ClaudeLv250 said:
bbsin said:
ClaudeLv250 said:
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.
|
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".
