Support NeoGAF

[nightez]

I just got back from dusting my old Gamecube. Played SFA for about an hour and then switched to Zelda directly afterwards. Theres no doubt that Twilight Princess is the better designed game and has the superior art. What shocked me most is that Starfox, a 1st gen effort, has superior image quality to a major 5th gen first party title.

Zelda has low poly landscapes and characters - NPCs (town folk) in particular are really bad. Star Fox characters are all detailed (even NPCs), have better shadows, they have fur and enough geometry on their faces for brilliant facial animations. There's good depth of field and even the grass doesnt look like a flat texture - it appears to have volume. And the images are sharper.

SFA shows that even Nintendo wasn't really using much Gamecube tech. If its any indication most Wii games should look even better than they do with more memory and faster chips.

 

[grandjedi6]

Well Twilight Princess did have a far larger and open world with less loading than Star Fox did. Which likely contributed alot to the graphic difference

 

[AtomicShroom]

Also...

Starfox Adventures - 60fps (with frequent drops, but eh...)
Twilight Princess - 30fps

Rare are technical gods.

 

[JaMarco]

Yea, SFA was impressive IMO

 

[Boerseun]

I just got back from dusting my old Gamecube. Played SFA for about an hour and then switched to Zelda directly afterwards. Theres no doubt that Twilight Princess is the better designed game and has the superior art. What shocked me most is that Starfox, a 1st gen effort, has superior image quality to a major 5th gen first party title.

You're talking about simple art assets.

That's not what image quality is.

Image quality is based on video output i.e. a physical component. Gamecube and Wii use the same component, and so are capable of identical image quality.

 

[Lakitu]

Starfox Adventures is one of my favourite games, as well as Wind Waker. Sadly I can't say the same for Twilight Princess.

 

[neight]

SFA still holds up pretty well on GCN(and even Wii) hardware. When I played through TP I remember being shocked at the visuals especially after I heard that TP was one of Nintendo's most expensive games some textures looked literally N64 quality to me. All that nasty color dithering didn't help either. The conservative art assets of Twilight Princess was most likely a game design decision for faster loading.

 

[freddy]

There's no denying that the guys from Rare are some of the best in the business when it comes to technically impressive efforts. Nearly every game I've seen from them apart from obvious special cases like PD Zero have been top notch. I can't say I like their art direction though.

 

[master15]

Say what you want about Rare nowdays or even the quality of Star Fox Adventures but there`s no doubt they are a talented developer who really know how to push a machine.

I mean with the N64 they were often pushing the system to the limits and titles like Jet Force Gemini which didn`t use the expansion pack looked astounding for the time. Same concept with Adventures, which remained one of the best looking Gamecube titles period. The lightning and rain effects in that game were astounding!

 

[BlazeHedgehog]

Well Twilight Princess did have a far larger and open world with less loading than Star Fox did. Which likely contributed alot to the graphic difference

Much bigger. Hyrule Field in TP was probably as big as the entirety of Star Fox Adventures, and it was all seamless. SFA had very few "wide open" areas - the whole game seemed to be very linear, almost as if it were broken up in to "levels" like a traditional action game.

 

[AniHawk]

Starfox Adventures is one of my favourite games, as well as Wind Waker. Sadly I can't say the same for Twilight Princess.

Well there's your problem right there.

 

[Talladega Knight]

Starfox Adventures is one of my favourite games, as well as Wind Waker. Sadly I can't say the same for Twilight Princess.

Wow. Yea Starfox Adventures looked good, I enjoyed also, but it doesn't compare gameplay wise with Twilight Princess. Don't be dumb.

 

[chase]

I also preferred SFA to TP.

 

[Slavik81]

You're talking about simple art assets.

That's not what image quality is.

Image quality is based on video output i.e. a physical component. Gamecube and Wii use the same component, and so are capable of identical image quality.

Wouldn't aliasing fall under 'image quality'? And, if so, wouldn't that give the Wii an edge, as it has more processing power to do AA?

 

[camineet]

I just got back from dusting my old Gamecube. Played SFA for about an hour and then switched to Zelda directly afterwards. Theres no doubt that Twilight Princess is the better designed game and has the superior art. What shocked me most is that Starfox, a 1st gen effort, has superior image quality to a major 5th gen first party title.

I discovered the same thing for myself earlier this year when i picked up SFA used.

