WiiU isn't Next Gen?

  • 168 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#151 Posted by Jag85 (4599 posts) -

[QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]

i thought you were commenting on what bad news it is for a console to be  holding  emergency firesales early in its lifespan and just thought that i could show you an example in which it may not be such a  gloomy forecast  of the future.

i don't care one bit about the wiiu or how it does or whatever just that your point seemed to be the wiiu is in terrible trouble when we have an example in that link where the ps3 was on lifesupport 6 or 7 months into its lifespan but things turned out passable in the end.

airshocker

We're not even in the same ballpark as with what happened with the PS3. The PS3 can compete. The WiiU? I'm not seeing it.

A lot of gamers back then thought the 360 wouldn't stand a chance once the PS3 comes out... But we all know how that turned out.
#152 Posted by airshocker (29882 posts) -

lulz, yeah it looks shytty and all but i think the wiiu prolly has a better position than the ps3 ever had.

the wiiu has a built in customer base of parents and grandparents  that have money to blow on silly crap.

if you are in the 45 to 90 age range and need to buy a kid something what are you going to get?

something safe, something that plays mario and all the rest of those tired old household name franchises that they know for a fact is not filled with blood and boobs.

far be it from me to be shilling for some crappy console that i don't like but reality is reality here.

Riverwolf007

Nintendo already had that with the Wii, though. Obviously they own the childrens market but what are they doing for adults? If the WiiU was their solution then they failed miserably.

#153 Posted by Riverwolf007 (23865 posts) -

[QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]

lulz, yeah it looks shytty and all but i think the wiiu prolly has a better position than the ps3 ever had.

the wiiu has a built in customer base of parents and grandparents  that have money to blow on silly crap.

if you are in the 45 to 90 age range and need to buy a kid something what are you going to get?

something safe, something that plays mario and all the rest of those tired old household name franchises that they know for a fact is not filled with blood and boobs.

far be it from me to be shilling for some crappy console that i don't like but reality is reality here.

airshocker

Nintendo already had that with the Wii, though. Obviously they own the childrens market but what are they doing for adults? If the WiiU was their solution then they failed miserably.

heh, i don't think sw dudes will ever understand they are currently the absolute most unimportant  market segment.

what you and i like does not make a bit of difference to what is going to be successful.

we are not the target audience anymore.

there will always be games that we enjoy and have fun with and whatnot but really what is important to us is not what is important in the business end any longer.

 

#154 Posted by Jag85 (4599 posts) -

[QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]

lulz, yeah it looks shytty and all but i think the wiiu prolly has a better position than the ps3 ever had.

the wiiu has a built in customer base of parents and grandparents  that have money to blow on silly crap.

if you are in the 45 to 90 age range and need to buy a kid something what are you going to get?

something safe, something that plays mario and all the rest of those tired old household name franchises that they know for a fact is not filled with blood and boobs.

far be it from me to be shilling for some crappy console that i don't like but reality is reality here.

airshocker

Nintendo already had that with the Wii, though. Obviously they own the childrens market but what are they doing for adults? If the WiiU was their solution then they failed miserably.

The Wii was specifically targeted towards adults, beyond the so-called "hardcore" crowd consisting mostly of teenage and young adult males (which the PS360 were primarily targeted towards). The Wii brought in more gamers from the adult women and elderly men/women demographics, for example.
#155 Posted by StaticOnTV (583 posts) -

[QUOTE="StaticOnTV"][QUOTE="Jag85"] Oh, that. If you go back even further though, random battles were also common in early American RPGs such as Wizardry and Ultima. American RPG's didn't start abandoning random encounters until the 90s. Up until then, random encounters were never a point of differentiation. Like I said, the definitions and meanings of those labels have changed quite a lot over the years.

Jag85

No, the random battle were ot used the same. In Japan radom battles almost always 99% of the time required to transition to a different screen and reload your place once finished, a thing not an issue with ultima. There were quite a few rpgs before the 90's that had no random battle at all, and I have yet to see more than a couple handle it like Jrpgs do. Same goes with the false illusion of exploration.

