SFA

[A Black Falcon]

Not the old SFA, but the new SFA... (why couldn't they have found a different acronym?) Anyway, I haven't played it, but the reviews are quite mediocre... I don't think it will be released in retail for a few days, but the big sites all have reviews up...

http://cube.ign.com/articles/584/584886p1.html

http://www.gamespot.com/gamecube/action/...lashtop_bg

[Dark Jaguar]

I hear that the flying is fine and all, but the parts where you are on land suck.

Now, honestly I wasn't expecting JFG quality for land missions, but... well I'll find out for myself soon enough.

I will say that considering how fun the tank missions were in SF64, I'm surprised to hear those have been deemed terrible in this new one.

[A Black Falcon]

Poor ground combat, more ground combat than flight combat, no branching mission path, worse graphics than SFA, very short game that can be finished in just a few hours... yeah, doesn't sound too good, does it...

Now, all the reviews said that RSIII: Rebel Strike had bad ground combat... and they were kind of right. The on-foot sections were very straightforward. Run, mash A. Auto-targetting will take care of the rest. The ground-based vehicular sections, though, were great... kind of like Battle for Naboo (which had ground-vehicle segments as a significant portion of the gameplay, and a lot of people didn't like that), only better... but the on-foot parts? Mindless. If Star Fox Armada's ground portion is being compared to that in terms of fun, that means mediocricy, I'd expect...

Rebel Strike is definitely a good game. And the on-foot parts aren't HORRIBLE. They're just not nearly as good as the vehicular parts and are utterly linear and mindless... and not much like actually controlling a person, either (anyone who has played it would understand)... it's strange, really, to see great air combat and pretty cool AT-ST levels and speeder bike sections in the same game as essentially mediocre running and shooting. The fact that it's Star Wars is probably the biggest thing that helps those parts of the game, really... :)

[EdenMaster]

Poor ground combat, more ground combat than flight combat, no branching mission path, worse graphics than SFA, very short game that can be finished in just a few hours... yeah, doesn't sound too good, does it...

That almost completely describes Starfox 64, (except the more ground than flying missions) one of the best games on the N64, IMO. I really don't see how it could be all bad.

Truth be told, considering that Starfox 64 was just a remake of the SNES Starfox, I'm really not expecting (or for that matter, desiring) much more. The formula works, so stick with it. Personally, I can't wait till it's out.

[A Black Falcon]

No, it doesn't. Star Fox 64 has a branching mission path with ground combat that is just as fun as air combat (and is only in two levels in the whole game -- a tiny minority of levels). SF64 is indeed also short, but the branching path gives a big impetus to want to replay it... SF Armada does still have the medals to get you to replay it, but the branching path was at least as big a reason to replay as medals were...

There was a third reason too, of course. High score. SF64 was short enough that, like a classic shooter, you could reasonably expect to finish in one setting (and had to, since you couldn't save or continue). And when you finished you'd get a highscore that the game would save. The length of SF64 wasn't a problem because of those three factors (and the fourth factor, fun factor!)... SF Armada lost one of them and the fun factor one seems to be almost certainly less as well. And one of the factors it still has, the medals, aren't that big a deal if it's not that fun... same with replay (it doesn't sound like it's so long that you wouldn't want to replay it for higher scores, assuming that it saves your highscores! (It better have that, highscore is a major factor in all space shooters and one without it would be less fun for sure))...

Really, the space shooter isn't a genre that needs innovation. The basic formula does not need to be changed. Simple, straightforward forward-scrolling levels, a good level of challenge (that you can turn up to 'really hard'), a game that is designed to be finished in one sitting... with occasional different levels like the all-range areas or ground missions (the Landmaster and Sub levels are also forward-scrolling like the Arwing ones so they don't really count I think)... This just doesn't seem to be that game, sadly. It could be a decent game that is good at times, but the problems seem just too large for it to match up to its predecessors in the series. I guess this is what you get sometimes when you oursource your serieses... they can't always live up to Nintendo standards.

[Dark Jaguar]

Now "all range" (as SF64 calls it) levels aren't a bad idea. I've played enough space shooters that allow free movement in a level to know that. They do have to be done well though.

Oh and, the tank levels in SF64 were done very well namely because the tank was almost just an arwing that liked the ground a lot. You could even fly for short periods with the thing. Also, the combat was almost the same anyway, like it was ignoring your vehicle of choice. I think that's WHY it worked. Tank combat against other tanks? When you think about it, that's actually kinda boring... Fast tank combat against flying things with a focus on moving about as well as shooting? Worked great in 64 anyway...

