The dumbest messages in video games.

[Samuel]

It also can't be used in court (at least in the UCAS) as it violates the 5th amendment.

It doesn't have to be. First, insure that the people who do this are paladins (or another group known for high standards of honesty) and have them bound to only ask individuals about the specific crime. That way even if you have commited another crime, you would be okay with undergoing the interrogation for this one.

You just have everyone under suspicion a chance to be subjected to it. Anyone who refuses the jury knows is guilty- refusal to consent would be tantamount to a confession.

As for the population being neutral, where is this coming from?

Good requires you to be willing to sacrafice for complete strangers. Evil requires you to be willing to kill anyone if the personal benefit is high enough.

For most human beings, self interest rules the day, but it includes their friends, family, neighbors, coworkers, etc.

On this note, why is it a vendor working in some shit-hole at the ass end of nowhere only sells crap goods, but is more than willing to let me sell him mountains of massively expensive world-destroying goods, netting me more profit than his entire town is worth?

Obviously the market for your goods is a general competitve equilibrium. The general is the important part- it means they have complete financial markets so that vendor can borrow enough money to pay for your goods... that actually explains why you don't kill them for their cash actually.

[Steven Snyder]

As for the population being neutral, where is this coming from? Lawful Neutral is the only category that fits and you really can't lump most of the populace into that. Lawful Neutral has to be the worst thought-out alignment with the exception of True Neutral. Most of the populace (at least in the novels I've read) would be lumped into lawful or Neutral good.

I got into a knock-down drag out fight (not literally) with a DnD group over population alignments.

It was stated that humans do not gravitate towards any alignment, not even neutral. So I take this as to read that your going to find a fairly equal number of good, evil and neutral humans in a large population center such as a city. So detect evil which useful in some situation isn't a license to kill and PCs should expect to have to deal with evil npcs in cities from time to time.

...this did not go over well, the entire "It detects as evil, kill it" mentality could not be repressed.

sorry for derailing this thread.

[Ritterin Sophia]

On this note, why is it a vendor working in some shit-hole at the ass end of nowhere only sells crap goods, but is more than willing to let me sell him mountains of massively expensive world-destroying goods, netting me more profit than his entire town is worth?

Last time I checked I know 3.X had rules about the maximum amount of gold a town was likely to have.

[Stormin]

Most of the discussion of Evil in D&D has been covered in chapter 1 of The Book of Vile Darkness. I can't post it or offer to PM a copy of the chapter sections since I have already seen mods warning people to not post non-SRD portions of the D&D books though.
Alignment is a game mechanic to speed up play... not for situations where a European Paladin on crusade to liberate the holy land is fighting a Muslim Paladin defending his home and determining if Holy Smite should work when they use it on each other.
Much like the very idea of a language called Common that pretty much everyone from everywhere speaks alignments are just to cut down on annoying details that just become a headache.

[Bakustra]

Most of the discussion of Evil in D&D has been covered in chapter 1 of The Book of Vile Darkness. I can't post it or offer to PM a copy of the chapter sections since I have already seen mods warning people to not post non-SRD portions of the D&D books though.
Alignment is a game mechanic to speed up play... not for situations where a European Paladin on crusade to liberate the holy land is fighting a Muslim Paladin defending his home and determining if Holy Smite should work when they use it on each other.
Much like the very idea of a language called Common that pretty much everyone from everywhere speaks alignments are just to cut down on annoying details that just become a headache.

That was also the book with the nipple rings of evil, magical STDs, warlords that chain children to their armor just because, and a whole lot of other stupid shit. I'm not sure how alignment speeds up play or cuts down on annoying details either. It's something else to track, something that doesn't make much sense, and facilitates the godawful concept of Paladins falling, the entirety of the Chaotic Neutral alignment, and the genuine problem of fighting "civilized" enemies, which will happen eventually in any D&D game.