Actually, the early Ultima games did have the screen transitions. The later Ultima games in the 90s eventually abandoned the screen transitions, but the early Ultima games did have those screen transitions we associate with JRPG random encounters.

Like I said, the random encounters weren't considered a point of differentiation in the early 90s, and neither were the screen transitions. These were things American RPGs had also been doing for years but slowly began abandoning at the time.

Some of the bigger points of differentiation in the early 90s were things like the greater emphasis on storytelling and predefined characterization in games like Phantasy Star II and FFIV, or the Active Time Battle system in FFIV, or the action-oriented combat in games like Zelda (which was labelled a console RPG back then) and Secret of Mana. These were the kind of elements often associated with Japanese console RPG's in the early 90s.

No the transitions were real0time as in they put a cover over where you were at and then removed the cover it was not actually a completely different era that was loaded. Also the stories in American Rpgs, which eventually just focused mostly on PC, had way more depth and mind questioning and messages than Jrpgs did. You state that FFIV and stuff had a greater emphasis on storytelling, it was more like a scripted story book yes, but it did not have the depth of story telling American rpgs had at the time. There were also plenty of action-rpgs on PC, which were actually action rpgs instead of action-adventure games with lots of text (which many considered to mean rpg for no real reason.) Have the elements you mentioned didn't differtiate anything.
#156 Posted by ChubbyGuy40 (26185 posts) -

I don't think that the #WiiU CPU and GPU are imbalanced in favor of the GPU. It depends how you measure. GPU chip is bigger. In modern CPUs, the math logic portions are rather small. In new PCs and servers, the CPUs may be big, but the logic is small. It's common for the surrounding SRAM cache memory in CPUs to be bigger. From that viewpoint, you wouldn't see them imbalanced. It's a memory-intensified design. I can't get into specifics, but I think it's rather powerful. As for the GPU, the tech is fairly mature and going in the same direction as competitors. Makers are used to prog. shaders. The experience of other companies and Nintendo with shaders means that the difficulty with them early on has decreased. - Genyo Takeda


from a translation of the investor meeting the other day I believe.

#157 Posted by Haziqonfire (36344 posts) -
People come up with stupid rules regarding what is part of a new generation and what isn't. The Wii U is a new Nintendo console that's going to be competing with Sony and Microsoft's new consoles. That's enough reason to qualify it as a new cycle. In terms of the console itself yeah it's had a rough post-launch.. But which console hasn't? You'd be stupid to assume that both Sony and Microsoft aren't going to have problems or droughts come post-launch. It happens every time. You'd also be stupid to assume they're going to sell like crazy especially if they're priced higher than what the Wii U is.
#158 Posted by ChubbyGuy40 (26185 posts) -

Fun fact, Shin-en's next Wii-U game will use tessellation. Can't wait to see what their wizardry can do.

#159 Posted by jhonMalcovich (4808 posts) -

Aren´t next gen games are supposed to take full advantage of quad-core processors. And WiiU features only a three-core processor. So how multi-plat games are supposed to be ported for WiiU? Without next gen games, WiiU is not a next gen console. Just simple logic.   

#160 Posted by Masenkoe (4888 posts) -

 Stop the Game and go on PSHome and Ask around

LegatoSkyheart

 

Lol god no

#161 Posted by super600 (30718 posts) -

Aren´t next gen games are supposed to take full advantage of quad-core processors. And WiiU features only a three-core processor. So how multi-plat games are supposed to be ported for WiiU? Without next gen games, WiiU is not a next gen console. Just simple logic.   

jhonMalcovich

The WiiU has a somewhat future proof feature set. The console is not going to be as strong as the other two, but it may be posssible ot port games to the console even if the graphics of a game will have to be downgraded.

#162 Posted by Jag85 (4599 posts) -

No the transitions were real0time as in they put a cover over where you were at and then removed the cover it was not actually a completely different era that was loaded.StaticOnTV

You mean like the early Dragon Quest games? Those games did what you're describing as well.

