Topic: Emily Rogers On Star Fox Franchise

http://www.dromble.com/2014/03/15/why-rebooting-star-fox-isnt...

A very enlightening read that speaks the hard truth to an extent.

I don't agree with much of the article. She goes on to say that Starfox is a hard sell, because it's part of a certain genre. That's not exactly a real draw back. Secondly, she called Starfox Adventures a water down Zelda. That game came out before any Zelda on GCN, and it wasn't mediocre in any aspect, IMO, but that's beside the point that she used subjective matter as part of an article on why Starfox won't sell(it's irrelevant). Third, she says the game borrows aspects from other games. That's not exactly news from any standpoint. She might as well have said that the first FPS was the be all, end all of the genre. Halo came out years atfer Doom and such. That's another point debunked. Then she goes on to say that Starfox needs a gimmick, because 2 games used new features and later games didn't. Starfox Adventures didn't use any feature besides GCN's graphics to it's advantage, and Assault was arguably the direction the series was going to head to, anyway. The other part about concept is subjective, as well. Lastly, she blames gamers not being able to accept different genres, yet she called Starfox Adventures a watered down Zelda.

I'm not exactly agreeing with all the subjectivity in this article.

I agree that Starfox may not be in the popular space, but that's about all I agree with. Lots of people call the GamePad a gimmick, so I don't get why she would just ignore that. Then she's comparing Wii Sports to Titanfall as being part of the wrong target audience. She might as well have said Kinect doesn't exist. The games aren't very popular, and hasn't had a fresh presence since 2006. The article might as well say that GCN is still part of Nintendo's strategy for the future, and only one game per genre can exist.

I only skimmed through it but I immediately see the main problem.

Star Fox can't sell well, no one likes Shoot-em-ups anymore!

Telltale's games can't sell well, no one likes Adventure games anymore!

Amnesia can't sell well, no one likes Horror games anymore!

Little Big Planet can't sell well, no one likes 2d platformers on consoles anymore!

Star Fox was a rip off of many games before it when those games were popular. Is that bad? No, because it did it well enough with an added boost of an injection of 90's loving cartoon animal personality nintendo style. Perfect. I SAID PERFECT! The problem today? For the time and money there's better current popular gameplay styles Nintendo could "rip off" (I encourage nintendo to do this) and infuse their cartoon charm into.

Nintendo's problem isn't a lack of Star Fox. It's a lack of the idea behind Star Fox, that is "nintendoizing" popular gameplay genres. It moved into a "flap your arms with wiimote, kids and mom, and then produce only the best of its past catalogue of IP" era of game making. Now fans want the old Nintendo back. Nintendo wants more profit and growth than the old Nintendo. However the Wii U sales aren't helping prove their cause of not going back.

Excellent piece. I love reading Emily's stuff.

Star Fox is a weird one. I hold it in high regard, but when you stop and think about it, in 20 years there's only been 2 great SF games and one was a remake of the other. I'd love a new one in 1080p and 60 fps, but unfortunately Nintendo only seems interested in games they think they will sell millions, and they have piles of evidence that the SF franchise is not one of those. Maybe a lower priced download only title could work, allowing them to get away with leaving the game so short while not making it seem poor value for money, but I agree with her about going into other genres. Can you imagine Monolith recruiting some old Factor 5 guys and making an epic, KOTOR style space RPG with Rogue Squadron type shooting sections?

@Peach64
Most of the article was subjective. She specifically said that Starfox Adventures, which was a different genre compared to other Starfox games and was unacceptable, but then suggests venturing into other genres.

Most of the examples she used were from 2006, at the latest. Starfox 64 3D doesn't count as an example of anything, except maybe graphics and reaching a new audience that hasn't played the game prior.

@KKSlider5552000 understands. The article is contradictory.

EDIT: The only part of the article that made sense, was that Starfox wasn't very popular, but the reasons why weren't even legitimate.

What an interesting article. I agree with the writer, Star Fox isn't popular and it has accomplished little to nothing for itself as a franchise or for its genre.

In retrospect, hardly has anything else either, but suggesting another genre when they have already tried that isn't exactly promising. Even Command had turn based strategy, and it wasn't enough.

IMO, Starfox basically needs to be Halo and Gears combined. I agree that no one will take a smup seriously, but going to a different genre has already been tried, to an extent.

EDIT: BTW, I mean Halo in terms of setting and vehicles, but cover based combat and a 3rd person perspective.

@SCAR392 She does not say Starfox Adventures was unacceptable. She said it was a great idea, but a bad game (and not bad because SF was forced into it).

Giving Star Fox an on-foot adventure wasn’t Miyamoto’s mistake. That was a good idea because the action/adventure genre is the only way to broaden Star Fox’s marketing appeal in the long run. Star Fox was on a dead-end street as a railshooter, and the franchise has no future in today’s market if you keep pushing for a “prettier” Star Fox 64. Many Star Fox fans don’t want to hear that, but that is the depressing truth.

