Star Fox Zero |OT| The Fox Awakens
- Thread starter TheMoon
- Start date
I set a few of the records on the leaderboards of that game and generally spent a lot of time with IR aiming in tons of shooters otherwise, so having used it about as much as a person practically can and I can assure you that the remote is faster. It's not as if I haven't used gyro a lot, either; I've been using it heavily since games started using it after motion+, and on the 3DS, Wii U and now Steam afterward.
If you were to try to move the cursor as rapidly as the remote over the course of 20 minute levels like that, your arms would be jolting around wildly and your calibration would be drifting significantly every 15 seconds or so. Gyro aiming requires more physical effort in order to move more slowly, and it loses calibration fairly easily. Sorry, but there's no way that gyro wins this one.
As far as being able to shoot things off screen go, in my experience, the things I miss in SF0 are things I feel like I'd be able to hit without being distracted by the controls themselves. I have taken advantage of that ability and hit a few off screen enemies, and it's a pretty neat feeling... but I feel as if having a faster way to aim would be a better way to take those enemies out than resorting to killing them after the fact.
If you're not impressed with the level layouts in S&P2 that's fine, but the levels are generally way more active and less linear than anything in SF0. It's bizarre to say it, but it really is free-form on-rails. It's a lot fresher than anything SF0 does with its level designs... that's not to say SF0 has bad layouts or anything- I like them quite a bit- but the argument was that these controls somehow break up the tunnel form on-rails tends to have... I don't think they do.
Spring-Loaded
Member
There are easy answers. You have control options, at least more than one button layout, more than one gyro sensitivity. If a given option to, say, use the 3rd person view exclusively (with a useful aiming reticule) means that player misses out on the cinematic lock-on view, then so be it. Every boss is beatable strictly in cockpit view and it should be the same in 3rd person. If someone wants to turn off gyro aiming entirely, make the gyrowing level skippable and tie aiming to the left joystick on the land vehicles, maybe toss in some aim assist. Would it make getting high scores harder? probably! Would this already low-budget, niche game w/ no multiplayer and no certainty of a sequel be getting hit with as much negative word-of-mouth if it had these options? Probably not!
This game will need a lot more patched in than control options, and considering it's one of Miyamoto's "only good for innovation, not iteration," titles, it's hard to hold out hope for that or an NX version.
I don't think any of this is true. Sin and Punishment 2 played beautifully with separate aiming and flight controls. If anything, Starfox Zero has worse targeting on the TV screen due to the gamepad emphasis giving the TV reticle allowance to be less accurate than ever (especially for distant targets), forcing you to divide your attention between two screens in order to aim effectively. Not to mention again that the gyro is slower and less reliable than IR aiming. I don't see any way that Starfox Zero wins over what S&P2 did with the remote... Sure, first person is ideal for shooting, but the better speed and precision of the IR cursor and the locked focus on one screen more than make up for that. You could cover the entire screen with laser fire in a second with a few twitches of the wrist; good luck doing that with a gyro.
S&P2 is also a great indication of what you can do with level designs in a modern "rail shooter" type of game... the levels in that game twist and contort in so many directions and seamlessly switch between wide open spaces tightly packed obstacle courses. They hardly felt limited to tunnel shapes... they were gigantic, and the camera took you all over through their space.
https://youtu.be/0yIHhGA9HpI?t=6m13s
Starfox Zero's control scheme didn't change the "tunnel" form of the levels, anyway. Most of them are still that same general, linear shape as SF64. Outside of a few boss battles designed for lock on, it's still a rail shooter. And even in SF64 you had plenty of all range mode segments that weren't limited to a rail.... I guess what I'm arguing is that there's nothing about these controls that breaks the rail shooter "tunnel" feel you're talking about, nor are controls like these required to do so.
Sin and Punishment is awesome, Miyamoto would have a tough time topping it given the same design. It's limitation is that the reticule doesn't show where you are aiming, it shows where the shot will be a given distance from your character. So, the level is designed so that most of the action happens on an imaginary plane, the character moves slowly, and distant enemies are either slow or in swarms. The camera moves very methodically and in sink with the action. Not saying it's bad, just is what it is, and not what Star Fox desingers wanted to retread.
