Not every game has to be Star Fox 64

[PieMan24601]

I don’t understand some things about the fandom here in the starfox community. One of the most annoying things to me is how it seems that everyone has this creepy obsession with star fox 64. I love the game, it was a very important part of my childhood and has influenced me greatly. I know it inside and out and I beat it often in single play sessions whenever I get the chance to

 

HOWEVER that being said, I notice the same criticism all the time when i look at the other games in the series.

 

People are CONSTANTLY comparing the other games in the franchise to star fox 64. I can understand why obviously and to an extent its fine for point of reference and what not, but I mean comparing and saying things like "it’s not like 64, so it’s not good." or "it’s too different from 64." this ticks me off

 

the other games, news flash, are NOT star fox 64. I think something that we need to appreciate about the star fox series is that each of the games are trying something different, and even if they dont work or even if you dont think they are good, it’s still its own thing. And even if it is trying something similar to 64, it’s still not and still cannot be 64, it is its own game.

 

I get frustrated when fans only critique of a game in the star fox series is that its "not like star fox 64" and i think this holds the series back.

 

I guess the point i am trying to make here is i am tired of people being so opposed to something new. this isn’t just a starfox fandom problem, it’s a big problem with the gaming industry, but i feel like a lot of people are honestly wanting the next game to be just like 64 or they think it won’t be good.

 

I think the franchise has introduced many awesome mechanics that wont get to shine because of fans whining and shooting them down

 

-being able to get out of the arwing and have the freedom to change vehicles

-having a top down overview of an entire system or planet that allows for tactical positioning and rpg elements

-melee combat and fantastical elements like magic and telepathy (even star trek has these)

-ground combat, out of vehicle combat

 

it seems like a waste for these ideas to be shot down when they have potential to be developed into something awesome. Sure the games they were introduced in may not be your favorite, and may not be the best games, but the ideas are still interesting and worth looking into. Heck even new ideas would be awesome to add to the identity of each game.

 

I feel like the heavy emphasis on sf64 limits creativity and is not healthy for growth of the series. yes it irks me that the series is constantly changing, but i would rather play a constantly changing series instead of star fox 64 over and over. Its why i am worried that the wii u game might just be some rehash nostalgia pondering game that doesn’t try anything new in terms of gameplay, and doesn’t try to continue the story by telling us what the real ending to command is. (or something like that it doesn’t have to do exactly that)

 

Don’t get me wrong, we shouldn’t forget star fox 64, it should be a standard for the quality and feel of the flying in a starfox game, but I don’t think we need to hold onto it so dearly with such a hostile grip. There were areas needing improvement and areas that were perfect, it has both obviously.

 

Now I look forward to hearing all of your thoughts, please tell me why I am wrong and such, it’s great to hear.

 

Its just an opinion that’s been bothering me for some time, and if you don’t agree I don’t care, and neither should you, these are opinions for the sake of discussion and they dont really matter in the grand scheme of things, Nintendo will do whatever the frak it wants regardless.

 

[Joseph.]

I agree with you! Star Fox 64 is a great game and there's so much the series can do without the need of following the star fox 64 model. It's really the story and narrative of other star fox games that hit the fans. For example, people here like Command & Assault but we all agree its story telling was terrible. We usually compare it to Star Fox 64's story because it was simple and easy to understand

[Drasiana]

idk if you're subposting people on this forum with this or if this is just a general statement but

 

I agree that "not EXACTLY like 64 always and forever" is a dumb and bad criticism but it's also one I haven't seen in a while, and acting like every criticism where 64 is used as a positive example is just a bunch of nerd babies whining that the games aren't 64 clones is a gross oversimplification of the points we're actually trying to make. When we say that things in SFU should be more like 64 we don't necessarily mean "it needs to be 64: 2", but more stuff like "I hope it follows the example 64 set with its extremely tight level pacing".

[Giladen]

-being able to get out of the arwing and have the freedom to change vehicles

 

Poorly used gimmick. Especially when you are playing errand boy for dinosaurs.

