An action-based combat system is usually shallow and repetitive in RPG's. Although a bit tedious at times, a turn-based combat system offers more depth and verisitily. Combat isn't the main focus of an RPG most of the time, so it's not to offten you will find an ARPG with a deep combat system. I atleast want to be able to have the option to do more than push one button in fights if I'm going to be playing a 50+ hour game. Eternal Sonata is a good example of why turn-base combat works better in RPG's; your favorite game, Kingdom Hearts, is another good example. In Eternal Sonata, all you really get to do in your fights is Sunslash/Phantom wave the entire time. How fun is that? I would rather have more options, such as defend and charge. It would result in better boss battles and make combat more fun as a whole.

I also prefer turn based combat, lol.

I tend to prefer it as well. Though I'm not by default against action combat. One of my favorite systems is actually Baten Kaitos's turn based card battle system.

A turn-based battle system is one of those elements that separates an RPG from a linear adventure game with a really great story to me.

I talked about the topic post in my first post in this thread.  The post you are replying to is actually for the people in this thread that took the original post and then proceeded to make assumptions based on the likes of some of the people on this forum.  I was just pointing out that in other threads based on the likes of people on this forum their preferences didn't translate into what you would expect for real world numbers (a lot more preferred the Gamecube for example than sales of the system would lead a person to expect).

If it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck, and acts like a duck, you can stick your fingers in your ears and pretend it's a goose for only so long.

I'd guess that Wii+PC works well together because the Wii generally makes for a good party console while the PC is great for hardcore experiences, like WoW and TF2.

Also, if you're going to drop mad $$$ on a gaming PC, you'd probably prefer the cheapest console out there, if you also want a console.

i totally agree w. smash bro. the wii
is awesome for parties (casual) but the pc is better for hardcore gamerz

You said: "It seems like we're basing that belief on the users of this site which has a Nintendo bias."

When in fact, posters were making inferences based on the apparent Nintendo bias at Tech Report.

Also, if you're concerned about people calling you a troll, you should probably avoid demeaning groups of gamers as you did in your first post in this thread. 

Most PS3 and 360 games run at 30 FPS.  Of the 3 I mentioned, only CoD4 runs at 60 FPS on the PS3 and 360, and I can run it over 60 FPS anyway.  Some Xbox 360 and PS3 games that run at (or are announced to run at) 30FPS include: Mass Effect, Lost Odyssey, The Orange Box, Bioshock, Uncharted, Ratchet, Resistance, Gran Turismo 5 (they are trying for 60, but prologue is still at 30), Killzone 2, Halo 3, Oblivion, Gears of War, GTAIV, Heavenly Sword, Too Human, etc. 

The even sadder fact is very few PS3 and 360 games despite 30FPS ever make it above 720p, and some of them (Killzone, Halo, etc.) are actually below that, and still locked at 30 FPS.   Many of the above games have massive FR dips that go below 20FPS. 

The really funny thing is that every major Wii game to this point has been locked at 60 FPS.  Super Mario Galaxy, Metroid Prime 3, and Super Smash Bros. Brawl are all locked at 60 FPS.  As are the Wii series games, although that's not much of an accomplishment.  The Wii version of RE4 is also the only one running at 60 FPS. So yeah, you clearly have very little knowledge of console hardware or performance.