A Response to Extra Credits "Learning from Other M."

[funguy2121]

We call Other: M exploitative, but we forget how we first found out Samus was a woman in Metroid: She did a little strip-tease for us at the end of the game by taking off her armor and showing us her leotard.

If you were fast enough it became a bikini.

That is all.

...and feminists used to celebrate the bikini.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

Fair warning folks, this is gonna get long.

I've been thinking about all this Other:M Business for awhile now, and today's Extra Credits episode really re-kindled a lot of those thoughts, mainly the ideas of characterization. I've heard this from just about every corner of the Internet, how everything Other: M did was contrary to what we know about Samus. I contest this: It's contrary to everything we THOUGHT we knew about Samus.

My first counterpoint is that we had something to work with when it came to characterizing Samus. When something attempts to approach the issue directly rather than giving us hints and notions that is radically different from what we think we know the natural response is revulsion. This isn't the Samus we know, even if we never really knew her. It is some shambling monotonic impostor. That this is the actual Samus is irrelevant; that it is radically different from the Samus we know is the important bit.

I'm approach this from a different angle then most, though. I don't think Samus was a complete Tabula Rasa, but rather I think we were given hints and surface clues to who Samus is, and we supplied our own assumptions as to her motives and emotions. I'm going to breakdown a few key elements of discontent from the game, the first being Samus's reaction to Ridley.

Many have complained about how Samus freaks out and becomes helpless in the presence of Ridley at his return. I think this deserves some context though: Ridley murdered her entire planet. Yes, I realize she's killed him a dozen times by now, and I think that's the point: She's killed him in the original game, and he had to come back as a robot for most of his tenure through the other games. But now? Here he is, fully-formed and back to normal, as if nothing happened. She accomplished nothing. The monster that she's killed a thousand and one times is not the slightest bit phased by her attempts, no matter what she does. To me, that would be-speak a certain inevitability: Your enemy always returns, no matter how many times you kill him. Someday, he will kill you. This is getting later in the series, right after Samus's encounters with Dark Samus, whom she narrowly defeats, and further back Mother Brain, whom she only defeated because of help from something she was supposed to be trying to kill. Samus lives in a world where everything that's against her is inherently stronger than she is, but she perseveres in the knowledge that she's always toppled her greatest foe, that she always leaves him with scars to pay for everything he did. But when Ridley appears in Other: M, the game has changed. He is as good as new, maybe better, and that's terrifying to her.

While your general argument here has merit consider her history. Samus has unflinchingly faced unimaginable horrors. She has helped eradicate species, she has waged a brutal war against space pirates and she has long faced impossible odds without hesitation or complaint. That such a life might take a psychological toll is indeed plausible. The problem is that this toll is represented in a way that is utterly alien to how she normally acts. It is her displayed response, not the cause that is out of place. She might respond to such trauma by becoming an introverted sociopath in the long term (which isn't a stretch) but in the moment she had three responses. She could fight, she could flee or she could give up. The first is what she does best and the second is something she's been known to do more than once. But never once has she just given up. When the chips are down and she's backed into a corner, Samus has always demonstrated that she will fight to the bitter end. More than once she's face foes she had no business besting and she willingly faced them knowing the long odds. Samus is a character that never knows when to quit and always has a card to play. That she would cash out under any circumstance is so far removed from this pattern of behavior that, rather than demonstrating a flaw in her character it serves only to alienate us from the character. The Samus I know might freeze for a moment. She might head for the hills to reassess the situation. But she would never just lay down and accept death.

I don't think it would be terribly remiss to say that Samus has some form of PTSD, considering everything that happened to her. As someone who used to suffer from several psychological disorders including Multiple Personality Disorder, I can personally attest that the only thing more terrifying than the condition itself is the thought of relapsing into it. Whenever I get into a particularly stressful situation and I hear anything that even remotely sounds like a voice that shouldn't be there, I panic. I can barely breathe, and I can't see straight, because the prospect of going back to that hell-hole I used to call my psyche is that scary to me, and I only had a few years of sleep deprivation to blame for it. In Samus's case, she has genocide and years of fighting to be afraid about, and before her is living proof that everything she has done is a waste of time. If for even a second she believed that that made her helpless, that would be enough to trigger the fear of relapse, which in turn would only spike the chance of relapse higher. Thus from a natural, human perspective, everything we see in her encounter with Ridley is perfectly understandable.

As I said, that such a scenario would draw a notable response is understandable. That it would draw a response so foreign to everything we have ever known about her is the problem. That her response is reasonable is less relevant than the fact that her response is alien to what we know about her. It is a sudden slap that says this isn't the Samus I know but someone entirely different.

But maybe it is how this encounter ends that rubs people the wrong way, with the much hated character Adam coming out to save her, implying that the "little girl" needs a "big, strong man" to save her. Specifically, everyone hates that it's THAT big, strong man who saves her, because he's pretty much a douche. To that, I would agree whole-heartedly, Adam is an asshole. Then why is Samus trusting him and respecting him? Well, again, let's look at her psychological profile and history. Ridley kills her family when she is fairly young, and she's raised by a race that isn't human. Her main male figure for most of her life is Adam. See, I think people mis-understand the undertones of their relationship. I don't think it's meant to be a purely romantic relationship. Rather, Adam struck me as her father figure, or at the very least an older brother. Does she possibly have some romantic feelings for him? Maybe, that's not all-together uncommon in surrogate father-brother relationships of this nature, especially for someone who is as psychologically damaged as Samus. I also don't think Adam reciprocates this relationship with anything more than begrudging acknowledgement. That's not to say it's a good relationship, but I think that Team Ninja's background has led some people to skew the relationship dynamic: We envision an abusive boyfriend when we see Adam, but he's real more an abusive/absentee father.

The problem with Adam, in general, is that we are simply forced to accept the connection between the two with absolutely no information. Again, Samus is acting in a way that is contrary to what we have seen her do in multiple games in a franchise that is more than 20 years old because of some jackass. We have no basis for understanding why she would act this way thus reinforcing the notion that this character simply is not Samus.

