Star Fox Adventures [Archive]

mkillio

28-Sep-2002, 01:08

I got Star Fox the day it came out and have been loving it since. It's got great graphics, really good controls, pretty god sound and a lot of atmosphere. The controls are a whole lot like Zeldas but they're not quite the same and don't work as well. For instance, instead of pressing start and going to your item screen you use the C-Stick which doesn't actually bring up an item screen. It just brings up a little window (you can keep playin' though) and you move the C-Stick L, R, or up and down. Now you would think this would be nice and quick but since the c-stick is a stick and not buttons you tend to accidentally press it in the wrong direction do to the possibility of pressing it diagonally. Also when aiming with teh staff or FP view it's not very free, it always recenters which I hate and makes it tuff to aim quickly on enemies.

I'm 68% into and have only gotten upset witht eh game a few time with some ridiculous puzzles.

I also want to know if anyone has returned the third stone yet because I can not figure out how to open, what I believe to be, the last door before the teleporter. It's been driving me crazy for about 3 hours.

CaptainHowdy

28-Sep-2002, 02:33

I agree graphics are amazing, I just have to wonder why Nintendo gave them Fox instead of Link, all the puzzles are ripped right out of zelda, It feels like I have done it all before(just not as pretty)

Goldni

28-Sep-2002, 03:29

Ozymandis

28-Sep-2002, 04:16

I got this game today too. It's pretty decent so far. Lot of item collecting though :-?

Miyamoto knows best to do with his "game giants" creations.

Really? *cough*Celda*cough* :evil:

Blade

28-Sep-2002, 04:29

Ozy: Save your judgement for February 2003.. ;)

Ozymandis

28-Sep-2002, 04:33

Ozy: Save your judgement for February 2003.. ;)

Why? I'm adamantly opposed to buying that game. I absolutey refuse to endorse Miyamoto's turning his back on me as a fan of Ocarina of Time by spending my money on his game. I just won't do it.

Panzer and Brute Force should be around then. That's more than enough to keep me occupied :D

Blade

28-Sep-2002, 04:58

A. You don't necessarily have to buy it.. ;) *points to Blockbuster*

B. To each his own.

C. All they did was change the look. From what I've heard, most everything is similar to OoT/MM except the cel-shading. The gameplay, the music, the sound effects, the landscapes. It's going to be slightly more light-hearted, sure.. that's about it.

I can understand yer frustrations, but to out-right boycott a new Zelda game is like, insane to me. Sorry.. it just is. :)

Goldni

28-Sep-2002, 06:46

I love the Celda look. i wish they would change Link though. SFA despite being a bunch item collecting (Rare's trademark) is you Zelda OOT and MM for you Ozy. It's copying the hell out of EAD. Rare must have loved Zelda. It's all good though. SFA is one of my top games so far in 2002.

CaptainHowdy

28-Sep-2002, 06:48

Captian, that's blasphemy to think that Nintendo would farm out Link to another company even if it was Rare. Mario, Link and Pikmin will always be developed from EAD. Miyamoto knows best to do with his "game giants" creations.

I agree about SFA. Really a good game. I'm giving it an 8.9. Rare did a fine job. Very polished and well produced. And the different kinds of fur is icing on the cake. They have really showed what the Gamecube can do. It's definetly a great purchase for anyone wanting a nice big adventure.

Blasphemy that Nintendo would farm out Link?
guess we never heard of the oracle games on GBC?
the highest scoring zelda games yet yet(among the only games on
pocket IGN to get a perfect 10 rating)

Reznor007

28-Sep-2002, 07:52

Rodéric

28-Sep-2002, 10:15

I really can't stand people saying bad things about stuuf they don't know.

Games are all about gameplay (tetris anyone?), bashing a game because it doesn't look as you expected is s****d, and judging a game on his look instead of his gameplay is l**e.

I'm also disapointed by the look of the new Zelda, but I won't comment on it until I've played it.

