• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

New Star Fox Zero Footage, Landmaster and Walker

False dichotomy. Star Fox going back to its roots in terms of gameplay is fine. Star Fox should be doing that IMO--it's best as an on-rails shooter. It would be great to see that retained and Nintendo to actually try doing new, interesting things with the on-rail gameplay the series is known for and explore fantastic, wonderful new worlds with it.

The problem is when that doesn't occur and the game both retains that gameplay and (key word) retains the same settings from the original game from '93, with that combination leading to a feeling of "seen this before," since it's not just the gameplay, but everything that's been experienced beforehand already! Hanging onto the original gameplay is fine, but when you not only choose to not do anything interesting with it, but make people just visit the same vistas they've already gone to with them not being different in any meaningful or beneficial ways, that's where the problem is. Keeping the gameplay is fine; keeping the whole entire game from the Super Famicom and trying to act like it's some new experience that's once again worthwhile is quite another.

Within Star Fox Zero, we've already seen the following worlds or analogues of them:
Corneria (SF1) again, made from scratch to look as much like the 64 version as possible
Sector Y (SF1), same deal--the introductory segment before switching to the walker is like right out of 64.
Titania (SF1) another reused setting, this time just with a minor plot point difference
Zoness (SF 64) Same level, just with all the fun ripped out of it

And presumably since it's Lylat and Andross is the big bad again, Venom will be there as well.

That's just... way too much. It's one thing to hold onto your roots and be maintaining the same core gameplay--it's quite another to hold onto the entire game itself from 20 years ago, and hold onto not only the gameplay, but holding onto the same levels, and the same setpieces, and the same basic gameplay, and being questionable how well it even does that much in locations like Zoness.

The problem here certainly doesn't seem to be holding onto the basic gameplay--that much is fine. The problem more seems to be being unwilling to let anything from the original and N64 games go at all, regardless of what, which is a different matter entirely.

I feel like you have completely nailed my thoughts on this game. I'm an absurdly big fan of SF64 and have long felt that telling a new story with that same gameplay style is what I've been looking for. We've gone back to the same planets enough times and this will be the 3rd telling of the original Star Fox story.

I'm not looking for some deep, involved story, but something fun and campy -- perhaps a prequel series of missions where you play as James McCloud's original Star Fox team -- with new locales is what I've been waiting for.

I also am not particularly interested in the dual-screen setup. A Wiimote-aiming / nunchuk-flight control setup would have been far better IMO.

This is a likely pass for me, someone who bought a 3DS just to play SF64 all over again.
 
Have people already forgot how Pikmin 3 and Mario 3D World looked at their reveal?
If there is one developer I trust on delivering a good game it's frickin' Miyamoto.

Yeah Pikmin looked good from a distance. (Still does. From a distance.)
3D World always looked good. Some people were disappointed from content, I however liked what I saw, Catsuit and 3D Multiplayer. I can't say I'm excited for this game.
 
Apparently this game is not just doing two screens with different viewpoints, it's two screens being rendered with 720p full buffers in order to shift from the TV to the controller.

Second screen can usually be rendered in lower res, but they decided to do it fullres.

It's a stupid decision, but helps explain why it looks like shit.
 
Ugh, every time I see a screenshot of this game it looks so bad. It looks like a cheap fanboy knock-off made 10 years ago.
 
v1EPX5.gif


Dem shots tho.
 
Another Nintendo game with a gimmick that brings more compromises than benefits. Looks embarrassingly bad and the tank/land sections look uninspired and dull. If you just want a good rail shooter and dont care about graphics, go play Sin and Punishment on the Wii, hell, it looks way better too.
 
I think it looks fine on a 60fps video, nothing amazing, but nothing ugly either.

It's just that it looks so slow and uneventful. It doesn't help that I'm not a big on-rails fan.
 
One thing that doesn't make sense to me is the gamepad view. The arwing clearly goes in one direction but the gun which is supposed to be the cockpit views seems damn near near capable of aiming in all directions. Why waste all of that resource on something as nonsensical as that? How does it make sense to Miyamoto?? The cockpit doesn't rotate nor is equipped with a gunner of that type. Why doesn't the ship go along with the cockpit??
 