 

-melee combat and fantastical elements like magic and telepathy (even star trek has these)

 

Melee combat has yet to be properly handled. Magic was shoehorned from Dinosaur Planet. Also, Krystal's telepathy was an asspull.

 

-ground combat, out of vehicle combat

 

 

Again, poorly used gimmick.

 

Anyway, Star Fox declined after 64. No matter how much the apologists make excuses for it (see Emily Rogers), SF games after 64 kept avoiding expectations. Unsurprisingly, SF is now stuck in a rut.

[NovaPhoenyx]

You put it into words! 

[Arminius H O Fiddywinks]

Edit: Although I agree, with most of what you're saying, the posts below me make me question your sanity.

[ArwingFan]

The problem with the newer games isn't "not being 64", they have their own set of flaws that doesn't stem being different. When most people say they want the new game to be like 64, they're really wanting it to be good like 64.

[Ori]

It's easy to see your point about not needing things to be mass produced uniformly and terribly the same over and over again, but there's a basic truth about gaming nature that

[DZComposer]

The number of people calling for Star Fox to be a strictly on-rails flying shooter forever and always are few. However, Star Fox should always be primarily about vehicle combat. Foot-based combat shooters with available vehicles have become dime-a-dozen since Battlefield 1942 popularized the idea. Star Fox is not Halo and I don't think the series benefits at all from going that direction. It will get compared with games like Halo and when it doesn't stand up to the established mechanics of those games, it will be ignored. Nintendo does best when they make unique games. Star Fox has its identity surrounded by space vehicles. It really needs to stick to it.

Now, to your point about "magical elements." Magic is something that does exist in many sci-fi series, though often called something other than magic. Probably the most famous example is Star Wars' The Force. However, for this to work, the magic needs to be part of the universe. Neither Star Fox Adventures nor any game that followed it ever tried to make magic part of the Star Fox universe. In SFAd, it was just there. Remember, SFAd was supposed to be its own IP, not part of Star Fox. Then Nintendo made Rare turn it into a Star Fox game. To avoid having to remake the game from scratch, Fox had to lose all of his high-tech stuff and use a magic stick instead. That doesn't fit the universe, however. Without the time to properly integrate it, all Rare could do was hang a lampshade using a couple of lines of dialog("This is about saving the planet, not blowing it up. Use your head. Herp Derp.").

The RTS elements in Star Fox Command added nothing to the experience. Plus, they weren't really that good. You didn't really need strategy so what was the point? Also, Star Fox has always been about fast-paced action, not strategy. Strategy slows things waaay down as it requires the player to stop and think several moves ahead. If you can't see why many Star Fox fans wouldn't want this major of a change to the formula, then I really don't know what to say.

[PieMan24601]

The number of people calling for Star Fox to be a strictly on-rails flying shooter forever and always are few. However, Star Fox should always be primarily about vehicle combat. Foot-based combat shooters with available vehicles have become dime-a-dozen since Battlefield 1942 popularized the idea. Star Fox is not Halo and I don't think the series benefits at all from going that direction. It will get compared with games like Halo and when it doesn't stand up to the established mechanics of those games, it will be ignored. Nintendo does best when they make unique games. Star Fox has its identity surrounded by space vehicles. It really needs to stick to it.

Now, to your point about "magical elements." Magic is something that does exist in many sci-fi series, though often called something other than magic. Probably the most famous example is Star Wars' The Force. However, for this to work, the magic needs to be part of the universe. Neither Star Fox Adventures nor any game that followed it ever tried to make magic part of the Star Fox universe. In SFAd, it was just there. Remember, SFAd was supposed to be its own IP, not part of Star Fox. Then Nintendo made Rare turn it into a Star Fox game. To avoid having to remake the game from scratch, Fox had to lose all of his high-tech stuff and use a magic stick instead. That doesn't fit the universe, however. Without the time to properly integrate it, all Rare could do was hang a lampshade using a couple of lines of dialog("This is about saving the planet, not blowing it up. Use your head. Herp Derp.").

The RTS elements in Star Fox Command added nothing to the experience. Plus, they weren't really that good. You didn't really need strategy so what was the point? Also, Star Fox has always been about fast-paced action, not strategy. Strategy slows things waaay down as it requires the player to stop and think several moves ahead. If you can't see why many Star Fox fans wouldn't want this major of a change to the formula, then I really don't know what to say.

