• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • The Politics forum has been nuked. Please do not bring political discussion to the rest of the site, or you will be removed. Thanks.

STAR FOX fans — What would be the STAR FOX game of your dreams?

Neiteio

Member
Nov 10, 2007
54,436
6
0
Option 2: The bigger-budget package, with all the benefits and pitfalls that come with it.

I actually think that in terms of concept, Star Fox Assault wasn't a bad direction for the series to go in. There'd be some hell to pay if Nintendo of all people tried to get away with charging for a $60 retail game with an on-rails campaign lasting only three or four hours, the value proposition just wouldn't be there in the modern era. Giving Star Fox a wider swathe of shooting action to work with isn't the problem...it's the fact that the execution of that initial concept lacked the polish it really needed. I personally liked the notion of the team taking on different tasks, some of them doing things in the air while others operated on land...but balancing that with the arbitrary "might gauge" that forced you out of ground objectives in order to jump away from your objective to shoot down random foes killed mission pacing.

How is this problem corrected? The best solution incorporates one of the other features that's often asked for out of Star Fox: Co-op play. Taking the usual four-person Star Fox team, you select your character at the beginning of a play session and the roles of each member of the team vary depending on the requirements of the mission. There would still be fully on-rails levels, but now each pilot takes a slightly different route through, with periods of overlapping for the classic opportunities to help bail your partners out of trouble. Each persons' path could have some conditions to shoot for that would have some impact on their partners (like, say, Falco's player having to take down an attack carrier before it crosses into Slippy's path and unloads a barrage of smaller enemy ships). In all-range levels, there would be a mix of ground and air objectives like with some of the levels in Assault, but the emphasis is taken away from one person having to constantly switch roles, instead allowing the objectives of both the ground and air teams to intermingle.

So let's say, for example, the team is called in to assist with an enemy invasion on the base at Katina. Two players are assigned to hit the surface and infiltrate the iconic pyramid-shaped base and clear out ground troops, while the two air-supports are tasked with protecting the skies. Periodic enemy drop-ships are sent in with reinforcements and it's up to the air-fighters to fight through the convoy and take out the loaders, otherwise they drop more numerous, tougher enemies for the players inside the base to deal with. Or a level where air support is needed to weaken a fort's outer defenses so that a ground-player can infiltrate and destroy some specific objective or rescue hostages or what have you. I think back to the mission on Corneria in Assault, where you had to track down radar-jammers on foot in order for your air companions to properly locate their own objectives. Both air and ground styles have different but concurrent objectives, encouraging proper teamwork and coordination. Plus you get a boost to replay value because playing through the missions as a different character gives you a very different experience without the programmers having to craft four times as many environments.

This style of game would need to foster a strong online community and would be something that Nintendo can really position as a strong net-minded franchise in a time when people seem to think that if it's not Mario Kart, they're not interested in putting anything online. With a multiplayer-centric approach, they could still design it as a single long campaign if they want to, or open things up a bit more and lay out clusters of stages as various self-contained "contracts" for the Star Fox mercenary team to complete. This would also cut out a lot of the needless melodrama and preponderance of unpopular characters that the likes of SF Command took the series in. Individual missions could still provide character insight and give hints toward a larger plot that comes to fruition once the final contracts are unlocked. As a bonus, taking a more episodic approach to the missions gives potential for future DLC contracts if Nintendo felt so inclined to extend the life of the game.

Speaking of episodes and DLC, how about a series of missions where you play as the Star Wolf team? Probably a bit less tactical and a bit more destructive, but certainly fun in its own right.
I mentioned a co-op mode in my own wishlist (in the OP), but I didn't put much thought into how it'd work. I like your idea of different players handling different roles, I.E. the Slippy player takes the Landmaster into the heart of the enemy base while the Fox player tries to shut down the shield generators with his Arwing, the Falco player holds off enemies in the sky, etc.

Like you said, the players can all be on-rails for part of the mission, and thanks to the different paths for each player, they'll seldom get in each other's way. Then you can have the all-range segments where everyone is free to drive/fly wherever they please. These would play out almost like L4D2, where you need to safeguard your wingmates against overwhelming odds/enemy reinforcements while still advancing the mission. Co-op in a Star Fox game (instead of the usual PvP) would be refreshing and a lot of fun. :)
 

Spring-Loaded

Member
Apr 16, 2012
28,425
11
0
How is this problem corrected? The best solution incorporates one of the other features that's often asked for out of Star Fox: Co-op play. Taking the usual four-person Star Fox team, you select your character at the beginning of a play session and the roles of each member of the team vary depending on the requirements of the mission. There would still be fully on-rails levels, but now each pilot takes a slightly different route through, with periods of overlapping for the classic opportunities to help bail your partners out of trouble. Each persons' path could have some conditions to shoot for that would have some impact on their partners (like, say, Falco's player having to take down an attack carrier before it crosses into Slippy's path and unloads a barrage of smaller enemy ships). In all-range levels, there would be a mix of ground and air objectives like with some of the levels in Assault, but the emphasis is taken away from one person having to constantly switch roles, instead allowing the objectives of both the ground and air teams to intermingle.
So let's say, for example, the team is called in to assist with an enemy invasion on the base at Katina. Two players are assigned to hit the surface and infiltrate the iconic pyramid-shaped base and clear out ground troops, while the two air-supports are tasked with protecting the skies. Periodic enemy drop-ships are sent in with reinforcements and it's up to the air-fighters to fight through the convoy and take out the loaders, otherwise they drop more numerous, tougher enemies for the players inside the base to deal with. Or a level where air support is needed to weaken a fort's outer defenses so that a ground-player can infiltrate and destroy some specific objective or rescue hostages or what have you. I think back to the mission on Corneria in Assault, where you had to track down radar-jammers on foot in order for your air companions to properly locate their own objectives. Both air and ground styles have different but concurrent objectives, encouraging proper teamwork and coordination. Plus you get a boost to replay value because playing through the missions as a different character gives you a very different experience without the programmers having to craft four times as many environments.

