Star Fox 64 3D review - 7.5

Should have been lower imo.

GD1551

Why did IGN give that game a 9, then? I really don't understand.

ActionRemix

IGN ALWAYS overrates games...and on top of it I believe the nintendo GAL reviewed it.

7.5 is about what I expected and what it deserves. A port of another N64 game without online multiplayer...Cant expect more than a 7.5

Should have been lower imo.

GD1551

Another nice looking update to a classic. Shame I've already played the original. It was a fun game but I'll pass on this one. I'd go for a completely new Starfox. I'd highly recommend this to anyone who hasn't played the original.

Anyway, I called it around there. And Star Fox 64 on Virtual Console scored A as well (and GS took that review down for whatever reason). And I still stand by my statement when I say online won't save the game's mediocre multiplayer.

EDIT: What is with THIS con? "Artifical limitations on movement?" Um, Star Fox 64 is a RAIL-SHOOTER, of course movement is a bit limited (other on rail shooters, like Sin and Punishment did this). Also, even in all-range mode, you'll be sent back to your objective, even the Rogue Squadron series (a flight game focused on "all-range" did this. How is THAT a con?

[QUOTE="GD1551"]

Should have been lower imo.

nintendoboy16

how about a new starfox game?

no? well a N64 port is okay then

[QUOTE="ChubbyGuy40"]

[QUOTE="GD1551"]

Should have been lower imo.

Fizzman

Oh we didn't know you got an early access copy. Please enlighten us on why you think so.

He probably played it ten years ago.

[QUOTE="ChubbyGuy40"]

[QUOTE="GD1551"]

Should have been lower imo.

Fizzman

Oh we didn't know you got an early access copy. Please enlighten us on why you think so.

He probably played it ten years ago.

And you win!!!

I love how they are just cashing in on quick remakes instead of making new, solid games for the platform.SF_KiLLaMaN

[QUOTE="percech"]I think it deserved its score considering that Nintendo removed doing special side/secret missions to reach to the other planets in the game.gamefan67

[QUOTE="SF_KiLLaMaN"]I love how they are just cashing in on quick remakes instead of making new, solid games for the platform.Scythes777

Gamespot is being pretty tough on these N64 remakes.

Gamespot is being pretty tough on these N64 remakes.

SakusEnvoy

They should be. They are 10+ year old ports with almost no new content and a 3D gimmick to convince you to buy a game you already owned.

Well honestly, since I've already bought this game, I don't care what the review says. It literally cannot affect my purchase.

[QUOTE="SakusEnvoy"]

Gamespot is being pretty tough on these N64 remakes.

Fizzman

They should be. They are 10+ year old ports with almost no new content and a 3D gimmick to convince you to buy a game you already owned.

[QUOTE="Scythes777"][QUOTE="SF_KiLLaMaN"]I love how they are just cashing in on quick remakes instead of making new, solid games for the platform.tarzanell

[QUOTE="Fizzman"]

[QUOTE="SakusEnvoy"]

Gamespot is being pretty tough on these N64 remakes.

jonathant5

They should be. They are 10+ year old ports with almost no new content and a 3D gimmick to convince you to buy a game you already owned.

OOT and Starfox both have overhauled graphics: a big improvement on the originals. Plus they're still good/great games. They were considered a lot better than good when they first came out (especially OOT and still is). 8.5 for OOT and 7.5 for Starfox seems reasonable to me.

As Expected, As Planned....I'll get it eventually, For now it's Zelda and Gears.

Why no Online Nintendo?

As Expected, As Planned....I'll get it eventually, For now it's Zelda and Gears.

Why no Online Nintendo?

LegatoSkyheart

[QUOTE="ChubbyGuy40"]

[QUOTE="GD1551"]

Should have been lower imo.

Fizzman

Oh we didn't know you got an early access copy. Please enlighten us on why you think so.

He probably played it ten years ago.

Oh wow :lol:

understandable

Gamespot is being pretty tough on these N64 remakes.

SakusEnvoy

A major thing to consider is that when you compare Star Fox 64 3D to past Nintendo remakes like Metroid: Zero Mission, the Pokemon remakes, Fire Emblem: Shadow Dragon, and other past Nintendo remakes, its kinda disappointing that Star Fox 64 comes up so short.

