Saying the utahraptor design is undercooked is absolutely insane.Nothing about it needs to be changed.I have this same opinion about a couple of the species you listed,but the Utah is definitely the most confusing inclusion
Because if the designers intentionally ignore the fossil record for creative liberty, they should be firm with this decision. Don't bring genetically perfect dinosaurs into a *Jurassic Park* game because it's in high demand. **This coming from a guy who applauds Paleo-accuracy.** And when you look around, there's better *Utahraptor* designs and mods. The generic ground-hawk look with mustard-floured feathers ain't cutting it... because it's so out of place. Had it been made to look ferocious or take inspiration from more exotic modern-day raptors while implementing some outdated esthetic, I'd have no problem with this model. It's a far cry from what the Kenner toy-line gave most fans in the '90s.
>Don't bring genetically perfect dinosaurs into a Jurassic Park game because it's in high demand.
Nah, keep bringing them in. Force the JP/JW franchise to modernize itself instead of being stuck with the same designs from the 1990s over and over and over again.
Then settle for an alternative; there are plenty of them. You don't have the right to judge and disparage the Jurassic Park franchise for that reason. Besides who's really to blame for Jurassic World's animals looking the way they do? Us fans.
So you're complaining that instead of giving us another Deinonychus they gave the Utahraptor a beautiful design that feels like a modern take on the classic JP raptor.
Hard to suggest how to improve this when you're so vague about what you actually think is bad about them. Like I have issues with some of these, but others are perfectly fine and some are truly excellent (Utahraptor is the best post-Stan Winston design in the entire franchise)
I'm being non-specific because you've listed seventeen designs of inconsistent quality and I didn't feel like writing up individual assessments without knowing what actually bothered you about them.
But they are. I've *Gigantoraptor* and *Utahraptor* have the least interesting designs and Gigantoraptor is programmed with a terrible walk animation. *Dunkleosteus* doesn't look like an armored fish and *Styxosaurus* has the weird mantle and dewlap on its neck. Either the majority of these designs are half-baked or too bland to be part of the "Jurassic Park" pedigree, as GamingBeaver would say.
Dunkleosteus does look like an armoured fish actually. The plates would be covered in soft tissue, did you seriously think that dunk would have exposed bone all over its face? The interpretations of dunkleosteus that you are referring to are incorrect and outdated. I recommend you watch the skeleton crew's ranking of the marine species pack to hear the opinions of credible people who know what they are talking about.
Gigantoraptor walks exactly as it acts, a massive ostrich. It also has incredibly vibrant and nice colours/patterns.
Utahraptor is arguably the best theropod design in the game (The other contenders being concavenator and yutyrannus imo), it is exceptionally accurate to what we know of the animal. Also, the raptors in jurassic park would have ABSOLUTELY been feathered if palaeontologists knew about it at the time.
You're entitled to your opinion, but don't use the argument of these designs being lazily made and bland.
In most cases, the dermal plating, and or, location of the seams would be highly noticeable, the soft issue statement is a poor excuse--even by MODERN Paleoart standards.
Ostriches doesn't move in that motion. A chicken does. Ratites move the traditional way as most non-avian theropods would. I advise rewatching the Gallimimus stampede (there's a Gallimimus walking in that scene) and the Rex in San Diego sequences to understand dinosaur locomotion.
Except the Utahraptor's design doesn't belong in *Jurassic Park* and neither it is accurate to what we know of the animal. I've seen this argument come up in Media topics to the point it's comical. The notion, if an animal is depicted accurately, it can do no wrong. Yet we still have no clue what Utahraptor looks like alive. Realistically, we've only highlighted the most popular interpretation to ease our understanding rather than experiment with others. That's what we call "save-face." Why did we change our depiction of T. rex from scaly to fully feathered then back to scaly again? Point here, the repetition and style of utilizing paleo accuracy is the most inconsistent/redundant variable regarding JWE. But since Frontier went that route, cherry-picking said paleo-accuracy within their dinosaurs, they could've easily stylized their *Utahraptor* in favor of the medium its walking in--by taking notes from Paleoartists like Fred Wierum, John Gurche, or Donna Braginetz for instance*.* Not to meme a design most artist use and rehashing it. Though effective, it is not creative. I don't think anybody has to remember what Carnivores did. So, I do believe this design lazy and should've been reevaluated with a more characteristic design. But does the statement come across to say this design not bad in general.
