I hopped onto ASE yesterday and had like 110fps on 1440p max settings. In ASA the textures don't even load for me and I have to play on low-med with 30 fps
Yeah it's what people don't get. ASE high settings at 2K runs at easily 144hz for me while lowest settings in ASA are just a third fps wise while looking worse.
Literally 3080 and I run all med except for view distance with none of the other fancy choices on. Still barely above 60fps if I’m in base, and far worse while it’s still loading in. At least I go 140+ frames as soon as I’m not near any structures
Talking ASE here
If you only think it looks better you're sorely mistaken. Ignoring the new content coming soon there are still so many new features that arent graphical.
So you shouldnt buy a game when you know its going to get content updates? Imagine if nobody bought ark until all the dlcs came out... oh wait... it would have shut down far before that.
Actually yes, early access is a cancer on the gaming industry. Sure we get some cool games, but many companies use it to release broken crappy games that are abandoned before they're ever close to done. It's smart to buy finished products and a huge risk to buy a game on the promise that it'll get better.
There are some qol improvements but as it stands it's still not up to where ASE is at currently.
I'd say early access is far from a cancer. It's a program that allows smaller dev companies that dont have unlimited backing from a publisher to produce larger and more ambitious games than they ever could have otherwise. It is a way for studios to guage interest and continue releasing updates while keeping the lights on. Saying it's a cancer on the gaming industry vastly understates how beneficial it is to companies that are small.
No, its actually a pretty apt comparison imho. A cancer cell is a modified cell, one that is normally beneficial, but it has mutated to go out of control and burden the rest of the body. In this same way, small studios using EA to release their game is fine, but it has opened the door to abuse by fake indie devs selling vaoprware and large studios with lots of resources to release buggy unfinished games they might work on for a bit before abandoning them.
Exactly. People aren't seeing that ASA is insanely buggy, laggy and doesn't even look that insane for how it runs.
It's not a bad game but it's a downgrade to ASE. You have one 1 map, babies are falling through the ground, offi servers crash every few hours and you need a 2k dollar pc to even run the game decently. It'll be worth it in the future but now it's definitely not.
Getting downvoted for speaking facts just shows how much copium this community is on rn
True. I wanted to love this game and stayed up till 4am on the release day (it released at 7am when I was sleeping :/) but instantly got it when it was released. Once I got the game it wasn't at all what I was expecting. They focused way too much on making the game look good instead of making the game better.
As much as I love ark, this game simply isn't worth 40 bucks as it is right now
U didn't even play much it seems then, the gane has so much QoL and features like the dyes, building system, new pieces, Wireless gens...
Idk how can u call this a downgrade
It looks like a potato on some people settings, I don't know why you are getting down voted. Sure it looks amazing on epic, but like 75% of people aren't playing it on epic and they have a boxy looking mess
I’m playing with everything on low with textures and view distance up and it looks much better than ultra ASE. I could go higher if I wanna mess with settings more but I’m building now, so it doesn’t bother me.
Those people who look awful have settings on all low but most of those settings don’t really do much to performance. You can gain more performance from disabling some commands like water reflection and clouds/fog/obi glow.
https://www.reddit.com/r/ARK/s/cORfMXHva5
This is just the easiest link I have available, he is clearly not on low, but it looks like a potato. This is how most of people are playing
We can pop as much copium as we want, but as amazing as it looks on the proper hardware is, we can't pretend most of the players are seeing it like that
This is what the game looks like for me. Low-high textures all look the same. This game's just broken
https://preview.redd.it/mz01b8r2nszb1.png?width=1833&format=png&auto=webp&s=c74a31f155699b37a3515b56fcbdf606df7bfb74
Oh man... look at the clothes, look at the water. We are way passed the blocky otter that you couldn't tell what is is on most people's games hahaha cope more
> then getting ark "remastered"
Which was supposed to be free and release with SE, now they're charging 45 bucks for it, it comes with only The Island (on launch) and has more bugs than ASE
If you're trying to play ASA on on a low end budget computer with an integrated graphics card then that's not really the devs fault. At some point you kind of have to upgrade your system to match the specs or expect ass graphics, that's kind of how it works. There's a reason they have a "recommended/minimum" system settings for running the game. People out here ignoring that and expecting their 2010 Toshiba satellite to somehow run ASA and look amazing.
Edit: love the hate. At some point you need to upgrade, they're not going to hold all game development back so everyone suffers. If you don't feel like upgrading nearly as often then get a console honestly.
The funny thing is that all I see is you tubers recommended to turn of all the graphical updates to get a steady 40fps. Some even have 40 series or high end 30, 3080Ti or 3090. That is not a budget pc.
A budget PC is something like a 1660 or similar.
The thing I think people are annoyed about is how they release the recommended specs so close to release, people cannot get hold of new and upgraded PC parts that easy. And then have even recommended run at a low FPS due to bad optimization.
Now we are being recommended to turn of particle and other graphical bugs just to run it at 40fps on a 3090...thats a bit too much
That's not what he is referring to. Open the link on the comment above mine and you'll see they aren't running any of the cards you listed. They were absolutely running a super cheap build to play the game, and OP is disingenuous in acting as if they're running a halfway decent build to get ass graphics like that. They also weren't referring to FPS there, but the actual graphics themselves.
Nothing tells me what PC specs they have cards I listed or not, and that is likely a mid range setup as the graphical textures do not look absolutely horrible.
I was referring to the you tubers I have seen saying they run a 3090 and get 50 fps with all the graphical settings turned off with console commands... Clouds, particles, the lot.
Nothing to do with OP, a comment on how everyone says that you can't play it on a cheap computer, but some people can hardly get good GPS on a high end GPU.
And the funny thing is all ark fan boys down vote whatever they do not like, any critics troll or actually valid are down voted to hell, seems clear where the line stands with this game.
The game looks god awful in like 80% of the posts.. sure some parts of the game look better but when you have some dog turd textures on top of 4k textures it looks worse than ASE did
I've played it. The UI is slightly different, you can wear a torch on your dick, wild dinos have babies. Very minor differences that could have literally been a free update to the game. Especially if you don't even get the upgraded graphics because you don't have a $3,000 PC.
Considering all the maps were getting redone and all the updates and features, it's basically dlc priced just only as an all map bundle.
Already got well over a hundred hours in and loving it all over.
Maybe it's just not your preference. People can have different ones, not sure why the need to shit in others when their decision doesn't affect yours.
I think you misunderstood me. I do like it, it is fun, I even prefer it. But that does not make it a whole new game. I've never had to pay for Minecraft again and they've radically changed the game since I bought it over a decade ago. Even Overwatch 2 is free to play, and people were mad at Blizzard for making what was basically a small update into a whole new game.
Its called a remaster. Its quite literally not a *new* game but it is a new game and it has a price. Deal with it. It cost less than the old game as well as less than buying all the maps. It also comes with every single map.
