Star Fox on VC= Best purchase I have made in a while

[Michael Danehy]

[QUOTE=Atarifever]

[QUOTE=Funkmaster V]I also cannot understand why anyone would prefer the garbbled mess of the SNES Starfox over the prettier, better produced, more experiences, better controlled, mind explosion that is Starfox 64. That's in my top ten of all time.

[/QUOTE]

I don't have an opinion one way or the other on the N64 version, but I have always thought Starfox SNES was the best example in all of gaming of graphics over gameplay.  It's boring.  The whole "game" is the 3D visuals.
[/QUOTE]

Nonsense. The pinnacle of "all graphics, no gameplay" would be those shallow old FMV games that have almost zero control and rely on the novelty of FMV.  Starfox is on rails and has predictable patterns but the same is true for many 2D perspective shooters. How doesn't the dodging, shooting, manuevering your ship through tight corridors, etc.  constitute gameplay? Because the graphics are rendered in 3D? I don't understand.

[Atarifever1]

[QUOTE=Michael Danehy][QUOTE=Atarifever]

[QUOTE=Funkmaster V]I also cannot understand why anyone would prefer the garbbled mess of the SNES Starfox over the prettier, better produced, more experiences, better controlled, mind explosion that is Starfox 64. That's in my top ten of all time.

[/QUOTE]

I don't have an opinion one way or the other on the N64 version, but I have always thought Starfox SNES was the best example in all of gaming of graphics over gameplay.  It's boring.  The whole "game" is the 3D visuals.
[/QUOTE]

Nonsense. The pinnacle of "all graphics, no gameplay" would be those shallow old FMV games that have almost zero control and rely on the novelty of FMV.  Starfox is on rails and has predictable patterns but the same is true for many 2D perspective shooters. How doesn't the dodging, shooting, manuevering your ship through tight corridors, etc.  constitute gameplay? Because the graphics are rendered in 3D? I don't understand.

[/QUOTE]

Umm, where'd I say it didn't constitute gameplay?  I said the gameplay takes a backseat to the graphics, which leads to a very boring game.  I imagine the boring thing could be considered subjective, but I honestly can't see thinking this game is not boring.  I believe that unlike a lot of older games, this one would not still be considered good if it came out today, because all of it's "greatness" derives from the graphics and not fun gameplay.

[Michael Danehy]

[QUOTE]Umm, where'd I say it didn't constitute gameplay?  I said the gameplay takes a backseat to the graphics, which leads to a very boring game.  I imagine the boring thing could be considered subjective, but I honestly can't see thinking this game is not boring.  I believe that unlike a lot of older games, this one would not still be considered good if it came out today, because all of it's "greatness" derives from the graphics and not fun gameplay.[/QUOTE]

You said 'The whole "game" is the 3D visuals' which isn't true, IMO. You might not find the gameplay much fun, but underlying the graphics there is a shooter that's about as playable as many other shooters. Take away the graphics and there'd still be more to it than, say, Afterburner. Also compared to the rival "graphics showcases" of the time such as Sega CD's Sewer Shark it was a far more substantive game. Be fair to Starfox.

[Leo Ames]

Not to mention the great music the game has and interesting and varied level designs it has. Its a great game.

[a1]

[QUOTE=Steerforth]
SNES : Great sense of awe for those who played it when it first came out.
[/QUOTE]

I think that's really the only reason anyone likes the SNES version more. You can argue for it all you want, but the truth is it just isn't as good a game as the sequel and the only reason anyone likes it more is nostalgia. I find that anyone who played the N64 version first, or anyone who played both versions after 3d graphics were standard on consoles, likes Starfox 64 more.

[Leo Ames]

Star Fox 64 might win in a technical sense, but the atmosphere sucks compared to the original. Its hard to describe.

[Atarifever1]

[QUOTE=a]

[QUOTE=Steerforth]
SNES : Great sense of awe for those who played it when it first came out.
[/QUOTE]

You can argue for it all you want, but the truth is it just isn't as good a game as the sequel and the only reason anyone likes it more is nostalgia. 

[/QUOTE]

I think the only reason anyone likes it anymore is nostalgia.  I think that may be the "something" in the atmosphere of it that Leo can't quite place.

[Atarifever1]

[QUOTE=Michael Danehy]
 Also compared to the rival "graphics showcases" of the time such as Sega CD's Sewer Shark it was a far more substantive game. Be fair to Starfox.



[/QUOTE]

First, Afterburner is much more playable.  It has a sense of speed which Star Fox completely lacks.  This makes Afterburner a fast, arcade experience where you barely have time to think about what you're doing.  Starfox is slower, making it much less an arcade game, and much more a plodding console experience.

Second, Sewer Shark isn`t a better example of graphics over gameplay because no one, anywhere, ever claimed Sewer Shark is any good.  Starfox fooled people then with graphics and fools them now with nostalgia (which people have because of the graphics).  A good example of graphics over gameplay, IMO, would have to be a game that succeeded on the market almost entirely due to the graphics.

[Steerforth]

I agree. Star Fox is a complete game, iconic like OoT or M64.