Famitsu still reputable?

[TrueKnight]

Fallout 3 is awesome just not because the graphic, because it's what you called a 'true' RPG in a sense with insane amount of freedom of what you want to be. Be it good or evil, a gunslinger, melee master, a lockpick thief, a ninja, laser weapon expert or many others. The fact you can shape the way the world sees you is awesome, be it good, savior or hostile. The high amount explorations of the Capital Wasteland where you could find many unexpected places or sidequests that requires your participation are also what made the game's awesome.

Of course, this game is not for everyone.

But I could judge and state reasons why Fallout 3 is superior in a sense than Valkyria Chronicles, Tales of Vesperia, Fable II, Infinite Discovery or the Last Remnant, which I have played them all considerablely and finished.

It's not really a surprise why it had won GotY awards in the RPG category really...

[Kusa-San]

Not agree. A true RPG is not only made of freedom. What's made an RPG a very Good RPG is also the dialogue, the interaction between group member. For me one of the best RPG is clearly Baldur's Gate 2. The interaction in this game is just great !

[Spitfire]

Originally Posted by Shadow Minato

Based on the trailer, I think Fallout 3 is sort of like Fable 2, except that it is FPS yet at the same time it is also one of the better Western RPGs with awesome graphics.

/watch?v=iLwcrztpJao[/youtube][/spoiler]

Wait....so you think Fallout 3 is not a good game...yet you have not actually played it. At least, that's what it sounds like your saying.

[TrueKnight]

Baldur's Gate II is one of the best RPG I've ever played and I agree about the interactions is good. Fallout 3 is also about interaction, but it's not between party members like BG II or most jRPGs in a sense, it's between 'you' and the world (countless NPCs who're giving you quests) on how they react on what you do and what you act. Countless of choice of interactions of what you want from them, in case with giving help, is it for free? you want money? or you want items? Heck, you can basically killed an NPC who's giving you the quest if you don't like it, or massacre an entire town and make people dread on you.

[kujoe]

The situations for roleplay are kind of monotonous though. It's either "need some help?", "pay me money" or "screw you asshole!" Perhaps that's due to the setting with the Capital Wasteland being just that: a wasteland. Personally, I think the locales on the West Coast are more interesting.

I also miss Traits from the older games. In Fallout 3, Traits have been merged with Perks. It's simpler in that regard, but I miss some of the Traits (such as "Gifted") since it brought more to the table in terms character building.

[Clarste]

Maybe I'm just crazy, but I find games like Fallout 3 to be extremely boring. Yeah, there's a lot of freedom, but they completely failed at the most important part, which is making me care. I couldn't get immersed in the world at all, and the mechanics of the game systems aren't very interesting on their own. Plus, I hate dialog trees. Giving every random NPC a thorough interview isn't a very interesting way of doing exposition.

That said, I also found FFXII to be very boring. And Last Remnant. Maybe I've just lost all patience for dungeon crawling, or maybe its because Squeenix's new preferred art style seems uninspired and kind of uninteresting to look at. Probably a combination of both. Dungeon design has fallen to the point where I don't feel like I'm making progress in dungeons; every room looks like the last one. I miss fixed camera angles. At least that way you can create the illusion of distinct rooms.

What recent RPGs do I like? I liked ToV and VC, despite some pretty big flaws (too many missable sidequests and an abusable battle system, respectively). I also rather liked Lost Oddessy despite some pretty horrible plotting and characterization (with the exception of the dreams, which were awesome). Hmm.

[Shadow Kira01]

Mind if I ask, what is VC?

[Clarste]

Originally Posted by Shadow Minato

Mind if I ask, what is VC?

Valkyria Chronicles

[Sides]

Originally Posted by TrueKnight

But I could judge and state reasons why Fallout 3 is superior in a sense than Valkyria Chronicles, Tales of Vesperia, Fable II, Infinite Discovery or the Last Remnant, which I have played them all considerablely and finished.

No, come on Valkyria Chronicles is more like T-RPG on a console, where as Fallout 3 a paper and pen game. It is like comparing Warhammer 40k with Shadowrun, just no.

[TrueKnight]

Like I said Fallout 3 is not for everyone. Fallout 3 is western rpg to the core where you made your own decision on what you want to do and to be from your point of view. Jrpgs like ToV and VC are where you become gods and could see what your enemies are talking about, more like an interactive movie.

Originally Posted by Sides

No, come on Valkyria Chronicles is more like T-RPG on a console, where as Fallout 3 a paper and pen game. It is like comparing Warhammer 40k with Shadowrun, just no.

Sorry to say, but Valkyria Chronicles and Fallout 3 are both nominated in an RPG category by game reviewers alike. What you meant is Fallout 3 is more like a pen and paper RPG and should be compared with other pen and paper RPGs like Mass Effects, while VC is more like a Tactical/Strategy RPG and should be compared with other tactical RPGs like Disgaea.

But both are still RPGs and nominated in the same category.

[Kaioshin Sama]

Famitsu is about as trustworthy as mobster. They'll give you protection from bad reviews and make sure you come out ahead as long as you give them a cut and do them a favour every now and then but stop playing ball and you might run into some misfortune in the coming reviews.

