the ones they did catch. In Metroid's timeframe, I also cannot say that there were no Metroids other than the ones seen. However, this is what makes Metroid leading into Metroid Prime possible. Metroid Prime relies on the unknown in Metroid and the possibility that there were more Metroids that could have been exported from Zebes. Also, Metroid can be completed without killing all of the Metroids, as the orders to Samus were to defeat the Metroids and destroy Mother Brain, while in Zero Mission these orders were reversed. You are misunderstanding the meaning of proof when it comes to the spaceship issue. You need evidence to prove that a link between Metroid Prime and the Pirate Mother Ship exists. If you have no evidence, then there is no link. I think it was you who told me on VGF some time ago that it is impossible to prove a negative because a negative is something that does not exist and thus no evidence exists for it. Well, no evidence of a link between Zero Mission's ship and Metroid Prime exists. Therefore I can say for certain that there is no link between Zero Mission and Metroid Prime. Moreover, I did prove that no link exists in Metroid Prime with evidence that Zero Mission's ship was not in orbit and did not retreat, as Metroid Prime states. The fact that each game was made at the same time should be the best way to create a consistent storyline. Since Metroid Prime was meant to follow Metroid and Zero Mission was supposedly meant to be Metroid, I think the development teams would have made a connection somewhere. Also, what do you mean there is no text in Zero Mission? What about when Samus talks about how the timing of her escape could not have been any worse? There was an opportunity to say, "with only an energy pistol at my side, I was left to face the dangers of the Pirate Ship Siriacus alone." Of course then they would have created a plot hole, since Siriacus is stated to have escaped.

The point is that the Space Pirates did not retreat after the destruction of Tourian. They stayed on the planet and robbed Chozodia of its information and technology. Therefore their Zebes bases did not fall, and the Pirates did not retreat at zero hour. This contradicts Metroid Prime. Therefore, Zero Mission as a remake contradicts Metroid Prime and Super Metroid. Dai Grepher 01:56, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The quote from Echoes could easily be heresay. The authenticity of the speaker remains unconfirmed. The Missing Link 00:07, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dai Grepher: True enough. However, it does raise the possibility. It is possible that this is another snowballed rumor, as the male cyborg rumor was, but there could in fact be some truth behind this. Angseth displays great admiration for Samus and wishes that she could do the same things. She also gets offended when Crany expresses his disbelief. The logs indicate that Angseth knows her stuff when it comes to Samus Aran. The only game to fit this tale is Super Metroid. By the way, do you have any evidence that this is not true? What makes you think that Metroid Prime comes before Super Metroid besides the flawed timelines? Is there any in-game evidence? Dai Grepher 02:06, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't understand the first part at all; do you think you could provide a little more background information, and tell me what events in which game that you're referring to? As to the second part, I understand better but I don't follow your deductions. Are you now saying that the official Nintendo timelines are wrong with their placements of Metroid Prime? There's not even any ambiguity to allow you to question that. Andre (talk) 00:12, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dai Grepher: First, Echoes. Angseth boasts about Samus Aran blowing up an entire planet full of Space Pirates. The only game that features this is Super Metroid. Thus Echoes is after Super Metroid. Since Super Metroid has the Last Metroid, this means that Metroid Prime must also take place after Super Metroid to avoid conflict with how many Metroids exist at this time.

The first part summarized is, the Pirates cannot control the Metroids in Zero Mission, obvious since they were all killed by them. Thus, they cannot ship them off-world thus leading into Metroid Prime as the Pirate message states. Metroid 1 shows more knowledge and control of the Metroids, thus it leads into Metroid Prime. The Pirate message states that all ground personnel are assumed killed by Samus or dead because of the destruction of the underground facilities. Zero Mission shows that the facilities are fine. Metroid does not let us see what happened. Super Metroid supports Metroid because many of the facilities are rebuilt or drastically altered. Thus Zero Mission does not lead into Metroid Prime and Metroid does. Lastly, Zero Mission has one ship on the surface. It does not leave Zebes once Mother Brain is defeated. It is destroyed on the surface. Metroid ends after Mother Brain is defeated. This leaves the story open for the possibility for the three Space Pirate ships Siriacus, Vol Paragorm, and Orpheon to retreat from Zebes with their cargo of Metroids. The reason they retreat is most likely because the Federation can now go in for the kill since Samus has crippled the enemy. The Federation does not launch a full-scale attack on Zebes in Zero Mission, instead Samus is sent there to investigate a rumor of a deadly alien species. The link of Zero Mission's description regarding this backstory is provided further up on the page and is an official Nintendo website document. Dai Grepher 02:06, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's already been stated that Prime is after Metroid and before II. This is undisputable. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:36, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dai Grepher: Stated by whom? What evidence did they provide? Dai Grepher 03:37, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

By Nintendo of Japan.

