Login

Star Fox Zero – Dev Team Interview: Part Three

Hello there! My name is Akinori Sao and I’m a writer who‘s filled with joy every time I hear the Star Fox theme. But anyway, let’s turn now to the final part – the last level, if you will –of our Star Fox Zero interview. Mr Miyamoto spoke in our last interview about working as a director for the first time in 20 years with boyish glee.

Now, for this final discussion, we’re going to look at the development process and find out what a veteran director like Mr Miyamoto and a young rookie like Mr Hayashi set out to achieve with Star Fox Zero. Naturally we’re also going to talk about Star Fox Guard which was released together with the Star Fox Zero, as well as a short animation that you can watch online. Okay, here goes!

Part Three: Our Focus During Development

Your skills improve the more you play

Sao: There’s so much to enjoy in Star Fox Zero, but I wanted to ask you what aspects of the gameplay you focused most on during the game’s development?

Miyamoto: For me, the most important thing was feeling as if you were really the pilot.

Full interview here

Categories: Interviews, Consoles
Games: StarFox Zero

Comments

impurekind
Fri May 27 16 01:49pm
(Updated 4 times)

Seriously, Nintendo just exists in a bubble half the time these days.

Star Fox Zero is simply not that good a game, and the controls really are pretty clunky and convoluted crap. This video says it better than I ever could (but just as honestly and bluntly):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9w2RMBrmTsk

vonter
Fri May 27 16 01:53pm
(Updated 1 time)

That'll be good if that meant this game getting a sequel and not feeling like it'll be the last one.

The bias I have is that is better than Assault and Command but a step down from Star Fox 64.

Miyamoto: I really threw myself into it! (laughs) Anyway, I feel that by watching this animation, players will be able to get more deeply into the game. If you watch it before you play, you’ll understand the game world better.

This not ok to say anymore, supplemental material either being it Destiny or Star Fox in order to understand a story is bad storytelling.

False, added precision, speed, range of view and controls is not "clunky". Only if you suck at them. I've discussed about this with multiple haters with multiple fans, and the haters always go quiet because they run out of arguments.

impurekind
Fri May 27 16 05:24pm
(Updated 3 times)

Watch the video linked; it says it all:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9w2RMBrmTsk

If you actually believe otherwise you're kidding yourself. You're free to do that, believe otherwise, but if you do it's because you don't really understand good game design or good control design.

And, that's about as close to a fact as anything.

The controls are difficult for a big portion of people. However, there's also a big portion which didn't have problems with them. This isn't Superman 64 where everyone can agree the controls suck. This is a game which everyone expected to be simple and casual friendly, and freaked out when it wasn't.
Every game's controls don't need to be easily approachable. There are easy and difficult control schemes. Variety is good.

Once again, watch the video I linked.

This is not about whether different people get into the controls personally or not; it's a bigger argument than that.

The controls are just fundamentally stupid for reasons that go beyond personal opinions, whether you personally like them or not, and defending them comes from not understanding where the real issue lies.

In a vacuum it might be possible for someone to genuinely argue for and defend these controls as though they were basically a great solution to a specific problem, but Star Fox Zero does not exist in a vacuum, and they didn't solve a problem that also didn't actually exist in the first place.

I watched the video, and pretty much the only good argument is the reticle on the TV screen, but that can also be adapted to. If there's actually one valid argument, then say it. The controls don't really try to solve problems, but to expand and try something new. They however do fix the problem that you can now move the reticle separately.

1. Forced control scheme based and revolving around a Gimmick.
2. WAS a plan for an option to include Traditional Controls, WAS NOT implemented.
3. No way to calibrate for sensitivity, meaning that if you have Miyamoto's hand sensitivity and mindset, you might be able to pick up the controls with little effort.
4. No online(patch updates), meaning they locked the key in the safe so now even IF they wanted to fix the controls to at least add in Traditional Methods, they can't.
5. Low sales even WITH the push of advertising and all the months of generated hype says it all.
6. Not everyone got time fo all dat.

What exactly are you defending?

1 & 2. Controls, which add precision, speed, range of view and overall control, it's the core of the game, and it works for people who are capable of adapting, this game is for made for them.
3. I've read a lot of discussion regarding to this game, and that's the first time I've heard of someone complain about the lack of calibrating sensitivity. It's not a real problem.
4. Star Fox Guard received a patch, how do you know they can't patch SFZ if needed?
5. It sold decently in the west, but yeah, games which are difficult for a big portion of people don't always sell well. It's still good to have those games, too.
6. There are games which needs time to get into. There are casual and hardcore games. If you don't have time to learn to play this game, this game isn't for you.

works for people who are capable of adapting, this game is for made for them.

Wow, look at all those people who bought and kept the game. . .
Nintendo SURE is raking in all that money from them, ain't they?
OH and the Fan reactions, so positive. . .

It's not a real problem.

If you have the same hand coordination as Miyamoto, of course it isn't.
Because, you know, EVERYONE has the exact same sensitive hands as Miyamoto does. . .

Star Fox Guard received a patch, how do you know they can't patch SFZ if needed?

Lol. Okay, so IF that is true, then, Why did SFG get a patch before SFZ did? Why not a day one patch like SMM even? In fact, why even a patch at all when they should have done what they were planning to do from the beginning? Mistakes were made, they have to answer to them. You defending them does NOT make their obvious mistakes any less observable.

It sold decently in the west

Decently. . .
Reminds me of words like, "potential".
They make that money back they used for Advertising the game?
Cause if it at least broke even, it wouldn't be a total loss.

There are games which needs time to get into. There are casual and hardcore games. If you don't have time to learn to play this game, this game isn't for you.

And then, there are people with common sense who are at least smart enough to know NOT to lock a key in a safe, just because it is a safe place to store the key. I guess your right though. . . This game was made by Miyamoto, for Miyamoto and I guess anyone else that enjoys(or at least can tolerate) his 'company'. 'Company' replaced with another word, which includes the word arts.

Spoiler

Like I said, this game didn't happen to catch mainstream's interest. Not every game does. If they did, gaming, in general would be extremely shallow.

There's probably a very small portion of people who complain about not being able to change the sensitivity. And yeah, I guess 99% of people who have properly played the game has the same.. hand coordination as Miyamoto.

And I don't have much else to say. Yeah, Miyamoto had an idea for a new game, he tried it, it worked, but didn't make money. It was the exact same situation when he created Zelda, Mario and the first game. A new idea, no way of knowing what it'll bring you, but you've just got to try it.
I didn't report anyone.

There's probably a very small portion of people who complain about not being able to change the sensitivity.

The ones not complaining that also don't care for the forced scheme are the people that didn't bother picking it up cause they knew better.

Yeah, Miyamoto had an idea for a new game, he tried it, it worked, but didn't make money.

