The Front

可以自定义末日战车，真的很爽！！！还能招募随从，建造家园，跟朋友开黑还是很不错的

1

刷怪多了帧有点不稳定 得要优化优化

这游戏垃圾，纯垃圾，别玩，快跑

naja was soll ich groß schreiben EU Server fast leer Server vermüllt... Spiel hängt Jahre hinterher und ist Bugy Speertreffer und Bogentreffer werden teils nicht gezählt (Multi und Singleplayer) Steuerung hart Klobig und langsam... Grafik naja auch nicht besonders gut Fazit bin großer Survival Fan aber das Spiel ist echt Grütze...

combat wonky

le jeu est toujours autant éclaté depuis sa sortie, même avec le DLSS ce n'est pas fluide, opti avec le Q, et dire qu'il est en 1.0... fuyez, allez perdre votre temps sur ARK

When I originally wrote this review in December 2025, I had 367 hours in the game. Today I have 445 hours. That's another 78 hours spent giving this game more chances because I genuinely wanted my opinion to change. It didn't. One of the first things I did before updating this review was check SteamDB to see if the game had finally found its footing. Unfortunately, the numbers tell a different story. The Front launched with an all-time peak of 19,585 concurrent players. That is an incredible launch for an indie survival game and showed there was real excitement surrounding it. Unfortunately, that excitement disappeared almost immediately. Within roughly five months, the player count had fallen to under 800 concurrent players, and it never recovered to anything close to its launch success. As I'm writing this update, the game's 24-hour peak is only 104 players. To me, that's the biggest criticism I can make. Games don't lose over 99% of their active players without a reason. I've seen comments on my original review saying, "It's a small studio—you can't expect AAA quality." I actually agree with that. I never expected perfection. I never expected every bug to be fixed overnight. Small studios have limited budgets, limited developers, and limited resources. But I do expect progress. Instead, after 445 hours, I still see many of the same problems that pushed players away years ago. One thing that has always bothered me is communication. Whenever major server problems occur, the announcement is usually something like: "We have scheduled server maintenance... For some of the unsolved issues and bugs, we will fix them in order of priority as soon as possible." That's it. No explanation of what actually happened. No explanation of what caused the issue. No explanation of what was fixed. No estimate of when the long-standing problems players have reported for months—or even years—might finally be addressed. I understand that developers can't always give every technical detail, but after supporting this game for hundreds of hours, I think players deserve better communication than generic maintenance notices every time something goes wrong. The frustrating part is that I don't hate this game. Quite the opposite. I kept playing because I genuinely believed it could become one of the best survival games on Steam. The building system, the world, and the core gameplay all had enormous potential. That's why I continued playing for another 78 hours after writing my original review. Unfortunately, those extra hours only reinforced my original opinion. I don't believe the game failed because it lacked ideas. I believe it failed to retain the community that made those ideas worth experiencing. When a game launches with nearly 20,000 concurrent players and, years later, struggles to reach 100 players during its busiest point of the day, it's difficult to ignore what those numbers are saying. I genuinely hope the developers turn things around someday. If they do, I'll happily update this review again. After 445 hours, I simply can't recommend it.