Zero Punctuation: Super Smash Bros. Brawl

[excessum ado]

A smashing review there. Well Done.

That was fucking hilarious dude.

Regardless it was a decent review. Certainly not his funniest but up to par with the majority of his reviews. Nice to see this admittedly over hyped game be given some justice and I cant think of anyone better to do it then Yahtzee.

 

[DennoCoil]

This is fucking great! XD I love you Yahtzee!

I didn't think there would be so much nerd rage being thrown around like flaming poo from the circle jerking fanboys and the uninterested crowds who grew out of Nintendo's childish gaming, but I think that's to be expected if you disrespect a Nintendo product.

Yeah, I played a demo at a GameStop for about 10 minutes and quickly got bored as I found out it was exactly the same game as I played it before on the N64 almost 10 years ago. [Main strategy: Do enough damage, then throw everyones ass off the platform. Instant win.]

I might as well put in my opinion, even though I might be crucified for it: Super Smash Bros Brawl is equal to Halo 3 in it's disillusioned zealous fanboys, over hyped media, mediocre game play, and the "same as the last game with only a touch few upgrades" bait-n-switch routine. [Yeah, it's not gonna be the big change like how Resident Evil 4 changed its own franchise.]

 

[Marriot]

first comment on a thread that i dont think Yahtzee will ever read but anyway great review. I like how yahtzee points out the flaws and splashes glow in the dark food coloring all over the shit in a game and even sets it on fire so a rescue team can find it, despite the smell. Like many other reviews of his i agree with this one along with Halo 3, i cant believe that game got 10/10 so much, the witcher, god that game was confusing and stupid and degrading towards women, and other numerous titles whos shittiness i cant type in this tiny text box.

 

[m_jim]

I read trough all the comments and I see that almost everybody agrees on the fact that this game has some (for many people a lot) major flaws. This game has an average of 94% on Gamerankings, can I ask you why?

I have an explanation. Because normal people hate things, and internet people super hate things. Because reviewers have more than two modes (i.e. opinions outside of F'ing awesome and F'ing awful) and internet people do not. Or maybe the people who like the game are too busy having a good time playing it to post something on here to try to persuade all the haters that it's fun. Take your pick.

 

[neonworms]

In theory hype should influence the gaming crowd but not seroious professional reviewers...[/quote]

Your very right. Too bad it next to never works that way, i suppose thats why i agree with most of Yahtzees reviews, they`re not media driven.

 

[chadmeister]

I bought the console almost specifically for Brawl, but after a week of playing it I just didn't like it at all, and eventually sold my Wii all together.

Now I has the money for the MGS4 bundle coming in june : )

 

[aussiesniper]

So much hate packed into so little time. Nice review, Yahtzee.

 

[Cpt. Eduardo del Mango]

Good review, made me chuckle.

Re: nineteen pages of drama...

OK, Yahtzee's not a conventional reviewer. OK, this review wasn't as great as the other thirty odd fantastic ones he's put out. OK, he might seem to have a go at everything. But the stuff he comes out with is usually pretty damn insightful. Sure, he finds faults in most things, but I constantly find myself listening to his criticisms and then thinking, "Oh, yeah... That's a very good point, I hadn't thought about that."

We have the internet, it's 2008 - there are enough sources for opinions on games, music or anything else. Look around - don't take one view as gospel and then get your knickers in a twist when you disagree with that one source once in a while. Take Yahtzee's reviews for what they are - almost universally negative, insightful and funny commentaries on games and gaming.

 

[Halfang]

Is dis some flamewar/e-penis showdown/console wars? in MY yathzee?

wow!

 

[CodeChrono]

What I enjoyed about this review was the fact that it didn't just review the game and all its annoyances but pointed out flaws within the general game communnity. It's very similar to the Turok review, which I think (and still think) to be his best.

Being a frequent player of Brawl on weekends, I can see the gripes and acknowledge them. But in the end, I still want to play it regardless.

I wish you the best of luck for next week's review Yahtz. :O

 

[Chewster]

I find it VERY interesting that Yahtzee called from the get-go that there would be accusations that it would be said of him, "He is not a real reviewer."

He is a real reviewer, just not a serious one, he's got some good points, and he uses humor to prove them, but he's not here to "review" games, just to make us laugh.

