It's Arc with a medieval skin and theme. I like those themes so I'm happy with it so far. I'm enjoying the single player which runs ok for me. Like someone else said if you like Arc you'll like this, if you don't like Arc don't bother with it.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
It's Arc with a medieval skin and theme. I like those themes so I'm happy with it so far. I'm enjoying the single player which runs ok for me. Like someone else said if you like Arc you'll like this, if you don't like Arc don't bother with it.
I think that's what draws me. The "theme" of Ark didn't interest me. This is fantasy based so that is more interesting.
Still, Ark has its fans so clearly there is something to like. If this turns out to be "Fantasy ARk" then done and done!
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
For all of the complaints against Ark it still sold over 5M copies.
As gamers appear willing to shell out money in droves for early access titles regardless of quality as long as it's at a "discount."
They've got nothing to lose really by going this route until people stop flocking to every new release. (Which isn't likely to happen)
I play Ark - and thats actually a good game.
This on the other hand is a like a bug ridden, runs like a turd, cheap ripoff version.
I honestly dont understand how anyone could play this currently as its just an unplayable pile of poo
This is the exact reason why steam offers a refund program, I am shocked that some are willingly not taking advantage of refund for hope of this train wreck getting fixed?
/facepalm
Ark was just as bug ridden, STILL RUNS LIKE A TURD, and a rip off of many other survival games. 7 days to die, Ark, and Rust all got shit when EA launched. You bought into a fresh EA game. If you didnt expect it to be really rough, I dont know what to tell you.
As far as liking the game? I do, it has massive potential. All these people claiming Citadel is gonna be better probably have a rude awakening coming tomorrow when the beta opens up. Im gonna get both as I really want a fantasy survival game thats not Conan Exiles.
Agreed. Early Access + Survival Game = low quality at first release.
Pretty much a universal law from my observations.
In fact I'm still waiting for the holy grail, a high quality, full featured, & released survival game so I can finally give the genre a try.
Early access games nowadays dont thrive on polish, but on a wide variety of features. Basically what Ark and other EA games have proven is that people are more than willing to accept a bit of "jank" as long as youve got tons of features that make the game interesting, it is pretty much the same paradigm for every successful EA game, survival or not.
Polishing a small set of features to the nth degree is just not gonna work for a small team on a small budget.
Saying that I haven't played this game yet, and a problem with EA is it is really hard to know whether the team is going to actually commit to it or development is just going to stagnate.
But as @Sovrath mentioned above at it's core Ark really appeals to me, but I don't particularly like the mixed theme they have gone for, primeval, dinnosaurs with lasers type thing but could get a board with a more consistent Medieval Fantasy theme. I think the host your own server could also spawn a few interesting communities and rulesets.
For all of the complaints against Ark it still sold over 5M copies.
As gamers appear willing to shell out money in droves for early access titles regardless of quality as long as it's at a "discount."
They've got nothing to lose really by going this route until people stop flocking to every new release. (Which isn't likely to happen)
I play Ark - and thats actually a good game.
This on the other hand is a like a bug ridden, runs like a turd, cheap ripoff version.
I honestly dont understand how anyone could play this currently as its just an unplayable pile of poo
This is the exact reason why steam offers a refund program, I am shocked that some are willingly not taking advantage of refund for hope of this train wreck getting fixed?
/facepalm
Ark was just as bug ridden, STILL RUNS LIKE A TURD, and a rip off of many other survival games. 7 days to die, Ark, and Rust all got shit when EA launched. You bought into a fresh EA game. If you didnt expect it to be really rough, I dont know what to tell you.
As far as liking the game? I do, it has massive potential. All these people claiming Citadel is gonna be better probably have a rude awakening coming tomorrow when the beta opens up. Im gonna get both as I really want a fantasy survival game thats not Conan Exiles.
Agreed. Early Access + Survival Game = low quality at first release.
Pretty much a universal law from my observations.
