Here are some posts I found on Nintendo World Report that deal with Star Fox.

[Giladen]

Here's this one:

 

http://www.nintendoworldreport.com/feature/27704/fading-mr-fox

 

 

Pedro mentioned the association of Star Fox with gimmicks.  Were those gimmicks or cutting edge technology.  The Super FX chip sure wasn't a gimmick.  Polygons were the future.  Rumble is a little less important but it became a standard.  It wasn't just some novelty feature that came and went.  Both Star Fox and Star Fox 64 used technology that became standard in the following console generation.

Star Fox at its core is a shmup.  If you made a new Gradius or R-Type game would you ever have the pilot get out of his ship and run around?  No of course not!  That would be utterly stupid!  And yet that's like the naturally tendency of every Star Fox developer since Star Fox 64.  In a way that problem is that Nintendo made a character that was too iconic.  For most shmups the pilot is never even seen.  But Nintendo came up with the creative design of having animals piloting the ship.  It's a cool design so I think hack devs want the player to see the character.  It's like how they always seem to want to get Samus out of the suit.  Perhaps if Nintendo didn't put a beautiful woman in that suit no one would care about doing that.

Anyway the point is that Star Fox is a shmup so it should play like a shmup.  Shmups are not complex and a lot of the appeal is in the simplicity.  There is no real thought required from the player.  Go from point A to point B and along the way shoot the enemies while dodging their fire.  Throw in some secrets, power-ups, bosses and maybe some secret alternate paths and you've got a shmup.  So the second you add any more complexity you are betraying the very design of the gameplay that the player wants in the first place.  No one wants anything more than this from Star Fox.  And if they do, well, they got three shitty games to appeal to their tastes so fuck 'em.  It's time to make some games for the real fans.

I don't think it really matters too much who the developer is provided they get that Star Fox is a shmup.  Though I would prefer a Japanese dev because, seriously, what Western dev has ever made a good shmup?  Treasure is the cliche choice but I really think it would be perfect.  They've shown they can make excellent shmups and in many different styles as well (Ikaruga, Sin & Punishment, Gradius V, Gunstar Heroes - all different types of shmups and all excellent).

 

And here is the second post:

http://www.nintendoworldreport.com/forums/index.php?topic=13251.0;nowap

 

 

"Nintendo should've held it back and polished it more."

I don't think polish would help because it was really a very fundamental design flaw that hurt Star Fox Assault and a poor concept is a poor concept regardless of how well it's executed.  Star Fox Assault's shortcoming were largely due to Namco not being able to resist taking Fox out of his ship.  It's the same major brainfart decision that ruined Rebel Strike.

Whenever there's a character that is hidden from view there's this bizarre impulse companies seem to have to "unmask" them.  I think the logic is that a character isn't as marketable if he's hidden.  In the good Star Fox games Fox is hidden in his ship the whole time so there's an urge to take him out of it so we can see him.  It's the same reason why Metroid: Zero Mission's ending is the way it is.  It's the same reason why Spider-Man takes his mask off every five minutes in the movies.  Of course what they fail to realize is that what the character is hidden by is what people are actually interested in.  That's why Darth Vader is the coolest villian ever while Anakin Skywalker is a emo loser.  The star of Star Fox isn't Fox McCloud.  It's the Arwing.

Though I figure if Star Fox Adventures didn't exist Star Fox Assault would never have ended up the way it did.  Adventures set precidence for Fox to walk around on foot.

 

After thinking about both of these posts, I say that the poster who wrote them might have hit the nail the head. Maybe one of Star Fox's problems, if not the only problem, is that Fox and Co. have been viewed by their handlers as being characters like Mario and several other characters in his games.

[russiandog38]

 I have to disagree. To simply say "StarFox HAS to stay in the ship or its not StarFox" is just a stupid concept. Fox and his crew are mercenaries. Sure hes a good pilot who can masterfully control an Arwing, but mercenaries dont just fly ships. Sometimes their missions require them to do ground work. Also something that irritated me is that the artical stated that real StarFox fans ONLY liked the on rail type gameplay. I find that to be quite ignorant accounting how its practically discrediting at least half the fandom maybe more. Personally I found Adventures and Assault more enjoyable to play then 64, because after a while I found the N64 missions to be repetative. One other thing is StarFox64 unmasked Fox and his Crew right in the opening scene of the fucking game. And that game still turned out ok.

 

No, im sorry but continuously stuffing Fox in a ship and blowing things up can only go so far before you start to get cookie cutter games and lose interest of a lot of fans.

[Ori]

 

1. What makes a game good or bad isn't its gameplay type.

In the logic of the critic quoted, Mass Effect 2 was bad because it wasn't centered in the Mako exploration vehicle. Admittedly in the first game there was an overloaded amount of those, but even if it was removed, in all fairness, it wasn't something impairing to the gameplay or the fun to be had. Same thing with StarFox games: for me, not much difference in that field between 64 and Assault, but admittedly the latter had some variety (albeit the strange implementation) which was interesting to play.

