Hot Take: Commonness in Zoos as a criteria for upcoming DLC animals

[Marvinb]

This might be a hot take but the general/casual playerbase probably doesnt give a insert curse here about if an animal is common in zoos or not. Platypus for example are popular and instantly recognizeable animals but are pretty much nonexistent in zoos outside australia.
Kiwis are also a great example: Ive read multiple times that they shouldnt be in a potential islands dlc because no zoo has them.
IMO this is a flawed perspective since the was majority isnt building the most realistic zoo possible, they just wanna build for some cool animals regardless of how common they are in zoo, its a game afterall.
Frontier also showed multiple times that they dont care too much about it either, the already mention platypus but also proboscis monkeys are prime examples for this.
So we should really stop pretending that rarity in zoos is a dealbreaker for potential upcoming animals

 

[DarthQuell]

The Captive Breeding pack discussion

Y'all, I've been reading about these parrots that are captive, but only in their local range in conservation efforts, such as the kea, kākāpō, and Spix's macaw. Now, what would y'all say to a pack that's dedicated to these types of animals? True, they aren't found in zoos and collections all...

forums.frontier.co.uk

Check out this thread for a very similar idea I thought of

 

[Angeł]

Yeah, I half agree with you there.
I don’t think people should automatically rule out animals just because they are not kept in zoological collections IF THEY REALISTICALLY COULD BE. For example, the Sumatran Rhinoceros is no longer held in any facilities outside of its native range. However, they were proven to do pretty well in zoos and have been kept in the past. There is no reason that this animal couldn’t be in the game if Frontier wanted to include it. I’d definitely support its inclusion, as an important species for conservation and a unique and oddball addition.
However, I think that if an animal cannot be kept in captivity, it should not be included in the game. For example, the Indri lemur is well known for not being able to survive in captivity, and this is the reason it is not found in any zoos. I think for a zoo game, it’d be absurd to add an animal that has not and cannot survive in captivity. You cannot possibly replicate their captive behaviours because they have none.
Another case in which I think commonness in zoos SHOULD be taken into account is when choosing between two versions of a similar species. For example, sloths. Now, Three Toed Sloths are undeniably the more recognisable species of sloth. However, the Two Toed is hundreds of times easier to keep in captivity and therefore has so many more holdings than its A-List counterpart. And whilst the Three Toed is much more recognisable, I think the general public would probably not even bat an eyelid if they got a Two Toed over a Three Toed; they’d just say ‘sloth!’ and move on. So for this reason, I think to please both a general playerbase who just want to build for ‘cool animals’ and a more realism centred group, the Two Toed should be considered the better option of the two.
So, I think you’re definitely right in that some animals that currently have little to no captive holdings should still be considered if they have historically done well in captivity and fill a niche that is not currently filled, I do believe that commonness in zoos should be taken into account when it comes down to choosing certain species to be introduced.

 

[Marvinb]

Yeah, I half agree with you there.
I don’t think people should automatically rule out animals just because they are not kept in zoological collections IF THEY REALISTICALLY COULD BE. For example, the Sumatran Rhinoceros is no longer held in any facilities outside of its native range. However, they were proven to do pretty well in zoos and have been kept in the past. There is no reason that this animal couldn’t be in the game if Frontier wanted to include it. I’d definitely support its inclusion, as an important species for conservation and a unique and oddball addition.
However, I think that if an animal cannot be kept in captivity, it should not be included in the game. For example, the Indri lemur is well known for not being able to survive in captivity, and this is the reason it is not found in any zoos. I think for a zoo game, it’d be absurd to add an animal that has not and cannot survive in captivity. You cannot possibly replicate their captive behaviours because they have none.
Another case in which I think commonness in zoos SHOULD be taken into account is when choosing between two versions of a similar species. For example, sloths. Now, Three Toed Sloths are undeniably the more recognisable species of sloth. However, the Two Toed is hundreds of times easier to keep in captivity and therefore has so many more holdings than its A-List counterpart. And whilst the Three Toed is much more recognisable, I think the general public would probably not even bat an eyelid if they got a Two Toed over a Three Toed; they’d just say ‘sloth!’ and move on. So for this reason, I think to please both a general playerbase who just want to build for ‘cool animals’ and a more realism centred group, the Two Toed should be considered the better option of the two.
So, I think you’re definitely right in that some animals that currently have little to no captive holdings should still be considered if they have historically done well in captivity and fill a niche that is not currently filled, I do believe that commonness in zoos should be taken into account when it comes down to choosing certain species to be introduced.

