Star Fox should just drop the whole stage thing and switch for something with more free roam and space sim-like

Star Fox should just drop the whole stage thing and switch for something with more free roam and space sim-like.

I don't mind the controls being arcadey, I just think having a bit more freedom (and I'm not talking something the size of NMS or Elite) could really benefit the variety, exploration and immersion into a universe that looks legitimately interesting that has yet to be fleshed out.

Once you have the free roam you add in some different missions:

And other shit like that. Suddenly the game becomes much more replayable and you can actually justify paying 60$ for a 5 hour game.

So you're saying like how Nintendo gave Skyrim the Zelda treatment and made it a slightly decent game, that they should give No Mans Sky the Star Fox treatment and do the same thing?

It also becomes a lot more hollow. Just from your example alone, I shudder to think of how meaningless those actions would be.
There's nothing wrong with a game going from A-Z and having an end.

Mario received the exact same treatment I'm talking about going from the SNES to the N64 and nobody complained.
Actually, people love Mario64.


There isn't in most cases, but there is for Star Fox, the game just doesn't offer enough variety in its gameplay. I can justify it for Platinum games, but just not this.

Also focusing more on free roaming doesn't immediately mean it would be more shallow.

Didn't we already have this thread >_>

No, what they need to do is get rid of shitty motion controls, have a branching path system like 64 with more levels, and a hard as fuck expert mode.
Also, better voice actors, fuck the voice actors for Assault and Zero.

OP should drop himself down a bridge

as much as I like space sims, no, star fox is best on rails, with a linear, branching mission structure. But they resisted giving us that for nearly two decades, and then when they finally did, they fucked the controls so hard that most people rejected it just for that.

Honestly at this point, all I really want out of the starfox franchise is for nintendo to release their most finished build of starfox 2.

The reason why they held off for so long is that by keeping as a on-rails game there's just so much that you can do.
Since you can't really innovate on movement, what they do is try to add different modes like the helicopter and the walking dinosaur, which just really disrupt the pace of the game and feel like clear padding.

There's just not much to do with the formula as it is.

I get that, but the wii was practically purpose-built for rail shooters, and a starfox game would have made for an amazing early lifespan title to show off the IR pointing function of the wiimote. Would've been safe and easy.

That's true

You should just make a new franchise at that point. Any Starfox game should be like 80% on rails arwing missions, 20% other stuff like Landmaster missions.

NO. FUCK OFF AND DIE.

Bullshit. Go play Sin and Punishment. There's plenty you can do with the genre.

And you should kill yourself summerfag and record it,Then you yourself can become replayable

I'll gush a pie in the sky idea.

I'm thinking about how Starfox could benefit from having levels designed as big battlefields where you fly from one objective to the next. And depending on your success of one objective can determine the outcome of what happens next.

For the "gimmick" (because Myamoto sucks and says every game needs one) would be the scale of the vehicle you pilot. First there's infantry level where it's you in a space suit, jetpack, and blaster. Then there's the fighter vehicle level where it's arwings and landmasters. And finally there's the super-weapon/mothership scale where you pilot massive vehicles like the Great Fox or a giant gorilla mech that's super powerful but super big. Super-weapons are literally base-sized vehicles. While a vehicle can damage a super weapon, infantry cannot from the outside. However infantry can enter the super weapon's control room and hijack it (so long as they don't get killed inside).

As for story, forget it. In the end Starfox are space mercenary muppets ultimately in it for the money. We can expand the single player to be more open this way without feeling too open.

Pitch: You play as the newest team member on the Starfox Team as an accountant. You'll train in the VR sim for a while but your job is to find profitable contracts and outfitting your crew. And that means buying and fitting lots of customizeable parts for your ships. And depending on which path you take depends on what contracts open up later on. Failing a mission means losing money and/or arwing/team member. You lose when you run out of money to buy supplies to maintain life support.

Multi-player can be battlefield-style matches where you're pitted against teams of 8-16 players to complete objectives and win the day. Or have friends join you as co-op in a single player game. When you win you earn money to buy new gear, ships, crew members, etc. You can still play as Fox and other Starfox team members if you appoint them as commanders. Your OC can be customized from species to class and abilities.

