Jump to content

The Game That Was....


ForzaProiettile

Recommended Posts

Two videos 7 years apart, yet the difference in those 7 years is extraordinary and not in a good way... What happened, what went wrong? For many the introduction of TEK was when this game jumped the shark. When I first saw a giant metal robot holding a sword I knew it truly had...

It's a shame really, I feel sorry for those that are new and never got to play the original game before all this bs and laser beam crap was added. They really missed out on something that was unique. Now its just another anime looking game with magic creatures and fluro colors everywhere. A shame really.

 

The first here was from 2015 in the early days of ARK when the game was at its peak from a raid I was involved in. The second is a video posted within the last week. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, KingOfTheFort said:

I feel that if you looked past the dinosaur survival aspect of the game, you would find that the game has evolved massively beyond that. The new dinos, bosses, maps, and tek gear all makes the game a lot better than it would be if it were still just another dinosaur game. 

I feel like the game should have or could have a different structure. I think the open world is one of the biggest powers of this game, but somehow the way its made now will let new players unaware of what the game "had" to offer. A really powerfull survival aspect and personal growth aspect. Nowadays you cant do anything PvP wise if you just start from scratch, even with a decent powerfull team you are nowhere. Tending to the community, PvP and PvE will make you skip a lot of gameplay. Though there is still so much to do when you start playing now with all the gameplay added...
I remember a game that had a server with a really good game-structure. 
Which had maps for gaining endgame stuff and had deleveling/debuffs on mid to low level maps (If you where on a map too low for you, you could get debuffs if you werent pro enough during pvp on low level maps, you would get debuffs that you had to take with you to the endgame map)
I think it might be good to have players locked to, or promote players to play to certain level servers (or maps) of different kind of "ascend levels" or linked to certain tek-levels. I mean that you could have servers or maybe maps for every level of ascending.
(You could play on lower-ascend or previous storyline maps, but the risks are your own...)
Lore wise this is somewhat what the game allready does now though Im not too good with lore...
This way you have to get through a lot more to get to endgame and will give the game back a lot of personal growth and give it a more dynamic structure...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, ForzaProiettile said:

What happened, what went wrong? For many the introduction of TEK was when this game jumped the shark.

So you logged into a game in which your character appeared from nowhere, the very first thing that you ever saw was the (TEK) implant in in your arm, when you looked up at the skyline you saw massive (TEK) towers hovering in the air with giant (TEK) beams of light reaching down to the ground, and the map was dotted with (TEK) supply drops that gave you supplies and equipment for no reason whatsoever. Then somehow you were surprised that TEK was the inevitable result of progression of a game just packed with (TEK) features from the very beginning.  Umm... okey dokey.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't play on official, or PvP for that matter. But it seems to me that the system would be a bit better if there weren't any non-native creature transfers. As in, you wouldn't be able to bring the shadowmane, or the astrodelphis to a map like The Island. But you could bring a giganotosaur that you tamed on Genesis: Part 2, to The Island.

Playing on my private server or singleplayer, the creature transfer feature is great, because I know that I, and my friends won't abuse it. But for public PvP servers, it just seems a bit weird to have those advanced creatures on the more primitive focused maps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You, my not so friend, are a hater (sorry if you misunderstood, @TimeBomb2003, not you). TEK has changed this game for the better, giving us players a chance to go beyond the restraints of the industrial era. The TEK replicator, the saddles, the armor. TEK also lays the backstory of the whole game, as it's the very reason the ARKs are in space at all, and also the reason monster Rockwell exists. Without TEK, ARK wouldn't even exist. So, my friend, what you are saying is absolute *bleep*. :) Enjoy your day! Happy ARKing people!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Joebl0w13 said:

I think if all the new stuff hadn't been added, most would probably not still be playing. Stale game would be stale.

Yea, without something new the game gets boring after a while. You can only spawn naked on the beach and tame your way up to a Rex or Wyvern so many times. I suppose the developers could've gone a different direction than Tek, but we'll never know what other ideas they had, or if the outcome would've been any more interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Pipinghot said:

So you logged into a game in which your character appeared from nowhere, the very first thing that you ever saw was the (TEK) implant in in your arm, when you looked up at the skyline you saw massive (TEK) towers hovering in the air with giant (TEK) beams of light reaching down to the ground, and the map was dotted with (TEK) supply drops that gave you supplies and equipment for no reason whatsoever. Then somehow you were surprised that TEK was the inevitable result of progression of a game just packed with (TEK) features from the very beginning.  Umm... okey dokey.

