Board Thread:Video Games/@comment-6025261-20160522031233/@comment-27240794-20160709173004

CrashBash wrote: To be fair, the JP:B Pterodactylus hardly looked any better. Very, very true. Considering that the genus Pterodactylus has existed since the early 19th century, and is one of the most well-known and best understood pterosaur genera (I think that only Pteranodon, Rhamphorhynchus, and Ornithocheirus/Tropeognathus might be better understood at this time), I feel that Ludia should give this ctenochasmatoid some more respect than just making it a recolor of an entirely different pterosaur. The anatomy is almost completely wrong in both games, and it honestly just looks bland. We have plenty of ornithocheiroids and azhdarchids, with only 4 other families being represented (Tapejaridae, Dsungaripteroidea, Dimorphodontidae, and Rhamphorhynchidae), and lumping this fascinating pterosaur in with a completely unrelated group seems like the worst path. Hell, I'd be far happier with this thing having the Dimorphodon animation, since it would look more accurate that way. Just lengthen the head's and neck's rig, shorten the tail's rig, and you'd have a "Pterodactylus" as opposed to a "female Pteranodon with a droopy beak". This "Pterodactylus" is built entirely wrong, lacking many of the distinguishing features of the real animal! Where are the keratinous beak tips? Where are the webbed feet? Where is that glorious soft-tissue crest? Where are the TEETH? Where is the long neck? Where are the more equal limb proportions? Where is its small size?

(It's so unrecognizable to most people with some understanding of Pterodactylus's anatomy that even the legendary James Beavers doesn't know if it's a real animal.)