Post by: theaveng on March 28, 2003, 02:28:29 AM
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?)
Post by: mouse_clicker on March 28, 2003, 02:31:41 AM
Post by: Termin8Anakin on March 28, 2003, 02:32:48 AM
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.
Post by: PaLaDiN on March 28, 2003, 05:29:47 AM
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.
Post by: Nintendork SP on March 28, 2003, 05:52:18 AM
Post by: MetalHead666 on March 28, 2003, 06:04:57 AM
Post by: Ian Sane on March 28, 2003, 07:02:29 AM
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.
Post by: egman on March 28, 2003, 08:25:07 AM
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.
Post by: theaveng on March 28, 2003, 08:32:16 AM
QuoteKinda 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.
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.
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?
Post by: theaveng on March 28, 2003, 08:32:17 AM
Post by: Lumas Etima on March 28, 2003, 08:40:51 AM
Post by: ThePerm on March 28, 2003, 09:26:54 AM
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.
Post by: vudu on March 28, 2003, 09:40:31 AM
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.
Post by: Kuchakor on March 28, 2003, 10:26:25 AM
And about Starfox, like someone said before, no soul, it would have been a great game.... if it were any fun.
Post by: bamf226 on March 28, 2003, 10:33:34 AM
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.
Post by: Grey Ninja on March 28, 2003, 10:37:23 AM
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.
Post by: yrrab436 on March 28, 2003, 10:37:57 AM
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.
Post by: gamer_man on March 28, 2003, 01:44:22 PM
Post by: kennyb27 on March 28, 2003, 02:08:23 PM
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.
Post by: Aussie Ben PGC on March 28, 2003, 02:12:17 PM
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.
Post by: mac<censored> on March 28, 2003, 02:19:09 PM
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.
Post by: kennyb27 on March 28, 2003, 02:56:36 PM
QuoteLet'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.
Rare's a very technically competent company, but they seem completely unable to tell a story well, or create a compelling character
Post by: penguincube on March 28, 2003, 04:38:13 PM
Post by: joshnickerson on March 28, 2003, 04:53:12 PM
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.
Post by: Armed on March 28, 2003, 05:02:36 PM
Post by: misterd on March 28, 2003, 05:41:38 PM
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.
Post by: Luciferschild on March 28, 2003, 06:52:04 PM
Post by: MickeyD on March 28, 2003, 07:05:41 PM
Post by: theaveng on March 29, 2003, 02:10:12 AM
QuoteYou 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.)
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 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.
Post by: theaveng on March 29, 2003, 02:10:14 AM
Post by: theaveng on March 29, 2003, 02:10:17 AM
Post by: Tael on March 29, 2003, 02:13:04 AM
QuoteI disagree, I never found any of Rare's characters compelling, and the stories for the games were pretty boring.
Originally posted by: kennyb27QuoteLet'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.
Rare's a very technically competent company, but they seem completely unable to tell a story well, or create a compelling character
Post by: Hemmorrhoid on March 29, 2003, 02:21:11 AM
*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.
Post by: MetalHead666 on March 29, 2003, 09:23:42 AM
Hey what did Legend of Zelda the Wind Waker get in EGM?
Post by: penfold on March 29, 2003, 12:41:20 PM
Post by: Christberg on March 29, 2003, 01:39:10 PM
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.
Post by: PorpoiseMuffins on March 29, 2003, 01:55:01 PM
Post by: Tael on March 29, 2003, 03:47:17 PM
QuoteThat'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.
Originally posted by: PorpoiseMuffins
Not to say I didn't enjoy EAD's latest stuff, but it didn't live up to the hype.
Post by: mouse_clicker on March 29, 2003, 05:31:23 PM
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.
Post by: joeyjojo on March 29, 2003, 10:09:23 PM
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.
Post by: egman on March 30, 2003, 06:16:30 AM
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.
Post by: Hostile Creation on March 30, 2003, 07:05:27 AM
Post by: theaveng on March 30, 2003, 08:14:44 AM
What was your opinion of Goldeneye?
Post by: Hostile Creation on March 30, 2003, 08:28:18 AM
Goldeneye was okay, but I remember really liking the multiplayer. My friend and I played it at a party almost constantly. That wa fun.
Post by: MetalHead666 on March 30, 2003, 11:58:19 AM
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.
Post by: Hostile Creation on March 30, 2003, 12:28:35 PM
Post by: Termin8Anakin on March 31, 2003, 01:59:47 AM
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?
Post by: mouse_clicker on March 31, 2003, 02:18:23 AM
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.
Post by: theaveng on March 31, 2003, 02:38:33 AM
QuoteWell 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.
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...
Post by: theaveng on March 31, 2003, 02:38:34 AM
Post by: theaveng on March 31, 2003, 02:38:36 AM
Post by: PorpoiseMuffins on March 31, 2003, 09:23:20 AM
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.
Post by: bonestormer on March 31, 2003, 06:38:47 PM
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.
Post by: PorpoiseMuffins on April 01, 2003, 09:31:19 AM
Post by: Hostile Creation on April 01, 2003, 02:27:55 PM
Post by: mouse_clicker on April 01, 2003, 02:36:55 PM
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.
Post by: Hostile Creation on April 01, 2003, 03:16:40 PM
Post by: Termin8Anakin on April 02, 2003, 02:17:40 AM
And because the zelda lock on is such a good method, that is why no one can have a good targetting system as NIntendo.
Post by: theaveng on April 02, 2003, 07:03:19 AM
.
.
.
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)
Post by: ThePerm on April 02, 2003, 07:28:14 AM
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.
Post by: PorpoiseMuffins on April 02, 2003, 09:43:09 AM
Post by: Hostile Creation on April 02, 2003, 10:40:12 AM
Post by: yrrab436 on April 02, 2003, 03:57:47 PM
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*
Post by: godwheel on April 03, 2003, 05:14:25 AM
Post by: Hemmorrhoid on April 03, 2003, 05:25:32 AM
i played 99% and never beat andross
it was entertaining, very good, but not Nintendo Quality like Wind Waker or Metroid Prime
Post by: PorpoiseMuffins on April 03, 2003, 09:56:46 AM
Don't be depressed :-)
Post by: Belmont on April 03, 2003, 01:43:57 PM
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....
Post by: Hostile Creation on April 03, 2003, 01:45:31 PM
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.
Post by: bonestormer on April 03, 2003, 06:13:00 PM
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...)
Post by: PorpoiseMuffins on April 05, 2003, 07:23:45 AM
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.
Post by: Audio_of_Being on April 05, 2003, 09:03:45 AM
Post by: thecubedcanuck on April 05, 2003, 09:36:30 AM
Post by: Black_Behemoth on April 12, 2003, 08:19:52 PM
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.