Overall, D&D itself conflicted with alignments from the very beginning. The idea that good should fight evil was there. The idea that, say, orcs are evil is there. Then you have "in an orc village there will be 3d6+1 orc children". So as written, the orc children are also evil and so you're good if you kill them. Then they decided to fix this by providing an exemption for children, because that's rightly repugnant. But the conflict is there between orcs being evil by default and orcs being sapient beings who are born, live, and die in the fashion of mortals.

Now, if we go back to Christian legends with the idea of good vs evil, we see that evil is represented either by supernatural and eternal beings, fallen angels, or by humans that willingly work with them and chose to do so, such as witches. D&D and Western fantasy in general are highly inspired by these, but they work well, oddly enough, even when the Christian context is removed.

If you want to have orcs that players can hack through without a thought for the consequences (and that's trying to have swords-and-sorcery without its fundamental components), then these orcs should come up from the dust of the earth, or be obviously apart from the material and mortal world. Having certain, sapient species be born or culturally be evil is a persistent and, frankly, repugnant meme without any real purpose. And alignment facilitates that as well, by describing groups and species in terms of good and evil.

Now, you could also pretty much remove good and evil from the game. Make it more like Greek myth, where these things are not really mythologized into firm concepts hanging in the metaphorical sky. But either way, having chaotic/lawful/neutral evil orcs and drow and kobolds and lizardmen and kuo-toas and all that is fundamentally disturbing.

[Stofsk]

Why is the concept of Paladins falling a bad one?

[The_Saint]

Practically every RTS plays without a "peaceful co-existence" option, that (together with FPS) in any fight between two entities the only options are kill or be killed, no surrender, no mercy, no drawing a line in the sand and saying that sides yours and this mine.


I must admit the few games where combat isn't necessary (basically only some RTS though there was a thread recntly asbout a WoW character that managed level-something with no kills) I (and everyone I know) normally play it combatively but I have played Alpha Centauri with economy as an alternative win condition (just to see who can amass the biggest bank account)

[Bakustra]

Why is the concept of Paladins falling a bad one?

Okay, time for another rant. The problem with Paladins falling is half with the idea itself and half with the style of play it encourages.

First of all, it encourages adversarial behavior. The presence of specific rules to deal with paladins "falling" invites implementation of those rules. This wouldn't be so bad if it weren't so easy to force paladins to fall. There's a whole laundry list of things which are easily interpreted to mean that Paladins have to act like idiots and Jehovah's Witnesses all the time. To put it bluntly, the DM can put a Paladin in a situation where she has to fall no matter what with ease. Even if it weren't so easy, there still is the presumption that these are fundamental and important rules, and so ought to be implemented regularly.

Secondly, and tying into that, is that within the source materials, the Matter of Britain and the chivalrous romances, "falling" was a very rare thing, and far less pre-eminent than its opposite. It only popped up in very specific situations. The closest equivalent in Arthurian legend is that of Sir Balin dealing the Dolorous Stroke to the Fisher King, or taking the damsel's sword. The closest in the Matter of France is Ganelon betraying Charlemagne. Making it a regular danger is frankly ridiculous.

Thirdly, the consequences of falling are to permanently lose all powers barring a poorly-described redemption quest- and how is the character to achieve that quest as a crappier fighter? This is not evident in the source material either. King Arthur slept with (or raped, depending on the story) his half-sister, slaughtered the children of his kingdom to try and kill their child, gave up the sword of God for the sword of a pagan living in a lake, and did a great many wicked and evil things by the standards of the Middle Ages. He also did things that would not be considered wicked but would still violate the Paladin "code". Yet he still remained King Arthur throughout, and his wicked actions come back to haunt him not immediately, but as long-term consequences. This isn't really practical for D&D though, so probably some middle ground is necessary.

So let's go to another game that incorporates falling and redemption. Star Wars D6 has the light side and the dark side. Now, several things that it does better-

1) Characters have clear warning before receiving Dark Side Points.
2) The means by which characters can remove Dark Side Points are clearly described and practical.
3) Characters do not automatically fall until committing a number of clearly evil acts and having a number of chances to turn back.
4) Falling does not remove all the character's powers, but instead imposes a number of negative consequences for doing so.
5) Redeeming oneself is again clearly described and practical.
6) The idea of constant temptation is part of the source material.

