It's OUR fault?

[Drasiana]

It was our fault in the sense that we didn't buy enough copies of Star Fox Command back in 2006.

Guys, you've got to be loyal to a series, even when it gets bad (Skyward Sword)!

 

Not sure if you've realized that we had to buy the game to begin with to realize it was bad.

 

Also might want to look at 643DS's sales figures for a more accurate look at the series' standing.

[RingtailedFox]

No... we don't need to turn starfox into a (parody of?) religion... it IS silly to think of it that way. i think the time for boosting popularity of the series was back during the gamecube era... but... i suppose fans telling nintendo with "we wanna fly the arwings again!" might help... though not pestering them about it (we saw how that went with Kamiya giving up...)

[DZComposer]

It's mainly about one thing: vision.

One thing most people forget about Nintendo is that outside Mario and Zelda, Nintendo doesn't make games in a franchise just for the sake of it. Nintendo usually comes up with a vision for a game and then makes that game fit the franchise it is closet to.

I really think Star Fox is kind of in the same boat F-Zero is right now, and that is Nintendo doesn't know what to do with it, and the last attempts at making Star Fox games failed to sell as good as Nintendo would have liked.

The rule 34 idea is patently ridiculous. All of Nintendo's franchises get rule 34'd. After all, remember what Rule 34 actually says: "If it exists, there is porn of it."

[sroberson]

Nintendo probably has no ideas 

 

Ever.  This comment.

(Ok that was a partial troll, but also just my negative opinion of them.  Flame if you want.)

 

I do agree with Orbiter in that the main issue is probably not with the fear of R34, but with a sheer lack of ideas on their part and a lack of interest from the gaming market.  That being said, if any of their marketing or design team is doing their job and gauging the marketability of the Star Fox franchise, they may have a passing concern in the continuation of a franchise that could malign more casual gamers due to the more extreme and perverse fans.  It doesn't do Nintendo any good to produce titles that continue (or exacerbate) the creation of creepy fanart that would turn off otherwise potential customers.  You can argue all day about how they can R34 Rosalina or Samus, and that doesn't stop Nintendo...but they aren't furries, a much more taboo subject imo.  

[RingtailedFox]

so... even if nintendo had this glorious vision of starfox's magnificent return to form and had a roadmap for the series and even was considering working on a game... it wouldn't happen (or if they DID make a game, it would fail miserably in the marketplace) becuase of consumer apathy (gamers not caring, and thus, not buying it)?

[sroberson]

Of course!  As much as I would like for Nintendo to take a chance and make the game just for "old times sake" and make a good game....they have no reason to if the money that they invest would be better spent somewhere else, like better games in general.  I don't know the actual popularity of Star Fox and the ability for Nintendo to profit from it, but I get the feeling that R34 of this nature certainly helps keep people from getting interested.  If I were an impressionable person, and had a friend that foamed at the mouth and spouted profanities about the furry community, I would think twice before buying a game that seems to fit the criteria for furries.  Again, somebody at Nintendo probably recognizes this, and it would translate into design and story choices that would use that information to sell more games.  Unfortunately, if they take that into consideration it would really stunt the creative thinking process - as they have a really tall order of salvaging a damaged franchise and then avoiding coming out as furries.  

[unoservix]

I do agree with Orbiter in that the main issue is probably not with the fear of R34, but with a sheer lack of ideas on their part and a lack of interest from the gaming market.  That being said, if any of their marketing or design team is doing their job and gauging the marketability of the Star Fox franchise, they may have a passing concern in the continuation of a franchise that could malign more casual gamers due to the more extreme and perverse fans.  It doesn't do Nintendo any good to produce titles that continue (or exacerbate) the creation of creepy fanart that would turn off otherwise potential customers.  You can argue all day about how they can R34 Rosalina or Samus, and that doesn't stop Nintendo...but they aren't furries, a much more taboo subject imo.  

