I grew up watching paleontology shows. If the dinosaurs don't look right, I get completely distracted & irritated & can't enjoy it. It's like.....hmm...If they made a Thundercats movie using costumes from Andrew Lloyd Webber's CATS; Sure they look close enough, but you know it's wrong.
I think the game should improve on the faults of the movies.
I don't know. It would be cool if they gave the dinosaurs a more up to date look in the game but at the same time the new look of the raptor is so different from the movies that I think it might throw some people off.
I actually prefer raptors without feather myself even if that is how they really looked.
Saying that brought me memories of the dinosaur geek I was when I was a kid and how everyody looked me weird for knowing so much about something that nobody cared
I think they should stick with the continuity that was established in the films. Despite Crichton's best attempts, Jurassic Park has never been completely scientifically accurate and there's no real reason that it needs to be just because they're making a videogame. These are adventure stories, nothing more.'
I think they should consult with paleontologists and include whatever they would suggest has the most probable accuracy. Michael Crichton had a big interest in real science and he tried to incorporate it as much as possible in his writings.
The difference between the movies and the game can be explained by the fact that the use of frog DNA to replace certain genetic sequences didn't preserve the genome in a way accurate to the last detail.
according to wikipedia, velociraptors were not only feathered, but the size of a turkey, and no smarter than than large cat of today.
also, their wrists didn't bend at an angle that would allow them to open doors.
Mehhhh, paleontologists complaining about the intelligence of movie raptors and comparing the real velociraptor to a cat have CLEARLY never owned a cat. Cats can be stupid, yes, but they can also be very smart. As for the size...the velociraptor in the movie was based off of Deinonychus antirrhopus. This has been stated by the film-makers and Crichton.
That said, reptilian. Stick to movie canon. Except eliminate JP3.
Ive have come up with a theory that the reason that Jurassic Park dinosaurs do not have feathers is because of the frog DNA that was used to complete their genetic coding.
Well it's also possible that the raptor family started developing proto-beaks as well as insulating feathers. I don't believe they were as robust as in the photo above suggests if there were any. Look at archeopteryx and it's kin. A descendant from Raptors was fully covered with feathers, it would only make sense to partially cover the Dienonychus or velociraptor. After all, warm-bloodedness marked the age of Dinosaurs.
But psycho chickens are the most awesome thing ever! I always loved Raptors, and their psycho chicken status just makes them more awesome to me. Feathers ftw!
Though I tend to prefer the scales with some feathery bits like Onion's pic. I mean birds have scales on their legs and feet, especially the bigger ones and look at buzzards and vultures with their hideous baldy heads hahah.
But for the sake of continuity, if they're working with a sequel they should probably stick with the established froggy dinos. Though with modern knowledge, it really would have made more sense to use bird dna to fill in those gaps hah.
Yes, the less ringing cellphone indicates scary monster the better. Man that was hilarious.
I liked that the spino had a jingle... when they were reunited at the fence and they turned around and he was just standing there like "OH HI LUNCH"
I am totally ready to admit that III was no where near as good as the first movie but I WILL NOT say that I did not enjoy the movie.... I actually rather like it.. even though it has some cringe worthy things in it.
There were some great Jurassic Park moments in 3, such as seeing all the dinosaurs when they were going down the river, but the Pteranodon problem, the Spinosaurus being too "powerful" and having some inaccuracies(but that's a JP problem since Deinonychus, aka Velociraptor), and quite frankly the short runtime were all problems that the movie wasn't able to overcome.
I think in some cases the use of feathers and colors could be used to make even more menacing animals. Its been theorized the T-Rex had dark and even bright red feathers. In artists conceptions I've seen it looked extremely menacing with its wild colors and it would be even more menacing with the ability to flare its feathers like a lot of birds can do.. Many palentolgists speculate the T-rex was more of a scavenger and its menacing look is what drove away other predators from food. I think too many people are focused on feathers looking silly because they are so use to the reptile look. I have the different take that feathers and colors offer up a larger range of tools for artists to make even more menacing and awe inspiring creatures.
