Login

GoNintendo 'End of Day' thought - StarFox Zero review

As I usually do with our reviews, I'm bumping this one up into the End of Day thought position. Thanks so much for those that read this review and hopped into the comments. Certainly a lively comment section in this one! Hope you enjoy the review and feel free to dive into the comments and offer up your two cents! See you in a few, short hours!

Nintendo has had both a good and bad time with unique control methods. They certainly worked well enough to make the Wii an absolutely massive success, as well as the DS. The thing is, as those control methods became more commonplace, it seemed like gamers and the gaming press started to turn on them. That brought us to the common happening where a game gets announced, and a wave of people complain about the title not using traditional controls. These complaints come in long before the game actually gets released. Sadly, it seems that complaint often sticks around long after the title has launched as well.

Now that we've moved onto the Wii U, you hear the same kind of things even more. Motion controls started off this generation at a deficit, since such a large group of gamers seem to want nothing to do with them. Not only are they uninterested in the idea of motion controls, they simply don't think they are worth any time or effort to understand. Just knock a game for its motion controls and leave it at that. The term 'motion controls' became a blurb to put into the positive/negative breakdown of a review. It had nothing to do with the controls being analysed, but instead, the controls were simply bad because they used motion.

Now of course, there are games that use motion controls very poorly. I've played them and struggled with them. I don't see those as bad motion controls, though. I just think the game has bad controls in general. Would it have played better without motion controls? That I honestly don't know, and most likely never will. I've also played games that had terrible traditional controls. Maybe those experiences would have worked better with motion controls implemented. Again, that's not something I'll ever be able to know. The point is, traditional controls aren't inherently good and motion controls aren't inherently bad.

That long-winded intro brings us to the case of StarFox Zero. As I've said on our podcast, the motion controls here are going to be the real sticking point in reviews. I'm sure there will be some other quibbles along the way, but you can bet that motion controls are going to be a large focus. I do believe the controls in StarFox Zero play an absolutely major part of the experience. I'm just hoping the other outlets reviewing the game have taken the time to actually learn and understand the controls, rather than just forming a distaste of them right from the start. That's because I feel StarFox Zero's control scheme works extremely well, and actually adds a great deal to the experience.

The StarFox series has always been tied to innovation. It just seems to be the cross the series bears, for better or worse. The original StarFox had extremely advanced graphics for the Super Nintendo. StarFox 64 introduced us to the rumble pak, which became an industry standard. StarFox Command gave us a control scheme that focused on stylus-based controls for a unique experience. Now Nintendo continues that idea by taking the controls in an even more varied direction in StarFox Zero.

There's just so much to talk about when it comes to StarFox Zero's controls. They are extremely detailed and advanced. This is not a game that you are going to pick up and play without taking on tutorials. I mean, you could approach it that way, but I doubt you're going to have a good time. Even if you've played every single StarFox title up to this point, you're still only going to have a rudimentary understanding of how this game works and what it's asking of you. You have to go into StarFox Zero completely open to the idea of learning a new way to play what looks like a familiar game.

StarFox Zero uses just about everything the Wii U GamePad offers up. The game is obviously built around what the GamePad can do. It's extremely clear that StarFox Zero had a ton of development time put into it, with a major focus being on providing a truly new and engaging control scheme. You'll use a collection of motion controls and traditional buttons the entire time you play. You'll be learning all sorts of control schemes for various Arwing transformations. You'll get access to special abilities that bring in different control schemes on their own. You'll be looking between TV and GamePad the entire time you play. There is a TON to take in here.

All this information coming at you means that StarFox Zero is going to be just too much for some people to handle. There are people that will try the experience and just not be able to wrap their head or hands around it. It's a challenging control scheme to understand, let alone master. When I say this, I'm thinking about people that play games regularly. Not what you would deem 'hardcore' gamers, but people that certainly play games often. Out of the friends I know that play games often, I can think of maybe 2 that would be able to handle this setup. The rest would try and just not be able to handle it, or others would give it a go and simply get too frustrated.

There's a whole discussion to consider here as well. Is this how game controls should be? Nintendo takes so much time making games that are family friendly in both content and controls. Simple controls to allow anyone to play. Now they're making a gamer's game, a title that requires a lot of attention and dedication. Is this a step back, a step forward or a lateral step? Should some game be built so that only hardcore gamers can enjoy them? I don't have a right or wrong answer here. I will say that I think it's sad some people will never get to experience this game due to the controls barrier, but I will also say that I believe the control scheme itself is not only perfectly functional, but really amazing once you get a handle on it.

Here's where StarFox Zero really knows its place. The developers are well aware that the controls take some time to get used to. This is for every single player out there, even longtime fans of the series. That's why the game starts you off with a very easy to understand tutorial. You'll get to learn the most basic of controls to get an idea of how things work. You'll learn how to fly around the screen, do some turning tests, learn how to target and fire on enemies and more. You'll also get to see why the game uses two screens during gameplay, rather than just having you use the TV screen like the old games. Again, this is a tutorial that very clearly explains how to tackle basic situations, and it never makes you feel confused or rushed. You're at your own leisure here, so take as much time as you need.

