new expansion.. game still broken

[Dzaka]

see title.. seriously i've never once gotten the game to work right and i'm supposedly far above specs

[Quarks Khelas]

Daywalker eredeti hozzászólása:

Brovider eredeti hozzászólása:

about 80% that try to play this game can't because its broken. You can troll all you want but the facts are there.

the problem is that those 80% doesnt have the pc to play the game, its not broken but you cant run this on 10 year old hardware.

Mine PC is over 5 years old and it runs Ark fine at 30 FPS with High, Medium and Low Settings -Resultion is set to 70%. If you have expirience with Windows you know how to tweak it and a PC is not a Console, but somebody think it is. ;)

[Diogenes]

Brovider eredeti hozzászólása:

Morticielle eredeti hozzászólása:

And a hundredthousand players can play it without a problem ... Sure, game is broken, LOL

about 80% that try to play this game can't because its broken. You can troll all you want but the facts are there.

It is not broken.

It is currently, actively, being developed.

There is a huge difference between the two.

The game likely will run like ♥♥♥♥, until it goes into the Beta phase, and optimization is properly implimented.

Every EA game on the market goes through the same process.

[Dzaka]

Cadderley eredeti hozzászólása:

Brovider eredeti hozzászólása:

about 80% that try to play this game can't because its broken. You can troll all you want but the facts are there.

It is not broken.

It is currently, actively, being developed.

There is a huge difference between the two.

The game likely will run like ♥♥♥♥, until it goes into the Beta phase, and optimization is properly implimented.

Every EA game on the market goes through the same process.

not true starbound just hit launch and i have been on board for it since it hit EA. never once did it have any such problems.. in fact i have yet to find an EA game with this game's problems.. its broken

[Ginkawa]

Dzaka eredeti hozzászólása:

but see posted specs should be the minimum needed to enjoyabley run the game. and i finally got the game running. played a bit. no work arounds low settings all that.. loaded in about 5 minutes. they must have done some optimization finally.

game is still broken though if they plan that to be the actual min specs and yet you can't actually properly run it with a hard 30+ fps.

the problem is people with monster rigs think just because they can run anything. the game doesn't have problems

mine is a good middle of the road. i never run anything on higher than medium settings. cause i don't care about pretty games long as it runs and is fun

I disagree. most of the history of video games as I remember it, is that the "minimum specs" were pretty much a technical matter, and that the "reccomended specs" were more what you really needed to run it well.

I don't have a monster system. my video card is the best part, as a GTX960. I can run the game fine. I can run pretty much anything else, spectacularly.

its not reasonable to expect that you would be able to play the game well with that video card, IMO. you can get one that will run the game just fine, for a good bit under $200. I know thats not super cheap for everyone, but its not unobtainable or unreasonable either.

[Dzaka]

Ginkawa eredeti hozzászólása:

Dzaka eredeti hozzászólása:

but see posted specs should be the minimum needed to enjoyabley run the game. and i finally got the game running. played a bit. no work arounds low settings all that.. loaded in about 5 minutes. they must have done some optimization finally.

game is still broken though if they plan that to be the actual min specs and yet you can't actually properly run it with a hard 30+ fps.

the problem is people with monster rigs think just because they can run anything. the game doesn't have problems

mine is a good middle of the road. i never run anything on higher than medium settings. cause i don't care about pretty games long as it runs and is fun

I disagree. most of the history of video games as I remember it, is that the "minimum specs" were pretty much a technical matter, and that the "reccomended specs" were more what you really needed to run it well.

I don't have a monster system. my video card is the best part, as a GTX960. I can run the game fine. I can run pretty much anything else, spectacularly.

its not reasonable to expect that you would be able to play the game well with that video card, IMO. you can get one that will run the game just fine, for a good bit under $200. I know thats not super cheap for everyone, but its not unobtainable or unreasonable either.

actually minimum specs is supposed to be the lowest a company actively supports and the game runs well enough to play enjoyably. thats not saying it's the lowest that will run the game at all

i know someone with 4 gigs of ram that runs fallout 4 just fine though they don't care about framerate. i sat there and watched them play the game.. survival mode. and do it well. at 26fps

in short if you post the specs that were posted for ark. than THAT should be the lowest system you can acceptibly play it on. i have above those specs so i not only should be able to acceptibly play ark. i shouldn't have to run it at low settings

[Ginkawa]

Dzaka eredeti hozzászólása:

actually minimum specs is supposed to be the lowest a company actively supports and the game runs well enough to play enjoyably. thats not saying it's the lowest that will run the game at all

i know someone with 4 gigs of ram that runs fallout 4 just fine though they don't care about framerate. i sat there and watched them play the game.. survival mode. and do it well. at 26fps

in short if you post the specs that were posted for ark. than THAT should be the lowest system you can acceptibly play it on. i have above those specs so i not only should be able to acceptibly play ark. i shouldn't have to run it at low settings

that has not been my experience in gaming.

for as long as I can remember, only meeting minimum specs means you'll barely be able to run it, let alone have it run decently.

