SF64 vs. SF Assault?

[Pharaoh Shadon]

Just a note, me and rob talked a bit in the chat soooooo we are cool now

 

That is not how colour theory works. You do not pick and choose at which point colour theory exists just like you don't pick and choose the points in which the theory of gravity exists. It's a fundamental artistic concept like "anatomy" and "using a drawing apparatus to create an image".

Except you can say what you will about gravity, it wont change. You make a character that goes against color theory, and they can still look good. Krystal looks better than ever, Fox looks pretty cool, Slippy looks better than ever. And so on. Does color theory exist? Sure, but not following it doesn't guarantee complete crap (And Krystal is proof of that) (Not that it matters, looks are opinion based anyway)

 

You are saying this as if Black Flag was an example of a good game

Black flag WAS a good game. Not as good as 2, but still pretty cool. (My friend spent over 6 hours farming and he didn't even realize it was farming till I brought it up.)

 

 

No it didn't. 

Oh, so fox is exactly the same as he was in adventures/64? Fox's personality and act DID change, assault is proof of that (Even you were saying that you don't like then new fox. If you don't like assault fox but like 64 fox then guess what? HE CHANGED!

 

 

You are inventing this. This is not a thing that happened. Buddy, I can chat all day about my long and winding interpretation of Andrew Oikonny, his pathos, his role as a character foil to Fox, the fact that he would probably have a sword and watch space anime. I love me some headcanons. That doesn't mean it's a thing that happened or had any implication of happening in the actual games. Even in terms of being a character foil the groundwork is there but the narrative never actually acknowledges it.

Alright, I'm inventing it. Fox didn't change, what was I thinking? He's exactly the same in assault as he was in previous games.

 

 

 

 

 

Then prepare that high five :D

 

Basically, the aparoid queen wanted to be alive, and she thought that infecting people and other things will eventually evolve her to the point of being truly alive. "You have to be born with one" meaning no matter how hard the queen tried, she will NEVER be truly alive. No matter how much bio-tech fusion she does. (I'm shocked you didn't know that. I don't think this is the first story of a machine wanting to be alive)

 

It doesn't have to do with anything in the game per se (At least as far as the hero is concerned) The aparoids are killing/infecting people, so you gotta stop her regardless of her reasons for doing this.

 

What I do wish they did was go into how the aparoids were created, because I don't recall an origins anywhere on their existance.

[Robert Monroe]

oh boy you thought I was done

 

stop dragging me in here guys

 

anyway

 

Except you can say what you will about gravity, it wont change. You make a character that goes against color theory, and they can still look good. Krystal looks better than ever, Fox looks pretty cool, Slippy looks better than ever. And so on. Does color theory exist? Sure, but not following it doesn't guarantee complete crap (And Krystal is proof of that) (Not that it matters, looks are opinion based anyway)

 

Krystal looks ok all things considered but she is extremely monochrome and her costume has a lot of nonsensical patterns on it. Not very good art design. I'm not going to argue this anymore because obviously there's a point where it becomes personal taste, but most characters in Assault do not have well conceived designs.

 

Oh, so fox is exactly the same as he was in adventures/64? Fox's personality and act DID change, assault is proof of that (Even you were saying that you don't like then new fox. If you don't like assault fox but like 64 fox then guess what? HE CHANGED!

 

Again, growth isn't JUST change. it is change following a narrative progression that can be tracked. Fox lacks that narrative progression making his personality change in Assault lazy ass shit tier writing, not character development. Learn the difference please.

 

Basically, the aparoid queen wanted to be alive, and she thought that infecting people and other things will eventually evolve her to the point of being truly alive. "You have to be born with one" meaning no matter how hard the queen tried, she will NEVER be truly alive. No matter how much bio-tech fusion she does. (I'm shocked you didn't know that. I don't think this is the first story of a machine wanting to be alive)

 

Except that has nothing to do with evolution at all.

 

And such a thematic element was not ever brought up or mentioned in the story at all until Fox says that horrible line so... yeah.

 

Plus the Queen doesn't really seem motivated about wanting to be alive. She doesn't have any motivation at all beyond CONSUME ALL THE THINGS like the stock cyborg bug villain she is.

