I can't see why this game can be considered a copy-paste of OT1 when: 1) it's a story driven RPG that features a completely different world, cast of characters, and stories; and 2) It came out
4/5 years after the first game. Why do yearly/semi-yearly series get away with barely changing anything for 5+ years straight of title after title and somehow this second entry should re-invent the wheel? (This is without getting into the
actual changes and additions brought in for II, mind you.)
It's the usual damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario, where series like FF are trashed because "they don't have an identity", while series like DQ are because "they're remaking the same game over and over again".
Moreover (and honestly I might be alone in this) I already voiced how i feel that the game is a stealth re-imagining/remake of the first, without getting into spoilers, due to its overarching story structure and epilogue.
Now, would I like some more fundamental rather than incremental changes to the battle system/exploration/what have you for OT3? Sure, why not. (I honestly don't want them to repeat the overarching plot set-up sort of beat for beat
again.)
The spark and novelty not being there is understandable, but I don't think that saying the game is a copy/paste is fair.
I've been thinking a bit about why I dropped the game and have come to this hot take:
The first Octopath's formula was good, actually, and any deviations the second game has made in chapter structure (at least as far as I got, which was all the chapter 2s and a couple 3s) led to honestly just strictly worse chapters
I think you're the second person I read saying that, it is the hottest of takes on the game I gotta say ;P
OT is a 50-70+ hour long RPG without minigames or side-distractions existing outside of its core systems, it
needs the chapter variety if you ask me.
I will never understand how people can not like the first game and claim to enjoy the second so much to be one of their favourites RPGs ever. It's basicslly the same game with the same structure and the same problems the first entry had. I bought it because of that after not liking the first one and here I am, dropped it 15 hours in after Thrones chapter 3, having completed all first chapters and most second ones.
I get you may gel with some of these characters more than the ones from the first entry, but the game shares the same amount of virtues and issues. I would say that if you didn't like the original, don't go for this.
Also, some new things this one introduces are... totally irrelevant? Like the night and day option, it's totally a gimmick that could be fully erased from the game and nothing would happen. It feels to be there just to have a check mark of something new in the comparative list between both games. However, worst offender are the field actions and how half of them are the same with different names.
I don't really get it either, that said it absolutely does not have the same structure of the first game, Nabisco dropped OT2 because of its story structure being changed. Moreover I have to ask what exactly are these problems the first entry (and 2 by extension) had?
Of course it's totally cool if you don't gel with the series, no one
has to, just interested in your take that's all.
I also disagree about the day/night system introduction being irrelevant. Because one, they actually play around it for some side-quests, and two, when has a day/night cycle ever hurt an adventure driven game such as an RPG? As you said it also exists to give players more freedom with path actions, so that they don't have to go to a tevern to swap out party members just to perform a certain action, a nuisance, more than anything, that we're better off without I'd say.