View Post
HoloDust said:
The_Liquid_Laser said:
I wonder how many people would say that the South Park games are worth $60, but Octopath Traveler isn't?

South Park games have great content value and very high production value - still, they are treated as "low-cost AAA title" that require "a relatively smaller investment than other (AAA) titles due to its simple animation" (THQ on South Park: The Stick of Truth).

So, maybe South Park shouldn't be $60 game since its production value is not as high as high-cost AAA games...then again, maybe it should:

"...when you’re animating to a very specific look and style, there’s not really compromising. There’s no shortcuts. And it’s funny that with something that’s more like a traditional 3D model-type rig, there’s actually a lot of ways that Maya and other programs help. They smooth things out. They give you some of the in-between positions, and you set targets for where those limbs will go. Not so with South Park. You have to move those frames. So you’re stepping animation all over the place, and if you want to have a unique facial expressions—and so much of the action of the show actually takes place on those big eyes and little mouth shapes—if you want it to be really expressive, you’ve gotta animate that too. You’ve gotta show pain, show effort, show all this stuff." (Jason Schroeder, game director of The Fractured But Whole)

I'm just hoping you're not implying that Octopath Traveler production value in on par with something like South Park...cause it's really nowhere near it.

I hope the real animation doesn't take as much effort, because it look to ugly to have this much effort being throw at it =p

duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"


Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"