Talk:Star Fox 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Star Fox 2 article.
Please sign and date your posts using four tildes (~~~~). New discussion topics go at the bottom of the page; click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Frequently asked questions. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Talk page guidelines Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Don't bite the newcomers!

	This article is part of WikiProject Computer and video games, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.	CVG Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Low	This article is on a subject of low priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
CVG To-do: edit  Gaming Collaboration of the week: X-Men vs. Street Fighter Expand: New CVG Articles, List of Nintendo trademarks, Normality, Pac-Man World 2, Operation Flashpoint: Elite, Call of Juarez, Galactic Civilizations II: Dark Avatar, Ford Street Racing, Betrayal at Krondor CVG Peer Review: Super Transformation, Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer and video games, Yoshi, Turok: Dinosaur Hunter, Black Isle's Torn, Rise of Nations, Kirby (Nintendo), PlayStation 3, Mega Man Zero 4, Luigi Cleanup: Shiny Entertainment, Age of Mythology, Serious Sam II, Mario Kart: Double Dash!!, Ted Price, Betrayal at Krondor, Little Fighter 2 Merge: Current Events (Update needed!) / Deletions / Essential articles / Workshop / Magazines Assess and Prioritise articles (Log)

Star Fox 2 is a former good article candidate. There are suggestions below for which areas need improvement to satisfy the good article criteria. Once the objections are addressed, the article can be renominated as a good article. If you disagree with the objections, you can seek a review. Date of review: 27 October 2006

To-do list for Star Fox 2:

edit · history · watch · refresh

1b, Logical structure: A paragraph is repeated in the introduction of the article and the "Plot" section. The ESRB rating is in the "Development" section for some reason. The "Development" section itself spends more time discussing ROM emulations of the game then the development of the game. 1c, Good style: The out-of-universe perspective could be reinforced throughout the "Gameplay" and "Plot and setting" sections. See here for the policy and examples. This is especially true in the "Plot" sub-section. 2a, References: The "Gameplay" section has only one reference, and the "Plot and setting" section has none. 3a, All major aspects: The game was close enough to release to have an ESRB rating, and it was also featured at E3. Surely more reviews of the game must exist? A review section would be appropriate. The article also has no information about the game's music, and the "Development" section is lacking in information about the game's development, as I pointed out above. Given the discussion of Star Fox 2 ROMs, a mention of the legal status of these ROMs could be useful. It is mentioned that some elements of this game made it into Star Fox 64; an actual section discussing comparing this game to Star Fox and Star Fox 64 would be a plus. 6, Images: The image captions should be more detailed, so that the reader will know what he's seeing. Take for example the captions in Doom. REsubmit for GA

Contents 1 3D system 2 Starfox - Gundam Connection 3 Box Art 4 Removed paragraph 5 Cancellation 6 Multiplayer mode? 7 Nintendo Power 8 Failed GA nomination 9 Mecha

[edit] 3D system

I think the game had a new 3D system that was for the SNES. But the it came rather late for SNES's time. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.137.72.181 (talk • contribs).

Yep - it ran on the SuperFX 2 chip, which had roughly double the clock rate of the original. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Starfox - Gundam Connection

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v43/Luigi/Starfox%20-%20Gundam/StarFox2_Beta_1_2004_01_25_21-00-47.png http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v43/Luigi/Starfox%20-%20Gundam/StarFox2_Beta_1_2004_01_25_20-55-38.png Although it's not Important, it looks like there was some SMALL inspiration from the Gundam series. --Arima 04:11, 24 September 2005 (UTC) That's what all 3d SNES games looked like.--The last sheikah 16:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

That's not what he's saying, what he's saying is that those ship designs seen in 3D in Star Fox are similar to some Gundam ship designs.

[edit] Box Art

an old EB games' ad had the box art, and this website has it, should it be included in the article? http://snescentral.edgeemu.com/cart.php?id=0077&num=0 http://snescentral.edgeemu.com/0/0/7/0077/box.png

--ThrashedParanoid 01:07, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I guess. I never knew the box art was actually released, though. Thunderbrand 02:09, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Okay i added it in then, if theres any doubt then you can go ahead and revert it. --ThrashedParanoid 14:57, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Thunderbrand, many stores like EB photoshop promo box art long before the game's release User:NFAN3

[edit] Removed paragraph

However, it is questionable that Mega Man 6 for the Nintendo Entertainment System was released at about the same time as Mega Man X, Mega Man X2, and Mega Man 7 were being (or going to be) released for the Super Nintendo. If this is the case, then it still seems to be explained why Nintendo did not do the same for Star Fox 2 / Star Fox 64.

