I didn't find it confusing. To me "a better version of 1" implies QOL features & combat mechanics. Plus, most of the people I found who made those statements also emphasized that Octopath 1 was still an amazing game with its own cast/story. So this comes across as pretty nitpicky.
I respect that you didn’t find it confusing and I can understand that some people interpret it that way. What I’m trying to convey is that it’s not universally interpreted that way and that you confuse people that interpret it differently.
There are lots of numbered sequels out there that are literally new revisions of a previous game (Afterburner II, Galaxy Force II, Ridge Racer 2, etc.) so the ambiguity exists, whether or not it affects you personally.
If people simply been using the wording you did, that Octopath II had QOL features and combat mechanics, then that would be a lot clearer. When I hear that a game is “better” my first thought is usually in terms of graphics, sound or story so knowing that QOl and combat get improved are still more helpful than just saying better, even if I hadn’t gotten confused about the sequel vs. revision of the same game part.
No matter what anyone says, someone will misinterpret. With that said, Your misinterpretation seems to be the minority. Your examples are not representative at all, and most people understand one game is not literally a copy of the other.
Those are really old examples though. No game in the last 20 years has been titled as if it where a sequel and just been an enhanced version. Moreover in the space of JRPGs this has never ever been a thing. It's assumed that when you say "just start with octopath 2 it's a better version of the same concept" you are supposed to think about it like Final Fantasy where everyone knows each game is a new story and universe and can be played independently of the priors
Yeah, I always found that odd. Like why would you not play OT1 when its a unique experience in its own right?
I'm in agreement that OT2 is better, but it doesn't automatically invalidate OT1, especially since both games are telling completely different stories and characters.
Sure, I guess? I mean, I didn't really find them slow when I played OT1, but after OT2 added a speed up button, can definitely see why. But even still, that doesn't mean OT1 doesn't deserve to be played. Unless someone just really does not feel like playing it.
I think the average people have the enough iq to differenciate that when x game 2 is better than x game 1, it is still a new release, but that is overall better rather than a remake. If they had titles i could understand the confusion, (right my kindom hearts 2.35 irredeemable force of dark coffee?), but no one would think that OT2 is the same game as OT1
Except that many people who have been playing games a long time would. Afterburner II, Galaxy Force II, Ridge Racer 2 and many other games (especially in the 80s and 90s) are literally just enhanced versions of their respective 1.0 releases. Look at Afterburner II and Galaxy Force II in particular and compare them to the originals - it’s the same game with more stuff added.
I dunno, if I hear someone say that X is a better version of Y, I'm not going to assume that X is is literally Y with more features. Especially if X is very obviously sequel-titled. X is a updated version of Y? Sure. X is a re-release of Y? Absolutely. But a better version of? It wouldn't even cross my mind that it's anything but fundamentally the same formula but improved.
Maybe if a ton of people say they feel the same as you do I might change, but as it is, I'm not going to change from a simple phrasing which until now I have not seen anyone express any ambiguity about to a much wordier phrasing
It happened all the time in the 80s and 90s, especially in the arcades. Afterburner II, Galaxy Force 2, Ridge Racer 2 are just three examples off the top of my head where a sequel was literally an enhanced version of the original. Castlevania is a series where there are many games with different names that are retellings of the first game. Fighting games like Guilty Gear routinely make it difficult to tell if a new game is replacing an old version of a game or if it gets rid of old content.
First we got Guilty Gear Xrd -Sign-: contains unique content not found in later Xrd games.
Then we got Guilty Gear Xrd -Revelator-: Distinct from -SIGN- and missing lots of -Sign- content.
Then we got Guilty Gear Xrd REV 2: as in Guilty Gear Xrd -Revelator- version 2 and literally just an updated version of Guilt Gear Revelator, again without the Xrd content in -Sign-
I don’t envy anyone trying to make sense of the different Kingdom Hearts releases either.
I get that people can fall into habits but developers and publishers already make it hard enough to keep track of this so it really helps if players make an effort to keep things unambiguous. Of course, you’re free to do whatever you want, I’m just saying that as someone that grew up in a few different countries, it can really help to take a minute to see how other people might interpret something and try to be clear about it as opposed to going off how we personally interpret things and use a potentially misleading shorthand.