Except, it didn't really work. Your just really biased. To the point that you actually try to convince yourself(as well as others, and that's the problem) that it was good, when it really wasn't. 3 of the same game, no matter how differently played, is STILL the same game. It may have been good/different in certain respects, but because of the 'pink elephant in the room', only the fanboys can really enjoy it, and those people who force themselves(I mean way more than is normal/warrants) too, along with the forced control scheme. Forcing yourself to like something, Hows that Work?

Spoiler

It was the exact same situation when he created Zelda, Mario and the first game. A new idea, no way of knowing what it'll bring you, but you've just got to try it.

Those were during good times though, before forced gimmicks were a thing.

How exactly do they not work? They add precision, speed, range of view and control, that is simply a fact. You aren't giving me any proper arguments, your comment can be summed with "Except it didn't really work". 1:1 motion controls are more fluid, precise and faster than using an analogue stick, try drawing something with both for example and compare the two. It's almost literally like shooting a gun. The fact that you've got two views gives you more control and a wider view of the game over all.

The fact is that the people who didn't like the game aren't the biggest portion, but the loudest. Reviews of mainstream sites have always been garbage. If you look at actual user review instead on amazon, gamefaqs, metacritic, etc. it's mostly positive. Those aren't all "fan boys who forced themselves to like the game".

By the way, did YOU even yourself play the game?

Games themselves could be considered to be one big gimmick, then. They're something fun, pointless, challenging, new entertainment.

They add precision, speed, range of view and control, that is simply a fact.

precision? With sensitive style controls based heavily on the use of compensator, OF which, cannot be adjusted manually?

You aren't giving me any proper arguments

Oh, I see what the problem is here.
Your just really into Gimmicks, period.
Not only blind to everything else, but also deluded despite the sale numbers and fan reactions clearly reflect otherwise.
I don't have to make an argument here, because:
1. There have been WAY more points made in other articles on the matter.
2. The religious logic you use isn't worth the effort.
Have 'fun' believing though. . .

motion controls are more fluid, precise and faster than using an analogue stick, try drawing something with both for example and compare the two.

They give certain people the illusion that they are fluid. As you can tell by reactions and other indicators, that doesn't carry.
Faster than a stick? I don't think you know just how a potentiometer works, or about motion sensitivity perimeters/settings.
Drawing? Yikes. . .
Anyone can make the stick go faster AND the draw pad even slower, all they'd have to do is adjust the sensitivity settings accordingly. Do you believe in magic tricks? Cause it wouldn't seem like much of a stretch to assume at this point. . .

The fact that you've got two views gives you more control and a wider view of the game over all.

Okay, Miyamoto ¬_¬.

The fact is that the people who didn't like the game aren't the biggest portion, but the loudest.

People who didn't buy the game, are actually generally quite about it.
People like you though, make them speak up.
You also expect everyone to 'stay quite' about a forced gimmick in the play mechanic? Who does that? Oh wait. . .

If you look at actual user review instead on amazon,

Stopped reading right there.
Comments actually have a way better grasp than reviews do.
Reviews are generally broad and click baity, also a little on the 'sponsored' side and therefore aren't as trustworthy. Where as comments are always brutally honest, if not obviously trolly(provided that they aren't doctored/filtered).

By the way, did YOU even yourself play the game?

I can, but I don't think I'm going to anytime soon. I got two copies of the game sitting there. Since I heard you can't even calibrate for sensitivity, and the fact that there's no way to patch it because it lacks online features or whatever from what I heard, I placed it further down the backlog.

Games themselves could be considered to be one big gimmick, then. They're something fun, pointless, challenging, new entertainment.

That all depends on how the game is handled/produced.
In this case, it made 1 huge mistake that it can't even recover from.
A deal breaker for many, as the case seems to have been.
And that's not even counting the monotony involved with the 3rd iteration of essentially the SAME game. We wanted a New game, we instead got that in SFG, a $20s worth of a game. It's appreciated, but it comes with a $40 game not many people are interested in because of a huge flaw in the final released design based on an esoteric concept nobody asked for.

yukito
Sat May 28 16 11:27pm
(Updated 1 time)

The fact that you haven't played the game, and the fact that you have absolutely no understanding whatsoever on how gyro controls make shooters incredibly more better means you have absolutely no understanding on this game. We now have two VERY typical haters on the comment section, who hate the game, which they've never even played before.
If you don't have steady enough hands for this game, the game simply isn't for you. Just like guns and archery isn't for you either (I've said this before already).
I've seen VERY little complaints about the fact that you can't adjust the sensitivity, it's not a real problem.

So you're saying comments mostly bash the game? Then go to youtube, go to reddit, go to gamefaqs, look at the damn comments on here GoNintendo, in a lot of cases, there are even MORE support for the game, than hate.

The fact that you haven't played the game, and the fact that you have absolutely no understanding whatsoever on how gyro controls make shooters incredibly more better means you have absolutely no understanding on this game.

Come down, Miyamoto.
I understand it didn't sell well, at all.
Went to my store, 3 Copies still just sitting there.
And that's saying something, considering they still had 2 copies of Amiibo Festival.

Also, you're the one that doesn't understand how 'gyro controls' work.
And I mean that Mechanically speaking.

We now have two VERY typical haters on the comment section, who hate the game, which they've never even played before.

And 1 deluded Fanboy desperate to defend their hero's mistake.
The game could be decent to Okay, but the forced control scheme takes away so much of the enjoyment in advancing, that it doesn't make sense to spend over $60(and who knows how much hours) on something you have to be forced to like(unless your into that sort of thing. . .). You don't even have to play the game to know that it's a repeat of the same game done twice already.

Tell you what: let's wait for the patch to come in to incorporate traditional controls, then I'll play it. You see the problem though, right? Cause if you can't, that's indicative of an issue you may have concerning distinguishing certain things from others.

I've seen VERY little complaints about the fact that you can't adjust the sensitivity

Again, you don't hear those complaints because people didn't even bother to bring it up cause they just weren't interested in deal breaker things like that just on principle. Or, maybe you just turn a deaf ear to those.

it's not a real problem.

For blind fanboys? Of course it isn't.
Case in point. . .

look at the damn comments on here GoNintendo, in a lot of cases, there are even MORE support for the game, than hate.

I'll just leave you to your rose tinted glasses then. . .

yukito
Sun May 29 16 06:44am
(Updated 1 time)

You're still trying pointlessly very hard. On this very comment section, there's 5 players who have enjoyed the game, and 2 players who haven't played the game, and bash the game. Don't you get how laughable that is? And the fact that you say I have "rose tinted glasses"?

Yes, the game didn't sell well, not every game appeals to mainstream, but that is ok, because if they did, we'd have much less variety, and all games would be shallow. This one is a complex arcade shooter. And I'm glad we have this one too. We wouldn't if it wasn't for Nintendo. Variety is always good, and it's good for specific, sometimes smaller audiences to get their games.

