Ill message you when Im fully operational. :)

did you try playing them?

also I highly recommend TorchLight, 

A GTX 690! You're insane

Cool list, I'll have to look over it to make sure I got everything I'm interested in. Still there are more RPG's on DS then PSP, and you missed a handful on the DS, some of the better RPG's. (You can get a full english patch for Soma Bringer online, and the game is cheap to ship from Japan).

Also I've played or at least looked into the majority of the games on this list, so no....I wouldn't use that "you aren't big on portable RPG's" as an arguement.

Realistically....I wouldn't use half the games on either consoles list to argue which system had btter RPG's. Of the 50 odd games per console, I would argue that a good third of them are not worth playing, and probably another 3rd won't be your or my type of game. This is kind of why I ended up with 40 odd RPG's combined for both handhelds.

I agree with you tht remakes should be counted, but they should be referenced seperatly, and I do agree a lot of the remakes on the PSP are better in quality (FFIV is a good example), but it's not always clear cut like that. I mean FFIV was also released on the GBA, and the quality is almost the same as the PSP version, minus the screen size. Yes you get after years on PSP, but that was originally a Wii-ware expansion was it not? You don't need a PSP for the full FFIV experience.

It's not also always the case that PSP remakes are better then DS ones. Both Fire Emblem games on DS are comple remakes with upgraded graphics on NES/SNES games and the same goes for Pokemon Gold/Silver. Not only that, but the newer game mechanics of the franchise have been incorporated into these games (e.g. New Pokemon on HeartGold/SoulSilver), which make them feel a lot fresher. Just like Star Ocean on PSP, these games offer a very different experience then prior games.

Also....I'm dragging on, but some games only have the complete package on DS. FFIV can be played on other systems in the same was as it's playable on PSP, however wat about Front Mission? It's not one of Square enix's best selling franchises, but I'll tell you t's my favorite franchise from them, and Front Mission DS is the only version of Front Mission which offers both USC an OCU sides of the games main story (Well the Japan only PS1 version also does this, but we don' get that version). Also games like Front Mission and Final Fantasy III were never localized outside of Japan before, although they are remakes, they are basically brand new experiences for this not fluent in Japan and importing.

Either way it's a matter of opinion of which system is the RPG system, it's close though, and on a straight number comparision DS has more. Still if we're arguing what ideal system combination gives the complete experience, I think i's fair to say that you should get both a PSP and a DS. PSP for Valkyria Chronicles, Jeanne d'Arc, and some great remakes, DS for Pokemon, Fire Emblem, and for the other great remakes.

No point squabbling, you and I have both systems, just opposite impressions. Any recomendations? I've been hearing a lot about Etrain Odyssey, is it a franchise worth getting into? I only have time to beat about 4-6 JRPG's on the handheld a year and I have about a dozen I still need to work on before I get a 3DS. Just go Breath of Fire 3 for PSP last week, what luck finding it at the local store.

If you haven't had as good of an experience on DS as you had on PSP, I would strongly suggest playing all the bolded games that you missed. I'm really surprised you missed some of those big DS games considering Fire Emblem and Front Mission play a lot like Final Fantasy Tactics (but are better).

I agree to an extent, but I still like owning hard copies of games I really like, even PC games.

However it's really nice owning a copy of Counter Strike and not having a working PC (I use linex) for years, then going on steam on a different computer and being able to download, install, and play that game. It's like you can't loose games anymore.

I think the most important thing in terms of saving money is moderation. I'm the type of guy to buy games when I see a sale, bu I don't always play them right away. In fact a lot of the 360 games I own, I bought 3 years ago or more and just haven't played, and now they are much cheaper to buy and sell. Same with Steam, you can buy a bundle of games, but will you really sit down and play them?

Moderation is key, If you control what you buy on consoles, wait for sales, and sell the games on ebay, gaming couple be cheaper then as if on steam. However steam is a much easier solution because you don't have to sell your games and it's much easier and more frequent to check for sales.

You only see posts like this because console gamers and OC gamers don't often mingle. From my personal experiences, I find that people only care about achievements/trophies for their primary system. So PS3 owners care about trophies, 360 owners care aout Gamerpoints, and Steam is the same.

I used to be the same way, but in favor of 360 achievements instead of PS3 trophies. However now I don't give a shit. Gears of War 3 has 2,000 achievements, why is the reward for "completing" this game with twice as much as a regular game? I don't care about points now, but I try to get 1,000/1,000 or a platnium trophy on all my favorite JRPG's, or niche games in general.

Why don't you give a shit anymore? Haven't you dreamed of becoming a Trophy God or a Gamerscore God?

I prefer to play my RPG's without Achievements/Trophies. It lets me enjoy the game instead of waste time, looking for every last item (because in JRPG's, lets face it, there is always a quest/collection completiong trophy/achievement).

When I beat Lost Odyssey, I aparently missed 1 treasure chest (in the entire game, and I used a guide) so I dodn't get my treasure trove achievement. Now I have no motivation to finish the DLC and the game stands at 1030/1100 (50G for the boss of the DLC, which is hard).

If I had to finish all the quests in XenoBlade (probably on the second run due to events in the game which make some area's unaccessable after a point), I would have liked it somewhat less. Tales of Vesperia sucked (no it didn't, but it did bring it down) for having an achievement to unlock all the dialogue scenes and get the items, and Infinite Undiscovery requires 3 playthroughs to get 1,000/1,000 (need to beat a specific boss, literally on the 2nd and 3rd playthrough). Does this make the game better? I think not.

I only care for individual games, and not as a cumulative score, and it's more the niche games. More and more games are making trophy's/achievements for playing the game x amount of hours and getting to x level. It's stupid, it's just a way to make you play the games more then you originally intended to (online multiplayer for shooters, multiple playthrough for single player games, quests for RPG's).

Some of the best single player experiences I had were on the Wii/DS/PSP because, I don't use a guide for RPG's, I'm not forced to play online either more then I want, or in specific game modes, and when I'm done I'm done.

Also, specifically for 360, I hate the direction achievements are heading. Why are the DLC (all multiplayer) worth as much as the main game in Gears of War 3? Why is Gears 3 worth nearly twice as much as Gears 1? Why is it easier to get achievements now then it used to be? Acheivements are becoming less and less an expression of what games you play, and more and more an expression of which brand you follow.