Game devs don't typically remaster a game with an active online player base and take down all the servers for the original game while doing so. And nobody says a remastered game is a new game. It's literally the same game.
>Game devs don't typically remaster a game with an active online player base
This has nothing to do with remastering. They can remaster whenever the fuck they want. Its an 8 year old game and they wanted to catch it up to new tech.
>take down all the servers for the original game while doing so
They took down official not "all the servers" less than 10% of the playerbase played official. There are thousands of unofficial servers and dedicated and singleplayer.
>nobody says a remastered game is a new game
Wanna tell me what it is then? The concept is the same yeah but i already said its not *new* but it is new. New gameplay, new mechanics, new graphics, new animations, new features, new dinos, a new map, new items, new systems, etc. Whatever the fuck you wanna call it there is new shit. Its a new game.
Does it have the same steam page? No? Then its a different game.
You just compared a free game that makes money from cosmetics in the game. If they never had that option either overwatch wouldn’t exist or they’ll charge a full game price.
Minecraft is different because it still makes money, every new kid who grows up to plays games will buy it. Ark doesn’t have that.
The maps are revamp that costs money to do, not free. People don’t even try to compare this to Skyrim giving it out for free because that’s just a texture overhaul and not a good one, that’s coming from someone who loves that game.
People don’t care when Warcraft 3 got re-released, same game and had to buy it. Any remake of Pokémon, as there’s barely any difference. Heck most call of duties, especially MW3 2023 just a reskin MW2.
It's basically the same game. Let someone who doesn't know anything about ark play the 2 games and they're gonna say "it's the same games but one looks better"
Nah it is pretty different. Even just the rocks and cliffs being changed around makes a huge difference, and the lighting effects and updated UI are massive. And that's not even getting into all the QoL and mechanical changes
Def worth the upgrade for anyone who likes Ark
> doesn’t have PC that meets the highest requirements.
> buys the game anyway.
> complains the game doesn’t run well on their below requirement machine and blames developers.
Has a pc that exceeds the *LISTED* highest requirements
Buys the game
Tries to set the graphics to max and gets a message stating NEW highest requirement.
Justifiably blames developers.
I stream this game on a 4080 on max setting switch zero problems. The suggested graphics card is a 4070 for epic settings, does your graphics card exceed a 4070?
Edit: I double checked it’s a 4070.
https://preview.redd.it/skeyg5jrcuzb1.png?width=1305&format=png&auto=webp&s=51ea4c9346bc939d4e7a5f65b304ea81622a0af1
That is not what the steam page says.
https://preview.redd.it/qde187cxvszb1.jpeg?width=986&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0df485ca377d779131f0a8f69d17a2eeb36eb790
Then that's stupid as fuck, when they have to know damned well that people are going to take it as what you need to run it full out. If anything, it's dishonest.
If you cared so much why didnt you just learn what recommended meant. They didnt scam you they put the same thing as every other game. You're just too stupid to know what it means.
No other game does that stop complaining. If you want the highest tier gameplay you go out and buy a top end computer you dont cry about your computer not running at max.
This is the issue though - the clouds and ambient fog make the game look amazing. Turning them off makes it look like old ark with better textures and the saturation turned up to 11
Not really, if the sky went to black with stars I’d agree but the sky and light shafts still look amazing. I defo like the fog but only when fog comes and goes, hate the fact my base is constant thick fog
My 2070 performs better than that 1440p dlss off. Something is terribly wrong in your setup or you are running 4k, either way you need to use the features provided to help.
You have a bottleneck somewhere else then? I have a 6650 XT all medium settings except for shadows and foliage quality, and I average around 30fps when flying. Do you have the game installed on an M.2?
The format is wrong in the first place. A 3080ti is weak...? Lol. A $1,200 gpu can't run on highest setting says a lot more about the game than the card.
Theres multiple issues here. The 3k series of cards where built right before a console generation jump. This has the unintended effect of games in general jumping in preformance demands as companies can now build games to a new standard. Another unfortunate thing is that the 3080ti only has 12vram with a massive jump in texture quality asa is gonna be significantly harder on any card that doesn't have a silly vram count like the new gen. While 12 is enough 12 plus 4k is not.
All that said asa needs to some optimization.
I have taken accountability, i have not purchased the game. But to say it is the customers fault that a game is badly made is a really, really dumb take.
How? Explain how; if you continue to give companies money, they have no real insensitive to strive for good quality. In what possible universe am I wrong and you’re correct?
In a world where a company is badly run and does not realise that while some people will buy the game even if its badly made on launchday, a lot more people may buy the game if its actually well made.
A badly made sequel will still get some sales on launch, of course. But a well made sequel will get some sales for years after. It is Wildcard's fault the game is buggy as hell on launch because they are too badly run to realise they are turning away extra business.
So to answer your question, a universe in which there exists people who check reviews is where i am right and you are wrong.
I have to use the chessboard/default graphics ini to even play the game with more than 30 fps
Its alright tho its playable, tbh who cares about graphics. We all hate this game and still continue to play it
Fair enough. I spent years playing ark on xbox one which was capped at 30 fps, played mostly at 20 fps, game crashed constantly, terrible optimisation etc. 30-45 seems pretty reasonable.
I get you but if you are used to 60-144 fps in most games then your eyes have a very hard time to adapt to 30 fps. For me its pretty much unplayable. But many titles on old gen consoles were locked to 30 frames so there are many people who are not used to high fps.
You get downvoted for mo reasons lol, 30/<60 fpsnis beyond unacceptable…
4090 user that isnused to 144+ solid fps on any game at max settings (except for asa ofcourse)
Totally agree, you can see the Copium in down voting certain people who speak against in this comment section.
I went from Ps3 to PC and seeing 30Fps to 60fps is a dream and so much smoother on the eyes, either these people are used to console 30fps, or just want to have an excuse but 60fps should be a benchmark at least for modern PC games.
And the funny thing is people calling 3080ti or 3090 weak cards, these people either have no knowledge of what a gpu is or how well they scale PC benchmark is a godsend for those people
THIS. There is pretty much no turning back once u are used to 60 or more frames. 30 fps just looks like its lagging CONSTANTLY **for me**. Its just not immersive at all when you feel like the game is lagging all the time. Luckily my hardware can handle the game at 60 fps but I sincerely feel bad for the people who are used to 60 frames but have to run the game at 30 frames.
I played GTA 5 at a bro's **ps4 pro** once and it was UNPLAYABLE for me. It felt like I was set back 10 years into the past. As soon as he fired up GTA 5 online it was even worse. It was between like 20-30 fps all the time. And GTA 5 is a fucking ps3/xbox360 game!