Yeah, I know it's a Starfox RPG too big to succeed.

Is it an on rails shooter? If it's not an on rails shooter, I don't want it.

It has on-rails shooting. Going from zone to zone is on rails. Then it's all range mode when you're in a battlefield zone. You'll also encounter bosses in on-rails sections too. Difference is you choose your routs and paths and wether or not to detour on the way. It's like 64 multiple levels but as one continuous level.

I guess one thing they could do is introduce more vehicles, but instead of locking them to specific missions, let the player choose when to use them. As long as everything has an alternate flying mode, it should be doable. Would also allow for gimmick runs like landmaster only.

Landmasters can't work in space. However I'm positive they can wreck some massive damage inside of a space colony if you can land one there.

jk it will be star fox & rabbids
jk jk there won't be another star fox game

oh Holla Forums

For the sake of having a game that can be done in a reasonable amount of time sticking to on rails is for the best. Some rpg style progression? Great. More (way more) branching? Great. Star fox 64 is the blueprint you can expand on that and you'd be able to make some real classics. The haven't tried to push past what 64 did really.

I fucking hated it because like Sunshine, the latter half of it became completely shitty levels made of floating platforms above a void. I submit that like Mega Man 2 and 3 being on either side of the peak of perfection in the series, Mario 3 and SMW are the Mario game equivalent. Not that Mario 64 is bad, it just led down a path that was like what happened to Star Wars when Lucas was surrounded by yes-men who were afraid to steer him away from stupid ideas.

Because Star Fox isn't a space sim, no one fell in love with it for being a space sim, and no one who likes the series wants it to be a space sim. It's an arcade shooter, sometimes on rails, sometimes not. Turning Star Fox into a space sim is like turning Blaster Master into a tank sim.

I'd play balster master tank sim

Star Fox should evolve being past an on-rail shooter as better on rail shooters have been made like Afterburner Climax. A lot of on rail shooters have been superceded by AAA cinematic shooters like CoD and Uncharted, which have on rail sections in their games. However, I wouldn't mind if Star Fox turned into a space sim.

Zelda was always non-linear though.

I don't agree. Cinematic shooters have a completely different pace and feel. On rails shooters are about constantly being pushed forward, scrambling to hit everything on screen within a brief window of opportunity. Cinematic shooters are about crouching behind walls, taking all the time in world.

Star Fox peaked with Dinosaur Planet.

But that would require effort.
Starfox Zero proved that Nintendo and Platinum don't a shit about the series.

Kill yourself normalfag

Kill YOUR self normalfag

Breath of the Wild was never not an open world game
The original Zeldo was an open world game
Being good or not has nothing to do with you retards calling everything skyrim
Fuck off nigger

Star fox already has a good game and it's called kid icarus, seriously that game screams what starfox should of been. But other than that, the only other starfox could be something other than a rail shooter is make like those starwars:rouge squadron games but with furries instead.

Why is it that the idea of make it open world always, always gets floated by fans for every franchise? Wouldn't you rather just have tightly designed levels rather than big open spaces? Not every game needs an exploration element tacked on to it.

Calling the original Zelda an Open World game is like calling Commander Keen a Metroidvania, you're fucking retarded user.

No relevance to whatever this thread is about, but I have to say that image is fucking hilarious and I want to thank you for brightening my day.

The only difference between TLoZ and BotW, in terms of their openness, is that BotW gives you all the important equipment at the beginning of the game. They're still games where you can go anywhere as long as you have the right item(s), with no arbitrary barriers like story progression. What BotW changed for the worse was equipment progression, not how open the game was.

Open World is an excuse for game designers to be as lazy as possible with level design. Look at MGSV and BoTW, series that previously had well designed and memorable sections, are instead replaced with sprawling, empty, open worlds, with the few actually structured areas being comparatively bland and unfun. Open World is only put to good use in 2 instances: well crafted RPGS and sandbox games where the player can fuck around in simple, yet satisfying ways, like pic related.

