Can you see Sega being bigger than Square in RPGs?

gunvalkyrie was rad! :anjou_happy:

one of my favorite games and probably my favorie xbox game.

Phantasy Star Online? Dunno how good it is but my sources (^~) tell me it sold well.

Oops, I didn’t complete that sentence. I meant “in the last 2 years.”

What I’m basically saying is that both Square and it’s fans have bas taste.Capiche :stuck_out_tongue: ?

Anyways I can’t really answer your question.I don’t really know when games sell.I know when they DON’T sell and it doesn’t take someone online or the news @ a game site to make me see a game like GV for example dind’t sell.

I dind’t get how your “trap” was related with the “mainstreamness” of the new Shining games.

Gather 'round kids… it’s time for the recycling game! Can you guess what line Parn is going to use that he’s used before?

*Pot: Kettle, you are black!

Kettle: So are you, Pot!*

In the meantime, resume your dislike of many various Sony-related products.

And omniscient of you to know whose games I like and whose game I don’t like.Advice : don’t generalize.I like a lot of Playstation games.What I don’t like is most Square games.Most.

Well, then, obviously none.

I think the last Sega game I looked forward to was PSO Episode I and II for GameCube. There just hasn’t been anything good lately, particularly on the RPG front (which comprises the bulk of what I play). Even Phantasy Star Universe doesn’t get me that excited and I keep forgetting that Shining Tears is coming stateside. It feels like every time I see a news bite for it pop up in my Tracked Games on GameSpot I’m actually surprised.

And Sakura Taisen doesn’t interest me at all. I’ve seen the import of the original game for the Saturn and it looked unique, but I have no interest in combining a dating sim with my strategy/RPG.

That puts Sega’s three flagship RPG franchises pretty low on my radar. I wish it were otherwise. I’d love to see Phantasy Star return to its roots and get rid of those silly photon weapons and dorky outfits, but I just don’t see that happening. Maybe PSU will be more immersive than the PSO games (which were great with friends, though terrible solo). Maybe not. I guess I’ll have to wait and see.

Any person I know in real life, with the exception of one, has had at least played One Final Fantasy game, despite that some of them only play games casually and the occasional hard core gamer. So it is safe to say Final Fantasy is a game for also the casual gamer, especially since there is 10+ of the games, it would be a difficult series to follow if it is one whole related story.
On a interesting note, people I have known that use to enjoy Japanease RPG’s (FF6, PS4 for example) dont play Japanese Games anymore but have become more interested into Western made RPG’s. Just a odd thing I noticed, you notice people’s tastes change after many years…
Will I continue to play Square-enix/Sega games RPG’s in the future? Most likely if I am interested in it.
I think I have become a casual gamer myself lately because of work and the real life, I just do not have the time like I use to.


Since when did number of series matter? In that case, Square Enix ANNIHILATES Sega. You’re not making a valid argument at all.[/quote]

And yours is? Missing the point seems to be your forte Parn. Compared
to companies that make a variety of games that make RPGs, Sega is by far the most sucessful for having three franchises that are RPGs. I’m not comparing them to Square in THAT aspect because that’s all they make. Creativity is what i was comparing them to.Square makes the same boring old RPGS based in fantasy worlds with some cyberpunkish overtones.
Well executed but usually the same.

SHENMUE2, PHANTASY STAR ONLINE, SHINING FORCE are rpgs that are completly different to each other in settings and so on. One based in the modern world, the other in some far off galactic future and the other in a traditional japanese style fantasy setting.

I don’t see Square doing that type of variety in their RPGs in the last five years or so.

Sega as a whole have more intresting ideas for RPGs than Square at the moment. If you take into consideration of games they have released since 2000 to now, Sega has had MORE original ideas for RPGS than Square has had.

Unless you think FF the pop band drops a shit in the woods is originality.

I certainly can’t since I avoid buying shitty games, but I can name off a piece of shit that I have no intentions of ever buying. Virtua Quest. You effectively lose all credibility if you actually defend that game.[/quote]

A comment from an ignorant gamer. People who has ACTUALLY played it have all said that the game is n’t half as bad as they expected it to be. Including several game sites. The game is n’t shit just because it was n’t the game people was expecting it to be.

Potential doesn’t mean crap. Sega’s had the potential to be number one, numerous times. They still aren’t. Screw potential.[/quote]

Another ignorant comment. Sega 's been third party for nearly three years. you should n’t have expected them to storm the charts and make killer apps straight away. It takes nearly three to two years to make a game and they’ve only released a limited amount during that period as a third party. The REAL games will be revealed this year.

But the potential is there.

