Other then graphics, is the game actually different from the original version of the game?
I liked ark, but refuse to pay again for the same game.
this post was submitted on 30 May 2024
2 points (100.0% liked)
Linux Gaming
15300 readers
14 users here now
Discussions and news about gaming on the GNU/Linux family of operating systems (including the Steam Deck). Potentially a $HOME away from home for disgruntled /r/linux_gaming denizens of the redditarian demesne.
This page can be subscribed to via RSS.
Original /r/linux_gaming pengwing by uoou.
Resources
WWW:
Discord:
IRC:
Matrix:
Telegram:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
There are quality of life changes, mainly in the building, but overall it's still the same game. Graphically though, it's far superior, especially in terms of lighting.
I got the original really cheap so I didn't feel too bad paying for a new version. What does piss me off though is that while they promised "all existing DLC maps" from the original will be free, they're already releasing new paid DLC including dinos that are only available if you pay, in a still-early-access game before all the existing maps are released.
So while I enjoy the game, I can't recommend it out of principle, especially to anyone who already owns Survival Evolved.
they’re already releasing new paid DLC including dinos that are only available if you pay, in a still-early-access game before all the existing maps are released.
History repeats..
Remember, they thought it was okay to release the Switch version.
There are wild dino babies that you can take, the graphics are much nicer, the way they do mods is in game and controlled now. Some cost money.
It's not worth buying again, with the mtx in the mod shop, it should have been free or heavily discounted to owners of ark 1.
Yeah I don't give a rats ass about the graphics tbh. My 1080ti does just fine and can't justify spending 1k+ for lights.
The paid mods just confirmed to not bother. Appreciate it.