Again I dont see the problem with the gamepad controls

The problem is that by rendering both screens at 60 fps each, a LOT of processing power is spent from an already weak cpu. That cpu power could have gone to more players (say 4 player free for all using traditional controllers) or to having more things pop up on screen (enemies, better ai, more details). In this case, parts of the game (graphics, multiplayer, number/quality of objects) are being downgraded because of a gamepad that they needed to put in the game. That is shoehorning. It doesn't matter if the gamepad "adds" to the experience by detracting from other parts of the game

^ this.

there were minor improvements and people now think this game looks fantastic which is hard to believe. IMO this game looks awful (both tech wise and artsyle wise)

Here's a screenshot taken exactly when the guy says "the main thing we can notice from this walker is both a huge increase in texture resolution and dynamic lighting"



And yes, the texture resolutions the same (looks actually worse in the video, but mainly due to compression), the only actual difference is the body of the craft is now using a shader and not just a flat texture, and the glass was made transparent (was only misty-blue in the E3 trailer to hide the fact the pilot was low poly).

So again, the video is nothing but falsehood and confirmation bias, confirmation bias which people who really want to like the game will then use this video to give themselves.

I wouldn't it's all falsehood, as, like you pointed out, there are instances here and there of an added shader or a higher resolution shadow, I think the video guy just kind of lets his enthusiasm run away with him a bit.

A Gamecube-to-Wii level of improvement is all I expected honestly. 

That's a bit too much, isn't it? I'm not saying it looks great (not at all), but I don't know about any Wii game which looks like this.

Oh, well, as I said, as long as the gameplay delivers and I get my classic shoot'em up ration I'm happy. And I was some interesting ideas to improve and vary the gameplay, like the stealth levels, and more vehicles than in Starfox 64. And it doesn't look THAT bad in my eyes, so I guess that's what matters. 

I honestly think that even GCN to Wii is giving this change way too much credit. Metroid Prime to Metroid Prime 3 is that difference, and that's far more noticable a difference than what is displayed here.

Remains to be seen really, some of the "higher" resolution textures are actually the same textures but with increased level of tiling, the shadow thing is actually equally jaggy on both, it just looks smoother on the "new" footage because the video compression hides it, and when driving at certain angles the edges of the shadow itself are straight and thus dont present jaggies.

Game may well be fun regardless (Emphasis on the may), and that's what people should be focusing on, trying to call it pretty on the other hand, just isn't working.

I certainly wouldn't call it pretty, but then high end graphics aren't really a huge deciding factor in a game's enjoyability for me.

That might sound weird since I spend so much time yapping on about graphics, (as I find the technical side of things interesting) but when I'm actually playing a game it doesn't bother me so much. I still fire up and play Wii games fairly often without the graphics spoiling the experience.

I'm certainly not sold on Starfox Zero on a gameplay level yet, but I am trying to keep an open mind. Nostalgia is also a big factor for me as the first video game I ever owned/played was Starfox for the SNES.

Looks good now. Can't wait.

Reading this thread feels like I finally found vgc eyes wide shut secret troll society. Too bad I didn't knew this sooner, would had gotten into much less trouble. I just wish I had the same Gamecube and Wii everyone else here had, because mine surely couldn't run anything above 480p, much less pull this level of detail at 60 fps.

This game could still look better.