How did arcade rail shooter fans feel about Star Fox 64 when it came out? Did they like it, or did it make them wanna buy a console?Early Star Fox was very relevant to the console war and market, but from my understanding, the Saturn was what fans of arcade-adjacent games and ports gravitated to, so I've always kinda wondered what the perception of SF64 was like outside of the console market. It's fascinating that Nintendo was (at least sort of) preserving an arcade-like genre and experience during this era through what's essentially their killer app release, especially since by this point they pivoted to more console experiences.
>>12483329>Overthinking all that shitDude, most people who enjoyed Star Fox 64 were just kids that found It cool to play on their N64 and had a (barebones) multiplayer so you could invite your friends to play it
>>12483329Arcade didn't really have any good rail shooters, it was mostly just boring gallery shootersThe good shit started with Panzer Dragoon and then mainly Star Fox 64 and Sin & Punishment
>>12483342I was a kid when SF64 came out and I remember the game being weirdly popular with the "adult" crowd in the same way Goldeneye was.
>>12483329Star 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.
Arcade design is represented and cherished in modern times, but it happens devoid of literacy and experience in where that comes from.You will see people coming up with all kinds of things, like nuzlocke runs, finding all kinds of ways to arbitrarily turn games into more skill-based experiences.All of that has its roots in arcade design and never really lost relevancy, but the moment you look at Rail Shooters, Nintendo had all the levity.Nintendo makes a really damn good railshooter that kicks the living shit out of either Panzer Dragoons, in terms of scoring,but the large majority of Nintendo fans, who started playing SF64 weren't and still aren't interested in its core design. It's why I call it astroturf.Zero never had a chance, neither does Star Fox as a whole. Shmups are back, the deadest of genres, and yet it's healthier than a Nintendo franchise.
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.
>>12483405>>12483407>>12483408>>12483410what video essay did you get this from
>>12483414It's the Nintendo millennial youtubers who brainwash people into believing the opposite opinions, actually.
>>12483414Someone wrote these on /v/ and they have been copy/pasted in every single StarFox thread that has popped up since, both here and /v/.
>>12483414Probably just AI.
>>12483329>arcade rail shooter fansThis is not a thing, the genre is not nearly deep enough.