No but it is reasonable that one could assume that such "gamey" things were necessary in order to allow and explain for such technology as the ability to transfer between servers. No one wanted or expected flying abominations shooting laser beams. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Joebl0w13 said:

You mean you didn't.

Turns out, after over a billion dollars in sales, a lot of people did and do.

Well it seems the majority didn't appreciate it because ARK 2 will be going back to basics. The devs have obviously realized they screwed up with the direction of the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, ForzaProiettile said:

Well it seems the majority didn't appreciate it because ARK 2 will be going back to basics. The devs have obviously realized they screwed up with the direction of the game.

If they went down the tek route again for Ark 2, it realistically wouldn't be all that different from Ark 1. They needed to do a different setting to warrant it being an entirely new game. They also probably realized that while a ton of people really like the futuristic setting of Ark 1(me included), there are a lot of people who prefer the more primitive side of the game. I think most people can agree that the Ark franchise shouldn't be over saturated with either side.

TLDR: Ark 2 will be primitive because they wanted to do something different, not because they screwed up with Ark 1 or whatever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I had a dollar for every banter by some thin skinned bloke about the game getting stale because of a key component to the storyline and quality of life I'd have a million bucks. At this point it's pretty much an echo chamber. Maybe in the eyes of a try-hard pvper I can kinda see where they are coming from, but alot of pvpers still come back to the game and appreciate even the smallest of changes despite all it's problem, but generally everyone who can actually enjoy the game can all agree Ark would be so dull without actual enhancements to gameplay and story without Edmundium. I bet dollars to donuts you're gonna regret bringing this topic up and go back to playing Ark for 6 hours a day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, if you hate ARK so much, why the heck are you playing it? Just delete it and buy Subnautica. Stop hating just cause you want somewhere to complain about your troubles. There are people out there starving, and you're like, "pew pew laser gun no good". People like you are why the ARK community is called toxic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/22/2022 at 1:04 AM, invincibleqc said:

Based on the current popularity of the classic cluster, the majority of the player base do not prefer pre-tek era.

This isn't exactly the case though. They ruined the classic cluster as well by adding cryopods and 5x rates. 5x is way too high for classic and the game is over in a few days. There's no disctinction from classic and notek cluster now except no cave building. The fun of classic is seeing original bases with dinos outside and you have to travel to raid/grief. Cryopods ruin that. The popularity of the beginner servers is a good sign for primitive pvp. Every time they wipe they are the most populated server by far for a couple weeks, for pvp at least. (excluding people flooding a 1x pvp server for a raid so their enemies can't log on).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/21/2022 at 7:55 PM, ForzaProiettile said:

No but it is reasonable that one could assume that such "gamey" things were necessary in order to allow and explain for such technology as the ability to transfer between servers.

It's an assumption, but not the reasonable one. If you jump into a game and the very first thing you see are three painfully obvious examples of high technology (TEK) then the reasonable assumption is that the game is going to end up being a high technology game in the end-game, no matter how it looks when your character first starts. What's not reasonable is to assume that you will play the entire game in low technology.

Mind you, I'm not suggesting that you should prefer a tech game to a primitive one. You have every right to enjoy what ever kind of games you like to play, whether it's high tech, low tech, Madden Football or whatever. But you can't blame the game for immediately showing you that the future for the game (and your character) is going to involve high technology and then complain when the game delivers high technology, which was visible from the very first second you ever started playing.

On 3/21/2022 at 7:55 PM, ForzaProiettile said:

No one wanted or expected flying abominations shooting laser beams. 

Speak for yourself. I know plenty of people who like the flying "abominations" and shooting laser beams.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/22/2022 at 12:43 AM, ForzaProiettile said:

Well it seems the majority didn't appreciate it because ARK 2 will be going back to basics. The devs have obviously realized they screwed up with the direction of the game.

Huge assumptions much?

The next game is going to be different, the which we all know, but it's hilarious that you think you know the reason is the exact thing that matches your personal axe to grind. There is definitely a group of people that don't like the TEK, whether they're a small minority, a large minority, or a majority is just as unknown to you as it is to anyone else. You're speaking from a vacuum of knowledge and just making whatever claim you feel like making.

