Lack of dinosaur variety

[DragonNTiger]

The entire point of this post; less dinosaurs more variation. Id rather 25 unique models than 42 with roughly half if not more of them belonging to the same family as 5 of the others. Ceratopsians, Ankylosaurians, Stegasaurians, Hadrosaurs and Sauropods. It's not necessarily a bad thing; it's only a negative when that comes at the expense of variation.

Think about how less exciting it will be when you unlock a new dinosaur at a digsite and you already have 4 others that are not only analogous, but homologous.

Whether you agree with that or not is a completely different argument altogether.

Oh... well in that case I think I'm gonna have to disagree with you... there's only so many types of body plans to work with and many, many species of dinosaurs that share the same basic design... so there's really no point in trying to avoid cloning... unless you really want to ax half the roster just to say there are no clones.

Could they have added a few more unique animal types? Of course they could have... but on the other hand they also plan to add DLC eventually... and if they loaded all the unique body types into the main game, they'd have nothing but reskins to sell us...

Also I think you're being a little bit hyperbolic... while some of the animals are similar, they're not the same... the ankylosaurs and the nodosaurs for example; the former fight with club tails while the latter use their shoulder horns... there's clear distinctions between how diplodocid sauropods and macronarian sauropods look and move... and the hadrosaurs--whether I like it or not--are divided into realistic quadrupeds and fictitious bipeds... there's more variation between the various animals than you seem to give credit...

 

[WR3ND]

Yes, more diversity would be nice, unless they're planning on adding a huge number of dinos in the game over time where these sort of similarities between some of the specific types would make sense, generally speaking. We'll see.

 

[MrGoodbytes]

Lack of variety? ...what are people expecting exactly? I mean sure, there are a few types of dinosaurs that are notably absent; small, hornless ceratopsians like Leptoceratops or Protoceratops, small ornithopods like Dryosaurus or Hypsilophodon, Oviratorosaurs and Therizinosaurs... but on the other hand, these are real-world animals, not Pokemon; they can't just go nuts with the designs or make drastic changes to them and as a result there will ultimately be a lot of animals with similar appearances...

I would be happy as a clam if they added Leptoceratops. It's my favorite ceratopsian.

 

[Flash525]

To those saying it's lacking; how exactly isn't there enough diversity? Certain creatures are going to act similar by nature.

 

[m2wester]

More variety than what we have was always going to be unlikely. All film dinos except Compy are in and pretty much the only popular one that's missing is the Therizinosaurus. Well, and a couple of carnivors, but none of those would bring variety, so they don't really count in this argument. FrankIy I doubt that you could come up with a roster of 25 that covers all the bases and includes more variety.

I'd also argue that they did a fairly good job of making similar dinos look different. Certainly when compared to the "200 different species" of zoo tycoon.

 

[Dino droppings? Droppings?]

Could they have added a few more unique animal types? Of course they could have... but on the other hand they also plan to add DLC eventually... and if they loaded all the unique body types into the main game, they'd have nothing but reskins to sell us...

.

Thats a good point and I was thinking about that myself.

'Also I think you're being a little bit hyperbolic... while some of the animals are similar, they're not the same... the ankylosaurs and the nodosaurs for example; the former fight with club tails while the latter use their shoulder horns... there's clear distinctions between how diplodocid sauropods and macronarian sauropods look and move... and the hadrosaurs--whether I like it or not--are divided into realistic quadrupeds and fictitious bipeds... there's more variation between the various animals than you seem to give credit...'

Of they are not exactly the same, I never said they were. Of course, we could discuss the morphological nuances between all of them, that's not what my point was though. Humans are remarkably good at creating generic mental images. Ask a child to draw a house and they will draw a square with a triangle for a roof; my point is, for laymen like us, there is no need to have 5 dinosaurs that look so vastly similar that they are fundamentally interchangable. What does it bring to the gameplay other than artifical variety? It's the illusion of variety people seem to like. There is literally 500 million years of multicellular life for Frontier to draw from and 100/200 millions years of Dinosauria. Of course there is anologous morphology; I just don't think it adds anything to the gameplay. If you disagree than good for you. Us trying to argue this to each other will be fairly fruitless though because it's essentially analogous to us arguing over which bands we like; it's subjective opinion.