You can tell us how you would have liked Zelda to look, or tell us that you're disapointed, but telling us you won't buy it show us how closed mind you are :p

Sorry I'm hard, but I'm really sick of people telling this or that sucks/is lame/whatever while they don't f****g now anything about it, but what they heard/saw on TV/Web.
That makes me VERY angry. (In case you didn't notice ^^)

Blade

28-Sep-2002, 15:33

Howdy: OOT got a 10 too.. and MM got what, 9.9 or something?

I bet if there were an IGN 16-bit right now, they'd probably give LTTP a similar score. And LoZ on IGN 8-bit, same thing. :)

CaptainHowdy

28-Sep-2002, 16:41

Blade, I didnt say Nintendos Zelda was bad, I love them, I just said that the right companys were capable of it too, my point had nothing to do with Nintendos Zelda, my point was, Rare ripped off Zelda so bad with SFA, they may as well have made it a Zelda game(but then again, I dont enjoy it nearly as much as I do zelda)

the game is pretty, but its also very hollow, I agree with planetgamecubes review of it the most

28-Sep-2002, 17:55

I really can't stand people saying bad things about stuuf they don't know.

Games are all about gameplay (tetris anyone?), bashing a game because it doesn't look as you expected is s****d, and judging a game on his look instead of his gameplay is l**e.

I have to disagree pendantically with you here. The looks of a game can enhance or detract from the gameplay. Yes, overall how a game plays is the most important factor (for me at least) but the look is also important. It's analogous to a fine meal where the Chef works on presentation in addition to flavor because he knows the former directly impacts the latter.

You can tell us how you would have liked Zelda to look, or tell us that you're disapointed, but telling us you won't buy it show us how closed mind you are :p

Yea, that's a bit of a stretch if you're any sort of Zelda fan.

Ozymandis

28-Sep-2002, 19:28

Games are all about gameplay (tetris anyone?), bashing a game because it doesn't look as you expected is s****d, and judging a game on his look instead of his gameplay is l**e.

You know, everyone decides what they're looking for from their games. You can't tell me what criteria I should use to decide what games I want. Me, I want a game that looks and plays well. If it doesn't fit both of those criteria, I'm not buying it.

It's just that simple. And it's more about art than technology. Thus Celda is a big loser from the start, with that art style no matter how good the game is I doubt I can sit through it. Especially since I have all three consoles, and there will be plenty of other (better) games out then.

Blade:

I'll probably end up renting it, good idea. It'll be worth it to see the cool boss animations, but as for actually playing much of the game, nah, I'll pass. I got Star Fox Adventures to give me an OoT-like experience :D

Johnny Awesome

29-Sep-2002, 02:41

Starfox Adventures is amazing to me. I'm 35% through it and I love it. The story is great, I really like the voice acting, the puzzles are good, the graphics are mind-blowing, but the best thing is the music. Truly great.

9/10. Hands-down my favorite GCN game, with Eternal Darkness not too far behind.

I'm actually looking forward to Zelda now. I'm not fond of the way Link looks, but I'm pretty sure Miyamoto isn't going to let us down.

RaolinDarksbane

29-Sep-2002, 03:45

The game is a lot of fun even if it involves collecting a lot of things.

http://www.penny-arcade.com/images/2002/20020927l.gif

wazoo

29-Sep-2002, 10:39

It's just that simple. And it's more about art than technology. Thus Celda is a big loser from the start, with that art style no matter how good the game is I doubt I can sit through it. Especially since I have all three consoles, and there will be plenty of other (better) games out then.

Better refers to what ?? IMO, you can categorize a game with respect to gameplay, technology and art direction. I doubt there will many games better than Zelda on the second and third, and art direction is not bad, it just does not suit your tastes.

Ozymandis

29-Sep-2002, 11:18

Better refers to what ?? IMO, you can categorize a game with respect to gameplay, technology and art direction. I doubt there will many games better than Zelda on the second and third, and art direction is not bad, it just does not suit your tastes.

Better refers to specific games released in the same time period. Like Brute Force, Unreal 2, Devil May Cry 2, and most notably Panzer Dragoon Orta.