This style of game would need to foster a strong online community and would be something that Nintendo can really position as a strong net-minded franchise in a time when people seem to think that if it's not Mario Kart, they're not interested in putting anything online. With a multiplayer-centric approach, they could still design it as a single long campaign if they want to, or open things up a bit more and lay out clusters of stages as various self-contained "contracts" for the Star Fox mercenary team to complete. This would also cut out a lot of the needless melodrama and preponderance of unpopular characters that the likes of SF Command took the series in. Individual missions could still provide character insight and give hints toward a larger plot that comes to fruition once the final contracts are unlocked. As a bonus, taking a more episodic approach to the missions gives potential for future DLC contracts if Nintendo felt so inclined to extend the life of the game.

Speaking of episodes and DLC, how about a series of missions where you play as the Star Wolf team? Probably a bit less tactical and a bit more destructive, but certainly fun in its own right.

beautiful

Include options to choose whether to go the Arwing route during those scenarios + relegate mandatory on-foot stuff to landmaster type on-rails levels and you're golden.
 

Doorman

Member
Jun 21, 2008
6,654
0
0
Michigan, USA
I'm just not seeing the necessity to add in an on foot section in and of itself as a means to craft a more appealing gameplay experience.

Well...I suppose I would counter that sentiment by asking this: can you think of any alternatives to create a suitably "Star Fox" style of gameplay that would last long enough to be considered worth a $60 retail price? If Star Fox 64 is considered the benchmark of the series, it takes about an hour to run through one campaign. If you know the conditions to move through the map properly, that means it takes you all of three to four hours to see all of the game's content. That's fine for an arcade-styled downloadable title (and if a small-scale arcade shooter is all you want out of the series forever, then more power to you), but if Nintendo were to treat Star Fox as a stronger franchise, then it needs something to add more value. Adding on-foot aspects to the missions is a method that we've already seen in action (albeit in flawed form, but that's why it was a first attempt) so it gives us a base to build off of. If you want to keep things arwing-only, then the game would still need something more than flying down corridors to make it worth the cost of purchase, and worth the cost of development.
 

Neiteio

Member
Nov 10, 2007
54,436
6
0
beautiful

Include options to choose whether to go the Arwing route during those scenarios + relegate mandatory on-foot stuff to landmaster type on-rails levels and you're golden.
You could even frame Doorman's co-op idea with a briefing sequence at the start, where you're given a map of the target (let's say a weapons factory) and you're given intel on enemy numbers, shield generator locations, etc. And then it plays out like the heists in Grand Theft Auto V.

In single-player, you'd delegate different duties to different recruits -- "You'll distract them with the Landmaster at the gate, while we fly in the back in our Arwings." In co-op, those duties would be given to actual players, of course. General Pepper could present you with possible options, like exploit this weak-point here, or jam this signal there, or draw the enemy away from this fortification here so you can sneak in over there, and you'd choose which strategy and plan your attack accordingly, working together with other human players and issuing commands to cannon-fodder AI units, as well.
 
ZERO ON FOOT MISSIONS.

Why do people want this? This is not an evolution of the franchise. It should be more akin to SF64 but taken to 11.

A lot of levels that have branching paths and encourage replayability
Different ships with upgrades/sidegrades
Challenge missions
Interesting online integration ala Miiverse
ONLINE COOP GOOD GOD HOW AWESOME YOUR FRIEND CAN BE SLIPPY

Nintendo doesn't need to reinvent, just perfect.
 

Neff

Member
Feb 6, 2012
13,357
2,614
1,080
UK
ZERO ON FOOT MISSIONS.

Why do people want this? This is not an evolution of the franchise.

I'm guessing because people like the characters, but also that we don't get to see them a lot outside of combat chatter and Smash Bros. But I agree. Let's fly/drive/swim around and shoot stuff as much as possible.
 

Nostremitus

Member
Mar 24, 2012
8,868
2
0
Seoul, ROK
ZERO ON FOOT MISSIONS.

Why do people want this? This is not an evolution of the franchise. It should be more akin to SF64 but taken to 11.

A lot of levels that have branching paths and encourage replayability
Different ships with upgrades/sidegrades
Challenge missions
Interesting online integration ala Miiverse
ONLINE COOP GOOD GOD HOW AWESOME YOUR FRIEND CAN BE SLIPPY

Nintendo doesn't need to reinvent, just perfect.

Perfecting this is evolution, not reinvention.
 

qq more

Member
Feb 5, 2010
16,331
0
0
32
qqqqqqqqqqqqqq
You and the handful of other people who care about rail shooters as a genre. But you can't resurrect Star Fox for a literal handful of people.

Wow, what the heck? What kind of response is this? I'm asking for a sequel in the vain of Star Fox 64 and you go telling me that no one gives a crap? Freaking rude
 

Kokonoe

Banned
Dec 2, 2011
14,574
88
655
You and the handful of other people who care about rail shooters as a genre. But you can't resurrect Star Fox for a literal handful of people.