I can understand several of the critics here; sure the game does not look impressive and it is a shame that it recycles some assets from Star Fox 64 3D. It is going to be the great problem of the game, but I hope they'll polish the graphics all they can anyway. With that said...

I think it's curious that those who watch the gameplay from home find it slow, boring and easy, but those who have actually played the demo say that they felt overwhelmed by the controls and in the footages we can see several people who keep crashing their arwing against walls. The low number of enemies in the on rails section of Corneria (that can't be applied to the all range phase) it's due to it being an introductory level that teaches the player how to use not one but three new control schemes (something we know that needs some time to get used to). In addition, if we compare the treehouse footage with the showfloor demo we can see several enemies removed in the latter.

On the other hand, I find it hard to believe that missions like Titania or Sector Alpha can be considered slow or boring. In those, there is shit happening constantly in the background, the level keeps introducing new hazards and obstacles during all the mission and the quantity of enemies is the usual in the series.

I can understand better the complains about the gyrowing and the walker. They still have to sell me those, because Zoness and Area 3 DO look slow and empty. However, once again both are missions that introduce new vehicles, so I find logic their pace. Anyway, I think the walker can add a lot to the experience (like that alternate way to destroy the Corneria boss, or the navigation through interior segments), while I have my doubts with the gyrowing, which looks original and fresh but out of place in an arcade game.

About the retelling of the story and the recycling of situations and environments... I assume most people is talking just about the on rails section of Corneria (intentionally built to resemble Star Fox 64), right? I can't remember situations or scenarios like the tower area surrounded by spiderbots, and it is obvious that the giant flying fortress boss is brand new. And yes, Titania is still a desert and you patrol it searching for a lost member of your team, but apart of that I can't see any similarities with the original mission layout, enemies or hazards from SF64. In addition, Zoness is nothing (nothing) like the original and Area 3 is a new stage with new situations and environments. Yeah, most of them are the same planets, but Star Fox Assault used Corneria, Meteo, Fichina and Katina too and I can't remember any complains (about that).

I understand though the fears about the story being the same of Star Fox 64 (Starwing, actually) one more time, because this is obviously the war against Andross in Venom again. But we have seen Pigma attacking in solitary, a giant mecha-gorilla in a space colony, evidence about that same colony having crashed in Titania, Katt being a prisoner in a Zoness base, the Corneria boss surviving and escaping on a rocket and the destruction of a space cruiser from the inside, which are all things that I don't remember at all in SF64. I'm sure there will be moments taking inspiration from the past (like Peppy being lost in the desert or the missiles attacking the Great Fox... and I bet there will be a train in Macbeth), but the development of the story promises to be different enough not to consider this game a remake. I think it will be something more like Metroid Zero Mission (GBA) or Punch Out! (Wii), which is fine to me.
I agree with this.

Right now the only big problem that I see are the graphics (Sector Alpha specially looks very rough and the recicled assets doesn't help), and I have other concerns about certain things like the number of levels, what's going to happen with the routes system and if the Gyrowing can fit well in all of this... but more than the drone thing, I think gameplay-wise it's pretty solid as a Star Fox game.

One thing that I don't get is, with all these people here saying how fans of SF64 they are and with that implying they know well the original and how it worked, how many of them are complaining about the frontal speed of on-rail levels when, even being a bit slower, it's very close to what you could see in the original, that wasn't a fast-paced shooter at all but more about how you could shoot at many group of enemies you can and not missing the single ones trying to get the best combos with your charge shoot to get extra points. The score aspect was the real juice and challenge of these type of stages in SF64, and that's an aspect that I can't see bad managed in the level design of these on Zero with his focus on aiming (it even removed the smart bombs in benefit of this) and how are groups of enemies at the same time on screen that requires using the gyro to get all of them in the best way possible, specially in Sector Alpha and Titania; On the other hand, of what we have seen the walker sections worries me a little in this aspect with a low quantity of enemies, but this can be because of them being focused more on the obstacle part (I like what I see of this aspect in Area 3) or just because this and S.Alpha are introductory levels for the vehicle (and maybe the fact that it is an E3 demo). What I don't know, again, it's how they are going to handle this aspect in the Gyrowing levels... but I have seen that if you destroy one of the robots throwing bombs at them using the robot they give more points than taking it down with the laser, so maybe this hints at how this stages could work in this aspect, and that intriges me.

