|
Wyrdness said: Yet you claimed it's easy to do but here you've just admitted it's now not and what kills two birds with one stone is you've indirectly admitted they're not graphically better than OT because the latter does something the games you mentioned can't because of graphical power this shoots down your whole claim from before. 3D can be a lot of work yes but not the games you mentioned as they use simple 3D models with simple and reused animations, OT's areas are larger and are full 3D so the game has to render full on 3D assets in the area regardless of perspective this means lighting and shadows reacting correctly to the assets and the textures all the while at a higher resolution. While on the topic of perspective a number of the games you mentioned are a fixed perspective as well only some like the Bravely games don't have 3D areas for many places like towns. |
Easy to do as in it takes hardly any development time. Not easy to do as in computationally demanding. The 3DS games also do something Octopath can't, 3D mode. That puts them on equal footing as far as I'm concerned. Lots of 3DS RPGs like Etrian Odyssey, and SMT IV don't have fixed perspectives. You can look around with the circle pad. Simple 3D models are still harder to implement than simple 2D Alphamaps. The background 3D assets in Octopath have the same polycount as the background 3D assets in the 3DS games. And as I said before the textures are in a pixel art style, so they are lower resolution then the 3DS games. You're confusing wasting computational resources with graphical superiority. At it's heart Octopath is a budget AA title, and they want a full on $60 for it. Or do you think that Octopath took just as much time and effort to develop as most other $60 games on Switch?
Last edited by Cerebralbore101 - on 08 July 2018