Agree. I might not have clarified this enough in my post: i dont think commonness in zoos shouldnt be a criteria at all, just wanted to point out that people seem to make it a bigger criteria than it really is/should be

 

[KönigDerKaffeebohnen]

This takes the whole common in zoo thing the wrong way.
Its not about that only animals that are common in zoos should be in a zoo game, BUT if an animal IS common in zoo thats a huge reason why it should be in a zoo game.
So if an animal struggles to meet that criteria they better have a good reason to be put in over another animal that is just as good as an animal but also has a decent zoo presence.

Easy example is wild water buffalo vs domestic water buffalo or for not in the game donestic vs wild yak.
Besides the wild versions not being found in zoos, the domestic versions also have the edge of being domestics and deeply intangled with cultures giving them added flexibility.
So we not just got the animal thats not found in zoos, but also is less flexible while also having no upsides over its more common version.

Another example, proboscis monkey.
They would be a great and very unique primate, but why do they fall flat?
Simple because they arnt found in zoos, ergo dont work well as a generic zoo monkey as they feel more special.
And why is that a problem? Special animals like the panda are cool afterall?
So why does the panda work but not the proboscis monkey?

The big difference is that we have a good assortment of basic aka common zoo bears like the grizzly, polarbear or even an asiatic black bear and sun bear.
Meanwhile we had no basic tropical asian monkey, only a highly specialised and rare one, when all people wanted was a generic ass monkey.
But thats not all, since around half a year most people seem to be more okay with the proboscis monkey and im quite sure why.
We finally got a more common SEA primate with the very common in zoos gibbon to itch that more familiar, basic itch.


So yeah, tdlr:
Animals uncommon in zoos arnt bad if they got cool ways to differentiate themself and add something only they can, like the swimming proboscis monkey with its iconic looks or the very unique pangolin, BUT if theres a very similar animal that pretty much fullfills there purpose but also is common in zoos, its a valid reason to critice them, cause its a zoo game, we should get what you actually see in a zooy especally in a game as self serious about conversation and stuff like planet zoo.
Thats why of all animals in the game, the dumbest and most contested inclusions are the wild waterbuffallo, himalayan brown bear, bengal tiger, formosan black bear and west african lion, cause they could easily be their more counterparts, but frontier just choose to not have them be the domestic water buffalo, european brownbear, sumatran tiger, asiatic black bear and southern or northern lion, which while petty is very much a valid reason of critic.

 

[Captain Callum]

There was a thread on Reddit asking about this kind of topic yesterday. Basically a vote of would you rather more common in captivity animals or rarer/unique animals, the overwhelming response was more unique animals so they can learn about new animals rather than animals they already know about or can see in their local zoo

 

[Marvinb]

This takes the whole common in zoo thing the wrong way.
Its not about that only animals that are common in zoos should be in a zoo game, BUT if an animal IS common in zoo thats a huge reason why it should be in a zoo game.
So if an animal struggles to meet that criteria they better have a good reason to be put in over another animal that is just as good as an animal but also has a decent zoo presence.

Easy example is wild water buffalo vs domestic water buffalo or for not in the game donestic vs wild yak.
Besides the wild versions not being found in zoos, the domestic versions also have the edge of being domestics and deeply intangled with cultures giving them added flexibility.
So we not just got the animal thats not found in zoos, but also is less flexible while also having no upsides over its more common version.

