One of the rather quirky, yet deeply appreciated, projects by the late Satoru Iwata was that of Iwata Asks interviews. These interviews often gathered together several members of the development team for a major or upcoming game, and Iwata would question them on what development was like, where inspiration came from, etc. More often than not, many fascinating anecdotes and surprises arose from these, as gamers were given a clearer look at how a particular game came to exist.
While it still isn't entirely clear if the company will regularly continue the series in some form, an interview was recently posted to Nintendo of Europe's website that seems to keep the spirit alive. The interview was conducted by Akinori Sao – the founder of Nintendo Dream – who discussed Star Fox Zero with Shigeru Miyamoto and Yugo Hayashi, the game's director.
Among other things, the two talk about the importance of the 3D GamePad audio, and how it – combined with the first person cockpit view – immerses the player into the gameplay in a way that was never possible before. Moving on, Miyamoto explains how he got the dual screen idea for this game from playing with airplanes as a kid, stressing the importance of creating scenes in the game that "look cool". The interview then finishes by going over the highly polarising control system, highlighting how intuitive the controls are in comparison to Star Fox 64 and how the training mode is absolutely essential to first time players.
This was only the first part of a three-part interview, with the rest due to be translated shortly. You can read all of part one here.
What do you think? Did you eventually adapt to Star Fox Zero's controls? Did you like Star Fox Zero better than 64? Drop us a comment in the section below.
I'm sorry but it wasn't that simple. Screen Junkies did make a good point that you guys took the fun out of an essential Star Fox game from making the simplest maneuvers. Not to mention it was weird with the motion controls, but I did enjoy the cockpit feel with the gamepad sound effects and visuals.
Ugggg! " the two talk about the importance of the 3D GamePad audio, and how it – combined with the first person cockpit view – immerses the player into the gameplay in a way that was never possible before. "
Damn it Miyamoto, just because it's different and new and immersive, does not make it more fun or better than the traditional way, that's why everyone is so pissed off about the controls being non-optional.
Also I find having to look down at the controller every once in awhile is actually slightly annoying, however I did get used to the controls, but they are still not near as good as Splatoon. Additionally the gyrocopter is just awful comma every time I get to one of the gyrocopter levels I just rolled my eyes in the back of my head and think why is it not over yet.
@HyrulianOfHyrule yes I agree completely. I said it once before and I will say it again, just because you can steer a car with your feet on the steering wheel, does not make it good, yes driving a car by steering with your feet would be innovative, but far from Sun and far from the most efficient way to do it, that's what pisses me off the controls should be out of the way, they should be an extension of the person, not a hindrance, and not overly complicated just for the sake of being complicated.
I had no problems adapting to the controls and actually like them, but to say that they're more intuitive than Star Fox 64 is absolutely ridiculous.
I honestly don't understand how people have issues with the controls. You can go through most of the game without ever having to use the motion controls. If you don't move the gamepad, the reticle will move in sync with the ship, effectively making it the same controls as Star Fox 64. And for the parts where motion controls are more useful, just hit 'select' and put the cockpit view on the tv. It's significantly easier that way, and it saves you from having to look back and forth at two different screens.
I don't know, maybe I just don't know what it's like to suffer from poor coordination.
I found the controls great!
They weren't immersive, but that doesn't mean it wasn't fun.
Anyone who refuses to try the game because of the controls, or stops playing because of them, is a closed minded person, who can't deal with anything new. It's really more your problem than Miyamoto's.
I defend these controls, and Miyamoto.
@Danrenfroe2016 Really? EVERYONE is "pissed off" about it? Speak for yourself. It seems like most people either like it or are indifferent to it. As for me, I am one person who absolutely enjoyed this game more than the "traditional" older games. I've been obsessed with flight sims and air combat games my whole life, and this game was right up my alley specifically because the controls are more involved and require some semblance of actual skill.
I adjusted to the motion controls, but they definitely felt needless. The way I see it, a control system is intuitive if you pick it up right away. Like with Wii Bowling, you could just pretend to bowl with the remote and it instantly clicked.
I, too, fail to see why people don't like the controls. If that's the case you obviously didn't play for very long or very seriously. I'll be straight: I've never played 64. But I had and absolute BLAST with Zero.
After I acclimated to the controls, It WAS like an extension of me. It was in no way a hindrance. In fact, the controls were super satisfying and easy to use. True, nowhere near as good as Splatoon's, and nowhere near as easy to pick up as Star Fox 64's, but I really, honestly, truly enjoyed the ever living heck out of the controls for Zero.
Unnecessary? Sure. But they were still good controls with relatively few issues. It's just different, and that is in no way bad. Stop complaining.
And on the looking between two screens, once I had a system down, I hardly even noticed that was what I was doing. You guys just need to get used to it. Play for longer than an hour, and you'll get it.
I played through about 8 or so levels, and could not get the hand of this game. I want to like it, and hopefully some day I can play it 2 player, as it splits up what you do. It was just too much for me going back and forth with the controller and the T.V. This is not a DS where the screens are right next to each other. It kind of reminds me of TWEWY where you need to focus on both screens at the same time, and I never got the hang of that game either.
@Radbot42 This. Thank you. This is a legitimate reason to not like the controls. I rescind my earlier statement.
But not liking them because they're different and they're motion-based is stupid.
@MitchVogel I don't know if intuitive is really the right word, but I do think that some things can BECOME intuitive, or something along those lines, with extended use. For instance, driving a car. During the first few weeks or months of driving, it feels foreign and intimidating for a lot of people. After a while it becomes second nature, and you do it without really even having to think about how far or fast to turn the wheel, or how much pressure you should put on the various pedals, or when to use which pedal. It becomes intuitive, but only after you've committed the procedures of driving to memory, and after the actual physical movements of driving have developed into muscle memory.
I think the same can be said about this game. There's definitely a learning curve, but once you've reached a certain point on the curve, it just starts to click and feel more natural. At least in my opinion it does.
@Radbot42 I get the part about not wanting to look back and forth at the two screens, but have you tried switching the cockpit to your tv when you want that view, as opposed to looking down at the gamepad? It takes a fraction of a second to hit a button, and it's not nearly as jarring as having to constantly be looking up and down and switching your focus between two screens.
"The way I see it, a control system is intuitive if you pick it up right away."
I don't think that's true at all. It took me a little bit to get used to the motion controls in Splatoon, but now I can't imagine any other way of playing it. I'm a seasoned veteran of FPS games and I found the non-motion control stick aiming far less intuitive than the intended motion style, which was a complete departure from what I'm used to playing with. I sucked a lot at first while I got used to it, but I eventually figured it out.
Just because something has a learning curve doesn't make it any less intuitive or useful.
I still have absolutely no idea why people couldn't figure out that you don't have to try and look at both screens at the same time. Just because the game "recommends" you use the cockpit view doesn't mean you have to blindly oblige. The reticle is on the screen at all times and it's super easy to aim like that. Most of the complaints make some mention of having to "constantly look back and forth between the TV and the gamepad". If you're doing this, you are playing it wrong.
Sometimes people just have to come to terms with the fact that perhaps they just aren't as good at something as they believe they should be. If you can't fly the plane while using the gamepad for aiming, that's not the game's fault. It's your fault for being unable to multi-task.
I'm sure someone's going to take issue with this (likely the same people who STILL offer their criticisms in spite of STILL not even having played the game), but sometimes you have to be honest with yourself and check your ego. You may have been good at Starfox back in the day, but the series is evolving. Survival of the fittest.
After a few hours of playing - the controls felt sublime! I imagined this is more how it felt for a Jet fighter pilot having to immerse himself in a 3d environment whilst still flying forward and without wearing ridiculous VR goggles! Well done Minamoto for sticking to your guns on this - This game gave me a unique experience I hadn't had elsewhere = Unfortunately, I haven't tried the co-op mode yet though. .
Fantastic game - Loved the controls!
Personally I think the controls are great. Really fun and unique
I may be alone here, but as a long-term fan of the series since the SNES entry back in 1990s, passing through 64 and quickly playing both GameCube games (couldn't finish them, unfortunately), I'm kinda shocked about all the negative reception Zero has faced. I don't understand it at all.
It sure isn't perfect when it comes to length. I wish there was more modes and missions to keep the game alive after completionists conquer all the 70 medals and master Arcade mode entirely, which can be achieved in about 20 hours. Not bad. Multiplayer VS would be welcome. Online would be welcome. At least 2-4 more planets would be welcome. Me and basically every player who experienced Zero agree in this point... the game could just be longer by taking small steps. Wasn't hard with Bayonetta 2, was it?
But yeah, I understand the point here is replayability - Miyamoto stated it back in E3. The fun lies behind mastering the controls and levels to exaustion, just like we did 19 years ago. At that, I feel completely fine. It got me by the replay. I'm still playing Zero kinda non-stop for 2 weeks. Got all medals, played co-op with my family a lot, tried the challenges and different branches in Arcade. Couldn't even take Guard too seriously because I can't put Zero down yet. As many of you, I also hope there's some DLC at some point in its lifespan. I really do. I would even pay a small fee for some extras just like I did in SSB4, because supporting more games like that would make me happy as a gamer. Star Fox is a great series and deserve more quality games like Zero, which honestly, was the biggest problem back in GC/DS era with those "meh" entries.
But the controls? Man, they were great. I can't go back to older games now because I grew too attached on gyro and dual sticks. That's the best part of the game for me. It's really like piloting a real spacecraft. You have the gyro to look for small weak points in certain bosses, you use upper triggers to fire, lock and throw bombs, there's a stick to boost/break, you're able to recalibrate the reticle anytime. And co-op just feels like you're playing literally with a co-pilot, one flies the ship while the partner is the gunner. I don't have any complaints in this regard.
If so many people are unhappy with the control scheme, why not launch a simple update to make it simpler? It is possible to play without motion controls, the thing is: it will be harder. For those unhappy with them, make it like Metroid Prime, put an auto-lock to boss sections where you need gyro to aim. Make it playable with a single screen at a time, since it is possible to switch them by pressing "-". That should fix all the negative impressions about the controls.
Regarding lack of content, DLC is the way. Free or paid, you guys pick it, but just give us more reasons to keep replaying this game. It is really one of the best (if not the best) Star Fox game to date under many aspects.
Not a fan of the controls. Ruined the game for me. Beating the game, especially the final boss, felt like a chore more than an enjoyable pastime.
I'm starting to believe that Miyamoto is just a huge troll, just having some fun and laughing behind our backs.
@-DEMISE- They make the game easier, unsing all the tools the game gives you will make it fairly easier. Specially gyro and cockpit view.
Deactivate the motion controls in the pause screen to "only when pressing ZR". That should make the reticle locked in place. Then, never use the cockpit view, only when you're forced to. I managed to beat the game like that several times just because I got too used to third-person screen and could literally shoot anything besides forced cockpit sections. And no, I'm not a pro, I truly suck at all other Star Fox games.
@HyrulianOfHyrule (If game didn't use any "gimmicks") - "It's too simple and unimaginative, why didn't they use all gamepad functions?"
(If game uses them) - "Man, that's so hard to get the hang of, Star Fox is about simple controls."
That's what was gonna happen regardless of the control choice. You can't please everyone. Putting two options was the least the could do to avoid all the negative feedback, I'd definitely stick with the control scheme we have now and I'm pretty satisfied with it.
"Hayashi: That’s not quite true! (laughs) I was a high school student, and I was really into Star Fox. I had the strategy guide and everything. I used to get all my friends over and we’d take part in battles together.\"
And yet Star Fox Zero has no multiplayer, local nor online. Everybody focuses on the controls but for me this is the games biggest issue. It has no longevity. That's where online multiplayer comes in. I've said it before but imagine Mario Kart 8 or Splatoon without this mode. They'd feel pretty short and empty. I still play MK8 on a weekly basis thanks to an online league I'm in. It also helps to greatly improve the games sales. Star Fox Zero fell flat on its face.
This is a great video that deals mostly with Star Fox Zero but touches on other areas too.
I can't find a single point I disagree with. It's sad but there are people on this site that can't take warranted criticism. They think if you've nothing positive to say then you're not allowed say anything. Well too bad! That's not how this site works.
There's this thing with almost all of the games made by Platinum where a control scheme is strange, or the timing is foreign when you first pick it up. Then as you progress through the game, the controls become second nature, and the strange controls end up making the game feel completely unique. Most of their games fall under the "beat 'em up" or "shoot 'em up" arcade genres, which you'd expect to be totally mindless and easy to pick up, but these control schemes make learning the game as much a mission as playing it. I guess whether you like that or not is up to you (I hope I'm allowed to mention that Tim Rogers dismissed Metal Gear Rising for the fact that the swordfighting felt like "a slinging scrotum"), but when I think of an individual Platinum title, I think of how it felt to play on a very physical level. That's why they're pretty much my favourite dev. To me, Star Fox Zero fits in perfectly with that philosophy of theirs.
