Post by: Hostile Creation on January 26, 2005, 07:23:44 PM
However, it is coming out soon and I'm extremely interested in it.
My opening comment: Falco is too metrosexual.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on January 26, 2005, 07:34:18 PM
Post by: PaLaDiN on January 26, 2005, 07:43:19 PM
If they polish the ground missions extensively, who knows, this game could actually be pretty good.
Post by: Hemmorrhoid on January 26, 2005, 10:52:20 PM
if it gets decent ratings im buying it
Post by: Nephilim on January 26, 2005, 11:53:50 PM
everything else looks wicked, esp the ammount of ships on screen while in the space stages
its insane
Post by: Bill Aurion on January 27, 2005, 03:07:51 AM
Post by: MaleficentOgre on January 27, 2005, 03:59:41 AM
Post by: TMW on January 27, 2005, 04:45:37 AM
I guess it's to offset the exxxtreme Kyrstal joining the ranks.
Yeah...I'm hoping the ground missions are decent...but even if they aren't, the Classic(tm) Starfox action will be worth suffering through them, at the least.
That, and it'll be nice to give Falco a missile facial...other than on SSBM, that is...
Post by: Caterkiller on January 27, 2005, 06:46:10 AM
Post by: Hostile Creation on January 27, 2005, 07:02:05 AM
Post by: odifiend on January 27, 2005, 07:09:42 AM
Post by: TMW on January 27, 2005, 07:12:39 AM
That wasn't the reason I was getting the game, but it'll be a nice addition.
Post by: Ian Sane on January 27, 2005, 08:02:03 AM
If it turns like Rebel Strike did I'll still buy it but I'll probably wait and get it cheap. Rebel Strike was worth owning but not worth $70 CAN.
The co-op however could really make the game if pulled off well. Sorry to compare to Rebel Strike again but the co-op Rogue Leader missions were one of the parts that that game just NAILED. If they can get the co-op in Star Fox to be anything like that this game is just going to rule.
Post by: Pale on January 27, 2005, 08:46:22 AM
Post by: vudu on January 27, 2005, 09:06:22 AM
Post by: Ian Sane on January 27, 2005, 09:08:29 AM
Since this is a linear game you have to play all the walking missions to get to all the flying missions. So thus half of the time you're not having fun. In Rebel Strike it was HELL to beat some of the walking missions to get to later flying missions. I spent a fair bit of time with that game bored and frustrated. In game design quantity is not better than quality. This isn't like a CD where you can skip filler songs. If something is really bad you don't want it in there at all.
Post by: KnowsNothing on January 27, 2005, 09:44:53 AM
Also, Bill needs to make a comeback, because he was WAY rad. Also, that funky cat girl that only showed up in that one level could make a cameo, but she is < Bill
Post by: joshnickerson on January 27, 2005, 10:24:40 AM
Post by: odifiend on January 27, 2005, 10:26:32 AM
Post by: Hostile Creation on January 27, 2005, 10:28:56 AM
As I said, I really don't know, but I don't see this having that many walking missions. I can also see missions that will be part walking (Arwing goes down, find the Landmaster, something like that).
Post by: odifiend on January 27, 2005, 10:41:38 AM
Post by: Hemmorrhoid on January 27, 2005, 11:52:10 PM
Post by: couchmonkey on January 28, 2005, 04:42:25 AM
I hope Nintendo can manage to release the Revolution early next year, because this looks like a great year to cap off the GameCube's lifespan. The Super NES and N64 both had that really icky final year where there were about three games worth playing all year, and everyone was basically just waiting for the new system. Well, everyone whose really into games, anyway.
Post by: Bill Aurion on January 28, 2005, 04:44:45 AM
Post by: CHEN on January 28, 2005, 07:41:16 AM
QuoteGo, go, Katt.
Originally posted by: KnowsNothing
Needs more submarine.
Also, Bill needs to make a comeback, because he was WAY rad. Also, that funky cat girl that only showed up in that one level could make a cameo, but she is < Bill
Planet Venom can suck my tiny little peewee.
Post by: Caterkiller on January 28, 2005, 01:13:04 PM
Post by: Hostile Creation on January 28, 2005, 01:20:17 PM
Post by: Berto2K on January 30, 2005, 06:18:17 PM
Post by: Hostile Creation on January 30, 2005, 06:38:36 PM
It's hard, eh? Excellent. At first, when I saw the videos for the tank and all of that I thought it looked terrible, but it didn't take me long to appreciate how it was just going with the old style, which is pretty cool. Can't wait to check this game out.
Post by: Gamefreak on January 30, 2005, 06:50:37 PM
Also, Fox and co looked way better in SFA...
And finally, the graphics, on a technical level, were so much better in SFA it's not even funny.. The on ground missions look horrible for a GCN game so late in the game and for a game so long in development... Even the character models are bad... While they have fur shading (not quite as good as SFA's from what I've seen) in the briefing screens they don't have them in game, where the polycounts are also much lower. Anyway, so yeah I don't like the look of the game at all..
As for the game itself, hopefully it will turn out to be good, but I'm not banking on much better than that... So far it just seems like a more arcadey/worse looking version of Rebel Strike..
Post by: Bill Aurion on January 30, 2005, 06:54:27 PM
OH GAWD IT DOES NOT HAVE GRAPHICS 7.9
Post by: Berto2K on January 30, 2005, 07:26:41 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Gamefreak
I don't like the art style. I'm totally not liking the whole "anime makeover" .... The ships in SFA/Smash Bros. looked much cooler... Say what you will about SFA, but the graphics and art direction far eclipse this new game... Not to mention it was consistent with Star Fox's look from SF64 and Smash Bros. Melee... The new game's art and ships look way too pointy and anime and ripped out of some cliche Japanese show about robots flying around blowing each other up...
Also, Fox and co looked way better in SFA...
And finally, the graphics, on a technical level, were so much better in SFA it's not even funny.. The on ground missions look horrible for a GCN game so late in the game and for a game so long in development... Even the character models are bad... While they have fur shading (not quite as good as SFA's from what I've seen) in the briefing screens they don't have them in game, where the polycounts are also much lower. Anyway, so yeah I don't like the look of the game at all..
As for the game itself, hopefully it will turn out to be good, but I'm not banking on much better than that... So far it just seems like a more arcadey/worse looking version of Rebel Strike..