And it doesn't matter where you go, motion, gyro, and mouse controls beat analogue controls by a mile, it's a widely considered fact. I have no idea what you mean by me not understanding the "mechanically".

And we don't hear a specific complaint because a certain group of haters haven't played the game? that's the most bull**** argument I've heard in a while.

Spoiler

yukito
Sun May 29 16 06:01pm
Rating: 1

You don't even have any counter arguments. I keep countering your laughable statements, and you just keep talking bs. Which part of "even this comment section has more support from people who played the game, and 2 typical haters who haven't even played the game" don't you understand? Which part of amazon, metacritic and gamefaqs user reviews being more positive than negative don't you understand? Which part of the fact that most of the sites have either more, or at least equal the amount of support compared to the hate don't you understand?

And what kind of a response is that to my statement that you're trying pointlessly hard? That statement makes you think I'm some mythical hardcore fanboy? No, it's very clear that you've run out of arguments long time ago now, and ironically, it's you who's trying hard to insult me, because that's all you can say anymore.

I am not saying the game sold well. Why are you trying to argue that with me? I said it sold decently, which is what I've heard, apparently it had not too disastrous of a launch in the US, compared to how it did in Japan. I've already explained why it's ok to have niche games. Why we need them. 250k+ isn't bad for a niche game.

Kingsynnyd's comment was already responded to, and I've already explained on this comment section how the controls work, and what they add to the game.

Your comment in a nutshell: "mythical, blind fanboy, cognitive dissonance, delusion" - Zero counter arguments. Like I said, you don't have any. You only keep on going because of what I said at the beginning of this comment section.

Spoiler

yukito
Mon May 30 16 01:40am
Rating: 1

You quoted "You're still trying pointlessly very hard." from me, and replied to it by saying I'm some mythical blind fanboy. You drew that conclusion from my statement, which ironically proves my point. It didn't make any sense, you're only trying too hard to just make me look bad, or whatever it's that you're trying to say.

You somehow think I'm being a blind fanboy, when you yourself aren't even giving me any arguments. This conversation was pretty much over way back, you never had any proper arguments to begin with. I myself have given you a ton of arguments, which you keep ignoring. You only pick a few points I made here and there, and just give your all to respond with the most pointless bs.

All you keep saying that I'm a blind fanboy. Nothing else. No response to my arguments. No explanation what exactly makes me a blind fanboy.

Star Fox Zero was the 5th best selling game of any console on April. It's been estimated it sold around 300k in it's first week in total.
And like I said, I haven't reported anyone's comment, ever.

I'm guessing you're still quite young, since you think you're achieving something for yourself here, but you're only being childishly nonsensical, you keep repeating the same crap, no counter arguments, no explanations, only long, pointless text about you trying hard to prove I'm a blind fanboy by... repeating that I'm a blind fanboy.
I'm still in this discussion, because I am aiming for something alike, it's actually the other way around, your incapability of making proper arguments (understandable, because there basically are none) only proves what the haters are. You think I'm a blind fanboy, anyone with brains who'd listen to your childish insults vs. my thoroughly explained arguments would see you're the blind one, just a pure, pointless hater (who hasn't even played the game, which needs to be emphasized). I've seen your pointless hate before here, too, and it's good to have this conversation to show what you actually understand about these things.
Like I said before, I've gone over this same conversation multiple times, and I've read others talking about it, and when you go in depth with it, the pure haters are almost always the ones who run out of arguments. However, I have to say you've been the most childish and incapable arguer yet. If we were on Gamefaqs, you'd probably done nothing but straight up pure insults at this point, because there you rarely get banned for that.

If you're unable to counter argue me, to explain what makes me a blind fanboy, what you think I'm saying wrong, to prove me I'm wrong, then what are you still doing here? Are you going to quote random parts of my post again and just shake your head and tell me how blind I am, without any explanation? Don't you realize how literally child-like that is?

Note, I didn't report your post either, but I've now heard and seen, that this isn't the first conversation where you just keep on going, playing around thinking you're somehow making the other look bad. That's enough for me. I however was interested in what you'd reply, because I've now clearly pointed out what you're doing, I want to see if you'd actually reply properly this time... it's very unlikely though. So PM me, we'll end it there. Except you're probably going to keep going with others on this comment section.

Spoiler

Note, I didn't report your post either, but I've now heard and seen, that this isn't the first conversation where you just keep on going, playing around thinking you're somehow making the other look bad.

Sure you didn't ¬_¬.
And even IF you actually didn't, I have a good Idea of who were involved that did.

Playing around? I offered to take this to PM, you didn't want to go there. I therefore assumed it was a mutual discussion. Your not innocent of baiting either, I just feel bad that the Mods have to clean messes like these. If I get another 'warning' from the Mods, They may have to set guidelines for me, cause I honestly don't know what constitutes a drawn line regarding ongoing discussions where it's unclear if personal input should be involved or whatever. Which would mean, no one can insult anyone ever for anything, not even indirectly/unintentionally.(I mean, how would that work or be enforced?) What's the point of the block, if people don't use it and instead are irresponsible and force Mods into making unnecessary appearances?

You could have blocked me at anytime, like many users already have. But, you didn't. Instead you try to go over and get the mods to do your dirty work for you. That's a form of direct personal attack(and in some cases, a forfeit), and like another users mentioned, there should be a rule against that.

And as I said your exuding power levels, and it is clear now that you should just block me then, cause what I say may offend your comfort zones.

I however was interested in what you'd reply, because I've now clearly pointed out what you're doing, I want to see if you'd actually reply properly this time... it's very unlikely though. So PM me, we'll end it there.

I have no stake in PMing you(I actually asked you first, and you never went for it). I now know what kind of user you are and what tactics you resort too. The discussion is therefore closed. Feel free to think you've "won" or whatever by having the last word in that though, we'll see whenif you prove my points.

yukito
Tue May 31 16 01:10am
Rating: 1

There's really nothing to win over this, only thing we got from this was me learning how toxic you've generally been on this site.

So you got even a notice from a mod? If the mod didn't explain you what's the thing you're doing wrong, it's baseless insulting. I think the problem you have is that you simply have hard time explaining yourself, that's why you're so cautious and want to move the discussion to PM, because you say "insulting" things without being specific, then don't understand why those "insults" won't go through other's heads, and then you get notified by a mod. Also, go ask the mod himself if it was me who reported you.

I personally don't think I'm going overboard, which is why I didn't have the need to use PM to escape mods. The reason I now asked that was so your message wouldn't be deleted again, so I would see it.

And yeah, you still didn't respond properly to anything I said, and you basically avoided it this time, by.. not wanting to PM me, because I didn't PM you before, because I found it unnecessary.