Yeah because, unannounced games are REALLY EXCITING. As for what has been announced… Shining Tears? Whatever. Shining Force Neo? I’ll pass. Phantasy Star Universe is pretty much it.[/quote]

That was all last year. This year wait and see.

The game is being made FOR Sega so it still makes it a Sega game. If your gonna get technical than you might as well include SAKURA TAISEN which is made by Red Entertainment and SHINING FORCE which was made by Camelot,as well.

Like duh that makes it so unimportant because you gaijin players can’t play it.

Which hasn’t recieved a confirmation on an English translation. The new artwork sucks anyways, and I have a perfectly working copy of Dragon Force for my Saturn.[/quote]

Without all the extra bonuses that the remake will have.

REAL PS fans are hoping for the former.

And if it’s not, it’ll be just another Shining game that I won’t buy. Good times![/quote]

Why would I care if you don’t buy the next Shining game for?

Yeah the same regime that islolated Camelot,Did n’t bother translating the rest of SHINING FORCE 3, Killed the Saturn too early, Could n’t market the DC properly and then killed it when people started buying it in droves,Never knew what SOR is and so on.

And guess what? The old regime NEVER made those games you mentioned, the games divisions did and do you want to know a secret?

Come closely now…

MOST of them are still there! The only part of Sega to have died is the managerial side that most Sega fans HATED. Now Sega is being run by some sensible heads while the good part of Sega is still intact and to me and a lot of people around here, that’s all that matters.

And look up the word regime in the dictionary,then you know what i’m on about…

What’s the “new” regime brought us? Shining Tears. Virtua Quest. Shining Force Neo. Pfff.

My opinion is still open to change based on what comes out, but until then, all fingers point to unfavorable.[/quote]

TEARS isn’t shit. Neither is VQ. NEO,well we all know that it’s not the game
any SHINING FORCE fan wanted but it could be good and it could be crap,until we play it we can’t say it is can we? Your starting to sound like those naysayers who claimed that the world was flat to Columbus without actually having the nerve to TRY to see if it was.

You are aware that Skies of Arcadia was actually, in many ways, a parody of old school Japanese RPGs?

Not really a parody… More of an homage.

But we’re talking about the prospect of Sega being a more successful RPG producer than companies like Square, right? Success involves pleasing the mainstream, and as I’m sure you’ve noticed, mainstream gamers aren’t crying out for more originality in their games; they want more of what they’re comfortable with, the tried and tested games companies, series and formulas that they know they’ll enjoy. Being innovative and creating games in a variety of different styles may garner respect from the critics, but in terms of global success these things aren’t as important as giving the consumer what they want.

Surely the fact that most people in the world can’t play it is important if we’re talking about Sega becoming a successful and popular RPG producer?

Sega IS bigger in RPGs than Square–they released PDS and Square has not beaten it yet…and never will I’ll wager. (No one will.)

Quality over Quantity people. It will serve you well. :anjou_love:

[quote=“DivineDragon”]Sega IS bigger in RPGs than Square–they released PDS and Square has not beaten it yet…and never will I’ll wager. (No one will.)

Quality over Quantity people. It will serve you well. :anjou_love:[/quote]

If you want quality over quantity, then the term you are looking for isn’t “bigger,” but “better.” :wink:

This post is for the last couple Parn and Goonboy posted (the lengthy ones):

Both of you made very valid points, and it is obvious you are not only very well educated so to speak in video games but passionate about them as well.

I just wanted to point out and add my thoughts on the discussion as I was reading Goonboy’s post in response to Parn’s.

To start off on the subject of variety in Square’s games in comparison to Sega’s.

I agree with Goonboy when he states that Sega has a ton of variety in their current three franchises - Shining Force, Shenmue, and Phantasy Star. However, there are only three of them. I am not saying amount of games constitutes quality of a developer or the games themselves. My point in saying that there are only three is that their styles are on all different ends of the spectrum. Let me explain in further detail if you don’t mind a long winded explanation.

Shenmue is bent on going for realism and detail in everything from characters to locations to plot.

Shining Force has also been a deep title with memorable characters, but ones that live in a fantasy setting and imaginative situations. At the same time it has (again in my opinion) a grasp on reality that makes the game seem atleast slightly possible unlike…

Phantasy Star games which are full-blown sci-fi with spaceships, faster than light travel you name it. Which are some of the most out of this world (no pun intended) concepts to grace videogames to seem again plausible.