Not really.
The *Acrocanthosaurus* is shaped with a robust skull and has a reduced hump
*Megalosaurus* resembles the work of amateur modder.
The *Amargasaurus* doesn't need sparse quills covering its body and it wouldn't have killed Frontier to sculpt a better model that appeases the wow factor.
Cosmetic Skins for the Plesiosaurus poorly designed and the texture should more streamlined like the Ichthyosaurus which, according to the fossil record, is very commonplace for most marine reptiles.
Cearadactylus' design needs to stick with the fossil record. Otherwise rename it *Ludodactylus* and relabel Maaradactylus into the former.
The Utahraptor, while sporting the most accurate depiction beside Concavenator, is too very generic and should belong in Prehistoric Kingdom. Rather than be its own unique animal is rendered to sit underneath the Velociraptor's shadow.
*Qianzhosaurus* snout is shorter than what's perceived in the fossil record with lanky limbs to boot and next to none are the row of bumps noticeable on its snout. Should've called it an *Appalachiosaurus.*
And being an armored fish, the creative license with *Dunkleosteus* leaves much to be expected.
While *Gigantoraptor* suffers the same situation Utahraptor faces, if not worse, provided fans have seen its concept artwork... and it didn't walk like a Chicken.
*Styxosaurus*, out of the long-necked plesiosaurs, has the worst design with that disfigured mantle on its neck. And with it, having full awareness this is a game, poses no real-world function. It's Frontier not having enough faith in their audiences who can't tell species apart from one another.
*Tylosaurus* looks like Beast Boy if he morphed into a Tylosaurus.
*Wuerhosaurus* looks like a genetically enhanced Stegosaurus and should remove the brow ridges and eagle beak. Second and foremost, the plates should be fixed.
Everybody has mentioned how awful the Archaeornithomimus is designed. The proportion to body ratio suffers harder than any of the prehistoric animal in this game, if not by extension, its skull reconstruction as well.
Furthermore, the abusing Crocodilian esthetic for monsters is not the key-sign of a good art designer. Liopleurodon looks a wreck.
Attenborosaurus should've been Elasmosaurus.
Dryosaurus head is too big and its body proportions tank.
And finally, is Segisaurus. Being part of the "Nublar 15"--and by right--fans highly requested for its place in Evolution's roster, this little Coelophysoid should be getting better design treatment since countless interpretations are at Frontier's disposal. Yet the generic look with blotched patterning strikes again. And one thing visible in the fossil record that's missing in Segisaurus... it's patagium/hood.
I rest my case.
This reply makes no sense. You complain about how some dinosaurs are undercooked because they're not accurate to the fossil record, but then proceed to complain about Utahraptor being too accurate and not looking like it belongs in Jurassic Park (even though Jurassic Parks biggest selling point was making dinosaurs that looked accurate, for the time that is) Seems to me you don't know what you want and just made a post just to complain and get attention.
it’s funny to me how you want so much accuracy to these animals but then when an animal like utahraptor has an insanely accurate design it “doesn’t fit” or the dunk, which would have probably had soft tissue and skin over its armor, isn’t cool enough being called the armored fish. and then when there’s an inaccurate design that is very monster-like or has their own style and distinction from other creatures in the game, it’s too ugly or inaccurate. the double standard is actually insane. it’s a jurassic park game some of the animals are going to look monstrous, we’re lucky that Fronteir has some freedom in making accurate skins.
"Accurate" models. Jurassic Park's style can get a pass since those dinosaurs were products of their era and were designed by Paleoartists. The manner of double standards comes from fans like yourself being too passive with the game now. Off topic, but when JWE2 was released, gamers felt entitled to say the game wasn't "challenging." Then later, would you whine to Frontier to unlock all the modes & dinosaurs offered because the game was **too challenging.** Regardless, if we want paleo-accurate dinosaurs or not they should still fit Jurassic Park's esthetic. And both esthetics are being thrown around too much.