 

2. Adventures wasn't supposed to be a StarFox game in first place.

What people conveniently forget is that Adventures was an attempt for something entirely different, then in the middle of production they decided "hey this reminds me of StarFox, make it happen". The reason it tanked for some people's preference rests that it factually had a rushed development and a subpar story, not in the on-foot focus. Why do I have the same impression that I'm playing a Zelda game when I play it then? Because that's the point to begin with.

The thing the author overlooks is that Nintendo tends to say "lol i duno" to generally common conventions of companies and tries doing whatever they feel like, changes or otherwise, if I recall a recent statement correctly.

Using Adventures as a reference or comparison is in the most cases illogical because it's SUPPOSED to be something different. Go compare it with The Wind Waker or something of the kin instead, then let the maiming start.

 

3. "Going Classic" is not the solution.

In the event somehow the Sonic franchise was doomed to failure, what would something like Sonic the Hedgehog 4 Episode I do any really franchise-saving when comparing to something like Generations?

It was not terrible. But having the same formula over, and over and over and over gets old. The reason I liked Generations more than Episode I is because of the non "2D-in-quotes" portions of it. Not to say 2D games are bad, see Dust: An Elysian Tail, but the point is that when a formula has been played for too long, people get tired of it.

(Unless of course you do it amazingly well and wind up like Ace Combat.)

 

4. StarFox is neither Ace Combat, nor Star Wars.

Although the idea sounds tempting, SF fills a different role than Ace Combat. Yes Ace Combat focuses on being in the cockpit of a plane 99% of the time, with the occasional helicopter, but it's done well enough so the players can enjoy it. Heck it's not just one factor of the gameplay style that makes it a good series, but instead a myriad variables that wind up in a yay or nay end result, clearly the most important of them being, precisely, the story development and consistency.

As much as I prefer the 'Strangereal' world of Ace Combat than the recent shift to real world, I don't think this change was poisoning to the series.

(Besides as far as I remember Assault Horizon Legacy is still there. Oh and Infinity.)

 

Also, comparing the Arwing to Darth Vader... I don't really see that can be valid. The Arwing is a vehicle. Not a character. As much as it's important it is not depicted as directly affecting the story, somehow, by itself, partaking in the character development. Unless it's some sort of Autobot or that got lost, I don't think it can be taken as a character.

BUT who needs character development, everyone likes cool ships better!--

...This isn't a mecha MMORPG where 'i haz cool ship so I make da rulz'. It's not. End of story.

 

Oh and lastly:

 

It's time to make some games for the real fans.

 

>'real fans'

Don't. Get. m͎̞͈ͅE͇Ị͓̘̮́. s̨͔̻͚͈T͉Ar͖̹̙̖tÌŸÍ•ÌÌŸḘ̺̩͓̺̮D̩̱̮

 

All in all, the reason the ship is fragile and weak with the distress beacon on isn't because the replicators are down, but rather because its core is unstable and losing integrity slowly coming to implode into itself;

In the end of the day, StarFox's story has little consistency if any, and important as well as interesting events are not explored the way they possibly would have come to be better. No gameplay style can change that.

 

Disconsidering what the reasonable 75% of the fanbase is screaming on the top of their lungs is also a low blow, buddy. Regardless the different... interests of this broken fanbase, pretty much everyone agrees it's not the on-foot that is killing SF. It's the inconsistency.

I don't know what fandumb he asked but they didn't know what they were talking about when they said SF needs to lock Fox into the Arwing permanently.

(BTW, tell me where those 'true sons of Skyrim fans' are so I can high five them. In the face. But I think I already have a guess where they might be...)

----

 

Of course that's just an opinion out of the blue but I have the feeling that for some reason it should be taken into a bit of consideration.

[Giladen]

1. Shoving Star Fox into Aonuma Zelda wasn't a good idea to begin with, seeing as how Aonuma Zelda's genre (I refuse to use the term action-adventure) wasn't all that at the time and still isn't. Don't believe me? Look at how Okami did. Star Fox's sales went downward after 64 and have yet to get back up.

 

2. Sonic the Hedgehog's mobile version has sold more than every 3D Sonic game ever sent out. 3D Sonic has NEVER reached 2D Sonic's heyday.

[Drasiana]

Anyone who espouses their opinion as law in the name of "true fans" is a pretentious, self-important blight on fandoms everywhere that deserves to be snickered at.

 

"Unmasking" them didn't kill Star Fox, bad concept execution and rocky, rushed development did. Command pretty much proved you could go full classic Star Fox and still fail awfully if the gameplay is nothing but the same tedious grindfest that broke Adventures and Assault, too.

 

"Viewing them as characters ruined Star Fox" oh my god what the fuck, no. Voice acting and the likable characters it was used for are what put Star Fox on the map and are really the only reason most of the fandom is even still around. Without the characters Star Fox would just be a generic flight sim.

 

The Samus comparison doesn't even work--it isn't that they gave Samus a personality, it's that they changed fundamental aspects of her character to their polar opposite. Sure, some of the writing in Star Fox has been kind of shaky too, but not necessarily in the same way and so drastically.

