Support NeoGAF

[Vena]

It definitely applies to most of Nintendo's games. I challenge you to find even 5 games in established Nintendo franchises from the last 15 years that didn't have something radically different from prior entries in that franchise. They exist, but there aren't many. Nintendo does not like making sequels that are more of the same.

Mario Kart?
Mario and Luigi?
Fire Emblem barely changed until Awakening redefined the franchise.
Smash?
2D Mario?
2D Donkey Kong?
Mainline Animal Crossing?
Luigi's Mansion?

I can keep going. All of these franchise just refine as sequels should and introduce some usually minor new elements that freshen up the formula but are very much more of the familiar.

 

[Already Torn]

My guess is that they'll be optional, going by the wiki's assumption that standard Star Fox stuff is like "primetime programming" while experimental modes are "late night programming".

That wouldn't be too bad. But then if Zero is successful they'd get the wrong idea that people bought it for the GamePad features, like how 643D apparently convinced them that people want to play Star Fox with gyro controls.

 

[Lunar15]

That wouldn't be too bad. But then if Zero is successful they'd get the wrong idea that people bought it for the GamePad features, like how 643D apparently convinced them that people want to play Star Fox with gyro controls.

I think there's too many assumptions there, like this game being successful, for one.

 

[Lionel Richie]

See this response I just made to Boy Wander:

I don't agree there, I'd wait until at least the reviews to hit to pass any kind of judgment on anything. What you're doing is like judging a movie from the trailer, I just don't think it's right. Of course there are games like Sonic Boom which you can see from miles that will suck (and even then, isn't it better to just wait some confirmation on that?), but this one allegedly just tries something different. And Nintendo tries different stuff all the time, you can't just name two of their very very few bad games and think that's a reasonable parameter to say this one will suck as well. That's gambler's fallacy and shit.

But I understand your overall point of showing concern for a game from the direction it's heading. I don't see it like that, but I think it's a valid way to think about this. However that just doesn't excuse the overreactions on this thread IMO.

 

[GlamFM]

Man, nintendo seem so stubborn on this one.

I have not heard a single positive impression about this game.

I bet it´s gonna be a "6/10 I told you so" kind of game.

 

[Oddduck]

I was suddenly reminded of this tidbit from the starfox wiki page:



http://www.gamespot.com/articles/e3-2014-connecting-star-fox-on-wii-u-with-project-guard-and-project-giant-robot/1100-6420390/

Yeah, I'm still amazed that Nintendo hasn't said anything new about Project Guard and Giant Robot.

I wonder if we'll hear anything new on those games within the next month or so.

 

[OrbitalBeard]

I think the best approach Star Fox Zero could have taken would have been to make the main campaign a direct sequel to Star Fox 64 gameplay-wise but as you complete missions, you unlock optional bonus levels that utilize the gamepad in unique ways. Stuff like Project Giant Robot, Project Guard, etc... fun side activities that add replay value but aren't a part of the main, traditional campaign.

 

[Lunar15]

Yeah, I'm still amazed that Nintendo hasn't said anything new about Project Guard and Giant Robot. I wonder if we'll hear anything new on those games within the next month or so.

That's the thing: I think they are part of Star Fox now.

 

[TDLink]

Mario Kart?
Mario and Luigi?
Fire Emblem barely changed until Awakening redefined the franchise.
Smash?
2D Mario?
2D Donkey Kong?
Mainline Animal Crossing?
Luigi's Mansion?

I can keep going. All of these franchise just refine as sequels should and introduce some usually minor new elements that freshen up the formula but are very much more of the familiar.

Last 3 Mario Karts big new things: Gravity, Air and Underwater + Part customization, Motion controls
Mario and Luigi: Increasing amount of touch screen bros move gimmicks, also the entire concept for BIS and Dream Team
FE is admittedly one that isn't as dynamic, but Awakening still had a bunch of new changes including Pair-Up and the way the mission structure/world map worked + paralogues. Fates is making further big changes with the removal of the weapon triangle and multiple versions with different kinds of mission objectives.
Smash: 8 player smash
2D Mario: Playing with multiple people simultaneously
The Retro DK games are examples of not many big dynamic changes, I agree on that one.
I don't play AC so I can't speak to that.
Luigi's Mansion Dark Moon had a ton of new stuff iterating on the original's formula.