You and your generalizations of others who have different opinions than you and false statistics that come straight out of thin-air can't "resurrect" Star Fox.
 

Spring-Loaded

Member
Apr 16, 2012
28,425
11
0
You could even frame Doorman's co-op idea with a briefing sequence at the start, where you're given a map of the target (let's say a weapons factory) and you're given intel on enemy numbers, shield generator locations, etc. And then it plays out like the heists in Grand Theft Auto V.

In single-player, you'd delegate different duties to different recruits -- "You'll distract them with the Landmaster at the gate, while we fly in the back in our Arwings." In co-op, those duties would be given to actual players, of course. General Pepper could present you with possible options, like exploit this weak-point here, or jam this signal there, or draw the enemy away from this fortification here so you can sneak in over there, and you'd choose which strategy and plan your attack accordingly, working together with other human players and issuing commands to cannon-fodder AI units, as well.

Even rehashed levels from old games could benefit from this. A mission like 64's Macbeth level could involve some teammates dropping inside the train to blow up armored train cars from inside, or, continuing with your GTA heist parallel, blow open the roofs so that the other players can lift weapons/supplies out and into the Great Fox.

ZERO ON FOOT MISSIONS.

Why do people want this? This is not an evolution of the franchise. It should be more akin to SF64 but taken to 11.

A lot of levels that have branching paths and encourage replayability
Different ships with upgrades/sidegrades
Challenge missions
Interesting online integration ala Miiverse
ONLINE COOP GOOD GOD HOW AWESOME YOUR FRIEND CAN BE SLIPPY

Nintendo doesn't need to reinvent, just perfect.

If you haven't, try Assault's multiplayer to see why people want on-foot gameplay. If we're taking the stance that Nintendo should just perfect what they already have, then they already have on-foot gameplay that they can tweak.

The Sin & Punishment series already has on-rails, on-foot gameplay that plays like Star Fox Landmaster missions. If Landmaster gameplay is acceptable, on-foot should be as well, so long as there are huge levels that force you to be on-foot the entire time. Keep "all-range mode" segments wide open so that people who only want to pilot ships can just use on-foot mode for switching vehicles.

If in Doorman's and Neiteio's scenarios, the player had options to choose which approach to takeat a given junction, then those Arwing only people could avoid excessive on-foot gameplay. A few Landmaster-style on-rail segments would not be too much for them to put up with either.
 

Doorman

Member
Jun 21, 2008
6,654
0
0
Michigan, USA
Speaking strictly for myself, part of the reason why I'm alright with on-foot sections in Star Fox is because I really would like to see a franchise that puts the Nintendo-spin on a really action-heavy third person shooter, and of the franchises they have Star Fox is the best thematic fit for that. Plus, like I said before, it creates a known way to add more mission variety and game length and provides a change of pace to the on-rails segments. This sort of approach was already taken with Kid Icarus and outside of that game's control issues (hand cramps!), impressions that I can recall came back mostly positive.

Again I don't think it was the sheer fact that on-foot missions existed that was the problem...it's more simply that they were implemented poorly. I think it hurt Assault that they didn't make dual-analog aiming the default control scheme, because using that actually worked out rather well (well...trying to control the Landmaster that way took a lot of getting used to but I think an internal Nintendo studio would do a better job with controls than Namco did).

The big problem with my co-op centric model is that it does hurt the single player component. You could just have the AI handle the other objectives but that does harm a lot of the cooperative aspect. You'd have to assume that your computer-controlled opponents will be able to reasonably handle their tasks, right? It runs the risk of making single-player play too easy. In that case, there may have to be a slightly different set of single-player levels (an actual campaign, in other words), with the mercenary contract-based co-op missions set aside for online play. You could use the same maps but offer different objectives that don't require so much reliance on teamwork and not as much interplay between air and ground roles. That way, again, you're limiting the number of environments and models that need crafting. Even if I'm dream-designing a game, I'd like to try and keep it somewhat realistic in terms of potential for development.
 

Neiteio

Member
Nov 10, 2007
54,436
6
0
Yesssssssss, four-player Star Fox Assault is so goooooooood!!

Even rehashed levels from old games could benefit from this. A mission like 64's Macbeth level could involve some teammates dropping inside the train to blow up armored train cars from inside, or, continuing with your GTA heist parallel, blow open the roofs so that the other players can lift weapons/supplies out and into the Great Fox.
Dude... DUDE! That sounds amazing!

I wonder if they could repurpose the entirety of Star Fox 64 as the co-op mode in a SF64-II -- much like how the original Rogue Leader was turned into a co-op mode in Rebel Strike.

Speaking strictly for myself, part of the reason why I'm alright with on-foot sections in Star Fox is because I really would like to see a franchise that puts the Nintendo-spin on a really action-heavy third person shooter, and of the franchises they have Star Fox is the best thematic fit for that. Plus, like I said before, it creates a known way to add more mission variety and game length and provides a change of pace to the on-rails segments. This sort of approach was already taken with Kid Icarus and outside of that game's control issues (hand cramps!), impressions that I can recall came back mostly positive.
Yeah, for me, on-foot missions serve the following purpose:

1) On-foot missions can mix up the action to keep the vehicle missions from growing stale
2) On-foot missions create a framework for a Warhawk-style multiplayer component
3) On-foot missions can be Nintendo's stylish character action/third-person shooter

On that last note, picture a TPS with shooting and mobility like Vanquish, but with melee moves like Bayonetta, Anarchy Reigns or Metal Gear Rising. And picture it with the same laser-focused score-attack mentality of those games.

