Which game is more quotable?
15 years of internet history and me talking to people who actively made videos about star fox,And the moment they start talking about "what is the appeal of star fox?"Star Fox kinda just shot itself in the foot by being such a casual console friendly experience.It allows people to take so many aspects of what they like about it, especially because it can be played at that casual level endlesslywithout ever engaging with the scoring system Nintendo's deverlopers clearly hoped people would engage with.So you end up wanting more of those characters, the world, the music, the story.Every element that was tacked on to the arcade rail shooter score chasing gameto make it a marketable product was as accessible as the gameplay on a skindeep levelYou can just play Star Fox 64 as a childrens game with little engagement of its deeper elements.That nostalgia gets people attached to all of its art assets and more superficial elements.
>>737727207That's not even the most quotable Resident Evil game
People who are hyper attached to a single brand that came from their childhood,which HEAVILY iterated on arcade games, but they continue to bitch about how the brand is missing instead of playing arcade games.Instead of learning more about what they're missing, they lash out at this one game (Zero) that doesn't become interesting until you get better at it.That, to me, is emblematic of everything that's wrong with how people consume videogames.I used to be such a bitch about TLOU; games made for people who don't see value in replaying games, just want a blockbuster for the weekend.N64 kids were sitting right there for 30 yearsI feel like I'm learning about how many more people are part of the problem than I previously thought.
Star Fox suffers from the same issue that Character Action games suffer from.CAG's, even dating back to DMC1, bank on the idea of shoving high production value, world building, characters and such,into a narrow interpretation of Beat Em Ups, which eventually snowballed to the point of Platinum Gamestrying their hardest to appeal to casuals who only care about these superficial elements.CAG's are dead. They're going the way of Rail Shooters.It's partially because CAG's tried really hard to have their cake and eat it, too,making for a vague representation of arcade design, but casuals don't care about any of that,so you swim upstream and make them as fancy and expensive as possible, because at the very least the Action RPG elements make them accessible to casuals.Dark Souls pretty much took that appeal completely by being a better RPG, and being affordable enough to make (not even dialogue animations)Star Fox is in that exact dilemma.Yes, I do think players who care about Star Fox the story/characters/world/presentation are just as useless for the survival of the genre as the examples above.Star Fox will never survive trying to represent the casuals who don't actually play it for the score chasing game that it is,because the production value and such cannot undo a complete and utter lack of interest in arcade design that fundamentally exists in its conception.
You could make the best F-Zero/Star Fox/Wave Race game ever, made in its predecessor's image. It would never be enough.Gamers don't have the kind of relationship with replay value that 90's Nintendo/AV made games in mind with.A lot needs to happen culturally to inspire people towards familiarizing themselves with,and even crave an experience rooted in, that context. (arcade design)"I want cheaper, shorter games, with worse graphics, more sustainable development and I'm not kidding."You can't do any of that when the majority of people come from that era of Nintendo fans,who were happy to see Star Fox turn into a Ubisoft Toys-To-Life AssCreed Tower game,or think the only way to save the series is "do what XYZ 3rd Party entry did but betterer and biggerer this time!".You gotta re-introduce missing context in design philosophy and appeal to the average Switch owner.
>>737727207
>>737727207RE4
