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

[misterd]

Quote
Originally posted by: 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.

Nicely said.

I know I played this game.

I remember liking the game as I played it.

But I'll be damned if there is anything that really stuck with me.

I think back to games like SMS, ED, and even Pikmin, and I have very vivid, fond memories and I want to play them again. With Star Fox its as if I never played it in the first place.

I just can't put my finger on why this is the case.

The collecting doesn't bother me - most of the items, though poorly named - had a purpose. And the two Banjo-Kazooie collect-a-fests were among my favorite N64 games ever.

So what was it?

I guess, in general, the whole thing seems like it wasn't though through very well. The battles were uninteresting. Too short to be boring or tedious, but not in anyway memorable.

The goals seemed a bit too many. I never quite knew what I was working towards - freeing the dinos? Unleashing the spirits? Rescuing Crystal? Games like Zelda and Mario always have one driving goal to give it focus. All the little side tasks are done to bring you closer to rescuing the princess.

Another problem - rememeber the energy tanks or feul cells or whatever they were that you needed to get to the next level? These were the equivilent of Mario stars or Banjo puzzle pieces, but where is the fun in hunting them all down whenyou can simply BUY all you want?

I don't even want to touch on the ending, which was just a horribly conceived, very contrived betrayal to all that had been implicitly promised to the gamer. I wouldn't have minded the "suprise" had it  1) not been obvious they would do it, and 2) it had made a lick of sense. And why set the last boss battle in the Ar-wing, which had been up until that point trivial to the storyline? What the heck were we doing getting staff upgrades for if not to battle the big bad?

In the end, while I was initially happy to see DP become SFA, I think the forced marriage was the real mistake. Fox's SF origins didn't mesh at all with the primitive fantasy world.  

[Luciferschild]

SFA, why did you have to bring this piece of junk game up. To even mention it in the same breath as zelda is a travesty. The best part of this game is the flying levels which unfortunately make up about 2% of the game. The rest is running around collecting pointless crap and fighting nothing because the enemies have less AI than a dead rock. Another example of developers spending a lot of time on graphics and zero time on gameplay. But I didn't even like the graphics though they were very detailed, I thought they kinda sucked ass.  

[MickeyD]

Well I think that it was a good game but just not as good as it should have been. While I like how they used the zelda control sceme and it played very smooth I felt the fighting was easier then zelda and presented no chanllenge. For one thing when you fought someone it auto -targted meaning each enemey took its turn fighting you. In zelda if too emenies were in the same room they wouldn't wait there turn you had to lock on back and forth to take them out making it more combat intensive and fun. Also because of this they made it more of a buttom masher when you fought more then anything I mean if the wanted to they could have taken out the ablity to jump sideways and backwards if they wanted to. All you needed to do was block and thats it and hit the attack button and you wipped the floor with them.  Also there was a total lack of variety of emenies and and temples. I came away dissappoint with that game because it feel so short cause they did so many other things right in the visual and audio presentation but feel short in the gameplay department. I think many zelda gamers will agree it felt like a half-assed zelda game

[theaveng]

Quote
Originally posted by: Grey Ninja
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.

You hit the nail on the head.  Solving puzzles is annoying when there's no reward for your effort.  (Then again, I think solving Zelda's puzzles is annoying too...but that's a different topic.)

You didn't like Tricky?  I did.  I thought he was cute and never found him annoying.  He stayed out of my way 99% of the time.  It's nice to have a sidekick throwing in his/her thoughts on what's going on.  

[theaveng]

P.S.    I just finished the game.  They should have used Crystal as the main character.  Looking at her would be far more interesting than looking at Fox. ;-)

[theaveng]

oops

[Tael]

Quote
Originally posted by: 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.

I disagree, I never found any of Rare's characters compelling, and the stories for the games were pretty boring.

[Hemmorrhoid]

The ending was the biggest crap ever, it was so cheesy its unbelievable

*Spoiler*



I mean, cmon, the Krazoan God backhead of Andross crap is the biggest SHIAT ive ever seen, it actually pissed me off so much that I never finished the game, how does it end?

That ending was lame, weak, and not cinematic or moving at all, and the surprise factor totally got ruined by the GAYY ending.

[MetalHead666]

I still havent beat SFA,   I have notice that nothing much happens though, I am 50% done and there has still only been 1 boss.

