Story mode & Gen 2?

[Vit0Corleone]

Greetings fellow survivors

I have a few questions/doubts that I was hoping people here could help clarify.

I understand that people use the term "Story Mode" as a way to play ark following specific rules. From my knowledge, this is basically about beating the official maps on the order they were released, which would be Island->Scorched Earth->Aberration->Extinction->Genesis->Genesis2. Is this a correct assumption and the right order?

Also, I've seen a few playthroughs on YT where people play "Story Mode", but after finishing a map, some people travel to the next map with gear/tames, while others go naked with no tames, while others even start a new character. I understand that each person does it the way they prefer, I'm just wondering what would be the proper way of doing it when new maps are introduced.

When referring to "playing Story Mode", are people supposed to bring stuff from previous maps, including their leveled character?

Lastly, with Gen 2 coming soon, how will this fit into Story Mode? Will we be able to bring our survivor/tames, or when a new map/DLC is launched, we can't bring anything to that new map?

Thanks in advance, and have a great week! 🙂 

[d1nk]

All personal preference my man. Ive done both - I enjoy the fresh start but it gets a bit stale after doing it a few times. I would bring your boss tames but keep them uploaded or something until you are ready for bosses as to not be tempted to use them for regular use

[yekrucifixion187]

Well the original Ascension killed off the dino's you took into the Tek Cave/Overseer fight. People didn't like that so they changed it.

My feeling is if there was an actual story mode when you Ascend, you'd take nothing or at most take whatever you have on you. So no tames, no way to go back to the other map for items. 

Progressively the bosses should get harder, but Manticore kind of ruined that and limited dino's from outside of Ab meaning needing a different "boss line",  so breeding fresh lines also seems to fall in line with how the story mode could be intended. 

My gut says naked or clothes on your back is the way it was envisioned but as @d1nk says, it comes down to preference.

[Pipinghot]

14 hours ago, Vit0Corleone said:

I understand that people use the term "Story Mode" as a way to play ark following specific rules. From my knowledge, this is basically about beating the official maps on the order they were released, which would be Island->Scorched Earth->Aberration->Extinction->Genesis->Genesis2. Is this a correct assumption and the right order?

Well, yes and no, they're not a "specific" set of rules, they're the rules that each player/group sets for themselves.

For example, I have a group doing this and we're doing all of the maps, not only the paid DLC.

     Island > Center > SE > Ragnarok > Aberration > Extinction > Valguero > G.1 > Crystal Isles > G.2

Also, some people/groups use mods, some don't, some adjust their XP, harvesting, breeding, etc. settings, some use vanilla settings, I've even met a person who's doing a complete playthrough of the game using no flyers on any map, because he thinks the game is too easy solo.

Any rules you decide upon are your own decision, there's no such thing as a "specific set of rules" that people use in common. Don't let anyone tell you how you "should" do it, your preferences are just as valid as anyone else's.

14 hours ago, Vit0Corleone said:

Also, I've seen a few playthroughs on YT where people play "Story Mode", but after finishing a map, some people travel to the next map with gear/tames, while others go naked with no tames, while others even start a new character. I understand that each person does it the way they prefer, I'm just wondering what would be the proper way of doing it when new maps are introduced.

Again, there's no such thing as the "proper way of doing it", it's entirely your choice based on what approach you find more fun.

My group, we like to start every map with new Lvl 1 characters, we don't bring any tames or equipment, and then once we hit Lvl 100 we bring over our characters from the previous map to do the caves, artifacts and boss fights. But I know that other people/groups make different decisions. It all depends on how fast you want to complete your playthrough and how easy/hard you want it to be.

14 hours ago, Vit0Corleone said:

When referring to "playing Story Mode", are people supposed to bring stuff from previous maps, including their leveled character?

Strictly your choice, whatever makes you happy.

14 hours ago, Vit0Corleone said:

Lastly, with Gen 2 coming soon, how will this fit into Story Mode? Will we be able to bring our survivor/tames, or when a new map/DLC is launched, we can't bring anything to that new map?

Well, the default setting in the game is that you can only have the same tames as vanilla Gen2, but there is a configuration option you can set that will allow you to bring anything on to Gen2 that you want to bring, it all depends on whether you want to change that rule for yourself.

[Vit0Corleone]

1 hour ago, Pipinghot said:

Again, there's no such thing as the "proper way of doing it", it's entirely your choice based on what approach you find more fun.

