Quantcast
Retro Studios and Mario kart 9

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Retro Studios and Mario kart 9

I'm still holding out hope that they are co-developing Metroid Prime 4 along with Bandai Namco Singapore. I'm also holding out hope that we'll be seeing an HD Prime Trilogy announcement tomorrow at the Game Awards and the first trailer for MP4.



Around the Network
super_etecoon said:
I'm still holding out hope that they are co-developing Metroid Prime 4 along with Bandai Namco Singapore. I'm also holding out hope that we'll be seeing an HD Prime Trilogy announcement tomorrow at the Game Awards and the first trailer for MP4.

That'd be so great! :D



Jumpin said:
burninmylight said:

We have to stop perpetuating the idea that a Star Fox game can only work as a technical showpiece forshiny new hardware. The first two games are beloved because they feature fun, arcade shooter gameplay that holds up well at any age. No one says Donkey Kong Country Returns should only release as the showoff game for new hardware because the SNES original was doing some mindblowing things at the time. These gameare fondly remembered for their groundbreaking gameplay too. They aren't Crysis 3. 

 

Star Fox just needs a good return to form on hardware people have and want. Cut out all of the gimmicks of every SF game of the last two decades, keep Fox in the damn ship, get back to basics and add some sensible gameplay additions from there. Or just port SF0 to Switch without mandatory Gamepad stuff. 

My first point is that it doesn’t hold up very well at all. The very reason why it did well in the first place was because it was spectacular and cutting edge: the game itself was very simple as far as gameplay goes - and attempts to remaking something similar without the cutting edge graphics has not turned out well, no matter how good the gameplay or level design.

 

The genre of on the rails shooters hasn’t had that level of success outside of Lylat Wars. If you give the game to someone who doesn’t care about the nostalgia factor, there’s not any particular love for it. There was a particular time and place for Lylat Wars, and that time is over. No Star Fox game has had success without it being a display of cutting edge technology.

SF64 holds up just fine. The 3DS version wasn't a technical showpiece at all, being a port of a game that was almost 20 years old, and yet it holds the second highest Metacritic score among all games with Star Fox in the title (with the first being the very game its a port of) and according to the site we're on, has sold almost a million carts when it launched at a time well before the 3DS found its footing. Had it not been woefully underprinted (prices for physical copies online shot up very quickly as proof) or if it became a Nintendo Selects game, that number would be higher. I fail to see what makes the game so "simple as far as gameplay goes" that works against it. Is it because you fly forward and shoot things with lasers? Mario platformers are simple because you run, jump and collect stars. FPSes are simple because you're a floating gun that goes around and shoots things. Your very statement that Star Fox hasn't aged well because of the lack of cutting edge graphics goes against your point when SF643D scored well critically and outperformed Nintendo's expectations commercially.

And yes, no Star Fox game has ever had success without it being a display of cutting edge technology, because no Star Fox game has deserved success outside of the two that just happened to be displays of cutting edge technology. Every single SF game after SF64 and outside of the DS entry has been on Nintendo's worst selling console at the time or on a console that was badly struggling at the time. Also, every single SF game after SF64 has either been whored out to an outside studio that had nothing to do with the first two games (the ones people love), drastically altered the gameplay in ways that made them Star Fox games in name only, had unwanted, gimmicky gameplay shoehorned in (to show off the consoles technology!), or been remakes.

  • Star Fox Adventures (GameCube, 2002) - Wasn't even supposed to be an SF game in the first place, developed by Rare after most of the talent left, Fox and crew shoehorned in by Miyamoto, Fox spent 99 percent of the time on foot, second-rate Zelda clone. Not a rail shooter. Also, GameCube.

  • Star Fox Assault (GameCube, 2005) - Developed by Namco, closest thing to a rail shooter (about 60 percent of the time) before SF0, but bad shooting mechanics, on-foot controls, mission designs and an extremely short and easy story mode turned  lot of people off. Also, the GameCube was deader than disco at this point.

  • Star Fox Command (Q-Games, 2006) - Developed by Q-Games, some folks who had been part of the original Star Fox development team, but still  went too far away from the gameplay of the first two games for most people's tastes. Sold a respectable half a million units.