As for the graphics being worse... I might have known... Rare spent a lot of time on that engine, and the main thing making that game one of the best looking games on the Gamecube is the fur and grass rendering. When you really zoom in you see how that trick works, but it is still pretty convincing under normal situations and enough to still make it a graphical amazer. I don't think Namco was given the source code for SFA, nor do I think they really cared about fur rendering. Kinda sad, because when it comes to humanoid animal creatures (hmm what's the best term here... I'll go with "demihuman", the term Chrono Cross and Xenogears use for such creatures) fur rendering REALLY helps. I'm sick of big hair CLUMPS on all my 3D characters... What, did they dip their heads in a big vat of baking grease before the game? What hair forms in big clumps or perfect helmet shaped mats naturally? :D

There's another thing there though. SFA takes place outside the ship on a planet full of demihumans and in natural surroundings. Grass and fur rendering can easily make such a situation look amazing. SFArmada however takes place either far away from natural environments or around totally smooth things like a base, and the character is inside a smooth piece of machinery. Fur and grass won't be nearly as impressive, if at all, so why even bother going to the work to make such an engine? Might as well make the engine focus on normal shooter stuff, and "the norm" should be good enough for that, no need to go all crazy go nuts making it look super powered amazing :D.

Eh, anyway the thing is all the concepts just said were fine. I believe I was always skeptical about the on-foot missions being workable, but I did conceed if they managed to make it as good as JFG in those parts then it would be great fun. That, as I expected, did NOT occur (I mean yeesh that would mean making two games at the same time pretty much, instead of half a game for the land parts). Land missions aren't a bad idea, but I think that it's been shown time and again that land fighting can't be half done. It must be as developed and well done as a straight out 3rd person shooter or it's boring. Since most developers won't have the time or resources to do something like that, maybe it's just best to not even bother with the land parts. Maybe it's best to just make another game completely for that part. Then you can focus entirely on one aspect.

Oh, the submarine level in SF64 was pretty fun wasn't it? It was basically just a flying level with slower response time (well you are moving through a substance where a cubic meter of it weighs a metric ton, probably more with all that pollution), but it was still pretty fun. That, along with how they managed the tank levels, really should be how they design any sort of alternate vehicle levels. They should basically control, and play, and fight, pretty much just like the arwing only with that vehicle's gimic. There's no shame in it, the alternate vehicles really are somewhat gimicky, only there to offer a change of pace, not a total gameplay overhaul.

So like, add in the motorcycle level, but make sure it's basically a cycle with a laser mounted on it where you basically drive along shooting things, and the gimic is bieng ground based until you jump the cycle over the PLENTIFUL ramps all over the level. Something like that NEEDS to be done on rails I think, but that's just an example. If you are considering a train, it better be a hover train, because if it's on tracks then there is no mobility, which means BORING.

[Great Rumbler]

I'm a bit dissapointed that the scores for SFA have been so low, but I'll likely get it anyway. It's been a while since I've played an rail-shooters.

[Geno]

I didn't care too much for the Landmaster in SF64. I mean, the others still used their Arwings... I want mine back!

And the Blue Marine was all right... for the one level that it was in. Unlimited torpedoes was nice. I don't know, the underwater level was kind of dark, and you moved a bit slowly. Still, it wasn't that bad.

I preferred the mainstream Arwing levels. Zipping and zagging and avoiding obstacles easier than the Landmaster... yup, good times. I need to pull out SF64 and give it another playthrough.

[OB1]

I loved the tank parts in SF 64. I'm really dissapointed that Assault isn't as good as 64 especially since the Namco Ace Combat team developed it.

[A Black Falcon]

I'd say that the part I'm probably most dissapointed about is the loss of the branching mission tree... it was a fantastic element in SF64 and greatly helped the replay value of the game.

The other thing I'm concerned about is length. SF64 is a classic shooter -- short, but you can't save during the game and there is a lot of replay value. In this game it seems like the game is longer but there's no branching tree... the lack of a branching tree is a mistake for a Star Fox game. As for length, that depiction makes it sound like it's longer than any one playthrough of SF64 but not long enough to be fully satisfying when you finish it once. If that's true it'd really be too bad, because SF64 is about the right length and challenge. It really is a very, very good game (excepting the bad multiplayer, but this one doesn't sound like a big improvement there) and I'd have liked to see something that doesn't change the formula as much as this... the scrolling ship-based shooter is a very simplistic but consistently fun genre that doesn't get enough titles these days. Adding some ground-based missions is fine, but forward-scrolling areas should be the mainstay of the game. This change is not for the better. And especially not when the ground parts are not done in a way that lives up to the level of quality shown in the flying areas...

