The point that is worth noting is that functionally the game is excellent. I put about 200hrs into it and look forwards to going back to it on release. Performance needs serious work, but I could play it maxed out at a reliable 30-40fps on my 980ti. I can tweak it to run smoother at lower settings, but it looks really nice at full whack. Optimisation is less of a priority to the devs than getting all of the content implemented and getting the gameplay right. The performance will come with time, but the devs are updating the game daily so I wouldn't call them "shoddy"
ARK - What a joke
- Thread starter agnes
- Start date
Content on the game is great, so much more than other EA titles out there which have been out much longer.
Graphics can wait, would much rather have a solid game and things to do, they can "pretty it up" afterwards.
Just surprised that folks with better spec systems than me are having performance issues.
Graphics can wait, would much rather have a solid game and things to do, they can "pretty it up" afterwards.
Just surprised that folks with better spec systems than me are having performance issues.
it does not mean it wont, I think the games not bad, though I do not spend a lot of time in, but I sure I will at some time.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 21 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 46,391
I am amazed that people still throw money at this early access nonsense. More fool them tbh.
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Apr 2011
- Posts
- 5,607
- Location
- UK
More fool them for getting 200 hours entertainment for £20, bloody fools lol
But 200hrs buggy alpha lagging desyncing unfinished mess for £20 or 200hrs smooth(ish, everyone gets issues) entertaining, polished, finished product for £30-40.
I have to say I definitely have had more entertainment from a finished product.
Seems more that you like having the delusional piece of mind that a game is supposedly finished just to even begin being able to enjoy it. If someone got 200hrs of enjoyment from something for £20 then I'd count that as money well spent for that person.
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Apr 2011
- Posts
- 5,607
- Location
- UK
No im saying that early access is generally less enjoyable than the finished product would be due to bugs etc, yeah 200hrs enjoyment for £20 is still a good deal but is it better that 200hrs for £30 for a better product?
Seems like you avoided my point just to call me delusional, suppose I must be as I paid for DayZ.....
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Mar 2004
- Posts
- 3,933
- Location
- Newcastle upon Tyne
I disagree. Consumers throwing money at early access and shoddy developers is what is ruining PC gaming.
Can't blame consumers when they are 'told' the game is Amazing! which I've heard a few times on this forum.
Hurrah for Steam refund, saviour of PC Gaming as far as getting money back from **** developers looking to make a quick buck.
No im saying that early access is generally less enjoyable than the finished product would be due to bugs etc, yeah 200hrs enjoyment for £20 is still a good deal but is it better that 200hrs for £30 for a better product?
Seems like you avoided my point just to call me delusional, suppose I must be as I paid for DayZ.....
Some finished 'AAA' games are released with more problems than early access titles. You may as well call Watch Dogs, AC: Unity and Arkham Knight early access titles from all the bugs and problems they had on release. I don't see how they'd offer more value or enjoyment just because they're marketed as finished products over something that is labeled as Early Access and unfinished.
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 Mar 2011
- Posts
- 11,145
me and 2 mates tried it right near launch as it seemed to be getting this attention build up, we knew about steam refund going in.
none of us managed to enjoy it, was awful truely shouldnt even have been in early access at that stage. i got some bug that kept causing my keyboard to not respond until i reset my pc, performance was shocking
we lasted about 30 minutes of trying, all requested and promptly received our refunds
I paid £15 for mine, from that I have played maybe 15/10 hours and had real fun, where else can you get real fun for 20 quid.
If the game did not work or was that glitchy I would agree, but I have had no issue running the game.
So all in all it was money well spent!
And I do agree that loads of games come out not good enough, or so buggy to be unplayable that people throw money at, look at Star Citizen as a really good example of people that are gullible!
But this game does not fall into that category, one thing that has surprised me is how often they updating the game. (imo)
If the game did not work or was that glitchy I would agree, but I have had no issue running the game.
So all in all it was money well spent!
And I do agree that loads of games come out not good enough, or so buggy to be unplayable that people throw money at, look at Star Citizen as a really good example of people that are gullible!
But this game does not fall into that category, one thing that has surprised me is how often they updating the game. (imo)
Associate
- Joined
- 4 Dec 2012
- Posts
- 122
- Location
- Bournemouth
Destiny is a good AAA example of this. A year after release the game is sounding like it's near finished lol.
edit: although obvs a console only example too!
edit: although obvs a console only example too!
Well I'm currently hosting a server for ARK as a few guys from work play. I think its one of the best run EAs I've seen. There are updates 3+ times a week (I know becuase the server needs manually updating at the moment) which are still adding to the already large amount of content. The devs are in constant contact with the community.
Sure there are loads of performance issues, I've had to turn pretty much all the gfx settings down but if you have the res scaling right up it still looks OK. Do people actually expect AAA performance (which recently is often awful on release anyway) in a game which is still having content added to it? They are quite open about when they plan to properly optimise it.
I've been stung before too, I bought spacebase-DF9, after which I will never buy another DF game again new or old. But they we're useless from day 1, no communication, would put the odd announcement on their forum then ignore it while no updates came (1 in 3 months). This led to them being hated, masses of negative reviews, no-one was going to buy it after that.
I think the biggest problem here is people not managing their expectations properly. When I bought ARK I got pretty much what I expected, sure some more performance would be nice but you've gotta be working pretty hard to be pushing 3+ large updates a week. I'm gonna apply some patience, carry on playing in its current state and look forward to an awesome finished game.
Sure there are loads of performance issues, I've had to turn pretty much all the gfx settings down but if you have the res scaling right up it still looks OK. Do people actually expect AAA performance (which recently is often awful on release anyway) in a game which is still having content added to it? They are quite open about when they plan to properly optimise it.
I've been stung before too, I bought spacebase-DF9, after which I will never buy another DF game again new or old. But they we're useless from day 1, no communication, would put the odd announcement on their forum then ignore it while no updates came (1 in 3 months). This led to them being hated, masses of negative reviews, no-one was going to buy it after that.
I think the biggest problem here is people not managing their expectations properly. When I bought ARK I got pretty much what I expected, sure some more performance would be nice but you've gotta be working pretty hard to be pushing 3+ large updates a week. I'm gonna apply some patience, carry on playing in its current state and look forward to an awesome finished game.
Last edited:
I've only put in about 20 hours on ARK but have to say I've enjoyed it and I've not even started building anything yet, I do a £1/hour for a game to be value, so I'm pretty close to that already. I've played AAA titles that cost more for less time, far too many in reality. Fun is frankly down to the game, who you play with and your expectations. Clearly early access games aren't for you.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 11 Mar 2005
- Posts
- 32,224
- Location
- Leafy Cheshire
500 hours in game, runs fine for me, people just need to learn which video option to keep and which to turn off.
The game is far from perfect, but is perfectly playable.
The game is far from perfect, but is perfectly playable.
Not sure why this deserved its own thread when there is an ARK one already so could do with a merge mods
But personally I'm loving this game, I've not had anything like the performance problems people have mentioned, there are some launch options which help out with this. Its not as pretty but for me personally its more about the game play, I can live with less grass on the ground.
I think the game is a bit like marmite, some hate it some love it, It takes a bit of time to get into it but if you get a decent server with some mates and get past the initial naked wrestling with dilo's its well worth the £20.
But personally I'm loving this game, I've not had anything like the performance problems people have mentioned, there are some launch options which help out with this. Its not as pretty but for me personally its more about the game play, I can live with less grass on the ground.
I think the game is a bit like marmite, some hate it some love it, It takes a bit of time to get into it but if you get a decent server with some mates and get past the initial naked wrestling with dilo's its well worth the £20.