[QUOTE="airshocker"]

[QUOTE="Jag85"]

The Wii U's first-month sales in 2012 is better than the PS360's first-month sales in 2005/2006. So no, the sales don't reflect anything.

[/QUOTE]

Of course the sales reflect something. That's nonsense. They're currently selling the console at a loss in order to move it off the shelves. That's a big danger sign to me. I don't remember the 360 or PS3 selling at a loss so quickly in order to move product.

[/QUOTE]
You serious? Microsoft sold both Xbox consoles at a loss, while Sony sold the PS3 at an even bigger loss. It's a common strategy for console manufacturers to sell the console at a loss and make profit on the software, a strategy that's been employed ever since the Sega Mega Drive / Genesis in the 16-bit era.

On the other hand, Nintendo was always making a profit on every console they sold, ever since the NES all the way up until the Wii. The Wii U is the first time Nintendo has ever sold a home console at a loss, while the 3DS is the first time they sold a handheld at a loss. It's unusual by Nintendo standards, but it's actually quite common by Sega/Microsoft/Sony standards. What should be more surprising is why it took Nintendo so long to adopt this strategy.

[QUOTE="glez13"]

This. JRPG was simply the way to call Light RPG's outside Japan, mostly because almost only them did this "subgenre" of RPG's. It was also called console RPG since they mostly only developed for consoles. Actually the term JRPG came later and it's a short form for Japanese styled role-playing game. If you look for reviews or other gaming related articles in magazines or online including here  on GS from the mid-late 90's you will see how Japanese styled role-playing game was used and little by little got replaced by JRPG.

[/QUOTE]
The term "console RPG" was the most common term back then, up until what was known as the "computer RPG" started coming to consoles in the early 2000s. They then became "Japanese style" and "American style", before eventually becoming "JRPG" and "WRPG". The problem though, is that the terms have always been poorly defined, with the cliches and stereotypes associated with these labels never being consistent and always changing with the times, sometimes even switching places.

For example, in the 90s, Japanese RPGs were seen as being more fast-paced and action-oriented while American RPGs were seen as slower-paced and turn-based, yet a decade later the roles reversed. Likewise, neither Japanese RPGs nor American RPGs were seen as being more or less linear than the other in the 90s, yet that's how many defined the "JRPG" and "WRPG" labels a decade later. And nowadays, the perceptions are changing once again, with gamers associating "JRPG" with games like Xenoblade rather than Final Fantasy. The only perceptions that seem to have any consistency are probably the art styles and/or character designs.

[QUOTE="StaticOnTV"][QUOTE="Jag85"]

[QUOTE="clr84651"]

To be the next generation ahead it has to go beyond what the curent ones can do. And a gimmicky control pad doesn't count. We're talking CPU power,GPU Power, and a faster discdrive that uses higher capacity discs. 

[/QUOTE] Power isn't the only thing that defines next gen. Back in the 80s, the [b]NES wasn't anymore powerful than the Atari 5200[/b], yet the Atari 5200 is regarded as 2nd-gen while the NES is regarded as 3rd-gen. Console generations are simply referring to the time periods, not the power levels.

And for the record, the Wii U does have a more powerful GPU, more powerful than the PS360 combined. That's not even up for debate, but what is up for debate is the CPU, which appears to have a lower clock rate than the PS360 CPU's. But if you think about it, it's not such a big deal, since the GPGPU can offload work from the CPU, while at the same time the DSP audio processor and OS CPU also offload work from the main CPU. These, especially the much more powerful GPGPU, more than make up for the CPU's lower clock rate (thus keeping the temperature down).

And as has already been pointed out, a game like "X" cannot be replicated on the PS360. While its graphical quality can be rivalled on a smaller scale, there is no way the PS360 can maintain that quality across such a huge open world, with such long draw distances, at 1080p and 60 fps no less. The Wii U is more powerful than the PS360, but only if developers utilize it properly by focusing more on the GPGPU and less on the CPU, which I'm sure is what Monolith Soft must have done for "X".

[/QUOTE] If you said 7800 you would have had an argument.[/QUOTE] No, your eyes are not deceiving you... the Atari 5200 is exactly what I meant. If you do a spec-by-spec comparison, the NES doesn't appear to have any real technical advantage over the 5200, the most powerful console of the 2nd generation. They both had MOS 6502-based CPU's clocked at 1.79 MHz, while the 5200 even had more RAM, a slightly higher resolution, and could display more simultaneous colours. The only real advantage the NES appears to have had was superior audio from its dedicated sound chip. The reason why we remember the NES being more powerful is because it was pushed to its limits many years later, whereas the 5200 died a premature death due to the 1983/1984 game industry crash.

As for the Atari 7800, that was also barely an improvement at all over its 5200 predecessor, technically speaking. The specs for the 5200 and 7800 were almost identical, except the 7800 had better audio but less RAM.

The only console in the 3rd gen that was truly next gen in terms of specs was the Sega Master System, whereas both the NES and Atari 7800 were barely an improvement at all over the previous generation, technically speaking.

