Do The Nintendo Higher-Ups Sound Like Sore Losers To You ?

[bigtakilla]

midrange said:

bigtakilla said:

True, but I think the ground work is laid and looks fine. They just need to really add more effects, and place some more enemies on the field so it doesn't feel barren. 

A $60 price tag would depend on a LOT of factors, graphics would be so far down that list it would be practically insignificant. Online modes, campaign completion time, these far outweigh what it looks like in development. 

If the engine is as I assume complete, there won't be much improvement in visuals that don't detract from gameplay. So they only thing they can do is try to add effects like particles or enemies like you suggest, but that even that would put more work onto the cpu, which I assume they are maxing out.

graphics I argue are not that far down the list, but even if they were, starfox really isn't known for long campaign times (first one could have been completed in an hour), there won't be online multiplayer (http://www.ign.com/articles/2015/06/16/e3-2015-star-fox-zero-has-no-online-multiplayer-mode), and given the gamepad interaction, I don't think their local multiplayer is looking good. I am still highly doubtful that this game merits $40 much less $60

Really, that's all I expect. I think textures might improve, I think they will put more enemies, and I think they will add effects. If you expect them to put the same budget in a Star Fox game as they do a LoZ, I can understand why you'd be disappointed. I knew they weren't, it's a game that will be lucky to outsell Splatoon.