Anyways, you're making me stray away from my point.

The Wii is not the "definitive JRPG" console, and it has WAYS to go before it can compare itself to the PS2.

wow man keep ur opinion to ur self!!! i personally dont care for them alot but i gots tons of friends that do and everyone has their own personal taste.

You keep defaulting back to "big" RPGs but RPGs are niche by default. When you talk about "big" RPGs you can only bring up two developers: Nintendo and Square Enix. Everyone else is fighting for scraps. Because Nintendo and Square Enix are outnumbered by a vast majority, it's impossible to try to use one of their franchises as a sole qualifier to be the definitive console for that genre. This is why FF13 not being on the Wii (for now) doesn't stop the Wii from being the definitive JRPG console. Of course more people want to FF13 than various new IPs, FF wouldn't be the long running franchise that it is if it didn't have rabid fanboys. That doesn't change that it's the only one on that side of the fence while everyone else is on the Wii. One game can't make something else not be definitive, especially when that one game isn't even exclusive.

And no, quality arguments still don't make sense because all you're stating is the obvious because the games aren't out yet.

Listen, I see that this is just going to go back and forth forever so I'm going to say my piece one last time.

1. No one is arguing against whether or not the Wii **will** or **will** not become the next dominant JRPG console. Heck, if anything, none of us knows. The only person that saying anything is you. You're going rampant over the fact that it's been picking up momemtum as of late and you're using that as a basis of it being the "definitive JRPG console".

The reason why you're wrong is because you're arrogantly touting "wii dominance" based off of what *will* be released in numbers. Yet up to now, you've been dismissing franchises such as SO, ToV, Mist Walker games, 13versus, WKC, or anything that can **Possibly** be released on any console other than the Wii. 

You'd have to be pretty dim to not realize that your point is premature and reckless. 

2. I'm using pure facts that you wish not to accept. JRPGs have never sold "great" when you throw the big hitters out of the equation. You use the word "table scraps" to define every other game, and you're basically right. 

It's going to be very likely that the Wii will not be anywhere close to the "definitive" JRPG console as the PS2 were, especially if the most popular 3rd party franchise is excluded (to this point).

Lastly... about the quality argument...

That's right, I am stating the obvious. The issue here is that you cannot accept the obvious. Do you still not see the correlation between me saying "you can't imply that the the Wii is 'the definitive JRPG console' with only upcomming titles" and the fact that "no one knows how well the games will turn out, because no one has played them yet"??? It's not hard to grasp.

Remember your initial argument. Throughout all these posts, it has slowly changed into something else. Where as mine has been restated and has been kept consistant the entire time. You're equation is clearly lopsided and flawed, and so is your definition of "definitive".

1. You keep saying that you're not arguing about the Wii's dominance, but then you throw around the PS2, and then you start prattling off the same games. The Wii is the dominant JRPG console now, and will continue to be the dominant JRPG console in the future without these games, so why do you keep bringing them up? If you say the Wii can be the dominant JRPG platform (as if it isn't already), wouldn't it be so even without the games you keep listing? I mean you keep proving my point, the Wii wins because it's getting support from more than the same two developers.

Jesus Christ. Either you don't know how to read or you're not reading at all.

So lets clear things up right now. If the Wii is the dominant JRPG console, then go ahead and throw out all the JRPs the Wii has. Go ahead. Since you seem to be confusing "now" with "later" so much, I'd like to see you argue with solid facts that actually exist.

Secondly. I bring up the fact that Wii *can* or *cannot* be the "definitive" JRPG console because I don't simply assume things. I said in the very beginning that your usage of the word "definitive" was in awful taste. The reason that the PS2 was the "definitive JRPG" console last gen wasn't only because it had JRPG support from A-AAA devs, it was because the competition was practically non-existant (or much less than what the 360/PS3 offers in comparison to the Wii). SquareEnix did not support the Xbox, nor did they care much for the Wii. This was also the same case for other devs.

TBH, I don't know how things will turn out. If you want to make a case about it, that is the base of my argument. 

2. You haven't used any facts, you've gone in circles and mostly brought up pointless things like "quality" for games that aren't out yet, and then saying "I know it's pointless, that's why I said it lol." No, that's why your argument fails lol. Everytime.

If that's what you got from my post, then I suggest you go back and read it more carefully. This is going to be the 3rd time I've said this so I hope you come out of this with some sort of understanding (which I find pretty obvious).

The whole quality argument goes hand in hand with your perception that quantity is the only thing that matters in terms of support. Where, in numerous cases, it's been proven that the public care much more about mid teir JRPGs and "AAA" high production titles than a slew of "small" titles. Let me ask you something, if the PS3 was filled with Halo rip offs and had support from many small FPS devs, would it be safe to assume that the PS3 would be the "definitive FPS console" within the 3rd year of the console's cycle? The point of the matter is that you (nor anyone else) knows whether or not this support is worth more than a grain of salt. The PS2 wasn't deemed the "JRPG king" for it's time when it first had a slew of upcomming titles on the way, it was given that title when people realized that some of those games were actually really good... AFTER they've played it. (no shit, right?)

I knew Dragon Quest X was going to get under people's skin, but I thought it was pretty obvious that the Wii was going to be the dominant JRPG console even before the support came flooding in. Japan has, and continues to be, a one console market. It doesn't mean other games won't exist on the other consoles, because they always have, but it's not going to change the Wii's position as king. There really is no reason for the Wii not to be the JRPG king when 360 is only getting checkbook RPGs and the PS3's support is nearly non-existent outside of Square Enix. This is just the way things have always been and it's clearly not changing anytime soon. 

That would be a good point if it weren't for the fact that many Japanese devs have expressed their interest in focusing the popularity of their products to the west. As far as the 360's "checkbook" JRPGs are concerned, you talk as if it's a bad thing. That checkbook of theirs netted them the ability to gain and win over JRPG fans. The PS3 on the other hand, is too early to tell whether or not it will stay at the basement of JRPG support this gen, but I still expect much more resistance than what the gamecube and xbox offered to the PS2.

I think Claude went a bit overboard, but what he said isn't necessarily untrue if the events of DQ IX to the DS hod true for DQ X for the Wii. And the Wii is stil wiping the floor with both HD consoles in Japan as well. From here on out, you're going to see more and more JRPG support for the Wii, while the HD consoles get very little if at all since like I said before the only games releasing for them/have released for them were games announced years ago, not recently like plenty of Wii JRPGs have. It's not a matter of thinking the HD consoles will lose a lot of/all JRPG support...it's really happening. By definitive we're talking about the majority....and the Wii will have the majority.