Star Fox 64 3D review - 7.5

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

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

ActionRemix

[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. 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.

But aren't those collections of games with just improved resolution and widescreen support(for those that didn't have it already)? SF64 has a redone graphics engine, redone soundtrack, modern features(Save at any time) and a redone multiplayer(which includes different maps and powerups then those used in the 64 version). It doesn't seem like you, and a few others in this thread, are making a fair comparison.

Not that the score isn't justified. It's a remaster of an old game that most people have played before or can easily do so. Based on how GS rates games, this is a nice score and Carolynn's written/video review paint it in an excellent light. Personally i can't get over how this game doesn't have basic online features. Would've added so much longevity to it.

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.

mmmwksil

[QUOTE="mmmwksil"]

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.

drinkerofjuice

You're right, there. Definitely hasn't been the first time, but it is the first time I've seen it plastered on the pro/con list of the game review. Perception of value varies from person to person, is all I'm saying.

[QUOTE="Bread_or_Decide"][QUOTE="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.

blahzor

But aren't those collections of games with just improved resolution and widescreen support(for those that didn't have it already)? SF64 has a redone graphics engine, redone soundtrack, modern features(Save at any time) and a redone multiplayer(which includes different maps and powerups then those used in the 64 version). It doesn't seem like you, and a few others in this thread, are making a fair comparison.

Not that the score isn't justified. It's a remaster of an old game that most people have played before or can easily do so. Based on how GS rates games, this is a nice score and Carolynn's written/video review paint it in an excellent light. Personally i can't get over how this game doesn't have basic online features. Would've added so much longevity to it.

Wait, the game has a redone soundtrack?! Not sure if I dig that. Good points nonetheless. I didn't know about the various new mp levels either.

The online stuff, while not so much with this game, is starting to become annoying. Indie or small level developers SHOULD be jumping all over this system. It isn't selling that well, but there's still plenty of people that own one and it seems like the perfect home for an indie dev to make a name for itself.

[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.

[QUOTE="blahzor"]

[QUOTE="Bread_or_Decide"] 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. Heirren

But aren't those collections of games with just improved resolution and widescreen support(for those that didn't have it already)? SF64 has a redone graphics engine, redone soundtrack, modern features(Save at any time) and a redone multiplayer(which includes different maps and powerups then those used in the 64 version). It doesn't seem like you, and a few others in this thread, are making a fair comparison.

Not that the score isn't justified. It's a remaster of an old game that most people have played before or can easily do so. Based on how GS rates games, this is a nice score and Carolynn's written/video review paint it in an excellent light. Personally i can't get over how this game doesn't have basic online features. Would've added so much longevity to it.

Wait, the game has a redone soundtrack?! Not sure if I dig that. Good points nonetheless. I didn't know about the various new mp levels either.

The online stuff, while not so much with this game, is starting to become annoying. Indie or small level developers SHOULD be jumping all over this system. It isn't selling that well, but there's still plenty of people that own one and it seems like the perfect home for an indie dev to make a name for itself.

From what i understand its remastered. Sorry, didn't mean to imply the tunes were changed! Apparently the voice cast was brought back in to re-record their lines to.

From some reviews i've read there is also a new score attack mode. Not a big deal, but it's just another thing to differentiate SF from the GoW collection or soemthing.

[QUOTE="drinkerofjuice"][QUOTE="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.

Bread_or_Decide

True, but I spent more time on SF64 than most games that generation. It is a very high quality game. A lot of good games can be beaten rather quickly. I like to play games because they are fun. Some games these days you barely even play and they cost 60 dollars.

[QUOTE="drinkerofjuice"][QUOTE="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.

Bread_or_Decide

[QUOTE="Bread_or_Decide"][QUOTE="drinkerofjuice"] Sorry if someone doesn't think a 2 hour game is worth $40.Heirren

True, but I spent more time on SF64 than most games that generation. It is a very high quality game. A lot of good games can be beaten rather quickly. I like to play games because they are fun. Some games these days you barely even play and they cost 60 dollars.

