11th February 2005, 11:42 PM
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.
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.
![[Image: logo_bos_79x76.jpg]](https://www.tendocity.net/logo_bos_79x76.jpg){kind=logo}