You say your arms are jolting all over the place when you use gyro. I'm curious to see how you play because I only move with slight tweaks of my wrists. It's super-fast and precise. Probably faster than it needs to be!
Having that extra perspective makes the levels feels so much larger, too, since the stuff offscreen and directly parallel to you is still active play space. It's not "pass it and forget it" like previous shooters. Here you can still deal with it if you wish. There may even be stuff in the periphery that doesn't ever appear on the TV, or stuff on the TV that will punish a head-on approach and encourage that extra perspective.
It's not about changing the tunnel form of on-rails, but enlarging what you can do within them at at given moment. Seeing something like S&P2 just feels so limited and 1D now by comparison.
I have been playing this on & off the last week and it´s amazing how much you can improve once you get accustomed to the controls. Going back 2 days later to a boss that was giving me problems and swiftly getting rid of him while using all movement options and switching screens is an awesome feeling. Then adding more layers of depth by starting to jump in and out of your transformed form really makes you feel like a boss. I love switching to Walker mode, creating some chaos, boosting around and switching back to the Airwing to escape a big attack in the last moment. It´s like I´m piloting a mech from Macross!
Every time I play it I´m doing better, using more options and having more and more fun. The learning curve is steep indeed, but man, does it pay to invest some time learning these WONDERFUL controls.
Every time I play it I´m doing better, using more options and having more and more fun. The learning curve is steep indeed, but man, does it pay to invest some time learning these WONDERFUL controls.
Theognosis
Member
Yes, the world in S&P is FLAT. Just 2D. It's the same with Kid Icarus: Uprising's rail sections. You point or touch the cursor on the screen and the game will automatically adjust the depth to hit the target. Those games don't have depth in the cursor from the 3rd person view, which Star Fox Zero has. In SFZ, you are shooting in a 3-dimensional world that's why there is a need to check how deep you are targeting with the 1st person view on your gamepad. Some people prefer this level of precision and control, while others don't.
Just finished my first play-through and the controls are really clicking, you can do so much more than you could with the old system. When I replayed the first level again I obliterated my old score, going back to 64 you really feel constrained by aim/movement being on one stick.
Spring-Loaded
Member
what makes you think I haven't tried it? There's nothing inherently better in singleplayer about having both views at once, and it would still be an option for the player of the button was in a better place. It absolutely isn't less fun to have the view you're using always on the TV and in higher resolution to say it's less fun doesn't make much sense, nor would it kill the way co-op works if the dual screen function still exists.
How would moving "screen swap," to the right stick prevent the co-op as it is now? Where did I say "get rid of dual screen, gyro, etc." and when did I say the controls weren't worth learning? Or was that last paragraph directed at someone else? Seems completely unrelated to what I posted.
Why does the reticule in 64 always work well in 3rd-person view, but not in Zero? Every level and s playable purely in cockpit view (except for picking up bombs in the gyrowing), but aiming in vehicle view is occasionally wonky on-rails, and more slyly useless in all-range mode because of how far the camera zooms out. It's as if the reticule is an afterthought and is always a fixed distance away from the ship, rather than adjusted in accordance to the player's view. What's the justification for that, and how is that better than having a cursor that doesn't seem to lack depth and accuracy?
Theognosis
Member
You have only one perspective in Star Fox 64, and that is from the player looking at the screen. Whatever the cursor is pointing at, the game can easily determine which object you're firing at and nobody would notice any reticle movement the fact that there is no other point of view to consider.
With Star Fox Zero, you have two points of view: one from the player's point of view on the TV, and the other from the pilot's on the Gamepad. It takes 2 distinct views to create a perception of depth or in the case of SFZ, it's functional equivalent.
In order to achieve the ease at which Star Fox 64 hits an object, Nintendo can implement an auto-aim feature on the gamepad's first-person perspective; that is, whenever you press the fire button, the gamepad reticle will automatically jump to the nearest object and hit it. Would I like that? No. I prefer to use my skill to accurately pinpoint the exact location I want to hit on the gamepad and not let the game do it for me.
Spring-Loaded
Member
Auto-aim is how it was done in 64? Do you think having the cursor change depth, but not locking-on, depending on its position relative to a given enemy would be possible?
Why does the vehicle view reticule have to be as close as it is? why can't it be different or change depth in order to be useful?
If there were aim assists, why would the existence of an aim-assist option be bad for you if the existing close reticule were still available?