[Westlo]

[PS3/360] Sonic World Adventure　9997

No it's not.

[Sides]

Originally Posted by TrueKnight

Sorry to say, but Valkyria Chronicles and Fallout 3 are both nominated in an RPG category by game reviewers alike. What you meant is Fallout 3 is more like a pen and paper RPG and should be compared with other pen and paper RPGs like Mass Effects, while VC is more like a Tactical/Strategy RPG and should be compared with other tactical RPGs like Disgaea.

But both are still RPGs and nominated in the same category.

The whole problem are "game reviewers" and analyst, without degrees and knowledge in there working field, who gives them the right to make such judgements. It is like giving a sales person, with no expertise in banking, a senior bank manager position, and we all know and experiencing what the result is.
Game reviewers and analysts are overrated, the only thing that they like to do is box titles into genres and try to manipulate people how to perceive games. If the developers and publisher were smart, they would arrange first play party for gaming enthusiasts, where they allow the public to review their games and ask for their feedbacks. Cutting out game reviewers is the way forward, their options are useless, what counts is what the consumer thinks.

BTW T-RPG, is if i remember correctly tabletop-RPG, at least that's what an old japanese friend told me.

[Kusa-San]

Yep in a french site, VC is in Tactic/Action category so it's fit the Tactic/RPG category

[TrueKnight]

Originally Posted by sides

The whole problem are "game reviewers" and analyst, without degrees and knowledge in there working field, who gives them the right to make such judgements. It is like giving a sales person, with no expertise in banking, a senior bank manager position, and we all know and experiencing what the result is.
Game reviewers and analysts are overrated, the only thing that they like to do is box titles into genres and try to manipulate people how to perceive games. If the developers and publisher were smart, they would arrange first play party for gaming enthusiasts, where they allow the public to review their games and ask for their feedbacks. Cutting out game reviewers is the way forward, their options are useless, what counts is what the consumer thinks.

These so called reviewers, manipulators as you see are happen to be game analysts working in a legally incorporated entity which are established for this purpose. I happen to know one of these guys, work with them and giving them advices in law related matter on these subjects.

Sir, may I ask just what your specialty and capacity, entitling you to give views based on your opinion?

EDIT: I'm sorry for not being clear enough. In the endpeople are entitled to voice their opinion on this matter. However I need to inform you the standards for these categories, RPGs, actions games, simulators, have been widely accepted in conventiions and business alike, hence creating an international standard that would simply apply and accepted by public.

The immunities that the reviewers have is related with giving reviews and scores where they can't simply be sued or claimed for giving misleading informations to public.

[Sides]

Originally Posted by TrueKnight

Sir, may I ask just what your specialty and capacity, entitling you to give views based on your opinion?

Well, unlike them i'm not paid to sell anything, magazine, paper or a game title.

Originally Posted by TrueKnight

EDIT: I'm sorry for not being clear enough. In the end, people are entitled to voice their opinion on this matter. However I need to inform you the standards for these categories, RPGs, actions games, simulators, have been widely accepted in conventiions and business alike, hence creating an international standard that would simply apply and accepted by public.

The immunities that the reviewers have is related with giving reviews and scores where they can't simply be sued or claimed for giving misleading informations to public.

Well i'm not talking about right, in terms or law. I'm talking about why publisher think that options of a self declared game reviewer, or hardcore gamer, is more important than the option of end consumer, people who actually buy the game titles. How can the publishers/devs think that these so-called professionals, who probably studied psychology in secondary school and has an A++ in their mothertongue, actually represents their buyers.
Now lets get back to Famitsu, we all know these rumors about how the ads bought by publishers influence the scoring in their reviews. If that is true, how can a review be justified? Or put it that way, how impartial are they, when they write their reviews. Look, game reviewer are sometimes be call journalists as well, but you really want to refer to them as that? As far as i can see only a very few can be called gaming journalist, because they don't care about their relationship between them and the devs/publishers, obviously these people end up getting transfered to the teaboy department.

[2H-Dragon]

Originally Posted by Sides

Now lets get back to Famitsu, we all know these rumors about how the ads bought by publishers influence the scoring in their reviews. If that is true, how can a review be justified? Or put it that way, how impartial are they, when they write their reviews. Look, game reviewer are sometimes be call journalists as well, but you really want to refer to them as that? As far as i can see only a very few can be called gaming journalist, because they don't care about their relationship between them and the devs/publishers, obviously these people end up getting transfered to the teaboy department.

You know what the thing is scores and experiences from game reviewers are bullshit. I get a more acurate idea from usermade reviews on gamefaqs. The fanboys and flamers make valid points on the good and the bad.

A review in my eyes is good enough if it gives enough solid info on the game. Things like is it buggy is the online multiplayer streamlined. Simple things like that give an idea on what kind of game it is and what the production value are. In the end a review is never enough to justify or condemn a buy(unless it's getting 6's by everyone then it's generally a bad game).

Reviews have fooled me quite a bit. With FFXII they forgot to mention that the storyline is broken. With Fallout 3 they forgot to say the game plays like crap. Immersion great freedom. What's the point in freedom if everything looks like shit. After playing it for a while I just stopped and started playing something else.

