Star Fox Adventures

[Johnny Awesome]

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

 

[mkillio]

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]

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.

 

[Qroach]

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!

 

[CeiserSöze]

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]

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]

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.

 

[CeiserSöze]

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]

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]

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]

Quincy,

Rare sucks now (especially now), remember?

zurich

 

[Mr. Angry Pants]

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.

 

[CeiserSöze]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Qroach]

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 CeiserSöze. 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]

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]

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).