This week, I'm trying something different. A fellow forum member and I are going to debate a subject relevant to the game. This time, Chaosdreams and I are going to debate which demographic of PlayStation history has been insulted more by SuperBot, the PlayStation 1 or JRPGs. My comments will be in red, and Chaos will be in green. I'd like to note that this debate does not necessarily reflect either person's opinion on the topic.
The PlayStation 1 era is missing more characters than any other demographic overall, and is missing some of the biggest characters from PlayStation history. Crash, Snake, Cloud, Spyro, Croft, Gex, Tomba, Abe, and Croc have all been denied entry into this game. While JRPGs aren't represented, possibly the most important era in PS history is almost completely absent.
Although the Playstation 1 era is missing some noticeable characters, it is less severe then the complete lack of representation from a genre of gaming. What we have is a game that is representing allstars from past, present and in some cases, future. Are jrpg characters not considered to be an allstar? Although the market is becoming niche, since when was Parappa the rappa not? Or Fat Princess. We have characters that show that you do not need to be relevant and popular (to a degree.)
Now, we are indeed missing the names you listed, and from that list one name in particular, Cloud, is from the jrpg market. But Cloud only represents one franchise, and a specific game, ff7. If we stick to simply the ps1 console, then games such as: Chrono Cross (also published by Square) are being ignored. Not only that, but we have games that Sony has published such as Wild Arms, Wild Arms 2 and Legend of Dragoon.
Now not that I know the entire logistics behind if it would cost them money to get said IP, or if it would be free. However the fact those games (including ff7) have been published by Sony, then it would lead me to believe that it would be a tad easier then what is now third party, such as the names you listed (including Cloud.) So to me, the complete and utter absence of the jrpg market is more of a crime then the lack of inclusion of third party character, be it as it may how popular they are.
Now, if I may jump from the aspect of some of the games known on the ps1, I'd like to go into a few details of how much each game (from the ones i list) is received in regards to a rating, be it published by sony, or third party. Seeing as how we don't know the budget for Superbot, it would make more sense to go about this in regards to a means of how well a game is received, and where the line between acceptable and "to niche" occurs.
- Wild arms - between 8 and 8.75 out of 10 (roughly)
- Chrono Cross - between a 9 and a 10 out of 10 (roughly)
- Legend of Dragoon - between a 6 and a 7.5 out of 10 (roughly)
- Xenogears - between a 9 and a 10 out of 10 (roughly)
- Final Fantasy 7 - between a 9 and a 10 out of 10 (roughly)
As you can see, very well received (quality wise) and even if the sale figures aren't as large, the games themselves had quality, and if said quality was naturally received and justified, why are there no representatives? What defines an allstar? Why are these games ignored? Most importantly, how is it that the lack of a few ps1 characters in general, is more important then the complete and utter lack of characters from a genre of gaming? A lot of questions, but the answer should be clear. It's not more severe, since the lack of representation from a genre, the jrpg market, is the true crises.
All those games you mentioned were on PS1 themselves. Is it just so coincidental that some of the best JRPG games, according to you, happen to be part of the demographic that I'm arguing for? I believe you've helped prove my point. And you said it yourself: They didn't sell well. JRPGs were ignored by PSAS because they're relatively ignored by the general community, too. Yes, SuperBot could've put some in, but what's the point if they won't get much of an appeal, and if they won't influence purchases?
Your JRPGs may have been reviewed well, but the PS1 characters that were ignored are considered some of the best games of all time. Not including 7s and 8s, I'm talking just 9s and 10s.
Legend of Dragoon: 74 on Metacritc
Wild Arms got 8/10 or lower by almost every review
Xenogears: 84 on Metacritic
I'll give you that Chrono Cross got a 94, and FFVII got a 92, but FFVII is part of my PS1 character list
Crash 3: 91
Spyro 3: 91
Tomb Raider: 91
As you can see, the critics loved the neglected PS1 characters much more than the JRPG market. SuperBot made a bigger mistake ignoring characters from these massive games - ones that sparked life in the PS1 and led to the very game that they're making - than ignoring characters from mediocre JRPGs.