  • Star Fox Zero (Platinum Games, 2016) - Developed by Platinum Games, almost a return to form but good old Miyamoto forced unwanted Gamepad controls onto players, forcing them to use an undesirable control scheme and camera system that many critics and players panned. Also showed its roots as a Wii project in some areas. Also, released late in the Wii U's lifecycle, a console deader than GameCube.

So basically, we don't yet have an example of a Star Fox game that is a rail shooter that flopped. And like I said, Command is the only Star Fox game that wasn't sent out to die on a console that no one owned. You can tell me that Star Fox doesn't work outside of being a technical showpiece after I get my non-fucked up Star Fox game with GOOD controls and WANTED gameplay on a SUCCESSFUL CONSOLE that the masses actually own, and that game bombs. Until then, blame it on Nintendo for constantly whoring out the game to different studios with drastically different gameplay from game-to-game and sending them out to die on consoles that most people have never actually seen in real life.

Also, how is the Switch version of Starlink doing compared to the others saleswise?



burninmylight said:
Jumpin said:

My first point is that it doesn’t hold up very well at all. The very reason why it did well in the first place was because it was spectacular and cutting edge: the game itself was very simple as far as gameplay goes - and attempts to remaking something similar without the cutting edge graphics has not turned out well, no matter how good the gameplay or level design.

 

The genre of on the rails shooters hasn’t had that level of success outside of Lylat Wars. If you give the game to someone who doesn’t care about the nostalgia factor, there’s not any particular love for it. There was a particular time and place for Lylat Wars, and that time is over. No Star Fox game has had success without it being a display of cutting edge technology.

SF64 holds up just fine. The 3DS version wasn't a technical showpiece at all, being a port of a game that was almost 20 years old, and yet it holds the second highest Metacritic score among all games with Star Fox in the title (with the first being the very game its a port of) and according to the site we're on, has sold almost a million carts when it launched at a time well before the 3DS found its footing. Had it not been woefully underprinted (prices for physical copies online shot up very quickly as proof) or if it became a Nintendo Selects game, that number would be higher. I fail to see what makes the game so "simple as far as gameplay goes" that works against it. Is it because you fly forward and shoot things with lasers? Mario platformers are simple because you run, jump and collect stars. FPSes are simple because you're a floating gun that goes around and shoots things. Your very statement that Star Fox hasn't aged well because of the lack of cutting edge graphics goes against your point when SF643D scored well critically and outperformed Nintendo's expectations commercially.

And yes, no Star Fox game has ever had success without it being a display of cutting edge technology, because no Star Fox game has deserved success outside of the two that just happened to be displays of cutting edge technology. Every single SF game after SF64 and outside of the DS entry has been on Nintendo's worst selling console at the time or on a console that was badly struggling at the time. Also, every single SF game after SF64 has either been whored out to an outside studio that had nothing to do with the first two games (the ones people love), drastically altered the gameplay in ways that made them Star Fox games in name only, had unwanted, gimmicky gameplay shoehorned in (to show off the consoles technology!), or been remakes.

  • Star Fox Adventures (GameCube, 2002) - Wasn't even supposed to be an SF game in the first place, developed by Rare after most of the talent left, Fox and crew shoehorned in by Miyamoto, Fox spent 99 percent of the time on foot, second-rate Zelda clone. Not a rail shooter. Also, GameCube.

  • Star Fox Assault (GameCube, 2005) - Developed by Namco, closest thing to a rail shooter (about 60 percent of the time) before SF0, but bad shooting mechanics, on-foot controls, mission designs and an extremely short and easy story mode turned  lot of people off. Also, the GameCube was deader than disco at this point.

  • Star Fox Command (Q-Games, 2006) - Developed by Q-Games, some folks who had been part of the original Star Fox development team, but still  went too far away from the gameplay of the first two games for most people's tastes. Sold a respectable half a million units.

  • Star Fox Zero (Platinum Games, 2016) - Developed by Platinum Games, almost a return to form but good old Miyamoto forced unwanted Gamepad controls onto players, forcing them to use an undesirable control scheme and camera system that many critics and players panned. Also showed its roots as a Wii project in some areas. Also, released late in the Wii U's lifecycle, a console deader than GameCube.