When I say "better", there's just one simple meaning- "what's preferable for me". From what I've seen of Celda, I can't fathom a situation where I would end up buying the game :(

wazoo

29-Sep-2002, 15:31

When I say "better", there's just one simple meaning- "what's preferable for me". From what I've seen of Celda, I can't fathom a situation where I would end up buying the game :(

Considering the list you gave, it is sure that Zelda would not fit inside (if this list reflects the spectrum of your tastes).

Johnny Awesome

29-Sep-2002, 16:20

Well, I play on getting Celda, Brute Force, and Panzer Dragoon Orta, so go figure... :)

mkillio

01-Oct-2002, 00:17

The game is a lot of fun even if it involves collecting a lot of things.

I don't think there's that much collecting and if there were it's not on the level of DK64 or JFG.

Also has anyone figured out how to beat the end boss? After he turns around I can get rid of both of his *blank*.

Plasmatics

03-Oct-2002, 07:56

Well its good to see that you tech-heads think SFA is graphically impressive as well. Personally, I've never seen anything* that approaches this game graphically (yes I've seen Wreckless, DOA3 etc.). The screens and movies impressed me but I see now that they were an injustice to this games beauty.

As for the collect-a-thon aspects, I never felt them, with the possible exception of the lantern fireflies. And I'm the kind of person who is immediately and strongly put off by the collecting style of gameplay, having stopped playing both Donkey Kong 64 and Banjo Kazooie after only a couple of levels.

*applies to released games only. :p

Qroach

03-Oct-2002, 11:31

Starfox is awesome! One of the best looking games I've played so far. Man all i can say is that rare knows how to make a pretty game! The game has been really fun so far!

CeiserSÃ¶ze

03-Oct-2002, 11:59

Starfox was a major dissapointment for me. The graphics and the whole presentation is great and it's definitely one of the best looking games around. But the gameplay consists mainly of boring and tedious item collecting, stupid fetch-quests and backtracking. It's kind of a would-be Zelda that violates the primary rule of Zelda-games: Give the player a big world with lots of extra stuff and secrets to discover. SFA doesn't have that, it's an extremely linear adventure with a far too low difficulty level (combat is too simple and easy, I never died once during the whole game) and barely any replay value (I finished it in under 14 hours and I don't feel the urge to play it again). It's still a good game but clearly not up to the gameplay-standards I expect from Nintendo/Rare. After Ocarina of Time and Majora's Mask I expected a lot more (actually I'm quite p***ed off. SFA was one of my most anticipated games of this year). :(

Qroach

03-Oct-2002, 12:29

I don't really see it as a tedious amount of collecting. But there's always going to be someone that doesn't like a game, no matter how good you think it is. I think the collecting in this is less frustrating than the jumping puzzles in mario sunshine...

Also, 14 hours for a game is pretty typical IMO. I personally think it's a better game then Mario Sunhsine (with the lack of good camera system and frustrating item collecting) But I wouldn't be suprised if the game doesn't have much replay value... Most games don't.

I actually haven't played SMS very much yet. The one time I played the game I got the camera so stuck I had to reset, and the other time I kept falling off a platform whenever I changed the camera angle. that was very frustrating.

Johnny Awesome

03-Oct-2002, 13:56

Yeah. SFA just plays better than SMS. The one problem with the game is that the combat system isn't all that great. The boss encounters are very cool though. I must be pretty crap at games, because I'm 19 hours in and only 77% done. :oops:

CeiserSÃ¶ze

03-Oct-2002, 14:29

I had a lot more fun with SMS than with SFA. I had virtually no problems with the camera. Actually I quite liked SMS's manual camera system. After about 2 hours of playing I had a good grasp of it and it worked better than most camera-systems that give the player less control (imho the perfect automatic camera still doesn't exist which shows especially in 3D jump'n runs, so I prefer a manual camera there). Also it was a lot more challenging but not unfair (everytime I died it was clearly my fault and not the camera's. Ok, there probably were a few exeptions, but not many :) ).

On replay value: I haven't played SFA since I finished it three days ago because I know that there's nothing more left to see. This is not the case with Mario or Zelda where there are many things and secrets to discover even after you have finished it. I expected SFA to be similar in that way so I was very disappointed.