I removed this. Just because another company made the "questionable" move of releasing two games of the same franchise at around the same time does not mean that Nintendo should have followed suit with its own franchise. In any case, I don't think this statement is encyclopedic. - furrykef (Talk at me) 22:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cancellation

It obviously means that Nintendo was forced to cancel Star Fox 2 because of all the reasons said in this article. --Zachkudrna18@yahoo.com

First of all, and I want to point this out very clearly: The project was completely fininshed. Even programmer Dylan Cuthbert stated in this interview [1] (Scroll down) that. . . "Starfox 2 was fully completed. I was lead programmer and whilst Giles made Stunt Race FX, myself and the rest of the original Starfox team (ie. Nintendo's artists and designers) expanded Starfox into a full 3D shooting game" Parden my ranting, but can we please refer the game as unreleased instead of cancelled. Because if it was really cancelled, it wouldn't have looked so complete and playable as if it had been released to retail, and we wouldn't have seen a "The End" after actually beating the game. Remember the same situation happened to Earth Bound NES/Zero, in which the game was completed with all packaging and even advertising ready but was prevented release. I know all this because I personally experienced these good games and completed them. Having the game labed cancelled is an common mistake; only the planned release was cancelled. Cancel is the wrong word to use. Thank you. Dragon DASH 20:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The term "cancelled" is appropriate in this context because, even though the game may have been technically finished, its release was cancelled. A game project is not considered complete until it has been released, so calling it "cancelled" is correct. The difference between "unreleased" and "cancelled" is that "unreleased" simply states that it was not released, but does nothing to address WHY it wasn't released. "Cancelled" states that the reason the game was not released was because its project was cancelled - even at the very end, it's still true.

Note that saying it was "finished" is also (mostly) true here, since that addresses the state of the code. Without seeing the actual latest version of the source code, we can't verify that it was truly finished. But as evidenced by the leaked playable ROM and the fact that people were able to fix that ROM's major bugs, it was at least really close. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah I see. Thank you. That should verify things for me.Dragon DASH 21:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Multiplayer mode?

In the beta version , I cannot find a multiplayer version. Did they actually put one in, or is thatsomething they didn't put in, just on design paper, which was given to Star Fox 64? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by George Leung (talk • contribs) .

I dunno. The quote from Miyamoto says that they had multiplayer mode in SF2. Thunderbrand 16:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The Alpha version had multiplayer. The Beta version did not. SnowflakePillow 01:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Technically, the multiplayer mode does exist in the beta, but the main menu option to it was removed in the fan bugfix version since the mode was not really fully playable yet (evidence that the game itself wasn't completed, at least in the leaked beta). George is probably using the bugfix/English translated version. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The Multiplayer was probably in the progress of removal for the supposed final version too. Dragon DASH 22:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nintendo Power

It should be mentioned somewhere in the article that the game was so close to completion and release that Nintendo Power featured a stragedy guide for it in one of the issues. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.161.104.34 (talk • contribs).

I was a subscriber to Nintendo Power throughout the period from when Star Fox 2 was announced to when it was canceled, and I am positive it never had any strategy guide or anything of the sort. - furrykef (Talk at me) 20:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Failed GA nomination

I'm sorry to say that this article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of October 27, 2006, compares against the six GA criteria:
1. Is it well written?

(a) Prose - Pass

(b) Logical structure - Fail

(c) Good style - Fail

(d) Not too technical - Pass

2. Is it factually accurate?

(a) Well referenced - Fail

(b) Inline citation - Pass

(c) Reliable sources - Pass

(d) Original research - Pass

3. Does it have broad coverage?

(a) All major aspects - Fail

(b) Stays on topic - Pass

4. Neutral point of view - Pass
5. Stable - Pass
6. Images - Fail

Explanation of failed points:

• 1b, Logical structure: A paragraph is repeated in the introduction of the article and the "Plot" section. The ESRB rating is in the "Development" section for some reason. The "Development" section itself spends more time discussing ROM emulations of the game then the development of the game.
• 1c, Good style: The out-of-universe perspective could be reinforced throughout the "Gameplay" and "Plot and setting" sections. See here for the policy and examples. This is especially true in the "Plot" sub-section.
• 2a, References: The "Gameplay" section has only one reference, and the "Plot and setting" section has none.
• 3a, All major aspects: The game was close enough to release to have an ESRB rating, and it was also featured at E3. Surely more reviews of the game must exist? A review section would be appropriate. The article also has no information about the game's music, and the "Development" section is lacking in information about the game's development, as I pointed out above. Given the discussion of Star Fox 2 ROMs, a mention of the legal status of these ROMs could be useful. It is mentioned that some elements of this game made it into Star Fox 64; an actual section discussing comparing this game to Star Fox and Star Fox 64 would be a plus.
• 6, Images: The image captions should be more detailed, so that the reader will know what he's seeing. Take for example the captions in Doom.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. Thanks for your work so far.

Ritchy 01:24, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll try to address your concerns, but I cannot give reviews since the game was cancelled. Even through it was given a rating, the only people who have reviewed it are people who operate fan sites, and fan sites aren't really to be used as references. Thunderbrand 16:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

If it makes any difference, Retro Gamer Magazine (UK) recently ran an article about the Star Fox series (with development notes from the founder of Argonaut Software), and there's some discussion in there about Star Fox 2's cancellation. Still doesn't qualify as a review, but it does provide a more official source about the game. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but I doubt if I ever get back to this article to work on. I have other projects I would like to do, and there is just so little stuff on this game from reliable sources beside print stuff, and even that is pretty rare. Thunderbrand 15:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mecha

No way, transforming into bipedal robots was in that? I thought I made that up for a hypothetical Star Fox game :( Well, I guess I still did. Question is, why the hell hasn't this ever appeared in a newer game?