• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Giant Bomb XXI | Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth

Status
Not open for further replies.
Q

QFNS

Unconfirmed Member
So it is just me or are the reviews that Dan posts a bit short on the word count? Maybe I am getting spoiled by Austin "How's the Thesis Going?" Walker, but the Star Fox review feels really abbreviated. Maybe there just isn't a lot to say about this game other than "hey it's that other game again".
 
S

shortsFortallPeople

Banned
QFNS said:
So it is just me or are the reviews that Dan posts a bit short on the word count? Maybe I am getting spoiled by Austin "How's the Thesis Going?" Walker, but the Star Fox review feels really abbreviated. Maybe there just isn't a lot to say about this game other than "hey it's that other game again".
Click to expand...

There's only so much you can say about a 3 hour game that plays like something from 20 years ago
 
S

supermetfreud

Member
How do you all feel about them almost always discussing things in terms of how they relate to current industry trends? Like Jeff insisting that third-person shooters are passé, their general stance on Star Fox's gameplay being a thing of the past, etc. Obviously, I get it. They're industry vets, and it's kind of ingrained in them to approach the medium this way, but I dunno. I catch Jeff saying shit like "that doesn't play nowadays" all the time, and, like...why? And...so? Basically, I feel like they use "people aren't interested in this" as an excuse to not engage with a game on its own terms too often. Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending Star Fox Zero. Those gyro controls sound crazy unintuitive. But the /concept/ of an arcade-y space shooter from Platinum/Nintendo? That sounds rad. Just because we have different experiences in video games these days doesn't mean the genre isn't viable. And I find it weird to discourage devs from pursuing that kind of stuff. I'm down for shorter, replay-focused experiences if it leads to more focused level/encounter design. I don't mean to sound down on the crew btw. I just like arcade-y experiences and want them to stick around.
 
S

stump sock

Member
yeah but there's like a solid decade now of games that prolong gameplay through unlocks and upgrades and whatnot. i mean maybe it's interesting that Star Fox is old school, but maybe they could have also probably found a way to make it worth replaying?
 
S

skLaFarebear

Member
supermetfreud said:
How do you all feel about them almost always discussing things in terms of how they relate to current industry trends? Like Jeff insisting that third-person shooters are passé, their general stance on Star Fox's gameplay being a thing of the past, etc. Obviously, I get it. They're industry vets, and it's kind of ingrained in them to approach the medium this way, but I dunno. I catch Jeff saying shit like "that doesn't play nowadays" all the time, and, like...why? And...so? Basically, I feel like they use "people aren't interested in this" as an excuse to not engage with a game on its own terms too often. Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending Star Fox Zero. Those gyro controls sound crazy unintuitive. But the /concept/ of an arcade-y space shooter from Platinum/Nintendo? That sounds rad. Just because we have different experiences in video games these days doesn't mean the genre isn't viable. And I find it weird to discourage devs from pursuing that kind of stuff. I'm down for shorter, replay-focused experiences if it leads to more focused level/encounter design. I don't mean to sound down on the crew btw. I just like arcade-y experiences and want them to stick around.
Click to expand...

I actually agree with you to a point. Not on Star Fox because I really don't care about it, but I'm more interested in seeing games reviewed without being attached to a price tag or current industry standards or other stuff I really don't care about, which is why the best reviews usually come well after the game has been released and people have already had significant time with it.

I like the Giant Bomb reviews, but I never take them or most other critics reviews to heart when I buy games since a lot of things that are issues to others could be fine with me, and I think even Giant Bomb themselves have said that at some point or another when it comes to reviews.
 
S

shortsFortallPeople

Banned
supermetfreud said:
How do you all feel about them almost always discussing things in terms of how they relate to current industry trends? Like Jeff insisting that third-person shooters are passé, their general stance on Star Fox's gameplay being a thing of the past, etc. Obviously, I get it. They're industry vets, and it's kind of ingrained in them to approach the medium this way, but I dunno. I catch Jeff saying shit like "that doesn't play nowadays" all the time, and, like...why? And...so? Basically, I feel like they use "people aren't interested in this" as an excuse to not engage with a game on its own terms too often. Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending Star Fox Zero. Those gyro controls sound crazy unintuitive. But the /concept/ of an arcade-y space shooter from Platinum/Nintendo? That sounds rad. Just because we have different experiences in video games these days doesn't mean the genre isn't viable. And I find it weird to discourage devs from pursuing that kind of stuff. I'm down for shorter, replay-focused experiences if it leads to more focused level/encounter design. I don't mean to sound down on the crew btw. I just like arcade-y experiences and want them to stick around.
Click to expand...
I think the problem isn't that Star Fox Zero is More Star Fox 64 but that it's a full priced More Star Fox 64.