Not only that, but the game also opens up various tutorials after the initial lesson. You'll be able to take on some of the transformations of the Arwing and learn how to handle them as well. I absolutely cannot stress this aspect of the game enough. Do yourself a favor and take on all the tutorials you can handle before you go into the real game. This is going to make sure you feel much more comfortable with the controls before you get into the heat of battle. StarFox Zero isn't afraid to really show you that you need to understand these controls, even in the first level. If you don't pay attention during tutorials or try to just jump into the game, you're going to have trouble. Even with the rest of the StarFox team yelling out tips at you, you'll still end up getting lost in it all. Do the tutorials...take the time to really understand them. It makes the main game much more enjoyable and will lessen any frustration that might creep in.

Here's the best part about StarFox Zero's controls. If you put in the time with them and learn what they ask of you, you could come out absolutely amazed. You can call bullshit or fanboy on me all you want, but all I can do is tell you that my reviews are always honest. I feel that StarFox Zero's controls make for one of the most engaging experiences I've ever gotten from a game. When everything clicks and you start to feel proficient, my lord does the game feel good. We often think of immersion when it comes to graphics or sound, but StarFox Zero may be the first game I've ever played where controls immersed me in the experience.

I honestly don't want to go back to old-school controls. For those that don't know, you'll be using the GamePad screen to get a cockpit view of your Arwing. This is combined with the more traditional StarFox view you see on TV. These two have to be used together to play the game. If you try to use just one, you're not going to be able to play. You're going to miss enemies, crash into everything and just have a terrible time. It's the marriage of the two that makes StarFox Zero so unique.

The GamePad screen will let you shoot at enemies that you can't see anymore on TV. Once you fly past or over an enemy, you can still use the GamePad screen's motion controls to look up, down and all around. Again, the TV screen has the view we're all used to. That view is locked to a certain perspective, so being able to have free-range aiming whenever you want is a real game changer. You can go a step further and use the left trigger to activate lock-on, which will give you a cinematic lock-on view via the TV, but a precision shooting mode on the GamePad. Lock onto an enemy, follow them on the GamePad screen and take them out. Again, something that lets you follow enemies in ways that you could never do before.

This GamePad gameplay becomes even more interesting when you're in free-range mode with your Arwing. When you can fly wherever you want in a space, having the ability to aim freely is extremely useful. You can fly in one direction and basically shoot in any other direction. This lets you take on unique approaches to just about any enemy or objective that you need to tackle. Doing all of this at once, between the TV and GamePad, between motion and traditional controls, it feels like a ridiculous amount of fun. Yes it's challenging and yes you'll have to learn new things, but if you are willing to take the time to do that, I feel you'll come away absolutely rewarded for your work.

You can make fun of me for this as much as you want, but I believe StarFox Zero's controls really make you feel like you're piloting an Arwing. It really puts you inside the game. I felt an intensity that I haven't felt from the series before, or really any other games out there. It made me feel like I was really out there in battle, flying around by the seat of my pants and doing my best not to die. When you pull off a big boss battle or a dogfight with enemies, man is it exhilarating. This is even more fun when you pay attention to the game voices, as they only come out of the GamePad screen. I do understand some people being upset about not allowing voices via the TV speakers, but I will say that the GamePad audio is outstanding. Remember all that talk about pseudo-3D audio to make the StarFox team feel like they're talking right into your left or right ear? Well it's not a load of PR speak. It's the real deal and honestly boggles my mind. I don't know how they made it feel like you were wearing an Arwing headset, but there's no denying that the spacial audio absolutely does what it sets out to do.

So you know I think the controls are phenomenal, but what about the actual meat-and-potatoes of the game? Well, if you have enjoyed any other entry in the StarFox series, I don't see why you wouldn't enjoy this one. As a matter of fact, I feel like this game offers variety in missions that we haven't seen from the series so far. There isn't a bad mission in the group, but there are definitely some outings that feel like a step above the rest. A lot of those end up using various Arwing transformations in some interesting ways.

One of my favorite missions has you using the Gyrowing. This is a vehicle that moves kind of slow, but has really precise multidirectional control. You can hover up, down, left and right, then turn in whatever direction you need. It feels completely different from any other vehicle you control, and it really changes up the the flow of missions. The first real mission you get to take it on involves sneaking into a facility. You have to fly around giant floodlights that are out to detect you, and if they do spot you, a swarm of enemies comes in to take you out. You have to gingerly move about the level to remain undetected, and also switch off certain power sources to advance.

The real fun comes in when you use the Direct-i, which is a little robot that comes with the Gyrowing. At any time, you can drop this little tethered robot down below your ship and let it wander about. If it can touch the ground, you get to steer it around to do all sorts of things. The main reason to use the Direct-i are to find hidden medals and to activate buttons/switches that let you get further into a level. The best part about all of this is, the Direct-i gives you a first-person view on the GamePad. So basically, you park the Gyrowing in the air and lower the Direct-i, all of which are seen in third-person on the TV. Then when you land, you shift your focus to the GamePad screen and drive the sucker around in first-person. I had an absolute blast with it. It felt extremely fresh and also kept the overall flow of the game feeling energetic and engaging.