Tell you what, you believe whatever you want.

yukito
Sat May 28 16 08:17am
Rating: 1

I believe in facts. And like I said, they always run out of arguments, because these are the simple facts, and it's not just me, I've read a lot of discussion regarding to this game, and it's always the haters who go quiet.

impurekind
Sat May 28 16 10:44am
(Updated 3 times)

The problem here is that you don't really know or understand enough about the subject at hand to realise your "facts" are flawed.

Your fact might be "This game helps you aim better", as a random example.

And my response would be "Your fact is based on a false supposition".

Your fact would only be true or meaningful if there was some issue with aiming in previous games that this game needed to address (and there really wasn't), or if the improvement in aiming didn't come with sacrifices in multiple other areas of the game that ultimately negate this so-called improved aiming. It would be a bit like claiming a sub-millimetre accurate, laser-tracked gun is better at aiming than a traditional handgun, while not fully understand that to use the laser gun requires a degree in science to operate the machine that controls it, whereas using the traditional gun requires picking it up and firing. You'd be picking entirely the wrong thing to build you argument on, which is exactly what's happening with Star Fox Zero; you think you're pointing out why it's better now, but your don't understand how, overall, it's actually worse. The things you think are positives ultimately become meaningless if you actually grasp the bigger picture a bit clearer. This isn't about whether simply aiming at something is a bit more accurate here or not, or about how you can now aim independently of the direction the ship is flying in, or whatever. The argument is bigger than that; it's not as simple as looking at one thing and saying "But it does this and the previous game didn't, so it must be better." But you probably don't quite get that fully.

Read my other comments for additional stuff I've had to say on the matter.

yukito
Sat May 28 16 11:22am
(Updated 1 time)

" It would be a bit like claiming a sub-millimetre accurate, laser-tracked gun is better at aiming than a traditional handgun, while not fully understand that to use the laser gun requires a degree in science to operate the machine that controls it" - So that's your argument. You talk a lot, but that's basically the only argument you've given. So the controls are too difficult and complex for you. It still is an improvement. A big improvement. Yes, it's different from the previous games, but change is not a bad thing. The developers can freely go for a bit different audience with their franchises. If the controls don't suit for some of the older fans, it's not a bad thing in general.
And the graphics aren't a problem, it looks good enough, it runs smooth, and there's enough things happening. All Wii's games were inferior graphically, that wasn't a problem. Maybe to you, but not in general.

impurekind
Sat May 28 16 12:41pm
(Updated 1 time)

The graphics are a problem. The problem is also that you apparently think every other gamer out there is a casual noob or something, who doesn't actually care about graphics and presentation, which is just absurd. If we stop and consider the people that play games in general (and I'm mean gamers that play like console games as opposed to mobile game type stuff), these graphics would be disappointing for the vast majority of them. Again, if this were a first party title on Xbox One, PS4, or even a big release on PC, it would be laughed out the building. The graphics and presentation in this game are simply "good enough", as you said, but for most modern console gamers that actually translates into "mediocre" or "barely acceptable". The fact your standards are apparently so low, as to not expect more from Nintendo, is part of the problem—because Nintendo knows this is at least good enough for people like you. And, Wii's graphics were generally a problem for anyone that wasn't a Nintendo fanboy or a casual noob, which is probably one of the many reasons why the Wii U didn't sell this gen, because the core gamers weren't going to fall for the same trick twice (and the casuals and noobs had moved onto even less powerful and less hardcore but much more ubiquitous gaming systems already).

All these things are problems, and really only the most loyal and most blinded Nintendo fanboys can't see it at this point.

No, the bigger portion of Wii players didn't mind the graphics. It's the typical graphic wh**** who complain about them. Most people haven't complained about SFZ' graphics. Only a very small minority. Yes, you see it here and there, but when people discuss and list out the problems of this game, very few mention the graphics. If you think otherwise, you probably probably only talk to other Nintendo haters on Gamefaqs, or something.
This is another assumption, but since you hate the graphics so much, I very much doubt you've even bought the game either.
And like I've said already, a bigger portion of people found the game good. It's not just a small minority who likes it.
Graphics didn't affect Wii U's sales at all. A 1080p Mario wouldn't have sold more than 720p. It's a way different audience.
Got any more invalid arguments?

impurekind
Sat May 28 16 03:55pm
Rating: 1 (Updated 4 times)

The bigger portion of Wii gamers are mindless casual noobs who don't know any better, and most of them aren't on Wii U anymore. They are not the yardstick you should be using to measure things in the here and now. That would be like asking a clown for interior design advice on how you should decorate your living room.

Most people reviewing the games have mentioned how the graphics are OK but nothing special. Most gamers outside of Nintendo fanboys have said similarly. Actually read more than the two reviews you specifically want to believe. And that goes a hundred-fold for their views on the controls in all those reviews too.

A whole bunch of things affected Wii U's sales, and graphics was absolutely one of them. Graphics matter to a whole lot of the people buying consoles these days; just looks at Xbox One vs PS4 arguments about graphics if you think otherwise. Those casuals who bought the Wii—most of them aren't buying Nintendo's consoles. They don't count in this debate because they largely aren't even a factor. But all those people buying an Xbox One, PS4, or PC over a Wii U do count—and most of them laugh at most of the Wii U's graphics on most of its titles. A few gamer on Wii U I'm sure those people will think look very nice (regardless of its lacking power), but Star Fox Zero absolutely ain't one of them.

Trust me; you are the invalid one here.

I've read a ton of SFZ reviews, and none of them were bothered by the graphics. They aren't a problem. Most people aren't bothered by them.
I've also read tons of reviews of Wii games, and no one ever complained about the graphics.
You keep comparing Nintendo to the other companies. 2 different audiences. Like I said, 1080p Mario doesn't sell better than 720p Mario. GTA, CoD, Fifa - Mario, Zelda, Pokemon - 2 different audiences.

And you've completely ignored my arguments about the controls. And yeah, you haven't played the game, it's very obvious. It's pathetic to bash the game if you haven't even played it.

impurekind
Sat May 28 16 05:14pm
(Updated 2 times)

You really must have read all those reviews in a vacuum.

What, like bashing aids would be pathetic because I haven't tried it personally, and my opinion on aids being crap will only count once I have suffered from it myself?

Yeah, like I really have to catch aids or play Star Fox Zero to know the technical details.

