• Hey everyone, staff have documented a list of banned content and subject matter that we feel are not consistent with site values, and don't make sense to host discussion of on Famiboards. This list (and the relevant reasoning per item) is viewable here.
  • Do you have audio editing experience and want to help out with the Famiboards Discussion Club Podcast? If so, we're looking for help and would love to have you on the team! Just let us know in the Podcast Thread if you are interested!

Discussion Why do you think Metroid does not sell as well as zelda despite having some of the best recieved games ever?

One thing I liked about Prime 2 was all the different forces and factions at play and how they all connected with eachother.

The Federation showing up because of the Pirates and getting decimated by the Ing, the Luminoth in hiding as they fight a losing battle, the Ing themselves slowly taking over, the Pirates showing up and getting fucked from all sorts of different directions by the Ing and Dark Samus lol, and then Dark Samus herself as a lone wolf who hitched a ride with the Pirates but has her own goals.

It sets up a lot of cool context for Samus’ still very isolated journey
 
I think everything important has been said already, so all I’ll say is that I’d buy the next Metroid if it was made in the style of RE2:Remake, which to me is a shining example of how to do Metroidvania in a 3D space.
 
I dunno, the genre still seems to be growing, albeit slowly, considering where it was back in like the GBA/DS era of selling a couple hundred thousand units at best. Structurally Souls, the recent Jedi games, and even the RE2 & RE4 remakes are all varying degrees of Metroidvania-ish, so I don't think the design is entirely unappealing commercially considering how much those games have sold, but you need the right presentation up front to get people on board. Given that all of those games happen to be 3rd person, so I'm going to fall back to that as far as where this series needs to go to sell more.
I think it’s telling that all the examples you’re giving are from 3D games. Exploration in 3D environments takes different cues than in 2D, which traditionally is what “Metroidvania” refers to as a term. While you can make an argument that Souls has Metroidvania elements, there’s a reason that has taken its own moniker with “Soulslike” being the preferred tag.
 
I think the thing that feels closest to the truth in this thread is that it's an image problem. Metroid doesn't attract people, not because it doesn't have the same appeal as other Nintendo series, but because its appeal isn't conveyed well and is relatively difficult to get without playing it yourself. I'm not sure Nintendo knows how best to sell Metroid. Dread is titled and marketed like it's a horror game when it's really not at all. I feel like they know why people actually like Metroid, but they don't believe that can sell it. A quiet trailer scene with no action depicting Samus emerging into an environment like Phendrana Drifts would do more to accurately communicate its appeal than probably any commercial or promotional image Nintendo has ever done. "First person adventure" kind of gets made fun of, but it's probably the most incisive piece of marketing Nintendo ever did for the series, and less of a buzzword than calling Breath of the Wild an open air game.

What's weird for me is that I generally prefer fantasy over sci-fi. But Metroid has this hold on me that no other game series does. Despite my love for grand adventures, I find the moody, introspective elements of Metroid pulling me back time and again. And I kinda like that I'm part of a minority with similar tastes. I only want the series sales to explode so Nintendo will be forced to make more.
I was beaten to it, but this also kind of reminded me of the whole "Star Wars isn't really sci-fi, it's fantasy in space" thing. The games are really big on ruins and artifacts, across the series you spend far more time in caverns, jungles, and ancient temples than you do in any "futuristic" settings. Even the two games set entirely on space ships are set on ships specifically dedicated to artificially imitating the same sorts of environments you'd see in Donkey Kong. Samus repeatedly encounters ghosts, magic is canon, and her nemesis is literally a dragon; complete with the archetypal fairy tale role of being the most prominent obstacle but not actually the big bad. There's also the (very funny) observation that Samus is technically a magical girl, based on the way her abilities work. Her suit runs on willpower and materializes with a thought.

I don't really get why people keep bringing up sci-fi as an issue though. Is there actually some kind of known stigma there? I would have definitely guessed that up until recently sci-fi was more popular than fantasy. Star Trek and Star Wars seemed to loom over pop culture in a way that no fantasy series really did until the corps managed to start making "nerd stuff" fully mainstream in the 2010's. It was kind of weird to live through the popularity of Game of Thrones and hearing my mom talk about dragons, similar story with Marvel. This stuff reached people who never cared about Lord of the Rings.

That being said, there is something to be said about how sword and sorcery just seems more popular in the indie space. I feel like the amount of Symphony of the Night clones or Souls clones is fairly disproportional to the Metroid clones. Part of that I think is just those formulas allow for level ups, which allows for consistent progression, and thus consistent dopamine. Which is extra funny, because Igavanias were not actually nearly as popular as Metroid. I'm pretty sure the only ones that passed a million were Symphony (which was never confirmed in it's original run, we just know it sold 700k+ in Japan and the United States combined) and Circle of the Moon, which isn't even an Iga game.
This is likely down to two things: the Metroidvania genre comes from SotN, not Metroid; and an Igavania is far easier to make than a Metroid. An Igavania will invariably have like less than ten progression upgrades in the entire game, and the only Castlevanias where they're even the main thing driving progression are the Sorrow games. Portrait and Order are more level-based, and SotN and Dissonance are more open. They're also almost always glorified keys or comparatively very simple mechanics like a double jump. The first progression item in SotN is literally a thing that lets you open blue doors once you have it. Most of the later ones like mist or spike breaker are needed for two or three rooms and don't really have much purpose or functionality outside of those spots. Metroid, like Zelda, puts the Action in Action Adventure. Missiles don't just open red doors, they're an integral element of the game's combat. You can master using missiles, whereas there's never much to master with most of the abilities in other Metroidvanias.