 

[Diffense]

The one thing that's somewhat disappointing to me is that the game seems to have enough subtlety in the controls and enough room for skill growth that dogfighting or cooperative online multiplayer modes would probably be interesting. I think their absence is a missed oppotunity.

 

[TheJoRu]

That's not what I'm saying, but you're foolish if you don't believe Miyamoto's influence doesn't affect every piece of software they put out. He's literally in charge of software. Everything goes through him. Sometimes that's good (more than not, let's be honest). Sometimes it's not so good. In this particular case of Star Fox Zero it looks to be detrimental.

Look, I'm just extremely tired of the oversimplification of the processes and scapegoating all your (I don't mean you personally, I mean generally) problems on one individual. Nintendo is a huge company, and we only have nuggets of information to work with here. If you didn't like Sticker Star, maybe the road to that started with Miyamoto's input. Maybe it didn't. But it didn't end there. Why shouldn't Intelligent Systems be able to make a good game with a smaller focus on story and existing characters? Why shouldn't Nintendo+Platinum be able to make a good Star Fox-game with motion-based input?

On an executive level what ideas to pursue and what franchises to work with we are once again bound by limited information. What I'll say is that when he talks about "we have to find the right idea" he's obviously speaking for the company, and there's in my opinion not a huge amount of good options when explaining why new games in franchises are absent. When Reggie gets the question he often talks about the market, because he's a business man, and when Miyamoto gets the question he naturally talks from a development perspective. What other good explanations can you come up with? He probably agrees with it, but it's highly unlikely that his interests trump economic interests that concerns the entire company. A Splatoon 2 is getting made regardless of whether "they've found the right idea" or whether he ultimately thinks that's a good thing. These decisions can't possibly stem from one individual, even if Miyamoto is an influential figure at Nintendo.

It's possible that it more often is that Miyamoto has to convince other people at Nintendo to make a certain game, rather than other people having to convince him. It isn't a dictatorship, and whether or not Star Fox Zero is a good game I doubt executives at NCL were leaping of joy at the prospect of having to budget for a new Star Fox game. The long absence of new games in the series is proof of that.

 

[Shiggy]

Last 3 Mario Karts big new things: Gravity, Air and Underwater + Part customization, Motion controls
Mario and Luigi: Increasing amount of touch screen bros move gimmicks, also the entire concept for BIS and Dream Team
FE is admittedly one that isn't as dynamic, but Awakening still had a bunch of new changes including Pair-Up and the way the mission structure/world map worked + paralogues. Fates is making further big changes with the removal of the weapon triangle and multiple versions with different kinds of mission objectives.
Smash: 8 player smash
2D Mario: Playing with multiple people simultaneously
The Retro DK games are examples of not many big dynamic changes, I agree on that one.
I don't play AC so I can't speak to that.
Luigi's Mansion Dark Moon had a ton of new stuff iterating on the original's formula.

To be fair, the changes you mention were rather minor for the most part. For example, the customisation aspect in Mario Kart 7 was more a gimmick than anything else.

I for one wished Nintendo tried more new things like Wii Sports Resort or Splatoon. Looking at my games log on 3DS, my most played titles are Steel Diver Sub Wars, Fullblox, and Boxboy. A lot of their established series have just safe sequels.

