Support NeoGAF

[Soapbox Killer]

Zero's control scheme is based around using two screens for displaying multiple viewpoints of the same game, as well as using the gyro controls for standard movement. Porting Zero to the Switch would require them to essentially redesign the entire game design on a basic level and then work on porting the result to the Switch. And then you'd also have to factor in the original game's reviews and sales before you even get into the above two.

What you're asking for I feel is simply not very feasible at all. They would be better off starting from scratch with a new SF game for the Switch that had traditional controls from the start.

So be it...


If the core game would be better suited to a control "switch" then I say lets do it. If the game is flawed to its core and the controls only exacerbate the overall glaring problems then yeah, scrap it and start over. From what I played,broken gamepad and all, there is still a solid Star Fox game trapped inside this mess.

 

[Crimsonclaw111]

Worst Nintendo game I've played in a long while. Bought it for $20 something and sold it for about $30.

Garbage game and garbage controls.

 

[Ghost is Bad]

if i have to get used to the fucking controls to enjoy the game then i'm not gonna call it a good game. there's a level of intuition that good games have with their controls that starfox zero straight up doesn't have.

 

[PetrCobra]

Bought it on launch, didn't play it yet, now it's discounted. I feel robbed.

 

[Refreshment.01]

Small? 😑If it were "small," then the sales and critical reception of it wouldn't be as mediocre as they are now.

All they had to do was just make a Star Fox game with motion controls similar to Sin & Punishment 2 or Splatoon. But forcing the players to look down at the gamepad by fudging the sights on the screen is beyond insulting. In fact, it's completely out of character for Nintendo or Platinum to design a system so unintuitively.

There's nothing insulting with the way the controls were implemented in Zero, they just built the game around the Gamepad capabilities.

Also the controls are not unintuitive... or to put it in another way, not much so than a Dual Analog FPS yet people adapted to this control system until it became a standard. If the gaming population gave priority to intuitive controls above all else, then the majority would be playing shooters with a Wii Remote type setup.

Ok, but why does this control scheme exist as it is? Does the second screen gameplay really enhance the playability of the game? Can't a slightly different control scheme have done a better job of making the game playable? I get that there are ways to make the control scheme palatable if you want to suffer through it, but the complete lack of customization to any aspects of the control scheme and the lack of any alternate control schemes makes the game actively hostile to the player. Nintendo know how to make their games more accessible by offering alternative control schemes. There are so many different ways to play Pikmin 3 or Bayonetta. Why is this game stuck with this incredibly obtuse control scheme when there are many alternatives that could have served the same purpose more or less?

Are your questions honest or do you sick confirmation?

• Why does the control scheme exist as it is?
  The reason is because the Star Fox formula was adapted around the Wii U Gamepad features.
  
• Does the 2nd screen gameplay really enhance the playabilty of the game?
  The 2nd screen serves various purposes:
  a) Along with 3D Audio it increases the game's inmersion.
  b) It adds a multitasking element to the game, simulating the control of a vehicle.
  c) It offers the most precise and wider range aiming of any Star Fox game so far.
  d) The cinemtaic view gives players a visual aid for what otherwise would' ve been off screen attacks.
  
• Why is this game stuck with this incredibly obtuse control scheme when there are many alternatives that could have served the same purpose more or less?
  Well it's called "vision" and "artistic intent". The game controls the way it does just like there are environmental or simulation arcades with custom interfaces when most of those games could also be controlled with an standard pad

To be clear, the game does have various flaws, most of them consequence of the development cycle and budget it had. However, people clasifying the controls as trash are subjectively imposing their taste more than emitting an objective judgement in the first place.

Hopefully, the above reply shed some light upon your questions.

 

[SpacePirate Ridley]

I really really loved it. I would just have loved to be a little longer with not a complete copy of star fox 64.
Some people before the game came were saying becuase of some previews and the portals that the game maybe had a multiverse story converging all the different start fox timelines to create a clean slate.
That would have been a cool story and would have given us more original material apart from the 64 planets.

But I really liked how it played, and I really liked some of the new stuff they added.

 

[nynt9]

There's nothing insulting with the way the controls were implemented in Zero, they just built the game around the Gamepad capabilities.

Also the controls are not unintuitive... or to put it in another way, not much so than a Dual Analog FPS yet people adapted to this control system until it became a standard. If the gaming population gave priority to intuitive controls above all else, then the majority would be playing shooters with a Wii Remote type setup.


