Jump to content

MYSTERIOUS MYSTERIES: INTRODUCING ???????


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 180
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Two "Mysterious Mysteries" about Desert creatures. I predict the announcement of the desert biome!

YOU'RE HURTING MY EARS!! 

It looks like the real argentavis 

Posted Images

10 hours ago, Scorpio said:

Except the fact that they didn't use a prehistoric name for the animals  I mentioned but the dire wolf (canis dirus) and dire bear (arctodus aka short faced bear) do use a prehistoric name in their dossiers and even though you may say the modern animals I mentioned could be based off of one of the many prehistoric specimens, than why didn't the devs use one? And finally animals like the spider seem to be a hybrid of many different modern spiders just like the manta is fused with a sting ray

 

8 hours ago, Scorpio said:

Nothing in the leeches dossier including its name points to it being prehistoric

Also thanks for reminding me this is another modern animal that was added

And no I don't hate all the modern creatures that we're added because I like the way they implemented the manta and eel but I do prefer arks creatures to be prehistoric I was also mainly just correcting you

Oh, didn't realise as my knowledge on the actual names is not that large. Also you wouldn't believe how hard my friends try to correct me, it quote funny actually how hard most of them try...   Then fail once I point out their invalid logic or that what they corrected me one was correct.

8 hours ago, Deadpool00012 said:

I actually like long comments, and yours that i have read are especially good.

Thank you, I appreciate it. I always try to make it at detailed as possible and accurate as I can manage.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Scorpio said:

Nope the jellyfish, dung beetle, manta, eel, snail, and spider are all modern 

Scorpio, not to put too fine a point on it, but none of the creatures you mentioned are modern.  All are purely fictional, and loosely based on a combination of (usually) fossil evidence and/or combined traits.

All of the creatures differ significantly from any modern creature, even the lowly Coelacanths (in ARK they provide flesh fit to eat).  They were all given unique scientific names to make this clear, and silly game mechanics each creature possesses aside, tend to differ from "modern" creatures significantly in other ways as well... most often by a dramatic difference in size.

Using your rather liberal (and inaccurate) definition of a "modern animal" you could also say that a Sarco is just a large modern croc, a Kairuku is just a oversized modern penguin, and a Dire Wolf is just a modern wolf blown up to pony size... none of which is correct.

Now if they put, say, a horse in game... gave it a silly ability (which is a given)... and labeled it Equus Ferus Caballus... then you would be correct.  However if they put in a Eohippus, or a Tarpan, those are not modern creatures (they are all extinct, some fairly recently).

Not that it matters really, ARK is not a game about prehistoric creatures.  it is a game filled with either extinct creatures (usually fantasy variations that are only loosely based on actual extinct creatures), or purely fantasy creatures.  So the only guideline that matters is that (aside from humans) if you find it in ARK, you won't find it still alive today.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ranger1presents said:

Scorpio, not to put too fine a point on it, but none of the creatures you mentioned are modern.  All are purely fictional, and loosely based on a combination of (usually) fossil evidence and/or combined traits.

All of the creatures differ significantly from any modern creature, even the lowly Coelacanths (in ARK they provide flesh fit to eat).  They were all given unique scientific names to make this clear, and silly game mechanics each creature possesses aside, tend to differ from "modern" creatures significantly in other ways as well... most often by a dramatic difference in size.

Using your rather liberal (and inaccurate) definition of a "modern animal" you could also say that a Sarco is just a large modern croc, a Kairuku is just a oversized modern penguin, and a Dire Wolf is just a modern wolf blown up to pony size... none of which is correct.

Now if they put, say, a horse in game... gave it a silly ability (which is a given)... and labeled it Equus Ferus Caballus... then you would be correct.  However if they put in a Eohippus, or a Tarpan, those are not modern creatures (they are all extinct, some fairly recently).

Not that it matters really, ARK is not a game about prehistoric creatures.  it is a game filled with either extinct creatures (usually fantasy variations that are only loosely based on actual extinct creatures), or purely fantasy creatures.  So the only guideline that matters is that (aside from humans) if you find it in ARK, you won't find it still alive today.