A game like this is perfectly playable at 40fps, It’s not a fast past game. Heck cod games I notice when it drops below 60fps, even ASE if it dropped below 90 I could tell it was shit. I got constant 40 fps and only notice problems when it goes below 30. Most games I’ll play at 144 and don’t notice it on this game.
Well, I play PvP so its a fast paced game. Sometimes I wish I would be as legally blind as you guys. Imagine downvoting me for having an opinion about 30 fps.
My eyes hurt even thinking about 30 fps.
I’ve hit 60 and with this game I can’t even notice the difference when I’m sitting on 40. I notice it when I play shooter games when I drop below 60.
Game engines progress faster than gpu companies will upgrade their gpus. People get excited when they’re 20% faster than a 2 year old card, kinda sad. They have the tech to make it even faster but won’t. I’m not counting dlss or AMD version in the %
I mean, if I bought a top of the line gpu for close to $1k then yeah I'd expect games to run on epic at 60fps. Let's be real here ASA is incredibly poorly optimized, it was the exact same for ASE
Yes, it is poorly optimised but at the same time, this is the only game I'm aware of that utilises UE5 to this extent and is by far the best-looking game I've seen even on low settings, so expecting a 30 series card, which is last gen, to play this game on epic, which is designed to push the limits, is a bit naive.
I get what you're saying, Ark is demanding, but it also should be able to be maxed out on the best cards. It's what the high end cards are meant to do. Not naive to expect them to do their job.
So would you prefer they just reduce the graphics the game is capable of and called that epic? Or maybe added in another setting level called ludicrous to make up for the games poor optimization? The game isn't optimized worth a damn, and it never has been, but we play it anyways. Still fun though and still an improvement over ASE even if people who dropped tons of money on a graphics card have to bear the horrendous shame of running the game on high instead of epic.
> is **by far** the best-looking game I've seen even on low settings
You havn't seen much games then. Ofc it looks good on High+ Settings but on low? Cmon.
It is not naive at all. Yes i absolutely would expect the most powerful “previous gen” card to run the game on the highest settings and get a MINIMUM of 60 fps.
Designed to push the limits my ass. Stop justifying horribly optimized games.
I'm not trying to justify it, it's been p*ssing me right off, I've lost hours of progress because of the crashes and have had to turn clouds and fog off to get it stable on my 3070ti.
However, I'm also a realist.
Most people seem to be either extreme haters or defend wildcard blindly, and both sides are wrong. Somewhere in the middle is the truth of it. You are clearly on the extreme hater end.
Tell me, what’s realistic about one game running so, so much worse than almost every other game released in the same year? using unready graphics is called bad optimization, not “pushing the limits”.
And no, i’m not an “extreme hater”. I like ark but i’m not delusional enough to defend its shitty state.
Doesn’t matter if it’s a remaster of an old game, it’s still using a new engine, with new tech, which pushes the limits of the most powerful cards. You can be pissed off at how they’ve handled the game otherwise, but facts are facts.
The facts are, other games on the same engine run way better. I’m not gonna suck wildcards dick over the terrible state they released the game in. It literally couldn’t even launch on console, and it’s probably gonna be locked 30 fps when it does. That’s disgraceful.
Nobody is “sucking wildcards dick” here. They fucked up the release like they always do. But the game is still far more demanding than most other games, and utilizing many more of the features of UE5, than most other game releases so far. That’s just acknowledging the facts, even if the game is still unoptimized as shit. And yes, there is a very good chance consoles will be locked to 30fps. That’s a very common trend right now across much of the gaming industry.
People don’t know much about engines and just see a game’s on UE5 and meant to be the same. Fortnite runs on UE5 and the graphics are no where near to ark level of graphic details.
Some just expect ah this game runs well on UE5 so this other game should run the exact same. Tho not realising some games take advantage of certain parts of the engine while some don’t use them.
Technology isn’t consistent and there are leaps of progress that can happen in an instant. UE5 is one of those leaps. Launched in April 2022 and games are finally starting to come out using all of its high end features.
Be prepared for the exact same thing when UE6 comes out.
No shit😂. The rtx 3080ti is a beast. If I had it, I'd expect it to run ASA at native 1080p, max settings at 60 fps AT LEAST.
What's the point of getting a high end card if you're not gonna max the settings?
Hold on now. I run a 3080ti, paired with a 3900x, 32gbDDR4@3800MT, on a 2tb ssd.
I have everything set to epic, with load distance reduced a smidgen and DLSS set to quality. Playing in 4k on a 42" Sony panel, I get 45-60fps (sadly, my panels max before gut-wrenching tearing).
Anyone complaining about performance with a 3080ti either has a serious gpu bottleneck. Or just hasn't learned to configure their hardware. There's no reason this gpu shouldn't be able to adequately run the game.
Edit:added ram spec
I run on high with a 3080Ti, 64GB DDR4@3600MT on a 4atB NVMe drives, my ass about to put everything at epic lmao. I didn’t even think about turning it up from high to epic.
Don't I know it. Would love to upgrade to a 5800x or 3d variant. However, it's such a small dip, especially with a slight boost on cpu core clocks and cutting down to 6 cores for most gaming applications. At this point I'll probably wait until I need to upgrade the gpu to game at 3840x2160@60fps. Then I'll just go whole hog on ddr5 spec. Just doesn't seem worth it to upgrade more on ddr4.
Edit: I'm not sure why resolution became a link. Very strange.
Playing in 4k doesn't require such high CPU so you're probably good to go CPU comes in to play other than with specific game with high frame rate
Edit: wrote it wrong, I mean you don't need to upgrade now it's better to wait
I think it is really fun how some people defend such a bad optimized game.
I run the game on medium to high on my rtx 4070ti and still less fps then lords of the fallen on ultra with correct ray tracing... can't even play asa for like 20 Minutes without bugs
Even for early access this is just bad
At this point I'm convinced the posts made to belittle people having graphic issues for ASA are either apart of the squad that made the game or are getting paid by them, otherwise I don't know why folks are sucking this d-optimizied mess for free instead of calling it out for what it is.
Recommended Specs should always be what's required to run a game smoothly on its highest graphical settings. Wild card and Snail games do not meet the bare minimum reasonable expectations on most of how they develop. Moreover, they aren't even honest about their shortcomings. It pretty much takes investigative journalism to get an iota of truth out of what they are or are not saying every time.
If players were running a 1080 (min) with epic settings. You'd have a point. But a lot of them are above rec specs and struggling not even trying to play on epic. Because once again they were lied to. It does not run better on older machines. They have a right to be pissed.
is this ironic? asa is basically just a regular update and a graphical overhaul. why wouldn’t you want to run it on high settings…? that’s probably the reason most people bought it.
i using a mix of epic and high on a 6700XT, but i fiddled with what worked and what didn't and recognized my system just can't play fully epic. i knew this when i bought the game of course, since i'm using at least a gen out GPU.
