Was Platinum Games the RIGHT developer?

[hirobo2]

IMHO, YES!! They scored a 9.5 with Bayonetta 2 on IGN, which was the second highest rated first party game there right behind Mario 3D World's 9.6 score. Personally, I wouldn't have wanted a studio such as Monolith to work on SFZ as they only managed a 9.0 with Xenoblade Chronicles for the Wii.

Of course, didn't Hideo Kojima say he wanted to develop a StarFox game? He would have been the perfect man for the job too, what with his Metal Gear Solid V, which earned a perfect 10.0 on IGN!!

Edited October 25, 2015 by hirobo2

[Robert Monroe]

Hideki Kamiya is a huge fucking Starfox nerd and loves it, so yeah its probably in good hands.

 

[Xidphel]

>Questioning if Platinum Games is is the right developper
>

>

>IGN
7.9/10

[hirobo2]

Well, if you're going to call off Pt games for one particular game they developed, then you might as well call off Nintendo's own internal development teams, which only managed a 7.4 (IGN) with Yoshi's Wooly World and a 7.9 (IGN) for Splatoon...

[Xortberg]

First off, you do realize that 5/10 is kinda the average and anything above that point, logically, an indicator of quality, right?

And second off, you do realize that ratings alone don't mean shit, right?

[Arminius H O Fiddywinks]

Why are you so focused on the ratings? Just because some meat sacks at a rating company say something is this or that doesn't mean it really is this or that.

Edit: Ya beat me to it, Xort!

Edited October 25, 2015 by Arminius H O Fiddywinks

[hirobo2]

Look who's talking.  If ratings mean sh*t, then why have them?  If grades meant jack, when why do higher education give preference to top achievers (medical school and such)?

[Drasiana]

some dude on the internet's opinion of your favourite beep boop doesn't really compare to med school exams i'm sorry

[Arminius H O Fiddywinks]

some dude on the internet's opinion of your favourite beep boop doesn't really compare to med school exams i'm sorry

That is the greatest thing I have read all day.

And second off, you do realize that ratings alone don't mean shit, right?

Exactly. You need to take in other factors, such as YOUR OWN UNPOLLUTED AND UNBIASED EXPERIENCE OF THE GAME FIRST HAND.

Oh, and one more thing about the comparison to the higher education thing: colleges don't want just a super genius. They want a well-balanced pretty smart guy, who has been in clubs/after-school activities/sports, as well as banging grades.

[Xortberg]

All right, time for me to pound out a paragraph or twelve.

Firstly, I never said ratings are useless. You have to take literally every one with a grain of salt, because they are an attempt at objectively quantifying the quality of a thing which is, in many ways, a subjective thing. Thus, no rating will ever be truly accurate. Even more so when you factor in the inevitable case of bias that any one reviewer or company will have towards one thing or another. Ratings are a somewhat useful marker, but they don't take into account any number of other factors, such as:

- The type of game. If you don't like FPS games, then a 10/10 first person shooter isn't gonna be nearly as enjoyable as that RPG you LOVE but only rated a measly 7/10

- The style of the game. As a fan of cute anime girls, I can find enjoyment in some pretty shitty games, and some great games become near-perfect in my eyes just because Rita Mordio is perfect in every way and yeah you get the picture

- And, in the case of this particular little argument, whether the developer themselves are going to mesh well with the series and genre in question. A Star Fox game made by Hideo Kojima, as you suggested above, based purely on the fact that some MGS shit was 10/10, would probably NOT be a very good Star Fox game because Kojima is good at grim tragedy so over the top and melodramatic that it loops back to comedy and stealth, whereas SF is a series about fun, goofy space-shooting adventures.

And as has been brought up by the two above, grades are an evaluation of your understanding of what you've been taught. At their most simple, they are a percentage score of how many questions you get correct, which can be a very objective thing in the case of multiple choice or the like, and are again not the only important thing in an education by a long shot.

Edited October 25, 2015 by Xortberg

[Arminius H O Fiddywinks]

All right, time for me to pound out a paragraph or twelve.

