To those who say Octopath is not worth 60 dollars...

[DonFerrari]

Alara317 said:

DonFerrari said:

I'm done with you. Go stuff your chest and boast of how much you won with your incredible logic and that I was shivering all the way home

I really wouldn't be talking, Don. I've been watching this thread and you've done nothing to say why this game is not worth $60. All you've done is say it's not for you under the guise of faux objectivity. 

You don't personally feel that this game is worth full price, and that's fine. Clearly, others do. If this game wasn't worth $60 in the eyes of those who it was made for, then it wouldn't be getting great review scores and selling out everywhere. That really should be the end of the discussion, but you've spend thousands upon thousands of words arguing without much in terms of substance. Your fingers are flying but you're not saying anything of value. 

I'm not even halfway through this game and I've already spent more time on it than games with AAA budgets. I've enjoyed this more than any Call of Duty, Uncharted, The Last of Us, or Assassin's Creed game and those all have close to phototrealistic graphics, huge action set pieces, and other top not production values. Graphics do not make a game. Giving this game the graphics of FFXV would not make it a better game, and it wouldn't even make it a prettier game. 

This game is stylized. Wind Waker is stylized, too. So was Okami. Are those games of less value, too? Is wind Waker an inherently worse game than twilight princess because Twilight Princess gave us a link with more detail? Is okami worse than Call of Duty Ghosts becuase the canine in Call of Duty had individual strands of hair animated? No. Not at all. By giving us stylized visuals that are retro-HD like this, that cleaned up much of the budget for the diverse solutions to problems, the vast world, the intricately written narrative, and the voice acting. As a true gamer, I'd happily slash the budget for visuals in order to put more time and effort into those other categories. 

And no, don't bother using argumentum ad absurdum (Exaggerating my claim to absurd levels to disprove me) by saying that you could make a game black and white or atari-simple and still have it be engaging. (Although, FNAF and Undertale might want to have a word with you.) The point is simply that Graphics are not and definitely should not be a primary concern when determining the value of a video game. 

And if you don't like turn based battles or random encounters, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man. I don't like a lot of things in modern video games, it doesn't make those genres bad. 

Why am I still arguing here? This place is a cesspit of faulty logic and aggressively entitled gamers. Peace out. HAve fun hating, I'll be too busy smiling from ear to ear as I play Octopath Traveler for the next month of my life. 

If I had a Switch and available time this would be a game I would be interested (can't say I would play to the end or if the graphics would put me off), I like some turn based RPG.

For me personally I wouldn't pay 60 because it lacks a portion of the package on the graphical side (but I buy very few games full price, most I get under 20 USD).

And if you read my replies are exactly on the no one can objectively say people can't see the game being worth less than 60 because the graphic is missing, I never claimed that it isn't acceptable for several million of people to think it's worth 60 and paying. Value is totally subjective.

I separate things very well. You can objectively say if a game is good or bad independent of liking it and that is how review should be made, but liking is always subjective as well (with more or less people liking doesn't changing the quality of the product as well)

I have no issue you thinking this game is worth more than TLOU (which I wouldn't agree but your taste) and would totally agree with CoD (because even though it have high budget and production value for me it's a yearly rehash) but saying that objectively one is more valuable than other is wrong, you can say one costed more or have higher grades or have more content or have more polish, etc, but even saying one is better than the other even if 99% of people agree isn't really objective (unless we come to accept that if critics and public say Snoppy Dogg is a better musician than Mozart it is definetely true).

Okami stylization came at a time that it was the best possible graphics and photorealism was very badly compromissed. Today stylezed and cartoon graphics being defended with teeths is more like an excuse for companies that choose that route to save on cost. And we shouldn't be helping companies maximize profits, we should fight for lower cost for us.

Why would it be absurd to say someone could make a game of Atari level graphics and it be engaging? Some people still love playing tetris.

I like turn based and no hate for the game or SE (a company I really appreciate) but when I have FF XV on one hand and OT on the other for me FF is worth more. If you want to say that is because I don't like turn based, last week I finished FF IX on PS4 and 3 months ago almost finished on PSVita. A game that when was released had the full package and was pushing all boundaries to the limit (missing VA though as a PS1 title).