[Drasiana]

Except you can say what you will about gravity, it wont change. You make a character that goes against color theory, and they can still look good. Krystal looks better than ever, Fox looks pretty cool, Slippy looks better than ever. And so on. Does color theory exist? Sure, but not following it doesn't guarantee complete crap (And Krystal is proof of that) (Not that it matters, looks are opinion based anyway)

 

Krystal looks weird wearing a blue bodysuit for the same reason a person would look weird wearing a flesh-coloured bodysuit. It's weird-looking and probably would have looked better if she'd kept a colour scheme more like her Adventures one. She doesn't look the WORST she can be (that one goes to the Lisa Frank bodysuit in Command), but it was still questionable because of colour theory. Also Fox totally looks like a Christmas Tree even though the actual outfit looks okay.

 

Black flag WAS a good game. Not as good as 2, but still pretty cool. (My friend spent over 6 hours farming and he didn't even realize it was farming till I brought it up.)

 

That... doesn't mean it's immune to character/story criticism, though. It's like you're assuming I'll change my stance on Assault's mistakes just because another game made the same mistake.

 

Oh, so fox is exactly the same as he was in adventures/64? Fox's personality and act DID change, assault is proof of that (Even you were saying that you don't like then new fox. If you don't like assault fox but like 64 fox then guess what? HE CHANGED!

 

It did not change. It was different. There is a difference. "Change" implies progression, a journey from point A to point B. There was no progression. One day Fox was A, the next day he was B with no explanation. Again, your headcanon is not a canon explanation for his drastic difference in character between two games that aren't that far apart on the timeline.

 

Alright, I'm inventing it. Fox didn't change, what was I thinking? He's exactly the same in assault as he was in previous games.

 

I'm really worried about you if you're reading "Fox had no definable character arc that justified his sudden, drastic difference in character" and interpreting it as "Fox is exactly the same in Assault as he is in every other game lol!!!!!"

 

condescending aparoid explanation

 

Yes, what did this have to do with the characters? Why was this such an important thing that Fox made a point of commenting on it, as if it were the thematic statement of the entire story? What is even the point or value of a moral statement that boils down to "sorry you were born shitty so I guess I have to commit genocide against your entire species"? I called it a shitty nonsense pseudo-moral because it comes out of nowhere with no previous inclination that this is the goal of the Queen or a point reflected in the other characters, then pretends it's this big profound moment before promptly being forgotten again.

[Pharaoh Shadon]

 

Again, growth isn't JUST change. it is change following a narrative progression that can be tracked. Fox lacks that narrative progression making his personality change in Assault lazy ass shit tier writing, not character development. Learn the difference please.

My point is he changed. How and why is a different question. But if you need to see him change to accept the change he clearly has in assault... Then something aint right as fox's personality is assault is literally different from adventures, meaning he changed. Better or worse is up for debate. But there WAS a change.

 

 

Except that has nothing to do with evolution at all.

You do crazy things when you're desperate. Think of it from her point of view. You're a machine without a soul. You die, you're done. What can you do to prevent this? Perhaps taking over people and fusing with them can give you that soul you're looking for. By the time she (May) have noticed it doesn't work, it was too late and war was started.

 

And such a thematic element was not ever brought up or mentioned in the story at all until Fox says that horrible line so... yeah.

So... It was brought up. It doesn't matter how or when it was brought up, it was brought up, and that's what it means.

 

Plus the Queen doesn't really seem motivated about wanting to be alive. She doesn't have any motivation at all beyond CONSUME ALL THE THINGS like the stock cyborg bug villain she is.

Well the writers threw that in there to tell the audience her point of view so she doesn't seem like a mindless machine that just wants everything infected. Give your main villain a bit of meaning.

[Drasiana]

Oh my god literally everything you just said is headcanon. Everything. This is my entire point: none of this shit is justified in the actual game. I would GLADLY discuss headcanon for the reason why this shit happens but the problem is that you're acting like this is all irrefutable fact when it isn't. I said there is a difference between a character randomly having a new personality and the character going through character development that changes them. Fox is the former because there is no in-game evidence of the latter. Your point about it "trying to tell the audience her point of view" doesn't even make sense because it wasn't her point of view, she recited a bunch of canned generic Borg-Lite lines and then exploded, and Fox dropped a line he had no reason to pull out of his ass since, again, this was nothing the Queen ever even came close to saying herself. If they actually wanted to give her depth they could've, you know, actually had her say something, they didn't, they tossed in some doofy "deep" sounding line to be the scene's button, the toast is ghost.

 

And again, the only "meaning" here is "she was born soulless and evil and tried to bypass evolution by stealing souls but it was futile because she was destined to be soulless and evil", which provides not only a fundamental misunderstanding of the way evolution and (theoretically) souls work, but has a really creepy "genocide is okay because your enemy has no soul!" undercurrent.

