Did you like or not like Star Fox Zero?

[LancerStaff]

So Star Fox isn't necessarily fit for multiplayer so what? That doesn't necessarily mean its in for a death sentence. It's not like Smash, where multiplayer capabilities are endless. Its also not a PC game, which is where a lot of the multiplayer demand spawns from.

...So why even bother?

 

[Foxus]

...So why even bother?

My point exactly.

Why put time and effort into something that most likely will backfire? Why can't Nintendo's R&D get that?

 

[ChikoLad]

It would be very easy to add more depth to Star Fox multiplayer.

Capture the Flag or Base Capture type modes would work really well.

And Assault already had a really good base to begin with. The game actually has a competitive scene in Canada if I'm not mistaken.

 

[IanTheGamer]

LancerStaff is obviously one of those fools who thinks that every Star Fox game should be just like Star Fox 64,

Rail Shooters are dying, Nintendo needs to evolve the series in order for it to survive, Sorry but it's just the Rules of Nature, and if whiny thick-skulled purists like you don't like it, too bad.

 

[LancerStaff]

LancerStaff is obviously one of those fools who thinks that every Star Fox game should be just like Star Fox 64, Rail Shooters are dying, Nintendo needs to evolve the series in order for it to survive, Sorry but it's just the Rules of Nature, and if whiny thick-skulled purists like you don't like it, too bad.

Which is why Nintendo decided to remake one and put the brand new one as the main focus of E3, right?

 

[PKFreeze89]

LancerStaff is obviously one of those fools who thinks that every Star Fox game should be just like Star Fox 64, View attachment 78392Rail Shooters are dying, Nintendo needs to evolve the series in order for it to survive, Sorry but it's just the Rules of Nature, and if whiny thick-skulled purists like you don't like it, too bad.

It's not like Nintendo did not try, Adventures, Assault and Command were all different from the other games and most of the fans hated and were all asking for something like 64.

 

[Carl the Oatswag]

I'm personally pretty hype so I really would love to see it be really good. I can't give a full picture because I try not to judge a game until I've played it.

 

[IanTheGamer]

It's not like Nintendo did not try, Adventures, Assault and Command were all different from the other games and most of the fans hated and were all asking for something like 64.

But they hate Nintendo for reling on old ideas, which is hypocritical, Well Nintendo really should ignore them, and do what they think is best, I'd tell them "Shut up, and stop complaining, I know it isn't a traditional Star Fox game, but you are letting nostalgia obstruct your views, SF64 was good for a game RELEASED IN 1997, but we are not in 1997, WE. ARE. IN. 2015!, so you WILL play this game that we spend hours and millions 0f dollars worth of manpower, AND you ARE GONNA LIKE IT!

 

[Foxus]

But they hate Nintendo for reling on old ideas, which is hypocritical, Well Nintendo really should ignore them, and do what they think is best, I'd tell them "Shut up, and stop complaining, I know it isn't a traditional Star Fox game, but you are letting nostalgia obstruct your views, SF64 was good for a game RELEASED IN 1997, but we are not in 1997, WE. ARE. IN. 2015!, so you WILL play this game that we spend hours and millions 0f dollars worth of manpower, AND you ARE GONNA LIKE IT!

I agree, but the only problem with that thinking is the possibility Nintendo would let the profits get in the way of expanding SF's world. I think that's part of the reason why they've milked the SF 64 cow dry.

 

[LancerStaff]

Don't really think you can say that when they've only made three SF games rail shooters over about fifteen years...

If Starfox abandons it's core again, I'll just be done with it. Don't have to like it. Of course, 643D did pretty well so I imagine 0 here will too. If 0 does well, then Starfox as a whole will likely stay much closer to it's rail shooter origins from here on out. Which I'll gladly take over anything else Starfox has done.

 

[IanTheGamer]

Don't really think you can say that when they've only made three SF games rail shooters over about fifteen years...

If Starfox abandons it's core again, I'll just be done with it. Don't have to like it. Of course, 643D did pretty well so I imagine 0 here will too. If 0 does well, then Starfox as a whole will likely stay much closer to it's rail shooter origins from here on out. Which I'll gladly take over anything else Starfox has done.

I meant that Nintendo can do so much more than milk SF64, since game technology and storytelling has progressed by huge margins in 18 years, progress is a fickle animal, some may hate it (Like you for instance), but in the long term progress is good, and you should NEVER let nostalgia get in the way of progress

I agree, but the only problem with that thinking is the possibility Nintendo would let the profits get in the way of expanding SF's world. I think that's part of the reason why they've milked the SF 64 cow dry.

Which makes no sense since SF643D sold poorly compared to Assault and Adventures (Which still managed to sell 1 million copies

 

[LancerStaff]

I meant that Nintendo can do so much more than milk SF64, since game technology and storytelling has progressed by huge margins in 18 years, progress is a fickle animal, some may hate it (Like you for instance), but in the long term progress is good, and you should NEVER let nostalgia get in the way of progress

Which makes no sense since SF643D sold poorly compared to Assault and Adventures (Which still managed to sell 1 million copies

Dunno how you know everything about 0 but whatever... Still don't know how the story will go. Might even be an alternate timeline or something.

Pretty sure Miamoto said the series would get canned again if 643D didn't sell. If 0 doesn't sell then I don't see anything good happening to the series for a while...

 

[Foxus]

Dunno how you know everything about 0 but whatever... Still don't know how the story will go. Might even be an alternate timeline or something.

Pretty sure Miamoto said the series would get canned again if 643D didn't sell. If 0 doesn't sell then I don't see anything good happening to the series for a while...

