Post by: TheYoungerPlumber on April 12, 2006, 11:14:55 PM
Post by: Kairon on April 12, 2006, 11:18:14 PM
Still, what with the Revolution controller, the old will become new, the dead will rise from their graves, and the apocalypse shall descend on us all.
I mean...uh...
I'd love for someone to make a StarFox game that's a REAL Starfox game and not try to plunk on other types of gameplay just because it's the latest trend. Instead, they should go back, re-examine the Star Fox formula, and let new types of gameplay paradigms grow out of the original, pure, starfox formula.
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: thejeek on April 12, 2006, 11:23:34 PM
Quote
Star Fox is a corridor shooter, very arcade, very dated genre.
It may be a dated genre but I love Star Fox on the SNES and I'd love to see more games like it on modern hardware. It's got no pimps and whores though, so it ain't gonna happen...
I dunno whether it'd work on the Revolution controller though - the 'natural' way to fly a spaceship for me is with a joystick.
Post by: Kairon on April 12, 2006, 11:28:18 PM
I mean, it's so intuitive. Up is up, down is down. The precision and level of exacting control you can use is astounding. Instead of having to translate movements into a joystiq, you can "fly" the controller around a meteor as if the meteor itself was moving towards you in 3D space.
Oh, and I didn't mean to imply that the gameplay of corridor shooters was dated, but that the feature set was. Oh woe is me! What third party out there shall take a risk to create a game without free-roaming fully huge interactive open-ended environments?
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: thejeek on April 12, 2006, 11:37:43 PM
Quote
I've always envisioned using the Revolution controller to "feel" your way through 3D space.
This potentially has the problem with the TV being fixed in space and the direction your remote points in getting out of step with where your TV is as was discussed in the Red Steel thread. It's the same general problem of wanting to point your ship at stuff accurately in order to shoot: you wanna have the ability to aim directly at stuff on the screen, yet still steer the ship beyond the boundary of the screen. Hopefully there will be some standard way of overcoming this.
I think one way would be to steer the ship with the nunchucku and have independant aim via the remote.
Quote
What third party out there shall take a risk to create a game without free-roaming fully huge interactive open-ended environments?
Maybe if Nintendo reduce third party licencing costs and Rev development costs really are lower, we might see developers starting to take risks again - especially if left-field stuff actually sells.
[EDIT: speling]
Post by: Kairon on April 13, 2006, 12:04:37 AM
This means that your controller basically becomes the space ship and if you steer it right a little, then the ship steers right a little as well. If you veer your controller/ship to the right by a large amount, you're telling the game to hit the afterburners cause you're making a tight turn. Then you reorient the ship to the middle of the screen by briging your own controller to the middle of your gamespace.
Nowhere in this process do we have the game change viewpoint, so there is no chance the your precius zero-point will get mis-aligned. The controller and space ship will remain perfectly synced throughout.
Well, there is one way they could get un-synced. This would be something like an obviously physically impossible lateral jerk of the controller, telling the space ship to do something that it isn't capable of doing, like flying straight to the side very quickly without easing or turning in that direction.
But that could in fact be a very powerful game dynamic. You could exploit the disconnect between the ship and the controller by actually disconnecting control and giving feedback to the player that way.
Stun the ship and run electrical sparks over it, as if there was a technical malfunction. Rumble the controller violently. Give a warning sound. Now the player knows that they've done something physically impossible for their ship and need to reinsert control.
Now through a cursor on the screen showing the real controller's current relationship with the in-game spaceship. The player, to re-establish control after shorting out their own systems, will move the Rev controller (and the cursor, which is only available in this situation) until it once again matches the position of the ship and the ship will "snap" back into control... hopefully with enough time left to steer clear of disaster.
Someone please hire me to make games. /cry
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: thejeek on April 13, 2006, 12:53:30 AM
I think I'm gonna have to wait and see how the remote works with various control schemes first hand or at least see videos of people using the controller combined with game footage - I'm sure it will end up intuitive and accurate, I'm just having a job getting my head around it without a practical demonstration.
