Back to Today's Deal

Viking: Battle for Asgard - 8/23/20 - $3.75


Today’s deal is Viking: Battle for Asgard!





This can probably be applied to a lot of famous historical archetypes, but it would probably be so wild to somehow resurrect a legit viking dude, teach him English, and then vicariously experience the Thor movie franchise through his fresh and likely quite horrified eyes. Like, is it not super strange that in 2020, Odin, Thor, Loki, and Asgard are basically household names throughout the world thanks to some bizarre fantasy version of them created by Lee, Lieber, and Kirby?

Like can you honestly imagine a viking from over a thousand years ago being told that the fat dude with the beard and the Lebowski hoodie playing Fortnite is the almighty Thor? I could totally understand if it made that viking want to eat the heart of Taika Waititi, but at the same time, deities were so much more realistic and human back then, so maybe it was totally normal for them to go on bender like that up in Asgard? And maybe that’s cool because it makes him a relatable type of god? It’s hard to say.

And for that matter, what about all the other insane stuff a viking would go wild about? Imagine showing a viking a Five Guys burger and fries. Or what about hunting with rifles? Or the WAP video? Honestly, a viking would probably never want to leave if they came to our time, just don’t show them Twitter, they deserve to be happy while they’re here. That’s the least we can do. Viking: Battle for Asgard is on sale today for less than four dollars. By Odin’s beard, don’t sleep on a good deal, friends.

The official trailer for Viking: Battle for Asgard:

Our favorite Steam reviews:

As always, use this thread to discuss this deal, talk about the game and find other people to play with!


Ooooh, Viking game!


Very colorful graphics and nice bloom effect.

Is this kind of like a Dynasty Warriors game, but with a Viking theme?

Also, the Community Link goes to the front page.


30 fps lock :man_facepalming:


As far as I can remember it’s not as flashy as the Dynasty Warriors games. You do get bloody executions, but most of your moves are more single enemy oriented. There are some sweeping moves but they’re generally rather weak. If you’ve ever played Spartan: Total Warrior this game will feel rather familiar.
This one also has some stealth elements, which I recall as being on the dodgier side but punishingly fun if caught.

I remember enjoying it when I played it on my PS3 over 10 years ago now. I do also recall hearing there were some problems with the PC port. There’s a 30 fps hardlock on it and doing anything to increase it will make the game get very wonky.


Why is it so important? There’s barely a difference in my opinion


I’ve been finding 30 FPS tires out my eyes. If I play animal crossing for a long time I feel like I need to take a nap. But I can play Stardew Valley and MK8 for hours with no issue.

Hard locking to 30 for PC is just A. Lazy, and B. Punishing the PC userbase, particularly those that have 144hz panels.

Rendering over 30 also reduces input latency because of how Frametimes work.

For me personally, the difference is readily apparent. Especially when moving.


I can only second what @Pylinaer said. Not only it is super lazy practice it’s also very unpleasant to play and honestly, no offence , but i find it ridiculous how people claim that they dont see big difference between 30,60 and 144 fps for example.

Personally at this point i can’t even force myself to play games that runs below 60 because i find it unpleasant and tiresome. I wont claim that i’m some super e-sport mastermind who can benefit from 240 hz or even 360 hz monitors but difference between 60 and 144hz is clear and last time i played something at 30 fps was probably 25 years ago on PS1 …


Well, I do not, seriously. I understand if you do, but I don’t


it was the same for me, and i only noticed the difference when i replaced my 59hz screen with a 165hz screen, and the difference is huge, but i guess u might only notice it on a screen that actually has higher hz to begin with, as was the case with me

i did use to see a difference between 30 fps and 60 fps gameplay videos, but the 60 fps looked unnatural to me back then, as if they were sped up somehow or something

I think that might be the result of 30 years of gaming on consoles and then later on a crappy laptop, even playing cs go ranked at 20-30 fps (LUL) for years before i finally moved on to a decent pc only a few years ago

so i think my eye saw low to very low fps as “normal” and good fps as unnatural or something, in addition to the fact that i watched tv at 24 fps for decades as well


Some people can’t actually because they’re more accustomed to that low frame rate. Of course, most probably don’t see it because they don’t have a monitor that refreshes to the new frame they’re meant to be seeing, but it certainly is possible for people to not notice it. I’ve even met people who think it moves “too fast” and that the game is broken, and then get motion sickness from it.

Personally, I noticed immediately, but I get really bad motion sickness from low performing games and low frame movies, so having a more even display was something I picked up on quickly. xD


Only reasonable explanation would be if someone had a 60 hz monitor / were using inferior connection type so was limited to 60 while in-game fps counter was showing above 60. Then that fake 90 for example would still be 60 in actual monitor and then someone could claim that there is no difference.


Honestly, this makes sense - my laptop is cheap and not a gaming one. So it could just be refreshing at a lower rate anyways