Ridley is Samus' personal
arch-nemesis and a recurring antagonist, but rarely the
Big Bad since he's often under another villain's influence (which said villain usually being the driving force of the entire plot), while Mother Brain is the Big Bad in Metroid/Zero Mission and Super Metroid. Added links to tvtropes to best illustrate the differences between the two, as they are not the same thing or automatically interchangeable.
I understand preferences but I've always thought basing a $60 decision on one single component of a massive game was a bit extreme. That's like me finding out there's a new Pokemon generation, but Mienshao, my favorite pokemon, is unavailable in it by normal means, so I refuse to get the game.
Many people have different reasons for buying and playing the games that they do. Some make their purchasing differences based on the game's story, some make it based off the gameplay, while others get enticed by the game's presentation. Your reasoning to buy a certain game will likely be different from another's, and to assert that he's being "extreme" because he does not share the same buying methods as you do is just something I can't agree with.
While you may disagree, I think looking at it from a slightly different perspective may shed some light on why for some people a single component (or lack thereof) can turn someone off to the game.
From my experience, they were not too impressed from what the game has to offer from the beginning. The gameplay videos probably looked disappointing to them, some of the design choices weren't too great, and after what happened with Brawl they are undecided about making a purchase and aren't nearly as ready to throw money at it despite it's potential. However, there can be one design choice that could win them over, a design choice that can completely convince a buyer to gamble on a once apprehensive desire to purchase to go "you know what? I'll give this game a chance after all." After all, buying products isn't gambling. No one in their right mind who is skeptical will just throw money at the game if the promotional material doesn't do enough to entice them to make a purchase. But a highly desired feature, especially a very personal one with some history, on the other hand may change one's mind down the line.
For some people, the ability to play as Ridley in a fan-service Nintendo crossover despite possible grievances before is such a design choice to some people. After all, on face value everyone knows that a Smash Bros. game is practically guaranteed to be a "good". Even if a black sheep that Brawl crawled into the franchise, it was still for the most part be a solid game, but to others (and me) just being a "solid" game just isn't enough. Smash 4 looks "good", but there have been some deeper mechanics changes that makes me iffy about it and pretty reserved. However, despite my over-analytical grumpiness, Ridley's availability as a playable character may just win me over to buy the game anyway despite harboring the intention to just rent whenever the hype train dies down (and even that's an if at this point).
I can understand if you don't agree, but I can definitely see where these people are coming from. Everyone has a different reason for why they like these types of games. If that reason isn't there, why invest in it?
1. He made Smash possible to begin with. His idea. Be thankful.
Please, this isn't a charity. I can only agree with this mindset if the game was free, but this game will range from $50 to $60 to be played on a $300 device (that not many people have). Nobody needs to be thankful for every little thing he does even if said person has complaints; that's being terribly complacent otherwise. If someone is not satisfied with the product that it's shaping up to be or the choices made with it, then why would he not be upset about it? The only 'thanks' Sakurai needs is the fact that he received the $$$ for the price of the game.
2. More often than not, he gives us much of what we want, and usually has good reasons for not giving us the stuff he doesn't.
3. His games, particularly Brawl, have been more than 'pretty good.' I'm assuming you're citing lack of competitive balance as Sakurai's failing since you're a Project M fan, but outside of balance, Smash games are massive multiplayer fun packed with unspeakable amounts of content relative to the average game. Ridley alone will not make or break this game, and if it does, you're riding on your desire for him a bit too much.
These points are... highly debatable. But to keep it short: He caters to fans but at the same time largely does his own thing. So, not much different then any other competent developer. Sometimes he hits gold, and other times he misses very, very hard. As for Sakurai's resume, he's largely a good developer but often times some very puzzling and flawed design choices find their way into his games sometime (especially Brawl).
Though whether his game's are good or not is irrelevant anyway; if someone believes that Sakurai messed up, he should call him out on it, regardless how good or bad of a developer he is.
And no one said Sakurai was an infallible genius. But he is pretty respectable and good at what he does. This is in response to your other comment. All-in-all, keep faith that he will be in, and stop acting like Sakurai does **** just to piss you off and not care about what you want (Ridley), because he doesn't. Ridley has been explicitly stated to have been held back by technical limitations in the past, not vindictiveness.
He may not be an infallible genius, but like with many other game developers these days many people will often ignore or encourage the notion that you shouldn't complain about their choices and actions because they know what their doing and that their decisions are largely without error. Those whom are open to criticize developers like Sakurai get this type of attitude a lot. For me personally, I give credit where credit is due, and there are just as many things that I like about Smash 4 that I don't like about it. But specifically with Ridley, I think he's handle the whole situation poorly, regardless if Ridley will be playable or not.
Of course, with that said that Sakurai is clearly not out to get anyone or purposely disappoint fans
(And, regardless of Ridley's playable status, he doesn't delight in trolololo everyone either, but that's a whole other issue that I've already delved into) but it's hard to not get frustrated with his decisions sometimes. Yes, he often goes above and beyond to deliver to the fans the best game that he can possibly make, and sometimes goes to extreme lengths to do so (like his wrist problems for example). But that does not all of a sudden exempt him from criticism or complaints that fans may have a problem with.
Now to be fair, I will wait until the 3DS version comes out (or any info that comes prior) before I get on Sakurai's, Nintendo's and Namco's case about some design choices or Ridley anymore (if anyone's curious, my thoughts on Ridley possibly being hyped for Boss Hazard feature before remains largely unchanged, though I'm hoping for the best anyway). It may surprise some people, but I don't always enjoy criticizing the developer for one of my favorite game franchises. I'm going to wait it out and see what happens from now on.
@
PlasmaPuffball
You may have already gotten an answer, but for 2D Metroid I'd start with Zero Mission. For 3D Metroid, start with Prime. As for Other M, it's a game weighed down by many bizarre design choices, and because of them fails to live up as both a Metroid game and an Action game.
Also, don't worry to much about the Chronology of Metroid; it's largely irrelevant to most of the games overall except for maybe Fusion and Other M since you can easily deduce what's happening in the game's anyway once you start playing.
If he were shown off in a non-playable role at the Invitational Tournament...hoo boy. I would not want to see that happen live.
Just the thought makes me cringe. On the flip side, a complete omission of the Pyrosphere Stage in general from both the Tournament and E3 would definitely make me very suspicious
(and frustrated)
