|
Post by N3B on Apr 4, 2005 14:55:40 GMT -5
as for the down combo, it's got a little trick to working it. as opposed to the neutral/forward/roll+attack (jump up and smack target with staff followed by twirled staff smack from air) where it's just mashing "A" as fast as you can, you've got to sort of pull off when he starts charging the staff, otherwise you'll just go right back into another combo start. once it's charged, he'll automatically smack the dino/target in the face/etc with the charged end of the staff.
back to magic, they wouldn't lock fox up in an asylum for his magic encounters - peppy + slippy have been "studying the mission" as they say several times throughout the game, and explain why the planet's falling apart. their story is the planet's got a high concentration of magical-esque energy at certain force points, and without the spellstones there to absorb that energy, it's breaking the planet apart.
i would assume, them working for corneria/pepper and all that stuff, that they would forward mission status/research to the general in charge, who would then aknowledge the magic essence as being legit.
This brings up a whole new topic - the world itself is magic. or at least has magic energy present somewhere in it. that's where the magic "comes from", storyline wise, rather than just devs saying "magic = t3h ro><0rz in53r7 ye it".
Where i do admit the game itself does get to be rather straight-forward and at times seemingly monotonous, the simple graphical beauty, color, serenity of it all, the vast changes in environment, the music, all just pulls me in and seals the deal. they're what make the game glorious enough to push through the "crappy" moments and fully enjoy the game's worth and value.
|
|
|
Post by Draxas on Apr 4, 2005 17:07:59 GMT -5
If you say so. Personally, I didn't find much redeeming value in the game, but each to their own.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger on Apr 4, 2005 21:50:47 GMT -5
They could have used another word other than magic to describe it. They might have been labeled because of what dinosaurs and people were saying though. It would make sense to not upset the local evolution by over exposure to knowledge.
|
|
|
Post by N3B on Apr 5, 2005 17:35:32 GMT -5
i've actually done some research on the staff combat, as far as damage does - all damage you inflict isn't removed from the creature's HP until the final hit; each hit in the combo just gets stacked, until it's all released on the last hit.
if you just go around smacking it with two-hit combos, it WILL remove damage, but since they are so much weaker than the final hit (by nature being a much stronger hit, combined with all the previous hits) it may take several to remove on mark of the heart.
also, it turns out that the roll+jump-attack combo knocks the mob down, as well as a side roll - under swipe, which even does approximately 1/2 damage to any sharpclaw in the single hit.
and.... i got myself my own copy of SFass for free ^^ . friend offered to trade it for my two old skate decks that i don't use anymore.
|
|
|
Post by Draxas on Apr 5, 2005 17:42:50 GMT -5
More power to you, I like trading old stuff I never use for cool stuff that I want.
However, no matter how you slice the mechanics of staff combat, it seems rushed and poorly done. I think this was one of the weakest aspects of the game, which is disappointing since it's one of the major focal points as well.
|
|
|
Post by N3B on Sept 9, 2009 15:53:08 GMT -5
After re-reading this (and frowning at my younger self) I have to vouch that, while the reasons you cite are understandable criticisms, they aren't strong enough to give the game such low consideration.
Aside from the staff combat, the complaints seem to boil down to an alienation with the franchise. It's mostly indignation for not being entirely genuine. It doesn't hold true to or stick with its StarFox roots, and it's not the Zelda game that it's trying to be, so it stands as a mediocre experience with a bad aftertaste.
Personally, I was not very attached to the StarFox franchise to care that it deviated from the formula. Yes I'd played the original and the N64 version, but to me there was not enough character in either game to get that attached to. Since neither game really required context for what the games were really about -- the aircraft combat simulation -- who could have cared?
StarFox Adventures rolled out, and one of the first things I noticed was that there was character and continuity (within that individual game). There was an atmosphere which made the game as a whole a worthwhile "Worldly experience" as compared to the fragmented and disjointed experience in the previous games. While the others felt like forgettable arcade games, the simple medium of Adventures was one that promised a more lasting impression.
As a fan of the series, does it really matter if the formula is different? I, as an oldschool Zelda fan, usually delight that each game does things radically different (excepting TP which didn't do anything really worthwhile at all to mix up the formula). Is it that difficult to accept that Fox is on a world which clashes with his own so much?
