It's like hearing that something bad happened fifty years ago, but because it's not widespread knowledge, you believe it never happened. However, the moment the original person comes out and actually continues on in the same trend of that fifty-year-old event, it's no longer an unknown that the event happened, and you kinda have to accept that. For better or for worse.
I don't think this quite works. It's equating a historical event that happened but which one might not have sources to believe -- or which one might refuse to believe --, but which objectively occurred regardless, with a fictional account that isn't readily available to people and which, though probably considered with some level of canonicity, could be deemed non-canon at any time by the powers-that-be.
Regardless, it shouldn't be required for key scenes to make sense.
I mean, at this point, with what we see in Metroid Dread, the manga kinda has to be considered canon. And Sakamoto clearly thinks it's canon as well, because he wouldn't have referenced it otherwise.
That said, certain elements, as referenced, are clearly considered canonical. That doesn't make the use and requirement good, but I don't think that's necessarily your argument anyway.
Not once had I claimed the PTSD scene was a good scene. All I was claiming was that it works based on what we know of the character from all available sources, as well as what we know of PTSD itself.
So I have nothing against Samus possibly having PTSD; she's gone through a lot. The scene itself, in my opinion, was not handled well. And if you don't have knowledge of the manga, possible readings become limited to some less-than-preferable themes and imagery.
I've said it before, but Other M should have leaned more into those backstory elements, brought them into the game itself, used them for its themes and story. If the game is meant to delve into Samus as a character and who she actually is, all that is important toward the goal. These important elements of the manga should have been present, and different parts would have played into themes touched upon in the game we did get. And, well, if you want to have more focus on story in the games, you need to include the foundations upon which you're building.
We could have Ridley, the demon in Samus' life, she can't get rid of, he who killed and devoured her parents before her eyes and is an ever-present reminder, always returning to haunt her and bring this terror back.
We have Adam, who seems to be a father figure in some way, contrasted with the Chozo, who saved and raised Samus, gave her some of their own DNA, but who are never mentioned here for whatever reason despite utility in working through why Samus is who she is and how Adam actually fits into that.
All these creatures she's killed, brought back, just refusing to stay dead. And then Ridley, her own personal demon, a god of Death himself, returns. But this isn't delved into. Instead we have an allusion to a panel of a manga, which might contextualize some elements for individuals who know the reference, but which lends itself to unflattering interpretations for everyone else, and which just wasn't used well as a whole.
clickyesifno said:
Not to mention, a lot of the complaints with the game can be reasoned away with logic. Samus' "mopey," unemotional monologues? Written in the past tense, and clearly meant to be as a debrief, which we can assume she would regularly attend to, being an agent of the Galactic Federation. Note she takes that same unemotional tone, as an individual would do their best to avoid getting emotional during professional moments. But in the present moment, she clearly shows emotion, being calm and soothing around MB and Madeline, or getting worked up about thebmetroid breeding program.
So you could say this, and it makes a certain amount of sense, but then it goes into elements of the story structure which are weak. One thing is the overt focus on the Deleter, which is just dropped. One could say that the plot shifted and Samus had other things to worry about, but in a debriefing, one might expect she'd come to her conclusion on the Deleter's identity at least once she reaches the point anyone paying attention can put it together. It would be a big thing to leave out of a debriefing (and would, really probably state this much earlier and highlight clues and evidence).
Which, really, just points to the writing not being a highlight, which doesn't seem to be a position you take issue with.
clickyesifno said:
We know the authorization system for items was thought up as a gameplay mechanic, which meshed rather poorly into the story, but the system itself makes sense when you take into account what Samus can do. Should that system have bothered with auxiliary suit systems (i.e. varia feature, space jump, etc.)? Absolutely not. But again, gameplay reasons.
It comes across as something that was brought forth because of the story in order to address a gameplay mechanic, but which then alters the game structure in a way people didn't like. Different features, such as the varia suit, could have been left active and just not mentioned, for instance. Maybe some features go through the authorization system, but Samus manages to find other powerups she can assimilate, which allow her to circumvent obstacles before Adam's authorizations would have allowed her to go the normal way or through other pathways (and the authorizations still open up more areas, too).
Leave some systems active (especially the Varia suit, which doesn't need to be mentioned at all), find some powerups to assimilate that get around aspects of the authorizations, and have authorizations still have some meaning but be more logically incorporated: together, I think these would have drawn much less ire.
clickyesifno said:
tl;dr Bad story, okay game, lot of work put in, easily explained mish mash of a shit load of different problems, stemming from real world expert knowledge on similar subjects.
So, yeah. Bad story that doesn't really add anything (even things it would benefit from), game with various elements to enjoy and a control scheme that might actually have potential, certainly a lot of work put into it and anybody who says otherwise doesn't know game development, load of different problems that could have been avoided.
I think our overall takeaways are pretty similar, with the major difference being how willing we are to explain away or partition away the problems.
