So how "accurate" is the game?

[Method4DMad]

Just curious if they do a decent job keeping up with the always changing evidence of what certain dinos looked like, or do they take the Jurassic Park approach of trying to make them more visually appealing?

To be clear not bashing or complaining either way, just curious what to expect from this game...is it more of a real life Dino-sim or a video game Dino-sin...if that makes sense...

Also, is it worth $14??

[Hyena]

There will be more factions than dinos but at the moment it is just a dino sim, yeah.

It's sort of a mix at the moment. Raptors are scaley but Theris are feathered. AFAIK, they had the plan to add the option to use a feathery skin version of your dino (if that dino had feathers) but that definitely isn't in yet (i.e. raptor is scaley).

Not a big deal though, science still says not too many dinos had feathers.

In defence of incorrect dinos: the game is not taking place millions of years ago, the dinos are engineered(somehow), just like JP dinos.

[Method4DMad]

Originally posted by SuaveHyena:

There will be more factions than dinos but at the moment it is just a dino sim, yeah.

It's sort of a mix at the moment. Raptors are scaley but Theris are feathered. AFAIK, they had the plan to add the option to use a feathery skin version of your dino (if that dino had feathers) but that definitely isn't in yet (i.e. raptor is scaley).

Not a big deal though, science still says not too many dinos had feathers.

In defence of incorrect dinos: the game is not taking place millions of years ago, the dinos are engineered(somehow), just like JP dinos.

Ah ok, makes sense. Technically science says most theropods definitely had feathers, but no not most dinosaurs.

Science also suggests T-rex's teeth weren't visible outside his mouth, kind of like the JP raptors...but his look is so iconic I don't know if that will ever change...though I would love to see it.

Very helpful response though, thanks!

[Sable]

The devs don't give a ♥♥♥♥ about realism. It's a survival horror game with sci-fi fantasy elements.

If you're looking for scientifically accurate dinosaurs, you came to the wrong game.

[Method4DMad]

That's what I thought, not saying it's a bad thing, but I'll just have to continue my wait for a realistic dino game. Not holding my breath.....(unfortunately)

[bigmoe808]

There's a definite JP appeal in this game.

The only realism the devs are going for is the ecosystem. Example, Pred X is going to be this big and powerful, carnivore W should be this fast to escape it. After that, introduce some peculiar stats and abilities to make variety.

[Hyena]

Originally posted by King Rat:

Originally posted by SuaveHyena:

There will be more factions than dinos but at the moment it is just a dino sim, yeah.

It's sort of a mix at the moment. Raptors are scaley but Theris are feathered. AFAIK, they had the plan to add the option to use a feathery skin version of your dino (if that dino had feathers) but that definitely isn't in yet (i.e. raptor is scaley).

Not a big deal though, science still says not too many dinos had feathers.

In defence of incorrect dinos: the game is not taking place millions of years ago, the dinos are engineered(somehow), just like JP dinos.

Ah ok, makes sense. Technically science says most theropods definitely had feathers, but no not most dinosaurs.

Science also suggests T-rex's teeth weren't visible outside his mouth, kind of like the JP raptors...but his look is so iconic I don't know if that will ever change...though I would love to see it.

Very helpful response though, thanks!

Few have direct evidence of having feathers. Though raptors probably all had feathers, larger theropods like T-Rex did not (or barely).

Not that their feathers would have been like we know from chickens today. They would have had some type of protofeather, likely looking like a spike.

Because Yutyrannus was found to have had feathers, people made the leap to assume all tyrannosaurs did, they discovered they were wrong. In tyrannosaurs, it is even suggested feathers were the primitive skin covering and they evolved into scales at a later time.

[MrZSFG]

Afka think walking with dinosaurs but with jp and dino crisis

[Method4DMad]

Originally posted by SuaveHyena:

Originally posted by King Rat:

Ah ok, makes sense. Technically science says most theropods definitely had feathers, but no not most dinosaurs.

