Feathers?

edited March 2011 in Jurassic Park
So... It's pretty much the consensus of the modern paleontological community that theropod dinosaurs like Velociraptor and possibly even Tyrannosaurus had feathers. Should Telltale incorporate the most up-to-date paleontological knowledge in their design of dinosaurs for the game, or should they stick to the more reptilian design aesthetic precedented by the movies? Of course, the idea that modern birds evolved from dinosaurs is a pretty big theme in the movies, particularly the first one. Perhaps it would actually be truer to the spirit of the movies to change the design and give the raptors bird-like feathers?

Which would you prefer:

reptilian, like in the movies?
velociraptor.jpg

or more bird-like, as modern science suggests?
velociraptorAB.jpg
«13

Comments

  • edited June 2010
    While it may be scientifically inaccurate I think they should stick with what was in the movies.... its entertainment... not the discovery channel... if it was accurate from the beginning that would be one thing.
  • edited June 2010
    I agree with Irishmile. Forget the accuracy, and just focus on entertaining. The velociraptor just isn't quite as fierce with feathers. Having feathers on the raptors in Jurassic Park is like putting feathers on the rancors in Star Wars.
  • edited June 2010
    While it's only a theory that all dromeasaurids had feathers, it's not exactly truthful and well in JP3 that had quils, but I honestly think they should go with the classic look and not the new OMG DINO's WERE RELATED TO BIRDS FEATHERS LOOK!

    and that is all I have to say about that.
  • edited June 2010
    Not to mention it would be a ton easier for TTG not to have them..
  • edited June 2010
    Irishmile wrote: »
    Not to mention it would be a ton easier for TTG not to have them..

    True that. Plus the movie versions look cooler :P
  • edited June 2010
    But I would like to say while I do want the classic JP dino look... I think that feathered dino is just as cool looking... but it just isn't a JP dino.
  • edited June 2010
    I think that Telltale dinosaurs shouldn't have feathers. Or, at least, not be COVERED by feathers. It could be a nice idea having different dinosaurs with different feather crests, as if they have different "haircuts", and then we could distinguish one dinosaur "character" from another.
    Or just the "boss raptor" has a crest, just like the "boss gremlin" in the Gremlins movies.
    A Gremlins adventure game should be great, by the way...
  • edited June 2010
    I will even accept this version from three even though, I think they're ugly, but it looks like the best of Both Worlds.

    raptor01.gif
  • nikasaurnikasaur Telltale Alumni
    edited June 2010
    I've heard it said that the "feathers" were actually quite small and downy, more like some fuzz than real feathers as seen in the first picture there. I think it would look a little more textured than the scaled dinosaurs, and not nearly as severe as the mutant chicken example, but I am a fan of the classic Terrifyin' Lizardy Thing with smooth skin.
  • edited June 2010
    nikasaur wrote: »
    I've heard it said that the "feathers" were actually quite small and downy, more like some fuzz than real feathers as seen in the first picture there. I think it would look a little more textured than the scaled dinosaurs, and not nearly as severe as the mutant chicken example, but I am a fan of the classic Terrifyin' Lizardy Thing with smooth skin.

    See I am too, but then again I'm 24 and those were the Dinosaurs I was shown in books when I was in 8th grade, so those are what I envision dinosaurs to look like and well there is no actual proof that they had feathers.
  • edited June 2010
    Icedhope wrote: »
    See I am too, but then again I'm 24 and those were the Dinosaurs I was shown in books when I was in 8th grade, so those are what I envision dinosaurs to look like and well there is no actual proof that they had feathers.