 

[Dino droppings? Droppings?]

To those saying it's lacking; how exactly isn't there enough diversity? Certain creatures are going to act similar by nature.

When there are 5 similar looking dinosaurs for roughly half of all the dinosaurs included...thats lacking variety. No one is arguing thats not how it works in nature.

 

[Whitehair]

I find it unforgivable of Frontier that they have only included two types of dinosaurs, those that eat plants and those that don't.

They should have included more variety!

 

[Dino droppings? Droppings?]

I find it unforgivable of Frontier that they have only included two types of dinosaurs, those that eat plants and those that don't.

They should have included more variety!

I totally agree. I should have thought of that!

 

[DragonNTiger]

Of they are not exactly the same, I never said they were. Of course, we could discuss the morphological nuances between all of them, that's not what my point was though. Humans are remarkably good at creating generic mental images. Ask a child to draw a house and they will draw a square with a triangle for a roof; my point is, for laymen like us, there is no need to have 5 dinosaurs that look so vastly similar that they are fundamentally interchangable. What does it bring to the gameplay other than artifical variety? It's the illusion of variety people seem to like. There is literally 500 million years of multicellular life for Frontier to draw from and 100/200 millions years of Dinosauria. Of course there is anologous morphology; I just don't think it adds anything to the gameplay.

But what does 25 completely unique animals bring to the gameplay other than artificial variety? This isn't an RTS... there's no strengths or weaknesses or unique powers between animals... they're just regular animals interacting with each other, their environment and the player... the only real difference is their appearances, how they are animated, and what they eat... take those away and they are all the same thing... so in terms of gameplay it's still artificial variety...

If you disagree than good for you. Us trying to argue this to each other will be fairly fruitless though because it's essentially analogous to us arguing over which bands we like; it's subjective opinion.

Well yes, obviously... but when things like this get started... it can be hard to stop. Pretty sure it's something to do with human nature and the desire to be the winner... but since it's all subjective opinion, there can't be a winner... but we try to win anyways...

 

[Dino droppings? Droppings?]

*Puts on Peter Ludlow Glasses* Jurassic World is our game now...and we will jealously defend it's interests...* Goes to walk away before OP grabs his arm. Turns and sighs* "Careful...this suit is worth more than your education...* walks off.

In all seriousness though, anything Jack Horner pops out these days is -highly- debatable. I mean T-Rex that can't run? Everything not a Pachy being a juvenile Pachy? *pop-up with comedic image of Jack Hornor appears* "Ah ah ah , you didn't agree with my theory, ah ah ah! " *Glares at screen* "PLEASE!!...God damn it! I hate this Horner crap!"

But I digress, All in all the amount of species we have at the moment is quite acceptable. Everyone has their preferences. For example I for one prefer Camarasaurus to Apatosaurus or Memenchisaurus. I prefer Torosaurus rather than Triceratops. We have a great variety of species of dinosaurs that can be appreciated by people according to their preferences and I feel our respective parks will reflect that. Like mentioned before, even more species will come over time. I simply do not see this "lack of dinosaur variety" you have mention. I do not see it or understand it. It really just feels like unneeded knit picking at this point..."so uh..uh..well...there you have it."

You do realise that science is not a popularity contest and that any hypothesis put forward by Horner is subject to the same scrutiny as any other scientist. As a result, any hypothesis he does make is judged soley on the merit of the science and not simply by virtue of the fact that a famous scientist said it. Therefore, the hypotheses that stand up to the rigors of the scientific method and are found to be lacking are rejected and visa versa. He could say that T-rex was actually made of spaghetti for all he liked, but for it to be taken seriously he would have to present evidence for it. I'm not entirely sure about what your point is. You've become lost in your own facetiousness.

If you think the variety is acceptable than thats fine. Good for you sir.

 

[Dino droppings? Droppings?]

But what does 25 completely unique animals bring to the gameplay other than artificial variety? This isn't an RTS... there's no strengths or weaknesses or unique powers between animals... they're just regular animals interacting with each other, their environment and the player... the only real difference is their appearances, how they are animated, and what they eat... take those away and they are all the same thing... so in terms of gameplay it's still artificial variety...


Well yes, obviously... but when things like this get started... it can be hard to stop. Pretty sure it's something to do with human nature and the desire to be the winner... but since it's all subjective opinion, there can't be a winner... but we try to win anyways...