Firstly, I never said ratings are useless. You have to take literally every one with a grain of salt, because they are an attempt at objectively quantifying the quality of a thing which is, in many ways, a subjective thing. Thus, no rating will ever be truly accurate. Even more so when you factor in the inevitable case of bias that any one reviewer or company will have towards one thing or another. Ratings are a somewhat useful marker, but they don't take into account any number of other factors, such as:

- The type of game. If you don't like FPS games, then a 10/10 first person shooter isn't gonna be nearly as enjoyable as that RPG you LOVE but only rated a measly 7/10

- The style of the game. As a fan of cute anime girls, I can find enjoyment in some pretty shitty games, and some great games become near-perfect in my eyes just because Rita Mordio is perfect in every way and yeah you get the picture

- And, in the case of this particular little argument, whether the developer themselves are going to mesh well with the series and genre in question. A Star Fox game made by Hideo Kojima, as you suggested above, based purely on the fact that some MGS shit was 10/10, would probably NOT be a very good Star Fox game because Kojima is good at grim tragedy so over the top and melodramatic that it loops back to comedy and stealth, whereas SF is a series about fun, goofy space-shooting adventures.

And as has been brought up by the two above, grades are an evaluation of your understanding of what you've been taught. At their most simple, they are a percentage score of how many questions you get correct, which can be a very objective thing in the case of multiple choice or the like, and are again not the only important thing in an education by a long shot.

I could hear Quentin Tarantino saying that in a movie of his.

[ArwingFan]

Yes, Platinum is good with campy fun action games and Zero is looking good from what we've seen.

[Komenja]

So, have we already forgotten that Platinum was behind this majesty?

Star Fox is in pretty good hands I'd say.

[Robert Monroe]

Why is everyone assuming Xidphel's post was negative? 7.9 is fucking high. Both Bayonetta 2 and Wonderful 101 are well liked good games, the fuck is wrong with ya'll.

[Joseph.]

So, have we already forgotten that Platinum was behind this majesty?

Star Fox is in pretty good hands I'd say.

Funny how this easter egg has more action, enemies, & intense gameplay then in Star Fox Zero. This isn't a bad thing if Zero is aiming to be causal but its just wired how Platinum or Nintendo decided to the lower the action in Zero considering its a reboot/ re-imagination of Star Fox which the series is known to be intense at times. (Not Counting Command or Adventures)

Edited October 29, 2015 by Joseph.

[Drasiana]

yeah it's almost like zero isn't finished yet, weird

anyways yeah numerical ratings are essentially useless, they're just a quick reference as to what one particular dude on the internet's subjective opinion on something might be and "7/10" doesn't really tell you the good or bad or inform your opinion on whether or not you would like the game as well. I think relying on them has also given people a very bizarre perspective where anything lower than 10/10 GOTY FOR THE NEXT DECADE is a Bad Game and anything below that might as well be a big fat 0 anyway.

Platinum was a good choice for Star Fox and I'm excited to see them bring the series back to life.

[Xidphel]

Why is everyone assuming Xidphel's post was negative? 7.9 is fucking high. Both Bayonetta 2 and Wonderful 101 are well liked good games, the fuck is wrong with ya'll.

 

Actually, my 7.9/10 was directed to Hirobo for his post (mostly for the IGN part). Because of those 2 games, I can expect PtG to make my head explode out of awesomness.

 

Funny how this easter egg has more action, enemies, & intense gameplay then in Star Fox Zero. This isn't a bad thing if Zero is aiming to be causal but its just wired how Platinum or Nintendo decided to the lower the action in Zero considering its a reboot/ re-imagination of Star Fox which the series is known to be intense at times. (Not Counting Command or Adventures)

DUDE! CALM YOUR MAMMARY GLANDS! IT'S COMING OUT NEXT YEAR!

[Joseph.]

IT'S COMING OUT NEXT YEAR!

Eh, next year sounds like a lot but Q1 starts on January 1 & ends on March 31 so its really coming out in like 3 or 4 months. I Just wanted to point out Zero's presentation at e3 was a bit meaningless. I found this small easter egg more entertaining compared to SFZ  because zero didn't have much to compared to this easter egg. Zero's trailer & gameplay videos had virtually nothing to show other then its own existence. 

Edited October 29, 2015 by Joseph.

[Drasiana]

what are you even talking about anymore

[Joseph.]

what are you even talking about anymore

Zero looks ok but this easter egg actually resembles Star Fox 64 more which i find funny cause Zero is suppose to be a reboot. Its suppose to be similiar to the sieres roots

[Pgpaw3]

Eh, next year sounds like a lot but Q1 starts on January 1 & ends on March 31 so its really coming out in like 3 or 4 months. I Just wanted to point out Zero's presentation at e3 was a bit meaningless. I found this small easter egg more entertaining compared to SFZ  because zero didn't have much to compared to this easter egg. Zero's trailer & gameplay videos had virtually nothing to show other then its own existence. 