 

[Dark Ninja]

Can't wait for it to get emulated and for it to get fixed in a couple of years

 

[Vena]

Last 3 Mario Karts big new things: Gravity, Air and Underwater + Part customization, Motion controls
Mario and Luigi: Increasing amount of touch screen bros move gimmicks, also the entire concept for BIS and Dream Team
FE is admittedly one that isn't as dynamic, but Awakening still had a bunch of new changes including Pair-Up and the way the mission structure/world map worked + paralogues. Fates is making further big changes with the removal of the weapon triangle and multiple versions with different kinds of mission objectives.
Smash: 8 player smash
2D Mario: Playing with multiple people simultaneously
The Retro DK games are examples of not many big dynamic changes, I agree on that one.
I don't play AC so I can't speak to that.
Luigi's Mansion Dark Moon had a ton of new stuff iterating on the original's formula.

These are minor changes or evolutions to a formula that are common for ANY sequel, and outright usually expected.

This is what I meant when I said that your definition is so loose as to effectively mean nothing. You may as well claim that they aren't making the same exact game every X years, which should be a matter of fact because they shouldn't just be making the same thing... not even CoD does this.

 

[Mael]

I mean even though Miyamoto isn't the Metroid guy, as head of software he still influences the entire company. His policy of a new game has to be different is part of why Other M is the way it is. Instead of a new 2D game or a new Prime game we got something in between that didn't really work.

Miyamoto had absolutely nothing to do with Other M, that is entirely on Iwata letting Sakamoto getting Team Ninja to work with him.
As far as we know it's really Sakamoto who was the driving force behind Other M.
the game wouldn't exist without him, Miyamoto is in no way working over or under Sakamoto.
They're not even working on the same division.
Miyamoto is EAD and Sakamoto is SPD.
There is literally nothing Miyamoto could have done to make Other M different from what it ended up.

That's not what I'm saying, but you're foolish if you don't believe Miyamoto's influence doesn't affect every piece of software they put out. He's literally in charge of software. Everything goes through him. Sometimes that's good (more than not, let's be honest). Sometimes it's not so good. In this particular case of Star Fox Zero it looks to be detrimental.

Miyamoto is not pixie fairy who put Nintendo dust on the games and influence all the devs and everything.
He's at the head of EAD and influence what EAD is in charge of (and as such can even influence the hardware team as they're really there to be sure the software teams can do their job properly).
He has no influence on teams that are disconnected from him, he has probably more influence on Sakurai's Sora than he does at SPD.
Don't pull a Pachter and claim you know something about how they work while dismissing everything we know about them.

 

[Diffense]

I was always a bit confused about the claims that motion controls would be optional. From what I saw of Star F0x's controls both sticks were concerned with movement. The left stick controlled altitude and the right stick controlled heading while the gyros were used for aiming. The game seems built around this so I suspected that any other control scheme would be inferior. Probably they're just getting rid of a more familiar, but inferior, control option that just doesn't work well with the game design.

 

[Vinland]

I will reserve judgement but my knee-jerk is basically, "well now I won't buy it."

I generally detest Wii motion controls with a few smart exceptions. Skyward Sword is not one of those fwiw. I wouldn't mind the 'chuck controls from MK8 though that is my preferred config now. However, floating the gamepad or pro like it was six axis? Nope.

 

[PtM]

That's the thing: I think they are part of Star Fox now.

Megazord with Arwing feet.

 

[TDLink]

Look, I'm just extremely tired of the oversimplification of the processes and scapegoating all your (I don't mean you personally, I mean generally) problems on one individual. Nintendo is a huge company, and we only have nuggets of information to work with here. If you didn't like Sticker Star, maybe the road to that started with Miyamoto's input. Maybe it didn't. But it didn't end there. Why shouldn't Intelligent Systems be able to make a good game with a smaller focus on story and existing characters? Why shouldn't Nintendo+Platinum be able to make a good Star Fox-game with motion-based input?

On an executive level what ideas to pursue and what franchises to work with we are once again bound by limited information. What I'll say is that when he talks about "we have to find the right idea" he's obviously speaking for the company, and there's in my opinion not a huge amount of good options when explaining why new games in franchises are absent. When Reggie gets the question he often talks about the market, because he's a business man, and when Miyamoto gets the question he naturally talks from a development perspective. What other good explanations can you come up with? He probably agrees with it, but it's highly unlikely that his interests trump economic interests that concerns the entire company. A Splatoon 2 is getting made regardless of whether "they've found the right idea" or whether he ultimately thinks that's a good thing. These decisions can't possibly stem from one individual, even if Miyamoto is an influential figure at Nintendo.

