Quantcast
A Nintendo action RPG, good idea or bad?

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - A Nintendo action RPG, good idea or bad?

Tagged games:

A Nintendo Action-RPG

Great idea! Lemme have it plx. 62 70.45%
 
Horrible idea! Are you tr... 2 2.27%
 
Meh. 4 4.55%
 
Could work, would need to see it first. 20 22.73%
 
Total:88
fatslob-:O said:
Wyrdness said:

Dude I've highlighted for a while what's contradicting you just read through your own posts, your many people don't care about certain games argument goes for many successful games as well your arguments at this point are loose and don't come together and it's becoming more clear that you improvized an argument to save face which has left you in a position of saying Shrek, Carnival Games and the like are better games then the majority of PS4/X1 games. The are various factors in Sales other then quality that drive them, Sonic's recent games have been bad with SB being terrible but it still sold decently because of the branding, I assure you that you could make a poor or mediocre game and stick any popular brand on it and it would outsell far better games.

Except there are more who care less about those games compared to other games so instead you just resorted to twisting my words to fit your argument. Nothing is going to change the fact that more people care about COD than SotC or Fire Emblem. So what if Shrek or Carnival Games are better than some of the AAA games on the PS4/X1 ? Quality is the only way to drive sales whether you like it or not. Sonic Boom sold decently ?! 200K is laughable just so you know ...

Wyrdness said:

I'll highlight one last time where you have contradicted yourself, you said in an earlier post that it's the consumer that quality matters to yet your focal points are that of the company, under your logic Michael Bay makes the best films because of his success when it's far from the truth if anything success is never an indicator of quality as quality is defined by the overall merits of the product itself, things we find out from playing them. A well made car will always be that regardless of how much it sells same with games, but this is where the contradictions begin you say that you only measure by success and profits yet the games you were trying to dismiss earlier have just that, on the M&L side Bowser's Inside Story has sold around 3.8m, Dream Team has sold about 1.8m while on the Paper Mario side TTYD sold 2.25m, SPM sold 3.69m and Sticker Star sold 2.13M.

Again with your twisting ...

Mario & Luigi weren't the ONLY games I were referring to and anything within the range of 1-2 million is "average", not particularly "great" ...

Wyrdness said:

Moving futher on Awakening sold 1.53m, with Golden Sun the original sold 1.75m and lost age sold 1.2m and when we come to Pokemon which consistently hits 10m each installment your original stance against them falls apart under your own very logic as these games are outselling most RPGs and matching the likes of series like Mass Effect which blows your whole stance about them not being top tier RPGs to pieces under the very logic you have just highlighted. If you don't want to admit contradiction here then fair enough keep arguing the stance as every post you add further mocks yous at this point.

Once again some of those games fall under "average", not "great" with the exception of pokemon ... 

Just so you know I wasn't dismissing every RPG from Nintendo but once again you put words in my mouth that I didn't utter ... 

FWIW, MOST of the RPGs from Nintendo aren't top tier ...

Wyrdness said:

Ironic you using strawman argument in your post as I've highlighted the flaws in your posts you haven't once countered any argument in this thread that people have put forward and instead have sidestepped all of them. 

The only one using strawman here is you ...

Wyrdness said:

The position you're in right now with your argument is that your logic in sales equals quality flat out debunks yourself at the same time, at this point your only course of action will be to try and move goal posts again and start saying only a certain amount of sales count like how you tried to discount Golden Sun earlier as a first party RPG. You've put yourself in a situation where you can't argue quality on a game's merits which funny enough would have suited your stance better but instead you went with logic that actually countered your very own arguments earlier. Finally nope GC's profits games came from software sold on the platform like every other home console from Nintendo and the fact it made profits further stings your points.

This is not addressing my points, it's pure deriding on your part ... 

How exactly did I move goal posts when it was somewhat clear in referring to sales milestons and in-house developed RPGs ? What's more is that the OP SPECIFICALLY stated "Nintendo's unique take" so explain how exactly Nintendo's take = Gamefreak's take ? 

How long are you going to keep up this Argumentum ad lapidem

GC making profit is mostly besides all this but no one can deny that most of Nintendo's profits were attributed to the GBA ... 

Wyrdness said:

Congratulations on that.

It's pretty clear that your not interested in addressing the argument but since this is getting off-topic there's no point in continuing this farce with you ...

Au revoir ...


Well done you post a reply that failed to address any points at all, so you're saying the Shrek and Carnival Games are better then the majority of X1 and PS4 games based off sales alone? Good thing you're not in any X1/PS4 forum or any other boards as you'd be lucky to be taken seriously in any future debate also note how you ignored someone else who pointed out how silly the logic you're trying to push.

