Hot takes for planet zoo

Yeah people projecting human emotions onto animals, truly a pet peeve of mine. A particular favoirte of mine is "omg that insert solitary animal here is all alone? How horrible, it must be so lonely"
I got to be honest, my personal opinion is that people aren’t only projecting. I imagine a lot of people are also unsatisfied with their “captive” lifestyle. Work 9-5 multiple days a week, maybe don’t get as much time outside as they would like, and then they see this animal that lives in a habitat and they also assume that animal must be miserable.

A lot of people have this romanticized view about nature, and I can also say a lot of the same people who dislike zoos are also the ones who can’t stomach watching animals kill each other in nature documentaries. Watching a starving African wild dog eat an impala alive is just as much a part of nature as an elephant with a baby.

Zoos aren’t perfect, and not every species benefits from captivity. I’ll also admit one of my personal issues is that a lot of zoos make more changes for people than animals. Still, the ignorant view on the benefits of captivity and all that reputable zoos and aquariums do genuinely make me mad.

Even just recently a local aquarium in New England, the Mystic Aquarium, got some 15 minutes of fame for helping to rescue a baby seal. Unfortunately the seal didn’t make it, but I was happy to see that these facilities do good for the natural world.
 
Also if I watch the DoDo make one more anti-zoo post then show off a person with a pet monkey or fennec fox I'm gonna have to be on some blood pressure pills.
Yea its kinda wild how on YouTube Shorts/Instagram/TikTok you can see people having weird exotic pets in unnatural settings and all the comments will be positive but you can see negative comments on a lot of zoo posts.
 
Honestly I think what I miss about exhibit boxes (and the idea of the WTE but I’ll get to that) is they are great “set dressing”. Yes exhibits and WTE are clunky boxes, yes the animals in them either don’t move or are on a loop. But besides filling a niche about zoos habitats don’t fill, they also add a certain flare to builds that need them.

Are you building a jaguar habitat? Maybe add some of the frogs into one of the walls. Building an African Savannah habitat, add a scarab beetle. The American alligator? Add the bullfrog. I think that’s what makes me miss the exhibit boxes, they always felt like something fun and like a bonus to a pack. Honestly I was super hyped to get animals like the red eye tree frog and the axolotl. Even the Malaysian leaf bug is cool in that regard.

It honestly makes me wish we got more out of the exhibit boxes. I’ve said it before and multiple times, but I want fish. I would love a piranha for an Amazon build, a desert pupfish for a desert bio dome, or African cichlids by a hippo habitat. Likewise I would love some rodents, like the naked mole rat.

Yeah what a shock too, I want some birds for the WTE. Maybe along a path in an indoor rainforest the WTE is worked into it, and as you snake along you can encounter macaws ahead. Maybe you can even make a whole bird house, with the WTE only being seen through mesh and windows.

There is just so much potential and it honestly hurts we might never get more.
1741547450913.png
1741547470285.png
1741547497468.png
1741547550556.png
1741547579469.png
1741547607147.png
1741548198244.png
1741548245553.png
1741548310044.png
1741548377256.png
 
This is more of a hot take about the community but I wish people took the time to research wishlist animals that fit their needs rather than conforming to the loudest voices. You want monkeys from the Amazon? It takes 3 minutes to find the right species for that role and maybe another 3 to see which ones are housed in zoos. That's just doing yourself and the devs a big favour with that added clarification. Charismatic species aren't always the right ones for a certain niche, which is why checking the details is so important (especially when there's more information spreading around than ever before). It's also why I have binomials for all the species on my meta wishlist submission.

Furthermore, we can't be distracting ourselves with animals like ocelots and American black bears if we as a community want to drive requests for under-represented clades. Trim the fat from discussions and keep things focused. That way we avoid the fluff and reap the most benefit. There's enough monkeys for 2 entire animal packs and easily enough birds for habitats (and even more for walkthrough exhibit animals) to last a whole year (same for ungulates but they've sadly been on the hot seat as of late). These are what we should be pushing. None of this beating around the bushes with bush dogs and servals.

Do you want change in the animals we get? You need to take initiative to support the right to get your niches of interest filled. Not to toot my own horn again, but that's exactly what I did with my meta wishlist submission. I want more habitat reptiles (both avian and non-avian), which is why they dominate my Top 25 (16/25 entries). In short, the community needs to come together with a united and informed voice if we want to push for animals we want.
 
