The Nintendo Thread of Jumping, Slashing, and Home Decorating

Caldwin said:

So, does Nintendo even acknowledge Krystal's existence anymore? Like, aside from an assist trophy in Smash, I don't think we've seen her at all since Command.

Click to expand...

That would require Nintendo to acknowledge Star Fox has more then one game.

True! Which is sad.

It's so simple. On-rails shooter with occasional all-range mode bosses.

Do away with on-ground shooting, command style...whatever the heck that was, control schemes that splits your attention between two screens and multiple control schemes.

Just...an on-rails shooter with simple controls and shiny graphics...AND BRING BACK KRYSTAL!

You see? Simple needs.

Best Buy has Metroid Prime 4 for Switch 1 for $40 today. I just got a $5 certificate for them, so it only cost me $38 shipped. Not bad for a new game I wanted to play.

I consider StarFox Adventures to be a mistake, so I can't complain if Nintendo wants to pretend it never happened. The Krystal we deserved is in a game that never got made and, for so many reasons, can never be made. The one we got belongs to the furries now, and they can keep her for all I care.

Sjogre said:

Still kinda surprised that Nintendo didn't ask Ubisoft to make a Star Fox game using the Starlink gameplay.

Click to expand...

Isn't Ubisoft circling the drain nowadays? I'm not usually one for corporate consolidation, but if Nintendo wanted to put in a bid to buy them out, I feel like only good things could come of it.

My N64 Controller for the Switch 2 came today. I got it for the upcoming Star Fox...but until then, it still works for the N64 app...which also has Star Fox and Zelda. So...I'm set on games for a while.

Caldwin said:

My N64 Controller for the Switch 2 came today. I got it for the upcoming Star Fox...but until then, it still works for the N64 app...which also has Star Fox and Zelda. So...I'm set on games for a while.

Click to expand...

Oof! Forgot to attach this!



Size comparison with my original N64. Of course, it works with the N64 App. Big duh there. But it also works very well with Super Mario 3D Allstars and even decently well with Smash Bros.

But the main thing, I just couldn't get used to playing the N64 app with my pro controller. It just didn't feel right. Now...it feels even better than playing my actual N64!

Turns out in Starfox Zero you can press select to switch to cockpit view to circumvent the gamepad view Who knew?

ICYMI from last week:

I suppose we'll get a June Direct but I miss Iwata, Reggie and Miyamoto E3's.
My bets:

Zelda 40th (Ocarina of Time remake?)
Dual screen reveal: DS and 'maybe' Wii U or 3DS Classic Apps,
Switch 2 upgrades for Pikmin 4, Luigis Mansion 3, Metroid Dread, Xenoblade Chronicles 1,2 and 3.

I'm gonna act like a star fox fan here.

We don't need yet ANOTHER remake of A link to the past. *IE.. OoT*

OoT is a prequel to A Link to the Past, though?

Star Fox, Star Fox 64, Star Fox Zero, and Star Fox are all more or less the same story.

OoT is as Much A Link to the Past as SF 64 is to SNES Starfox.

And Twilight Princess is as much the same story to OoT as SF Zero is to 64.

Not... really?

I mean, maybe if you're extremely reductionist about it, and say that all games that have Person A fighting Person B are the same, and completely ignore all the details and nuance...

That's pretty much what people have done with SF. So I'm just saying the same about Pre BotW 3D zelda.

It's been a long time since I've played any of the Star Fox games, but they really don't seem like the same situation as best I can remember. Sure, you can reduce a bunch of the Zelda games down to defeat Ganon and save Zelda, just like you can reduce Mario games down to defeat Bowser and save Peach. But narratively, they all fit together in a (sometimes strained) timeline, and are clearly different stories.

But to the best of my understanding, Star Fox, Star Fox 64, and Star Fox Zero are all telling the same story, about Andross invading the Lylat system. They aren't a case of, "Oh no, Andross is attacking again!" They're all fundamentally the same attack. They'd all fill the same slot in a Star Fox timeline, the same way that Metroid and Metroid Zero Mission would fill the same slot. Or Haunted Castle, Vampire Killer, Castlevania (NES), Super Castlevania IV, and Castlevania X68000/Chronicles all fill the same slot. Sure, they're different games with tweaked stories and gameplay, but they're still more remake than sequel. Right?

None of this is intended to rebuke the initial sentiment about whiny fans. I'm mainly looking to either confirm or correct my understanding of the situation.

You are correct.. Sorta.

While Yes... Technically they are all saying the same fundamental story.. Truth is.. Most Legend of Zelda games *unless a direct sequel.. which is why I ignored the star fox ones* really are taking place a the same time.

People have to understand... The timeline is a joke.. it's an effing joke. Nintendo doesn't give two shits about the timeline. Almost every game that DOESN'T say Gannon invaded before.. Is treating Ganon as invading for the first time. The only reason the timeline even exists is because fans literally couldn't handle it. After all. Age of Imprisonment is describing the first time Ganon invaded Hyrule... Oh wait.. Wasn't that Link to the Past? No.. I thought he first invaded in OoT.

There are a COUPLE of games that obviously take place directly after other games.. But just look at how many times they moved Link's Awakening around in the timeline. The Zelda timeline DOESN'T MATTER. So in a weird way.. Yes.. a Lot of the Zelda games DO in fact tell the "First time Ganon invaded" because otherwise it would always be Beast King Gananon instead of him being human.