As I predicted you'd move goal posts and start saying only a certain amount of sales equals a certain amount of quality, you're transparent at this point and have been found out hard, it's not me twisting your words it's your own words coming back to haunt you. We were talking about Nintendo's RPGs and I told you to give your definition of quality and you came out with sales and profit, you realize now how that contradicts your early ramblings so have now adjusted goal posts even more to try and suit your argument which was improvized from the get go.

Explain in logical terms how unit sales measure quality especially Nuvendil highlight how broken your logic is, no in fact lets go one better, lets take your exact argument in here and put it forward to the whole forum, go on lets go, word for word start a topic in the general explaining your logic and how you think Carnival Games and so on are better the the likes of ICO etc... and lets link this topic as well so people can read your posts.

Explain how sales equal quality and how 2m sales means a game is average, put your money where your mouth is.



Around the Network
Wyrdness said:


Well done you post a reply that failed to address any points at all, so you're saying the Shrek and Carnival Games are better then the majority of X1 and PS4 games based off sales alone? Good thing you're not in any X1/PS4 forum or any other boards as you'd be lucky to be taken seriously in any future debate also note how you ignored someone else who pointed out how silly the logic you're trying to push.

As I predicted you'd move goal posts and start saying only a certain amount of sales equals a certain amount of quality, you're transparent at this point and have been found out hard, it's not me twisting your words it's your own words coming back to haunt you. We were talking about Nintendo's RPGs and I told you to give your definition of quality and you came out with sales and profit, you realize now how that contradicts your early ramblings so have now adjusted goal posts even more to try and suit your argument which was improvized from the get go.

Explain in logical terms how unit sales measure quality especially Nuvendil highlight how broken your logic is, no in fact lets go one better, lets take your exact argument in here and put it forward to the whole forum, go on lets go, word for word start a topic in the general explaining your logic and how you think Carnival Games and so on are better the the likes of ICO etc... and lets link this topic as well so people can read your posts.

Explain how sales equal quality and how 2m sales means a game is average, put your money where your mouth is.

Still see that your not addressing my argument ...

What does the criteria of quality = sales mean in your example ? Why even ask the question at all when the answer is simple ? 

You pointing out Nuvendil's rebuttal towards me is irrelevant in this back and forth between you and I ... 

A certain amount of sales has ALWAYS meant a certain amount of quality, plain and simple. Anyone would've came to that conclusion with a little more thinking. There was no moving goal posts here, just you twisting my words out of context ...

Just how many more empty accusations are you going to keep pulling on me ? 

As to how quality = sales it's because CONSUMERS define what is and what isn't a quality product, not a bunch of strangers from the internet like you or others would suggest ... 

2 million units is pretty average all things considered when you look at how a lot of the AAA games today are able to reach that milestone ...



fatslob-:O said:
Bad idea ...

RPGs are one of Nintendo's weaker areas when it comes to that genre ...

Is this the post where it all started?

Whether you use Metascore, user reviews, sales or fandom as the metric, the result is always the same: Your post is plain stupid. I haven't read much of the subsequent posts, but if the basis is stupidity, then defending it will inevitably lead to more stupidity.

Feel free to provide me with a summary of your "argument", then I can decide if I should call you an idiot or not.



Legend11 correctly predicted that GTA IV (360+PS3) would outsell SSBB. I was wrong.

A Biased Review Reloaded / Open Your Eyes / Switch Gamers Club

oh gosh I think this escalated sometime between page 1 and 10 LOL

ahem so my opinion on the original topic is something like "that might be cool but I don't really have a big craving for it". Not only is couch co-op for an RPG hard, but I feel like the type of game you're mentioning is in such a niche that it's not in very high demand--you can kind of get bits and pieces of the experience by playing other games.

So it would be nice, but I don't think it's really uh, high-priority right now, or something. XP



RolStoppable said:

Is this the post where it all started?

Whether you use Metascore, user reviews, sales or fandom as the metric, the result is always the same: Your post is plain stupid. I haven't read much of the subsequent posts, but if the basis is stupidity, then defending it will inevitably lead to more stupidity.

Feel free to provide me with a summary of your "argument", then I can decide if I should call you an idiot or not.

Then feel free to call me an idiot ... 

End of day ... 



Around the Network

I agree. I was thinking the same thing fairly recently and with the control scheme options it could be very very good. Since Diablo is so much point and click, the gamepad would work great, and for a second control scheme a Wii remote could be used. Part of what makes those games so great are the simplicity of control so that would need to translate over. These games are great for couch co-op, especially the likes of Gauntlet.
Yes, Nintendo should absolutely have one of their studios do this, probably intelligent systems since they have so much experience with games that use rts and rpg elements.



Gotta figure out how to set these up lol.

fatslob-:O said:

Still see that your not addressing my argument ...

What does the criteria of quality = sales mean in your example ? Why even ask the question at all when the answer is simple ? 

