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

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - To those who say Octopath is not worth 60 dollars...

Wyrdness said:
DonFerrari said:

Theory of relativity  also wasn't prove false at the time, so the 1B people saying it was wrong also weren't right. The point is amount of people that agree with a point doesn't make it right, that is a phallacy, but seems like you don't know them very well since you don't recognize your own use.

Not being able to ramp a production from 1M to 3M on launch and return to 1M after doesn't mean production problems, they were steadily producing the contracted amount and delivering. The problem of stock they had were solely due to demand outpacing supply, something that have happened to about any successful HW in history and never claimed as production issues just stock issue. But for your perfect logic it must not make sense. Having more value to most doesn't make it a rule that objectively a product have more value than another, it just means that at a determined price one product is found by the customer to have more value... unless you think 2018 Hip Hop is more valuable than Mozart because it sells more. Or in fact that all games that sold more than Octopath are more valuable (even more since they cost the same) CoD, Fifa, sold much much more, are they more valuable?

I shall also give you a hint, if 2 words ment exactly the same you wouldn't need both. So production and stock aren't the same and even if they are related a problem in one isn't a direct proof of problem in another. If Sony had a issue on production and let's say that for 1 month (or even 1 week) they weren't able to produce the planned they would have a problem on production, now if they kept steady production but there was more demand they don't have a problem in production. You used another phallacy of cause and consequence.

Do you even read your own answer? Alara is saying that content among others is why he thinks the game is worth 60. Let me copy your quote for you.

Again no people have listed content as one reason out of many you have not at any point given a well thought out explanation 

So you are the one that said no one listed it as one among other reason, and then are saying a lot have done... and accuse me of flip flopping.

 


You still don't understand how broken your argument is, Einstein put forward a theory which needed to be proven here people aren't putting forward a theory they're pointing out to you what is already concrete and backed up that's why it's not a fallacy on my end because the arguments have objective factors that are being highlighted.

You stil haven't understand what is the phallacy. The number of people that believe in something doesn't make a point more or less valid.

Here you've admitted stock problems were present end of that part of the argument everything else you've said is more fallacious waffle as you've admitted I'm right.

You really are something.

Part of Alara's post:

"My point is, this game is long. It has a lot of content. The writing is leagues better than most stuff in gaming, the stories and characters are compelling, the world is massive, and there's SO much to do and so many branching paths that it's worth every second. If you're the kind of person who thinks that having 16-bit inspired graphics somehow makes a game less valuable (then backpedaling to complain about 'archaic' game design like turn based combat and random encounters when it's shown how flimsy the graphics > gameplay argument is), then you're exactly the kind of person this game wasn't made for. "

Here the user highlights content, writing, story, game world, depth and references the game's quality and gameplay, so again we can confirm what you're posting on the front that people are only saying content is BS as the user has listed content as one of several reasons here only way you can see it any other way is if the is a language barrier why you say the isn't so we can discern you're deliberately trying to cherry pick parts of posts to continue your circus act here after all you tried bringing sales into it.

You really haven't read your own post.

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



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

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

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"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Around the Network
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 know what it is the problem you have is that it doesn't apply here in anyway this is an example of your argument, someone puts forward a theory that seagulls are evolve from what ever giving their logic behind it and all, ok they have their logic but its not proven so people can disagree because they have reason to. Here how ever people tell you that the speed limit on a road is 30mph and the are no left turns on the next road because it is one way, this isn't people not believing something unproven it's people highlighting something objective this is why it doesn't apply here because many of us are highlighting something to you no side step can change that.

I've read my own posts just fine considering you yourself have multiple times not responded in context to several other people here it's not us who should read our own posts but more you as well as you reading what the posts you're replying to actually say and the context. I told you earlier on every time you come with your nonsense I'll shut it down and it hasn't exactly been hard either because you've hung your own arguments yourself you started with a response trying to go personal then proceeded to get dismantled from every post onward while getting debunked in your other arguments with people.



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



Landale_Star said:

Given this point, do you think that turn based JRPGs should even cost $60 then? If their production costs don't warrant a higher price then surely a lower price is a benefit for the consumer while the business still makes a profit. Would you pay even more than $60 for a game like Octopath if you think the quality of the experience is much higher than other games?

