Is Star Fox a mismanaged franchise?

[Wreckingcanon]

For a while now they released several games that had something about it or several things that made it unappealing to quite a few people.  There is not that much effort Nintendo puts into the series compared to zelda and mario.  What do you think?

[Snys93]

That's true, they don't seem to care do they? I haven't played SF:zero, but what I heard wasn't good. Nintendo is too focused on being innovative and sacrifices gameplay and story to sell it's product. They're not just behind the times, they've fallen and choose not to get up. Where is this headed? I'll tell you...

 

SEGA.

[ArwingFan]

I do feel Nintendo isn't using the franchise to its full potential. The franchise has a high ratio of scrapped games, such as SF2, the arcade game and maybe a few others. Also several games feel rushed and unpolished, sometimes undergoing development hell.

That and Star Fox is a niche franchise, it doesn't have the universal appeal that fantasy adventures or platformers have.

[Storminator]

Its definitely mismanaged, and the potential of the series is massive. I know Nintendo doesn't do this sort of thing, but Star Fox could easily have a bunch of spin-offs and expanded universe stories ala Halo, Mass Effect, Star Wars. I also think constricting the series to a single solar system rather than a galaxy spanning epic allows the locales to have more personality. I'd love to know more about the planets and characters, and there has to be more written down than the games provide us.

Gameplay wise, yeah its pretty limited... But like I said in another thread, jsut think of how Nintendo could push the series if they incorporated more modern flight game sensibilities, at for all range mode- Full 360 degree movement could really spice up boss fights!

[Shmibli7]

Yup. And don't expect it to ever make a change for the better, either. While we all may dream of a SF game with improved or different gameplay, it'll never happen. While we may speculate about the series changing hands, it'll never happen.

Why? Nintendo is a big Japanese corporation. In short, they don't care about what a handfull of Americans and Europeans think about their games and business strategy.

To be honest, at this point, I think the series is dead. Not the fanbase, mind you, but I can't see it ever coming back.

[unoservix]

On 2/6/2017 at 3:15 AM, Storminator said:

the potential of the series is massive.

is it really though

like, really...what does Star Fox bring to the table that no other sci fi pop culture colossus hasn't done already a hundred times better? 'cuz, as someone who more or less enjoys the franchise and wishes it would stop producing shitty video games, i'm not seeing what sets Star Fox apart from the likes of, say, Star Wars or Star Trek.

[Storminator]

2 hours ago, unoservix said:

is it really though

like, really...what does Star Fox bring to the table that no other sci fi pop culture colossus hasn't done already a hundred times better? 'cuz, as someone who more or less enjoys the franchise and wishes it would stop producing shitty video games, i'm not seeing what sets Star Fox apart from the likes of, say, Star Wars or Star Trek.

Ok, it probably can't reach Star Trek levels of deep, but the world and characters still has enough to be expanded. Most of the time its not what a property can do in terms of originality, but rather how well executed it is. Look at Halo- The original game borrows heavily from Aliens, the concept of a ringworld was nothing new, and badass space marines are a dime a dozen. But it did everything it did so well that it didn't matter.

Having animals as the protaganists, while mostly an inconsequential and asthetic thing, does set it apart somewhat. Little things like that that help define what this series is.

... Also yeah, good games would be nice :|

[The VGM Lover]

Nintendo never had a clear vision on the direction it wanted Star Fox to go. Star Fox is not a good franchise to make a guinea pig out of for experimentation, and since Star Fox Zero, Nintendo has not learned that. Star Fox is NOT a gameplay-before-story type of franchise. The sooner Nintendo learns that, the better the series will be.

HOWEVER, this does not mean that the series should just reduce its gameplay toward whatever seems to be the norm to focus on its story. Ace Combat? That's it's own thing. Don't make Star Fox copy it. If you ask me personally, Star Fox was, is, and always will be, the king of On-Rails. What I think Nintendo needs to do is just modernise it. Have you seen the intense motion and twists and turns often found in other franchises like Kid Icarus Uprising, or Sin and Punishment? Yes. Star Fox can do that. It just needs to HAPPEN.

[geoprimedonna]

One word: YES. And you can add other series, too: Pikmin, Metroid, F-Zero, may this list go on and on...

The big issue is the absurd quantity of "gaps" in the series that could be explores, but aren't. Star Wolf, James, Krystal, Bill... so many characters that could have a game exclusive for them. And what does Nintendo choose. Slippy.

Another thing I hate is that Nintendo always "jumps around" with developers for Starfox games. Argonaut, which is now defunct, did the first two games, the Nintendo EAD did 64. Rare did Adventures (but this change was expected, since it was an attempt to save the game "Dinosaur Planet"). Then, Namco did Assault. Namco still exists. Then, Q-Games did Command and 643D. Q-Games is still out there, and Q-Games is to Argonaut the same way Rare is to Playtonic. Bottom line: Q-Games is the best bet.

