That's the main problem here. Some of us (like me) are worried that more story *might* lead to less of an emphasis on cohesive gameplay, while others (like Malstrom) are assuming that it almost definitely will.

"And why does, suddenly, more story automatically relate to lack of gameplay?"

It's the track record of developers putting one over the other. It's not automatic, just likely by previous occurrences.

Ugh. He criticized that Sakamoto only talks about things that doesn't belong to the game (maternal insticnts? really?!) and zero about the game. He is sceptic and with very good reason. Why a game is more interesting for a story than for THE DARN GAMEPLAY?!

Stop this nonsense.

I think you are missing the primary point that several people are worried about.  Metroid has been about shooting Space Aliens in a non-linear world.  Sakamoto is not talking about the gameplay at all-- all he is talking about is exploring Samus's background or her 'Maternal instincts as a woman'.  Samus is just the Avatar to the game world in the Metroid games-- very few, if any, have ever cared about Samus other than the fact she was our connection to the gameworld.

Sakamoto was also behind Fusion-- the only Metroid game that tried to force a story on the player (admitingly, a small story, but a story none the less).  Fusion was the most linear metroid game ever, and is considered by many, myself included, to be the worst entry in the series (save for perhaps Zero Mission-- also created by Sakamoto).  You ask why adding more story means something is  taken away from gameplay-- past experience tells us that this is most likely the case, and Sakamoto has shown to be a particurarly bad offender in this area (again, look at Fusion). 

Cutscenes can ruin a game-- I hated Final Fantasy X because it seems like all I ever did was play for two minutes then watch a two minute cutscene, repeat.  Very boring.  I also can't get into those games you mentioned (Metal Gear Solid 4 and Uncharted 2) for the same reasons-- I hate the number of cut scenes and they take away from the gameplay for me. 

Please note I am not saying Fusion was a bad game (I enjoyed it), but it was a bad Metroid game.  I am also not saying Other M will be a bad game-- it could be the greatest game ever.  I am saying, as others are, that based on past experience it looks like Other M is going to sacrifice great Metroid gameplay for a story.  I hope I am wrong, but I am not optomistic. 

Naner: Cutscenes can hamper a game just like any kind of ill-begotten ideas or investments can. Is the Metroid franchise apt to deliver the kind of cinematic experience Sakamoto is striving for? That is the question here. Remember that nothing comes free. The series might gain something, but what is Nintendo giving up to make that happen?

Anyway, for me, Metroid is not about 'Shooting Space Aliens' at all - it's about atmosphere. The sense of solitude, of wonder, of fear - that is where Metroid shines. The gameplay exists to makes that experience possible. So does the backstory. And yes, I consider the Metroid hatchling's sacrifice in Super Metroid to be a touching moment. The thing, however, is that it is just that - a moment. Super Metroid uses simple but powerfull techniques to tell its story through player exploration, atmosphere and action. The game is true, in that sense, to the 'essence' of the medium.

Will Other M have that kind of purity? Most likely not. And what of the sense of solitude? Will that be gone as well? You could point to Fusion and Metroid Prime 3, but three wrongs does not make one right (note: I really liked Fusion, though I fail to see the point of the mandatory exposition dumps). I believe it is too early to make any kind of solid judgment about the game yet, but I think I can safely say I would have been more at ease with a less cinematically oriented endeavor.

Sakamoto was also a designer on Metroid, and director on Super Metroid.  I don't see much story in those games.