Dai Grepher: What evidence did they provide? When did they say this? Who specifically said it? I have game evidence that it comes after Super Metroid. Some NOJ rep's word cannot overrule what is in the game. So unless this is a recent quote from Sakamoto, then it is not evidence. Dai Grepher 01:56, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Still, being that it could be heresay means that it can't be used as direct evidence. The Missing Link 04:12, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dai Grepher: There is no proof that it is a rumor. The series has not confirmed that as a rumor and the series has not placed Metroid Prime before Super Metroid with past storyline references or dates. Dai Grepher 01:56, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the timelines stated beforehand, the Nintendo Cube Club also confirmed Metroid Prime's placement in the timeline[7]. According to the Internet Archive, this article was put up a month before Prime's North American release. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 05:32, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dai Grepher: So an unofficial club stated Metroid Prime's timeline placement before the game was even released or fully played, and they stated this three years ago? That is an unreliable source to say the least. Dai Grepher 01:56, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To requote: "All ground personnel are presumed dead, either killed by the hunter clad in metal or in the subsequent destruction of the underground facilities."

Hmm, presumed? If they haven't confirmed the deaths of their personnel, that means they didn't re-enter Tourian and see the bodies littered on the ground. If they didn't enter Tourian, they couldn't have confirmed its destruction -- they probably assumed it was destroyed due to the large explosion seen on the surface (visible in the post-Mother Brain cinematic of Zero Mission), and the loss of communication from Mother Brain. Since Samus killed Ridley, the Space Pirate leader, they may have assumed that she killed the rest of the pirates as well.

Dai Grepher: Sir, you are taking a quote and making your own storyline out of it. First of all, the message applies to Metroid, not Zero Mission. Second, the presumption is that all ground personnel are dead. That does not mean that they did not check Tourian after Zero Mission and find dead Space Pirates. The presumption is that there are no survivors in any other areas because of the destruction of the underground facilities. Like I said before, Zero Mission's facilities were not destroyed, therefore the message must be referring to Metroid. This is actually off topic, but I felt compelled to respond to your misunderstanding of the message. Dai Grepher 01:56, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware that Prime was referring to Metroid in the message, since Zero Mission hadn't been released yet. My point is that the wording of the quote allows it to fit the new details of Zero Mission as well. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 14:41, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dai Grepher: But the wording of the quote does not allow it to fit the new details of Zero Mission because the new details of Zero Mission were not made to fit Metroid Prime. Zero Mission's facilities were not destroyed, and the Pirate message does not say that they assumed that the explosion killed some of their ground personnel. They said that they presume all ground personnel are dead because of Samus or, again, the destruction of the underground facilities. Again, that does not happen in Zero Mission, thus Zero Mission was made to contradict Metroid Prime. Dai Grepher 19:58, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The loss of control over the Metroids in Tourian seems to be recent (in relation to game events), if the entering-Tourian cutscene is any indication. This may be due to panic over the death of Ridley.

Dai Grepher: Or maturity of the Metroids that were captured. In any case, the Pirates lost control of the Metroids and were destroyed by them. Dai Grepher 01:56, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Metroids are native to SR388, not Zebes. According to the manual, the pirates obtained the Metroid species from a research station, and later brought samples of the Metroid species to Zebes for research:

Dai Grepher: I know where they are native to. I am saying that there were Metroids on Zebes in Zero Mission and both Samus and the Pirates went there because of a rumor that a deadly alien species existed there. What you said is true of Metroid, but not Zero Mission. http://www.nintendo.com/gamemini?gameid=m-Game-0000-1856

Dai Grepher 01:56, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"In the year 20X5 of the Cosmic Calendar, a terrible incident occurred. The Space Pirates attacked a deep-space research vessel and seized capsules containing samples of an unknown species that had been discovered on planet SR388."

