By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Giggs_11 on 05 August 2014
Edit Thread
Wright said:
Kresnik said:


Do you know that the 4 people only play the game for an hour?  Is it not plausible that they have 4 reviewers play the game as much as 1 western reviewer before leaving their thoughts?

They are, after all, part of a massive media organization in Japan in an industry where magazines still have a large amount of relevance.


I remember watching a documentary about Famitsu. Reviewers have barely time to do anything at all. They just have to play a game as much as they can over a very strict timetable, then plaster their impressions in few lines and a number and move on to the next game.

I don't know how reviewers review the game. Maybe western reviews is made by one single reviewer over a long period of time and Famitsu has 4 reviewers reviewing for smaller periods of time. Maybe this makes sense since I don't think Famitsu was handed over 4 copies of the game prior its release for reviewing, they probably had only one copy and to be reviewed by 4 guys while western reviewers has just one guy doing it for the same amount of time? I don't know for sure but makes sense.

What's better one reviewer for a longer period or 4 for shorter periods? 

I'd say most times a review made by 4 different people tend to be more accurate, the more people giving opinions about something, its average will be closer to its real value than if made by fewer people. It's basic statistics. This is why metacritic is so valued. Most games you just need 30 minutes, maybe one hour to understand its value. However certain areas of a review, namely story and lasting appeal, probably need more time to be reviewed.