A smart company doesn't make the exact same game twice, that's a great way to cause stales stagnation. The folks as WC would absolutely love to make another game that brings in over a billion dollars over the years, and they're smart enough to know that making the exact same game twice in a row won't do that. So the reasons for making ARK2 different from ARK are definitely financial, you're right about that, but your personal reason is only small one compared to the big picture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

gonna be 100% honest here, i would not be playing this game if it did not change at all in 7 years. it is totally normal and expected for a game to evolve. i still feel like i have so much to do despite playing for close to 3 years at this point. when i first found the game through youtube videos it still looked very much like this. what made me give in and buy the game to play myself was coming back years later to discover everything up to extinction, and it had changed the game completely.

speak for yourself but i think strapping light cannons onto a t-rex is pretty damn cool. and the maewing is absolutely my all time favorite mount in the game today, that would never have been added if we stuck to just dinos. i will agree with you on one thing though- not a huge fan of fluorescent tames. but thats why i leave the breeding of those colors to the other tribes and i go for different themes lol. even if it is not YOUR thing, it does not mean other people dont enjoy it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Pipinghot said:

A smart company doesn't make the exact same game twice, that's a great way to cause stales stagnation. The folks as WC would absolutely love to make another game that brings in over a billion dollars over the years, and they're smart enough to know that making the exact same game twice in a row won't do that. So the reasons for making ARK2 different from ARK are definitely financial, you're right about that, but your personal reason is only small one compared to the big picture.

Tell that to Rockstar or EA (Fifa?)
If the game has a lot of new features and new game-mechanics that come with next gen scripting and game -engines (UE5) remaking Ark so it gives a new vibe, game or story experience wont necessarily be a wrong idea. Ark was made from scratch and had a pre-release audiance/costumer. Going from A to 10 was impossible at some point because the train already left the station. (Eg. Fortnite had a whole other game-concept pre-release, if it would have been Pre-released it would never have become what it is now)
Now Ark can be remade, wether it will be a completely new game, or a remake, they have stronger options to get from 1-10. If you understand what I mean...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SunsetErosion said:

Tell that to Rockstar or EA (Fifa?)

Don't stop at FIFA, there's also Madden Football and a bunch of other franchises. It's not surprising that you've brought these up, I thought someone would (although I figured it would be the OP) but you're missing the point - those are not making the same game twice, they are making new game that is similar, but not the same game. Enough is the same to keep it familiar but with enough changes to also keep it fresh for the fans. Every season of FIFA is different, as every season of Madden is different, because they are explicitly based on following the differences in the real world from year to year. But in some ways FIFA and Madden are different every year, and yet no one would ever accuse them of 'admitting that they screwed up' the previous year's edition.

Likewise, ARK2 will be similar to ARK, but not the same game twice. One of the differences between ARK and ARK2 will be that they are planning to keep ARK2 lower tech. In no way does that mean they screwed up the first game nor that the "majority" of people (as has been claimed) disliked the TEK in ARK, it only means that this is one of the differences they're building in to the next game. Other than a couple of rare exceptions, there must be enough differences between versions of games that players feel like they're getting their money's worth to buy the new game.

Mind you, there is still the possibility that the OP is right, it's possible although entirely unproven that the majority of ARK players were unhappy with TEK. If anyone can provide valid evidence to back that claim then any of us here should be willing to take that evidence seriously. Until or unless someone does that it's nothing more than blowing smoke because someone has an axe to grind about what they didn't like. If someone has evidence to support this claim (valid evidence, something better than the anecdotal non-evidence given so far) then by all means bring it out.

Whatever evidence is provided needs to be at least as good as the evidence already provided by @invincibleqc "Based on the current popularity of the classic cluster, the majority of the player base do not prefer pre-tek era." Someone will need good evidence, or at least a good argument, that can match or beat that argument if they want your claim to be taken seriously.

1 hour ago, SunsetErosion said:

If the game has a lot of new features and new game-mechanics that come with next gen scripting and game -engines (UE5) remaking Ark so it gives a new vibe, game or story experience wont necessarily be a wrong idea. Ark was made from scratch and had a pre-release audiance/costumer. Going from A to 10 was impossible at some point because the train already left the station. (Eg. Fortnite had a whole other game-concept pre-release, if it would have been Pre-released it would never have become what it is now)
Now Ark can be remade, wether it will be a completely new game, or a remake, they have stronger options to get from 1-10. If you understand what I mean...

There was nothing in the original game that forced them to add the TEK tier, which is what you're suggesting. WC made plenty of changes to their plans as the game progressed, and whenever they wanted to make changes they found various means to do so. You may recall that, at one time, WildCard explicitly stated that ARK would come to and end when Extinction was released, and yet that didn't happen. They originally hinted, and most players assumed, that the ARKs were the work of aliens, then they changed that decision and in Extinction adjusted the story/lore so that the ARKs were legacies of the Earth's past. Heck, if I remember correctly they were originally planning to end ARK before Extinction, I'm thinking it was originally Aberration, but when they saw that sales were continuing to go strong they started extending the "end" of the game.

