There is one major oversight I see in this debate time and again. Comparing a used game sale to a used car sale is just plain ignorant. When you drive a new car off the lot the company that made that car and the dealership that sold that car both have recouped there cost in full (and with a healthy profit usually). The car is now yours and if you sell it the profit is yours to make.
Why this is not a corollary with games is that a game - much like a film - costs 10's to 100's of millions of dollars to produce. When you pay $60 for it you have in no way paid for that product in full. Entertainment releases rely on selling hundreds of thousands of copies to recoup their investments.
The most obvious similar event is the release of movies. Sure you can buy the film when it is released and if you want to sell it for a profit you are free to do so - however films have an exclusive period of time when they are in theaters where if you want to see the film you will pay their prices and see it in their theater. During this time the producers of the content can recoup their investment. Video games have no such period. This is when the new sale turned used sale via GameStop ramming a used copy down consumer’s throats becomes a problem. I am sure this debate wouldn't be happening if GameStop couldn't buy / trade or sell a used copy of a game within 6 months of launch - similar in most regards to how the film industry releases their products – and if that’s the case then this is very much about people buying used and the developers losing a new game sale.
"
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.
To me a more offensive restriction was the decision to use the Wii-mote exclusively when the Nunchuck was a perfectly usable tool to enhance navigation. The lack of precise control did more to put me off Metroid than the crappy story. This, like the story, was a design decision - it led directly to the over generous auto-aim function that turned Samus into the 2010 equivalent of a DOOM sidescroller. Is one of these more grievous than the other? Not in my opinion but all together it was enough to have me return Other M with a third of it left unplayed.
I am seriously tired of hearing about the controversy of this game and blaming gamers for not embracing new ideas. Firstly, there was clearly support for the Prime Trilogy because it offered obvious quality, despite breaking tradition and going in a new direction (which is exactly what Other M did). Secondly, the "core gameplay" here was much more to "appease fans" than the lame story but you don't complain about that when it is the only retreaded thing (and it still didn't work well). Lastly, when deciding to rent or buy I read many reviews that were specifically and consciously not too harsh on the story element because they felt that voiced characters and an actual story were a very good start for Nintendo (which has long abstained from these now expected conventions) [IGN's review for one]. This sounds like the exact opposite of what you are saying.
Gamers are the audience and by and large they are a discerning crowd (maybe due to the fact that the games cost so much). Our industry is different from the movies and music in that most major releases are recognized as high quality productions. In our industry quality and innovation are rewarded and the gamers who buy and the reviewers who criticize play an integral role in keeping that true. Nintendo doesn't understand why Metroid Other M will sell only half of what they projected (according to Reggie Fils-aims in a recent interview) - blaming the gamers and the press for not recognizing the quality is the wrong approach - take the criticism, acknowledge where mistakes were made, and give us a (far) better game in its next iteration.
"