Jump to content

What makes Star Fox fun?


GameMasterGuy

Recommended Posts

I decided to give in and download SF2, and it seemed to be missing something from SF and SF64. Even when flying down a hallway, it seemed too different from the other two. But what was it? I've decided to try and put together a list of things that make Star Fox, well, Star Fox.

-Potential of evasive maneuvers. In too many flying rail shooters, if you don't shoot something, it will crash into you. In Star Fox, the Arwing is very maneuverable, and there's more to the hallway than the camera can all see at once. SF2 does this very well, and even more so thanks to all range maneuvering.

-Sense of danger from projectiles. Think of any enemy, boss, turret, or boss fragment from SF64. None try to ram into you; that's a job for gates and such. In SF64, Star Wolf was shooting at you or trying to get into a suitable position to do so. In SF2, they sort of wander randomly. In SF64, enemies shoot at you. In SF2, half of them just get in the way, and there's more obstacles than enemies.

-Harder to get hit, easier to take damage. SF64's Solar is an exception. In SF64, your arwing can take quite a beating, but has some cheap enemies (namely gunship guards). In SF and SF64, the Arwing couldn't handle much, and its wings were more vulnerable. Enemies were easy to destroy, however, and their movement was slow.

-You are the leader. This was poorly done in SF2, as not only could you play as other characters, but nobody asks you for help.

-There's more objectives than just winning. Pepper coins in SF2 do this well, but flying through gates and rings in SF and SF64 seems more natural.

-Fast pace. SF2 actually does this better than the other two; the walker transformation seems to be much faster than the landmaster, and the only bosses that drag on are the Star Wolf enemies.

-Some variety, but limited. All three do this well, but SF2 the best.

-Enemies look vulnerable, but bosses menacing. 2 doesn't do this as well as SF64, but better than the original.

-Simplicity. The power ups in 2 are borderline complicated, but I guess the lack of wing damage/ repair, lack of health rings, and no 1-ups make up for it.

Anyone want to add to it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great gameplay, music, and fun characters.

I'm waiting for someone to use "it has Krystal in it" >.>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm waiting for someone to use "it has Krystal in it" >.>

Which is exactly what I'm going to say. :)

After joining the KLA back in late 2007 I've gotten back into the series because of her. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which is exactly what I'm going to say. :)

After joining the KLA back in late 2007 I've gotten back into the series because of her. :P

Same here!

Only I didn't join the KLA, I came in via the KA

and it wasn't in 2007, it was 2010

and really I only can be with ya on the final part (getting back into the series on account of :krystal:)

But other than that, we're like twins!! :friends: :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^LOL I love that. Still haven't played SF2 yet. I like SF64 the best because it was easier to control your ship. In SF the D-Pad just didn't give you enough control. I'd often run into things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I decided to give in and download SF2, and it seemed to be missing something from SF and SF64. Even when flying down a hallway, it seemed too different from the other two. But what was it? I've decided to try and put together a list of things that make Star Fox, well, Star Fox.

-Potential of evasive maneuvers. In too many flying rail shooters, if you don't shoot something, it will crash into you. In Star Fox, the Arwing is very maneuverable, and there's more to the hallway than the camera can all see at once. SF2 does this very well, and even more so thanks to all range maneuvering.

-Sense of danger from projectiles. Think of any enemy, boss, turret, or boss fragment from SF64. None try to ram into you; that's a job for gates and such. In SF64, Star Wolf was shooting at you or trying to get into a suitable position to do so. In SF2, they sort of wander randomly. In SF64, enemies shoot at you. In SF2, half of them just get in the way, and there's more obstacles than enemies.

-Harder to get hit, easier to take damage. SF64's Solar is an exception. In SF64, your arwing can take quite a beating, but has some cheap enemies (namely gunship guards). In SF and SF64, the Arwing couldn't handle much, and its wings were more vulnerable. Enemies were easy to destroy, however, and their movement was slow.

-You are the leader. This was poorly done in SF2, as not only could you play as other characters, but nobody asks you for help.

-There's more objectives than just winning. Pepper coins in SF2 do this well, but flying through gates and rings in SF and SF64 seems more natural.

-Fast pace. SF2 actually does this better than the other two; the walker transformation seems to be much faster than the landmaster, and the only bosses that drag on are the Star Wolf enemies.

-Some variety, but limited. All three do this well, but SF2 the best.

-Enemies look vulnerable, but bosses menacing. 2 doesn't do this as well as SF64, but better than the original.

-Simplicity. The power ups in 2 are borderline complicated, but I guess the lack of wing damage/ repair, lack of health rings, and no 1-ups make up for it.

Anyone want to add to it?

It's creativity,I mean,COME ON! Who would've thought up a team of anthropomorphic animals fighting a robot/brain ape scientist with a SOBER MIND!?

It's Story,although I'm gonna get crap for this,but If we fixed it up a little,we could finally have a rock-solid StarFox series.