Personally I think SFA's item collecting (btw: why do every items in SFA have to run away from me? It's not hard to catch them but it's still very annoying and imho unnecessary), boring subquests (bring me X ammount of item Y which are located on the other side of the level), the ridiculosly easy combat and boss fights (I beat every of the 4 bosses on the first try) and the constant backtracking (sometimes you have to fight through the same dungeon a second time. There are minor differences but it's basically the same old levels again) are worse than Mario's jumping puzzles. The former things are just boring and tedious, the latter are challenging :)

I still consider SFA a good game (maybe even a very good one because of the great presentation) but gameplay-wise it's nothing special. Just a solid action-adventure without the variety and subtle touches that made Zelda great.

CaptainHowdy

03-Oct-2002, 18:25

I agree, Starfox is very pretty, but everything below the surface kinda blows.
there is no point to the staff,fighting is lame, tedious and pointless(there is no challenge or strategy behind it)
the story is, weak
just about every ounce of gameplay and puzzle in that game
I feel like I have already done before in previous Zelda titles.
I played it for about 3 days, then when my GF brought home animal crossing, I was so tired of SFA, I decided to play it just for the heck of it,
wound up playing it every day since(in between UT 2003 sessions)

Qroach

03-Oct-2002, 18:44

I don't know what it is about SOME of these comments that makes me not believe them. It's stuff like this...

When you say the staff fighting is lame. Compared to what? What about it is lame exactly? You say strategy, but don't further explain your thought. Do you think it's too easy to beat your opponents? Since i remind you that Most nintendo games are not typically all that difficult to begin with...

When you say stuff like the story is "weak"... weak compared to what? other Nintendo titles? The story isn't any better or worse then any title that isn't setting out for realism. Well, perhaps i shouldn't say that. The story in this game is MUCH better then the story in Super mario sunshine...

When you say you feel like you've done it in Zelda before, is that a bad thing? obviously the game has similar gameplay elements to zelda (automatic jump and others). Unless you think zelda was bad of course.

I can't help but disagree with you on all counts.

zurich

03-Oct-2002, 19:07

Quincy,

Rare sucks now (especially now), remember?

zurich

Mr. Angry Pants

03-Oct-2002, 19:23

Yet another wannabe Shiggy-clone by Rareware. These boys have been putting out over-rated bunk since DKC 3.

The company will never, ever, in a million years earn back half of what Microsoft payed for it. Terrible business decision on MS's part.

CeiserSÃ¶ze

03-Oct-2002, 19:23

When you say the staff fighting is lame. Compared to what? What about it is lame exactly? You say strategy, but don't further explain your thought. Do you think it's too easy to beat your opponents? Since i remind you that Most nintendo games are not typically all that difficult to begin with...

That's simply not true: Mario was challenging (some people even said that it was hard but for me it was perfect), Pikmin is definitely no easy game either and all Zelda-games had some very challenging scenes too (puzzles and combat). Games by Rare are also widely considered as quite challenging so I expected SFA to have a similar difficulty level.

Let's just say that SFA was one of the least challenging games I played recently. Fighting is boring because it doesn't require any strategy (just wait for the enemy until he lowers his guard then whack him until he's dead - works on every enemy in the game). The fact that when fighting multiple enemies the ones you aren't targeting at the moment will wait until you beat the targeted creature instead of trying to attack you doesn't help either. It's basically Zelda-style fighting without Zelda's enemy-variety and foes that require a little more to beat than just repeatedly pushing the A-button. SFA has about the combat-variety of a Zelda game where the only enemies would be skultullas, octorocs and bats. I think that more different enemy-types which would have required different strategies would have helped a lot.

When you say stuff like the story is "weak"... weak compared to what? other Nintendo titles? The story isn't any better or worse then any title that isn't setting out for realism. Well, perhaps i shouldn't say that. The story in this game is MUCH better then the story in Super mario sunshine...

