TimeBomb2003

Could you post a link to this tweet/post of his? I'd like to see this for myself. Edit: Nevermind, I found it.

[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.

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.

...That results in someone getting killed.

That's fair

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.

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?

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

I also love taming humans

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.

you will be missed

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.

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. 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. If you played Genesis 2, the ship went kablooie.

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?

Man, only the Ark community would get upset about adding an actual combat system.

I asked for it. Or at the very least wanted a better combat system. Which we will now be getting! You really see no benefits for changing the system from left click left click left click left click, to actually having to block and dodge and all that?

How many other games out there have taming and riding dinosaurs as its main feature?

I don't think having 1 feature disabled makes the entire game unplayable.

I was unaware that I was employed by them. Thank you for letting me know!

That was something I was going to mention. Why get so worked up over something that is, A, most likely going to be released at the same time as the previous 6, and B, going to be nearly the exact same event as said previous 6.

All I know is that I play the game, I enjoy the game, and I'm grateful for Wildcard for giving me the game, and all the DLCs along with it. To me, the idea of playing and enjoying a game all the time, only to go onto every weekly post to complain about everything I can find, seems very childish. If all this makes me a "bad guy", then I guess I'm a bad guy.

You're saying that I shouldn't be grateful, but instead be miserable and complain about everything? I'll pass.

Never knew that being nice and supportive is a toxic thing to do. I'll keep that in mind and be more of a jerk in the future. Also, if you don't like these crunches... maybe don't read them?

Got 'em!

I think that Mjolnir won't be just another skin, due to the fact that they said it is a "functional weapon skin", and it "packs its own special powers". I'm pretty excited about it! Aside from that, it genuinely makes me sad when I see how awful this community is. Complaining about literally anything they can find. They could probably say that they're starting an initiative to clear out every single bug in the game, and there would still be people complaining about not getting 2x rates for that weekend or whatever. How about y'all learn to be grateful for a change, and appreciate what you have, and what you're getting, rather than what you don't have, or not getting.