It's possible that it more often is that Miyamoto has to convince other people at Nintendo to make a certain game, rather than other people having to convince him. It isn't a dictatorship, and whether or not Star Fox Zero is a good game I doubt executives at NCL were leaping of joy at the prospect of having to budget for a new Star Fox game. The long absence of new games in the series is proof of that.

I more or less agree with you. And I don't think Miyamoto should leave or anything like that, I'm not one of -those- people. I just think his policy, whether it is personally his or the company's, is problematic at times. And even if it isn't personally his, it's definitely something has has prescribed to on multiple occasions based on other accounts. It leads to lots of great and different games, but sometimes they fail to capitalize on things people clearly want. It's like that excerpt from NP that someone talked about a few pages back where Nintendo refused to make a sequel to SF64 even though it was successful because it would just be more levels...but sometimes that is what people want.

To be fair, the changes you mention were rather minor for the most part. For example, the customisation aspect in Mario Kart 7 was more a gimmick than anything else.

I for one wished Nintendo tried more new things like Wii Sports Resort or Splatoon. Looking at my games log on 3DS, my most played titles are Steel Diver Sub Wars, Fullblox, and Boxboy. A lot of their established series have just safe sequels.

These are minor changes or evolutions to a formula that are common for ANY sequel, and outright usually expected.

This is what I meant when I said that your definition is so loose as to effectively mean nothing. You may as well claim that they aren't making the same exact game every X years, which should be a matter of fact because they shouldn't just be making the same thing... not even CoD does this.

I agree some of these changes are more minor than others but they're still key changes. I don't think SF64 needed key changes. Its formula is pretty great. Star Fox Assault's 3 traditional levels have the right idea. The reason? They are an evolution of that formula. That same fast paced gameplay but new levels and with a new antagonist and new lines from the characters. It's taking the formula and making it even better. Those gimmicks like Air and Water in Mario Kart aren't needed (and in some ways in that particular instance somewhat reactionary to a competitor) and just there for there to be -something- new to center the game and its design around. Same thing with the gravity (and later they added 200CC as well). These changes aren't really that minor when you take into account how they inform the design of the entire game. Similarly, Star Fox Zero's design is being informed by the gyro controls and that is ultimately a negative as the levels are blatantly more sparse and slow when compared to past entries in the franchise.

I think Steel Diver Sub Wars is genius btw and love that game.

Miyamoto had absolutely nothing to do with Other M, that is entirely on Iwata letting Sakamoto getting Team Ninja to work with him.
As far as we know it's really Sakamoto who was the driving force behind Other M.
the game wouldn't exist without him, Miyamoto is in no way working over or under Sakamoto.
They're not even working on the same division.
Miyamoto is EAD and Sakamoto is SPD.
There is literally nothing Miyamoto could have done to make Other M different from what it ended up.



Miyamoto is not pixie fairy who put Nintendo dust on the games and influence all the devs and everything.
He's at the head of EAD and influence what EAD is in charge of (and as such can even influence the hardware team as they're really there to be sure the software teams can do their job properly).
He has no influence on teams that are disconnected from him, he has probably more influence on Sakurai's Sora than he does at SPD.
Don't pull a Pachter and claim you know something about how they work while dismissing everything we know about them.

This isn't really what I'm saying. Maybe Miyamoto didn't have anything to do with Other M, but the line of thinking is the same. "We can't just make 2D metroid. We can't just make Prime Metroid. We need to do something different". That line of thinking is great in commonly released franchises like Mario and Zelda. It keeps them from getting stale. It's not as welcome in series like Metroid and Star Fox that go through long droughts. People wait a long time for a new game and then it's some experiment with the skin of the series they loved instead of actually being like it. That is disappointing.