Actually I think the story is ok (except for the ending where it becomes too obvious that Dinosaur Planet and Starfox don't fit together too well). It's not great but it's good enough for a game like this. One or two plot twists would have been nice though. Hey, even SMS has one (although it's a little... well, ridiculous ;)) and Ocarina of Time (which I tend to compare SFA to because of the similar gameplay-basics) had two of my favourite plot twists ever. SFA has none (right until the end) which makes the good story a little boring. I would have given General Scales a lot more screen time for example. As one of the main villains he appears far too less in the game (hey, you're trying to foil his plans and he doesn't seem to mind? At least I got this impression because he barely appeared in the game). And when he does, his scenes are fairly unimpressive.

Steve Dave Part Deux

03-Oct-2002, 19:26

SFA is probably my favorite Rare game of all time. There is nothing particulalry Rare about the game other than the graphics and presentation, but the fighting system is actually quite intelligent. The response and timing of attacks in particular is impressive. I have some beef with the level designs and the story is not of the same epic quality as SF64, but it's a great game nonetheless. Of course, I still have more fun playing SMS.

Teasy

03-Oct-2002, 19:52

Rare sucks now (especially now), remember?

Don't you mean Rare are great now (especially now).. well that's if you look at XBox fan posts on this forum.

All the XBox fans here seem to think that SFA is wonderful or something, its a good game with excellent visuals, that's true, but its not a great game or anything. Look at its average score on GameRankings.com, out of 13 review sites it has an average of 79%. The game certainly is a little bit better then 79% IMO but this still shows that its not as good as allot of people say it is.

CaptainHowdy

03-Oct-2002, 20:11

weak compared to any game really.
copying Zelda isnt bad, but cut and pasting the same puzzles we have all done before is, get some originality

the artistry is amazing, the sound, music, everything is tight, but it just feels so lacking. I dont mean the game itself is bad, its just not great(and SMS is far better, FAR FAR better). Pretty Much every review out there backs me up that this isnt the usual Rare 90-100 game, its more of a 70-80.

I'd bet a dollar to a donut, if Rare had never changed hands, it would be
crap in your eyes, it was only months ago you were badmouthing SFA(here comes the denial, I am sure someone remembers the AAA GC Vs XBOX discussion on upcoming games.

Qroach

03-Oct-2002, 20:20

Don't you mean Rare are great now (especially now).. well that's if you look at XBox fan posts on this forum.

No one around here has been saying ANYTHING close to "Rare is great now". People have been saying that Rare has NOT gone downhill as certain people claimed, even LONG before the they were involed with MS. It's been certain "GC only" fans that have been trying to prove that rare "isn't what it once was"...

...certain fans, not all of them.

All the XBox fans here seem to think that SFA is wonderful or something, its a good game with excellent visuals, that's true

Yes, and we all remember that any game that recieves a '9" score from IGN mean it's just good, not great or excellent. A game that recieves a 9.4 really is excellent :roll:

Qroach

03-Oct-2002, 20:26

weak compared to any game really.
copying Zelda isnt bad, but cut and pasting the same puzzles we have all done before is, get some originality

You know it's funny, becuase I don't totally disagree with CeiserSÃ¶ze. he actually explains his thoughts in a reasonable way. You on the other hand are just a tad too fanish (as your comment below proves).

I'd bet a dollar to a donut, if Rare had never changed hands, it would be crap in your eyes,

Well i guess you'd lose your money then because I've NEVER said a bad thing about rare or the games they make/made. I've said for over a year already, that the only reasons to buy a nintendo console are:

1. Nintendo games
2. Rare games

it was only months ago you were badmouthing SFA(here comes the denial, I am sure someone remembers the AAA GC Vs XBOX discussion on upcoming games.

See, it's comments like this that show the difference between a fan and a fan-boy. I never badmouthed SFA at all. You're living in a dreamworld and on ly see things you want to see. youcan go thorugh all the thread you want looking for something that isn't there.

Mr. Angry Pants

03-Oct-2002, 20:35

Rare sucks now (especially now), remember?

Don't you mean Rare are great now (especially now).. well that's if you look at XBox fan posts on this forum.

Way to generalize the opinions of a few individuals as the belief of a majority.

