(calm video game music) - Hey y'all, Scott here. And what am I doing, you just asked. Well, I'm currently
coping with the atrocity I'm about to experience
known as "Star Fox Zero" by drinking this top of the line alcohol. Its taste derives from my thumb placement, which I refuse to change. If anything I need to know
is underneath my thumb, well, it can wait, because I have stars to fox in. But before we do so, let's go back to a little
year I like to call 1993. Star Fox has had a pretty rough life when you take a step back and look. The first two games are generally lauded as the pinnacles of the series, more so "Star Fox 64." After that, the series
never really reached the critical or commercial
heights of its origins. The series swamped developers a lot. Rare, Namco, Q-Games, and most recently, Platinum Games, which just kind of gave me a "We don't care about 'Star Fox,' "just give it to some
third-party" kind of vibe. The series went on a long hiatus after the release of "Star Fox Command" on the Nintendo DS, with only a remake of "Star Fox 64" being released for the Nintendo 3DS in the 10 year span between
new "Star Fox" games. Finally, at E3 2014, a new "Star Fox" was officially announced, but in a bit of a subdued manner. Instead of a grand reveal, Nintendo opted to mainly just tease it and show the press the game
running behind closed doors. It was in the tech demo phase at the time, so this was to be expected. Most press stated that the
demo they were able to view was incredibly primitive, looking almost like
the original "Star Fox" but now in HD. Miyamoto later stated
that "Star Fox" for Wii U was slated for a 2015 release. He just needed to find
the right developer. At E3 2015, "Star Fox Zero" was officially
announced for Wii U, being developed by Platinum Games, kicking off Nintendo's E3 digital event. I remember trying to tell
myself it looked great, but deep down I knew it
looked pretty disappointing. The first thing most pointed
out were the graphics, as they looked unbelievably underwhelming. But hey, the game had a
fairly quick development time as it was in the tech demo
stage just one year ago. I stayed optimistic that
when the game released it would look far better, and hey, it was even delayed
to 2016 later down the line, so I had a ton of hope
that "Star Fox Zero" would become the game that "Star Fox" fans have been waiting for for years- this game is not good. (upbeat tense video game music) "Star Fox Zero" utilizes a completely different control scheme from any other "Star Fox"
game or game in general. A cockpit view is shown on the game pad, while a traditional "Star
Fox" view is shown on the TV. You can more easily traverse
the landscape on the TV screen, as it's easier to see oncoming obstacles, however, the reticle shown on the game pad is far more accurate, meaning if you want to take
out enemies efficiently, you're gonna wanna look down there. Motion controls are also
used for the reticles, so the entire game, you're gonna be looking
up and down constantly, while also flailing the game pad around. This concept had some promise, and with Miyamoto championing
this control set up, saying it was innovative
and game-changing, I had hoped that it would become a welcome addition to
the "Star Fox" franchise. In my opinion, these controls
ask too much of the player, to the point where it's
just not fun at all, and more so becomes frustrating. Frustrating because
when I die in this game, I always have the saying pop in my head, "Well, if this controlled
like 'Star Fox 64'..." Because this game is
basically just "Star Fox 64" with HD visuals. Not a remake however, it's more of a reboot or a retelling. Can I see the benefits
to this control scheme? Sure. Being able to look around independent of the TV
screen is pretty cool. You can even look around
during certain cut scenes. However, just the plain
flying and shooting game play just doesn't play well with this concept. It over complicates every
enemy you see on the screen. Rather than just pointing and shooting, I have to look down at a
completely separate screen to shoot at the enemy, but now my attention's
taken off of the TV, so only God knows what's
going on up there. That's a major feeling
I had with this game. Whenever I would focus on one
screen to do a specific task, I would take damage from
something I didn't see on the other screen. No matter where I look,
it comes with a hindrance. I think this control set up
would work leagues better in a much slower paced game. With "Star Fox," you're
flying through so much stuff, especially in the standard
arwing on rails section. What's bad about this is
that the fast paced sections of "Star Fox Zero" seem
like they would be a blast with standard controls. Sector Omega would be so much fun if I wasn't taking damage all the time looking down at the game pad or just winging it on the TV screen. Yeah, the majority of the time I gave up with the two-screen nonsense and just suffered through
looking at the TV screen. Doing this, I would basically