[Robert Monroe]

My point is he changed. How and why is a different question. But if you need to see him change to accept the change he clearly has in assault... Then something aint right as fox's personality is assault is literally different from adventures, meaning he changed. Better or worse is up for debate. But there WAS a change.

 

No one is saying there wasn't a change.

 

What we are saying is this was not PROGRESSION or GROWTH. It was literally just a change. An out of nowhere, unwritten change. Fox was just different one day because FUCK CONSISTENCY. And that's terrible. 

 

You do crazy things when you're desperate. Think of it from her point of view. You're a machine without a soul. You die, you're done. What can you do to prevent this? Perhaps taking over people and fusing with them can give you that soul you're looking for. By the time she (May) have noticed it doesn't work, it was too late and war was started.

 

She doesn't HAVE a point of view. Literally we are never told what the Queen wants or feels or desires or anything. Fox is just talking out of his ass at the very end in a last ditch effort to seem poignant. You don't know if she doesn't have a soul, or even if she's a machine, because the game never had the good goddamn courtesy to tell us. Fox was just full of shit and hot air, because it was self indulgent bullshit writing. 

 

So... It was brought up. It doesn't matter how or when it was brought up, it was brought up, and that's what it means.

 

No, it doesn't mean anything, because it has no thematic weight. Do you even know how storytelling -works-?

 

Well the writers threw that in there to tell the audience her point of view so she doesn't seem like a mindless machine that just wants everything infected. Give your main villain a bit of meaning.

 

This wasn't giving the Queen a point of view. the line wasn't even said until after the Queen -died-, and it wasn't even out of sympathy. It was Fox talking out of his asshole. It was the very definition of FAKEDEEP.

[Robert Monroe]

ADDENDUM: WHAT DRAS SAID

 

ALL THAT SHIT IS NOT IN THE GAME

 

ITS JUST WILD SPECULATION ON YOUR OWN BEHALF IN A VAIN EFFORT TO TRY AND MAKE SENSE OUT OF ASSAULT'S BULLSHIT

 

NOTHING MORE OR LESS

 

CAPSLOCK

[Pharaoh Shadon]

And again, the only "meaning" here is "she was born soulless and evil and tried to bypass evolution by stealing souls but it was futile because she was destined to be soulless and evil", which provides not only a fundamental misunderstanding of the way evolution and (theoretically) souls work, but has a really creepy "genocide is okay because your enemy has no soul!" undercurrent.

I never said it was correct. I just said that's what it means. No speculation, no interpretations, that is what the line means.

 

@Robert-

Jeez, even when I say there isn't growth and just say there is change you argue against it. Fox CHANGED, his different personality in assault from adventures is proof of that. I don't know what else to tell you on that subject. I said lots of times that he changed from experience and time is an educated guess based on what happens with REAL people.

 

Fox said that to inform the audience. He probably shoudln't have known that, but HE wasn't talking out of his ass, it was the writers wanting us to know what was up. Sure it could have been done better, but the writers chose that way to tell us.

[Robert Monroe]

And using a character to blatantly break the fourth wall to shoehorn a tacked on fakedeep moral message is a longhand way of saying "talking out of the ass".

 

The writers weren't wanting to let anyone know what was up, they were just asspulling bullshit. Woopee!

[Giladen]

I'm going to comment on this:

 

My point is he changed. How and why is a different question. But if you need to see him change to accept the change he clearly has in assault... Then something aint right as fox's personality is assault is literally different from adventures, meaning he changed. Better or worse is up for debate. But there WAS a change.

 

What you're ignoring is that SF64, Adventures, and Assault all had separate development teams with separate visions for the series. Fox going from how he was in Adventures to Assault is not the result of character development, but Assault's developers changing Fox for the game they sent out.

 

This happened to Star Wolf too. Wolf and Pigma say foul words about James McCloud in 64 and the team is not the cuddly Japanese fighting comic and animation bunch they are in Assault. The team was revamped for Assault.

 

The whole series lacks character development.

[Drasiana]

I never said it was correct. I just said that's what it means. No speculation, no interpretations, that is what the line means.

 

Yes, and it's phrased awfully and means nothing within the context of the overall plot. That is why it is a shitty pseudo-moral.

 

Jeez, even when I say there isn't growth and just say there is change you argue against it

 

Because you're still conflating Fox randomly having a new personality with character development based on your headcanon.