If it were a $15-20 digital release I think the reviews would be more favorable given what it is and how much it has to offer. Star Fox 64 could get away with being a full priced package back on the N64 on sheer novelty alone, sure, but times and expectations have changed in the 20 years since then.

Hell, the Star Fox 64 3DS remake got dinged for many of the same issues that this game is being hit with only at least that has the excuse of being a remake of a game.
 
W

Wunder

Member
QFNS said:
So it is just me or are the reviews that Dan posts a bit short on the word count? Maybe I am getting spoiled by Austin "How's the Thesis Going?" Walker, but the Star Fox review feels really abbreviated. Maybe there just isn't a lot to say about this game other than "hey it's that other game again".
Click to expand...

I do find Dan's reviews to be pretty straight forward and to the point. He gets right down to it and doesn't really beat around the bush too much. Also doesn't really help that he does most of the Nintendo reviews (if I'm remembering correctly) and most of those are fairly simplistic or can be taken at face value.
 
R

RepairmanJack

Member
supermetfreud said:
How do you all feel about them almost always discussing things in terms of how they relate to current industry trends? Like Jeff insisting that third-person shooters are passé, their general stance on Star Fox's gameplay being a thing of the past, etc. Obviously, I get it. They're industry vets, and it's kind of ingrained in them to approach the medium this way, but I dunno. I catch Jeff saying shit like "that doesn't play nowadays" all the time, and, like...why? And...so? Basically, I feel like they use "people aren't interested in this" as an excuse to not engage with a game on its own terms too often. Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending Star Fox Zero. Those gyro controls sound crazy unintuitive. But the /concept/ of an arcade-y space shooter from Platinum/Nintendo? That sounds rad. Just because we have different experiences in video games these days doesn't mean the genre isn't viable. And I find it weird to discourage devs from pursuing that kind of stuff. I'm down for shorter, replay-focused experiences if it leads to more focused level/encounter design. I don't mean to sound down on the crew btw. I just like arcade-y experiences and want them to stick around.
Click to expand...

The problem is that it's more Star Fox 10 years later without much variation on the ganre and without much to really justify it.

It's like Far Cry 3 to Far Cry 4, but less variance and change and waiting 10 years to release it.
 
A

AuthenticM

Member
supermetfreud said:
How do you all feel about them almost always discussing things in terms of how they relate to current industry trends? Like Jeff insisting that third-person shooters are passé, their general stance on Star Fox's gameplay being a thing of the past, etc. Obviously, I get it. They're industry vets, and it's kind of ingrained in them to approach the medium this way, but I dunno. I catch Jeff saying shit like "that doesn't play nowadays" all the time, and, like...why? And...so? Basically, I feel like they use "people aren't interested in this" as an excuse to not engage with a game on its own terms too often. Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending Star Fox Zero. Those gyro controls sound crazy unintuitive. But the /concept/ of an arcade-y space shooter from Platinum/Nintendo? That sounds rad. Just because we have different experiences in video games these days doesn't mean the genre isn't viable. And I find it weird to discourage devs from pursuing that kind of stuff. I'm down for shorter, replay-focused experiences if it leads to more focused level/encounter design. I don't mean to sound down on the crew btw. I just like arcade-y experiences and want them to stick around.
Click to expand...

I wholeheartedly agree with you. It has always bothered me how the gang dismisses games like that.
 
C

chrixter

Member
Hold up, so you can essentially turn off motion controls for most of Star Fox Zero.
While the GamePad functionality leaves a lot to be desired, it can be almost entirely ignored in most situations. I’d recommend setting the controls to “Motion Control only when pressing ZR,” and focusing on the main screen only. By doing that, it feels like a traditional Star Fox experience outside of the few times it requires you to look down (when controlling a little robot in an effort to hack a panel, for instance).
Click to expand...
I'm mildly more interested now.
 
S

Sakwoff

Member
I remember when Starfox 64 came out I was like breh I'm playing Tie Fighter you can FLY EVERYWHERE what is this shit Rebel Assault or what
 
G

GustyGardens

Banned
EmCeeGramr said:
without saying anything about the quality of star fox zero, saying "It's the Star Fox game you wanted... in 2002" sounds like a glowing recommendation until you realize that you're supposed to dislike old style things for some reason


there's a lot of shit i wanted in 2002 i'd love to play today
Click to expand...

