Ark: Survival Evolved Gets A Giant Ridable Kangaroo

Wikipedia tells me that the procoptodon was a “genus of giant short-faced kangaroo,” the largest of which stood around two metres tall. That makes it tall enough to ride in the world of Ark: Survival Evolved [official site], and the animals have now been added to the game for that purpose – with the twist that it can be ridden by two players simultaneously, and one rests inside the kangaroo’s pouch.

As explained in a Steam news post, the kangaroo are the first Ark animal which can carry two players simultaneously. Given the size of some of Ark’s dinosaurs, some of which are large enough to act as mobile turret platforms, that’s surprising. But the “pouch-bound passenger is able to make fully effective use of all weaponry while riding”, says the update. Here’s a video introducing the creature:

As demonstrated, the kanga can jump large distances, clearing terrain that might be hard or slow to traverse with other animals. Also the pouch thing is so cute.

Additions to Ark seem to flit between the borderline reasonable and the outright silly, depending on whether it’s introducing dinosaurs like the gigantosaurus, quetzalcoatlus and pachycephalosaurus, or crowdpleasing animals like penguins, monkeys and direwolves. The nexus between these two groups is the Sonic-inspired armadillo-dinosaur doedicurus, which can roll into a ball to protect the human riding it. That’s going to take some beating.

21 Comments

  1. TacticalNuclearPenguin says:

    I tried this one several months ago, performance was so incredibly inconsistent ( or consistently bad ) that it turned me off quite fast before i even explored some of what the game had to offer.

    does anyone have some useful advice on how it’s like today?

    • TacticalNuclearPenguin says:

      PS: that was with a 4.6 ghz 2600k, 16gb of RAM and a 980ti, also overclocked.

    • Sinjun says:

      Still virtually unplayable. No idea why they keep adding things when optimization seems like it should be the priority… I don’t know what kind of computers they’re using on these videos, must be Titan SLI’s with the most expensive CPU on the market.

    • ZedZed says:

      I play with with an i5 4690k (but not over-clocked) and an R9 280. I get about 25 -30 frames per second (with pretty high settings, apart from ground clutter turned off and draw distance turned down a bit). It’s playable for me.

    • Draconixz says:

      I have no clue what you’re doing wrong but I get a solid 35-50 FPS with high shadows and the rest on ultra with a GTX 970 and a i5 4690k, clearly you have the better card, and it’s not a CPU demanding game compared to GFX card.

      • Draconixz says:

        Not to mention they just had a major optimization patch. But if you go to steam, there are a few guides of a script you can put in the launch command which gives about 15-30 FPS on it’s own. If I were you I would give it another try. Cheers :)

        • fish99 says:

          The optimization patch did little for me. I’m also on a 970 and while I get 30-50 fps most of the time on the coasts, if you go inland or into forests, or near lots of dinos, it’s more like 25-30 fps.

          Also if you’re online and there’s lots of player structures about (esp PVE servers) you can knock off another 5-10 fps.

          It’s never unplayable, but I feel like there’s still a bunch of optimization possible.

        • TacticalNuclearPenguin says:

          Now i’m actually rethinking all of this and i’m not sure if i tried with the card i have now or the 780ti i used to have.

          That would be more in line with your card and several months ago we could expect way less optimization. Hearing others though it seems they didn’t up their game that much though, but i’ll be sure follow your suggestion and try again.

          As Fish said though, i’m more concerned with consistency, for example god knows how much i hate the super smooth Fallout 4 when i actually get to Boston rooftops and it all plummets to hell.

    • badmothergamer says:

      I have a 3770k, a 970, and 16mb ram. I average 45-50fps. There are dips and stutters but it’s getting better all the time.

    • Premium User Badge

      Wisq says:

      I’ve got two datapoints, both on extreme opposite ends of the spectrum.

      For me, I’ve got a Titan X and I still run the game on “high”, max. They specifically mention that “epic” would be e.g. for a Titan X, but either they’ve never tried it, or they think that 20 to 30 FPS is reasonable. I get 40-50 on “high”, and even “medium” isn’t enough to get me up to a solid 60.

      For my sister, she uses a Macbook Pro (fairly recent, Retina display) with an nVidia 750M GPU. That basically requires she turn everything down to very low, which looks pretty awful. But she’s able to play and fight stuff decently enough.

      So I wouldn’t say it’s *unplayable* right now, but you’ll need either very good hardware or very low standards. :) Still, it’s decently fun, mostly bug-free, and all the new content definitely feels like it’s adding to an already-great game, rather than filling in what’s missing. But yeah, they need to take a few more runs at performance.

  2. Jabberslops says:

    I bounced off this game pretty hard when I realized half the “community” were trolling new players during the free weekend. I tried about 10 servers with the exact same results of trying to started out and people constantly either trolling me or other new players asking for help.

    I’d say, only play Ark with friends, because you are likely to have a hard time alone on some random server.

    • fish99 says:

      Or just play it single player.

    • 0positivo says:

      Unofficial servers is where it’s at. I wouldn’t touch officials with a 10 foot pole

    • ZedZed says:

      There was an unofficial RPS server but it died a while ago. If you want a friendly face to show you round then let me know … I’m on a new unofficial server and happy to have you in my tribe and show you the ropes.

    • Premium User Badge

      Wisq says:

      This is strange, considering that all previous reports I’ve heard indicate that the community was one of the friendliest around. I guess that’s changed?

  3. Generico says:

    Aside from being a slightly more realistic but seemingly much shallower version of Pokemon, I still don’t know what the point of this game is. Why must I catch them all?

    • rexx.sabotage says:

      To ride in the punch, obvs.

    • ZedZed says:

      It’s a survival game first and foremost. With Dinos instead of Zombies. I’ve been playing it for a good few months now and building up a base and establishing my own little tribe never gets old. Well … for now. Plus, they bring out new dinos and gameplay regularly so there’s usually something new to play about with. Personally I’m not into hardcore PVP, but that’s there for you too if you want. With T-rexes instead of AK-47s!

  4. NephilimNexus says:

    And I thought they smelled bad on the outside.

  5. murphyslawmaker says:

    Wow that’s great… see I was thinking like maybe they could appropriately optimize the game but yeah… a ridable kangaroo… cool… because like you can already ride every single other animal that ever lived between the beginning of time and the ice age at about 4 frames per second as it is so like, we definitely needed giant kangaroos too… you know instead of the optimization thing. I’m so glad every time I check to see if they’ve made optimization updates instead I just see a ton of other shit that I can’t play.

  6. Turoc says:

    Im Playing on a Q6600@3GhZ, 8GB Corsair DDR2 and a Zotac 560Ti with 20-30 fps on low :)