I'm not saying you're making any particular argument and I haven't read whatever else you might have written in this thread, but seeing that line triggered that thought in my head.

I wasn't asked, but I can answer to the bolded: I bought the special edition for Bravely Default, exactly because I wanted to pay more money to signal to Square, that we need more high quality turn-based RPG-titles. And that's the point, we are not entirely without turn-based RPGs, but many are of mediocre quality. Bravely Default was an investment in the genre with quality, it sits at a 85 Meta. Octopath Traveler reaches a similar quality and has 84 Metascore. This is a good thing for me as a fan of turn-based RPGs. And I want to send a clear signal: if the quality is there, the sales are too.



Greatest game event 2019: SIGN UP NOW!

3DS-FC: 4511-1768-7903 (Mii-Name: Mnementh), Nintendo-Network-ID: Mnementh, Switch: SW-7706-3819-9381 (Mnementh)

my greatest games: 2017, 2018, 2019

Predictions: Switch / Switch vs. XB1 in the US / Three Houses first quarter

Mnementh said:
Landale_Star said:

Given this point, do you think that turn based JRPGs should even cost $60 then? If their production costs don't warrant a higher price then surely a lower price is a benefit for the consumer while the business still makes a profit. Would you pay even more than $60 for a game like Octopath if you think the quality of the experience is much higher than other games?

I'm not saying you're making any particular argument and I haven't read whatever else you might have written in this thread, but seeing that line triggered that thought in my head.

I wasn't asked, but I can answer to the bolded: I bought the special edition for Bravely Default, exactly because I wanted to pay more money to signal to Square, that we need more high quality turn-based RPG-titles. And that's the point, we are not entirely without turn-based RPGs, but many are of mediocre quality. Bravely Default was an investment in the genre with quality, it sits at a 85 Meta. Octopath Traveler reaches a similar quality and has 84 Metascore. This is a good thing for me as a fan of turn-based RPGs. And I want to send a clear signal: if the quality is there, the sales are too.

We may not be sure if it's direct consequence, but it is good when companies seem to hear what its base wants and produce it.



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

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

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"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Around the Network
DonFerrari said:
Mnementh said:

I wasn't asked, but I can answer to the bolded: I bought the special edition for Bravely Default, exactly because I wanted to pay more money to signal to Square, that we need more high quality turn-based RPG-titles. And that's the point, we are not entirely without turn-based RPGs, but many are of mediocre quality. Bravely Default was an investment in the genre with quality, it sits at a 85 Meta. Octopath Traveler reaches a similar quality and has 84 Metascore. This is a good thing for me as a fan of turn-based RPGs. And I want to send a clear signal: if the quality is there, the sales are too.

We may not be sure if it's direct consequence, but it is good when companies seem to hear what its base wants and produce it.

Sure, one single purchase doesn't change the world. But I hope I'm not alone in such things. And I agree, it is a good thing if companies see the wishes of the customers.



Greatest game event 2019: SIGN UP NOW!

3DS-FC: 4511-1768-7903 (Mii-Name: Mnementh), Nintendo-Network-ID: Mnementh, Switch: SW-7706-3819-9381 (Mnementh)

my greatest games: 2017, 2018, 2019

Predictions: Switch / Switch vs. XB1 in the US / Three Houses first quarter

Mnementh said:
DonFerrari said:

We may not be sure if it's direct consequence, but it is good when companies seem to hear what its base wants and produce it.

Sure, one single purchase doesn't change the world. But I hope I'm not alone in such things. And I agree, it is a good thing if companies see the wishes of the customers.

From what I know Bravely Default and Bravely Second were very good success and exceed expectations, so it wasn't just your purchase =) probably most that bought would also want more quality turn based JRPG.



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

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

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"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Aeolus451 said:
I don't like the 2D graphics and art style. I don't need anymore reason to not buy it at any price. I hate these kind of threads that are a response to someone else's opinion/reasoning of why they don't like something.

Worth. just like Art is in the eye of the beholder.



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. 



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).



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

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

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"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994