.......how is it artifical variety if they are unique????

If you can reduce the number of dinosaurs from 42 down to 15 and still have the same number of body plans....that is artifical variety. As I've said it's the ILLUSION of variety.

 

[AngrySaltire]

I have no problem with the variety of the dinos they have given us so far. In fact I am loving seeing variations on a a single body plan. Means we get to see less well known dinosaurs as well as the ones everyone knows. Look forward to see what dinos they give us in dlcs.

And as to my opinion on the whole pachy juvenile theory and the like. Untill what ever group, commitee etc decides these things lumps them together as one species I have no problem with seeing the three species together. I mean its just a computer game after all.

 

[Flash525]

When there are 5 similar looking dinosaurs for roughly half of all the dinosaurs included...thats lacking variety. No one is arguing thats not how it works in nature.

I'm still not sure I get what you/they mean.

Sauropods generally are big and long, with large bodies, long necks and long tails. We've got what, five sauropods in this game?
Iguanodon are (for lack of a better comparison) your Jurassic Cows. We've got at least three of these?
Ankylosaur is one of your armoured lizards; we've got what, two or three of these?
Stegosauridae (Kentrosaurus & Stegosaurus) of which could be combined with the Ankylosaur breeds under the Thyreophoran label
You've got the Horned Herbivores; Triceratops, Centrosaurus, Styracosaurus etc
Then you've got the Tyrannosaurs; T-Rex, Spino, Albertosaurus etc
I believe the Giganotosaurus & Allosaurus are different still
And then you've got the Raptors and such

Seems like we've got an ample selection to me. What else would people like specifically?

 

[Dino droppings? Droppings?]

I have no problem with the variety of the dinos they have given us so far. In fact I am loving seeing variations on a a single body plan. Means we get to see less well known dinosaurs as well as the ones everyone knows. Look forward to see what dinos they give us in dlcs.

And as to my opinion on the whole pachy juvenile theory and the like. Untill what ever group, commitee etc decides these things lumps them together as one species I have no problem with seeing the three species together. I mean its just a computer game after all.

Im afraid thats not how science works.

 

[WR3ND]

Im afraid thats not how science works.

Yeah, it's not like we're talking about Pluto here or anything...

 

[Dino droppings? Droppings?]

Yeah, it's not like we're talking about Pluto here or anything...

Totally different. Pluto was a matter of categorization and semantics. The other is regarding the phylogenetic history of an organism, or in this case 3 organisms.

 

[WR3ND]

Must be why we're not talking about it.

 

[DragonNTiger]

.......how is it artifical variety if they are unique????

If you can reduce the number of dinosaurs from 42 down to 15 and still have the same number of body plans....that is artifical variety. As I've said it's the ILLUSION of variety.

It's artificial variety in that even with unique animations and body plans they all do the exact same thing... they're animals that fill exhibits; they eat, drink, sleep, fight, herd together or hunt prey, get sick and need medicine, tranquilize when they escape, and dispose of when they inevitably die... that's all they do, nothing else, regardless of how they look and animate...

Unless you're suggesting they go deeper into variations in their behavior--which couldn't change much either since they're all animals running on basic instincts--they'll never be more complex than the basic animal behavior and thus never provide a huge variety in terms of gameplay, therefore whether you are feeding, healing, tranquilizing, or whatever to a Velociraptor, a Brachiosaurus, or anything in between, it's all the same gameplay, and as you yourself previously argued...

Of course there is anologous morphology; I just don't think it adds anything to the gameplay.

You do recall you said this, yes? Suggesting clones didn't add anything to gameplay? My point is when all animals follow the same basic behaviors their differences in appearance adds nothing to the gameplay... or have you jumped back to the "it's bad because it looks boring" train of thought?

 

[AngrySaltire]

Im afraid thats not how science works.

Enlighten me ? I have a Masters degree in Ecology. Something such as deciding on what a species is wont be down to a single person.

If scientists working on living animals cant decide if a population is of a different species to another population, what chance does a palentologist have at identidying an animal down to the species level or even a genus correctly? I have read papers in which populations are not genetically distinct but are separated into seperate species because they behave ecologically different. I have also read of cases vice verse.