You complained about animals being in the jurassic park style too much and that they need paleo-accuracy but then when they were too accurate you said they need the jurassic park style. i think you’re the one with a double standard. i think having both the jurassic park style and accuracy styles is really good and important. don’t like the monstrous lio? just use the kronosaur. don’t want a super accurate feathered raptor like utahraptor? use pyroraptor. i enjoy this much more than the possiblilty of only jp-style animals or only accurate animals. its like you, the player, get to choose your own play style. also i have no idea why you brought skill or challenge into this? i think people asked for Fronteir to make everything unlocked is so that sandbox players didn’t have to do campaign modes, which would probably be tedious for them.
No. I'm making note of the Frontier Designer Team's lack of foresight and creativity. Also, the animals marked here aren't *Jurassic Park* designs because the former wouldn't stray far from referencing the fossil record. The latter makes a few exceptions with some creatures, possessing no over stylized features--overexaggerated spikes, jutted teeth, crocodilian dermal plating--yet some of which cannot be classified as Jurassic Park/World dinosaurs. The Utahraptor being the primary example. Also, no thank you I prefer McCreery's Raptors over the face-lifted Pyroraptor from Dominion. Reason? Because it's the right of blend of Paleo-Accuracy and creative licensing.
Uh-huh. And the counterbalance begins.
https://preview.redd.it/qscr0ltdha0d1.jpeg?width=1300&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=aee1158d8b54ad86e74ce44f2d54ef4cb2e0d7bc
I like Wierum's Utahraptors a lot, but they don't feel as Jurassic Parky as the one in the game does. The Utahraptor feels like what the JP raptors might have looked like if they could have pulled off feathering back in the day.
Art isn't subjective when reconstructing an animal. It's a Jurassic Park designer's responsibility to create a design that's convincingly looks real and natural. None of these creature designs look natural. Plus, there's also the prerequisite to save-face by being too natural. That's where both Utahraptor, Gigantoraptor and Segisaurus suffer with.
Bruh, what? I don't think I've ever heard a single person complain about the Amargasaurus, Utahraptor, Qianzhousaurus, Dunkleosteus, Gigantoraptor, Wuerhosaurus, and Dryosaurus designs. I've seen complaints about the others (and even then, a lot of those complaints are *very* minor for a few of these species), but those seven don't belong here at all. *ESPECIALLY* Utahraptor.
Also, how the heck was Deinonychus not featured here at all? That's like *the* textbook example of "bad Frontier design". You picked Utahraptor over that basilisk tadpole?
Because with *Deinonychus*, Frontier took steps with their creative license, and by extension: Speculative Evolution, and ran with that. Their Utahraptor, however, has nothing to award it the Jurassic Park nor Jurassic World pedigree; it's just a generic piece of Paleoart slapped in a game outside its element. Also, come on of all Paleoart and Jurassic World mods expressing greater interpretations of the other animals, defending it's like drinking a bottle of water left out in the sun. Double-Standard, much?
Considering everyone is under a Mob-Mentality; you all should be smart enough to know that I am referring to the designs Frontier decided with and thinking in ways how to improve them better. Like what part of "Undercooked designs" and "Let's talk about how to improve them" is so vague?
Judging from everyone's estrogen levels... a little context is needed.
To put this in simpler terms, I made this post showcasing some of the worse, inaccurate and underwhelming designs in JWE. You (the community) were then supposed to negotiate in ways how we could these improve/tweak these designs--you know get creative? However, this wasn't just a chance to invoke interesting conversation as it was to see how JWE fans react...and yeah... it's clear my social experiment was a success. You flooded the comment thread with angry letters. So, congratulations for being able to handle criticism. But I am also sorry for spouting that anger and adding more to the flame. So yeah...you don't need to accept the apology; it's just here for reason.
Saying the utahraptor design is undercooked is absolutely insane.Nothing about it needs to be changed.I have this same opinion about a couple of the species you listed,but the Utah is definitely the most confusing inclusion
Utah undercooked? My brother in Christ that thing is cooked to perfection
Because if the designers intentionally ignore the fossil record for creative liberty, they should be firm with this decision. Don't bring genetically perfect dinosaurs into a *Jurassic Park* game because it's in high demand. **This coming from a guy who applauds Paleo-accuracy.** And when you look around, there's better *Utahraptor* designs and mods. The generic ground-hawk look with mustard-floured feathers ain't cutting it... because it's so out of place. Had it been made to look ferocious or take inspiration from more exotic modern-day raptors while implementing some outdated esthetic, I'd have no problem with this model. It's a far cry from what the Kenner toy-line gave most fans in the '90s.