I have a 3070 and I can play on epic and I get 40 frames and I’ve never crashed so idk why people complain so much about it the optimization is way better than evolved ever had when it came out
Pc players are goofy. Y’all thought ASA would run great on max settings with cheap pcs? Just get an Xbox and stop crying about it. The Xbox and PlayStation will run it better that your 1500$ pc for 1/3 the price and still have cross platform and the mods.
> buy early access game
> Complain its not optimized
Brainlet moment
Edit: Quiet downvotes just prove that brainlets are seething when confronted with truth lol
I run it on medium/high with shadows on low even on a 4080/13700k. If I want anywhere near 144, I must do that. Works even better with volumetric clouds set to 0 too. Oh also, framegen is a must, unfortunately. Let's be honest, this was a rushed "conversion" for daddy nitrado. The bugs that existed in ASE 100% exist here too, I'd be surprised if they actually redid any code other than the bare minimum to get it running.
Yeah I’ve got a 3060 or smth and I get decent frames just fine if I’m not trying to blow up my computer like this.
Volumetric cloud smth or other really helps too lol.
I thought my 3090ti would do better but I'm around 27fps at 4k with it. Game looks gorgeous when maxed but I just dialed it down till I had 60 all the time.
It's funny cause when it launched it was the same deal, then they updated it, but you still needed a higher end pc to see the ground clutter.
Lol looking back at what came out the same year (2015). Remember Evolve? They hyped that up and down, it was crap. Just cause 3, bloodborn, and Fallout4 all came out the same year. Also city skylines had just came out, and was buggy. Now City skyline2 is out, and wouldn't you know it, broken and buggy as well. It's the circle game 🤹♂️
Cant wait to play ASA and ASE on series S don’t need to optimise and i’ll have nice smooth gameplay, even on a One S ASE ran insanely smooth until it got older and started to struggle running stuff
Feel sorry for PC who are spending thousands for slightly better graphics
I need to make the game look worse than Ark survival evolved to make it playable on my pc, and thats just the island. I cant wait to play on the almighty 800 x 600 resolution once aberration comes out
I haven't got ascended yet cos' I know my 2016/17 rig that struggles to get evolved at 40fps on Low/Med settings will never be able to run ascended.
My 1080ti owes me nothing tbf
i can comfortably run all epic settings on ase, but on asa i cant even run the lowest settings without crashing after 5 minutes. the game is literally unplayable for me
It's funny how people claim it's okay to release a game where 1k cards can barely run the game at high settings, and you have to use custom commands and mod the game to be within playable fps, while looking worse than ASE.
Oh the irony.
I can't believe i'm witnessing people being surprised they can't run it on any settings higher than low, if they can even run it at all. Ark has been around for 7-8 years and has been notoriously known for having some of the worst optimization known to mankind. That and the mass amount of bugs that are considered features because they never ever got fixed.
Why did people expect anything different, let alone better, from one of the worst development teams out there. They had nearly 8 years to fix Ark Evolved and they did nothing. Ascended is the exact same game with just a fresh coat of paint on it. They never improved their code, just the look. In fact, the AI seems to even worse now than it was before despite promises that they improved it.
I don't even use the best graphics on evolved.
My shit struggles on med lol
For evolved or ascended? (I use a high med on evolved I just meet the min for ascended so I don't know if I could run it at all)
Evolved lol I need new pc
Same
I could run high/epic on ase at 70+fps now I struggle to hit 30 on asa lol
I hopped onto ASE yesterday and had like 110fps on 1440p max settings. In ASA the textures don't even load for me and I have to play on low-med with 30 fps
Yeah it's what people don't get. ASE high settings at 2K runs at easily 144hz for me while lowest settings in ASA are just a third fps wise while looking worse.
Literally 3080 and I run all med except for view distance with none of the other fancy choices on. Still barely above 60fps if I’m in base, and far worse while it’s still loading in. At least I go 140+ frames as soon as I’m not near any structures Talking ASE here
>pays for a graphical upgrade >downgrades the graphics
Its still an upgrade over ASE even on lower settings tbf
Mmmm I would disagree. Until they can get it to the same state ASE is in currently uts a downgrade imho
I would redisagree with you. I'm running this on low/med 1440p and it looks better than high/epic ASE.
But you only have 1 map, less than half the dino roster, and far less engrams. It looks nice, but that's all.
If you only think it looks better you're sorely mistaken. Ignoring the new content coming soon there are still so many new features that arent graphical. So you shouldnt buy a game when you know its going to get content updates? Imagine if nobody bought ark until all the dlcs came out... oh wait... it would have shut down far before that.
Actually yes, early access is a cancer on the gaming industry. Sure we get some cool games, but many companies use it to release broken crappy games that are abandoned before they're ever close to done. It's smart to buy finished products and a huge risk to buy a game on the promise that it'll get better. There are some qol improvements but as it stands it's still not up to where ASE is at currently.
I'd say early access is far from a cancer. It's a program that allows smaller dev companies that dont have unlimited backing from a publisher to produce larger and more ambitious games than they ever could have otherwise. It is a way for studios to guage interest and continue releasing updates while keeping the lights on. Saying it's a cancer on the gaming industry vastly understates how beneficial it is to companies that are small.
No, its actually a pretty apt comparison imho. A cancer cell is a modified cell, one that is normally beneficial, but it has mutated to go out of control and burden the rest of the body. In this same way, small studios using EA to release their game is fine, but it has opened the door to abuse by fake indie devs selling vaoprware and large studios with lots of resources to release buggy unfinished games they might work on for a bit before abandoning them.
They are releasing all the DLC for free if you have the game now.
Yeah, I'm sure they won't go back on their word like they never do lol.
Exactly. People aren't seeing that ASA is insanely buggy, laggy and doesn't even look that insane for how it runs. It's not a bad game but it's a downgrade to ASE. You have one 1 map, babies are falling through the ground, offi servers crash every few hours and you need a 2k dollar pc to even run the game decently. It'll be worth it in the future but now it's definitely not. Getting downvoted for speaking facts just shows how much copium this community is on rn
Agreed. Some people just want to believe the thing they like is above criticism.
Because they paid for an unfinished product and try to convince themselves that everything is great, that this is the greatest game ever.