 

 

Pokemon porn is at least as weird and creepy as Star Fox porn, often leaving the ambiguous shores of furrydom and heading right into the terrifying sea of straight-up bestiality, and that has hardly stopped Pokemon from churning out new games. i don't see what difference furry porn specifically, as opposed to any other kind of porn, would make.

 

and this is coming from someone who pretty much just laughs at furries.

[Drasiana]

Literally nobody outside of people who spend literally all day on internet forums gives an actual fuck about furries. There is no grand conspiracy here concerning furries. Everybody else in the universe has forgotten about that CSI episode. Little kids do not know or care about furries. Adults do not know or care about furries. Casual gamers do not know or care about furries. Furries is absolutely the last thing in the list of problems Nintendo could possibly have here.

 

And yeah, Uno has a point with Pokemon. Doesn't Pokegirls have its own wiki?

 

Also, nobody goes "hmm, I might want to play this video game...better look up some fanart first". And whoever would already knows what to expect.

[sroberson]

 

Pokemon porn is at least as weird and creepy as Star Fox porn, often leaving the ambiguous shores of furrydom and heading right into the terrifying sea of straight-up bestiality, and that has hardly stopped Pokemon from churning out new games. i don't see what difference furry porn specifically, as opposed to any other kind of porn, would make.

 

and this is coming from someone who pretty much just laughs at furries.

 

I had a slight aneurysm there (and then I made a horrified expression)...I completely forgot about Pokemon.  Ok, you give a fair point.  I will have to concede to the fact that there just isn't the same level of interest in Star Fox, and that being the main reason for a new game not being produced.  

[Novarek]

I think Star Fox could work in a Rebel Squadron type deal.

 

That's what I think too, or at least that's the minimum I want for the next StarFox.

As I have already said on another topic, my dream is to see StarFox become like Star Wars X-wing Alliance.

[unoservix]

so... even if nintendo had this glorious vision of starfox's magnificent return to form and had a roadmap for the series and even was considering working on a game... it wouldn't happen (or if they DID make a game, it would fail miserably in the marketplace) becuase of consumer apathy (gamers not caring, and thus, not buying it)?

 

err...no?

 

i mean, sure, if Nintendo makes a crappy game that no one likes, then it'll fail...but that's because it would be a crappy game. the public doesn't have to clamor specifically for a Star Fox game for Nintendo to think it might be profitable to produce (or license out the production of) a Star Fox game, especially if they use their non-Mario/Zelda franchises as showcases for Awesome New Ideas We've Had.

 

why assume that Star Fox is doomed to abandonware no matter what? if they really didn't care about Star Fox (or F-Zero or Kirby or Yoshi or etc) then why are those franchises still getting representation in Smash Bros games?

[ballisticwaffles]

I dunno, Pr0nz never stopped Sega from making new sonic games.

 

Wait a second, does that imply that if MORE porn was made before Sonic 06 was released than we would never have had it?

 

Shame on you Internet! You could have stopped Sonic 06!!!!!

 

That aside, 

 

why assume that Star Fox is doomed to abandonware no matter what? if they really didn't care about Star Fox (or F-Zero or Kirby or Yoshi or etc) then why are those franchises still getting representation in Smash Bros games?

 

That would have to be more with the fact that Smash is about IP's getting together and beating the living tar out of another than the Franchises popularity. Because if popularity drove Smash than it would have ended up more like Playstation All Stars than the beloved series we all know and love.

 

Smash is not a popularity contest.

 

The problem here is that while the same formula worked for Mario, for whatever reason, Star Fox cannot pull it off. Either rail shooters are becoming an arcade staple of history, or they were never good in the first place.

 

I will always insist that Star Fox would do better if the games were built under the team that does Ace Combat.

[Drasiana]

There's a lot of hang-wringing over the fate of rail-shooters here when, again, about half of the games in the franchise aren't rail-shooters.

[unoservix]

Smash is not a popularity contest.

 

no, it's not, but if Nintendo was somehow trying to phase Star Fox out or was afraid there'd be porn of it, why continue to give it any public exposure?

