Just a Face and a Caption: Even Better Sequel

Now, yes, I do know that Super Metroid is better than the original NES game, but the picture doesn't illustrate how or why. It just shows the title screens of both games, with a caption saying that Super Metroid is better. Metroid fans know how and why Super is better than the original, but non-Metroid fans (or those who are unfamiliar with the series) won't know why just by looking at the picture.

So either we should get a picture that explains why it's better, or get a picture of something else that still applies toward this trope.

While I see your point, the improved graphics in the Super Metroid pic alone should be a clue that it fits, and with that, I'm voting Keep Until Better Image Suggested.

To be honest, that looks like a deterioration to me, unless the additional items are supposed to compensate this.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman

I don't know much about Metroid, but the lower image clearly has more detail. Plus it says Super

Not that we can't do better, but I think it works.

edited 8th Apr '13 7:33:12 AM by UltimatelySubjective

"Nullius addictus iurare in verba magistri, quo me cumque rapit tempestas, deferor hospes."

I'm having trouble seeing how else this could be pictured. I mean, having better graphics is the general norm for sequels, since they're generally released a few years later. That doesn't mean they're also a better game. So I suppose the Visual Pun (is that even a pun?) of the title screen works, with the second one showing how SUPER it is (and yes, Super Metroid is an example). We could show Super Castlevania and Super Mario Bros to the side if we want more examples.

Rhetorical, eh? ... Eight!

I was thinking something along the lines of, say, a Metacritic, GameRankings, or Rotten Tomatoes rating to illustrate this trope. 'Cause, like I said, improved graphics and title screens don't suggest nothin'.

Keep Until Better Image Suggested. Graphics look better, background set looks more detailed. Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic type images that just show the review percentages are heart-attack inducingly boring. I will aggressively vote down any such images suggested.

It's a play on how the word are used, so it's a pun.

Check out my fanfiction!

I completely disagree that the better graphics mean anything in this case. Video games don't get better because of better graphics—that was the progression of time and technology doing the work. Super Metroid came out nearly a decade after the first. By that definition, Metroid: Other M is the best Metroid yet. "Super" doesn't mean anything in this case either—it was a common way for Nintendo to title its sequels. Not to mention that the fact that it's a part of the title of the game tells you that it has nothing to do with the audience preferring the sequel.

Essentially, this is a terrible example to anyone even passingly familiar with video games.

edited 8th Apr '13 12:44:57 PM by helterskelter

No, it's a great example. It might not make the best illustration, though.

Also, to fall into that category, you have to have enough familiarity with the naming convention to understand why it's named like that, not be of the mindset that better graphics equal better games, not understand that better quality graphics can be used as a shortcut to show how something is better overall, and not be familiar enough with the Metroid series. Failing any of those, and the image makes sense.

The caption essentially says "the title is appropriate", which really just highlights it.

edited 8th Apr '13 1:27:44 PM by AnotherDuck

Check out my fanfiction!

I think that particular "this" was referring to the image, not the source.

An Ear Worm is like a Rickroll: It is never going to give you up.

Yes, exactly! Graphics do not automatically make a game better. Like I said in the OP, the picture and caption don't illustrate why it's better. Yes, I (as well as several other Metroid fans) know why Super Metroid is better, but the picture doesn't show how or why it is.

edited 9th Apr '13 5:56:43 AM by ScoutsGirlfriend

Is the assumption "Better graphics =! better game" widespread enough to disqualify the current image? I want a citation for this.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman

Exactly. Hell, it's a terrible image to anyone passingly familiar with computer technology. Since obviously computers are getting better over time, as are graphics made by said computers, so by that logic every videogame sequel would be automatically better than its predecessor.

... is this sarcasm? Or are you being serious?

edited 9th Apr '13 6:05:55 AM by CobraPrime

No, I am serious.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman

...Oh wow. I am at a loss for words.

The quality of images most definitively is a factor in the quality of a work with images.

So, no "lost for words" here.

And even with a "passing knowledge of games" I do not see helterskelter's argument.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman

Okay, do you know that technology, especially computer technology improves and advances over time?

Videogame graphics are an aspect of computer technology

Ergo Videogame graphics, like all computer technology have advanced over time, so improved graphics means nothing other than "It was made later" and speak nothing of the quality of the gameplay.

Seriously, how about you explain to me how videogame graphics being better automatically = better videogame.

edited 9th Apr '13 6:13:40 AM by CobraPrime

Yes, graphics advance with time. That does not mean that people ignore this when evaluating the quality of something.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman

Nor does it mean they a representative factor. Less you want to explain how games like Minecraft and FTL are such hits if graphics are representative of a game's quality. Or Roguelikes, who don't even have graphics beside basic ANSI.

Nobody is claiming that graphics are the only thing affecting the evaluation.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman

And yet you're the one asking for citations proving that "Better graphics =! better game" is a wrong assumptions.

Some argument you have given. It is enough to make it a factor among many. Not to make it a non-factor.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman

Anyway, suggestion that doesn't rely on people being ignorant about videogames

I'd rather not go the Metacritic route yet again, honestly.

Moon◊