Oh, and being the creators of Lichdom really doesn't add much as that game was overpriced trash.

Originally posted by Invghost:

Honestly, 15 would probably be still asking a bit too much considering the graphics

Since when do graphics have anything to do with pricing, especially when talking about RPGs?

Tell me the game is too short or too shallow to be worth 30 bucks, this I'd understand. But graphics? Come on...

Agreed, this is not a top RPG like Pillars, no way the price should be so high :(

Originally posted by King in Yellow:

Originally posted by Invghost:

Honestly, 15 would probably be still asking a bit too much considering the graphics

Since when do graphics have anything to do with pricing, especially when talking about RPGs?

Tell me the game is too short or too shallow to be worth 30 bucks, this I'd understand. But graphics? Come on...

I know graphics don't make a game and they are third in requirements (Gameplay/Story being the first two), but a game can be redeemed or the value increased by having nice looking graphics. If it had state of the art graphics, the 15-20 dollar price tag would be justified. As it is, it's not.

Not to mention, based entirely off pictures, I can't see gameplay or story, so graphics is the only thing i can judge without venturing further into researching this game.

Check the gameplay video someone posted on another thread if you wish

Originally posted by Magnus:

Check the gameplay video someone posted on another thread if you wish

With a price as high as 30, there's not much point going any further. It's trying to compete in a market that it can't compete in.

The best thing that could happen is my opinion is justified.

The worst thing that could happen is I get interested in the game, but I still won't be spending 30 dollars, so it'd just bum me out that the developers set the price so high and nothing would change. It's something I'll look at if the developers drop the price to a sensible price tag.

Originally posted by Invghost:

Originally posted by King in Yellow:

Since when do graphics have anything to do with pricing, especially when talking about RPGs?

Tell me the game is too short or too shallow to be worth 30 bucks, this I'd understand. But graphics? Come on...

I know graphics don't make a game and they are third in requirements (Gameplay/Story being the first two), but a game can be redeemed or the value increased by having nice looking graphics. If it had state of the art graphics, the 15-20 dollar price tag would be justified. As it is, it's not.

Not to mention, based entirely off pictures, I can't see gameplay or story, so graphics is the only thing i can judge without venturing further into researching this game.

This is one of the dumbest things I have ever seen anyone say on Steam forums, and that's saying a lot. Graphics are irrelevant to any game with substance, something anyone who actually played games other than Battlefield and Call of Duty would be aware of. If you haven't figured that out by now, though, stick to those franchises. Clearly they are more up your alley. I'm not even interested in this game, either, I just had to comment and inform you of how idiotic you sound.

Originally posted by Valec:

Originally posted by Invghost:

I know graphics don't make a game and they are third in requirements (Gameplay/Story being the first two), but a game can be redeemed or the value increased by having nice looking graphics. If it had state of the art graphics, the 15-20 dollar price tag would be justified. As it is, it's not.

Not to mention, based entirely off pictures, I can't see gameplay or story, so graphics is the only thing i can judge without venturing further into researching this game.

This is one of the dumbest things I have ever seen anyone say on Steam forums, and that's saying a lot. Graphics are irrelevant to any game with substance, something anyone who actually played games other than Battlefield and Call of Duty would be aware of. If you haven't figured that out by now, though, stick to those franchises. Clearly they are more up your alley. I'm not even interested in this game, either, I just had to comment and inform you of how idiotic you sound.

Said by a millenial obviously. If you honestly think anyone can use any graphics, let's see the witcher 3 with atari 2600 graphics.. Your comment is the dumbest things I have ever heard, whether on steam or not.

If you think I'd enjoy Call of Duty, perhaps look at my video game library on Steam. It's open to the public, so you can see I enjoy all varieties of game (Minus multiplayer shooters, not the biggest fan honestly), whether amazingly detailed graphics of games like DOOM (Not the best example obviously) or games like Undertale, which was one of my favourite games of the year (Before being ruined by the fans).

I never once said that graphics made a game, however they are a part of it. If a game looks ♥♥♥♥ graphically, then it can either mean one of three things.
A) The developer had a great idea but didn't have the artistic talent to back it up.
B) The developer was going for a alternate styling (Pixel Art/Voxel/hand-drawn ect.)
C) The game is a ♥♥♥♥ rushjob like there are tens of thousands like here on Steam.