[psy_commando]

but innovating just for the sake of innovation can sometimes be counterproductive or even harmful...  I did like Dino Crisis, though...

Not really no.. It depends what you have in mind when you think about innovation. Because, if you don't innovate, someone else will, and this someone will have an advantage on you.

Take Blackberry for example.. They sat on their butts for years, patent trolling startups and other companies, and then the iPhone happened.. And they didn't do anything about it..

We all know where this ended up getting them..

 

People overstate innovation.

What ?

People seems to have no clue what is innovation.. Most think its just used as an adjective to qualify your product in an ad..

Besides, you don't need to make huge changes to innovate, you just need to improve on what you had before in a way that adds value to whatever you're doing. Of course that's a little oversimplified, but damn..

Innovation is a key part of the competitive economy we've been attempting to run.. No competition, little to no innovation.. And not to mention, if we wouldn't innovate, some of those nasty flu epidemic would have wiped us all out decades ago !

Its pretty damn important ! In our case, maybe not as much as flu vaccines, but still..

why assume that Star Fox is doomed to abandonware no matter what? if they really didn't care about Star Fox (or F-Zero or Kirby or Yoshi or etc) then why are those franchises still getting representation in Smash Bros games?

Well its cheaper than making a new game.

And besides, a lot of people playing SSB don't seem to know who Fox even is... When I play smash with friends, most of the time they genuinely think Fox, Falco, and etc, only exist IN the super smash brother universe..

Thus, they're only killing two bird with one stone, by giving SSB fans their characters, and the SF fans their characters !

[Vy'drach]

Not really no.. It depends what you have in mind when you think about innovation. Because, if you don't innovate, someone else will, and this someone will have an advantage on you.

Take Blackberry for example.. They sat on their butts for years, patent trolling startups and other companies, and then the iPhone happened.. And they didn't do anything about it..

We all know where this ended up getting them..

 

What ?

People seems to have no clue what is innovation.. Most think its just used as an adjective to qualify your product in an ad..

Besides, you don't need to make huge changes to innovate, you just need to improve on what you had before in a way that adds value to whatever you're doing. Of course that's a little oversimplified, but damn..

Innovation is a key part of the competitive economy we've been attempting to run.. No competition, little to no innovation.. And not to mention, if we wouldn't innovate, some of those nasty flu epidemic would have wiped us all out decades ago !

Its pretty damn important ! In our case, maybe not as much as flu vaccines, but still..

 

 

Innovation isn't a requirement for a sequel really. Again, Capcom didn't innovate crap many a time, but those games were fantastic, because they changed the setting, story, and characters. Hell, almost every gaming franchise originally didn't change all that much from sequel to sequel. Take Resident Evil, the original style Resident Evils. Know what the biggest change from the original one, to Code Veronica, the last one made in that style was? That the knife could hit an enemy multiple times in a single swing. That's it. Otherwise, it was the same gameplay, better graphics, and a new setting. And people were happy. And why shouldn't they be? That's what they were expecting in a Resident Evil title, that's what they wanted in a Resident Evil title, and that's what they got. You see, innovation can be good. However, you only innovate when you have something you can innovate on, otherwise, you go the road of Call of Duty where, contrary to popular opinion, the problem wasn't that stuff stayed the same, it's that they started changing things that did not need to be changed. Call of Duty 4 and World at War were both considered fantastic games, and they were the same game, just different time periods. Granted WaW had Nazi Zombies but that was a side game thing, just multiplayer to multiplayer, they were basically drag and drop. Then Modern Warfare 2 came out, and that is still the worst game I have ever played. Ever. And I own Enter the Matrix and Murakumo: Renegade Mech Assault still, to put that in perspective. Then Treyarch made Black Ops, and undid some of the "innovation" that was done to MW2 and it was better because it played more like the older ones.

