By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Cerebralbore101 on 07 July 2018
Edit Thread
Wyrdness said:
Cerebralbore101 said:

Of course not. Those are N64 games with their horrible draw distances, simple models, etc. In general, games that use 2D alphamaps for characters are worse off graphically (and cheaper to make) than games that use full 3D models. Your argument "not all 3D games are better, therefore 3DS games aren't better" is equal to saying "not all smoke leads to fire, therefore there is no fire". The important thing to remember here is not all, but most do, in both cases. 

It goes beyond the alphamaps though. Octopath uses intentionally pixelated textures for the characters. Buildings are simple models that have been expertly textured over to give a retro feel. 

Don't get me wrong, I'm buying the game regardless of review scores, and am looking forward to it. I just don't think $60 is a fair price tag for something that could have been done on 3DS. 

Edit: Just gonna go ahead and say that Octopath may not be that impressive graphically, but it has more style and art direction than most AAA games. 

Read what you posted I never even mentioned anything about 3DS games for a start or the argument you're babbling about but can tell you straight non of the games you mentioned are graphically better than Octopath, I've played them.

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. 

Last edited by Cerebralbore101 - on 07 July 2018