I've heard so many people repeating lines from Jim Sterling's Jimquisition on the Star Fox controls. He kept saying things like "if pressing a button is the easiest way to do an action, than just let me press a button", as if everything about controlling a game should be easy. That's one way to look at things, and if you pick up a shooter these days you can generally play it straight away, but there's also something to be said for the pleasure of learning a control scheme that becomes second nature, where your skills develop, rather than exist from the beginning. It really annoyed me when Jim insisted that controls must be as simple as possible, because man, that is just not the reason I love games. <3
That Jimquisition review was an absolute travesty.
It's such irresponsibly bad "journalism" that it's a stain to even be featured on Metacritic in the game's weighting as it's full of misinformation.
This sentence right here tells you all you need to know about the credibility of the review:
"Evasive maneuvers are unintuitive, with players needing to double tap the right analog stick and hold the left in order to do a barrel roll, while tilting the sticks up and down in opposite directions to somersault."
I have no idea how he managed to butcher the controls so badly. Barrel rolls are simple stick-flick maneuvers and you can somersault with literally one push of a button. Even if you opt for doing the somersault with the sticks, it's one of the simplest moves in the game.
Does he have brain damage? That's the only way to explain how terrible he is at the game. If he even played it at all.
As for the "just let me push a button" thing. That's today's average "gamer" for you. If they can't master a game within the first five minutes, they hate it. If the game doesn't auto-save after every 2 minutes, they hate it. If the game doesn't completely hold their hand every step of the way by displaying on-screen tips like "hey! remember to jump! don't touch the bad guys! go to the restroom if you feel like you will have an accident!", they hate it. If the game deviates at all from their expectations, they hate it.
@Vandy I really don't have as much patience for Jim as I used to. I think as he's become more popular, there's been a sense of complacency creeping more and more into everything he does. Probably years of speaking your opinion into a microphone without considering too much has that effect, but I would be surprised if he challenges his own opinions after he's stated them very often.
Nope, I found then unnecessarily complicated and didn't enjoy it at all. The voice coming through the pad was cool but not a new thing, Arkham City (one of the first WiiU games) did it, treating the pad like another bat-gadget. So no innovation points there.
No instead I went and played the Ratchet & Clank reboot on PS4. A game that doesn't reinvent the wheel for the sake of it but does focus on updating the experience in a meaningful way and a way that opens the franchise to new audiences. It's a perfect example of how to do a reboot. Star Fox seemed to want to be a reboot for the franchise but it still focussed so much on call backs and nostalgia it failed to feel anything new at all. Practically the same game but this time with horrible controls.
Loved Guard though. Just wish they'd given it it's own branding. Nintendo are great at making new character yet they're so reluctant to do so or even support them when they do.
@stipey Very well said. The Jim Sterling review represents a philosophy that I personally find damaging to games, because it demands that every game be dumbed down to the point where the controls take up as little mental energy as possible, as though the term "gameplay" should only translate to "cool stuff happening on screen," and a complex control scheme only serves as a hindrance to that end.
If every gamer wanted their games designed around, and every designer had to adhere to, the philosophy that every action on screen should be the result of only the simplest set of button-press commands possible, then we might as well get rid of triggers, shoulder buttons, and dual sticks, and go back to simple pads like that of the NES. Or better yet, just have one big button, and reduce every action in every game to a quick-time event.
There's already an entire category of games designed around the simplest controls possible, and it's called mobile gaming, which most "core" gamers like Sterling love to hate.
@-DEMISE- Thanks! I'm glad I found somewhere to spew those thoughts, because they've been nagging at me since I watched it.
I haven't actually tried the controls yet, but:
If the controls enhance the game, and/or make it more fun to play, then by all means, use them. The problem comes in when it divides the players into two camps. Regardless of your opinion of the controls, a large number of people, especially reviewers, had trouble with the controls. Are they close-minded? Maybe. But still, the controls to a game shouldn't be a barrier to enjoyment for such a large chunk of players. With Splatoon, it sounds like 99% of people got the hang of the controls eventually, but this game, it sounds more like 50-75%. That's not enough.
Another point: using rough, probably inaccurate math, the graphics could have been 50% better or more without that second screen displaying another view. They could have just made a better-looking lowerscreen UI from Star Fox 64 3D, and sure, the controls might not be as good, but all of a sudden, the controls stop being a barrier to enjoyment, the graphics get a lot better, and perhaps the campaign could have been longer. That's saying nothing about competitive multiplayer. It would take a game with a 69 or so on Metacritic to a minimum of 80. And it would give the general uninformed public one less excuse to hate on Nintendo.
Here's another guy who had zero (pun intended) problems with the controls. Sure, I'd like to have a "classic SF" option too, if only to compare which contol scheme fits the game better (my money's on motion controls). It would be a nice addition, but I just don't see myself playing this game in the same way as other SF titles.
I also think the negativity surrounding Zero is undeserved. If there's people on the fence when it comes to this title reading the comments, please, give it a chance. Borrow the title from a friend or something and spend an afternoon getting used to it. Even if you aren't able to master it in a short amount of time, I'm sure you'll see that most of the negative posts about the controls are exaggerations. There are people predisposed to hate the controls no matter how much time they spend with them, and they are very vocal. Make sure if you are one of them before passing on Zero.
It took a bit to adjust but i got it down eventually. I was really good at the previous games and now i'm only so-so but i've only played through it once and then did few of the unlocked/alternate missions and training. I prefer the 64 controls i think but i don't get the major issue with them. I don't find i really need to use the TV all that much, the biggest issue for me was actually committing to the gamepad. I see people cry about the wggle on a Wii Mote way too much to really think it's as big a deal as some think, i honestly think some people just suck at games or are very close minded.
The game IMO although good fails to be as good as SF 64 (3D) because there isn't enough on rails sections, no online multiplayer, the secret paths aren't as fun to unlock, and i'm not really crazy about the walker. I do like the Gyrowing mission with Katt. It's good but it could be so much better, i'd give it a 7.5 but that might even be a bit harsh because i love Star Fox so much and this wasn't as good as i was hoping for so my disappointment is probably reflected in the score. At the end of the day it's a fun well made game.
For me, the game was fine. And the controls were only gyro- how hard is aiming with gyro. It just comes naturally. The thing I didn't like was double tapping Right Analog for a barrel roll. But that's a minor gripe.
What wasn't fine though, was that no other options were provided. Even though the controls weren't really that hard to master, options should be mandatory at this point. Even Pikmin 3 has analog, motion or stylus.
Satoru Iwata was more hands on, he gave the impression he loved games, and he did.
We don't have that at the moment. And it makes you wonder if Nintendo is waving or drowning.
An interview about Starfox, a game that has been reviewed, criticised, played and on sale seems as though Nintendo are desperate to communicate but have nothing to tell us.
The controls were unnecessarily complex. If they do that, then they should at least give them options for those that don't like the controls.
If you find the controls to be easy or intuitive, then fine. But don't assume that everyone will be fine with them, and someone that has issues with them shouldn't just be instantly written off as closed-minded.
I had put 11 hours into the game by the time I gave up and sold it.
To say the controls are 'simple', 'intuitive' or in any way 'better' is just plain incorrect. You can argue the merits that they're new and interesting and maybe fun if you can get a hold of them. But under no circumstances could they ever be considered better than a traditional control scheme would've been.
I think the reason I found the controls so difficult is a combination of three factors:
The gyro, the second screen and and constant need for recalibration.
Any one of those things, I can deal with. I can use the gyro aiming controls in Splatoon without issues (although I prefer to disable them). I can look at the second screen in Pikmin 3 or ZombiU without problems. I could handle recalibrating the controller in motion plus wii games like Skyward Sword.
But putting all 3 of those things together, gryo, second screen, recalibration, all in a fast paced action game. I just can't cope with it. I was fighting against the controls every step of the way, trying to rein them in and get them under control.
I just could not do it.
If we get another Starfox game in the future, I hope for a more sensible and traditional control scheme. Miyamoto needs to realise you can innovate and create new experiences without creating new controllers all the damn time.
@zool Well, it's not like they have any upcoming games to talk about, so let's talk about month old ones!
I have to laugh at that header quote. Really, Miyamoto?
So you've discovered a game that you just aren't able to play.
It doesn't mean it's a bad game because there is a large amount of people who have adjusted quite well to the controls. There's no shame in admitting that you simply are not able to get the hang of the controls.
But that doesn't mean the controls aren't intuitive or better if you are able to learn them.
It kind of does mean that when there are an equal amount of people unable to play the game due to it's controls.
Some people are able to cope with the controls, others aren't. But from what I see, it's not a majority vs minority situation. Those having issues with the controls are pretty large in number. That's a problem. A problem with the games controls.
As I said, they may work and may even be fun if you can use them. But when a large portion of your player base can't use them, that's a problem with the controls and thus they cannot be claimed to be "better".
Most of the reviews that concern the controls just sound like people are blaming their shortcomings on the game itself.
Are the controls responsive? Yes.
Are the controls broken? Absolutely not.
So the controls are not bad.
I'm not very good at driving a standard transmission vehicle. Does that mean they're broken and undriveable? No.
It just means that perhaps I need to find something else I can drive. Just like some people need to find something else to play.
C'mon now. I feel like you guys chose that particular subheader just to add more fuel to the fire.
The control scheme is pretty intuitive and simple. If you break it down to most of the gameplay is done on a minimal number of inputs by giving them multiple purposes.
Left Thumb:Left Analog (Ship movement, Somersault, U-Turn)
Left Index: LT, L-button (Target Lock, remove charge shot lock on)
Right Thumb: Right Analog(Boost, Break, Veer Left/Right, Barrel Roll, )
Right Index: Right Trigger, R-button ( Shoot, Bomb)
The only time you need to press a button is for transforming or occasionally recalibrating the gyro(and there's an option to auto-calibrate when not shooting). It's a very easy control scheme and the benefit the gyro aiming brings expands the gameplay massively over its predecessors but it requires learning because it's unique, but ultimately fit for purpose once you get the controls it completley eclipses the level of control and actions you could do in SF64, Assault and Command. This does materialize in the game since many bosses are tackled in a way that would be impossible in any other Star Fox game, I couldn't imagine shooting the tiny targets on the Dodora who moves around at high speeds in All-range mode with SF64 controls.
I'd say Star Fox Zero's biggest problem is that it's control is all new, unlike Splatoon the motion control doesn't just replace aiming, it adds aiming while the right analog gains a new purpose with half a dozen actions tied to it. Add this all to being in an unpopular genre:
If the rail shooter was actually popular much like the FPS, similar to Alien Ressurection, Star Fox Zero's so-called "awful" control system could go on to be the standard. The issue being rail shooters aren't popular so this kind of control scheme can't become familiar to players and the expectation to jump from game to game and have the same control scheme is restrictive. But predictably the typical gaming mob mentality go about stamping out new ideas so if Star Fox Zero ever does gets it's vindication and shakes the current unfair reputation it has now it will be far too late.
@HyrulianOfHyrule I find it simple. The issue is that many gamers like yourself, screen junkies, Polygon et all have poor hand eye coordination and spatial awareness.
Unfortunately for Miyo he should have probably added a traditional option to appease less capable gamers.
I just like the fact that I don't have to turn my vehicle directly towards something to shoot at it, plus it just feels great chasing down a Star Wolf member and targeting them using the cockpit view on the gamepad. The controls add to the game and makes combat feel way better IMO.
Starfox Zero is a bad game, and not just because of it's terrible controls (which they are). The game itself it bland and dull. The levels are short and empty feeling, & those chicken walker sections are atrocious to play. It doesn't feel like a typical, polished Nintendo game. I actually think it would have been a better VR game
@3MonthBeef "Good observation. So then....why are they implemented in the first place?"
Not him but the motion controls improve precision aiming. They allow you to hit targets that in any other Star Fox game are impossible to strike. By freeing up the Right analog stick there are more actions you can do while carrying out different manoeuvres.
They aren't necessary for a rail shooter to function but it makes All-Range mode significantly better than it was in the other Star Fox games. It completley removes the need for bosses with specific weak points to be fought on-rails with them bizarrely flying backwards as fast as you're flying forward.
If you also compare the bosses in All-range mode in Star Fox Zero to the ones in 64 you'll see a massive different between how Star Fox Wolf act(endlessly tailing Slippy, Peppy and Falco in 64 and going down in seconds to, breaking off and acting more dynamic in Zero with a lot more health in a way that the cockpit view is pretty much mandatory to fight them). Trying to emulate 64 by holding the gamepad still(which really just set the option for gyro aiming only when shooting then it doesn't matter) would just be frustrating yourself because the game isn't designed to be played that way.
Expanding the scope of the All-Range Mode in a way that 64, Assault and Command couldn't isn't necessary and you may not necessarily need to use the gyro to beat the on-rails sections. But I don't see why they shouldn't be implemented? Because a group of people aren't happy because the game has a different control scheme in order to pull it off?
Haven't played the game yet, but if the controls are a problem to begin with, then you already failed as a game. It's this sort of experimentation that is slowly killing off franchises and no one is there to criticize or put into question what Miyamoto does.