In fact I'm still waiting for the holy grail, a high quality, full featured, & released survival game so I can finally give the genre a try.
Early access games nowadays dont thrive on polish, but on a wide variety of features. Basically what Ark and other EA games have proven is that people are more than willing to accept a bit of "jank" as long as youve got tons of features that make the game interesting, it is pretty much the same paradigm for every successful EA game, survival or not.
Polishing a small set of features to the nth degree is just not gonna work for a small team on a small budget.
Saying that I haven't played this game yet, and a problem with EA is it is really hard to know whether the team is going to actually commit to it or development is just going to stagnate.
But as @Sovrath mentioned above at it's core Ark really appeals to me, but I don't particularly like the mixed theme they have gone for, primeval, dinnosaurs with lasers type thing but could get a board with a more consistent Medieval Fantasy theme. I think the host your own server could also spawn a few interesting communities and rulesets.
But does any survival game really provide a wide variety of features?
One of the more common complaints against almost every title out there is they are unfinished and lack enough content for long term game play.
Which apparently is true exhibited how people jump from game to game.
My guess is if you took a poll you would find most folks trying these two titles have played other survival games previously, and for some, almost every survival game ever released.
What are they all looking for if even one of these titles is really of any worth?
I'm holding out from trying this genre until one is delivered that most agree is a well made, enjoyable experience that doesn't focus too heavily on punching bushes and the only real danger is from dying of boredom in a few weeks.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
For all of the complaints against Ark it still sold over 5M copies.
As gamers appear willing to shell out money in droves for early access titles regardless of quality as long as it's at a "discount."
They've got nothing to lose really by going this route until people stop flocking to every new release. (Which isn't likely to happen)
I play Ark - and thats actually a good game.
This on the other hand is a like a bug ridden, runs like a turd, cheap ripoff version.
I honestly dont understand how anyone could play this currently as its just an unplayable pile of poo
This is the exact reason why steam offers a refund program, I am shocked that some are willingly not taking advantage of refund for hope of this train wreck getting fixed?
/facepalm
Ark was just as bug ridden, STILL RUNS LIKE A TURD, and a rip off of many other survival games. 7 days to die, Ark, and Rust all got shit when EA launched. You bought into a fresh EA game. If you didnt expect it to be really rough, I dont know what to tell you.
As far as liking the game? I do, it has massive potential. All these people claiming Citadel is gonna be better probably have a rude awakening coming tomorrow when the beta opens up. Im gonna get both as I really want a fantasy survival game thats not Conan Exiles.
Agreed. Early Access + Survival Game = low quality at first release.
Pretty much a universal law from my observations.
In fact I'm still waiting for the holy grail, a high quality, full featured, & released survival game so I can finally give the genre a try.
Early access games nowadays dont thrive on polish, but on a wide variety of features. Basically what Ark and other EA games have proven is that people are more than willing to accept a bit of "jank" as long as youve got tons of features that make the game interesting, it is pretty much the same paradigm for every successful EA game, survival or not.
Polishing a small set of features to the nth degree is just not gonna work for a small team on a small budget.
Saying that I haven't played this game yet, and a problem with EA is it is really hard to know whether the team is going to actually commit to it or development is just going to stagnate.
But as @Sovrath mentioned above at it's core Ark really appeals to me, but I don't particularly like the mixed theme they have gone for, primeval, dinnosaurs with lasers type thing but could get a board with a more consistent Medieval Fantasy theme. I think the host your own server could also spawn a few interesting communities and rulesets.
But does any survival game really provide a wide variety of features?
One of the more common complaints against almost every title out there is they are unfinished and lack enough content for long term game play.
Which apparently is true exhibited how people jump from game to game.
My guess is if you took a poll you would find most folks trying these two titles have played other survival games previously, and for some, almost every survival game ever released.
What are they all looking for if even one of these titles is really of any worth?