Now, it still relies heavily on GM fiat for these, and falling is semi-randomized, but at least there are clear rules for everything involved that can be implemented by a party in order to have a fall-and-redemption story. D&D has only half of that story, and it's a pretty crappy half, too. Thankfully, 4th edition removed falling altogether.

An alternative would be to take the stories of knights prevailing against impossible odds through their faith and belief in chivalry as the basis for Paladins; by following their code (which is often disadvantageous to them) they get the ability to do the impossible. This doesn't really fit the D&D system, so might as well remove it or incorporate it as a more general mechanic.

[TheFeniX]

On this note, why is it a vendor working in some shit-hole at the ass end of nowhere only sells crap goods, but is more than willing to let me sell him mountains of massively expensive world-destroying goods, netting me more profit than his entire town is worth?

Last time I checked I know 3.X had rules about the maximum amount of gold a town was likely to have.

I'm talking video games. One example of "they didn't think this through" was in Mass Effect. Communications are shut-off and a vendor tells you "I haven't got much but I'll sell you what I can" and I ended up offloading millions of credits worth the gear on her. Now, in Mass Effect you could explain it via the universe bank (which has merit) whatever deal, which still doesn't make sense because I'm selling used military gear, which would takes time and effort to resale probably on the black market. The problem here is you can kill the NPC before communication is reestablished with the rest of the universe. So, why don't all those credit evaporate?

A simpler example is a vendor in Stormwind begging you to buy bread because he's so poor, yet willing to purchase hundreds of gold worth the vendor trash.

Okay, time for another rant. The problem with Paladins falling is half with the idea itself and half with the style of play it encourages.

First of all, it encourages adversarial behavior.

One disgraced Paladin I thought was handled well was in Soldiers of Ice. During the Time of Troubles, he lost his connection to his deity and decided to use his newfound freedom to booze it up and get laid as much as possible. The temptation was there and he dropped the ball.

That what good DMs should do. Even in the D6 Star Wars game, it makes it a point that a Jedi shouldn't have to fight evil every time he leaves his home. A good DM will use the example provided in the book: "You know, if you kill him, you won't have to worry about him coming back later...." A DM looking to be an ass will also claim allowing him to live is feeding evil: enjoy your dark side points.

My big problem is DMs using Paladin and Jedi rules as a crutch to create drama. That's not why rules exist. They are there to facilitate gameplay and balance, not to fuck with the players. Any DM who is going to railroad a Paladin or Jedi into that kind of shit is really just supplementing his weak skills as a DM with fabricated drama. And just because a rule exists doesn't mean it needs to be used or even forced into the story. This is why I don't get people flipping out about legal rule abuses like the one about the demi-god kobold. A DM could just say "No." Or just have <Insert God name here> show up after he reaches a certain point and whisk him away to live with the Gods. Roll 3d6 for stats on your new PC.

[someone_else]

I think the D&D alignment is pretty cool as it is. Being simplistic is its main strenght. Even spells like the dreaded "detect good/evil/chaos/law" spells only give you a very rough idea of who is the guy you are looking at. It tells you primarily info to estimate if it is a good target for XP farming, which is rather pointless in a slightly more mature gaming group.
It is blatantly more useful that spell that lets you read the surface thoughts of the targets.

The problem arises because D&D (and games with similar alignment mechanics) was put down as a fantasy pen-and-paper shooter. Which means making everything look totally stupid (but fun if you want to unleash destruction on mooks leaving morals at home), like assuming you are Good while the enemy is Evil.

Any DM with a modicum of experience can change that in a snap (it's his fucking setting after all). Rules in the core rolebooks aren't laws, just suggestions. Just trash what you don't like (this is reserved to DMs). It's the main reason I think pen-and-paper gaming (with a competent DM) is vastly superior than the average computer game.

That said, if I had to design an orc tribe without making everyone a mook, I'd make a few of them evil (say the boss, the shaman, and a handfew random commoners) the majority will still be neutral-ish (CN, N) and there will be a few good ones (CG, NG).
So you have a "evil civilization" composed of mostly not-so-evil people with evil leaders.