I simply helped your point along to further my own. I stuck to the ps1 era, because I can sympathize on how it deserves more representation. However, this doesn't mean I think Crash, Spyro and the others you listed take precedence over an entire market. It doesn't matter how different the popularity is, rather, the sales. Because if the sales itself reach a certain limit, then it's worth looking into. I cannot prove that Jrpgs are more popular, because they are not, especially in North America. The market has certainly changed, however this game isn't about what's popular, it's about what games deserve recognition. And I think that to stand by and say that a game with a 9 or a 10 automatically rules out a game that has a 7 or 8 is simply unbelievable. An entire market has been ignored, and your answer to that is popularity?
My point isn't to argue which is more popular, because if that is the discussion then you win. But what we are discussing isn't so vague or point specific. We are talking about which of the two subjects has been wrongly ignored. A few characters versus many, high score versus medium to high.
So what can we do in order to help evaluate the discussion further? We can go into sales. The numbers aren't going to help prove that the jrpg market is more popular because again, it isn't. But my point is to prove that although their is a gap in number or score, where's the dividing line between which gamers matter and which don't?
Here are ten games from the (ps1) and (ps2) market. I'm expanding my horizon now because the ps1 isn't the only thing that matters.
- Xenogears: 1.46m
- Chrono Cross: 1.86m
- Wild Arms: 0.95m
- Dark Cloud 1.54m
- Xenosaga : 1.74m
- Final Fantasy X: 8.05m
- Tales of the Abyss: 0.57m
- Star Ocean: TEOT 1.72m
- Rogue Galaxy 0.84m
- Dragon Quest VIII 5.21m
So throw some figures at me, make those numbers seem small because it's not hard to, but no matter how small you might make them seem, when a number exceeds a million, I think that's worth looking at. Is this not about gamers as a whole who've enjoyed the games on the Sony console? Or are we only looking at the characters that have the biggest crowd. If we go by this context, then we might as well say the only people who matter in society are the popular ones, even if the ones who aren't as recognized achieve great things and receive admiration and support.
We are talking about a game that's supposed to bring recognition to as many markets, games, characters and people as possible and generally speaking, if the jrpg market is as niche as it has become, so to are the gamers who support said market. One of the worst things you can do, is eliminate potential sales from the get go. And what you can't see in numbers is what one will do if they get Crash instead of a Jrpg character. The sales will rise, but so will the obvious fact that the jrpg market has been deemed not as important, and so to the gamers.
One representative is not enough to cover the amount of games that have made gamers of the jrpg market have a strong urge to continue gaming on the Sony consoles. I forgot, we don't even have one, we have no reps. It's worse then having few, the managed to look at the entire Jrpg market and deem it not as worthy. The gamers not as worthy, because apparently even the ones who enjoy the jrpg market, enjoy other games more. So do we take Crash and Spyro and a few others for a bigger profit? Or do we grab a few jrpg characters and recognize all gamers as a whole? I think the answer is clear, we acknowledge every market.
This is where we'll cut the debate, for time constraints. I'm sure this debate could continue for many more bullet points, but it's already lengthy as-is. Now it's up to you guys: Who do you think has been more slighted by SuperBot, PS1 reps or JRPG reps?
Guts (berserk) " I've never expected a miracle. I will get things done myself. "
"We are talking about a game that's supposed to bring recognition to as many markets, games, characters and people as possible and generally speaking, if the jrpg market is as niche as it has become, so to are the gamers who support said market. One of the worst things you can do, is eliminate potential sales from the get go. And what you can't see in numbers is what one will do if they get Crash instead of a Jrpg character. The sales will rise, but so will the obvious fact that the jrpg market has been deemed not as important, and so to the gamers."
This paragraph seemed spot-on.
I'm not a JRPG gamer, but I can understand the appeal, and I can understand why many are disappointed with a lack of a representative. The PS1 already has Spike, Parappa, and Sir Dan. (Also, I consider Sweet Tooth a PS1 rep).
A lot of gamers think of Sony when JRPG's are brought up, and I think Superbot missed the mark here.