Author Topic: Starfox Adv. = Zelda. So why don't people like it? (Read 20370 times)

PorpoiseMuffins · « **Reply #51 on:** March 31, 2003, 09:23:20 AM »

"I think overwhelmingly the negative opinion of game stems from the fact that those elements don't gel into something compelling. It's not enough that a game is technically brilliant or has the exact same elements of another classic/Triple A game. There has be something there that keeps you going, like a amazing tale, engaging characters, or a brilliantly realized world."

What I'm trying to say is that I think SFA has all of that and that it DOES gel into something compelling. I guess I'm not really as mad at most of you guys as I am at PGC for their reviews and especially that "Biggest Dissapointment of 2002" award. I knew that was coming even before I clicked the link... I just think that some people really honestly did write off the game because of the whole Rare break-up (I know most people will deny it) combined with the fact that they just didn't want to see Fox as the star of an adventure game. (The whole primative environment thing doesn't bother me at all-- It makes sense in my mind.) I think a lot of people also lost interest because of how long it took for the game to come out. I can see why you would write off my "not-made-by-Myamoto" comment, but I really think it's true. The reason being Mario Sunshine in particular. If Rare made that game then nobody would even care about it. If its main character wasn't Mario than it wouldn't get any more publicity than every other platformer. I bought the game and played it until I just got bored. It was kind of like Donkey Kong 64, only more enjoyable, I will admit :-) Mario had TERRIBLE presentation and did not gel into a very enjoyable experience for me. It seemed very bland-- Yet PGC gave it crazy good scores. And StarFox didn't even get the stinkin' best graphics award at PGC, obviously because of their dislike of the game itself for some reason. They rant and rave about Zelda and even MARIO's graphics, but they just say, "Sure, I guess Starfox's graphics are good, but the game is terrible..." AAAAAARRRRRRRRGGGGGGHHHHHH!!!
Okay, I'm okay... I still don't think the whole "It's just not good" thing works for me. I love the game and I just want someone to know that there is someone out there who does. And I'll also tell you that everybody I've showed the game to or who I personally know who ownes the game also loves it. And those people don't even know who the heck Myamoto, EAD, or Rare is! So please guys, throw away your pre-concieved notions and all your Nintendo bias (Or Myamoto bias, I should say) and just play the game. I understand that not everyone can like the game, but they should at least recognize it's strengths and not give all that junk about how it doesn't have "Nintendo Magic." When I think of that phrase, StarFox Adventures is actually one of the games that comes to mind.
Okay. I'm done.

bonestormer · « **Reply #52 on:** March 31, 2003, 06:38:47 PM »

There is one fundamental difference between SFA and Zelda that keeps SFA from being anywhere near as good as Zelda:

Exploration

SFA may have all the technical aspects of Zelda down, but the reason it lacks 'character' as so many have said is that SFA is so linear. There is no sense of exploring a vast world. Finding new things. Doing side quests for people. Or anything of the sort. All the recent Zeldas have this in oddles! (is that a word?)

And SFA is just one bad game. I still think Rare is one of the best devs out there. I'm also probably in the minority, but I'm GLAD they left GC (or were dropped, whatever). Now games like Conker Online (which was recently leaked) and PD can now all be online! (Hmm, I wonder if that has anything to do why they wanted out?) I dont care what console I play a game on.

PorpoiseMuffins · « **Reply #53 on:** April 01, 2003, 09:31:19 AM »

I love exploration-- And I think SFA had plenty of it! Not as much as Zelda, but I still felt like I was exploring a big world nontheless. And there's no reason to be happy that Rare left. I mean, you might not care, but to say your happy just doesn't make much sense. You don't need to play their games if you don't want to. Plus, I don't believe Rare really had that much of a choice about leaving. I mean, I don't think most of them cared either way. They got offered the money and Nintendo didn't offer anything higher. It's as simple as that.

Hostile Creation · « **Reply #54 on:** April 01, 2003, 02:27:55 PM »

Rare just is lacking something. Their games are too cliche, not as compelling, and just plain less fun. I don't know why. It's as if. . . my best guess is that they're just copycats. . . they stole the Zelda targeting system, they rarely use any original ideas (or good original ideas), and their puzzles and enemies are as hastily made as possible. There's just more art in Nintendo games, and that makes them better.

mouse_clicker · « **Reply #55 on:** April 01, 2003, 02:36:55 PM »

"they stole the Zelda targeting system"

I don't think a developer shouldn't be able to use an extremely good system just because they didn't think of it themselves. While I think it's important to think of new ides, you have to admit that the targetting system Nintendo devised in Ocarina of Time is too good of a system to pass up in games of it's kind. I'd rather play games with a good system like button-targetting then have the developer come up with a crappy system just because they didn't want so seem "unoriginal". In that sense. I believe Nintendo presented a new idea to videogames rather than invented a technique only they can use. If that were true, some very good games would have really suffered.