[Bakustra]

If you're designing something to that level of detail, I don't see why alignments are necessary or where "evil" has to come in. Alignment just seems superfluous. If you're doing a hack-n-slash campaign or adventure, then there's no reason why anything has to be evil or good. Just have things for the players to fight that are mechanically interesting, flavorful, and are hiding treasure. If you're doing a deeper campaign, then alignment is pointless because important characters ought to have actual motivations instead and spear-carriers need nothing deeper than in the hack-n-slash. Let's go back to that orc tribe. Why would you describe them to that level? Are the players not supposed to fight them? Are they only supposed to fight the leaders? In the first case, why does there need to be alignments? Shouldn't you just present them as friendly and welcoming, and probably warn players before starting the session? In the second case, you could just present them as fiendish assholes and put the characters in situations where a brawl would start, or make this a hit job, but ultimately I don't see what alignment adds to that situation.

If you're detailing something that only exists to be fought, then I don't know quite what to say.

Also, the fact that rules can be altered by the end-user does not absolve the creator of said rules for any faults. Alignment is equally faulty whether it's callow teens playing their first sessions and using it, or experienced hands playing who've house-ruled it out.

[chitoryu12]

I don't think any of the games my group has played have ever taken alignment into account; in the one I'm running I just let them build their characters as they go on and make fun of them if they do something epically out of character. I know that the party leader has no problems tasing civilians and shooting security guards, as well as the fact that he can either be a tactical overthinker or dumb muscle who overlooks important stuff (like not bursting into an office building firing guns and tasers everywhere and then being surprised when the police show up, or making a complex gunpowder/sock/sniper bomb instead of using one of the demolition charges he dragged with him).

Really, it just seems like most bad roleplayers will default to chaotic stupid. Alignments will be discarded due to whining.

[TheFeniX]

I'm digging this one up to rant about the insanity of Metroid: Other M. I picked it up for $13 along with Prime 3 when I had some money left over paying off Gears3 after trading in the shit-fest of Brink (along with a few other games).

Samus Aran, the space badass raised by birds who on two separate occasions massacred space pirates and Mother Brain on Zebes, committed genocide on the Metroid race (Metroid 2), destroyed the ultimate phazon infused Metroid in Prime 1, fought and destroyed the Ing and her own phazon infused doppleganger in Prime 2, did more cool shit in 3 (still playing it through), and who spends her spare time giving numerous space pirates the full-time job of putting Ridley's ass back together with spare parts and duct tape is really just a girl with "daddy issues" looking for her place in the universe, starting with her desperate ploy for the respect of her former commanding officer (although I don't remember anything about her being in the military, only working for the Federation).

Man, fuck that guy for even giving her shit. I didn't mind the gameplay, but Samus is a world-destroying badass, raised by non-humans, who spends most of her time alone fighting all types of horrors the universe has to offer. She should have problems even interacting with humans, much less sucking up to them for respect. I lasted about an hour into the game before this so-called "character development" made me turn it off. I googled some reviews after the fact and found them mostly positive for some reason, but also stumbled across the Zero Punctuation review which was so fucking spot on.

Not that they like the action genre, but I would do everything in my power to stop my nieces from ever touching this game. The basic message is: "no matter how good you are, a woman needs the validation and respect of a man to feel self-worth." Maybe it gets better as the game progresses and I originally thought it was set right after Metroid 1, but this is post-Super Metroid Samus who has no real business acting like a girl right out of high-school.

I could just imagine the nerd-rage if, during the Halo 2 opening, MC was being chewed out for his massively irresponsible actions in getting the pillar of autumn destroyed and pissing the Covenant off even more, then him spending 5 minutes monologing about how he wishes he could earn the respect of Johnson, his surrogate father.