Another example, proboscis monkey.
They would be a great and very unique primate, but why do they fall flat?
Simple because they arnt found in zoos, ergo dont work well as a generic zoo monkey as they feel more special.
And why is that a problem? Special animals like the panda are cool afterall?
So why does the panda work but not the proboscis monkey?

The big difference is that we have a good assortment of basic aka common zoo bears like the grizzly, polarbear or even an asiatic black bear and sun bear.
Meanwhile we had no basic tropical asian monkey, only a highly specialised and rare one, when all people wanted was a generic monkey.
But thats not all, since around half a year most people seem to be more okay with the proboscis monkey and im quite sure why.
We finally got a more common SEA primate with the very common in zoos gibbon to itch that more familiar, basic itch.


So yeah, tdlr:
Animals uncommon in zoos arnt bad if they got cool ways to differentiate themself and add something only they can, like the swimming proboscis monkey with its iconic looks or the very unique pangolin, BUT if theres a very similar animal that pretty much fullfills there purpose but also is common in zoos, its a valid reason to critice them, cause its a zoo game, we should get what you actually see in a zooy especally in a game as self serious about conversation and stuff like planet zoo.
Thats why of all animals in the game, the dumbest and most contested inclusions are the wild waterbuffallo, himalayan brown bear, bengal tiger, formosan black bear and west african lion, cause they could easily be their more counterparts, but frontier just choose to not have them be the domestic water buffalo, european brownbear, sumatran tiger, asiatic black bear and southern or northern lion, which while petty is very much a valid reason of critic.

Yeah, thats pretty much what i was trying to say.
If there two really similar animals, subspezies or different populations zoo presence should ofcourse be the deciding factor. But thats why i gave the examples of platypus and kiwis, there isnt really anything like them so their rarity in captivity should be a big criteria imo

 

[KönigDerKaffeebohnen]

Yeah, thats pretty much what i was trying to say.
If there two really similar animals, subspezies or different populations zoo presence should ofcourse be the deciding factor. But thats why i gave the examples of platypus and kiwis, there isnt really anything like them so their rarity in captivity should be a big criteria imo

Yes but for them theres still another argument, which was what i mentioned for the proboscis monkey.
Nothing wrong being rare but very unique, but only if we got a good enough base allready and oceania as a region just really didnt.
But now that we have the wombat, but especally the wombat and emu in the game allready, we have that base to support the platypus, deleting that drawback.

Meanwhile the kiwi is special and i dont want it.
Why?
Because the kiwi has no base.
It would pretty much be a stand alone animal, so it needs to really really be a slam dunk of an animal, which for me the kiwi really isnt compared to other options like the super common shetland pony that would add important domestic presentstion or the nene which would be finally a waterfowl thats also very different from other geese being less reliant on water and having been saved by zoos.
And while the nene also has no geological base, its imo a better stand alone animal, that adds more uniqueness to the game as our first waterfowl while also being very common in zoos.
Meanwhile the kiwi is an overspecialised tiny bird that would add not much beyond being rather iconic.

 

[FlameWizard492]

Kiwis are also a great example: Ive read multiple times that they shouldnt be in a potential islands dlc because no zoo has them.

They have them in the Franklin Park Zoo in Boston.

 

[Marvinb]

Yes but for them theres still another argument, which was what i mentioned for the proboscis monkey.
Nothing wrong being rare but very unique, but only if we got a good enough base allready and oceania as a region just really didnt.
But now that we have the wombat, but especally the wombat and emu in the game allready, we have that base to support the platypus, deleting that drawback.