You already know about some of the other transformations, but there's still plenty of regular Arwing action to take on. As a matter of fact, most of the time you can transform into the regular Arwing and go through parts of missions old-school style. It's your choice, and while the other transformations will let you get access to certain areas the Arwing can't go, there's still plenty of traditional fun to have. You'll take the Arwing through asteroid fields, around giant space battles, through busy cityscapes and much more. The Arwing is just as much fun as ever, and it actually feels like a new experience thanks to the controls, which provide a more nuanced and nimble piloting experience.

For my money's worth, StarFox Zero stands toe-to-toe with StarFox and StarFox 64. Sure, polygons and rumble became industry standards and there's no way StarFox Zero's controls are going to see the same future. What they do do is continue the legacy of innovation that actually matters. We're not talking about gimmicky controls that were shoehorned in simply because they were there. This is a game built from the ground-up to showcase what the GamePad could do. This is about motion controls, traditional controls and two-screen gaming. StarFox Zero shows the promise of dual-screen gaming more than any other Wii U title out there. This is absolutely the game that showcases what Nintendo had in mind for the Wii U. Oddly enough, it's in stark contrast to what Nintendo did on the Wii. Wii was open and friendly to anyone. With StarFox Zero, we see controls that demand your attention and test your dedication. The results end up being something fantastic, so long as you are willing to learn something new.

I know, I've talked a ton about the controls here. Moreso than any other review I've written. I did that because I consider them to be the most important part of the game. They will be blasted as broken. They will be knocked for being too complex. They will be ignored for asking too much of the player. I feel like that's a damn shame. Again, I know some people won't be able to understand how the controls work and simply won't be able to use them. I cannot fault people that try and fail. If you put in honest effort and try, that's all I can ask. For those that pan the controls as broken or non-functional, I am telling you those people are giving you an unfair reaction. The controls are tough, the controls are challenging, the controls are not traditional, the controls ask you to do things you're not used to doing. All of that is very true. The controls are NOT broken. I give you my word on that.

If you can handle the controls, StarFox Zero is a fantastic game. It's a realization of Nintendo's goals on the Wii U. It's also one hell of an amazing StarFox game. You get a classic feel from the characters and voices, but a completely new vibe from the controls. Also, just to be very clear about this, StarFox Zero does not copy StarFox 64. Some locations may be the same, but the missions and level layouts are completely new. Outside of recognizable enemies, you are not going to get a sense of deja vu. I just wanted to clear up any worry that StarFox Zero was a remake of 64 with a new coat of paint and that's it.

StarFox Zero is the most immersive StarFox game to date. This game really makes you feel like you're piloting an Arwing. You're out there in the explosions and insanity of it all, and it's so much fun. Take the time to learn the controls and you'll be in for one hell of an adventure. Good luck!

Comments

Just wanted to pop in and say thank you to all that left a comment. I appreciate the feedback.

I knew my approach to this review would be divisive. I also knew people would take my detailed breakdown of the controls as a defense of broken controls. If that's how you feel, so be it.

All I can tell you is that my reviews are honest and I never sugarcoat things. I'm giving you my honest opinions on a game and its parts. I will always tell you how I feel about a title in no uncertain terms. I have no reason to be dishonest about a game, nor would I make excuses for elements I don't like. If you believe otherwise, I once again say there's nothing I can do to convince you. I'm sorry you feel that way and I'm sorry I've given you the impression that I would operate in that manner.

No matter how you feel about my review, thank you for taking the time to read/comment on it. I appreciate the engagement very much, and I also appreciate you dedicating a portion of your day to reading my thoughts.

And that ladies and gentlemen is called taking the high road. I read the review RMC and I enjoyed it and I know that no matter whether I agree or disagree with a review you may right, it is always written with honesty and integrity. I never have to question that.

I don't think people are calling you out for defending the controls that much. I think their main concern is the mere fact that you have to mention the controls so many times in the review, which means they could essentially be far more intuitive. Defending them or not is up to you, but every single review out there is just orbiting around the game's controls and that can't be good. You'd think the focus of a review of a well balanced game would be all over the place, but it's just controls, controls, controls for Zero.

Great Review! So happy Star Fox Is back!

The Wii's success had nothing to do about the motion controls working "well enough". They worked horribly. It was simply the novelty factor that attracted casual newcomers in, which they quickly got bored with.

And why is it "sad" that complaints about the game not getting traditional control options still are pervasive? I think your wording isn't very adept. We still want traditional controller options because that is what we enjoy.

"Now that we've moved onto the Wii U, you hear the same kind of things even more. Motion controls started off this generation at a deficit, since such a large group of gamers seem to want nothing to do with them. Not only are they uninterested in the idea of motion controls, they simply don't think they are worth any time or effort to understand. Just knock a game for its motion controls and leave it at that. The term 'motion controls' became a blurb to put into the positive/negative breakdown of a review. It had nothing to do with the controls being analysed, but instead, the controls were simply bad because they used motion."

