Topic: Starfox Adv. = Zelda. So why don't people like it?

[theaveng]

Bought it last week, played it this week, and I thought Starfox Adventures was just like Zelda = Move from dungeon to dungeon.  Solve puzzles to open doors.  I don't really enjoy Zelda's puzzles, but given that Starfox followed that same style, I am surprised so many people, especially Zelda fans, did not enjoy it.  

And of course the graphics are absolutely beautiful.  Rare has some amazing artists working for them.  
(Maybe this is why they moved to Xbox?  To get the absolute best graphics possible on a console?)

[mouse_clicker]

Well, because it's not just like Zelda. The order and process isn't near as refined as Zelda's, it seems rushed at the end, the puzzles aren't quite as good, and then the simple fact that it all seems awkward since the Star Fox license was added after the game was already fairly far into development. I agree that SFA is an amazing game, but it's nowhere *near* as good as Wind Waker is.

[Termin8Anakin]

More than just Zelda fans "hated" it. Some Star Fox fans, I'm guessing, hate it cause the flying levels were too few, but also not very well done.
Oh, and having played, I also wish that the Start menu was the way you accessed items and such, instead of thh C-stick. I guess you get used to it, but it's a bit too confusing. I have no warrants about eh adventure itself though.

[PaLaDiN]

I'm sorry, but the dungeons in this game were WAY too simplistic to be memorable. Same with the overworld.

Added to that, the number of *(&$ing minigames... AGH! Zelda's quests were never NEARLY this annoying.

And added to THAT, the game offered NO incentive to play again. I played Zelda again because it was so good, and I'll do it for Wind Waker too. But this game? I finished it 4 months ago and all I want to do with it is get rid of it.

I could add Fox's mother of all annoying celebration dances, Prince Tricky and the ending to my list of complaints, but I'll be lenient.

[Nintendork SP]

Why did I not like It as much?  Well to much busy work(you know those rooms that you have to go through every time your heading somewhere), back tracking, and to much collecting that gets you squat.

[MetalHead666]

Starfox was no doubt a good game, but it doesnt have that Nintendo magic that Zelda does.

[Ian Sane]

Star Fox Adventures was a very odd game in the sense that it's like the creators knew in theory what all the elements of a good game are but just couldn't put it together.  The game in theory had it all: great graphics, great sound, large exciting places to explore, and good game length.  But it was just so boring.  It was like someone tried to make a human being and made a robot instead.

I think the problem with the game was that it constantly required you to perform useless busy work in place of something fun.  In Zelda you fight enemies with specific strengths and weaknesses and solve challenging puzzles.  In SFA you collect useless junk and every enemy can be defeated by button mashing.  As a result the game is a chore.  It's nothing but repetive tasks to extend game length.

Zelda is fun.  Star Fox Adventures is work.  That's why Zelda fans did not like it.  

[egman]

Ian Sane, I think you hit right on the nail with that post. SFA technical is a great game. All the pieces are there, but for some reason it is not fun. One big reason for that, as Ian Sane has correctly stated, it feels like work.

Another problem with the game is that the puzzles just seem too easy and obvious. I have heard a lot of complaints about WW being easy, and I'll admit that I haven't come to a point in the game where I was afraid I would die. However, the puzzles in this Zelda are still quite hard and ultimately when they are completed there is that sense of accomplishment. I don't really feel that way after getting through a SFA puzzle.

And of the course the fighting was really weak. But I think that mostly comes from having to deal with only a few types of enemies, particulary the dinosaurs who generally perform the same swing-club-then-block technique. There is a plethora of enemy types with different styles of engagement in WW,  and  the pace is much more frentic. Also in SFA when you are fighting a large group of enemies, it seems they will only fight you one at a time. In WW, even when you lock on all the enemies are coming at you at once so you have to keep your guard up.  

[theaveng]

Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
In SFA you collect useless junk and every enemy can be defeated by button mashing.  As a result the game is a chore.  

Kinda like Rare's other game Banjo-Kazooie.  I like Banjo, because it was fast-paced but the item-collecting didn't work for SFA.  Fortunately, that aspect of the game only happened at the beginning.  In the middile and end, the game was more focused on solving puzzles to open doors.

I wonder what crap...er, games Rare will come up with for Xbox?  Will they be able to produce more than just Perfect Dark sequels?

[theaveng]

BTW, have you guys taken a close look at the "fur" on the characters?  You can do it with Fox's Zoom-Zoom Goggles, and it's not really fur.  It's just "smudges" or if you prefer dots that hover over the character to give the illusion of moving fur.  Very ingenious.