[EDIT: clarify incoherent sentence]
Post by: Kairon on April 13, 2006, 02:18:40 AM
God...that game is pure magic. Say what you will about Nintendo's performance during the N64's lifetime, I mark the begin and end of my personal "golden age" with N64 games.
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: thejeek on April 13, 2006, 05:24:44 AM
They actually have a couple of N64s second hand in my local Gamestation but if I buy one now, I'll have a hard time persuading my girlfriend to let me buy a Revolution later this year. (They also have a Vectrex that I'm strangely attracted to but it's like 200 quid!)
[EDIT: spullung]
Post by: Kairon on April 13, 2006, 05:29:47 AM
But..uh oh...looks like you'll have to choose between the Rev and the Vectrex... &<
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Requiem on April 13, 2006, 05:43:42 AM
Badass right?!
This game has huge POTENTIAL!
Post by: thejeek on April 13, 2006, 05:49:13 AM
Quote
But..uh oh...looks like you'll have to choose between the Rev and the Vectrex... &<
It's OK - I have those urges under control - the new pills help a lot...
Post by: Mario on April 13, 2006, 06:03:29 AM
Post by: Caterkiller on April 13, 2006, 06:18:29 AM
As for controlling Star Fox with the new controller, this has to be the easiest conversion there is aside from any FPS. Aim and fly with the one handed remote, Shoot with A, tilt Right/Left to tilt the ship, double tilt right/left for a barrel roll, B trigger for bombs, and the D-pad can be used in any dumber of ways to summer sault and U-Turn.
I hope it turns out to be a one handed game.
Post by: Spak-Spang on April 13, 2006, 06:24:19 AM
The free roam levels from Star Fox 64 were very engaging...and I would love to see those levels again...along with more advanced versions of the onrails shooter.
The biggest problem with Star Fox is you always progress forwards, which gives the environment and the levels a very linear static feel.
I would love the onrail levels to include massive battles ships that require additional passes to defeat, and levels that seem to double back on itself and follow a more cinematic approach to onrail shooting, instead of a just push forward to the boss approach.
As well, the free roam levels would be great to experience again. What Star Fox 64 did great was limit the area you fought in within the free roaming to keep you constantly engaged in fierce battles.
If they could coordinate all of that and make 4 unique onrail paths so that you can play multiplayer CO-Op throughout the game that would be very impressive and really quite enjoyable experience.
Post by: UltimatePartyBear on April 13, 2006, 07:08:17 AM
There should definitely be a true Revolution sequel. I wouldn't mind seeing more free-roaming levels, Rogue Leader style, but the corridor levels have to stay the focus. There's just no way to get the same level of excitement out of a mission when you can come around for another pass. Multiple paths would definitely be nice, as would non-straight paths, and this series is just begging for multiplayer co-op.
I'd also enjoy it if the game left a bit less of the carnage I mentioned to the imagination. If I break the ranks of the enemy fleet, I want to see my allies take advantage of it, or if I critically damage a large ship, it should destruct spectacularly, and not just puff out smoke as it slowly drifts off.
Post by: Ian Sane on April 13, 2006, 08:29:31 AM
Though I kind of don't trust Nintendo to do another Star Fox and if they're not going to do it right I'd rather not get it at all. The way Star Fox was treated last gen suggests to me that Nintendo doesn't care enough about the franchise. They shoehorned it into Rare's game to try to attract sales and then farmed it off to Namco. Star Fox is a prime example of Nintendo's recent attitude that their franchises are all that matter and that it doesn't matter what game is attacted to it provided the familiar face is there to attract sales.