You are basing a games enjoyment simply onthe graphics? Then you need to leave. My god. Seriously, I thought we were pasted this. Well at least the gamers are. I dunno where you getting the anime stylization from. Guess that means one more copy available for someone else who will appreciate the game for its gameplay then.
If you want to see the game in action for yourself, just look over here. the vids were captured by myself of the the final retail version. http://gc.advancedmn.com/article.php?artid=4201
As for myself, I am throughly enjoying it. Yes it has gone back to its roots as a shooter. Its a good one too. Lots of options in what to blow up just for fun or because its needed.
Post by: Hostile Creation on January 30, 2005, 07:39:06 PM
Does this support LAN? I remember hearing it did, way back when. Would you be able to play co-op on two separate television screens, for instance?
Post by: CHEN on January 31, 2005, 07:52:25 AM
Edit: Heh, it's the same mission I described. And it seems you're better in it. Then again, I was on a showfloor with hundreds of people.
Post by: TMW on January 31, 2005, 09:12:39 AM
I can't load the page...so I'll just have to take you guy's word for it.
Alas...with no Blockbuster or Hollywood Video in my area...I won't get to rent it early...
Woe...woe is me...
Post by: Berto2K on January 31, 2005, 12:41:21 PM
Glad you guys like the vids, I gonna try and add a few more tonight.
Post by: Sir_Kero on January 31, 2005, 02:10:41 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Berto2K
Guess that means one more copy available for someone else who will appreciate the game for its gameplay then.
That would be me. Thanks GF!
Honestly, the only thing I don't like of what I've seen is the Rare influence. I really don't like the changes they made to Slippy and Peppy, much less the Airwings. I'm exceedingly glad to see them looking sharp like the originals.
As for the walking sections... I'd be surprised if Namco can make something as bad as Factor5's (seriously, what happened since Turrican? Sure it's been over a decade, but you'd think they'd never even played a good platformer)
P.S.
Just watched the gameplay video. Looks great! Feb 1st can't come soon enough (yes, 5 hours is too long)
Watching it I was almost expecting to hear the old Corneria theme. I guess I'm a little dissapointed with the SF64/Smash Bros. type Soundtrack. [sulk]I'll console myself with Wingless' take on it[/sulk]
Post by: joshnickerson on January 31, 2005, 02:21:13 PM
Post by: Bill Aurion on January 31, 2005, 02:32:12 PM
The gameplay video doesn't take place in Corneria, so that's understandable...
Post by: Hostile Creation on January 31, 2005, 02:45:10 PM
Jeezus, I'm ridiculously hyped for this game. I wasn't feeling much prior to these videos, but now that I see some good old Star Fox is back it's hitting me all at once.
Post by: Switchblade Cross on January 31, 2005, 03:59:13 PM
Post by: TMW on January 31, 2005, 05:32:05 PM
For once, I am looking forwards to Valentines day for all the wrong reasons.
I'm just glad I don't have a girlfriend. It would be a tough decision...flowers and chocolate...or Starfox...
Post by: Myxtika1 Azn on January 31, 2005, 10:28:03 PM
Post by: Berto2K on January 31, 2005, 10:45:42 PM
). These vids were from one of my first few runs through the mission.The more missions you pass, the more areas you have available for multiplayer. Each mission you beat, that area is availble in multi. I have 11 arenas open for multi so far.
Post by: Hostile Creation on February 01, 2005, 04:14:19 AM
Speaking of Starfox 64. . . the way the game was laid out, you could beat it in about an hour. You went along a certain path until you got to Venom, usually consisting of about six or seven missions. What really made the game was that you could change your path depending on certain secrets you found or objectives you accomplished, so you seldom went the same route twice and could decide, once you know how, which missions you wanted to play. You mentioned eleven arenas (which is awesome, sounds like multi'll be a blast), so was that a whole run-through or two or is the game laid out differently?
Post by: TMW on February 01, 2005, 05:59:04 AM
Is there co-op?
Post by: Bill Aurion on February 01, 2005, 08:37:49 AM
Post by: SgtShiversBen on February 01, 2005, 08:45:51 AM
Post by: Ian Sane on February 01, 2005, 08:58:59 AM
Though I think a level select of some sort would be nice for the times when you just want to play one specific level. But it should just be a practice mode for levels that you've already completed. In order to see the ending or unlock a new level in the level select you should have to play through the whole thing. There's a fine line between being user friendly and dumbing down the game.
Post by: Bill Aurion on February 01, 2005, 09:07:28 AM
And you can go back and play any level you want, so this game has pretty set aside something for everyone... ^_^
Post by: TMW on February 01, 2005, 09:34:06 AM
But I suppose I can find it in my heart to forgive Namco for it.
Post by: Ian Sane on February 01, 2005, 09:57:14 AM
Yeah. Gotta dumb down the game for all those casual gamers that don't buy Gamecubes anyway. Funny how Nintendo will not change with the industry in so many other ways yet has had no problem following the trend of making games easier and easier.
Post by: D-Mac Double on February 01, 2005, 10:01:34 AM
To me, the Out Of This Dimension stage from the SNES Starfox is the greatest thing in video games. Ever.
Post by: Hostile Creation on February 01, 2005, 11:18:46 AM
Post by: Bill Aurion on February 01, 2005, 11:31:30 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
"The game saves after each mission"
Yeah. Gotta dumb down the game for all those casual gamers that don't buy Gamecubes anyway. Funny how Nintendo will not change with the industry in so many other ways yet has had no problem following the trend of making games easier and easier.
Funny how you only recognize the part of my post that applies to your argument...
Post by: joshnickerson on February 01, 2005, 11:45:10 AM
And yes, I've played StarFox 64 straight through many many times, but that was before I had a 10 hr. a day job.
Post by: Bill Aurion on February 01, 2005, 11:46:44 AM
Post by: Gamefreak on February 01, 2005, 12:02:00 PM
Anyway I have never said if this will be good or bad... Although I'm totally unimpressed with what I've seen with the ground combat. And since I'm likely going to be criticized in the future for saying anything negative about your precious Nintendo games, I'm just going to say that I'm a very touch critic and I'm not going to excuse faults for any reason, especially if something "is supposed to be like that for whatever reason" even though obviously hinders the game. Good thing Capcom changed the camera in RE4 huh?
