Talk:Metroid: Other M/Archive 1

Adam Malkovich
The words "Any objections, lady?" are not enough to definitively identify the man in the trailer as Adam. This means STOP ADDING IT TO THE ARTICLE! Wikipedia doesn't deal with what's probable, it deals with what's confirmed! -sesuPRIME talk • contribs 17:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * To be fair, the words any objections lady were put into the trailer to show it was Adam Malkovich. And given that Adam Malkovich was Samus' commanding officer at the time that this game is set, it's obvious he's in it, even if he's not the one saying it. Compare the face of the man who said "Any objections, lady?" to that of Adam Malkovich in the manga. Articerile (talk) 17:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Now see, this is where we just use wording trickery. We say "The trailer showed an unknown male who speaks a line used multiple times in the past by Adam Malcovich", or something along those lines.  Completely true without actually being speculatory. Arrowned (talk) 17:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * An unknown male, that also happens to look like Adam Malkovich, and uses his catchphrase. Articerile (talk) 17:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think this is a case of "obvious until proven otherwise". There really isn't anyone else it could be.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 19:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That may be so but Wikipedia really doesn't deal with obvious it deals only with confirmed facts. I Feel Tired (talk) 22:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. Being a big Metroid fan, I am able to deduce that it's him. But that's not good enough for Wikipedia; it must be in writing from a good source that it's him before Wikipedia can declare that it's him. &mdash;harej (talk) 23:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Arrowned here. While we can't say that it IS Adam, there is certainly significant implication that it is. As such, it is worth mentioning Adam, even if only saying that this is his catchphrase. What is really needed is a citation along the lines of "Many fansites claim that the use of this catchphrase in the trailer is confirmation that the man is Adam" Lucy (talk) 12:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Do fansites really count as reliable sources? It seems to me like it would all be speculation, and therefore unfit for Wikipedia. I Feel Tired (talk) 01:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a moot point now; we have confirmation from 1UP.com that it's Adam, and said confirmation is already in the article with source cited. Arrowned (talk) 01:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Time Line
This game takes place before Zero Mission, as parts of the story line, and presence of Adam Malkovich are concurrent with the manga. As Adam Malkovich had died before any of the games, and he is alive. This must set the game before the others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.79.194.151 (talk) 17:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * No original research applies in this situation. You don't know the intent of a character's inclusion, especially one who is unnamed, in a teaser-trailer video. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 17:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Especially if they end up pulling a Zelda and include contradicting evidence as to what point in the timeline the game is in. &mdash;harej (talk) 23:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Confirmed by 1UP.com, this game is set after Super Metroid and before Metroid Fusion. Actually, in the trailer you can see a flashback of the final battle with Mother Brain in SM.190.174.99.56 (talk) 04:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The new trailer shows an adult Samus waking up from a coma of sorts. The other trailers show a teenage Samus with short hair, so can we conclude that the game jumps between her past and the "present"? 75.157.115.154 (talk) 03:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Nope. We can't. --142.213.254.2 (talk) 14:17, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Plot Section
At this point it seems a little early to be adding in a plot section seeing as though that only one gameplay trailer has been released so far along with zero real plot detail. Anything we might put in the plot section at this point would be pretty much pure speculation. I Feel Tired (talk) 22:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you! -sesuPRIME talk • contribs 23:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. I Feel Tired (talk) 23:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I would like to know how anything I put in the plot section is speculation. Granted, the Adam Malkovich mention is (extremely well founded) speculation, but I portrayed it as such. The fact of the matter is, everything I included in the plot section, save the aforementioned, is pure fact that can be backed up simply by viewing the trailer. I feel that the information I wrote is important to add to this page, so please, tell me, since you lot clearly object to it's status as "plot information" (something I would argue if I did not feel it would be a futile act) then what section could be created for this information to keep everyone happy here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.233.32.44 (talk) 23:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * What you put in were not so much plot details as they were trailer details, since the trailer didn't show a real plot a plot section is unnecessary. If a person really wanted to find out what is in the trailer all they would have to do is watch it. And as for the speculation about Adam, even if you portray as speculation it still has no place here on Wikipedia. Your edits may be more appreciated on this site, its a Nintendo Wiki so they may be more accepting on plot details from the trailer. Also one more thing, make sure you sign your posts using four tildes ( ~ ). I Feel Tired (talk) 00:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It's people like you that make me wonder why I ever bother with this site. Anything of value is automatically purged unless it has a minimum of three news sources backing it up and conforms to this site's increasingly narrow and anal views of what can be considered fact. You say that if someone wants to find out what's in the trailer they can go watch it themselves, yes? Well I say that if someone wants to find out what the Bill of Rights says, they can go read it themselves. Or how about this; if someone wants to know what happened in the fifth episode of Heroes, they can go watch it themselves. You've just set a disgusting double standard for yourself, and I don't think you even care. People put such information on this site because it is both intended to be informative and is also a quick and easy reference. Maybe someone don't want to watch that episode of Heroes just to remember one thing that happened. Maybe they don't have access to the Bill of Rights. Well, what if someone doesn't have access to the trailer? Perhaps the computer they're one doesn't have the proper plugin. Perhaps they're on dial-up internet and don't want to wait for it to load. Perhaps they're in a library.
 * Despite it's supposed informative nature, I have seen enough (factual, mind you) information stripped from this site to wrap around the sun five times over due to the miles upon miles of red tape one has to struggle through in order to get anything worthwhile done here. Quite frankly, it's sickening to see the flow of information controlled to this extent.
 * I will grant you the fact that yes, perhaps what I added does not belong in a "plot" section. However, I will not agree that the information I added has no place on this site. To that end, I am going to add it back to the article under a different section, entitled "Trailer." I'd imagine that such would be satisfactory to both you and I, and hell, the section can be retained after more information has been received about the game, as an informative record. I've seen that done here before. Also, I will thank you not to insult my intelligence. I am quite aware of what a tilde(~) is, and if I scroll up I can easily see the message asking for messages to be signed. 208.233.32.44 (talk) 00:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ohhh harsh. Okay you have a point that when I said "If a person really wanted to find out what is in the trailer all they would have to do is watch it" it was out of line, I shouldn't have said that. Maybe including more information from the trailer wouldn't hurt, I think the article could use a gameplay section talking about the apparent use of both 2D and 3D. I Feel Tired (talk) 00:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's not get ahead of ourselves. I should remind all sides not to make vague inferences from a trailer of a game still in development, as that constitutes original research, something that WP is not in the business of doing. The game was just announced today—no need to throw every single thing in right away and half-fast. More sources will surely come within the next months revealing more about the game. Let's not rush anything. Finally, assume good faith on both sides. MuZemike 01:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah. Thanks. Good advice. I suppose it would be best to wait for now. I Feel Tired (talk) 01:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Frankly, the clip with "Any objections, lady?" looks a looooot like a flashback to me. Who's to say the other clips aren't just recap cutscenes and have no bearing on the gameplay and only serve to complement the game's plot? There's no guarantee Adam is alive in the game, or that Mother Brain is actually encountered or whatever else. It's way too preemptive at this point to make any assertions as to what will or will not be included, so a Plot section at this time will only consist of speculation. --75.216.244.78 (talk) 05:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. Exactly what I have said above about inferring stuff from a trailer of a game still in development. Can someone also look into cutting down that "Trailer" section by a good amount to balance out what other information we have on the game and so we're not merely doing a play-by-play recitation/analysis of the trailer? MuZemike 06:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, get rid of the speculation and original research, and the trailer section (why does it warrant its own section???). The other games Nintendo unveiled/spoke about at E3 just have an Introduction and a development section - that will suffice here as well until there are firmer details either confirmed by Nintendo themselves or by a reputable media source that plays the game. I've written this section below, hopefully retaining all the factual details, fell free to rewrite it if you feel it is porrly written.