A! The developer previously released Lichdom. While not a great game by any means, it is graphically ok. Not amazing, but it can render things that don't look from the early 2000's.

B! This isn't an art style or a thematic choice. It is a bad looking game.

C! I don't necesarily know if this is the option that has happened, once again, not buying for 30.

However your inane attack on me simply based on the concept that graphics can show an insight into the game means you honestly have no grounds for arguments. I no longer wish to endulge you child. Go away.

Originally posted by Invghost:

Originally posted by Valec:

This is one of the dumbest things I have ever seen anyone say on Steam forums, and that's saying a lot. Graphics are irrelevant to any game with substance, something anyone who actually played games other than Battlefield and Call of Duty would be aware of. If you haven't figured that out by now, though, stick to those franchises. Clearly they are more up your alley. I'm not even interested in this game, either, I just had to comment and inform you of how idiotic you sound.

Said by a millenial obviously. If you honestly think anyone can use any graphics, let's see the witcher 3 with atari 2600 graphics.. Your comment is the dumbest things I have ever heard, whether on steam or not.

If you think I'd enjoy Call of Duty, perhaps look at my video game library on Steam. It's open to the public, so you can see I enjoy all varieties of game (Minus multiplayer shooters, not the biggest fan honestly), whether amazingly detailed graphics of games like DOOM (Not the best example obviously) or games like Undertale, which was one of my favourite games of the year (Before being ruined by the fans).

I never once said that graphics made a game, however they are a part of it. If a game looks ♥♥♥♥ graphically, then it can either mean one of three things.
A) The developer had a great idea but didn't have the artistic talent to back it up.
B) The developer was going for a alternate styling (Pixel Art/Voxel/hand-drawn ect.)
C) The game is a ♥♥♥♥ rushjob like there are tens of thousands like here on Steam.

A! The developer previously released Lichdom. While not a great game by any means, it is graphically ok. Not amazing, but it can render things that don't look from the early 2000's.

B! This isn't an art style or a thematic choice. It is a bad looking game.

C! I don't necesarily know if this is the option that has happened, once again, not buying for 30.

However your inane attack on me simply based on the concept that graphics can show an insight into the game means you honestly have no grounds for arguments. I no longer wish to endulge you child. Go away.

'but a game can be redeemed or the value increased by having nice looking graphics. '

The last thing for a really good RPG is the graphics because it is a RPG. If it is actually a good RPG with good gameplay it will be loved.

Some of the most popular RPGs like the early Gothic, TES and the Fallout series have poor graphics by today's standard but are still loved and extremely popular because of the content, etc.

Originally posted by Valec:

Originally posted by Invghost:

I know graphics don't make a game and they are third in requirements (Gameplay/Story being the first two), but a game can be redeemed or the value increased by having nice looking graphics. If it had state of the art graphics, the 15-20 dollar price tag would be justified. As it is, it's not.

Not to mention, based entirely off pictures, I can't see gameplay or story, so graphics is the only thing i can judge without venturing further into researching this game.

This is one of the dumbest things I have ever seen anyone say on Steam forums, and that's saying a lot. Graphics are irrelevant to any game with substance, something anyone who actually played games other than Battlefield and Call of Duty would be aware of. If you haven't figured that out by now, though, stick to those franchises. Clearly they are more up your alley. I'm not even interested in this game, either, I just had to comment and inform you of how idiotic you sound.

That is your opinion, i dont think it is shared by the majority though. I do agree that gameplay is more important than graphics in most cases, but i myself enjoy good graphics or a nice aestethic.
Graphics are usually important to me because of immersion. I very much enjoy city builders for instance. If no effort is made to show me a thriving city then it is likely that i wont care for it too much. Take Dwarf Fortress for instance. The game is supposed to have amazing depth and gameplay, but i simply cant enjoy building a society where everythingn is just represented by a dot on the screen.

Current gamers would most likely have a brain meltdown and start talking gibberish if they only had something like the original Zork to play.

When did gamers start to lose a thing called imagination and rely on superficial graphics for immersion.

No wonder there are so many pretty looking games with crap gameplay out there.

