Arguments are often implied instead of stated outright. Example: When I said "Octopath uses alphamaps for almost all characters. Most of the games I listed use full 3D models for characters. So, yeah all those games do have better or equal graphics. ", my implied argument was...

1. Games that use 2D Alphamaps are generally graphically inferior to games that use 3D Models.

2. Octopath uses 2D Alphamaps for character models, instead of 3D models. 

3. The 3DS games on my list, all either use alphamaps, or 3D models for their character models. 

Conclusion: The 3DS games on my list are either graphically on par with, or above Octopath Traveler. 

You clearly understood this argument, (even though I didn't state it outright), and tried to rebutt it by attacking premise one, with your counterexample of Quest 64. 

I then rebutted by pointing out that N64 games like Quest 64 being  graphically inferior to modern 3DS games using 2D alphamaps, was not a general example of the industry. 

In other words "In general games with 2D models are graphically inferior to games with 3D models."

So, if you think I didn't put your argument correctly, that's fine. As long as you understand where the conversation is headed it doesn't matter. I mean, Quest 64 was a counterexample right? If not, then I have no idea what your point was, and I apologize. 

Why do you think Octopath is graphically superior to 3DS games? Don't just state your position over and over again. Anybody can do that. Tell me why you think so!

Both use simple 3D models for buildings. Both use 2D alphamaps. Octopath uses pixel art for textures, while most 3DS games do not. Most 3DS games use way more complicated 3D models for characters. The only things I can think of Octopath having on a 3DS game are Lighting, particle effects, and resolution. But those things don't make up the bulk of the game. And more importantly those things are cheap to implement (3D models are not cheap). Those are small bells and whistles. The meat of graphics in games are textures, bumpmaps, and 3D models. Arguing that those things make a significant difference would be like arguing that 3D mode, or two screens make a significant difference for 3DS games. 

Edit: At least when we are talking games of this level. Sure good lighting can do wonders for a full blown AAA title, but 3DS and Octopath are not AAA games. 

P.S. I actually prefer AA games to AAA games these days. IMO gameplay is what matters most. 

Apparently the first demo has been downloaded 1.5 million times now, though of course downloads of a free demo won't be 1:1 with sales of the full game.

I am actually very interested to see how this game performs; I feel like it's something of a wildcard. It's a new IP, but then so was Bravely Default. It's deliberately very retro, which could scare of a lot of mainstream gamers, but then that could also bring in lots of older gamers who grew up on the 16-bit RPGs its based on. It strikes me as the kind of game that'll land in the high 70s/low 80s on Metacritic, so I can't see it getting the kind of critical acclaim that boosts sales, but then games like Kirby Star Allies, ARMS, and Xenoblade 2 sold well on Switch despite not being critical darlings.

No dude unless an argument is flat out said it's not been put forward so all you're doing is making an argument up to try and push your point.

Octopath is superior to the games you mentioned for example the Bravely games don't have full on 3d areas and such like OT look at the towns in the Bravely games they're the same technique as in FFVII where they don't have actual 3d assets or textures in them in them they have trigger points with a set pathing between and it's all covered by a pre-rendered image. OT's towns are full on 3D and have actual 3d assets with texturing and all. Lets also look at the lighting and shadows they're a league above Bravely and are even present when you're in battle and change and react to what's going on in the fight something the Bravely games don't do either.

I don't you can go by graphics and determine whether or not a game is worth $60.

I mean, will you argue that The Order 1886 was worth its original $60 just because it has high-tech graphics and despite being only an 8 hour single player game with not much else?

There. Would gladly pay for this game. CANNOT wait for this Friday.

Even though I think this game is priced just fine, when has bad pricing ever impacted Nintendo fans before? It will sell over 1.5 million, espically with no first party releases until October

I voted for 2m+. I think it will just leg it out to that figure. It seems to have a lot of demand, if the WW Amazon preorders are anything to go by.

This would be the first third-party new IP 1m+ seller on Switch, correct?

It might take a little longer to reach 1m than some might like to admit.

I imagine most people who bought Xenoblade 2 would tune into this, but Xenoblade 2 had a lot more advertisement backing it.

I've kind of been looking around, and I've seen that a lot of the advertisement views on youtube are botted/unrepresentative of how popular the game is. I think it'll at least reach around 200k+ in Japan, beating whatever Xenoblade 2 sold there. Not sure if it can beat Xenoblade 2's numbers in the US or Europe, but I overall don't expect this game to sell more than Bravely Default. It all really depends on the preview footage and reviews really. I know that people will cancel their order or revaluate their purchase decision if it ends up lower than 80 on Metacritic since story seems to be very important in these kinds of games.

And the price hurts, just noticed. Opening month it could hit 500k at peak, maybe it will be at 1 million by the end of the year. But I'm being optimistic since Skyrim even in holiday season barely broke that figure in a month and a few weeks.

Amazon and Gamestop charts say otherwise

So Octopath has flat character models, and Bravely has flat backgrounds. Octopath has lighting/shadows, and Bravely has 3D mode. I'd say they're on equal footing. I'm mainly concerned about the $60 asking price, being too much. Lighting/Shadows usually don't cost much time or effort to do these days. Just hit a few buttons in whatever engine you're working in, and place your lights for desired effect. This is especially true when your game is as simple as Octopath. 

Again, I'm still going to buy this game, because I desperately want these type of AA games to continue to have a home somewhere, other than mobile. If I have to pay a little more to convince Square and other companies that these types of games are worth making, so be it. If Octopath doesn't do well in sales, then we won't see more of these games in the future.