I'm sure that Bravely Default will be named "Final Fantasy" if it comes to NA and EU. Think I saw it somewhere.

Anyway, I really wanna play this game, it's so beautiful and old school.

The game industry hasn't become better or worse, there were plenty of perfect scores back them, plenty of bad scores.

But when scores in a determined magazine changed that much (make that previous number 29 games 39/40) over the years, it's clearly their policy/methodology changed - radically. And for the worse, since Famitsu is now known in the industry to give good reviews for ads/money, they lost a lot of credibility.

Or maybe the staff changed? Some reviewers simply aren't as harsh.

Which previous 29 games are getting 39s? Exactly what game are you referring to? If anything, I'd say that Famitsu is right along with every other major global publication, for better or worse. Famitsu has that reputation, and yet has given plenty of games lower scores despite that. The White Knight series is a pretty easy example of that.

Their policy changed. They use to give out one 40/40 per console in the PS1/N64/Dreamcast/PS2/GameCube era. They now give out almost five 40/40 scores per console as of the release of the DS.

The games are in their wiki page. They are all high rated games - but also don't forget... a 39 game is not a 9 or even a 9.5 - it received 3 perfect scores from 3 reviewers.

But it doesn't matter what games, the point of my first quote to you was that they changed they policy, and that's visible. They're giving those scores now, but they didn't give them back them. Final Fantasy VI, for example, received a 36/40. Donkey Kong Country was THE sweethart of western media in 1994 and loved in japan, and yet it got a 31/40. 12 years for a perfect score, now 3 (sometimes 4) per year.  So you can't say "they never changed their policy". That's what I was saying.

Well, yes. Due to the nature of their 4 reviewer system, you do get a lots tens overall, but a 39 is seen as a perfect score. It's four different opinions from four different that are supposed to be very different. I stopped paying as much attention to the Japanese market, but I remember reading some reviews they had where you had casual gamers reviewing certain things and it definitely skewed the score. I actually favor their system as you're able to get four different takes on the same game. You can usually find a reviewer out of the four that has similar tastes to yourself and relate that way.

The only argument you can really make (since neither of us know how their staff has changed over the years) is that their newer/younger reviewers are more lenient. Honestly, I think it's a reflection of the how the Japanese market has broadened to wider, casual audiences.

The reviews are legit when they match up with my opinions.

Their staff change all the time, just like any review mag - think of EGM back then. You can notice this by looking at the 4 caricatures featuring the reviewers in famitsu magazine scans, they keep changing. Very coincidental they all keep the bar way lower than back in the 80's and 90's.

Of course, I don't have any way of proving that happened back them - reviewer changes - but it's logical to think so, especially in 14 years (1986-2000). Anyway... I think I rest my case, believe me or not, your choice.

10:30 in the video

http://www.gametrailers.com/full-episodes/q1ucwk/invisible-walls-fall-of-tgs

I don't think Invisible Walls should ever be used as some sort of credible source as every publisher pays for coverage for every game in some way or sort. Listening to more of that video is hilarious. It's like a redo of a forum thread with silly stereotypes and all.