So... It's pretty much the consensus of the modern paleontological community that theropod dinosaurs like Velociraptor and possibly even Tyrannosaurus had feathers. Should Telltale incorporate the most up-to-date paleontological knowledge in their design of dinosaurs for the game, or should they stick to the more reptilian design aesthetic precedented by the movies? Of course, the idea that modern birds evolved from dinosaurs is a pretty big theme in the movies, particularly the first one. Perhaps it would actually be truer to the spirit of the movies to change the design and give the raptors bird-like feathers?
Which would you prefer:
reptilian, like in the movies?
or more bird-like, as modern science suggests?
there would be fossilized feathers and theyre have never been t rex or raptors found with fosillized feathers. i asked my cousin the same kind of question. he is an paleontologist.
Feathers do not fossilize like bone does... it breaks down a lot faster than bone so it has even less of a chance...... Even Fossilized bones are extremely rare. You might want to let your paleontologist cousin know that.
What your cousin is saying is that just because there is no fossil feathers it didnt have them... do they also think it didn't have eyeballs? because there are not fossils of that either.
there would be fossilized feathers and theyre have never been t rex or raptors found with fosillized feathers. i asked my cousin the same kind of question. he is an paleontologist.
If i am not mistaken they found quill knobs in one velociraptor fossil which means it probably have had feathers.
Please do not necro threads. It has already been established, that all dinosaurs will look like they have in the first Jurassic Park Film in wich this movie is based on.
Comments
That they are, I love the plot for the Lost World novel.
I'd like to see some effort put into accuracy, ala Walking With Dinosaurs. This game can be better than the movies.
If they were aiming at accuracy they might aswell make their own dinossaur-franchise, instead of paying royalties.
This is Jurassic Park movie-license. And JP movie's dinossaurs don't have feathers.
My thoughts exactly.
also, their wrists didn't bend at an angle that would allow them to open doors.
<BS>Features only gained when mixed with frog DNA!</BS>
I think the game should improve on the faults of the movies.
I actually prefer raptors without feather myself even if that is how they really looked.
Saying that brought me memories of the dinosaur geek I was when I was a kid and how everyody looked me weird for knowing so much about something that nobody cared
It's tough to be a dinosaur nerd!
But it's a Velociraptor.
That said...
That thing would scare the beejesus outta me so I guess it wouldn't be such a bad compromise.
The difference between the movies and the game can be explained by the fact that the use of frog DNA to replace certain genetic sequences didn't preserve the genome in a way accurate to the last detail.
Mehhhh, paleontologists complaining about the intelligence of movie raptors and comparing the real velociraptor to a cat have CLEARLY never owned a cat. Cats can be stupid, yes, but they can also be very smart. As for the size...the velociraptor in the movie was based off of Deinonychus antirrhopus. This has been stated by the film-makers and Crichton.
That said, reptilian. Stick to movie canon.
This. ^
Though I tend to prefer the scales with some feathery bits like Onion's pic. I mean birds have scales on their legs and feet, especially the bigger ones and look at buzzards and vultures with their hideous baldy heads hahah.
But for the sake of continuity, if they're working with a sequel they should probably stick with the established froggy dinos. Though with modern knowledge, it really would have made more sense to use bird dna to fill in those gaps hah.
Yes, the less ringing cellphone indicates scary monster the better. Man that was hilarious.
I am totally ready to admit that III was no where near as good as the first movie but I WILL NOT say that I did not enjoy the movie.... I actually rather like it.. even though it has some cringe worthy things in it.
I remain sceptical that dinosaurs were warm blooded. What's the main evidence for that hypothesis, other than birds are warm blooded?
Maybe this'll help?
Either way, we'll never know for sure. Not unless a wild-eyed old man who claims to be a scientist creates a time machine out of a car.
I know its sad that there is so much we just will never know... Imagine as well all the species we do not know about and never will.
That big bird picture was hilarious!
You missed the barn door there, Dromaeosauridae belongs to Deinonychosauria.
there would be fossilized feathers and theyre have never been t rex or raptors found with fosillized feathers. i asked my cousin the same kind of question. he is an paleontologist.
What your cousin is saying is that just because there is no fossil feathers it didnt have them... do they also think it didn't have eyeballs? because there are not fossils of that either.
If i am not mistaken they found quill knobs in one velociraptor fossil which means it probably have had feathers.
I disagree on that. Im going to tell you straight up that the first attemt at a dino clone will be in less than 20 years.