Aircrafts in Battlefield are fun to control and they don't try to be some gimmicky mess. It's also a shame that they didn't at the very least put an option for Wii remote controls because THAT would actually work well with Star Fox in a way that feels natural.
@Achoo I....just don't care, the game is a turd. It has sat on my shelf since a day or 2 after buying it, with my attention going to Dark Souls 3, Ratchet & Clank, & now Uncharted 4.
The controls are actually really good. Once you determine what you think is more important between the gamepad and tv screen, it adds a nice level of strategy to it. Most people who I have seen complain was convinced they would hate it before they played, ir never gave it a try. Alot of people just like to whine no matter what the controls would have been.
The game is fun, but I am not that good with the controls. The controls where fun and unique, I give it that. But also very tricky. And I have to recalibrate lots of times to center the cursor again!
A pity, since I didn't have any problems with those Kid Icarus uprising controls (many found those cumbersome).
For the next game they really have to go back to the old controls, so you can focus entirely on the gameplay!
I'm convinced Star Fox's dismissal from certain quarters of the gaming world was largely due to a combination of being able to fit in with a wider narrative against Nintendo's use of unconventional control schemes, and an ego issue of long-time gamers who expect every game they touch to immediately remind them how 'good' they are at video games universally.
I think some people place a large part of their identity is being 'pro' at video games, and it's an affront to their senses if they actually have to learn how to play something from scratch.
I think there's a mentality of:
"But I know how to play video games! Why is this game telling me how to play them! Man, these controls are are objectively broken!"
"But what about all the people who not only enjoy them, but are actually very skilled with them?"
"Those people!? Those people are counter to my identity-sustaining perception that I am universally a video game master (and therefore any game I am not automatically amazing at is broken in some way). They objectively do not exist."
"Do you know what 'objectively' means?"
"I objectively do not have to answer that question as you objectively did not ask it. Lalalalala lala lala la"
Not that the game is completely perfect. I think it could have done with a few more 'balls-to-the-wall' speed freak levels that emphasised the thrill just flying at breakneck speed while trying not to smash into stuff. Most levels had a decent balance between flying and shooting, but I really enjoyed that hyperspeed level because it was just so exhilarating.
I also thought that Venom was a slight anti-climax, as having to fight Star Wolf at the beginning essentially mean you have TWO boss fights, with an environmentless flying section sandwiched in between. I quite liked the middle part, but none of the level leading up to that point has any sense of procession into the heart of the enemy lair. In the original, it felt like you were putting all your flying skills to use by working your way through Venom, and it felt like proper, exciting infiltration. Zero's was just like, 'have a potentially drawn-out battle on the outside', fly through a strange enemyless hologram, then have another potentially drawn-out battle on the side". There wasn't that sense of build-up and crescendo.
That said, Zero ticks so many of the boxes that made 64 great, whilst adding an awful lot of scenarios and experiences that sit uniquely in my memory of all things video games. I can't think of it as anything other than a success.
I like the controls, I also like Marmite
I haven't finished the game yet, because I keep replaying the levels
@Achoo There's a difference between using what you had available at the time and forcing a control scheme down your fans throat which is what Miyamoto does. "the now standard FPS control scheme was seen the same way at first." Source, source, source!
If the general gameplay of StarFox is essentially a 2 man job for a single player, it's a bad control scheme. I mean, you can try and accustom yourself to clunky and unresponsive controls, doesn't make them any better. Just because you are a new control scheme, it doesn't mean it works. What shooters need, StarFox being a game where shooting is an essential point, is above all precise shooting controls. Pair that with the natural hand trembling of humans and there you have it, that's the problem! I understand fanboys don't like criticism or taking things into context, but you need to stop and remove your pink glasses.
Back in 80s, Gaming wasn't established the way it is today. Not being accustomed to a game genre back then wasn't the same as today where we take these things for granted. We have now a diversity of control schemes, some that work better than others. StarFox tries to reinvent the wheel even though it worked well with traditional controls and was never a big complaint prior back in the 64 days.
Admittedly I worded the sentence poorly.
"Good job Miyamoto does not have someone like you to criticize what he does is all I can say to that" That's EXACTLY what's wrong with Miyamoto. That's why Paper Mario Sticker Star failed and that's why Star Fox Zero failed. Because no one is there to question is motive. You'd rather his IPs die to his hand by him removing what made people initially loved them for removed than to accept a criticism.
One day, you'll realize all the defending you're doing was in vain and that you should've been more critical to their very real problems. I know I'm regretting it, because I used to be a fanboy.
@Mario-Man-Child Dunno man, the game itself doesn't look incredible but I'll give it a try.
He's gone senile.
Having done a few hours I think my copy is going on EBay. The controls aren't 'bad' as such but I don't see what they add to the experience and I find looking between the two screens utterly immersion breaking. On top of that, the game itself so far is pretty underwhelming. Maybe I'd stick with it if I only had a Wii U or had no other forms of entertainment but the whole experience is so average I simply can't be bothered.
I hope it sells though. I don't want Nintendo to use poor sales as an excuse to 'FZero' the series.
So reading through some of the comments, people have been saying to use the tv screen to aim at. I attempted to do that, but one thing I hated. Aiming to the left your reticle would then sit at the left side of the screen when centering the controller. Ot makes no sense. Yeah you can push a button to recenter it, but with so many games using motion controls to aim with these days not requiring you to do that puts another hinder at it. Yeah it's the easy press of a button, but the button press should not even be required. Whenever I aimed using the T.V. alone I did significantly worse in hitting what I was trying to hit than if I did by going back and forth between the screens. Looking back and forth made flying very hard to do though.
Lets say there are things on my left and right. I aim at the things on my left and then have to recenter the reticle to then aim at the guys at my right, because if I tried to do it in one swift motion, I'd either be turning my arms way too much to make the hit, or not far enough if I attempted to turn the same amount. It's clear they couldn't figure out how to do the aiming as well as the Splatoon team did, or other ones that used Gyroscope aiming.
i understand where people are coming from when it comes to nintendo and their controllers and controls for games. Though i must be a weird freak because i actually find their setups way more intuitive and easier to use than traditional controllers... Starfox zero controls have helped make that game great..for me sry least.
@Achoo You care waaaaay too much about other people's opinions, when they shouldn't matter to you at all.
The controls are fine, they're better. The game is good. Deal with it and move on with your lives.
Wouldn't hurt if Miyamoto watched this video.
I had no probs with the controls I only looked at the Gamepad about 10% of the time.
@Mario-Man-Child just a friendly reminder that profanity isn't allowed.
The controls took sometime for me, but with the 3d audio and cinematic views in all-range mode - I definitely agree with the immersion effect. I've only played through the game once, and I think as I was getting comfortable with one vehicle type I was being switched over to another quickly and having to adjust. It wasn't until the final boss that everything clicked: the controls, cinematic views, 3-d audio, cockpit aim...my mind was blown. After replaying some of the levels, they are definitely smoother experiences. I still have somewhat of a problem of overusing the cockpit view during the on-rails levels when you can actually just play it like old-school star fox (that building came out of nowhere!).
You said the B word a few times, which is against the site rules. I removed the profanity, and I only commented to let you know that swearing is against the site rules.
Wait everybody, @KLZ has spoken! No more opinions allowed, @KLZ has decided it's good. Debate over!!!!
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but I would like to say that for me, this has been one of the funnest games I've played in a long time. Every time I play the game I get a little better and I find it very rewarding finding the medals and figuring out how to get Mission Accomplished (I'm refusing to use the internet). I think this is really one of those games where you get out of it what you put into it.
I heard many complaints about the controls and to be honest, I was expecting the game to be underwhelming based on what I had seen from it. But it really surprised me and the only thing I can say is give the game a chance. If you give it a good play through and don't like it, then that's okay but at least you gave it a shot and formed your own opinion.
Personally, I like it when games try something different and honestly, the controls aren't so out there. It still plays a lot like Star Fox 64, the motion just gives you a little more precision.
Okay, I'm throwing in my two cents.
Oh wait I'm british
I feel like all of Miyamoto's complete idiocy in recent years is intentional. Like it's some crazy thing where he brought up Nintendo and is secretly trying to bring it down
Main problem I have is the the motion controls and tablet were just unnecessary and didn't need to be forced in, seems like their trying to justify the tablet by giving no other options.
@-DEMISE- Have you seen the reviews? all nintendo had to do was make it optional, and allow right stick to take over the motion control portion... What is driving me nuts is NINTENDO FORCING INNOVATION FOR THE SAKE OF INNOVATION... Really starting to bother me...
I don't think people here know what the word "intuitive" means. To be intuitive is to be known without being learned first. If you say "It is intuitive, you just have to spend a few hours learning the ropes," then it isn't intuitive. Wii Sports is intuitive. Most people find meaning in life through intuition. Driving a car, after weeks of drivers ed and practice, is not intuitive.
You know what's even easier? Using a freaking normal controller and control scheme. What, are they allergic to making games without stupid unneeded gimmicks in them?
Yeah and Wii Sports could have been played with an NES controller.
Does that mean we have to appeal to the lowest common denominator every time? I welcome the change to advanced controls. If someone can't get the hang of them, that's their problem. There are plenty of other games out there for those people to enjoy.
I'm tired of settling for less because people complain too much.
So are you saying that Splatoon's controls aren't intuitive? Because I had to learn to use those, too.
Secondary definition of intuitive:
"(chiefly of computer software) easy to use and understand."
Which Star Fox's controls are once you've actually practiced with them. They feel natural and none of the controls are at all complicated. Therefore, they are intuitive. They're just different than what people are used to and these people don't like change.
@Danrenfroe2016 If the right control stick were to take over from the gyro, where would you send all the commands that were previously mapped to the right stick? Okay, so somersaulting and U-turning are taken care of (Y and B buttons respectively), but where are you proposing to send boost, brake, tilt right, tilt left, and their barrel rolls?
And even if you did remap them all without incident, you'd then be forced to choose between using the right stick for aiming and using one of the ABXY buttons for the other commands. You wouldn't be able to brake and aim at the same time, for example. Which is a pretty integral strategy for clearing a field of enemies to get a high score.
I agree, I found Star Fox Zero control's to be very intuitive. Pressing the right stick forward to accelate and back to break made sense. Still to this day I don't understand the complaints about that controls.
And now that everything has clicked for you with the controls, try playing Star Fox 64 and Assault. They'll feel like a step back now
Because no one cares about score anymore, I suppose.
Nowadays it's all about how many hours the main storyline is (regardless of if it's mostly just filler and padding), how pretty the cut scenes are and how many fetch quests there are to artificially lengthen the play experience.
Controls aside, people even complain about the length of the main story-line of SFZ. As if longevity has EVER been what Starfox is all about. It's primarily an arcade-style shooter. While it may be on the shorter end of modern games, it's still action-packed and filled to the brim with excitement.
I like my Wii u plenty, what I don't like is motion controls or holding the gamepad up to the TV. Its great for the map and off TV play. But that's my own opinion. Fewer gimicks would be nice.
@-DEMISE- you can press select and put the cockpit view on TV?????
"You wouldn't be able to brake and aim at the same time, for example. Which is a pretty integral strategy for clearing a field of enemies to get a high score."
That's a really good point, actually. And another good example on why "traditional controls" for this game would've been limiting.
@Maxz plenty of buttons on this controller. Gyro should be optional.
@Turbo857 the motion control group is in minority unfortunately as the Wii U is a flop. So disappointed.
@Danrenfroe2016 Please be more specific. Just saying "plenty of buttons" is just hand-waving; it doesn't give your assertion any credibility.
Your proposed solution strikes me as impossible to effectively implement, and until you've put some more thought into it, I think I'll remain unconvinced.
@GN004Nadleeh yes! Bingo. It's a gimmick that is not optional or the optimal way to play...
@Maxz L R LZ RZ and don't forget the dpad...
Dude tons of buttons lol
@Danrenfroe2016 Yes. There are lots of buttons. I don't deny there are lots of buttons. I get that.
This also has lots of buttons:
And this has lots of buttons:
And this has lots of buttons too:
Now explain how any of them could be used to provide an effective setup for StarFox Zero.
And if you can't do that, stop backing up your original claim by just saying "lots of buttons" and start actually thinking about a specific solution that you might propose.
Because it doesn't look like "lots of buttons" alone is going to be a solid enough argument.
@Danrenfroe2016 I've read reviews from all the big publications, and several more from smaller ones as well. Most of the reviews I've read seem to share the opinion that the controls are difficult to learn, but they become easy after a certain point and open up some fun gameplay possibilities.
But like I've said in my earlier comments, you can turn the gyro controls off so that they only activate when you're shooting, and as long as you don't wave the gamepad around, the reticle goes wherever the ship is pointing. This essentially means that if you don't move the gamepad around, the controls are the same as Star Fox 64. Or you can just play the game in multiplayer mode but let the gamepad just sit idle while you play with a pro controller, and then motion aiming is taken completely out of the equation.