RMC, please realize where we are coming from. We DESPERATELY want to enjoy these games. We're very open minded, but we TRIED motion controls, gave them AMPLE chances, and we did not enjoy them. When 100% of the motion games you've played felt worse because motion controls were involved, you kind of start seeing a pattern and you stop buying motion games. Only a fool would keep doing something that makes them miserable. Yes, I will knock a game off because it has motion controls, because that is not how I enjoy playing games... ESPECIALLY when adding such traditional controls would be VERY easy.

It's also not about "understanding" it. I understand how to use motion controls and what they entail. I simply don't find them "fun". It's like people who say people don't "understand" the Wii U. We all do by now. Most gamers don't still see the appeal, simple as that. It's not about them not understanding the concept. They are telling you "We see what you are doing. We don't want it".

"The StarFox series has always been tied to innovation."

And that is why we haven't had a good Star Fox game since 64.

"You have to go into StarFox Zero completely open to the idea of learning a new way to play what looks like a familiar game."

Or they could have made something we will enjoy right away because it is well thought out and polished instead.

"StarFox Zero uses just about everything the Wii U GamePad offers up. The game is obviously built around what the GamePad can do."

In other words, it is a tech demo as opposed to a fully fleshed out game.

I personally want to go back to traditional controls, and anyone who wants Nintendo to succeed and has thought about it would agree with me. We don't need to divide this community even further with gimmicks,

luigigba
Thu Apr 21 16 04:00am
Rating: 1

I don't want to be aggressive, or rude. But I wanted to say I hope motion controls are here to stay and I feel that they've improved many of the games I've used them in. That's not everyone's experience, clearly, but just like there are many of you who reject motion controls and are sick of them, there are those of us who really enjoy them and are excited to see them used like this. I think the advent of VR is showing us exactly how far gaming is going to go with motion controls, and while I don't think it's the future for every game, I think motion and using your body in gaming in general are going to be even bigger in the future. I think Nintendo will succeed because they know how to be a part of that and they've focused on trying to engage the user more deeply through their body.

You know, it is your right to think this, but I personally don't agree. I'd like to continue gaming in the foreseeable future.

RMC, please realize where we are coming from. We DESPERATELY want to enjoy these games. We're very open minded, but we TRIED motion controls, gave them AMPLE chances, and we did not enjoy them.

We all do by now. Most gamers don't still see the appeal, simple as that. It's not about them not understanding the concept. They are telling you "We see what you are doing. We don't want it".

I personally want to go back to traditional controls, and anyone who wants Nintendo to succeed and has thought about it would agree with me.

Haha oh your ego knows no bounds does it. And who exactly are you speaking for anyway? Again, this is my problem with your comments. You somehow think your opinion is fact and you generalize said opinions as if you speak for everyone. You certainly don't speak for me and you certainly don't speak for RMC or any of the other reviewers who gave this game and Splatoon and Wonderful 101 and the like positive scores. How hard is that for you to understand? You're the only one trying to make everyone else see it your way. I don't care if you don't like the game (even though you haven't played it yet and never will but again I digress), but stop acting like the reason why is everybody else's but your owns problem.

Yeah. Sometimes he borders to trolling on here, sadly. It's not like motion controlls killed his dog or anything.

I just read "me" in stead of "we" when I read his comments.

Motion controls in plenty games made them more immersive and better. Can't run away from that little fact.

I wont write another list though.

I wouldn't even call it anything close to trolling. Trolling is trying to get a rise out of people. I am not. I'm merely stating my opinion bluntly and plainly. Yes, some people get offended by them, but my end goal is not to piss them off.

And "we" is an appropriate term. There are many who wish to play without motion controls, I am representing their views as much as mine.

Also, motions controls making games more immersive is a subjective belief. I on the other hand believe they take me ""out" of the experience.

Sorry for the late reply.

Sometimes you do border trolling, V_Blade. Not trolling, but damn close. The reasons are your obsession with it and the "we" thing. Can't you just say "me" or "I" and at least aknowledge that some people actually like motions controls? Would make you look way better. This is not an attack, so please don't look at it as one.

"Also, motions controls making games more immersive is a subjective belief. I on the other hand believe they take me ""out" of the experience.!

There you go! You said "I" keep it up. And I wouldn't call it a belief. Taste maybe.

That's not trolling though, that is stating my opinion. You know, offense is taken, not given. Why has this fandom devolved into taking "disagreeing with them" to be "trolling"? What does it matter to these people that I hate motion controls? You don't like it, ignore it.

Now, I use "we" because it's accurate. I am not alone in thinking that motion controls are a bothersome gimmick. Therefore, I use "we" to represent myself and people who agree with me. Sure, some people have.... strange tastes, but even more people dislike them.

If will continue to use "we" because there is a large movement of people getting annoyed with motion controls, and I wish to show my support to these fine gents.

The fact that you have to put in time to learn something as basic as controls is a serious problem. I have never had to put effort into learning the controls of any game with good controls. If they are not immediately intuitive or take no extra effort to learn then they are bad. Plain and simple.

