Short-ish rant, Valheim getting boring.

[Domelius]

I wonder if anyone feels similar about the game.

I picked up Valheim soon after it showed up in early access. I have played it few times, both solo and with friends, got around 200 hours - but after almost 3 years I do not really feel the progression is being made on this game. More like artificial prolonging of early access.

There are new biomes made but I would rather see the current existing ones expanded. It feels like more of the same, just looking different. No real evolution.
By now I know almost all the items and recipes by heart, and I remember what I can find in each biome - and the game is getting kinda dead and unattractive for me, as there is barely anything new to discover. It simply cannot surprise me with anything.

Valheim was a major hit in 2021 but many other games with similar formula emerged in the meantime and managed to achieve so much more in shorter period of time.
You can say that Iron Gate AB has around 10 employees so it takes time, BUT the game sold over 12 mln copies earning around 150 mln $ (news from autumn 2023).
I would kind of expect the company to invest in a bigger team and get things done by properly expanding the title with new mechanics and so on.
I mean this game was its own walking advertisement - maybe they paid some taxes, improved marketing, work office, or outsourced some ♥♥♥♥ etc. Lets say they even had to spend 100 mln $ in total.
That leaves each developer with around 5 mln $ per person - which means they are set for life. Good for them of course, but it feels like the game is being neglected and whole process unnecessarily prolonged. Like they got their money so there is no point in throwing more sweat to make this really a brilliant title. Cause why bother with new original and varied content when you exceeded your lifelong expected sales targets by couple of times. It's all done, no motivation (?) This has been feeling like game on life support for a while now.

Examples of other successful survival indie titles that seemed to be making much quicker improvement or even released a full game despite of relatively small teams:
Enshrouded (¬45 employees now after the success, around 30 when they had the demo out)
Soulmask (¬more or less 10 employees)
The Forest (19 employees at the moment)
Raft (7 employees)

Why does it seems that they are moving and getting rich content rolled out while Valheim stand still and receives a recoloured biomes with hard enemies just to extend the playtime? I am not expecting each biome and 'era' to bring something revolutionary but at least... different. Not just texture of soil changed to burned lava or whatever.
At this pace other titles are becoming much more complex and attractive, and I would kind of want to stay with Valheim rather than moving to another titles. Maybe my expectations were too high.

I know I got my fair share of entertainment hours for the price, but I hoped that Valheim will become so much more. Now it feels like a let down. Kinda like end of 3 year long relationship which you really don't want to finish but there is nothing left to do.

Rant over. You can throw stones now.

[Watergun]

Happy a écrit :

There are 13 devs working at Iron Gate currently. Thats from the top, from a dev. Just either take a break or do somethin else til Ashlands drops.

Why not invest in employing more since this game was well received during launch?

[Domelius]

Watergun a écrit :

Happy a écrit :

There are 13 devs working at Iron Gate currently. Thats from the top, from a dev. Just either take a break or do somethin else til Ashlands drops.

Why not invest in employing more since this game was well received during launch?

Maybe they want to keep more money for themselves. I wouldn't blame them really. Most people would rather have more money than less right?

Of course they could pop someone on temp contract for a year and speed up things. Average salary for indie game dev in USA is around 100k $, by spending 0.05% of the revenue the game made till Autumn 2023 they could hire around 6-7 people for a year. But well, it is what it is.

[Gunnar Hurtya]

I'm in no hurry to be honest, still milking as much Flammetal as I can before Ashlands drops, nearly at 3k game days, full on got my moneys worth, with 3 more biomes to drop, I'm calm.

[bacon]

3x drop rate has revitalized the game for me. speeds the game up to the point where it feels more like an adventure and less of an open world grind.

combat is still the differentiating factor in this game, compared to other open world games which all have that clumsy feel. looking forward to some new, tough mobs in ashlands, across land, sea and air.