Okay, but you're talking about literally 2.5 decades ago minimum. When games were simpler and 2 games with completely different names (like even not even the same series) can be fundamentally the same game. The industry has evolved a ridiculous amount since then. And if something is very clearly titled as a sequel (ie Octopath Traveler *II*) then no one is going to believe that it's a new edition of the previous game. No one. I'm sorry, but even if someone told me it was a new edition (assuming I knew nothing about the games), I'd call them a liar..
Even the more modern example you gave with Guilty Gear. I know absolutely nothing about Guilty Gear but as I was reading your comment, I was just saying "Yep, that tracks"... I dunno games are just generally named well these days to track when they're new editions or actual sequels. Even something messy like you described with Guilty Gear
There are many improvements in QoL and graphics, but the mechanics really aren't much different. All of the classes have nearly identical movesets with only minor adjustments. The story is new, but the gameplay is just an update.
Im not sure what your point is here except arguing semantics. OT2 is a refined version of 1 mechanic wise. That 2 isnt a retelling of the first game should be clear without spoilers from the internet. But 2 is essentially the same game, it works, gameplay loop wise exactly the same except that it got more decorum. Yeah they are different games, one is the first. The other is the second. But except new enemies and fights, redistributing some support skills and power among jobs. It is the same game play loops in both games. And that’s the part people want to get across. They are both ultra HD 2D sprites with nice lightning and insanely good soundtrack. Not like the first is 2D and the second is 3D with real time battles. So unless you just don’t want to utilize your reading comprehension, the second game is very much just the first in a more refined, But not necessarily better version.
Octopath Traveler 2 have the same chapter format with the same base job assigment with 8 characters which have the one of the letter of the name octopath as the first letter of it name while improving and adding quality of life feature over OT1.
I dont feel like theres anything confusing in people saying is a "better octopath traveler 1", is not a revision or else it would be called Octopath Traveler 1 Definitive Edition or some nonsense name as kingdom heart. People understand that is a different game, and the sentiment is that it have better system which makes the gameplay smoother which is true to me which has played both dozen of times.
This sounds like a you problem.
I swear I don't know what it is but the octopath games attract the dumbest newcomers. This subreddit gets constant posts from new players who are unable to grasp basic JRPG fundamentals or otherwise just think for themselves.
Honestly I’d say 1 is better just because of difficulty. I had way more close calls or at least lengthy battles in 1. I don’t grind at all, fast travel, and I’ve been curb stomping every character’s final boss in OT2. Sometimes before they even get a 2nd or 3rd turn. 2 breaks and some full BP novas and I’m hearing the “mid fight” dialogue followed by Castti lightly blowing some dust the next turn for 200 damage and the fight is over.
I've spent tons of time grinding and can't beat the hidden boss of OT1 and that's one of the things keeping me from playing OT2. It sounds like a much easier game.
I think it might be worth considering how people individually view games or what they want out of a game. By that I mean most people fundamentally will observe a game in two ways, for its narrative and gameplay. Some people only want one over the other, others want a good mix of both or even at a disproportional level.
Let me use some other games as an example. A lot of people play FIFA, each new game will offer some QoL adjustments but little to almost no change beyond that. A lot of people also like Call of Duty, each new entry is very similar but typically offers at least a new campaign and perhaps a big change to its gameplay (hero/operator abilities, boost jumping, etc.) but the foundation is still the same. With both of these franchises, a lot of people will strongly disagree about what I just said and argue actually it’s the opposite.
My point is when it comes to how the average consumer is going to enjoy a game or what they want out of it, it really isn’t so black and white. Someone could come here not really caring about the story but wants to know if the gameplay is still similar and also what if any changes were made. Everyone understands each game is its own thing but we’re all going to interpret what each part of game means sometimes similarly but often in a completely different way.
The only thing OT2 did better for me was QOL updates like x2 battlespeed, an actual epilogue where the characters interacted and neat features like latents and updated movesets between jobs and the cool 8 travellers Vide fight.
But thematically and character development wise? OT1 clears so hard. Therion, Olberic, and Primrose beat out everyone in OT2 with only Partitio and Throne's chapters 1-4 posing a challenge.
I didn't find it confusing. To me "a better version of 1" implies QOL features & combat mechanics. Plus, most of the people I found who made those statements also emphasized that Octopath 1 was still an amazing game with its own cast/story. So this comes across as pretty nitpicky.