Miyamoto’s only real mistake was shoehorning Star Fox into a mediocre game like Dinosaur Planet. The truth is, “Dinosaur Planet” would have still been a mediocre, watered down Zelda, even without the Star Fox IP attached to it.

See? You seem to think she dislikes SFA because it was a different genre, but she dislikes it because it's not a very good game.

In retrospect, quite a few successful franchises have innovated genres (or did a good job at attempting temporary perfection).

Star Fox isn't even on the radar. If it was, we wouldn't be discussing this.

@Peach64
SFA being a bad game is subjective, though. This is before any Zelda game on GCN was even out.

@Chrono_Cross
My main point was that the last attempt at a new Starfox game was 2006, and anything around the same time wasn't exactly ground breaking, either. GCN was designed to go online, and it never did, because PS2 was market leader and it wasn't worth effort anymore.

That's not a productive point for this discussion.

I read through the first and last sections. Couldn't bring myself to read more than that, as I quickly found it to grow extremely uninteresting, but I can't help but feel that while there are some good points made, a lot of the article is just a hair off target. I don't know what to point out, exactly. I just know this article rings true, but misses the mark.

Now, on to the main point, I've been saying this, for a long time now. If you guys want Star Fox to continue to be exclusively part of such a niche genre as on-rails shooter, don't complain when releases become scarce. Nintendo doesn't have the resources to waste on such an unpopular title, when they could be making another Mario or experimenting with the free-to-play model. We'll get one when they start running out of ideas and have to resort to old titles. Until then, keep your pants on and just try to enjoy yourselves.

I also can't help but argue that Star Fox Adventures was just fine. I seriously don't get the immense amount of hatred for this game. Sure, it uses Zelda gameplay. Ok, it's nothing new. Yes, it has Star Fox, but really isn't a Star Fox game. Cry me a river. I felt that REGARDLESS of the utter lack of new material, it was still a great game that was fun to play with characters I liked. The gameplay is honestly a bit better, IMO, than it is in the 64 Zelda titles, but no one cares because it's not Ocarina of Time. I think SFA is probably the most undeniable example of a decent game being ruined completely by fanboyism. It's really sad to see. :/

It still counters any claim that Starfox is stale, when they haven't even attempted anything in the first place. The last console Starfox game came out in 2005. The market has grown and technology has become better since then.

Besides, Halo has had 4 games since then, Gears of War has had 4, and Starfox has had 0.

On-rails shooters are rather stagnant as a genre, but that doesn't mean that Star Fox needs to be. There are things that could be done to breath new life into it. One of the great things about sci-fi is that the possibilities are virtually endless. You can do anything, go anywhere with sci-fi. Star Fox doesn't need to be restricted to a genre or style of gameplay.

That said, exhilarating space battles should always be a big part of the franchise, but there's so many different things that could be explored in addition to that. I look at games like Halo and Mass Effect and see great potential for making huge, fleshed out worlds of deep characters and narration that Star Fox could be if Nintendo wasn't so hung up on making it a 90s arcade-style rails shooter with no story.

Then again, Touhou exists and is a thing.

If they make Star Fox anything but a shooter, the fans will disown it. :V

@Scar
If it wasn't attempting to do anything imaginative in the first place, then the game sounds mediocre. Most mediocre games would be considered stale by consumers. As for your modern day technology inclusion, no, technology alone will not help Star Fox become relevant again. It'll take a creative studio to overhaul Star Fox's archaic design, characters, and setting.

(Why you're bringing up Halo, Gears of War, and the PlayStation 2 utterly baffles me.)

I agree.

@Chrono_Cross
How is technology being more advanced not relevant? They can do more for a series they haven't tapped from in almost 8 years, with better technology. I'm not disagreeing that changes should happen. I think a series that hasn't been utilized in 8 years, along with better technology gives it a better chance, is all.

I'm bringing up Halo and Gears, because Starfox had traits that existed in those titles, and are arguably what people expet from modern video game firefights and tactics. Halo has vehicles, Stafox has vehicles. Gears of War is 3rd person, Starfox is 3rd person, and all 3 have guns.
All they would probably have to do is keep Assault intact, but with a massive overhaul with aspects from both of those games.

I brought up the PS2, because that's basically why Nintendo didn't give a crud about online or graphics, and has also shaped what people expect from shooter games, nowadays. I just think how Starfox Assault would be by modern day standards, add online with alot of players, and I'm fairly confident that it could stand up to either of those games. Starfox could be Nintendo's anwser to Halo and Gears if they handle it right, and on-rails, all range space fights, and tanks are all part of that as far as the campaign mode goes.

EDIT: Starfox Assault was even comparable to something like Stars Wars Battlefront II, minus online and more characters on screen.