 

Here's the long and short of it:

 

BADLY EXECUTED GAMEPLAY STYLE =/= GAMEPLAY STYLE IS ALWAYS BAD

 

BADLY EXECUTED CHARACTER WRITING =/= CHARACTER WRITING IS ALWAYS BAD

 

Star Fox Assault, for instance, wasn't even a good example of the 3ps genre. The AI and physics were awful, and the mission objectives were all identical. It wasn't a good game whether or not it was Star Fox-related. If missions had been more diverse, and some fundamental mechanics of the gameplay had been tweaked, it would have had a very different reception.

 

Star Fox 64, for instance, introduced us to very interesting, likable characters we wanted to see more of. It did this well. It provided the foundation to a good, classic sci-fi story with engaging characters. The following games had multiple writing issues, like developing most relationships off-screen. The solution to this is not "well, I guess Star Fox characters shouldn't be important". It's "fire the shitty writers and hire better ones".

 

e: god sorry I keep adding shit to this post but holy shit

 

"I'm a better fan because I like the games less than everyone else"

 

what

[unoservix]

i dunno, the most enduring part of Star Fox 64 is the characters and their awesometacular voice acting (e.g. Peppy going all "DO A BARREL ROLL") so i'm not sure how making them faceless names inside Arwings is really an improvement. the entire impressive part of Star Fox 64's writing is that it came up with reasonably entertaining characters without ever needing to take them out of the cockpit.

 

so i mean i'd like to see a Star Fox game that goes back towards what 64 did, because 64 didn't need all that much to be a good game, and if you can't even be a good game then why bother.

[Emiko Gale]

 I have to disagree. To simply say "StarFox HAS to stay in the ship or its not StarFox" is just a stupid concept. Fox and his crew are mercenaries. Sure hes a good pilot who can masterfully control an Arwing, but mercenaries dont just fly ships. Sometimes their missions require them to do ground work. Also something that irritated me is that the artical stated that real StarFox fans ONLY liked the on rail type gameplay. I find that to be quite ignorant accounting how its practically discrediting at least half the fandom maybe more. Personally I found Adventures and Assault more enjoyable to play then 64, because after a while I found the N64 missions to be repetative. One other thing is StarFox64 unmasked Fox and his Crew right in the opening scene of the fucking game. And that game still turned out ok.

 

No, im sorry but continuously stuffing Fox in a ship and blowing things up can only go so far before you start to get cookie cutter games and lose interest of a lot of fans.

 

I thought I was the only one who thought this way.

[Giladen]

"Unmasking" them didn't kill Star Fox, bad concept execution and rocky, rushed development did. Command pretty much proved you could go full classic Star Fox and still fail awfully if the gameplay is nothing but the same tedious grindfest that broke Adventures and Assault, too.

 

Command was a game that had Fox and Co. go through turn-based maps with the Arwing parts

ONLY in all-range mode. Command wasn't a SF game that went "full classic".

 

 

What else has declined besides the game sales? The install-base. Take into account that both the SNES & N64 had a fairly big user-base, thats why Star Fox sold more on there than the Gamecube because of their big install base compared to GC. (And I consider a game thats made by Nintendo selling at least more than half a million a success)

 

Super Smash Bros. Melee has sold more than the SSB on the N64. Metroid Prime has sold more than most of the other Metroid games. All of the DS Zeldas and Skyward Sword have sold less than Ocarina of Time and Twilight Princess. None of the Wii or DS Sonic games have sold more than Sonic Adventure. So many of the handheld Pokemon games have lower sales than Ruby and Sapphire (and most of the handheld Pokemon games haven't reached Red, Blue, and Green's sales). How many examples do you want me to bring up?

 

What's Star Fox Adventures's excuse? Or Command's?

[Drasiana]

No one's saying Adventures and Command were the bestest games ever, we're saying that the reason they were bad had nothing to do with having characters in them (and also that anyone who enjoyed aspects of them aren't fucking "fake fans")

 

Command is "classic" in the sense that it was "Arwings only", something that Cuthbert specifically marketed about it (being hugely inspired from Star Fox 2, after all), which is the exact thing that all the fandom purist jackwads have a massive boner for. Oops! It's almost as if execution is more important than idea no matter what it involves, and "Arwing only" isn't a magic "good game" button!

[Faisul]

We also need to think outside of the concept of "numbers of sales = quality". While sales numbers can tell us something about a game's (or anything else's) success as a commodity on the market and imagine, often correctly, that it says something about its quality, it just as well might be saying something about the effectiveness of advertising and the success of the console it's developed for. Here's a (over)simplified analogy: the world's greatest game with an advertising budget comprised of wishes and a shoestring, exclusive to a console no one has, is going to sell exponentially worse than yet another derivative, carbon copy AAA shootmans with the GDP of a small African country as its marketing budget. 