[Captain Cosmo]

I've likened Valheim to a more graphically advanced Minecraft. It isn't exactly but the comparison is still close enough. They have added some new content here and there, but admittedly I haven't looked into it after the Fenrus(?) gear that they released before Mistlands. I had already beaten it 3 times and was just existing... not exactly the best post-game experience nor a memorable one for the actual gameplay. I love the concept, I like the visual style, but there's not much that really wows me in this anymore. I guess I just... fell out of love with the game? We're still friends, I don't hate it or anything, just not feeling the spark anymore. This was my experience with No Man's Sky as well, I stayed through the rocky start, enjoyed it later, then just let it go around the time Expeditions became the new favorite activity of the devs. I still have some fond memories of it and Valheim both but not enough to fill a chapter in a book with.

I feel your ennui, no worries. I understand what you mean. It's not from a place of bad intent you said this, but a place of longing for something more, something new, something to bring the spark back. I hope it comes.

[Horemvore]

Domelius a écrit :

Watergun a écrit :

Why not invest in employing more since this game was well received during launch?

Maybe they want to keep more money for themselves. I wouldn't blame them really. Most people would rather have more money than less right?

Of course they could pop someone on temp contract for a year and speed up things. Average salary for indie game dev in USA is around 100k $, by spending 0.05% of the revenue the game made till Autumn 2023 they could hire around 6-7 people for a year. But well, it is what it is.

Maybe do some research into the games development, or just read this thread properly, so you dont make a fool of yourself again. They started with 4 devs, now they are 10+ but you know keep them blinkers on.

[Archie]

hmm
i think you are missing the point .
I am watching the you tube video of the last of us 2, and it is just stunning.
I played the first one through several times on ps3 and the last time as hard.
But that is a story with a path clearly laid for you or someone is with you to guide you to your destinations.
Valheim and games like it are just you.
You are the story in this game with what you decide to do.
You don't have to know much just common sense.
You can stay were you are and explore or go elsewhere into new kinds of territory with unknown dangers.
You make the story yourself.
The devs give you plenty to do just as it is.
What on earth do you expect them to give you that increases your experience.
You need to take your hand out of your pants and use common sense.
however it is interesting that we all have different points of view, I like just surviving in this.
Same with raft but some clown or clowns demanded a story i am guessing so they got some help and the game changed dramatically.
It is fine no problemo but sitting back and saying the devs are lazy or incompetent or what ever is disrespectful and you should just play it as is.
if you don't like it then to bad play something else.

[Domelius]

Captain Cosmo a écrit :

I love the concept, I like the visual style, but there's not much that really wows me in this anymore. I guess I just... fell out of love with the game? We're still friends, I don't hate it or anything, just not feeling the spark anymore. This was my experience with No Man's Sky as well, I stayed through the rocky start, enjoyed it later, then just let it go around the time Expeditions became the new favorite activity of the devs. I still have some fond memories of it and Valheim both but not enough to fill a chapter in a book with.

I feel your ennui, no worries. I understand what you mean. It's not from a place of bad intent you said this, but a place of longing for something more, something new, something to bring the spark back. I hope it comes.

Yeah that is exactly my though. Like there are games like Civ6 (1400h) or Northgard (850h) still hook me on the gameplay badly every now and then. For the fist 150h I had the same feeling for Valheim, expected it to be expanded in a broad sense - like every biome to become more complex with more things to discover and craft.

Don't even want to start on the topic like more npcs or companions for your base to at least pretend they would be doing some chores and making it feel more alive. Dungeons/caves could have a bit more purpose as they are still mainly just another looting place. And so on.

I might actually give it a try one day with the game modifiers to speed things up like you did. At this it may be the best to wait for a full release.

Horemvore a écrit :

Domelius a écrit :

Maybe they want to keep more money for themselves. I wouldn't blame them really. Most people would rather have more money than less right?