So basically, we don't yet have an example of a Star Fox game that is a rail shooter that flopped. And like I said, Command is the only Star Fox game that wasn't sent out to die on a console that no one owned. You can tell me that Star Fox doesn't work outside of being a technical showpiece after I get my non-fucked up Star Fox game with GOOD controls and WANTED gameplay on a SUCCESSFUL CONSOLE that the masses actually own, and that game bombs. Until then, blame it on Nintendo for constantly whoring out the game to different studios with drastically different gameplay from game-to-game and sending them out to die on consoles that most people have never actually seen in real life.

Also, how is the Switch version of Starlink doing compared to the others saleswise?

Better than the other versions, but still a big flop, mostly because of the toys-to-life aspect. -_-

At this point they might as well do Star Fox Zero on Switch WITHOUT the controls that nobody wanted.



burninmylight said:
Jumpin said:

My first point is that it doesn’t hold up very well at all. The very reason why it did well in the first place was because it was spectacular and cutting edge: the game itself was very simple as far as gameplay goes - and attempts to remaking something similar without the cutting edge graphics has not turned out well, no matter how good the gameplay or level design.

 

The genre of on the rails shooters hasn’t had that level of success outside of Lylat Wars. If you give the game to someone who doesn’t care about the nostalgia factor, there’s not any particular love for it. There was a particular time and place for Lylat Wars, and that time is over. No Star Fox game has had success without it being a display of cutting edge technology.

SF64 holds up just fine. The 3DS version wasn't a technical showpiece at all, being a port of a game that was almost 20 years old, and yet it holds the second highest Metacritic score among all games with Star Fox in the title (with the first being the very game its a port of) and according to the site we're on, has sold almost a million carts when it launched at a time well before the 3DS found its footing. Had it not been woefully underprinted (prices for physical copies online shot up very quickly as proof) or if it became a Nintendo Selects game, that number would be higher. I fail to see what makes the game so "simple as far as gameplay goes" that works against it. Is it because you fly forward and shoot things with lasers? Mario platformers are simple because you run, jump and collect stars. FPSes are simple because you're a floating gun that goes around and shoots things. Your very statement that Star Fox hasn't aged well because of the lack of cutting edge graphics goes against your point when SF643D scored well critically and outperformed Nintendo's expectations commercially.

And yes, no Star Fox game has ever had success without it being a display of cutting edge technology, because no Star Fox game has deserved success outside of the two that just happened to be displays of cutting edge technology. Every single SF game after SF64 and outside of the DS entry has been on Nintendo's worst selling console at the time or on a console that was badly struggling at the time. Also, every single SF game after SF64 has either been whored out to an outside studio that had nothing to do with the first two games (the ones people love), drastically altered the gameplay in ways that made them Star Fox games in name only, had unwanted, gimmicky gameplay shoehorned in (to show off the consoles technology!), or been remakes.

  • Star Fox Adventures (GameCube, 2002) - Wasn't even supposed to be an SF game in the first place, developed by Rare after most of the talent left, Fox and crew shoehorned in by Miyamoto, Fox spent 99 percent of the time on foot, second-rate Zelda clone. Not a rail shooter. Also, GameCube.

  • Star Fox Assault (GameCube, 2005) - Developed by Namco, closest thing to a rail shooter (about 60 percent of the time) before SF0, but bad shooting mechanics, on-foot controls, mission designs and an extremely short and easy story mode turned  lot of people off. Also, the GameCube was deader than disco at this point.

  • Star Fox Command (Q-Games, 2006) - Developed by Q-Games, some folks who had been part of the original Star Fox development team, but still  went too far away from the gameplay of the first two games for most people's tastes. Sold a respectable half a million units.

  • Star Fox Zero (Platinum Games, 2016) - Developed by Platinum Games, almost a return to form but good old Miyamoto forced unwanted Gamepad controls onto players, forcing them to use an undesirable control scheme and camera system that many critics and players panned. Also showed its roots as a Wii project in some areas. Also, released late in the Wii U's lifecycle, a console deader than GameCube.