It would not have broken up the narrative if they added a new path, with planets that appeared in later Star Fox games. They could have added online multiplayer and added storyline elements that better tie the game to post Star Fox 64 entries(Falco's reason for leaving, perhaps an additional scenario that better ties the game to adventures, etc)

My problem with this is essentially, you're paying 39.99 for an enhanced port of Star Fox 64 that looks better. Yes, I know they added a couple of new features, but those pale when compared to the additions that were done to past Nintendo remakes. Zero Mission added a new section after Mother Brain is defeated, Shadow Dragon added prologue chapters that showed Marth's escape from Akaneia, and LeafGreen and Fire Red added a whole new area for the player to explore.

What troubles me is the fact that Nintendo has stated that the future of the Star Fox franchise rests on how well this game does in sales. If that is the case, why did Nintendo not go the extra mile and ensure they attracted an audience? Star Fox 64 is still a classic game, but the fact remains that the N64 version is readily available on the Virtual Console for 1000 Wii Points. And even compared to the OOT remake, it seems like less content was added to the overall package. OOT 3D got the Master Quest(Which many people failed to play due to it being a promo on the Gamecube), a boss rush, and other new features that are added to the core mechanics.

While Star Fox 3D does add some new stuff, it seems like less effort was put into the remake.

If this doesn't have rumble than the original is still the best version. It wasn't tacked on, it felt like the game was built for it.

That's why I didn't get the VC version, because Star Fox 64 without Rumble doesn't feel complete to me.

EDIT: My bad, apparently the console does have force feedback, I never hear anyone mention it though.

[QUOTE="ChubbyGuy40"]

[QUOTE="GD1551"]

Should have been lower imo.

Fizzman

Oh we didn't know you got an early access copy. Please enlighten us on why you think so.

He probably played it ten years ago.

i Loled :lol:

[QUOTE="KillerJuan77"]

[QUOTE="percech"] Considering how pricey games are? You think we shouldn't have stupidly high standards?percech

Yes, you shouldn't buy games based on reviews or on day 1. Just because it didn't score a 9 or 10 doesn't means that it sucks, but hey, whatever works for you.

sucks for you cause you're totally missing out on Dead Island...my surprise game of the year so far

so sad how some people let the opinions of some reviewer online judge what they spend their money on

Whatever I still love Star Fox. and sammy, After Midnight is fantastic :)C-Lee

These

If you look at it in a different perspective, it screams "lack of content" for a full priced game.

nitekids2004

From that perspective, every FPS in the industry today screams "lack of content". Pitiful single player campaigns that ride on multiplayer strength to justify the price tag. Again, that's unprofessional to state because what you deem to be "lack of content" might not be so for everyone. Just tell me in the review what there is, what there isn't, and let the reader decide "is this the game for me?"

[QUOTE="nitekids2004"]

If you look at it in a different perspective, it screams "lack of content" for a full priced game.

mmmwksil

From that perspective, every FPS in the industry today screams "lack of content". Pitiful single player campaigns that ride on multiplayer strength to justify the price tag. Again, that's unprofessional to state because what you deem to be "lack of content" might not be so for everyone. Just tell me in the review what there is, what there isn't, and let the reader decide "is this the game for me?"

[QUOTE="ChubbyGuy40"]

[QUOTE="GD1551"]

Should have been lower imo.

Fizzman

Oh we didn't know you got an early access copy. Please enlighten us on why you think so.

He probably played it ten years ago.

Every FPS in the industry? Ummmm no. Not really. A ten hour campaign (and lets be honest any longer would be boring) with endless multiplayer plus other features is quite a deal. Forty bucks for a game thats 2 hours long with zero new features isn''t much. Bread_or_Decide

I cite Goldeneye as a game with a campaign longer than ten hours, and never got dull.

Either way, you're telling the consumer what you deem to be a worthwhile purchase when you place weight on the game's price in a review. Let them decide that for themselves.

Good review. The text/vocal made it out to be better than a 7.5, but it is good to see a score in the 7s as it let's people know, "ENOUGH WITH THE REMAKES."

Gamespot is being pretty tough on these N64 remakes.

SakusEnvoy

Good review. The text/vocal made it out to be better than a 7.5, but it is good to see a score in the 7s as it let's people know, "ENOUGH WITH THE REMAKES."