Introduction Metroid: Other M is a videogame in development by Team Ninja and Nintendo for the Wii. It features 2D and 3D gameplay in both 1st and 3rd person perspectives. It is scheduled for release in 2010.

Development

Metroid: Other M was originally being developed under the name 'Project M'. It was formally unveiled at the Electronic Entertainment Expo 2009, via a brief trailer that showed gameplay footage of Samus fighting enemies in a variety of environments. Reggie Fils-Aime has stated that Metroid: Other M would "take you deeper into Samus' story" including childhood and romance.

I don't have wiki 'skills' so please excuse the basic layout... :) (Darrek Attilla)  212.64.228.99 (talk) 14:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Young Samus Aran
Many people are inferring that the young woman seen in the trailer is Samus. I may need to watch the trailer again, as I'm sure that it is implied that it is her, but it has not been confirmed. Lucy (talk) 12:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC) The young woman with short hair is most likely to be Samus, however, and excuse me if i'm wrong, if you mean the girl at the end, it's more probably that's one of the manga characters, even if the girl's hair seemed to be black, we can't discard her, she was a fan of samus if i remember right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.171.0.2 (talk) 19:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The new trailer shows Samus as having a mole on her chin. The young woman with short blonde hair in the teaser trailer also has a mole on her chin in the same spot.  Given the difference in bust size, I'd say that it is indeed Samus as a teenager.  As for the woman with black hair, we'll have to wait and see.  Putting anything else into the article is speculation, which is strongly discouraged in Wikipedia.  75.157.115.154 (talk) 04:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Remember Me?
Just a note, how popular has this become? Youtube videos have definitely popularized this character. User:99.254.81.140
 * I don't think this is the place to discuss this. Talk pages are for discussing how to improve the articles. I Feel Tired (talk) 13:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Just saying how the game has become popular and had a strange effect on the internet population since its showing at e3. Normally Nintendo games get little press, but this could be seen as viral marketing User:99.254.81.140

Request for article lock
Considering the massive influx of edits, it's difficult -- if not impossible -- to make any legitimate edits. The article needs to be protected from fancruft and speculation until its popularity dies down. A better idea might be to nominate it for speedy deletion, since it was only recently announced, and there are not enough details to merit its creation. 72.150.231.97 (talk) 20:04, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think compared to some other articles there are relatively few edits, and I feel that locking this article is unnessecary. I Feel Tired (talk) 00:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Is there any concrete evidence of 2d elements?
I've watched the trailer several times myself, but none of the levels look like they are "2.5-D" at all, in fact, most of the rooms remind me of Team Ninja's previous work, Ninja Gaiden. Is there any word straight from the the source that I don't know about, or am I right in thinking that this game is purely 3rd and 1st person like it appears to be? Karkashan (talk) 20:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There doesn't seem to be any "concrete" evidence, all we have to go by at this point is the trailer, and I suppose any comments on it being 3D and/or 2D would be a bit speculatory at this point. I Feel Tired (talk) 01:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There doesn't seem to be any 2D to me. The article is pretty messed up in that regards right now: The 2D and 3D terms mentioned in the description link to "2D computer graphics" and "3D computer graphics" respectively, which have nothing to do with the actual meaning of 2D and 3D in this case. Then, the gameplay section contardicts the initial description by stating there are no 2D elements. The only source that speaks of sidescrolling gameplay is in my opinion very unreliable, as it is from some no-name reporter on an obscure website, and the article is very speculative... Alright, lemme fix all o' this. --142.213.254.2 (talk) 13:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

"including childhood and romance."
The header finishes with this line saying the game will be "including childhood and romance", yet this is not shown in the trailer, nor was it stated by Reggie. It's pure speculation.Winterdenni (talk) 15:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Be bold and remove it. MuZemike 16:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I removed it. I Feel Tired (talk) 18:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually that line was said by Reggie in his initial interview with G4 the day of the press conference. However navigating the G4.tv site is a pain, and I'm not even sure they kept the footage from the broadcast. Karkashan (talk) 17:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well if anyone can find the source then it could be re-added into the article, but until then it should not be included. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 11:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Judging by the teenaged Samus and infant Samus in the trailers, the game will include her past, most likely as flashbacks, but as for romance... Samus has never had a canon boyfriend or lover, so that's speculation. 75.157.115.154 (talk) 04:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

