• 68 results
  • 1
  • 2
#51 Edited by Nettacki (1320 posts) -
#52 Edited by darkpower (96 posts) -

@hailinel said:

Three-dimensional characters have strengths and weaknesses, as well as a scale of emotions. It's not that Samus is a "psychologically damaged, whimpering female." It's that she's a human being raised in unusual and traumatic circumstances. And though she might not have thought much about the baby Metroid when she first turned it over to the research staff, the notion that it thought of her as its mother and unconditionally chose to protect her at the cost of its own life is an act that would reasonably give pause to the notion that the creature was more than simply a specimen to hand off. What Samus initially thought nothing of (save perhaps enough pity to spare its life rather than follow the orders of her mission and exterminate it) evolved into a sense of motherhood, as that's what the Metroid thought of her and the reason that Mother Brain didn't annihilate her at the end of Super Metroid.

Again, the writing itself was bad; not the intent. The writing is the reason that a better excuse for the armor restrictions was not devised. It is the reason why Samus's PTSD episode seems inexplicable to any that don't fully understand the history of Samus and Ridley based on the external media published over a decade ago. Both of those aspects could have been handled by better writing.

THERE we go! That's what I'm trying to get at, and it seems the person that this poster is responding to chooses to not get that point. Again, the rushed pace wasn't something that helped, but it didn't hinder things so badly that I was ready with pitchforks and torches like some people are. I wished the game didn't have to worry about the Wii's limitations (artifacts in the FMVs proved that there was some heavy work the Wii had to do there), not to mention the T rating limits. Give them the time they need to make a game like this with a story like this. I'm pretty sure Sakamoto can make a great story if he had the time.

But hallinel is completely correct, and it seems Sinusoidal is sounding like Anita Sarkeesian playing a Mario game. If I wanted a two dimensional main protagonist, I'd go play Halo!

#54 Edited by Nettacki (1320 posts) -

@darkpower:

Honestly, I think you are the one missing the point of Sinusoidal. He/she doesn't want a two-dimensional protagonist like Master Chief. You passing off his/her arguments like that and comparing him/her to Anita Sarkeesian comes off as you not wanting to fully understand what others that disagree with you have to say.

#55 Posted by TowerSixteen (544 posts) -

@darkpower: I agree with you that there is absolutely nothing wrong with the intentions the game has. They might even be laudable. Where I disagree is in the idea that this particular game/storyline is salvageable. Other M didn't go just a little wrong. It went all the way wrong. Samus's severely mishandled characterization, the poorly-fleshed-out support cast, the badly written dialogue, and yes, the pacing, all of that has deeper roots than I think your implying. I don't think a bit of extra time and an M rating would have fixed a single one of those. I also wonder where your faith in Sakamoto's script writing ability comes from. A quick Wikipdia check says that this is the only game with extensive story that he's attempted, the it went real wrong in like ten directions at once.

#56 Posted by Sinusoidal (1809 posts) -

THERE we go! That's what I'm trying to get at, and it seems the person that this poster is responding to chooses to not get that point. Again, the rushed pace wasn't something that helped, but it didn't hinder things so badly that I was ready with pitchforks and torches like some people are. I wished the game didn't have to worry about the Wii's limitations (artifacts in the FMVs proved that there was some heavy work the Wii had to do there), not to mention the T rating limits. Give them the time they need to make a game like this with a story like this. I'm pretty sure Sakamoto can make a great story if he had the time.

But hallinel is completely correct, and it seems Sinusoidal is sounding like Anita Sarkeesian playing a Mario game. If I wanted a two dimensional main protagonist, I'd go play Halo!

What don't I get? That Sakamoto fleshed out Samus' character by making her a sexed-up, vulnerable, subservient, motherly simpleton, or that you approve of that design choice?

In Metroid 2, Samus - by now the most badass bounty hunter in the galaxy - attempted the genocide of an entire race. In Other M, she slapped on six-inch heels and developed PTSD. That's not character development, that's a travesty.

