Review

ARK: Survival Evolved Review

  • First Released Jun 2, 2015
    released
  • PC

This ain’t the Flintstones.

After a couple of dozen hours exploring the dinosaur survival simulation from developer Studio Wildcard, I’ve barely scratched the surface of what is both an impressive achievement and a deeply frustrating experience. One moment I was beaming over how I was able to slap together a hut on the beach and start a fire to keep warm during a long and spooky prehistoric night. The next I was swearing until I was out of breath after being killed yet again by a Dilophosaurus or a pack of Compys or a Titanoboa or whatever else decided to roar out of the jungle for a snack.

This is a pure, hardcore survival game where you’re dropped in your tighty whities on a beach by beings unknown (UFO-like monoliths float in the sky) with the sole goal of figuring out how to stay alive. Land and sea are populated with all sorts of dinosaurs and other assorted prehistoric creatures, ranging from the milquetoast Dodos and Moschops to aggressive predators like the Spinosaurus, the Megapiranha, the Troodon, the Raptor, and much, much more. So not only are you stuck essentially naked with nothing other than your wits to keep you breathing, just about everything stuck here with you has big pointy teeth and zero qualms about using them to rip you to pieces.

That said, there isn’t much of a learning curve. Everything is based on a hunter-gatherer system where you collect resources by killing animals for their hides and meat and other goodies, and by chopping down trees, smashing up rocks, and scavenging in the jungle for wood, stone, flint, berries, fiber, and more. Leveling up--which happens fast and frequently throughout the game to keep things interesting--provides points used to purchase engrams that serve as plans for all of the survival gear that you can make. You start with caveman stuff like stone axes, thatch huts, ragged clothing, and campfires, but soon progress to compasses, spyglasses, bows and arrows, wood structures, gunpowder, and more. Stick with things long enough and you move into the modern era with rifles and radios.

No Caption Provided

Another major component of Ark is the ability to train dinos. Carefully combining knocking out your prey with feeding them results in tame creatures that can be ridden around the landscape and even bred. It’s something of a tedious affair involving a fair bit of gathering different types of food and waiting around, but it's well worth it in the end as you can wind up with mounts far better at fighting other dinosaurs than you can with your puny fists and weapons. Toss in a wide range of crafting and that steadily increasing engram tech, and you’ve got an impressive sandbox in which to play.

All of this can be experienced either solo or together with other players on multiplayer servers that can be designated either PVE, where players cannot kill one another, and PVP, where they can, and there are basically no rules at all. Ark has been built around a tribal model, though, where playing cooperatively feels generally like the prescribed way to go.

Single-player does have its benefits, namely in that you avoid messy interactions with fellow human players. But going solo comes at the cost of cranking difficulty through the roof and forcing you to do everything for yourself. You have to become a one-man tribe to get anything done, and I found the process of chopping trees, hacking stone, and gathering assorted things in the brush to be a repetitive process. While you level up fairly quickly and add new engrams on a regular basis, it’s not exactly thrilling to spend all of your time mindlessly pushing buttons to accumulate one stockpile after another.

Of course, playing alone also means that you have to fight dinosaurs mano-a-mano. This means that you die. A lot. The game thankfully stocks the default areas where you spawn (generally coastal beach regions) with wussier, almost cattle-like creatures that can be farmed to get you started collecting meat and skins. But aggressive carnivores are never far away. The landscape is dotted with creatures that you have almost zero chance at killing or escaping, especially in the early hours.

No Caption Provided

This outstanding sense of place and mood is offset by the sheer difficulty of everything that you have to do, the spectacular amounts of time necessary to experience even a tenth of what the game has to offer, and the randomness of death constantly destroying everything that you have built.

As a result, Ark does not make a great first impression. I was routinely slaughtered by Dilophosauruses on the beaches, gangs of Compys in the jungle, random Trodoons nearly everywhere, and even a positively brutal Spinosaurus that somehow managed to spawn in not far from where I began my game. Whenever I thought I was making progress, wham, along came a Raptor or something equally frightening to remind me of my place in the food chain. Even the water offered me no respite, as every little stream seemed to be well stocked with Megapiranhas and Sabertooth Salmon. These killer fish actually gave me my first wake-up call as to how brutal Ark was going to be. I finished my first thatch house and decided to start really exploring territory, starting with a quick swim across the bay. I didn’t get halfway across before I was eaten alive.