IGN, Gamespot, GameXplain, Nintendo Life, Unseen64, Jim Sterling, ThatOneShowFUN, those are what I can think on the top of my head, and I don't remember any of them saying the graphics are a problem. And don't forget majority of the user reviews on Amazon, Metacritic and Gamefaqs.
Your comparison is absolutely laughable, it's common sense that you can't judge a game if you haven't played it.

kingsunnyd
Fri May 27 16 09:37pm
Rating: 1

I finally played Star Fox Zero today and tried my hardest to get the controls right because I am a generally optimistic person and want to see the best in all games. I was fine with Kid Icarus Uprising, Wonderful 101, Splatoon, and even bought a Steam Controller to play PC games with gyro (playing Overwatch now). I could not get SF0 no matter how hard I tried.

Even if you don't "get" the controls with the previous games I mentioned, you will still do alright on a basic level that could get you through it. I did not feel the same for Star Fox. I tried holding the gamepad in different ways: shift my head, shift only my eyes, both screens in one view (no shifting). I tried prioritizing each screen at different times. All didn't work for me.

This feels like it added way more complexity compared to the reward you get. If the reticle was accurate on the main screen then it would have been fine. Sure you couldn't shoot above or below you outside of the screens boundaries but I don't think adding in those obstacles benefited that much for the game overall.

I understand that some people are able to get it but too be fair, some people are fine with the controls in games like Sonic 06. Don't get me wrong, Sonic 06's controls are fundamentally broken so I am not putting them on the same level. I'm just saying that just because some are able to control it just fine, it doesn't mean that it IS fine. Controls should be change to solve problems. A control stick was added to solve moving in 3D. A second stick/gyro was added to control aim/camera independently from movement. Using 2 screens to do a task that the reticle and second stick/gyro on the main screen already does did not solve a problem.

TL;DR: I really tried as hard as I could to control SF0 well, like I could with other "bad controlled" games but it didn't work out.

How about you watch a video from someone with the opposite point of view and doesn't come off sounding as self important as Jim Sterling.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Xagzb0g8NY

impurekind
Sat May 28 16 10:28am
(Updated 2 times)

Sure—but they are plain and simple wrong.

There's a huge difference between the various ways of looking at this here: Personally liking it, personally not liking it, objectively claiming the controls are bad, objectively claiming the controls are good.

The first two are basically irrelevant in this discussion, since this is not a debate about each person's own tastes and preferences in gaming that's happening around SF0 and particularly its controls but more a debate about their relative quality to game controls in general and certainly relative to the whole shmup or on-rails-shooter genre—and, since I started this particular discussion here with my first post, I'm telling you it's not about personal opinions of the game; it's about analysing its merits more objectively that that.

We can argue why you like certain things or whatever, and that guy in the video can argue the same, and he and you can even try and claim your views are based more on objective truth than the naysayers, but you are, plain and simple, wrong.

Relative to the other controls that could have been used and that have been used in similar games, the ones used in SF0 are not even close to being an ideal solution. They are generally a clunky "solution" to a problem that simply didn't exist, and they are not an improvement on that which came before them. Arguing things like "It makes it easier to aim" is an argument based on the presupposition that it was hard to aim properly in the previous games (to the detriment of the experience), and that's just a load of ****, as are most of the arguments people like you are making in favour of the controls in this game. That is true of pretty much every single argument you and anyone else is throwing around to defend this game.

And that's just the controls I'm on about. The visuals are objectively nothing impressive at all, especially compared to other current-gen games and relative to this being a first party, main franchise game from Nintendo. If the game was on either Xbox One or PS4 and looked like this, as a first party title, it would be utterly slated. And that's true of the overall presentation as much as the graphics. It's below par, and only people who are biased to the point of blinding themselves to the truth would not see this.

We can go around in circles till infinity, but here's the real truth here: It's clear you're not likely to change your opinion, but your opinion on this is misguided and basically just plain wrong—and the more objective facts are testament to this (looking at things relative the competition, expectations, previous examples, etc.)—BUT, you are still entitled to that misguided and wrong opinion.

Oh wow now you're pulling the whole "your opinion is wrong because it doesn't align with mine" card now? Look okay if you personally don't like the controls then that's fine, we can agree to disagree (though yeah I will grant I'm probably a bit harsh on Sterling because he gives off a certain air in his videos that bugs me). But saying my opinion is just "wrong" when it comes to this sort of situation? Now you sound like you're coming THIS close to pulling a "nahnahnah can't hear you" tactic when someone says they hold an opinion that's different from your own. This is not an argument where there is an objective "good" or "bad," it's all subjective because yes it is all based on opinion. There is no universal agreement on the controls, and if Sterling is saying "no it's not subjective" then frankly I feel Sterling is wrong in that regard.

impurekind
Sat May 28 16 12:25pm
(Updated 2 times)

No, it's wrong because it's wrong.

And, there are "goods" and "bads".

Think of it like this: When exactly would you say a game's controls were bad (and I don't mean technically broken, just bad)?

Because, based on your kind of logic and the way you're going about judging Star Fox Zero's controls, I could simply reply with "No, it's just that you haven't gotten used to them yet." or "But they add this and that to the mix." And, I could do that for basically every single control scheme ever (that isn't technically broken in some way).

That totally and utter craps on the notion that you can judge something as good or bad, but the very notion than you can't judge something like a game's controls (or whatever) as good or bad, unless they are fundamentally and technically broken, is just stupid.

So, as non-technically-broken controls go, I'm saying Star Fox Zero's are an example of generally pretty bad controls, which fail at kinda some of the key tenets that would define good controls, such as easy to pick up and play, intuitive, nuanced, precise, reliable, do something in a better and more efficient way than it was done previously, etc.

We can keep arguing till the Earth stops spinning on its axis, but the fact is Star Fox Zero kinda broke something that wasn't broken in the first place by trying to fix something that wasn't broken in the first place (and only extremely biased or blind people can't actually see this). That is not great control design; it's the opposite of great control design.

"It's wrong because it's wrong"

Yep you're really going there, huh? You can repeat Jim Sterling all you want, it's not going to change that this is a subjective matter and not an objective one.

impurekind
Sat May 28 16 04:01pm
(Updated 1 time)

It's really not as subjective as you like to think.

It's subject if we're talking about our personal opinions on how much we like the controls—but that's not what I'm discussing.

It's not subjective if you ask some basic questions based on simple good-practice design rules and things like that (rules that have been established for a long time now), such as "Is using this method to do this more intuitive, fun, responsive, reliable, and accurate than this method?" or "Has this added anything of value to the game that couldn't have been achieved otherwise, and possibly done better otherwise", or "Is this something that's more inclusive and inviting for more people, especially those that are likely to play a game like this, than that which came before it?", "Is this likely to be a bone of contention among gamers, reviewers, press, etc. and therefore negatively affect the game's perception?", "Would more people rather play this new way or the old way", and all that kind of really simple common sense stuff.

Star Fox Zero would fail if this were an actual test.