Dude...I had an N64 when it first came out and StarFox was great but once it was over...it was over. Quality over quantity my butt Nintendo. How about BOTH? Bread_or_Decide

Out of curiosity, what kind of game would you consider to have both quality and quantity?

[QUOTE="Heirren"]

[QUOTE="Bread_or_Decide"] Actually it takes less than an hour to finish star fox 64. Bread_or_Decide

True, but I spent more time on SF64 than most games that generation. It is a very high quality game. A lot of good games can be beaten rather quickly. I like to play games because they are fun. Some games these days you barely even play and they cost 60 dollars.

When it was over it was over? I could not disagree more. The way the game is layed out really made me want to get 100% completion. I personally prefer shorter campaigns as far as shooters go. I don't want some stretched out 30 hour SHOOTER campaign that I'm only going to bother playing a few times. To this day I will pick up the ORIGINAL Starfox because it is a very well made, tightly knit, enjoyable campaign. And guess what, I can beat it in under an hour. I'm not fully defending the remake stuff, but you're obviously hating on the game and not at all pointing out its positive qualities. Your insight on game design is extremely limited, based off of things you have said.

[QUOTE="Bread_or_Decide"]Dude...I had an N64 when it first came out and StarFox was great but once it was over...it was over. Quality over quantity my butt Nintendo. How about BOTH? mmmwksil

Out of curiosity, what kind of game would you consider to have both quality and quantity?

[QUOTE="Bread_or_Decide"][QUOTE="Heirren"]

True, but I spent more time on SF64 than most games that generation. It is a very high quality game. A lot of good games can be beaten rather quickly. I like to play games because they are fun. Some games these days you barely even play and they cost 60 dollars.

Heirren

When it was over it was over? I could not disagree more. The way the game is layed out really made me want to get 100% completion. I personally prefer shorter campaigns as far as shooters go. I don't want some stretched out 30 hour SHOOTER campaign that I'm only going to bother playing a few times. To this day I will pick up the ORIGINAL Starfox because it is a very well made, tightly knit, enjoyable campaign. And guess what, I can beat it in under an hour. I'm not fully defending the remake stuff, but you're obviously hating on the game and not at all pointing out its positive qualities. Your insight on game design is extremely limited, based off of things you have said.

[QUOTE="mmmwksil"]

[QUOTE="Bread_or_Decide"]Dude...I had an N64 when it first came out and StarFox was great but once it was over...it was over. Quality over quantity my butt Nintendo. How about BOTH? Bread_or_Decide

Out of curiosity, what kind of game would you consider to have both quality and quantity?

I'm not questioning that, I just wanted to know what kinds of games you consider to have both quality and quantity. It's easier to understand one another if we both know what kinds of games we each prefer.

I like RPGs, so anything that doesn't give me 30+ hours on single player alone I tend to view as a waste of money. Isn't always the case, but it's my personal standard.

[QUOTE="Bread_or_Decide"][QUOTE="mmmwksil"]

Out of curiosity, what kind of game would you consider to have both quality and quantity?

mmmwksil

I'm not questioning that, I just wanted to know what kinds of games you consider to have both quality and quantity. It's easier to understand one another if we both know what kinds of games we each prefer.

I like RPGs, so anything that doesn't give me 30+ hours on single player alone I tend to view as a waste of money. Isn't always the case, but it's my personal standard.

