Dinosaurs and extinct animals DLC

[AndyZoos]

Honest question for all the anti-extinct animals people. The argument is often made that you'd rather all the currently alive animals be created first, before extinct animals of any kind are added, if they are added at all. That you definitely wouldn't buy an extinct animal DLC.

That's fair. But I wonder: would any of you actually buy the 5th antelope DLC or the 5th insects and snakes DLC , when we already had 4 of them? Isn't that kind of same-y? Would expansions like that hold players' interest? Would they be enticing for people to buy?

The example you provided would be "kinda same-y." But I might by it if the animals were from a different region or lived in a different biome than what was currently represented in the game. It all depends on the content.

But I doubt we'll wind up in a situation where this is the case. It's a vast world and if you take a look at the other threads in this forum there are so many types of living animals, and regions of the world, that are not represented in the game. Assuming Frontier balances everything it would take years and years and years before they start making things that are "kinda same-y."

There's plenty of cats, canids, mustelids, bears, smaller reptiles, birds, old and new world monkeys, animals from the Americas and Australia and Europe, animals from the arctic, animals that live in wetlands, animals that are primarily aquatic, etc. that can be added. If Frontier goes the route of focusing on variety? This shouldn't be a concern.

And if they're paying attention to the forums, I really don't think they'll be hurting for ideas as to what they might be able to add. There's so much out there that could be added!

I agree that I'd like to see other expansions first that focus on animals that live now. Like a marine themed expansion, continental themed expansions, biome themed expansions. But I don't need all currently living animals to be in the game. Many of them are very similar and expansions like those will lose my interest sooner rather than later. I'd buy the first antelope DLC, but the second one? The third? Are they necessary? I'd much rather have completely new content. An expansion with extinct animal would be great after the first major expansions are released. (no dinosaurs as far as I'm concerned; I'd like Holocene mammals and other recently extinct species, like Tasmanian tigers (thylacine))

I don't think it would be feasible to have all living animals in the game, but people are wanting more diversity than what is currently represented. See my list above -- there's lots of interesting, unique creatures (that are common for zoos and feasible to add in the game). As time goes on, I think what will lose people interest is needing to build another zoo with a "large savanah habitat.' But with the right balance of DLC packs, they can keep things interesting for a long time coming...

I do think a small pack of Holocene or recently extinct animals could be cool, particularly with a campaign scenario revolving around it (and I would probably buy it). But I'm not particularly hoping for it. I'd rather they focus on expanding the roster of living animals so that we have a healthy amount of each animal species from different world regions, biomes, etc. so that we can see more variety in the zoos we create.

 

[LN]

No thanks, no extinct animals for me.

 

[Mjmannella]

No thanks, no extinct animals for me.

Not sure why you reiterated your first comment on this thread:

No thanks (again).

 

[LN]

Not sure why you reiterated your first comment on this thread:

Oops.

 

[Magenpie]

Just my tuppence-worth, but there are so many amazing animals now (ones people are unaware of and/or don't care about) which I'd love to see in the game, I'd much rather Frontier put those at the front of the DLC queue. I loved the Zoo Tycoon series, but this isn't it.

However, I have a bit of a pet peeve with this as well, which is the tendency to add too many 'toppings' so a thing becomes the correct level of 'awe-mazing'. So for example, you can't just have pirates, you have to have pirate zombies. Or you can't just have horses, you have to have sparkly unicorns instead. I'm sure a lot of this is genuine excitement, but I can't help feel there's trendy group-think escalation. We ALL want pirate-zombies, don't we?!!!! YES WE DO!!! hed esplodes.

I'd rather enjoy the wonder of a game which aims for some realism and revels in the beauty of nature on the planet now.

Also, there's this game called 'Jurassic World Evolution.' It's got dinosaurs. I believe it's made by this developer called 'Frontier.' It's great, I've played it lots.

Edit: Apologies - realise I sound a bit arsey in my post. I do get annoyed about the excitement escalation thing, but I didn't need to be Mrs Snark about JWE. However, with the improvements JWE is making, in terms of making it more like a park sim, perhaps it would be the place to have extinct megafauna (is that the right term?)

 

[Chia Des]

I'm sorry, but I'm not interested in being a matchmaker for existing and extinct animals.

Looking at the number of species today:

Animal group​	Number of species​
Vertebrates​	​
Amphibians​	6,199​
Birds​	9,956​
Fish​	30,000​
Mammals​	5,416​
Reptiles​	8,240​
Subtotal​	59,811​
Invertebrates​	​
Insects​	950,000​
Molluscs​	81,000​
Crustaceans​	40,000​
Corals​	2,175​
Others​	130,200​
Subtotal​	1,203,375​

I'd rather have the other 1.263.113‬ species first. After that there is plenty of time to look at anything that went extinct.




Do those games even have a tagline?

I don't want to be pessimist, but with global warning we'll have less species every day

 

[kinagatng7lions]

Imagine releasing a T-Rex into the wild.

Invasive species, anyone? Cmon, let's make a game about conserving endangered species also about endangering those said species!

 

[Mjmannella]

Imagine releasing a T-Rex into the wild.

Invasive species, anyone? Cmon, let's make a game about conserving endangered species also about endangering those said species!

Not to say that releasing dinosaurs into the wilderness would be a good idea (there’s already gonna be a Jurassic World movie exploring the idea), but we’re already releasing domesticated bactrian camels to the wild. God knows where they end up, but somewhere in the wild I guess.

 

[Magenpie]

Not to say that release dinosaurs into the wilderness would be a good idea (there’s already gonna be a Jurassic World movie exploring the idea), but we’re already releasing domesticated bactrian camels to the wild. God knows where they end up, but somewhere in the wild I guess.

In the words of Dr Malcolm, "This isn't some species that was obliterated by deforestation or the building of a dam. Dinosaurs had their shot and Nature selected them for extinction."

Isn't there a problem with the feral Bactrians as opposed to the true Wild Bactrians - I'm not sure the release of the Feral ones is regarded as saving the species.

 

[whale_bite]

If they do it I think it should be called the second chance pack, and have animals that are extinct, but and this is most critical where kept in captivity prior to their extinctions or went extinct in captivity, this keeps the list small and allows this to stay a zoo game. 99% of animals are now extinct, way to many choices and it will be taken up by impractical species like tyrannosaurus and sauropods that are just too big, and not smaller random creatures.

 

[LN]

I'm recreating a real life zoo, so I have no need of extinct animals.