Samus is Trans

Why even add the "male" in male character? It's okay to complain that any character isn't cool. I have no idea what's trying to be construed by signifying male character, but you're trying to add gender in a place where it wasn't before, like some loaded question to give me something unanswerable.

Hell, f***ing nobody liked Other M because it made Samus turn into a cry-baby super stereotypical damsel. There you go, female character.

When you get a game, and then get a sequel to the game with the same character in it, you don't want a worse version of that character, especially when that character is worse for unessential reasons.

People didn't like Sunshine because it changed the focus of Mario's jumping to Mario's water mechanics.

These complaints matter because they effect overall motivations to play a game. You want to play as the hero/heroine that you've played as without any meaningless flaws from game to game.

Anyway,

Most of Anita's criticisms don't matter because of the implications behind them. Some of her points aren't wrong, but they also aren't new complaints in the slightest. She doesn't only criticize games, but pushes gaming as a whole as part of the agenda in the patriarchal scheme. Everyone knows that girls fighting wearing high heels is highly impractical and out of place. She then takes it further by either talking about how terrible women have it or how men are the reason women wear high heels or something.

Just look at her piece here.

"The trope frames female bodies as collectible, as tractable or as consumable, and positions women as status symbols designed to validate the masculinity of presumed straight male players."

That is such a large stretch from "Samus wears less clothes for a better ending". She translates 1 instance in a game where that instance is not the focus, into commentary on what's rewarding for a man, commentary on how women's bodies are objectified (which is not a new or surprising point to anybody), into commentary about how male players being the demographic is the root cause of this.

She's blaming gamers and men as to why this is in the game (which is not inherently false admittedly, i.e. fanservice exists everywhere, in this case it's fanservice for men), but it's completely idiotic to blame a demographic for being a demographic. What's worse she's using this point to explain how women have it worse everywhere and this is a worthwhile example. 

According to Anita, because fanservice exists in Metroid for completing the game quickly, this is further evidence that women are only for men in society. If you don't see the absurdity of this stretch, then I don't know. If you don't see how that above quoted sentence completely strips women of their value, then I don't know.

It's actually ironic that she's the one that holds the most sexist view, because women are not only for men.

She's pushing an agenda of "women have nothing and men have everything", which is simply not true in the US. Note that this doesn't mean the opposite is true, (that opposite being that it's totally equal) because there are things easier and things harder for both genders.

Just imagine, what if she said, "it's interesting in some games like Ghosts n Goblins, male nudity is seen as embarrassing and failing, whereas in games like Metroid, female nudity is seen as rewarding. Whats up with that?"

No further agenda, balanced commentary on tropes, no blaming the gamers/industry/developers, and questions the viewer. Like a damn critic/analyst should appropriately do.

The fact that she's almost unbelievably shady, believes sexism can only exist one way, and has none of her own research to base her claims about how male gamers act towards women because of games doesn't help either.

I'm done after this, nothing else to say. You can simply disagree with me I guess.

"The trope frames female bodies as collectible, as tractable or as consumable, and positions women as status symbols designed to validate the masculinity of presumed straight male players."

That is such a large stretch from "Samus wears less clothes for a better ending". She translates 1 instance in a game where that instance is not the focus, into commentary on what's rewarding for a man, commentary on how women's bodies are objectified (which is not a new or surprising point to anybody), into commentary about how male players being the demographic is the root cause of this.

She's blaming gamers and men as to why this is in the game (which is not inherently false admittedly, i.e. fanservice exists everywhere, in this case it's fanservice for men), but it's completely idiotic to blame a demographic for being a demographic. What's worse she's using this point to explain how women have it worse everywhere and this is a worthwhile example. 

According to Anita, because fanservice exists in Metroid for completing the game quickly, this is further evidence that women are only for men in society. If you don't see the absurdity of this stretch, then I don't know. If you don't see how that above quoted sentence completely strips women of their value, then I don't know.

It's actually ironic that she's the one that holds the most sexist view, because women are not only for men.

She's pushing an agenda of "women have nothing and men have everything", which is simply not true in the US. Note that this doesn't mean the opposite is true, (that opposite being that it's totally equal) because there are things easier and things harder for both genders.

Just imagine, what if she said, "it's interesting in some games like Ghosts n Goblins, male nudity is seen as embarrassing and failing, whereas in games like Metroid, female nudity is seen as rewarding. Whats up with that?"