The Characters,no,not their backstories,we NEED to work on that,but their personalities. The way they act is SO AMAZING,and Falco's Ne York Accent couldn't have been done better.

The style,it embodies Sci-Fi in all aspects.

That's why I've enjoyed the series.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I decided to give in and download SF2, and it seemed to be missing something from SF and SF64. Even when flying down a hallway, it seemed too different from the other two. But what was it? I've decided to try and put together a list of things that make Star Fox, well, Star Fox.

-Potential of evasive maneuvers. In too many flying rail shooters, if you don't shoot something, it will crash into you. In Star Fox, the Arwing is very maneuverable, and there's more to the hallway than the camera can all see at once. SF2 does this very well, and even more so thanks to all range maneuvering.

-Sense of danger from projectiles. Think of any enemy, boss, turret, or boss fragment from SF64. None try to ram into you; that's a job for gates and such. In SF64, Star Wolf was shooting at you or trying to get into a suitable position to do so. In SF2, they sort of wander randomly. In SF64, enemies shoot at you. In SF2, half of them just get in the way, and there's more obstacles than enemies.

-Harder to get hit, easier to take damage. SF64's Solar is an exception. In SF64, your arwing can take quite a beating, but has some cheap enemies (namely gunship guards). In SF and SF64, the Arwing couldn't handle much, and its wings were more vulnerable. Enemies were easy to destroy, however, and their movement was slow.

-You are the leader. This was poorly done in SF2, as not only could you play as other characters, but nobody asks you for help.

-There's more objectives than just winning. Pepper coins in SF2 do this well, but flying through gates and rings in SF and SF64 seems more natural.

-Fast pace. SF2 actually does this better than the other two; the walker transformation seems to be much faster than the landmaster, and the only bosses that drag on are the Star Wolf enemies.

-Some variety, but limited. All three do this well, but SF2 the best.

-Enemies look vulnerable, but bosses menacing. 2 doesn't do this as well as SF64, but better than the original.

-Simplicity. The power ups in 2 are borderline complicated, but I guess the lack of wing damage/ repair, lack of health rings, and no 1-ups make up for it.

Anyone want to add to it?

It's creativity,I mean,COME ON! Who would've thought up a team of anthropomorphic animals fighting a robot/brain ape scientist with a SOBER MIND!?

It's Story,although I'm gonna get crap for this,but If we fixed it up a little,we could finally have a rock-solid StarFox series.

The Characters,no,not their backstories,we NEED to work on that,but their personalities. The way they act is SO AMAZING,and Falco's Ne York Accent couldn't have been done better.

The style,it embodies Sci-Fi in all aspects.

That's why I've enjoyed the series.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah...its foxes! :lol:

Yes, sir.

I've gotten back into the series because of her. :P

What a shame :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's creativity,I mean,COME ON! Who would've thought up a team of anthropomorphic animals fighting a robot/brain ape scientist with a SOBER MIND!?

It's Story,although I'm gonna get crap for this,but If we fixed it up a little,we could finally have a rock-solid StarFox series.

The Characters,no,not their backstories,we NEED to work on that,but their personalities. The way they act is SO AMAZING,and Falco's Ne York Accent couldn't have been done better.

The style,it embodies Sci-Fi in all aspects.

That's why I've enjoyed the series.

Well the premise of Starfox being a team of anthros flying through space isn't really all that original. Look at Bucky O'Hare. That was almost the same basis and that came out just before Starfox.

As for the story, It depends on which Starfox we're talking about.

SF1 and 2 didn't really have much of a story but the story wasn't as much a concern as playability.

SF64 had a good story, though it summed it all up before the game started.

Adventures and Assault was littered with plotholes that could be fixed

Command is just . . . ugh.

Character wise, There's only one character that desperately needs a better, if any, backstory (Krystal)

And style? Well, of course it embodies sci-fi. Characters flying spacecraft, fighting an army of alien forces plotting to take over and possibly destroy the galaxy, all while taking place in futuristic metropolises and barren wastelands: That's Sci-fi for ya.

Oh! I forgot. What makes it fun for me, at least in 64, was the smooth gameplay and campy, cheesy dialogue. And the voice acting in 64 was good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I liked the voice acting in SF64 too. The only person I COULD NOT stand, (Well, I can now.) is Slippy. Was he voiced by a girl?! 'Cuz it sure sounded like that!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So basically,

-What I siad

-Easy controls

-Good music

-Good characters

Anything else?

Yes. It has anthros and it takes place IN SPACE!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me, Star Fox is fun because it has almost all the things that make every other space shooter fun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Star Fox was really the first game series to get 3D space shooting 100% down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Star Fox was really the first game series to get 3D space shooting 100% down.

The Star Wars arcade game would like to have a word with you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Star Wars arcade game would like to have a word with you.

Lol, this one, right?

starwarsarcade2468x.jpg

I played it loooooong time ago thanks to MAME. I think It was made in the year 1983, ten years before the original Star Fox.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...