Anyway, the early Ultima games did do a complete screen transition. For example, Ultima III and IV (and I think V as well) switched over to a seperate screen when a turn-based battle began. In fact, I believe that was where Japanese RPG developers may have even got the idea from in the first place.

Also the stories in American Rpgs, which eventually just focused mostly on PC, had way more depth and mind questioning and messages than Jrpgs did. You state that FFIV and stuff had a greater emphasis on storytelling, it was more like a scripted story book yes, but it did not have the depth of story telling American rpgs had at the time.StaticOnTV

Some of the Ultima games back then did have some interesting plots and even raised a few moral issues, but that still doesn't approach the kind of storytelling emphasis that Final Fantasy IV had. To sum up why this game was a significant milestone in RPG stoytelling, I'll just post some excerpts from a Dragon magazine (American tabletop & computer RPG magazine) review written by Sandy Peterson (a notable American tabletop & PC RPG designer) for Final Fantasy IV back in 1993...

"In a role-playing game, the party sticks together through thick and thin. It is rare for the group to split up, because of the difficulties it causes the gamemaster and players. This is even more the case in computer role-playing games. If one of your party members dies, you reload a saved game, bringing her back to life, and keep playing. But in a good novel or movie, this isnt the case. In The Lord of the Rings, the Fellowship doesnt stay together throughout. At the time of Boromirs betrayal, the Fellowship is shattered for good - Gandalf and Boromir are dead, two hobbits are kidnapped by orcs, two hobbits are striking out on their own, and the remaining three Fellowship members try to run down the kidnapping orcs. In The Man in the Iron Mask, a famous adventure, the four friends (the three musketeers and DArtagnan), never act together as a group at any point in the entire book!

Of course, computer role-playing games that have only one party member (yourself) avoid this problem. But Final Fantasy II has attempted to address this. In this game, party members join your group, then leave it for their own private reasons. One fellow even betrays the rest of the party! Others sacrifice themselves, dying in various heroic ways for the good of the quest. (My favorite is the guy who jumped into a volcanic crater with explosives tied around his waist - what a guy!) As the quest progresses, you find your girlfriend, are forced to leave her, then she gets sick - you get the idea. It's as if you are following the storyline of a fantasy novel rather than playing a role-playing game.

Because of the possibility of losing and the fact that the characters often spoke up for themselves, I got much more attached to my party in Final Fantasy II than in any other computer game Ive played. The NPCs were certainly two-dimensional, but they were a big step up from the one-dimensional characters normally plaguing the role-playing computer game player."

Coming from a publication and game designer focused on tabletop & PC RPG's, those are some pretty huge compliments if you ask me. Essentially, what this 1993 review seems to be saying is that FFIV was unique because of how it blurred the lines between a fantasy novel and a role-playing game, and its much stronger emphasis on characterization than American RPG's at the time. In other words, there's no denying that Final Fantasy IV was indeed an important milestone in RPG storytelling.

That's not to take anything away from American RPG's of that era, since, like the Ultima games I mentioned above, a few of them did have some pretty interesting plots and raised a few moral issues. However, keep in mind that this is from an American perspective. From a Japanese perspective, RPG's that were never released state-side until recently (if at all), such as Dragon Quest V and Shin Megami Tensei, were pushing the boundaries of RPG storytelling and/or moral decisions even further than what American-released RPG's (whether American or Japanese developed) were doing.

There were also plenty of action-rpgs on PC, which were actually action rpgs instead of action-adventure games with lots of text (which many considered to mean rpg for no real reason.)