Theognosis
Member
I suspect that there's some kind of auto-aim algorithm in 64 while in 3rd person view (which makes it easier to hit targets close to the reticle), but player's don't notice it because there's no second view to consider. Now if the programmers wanted to add precision and depth in the 64 game, the best solution IMHO is to add a laser pointer I suggested in my earlier post. If you are off target, the laser pointer will appear to go through your target. And when you are aiming correctly, a small dot will appear on the target--just like in Splatoon.
With the laser targeting solution, Nintendo can do away with the 2nd screen in SFZ without sacrificing depth and precision aiming, and at the same time have more hardware resources available for graphics and multiplayer.
Not bad as long as you can turn it off. I would like Nintendo to release a patch with option for aiming assist on the Gamepad, just so to make more players enjoy the game. It's like having a CPU player aim targets close to whatever your 3rd person view cursor is pointing at. I would also like them to add a laser pointer option for those who want to have precision aiming without looking at the second screen.
Spring-Loaded
Member
Any of that sounds better than the current reticule for Arwing vehicle view. Some camera distance slider would be welcome too as there are sequences in which the camera is far too zoomed out (e.g. space dodora fight, to the point I couldn't tell which way the arwing was facing at a glance).
And 64 had a cockpit view. It was hardly usable on account of barrel rolling actually spinning the view, but it was there and seeming worked the same as the vehicle view. If it had aim-assist/auto-aim in vehicle view, that didn't exist in first-person. If it was easy to hit stuff in 64, it may have been that the lasers had big hitboxes.
Dark Souls' previous game was Demon's Souls which it is not a huge departure from in regard to its controls. It has mainstream appeal through multiplayer. People came to that game for a difficult, grueling experience, which its "prequel," established. It didn't appear exclusively on a failed system. Dark Souls isn't a Nintendo game. It's control scheme is not unprecedented, and there are no motion controls. Dark Souls did not get lukewarm reviews that stemmed from its atypical controls.
The Souls series' future was a much more of a sure thing than the Star Fox series' future.
Can you think of a more appropriate game to compare this to?
I'm not comparing Star Fox to Dark Souls, I'm saying that asking for a different way to play doesn't make sense, because the game is made to be played like this, and it works perfectly fine for many people also allowing to do things impossible to do with the old method. The fact that the previous game were different, that the game appear on a failed system and that it's a Nintendo game are completely irrelevant. The reviews, like I said, were already predictable from the negativity surrounding the game (and Nintendo) since the first announcement.To clarify I'm not saying that the game it's a masterpiece or that is revolutionary, I just think that the hate is not justified.
Sorry for my bad english.
Spring-Loaded
Member
I understand what you're saying, it just doesn't hold water.
This game needs to be more accessible for all those reasons in order to have decent reception and sales and a future. It is hurt by being inaccessible compared to games where part of their appeal is the inaccessibility.
The controls are fine, more or less, but tolerance for atypical basic control interfaces is lower than atypical gameplay. Every precaution needed to be taken with this game, and people who have tried and disliked the game (or even those who are just criticizing the choice to have these controls and no alternatives) are justified in their opinions. It's ridiculous to write off all the negativity.
Theognosis
Member
There's nothing wrong in asking for an alternate control scheme and additional stages that will make the game more accessible and desirable to critics and players alike. The game at its core is TERRIFIC. It's not just very accessible and Nintendo was very stubborn not to have alleviated the initial concerns. Star Fox Zero is my personal GOTY and I would love the critics to have a second look at it if ever Nintendo comes up with a patch. Perhaps more people will pick up the game when the game is re-reviewed. Nintendo has done this in the past with Pikmin 3 when they added touch controls. Anything can still happen.
Pokemaniac
Member
If people can't tolerate atypical controls, that's their issue, not the game's. Being forced to accommodate more traditional controls would have been detrimental to this game due to how much it is built around it's control system.
You definitely have to move the gyro more than the remote. Maybe SF0 isn't intense enough to require much dramatic movement, but with the kinds of dense formations flying all over in S&P2 you have to move the cursor more rapidly across the screen. It's a game that's more focused on arcade style shooting and building combos, so the cursor speed is pushed to the limit. If you were to use the gamepad's gyro for S&P2, I think you'd definitely feel how much slower it is and how much more movement it takes compared to the remote. RE4 is a game that actually lets you compare them, since it has a Wii version and a PC version that can use Steam's controller's gyro.
