Wii U basically averages two "big" games a year.

[midrange]

ARamdomGamer said:

midrange said:

The only way star fox will be considered 'big' is if you define big by people's recognition of the game. Starfox is clearly not big in budget, or development time, or innovation, or graphics.

The sad thing however, is that star fox hasn't had a huge hit in years, so even having a known name attached to it doesn't make starfox zero big. People may know of starfox, but most people aren't exactly dying to get their hands on starfox zero. 

Well people complain about new Star Fox games not being 64 every time because all games after 64 tried new things with it's gameplay so there is innovation.

And about graphics, please the SNES game was impressive for it's time and have you looked at Adventures and Assault on the Gamecube those games look fantastic and still hold up well.

Let me clarify, every single game innovates in varying degrees. No 2 games are exactly the same. I meant to say that starfo zero doesn't really innovate in any meaningful way. Doesn't mean the game cannot be big, just that you can't really call it big through innovation.

As for the graphics, I was referring to starfox zero, as that is the version that was being discussed (and no, star fox zero isn't breathtaking graphics wise)