About reusing part of the enviroments, just what the quotes says. The way how many are saying it makes it appear like if the levels were exactly the same of N64 when even Corneria throws at you things and layouts not seen before (it even has an entire all-range section that in SF64 would count as a whole level).
 
One thing that doesn't make sense to me is the gamepad view. The arwing clearly goes in one direction but the gun which is supposed to be the cockpit views seems damn near near capable of aiming in all directions. Why waste all of that resource on something as nonsensical as that? How does it make sense to Miyamoto?? The cockpit doesn't rotate nor is equipped with a gunner of that type. Why doesn't the ship go along with the cockpit??

Totally agreed. And if you're going to separate aiming from flight, why not use the much more intuitive Wiimote-Nunchuck combo? From the videos where Nintendo's own Treehouse members are crashing into basic objects because their attention is split aiming and flying, it seems super distracting. I understand the need to prove out the value of the Gamepad, but this seems like a lesser solution that creates issues.
 
Totally agreed. And if you're going to separate aiming from flight, why not use the much more intuitive Wiimote-Nunchuck combo? From the videos where Nintendo's own Treehouse members are crashing into basic objects because their attention is split aiming and flying, it seems super distracting. I understand the need to prove out the value of the Gamepad, but this seems like a lesser solution that creates issues.

Exactly! A simpler solution would've been to have the gamepad either work as a First Person Camera or a method of input when in alternate modes such as the Walker, Drone, or possibly the Landmaster [Which has more flexibility for aiming unlike a spacecraft moving perpetually forward.
 
The environments were surely more detailed in Star Fox Adventures.

maxresdefault.jpg

The game is obviously rushed. Wasn't it just last year's E3 where they had nothing but a flat green field? Now the game is nearly finished and about to be released?

But with that said, I'm still looking forward to what looks like the first true Star Fox since 64.
 
Thank god I'm not the only one who thinks that.

Every time I see this new Star Fox shown I'm amazed that nobody is talking about how crappy it looks. I'm not a person who relies on AMAZING GRAPHICS, but this just looks sad to me...
One day, I'll learn not to come into Nintendo threads on GAF, one day.
 
Have people already forgot how Pikmin 3 and Mario 3D World looked at their reveal?
If there is one developer I trust on delivering a good game it's frickin' Miyamoto.
3D World never really got upgraded in the graphics department from the initial reveal, it was just the levels they showed were all early and therefore bland. Likely a similar situation for Star Fox.

Personally I think people aren't really verbalizing the issue properly. As has been discussed on GAF before, it's not so much that the game is ugly as it's empty and boring.

Also it has been said before, it's not ridiculous to expect the game to look more like this:
126356.jpeg

Rather than the empty snooze-fest it appears to be. It's stale and blah.
Is this game running at 60FPS while rendering two different points of view?
I don't think Star Fox Zero looks that great but you can't be disingenuous when posting screens like that.

Edit: No it doesn't, the game dips below 30fps and on top of that has a Metacritic score in the 60's

Project Sylpheed on 360 if anyone wants to look it up.
 
You know.... fuck the graphics for a second.... why the fuck did Miyamoto force gun turret gameplay onto a Arwing?

It looks so damn awkward.

Yeah, this also bugs me. I don't even know what the point of this is, it's not like the game looks especially difficult.

sin and punishment: Star Successor in stores now folks

56866-194291-sinandpunishmentfinalpicjpg-620x.jpg

Knew you was cool. I think I might just replay this later today.

Is this game running at 60FPS while rendering two different points of view?
I don't think Star Fox Zero looks that great but you can't be disingenuous when posting screens like that.

Edit: No it doesn't, the game dips below 30fps and on top of that has a Metacritic score in the 60's

You make it sound like the two different points of view are a positive. Everything I've seen so far make it look like the gimmick it is.
 