have to hover around an enemy shooting multiple times
before finally killing them, or just automatically aiming
just a little to the side of where the enemy is. This worked out better than
constantly looking down, but there's no avoiding these controls. You're going to have to
look down countless times in a play through. If I look at the game pad, the chances of me taking
damage from something on the TV are far greater. The vehicles in "Star Fox Zero" range in terms of controllability and fun. On rails arwing is way better to control than the arwing in all range mode. In all range mode, you get complete control over the arwing, so now you have another thing to focus on. Not only does this become
clunkier to control, but these sections are
beyond slow and boring, and become "Where's the enemy? "Oh, there they are,
all the way over there. "Let's go over there, pop some shots in. "Where's the enemy? "Oh, there they are." On rails is way more accepting
of the new control set up. I'm still not a fan of it, but being on rails helps you
focus more on the game pad if you want to. The walker was a feature in
the scrapped "Star Fox 2." It was brought back here, and it's fine, I guess. It's just really awkward to control. The landmaster returns, and it's all fun and games until that goes into all range mode, and it is just an absolute clunk fest, more so than the standard arwing in all range mode. Controlling the landmaster in
a fully explorable environment is beyond clunky and is
really not fun at all. And finally, the new
vehicle, the gyro wing. Remember when I said I wish these controls were in a slower paced game? Well, the gyro wing sections
are the slowest things in the entire game. These sections mainly
have you flying around, slowly finding computers to hack into with your robot companion, Direct-i. These sections feel the most fitting with the game pad controls, as for one, they just work here, and two, they make sense
in terms of the context of what you are doing. It makes sense that, since you're now controlling the robot, that the robot's point of view
is on the game pad screen. The problem with these sections
is that they are boring. They're literally fly
over here, let robot down, fly over here, let robot down. They aren't bad, but they aren't fun. The motion controls
aren't the problem here, I think most Nintendo fans know this. Using gyro to aim a reticle is incredible sensitive
and accurate in most games. Think the bow and arrow controls
in "Breath of the Wild," or just the standard gyro
controls in "Splatoon." The problem is the over reliance
on the two screen mechanic. This just does not work
well at all, in my opinion, and I understand these controls totally click with some people. And all I say is, I envy you guys. But even if you get used to the controls, the game's over by the time that happens. I originally played the game
at launch in April 2016, and was so disgusted with the controls, I never beat it, and I didn't play it for a year. Just this month I picked
it up again for this, and I found myself getting
through the game much faster and having more fun. Now, of course you may say, "Wow, you had fun with the game?" Some fun. I definitely appreciated the game more the second time around. But that's the thing, it was
on my second play through. This game really makes an
awful first impression, and it's only until you
know how the levels play out and the controls work, that it starts to get remotely enjoyable. "Star Fox Zero" takes
some time to get used to, and if this was a
completely new experience, then I think I would be more willing to put more time into the game to learn the controls better, and also be a little more
lenient on their downsides. But this game is so
similar to "Star Fox 64," that I just ask myself, "Why am I not just playing that game?" And that game had a lot more to keep the player coming back. "Star Fox Zero" doesn't do a lot other than the main story mode. Yes, "Star Fox" is supposed to be played through multiple times, but this was released in 2016 for $50, not including "Star Fox Guard." There's no online leader
boards, challenge mode, or competitive multiplayer in general. There is multiplayer, but it's basically splitting
the controls in half. One person controlling the
ship, the other firing. I've never played this way, but I've heard it's leagues
better than single player as it's way simpler for
each player to control. However, this mode honestly
feels pretty lazy to me, as it doesn't feel like much effort at all had to go into this co-op mode. Why isn't there a local and or online competitive multiplayer? Yeah, the game really
focuses on game pad controls, but come on, they could've thrown in a four player battle mode that could be playable
with just pro controllers. I know they were super into
the whole two screen idea, and having the multiplayer
not even focus on that at all would kind of tarnish the idea, but multiplayer is such
a big part of "Star Fox" that it feels really
