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

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Star Fox Zero Review Thread: MC: 69 / GR: 68.84%

RolStoppable said:

The same people wouldn't buy any shoot'em up, so the criticism is similar to complaining about turnbased battles in an RPG series that always had turnbased battles.

The controls are hard to get used to. The normal path through the game throws three different vehicles in the first three levels at you, and they all have different control schemes. Thankfully, it gets more Arwing-focused after the fourth level, so there's finally a chance to get accustomed to the way the game controls, but it's by no means a fast process. Barrel rolls are executed by pressing the right stick in either direction twice in quick succession and that's pretty awkward to do when you have to fly your ship and still pay attention to the motion controls. Flying, shooting and blocking projectiles all at once isn't as easy as it used to be. Then there's the fact that you have to look back and forth between the two screens in certain situations, although you can switch the output with a button press, so theoretically you can always use the TV screen. Still though, it's another new thing to get used to. Unneccessarily complicated sums it up.

Yep, that's what I felt about them reading first impressions of the game. I'm curious to know if there are some parts of the game in which the use of the two screens is justified, or it's just useless. I could give them a free pass if I really feel that I'm better at Starfox because of them, or if I can do now new tricks which improve my skills. Which is the same as saying: "I don't want to play Starfox with a standard controller ever again". But I guess I have only one way to find out. Which is playing the game and see how I feel about them.



Around the Network

According to OpenCritic, the game has an equivalent of 31% on a RottenTomatoes-style rating:

http://opencritic.com/game/1536/star-fox-zero



Wright said:
Anfebious said:

I'll give it a try too, It can't be that bad.


What if...it turns out to be that bad?!

It won't matter, I can sleep at peace that someone at least will get enjoyment out of it. (My friend REALLY likes Star Fox)



"I've Underestimated the Horse Power from Mario Kart 8, I'll Never Doubt the WiiU's Engine Again"

RolStoppable said:

In the Polygon guy's defense, the game is three hours long. That's like a whole afternoon.

Well, his boss is fine about it. I really want to have that boss. "Hey, it's fine, make an article about how you weren't capable of playing a 3-hours game you don't like! That would speak very well about us!" 



The game is 3-5 hour to finish one time in one go. So was SF64. The idea is to play all levels and finish the game in different routes. Im guessing it must have more than 1 ending. So saying the game is 3-5 hrs long is not exactly fair.



Around the Network
RolStoppable said:

More like this:

Reviewer: "I really, really, really don't want to play this game. But I am worried that this could reflect poorly on us."
Editor in chief: "We ran an article about Mario Kart 8 sales. Your concerns about our reputation are unwarranted."

Oh, there are always ways to screwed things more than that 1.2M MK8 prediction. They proved that they're worse than Patcher on predictions. Now they're proving their reviewers' professionalism. I'm looking forward to the next Polygon thing. 



Shadow1980 said:

Man. Those review scores are all over the place. The sketchy controls seem to be the biggest issue. I'm probably going to wait until I can find this game for cheap, but it seems like it might not be quite up to SF64 levels of quality. Honestly, this is why gimmicky controllers are a bad idea, because Nintendo has to find ways to justify the existence of those controllers. While some uses of the Gamepad's functionality were pretty cool, some were unnecessary and shoehorned in just because. SF0 really needed an option for standard thumbstick-and-button-only controls.

Oh, and I saw this earlier on IGN's discussion thread on their SF0 review page:

Pretty accurate if you ask me.

Actually, I think it's exactly the contrary. Previously every game which didn't score more than a 80 was shit. Now, reviewers are harsher, but people STILL think that a +70 game now is the same than a +70 game before. It isn't. It's harder to see an 80 game these days. Games like Tropical Freeze, which is widely praised by Nintendo fans (not everyone, but a lot of them) has an 83. I think it's just harder to get good scores now. And I changed my mind accordingly. 

Also, I can't deny the fact that some of my favourite games this gen are 70+. Hyrule Warriors, Yoshi's Woolly World, Fatal Frame V (actually, a 67), The Wonderful 101... I couldn't care less about the score, all of them were awesome imo. If this gen told me something about scores, is that I don't care about them. I like them because I can have arguments with people about them :P. But that's it. I read reviews now to know its cons and pros, and see if it's worth it for me. For example, this game has as a con in a lot of reviews its length. I think that the length is fine, so a lot of reviews don't express what I feel. 



I think it looks fun. If its the last Star Fox game for a while? Then oh well...



75 is fine. if this game looks like StarWars Battlefront for graphics, these reviewers would certainly increase the score in the 80s.



The most egregious thing about the motion controls are that literally everything could have been done better on one screen with the right analog stick. The gyro controls literally have no right existing outside of the Double Dash-style co-op. They add absolutely nothing, and the "added precision" it Miyamoto's bullshit excuse for not wanting twin stick controls that have been a standard for literally over a decade.

The fact that the doesn't just control like a third person shooter is laughable.

The game would have looked better, would have had no learning curve, and would control better or at worse identical. So fucking stupid.