Onyxmeth said:
Jereel Hunter said:
Onyxmeth said:
Nice article. Section off four different platforms as being inconsequential to the argument, just leave the two lowest selling platforms, and have a pissing contest between them like usual. Reasoning why the DS isn't under consideration? It would defeat every console and handheld so brutally that it wouldn't have made an engaging article. Really this wasn't an article made for fans of RPG games, because those fans would want to know where the best RPGs are, regardless of platform. It was made for those that get kicks over "PS3 vs. 360: Who wins this round?" articles.
|
Or perhaps because consoles and handhelds are always considered seperately. Just like PC games are only rolled into a discussion to rain on people's parades.
|
What's your reasoning for seperating them though? This isn't a sales discussion. We're talking about which has the best RPGs, which in my mind is open to any platform that has RPGs to begin with. Obviously handhelds getting prime attention from key RPG publishers like Square-Enix and Atlus has been felt throughout the console world, so yes I'd say they count just plenty. Want to know why a console doesn't have Dragon Quest IX like usual, because a handheld has it. Want to know why the latest Shin Megami Tensei game isn't on a console like usual, because a handheld has it. Want to know why people say Square's output is lousy? It's because they're only playing their console games, not the handheld ones.
Consider them seperately though. It's obvious why that has to be. It isn't to benefit the handhelds, I assure you that.
|
ok, here's what seperates handhelds from consoles(I'm sure there's more):
1) Audience - While there is a great deal of overlap, the benefits of consoles to many, is te ability to relax in your living room and play on a big screen. I could play games exclusively on my PC, but a console has the big screen and the ability to play from the couch.
2) Technical capabilities - console games obviously have much greater budgets/graphics. They're worlds apart, though handheld games can look pretty fantastic on those little screens.Also, due to the small discs, a handheld game would have to be much smaller. (though I'm sure they can scale relatively due to reduced technical requirements)
3) Controls - handhelds generally have more limited controls - for instance no sticks, because they're designed to be flat.
In short, yes portables have better RPGs than consoles, because the small screens and limited controls don't really impact them. Meanwhile, consoles would have the advantage in the shooter spectrum. Each side has areas where they would completely steamroll the other, it's not even close. But rather than always mention such vastly different peices of equipment together, they are slotted into different categories. The same reason these discussions are generally PS3vs360. Wii has tons of fun/"blue ocean" games, PS3/360 have graphical powerhouse games with intense movie sequences. Why slot everything into one category? If we did, then we can stop talking about the Wii too, because the DS sales have buried it.