 

 

I think you are completely missing the point and this comment illustrates the exact problems I am talking about.

 

You are too afraid of change. The point im making here is that star fox is becoming like sonic. it introduces a new mechanic and instead of growing that mechanic and trying to work it into something fun and good, it scraps it out of fear that fans will flip out and hate it.

 

Also when you said "The number of people calling for Star Fox to be a strictly on-rails flying shooter forever and always are few. However, Star Fox should always be primarily about vehicle combat." Is an incredibly stupid statement, and is disprooved by your own existance, the fact that after saying "The number of people calling for Star Fox to be a strictly on-rails flying shooter forever and always are few."  followed immediatley by "Star Fox should always be primarily about vehicle combat." you in one sentace perfectly illustrated my problems with the star fox fandom and the obsession with 64.

 

Also if star fox decides to try something different like strategy we should welcome it with open arms. Games trying new things and genres all together can create some amazing experiences that help break up the similarities between games. It gives each game a distinct identity. The problem im trying to show is that people are opposed to change with star fox because 64 was an on rails space shooter and therefore for some reason the future games can NEVER deviate from this path in any way at all.

 

Who CARES if the new elements are not good for the series, if its attempted and doesnt work then they either need to figure out how to get it to work or they just wont do it next time thats all. If you dont try something you can never see what it could bring about. also command was on a friggin nintendo ds, its not on a home console, and if there is ever a good place to experiment its on a handheld.

 

also your lack of imagination on trying to figure out a way to impliment the elements of magic and the fantastic such as telepathy and the staff really is dissapointing. even if star fox adventures was never meant to be a star fox game it doesnt mean that its not a star fox game because it is. Good storytelling can make these elements fit naturally into the star fox universe, and for fraks sake star fox is a game featuring anthromorphic animals flying spacships it can have fantastical elements to it.

[Xortberg]

Who CARES if the new elements are not good for the series, 

 

Oh, I dunno. Maybe fans of good Star Fox games? 

[PieMan24601]

It's easy to see your point about not needing things to be mass produced uniformly and terribly the same over and over again, but there's a basic truth about gaming nature that

>people find a painful-hard time accepting changes-- Especially if they are inconsistent or

>based on gimmicks. If you're not upgrading or changing the graphics quality or style, then you're in for some problems. (DISCLAIMER: While there are many things I digress about with Game Theorists, they do have a point in those two occasions)

 

In my opinion SF followers have been traumatized so to speak by the series' role as being a gimmick scapegoat. Nintendo tries to apply basically every gimmick up their sleeves into a single game. "MOTION CONTROLS! TOUCH SCREENS! Extremely awkward extra systems that we forgot for how many! *ding*" and this is why many SF fans see a PTSD trigger whenever people say that the next SF game needs to keep fresh away from the SF64 formula.

 

Here's the kicker: The SF64 formula works. While being a basic and not so complex method, it manages to get people engaged playing and gives them the opportunity to enjoy a straightforward game experience. Branching paths? Good. Local multiplayer? Very good. Breaking away the formula to make things turn into a reskin of a Zelda clone? Kill it. Asspull endings and horribly downplayed decision power that gives no golden ending where things turn out the best for everyone? Exterminate.

 

The further SF games tried to apply all the gimmicks you cited there. Except they made them fall down a cesspit of absolutely streptococcal quality. We all know the Holy Grail of the SF series would be a-- what, "STARFOX EFFECT RISING EX: THE BELKAN GROUND ZEROES REVOLUTION" or something, with engaging, deep story where player choices matter and fun, well-polished gameplay aspect that is simple enough to work, but has enough elements to be entertaining and allow players to find their way.

 

The 'emphasis' you see on 64 is merely a nostalgia overload leaking out from fans, both rabid and regulars that equally liked the fun had with 64. Some go up to eleven and want the whole series to turn into a uniform thing almost exactly like 64, and other people just want the game to feel similar to it, in which case the main element of 64 was how fun it is to play. It aged well, but there's not nearly enough in itself to compete with contemporary shooters.