Hostile Creation · « **Reply #56 on:** April 01, 2003, 03:16:40 PM »

Oh, I know. That's the part that bother me the least. The combat isn't even much like Zelda. I'm mainly disgruntled with their other games. I just don't like Rare as developers. . . that's it. . .

Termin8Anakin · « **Reply #57 on:** April 02, 2003, 02:17:40 AM »

I've heard somewhere (here on the forums?) that Nintendo actually have a patent on the targetting system, and therefore, no other developer can make a game with such a system. Much like no one can ever have a plus-sign for a d-pad, since Nintendo have a patent on that as well.

And because the zelda lock on is such a good method, that is why no one can have a good targetting system as NIntendo.

theaveng · « **Reply #58 on:** April 02, 2003, 07:03:19 AM »

Kingdom Hearts copied the button targeting system. Actually, it was two buttons...press both left/right buttons to lock on the enemy. Nintendo hasn't arrested Square, so I have my doubts the Zelda system is patented.
.
.
.
Anyway, I don't see how anyone could say Mario 64 was great and Banjo-Kazooie sucked. They were virtual clones of each other, so that it you like one you should automatically like the other. In Mario you retrieved Stars to advance forward to the boss. In Banjo you collected Jigsaw Puzzle Pieces to advance forward to the boss. Same difference. Same game.

Troy (Sidles away)

ThePerm · « **Reply #59 on:** April 02, 2003, 07:28:14 AM »

i liked banjo kazooie....i dispise tooie...how do you expect peopel to play with a game with framerae like that?!!!! Its sickening...BK had soem new gameplay. Collectin wasnt old yet and i liked learning new moves....BT was a framerate disaster with nothign new.

Starfox was a decent game. A technical masterpiece. But it was very frustrating and ill conceived at times. Lets justs say the game didnt break my world. Games that have broken my world. Pacman, Donkey Kong, Mario Bros. 1-3, super metroid, actraiser, mk2, sonic and knuckles, knights, virtua fighter, mario 64, metal gear, zelda 64, resident evil 2, Zelda: TWW, Gta3, Doom, Half-life, Soul Caliber, goldeneye, Perfect Dark, Alien vs Predator(jag), Cybermorph. From my standpoint Fable looks like it will be next....lets hope it lives up to some hype.

PorpoiseMuffins · « **Reply #60 on:** April 02, 2003, 09:43:09 AM »

Just because a game has the same set up as another does not mean one can't be better than the other. You have to take into account feeling, sound, graphics, atmosphere, control, and world design. I love both Mario 64 and BK, and BK2 as well, but I do like Mario 64 better than the both of them. I didn't really notice the BK2 frame rate problems because everything on the N64, except F-zeroX had slow frame rates. I was used to it. I mean, DK64 used the same system as BK and Mario, but you can't say that BK and Mario weren't better than DK!

Hostile Creation · « **Reply #61 on:** April 02, 2003, 10:40:12 AM »

Donkey Kong for N64? That game was horrid! The multiplayer was okayish, but the main game was drop dead boring.

yrrab436 · « **Reply #62 on:** April 02, 2003, 03:57:47 PM »

I'll never understand how people think that certain opinions are somehow more valid than others. This applies to the GCN/Xbox thread in "other systems" too.

I loved DK64. In fact, I loved the single player mode. It was refreshingly long and challenging. Does that mean people who didn't like it are wrong? No! I don't know why I'm posting this though, as time and time again I've seen that many people do think their opinion is the only valid one no matter what, even becoming elitist in the worst case.

*is depressed*

godwheel · « **Reply #63 on:** April 03, 2003, 05:14:25 AM »

I don't know about you guys, but I liked Star Fox Adventures a lot

Hemmorrhoid · « **Reply #64 on:** April 03, 2003, 05:25:32 AM »

it was ok
i played 99% and never beat andross
it was entertaining, very good, but not Nintendo Quality like Wind Waker or Metroid Prime

PorpoiseMuffins · « **Reply #65 on:** April 03, 2003, 09:56:46 AM »

Okay yrrab436, I'm sorry. I didn't know anybody really liked DK64 :-) Well, I liked the beginning, but it just seemed to get very boring because of all the backtracking and things you had to collect. I'm sure that there are some people who like that, although I hate it. I guess you're one of those people. I was just saying that to make a point in my last post since there are a lot of people who don't like DK64 in comparison to BK and Mario64. I take it back.