Of course they could pop someone on temp contract for a year and speed up things. Average salary for indie game dev in USA is around 100k $, by spending 0.05% of the revenue the game made till Autumn 2023 they could hire around 6-7 people for a year. But well, it is what it is.

Maybe do some research into the games development, or just read this thread properly, so you dont make a fool of yourself again. They started with 4 devs, now they are 10+ but you know keep them blinkers on.

I see how you are clinging over one mistake I have made to prove your point badly.

You can call me fool, and throw texts like 'biased much?' if it makes you feel more superior as a keyboard hero. I am too old to get offended by your attempts of edginess here.

I do read dev notes, I know the roadmap. It just does not feel convincing for me.

Archie a écrit :

hmm
Valheim and games like it are just you.
You are the story in this game with what you decide to do.
You don't have to know much just common sense.
You can stay were you are and explore or go elsewhere into new kinds of territory with unknown dangers.
You make the story yourself.
The devs give you plenty to do just as it is.

As I have mentioned in my initial post, I have experience those biomes, found, crafted and killed whatever the devs had prepared. It just feels empty once you experience almost all of it.

[$100 Bill]

Let me help out the OP.

$100M is easier to read and type than 100 Miln $

[morrokain10587]

Domelius a écrit :

Horemvore a écrit :

Maybe do some research into the games development, or just read this thread properly, so you dont make a fool of yourself again. They started with 4 devs, now they are 10+ but you know keep them blinkers on.

I see how you are clinging over one mistake I have made to prove your point badly.

You can call me fool, and throw texts like 'biased much?' if it makes you feel more superior as a keyboard hero. I am too old to get offended by your attempts of edginess here.

I do read dev notes, I know the roadmap. It just does not feel convincing for me.

While I agree with the general idea of expanding the features of existing biomes, what I think Horemvore is referring to here is more the idea that expanding the team doesn't always make things faster and sometimes makes things slower.

Think of it in terms of a commander ordering troops around. The more troops to command, the more general confusion can arise - the more mistakes and plan deviations can happen, etc.

Basically once you understand game design from a creative and functional implementation standpoint you will realize that the comparisons many gamers make and their assumptions dont make a lot of sense.

You could take 20 teams of varying size, give them the exact same finances, project idea and still get varying degrees of success at varying time frames. Its unlikely that the degree of success or the time frame will correlate to team size unless the measure of success is graphics or the number of features rather than the quality of features.

Yes of course there are baseline expectations as there has to be, but things going far off the baseline is a common occurrence.

[Doko]

3 years later and the AI still annoy me to no end with how they pretend to act dumb when they directly side step at all times to avoid ranged combat, it makes it feel half baked, at least compared to how other indies and AAA go about their enemy AI. All of Valheim's AI is "I know where the player is 100% of the time, but I need to act like I don't know while also walking in the exact direction the player is and act surprised/attack".

Same goes for passive AI like the deer. They know 100% of where I am and run away, while I try to sneak and they end up running right back to my location, only to "act" surprised and run away all over again. Sorry but that's not good AI, that's less than even early 2000's level AI.

[Joe]

To talk about the original topic, I do agree with you that expanding the early zones is probably the best thing to do. Make it a little more varied, with different events and creatures. A little more horizontal progression and distractions to make the ladder-climb gameplay a little more interesting.

[Hiryukaen]

It's an early access game, you paid to essentially partake in being a volunteer play tester for a game that has no guaranteed obligation to be finished.

Copies sold * USD listed price does not equal net profit.
Forgetting about steams cut and publisher cut both of which are significant % of revenue, every unknown to the public fee and cost of running a business: like having an office, licencing the dev programs, the cost of adapting to the pandemic, any debt the business may have incurred before the early access release profits, other taxes due to sales from being sold globally, providing decent compensation to employees, and many more.

Also forgetting the fact that starting a business means planning for the future.
You won't last long if you spend all the money you earned from getting lucky at how many people decided to purchase their early access title when they expected less than 10% of the sales they got. The goal is to ensure you can stay funded through the entire rest of development and into the next project. If you don't take that into consideration that's called leading your business into failure.