Have the elements you mentioned didn't differtiate anything.StaticOnTV

I didn't say there weren't any action RPG's on PC's, but there's no denying there was much less of them on the PC than there were on consoles. Back then, the action RPG was seen as a largely console genre. For example, even American PC gaming magazines in the late 80s to early 90s, such as such as Computer Gaming World and Dragon, largely associated associated real-time action combat with Japanese console RPG's rather than American computer RPG's. A few early 90's letters from American PC RPG fans printed in Dragon magazine even dismissed console RPG's as a whole as just "arcade" action games, giving the impression that action RPG's like Zelda and Secret of Mana were "representative" of console RPG's at the time, so much so that Sandy Peterson (the same reviewer and game designer I referred to above) had to point out that turn-based console RPG's like Final Fantasy and Lufia do exist as well, and that a few PC RPG's like Ultima VIII have also started to incorporate action RPG elements (though Ultima VIII was not well received). In other words, the action RPG genre was not widely accepted among PC RPG fans like it was among console RPG fans at the time.

#163 Posted by StaticOnTV (583 posts) -

[QUOTE="StaticOnTV"]No the transitions were real0time as in they put a cover over where you were at and then removed the cover it was not actually a completely different era that was loaded.Jag85


You mean like the early Dragon Quest games? Those games did what you're describing as well.

Anyway, the early Ultima games did do a complete screen transition. For example, Ultima III and IV (and I think V as well) switched over to a seperate screen when a turn-based battle began. In fact, I believe that was where Japanese RPG developers may have even got the idea from in the first place.

Also the stories in American Rpgs, which eventually just focused mostly on PC, had way more depth and mind questioning and messages than Jrpgs did. You state that FFIV and stuff had a greater emphasis on storytelling, it was more like a scripted story book yes, but it did not have the depth of story telling American rpgs had at the time.StaticOnTV

Some of the Ultima games back then did have some interesting plots and even raised a few moral issues, but that still doesn't approach the kind of storytelling emphasis that Final Fantasy IV had. To sum up why this game was a significant milestone in RPG stoytelling, I'll just post some excerpts from a Dragon magazine (American tabletop & computer RPG magazine) review written by Sandy Peterson (a notable American tabletop & PC RPG designer) for Final Fantasy IV back in 1993...

"In a role-playing game, the party sticks together through thick and thin. It is rare for the group to split up, because of the difficulties it causes the gamemaster and players. This is even more the case in computer role-playing games. If one of your party members dies, you reload a saved game, bringing her back to life, and keep playing. But in a good novel or movie, this isnt the case. In The Lord of the Rings, the Fellowship doesnt stay together throughout. At the time of Boromirs betrayal, the Fellowship is shattered for good - Gandalf and Boromir are dead, two hobbits are kidnapped by orcs, two hobbits are striking out on their own, and the remaining three Fellowship members try to run down the kidnapping orcs. In The Man in the Iron Mask, a famous adventure, the four friends (the three musketeers and DArtagnan), never act together as a group at any point in the entire book!

Of course, computer role-playing games that have only one party member (yourself) avoid this problem. But Final Fantasy II has attempted to address this. In this game, party members join your group, then leave it for their own private reasons. One fellow even betrays the rest of the party! Others sacrifice themselves, dying in various heroic ways for the good of the quest. (My favorite is the guy who jumped into a volcanic crater with explosives tied around his waistwhat a guy!) As the quest progresses, you find your girlfriend, are forced to leave her, then she gets sickyou get the idea. Its as if you are following the storyline of a fantasy novel rather than playing a role-playing game.

Because of the possibility of losing and the fact that the characters often spoke up for themselves, I got much more attached to my party in Final Fantasy II than in any other computer game Ive played. The NPCs were certainly two-dimensional, but they were a big step up from the one-dimensional characters normally plaguing the role-playing computer game player."

Coming from a publication and game designer focused on tabletop & PC RPG's, those are some pretty huge compliments if you ask me. Essentially, what this 1993 review seems to be saying is that FFIV was unique because of how it blurred the lines between a fantasy novel and a role-playing game, and its much stronger emphasis on characterization than American RPG's at the time. In other words, there's no denying that Final Fantasy IV was indeed an important milestone in RPG storytelling.

That's not to take anything away from American RPG's of that era, since, like the Ultima games above, a few of them did have some pretty interesting plots and raised moral issues. However, keep in mind that this is from an American perspective. From a Japanese perspective, RPG's that were never released state-side until recently (if at all), such as Dragon Quest V and Shin Megami Tensei, were pushing the boundaries of RPG storytelling and/or moral decisions even further than what American-released RPG's (whether American or Japanese developed) were doing.

