starfox 32x?

[Black_Tiger]

The visual style of Starfox 64 would be well suited for low res textures and chunky models. Someone could do an upgraded Starfox remake.

[Bottino]

First polygon based game on a console that was any fun to play I suppose? It's ok to be mediocre when you're the first one to not be total shit.

EDIT: That said, Geograph Seal for the X68000 is so much better than Starfox it's not even funny. Works well enough on a 10Mhz cpu, I wonder if the Sega CD could pull off something like it.

That's a good point, but the Snes fanboys makes this game seems like it's the best thing ever made.

For me it is the music. I'm bad with names so I don't know the composer's name. But those tracks are excellent. The graphics were just enough to make the SNES interesting at the time, and fans go nuts for that stuff.

I agree with you, the music is pretty good indeed.

[Chilly Willy]

The use of CD would be the more relevant usage of the Sega-CD, audio wise the 32X manages just fine by itself. I dunno why games insisted on using the genesis hardware when the 32X can easily play back MOD music, supposedly it was bad documentation.

The first generation of games for any console rarely pushes the console, sticking mostly to the sample code provided by the parent company. What Sega provided for the 32X was: using sample interrupts to play four PCM channels on top of the standard FM music driver, a solid color polygon routine, and a textured polygon routine. Despite advertising scaling and rotation as features of the 32X, Sega didn't provide any code for it. Presumably, they felt those were simple enough for devs to handle on their own. I imagine SOMEONE would have made a MOD player for second gen games. That and made better use of DMA like a variety of my demos for the 32X. If Sega really wanted 3D on the 32X, they probably should have included some nice matrix math code samples.

[zetastrike]

Star Fox is a mediocre game and i don't understand why people are so obsessed with it.

I bought it about 10 years ago and I could not stomach it even then. Why subject yourself to bland colors, 10fps, a small window, and input lag? It's like eating plain unflavored yogurt when there's strawberry Chobani in the fridge. There's no reason to play Starfox these days. As a chip assisted game, Virtua Racing destroys it in terms of gameplay, visuals, and framerate/playability.

[cabear]

I bought it about 10 years ago and I could not stomach it even then. Why subject yourself to bland colors, 10fps, a small window, and input lag? It's like eating plain unflavored yogurt when there's strawberry Chobani in the fridge. There's no reason to play Starfox these days. As a chip assisted game, Virtua Racing destroys it in terms of gameplay, visuals, and framerate/playability.

Even playing it 10 years ago means you lost out on a lot of the nostalgia of starfox when it first came out, coupled with the fact that for its time, it brought something new and fun to the snes. Did it have its problems? Yup, but it isnt a bad game at all.

[Guntz]

I dunno, seems strange to see all the hate in here. I've always loved Starfox 1, great game. The stock framerate is fine (adding a certain flair of epicness if you will), the graphics are actually pretty impressive for such a weak chip like the Super FX and there's a great soundtrack behind it all. Starfox 2 is even better, though less arcade-y than the first game.

I don't really get why there's so much love for Virtua Racing. I'll be perfectly honest, the original game is rather lackluster. Now just for fairness, I am comparing Virtua Racing for Genesis against Starfox. While yes VR is pretty good for a racing game and helped set the stage for a sort of revolution in the genre thanks to 3D, but the big problem with VR for me is the complete and utter lack of physics. The car is permanently glued to the ground, there's never any feel of realism in the game. It's especially annoying when you're racing in POV mode and the camera jerkily rotates as you go up inclines. Starfox is significantly more refined in this regard, the Arwing actually feels like a real machine.

Moreover, I like Starfox better simply because it was engineered as a home game first. Virtua Racing is kind of like a nice tech demo, lots of style but little substance. Starfox has lots of missions with better variety and it even has a couple hidden levels. Starfox feels like a complete package, VR doesn't, but it's hard to knock it as it IS an arcade game after all. I just find it weird how you guys like VR over Starfox. When you're playing a game as visually sparse and primitive as VR, Starfox really isn't much different.

[cabear]

I dunno, seems strange to see all the hate in here. I've always loved Starfox 1, great game. The stock framerate is fine (adding a certain flair of epicness if you will), the graphics are actually pretty impressive for such a weak chip like the Super FX and there's a great soundtrack behind it all. Starfox 2 is even better, though less arcade-y than the first game.

I don't really get why there's so much love for Virtua Racing. I'll be perfectly honest, the original game is rather lackluster. Now just for fairness, I am comparing Virtua Racing for Genesis against Starfox. While yes VR is pretty good for a racing game and helped set the stage for a sort of revolution in the genre thanks to 3D, but the big problem with VR for me is the complete and utter lack of physics. The car is permanently glued to the ground, there's never any feel of realism in the game. It's especially annoying when you're racing in POV mode and the camera jerkily rotates as you go up inclines. Starfox is significantly more refined in this regard, the Arwing actually feels like a real machine.

Moreover, I like Starfox better simply because it was engineered as a home game first. Virtua Racing is kind of like a nice tech demo, lots of style but little substance. Starfox has lots of missions with better variety and it even has a couple hidden levels. Starfox feels like a complete package, VR doesn't, but it's hard to knock it as it IS an arcade game after all. I just find it weird how you guys like VR over Starfox. When you're playing a game as visually sparse and primitive as VR, Starfox really isn't much different.

100% agree. VR is cool to watch and see what the genesis could do with an arcade title, but starfox felt like an actual game.

[sheath]

Virtua Racing is one of the first fast 3D Racing games, and has in its original form very refined gameplay. Star Fox is a Rail Shooter with polygons and a tilting background that seems mostly inspired by Galaxy Force II. I don't see any point in asserting one being better than the other, I'd might as well talk about whether I like 3D Racing games better than Rail Shooters.

