By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sales Discussion - No More Heroes, No More Customers, No More Sales.

albionus on 11 December 2007
mrstickball said:
Port it over to X360 and PS3. Maybe it'll sell then.

I seem to remember a screed about not ruining threads or trolling etc. but I know it was always for others so nevermind.

Given that Killer 7 tripled the GCN's sales on the PS2 despite 5 times the install base I doubt that is the case.  Niche game players will often own more than 1 system so it doesn't do much to make the multiplatform in this case (it would be like porting Killer 7 from the PS2 to the GCN).  The other problem is niche games from indie devs won't have the budget to do the graphics much less anything else.  Also seeing Suda's history and the very western orientation of this game 10k on day 1 is great for any system.  Anyhow, I realize you were just trolling and not making a thought out reasoned point but since it was so easy to refute I couldn't pass up the opportunity.



Around the Network
Smash_Brother on 12 December 2007
Rubang B said:
I have to agree with Smash_Brother. As much as I deeply love my FF6, the only real skill was trying to pull off Sabin's special moves. Everything else was just level grinding.

I have some favorite JRPGs as well, including Golden Sun, Pokemon and my first RPG ever, Shining in the Darkness.

Lack of a hardcore edge doesn't mean they aren't fun as hell or that they don't deserve their praise.



"I mean, c'mon, Viva Pinata, a game with massive marketing, didn't sell worth a damn to the "sophisticated" 360 audience, despite near-universal praise--is that a sign that 360 owners are a bunch of casual ignoramuses that can't get their heads around a 'gardening' sim? Of course not. So let's please stop trying to micro-analyze one game out of hundreds and using it as the poster child for why good, non-1st party, games can't sell on Wii. (Everyone frequenting this site knows this is nonsense, and yet some of you just can't let it go because it's the only scab you have left to pick at after all your other "Wii will phail1!!1" straw men arguments have been put to the torch.)" - exindguy on Boom Blocks

Xyrax on 12 December 2007
Smash_Brother said:
Xyrax said: I rebuke you! In the name of the lawd!

Yeah, that's great.

 

But here's the reality of the situation: most RPGs have only ONE thing standing in the way of you completing them and that, of course, is the amount of time you put in.

Normal games typically require you to learn a skill set within the game, something which requires you to adapt to the internal logic of the game and play accordingly or fail miserably.

Take Super Mario Bros., for example: either you get good at jumping or you die horribly. This isn't a question. This isn't up for DEBATE, it's the actual case, plain and simple.

I make an exception for RPGs which involve real-time combat or at least button reflex tests which require that you press buttons at the right time or your characters take piles of damage and deal very little. I also make an exception for RPGs which make the bosses have a percentage of your stats as opposed to set stats, but even those are a bit too forgiving.

My point is, in your standard linear JRPG, skill seldom comes into play: the game uses your stats as criteria for a random number generator to determine the outcome of a fight.

With level grinding always being an option so you can superpower your characters into raw invincibility, the game is literally not allowing failure. Success is LITERALLY assured so long as you just keep playing the game.

Even Wii Sports with its casual-friendly nature isn't THAT forgiving. It's not like you can play 50 games of tennis and be unstoppable, even if you never learned how to get better and lost every single match. It takes a learned skill to succeed.

Traditional JRPGs may not be "casual" by the current definition, but they don't deserve to be called "hardcore" unless they bring skill into the equation somewhere and I've just played too many that absolutely do not. I'm not calling the genre into question for its fun factor because I've enjoyed RPGs in the past. It's just that I acknowledged that I wasn't exactly being challenged as a player as I did so.


 Thats nice, and I don't really care that you take so much pride in gaming that you feel these game take so much "skill". Frankly your being far to damn lenient with the word. Performing a heart transplant is difficult. Getting a freaking high score in Guitar Hero is not more skilled in any way than strategizing your move skill set and attack patterns in some turn based RPG in order to beat a boss or encounter. Your letting your bias into this situation. DDR requires alot more reflex and coordination than FF13 will but its one of the most freaking casual games in the damn industry. Memorizing patterns, physical repetition and silly button pressing reflexes does NOT make a game hardcore and I find it laughable that you think so.

 

You've takes some sour playing of a bad JRpg in your past that you dont like and tried to stretch and lay it over ALL rpgs and label them casual and thats just pure bullshit. It doesnt matter how you spin it RPG are in FACT one of the hardcore genres PERIOD. One of the PRIMARY descriptions of casual gaming is time spent on the hobby. You cant even begin to try and shoehorn RPGs into that category. There are good Rpgs and there are bad. And no, not all of them rely on mindless grinding and other bullcrap. Suggesting you can just button tap your way to victory without any thinking or party tuning/strategizing of any sort in your average RPG is crap. Like I said, your opinion is wrong. 



