now this is truely a tough decision and I would love them both but I think the hyrax wins. It just fits the theme better and tropical is my least favourite biome to build for
Winter 2023 DLC Speculation
- Thread starter Leaf Productions
- Start date
I'd like to just state my understanding of "essential": An Essential animal in Planet Zoo is an animal that is well respresented in zoos all across the globe. It's very rare you go to an actual zoo without seeing that animal and they come to your mind when you think "zoo".
Again: GLOBAL, not regional.
I can safely say we got no essential animal left. No one outside of Oceania can tell me they frequently see Tree Roos in several zoos. No one can tell me they see an eurasian Otter in Australia. (Quite frankly even I see Eurasian Otters only in zoos that focus on regional animals, never in the bigger ones that focus on elephants, giraffes, zebras...)
Most people outside of America have never ever seen a Sea Otter IRL.
And quite honestly, with Flamingos, Ostriches and Emus we have essential birds. Are there flying birds in zoos? Usually. But WHAT flying birds is extremly variable. Not every zoo has Aras but it's very hard to go to more than 3 zoos and never see a Flamingo.
REGIONAL there sure are some essentials missing (for building zoos focussing on regional animals). But what's regional missing only players living in that region can say. No one in northern europe can tell someone in oceania, that they don't need any more animals. Same as no american could have tell me a Raccoon is not a zoo animal.
I definetly would need a wild boar to build a typical "Tierpark". I doubt anyone from India does, though, so it's not essential.
Again: GLOBAL, not regional.
I can safely say we got no essential animal left. No one outside of Oceania can tell me they frequently see Tree Roos in several zoos. No one can tell me they see an eurasian Otter in Australia. (Quite frankly even I see Eurasian Otters only in zoos that focus on regional animals, never in the bigger ones that focus on elephants, giraffes, zebras...)
Most people outside of America have never ever seen a Sea Otter IRL.
And quite honestly, with Flamingos, Ostriches and Emus we have essential birds. Are there flying birds in zoos? Usually. But WHAT flying birds is extremly variable. Not every zoo has Aras but it's very hard to go to more than 3 zoos and never see a Flamingo.
REGIONAL there sure are some essentials missing (for building zoos focussing on regional animals). But what's regional missing only players living in that region can say. No one in northern europe can tell someone in oceania, that they don't need any more animals. Same as no american could have tell me a Raccoon is not a zoo animal.
I definetly would need a wild boar to build a typical "Tierpark". I doubt anyone from India does, though, so it's not essential.
Macaws are easier to obtain and cheaper to care for, and simpler to build for if you just want to do the bare minimum. Pretty sure you on a global level would come by macaws much more often than Flamingos.
But... by that logic basically no animal is essential .-.
Like let's take the giant panda for example, an icon of conservation and zoos that everyone agrees is a must have for a zoos game. Do all zoos have them? Barely, so by your logic they are not essential... nor gorillas... nor elephants...
Also regarding birds, so what if they are extremely variable? how does that matter at all? The general public does not care in the slightest what specific species we get, be it a red macaw or a blue macaw, the point is getting a macaw rather than not getting any. We need them! Obviously you will never be able to add all the species people want so that is not something they should care about at all as long as the species they add are useful for most. Parrots, pelicans, ducks, birds of prey, toucans, cockatoos, they are all essential animals for zoos. ZT1 had them, ZT2 didn't have them because of technical limitations but fortunately thanks to mods we got them, ZT3 had them again, even Wildlife park 2 had them?? (crazy)
This is a perfect point we have gone through all the globally essential animals. These are animals that are in zoos from every region things like the elephants, lions and tigers animals that you could pick a random zoo in any global region and still find a majority of the time. what we need now is quantity for some continents and better regional representations within continents which is a constant fight between everyone based on where they are from and what they want to see.
Sorry, but saying barely any birds are essential on a global level is 
Mostly agree but I wouldn’t particularize the Asian ungulate want to deer and mountain species at the expense of savanna antelope for India/South Asia. Blackbuck is in almost everyone’s bare minimum list here, and the ones that don’t have it usually just prefer the nilgai (technically bovinae but seen as an antelope, similar to nyala and bongo). Might even be more requested than deer.