This is the first game this team has worked on together, for some it may be the first game they've worked on at all, and it may be the first business the lead dev has had to run.

It's a learning experience as a business owner, game dev, and game dev studio.

Btw they've already gone over why they haven't hired a large sum of people.
Adding more people means more time spent in meetings and training instead of doing work, it also has the ability to dilute the vision of the game with more people having an opinion and input.
It's easier to lead a small team and faster relative to their workload.
As certain things have to be finished before others can begin their job; having more people on standby won't speed anything up.

Throwing money at a game or having more people doesn't make better games, nor does it always make them finish faster.
It's 2024 and we have AAA studios producing steaming piles of garbage like BF2042 while charging 3x the price of Valheim for it at launch. They have billions of dollars and hundreds of devs, still a terrible BF game.

If you equate game dev'ing to making a movie.
The lead writes the story board.
The coders write the script and framework.
Artists animate onto the framework.

Adding more coders won't always make it go faster if the storyboard isn't set in stone and highly detailed. Adding more artists won't help unless there is a surplus of work to be done for that specific job.
As far as I can infer from interviews, the walk and talks, and QA's they've done the hold up is the storyboard (biomes and it's contents) isn't set in stone. It's flexible and evolving as they work on it.

If you're bored of Valheim stop playing it, wait for something significant to be updated and play it again, or don't. Although each biome does follow the same formula of what to be expected in it so far and once you start seeing the pattern it's hard not to. That goes for any game, it just suffers from a loss of "magic" once you see behind the screen.

That being said not every game is meant to be played forever; in fact the Valheim devs do not expect anyone to play their game forever.
No plans for turning it into a 'games as a service' update model where there are constant updates after 1.0 launch or anything like that, so you will be expected to move on anyways.

PS: Rafts development timeline was:
Alpha in 2016.
Founded studio in 2017
Early access release in 2018.
1.0 release in mid 2022, and has not had a content update since, only hotfixes that stopped end of 2022.

Valheim for comparison :
Hobby project until 2018 when it became a duo
Alpha shortly after in 2018
Studio founded in 2019.
Early access in 2021.

Valheim is still on par to make a similar time spent after studio formation til release development timeline. They may very well end up being a year or two slower, but that is not a significant time difference for game development all things considered.

[Balsover]

Hiryukaen a écrit :

.... Massive wall of who cares

Game is still boring.

[Sir Víve]

Until they make current biomes more diverse and have more gameplay objectives, I wont ever play this. I played it up till the 3rd boss with some friends that ended up quitting after the elaborate base was built. Progressing to the end boss just didn't seem to interest them or me neither.

I put this game down expecting to come back in time to find game designs that fill out and improve the list of objectives and game loops involved with progression. I loved the ships, doc building, and water travel so much that I hoped they would add more reason to stay on the ship, maybe even add better encounters, loot, and rare finds. Instead, the water biome can be skipped with portals and there is very little to do. I've only seen the serpent once, then it never appeared again. I found some living island looking things, but that was it. I would much rather have reason to travel by boat than to skip around through portals building base outposts everywhere.

Once I figured out the progression, I put the game down and decided I would finish it when it is more complete. The OP is right. Nothing about added biomes or anything in the patch notes makes me want to play through it again. I've already built a base and got to third boss, and there is nothing other than that to makes me want to continue. If I did, it would just mean repeating the same content in a different looking area and building outposts in new zones.

I'm like this with lots of games though. Once I figure out the game loop and realize that it repeats itself and is drawn out over different areas, artificially making the game longer, I stop playing. Ever since this game I quit survival games even faster when I realize it's too much a building sim with no real gameplay to give it purpose, other than some creative building mode. It's easy to buy into these games envisioning all the potential and content that can improve the game, but I have yet seen a game follow through on that potential after initial sales..