WRONG

What he does can be classified as satire. And satire dosen't exisist just to make you laugh, but also to say things that traditional reviewers don't have the courage or freedom to say. And Y is brilliant in doing that.

Bingo. And being tied to a gaming "review" site that isn't owned by video game stores helps.

I read trough all the comments and I see that almost everybody agrees on the fact that this game has some (for many people a lot) major flaws. This game has an average of 94% on Gamerankings, can I ask you why?

Payola and advert coin, if I had to guess. I mean, there was a reason that Jeff Gerstmann got shitcanned from Gamespot after saying that Kane & Lynch was mediocre.

Like most media, piss off the advertisers and it's time to kiss your sorry ass bye bye.

 

[Chewster]

I have an explanation. Because normal people hate things, and internet people super hate things. Because reviewers have more than two modes (i.e. opinions outside of F'ing awesome and F'ing awful) and internet people do not. Or maybe the people who like the game are too busy having a good time playing it to post something on here to try to persuade all the haters that it's fun. Take your pick.

Yeah, not quite. While your assessment of "Internet people" holds some water, let me assure you that most big "review" sites/magazines have the same two modes.

If you're from a large studio who has a lot of clout (i.e. money), then the game is "F'ing awesome".

If not, it's probably going to be "F'ing awful".

 

[Drechu]

heh heh awsome as always there Yahtzee...i must say tho the amount of comments here doubled here upon this great release of yer review on SSBB. Struck quite the chord.

can't wait for yer next addition to the Zero puntuation series~

 

[Uszi]

WRONG

What he does can be classified as satire. And satire dosen't exisist just to make you laugh, but also to say things that traditional reviewers don't have the courage or freedom to say. And Y is brilliant in doing that.

Bingo. And being tied to a gaming "review" site that isn't owned by video game stores helps.

I think the argument is of the form: Yes, but in this particular review he let his personal attack on Nintendo and Fighting games in genre interfere with any possible satire/criticism of the specific game itself, which is what we really tune in for.

Not that I necessarily disagree with you gentlemen.

I read trough all the comments and I see that almost everybody agrees on the fact that this game has some (for many people a lot) major flaws. This game has an average of 94% on Gamerankings, can I ask you why?

Payola and advert coin, if I had to guess. I mean, there was a reason that Jeff Gerstmann got shitcanned from Gamespot after saying that Kane & Lynch was mediocre.

Like most media, piss off the advertisers and it's time to kiss your sorry ass bye bye.

TheEscapist is pretty damn cool, I must say. Though as someone who posts here regularly, and subscribes to the newsletter and reads the articles, I wonder if my opinion is objective or not.

I think Yahtzee's style of satire tends to make him immune to the, "You gave our game a bad review so we're pulling your funding," schtick... and I mean even on the level of the Escapist itself. I feel like if the Escapist was getting money to push a game, and Yahtzee dismantled it, then there would be little repercussion. TheEscapist can just say, "He does what he does! We can't control it!"

Take for instance Peggle and Pop-Cap games. Have you all noticed that TheEscapist has Pop Cap game banner ads on the site? I'm sure it's not because the admins are Peggle fans, rather they are getting a stipend for pushing it.

If anything the negative press was GOOD for Pop-Cap games, as I'm sure none of us had heard of it before the review.

 

[m_jim]

Yeah, not quite. While your assessment of "Internet people" holds some water, let me assure you that most big "review" sites/magazines have the same two modes.

If you're from a large studio who has a lot of clout (i.e. money), then the game is "F'ing awesome".

If not, it's probably going to be "F'ing awful".

Well, how about Assassin's Creed or Kane & Lynch? Both from big studios, both got lukewarm receptions from most review sites (please don't say Gerstman-gate, or we are going to go round and round). It seems to me that a good number of internet people have a bias against "popular" or "hyped" games. They want to see these games fail for some reason, I don't claim to know why. If they don't fail, the obviously it's a conspiracy. My question to you is this: can you accept that maybe Madden, Call of Duty: WW2 Again, or Spider Man 27 might be pretty good, or at least not horrible? Shouldn't truly bad scores be saved for rubbish such as Ninjabread Man and things for the NGage?
I'm not saying that money can't buy some reviews, but look at EGM's Dan Hsu; the man fought the law (Ubisoft dollars) and he won.