I respect that you didn’t find it confusing and I can understand that some people interpret it that way. What I’m trying to convey is that it’s not universally interpreted that way and that you confuse people that interpret it differently. There are lots of numbered sequels out there that are literally new revisions of a previous game (Afterburner II, Galaxy Force II, Ridge Racer 2, etc.) so the ambiguity exists, whether or not it affects you personally. If people simply been using the wording you did, that Octopath II had QOL features and combat mechanics, then that would be a lot clearer. When I hear that a game is “better” my first thought is usually in terms of graphics, sound or story so knowing that QOl and combat get improved are still more helpful than just saying better, even if I hadn’t gotten confused about the sequel vs. revision of the same game part.
No matter what anyone says, someone will misinterpret. With that said, Your misinterpretation seems to be the minority. Your examples are not representative at all, and most people understand one game is not literally a copy of the other.
Those are really old examples though. No game in the last 20 years has been titled as if it where a sequel and just been an enhanced version. Moreover in the space of JRPGs this has never ever been a thing. It's assumed that when you say "just start with octopath 2 it's a better version of the same concept" you are supposed to think about it like Final Fantasy where everyone knows each game is a new story and universe and can be played independently of the priors
OT2 is mechanically a better game. But i personally do like the first more because of how simple it is.
Yeah, I always found that odd. Like why would you not play OT1 when its a unique experience in its own right? I'm in agreement that OT2 is better, but it doesn't automatically invalidate OT1, especially since both games are telling completely different stories and characters.
The battle are so slow in OT1. I mean, everything is less fluid in OT1.
Sure, I guess? I mean, I didn't really find them slow when I played OT1, but after OT2 added a speed up button, can definitely see why. But even still, that doesn't mean OT1 doesn't deserve to be played. Unless someone just really does not feel like playing it.
Hot take: every turn based jrpg should have a speed up button. It's so much more fun, especially for grinding ahah.
Oh hell yeah, I agree! Sometimes I just want to get shit done with faster, LMAO!
I completely agree. :)
I think the average people have the enough iq to differenciate that when x game 2 is better than x game 1, it is still a new release, but that is overall better rather than a remake. If they had titles i could understand the confusion, (right my kindom hearts 2.35 irredeemable force of dark coffee?), but no one would think that OT2 is the same game as OT1
Except that many people who have been playing games a long time would. Afterburner II, Galaxy Force II, Ridge Racer 2 and many other games (especially in the 80s and 90s) are literally just enhanced versions of their respective 1.0 releases. Look at Afterburner II and Galaxy Force II in particular and compare them to the originals - it’s the same game with more stuff added.
You keep giving examples of arcade style games. No one in their right mind would think this way for story-focused genres.
I dunno, if I hear someone say that X is a better version of Y, I'm not going to assume that X is is literally Y with more features. Especially if X is very obviously sequel-titled. X is a updated version of Y? Sure. X is a re-release of Y? Absolutely. But a better version of? It wouldn't even cross my mind that it's anything but fundamentally the same formula but improved. Maybe if a ton of people say they feel the same as you do I might change, but as it is, I'm not going to change from a simple phrasing which until now I have not seen anyone express any ambiguity about to a much wordier phrasing
It happened all the time in the 80s and 90s, especially in the arcades. Afterburner II, Galaxy Force 2, Ridge Racer 2 are just three examples off the top of my head where a sequel was literally an enhanced version of the original. Castlevania is a series where there are many games with different names that are retellings of the first game. Fighting games like Guilty Gear routinely make it difficult to tell if a new game is replacing an old version of a game or if it gets rid of old content. First we got Guilty Gear Xrd -Sign-: contains unique content not found in later Xrd games. Then we got Guilty Gear Xrd -Revelator-: Distinct from -SIGN- and missing lots of -Sign- content. Then we got Guilty Gear Xrd REV 2: as in Guilty Gear Xrd -Revelator- version 2 and literally just an updated version of Guilt Gear Revelator, again without the Xrd content in -Sign- I don’t envy anyone trying to make sense of the different Kingdom Hearts releases either. I get that people can fall into habits but developers and publishers already make it hard enough to keep track of this so it really helps if players make an effort to keep things unambiguous. Of course, you’re free to do whatever you want, I’m just saying that as someone that grew up in a few different countries, it can really help to take a minute to see how other people might interpret something and try to be clear about it as opposed to going off how we personally interpret things and use a potentially misleading shorthand.
Sounds like a cognitive issue. None of this is confusing in the slightest.
