Why the animals aren't the stars of the game - and what needs to be done about it
- Thread starter Swjosdotschka
- Start date
Again,that's just because of the high number of structural inbreeding with the goal of getting white animals.Every albino and leucistic mutation can occur naturally without inbreeding.
And meanwhile Frontier only has albino and leucistic animals,that's a bit controversial right?
I just explained that all colour variants/variations (doesn't really matter how you call it) are mutations.
People just tend to associate a white lion more with it then a darker sandy coloured one,because the white one doesn't look so "ordinary" and has a "mutant feel" - and again - both are mutations.
Colour mutations is the overall term for differences in the colouring of animals.
Again,that's just because of the high number of structural inbreeding with the goal of getting white animals.Every albino and leucistic mutation can occur naturally without inbreeding.
And meanwhile Frontier only has albino and leucistic animals,that's a bit controversial right?
They don't tend to occur naturally all that often at all. Albinism and leucism tend to occur mostly in genetic bottlenecks where inbreeding is common, or in captivity where colour morphs are artificially selected for. As an example, pocket populations of white squirrels in places where squirrels are fed by the public tend to occur because the squirrels themselves don't range very far outside of their 'territory' because they don't need to go far for food.
Also I don't think it's controversial - I get the feeling the 'white' animals Frontier added were supposed to be a rare gimmick but due to the nature of the Franchise market they basically wound up over-bred into the system.
You're missing the point (also "colour mutations" isn't the term for anything - you're looking for "pigment mutations"). What @Swjosdotschka is saying is that we want Frontier to add more regular colour morphs (i.e. making regular animals feel more individual) rather than just throwing in a bunch of pigment mutations (such as a 'golden tabby tiger' or a 'blonde' grizzly bear) that zoos would deliberately try and avoid. It's considered poor animal management and unethical to deliberately breed pigment mutations into zoo animals as it does absolutely nothing to aid in conservation.
When it comes to captive animal management, it's pretty obvious that a distinction is made between a bison that is slightly darker in colour than its neighbour and a bison that is white. Genetic variation in zoo animals is the entire reason studbooks exist.
Edit: Also it has nothing to do with what people 'associate' with certain words - for zoos, the term 'mutation' has a very specific meaning that does not refer to every single minor adapation in a species.
This is slowly becoming a huge misunderstanding and I'm not quite sure why,might be because of wrong usage of some words or phrases (english is not my native language.)
I'm totally agreeing with @Swjosdotschka in every single aspect she mentioned (since the beginning of the thread and now),so it would be kinda strange if I now -all of a sudden- don't agree anymore or try to debunk something - thus even my own previous postings on the forum.My intention was just to explain the overall scientific term "mutation",because a lot of laypersons have mostly negative associations with that term.
I'm totally agreeing with @Swjosdotschka in every single aspect she mentioned (since the beginning of the thread and now),so it would be kinda strange if I now -all of a sudden- don't agree anymore or try to debunk something - thus even my own previous postings on the forum.My intention was just to explain the overall scientific term "mutation",because a lot of laypersons have mostly negative associations with that term.
Yes, it's clear you are attempting to do this, but what I'm saying is that it is not necessary. Swjosdotschka, based on what I've seen of her around here, is well aware of what a 'mutation' actually is, but in this context it means something entirely different. As per my edit, it has nothing to do with how people perceive the word or whatever associations there be around it, it's that when it comes to discussing captive animal management the word means something specific (in this case a phenotypical expression associated with genetically undesirible traits, such as how albinism and leucism can often come with diseases similar to Down's syndrome or can cause infertility).
If you want to nitpick, then the shape of your nose is also considered a 'mutation' in strict biological terms, but that isn't what we're discussing. My point is I'm not sure why you felt the need to 'educate' everyone on the term 'mutation' when in context it doesn't actually matter, since everyone knows what is being discussed anyway (and in your own words you agree with what people are saying).
Thanks for stepping in for me @NZFanatic , I appreciate. You found the words to explain my point that I obviously didn't found (the words, that is). ^^
Also @MKaku no worries, I know you do support my idea as well. We just have a different opinion on actual mutations in zoos, but that's fine. As I said, if we'd get both difference in the "main" color and mutations to a sliiight percent (like currently with leucism, wrongly labled in the game as albinism), I am a happy camper. I know the franchise marked is flooded, but in all other modes leucism tigers e g. are pretty rare. Haven't had one yet.
