Plagiariz- I mean "inspired" by

>Release date vs development dates
lol

It’s not like it’s easy to make good games even when the ground work has been laid out. It’s proven by the numerous indie games that copy a classic but turn out complete shit.

No, it's because it is antithetical of Nintendo to simply produce iterations. They always have to try and create something new to enjoy to justify a sequel. This is the main reason a lot of their franchises are simply laid to rest.

When you think about it, iterations make your company money, but then people get tired of it and you run the risk of squandering the good will you have built up with your fanbase. This could kill the company on the spot. Conversely, whenever Nintendo releases a new game, you are guaranteed to be able to look forward to something new. There's an excitement built in.

For proof of this mentality you can simply look at the games they've abandoned. Can they make something new in F-Zero? It's pretty much perfect already. I feel the same way about StarFox. It was perfect in the N64. They obviously wanted to try new things which is why they changed Dinosaur Planet- but it never felt as satisfying as the raw arcade feeling of StarFox 64. Even the title screen music is like an attract mode.

Second vid cause thee first ended too quick for the bass drop.

Pretty much all the game design of the original Star Fox was handled by Nintendo. Dylan and Argonaut mainly dealt with programming the 3D graphics and the Super FX chip.

It's not that, it's just that companies wanting to deliver experiences in that will perform well on a market-level will have a broader appeal than the deeply personal ones that indies tend to create.

if the copyright is so infringed why hasn't lawsuit happy Nintendo sued them? hmmmmmmmmm?

you can't copyright "low poly rail shooter", there's no current patent for it, and there's no argument for trademark infringement when star fox hasn't looked like that in decades

I have to wonder if it'd be better to just remove ranged combat completely, or at least heavily restrict it. Staff bashing was unironically the most fun part of combat, even if it sucked.

I actually liked the magic system in Quest, at least in regards to the element mixing aspect of it. Two fires being the stronger fire spell, fire + water being the steam aoe, etc..

it's rough. The mechanics are a little fun to play around with for a bit but it gets tired pretty quick. It's kinda like Dragon Quest 1 but in 1997 and in 3D. The coolest aspects of it are the enemy designs and the way it handles combat. When you get into a fight, it happens exactly where you're standing on the world map, then there is a ring around you and you can move anywhere you want to in that ring. the direction you face is where your spells will come out when you cast them, this is actually important for some spells because they might be far range and you'll over shoot when you cast them. Something else, when an enemy attacks, there is a split second where you can move again (if you're fast enough) and just walk away from the enemy's attack in real time. It's pretty interesting. the magic system is honestly poorly thought out. there are 4 types, Fire, water, air and dirt (frickin Mag-) and each kind of magic has certain types of spells, like Fire has the Attack raising spell, but Water has the only healing spell. you level up magic by literally 1 point every time you level up, with a max of 40 in every field. you can find instant magic level up "spirits" out in the field but they're hard to find unless you know where they are. The story is bleh, your dad is gone and you go out to find him. A lot of content got cut unfortunately, there were even gonna be other NPCs that came along with you on the adventure but they got cut. I like playing it back in the day, but it didnt age well. i would love to re-make it. It was called "Holy magic Century" everywhere else.

It's legendarily bad, and the legends are true. I would play any old garbage when I was a little kid, but even then I dropped that trash. It's basically nothing but walking from point A to point B, grinding all the way. All you have are varying levels of a rock spell, a water spell, a fire spell and a wind spell and you just figure out which one does the most damage to an enemy and use that

I was bracing for one of you guys to call it an underrated gem/soulful. Thank frick you aren't homosexuals

I would say the market itself incentivizes innovation. People iterating on the design of established principles isn't a bad thing.
It's more of a Red Ocean vs. Blue Ocean strategy thing.
Iterative design is just one half of this dichotomy.
I guess it would depend on how specific your definition of a "rip off" is.
In a broad sense, iterative design is what creates genres to begin with.

this could've been made in sdl with a software renderer

>If they're doing it to show how much they liked the games they enjoyed when they were younger, what does making a shitty game accomplish?
Because the act of making something is in and of itself an act of self expression? The mere act of putting effort into making something is a demonstration of how much they liked it. It would be nice (and more profitable) if the end product was good, though. Tell me, if you made something and someone drew poorly made fanart of it, would you shit on them for not being good, even though they clearly enjoyed your work enough to be inspired by it?