It's not that Jurassic World Evolution is going to be a bad game. You just think you will not like the game, which is fair, but to call it a bad game, to describe it as subpar, is objectively incorrect in many cases. For it to be a bad game, it would need to have nigh unanimous agreement from those who have played it stating that it was not a fun game. Bad games are not fun. It's just not the game you want it to be, and it won't be. No game will ever truly be that for anyone. You're not entitled to the things you deem "inexcusable" to not be included.
And that's okay.
Frontier can change certain aspects of the game for the betterment of it, and that would be great, but even so, Frontier isn't always going to change things, and you may not like that. But that doesn't make it a bad game.
Unlimited money on Nublar doesn't make it a bad game.
Indestructible vehicles don't make it a bad game.
No day and night cycle doesn't make it a bad game.
Jurassic World Evolution is not JPOG, and that doesn't make this a bad game.
There are things that disappoint me about Evolution, but I'm not letting it spoil the fun. As a kid, when I played board games with my dad, I would just quit because I was losing. Sometimes I would do this at the very start of the game. Your post reminds me of myself in those regards. Minor details aren't holding the game back, you're holding yourself back by letting details you call "minor" have a major influence on your opinion of a game you have never even touched. I think I'm going to greatly enjoy this game, regardless of the issues I may have with it. Compromise is necessary where it counts, otherwise you're going to find yourself very disappointed when you don't get what you want. In compromisation, the only one who loses is the person who doesn't compromise. If you don't think you'll like the game, that's okay, but don't call it a bad game just because Frontier won't cave into each and every want you have. Don't call it a bad game because certain aspects that literally only pertain to 1/6th of the game aren't exactly what you'd want them to be.
I'd like to close with this: settle for mediocre if you want. It's a video game, and if you're having fun, that's what matters. Don't heed the words of someone who thinks lack of floodlights in a video game is an inexcusable missing feature worthy of its own bullet point.
As for the lack of any deep vegetation/enclosure/park customization, I agree with you there. But that's about all I agree with you on.
Where do I even begin here.
For a start, I would like you to show me where I said that it was going to be a bad game. I literally said, and I quote, "I am disappointed not because I think this game is going to be bad but because I feel as though (judging soley on the information available) that some frankly lazy and bewildering design choices may unnecessarily handicap and otherwise stunning game".
Your first paragraph seems to simultaneously confuse and contradict itself and that appears to have set a precedence for the rest of the comment. I strongly suggest you re-read what I wrote.
Hypothetically, even if I DID think it was going to be a bad game, that is an inherently subjective opinion and neither incorrect nor correct. You cannot measure the subjective quality of a game by the sheer number of people who like it. Nor can you measure the quality of a game soley by the features present or not present; I did not argue either points.
Literally not one person who has replied to me has managed to respond to anything closely resembling the subject of my original message. I either wasn't very clear or people are expressing an emotional response rather than rational thought.