Jump to content

Front Page Steam Reviews (A wake up call to the Devs)


Zeonx

Recommended Posts

On 10/18/2017 at 1:21 AM, jlhanna2 said:

No game is perfect.  None!  Yes, I too wish for some changes, but also realize that those changes would negatively impact others and their own play style.  If you do not like the game anymore, simply quit and do something else.

I don't think the DEVS suck at their jobs.  Seem to be pretty successful to me.  Just saying.  The game is a hit.

More importantly, what point were you trying make?  I read it multiple times and don't really see what your complaining about other than you base must have just been toasted......

Note: I used paragraphs!

Fixing bugs wouldn't impact anyone negatively except the players when they fail to do so.

They're moving forward with new expansions without fixing the old ones.

Island is the first map, now we got 4 and yet bugs still exist on island, ones that totally ruin your game play.

22 hours ago, Mjsechrest said:

It would seem to most educated people that there are indeed certain persons who visit this forum and comment that most likely are paid by WC to try to control the damage to their reputation from some rather very honest and factual opinions. (No I'm not referring to the moderators) To try and silence the public opinion against their game and salvage what little remains of any positive reputation they may have. The fact is the game has spiraled so far down that fixing it has become an impossibility and so now they try to cover up their intentions to try and milk the crowd for as much money on the DLC and completely ignore any issues with the base game as they have continued to do for over two years 

Couldn't have said it better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 95
  • Created
  • Last Reply
4 minutes ago, powerstuck said:

I would agree, but there is a but...

1000 hours in a game that spent 2 years in development is possible. It is possible because you tell devs what you would like, you hope they fix things. Then...the game releases and all the bugs and glitches and everything else you encountered during your 1000 hours adventure and had high hopes they would do something about...they have done nothing about. Yes, you get mad and yes you give a bad review.

I expect to see negative reviews on any review site, but we should all be capable of detailing our experiences without exaggeration and histrionics. I can totally understand a customer writing a review to inform potential customers of certain personal experiences and concerns that have arisen due to those experiences, but we should all expect a base level of honesty and integrity in a review whether it's an extremely positive, or an extremely negative one. To that effect, asserting that the game is perfect is no different than asserting that Wildcard has done nothing to fix the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/14/2017 at 11:49 AM, Ganelon said:

It is not possible to play a bad game over 1000 hours, unless you are threatened to do so over pain of death.

That's completely false (especially for a pre-release game).

There are many games in which you don't really find out whether the game is completely successful until you've spent substantial time deep in the end-game. Lots and lot of games are fun while you're leveling, or even when you're leveled up and still learning all of the nuances of the game, but it's often the case that you don't really see a game's failings until you've tried to explore all of the nooks and crannies of end-game play. In many cases, it's only after you've found yourself insulted by faulty end-game mechanics again and again that you finally decide the game is fatally flawed.

This situation is exacerbated by a pre-release games in which lots of people keep playing in the hope that that the publisher will fix some of the glaringly significant flaws before it goes live. I can't speak for the reviewer who played 1800 hours, or exactly what flaws they found to be ultimately fatal to their enjoyment of the game - but your argument that you can't play a bad game for over 1,000 hours is a false premise, any arguments that rest on that premise are pre-failed arguments.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

here is what the dev's think about steam reviews at 22:30 http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1024229/-ARK-Survival-Evolved-Lessons

and we can go over what they did was wrong or right makes no difference now. The heath of the game is not good. If you look at population levels they are getting bad. So what can they do now not sure. The game doesn't have a good word of mouth I.E. Steam review. if the PoP keeps declining there is no DLC that will save it. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/14/2017 at 10:15 AM, GP said:

Although a lot of reviews have fair and valid points, I tend to find those that tell people to stay away from the game are usually profiles that are private. Take the first review you listed for example, that is a private profile. They have stated they have quit the game and do not recommend anyone plays it, however, there is no evidence whatsoever that the person has actually stopped. I see so many people tell others to stay away from ARK and that they themselves have quit but either have private profiles which block access to see if they've quit or they are still actually playing because their review was just blowing off steam.

Private profiles I take with a pinch of salt tbh, many of them have unlikely quit even if they say they have.

You must not play the game competitively on Official Servers, as it is the norm to have ones steam ID as "123" and have your profile set to private, lest someone scoure any and all of your friends, screenshots, comments, etc for any information on your home server, allies, etc. as a means to retaliate as such common place, thanks in part to services like arkservers and battlemetrics and the various other user tracking websites that can display any and all servers a user has been on.

