Talk:Famitsu

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Famitsu article.
Article policies
Famicom style controller This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article is on a subject of mid priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
VG To-do:


Four versions of Famitsu? What about Famitsu Wave DVD?

There was no responce to this so I have added it myself. Gerard Foley 19:41, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Rumors

Rumors of bribes have surfaced after they gave Shadow the Hedgehog 8, 8, 8, 7,(Shadow is generaly accepted to be garbage.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gmcfoley (talk • contribs) .

Can you supply a link for this? I tried googling, but found nothing relevant. -- ReyBrujo 03:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Here you go [1]. I thought it was interesting so I moved it here. Gerard Foley 12:46, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
I mean, I googled around but could not find any information about Famitsu being bribed. As you know, Wikipedia is about verifiability, so to include such information into the article, a link should be supplied to a notable external site having the information. That is, anyone should be able to go to an external link where it states Famitsu may have been bribed. So far, no link has been added. -- ReyBrujo 16:26, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

i have also heard they took bungs but ive yet to see proof. I only visited to see if there was some proof —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.194.7.253 (talk • contribs) .

The most famous rumour of taking bribes is when they reviewed FF7: Dirge of Cerberus THREE weeks late and then only gave it a 7/7/7/7 --Shuyin05 11:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Added Kingdom Hearts II

Kingdom Hearts II has been rated 40/40 by Famitsu. http://kh2.co.uk/ Kuna 02:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

That site even says it's only rumored. Don't add it until it's confirmed. --Zeno McDohl 03:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
hehe sorry about that. I misread it.Kuna 05:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)Kuna
Famitsu rated Kingdom Hearts II with a 39/40. [2] -- ReyBrujo 16:28, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 2005 awards

What do you think about adding the 2005 awards? Spong has translated the results. -- ReyBrujo 04:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Examples needed

Shouldn't someone put examples to support the claim that Famitsu reviews harshly? After all, I wouldn't be that inclined to believe that a reviewer that gives Nintendogs 40/40 is that tough. If they gave a relatively low review score to a generally critically and audience acclaimed game (such as Gamespot's Majora's Mask review), that would clear my skepticism. The Legend of Miyamoto 23:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Though there is are some references about where that statement comes from but the "harsh" reviews do not seem anymore "harsh" than other game review sites/magazines/etc. Also, one of references is simply someone saying "It's known for harsh reviews".
For a "harsh" review magazine, I'm fairly surprised that they gave Kingdom hearts a 39/40, when the majority of review sites rated it slightly lower and a few rating it only a 70%. I'm also a little surprised that FF12 got a 40/40. Newuser12345215 21:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FFI

i read somewhere FFI (Final Fantasy One) got a 40/40 fom Famitsu. Is it true?User:FireBall00 16:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Courtesy Scores"

The article reports as flat fact that Famitsu follows a practice of giving high profile games high review scores out of "respect" for the readers, and not because of the quality of the game itself. Pretty eyebrow raising. Lo and behold, there's a link to an article that supposedly corroborates this claim. So I followed the link to the article, it turns out that the information on Famitsu's "courtesty score policy" comes from some anonymous netizen posting under the screen name "108" at a forum hosted by selectbutton.net. That is not acceptable as proper validation and confirmation. Fair warning, I will be removing that from this article unless someone can provide better confirmation within one month. Druff 16:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

As there has been no addition of valid support, I've gone ahead and made the edit. Druff 05:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:FamitsuWaveDVDApril05.jpg

Image:FamitsuWaveDVDApril05.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Metal Gear Portable ops plus

Um Ryan Paton(games producer) says it got a platnuim rating... im guessing thats a score of 40?ill check back--Hitamaru 23:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Perfect Score Game

Super Smash Bros Brawl has received a perfect score from Famitsu Source [[3]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.100.132.179 (talk) 10:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Original research

We know Famitsu has short reviews. And we know IGN has long reviews. However, comparing them, reaching a conclusion, and putting it here without a reference doing that comparison is original research (it is known as Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position: Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C. This would be synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, which constitutes original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article.) -- ReyBrujo (talk) 23:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dirge of Cerberus thing

Next Generation Magazine (via Next-Gen.biz) talked about Dirge several times, see here (Famitsu does not review Dirge of Cerberus: Final Fantasy VII in this issue, continuing their trend of reviewing Square-Enix games the week after their release, as opposed to the week before.) and here (The publisher can kindly request to Famitsu that they delay their review to push sales once they've slowed down a little bit (ie, in a few weeks).). Maybe these can be included in the article instead. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 23:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Famitsu controversy

If the Kotaku article about Famitsu rating games on popularity/hype isn't considered "reliable," then what is? What kind of evidence do you need? Wikipedian06 (talk) 04:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

There wasn't a reference to Kotaku in the article, only to a forum. And Kotaku is a blog, while Famitsu is a 20-year old publication. While I have nothing against them (I read and comment at Kotaku from time to time), according to Exceptional claims require exceptional sources: Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality reliable sources especially when making claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or which would significantly alter mainstream assumptions IGN, GameSpot and several other very important and reliable media consider Famitsu a highly reliable publication. Kotaku is clearly going against the prevailing view that Famitsu is a highly reliable source. As I pointed above, I can find links that state Famitsu may hold some reviews for a couple of weeks when a game is going to receive bad reviews so that it sells well before the review is published, but from there to "scores according to sales" is a pretty far jump. (The following is OR, but given as example) Who would have thought Nintendogs would sell so well? And they didn't score a 40/40 to Dragon Quest VIII, even though they know Dragon Quest always sells a lot. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 04:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)