I think the press's focus on narrative in Other M is completely justified: Both Nintendo and Team Ninja hyped those aspects of the game before release. How could they expect critics to ignore either voice acting or the cut-scenes?

I agree with Rob. There was a lot of fuss made over Samus having a real voice and personality for once as a selling point to the game so of course it's going to be under a magnifying glass once critics get a copy in their grasp. Nintendo would have been better off keeping Samus a silent protagonist in my opinion and focused on mainly on gameplay mechanics.

I agree with Rob here, I'm afraid. I'm perfectly happy to ignore shoddy story-production in a game, provided that component of the game is ignorable. Nintendo and Team Ninja were not interested in making ignorable story sequences. As Rob pointed out, the story aspects were hyped all to hell prior to release - although I could forgive that quite easily. The primary problem was that the entire game was designed in such a way that put the obvious focus on these story scenes. And they just weren't good. 
A critic should focus on the components that the game causes them to focus on - and in the case of Other M, this was the intensely sub-par story (I would also submit that while the game-play was spartanly competent, I did not find it anything to write home about). The problems with Other M's reviews didn't stem from the reviewers, they stemmed from the design. 
Still, a very interesting perspective, even if I do disagree. Thanks so much for writing!

So it's okay to criticize on because someone didn't believe the hype? While the cutscenes didn't bother me, I understand why people hated it.

But just getting angry over the cutscenes just isn't a strong enough standard to criticize a game. And listening to hype before a game is out can mess up a person's ability to look at a game on its own merits.

As far No More Heroes and Sands of Times, some gameplay issues can be cosmetic. Sands of Time didn't need deeper combat because that wasn't the goal for the creators. It's simplistic combat and lack of bosses was complained about in reviews, as if every game have the requirements to be a good game.

I'm just saying amplifiying flaws that don't break the game whatsoever or make it difficult to play just undermines the attention your spending on the game as a whole.

As far Other M goes, nearly everyone I know who beat the game fully had a lot of fun playing it, as did I.

A

I agree with Rob 100%  To be honest, it's kind of ironic that you're trying to make this point using Metroid. This is a classic, beloved franchise that could not have a thinner, less-intrusive plot.  It essentially predates cut-scenes.  Nintendo/Team Ninja deliberately pushed a cut-scene-heavy story in Other M, arguably for the first time in the series.  Nintendo certainly thought it was noteworthy, so I'd hope critics would mention how this Metroid game was different from nearly all those that came before it.  If anything, I heard critics calling for fewer cut-scenes, not more expensive ones, which kind of defeats your point. 

Your argument seems to be that critics should somehow look at a game holistically without looking at any specific aspect, but while a whole may be greater than the sum of its parts, that doesn't entirely discount the role of the parts.  If you add peanuts to a desert, I can guarantee I won't like it.  The rest of the desert could be fantastic, but I hate peanuts.  An olympic gymnast will get points deducted if they don't stick the landing, regardless of the rest of the performance.  If some section of a game is of poor quality, it should be noted in a review because it can't help but contribute to the quality of the experience overall.

With your addition of PoP:SoT and NMH, it seems that, if anything, your issue is with developers/publishers who overreact to criticism.  Is there a cinematic arms race going on in the industry?  Yes, but it's hardly new, and I think you're grossly overstating the games media's role in it.

I think what you're ignoring here is that the Metroid series has never been focused on "story" until Other M. Critics weren't simply whining that the voice acting was bad; they were arguing that Team Ninja and Nintendo injected a bunch of superfluous (and poorly written) elements into a series that didn't need it. I'm not sure how that comes off as uninformed or ignorant.

I think you're also confusing "cut scenes" and "production values." The two aren't the same thing. Production values refer to the entire interactive experience, not just the non-interactive bits you watch between sections. Part of why I enjoyed Modern Warfare 2's single-player campaign is because the moment-to-moment production values made me feel as if I was inside an action movie. I could care less for the ludicrous story or the cut scenes, but the overall production values -- the sounds, the graphics, the scripting, etc. etc. -- made the game for me.

As for the correlation you make between game prices and production costs: How do you explain the fact that, adjusted for inflation, games are actually cheaper now than they were in the NES or SNES era?

Being seemingly the only guy who loved Metroid: Other M, I'm going to come to the defense of the author, at least to the point that people over looked Other M's amazing gameplay just so they could throw some easy jabs at its par-for-the-course melodramatic, Japanese story telling.

Just because the Metroid series has never focused on a certain aspect doesn't mean it's never there to begin with. All of the games had a strong story and they never beat you over the head with it.

And the whole 'it's never been there' argument, so what? Just because an element was never in a past game doesn't mean it's wrong for the developers and creators to try something new. No matter how flawed something is (and for the record, the story for Metroid: Other M was badly written and executed), it's better than staying the course just to appease fans.

Of course developers should try new things.  Innovation can be wonderful, especially in a long-running franchise.  Metroid Prime took a fair-sized departure from the previous games with its first person perspective. People were certainly skeptical of that decision, but it ultimately paid off.  That said, just because something is innovative or new doesn't make it beyond criticism.  Good changes should be lauded and bad changes criticized.  How a publisher/developer/person reacts to that criticism is their responsibility, not the critics'.

Still, all of this is ancillary to your main point.  If reviewers would have preferred the game to have no cut-scenes rather than the cut-scenes it currently has, then Other M can't be used as an example of the games press forcing publishers to focus on cut-scenes rather than gameplay.

Kenneth, from what you argue in the above comment, I cannot understand why criticizing narrative should be off limits to reviewers. If developers try something new and fail, shouldn't a reviewer express that (whether it's story or gameplay)?

Kenneth: How is it better to implement something flawed than to stay the course to appease fans? Other M sold poorly, and it alienated its fanbase. Who benefited? Sakamoto because he got to play movie director?

Appeasing fans, at least the ones who make you the most money, is a developer's job.

I can only give you my perspective as a gamer (and isn't every gamer a reviewer of sorts anyway?) I love the Metroid series, though I got my start with Prime. I played all three games in that series and then tracked down the Original and Super Metroid on the virtual console - mainly because I knew Other M started off with the end of Super Metroid and I wanted to see it for myself instead of a redone cut scene. I was very excited for this game. As the days drew down to Other M's release I heard more and more mediocre and negative things about a horrible, shoe-horned in story element. I switched from a purchase on Day 1 to renting it - and I am very glad I did.

Your critique is that reviewers should only comment on the interactive portions of the game (which I disagree with) but you neglect the intersection where story affects game play. Specifically with Other M there is a crappy mechanic that decides when you can use your abilities that boils down to your respect for Adam. This is crap. Additionally when talking about gameplay you neglect that Other M's is far from ground breaking; in fact it is far from being superior to any middle of the road 2.5D game.