uh... my avatar tastes better than a coin... I've got a girlfriend that can testify.
I disagree, Kraid and Ridley are still equel. 1st off, Meta-Kraid would have kicked Meta-Ridley's butt. (I stand that they removed him because he would have been too hard, and replaced him with a much easier "Omega Pirate") and 2ndly the only reason Ridley got any more screentime in than Kraid was because to make Kraid a giant monster so badass it could have almost stood up to Godzilla. It would be a great fight too, since Kraid can only be hurt inside his mouth ever sense he underwent his growth spurt, and Godzilla is very much outside his body (ultimatly though, Godzilla would have won since only mechagodzilla has ever been able to defeat godzilla). I mean... kraid is so awesome, they had to include him in Metroid 1 and 3 TWICE because he was too awesome to only be one the screen once (he's got a weaker clone running around in both games, if you recall.)
*not really spoilers, because I don't actually reveal anything other than "mother brain is not the ending boss of Metroid P 3" and "it ends the phazon story" the later of which was announced before the game came out but, spoiler warning anyway* The ending boss to metroid prime 3 SHOULD have been the mother brain. They could have cut about half the explination (or more) and it would have made MORE sense. Nobody would question why something destroying something that obviously came after the phazon (since the phazon corrupted it) would destroy all phazon in the galaxy... because "its the mother brain" you don't have to explain that. It would have been better for nogistalia purposes, made more sense, would have been more satisfying (I'm not sure why the ending boss they did use was something to be feared), and would have made the ending boss of MP 3 not a complete rip-off of an important character that already exists in the series.
and yes... it was a joke (though I am seriously agrivated at Nintendo for their shift in the metroid series and some of the subtle not-really-important changes they've made to the canon since the prime trilogy and metroid 4. Like how Metroids in the original game were freaking huge (able to engulf over half of samus's body), and extremely tough requiring nothing less than 5 missles to destroy... but in the prime series forward they are only about the size of Samus's face and can be destroyed with generic pee-shooter un-charged laser shots)
Zelda and Metroid came out the exact same year in Japan. Zelda was out only a few months earlier (feb vs aug) however, it was Metroid that coined the term "mini-boss" or "sub-boss" even though "having more than 1 boss before the ending boss" existed in Zelda, and likely a few other games, 1st. In my history of games class (yess I had a class on the subject) Metroid was credited for defining the modern 'requirement' to include sub-bosses in action games. Furthermore, its ironic because in retrospect Ridley and Kraid would not be considered "mini-bosses" by modern standard dispite the manual clearly defining them as such. Modern day expects a "mini-boss" to come mid-stage, rather than at the end of a stage or section of the game. They would be standard "bosses" with no sight of sub-bosses until Metroid 2 (or super metroid if you count all the metroids in 2 as bosses. Metroid 3 fits the modern mid-level boss concept) Besides.... what mini-bosses were is Zelda 1? The dinosaurs you have to use bombs to kill? They were more like a puzzle that could kill you than bosses. I can't think of any others off the top of my head.
Again, it wasn't supposed to be taken very seriously.
/rant (/*for now, but don't get me started again */)