The pre-reviews don't sound particularly hot from Ars Technica, AV Club or from Wired ...

These guys are going to attempt to lower the average ...

I'd argue the 7-8s are giving it an extra point or 2 for nostalgic reeasons.

They 9+ scores is reviewers who only seem to be desperate to play a game that is half decent on their Wii U because they got no other console. 

The below says it all really lol

"Simply put, Star Fox Zero is the most fun I’ve had with any Wii U game to date"

Well that is personal taste. You can see why he would be dissapointed though because a game that involves space travel shouldn't be limited to on-rails in 2016. The universe is vast so much potential to use that and build on it. 

Star Fox has all-range mode and on foot sections (that's what the walker is, guys. It's a third person shooter.) It's not just a rail shooter, and Wii remote is not good at all for something like that. Using the second analog stick like it's supposed to be used would accomidate all of these modes without cutting the visuals in half, straining the framerate. The Walker would control better and the all ranch mode would control far more naturally. Even if the rail mode was a casualty, at worse it would control at well as SF64, and at best, it would offer more percision aiming. That simple fix could have allowed for a control center on the game pad with various functions to innovate Star Fox in a much different way. They could have consolidated the controls so much.

But again, this game didn't even start as a Star Fox game. It's literally like Guard and Giant Robot. Miyamoto was making tech demos to justify the gamepad, and decided to slap Star Fox onto it. He did the same with Guard. Come to think of it, the same was the case with the original and SF64 (FX chip and rumble). They were all made to test some hardware gimmick. It's like they don't even give a shit about these franchises.

I'm afraid of what will make Miyamoto finally make an F-Zero game.

Yer but the thing is if I want to play a 90s rail shooter I CAN, they exist.  Why would I pay $60 for one when I can pull one out of a storage box in my cupboard?

I'd argue not overrated but underrated due to the fact Nintendo never gave the franchise serious effort to grow to it's full potential.

Sounds like it would go perfect with a salad!

But yeah I can see your frustrations but I wouldn't go so far as to say they don't give a shit about the franchise. If they didn't we wouldn't be seeing Fox in Smash or have an animated special like we did today. I just feel at this point they are so caught up in selling the GamePad (the main thing that seperates them from the competition) that they squeeze it in games that don't need it. But hey at least they were able to make a game that used it perfectly at least (Mario Maker).  

It is. The equations that describe how it works are the same as the mouse on the PC.

Lazy example:

Let's suppose you want to point to an object (in the screen) that is separated a distance Y from the current position of your pointer. To do so you have to move your hand a distance Y' in the same direction (in the real world). Y' gets adjusted by a constant (sensitivity) k.

So:

Y = kY'

Now, with dual analog you don't have direct control over position. You only have control over speed. So to point to an object that is separated a distance Y from your current position you have to tilt the analog stick an angle α for t seconds. This also gets adjusted by a constant (sensitivity) k.

So:

Y = kαt.

In the first equation there's only a constant between your input and the ingame result, in the second there's a variable too.

I see what you're saying, but if we followed through on that logic we'd have to "retire" certain genres. And I would hate for that to happen.

I guess what bothers me is that some critics and consumers think Star Fox Zero is overpriced because of the way it looks and how long it takes to see the final credits roll. For me, that's poor criteria. In a way video games are simply a set of tools and encounters, and we as players get from them what we put in. That's why you see folks talking about how they sunk a hundred hours on Star Fox 64, a game that can be "beaten" in an afternoon.

And about graphics: I know that we've always been fascinated by great-looking games. I remember marveling at Super Mario 64 when I first got my N64, and I recall being floored by the HD graphics on X360. But resolution, textures, lighting, and particle effects are just one part of a grander experience. I wish fewer people would, to use a tired expression, judge a book by its cover. And I wish people wouldn't hammer the top dogs for turning in a poor graphics performance but forgive the little indie guys. 

But I guess that brings us back to price. We're willing to drop $15 on a crummy-looking "indie" game but not $60 on a crummy looking "AAA" game. Why? Fun is fun.

Nintendo mismanaged this franchise. The first installment on the SNES sold 4 million copies, Star Fox 64 then sold 3.3 million copies (and I believe these are from North America + Japan only, it's probably higher than this).

Those are two games that sold higher than any Metroid, Fire Emblem, or Kirby game.

Yet Star Fox at Miyamoto's whims gets thrown around like a red headed step child post 1990s. He forces it into Rare's Dinosaur Planet. Then farms it out to Namco. Then it skips the Wii entirely (big mistake) and on the DS, touch screen controls are forced into it making the game simply not fun to play.

And again with Wii U, there's a control scheme that's again being forced onto gamers.

I will get Star Fox Zero and I probably will enjoy it enough, but this is a text book case of how to drive a multi-million selling franchise into the ground. They should have released a Star Fox Wii circa 2008 when the Wii was selling hot with a proper, "normal" Star Fox game, but nope.