[Ala1n-J]

I wonder why "on-rails" shooting must be the only criteria for a Starfox game to be called Starfox. I mean, Starfox 2, the game which was supposed to be the direct sequel of the first Starfox game on the SNES, never had an on-rail level in its almost finished form. It was a flying shooter game, with RTS elements, and all combats happened in "all-range" levels. Very different from its predecessor in style of gameplay, and yet it is undeniably regarded as a Starfox game. Would it have sold very well? I don't know, let's not forget that it'd have come out right when Nintendo was marketing its new console, the N64. But I really think "on-rails only" wasn't (and isn't) what Nintendo had in mind to define Starfox as a game.

Also, SF64 is a remake of SNES SF. I find it hard to say that on rails defines the Starfox game series whatonly two games (I consider a series starting with at least 3 published games) with the second being a remake of the first.

What made the Starfox games stand out of all other sci fi shooting games? The damn characters! We care about the games, not just because there is a cool spaceship, but because there is a takling fox inside the spaceship. (Hadn't it been for the characters, Starfox would be in the SSB games only as trophies or special items) Thanks to Fox&Co, we have a reason to feel engaged in what is happening in the games.

There are many reasons as to why the latest Starfox games didn't sell as well as SNES SF and SF64 :

- Execution : no matter how good a concept is, if the execution fails to deliver, the game won't sell as well as expected. Adventures has a wacky development, no wonder it didn't turn out that well (even though I personally liked the game). Assault had a great concept with mixing arwing and on-foot sessions, but the awkward physics and the poorly designed mechanics failed to make the game good enough. Command could have worked if some of the strategy elements didn't suck, if we could have piloted the ships with anything more than just the stylus, if it didn't have weird mechanics and if the story was better handled (most of the important stuff happening in the team was just described in text walls, with not enough time before to truly care about it or, in the case of the endings, feel like what we went through mattered at all).

- Marketing : as Faisul explained, marketing plays a heavy part on a game's success or failure. SNES SF and SF64 had huge marketing campains, Adventures had a little advertising, Assault and Command? Hardly any. Same with SF643D, not much advertisement for it. If people don't know a game exist, they won't look for it and buy it.

- Times have changed : Back then, we didn't have Internet and making a simple polygon in a game was a huge deal, even more if textures were put on it, and people didn't have many ways to see whether a game was good before buying it. Now the machines are much more powerful, people can just google out a game to check its quality, the numbers of studios and gaming supports have raised, the indie gaming community, etc. People are now much more demanding toward games and less forgiving. Serving the same formula over and over again won't do much good to Starfox in the long term.

[Xidphel]

 

It's time to make some games for the real fans.

 

 

 

real fans.

 

REAL

 

FANS

[Robert Monroe]

Ha, wow. This thread. I was going to avoid it, but... what the hey.

 

First off, the articles. Where are they RIGHT, and where are they WRONG?

 

Right: Starfox -does- need to get "back to the roots".

 

Wrong: They have no idea what the fuck those "roots" actually are.

 

The ~hip~ thing to say about Starfox is that it was better when it was in the Arwing. This is not false; Starfox's ventures into other things not Arwing pew-pew related were mediocre at best (Adventures) to totally asinine at worst (Assault).

 

However, like Dras and a few other of you nuggets have posted whom I don't know, the reason those games blew ass was because of poor design, not specifically taking Fox out of the cockpit, and that is correct. HOWEVER...

 

Starfox 64 -should- be the blueprint for the series success. And what is that blueprint? It isn't KEEP FOX IN THE ARWING 5EVER - its the game's design as a whole. CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING:

 

-Starfox 64 was diverse. The game had 15 different levels, and 10 of those levels had either: 1) Branching pathways in the level itself that allowed you to face different enemy arrangements 2) Divergent endings that took you to entirely different levels or 3) Both. There was a -lot- of cross continuity with the levels as well with Bill/Katt making cameos, and every level had a unique art direction (yes, even all the space ones). 

 

-Starfox 64 was tightly designed. Everything had a place, a purpose, a function. There was no bloat or excess in the form of tacked on piss poor story or forced character drama (CoughCommandCough), no "side" missions that disrupt the pace of the game and distract rather than enhance (CoughSFlagsCoughCheatTokensCough). There were medals, yes, and you got medals by simply playing the game as normal; specifically doing so -well-. It rewarded replay, not guide farming. The story and dialogue was barebones, but what we got was full of character. Starwolf has collectively less than 50 lines of dialogue but they're a hella lot more memorable and loved because what we DID get was well placed and utilized. 

 

-Starfox 64 was inviting. With 15 levels, medals, expert mode, and all the level diversity, Starfox 64 ENCOURAGED you to play the game more. Only 7 levels could be completed during any given run (and two always had to be Corneria and Venom though there was variety even there), and most levels could intersect to two other levels. The game wasn't a slog, though, you're looking at an hour on average assuming you don't get killed a lot. Trying to replay the game to discover new content or improve your old scores wasn't a chore, it didn't drag and it didn't make you question the control you have over your life. You're in, you're out, you're done, you're happy, you do it again tomorrow gladly.