I'm an 'Xbox fan' in that I own and enjoy Xbox games, and I have just as much love for Rare now as I did three years ago:

None.

I don't really see anyone in the Xbox camp singing the praises of Rare itself. The only people who seem truely happy about the acquisition are the forum-dwelling zealots who see it as MS one-upping Nintendo.

Personaly, I don't give a damn about the company or any of its upcoming games. They turned Joanna Dark into a 10 year old girl with breasts for Christ's sake. She isn't even dark anymore.

Teasy

03-Oct-2002, 20:37

No one around here has been saying ANYTHING close to "Rare is great now". People have been saying that Rare has NOT gone downhill as certain people claimed, even LONG before the they were involed with MS. It's been certain "GC only" fans that have been trying to prove that rare "isn't what it once was"...

Oh please, Johnny thought Rare's FPS's were pathetic, now suddenly he's looking forward to Perfect Dark and all of a sudden you have a GameCube and SFA is wonderful.

Yes, and we all remember that any game that recieves a '9" score from IGN mean it's just good, not great or excellent. A game that recieves a 9.4 really is excellent

9 and 9.4 are very different scores on any site, add to this that Mario Sunshine has an average of 9.2 in all current reviews and SFA has an average of 7.9 and you can see the difference between them (although yeah 7.9 is a little unfair).

Qroach

03-Oct-2002, 21:17

Teasy,

Oh please, Johnny thought Rare's FPS's were pathetic, now suddenly he's looking forward to Perfect Dark

I don't remember him saying anything about perfect dark. Either way what would it matter, he already owned a cube before the entire Rare sale went down... did he not?

and all of a sudden you have a GameCube and SFA is wonderful. People who have barely mentioned playing GameCube games here suddenly love one particular GameCube game.. interesting.

My GOD, what is it with you (and your buddy) with short memories. You obviously don't remember me saying that on a number of occasions that I planned on buying a game cube after Super Mario Sunshine was out? ...and I did. I also picked up SFA to see if it was as good as I heard, and it IS. Who said I "love" one game in particular? Super mario sunshine is a great game too. Perhaps it's because the game isn't nearly as bad as a person that can't purchase it makes it out to be.

[quote]9 and 9.4 are very different scores on any site, [quote]

Whatever Teasy, that's a load of BS. If you really believe that and can't see how illogical that statement is why bother discussing it further.

Teasy

03-Oct-2002, 21:52

I've said for over a year already, that the only reasons to buy a nintendo console are:

1. Nintendo games
2. Rare games

Strange, I can't remember you ever championing Rare's cause until you thought Rare were leaving Nintendo. I only remember you starting to say this when you came along with your first Rare rumour story on this forum. All of a sudden Rare were so great and the only reason, other then Nintendo, to own GameCube was Rare, despite the fact that they were yet to release a game and had barely anything scheduled for release in the future.

Qroach

04-Oct-2002, 00:05

Strange, I can't remember you ever championing Rare's cause until you thought Rare were leaving Nintendo.

Funny here comes the short memory again. Strange, I can't remember you saying how Rare "wasn't as good as they once were", until AFTER the Rare leaving Nintendo rumors came about. That's when you started the "it doesn't matter anyway" talk.

Who's championing (is that a word?) Rare around here? You mean me arguing that Rare is STILL capable of making great games (which has been proven true IMO) is "championing" Rare? Please Teasy, if you can't see the fault in your argument then you need to get your head checked.

I only remember you starting to say this when you came along with your first Rare rumour story on this forum.

Once again with the short memory! For one thing, I was giving my 2 reasons to buy a Nintendo console LONG before GC was in stores. Second, I was NOT the first person to post of this rumor on these boards. I even said that I didn't believe them when we first heard about it!

All of a sudden Rare were so great and the only reason, other then Nintendo, to own GameCube was Rare,

It's NOT "all of the sudden" Teasy. Do you need to understand the reason anyone would say that? For christ sakes Rare and Nintendo were making the ONLY games worth owning on the N64. There was NO reason for that to change on the GC. Get it through your thick skull, I've been saying that LONG before the rumors arrived!

