I go more by the comments. Review "scores" are just as meaningless from every publication. Also, I believe that almost every review site bases their reviews on what fans want to see for hyped games. Just look at some of the reviews for the hyped games lately. Particularly Halo 3.

The thing is, when a game is hyped, quickly a concensus opinion is formed(often off the first review) and because of that immediate concensus, reviewers percieve that the game follows it.

With lesser known games, you'll always have more wild and varying scores, because reviewers perception is largely based on their own fetishist reviews about the game, rather than internet hype and fandom.

There are even sites and reviewers who give games bad reviews, because that's what their fans want. Yhatzee and Giantbomb.com, for instance.

When Famitsu tells me that ToV is better than Tales of Symphonia, then I should believe it. If everyone bought into the internet generalizations about organizations like Famitsu or VGChartz then we would be out of a forum, and Japan would be out of a significant review source.

Just take from the Famitsu review this: 4/4 Japanese game reviewers who played ToV, loved it. While other Tales games they have not loved quite so much. Don't look at absolute numbers for ANY review. There is too much margin for error in estimation and taste variable for you, the individual consumer. However you can look at similar game comparisons and the text/claims made within the review and those are the only real way to use them. For these uses, Famitsu is as credible a review source as any.

...and that's my case.

Do you think it would be considered a stale genre if sales were still high?

Bold 1: As opposed to American sites, who use the practice, but don't openly admit it.

Bold 2: It might have been a mistake, but using the word "amusing" in a derogatory manner is passive-agressive.

Bold 3: It could be said for any site. The fact that Famitsu admits to adjusting scores for hyped games is simply a talking point used in order to marginalize the magazine, just like 40/40 Nintendogs is used to marginalize perfect scores. In the end, which critical reviews you trust is entirely opinion. I can name 10 marginalizing examples of why not to trust IGN, their Godhand review for example, but that doesn't make someones trust in them any less deserving.

The internet has lately become far to interested in generalized and accepted opinion regarding everything, from games to the sites that review them. Gamespot, Famitsu, Eurogamer, Gametrailers, none of them can be trusted according to generalized opinions on this forum. However, the vast majority of people aren't necessarily right, and quite to the contrary I often find them wrong.

I have my own personal reasons for trusting Famitsu to the point at which I do. Mainly I trust their accurate(imo) text within their reviews, and I don't necessarily trust their numerical scores(I do detest numerical scores).

Trying to get me to change my mind on any subject is often an exercise in futility, simply because I don't make it up until I've got enough information to suit my argument. So telling me that Famitsu isn't worth listening to is ok, because it doesn't matter.

However, trying to get someone more impressionable to conform to a uninformed half-knowledgable internet concensus opinion isn't gonna teach anyone to think for themselves.

No, that is why FPSs get away with not doing much in terms of innovation and still get high scores

EDIT:That notion could end soon as quite a few of the big JRPGs seem to do something a little different from the norm