There's no indication that the pirates attempted to evacuate the Metroids off Zebes; Frigate Orpheon may have kept some of the spare samples aboard the whole time.

Dai Grepher: Nintendo.com says otherwise, both on the page above and on Zero Mission's official website. Dai Grepher 01:56, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I now see what you were referring to with that Nintendo.com summary. It doesn't make sense that the pirates would come to Zebes to extract the Metroids when they should already have samples of the species. This is probably the only valid inconsistency you've found. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 14:41, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dai Grepher: You mean the only inconsistency for which you have no explanation, logical or otherwise. So in that case, what is your opinion of Zero Mission in light of this new evidence? Dai Grepher 19:58, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Metroid Prime 2 quote has an unreliable in-game source, and how Samus "blew up a planet" may be an exaggeration of the explosions erupting from Tourian and the Mother Ship, since the next sentence refers to the base rather than the planet. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 06:24, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dai Grepher: In Metroid's manual, Planet Zebes was referred to as a Pirates' fortress. Dai Grepher 01:56, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zero Mission's manual has since revised that sentence, from:

"After a desperate search, the Federation Police have at last found the pirates' headquarters, the fortress planet Zebes,"

to:

"After a desperate search, the Federation Police discovered the Space Pirates' base of operations on the fortified planet Zebes."

The context has changed to clarify that the base is on the planet, not the planet itself. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 14:41, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dai Grepher: That could still mean that the base is planet Zebes, since the facilities are still within the planet. Also, the person who refers to it as a base is Crany and not Angseth, who is the source to begin with. Also, Crany may see the destruction of the Pirate base as the unbelievable story. This does not somehow mean that Samus did not blow up the planet on which the base was located. We must also consider Crany's thoughts on the issue. Perhaps he refuses to believe the story because he would rather believe that the Federation is strongest force against the Space Pirates. He dismisses something because he would rather believe something else. This reminds me of a theory I once proved to be incorrect. Dai Grepher 19:58, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

With Zero Mission, you've a tiny bit of ambiguity to maneuver in. But as to the placement of the other games, it's entirely non-negotiable and merely hurts your credibility. Andre (talk) 20:04, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dai Grepher: Who are you trying to fool? I have been given no credibility in this debate, as seen in the fact that you've changed the page to be sided despite the facts that prove otherwise. At the very least you would have allowed the page to be non-partisan had I been given some credibility in the discussion. All you do is dictate what is posted on Wikipedia and bully others that have evidence to counter your personal belief. You also neglect to present any evidence as to why the fact that Metroid Prime 2 could easily be after Super Metroid is non-negotiable. There is also no ambiguity in Zero Mission to allow any kind of remake timeline to work. If this is so, then post your timeline from the beginning of Samus' Zero Mission to the end of Super Metroid right below this paragraph. Dai Grepher 22:53, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've been mostly staying out of this argument, as I believe it is mostly pointless - it has become clear to me that neither side will succeed in convincing the other, regardless of who is "right". I feel compelled to point out two things: 1) Drop the superiority. This is directed at both sides of the argument, by the way. This issue is not a true flat earth problem, as neither side is 100% clear-cut. I personally believe that Zero Mission is a remake; however, it does contain substantially more content than many standard remakes, so I can see how someone might consider it a different game. However, this argument is limited in my opinion, given the similarities between the two games and their manuals, as well as statements from Nintendo referring to the "true story", etc. of Samus's mission. My point is that neither side should assume that their point has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt and needs to drop the attitude of such. 2) Dai Grepher, you are a clear minority, whether your statements are true or not, and you have come here attempting to change what was we must assume was previously a unanimous belief here at Wikipedia. As such, you must concede that the burden of proof is upon you, and you should not expect the contents of the article to reflect your view until you have swayed us.

I am surprised at your statements that Andrevan "dictates what is posted" and "bullies others" according to his "personal beliefs"; many of us share his position and post as such because we believe so, there is no need for "bullying". Your beliefs are no less personal than his own. And I'm doubly surprised because I think Andre has been one of the best about treating you with civility, even attempting to seek mediation or arbitration to resolve the debate, yet you seem disinclined to return the favor, which does not help your argument.

