Here is your misconception. You're applying my logic to all jrpgs. Some jrpgs just suck. Just because some jrpgs are under-rated doesn't mean that all jrpgs are under-rated. Some actually suck. Some are given credit. However, some good ones are also under-rated. Basing quality off of reviews is always ignorant. Especially on such a misunderstood and traditional genre. That's a logic that can be implied anywhere.

I'm sure there are millions of examples where games have much higher reviews than VC and Persona 4, that you wouldn't agree with. Picking out those games specifically to compare them to a very small group of 360 exclusives, and basing your thesis on that, is cherrypicking. Broaden your scope. Final Fantasy X-2 has the same gamerankings score as Valkyria Chrons, despite being an arguably worse game. You can't base quality on gamerankings. It's a flawed assumption.

Disgaea 3 is a great game. So is ToV. They are both, however unfortunatly, underhyped and poorly reviewed, relatively. The reasons for this is because those games are very derivitive of other games in those series'. VC and Persona 3 innovate. Therefore, reviewers awarded them. That is the reasoning behind "jrpgs are under-rated." They might actually be very derivitive games, but thats what fans want isn't it? Doesn't everyone want FFVII all over again? Most people do. That's why traditionalist like games like Radiant Dawn, and Disgaea 3, and it's also why reviewers don't, ironically. Reviewers have ceased to have the same mindset as fans in this genre. It doesn't mean games are all under-rated, or all over-rated. It's and ideology, not a science. Does that explain my point a bit better?

For the record, my 5 favorite jrpg type games of the last few years are Radiant Dawn, Vesperia, Persona 3 FES, Disgaea 3, and Valkyria. Only 1 of those is on the 360. :P Valkyria is innovative, but it also has a lot of meaty traditionalism(something LBP was missing for me).

I can agree that games like Disgaea 3 and ToV are better than their reviews lead one to believe, but I also don't think you can apply this to every single JRPG that comes out. If a JRPG scores within the 7's range it means it is average. If you're a JRPG fan then you'll still enjoy it, but it's not a great JRPG. It seems like everytime a new JRPG comes out that doesn't get all 9's I have to listen to how it's so much better than reviews lead one to believe, but if that was true, and every game is better than average JRPG then what the hell is an average for?

Disgaea 3 reviewed the way it did because it's graphics are ass and it has some technical issues on some HD TV's. I love the game to death but that's the truth. These things keep it from reviewing as the great RPG it is, but it doesn't make the reviews unfair. Some were more harsh than others, but that's because it's probably a bigger deal to some than others, and the gameplay scored like it did because it's a Strategy RPG, some people like them and some don't.

On the other hand, I would argue that Valkyria finds a game mechanic for a strategy RPG that more people can get into than your average SRPG, and this is why it reviewed better as far as gameplay goes.

Basically, most JRPG's are average, if they weren't there would be no point to the term "average". It's why games like ToS2 are enjoyable to some but still score in the 7's, while games like Valkyria are incredible to a number of people and score higher.

Hell no you can't. i completely agree. I think "jrpgs are under-rated" is a generalization. I do think that a few jrpgs are under-rated because critics saw that they were derivitive above all else, when in actuality they might have gotten the formula down better than most games before them.

well cool we're in agreement then.....kinda unexpected.....should we get back to the SRPG = or /= to JRPG argument so that we can keep up the status quo of being argumentative?

At Amazon when Atlus reprinted and it sold out in less than an hour.