 

And as for how fans react to the other games than 64, don't lay down judgement without actually seeing how many people have stuff in their defense on threads both old and... well, older on dissections about every single detail of the games. Check Rob Monroe's huge somewhat recent rant over Starfox Cubed section for reference, where he goes over almost every issue with Assault in his view.

 

Not everyone wants StarFox to turn into a clone factory. Most just wanna have fun with vidya gaems. 

 

Though of all things, yes, not every game needs to be a 64 clone, but they do need to be consistently similar. No gimmicky overload. No strings attached.

(And for the record, Command never happened, isn't happening, and will not happen. *anrgily fixes bow tie and slams blue police box door closed*)

[PieMan24601]

Reading everyone's feedback is very interesting and also very dissapointing

[PieMan24601]

PieMan24601, on 29 Mar 2015 - 1:32 PM, said:

Who CARES if the new elements are not good for the series, 

 

Oh, I dunno. Maybe fans of good Star Fox games? 

 

Oh I dunno, maybe you shouldn't take comments out of context and read the whole statement

[DZComposer]

Also when you said "The number of people calling for Star Fox to be a strictly on-rails flying shooter forever and always are few. However, Star Fox should always be primarily about vehicle combat." Is an incredibly stupid statement, and is disprooved by your own existance, the fact that after saying "The number of people calling for Star Fox to be a strictly on-rails flying shooter forever and always are few."  followed immediatley by "Star Fox should always be primarily about vehicle combat." you in one sentace perfectly illustrated my problems with the star fox fandom and the obsession with 64.

You might want to think long and hard before calling the owner the site you're posting on stupid.

I think you are completely missing the point and this comment illustrates the exact problems I am talking about.

You are too afraid of change. The point im making here is that star fox is becoming like sonic. it introduces a new mechanic and instead of growing that mechanic and trying to work it into something fun and good, it scraps it out of fear that fans will flip out and hate it.

There is a difference between adding a new mechanic and changing the formula. The forumula has been significantly changed in each game since Star Fox 64.

Also if star fox decides to try something different like strategy we should welcome it with open arms.

 

I like action games. I don't like strategy games. You're saying I should suck it up and like it if an action series I like turns into a strategy series. Complaining about such a thing is a normal human reaction.

Games trying new things and genres all together can create some amazing experiences that help break up the similarities between games. It gives each game a distinct identity. The problem im trying to show is that people are opposed to change with star fox because 64 was an on rails space shooter and therefore for some reason the future games can NEVER deviate from this path in any way at all.

The series has an identity. If you want a space-based RTS, why turn Star Fox into one rather than start a new IP?

Who CARES if the new elements are not good for the series, if its attempted and doesnt work then they either need to figure out how to get it to work or they just wont do it next time thats all. If you dont try something you can never see what it could bring about. also command was on a friggin nintendo ds, its not on a home console, and if there is ever a good place to experiment its on a handheld.

 

So you called me a hypocrite and then you dumped this on me? Please...

also your lack of imagination on trying to figure out a way to impliment the elements of magic and the fantastic such as telepathy and the staff really is dissapointing. even if star fox adventures was never meant to be a star fox game it doesnt mean that its not a star fox game because it is. Good storytelling can make these elements fit naturally into the star fox universe, and for fraks sake star fox is a game featuring anthromorphic animals flying spacships it can have fantastical elements to it.

So because I called out that Magic in Star Fox was poorly done and not integrated properly into the universe that I lack imagination. Then in the next sentence you say the same thing I said.

Also, about your last line, I suggest looking-up "Willing Suspension of Disbelief."

---

You seem to be confusing base formula changes with changing mechanics. I have no problem with changing mechanics, so long as they work. I do have a problem with completely changing the base formula every damn game. Zelda adds new mechanics with every game, but every Zelda game is still a 3rd-person dungeon adventure.