So to attempt to discredit the validity of a user review based upon the ease of access to their social profile is really in poor taste considering how toxic and harassing the community is known to be, it's expected to be private.

That being said, to touch on your point of there being no proof that said user has stopped, it doesn't matter if they have stopped. They are not required to quit nor does it change the validity of their review/concerns, etc; if they have not. If you had paid for Windows XP for example, and had been using it for years without issue, and Microsoft forced a software update that updated your entire Operating System to Windows Vista which turned out to be a giant steaming pile of poo, you'd be pretty unhappy eh? And you could legitimately voice your absolute disdain for the process under which it happened, lack of consent, various other scenarios, etc. Anything they put in their review is valid whether you agree with it or not. You could absolutely LOVE the hell out of Windows Vista(I dont know why you would, but statistically speaking, there is someone who does), you could preach all the pros to windows Vista all day long, it doesn't change that someone else has valid viewpoints.

Keyboard White Knights over here trying like hell to discredit negative reviews, is contrary to how the review system is intended to work,

If you had a positive experience post it, post why.
If you had a negative experience, post it, post why.

If you see a Negative review that is in line with many that simply contain, "This game sucks", that's not a very good review at all.
If you see a Positive review that is in line with many that simply contain, "I love this game!", that's not a very good review at all.

The problem I see a lot is people trying to discredit legit negative reviews. You see a review that is along the lines of, "I put a lot of time into all this and this, but after constant unfixed bugs, and server lag, rollbacks, server lag, duping, lack of customer support, etc. I can't recommend this game as these are persistent unaddressed issues." AND then you get the folks knocking on them because, "Your profile is private! ur a troll! HATER", "YOU have thousands of hours in this game, this is  a bullpoop review you got your moneys worth, you're just salty, be grateful."

The problem with this mentality is simply lack of understanding; If you pay for a piece of Software that is intended to updated on a semi-regular basis, and an update does not work as intended and causes a negative reaction, those are legit concerns. If they continue updating, and issues continue to mount without being resolved, until the point you feel you need to warn future buyers, those are all legit concerns, it doesn't matter how long you used it until that point, or if you still use it. Potential buyers WANT TO KNOW the state of the game; If you have an overall positive experience, post a full review on How and Why, likewise if it is negative do the same. The state of your profile or hours in the game are irrelevant factors.

Do you knock on people who write a scathing review about a vehicle they bought that had a manufacturer defect that caused their car to catch fire and completely destroyed it because they got X amount  of miles out of it, and because their facebook profile is set to private and you cant creep on their pictures? NO! You don't do that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, SCEDeadeye said:

here is what the dev's think about steam reviews at 22:30 http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1024229/-ARK-Survival-Evolved-Lessons

and we can go over what they did was wrong or right makes no difference now. The heath of the game is not good. If you look at population levels they are getting bad. So what can they do now not sure. The game doesn't have a good word of mouth I.E. Steam review. if the PoP keeps declining there is no DLC that will save it. 

 

Their response to negative criticism and the overall diehard Ark fans and keyboard warriors defending the game is; Numbers speak for themselves. Is Ark a great game? Yes. Does it have A LOT of unaddressed issues? YES.

Those unaddressed issues are the persistent common denominator in the vast majority of all the customers reviewing the game, which are largely "Bugs, Server Lag, Server Crashes/Roll Backs, Lack of DDoS protections, Duping/Cheating, Lack of Customer Support, Issues with Devs/GM abuse"

You can love the game all you want, it doesnt change the fact that contrary to the dismissal of the Devs in the video there who boast having the most negative review bombs during six digit concurrent user periods means absolutely nothing. They are literally brushing aside legit issues because "We have six digit concurrent users", no you dont... You HAD six digit concurrent users ONCE. And this is going to go back to what I said about numbers speak for themselves.

Ark on Steam peaked out right after the 2016 Christmas Sale, it barely scraped over 100,000 concurrent users for a day or two before dropping off to about 75k AVG concurrent users by the end of January, by April that avg was down to about 50-55k concurrent, at the end of July the game was hitting around 42k Avg concurrent users. After the game "Officially launched" to no servers, it spiked up to about 55k on launch day and steadily rose to about 75k over the next couple weeks before dropping off again late September, early October, the avg concurrent users were down to about 55k and is still declining. Right now it's fluctuating between 42-50k concurrent with high peaks around 60k on Sundays.