Anyway quit implying I'm not a real gamer or stuff like that... Anyway like I said I'm tough but I'm fair and I understand things (gasp) even if you don't bother to write it out explicitly saying otherwise. I'm complaining about the graphics. Do I really have to write out that I understand this does not imply I doubt the gameplay quality? o_O It's like my reader reviews on Gamespot (Gamefreak72) ... I don't write much explaining everyt little thing since that would take pages, but I give a LOT of thought to the scores I assign, I even have huge spreadsheets with score charts across all games I've ever completed, with fair scores given in the time period of its release... Speaking of which, perhaps I should upload some more to gamespot... good way to waste time
Post by: Hostile Creation on February 01, 2005, 01:59:10 PM
Hopefully it won't be a pile of crap like the last one was.
Bill, do you know if there are separate paths you can take, or just one long set path?
Post by: Bill Aurion on February 01, 2005, 02:09:18 PM
Post by: Hostile Creation on February 01, 2005, 02:18:49 PM
I'm also amazed that every level is in multiplayer. That's just bizarre.
Post by: Deguello on February 02, 2005, 04:38:11 AM
Ian, really. This thread is about StarFox. This thread has nothing to do with the industry. I know you negatively criticize Nintendo a lot. Every second post of yours is "What Nintendo is doing wrong and how Ian can fix it." And that's ok. Really. It's your right to. Whatever. But you are letting it bleed into unrelated threads. I have great respect for you Ian, but you are becoming like the cubed_canuck. You may have zealous concern about Nintendo, but it appears you are just trolling, like cubed_canuck did. Can't we just have one thread about a game where you don't barge in and play that one record about industry position again, hmm?
Post by: Ian Sane on February 02, 2005, 07:12:01 AM
Ouch! The ultimate insult.
That guy liked the Xbox though. Bleh.Okay I'll get back on topic. IGN posted their impressions and they don't sound too keen on the on-foot missions. I'm getting a Rebel Strike vibe from their impressions. So to those here who have played it what are the on-foot parts like?
Post by: hudsonhawk on February 02, 2005, 10:45:26 AM
The cool dynamic of it is that you will often have to jump out of your tank, run inside and blow something up, and then run back out to your tank. The weapon switching is slightly annoying, but otherwise it's fun and adds some variety.
But I'm only about 90 minutes into it, which means I'm on the 4th level or so. Thus far: it's big fun, but might be more of a renter than a buyer. More evolutionary than revolutionary, in terms of how it compares to the 64 title.
Post by: joshnickerson on February 02, 2005, 11:33:25 AM
Post by: Hostile Creation on February 02, 2005, 11:49:08 AM
What I would like to see is Fox in his Arwing, covering someone who's on the ground while they do that part of the mission. I think that would be awesome. They were "covering" you in a few levels in the 64 games, but covering someone else would bring a new challenge and more fun to the game, at least for one level. I can't imagine who he'd cover, though, unless it were Slippy in the landmaster or something. Maybe Krystal, but Falco doesn't seem the type to leave his ship much at all.
Post by: Bill Aurion on February 02, 2005, 12:35:16 PM
Post by: Hostile Creation on February 02, 2005, 06:31:13 PM
Post by: Gamefreak on February 02, 2005, 08:20:57 PM
So um yeah, it's not that great at all. The music actually turned out to be nice, and some of the flying parts are really fun, but the ground combat is just not good and overall, it's pretty average.
Post by: Hostile Creation on February 02, 2005, 08:31:52 PM
Post by: Gamefreak on February 02, 2005, 08:39:46 PM
But playing Assault now is way, way, waaay less impressive now than playing Star Fox 64 was back in 1996 (or was it 97) on the N64.
Basically if you're a Star Fox fan then yes, this game is definately worth getting, but it could've been much better, especially for a freaking 2005 game.
PS you should know I'm an extremely critical and tough person when it comes to games, heck I thought Wind Waker, Half-life 2, and even No One Lives Forever 2 were disappointing and not as good as they should have been, although I acknowledge they were among the best of 2003, 2004, and 2002 respectively... But yeah you probably shouldn't listen to me too much... I'm sure you'll have a great time with this game. Although, yeah, it could have been way better.
Post by: PaLaDiN on February 02, 2005, 09:27:44 PM
*Looks around with shifty eyes*
What if you didn't play SF64? You know, just a hypothetical question.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on February 02, 2005, 10:05:02 PM
.
Post by: joshnickerson on February 03, 2005, 03:41:16 AM
After reading PGC impressions, I'm starting to become a bit worried myself, especially if you can't even use the R trigger to barrel roll anymore.
Crap. And I LOVE Star Fox...
Post by: Hostile Creation on February 03, 2005, 03:58:19 AM
Therefore I'll probably end up renting this (or trying out my friend's copy) and maybe purchasing, depending on what I think.
Jesus Christ, I can't wait until Nintendo starts making Starfox again. Didn't they learn their lesson with Rare?
Post by: odifiend on February 03, 2005, 04:27:19 AM
Post by: joshnickerson on February 03, 2005, 04:54:17 AM
Post by: TMW on February 03, 2005, 06:00:09 AM
But you bring up a good point HC. Comparing to SF64 isn't very fair...
Still...I'm suddenly having second thoughts about buying it on release day.
Oh what should I do? *sobs*
Post by: Hostile Creation on February 03, 2005, 06:02:59 AM
Post by: joshnickerson on February 03, 2005, 06:23:17 AM
Post by: Ian Sane on February 03, 2005, 06:31:45 AM
I think it's more like comparing Jesus to God. This isn't just some game. This is STAR FOX. Therefore it's perfectly valid to compare it to the Star Fox games that came before it. A sequel should be comparable to other entries in the series. If the series is of high quality then it's fair to judge the sequels by those standards regardless of how high they are. I don't just want a good game, I want a good Star Fox game. An average Star Fox game doesn't cut it.
After reading both IGN's review and Bloodworth's impressions I'm renting it. This sounds exactly like what I was afraid I would get: Rebel Strike with animals.
Post by: Flames_of_chaos on February 03, 2005, 06:33:58 AM
Post by: vudu on February 03, 2005, 07:02:30 AM
Post by: Hostile Creation on February 03, 2005, 07:04:16 AM
Yeah, I realized my wording wasn't quite appropriate, because it is fair to compare them. I'm aware that it won't be as much fun as Starfox 64, but I'd still like to know how it compares to other games. I hope that it's at least better than Star Fox Adventures. If it's not, I won't be buying it.