The only good thing being killed is that your stuff gets packed into a bag and left at the point of your demise, ready to be picked up by your respawned self. This is easier said than done, however, as the early-game's random respawns generally place you a long way from where you died. And you have a limited amount of time to grab everything before it vanishes forever. Even worse, whatever killed you often hangs around the pack, as if it’s guarding the treasure trove in the knowledge that somebody is coming back for it. Other times, your gear is simply inaccessible. I don’t think I ever reclaimed my gear after being killed in the water, as those packs always wound up in the midst of schools of fish with steak-knife teeth.

In a perfect world, playing the multiplayer version of Ark would solve the above problems. It doesn’t. All of these issues remain present when playing on servers with other people, and other, potentially even more serious annoyances, are introduced. Playing on an established public server means that you’re the new guy, so it doesn’t seem entirely easy to join a tribe. On the PVP servers, you can be an easy target for the more experienced players who enjoy playing serial killer. PVE servers let you relax and work cooperatively, but I saw a lot of people there doing their own thing exactly as they would have in the solo game. So aside from the social aspect of trying to stay alive in dino-land with the help of fellow human beings, I didn’t really see the point.

There is something majestic about Ark's addictive and incredibly atmospheric design. I’ve never been so invested in the protagonist’s predicament, especially when huddling around a fire in the middle of the night or when facing off with a dinosaur that was stalking me, and the sense of being so utterly alone really sank in.

Still, this outstanding sense of place and mood is offset by the sheer difficulty of everything that you have to do, the spectacular amounts of time necessary to experience even a tenth of what the game has to offer, and the randomness of death constantly destroying everything that you have built. None of these things can exactly be considered flaws, as the designers surely intended the game to play like this, at least for the most part. But all of these factors also make Ark an acquired taste that requires a strong level of commitment that is not for everyone, probably myself included.

Back To Top

The Good

  • Wide-open game world gives players an incredible amount of freedom
  • Impressive and deceptively simple core mechanics and character development
  • Spectacular prehistoric landscapes with dinosaur denizens that awe and frighten

The Bad

  • No structure, story, or direction provided for players other than the goal of staying alive
  • Spectacularly high and unforgiving difficulty, especially in the beginning
  • Requires a great deal of repetition and grinding

About the Author

About 30 hours of skinning dinos, starting fires, running for his life, and cursing, loads of glorious cursing, went into Brett’s review of Ark: Survival Evolved. GameSpot was provided with complimentary copies of the game by Studio Wildcard.
115 Comments  RefreshSorted By 
GameSpot has a zero tolerance policy when it comes to toxic conduct in comments. Any abusive, racist, sexist, threatening, bullying, vulgar, and otherwise objectionable behavior will result in moderation and/or account termination. Please keep your discussion civil.

Avatar image for xxdavidxcx87
xxdavidxcx87

316

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Really generous score, such a poorly optimised buggy game, I might try it when it goes free to play because it's going to bomb.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for wexorian
wexorian

3228

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 263

User Lists: 0

@xxdavidxcx87: F2P? why it's not an mmo, it had sold millions in early access, many goti t from humble bundle as well and some got it for free, They generated a lot money who ever wanted to jump on train got game before it became from 20$ to 60$.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for mogan
mogan

19980

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

mogan  Moderator

@xxdavidxcx87: Ark has already been a big success for a long time, dude.

3 • 
Avatar image for Gelugon_baat
Gelugon_baat

24247

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 656

User Lists: 4

Edited By Gelugon_baat

@Mogan: I do wonder whether the high-profile screw-up that was the Stomping Land played a part in this. Ark did what Stomping Land did not do, after all.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for bdrtfm
BDRTFM

6738

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

Ouch. Considering how much time my son has put into this game, I was expecting a bit higher score. A 7 at least. Oh well, he has a lot of fun and that's what counts. I don't think he's ever read a video game review or looked at a review score so, I don't think it matters. But a 6. Again, ouch.