As for the portion of your comment relating to Nintendo and their quest for "innovation," that's a whole other very complicated conversation about game design philosophy that I really don't feel like getting to right now.
@GN004Nadleeh You sure can! I play most of the game that way.
@Vandy They could also put in both control schemes and not settle for less or alienate other players :s
@Maxz damn... You are so so against an alternative control scheme...
Steering: L stick
Aim: right stick
Yxba and dpad both do transformation, flip and turn around.
L and R can speed up slow down
LZ RZ can roll.
Fire button is redundant as aim stick to shoot like a twin shooter.
I'm enjoying the game too, but they really messed up by not allowing an alternative control scheme...
Choice is good!
@Nicolai I don't think YOU know what the word "intuitive" means, because your definition of it is incorrect. "Intuition" is a word that relates to one's knowledge of facts and truth, even if there is no evidence or reason to support it. It stems from the Latin word for "contemplation." It's a philosophical term that really doesn't scale very well to a conversation about interacting with software, and the usage of the term in the context of video game control schemes is actually not very appropriate.
It's a dumb thing to get caught up on anyway. Nothing about video games comes naturally. You have to learn how to play them, and how to use different controllers, etc. But just because something requires learning doesn't mean it's bad. The essence of video games does not hinge on how quickly players can master a given interface. That's just a shallow mode of thinking.
@Xaessya It doesn't take a particularly detailed knowledge of the game's design to realise that in slapping 64's 'control scheme' over Zero, you would end up with a genuinely broken game, rather than just one that some people hyperbolically claim to be so.
There's an awful amount of stuff you wouldn't be able to hit if you weren't able to shoot independently of flying. All the bits where you fly over stuff and take it out from above; all the bits where you fly under stuff and aim up at its underbelly; all the bits where you run circles around the enemy and whilst shooting at it from the side; all the Walker bosses where you have to aim at multiple parts while being locked onto a central target; all the Gyrowing sections full stop, in which both control sticks are fully used for movement (in exactly the same way as a real drone uses a two-stick setup) and therefore unavailable for using to aim.
I get why people say, "why didn't they just include the old controls", because they want it to be true. But the reality is they could only do that if they completely changed the game's design, and if they did they, we really would just end up with something resembling StarFox 64 HD, which would bring absolutely nothing new to the series or to video games in general.
Because this isn't fundamentally an issue of 'controls' anyway. It's an issue of mechanics. The game unlinked the aiming reticule from the flight path, which is a mechanically more sophisticated setup no matter what control scheme you use. The whole notion that this is 'just about controls' has been derailing sensible discussion of the game from the start.
@Danrenfroe2016 I'm not at all against alternative control schemes. I'm pro (functional) alternative control schemes.
What I'm against is baseless reasoning. And what I'm even more against is people trashing something based on an assertion that it should different, when they've made no effort to justify whether their proposed changes would be functional or even possible.
But to your credit, you've (finally) given it a go.
Now let me pick it apart:
What you've lost in your proposed alternative control scheme is the ability to use the... err, fire button. Which I assume means you'd be firing constantly. Which means no charge shots. Which means no lock-on. Which means nearly every boss immediately becomes a massive pain. Which also means no combos. Which means you've undermined one of the main elements of Star Fox's scoring system. Which means you've actually broken Star Fox.
"NEW EXPERIENCES SUCKKKKK!!!!!!"
— 99% of commenters still complaining about Star Fox Zero's controls (several of which who are trashing anyone that defends said controls)
While admittedly my mind wasn't blown when I first tried the Arwing Training section (I was still a bit awed with the new and complex sense of realism, though), once I tried out the Walker, Zero became one of my favorite games that I've played in several years. The controls seemed VERY immersive, especially considering I expected this game to be rather mediocre, since I feel that most new Mario and Zelda entries (and even Smash Bros. 4, to a certain extent) were not designed with creative excitement in mind, but rather with familiarity and mass appeal that lead to more sales. Though piloting through Corneria took a little getting used to (and was worth getting used to; Rome wasn't built in a day, after all), I eventually realized how physically intensive the game was becoming and I got hooked. The Gyrowing also felt like a throwback to the days of innovative and fun usage of motion controls on Wii, like with Warioware: Smooth Moves. It all feels just really fresh and exciting, as if you're actually behind the cockpit, controlling an armed combat vehicle with its respective gears and mechanisms. None of the controls are that complex either. They're just different from what you're used to. Difference is not mutually excluded from simplicity.
Today, I finally beat both modes of 3D Thunder Blade. Thunder Blade was a game that I did not care for before playing its 3DS version. Now I can hardly get enough of it and it's become one of my all-time favorite Shooters. The stereoscopic 3D added so much immersion and aid to success in the game. It uses mostly traditional Shooter controls, sure. But it feels so much fresher than how Thunder Blade did, perfecting the constant change of perspective with added depth. It feels like this is the experience the developers always intended for this game.
Star Fox 64 3D, in contrast, changed the experience of Star Fox 64 very little, except for adding some mostly underwhelming depth. I love Star Fox 64 and have probably practically mastered the game, so at this point, the only value I get in playing is nostalgia. 64 3D really added nothing except an avenue to play Star Fox 64 on the go. This staleness (and the fact that there was no Rumble Feature, an extremely important feature for the original Star Fox 64) is the reason why I only played this 3DS version through one time.
So, the point is that adding superficial enhancements to a well-liked game (like graphics, voice acting, etc) isn't going to renew the fun that was originally had with that particular game. "Reinventing the wheel" is necessary in keeping a franchise alive, as long as that reinvention is done tastefully and masterfully. Star Fox Zero, with its physically-immersive controls and new level structure, in addition to some superfical icing on the cake (like improved graphics and sound), achieves both of those attributes quite well, once the mind is opened to being changed and morphed for the purposes of improvement and variety.
If all you want is to play a "better grafix" version of Star Fox, go play Star Fox 64 3D and stop weighing down the rest of us with your annoying forced elitism, you meatheads. You're not helping to preserve superb gameplay experiences. You're killing them and influencing both publishers and the masses to encourage the cheapening of the beauty and depth of interactive media.
Star Fox Zero blew hard. Stop kidding yourself. Controls SUCK.
Enjoy Retro Rampage on 3DS:
Star Fox Zero 4/10
Humble Bundle 10/10
Code is for NA
@-DEMISE- Yeah, that's pretty much what i said. Information is normally gained through learning it, or "rational thought" as you said. Intuition is knowing something without having to think about it rationally. The term works well for electronics' interfaces, because an intuitive interface is an interface you don't have to think about very much, because the control scheme is usually gearing around what an average mind's first conclusion will be, such as swinging a remote in order to swing a sword in a game. If you have to spend time with a userface to learn it, like Star Fox Zero's, then your mind had to think about it first in order to figure it out, and then it can be learned. Not technically intuitive.
This is all completely removed from my opinion of the game. I think Star Fox Zero has been great so far. It just bugs me when people throw words like that around.
"Stop weighing down the rest of us with your annoying forced elitism, you meatheads"
Pretty much this.
And as if by magic, the next comment happens to be:
"Star Fox Zero blew hard. Stop kidding yourself. Controls SUCK."
Meatheadtastic. No room for debate; just yelling at the internet because it feels good. Very classy.
@Nicolai But it doesn't mean you just "know something without having to learn it." It means knowing something is true without having to justify it through reason. It has to do with a way of thinking, and has very little to do with learning. The way we use "intuitive" in most contexts is really a misappropriation of the word.
I hated Zero's controls and it wasn't because I didn't give them a chance. I unlocked and beat every stage in the game and they never felt natural. I only did that out of pure pigheadedness because I love Star Fox and wanted to make myself like it.
Having to switch between the two screens, and having the camera wrenched out of your control on the main screen whenever it's showing you a cutscene or you're in a boss fight is incredible disorienting. I died several times because I couldn't see where my ship was going due to those camera changes. That's the kind of crap I'd expect from some amature hour Steam game, not something put out by the best game development house in the freaking world.
The people who can't understand how people don't like the controls drive me crazy. If you hear a lot of people complain about something that isn't an issue for you that doesn't mean it isn't a legitimate complaint. I actually had someone tell me to "git gud" (yes, with that spelling) when I was complaining about them. I can beat Star Fox 64's hard path on a single ship without any of my squadmates dying. I'm already "gud" enough. These controls are the problem.
Why do they use the analog stick for your speed, tilt AND barrel roll?! It makes it impossible to do a hard turn while boosting. That's so stupid. U turns and loops are also mapped to the sticks which you'll never want to use because the buttons are much more reliable. Just use the buttons! I've accidentally looped when I was trying to boost away from an explosion and died. That's so frustrating. There should be an option for ZL and ZR to be for tilt and the stick for speed, shooting mapped to Y, bombs to B, loop to X and u turn to A. That would be so much better.
This game feels like they're trying to show off how innovative the gamepad as if this is a launch title except it's the final year of its life cycle and we know how cool the gamepad can be. I hate it.
@-DEMISE-, Well, a quick search on Google and vocabulary.com says "Intuitive means having the ability to understand or know something without any direct evidence or reasoning process."
Emphasis on "ability." However, you're describing it like the intuitive person doesn't feel it necessary to justify with reason, and that's actually a fair argument. In the context of philosophy, it doesn't matter, because believers of intuition believe they have the ability to know the facts of life by just feeling them. If you believe you can know truth through intuition and not rational thought, that's your way of thinking. There's really no difference between our definitions.
In either case, an intuitive thing requires no thought process, and that can describe an electronic system easily, if you broaden the definition a bit.
So is this just like the Devil's Third guy? Look, if you have to try and convince people that have already played your game that it's good and they're just somehow not getting it, your game isn't that good.
I have no doubt in my mind that people can, and are, enjoying Star Fox Zero. But I also have no doubt in my mind that the gimmicky controls make things harder, not easier. Can you get used to them? Sure. The human body can adapt to many things given time, and muscle memory is a powerful tool.
I've watched a friend who is much better than myself at video games play Star Fox Zero. He claims the controls are fine, yet I see him repeatedly run into obstacles and have difficulty doing what should be simple maneuvers. I've witnessed him die on some of the earlier levels and ask himself, "How are you supposed to do that?".
Right now Star Fox Zero is still a new game. Right now I'm curious how well the game will hold up a few months from now. I wonder if the simple fact that it's the first new Star Fox game in a long time has given people a perspective that allows them to more easily gloss over any problems they may experience simply to justify their purchase.
I really wanted to like this game. I'm A huge StarFox fan, but Star Fox Zero's controls are distracting, confusing, and unnecessary.
Nintendo really messed up by trying to reinvent the wheel with Star Fox. Sadly the GamePad controls are so unnecessarily forced!
Jfc long angry paragraphs all over this article. I'm so confused on this game, it seems like the only way to know if I'll like it is by playing it myself. Also the copter thing excited me before but everyone's crying about it now so oops guess I dunno what to be excited about. The Guard thing seems fun still, maybe I can just download that at some point
I miss the days before control schemes were homogonized and every dev had a different idea for how games should play. Nowadays if it's not L stick move R stick camera people lose their minds. Try something new! Kid Icarus, StarFox Zero, Sin and Punishment SS, Splatoon, Red Steel 2, Rodea Wii (not a huge fan personally), are all great examples of games that are better for their control scheme despite the learning curve. I admit SFZ isn't quite the pick up and play game SF64 was, but I dont need a rehash of a perfect title and I applaud them for doing something new. Hopefully the close-minded, short-sighted backlash brigade doesn't discourage Ninty from developing these ideas further or putting StarFox back into IP cryo-stasis.
@Nicolai Yeah sure. But like I was saying, I don't think gamers should let an immediate lack of ease-of-use of the controls deter them from a game. If we did, none of us would ever have made it over the first pit in Super Mario Bros, because it was by no means a self-evident truth that we had to press over on a thing called a d-pad while also holding down a button to increase Mario's speed, all while remembering to hit the jump button at the right time. And all of that came after we all had to learn how to play games with nothing more than a joystick and a single action button. And the same learning process had to be repeated yet again with the advent of 3D games. I just don't believe that we should allow games to become static simply because we are all used to one particular control scheme.
I've gotten to the point where I've mostly acclimated to them, but they still feel clumsy and entirely unnecessary to do the whole "fly and shoot in opposite directions" thing. I don't think anyone would have had a problem if they'd been made optional. Also flicking the sticks to do maneuvers was a terrible idea.
I have to say that I've done a lot of head shaking and chuckling at the people not being able to get this control scheme into their fingers. It is not that you are bad gamers, like some people seem to imply, but it can very well be that it is simply not the game for you.
The control scheme very much reminds me of a real world example, namely the Apache helicopter, where a heads up display is projected on the inside of the visor of your helmet, controlling the front mounted camera and guns.
The controls are used in the exact same manner as in Star Fox, as in you can use the stick of the copter to fly the vehicle, and you aim the guns/camera separately by moving your head towards whatever you want to aim at.
Just because you have to fly straight doesn't mean you can't shoot to the side, now does it?
