Jump to content

Redefining the Survival Genre with ARK 2 and an Update from our Studio Founders


Recommended Posts

  • Volunteer Moderator
3 minutes ago, Stevenreese1998 said:

They're company is worth 14million, pls be ridiculous somewhere else.

From the mouth of the CEO:

Ark Survival Evolved has grossed over $1.3
Billion dollars (US) globally since its release in June 2015.

So, what's that about being rediculous?

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Griffin998 said:

Losing a spaceship is entirely plausible. The large chunks would disintegrate at least mostly, and the smaller chunks would be totally vaporized. So when you look at it that way, losing a spaceship is entirely plausible, and also considering that Santiago was shown with no armor or anything in the end cutscene.

If all that burnt up why is anyone alive. They were in those parts of the ship. Plus in the original we started with nothing punching trees until we made our way with the resources around. Did everyone crash get thrown out the space windows and knock their head so hard it made em stupid, but not hard enough they died crashing a spaceship into a planet. 

  • Facepalm 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Joebl0w13 said:

From the mouth of the CEO:

Ark Survival Evolved has grossed over $1.3
Billion dollars (US) globally since its release in June 2015.

So, what's that about being rediculous?

How if the company is worth like 15 million and has 46 employees and the ceo net worth is 5 million. I'm not saying I don't believe, but something isn't adding up or I'm missing something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Stevenreese1998 said:

Why would you completely change the game and still name it the same thing? We are comfortable with the view they have now, 3rd person will ruin gun play, if their is even guns in game. We can already climb mountains and all kinds of stuff like flying.

I can't think of any other survival games off the top of my head that have taming and riding dinosaurs as the main feature, or any other games that take place in the same universe as Ark. Or any other games that take place after Ark 1. Therefor: Ark 2. What would be the point in making a new game if they didn't mix anything up? If you don't want to deal with anything being different from Ark 1, you should probably stick with Ark 1.

1 hour ago, Stevenreese1998 said:

The only reason to do third person only is for melee combat, which would be useless if it anything like the first game with shotguns and grenade launchers.

Hmm, maybe because their reworking the melee combat system, there's going to be more of an emphasis on melee combat? Just a thought. And also, there's probably not going to be any firearms, it being primitive and all that.

1 hour ago, Stevenreese1998 said:

And if all technology is gone DILO happens to it. Gen 2 we had the epitome of technology but it's gonna go back to fighting with spears???? Why??? How do you loose an entire spaceship???

If you played Genesis 2, the ship went kablooie.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Stevenreese1998 said:

If all that burnt up why is anyone alive. They were in those parts of the ship.

All the shuttles that the survivors landed on the planet in were designed for re-entry. The actual starship itself was not. That's why in real life spacecraft have heat shields, cause otherwise they would get destroyed in the atmosphere.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, TimeBomb2003 said:

If said 3rd perron view is going to be identical to the 3rd perron view in Ark 1, yes that would suck a lot. However, due to the fact that it's going to be only 3rd perron view, the game is more than likely going to be designed around it, and as such, will be a lot more streamlined than the current 3rd perron.

Also, another point, why on earth would you want MORE of what you're used to? Wouldn't it be a whole lot more exiting to get unique gameplay, and new ideas rather than just more of the same?

The point of a sequel isn’t to radically change the core of the game. MORE of what we are used to is exactly what people want in the sequel. The point of a sequel is to add new things without changing the core of the game - look at almost any other game franchise. Lets use Halo as an example.

 

For the most part, Ark players just wanted things like bug fixes, better graphics, new maps, improved dinosaur AI, new tools, new threats, new crafting, new dinosaurs etc. The game would not be a “copy paste”, but the game would feel the same with some new additions. As an example - in Halo infinite they added the grapple mechanic. It also features new enemies / weapons / better graphics. I guarantee you if Halo infinite decided to suddenly go Third Person Only you would see their players become absolutely hysterical. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mostly the time in community crunch read a lot of people sending "good vibes" and doesnt taking care about evrything in the game. And now... now i read people that isnt not so much in love with Ark 2, i read them mostly hopeless... imagine... WildCard gives them Ark 1... Early Acces... till now and yet still have a lot of patch that mostly of times are broken other stuff... like patching with bubblegum or duct tape. Then WildCArd (or part of the studio) gave us ATLAS, same game as Ark 1 but with other theme and others mods for "changing view". Some people doesnt care about when Ark 2 will be released to the point that only care that the game actually would be better than Ark 1 and Best than ATLAS.

