Talk:Metroid II: Return of Samus

Items and Abilities - The Spazer Laser Beam

In the original packaging, the object identified as the "Spazer" in-game was listed as the "Spazer Laser Beam" in the original manual. In Super Metroid, this was officially changed to "Spazer Beam", but the fact still remains that the item's full original name was indeed the "Spazer Laser Beam". One merely needs to manual to confirm this. Here's an excerpt from the original manual:

Spazer Laser Beam

A three way beam with an extremely wide focus is fired when this weapon is discharged.

Metroid II DX: Unofficial version

The "IPS" version floating around isn't actually the *first* version of Metroid II DX Unofficial that was released at all. In actuality, the first M2DXU it utilized a completely different method of colorization, one that relied on the now-defunct "GBColorizer" by MisterFishy. Unlike the IPS patch, the GBColorizer one actually modified several sprites to take advantage of the colorization, rather than just adding color to the game. I've provided a link that has information regarding that original colorization project (but it does not have a link to the ROM, mind you), and I don't think MisterFishy's page is up anymore.

[[1]] <- There's the information regarding the original project. If you would like more information regarding it, please feel free to send me an Instant Message or an Email.

User:Doom127 11:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC) (Doom127)

Colorized ending?

I'm very sure that the readers would like to see a colorized version of the best ending. I have one. http://img293.imageshack.us/img293/9678/colormetroidendrl9.png -Xparasite9 01:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Colorized version on original cart?

There's a new addition that mentions that DX mode is available on some paks. Metroid II, from what I've read, features some pre-loaded palettes for use with the Super Game Boy, but this is a bit different from the DX version. Perhaps the user was confused by this? -Jacquismo 01:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The Game Boy Color unit itself contains several premade palettes for the most popular games. Super Mario Land and Metroid II, for example, have palettes. Bear in mind- its the GBC that has these, not the cartridges. I've been studying Metroid II for over a decade and I've never in my life heard anything about a color Metroid II being in the public's hands. Unless this anonymous editor has a reliable, linkable source, the paragraph he added does not belong here. Ex-Nintendo Employee 04:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it doesn't really make sense that for a color palette to be on the cartridge. I guess I was thinking that this and the Super Game Boy were released closer together, so it could have been possible. Thanks for clearing it up. -Jacquismo 23:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Metroid 2 fan-projects

There have been many fangame projects of Metroid II started up in the past few years, most notably AM2R and Metroid: SR:388. Should these projects be added to the page, even though they are unofficial fan projects? 151.205.80.37 (talk) 12:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia is not the place to mention fan projects. King Zeal (talk) 23:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. It depends on the project itself and how much legitimate discussion it gets by reputable sources. Games like I Wanna Be The Guy and Barkley, Shut Up and Jam: Gaiden have been discussed on actual gaming news sites (IGN, Gamespot, 1UP.com, etc), and Sonic 2 HD is starting to pick up steam, though it's not yet mentioned at Sonic 2's article. However, reputable sources is the keyword. Until these remakes are actually noted in places like that, it's not notable enough to be included in this article. This is exactly why the color hack for the M2 GB ROM is always removed from the article whenever someone tries to add it; it's never been discussed in reputable places online. Arrowned (talk) 01:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't disagreeing with that much. I suppose I was being overly simplistic. But, yes, what Arrowned said was basically the case. King Zeal (talk) 02:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

This isn't true. Sites like Level Opacity[2] have discussed AM2R [3] and the Metroid II colorization hack has been discussed just about everywhere, such as on Internode[4], which also discusses it[5]. Given the vast amount of discussion that these remake attempts have garnered, your wanton deletion of content is a bit unsettling. How about you try to, instead of just erasing things, actually ADD to an article's content instead? 76.28.138.83 (talk) 16:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The following message was originally posted on User talk:Gary King, but Gary King (talk) copied it to here.

