Hopefully, Retro. With hardware limitations no longer keeping keeping Sakamoto's crazy ideas at bay, I'd prefer it, if he'd just keep his hands away from Metroid. Well, for the time being, at least.

lol

Obviously this does not contradict what I said as it's up to the player how they view her. However I do not pretend not to have issues with elements of characterization in previous games (though there is none in 1 and 2 and really barely anything in Prime that isn't widely open to the player's interpretation) which led up to Other M.

I agree. I think, if they correct some little things, the sequel would be a great game. I wonder what people would have said, if Samus character hab been different... And that´s why I think many fans don´t judge the game "objective"

Team Ninja developed a metroid game the first time, and now they should get the chance to improve! I still believe, that a sequel, which fix their mistakes, will be a very, very good game! 

I would say Vanillaware, but I am not sure how the Metrouid franchise as a frame could do Vanillaware justice. Muramasa and Odinsphere are way better than any Metroid game, and I just don't see how Metroid could ever be as interesting.

This would never happen...but what if Valve got their hands on Metroid?

Retro plus Team Ninja is the obvious answer.

Team Ninja to make the awesome animation, and Retro to make the awesome gameplay and Story.

As long as Skamoto stays away from the franchise though, I'm happy.

I would say that the first two Metroid games have plenty of indirect characterization that can be used to infer some things about Samus's character.

The Galactic Federation picks Samus for both missions because she is considered the greatest bounty hunter in the galaxy.  She goes in alone and defeats the space pirates on Zebes after they had already turned back a frontal assault by the Federation.  Then she goes in alone to SR388 to destroy the metroids after a both a research vessel and an assault team were lost on the planet.  That alone speaks to her bravery, skill as a bounty hunter, and how the Federation view her.

Then of course there was the metroid she let live, defying her orders in the process.  Showing she is not one to just blindly follow orders.

These are not open ended games either.  When considering Samus, you have to consider everything the player had to do to finish the game.  Samus and the player navigated all those hostile environments.  Samus and the player beat all those dangerous bosses.  Samus is a skilled and experienced bounty hunter before the first game even starts.  Afterwards, she is even more so.

"Sakamoto thinks his ideas of Samus supercede the customers. He is wrong. And there is no "real" Samus, no authority who decides the "actual" Samus personality."

Just what is the basis of this claim?

From a legal standpoint, Nintendo owns the rights to their characters, including their basic template. It is simply erroneous to argue otherwise.

In terms of fiction, the template of a character is the basis of the player's relation to that character. Samus is a female bounty hunter in an orange suit. That fact is not negotiable. When you buy the game, you buy into that character.

Furthermore, Samus takes action in the games; going to Zebes, destroying Mother Brain, etc. That is pre-defined, and it, too, tells of her character. Failing to appreciate the fact that everything that happens (everything that can happen) in a game is the result of a designer's work is a grave fallacy; deny the designers, and you deny the game. Failing to appreciate what this means in terms of characterization is another; I suggest you study critical theory.

These things do not preclude the player's ability to form his own idea of a character, mold and express it through play. That fact is pivotal, I think. However, the player's input is ulterior to the content provided by the designer, and is still subject to the rules of the game. One does not negate the other.

"Obviously this does not contradict what I said as it's up to the player how they view her. However I do not pretend not to have issues with elements of characterization in previous games (though there is none in 1 and 2 and really barely anything in Prime that isn't widely open to the player's interpretation) which led up to Other M."

What?

Metroid 1 laid the foundation of the character of Samus. She never spoke, but the game told us her story. We cannot say for certain what she thought during the game, but the essence of it implied in her actions; she accepted an extremely dangerous mission and persevered in her quest to oust the foes that destroyed her benefactors. What you make of that is up to you, yes, but that has nothing to do with the medium used to convey the story.

Metroid 2 had Samus spare the baby Metroid. No single other event has ever contributed as much to Samus' character.

Edit: theRepublic covered that better than I did, though I mentioned only the in-game elements used to communicate a story/character.

Nintendo own the intellectual property rights, but customers determine the value of it, simply because the only reason it *has* value is that it is known and loved by a section of the public. Nintendo have the right to do what they wish with it, but when they choose what to do with said intellectual property the value of it changes at the whim of the public. So if Nintendo or Sakamoto take it upon themselves to define who Samus is, it is up to the public to accept it if it's to maintain it's value. And they may choose to reject a new or more precise idea of Samus, and even view them as separate entities like "old Samus" and "Other Samus".

Yes there are elements of Samus' character that are logically deduceable throughout the series, just being in the places you find her in indicate little things about her character, just wearing a power suit does. Light characterization is fine, and near unavoidable. The important thing is that it does not conflict with the players ability to project themselves or their own ideas onto them. It's similar to the situation with a character like Frodo Baggins for example, in a largely event-based story. Frodo *does* have a personality of his own, but it is limited to elements that are near-universally approved of. He values his friendship with Sam strongly, he has a good sense of perspective (compared to most other hobbits at least), he's brave in the face of adversity etc. But we know almost nothing about his political views, and various other things that could cause a conflict values between him and the reader. We imagine Frodo must have similar views to our own, because Frodo is the main personality we follow throughout the adventure. The other characters we spend a lot of time following also have light characterization (Aragorn and Gandalf), the only exception being Merry and Pippin who we spend a few chapters with, but not very long. It's the same situation just somewhat more significant with a player character, since the player is actually in control in this case which is not possible in a book.

Edit: And relating this to Other M, the problem there is that it is a full set of large conflicts between how most/many people 1) saw Samus in the first place and 2) wish to play as.