 

[GabeTheGrouch76]

I don't necessarily disagree but it's the tone of dismissal. It's as if the game is already verified to be crap. Then it escalates and people start throwing fucking Miyamoto of all people under a bus.

Nothing I don't disagree about concerning the "Miyamoto should go" sentiment, or the tone of dismissal from some posts. At the same time though I do think some of those disappointed with the game or being questioning of Miyamoto's design decisions are making some reasonable complaints that aren't going overboard, and I think they could at least be distinguished from the former group that are going into the extremes. I just don't like the idea of all the naysayers being put under one label of irrational whiners.

I don't agree there, I'd wait until at least the reviews to hit to pass any kind of judgment on anything. What you're doing is like judging a movie from the trailer, I just don't think it's right. Of course there are games like Sonic Boom which you can see from miles that will suck (and even then, isn't it better to just wait some confirmation on that?), but this one allegedly just tries something different. And Nintendo tries different stuff all the time, you can't just name two of their very very few bad games and think that's a reasonable parameter to say this one will suck as well. That's gambler's fallacy and shit.

But I understand your overall point of showing concern for a game from the direction it's heading. I don't see it like that, but I think it's a valid way to think about this. However that just doesn't excuse the overreactions on this thread IMO.

The "gambler fallacy" bit wasn't why I brought Mario Tennis and Animal Crossing in my previous post. Remember, you were talking about people were concerned about Splatoon's gyro controls ruining the game and they were proved wrong when it actually came out. I was only bringing up the other two games to show that the opposite effect can happen as well. The skeptics can be proven wrong (Splatoon, and Mario 3D World as well might I add) as well as proven right (Mario Tennis and Animal Crossing).

I'll have to (agree to) disagree on the general notion of when it's considered OK and not OK to judge material. As I previously mentioned I'm not condoning immediate write-offs or immediate acceptances before a product is released, that bit about gambler's fallacy or overreactions I actually agree with. At the same time I do feel people do have some basic leeway (can't think of any terms to phrase that without making it sound like elitist entitlement) form a consensus on how a product can turn out based on pre-release material. Whether it be positive or negative.

 

[Tom Nook Sawyer]

"Doubling down on the controls" makes no sense with what we know about the game. What does that even mean? The game already had motion-controls; the only thing that would possibly make sense is they removed the stick-controls, which I STRONGLY doubt.

This sounds like a generic complaint taken out of context--the game itself is a "doubling down" on the GamePad. What more could they have done since?

 

[TDLink]

My bottom line is I want something like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOoAZQI_8gw

A game full of that instead of just a couple levels. And that was over a decade ago. Why can't we advance that to the next level? Hell, that level alone looks like a step ahead of where we're at with Star Fox Zero. Zero seems to be a regression.

There's so much creativity and fast pace in that level design and the art direction that I'm not seeing in SF0. And at its core are those traditional SF controls.

 

[RoadHazard]

Hope this isn't true and we'll get a worthy sequel to starfox 64.

This game has never even hinted at being anything close to that. It's a forced adaptation of the Star Fox IP to the Wii U's "strengths".

 

[BorkBork]

It's never looked terribly exciting, might as well make it memorable for all the wrong reasons.

 

[Nosgotham]

Good if true!

 

[Vena]

"Doubling down on the controls" makes no sense with what we know about the game. What does that even mean? The game already had motion-controls; the only thing that would possibly make sense is they removed the stick-controls, which I STRONGLY doubt.

This sounds like a generic complaint taken out of context--the game itself is a "doubling down" on the GamePad. What more could they have done since?

You now need two gamepads.

 

[wild wild rice]

It's never looked terribly exciting, might as well make it memorable for all the wrong reasons.

you're creeping me out man

 

[Tom Nook Sawyer]

You now need two gamepads.

Star Fox Zero 2.1 style baby!