Last edited:
Furthermore, we can't be distracting ourselves with animals like ocelots and American black bears if we as a community want to drive requests for under-represented clades. Trim the fat from discussions and keep things focused. That way we avoid the fluff and reap the most benefit. There's enough monkeys for 2 entire animal packs and easily enough birds for habitats (and even more for walkthrough exhibit animals) to last a whole year (same for ungulates but they've sadly been on the hot seat as of late). These are what we should be pushing. None of this beating around the bushes with bush dogs and servals.

Do you want change in the animals we get? You need to take initiative to support the right to get your niches of interest filled. Not to toot my own horn again, but that's exactly what I did with my meta wishlist submission. I want more habitat reptiles (both avian and non-avian), which is why they dominate my Top 25 (16/25 entries). In short, the community needs to come together with a united and informed voice if we want to push for animals we want.
I don't fully understand this portion.

Why would someone put Ocelot or Black Bear on their wishlist if they didn't want to see either animal in game? And if someone does why would their wish or want be of less value than someone that wants reptiles or birds?

Why do you think those people are beating around the bushes and not trying to reap the most benefit? I think everyone is taking initiative to support fulfillment of niches they need. But niches between people don't align.

Don't get me wrong, I want monkeys, birds and habitat reptiles, but my vote is equal to that of someone who wants another Grey Wolf variant. There's no objective or inherent value behind wishes, nor is there such thing as collective community voice. Meta Wishlist is completely fine as a tool to imitate that.
 
Yeah. I mean i put stuff in my wishlist that i actually want. I don't really care what is wanted as a whole when making my wishlist. It just happens that half my list are birds and a monkeys. But that's just because some of my needs align with community wishes.

But for instance i do actively want the ocelot and the brazilian tapir while they are deemed as not necessary or superflous by the community as a whole.
 
Why would someone put Ocelot or Black Bear on their wishlist if they didn't want to see either animal in game?
Oftentimes, these come from the same people who want under-represented clades. They just end up being extra support against their own interest. If you look at the meta-wishlist votes, the example Carnivorans I mentioned out-rank a lot of birds and primates. And yet, there's constant demand for "real" birds. The big question then becomes if people actually want birds. If the people really do want habitat birds, why aren't they dominating the upper whole of the meta-wishlist? Only 2 birds are in the Top 10 and neither are from South America (which is also constantly touted as an under-represented region). So now we have to ask if people actually want more South American birds, or if they're fine with their main goal being diluted by redundant Carnivorans.
There's no objective or inherent value behind wishes, nor is there such thing as collective community voice.
My point is that there should be a collective voice to clearly communicate the big interests from the community as a whole. If everyone has scattered ideas as to what they want, the big ideas get completely lost and that doesn't help anybody (especially the people making the products we consume, being Planet Zoo DLC packs). If we push for specifics, then we have much higher odds of getting our desires. In other words, we reap what we sow.
 
My point is that there should be a collective voice to clearly communicate the big interests from the community as a whole.
It's ironic, because we do have that, the meta-wishlist is the closest thing you'll ever get to a collective voice. It just turns out that the majority of what people do want doesn't seem to always align with what the most vocal group of people want.

That might be a bitter pill to swallow, but at the end of the day if an animal like the American Black Bear is high on wishlists it's because a lot of people want them, and not because people are voting against their own interest.
 
Oftentimes, these come from the same people who want under-represented clades. They just end up being extra support against their own interest. If you look at the meta-wishlist votes, the example Carnivorans I mentioned out-rank a lot of birds and primates.
Because, although I want birds and I think primates are underrepresented...
...but at the end of the day, I'm more interested in canids, sheep, deer, etc. Birds and primates are necessary but they are far from picks I would personally be passionate about. I would 100% honestly be way more ecstatic to see a Bat-eared Fox, Grey Fox, Raccoon Dog or even Bush Dog in a pack than a whole Aviary pack. I agree that an aviary pack is necessary. I feel about the Aviary pack about the same way I feel about the Barnyard pack (aside from the Sheep). Its something the game needs that I'm not too excited about personally (although I'd probably enjoy aviary pack as a whole way more than I enjoyed barnyard pack). Also, btw, I'm more interested in birds than primates, I don't even care for primates aside from: Howler Monkey, Spider Monkey, Tamarin and Colobus...
 
