Famitsu N3 Ratings

[Shark Sandwich]

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.

This is very true. I remember magazines like Game Informer and EGM always used to constantly tell their readers "5 is average!" This is obviously not true though. It certainly isn't the mean average of their scores, and a 5 review reads as if the reviewer couldn't stand the game. In magazines like these, the mean average is more like a 7, and a 7 review reads more like an "average, but not great" type opinion. Of course, some reviewers are worse than others. For example, on rpgfan.com, 90+ is good, 85-90 is mediocre, and anything less than an 85 is crap. No wonder so many people don't trust reviews anymore!

Anyway, 8/8/8/7 doesn't sound so bad. However, look at how Famitsu scored the DW games:

DW4:Empires (PS2) 8/8/8/8
DW4:Empires (360) 9/8/8/9
DW (PSP) 8/8/8/7

Either Famitsu is highly biased towards Dynasty Warriors (very possible), or N3 is actually worse than DW4.

 

[superguy]

I dont trust Famitsu rating that much anyway because I once read that even in Japan they are considered pretty much a joke..and highly paid off..something like that. They also seem to have odd tastes compared to Americans like would you trust famitsu to review Halo?

Of course a better review is better I suppose and a review is a review but I dont put too much stock in famitsu.

 

[NANOTEC]

Either Famitsu is highly biased towards Dynasty Warriors (very possible), or N3 is actually worse than DW4.

Huh? How can they be highly biased when DW4 only beat N3 by 1-2 points? I cannot believe people are making such a big deal out of this.

 

[Paul_G]

Others may disagree but i've found that Edge is pretty fair with it's reviews, and i know a 5 really is average when i read that magazine. There really are plenty of games that are below average, and they score that way, a rating of 2-4/10 is not uncommon in Edge. Further, they don't even try to tell you what a number means, to RPG fans, a 8/10 game may be quite poor, there may be plenty of 9s etc, and to fans of strategy games, an 8/10 may be very good, nothing much gets scores like that. On that basis, the ratings are marked as follows:

1=one
2=two
3=three
4=four
5=five
6=six
7=seven
8=eight
9=nine
10=ten

When you know that in over 10 years, only about 5 games have ever scored a 10, you know you can take that 10 and be sure it is well deserved

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Eurogamer's online reviews seem to cover the glut of scores. A bad game can score 2-4 out of 10. I can't say I've experienced enough games rated by them to trust their scores, but they seem balanced.

 

[Moonblade]

Indeed eurogamer is one of my favorites. I also trust gamespot and gamingpulse.

 

[Nesh]

Others may disagree but i've found that Edge is pretty fair with it's reviews, and i know a 5 really is average when i read that magazine. There really are plenty of games that are below average, and they score that way, a rating of 2-4/10 is not uncommon in Edge. Further, they don't even try to tell you what a number means, to RPG fans, a 8/10 game may be quite poor, there may be plenty of 9s etc, and to fans of strategy games, an 8/10 may be very good, nothing much gets scores like that. On that basis, the ratings are marked as follows:

1=one
2=two
3=three
4=four
5=five
6=six
7=seven
8=eight
9=nine
10=ten

When you know that in over 10 years, only about 5 games have ever scored a 10, you know you can take that 10 and be sure it is well deserved

I prefer EDGE's ratings as well. Its very strict and they review a game with attention to detail to pros and cons. They view a game mostly as the total efforts, and attention developers put to produce it than just "its fun to play and watch so lets throw it an 8 or 9".

For example FFX got an 8 or 9 in other magazines but in EDGE if I remember well it got a 7 and totally agreed with it although I liked and finished it. A 7 for EDGE is just good and FFX was just that. It playied just like older FF's. Mostly the graphics went to the next level. Everything else was a mere improvement.
Above 7 are usually the games that approach unique achievements both technically and gameplay wise and show great effort from behalf of the developers. Usually games with innovation and creativity get a better appreciation than the rest.
And FFX didnt belong to that category

Btw what games got a 10 from EDGE? I remember that one of them was GT.

 

[Paul_G]

Btw what games got a 10 from EDGE? I remember that one of them was GT.

I think the list is

Gran Turismo
Zelda: Ocarina of Time
Mario 64
Halo

I'm sure there is one more, but i can't think what it is...I know they said the one game they regretted not giving a 10 to in retrospect was Goldeneye, but yeah, it is an excellent publication wrt reviews and their scoring policy, what good is a 1-10 scale when 7 is average?

 

[Shark Sandwich]

Huh? How can they be highly biased when DW4 only beat N3 by 1-2 points? I cannot believe people are making such a big deal out of this.

Biased because, by most accounts, DW4:E is pure rehash (as the series has been for years). Famitsu seems to like it more than any of the American magazines/websites I've seen.

 

[Moonblade]

Biased because, by most accounts, DW4:E is pure rehash (as the series has been for years). Famitsu seems to like it more than any of the American magazines/websites I've seen.

Are cultural differences considered bias?
It sounds logical to me that Japanese people like playing an invincible super samurai more than the average American gamer.
As a European gamer, I feel the same way about rehashed American sports games like Madden, NHL or NBA.

