I need a vote

[SaltyBurst]

Hello all,

I read through this community and realize the amount of love and devotion that people have put towards this game. We, including myself, have actually enjoyed this EA title for once after being burned by other devs on other EA projects without even half the content this game currently provides.

But my concern with the steam community and the new generation of players coming into gaming (I am a boomer) is that it seems that graphical looks seem to be the only thing that people care about. The amount of negative comments I read about how the graphics look like N64 or PS1 and condemn the game for that simply on it's own. What happened to judging a game based on the amount of playtime, content, exploration, and actual enjoyment of the game VS having sick graphics to play on my 3090 TI Overcharged SLI ?

I felt like bringing this up because I don't understand the concept. I would love ALL of these things together of course but if I had to choose I would choose my enjoyment over the physical graphics. I guess that's just me enjoying games like Minecraft, Rimworld, Factorio, and other titles that don't really have a huge graphic demand but have enough content to keep me entertained for the dollar value vs a 60 dollar (or a lot more depending) with a game that has shiny graphics but is broken internally with tons of bugs, exploits, ect.

Am I wrong?

[naomha]

I'm a graphics w h o r e through and through. I enjoy super HD that makes my eyes bleed. I'm all about it. However, I'm a HUGE fan of Factorio, Terraria, etc. Games that are nowhere near bleeding edge graphics but have a TON of fun in the game play itself. This game, while not Crysis, is still fine. Sure, I'd love something done in Unreal or Crytek and watch the rain drops fall off of my leather armor. Who wouldn't? Still, the game has decent enough graphics but the game play is solid so it doesn't really matter. I mean, who plays Minecraft because it is soooooo realistic? No one. It's the game play itself and the enduring loop of getting better and better and discovering something for the first (or 500th) time doing your thing.

At the end of the day, this game is pretty awesome. Yes, the inventory needs a ton of work and so do the building mats but it is in EA so I'm not stressing all of that now. However, come release time, if that stuff isn't fixed then I'll moan and gripe. Graphics could stay just where they are now and I'd be happy.

[Vivianite]

Originally posted by SaltyBurst:

Originally posted by Vivianite:

at least your honest about your boomer status, lemme explain this plainly so someone like you understands it.

ask yourself this question: what made games like doom or quake wildly successful from way back then? i'm pretty sure people as a whole enjoy games like those didn't buy it just for one singular aspect alone. for valheim, it's not just the graphics that sell it, there's a lot more going into this than that.

while i could go on a rant about how extremely popular sandbox/survival titles are, people in today's times would rather favor a game that is quality over having several games that are above average. the bar on what counts as quality is quite mediocre and nothing compared to what the triple AAA studios are suggesting it has to be. valheim meets this expectation exceptionally.

Starting your sentence in an insulting manner by stating that my boomer simple mind wouldn't be able to grasp your unbelievable knowledge of the world doesn't incite me to actually care to read your post and/or to keep what you say as actual fact vs a meme that you think is clever.

A rant about sandbox titles being popular should show that people are wanting a game like this, not because of the physical look of the game but because of the amount of content, exploration, and the ability of the game to function way better then any other released EA game. Quality being considered mediocre just because of the graphics is what the conversation is all about. Then you swap and state that valheim meets those requirements so i'm confused. Are you defending the game and my position on a game you would prefer to have content and replayability over graphics or are you thinking that graphics in 2021 should just be a given and if they aren't up to par with AAA titles then it's not worth your consideration?

im sorry i didn't mean to play it off like i was openly insulting you, lemme rephrase: im glad you are honest about your boomer status and i as a not-boomer attempted to explain it.

its a bit of a broad argument, i apologize, but what i was trying to say is that there are a lot of aspects one can look at a video-game for being considered a "quality" title. graphics, audio, gameplay, lore, and many more. what im saying with valheim is that it meets a lot of these categories in a quality manner;

the graphics are a deliberate design choice and are not the most sophisticated around visually, but appeals in a way that is pleasing.

audio such as ambiance of each location and other subtle things like when you're 'resting' that it plays a relaxing tune is pretty swell

gameplay has a lot going for it, DIY skill progression that globally makes you better at things as you do them, a slower paced engagement that isn't a constant hack and slash that rewards in the moment thinking, and the colossal presence looming over you that you are the usurper towards.

lore is well, Norse in inheritance and aesthetics, while the intro is nothing more than a scrolling text that you have to read, there are subtle tidbits scattered around the place that tells you more about where you are at the time.

because of all this and more, this game in my opinion hits a lot of high notes and it doesn't even play itself off as a triple AAA title. when i mean by 'triple AAA' the game is set to have the highest possible technological advances applied when the game is being created, the problem with this is the extreme expectations are already being set before the games's even out of development.

