midrange said:
The first paragraph only makes sense for single player games not multiplayer games. Once I beat all the Grand Prix for Mario kart, I still come back because of the multiplayer (the multiplayer is what helps replayability). On the other hand, once I beat xenoblade chronicles, I don't think I'll play it again, but that's fine because the story is huge and the game takes long to finish. Starfox zero has neither. As far as I know Starfox Zero consists mostly of set paths and generic bosses. After you finish it, there is absolutely no value in flying through the same paths and facing the same enemies again. Do you see how I can shut down starfox by over generalizing it like you do to the order 1886 (this can be done with most games good or bad). Point is, starfox isn't special. The order was deemed bad because of a short campaign and content. The same problems are in starfox, so to say starfx isn't bad but the order is bad is hypocrisy at its finest |
In a shmup like SF0 it makes perfect sense to have set paths. That's how shmups work. In a tps like the Order it is somehow strange to have so little actual gameplay when there are plenty of other examples that have much more. But hey. Star Fox Zero and The Order are different genres, I propose we should stop comparing them. Let's compare it to other shmups, for fairness' sake. Sin & Punishment come to mind, but I admit that I don't know many more.
I really wouldn't be ranting that much here at all if the video in the OP wouldn't give me the feeling that reviewers are not even trying at all to understand it. There isn't anything positive the editor says, and that sucks balls. Because even I am well aware that SF0 isn't flawless, but it's definitely not as bad as reviewers make it look like.