Now the point isn't to compare a fictional flying machine to an actual one, but it does point out that the controls aren't necessarily bad, unrealistic or too difficult for people to be able to learn them. And even though we may all be good at driving cars, we can't all be helicopter pilots, so that one should take care of all the "but I'm an ace pilot in Star Fox 64 so there's no reason why I shouldn't be able to master the controls in this game, so the only conclusion is they must be bad" and similar complaints.
Games are ALWAYS meant to be learned, and there will ALWAYS be new control schemes or new ways of controlling a game. And learning curves are also a normal part of games. And it took me all of 10 to 15 minutes to get used to them and like them.
I am actually surprised that nobody mentioned how difficult it must have been for the first ever people that had to stand on a dance mat to control a DDR game that way. It would have been "so much easier" to just slap these buttons on a controller, so we wouldn't have to be "forced" to jump around on some stupid piece of plastic with arrows painted on it...
I guess that back in the day, that must have caused a lot of rage too. Luckily most of us didn't have internet back then to be able to complain about their soul scarring hardships on an gaming forum...
@Dankykong It's definitely worth trying out, whether or not you end up loving it. Maybe go for a physical copy if the price drops. They really should've made a demo spanning at least Corneria through Zoness or the basic Training sections.
@Maxz It's like the Narrow-Minded Brigade sent in whoever they had left. Reasoned words are hardly adopted by the stubborn.
"I miss the days before control schemes were homogonized and every dev had a different idea for how games should play."
How do so many people miss this?! It's what makes games like Turok, Mystical Ninja (64), and Alex Kidd still interesting to play, today. Perhaps Zero will be likewise be remembered in a few years. I guess, for many people, it's just more personally fulfilling to like whatever the loudest groups like.
@greengecko007 There's a huge difference between Itagaki defending his game by attempting to discredit critics who negatively reviewed it and Miyamoto explaining the creative processes behind his game.
Good for you.
"I've mostly acclimated to them, but they still feel clumsy and entirely unnecessary to do the whole "fly and shoot in opposite directions" thing. I don't think anyone would have had a problem if they'd been made optional."
Nail on the head. But it's fun to watch the gymnastics and self-praising superiority of those working very hard to defend the game and their dismissive approach to those who don't like it. It can't be because someone has tried it and doesn't like it, no, it's because they're 'narrow-minded', 'close-minded', 'short-sighted, 'meatheads' who are 'weighing down the rest of us with your annoying forced elitism' (quite ironic, that one), or 'lowest common denominator'.
Still, zealots will do as zealots will. Others will just go and play a better game....
"Others will just go and play a better game...."
Speaking of which, why are you still here commenting on an article about a game that you hate and intend to get rid of? Run along and play a 'better game' and talk about that one from now on. Your part in this discussion has come to an end.
Wow are people still fighting over this? This site was probably rubbing its hands with glee when this news surfaced, We've got a Starfox article to rile them up, and to make it even better it's got Miyamoto talking about the controls...a double hit to light up the comments.
I haven't picked this up, but will soon...looking forward to trying out the controls as I always welcome a break from the generic mainstream norm. I think a lot of people freaked out because it's not twin sticks, but there was advance warning beforehand that it uses motion controls and there'll be a learning curve.
I did have fun with Star Fox Zero, but if anything the controls felt a bit superfluous more than anything else. I got them. I understood them. But it felt like I could do most things without really paying attention to the extra motion control. I understood what they were trying to go for, but it felt a little odd and bolted on.
I think it's mainly because the core game is quite old fashioned in its design and it's very similar to what's gone before (with a lot elements being directly lifted from Star Fox 64). This isn't necessarily a bad thing in itself but in this case you have two things which feel at odds with each other.
It's sad as some of the controls mapped to certain buttons feel really smooth and fluid (the right analogue stick used for manoeuvres being one example).
I wouldn't say it's broken, but superfluous - which is a shame as the core of Star Fox Zero is fun, but the whole thing feels a little bare.
@electrolite77 Well this is probably fair on some points. As with most internet debates, things have become ridiculously polarised, and everyone caught with reasonable concerns in the middle are just ignored because their opinions aren't hyperbolic enough to get blood pressures rising.
There have been some well explained accounts from people who I don't believe to be on some sort of crusade, about their problems with the game, which are honest and level-headed. The last I remember reading was @able_to_think's, but there have been others, and nobody's replied to them because they haven't been antagonistic.
I don't want to drown out opinions like that, because they're valuable and worth reading; you get a feel for how the game has been accepted by people outside yourself, and that puts the game in a wider context. It's well-made accounts that make me consider that - even though I like the game - how sensible would it be for Nintendo to release another game like it? How esoteric should Star Fox actually be? Nintendo has enough games that have huge mass appeal and user-friendliness, so I think they can get away with a Star Fox Zero (or a Kid Icarus Uprising, or a W101) every so often, but it's worth considering.
What I (and many of the people who have picked up and enjoyed the game) seem to be allergic to, is the arrogance and spite with which the game is being dismissed by lots of people with an agenda (many of whom haven't even played it), and the dishonestly and illogic being used to defend their cases.
Lots of people are using it as a sandbag to lay into; claiming the game is universally unplayable and objectively broken; claiming that they were unnecessary because the game would work fine with 64s control scheme (it wouldn't), claiming that the gyro could be mapped to the buttons and everything would work fine (see earlier in the thread); claiming it's too easy and an offence to hardcore gamers because it includes an invincibility option; claiming it's too hard because shooting and aiming in different directions is something the human brain fundamentally now designed to cope with; claiming it's too much like 64; claiming we haven't had a proper Star Fox game since 64 and what we need is more games like 64, etc.
It's clearly divisive. There've been zealots on both ends. But I think most people would have to agree, the hyperbolism and arrogance surrounding this argument and been... silly.
@Maxz point well put.
This is is a strangely ignorant, even unintentionally uncouth remark for a designer, especially one of Miyamoto's caliber to make. He grossly oversimplified what the control scheme really entails, in response to Sao's claim that it's intuitive based on just one part of the controls. I can't help but wonder if this is a translation error. Obviously, the ones who created the control system are going to understand it best; that doesn't mean everyone else will understand it, too.
Just think about it: left control stick to move in 4 cardinal directions on a forward motion X/Y or X/Y/Z axis depending on forward or all range mode; right control stick to boost, brake, AND tilt/roll (instead of L/R to tilt/roll); motion controls to aim, Select (-) to "Switch View" (What does that mean to a first timer? I know what it means, but what about someone who's not used to figuring out controller webs?); ZR to fire, R to bomb, ZL to lock on targets; A to transform, X to somersault, B to U-turn, Y does nothing by default; and have to constantly switch between looking at TV screen and Gamepad screen... Phew... No wonder Nintendo Life made a guide just to explain the controls...
Does anyone honestly think that mess is as intuitive as the original Star Fox? With just D pad to move and aim in 4 cardinal directions on X/Y axis at all times; up (X) button to boost, down (B) to brake, left (Y) to shoot, right (A) to bomb; L/R to tilt and roll... and only looking at one screen? Come on...be honest.
Miyamoto and Sao implying that Star Fox Zero has simple, intuitive controls for everyone outside of their own creator's perspective is like the old PC adventure game creators knowing how to solve all of their own puzzles, thinking they're so clever, even though they didn't necessarily make any sense or possibly even have any reasonable solution to figure out. We the players are just left to figure out the mess for ourselves... And possibly never succeed. That's not good design philosophy, that's arrogant design philosophy.
@AVahne This is definitely a historically uncharacteristic attitude for him to take, if the translation is correct, falling into the same pitfalls of "creator's perspective design" that he once so deftly showed how to stay away from. He was once a master of "player's perspective design." As for his mental health, that's another question altogether...
@SLIGEACH_EIRE But that's the thing though. I used to assume that many professional opinions (especially from official/console specific mags/wesbites) were inclined to overly cheery, happy-clappy judgements about official games, and that it was the duty of the noble 'fanbase' - the voice of the people - to be honest and outspoken about what a game was truly like; to be clear about its failings.
But much of the response (not all) to SFZ seems to suggest that many people love that feeling of being 'outspoken and critical' so much, that they develop their own form of tunnel vision, in which they're unable to see a game's good points, or even willing to play through the game if it doesn't click with them fast enough.
Just because you're noisy and angry and outspoken about something, doesn't mean you automatically qualify as Warrior of the Truth; a soldier in the fight against legions of blind, meek, docile fanboys.
It could just mean you like being noisy and angry and outspoken because it makes you feel good.
Blind dismissal and 'hating' of video games is now as much an impediment to 'perspective' as blind fanboyism is (if not more so).
As I've said, there's also a midground, which tends to get ignored for not being hyperbolic enough. Quite a few people here have managed to express their concerns about the game in an articulate and honest manner, and they've been interesting to read. It's not one extreme or another, but there's been a lot of disingenuous (or just lazy) stuff written about Star Fox Zero, and it's worth addressing.
@Ichiban Huh, I found the levels to be a lot of fun, and not dull. Admittedly, the walker sections were the weakest part of the game because of controls, but the level design was creative to me. It was really cool being in the middle of a huge space battle in the 5th level, or guiding the Gigorilla in the 3rd. And frankly, they were much longer than a typical Star Fox level, or at least it seemed that way. I respectfully disagree, as I thought SF0 was a decent game.
@Mario-Man-Child I get you don't like SLIGEACH_EIRE's opinions but please don't resort to flaming users.
I suggest you and @SLIGEACH_EIRE learn to ignore one another.
@Dr_Lugae "Pretty intuitive", you say... With so many functions to keep track of at once? Really? The last time a Star Fox game was truly intuitive was the original SNES title. Everything afterwards added complexity, and Zero goes above and beyond it's forebears.
@Achoo Your source isn't showing me fans raging at the new control scheme which is what I asked. Star Fox Zero's reception's is not normal due to the many people complaining about its convoluted control scheme.
"I like this, I like that, I adapted to this in 5 mins and I like complex control schemes" You're not the only person in the world! There's a plethora of other people and eventually what matters is what the general consensus is. Seems to me, the majority do not like the controls.
I know how to differentiate a true fan from a fanboy who cries and moans at the first sight of criticism directed at Nintendo. The fact that you say people "smear" StarFox Zero, as if people do it for a hobby or for entertainment shows me which group you pertain to. "just move on realizing it is a good game but just not for you." The word "realize" implies that the game is good and people who don't see it any other way is wrong. It isn't. People have their own opinions and can damn well hate it based on their experience.
Your point about the 80s never worked. Game genres were being created at the time and they tried different control schemes. The Rail shooter genre has been a genre that is very well established for YEARS and we've had excellent examples of good control schemes that worked well for it. An example? Sin & Punishment 2. Which is more laughable because it's Nintendo's game. No one complained about the controls back then. You could very well control your character and shoot.
StarFox Zero tries to reinvent the wheel. Nothing more, nothing less. It tries a different control scheme to try a different control, not because it worked, not because it's better, just to be different, an attitude that has been putting me off Nintendo for a couple years now.
"Oh I just looked up your age. What do you know about the 80's? You weren't even born then" What does growing up in 80s add to the argument at hand?
@EngieBengie Well said.
Intuitive controls? Skyward Sword is intuitive. Star Fox Zero is not intuitive, it is obtuse. Training left me baffled by them and playing the campaign was fine at first. I could set the motion only controlled by pressing ZR and ignore them. Once that didn't work then the controls failed miserably. From the silly zoomed out all range mode to the required touchscreen view that wasn't just the little robot helper. And don't get me started on Landmaster all range mode were you basically cannot steer the tank period. Also the second stick use was terrible. It was so much easier to use a button to say barrel roll, boost, brake, "U-turn" and somersault. Having the mapped on the analogs made mistakes and errors all too easy and the fact that two of them were on buttons anyways meant I always went for them. also the ZL lock on was useless, absolutely useless. It made it harder to find targets and fly as desired. In fact I beat
Star Wolf on Venom
by ignoring ZL and playing it by somersaulting when they got behind me.
The final fight was made a royal pain by the required touch screen use but at the same time it was the one time where some of the game play was paced to allow using it.
If they had gone with normal controls this would have been excellent but as it is, its a hot mess do to a poor control scheme. To quote honest trailers, "Get ready to do a Barrel Roll over and over again, directly into a wall." As that summed up the experience nicely.
@Mario-Man-Child I know neither of you are innocent in this, that's why I said learn to ignore one another.
Sorry for not being 100% clear.
@Achoo "Edit: Non of my comments have been removed, that is false"
Want to bet? I remember the very first comment you made about me in this story along the lines of rolling your eyes whenever I post and that I'd issues. Remember that? Where's that comment gone? That was right in the middle of you, Mario-Childish-Man and BensonUii having a triangle of abuse towards me.
You like the game, that's great for you. I don't attack you for holding that view and why would I?
I and others don't, that's our opinion but you can't let that be. For others it's the controls, for me it's mostly the lack of an online mode. But you're attacking people for expressing negatives about the game.
Like I've said, the game has a Metacritic score of 69% from 71 reviews. Is everybody wrong?