Agreed. But there are rules imposed by the devs themselves when new maps/DLCs are launched, like for example if you can or not upload/download stuff when a new map opens up. After a while, if I understand correctly, some of those rules are lifted and you can upload/download whatever you want ( with some exceptions like on aberration and genesis ).

I also assume that the devs, when launching a new map, have their own intentions regarding how players should tackle new maps when they first get released.

Of course everyone can and should tweak things to their own preference, I'm just trying to figure out what is the default intended by the devs and limited by their own rules that are set in place when new maps are launched.

[Hemplethwaite]

14 minutes ago, Vit0Corleone said:

Agreed. But there are rules imposed by the devs themselves when new maps/DLCs are launched, like for example if you can or not upload/download stuff when a new map opens up. After a while, if I understand correctly, some of those rules are lifted and you can upload/download whatever you want ( with some exceptions like on aberration and genesis ).

I also assume that the devs, when launching a new map, have their own intentions regarding how players should tackle new maps when they first get released.

Of course everyone can and should tweak things to their own preference, I'm just trying to figure out what is the default intended by the devs and limited by their own rules that are set in place when new maps are launched.

Typically the first 3 months of any map there are no item downloads. This prevents tribes arriving with massive amounts of pre-built structures and claiming the whole map. 

You can usually transfer a naked character back and forth freely though.

[Pipinghot]

36 minutes ago, Vit0Corleone said:

Agreed. But there are rules imposed by the devs themselves when new maps/DLCs are launched, like for example if you can or not upload/download stuff when a new map opens up. After a while, if I understand correctly, some of those rules are lifted and you can upload/download whatever you want ( with some exceptions like on aberration and genesis ).

Agreed, but it still comes down to individual choice. You should play your run through however makes you happy. Personally, my group prefers to only play species that are native to each map, but there's nothing wrong with making different choices.

As long as you don't use any override commands like "CrossARKAllowForeignDinoDownloads" then you'll pretty much be playing each map the way it is intended.

When each new map has been released they haven't allowed a bunch of stuff to be imported in to each map because they wanted to add a little extra challenge to each map when it's brand new. But if you're playing through in single player then that doesn't really matter.

[dtmaster79]

On 12/29/2020 at 6:48 AM, Pipinghot said:

For example, I have a group doing this and we're doing all of the maps, not only the paid DLC.

     Island > Center > SE > Ragnarok > Aberration > Extinction > Valguero > G.1 > Crystal Isles > G.2

TheCenter, Ragnarok, Valguero, Crystal have NOTHING to do with the ARK story. No notes and history.

[Pipinghot]

14 hours ago, dtmaster79 said:

TheCenter, Ragnarok, Valguero, Crystal have NOTHING to do with the ARK story. No notes and history.

So what? That means absolutely "NOTHING" in terms of whether or not people choose to play them.

 

It also means absolutely nothing in relation to story mode, there are no rules, there is no "standard interpretation". You have every right to leave them out in your version of story mode, just as others have every right to include them. Those maps don't include notes but they are part of the release history of the game, including having their own unique caves and boss arenas. If people want to include all of the maps in their interpretation of story mode that's equally legit with leaving them out. Those maps don't tell the story of ARK but they are part of the history of the game that people have played through.

[Vit0Corleone]

7 minutes ago, Pipinghot said:

If people want to include all of the maps in their interpretation of story mode that's equally legit with leaving them out. Those maps don't tell the story of ARK but they are part of the history of the game that people have played through.

I think everyone should play in whatever way they feel its best.

However, story and history aren't the same thing. My assumption when people mention "Story Mode" is that it refers to a sequence of maps that tell the story of Ark, and the other maps simply do not fit that criteria since they have no lore associated with them. They are therefore not part of the Story, even thou they are of course part of Arks' history, so to speak  

[Pipinghot]

2 minutes ago, Vit0Corleone said:

I think everyone should play in whatever way they feel its best.

However, story and history aren't the same thing. My assumption when people mention "Story Mode" is that it refers to a sequence of maps that tell the story of Ark, and the other maps simply do not fit that criteria since they have no lore associated with them. They are therefore not part of the Story, even thou they are of course part of Arks' history, so to speak  

That's certainly a legitimate interpretation, it's just not the only legitimate one.

[GP]

On 12/29/2020 at 7:07 AM, Vit0Corleone said:

I also assume that the devs, when launching a new map, have their own intentions regarding how players should tackle new maps when they first get released.

Basically, putting "personal choice" aside, if you want to look at how the Devs intend gameplay with new maps then it's quite clear....