You make it sound like the two different points of view are a positive. Everything I've seen so far make it look like the gimmick it is.
Where am I saying anything positive or negative about it? I'm talking strictly about graphical capability within a set of defined circumstances.

It could be a great mechanic or it could be mediocre, I don't know yet because I haven't played it.
 
maxresdefault8tj15.jpg


Wow that looks great. Maybe we could have had something closer to this if they decided not to render the game twice.
If the game looked like that it'd be nice.

But even so, again the big issue I've seen with all the demo'd areas so far is how freaking empty the levels are, especially when you're in the chicken walker. How on earth did they think another "on foot" gameplay that was so panned in Star Fox Assault would be again welcome? I mean, because that's clearly what it's supposed to be.

I'm very curious how this will review. I'm also wondering if maybe it will get bumped out of 2015 entirely? I know people will be all "well, this is Nintendo's big game this year", but I'd disagree and think they maybe counting on Mario Maker to be that, or even Xenoblade if they have to.

Because they definitely need something to fill 2016 up because there's nothing.
 
Is this game running at 60FPS while rendering two different points of view?
I don't think Star Fox Zero looks that great but you can't be disingenuous when posting screens like that.

Edit: No it doesn't, the game dips below 30fps and on top of that has a Metacritic score in the 60's

Project Sylpheed on 360 if anyone wants to look it up.
I'm not sure what your point really is. I don't give a shit about Star Fox running in two points of view. Never asked for that, never wanted that, especially if it comes at the cost of the game's visuals and content. I hoped for a rail shooter that looks active and fast paced. The point was that Project Sylpheed (in many screenshots) looks exactly how I imagined the new Star Fox would, with amazing, frenetic crazy space battles. I could have just as easily gone into Google or DeviantArt and searched for "star fox gameplay concept art" and posted whatever I found that didn't look as stale and as lifeless as this does. I could have posted Sin & Punishment or Kid Icarus screenshots for a more accurate rail shooter comparison, but the point of the screenshot was merely to say "this is what the game looked like in my imagination."

And who gives a shit about the Meta? I wasn't making some statement about the quality of the game. It's a fun game, especially considering it'll run you about $3.00 right now.
 
Where am I saying anything positive or negative about it? I'm talking strictly about graphical capability within a set of defined circumstances.

It could be a great mechanic or it could be mediocre, I don't know yet because I haven't played it.

You put it next to the 60fps it runs at. If it wasn't implied, why mention it at all? Because it seems like a stupid-ass decision.
 
I'm not sure what your point really is. I don't give a shit about Star Fox running in two points of view. Never asked for that, never wanted that, especially if it comes at the cost of the game's visuals and content. I hoped for a rail shooter that looks active and fast paced. The point was that Project Sylpheed (in many screenshots) looks exactly how I imagined the new Star Fox would, with amazing, frenetic crazy space battles. I could have just as easily gone into Google or DeviantArt and searched for "star fox gameplay concept art" and posted whatever I found that didn't look as stale and as lifeless as this does. I could have posted Sin & Punishment or Kid Icarus screenshots for a more accurate rail shooter comparison, but the point of the screenshot was merely to say "this is what the game looked like in my imagination."

And who gives a shit about the Meta? I wasn't making some statement about the quality of the game. It's a fun game, especially considering it'll run you about $3.00 right now.
Soooo, are you just going to ignore the fact that Project Sylpheed runs at below 30FPS for a lot of its gameplay or what? The fact of the matter is whether you care about the two point of view mechanic or not is irrelevant. It's there, and when something like that is there and we're talking about the relative graphical capability then you can't expect that level of fidelity from another game with a different set of circumstances running at 60fps.

I mean, just look at this: https://youtu.be/R58PTRdtkFA?t=1m46s

And who gives a shit about the meta? Well if you're putting the game on a pedestal by saying it is something that Star Fox should achieve it should be mentioned.

You put it next to the 60fps it runs at. If it wasn't implied, why mention it at all? Because it seems like a stupid-ass decision.
Right, I put it next to the 60FPS, I was simply stating facts.