[Hamstray]

Man, fuck that guy for even giving her shit. I didn't mind the gameplay, but Samus is a world-destroying badass, raised by non-humans, who spends most of her time alone fighting all types of horrors the universe has to offer. She should have problems even interacting with humans, much less sucking up to them for respect. I lasted about an hour into the game before this so-called "character development" made me turn it off. I googled some reviews after the fact and found them mostly positive for some reason, but also stumbled across the Zero Punctuation review which was so fucking spot on.

There is also Spoonys ramblings on this:
http://spoonyexperiment.com/2010/09/05/ ... ramblings/

p.s., for reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_YxZkoMQNI

[Stark]

Does 'Samus is still a human being' really rank as one of the dumbest messages in video games, just because you don't like it?

Nerds dislike new take on existing IP, news at 11?

[Bakustra]

Does 'Samus is still a human being' really rank as one of the dumbest messages in video games, just because you don't like it?

Nerds dislike new take on existing IP, news at 11?

So how much do you know about Other M or about the full objections to it? I mean, the game is hella sexist. But clearly this is all in nerd's heads lolol. Just like Duke Nukem!

[Hamstray]

So how much do you know about Other M or about the full objections to it? I mean, the game is hella sexist. But clearly this is all in nerd's heads lolol. Just like Duke Nukem!

Except that Other M has a teen esrb rating and the sexism is subtle enough for teens not to be aware of it and therefore might easier subccumb to it.

[TheFeniX]

Does 'Samus is still a human being' really rank as one of the dumbest messages in video games, just because you don't like it?

If that was even the point I was making (which it wasn't): yes, it would still be fucking stupid. Unless I'm misremembering the original comics, Samus spent ages ~4-18 exclusively interacting with the Chozo, which are all act fairly distant and unemotional. Oh yea, and they aren't even fucking human. This is why I don't have a whole lot of issue with Samus's uninspired internal monologues, even though I doubt it was intentional by the developers: even basic human facial expressions and emotions would be difficult for her to understand, even if she's spent time with them when she's not busy saving the galaxy. Since I recall the Chozo relying on body language alone to convey emotion, her deadpan look throughout the game should be pretty standard. She's not even really a Bounty Hunter as her only real motivation seems to be to wipe out the Space Pirates for what they did to her. They could have used this as a venue to explore just how alien Samus should be considering her upbringing and what she's been through. Instead we get "SHE HAS A VAGINA: DADDY ISSUES AND ASS SHOTS!"

Considering she went along with the AIs take of events and commands in Fusion only long enough to figure out what was going on and telling it to "fuck off" by aquiring the diffusion missiles it was specifically trying to keep away from her, I refuse to believe someone with that kind of experience and record she has would immediately, and without orders, choose to become subservient to one particular soldier. I don't care how experienced he is, he's rudely barking orders at a woman capable of shrugging off assaults from enemies that would (and did) wipe out entire squads of Federation marines.

"New take." What a fucking joke. This isn't the Star Trek reboot. This is an established character specifically making references to earlier games and acting like a rube. Why should she even be viewed as a woman at all? As corny as the dialog about "the. hatchling." spoken with no inflection was, it makes sense she has more attachment to a baby Metroid than humans, considering they're both unemotional killing machines.

[Vendetta]

Does 'Samus is still a human being' really rank as one of the dumbest messages in video games, just because you don't like it?

If the quality of the voiceover narration is anything to go by, Samus is a pretty poor impersonation of a human being. The delivery is flat and dull and the actual writing is fucking dire (not assisted by an overly literal translation).

There's more "human being" in the small cutscenes in Corruption after defeating the bosses (which are, remember, colleagues and even friends of Samus) than there is in all of Other M's overblown melodrama.

[Stark]

If that was even the point I was making (which it wasn't): yes, it would still be fucking stupid. Unless I'm misremembering the original comics, Samus spent ages ~4-18 exclusively interacting with the Chozo, which are all act fairly distant and unemotional. Oh yea, and they aren't even fucking human. This is why I don't have a whole lot of issue with Samus's uninspired internal monologues, even though I doubt it was intentional by the developers: even basic human facial expressions and emotions would be difficult for her to understand, even if she's spent time with them when she's not busy saving the galaxy. Since I recall the Chozo relying on body language alone to convey emotion, her deadpan look throughout the game should be pretty standard. She's not even really a Bounty Hunter as her only real motivation seems to be to wipe out the Space Pirates for what they did to her. They could have used this as a venue to explore just how alien Samus should be considering her upbringing and what she's been through. Instead we get "SHE HAS A VAGINA: DADDY ISSUES AND ASS SHOTS!"