I'd guess we are talking about misplaced system loyalties more than anything else. Back in the day I would have killed for a straight clone of Mario Kart or Star Fox on my Sega CD, Genesis or 32X. I'm not sure any of my Nintendo only, ever, amen, friends cared even a little bit about Virtua Racing SVP or Deluxe. I guess that makes Star Fox a better game, popular opinion.

[zetastrike]

I dunno, seems strange to see all the hate in here. I've always loved Starfox 1, great game. The stock framerate is fine (adding a certain flair of epicness if you will), the graphics are actually pretty impressive for such a weak chip like the Super FX and there's a great soundtrack behind it all. Starfox 2 is even better, though less arcade-y than the first game.

I don't really get why there's so much love for Virtua Racing. I'll be perfectly honest, the original game is rather lackluster. Now just for fairness, I am comparing Virtua Racing for Genesis against Starfox. While yes VR is pretty good for a racing game and helped set the stage for a sort of revolution in the genre thanks to 3D, but the big problem with VR for me is the complete and utter lack of physics. The car is permanently glued to the ground, there's never any feel of realism in the game. It's especially annoying when you're racing in POV mode and the camera jerkily rotates as you go up inclines. Starfox is significantly more refined in this regard, the Arwing actually feels like a real machine.

Moreover, I like Starfox better simply because it was engineered as a home game first. Virtua Racing is kind of like a nice tech demo, lots of style but little substance. Starfox has lots of missions with better variety and it even has a couple hidden levels. Starfox feels like a complete package, VR doesn't, but it's hard to knock it as it IS an arcade game after all. I just find it weird how you guys like VR over Starfox. When you're playing a game as visually sparse and primitive as VR, Starfox really isn't much different.

Starfox feels so sluggish and unresponsive to me. SF and VR are both pretty much tech demos, but VR works so much better as a game. SF has the advantage of being a large, elaborate, console centric game that people today love and not an arcade game that people dismiss as simple, short, and shallow.

[Bottino]

Starfox feels so sluggish and unresponsive to me. SF and VR are both pretty much tech demos, but VR works so much better as a game. SF has the advantage of being a large, elaborate, console centric game that people today love and not an arcade game that people dismiss as simple, short, and shallow.

This.

[cabear]

SF has the advantage of being a large, elaborate, console centric game that people today love and not an arcade game that people dismiss as simple, short, and shallow.

VR is exactly that, a shallow, short, simple arcade game that was ported over to the genesis. Replay value is determined by the user, and SF has way more then VR. Yeah you can still try and master the courses but the limited tracks and cars doesn't hold much value to me (if it does for you, thats great). The 32x version is IMO better, a better game, but too many are dismissing starfox as if it sucks, it doesn't.

[zetastrike]

VR is exactly that, a shallow, short, simple arcade game that was ported over to the genesis. Replay value is determined by the user, and SF has way more then VR. Yeah you can still try and master the courses but the limited tracks and cars doesn't hold much value to me (if it does for you, thats great). The 32x version is IMO better, a better game, but too many are dismissing starfox as if it sucks, it doesn't.

That's the point of a game like this, master the tracks, beat your fastest times. I take it you don't like Daytona or Sega Rally or Ridge Racer either?

Too many people praise Starfox as some sort of great game. It isn't. I could understand a kid liking it back in the early 90s because of the novelty, but the game runs and plays like crap. I can't get past the choppy framerate and laggy controls. The graphics are bland, just columns and arches, a far off background, and a color gradient with moving dots for the ground. The fact that it uses a coprocessor doesn't win it any favors from me. Even with the help of the FX chip, it's still a sluggish mess. The game was a novelty and is best left in the 90s. Starfox 64 OTOH is a fine game.

[cabear]

That's the point of a game like this, master the tracks, beat your fastest times. I take it you don't like Daytona or Sega Rally or Ridge Racer either?

i love daytona usa, its the reason i bought a saturn back in the day. however, ridge racer is terrible and i never got into rally games.

See, i feel VR was a novelty back then. Sega needed something to win people to the genesis and they ported VR. I played VR back in the day and didn't care for it, I went back to it before i posted this to see if i would change my mind. Its much faster then i remember, but also the visuals are just really bad. the "shading" on the polygons and the road look awful, with the controls feeling twitchy. Its not a fun racer to me, just like SF isnt good to you.

With SF however, the controls made sense as you're piloting a flying ship, the slight lag between rolling and dipping down dont bother me, but i do notice the slowness, which sucks, but any faster and i dont think i could play it hah. I always liked the visuals in SF.

as a port of an arcade game (a game meant only to be played for a short time) VR genesis just isn't good. Thats fine some people enjoy it, but its not a good port as the genesis just wasn't up to doing what was necessary, even with the VSP (which isn't a downside for the genesis but it is for the SNES? Weird.)

I enjoy SF because though it might be slower, you can actually make sense of the world being drawn (however sparse) and the action was cool. The genesis just wasnt up to doing VR, but the 32x was, and that is a pretty good port of VR.

I guess we'll agree to disagree.

(i didnt like SF 64, something about it was off)

[zetastrike]

Thats fine some people enjoy it, but its not a good port as the genesis just wasn't up to doing what was necessary, even with the VSP (which isn't a downside for the genesis but it is for the SNES? Weird.)

That wasn't the point I was trying to make. Neither console could do either game unassisted. I meant even with the extra help of the FX chip, the game still unpleasant to play. VR at least succeeds at what it's trying to do. It's fast(er than SF; the extra 5fps makes a difference) and responsive while being more interesting to look at and has overall solid gameplay. The SVP was a worthwhile add on.