Now, progression aside, Igavanias do like to give you a ton of different potential items and equipment you can use which are largely optional, but this is more or less a gimmick. They aren't all equally viable or meant to be equally viable. The vast majority of weapons in SotN are worthless; on the other hand a few are completely broken. Both Sorrow games have an entire stat that doesn't even work. The whole concept is very messy and a crapshoot on whether or not something you picked up is effective at all. Every item in a Metroid game has a considered effect and functionality and is guaranteed to be an improvement to Samus's capabilities, even if incremental or unneeded. And that's not even getting into the level design and how Metroid areas are these big mazes that require you to find hidden passages to progress, whereas every other Metroidvania area is basically just a bunch of hallways with enemies and maybe there's some fake walls hiding an optional secret room here or there.

I suspect this is because it's way easier to make something that has more room for error on the part of the designer as much as the player, which is why there are so few old platformers that play similar to Mario even though with its popularity and influence you'd think they'd be endless. Imprecise level design and game balance become less of a problem the more wiggle room mechanics you add. Mario has to be very precisely designed to work at all, but add a sword slash and a health bar and remove the complicated and nuanced physics for running and jumping, and you have a character that can more or less take whatever random assortment of platforms and enemies you throw their way.
 
My theory is simple, fantasy sells better than space and human faces sell better than aliens and spacesuits
 
I don't really get why people keep bringing up sci-fi as an issue though. Is there actually some kind of known stigma there? I would have definitely guessed that up until recently sci-fi was more popular than fantasy. Star Trek and Star Wars seemed to loom over pop culture in a way that no fantasy series really did until the corps managed to start making "nerd stuff" fully mainstream in the 2010's. It was kind of weird to live through the popularity of Game of Thrones and hearing my mom talk about dragons, similar story with Marvel. This stuff reached people who never cared about Lord of the Rings.
Fantasy is a much broader and more popular genre around the world. Fantasy novels regularly outsell sci-fi ones, LOTR was a cultural behemoth decades before Peter Jackson ever set foot in New Zealand to film the movies, Dungeons And Dragons is by far the biggest tabletop game in existence. Star Trek has virtually no penetration outside of the anglosphere and Star Wars doesn't fare much better (it's popular in western Europe and Japan but for most of the rest of the world they have almost no cultural context for it). The best selling book series in the world is about a wizard boy who goes to school.

When you look at games you see all sorts of fantasy series that are consistently big sellers and have been popular over many generations. Zelda, Souls, Dragon Quest, Elder Scrolls, Monster Hunter, God Of War, the list goes on. For sci-fi? There's Halo, and that's kinda it. Mass Effect and Metroid are the closest thing I can think of. Most other series you could consider "sci-fi" that are big sellers heavily dabble in other elements and genres.

You're mistaken on the bolded as well - the LOTR movies were enormously popular blockbusters. Return Of The King was the second movie to ever make a billion dollars at the box office. It's definitely not a niche, nerdy IP.
 
Last edited:
Like the Mega Man games, it was loved and embraced by those who knew about it in the early years. I think Nintendo itself is also fan of the games, otherwise it would've been buried a long time ago, like StarTropics and all.
 
I don't really get why people keep bringing up sci-fi as an issue though. Is there actually some kind of known stigma there? I would have definitely guessed that up until recently sci-fi was more popular than fantasy. Star Trek and Star Wars seemed to loom over pop culture in a way that no fantasy series really did until the corps managed to start making "nerd stuff" fully mainstream in the 2010's. It was kind of weird to live through the popularity of Game of Thrones and hearing my mom talk about dragons, similar story with Marvel. This stuff reached people who never cared about Lord of the Rings.
I get what you mean. Growing up star wars seemed like the biggest thing in the world, and star trek was getting its mainstream blockbuster push. However, it's worth noting that star wars isn't a Marvel, and star trek vanished from the box office. Star trek is weird in general in that it's definitely a cultural icon, but it is because it was able to monetize nerds effectively over the course of years. It's basically a B tier franchise swimming with the A tiers in terms of cultural relevance.

As far as gaming goes. part of the problem is that there so few major publishers and so few major games that just about every notable sci fi franchise of the last decade has been woefully mismanaged. I mean in the last decade Halo, Overwatch, Killzone, Mass Effect, Dead Space, Titanfall, Deus Ex were all mismanaged. It's actually insane how consistent it's been.

To be fair, I think it's coincidental. Games like Horizon still sold almost 10 million in a year. And this year, Jedi Fallen Order and Starfield will be some of the best selling games. But also like, the fact that the biggest releases of the year are Zelda and Diablo IV, and that Baldurs Gate 3 was a smash hit, probably says something about genre trends ...
 
Isn’t it similar reasons to why Castlevania or Megaman are also really popular with tons of great games and multimedia stuff, but also still don’t hit the sales highs of breakout, mass-market hits even after decades of existence in the mindshare of players?

Some genres just lend themselves better to wide appeal, and some are more niche, and that’s OK. The level of escapism in Zelda is one of courage, whimsy and magic, there’s humour, adventure, yearning and a touch of romance in the classical sense. The escapism in Metroid, like Castlevania, is that of the determined push of the skilled combatant and explorer against impossible odds spawned from horror movies and action films, with constant combat almost impossible to seperate from traversal in many of them. It’s also a series that thrives on the claustrophobia and isolation found in horror films, and the stress that goes with that.

Zelda’s sense of isolation is different, more the classic ‘this is your task’ that’s also given to Frodo or Luke Skywalker or whatever. On top of all of that, even beyond most rpgs, Zelda is evocative of the fairy tale. It constantly balances the videogame element with humour and silliness, it makes the player want to be in Hyrule, to literally play and experiment in Hyrule.

I’ve loved all the series mentioned above since the NES, but there’s a reason why Zelda taps into something that perhaps people want to share with their kids and friends more. That sense of the self-referential fairy tale playground (much like The Princess Bride or Stardust. Or even Shrek). Doesn’t mean the games are better. Just that the appeal of some concepts are more universal, perhaps.
 