Considering she went along with the AIs take of events and commands in Fusion only long enough to figure out what was going on and telling it to "fuck off" by aquiring the diffusion missiles it was specifically trying to keep away from her, I refuse to believe someone with that kind of experience and record she has would immediately, and without orders, choose to become subservient to one particular soldier. I don't care how experienced he is, he's rudely barking orders at a woman capable of shrugging off assaults from enemies that would (and did) wipe out entire squads of Federation marines.

"New take." What a fucking joke. This isn't the Star Trek reboot. This is an established character specifically making references to earlier games and acting like a rube. Why should she even be viewed as a woman at all? As corny as the dialog about "the. hatchling." spoken with no inflection was, it makes sense she has more attachment to a baby Metroid than humans, considering they're both unemotional killing machines.

So is your problem that its done badly, or that its done at all? You just seem to be saying 'a dumb message in videogames is that Samus isn't a cold unfeeling killing machine'. Trying to add character to a successful and extremely bland character and fucking it up isn't even really surprising. What makes this so bad beyond 'I don't like it' or 'the VA is bad'?

'Why should she even be viewed as a woman at all'?

[Stark]

GHETTO EDIT - Because Bakustra mentioned sexism, I looked it up, and it appears there is some kind of Metroid fan debate regarding sexism in the game. I can't talk about that because I've never played the game, but I don't think it's relevant to the idea that Other M shoudl have shown Samus as a mute, bird-dancing cripple.

[TheFeniX]

So is your problem that its done badly, or that its done at all? You just seem to be saying 'a dumb message in videogames is that Samus isn't a cold unfeeling killing machine'.

[Samus Aran] is really just a girl with "daddy issues" looking for her place in the universe, starting with her desperate ploy for the respect of her former commanding officer (although I don't remember anything about her being in the military, only working for the Federation).

Me thinking it would be cool to portray her with a more alien mindset is just that: something I think would be cool. But playing through the game, I had the impression Samus desperately wanted validation from her former CO and the rest of the mostly male cast. Also, how she constantly pines for "the. hatchling." because she must want to be a mother. And considering the developer, it's not unfounded. With this feeling in mind, I found review sites that mirrored my own thoughts and did a decent job explaining why they felt this way. The stupid message is that: being female has to define Samus.

Trying to add character to a successful and extremely bland character and fucking it up isn't even really surprising. What makes this so bad beyond 'I don't like it' or 'the VA is bad'?

Internal narration gives us an omniscient view of whoever we're listening to. Their motiviations aren't cloudy like with 3rd person. Considering Samus's experience, they could have avoided a lot of the idiocy with a simple line of "I decided to humor my commanding officer so I could get back to doing my job" which is a thought almost anyone who has to deal with a cranky superior has had. Instead, I'm treated to cutscenes of her straight up kissing ass to people should could crush like bugs. A person with her experience would probably kiss ass to make things go smoother, but they damn sure wouldn't be thinking sunshine and lollipops while doing so. Samus would constantly be thinking "these fucks are slowing me down."

This is why you avoid 1st-person narrative if you're a lazy writer: it's too easy to fuck up.

I can't talk about that because I've never played the game, but I don't think it's relevant to the idea that Other M shoudl have shown Samus as a mute, bird-dancing cripple.

Strawman more. At least you're contributing some humor.

[Vendetta]

'Why should she even be viewed as a woman at all'?

You jest, but remember that the fact that Samus was female at all was originally so irrelevant to the character that it was a throwaway joke after the game was over.

And considering the developer, it's not unfounded.