Gyro aiming is generally at its best when it's used in conjunction with an analog stick; the stick does the camera work, but the gyro does the fine adjustment in aiming. That way, physical movement and calibration loss are at a minimum. It's not really at its best when trying to target everything on screen exclusively by itself, where its lower speed and calibration drift come into play. Gyro is way better than an analog stick alone and I'm glad this game didn't just recycle the old 64 controls, but it's not the best option this game could have used.
When it comes to being able to see off screen.... wouldn't it be possible to just allow the IR cursor to turn the camera? Dead Space Extraction kind of did something like that by allowing you to turn your view in a rail shooter. I could see a scheme that would easily allow you to turn your view when the cursor gets to the edges to see these things to the sides that you're talking about without requiring a second screen. It'd actually be a lot faster than switching screens or looking down.
But why is that such a good thing? You're basically admitting that the new setup does diminish the aiming ability in the classic 3rd person view, and does pretty much make you reliant on the cockpit view in order to have precision. The cockpit view is pretty nice to have, but is that how you want to fly a spaceship? The new scheme forces you to keep switching in order to have the ideal view for either action.
I'd almost liken it to something like overhead taking up a processor's power. No matter how good you are, you have a limited amount of things you can keep track of at once. The fact that you have to devote so much attention to the controls themselves means you're a little less focused on the game. I think having one screen with very precise targeting (2D or not) and flying together that you can completely focus all of your energy on is better than trying to split attention between two views, with neither one being ideal at everything. I never thought to myself when playing either SF64 or especially S&P2 that "this targeting isn't good enough, I really need an alternate first person view to solve this."
Spring-Loaded
Member
Being "forced" to add those options would be detrimental?
In what ways would those options be more detrimental than getting mediocre/terrible reviews?
People not playing and not buying the game is Nintendo's issue.
Gotta say, one thing I dislike about arcade mode is that, unlike SF64, if you get the mission accomplished requirements for a mission, you can't decide to go on the other path after the mission is over. Like if I kill Wolf on Sector Beta, I can't decide to go to Titania anyway, while in SF64, I could decide to go on Titania even if I saved Slippy in Sector X. I hate failing stuff on purpose ;-;.
We're going to have to agree to disagree on gyro vs. IR for this game. Gyro is perfectly fast and precise for this game in my experience; the game throws a lot of stuff at me from all angles, but I keep pace just fine with subtle tweaks of my wrist. I don't feel "slower," and I don't feel this alleged "calibration drift." Also, after this game and Splatoon, I think I generally prefer gyro since IR always had a bit of a disconnected feeling where the cursor always felt a millisecond behind the pointer's movement — like it was a sliver above or below where I was pointing, trailing ever so slightly. Gyro doesn't have that issue for me.
Regarding the camera, having one viewpoint that turns to see stuff below, above or on the sides would then deprive you of seeing stuff that is coming at you, since you'd be turning away from one thing to look at another. With two perspectives — one close in the cockpit that can pivot any which way, and one focused ahead from a third-person perspective — you can account for everything, everywhere, at all times with quick glances. Nothing has to go un-shot, and hits can be milked from literally everything (as we're seeing with these 500-plus hit runs).
I feel Star Fox Zero has the best formula for advancing this genre. I just think it should have a few more options to accommodate those who are really struggling to rewire their brains for something new.
Also, the Wolfen/Hunter totally should have been playable.
Pokemaniac
Member
If the game had those options, it would be a completely different game. The current level design just wouldn't work without the controls. Placing limits on the controls allowed the game to do more with them than it could have otherwise. Options are not always good. They place limits on design.
A Star Fox game with more traditional controls may have sold more, sure (though I am somewhat doubtful of that, since the series is a bit niche to begin with), but that's not the game was made and we have no idea how that game would have been received.
they should do a New Super Luigi U-style expansion that stars Star Wolf...
I'm with you on the first half of this, I found myself reflexively aiming with the gyro all the time and it felt great, but I also found myself having to hit Y to re-centre it a lot.