    There's pretty convincing evidence that at least SOME genera of dromaeosaurs had feathers because we've found what are apparently fossilized impressions of them. Sinornithosaurus seems to have had the fuzzy, downy sorts of feathers that Niki mentioned, while Microraptor apparently had the true pennaceous feathers of modern birds. But you're right; there's no definitive proof that Velociraptors or Tyrannosaurs had feathers, and their hypothetical existence is based mainly on their relationship to these other species.
  • edited June 2010
    Also: Nikasaur! Where've you been? People have been asking about you!
  • edited June 2010
    I'd probably use the traditional lizard look for any returning dinosaur species from the movies, but I might implement feathers on "new" dinosaur types if they look right.
  • edited June 2010
    I think that they should stick to their depictions in the movies for consistency. I would also like to add that in JP, the dinosaurs were re-created by creating clones by crossing preserved DNA with other supposedly related species, so you aren't really getting the dinosaurs as they really would have been, just new never before seen creatures that have dinosaur DNA.
  • edited June 2010
    I personally am in favor of putting feathers on the JP game's dinosaurs. Sure, it wouldn't match up with the movies' depictions of the various species, but greater scientific accuracy is always a plus in this sort of franchise. Michael Crichton would have approved, I think.

    Also... Let's face it, 50 years from now, the dinosaurs in the Jurassic Park films are going to seem utterly unrealistic and laughably misconceived, much as people today think of Godzilla. I wouldn't want the game's dinosaurs to share a similar fate.

    Plus, the "lumbering reptilian dinosaur" is really an outworn cliche that's hung around in popular perception despite being long debunked scientifically. I think it'd be good for the game to break the stereotype's mold, and do something totally new, fresh, exciting, and up-to-date with the dinosaurs' look, franchise consistency be damned.

    And finally, I think the idea of feathered dinosaurs is really cool, plain and simple. Nothing beats Rule of Cool.

    Although I will concede that the feathered dinosaurs would be much harder to model in 3D than the old-fashioned scaly variety of dino. You're up to the challenge, Telltale, I know it!
  • edited June 2010
    Seems that the larger dinos probably didn't have feathers, and those smaller ones that did were more like shafts than the feathers of modern-day birds. That's according to this article (which may well be superseded by now);

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20127005.100-were-all-dinosaurs-beasts-of-a-feather.html

    Actually, the wiki article is really good reading;

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feathered_dinosaurs
  • edited June 2010
    I always thought that if they were really able to bring Dinosaurs back to life, most of us would be dissapointed, because they probably wouldn't look as I imagine them... JP styled, that is.
    The Raptors look incredibly cool in the first two films, because they look menacing and reptilian, and they size is completely innacurate. That's awesome in my opinion, even if it's incorrect.

    Classic Raptors, please.
  • edited June 2010
    This thread has blown my mind (and altered my childhood slightly).
  • edited June 2010
    has the Utahraptor been debunked its so hard to keep track of what paleontologists decide.

    I remember reading the Velociraptor from the movies are actually more like like Utahraptor
  • edited June 2010
    Irishmile wrote: »
    has the Utahraptor been debunked its so hard to keep track of what paleontologists decide.

    I remember reading the Velociraptor from the movies are actually more like like Utahraptor

    They are more like Utah Raptors and the funny thing is Utahraptor is being classified as a allosaurid and not a raptor.
  • edited June 2010
    jp-30 wrote: »
    Seems that the larger dinos probably didn't have feathers, and those smaller ones that did were more like shafts than the feathers of modern-day birds. That's according to this article (which may well be superseded by now);

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20127005.100-were-all-dinosaurs-beasts-of-a-feather.html

    Actually, the wiki article is really good reading;

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feathered_dinosaurs
    The wiki link notes that the Tyrannosaur feather debate is unresolved. Smaller tyrannosauroid fossils indicate thin proto-feather shafts, but larger fossils clearly show scales. So the question is: did the feather-like shafts fall off as a tyrannosaur matured, as occurs in rhinos and elephants, or did the two elements coexist in different spots on a T-rex's body surface?

    You can probably get away with depicting either variation at this time, frankly. The question is far from settled. But only one answer can really be correct. Maddening!

    The Velociraptor feathers, though, were apparently much more well-developed and birdlike, and thus more evolutionarily advanced than the "proto-feathers" of larger dinosaurs.

    Wiki also notes that it's much more likely than not that the Utahraptor and its relatives also possessed dramatic, birdlike feathers, so it wasn't just Velociraptor proper. The JP movies may have modeled their raptors on Utahraptor, but in that case the depiction most likely did get them wrong.