But then, a company called Platinum puts Nintendo's assets in an M-rated game without asking for rights. And they not only let it slide, but they give a whole Starfox project to them. Nice going. As a result, the most hated game in the series, Zero, was born. That is one effective way to sink a series.

Using Fox and co. as lab animals (puns Nintended) was also proved to be a bad idea. TWICE. When it comes to Starfox, you do not reset, add AU's, add alternate endings, or "ressurect". It just is. We grew up with the sharp, heroic, but friendly Fox (although we saw downfalls... Yeah.); therefore, this. Is. UN-AC-CEPT-A-BLE. People feel familiar with a specific design for a character, especially when a certain type of design begins to become a standard. When you all of a sudden change it, especially if it's a drastic change, you can be sure that a crowd of ranting fans will appear.

There is more I can argue about, but before anyone throws banhammers at me, I'll just stop here.

[Guest]

Interesting enough, there was a video I found that asks the Star Fox Community if you're "Star Foxing it wrong" and brings a different view of the argument

 

 

[Pgpaw3]

Nintendo really just needs to get to the core of what made the old Star Fox games so popular and make it in line with modern game design standards. That is where they need to start. Then they can add in other mechanics to make it more exciting as long as they fit within the game and they actually work. There is no reason they couldn't make it what people want, but for some reason they won't put the effort in to do it.

I also wouldn't be against them doing a mix of 64 and Assault, just with the Assault stuff done much better.

[Guest]

15 minutes ago, Pgpaw3 said:

Nintendo really just needs to get to the core of what made the old Star Fox games so popular and make it in line with modern game design standards.

Unfortunately though the core what made Star Fox popular in the first place was that it was an on-rail shooter game. Not only that, it had to be based on innovation (FX chip). Today, the people of Japan have really no interest with on-rail shooters games unless it's a bullet hell. (Even at the time when Star Fox first came out in 1993, the on-rail shooter genre was at it's peak at that point.) If Nintendo's homeland has no interest with a game's concept/design then they won't be sure how everyone outside of Japan would think (which is the polar opposite). To them, it's Japan first, then the world.

Sure, I like to see a new Star Fox game but the the means of doing so would be a risky move for them to even try.

[Shmibli7]

6 hours ago, Pgpaw3 said:

I also wouldn't be against them doing a mix of 64 and Assault, just with the Assault stuff done much better.

Alright, this may ruffle some feathers, but Assault is what I think the remainder of the Starfox franchise should be built around. I also don't see why people find Assault sub-par. It remains to this day my favorite installment in the franchise.

[geoprimedonna]

Frankly, I wanted to see some spinoffs, whether that is a subseries, or something totally out of the box. With Big N investing in mobile games, I really wanted to see a Pokémon Go-esque app of some sort. A fighting game or RPG would also be a good bet.

[ArwingFan]

10 hours ago, Pgpaw3 said:

Nintendo really just needs to get to the core of what made the old Star Fox games so popular and make it in line with modern game design standards. That is where they need to start. Then they can add in other mechanics to make it more exciting as long as they fit within the game and they actually work. There is no reason they couldn't make it what people want, but for some reason they won't put the effort in to do it.

I also wouldn't be against them doing a mix of 64 and Assault, just with the Assault stuff done much better.

Pretty much this, also I'd throw in some Star Fox 2 (coughEledardcough) while we're at it. I wouldn't mind another game with free roam Lylat like in Star Fox 2.

[Commander D]

 

Unfortunately though the core what made Star Fox popular in the first place was that it was an on-rail shooter game. Not only that, it had to be based on innovation (FX chip). Today, the people of Japan have really no interest with on-rail shooters games unless it's a bullet hell. (Even at the time when Star Fox first came out in 1993, the on-rail shooter genre was at it's peak at that point.) If Nintendo's homeland has no interest with a game's concept/design then they won't be sure how everyone outside of Japan would think (which is the polar opposite). To them, it's Japan first, then the world.

Sure, I like to see a new Star Fox game but the the means of doing so would be a risky move for them to even try.

Even bullet hell games aren't as relevant as Rail Shooters and my guess for it even hanging on still is due to Touhou. Other than that my speculation is that while Star Fox may of been "popular" back then, it's genre was what doomed it as after 64 the genre diminished coincidentally around the time Adventures came around. If you dont believe me i'd take a look at Sin & Punishment, I knew nothing about the game as everyone else until the Wii virtual console release but the sequel it got on the Wii was that much of a failure that it killed the series. Know that the Wii had a minor comeback of the Rail Shooter genre, but this only lasted for so long until it died off completely.

Now look at Zero and see what happened. I've seen some try to say it flopped due to the whole control gimmick or it was on a dying console, but I refuse to acknowledge those as a viable arguments as it was a year ago before it came out that Splatoon came out and was a critical success. It actually sold the WiiU and that game had gyro controls, my point is there's no reason Star Fox Zero would've flopped so bad if a game from a year ago made a system sell on top of having the same type of gimmicky controls. Yeah I know you can shut off the gyro, but you get the point hopefully.