You pointing out Nuvendil's rebuttal towards me is irrelevant in this back and forth between you and I ... 

A certain amount of sales has ALWAYS meant a certain amount of quality, plain and simple. Anyone would've came to that conclusion with a little more thinking. There was no moving goal posts here, just you twisting my words out of context ...

Just how many more empty accusations are you going to keep pulling on me ? 

As to how quality = sales it's because CONSUMERS define what is and what isn't a quality product, not a bunch of strangers from the internet like you or others would suggest ... 

2 million units is pretty average all things considered when you look at how a lot of the AAA games today are able to reach that milestone ...


Except I've addressed all your points no need to even repeat myself, at this point you just don't want to acknowledge it and continue to side step which is why I dare you to bring your logic to the rest of the forum and even link our whole conversation for reference, I wait to see if you even really have the balls to really stand by your improvized logic or whether it was just a broken attempt to defend your earlier posts and refuse to hold your hands up. I'm not the only one calling you at this point or to start off with go figure, we'll talk once the thread is up, your call.



fatslob-:O said:

Still see that your not addressing my argument ...

What does the criteria of quality = sales mean in your example ? Why even ask the question at all when the answer is simple ? 

You pointing out Nuvendil's rebuttal towards me is irrelevant in this back and forth between you and I ... 

A certain amount of sales has ALWAYS meant a certain amount of quality, plain and simple. Anyone would've came to that conclusion with a little more thinking. There was no moving goal posts here, just you twisting my words out of context ...

Just how many more empty accusations are you going to keep pulling on me ? 

As to how quality = sales it's because CONSUMERS define what is and what isn't a quality product, not a bunch of strangers from the internet like you or others would suggest ... 

2 million units is pretty average all things considered when you look at how a lot of the AAA games today are able to reach that milestone ...

So you're saying games like Pac-Man and E.T. on the Atari are better quality games than FE:A and Xenoblade that sold signifacantly less?

To OP: Maybe Fire Emblem x Shin Megami Tensei might fill the void once we get more info :P



I'd like to see a 3d secret of mana. I think that would fit in the Nintendo universe very well. Just borrow the time, the co-op, the cutesy feel, the weapon system and you've got gold. I'm not sure how well it would sell, but it'd be a ton of fun to play. As an added bonus, allow the game to switch between 2d and 3d at will to really give it a kick in the nostalgia pants.



fatslob-:O said:
Wyrdness said:


Well done you post a reply that failed to address any points at all, so you're saying the Shrek and Carnival Games are better then the majority of X1 and PS4 games based off sales alone? Good thing you're not in any X1/PS4 forum or any other boards as you'd be lucky to be taken seriously in any future debate also note how you ignored someone else who pointed out how silly the logic you're trying to push.

As I predicted you'd move goal posts and start saying only a certain amount of sales equals a certain amount of quality, you're transparent at this point and have been found out hard, it's not me twisting your words it's your own words coming back to haunt you. We were talking about Nintendo's RPGs and I told you to give your definition of quality and you came out with sales and profit, you realize now how that contradicts your early ramblings so have now adjusted goal posts even more to try and suit your argument which was improvized from the get go.

Explain in logical terms how unit sales measure quality especially Nuvendil highlight how broken your logic is, no in fact lets go one better, lets take your exact argument in here and put it forward to the whole forum, go on lets go, word for word start a topic in the general explaining your logic and how you think Carnival Games and so on are better the the likes of ICO etc... and lets link this topic as well so people can read your posts.

Explain how sales equal quality and how 2m sales means a game is average, put your money where your mouth is.

Still see that your not addressing my argument ...

What does the criteria of quality = sales mean in your example ? Why even ask the question at all when the answer is simple ? 

You pointing out Nuvendil's rebuttal towards me is irrelevant in this back and forth between you and I ... 

A certain amount of sales has ALWAYS meant a certain amount of quality, plain and simple. Anyone would've came to that conclusion with a little more thinking. There was no moving goal posts here, just you twisting my words out of context ...

Just how many more empty accusations are you going to keep pulling on me ? 

As to how quality = sales it's because CONSUMERS define what is and what isn't a quality product, not a bunch of strangers from the internet like you or others would suggest ... 

2 million units is pretty average all things considered when you look at how a lot of the AAA games today are able to reach that milestone ...

No, consumers define what is popular.  Quality and popularity do not necessarily go hand in hand; there are objective princples and criteria to evaluate the quality of a creation as a representation of the given medium.  These facts have been recognized for millenia.  You can rail against the quality of this particular oponent's arguments, but you are arguing in reality with a large number of great thinkers from history going back to Aristotle and Poetics.  If not further. 

You can sell anything to anyone with the right marketing.  A man named Gary Dahl sold 1.5 million pet *rocks*.  Rocks.  A rock in a box.