Are your questions honest or do you sick confirmation?

• Why does the control scheme exist as it is?
  The reason is because the Star Fox formula was adapted around the Wii U Gamepad features.
  
• Does the 2nd screen gameplay really enhance the playabilty of the game?
  The 2nd screen serves various purposes:
  a) Along with 3D Audio it increases the game's inmersion.
  b) It adds a multitasking element to the game, simulating the control of a vehicle.
  c) It offers the most precise and wider range aiming of any Star Fox game so far.
  d) The cinemtaic view gives players a visual aid for what otherwise would' ve been off screen attacks.
  
• Why is this game stuck with this incredibly obtuse control scheme when there are many alternatives that could have served the same purpose more or less?
  Well it's called "vision" and "artistic intent". The game controls the way it does just like there are environmental or simulation arcades with custom interfaces when most of those games could also be controlled with an standard pad

To be clear, the game does have various flaws, most of them consequence of the development cycle and budget it had. However, people clasifying the controls as trash are subjectively imposing their taste more than emitting an objective judgement in the first place.

Hopefully, the above reply shed some light upon your questions.

It's called a rhetorical question. Also I'm pretty sure it's the other way around. Miyamoto proposed project giant robot (I think that was the name) which later got shoehorned into being the next Star Fox game. I was trying to draw attention to that fact, and how they made a gamepad tech demo into a Star Fox title, so it wasn't that the game necessitated the controls. The game was an attempt at salvaging the control scheme.

People who defend the controls say "you only need to look at the gamepad like twice in the game and can use the minus button to switch instead". That's a contradiction. Either the controls are necessary and a central part of the game, or they're mostly unnecessary and are truly used twice in the game. You guys should get your narrative straight. Also, if the controls are totally central to the game as it is, why is the game basically a remake of SF64 with very little differences, instead of an entirely different game, since the control scheme is entirely different? Again makes no sense.

As I said in my post, which you have misconstrued, there are other control schemes for flight/space sims that increase immersion and work well without being obtuse like this one. Nintendo have opted not to work with a scheme like that and instead design their own, and it just doesn't work as well. That's my point. They reinvented a wheel that worked fine, and their invention is just worse. I've played other Star Fox games (except Adventures), and many space sims, and other 6DOF flight games like Descent. I've also played shooters with gyro controls. This controls less intuitively than any of those.

As for immersion, having to look back and forth between the screen and gamepad is not my idea of immersion. That's not how piloting a space ship would look like. Plus having your reticle in third person not be aligned with where you're actually shooting is terrible for immersion as well.

I understand the arguments defending the game's controls, I just completely disagree with them. I'm also fine with the actual content in the game, the level design etc. It's just that literally any other existing control scheme for this type of game would have made it easier to control, and thus would have had a much more positive reception. Even giving people the option to use a different control scheme would have been fine. Sure, you can claim a more "normal" control scheme wouldn't be as powerful, but then I'll bring up the defense of the game's controls that have been made several times in this thread again, aka "you only really need to look at the gamepad only a few times in the game", so it wouldn't have been that much inferior to use "regular" controls. I'm fine with some people being ok with these controls, I don't begrudge them. However it's utterly undeniable that the controls have hurted the game's reception, and it wouldn't really be to the game's detriment to include an alternate control scheme.

 

[Barrel Cannon]

It's definitely one of the most divisive Nintendo titles ever released. The controls grew on me pretty quickly and it was more fun on my second playthrough for sure. That being said I totally see why people wouldn't like the game. It's nowhere as easy or simple to pick up as any other title in the series.

 

[Refreshment.01]

It's called a rhetorical question. Also I'm pretty sure it's the other way around. Miyamoto proposed project giant robot (I think that was the name) which later got shoehorned into being the next Star Fox game. I was trying to draw attention to that fact, and how they made a gamepad tech demo into a Star Fox title, so it wasn't that the game necessitated the controls. The game was an attempt at salvaging the control scheme.

Other way around or not it doesn't make a difference. Your rethorical question was: Ok, but why does this control scheme exist as it is? The reason is that it implements a control system/interface designed around the Gampads features. That's the reality.

People who defend the controls say "you only need to look at the gamepad like twice in the game and can use the minus button to switch instead". That's a contradiction. Either the controls are necessary and a central part of the game, or they're mostly unnecessary and are truly used twice in the game. You guys should get your narrative straight.