If you think it's a stupid ass decision that's great, again it's irrelevant what you think about a mechanic when talking about relative graphical fidelity. I don't know if the mechanic is great because I haven't played the game and neither have the vast majority of the people in this thread.
 
People should stop saying that the game is ugly because of the "two" screens. What's the big deal with that ? You simply have two different points of view of a single environment. Any game with split screen already does that. Any game with two players, one on the TV, and one on the gamepad, does that. This is barely an excuse.

Fact is that Nintendo has been struggling with its HD output and in order to have a few games released on the console this year, they had to push games with small development time and budget, that's all.

Even if Splatoon turned out good, it is without discussion a small project, same for Mario Maker, and here for Starfox. Of course you cannot have amazing graphics and a shit-ton of content when you have such small dev time...
 
People should stop saying that the game is ugly because of the "two" screens. What's the big deal with that ? You simply have two different points of view of a single environment. Any game with split screen already does that. Any game with two players, one on the TV, and one on the gamepad, does that. This is barely an excuse.

Fact is that Nintendo has been struggling with its HD output and in order to have a few games released on the console this year, they had to push games with small development time and budget, that's all.

Even if Splatoon turned out good, it is without discussion a small project, same for Mario Maker, and here for Starfox. Of course you cannot have amazing graphics and a shit-ton of content when you have such small dev time...

- Mentions Splatoon
- Splatoon runs at 30fps when rendering two different points of view in local multiplayer
 
- Mentions Splatoon
- Splatoon runs at 30fps when rendering two different points of view in local multiplayer
Never talked about framerate. Talking about having decent graphics for the console on both TV and gamepad. Which is what we have with Splatoon, Mario Kart 8 and probably other games.
 
Never talked about framerate. Talking about having decent graphics for the console on both TV and gamepad.

They are all related, a game that is pumping 30FPS can pump out better looking visuals than a game running at 60FPS.

Splatoon takes a hit going from 60FPS to 30FPS when rendering two different points of view. Star Fox Zero remains at 60FPS when displaying both views.
 
This looks like the ugliest and emptiest Nintendo game on Wii U. If Wii U can't render your idea at an acceptable quality maybe your idea is not suitable for Wii U or you need to slightly adapt it.

Pikmin 3 and SM3DW (while improved up to release) never looked this bad. Even the famous ground textures in Pikmin 3 it was mostly cherry picking for bad angles.

Nintendo Land does 2 screen rendering with wonderful results and at 60 fps. There's really no excuse for this.

I still think this is cheap cash in, with the re-using of the stages and assets. Like the other releases for the remaining of the year (that are not games already released in Japan). I hope I will proven wrong and this will indeed radically improve in 6 months of development. It will take some black magic for that.
 
Soooo, are you just going to ignore the fact that Project Sylpheed runs at below 30FPS for a lot of its gameplay or what? The fact of the matter is whether you care about the two point of view mechanic or not is irrelevant. It's there, and when something like that is there and we're talking about the relative graphical capability then you can't expect that level of fidelity from another game with a different set of circumstances running at 60fps.

I mean, just look at this: https://youtu.be/R58PTRdtkFA?t=1m46s

And who gives a shit about the meta? Well if you're putting the game on a pedestal by saying it is something that Star Fox should achieve it should be mentioned.


Right, I put it next to the 60FPS, I was simply stating facts.

If you think it's a stupid ass decision that's great, again it's irrelevant what you think about a mechanic when talking about relative graphical fidelity. I don't know if the mechanic is great because I haven't played the game and neither have the vast majority of the people in this thread.

I'm not sure what's so hard to understand. People are arguing that the game looks bad, that it should look better and that the two viewpoints are a bad tradeoff.
 
This looks like the ugliest and emptiest Nintendo game on Wii U. If Wii U can't render your idea at an acceptable quality maybe your idea is not suitable for Wii U or you need to slightly adapt it.

Pikmin 3 and SM3DW (while improved up to release) never looked this bad. Even the famous ground textures in Pikmin 3 it was mostly cherry picking for bad angles.

Nintendo Land does 2 screen rendering with wonderful results and at 60 fps. There's really no excuse for this.

