Rez said:
That's fair, Alk. My post wasn't even in direct relation to Metroid. It wasn't so much METROID SHOULD BE THIS so much as it was 'this aspect of game design is, in today's industry, best told in this way'.
Whether or not that's what you want from Metroid or whether it's all Metroid can be is totally up for debate.
In terms of story presentation, I thought both Prime and in particular Super did a fantastic job with minimalist story-telling. The former was told through muted cutscenes, environmental detail and chozo/pirate entries, the latter through set pieces in which gameplay was never broken up. Both slightly different in execution but almost identical in result.
When introducing Other M, I think this is no doubt where the greatest division occurs between the Metroid fanbase. Super had the initial monologue, but Fusion was the first game to really break up gameplay with extended cutscenes and dialogue. Honestly, though, is Fusion a poorer game because of its cutscenes? I would actually suggest the opposite. This is not to suggest Fusion is a better game, but my issues with it were being restricted to certain sections and an overall design that didn't flow or connect as well as Super. What Fusion did do was show that the series could handle - perhaps even benefit - from a more cinematic approach, one that's not neccersarily better than the minimalist approach but still one that breaks new ground and tries something different. Successfully.
Other M is very much in the Fusion mould, except being on a home console allows a much deeper and more intricate cinematic presentation. I have little doubt that Fusion would have received a similar amount of cutscenes had it been on a home console. This is a clear ambition of Sakamoto and if Fusion is any indication, the series can absolutely handle this kind of approach. I suppose that's what brings up the question - if Fusion proved that the series does not always require minimalist story-telling, then how is the approach of Return of Samus/Super/Prime more 'Metroid' than that of Fusion and Other M? Is it because the series was founded upon minimalist values? That is definitely a credible viewpoint, but it's important to remember that a series shouldn't remain stagnant. Evolution is good, but it must be correct evolution.
I think we have to appreciate that Fusion took a risk - a big risk - and showed that it can work. It was clever, it was interesting and it was delivered well. Other M is amplifying this approach, in a sense being a more ambitious Fusion. Fusion showed that this approach to storytelling can work, but as always, it comes down to execution. If Other M's story is poor, it's not because it's not representative of Metroid. Fusion proved that Metroid can benefit from a cinematic approach, just in the same way that Metroid can benefit from a minimalist approach. It will only be because the execution is poor. And if it is, I still think the series should continue with the foundations of Fusion and Other M. I think Metroid can be home to both approaches.