Thing is the storyline can go in so many ways.

There's no law against introducing new creatures and locations. Works for Mario, it'll work for Star Fox.

There could be a twist where its revealed James never died.
Fox's son, Marcus, becomes part of the team.

Just a couple ideas of which direction the series could head. Adventures was a good start, exposing Fox in a completely different environment, and forcing him to adapt in situations away from the Arwing and Blaster. Assault was a....okay attempt at combining on-foot and shooter together, but the attempt backfired. We need to look at Adventures and see where we can expand from there , not Assault, not Command.

 

[LancerStaff]

So I heard that the official site brought up multiplayer and online play...

Which would probably be the co-op and then leaderboards/Miiverse, so yeah.

 

[N3ON]

Do I like or not like Star Fox Zero? I dunno, I haven't played it yet.

I like that Nintendo hasn't abandoned Star Fox. I like that Platinum is working on it. I like that they're going for the full retail experience. I like that they delayed the game; it was looking pretty rough.

I don't like how barren and devoid of spectacle the landscapes look. I don't like how Miyamoto seemingly refuses to evolve his franchises past minuscule increments. I don't like how Krystal was scrapped, though I was expecting it. I don't like how in all likelihood the future of the series will be largely contingent on the performance of this so-so looking tail-end Wii U game.

Can't really say more than that until I've played it.

 

[jahkzheng]

Do I like or not like Star Fox Zero? I dunno, I haven't played it yet.

I like that Nintendo hasn't abandoned Star Fox. I like that Platinum is working on it. I like that they're going for the full retail experience. I like that they delayed the game; it was looking pretty rough.

I don't like how barren and devoid of spectacle the landscapes look. I don't like how Miyamoto seemingly refuses to evolve his franchises past minuscule increments. I don't like how Krystal was scrapped, though I was expecting it. I don't like how in all likelihood the future of the series will be largely contingent on the performance of this so-so looking tail-end Wii U game.

Can't really say more than that until I've played it.

Basically this in more or less words, probably more since its me talking. Just a few things I perhaps expected that N3ON didn't because I'm more optimistic and because of my preferences.

For one, I didn't expect that they'd rehash the Lylat Wars story because I was hoping they wouldn't. Of course, I expected Krystal would return as long as it wasn't the Lylat Wars rehash. Now that it is, I'm not surprised if she doesn't show since it's set prior to her appearance in the series timeline wise. Likewise with the other post-64 characters.

And then I was also hoping this game would take gameplay cues from Assault. I feel Assault was a game that was taking the series in the right direction but just didn't fully realize a lot of it's ideas. For instance, the on-foot portions felt a bit boring and incomplete, but it was the right idea if they had just been refined. Likewise with multiplayer and the idea that the series couldn't be a on-rails shooter more than 50% of a time. You can only get so much mileage out of that in this game era despite what 64 fans demand. This series wants to be multifaceted. I think Kid Icarus Uprising shows us a little bit about what a game of this kind could do.

I also feel the characters have been reverted a bit. I'm not after big dumb drama like they tried to pull off in Command, but I want to see some character depth. And this isn't necessarily about writing but also just inherent in a more multifaceted gameplay. For instance, imagine if you could take different team members into different missions and utilize different unique abilities from each. Maybe there's a door in one level you can't hack the lock open with without Slippy, or a alternate path you can't fly down without Krystal sensing there were new enemies in that direction. Maybe they use different weapons or tools too and offer separate challenges. Maybe beating every mission in an Arwing with Slippy would be like a "hard mode", heh. Of course, I'm implying on-foot portions would be a big part of making this a game deepening experience that also creates inherent character depth. Instead were getting these gimmicky vehicles that seem to serve to further separate us from the characters. Why not have Fox jump out of his ship to infiltrate an enemy base? Would be fun to see him run around fully modeled like an Adventures throwback just for a portion of a mission. Now imagine being able to do that with any team member of Star Fox utilizing different tools, weapons, and abilities. This game had a real opportunity to be very deep this way.

More than anything, I'm seeing a lack of depth out of Zero so far. It's playing it a bit safe by rehashing a story, and seemingly even dialogue. The game does expand on the concept some however, so theres that, but in a lot of ways it looks more like a 64 remake than an original game. The most adventurous thing they're doing with the game play is the vehicles, which just seem relatively boring to me when compared to playing with the actual characters in similar situations.

Now, I did say the most adventurous thing their doing is the vehicle thing and perhaps the expansion of their existing story/game world, but in reality the most adventurous and riskiest thing they're doing is wrapped up in the control scheme. It's a little frustrating that the game's biggest focus and challenge was seemingly the control scheme. It's appeared to have limited the game in other ways as a result, such as graphical limitations due to rendering two different views and multiplayer/co-op limitations that could enrich the gameplay. I fear the dedication to making the gamepad special for Star Fox could be what holds it back.

But to bring this all back, these are just concerns I have from what I know so far and stuff that appears Star Fox Zero has scrapped or isn't focusing on. There's still much we don't know about the game. There's things I might assume aren't a part of the game that'll appear anyways. And like N3ON said, I can't properly judge the game until I've played it. What I can say though is that I'm not as hype about it as I was hoping I'd be. Most news I've heard hasn't gotten me excited. And I'm 90% certain that many of the things I wanted wont be there. I'm more interested in Xenoblade Chronicles X even though I've never played a Xenoblade game and Star Fox has been a favorite franchise of mine.

 

[LancerStaff]

I think Kid Icarus Uprising shows us a little bit about what a game of this kind could do.