There's a thread on IGN discussing that video I posted above from Kyle Bosman and most people are in agreement with him.
@Achoo Point and click PC adventure titles in the 80s were difficult because they used convoluted puzzles that few could figure out, not because of the control scheme. Some designers even prided themselves on their puzzles being too tough for many to figure out.
There is a parallel between 80's P&C Adventure titles and Star Fox Zero: instead of refining their forebears (text adventures and Star Fox 64, respectively), they introduced one or more gameplay aspects that came out of left field and blindsided the average player. That doesn't mean the average player is dumb, it means the designers are too haughtily caught up in their "creator's mindset" of already knowing how the game works, without considering the crucial "player's mindset" of figuring out their own solutions using the tools given to them.
Both 80's P&C Adventure titles and SF Zero force the player to try and figure out the game from the perspective the creator had in mind, rather than providing a concise toolset for the player to figure out for a few minutes and do as they will with it... Or just simply not overwhelming the player, and giving a quick to memorize control scheme and solution process. The original Star Fox is a brilliant example of providing the latter. It even allows one to test out the controls for a minute before starting.
@SLIGEACH_EIRE man, looks like I missed the party eh?
Firstly, agree 100% on the multiplayer issue. It's a massive missed opportunity imo!!
I get my copy for my birthday next month of the missus and tbh I can't wait to see what all this bickering is all about. I'm almost more excited because of the controversy
You must have a tan from all the heat you took on here
The only thing that has been made clear in this whole Star Fox Zero controls "controversy" is that Nintendo's biggest problem is the lazy, self-entitled gamer. And unfortunately, these people are now the vocal majority.
It's not their fault if they have trouble playing the game and beating it on their very first try. Oh no, of course not! There are plenty of other things to blame -
The controls, the graphics, the frame-rate, the draw distance, the marketing, the console's processing power, the fizzy soda they just drank, Miyamoto's dog, the controller itself, the inclusion of motion controls, the lack of motion controls... dear lord!
It is OKAY to not be good at a game. It is OKAY to find that you just aren't as good at it as you thought you should be and that perhaps you just aren't inclined to spend a bit of time getting better at it. You may want to like the game because it has an intriguing story or premise. But if you just don't connect with the gameplay, that is not always the game's fault!
I have no problem admitting that I didn't enjoy playing Wonderful 101. I love the premise, but didn't really connect with the gameplay. Would I say it was a bad, broken game? Of course not. I just didn't connnect with it.
@Achoo See, that's what I'm talking about. Pride in unnecessarily convoluted player interaction. "It's not for them, because of such and such." The original Star Fox and 64 didn't make that claim. It just alienates people to say "this isn't for you, deal with it or scram." It's one thing to implement genuine skill levels of difficulty (easy to learn, difficult to master), it's another thing entirely to implement a "difficult to learn, more difficult to master" control scheme. Zero's controls are objectively convoluted compared to the original Star Fox's, and an awkwardly more complex version of 64's controls.
Your opinion of the control scheme is just that - your opinion.
I know you could cite a lot of video game reviewers who share the same opinion as reinforcement, but then the people who like the controls could simply cite one of the greatest video game developers of all time, Shigeru Miyamoto, as reinforcement behind their opinion.
Different strokes for different folks. If you can't get the hang of the controls, that's too bad. I suppose you will have to find a game that is easier for you to play. But a lot of people think they're great. It all comes down to opinions. Opinions, opinions, opinions.
@Vandy There's a difference between not being good at a game, but still being able to enjoy it (with an intuitive or easy to memorize control scheme), and not being good at a game, and losing enjoyment because of having too much to deal with in the controls/interface. PC gamers are well versed in this aspect, with so many convoluted control schemes tried over the ages. There have been some weird control schemes for console titles, too, but those are mostly older titles.
As an example, I suck at StarCraft 2, but I can still enjoy the game because even though it's fast paced and there's a lot going on, the controls and interface are not obtuse. The same could be said for the original Star Fox- it was quite difficult on the hardest path, but the controls can be picked up in one minute, not five minutes, or thirty minutes, or one hour, so they don't need to be practiced. Only the level itself needs practice.
Have you played Star Fox Zero?
You keep talking about a complicated control scheme, which it is absolutely not. There is no complication with it whatsoever. And it is completely responsive with no lag whatsoever on the inputs.
Whether or not it's "convoluted" is left up to the opinion of the player. But complicated it is not.
@ULTRA-64 I'm well able for them.
@Vandy Hah, just look at the controller web for SF Zero... Most people would call that convoluted. Therein lies the point- it's not complicated for you. It is for many others. It shouldn't be complicated for anyone.
I like playing games with hard mods- Mega Man X Hard type is a recent classic mod that's quite good. But they're difficult because of the scenarios, not because of the controls. SF Zero itself would be even easier than 64 with traditional controls. The difficulty is all in it's control scheme.
And yes, I played SF Zero almost ten years ago... Although back then, it was called Lair.
Why are you still talking about this game's controls then? Your opinions have no merit. You're just parroting what others are saying and examining the layout of the controller.
I can't even say you're just stating your opinion, because you're not.
Saying the controls "shouldn't be complicated for anyone" is ridiculous. Some games are just meant for a different class of player. We might as well just dumb things down to the old NES controller to make sure that every game is accessible for people of all ages, skill levels and mental capacities while we're at it.
Seriously, you need to find something else to talk about, because you're not contributing anything whatsoever to the Star Fox Zero discussion because you have no basis to your arguments.
A lot of people have played the game and they say the controls feel natural, intuitive, responsive and fluid. Some people say they hate them. But at least the majority of the people who hate them are speaking from experience rather than just looking at an instructional diagram. I could look at the diagram of how a car operates and tell you it looks complicated and convoluted. But the reality is that once you learn, it's easy.
@Achoo Star Fox 64 isn't the best comparison, because it's controls have a level of complexity that someone with no gaming experience would have trouble with. Give them the original Star Fox, on the other hand, and have them try out the training, and you'll probably see results within a few minutes. They might even clear the first easy path level with no deaths. (Of course, they would get slaughtered on the hard path, but a first timer shouldn't attempt that anyways. )
True, all of the nuances of SC2 can't be picked up in 5 minutes, but the controls can. Just point and click on the menu icons, then click somewhere on the screen to perform the action. (Or for the more adventurous types, QWER, ASDF, ZXCV instead of clicking on the action sheet. ) It literally can't get any easier to learn a mouse (and optionally keyboard) control scheme than that. It's the game itself that is difficult, not the control scheme.
@Vandy Whoosh... My earlier points all went right over your head. I didn't see anyone talking about the controls from a design perspective, just either a visceral or hands on perspective. But hey, if you enjoy learning complex controls, more power to you. I'm not saying dumb the controls down, I'm just saying have them make sense to even the average player, then adjust the difficulty of the game itself. Don't make the controls a barrier of entry for "classes" of people, any more than is necessary.
Giving SF Zero the controls of Lair is just going to turn a lot of people off, not encourage further learning as the original Star Fox was better at. It is Miyamoto himself who said that "easy to learn, difficult to master" is the best way to go. Or in other words... minimize the complexity of controls and level design to a degree that makes sense to even the average player. So you'll have to take that one up with him, not me.
@Achoo Well, the SC2 campaign explains everything from the beginning in baby steps, and has a very easy difficulty option, so as long as one can read, and click/move a mouse, it couldn't be any easier to learn how to use the controls. The multiplayer game setting itself can be very difficult, yes, but the easiest campaign setting is very forgiving. I can't think of any PC gamer who would consider the controls of StarCraft to be comparable to SF Zero in difficulty to learn... Very interesting perspective you have there.
Star Fox 64 isn't a bad game, but compared to the original Star Fox, it's definitely not truly intuitive. So it's an interesting result- the original Star Fox is easier to learn how to play than 64, but the whole game itself is more difficult than 64 overall. It's an example of Miyamoto's classic mantra of "easy to learn, difficult to master."
The "creator's mindset" is something that the designer can either mistakenly or jntentionally create. It is the concept that a designer fashions their creation in a clever way so that they know how it works, but don't necessarily allow the player to see what the designer intends the player to do, or just straight up doesn't allow them to do without great effort. For example, creating puzzles that are overtly difficult, and make sense in the designer's mind, but not necessarily to someone else. It's not something the player creates.
To me, Star Fox Zero is Lair with a screen added.
The controls are perfectly fine for the average player if they bother to use the training sections. A lot of people have said they skipped these because they're "boring". Well, then they just refuse to use the tools provided to them. That's their fault, then.
There is a dedicated training section for each vehicle. They are all detailed and do a great job explaining exactly how each vehicle is supposed to work. And then there is ALSO an introductory level that gives you a chance to apply what you have just learned within a "real-world" situation in the game.
If people truly bothered to do the training sections and the introductory level and they STILL can't get the hang of the controls, then I'm afraid that perhaps the game is just beyond their abilities. And they need to be honest with themselves about that, rather than blaming everything else for their shortcomings.
These training levels are also available for them to revisit at ANY time they wish to brush up on their skills. The very definition of "bad controls" are ones that are broken and unresponsive. But every button is mapped comfortably, every action responds immediately to the user's input and the motion is fluid. And heck, you can re-calibrate at the touch of a button!
You keep talking about what Star Fox Zero is "to you". Well, you have no idea what Star Fox Zero plays like, now do you? You'd have to have actually played the game to know how it "feels to you". Heck, I can do it too. I've never played The Witcher 3. But to me, "The Witcher 3 is Pac-Man with shoulder buttons added".
Yeah, nerd away! I wish we had more opportunities to discuss this game with other fans, rather than these articles always being bogged down by people who haven't even played it.
I really get a feel as if I'm actually piloting the ships and I do like how each vehicle feels different from each other. Heck, I even thought the Gyrowing levels were a lot of fun!
But yeah, I had the same experience as you. I felt totally immersed and like I was in the cockpit. The audio coming from the gamepad adds to the immersion as well. I had such a great time in that first Star Wolf section. That's when I had my first "oh man, this is amazing" moment. Flying around dogfighting, the noise of the action coming from all sides. It sounded great in my surround-sound.
It sucks that they may choose not to pursue this control scheme in the future, because I've never had more fun flying a spaceship in a video game before. I felt it all came together perfectly and that I was in control of everything.
@Vandy LOL, that hyperbole at the end there... Amazing. And yes, I already know what SF Zero plays like, and have for almost 10 years. It's called Lair. It's missing the Gamepad screen, but everything else is there, even the motion control aiming.
The original Star Fox has Zero beat by miles... It has a training stage, but it's not even needed... One can learn everything in the select screen within one minute, no training necessary! The stage was just a cherry on top, not a necessity like it is with Zero. A game possibly being beyond one's capabilities, even after training? Gosh, that's condescending to the player...
"A game possibly being beyond one's capabilities, even after training? Gosh, that's condescending to the player..."
Umm not really... I've spent a lot of time playing baseball but I'm by no means very good at it. Maybe I could get there some day, but I'm just not inclined to put in the time to get better. Sometimes things are just beyond peoples' skill levels. If they have trouble periodically looking between the television and their gamepad, then that is their own shortcoming. Because I and many, many others have had no issues with it whatsoever. Just because someone isn't good at a particular game doesn't mean it's bad or broken. Not everyone is meant to be good at any game they pick up. That's why there are different genres.
Some people need to check their ego. Maybe they're just not good at this game and unwilling to practice any further. But again, that's their problem. God forbid we have to dumb everything down to appeal to everyone. I can't even imagine going back to the primitive control style of the original Starfox game at this point. The gameplay of Star Fox Zero is so robust and varied that you would have to strip out over half of the content from the missions.
You'd be left with a game that was easy to play, but a wholly underwhelming experience. THEN you would have truly broken the game.
This game is innovation for the sake of evolving its core gameplay... which the game successfully achieves on many levels imo.
The unfortunate irony with motion controls is that, when implemented correctly, they can prove to be a gameplay evolution. However, not every gamer's way of thinking will be evolved enough to appreciate this gameplay evolution = fossils.
The same way my older brother stopped playing games after the Sega Genesis. He just couldn't grasp the concept of analog sticks or playing with a controller that featured more than three buttons. My Mom can't yet understand a smart phone and one of her friends can't work a computer.
When gaming input devices evolves a series like Star Fox, with Star Fox Zero, the unfortunate side effect is that it'll leave some gamers behind. And when a gamer feels left behind, they sometimes react harshly. Which is what we're seeing right now.
When VR becomes cheaper, it'll have the same effect. Not every analog stick gamer with make the jump. But does that mean VR gaming shouldn't exist?
I don't believe games shouldn't evolve in this way just because some gamers aren't going to be able to mentally adjust. At least, you'll always have Star Fox 64 3D to play.
@Vandy I revisited the original Star Fox recently, that's where all my talk is coming from. It may not have much complexity, but it's very well refined, despite it's age. We don't have to go back to that level of simplicity, but we should keep in mind the many lessons the original Star Fox has to teach us on game design; a masterpiece of Miyamoto's golden years.
