You too can run around on an island beach, pooing, chasing Dodos and punching creatures; all whilst in a loin cloth!
It's a PC game. It's got dinosaurs, crafting, building, evolution and fighting - Oh yes there is fighting. It's a MMORPG popular with gamers/kids/YouTubers - even Pokemon fans.
Let's be upfront it's on sale fairly often (every 2-3 months perhaps) but get it now while it's cheap.
My lads want it mostly for the Pokemon Evolved and other mods, as they've also got the game on xbox.
It's naff on Xbox, but voted hot for PC version cos mods.
StrifeyWolf
30 May 17#3
Isn't the steam sale on June 22 (Summer sale), I bet it will be sale again then.
Macdory
30 May 171#4
I got this ages ago and never played it - any good?
deeplink to Macdory
30 May 171#6
It's pretty decent, different to your average survival bash, mainly for the dinosaurs and the fact it's quite challenging remembering where you've built stuff. I've only dabbled in single player to learn the building routes. As soon as I've worked out animal taming other than useless dodos, I'm going online! I've had it for nearly a year and didn't touch it, but it's slowly becoming my goto game of the moment.
Oliver_Warden8
30 May 17#5
I'm really mixed on getting this! be honest is it worth getting this?
sion22
30 May 172#7
ah the infamous Early access game with £15 DLC before its even out. Good price but shady as hell
steve_bezerker to sion22
31 May 17#8
I can only assume you've never played it because there is more to do in this game than 99% of full releases. You could VERY easily sink 1000 hours into this game and still have new things to do. I've played this game for about 300 hours and I'm still yet to fight a T-Rex or Giga or tame any kind of sea monster, I've never gotten end-game weapons or building materials and the game updates so frequently that you'll never truly 'finish' it.
It's a struggle just keeping your base and your army of 10 worthless dinosaurs fed and alive. It's also got access to the steam workshop where there are already thousands and thousands of mods that will extend the life of this game and change it's settings. You would be lucky to EVER 'finish' with this game.
BetaRomeo to sion22
31 May 17#13
Well, perhaps. It's easy enough to target the lowest common denominator with low-quality trash, and all sorts of garbage wins awards and sells well. That doesn't have anything to do with the quality of the game.
The review scores might be a better indicator as to whether or not actual gamers should buy this game. So let's take a looksee... oh, ARK is currently sitting on a 60% score from its ("Mixed") Steam reviews. Huh, I think that's bang on. Of course, two years of us paying customers expecting qualitative updates that improve the base game instead of month after month of THREE NEW DINOSAURS THIS MONTH have to take their toll, I suppose.
Oddly, even though you've just told me that the game has significantly improved in many objective ways since March, even the recent reviews are "Mixed" (which means 40-69%). Shouldn't a game which is, let's not forget, "some of the most fun I've had in gaming my entire life" - steve_bezerker, be picking up at least a "Mostly Positive" (that's 70-79%, in case you're wondering) from the users who have bought and played it?
sion22
31 May 17#9
You can sink 1000 hour in any of these survival game like this or dayz/H1Z1 etc. Doesn't change the fact they release £15 DLC while the game is still in early access that is unoptimised and very buggy, and this show the greed and attitude of the developer. I for one wont support this practice
steve_bezerker
31 May 17#10
Un-Optimised and buggy? Again, I point to the fact that you've never played it. The game runs great, suffers from no horrendous FPS dips, is very forgiving on shadow and terrain detail and SFX to maximise FPS even on potato machines.
The game is not very buggy at all. It had a handful of issues when it was released over a year ago but these are long forgotten. The game runs and looks fantastic, even on budget machines. I don't think you should be deterring people from what is a hugely successful game based on your opinion of Early Access games (which make up about 90% of my steam library and is some of the most fun I've had in gaming my entire life).
The game was so successful that it prompted a full console release like Rocket League.
Also as a sidenote: the DLC is TOTALLY worth the price tag as it gives you access to an entirely new game-mode, new items, armour and weapons, new dinosaurs, an additional map (which is also huge) and several character skins.
BetaRomeo
31 May 171#11
I completely agree, the pacing in this game is terrible. Hundreds of hours invested with very little gameplay payoff, as it takes dozens of hours to get anything done and a single logout on a public server to have your hard work trashed while you waste time on frivolous things like sleep or family. Or you can play offline, adjusting the settings to speed the game up to acceptable levels, with no-one else able to see the fruits of your labour (sadly, my friends were wiser with their money than I was).
I must admit, I haven't played it since early March, but I'm very impressed to hear that it's completely changed in the last ~10 weeks.
It being buggy and unoptimised isn't why I recommend against ARK (after all, I feel the same about my copy of Star Citizen), but I certainly did expect more progress between when I bought it in June 2015 and March 2017. Then again, they were understandably busy trying to get that paid DLC ready, so I appreciate where they're coming from...
Hmmm... some of my favourite games are early access, like 7D2D, The Forest and The Long Dark. I don't know if that was sion22's motivation for their accurate comments, but it certainly isn't mine.