Ehhh... The flight segments are really nothing more then extended cutscenes with a little shooting rather then a proper rail shooter. Even on the highest difficulties, with a proper weapon of course, it takes almost no effort or skill to get through or otherwise get a great score. The grounded gameplay is the only part of the game people care about.

 

[jahkzheng]

Ehhh... The flight segments are really nothing more then extended cutscenes with a little shooting rather then a proper rail shooter. Even on the highest difficulties, with a proper weapon of course, it takes almost no effort or skill to get through or otherwise get a great score. The grounded gameplay is the only part of the game people care about.

I did say it shows us a "little bit" about what a game "like" Star Fox could do. It's more about the balance of the gameplay than literally how the game plays.

Even so, I think the "rails" portion of KI:U was engaging and difficult enough. I actually found the rails portion to be the portion of the game that would kill me if anything could. At least the on foot portions of the game you could control the pace some and more easily recover from mistakes. The rails portion could really throw some things at you on higher difficulties. Plus, much of the engaging back and forth happened during these prelude "rails" portions. Basically, I liked the balance of KI:U's rails and on-foot gameplay.

I think Star Fox could do something similar but with a richer flying part that isn't always on rails. Maybe make things less linear too. Allow a character to jump in and out of their vehicles in "all range" settings. Even allowing rail portions to seamlessly convert to all range or on-foot portions in parts. More than anything though, KI:U shows how you can have a rich on-foot portion with deep gameplay options what with weapon choices and difficulty levels. Obviously, Star Fox needn't do this exactly, but similar depth could be achieved with unique character abilities, tools, and weapons and the ability to use a number of characters in any level. The replayability goes way up if just one level can be played as many different ways as there are characters. Add a difficulty toggle into the mix and you get a game that can be played in more ways and can appeal to both beginners and those looking for a challenge.

It's just the approach to multifaceted deep gameplay that matters in this comparison I made and not a direct reference that Star Fox should do exactly what Kid Icarus has done.

Really, I made a better comparison a few times in my last post. Have Star Fox move forward from Assault by expanding on its gameplay concepts. A more engaging on-foot gameplay and a consistently good and unique vehicle portion along with the other gameplay deepening concepts I mentioned already, and that's the way I feel Star Fox should evolve.

 

[LancerStaff]

I did say it shows us a "little bit" about what a game "like" Star Fox could do. It's more about the balance of the gameplay than literally how the game plays.

Even so, I think the "rails" portion of KI:U was engaging and difficult enough. I actually found the rails portion to be the portion of the game that would kill me if anything could. At least the on foot portions of the game you could control the pace some and more easily recover from mistakes. The rails portion could really throw some things at you on higher difficulties. Plus, much of the engaging back and forth happened during these prelude "rails" portions. Basically, I liked the balance of KI:U's rails and on-foot gameplay.

I think Star Fox could do something similar but with a richer flying part that isn't always on rails. Maybe make things less linear too. Allow a character to jump in and out of their vehicles in "all range" settings. Even allowing rail portions to seamlessly convert to all range or on-foot portions in parts. More than anything though, KI:U shows how you can have a rich on-foot portion with deep gameplay options what with weapon choices and difficulty levels. Obviously, Star Fox needn't do this exactly, but similar depth could be achieved with unique character abilities, tools, and weapons and the ability to use a number of characters in any level. The replayability goes way up if just one level can be played as many different ways as there are characters. Add a difficulty toggle into the mix and you get a game that can be played in more ways and can appeal to both beginners and those looking for a challenge.

It's just the approach to multifaceted deep gameplay that matters in this comparison I made and not a direct reference that Star Fox should do exactly what Kid Icarus has done.

Really, I made a better comparison a few times in my last post. Have Star Fox move forward from Assault by expanding on its gameplay concepts. A more engaging on-foot gameplay and a consistently good and unique vehicle portion along with the other gameplay deepening concepts I mentioned already, and that's the way I feel Star Fox should evolve.

Thing is that standing cont. fire oriented weapons were above and beyond the best weapons for clearing stages on higher difficultlies... Great for ground battles and destroys air battles, especially if it's a faster weapon. So long as you keep moving you'll never get hit outside of the rare air boss or obstacle. One of the biggest complaints is that you have to sit through about five minutes of air battles every time you want to attempt a 9.0 run, actually...

To me it sounds like you're trying to overcomplicate things... Thing is with Starfox is that you're always going to just go down the path with the most points. Making five different routes in every level doesn't do you a lot of good because you'll end up completely ignoring all but the one route. At best you could pick a character at the beginning and be stuck with them, but rather then making slightly different routes in levels they could just cut all those out and make completely separate levels.

I dunno... It's hard to really innovate a rail shooter. The dual screen gameplay looks really promising to me.

 

[IanTheGamer]

Thing is that standing cont. fire oriented weapons were above and beyond the best weapons for clearing stages on higher difficultlies... Great for ground battles and destroys air battles, especially if it's a faster weapon. So long as you keep moving you'll never get hit outside of the rare air boss or obstacle. One of the biggest complaints is that you have to sit through about five minutes of air battles every time you want to attempt a 9.0 run, actually...

To me it sounds like you're trying to overcomplicate things... Thing is with Starfox is that you're always going to just go down the path with the most points. Making five different routes in every level doesn't do you a lot of good because you'll end up completely ignoring all but the one route. At best you could pick a character at the beginning and be stuck with them, but rather then making slightly different routes in levels they could just cut all those out and make completely separate levels.

I dunno... It's hard to really innovate a rail shooter. The dual screen gameplay looks really promising to me.