I just wish everyone would stop assuming they know how extinct creatures acted or looked, because nobody knows. They are extinct and have been too long for humans to have a record of them. We draw loose estimates/parallels to modern creatures from their bones and just assume that it is right when that is all the physical evidence we have. Other than say Ice Age creatures that were frozen, but that is a different story. So sure the creatures in Ark have been "Arkized" but that doesn't mean they are wrong because nobody knows what is right.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed!  Many of the "facts" we accept today will be thrown away in favor of new theories tomorrow... just as the "facts" of yesterday have been replaced many times by the new theories of today.

The only exceptions would be creatures frozen, as you mentioned, and those species that have gone extinct during our brief period of recorded history such as the Dodo or the Great Auk.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, ranger1presents said:

Indeed!  Many of the "facts" we accept today will be thrown away in favor of new theories tomorrow... just as the "facts" of yesterday have been replaced many times by the new theories of today.

The only exceptions would be creatures frozen, as you mentioned, and those species that have gone extinct during our brief period of recorded history such as the Dodo or the Great Auk.

This very true, as a recent excavation in (i think it was) china, found a new fossil of a theropod of the tyrannosaurus genus (this is why I'm not sure that it was china, far as i know tyrannosaurs weren't found in Asia) that had feather fossils with it, have lead what ever profession studies dinosaurs and prehistoric creatures to believe that dinosaurs might have actually all been feathered (can't remember all the specifics sorry or the articles name were i read it). So on a rather humerous side note, the fearsome reptilian T-rex that most of us was awed by as 5 year old boys, may have actually resembled a Goliath Chicken minus the beak!

PS. Big fan of ur Ranger Chronicles Series on Youtube, keep up the amazing videos.

Edited by DaEndGame
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, WindsweptDragon said:

A prime meat stacker ? 

Considering vultures are scavergers, they're probably able to gather spoiled meat or make regular meats spoil faster. So the Prime Meat stacker idea that keeps poping up is unlikely.

But still it would definitely be a nice feature, albeit for another creature

Edited by DaEndGame
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, DaEndGame said:

Considering vultures are scavergers, they're probably able to gather spoiled meat or make regular meats spoil faster. So the Prime Meat stacker idea that keeps poping up is unlikely.

Just trying to think up roles Id still like to be filled that have at least some connection with the animal. Vulture - meat 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

36 minutes ago, WindsweptDragon said:

Just trying to think up roles Id still like to be filled that have at least some connection with the animal. Vulture - meat 

Understandable, if this were an irl vocal conversation I probs would have seemed to be a total jerk and said u think about what u say in relativity to the subject blah blah etc. because i didn't think on ur idea and in doing so I would be a hypocrite.

But i am thinking about it, so I say that it's a good idea and definitely a much wanted feature by most if not all and that i need to stop waffling on about stuff.

Edited: Vulture - scavenger - typically eats decaying meat - would most likely have an ability involving spoiled meat.

Edited by DaEndGame
Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, HcoreAssasins said:

 I like Trains, but tittanosaurs hit harder so i like them more :3

Me too, but when i saw them in person i wasn't happy with the size, thay said It's escentially a walking mountain when it was more of a medium hill. So I Made it 3 times bigger, now it's a better size and about halfway to mountain size; hehehe 

the screen shots are in my Xbox live feed - Gt is DaEndGame531 if u want to see.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, ranger1presents said:

Scorpio, not to put too fine a point on it, but none of the creatures you mentioned are modern.  All are purely fictional, and loosely based on a combination of (usually) fossil evidence and/or combined traits.

All of the creatures differ significantly from any modern creature, even the lowly Coelacanths (in ARK they provide flesh fit to eat).  They were all given unique scientific names to make this clear, and silly game mechanics each creature possesses aside, tend to differ from "modern" creatures significantly in other ways as well... most often by a dramatic difference in size.

Using your rather liberal (and inaccurate) definition of a "modern animal" you could also say that a Sarco is just a large modern croc, a Kairuku is just a oversized modern penguin, and a Dire Wolf is just a modern wolf blown up to pony size... none of which is correct.

Now if they put, say, a horse in game... gave it a silly ability (which is a given)... and labeled it Equus Ferus Caballus... then you would be correct.  However if they put in a Eohippus, or a Tarpan, those are not modern creatures (they are all extinct, some fairly recently).

Not that it matters really, ARK is not a game about prehistoric creatures.  it is a game filled with either extinct creatures (usually fantasy variations that are only loosely based on actual extinct creatures), or purely fantasy creatures.  So the only guideline that matters is that (aside from humans) if you find it in ARK, you won't find it still alive today.