[Ori]

>implying DZ himself wouldn't like change in the stagnated series

>implying Sonic the Hedgehog series is a good comparison to SF

>implying primary stance of vehicle combat equals rails

>implying nobody cares about what happens to the series if things are to be a mechanics experiment even if they might or might not be for the best

>implying I don't want change either

>implying it's easy to concile different genres of storytelling

 

 

Did you even read anything I said? I said consistently similar. It means keeping a common ground between the series such as Ace Combat does marvelously. Not a complete copy. The first few games were about pure air combat, and literally story was a few lines into a coup d'etat and no more. Then someone said "hey, let's make it have a deep story but we don't need to change more than a few lines of code and keep the great gameplay." What happens? Ace Combat 3. Ace Combat 4. Ace Combat 5, 6, Zero, X, Infinity, and oh they know how to tell a story about pilot people persons.

 

Star Fox wasn't far off except Nintendo turned the game into their mechanics test field. It isn't a good decision because so many things trying to be experimented on should be done at beta testing of places it is relevant to be implemented.

 

Don't dare tell me "Star Fox isn't Ace Combat" since I know that fact very well. The kicker is that Ace Combat is in the same genre as StarFox dedicates towards sans the different setting. Star Fox is really close to feeling like an Ace Combat game but it lacks the elaborate, well polished and worked consistency of the series.

 

Also, would you even try taking my context when I talked change? I clearly said that branching paths and multiplayer were GOOD gimmicks, and the other were bad ones. You talk about taking statements out of context but I think you need to take some of your own advice. I recognize SF had its good moments and gimmicks, and I personally DID like a few of them, though that's beside the point.

 

"Just because something changed doesn't mean it'll be for the better."

 

3D graphics in 64 were one of the good ones, and let me remind you though, that it's converging technological evolution. Almost every game adopted advanced visuals since that time. SF might have been a pioneer since earlier ages but it doesn't make the series immune to critics. It has its flaws like anything.

 

And my remark about Command was simply a joke into how many people agree that it shouldn't have existed in first place. Either you couldn't tell or my humor is really bad.

 

SF fans want it to have the same credit as better titles and that it gets some respect. Something like Metroid, Metal Gear, Star Trek and Star Wars. They want the following to be based on more than fanon. They want the story to expand and evolve free of the shit-stained infamy of being an extremely shallow, lazy writing.

 

Let me put this simply to finish this:

 

Opinion (noun)

A personal view, attitude, or appraisal.

 

You asked for what we thought. You have to get over the fact people don't agree with you and learn to keep cool over it if you expect getting somewhere.

 

(Considering we talked potentially more sensitive subjects very prior to this, I expected better.)

[ArwingFan]

You hate on the "64 fanboy bogeyman" for hating it when the games change the formula, yet you behave the same way towards the more traditional formula. There's nothing wrong with sticking to the tried and true formula, just look at the Mario series.  People enjoy the feel and flow of these games, they want to experience new worlds and mechanics with them, with clever design they can avoid being stagnant.  Also the latter games weren't exactly that fresh, what has been done in Adventures and Salt has been done several times in other games, and Command is a spiritual successor to Starfox 2. 

[The Undying Nephalim]

I agree with a lot of what you've said. This problem extends to a lot of Nintendo's franchises, especially the Legend of Zelda and Starfox. That being said, I feel like I have a foot in the other camp as well. I'll throw out points both for your argument and against:

 

Simply shooting down new Star Fox games because they are "not like Starfox 64" is very unfair, especially when it's clearly trying to be something completely different (Adventures) or expand on the established formula (Assault).

That being said, I do feel like the problem is that Adventures and especially Assault really just don't pull off what they were trying to do very well, regardless of SF64's existence or not. Assault really has some of the wonkiest and most terrible controls for running around on foot I've ever had to deal with and it's a very fair criticism that has nothing to do with SF64's existence. The AI was insanely brain dead, I can't count how many times Aparoids simply bumped into walls and got stuck. I don't consider Assault a mediocre to bad game because it's unlike 64, I consider it low because the entire ground portion of the game really is a wonky tacked on mess that needed way more polish.

 

I feel like the game that falls into your argument most is actually Command. I still surprisingly like that game a lot and felt it was well done for a tiny DS game. It simply blows my mind that it seems like people can't wrap their brain around multiple endings when some of the biggest franchises are known for multiple endings. It's the only Starfox game that actually attempted to have character development, something virtually non existent in other titles. 