Consider the pattern:
1996 - Nintendo gained attention with it's N64 and especially Super Mario 64, there was also Wave Race 64 and Shadows of the Empire, these were steps beyond SNES/Genesis and above what Playstations and Saturns offered visually.
2006 - Nintendo demonstrate Wii, it shouldn't have worked: named after bodily function, underpowered, unconventional controls, yet it grabbed a lot of attention.
2016 - Nintendo went with just one game: Breath of the Wild and won. They said nothing about Switch until December.
2026 - There's no E3 but there is a Direct, Nintendo's changed this past decade becoming an IP company, they do theme parks, they do movies but DS is dead, they might have competition from Microsoft and Sony for hybrid consoles so what have they been cooking?

(okay maybe I'm reaching a bit, but these E3's I remember more then most)

Just gonna leave this here...


Suffice to say, Star Fox has rarely been allowed the kind of movement Zelda has. After the first game... they remade the first game. Then we got sequels for a while, though pretty much every one was a different genre from the last.

Then we got a 3D version of the remake of the first game. Then we got a sort of remix/reboot of the first game and its remake.

Now we're getting a remake of the remake of the first game.

And comparatively speaking, even if you want to call the Zelda stuff remakes, the stories are still vastly more different from what Star Fox has gotten.

Tm_Silverclaw said:

You are correct.. Sorta.

While Yes... Technically they are all saying the same fundamental story.. Truth is.. Most Legend of Zelda games *unless a direct sequel.. which is why I ignored the star fox ones* really are taking place a the same time.

People have to understand... The timeline is a joke.. it's an effing joke. Nintendo doesn't give two shits about the timeline. Almost every game that DOESN'T say Gannon invaded before.. Is treating Ganon as invading for the first time. The only reason the timeline even exists is because fans literally couldn't handle it. After all. Age of Imprisonment is describing the first time Ganon invaded Hyrule... Oh wait.. Wasn't that Link to the Past? No.. I thought he first invaded in OoT.

There are a COUPLE of games that obviously take place directly after other games.. But just look at how many times they moved Link's Awakening around in the timeline. The Zelda timeline DOESN'T MATTER. So in a weird way.. Yes.. a Lot of the Zelda games DO in fact tell the "First time Ganon invaded" because otherwise it would always be Beast King Gananon instead of him being human.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the explanation. Sounds like it's more that you're dissatisfied that people treat the Star Fox games differently than Zelda in that regard than disagreeing that all these Star Fox games are remakes, which is how I initially read it.

I do fundamentally disagree about Zelda. Like the article LBD Nytetrayn linked says, there was always a timeline. Aside from the Capcom-developed games (and Four Swords Adventures by extension), most of them are very clear about where they fit, too. There were only ever a few points of confusion:

As already mentioned, the Capcom games (OoS/OoA, FS, FSA {Nintendo-developed, but following FS}, & TMC) were never completely clear about where and how they fit. They're also still mostly irrelevant.

TWW firmly established itself as a sequel to OoT, but in a separate branch than MM. MM followed Link as a child after he went back in time and changed his fate from what we played through in the game. TWW explicitly set itself after the adult OoT Link beat Ganon and went back in time, disappearing from that timeline. What wasn't clear at the time is how all the classic 2D games fit into this split. This is the core issue with the Zelda timeline. The 3D games started off tying directly into the 2D games, but then just went off and did their own thing. I doubt that anyone is fully satisfied with Hyrule Historia's downfall timeline explanation, but it's probably about the best way to handle it. OoT was always a bit off as the Imprisoning War, and the 3D games had moved on. They could either try to force them in where they didn't really fit like all the fan timeline theories, or formally acknowledge that they were their own thing and come up with an in-universe explanation for how that happened.

Twilight Princess never explicitly positioned itself. Having said that, MM and TWW were clearly two intentionally separate branches off of OoT. TP fit cleanly enough that it always seemed to fit after MM. The sticking point was how to fit in the afore-mentioned 2D games. Hyrule Historia just came out and explicitly confirmed what was already clear, and also confirmed points that had been theorised, but couldn't be proven, like the Hero's Shade being OoT Link. It also removed the issue with the 2D games.

Like the Capcom FS games, Triforce Heroes is a multiplayer gimmick game that isn't clearly placed and isn't really relevant.

Lastly, BotW and TotK aren't explicit about how they fit into all this. Nintendo has been clear enough that they're a soft reboot, set so far after all the previous games that you can place them after any of the timeline branches or imagine them after some sort of dragon break merging the timelines together. The one thing to keep in mind is that the Hyrule in these games simply isn't the same kingdom of Hyrule seen in any of the previous games. It's not the Hyrule founded following Skyward Sword. It's also not the separate Hyrule founded between PH and ST. It's at least the third kingdom of Hyrule seen in the series. Once you stop trying to force them to be the same kingdom and push Rauru and Sonia way too early, they work just fine.

So yeah, there have certainly been points of confusion, and no one is saying that anyone has to like or be satisfied with the timeline. But it's always been there, and really isn't quite as muddled as a lot of people make it out to be.