alberto_ascani

Honestly, your argument seems to me to be seeking a depth that isn't actually there, slipping into a rather forced relativism. It's obvious that personal aesthetic taste has a margin of subjectivity, but there's also an objective level, determined by the visual and conceptual rules that the developers themselves established in building their world. Ignoring this level and simply taking refuge in "I like it" or "it's subjective" means reducing every argument to a private opinion, which effectively opens up no space for shared reflection. It's a banal, sterile position that leads neither to growth nor to understanding the project we're discussing. This isn't about exchanging personal tastes as if it were a barroom conversation, but rather evaluating a work that is based on precise rules, including visual ones, and that demands to be read on a more structured level. Otherwise, it becomes impossible to distinguish a reasoned critique from a simple "like/dislike," which is the lowest level of analysis. Furthermore, the fact that I've received so many replies isn't so much because people disagree (especially since, notoriously, most forums are passive), but because I respond to everyone and, in many cases, people hadn't even grasped the point of the criticism. This, in fact, confirms how complicated it is to try to have a serious discussion when the other person keeps reducing everything to a subjective and individual dimension. That said, it seems clear to me that we disagree not only on the level of opinions, but also on the conceptual and methodological level. And that's why, honestly, I find it pointless to keep repeating the same things in different words: not because there's no argument, but because there's no common ground for a true discussion. I hope this post also provides closure for others and that they'll stop parroting two or three things: trying to offer ideas for improving the work means caring; defending it tooth and nail means undermining it. P.S. We'll see if 1.21 will come out like this in the end

Yes friend and unfortunately not the problems related to the new generation

No problem, I think it's all clear. I'm just saying the same thing because I try to reply to everyone but no one recovers the threads above hahahahah I'm a little tired

Yes, it's objective with respect to the aesthetic pact the developers have decided to give the game. I'm a little tired of repeating myself. No one wants perfection or says it's the game's problem, but it seriously compromises the previous generation and severely undermines the most beautiful component of Vintage Story: the aesthetics of the bases. I've repeated dozens of times that the problem isn't the biome or the single thing, but how many there are within a short distance. I repeat, this is objective with respect to the aesthetic coherence of the game. Then again, obviously everyone has their own tastes, and that would be a shame.

I'm reposting a previous thread: "Yes, exactly, it's not just a question of gameplay but also aesthetics. There are too many of them, and too often, not even that big. They're unattractive and make gameplay frustrating in terms of establishing a foundation. The fact that biomes like that exist in the world, which aren't exactly like that, honestly doesn't interest me at all. It's a game, not real life. The "realism" I'm talking about is related to how things integrate with each other—e.g., the straight lines separating gravel biomes. Extreme realism is only a value for those who have no idea how a game is developed. So, why is it set up so that 97.5% of the world is land and not that 71% or more is water?" You people really mistake video game realism for real life realism lol

I generally try not to translate but literally some things make sense in Italian and not in English hahahhha

Sorry it's true some things make sense in my language and less in English. I've already expressed my criticisms, and as for the mountain, the criticism was the number, not so much the aesthetics. There are some spots where these "stalagmites" spawn close together, and it's cool, but they often spawn 100 blocks apart, and it becomes too much. For the rest, I completely agree, but this thread was about criticisms of the previous generation, not suggestions for improvement in general.

It's really hard to talk like this, though. When you want to extrapolate something so as not to hear the general criticism. The post refers to a series of comments and images by me and other users. Also, I repeat: "if in that specific case you don't believe that different sands or gravels should intersect every few blocks, creating a sort of carnival costume on the map, well, okay bro. Also, it might be acceptable but not compared to the previous generation of the world. If this remains the case, I'll wait for the next versions before returning. Nobody is looking for perfection but something coherent and immersive" P.S. Often there are straight lines but also circles or ovals that are the same as straight lines

No, sorry, but the lines I showed are hundreds of blocks long, and straight lines are a problem, circular ones are. I also don't know if you realize how many there are and how extensive they are on the map, lol. It honestly seems to me that you haven't done generation tests. Also, if in that specific case you don't believe that different sands or gravels should intersect every few blocks, creating a sort of carnival costume on the map, well, okay bro. Also, it might be acceptable but not compared to the previous generation of the world. If this remains the case, I'll wait for the next versions before returning. Nobody is looking for perfection but something coherent and immersive

Come on people, what is this stuff, 4-5 different fields, mixed with straight lines...

Hi dear, I tried them and they are quite good, but the problem with the gravel persists and I would like to wait a moment for them to update them for the new generation (it seems to me that they propose too many standard biomes)

The problem is explicitly stated and refers to other posts in the forum. In any case, looking at the screenshots, it doesn't seem that difficult to deduce that those lines separating the fields are a problem. Furthermore, in previous versions it doesn't seem to have been so pronounced; in fact, in 1.19, it seems to me that biomes were generated much more carefully and spontaneously. That said, the fact that the problem is persistent doesn't mean it shouldn't be reported again.

I think it depends on whether you're translating the post when replying with Google's settings

Italian is an extraordinary language, but not very useful. Hahaha. Of course not, but the % I'm talking about is the one that establishes consistency with the game. For now, large water areas would just be an outline and a waste of space, even though the game NEEDS rivers and lakes. However, what I'm saying is that these evaluations must be consistent with the game, which goes beyond personal taste and creates a world that everyone can fully appreciate. Then, obviously, I'd focus on the options that can be activated to ensure certain things. If you think about it, when you start playing "challenge" worlds? When you've already played so many "normal" ones. I'm very much in favor of "subjectivity," but that shouldn't invalidate the fact, as in this case, that there are objective problems in world generation with respect to the "rules" the developers themselves gave us.

Sorry, sometimes I don't understand everything but I don't know why it's still in Italian now HAHAH. But you know, I think we should never get to those percentages of realism, because YOU KNOW HOW BORING IT IS, but I still think the layout of the water should be widely reviewed. The point, however, is that the video game shouldn't aim for realism, but to have its own underlying coherence and be fun. Talking about the existence of similar areas in the world is silly because that's not the point. So, a world where you spawn in the Sahara or on a small island in the western Pacific should be a player's dream? No, it would be horrible.