My Star Fox Zero Thoughts

[Drasiana]

Assault is at least equal or greater than 64, I don't know where anyone get's the fantasy that 64 is that amazing. The game is pretty crappy a lot of the time as is Assault, but I liked the gameplay mechanics a lot more in Assault, you can actually FLY in Assault unlike 64, not hover like a Snowspeeder as I said before. the Arwing FLIES, the LandMaster is smooth and responsive unlike 64's. Assault actually has a story, unlike 64. If Assault isn't as good as 64, its SUPERIOR. SF64 is only worshipped because it came out on N64 when you were ten. The SF2/Assault formula is better than the SNES/64 in every way. All StarFox games had decent sales besides Command and the horrendous 3ds remake.

Furthermore, hopefully a reimagining won't effect the sequels, AS MIYAMOTO SAID. perhaps he'll make a true sequel on NX, but I promptly doubt it personally, Nintendo wouldn't do anything that cool.

To return what I was speaking of, anywhere close to 64, Assault and 64 BOTH HAD SLIGHTLY ABOVE AVERAGE SALES AND AVERAGE SALES FOR THEIR RESPECTIVE SYSTEMS. Adventures actually had better ratings than either of them a lot of the time. but only an idiot would make decisions based on retarded reviews or terms of popularity.

 

 

 

Edited July 6, 2015 by Drasiana

[AlGore'sleftshoe]

Most of the game wasn't spent in the air though.  Most of the time you were on the ground shooting hatches, which I found to be boring.

Never had a problem with 64's Landmaster.

A minimal story is better than a poorly written one.

Opinions, what if someone prefers on-rails shoot-em-ups.

Then why do you keep bringing them up?

Man, your hateboner for 64 is a sight to behold

Changing history? Friend, I didn't insinuate that assault and adventures suffered from poor character depth.(at least not in unit sales. SF assault , IMO, definitely suffered. Especially the ending which was suppose to be deep and emotion but just lacked significant content to be so.) History is a trend, however. Games that get away with poor plots have other utilities that allow them to make market, whether that is replay value, multiplayer aspects, or just general arcade type arena games like Mario cart. Star fox isn't such a game, at least it isn't now. 64 succeeded
 for a multitude of reasons. What will make another star fox game a success? 

I  think you're trying to claim it could happen with design alone. I respectfully have to disagree. What would that involve anyway? Simply updating the mechanics of a rail shooter and re-publishing it? Its not EA publishing the next SF lol. Its obviously in the inclusion of something new and dynamic that brings sales. But you're right. In the past that been a failure looking at command and assault namely. I'm sure they'll take their time this go around and have a real system that works unlike assault , with land and air elements that aren't terrible. AND THE GAME WOULD BE A SUCCESS!

But 5 years down the road if they just do the same thing it wouldn't have appeal. Starfox, IMO, should develop a wholesome narrative. It allows future releases to be popular without massively deviating from gameplay patterns, while still being original. Not to mention all the potential is there. It has been since 64. A young pilot, a group of friends, and his struggle to overcome overwhelming odds and save not only the lylat system but avenge his father! Its a classic. I wont argue that narratives have the potential to screw games up just as much as new designs, but it's just where i'd like to series to go in order to keep my interest.

the Landmaster in 64 wasn't even a tank, it was a car with a stuck gas pedal, Assault's LandMaster is stupidly better because its an ACTUAL GOD DAMN TANK. most of Assault is spent switching between Arwing and LandMaster to fight enemies, the general controls and fighting I enjoyed, the only major part of the game that annoyed me was that it was almost always Search and Destroy, when I want more complex mission objectives.

Furthermore,

It doesn't matter what people's opinions are, 643D shows me that people don't want just some arcade shooter, that game was an absolute flop in sales, and it was a HORRIBLE remake, how come OOT3D was like the original but 643D wasn't!?

64 had little story, Assault's story wasn't bad, at least you can pull out Lore and build up for a better layout for a storyline, that write over it precariously, and make AN AMAZING STORYLINE, USING THE PRETEXT FROM PRE-EXISTING STARFOX GAMES.


Xort, case you haven't noticed, I am pissed off all the time to begin with. right now where I am its fucking humid, I just learned it'll take me 1-2 years on minimum wage full time before I can afford to start Community College, and you just happen to be extremely annoying, as you jump on me literally every chance you get. I don't hate 64, I hate the fans. to tell the truth I haven't played ANY StarFox game and had fun in quite awhile, I can't help but be pissed off at the series as a whole to loosen up. Your hateboner for me is just astounding. Do I go to you just to pick you apart every time you stand up to say something? no? then kindly fuck up, please. I'm not even trying to strike back, I just want you to stop talking to me.


StarFox Assault WAS NOT GODDAMN PERFECT, but people are too blinded by nostalgia to realize that 64 was FAR from the classic they think it is too. I still think Assault and 64 are classics, and both great games in the ways that do make them great, but they both have severe pitfalls that make both games less fun at times. I ignore those pitfalls when I just want to have fun playing StarFox * or at least I used to

When I want to see StarFox achieve its maximum potential, I think both games can learn from each other and new elements can be implemented so StarFox can be a Nintendo game that actually keeps up with today's era in gaming. this year's E3 to me was the most disappointing E3 in literally YEARS. StarWars BattleFront was the one thing I actually enjoyed. Pretty much everything else left me crushed under an ocean of disappointment.

the system from Assault was FAR from broken, the only problem was mission objectives and a bad on-foot design, THAT'S ABOUT IT. The major problem with 64 was that it was the same thing over and over for each mission with little to no backstory to explain why you are going to various remote places that don't even seem to have any civilian populations, in Assault it was mentioned that several planets had civilians that needed liberation/protection, so you at least had a reason to go everywhere that you did, but every mission in Assault was ALSO the same crap over and over with search and destroy, but I loved being able to use an actually flying Arwing and a real tank-like LandMaster.


 

[AlGore'sleftshoe]

 

 

 

when all else fails, insult the opponent.

>and I'm the fucking troll.

I'm locking this post