But the problem with Star Fox solely being a rail shooter is that the rail-shooter genre is dying, and Star Fox just won't be viable as a rail shooter anymore, move the series forward like what Hideo Kojima did, MGS4 and MGSV are stealth action games, not pure stealth like in MGS1 or the MSX2 games, or like what Retro did with Metroid

 

[jahkzheng]

Thing is that standing cont. fire oriented weapons were above and beyond the best weapons for clearing stages on higher difficultlies... Great for ground battles and destroys air battles, especially if it's a faster weapon. So long as you keep moving you'll never get hit outside of the rare air boss or obstacle. One of the biggest complaints is that you have to sit through about five minutes of air battles every time you want to attempt a 9.0 run, actually...

To me it sounds like you're trying to overcomplicate things... Thing is with Starfox is that you're always going to just go down the path with the most points. Making five different routes in every level doesn't do you a lot of good because you'll end up completely ignoring all but the one route. At best you could pick a character at the beginning and be stuck with them, but rather then making slightly different routes in levels they could just cut all those out and make completely separate levels.

I dunno... It's hard to really innovate a rail shooter. The dual screen gameplay looks really promising to me.

I think in a vein similar to Hyrule Warriors there would be an ideal campaign path that you play initially but incentive to go back and play more levels over again for alternate awards or for completionist sake. I understand that some are happy enough with replayability that only involves completing the campaign as cleanly as possible, but I want to evolve the series beyond the 64 standard. I was never into "high scores" anyways but I know I wish there were more elements that allowed me to play with more of the characters with richer rewards for trying things different rather than just in the supposed "best way". I know, it's just my opinion, but I think something deep and engaging in more than just one facet would breath new life into the series. It's no easy task of course.

It's been a while since I played KI:U but I don't think I ever really optimized my weapons great. I tried doing everything I could as early as I could so I tackled the stage 4 (I think it was) 9.0 gate before I'd gotten to Viridi's missions. I also never played the multiplayer because I didn't have internet at the time I first played the game. I think my best weapon and the one I used to finally do stage 4 at 9.0 was Pandora Claws at about 250 power or something. Again my memory is foggy about this. I do remember that the prelude part was easily the toughest part and once that was over I was able to get to the gate and maintain my 9.0 to the end. Basically, I never got really good with the game or got the best stuff but I wanted to be a completionist in terms of the gates and such. Admittedly, I didn't aim to break all the achievements. My standard play was on 7.0 unless a gate required I play at a higher intensity. I can assume you got much more involved in the gameplay of KI:U than me. The gameplay wasn't the biggest hook for me although it was fun and rewarding. I never did quite get 100% used to the controls honestly. I played through the game for the characters and the story more than anything.

I think we have similar tastes in games but prefer an emphasis on different parts on these games. In both cases, for instance, I didn't play to do things "the best". I just want my game to have a depth of fun extra content and a chance to interact with all the characters more. Heck, even in KI:U, I played levels over again with different weapons just to see how it felt, not because it was optimal. There would be even more incentive for exploration if say, I could play as a different character from Pit too, just to see how dialogue might change and stuff. Imagine KI:U where you can play as Dark Pit from start to finish, heh. Would be pretty funny.

 

[LancerStaff]

But the problem with Star Fox solely being a rail shooter is that the rail-shooter genre is dying, and Star Fox just won't be viable as a rail shooter anymore, move the series forward like what Hideo Kojima did, MGS4 and MGSV are stealth action games, not pure stealth like in MGS1 or the MSX2 games, or like what Retro did with Metroid

Don't care. Rather not have a Starfox at all if not as a rail shooter, in much the same way you desperately don't want it to be a rail shooter.

And people sure did forget quick how divisive Metroid Prime was... I blame OM.

I think in a vein similar to Hyrule Warriors there would be an ideal campaign path that you play initially but incentive to go back and play more levels over again for alternate awards or for completionist sake. I understand that some are happy enough with replayability that only involves completing the campaign as cleanly as possible, but I want to evolve the series beyond the 64 standard. I was never into "high scores" anyways but I know I wish there were more elements that allowed me to play with more of the characters with richer rewards for trying things different rather than just in the supposed "best way". I know, it's just my opinion, but I think something deep and engaging in more than just one facet would breath new life into the series. It's no easy task of course.

It's been a while since I played KI:U but I don't think I ever really optimized my weapons great. I tried doing everything I could as early as I could so I tackled the stage 4 (I think it was) 9.0 gate before I'd gotten to Viridi's missions. I also never played the multiplayer because I didn't have internet at the time I first played the game. I think my best weapon and the one I used to finally do stage 4 at 9.0 was Pandora Claws at about 250 power or something. Again my memory is foggy about this. I do remember that the prelude part was easily the toughest part and once that was over I was able to get to the gate and maintain my 9.0 to the end. Basically, I never got really good with the game or got the best stuff but I wanted to be a completionist in terms of the gates and such. Admittedly, I didn't aim to break all the achievements. My standard play was on 7.0 unless a gate required I play at a higher intensity. I can assume you got much more involved in the gameplay of KI:U than me. The gameplay wasn't the biggest hook for me although it was fun and rewarding. I never did quite get 100% used to the controls honestly. I played through the game for the characters and the story more than anything.

I think we have similar tastes in games but prefer an emphasis on different parts on these games. In both cases, for instance, I didn't play to do things "the best". I just want my game to have a depth of fun extra content and a chance to interact with all the characters more. Heck, even in KI:U, I played levels over again with different weapons just to see how it felt, not because it was optimal. There would be even more incentive for exploration if say, I could play as a different character from Pit too, just to see how dialogue might change and stuff. Imagine KI:U where you can play as Dark Pit from start to finish, heh. Would be pretty funny.