Heirren

[QUOTE="Bread_or_Decide"]Every FPS in the industry? Ummmm no. Not really. A ten hour campaign (and lets be honest any longer would be boring) with endless multiplayer plus other features is quite a deal. Forty bucks for a game thats 2 hours long with zero new features isn''t much. mmmwksil

I cite Goldeneye as a game with a campaign longer than ten hours, and never got dull.

Either way, you're telling the consumer what you deem to be a worthwhile purchase when you place weight on the game's price in a review. Let them decide that for themselves.

People here are acting like 7.5 is a bad score.MushroomWig

People here are acting like 7.5 is a bad score.MushroomWig

[QUOTE="Bread_or_Decide"]Every FPS in the industry? Ummmm no. Not really. A ten hour campaign (and lets be honest any longer would be boring) with endless multiplayer plus other features is quite a deal. Forty bucks for a game thats 2 hours long with zero new features isn''t much. mmmwksil

I cite Goldeneye as a game with a campaign longer than ten hours, and never got dull.

Either way, you're telling the consumer what you deem to be a worthwhile purchase when you place weight on the game's price in a review. Let them decide that for themselves.

[QUOTE="Heirren"]

Good review. The text/vocal made it out to be better than a 7.5, but it is good to see a score in the 7s as it let's people know, "ENOUGH WITH THE REMAKES."

nintendoboy16

It more or less calls the game a classic, says it is a game that can be played countless times, says the characters are great, the visuals as well, says the 3D effect ads to the game, but WISHES that it was an all new journey. That sums up my thoughts on the game rather nicely. I'll be buying it, but I think it is the last port for the 3DS I'll pick up--as it is one of my favorite games of all time. Time to speak with the wallet.

[QUOTE="nintendoboy16"][QUOTE="Heirren"]

Good review. The text/vocal made it out to be better than a 7.5, but it is good to see a score in the 7s as it let's people know, "ENOUGH WITH THE REMAKES."

Heirren

It more or less calls the game a classic, says it is a game that can be played countless times, says the characters are great, the visuals as well, says the 3D effect ads to the game, but WISHES that it was an all new journey. That sums up my thoughts on the game rather nicely. I'll be buying it, but I think it is the last port for the 3DS I'll pick up--as it is one of my favorite games of all time. Time to speak with the wallet.

[QUOTE="MushroomWig"]People here are acting like 7.5 is a bad score.nintendoboy16

Price is a huge factor. A game loaded with content that's cheap is worth nothing just as much as an expensive game with zero content is worth nothing. Sorry but star fox has to compete with the standards of other remakes. When you take a look at how you can get all these collections of games for forty bucks. Perhaps Star Fox on the 3DS should have included the SNES game and the Gamecube game as well. Then the forty dollars would be worth it. Bread_or_Decide

I agree this should've come with more content. But it is still unprofessional to deduct from an official score (despite being against numerical scoring for video games) for price, when price is not set in stone.

[QUOTE="mmmwksil"]

[QUOTE="Bread_or_Decide"]Every FPS in the industry? Ummmm no. Not really. A ten hour campaign (and lets be honest any longer would be boring) with endless multiplayer plus other features is quite a deal. Forty bucks for a game thats 2 hours long with zero new features isn''t much. drinkerofjuice

I cite Goldeneye as a game with a campaign longer than ten hours, and never got dull.

Either way, you're telling the consumer what you deem to be a worthwhile purchase when you place weight on the game's price in a review. Let them decide that for themselves.

I don't see who you're apologizing for, drinkerofjuice. I don't think the game is worth the $40 either. But you wouldn't see me taking that out on the game in a "professional" review.

[QUOTE="Heirren"]

[QUOTE="nintendoboy16"] How does it imply that? :?nintendoboy16

It more or less calls the game a classic, says it is a game that can be played countless times, says the characters are great, the visuals as well, says the 3D effect ads to the game, but WISHES that it was an all new journey. That sums up my thoughts on the game rather nicely. I'll be buying it, but I think it is the last port for the 3DS I'll pick up--as it is one of my favorite games of all time. Time to speak with the wallet.

Do you mind elaborating? I remember reading that comment by Nintendo and it didn't side well with me--it actually made me really believe that they are in trouble.