Picture that for the all-range on-foot missions. Now for the on-rails part, picture Sin & Punishment, with the ranged attacks and melee strikes and the jumping and rolling.

It's all too perfect. In fact, I think people would like it so much that they'd complain about they're not being enough on-foot missions. But I agree the focus should be on vehicle missions. Like I said before, you could have one on-foot mission for every 10 vehicle missions. :)

Doorman said:
The big problem with my co-op centric model is that it does hurt the single player component. You could just have the AI handle the other objectives but that does harm a lot of the cooperative aspect. You'd have to assume that your computer-controlled opponents will be able to reasonably handle their tasks, right? It runs the risk of making single-player play too easy. In that case, there may have to be a slightly different set of single-player levels (an actual campaign, in other words), with the mercenary contract-based co-op missions set aside for online play. You could use the same maps but offer different objectives that don't require so much reliance on teamwork and not as much interplay between air and ground roles. That way, again, you're limiting the number of environments and models that need crafting. Even if I'm dream-designing a game, I'd like to try and keep it somewhat realistic in terms of potential for development.
You could design a single-player version of the "heist" model where, also like GTAV, you can switch between different characters on the fly, and the AI will take over the remaining units and buy you some time, but the game leans on you to do most of the heavy-lifting and meet the objectives.

So you could be providing sniper cover as Falco up on a hill, the AI controlling the Arwing circling overhead fighting drones, and the AI controlling Slippy in the Landmaster trying to break down the front gate of the enemy base. But at some point the game could prompt you to switch to those other characters to better handle their respective situations, in which case the AI would resume control of Falco's sniping.

This way, the single-player becomes an exercise in high-pressure multi-tasking while retaining the game's forward momentum and twitch-action flavor. :)
 

Game-Biz

Member
Mar 24, 2006
4,225
5
1,160
Star Fox Adventure sequel with advanced fur shading = day 1 purchase.

Haters gonna hate.
 

RomanceDawn

Member
Apr 29, 2013
3,354
0
500
35
Los Angeles
Too busy to read every post right now - but basically:

A released one.

Hahaha!

All these ideas just spark so much hope in me! Aside from a much more massive single player, I want a huge multiplayer with at least 10 vehicles flying around at once blasting each other out of the sky.

Despite the limited options, my friends and I would play SF64's VS mode like crazy! The frame rate slow down would actually make the battles really intense as well, with unintended Matrix style shoot outs. Since every player had the same choice of vehicles it always felt really fair and skill based. Having 10 or so players flying around or driving around with tanks at the same time would be a dream come true for me. I mean with the way shooters of all kinds have progressed over the years this hypothetical title could be amazing. Star Fox is nintendo's unrealized shooter.
 

MAtgS

Member
Dec 13, 2008
4,276
666
1,120
Factor 5 gave us Co-op Deathstar Trench run... it's possible.
No, not really. I looked up a video of it & I still saw 1 of the flaws that came to mind: the front player can't do shit about enemies on the rear player's tail. On-rails makes it incredibly difficult for both players to be a help to each other, defeating the entire purpose of having co-op at all. Rogue Squadron works because on-rails levels are limited & not 50-90% of the game like they should in SF.

I suppose they could play up squad tactics with the front plane being arggo, causing the most destruction but also drawing the attention of more enemies while the rear plane provides cover fire from those enemies. But that still leave the question of players 3 & 4. 4 players on a single rail just gets crowded.
 

Neiteio

Member
Nov 10, 2007
54,436
6
0
No, not really. I looked up a video of it & I still saw 1 of the flaws that came to mind: the front player can't do shit about enemies on the rear player's tail. On-rails makes it incredibly difficult for both players to be a help to each other, defeating the entire purpose of having co-op at all. Rogue Squadron works because on-rails levels are limited & not 50-90% of the game like they should in SF.

I suppose they could play up squad tactics with the front plane being arggo, causing the most destruction but also drawing the attention of more enemies while the rear plane provides cover fire from those enemies. But that still leave the question of players 3 & 4. 4 players on a single rail just gets crowded.
A simpler solution would be for Player 1 (up front) to hit the brakes and let Player 2 (in back) overtake him, so that Player 1 can then shoot the enemies chasing Player 2.

On another note, I've really overhauled my wishlist in the OP. I think I'm getting closer to my personal ideal Star Fox game!
 

MAtgS

Member
Dec 13, 2008
4,276
666
1,120
A simpler solution would be for Player 1 (up front) to hit the brakes and let Player 2 (in back) overtake him, so that Player 1 can then shoot the enemies chasing Player 2.
& why can't player 2 just hit the brakes or somersault? Still doesn't work.

I've had this discussion in my head so many times over the years, I could never convince myself of a way for it to work.
 

Neiteio

Member
Nov 10, 2007
54,436
6
0
& why can't player 2 just hit the brakes or somersault? Still doesn't work.

I've had this discussion in my head so many times over the years, I could never convince myself of a way for it to work.
Player 2 couldn't do that because the game would be programmed for the enemies to follow Player 2 no matter what, thus requiring Player 1 to shoot them down. Player 2 could duck and weave to last longer, but ultimately Player 1 will have to fall back to pick them off, since they will otherwise continue to follow Player 2.