SFA on GCN has, for the most part technically superior graphics complexity, image quality and framerate compared to Zelda TP on either GCN or Wii. That was quite a shock to me as well. Even though Zelda TP is a much, much better game, and has better artwork.

Although as several others already mentioned, Zelda TP has a much, much larger open world than SFA.

Zelda has low poly landscapes and characters - NPCs (town folk) in particular are really bad. Star Fox characters are all detailed (even NPCs), have better shadows, they have fur and enough geometry on their faces for brilliant facial animations. There's good depth of field and even the grass doesnt look like a flat texture - it appears to have volume. And the images are sharper.

yep, yep.

SFA shows that even Nintendo wasn't really using much Gamecube tech. If its any indication most Wii games should look even better than they do with more memory and faster chips.

Indeed, Nintendo hasn't even pushed the limits of GCN-tech on the slightly upgraded/faster Wii with 3.5x more fast memory.

 

[Lakitu]

Wow. Yea Starfox Adventures looked good, I enjoyed also, but it doesn't compare gameplay wise with Twilight Princess. Don't be dumb.

Nah.

 

[DieNgamers]

People (including me) were disappointed with SFA in those days but looking back (replaying it at the moment) it's not the bad game some people make it out to be. Actually I really like it the second time around
Oh, and the graphics still hold up. Amazing.

 

[NeonZ]

I don't see how it's not bad.

Rare somehow managed to make the combat flow worse than in OoT (thanks to the stupid auto combos and only being able to choose one item at a time, rather than 3) and the on-rail sections play worse than Star Fox 64. There are no cities or anything that would actually require backtracking. The main hub is there just to make the player waste time.

The graphics are great (though they aren't that good in really open areas, like that furnace area in one of the space islands, but that's expected, of course), but otherwise it wasn't really good.

 

[Cygnus X-1]

Starfox could have been so great if it wasn't so boring and lifeless.

 

[camineet]

Basicly SFA as a game, kinda sucked. I'm glad I didn't buy it new. I think of it as a pretty, interactive tech demo. It looks better than most Wii games today.

 

[Jive Turkey]

Wait...People actually like Star Fox Adventures???

SFA was pretty.
SFA was terrible.
SFA was pretty/terrible.

 

[Soule]

Well I enjoyed SFA back in the day. I didn't play it early, probably 3 years into the GC life cycle I picked it up and already was amazed that it was still so beautiful. Obviously the game isn't the best out there but it was enjoyable to me and the impressiveness back when I played it was enough for it to leave a lasting impression on me.

 

[Boerseun]

Another Star Fox Adventures fan here! I can see its faults, but I still enjoyed the 20 hours it took me to complete.

Wouldn't aliasing fall under 'image quality'? And, if so, wouldn't that give the Wii an edge, as it has more processing power to do AA?

No, Gamecube and Wii's rendering pipelines are the same, said rendering pipelines allowing an (almost) free gain of 2XFSAA on every frame displayed. In other words, you end up with anti-aliasing that doesn't cost the system anything in terms of processing resources.

 

[Xav]

Not many developers can compete with Rare when it comes to the technical stuff. Kameo is still one of the better looking current gen games and it was a launch game. Hell it's not even a proper Xbox 360 game but rather a GameCube/Xbox reworked for the 360.
One thing I could never understand though, what the hell happened to Perfect Dark Zero, it's the one time Rare didn't impress me graphically.

 

[Kuramu]

SFA is the example I will always go to for why I would rather have a good game than awesome graphics.

 

[Azure J]

Indeed, Nintendo hasn't even pushed the limits of GCN-tech on the slightly upgraded/faster Wii with 3.5x more fast memory.

OK, StarFox Adventures tech wise was brilliantly done, so much so that the first time I played it over component cables, I thought it could be passed off as a first gen Xbox360 game. Seriously though, to say this when Super Mario Galaxy & Metroid Prime 3 exist is kinda stretching. I can understand that Nintendo has been way too conservative with dealing out games that look as great as they play, but admit it, when they try to the results are worth it.

 

[The-Switcher]

Yeah, SFA was just as good.

Well, except for the lackluster flight sections.

The stupid story.

The annoying stupid characters.

Actually, it was pretty crappy.

 

[revolverjgw]

edit- I posted in the wrong topic!

