| ZenfoldorVGI said: I actually, have already read that.
There is a difference however, between what that snippit says, and what is actually true, but I digress.
Now, I'll reassert this part. Even if Famitsu gave reviews away for money, they are still more respectible to me, than is Gamespot for several reasons, imo.
I don't blame you for assuming that I'm ignorant of all the facts. I assure you I'm not. I'm well aware of everything you've posted, and I still stand by my opinions. Wheather you agree with me or not, isn't something I can afford to worry about.
What my actual point was, is this:
You can't simply marginalize a perfect Famitsu review, when historically, every game from Famitsu that has been given a perfect review, has gone on to become a smash hit in the states, both critically and financially. It's a golden ticket.
Note this, however: I don't think anything is "the shit" because its Japanese. I respect Famitsu's reviews more than most American websites because they use 4 reviewers, instead of one to give an overall rating. They don't take points off a game from following a familiar forumla as its predecessor, nor do they add points too it. Being traditional isn't a bad thing to the magazine(as it is in america) and I share that viewpoint. I prefer my Zelda games to be Zelda games, if you know what I mean. I feel a lot of American reviewers give bad reviews in an ideological attempt to force developers to freshen up their acts, or recieve bad scores out of spite. Instead of giving unbiased reviews of the game, they attempt to critique it on what they feel should have been added, instead of just reviewing what is there. Examples range from Gamespot's review of Rachet and Clank Future, to Gamespot's review of Twilight Princess. I also feel American websites are far to leniant on graphical dependant games, and far to hard on games with poor graphics. I cite Gamespot's Final Fantasy Tactics review, and again, Gamespot's Perfect Dark Zero review. These are dealbreakers for me when it comes to credibility.
You should check your self though, and check your lists. You'll find that, even with your biblical snippet that supposedly marginalizes Famitsu, they have rarely, if ever given a game a great score that didn't deserve it. Can you say the same for gamespot or IGN? |
So lets see if I'm getting this right:
- Famitsu has come out and said there are games that they give courtesy scores to games that are big but that's alright because there are 4 reviewers.
- If Gamestop or IGN came out and said they did the same thing they are biased trash because they have a single reviewer.
- If EGM came out and said the same thing, it wouldn't be good but I'm assuming it would be acceptable since they have a whole three reviewers.
- Holy crap, they predicted big games would sell big! Shit, how did they ever do something like that?
Now that we're on the same page, you can sit there and rationalize how Famitsu is the king of reviewers because they use four reviewers but you're telling me that you would still trust them even after apparently knowing everything about them because they have four biased reviewers as opposed to one?
Look at the following statement: is a well respected reviewers amongst the gaming community, though by no means all gamers. declares that they give out courtesy scores to big games and take money for high reviews.
With what you're telling me, things would go like this if was the following:
- IGN-- Typical American single reviewer so the whole site is biased trash.
- Gamestop-- Same as above
- EGM-- They have three people but since they follow the same formula they're still the same as the above two.
- Famitsu-- They may admit they're biased but since there are four of them and they don't follow the made up typical formula then they're alright. Oh, and they have a track record of predicting big games will be big.