Oh, and I strongly recommend 7D2D, The Forest or The Long Dark! Excellent survival games, and they run great, too! :smiley:
I'm not sure if you meant that only good games release on console, or that selling well makes a game good, but I don't think either is the case. Either way, comparing ARK with the wonderful Rocket League is surely heresy? :confused:
Ah, you're the person who bought the DLC! No further comment necessary... :man:
steve_bezerker
31 May 17#12
Haters gonna hate. The game is going to go ahead and win countless awards netting the developers millions of pounds in development support in the future with or without your approval.
olympians
31 May 171#14
Being a bit disingenuous with that comment, if you've kept up with the game as your post suggests.
Flying nerf which changed the playstyle in both pvp and pve resulted in a large backlash via reviews at beginning of April, with buffs and nerfs since to adjust.
Don't play Ark myself anymore, but it really seems like you have a rod up your butt about the game and aren't judging it without an agenda.
steve_bezerker
1 Jun 17#15
The majority of steam users don't even review or give ratings on games. What you're telling me is not objective fact. What you are saying is that roughly 50% of the tiny sample size that did bother to go onto the reviews and complain (people are much more likely to complain than praise in reviews) voted to put this at mixed levels. The rest of the community are too busy playing the game to bother to leave a review.
How many things have you reviewed on Steam? To this date i've reviewed 4 games, and they were all negative. I have over 1000 games in my steam library. Perhaps you should learn a bit about basic psychology, people are much more likely to leave bad feedback than goodfeedback, in any game.
Player Battlegrounds unknown is the most popular game on Steam and is the most streamed and viewed source material on twitch, youtube and VOD, podcasts. Yet that game has mixed reviews also. Do you really think people care about steam reviews?
BetaRomeo
1 Jun 17#16
I have left 27 steam reviews. Three were negative, and 24 were positive. (Although, coincidentally, I haven't left a review for ARK. I'll get on that later today, thanks for the reminder - so make it 28, with four negative reviews.)
I'm not sure what you just proved with that question, though? That one of us is generally a more positive person, perhaps? :man:
Err.. I think you're conflating "most popular" with "top seller", but hey, sure, it's one interpretation. Regardless, something REALLY strange has happened - in the three hours since you left your comment, that game's Steam score has risen to "Mostly Positive"!!!!! :confused: What are the chances of that happening?!?
You do understand the Steam review system, right..?
I think that genuine gamers looking for actual feedback do. I see Steam reviews referred to frequently on dedicated gaming sites. But I can understand why casuals wouldn't, sure.
Still, if you have a better source of critical feedback for ARK, I'd love to see it. I simply repeated the Steam figures, which is entirely "objective fact". If that's all we have to go on, then ARK is a critical failure - which is probably why you've only been talking about how good ARK is in terms of sales and awards, instead of critical reception.
BetaRomeo
1 Jun 17#17
Being a bit disingenuous with your comment, if you've read my comment as your post suggests.
Like I said before, the last time I played was March. I don't know what events you're describing from April, but it does sound quite negative if I'm understanding you correctly.
Still, if it's positive overall and the game is improved, then that's excellent. I'd like every game to be excellent. My 'agenda' here is that someone's comments included some objective statements which not only contradict my personal experience of the game, but also contradict the experiences shared by dozens of others within the last few weeks - as you can see for yourself here (just scroll down). I'm curious, though - I bought this game at the same time as 7D2D and The Forest, and I strongly recommend those two games. What kind of 'agenda' do you think I have? Do you think I'm a rival game developer, perhaps? :smile:
The only subjective opinion I've shared on the game itself is that the pacing is terrible and that I expected more improvements from the devs in two years (yes, I'm repeating myself, but to be fair, you didn't bother to read my comment the first time. Good luck this time! :smile: ).
scottmills2
1 Jun 17#18
This game is literally worth every penny. Incredibly cheap for the hours you can sink into this game.
It is a good buy.
Do not bother reading the pointless arguments going on above. They are both trying to outwit each other.
lol
simonbrown
2 Jun 17#19
Good game, tons of fun, but definitely needs more optimization.
![Fresh Breakfast Meat Box (Using code) @ Campbells Meat [Haggis / Lorne Sausage / Bacon / Black Pudding & More]](/images/topics/208684_1.jpg)
![[Xbox One] Q. u. b. e: Director's Cut on Deals with Gold](/images/topics/208716_1.jpg)
Opening post
It's a PC game. It's got dinosaurs, crafting, building, evolution and fighting - Oh yes there is fighting.
It's a MMORPG popular with gamers/kids/YouTubers - even Pokemon fans.
Let's be upfront it's on sale fairly often (every 2-3 months perhaps) but get it now while it's cheap.
My lads want it mostly for the Pokemon Evolved and other mods, as they've also got the game on xbox.