Jolly how much i love people flinging around baseless assumptions, treat them as facts and ignore or even complain about the real ones.
Like it or hate it, but the only Zoo Region that botherd to actually do their housekeeping and make it publicly available is the EAZA and guess what the EAZA makes up just a bit over 50% of recognised zoos on the planet, covering all of europe, the middle east, russia, singapore and newzealand. Thats not a small amount. Of the other 50% roughly 10% each go to the AZA and Japan and the other 30% everywhere else.
And now more importanly yes looking at EAZA numbers for european animals might heavily screw them in their favor abd is a great depatrure from global nunbers, but everything not from europe actually gives a pretty perfect average with trends visible across the world.
To put it simply yes just because something is or isnt common in the EAZA doesnt gurantee its globally, but even more important animals not common in the EAZA most likly are just local animals that dont occur globally generally. Ofcourse there are exceptions but if animals are Exported to any zoos around the world they will most likly end up in the EAZA, recent example would be the quokka import to germany.
So if you all want to stretch global so much then yeah its a pretty save bet that if an animal is not in the EAZA it wont be globally important for zoos around the world.
Like it or hate it, but the only Zoo Region that botherd to actually do their housekeeping and make it publicly available is the EAZA and guess what the EAZA makes up just a bit over 50% of recognised zoos on the planet, covering all of europe, the middle east, russia, singapore and newzealand. Thats not a small amount. Of the other 50% roughly 10% each go to the AZA and Japan and the other 30% everywhere else.
And now more importanly yes looking at EAZA numbers for european animals might heavily screw them in their favor abd is a great depatrure from global nunbers, but everything not from europe actually gives a pretty perfect average with trends visible across the world.
To put it simply yes just because something is or isnt common in the EAZA doesnt gurantee its globally, but even more important animals not common in the EAZA most likly are just local animals that dont occur globally generally. Ofcourse there are exceptions but if animals are Exported to any zoos around the world they will most likly end up in the EAZA, recent example would be the quokka import to germany.
So if you all want to stretch global so much then yeah its a pretty save bet that if an animal is not in the EAZA it wont be globally important for zoos around the world.
This is a fine perspective and framework to think in, no arguments there (except maybe on some flying birds). But I have to say your last example was really hilarious to an Indian as wild boar are extremely common in India, on the lines of nilgai, peafowl and monkeys. They’re considered an agricultural pest! Lots of Indian zoos have them as the commonest species. Higher-budget zoos might not have them only because of their abundance! I still see your actual point, just wanted to share
it depends birds as a concept are definitely an essential part of zoos but the individual species are very different based on where you are in the world macaws probably have the highest global presence but even across all macaw species from what I know only 4 zoos in australia have them its easier and cheaper to keep local parrots.Sorry, but saying barely any birds are essential on a global level is
In short birds are essential as an idea just no bird in particular
Bro, EAZA is just an organization, it's not the most objective statistic, a zoo can choose to join or not join. I understand what you mean to some extent, and even agree with you in part, but my basis is different from yours. My basis is that, given that zoos on other continents have a large number of native animals, which may give people the illusion that, compared with Africa, Asia, South America, North America and Oceania, the advantage of Europe is that it has a relatively limited number of native species. So its species collection can be used as a reference value to some extent. That's my basis.
But if they are then common in every other part of the world, can't we then agree they can still be considered globally essential?
If there has to be like 20+ zoos on a continent to hold a species before we can talk about globally essential, then we can't even point at a lot of iconic mammals to fit this term.
Budgerigars, helmeted Guinea fowls, mandarin ducks, black swans, common pheasants, king quails
I imagine all or most of these can be found in multiple zoos on every continent
The african pigmy goat is keep in more than half of all the zoos in the planet, if you pick a random zoo it's more likely that said zoo have goats rather than lions and tigers. By your logic the pigmy goat and other domestics are essential.