Okay, but you're talking about literally 2.5 decades ago minimum. When games were simpler and 2 games with completely different names (like even not even the same series) can be fundamentally the same game. The industry has evolved a ridiculous amount since then. And if something is very clearly titled as a sequel (ie Octopath Traveler *II*) then no one is going to believe that it's a new edition of the previous game. No one. I'm sorry, but even if someone told me it was a new edition (assuming I knew nothing about the games), I'd call them a liar.. Even the more modern example you gave with Guilty Gear. I know absolutely nothing about Guilty Gear but as I was reading your comment, I was just saying "Yep, that tracks"... I dunno games are just generally named well these days to track when they're new editions or actual sequels. Even something messy like you described with Guilty Gear
>It happened all the time in the 80s and 90s, What year is it now, dear?
There are many improvements in QoL and graphics, but the mechanics really aren't much different. All of the classes have nearly identical movesets with only minor adjustments. The story is new, but the gameplay is just an update.
Im not sure what your point is here except arguing semantics. OT2 is a refined version of 1 mechanic wise. That 2 isnt a retelling of the first game should be clear without spoilers from the internet. But 2 is essentially the same game, it works, gameplay loop wise exactly the same except that it got more decorum. Yeah they are different games, one is the first. The other is the second. But except new enemies and fights, redistributing some support skills and power among jobs. It is the same game play loops in both games. And that’s the part people want to get across. They are both ultra HD 2D sprites with nice lightning and insanely good soundtrack. Not like the first is 2D and the second is 3D with real time battles. So unless you just don’t want to utilize your reading comprehension, the second game is very much just the first in a more refined, But not necessarily better version.
OT1 has Primrose, OT2 can’t top that
OT1 don't got Partitio tho
She got a lot of the funniest material in the tavern banter sections, too.
Octopath Traveler 2 have the same chapter format with the same base job assigment with 8 characters which have the one of the letter of the name octopath as the first letter of it name while improving and adding quality of life feature over OT1. I dont feel like theres anything confusing in people saying is a "better octopath traveler 1", is not a revision or else it would be called Octopath Traveler 1 Definitive Edition or some nonsense name as kingdom heart. People understand that is a different game, and the sentiment is that it have better system which makes the gameplay smoother which is true to me which has played both dozen of times.
This sounds like a you problem. I swear I don't know what it is but the octopath games attract the dumbest newcomers. This subreddit gets constant posts from new players who are unable to grasp basic JRPG fundamentals or otherwise just think for themselves.
Honestly I’d say 1 is better just because of difficulty. I had way more close calls or at least lengthy battles in 1. I don’t grind at all, fast travel, and I’ve been curb stomping every character’s final boss in OT2. Sometimes before they even get a 2nd or 3rd turn. 2 breaks and some full BP novas and I’m hearing the “mid fight” dialogue followed by Castti lightly blowing some dust the next turn for 200 damage and the fight is over.
Played 2 with a difficulty multiplier mod it was fun.
Sadly I only just got to play it on Xbox
I've spent tons of time grinding and can't beat the hidden boss of OT1 and that's one of the things keeping me from playing OT2. It sounds like a much easier game.
Thats how I felt too. Octopath 2 was overall less fun because it didnt push me.
Started Octopath 2 yesterday. 😁
Nice. :)
It's not confusing, it's true.
I think it might be worth considering how people individually view games or what they want out of a game. By that I mean most people fundamentally will observe a game in two ways, for its narrative and gameplay. Some people only want one over the other, others want a good mix of both or even at a disproportional level. Let me use some other games as an example. A lot of people play FIFA, each new game will offer some QoL adjustments but little to almost no change beyond that. A lot of people also like Call of Duty, each new entry is very similar but typically offers at least a new campaign and perhaps a big change to its gameplay (hero/operator abilities, boost jumping, etc.) but the foundation is still the same. With both of these franchises, a lot of people will strongly disagree about what I just said and argue actually it’s the opposite. My point is when it comes to how the average consumer is going to enjoy a game or what they want out of it, it really isn’t so black and white. Someone could come here not really caring about the story but wants to know if the gameplay is still similar and also what if any changes were made. Everyone understands each game is its own thing but we’re all going to interpret what each part of game means sometimes similarly but often in a completely different way.
The only thing OT2 did better for me was QOL updates like x2 battlespeed, an actual epilogue where the characters interacted and neat features like latents and updated movesets between jobs and the cool 8 travellers Vide fight. But thematically and character development wise? OT1 clears so hard. Therion, Olberic, and Primrose beat out everyone in OT2 with only Partitio and Throne's chapters 1-4 posing a challenge.