That is the current health of the game based on Steam statistics.

Maybe dont take all those negative reviews with a grain of salt. A lot of them raise legit concerns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 14/10/2017 at 11:01 PM, Ganelon said:

Aw, bless your heart...

1) I got that... but you posted it as a support to you're own proposition..ie "Start responding to what the players want, and stop sucking so much at your job. MAKE TEST SERVERS FOR PATCHES.". In no way did you express contradiction to the review, which was used to support your own inflammatory statement. The ONLY logical inference is that the review is a proxy for your own opinion. Claiming otherwise is a surrender of your own rhetoric.

2) Please cite alternatives to the logical conclusion that 1000 hours played must assume pleasurable entertainment? Are you suggesting the reviewer was in a state of displeasure in the preceding hours, each one accumulating over the other, until the player bled from the 1000 cuts of each hour of a video game, finally realized he/she was in a toxic codependent relationship from which only a licensed therapist can properly assist with moving on from the resulting CPTSD and cognitive dissonance?

3) Actually, about three weeks ago the forums were overrun with the kind of preposterous and over-the-top pronouncements as "stop sucking at your jobs". Ranting and 'getting it off your chest' is the bible for narcissistic consumerism, and the myth of 'the customer is always right'. Deleting the majority of such posts is like cutting away community cancer. The last week, it really struck me how interesting and informative the posts have been... because they've been about playing the game. I stand by the conclusion that giving free reign to people that hate the devs, wildcard, and ARK is bad for business and the enjoyment of the forums.

Now... had you posted "Devs would really benefit from a live test server" and cite the need to turn around some of the bad reviews, I would have been right there with you. But, you didn't, did you? Your post was sh**y and without merit... so the subject of it is lost. 

 

This text is absolutely blinding

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ITs probably those that are upset and/or salty about the game that actually bother to leave reviews anyway, minus a few. If you play official pvp, you will end up salty.. atleast until they can afford to say, "Hey! We're ready to implement region blocks now". That alone would alleviate maybe 1/3 of the bad reviews once it's implemented. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2017-10-14 at 9:57 AM, Zeonx said:

First, these are not my reviews. Second, your entire argument is based on the assumption that one cannot play something for more than 1000 hours and not like it (this is an absurd concept btw). Third, if the Devs wish to have every post that is adverse to them deleted it will be there own downfall. People learn from mistakes and failures, people who choose to hide from their mistakes and failures remain failures themselves.

That is not absurd, how can someone say they don't like a game that they spent 1300 hours on.... I'm creeping up on3k hours, and like all games it has problems, but overall it is a wonderfully fun game with depth. I'd give it an 8.5/10

 

edit: my IRL friends didn't like it, they didn't even clear 50hours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I speak to a lot of people who play this game a lot and pretty much everyone loves the game but hates the devs. Great concept of a game and in some ways implemented quite well but in a lot of other very very poorly. They are inexperienced and it really shows. The lack of communication, the lies and misleading communication, being very slow to fix bugs and game breaking exploits, paid dlc for an early access game no where near ready and the fact its still not ready for release but has been released anyway is just too much for some people. They really do need to "wake up" as op said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Drinkinthepink said:

That is not absurd, how can someone say they don't like a game that they spent 1300 hours on.... I'm creeping up on3k hours, and like all games it has problems, but overall it is a wonderfully fun game with depth. I'd give it an 8.5/10

 

edit: my IRL friends didn't like it, they didn't even clear 50hours.

90% of the hours I've racked up in this game were before the flyer nerf that happened months ago. Still a lot lf hours racked up before a change I deeply disagree with it but after the change the playtime and desire to play dropped dramatically. The game used to actually be worth the 30$ I paid for it but now if I could go back and just not buy it or pay 50% less that's what I would happily do. That's just one of the logical ways that someone can use a product for a long time then no longer like it after a big change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ChargingParacerParacer said:

90% of the hours I've racked up in this game were before the flyer nerf that happened months ago. Still a lot lf hours racked up before a change I deeply disagree with it but after the change the playtime and desire to play dropped dramatically. The game used to actually be worth the 30$ I paid for it but now if I could go back and just not buy it or pay 50% less that's what I would happily do. That's just one of the logical ways that someone can use a product for a long time then no longer like it after a big change.