There also seems to be a consensus that everyone assumes that this relationship is supposed to be laudable or good because Samus says so. Why? I think Other: M is playing the unreliable narrator card on the sly, and no one caught them. We take everything that comes from Samus as the opinion of the creators, but that's simply not the case in my opinion. Rather, I think that due to Samus's stunted development and fractured childhood, she is drawn to abusive relationships and danger. I think, in the back of her mind, she thinks she deserves all of it. It's classic survivor's guilt. To me, that would explain why she pursues the Space Pirates so vehemently. It's more than revenge to her, it's a no-lose situation. If she kills them all, her people rest in peace. If she dies, then she gets the fate she always feels she really deserved. There's an inherent clash there, though: She's trained to kill, and the whole point of her surviving was to do just that. Yet she wants to die. Instinct vs. Desire, a conflict that is very confusing to the human body because it's incredibly rare. I would call that another factor in her reaction to Ridley, but deeper still it explains her relationship with Adam. She knows, deep down, that he's abusive and dismissive of her, but she secretly feels like she deserves it, so he's the perfect man to her.

This is an interesting theory with almost no information to back it up. An unfounded yet fascinating supposition means virtually nothing in the argument.

This explains the final and most often cited example of Other: M's failure, the Varia Suit encounter. It's been said that there is no reason Samus would risk her life to obey a stupid order from someone who isn't even really her direct superior anymore, and if it were isolated to just that, they'd be correct. But when you combine the surrogate father figure effect with that survivor's guilt, you get a perfect storm where keeping the suit off is the ONLY possible outcome. It's a sequence where she will die in the line of duty, following direct orders, so it is complete justifiable and almost certainly fatal. It also involves the one person she would take said orders from, so there is no point in refusing. Now, if Samus had turned on the suit? That would have been incredibly out of character.

Samus has long demonstrated that she would do what it takes to get the job done. I understand that they needed to justify her "losing" her powers all over again in some way but they simply chose the worst way to accomplish this.

In the end, Other: M is a passable game that gives us valuable information about Samus. We don't like that information, but it's truth. It's a hell of a lot more plausible than the opposing characterization I've heard from Other: M's detractors, and far more human. I think the biggest lesson we can learn from Other: M is that sometimes, our characters aren't as unshakable or heroic as we'd like to think, and that's a reality we're going to have to live with if this medium is ever going to advance. Sometimes the good guys really are just flawed people with good reasons and strong resolve, but most of the time every good guy is one breakdown from becoming a victim. It's the acknowledgement of that fact that prepares us to deal with it and prevent that breakdown from coming, rather than ignore it and pretend we're bullet-proof. Just my two cents, though, and I welcome any further thoughts/debate.

In a nutshell, the problem with Other M is one of familiarity. We have seen Samus act in a certain way in the face of unimaginable danger. The way she acts in Other M often diverges wildly from what we have seen her do time and again. This, in itself, is not the problem; familiarity can be overcome. The problem is we are given none of the information or explanation necessary to accept the sudden change in her character. She suddenly acts subservient to a man and risks her own life and the fate of the mission to please him but we don't know why she is willing to do that. She simply collapses in a heap in the face of her most hated enemy who she has killed time and again and never get an explanation.

One can radically change a character especially when we don't really know much about them beyond what we've seen them do. But having watched Samus do all of these things across countless games we have all formed an idea of who she is. That this idea may be off the mark is all well and good. But when you show us this other character you must adequately explain the change. A static, flat character is a sign of bad writing (most of the time). An arbitrary change of fundamental character traits without due explanation and justification is at least as bad.

 

[funguy2121]

I guess the gloves are off.

...and? How does this support your idea that Ridley is a cyborg, especially in Super Metroid, which you have said you don't remember playing because when you did it was...in the cretaceous period, I believe?

Here's an example of what you are best at: Quoting a portion of a point and pretending that it's the whole thing.

Well, since you didn't address every question I asked or point I raised, I thought it impertinent to go on with them. No make believe has been involved, at least on my part.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyborgs_in_fiction

Scroll down to Video Games, it specifically cites Prime and Prime 3. For at least those two, and to my knowledge Super Metroid as well, Ridley has been a cyborg. He has never returned without damage. You are purposely trying not to understand this at this point, it's that simple.

Didn't you see where I poked fun at wikipedia? A few weeks back I changed a wikipedia page to make this very point. I do believe that Throbbing Gristle are still from Austria and not Britain, but I haven't checked to see if this reality-altering is still in effect due to the changes I made to the inscrutible wikipedia.

Of course. Because cyborg with machine gun implants = wuss and clone = supervillain. My bad.

No, "Guy with limbs that I blew off so he had to have them rebuilt" is far less intimidating than "Guy who regenerated easily from my freakin' laser cannon." Again, this is a tediously simple concept to grasp. Robot means that eventually he'll just be a machine, cloning means that there is no way to actually kill him.

Do I really have to spell it out for you, as if others have not already? DNA is required to clone, therefore actual immortality is impossible.

See? You even made a point about your intellectual superiority by speaking to me in another language (since knowledge=intelligence).

I'll be honest, I'm really not sure what this is. It doesn't resemble anything that could be vaguely related to a point, so let's move on.

Perhaps it's vaguely related to your own snide comment that you conveniently snipped from this post.

I see a problem here. Since you don't agree with the video, we must throw that out as evidence and assume that all of the poorly used big words in the game were the result of a pseudointellectual author attempting to impress his parents.

Again, I'm not sure where you were going with this. It doesn't really make sense. You quoted yourself, and then argued against yourself. Be straight with me here: Do you have schizophrenia? I can help you with that.

But of course, that's exactly what happened. Please, someone, help me with this debilitating disorder.

should I point out here that it wasn't "told" at all, and that the ending was indeed intended to be read at least two different ways? Oh, well.

No, you really shouldn't, as it just drives home your ignorance towards literary devices. Multiple endings does NOT mean Unreliable narrator. The famous Frank R. Stockton tale "The Lady Or The Tiger", for instance, has an implied multiple ending, but does not exercise Unreliable Narrator. As long as you can trust what the narrator is telling you to be true(I.E as long as you can trust that what you see on the screen is what is happening in the movie in some form or another) then you do not have Unreliable Narrator.

Been a while since you saw Inception? If the top keeps spinning, that negates quite a bit of what was seen (or at least how it should be interpreted) earlier in the film. But thanks for the education anywho.