TheIsland > you ascend > Scorched Earth.... you can only travel naked. You start on Scorched Earth naked for however many months it usually is. That is the point you then may think about personal choice whether you go back to The Island to get stuff or you stay with what you've achieved on Scorched Earth.

Basically that is I feel how it was intended. Anything outside of that is personal choice. I believe the going back and forth between maps was also intended as opposed to moving to a new map and not looking back.

You have the map order correct, and non-paid DLC's aren't included in this because that was never intended by the Devs (therefore those DLC's are personal choice).

The only difference here is Scorched has no ascension, so to keep inline with what the devs intended with all maps you would have to defeat Manticore and then travel immediately after that to Aberration naked.

This in my opinion is pretty much what the game intends if you strip out all "personal choice".

[Pipinghot]

4 hours ago, GP said:

Basically, putting "personal choice" aside

No, it's not "personal choice" in sarcastic quotes, it's actual personal choice open to different interpretations. Just because you prefer one interpretation doesn't make the others invalid. If you need to invalidate other interpretations just because they don't match the one you prefer all that proves is that you have an overly narrow and pedantic view of what "the story" is and what's open to individual choices.

4 hours ago, GP said:

if you want to look at how the Devs intend gameplay with new maps then it's quite clear....

That's true, but not the way you mean it. What's quite clear is that the devs intend, and have always intended, for all of those maps to be part of the ARK story. They made that clear by releasing the maps as official DLC.

What you're trying to do is re-define the 'devs intent' based on your personal interpretation when that's not how they published the game. The devs intended what the devs did, and what they did was release both paid and free DLC as Official additions to the ARK canon.

4 hours ago, GP said:

TheIsland > you ascend > Scorched Earth.... you can only travel naked. You start on Scorched Earth naked for however many months it usually is. That is the point you then may think about personal choice whether you go back to The Island to get stuff or you stay with what you've achieved on Scorched Earth.

Actually... The Island > you ascend > The Center was part of the game for ascended characters and non-ascended characters before SE existed. What the devs intended was that all characters had the ability to travel to The Center, and back-and-forth between The Island and The Center, before SE was added to the game.

There can be no question that the devs "intent" was for characters to travel to The Center as part of the ongoing and progressing story of ARK, the same is true of Ragnarok and the other free DLC's. Regardless of notes or who created those maps they are just as Official as the maps that WildCard created internally.

4 hours ago, GP said:

That is the point you then may think about personal choice whether you go back to The Island to get stuff or you stay with what you've achieved on Scorched Earth.

Which was equally true of The Center, Ragnarok and the other free DLC's. Each one of them has had a period when transfers to the maps were limited, when each map was new. The things you are describing are not unique to the paid DLC's, they are a consistent pattern for every new map.

4 hours ago, GP said:

Basically that is I feel how it was intended.

Except that's not how it really happened, you're trying to super-impose your personal interpretation on the right way to do things when based purely on facts that not how the devs did it. The devs did something different from what you're describing, you're selectively ignoring their official publication of free DLC maps which makes them a de facto part of the ongoing story of ARK.

4 hours ago, GP said:

I believe the going back and forth between maps was also intended as opposed to moving to a new map and not looking back.

That's true, but it's also a moot point when people own limited server resources. Not every person/group has access to the server resources to run multiple servers simultaneously, it's pretty understandable that many people/groups choose to only play one map at a time.

4 hours ago, GP said:

You have the map order correct, and non-paid DLC's aren't included in this because that was never intended by the Devs (therefore those DLC's are personal choice).

That's incorrect, we know they were "intended by the Devs" because that's exactly what the devs did, they made the decision, with deliberate intent, to release free DLC maps that were created by independent designers. That wasn't an accident, no one forced them to do it against their will, it was their intent to release maps from independent creators and that's what they did. You can't argue that they "didn't intent" to release those maps when they did so as a deliberate choice. Their choice was an action that clearly demonstrates they did it intentionally. The free DLC maps have always been, and are still, running on Official servers, servers that are paid for, maintained, managed and sanctioned by WildCard as a Official maps in the ARK canon. The presence or absence of explorers' notes doesn't change that basic fact. Those maps were intentionally released by the devs onto Official servers as chapters in the ARK story.

If you choose to ignore them because they don't have Exposition Notes that's your personal choice, but your choice doesn't define the devs' intentions.

4 hours ago, GP said:

 

The only difference here is Scorched has no ascension, so to keep inline with what the devs intended with all maps you would have to defeat Manticore and then travel immediately after that to Aberration naked.