It wasn't just Zero that flopped either, I looked back on this and noticed even 64 didn't do so well on the 3DS. It certainly did better than Zero but it never surpassed either of its previous installments but Command. I've seen some assume it was because they didn't advertise it, but i'm pretty sure they did as I have the Nintendo Power Magazine that has it as the front cover. That and seeing the banners and whatnot at the time, so really how could even an enhanced port not do well while Super Mario 64 DS and Ocarina of Time 3D outperformed it? If you wonder why i'm dragging those two in, it's because Mario, Zelda, and Star Fox on 64 were equally popular at the time.

This is where I have to say 64 was just lucky at the time, a one hit wonder to put it. Forgive me if i'm sounding cruel, but I have to blame 64 for raising the standard to a very unfair level. The bottomline;

• The genre ironically would be the series downfall as it became totally obsolete, with no way to save it
• 64 realistically was a one hit wonder as all its ports barely do as well at its original release while Mario 64 and Ocarina of Times still outdo it
• I never mentioned this one but the fact they keep using the same plot from 64 isnt helping either. Zero wasnt just hated for some gimmick, it was hated for not being new along with all the other issues it has
• As @Pgpaw3 said, going the way of Assault is the only solution, in fact Assault is criminally underrated as much as Adventures.

[Jaslazul]

Assault was good, and there's a very obvious reason for that:  it's the only time Nintendo decided from the beginning that they were going to make a Star Fox game for the sake of making a Star Fox game.

Nintendo has been trying to make innovative consoles for a long time, now:  the DS, the 3DS, the Wii, the Wii U, the Switch.  When you make something odd like that, you want to release software to demo to potential developers what your system is capable of.  For a long time, now, Nintendo has chosen to do that with Star Fox games.

Command was meant to showcase the capabilities of the dual-screen system.  SF3D was meant to showcase the 3DS's graphics.  Zero was meant to showcase the Wii U Game Pad.

Going back even farther:  Star Fox showcased the FX Chip. You can even argue, to some extent, that Star Fox 64 was meant to showcase the Rumble Pak.   Adventures was not originally meant to be a Star Fox Game and its gameplay is vastly different than the others, so I won't consider it here.

Every Star Fox game save Assault has come as the result of some new hardware or design innovation by Nintendo, and most of them were built specifically to showcase that innovation.

Unfortunately, SF: Assault did not sell well, and none of the recent titles have, either.  Part of this is due to the unpopularity of Nintendo's consoles, and that's an issue Nintendo feels they desperately need to fix (hence Zero, 643D, etc.)

[Shmibli7]

 

Assault was good, and there's a very obvious reason for that:  it's the only time Nintendo decided from the beginning that they were going to make a Star Fox game for the sake of making a Star Fox game.

 

You hit the nail on the head there. It was one of the only times StarFox tried to be anything more than one dimensional.

 

[Wreckingcanon]

 

You hit the nail on the head there. It was one of the only times StarFox tried to be anything more than one dimensional.

 

What is one dimensional supposed to mean?

[Shmibli7]

 

What is one dimensional supposed to mean?

Buddy, I think you know.

[ArwingFan]

 

What is one dimensional supposed to mean?

When referring to characters it means not having static and one note personality traits or roles.

As much as I berated the game, and to the game's credit it tried to evolve some of the characters, such as Fox and Wolf's relationship or pushing Peppy into a more fatherly figure.

[Wreckingcanon]

Many people would disagree that assault is the exception of the series regarding character depth.  Heck, a main criticism of assault is how the characters are portrayed and the voice acting.

[Shmibli7]

 

Many people would disagree that assault is the exception of the series regarding character depth.  Heck, a main criticism of assault is how the characters are portrayed and the voice acting.

And we all know that game criticism is so reliable.

[Robert Monroe]

>Assault was good, and there's a very obvious reason for that:  it's the only time Nintendo decided from the beginning that they were going to make a Star Fox game for the sake of making a Star Fox game.

lol wat

except you know 64. And Command. And Zero.

And the fact Nintendo didn't even fuckin' develop Assault, Namco did.

and the fact that no matter what the intentions are, it doesn't hold any water to the actual quality of the product

and the fact that Assault has several objective flaws to games older than it is

 

but hey what do I know I only wrote a massive analytical essay on Assault.

[LightingMan64]

 

>Assault was good, and there's a very obvious reason for that:  it's the only time Nintendo decided from the beginning that they were going to make a Star Fox game for the sake of making a Star Fox game.

lol wat

except you know 64. And Command. And Zero.

And the fact Nintendo didn't even fuckin' develop Assault, Namco did.

and the fact that no matter what the intentions are, it doesn't hold any water to the actual quality of the product

and the fact that Assault has several objective flaws to games older than it is

 

but hey what do I know I only wrote a massive analytical essay on Assault.

well then again the only in house made SF game was 64. every other SF game was made by someone else like Namco and Q-Games.