| Soriku said: @bbsin I'll answer to #2 of your answers. See my post above. Oh, and I like how you can say "no one knows how well the games will turn out, because no one has played them yet" If that's the case for Wii JRPGs...the same goes for SO4, FF XIII, etc. |
No shit, genius. You just proved my point. But I'm not the one going balls out to claim that "x" console is bar-none the "definitive one" am I?
Don't try to turn his crap against me like I'm the cocky one.
And as a response to your reply. It's wrong.
You need a consistant stream of quaility JRPG titles AND "AAA" franchises. This includes small dev JRPGS, Mid teir and the few "AAA" titles. This also needs to be in effect for quite a considerable frame of time (AKA PS2) and have virtually no competition to be considered "definitive". You can't just go around claiming "superiority" so early in the console's life, while relying mainly on potential (isn't that a gripe people usually have with PS3 fanboys).
You do realize that, that was my entire point in the first place right?
The issue here is that you both fail to realize that it's possible to not have a "definitive genre console" at all during a generation. You assume that the competition will lose all support, and that your favorite console will only gain more support until the end of the cycle. Then, you use that as a halfassed irresponsible claim that the Wii is already the "defacto, definitive choice for the genre". Like I said, you guys got to be pretty dim to not realize the flaws and bias in your claims.
