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

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

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.



Around the Network
mjk45 said:
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.

That's true that art is in the eye of the beholder but all art has objective value as a product. There's some art that's only valuable in a certain market to certain people.



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"

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

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.

It depends on what you mean by production values.  When it comes to art and animation, both OT and the South Park games pale in comparison to games like God of War 4 or Zelda: Breath of the Wild.  South Park's art is like something a person drew on the back of a paper napkin.  But that is cool, because that is the look that they are intentionally going for.  OT is intentionally going for a 16 bit look.  Neither one is investing much into art compared to the average AAA game made today.

Instead the art of South Park is there to make a person feel like this is really a South Park game they are playing.  And players are hoping that the game is going to be just as funny as watching South Park.  Octopath is going for the 16 bit look, because they are telling players that the gameplay, story and music are going to be of the same quality as Final Fantasy 6.  In both cases the art is there to tell people what the game is really about.  The art is not the draw in itself like it is in a game like God of War 4.

That's what this discussion is really about.  Does $60 mean, that the game needs a huge art budget?  Or is it enough to be really exceptional in other ways like gameplay, writing, music, etc... without having a huge art budget?



I rate the pricing on 2 things for my games. Enjoyment and time i spend with the game. This game is really good, especially if you're like me and love old school JRPGs. I've spent almost 70 hours with it and i still have the "secret dungeon" left. Also the graphics for me is actually a big selling point, this game looks better than just about anything else in my eyes (especially on the switch).

This is 100% a $60 game.



Around the Network

 

DonFerrari said:
Random_Matt said:
Depends how much the game cost to produce, by looking at, fuck all. It's not worth the asking price, but hey, justify however you want.

Some people on VGC doesn't see a problem in a game costing 1M to make, selling for 60USD for 10M people and rack in over 300M in profits.... but they will day in and out complain about companies that put 100M to make a game sell 5M copies at the same 60USD to make 50M profit.

I rather have the money I pay being utilized to push the games I buy to the limit then defending that they took a lot of effort to disguise low investiment in graphics behind retro look.

Wow, so in your opinion, all the work that went into the story, the battle system, the abundant hours of content, the voice acting, and soundtrack (all of which have been highly praised) were only done to "disguise the low investment in graphics".  Just... wow.  I would argue that Square put more care into some of those aspects than they do their "AAA" flagship Final Fantasy series.  I have often found the voice acting and dialogue in particular in Final Fantasy games to be so atrocious and off-putting as to make me not want to play the game regardless of how "pretty" the graphics look.  Some people appreciate the total sum of a game's parts.  I'd much rather the money I spend go to a total enjoyable package, rather than a game that took a lot of effort pushing graphics to disguise a low investment in the actual game itself.



Perhaps the reason people believe $60 is too much is because Octopath Traveler is very similar to Bravely Default in terms of game design, and as such it feels more like it should have belonged on the 3DS than the Switch. Even the voice actors sound the same.

I'm not very far into the game yet, but so far I'm very happy with my purchase. I do believe that $60 is a steep price for this type of game, although I probably would have paid $100 if that's what it had costed.



DonFerrari said:
Shaunodon said:

Does everything just go over your head or do you not think about what you write?

You just described a completely different game. You clearly have no interest in the game or what it's trying to do, so I'm not sure why you're even here discussing it since you'll probably never play it.

This is why there's no point to a thread like this. It's not a debate over a genuine issue that has people split, it's just a few very loud and opinionated voices trying to create an issue where there is none, and most of them seem to have no clue what they're even talking about.

1) So instead of discussing you rather dismiss.

2) What have got into VGC these days that all people asking "you don't care about this product so why are you discussing", If we go and look at your 517 posts they will be all about product you bought right?

3) Let's do more attacks.

So basically instead of replying to the post that on your mind have totally missed the point you just decided to do 3 different personal attacks for the sake of it?


 

I really think you need to have a good long look in the mirror, because what you are describing is you:

DonFerrari on 28 May 2018

It relates to you calling people biased and talking about hate. So please show the Sony games you played or move on. Either aknowledge your bias or stop showing on threads as if you were unbiased.

DonFerrari on 28 May 2018

And you watched a negative video of a game you don't want to play because?  Also waiting for you to prove you are unbiased or say you are.

DonFerrari on 28 May 2018  

No problem you watching Jim, just curious why you would watch negative reviews on a game you don't care on a platform you never play. Will you list the PS games you played yet?

DonFerrari on 01 June 2018

Well I am someone that even if I like the person or format of what they do just watch if the content itself holds some interest to me. Otherwise it bores me.

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=236288&page=23



Mandalore76 said:

 

DonFerrari said:

Some people on VGC doesn't see a problem in a game costing 1M to make, selling for 60USD for 10M people and rack in over 300M in profits.... but they will day in and out complain about companies that put 100M to make a game sell 5M copies at the same 60USD to make 50M profit.

I rather have the money I pay being utilized to push the games I buy to the limit then defending that they took a lot of effort to disguise low investiment in graphics behind retro look.

Wow, so in your opinion, all the work that went into the story, the battle system, the abundant hours of content, the voice acting, and soundtrack (all of which have been highly praised) were only done to "disguise the low investment in graphics".  Just... wow.  I would argue that Square put more care into some of those aspects than they do their "AAA" flagship Final Fantasy series.  I have often found the voice acting and dialogue in particular in Final Fantasy games to be so atrocious and off-putting as to make me not want to play the game regardless of how "pretty" the graphics look.  Some people appreciate the total sum of a game's parts.  I'd much rather the money I spend go to a total enjoyable package, rather than a game that took a lot of effort pushing graphics to disguise a low investment in the actual game itself.

Did you purpousely misinterpreted the defense of "art direction" that is used for cartoon looks that need low investment in graphics and transported to everything else?

But still, get the size of the team and time to develop compared to let's say Final Fantasy and see how both compare. You'll certainly see which had more work done.



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

Mandalore76 said:
DonFerrari said:

1) So instead of discussing you rather dismiss.

2) What have got into VGC these days that all people asking "you don't care about this product so why are you discussing", If we go and look at your 517 posts they will be all about product you bought right?

3) Let's do more attacks.

So basically instead of replying to the post that on your mind have totally missed the point you just decided to do 3 different personal attacks for the sake of it?

 

I really think you need to have a good long look in the mirror, because what you are describing is you:

DonFerrari on 28 May 2018

It relates to you calling people biased and talking about hate. So please show the Sony games you played or move on. Either aknowledge your bias or stop showing on threads as if you were unbiased.

DonFerrari on 28 May 2018

And you watched a negative video of a game you don't want to play because?  Also waiting for you to prove you are unbiased or say you are.

DonFerrari on 28 May 2018   

No problem you watching Jim, just curious why you would watch negative reviews on a game you don't care on a platform you never play. Will you list the PS games you played yet?

DonFerrari on 01 June 2018

Well I am someone that even if I like the person or format of what they do just watch if the content itself holds some interest to me. Otherwise it bores me.

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=236288&page=23

I won't go over the fact that it's against rules of the forum to post things from other threads, but anyway let's go.

He says he is unbiased (won't name him because he isn't on the thread), fair and in another thread that he doesn't go to threads of products he doesn't care. So I asked him his PSN ID to verify that he really cared. If he said he doesn't have the game, system or said he is biased towards MS (I have no issue accepting I'm biased towards Sony or was to Sega) I would say ok, thanks for after 4 years finally saying it.

If you look at the thread it was some dozen back and forth without any dismissing of his claims, it was dismiss of him pretending to be neutral or interested, his claims regarding the game were dully answered.

Anything else?



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