I'm holding out from trying this genre until one is delivered that most agree is a well made, enjoyable experience that doesn't focus too heavily on punching bushes and the only real danger is from dying of boredom in a few weeks.
Ohh come on, you can punch trees and grass too...
I like it tbh. I think these survival games are a stepping stone to the next level of MMOs, worlds 10 to 20 times the size these games are now with the same increase in population with a Story Bricks like system and the same level of interactivity. Current hardware might struggle, 5 years from now? Not so much.
People are looking for meaningful content, consequences, this is what these games give.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
'the only way he could nail it any better is if he used a cross.'
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
For all of the complaints against Ark it still sold over 5M copies.
As gamers appear willing to shell out money in droves for early access titles regardless of quality as long as it's at a "discount."
They've got nothing to lose really by going this route until people stop flocking to every new release. (Which isn't likely to happen)
I play Ark - and thats actually a good game.
This on the other hand is a like a bug ridden, runs like a turd, cheap ripoff version.
I honestly dont understand how anyone could play this currently as its just an unplayable pile of poo
This is the exact reason why steam offers a refund program, I am shocked that some are willingly not taking advantage of refund for hope of this train wreck getting fixed?
/facepalm
Ark was just as bug ridden, STILL RUNS LIKE A TURD, and a rip off of many other survival games. 7 days to die, Ark, and Rust all got shit when EA launched. You bought into a fresh EA game. If you didnt expect it to be really rough, I dont know what to tell you.
As far as liking the game? I do, it has massive potential. All these people claiming Citadel is gonna be better probably have a rude awakening coming tomorrow when the beta opens up. Im gonna get both as I really want a fantasy survival game thats not Conan Exiles.
Agreed. Early Access + Survival Game = low quality at first release.
Pretty much a universal law from my observations.
In fact I'm still waiting for the holy grail, a high quality, full featured, & released survival game so I can finally give the genre a try.
Early access games nowadays dont thrive on polish, but on a wide variety of features. Basically what Ark and other EA games have proven is that people are more than willing to accept a bit of "jank" as long as youve got tons of features that make the game interesting, it is pretty much the same paradigm for every successful EA game, survival or not.
Polishing a small set of features to the nth degree is just not gonna work for a small team on a small budget.
Saying that I haven't played this game yet, and a problem with EA is it is really hard to know whether the team is going to actually commit to it or development is just going to stagnate.
But as @Sovrath mentioned above at it's core Ark really appeals to me, but I don't particularly like the mixed theme they have gone for, primeval, dinnosaurs with lasers type thing but could get a board with a more consistent Medieval Fantasy theme. I think the host your own server could also spawn a few interesting communities and rulesets.
But does any survival game really provide a wide variety of features?
One of the more common complaints against almost every title out there is they are unfinished and lack enough content for long term game play.
Which apparently is true exhibited how people jump from game to game.
My guess is if you took a poll you would find most folks trying these two titles have played other survival games previously, and for some, almost every survival game ever released.
What are they all looking for if even one of these titles is really of any worth?
I'm holding out from trying this genre until one is delivered that most agree is a well made, enjoyable experience that doesn't focus too heavily on punching bushes and the only real danger is from dying of boredom in a few weeks.
Ohh come on, you can punch trees and grass too...
I like it tbh. I think these survival games are a stepping stone to the next level of MMOs, worlds 10 to 20 times the size these games are now with the same increase in population with a Story Bricks like system and the same level of interactivity. Current hardware might struggle, 5 years from now? Not so much.
People are looking for meaningful content, consequences, this is what these games give.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
No more story. We are the story, story of the battle of dwarfs vs elfs. We are building the world. Think I saw an entrance for dungeons in dnl.
There was some kind of event yesterdag but needed to go.
For all of the complaints against Ark it still sold over 5M copies.
As gamers appear willing to shell out money in droves for early access titles regardless of quality as long as it's at a "discount."
They've got nothing to lose really by going this route until people stop flocking to every new release. (Which isn't likely to happen)
I play Ark - and thats actually a good game.