Meanwhile the kiwi is special and i dont want it.
Why?
Because the kiwi has no base.
It would pretty much be a stand alone animal, so it needs to really really be a slam dunk of an animal, which for me the kiwi really isnt compared to other options like the super common shetland pony that would add important domestic presentstion or the nene which would be finally a waterfowl thats also very different from other geese being less reliant on water and having been saved by zoos.
And while the nene also has no geological base, its imo a better stand alone animal, that adds more uniqueness to the game as our first waterfowl while also being very common in zoos.
Meanwhile the kiwi is an overspecialised tiny bird that would add not much beyond being rather iconic.

Okay i cant definitely see where youre coming from ,but does every animal need supporting spezies so you can build a realistic XYZ section? This is a game afterall.

 

[SalamAnders]

The most important thing here is to find the right balance. Rare species definitely have their value, also from a realistic point of view.
If I want to build a zoo inspired by Singapore Zoo, then having a unique to the location species like the proboscis monkeys is great, it can make that zoo feel more true to its location and make it stand out from a tropical zoo built in Central America or similar.

But if I have felt ''forced'' to use it multiple times already in parks it doesn't fit into, because there barely are any monkeys to choose from, then it takes the special away from it when I finally got a logical reason to use it. That is a shame to me. Should more tropical Asian monkeys be added along the way, then I am probably also going to feel more positive-minded about the proboscis monkey.

But I agree some animals are unique enough to join the game without having a common counterpart like the platypus or maybe the kiwi. I just don't want the game to be overrun with these species. The kiwi would also feel a bit awkward as being one of the first 10 birds in the game... Zoos outside of NZ that got kiwis are often pretty heavy on the bird representation

 

[Captain Callum]

They have them in the Franklin Park Zoo in Boston.

I'll hop on this and add some more:

• Bronx Zoo
• Berlin Zoo (not sure which one)
• Columbus Zoo
• Smithsonian National Zoo
• Paignton Zoo
• Avifauna bird park
• San Francisco Zoo

And that's not including Oceania zoos which I'm sure there are plenty

 

[Antimony96]

It shouldn't be the only factor, but it should definitely be a factor. The platypus can be given a pass just due to how charismatic and recognizable of an animal it is, but I wouldn't say the same for the wild water buffalo (which wouldn't have been an issue at all with a name change into the domestic water buffalo) or the Himalayan brown bear (which could have just as easily been a Eurasian brown bear, and in fact might as well be one since it doesn't at all look like a real HBB). At the same time, animals that are very common in zoos small and large should be considered real candidates, and a lot of them have been added in DLC over the past two years (capybara, emu, wallaby, etc.) suggesting that Frontier is listening.

 

[KönigDerKaffeebohnen]

Okay i cant definitely see where youre coming from ,but does every animal need supporting spezies so you can build a realistic XYZ section? This is a game afterall.

That misses my point.
Its not that it needs it, its that its an animal that doesnt fit with anything else while not even being that unique.
The nene also doesnt has supporting species, but it doesnt need them as its a reasonable filler species but kiwi?
Thats like calling a panda a filler species, thats just a huge dissconnect to reality and while yes this game is fictinous, our expectations and views of animals arnt.

Adding to that, the nene would have the far superior rigg, as a waterfowl rigg especally for geese would be fantastic for modding.

And thats what it basicly boils down to, the nene has all the same "problems" the kiwi has, BUT it has many advantages like being extremly common, representing an area thats not from oceania in the context of these mostly very oceania heavy pack concepts, having a better rigg for modding, being a good filler species, being a goose, not being highly specific and specialised and fitting into every context you want.
Thats the kiwis problem, its unflexible while the nene is anything but and really of all metrics to judge an animal by, flexibility is by far the most important cause why have the kiwi that can do 2 things of being a kiwi, being in nocturnal houses and apparantly also having the small niche of making new zealanders happy, when the nene has 20+ good qualitys and ways to use it, flexing hard on the kiwi in every possible way.

