Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Burnside

Skyrim in Ark?

Recommended Posts

There's ways of blocking certain spawns, sure.. But outside of making the map by scratch, there's no
way to procedurally generate a skyrim map.

My question is.. Why would you? If you're wanting to play Skyrim, Go play skyrim. That being said, I don't
see how the two games are similar, outside of sharing a few creatures and a snow biome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Tatarnikov said:

Of course,but at least they're based on real creatures,for example giganotosaurus was never that giant or trike never looked like that,but theyre based on real creatures,not like giant creature made of rock,a lion-eagle hybrid or  dragons

To be entirely fair, most of the mythical creatures are based on real ones too.

The dragons designs are based (loosely) on monitor lizards instead of on fantasy work. Presumably done to just give them a sci-fi aesthetic, but still relevant.

The giant thorny dragons are (deliberately-) paradoxically based on horned lizards.

The moths and mantises are based explicitly on their modern day counterparts (and no further off from the real versions than any of the dinosaurs, if not closer to reality).

The phoenix seems to be based on a lyrebird, but hard to say until we see it finished.

Griffins were probably chosen because of their relation to paleontology. The griffin is one of the first recorded depictions of a fossil in life, Protoceratops namely. Having griffins in the game is no less scientifically accurate than having Crystal Palace or Jurassic Park styled dinosaurs (which they do).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, stargatedalek said:

To be entirely fair, most of the mythical creatures are based on real ones too.

The dragons designs are based (loosely) on monitor lizards instead of on fantasy work. Presumably done to just give them a sci-fi aesthetic, but still relevant.

The giant thorny dragons are (deliberately-) paradoxically based on horned lizards.

The moths and mantises are based explicitly on their modern day counterparts (and no further off from the real versions than any of the dinosaurs, if not closer to reality).

The phoenix seems to be based on a lyrebird, but hard to say until we see it finished.

Griffins were probably chosen because of their relation to paleontology. The griffin is one of the first recorded depictions of a fossil in life, Protoceratops namely. Having griffins in the game is no less scientifically accurate than having Crystal Palace or Jurassic Park styled dinosaurs (which they do).

yea,propably youre right,but the only connection between real creatures and griffins,dragons,phoenixes etc. is because ancient guys did a mistake and told Hey guys this pile of bones belonged to giant flying shooting fire reptile! becasue i say! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Tatarnikov said:

yea,propably youre right,but the only connection between real creatures and griffins,dragons,phoenixes etc. is because ancient guys did a mistake and told Hey guys this pile of bones belonged to giant flying shooting fire reptile! becasue i say! 

The same could be said for the Jurassic Park dinosaurs. "Why do we need to make the Velociraptors huge and break their wrists and give them scales?" "Because production research said so.".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, stargatedalek said:

The same could be said for the Jurassic Park dinosaurs. "Why do we need to make the Velociraptors huge and break their wrists and give them scales?" "Because production research said so.".

The thing that everyone forgets about the Jurassic Park series is that none of the animals in the series were actual dinosaurs.
All of them were Chimeras, animals made up of the genetic material of 2 or more creatures through gene splicing and cloning
techniques. The thing is, when someone hears the word "Clone" they think a 1 to 1 copy of the original, but that's rarely the case.

The fact that they were never scientifically accurate has been something the movies and books has never been shy about, so I
really don't get where some fanboys get off whining about scientific accuracy when it concerns the portrayal of the dinos in the
jurassic park series.

Eh, mini rant over.

Anyway, if it wasn't clear from my first post, I honestly don't see the real comparison to Ark being like Skyrim. Ok, so the two
have a few similar animals. Know what has more in common than Skyrim to ark? Dungeons and Dragons. They actually have
dinosaurs in the bestiary, and not all of them are scientific either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, stargatedalek said:

The same could be said for the Jurassic Park dinosaurs. "Why do we need to make the Velociraptors huge and break their wrists and give them scales?" "Because production research said so.".

Actually in-game raptors are in properly size,they're Utahraptors,which were propably the biggest member of the Dromaeosauridae family.

And we're talking now about the game,not the jurassic park(anyways i love the spinosaurus design from JP)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Extraterrestrial said:

The thing that everyone forgets about the Jurassic Park series is that none of the animals in the series were actual dinosaurs.
All of them were Chimeras, animals made up of the genetic material of 2 or more creatures through gene splicing and cloning
techniques. The thing is, when someone hears the word "Clone" they think a 1 to 1 copy of the original, but that's rarely the case.

The fact that they were never scientifically accurate has been something the movies and books has never been shy about, so I
really don't get where some fanboys get off whining about scientific accuracy when it concerns the portrayal of the dinos in the
jurassic park series.

People complain about accuracy in them for the exact reason that no one gets they're meant to be chimeras. They were never accurate even for the time as you said, they were played up to be movie monsters from the very beginning even in the actual lore. The Jurassic Park designs have become a huge pop-culture staple, but the problem is that that pop-culture image has expanded beyond science fiction and film recognition and causes actual real problems for people trying to educate about paleontology.

My point was that the Jurassic Park dinosaur depictions are outdated (even the parts that weren't deliberately "monsterized"), just like the Crystal Palace depictions, and just like the griffins of Mongolia (the griffins "of" medieval Europe are just another pop-culture copy-cat). All were (failed) attempts to reconstruct extinct life and they became outdated as science marches on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, stargatedalek said:

People complain about accuracy in them for the exact reason that no one gets they're meant to be chimeras. They were never accurate even for the time as you said, they were played up to be movie monsters from the very beginning even in the actual lore. The Jurassic Park designs have become a huge pop-culture staple, but the problem is that that pop-culture image has expanded beyond science fiction and film recognition and causes actual real problems for people trying to educate about paleontology.

My point was that the Jurassic Park dinosaur depictions are outdated (even the parts that weren't deliberately "monsterized"), just like the Crystal Palace depictions, and just like the griffins of Mongolia (the griffins "of" medieval Europe are just another pop-culture copy-cat). All were (failed) attempts to reconstruct extinct life and they became outdated as science marches on.

I don't see it as a problem, since just about every dinosaur enthusiast I know of has no qualms
with pointing out mistakes and explaining why they're mistakes and what the actual animals looked like,
how they acted, etc, etc.

The main reason they haven't updated the Crystal Castle statues is because they themselves are an important
part of Palentological History, and changing them to reflect scientific modernization and accuracy would be
doing history a great disservice, because scientists we're never always right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/11/2017 at 0:39 AM, Extraterrestrial said:

There's ways of blocking certain spawns, sure.. But outside of making the map by scratch, there's no
way to procedurally generate a skyrim map.

My question is.. Why would you? If you're wanting to play Skyrim, Go play skyrim. That being said, I don't
see how the two games are similar, outside of sharing a few creatures and a snow biome.

Maybe OP should try Dark and Light. Dark and Light is similar to Skyrim, ARK not so much. When OP finds Dark and Light he'll probably just go for that since it seems more like his cup of tea.

Now, add first person and breeding/mutations to Dark and Light and I will consider playing it over ARK.  I love the concept pf Dark and Light and the fact that there are npcs/villages/quests but no breeding or platform saddles kills it for me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it be cool if there where quests we could do in ark like on skyrim and have magic and a similar combat system.  or be able to play elf races or ork races  or a type of humanoid alien.  each race could have an ability.  more armors and outfits.  I also wish they would add structures plus. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...