[Lumas Etima]

Star Fox Adventures was just a Zelda game with no "soul."  It was pretty, sure, but it just felt like I was going through the motions...there wasn't anything really "special" about it.

[ThePerm]

its was an ok...graphic wise.....gameplay wise...sound and story wise....

howeve rhere were various points in the game like every one says...and the word comes to alot of peoples mind is busy work...with no connectio nto these people th same word cam to mind. I told my freidns it was a well made game(and it is) its just not great.

liek for instance towards the end and scew spoilers your not missing much thesres this puzzle where you have to take this barrel through a series of wind tunnels avoiding fire....anyways. WTF! In the entire universe why in the hell would someone be faced with such a god damn retarted idiotic puzzle. Its annoying to do and it not fun. It just seems liek their throwing shit at you and seeing if you can take it. I like puzzles that make sense. Why are they there?In zlda there are puzzles but they all make perfect sense why they are there. Sure im sure you can coem up with a more logical and beter soution then the one they expect....but hey its jsut a game...within game limitaions its perfectly logical. To get higher move a block...flame puzzles arent so logical..but they do the job.  

[vudu]

Quote
(Maybe this is why they moved to Xbox? To get the absolute best graphics possible on a console?)

am i the ony one bothered by this comment?  i thought some of you would jump all over this one....

rare didn't "move" to xbox.  they were purchased by microsoft.  it has nothing to do with the grapical quality of their games.  if they were purchased by sony, they would produce games for ps2, even though the system isn't as graphicly capable as gc or xbox.  

[Kuchakor]

Well actually they did move to XBOX, it was Rare's decision to leave nintendo, not microsofts.

And about Starfox, like someone said before, no soul, it would have been a great game.... if it were any fun.

[bamf226]

Quote
Originally posted by: egman
Another problem with the game is that the puzzles just seem too easy and obvious. I have heard a lot of complaints about WW being easy, and I'll admit that I haven't come to a point in the game where I was afraid I would die. However, the puzzles in this Zelda are still quite hard and ultimately when they are completed there is that sense of accomplishment. I don't really feel that way after getting through a SFA puzzle.

Funny, how I think all the Eternal Darkness puzzles are ridiculously simple and it's one of the best games ever.  I had more difficulty with SFA puzzles than with ED.

[Grey Ninja]

Nintendo didn't want to pay for Rare anymore, because Rare was being wholly unproductive.  Nintendo sold their shares of Rare stock, and MS bought them.  It was Nintendo who got rid of Rare.  Just making that clear.

Anyways, I am both a Zelda and a Star Fox fan, so I thought I would comment on why I didn't like Star Fox Adventures.

Zelda always rewards the player upon completing a quest.  You gain a new ability, more money for doing god knows what, you get to play a fun minigame, you get another heart on your lifebar, etc.  You always feel rewarded is the point.  There's always a reason for doing what you are doing, and if you don't feel like it, you can always do some other sidequest to increase your power.  You always have a choice.

Star Fox 64 is just simple fun.  You are in an arwing, and you shoot stuff down.  You are rewarded if you are able to fly with precision, and shoot down the most bad guys.  There's a real sense of skill involved if you do well, and if you get a whole whack of kills at the end, you feel good, and you will no doubt brag to your friends.

Star Fox Adventures....  The graphics are good, gameplay is solid, however.... there is no reward for doing things.  There's always a quest in front of you that you know will suck the life right out of you.  You know that when you are done that quest, another will be waiting for you when you get back, with little more than a "good job, but...." waiting for you.  There's no character development, and they insist on annoying you with the most annoying sidekick they could find.  Navi might have been annoying, but never as bad as Tricky.

[yrrab436]

I think it would have been better if they kept the original complete Dinosaur Planet story and upgraded the game.  The whole "let's slap the Star Fox license on it" thing really bugs me.  I still liked the game, but it sounded much better when it was Dinosaur Planet.  Unless Rare was blowing things out of proportion with the DP hype, it sounded like its story was much more complex than SFA's.  It seems like they ripped the heart out of the game and tried to transplant a new one in.  Bad way of explaining it, but it works.  I still think it's odd that Krystal was originally a playable character but they removed her, or rather removed Sabre and replaced Krystal with Fox.

I was still pleased with the game.  It most definitely didn't live up to the hype though.  Sixty hours?  Where do they get their numbers from anyway?  Of course, maybe it was always underwhelming and that's why it was delayed so much.  The original concept was great though, in my opinion, and I'm very disappointed it never came to fruitation.

