Play Star Fox Assault Early! - Page 2

Null · 01-28-2005, 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vampyr

The N64 version was one of my favorite games for the N46. I played it almost constantly for days at a time, even after I beat it. I enjoyed just trying to see different cut scenes and earning new badges.

The game was short, but not too easy. If you wanted to get the highest level badge at ever world, you had to do some awesome stuff. And don't say "the game is too easy" until you've gotten all those medals.

the game is too easy

Vampyr · 01-28-2005, 07:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Null

the game is too easy

Nicely Done.

Null · 01-28-2005, 10:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vampyr

Nicely Done.

Why thank you.

Jonbo298 · 02-02-2005, 02:28 AM

So, has anyone gone to see if their local Blockbuster or Hollywood Video has SF Assault available?

Dyne · 02-02-2005, 01:55 PM

I might drop by after school today.

I have enough money to buy it, but it would definitely be nice to try it out.

GameMaster · 02-02-2005, 06:38 PM

I just watched the new videos on IGN, I think the game looks really great. Much better than those screen shots we saw a year or two ago. And IGN complains a little about the ground battles but those didn't look too bad either. They're plenty of enemies to fight. I'll be buying this for sure.

http://media.cube.ign.com/media/481/...html?fromint=1

Crash · 02-03-2005, 03:28 PM

eh, the 64 version was too easy, i always had over 1600 (i think that was it) or higher when beating the game, and always had a bazillion lives....

i will enjoy this next one no doubt, IGN says "oh it's too much like the old one" and the other guy says "oh, there's not enough stuff like the old one"

blast.. ign is quickly turning into gamepro.... :-(

STAR FOX FOREVER!!!

DeathsHand · 02-03-2005, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crash

no doubt, IGN says "oh it's too much like the old one" and the other guy says "oh, there's not enough stuff like the old one"

Nope you're wrong, they said

"The same Star Fox we've all come to expect. Arwing missions rock, while ground missions suffer from sloppy control."

and

"While somewhat fun, Star Fox: Assault fails to impress. It lacks the originality, mechanics and style of a next-generation sequel. Playing through the game’s opening sequence will rekindle your love for the franchise, only to have it betrayed by the shoddy control and repetitive play of successive levels."

They also say that, like the other 2 starfox games, it's quite short...

7 out of 10

Kind of reminds me of the review of Rogue Squadron 3, where the flight missions were still great (although much of the same) and the new stuff they tried to do (foot missions) just didn't match up to the quality of the rest of the game...

Jonbo298 · 02-03-2005, 04:01 PM

Thats the problem with alot of critics like IGN. When Wind Waker came out, people complained it wasn't like the '64 version and praise the new one coming but then some will complain about how its nothing "original" or something along those lines.

When SF Adventures came out, people complained it wasn't like the '64/SNES versions. When SF Assault comes out, people complain its too similar to the '64 version.

ugh

Blackmane · 02-03-2005, 04:05 PM

Another reason to believe the glory days of gaming are behind us? Nothing that is fresh and new?

Jonbo298 · 02-03-2005, 04:08 PM

Some companies try fresh and new stuff (Pikmin being an example) but the general population don't always want to try new things

Crash · 02-03-2005, 05:18 PM

"oh, it's still on rails, the game sucks" = IGN

yeah right, the rails are what defines it as star fox... if i wanted to play star wars rogue leader I would.....

there is no pleasing IGN staff. THATS WHAT PEOPLE LIKE! I wanted a star fox that is just like the 64 version with better graphics and a little different gameplay.

DarkMaster · 02-03-2005, 05:38 PM

Can't say that I'm too impressed with the time I've spent with the game. Ground battles are pretty bad, and the rest just doesn't seem very exciting so far.

Canyarion · 02-04-2005, 02:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crash

"oh, it's still on rails, the game sucks" = IGN

yeah right, the rails are what defines it as star fox... if i wanted to play star wars rogue leader I would.....

there is no pleasing IGN staff. THATS WHAT PEOPLE LIKE! I wanted a star fox that is just like the 64 version with better graphics and a little different gameplay.

Haha I just love how Crash suddenly turns out hating IGN.

Last time, when MP2 was reviewed.....

thatmariolover · 02-04-2005, 01:06 PM

/me sighs

I'm pretty frustrated with the rating as well. Not simply because I think it's unfair that they disliked the game. But the fact that they gave the game a 7.0, a "you might want to buy it, rent it first" type rating. But then they turn around and give NBA Street v3 a 9.4. WTF?

Can I just say that EA is completely and utterly raping the gaming industry? I hate Sports games. Yeah. Just about every one of them. I really think you would all feel the same way if you worked in Gamestop/EB. There's just something about the titles. Something about how sports game fans can complain that Nintendo's sequels aren't original - and then they turn around and buy the newest copy of Madden every year.

/me screams

If you had to alphabetize an entire used PSX section by yourself and help customers at the same time... You would know... The M-N sections... Are just... Disgusting... The M-N sections take more time than everything else in the store combined to properly alphabetize. Now by itself, that's nothing. I've made no point. But when I'm doing it, I think about how much each title has really changed. And I know, that the changes are minimal, and yet people keep paying for them. It just makes me want to burn every single freaking sports title ever made (save for a select few that have really added to the industry).

At any rate, I'll rent the game today. Hopefully I'll like it more than IGN did.