 

-Starfox 64 was well paced. Like I just said, the game takes little over an hour once you know what you're doing. The controls are tight, responsive, and levels go by at a brisk pace, but not rushed. You never wonder WHEN DOES THIS CRAP END (except maybe Katina), and even the hiccups the game does have aren't too upsetting because everything is so -tightly- put together. Arwings are fast and smooth, lasers hit with a good omph, dogfights are exciting, and so on. There's a sense of speed and thrill that's just right.

 

And lastly...

 

-Starfox 64 was a goddamn space shooter game. Here's the deal: Starfox IS supposed to be a SPACE SHOOTER. That's its THING. Now yes, you can have diversity and try new things (SF64 had a tank and a submarine!), but what is important is that the new doesn't overshadow the -core of the game-. Assault's foot missions, poorly programmed controls aside, were loathed because they overshadowed the Arwing missions. Out of Assault's (meager) 10 levels, only four were Arwing levels: Fortuna, Meteo, Orbital Gate, and Aparoid Core. Now yes, Sargasso, Sauria and the Aparoid Surface did all have Arwing -options-, but in all 3 cases the level objectives were on foot and meant to be approached as such; and in the case of Sauria and Sargasso they were -distractions- from the mission that disrupted the flow of the levels.

 

And that was then; nowadays the "over the shoulder cover based 3PS" is a very generic game design that a lot have imitated, just like the GTA sandbox clones and 2D platformers of yesteryear. Putting Starfox in that bland generic mold is ungraceful. Sure, you -could- make it work, but ultimately the better choice is to focus on making a good design for what Starfox's niche is: spectacular space shooting. Yes, they are mercenaries, but they're mercenary PILOTS dammit. A few foot missions as flavor wouldn't hurt, maybe even use the Greatfox interior as an interactive level hub for the fans, but ultimately the focus SHOULD be on the STAR aspect of Starfox. Concerns of cookie-cutter cut and paste games can hardly be validated when we really haven't even broken in the MOLD since 1997.

 

tl;dr SF64 is a blueprint because of a lot of smart game design choices that put together an excellent shmup experience not because it IS shmup game.

[Drasiana]

Now yes, Sargasso, Sauria and the Aparoid Surface did all have Arwing -options-, but in all 3 cases the level objectives were on foot and meant to be approached as such; and in the case of Sauria and Sargasso they were -distractions- from the mission that disrupted the flow of the levels.

 

This is also a good point. I never thought about the Arwing portions as "options" but they totally were. They were just haphazardly scattered over the maps to no real rhyme or reason. The entire "beam down a new Arwing magically somehow" mechanic seemed to be contrived entirely to get them out of having to actually work to provide cohesion between the on-foot and Arwing segments.

 

Sargasso was the only level that really had anything resembling a reasonable transition from on-foot to Arwing, but even then, it just went from tedious hatcher shooting to the worst Star Wolf fight in the history of forever. And the wing-riding portions were almost as dumb as Command's magical swimming Arwings. Almost. (It was fun to try in multiplayer with drunk friends, okay?)

 

Ideally, it should be more like what was implied in the original SF64 Fichina level: do the main level in the air, but run inside the base in order to disarm the bomb. That's a mission with an actual streamlined purpose instead of the shootmans equivalent of a fetchquest we got in Assault. There's lots of ways you could incorporate that in a Star Fox game. Infiltrate the enemy ship on foot, get the info, and escape in your Arwing, resulting in an exciting chase? Save some hostages? Just something like that. Something where there is a definable, justified purpose to every second of the level, and every move you make (or are given an option to make) within it. As they were presented in Assault, there was no real form or structure. They tried to go sandbox but ended up a litterbox.

 

I still get frustrated thinking about how cool Adventures could have been with better Arwing segments. Like, imagine if the stupid-ass exploding planet plot hadn't been there, but you still needed to fly to different areas to access them. How about navigating expansive ranges of exploding volcanoes to get to the Fire Force Point Temple? Or fighting an ancient sea creature to get into the Water Force Point? Soar through a canyon side-by-side with CloudRunners to reach their fortress. Coast through a land of dangerous blizzards and floating ice to reach the DarkIce Mines. I get far more excited thinking about that than the possibility of shooting even more random purple rocks.

 

I look at the concept of games like Adventures and Assault, and it's like, okay cool. Actually playing them is another story, and it's because of the exact reasons Robert outlined. There were many more reasons for 64's success, both more simple and yet more complicated than just "they were in Arwings lol". It had structure, it had form, it had diversity, and it knew exactly what it wanted to do.

[Robert Monroe]

 How about navigating expansive ranges of exploding volcanoes to get to the Fire Force Point Temple? Or fighting an ancient sea creature to get into the Water Force Point? Soar through a canyon side-by-side with CloudRunners to reach their fortress. Coast through a land of dangerous blizzards and floating ice to reach the DarkIce Mines. I get far more excited thinking about that than the possibility of shooting even more random purple rocks.

 

[DZComposer]

Ha, wow. This thread. I was going to avoid it, but... what the hey.

 

First off, the articles. Where are they RIGHT, and where are they WRONG?

 

Right: Starfox -does- need to get "back to the roots".

 

Wrong: They have no idea what the fuck those "roots" actually are.