"If you have to defend the controls, it means they are bad."
GoNintendo - April 2016

Oh dear. Oh wow.
Bravo guys, bravo. *slow claps*

I think only a small minority says the controls are bad just based on that. I would argue the majority are saying they are unintuitive and questionable as the series already had a control scheme that worked very well.

Yeah well I sure hope you're right because I think we can all agree that's a surprising statement to make.

I mainly want to point out the absurd there. I'm certainly not against criticizing the controls. I understand they're not for everyone and some Starfox lovers might be disappointed the old control scheme was not implemented.

I understand that. I still don't see how or why some magically find a link between the quality of the controls and having to defend them in a review.

It's true though, if you have to fight so hard to defend them, something is clearly wrong with them.

impurekind
Thu Apr 21 16 06:25am
(Updated 12 times)

It's actually really simple: If motion controls are done well (and I don't just mean "decent enough"; I mean actually really good) then people will generally be very happy to use them (there will always be some people who won't be). If the motion controls aren't done well, which is absolutely 100% the case with Star Fox Zero as far as I'm concerned*, then many people will be up in arms—and very rightly so imo.

The blame is not at the feet of the gamers here, it's at the feet of Nintendo.

Star Fox is averaging a 72% on various aggregate sites right now, much of that due to various issues most reviewers have with motion controls (and a few other things too), and that, by any REAL Nintendo fan's standards (people that have seen Nintendo at its very best and know what it's truly capable of, and actually expect that high quality), is actually pretty crap for a brand new, main franchise, top-tier Nintendo game. It is, imo, far below what any proper main Star Fox game should be scoring in 2016.

Again, the blame is not at the feet of the gamers here (or even the feet of journalists), it's at the feet of Nintendo.

*PS. There's a decided ignorance around the Internet that the problem some people have here is "motion controls". In terms of the controls alone (and Star Fox Zero has more issues than just the controls), the real problem here is the motion controls in combination with the dual-screen mechanic plus the regular controls too. That combination in this particular case is the real issue here (in relation to many of the criticisms around the controls).

PPS. When even a single professional journalist has resorted to writing an article that utterly trashes the game, to the point they don't even finish the review properly because they simply did not want to play the game any more, and other journalists are resorting to articles that try their best to justify, make excuses for, explain, and basically apologise for these clearly absurd controls, then just trust me . . . there is a problem with the game here (not the journalists or gamers)—a big problem.

gamesnotoveryet
Thu Apr 21 16 09:02am
Rating: 2

I have had some "fair" experiences with motion controls over the years, but even games like Skyward Sword where they are supposed to be the "best" there is, I find them to have issues.

The tech that "N" uses is middle of the road at best, and often doesn't work as it should. I'm sorry that so many here find issues with those of us that have issues. Not everyone likes the same things, or some of us have bigger hands, some have smaller, that is why the XL 3DS is great, but having a smaller option is good as well.

Why do so many feel the need to defend "N" to the death, and tell others that have played hundreds of thousands of games over their lifetime, how they aren't playing a game right, or giving it the proper time or effort to enjoy? That is just ignorance and prejudice at the most basic of levels.

What happened to just having options? What if anyone went to a restaurant and only one thing is on the menu? Would you eat there? What if clothes only came in one size that didn't fit you? Based on the logic seen here from "Fanboys" you need to loose weight, or gain weight so you can fit the designers ideals of shape and sizes.

No where in the world is that kind of business acceptable, so why defend it here. For those that want to spend the time, great for you. For those that want to spend the time, and invest in learning a new skill, also great. For those of us who don't care for any of that, would it be so hard to just give and option?

What happened to just basic options? I remember when much less capable systems offered button assignments in the options. I also remember being able to adjust light Vs. dark screen settings, sound options, and everything in between. Why is the so hard for some around here to understand?

Yes, this game is a work of art and design, and as such, the creative team has an idea and experience that they want the end user to have. But when you offer things in different shapes, sizes, and colors, you are opening your piece of art up to a wider audience right? Isn't "N" in the business of video games and selling the greatest amount possible to the widest audience out there?

Why not offer different levels of usage that many fans across different levels can enjoy and understand? Star Fox had fine controls, and I don't think I have ever heard one person say they where hard to use, or that they didn't like them. The true nature of Star Fox was built around the SNES and N64 controllers. That is what I know, and that is what I like. Why would I finally get a game I have wanted for years, and then want the controls changed?

Oh how I wish I could hack my own comment rating system and give you all the points. >_<

briwipdx
Thu Apr 21 16 09:22am
(Updated 2 times)

super excited for this game. great personalized review, no need to listen to naysayers. its funny to see mass resistance to a control scheme that forges new, possibly superior gameplay trails. didnt we already play SF64 and SF643D? as great as those games are, theres no need for a repeat imho. currently game is being shipped and i for one couldnt be happier about the new control scheme, regardless of the continual haters. learning and adapting is a fun part about gaming and in general, being human. but humans also like familiarity and yearn for the similar, so the resitance to 'new' is not surprising. gyro-controls FTW

didnt we already play SF64 and SF643D? as great as those games are, theres no need for a repeat imho.