Post by: Bill Aurion on February 03, 2005, 07:36:56 AM
But looking back at IGN reviews, they've given two games I love, Mario Party 6 and Luigi's Mansion, 7.0's so I'm pretty confident I'll love this too...
Post by: hudsonhawk on February 03, 2005, 08:49:36 AM
Another thing, is that 7/10 levels are the arena-style levels - all of which play exactly the same. They're fun at first, but then you realilze that they really lack depth - not to mention that it is really, really annoying trying to help your mates out when you're on foot.
I'm surprised no one has drawn this comparison, but those arena missions feel a lot like the single-player campaign from Star Wars: Battlefront - you're running around, trying to take out the enemy spawn points, can jump in air and ground vehicles, etc.
I think this is where the multiplayer complaints come in; this game is just *begging* for a cooperative mode, but all it has is deathmatch. With cooperative, this game would have absolutely owned - one guy, running around on the ground or inside, plugging bugs, while the other person circled in an arwing and protected them. Without it.... it feels shallow and repetative, just like SW: Battlefront did in single player.
The on-rails stuff is classic, fun and pretty - but there's only 3 levels of it! It's pretty bad when StarFox Adventures has more classic Starfox gameplay than this one.
The more I play it, the more I just think, "Meh."
Post by: Hostile Creation on February 03, 2005, 09:01:25 AM
Post by: hudsonhawk on February 03, 2005, 10:05:53 AM
"As far as on-rails levels go, Star Fox Assault has them, but maybe not as many as you'd like. I believe that three of the 10 missions in the game are on-rails, while the remaining seven take place in full-freedom 3D on the ground and in the skies."
I'm on something like level 8 or 9 so far, so I can't confirm / deny this quote, but from what I've seen it can't be far off.
Post by: KnowsNothing on February 03, 2005, 01:01:06 PM
The voices were kinda annoying. The actual voice-work was mediocre, but the team talked almost non-stop the whole mission >_< Plus, what's up with the voices sounding funneled, ala Baten Kaitos. At least BK had SOME kind of excuse (being in another dimension or something, I don't have the game...). I supposed the voice-transmition system inside the Arwings could be responsible......owait, they sound terrible in the briefing too. Hurrah!
The level looked good, I guess...... It looked weird. I can't put my finger on, but it didn't feel right. Too many lines....? It still looked pretty fun. You know, not BAD, but not spectacular. Too many sentances. Oh, and what the hell is with the new barrel-roll system thing? Use L + direction? HAT. hay bill, what are you talking about
I'll still be picking this up, just not at lunch. Wait some bits, get Touch and Go and MaWaRu, play some more, wait a little, get some coupons, BAM, this thing will be $30-40 used, Star Fox get. THAT'S THE PLAN.
Post by: Bill Aurion on February 03, 2005, 01:04:39 PM
(Um, the voices don't sound funneled at all, get your ears checked...And the barrel roll is fine...)
Post by: Hostile Creation on February 03, 2005, 03:37:05 PM
Getting a damn job might also help, but I've been working on that. Meanwhile, I'll be lobbying for Nintendo to go back to making Starfox games.
Post by: AMac2002 on February 03, 2005, 03:50:06 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Bill Aurion
They complained about multiplayer being in the game...No, seriously, they did... <_<
But looking back at IGN reviews, they've given two games I love, Mario Party 6 and Luigi's Mansion, 7.0's so I'm pretty confident I'll love this too...
Well, just cuz it got in the 7's never meant you couldn't enjoy/love them.
Post by: Bloodworth on February 03, 2005, 04:13:11 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Bill Aurion
Yes, you use the C-stick...
(Um, the voices don't sound funneled at all, get your ears checked...And the barrel roll is fine...)
Bill, you get your ears checked. They sound like they're in a steel box.
Post by: Bill Aurion on February 03, 2005, 04:57:58 PM
But the effect actually gives the in-mission voices a more "realistic" static-y tone, which I like...
Post by: Caterkiller on February 03, 2005, 06:39:54 PM
Post by: Ian Sane on February 03, 2005, 07:34:42 PM
Well as far as I've read the game itself isn't poorly polished in that it's glitchy or obviously unfinished. The polish is there there just isn't really a solid Star Fox game behind it. Star Fox Adventures was the same way. The game was obviously professional enough for release. It just wasn't very good as a game. If the game was unplayable I could see Nintendo interfering but they can't really do anything if the gameplay just isn't designed well. Would you pull the plug on a technically well made game that you already spent money on?
Though this makes me worried about the Gamecube Advance Wars which like Star Fox Assault is being designed by another developer and is breaking away from the traditional design.
Post by: Gamefreak on February 03, 2005, 07:59:32 PM
Not being glitchy or unfinished is not being "polished". You can pick up a 10 year old camry that's banged up and dirty as heck but runs perfectly...it's not glitchy but it's not polished either. Since when has the simple act of releasing an unbroken game been "polish"? That's not polish, that's the bare minimum, which is what Assault.
Polish is Warcraft III. Super Smash Bros. Melee. Ocarina of Time. No One Lives Forever 2. Even Star Fox Adventures was polished. This game is NOT polished...
PS ian are you going to read all that advice I gave your pc gamepad thread or what?
Post by: Bloodworth on February 03, 2005, 09:23:46 PM
Post by: Gamefreak on February 03, 2005, 09:40:30 PM
Wake me when something good comes out.
Post by: Mario on February 03, 2005, 10:29:44 PM
Post by: Gamefreak on February 03, 2005, 11:08:28 PM
The space scenes actually look better than I expected (that doesn't mean great though)... lots of stuff going on... well not really, it's mostly in the background and you just shoot things.. yeah not very deep. whatever.
Maybe we'll get some 4 player online co-op Star Fox missions with voice chat in Star Fox DS.
(thinks for a moment on what an awesome idea that is, the slaps self and laughs at how that will never happen because the people who run Nintendo are freaking stupid)
Post by: Mario on February 03, 2005, 11:29:58 PM
Post by: Hostile Creation on February 04, 2005, 03:55:32 AM
Quote
Even Star Fox Adventures was polished.
What? That's like trying to give dirt a brilliant luster. Star Fox Adventures was pretty, but that's the extent of its polish.