No, again the devs "intended" for people to travel to Ragnarok after SE since that's the map that was released after SE and before Aberration. Their intent is, and was, made clear by their deliberately chosen course of action.

4 hours ago, GP said:

This in my opinion is pretty much what the game intends if you strip out all "personal choice".

If you "strip out all 'personal choice' then the game includes all official maps, that was the intent of the devs since that's the game they actually published, they didn't publish the imaginary game that you're describing. The game they actually published and promoted on their own Official servers includes inclues the free DLC maps as well as the paid DLC maps. If you want to exercise your personal choice and ignore half of the Official maps you have the right to do so, but your personal choices are not what define the dev's intentions or choices. If anyone is ignoring the devs' intent it's you. You have the right to make that choice, but the devs' intent and your choice are not the same thing.

[yekrucifixion187]

^^^ nah. 

Those maps were added as bonuses for the community. They call them official modded maps as opposed to official lore maps. 

They reuse artifacts and bosses (with exception of Crystal Isles) as opposed to the lore maps which have a slew of original creatures, original bosses, original artifacts, and further notes explaining the story of Ark. 

They have no basis in story mode. 

Ascension was introduced after SE was released. The original season pass detailed 4 lore maps. 

12 minutes ago, Pipinghot said:

You can't argue that they "didn't intent" to release those maps when they did so as a deliberate choice.

Except you can. They had no idea if any modders would be talented enough to create something worth adding to the official cluster. The intent was to let people try not absolutely intend to include. The only intent was 4 lore maps. 

Intent does not equal what actually happens.

[GP]

33 minutes ago, Pipinghot said:

No, it's not "personal choice" in sarcastic quotes, it's actual personal choice open to different interpretations.

Sarcastic quotes? Quotation marks are used for emphasis, I was was emphasising that particular part. Nothing to do with sarcasm. 🤦‍♂️

33 minutes ago, Pipinghot said:

That's true, but not the way you mean it. What's quite clear is that the devs intend, and have always intended, for all of those maps to be part of the ARK story. They made that clear by releasing the maps as official DLC.

What you're trying to do is re-define the 'devs intent' based on your personal interpretation when that's not how they published the game. The devs intended what the devs did, and what they did was release both paid and free DLC as Official additions to the ARK canon.

I'm not trying to re-define anything. I'm stating fact. The Devs intentions right from the start was to release official cannon DLCs all with ascensions leading to the next map (with the exception of Scorched Earth). The ONLY reason they introduced Mod Maps was because they LATER decided to introduce the sponsored Mod program and they ONLY did that because they discovered how BIG the mod community was and how much people loved them.

Therefore they NEVER intended for that right from the start, and therefore the free Mod maps were a by-product of the success of Mods.

33 minutes ago, Pipinghot said:

Actually... The Island > you ascend > The Center was part of the game for ascended characters and non-ascended characters before SE existed. What the devs intended was that all characters had the ability to travel to The Center, and back-and-forth between The Island and The Center, before SE was added to the game.

There can be no question that the devs "intent" was for characters to travel to The Center as part of the ongoing and progressing story of ARK, the same is true of Ragnarok and the other free DLC's. Regardless of notes or who created those maps they are just as Official as the maps that WildCard created internally.

The point you are so failing to understand here is the OP is talking about Story Mode and the TRUE story mode would be the Cannon maps which was part of the Devs STORY right from the beginning, hence why they have ascensions and explorer notes that tell the story. Yes the Devs intent (I see you using SACRCASTIC QUOTES???) was to allow players to transfer their survivors from map to map, this was their intent from day one, yet The Center, Ragnarok etc was NEVER their intention to add from day one as part of the story, AND when they introduced them they were still never intended to be part of the STORY, hence why they never got ascensions or explorer notes added to them, because they are not cannon. They are are extra stuff the people can choose to play on if they want but is not part of the story.

33 minutes ago, Pipinghot said:

Which was equally true of The Center, Ragnarok and the other free DLC's. Each one of them has had a period when transfers to the maps were limited, when each map was new. The things you are describing are not unique to the paid DLC's, they are a consistent pattern for every new map.

Yes but it is about the fact that we are talking about the STORY of ARK and what was originally Intended by the Devs. The OP is referring to this, and most people here in this topic are looking at it from a Story Mode point of view, which is the cannon aspect and what was intended by the Devs when they released the game in EA, which didn't include the introduction of mod maps or a sponsored mod programme.