Of course, since literary devices are not meant to have any purpose which will be revealed until months later by nerds on the internet who nitpick at banal minutia (calm down, tiger, I'm mocking myself as well).

No, rather, you choose to ignore literary devices upon there inception(cwutididthar) because you don't care for their implications.

Yup. You misused a word.

No, actually, it comes from escapist forums and wikipedia entries. Again, I don't think you understand what I'm arguing or really even what you're arguing here. NO MENTION OF PTSD OR ANY OF YOUR THEORIES HAVE BEEN MADE BY ANY GAME IN THE FRANCHISE, REGARDLESS OF THE CHRONOLOGY. Not Fusion, not the Primes, not 8-bit and 16-bit games. Your argument has no weight than, say, internet fan-fiction.

Two highly reputable sources to be drawing knowledge of psychological disorders, to be certain. Again, if we are dealing with Unreliable Narrator, PTSD won't be mentioned. To go back to your Inception analogy, none of the various psychological disorders that DiCaprio suffers are ever called by name, even though there is a psychological disorder where you cannot be sure that you are in reality and not a dream(I would know, considering I have it.) But, the disorder exists, just the same.

I was going to say that I wasn't referring to disorders when I mentioned Inception,but I think we may have figured out the problem anyway.

You can be a wreck emotionally and still function by passively re-purposing those emotions.

No, you can't.

Yes, you can. I'm living proof. In fact, the majority of people you will meet in your lifetime are emotionally scarred and broken.

You make frantic leaps from the subtle to the superlative. Let's see where you take this "wreck" next...

So Metroid is intended only for psych students? I wasn't aware that "wreck" was in the DSM-IV (sorry, I don't recall the name of the European counterpart). If, however, you refer to a dictionary I think you'll find it speaks to something which is "totalled" and "no longer functional."

That is a proper definition, since she emotionally is no longer functional.

Of course. I distinctly remember that from the endings of Metroid 2 and Prime 3.

Because they've never heard of you, and because the video has already done that job.

As much as I respect the Extra Credits crew, they're wrong, and they didn't make Metroid. There is no evidence in the video that anything I have said goes against authorial intent. Get me the words of the authors, and we'll talk.

I guess epistemology is just not your bag, baby.

Right here! Killing a monster isn't murder! I know plenty of vegan spider-smashers who will back me up on this! Is that adequate enough for you?

Yes it is. Murder is murder, no matter the context. It's just how justifiable the murder is that changes things.

I'm sure the roaches who dwell in your home thank you.

If only you'd made that distinction 6 days ago! Now, there is a valid point! Still wrong, but valid!

I did. I'm not surprised you missed it though, you may have been too busy trying to cut sound-bites out for future twisting. It's okay, though, really, all closet-politicians do it, nothing to be guilty about.

Well, I suppose being called a closeted public official (nice logic) is better than being called Hitler because I don't accept your arbitrary projections on the Metroid franchise.

 

[Tulks]

We call Other: M exploitative, but we forget how we first found out Samus was a woman in Metroid: She did a little strip-tease for us at the end of the game by taking off her armor and showing us her leotard.

If you were fast enough it became a bikini.

That is all.

...and feminists used to celebrate the bikini.

I still do.

Maybe I should take up feminism. Sounds like fun.

 

[funguy2121]

We call Other: M exploitative, but we forget how we first found out Samus was a woman in Metroid: She did a little strip-tease for us at the end of the game by taking off her armor and showing us her leotard.

If you were fast enough it became a bikini.

That is all.

...and feminists used to celebrate the bikini.

I still do.

Maybe I should take up feminism. Sounds like fun.

It is! Viva le revolucion!

 

[DocBalance]

Random insults and phrases without actual points, meaning, or logic, while ignoring requests for evidence and continuing to pull my ideas from the very ether

That pretty much sums up everything you just said, and I don't really see this as a rational debate anymore. Until you provide the evidence requested, we're done here.

My first counterpoint is that we had something to work with when it came to characterizing Samus. When something attempts to approach the issue directly rather than giving us hints and notions that is radically different from what we think we know the natural response is revulsion. This isn't the Samus we know, even if we never really knew her. It is some shambling monotonic impostor. That this is the actual Samus is irrelevant; that it is radically different from the Samus we know is the important bit.

The delivery, we can agree, was terrible. I'm not advocating that the story of Other: M was well delivered, or even that good, as I state near the end of my post. Rather, I'm advocated that the ideas have merit, and should be explored further. The general consensus has been to run the other way and just burn the whole thing to the ground whilst forgetting it ever happened.

While your general argument here has merit consider her history. Samus has unflinchingly faced unimaginable horrors. She has helped eradicate species, she has waged a brutal war against space pirates and she has long faced impossible odds without hesitation or complaint. That such a life might take a psychological toll is indeed plausible. The problem is that this toll is represented in a way that is utterly alien to how she normally acts. It is her displayed response, not the cause that is out of place. She might respond to such trauma by becoming an introverted sociopath in the long term (which isn't a stretch) but in the moment she had three responses. She could fight, she could flee or she could give up. The first is what she does best and the second is something she's been known to do more than once. But never once has she just given up. When the chips are down and she's backed into a corner, Samus has always demonstrated that she will fight to the bitter end. More than once she's face foes she had no business besting and she willingly faced them knowing the long odds. Samus is a character that never knows when to quit and always has a card to play. That she would cash out under any circumstance is so far removed from this pattern of behavior that, rather than demonstrating a flaw in her character it serves only to alienate us from the character. The Samus I know might freeze for a moment. She might head for the hills to reassess the situation. But she would never just lay down and accept death.

A correct assessment, she hasn't ever done that. However, this time was different. It's the sheer implications of the encounter, not necessarily the encounter itself, that causes her to give up.

As I said, that such a scenario would draw a notable response is understandable. That it would draw a response so foreign to everything we have ever known about her is the problem. That her response is reasonable is less relevant than the fact that her response is alien to what we know about her. It is a sudden slap that says this isn't the Samus I know but someone entirely different.