Don't be depressed :-)

Belmont · « **Reply #66 on:** April 03, 2003, 01:43:57 PM »

It seems as if Rare and Nintendo tried a bit too hard to make Starfox Adventures too many different things. They wanted the "adventure" part of the game, but it ended up feeling like a Zelda clone without the fun. They wanted to remain true to the Starfox brand by adding some flying shootem up sequenences, but those felt tacked on, and grossly out of place. And the ending.... how out of place did that feel? It's as if someone said, "Wait a minute! This is STARFOX! MORE SHOOTING!"

It's too bad. This was almost a great game. I still think it was good, but will never live up to the Metroid or Zelda standard.

It's funny, this game reminds me of an old classic NES one - The Guardian Legend. I loved this game! It still remains (to me, at least) a perfect example that different genres mixed together can work. The exploration/adventure part was suspenseful and fun. The space shhotem up sequences were outstanding! And everything flowed together logically. Now, if only Starfox Adventures was more like that game....

Hostile Creation · « **Reply #67 on:** April 03, 2003, 01:45:31 PM »

The guys at Rare are dopes for going around and picking up useless crap like coconuts.

It's fine that you like DK, just saying that I don't. . . it was very bland and unfun for me. But if you liked it, that's great.

bonestormer · « **Reply #68 on:** April 03, 2003, 06:13:00 PM »

To go back a few posts... SFA did have exploration. Exploration in the sense of going through a dungeon looking for the boss type of exploration. But that's a far cry of the free exploration of the whole world in a Zelda game. You can go off and do a side quest. You can go off looking for heart pieces. Ect. SFA did NOT have any of this. You had a VERY specific next goal and had little choice but to go where it told you to go. That and the weak characters of the game, that I blame on the obviously tacked of Star Fox story, is why SFA doesnt come close to any Zelda game. Not a bad game, but nothing that great.

And to clarify what I said, I said I was glad Rare left yes. But you conviently forgot to mention why I said that. Not because I don't like Rare or anything. (That couldn't be farther from the truth.) But rather with Rare on Xbox, games like Conker and PD0 WILL be online. If they were still coming to GC, I highly doubt at this point they would of been. That's why I'm glad they left. I could care less where I play the next Conker. The next PD. Ect.

(And Mario64 is so much better then Banjo. Banjo is decent. But doesnt capture the magic of Mario 64. Probably cause it's so much of a ripoff of Mario64...)

PorpoiseMuffins · « **Reply #69 on:** April 05, 2003, 07:23:45 AM »

Oh... here we go with the "magic" again...
I agree, I liked Mario 64 better than Banjo, but not that much better.

And yes, I did convieniently forget to mention what you said before. Actually, it wasn't all that convenient, because if I had realized that was what you meant then I wouldn't have had to write a responce :-) I mean, I definately wish they hadn't left, but I don't care about games being online, and I don't play games like PD and Conker anyway. Well, sorry I misunderstood. I'm normally not the one to do that kind of thing.

Audio_of_Being · « **Reply #70 on:** April 05, 2003, 09:03:45 AM »

I actuallt haven't played SFA yet because if all the negative feedback I've heard. I think I'll actually go rent it then make an informed decision. One thing I do know:Zelda rules, and I can tell you that from experience.

thecubedcanuck · « **Reply #71 on:** April 05, 2003, 09:36:30 AM »

Star fox was just plain bad. I cant put my finger on it but I just couldnt stand it, and I have been a fan of a lot of Rares games. I also dont care that they are part of MS now, I will just play PD on my x-box.

Black_Behemoth · « **Reply #72 on:** April 12, 2003, 08:19:52 PM »

I definitely thought that Wind Waker (WW) beat the poop out of Star Fox Adventures (SFA).

First reason: SFA colors gave me a headache.

Second: SFA was just as easy as WW in the action category, but when it came to adventure, WW took first with flying colors (and not ones that gave me migranes).

Third: There were only a few extra items to find on SFA such as the bigger magic bars (I've found everything). I found those easily and usually by accident. However, on WW, I have 19.25 hearts and I still can't find 3 heart peices and a treasure chart. In SFA, a broader energy (life) bar came with the stone things you had to find.

Fourth: SFA's game play seemed to be made up of souly taking one object to another place and travelling half way across a planet just to obtain some stupid object. WW only had a bit of that when you had to collect the 8 triforce peices.

Fifth and final: WW final boss fight consisted of 4 tight phases and the last one with Ganondorf rocked 'cause Ganon had combos (and Link's final parry was pretty cool, too.......krrrrrrrshwing-kastab).

Oh, well, I've got both games but I've definitely got Zelda stacked higher on my GC game pile.

News:

Author Topic: Starfox Adv. = Zelda. So why don't people like it? (Read 20370 times)