There was once a story where everyone freaked out that declared Sakamoto had wanted Other M to be on rails, which we found out later meant on-rails a la Klonoa or Kirby 64. Fully 2D in plane of movement, but fully 3D in the sense of how the world is rendered. Team Ninja insisted on full 3D in this case, and what we have is the compromise.

There haven't been too many complaints about the controls from what i've read.

Hold B or something to switch to a first-person aiming mode? Maybe. Using the pointer to shoot otherwise might be a bit problematic, given that you couldn't turn Samus beyond a certain plane (otherwise it would interfere with the analogue movement).

But i would say the point is moot either way in this game's case, because it was very clearly designed around that control scheme.

 I think Wiimote/Nunchuck would be better, for the reasons you wrote in you paragraph (**)

I still don't see the reason/benifit for using Wiimote only as the main control scheme. I've played Super Paper Mario which controlled similarly while in 3D mode, it wasn't very fun. (thankfully it didn't last too long)

I'll definitely give it a chance but i do think it could've been better... Maybe it would've been better if they stuck to what Mr Khan was talking about (full 2D gmaeplay)... aw well, it's not like the devs haven't made bad decisions before, and i think it's gonna be a great game anyways

This seems like a phenomenally poorly-conceived game.

Care to explain? We're not going to stifle negativity here (and some like Demotruk would welcome it anyway :P), but i would at least like all points well-explained.

I from what I know,this game works if you say the default system of control is the Wii Remote and then allow other schemes then arent you being defeated as a designer,Mr.Sakamoto said that in Nintendo Power V.255

That was his opinion, and i can definitely see arguments for and against that, but it really revolves around fundamental ideas of gameplay design. If you design software around a given control scheme, then admitting other schemes would be a sign of defeat, to a point.

In Other M's case it would certainly alter the game fundamentally, as you can see how entire elements of the game were designed with the limitations in mind, but then with games like Mario Kart, while you definitely see a different experience going back to traditional controls, its not fundamentally opposed.

There's the question of whether you would call this good game design or bad game design, that you're limiting your vision based on the interface, or that you're able to custom-mold a vision to fit a given interface like a glove.

I would say its a good thing, but it's definitely a matter of debate.

"Care to explain? We're not going to stifle negativity here (and some like Demotruk would welcome it anyway :P), but i would at least like all points well-explained."

Really it boils down to - why the hell is a game designed for a console that has a joystick using a d-pad for movement in three dimensions?

I'm really not sold on the autoaiming, either. The gameplay in the movies looks like it can degenerate into mindless spamming very, very easily.

I could definitely see that, to a point. Spamming has been an age-old tactic of the Metroid game, blasting mindlessly into the hordes of enemies, just that the hordes all existed on one plane. Auto-aim tries to adjust for that, but it's definitely one of those elements that could backfire.

Yeah. I can kind of see why they did it that way. But still, in a 2D game you're still "aiming" - you have to jump or crouch to get your gun to be on the same plane as the enemy you want to hit. With this autoaim it literally looks like you can run into rooms and spam the fire button until everything is dead.