    I think Telltale ought to go for scientific accuracy on this one--that means feathers on the raptors. T-Rex is still up in the air.
  • edited June 2010
    ATMachine wrote: »
    The wiki link notes that the Tyrannosaur feather debate is unresolved. Smaller tyrannosauroid fossils indicate thin proto-feather shafts, but larger fossils clearly show scales. So the question is: did the feather-like shafts fall off as a tyrannosaur matured, as occurs in rhinos and elephants, or did the two elements coexist in different spots on a T-rex's body surface?

    You can probably get away with depicting either variation at this time, frankly. The question is far from settled. But only one answer can really be correct. Maddening!

    The Velociraptor feathers, though, were apparently much more well-developed and birdlike, and thus more evolutionarily advanced than the "proto-feathers" of larger dinosaurs.

    Wiki also notes that it's much more likely than not that the Utahraptor and its relatives also possessed dramatic, birdlike feathers, so it wasn't just Velociraptor proper. The JP movies may have modeled their raptors on Utahraptor, but in that case the depiction most likely did get them wrong.

    I think Telltale ought to go for scientific accuracy on this one--that means feathers on the raptors. T-Rex is still up in the air.

    But it's all just theory that they even had proto feathers, there haven't been in fossilizations of Velociraptor with feathers, just because some dromasaurid "May" Have had feathers, thats the thing with Paleontology it's all theories and Hypothesis, and well I honestly think with the JP game should show them how they are in the movie.
  • edited June 2010
    Icedhope wrote: »
    But it's all just theory that they even had proto feathers, there haven't been in fossilizations of Velociraptor with feathers, just because some dromasaurid "May" Have had feathers, thats the thing with Paleontology it's all theories and Hypothesis, and well I honestly think with the JP game should show them how they are in the movie.

    Actually, they have found feathered raptor fossils:
    Wikipedia wrote:
    Norell et al. (2007) reported quill knobs from an ulna of Velociraptor mongoliensis, and these are strongly correlated with large and well-developed secondary feathers.

    Paleontology is very much about what you call "theorizing". However, this is not just a "theory" in the sense that "The Moon is made of green cheese" is a theory. It's a scientific theory, that is, an extrapolation based on generally accepted starting points.

    In this case, the presence of quill knobs is believed to indicate the presence of large, birdlike feathers. This correlation is sound for today's animals, so it should hold true here as well.

    (It's amazing how many people dismiss time-tested scientific ideas, like evolution, with those four simple words: "It's just a theory!" News flash: In science, words are often defined differently than in normal usage. Scientific theories, unlike what ordinary people think of as "theories," often have heaps of evidence to back them up.)

    If a family of dinosaurs, let's say Dromosauridae, is known to have evolved the trait of feathers at one stage of evolution, it's logical to surmise, until proven otherwise, that all the later-evolving separate members of that family would retain such feathers. Remember, all the members of an evolutionary group share a common ancestor.

    In fact the Wiki article suggests that the point at which birdlike feathers evolved was some time before the evolutionary distinction of Dromosauridae from other dinosaur families (and thus before the emergence of raptors), since other families in the infraorder Oviraptorosauria (to which Dromosauridae belong) also show feathered fossils.
  • edited June 2010
    ATMachine wrote: »
    Actually, they have found feathered raptor fossils:



    Paleontology is very much about what you call "theorizing". However, this is not just a "theory" in the sense that "The Moon is made of green cheese" is a theory. It's a scientific theory, that is, an extrapolation based on generally accepted starting points.

    In this case, the presence of quill knobs is believed to indicate the presence of large, birdlike feathers. This correlation is sound for today's animals, so it should hold true here as well.

    (It's amazing how many people dismiss time-tested scientific ideas, like evolution, with those four simple words: "It's just a theory!" News flash: In science, words are often defined differently than in normal usage. Scientific theories, unlike what ordinary people think of as "theories," often have heaps of evidence to back them up.)