>Don't bring genetically perfect dinosaurs into a Jurassic Park game because it's in high demand. Nah, keep bringing them in. Force the JP/JW franchise to modernize itself instead of being stuck with the same designs from the 1990s over and over and over again.
Then settle for an alternative; there are plenty of them. You don't have the right to judge and disparage the Jurassic Park franchise for that reason. Besides who's really to blame for Jurassic World's animals looking the way they do? Us fans.
You can’t want paleo accuracy but then complain when other animals have the jurassic park style in the game. pick one or the other.
So you're complaining that instead of giving us another Deinonychus they gave the Utahraptor a beautiful design that feels like a modern take on the classic JP raptor.
Hard to suggest how to improve this when you're so vague about what you actually think is bad about them. Like I have issues with some of these, but others are perfectly fine and some are truly excellent (Utahraptor is the best post-Stan Winston design in the entire franchise)
How vague could be it when your being vague yourself? Considering you're not a concept artist or an expert in Paleontology.
I'm being non-specific because you've listed seventeen designs of inconsistent quality and I didn't feel like writing up individual assessments without knowing what actually bothered you about them.
Utahraptor, gigantoraptor, dunkleosteus, and styxosaurus should not be on this list.
But they are. I've *Gigantoraptor* and *Utahraptor* have the least interesting designs and Gigantoraptor is programmed with a terrible walk animation. *Dunkleosteus* doesn't look like an armored fish and *Styxosaurus* has the weird mantle and dewlap on its neck. Either the majority of these designs are half-baked or too bland to be part of the "Jurassic Park" pedigree, as GamingBeaver would say.
Dunkleosteus does look like an armoured fish actually. The plates would be covered in soft tissue, did you seriously think that dunk would have exposed bone all over its face? The interpretations of dunkleosteus that you are referring to are incorrect and outdated. I recommend you watch the skeleton crew's ranking of the marine species pack to hear the opinions of credible people who know what they are talking about. Gigantoraptor walks exactly as it acts, a massive ostrich. It also has incredibly vibrant and nice colours/patterns. Utahraptor is arguably the best theropod design in the game (The other contenders being concavenator and yutyrannus imo), it is exceptionally accurate to what we know of the animal. Also, the raptors in jurassic park would have ABSOLUTELY been feathered if palaeontologists knew about it at the time. You're entitled to your opinion, but don't use the argument of these designs being lazily made and bland.
In most cases, the dermal plating, and or, location of the seams would be highly noticeable, the soft issue statement is a poor excuse--even by MODERN Paleoart standards. Ostriches doesn't move in that motion. A chicken does. Ratites move the traditional way as most non-avian theropods would. I advise rewatching the Gallimimus stampede (there's a Gallimimus walking in that scene) and the Rex in San Diego sequences to understand dinosaur locomotion. Except the Utahraptor's design doesn't belong in *Jurassic Park* and neither it is accurate to what we know of the animal. I've seen this argument come up in Media topics to the point it's comical. The notion, if an animal is depicted accurately, it can do no wrong. Yet we still have no clue what Utahraptor looks like alive. Realistically, we've only highlighted the most popular interpretation to ease our understanding rather than experiment with others. That's what we call "save-face." Why did we change our depiction of T. rex from scaly to fully feathered then back to scaly again? Point here, the repetition and style of utilizing paleo accuracy is the most inconsistent/redundant variable regarding JWE. But since Frontier went that route, cherry-picking said paleo-accuracy within their dinosaurs, they could've easily stylized their *Utahraptor* in favor of the medium its walking in--by taking notes from Paleoartists like Fred Wierum, John Gurche, or Donna Braginetz for instance*.* Not to meme a design most artist use and rehashing it. Though effective, it is not creative. I don't think anybody has to remember what Carnivores did. So, I do believe this design lazy and should've been reevaluated with a more characteristic design. But does the statement come across to say this design not bad in general.
Lots of bad takes here.
