Nope. And I am aware that 100% requires multiple playthroughs— when I say that I likely completing games, I mean even if it takes doing multiple play-throughs. I'm very thorough with every game I play. Not just gonna pick it up, finish it, and move it; I want the same full experience that everyone else got.

Which is fair.  The branching paths do give it some solid replay value.

I enjoyed the game back in the day and just played it recently via emulation.  

I am on the same boat. StarFoxS2 looks like the type of game to be gathering the old fans and bring new ones to the system as an appetizer to the main meal. Fingers crossed

I say a game that relies on branching paths replay value  for its lengthshouldn't be more expensive than the house of the dead remakes. those game also go all in on branching paths and your are encouraged to replay arcade games anyway. This doesn't look nearly as bad as those remakes but it does show a good price tag for arcade experiences imo.

Well, apart from whiffing on my first priority — not remaking Star Fox a third time — they did very well. Of course, they did well by remaking Star Fox for a third time, but beggars can't be choosers :P

But I'm happy with:

• An expansion of the mythology
• Rail shooter
• High replay value, thanks to multiple difficulty levels, branching paths, and Challenge Mode
• Lots of vehicle types
• Multiplayer is back in a big way! This might be the most exciting thing for me
• Big investment in the audiovisual piece. Based on the trailer, this is a gorgeous game with spectacular set-pieces. That one shot of Sector X is jaw-dropping. And you can almost feel the heat radiating off the screen during the footage of Solar. It reminds me of the opening of Darius II

*edited out a typo

Now that we have a SF64 remake confirmed, I want the next one to be a sequel with the same kind of gameplay. Just move the story to a new solar system and increase the general length of the routes to make the game a bit longer (say, 2-½ to 3 hours per playthrough) and increase the number of routes needed to 100% the game. Just as a possible setup for the story, a small excursion fleet from another solar system inhabited by as-yet unknown but definitely hostile aliens attacks Corneria, team Star Fox fights them back (say, taking down some fighters on the surface before flying into orbit, with the boss being a big capital ship) and follows the escaping ships to their own solar system to strike back.

As for the price, $60 just for this SF64 remake is perfectly reasonable to me for a game that lasts "only 2 hours." It has tremendous replay value, something that gets lost. You have to do at least several different routes to visit every level. Then there's the self-imposed challenge of beating your high scores, not just on each level for but the whole game (Protip: The best route for a high score is Corneria>Sector Y>Aquas>Zoness>Macbeth>Area 6>Venom). I spent so many hours trying to do just that in the late 90s/early 00s. I paid $60 for the original back in 1998 and felt it was worth every penny. It'll still be worth every penny for the remake, especially considering that $60 is worth a lot less now than it was 28 years ago considering the dollar has lost about half its value since then.

The mentality of "Price divided by number of hours for a single playthrough determines value" needs to go away forever.

I totally agree on the premise for the sequel. This remake looks great, but we desperately need some fresh material. You can only experience the same backdrops, plot beats, and missions so many times.

I also agree on the "price per hour" argument. It lacks nuance. I think most of us would agree that a 60-hour game with a mediocre gameplay loop is inferior to a 6-hour game with the most blissful, transcendent gameplay you've ever experienced. Now, I do think the amount of content matters -- I've docked games for failing on that front -- but content reveals itself in different ways. And content is only as good as the rules, mechanics, and challenges that underpin it.

Seriously... I wont deal with another Adventures, a new Star Fox needs to explore on modern space shooter genre. No need for 3d Zelda and Mario mechanics, thats totally off putting, we already have enough Nintendo ips to fill these blanks.

I am not against some missions on foot, but it would need to have its own identity, something that matches with the franchise. What I have in mind is all the main missions built on classic arwing/landmaster/blue-marine progression with the classic universe map selection, but this time you can return after mission complete, which will unlock some areas for exploration. For example: After defeating the first boss on Corneria, you can have side missions around the city, like helping rebuild damaged areas, find some remaining enemies structures, gathering materials for weapon and vehicle upgrade, interact with the local community and even unlock side segments (on rail or all range) inside that area, which branch to another main missions course

On foot combat needs to be something like bullet hell. You could have some hacking and stealth missions too like Sly Cooper

I like Sly cooper and all but this reeks of shitty modern games and that video parodying modern games with Mario. "Focus M" And hacking mini games always suck shit. Unless you want to go Pragmata but that does not fit Starfox either.

I too will not deal with another Adventures. I hate that game with a burning passion. I absolutely do not want to see foot missions in my Star Fox games.

However, I'm willing to make an exception if the any on-foot sections were akin to the gameplay of Sin & Punishment, which shares a lot in common with the on-rails stages of Star Fox 64.