Talk:Metroid Dread/Archive 1

Archive 1

Early Details

Could someone provide a reference the details in the article? Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:11, 2005 August 29 (UTC)

Done; at least, I hope so. I don't know the exact issue number, but I know the rumors started in Game Informer. As for any further sources, I don't have any. Hence, why I'm surprised this article exists; what proof do we really have? --Shadow Hog 22:56, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Um, the fact that Nintendo was the one who confirmed it?

Cancellation

Before anyone gets the idea to delete the article based on its supposed cancellation, note this... if you believe that the game was, in fact, a rumor, think again. In fact, the exact opposite is true. Unless we can actually know what so-called source gave N-Next the information that it was cancelled, we cannot verify their claims. The only websites other than it who reported on its cancellation based it solely on the N-Next article, thusly creating a false "widely known fact" by every single website reporting on its cancellation. Not only that, Nintendo has never even commented on this cancellation. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:53, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Unreferenced information

To the users who keep adding information from supposed insiders and Nintendo representatives: please provide sources. Details about the product are scarce, so I'm not going to let the article turn into a rumor bin. Any information needs to be backed up with sources — in the form of URLs if it was obtained online. "A GameFAQs user", "a Nintendo insider", and "Nintendo of America representatives" are unverifiable sources; provide names. If you don't know how to format the references correctly in the article, post it here on the talk page and I or someone else will do it for you. Thanks. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 23:49, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the Metroid Deadly email came from GameFAQs, but since they purge threads there daily, the actual topic with the email was deleted long ago, so it's unverifiable, which is why I added the Rumors section. The Nintendo Representatives bit, don't remember where I heard it, could have been from someone that actually went to E3. As for the rumors section, it should be returned since the entire buzz about Metroid Dread's cancellation is all just rumors. The site that started it wouldn't even reveal the sources it claims it had (if it even did that), so the entire thing is unverifiable, and should be moved to that rumros section. Claude 04:15, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Does this exist at all?

Apparently, a recent Game Informer also stated that Metroid Dread was cancelled. Because no proof exists that it was even confirmed by Nintendo, the rumor materialized from Game Informer, and now another one has surfaced by the same publication...

It's safe to assume that it didn't exist at all.

I wouldn't be surprised if there was another 2D Metroid, but if there will be another, it will most likely NOT be Dread, nor will GI have discovered it first. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.212.234.121 (talk • contribs) 16:11, 2006 January 17.

To claim that it doesn't exist at all would be a moronic lie. You'd have to completely ignore the fact that it was on Nintendo's E3 records and scheduled to appear. Even if it was cancelled, it still existed at one point, and there's no telling if the cancellation rumors are true or not, or even if they won't start up the Dread project again in another few months. To say that the game "never existed because it was cancelled" would be a contradiction. To acknowledge that it was cancelled would mean to acknowledge that it was planned in some form and thus existed at one point. Claude 00:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

A better question.

A better question is "What is the current status of the game?" We cannot say it is cancelled for that has not been confirmed, though saying it is in development is also difficult. Thoughts? Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 05:41, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

How 'bout something that is a compromise between those two? Because GameInformer claimed it was cancelled, but I really doubt it. Or maybe it's just because I have an unhealthy obsession with 2D metroid games *stares hypnotized into gameboy screen*. Anyway, I think that maybe this entire article should be deleted until there is more news. Because it is essentially (no offense) a list declaring 'Cancelled' 'Not cancelled' back and forth. Which is entertaining, to be sure, but I'm not sure that it is so useful. --RedZion-- May 12 2006

The article doesn't need to be deleted because the game is acknowledged to be in existence or to have existed at one point. Beyodn that, there isn't much else that can be said.--Claude 03:10, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Images

Any pictures for this article?

>x<ino 18:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

No picture has ever been released. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 09:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

A little speculation for ya...