The Survivor's Pack is on sale too for £10.32, containing ARK: Survival Evolved, ARK: Scorched Earth - Expansion Pack
All comments (19)
It's a struggle just keeping your base and your army of 10 worthless dinosaurs fed and alive. It's also got access to the steam workshop where there are already thousands and thousands of mods that will extend the life of this game and change it's settings. You would be lucky to EVER 'finish' with this game.
The review scores might be a better indicator as to whether or not actual gamers should buy this game. So let's take a looksee... oh, ARK is currently sitting on a 60% score from its ("Mixed") Steam reviews. Huh, I think that's bang on. Of course, two years of us paying customers expecting qualitative updates that improve the base game instead of month after month of THREE NEW DINOSAURS THIS MONTH have to take their toll, I suppose.
Oddly, even though you've just told me that the game has significantly improved in many objective ways since March, even the recent reviews are "Mixed" (which means 40-69%). Shouldn't a game which is, let's not forget, "some of the most fun I've had in gaming my entire life" - steve_bezerker, be picking up at least a "Mostly Positive" (that's 70-79%, in case you're wondering) from the users who have bought and played it?
The game is not very buggy at all. It had a handful of issues when it was released over a year ago but these are long forgotten. The game runs and looks fantastic, even on budget machines. I don't think you should be deterring people from what is a hugely successful game based on your opinion of Early Access games (which make up about 90% of my steam library and is some of the most fun I've had in gaming my entire life).
The game was so successful that it prompted a full console release like Rocket League.
Also as a sidenote: the DLC is TOTALLY worth the price tag as it gives you access to an entirely new game-mode, new items, armour and weapons, new dinosaurs, an additional map (which is also huge) and several character skins.
I must admit, I haven't played it since early March, but I'm very impressed to hear that it's completely changed in the last ~10 weeks.
It being buggy and unoptimised isn't why I recommend against ARK (after all, I feel the same about my copy of Star Citizen), but I certainly did expect more progress between when I bought it in June 2015 and March 2017. Then again, they were understandably busy trying to get that paid DLC ready, so I appreciate where they're coming from...
Hmmm... some of my favourite games are early access, like 7D2D, The Forest and The Long Dark. I don't know if that was sion22's motivation for their accurate comments, but it certainly isn't mine.
Oh, and I strongly recommend 7D2D, The Forest or The Long Dark! Excellent survival games, and they run great, too! :smiley:
I'm not sure if you meant that only good games release on console, or that selling well makes a game good, but I don't think either is the case. Either way, comparing ARK with the wonderful Rocket League is surely heresy? :confused:
Ah, you're the person who bought the DLC! No further comment necessary... :man:
Flying nerf which changed the playstyle in both pvp and pve resulted in a large backlash via reviews at beginning of April, with buffs and nerfs since to adjust.
Don't play Ark myself anymore, but it really seems like you have a rod up your butt about the game and aren't judging it without an agenda.
How many things have you reviewed on Steam? To this date i've reviewed 4 games, and they were all negative. I have over 1000 games in my steam library. Perhaps you should learn a bit about basic psychology, people are much more likely to leave bad feedback than goodfeedback, in any game.
Player Battlegrounds unknown is the most popular game on Steam and is the most streamed and viewed source material on twitch, youtube and VOD, podcasts. Yet that game has mixed reviews also. Do you really think people care about steam reviews?
I'm not sure what you just proved with that question, though? That one of us is generally a more positive person, perhaps? :man:
Err.. I think you're conflating "most popular" with "top seller", but hey, sure, it's one interpretation. Regardless, something REALLY strange has happened - in the three hours since you left your comment, that game's Steam score has risen to "Mostly Positive"!!!!! :confused: What are the chances of that happening?!?
You do understand the Steam review system, right..?
I think that genuine gamers looking for actual feedback do. I see Steam reviews referred to frequently on dedicated gaming sites. But I can understand why casuals wouldn't, sure.
Still, if you have a better source of critical feedback for ARK, I'd love to see it. I simply repeated the Steam figures, which is entirely "objective fact". If that's all we have to go on, then ARK is a critical failure - which is probably why you've only been talking about how good ARK is in terms of sales and awards, instead of critical reception.
Like I said before, the last time I played was March. I don't know what events you're describing from April, but it does sound quite negative if I'm understanding you correctly.
Still, if it's positive overall and the game is improved, then that's excellent. I'd like every game to be excellent. My 'agenda' here is that someone's comments included some objective statements which not only contradict my personal experience of the game, but also contradict the experiences shared by dozens of others within the last few weeks - as you can see for yourself here (just scroll down). I'm curious, though - I bought this game at the same time as 7D2D and The Forest, and I strongly recommend those two games. What kind of 'agenda' do you think I have? Do you think I'm a rival game developer, perhaps? :smile:
The only subjective opinion I've shared on the game itself is that the pacing is terrible and that I expected more improvements from the devs in two years (yes, I'm repeating myself, but to be fair, you didn't bother to read my comment the first time. Good luck this time! :smile: ).
It is a good buy.
Do not bother reading the pointless arguments going on above. They are both trying to outwit each other.
lol