HW only ever required three playthroughs of a stage at most outside of clearing every difficultly (not to mention you could skip normal and easy completely), and nothing was stopping you from ignoring everything besides what was necessary. Playing the different characters resulted in little to no extra text... Starfox could add some trinkets to pick up but honestly in a rail shooter it's always just a pain to search for stuff. And then you can't really justify different dialogue in different routes because everybody's talking over the radio anyway.

Chapter 7 would be the one with the 9.0 intensity gate... The room behind it is really hard too with lots of long-ranged enemies and the floor had plusating current running through it. Although if you were going for gold laurels you only had to open up the door and die. Beating every stage on 7.0 with a random weapon you found would be pretty respectable all things considered...

 

[jahkzheng]

HW only ever required three playthroughs of a stage at most outside of clearing every difficultly (not to mention you could skip normal and easy completely), and nothing was stopping you from ignoring everything besides what was necessary. Playing the different characters resulted in little to no extra text... Starfox could add some trinkets to pick up but honestly in a rail shooter it's always just a pain to search for stuff. And then you can't really justify different dialogue in different routes because everybody's talking over the radio anyway.

Chapter 7 would be the one with the 9.0 intensity gate... The room behind it is really hard too with lots of long-ranged enemies and the floor had plusating current running through it. Although if you were going for gold laurels you only had to open up the door and die. Beating every stage on 7.0 with a random weapon you found would be pretty respectable all things considered...

It's not so much about requirements as it is about options and extra content. Again, wasn't making a direct reference but just a "kind like this" comparison. I'll do another just for fun. How about DK 64 where you could be any of the Kongs and, using their unique abilities, nab rewards and go other places. Yeah, it's not a railshooter obviously, but the concept of depth of ways to play stands. This is just a "kind of like this" example.

And the conversations could easily be different if you're playing as a different character. For one, you'd have a different set of characters talking to you. You wouldn't necessarily have to take an alternate path or do anything different other than choosing to be a different character from the start. If you're Peppy, for instance, the way your teammates talk to you could be different. Dialogue where maybe a NPC Peppy said something would have to be replaced with different dialogue. It's basically just easter egg level content here, but it could be more if you do more different things. I'd play whole levels again just to see how my teammates would interact differently, if even only a little bit. There's a lot of ways this idea could be expanded on though, you just have to use your imagination. Similarly, I don't necessarily assume everything has to happen within the context of a railshooter because there ought to be a lot more gameplay variety in a Star Fox game imo. And even if the game was mostly a railshooter, alternate paths and options for characters that bring out alternate dialogue is not suddenly overly difficult to imagine. This kind of game variety is the same kind of thing that gets people to play Mass Effect as a Paragon and a Renegade. Now, I know that's heavily based on player influence and is all about decision making, but a fraction of that kind of freedom and variety could be brought to Star Fox to create depth and incentive to play things again just for the sake of seeing how things play out just a little differently.

I did make some weapons in KI:U but I never was able to get anything truly remarkable. End game I think I had some kind of orbital or arm that was like 270 but at the time I tackled that 9 gate I think I used some claws that were no more than 250. They weren't great for the flying portion since their range was bad, but I think I had good maneuverability and power when I was on my feet and at close range. It took a number tries in any case. I know all I had to do was get the gate open and it would still count even if I died right after, but why wouldn't I try to see how long I could last at 9.0 after the fact? Just so happened that I did last to end and the beginning really was the hardest part.

 

[IanTheGamer]

Don't care. Rather not have a Starfox at all if not as a rail shooter, in much the same way you desperately don't want it to be a rail shooter.
.

I desperately don't want it to be SOLELY a rail-shooter, it can have some rail shooting elements.
It's purists like you that are ruining gaming, well,

Miyamoto said he was going to add on-foot missions to the next Star Fox game when Adventures was still known as Dinosaur Planet, Nintendo doesn't care about the purists like you, they care ((supposedly) about pushing the boundaries

 

[Foxus]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. There are more possibilities for Star Fox than a "64 Cuddler" to put it nicely, would like to think.

Explore the universe much more (taking a cue from SMG),make both on-foot and airborne missions on different planets with different climates, reveal the existence of James McCloud after all, and possibly introduce new characters, possibly relatives to the main characters, both protagonist and antagonist based. And possibly the ability to switch between Fox and his son, Marcus (similar to being able to change between Mario and Luigi). People seem to forget Fox had a son.

If Nintendo truly wanted to prove they don't cave in to certain groups, as well as making one of Iwata's last, favorable works, SF Zero wouldn't be in any form, what its came out to be. Should have, Could have, Would have, made the ultimate Star Fox game after such a hiatus.

 

[LancerStaff]

I desperately don't want it to be SOLELY a rail-shooter, it can have some rail shooting elements.
It's purists like you that are ruining gaming, well, View attachment 81945
Miyamoto said he was going to add on-foot missions to the next Star Fox game when Adventures was still known as Dinosaur Planet, Nintendo doesn't care about the purists like you, they care ((supposedly) about pushing the boundaries

You say Nintendo doesn't care about purists and yet they go out and make SF0... And nearly every franchise they make is a straight genre. The latest 3D Mario was even truer to his roots then the first 3D Mario, Pokemon barely changes, Zelda hasn't had any giant changes besides relatively minor control differences... People are upset with Starfox because it's changed too much and doesn't stick to one idea much like with Sonic. You most certainly wouldn't be here complaining if they made SF0 instead of Adventures, that's for sure...

