So can we agree that Zero is the best Star Fox game since 64?
>>343135587
Not better than 64, but its up there I think
>A Not insubstantial section of the gaming press advocates wiping out everything and starting over
>Zero did exactly that.
Unless you're a complete retard, yeah.
>There are people that unironically think Assault is better.
"Best Star Fox game since 64" is pretty faint praise.
>>343135587
Nah. It's pretty bad with hardly any replayability. I put it down there right beside SF: Command.
Pretty much. Better than the Gamecube and DS games, at least.
>>343135587
Definitely.
Outside of lack of content and stupid gyrocopter stage, this game did a lot right.
Oh, except for the tiny open-areas, hated how frequent i'd get turned around because i was apparently too far from the area.
>>343137320
It is. It already has more and better on-rails missions and p good boss fights.
>>343135587
- Story makes no sense. Star Wolf battles are random as fuck. Teleporters are dumb.
- Venom is disappointing as shit. No "true" ending. You beat the game for the first time? Yeah, that was the climax.
- No fucking epic stages like Balse or Area 6
- No true multiplayer
- The game does not have anything nex-gen at all. No crazy graphics, no good sense of scale, no online leaderboards (yes, competing for highs cores is fun). It could easily be done on Game Cube (besides Gyro controls)
- Way too many stages you play alone without team mates. They are even more useless than ever.
I tried my best to like this game. I accepted that it was short and uses shitty motion controls. But this game could had been so much better.
Disappointing as fuck.
Anybody who seriously defends Zero makes me really feel bad for the Star Fox fan base because I'm pretty sure they know Zero being such a huge failure, both critically and financially, means SF is being put back in the grave for another decade.
