Can we all agree that it is decent game, but overpriced?I'm having quite a lot of fun with it
>>335074918
I'm enjoying myself. 3 hours in and Peppy just got shot down. Having a good time.
>>335075719
>3 hours in
So you already beat it?
The game hasn't released in my country yet and I have a couple questions:
I've seen a screenshot of a score board for each level, and it looks like they have five medals each. How do you get medals in Zero?
How many paths are there? I've heard that it's more like SF SNES with three distinct routes as opposed to SF64's multiple branching paths.
>>335075886
the 3 hour video wasn't done by a beginner. it's like claiming dark soul 3 is 2 hours long because of that video made a day after release.
>>335075886
>falling for the 100% in 3 hours meme
You know a lot of speed runners do that sort of stuff with a shitload of games.
>>335074918
If this game was 30 bucks it would be reasonable. 40, I can rock with that. 50? nah bro.
>>335076310
And it's not even that for a physical copy.
>>335075886
>3 hours
You are aware that the person played the game previously right?
>>335075886
No. Did you even read my post?
>Muh 3 hours!
Speed runs exist. Would you say DS3 is bad because it's 1 hour Long when speedrunned?
Anyways, the guy at IGN said that he is at 15 hours and haven't completed it yet.
Inb4 >IGN
That is still a fact
From what I understand there's an option to buy it without guard, which makes it 40. Poorfags on /v/ wouldn't spend more than 10 dollars, though.
>>335074918
Is co-op mode unlocked from the start? My nephew wants to play it with me as soon as I get it.
>>335076609
Got it for £35 with Guard
Is it really $60 in America?
>>335076715
It is
Have fun with your Nephew anon
>>335076162
>How do you get medals in Zero?
They're physical pickups in the level
>>335076269
>>335076297
>>335076310
>>335076597
He may not be a beginner, but he certainly isn't a speedrunner, and he fucking sucks at this game.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpdhGlySwH4
A speed runner will likely bring this down to under an hour and a half.
>>335074918
>Can we all agree that it is decent game, but overpriced?
No, it's got too many issues to be good. It's not a bad game, but it's average at best.
>>335076813
>£1.00 = $1.40 currently
Guess they rounded it up to $2 or something
>>335076967
Oh. No score requirement?
>>335074918
honestly how toned down can you get the motion controls. I heard you cant fully turn them off. I do not like using motion controls.
>>335077286
You can ignore them in most levels
But some levels require precise aiming
>>335077286
You can safely turn them off in most on-reail sections. Bosses and all-range mode pretty much require them
>>335077067
Nope.
Getting the highscore gives you the highscore. That's it. No reward or anything.
In reality, there's very little reason not to just boost through most of the game, collect the medals, and beat the boss. Only time you really need to slow down is when you want to take an alternate route.
>>335077751
That's no fun though, the best parts of rail shooters is beating the high scores after all.But you need friends for that
>>335077751
As far as I'm concerned, a high score is its own reward, so I'm fine with this.
>>335076990
>A speed runner will likely bring this down to under an hour and a half.
That's still a pretty normal time for a 100% speed run. Just google "100% speedrun" and check the playtimes. A game shouldn't be judged solely by how fast it's possible to complete, though it's still a significant factor. Morrowind takes 5 minutes to finish etc.
>>335076990
Can you tell me some of these issues?
>>335078243
It's too much like 64 obviously.
>>335078298
Isn't that what everyone wanted though? I mean what specifically is too much like the 64 version? Because they're the same franchise, you can't really say "they have the same core gameplay mechanics" because that's totally expected...
>>335076297
I beat countless games in that amount of time, including God of War 2. And it didn't take the replay value at all. Also, a $60 game.
>>335078613
>And it didn't take the replay value at all
I agree. The person I quoted was saying OP had already 100% the game in 3 hours, because of this video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpdhGlySwH4. I was disagreeing with him.
>>335078523
You're asking the wrong person but that's what the majority of reviews complain about even though it's precisely what people wanted from Star Fox.
That said it could be directed at the story but it was meant to be a reboot of sorts anyway.
>>335078030
This. I still wish they were tied to the medals, though.
>>335074918
It's like 25 squiddlydoos here, how is that overpriced again?
Is this Sonygger revenge for the blasting they got over The Order?
>>335074918
is already out?
shit, might pick it up on redbox
>>335076269
>>335076297
>>335076385
>>335076445
damage control
>>335078523
>Isn't that what everyone wanted though?
That's what nostalgic retards who don't realize 64 was average wanted.
>>335074918
paid £30 for it. its coming tomorrow so i'll see.
>>335078523
>Isn't that what everyone wanted though?
Not these casuals.
>>335074918
Enjoy it. You have about 30 minutes of rehashed shovelware content to plow through before the credits roll!
>>335080167
The biggest complaints are that it's five hours long tops and the controls, in an effort to shoehorn in the fucking tablet, became needlessly complex.
Star Fox 64 got away with being short because it was as fun hell, easy to pick up and kill an afternoon with, and was fairly simple mechanics wise.
Just about every review I've read says the new combat is more complex due to the tablet. But not complex in an intuitive and interesting way. Complex in a frustrating and obtuse way. And a few of them say the game would have scored much better if it just controlled and moved like original Star Fox or 64 plus a little more speed.
>>335080167
Holy fuck these reviews are terrible. They barely say what's wrong with the game and spew meaningless bullshit. The only good one is that Giantbomb review, at least they went into detail
