In Japan DQ is more popular than FF.

Tagging for later. Want to necro this thread a couple of months later

On topic, maybe it can outsell SSB, but every later entry of the series is too hard.

@enditall

ask motorsport fans in america after jacky ickx, i bet some have never heard of him. are they now no motorsport fans?

Like I said, we'll see.  But I think people are going to be disappointed if they expect over 5 million in lifetime sales.  Smash Bros is truly an enigma, and I doubt Sony will have much success in turning All-Stars Battle Royale into a multi-million seller franchise.

Not... reallly. 1-like.... 10 were nearly the same combat wise with minor tweaks.... and the newest changes weren't even that drastic.

and in general hold REALLY similar story structures and themes.

Final Fantasy RPGs are a lot like Zombie movies.  You know what to get out of 80% of it.

happydolphin said: saicho said: happydolphin said: Wow, you're a tough cookie. Brawl sold 2.37M in Japan, Smash 64 sold 1.97M. I think with the help of FF VII IPs they can boost their Japan sales to 1.50M with proper branding and labelling. Now add to that the western appeal of these franchises, and the userbase of their respective games, and you have something that can not only attract the traditional Sony audience in the West, but a new casual audience worldwide, as well as a Square fanbase in Japan. If it doesn't work, it at least helps bump the meter up by 1Mil imho. unrealistic expectation for Japan market right now. It's already been mentioned, but thanks. Here is my response above: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=4547097

"Smash genre has already proven itself in Japan."

Maybe but only SMB games made by Nintendo ever broke 1 million in Japan. Jump Super Stars and Jump Ultimate Stars for DS featured many many popular characters and yet only manage about 500K/750K in Japan. You are overestimating the popularity of Sony and FF characters in Japan. 

Nah. The changes they made to combat and character progression and some other mechanics throughout the first ten changed enough to make them play differently.

And of course the themes were similar, for the most part. It's what makes them an FF.

I don't think any of those you listed counts as a rogue like. Rouge like dungeons are generally characterized by random generation and permanent death. It's more games where your goal is more "see how far you get" then it is "win." Though winning is possible if good enough.

Your thinking of "Dungeon Crawlers" which are related but different.


Also, MUD's are text based. MUD's, MOO's and the like were essentially text based versions of MMORPGs, except most people actually cared about Roleplaying in them. They often had plenty of room for character involvement and creation and often times you could create your own areas in the game if you got prominent enough. Possible most interesting about MUD'd and MOO's is that they were the first part of society that seemed to popularized "Gender Neutral" pronouns... at first, mostly for races without a gender but later used for intergender issues.

Not in comparison to the wide breath of other RPGS, just how Zombie movies all have their intracies, and differences (Fast zombie, slow zombie, goal of the survivors) but they're all really similar.

Roguelike: http://roguebasin.roguelikedevelopment.org/index.php/Main_Page

There also graphical variants, here a sceenshot from Doom-RL (that also has a text-mode):

And are you sure about Dungeon&Dragons? That's Dungeon&Dragons: http://www.amazon.com/Dungeons-Dragons-Fantasy-Roleplaying-Game/dp/0786956291/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1336057743&sr=8-1

 That's not a rogue-like, that's an pen&paper. The source after which all vdeogame-RPGs are modeled.

OK, some people call MMORPGS also MUDs. I'm not so sure, because they have a different gameplay. I would put them in an own category. But after the loose definition, yes runescape is a MUD. I was more after these sort:

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MUD

As you type in your actions, you have potentially nearly unlimited options to act. The graphical RPGs tend to have a lot lesser options, as they have to be selected from menus or activated by clicking something.

You made the impression, that all you know is PS-RPGs. You said something that as a RPG-fan you have to own PS1 and PS2. I did disagree, because many RPG-offerings also were on other consoles and on PC.

 Everybody knows what? What is thnat for an argument? That was the point I was disagreeing about in the beginning. FF may be the face of interactive-movie JRPGs. But that's only a little subgroup of the diversity of RPGs.

 You should back such ridiculous statements with some facts. As it stands it's only an unsubstantiated claim.

 The WRPGs are the first time a little bit more successful on console, and this makes them more present? Why, they were always there, on PC.

JRPGS are not the face of RPGs. They are only one flavour of the diversity the RPG-genre has to offer.

 As I'm here in Europe, they may say: It's something like Baldur's gate or so. As I'm in Germany, they may even say it is something like DSA (Das Schwarze Auge). And your selection is very limited. Would you really think FF, if I show you Pokemon, Battle for Wesnoth, Monster Hunter or stuff like that?