Nintendo thinks we buy their games because of the franchises. They no longer realize that we buy their games because of the gameplay those franchises represent. I don't think Nintendo realizes that Star Fox Armada was broken in the first place. It has a Fox McCloud and "Star Fox" on the cover so it's good enough. They think a Star Fox fan is someone who likes Fox McCloud. So I don't trust them because they don't know why any of us are Star Fox fans in the first place. They don't know why Star Fox 64 is awesome and Star Fox Armada sucks.
Post by: Bill Aurion on April 13, 2006, 08:36:05 AM
Post by: Spak-Spang on April 13, 2006, 08:53:01 AM
Yes, I will agree that the last two versions of Star Fox weren't as good. But, hey Nintendo was trying to do something YOU wanted them to do. Create new franchises and branch out...and build 3rd party relations.
Nintendo did that by allowing other developers to attempt different franchises. The Rare game wasn't great because Rare isn't great, and I am sure they knew the relationship with Nintendo was over and didn't try that hard.
The Namco game tried to do something different. It wasn't pure Star Fox, and that hurt the game...but at least Nintendo didn't try to just make a rehash sequel...which you always complain about, but now you are asking for with Star Fox, because otherwise the gameplay won't be what you desire. Geez, make up your mind. Armada succeeded in many elements...however failed in others. The biggest problem with Armada and what really the original Star Fox games do well(and it is very hard to do) is to create a story within each level as the action is going on. Star Fox works, because you are living the story as the fighting happens. You try to save your friends during the chaos of war and what not.
I don't think it is fair for you to backhand Nintendo for trying to achieve more games for us to play and develop new talent and third party relations...and yet if Nintendo wouldn't have done that you would have complained about less games and such.
You hardly say anything positive...and its frustrating. The only thing that makes it bearable is that you are very intellgent and you make strong arguements. You are right often, but since you hardly balance your view by acknowledging the positives Nintendo did this generation, and last...that you just come across wrong.
I know you love Nintendo and you believe in what Nintendo stands for...or used to stand for in gaming. But you are so hypercritical you come across as someone that hates Nintendo.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on April 13, 2006, 09:21:41 AM
Give Krystal a legitimate stick-swinging, fur-covered action adventure, with no stupid DogMan McCloud.
NOW WE'RE TALKIN'
Post by: Smash_Brother on April 13, 2006, 09:38:20 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Professional 666
NOW WE'RE YIFFIN'
Fixed.
Yes, I think the SF franchise badly needs to be redeemed after Nintendo handed it off to two 3rd parties, receiving questionable results in return.
Post by: Artimus on April 13, 2006, 10:36:52 AM
This is a series that REALLY needs to be taken to its bare bones and rethought. I really, really like the idea of it being used as a basis for a massive free-roaming game. Not like a GTA in space, but like the Rogue Squadron games only a heck of a lot bigger. Something along the lines of an open galaxy. Freedom can be put to such great effect, and Star Fox seems an ideal setting for an open-universe space-shooter. Because they can't really improve the basic Star Fox formula anymore...and just adding foot levels or new vehicles is stupid.
Post by: Michael8983 on April 13, 2006, 10:38:10 AM
Sure it did a lot wrong with Armada, but it also did a lot right. The potential is there. If the developers have learned from their mistakes and perhaps with a little more involvement with Nintendo, I think they could make a truly great Starfox title.
Post by: Kairon on April 13, 2006, 10:47:52 AM
Star Fox 64 was able to throw near constant action at us because it was a set corridor path. If you make it free-roaming then the game becomes more navigational-strategic and we lose that sense of immediacy and velocity and pure pure action.
...
I'll ponder how to take Star Fox back to formula and re-invent the gameplay while remaining true to its concept...
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Spak-Spang on April 13, 2006, 11:05:34 AM
Post by: TheYoungerPlumber on April 13, 2006, 11:27:49 AM
Also, the revmote doesn't need to be "pointing" at the screen to work properly, I've always felt this was a reader misconception. Just using the revmote like a pilot stick, with controls similar to the analog stick on N64, would be fun. Pointing at the screen woudl work with this setup too, since it would just be using relative rotation from a start position.