If the on-foot missions would of been like Sin & Punishment it'd still be a rail shooter. People probably would of never complained in the first place, and most likely was what Miamoto had in mind.

 

[Foxus]

You say Nintendo doesn't care about purists and yet they go out and make SF0... And nearly every franchise they make is a straight genre. The latest 3D Mario was even truer to his roots then the first 3D Mario, Pokemon barely changes, Zelda hasn't had any giant changes besides relatively minor control differences... People are upset with Starfox because it's changed too much and doesn't stick to one idea much like with Sonic. You most certainly wouldn't be here complaining if they made SF0 instead of Adventures, that's for sure...

If the on-foot missions would of been like Sin & Punishment it'd still be a rail shooter. People probably would of never complained in the first place, and most likely was what Miamoto had in mind.

Catering to the purists who want it the same, with few modifications, is what denies the franchises potential. Sure. I'd love to see another SF game like Adventures, but would I want the same thing? No. I would want to take what Adventures had, and build off of what Adventures had to deliver. Consistently catering to purists may work as a business move, but the "good" that comes out of that strategy is only temporary, and isn't always the most wise to follow.

It stumps creativity, ultimately people will become tired of it (like the tired-out saying, "Do a barrel roll.") and the franchise will die off unnecessarily.

At the end of the day, its time to move on. Its time for Fox McCloud and the franchise to move on. What worked in 1997 isn't going to work now. There's no reason 64 Cuddlers cannot play SF 64 and leave it at that. But no, they're constant nagging is bringing it down for the rest of us.

 

[LancerStaff]

Catering to the purists who want it the same, with few modifications, is what denies the franchises potential. Sure. I'd love to see another SF game like Adventures, but would I want the same thing? No. I would want to take what Adventures had, and build off of what Adventures had to deliver. Consistently catering to purists may work as a business move, but the "good" that comes out of that strategy is only temporary, and isn't always the most wise to follow.

It stumps creativity, ultimately people will become tired of it (like the tired-out saying, "Do a barrel roll.") and the franchise will die off unnecessarily.

At the end of the day, its time to move on. Its time for Fox McCloud and the franchise to move on. What worked in 1997 isn't going to work now. There's no reason 64 Cuddlers cannot play SF 64 and leave it at that. But no, they're constant nagging is bringing it down for the rest of us.

Temporary? Mario and Pokemon's success isn't temporary... They're succeeding because they've barely changed. It's rather telling that Mario's gotten more success and the fanbase is happier with the much more linear SMG games instead of the collectathons. The only reason the Guitar Hero and CoD franchises have dropped off was because it was too much too fast. If Nintendo keeps releasing their Marios and Pokemons at the rate they've been releasing them they're set.

Now why don't the old SF fans deserve a sequel while the new ones do? Why did Starfox even need to change in the first place when the vast majority of successful video game franchises didn't? Actually, why wouldn't a rail shooter work nowadays? Clearly SF643D sold well enough to meet Miamoto's expectations... I imagine SF0 will as well.

 

[IanTheGamer]

Temporary? Mario and Pokemon's success isn't temporary... They're succeeding because they've barely changed. It's rather telling that Mario's gotten more success and the fanbase is happier with the much more linear SMG games instead of the collectathons. The only reason the Guitar Hero and CoD franchises have dropped off was because it was too much too fast. If Nintendo keeps releasing their Marios and Pokemons at the rate they've been releasing them they're set.

Now why don't the old SF fans deserve a sequel while the new ones do? Why did Starfox even need to change in the first place when the vast majority of successful video game franchises didn't? Actually, why wouldn't a rail shooter work nowadays? Clearly SF643D sold well enough to meet Miamoto's expectations... I imagine SF0 will as well.

Simple, THE. GENRE.IS.DYING.OUT! You are so blinded by nostalgia, it's starting to look pointless arguing with you, You want Star Fox 64 so badly?, Then turn on your N64. I thought of a reasobable comprise, divide the Star Fox franchise in two, One is for people like you who prefer the rail-shooter gameplay and the other can play like Assault

 

[Foxus]

Temporary? Mario and Pokemon's success isn't temporary... They're succeeding because they've barely changed. It's rather telling that Mario's gotten more success and the fanbase is happier with the much more linear SMG games instead of the collectathons. The only reason the Guitar Hero and CoD franchises have dropped off was because it was too much too fast. If Nintendo keeps releasing their Marios and Pokemons at the rate they've been releasing them they're set.

Now why don't the old SF fans deserve a sequel while the new ones do? Why did Starfox even need to change in the first place when the vast majority of successful video game franchises didn't? Actually, why wouldn't a rail shooter work nowadays? Clearly SF643D sold well enough to meet Miamoto's expectations... I imagine SF0 will as well.

Its important to remember I was introduced to Star Fox THROUGH Assault, then played Adventures after gameplay videos got the best of me.

Super Mario Sunshine did not get a "Players Choice" just because Nintendo decided to slap it on there. They may have their flaws, but I doubt they'd lie to sell a game. Obviously, at that point in time, SMS left a good impression. I don't think fans of SF's later releases would have been as mortified at the E3 trailer release (aside from the Muppet thing, they pulled that off quite well)if SF had not had a new game (aside from the other SF64 remake on the 3DS) in such a long time (long here meaning almost 10 years).

Hopefully Iwata's replacement will bring some insight to the table, and gravitate the franchise in the way of change. If a game like Assault came out, would the rail shooter junkies be happy? The graphics would need to improve ten fold. As much as Miyamoto has done for SF, I honestly am starting to think the dude is still living in 1997 as far as SF is concerned.