It's a co-op game, after all.
 

MAtgS

Member
Dec 13, 2008
4,276
666
1,120
Player 2 couldn't do that because the game would be programmed for the enemies to follow Player 2 no matter what, thus requiring Player 1 to shoot them down. Player 2 could duck and weave to last longer, but ultimately Player 1 will have to fall back to pick them off, since they will otherwise continue to follow Player 2.

It's a co-op game, after all.

So how's it play in single player? Relying on AI wingmen to save me everytime? That would get irritating for the player to depend on AI for so much.
 

Neiteio

Member
Nov 10, 2007
54,436
6
0
So how's it play in single player? Relying on AI wingmen to save me everytime? That would get irritating for the player to depend on AI for so much.
It wouldn't happen in single-player. Enemy behavior would only do that in co-op.

You're really overthinking this. :p
 

MAtgS

Member
Dec 13, 2008
4,276
666
1,120
It wouldn't happen in single-player. Enemy behavior would only do that in co-op.

You're really overthinking this. :p
Yes I am. I can't help myself I've been thinking about this ever since SF64 came out. It still doesn't really account for all 4 members of the team. Would they all be in a conga line at that point? wouldn't 4 players constantly braking/boosting seriously increase the risk of crashes?
 

Neiteio

Member
Nov 10, 2007
54,436
6
0
Yes I am. I can't help myself I've been thinking about this ever since SF64 came out. It still doesn't really account for all 4 members of the team. Would they all be in a conga line at that point? wouldn't 4 players constantly braking/boosting seriously increase the risk of crashes?
It's all in how they design it. If the aggressive enemies (the ones who follow) only target one wingmate at a time, it's simple enough for one of the other three players to respond. If one player backs up or boosts forward into another player, it's simple enough to have a "shield buffer" cause the one to bounce harmlessly off the other.

If crowding is a concern, the levels could be designed so that when playing with more than two players, Players 3 and 4 follow a separate track -- let's say a river running parallel to the shoreline followed by Players 1 and 2. The members of each pair would look after each other, and at key points the two separate tracks would cross -- not unlike the Corneria level of SF64, where Falco or Slippy will come swooping in from the left or right of the screen. In this case, replace Slippy or Falco with Player 3/4, maybe have the aggressive enemies following both of them at that point, and since they're intersecting the paths of Players 1/2, those two players can shoot down the enemies following Players 3/4.

I'm confident these kinds of problems could be solved simply by designing the levels and enemy behavior to accommodate co-op in the first place.
 

Christopher

Member
Mar 19, 2005
18,035
1,504
1,925
I want the adventure style actually done right with an interesting cast villia s and story
..also have great airplane missions I like the best of both
 

MAtgS

Member
Dec 13, 2008
4,276
666
1,120
It's all in how they design it. If the aggressive enemies (the ones who follow) only target one wingmate at a time, it's simple enough for one of the other three players to respond. If one player backs up or boosts forward into another player, it's simple enough to have a "shield buffer" cause the one to bounce harmlessly off the other.

If crowding is a concern, the levels could be designed so that when playing with more than two players, Players 3 and 4 follow a separate track -- let's say a river running parallel to the shoreline followed by Players 1 and 2). The members of each pair would look after each other, and at key points the two separate tracks would cross -- not unlike the Corneria level of SF64, where Falco or Slippy will come swooping in from the left or right of the screen. In this case, replace Slippy or Falco with Player 3/4, maybe have the aggressive enemies following both of them, and since they're intersecting the paths of Players 1/2, those two players can shoot down the enemies following Players 3/4.

I'm confident these kinds of problems could be solved simply by designing the levels and enemy behavior to accommodate co-op in the first place.
So 95% of the time 3 & 4 are basically playing a separate game? You know what screw it, I'm done with nitpicking for now. Let me be more constructive for a change (I nitpick because I want SF co-op to happen in spite of the problems with it).

I mentioned earlier about multiple campaigns for different time periods. How about 1 of the campaigns being multiplayer only? That way it's missions can be designed for multiple without having to balance it for singleplayer.

Alternate idea I've had before: 2-man arwings with 1 player being the gunner. Gunner uses the Wii U gamepad for 1st person Millennium Falcon turret action.
 

Freezie KO

Banned
Jul 9, 2007
12,649
0
970
It's really a shame that Nintendo hates competitive online multiplayer. I'd love to see an online dogfighting StarFox using SF64's multiplayer as a basis. Imagine a game with 12-16 large HD maps, rather than the four from the original.

You could have a variety of different lobbies:

- 12 player Free for All
- 8 v 8 Team Deathmatch
- A no respawn mode where the teams have to pick up a nuke and fire it into the opponent's base. A cross between soccer and Call of Duty's Search and Destroy.
- An online co-op "survive the waves" mode set up like the Independence Day mission from SF64.

And more.

Then add that to Nintendo's hypothetical online line up of kart racing (Mario Kart 8), fighting (Smash Bros.), blazing fast technical racing (30 player F-Zero), among others. I really think Nintendo could capture a large segment of the online gaming market and keep them engaged throughout the year, just like sports and FPS gamers. So many lost opportunities...
 

Terrell

Member
Apr 1, 2006
12,476
2
1,050
Vancouver, BC, Canada
Well...I suppose I would counter that sentiment by asking this: can you think of any alternatives to create a suitably "Star Fox" style of gameplay that would last long enough to be considered worth a $60 retail price?

An extremely robust multiplayer package is another method.