Post by: Ian Sane on April 13, 2006, 12:09:43 PM
I've found with the best action game sequels the best new features are based more on enemy or level design than major innovation. This includes stuff like that part in Contra 3 where you're jumping from missile to missle. It's nothing that couldn't have been done in Contra or Super C but it's so cool it stands out. Games like this are level based and each level should provide it's own unique excitement. A good approach is probably to think of it like a series of action scenes in a movie, only the player gets to actually do it instead of watch a cutscene. My favourite part of Star Fox 64 is chasing the train. That's not really a unique take on the formula, it's just a really cool level. They don't have to reinvent Star Fox to really make a sequel standout. They just need some really cool level ideas, throw in some new powerups and co-op play.
After reading the Starfox 2 article on Wikipedia I'm thinking that if they're stuck for new ideas they could try using some of the ideas from this game. Although elements apparently were taken from Star Fox 2 for Star Fox 64 there are some neat ideas that haven't been used. The whole game design is way different for example. If it worked out well maybe it would be worth a shot.
And for some reason I just thought that a boat level would be a good idea. They have a ship, a tank, and a sub. So why not a boat or have sub levels that take place on the water surface? I'm imagining having the boat fall down a huge waterfall and having to shoot enemies as you fall and destroy tree branches and rock so you don't hit them. Since you're going down a river there can be multiple paths in the same level.
Post by: TheYoungerPlumber on April 13, 2006, 02:03:57 PM
Did I mention Star Fox could be an excellent Revolution controller training game, like Luigi's Mansion was for those unfamiliar with dual analog?
Post by: UltimatePartyBear on April 13, 2006, 02:20:19 PM
However, the idea of things happening while you're not there is certainly a fun one. They could work it into the branching paths of Star Fox 64. For example, if you take one route, you encounter a fleet of supply ships to destroy. If you go a different route, then those ships reach their destination and bolster the forces there, so you'll have a rougher time if you go there. Combine this idea with the branches converging at points along the way, and you have a natural difficulty progression, too. The easy route takes you through the supply convoy, and the hard route takes you through something else, but both lead you to the planet the convoy was heading to. They could also make it so that along a higher difficulty route, you take more steps before getting to a particular planet than you do on the easy route, giving the enemy time to prepare for your arrival, especially if you tip them off that you're coming by failing some objective on the way, like letting some enemies escape, or not destroying all the transmitters at a base (kind of like the search lights on Zoness).
I also like Spak-Spang's idea of multiple runs through the same area. Sure, you could do it in all-range mode, but if the game forces you into a set path, the level can contain better scripted events. Not to mention other changes, like changing the orientation on each pass. You'd probably be in space, after all.
I think the game should use the analog stick. With the analog stick, different vehicles could use the remote differently, in ways that suit them better. Now, I wouldn't be too sad if the next Star Fox only had arwings in it, but the tank was pretty cool. Chasing the train is one of my favorite parts, too. With the analog stick controlling movement, the remote could be used to aim the tank's turret anywhere, which would definitely be an improvement. That would work in Ian's boat level, too (I have absolutely no problem with the submarine being sacrificed to make a boat, incidentally). In flight, moving the remote could choose targets for charged shots and nova bombs, and maybe even the Great Fox's big guns.
You could boost and brake by quickly moving the remote forward or backward, and twisting would replace the L and R buttons (or Z and R), although I don't know about barrel rolls. Twisting twice in a row quickly enough to save yourself by rolling doesn't sound very comfortable. A button modifier wastes a button. Perhaps the game could be changed so that twisting always causes a barrel roll first, then leaves you leaning, but I don't like that idea, especially for the tank. Maybe you could roll by quickly tapping the analog stick in the same direction you were leaning, Smash Bros. style, though that's not ideal, either, since you couldn't roll without moving.