[Pharaoh Shadon]

I'm going to comment on this:

 

 

What you're ignoring is that SF64, Adventures, and Assault all had separate development teams with separate visions for the series. Fox going from how he was in Adventures to Assault is not the result of character development, but Assault's developers changing Fox for the game they sent out.

 

This happened to Star Wolf too. Wolf and Pigma say foul words about James McCloud in 64 and the team is not the cuddly Japanese fighting comic and animation bunch they are in Assault. The team was revamped for Assault.

 

The whole series lacks character development.

Which was my realistic theory. They changed fox's personality for sake of the game rather than over all story. But if that wasn't it, then something happened to where he changed in-between, and that will most likely be from time and experience (Or a mission that required fox to change to win) like what REAL people go through. (You seem to be ignoring/don't know how actual maturity happens in real life)

 

It's one or the other (Or both, the writers probably changed his personality based on what a real leader would do/be like.)

[Drasiana]

(You seem to be ignoring/don't know how actual maturity happens in real life)

 

Lmao are you 12?? How do you think Being an Adult works, exactly? People don't do a complete 180 on their personality once they hit a certain age. Even as they mature people are still generally recognizable as themselves.

 

Stop looking for an intradiagetic explanation for an extradiagetic problem. The writing was inconsistent and they sacrificed Fox's previous characterization for the sake of a "darker" story that was "dark" only to children who don't know how to write drama in a way that isn't "but what if [x] ALMOST DIES?!".

 

I'm just gonna stop right here because all you're doing is smugly shifting the goalposts of the argument and saying "my theory is canon because I say so" and it's useless trying to get you to actually pay attention to what we're saying.

[Pharaoh Shadon]

Lmao are you 12?? How do you think Being an Adult works, exactly? People don't do a complete 180 on their personality once they hit a certain age. Even as they mature people are still generally recognizable as themselves.

 

Stop looking for an intradiagetic explanation for an extradiagetic problem. The writing was inconsistent and they sacrificed Fox's previous characterization for the sake of a "darker" story that was "dark" only to children who don't know how to write drama in a way that isn't "but what if [x] ALMOST DIES?!".

 

I'm just gonna stop right here because all you're doing is smugly shifting the goalposts of the argument and saying "my theory is canon because I say so" and it's useless trying to get you to actually pay attention to what we're saying.

 

I know EXACTLY what you're saying. And you may be right. (Why do people like you always have a "If you don't agree, then you don't understand" kind of look on things?) I've already said that they could have changed fox's personality for the sake of the game's darker tone. did you read over that? Did I use black text so its invisible during that part? Or do you not WANT to comprehend that?

 

Fox's change isn't "being an adult" it's going through experiences in that kind of situation. Fox is a leader, and sometimes leaders need to "grow up" (For lack of a better word) inorder to stop a threat or save their comerads. Giving how you can't see that, I have a feeling that you're VERY sheltered.

[unoservix]

(Why do people like you always have a "If you don't agree, then you don't understand" kind of look on things?)

 

 

did you read over that? Did I use black text so its invisible during that part? Or do you not WANT to comprehend that?

 

 

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA oh lordy

[Pharaoh Shadon]

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA oh lordy

It's a legit question DX They keep telling me what I already said like I never said it in the first place. 

[Drasiana]

Fox's change isn't "being an adult"

 

Fox is a leader, and sometimes leaders need to "grow up" 

 

 

Forget understanding what I'm saying, I don't even think you understand what you're saying.

 

e: also lmao @ IF YOU AND EVERYONE YOU KNOW DON'T ACT LIKE A MELODRAMATIC VIDEO GAME FOX, YOU MUST BE SUPER SHELTERED

[InfinitySquared]

I've said before how Assault is just like the StarWars prequels in that it tries too hard to be big and epic and fanon-servicey and crowd-servicey instead of just being fun and simple. On paper, it sounds pretty good. In practice, it seems like a decent fanfic that got turned into an official SF title.  I'm too lazy to read the thread, so I'm just gonna rant about some other complaint I have with it. Shaddap.

 

It's just too...I dunno...flippant. Is it a rail-shooter, is it a OTS shooter, is it on foot, in the air, in space? The story line is interesting, but fails to deliver. I like how the Aparoids directly kill off Oikonny's plans of becoming Andross 2.0, and that the characters have to make it up as they go along. I like how Wolf has a change of heart towards the end, and winds up helping Fox out. The scene where Pepper is attacked by the Aparoids and begs Fox to shoot him down before he becomes a drone is arguably one of the more dramatic moments of any game I've played. Basically, they tried to be different and actually have some semblance of character development. 