Post by: Mario on February 04, 2005, 04:28:13 AM
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on February 04, 2005, 08:17:41 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Mario
amazing soundtrack.
Ummm, No. Being half-of-a-game, it only had half of a good soundtrack.
Post by: Gamefreak on February 05, 2005, 06:17:48 PM
Post by: Mario on February 06, 2005, 03:20:42 AM
What....? You're both insane. I can remember tons of great songs from Starfox Adventures. Krazoa Palace, Cape Claw, Ocean Force Point temple, Snowhorn Wastes and especially the end credits song come to mind as some of the best videogame tracks i've ever heard, and those are just ones I remember! The whole soundtrack is great. Whatever, back to Starfox Assault discussion.
Post by: Gamebasher on February 06, 2005, 10:28:23 AM
I just read their reveiw of StarFox: Assault, and they´ve given it an unbelievable 7 out of 10!!
This is one of Nintendo´s best franchises, so I´d feel that it had deserved better. From any video from the game that I´ve seen, it is clear that it has improved significantly over it´s E3 build! So why such a low score?
The reviewer, Juan Castro, laments the lack of proper voice acting, lack of proper cooperation from teammates and no real precise steering. He also complains about the "on-rails" type of gameplay which prevents true freedom in the game.
Still, that the on-rails way is how it was on Nintendo 64, and that game recieved a fair 8.9 in score.
Looks like IGN don´t think well of StarFox anylonger.
Post by: Hemmorrhoid on February 06, 2005, 10:52:24 AM
I havent seen any beter scores yet, so it obviously is mediocre and not much more
its probably just not such a good game, maybe Nintendo made a mistake
F-Zero worked, but SFA seemingly not
Post by: Myxtika1 Azn on February 06, 2005, 11:18:19 AM
I did not like the on-ground missions at first because it took some getting used to. Even after I've gotten used to it, I still do not like it because it takes forever to finish. Maybe if Fox had a 180 degree turn it'd be better.
Helping your friends is a pain in the ass when you're not in your ship. Even if you're in your ship, your teammate will be so far away that you would actually have to boost up to get to them. A lot of the time, your teammate will have at least 3 ships after them, and by the time you catch up to them, they will most likely have made a sharp turn, causing you to fly past them.
It doesn't seem like the combo system is the same as in the 64 version, meaning that once you lock on and it one enemy, the surrounding enemies won't be destroyed either. This makes helping out your friends a lot more frustrating.
The graphics are impressive, as are the music. I especially like the new Star Wolf mix. The Arwing and Landmaster controls took some getting used to -- mainly because I don't have the manual (I got a Blockbuster rental).
As for that Juan Castro complaining about "on-rails" gameplay, I have to say 'what a f****** idiot.' With all the ground mission in this game, this is the most "off-rail" StarFox game of the three. And what the hell does he mean by 'lack of proper cooperation from teammates'? Since when have your teammates really offered any help? At least in this version, your teammates will give you items. And 'no precise steering' what?? I'm not gonna give them another hit for their advertisers, so did he elaborate on what he meant?
IGN -- a bunch of idiots.
Post by: Ian Sane on February 06, 2005, 05:47:46 PM
Yet all the Star Fox fans are complaining that there's not enough on-rails levels. IGN's score sounds accurate it's just their complaints about the game are the complete opposite of what the target audience thinks.
IGN in general though is REALLY bad at judging any game in a non-mainstream genre. Gradius V for example lost points simply because it's a SHMUP and numerous 2D fighters get slammed for being 2D fighting games.
Post by: Myxtika1 Azn on February 07, 2005, 03:55:51 PM
The one thing that I'm upset about now is that there are no branching levels like the previous two games have. Maybe I need to play through it again or something. Try to do better and see if there's a stage I do not recognize.
There is more story this time around, which might be why there are no branching off of levels. Then again, with the way the story is laid out, I guess that they can work different levels into it.
Edit: Refering back to Juan Castrated's comment about teammate cooperation, I have this to say: Help your friends out, and they'll return the favor.
Post by: Gamefreak on February 07, 2005, 05:34:17 PM
Post by: xts3 on February 07, 2005, 06:38:25 PM
Post by: xts3 on February 07, 2005, 07:09:21 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Gamebasher
Is it just me, or has IGN gone nuts?
I just read their reveiw of StarFox: Assault, and they´ve given it an unbelievable 7 out of 10!!
This is one of Nintendo´s best franchises, so I´d feel that it had deserved better. From any video from the game that I´ve seen, it is clear that it has improved significantly over it´s E3 build! So why such a low score?
The reviewer, Juan Castro, laments the lack of proper voice acting, lack of proper cooperation from teammates and no real precise steering. He also complains about the "on-rails" type of gameplay which prevents true freedom in the game.
Still, that the on-rails way is how it was on Nintendo 64, and that game recieved a fair 8.9 in score.
Looks like IGN don´t think well of StarFox anylonger.
Yeah I hear you on that one. I hate people who talk about the "true freedom", they dont know anything about fun and games. People play games as long as they are fun, not because they have some unquantifiable "fun" characteristic like "freedom". I like games like Freespace 2 and Starfox's "On rails" shooter too, the problem is starfox would suck if people tried to turn it into an "arcadey" sim like Freespace/FS2 on the PC and Freespace series on the PC sold horribly.
I think Nintendo trying to get games out quicker is sacrificing what keeps their fans: Quality and fun.
Post by: Gamefreak on February 07, 2005, 07:50:08 PM
A bit too leniant IMO, i'd definately not go as far as an 8 for graphics, I'd probably give 5 or 6 gameplay and 6 or 7 graphics and 6 or 7 tilt.
Post by: Gamebasher on February 08, 2005, 12:46:09 AM
"Yet all the Star Fox fans are complaining that there's not enough on-rails levels. IGN's score sounds accurate it's just their complaints about the game are the complete opposite of what the target audience thinks.
"IGN in general though is REALLY bad at judging any game in a non-mainstream genre. Gradius V for example lost points simply because it's a SHMUP and numerous 2D fighters get slammed for being 2D fighting games."