3 • 
Avatar image for greaseman1985
greaseman1985

1498

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 17

User Lists: 5

@bdrtfm: Why does it matter if it got a 6 vs a 7? The scores are generally random and what matters is the content of the review, hence why many reviewers do not score a game anymore. If your son does read the review and agrees with most of what is said, while still enjoys the game, then it really doesn't matter at all if it got a 6 a 1 or a 10.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for deactivated-64efdf49333c4
deactivated-64efdf49333c4

21783

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 36

User Lists: 0

@greaseman1985: Publishers wants scores though so they can put them on the box.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for wexorian
wexorian

3228

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 263

User Lists: 0

Edited By wexorian

@Barighm: Publisher got a lot money, and a lot fans already scores does not matter it was in early access for 3 year.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for kenundrum7
kenundrum7

380

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 49

User Lists: 0

Edited By kenundrum7

I had to look up the word "milquetoast".

I play single player, and it is literally one of my favorite games. There are many sliders to change difficulty, harvest amounts, taming time... Almost anything you can think of. Which takes care of some of the reviewers gripes. Because I agree too much grinding isn't fun, and the default taming time is absurd. I sped it up considerably.

It seems the reviewer had a pretty tough time with the Dilophosauruses. But as with many things, knowledge and experience makes these almost nothing to deal with. Get a spear, and keep out of their striking range.

Until you have a hut, you have to be constantly aware of your surroundings.

3 • 
Avatar image for J_P-
J_P-

643

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 42

User Lists: 0

Edited By J_P-

Something about this game makes me think of Turok.

4 • 
Avatar image for jessie82
jessie82

632

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

damn a 6 seems way too harsh

3 • 
Avatar image for charltonblake1989
charltonblake1989

81

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@jessie82: thats what i would rate it after 60 hours

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Henry518
Henry518

223

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

I haven't played Ark but looking at the negatives, it looks like you're reviewing the game genre and not the game itself. No story, grinding and being kind of repetitive is what this new survival genre is all about, you can see the same thing on 7 Days to Die, Don't Starve, Rust, etc.

I'm not saying Ark doesn't deserve a 6, but I'm skeptical about this review.

7 • 
Avatar image for greaseman1985
greaseman1985

1498

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 17

User Lists: 5

@Henry518: do you agree with what he says about the game though, regardless of the score? As in do you agree his description of the game, its difficulty, learning curve, etc. is accurate?

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Henry518
Henry518

223

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

@greaseman1985@charltonblake1989: Well, I haven't played the game as I said, but what I'm saying is that those negative points are not unique to Ark, it's something that's in all the survival games. It's like criticizing a Puzzle game for not having any kind of action or criticizing a MOBA game for not having a campaign.

I'd understand if the negatives were about bugs, an uninteresting world, uninteresting unique mechanics, terrible performance, lack of content, no updates, server issues, etc. But when you state points that can apply to any game of the same genre, it looks like the reviewer simply hates the genre and not the game itself.

2 • 
Avatar image for charltonblake1989
charltonblake1989

81

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@Henry518: I love Rust and hate Ark so its not just the genre in my case

Upvote • 
Avatar image for wexorian
wexorian

3228

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 263

User Lists: 0

@charltonblake1989: Many hate Other survival games than Minecraft as well,

Upvote • 
Avatar image for caztro81
caztro81

15

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

how can no man sky get a 7 and ark is only 6? in no man sky u are lucky if u enjoy playing more than 20 hrs... in ark im 200+ hrs and still enjoying it. sure it has it flaws but its a shame ark didnt have the same publicity as no man sky had... or influence just because theres more money and its a bigger company name.

3 • 
Avatar image for kenundrum7
kenundrum7

380

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 49

User Lists: 0

Edited By kenundrum7

@caztro81: A lot of people know about this game. As of this writing, over 49,000 people were currently playing it on Steam at this moment. It has been available in early access for many years.

But even some in that community are pretty harsh with their criticisms.

