By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
S.T.A.G.E. on 26 June 2009
Edit Thread
Onyxmeth said:
Jereel Hunter said:
 

ok, here's what seperates handhelds from consoles(I'm sure there's more):

1) Audience - While there is a great deal of overlap, the benefits of consoles to many, is te ability to relax in your living room and play on a big screen. I could play games exclusively on my PC, but a console has the big screen and the ability to play from the couch.

2) Technical capabilities - console games obviously have much greater budgets/graphics. They're worlds apart, though handheld games can look pretty fantastic on those little screens.Also, due to the small discs, a handheld game would have to be much smaller. (though I'm sure they can scale relatively due to reduced technical requirements)

3) Controls - handhelds generally have more limited controls - for instance no sticks, because they're designed to be flat.

In short, yes portables have better RPGs than consoles, because the small screens and limited controls don't really impact them. Meanwhile, consoles would have the advantage in the shooter spectrum. Each side has areas where they would completely steamroll the other, it's not even close. But rather than always mention such vastly different peices of equipment together, they are slotted into different categories. The same reason these discussions are generally PS3vs360. Wii has tons of fun/"blue ocean" games, PS3/360 have graphical powerhouse games with intense movie sequences. Why slot everything into one category? If we did, then we can stop talking about the Wii too, because the DS sales have buried it.

You're not saying anything differently from me. You're saying that the portables are so chock full of RPGs that it gives them an unfair advantage and it's no longer fun to put them in comparison, so you chop them out and put only the platforms that are performing relatively close to eachother other in the genre, which are the two HD consoles. I get it.

However, looking at the article itself, it's obvious where it's intentions are, which are exactly what I originally said. This is nothing more than a PS3 vs. 360 pissing contest, which they seem to have an ongoing series of articles dedicated to called Grudge Match. So really it wouldn't have mattered how similar or relevant any other platform would be to an argument. It's going to be 360 vs. PS3 the same reason why so many other articles are, it draws in the most hits, and adding additional players dilutes the article's ability to pull in that internet fanbase that loves the 360/PS3 wars. If this were really an article made for RPG fans, it would feature as many platforms as possible. This is for the console wars fan and nothing more.


Um no. The reasoning for this PS3 vs 360 "pissing contest (as you put it), is because the PS2 took all of Nintendos major RPG's and ruled for two generations. We're focusing on consoles here. The 360 is the only one with major RPG's. If the 360 wasn't around with a good variety of RPG's, Nintendo would still be getting spanked  in that department. Second of all, JRPG's aren't even popular on the Wii. By sales, they are popular on the DS. The DS is a portable, so it doesn't count.