There were also plenty of action-rpgs on PC, which were actually action rpgs instead of action-adventure games with lots of text (which many considered to mean rpg for no real reason.)

Have the elements you mentioned didn't differtiate anything.StaticOnTV

I didn't say there weren't any action RPG's on PC's, but there's no denying there was much less of them on the PC than there were on consoles. Back then, the action RPG was seen as a largely console genre. For example, even American PC gaming magazines in the late 80s to early 90s, such as such as Computer Gaming World and Dragon, largely associated associated real-time action combat with Japanese console RPG's rather than American computer RPG's. A few early 90's letters from American PC RPG fans printed in Dragon magazine even dismissed console RPG's as a whole as just "arcade" action games, giving the impression that action RPG's like Zelda and Secret of Mana were "representative" of console RPG's at the time, so much so that Sandy Peterson (the same reviewer and game designer I referred to above) had to point out that turn-based console RPG's like Final Fantasy and Lufia do exist as well, and that a few PC RPG's like Ultima VIII have also started to incorporate action RPG elements (though Ultima VIII was not well received). In other words, the action RPG genre was not widely accepted among PC RPG fans like it was among console RPG fans at the time.

1.You are talking about games before the NES now. 2.This is one person, there were tons of rpgs with more orgnized less predictable stories with depth, you are forgetting how popular PC gaming was. it was not until a ta later that PC gaming started SUPER bombing again, unless you played a lot of PC games, FFIV (and 7) would impress you. 3.No they were not, Action rpgs on the PC were completely different, the reason why people considered Zelda LTTP or Sword of MAna Action-Rpgs, were because they were still in the era where games with lots of text were usually instantly called Rpgs for no reason on consoles. That did not end until a tad bit later. Actual Action Rpgs do not play like Sword of Mana or ALTTP, and they both in many places since (though not as much the former) got those labels dropped.
#164 Posted by Mrmedia01 (1917 posts) -

Naw the Wiiu is this gen with slightly better graphics.

PS4 and Xbox 720 will be next gen.

#165 Posted by Jag85 (4599 posts) -

[QUOTE="Jag85"]

[QUOTE="StaticOnTV"]No the transitions were real0time as in they put a cover over where you were at and then removed the cover it was not actually a completely different era that was loaded.StaticOnTV


You mean like the early Dragon Quest games? Those games did what you're describing as well.

Anyway, the early Ultima games did do a complete screen transition. For example, Ultima III and IV (and I think V as well) switched over to a seperate screen when a turn-based battle began. In fact, I believe that was where Japanese RPG developers may have even got the idea from in the first place.

Also the stories in American Rpgs, which eventually just focused mostly on PC, had way more depth and mind questioning and messages than Jrpgs did. You state that FFIV and stuff had a greater emphasis on storytelling, it was more like a scripted story book yes, but it did not have the depth of story telling American rpgs had at the time.StaticOnTV

Some of the Ultima games back then did have some interesting plots and even raised a few moral issues, but that still doesn't approach the kind of storytelling emphasis that Final Fantasy IV had. To sum up why this game was a significant milestone in RPG stoytelling, I'll just post some excerpts from a Dragon magazine (American tabletop & computer RPG magazine) review written by Sandy Peterson (a notable American tabletop & PC RPG designer) for Final Fantasy IV back in 1993...

"In a role-playing game, the party sticks together through thick and thin. It is rare for the group to split up, because of the difficulties it causes the gamemaster and players. This is even more the case in computer role-playing games. If one of your party members dies, you reload a saved game, bringing her back to life, and keep playing. But in a good novel or movie, this isnt the case. In The Lord of the Rings, the Fellowship doesnt stay together throughout. At the time of Boromirs betrayal, the Fellowship is shattered for good - Gandalf and Boromir are dead, two hobbits are kidnapped by orcs, two hobbits are striking out on their own, and the remaining three Fellowship members try to run down the kidnapping orcs. In The Man in the Iron Mask, a famous adventure, the four friends (the three musketeers and DArtagnan), never act together as a group at any point in the entire book!