    If a family of dinosaurs, let's say Dromosauridae, is known to have evolved the trait of feathers at one stage of evolution, it's logical to surmise, until proven otherwise, that all the later-evolving separate members of that family would retain such feathers. Remember, all the members of an evolutionary group share a common ancestor.

    In fact the Wiki article suggests that the point at which birdlike feathers evolved was some time before the evolutionary distinction of Dromosauridae from other dinosaur families (and thus before the emergence of raptors), since other families in the infraorder Oviraptorosauria (to which Dromosauridae belong) also show feathered fossils.

    Well thats the first problem right there your bringing wiki into this and if thats your main point than you have no idea if that Data is fact. Second Primates, Primates are a good example of this as an example we are humans, and if you trace back to....let's say 500,000 years ago humans had a lot more hair than we do now. So this Microraptor may have had feathers, but some of these animals live millions of years apart from their ancestors so who's to say that they all had feathers, sure I'll say earlier Dromarasaurs may have had feathers, but it doesn't mean they all dead.
  • edited June 2010
    Icedhope wrote: »
    Well thats the first problem right there your bringing wiki into this and if thats your main point than you have no idea if that Data is fact

    You can't just dismiss something as being from Wikipedia when Wikipedia cites its sources. In this case, the information comes from a 2007 article in ScienceDaily. While this is a popular science magazine and not an academic journal, the article contains direct quotes from an interview with well-established and respected paleontologists from the American Museum of Natural History.
  • edited June 2010
    You can't just dismiss something as being from Wikipedia when Wikipedia cites its sources. In this case, the information comes from a 2007 article in ScienceDaily. While this is a popular science magazine and not an academic journal, the article contains direct quotes from an interview with well-established and respected paleontologists from the American Museum of Natural History.

    I'm not trying to be the villain here, I'm not..I'm just going by what I know of wikipedia, and by what i've experienced using it for papers, that most of the sites sourced were wrong.
  • edited June 2010
    ATMachine wrote: »
    It's amazing how many people dismiss time-tested scientific ideas, like evolution, with those four simple words: "It's just a theory!" News flash: In science, words are often defined differently than in normal usage. Scientific theories, unlike what ordinary people think of as "theories," often have heaps of evidence to back them up.

    Thank you so much for saying this. I have been trying to explain this very same concept on several other threads. It's frustrating to see years and years of careful research dismissed by "It's just a theory".
  • edited June 2010
    Oh, come on! It's a movie about scientists extracting DNA from prehistoric mosquitoes, mixing that with some frog DNA and growing dinosaurs in a tube...
    Can't we just agree that adding frog DNA may cause dinosaur baldness?

    And unless we see some scientists cloning some feathered DNA in the game, I'd really stay away from such big change from the movies. Better stay true to the movies. Otherwise what's the point of calling it a Jurassic Park title in the first place?
  • edited June 2010
    All that male patterned baldness is probably why they are all so cranky and extra bitey.
  • edited June 2010
    For the record, I personally think Telltale should stick with what's already been established by the movies. I just thought I'd point out the changing views in paleontology and start up a discussion to see what other people thought.
  • edited June 2010
    They should, for the most part, base the models on the ones seen the films but they could make some subtle changes as the models changed slightly throughout the trilogy anyway.

    I wonder if this game will be considered JP4 like the Ghostbusters game is set just after Ghostbusters 2.
  • edited June 2010
    I wonder if this game will be considered JP4 like the Ghostbusters game is set just after Ghostbusters 2.

    Nope:
    "The games are going to exist within these worlds," said Connors. "I wouldn't call these games sequels per se but a new interpretation of their worlds for a new medium. For one generation, it's an introduction to these series. For another generation, it's a thing they can look back on and something they can share warmly with their family and friends."