Hmm, I must say that I don´t think it´s a huge problem for Nintendo that IGN gives StarFox a hard time. Not on second thought. I think we haven´t seen the last of IGN´s bad scores for Nintendo games. Next one up to score badly may be the next Metroid game which they may not like for some reason. But that is no problem. Nintendo wont be affected by that website and it´s anti-Nintendo tunes. We can all just abandon that website, and it´s shamefull hypocrisy and all-gone-wrong favorizing of hope-to-be-winner consoles (I hold in clear memory how Matt Cassamassina gave the the DS the thumbs down, while favoring the PSP and yet there is in the "Other Systems" on page 7 of that thread Forum members debatting the whole PSP thing. On again other pages there are people who actually owns a PSP or who got to play it, and they complain either about poor make of the screens finish or about the samey games that they can play bigger and better on a tv! And some of them laments the lack of a touchscreen for the unit! So what did I say in my previous topics and posts about all this? I said that the NDS will win because it is a far more entertaining platform, which gives a real meaning to own a portable console! Looks like IGN put their bets on the wrong horse!! Matt and x-box friends can go down with the PSP allthogether! The NDS is already opening up a whole new market for gaming! Shame on them! For what they are, is biased like hell!)!!!!
I´m simply so anti-SONY because they DON`T know games, only at bragging about them! Just like good old Nintendo God Hiroshi Yamauchi always says!
Post by: joshnickerson on February 08, 2005, 02:41:08 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: xts3
Another nail in the coffin for Nintendo, first Sunshine, then the Sea travel in Wind waker, and now Starfox. Ouch. I wonder if they are going to lose huge amount of money on Starfox. 7.3 on gamespot spells "RENT" in big letters.
OMFGIH!!!!11 NiNTENdo iS TEH DOOMMEEDDDD!111
Post by: Mario on February 08, 2005, 02:41:45 AM
Quote
I think Nintendo trying to get games out quicker is sacrificing what keeps their fans: Quality and fun.
Quick? Star Fox Assault has been in development for a billion years.
Post by: KDR_11k on February 08, 2005, 05:16:55 AM
Post by: Ian Sane on February 08, 2005, 06:14:09 AM
You mean Metroid Prime Hunters? I was pretty unimpressed by the demo so I don't think it's going to turn into an amazing game anyway.
"Quick? Star Fox Assault has been in development for a billion years."
True but by Nintendo handing it to another developer it may have been released quicker. If they made it themselves then it might not be out yet because of other games getting priority. Or something else would have been pushed back to make room for it. It's not so much Nintendo getting games out quicker but more them cutting corners to get as many franchise games out as possible. So we see games being given to other devs and Mario and Zelda getting rushed. If they just said "alright, we can't release sequels to all our franchises and make new games at the same time. Let's have some of our less popular franchises take a break for a generation like Metroid did and then come back to them a little later" we would probably see a higher standard of quality.
I find Nintendo's recent mentality that the franchises themselves are what's important also doesn't help. Nintendo clearly thinks that the Star Fox name is what sells so shoehorning it into an unrelated game or having a third party work on it doesn't make a difference to them. They fail to realize that the only reason those franchises are popular is because they're associated with quality.
Post by: Gamefreak on February 08, 2005, 05:08:30 PM
At least Rebel Strike had the entire Rogue Leader game in co-op... probably the only reason to buy the game.
Post by: Hostile Creation on February 08, 2005, 06:25:42 PM
Post by: zelos_rules on February 08, 2005, 06:41:04 PM
Post by: Bill Aurion on February 08, 2005, 06:50:03 PM
Post by: Myxtika1 Azn on February 08, 2005, 07:36:08 PM
Gamefreak, did you even finish the game at all? Or did you just give up after the first few levels? To me it seems like the lather rather than the former. All I gotta to say to all those people who are thinking that it's a bad game is: Give It A Chance. Don't say it's bad until you've played it to the end.
Post by: heinous_anus on February 08, 2005, 08:27:27 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Gamebasher
IanSane, you wrote:
"Yet all the Star Fox fans are complaining that there's not enough on-rails levels. IGN's score sounds accurate it's just their complaints about the game are the complete opposite of what the target audience thinks.
"IGN in general though is REALLY bad at judging any game in a non-mainstream genre. Gradius V for example lost points simply because it's a SHMUP and numerous 2D fighters get slammed for being 2D fighting games."
Hmm, I must say that I don´t think it´s a huge problem for Nintendo that IGN gives StarFox a hard time. Not on second thought. I think we haven´t seen the last of IGN´s bad scores for Nintendo games. Next one up to score badly may be the next Metroid game which they may not like for some reason. But that is no problem. Nintendo wont be affected by that website and it´s anti-Nintendo tunes.
I've heard a lot of "IGN this" and "IGN that" on these forums - what gives? If you are going to complain about something from their site, certainly it couldn't be Starfox - judging by EGM and Gamespot's scores (both 7.3), I don't think that they gave it an unfair review.
From what I've heard from you guys, this is a total rent game. Having played the first two Starfox's thoroughly, my expectations are naturally going to be very high for the game, no matter what I may do to dissuade them.
And what's the big deal with Matt at IGN liking the PSP? I'd much rather hear true opinions from a guy in his position than mindless Nintendo-loving banter. If he doesn't like the DS, he doesn't like the DS, who cares? Let him dislike it - I think he's given some very reasonable reasons for doing so.
Post by: Gamefreak on February 08, 2005, 08:45:23 PM
Speaking of DS, I think Star Fox could really be awesome on DS... 4 player co-op?
Post by: Dasmos on February 08, 2005, 09:00:51 PM
Post by: Hostile Creation on February 08, 2005, 09:09:49 PM
Second off: Gamefreak is fine to say what he thinks about the game, but twice is more than enough. Ten is kinda pushin' it, yeah?
I don't think 4 player co-op would work. It'd be dull. The levels would have to be ridiculously difficult to make it a challenge in co-op. Four player multiplayer, sure, and maybe two player co-op. But besides, half the fun of Starfox 64 was in what the characters said and how the level was laid out. Putting that into the hands of a human just for the hell of it only takes away from the game.
Starfox DS would be great, especially if Nintendo made it, but I think two player co-op is more than enough, and I'd be reluctant to play that.
Post by: Myxtika1 Azn on February 08, 2005, 11:46:55 PM
I guess it's that fact that IGN gives BS reasons for deducting points from a game, ie. lack of skins in Mario Kart DD, no bump-mapping in Metroid Prime, and this crap about StarFox being an on-rails game.
