By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Nintendo - Star Fox: Zero content

nuckles87 said:
Natsu said:

Starfox 64 3d had a local vs mode, I just want it because it would give it more value for me because I can put more hours into it. It doesn't even have to be that great.. 

I'll still probs get it if it doesn't have online but it just won't be a full price buy.

Adding an online multiplayer mode to a single player experience for the sake of it is literally one of the worst trends in the game industry right now.

Star Fox 64 was a single player game with a simple multiplayer death match mode thrown in as an afterthought. An online multiplayer mode that "isn't that great" isn't much of a value proposition as far as I (and most critics) am concerned.

Instead of that, this game comes with a WHOLE other game. One that has the potential for hours upon hours of game play. Doesn't that pretty much do what you say online multiplayer would do?

Hmm sorry I think I worded it wrong (you're thinking something totally different than I did) when I said not that great I really meant for it to be like not the main focus of the game but like you said an afterthought. Not that great compared to what the single player has to offer but it's still a solid multiplayer. Plus nintendo usually does alright on online (smash bros, mario kart for examples) so Nintendo could make it work



Around the Network

I wouldn't even touch the online multiplayer if was there, so its absence doesn't bother me.



day one buy yo



NND: 0047-7271-7918 | XBL: Nights illusion | PSN: GameNChick

Einsam_Delphin said:
nuckles87 said:

Look, if you absolutely refuse to buy any games that doesn't have an online multiplayer mode, fine. But as far as I'm concerned, you're kind of missing the point of a traditional Star Fox game if that, of all things, is your benchmark for it. Then again, maybe you wouldn't like its on rails game play anyway.

Nintendo hasn't added online multiplayer for every series, and the vast majority that they have were multiplayer centric games to begin with. Yes, Star Fox 64 had a throwaway multiplayer death match mode that was fun in 1997. Adding a mediocre death match mode for the sake of it, like in SF64, doesn't really increase the value either.


You don't have to pay for it. It's bundled with the retail game. You can buy both games digitally for the price of a single retail game. And it having different game play is irrelevant to to the value. It's not like they wouldn't have to change the mission-based, mostly on rails, single player game play for multiplayer death matches anyway. Really, if anything, it's a better value than what you'd get from a modern version of Star Fox 64's multiplayer.

 

 

"Pretty much every series Nintendo has added online to" =/= "Nintendo has added online to every series." I gave you two recent examples of series that now have online when they were singleplayer only before. You're assuming multiplayer in Starfox would be mediocre and throwaway based on nothing. While it wouldn't automatically be bad, I suppose it wouldn't automatically be good either, but again, with Nintendo's track record it makes more sense to think they'd do the multiplayer justice.

Starfox Zero is $50, Project Guard is $15, both bundled together is $60, so at minimum you're paying $10 for it. If you're buying Starfox Zero because you want to play Starfox, then Guard does nothing for you and would be better off buying Zero alone.

 

I guess my point was that the reason why Nintendo's track record with multiplayer has been so good is because they only implement it when they have a good idea for it. The original Star Fox 64 multiplayer wasn't anything all that unique or special. It was a throwaway mode that added little to the core single player experience. Star Fox Zero's game play is BASED on 64. Any multiplayer they could come up with likely wouldn't be a whole lot better than what was done in Star Fox 64, which was pretty much just an open four-player battle arena. Nintendo clearly didn't have an idea for a multiplayer mode that was good enough to include in the game.

And if your concerned about value in your $60 retail game, you are literally getting another game with hours upon hours of play value packed in. People may not be buying Star Fox Zero for this game, but it is there nevertheless, and it's value shouldn't be ignored, especially by people demanding a time sink beyond the main game.

And really, it is here that you get at the main problem I have with you saying your purchase depends on the inclusion of online multiplayer: people don't buy Star Fox for multiplayer either. I don't know if you've ever played Star Fox before, but the games in the series everyone remembers are rail shooters. You are set on path, you fly in one direction, and you shoot enemies for a score. This is why people buy Star Fox games. Yes, 64 introduced free flying arenas. Yes, these were made to provide a fairly simplistic multiplayer mode. But many of the best parts of the game were the rail shooting areas, and the multiplayer mode isn't what made Star Fox 64 one of the most beloved games on the N64.

And I bring this up because Star Fox Zero looks to be following the same formula as 64. We've mostly seen rail shooting areas. The free flight areas we have seen appear to be either open arenas, or something centering around the hoverplane. We aren't looking at an especially deep third person shooter here. I'm simply not seeing anything that can really offer a superb multiplayer experience. 

I can tell this is going to be one of those conversations where neither of us budge, so (unless you say something I can't help but reply to) I will try to end my part in this discussion here: Have you played Star Fox 64 before? These games are primarily rail shooters, which don't lend themselves well to online multiplayer. Again, if you absolutely NEED a compelling multiplayer mode in order to buy a game, I'm not sure if this was going to be the right game for you to begin with.



It looks very similar to 64 content wise. Which is just OK because of replayability, but I would have liked some more stages.



Around the Network

"Zero content" is a bit harsh, ain't it? ;)



Conina said:
"Zero content" is a bit harsh, ain't it? ;)

I know, I know. It looks like I managed to make a clickbaity title without even notice xD.



Volterra_90 said:
Conina said:
"Zero content" is a bit harsh, ain't it? ;)

I know, I know. It looks like I managed to make a clickbaity title without even notice xD.

Suuuuuuuuuuure... :P



Goodnightmoon said:
Volterra_90 said:

I know, I know. It looks like I managed to make a clickbaity title without even notice xD.

Suuuuuuuuuuure... :P



Volterra_90 said:
Goodnightmoon said:

Suuuuuuuuuuure... :P

Lol xD
So gaming journalism is plenty of junkies? suddlenly all makes sense.