I haven't accounted for all of the available buttons, so they could add a few new options to the mix, too.
Post by: Kairon on April 13, 2006, 02:44:09 PM
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: wandering on April 13, 2006, 08:41:37 PM
Quote
I think the game should use the analog stick.
Eh. I see what you're saying, but the remote is just so perfect for movement, I think it'd be better to not complicate things with the nunchaku attachment.
Post by: nemo_83 on April 13, 2006, 10:22:22 PM
Post by: Bloodworth on April 14, 2006, 02:24:19 AM
Quote
Yeah, well, Namco did a fantastic job on the air missions in Assault...
Not really. It wasn't until the end that they actually had a level that felt right.
Post by: Ceric on April 14, 2006, 06:39:28 AM
Just no.
I really liked the the N64 Version. So I be more inclined for a DS Starfox and let the console version sit a gen like with Metriod. We saw how much stronger that made that series.
Post by: Ceric on April 14, 2006, 07:01:25 AM
Does anyone want a free roam Nascar Game? No because its contrary to the core of the series.
On rails and in vehicles (I liked the tank level but mostly because there is only 1 tank level I prefer the air stuff.) I don't want to ever see Fox except in cut scenes(Maybe) and his head when they communicate because that is established.
I mean what they have been doing to the series is almost like having Mario flying a plane and gunning down koopas in half of a Super Mario Bros 3 remake.
Post by: animecyberrat on April 14, 2006, 08:36:07 AM
Post by: Caterkiller on April 14, 2006, 09:44:18 AM
The multiplayer in Assault felt soooo slow! I didn't like the collision detection between your Arwing and the environment. In SF64 if you U turned too high against something you would do some major damage to yourself and it felt right. Assault just did it all wrong, it felt like you couldn't crash sometimes and I hated that.
Oh and one more thing, I want the speed of Star Fox 64 to be back! Slowing the game down to get more enemies on screen was a crappy idea.
Post by: Spak-Spang on April 14, 2006, 12:24:12 PM
Post by: BigJim on April 14, 2006, 01:46:50 PM
I would love to see what they could do with SF with the controller. But I agree it's difficult to advance it without opening it up to free roaming or changing it some other way. I liked Adventures, even though it was a shoehorned game. As for Assault, err, not so much.
Post by: Caterkiller on April 14, 2006, 02:49:49 PM
You know Spak-spang, I became so good at SF64 that all the people I lived with would all team up against me and I could still take them all. These guys weren't push-overs either, they all could beat the game on Expert and they all earned every gold medal on normal. I would always put the handicap on to its lowest amount of energy and let them get both weapons befor I took a single shot. At the time I was just that much better than them.
As for 2 players, we only had 2 controllers for the longest time, and even then it seemed fair. After I discovered not to rely on just the u-turns and sumersaults I could escape people easily, with sharp barrel roll turns. Alot of our battles went back and forth. But it would have been more balanced if there were at least 2 of each power up scattered throughout the stages.
Post by: Rancid Planet on April 14, 2006, 07:44:37 PM
Post by: UltimatePartyBear on April 15, 2006, 10:34:21 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: wandering
Star Fox rev would be awesome, yes. Lots of good ideas here. I'm not sure I have anything to add...I want, at some point, a free-form flight game where you use the remote and can just go anywhere, but starfox probably isn't the series for that.Quote
I think the game should use the analog stick.
Eh. I see what you're saying, but the remote is just so perfect for movement, I think it'd be better to not complicate things with the nunchaku attachment.