Last edited:
I get what you mean. Growing up star wars seemed like the biggest thing in the world, and star trek was getting its mainstream blockbuster push. However, it's worth noting that star wars isn't a Marvel, and star trek vanished from the box office. Star trek is weird in general in that it's definitely a cultural icon, but it is because it was able to monetize nerds effectively over the course of years. It's basically a B tier franchise swimming with the A tiers in terms of cultural relevance.
Outside of the nostalgic throwbacks of the first two Abrams movies, Trek hasn't really been relevant to the broader public mindshare since TNG I would argue. Each show since TNG had worse and worse TV ratings. It still has a strong and dedicated fanbase but it is not exactly what I would call a blockbuster series, at least nowadays. It doesn't help that the series has little to no traction outside of English speaking countries.

It's why Star Wars will always be more popular - it's a sweeping saga about destiny and magic and princesses and an evil empire. Trek is for nerds. Like me.
 
Like the Mega Man games, it was loved and embraced by those who knew about it in the early years. I think Nintendo itself is also fan of the games, otherwise it would've been buried a long time ago, like StarTropcs and all.
Isn't it somewhat unfitting to suggest Metroid could've experienced the same fate as StarTropics, though? I don't think I'd ever even heard about StarTropics prior to joining Fami, and I'm still not really sure what it is. A cursory glance at its Wikipedia page tells me it's by the Punch-Out!! guy though, which is interesting. It also says here that it never released in Japan, which is weird, to say the least. It seems to be a bit of a Jim Bob game.

Comparatively, Metroid developed a genre and has always maintained a respectable degree of critical acclaim, which I reckon probably contributes to why it can still get new games, even if there are big gaps sometimes. Metroid fans occasionally lament the state of the series, but there's been a revitalization in recent years, which I think we should feel fortunate for. It could be so much worse. Fans of Punch-Out!!, F-Zero, Star Fox, etc. are just straight-up dying right now.

I have a friend who wants new Excitebike and Wave Race games. That's friggin' dire. You may as well ask for a pot of dragon scales.
 
I think it's also worth noting that Metroid is perhaps less "fanbase friendly" than Zelda.

Sometimes, a loyal fanbase is enough to make a franchise self-perpetuate and sell more. Zelda is full of beautiful landscapes to draw fanart from, characters to write fanfictions about, (and ship) as well as heaps upon heaps of lore to make YouTube careers out of. I have yet to see such an expansive and eager fanbase form around Metroid.
 
Isn't it somewhat unfitting to suggest Metroid could experience the same fate as StarTropics, though? I don't think I'd ever even heard about StarTropics prior to joining Fami, and I'm still not really sure what it is. A cursory glance at its Wikipedia page tells me it's by the Punch-Out!! guy though, which is interesting. It also says here that it never released in Japan, which is weird, to say the least. It seems to be a bit of a Jim Bob game.

It's a fun little action adventure, bit of a combination of action RPGs and the first Legend of Zelda. It was very well-received by fans and critics, but after a sequel Nintendo seemed to have called it a day. Could've named many other franchises that fell to the wayside, but it was the first one that came to mind.

Comparatively, Metroid developed a genre and has always maintained a respectable degree of critical acclaim, which I reckon probably contributes to why it can still get new games, even if there are big gaps sometimes. Metroid fans occasionally lament the state of the series, but there's been a revitalization in recent years, which I think we should feel fortunate for. It could be so much worse. Fans of Punch-Out!!, F-Zero, Star Fox, etc. are just straight-up dying right now.

Especially the third game, Super Metroid, was very well-received back in the day. However, it wasn't a big seller at the time. It's mostly the internet and the game's rereleases that moved it into the spotlight, otherwise it would've been just another good but forgotten Nintendo game. Hard to imagine now after the fact, but it could've happened just as well.

And yeah, fully agree on your last points.
 
Let's be real though, 99% of all critically acclaimed (or rather every single) games does not sell as well as Zelda in it's current form and shape. So the bar you set is quite frankly pretty high :p

But honestly, the genre, setting and the fact that it's a high tempo stressful series kind of limits it's potential. There's definitely room for growth though and I think Prime 4 has every chance in the world to do just that. But it could probably be the best game of all time and it still doesnt have the mass appeal of many other franchises.

I don't think I'd ever even heard about StarTropics prior to joining Fami, and I'm still not really sure what it is. A cursory glance at its Wikipedia page tells me it's by the Punch-Out!! guy though, which is interesting. It also says here that it never released in Japan, which is weird, to say the least. It seems to be a bit of a Jim Bob game.

Let me tell you, it's the best Zelda game released until A Link to the Past released.
Yeah I am a super fan, but I really believe it :p

Such a shame it didnt break through.
 
I think there's an argument to be made that Metroid leans more "sci-fantasy" in a similar way that Star Wars does, rather than just being pure sci-fi.

Besides all the jokes to be made about "bird magic", there's a lot of other things about the series way utilizes such things like "DNA" in a nonsensical way, let alone the pure power fantasy that Samus exudes.

It's the kind of thing that I think people would wholly love, if more gave the series a chance and perhaps if the series gives more reason to connect with Samus, herself.


And this, too.

Like I said in another topic: one of Metroid's biggest problems is that Samus has next to nothing in the form of a recurring, identifiable cast. Raven Beak, Dark Samus, and even ol' Ridley (in the main timeline)...they all dead. LOL

It's one of the reasons I'm HOPING that all this time that Tanabe and Retro have clearly been cooking up something with Sylux on the Prime side of things actually leads somewhere. Samus desperately needs a "Vergil" (Devil May Cry) style rival in her life to act as a counter to her as a character and for the sake of gameplay. But more importantly? Sylux has got to be able to stick around for the long haul.