Of course, computer role-playing games that have only one party member (yourself) avoid this problem. But Final Fantasy II has attempted to address this. In this game, party members join your group, then leave it for their own private reasons. One fellow even betrays the rest of the party! Others sacrifice themselves, dying in various heroic ways for the good of the quest. (My favorite is the guy who jumped into a volcanic crater with explosives tied around his waistwhat a guy!) As the quest progresses, you find your girlfriend, are forced to leave her, then she gets sickyou get the idea. Its as if you are following the storyline of a fantasy novel rather than playing a role-playing game.

Because of the possibility of losing and the fact that the characters often spoke up for themselves, I got much more attached to my party in Final Fantasy II than in any other computer game Ive played. The NPCs were certainly two-dimensional, but they were a big step up from the one-dimensional characters normally plaguing the role-playing computer game player."

Coming from a publication and game designer focused on tabletop & PC RPG's, those are some pretty huge compliments if you ask me. Essentially, what this 1993 review seems to be saying is that FFIV was unique because of how it blurred the lines between a fantasy novel and a role-playing game, and its much stronger emphasis on characterization than American RPG's at the time. In other words, there's no denying that Final Fantasy IV was indeed an important milestone in RPG storytelling.

That's not to take anything away from American RPG's of that era, since, like the Ultima games above, a few of them did have some pretty interesting plots and raised moral issues. However, keep in mind that this is from an American perspective. From a Japanese perspective, RPG's that were never released state-side until recently (if at all), such as Dragon Quest V and Shin Megami Tensei, were pushing the boundaries of RPG storytelling and/or moral decisions even further than what American-released RPG's (whether American or Japanese developed) were doing.

There were also plenty of action-rpgs on PC, which were actually action rpgs instead of action-adventure games with lots of text (which many considered to mean rpg for no real reason.)

Have the elements you mentioned didn't differtiate anything.StaticOnTV

I didn't say there weren't any action RPG's on PC's, but there's no denying there was much less of them on the PC than there were on consoles. Back then, the action RPG was seen as a largely console genre. For example, even American PC gaming magazines in the late 80s to early 90s, such as such as Computer Gaming World and Dragon, largely associated associated real-time action combat with Japanese console RPG's rather than American computer RPG's. A few early 90's letters from American PC RPG fans printed in Dragon magazine even dismissed console RPG's as a whole as just "arcade" action games, giving the impression that action RPG's like Zelda and Secret of Mana were "representative" of console RPG's at the time, so much so that Sandy Peterson (the same reviewer and game designer I referred to above) had to point out that turn-based console RPG's like Final Fantasy and Lufia do exist as well, and that a few PC RPG's like Ultima VIII have also started to incorporate action RPG elements (though Ultima VIII was not well received). In other words, the action RPG genre was not widely accepted among PC RPG fans like it was among console RPG fans at the time.

1.You are talking about games before the NES now.

2.This is one person, there were tons of rpgs with more orgnized less predictable stories with depth, you are forgetting how popular PC gaming was. it was not until a ta later that PC gaming started SUPER bombing again, unless you played a lot of PC games, FFIV (and 7) would impress you.

3.No they were not, Action rpgs on the PC were completely different, the reason why people considered Zelda LTTP or Sword of MAna Action-Rpgs, were because they were still in the era where games with lots of text were usually instantly called Rpgs for no reason on consoles. That did not end until a tad bit later. Actual Action Rpgs do not play like Sword of Mana or ALTTP, and they both in many places since (though not as much the former) got those labels dropped.