Science also suggests T-rex's teeth weren't visible outside his mouth, kind of like the JP raptors...but his look is so iconic I don't know if that will ever change...though I would love to see it.

Very helpful response though, thanks!

Few have direct evidence of having feathers. Though raptors probably all had feathers, larger theropods like T-Rex did not (or barely).

Not that their feathers would have been like we know from chickens today. They would have had some type of protofeather, likely looking like a spike.

Because Yutyrannus was found to have had feathers, people made the leap to assume all tyrannosaurs did, they discovered they were wrong. In tyrannosaurs, it is even suggested feathers were the primitive skin covering and they evolved into scales at a later time.

Well, you say "or barely," but that still counts. Just because they may have only been on their head, along the spine, tips of tails, or over joints doesn't mean they aren't included in the statistic. It's generally agreed most theropods, if not all, including T-Rex, had feathers to an extent, thanks to direct evidence, as well as our knowledge of how feathers evolve. It's statistically far more unlikely that they didn't...but really the truth is nobody is saying all dinosaurs had feathers except people complaining about people saying all dinosaurs have feathers (which is nobody).

I do want to see more feathers on my video game theropods though, I don't know why devs are so reluctant to adopt this. They weren't giant chickens, they can still look scary and be accurate...

Edit: To be clear my answers are all statistic based. What is 'more likely,' and as far as we know, it's pretty likely all theropods had at least one feather somewhere on their body. I'm not saying you're wrong or anything, just that in my opinion it makes far more sense that T-Rex did than did not.

However I also think there were dozens of sub-species within a species, kinda like dog breeds, and we're lucky to find just one out of those dozens, so it's entirely possible a sub species of T-rex was pure scale, while another was pure feather. Statistically, makes sense to me!

[Method4DMad]

Originally posted by MrZSFG:

Afka think walking with dinosaurs but with jp and dino crisis

Haha good analogy!

[Hyena]

Originally posted by King Rat:

Originally posted by SuaveHyena:

Few have direct evidence of having feathers. Though raptors probably all had feathers, larger theropods like T-Rex did not (or barely).

Not that their feathers would have been like we know from chickens today. They would have had some type of protofeather, likely looking like a spike.

Because Yutyrannus was found to have had feathers, people made the leap to assume all tyrannosaurs did, they discovered they were wrong. In tyrannosaurs, it is even suggested feathers were the primitive skin covering and they evolved into scales at a later time.

Well, you say "or barely," but that still counts. Just because they may have only been on their head, along the spine, tips of tails, or over joints doesn't mean they aren't included in the statistic. It's generally agreed most theropods, if not all, including T-Rex, had feathers to an extent, thanks to direct evidence, as well as our knowledge of how feathers evolve. It's statistically far more unlikely that they didn't...but really the truth is nobody is saying all dinosaurs had feathers except people complaining about people saying all dinosaurs have feathers (which is nobody).

I do want to see more feathers on my video game theropods though, I don't know why devs are so reluctant to adopt this. They weren't giant chickens, they can still look scary and be accurate...

Edit: To be clear my answers are all statistic based. What is 'more likely,' and as far as we know, it's pretty likely all theropods had at least one feather somewhere on their body. I'm not saying you're wrong or anything, just that in my opinion it makes far more sense that T-Rex did than did not.

However I also think there were dozens of sub-species within a species, kinda like dog breeds, and we're lucky to find just one out of those dozens, so it's entirely possible a sub species of T-rex was pure scale, while another was pure feather. Statistically, makes sense to me!

Can you bring up the evidence T-Rex had noticeable feathering? Cause I recall that recently they just said "nah, he is just a scaley boy".

Not that it matters much, most were likely just spikes, so we end up with scaley dinos with a bunch of spikes. More badass, I guess.

