They Lied to Us About Metroid Prime 4

Overview / Main Argument

The video argues that Metroid Prime 4 is fundamentally not a “real” Metroid Prime game, despite its title and marketing implying it would follow the franchise’s classic design philosophy. The creator frames the issue as misrepresentation:

• The game is presented as a return to the 3D “first-person adventure” style of Metroid Prime 1–3.
• Instead, it’s described as a linear, corridor-based action FPS that removes core Metroid Prime elements like exploration, discovery, and player-driven progression.

Core Claim: “Prime 4” vs. “Different Rules”

The creator’s central point is that:

• The title “Prime 4” implies one kind of experience.
• But the game “plays by different rules.”

They argue that Metroid—especially Prime—is defined by:

• Nonlinear exploration
• Gating progress behind upgrades (earned through exploration)
• Hidden/optional routes that open later
• An atmosphere built around solitude

In contrast, the video claims Prime 4 provides:

• Linear level flow (“hallways” and one-direction paths)
• Upgrades that feel gifted by story progression rather than earned
• Minimal backtracking, except as a chore
• Progression that feels like compliance, not discovery

Historical Context Used to Set Expectations

The video references the evolution of the Metroid series to explain what players expect:

• Original Metroid (1986): nonlinear exploration plus gated progression
• Super Metroid (1994): expanded the formula (power-ups, story depth) and influenced the “Metroidvania” style
• Metroid Prime (Retro Studios): praised for bringing exploration into 3D via:
  • scanning
  • multiple routes
  • optional areas
  • puzzle-like world design
• Other M: cited as abandoning Metroid principles through more linear, story-driven upgrades, leading to significant fan backlash

Development and Naming Controversy: “It Isn’t Actually Prime 4”

The creator suggests behind-the-scenes development trouble and repositioning:

• The game was initially marketed as “Prime 4.”
• Later, Nintendo reportedly described it as a soft reboot, with the Prime trilogy arc ending at Prime 3.
• The creator argues that this means it’s effectively not truly “Prime 4,” even though the name remained.

The video also cites an alleged post-announcement developer interview:

• Retro Studios reportedly lacked the internal structure or “foundation” needed for a true Metroid Prime game.
• The creator claims heavy outsourcing/external support was required and new staff needed to learn the “essence.”
• This is presented as a reason the shipped product doesn’t match fan expectations for the Prime lineage.

Gameplay Breakdown: Where the Video Says It Fails

The video repeatedly emphasizes several criticisms.

Intro Strong, Then Design Changes Immediately

• The opening is praised for atmosphere and spectacle.
• But the creator claims that after the early demo segment, the game becomes relentlessly linear.

Upgrades and Progression Feel Scripted

• Key abilities (e.g., grapple/ice/flame-related tools) are described as unmissable story rewards.
• This allegedly reduces the incentive to explore.

Optional Areas Exist but Aren’t Meaningful

• Optional spaces are said to contain mostly checklist-style rewards (e.g., missiles/health).
• The creator argues these don’t provide meaningful new routes or surprises.

“Choice” via the Desert Open Zone Feels Illusory

• The creator criticizes a desert “open world” as padding:
  • empty
  • uninspiring
  • visually/tonally inconsistent
• They argue it advertises freedom (keys in any order) but restricts progress via hidden logic:
  • they claim they could not complete the ice area first
  • the third location allegedly required completing the other two first

Constant NPC Handholding Undermines Prime’s Solitude

• A radio/side character (“McKenzie,” as named by the creator) is criticized for frequent, unavoidable guidance.
• The creator claims guidance cannot be turned off, repeatedly interrupting exploration.
• This is presented as the opposite of the solitude/mystery associated with Samus and classic Prime games.

Pacing and Combat Issues

• Bosses are described as bullet sponges with repetitive patterns and few “puzzle-like” moments.
• Enemy variety is said to be reduced compared to Prime 1 (the creator claims Prime 1 had more unique enemies and boss battles).
• Combat is framed as largely “shoot/dodge/tank,” lacking the hazard/challenge/puzzle feel of earlier Prime games.

Late-Game Grind / Padding

Near the end, the video highlights tedious fetch tasks:

• collecting multiple mech parts
• gathering many “green crystals”

The crystal payoff is described as a radar, which the creator calls questionable reward design and “padding.” They estimate the game would be much shorter without this extra desert grinding.

Story / Ending: A “Choice” That Isn’t Really a Choice

The finale is criticized as confusing and manipulative:

• The creator describes an option to press a button to let allies leave to fight the villain.
• They claim the game still forces an outcome anyway (they report receiving a game over when attempting it).

They also interpret the ending as emotionally empty—less like meaningful victory or puzzle resolution, and more like being “robbed.”

Overall Conclusion

The creator’s conclusion is:

• If Prime 4 is treated like a modern sci-fi shooter, it might seem “fine.”
• But for Metroid fans expecting mystery, exploration, solitude, and player-earned upgrades, it’s disappointing and mismatched between:
  • branding/title
  • and game design

Final judgment: Nintendo wanted a Prime-style follow-up to fix the perception created by Other M, but what shipped doesn’t reflect the “Prime” essence—so the name became a misleading promise.

Presenters / Contributors

• Video creator / narrator (single speaker) — the person delivering the critique. (No other presenters are named in the subtitles.)