Smash_Brother on 12 December 2007

Xyrax said:   Thats nice, and I don't really care that you take so much pride in gaming that you feel these game take so much "skill". Frankly your being far to damn lenient with the word. Performing a heart transplant is difficult. Getting a freaking high score in Guitar Hero is not more skilled in any way than strategizing your move skill set and attack patterns in some turn based RPG in order to beat a boss or encounter. Your letting your bias into this situation. DDR requires alot more reflex and coordination than FF13 will but its one of the most freaking casual games in the damn industry. Memorizing patterns, physical repetition and silly button pressing reflexes does NOT make a game hardcore and I find it laughable that you think so.

 

You've takes some sour playing of a bad JRpg in your past that you dont like and tried to stretch and lay it over ALL rpgs and label them casual and thats just pure bullshit. It doesnt matter how you spin it RPG are in FACT one of the hardcore genres PERIOD. One of the PRIMARY descriptions of casual gaming is time spent on the hobby. You cant even begin to try and shoehorn RPGs into that category. There are good Rpgs and there are bad. And no, not all of them rely on mindless grinding and other bullcrap. Suggesting you can just button tap your way to victory without any thinking or party tuning/strategizing of any sort in your average RPG is crap. Like I said, your opinion is wrong. 



So in summary, you're saying that RPGs are hardcore because they're boring enough that normal people refuse to play them?
 
Even I have to disagree with that. A number of RPGs like the Tales games do an excellent job of blending solid real-time combat with RPG elements. These games allow skill to factor heavily in performance and by no means are these games deserving of being called "casual", but that's because the players can use personal skill to affect the outcome instead of a random number generator fueled with statistics.
 
Technically, even Peggle is more "hardcore" than a TB-RPG because you at least have some initial input regarding the direction and momentum of the ball. TBs are just a RNG doing the work for you while you make selections from a menu.
 
Boring ≠ hardcore. 


"I mean, c'mon, Viva Pinata, a game with massive marketing, didn't sell worth a damn to the "sophisticated" 360 audience, despite near-universal praise--is that a sign that 360 owners are a bunch of casual ignoramuses that can't get their heads around a 'gardening' sim? Of course not. So let's please stop trying to micro-analyze one game out of hundreds and using it as the poster child for why good, non-1st party, games can't sell on Wii. (Everyone frequenting this site knows this is nonsense, and yet some of you just can't let it go because it's the only scab you have left to pick at after all your other "Wii will phail1!!1" straw men arguments have been put to the torch.)" - exindguy on Boom Blocks

Kasz216 on 12 December 2007
Smash_Brother said:

Xyrax said: Thats nice, and I don't really care that you take so much pride in gaming that you feel these game take so much "skill". Frankly your being far to damn lenient with the word. Performing a heart transplant is difficult. Getting a freaking high score in Guitar Hero is not more skilled in any way than strategizing your move skill set and attack patterns in some turn based RPG in order to beat a boss or encounter. Your letting your bias into this situation. DDR requires alot more reflex and coordination than FF13 will but its one of the most freaking casual games in the damn industry. Memorizing patterns, physical repetition and silly button pressing reflexes does NOT make a game hardcore and I find it laughable that you think so.

You've takes some sour playing of a bad JRpg in your past that you dont like and tried to stretch and lay it over ALL rpgs and label them casual and thats just pure bullshit. It doesnt matter how you spin it RPG are in FACT one of the hardcore genres PERIOD. One of the PRIMARY descriptions of casual gaming is time spent on the hobby. You cant even begin to try and shoehorn RPGs into that category. There are good Rpgs and there are bad. And no, not all of them rely on mindless grinding and other bullcrap. Suggesting you can just button tap your way to victory without any thinking or party tuning/strategizing of any sort in your average RPG is crap. Like I said, your opinion is wrong.



So in summary, you're saying that RPGs are hardcore because they're boring enough that normal people refuse to play them?
Even I have to disagree with that. A number of RPGs like the Tales games do an excellent job of blending solid real-time combat with RPG elements. These games allow skill to factor heavily in performance and by no means are these games deserving of being called "casual", but that's because the players can use personal skill to affect the outcome instead of a random number generator fueled with statistics.
Technically, even Peggle is more "hardcore" than a TB-RPG because you at least have some initial input regarding the direction and momentum of the ball. TBs are just a RNG doing the work for you while you make selections from a menu.
Boring ≠ hardcore.

No, putting lots of hours into a game = hardcore. That's the only definition anymore. Otherwise there haven't been more then 6 hardcore games created since the SNES because games have become a LOT easier and require a lot less time and skill since then. Even games that require "skill" are really just a matter of time, as I haven't played one game in the PS1 Era on that was ever unbeatable to anyone who had ever played a videogame system before. There is no game that can't be beaten, so to make some fake dichotomy where the difference is your expierence or your virtual avatars expierence is silly. Hours spent on it are pretty much all that matters. Also, it's not that RPGs are boring (You may think they are though.) They are hardcore, because at bare minmium your looking at 30 hours for most RPGs, with NO sidequests and NO level grinding. That takes a serious dedication there... if you want to do nearly everything it takes HARCORE dedication. Plenty of people put 150+ hours of play in some RPGs just to max everything out. Then they replay the game from the start to play it another way and get an alternate ending. The more time your average player puts into a game = the more hardcore the game is.