Oftentimes, these come from the same people who want under-represented clades. They just end up being extra support against their own interest. If you look at the meta-wishlist votes, the example Carnivorans I mentioned out-rank a lot of birds and primates. And yet, there's constant demand for "real" birds. The big question then becomes if people actually want birds. If the people really do want habitat birds, why aren't they dominating the upper whole of the meta-wishlist? Only 2 birds are in the Top 10 and neither are from South America (which is also constantly touted as an under-represented region). So now we have to ask if people actually want more South American birds, or if they're fine with their main goal being diluted by redundant Carnivorans.
Many people want more monkeys and birds, but they also want other things. I can see that monkeys and birds are obvious taxonomic gaps in the vanilla roster. When I try to recreate zoos I've visited, I almost always have issues because there aren't any options for some important niches. I don't consider myself a monkey or a bird person, despite my love for tamarins and raptors.

Like many people, I'm a carnivorans fan. I think big cats, large small cats, hyenas, large canids, bears, and pinnipeds tend to be the 'stars' of zoo sections, and I don't generally like substituting 'big star' animals unless the appearance/foliage tags match almost exactly. On that front, I still need the American black bear for many recreations, and media presence, not zoo presence, would make the walrus an important pick for any coastal pack. Medium-small cats, foxes, small dogs, otters, procyonids, meerkats, skunks, badgers/badger-like, civets, red pandas, martens/ferrets, and mongooses usually seem like filler or fun oddballs to me. I'm a bit more open to substituting some of these, especially those that are uncommon in zoos, but I still think the ocelot, serval, and coati are important/needed for many recreations. They all have decent zoo presence, media presence, and demand. Media presence and demand would also make the sea otter and honey badger pretty good candidates. Beyond those, I would still be willing to pay for several more cats, especially the fishing cat; more oddball small dogs and foxes, especially jackals and raccoon dogs; and some oddballs like martens, a black-footed ferret, civets, and a mongoose. Cute carnivorans can sell packs to a wider audience, and I don't think Frontier would stop working them into packs whatever the wishlist says. I might as well vote on a few favorites.

Pachyderms, giraffes, zebras, kudu, sometimes buffalo, bison, moose, elk, tapirs, and perhaps caprids with climbing rocks are the main ungulates/ungulate-like that I've seen to get the 'big star' treatment while smaller antelope, other deer, pigs/peccaries, camelids, rare equids and farm animals are usually filler or conservation projects. While I still miss kudu, wapiti, bighorn sheep, muskox, and watusi cattle a bit as 'stars,' I am somewhat ok with some of the options for substitutions. For filler ungulates, most want at least two for Asia, especially a deer and the blackbuck. I like muntjacs mostly and would be willing to pay for many species beyond them, but I don't badly need any additional ungulates. I'll still probably keep a few in my wishlist because Frontier is sure to add them anyway.

Red kangaroos and giant anteaters are other mammals that also come close to that zoo niche. Smaller xenarthra, other marsupials, most afrotheria, monotremes, rodents, and lagomorphs are usually seen as filler or neat oddballs. I miss tree kangaroos, tamanduas, arboreal porcupine(s), echidnas, maras, agoutis, and maybe a domestic rabbit, but I think the lineup of oddball mammals is not bad given habitat/hitbox limitations. For reptiles, large crocodilians, Komodo dragons, perhaps green anacondas, and perhaps giant tortoises have star power. Small-medium tortoises, smaller monitors, smaller crocodilians, freshwater turtles, and exhibit animals are usually filler. Chameleons and cobras have star power among exhibit critters; I'm open to a habitat tortoise; and I really want at least one freshwater turtle for ponds even if they don't seem super likely. To build a good Australian zoo, which sounds fun, I'd also want/need an echidna, rock wallaby, perentie, grey kangaroo, possum, and bilby. Besides turtles, I'm mostly ok with habitat reptiles for the moment, but there are so many cool options for small mammals even if I wouldn't call many of them very essential. South America and Australia could definitely use more, though.

For primates, I've seen great apes, baboons/baboon-like, occasionally gibbons, rarely spider monkeys, and golden snub-nosed monkeys (in China) get the 'big star' treatment with larger, dedicated enclosures, good theming, and plenty of space for many guests to spend time viewing them. When spider monkeys and gibbons have large brachiating frames, they can seem like stars, too. I don't personally need geladas or golden snub-nosed monkeys, but they are important to quite a few people and would be very cool. My beloved gibbons and the missing spider monkeys are basic essentials to me, and they also can work as filler. Lemurs and tamarins/marmosets are common, well-loved, and adorable filler animals. We've got a good lineup of lemurs, but I'm still anxiously waiting on tamarins. Capuchins, howler monkeys, sakis, guerezas, guenons, and mangabeys are all generic filler monkeys, which the game is also sadly lacking. I've incorporated several favorites into my wishlist. Given how few we have and seem likely to get, I'm a bit picky about which I'd vote for, but I'm willing to pay for a bunch of them.