This is my take on the game's status: They probably wanted to finish the Metroid Prime subseries first. It makes perfect sense! Metroid Prime 3: Corruption is the final game in the subseries, so once they release it, then they resume work on Metroid Dread. That way, they've completed the Metroid Prime subseries, which fits in between Metroid and Metroid II: Return of Samus, and they can directly continue the series! I do hope that Dread has a less-dark feel than Fusion, though. The Metroid Prime games really, especially Metroid Prime, totally got it right. --Gaming King 05:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Speculation has no place in the article. I have removed it. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 06:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

This also makes little sense as the Prime series has been entirely US-developed (with supervision from NCL), while Dread would almost certainly be developed in Japan, most likely with Fusion staff. They're separate. It could be as simple as the director having another project - 2D games are made on smaller budgets and shorter schedules, that's why we still get our glorious 2D. Pellucidity 04:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

@ CyberSkull: I didn't add any speculation to the article. Good grief!

@ Pellucidity: Well, it's not like Nintendo of Japan is oblivious to what Nintendo of America and/or Retro Studios are doing. Why would they release Dread at this point, when they're just about to wrap up the Metroid Prime trilogy? It makes more sense to release Dread, a game that comes after Fusion, after they've closed the gap between the original (Metroid/Metroid Zero Mission), the Metroid Prime trilogy (MP, MP2, MP3, plus MPH), and the Metroid Elimination Trilogy (that's my name for the games where Metroids drive the story or play the biggest role in the plot; Metroid II, Super Metroid, Metroid Fusion). That kind of closure provides a perfect opportunity to finally continue the story, starting with Metroid Dread. (Wow, I'm totally obsessed with Metroid. :P ) --Gaming King 06:36, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The Metroid Prime Trilogy is a prodution of Retro studios. Therefore it would not afect Dread, a Nintendo production. While you have a point, that wouldn't prevent Nintendo of Japan from at least begining to develop Dread, which if needed could be held untill the correct time. I will admit that you have a good idea though.--Mit kebes

But remember that Retro is a 2nd party. NOA could've just told NOJ to wait for Retro to finish the Prime trilogy. --Gaming King 22:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

But so far, NOJ hasn't cared so far about putting out Metroid games during the Prime trilogy (such as Metroid Zero Mission), and if they did... why wouldn't they start developing it? --Mit kebes

Retro is a first party Nintendo bought the company a few years back. If you don't believe me go to the Wii Article access archive 11 and read the Second Party/First Party section. That should clear up any confusion. --Edgelord 19:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Name/2006 Release

A post from a Nintendo employee on the Gaming-Age Forum refer to a 2006 release for Metroid Dred. --Stx 12:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Typo. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

That was back in February. It's listed in the article that way. ~ Hibana 02:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

not being released?

Aaaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwww. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.247.235.10 (talk) 07:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

How much longer until...

people here realize this game doesn't exist and we can finally delete this article? This game has NEVER been commented on by Nintendo and the places reporting it as rumours have never revealed their sources. As this year comes to a close, we can confirm that the 2006 release dates were definately wrong. I don't see how the claims that this game is actually in development are any more accurate. And even so, it's been 9 months since we've even heard more rumours! Nintendo has had quite a few opportunities to showcase it at one of their gaming events and has not done so. I think this article is an embarrassment to Wikipedia and shows pure lack of integrity by asserting that this game is indeed in development when in reality, absolutely nothing has been confirmed by a reliable source. So just tell me, how much longer before we can finally rid Wikipedia of this trash? 199.126.137.209 15:20, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Prove it. We just had Craig from IGN state that it didn't make it to E3 2k5 because it was not presentable. Who is to say that it was presentable for 2k6? The only reason people say that it's cancelled is because a not-that-reliable web site said that their "insiders" said so. Why would the Official Nintendo Magazine of Europe specifically state that it is not cancelled, and why would Craig of IGN say the same? - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:00, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Besides, cancelled games can have articles. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

What was CONFIRMED by a reliable source was that this game indeed existed - by Nintendo themselves at E3 05, unless you're telling me Nintendo themselves aren't reliable and spreading rumors about themselves. And quite frankly, I think YOU'RE an embarrassment to wikipedia. I honestly don't understand why people have to squirm uncomfortably because a game goes through development quietly and doesn't have pictures in the first five days. The same thing happened to FFVII Crisis Core. People swore that the game absolutely HAD to be cancelled because no info was released on it. They were even asserting this AFTER pictures and interviews were released to Japanese magazines.--Claude 07:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Nintendo NEVER confirmed it. The closest to confirmation was a listing in Nintendo Power, along with a bunch of other games that were never mentioned againat (like Katamari DS). It was never mentioned again and was never announced by Nintendo. TJ Spyke