3 • 
Avatar image for Gelugon_baat
Gelugon_baat

24247

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 656

User Lists: 4

Edited By Gelugon_baat

@caztro81: They are different games, dude.

As for the "bigger company" argument about publicity, what did you expect? No Man's Sky was promoted by Sony (which then unceremoniously distanced itself from that game after public opinion on it tanked).

Upvote • 
Avatar image for charltonblake1989
charltonblake1989

81

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@Gelugon_baat: one review is done by Peter Brown and one is done by Brett Todd. Game reviews are subjective. This is why it doesnt make sense to you and does make sense to someone else.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Gelugon_baat
Gelugon_baat

24247

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 656

User Lists: 4

@charltonblake1989: Maybe you should be directing that statement at the other user. :\

Upvote • 
Avatar image for charltonblake1989
charltonblake1989

81

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@Gelugon_baat: one review is done by Peter Brown and one is done by Brett Todd. Game reviews are subjective. This is why it doesnt make sense to you and does make sense to someone else.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for caztro81
caztro81

15

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

@Gelugon_baat: i understand they are different games but a game is a game, meaning no man sky is better rated= better game because it got a higher rate and we all know that is bullshiet . its not rated on specifics genres, its rated on overall game.

And about the bigger company... dont u think gamespot and other game revievers tend to suck up to sonny just because they are the superstars of the game industry compared to the small ones like studio wildcard(ark).

Remember how often we saw no man sky promotions here? it got to the point that ppl got irritated xD. just my 2 cents..

2 • 
Avatar image for Gelugon_baat
Gelugon_baat

24247

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 656

User Lists: 4

Edited By Gelugon_baat

@caztro81: What is bullshit is you thinking that the number that No Man's Sky got is comparable to the number that this game got. They are just numbers.

Also, I have heard the "suck up to bigger company" argument so many times. That's so much conspiracy theorizing - it's stale sh*t to me. Besides, No Man's Sky would have gotten a far higher number if that is true.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for caztro81
caztro81

15

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

@Gelugon_baat: true that on the "just numbers". But still one can never be sure when the "big ones" in the game are playing a fair game against the lesser ones... that in being influential on getting the big numbers for the games or spending(buying) the big numbers aswell.
In the end i just think Ark is an awesome game and i feel it deserved a better rating. Not a solid 10..or even close to 10 but still 50 times better than No Man Sky. Peace!

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Gelugon_baat
Gelugon_baat

24247

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 656

User Lists: 4

@caztro81: Certainly better than No Man's Sky in terms of content, but there are so many other factors.

You are looking at things in simplistic ways - that's why you bring up scores.

2 • 
Avatar image for csward
csward

2155

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 20

User Lists: 0

@Gelugon_baat: It's not conspiracy. Giant Bomb's founder got fired from this very site for not giving a game (kane and lynch iirc) a high enough review score.

A 7/10 is just barely bad enough to be believable, barely.

Gamespot is HEAVILY incentivized to stay on Sony's good side if the want those "first looks" and early review copies, not to mention Ad revenue.

2 • 
Avatar image for Gelugon_baat
Gelugon_baat

24247

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 656

User Lists: 4

Edited By Gelugon_baat

@csward: Sure, Gerstmann was fired, but that's because C-NET's former management didn't know squat about games. Those fools have since been fired when C-NET was bought by CBSI, and CBSI has a hands-off approach to its management of GameSpot - except when it gets craploads of complaints from fanboys like Petit's review of Grand Theft Auto V.

Really, I have seen Gerstmann-gate brought up so many times. It's not an end-all argument. Gone are the days when big companies can apply pressure - rather, it's site traffic that's king-maker among sites like GameSpot these days.

Besides, these big companies promote their games through other ways, like the paid-for content such as the gameplay videos that have been made for Destiny 2 and that new Call of Duty.

Also, Sony's better off looking at YouTube for promotion. If all it gets is just a "7" with a lot of caveats from the likes of GameSpot, it's wasting its efforts at applying pressure.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Gelugon_baat
Gelugon_baat

24247

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 656

User Lists: 4

Edited By Gelugon_baat

For anyone who wants to be reductive and anal-retentive about comparing a game with similar games, I would suggest RimWorld to compare ARK with.