Thanks to Invincibility Mode, now my 6 year old daughter can play this game by herself! Thank you Nintendo!

hamr
Sat May 28 16 01:02am
(Updated 1 time)

could someone summarize the above linked jim sterling video for me? it's over ten minutes long.

http://www.theonion.com/article/friend-who-sent-link-to-8-minute-youtube-video-mus-32442

No, actually watch it and maybe you'll learn a thing or two. It's only ten minutes.

biggumby
Sat May 28 16 09:27pm
Rating: 2

Logged on just to tell you to chill out. You have an opinion and others don't agree with it. Why does yours HAVE to be right and theirs HAS to be wrong?

I personally think think the controls worked. I felt like the pilot, like Miyamoto said. I felt like I had to work my way to becoming a very skilled player, and it was super satisfying. Moreso than any game I have played in quite some time. To me, his vision, as clearly stated here, worked perfectly. It just might not appeal to some people, but that doesn't mean it didn't work.

impurekind
Sun May 29 16 08:58am
(Updated 2 times)

Well, it's simple really: It's like if someone was trying to tell you black was white when you know fine well black is black. They're wrong; I'm telling them so.

Now, I'm not arguing whether you or whomever liked the controls; I'm telling you they aren't great, they aren't better than previous solutions, and they're not the best solution that Miyamoto could have used in this case.

Yes, I can summariaze
"I have never liked starfox, but im going to say nintendo ruined the series by not making this starfox like the last starfox, I also was not forced in any way to play this, but i purchased it so i could pretend i didnt know the game didnt have motion controls and bitch about it on the internet"

In other words, classic post-sjw perpetual victim sterling content.

Miyamoto: For me, the most important thing was feeling as if you were really the pilot.

They nailed this. It works stupid well considering how low tech it is, ive been in some serious sim setups and it impressed me.

Miyamoto basically said himself, that the game was for him.

He had a vision, and he wanted people to experience it and NOT leave it up to misinterpretation, so is why he deliberately left out traditional controls. Bad call on his part, due to his hubris in that. Didn't even have a hidden option for traditional controls or ANYTHING. He wanted everyone to play it the way he wanted too, and most people just threw it back in his face, which is actually a very human reaction to do in situations like that. It's off putting, and kind of insulting. It is possible he completely overlooked that nuance, to busy focused on doing his own thing. This kind of stuff happens in production too. Especially if there is no Post production stuff involved or 'field testing' before final release to make appropriate adjustments.

Not ready to fly a plane yet. Just gonna enjoy some other titles before I get around to that one. Unless other titles come up that warrant more attention.

impurekind
Sun May 29 16 09:02am
(Updated 1 time)

See, you say stuff like this and it only shows your total ignorance of the thing you're talking about.

Show me one real life pilot that has ever had to fly/steer an aircraft while also aiming independently in 360 degrees to fire their weapon at the same time, across two separate viewpoints and using a tilt input to do so, other than in Star Fox Zero. . . .

All you've done is drunk Miyamoto's Kool-Aid.

__kirby
Sun May 29 16 03:07pm
Rating: 1

Hey, that reminds me of something.
Didn't they say that this game was supposed to have a co-op mode? That one player controlled the plane while the other player controlled the aiming?
Or, maybe I'm confusing it with someone elses post. . .

After reading that pilot segment, there are about two things mentioned that seem like extra input which I'm trying to figure out if it's plausible for a jet pilot to do. So, unless I'm missing something, I also don't think that makes complete sense.

"reimagining"
We thought it meant refining a definitive path to the story.
What he actually meant was, a new way to play the same game.
"Delayed due to control issues"
We thought it meant, they are fixing them to make the experience better.
What they actually meant was, He's really pushing for the forced gimmick, and were asked to remove the traditional control option.
"All the built hype surrounding this game, based on the last two things mentioned"
We thought it meant this was going to be a very worthwhile and enjoyable game experience.
What it actually was(at least what it appears now to be), was a farce revolving more around the forced gameplay mechanic/gimmick than the game itself. Maybe he(they?) thought, this would be a great opportunity to show people just how great the WiiU gamepad with all it's "features" was and could be potentially used.

Point, if he had JUST LEFT THE DAM OPTION for traditional controls in, things may very well would have turned out much more positively than they did.

One can only imagine at this point, what a train of a wreck Federation Farce is going to be. So it would seem that SF0 does better than that, at least(though that doesn't say very much).

Oh there is a co-op mode; that doesn't fix the massive issue that crops up when you don't have a buddy around to help you overcome the utterly absurd control solution that Miyamoto has a bunch of fanboys convinced is the best thing since sliced bread.

vonter
Sun May 29 16 03:20pm
Rating: 1 (Updated 3 times)

Show me one real life pilot that has ever had to fly/steer an aircraft while also aiming independently in 360 degrees to fire their weapon at the same time.

Sort of. He's aiming his cellphone while taking a selfie and firing one missile by accident at the same time. Apparently these things happen, hopefully not as often.

The Pilot in that case, didn't HAVE to do that.
And, probably shouldn't have for many obvious reasons.

Also, where is the outreached arm in that picture?
I'm trying to see it off the reflection in the helmet, but I can't seem too.

vonter
Sun May 29 16 04:11pm
Rating: 1

Nintendo in that case, didn't HAVE to do that.
And, probably shouldn't have for many obvious reasons.

They did, they tried, and either way that's the only reason we got a Star Fox game. I suppose the questions is who is really winning here. I suppose me, but I'm not that many people.

They did, they tried, and either way that's the only reason we got a Star Fox game.

So, are you seriously saying, that the 'only' reason we got a Starfox game at all, was to promote the WiiU Gamepads gimmicks?

Than Starfox was used as nothing more than a promo/ploy to get people to notice/appreciate the WiiU Gamepad?

Cause if THAT was their reasoning/train of logic, we are in DEEP trouble with the NX, seeing as how they say it's going to be "a whole new way to play"(the WiiU/3DS). Also, their aggressive push to use IP.

If the reason to release a Starfox game was just so they can sell people on the WiiU Gamepad(That Stafox is nothing more than a dead series whose only serviceable purpose now, is test monkey), then it obviously didn't work and in fact insulted/upset people(Much how like the New Megaman Cartoon is shaping up to be).

Also, Nintendo(Or whoever made the call) Didn't HAVE to remove(provided they weren't really even considered/implemented in the first place) the traditional controls, they could have given the player the option/preference, like they have for practically every other game they produced.

Imagine: What IF, the only way to play Pokken Tournement, was to buy a $45 controller that wasn't even well stocked and NO OTHER OPTION to play the game was available, Because they hard coded the game to ONLY accept said controller? How many people would go out of their way for that?

crow
Mon May 30 16 05:19am
Rating: 1

I once heard there were people like you.
I said it was impossible, I said "no way anyone can be that ignorant"

"no way anyone could be so misinformed as to think starfox was ever anything but a way to push nintendo hardware features"

I was wrong, it seems.