 

[Marvinb]

That misses my point.
Its not that it needs it, its that its an animal that doesnt fit with anything else while not even being that unique.
The nene also doesnt has supporting species, but it doesnt need them as its a reasonable filler species but kiwi?
Thats like calling a panda a filler species, thats just a huge dissconnect to reality and while yes this game is fictinous, our expectations and views of animals arnt.

Adding to that, the nene would have the far superior rigg, as a waterfowl rigg especally for geese would be fantastic for modding.

And thats what it basicly boils down to, the nene has all the same "problems" the kiwi has, BUT it has many advantages like being extremly common, representing an area thats not from oceania in the context of these mostly very oceania heavy pack concepts, having a better rigg for modding, being a good filler species, being a goose, not being highly specific and specialised and fitting into every context you want.
Thats the kiwis problem, its unflexible while the nene is anything but and really of all metrics to judge an animal by, flexibility is by far the most important cause why have the kiwi that can do 2 things of being a kiwi, being in nocturnal houses and apparantly also having the small niche of making new zealanders happy, when the nene has 20+ good qualitys and ways to use it, flexing hard on the kiwi in every possible way.

Yeah but you also miss mine
Youre writing from the perspective of building a realistic zoo. Thats not what the majority of people playing the game do, they just wanna build cool enclosures for their favorit animals.

 

[KönigDerKaffeebohnen]

Yeah but you also miss mine
Youre writing from the perspective of building a realistic zoo. Thats not what the majority of people playing the game do, they just wanna build cool enclosures for their favorit animals.

No im talking from the perspective that the kiwi is a bad inclusion compared to other animals that also happen to be better then it in every way

 

[Marvinb]

No im talking from the perspective that the kiwi is a bad inclusion compared to other animals that also happen to be better then it in every way

But every reason you gave the nene is "better" is for building realism, well besides the modding part.

 

[Fallax]

I disagree about the kiwi not fitting in because its the only thing from New Zealand. A kiwi is a great pick for a nocturnal house, and there are plenty of supporting species for that. Or if you want to build a section representing islands of the world... Or even a general "Oceania" area. There's quite a few choices, it doesn't have to specifically be a New Zealand exhibit.

 

[DarthQuell]

I personally prefer the kiwi over the Hawaiian goose. This isn't simply a "this is more realistic and better for modders" thing. Be honest, to a casual player, what would they rather have?
A goose, which they would consider a farm animal, or a strange, fuzzy bird with a weird beak?

Honestly, people are just naturally attracted to weird things, and I'm pretty sure that most casual players would be more interested in the kiwi than they would the Hawaiian goose

 

[KönigDerKaffeebohnen]

But every reason you gave the nene is "better" is for building realism, well besides the modding part.

No i didnt, the nene is better cause its more flexible.
Here to show what i mean:

Kiwi Uses:

• Kiwi Habitat cause Kiwi is rare and iconic
• New Zealand solo "area"
• Nocturnal Houses
• it could technically be used as filler but is plain worse at it then 99,9% of other animals on the planet cause a kiwi is still a kiwi, no matter how much people want to say its fictional its still the panda of birds and simply sidestepping that with the game not being reality doesnt cut it here.

If an animals identity in the real world is based on being rare and special it will still be in the mind of a player, just cause its fictional the panda and the racoon didnt swap their ingame Reputation, they still are seen how we see the real deal.

Nene:

• Any kind of pond lake or stuff cause waterfowl
• hawaian solo "area"
• tropical houses
• general filler
• conservation themed areas/zoos
• aviarys
• being a goose rig for modding
• fitting into mixed enclosures with every non predator
• being a new taxa and not another ratite
• being super common in zoos (over 100 eaza holdings)

Math tells us not only that 9 is more then 3,5, but 121 is also way more then 19, w8th 12 of them being from new zealand.
Im not saying you cant like the kiwi more, im just saying the nene has objectivly more to offer then the kiwi ever could, as the kiwis use cases are shorter then its own name