 

________ Also, they llove people that gave them modding stuff so they can actually add it as their own... very clever, use the time and effort from others, moddify something to say "Hey, its our map now", and dont doing your job... been devs. ________

 

Im actually enjoing every community crunch that you give us where you actually showing us that you doenst give a thing for the real community that yuo say that you are "hearing"... The game started to change a lot its perspective since they started to add stuff and dinos that actully are from other games... and doesnt think better in anything new and tasty. (yeas, the last 3 words are from "Abe's Odysee").

 

I will be honest (like i was been always since i wrote here)... I will not buy the game... I will not consume that game... I'm Sorry for Vin Diesel that actually put his face and name in that game... but with all the mixture that THAT game will be, i will be very sorry for the buyers and also for the Actor... I love Vin Diesel... AS A FILM ACTOR. I hope im wrong and the game actually is good... But i will be mostly happy to stay in Ark 1 SINGLEPLAYER and not buying any other game from this studio... sorry guys... you had one job.

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Facepalm 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, BlackScarlatta said:

I mostly the time in community crunch read a lot of people sending "good vibes" and doesnt taking care about evrything in the game. And now... now i read people that isnt not so much in love with Ark 2, i read them mostly hopeless... imagine... WildCard gives them Ark 1... Early Acces... till now and yet still have a lot of patch that mostly of times are broken other stuff... like patching with bubblegum or duct tape. Then WildCArd (or part of the studio) gave us ATLAS, same game as Ark 1 but with other theme and others mods for "changing view". Some people doesnt care about when Ark 2 will be released to the point that only care that the game actually would be better than Ark 1 and Best than ATLAS.

 

________ Also, they llove people that gave them modding stuff so they can actually add it as their own... very clever, use the time and effort from others, moddify something to say "Hey, its our map now", and dont doing your job... been devs. ________

 

Im actually enjoing every community crunch that you give us where you actually showing us that you doenst give a thing for the real community that yuo say that you are "hearing"... The game started to change a lot its perspective since they started to add stuff and dinos that actully are from other games... and doesnt think better in anything new and tasty. (yeas, the last 3 words are from "Abe's Odysee").

 

I will be honest (like i was been always since i wrote here)... I will not buy the game... I will not consume that game... I'm Sorry for Vin Diesel that actually put his face and name in that game... but with all the mixture that THAT game will be, i will be very sorry for the buyers and also for the Actor... I love Vin Diesel... AS A FILM ACTOR. I hope im wrong and the game actually is good... But i will be mostly happy to stay in Ark 1 SINGLEPLAYER and not buying any other game from this studio... sorry guys... you had one job.

 

 

you will be missed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, EnRoute2FYB said:

The point of a sequel isn’t to radically change the core of the game. MORE of what we are used to is exactly what people want in the sequel. The point of a sequel is to add new things without changing the core of the game - look at almost any other game franchise. Lets use Halo as an example.

I'd say the point of a DLC is to add new things without changing the core of the game. If you're going to warrant a whole new game, one the size of Ark, you had better have a good reason for doing so.

6 hours ago, EnRoute2FYB said:

For the most part, Ark players just wanted things like bug fixes, better graphics, new maps, improved dinosaur AI, new tools, new threats, new crafting, new dinosaurs etc. The game would not be a “copy paste”, but the game would feel the same with some new additions. As an example - in Halo infinite they added the grapple mechanic. It also features new enemies / weapons / better graphics. I guarantee you if Halo infinite decided to suddenly go Third Person Only you would see their players become absolutely hysterical. 

At the end of the day, no matter how many new combat systems they add, or how advanced the dinosaur AI gets, or whatever perspective it'll use, it's still going to be primarily a survival game. A hard, brutal, PvP survival game, with taming and riding dinosaurs as one of its main features. Made by the same people as the first. Which means that no matter what, it will feel familiar one way or another.

However, if you made an FPS (First Person Shooter) into a Third Person game/shooter, then yes, some people would most likely have a problem with that.