Because they're easy, you can kill and steal from just about everyone with limited repercussions, and huge timesinks. For casuals this is the perfect game.

Compare TLoZ's dungeons to BoTW's and tell me that nothing is different, the level design is just fucking trash, modern open world games compensate for lack of clear direction and competent level design with a "big open world" for faggots like you to be wowed by. In reality the modern open world game is as barren and empty as your social life.

Their differences in level design, which I agree TLoZ's is better, still aren't any different in openness. You can still go anywhere in TLoZ, as long as you have bombs, the raft, the ladder, and the candle. BotW's blandness wasn't because you can go anywhere, it was because almost anywhere you can go wasn't that interesting. I'm not arguing that BotW's open world isn't bad, I'm arguing that claiming that the series didn't have open world aspects to it beforehand is factually untrue. TLoZ had similar open world aspects, just done better.

Sorry then, mixed you up with the other user.

They kinda did this in Starfox 2.
Ok the free roaming wasn't 3d and on a relatively small map, but the concept is mostly there.

Other user here, when did I say there was no differences between them or that BoTW's world was done well?

Star Fox is a great franchise with a lot of potential. I don't know how they managed to screw up Zero. Next time they need to just go back to standard controls with maybe one or two additional functions from the touch screen.

Here's a list of stuff that would make the next Star Fox game awesome:

No, Star Fox just needs to be an Ace Combat style game but in space. Need to be able to have characters who have each their own set of skills and weapons that might make them more or less useful. If you choose to play as Fox, he's an all around character, but if you choose to play as someone else, perhaps they have more of an expertise on ground attacks and maneuvering. As you play more with each character you start to level them up and get more abilities. Sortof like Fire Emblem meets Star Fox. Outside of that you should have the ability to make game changing choices that could effect the outcome and success of your team. Say if you let a villain live, he comes back and kills Slippy.

How come faggots don't realize what made OG SF, SF2 and SF64 good? Simplicity, these games didn't go for these high-concept, unfun ideas like walking or mech sections like Assault or Zero did because they couldn't, and they were much more focused and fun because of that. There was the sparse submarine and Tank sections in SF64, but that was more of a mutation of the railshooter format than a total deviation from it. It's astonishing how a company that puts out the same mario game, almost every year without fail, feels the need to "switch up" Starfox almost every time. Literally all they need to do is make a simple rail shooter with some potential secret paths and their golden, but they're retarded and won't do that, and likely will do your dumbass idea OP, thanks retard.

the issue with star fox zero was its controls
gimmick shit tanked the game.

Rail shooters died for a reason user

So Mass Effect: Anthropomorphia?

Cinematic shooters include those sections now, but I can't justify paying $60 for an AAA on rails game.

...

But user, those were fun. Even so, Arwing flying should make up the majority of the game, of course. Even as someone who liked Star Fox Adventures (which is a game for true patricians, plebes cannot into it) I was bothered by the low amount of Arwing levels. I'd say that even with on-foot and other vehicles the game should be 75% Arwing. They just need to make a bigger game if they want more non-Arwing stuff.

We're saying that it should evolve from rail shooters because numerous clones did the same, including branching paths like After Burner Climax and Planet Harriers. Not to mention the rail shooting sections in cinematic games.

If it came out now, it would just stick out as a generic rail shooter with animal people.

With a competent team piloting mechs and the great fox is as simple as piloting an Arwing in terms of controls. The only technical difference is scale and that's because you orvan enemy unit can infiltrate these massive battle stations. Besides I love the idea of hijacking one of Andross's or Pepper's massive battle stations and turn it against them.

Gameplay wise it's Starfox 64 but with more vehicles to play. When you're infantry you're vehicle is a G-diffuser backpack which you can use to maneuver in space until you reach an escape pod. The light roleplaying for money to buy customizeable parts and ships can be dropped in favor of another game if the team is too small. The mercenary money management thing can be a game of its own.

I just realized I'm blending a space-shooter with Pandemic's Mercenaries games.

