Sheikah

Which currently roughly translates to mediocre.

The universe where people have common sense, so probably not this one. How can anyone be left with an impression that Super Paper Mario was a good game?

Well Pokemon Diamond and Pearl are practically the same game, so it makes sense to.

Now that's just not clever. Super Paper Mario was, without doubt, one of the worst games I have played in the past couple of years. No story had left my brain in liquid state for quite some time, while also failing to deliver gameplay with a lasting appeal (to further kick it, it had not even a shred of difficulty).

When you touch the star on the Christmas Tree and yell "SHINE GET!!"

The DS/GBA of course (with the FF remakes alone).

Like I said, the initial comment was someone saying right now the Xbox was leading with RPGs. Minus any upcoming ones, I can't agree.

Oblivion, like I've already said, is multiformat. The worst version funnily enough happens to be on the 360 (although isn't that far from the PS3 version). And in the context that we were talking about, it was more or less about RPGs already out.

No, the point was that the 360 was leading with RPGs. I can't agree with this considering the RPGs are games that aren't really worth playing. It didn't really take into account the not-so-distant future either. It's like saying 'spend 300 quid now because at this precise moment in time there are more RPGs, even though they're all average or crap'. Jammy, I've played PSU and I honestly don't see how wrong it can be to go with several reviews indicating that a game is average. Reviews are generally there for the purpose of enlightening people - so we don't have to spend £40 on every game just to find out if it's mediocre or not.

I currently have 3 Wii games. Twilight Princess, Monkey Ball and Super Paper Mario. And of course, the included Wii Sports. I can't really have played all these bad games you are talking about. Like most sensible people, I'm waiting for the good games to arrive. I make no excuses for the lack of games at the moment, but given it is under a year old it's not difficult to see why. This doesn't mean I'm not allowed to make an informed decision of an RPG that seems to be commonly slammed for being unoriginal. Jammy, well instead of dragging the page length further downwards with quotes I'll just make a short summary. The 360 may have more RPGs, but since they are either average or bad they count for next to nothing (unlike, say, the DS). As for the Wii winning on RPGs...I don't remember the Gamecube having that many. PS2 had an enormous amount, and it wouldn't surprise me if they had their sequels on the PS3. And Dragon Quest...being a S-E franchise makes me think main titles will appear on the PS3, with spin offs (such as that DQ8 one) appearing on Wii.

Sod the review scores, as a bit of an RPG conisseur I can just tell that it's a typical thrown together RPG, with little special. The reviews actually reflect this. It seems entirely artificial and made for the sole purpose of creating an illusion that the 360 is not without Japanese-style RPGs. Yes I may be taking this view due to the number of sources indicating this, but I have no intention of buying an Xbox 360 and a 40 pound game to confirm this. From what I have read, as well as the gameplay videos and short plot summary this is definitely nothing to worry about.

I could honestly never imagine the day when someone would herald the 360 as being RPG King. Let's face it, the PS3 and Wii are relatively new but it's stark obvious that they will have far better RPGs than anything on the 360. Playstation will obviously have the main Final Fantasy titles, Tales games and countless numbers of RPGs. Wii will have Fire Emblem, possibly something to do with Golden Sun, and maybe Tales games. The 360 RPGs so far - let's face it, they're nothing special. Blue Dragon is quoted as being just a bog standard RPG. Phantasy Star Universe is dreadful - I've had the misfortune of playing that. BioShock (which I have completed on PC) is not an RPG whatsoever, despite being able to loot bodies and upgrade your health and weapons. I have no idea who brought that one up. Enchanted Arms from what I've heard isn't that great either. The 360 suffers from the fact it is too American - which is why you'll see countless shooters, sports games- and if RPGs they tend to be Western ones such as Fable. Great if you like that sort of Medievel theme, or if it's done really well (Oblivion), but I think it's safe to say Japanese RPGs are much more popular and that's why MS will never win on the RPG front for me. And before you say "But it still has more RPGs right now than the Wii and PS3" - I'd rather not play those games at all, and instead play some better games on different consoles. It's like being given the option to eat lard or eat nothing.

Except, that's on PS3 and PC. And miles better on PC. The only exclusive notable RPG to the 360 is Blue Dragon - and you must be having an utter laugh if you think that Fire Emblem Wii or a Tales/FF game that very likely will come to Wii will be worse than Blue Dragon. You can't really quote 360 for being better for RPGs when the only decent one can be got on most formats and is reasonably old now.

Bath. Shower is practical, bath is comfortable.

I really wish this would be Harvest Moon instead. Animal Crossing for me got boring too quickly; a lack of objectives, change and NPC interaction made the game stale.

Please remind me of these RPGs, unless you mean the lackluster effort that is Blue Dragon, or the multi format Oblivion.

It is just selling well because of Wii Sports. Nintendo doing well off casual games means they will make more of them. I find it unlikely that their financial success will benefit us traditional gamers all that much - still probably 1 main Mario game every few years etc. Hopefully some games like Tales of Symphonia but for this generation will come along.

Technically speaking, the 360 is a poorly manufactured and generally unimpressive machine. Games make a console, and good games can idealistically appear on any console.

I honestly thought you were joking. Besides Halo, there seemed to be hardly anything on it worth playing.

Yes there are lots of games getting over 90%, but they still aren't in the same league as others of similar scores. Take the first Prince of Persia for PS2- fun yes, but just a linear and short patformer with litte replayability. There are just so many of these 'good' games that you generally forget about (then let's not forget the 2 or 3 or so sequels you normally get) that seemed to clog the PS2. Then you could look at games like GTA San Andreas and Vice City- practically a reused graphic engine and felt so similar each game. Then you had games like Final Fantasy X that while great, were a huge stepdown from what we're used to seeing from an FF title. Yes there were some 'fantastic' games, but in my opinion there were either more of these on GC or just better ones.

Yes but, quantity doesn't have anything to do with quality. I still remember those chavs you would see who walk about in gamestation with about 8 preowned games in their hand, adding more to the pile. They just wanted lots of games. I think gamecube had games that were great, and couldn't just be completed in 8 hours (and if they could, they had replayability).

I seriously hope it is a character from Golden Sun. Swordsmen type characters look cool and are generally great to play with.

Yes but, what I'm saying is, some gamecube games such as Super Smash Brothers could equal maybe 20-30 amazing games since they simply lasted forever, or you had games like Wind Waker/Symphonia that seemed to be a mark above many PS2 games. 'Filler' games like Jak/Ratchet, constant football games and beat 'em ups might have padded out their games library, but I couldn't care much about them. *smirks*. I'm wondering how on Earth anyone could have reached that conclusion. Yeh thanks, I don't want games like Tales of Symphonia and Resident Evil 4. That's not what I was saying. It was more or less the point that I'd still have bought a gamecube had it only got first party games, simply because they were that good and there were a fair few of them. By "looks", if you're referring to graphics then it's obviously going to be a level behind the other two consoles. Nintendo are very good at doing their 'smoothed' cartoon style graphics, which can look more pleasing to the eye. You see these in Mario Kart, Sunshine, (Galaxy screens), SSBM etc. I only really like the Mario Kart Racers out of pretty much all their is out there.

I don't think there was one good game for the PS2 even every 3 months. And as far as really good games, maybe you'd get one every 5 months on PS2 if you were lucky.

Well, I'd rather have quality over quantity.