You think? Poster child for exploitation that it may be, the female characters of Dead or Alive are all defined by things other than just being female and therefore having Womens Problems. Samus' portrayal in Other M is Yoshio Sakamoto's fault, and left to their own devices Team Ninja would probably have made a less offensive character (albeit with just as much fanservice).

[Stark]

Me thinking it would be cool to portray her with a more alien mindset is just that: something I think would be cool. But playing through the game, I had the impression Samus desperately wanted validation from her former CO and the rest of the mostly male cast. Also, how she constantly pines for "the. hatchling." because she must want to be a mother. And considering the developer, it's not unfounded. With this feeling in mind, I found review sites that mirrored my own thoughts and did a decent job explaining why they felt this way. The stupid message is that: being female has to define Samus.

Does it? Frankly Other M just sounds like she's buckling under battle stress, and no amount of being raised by wolves invalidates that. Despite what you may think, there is actually no consensus regarding the sexist content of the game; this could well be simply because nerds have no fucking idea about women in drama, but 'finding review sites that agree with me' is meaningless. Hilariously sexist sites (like the Escapist) even have articles about how it emphatically ISN'T sexist.

Internal narration gives us an omniscient view of whoever we're listening to. Their motiviations aren't cloudy like with 3rd person. Considering Samus's experience, they could have avoided a lot of the idiocy with a simple line of "I decided to humor my commanding officer so I could get back to doing my job" which is a thought almost anyone who has to deal with a cranky superior has had. Instead, I'm treated to cutscenes of her straight up kissing ass to people should could crush like bugs. A person with her experience would probably kiss ass to make things go smoother, but they damn sure wouldn't be thinking sunshine and lollipops while doing so. Samus would constantly be thinking "these fucks are slowing me down."

Again, this is just you not liking it. Your big tough character is shown to be weak, and you're reacting to that. Every single statement you make about Samus is basically WHY ISN'T SHE A DIRTY HARRY ROBOT OF SLAYING. Her not being what you want her to be isn't a 'dumb message'.

Other M may well have dumb messages, but not pleasing you isn't one of them. Games with silent protaganists are frankly fucking stupid.

Strawman more. At least you're contributing some humor.

Only one person suggests she should be more like a fucking chozo in this thread.

Vendetta, what I've read suggested that most angry nerds consider it largely Team Ninja's fault. Isn't Sakamoto the guy that ran development for all the non-Prime games?

[Vendetta]

Does it? Frankly Other M just sounds like she's buckling under battle stress, and no amount of being raised by wolves invalidates that. Despite what you may think, there is actually no consensus regarding the sexist content of the game; this could well be simply because nerds have no fucking idea about women in drama, but 'finding review sites that agree with me' is meaningless. Hilariously sexist sites (like the Escapist) even have articles about how it emphatically ISN'T sexist.

The intent was supposed to be that Samus has PTSD after watching her home colony be destroyed as a child. Which would possibly have been an interesting idea if they hadn't placed it in the context of her relationship with Adam and the way they displayed that relationship (And hadn't used Ridley as the trigger for it. Samus scrapes bits of Ridley off her armour once a year at least). Samus' monologues don't actually display her own character and opinions, she is continuously elegising what Adam would think or do in a given situation, and how wonderful he is for having to make these hard decisions but standing up to the challenge like a Real Man. It changed from "Samus has been out fighting too long and it has affected her personality deeply" to "Samus is a girl and therefore cannot operate without the approval of a man" (literally, in the case of the upgrades system, because you can't use any of the suit's powers until Adam authorises you to do so.).

Vendetta, what I've read suggested that most angry nerds consider it largely Team Ninja's fault. Isn't Sakamoto the guy that ran development for all the non-Prime games?

Angry nerds are wont to blame Team Ninja because they don't actually know anything about Team Ninja games. Hell, despite the fact that you eventually have to save her ass and she largely exists purely to get some tits on screen, Rachael in Ninja Gaiden is portrayed as a more competent character than Samus in Other M, she saves your ass then only gets captured because she can't bring herself to kill her own sister. It's Sakamoto who wrote the story, decided on this portrayal of Samus, and who also believed that this was him showing the "true character" of Samus Aran.