For one thing, NOBODY around here has been saying "Rare is so great" or anything of the sort. All we've had are fanboys saying "Rare isn't as good as they once were" and "we now have zoonami and free radical with ex rare employees". All these people that you say have been "championing" Rare, have actually said is that Rare isn't any better or worse then they ONCE were! Nto that they are "now so great"! You're completely spinning what people are saying and I'm so sick of your BS!

despite the fact that they were yet to release a game and had barely anything scheduled for release in the future.

Yes and you still listed the games you thought they were going to make for GC in every list of must have GC titles. hmmm, go figure...

CaptainHowdy

04-Oct-2002, 16:31

Noone ever said Rare sucked, its not about fanboyism, my Comments on Starfox are just true, it just seems like either you have terrible taste or just dont want to see that.
hit up gamerankings, read up on the reviews, and you will have a VERY hard time finding a review that doesnt contain pretty much everything I said about it. So you are just in the minority on your opinion of it. If I was to be anti Rare about it, I would say the game just plain sucks, which it does not, its just not great.

But I do feel Rare is being rushed and pushed too hard by MS already, they are talking 5 games next year, thats when I feel I will be allowed to say Rare is not what they used to be.

Qroach

04-Oct-2002, 20:24

Noone ever said Rare sucked

Did I claim that someone said they "sucked"? No, so where are you getting that from exactly? Imo it looks like that's what you were thinking and automatically assumed that I was saying that. Anyway, you're right no one said that. All people said was that "Rare isn't as good as it used to be" and that they are "going downhill" and won't "be the same with nintendo". See the pattern? Specficically the last comment. It's there for everyone to plainy see... IMO it's also not a correct assumption your making.

my Comments on Starfox are just true, it just seems like either you have terrible taste or just dont want to see that.

Hardly. Take a look at the review scores on gamerankings. The game is consitently getting 8's and 9's. If you excuse the one guy that gave it a 7 and said this is no "zelda", even though the game wasn't supposed to be zelda. The game has some very positive reviews.

GamePro.com 80.0%
IGN 90.0%
Gamers.com 80.0%
Gamespy 82.0%
Gamer Web 70.0%
Game Revolution 80.0%
Nintendo Power 88.0%
GameCube Advanced 92.5%
The Laser 95.0%

hard time finding a review that doesnt contain pretty much everything I said about it.

They all have concerns and comments about things, but almost none of them except for one review tried to make the game sound bad or worse then it was. There's a reason for that, it's because the game isn't bad, it's a great title.. It's a excellent title.

So you are just in the minority on your opinion of it. If I was to be anti Rare about it, I would say the game just plain sucks, which it does not, its just not great.

I personally think YOU are in the minority.

I don't know about you, but i can remember seeing the words "great" or "excellent" in the majority of the reviews. Either way, if a game recieves and 8 doesn't just mean it's "good" a 7 means it's just "good" from every reivew I've seen. I'm not trying to say the game is perect, but it's not nearly as bad as some of you make it out to be.

But I do feel Rare is being rushed and pushed too hard by MS already, they are talking 5 games next year, thats when I feel I will be allowed to say Rare is not what they used to be.

Riiiiiight, you "feel" this in your bones I suppose? it must be that cold MS wind blowing...

Tagrineth

04-Oct-2002, 20:30

I think Star Fox Adventures is an excellent game :)

And one of my best friends IRL thinks it's several times better than Mario - and he really liked Mario :)

wazoo

04-Oct-2002, 21:08

I think Star Fox Adventures is an excellent game :)

And one of my best friends IRL thinks it's several times better than Mario - and he really liked Mario :)

and Gt3 is a much better racing game than Mario ;)

How can you compare both ??

comparing Zelda to Starfox is fair, and of course Starfox loses,but that is not a big deal, we have yet to find an adventure game that tops Zelda.

Starfox is a technically excellent game that succeed to do well a lot of things, albeit being not very original or innovative. But you do not need to be innovative to be fun. That is what I get from reading reviews.