I say save the remote-only movement for Pilotwings. Star Fox is about action, not flying. It could work in Star Fox, sure, but there are problems with it. I think someone else mentioned the problem of being able to move the remote in a way that would be impossible for an actual aircraft. Pilotwings can deal with that by letting you lose control and crash because it's that kind of game. Star Fox would be better off avoiding the problem completely by removing the one-to-one relationship between the remote and the arwing, and once you've done that the whole point of using the remote to control movement in Star Fox is gone, as it would be a glorified joystick. If you're using the analog stick to move, then the remote is freed up to do other cool things, like set up cool aerobatic maneuvers. We're used to inside loops, rolls, and Immelmann turns. I'd like to do a Split-S, or an outside loop, or a Lazy Eight, or any of the myriad other maneuvers pilots have invented over the years. Even Star Fox 64's controls had room for a couple more tricks, and the remote adds so many more possibilities that there probably aren't enough things that an arwing could conceivably do to use up all the combinations.
Going with the scheme I laid out before, an Immelmann would be done by pulling the remote toward you while holding back on the stick, replicating the Star Fox 64 controls. A Split-S would be done by pulling the remote toward you while holding forward on the stick. What if you tipped the remote up vertically at the same time? Or down? Or twisted? Or tipped and twisted? I'm not talking about wild gestures, just changing the orientation of the remote.
Sure, with the remote you could do all of those maneuvers manually, but I don't want to mess with that level of finesse in Star Fox. I want to shoot stuff. I'll happily try to master a Standing Eight in Pilotwings instead.
Post by: Kairon on April 15, 2006, 03:11:32 PM
Instead of reinventing the wheel with revmote steering, if we can use the analog stick to steer, then the revmote becomes valuable as an additional flight-movement mechanic... it could be used to execute barrel roll gestures, wing-orientation, and all sorts of fancy aerial maneuvers. For example, the F-22 can keep moving forward slowly even though the plane's nose is tilted upwards almost 75 or so degrees, an amazing feat due to thrust vectoring technology. Think of all the wonderful maneuvers, tricks, and techniques that the Arwing can perform if given a bigger bag of tricks just like that!
Uber!
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Nosferat2 on April 15, 2006, 06:35:20 PM
Post by: Infernal Monkey on April 17, 2006, 03:57:27 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Professional 666
Another StarFox? NUP, DON'T WANT IT
Give Krystal a legitimate stick-swinging, fur-covered action adventure, with no stupid DogMan McCloud.
NOW WE'RE TALKIN'
I agree with this internet!
Post by: EasyCure on April 17, 2006, 07:06:35 AM
i do agree that straying too far from the formula however just wont work for a next gen SF game.
I like all the ideas of different paths within a single level. who remembers that level in the original starfox where you fly INTO a few of the enemies giant ships and avoid all the traps and come out th eother end? what if you take that sort of scenario and all a few different corridors to go down, where you have to find a certain part of the ship to destry and fly out, but the entrance was the only exact. what if you blew up like a reactor or something and you have to escape the ship before it ultimately explodes, so you do a U-turn and go back the way you came, but because the ship is falling out of orbit your path isnt restricted to simply going straight forward but as the ship tilts as it falls you go up and down. say you applied that to a submarine leven and the ship you're escaping turns completely upside down, changing the way you navigate your way out.
online multiplayer would be awesome too. ever since SF64 i wanted multiplayer to be co-op and not just VS battles. i want to have my wingmen help me out in a level. i want two on the ground/sea and two in the sky. what if one of those ships you have to fly into to destry can be severly damaged from the outside by one of your wingmen and thus as YOU'RE inside of it you have to escape prematurely. co-op gameplay would be, in my own opinion, very much welcomed to the series.
ian was right in his post to say that though the formula didnt change much from the first two titles, what made ST64 stand out was the formula used within the levels. i too loved the landmaster/train level and getting to completely decimate that train. every level should be different. his boat idea was great too.
i picture something more like this. start off underwater but take a certain type of damage while trying to complete a mission objective could cause you to have to resurface, and thus branching off to a seperate part of a level otherwise unable to be reached. then yes, i could totally picture the submarine floating on the surface of the water as its forced down a math where you only have the minimilast control of left and right, maybe even an option of "ducking" for a second or two as a dodge. from there you have other paths the leven can branch off to and go down Ians waterfall and shoot enemies/obstacles as you descend.