 

And now for my defense of the opposing camp:

 

People latched onto Star Fox because they liked the space combat. If you like a fast food restaurant because of their delicious cheeseburgers and suddenly they decide to start selling salads and fish instead, it's completely natural and acceptable to be put off and complain. It doesn't matter if the person is willing to accept change or not: for something as purely subjective as entertainment we all have our own personal tastes as to what brings us enjoyment. If someone loved Starfox because they loved flying around in an Arwing and shooting down ships it's completely acceptable that they'd be, in the best case scenario, offput by the sequel suddenly throwing you on the ground with a magic staff. I think people should still try the game because it actually could end up being awesome despite being so different, but if the initial "this is not what I liked this series for" reaction lingers after playing said game I think it's unfair to say a person is wrong or stubborn for having that feeling and "not embracing change." People still seem to treat entertainment, especially video games, as completely objective and don't seem to realize it's a lot like food where everyone has completely different tastes and likes certain things vs other things.

 

Yes, objectively saying a game is bad because it's different is unfair, but also saying people are stubborn and unwilling to accept change because they loved a series for something specific is also unfair.

 

 

 

[Xidphel]

WHAT'S WITH PEOPLE'S FEAR OF THE EDIT BUTTON?!

[Dr. Orange]

 

Discussion on this always seems to end in misunderstandings. Yes there are those who compare EVER FUCKING ELEMENT to SF64. There are those who argue for newer SF games that push the idea of what Starfox could be. And then there is the prime meridian of ideologies of "Why not take the good elements of SF64 and use them to replace the bad elements of the newer games? Keep pushing with a safeguard. So even though this probably won't get through any heads, I'll still make a valiant attempt into explaining why there are those who compare the newer Starfox games to the classic SF64.

 

The reason we use SF64 as a basis for a good Starfox game is because it IS a good basis for a starfox game. Good mechanics, good gameplay, easy to get into story, all the works all the works. Never have I seen, especially on this website, anyone going complete "STARFOX IS THE BEST AND EVERYTHING ELSE IS NAZI PROPAGANDA SHIT!" What a lot of us do advocate is that the newer games have focused on adding new and interesting concepts without fully or correctly incorporating them into the game. Resulting in quirky gameplay and not remarkable games. I liked Adventures. I liked it more than 64. However I cannot ignore that SF64 is a incredible game. Especially in it's design and feel. When recreated in Adventures, some of that feeling was lost. What I did get out of Adventures is a semi-complete story and some temporary but interesting gameplay mechanics (the tank driving and event timing as some example).

 

I'm not saying we should go back to SF64. I'm not saying that we should go full out change into new ideas either. What most of us don't want is a new game with complete new mechanics and extreme RPG elements with a story that rivals Charles Dickens. 

 

What we like and what, in my opinion is the best route for the game is, a simple, challenging and fun game where we shoot down enemies and have fun in the process. With a few surprises of course!

[PieMan24601]

You might want to think long and hard before calling the owner the site you're posting on stupid.

There is a difference between adding a new mechanic and changing the formula. The forumula has been significantly changed in each game since Star Fox 64.

 

I like action games. I don't like strategy games. You're saying I should suck it up and like it if an action series I like turns into a strategy series. Complaining about such a thing is a normal human reaction.

The series has an identity. If you want a space-based RTS, why turn Star Fox into one rather than start a new IP?

 

So you called me a hypocrite and then you dumped this on me? Please...

So because I called out that Magic in Star Fox was poorly done and not integrated properly into the universe that I lack imagination. Then in the next sentence you say the same thing I said.

Also, about your last line, I suggest looking-up "Willing Suspension of Disbelief."

---

You seem to be confusing base formula changes with changing mechanics. I have no problem with changing mechanics, so long as they work. I do have a problem with completely changing the base formula every damn game. Zelda adds new mechanics with every game, but every Zelda game is still a 3rd-person dungeon adventure.

 

Its very mature to threaten banning someone with an opposing opinion.