D
Deleted member 752119
Unconfirmed Member
Yeah, for all the faults I had with the game, controls aren't one of them. If anything, they were one of the strong points for me.
I just found too many of the levels bland (especially the walker and gyro wing ones, and most of the space ones) which made it just an 7.5ish type of game for me. I also found it lacking in content since I'm not big on going for high scores or collectibles, but I don't ding it for that in my score as that's just the genre and that I'm not a huge fan of arcade type games any more.
I just found too many of the levels bland (especially the walker and gyro wing ones, and most of the space ones) which made it just an 7.5ish type of game for me. I also found it lacking in content since I'm not big on going for high scores or collectibles, but I don't ding it for that in my score as that's just the genre and that I'm not a huge fan of arcade type games any more.
Oh for sure. I didn't find that problematic, though. Just a shortcut to center when you're done on the sides. I prefer that to the slight off-center lag I feel with a pointer.
Pro from Dover
Member
I can dig the Sin and Punishment comparison. But I always seen it like this...
In one, we control the flying dude with the gun:
And the other we control the dude flying the plane:
...If this makes any sense.
In one, we control the flying dude with the gun:
And the other we control the dude flying the plane:
...If this makes any sense.
Thanks for correcting me about the S&N reticule, I had to watch the video again and you're right, it's pretty much a light gun game. I was thinking they were like Star Fox 64 controls, which I don't think actually have any auto-aim. Star Fox 64 works ok because the ship doesn't move that much (it's bigger on the screen), the shot hit boxes are huge, and the ship acts like a giant 3D arrow that helps line up your shots.
And the funny thing, Main game has the complete opposite problem: Too much freedom and choice, breaks the flow of the story and it's like you finish the game once and then you just unlock other levels with no narrative context for you to play as you see fit.
And the other we control the dude flying the plane:
...If this makes any sense.
When I saw this in game and after playing for a while, I thought of how legit an arcade version of Zero would be. All that is needed is two flight sticks an IR headset and two screens. Have the big main screen be the cockpit view and the smaller one on the dashboard for the rear view mirror type cinematic camera.
Hook all of that up to an Arwing-shaped simulator and BOOM you have a ride for Universal's Nintendo theme park!
Theognosis
Member
Yes, I get that spaceship pilot feeling with Zero. As a flight simulator enthusiast since the 80's, I'm used to looking at multiple screens. It's very common to have a Heads-Up Display highlighting your general target, and at the bottom you have a CRT displaying a camera zooming on your weapon's specific point of contact. In a bombing run, you have to select a target on the HUD (not as simple as it sounds), and then release your bomb through a small window of the building with the aid of the camera in your cockpit.
Actually, as incredible as it sounds, Star Fox Zero was not the first one to implement different perspectives in a game. There's a nice PC game released way back in 1985 called "The Dam Busters" which had different perspectives for flight, guns, bombs and controls. Yes, you only had one screen to look at, but you had the different views for specific functions that the player had to juggle with.
The Dam Busters - PC Game 1985 Gameplay Video
Talk about multitasking! As you can see, compared to other games released in the last 30 years, Star Fox Zero is actually a game with easy controls.
SpacePirate Ridley
Member
Headphones through gamepad, is how ive been playing all the time.
Yeah, I wasn't directing the last part at you, sorry for the confusion.
I understand your point--why not have more options, why not make the screen switch more accessible, it's like they were afraid it would expose how needless the second screen is. My best answer, other than my previous answers that you can play on one screen but you choose not to, and that it's just more fun, is that it's different. It's something new to learn and get good at, which is for me the whole point of games. I've never played a game where I sit in a gun turret physically aiming in 180 degrees, and the gamepad does that for me because it requires moving around and staring at the center of it, like looking through a real gun sight. The gamepad setup puts me in tune with the aiming, and it makes it easy to imagine being in the ship when looking at the TV, which helps with aiming too because the more you can put yourself there the better feeling you have of where your shots will go relative to the ship. You don't get that feeling when aiming on the tv screen, you just feel like you're moving a reticule around.
Refreshment.01
Member
Well i guess progress is been made. You transitioned from not understanding what's the point of the lock on system and dual screen setup, to actually getting "it". But the issue been now that... "is not fun enough" and thus you are not impressed.