Extreme situations such as the one found in Other: M often generate "alien" responses. Again, I would use myself as an example. My line of work is one that requires me to be very collected, and for that reason many people would have described me as a calm, cool, perhaps even cold individual. Yet if you had but a few short years ago created a situation that somehow discredited a memory of mine, it would have upset the delicate balance my psyche was hanging in during my desperate attempts to convince myself that I didn't need help and that my memory lapses were completely normal.

The problem with Adam, in general, is that we are simply forced to accept the connection between the two with absolutely no information. Again, Samus is acting in a way that is contrary to what we have seen her do in multiple games in a franchise that is more than 20 years old because of some jackass. We have no basis for understanding why she would act this way thus reinforcing the notion that this character simply is not Samus.

Technically true, but when have we seen Samus operate under any direct authority in any other game? She has worked for the military, but is given relative autonomy. If her relationship with Adam is as I theorize and believe the games would prove, it would be a very different situation indeed.

This is an interesting theory with almost no information to back it up. An unfounded yet fascinating supposition means virtually nothing in the argument.

I'd cite the situation itself as support for the theory, as well as the fact that Samus has never had a partner nor worked with anyone else.

Samus has long demonstrated that she would do what it takes to get the job done. I understand that they needed to justify her "losing" her powers all over again in some way but they simply chose the worst way to accomplish this.

But what if they wanted you to think that? What if they wanted this to be a horrifying, irredeemable action? Again, there is no evidence that this relationship is actually good except Samus's say-so.

In a nutshell, the problem with Other M is one of familiarity. We have seen Samus act in a certain way in the face of unimaginable danger. The way she acts in Other M often diverges wildly from what we have seen her do time and again. This, in itself, is not the problem; familiarity can be overcome. The problem is we are given none of the information or explanation necessary to accept the sudden change in her character. She suddenly acts subservient to a man and risks her own life and the fate of the mission to please him but we don't know why she is willing to do that. She simply collapses in a heap in the face of her most hated enemy who she has killed time and again and never get an explanation.

One can radically change a character especially when we don't really know much about them beyond what we've seen them do. But having watched Samus do all of these things across countless games we have all formed an idea of who she is. That this idea may be off the mark is all well and good. But when you show us this other character you must adequately explain the change. A static, flat character is a sign of bad writing (most of the time). An arbitrary change of fundamental character traits without due explanation and justification is at least as bad.

I would agree 100% that the problem is one of familiarity, and that Team Ninja dropped the ball with the delivery of the story. I'm just saying that we don't need to turn out everything Other: M did, or declare it non-canon, or find every store that still stocks it, burn them down, and salt the Earth. There are things that can be learned from it, whether it was perfect or not.

 

[CrazyCapnMorgan]

The customer is NOT always right. Most of the time the customer is a clueless moron, and if this upsets you, you are that moron. http://www.cad-comic.com/cad/20090313

Soooo, lemme get this straight...

According to this logic, the customer is a clueless moron and, unless I missed something in the OP about you being a developer or a designer, then that means YOU are a customer as well. Also, it seems kind of selective that if someone is upset by what you say, then they are the moron, not you. If we are to go by this logic, of course.

Now, if we go by another poster's logic and say the customer is always right, then we are all opinionated and what matters is that our own opinion is correct to us while everyone else's view is also correct, but with a differing view of the same thing. Then we could, theoretically, go on about our lives, maybe taking in a differing view like it was our own and realize that, perhaps, we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. And maybe, just maybe, we can stop being xenophobic bastards and accept differing views as being just that: different. And should we not agree with that difference, then so be it.

Personally, I like the latter of the statements.

 

[DocBalance]

The customer is NOT always right. Most of the time the customer is a clueless moron, and if this upsets you, you are that moron. http://www.cad-comic.com/cad/20090313

Soooo, lemme get this straight...

According to this logic, the customer is a clueless moron and, unless I missed something in the OP about you being a developer or a designer, then that means YOU are a customer as well. Also, it seems kind of selective that if someone is upset by what you say, then they are the moron, not you. If we are to go by this logic, of course.

Now, if we go by another poster's logic and say the customer is always right, then we are all opinionated and what matters is that our own opinion is correct to us while everyone else's view is also correct, but with a differing view of the same thing. Then we could, theoretically, go own about our lives, maybe taking in a differing view like it was our own and realize that, perhaps, we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. And maybe, just maybe, we can stop being xenophobic bastards and accept differing views as being just that: different. And should we not agree with that difference, then so be it.

Personally, I like the latter of the statements.

Mate, it's a joke. Like, from a comic. Not meant to be taken seriously, just like the original post that I was quoting when I posted that comic was not meant to be taken seriously.

 

[PureIrony]

Okay, one thing about the abusive father thing: that's complete bullshit. How can I say this? Because I had abusive father. Yup, I saw it with my own eyes, I felt it with my own body, and it is NOT something Other M does, not in the least.

My father is a complete BASTARD of a man. He beat the hell out of me, my brothers, AND MY OWN FUCKING MOTHER who was far smaller than him. The only reason I didn't fight back because it was physically impossible. I know what it's like to have try and find approval from a man who is a conniving, insecure hypocrite who has to abuse other people emotionally and physically in order to make himself feel big and puts impossible standards on his children, standards he couldn't live up to when he was my age. When I turned sixteen and didn't have to legally see him anymore I did so without turning back and I haven't seen him since. It sucks that I the short straw of who I had to call a father and I don't try to be a drama queen about it, but when someone mentions "abusive father" to something that doesn't deserve it, I feel offended and sickened by it. Adam's fine by me, he doesn't treat Samus like trash and he merely does what is required of him as a commander.

Other than that, your argument is...okay.

Thank you. I know its kind of fucked up to be thanking someone for a post like that, and even more fucked up that you had to live it, but...I think I just learned something.

 

[Krion_Vark]

Many have complained about how Samus freaks out and becomes helpless in the presence of Ridley at his return. I think this deserves some context though: Ridley murdered her entire planet. Yes, I realize she's killed him a dozen times by now, and I think that's the point: She's killed him in the original game, and he had to come back as a robot for most of his tenure through the other games.

During this game it is BEFORE the Prime games. Therefore saying she has killed him a thousand and 1 times before does not matter. Learn the time line of the series first

I don't think it would be terribly remiss to say that Samus has some form of PTSD, considering everything that happened to her.