Post by: joshnickerson on February 09, 2005, 01:37:28 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: heinous_anusAnd what's the big deal with Matt at IGN liking the PSP? I'd much rather hear true opinions from a guy in his position than mindless Nintendo-loving banter. If he doesn't like the DS, he doesn't like the DS, who cares? Let him dislike it - I think he's given some very reasonable reasons for doing so.
The point is that he's running a DS site, and he doesn't even seem to like the console. It'd be akin to some guy who utterly hates Star Wars running a Star Wars news site.
Post by: heinous_anus on February 09, 2005, 07:54:34 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: joshnickersonQuote
Originally posted by: heinous_anusAnd what's the big deal with Matt at IGN liking the PSP? I'd much rather hear true opinions from a guy in his position than mindless Nintendo-loving banter. If he doesn't like the DS, he doesn't like the DS, who cares? Let him dislike it - I think he's given some very reasonable reasons for doing so.
The point is that he's running a DS site, and he doesn't even seem to like the console. It'd be akin to some guy who utterly hates Star Wars running a Star Wars news site.
I don't think that's a very good comparison; as far as I know, Matt just "works" at IGN, right? Correct me if I'm wrong, but is he the only Nintendo person there? Is he really the top DS guy working over there? And as far as I can tell, Matt doesn't hate Nintendo, nor does he hate any of their systems.
A Star Wars fan, in fact, many Star Wars fans, have complained non-stop about the recent DVDs that came out (the "special edition"). I'd still consider those guys fans of Lucasfilm products, even though they have reasonable issues with the DVDs.
And also, he's expressed his complaints about the system so far, and, like I said, his complaints are pretty reasonable (a port of a 1-generation old game for the big Nintendo launch-title, the fear of the dual-screen turning out to be more of a gimmick than a revolutionary concept). He's not completely dismissing the system, just pointing out areas where Nintendo could be more succesful. Nothing wrong with that.
Myxtika: I'm pretty sure that the lone fact that Starfox:Assault was on-rails didn't warrant the 7.0 rating. I personally wouldn't have complained about an aspect of the game like that, but come on, it's not like the guy dedicated an entire page, or paragraph, to the matter. It's just something that he, as the reviewer of the game, didn't like. He expressed other reasons, as have other media outlets, why the game didn't deserve a high rating.
Post by: Gamefreak on February 10, 2005, 12:19:05 PM
Post by: Hemmorrhoid on February 12, 2005, 04:56:47 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Myxtika1 Azn
heinous: Of course we all know that points should be deducted because StarFox is too much of an on-rails game and we don't have the freedom to visit planet Earth and the Milky Way after taking a bath in the sauna next door to the fast food restaurant where I can eat then work out so I won't become fat. IGN are teh smart! Dur dur!!
I guess it's that fact that IGN gives BS reasons for deducting points from a game, ie. lack of skins in Mario Kart DD, no bump-mapping in Metroid Prime, and this crap about StarFox being an on-rails game.
Or maybe the game is actually not so good, or atleast dissapointing considering whats behind it.
Post by: Myxtika1 Azn on February 12, 2005, 07:14:28 AM
The ground missions made the game drag, but I've come to cope with it. Could it have been better? Yes, but then again everything could ALWAYS be better.
Post by: xts3 on February 12, 2005, 10:03:24 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Myxtika1 Azn
I have the game. I've played it. I've finished it. I'm satisfied with it. Whether anyone thinks it's not good or it's disappointing is of no consequence to me. I'm just saying that to complain that an on-rails game is too on-rails despite the fact that it's supposed to be on-rails is plain stupid.
The ground missions made the game drag, but I've come to cope with it. Could it have been better? Yes, but then again everything could ALWAYS be better.
I agree with your comment about the game being on rails but people keep forgetting that designing the game like this keeps the complexity and scope contained so that you don't get bored because the game keeps throwing obstacles and entertaining things your way, if it wasn't on rails the game would suffer immensely for it. Starfox is not a space sim like Freespace series on the PC. Freespace has huge issues for being so open ended in that it you spend a lot of your time being bored to tears just travelling places. This is why the game itself has a "speedup time" option, so you can set it up to 8x and 16x normal time to make it pass quicker to those poorly timed scripted events.
I think people forget that games are supposed to be about playing and entertainment, not about simulating boring unentertaining crap, like the Sea travel in Zelda Wind waker, and most travel options in most online MMORPG type games.
Post by: Bill Aurion on February 13, 2005, 04:28:14 AM
I think some people forget that generalizing about what things are "boring" is a big no-no...
Post by: KDR_11k on February 13, 2005, 07:36:57 AM
Post by: Mr. Segali on February 13, 2005, 11:46:55 AM
Anyways, back on topic. I think a score in the 7 range is pretty fair for SFA. The game is a decent game, but just not as good as the others... a 7 is fair, whether it came from GameSpot, IGN, PGC, or my uncle Ray who lives in prison...
Post by: Bartman3010 on February 16, 2005, 06:08:55 PM
Post by: Uglydot on February 17, 2005, 06:52:04 AM
Post by: Bill Aurion on February 18, 2005, 10:29:41 AM
The two ground sections I've played were very, very good...I sort of wish Fox could look around 360, but it's not a *huge* loss...Meanwhile, the Landmaster handles perfectly, nay-sayers stop whining...Sure the game has quite a bit of ground missions, but I think they were really downplayed because they don't really sink into the classic Starfox feel...But they provide some very fun intense action, and I can't wait to see what more I'll have to accomplish...
Post by: joshnickerson on February 18, 2005, 01:14:06 PM
Otherwise, it seems solid enough. The Fortuna mission was fun, thought I lost my ship once (mainly because I'm so used to the L/R setup that I relied on for the 64 game). The Katina mission is where I got kinda irritated with, mainly because I couldn't figure out how to make the Landmaster tank shoot upwards, and when I finally did, Krystal had long been shot down. Maybe I didn't have the controls set right...
Oh, and as for the voice acting.... I liked it. I mean, it's not perfect like Disney voices, but they were amusing. And I only noticed the "boxed-in" effect in the Arwing and during the "briefing" segments... the cut scenes and such were clear for me.