Hey what did Legend of Zelda the Wind Waker get in EGM?

[penfold]

Zelda: TWW got two 10s and a 9.5 from EGM. EGM did receive a few protests from people stating that the game was worthy of Platinum status and all 10s. Personally, Id be satisfied with two 10s and a 9.5.  

[Christberg]

There's a few minor spoilers in this guy regarding both TWW and Starfox, but nothing that'll totally ruin the game.







Honestly, I liked Starfox Adventures.  I thought it had some pretty satisfying moments.  However, in the end it boiled down to fetch quests for useless items and randomly placed shooting stages that for the most part were horribly done (although there were a couple at the end of the game that I really liked.)

The game never had you experiment with the environment to find what worked like you do oh so often in Zelda.  The game also never had you doing anything that required any creativity whatsoever.  Comparing certain puzzles in the Wind Waker to anything in Starfox, you'll definitely see what I mean.  In particular, where's a certain puzzle in the Earth Temple in Zelda where there's a flower suspended from the ceiling that comes to mind where you experiment with the environment to get to a place that you normally couldn't get to using the Deku Leaf.  Tons of little points like that all over the game.  There's nothing like that in Starfox.  You either shoot switches or you use these dumb little platforms to move around exploding barrels, or some combination of that.  There's never a point in the game where you go "what if I tried THIS?" and it works because it's either directly spelled out for you "use this to do this, fox!" and it really kills any sense of accomplishment in the game.

Probably it's biggest downfall though is that it never feels believable.  Here's a super futuristic soldier on a planet that's overrun with technology vastly inferior to his own... and he never uses anything that's available to him.  Why?  There's never a believable reason given.  Take the sections toward the end of the game where you're shooting on a Pterodactyl and the back of a Brontosaur for example.  Sure, they're some of the (very few) shooting sequences in the game that are actually satisfying, but why would Fox fire at those things with his staff when he's got an Arwing just a few hundred feet away with way, way more firepower?  Also, Fox is a mercenary for hire.  Doesn't it strike you as strange that a mercenary would do something like hunt around for some roots to feed a Mammoth to knock down a door when he could just call Peppy down in an Arwing to do it for him, or Call his arwing over to him and do it himself?  Through the whole game, the main character clashes with the environments, clashes with the gameplay, clashes with the storyline and what he's supposed to do, and it totally destroys any relationship with the game.  It's just too damn sterile.

The problem is that the game was supposed to be Dinosaur Planet, and instead of Rare going back to the drawing board and planning the game again from the ground up like they should have, they slapped Starfox in, made a few cursory (and not well thought out) changes, and then spent ages making the game as pretty as possible.

Like I said, I liked the game but it really suffers because of what it could have been, which was great.

There's a review I wrote of it in the reviews section of the message board on the site nobody bothered to read, now would be a good time if you want to know more about how I felt right after finishing it.  

[PorpoiseMuffins]

Okay. I've had enough.  I went into StarFox thinking it wouldn't be that great (Reading all the reviews) and I LOVED it.  It's much more polished and cinematic than most games made by EAD.  I'm sick of the StarFox bashing.  It was the best game I'd played since Ocarina of Time. Period.  The graphics and gameplay are extremely solid.  I never wanted to stop playing at any point in the game and the story was very interesting.  The game isn't exactly like Zelda, which is a good thing.  It shouldn't be exactly the same!  I think it's definately Rare at its best and it was a total blast to play.  There was nothing that bothered me about it like most games do.  But I guess I'm just weird.  I like more adventure segments with less dungeons and I don't really care how easy a game is.  I loved it.  I guess I can't stress that enough.  Just because EAD didn't make it doesn't mean it can't be just as good or better than something they make, and it was certainly leaps and bounds better than what we've seen coming out of there recently (Luigi's Mansion, Mario Sunshine).  That is, up until the Wind Waker, which is simply awesome (except for that darn depth-of-field blurring)...  Not to say I didn't enjoy EAD's latest stuff, but it didn't live up to the hype.  I really liked seeing StarFox out of his ship and thought it was an awesome idea.  Seriously, flight combat games are kind of predictable...

[Tael]

Quote
Originally posted by: PorpoiseMuffins
Not to say I didn't enjoy EAD's latest stuff, but it didn't live up to the hype.