So, Dai Grepher - since we are at an impasse, is there any form of resolution upon which we can agree that will resolve this matter? --Pagrashtak 00:07, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dai Grepher: How am I supposed to sway people that refuse to accept the facts that I present? I know the burden of proof falls upon me at first, but after proving that it is a prequel the burden then falls upon the remake side. They have presented no factual evidence to support their theory, only a few obscure timelines that do not even detail the events. The only form of resolution that I will accept is arbitration. I want this issue brought up to a jury of non-partisan and unbiased arbitrators, I want both sides to present their evidence and counter evidence, and I want the arbitration committee to make a decision on which timeline should be displayed on Wikipedia based on the evidence. No one on the remake side has wanted this because they all know that any non-biased person that reads the evidence will see that the game is obviously a prequel. In the unlikely case that the committee rule it a remake or that the article make no statement for either side, I will accept the decision and drop the issue. Dai Grepher 19:39, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There's no such THING as a content dispute committee. All users are technically on this vapor committee, and the users have ruled for remake. I ask you again, why is the evidence you provided also act as if the story had already been told? Are you saying that one part is true, and one part is wrong? - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:07, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dai, we already found consensus. If you want to try to bring this to ArbCom you can, but they don't rule on content disputes, they deal with uncooperative users... which suggests that they actually might be helpful. Andre (talk) 22:23, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since arbitration is the only resolution acceptable to Dai Grepher, I suggest that we stop all debate over the matter on this talk page, as it will accomplish nothing. Dai, you may attempt to seek arbitration if you wish, and we will abide by it. If, however, arbitration is denied I think you must either drop the matter or, if you insist, put it to another vote and yield to consensus. Can we agree to this? --Pagrashtak 22:47, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with arbitration, if it will accomplish something. I'm certainly tired of arguing. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 01:39, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I know I'm not supposed to be here and all, but being that this is the last topic is the last bit of unfinished Wikibusiness I had here before leaving, I'm still poking my nose in on a semi-regular basis. I applaud Pagrashtak's solution of the issue, as I definitely think that finishing the matter rather than leaving the issue to simmer until the next round is the correct solution. (Also, Dai, thank you for the words you wrote below.) The Missing Link 22:46, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Last chance before arbitration[edit]

http://media.nintendo.com/mediaFiles/8fc2b41a-8547-4c17-88cd-cfc5c7ae81a2.mov

Dai: The Zero Mission commercial states that Zero Mission is Samus Aran's first adventure as an intergalactic bounty hunter. Metroid's manual clearly states that numerous missions came before that in which Samus was also a bounty hunter. Therefore, Zero Mission cannot be a remake of a later mission. I'll change the article to reflect this fact. If anyone disagrees then we will move on to arbitration. For this case I propose that each side compile a presentation of evidence supporting their favored theory and evidence against the opposing theory. I am willing to wait for the remake side to create one, seeing as how there is so little evidence supporting the remake theory and also little opposing the prequel theory. Then when both sides are ready we will present this to the arbitration committee along with this discussion page.Dai Grepher 07:08, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, what's it been, two months since you first started this edit war without explaining why it is impossible for Metroid to be retconned? Give me one good reason why they would ACTUALLY say that it is telling the whole truth about Samus' first mission. If a half truth was never expressed, then the way they HAVE phrased it is wrong, under your logic, and thusly, they are wrong. But it is their series, so they are right. So, yes, I bet you'll have an easy time trying to get your POV stated as fact with original research speculating on weak evidence. - A Link to the Past (talk) 08:07, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dai Grepher: It cannot be retconned because if it is then it does not make sense in two separate cases. Zero Mission cannot lead into Metroid Prime story wise or Super Metroid graphic/story wise. Plus, Nintendo stated that this is a new adventure, not a remade one or a retconned one. Why would Nintendo say "it is telling the whole truth about Samus' first mission"? Well, because Zero Mission is telling the whole truth about her first mission. Nothing less true must be said for a statement like this to be made. This is just an expression of the game's accuracy, which greatly diminishes as a remake since it is completely false in that form. Weak evidence? I gave you the official Zero Mission commercial. That counts as original evidence from the supreme authority! Nintendo made the game and Nintendo said that Zero Mission is Samus' first adventure as an intergalactic bounty hunter, which Metroid clearly is not. By reverting the article you have ignored the official source.