Post by: Bill Aurion on February 18, 2005, 01:30:23 PM
Post by: MaleficentOgre on February 18, 2005, 05:50:38 PM
Post by: Bill Aurion on February 19, 2005, 09:55:33 AM
Post by: Rancid Planet on February 19, 2005, 10:51:45 PM
Post by: Caterkiller on February 20, 2005, 04:58:15 PM
Post by: Bill Aurion on February 20, 2005, 05:15:58 PM
Notice the tank isn't on-rails anymore either... =P
Post by: thepoga on February 21, 2005, 11:39:57 AM
Post by: Bartman3010 on February 23, 2005, 01:05:34 AM
Though the Arwing does feel slow, probably so it doesnt move too quickly on all range stages. Also, it seems rather odd for your allies to cry for your help when all you have is a wimpy blaster that takes awhile to charge, and your ally AI is next to useless in helping the others.
Post by: Hostile Creation on February 23, 2005, 04:17:39 AM
Post by: WesDawg on February 23, 2005, 04:50:43 AM
Post by: Bill Aurion on February 23, 2005, 05:20:17 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Hostile Creation
I don't even really see a point in keeping your teammates if you don't have alternate paths. Or do you need them to complete the mission?
If all your partners are safe at the end of a mission you get a Buddy medal...
Post by: Bloodworth on February 23, 2005, 06:10:03 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: WesDawg
Did the guy who did the PGC review not notice the whole multiplayer section of the game? I mean, I can understand... no... no I can't. Seems like its a pretty big part of this game. Given the lateness of the review you'd think he'd write something about it.
Lateness? It's our second review. I'm not sure why he left out multiplayer, but he got it done as quickly as he could. Shipping to his country is remarkably slow.
Post by: Michael8983 on February 23, 2005, 10:08:22 AM
Nintendo should ask them to create a new Starfox title for the upcoming Revolution. Hopefully having learned from their mistakes and with superior hardware to work with, they'll be able to make the Starfox game that Assault SHOULD have been.
Post by: Ian Sane on February 23, 2005, 10:21:48 AM
Screw that. Namco didn't just do a poor job that changed the focus of Star Fox to something that fans were not interested in. There's a huge difference between kind of screwing a game up and having no clue what the franchise is even about. Once Namco decided that Fox was going to leave his vehicles to walk around on foot they clearly showed to me that they don't "get" what Star Fox is all about. I do not want to see anyone but EAD or Argonaut working on the next Star Fox game. We've had two different devs f*ck up the last two Star Fox games. I don't trust anyone else to work on Star Fox anymore.
Post by: Bill Aurion on February 23, 2005, 10:26:57 AM
But one thing I do know is this: On-foot gameplay MUST be kept in for multiplayer...Other-wise you get the rather boring, pointless Starfox 64 multiplayer...
Post by: Ian Sane on February 23, 2005, 11:08:06 AM
Why even have multiplayer or at least why have it in a competitive way? I think the ideal form of multiplayer for Star Fox is like that used in Rebel Strike: co-op. A big part of Star Fox is the wingmen so to me the natural extension of that concept is to allow human players to play with each other. Co-op is such a "well duh" idea for Star Fox that in a way not having it seems almost unacceptable.
Post by: Hostile Creation on February 23, 2005, 03:12:36 PM
Post by: odifiend on February 23, 2005, 05:11:03 PM
On foot multiplayer was in Starfox 64...
Post by: Bill Aurion on February 23, 2005, 05:20:57 PM
Post by: Bloodworth on February 24, 2005, 12:27:03 AM
Post by: Bill Aurion on February 24, 2005, 02:12:49 AM
Post by: VideoGamerJ on February 26, 2005, 09:29:02 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: heinous_anusQuote
Originally posted by: Gamebasher
IanSane, you wrote:
"Yet all the Star Fox fans are complaining that there's not enough on-rails levels. IGN's score sounds accurate it's just their complaints about the game are the complete opposite of what the target audience thinks.
"IGN in general though is REALLY bad at judging any game in a non-mainstream genre. Gradius V for example lost points simply because it's a SHMUP and numerous 2D fighters get slammed for being 2D fighting games."
Hmm, I must say that I don´t think it´s a huge problem for Nintendo that IGN gives StarFox a hard time. Not on second thought. I think we haven´t seen the last of IGN´s bad scores for Nintendo games. Next one up to score badly may be the next Metroid game which they may not like for some reason. But that is no problem. Nintendo wont be affected by that website and it´s anti-Nintendo tunes.
I've heard a lot of "IGN this" and "IGN that" on these forums - what gives? If you are going to complain about something from their site, certainly it couldn't be Starfox - judging by EGM and Gamespot's scores (both 7.3), I don't think that they gave it an unfair review.
From what I've heard from you guys, this is a total rent game. Having played the first two Starfox's thoroughly, my expectations are naturally going to be very high for the game, no matter what I may do to dissuade them.
And what's the big deal with Matt at IGN liking the PSP? I'd much rather hear true opinions from a guy in his position than mindless Nintendo-loving banter. If he doesn't like the DS, he doesn't like the DS, who cares? Let him dislike it - I think he's given some very reasonable reasons for doing so.
Very well said. Starting with Star Fox, my expectations were VERY high. I loved the original and thought the Nintendo 64 was a great followup. Star Fox Adventures can't be put down because it's a game of a completely different catagory. In conclusion, I wasn't happy that Nintendo handed off one of my favorite franchises to Namco. I'll just leave it at that.
Regarding the Nintendo DS and IGN, I also could not agree more. Why do so many people expect someone to completely praise the DS for it's replay value, when at this moment, it has virtually none.
Post by: Bill Aurion on February 26, 2005, 09:40:02 AM
Wario Ware...
Post by: Hostile Creation on February 26, 2005, 09:42:10 AM
Quote
Star Fox Adventures can't be put down because it's a game of a completely different catagory
Oh, please. If anything that's just another reason to put it down.
Post by: Uglydot on February 27, 2005, 05:25:30 AM
Post by: Hostile Creation on February 27, 2005, 08:46:56 AM
Post by: Rancid Planet on February 27, 2005, 11:45:17 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Uglydot
To be honest, no console actually has replay. Unless you get some sick pleasure out of going through the menu.
Oh tell me you haven't done the thing where you hold down the B button or whatever it is on all four controllers at the start up screen to hear the weird noises. A menu CAN actually have replay value.
Post by: joshnickerson on February 28, 2005, 05:32:13 AM
Post by: D-Mac Double on February 28, 2005, 07:16:14 AM
I personally think that Oikonny sounds much more like that pimple-faced teenager from The Simpsons.
