HOME | DD
Paleop — What Ark survival evolved could Have Done
#makeaccuracygreatagain #tyrannosaurusrex
Published: 2016-03-15 00:30:15 +0000 UTC; Views: 5160; Favourites: 53; Downloads: 6
Redirect to original
Description
So, I found out about Ark survival evolved back when the game was in it's 'infancy'.a problem that has always nagged me about this game was that all of the dinosaurs were inaccurate to their real life counterparts. Now, these dinosaurs and plethora of other animals lumped into this 'category' including, but not limited to: dire wolfs, dimetrodons, pterosaurs, etc. are all referred to as separate species (ie. Pteranodon 'wyvernus') as a way of justifying the changes from their real life counterparts.
The problems with that approach are:
A. they are referred to as different species of the same genre as the real life counterpart.
b. the ark dinosaurs are vastly different than their real life counterparts.
which means?
A & B. since they are referred to on a species level they should only have minor differences between them and the real life counterparts. to add to this: since most of them are vastly different from the real animals to the point of being entirely different 'animals'; they cannot be classified under the same genus and thus, cannot share the same genus name. ie. 'tyrannosaurus' dominum should not be tyrannosaurus.
that's just not how scientific classification works.
so now that I'm done ripping ark a new one, by dethroning a popular argument as to why it's dinosaurs don't have to resemble real dinosaurs at all; let me explain the scale in front of you. (in all seriousness while I hate the majority of them, I do happen to like some of ark's 'dinos')
This scale is demonstrating what a realistic/plausible version of ark's 'rex' might look like from a more scientific perspective. It does share similarities with ark's 'rex' such as the broader and larger skull as well as the bulkier build, while at the same time having additions made in the form of feathers and more plausible proportions.
I may do more of these in the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------
still, I am concerned about ark's popularity. while not inherently evil it has infected the youth's perception of dinosaurs(as my observations have concluded).
also funny that when searching pteranodon the ark wiki link appears above the Wikipedia link for the actual animal.
(note I don't intend any offence toward ark's creators, nor do I have a gripe about ark's popularity, I just don't care for some of the influence it's had on extinct animals in media)
Related content
Comments: 102
The isle isn't trying to be accurate
nor have they claimed to ever be
I think the recent stegosaurus and spinosaurus models are enough proof of that. Any traces of accuracy in the isle are usually just a side effect of Baardo being the modeler, and Fred being involved with concept art.
If it really annoys you that much that someone you don't even know presumably doesn't like your game of choice and you based this entirely on a chart from several years ago you have issues. Opinions change, people mature. I don't give a shit about ark, but that doesn't mean I hate it. The isle is not accurate, but I play the shit out of it.
If I was going onto ark forums and crusading against ark I would actually be in support your comment; however the chart is harmless and contained, and you've went out of your way to bring an argument where it would do no good.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You complained how Ark was inaccurate and harmful to media, most people grew up on Jurassic Park and the same logic can be applied to that. Instead, a lot of people became more interested in dinosaurs which lead them to become paleontologists and more studies have been made in the last decade that really shaped the image of dinosaurs and how we see them.
Stop complaining about games and movies being inaccurate, when they never said they were trying to be. This post doesn't do any good and just sets you up for failure.
Tired of people like you saying, "This game isn't accurate!" or, "This creates a false image of dinosaurs!".
Shut up and enjoy the game.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
k
I don't know if you've taken the time to look around, but I haven't made a journal like that in years.
I don't even care that ark is inaccurate anymore.
I don't find the art style and creature design appealing in the slightest, but I'm not going to tell people what they can or can't like.
Complaining about a long extinct stance on a post I made several years ago that has only got traffic in the last week due to you and that other guy leaving comments on it isn't going to do any more good than posting the same comment on a cooking channel. You are basically doing the same thing I was, but from the opposite side of the argument. You're doing the equivalent of fighting a ghost.
I have virtually no interest in playing ark, and you telling me to shut up and enjoy is isn't going to win me over.
