Don’t discount the recommendation of the Castlevania Advance Collection up above. I think it’s on sale right now for $15 and Castlevania Aria of Sorrow is about as good as the genre gets. Since Castlevania: Symphony of the Night arguably created the “genre”, and those games are follow ups (there are three in the package that are Metroidvania and one that’s specifically Castlevania-like only), they really nail the design. I’m a big fan of Circle of the Moon in that package too. It’s a bit more stripped down, but I think that also makes it super approachable.
This would be my recommendation. Absolutely beautiful to look at (and to listen to), accessible, enjoyable, and it doesn’t overstay its welcome.
I guess that’s sorta true. You have to “explore” the map every time you play, though, since the layout changes. I kind of forgot about the vine growing and electric coffin things that you have to earn and which open up new map areas.
Ooh, and the Castlevania Advance Collection’s also on the PlayStation. Nabbed!
I found this thread useful for trying to pin down how I categorize a game as a Metroidvania. I’ve shaken it down to a 2-D platformer that adds the gameplay we now think of as “open world” in 3-D games.
I like the shortness, but that definition might need work. It might permit Super Mario World as a Metroidvania, when I feel it isn’t. Maybe because it splits its world into a travel map and levels, so unlocking new areas doesn’t play out inside the levels.
M2 has done a really great job on the Castlevania Advance Collection, you won’t be sad about it.
I don’t think most 3D open worlds have areas and items gated by abilities you unlock by exploration/progression, which I consider a key Metroidvania element. Those plus being (generally) able to freely move around and return to previous parts of the world to unlock things that were previously gated are what I’d consider the core.
Indeed. In general most 3D open worlds have story, and not ability, gating. New areas open up not because you now have access to a new tool, but because a gate opens because you finish a story quest.
Also most 3D open worlds are not based around backtracking and exploration. Progression is somewhat linear and any backtracking and exploration is optional, while the main quest is very plot driven.
In general it’s about how the world is structured. Linear, open but with a clear main path and optional quests, or open as a knot of gates and unlocking abilities without a strong guidance.
While you are going to find stuff like quests and game changing plot developments in Metroidvanias, the core is free form traversal, and exploration (mechanical exploration in most cases) is what drives the world opening up and expanding.
It’s of course a matter of degrees (for example, the latest Metroid is super linear in its main quest and for me lost a lot of the Metroidvania feeling unless you went specifically looking for it through optional exploration). And many non-Metroidvanias have abilities unlocking new options.
There is a big ass elephant in the room in the form of Metroid Prime, which is as Metroid as Metroid gets, just in a first person 3D perspective and not 2D.
Any definition which excludes that is wrong.
2D-Platformers with backtracking and unlocking new areas not everybody will know (like Ori, Hollow Knight, etc.) but I think everybody should have heard of:
Odallus: The Dark Call
Outland
Apotheon
And one game I just discovered that looks super promising:
Vigil: The Longest Night
I might have forgotten a thousand more. So the thread is a cool idea.
Agree, 2D is not really a requirement.
It’s just that what people think of as 3D open world is very different than a Metroidvania. Nobody would define Prime as an open world game.
Open worlds tend to be about selling the illusion of being able to do anything, while Metroidvanias are about very interconnected but restrictive geography, and giving tools to fight those restrictions and slowly break open the play space, which ends up an interconnected, single world.
Great points. Your post brought to mind Batman Arkham Asylum though. I guess it’s a mixture of the two. I mean, you gain access to different parts of the world because you unlock new gadgets, but you unlock new gadgets because you hit a certain point in the story. So is that story gating, exclusively? Or is it gadget/tool gating? Similarly in the 3D zelda games like Twilight Princess. Do you gain access to new areas because you unlocked that tool now? But that tool was tied to story progress.
Arkham Asylum and Zelda are Metroidvania adjacent indeed (since Zelda and Metroid are closely related). Very similar structures in general, but more guided in the progression through story and less focused on the traversal/exploration as the core gating mechanic.