I think it's more that this style of game feels outdated in 2016.

Star Fox might be a product of its time, or Nintendo may have just put the game in the wrong hands. Either way, I wouldn't give up on Fox & Co. as I think he still has a place in the gaming world, but Nintendo need to rethink what it means to be a Star Fox game.

These reviews don't really change my opinion of the game, and I'm still going to buy it this weekend.
 
B

brainzelda

Member
supermetfreud said:
How do you all feel about them almost always discussing things in terms of how they relate to current industry trends? Like Jeff insisting that third-person shooters are passé, their general stance on Star Fox's gameplay being a thing of the past, etc. Obviously, I get it. They're industry vets, and it's kind of ingrained in them to approach the medium this way, but I dunno. I catch Jeff saying shit like "that doesn't play nowadays" all the time, and, like...why? And...so? Basically, I feel like they use "people aren't interested in this" as an excuse to not engage with a game on its own terms too often. Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending Star Fox Zero. Those gyro controls sound crazy unintuitive. But the /concept/ of an arcade-y space shooter from Platinum/Nintendo? That sounds rad. Just because we have different experiences in video games these days doesn't mean the genre isn't viable. And I find it weird to discourage devs from pursuing that kind of stuff. I'm down for shorter, replay-focused experiences if it leads to more focused level/encounter design. I don't mean to sound down on the crew btw. I just like arcade-y experiences and want them to stick around.
Click to expand...

I'm all for this style of reviewing. You can't review games in a vacuum. Too many types of entertainment compete for my time and money nowadays, and I won't spend $60 on games that have the depth and length of Star Fox Zero.
 
S

Salty Catfish

Member
Sakwoff said:
I remember when Starfox 64 came out I was like breh I'm playing Tie Fighter you can FLY EVERYWHERE what is this shit Rebel Assault or what
Click to expand...

Heh, I remember being pretty unimpressed by Starfox 64 when my friend showed it to me back at release and this might have been exactly why. Starfox never aimed to be a flight sim, sure, but TIE Fighter still ate its lunch across the board.
 
B

BreezyLimbo

Banned
Well, some games can definitely be outdated, gameplay wise. Like, personally I'd be fine with playing Metal Gear Solid, but someone like Drew finding the controls hard to use and archaic I can understand completely because he didn't play that game back in the day when that was standard.
 
R

RepairmanJack

Member
EmCeeGramr said:
And I don't agree. I don't think any style of game can ever truly be outdated.
Click to expand...

But would it be enjoyable to play an old arcade game without something new and innovative to make you interested? If someone just made another Frogger style game but made it good it would probably get no buzz, but making it an endless runner and you have Crossy Road.

The style doesn't so much go out of style but it becomes less interesting unless there is anything added.
 
S

StoveOven

Banned
supermetfreud said:
How do you all feel about them almost always discussing things in terms of how they relate to current industry trends? Like Jeff insisting that third-person shooters are passé, their general stance on Star Fox's gameplay being a thing of the past, etc. Obviously, I get it. They're industry vets, and it's kind of ingrained in them to approach the medium this way, but I dunno. I catch Jeff saying shit like "that doesn't play nowadays" all the time, and, like...why? And...so? Basically, I feel like they use "people aren't interested in this" as an excuse to not engage with a game on its own terms too often. Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending Star Fox Zero. Those gyro controls sound crazy unintuitive. But the /concept/ of an arcade-y space shooter from Platinum/Nintendo? That sounds rad. Just because we have different experiences in video games these days doesn't mean the genre isn't viable. And I find it weird to discourage devs from pursuing that kind of stuff. I'm down for shorter, replay-focused experiences if it leads to more focused level/encounter design. I don't mean to sound down on the crew btw. I just like arcade-y experiences and want them to stick around.
Click to expand...

I mean, a day before Dan posted a review criticizing a game for being something from out of 2002, he posted a review praising a remake of a 2002 game. Some things just age better over time or industry trends cause something old to feel new again. Clearly Dan didn't think that was the case with Star Fox and that time has only made that old formula worse
 
E

EmCeeGramr

Member
RepairmanJack said:
But would it be enjoyable to play an old arcade game without something new and innovative to make you interested? If someone just made another Frogger style game but made it good it would probably get no buzz, but making it an endless runner and you have Crossy Road.

The style doesn't so much go out of style but it becomes less interesting unless there is anything added.
Click to expand...