 

If you would have read any of the comments I posted after that, then even you would be able to understand what I'm saying but just because it's your lucky day let me elaborate just for you

First off the creatures I mentioned, along with every other creature in ark are fictional however they are still based on (some more loosely based on) there real world counterparts in there dossiers scientific name, which is what the prehistoric animals have

Secondly the ones I mentioned use there extant scientific name or family not a prehistoric one and have no clear fossil evidence shown in there dossiers or any special prehistoric spider traits besides the norm, so don't say the devs based it off a prehistoric one

And what do you mean by my logic? Not once did I name a prehistoric creature whether it was basically a giant croc or not and if I did, prove it and while you're at it prove that one of those creatures are prehistoric or based on a prehistoric species, and a Dire Wolf was never even giant it was slightly bigger than a grey wolf and I actually like the devs creative freedom on making it bigger 

And who said anything about prehistoric horses? If it's prehistoric I could care less if it's added or not I just wouldn't like it if it looked to much like an extant horse or was literally an extant horse 

That is very true however the creatures I mentioned are still based one real world counterparts and even though they are all technically fictional species the only true fictional ones are the bosses and first two mysterious mystery creatures  (or maybe I'm wrong because they are mysteries after all)

 

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

 

Oh, didn't realise as my knowledge on the actual names is not that large. Also you wouldn't believe how hard my friends try to correct me, it quote funny actually how hard most of them try...   Then fail once I point out their invalid logic or that what they corrected me one was correct.

Thank you, I appreciate it. I always try to make it at detailed as possible and accurate as I can manage.

No problem I should also not expect everyone knows or looks at their scientific name

Also my bad if I came off as a ***hole lol

Link to post
Share on other sites
On July 7, 2016 at 4:30 PM, DaEndGame said:

Like i mentioned above, the leech in ark is an extinc ancestor of modern leeches, as for the coelacanths they are prehistoric.  creatures and were believed to be extinct till one was pulled up dynamite fishermen in (i think) south african waters. Now a days marine biologists (im prety sure its marine biologists) go on diving expeditions to find them, though due to how rare they are very few of these expeditions end up encountering one.

I remember writing a book report on the person who "discovered" the modern cousins of the once thought extinct coelcanths. It's was in South Africa around the turn of the 20h century and I think they had it stuffed and mounted. Google should have a pic of that now famous fish. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

20 minutes ago, CApKiller said:

I remember writing a book report on the person who "discovered" the modern cousins of the once thought extinct coelcanths. It's was in South Africa around the turn of the 20h century and I think they had it stuffed and mounted. Google should have a pic of that now famous fish. 

Now that you say it, I did forget to state that it is actually their modern cousin, but there is actually very few differences between them, although I cann't recall what they are; then again it's been so long since I looked at the article that I read it from.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Scorpio said:

No problem I should also not expect everyone knows or looks at their scientific name

Also my bad if I came off as a ***hole lol

Yeah it is rather hard to convey tone in text form, so one has to be careful about word choice and order as I stated on one of the previous pages. Also I do look at scientific name, my memory is just horrible when it comes to very large names especially when said name is in latin. 

PS. Thank you for apologising for coming off as a bit of an ***hole, so few people ever do apologize for their rudeness even if it's unintended, myself included at times. (I know what it's like to post somehing that sounds perfectly fine to me, but others get ticked off at me from it, because it sounds [9/10 times] arrogant and smart***ish.)

Edited by DaEndGame
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, derpwarrior98 said:

These are all Teases for the Desert Biome
hurry and release it

http://ark.gamepedia.com/Upcoming_Features#Environment

1. Like casanova you're metaphorically hurting my ears; no need for such a large font.

2. They probably wont be releasing for a while yet while they finish and/or polish the biome up, fix any bugs that have arisen with said biome, and they will most likely try to haveat least two-to-three maybe even four new dinos to release with it and possibly the addition of an adobe themed structure set like in P+.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Deadpool00012 said:

Every one keeps talking about prime meat here, and getting more- which is an awesome concept- but i think the vulture will do something different because the Carcharodonto already does that. (read the dossier)

Yeah I pointed this out too, minus the Carcharodonto thing and I also agree it's an awesome and somewhat practical concept... Just not for a vulture.

Then again being a scavenger it could be better at getting prime due to it knowing were the best meat on a carcuss is!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...