I don't think I've ever heard such a blasphemous statement before... Retro titles are broken and underwhelming due in part to their age and simplicity of controls? There is something to be said for doing a lot with a little. Many modern games would do well to learn from their forebears.
"Primitive" does not equal inferior, or even quaint. If anything, that simplicity is beautiful. It's funny... It's only now, looking back on retro titles, that I see the brilliance in simplicity of design. That's actually supposed to be a core philosophy of Nintendo. Remember the Iwata presented Directs from the austere conference room, representing simplicity as a traditional value of Japanese culture? Those retro titles exemplified that value.
I think Nintendo has lost sight of that in the 8th console generation, seeking complexity with the Gamepad just for complexity's sake. Hopefully next time, they will remember what made them special in the first place. Not unwarranted, boisterous, and prideful complexity, but sleek, careful, and humble simplicity of design.
@Turbo857 Lair also claimed that it was an "evolution" by using the six axis controls of the PS3... Almost everyone disagreed, but there were some who made the same claims and explanations in it's defense back then, almost ten years ago, as are being made now with SF Zero. This whole discussion gives me déjà vu to the Lair controls discussion. Funny what a coat of Nintendo paint will do to enhance an otherwise unattractive title's popularity...
Also, I find it odd that your brother stopped with the Genesis due to control sticks and more than 3 buttons, seeing as how the Saturn's normal controller still used a D-pad for the duration of it's lifespan, and used 6 face buttons, and sometimes the 2 shoulder buttons... Which the arcade/turbo version of the Genesis controller also used, except for not having shoulder buttons. I can't imagine adding 2 shoulder buttons on top of what is otherwise functionally an improved turbo Genesis controller could be that mind-blowing...
"I don't think I've ever heard such a blasphemous statement before... Retro titles are broken and underwhelming due in part to their age and simplicity of controls?"
How in the world did you get THAT from what I said?
What I'm saying is that if you were to simplify the controls of Star Fox Zero to suit what others claim is the "perfect" control style, you would lose most of the content. It would be impossible to play some of the levels and bosses without the new control style. And these elements that would end up removed are some of the best in the game.
And for the love of all that is holy, stop talking about Lair! Again, you have on merit to anything you are saying because it is not at all the same as SFZ. You would know that if you had actually played the game you are endlessly pretending to be an expert of.
Such a good summary of this whole debate over the innovation of the controls.
If some people can't grasp it and hate the new style of play, then they'll get left behind. So be it. Evolution is survival of the fittest. If you can't keep up, then there are plenty of other games for you to play that stick to safe, comfortable control schemes.
@Vandy Well, did you play Lair back when it first came out?
Yes, I did actually and the Star Fox Zero situation is absolutely nothing like the Lair situation. You'd also know this if you actually had some hands-on experience with both games. Rather than parroting other peoples' opinions for the sake of participating in a discussion, perhaps you should just recognize that you have nothing to contribute to this situation and it might be best if you just waited until a discussion arose where you did. I'm not even trying to be snarky, I'm actually giving you advice. Because your lack of knowledge regarding anything to do with this is very apparent.
Ah ha, I remember your Lair comparison from the last Star Fox Zero article
Admittedly, I can't comment on Lair's controls too much because I personally haven't played it. But... from what I understand about its motion controls is that they controlled the dragon's movement. The motion controls in Star Fox Zero only control the aiming reticule for aiming for piloted vehicles... not the vehicle's movement.
So, I can't see how they represent the same evolution in gameplay?
'Preciate it, man. I recognize that some people have had issues with Zero's controls but they gotta recognize that they're inablility to grasp the controls might have to do with their inability to evolve as a gamer.
@Vandy I think what I've said has hit a nerve with you, and now you're just being rude. So I'll end it here.
@Turbo857 They don't control exactly the same, but the concept behind it is similar. That is, using motion controls to perform a traditional action (movement, aiming, etc) on top of using traditional controls for the rest of the actions. Some people back then derided others as not being able to adapt to the then new control scheme, and even Sony themselves released a tutorial especially for professional critical reviewers, or in other words, showing others how to play properly. Positive user reviews would explain the controls, telling people not to panic, and go slow at first. So it really resonated with some people. But it didn't click with most people, so Six axis controlled games pretty much died out.
We will see if Star Fox Zero stands the test of time, as it's most venerable forebears have...
@Neon_Blues what if most people have problems with grasping motion controls in general, especially one of this nature? What if just a handful of people are actually somewhat decent at using this weird control scheme? Would they still be narrow-minded?
How come you don't consider yourself narrow-minded and hypocritical for brushing off other people's legitimate concerns with this bizarre control scheme just because you and a handful of other people happen to be part of this "evolved" group of gamers?
Do you have trouble grasping the reality of the situation here? I mean, I'm happy that you like the game, but what's up with the elitist attitude that you and a few others seem to have towards the majority that have a different opion than yours?
"Only a handful of people are actually somewhat decent at using this weird control scheme"
Actually, I believe you are the one having trouble grasping the reality of the situation. The truth of the situation is that it's only a handful of people who are having trouble with the controls. Not the other way around. At present time, Metacritic's user reviews show 352 positive user votes for the game. Compare that to the 92 negative and 47 mixed.
What we are dealing with is a very vocal minority. Most of whom admit that they haven't even played the game and refuse to even try it for themselves! Talk about narrow-minded!
@Vandy The user reviews on Metacritic are laughable including your own 9/10. Strange how you've no other reviews. It's almost as if you've a vendetta.
Most of them seem to be a backlash of keyboard warriors against the wave of mediocre reviews from professional reviewers. All harping on that the controls are fine when the broad consensus is that they're not. Still even with all the apologists and defenders it's average user review score is 7.5.
My Japanese friends from Japan visited this weekend, they are avid Splatoon players. They were amazed that I DIDN'T use motion controls on Splatoon..
They absolutely loved the Star Fox Zero controls and we had a blast on co op mode! It was their first time playing star fox zero..
It truly is a masterpiece. I expect it will be lauded as an underappreciated classic in years to come.
If I was just a "keyboard warrior", I would have used a different username to hide who I was. I stand by the score I gave it as well as my review. I think it's a great game. If I was just ranking that to skew the score, I would have given it a 10 and wouldn't have taken the time to write a review. Much like the vast number of people who gave it a negative score without even bothering to state why.
Further to that, when I first wrote my review, there were several more negative reviews that simply said "im just giving this a 0 to counter the high scores given by fanboys". Seems fair!
There was a much greater backlash from these types of people than ANYTHING you see from the "keyboard warriors".
Do a little more research before you try and prove a point.
@Vandy Not true. More like you didn't think anyone would bother to check the user Metacritic reviews or if they did they wouldn't find it amongst the nearly 500 other reviews. I'd recommend for anybody to read your review and they'll see exactly what your agenda is. You can't deal with the negativity.
Because you know exactly what everyone is thinking.
I HOPE people read my review, because those things need to be said. And in fact, my opinions have been consistent since the day I first played the game. Everything I've posted here, everything I've posted on Metacritic and everything I've posted on other forums has been a consistent message: the game is perfectly fine and video game critics need to be held to a higher standard of integrity. Again, why would I bother to take the time to write an actual review if I was just on a vendetta and looking to skew the scores?
In fact, please copy and paste my review to as many places as you possibly can to get the word out. You'd be saving me the trouble.
If you want to talk about post history, though, it's interesting that yours on this site has either been negative nonsense or an attack on me, or both! What's the name of your real account?
@nintendo2kop You're talking to someone who actually 'Likes' their own comments...
Oh, you're back in this thread again.
Maybe you can give me your thoughts on how well the NX controls. You seem to have a lot of insight into things that you've never even played before. In fact, how smooth is the gameplay in Pokemon Sun and Moon, anyway?
And yet most of the comments attacking the controls are using logical fallacies.
"I and this other reviewer had trouble grasping the controls so they are CONFIRMED to be bad!"
@Vandy I hope too that others read your review. It's short and you spend at least half of it defending the controls and bashing the naysayers. You finish by saying the game should have scored higher. It's fairly obvious what your agenda was. Dude, a lot of people don't like it, get over it and appear to think you know better than all the reviewers.
I have no idea why this game didn't score at LEAST an 8 with critics. That in itself is extremely questionable.
Congratulations you've figured it out, it's a conspiracy.
It's what I've been saying all along. It all comes down to opinions.
The problem, however, is that a lot of the negative "opinions" expressed in this (and any) comments section about the game are actually just parroted from whoever the commenter's favourite reviewer is.
You will find less people with a negative opinion who have actually PLAYED the game than you will people with a negative opinion who just say "the controls sound bad and are not intuitive because so and so said so".
If you played the game and you hate it, fine. That's your right. But at least you've played it.
@nintendo2kop And an overwhelming amount of people LIKE the game. So get over it.
Stop trying to pretend you know better than the players.
@Vandy No they don't, otherwise it would have sold well. It sank like a lead Arwing.
Really? Because there has never been a time that a game has sold poorly due to critic reviews but has actually been a cult classic? Great logic.
So from your personal experience, what did you think of the controls in Star Fox Zero? Why do you think it's a bad game?
@Vandy Why has it sold so poorly? Is it because the reviewers deliberately sabotaged the reviews? This will not be a cult classic, not a chance. The Wonderful 101, that's an example of a cult classic on Wii U.
If SF Zero were released on the Wii, with controls like these:
Pointer: Aim/Lock on if kept on one enemy, A: Fire/Charge shot if held down, B: Bomb, Z: Boost, C: Brake, Left Stick: Move, D Pad Up: Somersault, D-pad Down: U-turn, D-pad Right: Tilt/Roll right, D-pad Left: Tilt/Roll Left, Select (-): Switch View, Start (+): Transform, 1: Pause, 2: Shift UI settings...
Those controls would have worked just fine for me. I would have liked that control scheme better than Star Fox 64's, and it would have been a more complex, but still reasonable step up from the original. But for some reason, that's not a control option for this Wii U title...
So rather than comfortably using the gyroscopic aiming, you want someone to use the wiimote to point at at the enemies on the screen while also using the D-pad to perform some of the more crucial stunts in the game?
If people can't figure out how to use the current control scheme, you somehow think they will be capable of using yours?
We shall see how Zero does in the long run. I kinda see your connection between Lair and Zero in a sense, but we're talking about two different types of motion control here so it's not really a fair comparison. I only defend good examples of motion control when I believe they enhanced/evolved the gameplay of the genre/franchise where they've been implemented. Lair's motion controls are better compared to Star Fox 64 3D's, where you had the option to use gyro to move the Arwing.
I used gyro controls in 64 3D and I didn't really feel like they enhanced the gameplay compared to using the circle pad for movement. It was ok I guess, but it was not game changing gameplay by any means. In theory, I just can't imagine how using motion controls for a vehicle/character's movement would really be that stimulating or game changing. Motion controls are better left for a vehicle/character's actions, imo.
Zero's motion controlled aiming is a game changer because of the new gameplay possibilities brought forth from its expanded firing range. It really has to be experienced to be understood completely.
"Aircraft arn't built with movable guns. "
And foxes can't fly airplanes.
Suspension of disbelief for the sake of good gameplay.
You know why I cherry-picked that point? Because I've seen most of your arguments against the controls of the game. And they always contain the fact that on some level, you hate the controls because they are not "realistic".
A broad stroke of an argument that can be applied to any video game ever. In fact, using that baseline argument, we shouldn't even have video games. Just real-life simulators.
And truthfully, the rest of your complaints boil down to your inability to play the game. Why are you hammering the buttons so hard? Why are your arms shaking so much that you have to prop them up on your knees? Why can't you periodically look between two screens?
@Achoo provided you with a very excellent defense of the controls. I'll defer to their reasoning because it's very sound.
I see some "critics" here picking apart the positive user reviews on Metacritic for Zero. Why are you even wasting your time using this data to discredit the game's quality? People keep throwing around the word "majority" like it's the new buzzword or something. "The majority hates the controls", "majority thinks they suck". What really constitutes a "majority" in your minds?
Why not check out Amazon? 70% of the customer reviews for Zero are positive, that hardly sounds like a minority to me. And speaking of Metacritic, user reviews are overwhelmingly positive. Even critic reviews are mostly "mixed" with a measly 2 reviews being "negative" so I don't agree with the "majority" of people who've "played" or "bought" the game hating the controls.
People wanna talk about sales? "Oh, Zero is selling so horribly". Really? Zero made NPD's best seller's list for April and their report doesn't include digital sales. So, yes there are people who didn't click with the controls... but they are the very "vocal minority".
@Turbo857 I can appreciate that, makes sense to me. I'm not sure it will turn out to be anything more than another foot note, but I'll have to get used to it if is used again with NX.
"Also, I find it odd that your brother stopped with the Genesis due to control sticks and more than 3 buttons, seeing as how the Saturn's normal controller still used a D-pad for the duration of it's lifespan, and used 6 face buttons, and sometimes the 2 shoulder buttons..."