I think the thing that feels closest to the truth in this thread is that it's an image problem. Metroid doesn't attract people, not because it doesn't have the same appeal as other Nintendo series, but because its appeal isn't conveyed well and is relatively difficult to get without playing it yourself. I'm not sure Nintendo knows how best to sell Metroid. Dread is titled and marketed like it's a horror game when it's really not at all. I feel like they know why people actually like Metroid, but they don't believe that can sell it. A quiet trailer scene with no action depicting Samus emerging into an environment like Phendrana Drifts would do more to accurately communicate its appeal than probably any commercial or promotional image Nintendo has ever done. "First person adventure" kind of gets made fun of, but it's probably the most incisive piece of marketing Nintendo ever did for the series, and less of a buzzword than calling Breath of the Wild an open air game.


I was beaten to it, but this also kind of reminded me of the whole "Star Wars isn't really sci-fi, it's fantasy in space" thing. The games are really big on ruins and artifacts, across the series you spend far more time in caverns, jungles, and ancient temples than you do in any "futuristic" settings. Even the two games set entirely on space ships are set on ships specifically dedicated to artificially imitating the same sorts of environments you'd see in Donkey Kong. Samus repeatedly encounters ghosts, magic is canon, and her nemesis is literally a dragon; complete with the archetypal fairy tale role of being the most prominent obstacle but not actually the big bad. There's also the (very funny) observation that Samus is technically a magical girl, based on the way her abilities work. Her suit runs on willpower and materializes with a thought.

I don't really get why people keep bringing up sci-fi as an issue though. Is there actually some kind of known stigma there? I would have definitely guessed that up until recently sci-fi was more popular than fantasy. Star Trek and Star Wars seemed to loom over pop culture in a way that no fantasy series really did until the corps managed to start making "nerd stuff" fully mainstream in the 2010's. It was kind of weird to live through the popularity of Game of Thrones and hearing my mom talk about dragons, similar story with Marvel. This stuff reached people who never cared about Lord of the Rings.


This is likely down to two things: the Metroidvania genre comes from SotN, not Metroid; and an Igavania is far easier to make than a Metroid. An Igavania will invariably have like less than ten progression upgrades in the entire game, and the only Castlevanias where they're even the main thing driving progression are the Sorrow games. Portrait and Order are more level-based, and SotN and Dissonance are more open. They're also almost always glorified keys or comparatively very simple mechanics like a double jump. The first progression item in SotN is literally a thing that lets you open blue doors once you have it. Most of the later ones like mist or spike breaker are needed for two or three rooms and don't really have much purpose or functionality outside of those spots. Metroid, like Zelda, puts the Action in Action Adventure. Missiles don't just open red doors, they're an integral element of the game's combat. You can master using missiles, whereas there's never much to master with most of the abilities in other Metroidvanias.

Now, progression aside, Igavanias do like to give you a ton of different potential items and equipment you can use which are largely optional, but this is more or less a gimmick. They aren't all equally viable or meant to be equally viable. The vast majority of weapons in SotN are worthless; on the other hand a few are completely broken. Both Sorrow games have an entire stat that doesn't even work. The whole concept is very messy and a crapshoot on whether or not something you picked up is effective at all. Every item in a Metroid game has a considered effect and functionality and is guaranteed to be an improvement to Samus's capabilities, even if incremental or unneeded. And that's not even getting into the level design and how Metroid areas are these big mazes that require you to find hidden passages to progress, whereas every other Metroidvania area is basically just a bunch of hallways with enemies and maybe there's some fake walls hiding an optional secret room here or there.

I suspect this is because it's way easier to make something that has more room for error on the part of the designer as much as the player, which is why there are so few old platformers that play similar to Mario even though with its popularity and influence you'd think they'd be endless. Imprecise level design and game balance become less of a problem the more wiggle room mechanics you add. Mario has to be very precisely designed to work at all, but add a sword slash and a health bar and remove the complicated and nuanced physics for running and jumping, and you have a character that can more or less take whatever random assortment of platforms and enemies you throw their way.
I had a feeling people might bring up the idea of Metroid as sci-fantasy. I almost discussed that in my original post, but I didn't want to get into semantics. (Even though I agree with you both.) I was just trying to position the two series as separate entities. Broadly speaking, Zelda looks like fantasy, while Metroid looks like sci-fi. I don't know if the sci-fi perception of Metroid is necessarily detrimental to its sales. I wasn't really trying to argue that either. I was just trying to convey why I love Metroid so much, even though I usually prefer series with a more typical fantasy setting--like Zelda.
 
We do we have to relitigate the topic every couple month, hasn't this discussion run its course?

fresh-prince-we.gif
 
0
Hot take but I just think the “Metroidvania” genre has a hard ceiling sales-wise.
Metroid games are Metroid games. There is no “Vania”. There are more possibilities, but ultimately, the series needs its “Breath Of The Wild” moment, and I’m less confident that this can happen on Retro’s watch (although many of the people behind the Prime Trilogy are no longer there). For me, MercurySteam, under the right supervision, could’ve done it.
 
I think the main problem has to do with players' expectations and how Metroid as a series relates to them.

Thematically, Metorid doesn't kind of fit very well in any popularized sci-fi and fantasy trope.
Zelda is clearly an hero's quest for saving the princess which probably the most recognized classical fantasy trope.
Then when looking into popular sci-fi media, they tipically fall into 3 categories (for simplicity): a journey of discovery to find new worlds and civilazations (Star Trek), more-lovecraftian cosmic horror (Alien), or again, the classic hero's journey (Star Wars).
I don't think Metroid fits properly into any ot these... it's a journey of discovery but its settings are not "uncharted gounds" but mostly abandoned sites, bases or underground caves (in that regard Samus is more of a detective rather than an explorer). Samus looks already like a "mature" hero from the start, you don't have the typical evolution of an hero (it's rather more of a mature hero stumbling upon unxepect challanges and still overcoming them). It has some light horror elements but they are very toned down.
I think this ambiguity makes it more diffiicult for people who have never experienced it to properly place it. They don't know what to expect hence it doesn't generate much hype on a broad level.