Birds generally don't seem like 'big star,' animals to me, but I miss and need them as filler. Penguins, peafowl, flamingos, ratites, eagles, condors, rarely shoebills, and occasionally secretary birds seem like the stars among them. Apart from the flying ones, the rhea, probably one for Africa, and maybe an American flamingo, I think Frontier is mostly done on that end. Waterfowl, pelicans, domestic fowl, wild pheasants, cranes, storks, other wading birds, parrots, kookaburras, hornbills, owls, toucans, and other flying birds usually seem like filler and oddballs. This is where the bird roster suffers. Only a few categories have one member. Granted, ibises, spoonbills, pheasants, and the flying ones are usually kept in aviaries, but I still miss them. Larger, colorful, and talking parrots like macaws, African greys, and cockatoos are a common sight as are smaller ones guests can feed like lorikeets and budgies. Hornbills, toucans, and kookaburras are also common and fun oddballs. Flying birds are heavily demanded on every channel. For habitat birds, ~10 species, including the grey crowned crane, ~3 ducks, and one of the pink trio, would get me to an acceptable place, but there are plenty of other slots on my wishlist for other wants and needs. I badly want flying birds and some basic species, but I don't care as much about the oddballs although I'd still be willing to pay for a few.
 
Oftentimes, these come from the same people who want under-represented clades. They just end up being extra support against their own interest. If you look at the meta-wishlist votes, the example Carnivorans I mentioned out-rank a lot of birds and primates. And yet, there's constant demand for "real" birds. The big question then becomes if people actually want birds. If the people really do want habitat birds, why aren't they dominating the upper whole of the meta-wishlist? Only 2 birds are in the Top 10 and neither are from South America (which is also constantly touted as an under-represented region). So now we have to ask if people actually want more South American birds, or if they're fine with their main goal being diluted by redundant Carnivorans.

My point is that there should be a collective voice to clearly communicate the big interests from the community as a whole. If everyone has scattered ideas as to what they want, the big ideas get completely lost and that doesn't help anybody (especially the people making the products we consume, being Planet Zoo DLC packs). If we push for specifics, then we have much higher odds of getting our desires. In other words, we reap what we sow.
Wonder whether the game in its current state mostly attracts these types of people, or this forum not being a good representation. If we had more birds, fish and reptiles it is likely we would see a considerable amount of requests being catered to non-mammalian species.

I think we have too many mammals, bar fully aquatics like manatees. Not because they themselves are bad additions, but as a relative measure to what else we could have: birds, fish, more reptiles, etc. Although some animals like bovidae were never my cup of tea.
 
For some like me, I recognize birds and monkeys are most needed in game - along with fully aquatic animals.
However, when it comes down to compiling a list of my most wanted specific species, other animals tend to rise to the top. For example, I think I did a top 50 list and only had around 5-6 monkeys/birds combined. That may be where many people are, where they recognize animal groups as being in a high need category, but the specific animal species do not rise to the top.

There could also be a "realism bias". No point in naming off 17 monkeys and 19 birds when we know Frontier is unlikely to add more than a couple of each.
 
Hot take: PZ is not the right game for aquariums.

First of all they are not "essential" as some claim. There are many zoos without aquariums and even in zoos that have one, they are never the main attraction.
Second: For an aquarium to feel lively you need a lot of animals. With how PZ handles path finding etc. for individuals in a habitat that is a calculation nightmare.
 
Oftentimes, these come from the same people who want under-represented clades. They just end up being extra support against their own interest. If you look at the meta-wishlist votes, the example Carnivorans I mentioned out-rank a lot of birds and primates. And yet, there's constant demand for "real" birds. The big question then becomes if people actually want birds. If the people really do want habitat birds, why aren't they dominating the upper whole of the meta-wishlist? Only 2 birds are in the Top 10 and neither are from South America (which is also constantly touted as an under-represented region). So now we have to ask if people actually want more South American birds, or if they're fine with their main goal being diluted by redundant Carnivorans.
Part of the issue is there are so many different choices for birds and primates which often leads to the vote being split, if you look at the 2025 meta-wish list by general animal categories then new world monkeys come out on top with African birds, small South American mammals, old world monkeys and South American birds being the rest of the top 5. So clearly people are voting for them. Some people are major and vocal advocates for birds and monkeys plenty of other people want different groups.
 