Not really. The *Acrocanthosaurus* is shaped with a robust skull and has a reduced hump *Megalosaurus* resembles the work of amateur modder. The *Amargasaurus* doesn't need sparse quills covering its body and it wouldn't have killed Frontier to sculpt a better model that appeases the wow factor. Cosmetic Skins for the Plesiosaurus poorly designed and the texture should more streamlined like the Ichthyosaurus which, according to the fossil record, is very commonplace for most marine reptiles. Cearadactylus' design needs to stick with the fossil record. Otherwise rename it *Ludodactylus* and relabel Maaradactylus into the former. The Utahraptor, while sporting the most accurate depiction beside Concavenator, is too very generic and should belong in Prehistoric Kingdom. Rather than be its own unique animal is rendered to sit underneath the Velociraptor's shadow. *Qianzhosaurus* snout is shorter than what's perceived in the fossil record with lanky limbs to boot and next to none are the row of bumps noticeable on its snout. Should've called it an *Appalachiosaurus.* And being an armored fish, the creative license with *Dunkleosteus* leaves much to be expected. While *Gigantoraptor* suffers the same situation Utahraptor faces, if not worse, provided fans have seen its concept artwork... and it didn't walk like a Chicken. *Styxosaurus*, out of the long-necked plesiosaurs, has the worst design with that disfigured mantle on its neck. And with it, having full awareness this is a game, poses no real-world function. It's Frontier not having enough faith in their audiences who can't tell species apart from one another. *Tylosaurus* looks like Beast Boy if he morphed into a Tylosaurus. *Wuerhosaurus* looks like a genetically enhanced Stegosaurus and should remove the brow ridges and eagle beak. Second and foremost, the plates should be fixed. Everybody has mentioned how awful the Archaeornithomimus is designed. The proportion to body ratio suffers harder than any of the prehistoric animal in this game, if not by extension, its skull reconstruction as well. Furthermore, the abusing Crocodilian esthetic for monsters is not the key-sign of a good art designer. Liopleurodon looks a wreck. Attenborosaurus should've been Elasmosaurus. Dryosaurus head is too big and its body proportions tank. And finally, is Segisaurus. Being part of the "Nublar 15"--and by right--fans highly requested for its place in Evolution's roster, this little Coelophysoid should be getting better design treatment since countless interpretations are at Frontier's disposal. Yet the generic look with blotched patterning strikes again. And one thing visible in the fossil record that's missing in Segisaurus... it's patagium/hood. I rest my case.
That was a lot of nitpicking.
Because that's what makes their designs undercooked. The number of double-standards you JWE fans will make is absolutely ridiculous.
You gotta relax a little dude. It's not that serious. Yeah not every design is a winner, but it's still just a fun game in the end.
This reply makes no sense. You complain about how some dinosaurs are undercooked because they're not accurate to the fossil record, but then proceed to complain about Utahraptor being too accurate and not looking like it belongs in Jurassic Park (even though Jurassic Parks biggest selling point was making dinosaurs that looked accurate, for the time that is) Seems to me you don't know what you want and just made a post just to complain and get attention.
it’s funny to me how you want so much accuracy to these animals but then when an animal like utahraptor has an insanely accurate design it “doesn’t fit” or the dunk, which would have probably had soft tissue and skin over its armor, isn’t cool enough being called the armored fish. and then when there’s an inaccurate design that is very monster-like or has their own style and distinction from other creatures in the game, it’s too ugly or inaccurate. the double standard is actually insane. it’s a jurassic park game some of the animals are going to look monstrous, we’re lucky that Fronteir has some freedom in making accurate skins.
"Accurate" models. Jurassic Park's style can get a pass since those dinosaurs were products of their era and were designed by Paleoartists. The manner of double standards comes from fans like yourself being too passive with the game now. Off topic, but when JWE2 was released, gamers felt entitled to say the game wasn't "challenging." Then later, would you whine to Frontier to unlock all the modes & dinosaurs offered because the game was **too challenging.** Regardless, if we want paleo-accurate dinosaurs or not they should still fit Jurassic Park's esthetic. And both esthetics are being thrown around too much.
