Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
I'm glad you're positive about my ideas though, even if this post ancient and I've honestly moved away from ARK. It's still fun to think about and honestly I wouldn't mind one day returning to the game and making more dossiers or idea sheets like this.
I'm pretty used to used to argument, I'm just firm in my idea of what I'd like to see done with ARK. Not to say that WC should bend to my will but really just to get ideas out there for anyone who agrees.
"It's a subspecies" is just "creative liberties were taken" in another form.
And I'm not so much a 'fanatic' of accurate dinosaurs as I am a fan of dinosaurs, that is to say, dinosaurs not creatures that vaguely resemble them. I'm not going to play Nintendogs where you're promised to be raising a dog only to be met with strange alien creatures with dog-like features.
All of that said WC is free to have their creativity, but I'm also free to disagree with aspects of it.
My idea for more realistic creatures in ARK has always been about representing the creatures as they most likely were (game mechanics and abilities to a lesser extent as 100% accuracy wouldn't work for many reasons) rather than fantasy creatures incorectly given the names of something that once existed.