Sounds like Armored Core in space, I like it.

No and no, because that sounds fucking awful.

Except that's wrong. It would be piss easy to make what OP is talking about vs. a bunch of scrolling shooter levels.

Kid Icarus Uprising was originally a Starfox tech demo.

THANK FUCK SOMEONE ELSE FINALLY SEES HOW THIS WOULD BE GREAT
The Arwings fucking have G-Diffusers, their whole point is to control inertia and gravity. The things you could do in space besides flying around like a regular plane are limitless and yet ever since 64 all they've given us is looping and U-turning. Where's side strafing mid-flight (which would complement the off bore shooting in Zero)?

You mean Command? It was shit.

It should evolve from a niche, largely dead genre to something that's been done to death in the current generation, and that would make it more fresh?

Just let the god damn franchise die user. Star shit was never good.

It should evolve to something that bests what those other games are trying to do by having mechanics and features they don't have. That was what the series was famous for when it was new. It's pretty much the granddaddy of 3D shooting games, and SF64 introduced the Rumble Pak. That's probably why Nintendo feels the need to keep changing it up.

...

You just can't win, really. If you try to change your game up people will say it's too different, but if you leave it the same it's a rehash. Sometimes I wonder why anyone even bothers to make games anymore.

Somebody's always gonna talk shit.

You just have to figure out which part of your customer base to pander to.

breath of the wild is pretty great game, m8.

mgs was always a pretty shit uncharted esque movie game to begin with.

The bosses were piss easy, the only place that actually felt like a dungeon was the castle, combat is pointless and the sidequests outside the shrine and wood poo were pointless. Seriously they shouldn't of made spirit orbs be only obtained from shrines. Oh and the voice acting was shit.

man can't argue against that logic

MGS has variety in its gameplay due to the near-future sci-fi setting and Kojima's drug habit, and it's not full of QTEs. Still, open world probably isn't the best approach for Star Fox. Open world has some great things about it, but in practice it seems to just be an excuse for casualization.

Well no shit it doesn't explain why it was pointless, my post was only two fucking sentences long. I can elaborate if you want, but you would rather just want to shitpost.

I fail to see that's grammatically inncorrect.

You sent the first shitposty post, not me user


It's not correct.
It should be
you dumb cunt

It's an accurate statement, your weapons break easily and you can just run past them since they hesitate before attacking. Only reason to fight them is for monster drops for improving your armor for the set bonuses. The majority side quests besides the shrines just give food or money, which both are easily obtained in game. Hence there's no need to do them, except for the house or the fireproof armor.


'they should not of made' still flows alright, "shouldn't of" fits. Are you the type of guy who autistically screeches when you see someone use a who instead of a whom?

Now, I need to ask you this:
Have you ever played a Zelda game before?
Cause it doesn't seem like it.

Or MAYBE, now stay with me okay, they're there to have things to do in the game, and have more content in it so that there are things to do
Wooooow!

Because only retards write "Shouldn't of"
that's it really

Have you ever played a Zelda game before?
Cause it doesn't seem like it.
Have you? Because you would know that your weapons don't fucking break in other zelda games, especially the master sword. Oh and you if trying some gotcha shit, yes the deku sticks do break, but why the fuck are you using them?
Now you're just shitposting. If they wanted to put in more content then you don't make the rewards so terrible. A fifty rupees reward isn't worth shit when those glowing stones are worth 75 rupees. Neither is a food that gives a electric resistance. If you need money you don't do side quests you just find and sell those glowing stones, they respawn after all.

Sound a bit like a cargo cult logic if you ask me.

Nigger I wasn't talking about the weapons breaking, I was talking about how literally every fight apart from the ones you're locked into can be skipped in every single fucking Zelda game.

The reward is to play more content itself, that's because the gameplay is fun.
Or maybe you want to just pad the game out with 25 masks you honestly almost never get to use like they did in Majora's Mask?