 

HOWEVER

 

The sheer fact that, in the very end, they ALL turned out fine and dandy just completely implodes any and all of the drama built-up in the game. It's as if the writers realized they would alter the status quo and quickly tried to tack on an ending saying "nothing has nor will change, fuhgeddabowdit". It's just anticlimactic and boring. Maybe it was a safety net, so that, in the event there would be no sequel, we knew what happened to the characters, or maybe they were trying to shoot for that (then) trendy new E10 rating instead of a T. I dunno, but it screws it up big time. 

 

Also, Assault's just a chore to play. I don't mind hooking up the N64 to play some Starfox 64, but when a friend wants to play Star Fox Assault I always sigh to myself as I reach to the shelf and take the game out of the case. It feels much longer than 10 levels, and doesn't offer nearly as much replay value. It just kinda wears on me.

 

Even writing this tuckered me out. One really shouldn't spend 4 short paragraphs trying to explain why something sucks.

[Pharaoh Shadon]

Alright, this became a GIANT mess XD Soooooooooooooo let's take things one at a time, perhaps redefine them as I did learn a few new things. Now the tone seems more aggressive than what it should be, soooooooo let's change that from now on (Unless people were purposely sounding like a jerk -.-) So lets go straight to the point. (or reorganize)

 

1. I meant everything I said in my first 3 post, those remain unchanged.

 

2. Krystal telepathy-

I forgot about the dinosour planet game being turned into starfox adventures, and Krystal was basically that one character with a new back story. So in adventures time, the distress signal most likely came from her ship she had. (Although it was never explained how she got the distress signal, I bet that if they were to talk about it now, they would probably say that it was telepathy and not her ship, as Krystal got a distress signal through telepathy in assault.) As for her outfit, I'm not sure if it came from her planet, or if she wore it as a means to fit in more with the dinosour planet. (Although it was similar to what the original wore in dinosour planet so it was most likely just copying that, but its still a question for the now none the less)

 

3. The shortness vs replayability-

I think you all can agree that assaults issue wasn't story length, but lack of replayability and in your cases, bad level design. Assault is a pretty long game going through the story (Even longer if you go after the flags) So it was definitely long, and it was MUCH longer than 64, but people went to play 64 more because they found it more fun (Which is probably why 64 felt longer, because they played it more)

 

4. Game stories/scripts/design-

I like the story of both, however we differ in the execution. It could be that I'm younger so I grew up with sleek, cool designs and basically grew up with assault like media. That being said, I probably have a bias towards that. I liked the serious tone assault took. The "saying more but explaining less" was because while explaining things, they also added little side comments (Like Slippy saying "Dad? I didn't know you were apart of the research team (Or something like that) Which I like because it feels more like a conversation. While the N64 game was straight to the point, and lack of conversation bugged me (Like pepper saying "There's a base there?" I would expect him to say "There's a base there? Go check it out" or something like that.

 

With color theory, I don't doubt it's wrong, but I don't think it always applies. I find Krystal and fox's look to be amazing. Krystal's "blue on blue on blue" was a design choice I liked. I think it was to go with the games theme of having things sleek and cool.

 

And to add, like Robert said, in the end it comes to personal taste. And that's my main point. They could have used color theory and make a good looking character, but they didn't, and they still turned out pretty awesome to me (While Drasiana thinks it looks weird.) Nothing is going to change either of our minds unless our personal taste change.

 

And on to "space fighter jets should not be wider than they are long"

Even if that were true (Look at figher jets online, find me a single fighter jet that is longer long wise than it is wider. And i'm not talking about by mere centimeters.) it still comes down to taste as its a fantasy world.

 

Design has, and probably will always be personal taste. I personally like the assault models, and if you don't, nothing will change that. And nothing will change what I think of them no matter how many theories are brought up.

 

5. Personalities-The fun one XD

Looking back, I don't think this should be an issue. When it comes to personality, we shouldn't compare it to a past game. There are different writers for each game last I heard, and each do something different with fox and the team. Meaning it's theme based, or the writers gave themself a reason for why they act that way.