 

At no point should innovation should be even thought of as a requirement for making a new game. If you see something that can be improved, then fine, do that, but do not overhaul your damned game just to make it different. This was a problem World of Warcraft had in their balancing, they'd achieve game balance, but would intentionally change how abilities and talents work not for balance, but to make the gameplay different, then they'd have to attempt to rebalance, then they'd do it again. They best kind of innovations, also, are not overhauls usually, but quality of life improvements. That slight knife change in Code Veronica made a huge difference, because the knife became usable. Before that, the knife was just a waste of inventory space and you got rid of it the first chance you got. That's something that obviously needed to change and it eventually did. But if you have a game, and it sold well, and you want to make another one in the franchise, and you look at it and think, "I have no idea what to change about this game..." then you don't change a bloody thing. You make a a new game on the old system with a new setting and story. Fallout did this, take a look at Fallout, then compare it to Fallout 2. The models are the same bloody ones, it is literally the same game in a new setting. All the gameplay and what not is carried over directly from Fallout 1, because there was no need to change it. Shooters are the ones that need the least amount of innovation, whether they be first, third, top down, isometric, side-scroller, or on-rails.

 

The idea that the next line in a series needs to have innovation crammed into it is one of the biggest problems with the gaming industry today. It is one of the main reasons Call of Duty has gone to shit.

[Drasiana]

If they released a Star Fox Wii that was literally just Star Fox 64 but with some dialogue changed around and Andross was a giant floating pancreas instead of a brain, then people would complain about it being lazy as shit, and frankly, they'd be correct. Your completely subjective preferences in game sequels is not an indication of the overall feeling regarding the medium from the developer viewpoint, and, really, does not reflect the opinions of most of the audience either. Comparing Call of Duty to Star Fox is completely errant. They're entirely different franchises based on an entirely different model. And when Nintendo is pumping out consoles with features for 3D, motion control, and tablet controlled gameplay, the very concept of their consoles is one that forces changes to the franchises carried on them.

 

"Innovation" doesn't mean cramming in some zombie DLC because zombies are hella popular at the moment. "Innovation" can be just a small hardware tweak that might improve superficial aspects of gameplay, like the graphics or structure of environments. Look at Animal Crossing: New Leaf. It is pretty undeniably an Animal Crossing game, but you can play it in 3D, there are some added functions to gameplay (the speaker, new fish, QCode clothing, player connectivity, etc.) and so on. Same with Pokemon XY. We have never seen a Pokemon game that looks like it before, it introduced an assload of new features, and everyone goddamn loved it. They captured what we liked about the original games and improved on the model they already had.

 

When we're talking "innovation" for Star Fox, we're not saying yeah, add some zombie DLC! It's probably as simple as "hey, we have a new voice recognition functionality that you can optionally use that allows you to assign specific tasks to your teammates" or "we have a new AI function for enemy ships we want to try out"--something that makes the most sense to use in a Star Fox game rather than applying it to Zelda or Mario. No one, when we talk about "innovation", is talking an entire game overhaul. No one is talking about twisting the game into something completely unrecognizable from its original form, and that's probably exactly why Nintendo hasn't made a new game: they have not found, or yet worked out, a specific aspect of their new consoles that will best enhance the original audience love of the Star Fox franchise.

 

In terms of Star Fox, if you want to play Star Fox 64 forever, go ahead. It's right there and nothing is stopping you from doing so. When the rest of us say we want a new Star Fox game, we want a Star Fox game we haven't played before.

[Vy'drach]

You completely misunderstood my point. The fact that you're mentioning the Nazi Zombies thing is evidence of this since I said not counting that. Not that that was innovation. I brought up Nazi Zombies because World at War did nothing different from Call of Duty 4 except Nazi Zombies, but I was discounting that because that was it's own thing. Call of Duty's 4 multiplayer was dragged and dropped to do World at Wars, except you got a flamethrower in WaW and dogs instead of helicopters because it's WWII. Otherwise it was the same game, different maps, different guns.

 

I'm not making the same damned game and I honestly question how you even came to that conclusion. What I am saying is this, imagine Star Fox: Assault didn't have the on foot segments and all that, it stuck mostly with that story, but it had Star Fox 64 style gameplay, but with different enemies with different patterns on different levels with a different story than 64. Do you honestly think that someone would go, "Oh my god, this game is terrible! This Star Fox game plays too much like Star Fox 64!"