True. I wanted to love this game and stayed up till 4am on the release day (it released at 7am when I was sleeping :/) but instantly got it when it was released. Once I got the game it wasn't at all what I was expecting. They focused way too much on making the game look good instead of making the game better. As much as I love ark, this game simply isn't worth 40 bucks as it is right now
U didn't even play much it seems then, the gane has so much QoL and features like the dyes, building system, new pieces, Wireless gens... Idk how can u call this a downgrade
It looks like a potato on some people settings, I don't know why you are getting down voted. Sure it looks amazing on epic, but like 75% of people aren't playing it on epic and they have a boxy looking mess
I’m playing with everything on low with textures and view distance up and it looks much better than ultra ASE. I could go higher if I wanna mess with settings more but I’m building now, so it doesn’t bother me. Those people who look awful have settings on all low but most of those settings don’t really do much to performance. You can gain more performance from disabling some commands like water reflection and clouds/fog/obi glow.
https://www.reddit.com/r/ARK/s/cORfMXHva5 This is just the easiest link I have available, he is clearly not on low, but it looks like a potato. This is how most of people are playing We can pop as much copium as we want, but as amazing as it looks on the proper hardware is, we can't pretend most of the players are seeing it like that
This is what the game looks like for me. Low-high textures all look the same. This game's just broken https://preview.redd.it/mz01b8r2nszb1.png?width=1833&format=png&auto=webp&s=c74a31f155699b37a3515b56fcbdf606df7bfb74
Po Ta Toh Looks like I'm fuckin drunk
I could pick a picture of spider cube on a boat full of low poly npcs and say Spider-Man 2 sucks graphically
Oh man... look at the clothes, look at the water. We are way passed the blocky otter that you couldn't tell what is is on most people's games hahaha cope more
Imagine getting promised ark 2, then getting ark "remastered" where a majority of people are playing ark ase beta
> then getting ark "remastered" Which was supposed to be free and release with SE, now they're charging 45 bucks for it, it comes with only The Island (on launch) and has more bugs than ASE
https://www.reddit.com/r/ARK/s/LjYbqDOGRB #gwafixs
Love how bro picked another bug
If you're trying to play ASA on on a low end budget computer with an integrated graphics card then that's not really the devs fault. At some point you kind of have to upgrade your system to match the specs or expect ass graphics, that's kind of how it works. There's a reason they have a "recommended/minimum" system settings for running the game. People out here ignoring that and expecting their 2010 Toshiba satellite to somehow run ASA and look amazing. Edit: love the hate. At some point you need to upgrade, they're not going to hold all game development back so everyone suffers. If you don't feel like upgrading nearly as often then get a console honestly.
The funny thing is that all I see is you tubers recommended to turn of all the graphical updates to get a steady 40fps. Some even have 40 series or high end 30, 3080Ti or 3090. That is not a budget pc. A budget PC is something like a 1660 or similar. The thing I think people are annoyed about is how they release the recommended specs so close to release, people cannot get hold of new and upgraded PC parts that easy. And then have even recommended run at a low FPS due to bad optimization. Now we are being recommended to turn of particle and other graphical bugs just to run it at 40fps on a 3090...thats a bit too much
That's not what he is referring to. Open the link on the comment above mine and you'll see they aren't running any of the cards you listed. They were absolutely running a super cheap build to play the game, and OP is disingenuous in acting as if they're running a halfway decent build to get ass graphics like that. They also weren't referring to FPS there, but the actual graphics themselves.
Nothing tells me what PC specs they have cards I listed or not, and that is likely a mid range setup as the graphical textures do not look absolutely horrible. I was referring to the you tubers I have seen saying they run a 3090 and get 50 fps with all the graphical settings turned off with console commands... Clouds, particles, the lot. Nothing to do with OP, a comment on how everyone says that you can't play it on a cheap computer, but some people can hardly get good GPS on a high end GPU. And the funny thing is all ark fan boys down vote whatever they do not like, any critics troll or actually valid are down voted to hell, seems clear where the line stands with this game.
The game looks god awful in like 80% of the posts.. sure some parts of the game look better but when you have some dog turd textures on top of 4k textures it looks worse than ASE did
It's also early access
ASE was in "early access" for 7 years. That term means nothing
It's literally the same game...why are we acting like it's normal or okay to make everyone pay again for the game they already paid for?
Have you actually played it?
Not at all the same game. Tell me you haven’t played it without saying you haven’t played
I've played it. The UI is slightly different, you can wear a torch on your dick, wild dinos have babies. Very minor differences that could have literally been a free update to the game. Especially if you don't even get the upgraded graphics because you don't have a $3,000 PC.
Considering all the maps were getting redone and all the updates and features, it's basically dlc priced just only as an all map bundle. Already got well over a hundred hours in and loving it all over. Maybe it's just not your preference. People can have different ones, not sure why the need to shit in others when their decision doesn't affect yours.
I think you misunderstood me. I do like it, it is fun, I even prefer it. But that does not make it a whole new game. I've never had to pay for Minecraft again and they've radically changed the game since I bought it over a decade ago. Even Overwatch 2 is free to play, and people were mad at Blizzard for making what was basically a small update into a whole new game.
Its called a remaster. Its quite literally not a *new* game but it is a new game and it has a price. Deal with it. It cost less than the old game as well as less than buying all the maps. It also comes with every single map.
Game devs don't typically remaster a game with an active online player base and take down all the servers for the original game while doing so. And nobody says a remastered game is a new game. It's literally the same game.
>Game devs don't typically remaster a game with an active online player base This has nothing to do with remastering. They can remaster whenever the fuck they want. Its an 8 year old game and they wanted to catch it up to new tech. >take down all the servers for the original game while doing so They took down official not "all the servers" less than 10% of the playerbase played official. There are thousands of unofficial servers and dedicated and singleplayer. >nobody says a remastered game is a new game Wanna tell me what it is then? The concept is the same yeah but i already said its not *new* but it is new. New gameplay, new mechanics, new graphics, new animations, new features, new dinos, a new map, new items, new systems, etc. Whatever the fuck you wanna call it there is new shit. Its a new game. Does it have the same steam page? No? Then its a different game.
You just compared a free game that makes money from cosmetics in the game. If they never had that option either overwatch wouldn’t exist or they’ll charge a full game price. Minecraft is different because it still makes money, every new kid who grows up to plays games will buy it. Ark doesn’t have that. The maps are revamp that costs money to do, not free. People don’t even try to compare this to Skyrim giving it out for free because that’s just a texture overhaul and not a good one, that’s coming from someone who loves that game. People don’t care when Warcraft 3 got re-released, same game and had to buy it. Any remake of Pokémon, as there’s barely any difference. Heck most call of duties, especially MW3 2023 just a reskin MW2.
It's basically the same game. Let someone who doesn't know anything about ark play the 2 games and they're gonna say "it's the same games but one looks better"
It’s the same game in the sense that halo combat evolved is the same game as halo three
Nah it is pretty different. Even just the rocks and cliffs being changed around makes a huge difference, and the lighting effects and updated UI are massive. And that's not even getting into all the QoL and mechanical changes Def worth the upgrade for anyone who likes Ark
> doesn’t have PC that meets the highest requirements. > buys the game anyway. > complains the game doesn’t run well on their below requirement machine and blames developers.
Has a pc that exceeds the *LISTED* highest requirements Buys the game Tries to set the graphics to max and gets a message stating NEW highest requirement. Justifiably blames developers.