I looked up your video card. its no surprise it can barely run the game.

part of the problem with your expectations in regard to listed specs, is that acceptable is highly subjective. some think if it ever dips below 60fps thats unacceptable. some find low settings if it gets them 20fps is fine. that's why having a minimum spec that is a practical "what can realistically run the game at all" makes more sense.

[Dzaka]

Ginkawa eredeti hozzászólása:

Dzaka eredeti hozzászólása:

actually minimum specs is supposed to be the lowest a company actively supports and the game runs well enough to play enjoyably. thats not saying it's the lowest that will run the game at all

i know someone with 4 gigs of ram that runs fallout 4 just fine though they don't care about framerate. i sat there and watched them play the game.. survival mode. and do it well. at 26fps

in short if you post the specs that were posted for ark. than THAT should be the lowest system you can acceptibly play it on. i have above those specs so i not only should be able to acceptibly play ark. i shouldn't have to run it at low settings

that has not been my experience in gaming.

for as long as I can remember, only meeting minimum specs means you'll barely be able to run it, let alone have it run decently.

I looked up your video card. its no surprise it can barely run the game.

part of the problem with your expectations in regard to listed specs, is that acceptable is highly subjective. some think if it ever dips below 60fps thats unacceptable. some find low settings if it gets them 20fps is fine. that's why having a minimum spec that is a practical "what can realistically run the game at all" makes more sense.

my video card is lower mid tier. it is by far not a bad card. the game is badly coded.. period. hell i run dark souls 3 with it. when its not supposedly supported.. and it plays just fine. so yeah. any company that posts the specs that this game is minimally ment to run on. MEANS FOR IT TO RUN ON THAT SYSTEM!!!

you say my video card isn't beefy enough

my video card is direct x 11 native and with a firmware update is acceptible for direct x 12

the minimum spec as far as video card for ark is " direct x 10 compatible with 1 gig of ram"

my video card has 2 gigs of ddr5 ram

[Ginkawa]

Dzaka eredeti hozzászólása:

my video card is lower mid tier. it is by far not a bad card. the game is badly coded.. period. hell i run dark souls 3 with it. when its not supposedly supported.. and it plays just fine. so yeah. any company that posts the specs that this game is minimally ment to run on. MEANS FOR IT TO RUN ON THAT SYSTEM!!!

you say my video card isn't beefy enough

my video card is direct x 11 native and with a firmware update is acceptible for direct x 12

the minimum spec as far as video card for ark is " direct x 10 compatible with 1 gig of ram"

my video card has 2 gigs of ddr5 ram

Minimum specs is for it to run. not for it to run well.

your card is 3 years old. mine is a year and a half old. the game is still in development.

it sounds like your card CAN run it. just not well. as would be expected.

[Dzaka]

Ginkawa eredeti hozzászólása:

Dzaka eredeti hozzászólása:

my video card is lower mid tier. it is by far not a bad card. the game is badly coded.. period. hell i run dark souls 3 with it. when its not supposedly supported.. and it plays just fine. so yeah. any company that posts the specs that this game is minimally ment to run on. MEANS FOR IT TO RUN ON THAT SYSTEM!!!

you say my video card isn't beefy enough

my video card is direct x 11 native and with a firmware update is acceptible for direct x 12

the minimum spec as far as video card for ark is " direct x 10 compatible with 1 gig of ram"

my video card has 2 gigs of ddr5 ram

Minimum specs is for it to run. not for it to run well.

your card is 3 years old. mine is a year and a half old. the game is still in development.

it sounds like your card CAN run it. just not well. as would be expected.

no minimum specs is supposed to be what the developer thinks is acceptible lowest possible configuration to run the game at a decent.. ish.. framerate.

minimum spec is "the game can be played with this exact system just fine with low-mid settings" not "..... the game turns on"

you can if you want run a game. atleast these days where they quit putting code in that checked your system and refused to run the game.. at an even lower configuration than the minimum spec. but at that point the developers don't support your configuration and any problems you have are your fault

my system is above the min spec here. meaning that its the game. not me. that has the problem. just because others have a beefier system and it functions as they would like doesn't mean there's not a problem here. it just means they are running at recommended or better..

recommended specs are "at this configuration the game can be maxed in all settings and should never have any frame drops or other issues"

minimum = plays on low to mid settings

recommended = if your this or better have at it

get it now?

who ever told you different doesn't know computers and is probably a console fanboy or a "you always have to be on the bleeding edge of tech" snob

[Ginkawa]

