Dravenet7 said:
... 3) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUh2dj6fa0o 1:20-4:10 6:20-7:30 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MD2uHQt2oUc 0:55-10:05 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtQ3_N49fiM 6:40-11:55 (pretty cheap to use a boss fight, butits basically a stage to so there it is) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5r00WDhsCas 1:10... you know what? the whole stage. There's plenty more examples but I don't remember them off the top of my head and I'm not going to actually watch through the videos to do that. I don't care if you don't agree even a little bit I am factually and evidently right |
I applaud you for taking the time to post examples. No, seriously, I do: that's way more work than most folks would bother doing.
Of course, the fact that you're pointing to snippets of fifteen minute-plus videos doesn't help your case as much as you appear to think, especially since even those videos contain parts where the action is as fast as anything you'd see in Star Fox, and it does them quite well. It's almost like, in trying to sell a six-hour rail shooter, Treasure understood that it would need to regularly mix things up, and that it elected to do so by amongst other things often making the game go from very fast to completely stopped, and everything in between.
You've successfully shown that Treasure can do a variety of things with their rail shooters, including parts just as fast as Star Fox games. Let's avoid the urge to cherry pick to prove a point, lest I have to post a video of Aquas, or Titania, or Sector Z, or...
| Dravenet7 said:
Star Fox wasn't simply on rails. That would imply you could move all around the screen but you couldn't move foward or backward on your own free will. You can boost and slow down. The pace isn't decided by the game it was decided by you. Naturally the Arwing was significantly faster than S&P because of this. Star Fox 64 proved this when it came out as well. There's all ranged mode. You moved freely in there. Largely fighting other ships. Largely fighting bosses. That wasn't on rails. You could literally turn around and go around in an area. It was very linear, but calling simply on rails is facetious and short sighted. Look at any expert playthrough of Star Fox 64 and let me know otherwise. |
Slowing down and speeding up are significantly different than moving "forward or backward on your own free will."
As for Star Fox 64's all range mode .... the comment you're responding to has all of seven words. There's a reason it's not six. You said that "Star Fox was never simply on rails shooter." You are wrong. Moreover, no one has or ever will refer to the all range mode portions as "on rails."
You claimed in an omitted section of your first post that the original "was majorly on rails" (But how? You can always boost and slow down!) "but it was never meant to stick to that formula and should never stick to that formula." That's a wonderful opinion. And in this thread of opinions, it has its place. But like all opinions, it's not universal. If you're going to insist that Star Fox "must" or "has to" continue moving further and further away from a game that was clearly a big enough success to spawn a series that's lasted 20+ years then I ask that you let me know now, so that we can end this conversation amicably and without wasting more time.
| Dravenet7 said: I'm very aware that Treasure does things other than on rails games. |
Then why, pray tell, are you basing your opposition to the OP based exclusively on what Sin and Punishment 2 is actually like? Your rebuttal to the OP was, quote, "You don't simply slap an Arwing into a S&P game and say that's how Star Fox should be."For someone who later lectures me on reading the whole post, you've conspicuously ignored the part in the OP where he mentions non-rail shooters like Gunstar Heroes - presumably for a reason - and calls for a Star Fox game "like" Sin and Punishment. You are not really arguing with the OP, you are arguing with the words you've put in his mouth.
| Dravenet7 said: And you will see nothing. That wasn't what I was arguing. That wasn't close to what I was arguing. You would know this if you weren't focusing on a snippet of what I said instead of paying attention to everything I have written. Go back, read everything I said from start to finish and learn not to half quote my full case in the future. |
On this point, I concede to addressing others' posts more than yours. I will not, however, stop cutting out stuff that is meaningless when I quote someone. If that really troubles you for some reason, the solution is to stop writing stuff that is meaningless to your point. For example, your excessive list of whilsts not only belongs in the pre-19th Century world, the most generous relation it could have to the section I quoted is as a preemptive apology for the opinion. I only need the opinion.