In regards to the highlighted part of your post. The car analogy or better yet "the racing a car analogy" still stands. You are navigating the environment in a vehicle in a situation where is necessary to keep track of multiple perspectives. That is an important part of what the game is trying to replicate with the Dual Screen setup. And as you admit with your own words, this what you are doing, so the developers succeed perfectly with their vision i guess.
Is really good that you brought up the 64 comparison. The Z lock is a good showcase of something that this game brought up that is better and solved a problem 64 had. When "all range mode" was engaged in 64, there was more aimlessly and kind of blindly turning around to line up with a boss target and you had to rely in the small 2D map. On the other hand, the Z lock gives you a ton more information in an actual 3D space with the added bonus that let's you dodge what otherwise would be off screen attacks from the bosses. This is an addition that enriched gameplay not substracted from it.
i don't think is fair that after so many examples (bosses and levels) that had been brough up regarding how the mechanic is useful, to brush them aside because subjectively is not "good or fun enough."
Well Nerrel what can i tell you? You did say one thing the first time and now you are saying other:
Then you've got the walker for some reason using the gyro to turn as well as aim... again, negating the purpose of splitting the two actions up.
That was a missunderstanding on how the controls work. Which is not important now and not worth discussing anymore...
Anyway, "unintuitively" is used again. But in the above case is more about your rooting in standard control methods than this game not having intutive controls. At least in terms of layout, most vehicles have a very logical way to map the controls. The exception is implemented when the playability takes precedence.
Most people came to "love" Splatoon controls after an Everest High mountain of moaning and complaining because they refused to adapt.
The reasons why developers chose to use as much as Gampead features as possible has been explained enough times. Spring Loaded and you seem to ignore them because the game is not what you guys expect exactly to be. Theognosis has explained a good analogy liking this to aspects of flight sim games, too bad that's getting ignored also.
Spring-Loaded
Member
lol
I acknowledge what the controls/views accomplish. What they accomplish just isn't amazing enough for the dual-screen or gyro aiming to be 100% mandatory. It's not worth the negative reaction the game has been met with. Options were/are needed for people who don't like the default.
I was getting within 5 hits of 370 on Corneria 2 for a while, got 369 once, then right after that, got 395 somehow. The + hits are really helpful.
NOLA_Gaffer
Banned
Coincidentally that's the first thing I discovered, and I've yet to defeat him any other way.
Can you do that with the Arwing?
My highest for Corneria 2 is 393 though I have yet to do a real run on it with the black arwing (I've only done so in co-op so far). I feel like I've gotten a high enough mastery of the controls that I'm going back to the high scoring method from SF64 and mainly firing off unlocked charge shots everywhere and picking off the + hits for real high scores, similar to what Zallard does. I've managed to get 458 on Corneria 1 so far and feel like I still have a bit of room for improvement. I doubt I'll be able to break 500 without serious devotion though.
The secrets in Zero have nothing on the secrets in Guard, even if there are fewer in Guard.
I also think the controls are fine, not amazing, but they do enhance the gameplay over conventional Star Fox controls for me. I still can't say I'm a massive fan of the other vehicles aside from the Arwing.
Star Citizen (I dunno if any other space sim does it) actually already implemented SF0's controls concept, but in a way better fashion imo. Using TrackIR to allow headtracking freedom of camera movement within the cockpit, and using the mouse to make simple adjustments from wherever you're looking at. So, if you want to shoot a target on your left, you just slightly move your head in that direction, then use the mouse to aim your gimbaled guns at that target. The difference is that (slightly) moving your head around to look around the cockpit feels much more natural than moving the gamepad around, and disconnecting the crosshair from the camera (you use the mouse to finetune your aim) allows you to track targets without having to constantly move the camera/gamepad around.
Star Citizen (I dunno if any other space sim does it) actually already implemented SF0's controls concept, but in a way better fashion imo. Using TrackIR to allow headtracking freedom of camera movement within the cockpit, and using the mouse to make simple adjustments from wherever you're looking at. So, if you want to shoot a target on your left, you just slightly move your head in that direction, then use the mouse to aim your gimbaled guns at that target. The difference is that (slightly) moving your head around to look around the cockpit feels much more natural than moving the gamepad around, and disconnecting the crosshair from the camera (you use the mouse to finetune your aim) allows you to track targets without having to constantly move the camera/gamepad around.