If we were to create a spectrum of where these games lie it would look something like this:

Shenmue--------------------Shining Force------------------------Phantasy Star

So if someone wanted realism they would could choose Shenmue, all out fantasy, Phantasy Star. But Parn makes a valid statement when he mentions that Sqaure has a lot of creativity and original ideas. If you look at the current roster of Sqaure games it would look like something that follows: (Excuse me if I am missing something)

Musashi Samurai Legend (MSL)
Kingdom Hearts (KH)
FF: Dawn of Souls (DoS)
Star Ocean: TtEoT (SO)
Front Mission 4 (FM4)
Drakengard (Dg)

Goonboy states that Sega is more creative, this is true in the respect that the three games span a huge area in terms of type of setting etc… While Sqaure games are pretty derivative of each other.

I believe you are both correct, both companies have great ideas in creativity for RPG’s, but better than each other is for the buyer to decide.

In terms of Sega being more diverse in it’s lineup, while Square pretty much generated the same thing over and over, I think Sqaure games in the past have been put across the same span from realistic to fantasy.

Using the same spectrum as before I will place wher I believe Sqaure games would go: (Using the codes for games as shown above)


Sqaure games gave a wide range as well, it is that there are just more of them which makes them appear as being clones of each other.

Again I base realism and fantasy on the grounds of plausibility.

Moving on…

Parn writes that Virtua Quest was a pretty shity game. Goonboy counters by saying that just because it wasn’t the game people expected it should not be called shitty.

First off, ask yourslef if Virtua Quest is really an RPG, here we enter the realm of what makes an RPG and RPG but let me explain my reasoning: It really isn’t an RPG, especially in the light of Sega’s past efforts; it is more of an action game with RPG elements to me.

So in a way, there haven’t been any shity RPG’s from Sega in the past five years. But if by some it is considered an RPG, I would call that game a pretty bad one. It has limited depth, as well as many camera problems and graphical glitches that hinder gameplay. I don’t care what people expected it to be, in the end it is still pretty bad.

Next topic to quickly touch upon - the statement about Eternal Arcadia having an effect on the genre.

The whole flying ship/island idea was definitely not first implemented in Eternal Arcadia. It was actually used in Final Fantasy games (IV? I think) years prior, though I don’t know who actually pioneered the concepts.

Next topic - Matrix Online \ other Sega games.

Matrix Online is not being made for Sega, it was in development long before Sega got into a publishing deal with Monolith. While Camelot and Red were comissioned to make more games with the properties and now Sega still own the Shining Force name.

Next Topic - Dragon Force remake

Purely opinion based, some love their original copy and do not like the new artwork, others want the new content, no point ina arguing.

The next topic I will cover involves an area I particularly get annoyed with.
No offense to you Goonboy since you brought ti up, I just think it is pretty narrow thinking.
–> PSU and weather it will be online or off.

If someone wants online, good. If someone wants offline, good. The point is there are no REAL fans for a game, just because someone like a later iteration of a series better has no bearing on their “fan” status.

To me if you like a game, and you truly enjoy it, you are a fan. Not “You are only a REAL fan if you like the earlier games better and want the new one to be more like them.”

I despise arguments on who is elite, and who is a true or real fan.

Last Topic - Old Regime/New Regime

I partially agree with both of you on regards of that the Old Regime (if they even are that divided) bourght good games to the market as well as made some bad decisions.

Goonboy, I just don’t understand where the impression that the DC was selling like doves when Sega kiled it came from? They did have less than acceptable marketing, but when they killed the DC it was dying very fast from what I noticed.

While the new regime is bringing Tears, no one knows how that would be like until it comes. But come on, VQ is not even close to a good game. I wouldn’t call SF Neo out yet though, who knows it might offer something that people make like, even (gasp) new fans will come to the series, which still makes them fans of SF by the way.

Both Goonboy and Parn make excellent examples and validations, this is just what I thought

My long and tedious rant is over, read it if you like, or skip it if you prefer, but I finally got out what wanted to say for some time now.

Well, Sega may well have a BIGGER ego because it released the greatest RPG of all-time (not just me that says that). And I do believe that Sega is a BIGGER company, and does BIGGER numbers than Square(Enix) so I think my assertions still hold. Just beacuse it does not release as many RPGs has no bearing on the volume of the company or the quality of its perceived status of its involvement in the RPG market.

All in the way we see things really. :wink:

Ah, yes, but we’re strictly talking in terms of RPGs in this thread. Sega RPG sales are nowhere near Square’s sales numbers (the KOTOR series and Fable are the only ones that do come close nowadays), but the quality of said RPGs is debatable.

Sega is not a bigger RPG developer than Square, but some could argue that it is (was) better.

Note my amendation to my last sentence of my first paragraph of my last post to clarify. :anjou_happy:

My point still applies, though. Sega is not a bigger RPG maker than Square. Bigger would imply greater (RPG) sales numbers, which Sega does not have.