Topic: Star Fox Zero - OT

@Vee_Flames: This review seems to be one of the few that actually discusses a workable approach to learning the controls. I've seen similar suggestions (mainly focus on one view) from early adopters, but I haven't seen anyone else taking as far as this.
http://www.cheatcc.com/wiiu/rev/starfoxzeroreview2.html

@Vee_Flames: Thanks for that confirmation that the comments are a mess, once I saw that the game did not reach the holy grail of 90+ on Metacritic I knew that the comments would be a mess for virtually all the reviews this got. Out of all the nonsense that being a 'gamer' brings out of people, the one I'll never be able to understand is how people can get genuinely angry and sad about a random person on the Internet's opinion not matching theirs or even more galling when they haven't even played the damn thing yet, but are still angry. For some reason. Whether it's a positive review of a game one doesn't like or vice-versa I just don't get it.

Though after sleeping on the matter I would still like to say that my stance on the Polygon, well it's not a review so shall we call it an opinion piece?, is the same, however unpopular that may be. I just don't think that it's necessary that people complete games to give their opinion, though the short nature of SFZ as well as the fact that on reading the review it does seem to have a hidden agenda so I'm more torn in this instance than I am generally.

I just remember one particularly scathing review of Final Fantasy XIII on Destructoid that was attacked by FF fans because the reviewer, based off of the guy's trophies on his PSN profile apparently didn't complete the game. It apparently 'didn't count' as a result. Now IIRC it wasn't ever proven that he didn't complete the game, if he didn't and then didn't address that in his review I would question his transparency, but the 1500-2000 word piece he did was no less valid. It is, in my view, the most accurate and brutally honest review FFXIII got at the time. Even if he did complete the game, his many complains about the game's pacing, dialogue, plot, battle system, character cliches, dour opening and mediocre soundtrack wouldn't have changed I don't think.

So ultimately I always refer to that whenever this issue arises. I for one wouldn't complete Watch_Dogs even if I was paid to do so such was my lack of interest in it, but the fact I quit 40% of the way through it won't stop me criticising the game. Because it was boring, bland and bleh.

I do find this discussion rather interesting though. Much better than wading through 'Miyamoto is a hack, retire now and gimme original characters in Mario games!' comments that I'm sure plague NL's review

@TheLastLugia: LOL, it was even funnier (and more stupid, I should say) how the guys on the other side started bringing Metacritic up as if they wanted to say "Well NLife you gave the game an 8 but the average on Metacritic is 7.2 so maybe the game is worse than you say it is." I don't even get it. In other reviews Metacritic won't even get mentioned at all! But now I question why Metacritic is brought up for the review of SFZ and apparently it's just as valid and if I don't agree with that (which is funny because I do think Metacritic is a good site), I'm a freakin' fanboy. Or a person with a fragile mind (If you go down the comment section you'll see what I'm talking about. What the freakin' hell?).
Regarding whether a game should be completed by the reviewer before being reviewed.... I'd say yes, it should. Completing a game ensures the reviewer that he has gotten the full experience (never mind post-game content for now) to give a more accurate judgement of the game. Hating a game at launch is ok, but there is the possibility of warming up to it at the end of the day. Giving up on a game and then trying to twist it with vocabulary and metaphors is just unprofessional. I can't see myself reviewing games a lot because I don't go as far in many games to give an accurate and fair judgement. That's how I see these kind of things.

Then they don't understand what an average is. Unless all reviews were somehow 7.2 there's going to be scores higher and lower than that. I mean true Metacritic's average is a pretty complicated equation that weighs some sites more than others, but using an average to dismiss an opinion that's above that - and 8 isn't far off from 7.2 anyway, it's a 0.8 difference - is faulty. Same would go for dismissing an opinion that's below the average (and although the controversy surrounding Polygon's review isn't necessarily about the opinion itself it is a bit much from where I stand).

"Lol wut? ur Star Fox revew is 0.8 higher then teh Metacritic average! U must have the bias!"

Or words there or there abouts are why I gave up commenting on review threads a while ago. The way I see it, Metacritic is just the place where you see what 'tier' of game a game you're interested in has landed itself in based off of most reviews. SFZ is a 'good' game, Aliens Colonial Marines is a 'poor' (though that is reeeealy generous) game and Bloodborne and Ocarina of Time are 'excellent' games. The different weighting and systems all sites use mean that trying to gauge one individual review against the Metacritic average is pointless and a useless thing to do, especially when you're arguing for/against an additional 0.8 to the score or even less. Like if you're arguing a person giving a game a 7.6 instead of a 7.5 or 7.7 I think there's something seriously wrong with your priorities.

Just my thoughts on reviews. I'm still very excited for Star Fox Zero personally. I love the Mario Party series and Ace Attorney games despite the fact they don't review well and I have plenty of one-off games that didn't get 80+ on Metacritic that I still fully enjoyed playing, the latest being Far Cry Primal. People who only buy games that do well on Metacritic are missing out on some great games IMO.

I don't think it does. It's more of a ''figure out what works for you'' advice that is given. Also, that review must be the most biased one I've read so far.