I'll get that game when it will comes out later this year.

CaptainHowdy

04-Oct-2002, 22:45

the review average is an 88
which as I said, is not bad, but does not live up to Rares legacy.
not at all, because, usually with them, the gameplay is the height of
the game, in this one, its the games biggest complaint.

Johnny Awesome

04-Oct-2002, 23:07

:roll:

StefanS

05-Oct-2002, 05:16

my Comments on Starfox are just true, it just seems like either you have terrible taste or just dont want to see that.

Hardly. Take a look at the review scores on gamerankings. The game is consitently getting 8's and 9's. If you excuse the one guy that gave it a 7 and said this is no "zelda", even though the game wasn't supposed to be zelda. The game has some very positive reviews.

GamePro.com 80.0%
IGN 90.0%
Gamers.com 80.0%
Gamespy 82.0%
Gamer Web 70.0%
Game Revolution 80.0%
Nintendo Power 88.0%
GameCube Advanced 92.5%
The Laser 95.0%

hard time finding a review that doesnt contain pretty much everything I said about it.

They all have concerns and comments about things, but almost none of them except for one review tried to make the game sound bad or worse then it was. There's a reason for that, it's because the game isn't bad, it's a great title.. It's a excellent title.

Well, to be fair even the 90% CubeIGN review shares some of Howdy's concern. If I remember well, it even says: "Starfox is a great game, but it is no(t) Zelda" or sg similar.

Planetgamecube gave Starfox in two reviews 8.0/10.0 and they brought up some valid points about the gameplay. Usually I am using the mean of PGC & IGN so that makes it 8.5/10. For me that means a great game but just not Triple A.

http://www.planetgamecube.com/reviews.cfm?action=profile&id=193
http://www.planetgamecube.com/reviews.cfm?action=profile&id=194

Johnny Awesome

06-Oct-2002, 14:26

CaptainHowdy

06-Oct-2002, 19:07

dont forget the one thing that made OOT amazing, the free abilty to take challenges at your own pace, you could go where you wanted, and do what you wanted in freedom, but SFA lacks that, its way too linear for that type of game.

Johnny Awesome

06-Oct-2002, 23:22

And therefore more focused, which I like. :)

mkillio

07-Oct-2002, 01:46

I just finished it (25 hours). It's a great game.

Pros:

- Great presentation
- Amazing visuals
- Killer music
- Large world to explore
- Pretty good puzzles

Cons:

- Lacklustre combat system
- A little too easy (except the final boss)
- No replay value

Overall - 8.9/10.

It was defenitely to easy, I beat in 17hrs. I didn't think the boss was hard either, I beat him on my second try. I agree with you on all of your other points although I didn't like the music that much. I still feel like it's a 9.0 though. It just kind of has a AAA feel to it, and I think that for a game to be a AAA game it has to be 9.0 or higher

Blade

07-Oct-2002, 02:53

Legion

07-Oct-2002, 14:07

http://store4.yimg.com/I/demotivators_1705_1423592

Instead of thinking on your own you allow others to think for you? Why not play the games for yourselves?

CaptainHowdy

07-Oct-2002, 21:24

The linear feel of SFA is one thing that puts it behind SMS as a better game.

Hell, Slippy and Peppy even hold your hand through th' whole experience..

I just can't "jam" in SFA like I can in Mario. You can't just pick it up and play, like you could Star Fox 64 or SMS..

In Zelda, at least that sort of possibility was available.. it's sprawling with lots of secrets and mini-games. (like fishing) SFA is just a straight-forward action/adventure title with a handful of secrets. Thankfully, it performs well. AAA? Maybe, maybe not.

thats the kind of stuff that was missing, adding to the hollowness of the whole experience, if I had not previously played Zelda, or better yet, had never played a Rare game, I would be a lot less hard on SFA, but my point of view is only from that of living up to a legacy, in which it does not do, outside of that, it is a very good game, I am not disputing that.
but its one to rent and forget, it coming in the same timeline as Animal Crossing was good, because it fills the Zelda extras that made it so great, to me AC feels like a game based around Zelda side quests.