On the other hand reviewers can't really get me hyped. You can't realize how awesome MGS4 is unless you have played it(the short sequence in the credit kinda ruined the game for me though). You can't understand how good GeOW2 unless you play it. Since you can't understand how it plays from just reading reviews.

edit: Oh yeah reviewers also forgot how broken the GeOW2 online mulitplayer is though they fixed a lot with the patch. It's still far from perfect(halo 3 shows how online multi-player should be done).

[Shadow Kira01]

Originally Posted by Sides

Well, unlike them i'm not paid to sell anything, magazine, paper or a game title.

However, they are gaming journalists and you are just another gamer. It does make a difference. Famitsu has access to information regarding a game even before its releases, during the stages of development, and sometimes get to try the demos before anybody else.

The differences between gaming journalists and regular journalists is that instead of doing research and field work, they get to play video games. Lucky!!

[TrueKnight]

Originally Posted by ”Sides”

Well i'm not talking about right, in terms or law.

Okay, so we’re deviating from an acceptable and applicable market practice in the business, focusing on opinions. Fair enough.

Originally Posted by ”Sides”

I'm talking about why publisher think that options of a self declared game reviewer, or hardcore gamer, is more important than the option of end consumer, people who actually buy the game titles. How can the publishers/devs think that these so-called professionals, who probably studied psychology in secondary school and has an A++ in their mothertongue, actually represents their buyers.

If you talking about reviewers or hardcore gamers who give judgment and are employed in a company established for that purpose in the news business, then yes they are journalist. Yes they are considered ‘professionals’ in that department because it’s their line of business.

Oh and the so called ‘end consumers’ for these publishers makes up a large portion of the gaming world’s market share. In other words, they are the casual gamer’s instead hardcore ones.

Here’s what I want to point out. What they (the reviewers) give if merely recommendations and guidance alike, examples:

a. in stock exchanges, for casual or new people who’re not familiar with the system they will need guidance before entering the business. Why? Because basically they don’t want buy or invest their money on crappy products.

So how actually these ‘casual people’ or new investors enter the market? By hiring financial securities companies or by reading reviews (example: Bloomberg, or MSN CNBC). Here the reviewers only give recommendation on what stock you should or not buy and in the end it’s up to the investors themselves. But for the reviewers it’s already their line of business and they have every capacity to present their knowledge and judgments.

b. in property, same as above, for ‘casual or new people who’re not familiar with the property they will need guidance before buying a house or land. Why? Because basically (i) they don’t want buy an overpriced crap with minimum quality; and (ii) minimizing the risks that could arise from buying the product. So how they’ll make sure they buy a house or land without all that hassle above? By hiring a property consultant or reading reviews published by property magazines. The function and duty of the property reviewers are essentially the same of what I mentioned in the stock aspects.

c. (a) and (b) could simply apply in cars, televisions, gadgets, and yes, even [b] video games [b];

d. From point (a) to (c) there are experts on the field, which are, (i) in case of stock exchange, veteran/hardcore investors, (ii) in case of property, property owners/practitioners or investors; and finally (iii) in case of cars, televisions, or in this specific case, video games, the hardcore gamers/practitioners. These are the ones that simply bash all points (a) to (c) above because they already have long hours and the experience on that particular fields. Some who are not successful, become nothing more but being forgotten. Some who are successful, try to keep a low profile. But the rest of them who happen to be successful in what they do, become reviewers and consultants alike who give service in these particular subjects.

I hope you understand what I’m trying to make here.

Originally Posted by ”Sides”

Now lets get back to Famitsu, we all know these rumors about how the ads bought by publishers influence the scoring in their reviews. If that is true, how can a review be justified? Or put it that way, how impartial are they, when they write their reviews.

Im not going into this because this is your right to give your own opinion outside the applicable market practice.

Originally Posted by ”Sides”

Look, game reviewer are sometimes be call journalists as well, but you really want to refer to them as that? As far as i can see only a very few can be called gaming journalist, because they don't care about their relationship between them and the devs/publishers, obviously these people end up getting transfered to the teaboy department.

See my previous points, but I won’t go between the relationship between the media publishers and developers. *cough* Famitsu and Squeenix. >.>

[meh]

Originally Posted by Shinndou

Their scores are sometimes are incomprehensible (9 for Haze? What the...), but if you read their reviews most of the times they nail down the major pros and cons of a game (like in Last Remnant's case, or like in White Knight Chronicles' one). The score depends on how much they value both cons and pros. In Last Remnant's case all the technical glitches were considered pretty almost irrelevant and they rated it that high because of nice battle system it has. Which is also why they rated WKC not so high (which has a pretty much not-so-great battle system).

QFT.

I personally think the score for any review is the most irrelevant part. The most important part is talking about the game in detail so you know whether it's your cup of tea or not. Some people may like generic stories while others want something off-beat. Some may like hard battles while others prefer a less strenuous gameplay.

In the end, as long as a review is informative, that's all you can ask for. Then decide for your own whether you'll like it or not. If you just buy games based on the scores, then you better have the exact same taste as the reviewer.