That game may have a completely different visual system and it is 2D, but it has the same kind of pacing and progression.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for thebluelion
Thebluelion

3

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

So speaking as someone that has been playing games since the Intellivision days, and as someone that now has 550 hrs in Ark, I think what's going on here is that Ark is being compared to existing games, which doesn't really work. Maybe it's that I'm coming from a console game history, and I'm new to high end PC gaming, but I have never put 550 hrs into any game I've ever owned. My friend and I have played over the last few months, and I can say, without a doubt that you should not rate this game on a 10 hr session. This isn't a game that can be fairly assessed on a standard timeline, this game was designed for longevity. Your ability to grind grows exponentially as you develop new methodologies to a point where its no longer a chore or issue. This review should not be taken as a reason to pass this game over, and neither should you take to heart the comment of someone that says "I played for 2 hours, it's complete garbage". I'll make no excuses for the games less than polished optimization, and constant updates, but I will say the games immense span and depth deserves some slack-cutting for challenges. The sad truth is, this game will not receive fair reviews, because no reviewer will play to the point where they start naked on a beach, commit, develop strategy, and reach a level of security and prosperity that allows your focus to move from survival, to adventure and exploration. My favorite moment so far, as my friend and I had began building a stone building at the foot of a hill in dense forest, I heard a whistling arrow fly by. I turned and saw nothing. As I alerted my tribemate, another arrow hit me, and I realized it was a tranquilizer dart. I then turned and saw a person in a ghillie suit dart between trees, just barely visible in the early morning fog. As I scrambled to produce my rifle I was hit twice more and passed out, falling victim to the attackers hatchet death blow. My tribemate managed to ensnare him with a bola, and several crossbow bolts later he was killed and the area secured. I know, that sounds mild, but the sounds of the forest, the fog, the arrows whistling, this game HAS immersion on a level I've never experienced before.. If you can't handle a game with large hour requirements by all means, pass on it. But don't take the word of someone that couldn't deal with the first 0.05% progression due to a lack of strategy.

3 • 
Avatar image for csward
csward

2155

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 20

User Lists: 0

@thebluelion: I think many people don't want to wait hours for a game to start to be fun. I agree with you sir, but realistically, the devs needs to make the new player experience more fun.

2 • 
Avatar image for thebluelion
Thebluelion

3

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

Edited By Thebluelion

@csward: and that's fine. Honestly and personally, I think turning off casual gamers is a huge plus. There's plenty of Candy Crush type stuff out there for people that want instant gratification. This genre is based on survival, beating the environment and elements, and evolving. If it happened in the first couple of hours it would be pretty boring.

2 • 
Avatar image for greaseman1985
greaseman1985

1498

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 17

User Lists: 5

@thebluelion: Jeez, why bring up Candy Crush? That's like at the other extreme end of gaming, where I don't even consider such apps games. Ark seems to be at the opposite end of things like Candy Crush, where you have to give up your entire life to play it. Most games however tend to have a balance between being easy to pick up and enjoy and sufficiently difficult to master at the same time.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for thebluelion
Thebluelion

3

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

Edited By Thebluelion

@greaseman1985: now you know how I felt when reading this article. There are different categories of games, and different genres. Why compare them against each other as a basis for a review? It goes without saying that the largest group of gamers are casual mobile gamers, probably followed by the "Call of Duty" type gamers. I'm not bashing that market, I'm simply stating that there is a market for instant gratification type gaming and "doesn't require so much time" gaming and this game shouldn't be held to the expectations of those genres.

2 • 
Avatar image for dudebropartyyo
DudeBroPartyYo

1239

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 19

User Lists: 1

Edited By DudeBroPartyYo

Its a good game but it has problems. Having just the survival as a goal doesnt cut it for me personally, reminds me to much of real life haha. Some direction or even a small story line would have been nice to keep me motivated to move forward, you know something to give me reason to fight to survive.

Its definitely not a game for someone with a full time job, which means time off is divided between some gaming and social life.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Pelezinho777
Pelezinho777

1520

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 15

User Lists: 0

6 is really fair in this case.

