Talk:1996 in video games

Harvest Moon
Well, Harvest Moon on SNES came out in Japan on August 9th, 1996. It spawned a franchise that is ongoing to this day. Can this be added to the list? And Thus, I Can Do It (talk) 02:03, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Realms of the Haunting
Realms of the Haunting, which is in the list of critically acclaimed games, wasn't released in 1996. It was released in 1997. I can see why it says December 31 (because the exact day is unknown), but should it be moved to '1997 in video games'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PS4Fanboy1232 (talk • contribs) 20:38, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:2023 in video games which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 18:21, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Why Is Famitsu A Top Source?
Why is Famitsu singled out and given a specific listing of their rankings for video games in 1996? They are not particularly well-known, do not have a significant amount of circulation compared to the likes of say, Game Informer, and are focused primarily on Japanese releases instead of international releases. Seems odd to include them individually here. Even EGM would be a better option for including a singled-out reviewer source. In fact, looking at the overall "(Years) in video games", there seems to be a spotty inclusion of Famitsu, and it seems more ideological than anything, with someone in particular trying to push a specific angle. I'm going to remove that listing until someone can give me a justified inclusion of it over any other reviewer source. LuckyLopp (talk) 03:59, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Famitsu is the most widely read gaming magazine in Japan and is highly respected for the most part. Circulation comparison isn't a very good metric given a magazine in the United States will more often than not have a higher circulation due to population despite the quality of the magazine. Famitsu is used primarily to mention Japanese contributions to gaming and a broader understanding of the region's take in the gaming community. I've never seen it ever used as the only source or for non-Japanese related content. Unless you know of another Japanese gaming magazine that is more respected to be used as a source for Japanese related information, I think it should be kept. PrincessKaori94 (talk) 3:46, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * There doesn't need to be a regional section for different cultures takes on the gaming medium as a whole. That's why they are all listed collectively in blocks. Furthermore, Japan already is mentioned and given credence through acknowledgement of their "GOTY" awards through their CESA award listing under various Game of The Year Award listings. Famitsu being highly read in Japan is irrelevant and the respect they garner is relative. Taking a look at your profile, I can easily see why you would support keeping it, but it clearly projects cultural favoritism and you appear to be coming from a biased perspective. It needs to go.LuckyLopp (talk) 06:49, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "Taking a look at your profile, I can easily see why you would support keeping it, but it clearly projects cultural favoritism and you appear to be coming from a biased perspective." Do not ever say this again, as it can be considered a personal attack. Firstly, you don't remove swathes of cited information in an article without consensus, and you failed to do so. Secondly, I've watched these articles for years and you're the only one that's complained about these lists being in these articles, so no, they don't "need to go". ♠ JCW555  (talk)  ♠ 08:10, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "Do not ever say this again," - Bias and favoritism is a legitimate complaint and does not equate to a personal attack, especially when she advertises it. Try spooking someone else with your scary bold text. Try reading the rules. She inserted a niche, yes, niche reviewer source that is not published outside of Japan as an overall metric. "Firstly, you don't remove swathes of cited information in an article without consensus," - It was not "swathes", it was a single block of reviews from the same source. "Swathes" denotes plural, as if I removed multiple sections of text/info, which I didn't. "Secondly, I've watched these articles for years and you're the only one that's complained about these lists being in these articles, so no, they don't "need to go"" - Citing a lack of complaints is not an excuse for the legitimacy of something. LuckyLopp (talk) 02:36, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Accusing editors of "bias" and "favoritism" with the flimsy evidence you have certainly is a personal attack, and you need to stop now. You certainly did removes swathes of sourced info in different articles, as seen here. You didn't even wait for a reply before doing this either. I can definitely cite a lack of complaints to legitimize something. If editors don't mind if something is in an article for years, and and all of the sudden one person comes along and decides they don't like something and start removing things, people can be banned if they do that. I've seen that happen. Like I said earlier, you didn't even wait for a reply/consensus before you did the mass removals, which is unacceptable. ♠ JCW555  (talk)  ♠ 03:05, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay, well then maybe we can find a common ground to alter this section so it comes off less Japan-o-centric, since I've been looking over these articles, and I see metacritic scores, and then a big FAMITSU section plastered as its own thing as if it's something special, when almost no one outside of Japan reads them since they publish all of their articles in Japanese. Perhaps renaming it "Top Rated Titles" and including individual reviewer sources below it, such as Famitsu? This leaves the section open to addition from other review sources as well. LuckyLopp (talk) 03:17, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You claim the article is Japan-centric but even if you include the Famitsu list, 50% of the all content on the lists are US-based. 60% of the Game of the Year awards are from US-based publications compared to 20% from Japan and 20% from the UK. I mean there's even a "Top game rentals in the United States" list which only includes Super Mario RPG for four of the twelve months with no other games or months filled in. Japan-related content makes up only 25% of all the lists compared to 50% of the US; I'd hardly call that Japan-centric.
 * You claim that you removed "a single block of reviews from the same source" but it wasn't simply a random list of reviews but rather a list of games given Famitsu's Platinum Hall of Fame award for being the highest rated games of that year.
 * If Famitsu reviews aren't necessary because of the inclusion of Japanese publications in the Game of the Year list, then should we also remove Metacritic and GameRankings because the United States was clearly covered in the Game of the Year list with over 60% of the list being US-based publications? Also the magazine you stated as a possible better source (Game Informer) is only sold in the United States and the only other country to have had it was Australia (2009-2019). If Famitsu being Japan-only means it is niche, what makes the US-only Game Informer any less niche?