 

[Chewster]

Yeah, not quite. While your assessment of "Internet people" holds some water, let me assure you that most big "review" sites/magazines have the same two modes.

If you're from a large studio who has a lot of clout (i.e. money), then the game is "F'ing awesome".

If not, it's probably going to be "F'ing awful".

Well, how about Assassin's Creed or Kane & Lynch? Both from big studios, both got lukewarm receptions from most review sites (please don't say Gerstman-gate, or we are going to go round and round). It seems to me that a good number of internet people have a bias against "popular" or "hyped" games. They want to see these games fail for some reason, I don't claim to know why. If they don't fail, the obviously it's a conspiracy. My question to you is this: can you accept that maybe Madden, Call of Duty: WW2 Again, or Spider Man 27 might be pretty good, or at least not horrible? Shouldn't truly bad scores be saved for rubbish such as Ninjabread Man and things for the NGage?
I'm not saying that money can't buy some reviews, but look at EGM's Dan Hsu; the man fought the law (Ubisoft dollars) and he won.

Bad scores should be saved for games that deserve them, and as I recall Assassin's Creed got a combined score of 81 at Metacritic (for both systems), which means the majority of the reviews said it was good, and it was average, at best. Saving up the vitriol for crap like the N-Gage is not even a question. If a game is bad, reviewers should feel free to call them on it and not many seem to, for whatever reason.

And I don't doubt there are people that hope overhyped games will fail and complain accordingly. We should still demand higher quality reviews from the gaming journalist sector, since it is well needed at this point. Some games are going to pass, no matter how good or bad they actually are, just because they were released from a big studio.

I guess I don't have as much faith in journalistic integrity these days, especially when advertising is introduced. It has happened in virtually every other niche media review journalism world, and it certainly happens here too. The lines between actual journalism and out and out advertising are being blurred, more and more.

 

[Chewster]

I think the argument is of the form: Yes, but in this particular review he let his personal attack on Nintendo and Fighting games in genre interfere with any possible satire/criticism of the specific game itself, which is what we really tune in for.

Not that I necessarily disagree with you gentlemen.

I will concede that this week was a touch weak when it came down to actually discussing the game, as much as the points about fanboys he brought up needed to be addressed. Next week will be better, I figure.

TheEscapist is pretty damn cool, I must say. Though as someone who posts here regularly, and subscribes to the newsletter and reads the articles, I wonder if my opinion is objective or not.

I think Yahtzee's style of satire tends to make him immune to the, "You gave our game a bad review so we're pulling your funding," schtick... and I mean even on the level of the Escapist itself. I feel like if the Escapist was getting money to push a game, and Yahtzee dismantled it, then there would be little repercussion. TheEscapist can just say, "He does what he does! We can't control it!"

Take for instance Peggle and Pop-Cap games. Have you all noticed that TheEscapist has Pop Cap game banner ads on the site? I'm sure it's not because the admins are Peggle fans, rather they are getting a stipend for pushing it.

If anything the negative press was GOOD for Pop-Cap games, as I'm sure none of us had heard of it before the review.

Well, as a games reviewer, he has his shtick like you said, and I'm sure the high level of cynicism turns some off of it. Personally, this is why I like it. As much as he tends to overlook the good elements of a game, it's good to be very critical of it's faults, especially if we want to see less filler and more quality, something the industry seems to be lacking these days.

The Escapist is in a good position since publishing digitally generally means the cost to produce the reviews and info is cheaper and so as much as they are dependant on advert revenue, it is (I think) to a much lesser extent then say a magazine or television show. And at this point, Yahtzee has brought the Escapist so many extra pageviews, to censor him would be certain death. After all, he could just post the reviews elsewhere. So I guess the freedom he has is good, provided he keeps it simple and sticks to attacking bad games.

And this is true, negative press can sometimes work in favour of those being attacked.

 

[VeryOblivious]

Nobody has accused him of not being a real reviewer.

I've read frequently in other reviews that kind of accusation. In the "positive" manner: "He just rants, he isn't a real reviewer. He's just there to make us laugh", and in the negative, it's so much and I'm so lazy...

 

[DonPauliani]

Has anyone else noticed just how goddamned more violent Yahtzee is in this review? God, do i love it. Oh, and I'm comment 666, mmmmm.

 

[flak_towers]

Posting just to make the numbers less demonic.

Oh and the review was amusing too.