But the problem truly is there's no single "silver bullet" to reviving interest in a franchise that's part of a dying genre and every option needs to be looked at. Multiplayer alone wouldn't do it.

Wow, what the heck? What kind of response is this? I'm asking for a sequel in the vain of Star Fox 64 and you go telling me that no one gives a crap? Freaking rude

You and your generalizations of others who have different opinions than you and false statistics that come straight out of thin-air can't "resurrect" Star Fox.

The facts are facts. Name every game in the same genre as Star Fox and it's either dead or barely able to crawl past 250,000 sales worldwide. This bulwark of "quintessential Star Fox" gameplay had an amazing remake that an very small amount of people bought, even if the data you're using comes from the inaccurately over-inflated sales numbers from a banned sales chart website. The eternally-loathed and heavily-panned Metroid Other M posted better sales numbers than this game. I'm sorry that you're offended by the reality of the situation, but it's the reality nonetheless.
 

Trojan X

Banned
Jul 20, 2004
6,169
0
0
ONLY ARWINGS.

Thank you.

To add: an epic adventure like Panzer Dragoon Saga but with dogfights that would put Star Wars Return of the Jedi to shame. The closest thing we had was fighting the Space Armada in the first StarFox:




You know what? I still can't believe that after nearly 30 years, there is STILL NO MOVIE that feature dogfights as amazing and jaw-dropping as Star Wars Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi. Unbelievable.
 

Boss Doggie

all my loli wolf companions are so moe
Jul 1, 2008
72,865
5
0
Philippines
Pretty much, the only way for a rail shooter to survive is to actually mix up gameplay rather than relying solely on rail shooter.
 

Aostia

El Capitan Todd
Sep 2, 2011
18,552
20
0
I'd like a very vehicle-based on-rail shooter.
Something like SF64 and S&P2, with many different flying and terrain vehicles
Story-driven but with also online arena mode
Very good graphic
Very gamepad oriented user interface for the different vehicles

and a giga-flying final boss, like this:

 

Pociask

Member
Nov 30, 2009
2,532
0
0
I'm ambivalent about on-foot sections myself - I think Star Fox should be about vehicles. But I do think on-foot sections can be very good for video games. As mentioned already, they give good versatility for multi-player, and they let the game player better identify with the character. But what I like about the idea of on-foot missions is the tension they create, and the further immersion in the game world. By tension, I mean you're no longer in your barrel-rolling bomb-dropping Arwing, you're just a fragile Fox with an energy shield (and a jetpack, because just close Sin & Punishment 2 for the movement, that was godly). Can you survive in this dangerous environment that took all your skills in an Arwing to survive in previously? Can you get back to your Arwing/vehicle before you're overwhelmed? So a well done on-foot section can add challenge and excitement to the game. And by immersion in the world, you get to see these environments from the point of view of a tiny figure - and thus, refresh the environment you may have gotten used to and re-instill the dangerousness of the enemy tanks/planes/trains.

I can imagine they could have made a Star Wars movie that always had Luke in an X-Wing and Han in the Falcon. That would not have been as good a movie as the ones we got.
 

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
Jun 26, 2007
46,320
19,335
1,910
Best Coast
I also think that the time and effort needed to make a deep action TPS game for on foot stuff would be better suited for a new IP, rather than trying to piggyback off of Star Fox.
 

Neiteio

Member
Nov 10, 2007
54,436
6
0
I'm ambivalent about on-foot sections myself - I think Star Fox should be about vehicles. But I do think on-foot sections can be very good for video games. As mentioned already, they give good versatility for multi-player, and they let the game player better identify with the character. But what I like about the idea of on-foot missions is the tension they create, and the further immersion in the game world. By tension, I mean you're no longer in your barrel-rolling bomb-dropping Arwing, you're just a fragile Fox with an energy shield (and a jetpack, because just close Sin & Punishment 2 for the movement, that was godly). Can you survive in this dangerous environment that took all your skills in an Arwing to survive in previously? Can you get back to your Arwing/vehicle before you're overwhelmed? So a well done on-foot section can add challenge and excitement to the game. And by immersion in the world, you get to see these environments from the point of view of a tiny figure - and thus, refresh the environment you may have gotten used to and re-instill the dangerousness of the enemy tanks/planes/trains.

I can imagine they could have made a Star Wars movie that always had Luke in an X-Wing and Han in the Falcon. That would not have been as good a movie as the ones we got.
All of this! Well-said, good sir! If done well, on-foot sections will absolutely benefit Star Fox, and while they've been imperfect to date, they've shown potential for mixing up the action, keeping things fresh, establishing a closer connection with the characters, and enabling a multiplayer mode with sandbox-style action. And as you noted, on-foot sections could emphasis the vulnerability of a pilot outside of his vehicle.

I also think that the time and effort needed to make a deep action TPS game for on foot stuff would be better suited for a new IP, rather than trying to piggyback off of Star Fox.
It's a worthwhile time investment, for all of the reasons Pociask said. If they make it a priority from the start to not scrimp on vehicle missions, and to still have a handful of strong on-foot missions, it could work out well.
 

Spring-Loaded

Member
Apr 16, 2012
28,425
11
0
I also think that the time and effort needed to make a deep action TPS game for on foot stuff would be better suited for a new IP, rather than trying to piggyback off of Star Fox.