[gamer_man]

I would agree that SFA had excellent graphics (probably some of the best fur rendering effects i have ever seen) .I was very hyped for this game and became very dissapointed when i was about a quarter of the way through, realising that if they did not slap the starfox licence on the game and kept it as dinosaur planet this game would of had plenty of potential. Of course SFA in some occasions had it moments but it just felt like a generic zelda wannabe game.

[kennyb27]

Quote
Well actually they did move to XBOX, it was Rare's decision to leave nintendo, not microsofts.

Actually, Rare didn't move to Microsoft, Nintendo didn't wish to renew their contract with Rare, and as a result Microsoft picked up the newly released developer from the market.  

Also, when this game was released, I planned on buying it simply because it is Rare's last effort on a Nintendo home console.  However, upon reading several poor reviews of the game (and a lack of money), I decided against it.

[Aussie Ben PGC]

Unfortunately, there are only one two real reasons to play the game, and one is the Shopkeeper.  "Put that DOWN!  You don't HAVE ENOUGH SCARABS!"  "Yoouuuuu paaaayy.....THIS MUCH!"  "Hurry and choose something...or GET OUT."  Best thing ever, in my opinion.  The other is the Test of Fear, which is done really well and I thought was something quite unique.

As for everything else...well, I love Rare's games, and I've played up to the bit where you buy the gold root for the mammoth.  "Oh, you found my root - as a reward, you get....another pointless race!"  Well, in the words of Kazooie, I know where I'd like to stick that.

The real thing that makes it hurt so much is that I played it when it was Dinosaur Planet.  And my GOD, this game looked and played so cool.  General Scales, mysterious tyrant.  And Randorn.  Poor, poor, Randorn.  I miss you so much.  If you've seen the sketch of him, you'll know why I miss him so.

Bah.

[mac<censored>]

Quote
Originally posted by: yrrab436
I think it would have been better if they kept the original complete Dinosaur Planet story and upgraded the game.  The whole "let's slap the Star Fox license on it" thing really bugs me

The thing is, the star fox characters are the only interesting ones in the whole game!  All the `dinosaur planet' characters are complete cardboard cutouts -- the dastardly villain is dull, krystal is dull, all the planet's inhabitants are dull, dull, dull.

Rare's a very technically competent company, but they seem completely unable to tell a story well, or create a compelling character, and I suspect that if the SF license hadn't been added, then `Dinosaur Planet' would have been even more dull than SFA, hard as that is to believe.

[kennyb27]

Quote
Rare's a very technically competent company, but they seem completely unable to tell a story well, or create a compelling character

Let's not be too rash here: Banjo and Kazooie (Banjo-Kazooie, Banjo-Tooie), Joanna Dark (Perfect Dark), Conker (Conker's Bad Fur Day), Donkey Kong as we know him today (Donkey Kong Country, Donkey Kong64), Diddy Kong (Diddy Kong Racing), etc.  This game is the exception, not the rule.  Rare is a very capable developer.

[penguincube]

I only played a few mins of the SFA demo, but I did notice some striking similairities, like the pirate ship areas, and the use of barrels...

[joshnickerson]

The voice acting and graphics were the best part of the game in my opinon. Everything else was kind of watered down. With SFA, I actually went DAYS without touching it between play sessions, and I'm the kind of person who almost always plays a game almost daily until I've finished it. It just didn't have a soul to it.
SPOILER ALERT!
The biggest downer for me towards the end was that you never did get to fight General Scales. They built him up as this big bad villan that you wanted to take down at the end of it all, and he ends up getting killed by Andross (and the Andross battle was just a half-hearted rippoff of the end battle of SF64.) The item collecting also got to me too, as well as the button mashing contests.
Still, I did have some fun out of it... but I probably won't ever go back and play through it again.

As for my opinion of Rare, they did some excellent stuff at the end of the SNES period and early in the N64's life. But towards the end of it all, especially with DK64 and Perfect Dark, it just seemed like they were less worried about the soul of the game and more about how it looked. Kind of how George Lucas did great with the original Star Wars trilogy, but his new movies are all about how good they look, and not concerned about how bad the script is. I hope Rare does have more sucess on the Xbox, but the only game after SFA that I was interested in was DK Racing.

[Armed]

Starfox for me was ok, not good, but not bad; it just seemed dull alot of times like the intro and the flying pirate ship.  The only thing I really like was starfoxs' fur and how it moved, but the rest it was ok. Rare I think has changed alot, for me they stopped making good games after Perfect Dark, Conkers multiplayer i think was stupid, and the storyline was weird.