 

[ban25]

Seconded. EDGE is probably the best gaming publication out there.

I prefer EDGE's ratings as well. Its very strict and they review a game with attention to detail to pros and cons. They view a game mostly as the total efforts, and attention developers put to produce it than just "its fun to play and watch so lets throw it an 8 or 9".

 

[scooby_dooby]

Didn't they just gave GRAW and Oblivion 8's?? That's pretty brutal.

 

[Paul_G]

Didn't they just gave GRAW and Oblivion 8's?? That's pretty brutal.

Yeah they did, but when you consider that of maybe over 1000 games reviewed in it's history, only 4-5 got 10/10, and a 9 is rare, 8 is pretty good. Reading the review, it's clear that Oblivion is considered highly, as is GRAW. Why do those games deserve more though? Sure they are great games, but aside from being bigger and better, do either redefine their respective genres? GT, Halo, Mario 64 and Ocarina of Time all did.

I remember the first issue i ever bought, there was a review of Deus Ex in there, and it scored 9/10. Like you i thought, on the basis of other magazines scoring it 95%+, 9/10 was a little harsh, but i've read this magazine for over 5 years now, and you'd be lucky to get ten 9/10 games in a year, 9/10 is exceptional, 10/10 is just that, faultless. Oblivion may be very pretty and the best RPG in a long time, but if it doesn't mix it up like zelda did, it doesn't deserve better than 8.

 

[Rodéric]

Didn't they just gave GRAW and Oblivion 8's?? That's pretty brutal.

Agreed, it's far too much for Oblivion, doesn't deserve more than 6, 7 if you're in an extremly good mood that day...

How incredible, scores are still taste dependant ?!
(Come on people, *you* must know that even a game with a good score won't necessarily appeal to you...)

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Agreed, it's far too much for Oblivion, doesn't deserve more than 6, 7 if you're in an extremly good mood that day...

That's an interesting point to me. I wonder how I would rate Oblivion? I've only had a couple hours experience, but it didn't fire me up. In the same way GT4 scores less than GT3 because it doesn't add much, Oblivion doesn't add much to the precendent set by Morrowind and I don't see reason to rate it higher. As a good game in it's own right, worth playing, I guess I'd score it 7/10 (though I may not have touched upon some of the nicer subtleties in my experience). From a different perspective, rating it as an RPG relative to other RPGs, being the biggest, most in depth, most beautiful RPG to date, some might score it higher.

So really, ratings scores don't mean much unless you know where the reviewer is coming from, which the full reveiw should explain. that's what i like about Eurogamer. They have a final rating and then say why, such as sometimes saying 'the game doesn't technically deserve this much but I just had fun playing it' or 'seriously let down by gaping faults,' or even 'if youre a fan of the genre/series, it's alright, but otherwise give it a miss'.

 

[pc999]

I found numerical scores for games (or any other art) a very bad thing, I do prefer some lines of text that explains why the games (or parts of it ie, soud gfx story...) are good or no?

This way I think that scores made like IGN or Teamxbox, still better than everything else I have seen.

(Edit forgot about Eurogamer too, which is actually better than the others, BTW I agree with Shifty)

Still nothing is better than a little article about the game.

I think the list is

Gran Turismo
Zelda: Ocarina of Time
Mario 64
Halo

I'm sure there is one more, but i can't think what it is...I know they said the one game they regretted not giving a 10 to in retrospect was Goldeneye, but yeah, it is an excellent publication wrt reviews and their scoring policy, what good is a 1-10 scale when 7 is average?

Interesting, all of them are from N64/PS era...

 

[Paul_G]

Interesting, all of them are from N64/PS era...

Well...Halo is this gen, but you're right, most of their high scorers are from the previous generation. I'm sure this is going really off topic, but i do wonder if this supports some peoples notion that gaming this gen isn't as good as the last...another thread though...anyways I agree, scoring is more a hinder than a help, it only encourages the casual observer to rate a game unfairly, forcing the reader to read the whole review is much more preferable. If i may refer back to EDGE again, they actually did away with the scores one month to see what people thought, on the whole, many people felt like you and I, but there is something to be said for scoring, it does allow an element of objectivity in an otherwise subjective area.

 

[Shark Sandwich]

I found numerical scores for games (or any other art) a very bad thing, I do prefer some lines of text that explains why the games (or parts of it ie, soud gfx story...) are good or no?

This would work out as long as the review was clear and concise. I really don't want to read a Gamespot-style 4-page review just to figure out if a game is good or not. With Gamespot, for example, I'll usually look at the numerical score and just read their good/bad points listed at the beginning of the review.

Of course, my favorite reviewing style was Old Man Murray's. I like the hilarious, clever, long-winded rant designed to expose and mock all the dumb cliches that lazy game designers have relied on for too long. They'd also ridicule other game magazines/websites for having no balls and giving overly-inflated scores to mediocre games. I'd rather hear someone's honest opinion, backed by examples, than read a boring, sterile, "objective" description of every little detail of a game.

 

[A176]

Gameplay wise, don't expect too much from N3. However, the devs promise a "story" unlike no other; if memory serves, they want to try to make the player cry.