Dzaka eredeti hozzászólása:

no minimum specs is supposed to be what the developer thinks is acceptible lowest possible configuration to run the game at a decent.. ish.. framerate.

minimum spec is "the game can be played with this exact system just fine with low-mid settings" not "..... the game turns on"

where did you get that idea?
because that's not what I've experienced over the last 20 or so years.

you can if you want run a game. at least these days where they quit putting code in that checked your system and refused to run the game.. at an even lower configuration than the minimum spec. but at that point the developers don't support your configuration and any problems you have are your fault

my system is above the min spec here. meaning that its the game. not me. that has the problem. just because others have a beefier system and it functions as they would like doesn't mean there's not a problem here. it just means they are running at recommended or better..

recommended specs are "at this configuration the game can be maxed in all settings and should never have any frame drops or other issues"

minimum = plays on low to mid settings

recommended = if your this or better have at it

get it now?

who ever told you different doesn't know computers and is probably a console fanboy or a "you always have to be on the bleeding edge of tech" snob

for the last 10+ years if you're worried about meeting the system specs, you are probably in trouble to begin with.
back when system specs actually meant anything, minimum was just that, MINIMUM. and recommended is what you should have to play the game in a way it should be. maximum is well beyond recommended.

how new ARE you to PC gaming? this is not news.

[Dzaka]

Ginkawa eredeti hozzászólása:

Dzaka eredeti hozzászólása:

no minimum specs is supposed to be what the developer thinks is acceptible lowest possible configuration to run the game at a decent.. ish.. framerate.

minimum spec is "the game can be played with this exact system just fine with low-mid settings" not "..... the game turns on"

where did you get that idea?
because that's not what I've experienced over the last 20 or so years.

you can if you want run a game. at least these days where they quit putting code in that checked your system and refused to run the game.. at an even lower configuration than the minimum spec. but at that point the developers don't support your configuration and any problems you have are your fault

my system is above the min spec here. meaning that its the game. not me. that has the problem. just because others have a beefier system and it functions as they would like doesn't mean there's not a problem here. it just means they are running at recommended or better..

recommended specs are "at this configuration the game can be maxed in all settings and should never have any frame drops or other issues"

minimum = plays on low to mid settings

recommended = if your this or better have at it

get it now?

who ever told you different doesn't know computers and is probably a console fanboy or a "you always have to be on the bleeding edge of tech" snob

for the last 10+ years if you're worried about meeting the system specs, you are probably in trouble to begin with.
back when system specs actually meant anything, minimum was just that, MINIMUM. and recommended is what you should have to play the game in a way it should be. maximum is well beyond recommended.

how new ARE you to PC gaming? this is not news.

where did i learn that? 20+ years as a pc games QA tester. in part having to figure out what configuration would best be used for an acceptible gaming experiance. in this case a friend gifted me this game. i'm not professionally testing it so i don't have access to the devs to tell them that thier spec is BS

and your right. recommended is how its ment to be played. but minimum is acceptible quality visually and framerate. it is the lowest specs the developer thinks the game is worth running on.

and don't tell me to upgrade. as i said i'm ABOVE the minimum so there really shouldn't be an issue

also groups need people who arn't all on the cutting edge. especialy if they are shooting for a specific minimum. they arn't hitting it here

[[IV]Nontouchable]

Dzaka eredeti hozzászólása:

hundred thousand players like the idea but won't badmouth it because the idea is a good one but its in early access..

my opinion is thus. if your system is these specs or better.. the game better damn well take less than a half hour to load the map

MINIMUM:
OS: 64-Bit Windows 7 Service Pack 1, or Windows 8
Processor: 2 GHz Dual-Core 64-bit CPU
Memory: 4000 MB RAM
Graphics: DirectX10 Compatible GPU with 1 GB Video RAM
DirectX: Version 10
Storage: 40000 MB available space


seeing as those are the posted specs

Lol 4gb ram
Lol gt760
Lol cpu

Dude be happy if you can run minesweeper with that iphone of yours.

[Dzaka]

IVNontouchable eredeti hozzászólása:

Dzaka eredeti hozzászólása:

hundred thousand players like the idea but won't badmouth it because the idea is a good one but its in early access..

my opinion is thus. if your system is these specs or better.. the game better damn well take less than a half hour to load the map

MINIMUM:
OS: 64-Bit Windows 7 Service Pack 1, or Windows 8
Processor: 2 GHz Dual-Core 64-bit CPU
Memory: 4000 MB RAM
Graphics: DirectX10 Compatible GPU with 1 GB Video RAM
DirectX: Version 10
Storage: 40000 MB available space


seeing as those are the posted specs

Lol 4gb ram
Lol gt760
Lol cpu

Dude be happy if you can run minesweeper with that iphone of yours.

those arn't my specs.. thats the posted minimum requirements for this game... as i said