Also @MKaku no worries, I know you do support my idea as well. We just have a different opinion on actual mutations in zoos, but that's fine. As I said, if we'd get both difference in the "main" color and mutations to a sliiight percent (like currently with leucism, wrongly labled in the game as albinism), I am a happy camper. I know the franchise marked is flooded, but in all other modes leucism tigers e g. are pretty rare. Haven't had one yet.
i still dont want the game to be transformed into a the-sims like-shallow cosmetics game. thats what a shifting the focus on animal shape, behaviour and color means, nothing else. i dont whant every leftover of profundy in the world is sacrificed for shallowness and cosmetics.
Forgive me for asking, but how would adding variety to the animals appearance and behavior make the game shallow? If anything, it's shallow right now because they're all carbon copies of each other
the mechanics of the existing game are fine, or would be fine, if they would work fine and performance would improve, that could be the case anyway with better hardware in the future, but if frontier is implementing the sugested shift to more appearances above everything else, that would pull the effort away from the important stuff to things that i dont want. if my oppinion dont count, then fine.
I think you're mistaken in it being "above everything else". Variants were confirmed to be on the way sometime in the future, but after other updates. They haven't halted all bug fixing and the like to add animal colors
Interesting. Never ever said it should be implementing appereance-features above everything else, but whatever.
in Your headline you state that "animals arent the stars of the game"., and you suggest how to turn that. of course you did. if not, the tread would make no sense. if stars are not above evrything else, i dont understand you at all.
There’s absolutely no risk of it going that far by any means. A life simulator is an entirely different sort of game, focussing on an individual and their personal story, so a heavy focus on what makes them physically or behaviourally unique is going to be a major part of that kind of game.
Planet Zoo is a game about zoo management, creation and animal conservation. We already have amazing building tools, with lots of customisation and theming to cover so many architectural styles - and more will certainly come with DLC. The management is so in depth that it can be overwhelming, which is fantastic! The animal models are beautiful, but to make them more realistic and lifelike they need variation and more behavioural complexity. The animals absolutely do need to be as deep and captivating as the rest of the features of this game - it is Planet Zoo, not Planet Park. Zoos are 100% devoted to wildlife and conservation, learning about animals and inspiring the public to care for them. Animal variation is essential for immersion in a zoo game. It’s jarring to be able to customise the design of a donation bin, or an ATM, down to the colour of a screen, while all of the animals are physical and behavioural clones.
If the animal side isn’t interesting to you, personally, then Planet Coaster might be a better fit. Or you could keep playing Planet Zoo however you like, but understand that those of us who play this game for the animals - likely the majority of PZ players - do see the animals as the entire point of this game and hold variation as an extremely important feature, and adding it to the game doesn’t take away any of the other building or management features already implemented.
That is your interpretation of the headline, not what I wrote. Forum posts are like newspaper. Never read the headline only, it might be misleading. In my long post, I clearly stated that in its current state, Planet Zoo is a building simulator. And I also stated, that changing the animals and adding realistic behaviour would also make them more of a challenge. Which actually would make the game and the management aspect more complex instead of shallow. This is a management game after all and animal management are one of the core focuses of real life zoos. And they face different management aspects than theme parks because they deal with animals that do not always behave like expected.
An aggressive male in a herd is a management challenge. (To keep his genes, you need to change the group or the enviorement)
An animal that is popular with guests but likes to hide is a management challenge. (You need to make it seen without getting too stressed and you need to make sure that you find partner animals that aren't too dominant).
Working with personalities instead of 1:1 carbon coppies IS a challenge and adds to the depth of a game.
Last edited:
haha, "interpretation", how rediculous. you just left no room for interpretation. and at the end you push away just everybody that dont agree. and everything you do to deal with it, is claiming, that you are missunderstood.
Read the initial post and you might get what I say. Everything else you just wrote is indeed Humbug.
i read it again, you want the game to be turned into a "the sims". i dont want that.
since swojosdotschka says, that she dont meant, what she meant, i dont know exacly what the topic is, pls explain. she excluded: animal appearance and changing the game, so i dont know, what is left.
Joël
Volunteer Moderator
It is not my job to explain thread topics to users who 'do not get the topic'. Please drop this off-topic discussion and get back on topic.
If you do not get what the topic of this thread is, then I suggest that you refrain from participating in this thread. The thread topic has been explained in the first post of this thread.
Thanks!