 

And yes X/Y did add a lot of things, but it's the sixth generation of Pokemon and it really didn't change all that much. It's still Pokemon Red with more added on to it, in a different area. Changes in Pokemon were done only when the devs felt it was right and previous generations changed very little from game to game. Most of the changes were quality of life changes, like the pokemart being in the pokecenter. Biggest thing was online capability, but that really didn't change from what you did before with the link cables, just how you did it.

 

My point was that innovation is something that's done only when you've got a good idea to do to the series. If you can't think of anything good to do to it, and you have a winning gameplay formula already, then you don't fucking change it just to fucking change it.

 

And I can compare CoD to Star Fox because I was talking about not changing things that don't need to change just for the sake of attempted innovation, and on this subject I can compare Dungeons and Dragons to Dance Dance Revolution because the concept still stands.

[Drasiana]

You know that the "on-foot segments" of Assault weren't the main "innovation" there, right? That the entire innovative concept behind Assault was supposed to be that it was partnered with the cancelled Star Fox arcade game? The reason Assault felt half-baked wasn't because it wasn't enough like Star Fox 64, it's because it was literally half-baked in that the other half of what it was supposed to be never even came out. If the game had been released as it was originally intended then it would've been fantastic.

 

"Changes and upgrades to the way you do things" is also what an innovation is. You can't just discount Pokemon's updated communications capabilities because they aren't "innovative" enough. They're an improvement on the technology that allows for a better gameplay experience. That is like literally the definition of what an innovation is. This horrible "overstated innovation" is why we no longer need link cables.

 

No one is "fucking changing it just to fucking change it" here. That's not a thing that is happening with Star Fox. Even when an innovation fails, it's still because they are attempting something new that they thought would benefit the series as a whole. Even if you personally don't like the way something has been changed, that does not mean that there was no justification for it in the production. Nobody invests that much time, money and resource into something "just to change it" for no reason. That is an insane thing that absolutely no one does. If anyone is more terrified of change than whiny pissbaby fans, it's the producers of the games themselves. You have to have a pretty solid justification to break from formula. Sometimes it doesn't work. That's the risk of literally every industry.

 

e: There weren't a lot of changes in Pokemon XY? What? It introduced Pokemon mounts, sky battles, hoards, Pokemon-Amie, customizable characters, and the entire thing was in 3D. That's more change in one game than the series has had in three generations combined.

 

e2: And you know what, the general idea here is stupid.

 

There is no anti-Star Fox conspiracy here, yet this is something the fandom loves to perpetuate. There is no grand, franchise-shattering anger towards porn or furries. The lack of new games has nothing to do with the games industry being "too innovative", somehow. It's a mediocre but enjoyable franchise that they have yet to make a good case for revitalizing. That is it. There is no apocalypse on its way, Nintendo doesn't personally hate you. Let's stop with the woe-is-me, Star-Fox-is-dead-because-WE/they-whatever-killed-it, doomsday rhetoric. It won't make another game. The only thing that will result in another game is Nintendo figuring it's the right time and place and very little will change that.

[BarrelRollPro]

I have a feeling that they're gonna announce Krystal as a playable character in SSB4 and a new Star Fox game alongside it during a Nintendo Direct.

[Snys93]

I wouldn't blame rule 34, theres tons of Super Mario crap on there and its still going strong.

 

No I blame Shigeru Miyomoto with his creative head up his ass for neglecting other popular franchises as well.

[DrReverb]

Like many on here I highly doubt it's rule 34, that hasn't stopped all the other companies from making games or cartoon series (ex. Sonic and Pokemon). But as to how reactive fan bases go that's probably a small issue considering how reactive the Sonic fanbase is and, like I said above, still make games and have a new series.