Like most games, you play the extra content because you want to play more of the game. Not because it gives you some fake reward that you don't need.

although to be fair I should've probably mentioned I was talking about skipping fights and not weapons breaking

You fight them for money, and smash pots and grass for money as well. You did side quests to get heart pieces, bottles and wallet upgrades; getting tiny sums of money and food is not useful.

That's why you can skip a lot of the fights.
Like in most Zeldas.

What's there to get?

Because the fights before were not detrimental to your ability to fight, and you got some rupees out of it, so why not fight? Now for the most part it's a net loss fighting them unless you use bombs.

This thread is fucking garbage

Every time you fight you gain more weapons.
The whole point of the game is to dispose and get new things.

Even if you break one weapon, at the end of the fight you're gonna drop one just as good.
Also, come on man, rupees in every zelda game but this and the 3ds one were completely worthless

And what if the player does not happen to enjoy this kind of retarded mechanic? What if they want to actually use weapons they like instead of boring shit?

Or if you're going to say that they're equally good anyway, then the mechanic is fucking pointless.

...

Here's another list, this time of things that would happen if the next Star Fox was like Breath of the Wild:

then you don't play the game
But saying it's shit because of is dumb.

The game is literally the same except a few times you have to change weapon.

Just fucking remake the cancelled Star Fox 2, and add in online multiplayer. Even Q-Games pitched a remake of first SNES game after they made SF64 3D and were declined.


No it wasn't, it was a third person shooter demo (a genre unpopular in Japan), SF was considered for it but didn't fit because Sakarui had shooting mechanics that an Arwing couldn't perform like hovering, rotating on the spot and running on the ground that a winged character like Pit can do. And KI was also used due to it's recent post Brawl popularity and as a chance to revive it.

This (and the second user's detail) actually does make this sound like an interesting feature.

Argonaut's previous games were like that.
Putting Star Fox on rails was Miyamoto's idea.

I wanna fuck that chick

I don't care that saying have after shouldn't is proper, I care that the fact that "should of" is considered acceptable yet "shouldn't of" is not. If the latter is not proper then the former should be as well to nip that potential fuck up in the bud.

It's a fucking space craft, not a fucking airplane you can make it hover. Hell there are actual fighter jet that can fucking hover. Even if they didn't want to do that they give fox a fucking jet pack. I'm mad.

"Should of" is in no way acceptable. Learn basic English.

People say it all the fucking time.

Mispronunciation + misspelling. Should've is not for "should of" it's for "should have"

People are wrong all the time. What don't you understand?
"Should've" is short for "should have", which sounds like "should of", so people make the mistake all the time.
Think about it for a second "should have" is something that you should have done. "Should of" doesn't make any sense is the "should" a piece of something? Does it belong to something?

Just because should've (contraction of should have) sounds like should of does not mean it is should of.

They did that already. Its called Star Fox 2.

Also Star Fox Zero would have been best SF had it not had forced gimmicks in it.

I believe it's pronounced "whomst've"

By that logic then 'of course' isn't grammatically correct either.

...

Oh for fucks sakes.

Suddenly so many things make sense.

Anyway, who else here actually wants to talk about Star Fox?

What if different arwings have different functions? Fox's arwing is the classic you know and love. Falco's arwing is faster but more difficult to maneuver. You'll have to do alot of zero-G maneuvers to aim properly like that one user mentioned. Falco's ship wouldn't be as useful for rail sections, but it'll be perfect for breaking through enemy formations in all-range Slippy's arwing has shit firepower and speed, but it has more power for shields. Plus Slippy's arwing can have a recharge dock that can restore shields of other arwings at the expense of its own. So Slippy's role is support rather than direct combat.

rail shooters are a better genre anyway. starfox will always be the bottom of the barrel entry level game for the genre, but it shouldn't be the only game in the genre you experience. Rail shooters are far better than star fox would lead you to believe.