now add co-op to that. atleast two of you start off underwater, either different points on the same map working towards the same destination, or start together but take different paths later on. one of you gets damaged and needs to resurface, the other proceeds submerged. two arwings in the sky are taking out air-based enemies as well as taking out obstacles for your surfaced wingman. say you both have to shoot at a boulder at the sime time or receive heavy damage to your ship. maybe even help you take out a few mines scattered in the water.
meanwhile the still submerged submarine (i cant remember the name of the sub!!) has to complete his objectives. if he doesnt take out the enemy ship its able to shoot surface to air missiles which can harm your wingmen in the arwings.
in the end you reach a boss battle that could be free-roam like many of the bossbattles in ST64 were. depending on whether or not certain objectives were taking care of, the difficulty increases. say you shot out anchors for a hidden weapon underwater with your sub, now its surfaced and the weapon concentrates most fire to the arwings as it protects itself. underwater you can shoot out a few weakpoints that will reveal the weakpoint for your buddies on the surface. OR...if you fail at your underwater mission you would have to fight the boss underwater while the arwings shoot certain weakpoints that reveal the main weakpoint underwater for the sub to fight.
all that in one level. is it impossible? i doubt it. will it happen? i hope so. thats only one level i could think up, and i got myself excited at the possibilities. anywone else have an idea for a crazy level? single or co-op, i wanna hear your thoughts!
Post by: Requiem on April 17, 2006, 02:06:13 PM
Controlling the Arwing with the NRC:
Pointing the nose of the NRC, points the nose of the Arwing and also allows you to turn. Moving the NRC up, down, left and right moves the Arwing across the screen in a similiar fashion.
Now imagine Chasing 4 badass enemies as you navigate your way through a canyon. The walls start to crumble as your shooting down your enemies, adding obstacles that you must avoid. A huge rock begins to decend....you must BOOST TO GET THROUGH, but also dive below the boulder, but also be aware not to touch the running river water or you WILL DIE!
ahem...
As you continue, the canyon starts to turn widly! Left, then right, then a half circle left, then right! More obstacles approach as you continue to kill those bastards your chasing. Some of the canyon sticks out,or some of it branches across, making you dodge it accordingly.
I think you get the jist of it.
Post by: EasyCure on April 18, 2006, 08:38:43 AM
-the B trigger would be used for normal shotes (hold to charge)
-A button for bombs
-d-pad up/down could be used for u-turns and flips
-doubletappin the revmote to the left and right would produce barrel rolls or if that would affect precision movement, d-pad left/right could replace it
- twisting the control left/right would tilt it
thats all you would need to play it really.
i wish i could come up with some more cool level designs like my last post but im fresh out of ideas.
your canyon run sounds like it would be cool too requiem. the thought of destructable levels would add a new twist to the game. like you shoot a charged shot while not locked on to an enemy and it hits the side of the canyon so that rocks come crumbling down, or trees that get knocked over. even peices or starships could come flying at you if you and your team destry one, rather thatn simply falling off the screen. it could even work so that you open up newer paths on your mission making every stage replayable for something new everytime.
Post by: Hostile Creation on April 18, 2006, 09:04:21 AM
The dead systems that people will be downloading on their virtual console?
Starfox 64 is one of my favorite games ever. This franchise still has incredible potential, they just need to do something with it. Like, Nintendo. Not Rare or Namco, who suck.
Post by: thejeek on April 18, 2006, 09:40:38 AM
Post by: IceCold on April 18, 2006, 03:35:32 PM
I really like your Joystick idea EasyCure.. if you attach it to the base you could also get resistance, which is, of course, needed. I'd love to see it used in a game like that.