Read the backstory manga a bit its not that great but gives a bit of insight into her story BEFORE the games. Yeah she already had her freak out with Ridley in there so this freakout shouldn't really be there. (this is going with both parts of the quote)

But maybe it is how this encounter ends that rubs people the wrong way, with the much hated character Adam coming out to save her, implying that the "little girl" needs a "big, strong man" to save her. Specifically, everyone hates that it's THAT big, strong man who saves her

This game failed at putting the relationship in a good light. If it actually showed anything remotely close to what is hinted at in Fusion it would have been a lot better to why it was him.

Samus's stunted development and fractured childhood

I once again say read the manga. She gets A LOT more development living with the Chrozo who were non-violent but gave her the greatest weapon in the universe which was all of their latent power.

This explains the final and most often cited example of Other: M's failure, the Varia Suit encounter. It's been said that there is no reason Samus would risk her life to obey a stupid order from someone who isn't even really her direct superior anymore, and if it were isolated to just that, they'd be correct. But when you combine the surrogate father figure effect with that survivor's guilt

I am saying read the manga a lot in this response. and here comes a spoiler about the manga

Spoiler

There was a Chrozo who pretty much sold out the other Chrozo to MB and the Space Pirates and the making of the Metroid as a weapon rather than just something to take out the X Parasite.
He was her father figure and felt betrayed by him until he sacrificed himself to let Samus escape and tell the Galactic Federation about Mother Brain.

It's funny that we hold Samus up on this pedestal of strong, well characterized female protagonists. We call Other: M exploitative, but we forget how we first found out Samus was a woman in Metroid: She did a little strip-tease for us at the end of the game by taking off her armor and showing us her leotard. Face it everyone, the reason games like Dead or Alive: Beach Volleyball exist is because of sequences like that.

You do know that her taking off her armor completely was a bonus for COMPLETING the game 100% always has been.

In the end, Other: M is a passable game that gives us valuable information about Samus. We don't like that information, but it's truth. It's a hell of a lot more plausible than the opposing characterization I've heard from Other: M's detractors, and far more human. I think the biggest lesson we can learn from Other: M is that sometimes, our characters aren't as unshakable or heroic as we'd like to think, and that's a reality we're going to have to live with if this medium is ever going to advance. Sometimes the good guys really are just flawed people with good reasons and strong resolve, but most of the time every good guy is one breakdown from becoming a victim. It's the acknowledgement of that fact that prepares us to deal with it and prevent that breakdown from coming, rather than ignore it and pretend we're bullet-proof. Just my two cents, though, and I welcome any further thoughts/debate.

I would probably agree with you more if this was THE FIRST game in the series if there were 0 other games that hinted at what was brought out about this. The only thing that I find good about this game is the loose end of HOW Adam dies which is brought up in Fusion and I had been wondering about it since then. Other than that the game is shit for bringing information about an established character from pretty much hints and teases from all the games in the series and a beginning story arc manga.

 

[Asuka Soryu]

I will never, EVER be persuaded to care about anything in that comic.

Then you have no business talking about what you think Samus should be. The comic was made by Nintendo themselves, therefore, and I quote you, "We don't like that information, but it's truth".

True, I did commit a contradiction, but if that's your answer to the comic, I won't bother trying to amend it.

Then how come none of the Zelda games have Link as an apple farmer who spends his life with Zelda?

I have an official manga, licensed by Nintendo that says he spent the rest of his life with Zelda running his own apple farm, after he defeated Ganon for the first time.

 

[DocBalance]

During this game it is BEFORE the Prime games. Therefore saying she has killed him a thousand and 1 times before does not matter. Learn the time line of the series first

No, Other: M occurs after the Prime games, between Super Metroid and Fusion, the current last games in the series.

Read the backstory manga a bit its not that great but gives a bit of insight into her story BEFORE the games. Yeah she already had her freak out with Ridley in there so this freakout shouldn't really be there. (this is going with both parts of the quote)

As I've expressed a dozen times in this thread, the manga is non-canon and does not matter.

This game failed at putting the relationship in a good light. If it actually showed anything remotely close to what is hinted at in Fusion it would have been a lot better to why it was him.

I agree. It wasn't supposed to be in a good light. The rest of my post explains why.

I once again say read the manga. She gets A LOT more development living with the Chrozo who were non-violent but gave her the greatest weapon in the universe which was all of their latent power.


I am saying read the manga a lot in this response. and here comes a spoiler about the manga




I would probably agree with you more if this was THE FIRST game in the series if there were 0 other games that hinted at what was brought out about this. The only thing that I find good about this game is the loose end of HOW Adam dies which is brought up in Fusion and I had been wondering about it since then. Other than that the game is shit for bringing information about an established character from pretty much hints and teases from all the games in the series and a beginning story arc manga.

For all the manga stuff, see my earlier response. Yes, we had hints and teases about Samus, and who's to say they weren't all leading up to this? Once again, just because you don't like the ending doesn't mean it wasn't intended.

 

[DivineBeastLink]

I don't personally think that it matters if the developers intended Samus to be like she is in Other M.

The point, rather, is that she was taken as a strong female character for so long that to destroy that image, even if it was never intended to be her image, is to destroy one of gaming's few strong female characters. That's something that we don't need.

 

[funguy2121]

Random insults and phrases without actual points, meaning, or logic, while ignoring requests for evidence and continuing to pull my ideas from the very ether

That pretty much sums up everything you just said, and I don't really see this as a rational debate anymore. Until you provide the evidence requested, we're done here.

It never was a rational debate, because you arbitrarily assumed that your own fantasies gave you insight into the minds that created Metroid, and you artificially connected dots that are not even there. As I said, you're not a fan of epistemology; you claim the moon is made of cheese and defiantly tell the other kids in the schoolyard "Prove me wrong." The end result is not going to be a moon made of cheese, little man.

 

[Efrate]

If Samus's entire existence is to defeat Ridley, why is he the first boss in every game? Seems a little loose.

At some point it was mentioned that she is emotionally incapable, then why does she not kill the baby metroid? That's seems quite emotionally capable, and makes me see her as more human than just a "there's a bad dude kill it" person than anything else. It showed her human side, and was all done without horrid voice acting.