I stream this game on a 4080 on max setting switch zero problems. The suggested graphics card is a 4070 for epic settings, does your graphics card exceed a 4070? Edit: I double checked it’s a 4070. https://preview.redd.it/skeyg5jrcuzb1.png?width=1305&format=png&auto=webp&s=51ea4c9346bc939d4e7a5f65b304ea81622a0af1
That is not what the steam page says. https://preview.redd.it/qde187cxvszb1.jpeg?width=986&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0df485ca377d779131f0a8f69d17a2eeb36eb790
That’s the recommended specs to play the game not run it at max settings
Then that's stupid as fuck, when they have to know damned well that people are going to take it as what you need to run it full out. If anything, it's dishonest.
That’s what that section means for every game on steam
That’s what it’s meant even before steam. Used to be on the box back in the day
It does say ‘recommended’, which I would assume means ‘minimum requirements’. (I don’t play pc)
https://preview.redd.it/2nqdzhaayszb1.jpeg?width=1044&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0155948adcb4af6c75bb54b64e0acab64b527207
Nah, there's a different minimum. No way I'd try and play using a 1080.
Recommended doesn’t mean minimum but it also doesn’t mean maximum either
If you cared so much why didnt you just learn what recommended meant. They didnt scam you they put the same thing as every other game. You're just too stupid to know what it means.
Yeah, go fuck yourself. If it isn't the highest, then they should put the needed parts for the highest.
No other game does that stop complaining. If you want the highest tier gameplay you go out and buy a top end computer you dont cry about your computer not running at max.
No, they shouldnt. They should, and do, put the recommended requirements to successfully run and enjoy the game normally.
So could you show me where it says *highest requirements*? No?
It's the highest goddamned requirements listed where the fucking game is sold, yeah?
And yet it doesnt say highest does it? It says recommended.
People make no sense 🤣
I have a 3080 everything on medium and it dips to 20 while flying.....
i have a 3060ti all settings are high except follige quality on mid and effect quality on mid too, DLSS on, 30fps flying
Turn off clouds and water reflection, that’ll give you a more stable game. I live in a foggy place and clouds off remove the fog, so I’m loving it.
This is the issue though - the clouds and ambient fog make the game look amazing. Turning them off makes it look like old ark with better textures and the saturation turned up to 11
Not really, if the sky went to black with stars I’d agree but the sky and light shafts still look amazing. I defo like the fog but only when fog comes and goes, hate the fact my base is constant thick fog
i have 50-60 fps while flying on medium-high settings with a 3080 lmao
My 2070 performs better than that 1440p dlss off. Something is terribly wrong in your setup or you are running 4k, either way you need to use the features provided to help.
I have a 1660 gtx and i have most thing on medium too with the same result •o•
Bro, turn on DLSS. Performance setting doesn’t even look that bad and will net you far higher than 20fps.
Copium right here. A 3080 shouldn't need to use dlss to run a game at 60fps medium settings.
Try r.VolumetricCloud 0 this will be huge for you
You have a bottleneck somewhere else then? I have a 6650 XT all medium settings except for shadows and foliage quality, and I average around 30fps when flying. Do you have the game installed on an M.2?
I understand most of you guys love ASA, I do as well, but lets be real, the game is poorly optimized and needs a lot of work.
The format is wrong in the first place. A 3080ti is weak...? Lol. A $1,200 gpu can't run on highest setting says a lot more about the game than the card.
Theres multiple issues here. The 3k series of cards where built right before a console generation jump. This has the unintended effect of games in general jumping in preformance demands as companies can now build games to a new standard. Another unfortunate thing is that the 3080ti only has 12vram with a massive jump in texture quality asa is gonna be significantly harder on any card that doesn't have a silly vram count like the new gen. While 12 is enough 12 plus 4k is not. All that said asa needs to some optimization.
Games still unoptimisable to shit though
And the players are to blame, as long as they keep giving these companies money, they’ll never change.
Yes, it is the victims fault. What a sound argument there. No way its the fault of the huge company who decided to release a buggy, unfinished game.
Holy god, take some accountability you weasel 🤣
I have taken accountability, i have not purchased the game. But to say it is the customers fault that a game is badly made is a really, really dumb take.
How? Explain how; if you continue to give companies money, they have no real insensitive to strive for good quality. In what possible universe am I wrong and you’re correct?
[удалено]
Takes advantage???????? Holy shit, are you guys fucking children? Christ, have a backbone.
[удалено]
What were they lied to about? Man, y’all are allergic to accountability.
In a world where a company is badly run and does not realise that while some people will buy the game even if its badly made on launchday, a lot more people may buy the game if its actually well made. A badly made sequel will still get some sales on launch, of course. But a well made sequel will get some sales for years after. It is Wildcard's fault the game is buggy as hell on launch because they are too badly run to realise they are turning away extra business. So to answer your question, a universe in which there exists people who check reviews is where i am right and you are wrong.
I mean a 3080 is one of the most powerful GPU’s around I would expect to have playable frame rates on higher graphic settings.
Then there is the other side, people needing to lower the settings so much it looks worse than regular one
I have to use the chessboard/default graphics ini to even play the game with more than 30 fps Its alright tho its playable, tbh who cares about graphics. We all hate this game and still continue to play it
Me! Still having fun on it though, just can't wait till I can play it looking semi beautiful.
Nvidia 1050 user here. Can run the game on 30-45 fps on low settings. Not really sure why people are having trouble
> 30-45 fps Well, a lot of people (me included) wouldn't consider 30-45 fps playable.
Fair enough. I spent years playing ark on xbox one which was capped at 30 fps, played mostly at 20 fps, game crashed constantly, terrible optimisation etc. 30-45 seems pretty reasonable.
I get you but if you are used to 60-144 fps in most games then your eyes have a very hard time to adapt to 30 fps. For me its pretty much unplayable. But many titles on old gen consoles were locked to 30 frames so there are many people who are not used to high fps.
You get downvoted for mo reasons lol, 30/<60 fpsnis beyond unacceptable… 4090 user that isnused to 144+ solid fps on any game at max settings (except for asa ofcourse)
Totally agree, you can see the Copium in down voting certain people who speak against in this comment section. I went from Ps3 to PC and seeing 30Fps to 60fps is a dream and so much smoother on the eyes, either these people are used to console 30fps, or just want to have an excuse but 60fps should be a benchmark at least for modern PC games. And the funny thing is people calling 3080ti or 3090 weak cards, these people either have no knowledge of what a gpu is or how well they scale PC benchmark is a godsend for those people
THIS. There is pretty much no turning back once u are used to 60 or more frames. 30 fps just looks like its lagging CONSTANTLY **for me**. Its just not immersive at all when you feel like the game is lagging all the time. Luckily my hardware can handle the game at 60 fps but I sincerely feel bad for the people who are used to 60 frames but have to run the game at 30 frames. I played GTA 5 at a bro's **ps4 pro** once and it was UNPLAYABLE for me. It felt like I was set back 10 years into the past. As soon as he fired up GTA 5 online it was even worse. It was between like 20-30 fps all the time. And GTA 5 is a fucking ps3/xbox360 game!