So basically, we don't yet have an example of a Star Fox game that is a rail shooter that flopped. And like I said, Command is the only Star Fox game that wasn't sent out to die on a console that no one owned. You can tell me that Star Fox doesn't work outside of being a technical showpiece after I get my non-fucked up Star Fox game with GOOD controls and WANTED gameplay on a SUCCESSFUL CONSOLE that the masses actually own, and that game bombs. Until then, blame it on Nintendo for constantly whoring out the game to different studios with drastically different gameplay from game-to-game and sending them out to die on consoles that most people have never actually seen in real life.

Also, how is the Switch version of Starlink doing compared to the others saleswise?

The 3DS version of the game is precisely the version of the game that made me realize it doesn't hold up well at all, and that the appeal is Nostalgia. By my second playthrough, I already felt like I had had enough; the attraction was seeing an old classic with 3D graphics, and then after 1-2 hours I was done. It's simple because it's an on the rails shooter with barely enough content to fill two hours - and that's over three playthroughs: this is short even by NES game standards - and unlike fighting games, this one is easy to complete even on the most challenging path. You do not disagree with me - if Mario games were only about running, jumping, and collecting stars, and FPSs were floating guns that go around and shoots things, I am sure I'd find them simplistic and getting old quickly too. "SF64" is so short that you'd think it stood for Street Fighter 64.

Had the game not been a port of Lylat Wars, but was otherwise equal in all regards, it would not have been well received at all by critics: a quick look at the highest review online (IGNs) the review focuses on nostalgia and the upgraded 3D graphics; it had one downside: the lack of online multiplayer. The lower scoring reviews point out how the game is lacking in content.

I am not sure I buy your story of under-printed copies; sales data doesn't seem to indicate that at all since it sells at a regularly declining rate. Here's a thread indicating the game was going half price within a year of launch: https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/997614-nintendo-3ds/62380019

If Nintendo DID expect even lower sales, then that shows they don't have much faith in the game either. But I don't see any evidence to the point that it sold higher than they expected. Sales were fairly dismal compared to other re-releases.

Anyway, the sales argument doesn't really fly all that far when compared to the other N64 ports:

Star Fox 64 3D sold 960,000 copies worldwide (original sold 4.03M)
A botched remake of Diddy Kong Racing sold 1.09 million... in the North American market alone (original sold 2.91M).
Majora's Mask 3D sold 2.49M (original 3.36M)
Ocarina of Time 3D sold 5.25M (original 7.6M)
And, so we have a game that launched well before sales of the console got its footing: Super Mario 64 DS sold 10.32M (original 11.89).

I don't see how this franchise could be top tier.

As for the later games developed by studios that have nothing to do with first two games: that's not a card in Retro's favour for obvious reasons.
Your reasons for Star Fox sucking are not going to be fixed by anyone else making it because no one else has made a great game in the genre since Lylat Wars... which again, was great for the mid-1990s; it's not a great genre for today... not even Shigeru Miyamoto can make it great or interesting for current times.



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

Around the Network

I just want to know what the hell they've been working on for almost 5 years, I'm dying of curiosity.



"lupus in fabula, venit enim ad me."

Translation: I will always hate Fox for canceling The Exorcist.

burninmylight said:
Jumpin said:

My first point is that it doesn’t hold up very well at all. The very reason why it did well in the first place was because it was spectacular and cutting edge: the game itself was very simple as far as gameplay goes - and attempts to remaking something similar without the cutting edge graphics has not turned out well, no matter how good the gameplay or level design.

 

The genre of on the rails shooters hasn’t had that level of success outside of Lylat Wars. If you give the game to someone who doesn’t care about the nostalgia factor, there’s not any particular love for it. There was a particular time and place for Lylat Wars, and that time is over. No Star Fox game has had success without it being a display of cutting edge technology.

SF64 holds up just fine. The 3DS version wasn't a technical showpiece at all, being a port of a game that was almost 20 years old, and yet it holds the second highest Metacritic score among all games with Star Fox in the title (with the first being the very game its a port of) and according to the site we're on, has sold almost a million carts when it launched at a time well before the 3DS found its footing. Had it not been woefully underprinted (prices for physical copies online shot up very quickly as proof) or if it became a Nintendo Selects game, that number would be higher. I fail to see what makes the game so "simple as far as gameplay goes" that works against it. Is it because you fly forward and shoot things with lasers? Mario platformers are simple because you run, jump and collect stars. FPSes are simple because you're a floating gun that goes around and shoots things. Your very statement that Star Fox hasn't aged well because of the lack of cutting edge graphics goes against your point when SF643D scored well critically and outperformed Nintendo's expectations commercially.