I could see a breakdown later if after that she was forced to kill that same metroid, or even freezing a bit when she sees another one shortly thereafter thinking well maybe its not right to kill everything all the time. Then it tries to eat her and she rolls up bombs it off and freezes and blasts it to kingdom come, no hesitation there, as she always has. That's the extent of it though.

The varia suit thing I understand from a gameplay perspective, its was a reason executed horridly to be fair, of why she doesn't have all the heath tanks, a zillion different beams, super missles etc. from the start because a large portion of the game is finding these items. The way it was done was bad, no doubt, but rarely do story and gameplay mesh well.

 

[DocBalance]

Veiled anger because I still can't produce evidence that I know doesn't exist. Let's try ad hominem and straw man fallacies!

I'm sorry, what's that? I just can't seem to make out what your saying, I'm selectively deaf to insubstantial claims and schoolyard taunts. Also, just as an fyi, you are misusing the word epistemology in a modern context, unless you mean it purely in it's meaning in the original Greek rather than the philosophy that has taken the name, in which case I can only advise that you say what you mean instead of using ancient tongues to try and make yourself sound smart in ways that they haven't been used for hundreds of years.

 

[funguy2121]

It never was a rational debate, because you arbitrarily assumed that your own fantasies gave you insight into the minds that created Metroid, and you artificially connected dots that are not even there. As I said, you're not a fan of epistemology; you claim the moon is made of cheese and defiantly tell the other kids in the schoolyard "Prove me wrong." The end result is not going to be a moon made of cheese, little man.

...you are misusing the word epistemology in a modern context, unless you mean it purely in it's meaning in the original Greek rather than the philosophy that has taken the name, in which case I can only advise that you say what you mean instead of using ancient tongues to try and make yourself sound smart in ways that they haven't been used for hundreds of years.

Then, please, edify me, John Stewart and Patton Oswalt so that we will stop using such defunct terminology. Maybe source wikipedia on it? Or would that be too "tediously simple?" Your claims are still valid only in your head.

You get hung up on specifics at the expense of the overall picture. You did with the "unreliable narrator," claiming that it was clear to you that Sakimoto was using this device because, in your opinion, everyone found the dialogue confusing, as though this isn't a common problem with poor translations and poor writing. I pointed out that by the end of Inception the majority of the events of the film could be questioned, or in some cases interpreted differently, and it was very obvious that this was Nolan's intent. But, since you didn't let that fall under your veil of "unreliable narrative" due to the film not being first person, you said that wasn't a good example. An artist can do whatever he/she wants with stylistic and genre choices. This is how new life is breathed into genres growing stale. But there is no reason to suspect that an artist is doing something that they don't make clear at some point. A good argument could be made that intentional misdirection was involved regarding certain plot points, and that they would be corrected in a sequel, but not the overall story, unless at some point the writer made it abundantly clear. Since it is art, you can project whatever you want onto it; that's the beauty of it-death of the author and whatnot. But that does not mean that the creator intended it simply because you fancy yourself an expert.

I think you are making the same mistake with your long-delayed reaction to my epistemological issues with your claims, which you have finally addressed, but only in terms of semantics. Perhaps this bears repeating.

There is no rational reason to believe in something for which there is no real evidence. The name Meta-Ridley used in the Prime games, coupled with your admitted unsupported assumption that Ridley was also a cyborg in Super Metroid, does not support your theory that Samus has PTSD and that, though mental disorders are not rational, she would rationally decide not to have an episode upon seeing Ridley during the 5 encounters between the deaths of her parents and the encounter in Other M, based upon the (supposed) knowledge that it's "just a cyborg," and then let it all go and freak out when she sees the beast cloned. Nor does it support your supposition that cloning leads to immortality, as though a cloning facility cannot be destroyed (it's been done quite a bit in sci-fi fiction) along with the original DNA. A murder mystery was woven into the plot of Other M, and then forgotten about by the very end. It isn't even addressed upon 100% completion (thank you, youtube). That screams bad writing.

What we can know, and the extent to which we can, is one of the most fundamental aspects of our existence and should be weighed when making important decisions. The importance doesn't go away just because you misinterpret what you read on Wikipedia five minutes ago.

Edit: Also, while continually putting words in my mouth, you seem to be unaware of the contradictions in your own language. I did not say the following:

Veiled anger because I still can't produce evidence that I know doesn't exist. Let's try ad hominem and straw man fallacies!

A straw man is the work of a charlatan; it is intentional. A fallacy is a misconception and therefore cannot be intentional. A fallacious straw man cannot be, any more than something can be "tediously simple." And there's no reason not to be nice

 

[josephmatthew10]

This hatter truly IS mad. "What? Lazy storytelling, you say? Why, coming from a world where most of the population is simultaneously emotionally/psychologically broken and functional, the lazy storytelling is...er... a result of Unreliable Narrator! As a writer, you see, I have comprehensive knowledge of-- WHAT?! How DARE you mention the manga which has neither been stated to be canonical nor non-canon! FIEND! I say that PTSD was their story justification for her needing a man to save her, don't even get me STARTED on the Shakespearian relationship between Adam and Samus. Extra Credits, though I respect them, are WRNGWRONGWRONGWRONG and didn't make Metrod. I, on the other hand, as co-creator of the franchise, chairman of the Metroid Minutia commitee, and One Who Is Always Right, have the high ground!
Also, funguy2121 can eat sh!#.

 

[Dragonpit]

Okay, I'm sorry, but I just can't buy into your argument here. As well thought out as it was, I'm afraid you missed the point everyone else has been trying to make on Other M.

Other M's story is simply bad. In reality, there is no excuse for it. It was essentially made as an afterthought to the gameplay and was done in a lackluster fashion. There's plenty of evidence towards that fact, too. You see, I'm currently working on becoming a story writer right now. A video game story writer, with maybe a bit of novel-writing on the side. So I'm always looking at stories in various mediums and analyzing them to the point of death. This doesn't restrict itself to good stories, either. Bad stories are great examples of what not to do in writing, and I've found that Other M falls into the very category. So let me go over both your argument and the game and see just where things fall short.

Fair note: this one's going to be a bit long as well. To other people reading this, there will also be spoilers for those who haven't played this or other Metroid games, so beware.

