To be fair, the complaints about SFZero are that we're getting a graphically-poor "not" remake of Star Fox 64, which was in itself a "not" remake of Star Fox. We've played the Lylat Wars scenario too many times for people to care that it's traditional Star Fox. If this were a remake of Star Fox 2, cool, awesome actually. The fact that we're getting stuff from Star Fox 2 like the walker is awesome too. But it's not awesome enough to be the focal point of E3, it's not awesome enough for them to have completely ignored multiplayer, etc. Traditional doesn't have to mean uninspired. 

Of course, if the delay was chiefly to add multiplayer and fix the game up a tiny bit visually, perfect! That still doesn't change the fact that we're playing the same plot a third time for single player. If they do more than enough to differentiate, perfect! But right now Star Fox fans have every right to complain, because this is currently the second time I can truly say I 100% feel that Nintendo is just shitting out a game to have one. (The first is Mario Tennis Ultra Smash.)

The answer is simple: the Wii U. Insomniac Games wouldn't put this much resources into R & C either if the console they were developing it for only sold 10 million units. In fact, you would be crazy if you did. Wait next year when they unveil the NX, that's where their big investments will go to.

Can't have a VS thread without someone winning now can we lol.

I choose Starfox because the franchise has been out longer and is more iconic to me than R&C ever will be.

If we are going to use visuals as an argument then we totes should be throwing that down with Fallout 4 and the "graphics don't matter" club.

You are making it sound like this was "GTA5" vs "Flower"

Why would Sony spend huge amounts of money on a super AAA game just to sell it at 40 bucks? Admit it, R&C is an average investment, they are just using that money in a good way. It even sounds more reasonable to think the game is a tie in for the movie and not the other way around 

With graphics like that I doubt it's an average investment. The levels are all pretty huge as well and the physics/animations are top notch. Even the bosses have dance moves when you use that one weapon! Compared to Star Fox, the difference in budget and development time is pretty big yes. Also making movies of that animated quality is very expensive, so this isn't an average investment at all. But hey, I don't know the length of the upcoming R & C game, it might be very short. The movie and game are supposed to advertise each other. This isn't your usual movie tie-in game, those are usually terrible. The movie is based of the game, not the other way around.

both are reboots of their series

both have an similar art style

I'm likely to get Ratchet & Clank when it comes out. I'll probably get Star Fox Zero months down the road.

The visually underwhelming shoot em' up title doesn't have a chance on this one.

Also both have space shooting segments.

Like two levels in R & C perhaps lol. What's next: Halo 5 vs. R & C?