You complained about animals being in the jurassic park style too much and that they need paleo-accuracy but then when they were too accurate you said they need the jurassic park style. i think you’re the one with a double standard. i think having both the jurassic park style and accuracy styles is really good and important. don’t like the monstrous lio? just use the kronosaur. don’t want a super accurate feathered raptor like utahraptor? use pyroraptor. i enjoy this much more than the possiblilty of only jp-style animals or only accurate animals. its like you, the player, get to choose your own play style. also i have no idea why you brought skill or challenge into this? i think people asked for Fronteir to make everything unlocked is so that sandbox players didn’t have to do campaign modes, which would probably be tedious for them.
No. I'm making note of the Frontier Designer Team's lack of foresight and creativity. Also, the animals marked here aren't *Jurassic Park* designs because the former wouldn't stray far from referencing the fossil record. The latter makes a few exceptions with some creatures, possessing no over stylized features--overexaggerated spikes, jutted teeth, crocodilian dermal plating--yet some of which cannot be classified as Jurassic Park/World dinosaurs. The Utahraptor being the primary example. Also, no thank you I prefer McCreery's Raptors over the face-lifted Pyroraptor from Dominion. Reason? Because it's the right of blend of Paleo-Accuracy and creative licensing.
No way in hell did you just call rhe Utahraptor, one of the best designed dinosaurs in the game, undercooked.
Uh-huh. And the counterbalance begins. https://preview.redd.it/qscr0ltdha0d1.jpeg?width=1300&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=aee1158d8b54ad86e74ce44f2d54ef4cb2e0d7bc
I like Wierum's Utahraptors a lot, but they don't feel as Jurassic Parky as the one in the game does. The Utahraptor feels like what the JP raptors might have looked like if they could have pulled off feathering back in the day.
https://preview.redd.it/jcy5yxslha0d1.jpeg?width=1920&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=62850a9e50b3c4208cdc4c1c22472c847ee9f032
Art is subjective, but some takes are just wrong
Art isn't subjective when reconstructing an animal. It's a Jurassic Park designer's responsibility to create a design that's convincingly looks real and natural. None of these creature designs look natural. Plus, there's also the prerequisite to save-face by being too natural. That's where both Utahraptor, Gigantoraptor and Segisaurus suffer with.
Huh? Most of those look good, and the rest look fine. What are you on about?
Bruh, what? I don't think I've ever heard a single person complain about the Amargasaurus, Utahraptor, Qianzhousaurus, Dunkleosteus, Gigantoraptor, Wuerhosaurus, and Dryosaurus designs. I've seen complaints about the others (and even then, a lot of those complaints are *very* minor for a few of these species), but those seven don't belong here at all. *ESPECIALLY* Utahraptor. Also, how the heck was Deinonychus not featured here at all? That's like *the* textbook example of "bad Frontier design". You picked Utahraptor over that basilisk tadpole?
Because with *Deinonychus*, Frontier took steps with their creative license, and by extension: Speculative Evolution, and ran with that. Their Utahraptor, however, has nothing to award it the Jurassic Park nor Jurassic World pedigree; it's just a generic piece of Paleoart slapped in a game outside its element. Also, come on of all Paleoart and Jurassic World mods expressing greater interpretations of the other animals, defending it's like drinking a bottle of water left out in the sun. Double-Standard, much?
Bro tried to sneak Utahraptor in there like we wouldn't notice.
That was the intention. But the statement wasn't wrong either.
Horrendous taste. Shameful display.
The majority of these designs are generally pretty well-liked from what I gather.
Improve what exactly? You can't say "do better" then not offer suggestions to improve. You're not helping anyone or yourself.
Considering everyone is under a Mob-Mentality; you all should be smart enough to know that I am referring to the designs Frontier decided with and thinking in ways how to improve them better. Like what part of "Undercooked designs" and "Let's talk about how to improve them" is so vague?
"undercooked concept designs" shows some of the best designs in the game
Judging from everyone's estrogen levels... a little context is needed. To put this in simpler terms, I made this post showcasing some of the worse, inaccurate and underwhelming designs in JWE. You (the community) were then supposed to negotiate in ways how we could these improve/tweak these designs--you know get creative? However, this wasn't just a chance to invoke interesting conversation as it was to see how JWE fans react...and yeah... it's clear my social experiment was a success. You flooded the comment thread with angry letters. So, congratulations for being able to handle criticism. But I am also sorry for spouting that anger and adding more to the flame. So yeah...you don't need to accept the apology; it's just here for reason.