 

those kinds of changes are basically the same thing for the purpose of the analogy.

 

no, im saying you shouldnt groan and moan because a game is trying something different, nobody is forcing you to play anything, and the other games still exist. frankly, being open for different experiences might help you to enjoy more games.

 

i'd argue the series doesnt have an identity to an extent actually, all the games are different. new ips would be great to see, and if it works better as a new one that is up to the developers. We of course can debate opinions about that but that one really is more in a grey area.

 

I have no comback for this one because it makes no sense

 

actually i didnt. Misquote me all you want to feed your opinions and thoughts, but i really didnt.

 

Honestly i couldnt care less if you agree or dissagree. In the end none of it matters, nintendo will do whatever the heck they want. Our bickering doesnt do anything.

 

also if you ban me i think it would be a poor representation of your character and website. banning people because they feel strongly about something that you dont agree with is just not a good idea. I also think its stupid to get upset over this opinion because in reality, its really not hurting you or anyone else at all. its just bringing up a possible discussion.

[Dr. Orange]

Its very mature to threaten banning someone with an opposing opinion.

 

also if you ban me i think it would be a poor representation of your character and website. banning people because they feel strongly about something that you dont agree with is just not a good idea. I also think its stupid to get upset over this opinion because in reality, its really not hurting you or anyone else at all. its just bringing up a possible discussion.

 

I think the threat came from the fact that you said,

 

Also when you said "The number of people calling for Star Fox to be a strictly on-rails flying shooter forever and always are few. However, Star Fox should always be primarily about vehicle combat." Is an incredibly stupid statement, and is disprooved by your own existance, the fact that after saying "The number of people calling for Star Fox to be a strictly on-rails flying shooter forever and always are few."  followed immediatley by "Star Fox should always be primarily about vehicle combat." you in one sentace perfectly illustrated my problems with the star fox fandom and the obsession with 64.

 

I know here we have disagreeing opinions and statements but the thing is, that we all here (hopefully) give the utmost respect to others. Don't be startled when after you call an idea moronic that there won't be any personal offense or repercussions. We all have our soapboxes and microphones but when all we do is shout louder than the other it just falls on no ears since it becomes too loud. 

[PieMan24601]

>implying DZ himself wouldn't like change in the stagnated series

>implying Sonic the Hedgehog series is a good comparison to SF

>implying primary stance of vehicle combat equals rails

>implying nobody cares about what happens to the series if things are to be a mechanics experiment even if they might or might not be for the best

>implying I don't want change either

>implying it's easy to concile different genres of storytelling

 

 

Did you even read anything I said? I said consistently similar. It means keeping a common ground between the series such as Ace Combat does marvelously. Not a complete copy. The first few games were about pure air combat, and literally story was a few lines into a coup d'etat and no more. Then someone said "hey, let's make it have a deep story but we don't need to change more than a few lines of code and keep the great gameplay." What happens? Ace Combat 3. Ace Combat 4. Ace Combat 5, 6, Zero, X, Infinity, and oh they know how to tell a story about pilot people persons.

 

Star Fox wasn't far off except Nintendo turned the game into their mechanics test field. It isn't a good decision because so many things trying to be experimented on should be done at beta testing of places it is relevant to be implemented.

 

Don't dare tell me "Star Fox isn't Ace Combat" since I know that fact very well. The kicker is that Ace Combat is in the same genre as StarFox dedicates towards sans the different setting. Star Fox is really close to feeling like an Ace Combat game but it lacks the elaborate, well polished and worked consistency of the series.

 

Also, would you even try taking my context when I talked change? I clearly said that branching paths and multiplayer were GOOD gimmicks, and the other were bad ones. You talk about taking statements out of context but I think you need to take some of your own advice. I recognize SF had its good moments and gimmicks, and I personally DID like a few of them, though that's beside the point.

 

"Just because something changed doesn't mean it'll be for the better."

 

3D graphics in 64 were one of the good ones, and let me remind you though, that it's converging technological evolution. Almost every game adopted advanced visuals since that time. SF might have been a pioneer since earlier ages but it doesn't make the series immune to critics. It has its flaws like anything.