1. I didn't know Dragon Quest and Ultima IV were before the NES...

2. What kind of RPG's are you talking about? Like I already said above, that review I posted is from 1993 and was published by one of the foremoest PC RPG specialist magazines at the time, having printed countless PC RPG reviews, so I'd take their word over yours any day. And what they are saying is that FFIV has deeper characterization and more novel-like storytelling than any PC RPG they've reviewed (up until 1993), which says a lot... Also, PC gaming was not that popular at all in the 16-bit era, and certainly not when it came to RPG's. PC gaming didn't start gaining mainstream popularity until the mid-90's, with the rise of the IBM PC and its clones, while PC RPG's in particular didn't start going mainstream until Diablo and its clones in the late 90's.

3. What kind of action RPG's are you talking about? Like I already said, even PC gaming magazines in the late 80s to early 90s, like Computer Gaming World and Dragon, were stating that action RPG's are a mostly console genre. Again, I'd much rather take their word over yours any day, And what do you mean "Sword of Mana" (I assume you mean Secret of Mana?) is not an "actual" RPG? Nearly every RPG fan today widely regards Secret of Mana as a true RPG... even more so than most modern action RPG's.

#166 Posted by HaRmLeSS_RaGe (1270 posts) -

I don't really consider the Wii U as next gen from what i've seen so far.

 

However I do see it as an xbox 360/PS3 v1.5 that I can play Nintendo games on. That's good enough for me. :)

#167 Posted by StaticOnTV (583 posts) -

[QUOTE="StaticOnTV"][QUOTE="Jag85"]
I didn't say there weren't any action RPG's on PC's, but there's no denying there was much less of them on the PC than there were on consoles. Back then, the action RPG was seen as a largely console genre. For example, even American PC gaming magazines in the late 80s to early 90s, such as such as Computer Gaming World and Dragon, largely associated associated real-time action combat with Japanese console RPG's rather than American computer RPG's. A few early 90's letters from American PC RPG fans printed in Dragon magazine even dismissed console RPG's as a whole as just "arcade" action games, giving the impression that action RPG's like Zelda and Secret of Mana were "representative" of console RPG's at the time, so much so that Sandy Peterson (the same reviewer and game designer I referred to above) had to point out that turn-based console RPG's like Final Fantasy and Lufia do exist as well, and that a few PC RPG's like Ultima VIII have also started to incorporate action RPG elements (though Ultima VIII was not well received). In other words, the action RPG genre was not widely accepted among PC RPG fans like it was among console RPG fans at the time.

Jag85

1.You are talking about games before the NES now.

2.This is one person, there were tons of rpgs with more orgnized less predictable stories with depth, you are forgetting how popular PC gaming was. it was not until a ta later that PC gaming started SUPER bombing again, unless you played a lot of PC games, FFIV (and 7) would impress you.

3.No they were not, Action rpgs on the PC were completely different, the reason why people considered Zelda LTTP or Sword of MAna Action-Rpgs, were because they were still in the era where games with lots of text were usually instantly called Rpgs for no reason on consoles. That did not end until a tad bit later. Actual Action Rpgs do not play like Sword of Mana or ALTTP, and they both in many places since (though not as much the former) got those labels dropped.

1. I didn't know Dragon Quest and Ultima IV were before the NES...

2. What kind of RPG's are you talking about? Like I already said above, that review I posted is from 1993 and was published by one of the foremoest PC RPG specialist magazines at the time, having printed countless PC RPG reviews, so I'd take their word over yours any day. And what they are saying is that FFIV has deeper characterization and more novel-like storytelling than any PC RPG they've reviewed (up until 1993), which says a lot... Also, PC gaming was not that popular at all in the 16-bit era, and certainly not when it came to RPG's. PC gaming didn't start gaining mainstream popularity until the mid-90's, with the rise of the IBM PC and its clones, while PC RPG's in particular didn't start going mainstream until Diablo and its clones in the late 90's.

3. What kind of action RPG's are you talking about? Like I already said, even PC gaming magazines in the late 80s to early 90s, like Computer Gaming World and Dragon, were stating that action RPG's are a mostly console genre. Again, I'd much rather take their word over yours any day, And what do you mean "Sword of Mana" (I assume you mean Secret of Mana?) is not an "actual" RPG? Nearly every RPG fan today widely regards Secret of Mana as a true RPG... even more so than most modern action RPG's.