#57 Edited by TowerSixteen (544 posts) -

@hailinel: Oh, I bothered to look up Other M's credits. It lists quite a few other people as event scripters. A quick google search showed that event scripter, even though it sounds like a programming credit, is a term Team Ninja uses as a writing credit in their games. To the point where, on IMDB, the only writing credits that even exist for the Ninja Gaiden games are "event scripters". I think that's fairly conclusive evidence that it was not written alone.

#58 Edited by Nettacki (1320 posts) -

@towersixteen said:

@hailinel: Oh, I bothered to look up Other M's credits. It lists quite a few other people as event scripters. A quick google search showed that event scripter, even though it sounds like a programming credit, is a term Team Ninja uses as a writing credit in their games. To the point where, on IMDB, the only writing credits that even exist for the Ninja Gaiden games are "event scripters". I think that's fairly conclusive evidence that it was not written alone.

I dunno man. Considering how so much of the interviews focuses on Sakamoto and *his* ideas and how *he* is taking this series to a new direction with Team Ninja being contracted to simply help bring those ideas to the screen, I think it's pretty solid evidence that Sakamoto was basically the George Lucas of Nintendo the whole time. It's like how if you look into the credits of Daikatana, you know that there are people other than John Romero who made it, but everyone blames John Romero anyway for the downfall of that game because he was pretty much the face of the game's entire marketing campaign. Except in this case, the notion of blaming all the failures of Other M on Sakamoto is even more valid than blaming all the failures of Daikatana on Romero. Sure there were "event scripters" that were there to put it all together, but in the end they still have to answer to Sakamoto, and they probably couldn't deviate too far from his vision since he's got all the power and all.

And hell, even Hallinel, one of the game's most prominent defenders in this site, is able to admit and figure out that "Sakamoto had all the creative control in the production of the game" is a truth, not some fallacy made up by some angry fanboy looking for a scapegoat.

#59 Edited by TowerSixteen (544 posts) -

@nettacki: Ignoring your eye-rolling feud with him, I don't buy it. I don't believe that the fact that he took ownership of the game is in anyway proof that he was actually, really wholly responsible. The fact that, after the game came out and it's reception was known, team ninja was very ready to point fingers to him for the writing doesn't mean much, either. People like to have a "face", going back to auteur theory, establishing the idea that there is one person creatively responsible for a film is what allowed people to take is seriously as an artistic medium even if the idea was nonsense in most cases. I'm in no way "looking for a scapegoat". I think Sakamoto was almost certainly mostly responsible for the direction, plotting, themes, character design ect. ect., and that's why he's featured so prominently. However, given that the biggest problem was severely flawed execution, the fact that a non-trivial portion of the actual, exact words written were probably written by a another group of people IS a significant point, and not to be dismissed.

#60 Edited by EXTomar (4951 posts) -

It has been stated multiple times in multiple threads that parts of Other M had promise. For any number of reasons it was squandered and while a discussion about that maybe interesting in the end I don't feel it is worth salvaging either. Also I still think it is dubious to suggest Metroid has a deep story. I'm not sure where people get that from nor do I think that is much of an issue. Some setups are fine with sparse detail where actions speak louder than "The baby...the baby".

So again I ask the question I always ask to the "Should there be a sequel?" What is worth carrying forward from Other M? Some vague and high conception notions on things that don't seem to be necessary to "the core" of what Metroid seemed to be about? If so they need way way way better writers and a way way way way different game where I can easily see the end result as something interesting but barely or not even remotely recognizable Metroid. At that point why bother calling it Metroid beyond carrying around the name tags?

Or in other words do people really want a "Rebooted Samus" or where they really happy with the action game that features Samus blasting space pirates through exotic locales? I get the feeling the latter is what people want.

#61 Posted by MormonWarrior (2665 posts) -

NO. NONONONONONONONO

Metroid Other M was an abomination. Played it beginning to end and didn't like a single moment.

#62 Posted by darkpower (96 posts) -

@extomar said:

It has been stated multiple times in multiple threads that parts of Other M had promise. For any number of reasons it was squandered and while a discussion about that maybe interesting in the end I don't feel it is worth salvaging either. Also I still think it is dubious to suggest Metroid has a deep story. I'm not sure where people get that from nor do I think that is much of an issue. Some setups are fine with sparse detail where actions speak louder than "The baby...the baby".

So again I ask the question I always ask to the "Should there be a sequel?" What is worth carrying forward from Other M? Some vague and high conception notions on things that don't seem to be necessary to "the core" of what Metroid seemed to be about? If so they need way way way better writers and a way way way way different game where I can easily see the end result as something interesting but barely or not even remotely recognizable Metroid. At that point why bother calling it Metroid beyond carrying around the name tags?

Or in other words do people really want a "Rebooted Samus" or where they really happy with the action game that features Samus blasting space pirates through exotic locales? I get the feeling the latter is what people want.

What people want is a rich, immerse gaming experience. They want the familiarity, but not at the expense on not trying new things when the familiarity becomes unstable. They want to be able to connect to the characters, and be able to have fun overcoming challenges that are presented to them. They don't want for there to be no connection because they will never be able to care about what happens to them, and then no drive to try to overcome those challenges and thus, no reason to continue playing the game.

For me, you might think the story was quite unnecessary, but for me, it was an engaging experience. Why? Because, unlike some other people, I wasn't looking at the game in a critical eye. I wasn't trying to nitpick every little mistake in continuity that was made (if I did that, then even Star Trek would not be enjoyable), or complain as much as some people did. I was looking for a great gaming experience that, for some hours out of my day, I could sit back and watch a story unfold, and for me to overcome challenges that were presented to me in some of the boss fights and in the "Hell run" (which, by the way, Metroid Fusion DOES bring up). I felt that Other M accomplished that task of giving me an engaging Metroid experience in a way that I didn't think was possible. No, I'm not saying everything was perfect, but at the end of the day, it was a solid, enjoyable experience that I wouldn't mind being able to have another offering of in the concept that they had it because they now have the experience of doing a Metroid game like that, and another game like that can be even better because they know what buttons to press and how to press them, and to still give the same quality sense of exploration and finding every single item in the game and epic boss battles that put me at the edge of my seat and challenge that keeps me on my toes.

Yes, I had questions, but those are the types of questions that I could also ask when I see a major story line development out of World of Warcraft or Walking Dead or Homeland. I did have questions, but in a way that makes me say "I want to see what happens next?" I want to see what they have planned. I'm not saying "how dare you not explain everything?". I'm instead asking what do they have planned next for the characters in the story? Where can the story take us from there? This, to me, is the mark of a good story in a good series. Instant gratification is not always a good thing, and why some people wanted for every single little detail about what happened in the story of Other M to be spoon fed to them in one shot is baffling to me. Sorry if that seems to be harsh (I don't mean it so), but to me, the problems seemed to stem more along the lines of being nitpicky and wanting the instant, one-shot gratification rather than wanting an engaging plot and story line that they don't mind being hung from a cliff by.

#63 Posted by Tireyo (6451 posts) -

You have interesting ideas. ^_^ I enjoyed reading what you and even the others here had to write.

#64 Edited by Nettacki (1320 posts) -

@darkpower: I'd like to think that the people who dislike the game consist of more than just people who nitpick for the sake of nitpicking or want instant, one-shot gratification. Many of them were like you: unwilling to look at the game with a critical eye, willing to take it on its own merits, wanting to be immersed into the world and story while also not really minding cliffhangers if it's done okay. But somewhere along the way, something in the game (a certain plot element not being properly resolved, a gameplay element/sequence that brings the entire game into a halt, an important event rubbing someone the wrong way from a storytelling standpoint, how a beloved character is portrayed, the mere existence of story-heavy FMV cutscenes that interrupt gameplay on a regular basis) took them out of that immersion and made it difficult to ignore its flaws, thus souring the entire experience in some way. Therefore, you can't really blame a person that much if they dislike the game on its own merits and it turns out that they want exactly what you want, but felt they didn't get it anyway. From where I'm standing, your viewpoint of the people that dislike the game mostly being nitpickers who want instant gratification strikes me as confoundingly close-minded, because those that dislike it for the story are NOT angry because of unanswered questions or anything to do with being too nitpicky.

#65 Posted by darkpower (96 posts) -

@nettacki said:

@darkpower: I'd like to think that the people who dislike the game consist of more than just people who nitpick for the sake of nitpicking or want instant, one-shot gratification. Many of them were like you: unwilling to look at the game with a critical eye, willing to take it on its own merits, wanting to be immersed into the world and story while also not really minding cliffhangers if it's done okay. But somewhere along the way, something in the game (a certain plot element not being properly resolved, a gameplay element/sequence that brings the entire game into a halt, an important event rubbing someone the wrong way from a storytelling standpoint, how a beloved character is portrayed, the mere existence of story-heavy FMV cutscenes that interrupt gameplay on a regular basis) took them out of that immersion and made it difficult to ignore its flaws, thus souring the entire experience in some way. Therefore, you can't really blame a person that much if they dislike the game on its own merits and it turns out that they want exactly what you want, but felt they didn't get it anyway. From where I'm standing, your viewpoint of the people that dislike the game mostly being nitpickers who want instant gratification strikes me as confoundingly close-minded, because those that dislike it for the story are NOT angry because of unanswered questions or anything to do with being too nitpicky.

You're, however, saying that because I highlighted a specific group of critics, i am including ALL critics in my calling out of the select few. Meanwhile, you're saying that those that DO like it must not have seen what you've seen. You're doing to one side what you're claiming I'm doing to the other side, which it's pretty clear that I'm not doing, and you're, without a shred of doubt, doing what you're only claiming that I'm doing, which you don't have real proof that I'm doing that.

But seeing as how you listed every single fault that YOU had with the game (remembering that they are just what YOU thought was bad about it, and that it doesn't mean that others had issues with what you pointed out were problems), let's go over them:

CERTAIN PLOT ELEMENT: Which one are you referring to, since you've made it singular?
GAMEPLAY ELEMENT/SEQUENCE: Again, which one? And how did it bring everything to a halt?
IMPORTANT EVENT: Apparently it rubbed YOU the wrong way, whatever it was. Again, would love to know what it is. And notice how the three things are basically the same thing. You just worded things differently so you had a bigger list, unless you see a difference that I don't see.
HOW A CHARACTER IS PORTRAYED: Okay, let's ask you how you think Samus SHOULD be portrayed so she is a believable, likeable, connectable character? Let me know how you would make her into, since I'm pretty certain that it's Samus you're referring to! And how do you know that whatever you thought she should be portrayed is how it's supposed to be?
FMV PRESENCE: How is it any more "gameplay interrupting" and "immersion breaking" than, say, MGS? Do you think that those have no place in a Metroid game? Why not?

Now, please inform me how any of those would break immersion even with perfect execution of having them in there?

And also, how did me saying that the game was too short and easy get lost in you saying that I wasn't somehow looking at it through a "critical eye"? More to the point, you're saying people weren't being nitpickey, yet you're, in a way, accusing me of NOT being nitpickey? Why should I have to bring a critical eye to anything that I just want to enjoy? Why do I have to go through a game trying to find whatever little fault the game might have? Like I said, I think I speak for many gamers on this site when I say that we all want an enjoyable experience, regardless of where that comes from, and for me, OM did just that. Why I have to see it the way you do when me and others that liked the game don't share that opinion (which no one claimed they had to share our opinions, which is more than what I can say for what you just did).

#66 Edited by Nettacki (1320 posts) -

@darkpower said:

But seeing as how you listed every single fault that YOU had with the game (remembering that they are just what YOU thought was bad about it, and that it doesn't mean that others had issues with what you pointed out were problems), let's go over them:

CERTAIN PLOT ELEMENT: Which one are you referring to, since you've made it singular?

GAMEPLAY ELEMENT/SEQUENCE: Again, which one? And how did it bring everything to a halt?

IMPORTANT EVENT: Apparently it rubbed YOU the wrong way, whatever it was. Again, would love to know what it is. And notice how the three things are basically the same thing. You just worded things differently so you had a bigger list, unless you see a difference that I don't see.

This is a long post, so I can only respond to certain things ATM. I'll fill in the rest later.

Plot Element: There's a lot I can point out, but one that immediately comes to mind is the authorization thing. It sort of made sense at first when it was something like the Power Bomb (a weapon that might cause collateral damage), but it started to make less and less sense as time went on once it was extended to things that don't actually harm anyone (like the Grapple Beam and especially the Varia Suit during the "running through the lava area" sequence). The way it worked made for a poorly executed in-story justification for having Samus reclaim access to all her abilities without having her lose all her abilities and try to regain them again.

Gameplay Element/Sequence: The moments that I refer to are the pixel hunt segments where you have to scan for some little detail in the environment in First Person mode in order to progress through the level. Several of these exist, and they tend to grind the entire experience down to a halt for many people because you aren't given any real hint as to what you're supposed to be looking for until you come across it through aimless wandering. This is especially frustrating when the clue is the same color as the floor it's on or otherwise blends within the environment in some way.

Important Event: By this, I mean an event that happens within the story itself. In this case, I point to the "running through the lava without authorizing the Varia Suit" sequence, Samus's breakdown in front of Ridley, and Adam shooting Samus in the back to prevent her from entering Sector Zero near the end of the game.

The first one bothered people greatly because she seemingly ran into a dangerous area without activating the component in her suit that can shield her from the heat purely because Adam didn't authorize it, which makes her come off as a naive fool who can't make independent decisions to save herself when worst come to worst.

The second one bothered people because she never showed this much fear towards Ridley in previous games, the part of her past that shows why she fears him so much has never been shown, the event itself was placed a little too late in the timeline for it to be acceptable, and it went a little too far in showing her vulnerability by having her stand there for far too long while Ridley's looking intimidating, all while her suit's shutting down because she's losing focus. Additionally, the explanation that it's supposed to be a depiction of PTSD falls flat for them because to them, it's the script's equivalent to magic fairy dust that can be used to explain why a hero has breakdowns at convenient moments without actually putting effort into setting up the conditions for said breakdown. Overall, they felt that this scene was poorly executed to the point where Samus's character ended up being heavily damaged enough for some fans to want to excise this game from the continuity.

The third one really bothered people because it was a contrived way to get Adam his heroic sacrifice moment and it made Adam look like a colossal asshole by taking her down like that without negotiating first and leaving her incapacitated for over 10 seconds while in very dangerous territory. This has the end effect of making Adam look reckless for a guy who's supposed to be a tactical genius with a military mind, as well as making Samus look even weaker than before by showing that she can be taken down with a single bullet in the plot while she has taken far more in-game and was still standing.

I'll fill in the rest tomorrow. There's a lot for me to go through that can't be sufficiently followed upon in my sleep-deprived state.

#67 Posted by Nettacki (1320 posts) -

You're, however, saying that because I highlighted a specific group of critics, i am including ALL critics in my calling out of the select few. Meanwhile, you're saying that those that DO like it must not have seen what you've seen. You're doing to one side what you're claiming I'm doing to the other side, which it's pretty clear that I'm not doing, and you're, without a shred of doubt, doing what you're only claiming that I'm doing, which you don't have real proof that I'm doing that.


HOW A CHARACTER IS PORTRAYED: Okay, let's ask you how you think Samus SHOULD be portrayed so she is a believable, likeable, connectable character? Let me know how you would make her into, since I'm pretty certain that it's Samus you're referring to! And how do you know that whatever you thought she should be portrayed is how it's supposed to be?

FMV PRESENCE: How is it any more "gameplay interrupting" and "immersion breaking" than, say, MGS? Do you think that those have no place in a Metroid game? Why not?

Now, please inform me how any of those would break immersion even with perfect execution of having them in there?

And also, how did me saying that the game was too short and easy get lost in you saying that I wasn't somehow looking at it through a "critical eye"? More to the point, you're saying people weren't being nitpickey, yet you're, in a way, accusing me of NOT being nitpickey? Why should I have to bring a critical eye to anything that I just want to enjoy? Why do I have to go through a game trying to find whatever little fault the game might have? Like I said, I think I speak for many gamers on this site when I say that we all want an enjoyable experience, regardless of where that comes from, and for me, OM did just that. Why I have to see it the way you do when me and others that liked the game don't share that opinion (which no one claimed they had to share our opinions, which is more than what I can say for what you just did).

Okay, here's the rest of my response.

But first, let me say this: About you pointing out a specific group of critics and me taking it as you meaning all the critics, I'll admit that's probably a misunderstanding in my part, and I'm sorry for taking it that way. But my point still stands: the critics looking for instant gratification are either nonexistent or exist in a very small number compared to the critics looking for much more than that and still feeling they didn't get it.

Also, I think you straight up saying that people like Sinusoidal refuse to "get the point" (when it's clear he/she does but still disagrees with it) and saying things like "If I wanted a 2-dimensional main protagonist, I'd go play Halo!" counts as you insisting that people who don't like it aren't seeing what you're seeing. It's clear that Sinusoidal wants (or at least likes) a 3-dimensional protagonist as much as you do, but didn't really see it in Other M Samus due to various factors within the game itself. At least, not in a well-executed form.

Anyway, moving on to the other points:

How a character is portrayed: Yes, I'm referring to Samus here. I believe Samus should be portrayed with a better balance between her strengths and weaknesses than what was shown in Other M. I felt that the game spent too much time focusing on her softer side and her issues and not enough time balancing it out with signs that she's still a strong, competent, independent bounty hunter whose resume of accomplishments run wide and deep and still gets the job done. She should have been the one to resolve at least one or two of the subplots in the game instead of some random side characters (have her actually unmask the Deleter and deal with him accordingly, or have her destroy Ridley once more rather than have him get killed offscreen by some other creature in a cutscene), especially since at least one of those subplots has had a lot of focus in the first half or so of the game. Instead of figuratively depicting her as a small, frail child when faced with the awe-inspiring terror of Ridley, they should have depicted her in some other way that didn't come off as trying too hard to make an emotional impact on the player while at the same time going against previous depictions of her character as one who unflinchingly faces adversity no matter how bad it gets for her. Instead of blindly following orders to the point of risking her own life for no apparent reason (like in the lava area), she should have taken control of her own powers and authorized the needed ability on her own for practicality's sake. I could go on, but the point is that it's okay to show her softer side, just not in a way that devalues her strengths and accomplishments as a character.

FMV Presence: I think you're asking the wrong question. Whether it's as bad in interrupting gameplay and breaking immersion as MGS doesn't matter. The fact that it does both, especially for a series praised for its minimalistic storytelling and great atmosphere that immerses the player into it all on its own, makes it bad and mostly unfitting, especially if there's almost 2 hours of the stuff where the player has no real control over what's happening. Furthermore, the cutscenes get dragged down most of the time by the dull monotone of Samus who keeps on stating the obvious and saying a lot of things while revealing very little at the same time (like of all this time she spent talking about herself and Adam, why didn't she spend even a minute talking about her Chozo upbringing or show a flashback of Ridley slaughtering her family or whatever the reason is for her to freeze up?). Knowing this, I won't say that cutscenes DON'T have any place in a Metroid game, but rather that they'd only really have a place if there were a lot less of them and were better written and paced.But really, even if the FMVs were well written and executed, if there's too many of them and none of them are skippable, people will feel like they're forced to watch something that they'd rather have expressed through gameplay so as to keep them in the action to some degree.

Alright, now that that's done, let's move on to your last point. You said yourself that you weren't looking at the game with a critical eye "unlike some people," which is why I made a comment saying that there are people like you who did the same thing but even so, something still bugged them. I never said nor intended to imply that you had to bring a critical eye to anything that you just want to enjoy. I meant to say that even if you don't go in looking to find faults in the game and only want to be entertained, it's still possible for a lot of people to be bothered by something in the game that hampers their enjoyment. The possible flaws I and others mentioned might count as those "somethings." You don't have to be out looking for flaws in order to find one and subsequently become bothered by one.

You're right, we do all (or at least most of us) want an enjoyable experience no matter where it comes from. If you find it enjoyable, fine by me. I just hope you understand at this point that the ones who are only looking for an enjoyable experience and didn't get it is a much larger group than you may think, and if someone doesn't agree with something you said, that doesn't mean they didn't "get the point." That just means they disagree with you.

