• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Star Fox Zero & Guard - Review Thread

CaVaYeRo

Member
Mine on Star Fox Zero:

http://www.gamereactor.es/analisis/294523/Star+Fox+Zero/

Game is NOT broken, but entry barrier is actually huge. So, my advice is, if you're a fan, give it a try, as with most Platinum Games, after first playthrough you'll feel much better and start getting medals. But beware 3-5h of training, and you have to be patient and open-minded. Then there's a lot of really cool and unique stuff.
 

Regiruler

Member
Interested to see a couple video reviews - but this game really needs a demo. They should have released one 2-3 weeks ago so that people could get accustomed to the control scheme.



Which is fine - high review scores doesnt mean a game is perfect.
Their worry is that the high learning curve would turn people OFF the game.
 
Interested to see a couple video reviews - but this game really needs a demo. They should have released one 2-3 weeks ago so that people could get accustomed to the control scheme.



Which is fine - high review scores doesnt mean a game is perfect.

I strongly agree with that, and I always take reviews as the opinion pieces they are meant to be. I've bought games in the past that scored lower than average because they interested me enough to check them out. If anything, I find reading reviews more interesting after I've completed a game that didn't quite get top marks.
 
And yet they played 30mins of Soda Drinker Pro and said that they were interested in playing more.

here's how much that has to do with this star fox review:

anyhow, as someone who thinks SF64 is a gem of a game I don't even perceive that 2/5 as a bad score. If this is more SF64 then it's likely worth your time if you liked that game
 

danowat

Banned
I can easily believe Soda Drinker Pro is a more interesting game than Star Fox so I'm not sure what you're point is. :p

The point is the GB are raggin on a lot of games, and yet they can play through 30mins of utter shit that is being peddled for $15 as a joke, and give it a positive impression.

People seem to give a lot of credence to GB, and I don't get it.

here's how much that has to do with this star fox review:

Yeah, I get your point, sorry.
 

Social

Member
I was going to buy it tonight, but the reviews are too much "all over the place" for my liking. I'll wait it out and maybe buy it second hand or something.
 

Zemm

Member
The scores are exactly where I thought they'd be after seeing the boring footage of this. Only surprise is Guard having better scores than Zero from some sites.
 

Lunar15

Member
I have to say, my impressions fall closer in line to Game Informer and Giant Bomb: Playing it made me wonder if I ever really liked Star Fox at all.

In some ways, I guess it just didn't age well with me, and Zero doesn't really do much outside of that original formula to make it feel fresh or interesting.

My recommendation is to only get this game if Star Fox is by far your most cherished franchise and would like a romp through the original 64 with some slightly different controls and some uninteresting side missions.
 

Raw64life

Member
About what I expected. The game never looked very impressive.

Might grab this later in the year if it drops in price enough.
 
Star Fox Zero reviews in a nutshell

tumblr_nqj8wxph2u1s2wio8o1_500.gif
 
If this game got 11/10 across the board, people would still find reasons to trash it.

Actually, that would make me reconsider checking it out.

Now, I'm perfectly content to never play it.

I wasn't a Star Fox fan to begin with, obviously. I totally understand this game's appeal to StarFox fans.
 
Giant bomb guy seems to be complaining BECAUSE it's like SF64 but it has come out too late. Not sure I follow. If a game is fun, it's fun. Why does it matter when it's released?
 
The last paragraph of the GB review sum up what that headline means.

All of this would have been welcome in the early 2000s, but the years of disappointing follow-ups and the overall progression of industry standards leads to Star Fox Zero having the impact of an HD rerelease rather than a full sequel. Being able to beat the game in 2-3 hours doesn't help, no matter how many branching paths or lackluster challenge missions are included. Even the moment-to-moment action doesn't have anywhere near the impact that it had almost two decades ago, as this limited style of gameplay feels dated in 2016. Nintendo finally released the Star Fox game that I thought I wanted, but it leaves me wondering what place Fox McCloud has in today’s gaming landscape.

He just seems to be saying it is dated overall. Yes, games released around 2002 were good but if those exact same games were released as $60 games today, it wouldn't be pretty in terms of reviews.
 
Surprised by the reception, I had a great time with the game and the controls. And wtf at the 2-3 hours complaints, that's like the basis of Star Fox.
 

Geg

Member
Eh, the two best games on the Wii U have metacritic scores in the 70s & 80s range so I don't really give reviews that much weight anymore.

I agree a demo to test out the controls for myself would be nice though
 

Ok, this review I can get behind.
Every fear that the Wii U's Gamepad is a gimmicky albatross around Nintendo's neck comes to fruition here, as Star Fox Zero's attempts at legitimizing that idiosyncratic bit of tech become its undoing
Yikes, Why did they insist on gyro controls? Gyro controls suck!
At least it seems the review liked the game, but the controls made is meh.
 

Courage

Member
I can totally see this being a Wonderful 101 situation where reviewers give it shit for its daunting control scheme but ends up being a GAF cult classic. I await the LTTP Neiteio thread in a few months.
 

Onemic

Member
But people have been asking for a new proper Star Fox for ages so surely being the Star Fox people wanted in 2002, 2012 or 2016 is all the same. Unless he's saying people have been asking for a 2/5 quality game for over ten years which is rather illogical.

Tried to get a pot shot in and missed the target.

I dont think so at all. You guys are reaching way too hard to criticize his review.(especially when other reviewers are echoing the same criticisms) He's clearly using 2002 as a means to summarize that the game feels extremely dated.
 

McDougles

Member
See, what did I tell you? People are going to use the controls as an excuse for the missions being "unplayable". Guess I won my bet.

Ctrl + F "unplayable"

0 results.

If you're going to misquote my review, at least wait for me to leave the room.
 

MrDaravon

Member
The last paragraph of the GB review sum up what that headline means.



He just seems to be saying it is dated overall. Yes, games released around 2002 were good but if those exact same games were released as $60 games today, it wouldn't be pretty in terms of reviews.

It's a review thread, no one is going to actually bother reading reviews or look for context in the headlines :p

Sad to see that it looked like my concerns about the controls were accurate. Passing on this one, I'm a casual Starfox fan at best, was mostly only interested in it because of Platinum's involvement.
 
giant bomb's review said:
Being able to beat the game in 2-3 hours doesn't help, no matter how many branching paths or lackluster challenge missions are included.

yeah, that sure sounds like SF64 part deux. I'll hold off till its cheap then, i'm not going to pay full price for something that short
 
Top Bottom