You basically reminded me of why I think it's hard to come with "uniqe" and "new" dinosaurus - the uncovered species are simply very similar to each other, and for an usual gamer "they're the same picture"I wouldn't say that. The Tarbo and Utah may be similar to what we have, but the Gigantoraptor is nothing like we have in-game, especially after seeing the species guide.
And the Conc is just so weird looking that it's great on its own and probably sold the pack for most people
And then you get hundreds of steam opinions with "very nice, but they all look the same". Look at this situation from a viewpoint of a simple user, not a dino fan.If we're going with this mentality, then it doesn't matter what animals are added anymore because they're "just X version of what we already have". Why add any new spinosaurids, they're gonna look like Suchomimus. Why bother adding any other theropod, they're gonna look like Tyrannosaurus/Giganotosaurus/Carnotarurus/Velociraptor/etc. Why bother adding more armored dinosaurs, they're just edits of Triceratops/Stegosaurus/Ankylosaurus. Any new hadrosaurs are gonna be almost exactly like Parasauralophus or Edmontosaurus. All the pterosaurs will look the same, all the sea creatures will be clones of existing ones, you get the point. I've seen people who want half the animals in the game removed because they're "too much like the only ones we care about", i.e. the famous dinosaurs everyone knows about. And that's a really stupid mindset. Imagine demanding a zoo to remove all of the big cats that aren't lions or tigers because "they're too similar to care about". Or removing all of the bears that aren't grizzlies, or all of the African herbivores that aren't the elephant, rhino, and hippo. The other dinosaurs and reptiles are no less worthy of being in the game than Tyrannosaurus, Velociraptor, Mosasaurus, Brachiosaurus, Triceratops, et al.
Last edited: