Rez said:
You're trying to form a rule or pattern of behaviour from fans of a series when there clearly isn't one. Fans want quality. Resident Evil 4 wasn't Resident Evil or REmake in most any respect. It was just a damn good game and a significant departure from the series norm.
It's odd that you'd mention this is regard to Metroid, given the almost universal praise of Metroid Prime and its own dramatic departure from the play-style of any of the Metroid games preceding it. We were sure ready for something a bit different then, and we sure are now.
Risk for risk's sake doesn't deserve a pat on the back. That's like giving a kid a ribbon for participating in the long jump. Yeah, he face-planted, but at least he gave it a shot, right? Fans want quality. If Metroid: Other M played like Super Mario Galaxy with missile upgrades, you can bet your ass we'd be along for that ride.
Your argument hinges on the idea that Other M would actually be a super-memorable, amazing game if it was called Super Space Bottle Ship: Not Related to Metroid, but under all the window-dressing it's just another forgettable B-tier action game.
This is a simplification with a giant excluded middle. My argument does not "hinge" on this game being the super amazing game of the forever because a lot of fans are driving it into the ground far more than it actually deserves.
You're leaving out what I've been saying every time I mention Metroid Prime:
Metroid Prime replicates the bullet points of Super Metroid in 3D as precisely as possible. Go look at what the average fan says about it; I have seen a billion remarks:
"Metroid Prime does the impossible! It feels just like I'm playing Super Metroid in 3D!"
"If only it had the screw attack, so the platforming could be just like Super Metroid, it'd be perfect!"
Regardless of Prime's quality, there is large segment of Metroid fans who when asked, loudly insist what makes it good is that it's Just Like Super Metroid. Echos and Corruption are held in increasing disregard, because they are "crappier". The reasons cited is that they "fail at getting it right". This failure usually seems pinned on the fact that they do things that Super Metroid doesn't do in its structure and game design.
Interestingly, Prime fans and people who started playing the Prime series first, look at it differently on average. They are much more forgiving of the Prime series deviating from the /concepts/ and themes in Super Metroid and quite a few of them - including some on this forum - think Corruption is the best game in the series. (Bonus correlation: I saw one person who likes Corruption best say Other M is awesome by him.)
When the default attack on games like this happened earlier in the thread - this game would be just a b-tier mediocre title if it wasn't Metroid themed - I stopped and actually considered that. For one, I don't think that's true. I tried to imagine it as a new IP and found that the core game play and design would be a lot of fun and very good, in my eye. And of course, I think that's another fallacy that gets thrown around by gamers a lot: that the "name" or the IP is just being used to make a bad game seem good.
People play games /for/ content and for characters and themes, as well as gameplay. It's like the popular thing to say about Smash Bros. when you hate it: "this is just a sucky party game full of Nintendo fan service for wanky fanboys!" Well shucks; that's why people are attracted to a game in the first place. The game play is a mechanism that connects them to the content of the game
Again, parallel time: the "Smash Bros." argument is popular right now to use against Other M: "It just seems better to you because it's Metroid!" Well duh. Why wouldn't it be better when the already fun gameplay is used to present an appealing, rich universe and great protagonist? People using this accusation should be made to play Super Cube-Roid, a Super Metroid clone that has all the awesome gameplay, presented in the forms of blank cubes with no personality whatsoever on blank grey backgrounds with no detail or theme. I bet they'd get real far before being bored to tears no matter how good the concept of the gameplay was. No, this classic attack strategy is a big red herring.
The wider point though, is that I am not speaking about the GAF audience when I say "fans want the same thing, dressed up different." I'm including gamers as a whole; you don't have to look far to find rich evidence that people are upset by real change; and that in the process of being upset, they won't get the new, or the different, a fair chance. Hell, I've seen plenty of people say that a hated game seems entirely different when they go back to it later; in some cases, that ended up being because they couldn't accept it at first due to their built-up expectations clashing too harshly. Everything about the experience was "wrong" and unfun. Instant foul taste in mouth.
In point of fact, I think the reverse of the common argument used to slag off Other M is true: if it was a well-designed, interesting new IP with the same gameplay, I think people would be all over it and probably going in the other direction: calling it a great, promising new action adventure title and a refreshing "hardcore" game for the Wii, that even uses a charming new gimmick only the Wii could pull off, what with all that pointing at the screen to look around business.
Hell,
How many times has a fan of a series dissmissed a new entry by saying "if it was a different game, and not part of <my favorite series> it'd be a lot better. But it doesn't deserve to be in <my favorite sacred series>." Geeze, I am not sure anyone who's dealt with gamers for any length of time on the Internet could say they ain't seen that one a million times with a straight face.
This business about fans is just human nature. It takes effort and the right mindset for someone to approach something without their expectations warping or souring the experience. I have fond memories of epic Marvel vs Capcom 3 flamewars spawned by the news it /might just maybe/ use a different button configuration compared to Marvel Vs Capcom 2 - before anyone had seen a screenshot of the game, seen it played, or even knew a single thing about the game system at all. Yeah, fans want quality - but the qualifier is that they want /the right kind/ of quality. Often, this means the same kind they already know.
Oh lol, tl;dr. I will just say that point I consider in this when I first saw the reveal of Other M, Team Ninja logo, and the first screens of the game, I could tell it was going to be similar to other Metroid takes but very different in some ways, and even a few fundamentals. Funny enough, my earlier predictions on what the game would turn out to be ended up being oddly accurate. I was interested by those changes; it'd be something new for Metroid, and by those lights, I guess I am the "other kind" of fan; I did want to see the different, but also new what "different" could actually mean. I also predicted pretty much the entire negative reaction then, on the spot: as I told a friend, this game is going to be rejected by a significant number of the fanbase, and is probably going to be called a generic action game; not a "real" Metroid game. Just as Metroid Prime was dismissed by a smaller, but still determined number of fans for not being a real Metroid game and just being a generic FPS.