It's not a controversial opinion. It is just the wrong one. Fusion is much better written than Other M and doesn't have any of the logic/plot holes. Not to mention the build-up to the SA-X is incredible. They share similar elements, but Fusion has much more nuance than Other M.
The Metroid franchise has way too much unused potential to just ignore the story and storytelling. You can still explain the story in more depth through the environment while also having a bigger emphasis on cutscenes and dialogue. Just because Other M did it badly doesn't mean it can't be done the right way.
Eh, same writer, same inane internal monologues, same crappy retroactive cannon. You talk about all the storytelling potential for the series, but we've already seen the man's vision for Samus as a character, freed from the limitations of tech and budget, and it's not worth having.
But even if someone else were at the helm, I don't see what fleshing out her back story does for you. Metroid works best as a game about a badass bounty hunter on her own against stacked odds in a disturbing alien environment. Atmosphere and lore are communicated through organically exploring that environment. Badass moments are created through gameplay. Monologues, dialogues, and cutscenes aren't just unnecessary in that formula, they actively waste time and get in the way. You could have Stephen Spielberg and Ridley Scott in their primes collaborating on the cutscenes, and I'd still cut them (though I would totally watch that movie).
Sounds like our disagreement lies in our core idea of what Metroid is and should be. For me, Fusion was easily the weakest 2D metroid (post Super) because it was the most linear and exposition-heavy. Also for me, the perfect modern Metroid would be heavily inspired by something like Bloodborne (and stay the hell away from something like The Last of Us). Those opinions may be wrong, but I'm sticking them. =P