[tejistar]

the game is one of the more realistic dinosaur games out there but realism isn't the main focus so as new research is published the game probably wont adjust

[Method4DMad]

Originally posted by SuaveHyena:

Originally posted by King Rat:

Well, you say "or barely," but that still counts. Just because they may have only been on their head, along the spine, tips of tails, or over joints doesn't mean they aren't included in the statistic. It's generally agreed most theropods, if not all, including T-Rex, had feathers to an extent, thanks to direct evidence, as well as our knowledge of how feathers evolve. It's statistically far more unlikely that they didn't...but really the truth is nobody is saying all dinosaurs had feathers except people complaining about people saying all dinosaurs have feathers (which is nobody).

I do want to see more feathers on my video game theropods though, I don't know why devs are so reluctant to adopt this. They weren't giant chickens, they can still look scary and be accurate...

Edit: To be clear my answers are all statistic based. What is 'more likely,' and as far as we know, it's pretty likely all theropods had at least one feather somewhere on their body. I'm not saying you're wrong or anything, just that in my opinion it makes far more sense that T-Rex did than did not.

However I also think there were dozens of sub-species within a species, kinda like dog breeds, and we're lucky to find just one out of those dozens, so it's entirely possible a sub species of T-rex was pure scale, while another was pure feather. Statistically, makes sense to me!

Can you bring up the evidence T-Rex had noticeable feathering? Cause I recall that recently they just said "nah, he is just a scaley boy".

Not that it matters much, most were likely just spikes, so we end up with scaley dinos with a bunch of spikes. More badass, I guess.

Honestly I don't even remember the exact place I read it I follow so much but you can check this link out which shows a current exhibit at the American Museum of Natural History in NY that I would love to see

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/07/arts/design/t-rex-exhibition-american-museum-of-natural-history.html

Edit: Also I know what you're referring to and remember reading that somewhere as well, but in archaeology everything is challenged by everyone all the time, so you have to go with a consensus. There's pretty much always a compelling argument to contradict though...evolutionary RNG

[M.R. Smith]

Quite honestly, I think the only way we could know 100% if rexes had feathers or just scales is if we cloned them (not gonna happen) or if we found very distinct skin imprints suggesting one way or the other.

Tyrannosaurus rex skin imprints have never actually shown feathers. If I'm not mistaken, T. rexes closest tyrannosaur cousins haven't shown feathers in skin imprints either. Yutyrannus does, but they lived in China, not North America.

Earlier tyrannosaurids did have feathers though, but they were much smaller, and could've needed them for warmth. Tyrannosaurus however, is so big its body heat would've been sufficient to keep them warm. My guess is that they started life with a peach fuzz like feathering, kinda like ducklings, and then those feathers were either completely shed by the time it reached adulthood, or were retained in some areas and they developed into proto feathers or more fully fledged feathers with age.

It's kinda funny though, scientists originally seemed to think that rexes had feathers all around their neck and stuff, but then skin imprints of lots of the body showed no feathers, so they just decided that this meant rexes had feathers everywhere the skin imprints didn't show (top of head, down spine, etc).

So I think that it isn't entirely scientifically accurate or inaccurate to depict T. rex with or without feathers, because the evidence can go either way.

[Method4DMad]

Not sure where you heard "scientists decided rexes had feathers everywhere skin imprints didn't show" since most agree that at the bare minimum they probably had them on the trunk, but it's possible in other places, and it's possible in many other places. But yeah many believe they had feathers as infants and would shed most if not all of them by adulthood...still means they had them though

There is far more evidence to suggest they had feathers to an extent than reasonable guessing they didn't have any at all, along with most theropods. But hey part of the beauty of archaeology is we'll never know for sure, so really you can make them look however you'd like. Personally I think individual scales had a lot more color variation than we generally see in media. Not crazy fluorescent like Ark, but subtle shades...but maybe not.

Though I definitely don't think we should clone one if we ever get the chance lol. Mammoths are one thing, T-Rex is another...

[Voyager]

Size of some dinosaurs are not accurate. Other than that it's actualy quite realistic