A few suggestions:
Bump Sonic to somewhere later in the list.
Just get Tony Hawk 4.
And I feel I must say that
SFA - OoT play CONTROLS almost identical, yes.
SFA - OoT gameplay almost identical, no.
SFA rocks OoT off its foundation.
SL, if it's a message you're trying to get out, then put it on YOUR OWN post. I won't mess with it there.
Certainly, I agree that Zelda games are excellent, but it's my *~*oPiNiOn*~* that SFA is better than them. So why can't you leave me with my opinion? You want me to leave YOUR opinion alone, so why do you insist on negating mine? I respect your opinion. Why don't you respect mine?
Starfox 2 was never even fully developed, so how would you be able to know how it would have been when it was finished. And what they did, actually, they decided to stop SF2 and turn what they were working on into SF64.
The "Starfox" game for Atari 2600 had nothing to do with Fox McCloud... I have an ad for it in an old comic book.
One more thing: Really, I believe the new GCN Zelda game might match the greatness of SFA. But I think the Starfox characters have a great deal more depth than square people who they say are supposed to look realistic, who don't utter a sound. In the new one, I believe the Zelda characters will have more depth. But SFA's storyline and the sheer variety of events is astounding. So post your thoughts in your own post.
Last thing: I love the music from OoT. I love the way the game feels. But the way you play the game, I don't like. In OoT, you wander around aimlessly with no clue what to do next. Unless you can figure out the vague clues from people. And that makes it fun for some people. In SFA, you know what you must do, but it's the challenge of actually doing it that makes it fun. That's the sharp contrast between the two games. I just prefer SFA because the game hinges on different play mechanics.
Edited by - Chupperson Weird on 11/3/2002 6:50:07 PM