[QUOTE="Heirren"]

[QUOTE="Bread_or_Decide"] Dude...I had an N64 when it first came out and StarFox was great but once it was over...it was over. Quality over quantity my butt Nintendo. How about BOTH? Bread_or_Decide

When it was over it was over? I could not disagree more. The way the game is layed out really made me want to get 100% completion. I personally prefer shorter campaigns as far as shooters go. I don't want some stretched out 30 hour SHOOTER campaign that I'm only going to bother playing a few times. To this day I will pick up the ORIGINAL Starfox because it is a very well made, tightly knit, enjoyable campaign. And guess what, I can beat it in under an hour. I'm not fully defending the remake stuff, but you're obviously hating on the game and not at all pointing out its positive qualities. Your insight on game design is extremely limited, based off of things you have said.

I won't disagree with the collection part, but I still think you lack knowledge of good game design. Starfox 64 has a lot going for it--it is a very inspired piece of entertainment: great score, great characters, great gameplay, no glitches, great learning curve, and great replay value because of that. You claim $80 N64 games--even though most were $60 with $70 being the exception--and yet these same ripoff games are games that I PLAY TO THIS DAY...and I own a 360, PS3, Xbox, GC, PS2, among other consoles.

7.5 is a good score for an old game, with some new polish on it.

Once Nintendo releases some new games and IPs for the 3DS, some of this complaining will die down. Not all, but some.

I do think Star Fox 64 3D is rather expensive for what it is.
For OoT, ok, cause that is a one in a million game.
But twice?
A new Star Fox would have been much better received.

Regardless GS is not the site you want to go to for nintendo reviews, as they do not have reviewers comfortable with nintendo products and score the games lower than users and critic averages.

So I should just list games? I tend to prefer action adventure games that last anywhere between 6-12 hours. I put about 80 hours into Demon's Souls. I like my FPS's to be about ten hours long, usually no longer than that. A game can be shorter but it's the experience that matters. Star Fox 64 is just too old and too short. I don't mind a four hour game that feels like an amazing experience. But I may wait for a price drop. It all depends on a game by game basis. Some of my fav games were Jak and Sly on the PS2 and those games were about eight hours or longer depending. Bread_or_Decide

Now we understand each other better :P If people took a moment to share these tidbits there'd probably be fewer scuffles on here. Or maybe that's just me being a friendly optimist.

Either way, I'm with you on the price drop thing. If what Nintendo said before is true, chances are Star Fox dies with this game, so its price will drop quickly.

[QUOTE="Bread_or_Decide"][QUOTE="Heirren"]

When it was over it was over? I could not disagree more. The way the game is layed out really made me want to get 100% completion. I personally prefer shorter campaigns as far as shooters go. I don't want some stretched out 30 hour SHOOTER campaign that I'm only going to bother playing a few times. To this day I will pick up the ORIGINAL Starfox because it is a very well made, tightly knit, enjoyable campaign. And guess what, I can beat it in under an hour. I'm not fully defending the remake stuff, but you're obviously hating on the game and not at all pointing out its positive qualities. Your insight on game design is extremely limited, based off of things you have said.

Heirren

I won't disagree with the collection part, but I still think you lack knowledge of good game design. Starfox 64 has a lot going for it--it is a very inspired piece of entertainment: great score, great characters, great gameplay, no glitches, great learning curve, and great replay value because of that. You claim $80 N64 games--even though most were $60 with $70 being the exception--and yet these same ripoff games are games that I PLAY TO THIS DAY...and I own a 360, PS3, Xbox, GC, PS2, among other consoles.

[QUOTE="Heirren"]

[QUOTE="Bread_or_Decide"] I remember all of the little secrets, planets, and other things in star fox 64. It still didn't extend the game beyond four hours total and that's if you really cared to find everything. This should have been a "star fox collection" instead. Then the price would be more than worth it. Bread_or_Decide

I won't disagree with the collection part, but I still think you lack knowledge of good game design. Starfox 64 has a lot going for it--it is a very inspired piece of entertainment: great score, great characters, great gameplay, no glitches, great learning curve, and great replay value because of that. You claim $80 N64 games--even though most were $60 with $70 being the exception--and yet these same ripoff games are games that I PLAY TO THIS DAY...and I own a 360, PS3, Xbox, GC, PS2, among other consoles.