So the question here is which do you like more, Assault personalities, or 64 personalities? I personally like Assaults more, and I can understand 64's personality (Just not a fan of it)

 

6. Fox needing to be reminded to blow up the aparoid queen- (Odd how this was mentioned)

Put yourself in fox's shoes, your dead father is talking to you. Do you just ignore it and attack? Or do you sit there, perhaps confused and comprehend everything that is being said. He was going to attack her eventually, but they needed to make Wolf's advice a thing in the story (And it is something that would snap someone out of a thought process)

(And by the way, the "When the time comes, just act" happens before the fight with the aparoid queen. She isn't vulnerable or disabled. The aparoid queen tries to sweet talk them first, then when Fox snaps out of it is when he goes on the assault and attacks the aparoid queen, breaks her armor, then shoots the bomb inside her without hesitation.)

 

7.Pigma-

Guess Pigma means more to you than me. I see Pigma as nothing more than a greedy, untrustworthy swine (Pun intended) Sure Pigma killed his dad, but its not like it was a giant master plan. He shot him in the back (That doesn't win any points for me) Pigma's not a good guy, he's greedy, selfish, and un-honorable (Which is why he was kicked out of starwolf) He's most likely a wanted war criminal and traitor to the Cornarian army, not wanted by Andross's new troops, not wanted by Starwolf. So what's there for him to do? I guess he could have tried to get revenge, but I don't see Pigma as a revenge driven kinda guy (Not that he's the one to talk about revenge in the first place considering what he's done)

 

8. Linear- (The other fun one)

We were talking about 2 different kinds of linearity, so lets explain them both.

When most people talk about a game being linear, they talk about hall way games with not many areas to explore. And with starfox assault ground sections being open world on the ground, it's impossible to be linear. Boring sure, but not linear.

 

Now on to starfox 64. Take away the backgrounds and just make it literally a hall way (Like the last level) It's basically a straight box with a hidden path you can take if you can take if you do a scripted event. Now this leads to other levels to beat the story going through different levels. (And the levels look good so that's a bonus)

 

Now then, the same will be said about assaults air places except there isn't any branching hall ways leading to an alternate ending. Weather this is a good thing or not is debatable as this is where people will differ. Does one prefer a level where you have 2 or 3 different endings in a 7 level story? Or do you want one long story that holds all the levels? (I personally think its on mood. Starfox 64 if I just wanna play through levels, or if I'm gonna be sitting down for a while, I'll play assault. I like them both greatly)

 

9. Bill/Katt-

Assault could have had them as a fun Easter egg. But if they weren't going to add any added background story, then its just that, an Easter egg (Or fan-service) If they were just gonna be there for the sake of being there, then it woulda been a waste of money for concept arts, 3D model, and the voice actor. If they added more back story? Then I would have enjoyed their inclusion (Bill being at the orbital gate and Corneria and Katt being in the asteroid belt/the hideout all seem fitting) (And more multiplayer characters)

 

So I'm not against them being in (Nor did I say it was a good thing they weren't in), but I personally don't mind their absence because I personally don't care for either one at the moment.

 

10. "She tried to bypass evolution by stealing souls...but you have to be born with one" Quote

A machine wanted to have a soul by stealing souls. But no matter how many souls you take, you'll never have a soul for yourself.

 

There's nothing more to say about that. Is it a good lesson? Probably not (Doesn't apply to humans either, at most a future AI will see this and not try to steal our souls DX as it's already been determined that it can't happen DX). Is it creepy in a certain context? Sure. I'm not saying its good, bad, awkward, evil, or anything. Literally just translating the line as basic as I possible can.

 

 

And for a reply...

"also lmao @ IF YOU AND EVERYONE YOU KNOW DON'T ACT LIKE A MELODRAMATIC VIDEO GAME FOX, YOU MUST BE SUPER SHELTERED."

 

You don't have to act like fox... I don't even know where that came from. But Fox's act isn't much different from actual leaders that's been doing leading for a while (In fact, fox is rather tame compared to some of them) And these are people that back when they were green (Another way of saying they are new to war) were quite different. Then they got a taste of war and changed into a not so fun person who has ALLOT of responsibility with allot of people's lives depending on them. Since you don't seem to understand a personality change like that, then I will assume that you are sheltered by civilization and don't understand war (Which isn't a bad thing)

[Drasiana]

You don't have to act like fox... I don't even know where that came from. But Fox's act isn't much different from actual leaders that's been doing leading for a while (In fact, fox is rather tame compared to some of them) And these are people that back when they were green (Another way of saying they are new to war) were quite different. Then they got a taste of war and changed into a not so fun person who has ALLOT of responsibility with allot of people's lives depending on them. Since you don't seem to understand a personality change like that, then I will assume that you are sheltered by civilization and don't understand war (Which isn't a bad thing)

