On the other hand, Knights in the Nightmare is a real time strategy game
I know what KitN is, I played it and talked it up everywhere on GAF. My point is that it's a strategy game, not an RPG, from a marketing standpoint, and makes no sense as a game to release twice-over if Atlus had some kind of "no SRPGs" policy. The only people who are going to delve into this kind of detail to distinguish it from the turn-based SRPGs are extremely dedicated strategy fans.
I have to wonder how many of those 13 you've played considering the broad strokes you're making about them.
I clarified what I meant. A few of the games were obviously garbage from a quality standpoint (I suspect you're letting Spectral Force 3 off a bit lightly here, from what else I've heard about it) but most were just "garbage" from a market perspective -- middling, generic games that had no real fanbase in Japan, no import buzz, and no interest amongst even the dedicated fanbase over here. Some of these games might have had value for people who delved into them, but without any particular unique qualities to recommend them or buzz from people who'd played the Japanese versions the number of such people was vanishingly small.
My overall point here, really, is that there's a big gap between something like Gungnir and most of those SRPGs just by virtue of name recognition and buzz. People begging on the Atlus forums for a specific game is no guarantee it'll sell well, but the fact that Gungnir is something people know about in order to beg for gives it the potential for decent (i.e. mid-five-digits) sales that a lot of Atlus' more lamentable releases didn't have.
(
Mea culpa on Rondo of Swords, I was clearly getting it confused with something else.)