 

The ~hip~ thing to say about Starfox is that it was better when it was in the Arwing. This is not false; Starfox's ventures into other things not Arwing pew-pew related were mediocre at best (Adventures) to totally asinine at worst (Assault).

 

However, like Dras and a few other of you nuggets have posted whom I don't know, the reason those games blew ass was because of poor design, not specifically taking Fox out of the cockpit, and that is correct. HOWEVER...

 

Starfox 64 -should- be the blueprint for the series success. And what is that blueprint? It isn't KEEP FOX IN THE ARWING 5EVER - its the game's design as a whole. CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING:

 

-Starfox 64 was diverse. The game had 15 different levels, and 10 of those levels had either: 1) Branching pathways in the level itself that allowed you to face different enemy arrangements 2) Divergent endings that took you to entirely different levels or 3) Both. There was a -lot- of cross continuity with the levels as well with Bill/Katt making cameos, and every level had a unique art direction (yes, even all the space ones). 

 

-Starfox 64 was tightly designed. Everything had a place, a purpose, a function. There was no bloat or excess in the form of tacked on piss poor story or forced character drama (CoughCommandCough), no "side" missions that disrupt the pace of the game and distract rather than enhance (CoughSFlagsCoughCheatTokensCough). There were medals, yes, and you got medals by simply playing the game as normal; specifically doing so -well-. It rewarded replay, not guide farming. The story and dialogue was barebones, but what we got was full of character. Starwolf has collectively less than 50 lines of dialogue but they're a hella lot more memorable and loved because what we DID get was well placed and utilized. 

 

-Starfox 64 was inviting. With 15 levels, medals, expert mode, and all the level diversity, Starfox 64 ENCOURAGED you to play the game more. Only 7 levels could be completed during any given run (and two always had to be Corneria and Venom though there was variety even there), and most levels could intersect to two other levels. The game wasn't a slog, though, you're looking at an hour on average assuming you don't get killed a lot. Trying to replay the game to discover new content or improve your old scores wasn't a chore, it didn't drag and it didn't make you question the control you have over your life. You're in, you're out, you're done, you're happy, you do it again tomorrow gladly.

 

-Starfox 64 was well paced. Like I just said, the game takes little over an hour once you know what you're doing. The controls are tight, responsive, and levels go by at a brisk pace, but not rushed. You never wonder WHEN DOES THIS CRAP END (except maybe Katina), and even the hiccups the game does have aren't too upsetting because everything is so -tightly- put together. Arwings are fast and smooth, lasers hit with a good omph, dogfights are exciting, and so on. There's a sense of speed and thrill that's just right.

 

And lastly...

 

-Starfox 64 was a goddamn space shooter game. Here's the deal: Starfox IS supposed to be a SPACE SHOOTER. That's its THING. Now yes, you can have diversity and try new things (SF64 had a tank and a submarine!), but what is important is that the new doesn't overshadow the -core of the game-. Assault's foot missions, poorly programmed controls aside, were loathed because they overshadowed the Arwing missions. Out of Assault's (meager) 10 levels, only four were Arwing levels: Fortuna, Meteo, Orbital Gate, and Aparoid Core. Now yes, Sargasso, Sauria and the Aparoid Surface did all have Arwing -options-, but in all 3 cases the level objectives were on foot and meant to be approached as such; and in the case of Sauria and Sargasso they were -distractions- from the mission that disrupted the flow of the levels.

 

And that was then; nowadays the "over the shoulder cover based 3PS" is a very generic game design that a lot have imitated, just like the GTA sandbox clones and 2D platformers of yesteryear. Putting Starfox in that bland generic mold is ungraceful. Sure, you -could- make it work, but ultimately the better choice is to focus on making a good design for what Starfox's niche is: spectacular space shooting. Yes, they are mercenaries, but they're mercenary PILOTS dammit. A few foot missions as flavor wouldn't hurt, maybe even use the Greatfox interior as an interactive level hub for the fans, but ultimately the focus SHOULD be on the STAR aspect of Starfox. Concerns of cookie-cutter cut and paste games can hardly be validated when we really haven't even broken in the MOLD since 1997.

 

tl;dr SF64 is a blueprint because of a lot of smart game design choices that put together an excellent shmup experience not because it IS shmup game.

I like this so much I think I'm going to steal it next time I get into a Reddit debate about what should be next for Star Fox.

[Robert Monroe]

Aw, shucks DZ <3

[Scourge]

Bear in mind DZ:

 

[WolfOD64]

It seems outsiders and bystanders to the Star Fox series, who claim to know "what's best" for the franchise's success, only appear to be capable of the same rehearsed series of habits:

 

1. Pining about how much the next game should satisfy their nostalgia-driven boners for Star Fox 64

 

2. Having Fox's legs nailed to the inside of the Arwing, despite his mercenary skills

 

3. Rid the series of any ascertainable plot, distinctive characters, or thematic qualities (but can totally be applied to the Zelda and Metroid series, because they apparently deserve it more)

 

4. Blaming Krystal for every narrative and characterizing fallacy the series has ever made.

[Robert Monroe]

3. Rid the series of any ascertainable plot, distinctive characters, or thematic qualities

 

IDK, the games have done that already without the fandom's intervention. While all those modes of thought are flawed, they do hold merit. They have nostalgia-boners for SF64 because it was GOOD; they want Fox stuck in an Arwing because Assault was BAD; they want less plot because Adventures/Assault/Command did it wrong; they blame Krystal because she's a convenient co-relevant association with the series' decline.

 

Doesn't make them any less short sighted, but as I said before we need to more closely examine WHY people are saying these things.

[Terramax]

 

The ~hip~ thing to say about Starfox is that it was better when it was in the Arwing. This is not false; Starfox's ventures into other things not Arwing pew-pew related were mediocre at best (Adventures) to totally asinine at worst (Assault).

 

However, like Dras and a few other of you nuggets have posted whom I don't know, the reason those games blew ass was because of poor design, not specifically taking Fox out of the cockpit, and that is correct. HOWEVER...

 

Starfox 64 -should- be the blueprint for the series success. And what is that blueprint? It isn't KEEP FOX IN THE ARWING 5EVER - its the game's design as a whole. CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING:

 

-Starfox 64 was diverse. The game had 15 different levels, and 10 of those levels had either: 1) Branching pathways in the level itself that allowed you to face different enemy arrangements 2) Divergent endings that took you to entirely different levels or 3) Both. There was a -lot- of cross continuity with the levels as well with Bill/Katt making cameos, and every level had a unique art direction (yes, even all the space ones). 

 

-Starfox 64 was tightly designed. Everything had a place, a purpose, a function. There was no bloat or excess in the form of tacked on piss poor story or forced character drama (CoughCommandCough), no "side" missions that disrupt the pace of the game and distract rather than enhance (CoughSFlagsCoughCheatTokensCough). There were medals, yes, and you got medals by simply playing the game as normal; specifically doing so -well-. It rewarded replay, not guide farming. The story and dialogue was barebones, but what we got was full of character. Starwolf has collectively less than 50 lines of dialogue but they're a hella lot more memorable and loved because what we DID get was well placed and utilized. 

 

-Starfox 64 was inviting. With 15 levels, medals, expert mode, and all the level diversity, Starfox 64 ENCOURAGED you to play the game more. Only 7 levels could be completed during any given run (and two always had to be Corneria and Venom though there was variety even there), and most levels could intersect to two other levels. The game wasn't a slog, though, you're looking at an hour on average assuming you don't get killed a lot. Trying to replay the game to discover new content or improve your old scores wasn't a chore, it didn't drag and it didn't make you question the control you have over your life. You're in, you're out, you're done, you're happy, you do it again tomorrow gladly.

 

-Starfox 64 was well paced. Like I just said, the game takes little over an hour once you know what you're doing. The controls are tight, responsive, and levels go by at a brisk pace, but not rushed. You never wonder WHEN DOES THIS CRAP END (except maybe Katina), and even the hiccups the game does have aren't too upsetting because everything is so -tightly- put together. Arwings are fast and smooth, lasers hit with a good omph, dogfights are exciting, and so on. There's a sense of speed and thrill that's just right.

 

And lastly...

 

-Starfox 64 was a goddamn space shooter game. Here's the deal: Starfox IS supposed to be a SPACE SHOOTER. That's its THING. Now yes, you can have diversity and try new things (SF64 had a tank and a submarine!), but what is important is that the new doesn't overshadow the -core of the game-. Assault's foot missions, poorly programmed controls aside, were loathed because they overshadowed the Arwing missions. Out of Assault's (meager) 10 levels, only four were Arwing levels: Fortuna, Meteo, Orbital Gate, and Aparoid Core. Now yes, Sargasso, Sauria and the Aparoid Surface did all have Arwing -options-, but in all 3 cases the level objectives were on foot and meant to be approached as such; and in the case of Sauria and Sargasso they were -distractions- from the mission that disrupted the flow of the levels.

 

And that was then; nowadays the "over the shoulder cover based 3PS" is a very generic game design that a lot have imitated, just like the GTA sandbox clones and 2D platformers of yesteryear. Putting Starfox in that bland generic mold is ungraceful. Sure, you -could- make it work, but ultimately the better choice is to focus on making a good design for what Starfox's niche is: spectacular space shooting. Yes, they are mercenaries, but they're mercenary PILOTS dammit. A few foot missions as flavor wouldn't hurt, maybe even use the Greatfox interior as an interactive level hub for the fans, but ultimately the focus SHOULD be on the STAR aspect of Starfox. Concerns of cookie-cutter cut and paste games can hardly be validated when we really haven't even broken in the MOLD since 1997.

 

tl;dr SF64 is a blueprint because of a lot of smart game design choices that put together an excellent shmup experience not because it IS shmup game.

 

As you asked me to take a look at this post of yours, I've done so.

 

Personally, I feel that just about every level with SF64 was identical other than wallpaper. Many levels, like the volcano level, was basically the exact same view throughout with them just chucking the exact same enemies again and again at random. Little to no thought put out in terms of enemy arrangement.

