They do sometimes--Grasslands seemed to mostly focus on animals that were common in captivity, like the blue wildebeest as an alternative to the (absent in AZA) black wildebeest, the wallaby and emu and maned wolf. The least defensible choices have been animals that are both rare or absent in captivity and have overtly better alternatives that are no less "unique"--think the wild water buffalo and some of the base game exhibit species.
Planet Zoo: Eurasia Animal Pack arriving 13 Dec ❄️
- Thread starter Lydiah Moon
- Start date
Its got nothing with personal preferences the whole argument is more to do with people dismissing certain animal choices because they arent common and calling it an objectively bad and unrealistic choice even though we know frontier doesnt care about realism. Its less explaining personal preferences and more assigning a moral value to other peoples choices.
Last edited:
Of course they do care at least to some extent about captivity preference since that dictates alot of what people want to see in zoos both in real life and when recreating them. The comment was more about them not sticking to that as rigidly as some people wish. There are some really indefensible choices like the water buffalo and sloth which if either had the more common counter part added it would affect nothing about how they are used or really looked except appease the realism obsessed player base. There are however plenty of animals like the saiga and proboscis monkey that you just cant replace sure there are other more common asian antelope and monkeys but nothing close to either of those animals in looks or function so arguing that they should of been a different species which would fill a totally different role and niche within a zoo because of realism is pointless.
It’s entirely about personal preferences - any opinion about whether an animal addition choice is ‘good’ or ‘bad’ is obviously entirely subjective.. so obviously that it doesn’t need to be explicitly stated that it’s just an opinion - it’s implied.
I get this the problem is some people are trying to declare there subjective opinion as objective using captive presence as an objective measurement to justify this.
Since I was getting the tail end of the conversation I apologise if that was not what you meant. That was just how I interpreted it.
Are they?… can you quote one?
Not from this particular instance of this very common argument no I cannot quote it exactly
Can’t be all that common then….
It's a fantasy zoo sim meant for all kinds of players, from the stuck up realists to the people who just want to make the zoos of their wildest dreams. Which means putting in all kinds of animals, from the everyday zoo kinds to the ones that don't always make sense in reality... this isn't hard to figure out, it's just some people refuse to accept this as a fact.
i want unicorns
Didn't say that either. Though "unrealistic" is an objective measure. You wouldn't say the tyrannosaurus rex is a realistic pick for a zoo game, would you?
Anyway, there's yet another level of hypocrisy with the saiga. A lot of the same people arguing for it argued against the proboscis monkey. Which tells us that the entire thing hinges on personal preference and nobody is actually being very honest. There were better, more realistic choices for an Asian antelope, especially this late into the game's lifespan. In terms of the "gelada vs an actual baboon" debate, the gelada would not be an unrealistic choice, as it has a significant captive presence, but it would not be the best choice since that presence is mostly in Europe, whereas the Hamadryas baboon is widespread just about everywhere.
European members seem to only look at their own local zoo community when determining whether something has a significant captive presence or not.
Don't interpret people's posts. What you did was simply put words in my mouth. I said what I meant to say, plain as day. I make my own arguments for myself and my point-of-view. Whatever you've read in similar discussions before isn't relevant.
Just letting you know you've been on my ignore list for...ages (mostly because of comments like the one I quoted), so there's really no point in engaging with me. I only looked at this post because Monk's reply made me laugh.
Because some of us truly believe any animal not in captivity is a wrong choice. It's hard to engage with the realism players when all they think that common in captivity animals is what the game needs.
I am guilty of this, however in my defence, it is very easy to use the zootierliste for European zoos, but for any information on Australia/North America/other parts of the world, I would have to do alot of googling to see how common any species is there. Wish there was something like zootierliste for other continents…
That’s fine but has nothing to do with whether or not Frontier cares about captive presence or not.
The observation I made based on this years trend? Why is everyone so stuck on that? It just furthers my point.
I don’t know why it’s hard to understand . What Frontier do or do not consider important has ZERO relevance to what anyone else can or should consider important.
When someone says “X is [imo] a bad choice because it’s not in captivity.” (Or similar) it is not relevant if frontier don’t care if it’s common or rare in captivity or whatever.
fine whatever, all this is derailing the thread if you cannot tell
Maybe Frontier just hasn't noticed they clicked Former Holdings on Zootierliste.