A purely vehicle based affair like SF64 would be fine, but I echo the sentiments of others who say such a game would need to be a budget/downloadable title. On-rail shooters like Sin & Punishment 2: Star Successor didn't set any charts on fire, so if this potential SF game plays just like SF or SF64, we can't expect the game to sell well enough to warrant a $60 price tag. Whether it's justified aside, people tend to see games with straight-forward or simple gameplay as being of lesser value compared to bigger/more complex titles. Apparently on-rail shooter fans are a relatively niche demographic as there are many big, full priced titles in the genre lately. Catering to just that demographic might not be lucrative enough for the work that'd have to go into a $60 title, but something a 1/4 or 1/5 of that on the eShop could be.

The use of multiplayer and co-op could help Nintendo develop a considerable online playerbase, an area they're really behind in. Not only would such features widen the appeal of the game to beyond just traditional SF/SF64 fans, it would also encourage players to continually support the game post release if ever there's any extra content (if that multiplayer was good, which it was in Assault).

Since there already exists on-foot Star Fox gameplay, it wouldn't be a matter of reinventing the wheel in order to have it in a future game. It would just need to be used better than it was in Assault; have it be used sparingly or be mostly optional in the main game, then have it appear in multiplayer just as it did in Assault.
 

RobFox64tm

Member
May 24, 2013
2,480
0
0
I'd want a flying mission heavy single player, with a multi-player that utilizes Metroid Blast as a base for its on foot combat. I hated on foot missions in Assaults single player, or at least that it consisted mostly of them, but my friends and I actually had a lot of fun in the multi-player mode. I think with the right team behind the game, it could actually be made even better.
 
Oct 1, 2009
5,312
0
750
My ideal Star Fox game would be directed by and have story written and characters by Takaya Imamura, the original character designer of the series. The music would feature contributions from Koji Kondo, Hajime Wakai, and Hajime Hirasawa, the prodigal composer of the original SNES classic.

It would also feature hand-drawn character art by Benimaru Itoh and have the two forgotten Star Fox 2 characters as extra support.


plus Fara Phoenix




Since (Command spoilers)
Krystal left the Star Fox team in one of the endings of the last game, she could sit this one out.

And it would have either still-frame or animated cut scenes that look like this:

 

Neiteio

Member
Nov 10, 2007
54,436
6
0
My ideal Star Fox game would be directed by and have story written and characters by Takaya Imamura, the original character designer of the series. The music would feature contributions from Koji Kondo, Hajime Wakai, and Hajime Hirasawa, the prodigal composer of the original SNES classic.

It would also feature hand-drawn character art by Benimaru Itoh and have the two forgotten Star Fox 2 characters as extra support.

http://i.imgur.com/b6EMm96.png

plus Fara Phoenix

http://i.imgur.com/DZ84vkN.jpg


Since (Command spoilers)
Krystal left the Star Fox team in one of the endings of the last game, she could sit this one out.

And it would have either still-frame or animated cut scenes that look like this:

http://i.imgur.com/5kIJFNG.jpg
I like your passion. :) I'd definitely want Fay (the white dog) and Miyu (the lynx) to be in the game. :)

As far as presentation is concerned, I think it'd be cool to have actual live-action puppets as the talking heads in the codec calls, and possibly from the waist up in the mission briefing/debriefing.

The puppets could look like the kind used to promote the Super NES game. In addition to the codec calls and briefings/debriefings, they'd also be on the box art, in the instruction booklet, etc.

Miyamoto said the use of puppets was inspired by the show Thunderbirds. Who knows -- maybe if this theoretical SF64-II were a huge hit, they'd spin off a TV show in the same style!

 

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
Jun 26, 2007
46,320
19,335
1,910
Best Coast
A purely vehicle based affair like SF64 would be fine, but I echo the sentiments of others who say such a game would need to be a budget/downloadable title. On-rail shooters like Sin & Punishment 2: Star Successor didn't set any charts on fire, so if this potential SF game plays just like SF or SF64, we can't expect the game to sell well enough to warrant a $60 price tag. Whether it's justified aside, people tend to see games with straight-forward or simple gameplay as being of lesser value compared to bigger/more complex titles.

In general, I want to make the development process efficient so that the game doesn't have to be $60. The AAA dev bloat that occurs nowadays is terrible.

The use of multiplayer and co-op could help Nintendo develop a considerable online playerbase, an area they're really behind in. Not only would such features widen the appeal of the game to beyond just traditional SF/SF64 fans, it would also encourage players to continually support the game post release if ever there's any extra content (if that multiplayer was good, which it was in Assault).

Yes, I agree that multiplayer and coop are very good ways to create value and longevity in the game. That doesn't necessarily speak for the imminent need for on-foot gameplay. Assault's on-foot gameplay was only fun for some, and that was just in multiplayer.

Since there already exists on-foot Star Fox gameplay, it wouldn't be a matter of reinventing the wheel in order to have it in a future game. It would just need to be used better than it was in Assault; have it be used sparingly or be mostly optional in the main game, then have it appear in multiplayer just as it did in Assault.
It wouldn't be a matter of reinventing the wheel. It would be rolling back a mistake. Don't bother trying to make it better, just take it out. If it's so good and an integral/necessary aspect of a new Star Fox, why is it only used "sparingly", or "mostly optional"? It's either important, or a side thing. Ditch it, and use the time to improve the Arwing gameplay and mission quality instead.
 
Oct 1, 2009
5,312
0
750
I like your passion. :) Me personally, I think it'd be cool to have actual live-action puppets as the talking heads in the codec calls, and possibly from the waist up in the mission briefing/debriefing.