    Personally, I think that, since these games are based on fiction and will be a part of an already established franchise, they should stick to dinosaur depictions as already established within the world of JP.
  • edited June 2010
    Here is a Dino fact I learned from Jurassic Park

    If you stand really still.... the T-rex will start to question its life wondering why you are not afraid of him and running away, he will then get seriously depressed and lose its appetite.... but the second you run he gets all pumped up like a T-rex king and eats you while you are on the toilet.
  • edited June 2010
    "The games are going to exist within these worlds," said Connors. "I wouldn't call these games sequels per se but a new interpretation of their worlds for a new medium. For one generation, it's an introduction to these series. For another generation, it's a thing they can look back on and something they can share warmly with their family and friends."
    "New interpretation," eh? That suggests the games will be a sort of Jurassic Park "alternate continuity," which would exist separately from the movies. Maybe that would eliminate any roadblocks preventing Telltale from re-imagining the Velociraptors in a scientifically up-to-date and accurate fashion.

    I don't get why so many people are wedded to old, outmoded ideas about what dinosaurs looked like. The scaly raptors of the first JP film may be a treasured childhood memory, but that doesn't make their appearance any less inaccurate.

    Science marches on, and cinema and video games change to match. Wanting to preserve the old JP "raptor look" is a bit like declaring that T-rex should always be shown as he appears in the 1933 King Kong.
  • edited June 2010
    I don't know, movie continuity makes sense too.
  • edited June 2010
    jp-30 wrote: »
    I don't know, movie continuity makes sense too.
    Well, doesn't Dan Connors mean by a "new interpretation" that the games will be sort of an "alternate version" of the movies? That is, assuming I'm interpreting this correctly, the episodes might not take place in the same continuity as the films. I think I remember that being mentioned somewhere, though I can't recall the source off the top of my head. (Of course, I could be completely wrong--feel free to correct me!)

    If that's the case, then the games could basically be set in a separate, parallel universe from that of the films. And of course, in both universes dinosaur cloning is a viable technology, though quite possibly the end results are different. Maybe that's the best way to resolve the thorny question of continuity in the velociraptors' appearance.
  • edited June 2010
    You're no doubt referring to Dan's comments in this AP article;

    http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h5nxzcnlNVZIOXev0Elw-ub182YgD9G7MFF80
    Connors said the games, which are in the early stages of development, would tell new stories extending the "Back to the Future" and "Jurassic Park" lore. He teased that the "Back to the Future" games may include a DeLorean ride back to the 1970s while the "Jurassic Park" games would be intense and add new backstories to the series' man-versus-dinosaur mythology.

    "The games are going to exist within these worlds," said Connors. "I wouldn't call these games sequels per se but a new interpretation of their worlds for a new medium. For one generation, it's an introduction to these series. For another generation, it's a thing they can look back on and something they can share warmly with their family and friends."

    Quite what he means is open to interpretation, and if yours is correct, then yeah, what you say makes sense.

    I think the telling line is 'add new backstories to the... mythology', which could mean the games are set prior to the first movie, or possibly between the movies.
  • edited June 2010
    I think feathered dinosaurs would be cool. I don't understand how they're less scary. Seems like the only reason feathered dinosaurs are less scary is that they haven't been depicted enough in scary dinosaur media.

    I think feathered animals can be scary. I'm still afraid to go under a tree in spring... Australian magpies can be very territorial. Also, cassowaries are terrifying. I think of them as the closest living thing to velociraptors.
  • edited June 2010
    Shwoo wrote: »
    I think feathered dinosaurs would be cool. I don't understand how they're less scary. Seems like the only reason feathered dinosaurs are less scary is that they haven't been depicted enough in scary dinosaur media.

    I think feathered animals can be scary. I'm still afraid to go under a tree in spring... Australian magpies can be very territorial. Also, cassowaries are terrifying. I think of them as the closest living thing to velociraptors.

    I don't know I think if they used the feathered dinosaurs, it will be like running from a bird, wich would lose some of the scariness.

    Except Cassowaries are bigger than a raptor.
  • edited June 2010
    Irishmile wrote: »
    Here is a Dino fact I learned from Jurassic Park

    If you stand really still.... the T-rex will start to question its life wondering why you are not afraid of him and running away, he will then get seriously depressed and lose its appetite.... but the second you run he gets all pumped up like a T-rex king and eats you while you are on the toilet.

    The funny thing about this is that in the books this isn't true. The people who stand still just get eaten first.:D
Sign in to comment in this discussion.