So you just facepalm my posts because I disagree? Nice one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, nikstorm9 said:

Here a small reason why the community is pissed off like it or not.

 

Aberration coming out in October 2017 says it on their homepage

 

October 19th NO RELEASE DATE yet. And they wonder why no one gives them any credit because they give false hope and deadlines. We as community continue allow this to happen.

They said at the end of october

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/14/2017 at 11:13 AM, Zeonx said:

MAKE TEST SERVERS FOR PATCHES. Test servers will prevent the need for so many little patches that cause players so many problems. @Jatheish

Most games that do have test servers before a major patch release end up having small patches post-release anyway, due to circumstances that could not be analyzed without it reaching the broad public. Nearly every game that I've played (early access or not) goes through this.

I do agree that the bugs/issues have a great impact on player progress, but that is largely due to the very nature and design of the game itself. Every game has bugs and issues and outside of the survival game, you generally just "start a new match" or "go back to a previous save" to address the problem, them move forward. Obviously with Ark, you cannot do this, especially so in multiplayer. Because of this, it makes the devs look very bad, when realistically, its not necessarily their fault. Had Ark been some matchmaking style multiplayer game, the same bugs would not be an issue.

Sometimes I like to joke and say "Survive the bugs!" but honestly, with some careful consideration like I have, you can avoid a lot of potential problems too. Should you have to do this to avoid setbacks? No, however, that does not change the fact that you CAN avoid many of the game breaking issues by not playing haphazardly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎10‎/‎18‎/‎2017 at 12:57 PM, NathanAndDaddy said:

I just keep hoping they will hear us, start communicating with us, and quit lying to us. I love this game and want it to be successful, but just because other games suck more doesn't mean I should accept WC sucking. I want them to get better. They could really take a lesson from some of the good gaming companies out there like 505 games.

In Jat's statement about legacy he mentioned the developers really were not that close to the gamers and several reports are that they constantly take people away from communicating with the player base to work on other things.

After the legacy debacle I really do not trust anything they say. I spent 3 months farming for the new map... I had vaults full of metal and tek structures and then we get 1 server and no support. I spent over 100 hours preparing for something they knew was not coming, but were just to chicken to tell us. I already lost everything and had to start over.

This is not the first time they broke the bosses. Making them undoable but requiring the element to power so much end game stuff. What fun is it to progress to the end on the official way the game is meant to be played just so you can't use anything you acquired.

If they do not start communicating with us honestly then the game deserves to die. If they cannot properly balance lower tier bosses on official rates rather than balancing them for people who play the game on easy mode then the game deserves to die. It is not too late for them to change, and my posts are here in hopes that someone will hear them and communicate them do the devs. I literally get 10 to 20 people contacting me through xbox every single month thanking me for speaking out. I am not being negative, I am trying to keep the game alive.

They just hired someone who I hope will help them fix the problems they created.

In summary, if I saw someone driving at top speed toward a bridge I knew was going out I would not call them to tell them how nice their car was... I would call them in hopes I could get them to change the direction they are going. I want to buy DLC's, but refuse to do so until I can trust them again, and I am not the only one.

I believe they hear us......., But...., they're a little young and a little small (in the amount of developers) for a game with this many systems.  After all, SOE trimed down Galaxies to 75 devs after launch and ARK is about the only game I've seen that launched with more systems than galaxies.  And Galaxies had Raph Koster, highly experienced, launched quite a few games, and very good at what he does.  From what I've seen and heard, WC is 1/3 of that amount of developers.  However, being that small (and young) (I was young once too) to throw in this many systems in a game is not a small order and they've actually done a decent job of getting those all in and fitting.  Credit where credit is due.

They might be limited by their engine with what they're trying to do here.  With all these systems, all going on at once, I would imagine that their engine is at least taxed.   Galaxies did the same thing with one of their instances where all you basicly got was a slide show.  However, I can't see even 1 system that I'd want to give up and that's a problem.

I just went thru a night where I got timed out 5 times (flying a wyvern over water most of these times, - death and grab a bird to go back to the wyvern, put it on follow, bring it back across the map, and then have the bug where the wyvern takes off when you do get it back and start riding it again) and 1 Fatal Crash so yes, it's a little frustrating and this is on servers I pay for, not just buying the game and playing on officials.  However, again, I just can't see myself playing TOR, WoW, or TESO over ARK or replaying Skyrim or attempting to get to the end of Fall Out 4 for the 3rd time only to see the entire quest line bug out to where it can't be progressed again.  So, I might be a little more inclined to give WC a chance and then another one.