I noticed you'd been putting a lot of work into this article recently to get it to GA standard (not to mention your FA work on the Prime series, which was awesome, and I thank you for). Unfortunately, I don't have any suitable development info for that or its prequel. What I wanted to talk to you about was the remakes section. I saw that you had marked two refs with the questionable source tag. I'm actually not arguing your actions; I just want to make sure you see the reasoning behind why we allowed that entire section and the two refs backing it to get into the article, which you probably wouldn't have seen since the discussion about it started at the Metroid II discussion page (in this convo) and then ended up moving to my own talk page (here). Whether those links continue to be considered reputable is up to whoever will look over the article for eventual FA status, I suppose, but I just want you to be aware of all angles so you won't be surprised by any results or know enough to argue your own opinion if and when the time comes. Though it's probably notable that there will never be more reliable refs we could possibly find for that section due to the legality of the subject matter and major sites not wanting to cover it, so I imagine if these refs get the axe, then the article will likely have to ditch all info on the remakes for good. Arrowned (talk) 09:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I just gave the references a cursory check; I'll look deeper into them to see if they are really reliable or not. Also, has anyone tried searching on some of the more notable video game blogs like Joystiq or Kotaku? They are typically not notable, but it depends on who authored the specific post. I'll go searching for more information myself. Gary King (talk) 14:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

There are a couple, now that I look. Destructoid, Joystiq, Kotaku, DSFanboy (which, admittedly, is a subsidiary of Joystiq), ArsTechnica, and Wired have all covered Project AM2R. Destructoid, Kotaku, and Wiifanboy (another Joystiq subsite) also covered the other major remake project, "Metroid SR388". I have no idea where to find legitimate sources about the color ROM hack. Arrowned (talk) 15:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, moved to Talk:Metroid II: Return of Samus/to do for now. Gary King (talk) 16:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding development information, you don't happen to have access to any obscure interviews in defunct magazines, etc. would you? Those are particularly useful. I'm really unsure right now how I'm going to expand the Development sections for Metroid and Metroid II at the moment. Gary King (talk) 15:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Development information

Does anyone have anything useful that we could use to expand the Development section? Gary King (talk) 04:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

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

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Introducing 'gameplay' with "Metroid II's layout is similar to that of its predecessor, Metroid." and then stopping there, indicates that the reader hase a prior knowledge of Metroid [I]. Could you not elaborate more about the particulars, since there are bound to come readers (yours truely for instance) who have not seen or read the first game? Again, I would like to see mention of an 'adventure platform shooter' (or what now the correct term is) and more detail about the general gameplay, before going into the details of how the game differes from the first.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I am placing the article on hold until the comments have been resolved. Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:48, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, what d'ya think now? Gary King (talk) 23:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Much better :) Arsenikk ^(talk) 23:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

"It introduced new gameplay elements to the series, such as allowing players to save their progress and continue in another session." This sentence is just false. Original Metroid already had a save system: [6]. Also could we get some mention of the announced but cancelled Game Boy Color port? --Mika1h (talk) 23:35, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay done Gary King (talk) 01:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Another Metroid 2 Remake error

To quote the wiki article...

Due to the black and white color palette used in Metroid II, and because of the canceled Game Boy Color version, there have been attempts to create colored versions of Metroid II. A programmer using the pseudonym DoctorM64 created Project AM2R, also known as Another Metroid 2 Remake. The project aims to update the game's appearance by emulating, and in some cases, trumping the visual design of Super Metroid (1994). The game is in working beta as of March 2008. Ars Technica claims that it features "incredible graphics" and they consider it a "painstaking recreation of the original level design".

Actually I'm quite sure they don't do any sort of emulation of the games code, as far as I know from reading the projects website they actually use GameMaker, a program generally for non programmers to create games, not to discredit the programmer who appears to have done very well with it.

Also, I don't mean to sound harsh, but it appears the project uses graphics ripped from Super Metroid (see the ship for example), and maybe other games of the Metroid series (the ground tiles in some cases very much resemble to me the design of those from either Metroid Fusion or Metroid Zero Mission, not exactly sure), but for all I know these could just be place holders. Further, I do not understand by what means it trumps the visual design of Super Metroid, I think an explaination is neccessary. Otherwise I think the video presentation of it looks quite impressive and fun, but it appears to me little thought has been put into the design of the graphics as a whole. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.181.87.62 (talk) 05:36, June 26, 2009

As much as I love AM2R, and keep up with its current development, I feel the paragraph here is misleading. Especially as it stands today, AM2R is a reboot/reimagining more than just a colorization project as the current text would imply. I'm not even sure that it belongs in this article at all as anything other than a "see also" link. 74.138.221.109 (talk) 03:49, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Question About Game's Release

Just wondering...the article says the game was released in January, 1992. The source the article cites says the release was 1993. The source for the European date says 1992, and shows a rerelease in 1993. The game's title screen shows a 1991 date. Am I right in therefore thinking that: This game was created and completed in 1991 (hence the copyright on the title screen), released in January of 1992, and the first source cited in the article about release dates is wrong? 98.28.141.221 (talk) 06:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