The puppets could look like the kind used to promote the Super NES game. In addition to the codec calls and briefings/debriefings, they'd also be on the box art, in the instruction booklet, etc.

Miyamoto said the use of puppets was inspired by the show Thunderbirds. Who knows -- maybe if this theoretical SF64-II were a huge hit, they'd spin off a TV show in the same style!

[Imgur](http://i.imgur.com/57vc44I.jpg)


I love that idea! Collegehumor did a video that gives a very, very rough idea of what stop-motion Star Fox animation could look like , but of course this would be like the SNES models and of a much higher animation quality. I'd even be happy with CG that cleverly mimicked that Thunderbirds style. On the other hand, I do love me some hand drawn art (I'm just a sucker for the drawn art in the two SNES games and Nintendo Power comics), so maybe there could be a compromise between the instruction book and the promotional/game art, sort of how Square-Enix use to do with the Final Fantasy games.

Of course this is all just part of my ideal fantasy Star Fox game that will never happen, but one can hope. :)
 

Neiteio

Member
Nov 10, 2007
54,436
6
0
I love that idea! Collegehumor did a video that gives a very, very rough idea of what stop-motion Star Fox animation could look like , but of course this would be like the SNES models and of a much higher animation quality. I'd even be happy with CG that cleverly mimicked that Thunderbirds style. On the other hand, I do love me some hand drawn art (I'm just a sucker for the drawn art in the two SNES games and Nintendo Power comics), so maybe there could be a compromise between the instruction book and the promotional/game art, sort of how Square-Enix use to do with the Final Fantasy games.

Of course this is all just part of my ideal fantasy Star Fox game that will never happen, but one can hope. :)
I think it would be cool if tapping a direction on the D-Pad toggled between live-action puppets for the talking heads, and hand-drawn sprites for the talking heads. I guess puppets could be default, since they're a more involved production. It'd be a sweet Easter egg, like toggling the masks on/off for the character conversations in The Wonderful 101, or holding a button to see through Snake's eyes at key moments in MGS4 cutscenes.

It wouldn't be a matter of reinventing the wheel. It would be rolling back a mistake. Don't bother trying to make it better, just take it out. If it's so good and an integral/necessary aspect of a new Star Fox, why is it only used "sparingly", or "mostly optional"? It's either important, or a side thing. Ditch it, and use the time to improve the Arwing gameplay and mission quality instead.
Attitudes like that inhibit progress. The on-foot portions show potential, and we have other TPS and character action titles that show how far they can go. And making the on-foot portions a "special event" rather than every other mission doesn't diminish their importance. They would simply be all the more impactful for it -- a palate cleaner for the next batch of vehicle missions.
 

Neiteio

Member
Nov 10, 2007
54,436
6
0
I'd also like to note that for the competitive multiplayer mode, I'm thinking Assault's multiplayer expanded to the scale of Warhawk on PS3 -- 32 players, sprawling battlefields, and the ability to run around freely, ride land and air vehicles with your buddies, and play Capture the Flag, etc. You can play in local splitscreen, full-screen online, or mixed local/online (the best feature of Warhawk, IMO).

Like Warhawk, you would have two sides for the team-based formats -- the forces of Corneria vs. the armies of Andross. This would essentially change the style of your attire and vehicles, just like in Warhawk.

The underlying character would be an avatar created by the player. Select your species (I.E. fox, falcon, toad, hare, dog, wolf, lynx, etc), and then choose your gender and overall physique. From there you can adjust facial features, and tweak the color and pattern of your fur/feathers/scales/skin. Round it out with tattoos, scars, tribal markings, etc. And let players have multiple custom-made characters, so they can experiment. :)
 

qq more

Member
Feb 5, 2010
16,331
0
0
32
qqqqqqqqqqqqqq
An extremely robust multiplayer package is another method.

But the problem truly is there's no single "silver bullet" to reviving interest in a franchise that's part of a dying genre and every option needs to be looked at. Multiplayer alone wouldn't do it.





The facts are facts. Name every game in the same genre as Star Fox and it's either dead or barely able to crawl past 250,000 sales worldwide. This bulwark of "quintessential Star Fox" gameplay had an amazing remake that an very small amount of people bought, even if the data you're using comes from the inaccurately over-inflated sales numbers from a banned sales chart website. The eternally-loathed and heavily-panned Metroid Other M posted better sales numbers than this game. I'm sorry that you're offended by the reality of the situation, but it's the reality nonetheless.
Wow. The premise of the thread is about posting our ideal Star Fox game, not freaking sales. You're being really a huge killjoy about it by telling us "YOU'RE WRONG FOR WANTING THIS BECAUSE SALES".

Oh and Star Fox 64 3D sales, really? That game launched when the 3DS didn't have a huge userbase and by the time it did, the game became forgotten, not to mention it's an overpriced remake of a N64 game. Didn't it launched at 40 dollars????? How many people are willing to pay 40 for a remake of a game (that didn't really add much new) that came out 15 years ago? And there wasn't really anything exciting about the remake other than you can play it on the go.
 

Neiteio

Member
Nov 10, 2007
54,436
6
0
Man, the near-complete ROM for Star Fox II looks so cool. Shame they pulled the plug on it due to the impending release of N64. The game looks so well-made. It'd be amazing if Nintendo remastered it in stereoscopic 3D and released it on the 3DS eShop as a "Hidden 3D Classic." :)