Cerebralbore101 said:
|
Wyrdness said:
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.
|
So Octopath has flat character models, and Bravely has flat backgrounds. Octopath has lighting/shadows, and Bravely has 3D mode. I'd say they're on equal footing. I'm mainly concerned about the $60 asking price, being too much. Lighting/Shadows usually don't cost much time or effort to do these days. Just hit a few buttons in whatever engine you're working in, and place your lights for desired effect. This is especially true when your game is as simple as Octopath.
Again, I'm still going to buy this game, because I desperately want these type of AA games to continue to have a home somewhere, other than mobile. If I have to pay a little more to convince Square and other companies that these types of games are worth making, so be it. If Octopath doesn't do well in sales, then we won't see more of these games in the future.
|
I don't care about your pricing views but objectively what you claimed earlier is flat out untrue, if lighting is that easy how come none of the game you mention manage it, none of them have the same level of texture quality, none of them have the same level of shadows etc... Octopath has not only a full 3d world but the areas are also larger than those in the games you mention. Claiming that having 3d character models equals the same effort as having a 3D world is also incorrect.