Is not exactly defending the control scheme since there's no need to, as you and others have all the right in the world to not like it. What im doing here is objectibly explaining the reasons of why Nintendo opted to implement them.

Also, if the controls are totally central to the game as it is, why is the game basically a remake of SF64 with very little differences, instead of an entirely different game, since the control scheme is entirely different? Again makes no sense.

Actually is quite easy to answer: Development limitations. Time, team size and budget was limited, by opting for a remake there's a lot of design elements and legwork already done so Nintendo and Platinum could complete the project more promptly. If memory serves me right, i think there was like 3 Nintendo people involved in conceptualizing the game in the first place. Platinum was mostly "grunt" work.

As I said in my post, which you have misconstrued, there are other control schemes for flight/space sims that increase immersion and work well without being obtuse like this one. Nintendo have opted not to work with a scheme like that and instead design their own, and it just doesn't work as well. That's my point. They reinvented a wheel that worked fine, and their invention is just worse. I've played other Star Fox games (except Adventures), and many space sims, and other 6DOF flight games like Descent. I've also played shooters with gyro controls. This controls less intuitively than any of those.

"Less familiar" and not much as "Less Intuitive". There are many games that share a similar control scheme so you are already familiarized with them. Like it was already explained they chose the control scheme for immersion purposes and have a more unique "feel" to the game.

Like you pointed out, if you are giving flak to the game for been so similar (remake) imagine if it controlled exactly like the old ones and thus, making it even feel less fresh.

As for immersion, having to look back and forth between the screen and gamepad is not my idea of immersion. That's not how piloting a space ship would look like. Plus having your reticle in third person not be aligned with where you're actually shooting is terrible for immersion as well.

When you drive a vehicle and focus your attention on different targets there's a lot of head movement involved, you don't stare straight up fixed in one point. It's even tied into the main character at the begging of the game when you see that Fox's right and left hand correspond to each stick respectivly and his head movement to the Gamepad's motion.

I'm fine with some people being ok with these controls, I don't begrudge them. However it's utterly undeniable that the controls have hurted the game's reception, and it wouldn't really be to the game's detriment to include an alternate control scheme.

The majority of times options are fine but is not an absolute law. If the person developing the game thinks that an alternative control scheme clashes with his vision for the game, then it is understandable why options are not present. Specially when the controls do work properly if people are willing to learn them.

 

[Nerrel]

Also the controls are not unintuitive... or to put it in another way, not much so than a Dual Analog FPS yet people adapted to this control system until it became a standard. If the gaming population gave priority to intuitive controls above all else, then the majority would be playing shooters with a Wii Remote type setup.

There's a big difference between using two sticks at once and using two sticks at once while looking between two screens with totally different perspectives and moving one of those screens around to aim This is not equivalent to the type of adjustment innovations normally require.

You bring up a good point about the Wii remote. You say it's the most intuitive way to play.... it's also far more advanced than dual analog and can offer the ability to aim and fly independently in a much more elegant way than SF0 did. Sin and Punishment 2 demonstrates that. So, considering how much clumsier the gamepad is at doing the same core actions... why was this the best way to go? Was the need to use two screens that great? Most people seem to report that they ended up mainly using the first person view to play due to the 3rd person reticle being unreliable, so it's pretty much a single screen experience anyway. Lock on mode just gives you a side on view of your ship that doesn't help much the majority of the time until you get tailed by Starwolf. Do we need a second screen for this? Was it worth nuking the classic Starfox gameplay to have this? What would have been lost with a single screen+remote? You could even keep the idea of looking off the edges of the screen by turning the camera when the cursor gets near the edges, like all Wii shooters did.


I just don't see any justification for the dual screen setup. The only times you really need to use it are for abhorrent gimmicks designed solely to give the gamepad and second screen a purpose, like the force fields that regularly emanate out of bosses. The gamepad use in this game was so contrived it's offensive, and you could scrap most of its required "set piece" uses without any real loss to the core experience.

Bear in mind this started as a smaller scale collection of brief missions, not a full Starfox game. It wasn't intended to be a revolution for the classic Starfox gameplay, it was intended to be a showcase for the gamepad using the Starfox IP and its scenarios. The gamepad usage is pretty gimmicky right on the face of it, and I don't think anyone could argue otherwise when it comes to the gyrowing and robot hacking segments.