[QUOTE="StaticOnTV"][QUOTE="Jag85"]

[QUOTE="StaticOnTV"] If you said 7800 you would have had an argument.[/QUOTE] No, your eyes are not deceiving you... the Atari 5200 is exactly what I meant. If you do a spec-by-spec comparison, the NES doesn't appear to have any real technical advantage over the 5200, the most powerful console of the 2nd generation. They both had MOS 6502-based CPU's clocked at 1.79 MHz, while the 5200 even had more RAM, a slightly higher resolution, and could display more simultaneous colours. The only real advantage the NES appears to have had was the superior audio chip. The reason why we remember the NES being more powerful is because it was pushed to its limits many years later, whereas the 5200 died a premature death due to the 1983/1984 game industry crash.

[/QUOTE] Yeah, but the 7800 was even more ahead, the 5200 was only slightly arguably more powerful.

@nd gen is also very confusing as there was four different power generations in that "gen".[/QUOTE] I've just edited my post, and added the following:

"As for the Atari 7800, that was also barely an improvement at all over its 5200 predecessor, technically speaking. The specs for the 5200 and 7800 were almost identical, except the 7800 had better audio but less RAM.

The only console in the 3rd gen that was truly next gen in terms of specs was the Sega Master System, whereas both the NES and Atari 7800 were barely an improvement at all over the previous generation, technically speaking."

EDIT:

By the way, I think it was more like two power generations within the 2nd gen, the first being the late 70s consoles (Fairchild Channel F, Atari 2600, Bally Astrocade, Intellivision) and the second being the early 80s consoles (ColecoVision and Atari 5200). That second group of consoles had specs that rivalled at least three of the 3rd gen consoles: the NES, Sega SG-1000 (released same day as NES), and Atari 7800. The only 3rd gen console that was truly far ahead of the previous gen was the Sega Master System, which was intended as a "next gen" Sega SG-1000 (hence why the SMS was called Sega Mark III in Japan), making it even more confusing, as if there were two power generations within the 3rd gen as well.

[QUOTE="StaticOnTV"]

Not really, Jrpgs turn-based and American-rpg turn based were handled differently. Especially when Jrpgs relied much mre heavily on RB, which is one of the main differences. As for the terms, they are inconsistent yes, however there are a couple things that contine to stand out.

[/QUOTE]

"RB"? Surely you mean ATB?

[QUOTE="StaticOnTV"][QUOTE="Jag85"]

[QUOTE="StaticOnTV"]

Not really, Jrpgs turn-based and American-rpg turn based were handled differently. Especially when Jrpgs relied much mre heavily on RB, which is one of the main differences. As for the terms, they are inconsistent yes, however there are a couple things that contine to stand out.

[/QUOTE]

"RB"? Surely you mean ATB?

[/QUOTE] Random Battles. Although ATB is another thing[/QUOTE] 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.

[QUOTE="StaticOnTV"][QUOTE="Jag85"]

[QUOTE="StaticOnTV"] Yeah, but the 7800 was even more ahead, the 5200 was only slightly arguably more powerful.

@nd gen is also very confusing as there was four different power generations in that "gen".[/QUOTE] I've just edited my post, and added the following:

"As for the Atari 7800, that was also barely an improvement at all over its 5200 predecessor, technically speaking. The specs for the 5200 and 7800 were almost identical, except the 7800 had better audio but less RAM.

The only console in the 3rd gen that was truly next gen in terms of specs was the Sega Master System, whereas both the NES and Atari 7800 were barely an improvement at all over the previous generation, technically speaking."

EDIT:

By the way, I think it was more like two power generations within the 2nd gen, the first being the late 70s consoles (Fairchild Channel F, Atari 2600, Bally Astrocade, Intellivision) and the second being the early 80s consoles (ColecoVision and Atari 5200). That second group of consoles had specs that rivalled at least three of the 3rd gen consoles: the NES, Sega SG-1000 (released same day as NES), and Atari 7800. The only 3rd gen console that was truly far ahead of the previous gen was the Sega Master System, which was intended as a "next gen" Sega SG-1000 (hence why the SMS was called Sega Mark III in Japan), making it even more confusing, as if there were two power generations within the 3rd gen as well.

[/QUOTE] The 7800 could handle a lot more sprites on screen than both the 5200 and the NES as well as if I am not mistaken able to output a higher resolution with its custom chip.

Also I believe there were more than 2 power levels second gen. You had 2600/Rca Studio etc. the ODyssey2/Vectrex etc, Coleco/Intellivision etc and 5200/Sg-1000.

I do agree that the NES and 7800 were not truly ahead, Sega mAster System along with Amstrad and XEGS held that title third gen.[/QUOTE]

True about the sprites, but the 7800's resolution was only slightly higher than the 5200, though the 7800's RAM was significantly less, even less than the NES.

I wasn't referring to power levels (which goes for almost any generation), but 'power generations'. The power difference between the late 70s consoles (2600, Fairchild, etc.) and the early 80s consoles (ColecoVision and 5200) was almost a generation apart, yet both are classified 2nd gen, probably because those later consoles didn't really live long enough to show off their potential like the NES did.

By the way, not sure I would really consider the Amstrad GX4000 as a true third-gen console. While it was an 8-bit console, it came long after the 16-bit era began.

[QUOTE="StaticOnTV"][QUOTE="Jag85"]

[QUOTE="StaticOnTV"] Random Battles. Although ATB is another thing[/QUOTE] 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.

[/QUOTE] 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.[/QUOTE] 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.