empty and out of place to not have a battle mode. But even then, if the developers wanted
the two screen experience in multiplayer, why isn't there online? That way, everybody can have
the two screen experience. "Star Fox Command" on the
DS had online multiplayer, why does this have anything close to that? Not even online leader boards? "Star Fox Zero"'s graphics are probably the next most controversial
thing about the game after the controls. They aren't bad, but they're boring, bland,
and ooze missed potential. Flat and blurry textures run amok, and color choice is far from superb. Instead of going for colors that pop, "Zero" goes for colors that look like they were mixed with mud. And for a space shooter with explosions happening all the time, "Star Fox Zero"'s
explosions are pretty weak. Just compare the explosions
in "Star Fox Zero" to "Breath of the Wild." "Star Fox"'s explosions
feel airy and flat, while "Breath of the Wild"'s feel three dimensional and impactful. Now, in motion, the game does
look all right sometimes, and a lot of the backgrounds
look pretty good. It definitely looks
better running on your TV than it does on videos online. But I think what really hurts
the game, in my opinion, is the painfully simple
geometry of the landscapes. It looks like a Gamecube game in HD. Just look at the mountains, hills, ground, and the buildings. They all look jaggy and way too simple. Instead of looking like
something an artist designed, a lot of the settings look like
something that was designed with compromises and a low poly count. Now, many will point out that the graphics are so
simple in "Star Fox Zero" because the game has to
fully render two screens, both showing the same
sequence from different angles while also maintaining a
relatively steady frame rate. Sure, that could be considered impressive, and I would be fine with
the simple geometric models and landscapes, if the art design was better. "Star Fox Zero" opts for
simple models and bland art. Like, look at these buildings. It's like the director told the designers, "Go for a building
motif on that building." There are sections of the
graphics that look great though. The water effect in Corneria, for example, looks pretty good. I just wish everything else
had more care put into it. The music's all right, I
think it fits pretty well. The world map and Corneria
music is great, in my opinion. And while the soundtrack isn't
really all that memorable, no specific track is bad. The voice actors from "Star
Fox 64" reprised their role, and I think it's great. When I think of "Star Fox,"
these voices pop in my head, so it's definitely
great that they're back. One of the biggest disappointments
with "Star Fox Zero" was just how derivative it was. Like I said, this is
basically "Star Fox 64." A few things are different, but by and large, it's a
retelling of that game. I think I would be more okay with this if half the games in the franchise weren't a retelling. "Star Fox Zero" is a
retelling of "Star Fox 64," which had its own retelling, known as "Star Fox 64 3D," which was a retelling of
the original "Star Fox." I understand that "Star Fox"
is a pretty rocky franchise. It's gone through so
much that it makes sense to keep it simple for the
first entry in a decade. But they could have done a new story. These are astro-animals, how hard is it to come up with a new plot, a new scenario, or new side characters? If you're a fan of "Star Fox," "Star Fox Zero" is a "Star Fox" game. You just have to work for it more so than any other game in the franchise. I would have been more cool with that if the game wasn't just "Star Fox 64." And because of that, I had a
hard time liking this game. It just made me want to
play "Star Fox 64" instead. It felt like Nintendo wanted to "New Super Mario
Brothers"-ify "Star Fox." Creating a standard for the series to base itself off of
for forthcoming releases and merchandise. Instead of doing something new, just take everything from "Star Fox 64." Who wants new characters
for fans to enjoy? Just rehash the same
ones from 20 years ago. I feel like the content
outside of the main game is severely lacking. The graphics are bland, and the controls are
just not for me at all. And I feel that everybody will have problems with it at first, or throughout their entire play through. The controls don't make me feel empowered or like I'm really flying the arwing. They make me feel weak and stupid. I don't feel like a Star
Fox, I feel like a loser. This is a game that needs
time to get used to, but when it's just a
rehash of "Star Fox 64," you should just play that game instead. "Star Fox Zero" deep down had the heart of a good "Star Fox" game, it's just that everything
around it, to me, was completely underwhelming, frustrating, or simply not good. With that said, on a
grading scale of A to F, I give "Star Fox Zero"
a solid "Not very good." Ah hah!
(laughs) That's where the deathy
after taste came from. I should really work on
my thumb placement more. (upbeat music)