In terms of gameplay the problem is quite similar imo.
Zelda had the advantage of receiving a 3D rendition very early, when players didn't have specific expectations for its genre, on the contrary OoT sort of defined 3rd person action games.
Metroid Prime arrived after 1st person action games were already popularized by Doom/Quake and by Half Life. Also at the time it originally came out players were mostly looking for multiplayer-focused FPS games (after all it was just after Goldeneye/Perfect Dark on N64 and on PC it was the golden era of arena shooters, plus Halo just came out), in addition GC exclusivity didn't help either.
That's to say MP was not the type of first person game most players were expecting at the time.

Even today if I think of the most unique aspects defining MP, I would name the interconnected level design and its peculiar game progression based on upgrades and power ups. I don't think any of these concepts are "easy to sell".

To make a comparison, Dark Souls is undeniably more popular than Metroid has ever been and, looking into it, it's even less accessible. It has some gamplay elements that make it relatable to Metorid (the interconnected level design and the non-linear game progression) but it did not became "famous" for its level design qualities imo. It did because it is a game about gruesome boss fights and overcoming impossible odds with tenacity. That is a much more easy idea to understand.
 
Last edited:
I feel like they know why people actually like Metroid, but they don't believe that can sell it.
I'd argue that they're right. Your thematically accurate trailer idea doesn't really work as an attention grabber. It doesn't give reason for people to be interested nor does it do anything to inform people about what you do in metroid.

And it's not like exploration isn't a selling point. As someone earlier in the thread said, Metroid is one big dungeon, and what was at the top of people's demands for TotK? Better dungeons! But I think what Metroid doesn't have is range of movement. One aspect where I think being 2D or being claustrophobic 3D limits its appeal. You don't need Xenoblade-like environments, but I think a game like Prey or Dishonored would make for a good blueprint for Metroid. Hell, just poach their designers if you have to!
 
The shortest answer is that sci-fi isn't as popular as fantasy. All of the sci-fi series that are massive successes have significant fantasy components (Star Wars has space wizards, Destiny has space wizards, and Warframe has space ninjas). At a fundamental level, the ceiling is limited. Layer onto that the unpopularity of Metroidvanias and the ceiling gets a bit lower.

There's a passionate group of ppl (myself included) for whom the preceding two reasons are positives. Everyone else is checked out before they face the barriers of the silent protagonist and lack of characters with depth to bring players in.
 
  • Lack of characters
  • Lack of wider world building
  • Miss or hit main character
More or less the writing side of Metroid continues to just be un-engaging for most people. Combine that with Metroid’s gameplay, whether that be 2D or 3D, & it’s not terribly surprising it hasn’t reached the highs some people think it should.
 
0
Metroid prime would have been the breakout for the series had the GC not had underwhelming sales. Outside of that, metroid doesnt have many "breakthrough" games. The original NEStroid did really well, and while super is now regarded as one of the greats, it wasn't fully appreciated as such at the time and SNES games weren't selling as much when it released in 1994.
 
0
Metroid games are Metroid games. There is no “Vania”. There are more possibilities, but ultimately, the series needs its “Breath Of The Wild” moment, and I’m less confident that this can happen on Retro’s watch (although many of the people behind the Prime Trilogy are no longer there). For me, MercurySteam, under the right supervision, could’ve done it.
I’m all for calling them search action games instead, but the cat’s already out of the bag there. You can even search Metroidvania on the eShop and it will bring Metroid games.
 
0
Thinking more about the bounty hunter point I made earlier. I remember when Hunters and Corruption came out and people kinda poo-poo'd on the very concept of having other bounty hunters for Samus to interact with.

Yes, they were all underdeveloped, but thats honestly not what seemed to drive people's criticisms. The fact you even had other NPCs wandering the maps seemed to annoy Metroid fans at the time.

But being a pre-teen who was on a fair weather relationship with Metroid at the time, thats honestly what endeared me to them so much enough to make Hunters and Corruption, my favorite Metroid games for a while.

I recognize now they aren't great, but conceptually I thought the idea of just having a sort of collective of characters whose goals brought them to the same place as Samus was just so fun.

And they didn't have to be your friends at all, but the fact you never killed them showed some level of respect being shared by you and them. And when they "killed" you they would take your macguffin like as if they were just displaying the same respect of knocking you out.

Though until recently, I never could think of an example that really did this concept well for me in MetroidVania, until Hollow Knight came out.

Like, think of Hollow Knight, how much would it hurt the world if characters like Quirrel, Zote, or Cloth weren't just wandering all over the place? Did their existence really take away from the desolate atmosphere of Hallownest?
 
I think there are two different issues holding the series back

2D Metroid ultimately will always have a sales ceiling due to it being a more "niche" style of game. For its Niche, Metroid has done fantastic, but I just don't think there is truly mainstream appeal there. It will be able to do damn well, like Metroid Dread sold 3 million copies, but like there is an ultimate ceiling somewhere. One point of comparison here would Three Houses, which has also done fantastic for its niche, but the series will never be the sales juggernaut
that more mainstream can be.

3D Metroid I think has suffered to a large extent based on Platform and Timing. Metroid Prime was a pretty big success on the Gamecube and the platform didn't sell that much, so its even more impressive than it looks. Nothing really to complain about here. It didn't match Wind Waker on the platform, but that would be unreasonable to suspect for the first game of its series.

Prime 2 Echoes should not have been released so close to Halo 2. Also it just wasn't as good a Prime, for a variety of reasons, which hurt it.

Prime 3 was on the Wii where it just didn't reach more hardcore audiences. Also no online multiplayer (no multiplayer period) in 2007 was a choice that made it feel really outdated at the time. I get why, Echoes multiplayer sucked up dev resources while not being good enough imo, but you gotta remember the mindset of those a lot of potential buyers at the time.

I think Prime 4, given proper marketing, a great campaign as well as a great online mode, can become a truly breakout success. Nowhere near enough to beat Zelda though. BOTW and TOTK are just massive titans. But I could imagine Prime 4 having Twilight Princess level success fairly easily.
 