Anyway, about the reviews and Metacritic. It's stupid to disregard any review, just because they're too high or too low in terms of scoring. The opinions on this game are divided, and I think that's the best information that you can take from all of this. Apparantly the controls are something that everyone will like or that may be difficult to learn. Maybe a demo would be a solution to all of this, I don't know, but I can understand that some will skip this game when their time and money are limited.

I would of loved that, I'm pretty sure they at one point pitched/worked on a Kid Icarus game at one point.

FWIW, Dan Ryckert at GiantBomb gave it a 2/5. I couldn't see any comments there saying that this score was way below the Metacritic average.

Dan also says that the game is only 2-3 hours long, which is kind of amusing considering what type of game Star Fox is. Actually, I think all the things that was predicted about the reviews of this game was fulfilled.

@TheLastLugia: I think the problem comes down to Nintendo boasting about how many high metacritic scores they had for Wii U and 3DS in late 2014 ( https://www.nintendolife.com/news/2014/12/nintendo_highlights_... ). Now when the scores turn, people end up using it against Nintendo irrelevant of whether the lower scored games are actually good or not.

They did.

They also worked on a Pilotwings reboot for Gamecube.

But so would almost any publisher if they had that many critical hits (not to mention systems they need to sell). It's not like every game released during that streak reached those highs.

(And I'm kinda surprised people still remember that infographic tbh)

@IceClimbers: So any idea how much the game sold now in Japan?

EDIT: I find it odd that Uprising gets a higher score than Zero and it still gets criticized on its control scheme.

Not even that but some of the land battles in Uprising were pretty long to complete, too often you get screwed if you go to higher intensities and worst of all, if you're a completionist (somewhat like me I guess) its a nightmare to 100% it. The things that you do to 100% the game don't give you anything except weapons that only benefit your progression and nothing else.

From the sounds of it, Zero is probably better in the controls department because it has dual analog support and its much easier to get used to and you don't get cramps often unlike uprising. I guess the only thing that makes Uprising stand out is in the visuals and replay value even though its unrewarding in the end.

@Socar: Is Uprising the only game you've ever played? I swear that you mention that game in almost half of your posts.

@Octane: Of course not! I just find it odd that its got better score than Zero that's it.

Well it gets a thumbs up from me.

The Arwing is nippier than I thought it would be and the controls work well for the most part. The somersault is a bit tricky to pull off (down on the left stick, up on the right): I couldn't get it to work every time, however the X button does the same thing anyway. It's not too difficult to switch attention between the screens though I did lose my bearings a few times in free-range mode. The first level was quite short, but this is definitely a game to be replayed; even the tutorials have time limits/collectables to encourage a better score.

I can see why some will like it and others not, but I'm having a great time with it. The controls will obviously take time to master but I'm sure most people will understand the basics in minutes. Bottom line: it's definitely a Star Fox game. I haven't played Guard yet.

So, some people might be getting this early, just wondering how much they are enjoying 2016 Game of the Year?

Yeah it's odd he's always complaining KIU got a higher score over games he's never played before.

@arronishere: (copied from my post in the review article comments section) OK. I've been playing the game just now - got my copy today.
The motion controls are as intuitive as Splatoon. There's next-to-nothing to it. I've got almost zero Star Fox experience (I have 64 3D but have hardly played any (25mins clocked on my N3DS) - I've never had, and don't remember ever playing, a Star Fox game prior to the 3DS version.
And yet, on my first playthrough of the first mission of SFZ, I'm able to get a silver medal (I'm not pretending that's an amazing accomplishment, btw, but it's obviously better than bronze, and I didn't die once) using full motion controls.
The motion controls are great, just like in Splatoon. So far I spend most of my time looking at the cockpit view on my gamepad, then look at the TV when I need a wider context to find enemies.
The whole fuss about the controls seems to be virtually unfounded to me, and reminds me of the type of near-sabotage the Wii U suffered earlier on in its life, and the kind of sabotage the Wii U version of Watch_Dogs got.
I just don't get it. It must just be people complaining that they can't handle two different views of the action on two screens at the same time. But the controls are absolutely fine. Something really stinks about how so much negative press has been made of these controls.
The only problem I have with Star Fox games so far is working out what I'm meant to be shooting, and what I have to do in-mission to complete the mission, but that's to do with the lack of a hand-holding radar telling me where the targets are, and nothing to do with the controls. And it's something I'll get better at.
Seriously, I'm not making this up. I've played no more than 20 minutes and am almost a Star Fox virgin... and I love it.

@DefHalan: It should arrive within 2 or 3 hours, but I won't be able to play this until Saturday, still need to finish a paper this week... Anyway, it'll probably be the Game of May 2016. With Zelda U coming this year, and Uncharted 4 coming next month, I doubt there's anything that'll beat those two games for me. Hopefully it's good enough to make my personal top 5 this year.

@Octane: Zelda and Unchartes have nothing on Star Fox. It will be a tough race between Star Fox Zero and Star Fox Guard for GotY but I think Zero will win out (mostly because websites only like giving awards to retail games)