And I'll be honest, I wasn't too keen on the 3rd person only thing at first either. Just because of how much I dislike the 3rd person view in Ark 1. But I realized that they wouldn't make a change like that for no reason whatsoever. If they're going the 3rd person only route, they'll focus on streamlining that way of playing, and taking advantage of whatever things that specific view allows for, that 1st person would not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Stevenreese1998 said:

If all that burnt up why is anyone alive. They were in those parts of the ship. Plus in the original we started with nothing punching trees until we made our way with the resources around. Did everyone crash get thrown out the space windows and knock their head so hard it made em stupid, but not hard enough they died crashing a spaceship into a planet. 

Fair point, my friend. Thing is, there were separate pods for each of the clones, with the exo-mek acting as the pod for our survivor.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Nemesis4200 said:

No thank you, no darksouls wannabe assassin's creed with dinos rip off for me thank you. The vast majority of the community is against this. Ark 2 will crash and burn. You will not see a penny from me, i wouldn't even play it if it was free. 🖕🖕 thanks vin diesel... you skid

You'd rather have the current system of left click over and over again?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/14/2022 at 10:57 AM, Stevenreese1998 said:

Well if they don't "waste the resources" we aren't playing.

I mean that's your call i was just trying to shed some light on the process. I mean the fact they mentioned it could be modded means it's obviously a resource issue on their part and they don't mind players doing that work. if it's a deal brekaer for you i don't really know what to say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, TimeBomb2003 said:

You'd rather have the current system of left click over and over again?

Yes, because First Person adds more fun to the game then a new combat system that forces 3rd person. I would say they should only implement a new combat system if they retain First Person - they can use Dying Light for inspiration if they want. 
 

And these people who are trying to say a game sequel means the core of the game should change are clearly not very familiar with the gaming industry. Literally 90%+ of games that release a sequel don’t change the core of the game - they add a new story, characters, graphics, weapons, features, fixes etc. That’s literally the standard (Halo, COD, Diablo, Fifa, Kingdom of Hearts, I could literally go on forever). So please stop trying to act like a game sequel is meant to radically change the core of a game like flipping from First Person to Third Person. That’s an entirely new game, not a sequel. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, EnRoute2FYB said:

And these people who are trying to say a game sequel means the core of the game should change are clearly not very familiar with the gaming industry. Literally 90%+ of games that release a sequel don’t change the core of the game - they add a new story, characters, graphics, weapons, features, fixes etc. That’s literally the standard (Halo, COD, Diablo, Fifa, Kingdom of Hearts, I could literally go on forever). So please stop trying to act like a game sequel is meant to radically change the core of a game like flipping from First Person to Third Person. That’s an entirely new game, not a sequel.

A lot of those franchises that you mentioned have a ton of games under their belt. Which means that they release sequels more often, and as such, can get away with not really changing anything between the new titles. For them, there wouldn't be any point in putting in a bunch of effort in making each game really unique or giving it tons of updates if a new game is just going to replace it in a year.

Ark however, has been out for 7 years, and presumably, the sequel is going to be out for roughly the same amount of time. No matter how different the story, or how much better the graphics are, if the gameplay is the same, people are going to get tired of it. If you're planning on having the sequel be out for another 7 years, I'd say change as much of it as you can.

And no, switching to 3rd person isn't a radical change to the core of the game. Radically changing the core of the game would be taking away the creature taming, or having it no longer be a survival game.

12 hours ago, EnRoute2FYB said:

That’s literally the standard (Halo, COD, Diablo, Fifa, Kingdom of Hearts, I could literally go on forever).

Also, just to be clear, that's not figuratively the standard, and you couldn't figuratively go on forever, right?

Edited by TimeBomb2003
Link to comment
Share on other sites

surprised no one has talked abount the founders letter / comments ..... random occurring events all the time happening almost anywhere ...... now THAT had me tickled ... mainly because this game is going to be an absolute cpu hogging beast with the better gfx and advanced this and thats - IF it is not optimized to the max its going to either have a 'few' things missing / cut from the end game OR need a monster comp to run it 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/20/2022 at 7:17 AM, TimeBomb2003 said:

You'd rather have the current system of left click over and over again?

But it's not tho is it? It's tame a variety of creatures for a variety of tasks. Vast majority play PVE / singleplayer 'cos of the huge amount of different things to do

... 3rd person, parkour and combat 'innovations'? No thanks, there's a dino for all of those 'new' abilities they talk of already, and if there isn't that's what they should be thinking of.