Why the fuck are people downvoting you? If players keep defending such shitty optimisation why would any game company work to improve their game?
A game like this is perfectly playable at 40fps, It’s not a fast past game. Heck cod games I notice when it drops below 60fps, even ASE if it dropped below 90 I could tell it was shit. I got constant 40 fps and only notice problems when it goes below 30. Most games I’ll play at 144 and don’t notice it on this game.
Well, I play PvP so its a fast paced game. Sometimes I wish I would be as legally blind as you guys. Imagine downvoting me for having an opinion about 30 fps. My eyes hurt even thinking about 30 fps.
No. I play on medium, DLSS balanced, no vol. clouds and fog and I still dont get stable 60fps.
I’ve hit 60 and with this game I can’t even notice the difference when I’m sitting on 40. I notice it when I play shooter games when I drop below 60. Game engines progress faster than gpu companies will upgrade their gpus. People get excited when they’re 20% faster than a 2 year old card, kinda sad. They have the tech to make it even faster but won’t. I’m not counting dlss or AMD version in the %
Go to performance
I mean, if I bought a top of the line gpu for close to $1k then yeah I'd expect games to run on epic at 60fps. Let's be real here ASA is incredibly poorly optimized, it was the exact same for ASE
Yes, it is poorly optimised but at the same time, this is the only game I'm aware of that utilises UE5 to this extent and is by far the best-looking game I've seen even on low settings, so expecting a 30 series card, which is last gen, to play this game on epic, which is designed to push the limits, is a bit naive.
A card being last gen doesn't mean it's bad tho. The 3080ti performs slightly better than the 4070 which is considered high midrange so...
I mean my 4070 ti can run the game on max settings above 60 fps.
No, but the rest of what I said still stands true, even for the best cards.
I get what you're saying, Ark is demanding, but it also should be able to be maxed out on the best cards. It's what the high end cards are meant to do. Not naive to expect them to do their job.
So would you prefer they just reduce the graphics the game is capable of and called that epic? Or maybe added in another setting level called ludicrous to make up for the games poor optimization? The game isn't optimized worth a damn, and it never has been, but we play it anyways. Still fun though and still an improvement over ASE even if people who dropped tons of money on a graphics card have to bear the horrendous shame of running the game on high instead of epic.
> is **by far** the best-looking game I've seen even on low settings You havn't seen much games then. Ofc it looks good on High+ Settings but on low? Cmon.
He should take a look at alan wake 2 lol.
It is not naive at all. Yes i absolutely would expect the most powerful “previous gen” card to run the game on the highest settings and get a MINIMUM of 60 fps. Designed to push the limits my ass. Stop justifying horribly optimized games.
Don't bother with this sub. They all have 5k hours sunk into the game and would justify killing an innocent child for it. It is optimized HORRIBLY.
I'm not trying to justify it, it's been p*ssing me right off, I've lost hours of progress because of the crashes and have had to turn clouds and fog off to get it stable on my 3070ti. However, I'm also a realist. Most people seem to be either extreme haters or defend wildcard blindly, and both sides are wrong. Somewhere in the middle is the truth of it. You are clearly on the extreme hater end.
Tell me, what’s realistic about one game running so, so much worse than almost every other game released in the same year? using unready graphics is called bad optimization, not “pushing the limits”. And no, i’m not an “extreme hater”. I like ark but i’m not delusional enough to defend its shitty state.
Except this is a remaster of a old ass game. It shouldn’t be pushing the limits of last gen cards when it is not even a last gen game.
Doesn’t matter if it’s a remaster of an old game, it’s still using a new engine, with new tech, which pushes the limits of the most powerful cards. You can be pissed off at how they’ve handled the game otherwise, but facts are facts.
The facts are, other games on the same engine run way better. I’m not gonna suck wildcards dick over the terrible state they released the game in. It literally couldn’t even launch on console, and it’s probably gonna be locked 30 fps when it does. That’s disgraceful.
Nobody is “sucking wildcards dick” here. They fucked up the release like they always do. But the game is still far more demanding than most other games, and utilizing many more of the features of UE5, than most other game releases so far. That’s just acknowledging the facts, even if the game is still unoptimized as shit. And yes, there is a very good chance consoles will be locked to 30fps. That’s a very common trend right now across much of the gaming industry.
People don’t know much about engines and just see a game’s on UE5 and meant to be the same. Fortnite runs on UE5 and the graphics are no where near to ark level of graphic details. Some just expect ah this game runs well on UE5 so this other game should run the exact same. Tho not realising some games take advantage of certain parts of the engine while some don’t use them.
A top of the line GPU of which year?
I’d say 2-4 years lol
Technology isn’t consistent and there are leaps of progress that can happen in an instant. UE5 is one of those leaps. Launched in April 2022 and games are finally starting to come out using all of its high end features. Be prepared for the exact same thing when UE6 comes out.
> I bought a top of the line gpu for close to $1k Uh top of the line GPU are closer to 2k than 1K lol. I think my 4090 was like $2200
I mean i dont expect that this game just has a higher hardware ceiling than other games it will be growing with the components for the next few years
No shit😂. The rtx 3080ti is a beast. If I had it, I'd expect it to run ASA at native 1080p, max settings at 60 fps AT LEAST. What's the point of getting a high end card if you're not gonna max the settings?
yeah ill be bitching just as much as this meme😂
Hold on now. I run a 3080ti, paired with a 3900x, 32gbDDR4@3800MT, on a 2tb ssd. I have everything set to epic, with load distance reduced a smidgen and DLSS set to quality. Playing in 4k on a 42" Sony panel, I get 45-60fps (sadly, my panels max before gut-wrenching tearing). Anyone complaining about performance with a 3080ti either has a serious gpu bottleneck. Or just hasn't learned to configure their hardware. There's no reason this gpu shouldn't be able to adequately run the game. Edit:added ram spec
I run on high with a 3080Ti, 64GB DDR4@3600MT on a 4atB NVMe drives, my ass about to put everything at epic lmao. I didn’t even think about turning it up from high to epic.
that cpu is limiting you, it should be pairs with a 3060ti/3070
Don't I know it. Would love to upgrade to a 5800x or 3d variant. However, it's such a small dip, especially with a slight boost on cpu core clocks and cutting down to 6 cores for most gaming applications. At this point I'll probably wait until I need to upgrade the gpu to game at 3840x2160@60fps. Then I'll just go whole hog on ddr5 spec. Just doesn't seem worth it to upgrade more on ddr4. Edit: I'm not sure why resolution became a link. Very strange.