This on the other hand is a like a bug ridden, runs like a turd, cheap ripoff version.
I honestly dont understand how anyone could play this currently as its just an unplayable pile of poo
This is the exact reason why steam offers a refund program, I am shocked that some are willingly not taking advantage of refund for hope of this train wreck getting fixed?
/facepalm
Ark was just as bug ridden, STILL RUNS LIKE A TURD, and a rip off of many other survival games. 7 days to die, Ark, and Rust all got shit when EA launched. You bought into a fresh EA game. If you didnt expect it to be really rough, I dont know what to tell you.
As far as liking the game? I do, it has massive potential. All these people claiming Citadel is gonna be better probably have a rude awakening coming tomorrow when the beta opens up. Im gonna get both as I really want a fantasy survival game thats not Conan Exiles.
Agreed. Early Access + Survival Game = low quality at first release.
Pretty much a universal law from my observations.
In fact I'm still waiting for the holy grail, a high quality, full featured, & released survival game so I can finally give the genre a try.
Early access games nowadays dont thrive on polish, but on a wide variety of features. Basically what Ark and other EA games have proven is that people are more than willing to accept a bit of "jank" as long as youve got tons of features that make the game interesting, it is pretty much the same paradigm for every successful EA game, survival or not.
Polishing a small set of features to the nth degree is just not gonna work for a small team on a small budget.
Saying that I haven't played this game yet, and a problem with EA is it is really hard to know whether the team is going to actually commit to it or development is just going to stagnate.
But as @Sovrath mentioned above at it's core Ark really appeals to me, but I don't particularly like the mixed theme they have gone for, primeval, dinnosaurs with lasers type thing but could get a board with a more consistent Medieval Fantasy theme. I think the host your own server could also spawn a few interesting communities and rulesets.
But does any survival game really provide a wide variety of features?
One of the more common complaints against almost every title out there is they are unfinished and lack enough content for long term game play.
Which apparently is true exhibited how people jump from game to game.
My guess is if you took a poll you would find most folks trying these two titles have played other survival games previously, and for some, almost every survival game ever released.
What are they all looking for if even one of these titles is really of any worth?
I'm holding out from trying this genre until one is delivered that most agree is a well made, enjoyable experience that doesn't focus too heavily on punching bushes and the only real danger is from dying of boredom in a few weeks.
Ohh come on, you can punch trees and grass too...
I like it tbh. I think these survival games are a stepping stone to the next level of MMOs, worlds 10 to 20 times the size these games are now with the same increase in population with a Story Bricks like system and the same level of interactivity. Current hardware might struggle, 5 years from now? Not so much.
People are looking for meaningful content, consequences, this is what these games give.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
No more story. We are the story, story of the battle of dwarfs vs elfs. We are building the world. Think I saw an entrance for dungeons in dnl.
There was some kind of event yesterdag but needed to go.
While I agree with you so far in the survival genre it seems to be more of a battle between psychopaths vs sociopaths .
I'm hoping for a bit deeper story than that.
I guess I'm really looking for a newer version of the world and story I found in EVE.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
But does any survival game really provide a wide variety of features?
One of the more common complaints against almost every title out there is they are unfinished and lack enough content for long term game play.
Which apparently is true exhibited how people jump from game to game.
My guess is if you took a poll you would find most folks trying these two titles have played other survival games previously, and for some, almost every survival game ever released.
What are they all looking for if even one of these titles is really of any worth?
I'm holding out from trying this genre until one is delivered that most agree is a well made, enjoyable experience that doesn't focus too heavily on punching bushes and the only real danger is from dying of boredom in a few weeks.
Ohh come on, you can punch trees and grass too...
I like it tbh. I think these survival games are a stepping stone to the next level of MMOs, worlds 10 to 20 times the size these games are now with the same increase in population with a Story Bricks like system and the same level of interactivity. Current hardware might struggle, 5 years from now? Not so much.