33 minutes ago, Pipinghot said:

Except that's not how it really happened, you're trying to super-impose your personal interpretation on the right way to do things when based purely on facts that not how the devs did it. The devs did something different from what you're describing, you're selectively ignoring their official publication of free DLC maps which makes them a de facto part of the ongoing story of ARK.

No they are not, they are just maps. The story maps include ascensions, explorer notes, everything that adds to the story of Ark, i.e. official Mods that were designed to be the story. If you want to play what was officially created as the story by the Devs it would be official maps, anything else is personal choice. You can't deny that, but i'm sure you will as you appear so offended by people's comments here.

33 minutes ago, Pipinghot said:

That's true, but it's also a moot point when people own limited server resources. Not every person/group has access to the server resources to run multiple servers simultaneously, it's pretty understandable that many people/groups choose to only play one map at a time.

That's got nothing to do with what is being discussed here.

33 minutes ago, Pipinghot said:

That's incorrect, we know they were "intended by the Devs" because that's exactly what the devs did, they made the decision, with deliberate intent, to release free DLC maps that were created by independent designers. That wasn't an accident, no one forced them to do it against their will, it was their intent to release maps from independent creators and that's what they did. You can't argue that they "didn't intent" to release those maps when they did so as a deliberate choice. Their choice was an action that clearly demonstrates they did it intentionally. The free DLC maps have always been, and are still, running on Official servers, servers that are paid for, maintained, managed and sanctioned by WildCard as a Official maps in the ARK canon. The presence or absence of explorers' notes doesn't change that basic fact. Those maps were intentionally released by the devs onto Official servers as chapters in the ARK story.

The Devs didn't intend to add mod maps from day one though. Their intention was to develop an Ark story through multiple DLCs. Mod maps then came later as a by-product of the mod workshop success. Yes they LATER intended to introduce mod maps to the official network to increase the variety of maps for people to play on but NONE of them are part of the ARK story! As I have mentioned several times.

You are confusing their later intent to introduce mod maps with intention to make them part of the STORY. If the OP is talking about the TRUE ARK STORY then it is only the cannon DLCs that are part of the ARK STORY.

33 minutes ago, Pipinghot said:

If you choose to ignore them because they don't have Exposition Notes that's your personal choice, but your choice doesn't define the devs' intentions.

No, again the devs "intended" for people to travel to Ragnarok after SE since that's the map that was released after SE and before Aberration. Their intent is, and was, made clear by their deliberately chosen course of action.

If you "strip out all 'personal choice' then the game includes all official maps, that was the intent of the devs since that's the game they actually published, they didn't publish the imaginary game that you're describing. The game they actually published and promoted on their own Official servers includes inclues the free DLC maps as well as the paid DLC maps. If you want to exercise your personal choice and ignore half of the Official maps you have the right to do so, but your personal choices are not what define the dev's intentions or choices. If anyone is ignoring the devs' intent it's you. You have the right to make that choice, but the devs' intent and your choice are not the same thing.

Looking back at EA day one release the Devs intent was to release official cannon DLCs as the Story for ARK.

The mod programme that introduced modded maps to the official network WAS a by-product of the success of the Mod Workshop, and to allow other platforms that don't have access to mods to share the enjoyment.

So it is my BELIEF that when @Vit0Corleone speaks of the STORY MODE it is the OFFICAL CANNON DLCs that makes up the STORY MODE of ARK.

EVERYTHING else is "personal choice" to play on.

I apologise if you have felt offended by this, which you clearly are as you've made such a fuss about this, but at the end of the day who really cares that much? @Vit0Corleone asked a simple question on people's thoughts on the topic and you seem to have rammed your opinion down everyone's throats in this topic that have gone against your own opinions.

So chillout, don't get so offended by other peoples opinions and have a Happy New Year.

[dtmaster79]

20 hours ago, GP said:

Basically, putting "personal choice" aside, if you want to look at how the Devs intend gameplay with new maps then it's quite clear....

TheIsland > you ascend > Scorched Earth.... you can only travel naked. You start on Scorched Earth naked for however many months it usually is. That is the point you then may think about personal choice whether you go back to The Island to get stuff or you stay with what you've achieved on Scorched Earth.

Basically that is I feel how it was intended. Anything outside of that is personal choice. I believe the going back and forth between maps was also intended as opposed to moving to a new map and not looking back.

You have the map order correct, and non-paid DLC's aren't included in this because that was never intended by the Devs (therefore those DLC's are personal choice).