That's your fault for paying attention to the hype. Ignore all hype, judge games for yourself when you play them, and you won't experience that kind of disappointment with games.

[mouse_clicker]

"It's much more polished and cinematic than most games made by EAD."

Are you kidding? EAD has some of the most polished games on the PLANET. I'm not saying SFA wasn't polished- indeed, it's quite the opposite, but saying most of EAD's stuff isn't as polished (and giving 2 examples, no less) is just stupid, especially considering the pacing towards the end, which was very strange.

"I'm sick of the StarFox bashing. It was the best game I'd played since Ocarina of Time. Period."

While I completely disagree that it's the best game since OoT (I personally though Golden Sun, MM, Animal Crossing, Banjo-Tooie, and Mario Sunshine were all much better), no one is really "bashing" SFA. Only a few people are saying it sucked and I disagree with them as well- SFA was a VERY good game, but could've been a lot better in my mind. I think it deserved the 9's it got around the board.

"I think it's definately Rare at its best and it was a total blast to play."

Blast to play, yes, but I personally enjoyed Banjo-Tooie much more.

"Just because EAD didn't make it doesn't mean it can't be just as good or better than something they make,"

Yeah, but just the same just because Rare made it doesn't mean it's good. Rare's not the best at making games, although they're extremely close. Also, I think you'll find no one here ignores Nintendo games just because they're not made by EAD. If that were true, Metroid Prime and SSBM would've never been as popular.

"and it was certainly leaps and bounds better than what we've seen coming out of there recently (Luigi's Mansion, Mario Sunshine)."

Are you crazy? Luigi's Mansion is subjective (if you honestly don't care about difficulty, what didn't you like about Luigi's Mansion?), and Super Mario Sunshine is one of the best games I've personally ever played, easy. Just because it wasn't as revolutionary as SM64 doesn't make it a bad game by any means. In my opinion, it was leaps and bounds ahead of SFA.

"That is, up until the Wind Waker, which is simply awesome (except for that darn depth-of-field blurring)"

That depth of field blurring is there for two reasons- one because WW has an INCREDIBLE draw distance and needs something like depth of field blurring to maintain that, and two because that's the way vision really works. When you focus on somethign in the foreground, the backround gets blurry since it's out of focus. Besides, I think you'll find most people really enjoy it (I don't know if you noticed it, but SFA employs the same technique, especially in cut scenes ).

"I really liked seeing StarFox out of his ship and thought it was an awesome idea. Seriously, flight combat games are kind of predictable... "

Here's where I completely and utterly agree with you. It really makes me mad when people complain that there was so little flying and too much "adventure". That's what you GET in an adventure game and personally I really liked the gameplay change that the flying missions offered (seriosly, those people should be happy the flying missions were included at all). I liked seeing the Star Fox characters out of their normal settings and interacting with other features. For me, that's a big plus for the Star Fox license (besides, Namco's making a classic SF shooter anyways, and I HIGHLY doubt it'll be bad). Still though, I think Rare could've done a lot more for the game if Nintendo/Miyamoto had left out the Star Fox license and they had kept the original Dinosaur Planet.

[joeyjojo]

while playing star fox i felt like i was just playing a cheap ripoff of zelda. the fighting was boring, the graphics were great (what a waste), the story was averagebla bla bla bla. i couldnt be bothered. IMO, it was a zelda game for kids. im sure my young cousins could breeze through it.
   I dont really have any problems with the whole "star fox" theme being used. i mean, evidently its not a star fox game. does anyone care that fox is in smash brothers? "oh my god! fox doesnt fight! he flys a spaceship!".
   the only thing in the game that impressed me in SFA was the graphics. the music was quite good too. this game was much too simplistic in all areas. and what was with the shop? when you get money, you could go into the shop and buy nearly every item and that was the end of the shop for the game. what was the point. and also the cheat tokens!
  rare went out with a shallow and heavily "borrowed" game.

[egman]

PorpoiseMuffins--I don't think anybody in here was bashing SFA  because it was not by EAD. It has great elements to it, but 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.