Mario and Pokemon have very simple plots, and with the right seasoning, the same scenario can be pulled off. SF is different though. Constantly shooting things and blowing up **** gets old after awhile. As much as FLUDD wasn't the most helpful, or Prince Tricky being a bit of a pest, it offered diversity to Fox and Mario. I don't think you can honestly compare SF to Mario, as one of the franchises (Mario) poses the ability to carry on with the same plot endlessly, while the other (SF) doesn't possess that kind of a ability.

Interest is lost quicker than one would like to think, when something is left to remain stagnant.

 

[Swamp Sensei]

This whole thing is made worse because neither side respects the other.

All of you need to chill the hell out.

I'm just gonna wait for Star Fox Zero. Complaining about what the series should be is meaningless.

 

[LancerStaff]

Simple, THE. GENRE.IS.DYING.OUT! You are so blinded by nostalgia, it's starting to look pointless arguing with you, You want Star Fox 64 so badly?, Then turn on your N64. I thought of a reasobable comprise, divide the Star Fox franchise in two, One is for people like you who prefer the rail-shooter gameplay and the other can play like Assault

Platformers were basically dead until NSMB came along, and nowadays it's basically the genre for indie devs and Nintendo, really. For a dying genre I'd say 643D did very well at that point in the 3DS's life. So well that Miamoto made a sequel.

Dividing a small franchise in two wouldn't really work. Metroid is evidence to this. Holy hell is that fanbase whiney... And then you have an "innovation" (read: spinoff) like Fed Force and now both sides are upset because it's really neither. Even something decent sized like Zelda is fairly divided with having two sides at the same time, and that's only barely. (Seriously. Our last new 3D Zelda was SS five years ago. It was at least four years between ST and aLBW too... TFH is very much a spin-off.)

Again, why do you deserve a Starfox you want and I don't? It's only been a decade and a half since I got one I really cared about...

Its important to remember I was introduced to Star Fox THROUGH Assault, then played Adventures after gameplay videos got the best of me.

Super Mario Sunshine did not get a "Players Choice" just because Nintendo decided to slap it on there. They may have their flaws, but I doubt they'd lie to sell a game. Obviously, at that point in time, SMS left a good impression. I don't think fans of SF's later releases would have been as mortified at the E3 trailer release (aside from the Muppet thing, they pulled that off quite well)if SF had not had a new game (aside from the other SF64 remake on the 3DS) in such a long time (long here meaning almost 10 years).

Hopefully Iwata's replacement will bring some insight to the table, and gravitate the franchise in the way of change. If a game like Assault came out, would the rail shooter junkies be happy? The graphics would need to improve ten fold. As much as Miyamoto has done for SF, I honestly am starting to think the dude is still living in 1997 as far as SF is concerned.

Mario and Pokemon have very simple plots, and with the right seasoning, the same scenario can be pulled off. SF is different though. Constantly shooting things and blowing up **** gets old after awhile. As much as FLUDD wasn't the most helpful, or Prince Tricky being a bit of a pest, it offered diversity to Fox and Mario. I don't think you can honestly compare SF to Mario, as one of the franchises (Mario) poses the ability to carry on with the same plot endlessly, while the other (SF) doesn't possess that kind of a ability.

Interest is lost quicker than one would like to think, when something is left to remain stagnant.

The problem here is that you're assuming people buy a rail shooter for the story. What if SF0 was an alternate timeline after 64 with Fox cleaning up another hostile solar system? Same everything else besides the plot. Would that effect sales at all? I think not.

We're at thirty years of walking left-to-right jumping on stuff with no sign of slowing down... Mario's slowly reverted over the years and yet people still buy it like the NES is new.

Quick thought, if we got "just" an F-Zero sequel like with SF here, would anybody be complaining about a lack of innovation? Again, I don't think so.

 

[IanTheGamer]

Platformers were basically dead until NSMB came along, and nowadays it's basically the genre for indie devs and Nintendo, really. For a dying genre I'd say 643D did very well at that point in the 3DS's life. So well that Miamoto made a sequel.

Dividing a small franchise in two wouldn't really work. Metroid is evidence to this. Holy hell is that fanbase whiney... And then you have an "innovation" (read: spinoff) like Fed Force and now both sides are upset because it's really neither. Even something decent sized like Zelda is fairly divided with having two sides at the same time, and that's only barely. (Seriously. Our last new 3D Zelda was SS five years ago. It was at least four years between ST and aLBW too... TFH is very much a spin-off.)

Again, why do you deserve a Starfox you want and I don't? It's only been a decade and a half since I got one I really cared about...



The problem here is that you're assuming people buy a rail shooter for the story. What if SF0 was an alternate timeline after 64 with Fox cleaning up another hostile solar system? Same everything else besides the plot. Would that effect sales at all? I think not.

We're at thirty years of walking left-to-right jumping on stuff with no sign of slowing down... Mario's slowly reverted over the years and yet people still buy it like the NES is new.

Quick thought, if we got "just" an F-Zero sequel like with SF here, would anybody be complaining about a lack of innovation? Again, I don't think so.