0
Many posters have made some excellent points already why Metroid and Zelda are in fact very different franchises.

However another important point is that prior to BotW the two franchises were closer in sales (at least comparing Prime with the Gamecube Zelda's.
I feel a good 3D Metroid could definitely increase the sales potential of the series, though maybe not to the insane levels we have seen Zelda reach on the Switch.
 
to reach a broader audience they would have to start expanding the game beyond just being a zelda dungeon. it would literally have to have been wrapped around a mass effect style universe rpg. Sure your missions can be isolated but it just needs greater world building.
 
to reach a broader audience they would have to start expanding the game beyond just being a zelda dungeon. it would literally have to have been wrapped around a mass effect style universe rpg. Sure your missions can be isolated but it just needs greater world building.
I think you can have your cake and eat it too if we just had a bit more of a moving world with characters.

Learning from Hollow Knight and how it is built to be approached from multiple angles and how the minor bits of story can change depending on your actions. Wandering NPCs who don't have to be from the planets you explore. Or necessarily your friends, but a continuous element that players can latch on to especially from one game to the next.

You can still feel the world is oppressive and isolating with these elements there while still styling it like a dungeon.
 
It's the gameplay.

No 2D metroidvania has ever sold better than Dread. No Castlevania game, neither of the Ori and the games, not Bloodstained, not Hollow Knight, not Cave Story, not Shadow Complex.

The only time a Metroid-like game has outsold Metroid itself is the Batman games, and those are attached to one of the biggest characters in popular fiction, and recruiting the cast and writer of the most popular iteration of that character.
 
Thinking more about the bounty hunter point I made earlier. I remember when Hunters and Corruption came out and people kinda poo-poo'd on the very concept of having other bounty hunters for Samus to interact with.

Yes, they were all underdeveloped, but thats honestly not what seemed to drive people's criticisms. The fact you even had other NPCs wandering the maps seemed to annoy Metroid fans at the time.

But being a pre-teen who was on a fair weather relationship with Metroid at the time, thats honestly what endeared me to them so much enough to make Hunters and Corruption, my favorite Metroid games for a while.
So I think Metroid games haven't sold big numbers for a lot of reasons already covered (the gritty sci-fi aesthetic, general lack of visible recurring characters), but I think Metroid fans are really bad at selling the series to non-fans. And a lot of fans also have a very particular idea of what Metroid should be, with any significant deviation being considered a mistake if not an insult.

But I think an issue not touched on much in this thread is that the 2D entries and the Prime series are very different in terms of how they play despite Prime being 3D Metroid. Not everyone that likes one will gravitate toward the other. And the handling of story and narrative between the 2D entries and Prime series is very discordant.
 
We all know throught it's lifetime metroid has not sold as well as some of its heavy hitters especially compared to zelda. Why do you think that is, quality wise metroid has some if the highest rated games ever some metroid games even surpass some mainline zelda games in score. Masterpieces like super metroid, prime and dread. The quality is there so why is it not selling as well as something like zelda?

Bad quality and/or no release consistency. Let me explain.


Bad release consistency
:
They release 1 game on the NES, then the sequel on the GB like 5 years later, then the amazing SNES sequel 3 years later.

Then the series goes dormant for an entire generation until Prime and Fusion on the GC and GBA.

They don't follow up with another 2D title. But they at least keep making Prime games (none which are better than the first one).

You can't grow your fanbase with a release schedule like that.

Bad quality releases:
After this is when Nintendo starts to fuck up. On top of having a spotty release schedule, they start releasing experiments like Metroid Pinball, Federation Force and Other M. None of those games are terrible in their own right, but if you're giving people THAT instead of the proper Metroid games people want, then yeah, your fanbase is not going to grow.

Luckily it seems Nintendo is taking Metroid a bit more seriously now after MercurySteam took over and after Prime 4 was given to Retro.

So to finalize, if you want a franchise to grow, you have to consistently release the games people want and they have to be of good quality.
 
I think the main factors are:

- The genre itself isn't well accessible; Most people will give up the moment they feel lost; Not to mention, being unpowered for a good chunk is also quite frustrating; (when you add Prime's FPS perspective to the mix, you have yet another hurdle);

- The themes also don't appeal to a broader audiance; The serious tone, the aliens, the often dark and atsmospheric visuals and settings aren't going to give people comfort like a prestine and peaceful green plains of Hyrule or a colorful and bouncing world of Mushroom Kingdom;

But for branding alone, I feel Metroid does as well it can be. It won't ever be a Zelda or a Mario, but it's okay.
 
I think I'm alone on this but I'm not at all bothered by Metroid having a minimal cast of supporting characters. To me, the series is about isolation and the power fantasy of starting weak in a world against you and overcoming the odds. Plus, Samus is such a strong character on her own.
 
Bad quality and/or no release consistency. Let me explain.


Bad release consistency
:
They release 1 game on the NES, then the sequel on the GB like 5 years later, then the amazing SNES sequel 3 years later.

Then the series goes dormant for an entire generation until Prime and Fusion on the GC and GBA.

They don't follow up with another 2D title. But they at least keep making Prime games (none which are better than the first one).

You can't grow your fanbase with a release schedule like that.

Bad quality releases:
After this is when Nintendo starts to fuck up. On top of having a spotty release schedule, they start releasing experiments like Metroid Pinball, Federation Force and Other M. None of those games are terrible in their own right, but if you're giving people THAT instead of the proper Metroid games people want, then yeah, your fanbase is not going to grow.

Luckily it seems Nintendo is taking Metroid a bit more seriously now after MercurySteam took over and after Prime 4 was given to Retro.

So to finalize, if you want a franchise to grow, you have to consistently release the games people want and they have to be of good quality.
You should also add lack of accessibility to that list.

One thing about Metroid is that for the longest time it was actually inconvenient to get a hold of the whole franchise without owning multiple machines.

During the GC era, NES Metroid was surprisingly difficult to get a hold of outside of odd unlockables. At least until the GBA re-release. But Metroid 2 was stuck to you owning a nearly decade old cartridge.