That's an idea worth building on through customization. You might create character stats so that each team member benefits more from customizing the ship in a certain direction. That's kind of like what they did for the (highly underrated) multiplayer mode in (the also highly underrated) Assault. You could build Fox an all-around Arwing that closely mimics the ones from past games but with upgraded functionality. Falco could have an interceptor-style Arwing that excels at dogfighting and taking down aircraft but isn't so great against ground targets in atmospheric missions. Peppy's older and slower than he once was, so maybe instead of trying to force him to dogfight with unmanned fighters and fighters piloted by younger hotshots with fast reflexes, it'd be better to give him a bomber with a lot of protection and firepower and let him take out heavy, slow-moving targets like capital ships with lots of cover from Fox and Falco. Slippy excels in the Landmaster in Assault's VS mode, but the Landmaster is out of place in space missions because its Gravmaster form sucks up a lot of power and doesn't last long. Since Peppy would already be flying a bomber, maybe Slippy could pilot the upgraded Gyrowing I talked about earlier. An attack chopper would be more his speed, since it involves a more methodical style of combat suited to a gear head like him. Of course it wouldn't have to be exactly the same as the old Gyrowing because a helicopter obviously doesn't work in space, but it could fill the same gunship role and fly the same way a chopper would, but with the same functionality extended to space missions. In atmosphere choppers can hover in place and hide behind mountains and buildings, things fighter jets, for all their glamor, can't do. Even VTOL-capable fighters (such as a fighter with a gravity control device installed) would never be completely optimized for chopper-style combat because their airframe is fundamentally different. So in planetary missions you'd see Slippy's ship functioning almost identically to a chopper, while in space you'd have him hiding behind space debris and asteroids, coming out of cover to fire a barrage of missiles and then ducking behind it again. Implement a command system that allows you to give orders to your CPU allies and watch all the things they can do with these ships.

Both of these ideas are dumb

Scrolling shooter =/= rail shooter

Speaking of pilot skills maybe they can come back as ground units. Fox is the most versatile and well-rounded ground unit who can use the most variety of weapons. Falco isn't great at close combat. But he is a bird so he can easily jump high and maneuver around easier with his G-diffuser jetpack. Plus as a bird Falco has superior eyesight which gives him an edge with long distance weaponry. Slippy would be best at turrers as a repairman. Plus Slippy can have EMPs and hack into computers and hijack their weapons.

I know people don't like Krystal as a character. However as a concept a dinosaur riding telepath with "magic" spells would make an awesome melee fighter. First Krystal needs her staff again. The staff naturally gives Krystal more attack and barrier power. And the staff can dispel shields with its blaster-like spells. Fire and ice can gave its contexts. As a pilot, Krystal sucks worse than Slippy. However Krystal can always see everything the radar can't. And if she can combine her elemental powers of her staff with her arwing's guns then she can be a support artillery unit. Her lasers can set things on fire and her smart bombs have cryo which freezes everything in range. And if we're going to bring back bio-weapons then having fire and ice against them would be better if the monsters are resiliant to lasers.

Of course we have to have a Star Wolf mode too. Wolf will probably be Fox's yang with an emphasis over power and speed. Leon is an assassin who's specialty is camoflauge on both ground and in air (and Slippy/Krystal would be his ideal counter). We also have Panther too. Don't know much about him. I think he was the spy maybe?

Course there's others like Bill, General Pepper, Andrew, Kat, and more. For new characters I'd like to see a relative to General Scales join Star Wolf. And maybe have a race of humanoid-like apparoids without the queen's influence that survived the assault and are trying to rebuild.

There's alot of scenarios that we can use to build Starfox's universe one mission at a time. The structure of the game will still flow from objective to objective. However the non-linearity comes from the paths you choose. And eventually all paths lead to Venom.

Another thing I'd like to note is maybe we can have different modes. An arcade mode with scenarios preset that plays like a traditional Starfox game. A story mode where you have to unlock these customization options with money. And a sandbox mode where you can use the things you unlocked in story mode to play out story scenarios with full customization. And perhaps a challenge mode where you need to complete missions under certain conditions and a time limit. And both online and offline VS mode. Also every single player mode can be played via co-op.

Shit, I didn't realize I typed that much. Would have broken it up otherwise.

On paper it sounds good, but why should it be Star Fox? Make your own.