Last edited:
if you look at the 2025 meta-wish list by general animal categories then new world monkeys come out on top with African birds, small South American mammals, old world monkeys and South American birds being the rest of the top 5.
The rub here is that these categories are extremely arbitrary. For example, white-faced whistling ducks can reasonably fall under 3 categories (waterfowl, African birds, South American birds). Does the duck go in all 3? Is there a reason why it'd be exempt from 2 categories in which it appropriately belongs? It's also assuming that all the animals put into a category fit the same niche (see secretary birds and guineafowl being in the same category despite having vastly different habitat functions).
Even with these faults, cat votes still manage to outnumber pheasant votes while dogs supersede pelicans. So again, this begs the question of if people actually want birds or not. And the answer I've gathered is that most of the community would rather have yet another cat (two even!) over something highly versatile like red-legged seriemas.
So if we end up getting no primates or birds in the next DLC pack, this should be an immediate wake-up call to rally and build a singular driving voice also multiple platforms to make this interest loud.
 
The rub here is that these categories are extremely arbitrary. For example, white-faced whistling ducks can reasonably fall under 3 categories (waterfowl, African birds, South American birds). Does the duck go in all 3? Is there a reason why it'd be exempt from 2 categories in which it appropriately belongs? It's also assuming that all the animals put into a category fit the same niche (see secretary birds and guineafowl being in the same category despite having vastly different habitat functions).
Even with these faults, cat votes still manage to outnumber pheasant votes while dogs supersede pelicans. So again, this begs the question of if people actually want birds or not. And the answer I've gathered is that most of the community would rather have yet another cat (two even!) over something highly versatile like red-legged seriemas.
So if we end up getting no primates or birds in the next DLC pack, this should be an immediate wake-up call to rally and build a singular driving voice also multiple platforms to make this interest loud.
Ducks go with waterfowl. Pheasants go with fowl. Pelicans go with pelicans. There is high demand for other African and South American birds, so they have their own category. No species is intentionally included twice in the group list, which reminds me that I might need to check guineafowl. I tried to split them down discussion lines, but if anyone could propose a better grouping, I'd be happy to hear it.

Also, as discussed, I think many people can see the gaps in the monkey and bird roster. Some people don't like monkeys at all, and others just vote for their favorites in the hopes that those will take the thus-far limited primate slots. For habitat birds, I think a few people want only birds going forward, most people have a few birds they want, and a decent chunk of people barely care about habitat birds. Pheasants and ducks aren't well-known or exciting to most people at the species level, as useful as they'd be for filler and building opportunities. Pelicans aren't common in American zoos relative to pheasants and ducks. Filler stuff is important, but even many of us who greatly miss habitat birds and generic monkeys don't care too much about individual species. On the other hand, I care a lot about my serval and black bear.
 
Ducks go with waterfowl. Pheasants go with fowl. Pelicans go with pelicans. There is high demand for other African and South American birds, so they have their own category. No species is intentionally included twice in the group list,
While I understand this from a consistency purpose, it ends up underselling highly versatiles such as the aforementioned white-faced whistling duck that provide a wide variety of roles for zoo displays. I think if there were 2 types of categories (one for families and another for distribution), the specifics would be far more fine-tuned. Also allowing species to be in multiple distribution categories to better promote more flexible species.
Some people don't like monkeys at all, and others just vote for their favorites in the hopes that those will take the thus-far limited primate slots.
I see no reason why Frontier won't make an animal as long as it doesn't require additional mechanics (i.e. whales and manatees) or isn't met with rampant ethical controversy (i.e. whales, extinct animals, hybrids). That said, dingoes are extremely controversial in certain spheres (and not without reason), but they made a spot anyways.

But back onto topic. People used to think siamangs and sifaka would never happen, until they did. Animals make Frontier money, no matter what animals those are. They can be as behaviourally incorrect as can be and they'll still bring a profit as long as the models look pretty. The biggest factor is if animals will make money. That's why finding that communal voice is so important, and really buckling down to decide the single most important things for the community as a whole and therefore giving the devs a clear idea as how they we give them their pay checks. Slots are only limited if we choose to believe they're limited. Enough consumer pressure will make anything an option.

That, or they can just make a "Slugs of South-eastern Quebec Animal Pack" and still make a profit because people will buy anything for their photography simulator.
 
Last edited:
Hot take: PZ is not the right game for aquariums.

First of all they are not "essential" as some claim. There are many zoos without aquariums and even in zoos that have one, they are never the main attraction.
Second: For an aquarium to feel lively you need a lot of animals. With how PZ handles path finding etc. for individuals in a habitat that is a calculation nightmare.
I personally hope we get some fish for the exhibit, like Piranha, electric eel, etc but I do agree that aquariums are better for PZ2 or a separate game entirely.
 
Back
Top Bottom