I still think this is cheap cash in, with the re-using of the stages and assets. Like the other releases for the remaining of the year (that are not games already released in Japan). I hope I will proven wrong and this will indeed radically improve in 6 months of development. It will take some black magic for that.
Uh, if they release this year, then they've only got about 3 month of development at most if they want a December date since they'll need a month for QA/Cert and production/distribution of product.
 
Uh, if they release this year, then they've only got about 3 month of development at most if they want a December date since they'll need a month for QA/Cert and production/distribution of product.

I was generous and assumed that the demo was prepared some months before.
 
I'm not sure what's so hard to understand. People are arguing that the game looks bad, that it should look better and that the two viewpoints are a bad tradeoff.
I'm not sure why so many people such as yourself continue to miss the point of my posts. I'm not arguing this game looks good, I'm arguing that pulling up screenshots from games that run at sub-30 FPS while additionally rendering only one view is disingenuous.
 
Soooo, are you just going to ignore the fact that Project Sylpheed runs at below 30FPS for a lot of it's gameplay or what?
Yes, because I wasn't commenting on gameplay or graphics, I was commenting on the amount of content of the screen. I actually think Star Fox Zero looks pretty decent graphically. Some people are unhappy with it, but I can live with that easily. I think that Nintendo managed to stave off a true crisis by their usual stellar art-design. So I'm not trying to talk about fidelity or artstyle and I'm not even interested in the actual game Project Sylpheed, it just makes for an easy way to show what was in my head. My point was about how they have this decent artstyle and then created a game that so far to me looks both empty and ponderously slow.
And who gives a shit about the meta? Well if you're putting the game on a pedestal that saying it is something that Star Fox should achieve it should be mentioned.
Where did I say the game was even good in my first post? I was using the screenshot as an example of the picture I had of a new Star Fox game in my imagination.

Here let me make it a little clearer for you to wrap your brain around:

When I imagined Nintendo making a new rail-shooter Star Fox, I expected the game to LOOK (saying NOTHING about gameplay quality or graphics) something akin to this:
I expected crazy looking space battles that are full of busyness and action. I imagined, before seeing this footage, a game with crazy energetic screens and backdrops that look organic and lively.

And then a few days back, we saw Star Wars footage from that game's fighter squadron mode.
And once again, I'm not saying the game should play or even look like this in terms of raw graphics. I'm saying that the game looks action packed and crazy, and that's what I expected.

And then the name "Platinum Games" was floated around, and their past games started coming to mind:
And perhaps that was unfair. But when you name drop Platinum, a developer know for the stylishness and speed of their games, I begin to expect a little style and speed.

This on the other hand:
Looks boring. Not graphically (although some might argue that), but just in terms of what is happening within the game itself. It looks slow and unstylish. It even looks somewhat stale. There's not a whole lot in the environments that pops to me. In fact, there's not a whole lot that I've seen that even interests me. And yes, I get that much of this footage comes from the tutorial levels. But even Titania and Sector Alpha aren't really selling me on the game yet. And yes also, it's perfectly possible that the game ramps up in later levels and becomes balls to the wall busy and fast. And I've said that I'm withholding final judgement until I see that. But I do need to see it, because what I've seen so far doesn't impress me in the least.
 
Star Fox Zero remains at 60FPS when displaying both views.
Maybe, but it is not worth it. It is without a doubt easier to reach 60FPS on both screens in the small dev time they have, than to make a gorgeous 30FPS game. That's their excuse this time.

And the feature is dumb. Who can look at two screens at a time ? No one. If the first screen is First Person and the second is Third Person, then a simple button to switch view would have a been enough, and not loaded the console as much.

But let me guess, they still would not have the time to make the game gorgeous, so to me this "two views on two screens" is an excuse they use to justify those ugly graphics, while the real reason is that the game is being rushed with a small budget. Anyway, current Nintendo output feels rushed and small budget on 3DS and Wii U, Starfox is no exception.

This makes me sad, because I love my Wii U. I would love to have some ambitious games that kick ass on it, but the only one that is coming soon is Xenoblade, and I hate open world games.
 
Top Bottom