To use an example that we've been recently discussing, I'll compare RE4 to the rest of the series. We can both agree that we like RE4 for what it is -- you like it for being a Survival Horror game that actually does things fluidly and well, and I like it for being a fun Action-Horror game. I could be disgusted by the fact that it deviates so much from the classic RE style established in every other game up to that point (like the die hard RE fanboys usually are), but when I simply accept it for what it is I enjoy it quite a lot.
Back to the subject, however: when it comes to the staff combat being repetitive and monotonous, I can't say that I really object to it that much. The combat is obviously not the emphasis of the game, as it plays backseat to the adventure aspect. It would probably be equally tiring (and yet more out of place) if the combat were an incredibly complicated and involved process, riveting and exciting as that may seem. Because then you get contrasting ideas (fast-paced action to slow-paced exploration/questing) which might not flow very well.
Even as it was in its actual version, with the boring and repetitive staff combat, I sometimes got impatient when I had to enter into a combat situation, because the combat directly interfered with what I was really after -- the questing and exploration. I was more frustrated that I was interrupted than by having to do the boring combat.
I'm sure it could have worked to use either a first or third-person combat system with a blaster (as was done in Assault), but if they're going to make it different from the other games, why not go ahead and make it as different as possible?
I guess for me, Adventures was enjoyable because it was a complete breath of fresh air -- both in terms of the StarFox and the Zelda franchises. At that point in my ignorant youth I was mostly a franchise gamer where I only played games of a series, because you could expect "good things" from those series. Adventures was similar enough in style and appearance to the franchises, yet different enough to feel like a new experience.
|
|
|
Post by Draxas on Sept 9, 2009 18:28:04 GMT -5
Trust me, my complaints about the game are more than simply the combat and atmosphere. The whole game seeed slipshod and forced all manner of different elements together, all to its detriment. Calling it mediocre with a bad aftertaste is actually the most perfect description of the experience I've ever heard.
First, the exploration. Sure, the world was huge. But from what I remember, there wasn't really much incentive to explore it. Most of the areas that weren't on the main path yielded no reward, and would often even penalize you with extra battles or damaging traps. Even when you did find a reward, it was usually one of those ludicrous excuses for "bonus content." I would be all for unlocking concept art galleries or the like, and I frequently enjoy looking them over in games that have them available. But who cares if you unlock the ability to play the game in sepia, or have everyone speak gibberish? I felt cheated when I realized that was their excuse for unlockables.
Then there's the game trying to mishmash too many things at once, and doing them all with mediocrity at best. The Zelda-like exploration and staff combat: not as good as OoT, which came out years before, but we've covered that extensively already. The Arwing segments were sloppy, felt tacked on, and were vastly inferior to even the worst parts of SF64. The slad-racing segents were infuriating, controlled extremely poorly, and really had little reason to be in the game save for filler. The staff-based rail shooting segments were OK, but flew in the face of established game logic (unlimited magic meter for no reason?), and again, seemed to serve as little more than filler. Then there was the final boss battle. Andross was totally tacked on and it showed, but the real tragedy of tht is that the game cheats you out of a climactic battle with General Scales in order to randomly assign Andross "Big Bad" status, simply because it's a StarFox game. I cannot express in words how disappointed I was with that; at that point, the only thing motivating me to continue playing the game was the opportunity to finally give Scales the beatdown he deserved. Once again, I felt cheated.
Wait, so the slow paced and monotonous staff combat complemented the slow paced and uninteresting exploration? That's a novel justification for poor quality. I honestly dreaded every single combat was engaged after a little while, primarily because I knew I would have to jam the A button over and over again for the next few minutes. It was boring, and I just wanted to get on with the game already. It's not like any of the enemies posed a challenge, so why were they wasting my time? Even if they did manage to hit me once or twice (often because of the glitches I mentioned way back when, or because I got sloppy from having my attention drift), there was no lack of health replenishment. It all just felt forced.
