New Star Fox Zero world record set

New Star Fox Zero world record set.

Can you beat the score?

Uh huh.
Sounds about right.

Actually the Miiverse community for the game is super active.

Nintendo cucks are pathetic.

God just shut the fuck up and go away.

You guys really are insane, aren't you?

Zero has an insane amount of technical depth, as anyone who has shot for the WR can tell you.

Oh you're pretending.

it's not really something you can convince others to do, the path to self-improvement is something you have to find on your own

No user it's just autism, score autism.

Right. This is why so many people had trouble wrapping their heads around what makes Zero so great.

To them, a game is something you play through once and then never touch again. But Star Fox Zero is a score attack game, one with a really high skill ceiling to boot. You're supposed to play the stages over and over and get better every time.

HEH HEH HEH HEH HEH HEH HEH HEH
Kill yourself.

I haven't played Starfox Zero yet, but it looks fun and it seems like you know more.

So what's bad about it then? Is it really just some casualized bullshit? If so, how?

You're talking about the game that completely undermines it's own design with its controls. The free aiming makes it pathetically easy on linear stages and ruins what skill there was to playing the original Star Fox games.

Go play a real SHMUP if you want to talk skill.

Skill doesn't just mean 'beating' a stage, jackass. Do you really not understand how hard it is to crack five thousand hits in this game? It takes a lot of skill, and a big part of what makes it truly unique is the control scheme.


The game is anything but casual.

It may not be the only element but completion is one of the most important elements of any game that involves progression. SFZ's undermining of that doesn't become acceptable just because they stick a score counter on it.
You say that as if other twin stick shooters don't exist. All SFZ does is replace the second stick with tilt controls and give you an extra perspective.

Why would anyone try to get the high score in a shitty game nobody will remember in a year?

And? The Medal system in it's own right takes about fifty hours without a guide. The game offers plenty of replay value even if you aren't interested in going after high scores.

How long can the defense force keep screeching about how IT'S AN ARCADE GAME MEANT FOR ACTION AND REPLAYABILITY. When there are so many other much better arcade action games out there?
People like to call games like Mario and Mario Kart "rehashes", but Star Fox Zero is a literal rehash of 64, and all they managed to do was make the game shorter, easier, and worse.

Star Fox Zero is so lacking in challenge and content it makes Kid Icarus Uprising look like an untouchable legend. The bar has been set so high, are action fans really so desperate to fight off cinematic and story-telling games that they will defend Star Fox Zero?

Huh, I had already erased this disaster from my memory, I dropped it after 4 levels or so.

Except Star Fox Zero is a good game.


So you couldn't even finish the game? Ha ha. How pathetic. I'm sorry it was too difficult for you.

I still haven't heard why Zero fails to measure up

As someone who actually bought a Wii U and still uses it, why?

Don't even bother asking. Virtually all of the people complaining about it in this thread have never played it.


This isn't Adventures, Assault, or Command.

Saying shit like that is a big reason as to why no one takes you seriously.

Nobody's talking about Adventures here, are you delusional?

At least those games had decent controls, fucking Zero feels moving your head while wearing a Virtual Boy while using bootlegged Wii motion controls

m8, replayability should be a byproduct of engagement in a game, not the reason for it. Just because it allows you grind points or do some pointless side-objectives for medals for hours doesn't mean it's any good if the gameplay you engage in to do it isn't well designed or engaging.

It's nearly on the same level as saying "I this game for the cheevos", just slightly less superficial.

then what the fuck does that make roguelikes
where the hell is the line drawn

JESUS FUCKINH CHRIST IS IT SO HARD TO EXPLAIN WHAT IS SHIT ABOUT A GAME
AND I DON'T MEAN SURFACE-LEVEL 'hurr the levels suck' "CRITICISM", ACTUALLY GO INTO FUCKING SPECIFICS

I really don't understand what your argument has been in this thread.
It doesn't sound like you understand it either.

Zero just doesn't work because fundamentally the mechanics of Star Fox are not designed for being able to move and aim in separate directions, on the contrary they were designed to be chained together. It's like patching in mouse aiming to the original Space Harrier, it just fundamentally breaks the game.


As far as score attack is concerned, it's true you can practice the game to get better and get a higher score, but the same could be said for any shitty quarter muncher from back in the arcades, just because they have a score system doesn't mean the gameplay is solid.

Where all da macro porn be at ?.?

The original Star Fox. Zero was built to take advantage of the changes. It's a very well made, arcade like experience with a lot of technical depth.

It's the regular Star Fox gameplay, with the ability to aim in a different direction you're moving tacked on.

What you're thinking of is something like Sin and Punishment 2. I get it though, you're defensive of the game because you just personally really like it and want to defend any attacks on it. Even if you don't exactly have an argument.

Which adds a lot to the core experience, especially in all range mode and during boss fights.

you platinum dickriders never cease to amaze

It doesn't.

