Well, I think it's pretty funny seeing the fanboys fight over whether Level 5 or Tri-Ace is better based on the PS3 and 360, when neither of the companies have made good games on either console (yet).

From their past development:

Level 5

Dark Cloud - OK game. Nothing spectacular.
Dark Cloud 2 - Awesome game, one of the best RPGs of its time.
Dragon Quest VIII - great game, best in the DQ series.
Rogue Galaxy - OK game. Nothing spectacular.
Jeanne D'Arc - The best SRPG made this gen so far.
Professor Layton - One of the best games this generation bar none.

Tri-Ace

Star Ocean - Awesome game. Defined action RPGs for its era.
Star Ocean 2 - Great game. Doesn't define a genre like Star Ocean but a blast to play.
Valkyrie Profile - Good game, but not as good as their first 2.
Radiata Stories - Mediocre at its best, bad at its worst.
Star Ocean 3 - What the fuck happened here?? OK game in its own right but doesn't even touch SO 1 and 2.
Valkyrie Profile 2 - Now that's more like it. Great game. Surpasses the first in every way.
Infinite Undiscovery - Seemingly OK game, can't say I've played it much yet. Certainly not spectacular.



Now, if we are JUST talking about RPGs, then I could see them being fairly equal based on past performance, but the problem is that of the 4 games that Tri-Ace has made since the start of last generation only one of them was good. On the other hand, other than Rogue Galaxy and the original Dark Cloud, Level 5 has made nothing but good games.

And to take this a step further, the fact that Level 5 can branch out into other genres like P&C Adventures, SRPGs, and Sports RPGs and still make absolutely top notch games really doesn't even make this a contest. You have a developer who makes one type of game with inconsistent quality versus a developer who makes many types of games with far more consistent quality.

So that brings up the question: Why is this topic even being debated? Because 360 and PS3 fanboys are fighting over the games that will be on their systems, even though these games are really insignificant when it comes to answering this question.



Disclaimer: All the above are based on my opinions of these games, although you could probably make a reasonable parallel based on gamerankings scores. If you have a different opinion, good for you. That's why gaming is interesting, but these company's PS3 and 360 games still don't matter in this question. So stop the fanboy bullshit.

You are misreading his post.  He said it is too niche to reach wide spread critical acclaim, which is what it would need to keep an average on metacritic of 90% if you're being literal, or just to be liked by almost all reviewers as a fantastic game.  It has nothing to do with sales and mostly with him saying that the type of RPG Tri-ace makes, while it may be a AAA title in its own right, is hamperred by its genre.

I'm not sure I agree, because I don't know that there's a specific reason ARPG's are doomed to less than AAA reviews.....but that is what he was saying.

I not seeing it.  I am not saying that games like MGS4 and Rock Band 2 don't deserved the scores they get because they absolutely do.  However, I just don't get what many of these critics have against JRPGs.  Final Fantasy gets widespread critical acclaim yet Star Ocean and Tales only gets in the 80s range.

Exactly, that's why i'm wondering why the fact that Level-5 doesn't own DQ has to do anything with their development skills, i mean, that's what we're discussing here, Tri-Ace skills vs Level-5 skills, not who owns what IP...

ANd i agree with the others in not making this subject a console war... Tri-Ace has done titles for Nintendo, Sony and now Microsoft, and Level-5 has done titles for Sony, and now for Nintendo... If you want to make this a SO4 for 360 vs WKC fro PS3 it's better to do it on a different thread...