Post by: EasyCure on April 18, 2006, 04:55:03 PM
only reason i even thought of such a thing was it was the only way i could see myself TRULEY being immersed in the game. if you saw my last post about the possible level designs with all the branching paths and co-op multiplayer, the only other thing that would truley make me feel as if i was in the game (aside from maybe online microphone abiltiy to tell teamates strategies...which i probably left out of the last post) was to physically feel like im piloting the arwing. i wouldnt find just pointing the revmote at a screen would fit that style of gameplay. for a FPS like red steel thats fine but starfox is as much about piloting as it is shooting. using the remote as a pointer would, IMO, hurt the feel of the original star fox series. and yes, i am aware that the revmote is supposed to the revolutionary controller that changes the way we play games, but using it to aim and shoot as opposed to piloting changes the FEEL of the game. im not sure if that makes any sense to you guys.
one of my strategies for many a boss battle was to take shelter in the top-most corners of the screen and shoot center or near center (wherever weakness were). the way i see doing that with the revolution control as the way nintendo might program it would be to make it so the control in your hand behaves like the ship. remember the (i believe it was IGN) hands on preview where Mr. Miyamoto held the revmote like a toy plan and guiding a plane over isle delfino from mario sunshine? thats how i see it being programmed...
i see it as this: if i wanted my arwing in the top-most corner of the screen where few enemies could hit you, but point the cursor centered i'd have to have my revmote pointed center, slightly tilted and elevated to where it would match the arwing on screen.
that however, wouldnt feel as immersive as having the revmote docked upright where it can be minipulated in a 3d space.
-tild forward to descend
-backwards (toward your body) to ascend
-left/right to steer, tilting the arwing would be the most extreme left/right movement you could make
that way cockpit camera views would feel more natural and again, immersive.
that is just my own opinoin though. i guess this would be one of the games i wouldnt mind playing on a "traditional" controller, unless someone at nintendo was reading this forum and stealing my idea. i wouldnt mind though ;-)
and is it just me or my post too long?
Post by: AnyoneEB on April 18, 2006, 05:56:42 PM
(SNES9x runs on everything, including N64.)
Post by: zakkiel on April 19, 2006, 12:22:24 PM
QuoteHuh? I don't see the problem at all. At worst, you could just have the remote control the direction of the "aircraft." Though, since it's actually a spacecraft, there's no reason you have to make direction of aim and direction of movement the same thing at all, so you could use Requiem's idea with no problems. Heck, I'd give it points just for being the first space fighter to realize that there's no banking in space.
I think someone else mentioned the problem of being able to move the remote in a way that would be impossible for an actual aircraft. Pilotwings can deal with that by letting you lose control and crash because it's that kind of game. Star Fox would be better off avoiding the problem completely by removing the one-to-one relationship between the remote and the arwing, and once you've done that the whole point of using the remote to control movement in Star Fox is gone, as it would be a glorified joystick.
Post by: UltimatePartyBear on April 19, 2006, 01:47:32 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: zakkiel
Huh? I don't see the problem at all. At worst, you could just have the remote control the direction of the "aircraft."
As I said, once the remote is controlling the direction of the vehicle instead of representing the vehicle, what's the benefit? I'm not totally opposed to the idea. I just think the remote could be used for something more fun.
Quote
Though, since it's actually a spacecraft, there's no reason you have to make direction of aim and direction of movement the same thing at all, so you could use Requiem's idea with no problems. Heck, I'd give it points just for being the first space fighter to realize that there's no banking in space.
That wouldn't be Star Fox, though. Star Fox is not a simulation. It's essentially a side-scrolling 2D shooter translated into 3D. Besides, plenty of the levels in Star Fox and Star Fox 64 take place within a planet's atmosphere. Would you still want to be able to point the craft in a direction other than the one in which it was moving then? Changing the arwing's behavior from level to level would be confusing. The controls must be kept simple for this sort of game to succeed.
There are plenty of space fighter games with more realistic physics, particularly PC games. There's no need to turn Star Fox into something it isn't (again).