$59.99, sorry.

7.5 is a good score for an old game, with some new polish on it.

Once Nintendo releases some new games and IPs for the 3DS, some of this complaining will die down. Not all, but some.

jimkabrhel

Why couldn't they have used the exact mechanics and made a new game? Or add a bonus campaign on the end of the original? Something new, ANYTHING to make me buy this. Too many remakes this year.WithoutGraceXII

If anything, a new Star Fox should abandon on-rails and be like these games.

Gameplay video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIEseRw67OI

Gameplay video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-epYbkMsbc

Both of these games had freedom of flight in every mission, and as much as Star Fox is my favorite IP from Nintendo, they should learn from these games.

And I think Rogue Squadron owns Star Fox 64. But that is another story to tell. :P

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

A sub one hour, 14 year old game with precious little improvements. 7.5 is far too high for a full priced game under those conditions.

This is lazy, cheap stuff from Nintendo. Don't buy it. If this was budget I could understand it.

If I knew other people with 3DS's I would buy this game to play with them. Unfortunately I do not know any, and without online to play other people, I can't justify this price tag, though I love the game. It is foolish of nintendo to stake the star fox franchise on a cash in like this.

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

[QUOTE="Heirren"]

[QUOTE="Bread_or_Decide"] Actually it takes less than an hour to finish star fox 64. Bread_or_Decide

True, but I spent more time on SF64 than most games that generation. It is a very high quality game. A lot of good games can be beaten rather quickly. I like to play games because they are fun. Some games these days you barely even play and they cost 60 dollars.

[QUOTE="Bread_or_Decide"][QUOTE="Heirren"]

True, but I spent more time on SF64 than most games that generation. It is a very high quality game. A lot of good games can be beaten rather quickly. I like to play games because they are fun. Some games these days you barely even play and they cost 60 dollars.

tarzanell

It's too expensive. The would have been a $10-15 download game on PS3 or Xbox 360, not a $40 retail release.Timstuff

[QUOTE="Timstuff"]It's too expensive. The would have been a $10-15 download game on PS3 or Xbox 360, not a $40 retail release.nintendoboy16

Should have been lower imo.

GD1551

Should have gotten an 8.0 at minimum. This is Gamespot though, so we know the scores will be lower here anyways.

Yeah.. I don't understand why these games are priced $39.99, when they are just old N64 games. They should have priced them at $24.99. They are the same game, only in 3D now.

[QUOTE="nintendoboy16"][QUOTE="Timstuff"]It's too expensive. The would have been a $10-15 download game on PS3 or Xbox 360, not a $40 retail release.Messiahbolical-

Good score, loved it back in the day but am getting sick of rehashes and remakes or little effort put into games, which is what I see of the Nintendo of late.

Did you expect anything else? The N64 didn't have any good games then why would they magically be good now?Cow4ever

Either you never had one, you were very loyal to the PS1 or you just don't have any taste because the N64 had some of the best games of all time.

When is the 3DS going to get some actual exclusives? If Nintendo spent more time on pushing out some actual new games ASAP instead of wasting time on these N64 ports, the 3DS might actually be worth getting. I love Star Fox 64 but why would I want to spend the money to re-buy it just to play it on a little handheld when I could just bust out the N64 and play the good old original?Messiahbolical-

Have you not seen the upcoming lineup?:| Super Mario 3D Land, Mario Kart 7, Resident Evil Revelations, Kid Icarus to name a few.

[QUOTE="Timstuff"]It's too expensive. The would have been a $10-15 download game on PS3 or Xbox 360, not a $40 retail release.nintendoboy16

I think you can work out what he means if you try.

Considering there are last gen games on PSN and Xbox Live selling for much less than this hell yes I think this is a rip off and should not be encouraged by middling scores like this. Lazy Nintendo selling 14 year old one hour games for full price. People should not be defending them for this.