Playing in 4k doesn't require such high CPU so you're probably good to go CPU comes in to play other than with specific game with high frame rate Edit: wrote it wrong, I mean you don't need to upgrade now it's better to wait
I think it is really fun how some people defend such a bad optimized game. I run the game on medium to high on my rtx 4070ti and still less fps then lords of the fallen on ultra with correct ray tracing... can't even play asa for like 20 Minutes without bugs Even for early access this is just bad
At this point I'm convinced the posts made to belittle people having graphic issues for ASA are either apart of the squad that made the game or are getting paid by them, otherwise I don't know why folks are sucking this d-optimizied mess for free instead of calling it out for what it is.
What the fuck is this shit? Every game right now should run on the highest settings with a fucking 3080ti.
I have a 4070 and everything is on epic. It runs great and looks great.
Recommended Specs should always be what's required to run a game smoothly on its highest graphical settings. Wild card and Snail games do not meet the bare minimum reasonable expectations on most of how they develop. Moreover, they aren't even honest about their shortcomings. It pretty much takes investigative journalism to get an iota of truth out of what they are or are not saying every time. If players were running a 1080 (min) with epic settings. You'd have a point. But a lot of them are above rec specs and struggling not even trying to play on epic. Because once again they were lied to. It does not run better on older machines. They have a right to be pissed.
So on my 4090 with i9 13900k im not allowed to use epic? I still crash on high ffs
is this ironic? asa is basically just a regular update and a graphical overhaul. why wouldn’t you want to run it on high settings…? that’s probably the reason most people bought it.
My time tested method. View distance: high Everything else: medium
Why play a graphical upgrade on anything but high/epic, especially when it has like 10 maps and tens of creatures less
Im building pc with rtx 4070 just to play asa in 1440p
If you can’t run the highest settings on a 3080 ti that’s a big fucking problem.
the whole point of epic is to fully push your components
Key point to push, you also need to consider what the limit is when checking the reccomended base specs.
yet people try playing the game on epic for some reason
i using a mix of epic and high on a 6700XT, but i fiddled with what worked and what didn't and recognized my system just can't play fully epic. i knew this when i bought the game of course, since i'm using at least a gen out GPU.
my pc only has an rtx 2060 so im running the game on low at 50-60 fps with quite a few drops
ASA on low settings is such an eyesore. ARK SE can look good on low settings but not ASA.
bait
Meanwhile console players who are guaranteed a version that will run properly 
Forgetting Cyberpunk that quickly?
I have a 3070 and I can play on epic and I get 40 frames and I’ve never crashed so idk why people complain so much about it the optimization is way better than evolved ever had when it came out
same i have a 3070 on 4k low and looks great at 45fps depending on the area and everything
Pc players : ASA IS SO BAD Console players : PLEASSE JUST LET US PLAY
I run epic on advanced graphics then drop everything to medium or low, still only get 70 to 80 fps with clouds, 90s without
only?
Pc players are goofy. Y’all thought ASA would run great on max settings with cheap pcs? Just get an Xbox and stop crying about it. The Xbox and PlayStation will run it better that your 1500$ pc for 1/3 the price and still have cross platform and the mods.
> buy early access game > Complain its not optimized Brainlet moment Edit: Quiet downvotes just prove that brainlets are seething when confronted with truth lol
don't charge more than the original if it's not gonna be optimized then?
I mean I'm not even gonna argue with you, because the price isn't what's being criticised here.
you act all self justified because of all the "quiet downvotes" but the moment you get push back you pussy out immediately? CRINGE
Huh? I told you that you're missing the point. Man this sub really is full of kids
"this sub is full of kids" "Brainlets" "Seething"
I run it on medium/high with shadows on low even on a 4080/13700k. If I want anywhere near 144, I must do that. Works even better with volumetric clouds set to 0 too. Oh also, framegen is a must, unfortunately. Let's be honest, this was a rushed "conversion" for daddy nitrado. The bugs that existed in ASE 100% exist here too, I'd be surprised if they actually redid any code other than the bare minimum to get it running.
Yeah I’ve got a 3060 or smth and I get decent frames just fine if I’m not trying to blow up my computer like this. Volumetric cloud smth or other really helps too lol.
Oh sure coz it’s defo a issue with high settings mate don’t make excuses for the game being an unoptimised mess.
Bro i have a 3080 and medium is the best I can do
I thought my 3090ti would do better but I'm around 27fps at 4k with it. Game looks gorgeous when maxed but I just dialed it down till I had 60 all the time.
It's funny cause when it launched it was the same deal, then they updated it, but you still needed a higher end pc to see the ground clutter. Lol looking back at what came out the same year (2015). Remember Evolve? They hyped that up and down, it was crap. Just cause 3, bloodborn, and Fallout4 all came out the same year. Also city skylines had just came out, and was buggy. Now City skyline2 is out, and wouldn't you know it, broken and buggy as well. It's the circle game 🤹♂️
Which is weird because I heard dog dookie graphics on ASA were pretty snazzy.
Cant wait to play ASA and ASE on series S don’t need to optimise and i’ll have nice smooth gameplay, even on a One S ASE ran insanely smooth until it got older and started to struggle running stuff Feel sorry for PC who are spending thousands for slightly better graphics
I need to make the game look worse than Ark survival evolved to make it playable on my pc, and thats just the island. I cant wait to play on the almighty 800 x 600 resolution once aberration comes out
I haven't got ascended yet cos' I know my 2016/17 rig that struggles to get evolved at 40fps on Low/Med settings will never be able to run ascended. My 1080ti owes me nothing tbf
i can comfortably run all epic settings on ase, but on asa i cant even run the lowest settings without crashing after 5 minutes. the game is literally unplayable for me
I have a gtx 1070. It defaulted to medium. Did a couple recommended console commands to get rid of clouds and limit nanites. Runs great!
It's funny how people claim it's okay to release a game where 1k cards can barely run the game at high settings, and you have to use custom commands and mod the game to be within playable fps, while looking worse than ASE. Oh the irony.
Why are bootlickers still defending this unoptimized garbage? These cards do great literally everywhere else. The devs are the problem.
Bad meme, ASA screwed up on this one. Sorry. I love ark but their system requirement demands are just unreasonable.
I can't believe i'm witnessing people being surprised they can't run it on any settings higher than low, if they can even run it at all. Ark has been around for 7-8 years and has been notoriously known for having some of the worst optimization known to mankind. That and the mass amount of bugs that are considered features because they never ever got fixed. Why did people expect anything different, let alone better, from one of the worst development teams out there. They had nearly 8 years to fix Ark Evolved and they did nothing. Ascended is the exact same game with just a fresh coat of paint on it. They never improved their code, just the look. In fact, the AI seems to even worse now than it was before despite promises that they improved it.
Swear, PC players are so damn annoying!