 

[Mit-]

...star fox foesn't matter that much. At all. It's not going to outsell mario party 10 or even yoshi imo.


I think you meant "Except Nintendo needs ZELDA to be out before they make the Wii U completely irrelevant"

edit:
oop dp.

There's about a zero percent chance that game doesn't pull a Twilight Princess and launch on both Wii U and NX.

Star Fox Zero I'm not so sure. They need to get it out there and get some sales before everyone's attention turns completely to NX.

 

[Mory Dunz]

"Doubling down on the controls" makes no sense with what we know about the game. What does that even mean? The game already had motion-controls; the only thing that would possibly make sense is they removed the stick-controls, which I STRONGLY doubt.

This sounds like a generic complaint taken out of context--the game itself is a "doubling down" on the GamePad. What more could they have done since?

That's pretty much what's I've been saying.
"double down" means nothing without context.

It's not as if motion controls were going to be taken out in a few months.

 

[Mory Dunz]

There's about a zero percent chance that game doesn't pull a Twilight Princess and launch on both Wii U and NX.

That's kind of irrelevant though. Whether it comes to both (which it most likely will) or not, they have to at least get it out this year for wii u, since it's a guaranteed couple of million sales.

 

[Doctor Shatner]

If it's fun to play it's fun to play, regardless of control style for me (Splatoon drove this home for me), but this early buzz makes me nervous. Either way excited for it to finally come out and get real hands-on impressions of it.

 

[maxcriden]

I will reserve judgement but my knee-jerk is basically, "well now I won't buy it."

I generally detest Wii motion controls with a few smart exceptions. Skyward Sword is not one of those fwiw. I wouldn't mind the 'chuck controls from MK8 though that is my preferred config now. However, floating the gamepad or pro like it was six axis? Nope.

This game has always be said to feature motion controls, though, and we still don't know that you won't be able to just turn them off. I think you will be able to. (Maybe someone can correct me here or confirm this--hasn't that been previously confirmed, that you could turn off the GamePad second screen *and* not have to use motion controls at all to aim? As two separate things, I mean.)

Just out of curiosity, how much of Skyward Sword did you play? Because it took me a couple tried and some serious time to get into it but when I did it reallynclickes for me and the motion controls are absolutely perfect in that game.

 

[Mit-]

That's kind of irrelevant though. Whether it comes to both (which it most likely will) or not, they have to at least get it out this year for wii u, since it's a guaranteed couple of million sales.

I'm talking early this year vs later. If Star Fox comes out late this year, it's going to sell less than if it comes out early. It's going to sell less if it comes out after NX details and launch information is given. It's going to sell more if it comes out before that.

Unless they announce that it's coming to NX as well, in which case no big deal.

 

[Tom Nook Sawyer]

That's pretty much what's I've been saying.
"double down" means nothing without context.

It's not as if motion controls were going to be taken out in a few months.

Exactly; we have an embarrassing 10-page freakout over what could literally be nothing.

There is nothing substantive here without context. Is it entirely possible the game doesn't work well with the motion-controls? Sure, but we already knew that.

 

[Spyder_Monkey]

How do you "double down" on something that's already going to be a main feature of the game?

 

[Oddduck]

"Doubling down on the controls" makes no sense with what we know about the game. What does that even mean? The game already had motion-controls; the only thing that would possibly make sense is they removed the stick-controls, which I STRONGLY doubt.

This sounds like a generic complaint taken out of context--the game itself is a "doubling down" on the GamePad. What more could they have done since?

That's pretty much what's I've been saying.
"double down" means nothing without context.

It's not as if motion controls were going to be taken out in a few months.

There are two things that need to be considered here.

1. As someone mentioned in this thread before, we still don't know what happened to Project Robot or Project Guard. Is it possible that Nintendo has heavily implemented the gameplay mechanics of those games into Star Fox Zero's single player mode? If that's the case, then I can see SFZ doubling down on ideas taken from Project Robot and Project Guard.

2. For certain levels, playing with traditional controls would completely defeat the purpose of why Miyamoto is making Star Fox Zero.