That was NOT the list people said it was mentioned in. It was mentioned in a list of Nintendo DS games that would appear at E3. Both Official Nintendo Magazine and Craig Harris of IGN said it was still in development. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the list was from E3, and it was indeed legit because it listed Twilight Princess's name before Nintendo ever announced it.--Claude 01:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

ONM is pretty much a joke as far as reliability goes, same with IGN. The game has never officially been announced. If some people want to delude themselves into thinking that, fine, but "Metroid Dread" has never officially existed. TJ Spyke 01:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

You think IGN is a bad source? Propose it to be labelled as such. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that's pretty sad. So an official Nintendo magazine is a "joke" and IGN is magically not credible when you don't want it to be and we're the ones that's supposed to be deluded because Nintendo had E3 papers that CONFIRMED Metroid Dread? The news came straight from the horse's mouth. That's as official as you're going to get.--Claude 06:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

He has a point on ONM though. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Possibly. I don't read ONM so I don't know how easy it would be to knock the credibility of an "official" magazine. Regardless, ONM's credibility does not affect the existence of Dread. I don't understand how people can keep coming here without being able to wrap their brain around the fact that Dread's existence really can't be disputed. They knock Game Informer, they knock IGN, and they knock anyone that backs it up but that's just it: they're backing up information that came from Nintendo themselves, and Nintendo can't be knocked because I'm pretty sure they know what games they're developing.--Claude 06:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

In Metroid Prime 3 Corruption, a secret message claimed 'Project Dread is reaching its final stages' is that enough proof it existed? -SRX388 4:30, 24 july 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.42.205.162 (talk)

metroid dread in the storyline

when in the storyline is this game set? i've heard it will be set after metroid fusion, i hope they make a game that explains why Ridley's corpse is frozen and is on the BSL labs space station.--Lerdthenerd 08:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

It's supposed to take place after Fusion, though they could have changed that by now. And I doubt Ridley's appearance there will ever be explained.--Claude 20:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

About Ridley: I guess it's a clone created by the Galactic Federation who either ended up frozen or was frozen as a means of conservation. It's plausible, since the Federation also cloned the Metroids.

Keep in mind that, technically, the Ridley you encounter in any game from Metroid II and later is not the original Ridley. In the Prime series, Ridley is known as Meta-Ridley (and later on, Omega Ridley). The original Ridley was destroyed by Samus in Metroid. Meta Ridley, in the Prime series, is basically the Six Million Dollar Man version of Ridley, reconstructed using cybernetic equipment.

The Ridley in Metroid II to Fusion is not described as a mechanical version of Ridley, so it's safe to assume that either Ridley somehow was healed, or that it's a clone of the original. -D14BL0 04:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

What if ridley used other dead space pirates, creatures ect. to rebuild himself? i mean each metroid game ridley was a different color.

Metroid Dread and Metroid V

IF Dread in fact, takes place after Fusion (or canonically [and dubbed previously] as Metroid IV). Than why hasn't this game been called Metroid V in the similar matter as Fusion was when first announced? Plus it seems as if that you may as well dubb the article under Metroid V because the whole "Dread" title hasn't even been 100% confirmed either yet it states that the game is set after Fusion? 71.228.99.81 14:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Metroid Dread/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: ProtoDrake (talk · contribs) 07:50, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I'll be back with a review in a few days. --ProtoDrake (talk) 07:50, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

@GamerPro64:, I've looked through the article, and I can't see anything holding it back. I thin this merits an Instant Pass. --ProtoDrake (talk) 10:07, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Metroid Dread. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130511084750/http://multiplayerblog.mtv.com/2007/09/26/retro-studios-answers-the-dreaded-metroid-dread-question-and-other-prime-exclusives/ to http://multiplayerblog.mtv.com/2007/09/26/retro-studios-answers-the-dreaded-metroid-dread-question-and-other-prime-exclusives/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)