 

[nincompoop]

It may not compare to TP from a gameplay standpoint, but SFA absolutely slaughters Wind Waker.

 

[Jive Turkey]

It may not compare to TP from a gameplay standpoint, but SFA absolutely slaughters Wind Waker.

Any game that has a required "Tap the A button a bazillion times in 30 seconds!" minigame automatically sucks from a gameplay standpoint. Wind Waker didn't have that.

 

[Deleted member 30609]

It may not compare to TP from a gameplay standpoint, but SFA absolutely slaughters Wind Waker.

(neutral) nincompoop
.............^
(Today, 12:00 AM)

 

[LaneDS]

It may not compare to TP from a gameplay standpoint, but SFA absolutely slaughters Wind Waker.

Wait for it... wait for it... :lol

Someone post that Penny Arcade comic for SFA. Because it was an excellent example of why I was hugely disappointed by SFA.

Ridiculous item collection (I especially liked how they stole the "hold the item in the air, make a face, and play a little musical number" bit whenever you found a Blazzleberry or a Snogrock), ridiculous story and characters (the let's speak a made up language, but we'll throw in some names and terms in English always made me laugh), and terribly unfun gameplay sections (flying or the stupid "Trixy" sections come to mind) completely ruined this game for me. And I to that point had really enjoyed most Rare collect a thons they had released (sans DK64).

Also, parenthesis.

 

[crowphoenix]

I actually thought the flying sections were the best part of SFA, aside from Fox being so pissed off the entire time. But, that game has nothing on any Zelda, save the CD-i ones.

 

[Masked Man]

I didn't hate SFA--the visuals were great, and the music was overall pretty solid. I wouldn't call it "better than TP," but it wasn't awful. Thumbs up to Rare as always, though, for getting the most out of a machine's processing power and whatnot.

 

[nincompoop]

Any game that has a required "Tap the A button a bazillion times in 30 seconds!" minigame automatically sucks from a gameplay standpoint. Wind Waker didn't have that.

That part was really easy, just let the other guy push you back a bit first so you can build up enough momentum to push him all the way into the pit. Shouldn't take more than 15 seconds.

Wait for it... wait for it... :lol

Someone post that Penny Arcade comic for SFA. Because it was an excellent example of why I was hugely disappointed by SFA.

Ridiculous item collection (I especially liked how they stole the "hold the item in the air, make a face, and play a little musical number" bit whenever you found a Blazzleberry or a Snogrock), ridiculous story and characters (the let's speak a made up language, but we'll throw in some names and terms in English always made me laugh), and terribly unfun gameplay sections (flying or the stupid "Trixy" sections come to mind) completely ruined this game for me. And I to that point had really enjoyed most Rare collect a thons they had released (sans DK64).

Also, parenthesis.

Every item that you "had" to "collect" was completey analogous to collectable items in Zelda games, which of course are renowned for their collectathon gameplay.

 

[Jive Turkey]

That part was really easy, just let the other guy push you back a bit first so you can build up enough momentum to push him all the way into the pit. Shouldn't take more than 15 seconds.

Who said anything about hard or easy? That's just lazy design.

 

[LaneDS]

Every item that you "had" to "collect" was completey analogous to collectable items in Zelda games, which of course are renowned for their collectathon gameplay.

I really don't think Zelda is renowned for collectathon gameplay. I've played every console Zelda to completion since the original NES one and haven't collected everything on any of them save for A Link to the Past. I don't think that's the reason people enjoy them. And to suggest the amount of "look I have an item!" in SFA is analogous to any Zelda is silly. The amount of times Crystal gets excited and smiles over an item in that first air "dungeon" is absurd to the point of hilarity. They tried to ape Zelda but in the process completely overdid that one aspect.

The one major gripe people seem to have with Wind Waker is the Triforce fetch quest shit at the end of the game, which is valid. But I can't think of any aspect of SFA that "absolutely slaughters" Wind Waker. Even the combat in SFA, which I thought was very well done and quite fun, doesn't hold a candle to the Wind Waker combat.

 

[KevinCow]

Every item that you "had" to "collect" was completey analogous to collectable items in Zelda games, which of course are renowned for their collectathon gameplay.

The power cells, or whatever they were called, have no Zelda version. They existed solely to unlock the next level. The only things similar to those are the tears of light in TP, and those are confined to relatively small, linear areas and clearly marked on your map, and they only appear three times in the entire game.

