- Joined
- Jan 4, 2013
- Messages
- 38,990
- Location
- Um....Lost?
- NNID
- Swampasaur
- 3DS FC
- 4141-2776-0914
- Switch FC
- SW-6476-1588-8392
Do you think R.O.B. could ever star in his own new game?
Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
FWIW, I had an idea for one way back when I was younger. Sort of like a Kid Icarus Uprising-type of deal, if I remember correctly.Do you think R.O.B. could ever star in his own new game?
I think you just don't like linearity in general.The lack of branching paths is just a bit baffling especially given that it's an idea that could still work within the context of the on-foot missions. It's such a natural way to build replay value even for a mixed genre release that its absence is felt after playing other games in the series.
I'm fine with linearity in the context of many games like 3D Mario where I generally prefer the Galaxy titles to stuff like 64 and Odyssey. But in my estimation, especially within the context of a game that mixed genre or not, is still pretty short? Including branching paths would add more to the overall experience than it would take away, even with the story concessions that would be necessary to execute that.I think you just don't like linearity in general.
I mean that's fine, but to use that as a demerit? No.
Like branching paths through a level? Assault mostly favors explorable mini-sandboxes already, so that sort of thing wouldn't work too well.I'm fine with linearity in the context of many games like 3D Mario where I generally prefer the Galaxy titles to stuff like 64 and Odyssey. But in my estimation, especially within the context of a game that mixed genre or not, is still pretty short? Including branching paths would add more to the overall experience than it would take away, even with the story concessions that would be necessary to execute that.
—I do recall the first thing you showed at E3 was the Battle Mode. It was all you could play then.
Imamura: Yeah. The N64 battle mode was kind of just a last-minute bonus, so for a long time now I've been wanting to make a proper, more fleshed out Battle Mode. So Namco handed us some planning docs titled "Vehicle-Swapping War Action Game", and we decided that would be the starting point for the Assault development.
—So the ability to change freely between Arwings and Landmasters, those ideas came from Namco?
Imamura: That's right. It was perfectly suited for head-to-head versus battles, so that's how we started the development. We spent a ton of time on it.
Kobayashi: Midway through though, we had devoted all this time and energy and the battle mode was really great, and it was like… "Ok… so what are we going to do about the 1P mode?" (laughs) The battle mode being so enjoyable, we were worried that if the Story Mode was equally great, it would feel really unbalanced.
Imamura: We did, in fact, discuss abandoning the 1P mode entirely and making Assault a pure multiplayer battle mode game. (laughs)
Kobayashi: We seriously considered it, no joke. (laughs)
—When I first saw the demo at E3, I was kind of worried it was going in that direction. (laughs)
Kobayashi: We knew lots of people out there wanted a proper story mode, though, so we said we better roll up our sleeves and make one.
Nakanishi: In a normal development, you would work on a Battle Mode on the side while you're creating the main game. And what often happens then is that you run out of time, and despite your best intentions you have to abandon modes you wanted to include. But this time we made a really solid Battle Mode first, then pivoted to the single-player, which we were determined to make as good as the Battle Mode. As a result we've been able to create an extremely high quality game. I can say that with confidence. But anyway, that's the story behind why everyone had to wait so long for Assault. (laughs)
Kobayashi: Honestly, if we had a larger team, I would have worked on both concurrently.
Honestly this makes so much makes sense and explains a great deal about the inconsistent execution of various ideas in Assault. I mean to their credit, the multiplayer battle mode is genuinely fantastic so clearly the work did pay off in that regard.Star Fox Assault is a weird ass game when you look into its development cycle. Like this recently uncovered Nintendo Dream interview with Takaya Imamura (who was the godfather of the Star Fox series until his departure from Nintendo in 2021) explains quite a lot: https://shmuplations.com/starfoxassault/
Namely....it actually was just a multiplayer arena game that had a single-player mode cobbled together later in development. That's why all of the on-foot stages are just repurposed battle mode maps with enemy spawners thrown about.
Did Star Trek invent the "bio-mechanical being that tries to assimilate everything" archetype?I was fine with it - the Aparoids seemed to take a lot of inspiration from the Borg (I think - I haven't seen much of Star Trek), but it led to some interesting boss designs and gave us a chance to explore a variety of planets.
I wonder what other sci-fi movies or shows a future Star Fox game could take inspiration from - I know that, when I watched the second Independence Day movie, I thought that the final battle felt like it could have worked as part of a Star Fox game.
Given the long history of various science fiction (comics, literature, manga, etc) probably not but they did heavily popularize it after the Cybermen on Doctor Who somewhat laid the groundwork for the basic archetype.Did Star Trek invent the "bio-mechanical being that tries to assimilate everything" archetype?