If it's an arcade game that's designed well, yes, 100% I'd be interested.
 
S

Sakwoff

Member
EmCeeGramr said:
And I don't agree. I don't think any style of game can ever truly be outdated.
Click to expand...

In all seriousness, yep.

Especially in this diversified marketplace that we have now that notion doesn't make much sense. You can play party based CRPGs. ASCII roguelikes. City builders. 3D platformers. Space trading simulators. Bullet hell STGs. Whatever. All coming out in the last few years.

Recent years have shown that there are absolutely people who want to play stuff that was once deemed "outdated". And that's not only grognards.

FWIW gimme any of those instead of the next fucking AAA loot shooter please.
 
T

TheMrPliskin

Member
RepairmanJack said:
But would it be enjoyable to play an old arcade game without something new and innovative to make you interested? If someone just made another Frogger style game but made it good it would probably get no buzz, but making it an endless runner and you have Crossy Road.

The style doesn't so much go out of style but it becomes less interesting unless there is anything added.
Click to expand...
If that game is good then sure, why not?
 
B

brainzelda

Member
EmCeeGramr said:
And I don't agree. I don't think any style of game can ever truly be outdated.
Click to expand...

That's true, but the relative value of some of those genres have shifted. There are certain genres that I wouldn't purchase at a high price anymore due to the genre's lack of depth. Arcade games and rail shooters for example.
 
B

broncobuster

Banned
A throwback to 64 in Zero interests me. I'll still pick up SF64, PD Orta, or Sin&Punishment 2 from time to time. Man, Sin&Punishment 2 has the best control scheme for on-rail shooters. What happened to Treasure.
 
S

supermetfreud

Member
Really not defending or specifically talking about Star Fox Zero, peeps. I'm talking about the crew's tendency to disregard things based on them being "out of touch" or "outdated," which are certainly valid observations/criticisms, but a very reductive statement re: a game's quality. All reviews are going to touch base with consumer expectations; that's expected from the traditional format. I just think it's not a very interesting way to discuss games.
 
E

EmCeeGramr

Member
Sakwoff said:
In all seriousness, yep.

Especially in this diversified marketplace that we have now that notion doesn't make much sense. You can play party based CRPGs. ASCII roguelikes. City builders. 3D platformers. Space trading simulators. Bullet hell STGs. Whatever. All coming out in the last few years.

Recent years have shown that there are absolutely people who want to play stuff that was once deemed "outdated". And that's not only grognards.

FWIW gimme any of those instead of the next fucking AAA loot shooter please.
Click to expand...

There is where I'm coming from. Over the years I've heard that so many genres were dead; not just the ones you've mentioned, but stuff like XCOM-esque turn based tactics (The Bureau was started with assumption that the old genre was outdated); pre-XBLA and the Wii it was common sense that 2D platformers were dead and buried forever outside of handhelds, which were moving into 3D anyway; for a long time pre-SF4, 2D fighters were considered to be the realm of niche hardcore audiences hustling around CRTs. And adventure games? Lolllll who wants to walk around pick up stuff and talk to people, Gabriel Knight 3 killed that shit lol genre outdated

The list goes on. It feels like every genre or style has been declared dead and then had a resurgence either in rereleases or in indie spiritual sequels or modernized games that tweak the formula just enough, or whatever. I'm just not ready to write off any style with, "But is it enough in (current year)?," unless you're solely talking about mass marketability.
 
R

RepairmanJack

Member
Eh, guess I just see it as innovate, change or move on. I didn't want old Harvest Moon just made well, I wanted Stardew that brought in some other changes and advancements that have come about over the years.

I didn't want more StarFox 64 at this point. That sounds fine and it could be good, but that seems easy to make at this point, you made it already. Innovate, change or move on.
 
H

hamchan

Member
I certainly think a person experiencing a 20 year period of playing through hundreds to thousands of other games, some of them amazing games, could make the same Star Fox gameplay from 1997 lose the impact it once had and make it seem not as good.
 
S

Salty Catfish

Member
I think there's a distinction to be made between a genre and an approach to that genre. Adventure games have been declared "dead" every other year since the 90s -- which is untrue -- but I think the "here's 50 items, now combine everything and/or pixel hunt until you progress" approach so many popular and well-reviewed games from that era took is a thing of the past and would rightly get lower reviews now.
 
