It's not an opinion, it's comedy. Who knows what he really thinks about these games, because they're not made as reviews. They're only made to be funny, nothing more, nothing less.

If you can't laugh at them, you're doing it wrong.

His reviews usually hit the nail right on the head. Even with games that we love he says the things our fanboyism prevents us from saying out loud.

I think his reviews are very to the point and represent his true opinion. His humor is an added bonus.

Opinions can be expressed in a comedic way.

actually I have to agree with Dirt. These really aren't reviews. a review is made up of a few things: Why or why not someone should buy this game, reasons that make this game good, reasons that make this game bad, and conclusion. All this is 3 minutes of yahtzee cursing and bitching about certain problems he had with the game, which may or may not mean he disliked the game at all. This is really meant to be comedic(though personally the whole, "I'M A BAD-ASS CAUSE I MAKE FUN OF GAMES THAT EVERYONE LOVES" thing is getting a bit old) but is absolutely useless if one were looking for advice.

I agree with Vegeta. These clips are made for those of us who already know about these games and are looking for discussion about them.

call me crazy (and I know you will)

But I really think he does a good job discussing the positive aspects of games and criticizing their problems.

I'm surprised that many of the same posters who rally around the defense of games as an art, or more precisely a *valuable* medium of art, would then proceed to denigrate the medium by expecting that reviews like those in Zero Punctuation critique these works on the basis of their relative values as consumers products rather than their artistic merit. Although given the relatively high cost of individual video games compared to, say, ticket prices for films or paperback novels and the time required to complete some more lengthy titles, there is some value in assigning scores to games, awarding releases with "Editor's Choice" or similar accolades, or recognizing a list of games as the best of the year, I certainly would not want what I consider a humorous yet incisive video game critic to concentrate instead on providing "useful" consumer reviews. On that note, I am especially confounded at how someone could argue that the reviews are simultaneously too comedic and too critical at the same time, when the first implies that the review is too light-hearted and lacks depth while the latter rebukes the review for looking too closely at the game.

As for the comments that these reviews assume a certain knowledge of the games on the part of their audiences, I also tend to disagree. If Zero Punctuation's audience is, after all, people like those that read this blog already accostumed to the limited tropes and devices of video games, I am thankful that the reviews don't squander time discussing elements (such as what constitutes a traditional Mario platformer) which we are all too familiar. Besides, once the EPKs have been plundered for the introductory paragraphs of most reviews, what remains is not too dissimilar to that offered by Zero Punctuation in this review of Super Mario Galaxy: an attempt to compare Galaxy to Super Mario 64 and Sunshine, assessment of the controls and their use of "waggle," criticism of the camera, remarks on the length of the game and its additional objectives after it is "beaten," and comments on whether the game is ultimately any fun to play or innovative for the genre beyond its faults. The only element common to most SMG reviews that I noticed missing in this one was discussion of its graphics, something I don't particularly miss since most reviews only note that Galaxy looks swell for the Wii and only describe with any detail the depiction of fur on the honeybee queen to which Yahtzee also alludes anyway.

I think you've mistaken Nintendo fanboys with Sony fanboys.

Very well-put hi2u.

Hi my name is Reggie and I would like to thank you for saving my company.

And you should take economics again and realize limiting supply does not increase demand.

I think the Nintendo has pretty much already proven with the Wii that it doesn't need to make games to sell systems. For a good percentage of Wii owners it is, and will continue to be, a Wii Sports machine. And at $250 a pop (plus peripherals) I'm guessing Big N has no problems with that.

@Keiichi

I'm not sure how much economics you studied, but perhaps it wasn't as much as you think. Limited supply is a natural consequence of monopoly power. And Nintendo has a fair amount of that with the Wii, since many consumers consider it to be substantially different from the other console offerings.

Keiichi,

Well said, Keiichi! You're really smart, and your handle on economics is incredible.

Signed,
Miss Teen South Carolina

LOL @ Keiichi, says who? That degree from University of Phoenix who's banner you clicked on from the bottom of the page?? Having a degree in business ironically, I can safely say that you sir are wrong. Sony did the same thing with the PS3. Under manufacture your product to make it look like you have one of the hottest commodities. No offense to the playstation 3 because it is an impressive piece of equipment. The wii on the other hand with its low end specs and gimmicky hardware still has the "fresh new appeal" which obviously has appealed to the non-gaming crowd. Can you really trust the non-gaming crowd to buy many more games for your system and or keep playing your system for the longevity of the consoles life? You can't tell me that after 1 year of watching the number fly and cash roll in you could not do 1 single thing about the supposed "drought" of wii consoles. It just doesnt make sense economically for any business that is in the business of making money. Say what you like and white this comment as much as you want, Nintendo hurts nobody but itself on this one and I believe that they even realize that the demand for the wii will drop substantially.

@jovin6- then why aren't we seeing a monopoly pricing scheme? It's pretty clear that, given the lack of supply, Nintendo could charge more and still sell out. This isn't consistent monopoly behavior.