Then why is Starfox Zero literally the same game as SF64 except for the controls, if there's no need to repeat? Is the controls enough to differentiate it? If all a game does compared to its predecessors is changing up the control scheme to something controversial, while offering little else, of course people are going to be unhappy about it. If Nintendo offered an entirely new experience AND changes the controls, there would be much fewer complaints. What we get here is the same game, repackaged with a less intuitive control system.

"except for the controls"
new controls ARE the new experience.
games ARE their gameplay
and the 90s already happened.
controversial is good.
ZeldaSS was controversial and imho is one of the top 3 Zeldas,
mainstreaming control schemes for the sake of familiar doesnt always move things forward,
and we all know thats kind of Nintendos M.O.: changing/moving forward.
As long as the internet exists, there will NVR be fewer complaints.
People having mouthpieces to spout off their opinions doesnt offer validity to a game's supposed 'failure,'
It just proves people love hearing themselves talk.

If you think gameplay is just controls then you have much to learn.

game·play
ˈɡāmplā/
noun
the tactical aspects of a computer game, such as its plot and the way it is played, as distinct from the graphics and sound effects.

please learn me o gameplay master

Can I learn you some English first?

hoo neads inglish? itza konstently eevulving languije

To be fair we had 3 games "offering an entirely new experience and changes to the game's design" after 64.

yomanation
Sat Apr 23 16 08:58pm
(Updated 1 time)

I know, but nowadays you can do a lot of things that you couldn't back then, I want something like Assault except a lot better, potentially open world with seamless planet transitions. That would be impressive and make some heads turn. Also, you have to realize that arcade games simply don't sell nowadays. I know Nintendo just did this game for the SF64 fans and is not extremely concerned with sales, but that's a sad thing, actually, it feels like they have given up on this franchise and all they can offer us is a remix of old content.

vonter
Sat Apr 23 16 11:15pm
(Updated 1 time)

I know, but at the same time the investment is bigger. That's why also we don't see as much bold crazy ideas in the AAA market.

Also I'm not really sure how much it is for the funs since half of it really is. But the other half seems like another experiment for them.

Also I've been reading a lot the prospect of having Star Fox try something like No Man's Sky and I'm not really sure why. If anything that's the issue I've seen with all the previous experiments and attempts to make the games longer. But in the end those had mainly padding instead of consistent quality to them.

I'm not saying, one should not be ambitious, but on the other hand I want games to feel right and... snappy I suppose is the word. For me, I'll like if Star Fox attempted to be like Rogue Squadron since in some ways it takes ideas from Star Fox and goes bigger.

Well, I want them to invest more, that's what I'm saying in the first place. Nintendo are not a small indie studio, yet small indie studios have more balls than them.

I'll say this game approach to controls is ballsy. But I get you. At the same time indie studios in a way have more freedom than AAA developers, they target a specific audience and AAA mainly want to appeal to everyone, which makes them play it safe.

Surprise surprise RMC enjoyed the game and praised the controls in the end. I know it's his opinion but it just feels like Nintendo can never do no wrong with this guy.

Well there is a reason why RMC is running a site that's called Gonintendo, mister conspiracy theorist.

That might be because he likes Nintendo and have agreed with them and their design philosophy often enough so that he would dedicate his profesional activity to the brand.

Just saying.

Or just love Nintendo but call them out when they make weird decisions like the rest of us.

To be fair, I don't think not being critical of missteps is helping. I am a huge Nintendo fan, been since NES and they are still my favorite but I'm going to call them out if they take questionable decisions.

mlt-malavida
Thu Apr 21 16 05:52pm
(Updated 1 time)

I understand what you're saying, but he obviously doesn't think they are a misstep. I don't think the controls are a misstep either, even though I completely understand why some people are upset about them. I don't think they should automatically be dismissed. They work, they offer new possibilities, they feel good. I mean obviously I need more time with the game so that I can formulate a valid opinion, but so far I would not call them a misstep from a gameplay perspective.

From a business perspective, I see how we could say the controls are a misstep seeing how a good portion of the target audience seem to think the game should not even control like that but I mean, discussing what could have been instead of what we have is only going to get us this far.

yomanation
Thu Apr 21 16 06:31pm
(Updated 1 time)

I'm talking purely from a business perspective. Gameplay wise there is nothing wrong with the new controls, they allow for 3D twin stick shooter gameplay that hasn't really been done before outside VR games, they are pretty innovative. The problem is the game won't reach as many people as it could if it was more intuitive. I guess Nintendo doesn't care too much as Wii U is pretty much dead and they are just making this game for the fans, but still.

Also, if the game sells poorly, Nintendo might think there's no interest in the franchise, when in fact there would be PLENTY of interest if they actually went big with it. Making a game that has the scope of SF64 in 2016 is not good enough. Honestly the controls are the least of my worries with the game. I'm sure it's fun, but I wish it was more.

mlt-malavida
Fri Apr 22 16 01:58am
(Updated 1 time)

I would have loved a multiplayer mode, and I think it could have served as a way to legitimate the controls. So I agree that this should probably have been there to increase the value.