I don't hate ark. But I strongly dislike those who tell me what to like and not like.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I don't need a paragraph response, I already lost interest.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
well then you shouldn't have replied
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
hm never heard this specifically
"artificially created to be recognizable to the normal eye"
Still wouldn't make phylogenic sense to call them the genus, but hey it's a video game and doesn't have to be realistic.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Now for a genuine question, are there any theories as to why T. Rex only had feathers on its back but none on its tail? (in your depiction)
I ask because curiosity and Dinosaurs are my life
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
We have scales from it's tail. if there were any tail feathers they would have to have been on the top. That said, scales found on the front of the ilium pretty much kill that theory.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
While I agree about the scientific integrity when it comes to how accurate the dinosaurs designs are, I personally, find Ark incredibly fun and I will continue to support it. I feel they are allowed artistic freedom, especially when it comes to extinct animals, plus the entire game is fiction considering the survivors have to survive a controlled enviroment....controlled by I don't even know what.
I understand the points you're trying to make and I support these points, but well....two points I would like to bring to the table.
One, if other people are like me, they will read about these creatures in an effort to learn more about them and in doing so, realize Ark's mistakes.
My second point is well, artistic freedom and the fact that while science proves some things for certain we will never be 100% sure what Dinosaurs were like when they were alive, never. You can only tell so much from century old bones, dna and maybe some skin flakes.
My point is, they did a hell of a lot better than most dinosaur games and I appreciate that they have pretty much created their own species, to me it feels like whatever alien lifeforms that have teleported humans to these islands took dinosaur dna and kinda made their own things from it.
But if you would like, you can ignore everything I said because it's just an opinion and you're entitled to your opinions. I will however watch you because I LOVE scientifically accurate dinosaur art.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Tbh I don't care as much about ark anymore.
I'm done with the realistic or accurate ark shit. Even if it was a thought expirement
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Giganotosaurus deserves this. G.furiosa's size is BS. Should be closer to G.carolinii.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I sincerely doubt that ARK wanted to influence the way Dinosaurs are perceived as they have clearly stated they didn't want to go hyper-accurate like Saurian, but instead wanted to warrant some artistic-freedom with their species as Dinosaurs are badass and all, but still, there's limited ways that extinct species can be useful. what's the use of having a smilodon if you have a T.rex. so they will be giving every critter a specific alteration to give them a use.
Besides, what's the use of complaining about something being inaccurate when the devs have already pointed out as such
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
just because it's not intended, does not mean it can't happen.
I can get behind the idea of wanting artistic freedom, but I ain't gonna color an anchiornis bright pink.
well, for starters a smilodon more likely to be tamable throughout it's whole life. a t rex most likely won't be tamable after a certain age. Also takes up less resources (Ie. food water, space)
-----
Because they use the different species excuse. I'd rather people got to explore a world with more realistic and perhaps interesting animals (aka a feathered t rex with normal proportions instead of bobble-head mcgee,) why? because it's something different and more unique than the countless games with their use of awesomebro logic, dominating the media. I'm just a little tired of the norm and would like to see a game with a similar premise, but with a smarter (and potentially plausible ecosystem.)
-----
as for why I'm complaining (aka; addressing my concerns):
because I can,
is it harming anyone that I made plausible renditions of ark's species?
Showing an alternate path they may have walked?
not to mention, if some one says something is inaccurate, shouldn't someone say why so people understand?
-----
I don't hate ark, the game looks good, but I won't support them
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
actually, there's a great little deviantartist I found awhile back "the gentlemanscientist" I recommend you look at his deviants on Dinosaurian integuments, and see what we actually have evidence wise, as we have skin under the Tyrannosaurus' neck but no integuments elsewhere, meaning it's as likely for Rex to be feathered as it is to have skin, As for Colours and the like they're keeping most animals' colours quite tame, by artistic freedom I simply meant genetic mutations to give each animal it's own "niche" on the Island, after all these are the same animals that we dig up, and they're trying to emphasise it, and ARK is a damn sight closer to reality than so many people I know, least they're not calling Cockroaches Dinosaurs.
as for this
"not to mention, if some one says something is inaccurate, shouldn't someone say why so people understand?"