Also budgerigars are very common in zoos all across the world, so aviary animals are indeed essential.
while I get your point and presence in the EAZA is definitely an important indicator of what animals are important there is alot of nuance missed here. The EAZA covers zoos from 2 and a half continents and its purely due to the high density of zoos within europe that it has such a high percentage of total zoos. Yes if you picked a zoo at random you will probably end up in one in europe because europe has such a long and complex history with zoo keeping but that does not mean european zoos represent all zoos. The key thing here is this is a global zoo game marketed at a global audience which have a much wider spread than just europe and asia.
The problem arises when you look at that and say that is the only standard. Because euorpe is not the entire world the eaza does not cover much of the southern hemisphere at all and north america is completely independent these are areas that would not have the same access, familiarity or sense of exoticism when it comes to animals included in zoos. The idea that the EAZA is the only way to measure zoo commonality is Eurocentric and completely ignores the other 50% of zoos which would have vastly different collections than EAZA zoos due to physical and political barriers.
also against your point that if its not in the EAZA its not common hypothetically it would have to be in over 50% of all zoos before it was forced into an EAZA zoo so it is completely possible that if animal distribution was random and fair that animal could be in a quarter of all zoos and still be unheard of in the EAZA of course this is implying there are no other driving factors of animal distribution which there are definitely are which depending on the animal will prevent it from entering the EAZA or make it easier.
Ultimately 50% of the time choosing a random zoo ill hit an EAZA but that still means that 50% of the time ill hit one that is not and what animals are in those zoos matters just as much as the cluster in europe and if I were to just throw a pin at the map and look at the nearest zoo the chances of it being an EAZA zoo are even lower so please continue saying the EAZA is the only thing that matters and ignore the other 50%.
I would also love to know how your viewing these trends in the EAZA continent distribution because I cant find much information about distributions unless im looking at each animal individually not a dig I just really would like to educate myself more.
Lol everyone discussing how essential an animal is for the game based on captive presence and is one of the things i less care about when wishing for an animal.
For me personally if it is iconic or representative of a región, if it is recognizable for the general audience even if it is just by looks and not by name, or if it is important for representing the biodiversity of a region or a new group of "basic" animal group we still don't have then for me counts as essential.
For me personally if it is iconic or representative of a región, if it is recognizable for the general audience even if it is just by looks and not by name, or if it is important for representing the biodiversity of a region or a new group of "basic" animal group we still don't have then for me counts as essential.
There is a difference between iconic and essential and yeah if something is common in all but one region it is globally essential looking into it further budgies are probably more essential than macaws but macaws are also up there.
I do think goats and other domestics are essential just not charismatic or iconic.
I generally hate the whole captive presence talk its a game let it be one but when it comes to whats essential captive presence is important because it is a way to gauge awareness if its in alot of zoos people have heard of it and probably seen it as well as making it easy to find inspiration recreate zoos and overall work with the animal in the game.
You seem to read my point as an attack against personal wishes and that's not it. See what I quoted from Milurian down below and you get it.
Also: I'm sorry, but since when we got birds in ZT1? Or do you mean those random buildings that were in no way modular and had some flying pixels around? Then yes, they were technically there but made in a way that I can't take that as a serious argument of ZT1 being superior to Planet Zoo regarding birds, honestly.
Again, there is a difference between "essential" for me or (reasonable or not) wishes for an animal. A zoo game needs a lion, a tiger, an elephant, an ape. (That's not a complete list).
It does not take away from you or anyone being frustrated about animals missing, but the drama of "this is not an actual zoo game if species XY is missing" is just out of propotion.
WhoopsThis is a fine perspective and framework to think in, no arguments there (except maybe on some flying birds). But I have to say your last example was really hilarious to an Indian as wild boar are extremely common in India, on the lines of nilgai, peafowl and monkeys. They’re considered an agricultural pest! Lots of Indian zoos have them as the commonest species. Higher-budget zoos might not have them only because of their abundance! I still see your actual point, just wanted to share
Fair. My apologies. I don't know too much about indian zoos. To my defense, there is no source I could check, is there? Like something we have with EAZA Zoos?Exactly! That's the huge difference.
I did not argue against any of that, that's just your interpretation. But I should probably exchange "animal" with "species" to make my point clearer.
But true, the pigym goat is a very good example that I did not think about, they clearly are in "every" zoo. How dare me.