Free roam is boring. There should be no more of it than in 64. What Star Fox needs is co-op with up to 4 players (with any combination local and online possible).

Single-player: The game is not longer than 64, maybe even slightly shorter, but you can choose characters to have subtly different routes through the same stages in addition to basic route choice like in the first game AND choice between stages like in 64: Katt (easy mode), Fox (normal), Falco (hard). Hard basic route with Falco going for the harder choice between stages should be the hardest thing Nintendo ever made, an experience like what Kaizo Mario is to normal Mario. There is also Slippy who got lots of variety in vehicles. And Peppy moves through a 2D section of the stages.

Multi-player: Co-op version of the single-player campaign, with up to 4 players who can play in any combination of local and online. If your machine gets destroyed, you move around in a jetpack and you can be picked up by another player and add to their firepower. You get your machine back in the next stage.

It shouldn't, it should be F-Zero.
A man can dream

Your idea is bad too.

It's actually [as a matter] of course. As in the correct way of doing things. Sort of like saying 'as a matter of fact.'

Why would co-op be a bad idea? An idea isn't bad just because it is obvious.

Because your first idea is fucking stupid and shits on the idea that different routes and levels have different difficulties and your second idea means the campaign can only be free flight only as opposed to having scrolling shooter levels which shits on Starfox as a game.

What they need to do is an Arwing-only arcade machine shaped like an Arwing where you climb into the cockpit and use a combination of your (jet-like) controls and tilting your body to shoot your way through on-rails levels.

Thanks for your detailed explanation.

...

Please stop using words wrong.

Sage because off-topic. I mentioned sometime last year about about an F-zero game. The gimmick is that you can unlock your weight shift to do maneuvers which opens up new modes like a stunt mode. Also 12-16 player online races.

Star Fox is a weak game to begin with. Yeah, it was first of it's time, but it's been outperformed by every other game that had it's genre. It has to take a n innovative leap forward if they want anyone to pay an AAA amount.

Assault and Adventures weren't that good, but I appreciate them for at least trying something different besides being a bare bones shooter.

You only get so many characters to a post.

They're both incredibly underrated and awesome games despite their flaws. Assault's only real flaw was not including some of the good stuff from Adventures. Seriously, the staff needed to come back.

What on earth makes you believe that?

Same question as above. I have not the faintest idea how you come to believe those things.

...

Just make a game like SF2. No, don't just lift things from the game like in 64, Command, and Zero, make the whole thing.

Have you ever fucking played Star Fox 2?

It wasn't shit in 2.

Tell me how this would fucking work in a scrolling shooter. Also sorry I misread your first idea but it's still shit.

Mechanically it was, since there was less movement options and maneuvers you could do in 2 compared to Command, and you were restricted to first person view in space. What 2 had over Command is that the enemy variety and bosses were different enough unlike Command that recycled shit ad nauseum and reduced every level into barrel roll into all these UFOs.

There are scrolling 2D shmups like Blazing Star and R-Type Leo with co-op. I don't see what's so mysterious about having that in 3D.

You and your friends fly through the same stage. The corridors for each character are not identical, but have a lot of overlap. Some things can only be done in co-op (obstacles that require the combined firepower, switches in one corridor having also an effect on what happens in another).

An issue is how to handle the variable speed, since it's no fun if one person is in the middle of the stage while the other has reached the stage's boss. This can be solved in a way analogous to how most 2D shmups allow positioning within the screen while scrolling speed remains fixed. So, instead of a bar that gets emptied both by going slower or going faster and that auto-refills at normal speed, you would have a marker that can move in two directions between two limits, showing the balance between going slower and going faster. But I don't think caging in the players like that is needed if the game has voice chat. Keeping attention to the distance between people in the team could be just part of the challenge. A less restrictive design alternative to the speed balance constraint that still helps with keeping the pack together would be that boosting leaves some mist behind that gives additional boost power to players flying through it.

smh tbh fam

Star Fox should drop the whole Star Fox thing and do this.

Any new vehicle ideas in particular? If we want to create new and novel mechanics, adding new vehicles is one of the best ways to do it.