Super Metroid wasn't even available until the Wii Virtual Console era. The DS dropped GB support altogether, so no Metroid 2.

The prime trilogy was left to being a limited release initially so you had to own out of print releases if you missed the collection.

The GBA games struggled to be accessible during the Wii U/3DS gen.

Give Zelda and Mario credit. They had a lot of their older and good titles accessible in convenient ways since the GCN onwards. At least enough to make new fans have a lot more options for entering the series.
 
I think I'm alone on this but I'm not at all bothered by Metroid having a minimal cast of supporting characters. To me, the series is about isolation and the power fantasy of starting weak in a world against you and overcoming the odds. Plus, Samus is such a strong character on her own.
Oh you’re definitely not, I agree. But it is arguably a limiting factor for the series becoming more popular.
 
It's the gameplay.

No 2D metroidvania has ever sold better than Dread. No Castlevania game, neither of the Ori and the games, not Bloodstained, not Hollow Knight, not Cave Story, not Shadow Complex.

The only time a Metroid-like game has outsold Metroid itself is the Batman games, and those are attached to one of the biggest characters in popular fiction, and recruiting the cast and writer of the most popular iteration of that character.
Fairly certain HK sold more than dread
 
Fairly certain HK sold more than dread
It almost certainly has. It was at 2.8 million in 2019 and has very likely legged past the 3 million Metroid dread has sold. Dread obviously surpasses it in Revenue though.

Though the two are fairly different in a lot of ways. Very different aesthetic, price point, multi platform vs single platform, indie vs major publisher, etc
 
It almost certainly has. It was at 2.8 million in 2019 and has very likely legged past the 3 million Metroid dread has sold. Dread obviously surpasses it in Revenue though.

Though the two are fairly different in a lot of ways. Very different aesthetic, price point, multi platform vs single platform, indie vs major publisher, etc

Give credit to HK being a new IP too.
 
a third person Metroid could do something, especially if they relax the isolation a bit. Other M has a lot of problems, but a lot of it wasn't necessarily gameplay. it does offer a potential path forward if they try to solve them (and they already have for some aspects)
 
0
I think the lack of characters is a good point. All you have to do is look at the Metroid representation in Smash. We have Samus, Samus, Samus clone... and Ridley. Not so many familiar faces to connect with. I don't actually think anyone is to blame, it's just the nature of the Metroid series. It's supposed to be isolating and lonely. But I could see that being a limitation when it comes to success.
 
It's not just Metroid, it's Metroid likes and Metroidvanias just being a genre that hasn't historically sold well. Do we know what the best selling Metroidvania is? Even the masterpieces of the genre struggle to get to 3 million.

Metroid games are one giant Zelda dungeon. There's no room to relax, no towns, no giant grassy fields, no NPCs to talk to, you are always on a mission on this hostile alien planet... and that's what makes them great, but it means it's just not going to be for everyone. People who are into the franchise and the genre love that feeling of getting lost but for most people it's just frustrating.

There are always some more chill moments to Metroid though, where you just kind of bask in the ambience of the world. Stuff isn't coming at you always at all times, and there are plenty of moments of kind of just more reflective exploration. For as hostile as they can be at times, they are incredibly well paced with lots of variety.
 
Fairly certain HK sold more than dread

It almost certainly has. It was at 2.8 million in 2019 and has very likely legged past the 3 million Metroid dread has sold.
The best data for both games has Dread outselling HK, with one year of sales data to HK’s 2. Nintendo games have decent tails, so it seems likely that Dread is still the winner, but obviously not possible for sure.

The fundamental point I think holds up - Metroid sells as well or better than any other game in its genre. It is that genre that is defining the sales ceiling.

If someone else had found a metroidvania formula that hit anything resembling Zelda in sales, then we could say “okay, it’s Samus’s character, or it’s the non/linearity or…”

Samus doesn’t have the sort of fandom that brings in players because of the character, the genre doesn’t have fans ready to latch onto Samus, and the genre (unlike, say, Pikmin) has enough examples that many gamers have opinions on it so they’re less primed for a popularity explosion.
 
0
There are always some more chill moments to Metroid though, where you just kind of bask in the ambience of the world. Stuff isn't coming at you always at all times, and there are plenty of moments of kind of just more reflective exploration. For as hostile as they can be at times, they are incredibly well paced with lots of variety.
True. The bit when you are first entering the crashed ship in the first Prime game comes to mind.
 
I don't really get why people keep bringing up sci-fi as an issue though. Is there actually some kind of known stigma there?

I don't know if the sci-fi perception of Metroid is necessarily detrimental to its sales.
I would definitely say it is, or at the very least, it doesn't help. Tolkien-style fantasy always resonates with a larger crowd than sci-fi ever does. Familiar themes like "the hero's journey" are things that practically everybody knows. People can often more easily believe in a nebulous thing like magic than a sci-fi setting's more hard-coded rules about special powers or the technology that is employed. Or, at worst, pass off any attempt to explain it as "technobabble" that flies right over their heads. Pretty much the only exemptions that seems to get away from this type of scrutiny are proponents of either of the big two (Star Trek, Star Wars) or superhero media.

It may sound reductive, but I can think of no better example of this playing out than with Armored Core 6's cycle, leading up to its release. From endeared themselves to a larger, more expansive audience with their dark fantasy action rpgs. Then AC6 gets announced. And while you have some who are willing to try this game because From has more than earned their unconditional trust, there are plenty more who had already turned up their nose because "I don't like mechs" or "I don't like Sci-fi". Which is more than fair when it comes to matters of taste, but I'll never not think of it as funny because AC and Souls still share a lot of the same DNA. The long time joke has always been that you can sub in "ornery demigods" with "greedy corporations", body horror through blood rituals with mechanical augmentations instead, among many others, and you would see a lot of the same basic lore beats repeated in a variety of works.
 