In general, the mechanical focus of Metroidvanias tends to allow sequence breaks or have different possible progression trees, which in games like Arkham and Zelda is restricted to some segments.
Also there’s less interconnecting geography, and less forced backtracking. All loose definitions but important in what the genre does (making you look at and understand the possibility space of traversal so you can come back when ready). In Batman/Zelda games the backtracking is mostly linear or optional.
I think there’s space for a Zelda Metroidvania, for example, with a slight change of focus. Classic Zelda dungeons are small Metroidvania levels within a more guided framework. In Metroidvanias the whole game is a single dungeon, structurally.
A “mega dungeon” Zelda would be structurally indistinguishable from a Metroidvania.
I mean, not really. You cross through all the zones multiple times, each time you do with a new ability or weapon that allows access to new areas. You aren’t running down a linear path, but cross and intersect each area multiple times.
What it does do is make the ‘main’ progression intuitive through lots of design cues. The world is designed in such a way that if you have baseline familiarity with the genre each time you open a new ability you are able to quickly appraise a new area you can reach (usually in the form of a room nearby with some element tied to it), such that you aren’t ever left wandering around aimlessly looking for a floor tile to bomb or random wall to missile. The game does lots of subtle visual signposting to indicate areas that can be interacted with in some way, vs just random floor tiles.
Also it is designed to allow lots of flex in the path. There are developer intended, and unintended, shortcuts. Things such as early grapple beam or early bombs are very much part of the mechanics. They are just things you are unlikely to see your first time through as they are more hidden.
But the fact that Kraid has a special insta kill animation if you have the morph ball bombs (which normally come well after) shows they clearly intend a non linear path to be viable.
They just were very intentional to not make it so you had to cross 3 zones to progress to a new area through rooms with no new traversal options without some implicit guiding. They just always make one of the progression options available near enough to the new item to make intuiting new options clear. Think the grapple beam and the room 2 doors over which had a tunnel above you that was inaccessible, but has grapple beam pads. You don’t have to go there, there are other ways to progress to your goal, but if you do it gives you access to new areas and options.]
Both are adjacent as Juan notes. It’s a difference of degree and focus rather than of kind. There are strict story gates in both, and there are fairly defined progressions. Without using glitches they are almost strictly narratively linear.
And something like Breath of the Wild leans definitely away from the Metroidvania style in favor of more open world. Broadly speaking there is no equipment or skill gates, but rather complete specific quests as you wish and move on. Plenty of exploration, but very little of the type of introducing new mechanics that fundamentally change the way you traverse through the areas.
Arkham Assylum does come pretty close, and is definitely inspired enough by the genre that it isn’t a million miles separate. It definitely focuses on the combat brawling mechanics more than the exploration, which given how good a system it is was not a wrong choice, but yeah, it’s on the spectrum somewhere.
Yeah, it was a great game, and it’s definitely a Metroidvania, but the level design wasn’t for me and it made me play it not as a Metroidvania but as a straight action game, since it allows that mindset. Very few times if any at all had I to think about where to go, or to observe the environment and figure out the progression. It’s too “well” designed for my taste and I didn’t get the specific kick I get from Metroidvanias from it (because it didn’t force me to, and I was too busy to delve into sequence breaking. It’s a me problem).
The fact that I enjoyed it as much as I did is a testament on how good the mechanics are. The level design twas “over designed” for my taste but it didn’t really matter for the 6 hours I spent with it and I really liked it.
Hollow Knight and La Mulana 2 have raised my bar too high, I fear.