The devs have stated why they've gone with some freedom for these creatures alot of times on both the Steam forums and the ARK forums on the "Survive the ark" website.
you're beating a dead horse at this point, there are thousands of threads attempting to rip the devs apart for "inaccurate" renditions of animals no-one has seen, and haven't been seen by any animal for the better part of the last one hundred million years.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I have met trey before. I have mentioned his DA before. I fricken supplied him with all the silhouettes he needed to make one of his charts agentlemanscientist.deviantart…
I HAVE EVEN BEEN GIVEN SPECIAL THANKS IN ONE OF HIS VIDEOS. (the T.rex one)
and since you might want to see, here's my remake of his chart: paleop.deviantart.com/journal/ How-to-Tyrannosaurs-629563293
there is no integument data from the neck of Tyrannosaurus. the only skin is from the belly.
""not to mention, if some one says something is inaccurate, shouldn't someone say why so people understand?"
The devs have stated why they've gone with some freedom for these creatures alot of times on both the Steam forums and the ARK forums on the "Survive the ark" website. "
------------------
cough* I asked "not to mention, if some one says something is inaccurate, shouldn't someone say why so people understand"
to make the sentences intention clearer: If they know it is inaccurate, shouldn't I be allowed to say why/how it is?
you didn't answer the question.
------------------
"after all these are the same animals that we dig up, and they're trying to emphasise it"
then why not make them accurate to current data?
as for colors: I know they are relatively subdued in color, but that's not the point. I used the pink
here's the thing, I wouldn't have so much of a problem with ark if they didn't use the different species approach it seems like a cop out to me.
to be quite frank, your'e beating the dead horse. I haven't uploaded a WASECHD in quite some time.
and I will restate: the point of these are to show an alternative of what ark could have been if it wanted to take a more grounded approach where it made plausible species that could have fit quite nicely into the earth's history.
so,
what's the f**ing problem?
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I have no idea why I have ark:SE, the gameplay quicklt turns uninteresting, the servers are populated by trolls, the AI is about as good as in the first mario games, and their designs of the creatures are not pretty to look at (yes, the inaccuracy is the least of my problems with the game), also, the gameplay becomes grindy quite quickly.
Also the devs proclaim their models to be accurate - ''They differ slighly from their real counterparts, but you can certainly learns a thing or two''- Jat or that other dev said that.
So yeah, inaccuracy, I can live with that (I like JP) but really: making them so ugly is just plain unnecesarry.
It was a tipical case of buying something too early....I thought it might develop in a good game, so now I'll wait for saurian to come out, and maaaaybe the Isle later in development. :/
👍: 0 ⏩: 3
At least we have a backstory as to why the older animals look like shit... even though they've remodeled their Smilodon, and their latest additions look pretty accurate.. minus the broken wrists, but I do agree most of the animals need to be remodeled
.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
My main complaint is Giganotosaurus furiosa. 'Nuff said.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The dromaeosaurs are.....well, to put it lightly, shit.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
at least the environments are pretty
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I guess, if your computer can handle them XD
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I doubt they would've gone full saurian mode, but even a few sparse patches on a large tyrannosaur is always refreshing where you don't expect them (childrens books and the like)
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Personally I don't mind whether or not a dinosaur's accurate or not, I love them either way but I do agree that some of the differences in Ark's creatures are just absurd. Another thing I hate is how they added creatures like the Giga and Mosasaurus despite the fact that the game didn't need them seeing as how we already had equivalents to these animals (Tyrannosaurus and Megalodon). That's probably my biggest problem with the game, they have so many animals there is no plausible way the ecosystem could survive. And not to mention Ark was an okay game until they added the Giga, from then on it turned into a "let's see who can make the most overpowered creature" sort of thing. I must say that I appreciate the fact that someone's actually caring to address this topic.
Btw I also like that you're using the Saurian T.Rex for comparison even if I feel it's a little over feathered
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I despise Giganotosaurus furiosa (ARK Giga). I'm okay with it being in the game, but they went a bit nuts with the size, health, and damage output of the damn thing. I'm okay with Giga being the strongest, but don't make it this OP. After several nerfs, it still takes like 500 ARK rex to bring down a single ARK Giga.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well, the devs seem very incompetent.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
There was someone who liked the ARK Giga, and I was like "Are you a psychopath?!"