Around the Network
Smash_Brother on 12 December 2007
Kasz216 said: 
 No, putting lots of hours into a game = hardcore. That's the only definition anymore. Otherwise there haven't been more then 6 hardcore games created since the SNES because games have become a LOT easier and require a lot less time and skill since then. Even games that require "skill" are really just a matter of time, as I haven't played one game in the PS1 Era on that was ever unbeatable to anyone who had ever played a videogame system before. There is no game that can't be beaten, so to make some fake dichotomy where the difference is your expierence or your virtual avatars expierence is silly. Hours spent on it are pretty much all that matters. Also, it's not that RPGs are boring (You may think they are though.) They are hardcore, because at bare minmium your looking at 30 hours for most RPGs, with NO sidequests and NO level grinding. That takes a serious dedication there... if you want to do nearly everything it takes HARCORE dedication. Plenty of people put 150+ hours of play in some RPGs just to max everything out. Then they replay the game from the start to play it another way and get an alternate ending. The more time your average player puts into a game = the more hardcore the game is.

Ergo, Solitaire is the most hardcore game ever created, right?



"I mean, c'mon, Viva Pinata, a game with massive marketing, didn't sell worth a damn to the "sophisticated" 360 audience, despite near-universal praise--is that a sign that 360 owners are a bunch of casual ignoramuses that can't get their heads around a 'gardening' sim? Of course not. So let's please stop trying to micro-analyze one game out of hundreds and using it as the poster child for why good, non-1st party, games can't sell on Wii. (Everyone frequenting this site knows this is nonsense, and yet some of you just can't let it go because it's the only scab you have left to pick at after all your other "Wii will phail1!!1" straw men arguments have been put to the torch.)" - exindguy on Boom Blocks

Kasz216 on 12 December 2007
Smash_Brother said:
Kasz216 said:
No, putting lots of hours into a game = hardcore. That's the only definition anymore. Otherwise there haven't been more then 6 hardcore games created since the SNES because games have become a LOT easier and require a lot less time and skill since then. Even games that require "skill" are really just a matter of time, as I haven't played one game in the PS1 Era on that was ever unbeatable to anyone who had ever played a videogame system before. There is no game that can't be beaten, so to make some fake dichotomy where the difference is your expierence or your virtual avatars expierence is silly. Hours spent on it are pretty much all that matters. Also, it's not that RPGs are boring (You may think they are though.) They are hardcore, because at bare minmium your looking at 30 hours for most RPGs, with NO sidequests and NO level grinding. That takes a serious dedication there... if you want to do nearly everything it takes HARCORE dedication. Plenty of people put 150+ hours of play in some RPGs just to max everything out. Then they replay the game from the start to play it another way and get an alternate ending. The more time your average player puts into a game = the more hardcore the game is.

Ergo, Snood is the most hardcore game ever created, right?


Yes, she is. The game however is not since most Snood users only play it very casually. You are confusing hardcore players with hardcore games.

Smash_Brother on 12 December 2007

Read my edit.

You said that "time put in = how hardcore the game is". So what about Solitaire? What about Minesweeper? People pour more hours into these games each day than all the JRPGs combined. Does that make these games hardcore?



"I mean, c'mon, Viva Pinata, a game with massive marketing, didn't sell worth a damn to the "sophisticated" 360 audience, despite near-universal praise--is that a sign that 360 owners are a bunch of casual ignoramuses that can't get their heads around a 'gardening' sim? Of course not. So let's please stop trying to micro-analyze one game out of hundreds and using it as the poster child for why good, non-1st party, games can't sell on Wii. (Everyone frequenting this site knows this is nonsense, and yet some of you just can't let it go because it's the only scab you have left to pick at after all your other "Wii will phail1!!1" straw men arguments have been put to the torch.)" - exindguy on Boom Blocks

Kasz216 on 12 December 2007
Smash_Brother said:
Read my edit.

You said that "time put in = how hardcore the game is". So what about Solitaire? What about Minesweeper? People pour more hours into these games each day than all the JRPGs combined. Does that make these games hardcore?

Does the average person who has played Solataire put in 40-50 hours? Or do the occasional person do so... and most people who have played solataire only play 1-4 games and quit? They like it, it entertains them... but they get bored of it. A Hardcore player puts a lot of time into games. Be it multiple, or be it one game like soltaire or minesweeper. A Hardcore game is a game large number of people who own the game put a lot of time into the game. Most people play 1 or 2 games of solatair maybe 20 games of minesweeper their entire lives. Therefore, not a hardcore game.

Kasz216 on 12 December 2007

Also. "Go" is the most hardcore game ever.