Dai Grepher 17:21, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I've largely stayed out of this and I don't mean to get into this any further than what I'm going to say. One, theres a clear consensus on this discussion page that it is a re-telling. This is open and shut in my opinion. Present new evidence before making a big change to the article again, please. Second, your source of the commercial is flawed. Yes it says "it is telling the whole truth about Samus' first mission", but even if it's a "re-telling" then Metroid: Zero Mission still fits this description. I really don't see your point here. K1Bond007 17:36, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dai Grepher: There is not a consensus on the issue, and even if there were it does not matter. Public opinion does not dictate what is and what is not a fact. You are abusing the purpose of polls on Wikipedia and you are abusing your privileges. You also say to present new evidence before making a big change to the article, and that is what I did. I presented the Zero Mission commercial here on the discussion page and as a reference in the article. The fact that you did not read or watch it proves your bias in the issue. You reverted without checking for evidence first. My source is flawed? So you are calling Nintendo a flawed source of information about their own games? Nintendo is the only source, and no, the commercial does not say that. You obviously did not even watch it or you would know that the statement "it is telling the whole truth about Samus' first mission" is a side discussion between Link to the Past and myself. The commercial states that Zero Mission is Samus' first adventure as an intergalactic bounty hunter. Metroid shows for a fact that their are prior missions before it in which Samus is an intergalactic bounty hunter. Therefore Metroid cannot be the first adventure as such. You need to read this evidence over before you change articles. If you have a content dispute then post it here like you are supposed to, but do not change the article again or I will have to report you for vandalism.

Dai Grepher 18:06, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone agrees except you. That's consensus and the ArbCom will agree that it is consensus. Andre (talk) 19:16, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dai Grepher: Well then lets find out what arbitration thinks the article should state, shall we? How much time do you need to prepare your side of the debate? Dai Grepher 19:24, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is no debate. ArbCom does not rule on content disputes. Bring it to ArbCom - all we'll need to do is say "there was a clear consensus and we had a straw poll to verify it." Andre (talk) 19:46, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dai Grepher: That is your entire case? The results of some poll? If so then I will present my case and we will end this. So do not use this as your argument and complain afterward when they rule in favor of a prequel. I think you should consider those on your side and what they feel should be presented before you make such claims. Dai Grepher 20:39, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we will end this. And we'll be sitting back as you are laughed out of the ArbCom. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:06, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Signing Out[edit]

I will no longer be taking part in this discussion until further notice. Some bad news came to me today about someone I deeply care about that will most likely affect the next several months of my life, and it has caused me to take a very close look at my life and reorder its priorities. Arguing that Metroid and Zero Mission are one and the same story is not one of those priorities at this time, and for that matter, upholding the integrity of many Wikipedia articles is also not a life priority. I am going on a Wikibreak of unknown duration as this passes.

Good luck to those still upholding the fight. The Missing Link 05:31, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dai Grepher: I hope and pray that you may have the strength to endure this hardship. However I also pray that this hardship passes peacefully and not have to test the limits of what you can handle. Dai Grepher 19:27, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

External Links[edit]

Dai Grepher: I do not think that mobygames should be used as a link. It seems like website advertisement. What exactlly does it present readers that the other links do not? Also, if mobygames is to stay as a link, then I believe the two I submitted have equal right to as well. Dai Grepher 01:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

First, remember the one revert rule: if someone reverts your change, let the original edition (that is, the one before you modified) live, and discuss in the Talk page. Now, MobyGames has been up for 6 years, seems a serious site (I have hardly used it, though), has a Wikipedia entry since April 2004, and seemly nobody tried to delete the article. It has an Alexa rank of 19,710, and over 6m hits at Google. It seems to be notable enough. And since the site is notable, it is possible to quote the information appearing there.

Now, if you discuss its notability, nominate MobyGames for deletion and see what the community states. You can request to delete the Template:Moby game template directly or, if the main article was deleted, delete the template immediately.

Finally, if all games are going to have a MobyGames link (just like any movie has an iMDB link), this article should have it. If it is optional, the link can go or not (I posted the link because there is a template and the site seems notable enough). However, if the link section is to point only to articles that have been used when writing or correcting the article, then it could be removed. -- ReyBrujo 02:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MobyGames is a notable game database which has its own Wikipedia article. It has some similar data to the other links, but complements them. It certainly doesn't detract from the article, and as you can see from Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Moby game, there is substantial precedent for including links to it in video game articles.