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I never saw someone so happy to see Tyrannosaurus dethroned xD
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I'm just gonna quote another paleoartist on this site:
"Too me, ARK doesn't even look like it's trying to look scientific accurate or claiming it is. So what's the matter again?"
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
why is it so okay for a Game about Prehistoric Animals to have their Animals portrayed incorrectly in the most cliche and unoriginal way possible yet if a Game about Comic Book Characters got Their Superheroes and Supervillains portrayed incorrectly They so obviously deserve to be tortured to death for it?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
What are you talking about?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
if a Movie or a Game about Comic book characters cannot be allowed to get a free pass for portraying the characters incorrectly then neither should Ark Survival Evolved
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Not really; comic book characters have a definite appearance and personality, while we literally have no goddamn clue what prehistoric animals were like.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
all Coelurosaurs were covered in feathers and were like birds not reptiles
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Not really; all we know is the feathered part. We don't know how birdlike their behavior was. If anything, I'd wager that they were more like crocodiles than anything else in terms of behavior.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Actually a new find suggests strongly bird like behavior in dinosaurs. A series of scrapes in the ground extremely similar to the courtship displays that some birds use to attract mates. Dinosaurs also show a host of other bird like behaviors including brooding over eggs complete with wings folded other the nest, flocking/herding for social gatherings, and sleeping postures similar to birds. Also birds aren't just descended from dinosaurs, they are dinosaurs, so that makes them the best reference for understanding dinosaurs. Even the anatomy of dinosaurs indicates a much more active behavior bordering on those of mammals and birds than any reptile. The erect limb posture, high metabolism based off of bone growth, air sacs for efficient oxygen exchange, and occasionally fluffy integument indicate a much more avian lifestyle. Look I get you like scaly reptile-like dinosaurs, but evidence suggests their behavior, physiology, and even looks resembled birds.
Also I'll tell you why using crocodiles as a reference for dinosaurs isn't a good idea. For one crocodiles are heavily specialized for a more sedentary and aquatic lifestyle than any reptile. They're ectothermic in order to last longer without food unlike their ancient Triassic ancestors who were endothermic, they lack lips and only one other tetrapod (some kind of dolphin) shares this trait and they're unrelated at that, and finally crocodiles came from ancestors with erect limbs like dinosaurs, but traded off that trait for better maneuverability in mud. Also just because crocodiles are the closest living relative of dinosaurs doesn't make them the closest relative in total. Research actually suggests that pterosaurs are more closely related to dinosaurs than crocodilians. Pterosaurs and dinosaurs form a clade on the archosaur family tree, Avemetatarsalia, but crocodilians are the last living examples of the group Pseudosuchia. Basically dinosaurs last shared a common ancestor with crocodiles some 250 million years ago. So they are actually quite distantly related despite both being archosaurs.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archosau…
www.popsci.com/paleontologists…
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
The key word there, though, is "resembled". To what degree were they birdlike? Birds also aren't really that good of a model for dinosaur behavior for another reason: modern ones occupy incredibly different niches to their extinct cousins. With large theropods, for example, the closest analogue we have are terror birds, and we don't exactly have many of those running around anymore.
I'm just saying, dude: to me, the idea of dinosaurs communicating through clapping their jaws together and ultra-low frequency rumbles doesn't sound too far off. Also, crocodilians are known to be pretty damn smart: blogs.scientificamerican.com/t…
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I could see croc-like behavior in less avian dinosaurs such as sauropods. Though also keep in mind how different a niche crocs occupy.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yeah, I suppose so, although I could also see a T-rex clapping its jaws like that. However, that 'different niche' argument can also be applied to birds, too.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Agreed it seems much like a croc that such an intimidation behavior is possible. We just can't get much behavioral information from fossils. You can't really fossilize what isn't tangible
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thank You so much Bro
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
that is not fair
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You play dirty, I play dirty.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
| Next =>