ADDY DADDY

Thinking that it can be: Outer Space→ Aerial → Land → Sea → Deep Sea

No, no more vehicles. The Gyrowing was a stupid idea because it could have been done with the Arwing using its G-Diffuser to hover. The Landmaster in hover mode was just a slower, time limited, Arwing. Just keep it to the core 2: Arwing, Landmaster. The Blue Marine can be included if there are underwater missions. If the Arwing NEEDS to transform, then get rid of the Landmaster since both are redundant. What really needs to be done is to take each type of Starfox's gameplay and turn it up to 11. The scrolling shooting levels need to be faster to the point they reach F-Zero levels of fast, with the enemies not appearing in predictable patterns but appearing at different times and places, and they also are able to disengage and then reengage later. Imagine dueling Star Wolf through a canyon or something. All-range mode needs to live up to its name and remove the shitty restrictions on movement. It should fly like Ace Combat but much faster and with more maneuvers. Hell, I'd even say take one of the most hated parts of Ace Combat, the Dogfight System from Assault Horizon, tweak it and put it into Starfox and you might actually improve the gameplay since it would mesh well with Starfox.

More selectable variations on the arwing, Command style would be nice. Things that mess with the core gameplay too much sould be kept to a minimum.

This is true. Even today we have the Harrier and some other vehicles that combine traits of helicopters and planes. There could very well be a single vehicle that transforms to fill basically every role, or can be customized in the hangar to do so. In the Star Fox fluff the Landmaster and the Arwing were made by the same company and share numerous parts and hull pieces, and in Command the Arwings are capable of flying underwater (which makes somewhat less sense, but eh). Having a single vehicle that can do everything by transforming might lead to some very interesting missions. The problem is that attempts to build similar vehicles in real life have often led to vehicles that don't adequately fill any of their intended roles. You'd have to do something special to make it believable.

I saw something on /k/ one time from some game where the same hull was used for an APC and a gunship, but I can't remember what it was. Does anyone know?


That sounds awesome, but the average schmo couldn't handle it. If you wanted that game to sell you'd have to implement difficulty levels where only the hardest level is like that.

For once I want to pilot the Great Fox. Or better yet a full-sized battleship. I want to pilot a huge-ass slow-ass near indestructible battleship through an asteroid field and shoot hundreds of missiles and laser cut other battleships.

Considering that Miyamoto has compared Starfox to Thunderbirds and it unique assortment of vehicles, we probably will get more unfortunately.

The GW was made because Miyamoto wanted a vehicle that could move in 3D space, which feels like a cop out considering a submarine can do the same thing and SF has the (severely unfulfilled) Blue Marine. For all the "hype" the GW had before SFZ release, it only had 1.5 levels to use it in and then became redundant once the Arwing gained the hacking ability (which was honestly bizarre). The little Direct-i robot was cute though.

I wouldn't mind a cross-vehicle of submarine/helicopter hybrid in a future game. I even thought the GW was going to have a secret underwater capability before SFZ was released, if you turn the turbine rotors horizontal it could work like a sub.

There also the idea of ekranoplanes, a strange hybrid of plane and boat that can travel fast over water through "ground effect" air cushion principle. Don't think there's many games out there with one of them in it.


After looking at the first level of SF Assault, the Arwings actually do hover in place in the cutscene between the Andrew Oikonny and Aparoid boss fights. While Adventures shows the Arwing doing VTOL landings (in cutscenes) and Assault in all range levels. Having a hovering Arwing in shooter gameplay might be interesting.

Giving it a guess, could it be Alpha Centuri or Hostile Waters: Antaeus Rising? Both allow you to design your own crazy units.

See that was another thing about Zero: before release and when it was originally showed off Miyamoto wanted to do more of an episodic game like the Thunderbirds TV show. Clearly that didn't pan out, but what if it did work like that?

You mean handing it over to Project Aces to develop the IP? I could agree on that.

Judging from what I've seen, the game would've been decent if it wasn't just a rehash of Lylatwars and the motion control crap Nintendo are so adamant over keeping.