Famitsu N3 Ratings

I am not surprized. To me it looks to be quite boring actually. Sure impresive from a tech point of view, although it does has some shortcommings, such as its lighting/shadowing engine, but as a game it seems to me that it will become a bit monotonous.

I don't mind fighting against a 1000 enemies at a time, that is kind of cool, IF it was a part of the game and not the whole game. They way it was incorporated in Kameo seems a better way. Have a few big fights that you can join but you will need something else in between...
 
london-boy said:
Wow, Okami on PS2 got a 10, 10, 10, 9 for a total of 39... gonna have to import again aint i...

US version is confirmed (September?), I'd expect a Euro version too...
 
L-B you know thats off topic right? ;) N3 Never looked like much fun... it wasnt fun in the movies (Matrix Reloaded) and isnt fun in videogames either.
 
blakjedi said:
L-B you know thats off topic right? ;) N3 Never looked like much fun... it wasnt fun in the movies (Matrix Reloaded) and isnt fun in videogames either.

Oh err. initially i thought the thread was just about "Famitsu ratings" and i thought expl put N3 in there by mistake, meaning E3... Not sure why he'd put E3 in there but anyway...

Yes i get it now, N3 is NinethousandNinehundredNinetyNineNights.
 
I know alot of people hyped this game so it has to be some sort of disappointment. The screens looked like overkill to me with the "10*25 hit combo" and all.
 
80% is a pretty good rating IMO. what do you expect. Not every game released can be a Final Fantasy.

PS, can't wait for Okami!
 
I wouldn't call 8/8/8/7 mediocre. There are a lot of people who like these types of games. I like to get one of these types of games every generation, not every game has to be ultra deep. The Dynasty Warrior games continuously sell a million copies in Japan, so it will be interesting to see how N3 does.
 
Actually, by Famitsu standards all 31 is very good. It has to have a very good storyline and/or art in order to go above that. I'd be more worried if they gave all 9's and a 6. Hopefully it's better then Dynasty Warriors.
 
nintenho said:
Actually, by Famitsu standards all 31 is very good. It has to have a very good storyline and/or art in order to go above that..
A 31 by >Famitsu< standards is mediocre - certainly not very good -, particularly for a high-profile title. But this is in fact what recent DW rip-offs also recieved.
Strangely enough, the only parts the reviewers seemed particularly pleased with WERE the storyline, presentation/art and graphics.

I don't mind this score, NNN has always looked dull to play, if they ratchet the difficultly up a few notches for a western release it could be worth playing.
 
Nicked said:
A 31 by >Famitsu< standards is mediocre - certainly not very good -, particularly for a high-profile title. But this is in fact what recent DW rip-offs also recieved.
Strangely enough, the only parts the reviewers seemed particularly pleased with WERE the storyline, presentation/art and graphics.

I don't mind this score, NNN has always looked dull to play, if they ratchet the difficultly up a few notches for a western release it could be worth playing.
Dammit, pwn4d again!

Back on topic, have any xbox games had the difficulty level set higher for the western versions? I remember some PS2 and Gamecube games having it like that, but I don't remember that happening to any xbox games.
 
drpepper said:
80% is a pretty good rating IMO...

That's because you forgot to *correct*/'linearize' the score...
Take the score, put it on 10, then square it and you get the "corrected" score, in this case it's 64%, fairly average.
There are very few magazines/sites which don't need this correction to get valuable scores. (One that doesn't need it is eurogamer.)

All of that IMO obviously...
 
I always thought that the multiple reviewers were there for the reader to get different opinions on the game. The scores were never ment to be averaged, that defeats the whole point of multiple reviewers. Now you've got sites like gamerankings that average all reviews from different websites/magazines which is terribly flawed as not all sites use the same scale.

What is Famitu's scale anyway? Is 5 average? 5 would be in the middle of a 10 point scale. 7 definately shouldn't be average.

If these scores are considered mediocre as others have said, then I think Famitu's scores are completely messed up. What if it got 8/8/8/8? Would that take it out of the realm of mediocrity? I just don't get it.
 
I've heard it said from some parties (one posting on Japanese news in next-gen.biz for example) that for Famitsu, scores range from 7 to 10. Games don't score less than 7. So straight 10s is fantastic game, and straight 7s is a dull, insipid generic game. I can't comment from personal experience though. Maybe you should dig up some Famitsu scores for games you know and see how they compare with your take on those games?
 
Moonblade said:
Most sites & magazines use this rating:

6 - bad
7 - average
8 - good
9 - great
10 - perfect

indeed most sites use the school grading system which is incorrect for game reviews
that leaves 3 levels of good and 6 levels of bad
 
...

I don't really think there's any one specific way to cut through whatever it is about FAMItsu that seems off. The games are reviewed by a rather casual/generic/non-hardcore bunch of people and so you get really strange reviews in the eyes of the enthusiast. Basically, in the end though it still breaks down to individual opinions, and there's might not be so similar to your own.

Where things, get skitchy is HYPED big name games. If it's a really big name game that's been hyped regardless if it's a new IP or long running beloved one, like FF, there's a different mentality that gets applied both from the reviewer and the reader. The general talk around the forums is that less than an 8 from any of the 4 reviewers means is a generic/mediocre/crappy game. You have a dynamic where the reader/reviewer is thinking this is a big title it's gotta be good and so accordingly they review higher. In reality, though, they're not, while it may be a hyped title and end up with something like a 7777, you have to realize FAMItsu judges things on a 5 being generic basis, so below that is bad; a 7 isn't bad. However, because of gamer/reviewer elitism this double standard gets applied and suddenly a 7 for a hyped game means it's CRAP (and not scottish), while a 7 for an unhyped game means it's not too bad. In other word, hyped games are expected to get high scores and if they don't very one starts dancing to "La Bomba", blah blah blah elitism.

It's no different than any other gaming magazine, but thanks to most people here not getting FAMItsu and not being able to read Japanese, plus the whole gaming forum elitism, FAMItsu grew this mystique around it and now only 8s and 32s are considered good.

To the point, NNN is an OK game, not earth shattering, not brilliant, but probably some decent fun to be had. Better than average.

Of course, this is all IMO, but I honestly think it's a bit silly to think "FAMItsu for the money hats", "FAMItsu hates <insert console>", "FAMItsu hates <insert dev>", or whatever. Besides at the core of it all, all reviews, aside from your own, pretty much inaccurate, right? You're taste is what's most important.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
chroniceyestrain said:
indeed most sites use the school grading system which is incorrect for game reviews
that leaves 3 levels of good and 6 levels of bad

Maybe it's because reviewers (I used to be one myself) are too afraid to give a score lower than 6?
I remember a reviewer working for a dutch gaming magazine (years ago) who got an 'unhappy' phonecall from Nintendo Benelux after giving mariokart 64 a 6. :???:
 
Back
Top