The only difference here is Scorched has no ascension, so to keep inline with what the devs intended with all maps you would have to defeat Manticore and then travel immediately after that to Aberration naked.

This in my opinion is pretty much what the game intends if you strip out all "personal choice".

that's exactly how we do it with us .. items may not be taken on the new card .. only the naked character. And it's a lot of fun ..

[DodoRaptor]

So I figure I might as well share my opinion.

1. "Real" story mode would be beating The Island > Scorched Earth > Aberration > Extinction > Genesis Part One > Genesis Parrt Two, preferably on alpha, no transfers.

2. Doing the same progression with transfers is still, in my opinion, very impressive and could be considered to be a less pure form of story mode.

3. Doing the maps in a different order, or adding the four non-story maps to the progression, would not qualify as a story playthrough.

[Pipinghot]

On 12/31/2020 at 2:24 PM, GP said:

Sarcastic quotes? Quotation marks are used for emphasis, I was was emphasising that particular part. Nothing to do with sarcasm. 🤦‍♂️

Using quotation marks for emphasis is a dangerous game, as they quite often connote some degree of irony.

For example, if I said that you had a "good argument" based on "reasonable logic" just about anyone would assume that my use of quotations was intended to be ironic, at your expense, that what I was really saying is that I don't think you have a good argument based on reasonable logic. And irony at the expense of another person is what sarcasm is. So when you said, "Basically, putting 'personal choice' aside" the unspoken implication is "Well sure personal choice exists, but it doesn't really count because there's only one right way to interpret story mode."

Sometimes the simple act of emphasizing words inherently implies irony, this is true in both the spoken and written word. For example, when you greet someone by saying, "Hi, I'm really happy to see you" that comes off differently if you say, "Hi, I'm really happy to see you." The simple fact of emphasizing two words in that sentence automatically makes is sound like you're deliberately being insincere, either as a friendly joke between friend or possibly to imply irony.

I've read enough of your posting history to know that you weren't being sarcastic in the sense of trying take a shot at me, you obviously didn't intend for it to be personal in any way, but using quotations in the context that you used them is basically the same as using air quotes when having a conversation to imply some degree of irony.

On 12/31/2020 at 2:24 PM, GP said:

I'm not trying to re-define anything. I'm stating fact. The Devs intentions right from the start was to release official cannon DLCs all with ascensions leading to the next map (with the exception of Scorched Earth). The ONLY reason they introduced Mod Maps was because they LATER decided to introduce the sponsored Mod program and they ONLY did that because they discovered how BIG the mod community was and how much people loved them.

Therefore they NEVER intended for that right from the start, and therefore the free Mod maps were a by-product of the success of Mods.

You're significantly under estimating the savvy and game industry know-how of the company founders of WildCard.

This game was designed, right from the very beginning (probably before even the first line of code was ever written) to be modable and extendable, because the creators of WildCard & ARK had enough game industry experience to understand that making a game modable/extensible is a great way to encourage community and player involvement. They touted that the game would be modable in advance of the beginning of Early Access, that doesn't match your narrative of them only encouraging mods & maps after the game was already rolling. They were very knowledgeable, well beforehand, of how big the mod community is in gaming and how much an active modding community increases public interest and sales of a game.

None of that happened by accident and it certainly didn't happen after the fact. Making a game modable is a choice you make in advance, knowing that you want mods and third party maps to feature prominently in the public appeal of your game. In most cases it's a choice you make before ever writing any of the game code, because adding modability after the fact is painful and expensive.

If you want to talk about intentions right from the start, what they originally intended was to release (at least) one mod-DLC map after the island and before SE. Under their original plans Scorched Earth was not going to be released until the game advanced out of Early Access. It's quite likely that there would have been another sponsored mod map before S.E. except that the schedule for S.E. got drastically shortened as a result of the need for money resulting from losing at $40M lawsuit. If not for that lawsuit it's almost certain there would have been another map prior to S.E.

The free mod maps were definitely not a by-product of the success of mods, the success of mods and free mods maps were both part of their plan from the very beginning. The simple fact that the game was modable from the very beginning is de facto evidence for what their intent really was.

On 12/31/2020 at 2:24 PM, GP said:

The point you are so failing to understand here is the OP is talking about Story Mode and the TRUE story mode would be the Cannon maps which was part of the Devs STORY right from the beginning, hence why they have ascensions and explorer notes that tell the story. Yes the Devs intent (I see you using SACRCASTIC QUOTES???) was to allow players to transfer their survivors from map to map, this was their intent from day one, yet The Center, Ragnarok etc was NEVER their intention to add from day one as part of the story, AND when they introduced them they were still never intended to be part of the STORY, hence why they never got ascensions or explorer notes added to them, because they are not cannon. They are are extra stuff the people can choose to play on if they want but is not part of the story.

