Speed runners are not representative of the majority of gamers. The majority of fighting games are replayed (after the single player stuff is beat) as pvp (couch coop or online). Same for racing titles. You can't say that starfox has "replayability" when the majority of the people who own starfox play it only once.

Otherwise "replayability is an excuse that can be used for any game (say order 1886)

Well, if people really play it only once and never again I can probably understand why they cry about the price. But then again, they would spend another 60 bucks for the next game they play after SF0 and never touch that one again after beating it once. And again with the next one after that. And again after that. I think they spend more in the long run.

As far as I know The Order 1886 consists mostly of cutscenes and walking, belighted by some generic shooting sequences. After you finished it, there is absolutely no value in watching the same custcenes and listening to the same story again.

The first paragraph only makes sense for single player games not multiplayer games. Once I beat all the Grand Prix for Mario kart, I still come back because of the multiplayer (the multiplayer is what helps replayability). On the other hand, once I beat xenoblade chronicles, I don't think I'll play it again, but that's fine because the story is huge and the game takes long to finish. Starfox zero has neither.

As far as I know Starfox Zero consists mostly of set paths and generic bosses. After you finish it, there is absolutely no value in flying through the same paths and facing the same enemies again.

Do you see how I can shut down starfox by over generalizing it like you do to the order 1886 (this can be done with most games good or bad). Point is, starfox isn't special. The order was deemed bad because of a short campaign and content. The same problems are in starfox, so to say starfox isn't bad but the order is bad is hypocrisy at its finest

In a shmup like SF0 it makes perfect sense to have set paths. That's how shmups work. In a tps like the Order it is somehow strange to have so little actual gameplay when there are plenty of other examples that have much more. But hey. Star Fox Zero and The Order are different genres, I propose we should stop comparing them. Let's compare it to other shmups, for fairness' sake. Sin & Punishment come to mind, but I admit that I don't know many more.

I really wouldn't be ranting that much here at all if the video in the OP wouldn't give me the feeling that reviewers are not even trying at all to understand it. There isn't anything positive the editor says, and that sucks balls. Because even I am well aware that SF0 isn't flawless, but it's definitely not as bad as reviewers make it look like.

I suspect speedrunners aren't representative of the majority of gamers, I was just giving an example of someone who plays a particular game multiple times for the sake of obtaining shorter and shorter times. The fact that they're speedrunners renders the games they run quite short, much like how rail shooters are short.

How do you know this? What data did you look at to determine "the majority of people who own star fox play it only once"? I know I wasn't one of them: I played my copies of Star Fox and Star Fox 64 multiple times aiming for higher scores each time.

It can be used for almost any game. However, if I recall correctly, TO1886's cutscenes can't be skipped thus making the game pretty unattractive to speedrunners and I don't think there's a scoring system so scorerunners won't care for it either.

We can compare starfox to kid Icarus uprising (another rail shooter by the same company).

kid Icarus was developed as a 3ds launch title (meaning the hardware is harder to work with) and has a campaign size of at least 10 hours in addition to its online multiplayer. For its time, it was a great looking 3ds game. It utilised a gimmick (touchscreen for melee) but the gimmick was not central to its gameplay, nor was it inhibitory. All for a price of $40.

Starfox zero on the other hand was made by platinum and miyamoto, has a significantly smaller campaign, looks horrendous for a non launch wii u game (let alone gen 8 home console game), does not have online multiplayer, and has a hit or miss forced gimmick central to the gameplay. All for a price of $50 ($60 if you want retail but that comes with starfox guard which also has mixed reception).

Yes I am ranting, but it's pretty clear Nintendo didn't even try with Starfox zero.

That's not fitting. Kid Icarus Uprising is a tps, look at some gameplay videos. It's more comparable to games like The Order, but not to games like Star Fox. It does have some shmup sequences though.

It also was no launch title, it released in 2012, one year after the 3DS. The price for 3DS games is usually lower as well. I won't start arguing about the graphics because they seem to be much more important to some people while others don't care, like me. We could bash each other about graphics all day and would never agree anyway, so let's just skip that.

Star Fox Zero should be compared to games like Gradius. Real rail shooters, you know. Like Panzer Dragoon. All rail shooters are short and point based. Their appeal comes from mastering them.

And it's still going to cost full price ten years from now

Kid Icarus is both a rail shooter and an on ground hack and slash, but for the sake of comparison, I'll say it's half and half. If we take just the rail shooting aspect, the campaign is still at least 5 hours (half of 10) and I'm being generous.

you dismiss graphics, but we all know that a game is the sum of its parts with graphics being one of the parts. There is no argument to be had, Starfox zero has some of the worst graphics this gen for a retail home console game. Whether you care about it has no bearing on any starfox review.

So in total, the game looks bad, is annoying to control (general consensus), is short (replayability is not an excuse when other rail shooters are much longer), and costs $60 retail and $50 digital

The graphics are not as good as other titles', yeah. I have no problem in admitting that. I only want to add that the art style was chosen intentionally to mimmick Star Fox 64. That's why objects are edgy. Another thing is that the game runs in 60 fps on two screens while many many many other great looking games can't reach that on a single screen. This shall not be a point to excuse the graphic's style, but it should be mentioned. Still, no game for graphic whores.

Again, the shortness comes from the genre, not the game itself. The controls are excellent once you have understood them. To name a few more benefits that the fucktard of editor swept under the rug: your teammates are much less annoying than in previous games and don't die every minute, the levels have many interesting design ideas, there are many secret paths to discover (adding a lot to the replayability value), there are some neat boss cameos (one from Star Fox 64, one as a sort-of mascot of Platinum Games as it appears in many of their games) and once you play it, you don't care about the graphics anymore that much becuase there's just way too many stuff going on that you have to take care of. Most levels have a great pacing, are most of the times divided into sections that play differently and are action-packed from start to finish.

See, we can paint it black or we can paint it white. The game is not the holy grail, there's no denying. Whoever expected that is a fool, anyway. But it's also not as bad as reviewers (or people who only listen to such monkeys) make it look like.