[*]Does the 2nd screen gameplay really enhance the playabilty of the game?
The 2nd screen serves various purposes:
a) Along with 3D Audio it increases the game's inmersion.
b) It adds a multitasking element to the game, simulating the control of a vehicle.
c) It offers the most precise and wider range aiming of any Star Fox game so far.
d) The cinemtaic view gives players a visual aid for what otherwise would' ve been off screen attacks.

[*]Why is this game stuck with this incredibly obtuse control scheme when there are many alternatives that could have served the same purpose more or less?
Well it's called "vision" and "artistic intent".

a- The Wii remote could also have done this, and it's not nearly a substantial enough innovation to sacrifice any element of the control scheme for.

b- most people clearly felt this was an unwelcome distraction and hated it. Developers have complained since the beginning that dual screens were distracting, and even Aonuma admitted that the second screen was a distraction and wouldn't be used for BotW. Having to constantly look between and adjust to two perspectives only delays the player's reaction time compared to flying and shooting at once on a single display.

c- It actually made aiming much clumsier and less reliable than ever in 3rd person, the perspective the series is built on. It only makes aiming more precise in 1st person, a view not suited to nimbly flying between obstacles the way this series constantly demands. Even in 1st person, I still think the gyro pales in comparison to the precision Sin and Punishment 2 allowed for with the IR camera, making this whole "improved precision" argument useless. I mean... did you play S&P2, and if so did you think "this just isn't good enough, I need a 1st person view to enjoy this"?

d- In a normal game there wouldn't be "off-screen attacks" without ample warning to the player. That's a simple matter of game design. The only time this would be an issue is in all range mode, and in that case you had indicators of someone tailing you well in advance.

A lot of people rightly criticized SF0 because it does feature off screen attacks that will come from directions the player often can't possibly be expected to be looking in. There are times when the TV will lock to a boss, leaving you with no view of what's ahead aside from the gamepad, which you're supposed to be using to shoot. So instead of using the screens for what they're meant for you end up trying to navigate with a clumsy first person view while turning to try to take shots at an enemy while the TV gives a nearly useless side view of your ship that often won't show the attacks coming at you, and because you're already double-timing it on the gamepad to fly and shoot, you're sure as hell not going to use that view to scope out enemies around your ship.

I remember one particular reviewer complaining that some attacks require you to be looking at a specific screen to prepare for, meaning that if by chance you happen to be looking at the other you're screwed and will take a blind hit. This control scheme maximizes the player's chances of getting hit by attacks they can't see, not the other way around.

Artistic vision and intent aren't really a factor here. This was baldly an attempt to sell people on failed hardware. It was announced to be just that. Miyamoto is heavily involved in both software and hardware, and this game had more to do with hardware. This was the main game Miyamoto was talking about when he promised he would make use of the gamepad back in 2014. The developers involved have all pretty much openly said the game started as an attempt to make the gamepad useful for something, not an attempt to make a new Starfox.

"[Star Fox Zero] actually started as one of the kind of experiments we did when thinking about how to use the Wii U GamePad," Hayashi said.

Sao: I believe that one of your goals during the development of this game was to make full use of the Wii U GamePad.

Miyamoto: Yes, that’s right.
...
This time it was a little bit less of really focused in on making a new Star Fox game and how we would do the controls for that game.

https://www.nintendo.co.uk/News/2016/May/Star-Fox-Zero-Dev-Team-Interview-Part-One-1106940.html

The intent was not to make the best Starfox possible. Nintendo put the cart before the horse and wedged Starfox into the gamepad with the goal of using all of its features in order to try to rectify their mistakes with the Wii U. You may think that control scheme is serviceable regardless, but the game itself is pretty weak and underwhelming even apart from these controls due to being rushed out in just over a year and is hardly worth the investment it asks of players. Feel free to disagree all you want and if you enjoy the game I'm glad for you, but the rehashed plot, rehashed levels, bosses and enemies, and general lack of ideas in the actual game design are pretty hard to ignore.

 

[Refreshment.01]

...

This was the main game Miyamoto was talking about when he promised he would make use of the gamepad back in 2014. The developers involved have all pretty much openly said the game started as an attempt to make the gamepad useful for something, not an attempt to make a new Starfox.
...

The above statement demonstrates my point exactly. The rest of your reply is a collection of your feelings towards the game. If you read back Nerrel, my intervention in this topic was due to a person asking: " Why does the control scheme exist as it is?" i just limited myself to provide an impartial answer to the question leaving aside any type of apreciation i might have for Zero.