 

Zero looks ok but this easter egg actually resembles Star Fox 64 more which i find funny cause Zero is suppose to be a reboot. Its suppose to be similiar to the sieres roots

 

From E3 to march is 9 months. You can make a lot of changes in 9 months. Remember, at E3 2014 they had a VERY rough tech demo that showed off the core mechanics, and this year they had a more or less full game. They also said in 2014 they were still looking for a development partner, so we can assume that at that stage Platinum was not involved, although they might have become involved soon after E3. Look at what they did in that time, and then think about what else they could do in 9 months. I do understand where some of your concerns are coming from, but remember, this a game still in active development. They can still change a lot.

It is also possible that in the build they have been showing off (the E3, PAX and everything else build is almost certainly the same build, although I could be wrong) they took enemies out to scale down the difficulty. At events like E3 and PAX, most people aren't going to have the time to sit down with the game for a while and get intimate with the controls, so making it easier helps people get a feel for the new controls and gameplay without either dying every 10 seconds from an enemy swarm or getting frustrated that they are missing most of the enemies (I am basing this off what we did with the game I made at uni this year as we have a boss that although was fun, no one attending PAX AUS this weekend will have time to play through it, so we scaled it down, as well as making levels easier for the same reason).

It is also possible that they cut enemies out due to optimization issues, and the Wii U might not be able to have that many enemies hanging around at once, particularly once you consider they are doing 1080p 60fps on both screens, so the Wii U is essentially rendering 120 frames per second, which is a mammoth task for anything, let alone the Wii U, and once they improve the game's optimization they can put more in. All that said, I have absolutely no evidence for either of those, just making an educated possibility (if any of my details are wrong in this post, please correct me).

Nintendo and Platinum are both very talented companies with even more talented people behind them, so I will remain cautiously optimistic, at least until we see some footage from a more up to date build.

Edited October 29, 2015 by Pgpaw3

[Joseph.]

 

 

From E3 to march is 9 months. You can make a lot of changes in 9 months. Remember, at E3 2014 they had a VERY rough tech demo that showed off the core mechanics, and this year they had a more or less full game. They also said in 2014 they were still looking for a development partner, so we can assume that at that stage Platinum was not involved, although they might have become involved soon after E3. Look at what they did in that time, and then think about what else they could do in 9 months. I do understand where some of your concerns are coming from, but remember, this a game still in active development. They can still change a lot.

It is also possible that in the build they have been showing off (the E3, PAX and everything else build is almost certainly the same build, although I could be wrong) they took enemies out to scale down the difficulty. At events like E3 and PAX, most people aren't going to have the time to sit down with the game for a while and get intimate with the controls, so making it easier helps people get a feel for the new controls and gameplay without either dying every 10 seconds from an enemy swarm or getting frustrated that they are missing most of the enemies (I am basing this off what we did with the game I made at uni this year as we have a boss that although was fun, no one attending PAX AUS this weekend will have time to play through it, so we scaled it down, as well as making levels easier for the same reason).

It is also possible that they cut enemies out due to optimization issues, and the Wii U might not be able to have that many enemies hanging around at once, particularly once you consider they are doing 1080p 60fps on both screens, so the Wii U is essentially rendering 120 frames per second, which is a mammoth task for anything, let alone the Wii U. All that said, I have absolutely no evidence for either of those, just making an educated possibility (if any of my details are wrong in this post, please correct me).

Nintendo and Platinum are both very talented companies with even more talented people behind them, so I will remain cautiously optimistic, at least until we see some footage from a more up to date build.

Wow, your really good at explaining things! no lie lol

You're right, this game is still in development & the dev team have plenty of time to add extra things its just that Platinum need to step their game up & show us something that is not similar to e3 footage. Like you said, the demo they showed us was dumb-down to decrease difficulty but after a couple of months after e3 they'er still showing us the same dumb-down levels. Zero is roughly 4 months away so it would be nice to at least see the same levels but with added features like more enemies, items, etc. 

[Scourge]

If you seriously think that IGN or review scores matter, then please shove your head into a car piston and redline the engine.

Review scores are meaningless, bullshit, utterly pointless, subjective, and not at all comparable to anything akin to grades or sports wins/points.

I cannot for the life of me fathom why anyone would think these are important, they're literally just a lazy shorthand for thick-skulled idiots to passivly glimpse at a game's overall quality in the eyes of a beholder because they're too fucking stupid to take 5 minutes and read a whole article-- Or better yet: do the necessary research and/or buy the game themselves and formulate their own fucking opinion.

I'd love to rant on and on about this but sadly Moviebob beat me to the punch, so I'll let him do the talking.

Please let the rest of society know when you've dredged your head out from between your rear cheeks and remembered how to breathe oxygen instead of fart.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2VAGH0i6BQ


Edit: Keep Kojima away from my starfox.