Lately I've been playing Skies of Arcadia Legends. This is a port of a Dreamcast game with almost no visual upgrades. However, I'm addicted to the game because the characterization in the game is dead on and it's fun to just go exploring. Plus the game takes a much lighter tone in telling its story, which makes it stand out amongst the "dark" and "mature" games we have been overwhelmed with lately. I've also been playing Panzer Dragoon Orta on X-box. This is a rail shooter, so the game is extremely linear outside of the fact that you can take different paths during a level. Also, as a rail shooter you are limited in mission objectives. It's basically about shooting everything that moves on screen that is shooting at you. But I keep playing because the story is epic sci-fi and further more, the world you play in is perfectly realized, with levels just dripping with detail that goes almost beyond obssessive. It's less of a technical achievement and much more of a testament to the designers willingness to let their visions come to life as opposed to putting stuff in a game because it will automatically sell the game.

Neither of those games have the total package of SFA in terms of technical prowess or variety of game play, but each game some how found a way to award me as a gamer. SFA just did not click with, but I'm glad it worked for you though. But don't say that SFA is being bashed because it wasn't made EAD or helmed by Miyamoto.  

[Hostile Creation]

I think Rare, as developers, suck.  Donkey Kong sucked, Banjo whatever was crap. . . I never played Perfect Dark, but heck, it probably sucks, too.  All their characters are annoying, stupid, sickeningly happy, and cliche, and their plots are similar.  In my opinion, this is their best creation that I played.  I liked it, but it could have been a lot better if Nintendo had made it.

[theaveng]

If you didn't like Banjo-Kazooie, you must have hated Mario 64 too.  Is that true?

What was your opinion of Goldeneye?

[Hostile Creation]

No, Mario had much better stages, plot, characters, and gameplay.  I liked Mario 64.  I've seen little of Banjo-K, but what little I did sucked, and he three or four Rare games I own and have played a good bit suck.

Goldeneye was okay, but I remember really liking the multiplayer.  My friend and I played it at a party almost constantly.  That wa fun.

[MetalHead666]

I have to say that I wasnt to fond of Banjo, I found it pretty boring.  I loved Perfect Dark though, and Conkers bad fur day was a riot.  

I dont think that SFA was bad, It was a good game.  But Zelda just has so much more spunk, and I feel like I need to keep playing.  SFA just didnt do that for me. SFA did have brilliant Graphics though.

[Hostile Creation]

Exactly.  Star Fox is good, but Zelda is just so much better.  Of course, you can't compare what the two series actually are: Star Fox is a space shooter/sim and Zelda is an adventure/epic.  You can't really compare them, and SFA is not a good example of what Star Fox really is.

[Termin8Anakin]

I got SFA recently, free I might add.
I like it so far. Really.
Although the auto-targetting does teak some getting used to, since we're too used to Zelda.
In the words of the illustrious Goldmember:
"Ooh, Yesh, Oi tink thish wonsh a keeper."

There is one glitch in the game though, and that is sometimes, the game jumps. Minor, but worth mentioning. Anyone else have this problem?

[mouse_clicker]

Can't say I've ever had that problem with SFA, but I did play through it pretty fast. It could also be a PAL thing.

Also, congratulations on writing that piece for PGC. Now all I have to do is wait for Nintendo to hold some huge event in Kansas that for some reason none of the staffers can attend, even those living in the Midwest.

[theaveng]

I never noticed the game jump, but it does sometimes stop briefly.  You see, Starfox uses "hidden" loading between levels.  It loads the data as you're running from level to level, but sometimes you run faster than the data can load.  When that happens, it causes the game to momentarily stop.  The same thing happens with Metroid Prime sometimes, but far less often.

Quote
Originally posted by: Hostile Creation
No, Mario had much better stages, plot, characters, and gameplay.  I liked Mario 64.  I've seen little of Banjo-K, but what little I did sucked...

Well hat's cool.  Everyone's entitled to their opinion, but for me, Banjo-Kazooie was just like Mario.  Same moves and same goals (collect shiny gold stars/jiggies) , but with larger levels (about 2-3 times larger) and more interaction between characters (the villian talks to Banjo the whole way through the game).  And Banjo's graphics were just beautiful, especially the last Four Seasons level where you visit the same level over-and-over, but in different times of the year: Spring, Summer, Fall, and Winter.  Things you do in Spring can effect what happens in Fall.  VERY cool.

[theaveng]

o