History of Zork
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zork

Zork online
https://classicreload.com/zork-i.html

Originally posted by Invghost:

Originally posted by Valec:

This is one of the dumbest things I have ever seen anyone say on Steam forums, and that's saying a lot. Graphics are irrelevant to any game with substance, something anyone who actually played games other than Battlefield and Call of Duty would be aware of. If you haven't figured that out by now, though, stick to those franchises. Clearly they are more up your alley. I'm not even interested in this game, either, I just had to comment and inform you of how idiotic you sound.

Said by a millenial obviously. If you honestly think anyone can use any graphics, let's see the witcher 3 with atari 2600 graphics.. Your comment is the dumbest things I have ever heard, whether on steam or not.

If you think I'd enjoy Call of Duty, perhaps look at my video game library on Steam. It's open to the public, so you can see I enjoy all varieties of game (Minus multiplayer shooters, not the biggest fan honestly), whether amazingly detailed graphics of games like DOOM (Not the best example obviously) or games like Undertale, which was one of my favourite games of the year (Before being ruined by the fans).

I never once said that graphics made a game, however they are a part of it. If a game looks ♥♥♥♥ graphically, then it can either mean one of three things.
A) The developer had a great idea but didn't have the artistic talent to back it up.
B) The developer was going for a alternate styling (Pixel Art/Voxel/hand-drawn ect.)
C) The game is a ♥♥♥♥ rushjob like there are tens of thousands like here on Steam.

A! The developer previously released Lichdom. While not a great game by any means, it is graphically ok. Not amazing, but it can render things that don't look from the early 2000's.

B! This isn't an art style or a thematic choice. It is a bad looking game.

C! I don't necesarily know if this is the option that has happened, once again, not buying for 30.

However your inane attack on me simply based on the concept that graphics can show an insight into the game means you honestly have no grounds for arguments. I no longer wish to endulge you child. Go away.

I stopped reading after millenial. You're obviously a child who doesn't have any clue what he's talking about. The reason games are the way they are is because of children like you. All flash, no substance. Codkids like you. MUH GRAPHICS!

You should probably just kill yourself.

Originally posted by Valec:

Originally posted by Invghost:

Said by a millenial obviously. If you honestly think anyone can use any graphics, let's see the witcher 3 with atari 2600 graphics.. Your comment is the dumbest things I have ever heard, whether on steam or not.

If you think I'd enjoy Call of Duty, perhaps look at my video game library on Steam. It's open to the public, so you can see I enjoy all varieties of game (Minus multiplayer shooters, not the biggest fan honestly), whether amazingly detailed graphics of games like DOOM (Not the best example obviously) or games like Undertale, which was one of my favourite games of the year (Before being ruined by the fans).

I never once said that graphics made a game, however they are a part of it. If a game looks ♥♥♥♥ graphically, then it can either mean one of three things.
A) The developer had a great idea but didn't have the artistic talent to back it up.
B) The developer was going for a alternate styling (Pixel Art/Voxel/hand-drawn ect.)
C) The game is a ♥♥♥♥ rushjob like there are tens of thousands like here on Steam.

A! The developer previously released Lichdom. While not a great game by any means, it is graphically ok. Not amazing, but it can render things that don't look from the early 2000's.

B! This isn't an art style or a thematic choice. It is a bad looking game.

C! I don't necesarily know if this is the option that has happened, once again, not buying for 30.

However your inane attack on me simply based on the concept that graphics can show an insight into the game means you honestly have no grounds for arguments. I no longer wish to endulge you child. Go away.

I stopped reading after millenial. You're obviously a child who doesn't have any clue what he's talking about. The reason games are the way they are is because of children like you. All flash, no substance. Codkids like you. MUH GRAPHICS!

You should probably just kill yourself.

I don't even own CoD. XD

Also, nice work on that last line, that's been sent to the moderators.

Actually, I will be nice. You have one opportunity to apologise for saying that before I message LeGrand and Associates. :)

Originally posted by MugHug:

Current gamers would most likely have a brain meltdown and start talking gibberish if they only had something like the original Zork to play.

When did gamers start to lose a thing called imagination and rely on superficial graphics for immersion.

No wonder there are so many pretty looking games with crap gameplay out there.

History of Zork
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zork

Zork online
https://classicreload.com/zork-i.html

Dunno where everyone is getting the idea that graphics are required to be amazing. I never said that.