Hard to know if your being playful there or not.
Assuming you are, I think I see what you mean, maybe.

SF had the FX chip(But, that wasn't Nintendo Hardware and arguably only effected software things, but I guess let's count the point anyway).
Then Came (SF2 was supposed to come, but Maybe I guess they couldn't find a HW gimmick for it so lets just ignore that, and because it wasn't actually released) SF64 game, and the gimmick there was Non intrusive/optional; Rumble Pack.

Here's where things get interesting though. . .
What was the HW gimmick specifically for SFAdventures and SFAssult? I don't recall there being any for those games. The controller doesn't count cause it was used very well for most games already, and was basically the same thing as the N64 controller, but with better ergonomics.

Then, SF643D, 3d being a less intrusive HW gimmick because you can literally turn the active 3D off with the slider. SFC, IDK, Touch screen(does that even count though, cause the DS was made with games in mind already and SFC came much later)? And now SF0, the first of them to include a very intrusive gimmick that you can't even 'turn off'.

I guess if I was ignorant in that regard, I just didn't reflect enough on the matter to realize it. But again then, what were the HW gimmicks for the SFAs? For I recall none, and surprisingly, they appear to be my favorites of the series, aside from SF64 I guess.

I didnt mean that all starfox games were there to push a gimmick, but that has been a driving force in the creation most games in the series.
The first game was to sell the power of the snes, second one even more so with you being able to board ships, but of course that was cancelled, 2 was canceled so 64 could look all the more impressive and really show off what made the n64 so different, it also was bundled with the rumble pack to push it, much like the wii motion plus bundles from last gen, assault was the worst game in the series by a longshot, and the first one created without the idea of pushing something (as far as anyone knows), adventures of course isnt even a starfox game so why include it, and of course command had forced stylus controls which may or may not have been to convince people to touch can work for hardcore games too, but thats just me assuming they arent just jerks.

There is ABSOLUTELY nothing wrong with a game created to push hardware, I dont know why you even consider that a negative, like suddenly that makes the game less well made or less creative, the thing is, alot of your favorite games, specifically nintendo ones, were made to push hardware, and look how they turned out. Particularly with Miyamoto (and why i think the accusations of mental deterioration are so idiotic) is that he has this attitude of "everyone else goes with the tide, but what are they moving away from?" he has done this since the 80s, and it was no different then than it is now, He doesnt create out of love for his previous work, he does it out of curiosity for the world around him, The man doesnt sit down and think about how he can pull off the next starfox game, he goes into his garden, observes what is occurring in it at a level most people dont bother to observe, and then is inspired to make pikmin. Its seriously unfair to assume that Miyamoto and by extension those creators like him are somehow insane or sell outs because their passion comes from a different place than yours, or the majority of creators.

does that even count though, cause the DS was made with games in mind already and SFC came much later

...but wouldnt that mean zero doesnt count either? its the end of the wiiu's life, the gamepad was not made for zero, but zero for the gamepad.
You also mention the option of it, which makes me wonder, why not just play gamepad/press the minus button for cockpit view? You have splatoon controls at that point and suddenly all those complains about having to mange two screens at once are gone, the only thing youre missing in cockpit view (i think) is health, but that is a welcome additional challenge, id say.

assault was the worst game in the series by a longshot, and the first one created without the idea of pushing something (as far as anyone knows)

I think your confusing that with command.
Also adventures was the first, but, some people don't consider it or count that.
And that actually did pretty good/decent.
Command, By the way, Sells for about $10 in the Eshop. It was on sale one day, but for whatever reason: I think my Internet was down, or it was DLST or Something, I missed the sale. If it goes on sale again, I'll buy it.

There is ABSOLUTELY nothing wrong with a game created to push hardware, I dont know why you even consider that a negative

So, you think there is nothing wrong with using specific Character IP/series solely for the purpose of pushing intrusive gimmicks? Okay. . .

your favorite games, specifically nintendo ones, were made to push hardware, and look how they turned out.

But a lot of those games, don't go out of their way to be so intrusive about it like SF0 has. Don't like rumble? Take it out or turn it off in the options. Where is the Off button for the intrusive type controls in SF0, or fallback option to use traditional/custom controls? There are none, it was a deal breaker for many, suffering happened, could have been avoided, what's done is done.

he has done this since the 80s, and it was no different then than it is now

Look up the word intrusive.
Maybe he doesn't know what it means, either.
It is different though, cause most of the stuff he did back then was on the software side. Again, those were different times(better times).

He doesnt create out of love for his previous work, he does it out of curiosity for the world around him

Then he must have a sack of dead cats near him, rotting in a bag.
It's cool that he's curious, but I mean, there's a line, and he clearly crossed or is crossing beyond it. Is he headed toward the deep end? Is he already in the deep end? That is what we are left to wonder.

The man doesnt sit down and think about how he can pull off the next starfox game, he goes into his garden, observes what is occurring in it at a level most people dont bother to observe, and then is inspired to make pikmin.

Sounds like something a once young creative man might do, when he's run out of actual ideas in his elder years. I never cared for Pikmin. And I think that actually served as a red flag. At that time, we paid it no mind cause a bunch of other stuff was happening.

Its seriously unfair to assume that Miyamoto and by extension those creators like him are somehow insane or sell outs because their passion comes from a different place than yours, or the majority of creators.

Watch those power levels.
When you make a product to sell to people, it has to appeal to them on a certain level. Once you cross the line into esoteric areas, you lose those people. You gain a different audience(an analogy would be, one that is post modern'that the right term I'm thinking of?') instead, and these people then in turn go out of their way to defend the artist and tell other people "You just don't, 'get it', Man" or whatever. I mean, I can appreciate the artistic aspects of what he's doing, but that kind(level?) of talent seems better served in the art community and NOT the gaming community. When I want to play a game, I play it to be entertained, not to look at some guys "concept portrait". Again, there is a degree where something like that works, but too much of it in certain doses poisons the whole experience.

wouldnt that mean zero doesnt count either? its the end of the wiiu's life, the gamepad was not made for zero, but zero for the gamepad.

The difference here, was all the previous gimmicks were non intrusive(or based from esoteric means) and on some level, optional. That is NOT the case with SF0. So It does count. Also, the gamepads gimmicks weren't fully utilized by many games, of which also gave you options for alternative controls. Not the case with SF0, only one way to play it(And of which not the best way, as others have mentioned in one form or another), NO other recourse. That's a tad of a reach for you to mention.

You also mention the option of it, which makes me wonder, why not just play gamepad/press the minus button for cockpit view?

Ever play Crusin' games?
I can't ever work the First Person View. Always resort to the 3rd.
The default in the arcade versions are set up that way too(3rd person view), and for good reason.