Yup, my brother favors extreme simplicity when it comes to gaming. 3 buttons is all he can deal with. I have a friend who just cannot play 3D games that require the right analog to adjust the camera or aim a weapon. As a game's input device or interface increases in complexity, some gamers are going to get left behind. But, this isn't a bad thing. It's just how evolution works.
I have to hand it to you, you're well-versed in the typical "good at arguing, bad at having any real point" lingo like "ad hominem", "straw man", logical fallacy", "false equivalence".
You do realize that any of those accusations you have thrown at me you have also been guilty of, right?
But we're deviating from the topic.
Again, every point you just made comes down to the fact that you are having trouble holding the controller in place. Many others (and you can check the gameplay videos on youtube for visual proof) are perfectly capable of flying the plane around, doing complicated maneuvers and fancy dogfighting tactics while still maintaining the ability to precisely aim at their intended targets.
Just because YOU are not personally good at something, does not mean it is bad. Again, I admit I am not good at Wonderful 101, but I would never say that it is a bad game. I can admit to my shortcomings.
@Achoo I agree with your assessment that the multitasking element is a sticking point for many. It's not just that, though, but having to do that combined with the motion control element, and being unable to change the control scheme. When Nintendo first showed off asynchronous gameplay, I thought it seemed like a great idea, which would indeed bring about an evolution of control types from the Wii. That didn't happen after Nintendo Land, though.
It's weird, I loved the controls for the Nintendo Land mini games, especially the Zelda Quest and Metroid Arena. And those used the Wii U motion aiming. I adjusted to that quickly, and combined with the refined MotionPlus controls, I think Nintendo Land remains unmatched (except for Splatoon) in that respect. So the problem isn't there.
The problem is when one has to do all of the above, instead of one or two things at a time. Being forced to account for three or more multitasking actions (looking at main and second screen, motion aiming, AND using unorthodox control scheme for Star Fox) is just too much for many, including myself. In Nintendo Land, one only had to do two things: motion aiming and buttons. The second screen didn't need to be looked at in addition to those things, and the control scheme was minimalistic. Either the player just looked at the GamePad, or just the main screen, one at a time. That's why it worked: it was different, but simple enough to grasp for the average player.
If Star Fox Zero just used the GamePad for secondary simultaneous viewing (but didn't need to be looked at), with the third person zoom out not being needed or used at all, and was only an optional method of seeing where to aim (especially for bombing), in addition to allowing the controls to be changed, I think that would have been much easier to handle, and more accommodating.
@Turbo857 Interesting... Well, thankfully, there are more retro style titles these days, so he doesn't have to be left out any more.
"However, the controller isn't stable and will bounce around it makes your aim jitter around as you're trying to do things. You can't hold it still on targets while also engaging in extremely intense action."
And yet I and many, many others are capable of doing this. You can't cite your own experiences as factual evidence of something. It is one person's opinion. And again, sometimes one needs to admit to themselves that perhaps they just aren't as good at something as they would like to be. I can do it, why can't you?
What is so unintuitive about these controls? One stick is your throttle, it controls your speed as well as your fancy maneuvers. (PROTIP: There is also a single-button input for the U-turn).
The other stick controls your direction. Sounds to me like a real aircraft.
Your biggest issue is your inability to accurately aim with the gamepad. It sounds like you're just too frantic with your play-style. If you find your crosshairs off slightly, just tap the calibration button. Fixes it right away. Control your movements with the gamepad so they are less frantic and you can aim by just using the reticle on the screen. Practice makes perfect.
Your ridiculous use of hyperbole isn't helping your case. I also found the camera angles to be appropriately cinematic and added to the experience as a whole.
It's intended to be jarring when you encounter an intimidating boss.
@PlywoodStick "Pretty intuitive" because it's simply a small number of simple inputs. The benefit is the game introduces lots of potential for combination simple of inputs. The right and left analog stick in tandem with the gyro to pull off aiming and shooting while doing manoeuvers and/or breaking/boosting which allows gameplay the other games simply couldn't do.
It's not unlike Super Mario 64's where a large range of actions are applied to a simple control scheme and a new input(analog stick) that wasn't used before. Nobody masters the Somersault, Triple Jump, Wall Jump or flying mechanics immediately in Super Mario 64 but they're a naturally extension of the rest of the controls is not complex. They allow for gameplay and ways of tackling challenges that otherwise wouldn't be possible and smoothly fit into the rest of the control scheme.
Obviously Super Mario 64 isn't as intuitive as Super Mario Bros controls but you can still add complexity and remain intuitive provided the inputs are simple enough. Star Fox Zero and Star Fox(SNES) are a similar case.
@Dr_Lugae Super Mario 64 was an evolution of Super Mario Bros in more ways than one, to the point that it caused a total split between the audiences of 2D and 3D style Mario adventures. Whereas on the other hand, Star Fox 64 was more like a remake of the original, rather than being a true evolution. SF Zero is, again, not really an evolution of SF64 or even the original, just a remake with a new control scheme, and less new aspects than before. The cases aren't even remotely similar.
Super Mario 64 also encouraged trying out different moves, all of which only needed the control stick and 3 buttons. It was the epitome of depth through simplicity. Whereas Star Fox 64 used the N64 controller to it's fullest, but didn't demonstrate depth through simplicity; it was objectively more complicated to control. Mario adventures retained that depth through simplicity, while Star Fox (Zero) tries to go a step further than SF64, but overwhelms the user at first. Not everyone is willing to work through that for an hour or more.
Just a personal quibble... Using the right analog for tilt/roll left/right with the somersault and u turn also being mapped to it is bizarre. L/R for tilt/roll just makes more sense haptically, in practice.
It IS a personal quibble because it actually feels far more natural doing a barrel roll by doing a quick right flick followed by a quick left flick. It is literally how a barrel roll is performed in a real plane. I didn't even need the tutorial to tell me that because I tried what felt natural and then to my pleasant surprise, pulled it off!
When would you instinctively press the shoulder buttons to do a barrel roll? If we are going to equate instinct with intuitiveness, then you need to address things like this as well.
"How many games with good controls eliminate a large portion of the gaming population?"
2D Super Mario traditionally sells more than 3D Mario so evolving a franchise always comes with the risk of eliminating a portion of its base. But in my opinion, if Nintendo turns a profit from Zero then the eliminated portion of the base that couldn't adjust to the new controls will be worth it, imo.
"The boss battles generally rely on forcing an odd camera angle to make you use the gamepad. The bosses don't really do interesting things, they just kind of exist to force gimmicks. That's not enhancing the gameplay that's forcing the player to do something he doesn't want to do."
Only about 4 boss encounters in Zero force you to use the cockpit view. Admittedly, I found the third person view in these instances initially disorienting but it's not so bad after a few tries. In a sequel, I'd appreciate manual lock on for all bosses but most boss encounters in Zero don't force the cockpit view.
@Yorumi I think he means that if they can make Star Fox Zero sustainable it's worth dropping off the inflexible audience trying to drag it into stagnation by opposing change.
Because atleast then it will have a userbase base open for new ideas that could help Star Fox stay potentially become more successful. Also Novel ideas are part of Nintendo's core philosphy which they've kept from Gunpei Yokoi:
" that toys and games do not necessarily require cutting edge technology; novel and fun gameplay are more important. In the interview he suggested that expensive cutting edge technology can get in the way of developing a new product."
Good design, Depth and Novelty aren't mutually exclusive and combined can create additional value in games. A "novelty" game could sell less and still make more proft than a bloated "high value for money" game while offering actual innovation.
" Imagine you're the person driven away. Take your favorite game, and they release a sequel and you just cannot for whatever reason play it, you're completely driven away from the game. It makes less money than the previous installment but still turns a profit. Are you going to say "i'm glad they drove me away from this game cause it was worth it since they made a profit, albeit smaller than before."?"
So it's ok to take a new direction as long as it doesn't conflict with your opinion then, right?
For example the NX. Some of us like the gamepad and motion controls a lot. So Nintendo shouldn't seek a better profit margin by redesigning their system at all. They should just keep everything the same but upgrade the processor.
@Vandy What if one accidentally tilts the stick up or down too far, and does a somersault or u turn when they don't want to? It's one of those things that makes sense on paper, but is alien in practice for many. Classic Star Fox hasn't traditionally used twin sticks well, but with the Gamepad layout, I guess they had to map them to something. But most designers realize that mapping the right analog to anything other than aiming or camera movement conflicts with also needing the thumb to push 4-6 buttons.
As for the flight stick analogy... It uses one stick, not two. Why not also press down the stick to fire as well, since the fire button on fighter jets is often a button on top of the flight stick? It's strange how console controls work out sometimes... Using L/R to tilt/roll sounds alien on paper, but makes sense in practice.
For the GamePad, being able to remap the controls to more resemble traditional Star Fox controls, and having the second analog control bomb aiming in a different reticle than the laser blaster reticle controlled by motion (or vice versa, adjustable in options menu) would have been more familiar in the eyes of many. It would also open up the idea of aiming two ways at once- normally impossible, but unique for the Gamepad.
Edit: Woops! Boost and Brake are on the right stick, Somersault and U-turn are on buttons. I'm still worried that I will tilt left or right at the same time as just wanting to boost or brake, though.
Again, you'd need to play it to get a feel for the game. You cannot accidentally tilt the stick up or down too far and perform an unintended maneuver, because the motion for both a somersault and a barrel roll are completely independent from each other. U-Turn is even more of a deviation so that's completely removed from the equation.
Barrel roll --- tilt left, then flick right
Somersault — hold one stick down then the other stick up
U-turn — a single press of the B button
I have never once pulled off a different maneuver than the one I was attempting to perform. And this is after hours upon hours of play-time.
I'm really trying to come across as civil as I am intending this to be, but you really need to actually try the controls yourself to be able to find any fault with them.
If you are as big of a Star Fox fan as you claim you are, you are only doing yourself a disservice by not playing it. Yes, you need to forget what you know about how the plane controlled in SF64, but SFZ offers real fans of the series a much more satisfying experience. You're completely in control of your actions, for better or for worse. It leaves some room for error, sure. But it also makes you feel more accomplished when you ace a level. It's very satisfying once the controls click.
Well, admittedly I doubt Zero will make as much as 64 but I'm more likely to blame the Wii U's low install base than Zero's new gameplay enhancements.
But to answer your question: If I was one of the people left out due to a game design decision I couldn''t tolerate or adapt too... then yeah, it sucks for me. But I've experience this before. I used to really like Sonic games and Sega has repeatedly experimented with Sonic games to the point I've been turned off completely. If Sonic Boom, Unleashed, Sonic and the Black Knight turned big enough profits to motivate Sega to keep pumping out Sonic games like this then that's their decision. I'd just have to move on to other games, as I've had too.
@Yorumi Star Fox 64 also marketed itself around a big push on the Rumble Pak "Gimmick".
@Vandy Well, you've convinced me, I'll try it out as soon as I get the chance. Sorry about that, boost and brake are on the right stick, somersault is X and U-turn is B... Nice to know the SF64 method is intact, though! I'm worried that I'll tilt left/right while just wanting to boost or brake, but I'll try to pretend that the stick only moves along the 0 point lines of the X/Y axes.
Glad to hear it! I'm interested to hear your thoughts, good or bad. Just do yourself a favor and ensure you don't skip the training levels. They're very helpful.
Luckily the controls are responsive but not absurdly sensitive, so the likelihood of you accidentally banking your ship when you want to boost or brake is extremely low. And even if you did manage to do it, it wouldn't be enough to affect what you're doing. You'll see.
@electrolite77 Ironic use of the term "zealots", considering you're speaking on behalf of the opposition.
In general, the defence of Zero's controls isn't due to most of the game's opposition not liking the game, but because they have generally given some rather poorly-reasoned arguments for why they don't like the game's controls.
Well, I can't argue with the numbers. But you got to think of Nintendo's perspective as a creator. Regardless of what some critiques and fans think about their "gimmicks", Nintendo creates hardware and software with the intention to produce fun new gameplay experiences. They're motivated to keep surprising their base. And since the Wii, Nintendo's been taking steps towards providing more immersive experiences. They designed the Wii U with this in mind and they felt Star Fox was a good fit (and it is) to take advantage of the features offered by it's current gen console. And it fits perfectly imo. Every Star Fox fan wants to fly the Arwing and on paper, designing a Star Fox game that makes you feel more like a pilot sounds like a fun direction to take. You also got to take into consideration that they aren't simply motivated to make an HD Star Fox.
A musician eventually gets tired of making the same kind of songs. Sometimes ya gotta shake things up and Nintendo does this with unique hardware. Yeah, they can make an HD Star Fox 64 sequel, but how limited in scope would the surprise factor really be in comparison to an HD Star Fox that features new vehicles, and new game play enhancements designed to make you feel more like a pilot?
Taking this direction is a balancing act and it will, unfortunately, alienate some fans. But I rather have a Nintendo that's passionate about the games they make than a Nintendo that's motivated solely by profits and producing an easy cash cow.
Tap here to load 199 comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...