You are correct; the source for the NA date in the first line of "Reception" says 1993. I've replaced that ref with a {{fact}} tag because the Game Spot ref doesn't give an exact date for NA, they just say 1992. To further complicate things, IGN says it was released on October 10, 1992 in the US. I'm really curious as to where the Jan. 20, '92 date originally came from. Does anyone know? -sesuPRIME 17:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I added that in this edit when the GameRankings page did have that date. They redesigned the page recently and I guess the date changed also, to 1993, because the page still says "1992 Games Rank: 5" so the website thinks that the game was released in 1992 still. I've used the IGN release date for now. Gary King (talk) 17:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I just remembered that Brawl contains a "Chronicle" of release dates for Nintendo-published games, so I popped in my North American copy and guess what? Another source, another year; it says the game was released in November 1991. I'd say Brawl (i.e. Nintendo) is the most reliable source for this kind of thing, but how does one go about citing a video game? -sesuPRIME 19:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

There's an actual "cite video game" template at the bottom of the examples section at WP:CT. Most game articles use this with in-story quotations for plot purposes, but you could just as easily quote the exact text Brawl gives for the release date instead. Arrowned (talk) 22:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't know about that template, thanks. Well, I've fixed the article, but unfortunately Brawl doesn't give an exact date, just the month and year. -sesuPRIME 00:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The dates in said Chronicle are the same as in the PDF files at Nintendo.com, as far as I know. The list for Game Boy games also tells the same date for Metroid II (November 1991). --Grandy02 (talk) 12:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Saving

The article says that this game allowed to save the progress for the first time in the series, but didn't the original Famicom Disk System version of Metroid also allow to save? --Grandy02 (talk) 12:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Intelligent Systems

The article says that Metroid II "was the only one in the Metroid series to be developed by Intelligent Systems." But if it is, why does IS's game list include Metroid and Super Metroid? Even the article Super Metroid mentions IS. Ironically, Metroid II isn't listed at IS's website at all. --Grandy02 (talk) 12:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The first external link at the bottom

Why is the first link like that? It's an official Nintendo website, I would imagine they would've deleted a website like that. I don't know much about older websites, but I'm guessing the way they rendered Japanese characters formerly are now rendered in a ridiculous, unreadable manner now? 69.228.12.177 (talk) 17:55, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

"404 Page Not Found" -- GamesRadar

"12 classic Game Boy and Game Boy Color games we want on 3DS" page from GamesRadar no longer exists anymore, and I can't archive it through the Wayback Machine as the snapshots of it redirects to nothing but a page that says "Womp Womp… Page Not Found". I therefore removed it from the article. I found a WebCite snapshot alright, but I assume the game listed on the second page that redirects to a different page ("Best Game Boy games of all time")... -- Hounder4 02:14, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

AM2R download links through Wayback Machine

We all know that AM2R has been taken down after sites hosting it received a DMCA notice from Nintendo, but it appears that the pages (from both Project AM2R website and the Metroid Database fansite) are available at the Wayback Machine and the download link still works. IP 112.202.38.188 (talk) gave download links to Wikipedia, but I reverted that because I feel that they are not considered reliable and would be a legal issue if we leave them there. The IP added those links again, so I need more eyes on this one. Any suggestions? – // Hounder4 // 12:36, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct, that would be an issue - we cannot be linking to content that Nintendo is legally contesting the release of - its a WP:COPYVIO issue. I've reverted and protected the page. Sergecross73 msg me 12:42, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: Thanks for the help, but what about this revision (10:51, 9 August 2016)? It has those links... – // Hounder4 // 13:19, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Good call. I've removed that one too now. Let me know if I missed any others. Sergecross73 msg me 13:27, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Note on the Varia Suit

Near the top of the articles, it states, "The game introduced several features that became staples of the series, including Samus's round-shouldered Varia Suit, Space Jump, Spazer Beam and Spider Ball." The Varia Suit was in Metroid, this is not a new introduction. Unless the article is saying that the round shoulders are an introduction, which is likely not of note (I'm not to familiar with policies on that), should this be removed or re-worded? 76.143.16.205 (talk) 04:54, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

GameRankings as genre source

General descriptions like GameRankings is decent for cataloguing and finding reviews, but we shouldn't use as a serious source for organizing genres. There is no indication on who organizes these genres, no name attached to such material. As genre is subjective, we need a citation from a source that makes it clear that they have experience with the game, not just an aggregator. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:33, 24 June 2024 (UTC)