As for selling an expansion when there are existing and long-term bugs, WC is a business who pay devs.  If they don't have some income, devs don't get paid, they don't squash bugs, there is no game, etc etc etc.  They could have taken the route that SOE took with Galaxies or WoW and charge a sub for 14.99 per/mo.  Or, they could have a store with a boat-load of paywalls, charge 125.00  for pixel ships like STO, head for that ever popular P2W (again like STO) or any of the other economical schemes that AAA studios have adopted to milk their playerbase down to "whales".  So yeah, I'll pay them a bit for a expansion here and there.

I probably have a bit of a different mindset that the average gamer here also.  I ran a SWGEMU server for 2 years.  I was the guy who ev1 "hated", made all the bad decisions, got all the blame for every bug on a alpha server, and had to read all these kinds of posts on my own forums, all while providing the game, the servers, the connections, additional development, for free, kinda like WC does (after you buy the game and the expansions of course) (so they're a bit better off than I was).  I can tell you, that's not all that much fun either.

After that 2 years of experience, after looking at what else is out there, looking at all the choices they have gave me in setting up a server, I believe I'll give them every chance in the world.   I'll report the bugs I find hoping they get some attention, and continue trying to help them and the game get to that point where no1 will be frustrated for a nights gaming time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/14/2017 at 6:01 PM, Ganelon said:

Aw, bless your heart...

1) I got that... but you posted it as a support to you're own proposition..ie "Start responding to what the players want, and stop sucking so much at your job. MAKE TEST SERVERS FOR PATCHES.". In no way did you express contradiction to the review, which was used to support your own inflammatory statement. The ONLY logical inference is that the review is a proxy for your own opinion. Claiming otherwise is a surrender of your own rhetoric.

2) Please cite alternatives to the logical conclusion that 1000 hours played must assume pleasurable entertainment? Are you suggesting the reviewer was in a state of displeasure in the preceding hours, each one accumulating over the other, until the player bled from the 1000 cuts of each hour of a video game, finally realized he/she was in a toxic codependent relationship from which only a licensed therapist can properly assist with moving on from the resulting CPTSD and cognitive dissonance?

3) Actually, about three weeks ago the forums were overrun with the kind of preposterous and over-the-top pronouncements as "stop sucking at your jobs". Ranting and 'getting it off your chest' is the bible for narcissistic consumerism, and the myth of 'the customer is always right'. Deleting the majority of such posts is like cutting away community cancer. The last week, it really struck me how interesting and informative the posts have been... because they've been about playing the game. I stand by the conclusion that giving free reign to people that hate the devs, wildcard, and ARK is bad for business and the enjoyment of the forums.

Now... had you posted "Devs would really benefit from a live test server" and cite the need to turn around some of the bad reviews, I would have been right there with you. But, you didn't, did you? Your post was sh**y and without merit... so the subject of it is lost. 

 

If you cannot fathom that someone may play a game for 1000 hours to test it and see if it could be a game they play long term, and after those 1000 hours determine the game is poorly supported by its Devs, then you sir are not worth the air you breathe and should kindly opt to stop wasting oxygen that others could be using.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Sh4rk said:

Most games that do have test servers before a major patch release end up having small patches post-release anyway, due to circumstances that could not be analyzed without it reaching the broad public. Nearly every game that I've played (early access or not) goes through this.

I do agree that the bugs/issues have a great impact on player progress, but that is largely due to the very nature and design of the game itself. Every game has bugs and issues and outside of the survival game, you generally just "start a new match" or "go back to a previous save" to address the problem, them move forward. Obviously with Ark, you cannot do this, especially so in multiplayer. Because of this, it makes the devs look very bad, when realistically, its not necessarily their fault. Had Ark been some matchmaking style multiplayer game, the same bugs would not be an issue.

Sometimes I like to joke and say "Survive the bugs!" but honestly, with some careful consideration like I have, you can avoid a lot of potential problems too. Should you have to do this to avoid setbacks? No, however, that does not change the fact that you CAN avoid many of the game breaking issues by not playing haphazardly.

This is retarded. All of it. You should be ashamed.

You cannot seriously be arguing that a test server wouldn't reduce the need for minor fixes after the patch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...