People are looking for meaningful content, consequences, this is what these games give.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
No more story. We are the story, story of the battle of dwarfs vs elfs. We are building the world. Think I saw an entrance for dungeons in dnl.
There was some kind of event yesterdag but needed to go.
While I agree with you so far in the survival genre it seems to be more of a battle between psychopaths vs sociopaths .
I'm hoping for a bit deeper story than that.
I guess I'm really looking for a newer version of the world and story I found in EVE.
Yeah while a lot of these games give you a lot of tools to make your own story it usually lacks in providing a workable initial framework like EVE does, it goes back to what you said before, where people hop from game to game and I believe that is because with such a loose or lackof framework it means people do end up in a kill or be killed type of gameplay which is boring.
One notable example is Rust, which offers quite a lot of interaction possibilities but there is really no way to interact with anyone other than shooting them really unless you are on a special ruleset server, hopefully with a much more solid framework people can be encouraged to interact differently that isnt just KOS.
Saying that, these types of interactions did spawn the battle royale genre which is refinment ( or simplification ) of the survival genre into just the kill or be killed interaction which can be fun in it's own right, hopefully another aspect that will also appear is the opposite too where it is focused more on different interactions.
Just found out by pressing "\" you will open the race chat. Now we dwarfs agreed if a fwarf griefs a fellow dwarf we will wipe them out. And hope we can elect a dwarf emperor soon.
And we managed to let this little goblin attack hostile players!!
I'm liking it quite a lot. First game I've played in a while that's kept my interest for this long, coming up on 200 hours played so far, and no signs of slowing.
Comments
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
I think that's what draws me. The "theme" of Ark didn't interest me. This is fantasy based so that is more interesting.
Still, Ark has its fans so clearly there is something to like. If this turns out to be "Fantasy ARk" then done and done!
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Polishing a small set of features to the nth degree is just not gonna work for a small team on a small budget.
Saying that I haven't played this game yet, and a problem with EA is it is really hard to know whether the team is going to actually commit to it or development is just going to stagnate.
But as @Sovrath mentioned above at it's core Ark really appeals to me, but I don't particularly like the mixed theme they have gone for, primeval, dinnosaurs with lasers type thing but could get a board with a more consistent Medieval Fantasy theme. I think the host your own server could also spawn a few interesting communities and rulesets.
One of the more common complaints against almost every title out there is they are unfinished and lack enough content for long term game play.
Which apparently is true exhibited how people jump from game to game.
My guess is if you took a poll you would find most folks trying these two titles have played other survival games previously, and for some, almost every survival game ever released.
What are they all looking for if even one of these titles is really of any worth?
I'm holding out from trying this genre until one is delivered that most agree is a well made, enjoyable experience that doesn't focus too heavily on punching bushes and the only real danger is from dying of boredom in a few weeks.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
I like it tbh. I think these survival games are a stepping stone to the next level of MMOs, worlds 10 to 20 times the size these games are now with the same increase in population with a Story Bricks like system and the same level of interactivity. Current hardware might struggle, 5 years from now? Not so much.
People are looking for meaningful content, consequences, this is what these games give.
/Cheers,
Lahnmir
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
There was some kind of event yesterdag but needed to go.
I'm hoping for a bit deeper story than that.
I guess I'm really looking for a newer version of the world and story I found in EVE.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
One notable example is Rust, which offers quite a lot of interaction possibilities but there is really no way to interact with anyone other than shooting them really unless you are on a special ruleset server, hopefully with a much more solid framework people can be encouraged to interact differently that isnt just KOS.
Saying that, these types of interactions did spawn the battle royale genre which is refinment ( or simplification ) of the survival genre into just the kill or be killed interaction which can be fun in it's own right, hopefully another aspect that will also appear is the opposite too where it is focused more on different interactions.
And we managed to let this little goblin attack hostile players!!
Aloha Mr Hand !
Aloha Mr Hand !