Talk:Famitsu

Fifth version

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)

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)

I can't believe Famitsu became a sellout. They gave two games which got lukewarm reviews from fans perfect scores in one month. It just so happened that these two games were massive-selling games for massive-selling platforms. I think we should add somethng about this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.135.54.59 (talk) 06:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

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)

2005 awards

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

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".

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Actually the given reference was indeed a Kotaku article. But the one and only source of the Kotaku article was an internet forum post. See for yourself: http://kotaku.com/gaming/famitsu/famitsu-for-beginners-222494.php. That said, I don't think blogs should be viewed as reliable sources. Even when they do report facts, they taint them with Op/Ed. Druff (talk) 20:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Sonic chronicoles to be 9th

should it be mentioned that it is expexted to make it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.90.197.42 (talk) 15:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Expected to make what? 40? Exactly who expects that? It's speculation that we don't need in any case.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 16:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

The developers once said that this game will hopefully outsale the 5th sonic game —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.90.197.42 (talk) 02:46, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

...what does that even mean? What bearing does that have on your claimed 40 or indeed on anything on this page?—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 06:24, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

PC games

Do any of the magazines ever cover PC games? SharkD (talk) 21:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Scores Archive is Broken!

I tried going onto the link to the Famitsu Scores Archive, but it is completely broken! Have you ever experience a problem with that link? If so, how can it be fixed? --Angeldeb82 (talk) 02:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Bubble Bobble?

"The game Rainbow Islands: The Story of Bubble Bobble 2 was hailed as the absolute greatest game of all time, and was to receive a "beyond perfect" score, though later merely received a perfect score to be less confusing to the public. It remains, unofficially, in the "beyond perfect" category (which is why it has been ommitted from the following list)." Any verification for this? I call BS, especially due to the misspelling of "omitted", so this obviously hasn't been checked over. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.112.150.124 (talk) 09:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

It's BS all right - went ahead and removed it. Nall (talk) 02:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Criticism of the perfect scoring games

Some criticism would be great. 97.118.63.76 (talk) 05:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Past Famitsu publications

Is there any legitimate reason to exclude well-sourced information on the magazine's past publications? Currently there are a handful of unsourced prior publications in this subsection. I had added information on several more past publications and had relied on the addition of this information to support the creation of a redirect for the names of some of these discontinued magazines. The importance for this derives from our ability to give readers in other articles some kind of explanation (as by linking) of what sort of RS we may be using at that other article. Thus, for example, if I cite to "Virtual Boy Tsushin" to bolster one of my claims in a Virtual Boy-related article, then I think it would benefit readers to be able to click the link on this term and arrive at the appropriate subsection mentioning it under the Famitsu article. If not a word exists that such an offshoot magazine ever existed, then this puts the citation and thus the reliable verifiable material at the other page in jeopardy. Surely it can't hurt to expand this article with these additions, right? Is there some reason why we want to keep this article at under 10k bytes when other notable publications regularly top 30k? -Thibbs (talk) 13:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I've re-added this material as there have been no objections to it. If new objections emerge, please bring it up in talk before removing it. Thanks. -Thibbs (talk) 15:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Famitsu mascot

Is there any legitimate reason to exclude well-sourced information on the magazine's mascot? Currently there is not a single line that covers this fact in the article. Compare this to Nintendo Power's subsection on its mascot Nester, PC Gamer's subsection on its mascot Coconut Monkey or Mad Magazine's subsection on its mascot, Alfred E. Neuman. The material I had added on the Famitsu mascot, Necky the Fox, was well-sourced by reliable sources. I'm completely at a loss. I apologize for characterizing your removal as vandalism, by the way User:Drakes Fortune. I assumed that's what it was because you gave no reason for reverting this clearly relevant sourced material and it looks like your account was created with this as its only purpose... Anyway I obviously disagree with your edits but it was wrong for me to say that they were vandalism. Please help me understand why you have reverted this material. -Thibbs (talk) 13:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I had a sudden thought: Perhaps you would be less averse to the addition if it took the form of a full subsection just as with NP, PC Gamer, and MAD? I would be glad to compromise to this if your concern was that Necky was receiving undue coverage as a percentage of the "Shūkan Famitsū" subsection. Does this sound reasonable? We could also add "expand section" tags to the "Shūkan Famitsū" subsection in the hopes that someone might then produce more information on the magazine proper. -Thibbs (talk) 15:40, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Magweasel is a personal blog, and the blog is not by a famous person. Therefore the source does not qualify as a reliable source.Drakes Fortune (talk) 05:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Magweasel is run by Kevin Gifford. He's a founding editor of 1up.com where he still is a contributing editor, he has also contributed articles to EGM, GMR, Xbox Nation and other gaming magazines of note. He currently writes for GameSetWatch - a notable gaming site that Wikipedia considers reliable - and look he has a MobyGames profile (listing him as a translator and English localizer on as many as 9 video games). I'd say he's a pretty reliable commentator within the world of gaming. This isn't some random fanboy blog I chose as a source. This guy is qualified. Anyway you have chosen only one source to find fault with and ignored the other two. If this is just a problem about sources then rest assured I can find solid sourcing. Famitsu itself credits Susumu Matsushita. So Famitsu could be used as a source here. Do you have any objection to the subsection that's not merely technical? -Thibbs (talk) 10:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

OK I've re-added this section since there seem to be no substantive objections. I created its own subsection for this material to be more consistent with the other gaming magazines' sections on their respective mascots. If there are still objections to the sources then please do not revert this clearly relevant material but instead simply place "citation needed" or other similar tags to the end of the line that is contested. We can discuss the removal of any material here in talk if editors feel that it should be excluded. Thanks! -Thibbs (talk) 15:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Perfect scores section

Shouldn't it be noted that Famitsu has in recent years gotten much more generous in their scoring? In the first 20 years of the magazine's existence, there were six perfect scores. The next three years produced another nine perfect scores. Quite a disparity. 24.214.230.66 (talk) 06:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

They were paid off.184.96.242.187 (talk) 22:50, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Peace Walker

If Famitsu appears in-game, and its former EiC/current publisher appears in ads for the game, is that worth mentioning? Source — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkhawk (talk • contribs) 14:39, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Famitsu. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090505131303/http://kotaku.com/352151/gaming-magazine-totally-snubs-xbox-360 to http://kotaku.com/352151/gaming-magazine-totally-snubs-xbox-360

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:18, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

B's LOG

Hello! In response to some editors who are confused as to the validity of Famitsu's sister publication B's LOG, I have started a stub article about it. If you are interested, please contribute. Londonbeat41692 (talk) 11:38, 30 March 2021 (UTC)