Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
B) The rest is predicated on an underlying assumption that the core oroblem is the code and not the people writing it. Personally I would describe WC as a studio long on great concepts and short on execution of those concepts. Execution wise they are not getting better, they are getting worse. Extinction was easily worse in terms of playability upon release than aberration and they had a whole year to learn and get better, plus they’d hired two of their best sponsored map modders full time. Yet they cranked out a broken hot mess so bug ridden it made it difficult to enjoy some great new ideas within it.
C) Based on the info available right now my money is on WC leaving Ark as is and focusing future efforts on Atlas-Ark with pirates instead of dinos.
An Ark II would allow them to restart with a better, more experienced group of people including the teams that have worked on Ark and gained experience plus any other experienced people they hire, resulting in a much better game (Imagine an ark with little to no meshing, dinos that never clip through walls, proper ai)
From the perspective of someone who's never worked on game or really any program development, I'd guess that most of the bigger issues like the ones I mentioned haven't been fixed yet just because it'd be so much work that it's simply not worth it and would all but require a complete remaking of the game.
So instead of making a new expansion which would be subject to all the issues Ark has had, I'd prefer a remake of it so that they can make the game perform better and be well optimized from the beginning.
But there's one big issue with an Ark II. In my opinion, which I think is shared by a lot of people, mods are a very important part of Ark. Most people play on unofficial servers, and most unofficial servers use mods. According to battlemetrics, out of the ~54k servers it sees, 27k use structures plus, which is about half of the servers all using one mod. If they stop making big changes to Ark, modding will be easier since they're much less risk of an update breaking a mod, so modding would likely be much more interesting on Ark than it would be on an Ark II unless Ark II makes some kind of major improvements to mod making in some way.
They've probably already started at least preparing for their next piece of work though.
Sure, modders will have to start again, but I am sure they will release a dev kit for Ark 2. So in the end, we all win, and much better base code.
Couple that with WildCard's track record of less than stable releases that meant 3 of the key selling features of this DLC were disabled for 2 weeks because their QA resembled a few hours worth of work maximum.
I know they won't do this, but they really need to review their development schedule, do proper project planning, hold off from releasing if they are not 100% sure of a stable launch, and keep updates flowing to the community to explain what might be causing any delays, but on platforms that the communities use, all of them(I don't use Twitter for example). I don't mind minor, or even amusing bugs, but if say an element vein spawns, I don't want it to delete my base
ARK without the ability to mod would have been a total Disaster. We know it, they know it, so yes i agree if they'll make an ARK 2 there will be an Dev Kit (but hopefully they speed up the release of updated Dev Kits then)