Once I finally get through Hollow Knight, I’ll have to look up La Mulana 2. It took me a long time to finally grok Hollow Knight’s combat, which is strange, because once you do, it’s not that complicated. But until I did, it was the hardest game I’d ever played. It kind of makes me wonder if the 2D Mario games are the same way? People talk about them as if they’re as approachable as the 3D games, and yet, they’re the hardest platformers I’ve ever attempted. Too hard for me. Maybe there’s something there similar to Hollow Knight, where I just need some little mental adjustment that suddenly makes it much easier. That must be it, because I don’t get the impression that people think of 2D Mario games as brutally hard.
For Hollow Knight, I think the main mental adjustment is very subtle, but it’s to only focus on your movement. Combat and the enemy is secondary, don’t let that be your focus as much as where you’re placing yourself. Once I made that adjustment, it turned into a completely different game.
What a delightful game. I run over the button and it opens the gate but slams in my face at the last second. It’s clearly a timed thing. So I run elsewhere. I run into more pushbuttons. Gotta find something to get past this. Wait, what is that giant metal capsule? Wait, should I go in it? Ok … yikes! Oh now I get the run boost! That will get me past these pushbuttons! Etc.
I assume it keeps doing this over and over. It really makes me want to find out what it does next. I think I get the appeal of a Metroidvania!
I mean, I love, looooove, La Mulana 2, but I don’t know if I’d recommend it to somebody not being very sure of what they are getting into.
It’s very difficult both in execution skills (platforming, combat) and, specially, puzzle wise. It is extremely unusual, left field, and forces you to look at the game as if you were an OCD 10 year old with no other game to play and a long summer ahead of you.
Very, very, very difficult. You spend 80% of the time not not knowing what to do, but thinking you have to do something totally different to what you really have to do (or what you were trying to do will be impossible until you spend 20 more hours in the game). Which is sort of the point, since you have to live in the game to advance in it. But it’s a very particular experience. Not for everybody.
Read some reviews before buying, please.
Kind of sounds like actual Metroid isn’t really your thing. That’s too bad, Dread is phenomenally designed IMO, and I feel will age nearly as well as Super Metroid.
I don’t disagree it’s a great design. It’s just not for me.
I have this problem called “lack of free time” that makes approach games in a slightly unhealthy way. If I can play a game efficiently I’ll do it even if it’s not the best experience the game offers. It bothers me because I know I miss a lot of great stuff, but lately I just can’t relax enough to not do it.
Dread allowed me to play it without having to think almost at all about traversal, and thus I didn’t, while knowing I was missing part of the appeal. Why I love Hollow Knight, La Mulana 2 and other Metroidvanias (including Super Metroid, but not Fusion) is because they are designed in a way were that’s not possible, or at least it wasn’t possible for me at the time I played (I’m wary of revisiting Super Metroid because of this). And thus they forced me to play the experience I enjoy. If it sounds weird, well, it is.
Dread is designed to be approachable, which indeed is objectively the “better” design, but made playing in a straightforward way possible for me and therefore it’s “Metroidvanianess” didn’t connect. As I said it’s a me problem, and I really liked the game anyway, just in a different (and less satisfying for me) way than what I was looking for. It’s definitely the slickest Metroid yet, but it lacks the mood and ambience and pacing I liked about other installments of the series. Which is fine, it’s just a different flavor.
I think it’s definitely the best entry into the genre you can play right now, by far (although Ori is pretty great too). Without a deep knowledge of the genre and series’ tropes, a lot of my personal issues with it would not be present.
I don’t understand why Castlevania has to get any credit; it should all go to Metroid considering Metroid came out in 1986, Metroid II in 1991, and Super Metroid in 1994.
Castlevania: SoTN, which copied the formula (specifically Super Metroid’s), came out in 1997. Before then, the series was mostly a level based action/platformer.
Not slagging SoTN, it’s one of my favorite games of all time, and actually added cool RPG elements to the formula like character & weapon stats, and leveling. That’s the thing though, a lot of these so-called “Metroidvanias” don’t have those features; they’re much closer to Super Metroid in that way.
More importantly, “Metroidvania” was originally used specifically for SoTN and subsequent releases in the series that followed suit.