Fix for ya :P.

I'm honestly surprised we didn't see a major gaming media pull a "Star Fox has barely any content" or something like that. Let's wait and see xDDDD.

I'll be honest, I kinda clicked this expecting to see someone whining about a Star Fox game being the length of a Star Fox game. I was pleasently surprised. XD

The conversation isn't going anywhere because you're not listening. For the last time, Starfox Zero is not a $60 game, it's $50. Guard doesn't add value when you have to pay extra for it. I never, ever, even implied that my purchase depended on the inclusion of online multiplayer so I don't know where you got that junk from. "Any multiplayer they could come up with likely wouldn't be a whole lot better than what was done in Star Fox 64" because, once again, nothing. By saying "likely" you even admit it wouldn't automatically be bad n throwaway therefore not a reason to not even try to make a good multiplayer. Lastly the reason there's no real multiplayer in Zero is not because Nintendo is suddenly too stupid to make one despite doing it for series even less likely to have it, but because their forced motion control gimmick crap doesn't allow for it and they don't care enough about this game to meet even Starfox 64 standards.

The title of this thread make's it sound like there's zero content.

I reserve my rights to be a whining person if the game doesn't deliver when I play it xDDDDD. Let's keep the OT informative :P.

Sorry, it seems I got my wires crosssed. Most of my initial discussion in this thread was with people who were saying the lack of online multiplayer was why they weren't purchasing it.

There is no option to purchase to purchase Star Fox Zero for $50 at retail. It is a $60 game.  Just like Bayonetta 2 was a $60 game that came with a free port of the original game, and included in a package that easily could have sold for $60 on its own. This isn't the first time Nintendo's packaged a game like this. It's pretty clearly meant to add to the value of Star Fox Zero, otherwise they wouldn't have bothered packing it in with the retail version (which makes up a substantial majority of the Wii U's software sales) and offering a discount for digital purchases. They are MEANT to be a single $60 package.

I use "likely" as a qualifier because I am never 100% about anything that will never exist. But in my opinion, from what we've seen of Star Fox Zero, there isn't a whole lot in the game they could build a compelling, worthwhile multiplayer mode off of.

And speaking of that....how do you know they never tried to make a multiplayer mode? How can you be so sure that they didn't come up with a multiplayer mode, decide it wasn't good enough to pursue, and decide to focus on other areas of the game?

I never implied that Nintendo was suddenly "too stupid to make one". You're assuming that just because they got multiplayer modes to work in other games, they'd be able to get it to work in Star Fox Zero. But think for a moment: how many of these had to be reworked so that they could include multiplayer?

Kid Icarus was completely different game from its predecessors. Rather then being a single player exploration game in the vein of Metroid, it became a third person shooter, with a variety of different pick ups and weapons, interpersed with brief, exhilirating rail shooting sections. Metroid has had two multiplayer centric releases which drastically changed the core game. Metroid Prime Hunters was changed from a first person exploration game with a heavy focuus on puzzle solving and exploration into a more traditional first person shooter (and wasn't especially well received). The other game, Metroid Prime Federation Force, introduced even more drastic changes to more effectively accomodate an online multiplayer mode. And then there was Metroid Prime 2's local multiplayer, which wasn't well regarded. Federation Force may very well be the most successful example of Metroid online mulitplayer we've ever had, but they had to drastically change the core game to do it.

Xenoblade Chronicles X was effectively redesigned to make it more like an MMO, with a massive world that could be explored from the outset and less linear world and game design. Chronicles X is a very different experience from the original game because it was redesigned to accomdate multiplayer. And the fact that the original Xenoblade shared many design elements with MMORPGs (battle system, side quest structure) certainly helped. The Mario games were made with multiplayer in mind with levels that were easier and more open, especially when compared to games like Mario Galaxy and the original NSMB. The multiplayer was implemented in a way that didn't require the games to be completely reworked, but then they also aren't online.

Luigi's Mansion 2 is probably one of the best examples of a squarely single player game having a decently fun and robust multiplayer included without significant changes being made to the core game. But the vast majority of Nintendo's online multiplayer games were either multiplayer-centric games to begin with, or significantly changed in order to accomodate a multiplayer component.

I'm not entirely sure how the "forced motion crap" doesn't allow for multiplayer. But regardless, the game design of Star Fox Zero itself probably doesn't help. Unlike the games I mentioned above, Star Fox Zero has not been redesigned to accomdate multiplayer. It is still primarily an on-rails shooter, with free flight areas that appear to simply be bigger versions of the free-flight areas in Star Fox 64. Which, again, didn't have an especially noteworthy multiplayer mode.

I think a Star Fox game built with multiplayer in mind could be quite fun. But that game can't be (primarily) a rail shooter. It needs to be a game that fully commits to being a complicated, deep, 3D action game. And  from everything we've seen of Zero, that simply isn't what it's trying to be.

Finally, unless I missed something (entirely possible, I'm usually distracted when I'm writing these) you didn't answer a very important question: have you ever played Star Fox 64 before? 

People seem to be quick to point out that it seems to have fewer stages than Starfox 64 (16) or Starfox SNES (19), but I feel it should be noted that it has more stages than the last console entry, Starfox Assault. (10)

True, but Star Fox Assault was also a more traditional action game rather than a rail shooter. You spent more time in each level.

Still, I'm not terribly worried about stage COUNT. What matters more to me, personally, is what's in them.

Some of the longer stages we've seen so far seem similar in length to many of Assault's missions. I doubt a playthrough of Zero will be as long as a playthrough of Assault, but if you take into account that you need multiple playthroughs to see all of Zero's stages, I wouldn't be surprised if it ends up being a longer game than Assault in terms of how long it will take a player to see all its stages.

Nice info to update the OP :P. I have never played Starfox Assault, but I think it should be noticed.