 

And my remark about Command was simply a joke into how many people agree that it shouldn't have existed in first place. Either you couldn't tell or my humor is really bad.

 

SF fans want it to have the same credit as better titles and that it gets some respect. Something like Metroid, Metal Gear, Star Trek and Star Wars. They want the following to be based on more than fanon. They want the story to expand and evolve free of the shit-stained infamy of being an extremely shallow, lazy writing.

 

Let me put this simply to finish this:

 

 

You asked for what we thought. You have to get over the fact people don't agree with you and learn to keep cool over it if you expect getting somewhere.

 

(Considering we talked potentially more sensitive subjects very prior to this, I expected better.)

 

First i congratulate you for finding some excuse to use that gif. I assume it doesnt come up often.

 

I read everything you said. i take discussion very seriously and listen with open ears to everything anyone has to say.

 

This is why i dont agree with you at all, and i really dont feel like picking apart another comment because at this point, i dont give a frak anymore.

 

The point i am trying to make is that this community doesnt seem to crituiqe star fox games for being bad or good games, but rather because they are not like star fox 64. and just because one franchise like ace combat can do something successfully doesnt mean it needs to happen for all game series. if a star fox game comes out that is heavily like star fox 64 it is logical to compare that game to 64, but the games we have now are radically different, so saying that a game is bad because the core gameplay is different  than 64 is a thought that prohibits something new and interesting being introduced.

[PieMan24601]

You hate on the "64 fanboy bogeyman" for hating it when the games change the formula, yet you behave the same way towards the more traditional formula. There's nothing wrong with sticking to the tried and true formula, just look at the Mario series.  People enjoy the feel and flow of these games, they want to experience new worlds and mechanics with them, with clever design they can avoid being stagnant.  Also the latter games weren't exactly that fresh, what has been done in Adventures and Salt has been done several times in other games, and Command is a spiritual successor to Starfox 2. 

 

please do not tell me what you do not know about me. please point to where i have complained about this, because as far as i can tell i havent said anything about that.

[PieMan24601]

 

Discussion on this always seems to end in misunderstandings. Yes there are those who compare EVER FUCKING ELEMENT to SF64. There are those who argue for newer SF games that push the idea of what Starfox could be. And then there is the prime meridian of ideologies of "Why not take the good elements of SF64 and use them to replace the bad elements of the newer games? Keep pushing with a safeguard. So even though this probably won't get through any heads, I'll still make a valiant attempt into explaining why there are those who compare the newer Starfox games to the classic SF64.

 

The reason we use SF64 as a basis for a good Starfox game is because it IS a good basis for a starfox game. Good mechanics, good gameplay, easy to get into story, all the works all the works. Never have I seen, especially on this website, anyone going complete "STARFOX IS THE BEST AND EVERYTHING ELSE IS NAZI PROPAGANDA SHIT!" What a lot of us do advocate is that the newer games have focused on adding new and interesting concepts without fully or correctly incorporating them into the game. Resulting in quirky gameplay and not remarkable games. I liked Adventures. I liked it more than 64. However I cannot ignore that SF64 is a incredible game. Especially in it's design and feel. When recreated in Adventures, some of that feeling was lost. What I did get out of Adventures is a semi-complete story and some temporary but interesting gameplay mechanics (the tank driving and event timing as some example).

 

I'm not saying we should go back to SF64. I'm not saying that we should go full out change into new ideas either. What most of us don't want is a new game with complete new mechanics and extreme RPG elements with a story that rivals Charles Dickens. 

 

What we like and what, in my opinion is the best route for the game is, a simple, challenging and fun game where we shoot down enemies and have fun in the process. With a few surprises of course!

 

I never said i didnt like 64 or that we shouldnt keep in mind what id does right. In fact i said in the intro post to this that I quite enjoy the game and it is a very important part of my life.

The point im making is simple I dont like it when people constantly compare everything to 64 and when people feel like the new games have to be just like it, or lack bacause they aren't like 64. Im not targeting people only on this website either, im saying in general starfox discussion. its  just something that irks me. i feel a lot of people missed that point...