 

Like, yeah, people do go through personal growth and change after becoming burdened with responsibilities in horrible situations, I'm not denying that, I'm saying that in the context of a game about talking cartoon space animals where none of this is ever mentioned it's a really nonsensical thing to apply to the title character. Fox McCloud isn't a real person, he's a video game character who only exists when we perceive him. It's the writer's responsibility to show us his character development, and preferably in a way that accentuates the theme of the story being told. When you're putting grizzled, war-hardened Fox in front of a monkey yelling "it's secret weapon time!", a dude in a pink jumpsuit with a sexy Miss Piggy decal on his ship, and an incompetent frog, there's an awful lot of detrimental tonal dissonance. Even if your "Fox changed because of war!" thing was anything other than a headcanon, it's still a bizarre and inappropriate writing choice that clashes with not only the rest of the series, but half of the characters in the game itself.

 

For what it's worth, Peppy actually had something resembling a character arc that sort of did touch on these themes but nobody ever mentions that, it's always just trying to excuse Fox's sudden character 180 instead of complimenting something the game may have done right in textual canon.

 

If you're going to call me sheltered, I'm going to call you someone whose understanding of humanity is filtered entirely through mediocre video games.

[Pharaoh Shadon]

Like, yeah, people do go through personal growth and change after becoming burdened with responsibilities in horrible situations, I'm not denying that, I'm saying that in the context of a game about talking cartoon space animals where none of this is ever mentioned it's a really nonsensical thing to apply to the title character. Fox McCloud isn't a real person, he's a video game character who only exists when we perceive him. It's the writer's responsibility to show us his character development, and preferably in a way that accentuates the theme of the story being told. When you're putting grizzled, war-hardened Fox in front of a monkey yelling "it's secret weapon time!", a dude in a pink jumpsuit with a sexy Miss Piggy decal on his ship, and an incompetent frog, there's an awful lot of detrimental tonal dissonance. Even if your "Fox changed because of war!" thing was anything other than a headcanon, it's still a bizarre and inappropriate writing choice that clashes with not only the rest of the series, but half of the characters in the game itself.

 

For what it's worth, Peppy actually had something resembling a character arc that sort of did touch on these themes but nobody ever mentions that, it's always just trying to excuse Fox's sudden character 180 instead of complimenting something the game may have done right in textual canon.

 

If you're going to call me sheltered, I'm going to call you someone whose understanding of humanity is filtered entirely through mediocre video games.

 

Then you understand change like that, so you're not sheltered. (If you would have just said that in the first place, then all would have been good DX

 

 "whose understanding of humanity is filtered entirely through mediocre video games." I applied real life to the video game, not the other way around (I was mainly saying that IF the writers had a reason for fox's personality being different from the past, then it is most likely that) And if you say my understanding of humanity is filtered through a video game, and you say basically what I said on that topic in real life, then by that logic, you are also filtered by mediocre video games.

 

ANYWAY, considering you didn't reply to anything else, I'll assume that all is good/agreed with in regards to those topics

[Drasiana]

I honestly didn't read the rest of your post because it's ass o'clock in the morning right now and I'm tired of thinking but I'll get to that eventually maybe I dunno

 

And if you say my understanding of humanity is filtered through a video game, and you say basically what I said on that topic in real life, then by that logic, you are also filtered by mediocre video games.

 

that was kind of the point I was making dude. the whole "if you're [x], i'm [x]" dealio

[Scourge]

*clicks open thread*

 

>War between vets and nubbies

> /rage

64 was superior in every way.

Assault was a walk back to form from a drastically different  previous iteration.

 

2 cents dispensed.

 

*closes thread*

[Faisul]

SFAs is a video game about a talking fox in a space ship that shoots things. Occasionally he shoots things running around on the ground. And sometimes when he's in a tank. The fox does this because bugs come from outer space. They interrupt a monkey's mid-life crisis, and proceed to make a ruckus. The bugs turn not-bugs into more bugs. A pig turns from a not-bug into a bug because of reasons. Then the fox stops them, including the bug pig, by first shooting the bug pig, and then shooting the big bug mommy. There are a lot of nonsensical, melodramatic quips throughout. That's the story.