 * What makes United States game rentals important enough to have its own list? I'm not saying to remove it but if you're concerned with lists being unique to a single country, why not that one? Is it important to make a list just to say Super Mario RPG was the highest rented game in the United States from May to August of 1996? PrincessKaori94 (talk) 02:30, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't see anyone saying Famitsu reviews aren't necessary, I DO see someone asking why they are being given a pedestal above the rest. And for the record, Famitsu is a Japanese-only publication. On top of this, they do not have a particularly large circulation, so it is somewhat odd to include it in the meta-data for "TOP RATED GAMES" and emphasize it over other more prominent magazines. Metacritic and Gamerankings includes all sources from every country. Having Famitsu as a sub-section that is part of a parent section makes sense. Singling Famitsu out for its own parent section does not make sense.
 * I encourage more editors to add other magazines/sources of note to the top-rated section as well. MutedL (talk) 23:13, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I assume that Famitsu is singled out because there aren't any aggregators that focus primarily on Japanese publications/sites like Metacritic and Gamerankings do with the NA/EU regions. It's a needle-in-a-haystack to find non-US/UK publications and sites as a source on Metacritic prior to 2004, nevermind a Japanese one that still is hard to find despite Metacritic's improvement in recent years of using sources from a multitude of countries.
 * It's not so much that Famitsu deserves praise over other publications but rather unlike the NA/EU regions, Japan as a region doesn't have an equivalent so using a highly popular magazine in the region is considered the the next best thing to include a region that those aggregators most often ignore.
 * This wouldn't be so bad if Metacritic allowed you to add critic reviews or even suggest them, but games that they didn't search for a Japanese source will never have a score that included them. Given the list is based on a certain percent, there are many games on the list that might not be on it or games that might have reached that 88% mark if all of the Japanese reviews had been added.
 * As I said though, Metacritic has improved slightly in adding more European countries and not just US/UK-based publications and sites, but finding a Japanese source even for a new game such as Tekken 8 is incredibly hard to find. Ghost of Tsushima was widely popular in and out of Japan and given a perfect score by Famitsu but still wasn't one of the sources used for the 132 critic reviews nevermind any Japanese publication or site. Gamerankings, however, never used a source outside of US/UK-based publications and sites based on my research using archive.org. PrincessKaori94 (talk) 07:06, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Famitsu does not do the same thing that Metacritic does. They are not comparable. One collects reviews and gives an averaged score and the other actually reviews the material. Nor do I see why Famitsu itself should be singled out in particular apart from any other country reviewer from another country, like say Korea, or Germany, or France. At the very least it should be restructured to place Famitsu below the generalized sources that give broad ratings for games, like Metacritic. It's going to give a more accurate general consensus on the games than a singular local publication. MutedL (talk) 00:28, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I never said it did nor did I say they are comparable. I simply said that someone likely singled out Famitsu because Japan itself doesn't have any review aggregator sites and it was the best known source for a score to an entire region that was all but missing from Metacritic and Gamerankings's scores and assumed that it was better than nothing.
 * However, I think it would probably be better to replace all three with MobyGames' scores for each console given it uses the same sources as Metacritic and Gamerankings but allows people to add critic reviews that haven't yet been mentioned which Metacritic doesn't do. Famitsu might not be a source on many of the critic review scores on MobyGames, but they have the ability to be added which is more than I can say for Metacritic or Gamerankings. MobyGames also includes games released on consoles prior to 1996, which is better than sites that require a re-release on the original PlayStation or later released console in order to have a score.
 * Metacritic's overall critic review score for Zelda II: The Adventure of Link would only include the 2004 Game Boy Advance port, whereas MobyGames has critic reviews for all versions including the original NES release and has the potential to include the Famitsu review. PrincessKaori94 (talk) 07:02, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why metacritic does not include certain reviewer sources over others, but it is an accredited source and should be treated as such that includes reviews from more sources than just America.
 * As for Mobygames, if someone is willing to add it then they can go right ahead, but I'm not sure if it's considered a credible source by Wikipedia. Metacritic is, which is why it's used for rankings from video games to movies. That being said, it still makes more sense to include aggregators above individual reviewers. That's usually how they do it on every movie and video game page on Wikipedia, so it should be reflected here too. MutedL (talk) 03:42, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I guess it is likely because they go for easier to find sources; I just feel it does a disservice to not go the extra mile when it helps broaden the score beyond the west, especially given Japan has been a major region for gaming since the '80s. I don't think anyone thinks of gaming in the '80s and '90s and doesn't think once of Japan. So to see nothing when it comes to the opinions of Japanese critics feels like like something is missing.
 * As for MobyGames, the consensus on whether it is a credible source seems hotly debated. I think some people have an issue with the site overall being user-submitted, but others feel that other sections being admin-reviewed helps prevent it from being similar to GameFAQs. Some aspects, such as the credits section, have been used in books as a credible source according to the talk page.
 * As for their reviews, there seems to be a dislike their official Moby Score which adds both user reviews and critic reviews together to create a score. I would never suggest using that but rather only the critic score itself. These reviews show the source as to which magazine, the year and issue of that magazine or a link to the site if it is an online review so that people can observe these reviews first hand.
 * I agree that it is better than individual reviewers. I was more just worried that by removing Famitsu it would lead to an echo chamber where only games that were highly praised in the west but panned in Japan would be seen as what was "successful" and games that were decently praised in the west and highly praised in Japan would get ignored because Japan's opinion would be omitted leaving only the slightly above agerage scores from the west.
 * I might see if I can gather up all the scores of games in the released section and add the ones that are above 88% or 90% to a list, if that is fine. PrincessKaori94 (talk) 04:41, 21 March 2024 (UTC)