You have splatoon controls at that point and suddenly all those complains about having to mange two screens at once are gone

Wait, Wut!?
You saying, that FP view has pure traditional controls(requiring you to shift styles midway), but you can't see everything that's going on?
How does that even. . .
(FP view, in a TP environment. . .)
And you can play through the whole game like that and NOT miss anything? You sure? Now the control scheme sounds even worse(due to the whole limited view thing), but I glad you mentioned it.

Spoiler

Show me one real life pilot that has ever had to fly/steer an aircraft while also aiming independently in 360 degrees to fire their weapon at the same time, across two separate viewpoints and using a tilt input to do so, other than in Star Fox Zero. .

literally every fighter pilot to ever fly.
If you cant do that, you wont be a fighter pilot very long at all, because the other guy you damn well can bet learned how to pull off the amazing feat of "multitasking"

You are showing a painful ignorance of flight in general, but especially of combat pilots. Observe how even in this classic prop engine fighter plane how much the pilot has to pay attention to. This is WITHOUT BEING IN COMBAT, so there is no requirement to visually track other aircraft.
Then when youre done with that, imagine a modern pilot, then a space pilot, and then sit in your shame corner.
Is it really SO HARD to not talk about things you are ignorant of? Making arguments for or against things you have clearly no information on is the peak of foolishness.
also its 180 degrees, not 360, ffs.

impurekind
Mon May 30 16 01:48pm
(Updated 3 times)

Surprised

Clearly you can't read or something.

Did you even understand what I described?

I LITERALY described flying and steering the plane in one direction while simultaneously aiming and firing guns in a totally different direction (plus a few other things).

Actually show me a single real fighter plane where the PILOT (and only the pilot) can and does aiming his guns entirely independently of the direction he's flying the plane in (like in Star Fox Zero). . . .

You understand what I'm asking here, right: To see a plane where the guns rotate around and move their physical direction entirely separately to the forward direction of plane, and that the PILOT is the one both flying and aiming those guns at the same time?

And, that's just be reitering the flying and aiming at once part, never mind getting into the dual screen, tilt control, and whatever else.

You need to learn to read comments better, Sir.

crow
Mon May 30 16 05:09pm
(Updated 1 time)

I LITERALY described flying and steering the plane in one direction while simultaneously aiming and firing guns in a totally different direction (plus a few other things).

So what youre saying is, youre complaining that a game that was meant to make you feel like a pilot was too easy?
because realistically, the pilot has to track his target visually while operating his aircraft independently of his vision in an attempt to align it for a shot, being able to shoot while you look is like having your gunner and being him too, as far as dogfighting goes.

You understand what I'm asking here, right:

Yes, I do, youre attempting to justify your inability to perform a task as unrealistic because in the realistic depiction of said task you cannot normally use the shortcut of simply shooting within your visual range.

Why cant you people just say "I dont like it"? Why does there have to be an excuse about how its the game's fault, despite there being people who are clearly able to adapt to the system with ease.
I think dark souls has a horrible control input method, it makes no sense and it creates a weird disconnect between the player and the game, I absolutely hate the controls for every entry in the souls series and I wish I could customize them, however, that doesnt mean I havent dumpted hundreds of hours into them either, I simply adapted.

impurekind
Mon May 30 16 05:45pm
(Updated 3 times)

Is there literally something wrong with you?

I'm not even going to bother. You can't grasp one simple concept (or you're deliberately refusing to), so any further discussion is a waste of breath.

The Former of the post

I think dark souls has a horrible control input method, it makes no sense and it creates a weird disconnect between the player and the game

|-_-|

So then, you KNOW it's bad, yet still defend it?

Most people, wouldn't(and didn't) even bother with having to force themselves to like some thing like others apparently do. People, it's a game, not a person/significant other. Some might think that's a little on the unhealthy side(psychologically).

Why should I care what others think then, regarding situations like that?
Spoilered, cause it might be a really harsh truth:

Spoiler

I think a clear line needs to be drawn between passion and obsession.

From my view on the game in general:

-It's not a remake, it truly is a re-imagining.

-There as a lot of variety in the game, depending on levels and vehicles (where sometimes typical SF, other times stealth etc)

-The graphics do really have the Platinum touch. Think I would have seen that even if I didn't know it (and that smooth 60 fps...)

- When I first brought the game home and started playing it I was rather tipsy and it still took me like a couple of seconds to get used to them. (Yes, they also work perfectly fine when sober ;) )

It controls almost the same really. Just teh precision aiming with the pad and use of the screen while doing so is what is really different.

My only negative comment on the controlls are I sometimes try to do barrel roles with the shoulder buttons... Old habbits, I guess.

I really like the game. Positivaly surprised after all the crap talk I have been reading. It is on the short side though, but with a LOT of replayability.

- Would remix be a better word? I mean it does feel like Star Fox 64. Just with new controls and vehicles.
- While the stealth level might be the worst level, I do appreciate the different approaches the game lets you to do. From using the enemy missiles to gain extra hits to a boss and letting you use the Walker instead of the Gyrowing in the colony.
- IMO it's a bit restrained I mean compared to the Wonderful 101 they really didn't went to add detail over detail over detail to enemies. IMO that's good because I do think to appreciate those character designs you'll either need 4K or a larger display.
- The game works fine, it's in the high level play I'm not really sure but low or middle level of play is perfectly serviceable since the user will likely get better and better with each replay. Also since the game is compact it's not like anyone wastes much time when losing or missing a medal. Finally I do prefer the tutorials having their own mode rather than having it in the main campaign.
- What changes is that you can move both the reticle and ship at the same time. I think in that sense it is an improvement in the same way over the shoulder cam improved over tank controls of the classic RE. (Though to be fair the Walker feels clunkier than the tank).
- I do agree that's the only thing I haven't felt comfortable. Barrel rolling with a flick of the stick doesn't feel as immediate as pressing a button.
- Glad you liked it. While I don't think it's as great as it could have been, the press really did a number with this one, I mean, it's kinda of sad seeing many not getting it and also not distinguishing between something feeling awkward versus something than doesn't work. I'm bias but I do believe the press more than likely have played worse things to know better.

Haha. Remix does have a nice sound to it, I'll admit, but unsure it would work for the masses. ;)

It's sad to see so many people hating the game without even trying it out. Give it a chance, it's not so bad as the media says and not so hard to get used to the controls.

I really liked it and I know I'll be replaying it many a times. Thefe still places I havent been. Many secrets to unlock and more records to break.

Oh and I really dig tve Venom twist thefe. Will be fun to see a sequrl if any.

But barrels are still not the same....

Search

Today's VIP

aleotothepast's avatar
Joined: May 2016
Newbie

Social Services

Want to join this discussion?

You should like, totally log in or sign up!