1.You also mentioned Ultima 3, which was out before it to cover your mistake, and Ultima IV pretty much came out the same year as the NES unless you lived in Japan. 2. you mentioned one thing, how did that become magazineS? You also then cloned what I said about the PC not being super popular until later, which makes most of your text kind of pointless. 3.One magazine you talked about equals somehow many PC magazines? Also PC magazines are the only ones covering pc and console game amiright? Also many rpgs fans also claim to this day that ALTTP is an rpg, when it clearly isn't. But now we are going from your "official" magazines to fans, because you take their words over "official" magazines now? Also back up your entire last sentence.
#168 Posted by Jag85 (4599 posts) -

[QUOTE="Jag85"]

[QUOTE="StaticOnTV"] 1.You are talking about games before the NES now.

2.This is one person, there were tons of rpgs with more orgnized less predictable stories with depth, you are forgetting how popular PC gaming was. it was not until a ta later that PC gaming started SUPER bombing again, unless you played a lot of PC games, FFIV (and 7) would impress you.

3.No they were not, Action rpgs on the PC were completely different, the reason why people considered Zelda LTTP or Sword of MAna Action-Rpgs, were because they were still in the era where games with lots of text were usually instantly called Rpgs for no reason on consoles. That did not end until a tad bit later. Actual Action Rpgs do not play like Sword of Mana or ALTTP, and they both in many places since (though not as much the former) got those labels dropped.StaticOnTV

1. I didn't know Dragon Quest and Ultima IV were before the NES...

2. What kind of RPG's are you talking about? Like I already said above, that review I posted is from 1993 and was published by one of the foremoest PC RPG specialist magazines at the time, having printed countless PC RPG reviews, so I'd take their word over yours any day. And what they are saying is that FFIV has deeper characterization and more novel-like storytelling than any PC RPG they've reviewed (up until 1993), which says a lot... Also, PC gaming was not that popular at all in the 16-bit era, and certainly not when it came to RPG's. PC gaming didn't start gaining mainstream popularity until the mid-90's, with the rise of the IBM PC and its clones, while PC RPG's in particular didn't start going mainstream until Diablo and its clones in the late 90's.

3. What kind of action RPG's are you talking about? Like I already said, even PC gaming magazines in the late 80s to early 90s, like Computer Gaming World and Dragon, were stating that action RPG's are a mostly console genre. Again, I'd much rather take their word over yours any day, And what do you mean "Sword of Mana" (I assume you mean Secret of Mana?) is not an "actual" RPG? Nearly every RPG fan today widely regards Secret of Mana as a true RPG... even more so than most modern action RPG's.

1.You also mentioned Ultima 3, which was out before it to cover your mistake, and Ultima IV pretty much came out the same year as the NES unless you lived in Japan.

2. you mentioned one thing, how did that become magazineS? You also then cloned what I said about the PC not being super popular until later, which makes most of your text kind of pointless.

3.One magazine you talked about equals somehow many PC magazines? Also PC magazines are the only ones covering pc and console game amiright? Also many rpgs fans also claim to this day that ALTTP is an rpg, when it clearly isn't. But now we are going from your "official" magazines to fans, because you take their words over "official" magazines now? Also back up your entire last sentence.

1. You have a very irrational sense of logic. You are the one who claimed those games are from before the NES, and so I corrected you by pointing out that at least two of them are from after the NES's release. The only person I see trying to cover up his mistake here is you.

2. I have no idea what you're trying to say here... I assume English isn't your first language? (Well, it's not mine either, for that matter.)

3. I referred to at least two major PC gaming magazines of the early 90s. The difference between me and you is that I have sources to back up everything I say, while you have nothing to back up anything you've said. And are you serious about that last sentence? You really expect me to prove that Secret of Mana is an action RPG? You are the one who first claimed Secret of Mana is not an "actual" action RPG, so the burden of proof lies on you to prove your claim.