Why isn't Expeditions: Viking more popular here?

[Safav Hamon]

And not only is it a 40 hour traditional CRPG, but it has everything the codex claims to love. Turn-based combat, party creation, open world, joinable factions, branching questlines, ect.

It hits every single mark of what a CRPG should be, while also being quite polished. Yet only 18 pages of attention? There's no logical explanation!

 

[deama]

Here are some points I remember when I played the game on release:
-Poorly optimised, had to cap the fps to like 30/40 and even then my GPU (970gtx) kept hovering between 65-70 degrees celcius.

-Harder to speedhack than usual, because it wasn't that well optimised I couldn't speedhack it enough so the turn based combat was slower than what I'd like it to have been.

-loading times were long, though that was back when I had a HDD.

-character progression was crap, I remember after a certain level (around mid of game) my characters basically stopped growing in power because I maxed all of their relavent skills, so I ended up randomly spending points into shit I didn't need/want because I didn't know what to do with them.

-As mentioned above about character progression, the attributes from character select didn't feel all that impactful as compared to something like fallout; basically too much soyarism for my tastes.

-turn based combat was ok, but around mid point of the game started to get more dull, not sure why, maybe I'm remembering this badly because I got pissed I had to spend skill points on shit; or maybe there just wasn't that much to it.

-story was just ok, it started to get more interesting once you landed in that other place (was it scotland?) and spoke to the king, but wasn't enough to keep holding me so I gave up.

That's all I remember from off the top of my head, there might have been one or two other things, like I don't remember my opinion on that map travel survival thing they had going.
Also, I don't remember the loot for some reason?

 

[drgames]

Can you please stop it?

 

[Delterius]

Vikings are boring, tbh.

 

[Deitti]

Vikings is a good game, although i played it after all the patching was done, which most likely increased my opinion of it.

 

[Kem0sabe]

Because it's boring, repetitive, has shit looting, shit encounters, shit quest design. Ticking off features doesn't make a game necessarily good.

 

[Safav Hamon]

None of that is remotely true.

Encounter design is varied and interesting throughout the entire game. There are many branching sidequests with multiple gameplay affecting outcomes, so quest design is top notch.

 

[SlumLord]

I don't like snowbunny settings and having to click on every single crate.

You sound like a nigger. Figures most of you porchmonkeys prefer the Detroit-like setting of Fallout.


As for why Vikings failed, there are 3 glaring reason:

(1) the presence of a timer (I don't care how generous they made it, some people simply refuse to buy a game that has a hard-coded limit)

(2) lack of loot and itemization... on release, the game had something like 2 armor pieces IIRC... also, you'd kill 10 enemies with sweet-looking gear, and couldn't loot any of it... rinse and repeat for the next 30 fights

(3) bland setting and aesthetics... nothing wrong with vikings or the north, but the devs should've sprinkled some fantasy into it (in addition to big-tit bitches wearing chainmail bikinis - that always puts the nerds in a spending mood)

 

[Modron]

Vikings was my 2017 rpg of the year (along with Fallout Nevada) over Elex, Tales of Wuxia, and Battle Brothers. I still have yet to play D:OS 2 yet but given I was generally lukewarm about the first one and the changes to initiative and armor I doubt I would rate it anywhere near as well.

 

[Kem0sabe]

None of that is remotely true.

Encounter design is varied and interesting throughout the entire game. There are many branching sidequests with multiple gameplay affecting outcomes, so quest design is top notch.

Stop trying to pass off the game as anything else than a barrel looting simulator.

 

[Rahdulan]

Because I have yet to play Conquistador.

 

[Tweed]

Looks like the people have spoken.

 

[Anomander Rake]

I think you could have made a greater service to the game actually reviewing it without being spoilerish instead of trying to publish it like if you were the developer itself or one of the countless guys getting payed for reviewing products in a great way

 

[Abu Antar]

It's a good game, but it doesn't excel at anything, imo. I preferred the first game. At least that game stood out more to me. Here, they just went with the crowd and made a more traditional rpg.

