should i get this game or ark survival

[Papa John]

these both look fun

[Xzulas]

I own both games and I will say right from the start depends on your system. ARK is not optimized well at all, the minimium system requirments should read NASA SUPER COMPUTER NEEDED LOL. My system is a laspire V3 aptop i7, 16 gigs of ram, 750m 4gigs Vram ect and I can't even run that game over 10 fps and it looks like crap. Subnautica on the other I can run it in the experimental high settings and it looks AWESOME. For me Subnautica is a better game at this point because its just optimized better.

[Bubbles]

If you have friends to play ARK with it's a blast but yes it has optimization problems, but at the same time it also has more content then Subnautica and gets 4-5 updates a week. If you play single I'd get Subnautica which is a great game. Make sure if you get ARK you at LEAST meet the reccomended requirements if you want to run it semi-smoothly.

[DOMinus]

I would go the other way, both are great for what they are but if your system can handle it Ark is a great game. There is just far more to do with harvesting resources, building structures and encampments, crafting weapons, tools, saddles, hunting and taming.

Not to mention that Ark has multiplayer with options for pve or pvp, but if that isn't your style you can play local (which is effectively single player) or host your own private server.

As for fps, they're constantly making changes (which is another bonus, devs patch constantly sometimes multiple times a day (but at least once a week). Many times it's bug fixes but more often than not its to balance gameplay and add features), after the last few patches my system runs the game smoothly.

Don't get me wrong, Sub is a great game and I played it a lot (I still check in every once in a while when they patch) but there is just a lot more to do in Ark.

[Jayombi]

Love Sub as its a single player game. To many multiplayer survivals out there, I want my own world, my own story.

[DOMinus]

As for my system specs/performance:
http://imgur.com/8LrEwmw
i7 2600 @ 3.4ghz
8gb Ram
gtx 750 Ti

While my computer isn't OMG amazing, it's still not a Super computer.

On medium settings I get 25fps (not amazing but far from unplayable)
http://imgur.com/VQAS6O7

On low settings I get about 63fps (looks like ass but is very playable)
http://imgur.com/ul5Dsnl


Here are the minimum specs of the game:

CPU: Info
CPU Speed: 2.0 GHz Dual-Core 64-bit CPU
RAM: 4 GB
OS: Windows 7 or Windows 8
Video Card: DirectX11 Compatible GPU with 1 GB Video RAM
Free Disk Space: 20 GB

[Xzulas]

yeah I think the multiplayer single player comment was a good point to, SUB is only single player and might only ever be single where as ARK is multi.

[Zexxy]

Currently, I am using:

Core I7- 3770 CPU 3.40ghz
16gb of RAM
GTX Titan

I get good FPS on ARK with high / ultra settings, but I do see lots of dips in the performance (dropping lower on FPS etc.)

I would definitely say get ARK, if you can run it and have a few friends. It can be enjoyed solo but much better with a few friends. ARK has much more content currently and recieves many, many updates and they are releasing information about the new dinos that will arrive every few days.

On the other hand, Subnautica is a great free roaming solo survival game, it could do with some multiplayer but I can wait. Subnautica has good performance and enjoyable gameplay. The basebuilding in Subnautica is good, but not enjoyable for me. It just has a few different things you can build with, so I might wait a few updates before playing again. The Cyclops, which is a giant submarine is one of the coolest things I've seen in gaming, it has amazing animations for dropping your smaller ship out of the Cyclops, and back in. When just adventuring out and seeing giant creatures in the ocean is terrifying, but so cool.

Both are good, buy Subnautica is you don't have friends to play with in ARK or have a lower end PC, buy ARK if you can handle running the game with low graphics (or high graphics depending on your machine) and have friends to play with.

[Cougarific]

I've been able to figure out everything I need to know about your personal likes and dislikes, what you prefer, what you enjoy, etc. from the two posts in this thread so I can definitely say, knowing everything I now know about you, that I have no freakin' clue which game you personally would prefer.

Decisions are hard! Make them anyway.

[Caligula]

To be honest I find both games to be in a completely different genre. Games like ARK/Rust are pvp games, more about player interaction than exploration and narrative. I wouldn't even call them survival games because resources respawn and when you wake up to find you've been raided, you just have to walk around and collect resources again to build. They aren't any more of a survival game than any of FPS.

[ADHDTurnip]

Messaggio originale di Jay_ombie:

Love Sub as its a single player game. To many multiplayer survivals out there, I want my own world, my own story.

Just play single player in Ark, thats what I am doing to avoid KOS.

[Łǿȼƙ ɲƹȿȿ]

As of now i would get this game, because your computer will be able to run it. On ark you need a really good computer to run it at low settings.

[Bubbles]

Messaggio originale di ᕦ(ò_óˇ)ᕤ:

As of now i would get this game, because your computer will be able to run it. On ark you need a really good computer to run it at low settings.

No... I have an I5 4670K and a gtx 970 with 8gb RAM and I run the game 35-40fps after the recent patch on med-high settings.

[DOMinus]

Messaggio originale di ᕦ(ò_óˇ)ᕤ:

On ark you need a really good computer to run it at low settings.

That's not true anymore.

[Xzulas]

Messaggio originale di ᕦ(ò_óˇ)ᕤ:

As of now i would get this game, because your computer will be able to run it. On ark you need a really good computer to run it at low settings.

Very True still to this day!