That "different as possible" remark is a bad way to look at things. Rehashing StarFox WITH DINOSAURS AND MAGIC! is no better than any rehashed concept IN SPACE! The lousy execution really drives home the fact that everything feels out of place within the setting, which would be the only thing the game would be able to have going for it if they screwed up the gameplay. Since the setting is all wrong, too...
Now, let's be honest: how much DID you play SF64? I never liked the original, but that game was a masterpiece (insofar as a rail shooter can be one, anyway), but more importantly, it really established the StarFox characters and universe. The problem is, in order to get that sense, you really had to PLAY the game, and not just once through on the easiest path while ignoring your wingmen. If you played it on multiple paths, saved your wingmen, kept up with the dialog, etc., then you really got a sense of what everyone was about, and you got to caring about the characters, even the bit parts like Bill. Let's just say, if you don't know who Bill is in the SF universe, you should really go back and play SF64 until you find out. Not only is he a cool bit part, but his level was a lot of fun to play too (and includes the infamous ID4 homage, but that's another story).
|
|
|
Post by N3B on Sept 9, 2009 19:11:52 GMT -5
Perhaps then I'm able to appreciate Adventures because I'm not tethered down by what I can most easily call "Fanboyism." Because I never got as attached to Star Fox 64 as you did, because I didn't care about it like you did, I didn't have a basis by which to be offended when Adventures came out. Made it so that, while I could more or less ignorantly sit back and accept the game for what it was and make what I wanted of it, you were held back by loyalties to the previous game and were more or less obligated to ridicule it.
Similar thing can be said about Harry Potter -- the ignorant masses who've never read a book in their lives praise it and call it the best piece of literature ever because they've got nothing to compare it to. While I, a more seasoned reader, practically LOOK for reasons to ridicule it simply because of how much unwarranted praise the fanboys give it.
|
|
|
Post by Draxas on Sept 10, 2009 11:27:39 GMT -5
Most of my criticism doesn't stem from "fanboyism," as you put it. Yes, I was dissatisfied with the use (and abuse) of the characters and setting of the StarFox universe. But my primary problems with the game were with the gameplay. As you said, the whole experience was mediocre at best, and the misuse of the setting was the bad aftertaste. The game was poorly structured, mechanically flawed, and felt rushed through development and poorly executed overall. There was potential for a great game here, even within the established framework: overhaul staff combat, eliminate the more tedious or valueless "minigame" type segments (sled racing, staff-based rail shooting, flying the Arwing, etc.) and reintegrate those segments of the game within the main mechanics (or alternatively, make those segments worth playing in their original forms by tightening up the controls and making them feel better integrated rather than tacked on), give the game a final boss that isn't stolen nearly verbatim from the previous installment (and isn't based on a "minigame" mechanic), etc. etc. etc. The list goes on. I would be more willing to forgive the game's failings with the setting if it was actually fun to play. Instead, it drags, frustrates, or rehashes.
I'm not sure how Harry Potter is related to this discussion at all. For the record, I don't think they're shining examples of classic literature, but they were fun books to read. They're also targeted at kids, which is something to keep in mind once you've hit adulthood. Besides, the difference between fanboyism and antifanboyism is negligible. Knock it for legitimte reasons, not just because other people like it more than you did.
|
|
|
Post by N3B on Sept 10, 2009 13:52:35 GMT -5
I always keep my reasons legitimate. The books themselves are sub-standard , though they make for a generally fun and exciting read. As far as literary merit goes, they're a long way off. It was merely an analogy to describe what's going on between you and me in Adventures -- the ignorant ones are the ones who are able to enjoy it while the knowledgeable ones can't give it much praise.
Incidentally, your last post summarizes my opinion of Twilight Princess very well.
The game was poorly structured, mechanically flawed, and felt rushed through development and poorly executed overall. There was potential for a great game here, even within the established framework: overhaul horseback combat, eliminate the more tedious or valueless "minigame" type segments (sled racing, staff-based rail shooting, flying the Birdthing, etc.) and reintegrate those segments of the game within the main mechanics.
|
|
|
Post by Draxas on Sept 10, 2009 17:27:13 GMT -5
Can't argue with criticism of TP for those reasons. I felt that game fell far short of (admittedly probably way too high) expectations, and it's not even in my top 5 for Zelda games. Maybe next time will be better.
|
|