 

[TemplarGR]

I haven't played it because i am on Linux and can't be bothered to play it with WINE/Proton right now. Perhaps in the future. Fuck them for not providing a native port.

Still, there is a port for Conquistador and i have played that, and all i saw was a Heroes of Might and Magic wannabe. What's so special about those games?

 

[Mark Richard]

It's called Expeditions: Viking, no S at the end. Viking is used in its native context as a term to describe the action (to go Viking), not a culture or nationality. This tells you three things:

- That Expeditions: Viking emphasised historical authenticity.
- That I'm a NERRRRRRRD and the target audience for Expeditions: Viking.
- That the repetition of the simple mistake made throughout this thread is another symptom of the same problem - no one played Expeditions: Viking.

 

[Sarkile]

Expeditions: Viking was probably one of the better games I've played in the last year and a half. It wasn't necessarily polished or had great graphics, but the historical setting was pretty well done and the turn based combat was intuitive enough to jump into without large amounts of study or concentration. It was an amazing follow-up to several glasses of beer.

 

[AwesomeButton]

Two main reasons I haven't given it much attention, although it's been in my backlog since I got it on a 50% discount at some point this year (I think).

1. I wanted to finish Conquistadors first, which will probably not happen.
2. There has always been a game with more hype around it which has had me more interested in playing it - for this year it has been KCD, Deadfire, PKM, Hitman.

I'm not prejudiced against vikings, it's more a matter of being in the mood for such a setting. It should be noted that the games that generate the biggest threads here are not those which are the most liked, but those which spark the biggest arguments.

 

[Generic-Giant-Spider]

I'm not prejudiced against vikings, it's more a matter of being in the mood for such a setting. I

This.

I like vikings but when it comes to historical stuff it's down there with feudal Japan as something I need to be in the mood for to be captivated by. The game itself could be really good if you're into the historical setting especially, but it's wasted if I'm only half invested. I could get into KCD much more easily because the Holy Roman Empire has always been one of the most interesting time periods to me which can very easily cause me to lose hours due to the immersive quality.

With that said, I did have Expeditions: Viking on my watch list but I'd probably be more inclined to play Conquistador between the two titles since once again that time period holds more appeal.

 

[Darth Roxor]

seriously speaking tho, voikung is p. cool and you gays should play it

 

[Deleted Member 22431]

Besides a poor excuse of combat system and non-existent resource management? Nothing. The graphics are great thou.

 

[TemplarGR]

Two main reasons I haven't given it much attention, although it's been in my backlog since I got it on a 50% discount at some point this year (I think).

1. I wanted to finish Conquistadors first, which will probably not happen.
2. There has always been a game with more hype around it which has had me more interested in playing it - for this year it has been KCD, Deadfire, PKM, Hitman.

I'm not prejudiced against vikings, it's more a matter of being in the mood for such a setting. It should be noted that the games that generate the biggest threads here are not those which are the most liked, but those which spark the biggest arguments.

For a game to spark big arguments, it has to be liked, both by the people who defend it AND by the people who try to troll/be edgy and shittalk it...

 

[Nuclear Explosion]

How enjoyable is the combat? Is it as repetitive as Conquistador's?

 

[Avonaeon]

A buggy launch, limited marketing reach and non-fantasy setting I think are some of the biggest factors why it is less known.
Time limit didn't help and I don't think we emphasised the differences from conquistador enough.

 

[Life of the Party]

(c) despite what people constantly say, most people aren't interested in a grounded historical setting as opposed to a fantasy or sci fi one -- the ones who are are the ones who follow Expeditions threads

When people say they want a historical setting they usually have in mind one or two specific settings rather than the entirety of human history. Vikings in particular are everywhere nowadays and we are all probably a bit tired of them.

I want this guy.

Spoiler