That being said, I'm glad they still put the priority on the game they want to make before any sort of business logic. Of course it's not always ideal but it's that attitude that lets them be more creative from time to time. They are still ready to put rather big budgets on games they want to make even if they're not sure how well they can sell. That's pretty unique for a company this big. The other extreme is Ubisoft. A couple years ago they publically decided 'hey watch us, in a couple years we're number one'. And from this point they based everything they did on pure business logic. And well yes, they're doing pretty great but now even their freaking fps plays like their third person stealth/adventure game.

My point is, if you always do what's expected of you, what you do tends to become standardized.

To be honest, Nintendo did exactly what was expected in this case, a rehash with gimmicky controls.

I wonder what other companies do different. Is it the online? Is the budget narrative video sequences? Is it the expansive landscape with ton of token things to collect? Is it the realistic graphics?

I'm just trying to understand this argument considering the new things Nintendo attempts aren't necessarily good or bad, just different. And I sometimes get the impression a lot of people want Nintendo to do what everyone else is doing, kinda like growing up, but still be themselves.

I don't know I just find it hard to consider as much of a rehash since it's just the third game approaching this franchise in this way (I mean Mario, Kirby, Zelda), and the other approaches weren't also hitters and over time they've become lukewarm at best.

mlt-malavida
Sun Apr 24 16 02:35am
(Updated 1 time)

I don't want to answer for Yomanation but the impression that I get is that following his logic, practically nothing innovative is ever done.

The term 'gimmick' is nothing but an easy way to dismiss all gameplay innovations. And well gameplay is nintendo's specialty. It's what they do so if you don't recognize gameplay innovation as an actual thing then chances are you're not going to be very interested in a lot of things nintendo does.

What I observed personally, discussing with people who don't see nintendo's innovations as such is that most of the time they only see innovation that comes in terms of structure. That's what they're interested in. It's very reductive in my opinion.

Yes and no. I many times see the fanbases expecting what Reggie once mentioned at E3. "People want what's familiar but with the excitement of the new." It's always the same story of expecting this or this franchise since we don't really can precise an unknown game. And even when a big company presents something new it still needs to garner the interest of an audience. Splatoon, Codename Steam, Boxboy, Harmoknight, The Wonderful 101 etc. Nintendo does make or look to bring new IPs to their systems as much as the big ones, but the fact is not all will be big, appealing, or memorable.

I have the feeling that a certain amount of gamers mostly want something familiar, standard and easy to understand. I think Platinum Games is an example that the vast majority don't like things that are wildly different from the pack. Despite being critically acclaimed the amount of support they get isn't as big as the companies that sell things people are more familiar with.

I do think like with this game the expectations from Nintendo are higher. What I disagree is with the sense that they'll follow the rest of the industry. I don't know to me Nintendo has always been weaker when following the rest of the industry, they have nailed more the "more with less approach" with their games. I remember one journalist mentioning Nintendo never plays it hard when it comes to their games, that they play it smart. I don't know there's a sense of ingenuity that makes them stand from the rest and it's because they're weird and don't follow the competition that they're always being talked aside from the rest of the conversation. I think that's what bothers and frustrates people since they want Nintendo to be part of the rest of the conversation. I think.

I'd say it's scope and amount of content. Starfox Zero has the scope of a 1996 game, but it's 2016. It's a full price title that has a 3-5 hour campaign and nothing else. If you deem that acceptable, that's alright but please let others have their doubts and understand that they are expecting a little more for their hard earned bucks in 2016. For the record I did preorder the game's Limited Edition, and I'm probably going to enjoy it, but my criticism is not because *I* won't enjoy it, but why I think Nintendo has been failing and Starfox Zero is a prime example of their lack of understanding of the current market.

I agree. At the same time I point to EA's Battlefront which is a game that looks new, but has way less content than previous games in the series.

I suppose I think both should have went to be more like Rogue Squadron. I don't know what is happening but it seems there must be a reason neither put more ambition in regards to their content.

I hear you, but why would you point me to the worst cases of rehashes in the industry to prove a point? I want Nintendo to be better than that.

Correction, one of the most successful rehashes in the industry.

Also I don't have another point of reference, maybe if No Man's Sky is good they could aspire to that. Or maybe Star Citizen (did that ever came out?).

Anyway I agree, at the same time I just don't see them taking notes from other developers. I do see them continuing trying new crazy ideas. But we'll see in a month and a half what they're up to next. Fingers crossed.

I'm not saying they should be copying anyone, I just want something high budget, large scale. That's all there is to it.

I don't know, certainly I like to have more. But I also don't want it to feel bad.

It's kinda like Melee and Smash 4. I think the former got as big as it needed to be, while the latter looked to be as bigger as it could possibly be.

Also with Skyward Sword more than motion controls I think the game was too big for its own good it certainly felt there were moments I truly felt like a waste of time.

Finally and this is subjective, at this point in my life I find it hard to sink in deep to a game that's too long. Xenoblade X, Skyrim, Fallout, the Witcher 3.

Also I do hope FF XV turns to be a worthy investment since it also looks more technically impressive than when you actually playing it. (Maybe it's just the demo).

