I may not have worded that exactly the way I wanted to. I meant that those who aren't interested in the games opinions don't matter... clearly, you are interested, therefore, for me, your opinion is valid. I meant to generalize people who just don't care for this, or any game, and have harsh things to say. Didn't mean to come off the way it did. So, when I said why do you care, I didn't specifically mean you... just people in general, I just did a poor job in wording it.

 I don't think my opinions are worthless, but opinions coming from those uninterested in a particular game, are worthless.

Ah, I see. No harm done. Honestly, I'd even say that the opinion of someone wholy uninterested in a game is valid if they at least allow themselves to be informed. There's always a story behind disinterest.

I personally don't like it because I think it looks like crap. We've seen plenty of footage and learned plenty of things about the game since last year. The only things that suprised me about the game when seeing its reveal was how ugly the game looked graphically and how it, once again, was just retelling the events of Star Fox SNES. I at least thought that a beautiful game with an original premise would be obvious. At least that much. I went into E3 with extremely low expectations of a game that's part of a franchise with great IP and even greater potential, only to see something aggressively worse than I expected. Over a years extra time didn't fix Devil's Third. Star Fox Zero has it even worse than that game, because its biggest issues are literally the foundation by which the game has been built.

If you will enjoy the game, go ahead. I don't get it, but go ahead. I don't think it's "just a matter of taste." It's the quality. It looks like a low quality product. The new controls sounded bad last year. They've been reviewed poorly this year. The SF64 controls, and this needs to be stated because that game is in many ways as overrated as OoT is, have aged about as poorly as all the other games of the early 3D era, yet thats what the controls for this 2015 arcade shooter with the mindblowing addition of the second analog stick is still firmly adhering to. It's recycling game level ideas and line-for-line dialog from an 64 game with the audacity of calling itself original.

And then, yes, the graphics are bad. Which wouldn't matter if the artstyle was good too, and it's not. Or if the bad graphics weren't directly because they feel the need to give 60fps to a second screen feature that's supposedly optional that literally makes the gameplay worse when actually being used.

I don't like negativeness either. Nobody does. I wish all games were good and most people could only have good stuff to say about a new Star Fox, but no, we can't, because we were given Star Fox Zero instead. And that pisses me off.

Star Fox graphics are not bad, just certanly not best looking Wii U game, period.

About Wii U gamepad charger

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Interchangeable-Power-Charging-AC-Adapter-Cable-For-Nintendo-Wii-U-GamePad-/371447289417?hash=item567bfbd649:g:Ve0AAOSwDNdVwbVU

http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_sacat=0&_sop=15&_nkw=wii+u+gamepad+charger&rt=nc&LH_BIN=1

Well I'm cool if you think that. At least you're using the word ugly correctly.

Star Fox Zero's graphics are unacceptable in this day and age unless you still consider the Playstation 2 to be high spec. There are a lot of last generation PS3 games that ran at 60fps with Graphics that blow away Star Fox Zero - Ratchet and Clank and Wipeout HD for example.

The performance hit thats supposedly due to running on twin screens at once isn't really the problem here. Although the game does run at 1920x1080 on the main display, the gamepad manages 854x480, a much smaller screen size. In addition the smaller screen simply clips part of the already-rendered main scene from the main display and adds a few HUD elements to it, with little theoretical performance hit.

From what i've seen, Nintendo have basically rushed Star Fox Zero when it comes to graphics, partially as they needed an AAA title fast and partially because getting graphics with actual detail would mean using a lot of tricks to execute on the Wii-U's hardware. I've said and proven before that the Wii-U's processor is an antiquated G3 from 1997 (Its an overclocked Wii CPU, which was an overclocked Gamecube CPU, which was a cut down PowerPC 750 (G3)), and the OS is so bloated it uses half the available memory (1gb of the 2gb free).

At the end of the day, as per normal Nintendo fans will be paying £40/$60 for a game that's got less than 2 hours gameplay and is as deep and technically adequate as a £10 PS2 bargain bin game.

This. Again and again. Amen

I dont think Star Fox Zeros graphics are unacceptable in this day and I dont consider PS2 to be high spec. I dont know any PS2 game that runs in 720p/60Fps.

Game runs at 720p not 1080p and certainly two screens with 60fps effects on performance, but Nintendo managed to have locked 60 Fps. Gamepad doesnt show only whats on main screen, because when  TV shows ship with gamepad you can look left, right, up or down from ship or main screen. On gamepad you have completely different perspective than on TV, gamepad act like turret on plane and on TV you see just a plane from and third perspective.

In Star Fox Zero graphic certainly wasn't priority, priority was new experience with gamepad and that game feel and works great (60 Fps), but doesnt mean that graphics was rushed. Its also proven that even with that hardware Wii U can run beautiful graphics, Pikmin 3, Zelda WW HD, Mario 3D World, Mario Kart, Bayonetta 2, Zelda U..

Less than 2 hours of gameplay, relly!? When exactly Nintendo released game with "less than 2 hours gameplay and is as deep and technically adequate as a £10 PS2 bargain bin game.gameplay"!?

True.

Some people here acts like this worst graphic that they saw, and it is very likely that those same people never played Star Fox and have zero interest in series.

Should've used the Fox Engine.