Looks like Nintendo wishes desperately they could produce more, as do their shareholders, and that they have incorrectly forecasted demand from the beginning. In my book, Nintendo gets points here for taking the queuing approach, instead of raising prices and allowing the rich to buy- it keeps the masses interested.

Yes limiting supply is an aspect of monopolistic competition, however that only applies when you are producing at the point where your Marginal revenue and Marginal cost curves intersect, marginal revenue being steeper than the demand curve, usually twice as steep, hence why supply is usually less than the perfect competition equilibrium point, the fact that the Wii can sell at higher prices than it actually retails for and still maintain sales shows that it is not producing at that point, because at that point they would need to drop the price to achieve greater sales, at their current point they are selling everything they ship, only their shimpments limit their sales, Nintendo has no benefit from limiting supply at this point, add in the fact that in 13 months they have sold approximately 20 million consoles, a rate that surpasses any other system ever, shows that they are not intentionally limiting supply

Yeah, because Nintendo selling many more consoles than any other developer couldn't POSSIBLY have anything to do with the shortages, amirite? They must be holding back, because I know -I- can produce at least five million pieces of hardware a month by just snapping my fingers!

Why am I even replying to this shit, someone tell me.

It's funny that someone else thought about that too. Maybe he just switches off.

I seriously doubt their primary user base is considered "young". SMG didn't have anywhere near the amount of advertisment it did when I was young and I doubt many kids new about it because kids today don't read. You're average Mario game buyer is from 18-30 I'd guess and that is the case with your typical Nintendo console owner. It is usually the kiddies that buy the adult oriented games as everyone wants to grow up fast when they're little (especially little boys). Perhaps the Mario Party and Mario Sports franchises are eaten up by kids but it isn't because they long for Mario, in fact it is clearly obvious why kids are attracted to those particular games.

Anyway I'm out for a few hours. Gotta go check and see if my coffin arrived today then I'm off to spend some quality time with some pc games.

Anticrawl is right

The people that grew up with Mario are the ones that made Galaxy the fastest selling "main" Mario game of all time

The only spinoff franchise that's really tired is Mario Party. Nintendo should just release Mario Party 9, then use WiiWare to add boards and minigames for the rest of the Wii's life

I don't know, I have a hard time believing mario fanatics w/in that age demographic make up the majority buying this game. It's probably not even the end-user buying it due to name recognition,

By the way, the last "new" Mario game I bought was Mario Pinball Land, and the last being Super Mario 64 DS.

Never.

It would be somewhat unlikely for Rocker to die since his tears bring the dead back to life. You would have to extract his tears and then kill him I would imagine...

I am barely on the second galaxy and the game is pretty fun. The only annoying aspects is the control mechanism when you want to stomp on an enemy, sometimes I have it right on and then somehow I end up 2 inches from a goomba's face and lose health, and also the whole spin attach is pretty derivative and uninspiring. Other than that I am having a blast playing this game, but Mario 64 it is not.

@ Leobebes
You're doing it wrong~ You supposed to spin in mid air and then stomp directly after it, it will make you do a homing stomp.

He also said manhunt was fun.

Boondocks ftw

Did you clean your mario-underoos before or after posting?

@ required

Insult Hunter if you must, but I agree that the wiimote worked really well in this one. The spin move saved my ass a number of times and it wouldn't have felt quite right if it was mapped to a button rather the waggle motion. Considering that was pretty much the only place motion controls was used, I'd say it was affective.

I absolutely despised the "manta ray surfing" and "monkey-ball-esque" minigame implementations and thought that using the joystick, as an option, would be greatly welcome.

@ Nushio

I'll agree on the Manta surfing, but i loved the Monkey-ball-esque parts

I may have been unnecessarily cruel to Hunter and apologize it's just that I do not like the presumption he made.

I do not hate SMG and I doubt anyone really does, all we're saying is that Mario is past ripe and starting to stink up the fun environments he is used in. [New Franchise Here] Galaxy would have been better.

I disagree, Required.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that it doesn't really matter who's face is on the game. As long as it's fun, that's what counts.

It wouldn't be a different game if it was Super Mario Galaxy or... uh... Jack Miller's Galaxy (just thinking of a random name here that probably doesn't belong to a game character). All that would be different is characters/story, but it'd still play the same.

Since I invest VERY little into the spin-off games (Mario Kart... and that's pretty much it), Mario doesn't seem "tired" or "played out" to me. Mario's a classic character. An eternal.

So what if it has Mario in the game, shit I'll buy every single mario game as long as it's fun.

I noticed it wasn't quite as quick or biting as the others, but that might be because there are now plenty of others to have seen already.

I'll contribute some of that to Mario games being ... simple? Not simple, but they're not complex. They don't have the pile of mechanics other games do, so there aren't convoluted regeneration booths or whatnot to go on about.