WC has been perfectly capable of changing their mind and moving forward with those changed decisions.

They intended to add TEK to the game right from the beginning, that much is true, but they could have easily done what was suggested in an earlier post. They could have changed their plans and used the sci-fi setting as "'gamey' things" that "were necessary in order to allow and explain for such technology as the ability to transfer between servers". There was nothing about high tech that was inevitable once "the train already left the station", nor does it mean that adding the TEK tier was in any way a screw up.

The OP doesn't like the TEK tier, perfectly legit, they have the right to like or dislike anything about that game that they choose. Heck there are plenty of things about the game I don't like, as far as I'm concerned the vanilla version of the game is a hot pile of garbage and ARK is only fun/playable with customized settings and some mods on the server.

But my personal preference doesn't mean that vanilla ARK is a screw up, and likewise the OP's personal preference doesn't mean that TEK was a screw up. The OP is conflating "things you don't like" with "WC screwing up the game", when the fact that there are still tons of people on the Official servers, playing Vanilla ARK, playing ARK with TEK, means that these are nothing more than our respective personal preferences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Pipinghot said:

Likewise, ARK2 will be similar to ARK, but not the same game twice.

Im missing the point? No not really. But then again...
I think it was just you, trying to say what you wanted to say didnt work out, or it was easily misreaded. I dont think there ever was a game that was made twice. It doesnt even make sense...
That makes the line of which you can say some game is remake blurry. (To me GTA from 3 to 5 where all the same game, only better graphics)

36 minutes ago, Pipinghot said:

Mind you, there is still the possibility that the OP is right, it's possible although entirely unproven that the majority of ARK players were unhappy with TEK.

At first I was happy with the tek-tier. But too many end-game stuff made me stop PvP. With the introduction of Meks and all on Extinction I stopped playing PvP.
Im a solo player, I couldnt maintain a base against the new end-game stuff. So I decided to make my game PvE only. But I would have quited a long time ago if there wouldnt be next-level-tek to grind for on PvE.

48 minutes ago, Pipinghot said:

There was nothing in the original game that forced them to add the TEK tier, which is what you're suggesting. WC made plenty of changes to their plans as the game progressed, and whenever they wanted to make changes they found various means to do so.

Im talking about the fact Ark is what it is, a PvP focussed game mostly. If Ark werent pre-release, they might have worked out the Extinction-game mode or Survival of the fittest, or other game modes to be the optimal. But they had the oppertunity to look at what the community had to say so they had the chance to act and respond. But maybe they now feel like there are option open to start developing a game that is now focussed on other gamemodes. Something the community would like to see anyways, apearantly. I dont have acces to their data about this so yeah, I can only guess. Maybe Ark1 is in the way of starting fresh on other game-modes.
The fact they are chosing to at least star Ark2 low-tek is a good idea, but they might introduce high-tec stuff later on, just like they did with Ark, when the story progressed.
Ark has been a open-world-PvP game from release, but there could have been so many game-chancing elements that would make the game so much different.
Eg, they could have changed the base construction of the game from targeting it to be an open-world-PvP game to making it a PvE game. (Like they did with fortnite)
Or they could have had a system that was a lot more storyline connected. (I posted some ideas about that earlier in this topic)
Even introducing some kind of EvP is possible, making it harder to go full-Alpha. There are so many chances that could have happened didnt this game go early-acces...

1 hour ago, Pipinghot said:

WC has been perfectly capable of changing their mind and moving forward with those changed decisions.

But yeah, I still play and bought all expansions, so I cant say they are doing it wrong.
I think Ark2 will be a lot less open-world like, but my hopes are actually that it will be like Ark1, open-world, but then focussed on PvE with.

Sorry Im so messy lol, Im pretty tired.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, KingOfTheFort said:

Lol. Kind of off topic but I find it funny that you can use the "there are people out there starving" line in response to anything that is less significant of an issue than people starving. So basically in response to anything on any game forum.

True, true. It was really just to sort of drive my point home.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SunsetErosion said:

Im missing the point? No not really. But then again...

Yes really.

ForzaProiettile said:
"Well it seems the majority didn't appreciate it because ARK 2 will be going back to basics. The devs have obviously realized they screwed up with the direction of the game."

Pipinghot said:
"A smart company doesn't make the exact same game twice, that's a great way to cause stales stagnation."