For example, the entire reason this level was made was to show off gyroing controls: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fv1QOnVJRUg What is the point of making a slow puzzle level like that if the player isn't forced to use motion controls? Playing that level with traditional controls would defeat the purpose of why this level was created.

 

[Nerrel]

If you want more Metroid go bother Sakamoto

If you want more 2D Metroid go bother Sakamoto:

 

[Huge Succeeded]

nobody saw this coming....



Lmfao /s

 

[Already Torn]

There are two things that need to be considered here.

1. As someone mentioned in this thread before, we still don't know what happened to Project Robot or Project Guard. Is it possible that Nintendo has heavily implemented the gameplay mechanics of those games into Star Fox Zero's single player mode? If that's the case, then I can see SFZ doubling down on ideas taken from Project Robot and Project Guard.

2. For certain levels, playing with traditional controls would completely defeat the purpose of why Miyamoto is making Star Fox Zero.

For example, the entire reason this level was made was to show off gyroing controls: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fv1QOnVJRUg What is the point of making a slow puzzle level like that if the player isn't forced to use motion controls? Playing that level with traditional controls would defeat the purpose of why this level was created.

This all makes a lot of sense, and also explains why the game keeps getting delayed. They're probably embarrassed to release it if the controls aren't good enough yet.

 

[TDLink]

There are two things that need to be considered here.

1. As someone mentioned in this thread before, we still don't know what happened to Project Robot or Project Guard. Is it possible that Nintendo has heavily implemented the gameplay mechanics of those games into Star Fox Zero's single player mode? If that's the case, then I can see SFZ doubling down on ideas taken from Project Robot and Project Guard.

2. For certain levels, playing with traditional controls would completely defeat the purpose of why Miyamoto is making Star Fox Zero.

For example, the entire reason this level was made was to show off gyroing controls: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fv1QOnVJRUg What is the point of making a slow puzzle level like that if the player isn't forced to use motion controls? Playing that level with traditional controls would defeat the purpose of why this level was created.

I'd argue that slow stealth levels where you guide a robot like that have no place in Star Fox to begin with, regardless of control scheme. Especially if they're required and not optional missions.

 

[Tom Nook Sawyer]

1. As someone mentioned in this thread before, we still don't know what happened to Project Robot or Project Guard. Is it possible that Nintendo has heavily implemented the gameplay mechanics of those games into Star Fox Zero's single player mode? If that's the case, then I can see SFZ doubling down on ideas taken from Project Robot and Project Guard.

Both Project Robot and Project Guard were listed as individual TBA releases in the earnings report/investor meeting. Speculating this is what the "doubling down" comment means is just that: pure speculation.

For certain levels, playing with traditional controls would completely defeat the purpose of why Miyamoto is making Star Fox Zero.

For example, the entire reason this level was made was to show off gyroing controls: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fv1QOnVJRUg What is the point of making a slow puzzle level like that if the player isn't forced to use motion controls? Playing that level with traditional controls would defeat the purpose of why this level was created.

Whether or it the entire reason the level exists is to showcase the controls doesn't change anything we already know--the level worked with motion controls and standard controls and I'm extremely skeptical Nintendo would change that. And the vague "doubling down" comment literally tells us nothing.

But even if they did, speculating about it for 10-pages as if that's what's happening is ridiculous--even if that would arguably be more on point than the bulk of the posts here which don't offer any ideas as to what the quote means, and instead just mindlessly bash the game.

 

[Already Torn]

Both Project Robot and Project Guard were listed as individual TBA releases in the earnings report/investor meeting. Speculating this is what the "doubling down" comment means is just that: pure speculation.



Whether or it the entire reason the level exists is to showcase the controls doesn't change anything we already know--the level worked with motion controls and standard controls and I'm extremely skeptical Nintendo would change that. And the vague "doubling down" comment literally tells us nothing.