Star Fox has always been designed around the limitation of only being able to aim in the direction you're moving.
It's like this, see imagine you're fighting a boss in Star Fox.
The weakpoint is in the center.
Frequently it has an attack that fills the center of the screen with bullets.

In the original star fox, you would have to time moving into the center of the screen to attack it, or be good at moving a bit to aim towards the center before pulling back repeatedly.
In Zero you can just stay off to the side and aim towards the center.
Not once does the game ever truly take advantage of the new control scheme.

Conversely, a game like Sin and Punishment 2, or Kid Icarus Uprising frequently makes use of this. By filling the areas of the screen the enemies occupy with bullets, and using simple but effective three dimensional bullet spreads, you do opposite actions with moving and shooting, but the opposite actions work in tandem.

In Uprising, frequently there will be times where you either can't stay still long enough to line up a shot with the OG Star Fox aiming, or the screen will just flat out be occupied by hazards. In this scenario, the game is designed around actually having you move in ways separate from where you are aiming.

Also, you don't need to look at the touchscreen to know where your shots will land exactly. Nor is aiming tied to where Pit is.
I can hear you saying now.

Well, no. As long as you're touching the touchscreen, the reticle will never sway no matter where you move. Same goes for S&P with aiming.
Now this sounds like something minor, but by doing this the aiming also never requires accounting for where your player character is physically. Now I'm sure you're thinking this is a minor thing, Zero does it fine, but I'm here to tell you that these games essentially prove that the gamepad aiming is superfluous and unnecessary.

Not even aiming in a different direction, nor aiming with the gyro, splatoon proves those work fine on the Wii U. I'm talking specifically making it necessary to use the gamepad to line up your shots.
Yeah, you stopped needing the gamepad because you practiced the game religiously.
DarkSpinesSonic is great at Sonic 06, but that doesn't mean it controls well just because he practiced it a bunch.

Of course, you're gonna ignore everything I'm saying, in favor of spouting some bullshit to just dismiss it, aren't you?

Games with the potential for replayability due to their random/procedural design. What of them?
No need to go into an autistic fit over this. I already stated that the free aiming makes it too easy. I guess if you want me to go into more detail:

The controls themselves are fine - once you get used to it it's rather novel way of designing a twin stick shooter, especially one with 3D environments. And for some of the all range levels it actually benefits this - being able to fly and fire independently made fighting the bosses like pic related actually challenging, as being able to fire and dodge is more intimately interlinked. However, for the majority of stages the game is designed like a normal, linear Star Fox game. The problem with that design is that its challenge is the same as most other shumps - aiming and moving being linked, forcing you to weave in and out of enemy lines of fire and other danger zones to make your own shots. This is exemplified in the boss fights of former Star Fox games where they put enemy weak points in front of where they fire. Even with the ability to charge and lock on, you still need to move your reticle over the enemies, which was linked to your ship's movement. In Star Fox Zero though, you are able to move and aim freely though, so you never need to put yourself in danger to shoot, which made the game a lot easier. This is what I mean when I said the controls undermined its design and make it less engaging as a result.

My argument was that Star Fox Zero's was not designed well and supporting score attack play and doesn't make it any better or add any real replayability. What's hard to understand?

It only adds to those stages, and it takes far away more from the normal stages.

lol, NIDF revising history yet again~

Oh, and chaining aiming to movement. I didn't explain that point very clearly.

See, unlike both of those examples, if you move left or right, your reticle follows. Now obviously this is necessary since there's a POV aiming. But what I was saying was that that's completely unfucking necessary. What would have worked better was making the game like 64, and just having the reticle be either independent of its movement, or tied to its movement, but ditching the POV view entirely. This would mean that you would always be able to see where you're aiming and moving at the same time.

In no way can you fucking argue that separating those views is better for gameplay than keeping them both on the same screen.

Ah, thanks for explaining
I haven't really played any StarFox game or any 3D twin-stick shooter for that matter, so I can't really comment on the games

No, because the game does things with the new control scheme that a traditional control scheme can't really imitate. Namely the feeling that are 'really' piloting an Arwing.

You saying that the game wasn't built around the control scheme is laughable. The bosses in this game are series highlights because of all the tricks you can pull with the control scheme.

...

What game?!

Star Fox zero rules.

Nintendo representative, please understand that SF Zero actually sucks.

...

LOL

Keep telling yourself that.

Why would I want to play Star fox zero when Lylat wars exists?
I don't really fancy chasing that turkey boss through the clouds for the umpteenth time, or cheesing andross & wolf by switching to and from chicken form to dodge everything, or the headache of having to look up and down constantly because aiming on the TV was purposefully gimped to force you to use the wiiu pad.

Silly gook user. How do you expect me to beat the score if I can't read it. chck m8 atheists!

I remember seeing that pic back on launch. What is even your point? That if a bad scheme turns standard that makes it retroactively good? Because first person camera control on a stick has always been fucking dreadful. I thought you cunts were all about praising gyro as the superior alternative even.