[Totes McGoats]

Kids like to brag about their rigs by getting the most unoptimized POS available to run at acceptable framerates. I'm happy that valheim decided to keep it unique and easy to run.

[mamusca]

this game sure would be unbeatable with UE4 engine graphics but it also wouldn't get as much traction as it is having right now. having a good pc setup isn't that affordable.

[djinnxy]

Originally posted by tidinha.:

this game sure would be unbeatable with UE4 engine graphics but it also wouldn't get as much traction as it is having right now. having a good pc setup isn't that affordable.

and it would be 3x the price

[mamusca]

Valheim is everything AC: Valhalla wanted to be except graphics

[djinnxy]

I do fear that now there's going to be 100 games that try to copy what was done here and we'll wind up with 99 who's best feature is the bad graphics though.

[Sciophyte]

I see no need to worry... have you ever seen a review stating that a game was no fun but they loved it anyway purely on visuals? Great graphics are always appreciated, but people know when a game is all looks but dull to play.

[CoLS Firestar]

Great graphics are nice, but after an hour, you stop really paying attention to them and focus on gameplay. Minus a sunset or randomly appreciating water here and there.

But what do I know? The best game I've ever played was Dwarf Fortress.

You can have a successful game without graphics.
You cannot have a successful game if it's graphics alone.

[SaltyBurst]

Originally posted by Vivianite:

Originally posted by SaltyBurst:

Starting your sentence in an insulting manner by stating that my boomer simple mind wouldn't be able to grasp your unbelievable knowledge of the world doesn't incite me to actually care to read your post and/or to keep what you say as actual fact vs a meme that you think is clever.

A rant about sandbox titles being popular should show that people are wanting a game like this, not because of the physical look of the game but because of the amount of content, exploration, and the ability of the game to function way better then any other released EA game. Quality being considered mediocre just because of the graphics is what the conversation is all about. Then you swap and state that valheim meets those requirements so i'm confused. Are you defending the game and my position on a game you would prefer to have content and replayability over graphics or are you thinking that graphics in 2021 should just be a given and if they aren't up to par with AAA titles then it's not worth your consideration?

im sorry i didn't mean to play it off like i was openly insulting you, lemme rephrase: im glad you are honest about your boomer status and i as a not-boomer attempted to explain it.

its a bit of a broad argument, i apologize, but what i was trying to say is that there are a lot of aspects one can look at a video-game for being considered a "quality" title. graphics, audio, gameplay, lore, and many more. what im saying with valheim is that it meets a lot of these categories in a quality manner;

the graphics are a deliberate design choice and are not the most sophisticated around visually, but appeals in a way that is pleasing.

audio such as ambiance of each location and other subtle things like when you're 'resting' that it plays a relaxing tune is pretty swell

gameplay has a lot going for it, DIY skill progression that globally makes you better at things as you do them, a slower paced engagement that isn't a constant hack and slash that rewards in the moment thinking, and the colossal presence looming over you that you are the usurper towards.

lore is well, Norse in inheritance and aesthetics, while the intro is nothing more than a scrolling text that you have to read, there are subtle tidbits scattered around the place that tells you more about where you are at the time.

because of all this and more, this game in my opinion hits a lot of high notes and it doesn't even play itself off as a triple AAA title. when i mean by 'triple AAA' the game is set to have the highest possible technological advances applied when the game is being created, the problem with this is the extreme expectations are already being set before the games's even out of development.

I am sorry that I misinterpreted what you had said in a negative light. I agree that I would enjoy both aspects of the coin if the game had fantastic graphics, a great storyline, content, exploration, tons of things to do, ect. but if I had to choose and/or ignore a game just because it took a different art style or didn't look as realistic as possible then I feel like games like this wouldn't have a chance. I do however believe that if I had to choose between graphics vs content I would choose content every single time.

I mentioned my age because I felt like it was important to understand how old I was to relate to what I potentially grew up playing and listed a few other games that are in my interest wheel for the same reason. I feel like the requirement to have a game only be released by massive visual enticement of having something shiny in front of someones face is what might start affecting the community in a negative way.

I guess what I personally wanted to get out of this thread was just the understanding of why some people choose visual look over potential game issues, content, ect. I feel like it's become the normal to see flavor of the week type games between 20-200 dollars vs actually having a title that you want to play vs the newest shiniest game on the market to buy and enjoy for maybe 10-20 hours and then never touch again.

[Dovahbear]

Originally posted by Kaiser KoKo:

how about them old cassette tape drives. we would load it up, go out and play and come back in half an hour to flip the cassette to load the other half of the game.

I have fond memories of my Interact Computer System and a shoebox of casette tapes with home brew games.
Good times with 8kb of RAM.