 

[Magicpaint]

I really enjoyed SFA, too! And yes it's technically far superior to TP. TP is definitely the better game though.

 

[nincompoop]

Who said anything about hard or easy? That's just lazy design.

When I think "lazy design" I think more along the lines of "triforce hunt" or "sit in the middle of the ocean for five minutes until you arrive at your destination", not an isolated segment of the game that takes 15 seconds to beat.

I really don't think Zelda is renowned for collectathon gameplay. I've played every console Zelda to completion since the original NES one and haven't collected everything on any of them save for A Link to the Past. I don't think that's the reason people enjoy them. And to suggest the amount of "look I have an item!" in SFA is analogous to any Zelda is silly. The amount of times Crystal gets excited and smiles over an item in that first air "dungeon" is absurd to the point of hilarity. They tried to ape Zelda but in the process completely overdid that one aspect.

Was the item jingle really that much more annoying in SFA than it was having to hear it every time you collect an important item in every dungeon in every Zelda game? Maybe slightly, but it was hardly a game breaking thing IMO.

As for where SFA slaughters WW, SFA featured pretty solid level design all the way through that kept the pace of the game brisk yet never got too repetitive nor did it ever feel like it was holding your hand too much. WW suffered from many poor design decisions, from the complete lack of dungeons whose quality varied greatyl, to the boring overworld, the triforce hunt, the sidequests weren't very compelling... all these factors compounded to prevent the experience from being terribly enjoyable.

The power cells, or whatever they were called, have no Zelda version. They existed solely to unlock the next level. The only things similar to those are the tears of light in TP, and those are confined to relatively small, linear areas and clearly marked on your map, and they only appear three times in the entire game.

I guess that's true, but I don't remember ever running low on them and I you didn't exactly have to go out of your way to find them either.. At worst, you could pick some up from the store.

 

[Jive Turkey]

When I think "lazy design" I think more along the lines of "triforce hunt" or "sit in the middle of the ocean for five minutes until you arrive at your destination", not an isolated segment of the game that takes 15 seconds to beat.

Well then you go and enjoy your mindless button mashing "tests of strength" and I'll go off and play something that takes some sort of hint of I.Q. even if it is as simple as X marks the spot.

 

[levious]

SFA barely had any exploration, and even fewer bosses. Graphically impressive, but so limited as an adventure game.

 

[TheGrayGhost]

Also...

Starfox Adventures - 60fps (with frequent drops, but eh...)
Twilight Princess - 30fps

Rare are technical gods.

Other way around. TP is 60 FPS.

I'm not sure how Rare emerged with a reputation fo technical savvy. SFA, in particular, was pretty bad. Indy83 will be here shortly. He's infamous for clarifying the truth on this game.

 

[KevinCow]

Other way around. TP is 60 FPS.

The hell version of TP were you playing?

 

[DECK'ARD]

It's a case of massively different priorities.

Rare can make a nice engine, but the scope of a Zelda game and the mechanics etc. are in a different league. For SFA the engine was one of it's selling points, they wanted the engine to make the game stand out, for Zelda the engine was just a means to an end (although still very nice of course).

Zelda games are a work of art, you can't say that about Rare games. Although I'd give the nod to Viva Pinata, in it's own little way.

 

[TheGrayGhost]

The hell version of TP were you playing?

Wii. 60 FPS according to IGN. MP3, SMG, and TP. All 60.

 

[nincompoop]

Well then you go and enjoy your mindless button mashing "tests of strength" and I'll go off and play something that takes some sort of hint of I.Q. even if it is as simple as X marks the spot.

Maybe if you understood the concept of momentum then you would realize that part did not require "mindless" button mashing.

 

[En-ou]

wth?? are you kidding mentioning TP and SFA together? SFA is a big piece of crap.

i'll add something worthwhile:

 

[Jive Turkey]

Maybe if you understood the concept of momentum then you would realize that part did not require "mindless" button mashing.

:lol What does that have to do with my argument? Even with momentum you still have to pound the hell out of the A button.

 

[bard]

I really enjoyed Star Fox Adventures. I won't say it was a fantastic (or very deep) game by any standard, but I had a fun time playing through it, and it was gorgeous, to boot. The voice acting was something terrible, though.