On the contrary, the point(s) you are so failing to understand are how well prepared they were in advance, planning and designing a game right from the beginning, before Early Access, most likely before the first line of code was ever written, that took full advantage of all the features and benefits we're talking about.

On 12/31/2020 at 2:24 PM, GP said:

I apologise if you have felt offended by this, which you clearly are as you've made such a fuss about this

You're confusing disagreeing with being offended. I think you're a bit misguided about some of your interpretation, and I know that you're mistaken about some aspects of the history of the game development & design choices, but none of that means I'm offended. I'm arguing against ideas and arguments, nothing more.

If anyone is making a fuss it's you, trying to project motives on to me that don't exist. The simple truth is I like and respect your posting history, I've seen you offer a lot of help to a lot of people, but that doesn't mean that I'm always going to agree with you and it certainly doesn't mean that by disagreeing I'm somehow offended or making a fuss. I can respect you and still think you're wrong, those two things are not mutually exclusive.

On 12/31/2020 at 2:24 PM, GP said:

...and you seem to have rammed your opinion down everyone's throats in this topic that have gone against your own opinions.

No. I'm arguing in favor of what I believe in, just like you're doing, that's not ramming an opinion down anyone's throat and it's a bad argument for you to make that accusation.

Of all the people in this thread I'm the one arguing most strongly in favor of personal freedom of interpretation, that's the opposite of ramming an opinion down anyone's throat.

[Vit0Corleone]

6 minutes ago, Pipinghot said:

I'm arguing in favor of what I believe in

The thing I'm missing here, is .. this doesn't even look like up to personal interpretation at all?

The devs told us the Story of Ark via lore bits that are spread across a few maps. The story itself tells of a chronological tale that occurs on those same maps, with several characters that travel between them.

This is what Story Mode is. As far as the way the devs have chosen to tell us this Story, the other maps aren't part of it. There is no lore attached to them, they don't exist as far as that Story goes. 

This whole thread I created was about what is the correct order and maps to do Story Mode playthrough.

If there's some other Story told by Wildcard that I'm not aware of, I'd love to know.

But hey, the good thing about this sandbox-ish environment, is that we can create our own Stories if we feel like it

 

 

[Pipinghot]

On 1/4/2021 at 1:15 PM, Vit0Corleone said:

The thing I'm missing here, is .. this doesn't even look like up to personal interpretation at all?

Hi Vito, apologies for the long delay before replying, I overlooked the notification that you had replied.

So let's examine your statement - considering that most of this thread is based on discussing different interpretations it should be self-evident that it's absolutely open to personal interpretation.

As previously discussed, I'm currently engaged in a full play through of ARK and neither you nor anyone else has the ability/right to tell us that it's not a story-mode play through, likewise I don't have the ability to tell you whether or not your play through is a story mode play through. Neither your interpretation nor mine is the only interpretation possible, therefore by definition it's open to personal interpretation. You have the right to choose the interpretation that suits your desires and purposes, but this is a subjective rather than an objective discussion.

On 1/4/2021 at 1:15 PM, Vit0Corleone said:

The devs told us the Story of Ark via lore bits that are spread across a few maps. The story itself tells of a chronological tale that occurs on those same maps, with several characters that travel between them.

What the devs told us is the history of ARK, not "the" story. In literary terms they are the prologue or the backstory, not the story itself. The devs have told us multiple stories, not just one, and that collection of stories is the background lore that forms the framework for the stories that we are each experiencing as we play ARK. The notes are not the story of ark, they are the exposition for each of our individual stories as we play the game.

This happens all the time in books and movies, we see a flashback (Explorers' Note) that tells us of something that happened in the past or a cutaway (Dossier) that gives us additional information to help frame the story, but those flashbacks and cutaways are not the actual story itself they are additional information to enrich the story that's currently happening.

On 1/4/2021 at 1:15 PM, Vit0Corleone said:

This is what Story Mode is. As far as the way the devs have chosen to tell us this Story, the other maps aren't part of it. There is no lore attached to them, they don't exist as far as that Story goes.

Well, if we dive down into it the truth is that the entire concept of Story Mode is flawed, it doesn't really exist in ARK.