I wouldn't say Smash 4 is as big as Smash can get. While it has the biggest roster, Brawl had more content, especially in the single player department. Smash 4 was disappointing in its single player offerings. Skyward Sword's problem was that it had too much mandatory content and too little optional content, relatively speaking.

Well yes, but we also saw in Brawl adventure was longwinded in comparison to the one in Melee. I just think if that was made like half as long it might have had more replayability. (Still I did found more enjoyment out of Boss Rush Mode). Also I'll have liked Smash run had been for the Wii U and just had keep the tag team matches from Smash Tour. I do however get that when you're putting as much of you can, it's hard keeping the quality in every aspect of a game regardless of genre. Which is why I suppose I'm in the mindset of being more focused than large when making a game.

Still though it's really hard to tell if people prefer replayability versus amount of content in a game. I think it's very hard to have both.

mlt-malavida
Sun Apr 24 16 02:23am
(Updated 1 time)

I can't really agree with that. If we consider the ingredients of a game are the usual gameplay/narrative/structure, then for SFZ it's a whole third of a game that was completely turned on its head. It's definitely something. Plus it's an arcade shooter and gameplay is definitely the most important part of the game.

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad they are trying something different with the controls and I don't consider it a total gimmick, as it does offer you a huge degree of freedom, but from the comments and general reaction I've seen, that's what most people seem to think. And while I don't really consider it a gimmick, at the same time, you cannot really say that changing the controls and nothing else is enough to differentiate the title from its predecessors. As I've mentioned above in another post, controls is not the only thing that matters gameplay-wise. Content is also important, as that's what you interact with, and the content in SFZ is not really innovative or really much different from previous Starfox games. In a sense, they use the new controls as a new way to interact with already existing content.

I do remember finding Other M, off. Mainly like everyone else pointing that the only time it felt like a Metroid game was the after credits section.

"I just wanted to clear up any worry that StarFox Zero was a remake of 64 with a new coat of paint and that's it."

I'm happy about this but honestly wouldn't even be mad if it were.

I totally agree with RMC about the "bite of the complaint far outlasting the release of the title." I feel like this happens a lot more frequently with Nintendo because of their poor messaging. They hype their games, but never acknowledge The concerns of their audience. They didn't tell us just how awesome Splatoon would be, how gorgeous MK8 at 60fps would be, how challenging DKCTF would be... They just don't share that kind of information. So you have the Star Fox control scheme complaint, where people are saying they won't even try the game out cause they "know" what its like. A bad rumor should be splatted, left alone too long it grows out of control and is easily confused for the truth.

I'm playing SFZ right now.

The analogy with fighting games some have made is atually pretty accurate. You instantly get how controls work. You can do pretty cool stuff after spending about 10m with them. You instantly understand the potential but also that in faster levels, with a lot of things to think about, it's going to require training.

Out of the adjectives I've seen around the web to qualify the controls though, I can outright say stuff like disjointed and counterintuitive are just not true. It's fluid, accurate and intuitive. Getting how they work takes about 30s. Having fun doing cool maneuvres takes about 10m. It will definitely require training before it becomes second nature so that you can do those harder levels with style.

Raw meats isnt "DEFENDING" the controls He's explaining how to get the most out of the game... given that most of you have never played it let alone BEATEN IT... I'm more inclined to believe what he says... Also I played it at E3 and it was great... I only expect it to be better. The controls are not a big deal... and NO they shouldn't have had an option for traditional controls... for the same reason motion is required in splatoon and kid icarus does not support a second stick... the game was designed around this control scheme ... and until people stop freaking out that they cant play a new game in an outdated or "the same way" as every thing else... then they'll never come to understand the new experiences offered by nintendo... they aren't in the business to give you more of the same... they dont just make games they make experiences... some work some don't... some are pick up and go ... some require an adjustment or stepping out of a comfort zone to understand how it works
... each game deserves the time of day and the benefit of the doubt

vonter
Sat Apr 23 16 06:04pm
Rating: 4

Pretty much this, nailed it!!!

Has RMC ever given a Nintendo game a bad review?

Not that I know of, but I don't follow the reviews here. I'd rather go on more general websites for that to get a more leveled score.

I dunno about 'bad' but I can think of at least one game that he did not think was particularly good.

I wanted to love Metroid: Other M... Unfortunately, this is one of those instances where a legendary franchise has fallen short of the lofty goals it set for itself. It truly pains me to say it, but for me, Metroid: Other M is the low point in the series. That’s not to say it’s a terrible game, because it’s far from that. It just has a number of issues that pile up, and what you’re left with is something that makes you realize how this title didn’t come together all that well... I think there were a lot of things that were handled incorrectly.

Just wanted to mention here that I've grabbed the game and finished the main campaign. I really, really like. There is definitely a learning curve to the controls to actually be good at the game, but it didn't take much for me to get used to them initially. Loving the game and can't wait to see some crazy score runs!!

Search

Today's VIP

ajs2ajs2's avatar
Joined: August 2017
Newbie

Social Services

Want to join this discussion?

You should like, totally log in or sign up!