#68 Posted by darkpower (96 posts) -

Okay, let me respond to your points.

Plot Element: Yeah, this could've been handled better, but I think they painted themselves into a corner here. They didn't want people sequence breaking, but they didn't know how to do it to where it made sense in the story they wanted to tell. Hence what we got. This is a reason why I suggest that they go more along the lines of the experience system to where you can just make what you have more powerful while finding new weapons that you can use (how many more times are we going to have to reacquire the morph ball before Samus learns to put tethers on her stuff?). But you could've also said that Adam wanted full control over his mission and crew, and didn't want to suffer repercussions of a rogue member of his team (and Samus wasn't exactly supposed to be there to begin with, according to the GF. Why?). I'll get to that "Hell run" in a sec.

But then again, we can also say that it was meant to be mocked at some point, given that Samus shows that she tires of needing to be told, too (did anyone hear Adam authorize the Space Jump before she said "any objections, Adam?" and activated it on her own merit? Maybe that was supposed to tug at your nerves like the mental hospital stuff from Homeland was supposed to make us want to punch the television).

Gameplay Element/Sequence: Yeah, many didn't like the pixel hunts. I'll give you that, but there wasn't too many of these for me to say that they broke the game for me. Again, this game seemed to have used everything the Wii could give to it. It showed through the FMV artifacting (it was minimal, but you could tell that it was there). Maybe if they had better hardware, they could've made those easier because they would've had a better color palette to work with. Not saying they should be there, but if they wanted them, they would have a better chance of making them so you didn't want to go kill yourself over them. I see your point, but it wasn't a deal breaker for me.

Important Event: Going in order of your mentions of them, the "Hell Run" (what you described) is actually referenced in Metroid Fusion. At one point in that game, the AI actually asks Samus if she would follow an order from Adam that would force her to go to a dangerous place, seemly to her death. Her response is one of her understanding of why he gave some rather questionable orders. It might be something that is worth exploring in universe: was she TOO loyal at times, and would her blind loyalty lead to what happened on both the Bottle Ship and in the Fusion game (forget the name of the station she was exploring in Fusion). It might actually be a very important plot device, but not in the way you might be thinking. But in order for that scene in Fusion to make sense (the AI talks as though an event of that type actually happened that it's aware of), the point in which she DOES such a thing must happen. Hence, the "Hell Run".

Secondly, Ridley. Oh, GOD, have we written books about this or what? Here's the thing: you go into a place where you meet your old friends and old memories resurface where they haven't before. You never had to worry about your past in battle because of the "combat high" that MGS coined (you're adrenaline is so high that you cannot really think of anything else other than your job, and you don't care as to the why, how, who, etc.). She might've been able to shield that out. Not sure how to describe how this might feel, but think of it like someone opening up an old scar you had on your body, then throwing an entire pound of salt directly onto the wound and having every last grain enter it before cutting open a brand new wound. That's probably how it felt to her in the story. Suddenly, she has no combat high because she's got all these thoughts that she can't seem to block running through her head. The other theory is that she's always had a problem facing Ridley at first, and because of technical limitations, we don't see the problems she's had (if she beat Ridley before on the first Metroid, then why couldn't she when Ridley kidnaps the baby Metroid in Super Metroid?). We can't factor in the Prime series because of the notion that it's not in the official canon. Plus, the back story was only seen right after the release of Zero Mission. It's hard to introduce a new story line element into an interquel, but it is possible. We could ask these questions in universe, though, and another game could give these answers (did you notice that Adam was somewhat puzzled by her sudden lock up, too? The question might've been by design as we aren't supposed to know "why now" just yet).

As for Sector Zero, what would you do if you saw someone you cared for going to sacrifice themselves when they had too much to still live for, and yet you had the capacity to stop them (even when it's a little violent in nature) and the will to give the ultimate sacrifice yourself? How would you stop them from making a grave mistake? I sure as hell wouldn't hesitate to incapacitate them if I knew they were being foolish. If Adam DIDN'T stop Samus, you think she would have sacrificed herself? Might've not made sense to those that never had to make those decisions, which is why none of us are in the military or have ever been in an outfit where we would have to make such a choice (at least not that I'm aware of, so apologies if someone who's reading this has served).