[A Black Falcon]

http://www.planetgamecube.com/reviews.cf...ile&id=585

Another solid review giving the depressing details of how this game turned out...

While Star Fox: Assault has turned out to be more enjoyable than I expected after my initial impressions, the game does have a few major hindrances and fails to become the glorious comeback fans were hoping for.

The most damaging change in the series is the overwhelming focus on ground exploration. Six of the ten missions contain sections placing you either on foot or in the Landmaster tank, searching mazes in order to take out targets, such as enemy spawning devices or radar jammers. The level designs are relatively complex, requiring you to spend a lot of time searching for the targets. Unfortunately, your wing men still haven’t learned to take care of themselves, so you may get an unexpected call for help while you’re deep in a maze: meaning that you have to find your way back to the Arwing, take out the enemies, and try to return to where you left off. Star Fox Adventures may have inspired this more exploratory style, but this is not the way to make a third-person, on-foot shooter. For a much better example, see Sin & Punishment on the N64.

All-range Arwing sections (like those in Star Fox 64) require you to circle a limited area and dogfight against Star Wolf spacecraft or take out incoming missiles. These sections usually take place in the same levels as the ground-based action, and you often switch back and forth between the two modes. Severe draw-in issues hinder the gameplay significantly. When one of your teammates is in trouble, you often can’t see his ship or the enemies behind him until you fly across the level and catch up with the icon floating in the distance.

New to the series are on-rails wing-riding sections, which have Fox standing on an ally’s wing, gunning down enemies. While the concept of standing on the wing of a plane may seem absurd, the pure simplicity of aiming and blasting away enemies is a welcome change from the cumbersome ground action.

There are three traditional corridor-based flight missions, placed like book-ends at the beginning, middle, and end of the game. The first one isn’t much to speak of, but by the final stage, Namco finally seems to figure out what Star Fox is all about, pressing you through narrow corridors with shifting barricades, lots of smaller enemies, and a few tougher ships.

Longevity is not one of Assault’s strengths. The Star Fox series has always been short enough to beat in a few hours, but unlike the SNES game with its different courses or Star Fox 64’s many branching paths, Assault takes you straight through, mission to mission, without hidden routes, secret stages, or even a map screen. There is a survival mode that pits you against the full game without saving, as well as a variety of flags to find and medals to gain in each stage (winning ten silver medals unlocks the classic Namco game, Xevious, which was the inspiration for the Star Fox series). While these medals serve as a means to gauge your improvement, they don’t really provide a different way to play the game.

Multiplayer returns in Star Fox Assault, but it is also plagued by several factors that take the thrill out of the experience. The draw-in issues from single player are here too, so most of the time, you’ll find yourself chasing a colored diamond instead of an Arwing or a tank. Radar is only two-dimensional, and many of the arenas have a huge column of vertical space; combining these elements results in players thinking that they’re closing in on each other, even though there might be a huge altitude gap between them. New players may have a hard time jumping into the all-range battles, since they have to adjust to a new set of controls each time they switch vehicles. Plus, the tanks are so cumbersome, our group largely abandoned them.

In all, Star Fox: Assault isn’t really a bad game, but it truly fails to impress in any way. Taken casually, it can be somewhat enjoyable, despite its hindrances. All the same, those hoping for a triumphant return to the series’ roots after Star Fox Adventures will have to keep on waiting.

Ouch. 10 missions... and only 3 are normal Star Fox flying levels. Ground missions (six!) with both air and ground aspects where you have to go between the two and try to remember where you left off in the maze. Draw in. Linear and short, with the only thing getting you to play again being the medals really. Not good... the game sounds like it might be some fun, but certainly doesn't sound like a game worth $50. Maybe when it's cheap I'll think about getting it.

It is nice to hear that there's a 'Survival' game where you play without being able to save, though... I was wondering about that. :)

[Dark Jaguar]

I heard Falco gets this magazine weekly...

<img src="http://www.ghazporkindustrial.com/Star_Thugs_Cover.jpg">

[Great Rumbler]

Is your teen becoming a pirate? 5 humane wasy to beat the truth out of him before he lies to you again with his filthy pirate mouth.

Hahaha! :D

[Geno]

That's funny. :D