But even if they did, speculating about it for 10-pages as if that's what's happening is ridiculous--even if that would arguably be more on point than the bulk of the posts here which don't offer any ideas as to what the quote means, and instead just mindlessly bash the game.

Since when is it weird to have 10 pages of speculation about how and why a game might disappoint all of us? Especially when we have two new rumors to talk about?

 

[pringles]

It was fun watching people play the demo only to see the helplessness in their eyes. It was also fun to hear their immediate, unfiltered, unreflected reactions, which 9 times out of 10 boiled down to "wow, that was awful".

It wasn't, however, fun to actually play the demo.

Might be one those control schemes that become second nature after a couple hours, but seriously though: most people expect pick up and play gameplay from an arcade shooter like Starfox.

Wait, couldn't you play the game with only stick controls? I was under the impression the gyro gamepad aiming was optional.

Anyway as a fan of things like the Splatoon gyro controls I trust Nintendo on this one. They're not known for releasing games that don't control well. Better to "double down" on the motion controls and make them good rather than half-assing it and making it optional imo.

 

[Spyder_Monkey]

There's about a zero percent chance that game doesn't pull a Twilight Princess and launch on both Wii U and NX.

I say you're not only wrong but that's a terrible business decision.

 

[Already Torn]

I say you're not only wrong but that's a terrible business decision.

Why? That's a great launch title.

 

[GhostTrick]

I'd argue that slow stealth levels where you guide a robot like that have no place in Star Fox to begin with, regardless of control scheme. Especially if they're required and not optional missions.

The funny thing is, Star Fox 64 had a stealth section on Zoness... and it kept the original gameplay and was still fast paced.

 

[Tom Nook Sawyer]

Since when is it weird to have 10 pages of speculation about how and why a game might disappoint all of us? Especially when we have two new rumors to talk about?

Most rumors aren't as hopelessly vague and clickbaity as this one. It tells us nothing, while pouring gas all over the fire.

The "two" rumors are also basically the same rumor--do we even know if they're different sources?

 

[killroy87]

Both Project Robot and Project Guard were listed as individual TBA releases in the earnings report/investor meeting. Speculating this is what the "doubling down" comment means is just that: pure speculation.



Whether or it the entire reason the level exists is to showcase the controls doesn't change anything we already know--the level worked with motion controls and standard controls and I'm extremely skeptical Nintendo would change that. And the vague "doubling down" comment literally tells us nothing.

But even if they did, speculating about it for 10-pages as if that's what's happening is ridiculous--even if that would arguably be more on point than the bulk of the posts here which don't offer any ideas as to what the quote means, and instead just mindlessly bash the game.

To be fair, if you don't think the conversation is worth happening, then don't participate

 

[Mory Dunz]

I'm talking early this year vs later. If Star Fox comes out late this year, it's going to sell less than if it comes out early. It's going to sell less if it comes out after NX details and launch information is given. It's going to sell more if it comes out before that.

Unless they announce that it's coming to NX as well, in which case no big deal.

Ok yeah, I see what you mean.
I guess I was more originally responding to the "nintendo needs" part of the statement. Since I feel Star Fox is largely inconsequential to Nintendo despite it's dedicated fan base. So that's why I brought up Zelda, and dismissed Star Fox's selling potential.

But in terms of talking about sales, yeah I'd agree. Maybe it can be said "Star Fox needs to release on the Wii U before it becomes irrelevant". And it needs a good showing to keep the franchise alive with regular installments.

I'd argue that slow stealth levels where you guide a robot like that have no place in Star Fox to begin with, regardless of control scheme. Especially if they're required and not optional missions.

Well, they've never been afraid to mix it up with star fox. The stealth level didn't bad to me personally, but it's a matter of taste.
But since only having the arwing, they've added:
- Full Range Arwing Mode (no longer on rails)
- LandMaster
- Submarine
- Chicken Walker
- and now the motion control stuff.

A lot of these probably weren't met with inital praise, or praise at all, but it can't be denied there's a precedent of chaning the gameplay formula