And yes, no Star Fox game has ever had success without it being a display of cutting edge technology, because no Star Fox game has deserved success outside of the two that just happened to be displays of cutting edge technology. Every single SF game after SF64 and outside of the DS entry has been on Nintendo's worst selling console at the time or on a console that was badly struggling at the time. Also, every single SF game after SF64 has either been whored out to an outside studio that had nothing to do with the first two games (the ones people love), drastically altered the gameplay in ways that made them Star Fox games in name only, had unwanted, gimmicky gameplay shoehorned in (to show off the consoles technology!), or been remakes.

  • Star Fox Adventures (GameCube, 2002) - Wasn't even supposed to be an SF game in the first place, developed by Rare after most of the talent left, Fox and crew shoehorned in by Miyamoto, Fox spent 99 percent of the time on foot, second-rate Zelda clone. Not a rail shooter. Also, GameCube.

  • Star Fox Assault (GameCube, 2005) - Developed by Namco, closest thing to a rail shooter (about 60 percent of the time) before SF0, but bad shooting mechanics, on-foot controls, mission designs and an extremely short and easy story mode turned  lot of people off. Also, the GameCube was deader than disco at this point.

  • Star Fox Command (Q-Games, 2006) - Developed by Q-Games, some folks who had been part of the original Star Fox development team, but still  went too far away from the gameplay of the first two games for most people's tastes. Sold a respectable half a million units.

  • Star Fox Zero (Platinum Games, 2016) - Developed by Platinum Games, almost a return to form but good old Miyamoto forced unwanted Gamepad controls onto players, forcing them to use an undesirable control scheme and camera system that many critics and players panned. Also showed its roots as a Wii project in some areas. Also, released late in the Wii U's lifecycle, a console deader than GameCube.

So basically, we don't yet have an example of a Star Fox game that is a rail shooter that flopped. And like I said, Command is the only Star Fox game that wasn't sent out to die on a console that no one owned. You can tell me that Star Fox doesn't work outside of being a technical showpiece after I get my non-fucked up Star Fox game with GOOD controls and WANTED gameplay on a SUCCESSFUL CONSOLE that the masses actually own, and that game bombs. Until then, blame it on Nintendo for constantly whoring out the game to different studios with drastically different gameplay from game-to-game and sending them out to die on consoles that most people have never actually seen in real life.

Also, how is the Switch version of Starlink doing compared to the others saleswise?

We don't need evidence, it will flop. The world has moved on from rail shooters.  If you wan't evidence look at RE.



 

 

Masked_Muchaco said:
I just want to know what the hell they've been working on for almost 5 years, I'm dying of curiosity.

Hopefully something good enough for Jumpin, we wouldn't want them to continue to be the most overrated studio in the history of Nintendo of all time ever. 



AngryLittleAlchemist said:
Masked_Muchaco said:
I just want to know what the hell they've been working on for almost 5 years, I'm dying of curiosity.

Hopefully something good enough for Jumpin, we wouldn't want them to continue to be the most overrated studio in the history of Nintendo of all time ever. 

Just as long as they don't release a game featuring something that drives around and aims like an old panzer, and then call it Samus.



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

Jumpin said:

No doubt Lylat Wars was one of the signature titles for the N64. The same could be said for Wave Race for very similar reasons.

Lylat Wars was a special outing. It was something we hadn't seen before. As did Wave Race.
Like Wave Race 64, at the time of its release, it was outstandingly beautiful.


That was one of those right time, right place, right technological advancements type things. Go back and play those games now and you'll see what I mean. After that brief refreshing blast of nostalgia, they get old fast.

Don't get me wrong, I am onboard with the idea of a Star Fox Racer; but I think it is going to be more of a Mario Tennis, Mario vs. Rabbids, or Kirby-tier game than a Mario Odyssey or Breath of the Wild-tier.

I agree with much of what you said, except I actually have gone back to Starfox 64 and Wave Race 64 since then and those games are still genuinely fun without any need for nostalgia lol

Those two really don't get old, which is very rare for that generation in my experience (I find that generation ages worse than any other).