I have no idea what Lawrence.com is, but it definitely doesn't seem notable, or even very video game related. The link is little more than a review. Video Game dB presents no useful information, far less than MobyGames, and features a single review with brilliant insight like this: "the pictures were incredible." Additionally, the entire site is amateurish and small: while Video Game dB indexes a mere 3,417 games in 39 systems, MobyGames has 24,876 in 69.

Clearly you chose to add these links because they erroneously refer to Zero Mission as a prequel, unlike MobyGames or the vast majority of sources on Zero Mission. This is clearly not acting in good faith, and I have acted accordingly and removed the links. Your nonsensical crusade to change the article to meet your theory will not be tolerated here, and I say that not with disrespect, but with resolve. Andre (talk) 02:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You crack me up, you really do. As soon as I saw that you had added two links, I knew that when I clicked on them I would see the word "prequel" somewhere on the page. Anyways, to the point now -- It appears that MobyGames is included because it serves as a reference for the NA release date. The two links you added are not used as source material for the article, so their claim cannot be equal. The link to lawrence.com is a (non-noteworthy) review, I do not see the benefit of linking it. The link to videogamedb is short and contains a very poorly written review. I suggest that you included this link (and the other) merely because they contain the word prequel and not because you find the links useful. --Pagrashtak 02:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dai Grepher: The link for Mobygames does not even contain a review. All it has is a description of the storyline, which does not even match that provided by the official source. It seems the only reason it was included was the reference to it being a remake. I believe that if the links I provided are dismissed for being written by individuals that are non-noteworthy then Mobygames should be removed as well for the same reason, as one individual added that entry to the Mobygames database. The fact that someone made a Wikipedia article for this website does not make them a credible or noteworthy source. Dai Grepher 04:06, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read my post? MobyGames is linked because it is a reference for the NA release date. And what do you mean by not even a review? The release date and other such information is far more important than a review.

Your statement that authoring a Wikipedia article does not make one noteworthy (while true) has no bearing on this matter. A person that has a letter published in Newsweek, say, is not de facto noteworthy, but Newsweek itself is. --Pagrashtak 04:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dai Grepher: The release date information is already provided in the first link to Nintendo's official webpage. I see no reason to state this twice, especially when the first link is to the official source. The links I provided contain information of the game's content as well as a description of the game's backstory. This is not a case of Newsweek publishing an article. It is a case of someone publishing an article in Newsweek. That someone is not noteworthy. If things worked like that then I could change the remake theory on the article to be ambiguous based on the few NOA reps stating that the game is not a remake. Dai Grepher 05:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If MobyGames is not suitable for this Wikipedia article, then it shouldn't be suitable for any of them. Nominate the article and template for deletion if you want. - A Link to the Past (talk) 09:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, Dai, but the Nintendo link only gives one release date and does not make clear which region it is for. The Mobygames link help makes this clear. I'm confused by what you said about Newsweek (this is what I get for bringing up an analogy, I know). --Pagrashtak 13:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Newsweek isn't an entity. People write articles in it, and those articles are notable because Newsweek is in itself notable; the inverse is also true for non-notable sources. Same deal with MobyGames, and the links you added. The links were removed for being in non-notable sources, not for who wrote them. Besides, the MobyGames link DOES contain a review (it has four, actually), as well as credits, screenshots, tech specs, and some other useful information. Andre (talk) 20:41, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dai Grepher: Mobygames should be an article on Wikipedia, I am just saying that it should not be used as a source because it does not present anything new to the article. If it does that with other games where other links do not then I say use them as a source. Also, why was the IMDB link deleted? It has been up here since I first layed eyes on the article. Dai Grepher 00:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I explained why it should not be on. IMDB is not a game site, and is an inadequate source for games. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:12, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB erroneously refers to Zero Mission as a prequel, also. Andre (talk) 14:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dai Grepher: What makes them erroneous, the fact that they contradict your consensus? Dai Grepher 22:55, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is more evidence supporting the concept of a remake. Additionally, IMDB has no We Love Katamari article, and since a website should give adequate coverage for most games, IMDB should not be on this page. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Fact = consensus on Wikipedia. Andre (talk) 00:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]