where are the Japanese RPGs for PS3?

[bbsin]

ClaudeLv250 said:

bbsin said:

2 things wrong with this picture.

1. Your list is hardly an indication of the wii being the "definitive JRPG console". 

2. You're putting words in my mouth.

I never denied or ignored the fact that the Wii has been getting JRPG support. I'm just arguing against your initial argument of "The Wii is THE definitive JRPG console".

When the PS2 was in it's prime against it's competition, it had the support of trademark franchises (DQ,FF,KH,etc) and the support of smaller devs. With that said, only a fool would compare the quality and quantity of JRPGs on the Wii to the PS2. What you call "soaking of JRPG support" is merely a bunch of small devs (with the exception of DQ10) jump on the success and momentum of the Wii (which may or may not last forever). Still, your main argument (which you apparently changed) was that the Wii is "The definite JRPG console". I'm not arguing against whether or not the Wii will/or will not be "the definitive JRPG console", but rather, the point that there are currently better choices out there for JRPGs.

Also, I'd like to add that support doesn't neccessarily come in small packages of niche games. Top teir franchises are what really defines the "support" of the genre, especially sub-genres like JRPGs. As of right now, it's pretty even.

So going back on my points that you've clearly avoided.

1. The Wii is NOT the "definitive JRPG console", as most of the "support" you threw in, are not currently on the system.

2. The Wii DO NOT have the "Majority" of JRPGs, nor does it have the best quality of JRPG.

You're arguing "will have" with "do have". It would be the same as me arguing that the PS3 is "The definitive racing console" because GT5 will eventually be released.

There's also the possibility that the games you've listed would not be very good in terms of quality. Would the perception of "definitive JRPG console" stay in tact if the support is no good sustance but heavy in numbers? It's all really to be taken with a grain of salt, but you're attempting to force the issue and pass it as fact.

The smaller Japanese developers are what determine the definitive JRPG console because they're the majority. You keep defaulting to "big" and "trademark" RPGs (or in other words, Square Enix franchises). If a console is only getting support from the same 2-3 development houses, that's not good. When it's getting support from those developers and everyone else, then that's when it becomes dominant. "Top tier franchises" can't define the console's library if they're the only ones on it.

The smaller Japanese devs are the majority in terms of quantity. If you hadn't noticed, it's the big "AAA" JRPGs that make a splash, if at all. Most gamers would choose 1 big production game that they've already had experiences with rather than 10 single A games. The worth of a highly coveted series is much higher than the support of dozens of small projects (which isn't a bad thing either). Even if you stray away from JRPGs, one trademark title can change the console with "no games" to the "definitive genre game". Look at the data, there are people that buy Playstation products just for GT, Microsoft products just for Halo and Nintendo products just for Pokemon. Now, the big difference between other genres and JRPGs, is that JRPGs typically sell like crap UNLESS it's a well recognized franchise. Shooters on the other hand, could sell well regardless.

And talking about quality after I made a list of recently announced games makes no sense because they're not out yet, and of the RPGs out this gen only about 3 haven't been torn apart by critics and that's not much to brag about.

Actually, talking about quality makes perfect sense. I used it as a tool to show you that you shouldn't go out and call something the "definitive console" if you're not even sure how good the product is. I guess I should go ahead and call Starcraft 2 the "definitive strategy game" without any basis other than potential.

I can understand you complaining about me using the upcoming games as a way to define the Wii as the JRPG console, but as I see it there isn't that much on any of the consoles right now that can challenge the Wii's near future. And I stick to my argument, because while this thread was going, Phantom Brave was announced for the Wii. Yep, the Wii got another one and I'm going to have to update the list with it and some games I forgot between all the platforms.

To be honest, I know alot of people that rather play FF13 than:

• Tales of Symphonia: Dawn of the New World*
• Chocobo's Dungeon*
• Dokapon Kingdom*
• Rune Factory Frontier
• Little King's Story
• Arc Rise Fantasia
• Muramasa: The Demon Blade
• The Golden Bonds (Ougon no Kizuna)
• Fragile: Farewell Ruins of the Moon
• Tact of Magic
• Dynamic Slash
• Valhalla Knights: Eldar Saga
• Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles: The Crystal Bearers
• Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles: Echoes of Time
• Mothership Tales title (2009)
• Sword of Legendia
• Moon's Peak
• Shining Force Gear**
• Seiken Densetsu**
• Sorcery Blade

Are you going to tell them that they're missing out on the "definitive" experience also?

At the end of the day, most people won't even care about Moon's Peak, Tact of magic, Muramasa, etc. When you try to convince others that a certain console is the "definitive" one, you don't go around naming games that are largely unfamiliar to the general public. Why do you think the annoucements of FF13 (multiplatform), DQX, and MH3 was so big? Why do you think games like VC, Disgaea3, and Persona4 get almost no buzz along with low sales? It's because not too many people care for low production products. 

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.