New Infromation/ Interview
I found some new information |at this site with a new interview and some new screenshots and information. Is there any way we could include this in the article? I Feel Tired (talk) 00:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Apparently not. I Feel Tired (talk) 01:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Kotaku looks reliable to me, so I don't see why not. - sesu PRIME  echoes • corruption 08:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Release Date
If you look at the trailer carefully when it says 2010 if you look in the missile slot it says 3/25 Spazturtle (talk) 14:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * True, but who's to say it's the release date? To claim such a thing would be original research. -sesuPRIME talk • contribs 14:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The game is releasing on January 1st 2010. Gamestops' offical site has said so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.160.160.137 (talk) 21:43, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Where at GameStop.com does it say that? - sesu  PRIME  21:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Even if it was on GameStop I wouldn't take that date seriously since it sounds like a clear placeholder date. I have never heard of any game being realseased on New Years day.--76.65.141.11 (talk) 19:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Listing a release date as Jan 1 is any publisher's way of saying "not this year". JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 12:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know what happened with the site but around a week after it was announced it said it would release on Jan 1st. I don't thing that is true anymore since it no longer says it but at the time I edited the article it was the best sign of a actual release date. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.102.206.223 (talk) 17:35, August 1, 2009
 * 1up.com lists the release date as December 15, 2010, but I'm a little worried that IGN doesn't list it yet. I'm also bothered that 1up doesn't say which region the Dec 15 date is for. Oh well. - sesu  PRIME  01:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It could easily be another tentative date. Nintendo recently released a bunch of release dates and Metroid: Other M is still listed as TBA 2010. Until Nintendo makes it official, I'd be skeptical on whether or not it's real. DesertLynx83 (talk) 06:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, do we have a reason to doubt 1up.com's information? - sesu  PRIME  05:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Everyone else is saying TBA 2010. Nintendo hasn't confirmed the release date yet. The only recent information on a release date is here: http://wii.ign.com/articles/100/1009561p1.html So I wouldn't trust that date unless it comes from Nintendo and it doesn't...yet. DesertLynx83 (talk) 05:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

We'll just have to wait for an official date from an official source, that's all. Link 486 (talk) 11:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

It's to be released on January 1st of next year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.31.63.26 (talk) 12:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You're gonna need to give us a source for that. Arrowned (talk) 13:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The euro release has not been revealed, other than Q3 2010, and GAME are completly unreliable for release dates, this should be changed as it is unproven and speculative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arkmana (talk • contribs) 20:11, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Screenshots
I uploaded some screenshots to go with the article and added one into the article. I Feel Tired (talk) 17:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Nintendo Media Summit info


New info is also expected to come from a demo playable at the Media Summit later today. Abodos (talk) 22:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

New Release Date for NA
August 31st. http://press.nintendo.com/articles.jsp?id=23359 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.185.142.209 (talk) 19:03, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Dual Layer disc? Is this worth a mention?
Everyone knows that when you hear the Wii make a couple of "click" sounds before it loads the disc and spins louder and faster that it's a dual-layer disc. Metroid Other M appears to have that. So is it worth a mention in the "game bio" section on the side? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.32.73.84 (talk) 04:51, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

FA?
I have to say that this is one of the best-written VG articles I've read in a long time on Wiki - is this being put forward for GA/FA? Congrats to all who contributed! :o) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.64.228.99 (talk) 10:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Yahtzee - Zero Punctuation
Can we remove Yahtzee's review from the page? His reviews are very satirical, I feel its quite inappropriate to add it to the reception section. His stuff is largely avoided within Wikipedia articles. --LostOverThere (talk) 07:38, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Disagree. Although satirical he brings up good points. His points agreed with what another reviewer said (re: sexism) so he isn't that out there. Just because he uses humor in his reviews, it doesn't mean he isn't a reviewer. Besides, he isn't getting paid by the same people that sell the game like many of the other quoted reviewers are.
 * My main point was he isn't used in any other game pages on Wikipedia that I could find - why add him to Other M if he's not in the others? I love him too, but I just don't feel he's needed for the reception section.--LostOverThere (talk) 09:58, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with LostOverThere. Yahtzee is a professional critic not a reviewer, his primary goal is to entertain not to make objective reviews. I don't think his review needs to be in this article. I Feel Tired (talk) 14:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)