He's not the first. Did you completely miss the other posts where we wrote that as well?

And that just because it's the first time is not an excuse to act like it was there the whole time, unless you take the time to at least explain how it was in there before. Her fear of Ridley should not have been shown that way, unless they at least had the decency to show it in ALL of the encounters she had. If you want to retcon, don't do it half-assed.

As for the PSTD you brought up elsewhere, that lack of showing it before is why it doesn't apply. Just because PSTD doesn't always go off doesn't mean it makes sense to go off only one time.

It was mentioned in another thread that Samus may work better as a symbol than as a character, and I agree with that.

1) Yes, I did. Khuutra was the first one I saw say those words from that side of the fence. I saw a few people say it from the "It's not a bad thing" side of the fence. Sorry if I had missed you saying it as well.

2) A horrible design choice then, sure, but I wouldn't go and call it sexism. It was bad characterization according to many, and a horrible half-assed retcon. I understand that opinion and I'm perfectly fine with it. I'm not sticking up for Sakamoto's vision or success. I do understand that thsi was the first time he was ever able to truly show us certain sides of Samus that he always envisioned her as, and so he (arguable shoehorned) put them into this game in order to show us all those different sides. Those different sides happen to rub wrong with a lot of gamers' visions about who they percieved her as. I understand that.

3) Was her PTSD never shown in any flashbacks or referenced at all in the game, besides that scene? The point I was making earlier was that it was entirely possible for it to be PTSD, assuming that's what it was supposed to be. I had figurd it was brought up in a well-enough fashion for players to understand it was PTSD, but if it wasn't, then that's just poor writing on Sakamotos part. Or maybe he didn't mean for it to be PTSD, but then I wonder what exactly he did mean it as.

Again, as to why the PTSD has never shown up before is because Sakamoto was never able to be in charge and display Samus in such a way that he is able to do now. Given this opportunity to do so, he shows us his vision of her and her character. I doubt he was worrying about how he'll explain her PTSD according to games done by people he wasn't involved with. Was it a bad idea? According to many fans, yes.

There will be those who love this game and those who hate it. I understand how vehement longtime series lovers are because their vision of Samus has been altered so significantly due to the creator assuming all control over her character, something which used to be up to the player. The only problem I have is everyone claiming sexism and making issues where none need to exist. It's bad character development according to many, because "their" character was taken over by Sakamoto and made into "his" character. The writing has also been called into question, as well as the issue of consistency. People will fall into different categories due to their different preferences, just as with RE5. It's fine.

"The vision of Samus that most gamers have been building up over the years is in stark contrast to the vision sakamoto had. So when he has the chance to fully unveil his Samus, many gamers are left thinking "what happened to MY samus..?""

"their vision of Samus has been altered so significantly"

That is just BS and making a strawman of us. We though "what happned to the Samus we saw before?" Don't pretend we just made up a vision of what Samus was like. We didn't interpret Samus never freaking out over Ridley before. There was an objective lack of freaking out.

We have actual reason to find this unacceptable. We aren't like the Katara/Zuko or Harry/Hermione shippers that saw romance where there wasn't. We saw a lack of fear because none was shown before.

There's a difference between disagreement and misrepresenting the reasons someone else has.

That's exactly what she had turned into. Regardless of gender, we humans put ourselves in her shoes, pretend we're her, and then when the creator comes back and says "this is exactly how her personality is," gamers are torn into groups. Those who accept it and can enjoy this newfound characterization, and those who prefer their vision of Samus and reject the idea of "their" Samus being taken away from them for this new one.

I think that Sakamoto's dismissal of the Prime series for story purposes is merely because Prime was rather self-contained in terms of story. At least, i'm giving him the benefit of the doubt on that point, as i prefer to assume that people aren't total douchebags without proper evidence

In Prime's case, Retro knew what they were digging into story-wise, because the games were interquels (though that isn't a word), they couldn't tamper with what came after, so they developed Phazon into a plot point all its own, and thus ran the trilogy through on that to the end of that specific threat.

SPD1 is likewise wedging Other M into the timeline as established, but Sakamoto chose to tackle the main timeline head-on, which then involved some ret-conning, which is slight in most cases, such as these changes to Samus' relationship with Ridley, and also the fact that the surprise revelation in Fusion that the Federation was breeding Metroids really shouldn't have been a surprise to Samus or Adam

Though i would like to see the issue of the Space Pirates resolved, given that they're referred to specifically as "Zebesians" in Other M, whereas Corruption obviously gave them a homeworld of their own, and there were hints of a command structure that did not involve Mother Brain scattered throughout

Long story short, Sakamoto treating them as a side-story is not off-track, given that it was a self-contained sequence of events (except that Prime needed the events of the original Metroid as prologue). To declare them non-canon would be a bit extreme, and i imagine there's some cultural standard of politeness that would stop him from making such an egotistical declaration

Those games were done by different developers, Sakamoto had nothing to do with it. And the games Sakamoto did do, showed at least slight variations in her personality compared to the others. Other M was his big showcase to show everyone what he truly saw the character Samus as.

I think you completely misunderstood what I was trying to say with the first part. Samus was usually rather quiet before, and her personality and character was left up to the character for the most part. She BECAME the player. So naturally over the years people have their vision of how Samus is. It's the same with Link and other silent characters. I wasn't saying that in a demeaning way in the least!

Your personal characterization and personality traits on Samus are just as valid as Sakamotos. I wasn't saying they weren't. Samus, for the most part, completely lacked in personality up to this point, so it was something players got used to and what they expected of her. She is more of an avatar of the player, like Link is, and that's completely understandable. I can tell you right now that if Link were given such a complex personality and voice, it would absolutely make me upset. It would 99.999% likely go against how I envision Link, how I see him, because he is my avatar in the world of Hyrule.

I haven't played Fusion but I hear that also showed a bit of Sakamoto's "Samus." It just goes to show the stark contrast between how HE visions Samus, and how gamers vision Samus due to her being mostly silent in most games (especially those made by developers other than Sakamoto i.e. Prime).

 He did not create the series, or even Samus. He was just the director of the first game.

http://games.ign.com/articles/815/815011p1.html

"He (Gunpei Yokoi) put three men on the job. Makoto Kanoh created the characters and scenario. Hiroji Kiyotake designed Samus, the titular fanged jellyfish, bosses Ridley and Kraid, Mother Brain, et all. Yoshio Sakamoto directed."

So not only are you claiming we came up with Samus as a character out of the blue, you haven't even done the research on the series history.

Replace "creator" with "main developer" then. That wasn't my point in the least. I don't know why you're being so vicious with me, I'm not against you in any way.

Again, I haven't played Fusion, but I believe it showcased more of the Sakamoto Samus, but Other M was his big chance to really go inter her character from his vision. His vision clashes with that of players, who are used to a silent, almost 0 personality avatar, and shitstorms happen. I understand you're upset, and I don't think there's anything wrong with it.

The only problems I have are the shoehroning of "it's sexist!" and the idea you were saying that PTSD is something you get over and shouldn't randomly pop up again, which has since been laid down. You don't need to point your gun at me, I'm not debating, I'm trying to having a thoughtful conversation.

EDIT: I'm not saying you came up with her character out of the blue. I'm not sure where that came from.

My understandinig was that Zebesians were just one kind of Space Pirate, of which there are many (with Ridley and Kraid being among other kinds, not to mention Mother Brain).

But anyway, it doesn't take an official declaration of being non-canon to pretend that the Prime games never happened, which is what happened in Other M and what I would be willing to bet will happen in every Sakamoto Metroid from here until doomsday.