Many have complained about how Samus freaks out and becomes helpless in the presence of Ridley at his return. I think this deserves some context though: Ridley murdered her entire planet. Yes, I realize she's killed him a dozen times by now, and I think that's the point: She's killed him in the original game, and he had to come back as a robot for most of his tenure through the other games. But now? Here he is, fully-formed and back to normal, as if nothing happened. She accomplished nothing. The monster that she's killed a thousand and one times is not the slightest bit phased by her attempts, no matter what she does. To me, that would be-speak a certain inevitability: Your enemy always returns, no matter how many times you kill him. Someday, he will kill you. This is getting later in the series, right after Samus's encounters with Dark Samus, whom she narrowly defeats, and further back Mother Brain, whom she only defeated because of help from something she was supposed to be trying to kill. Samus lives in a world where everything that's against her is inherently stronger than she is, but she perseveres in the knowledge that she's always toppled her greatest foe, that she always leaves him with scars to pay for everything he did. But when Ridley appears in Other: M, the game has changed. He is as good as new, maybe better, and that's terrifying to her.

Ridley certainly proves to be a frightening adversary. Time and time again, he does succeed in returning from defeat. However, it feels as if you're giving him too much license. Ridley may have returned from death time and time again, but I cannot believe the reason for Samus quaking in her Chozo-made boots is because of the lack of accomplishment and a sense of inevitability. Why? Because we have no reason to believe she thinks that way.

Let's start with the sense of accomplishment. I certainly know what it feels like to think I haven't accomplished anything, but the sensation has never lent itself to fear. Frustration, anger, disappointment, these are the emotions more closely linked to that sensation. Samus has never exhibited these whenever she was faced with Ridley, except in Other M, but that was only when Anthony had been knocked off the platform towards a fatal lava bath. This isn't even implied when she was faced with Ridley in other encounters, either.

As for the feeling of inevitability, we have a similar problem. According to Samus' back story, she was raised by the Chozo and taught to fight like a warrior. That's why they gave her the suit in the first place. It also means she always faces the inevitability of her own death every time she points her cannon barrel. We may see Ridley as Samus' ultimate foe, but there's no reason to believe that other enemies don't have the power to kill her, too. Let's be realistic here. How many times have players died at the hands of enemies that weren't Ridley while playing Metroid games? I know I died a few times at the hands of Metroid Prime 2's Boost Guardian.

The more likely reason for the encounter with Ridley to be portrayed in such a way was to knock Anthony off the platform, making it a solo fight against Ridley, and to remind everyone of Samus' tragic history with him. Only the former was pulled off well enough to be acceptable. If it was really that important, Samus' history could've been introduced differently, such as a tab in the menu. There could've even been a reason for the fear to relapse, like if Anthony had been knocked off the platform before she broke out in a panic attack. It would be like she was reliving the day Ridley killed her parents. But then, that would be banking on the possibility of a trauma, which brings me to my next point...

I don't think it would be terribly remiss to say that Samus has some form of PTSD, considering everything that happened to her. As someone who used to suffer from several psychological disorders including Multiple Personality Disorder, I can personally attest that the only thing more terrifying than the condition itself is the thought of relapsing into it. Whenever I get into a particularly stressful situation and I hear anything that even remotely sounds like a voice that shouldn't be there, I panic. I can barely breathe, and I can't see straight, because the prospect of going back to that hell-hole I used to call my psyche is that scary to me, and I only had a few years of sleep deprivation to blame for it. In Samus's case, she has genocide and years of fighting to be afraid about, and before her is living proof that everything she has done is a waste of time. If for even a second she believed that that made her helpless, that would be enough to trigger the fear of relapse, which in turn would only spike the chance of relapse higher. Thus from a natural, human perspective, everything we see in her encounter with Ridley is perfectly understandable.

The idea of Samus having a disorder of some kind certainly is realistic. It even gives credibility to Samus' break down in front of Ridley. You'd be hard-pressed to find a reason why she wouldn't have one. It can even be used in place of a character flaw. Sadly, I'm afraid this still doesn't quite work. Aside from that one moment where Samus did break down, there is absolutely no indication given that she has one. Seems to be a pretty flimsy reason, doesn't it? Most of the games that came before were 2D and/or were done with the use of Samus as a silent protagonist, so it's difficult to actually do something like that. Stick with me here, though. I have a good reason for this.

It's quite simple. If we, the audience, have to provide context for something that the writer of the medium, in this case a video game, could have easily provided themselves, it only shows the writer has made a mistake in their writing. We have no reason before then to believe that Samus has had a psychological disorder of some kind. They could've easily done so, too. Samus started Other M (after beating Mother Brain) in a medical facility undergoing examination. They could've easily given her a medical report for Samus and us to look at as well. It didn't have to be out-in-the-open or obvious, either. So long as the audience could see it, it would've been enough. Details like this are important in writing. The writer has to properly characterize the major players in the story, or discrepancies like that will come back to haunt. It's too bad, too. I usually don't see traumas in the stories I've read so it would've made a great device. But I digress...moving on.

But maybe it is how this encounter ends that rubs people the wrong way, with the much hated character Adam coming out to save her, implying that the "little girl" needs a "big, strong man" to save her. Specifically, everyone hates that it's THAT big, strong man who saves her, because he's pretty much a douche. To that, I would agree whole-heartedly, Adam is an asshole. Then why is Samus trusting him and respecting him? Well, again, let's look at her psychological profile and history. Ridley kills her family when she is fairly young, and she's raised by a race that isn't human. Her main male figure for most of her life is Adam. See, I think people mis-understand the undertones of their relationship. I don't think it's meant to be a purely romantic relationship. Rather, Adam struck me as her father figure, or at the very least an older brother. Does she possibly have some romantic feelings for him? Maybe, that's not all-together uncommon in surrogate father-brother relationships of this nature, especially for someone who is as psychologically damaged as Samus. I also don't think Adam reciprocates this relationship with anything more than begrudging acknowledgement. That's not to say it's a good relationship, but I think that Team Ninja's background has led some people to skew the relationship dynamic: We envision an abusive boyfriend when we see Adam, but he's real more an abusive/absentee father.

