| nuckles87 said: I guess my point was that the reason why Nintendo's track record with multiplayer has been so good is because they only implement it when they have a good idea for it. The original Star Fox 64 multiplayer wasn't anything all that unique or special. It was a throwaway mode that added little to the core single player experience. Star Fox Zero's game play is BASED on 64. Any multiplayer they could come up with likely wouldn't be a whole lot better than what was done in Star Fox 64, which was pretty much just an open four-player battle arena. Nintendo clearly didn't have an idea for a multiplayer mode that was good enough to include in the game. And if your concerned about value in your $60 retail game, you are literally getting another game with hours upon hours of play value packed in. People may not be buying Star Fox Zero for this game, but it is there nevertheless, and it's value shouldn't be ignored, especially by people demanding a time sink beyond the main game. And really, it is here that you get at the main problem I have with you saying your purchase depends on the inclusion of online multiplayer: people don't buy Star Fox for multiplayer either. I don't know if you've ever played Star Fox before, but the games in the series everyone remembers are rail shooters. You are set on path, you fly in one direction, and you shoot enemies for a score. This is why people buy Star Fox games. Yes, 64 introduced free flying arenas. Yes, these were made to provide a fairly simplistic multiplayer mode. But many of the best parts of the game were the rail shooting areas, and the multiplayer mode isn't what made Star Fox 64 one of the most beloved games on the N64. And I bring this up because Star Fox Zero looks to be following the same formula as 64. We've mostly seen rail shooting areas. The free flight areas we have seen appear to be either open arenas, or something centering around the hoverplane. We aren't looking at an especially deep third person shooter here. I'm simply not seeing anything that can really offer a superb multiplayer experience. I can tell this is going to be one of those conversations where neither of us budge, so (unless you say something I can't help but reply to) I will try to end my part in this discussion here: Have you played Star Fox 64 before? These games are primarily rail shooters, which don't lend themselves well to online multiplayer. Again, if you absolutely NEED a compelling multiplayer mode in order to buy a game, I'm not sure if this was going to be the right game for you to begin with. |
The conversation isn't going anywhere because you're not listening. For the last time, Starfox Zero is not a $60 game, it's $50. Guard doesn't add value when you have to pay extra for it. I never, ever, even implied that my purchase depended on the inclusion of online multiplayer so I don't know where you got that junk from. "Any multiplayer they could come up with likely wouldn't be a whole lot better than what was done in Star Fox 64" because, once again, nothing. By saying "likely" you even admit it wouldn't automatically be bad n throwaway therefore not a reason to not even try to make a good multiplayer. Lastly the reason there's no real multiplayer in Zero is not because Nintendo is suddenly too stupid to make one despite doing it for series even less likely to have it, but because their forced motion control gimmick crap doesn't allow for it and they don't care enough about this game to meet even Starfox 64 standards.