4 • 
Avatar image for Gelugon_baat
Gelugon_baat

24247

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 656

User Lists: 4

Edited By Gelugon_baat

I am expecting some die-hard fanboy/fangirl of this game to come over here and gripe about how the reviewer did not even reach the end-game stuff about laser guns and cybernetically-enhanced dinosaurs.

4 • 
Avatar image for IanNottinghamX
IanNottinghamX

1018

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

Edited By IanNottinghamX

Ark was never a finished game. Had Studio Wildcard LISTENED to its community and put in the work instead of falling in love with money and popularity maybe this game would be half a shit to play but its not even a quarter shit. They have good core gameplay mechanics there but the game is at least 39% done and its just getting pushed on console and sold on Pc for $60 like its a AAA title or something. If I were to go over the majority of AAA titles and pit it side by side with Ark, Ark will come out the loser each time cause in this state its not finished! For the love of God people vote with your wallets. Do not support devs like these.....they just dont deserve it.

2 • 
Avatar image for Gelugon_baat
Gelugon_baat

24247

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 656

User Lists: 4

@IanNottinghamX: I have the impression that you have not been following the development of Ark.

There's space sci-fi stuff at the end-game. That's far, far off from the prehistoric cave-man setting that the likes of Stomping Land has soured.

So how did you manage to come to the percentage of "39%"?

Upvote • 
Avatar image for IanNottinghamX
IanNottinghamX

1018

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

Edited By IanNottinghamX

@Gelugon_baat: Me and the group of friends I play with are very familiar with this game. Ive been following Arks development from when it first hit Steam back in 2015. It simply doesnt have enough content. "Scifi stuff" not withstanding. For years the community spoke out about the content they wanted to see in the game.

People wanted them to fix the horrible Optimization this game had that made it unplayable in a group of online players. People wanted game mechanicsinstead they kept putting dinosaurs even when it already had enough dinos they could have worked with and moved on to fleshing out the game. Instead they put out an expansion Scorched Earth for which they sold at $29.99 All that was in that expansion was more Dinos(Slaps forehead). ALL WHILE STILL IN EARLY ACCESS!!!!!!!!!Till this day its not in there and its out of early access. We were literally handed an unfinished product and told "Here enjoy".

So its my prerogative to not enjoy it at this point after Studio Wildcard has exposed themselves as a money greedy company that doesnt care about the players it swore and promised it would serve in the beginning. Its for that reason I would give this game a 5 out of 10.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Gelugon_baat
Gelugon_baat

24247

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 656

User Lists: 4

@IanNottinghamX: Well, you could have wrote this in the first place. Your complaint is about the fine-tuning of the pacing of the gameplay, but you put up vague percentages like "39%" and call it unfinished, thus giving the impression that you are talking about content.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for IanNottinghamX
IanNottinghamX

1018

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

Edited By IanNottinghamX

@Gelugon_baat: Hey it ended up being too long a point to make lol. And truly Ark was supposed to be advertised as a survival game in a prehistoric setting. It ended up being dino daycare 101. Not the game that was advertised or promised.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Gelugon_baat
Gelugon_baat

24247

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 656

User Lists: 4

@IanNottinghamX: The "dino daycare" appears to only come about after several dozen hours of stubborn determination though. Before that, the gameplay experience seems to be "lunch for dinos".

Upvote • 
Avatar image for wexorian
wexorian

3228

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 263

User Lists: 0

Edited By wexorian

Did this guy fought bosses? don't think so? no story there is a story need to find it, Don't say anything about grinding when Gamespot is fine with grinding in Destiny, Every survival game is about grinding materials.....

Game is not perfect and maybe it's 6 , but Bad review does not justify that score here.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for gagula94
gagula94

255

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 35

User Lists: 2

@wexorian: Need to find the story is same as no story and 6 or "Fair" is a bad score now huh?

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Gelugon_baat
Gelugon_baat

24247

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 656

User Lists: 4

@wexorian: You are comparing Destiny with this game, which is a completely different kind of thing.

You are still making apples and oranges arguments, I see.

Upvote •