Jump to content

TimeBomb2003

Members
  • Posts

    476
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

TimeBomb2003 last won the day on April 6

TimeBomb2003 had the most liked content!

2 Followers

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

TimeBomb2003's Achievements

Cloth Armor

Cloth Armor (2/5)

110

Reputation

  1. I agree. I actually like talking about politics in real life, but not when I'm playing my futuristic dinosaur alien survival game. No matter what side you're on, surely you must agree that the division in the community this post created is something that shouldn't have happened and didn't have to happen in the first place.
  2. Could you post a link to this tweet/post of his? I'd like to see this for myself. Edit: Nevermind, I found it.
  3. [prohibition] "The action of forbidding something, especially by law." (Blank space) In terms of alcohol, I'm not too versed in that subject, but my understanding is that the idea is that alcohol, between the years of 1920 and 1933, was completely banned in terms of creation, sale, and consumption. If that is truly what the act of prohibition is, banning something completely, then yes, applying that same action to abortion, would seem like a good idea. What is obtuse however, is the idea of comparing consumption of a not so dangerous drug to the action of ending a child.
  4. One of my issues with the left is the way they brand themselves. For example, in the case of abortion, they classify it as "women's health", so that way, if someone tries to argue the point, they can just reply with: All of a sudden, if you're not fully left-wing, you become the most evil person on the face of the earth. And to think, I thought their whole schtick was tolerance and acceptance. But clearly that only applies if you agree with them.
  5. I reckon you're right. Realistically, if someone on an official server has actually reached the point to where they are worthy, Mjolnir or not, they could probably decimate anybody they wanted to.
  6. 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. 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. 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.
  7. 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. Also, just to be clear, that's not figuratively the standard, and you couldn't figuratively go on forever, right?
  8. You'd rather have the current system of left click over and over again?
  9. 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. 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.
  10. 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.
×
×
  • Create New...