It worked out great for Metroid, the Prime trilogy sold well, your argument is irrelevant
I meant both sides get a sequel,you are letting nostalgia blind you, stop looking at SF64 with rose colored glasses, it was great FOR IT'S TIME!, the keywords being "FOR IT'S TIME", But it wouldn't be that fondly remembered if it were released today. Like a frightened chipmunk, you are afraid of anything that is different.
The more I argue with you, the more I think you sound like this:
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5AvrBFlJeMs
People like you are why Nintendo is afraid to try new things.
Edit:I have played every game in the franchise, and want something new added in, you can't keep games the same, it gets stale. Mario sells because it's MARIO, he has that mainstream recognition. My grandfather who has never even played a video game has heard of Mario

 

[Foxus]

The problem here is that you're assuming people buy a rail shooter for the story. What if SF0 was an alternate timeline after 64 with Fox cleaning up another hostile solar system? Same everything else besides the plot. Would that effect sales at all? I think not.

We're at thirty years of walking left-to-right jumping on stuff with no sign of slowing down... Mario's slowly reverted over the years and yet people still buy it like the NES is new.

Quick thought, if we got "just" an F-Zero sequel like with SF here, would anybody be complaining about a lack of innovation? Again, I don't think so.

That would be fine, and it would still be fresh. The plot matters just as much as the gameplay of the game.

The point I'm trying to make here is you can't keep milking the same old cow, and hope for some magic to keep coming out of its utters. People keep buying the same old thing because they want to be part of the experience, but that doesn't mean future games should emulate that game to a T.

 

[LancerStaff]

It worked out great for Metroid, the Prime trilogy sold well, your argument is irrelevant
I meant both sides get a sequel,you are letting nostalgia blind you, stop looking at SF64 with rose colored glasses, it was great FOR IT'S TIME!, the keywords being "FOR IT'S TIME", But it wouldn't be that fondly remembered if it were released today. Like a frightened chipmunk, you are afraid of anything that is different.
The more I argue with you, the more I think you sound like this:
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5AvrBFlJeMs
People like you are why Nintendo is afraid to try new things.
Edit:I have played every game in the franchise, and want something new added in, you can't keep games the same, it gets stale. Mario sells because it's MARIO, he has that mainstream recognition. My grandfather who has never even played a video game has heard of Mario

Except not really because Prime 3 didn't do so well and the fanbase was a wreck before OM came along.

643D sold well enough on the early 3DS to warrant a sequel. Rail shooters can and have worked in the modern age. People were saying the same thing about NSMB and yet it brought the genre back to life... You say that I sound scared but you're the one ignoring every point I make and claim that Nintendo thinks opposite of how they're acting. Judging from the original holiday release Nintendo planned on this being a big holiday game... I'm sorry, but Nintendo wouldn't of gave SF a slot like that if they didn't think it'd sell.

That would be fine, and it would still be fresh. The plot matters just as much as the gameplay of the game.

The point I'm trying to make here is you can't keep milking the same old cow, and hope for some magic to keep coming out of its utters. People keep buying the same old thing because they want to be part of the experience, but that doesn't mean future games should emulate that game to a T.

The point I'm trying to make is that the plot means nothing for this type of game, and that you're dancing around the fact.

Would SF0 sell any differently with a different plot?

 

[Foxus]

At the end of the day, we both have points we're trying to get across. You rather would like to see SF like its N64 version, while I would like to go full steam ahead, and push SF forward. The plot adds diversity, and creative potential, therefore making the game more attractive, depending on the features. So this kind of game does have potential to go beyond its current plot, and attract gamers in the process.

 

[IanTheGamer]

I am not mad about the game playing like SF64, what I am mad about is that the game looks like a rehash of SF64, I wouldn't have minded if the game played like SF64 but kept everything Assault and Adventures added to the story,

 

[LancerStaff]

At the end of the day, we both have points we're trying to get across. You rather would like to see SF like its N64 version, while I would like to go full steam ahead, and push SF forward. The plot adds diversity, and creative potential, therefore making the game more attractive, depending on the features. So this kind of game does have potential to go beyond its current plot, and attract gamers in the process.

Adventures isn't forward. It's completely different games with a SF skin. It's like saying Fed Force is forwards for Metroid, really... At best it's a spin-off.

Compared to Assault, they're triming the fat. People didn't want Fox fighting out of an Arwing, they didn't want a melodramatic story, and they didn't want the post 64 characters and developments. Literally the only problem people have with the game is that it looks and feels too much like 64, and changing up the plot wouldn't fix that. We could be fighting space rodents instead of space monkeys and people would still be complaining.

 

[IanTheGamer]

Adventures isn't forward. It's completely different games with a SF skin. It's like saying Fed Force is forwards for Metroid, really... At best it's a spin-off.

Compared to Assault, they're triming the fat. People didn't want Fox fighting out of an Arwing, they didn't want a melodramatic story, and they didn't want the post 64 characters and developments. Literally the only problem people have with the game is that it looks and feels too much like 64, and changing up the plot wouldn't fix that. We could be fighting space rodents instead of space monkeys and people would still be complaining.

Well what they want is irrelevant to making good games, Hideo Kojima frequently ignored fan opinion, and every game he developed was awesome and sold,

 

[Foxus]

Adventures isn't forward. It's completely different games with a SF skin. It's like saying Fed Force is forwards for Metroid, really... At best it's a spin-off.

Compared to Assault, they're triming the fat. People didn't want Fox fighting out of an Arwing, they didn't want a melodramatic story, and they didn't want the post 64 characters and developments. Literally the only problem people have with the game is that it looks and feels too much like 64, and changing up the plot wouldn't fix that. We could be fighting space rodents instead of space monkeys and people would still be complaining.

You say that as if you are speaking for everybody. Arguably, Smash has never morphed into anything else. It's just built onto itself. And that's what I'm getting at. There are groups who would like Fox never to leave his aircraft, and there are groups of people who wouldn't mind more combative missions.