S

supermetfreud

Member
EmCeeGramr said:
There is where I'm coming from. Over the years I've heard that so many genres were dead; not just the ones you've mentioned, but stuff like XCOM-esque turn based tactics (The Bureau was started with assumption that the old genre was outdated); pre-XBLA and the Wii it was common sense that 2D platformers were dead and buried forever outside of handhelds, which were moving into 3D anyway; for a long time pre-SF4, 2D fighters were considered to be the realm of niche hardcore audiences hustling around CRTs. And adventure games? Lolllll who wants to walk around pick up stuff and talk to people, Gabriel Knight 3 killed that shit lol genre outdated

The list goes on. It feels like every genre or style has been declared dead and then had a resurgence either in rereleases or in indie spiritual sequels or modernized games that tweak the formula just enough, or whatever. I'm just not ready to write off any style with, "But is it enough in (current year)?," unless you're solely talking about mass marketability.
Click to expand...

You're elucidating my point far better than I am. Trying to guess what "outdated" genre will or won't connect with people is a fool's errand. So, so often they speak in maddeningly imprecise ways about a game when they don't engage with its design. If there isn't something obviously new or some sort of gimmick, it's "just another one of those games." Who gives a shit if the new Zelda game is just another Zelda game? How's the dungeon design? How are the bosses? What works about the game's design? I wish game analysis would be a more involved and thoughtful process instead of a checklist of features.
 
G

GustyGardens

Banned
EmCeeGramr said:
The list goes on. It feels like every genre or style has been declared dead and then had a resurgence either in rereleases or in indie spiritual sequels or modernized games that tweak the formula just enough, or whatever. I'm just not ready to write off any style with, "But is it enough in (current year)?," unless you're solely talking about mass marketability.
Click to expand...

This is pretty much where I stand on the whole thing. I've always been a huge point and click adventure game fan, and while they fell off the map for quite sometime, they came back in a huge way during the PS3/360/Wii generation.

The biggest thing, as I said before, is that Nintendo need to rethink what Star Fox is, and offer up new ideas to a genre of game that isn't really around anymore. I still believe Star Fox is relevant, it just needs to be handled with care. No genre is truly dead, it just needs some new life put into it.
 
Z

Zaph

Member
Salty Catfish said:
I think there's a distinction to be made between a genre and an approach to that genre. Adventure games have been declared "dead" every other year since the 90s -- which is untrue -- but I think the "here's 50 items, now combine everything and/or pixel hunt until you progress" approach so many popular and well-reviewed games from that era took is a thing of the past and would rightly get lower reviews now.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. Genres never die, but their approach can get stale as fuck. That's basically been my feeling towards Nintendo for the last 10, 15 years or so. Outside of rare moments of genius like Splatoon, it feels like they're just beating the same dead horse with different types of whips.
 
H

hort

Neo Member
Anyone know what bombcast John Drake rants about how dumb Dan is? I've been going through a few of them but can't seem to find the right one.
 
H

hort

Neo Member
LiK said:
check the GDC ones
Click to expand...

I haven't started on GDC or E3 ones yet, was hoping to not have to slog through those to find it =\

I seem to remember him saying he was listening to the bombcast in the car and Dan started telling one of his stupid stories (maybe the ruining his eyesight to get glasses) and he just started screaming at the radio?

or maybe I'm imagining all of this?
 
H

hamchan

Member
I just like that everyone's opinion on Star Fox Zero is similar to Jeff's opinion on Star Fox 64 in 1997.

Gerstmann ahead of the curve again!
 
R

RepairmanJack

Member
hort said:
I haven't started on GDC or E3 ones yet, was hoping to not have to slog through those to find it =\

I seem to remember him saying he was listening to the bombcast in the car and Dan started telling one of his stupid stories (maybe the ruining his eyesight to get glasses) and he just started screaming at the radio?

or maybe I'm imagining all of this?
Click to expand...

I feel like he was on a bombcast right before or right after he went to Sony or he was in the process of moving/relocating and Dan happened to be out of town when he was there. Am I crazy?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Ken Kutaragi is the Greatest 'emperor' Of All Time and remains SIE's only true visionary
Opinion 2 3 4
155
13K
Moses85 replied
The "I survived development hell" club (7 years+) of games.
2
68
9K
Perrott replied
  • Locked
Giant Bomb |OTXXX| Fondle it
400 401 402 403 404
20K
1M
OdysseusVA replied
  • Locked
Giant Bomb |OT29| Uhhhhh I have a child
396 397 398 399 400
20K
2M
OdysseusVA replied
How Nacon, The Publisher of The Sinking City, Cracked and Pirated The Game
32
6K
ManaByte replied
Top Bottom