Part of it is fantasy exists in virtually every culture ever documented to tell stories spanning back thousands and thousands of years. Stories of gods and heroes fighting great evil and adventures in fanciful kingdoms are present pretty much in every region of the world. Sci-fi is a relatively new genre with most historians agreeing Frankenstein is the first ever science-fiction novel, which is only 200 years old. The cultural interest in sci-fi largely doesn't exist outside of the anglosphere and Japan (which I would argue was at least partially a result of post-war Japan investing heavily in tech, inspiring stories about the wonders - and horrors - of science). Even the Avatar movies, globally popular as they are, are for all intents and purposes mostly fantasy films with a light sci-fi trapping.
 
Last edited:
Can’t help it but find it funny that Metroid fans will have no idea why the games don’t sell as well as other Nintendo games and blame it on it being sci fi and not fantasy (?) while at the same time going to newcomers and, without an ounce of sarcasm, saying that getting lost and spending minutes or even hours running around the world and shooting every wall, floor, and ceiling to advance is super fun and makes the games masterpieces while at the same time saying that the games having more story or characters would make them worse.

A Metroid game that would sell to the masses would be something either more linear or be open-ended with more free exploration with a strong narrative hook with lots of characters for people to get attached to.

Basically everything Metroid fans cannot stand.

So I think in reality Metroid fans gotta reconcile that they would rather have these games that play the way the love but don’t sell to the masses rather than become something it isn’t for that major appeal.
 
I would say there are a lot of reasons, mostly because of the genre of each game. Fantasy is always going to have a broader appeal than sci-fi, kid-friendly tone is going to have a broader appeal than a more mature and serious tone. Most Zelda games are 3D RPGs while most Metroid games are 2D action games. Zelda is now even more appealing since it has gone open world, which is basically the easy button for general audience success. Zelda soundtracks are catchier and have more general appeal than the atmospheric music Metroid tends to go for.

On top of all of that, Zelda is marketed more by Nintendo and doesn't skip some systems like Metroid does so more people are going to have the chance to play Zelda games.
 
Can’t help it but find it funny that Metroid fans will have no idea why the games don’t sell as well as other Nintendo games and blame it on it being sci fi and not fantasy (?) while at the same time going to newcomers and, without an ounce of sarcasm, saying that getting lost and spending minutes or even hours running around the world and shooting every wall, floor, and ceiling to advance is super fun and makes the games masterpieces while at the same time saying that the games having more story or characters would make them worse.

A Metroid game that would sell to the masses would be something either more linear or be open-ended with more free exploration with a strong narrative hook with lots of characters for people to get attached to.

Basically everything Metroid fans cannot stand.

So I think in reality Metroid fans gotta reconcile that they would rather have these games that play the way the love but don’t sell to the masses rather than become something it isn’t for that major appeal.
While the gameplay is the primary reason Metroid hasn't broken out (and I agree most fans wouldn't accept the changes necessary to make it a truly mainstream hit), I don't think the setting of the series can be discounted as a reason. Sci-fi is just more difficult to market to international general audiences.
 
So I think in reality Metroid fans gotta reconcile that they would rather have these games that play the way the love but don’t sell to the masses rather than become something it isn’t for that major appeal.
No lies detected. Personally, I'm fine with Metroid being this weird entity within the Nintendo family that has much more prestige than it does actual sales, so long as we keep getting new games. And, well, we know that Prime 4 is still coming, Metroid 6 is a lock considering Dread's sales, and we're likely getting remakes of the other Prime games in the coming years. It's arguably more than you'd expect from a franchise of its size when you consider just how many 5 million plus sellers Nintendo can just pump out no problem. They don't need Sakamoto's team pumping out Metroid, or WarioWare, or Rhythm Heaven, or goddamn Famicom Detective Club remakes that sell sub-3 million, but they let them do it anyway, and that makes me happy.

There's obviously room to "rethink the conventions of Metroid" to perhaps create a game that broadens its appeal while retaining the core of the franchise ala BOTW, and many suggestions have been made so far. But for now, Metroid being niche isn't really a problem so long as Nintendo still finds value in making the games.
 
So I think in reality Metroid fans gotta reconcile that they would rather have these games that play the way the love but don’t sell to the masses rather than become something it isn’t for that major appeal.

I've seen quite a number of times on this site alone where people who like Metroid, myself included, have indicated this exact thing, that we would prefer the series maintain the elements that have shaped and defined it even if conventional wisdom suggests that might inhibit the chances of really hitting it big, so long as the games sell enough. It's preferable to create its own niche where Metroid can be its own unique self than to become something else.

It's important to remember that sales and popularity, while sometimes being connected, are not synonymous with quality. After all, a lot of media that is lauded for being high quality masterpieces receives that adulation because of elements that will lower its appeal toward the masses, and we don't generally try to argue it should change that. Why should we do so here?

Consider also that the changes that get suggested to make the series more appealing to the masses aren't any guarantee that this audience will actually pick it up, and at that point, why even make it a Metroid game at all? Do we have a connection to the IP itself or to what the IP means? And then it also lessens, somewhat, the diversity of Nintendo's offerings, and of the industry in general.

Given all that, though, there are still elements that could be leaned in to that might help cultivate some groups in a fanbase. Properly handled, discovering lore and piecing together what happened somewhere, for instance, can appeal to loreheads, who are their own community in the same way fanartists and fanfic writers are.

In any case, though, the suggestion that a darker sci-fi as a genre doesn't limit the audience doesn't sound right. I recall it being a thing where games of that ilk would be expected to sell less (though I haven't kept up terribly much lately). Even the most popular sci-fi (Star Wars, for instance) tends to skew more toward being space-fantasy (similar to how the strong narrative hook, free exploration, lots of loveable characters suggestions would likely be).

The different gameplay elements will lower the ceiling and enforce more of a niche, yes, but so will the themes and genre conventions. It really all works together as one package.
 


Back
Top Bottom