There also seems to be a consensus that everyone assumes that this relationship is supposed to be laudable or good because Samus says so. Why? I think Other: M is playing the unreliable narrator card on the sly, and no one caught them. We take everything that comes from Samus as the opinion of the creators, but that's simply not the case in my opinion. Rather, I think that due to Samus's stunted development and fractured childhood, she is drawn to abusive relationships and danger. I think, in the back of her mind, she thinks she deserves all of it. It's classic survivor's guilt. To me, that would explain why she pursues the Space Pirates so vehemently. It's more than revenge to her, it's a no-lose situation. If she kills them all, her people rest in peace. If she dies, then she gets the fate she always feels she really deserved. There's an inherent clash there, though: She's trained to kill, and the whole point of her surviving was to do just that. Yet she wants to die. Instinct vs. Desire, a conflict that is very confusing to the human body because it's incredibly rare. I would call that another factor in her reaction to Ridley, but deeper still it explains her relationship with Adam. She knows, deep down, that he's abusive and dismissive of her, but she secretly feels like she deserves it, so he's the perfect man to her.

This explains the final and most often cited example of Other: M's failure, the Varia Suit encounter. It's been said that there is no reason Samus would risk her life to obey a stupid order from someone who isn't even really her direct superior anymore, and if it were isolated to just that, they'd be correct. But when you combine the surrogate father figure effect with that survivor's guilt, you get a perfect storm where keeping the suit off is the ONLY possible outcome. It's a sequence where she will die in the line of duty, following direct orders, so it is complete justifiable and almost certainly fatal. It also involves the one person she would take said orders from, so there is no point in refusing. Now, if Samus had turned on the suit? That would have been incredibly out of character.

I don't quite think anyone believes Samus' relationship with Adam was romantic after Other M. Samus herself said she viewed him as father figure. On top of that, when people talk of "big, strong men," they aren't referring to Adam; they're referring to his entire unit. In truth, it's not a far off verdict on the matter. It's unusual to see a military that doesn't have women in it, and even though Samus does say she was often looked down upon because she was a girl, it doesn't really lend credence to seeing no women in this particular squad. And based on the movements on women's rights in the past century alone, I highly doubt such a standard would actually stand. Mind, it's not impossible for a there to be a squad with only men in it; it's just extremely unlikely.

But let's get back to Adam. You are certainly correct; not all relationships are good, and to those paying attention, it certainly seems like the one between Samus and Adam wasn't good at all. However, I don't think it was because Samus is looking for an abusive relationship, or because Adam is an asshole. It is once again a product of bad writing. This proven in the fact that there are times where the writer actually does try to show that there is a good relationship between the two. The event with Ridley once again takes point when Adam not only approves the use of two pieces of equipment, but also shows some concern when Ridley faces off against Samus and she freezes. Also, in front of Sector Zero, he elects to go in himself and blow up the station rather than have Samus do it herself. Of course, there's no denying the quality of how these scenes are handled is poor. Even the voice acting helps these scene suffer. But it's the simplest answer, and those answers are usually correct.

As far as the 'instinct vs. desire' argument goes, I'm not sure I can buy into that. Usually, when there's such an internal conflict, the abilities of the person in question usually suffer as a result. In this case, if she really did want to die, I'm not entire sure she would put up such a fight against some of the stronger enemies she's encountered. Even if she was driven by instinct to fight, it would still show in her 'abilities.' I'm not just talking Other M here. I'm talking about the series as a whole. Metroid Prime 2, for example, ended with an escape timer and battle with Dark Samus. After beating her, if she really wanted to die, she could have just stood there and died with Dark Aether. Forget her having the last of the planetary energy; with Dark Aether and the Ing on their way out anyway, it wouldn't have mattered if she delivered it or not. Aether and the Luminoth were saved, one way or another. She even could've stayed and fought the Ing that arrived at that moment. It would've easily circumvented such a conflict. Yet she didn't. She ran for the gate out and used it. No one who was actually looking for an excuse to die would do that, not when they have the chance siting right in front of them.

That said, I find it funny how most people count out the Chozo when it comes to how Samus was raised. Sure, they weren't human, but I don't think the only thing they did for her was take her in and train her as a warrior. I would like to think they cared for her to some degree. The suit she wears is proof of this. The Chozo have shown they do care about who can use their technology. Metroid Prime, for instance. The Chozo Lore spoke about their opinions about the pirates using their artifacts. And we don't exactly see other humans wearing Power Suits of their own. So I don't think the Chozo neglected in caring for her. There's no doubt she thought of them as family, either. The moment at the end of Metroid Prime where she's overlooking the ruined artifact site shows that better than anything else.

Meanwhile, the Varia suit mess, or Hell Run, is yet another incident that suffers from bad writing. It was clear whoever designed the game, whether it was Team Ninja or someone at Nintendo, wanted to do a high temperature run, so they put one in there. They just didn't think to properly introduce a reason for it. They could've gone as far as setting up an explosion that shuts the function down for a bit, or even introduced a reason that better suited the need for the function to be off. But they didn't that's where that scene broke down.

And there are other examples where the writing was bad. When Samus first met up with the squad, the encounter was nothing but narration. The basic tenant of writing, as Extra Credits said, is 'show, don't tell'. Yet this was nothing but telling. Why exactly is an Admiral leading a group of soldiers for something like a simple distress beacon? Why wasn't Adam a slightly lower rank? It would've made things more believable and he'd still be a CO. And why didn't they let Samus find out who the Deleter was? All she had to do was turn over that last body...

This all lends to Samus' characterization in one way and one way only: if the rest of the story was this badly written, then it stands to reason that the same can be said of Samus' character. Now, let's be fair here: under normal circumstances, I wouldn't mind how she was characterized. I've made my thoughts clear on the idea of trauma. I can certainly agree that some relationships aren't good. But that was never the problem. Her new character came from a flimsy idea and a lack of consideration for Samus' pre-existing history. Just because we don't have intimate knowledge of her thoughts and feelings doesn't mean we don't have some idea of what they are. And there is room for some character flaws, even trauma if the writer is skilled enough. But the job done in Other M is still lackluster at best is ultimately what drags everything down.

*sigh* I'm sorry if this seems a bit scattered. It actually took a whole day to write this post, with all the research and my own lack of focus... But you should understand that while Samus doesn't have to be badass #1 in the world of female protagonists, she still does have to be characterized properly, and she just wasn't in Other M.