How a character is portrayed: It's her softer side that makes her hard edge side more believable. We know what she fights for, and why she fights. We know that she's not just a cold hearted bitch, but rather a normal person that's been through a lot, and we see that she is strong because she is able to pull herself together despite her flaws that we no doubt see. I've already explained the authorization thing above, so I won't cover that again. We've already seen that she is tough and independent. We've established that, but in this game, we establish that she has flaws: she has a past that she tried to not remind herself of, she might be too willing to compromise at times, and she might not think all her decisions through before acting on them Every character needs to have some flaws to make them believable. We know of her strengths, but her flaws were left undiscovered. This does a lot of good for the character because we can now appreciate her strengths even more if we know she can handle herself even with the flaws, and it makes us connect that much more.

FMV Presence: If you played Fusion and Zero Mission, it was pretty obvious that we were headed towards a more story driven narrative and delving into her back story a bit more, so it's not like we've never had those in Metroid games before, just not in the scale that Other M had due to it being on what was obviously a much more powerful system. In Zero Mission, we do see a good bit about her Chozo upbringing. Even though I said that the events of Prime might not be official canon, the first game does bring up a lot of how the Chozo's raised her. So why do we have to repeat what has already been told? Like I said before about the "monotones", she only does this whenever she narrates the story in past tense, which is common in many mediums that use this technique. It would be the exception to the rule if she wasn't "monotone". In fact, you could argue that her depression about the events leads her to not be able to show any other emotions. Or that, because she is going to present this to a superior or to a museum or something, that she needs to be as professional as possible when describing the events (think of it as a captain's log in Star Trek: you never hear fluctuating tones in those, do you?).

Like I said before, the entire game felt like it was in rush mode, and it ended too quickly for me. I wish it was longer with them having more time to explain things better, but at the same time, I would rather leave me wanting for them to supply the answers in an even bigger and better sequel. I don't expect them to give me all the answers in one episode of Walking Dead or Homeland. That would be just silly and would not give a reason to have another episode, or to keep viewers guessing, or to make them want to know more. We continue to talk about Other M's plot points one way or another in a manner that tells us we care enough about the plot. That should tell you something about how we took it. However, I think the FMVs by themselves were fine in telling the story and trying something new, which is what we do want storied franchises to do. There are ways to have your cake and eat it too here, and I think my ideas could suffice for some very interesting experiences that could satisfy both sides of the coin here. You were basically calling it an interactive movie, which is the main criticism MGS games tend to have. But it's that same aspect that makes MGS such a great game to play. The FMVs were not out of place for the Metroid games. I was prepared for them and didn't mind them any.

As for critical eyes, I think you might be thinking that I meant everyone. I meant those that choose to go crazy about anyone that likes the game and trolls them or says something that might get them banned from normal forums (i.e.: those comments that Anita Sarkeesian seems to remind us once a week that she received). My gripe there is directed at those that seem to only act immature towards anyone that would disagree with them (this IS the internet, after all). I did find flaws, as I pointed out numerous times, but they were never game breaking to me, and I was able to overlook the flaws to get a mostly enjoyable experience that I hope the devs can expand on and make that sort of experience an even better one.

#69 Posted by Nettacki (1320 posts) -

@darkpower: well I guess in the end I can't fault you that much for thinking that way about the game. I just hope you're able to understand a bit more through my long winded arguments (and those of others) as to why many people dislike Other M more than like it, and it's not necessarily because they want Samus to be an emotionless robot or not show her sensitive side. If you can overlook a game's flaws enough to somehow find something worthwhile, then that's your prerogative. However, I've met some people who liked the game as much as you did, but once they looked at it again they suddenly hate it because its flaws have overtaken everything that was supposedly good about it. Point is: you may like it now, but someday you'll look at it again and wonder if it really was worthwhile after all. Or you'll just continue liking it and move on, but what do I know?