 

To ease the concerns to those of why Star Fox 64 came out, they wanted it to be out as the 3DS hit the market and didn't have time to make a new game from scratch so they took the easy route. As for future games I think Miyamoto said that the sales of Star Fox 3DS would be a factor in that. He does want to make one for the Wii U but considering its sales and what little information they've given us (which I do like surprises) I can only say it will be a maybe. I do know this, Nintendo is very capable of revitalizing the franchise, they just need to make the choice to do it.

[Scourge]

The excessive amounts of gay furry porn between fox and falco has not boned the franchise

 

[unoservix]

i don't get why birds are referred to as "furry." they don't have fur, they have feathers. feathers! feathers /= fur!

 

it makes me so mad i will retreat to the very top of my Tower of Pedantry to fume.

[WolfOD64]

If they released a Star Fox Wii that was literally just Star Fox 64 but with some dialogue changed around and Andross was a giant floating pancreas instead of a brain, then people would complain about it being lazy as shit, and frankly, they'd be correct. Your completely subjective preferences in game sequels is not an indication of the overall feeling regarding the medium from the developer viewpoint, and, really, does not reflect the opinions of most of the audience either. Comparing Call of Duty to Star Fox is completely errant. They're entirely different franchises based on an entirely different model. And when Nintendo is pumping out consoles with features for 3D, motion control, and tablet controlled gameplay, the very concept of their consoles is one that forces changes to the franchises carried on them.

 

"Innovation" doesn't mean cramming in some zombie DLC because zombies are hella popular at the moment. "Innovation" can be just a small hardware tweak that might improve superficial aspects of gameplay, like the graphics or structure of environments. Look at Animal Crossing: New Leaf. It is pretty undeniably an Animal Crossing game, but you can play it in 3D, there are some added functions to gameplay (the speaker, new fish, QCode clothing, player connectivity, etc.) and so on. Same with Pokemon XY. We have never seen a Pokemon game that looks like it before, it introduced an assload of new features, and everyone goddamn loved it. They captured what we liked about the original games and improved on the model they already had.

 

When we're talking "innovation" for Star Fox, we're not saying yeah, add some zombie DLC! It's probably as simple as "hey, we have a new voice recognition functionality that you can optionally use that allows you to assign specific tasks to your teammates" or "we have a new AI function for enemy ships we want to try out"--something that makes the most sense to use in a Star Fox game rather than applying it to Zelda or Mario. No one, when we talk about "innovation", is talking an entire game overhaul. No one is talking about twisting the game into something completely unrecognizable from its original form, and that's probably exactly why Nintendo hasn't made a new game: they have not found, or yet worked out, a specific aspect of their new consoles that will best enhance the original audience love of the Star Fox franchise.

 

In terms of Star Fox, if you want to play Star Fox 64 forever, go ahead. It's right there and nothing is stopping you from doing so. When the rest of us say we want a new Star Fox game, we want a Star Fox game we haven't played before.

This....

 

I've been screaming this exact same idea at other Star Fox fans for at least five years. And people claimed that I apparently "wasn't a proper Star Fox fan" because I wanted a game that was better than 64. Because now, there's such a thing as being a "proper fan."

 

This is exactly what's killing the video game industry nowadays. People can't part from their rose-colored Nostalgia Goggles and let dev teams try to integrate new ideas into franchises, because the numerous fans have unreasonably dug their talons into what they stubbornly believe the series should be. Look at recent experiments like Castlevaina: Lords of Shadow, Tomb Raider, and DmC: Devil May Cry. Those games get obliterated from all sides because they don't play identically to their older counterparts. This mentality has even prevented projects from ever coming to light, like the now-deceased Maverick Hunter that Keiji Inafune was planning.

 

People forget that games such as Metroid Prime and Super Mario RPG were the result of their developers stepping as far from the source material as possible to integrate new ideas. I look at those games and squirm with immense jealousy, because I want Star Fox to be innovated in such a radical and original way. But the screaming hordes of purists and bystanding non-fans who just mindlessly screech for "another game like Star Fox 64" will never let that happen.