 

Most people I knew didn't like the single player -- often completing it just once, and playing through merely for the multiplayer. They didn't say it was a bad game. Just that there were always other single player games they'd rather be playing on their N64. I played through the single player a number of times, but I'll admit that the rewards for doing so weren't particularly great. The most fun was always in the multiplayer. And that's why I play SF64 and Assault regularly to this day. In fact, I think I only completed the single player several times for the perks I'd get in multiplayer.

 

There are all these extra medals, etc, and the branching paths, which were all just superficial ways of making the game seem like it had more to offer than it really did. Branching paths were ultimately the same levels in different outfits; the sub and tank were just the ship but with limitations added onto them. The alternate stories were pointless, seeing as Star Fox doesn't have a universe worth getting that emotionally invested into in the first place.

 

Nowadays, I have to force myself through SF64. I completed it on a train journey the other day (through a save 2 levels in) because I didn't bring any other games for the 3DS with me. Some parts were painfully boring to play. I liked SF64 back in the day (if only because there wasn't much else out there similar on offer); but the gameplay is too limited by today's standards. Indeed, the exact thing that went through my mind on that train was 'when will this game end?!'

 

Now, before you pull your knives out, I LOVE rail shooters. One of the reasons I like(d) SF64 was that I'm a big fan of the Panzer Dragoon series. I'm also partial to the two Sin & Punishment games, and others in-between like Rez and Omega Boost (the latterof which is fab, if you're wondering).

 

I wouldn't say SF64 is a bad game. It's not. It's just 'meh'. Maybe it's because I've played so many better games in its field, before and after. But, yeah, it's meh...

 

With this taken into account, I don't know if I can agree to the new SF being returning to rail shooter roots. Not unless it has a sophisticated scoring system, or a more complex gaming experiences like that of Panzer Dragoon Orta (morphing Dragons that affect the movement and attacks, and the 360 panning). By today's standards, Star Fox's rail shooting experiences are dated and cumbersome.

 

Not only that, but more importantly, I don't think most gamers will want to play a rail shooter. Heck, a fully-fledged 3D roamer ala the Star Wars space shooters games, I don't think that'd provide enough variety.

 

As for Assault; the game fails not because of the on-foot sections per-se, but because the game just controls badly period. Even the Arwing sections play badly. This is partly due to the Gamecube's less than steller controller, and because the game was developed by Namco; a company with a track history of games that don't control quite as smoothly as what they ought to (Ridge Racer, Tekken,etc).The feel of the entire game is just a little bit 'off'.

 

I will agree that the level design of some levels have a lot to be desired. Also, a major flaw was that the variety in on-foot, on-rails, and 3D flight sections didn't seem to gel well together. But these factors don't mean that making the next installment a TPS would be inheritedly bad. 

I think that Assault wasn't executed as well as it could've been, but that's not the same as saying that the concept itself wouldn't work. Whether you make the next SF a rail shooter or a TPS; they have to have great gameplay and level design that competes with the best on the market today.

Case in point; the first two Panzer Dragoon games were rail shooters. The third title (PD Saga), was an action RPG, and that game ranks among one of the greatest games of its era (to the luck few who back in the day had the pleasure of playing it). The title also greatly elaborated on the universe of Panzer Dragon and, simply put, the story is outstanding.

 

Last thing to mention on Assault; the Arwing sections weren't particularly fun either. But this is the thing - they play identical to SF64, which is a testiment to how average whole of SF64 really is. SF64 is basically those 4 Assault rail arwing sections, but more of them, and less pretty graphics.

And by the time Assault had hit the scene, Star Fox's rail sections were already shallow and outdated. I like the first level (played through it on Friday), as the music and the setup is truly epic. But later ones are just like SF64-- uninspired and repetitive.

 

The bottom line is that there has never been a truly great Star Fox game. The best you can say about SF64 is that it was consistent, and it works. But that's not much of a compliment. I don't think Nintendo have what it takes to make a compelling railshooter. Not unless they hire Sega or Treasure (two companies with a greater understanding of such games) to co-develop it for them.

 

As for me, I just want an online multiplayer Star Fox game. Arwings, tanks, and on foot. 15 arenas with a good variety and design.

 

 

 

they want Fox stuck in an Arwing because Assault was BAD; they want less plot because Adventures/Assault/Command did it wrong; they blame Krystal because she's a convenient co-relevant association with the series' decline.

 

They did it wrong because they HAD a plot. The first two games didn't have a plot... well, not one that 99% of all gamers cared about. Star Fox has always had a bad story. The first two games only have a plot to give the games a context. Nothing more. They were hardly any different to the daft stories written out in the prologues to 80s and 90s arcade shmups.

 

Adventure elaborated on a franchise with a story written by an 11 year-old because someone at Nintendo thought it'd be a good idea to make a completely different game related to the Star Fox universe. And Assault (and presumably Command) had not choice but to follow suit.

 

Seriously, how do you make a good plot about about animorphic animes flying space ships? I don't think you can. I'd like to be proven wrong though.