If we could play in Story Mode then we, the players, would be playing the story of Helena Walker, the story of Edmund Rockwell, and the other stories, but that's not what we're doing. We're each playing our own stories in a world in which those characters exist but which we never play or experience, the whole concept of Story Mode in ARK is misnomer because we never ever actually play those stories, they are just background information for whatever stories we're experiencing with our characters.

Games like Borderlands or World of Warcraft have a story mode, they're essentially Story Mode games. When you play those games you personally experience the stories. When you work your way through a quest chain you're not simply reading a background notes, you're the one who's making that story happen as you adventure, fight, beat enemies and bring things back to get rewards, all of which is practically non-existent in ARK. The only story mode that actually exists in ARK is the missions to collect artifacts and the boss fights, because those are the only things you need to do to complete each map, and most people never even do that. Other than those (very) limited quest chains none of us ever plays the story of ARK, we all play the stories of our characters.

On 1/4/2021 at 1:15 PM, Vit0Corleone said:

the other maps aren't part of it. There is no lore attached to them, they don't exist as far as that Story goes.

When you read a book some chapters include background information (explorer's notes) and exposition (dossiers) and some chapters don't have those things, but you would never say that a chapter with no background information added into it doesn't "exist as far as that Story goes". Every chapter in the book is part of the story even if that chapter doesn't have any background information for exposition.

The notes that we find are not the story, they are the background story, the prologue, to the actual story that we're playing.

On 1/4/2021 at 1:15 PM, Vit0Corleone said:

This whole thread I created was about what is the correct order and maps to do Story Mode playthrough.

Understood and agreed, and the answer is the same now as it was when you started the thread, there is no such thing as the "correct" way to do a story mode play through because each person/group gets to decide how they play through the story. The entire idea that there is a correct way to do it is a false concept. There is only your choice, which is your right to make, about how you want to play through the game.

On 1/4/2021 at 1:15 PM, Vit0Corleone said:

If there's some other Story told by Wildcard that I'm not aware of, I'd love to know.

WildCard is telling us the history, not the story, the story is what each and every one of us experiences as we play the game.

Even if you were absolutely hardcore and only read the notes in order on each of the maps that still wouldn't be playing Story Mode, that would be History Mode, or maybe Archaeology Mode or Lore Mode, but the historical notes and exposition are not "the story", they are the backstory behind the story.

On 1/4/2021 at 1:15 PM, Vit0Corleone said:

But hey, the good thing about this sandbox-ish environment, is that we can create our own Stories if we feel like it

Agreed, which has basically been my point all along. Every person playing in the game is playing in Story Mode, we are each creating our own stories as we play, and the background stories provided by WildCard are their own collection of stories, completely independent of the stories that we each experience when we play the game however we want to based on our own personal choices, and that is why there's no such thing as the "correct" way to play story mode.

[wizard03]

On 12/28/2020 at 10:29 AM, Vit0Corleone said:

Greetings fellow survivors  I have a few questions/doubts that I was hoping people here could help clarify. I understand that people use the term "Story Mode" as a way to play ark following specific rules. From my knowledge, this is basically about beating the official maps on the order they were released, which would be Island->Scorched Earth->Aberration->Extinction->Genesis->Genesis2. Is this a correct assumption and the right order? Also, I've seen a few playthroughs on YT where people play "Story Mode", but after finishing a map, some people travel to the next map with gear/tames, while others go naked with no tames, while others even start a new character. I understand that each person does it the way they prefer, I'm just  wondering what would be the proper way of doing it when new maps are introduced. When referring to "playing Story Mode", are people supposed to bring stuff from previous maps, including their leveled character? Lastly, with Gen 2 coming soon, how will this fit into Story Mode? Will we be able to bring our survivor/tames, or when a new map/DLC is launched, we can't bring anything to that new map? Thanks in advance, and have a great week! 🙂 

I think you are correct in that map order assumption, if not, Im making the same mistake as you.
As for transferring to new maps, I "BEALIVE" not sure, but believe the way it was sort of intended is that you start all over with a new character.....You can transfer your character and tames, however it is a lil bit problematic, thus I infer it as that character is supposed to stay on that map, and you can begin a new character on the new map. Also multiple tames have been blocked from being allowed into aberration and I would suspect other maps, thus inferring more on this feeling. With that said tho, it all depends on how you play. So the choice really is up to you. Just keep in mind, even fully leveled up to the highest limit, you will not be able to unlock all the engrams available, so it is better to have multiple characters.
 

As for ark 2, there are multiple debates on the subject, but no full blown answers. Only time will tell.