 

The developers mashed images from the past half century of science fiction together into a barely coherent string of events and faint hints of characterisation in order to link separate levels of gameplay into something resembling a narrative, like most games do. I say "faint hints" because actual characterisation involves more than flagging characters as "incompetent frog", "cocky bird", and "d'eanna troi, but blue", but I digress. This is not what made people think SFAs was a bad game, by the way. I myself merely think it's a mediocre game. And it's not because of the story. 

 

There is nothing in this game's narrative that resembles character development. Characters say things to tutorialize, guide the player, or comment on whatever game mechanic or environmental obstacle the developers have put there for you to blow up for fun. The story is there to give the illusion that there is a deeper reason as to why you shoot things beyond simple enjoyment, which is important for some people to fully enjoy the game. But they're not playing the game for the narrative, unless they are 12, or haven't read a book before.

 

Certainly the game would be devoid of many of the things that initially made me buy it as a teenager if the story was taken out. But if it was, and replaced with a completely different story, or released today as an indie game that had no narrative or anything to do with Star Fox, it would not be better or worse for it. Because the Star Fox stuff that's wrapped around the game is just that, wrapping.

 

This is why people say there is no character development, because there isn't. Whatever bizarre moral statement Fox made about souls and evolution after blowing up the big bug mommy, it doesn't have anything to do with him as a character having realized anything, learned from his experiences, and changed as a person. It's put there because the developers wanted to use symbols and tropes from the history of stories in their game to make it feel familiar and welcoming to an audience familiar with the storytelling tradition of our species.

Here's the chain of events that we have all seen from countless stories before, and that the developers were parroting in SFAs: Protagonist meets antagonist (fox meets the bug queen) --> Antagonist makes a last-ditch effort to weaken the protagonist's resolve in order to strike them down while they're confused (in this case, by mimicking Fox's father) --> The protagonist sees through the antagonist's ploy and defeats the antagonist --> the experience results in an epiphany or realization for the protagonist (here, Fox's silly blurb about souls and bypassing evolution). From this it would seem that Fox does indeed develop over the course of at least this encounter.

However, in stories that we think are great, we recognize that the protagonist developed over the course of the entire story, from "once upon a time" to "happily ever after", because we can understand the steps the character took on the path from being one kind of person, to another, kind of similar, but better and more admirable person. The experiences, however outlandish and epic, are something we can understand, and we can also understand the protagonist's reactions to them.

 

We know for example that Luke Skywalker is a naïve farm boy because he has lived all his life on a farm. This makes sense.

 

When he meets Obi-Wan, who trains him, and reveals the epic nature of the battle between good and evil going on outside of Luke's little world to him, he becomes a little more wise, but is still a young boy in outlook and demeanor. This we understand.

 

He changes again when he finally understands that Darth Vader is not just an evil man and the cause of much of his suffering, but also his father. This knowledge matures him but also makes him suffer. Suffering leads to maturity. This we understand.

 

After much hardship, further suffering, and development into an adult, he is almost seduced by the Emperor's promise of immense power (and being united with his father). Luke narrowly rejects giving into evil and proves to us that the farm boy has become a true Jedi Knight by not only rejecting Sin but also by redeeming his father, who kills the Emperor to protect his son. Luke's journey is complete.

 

This is the kind of story humans have been enjoying and can relate to since long before the pyramids were built. This is character development.

 

In SFAs, Fox blows up a bug that is bad at pretending to be his dad. After that, he farts out some stupid shit about souls and evolution from his mouth. That's not character development. That's the developers pretending that there is character development in their game. That's the developers (quite ineptly, I might add) pasting some fragments from stories like Star Wars into the very end of the game (not at the beginning, not in the middle, not in the places where it would actually work in creating a narrative) in order to tickle, to trick, really, the parts of our brains that recognize stories into thinking that there is one in the game. SFAs tries to pretend that it has "once upon a time" and "happily ever after" when all there ever really is to it is "bugs here, shoot them. This is fun." 

 

You might think there is character development in this game, but that's because you want there to be one, because you've interpreted it that way out of the empty symbols in the game and the symbols you've made in your imagination about the game. But there is no character development evident in the text, because there aren't any, there doesn't need to be any, and that's what the developers seemed to forget half-way into making the game, so we got pretentious soul evolution bullshit instead because that's what the animes do and by golly they sell a lot over in Japan.

E: but by all means if you want to weave personal significance into something that has very little significance, you are perfectly free to do so. Just don't cite the meaning SFAs holds for you privately as gospel. 

[Faisul]

TL; DR: