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

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. 

No dude unless an argument is flat out said it's not been put forward so all you're doing is making an argument up to try and push your point.

Octopath is superior to the games you mentioned for example the Bravely games don't have full on 3d areas and such like OT look at the towns in the Bravely games they're the same technique as in FFVII where they don't have actual 3d assets or textures in them in them they have trigger points with a set pathing between and it's all covered by a pre-rendered image. OT's towns are full on 3D and have actual 3d assets with texturing and all. Lets also look at the lighting and shadows they're a league above Bravely and are even present when you're in battle and change and react to what's going on in the fight something the Bravely games don't do either.