SunsetErosion said:
"Tell that to Rockstar or EA (Fifa?)"

The point I was making is that Forza's argument was not valid. Game companies make changes to their sequels in an attempt to keep the game fresh enough that their players will keep buying the sequels. It does not mean that they're making changes because they have "realized they screwed up". The fact that WC is making changes in ARK2 in no way implies that they believe they screwed up with ARK.

1 hour ago, SunsetErosion said:

At first I was happy with the tek-tier. But too many end-game stuff made me stop PvP. With the introduction of Meks and all on Extinction I stopped playing PvP.

Fair enough, you certainly have the right to stop PvP for your reasons. I stopped PvP for different reasons, long before you did, but that doesn't mean that my reasons for stopping PvP don't imply that the majority agrees with me, any more than Forza's reasons or your reasons being representative of the majority. Your reasons are just as valid as anyone else's, but none of the three of us can claim to represent the majority unless we have solid evidence to back that claim.

In other words, each of us had every right to quit PvP, but we don't have the right to claim that the majority of players agrees with any of us, nor to claim that WC making changes in ARK2 as proof that our personal preferences represent the majority.

1 hour ago, SunsetErosion said:

At first I was happy with the tek-tier. But too many end-game stuff made me stop PvP. With the introduction of Meks and all on Extinction I stopped playing PvP.
Im a solo player, I couldnt maintain a base against the new end-game stuff. So I decided to make my game PvE only. But I would have quited a long time ago if there wouldnt be next-level-tek to grind for on PvE.

Which is an interesting point. It seems to me (and this just my personal observation so of course people should take it with a grain of salt) that when people complain on the forums about the TEK tier they're mostly complaining from a PvP point of view. Even though there's no evidence that a majority of any group dislikes TEK, it seems from the complaints I've read on the forums that PvP players are more likely to complain about TEK than PvE players. Not exactly important, but interesting.

1 hour ago, SunsetErosion said:

Im talking about the fact Ark is what it is, a PvP focussed game mostly.

I think what you're trying to say here is that the player base plays PvE more than PvP, am I reading that right?

If that's what you're saying then I agree with you, the player base seems more focused on PvE than the devs are, even after this much time. It quite often seems like they design new stuff from the PvP perspective and then they try to make adjustments for PvE as an afterthought.

1 hour ago, SunsetErosion said:

If Ark werent pre-release, they might have worked out the Extinction-game mode or Survival of the fittest, or other game modes to be the optimal. But they had the oppertunity to look at what the community had to say so they had the chance to act and respond.

That's a strange argument, you're basically proving my point for me.

The reason that they didn't keep working on Extinction-mode or SoTF is because of the reasons I've given. Even though the 'train had left the station' they were capable of making changes and they stopped supporting those game modes. Just like they adapted to 70% of their player base preferring PvE. And likewise they could have, very easily, moved the game forward without introducing TEK tier. There was nothing in the game design that forced them to introduce TEK, even though the train had left the station they had plenty of time to change that decision if they had wanted to or if they believed that the majority of their player base wouldn't like it.

1 hour ago, SunsetErosion said:

Maybe Ark1 is in the way of starting fresh on other game-modes.

Sure, agreed. In fact they've been experimenting with other game modes all though the lifespan of ARK. Small clusters, small tribe servers, etc. They have been experimenting with other game modes throughout the history of ARK and will almost certainly continue doing so with ARK2.

1 hour ago, SunsetErosion said:

The fact they are chosing to at least star Ark2 low-tek is a good idea, but they might introduce high-tec stuff later on, just like they did with Ark, when the story progressed.

Agreed, they might.

My personal opinion is that this is what they're going to do, but they will introduce it much later in game, only time will tell if we're right about that one. :)

1 hour ago, SunsetErosion said:

There are so many chances that could have happened didnt this game go early-acces...

Again, they could just as easily have made any of those changes after Early Access was done. Plenty of games have made huge changes after they release, there is nothing about releasing a game that prevents the developers from making significant changes. This idea you have about the game being stuck with a certain destiny because the 'train has left the station' doesn't make any sense, games make changes all the time, just as ARK has done.

1 hour ago, SunsetErosion said:

But yeah, I still play and bought all expansions, so I cant say they are doing it wrong.

I think Ark2 will be a lot less open-world like, but my hopes are actually that it will be like Ark1, open-world, but then focussed on PvE with.

Yeah, when we consider that 70%+ of their players are playing the game in PvE, it sure makes sense for PvE to be more a focus for their dev time in the next game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...