What's that even supposed to mean in this context? A reviewer who dislikes a game so much that they decide not to review it? Sure, I think reviewers who hate what they're playing/watching are needed in order to ensure all views are represented among critics, but I can toally get why from time to time a reviewer will just say, "Fuck it, I've reviewed enough shit over the last few months, I'm not going to do another one for a while. I'm going to play something I know I'll like." 

Perhaps it's more an unwillingness to pay AAA prices for every game that gets sold on a disc. Maybe Nintendo should have taken a page out of Insomniac's book and released the game at a sub-AAA price. Lots of people have been calling for more price variation in new release games. There's a market for these "on-rails" games, it's just not a AAA market.

I mean, it's more about what you're willing to put into the game. Some people might feel that beating the 12 levels and unlocking the new ones is not enough to pay the price of the game. I know that it's enough for me because I'm going to get the medals and the trophies, and I'm going to unlock all the secret paths that's what I liked about SF64 (medal hunting), and I'm sure I'll put a lot of time into Zero. But some people might fell that it's not very compelling. So... I can understand it, though I don't share the criticism. The obvious thing to do would be to compare the game to similar games of the genre, and it's not short in content, but I don't expect some reviewers to do that. I understand that they might be dissapointed. Maybe "valid" was not the right word to use :P.

Have you played the game? I know that you can't possibly have all the 70 medals, but how do you feel about the controls? It's hard to get used to them? That's maybe what worries me the most. It looks like the game is fun, but it will take some time to be good at it. I've read your previous impression, but I want to know if in the end they've got better.

That means that the guy is paid for doing his job. So do your job. It's not about hard and tiresome labour, one playthrough (just one) could have took him like 2 hours to complete. Is that too much to ask? So, this reviewer doesn't like the game? Fine. Complete the game, make your review, give your score and move on to your next job. But stopping in the middle of the game, saying "fuck this shit", and writing an article about it? I could get that in a 15/20 hours game, maybe. Not in a 2 hours game (which is not completion, just a playthrough).  It's a bit childish. Well, I guess we have different opinions about profesionalism. I'd be fired for doing that in my job. Worse thing is that he gets his article published. Which makes me think some clicks felt good for Polygon. I won't say more about it, because I don't want to derail the thread, but... I found this really shameful. 

Kinda sad to see the game scoring so low. I'm going to buy it anyway because I have a friend that's obsessed with anything that has to do with Star Fox and he really wants to play it.

I'll give it a try too, It can't be that bad.

What if...it turns out to be that bad?!

But surely you would argue that a single play through of such a short game is inadequate as a basis for a fair review. And it's not like the reviewer isn't still playing games that he will review. He's not not doing his job. Not every reviewer reviews every game. He's choosing to not review this game, and instead review other games. which is a valid thing to do and a choice all critics make frequently. The only differnce here is that he's publicly stated that he's not going to review SFZ because he thinks it's a shit game. No reviewer in the history of gaming has the time or the motivation to review every game.

I guess it's all about what the market will bear. We'll have to see how popular it is with consumers at the $50 price point.

Darn! I was way too high. 

I took a quick look at Metacritic, and it seems like 64 and 64 3D both scored in the 80s...so this isn't really a severe drop. I was also one of the few people who really liked Assault, which scored even less than this game...so I guess this doesn't really dissuade me.

Not a game I plan to get Day 1, mind, but still something I plan to play at some point.

I have to disagree with you binary. It's a totally petulant and amateurish move, and it reflects poorly on the author and on Polygon. If he doesn't want to review a game he can always pass it along to someone else on staff. By starting and not finishing (a two hour game, mind you) he does a disservice to the game, his readers, and his profession. As someone who's worked as a journalist in print and electronic media, I find his actions embarrassing.

If he was an amateur blogger he could get away with that garbage. A paid professional at Polygon? No way.