Thoughts on "Star Fox"

I just recently read an article about why it would be difficult to reboot the Star Fox franchise, and I have a couple of comments. Here's the tl;dr of the article:

1. Shoot 'em up games aren't popular right now.
2. Star Fox never innovated or introduced anything new into the genre.
3. The characters don't appeal to anyone.
4. The length of Star Fox 64 is too short. People want length, not replay value.
5. Some opinions about how to extend the franchise.

I'm going to steer clear of that last one, because there's really nothing to say; however, I'd like to address the other four points based on my observations (I'm sorry I don't have stats to back this up, just take it as yet another anecdote).

The person who wrote the article linked above has made a several assumptions about the people who play games. These assumptions don't really resonate with me. Here's why.

I'll start with the first point, that there isn't an audience for the genre. I find this to be ridiculously silly. The number of people playing games today eclipses the size of any audience from the days of SF64 by orders of magnitude. The gamers of yesteryear are having kids, and those kids are playing games. In addition, new platforms have opened up games to people who wouldn't have touched them before. Nintendo recently made a statement saying that if their development teams wanted to create software for other platforms (meaning mobile/tablets), then those propositions would be considered. Besides, while the Wii U may be struggling for sales, the 3DS is doing just fine. With the ubiquity of mobile, and the household recognition of Nintendo branding, there is a huge potential for Nintendo to tap into.

Now would I want Nintendo to switch to making only mobile games? Of course not, but to say that there's no audience available is just silly.

While it's true that Star Fox may have never introduced anything genre shifting, that doesn't mean that it doesn't have value. As an example, World of Warcraft is in many ways an Everquest clone, executed very well. Rogue Legacy is basically a just another Castlevania-esque game, but once again it was executed very well. The point is that what Star Fox has done isn't about genre expansion, but genre refinement. People who perform music very well aren't thought less of because they aren't Mozart. Games (and works in other narrative mediums) can be valued for their execution as well as their new ideas. The fact that Star Fox 64 is still talked about while most other on rails shoot 'em up games are forgotten is a strong indicator that the performance stayed with the players more than other games.

Whether or not the characters appeal to a certain player is really a matter of opinion. I agree, it probably wouldn't appeal to the main American audience, but I've never identified with them anyway. I know lots of people who love playing games, but don't like "gamers." I doubt these people would care that the characters were anthropomorphic animals as long as the characters played their role in providing a memorable gameplay experience.

Also, saying that players are "hardcore" or "casual," and then saying that the kinds of characters in a game are any indication of what makes a game "core"/"cas" is a huge insult to the entire medium, but that's for a different post. In brief, it's just another one of those false dichotomies that allow simple people to simplify existence so they don't go insane.

The last point about game length is the easiest one to dispute. There have recently been MANY success stories (mostly from the indie sector) about short games with extreme replay value. Here's a few specific titles, just to jog your memories: Dwarf Fortress, Rogue Legacy, FTL, Banished, and Mario Kart 8. There are many, many more, but I believe these are most well known. The point is that assuming that players are more into the overdrawn melodramatic stories of things like Final Fantasy or Assassin's Creed is just wrong. This goes back to the audience thing, SOME people like long games, but there's a HUGE audience of people who love short games with lots of interactive material that allows for lots of replay.

I'd argue (and again this is my personal input) that games have never been about rushing to the finish. If there's a game that is really only meant to be played through a single time and never touched again, it would probably be better off in the film medium.

Anyway, I disagree that Star Fox can't be rebooted. The author of the article is probably correct in assuming that it can't come back as the "mainstream" console game that it was back in the N64 days. That's hardly a problem, though, because that market is limiting, and Nintendo has been trying to be free of it for years.

There are opportunities for Star Fox, but they are outside the bounds of the usual console audiences. The opportunities are there, and I feel like someone will come along and take them even if Nintendo doesn't.