If ppl want to play a game like Souls or Witcher, they will play that, and you can bet those devs have already got their next sequel well underway with some pretty awesome innovations on mechanics they truly understand already.

Basically if you like the sound of Ark 2, you're prob not an Ark player or just dabbled in it from time to time.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Luizza said:

But it's not tho is it? It's tame a variety of creatures for a variety of tasks. Vast majority play PVE / singleplayer 'cos of the huge amount of different things to do

I agree. The different creatures are designed to fill different roles. Some harvest different resources, some passively produce certain resources, some you have to kill for certain resources, some shoulder creatures give you passive/active abilities, and so on, and so forth.

But when it comes down to the combat, it is just left click again and again. If you're on a rex, fighting another rex, or something similar, there is hardly any strategy, it just comes down to which one is stronger.

5 hours ago, Luizza said:

... 3rd person, parkour and combat 'innovations'? No thanks, there's a dino for all of those 'new' abilities they talk of already, and if there isn't that's what they should be thinking of.

I highly doubt the new system is only for players/humans. They're probably going to add all the parkour and movement stuff to the creatures as well.

5 hours ago, Luizza said:

Basically if you like the sound of Ark 2, you're prob not an Ark player or just dabbled in it from time to time.

I don't really like to use this in an argument, but you left me no choice. With around 4k hours in Ark singleplayer, I think I've graduated from just dabbling in it from time to time.

Edited by TimeBomb2003
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, TimeBomb2003 said:

I don't really like to use this in an argument, but you left me no choice. With around 4k hours in Ark singleplayer, I think I've graduated from just dabbling in it from time to time.

I actually came back this morning to edit my comments last night as I thought that was a little strong, Ark means a lot of different things to different people and generalising like that is rarely helpful.

So, yes, everyone is entitled to their opinion and if it is different to mine, or different to what I hear a lot of people in game saying, that still doesn't mean it applies to everyone. I play official PVE because I like the social interaction, that's a huge part of why I return again and again. I can see however that if you play singleplayer (which I beleive the majority do) then combat could seem stale. Still doesn't change my opinion that 3rd person and the innovations seem a step too far away from what gave Ark it's charm... for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Luizza said:

I actually came back this morning to edit my comments last night as I thought that was a little strong, Ark means a lot of different things to different people and generalising like that is rarely helpful.

So, yes, everyone is entitled to their opinion and if it is different to mine, or different to what I hear a lot of people in game saying, that still doesn't mean it applies to everyone. I play official PVE because I like the social interaction, that's a huge part of why I return again and again. I can see however that if you play singleplayer (which I beleive the majority do) then combat could seem stale. Still doesn't change my opinion that 3rd person and the innovations seem a step too far away from what gave Ark it's charm... for me.

That's fair

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Luizza said:

everyone. I play official PVE because I like the social interaction

You must have found a goldilocks tier server or have the patience of a saint. My experience with official pve was nothing but watching land disputes and epeen waving barring exactly one chill server that still suffered the usual official pve issue that was endless pillar spam.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I guess I did, for each map too, toxic ppl are usually around the first few months a server opens, that's when the most toxic clashes happen, but they soon move on in my experience, it's easy to just ignore them when you know that won't be there for long. And I guess pillars don't bother you when you already have a base, and you usually know why they are there.

I must admit though, gacha farming towers that have literally been full steam operating for years by 'unknown' silent box tribes stinks of RMT so much that is pretty annoying. They aint going anywhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It’s been said a million times - you don’t need to make the game “Third Person Only” to update the combat within Ark. So please stop saying crap like “but the combat was left click spam” - because that literally has nothing to do with the game including First Person or not. And Third Person Only is NOT a requirement of a combat system. Wildcard can improve the combat system without removing First Person from the game, Dying Light is a perfect example of a combat (and movement) system which works in First Person.

And I really don’t want to hear another “but modders will add First Person back in so everything will be great” - because this won’t solve the issues, for the simple reason that if the game is being designed with a “Third Person Only” focus, it will lead to design decisions which will causes issues in first person mode. For example - if you modded Syrim to suddenly become First Person, the game would not only have issues, but would have a completely different experience then if the game had been intended for First Person. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...