| Cobretti2 said:
I can get just as many SNES fans who will say star fox 64 wasn't a star fox game. They will say the game play was broken and the boxes easy as piss. The only fact here is that star fox has tried to do MANY thinkgs over it's life. There are elements of each that can be used to make the ultimate star fox game. |
Sorry. But now you're just reaching. It's a majority consensus opinion, even among fans who preferred the first game, that SF64 was a great game.
And what the hell are you talkign about? "Not a Star Fox game"? It's easy for me to say Adventures wasn't, because it WASN'T, it started life as something entirely diffferent, and should have stayed that. Miyamoto suggested they use the Star Fox characters, so they did. But the whole thing is still Dinosaur Planet, and honestly it simply didn't fit. When I use the term "real Star Fox game", I mean a game in the actual shooter STYLE of the SNES and N64 games. I never said that the GC and DS games weren't Star Fox games. But I WILL state that they're SHITTY Star Fox games. And yes, that last one is MY opinion.
But I really don't see how you can claim to find a bunch of fans of the SNES game who wouldn't like the N64 game, nor do I see where you're trying to claim, simply to counter my argument that it's the best in the series, that somehow SF64 was "broken". Not in the slightest, sorry. It took everything the ambitious-yet-primitive/limited original did, and did it all far better. It was the perfect sequel in that respect. And THAT is what I want out of a new Star Fox, is taking everything that SF64 did, but WAY better, and more of it. It's an HD system with BR capacity discs. So I would expect no less. And it would be nice to not be horrifically let down like I was with Assault, which was an abortion of a game, and that's being kind.
