Hot takes for planet zoo

[RightWhale]

Ok new hot take. If we have to get a free update feature, we really need animal herding and babies following adults. Recently in my “bird zoo” I made a habitat for Ostrich, and decided to use Addax and Somali Wild Ass to give that good vibe to the habitat.

Not only do the baby ostriches not follow adults, not only do baby hoofstock not follow adults, but watching herding animals all spread out on their own feels silly to watch.

I was gonna say I would love to create a zoo like the Wilds in Ohio, but when herding animals don’t herd it looks stupid. I genuinely think the bigger the habitat the worse it looks too!

So we need herding and babies following adults ASAP

 

[NachoB]

Ok new hot take. If we have to get a free update feature, we really need animal herding and babies following adults. Recently in my “bird zoo” I made a habitat for Ostrich, and decided to use Addax and Somali Wild Ass to give that good vibe to the habitat.

Not only do the baby ostriches not follow adults, not only do baby hoofstock not follow adults, but watching herding animals all spread out on their own feels silly to watch.

I was gonna say I would love to create a zoo like the Wilds in Ohio, but when herding animals don’t herd it looks stupid. I genuinely think the bigger the habitat the worse it looks too!

So we need herding and babies following adults ASAP
View attachment 419736

Yes those are two of the most important behaviours we are missing and people barely mention them.

 

[RightWhale]

WHITE FACE WHISTLING DUCK

 

[NachoB]

View attachment 419737

It had to match the rest of the pack and be a companion to the ibis in a tropical house haha

 

[SanRazo]

Ok new hot take. If we have to get a free update feature, we really need animal herding and babies following adults. Recently in my “bird zoo” I made a habitat for Ostrich, and decided to use Addax and Somali Wild Ass to give that good vibe to the habitat.

Not only do the baby ostriches not follow adults, not only do baby hoofstock not follow adults, but watching herding animals all spread out on their own feels silly to watch.

I was gonna say I would love to create a zoo like the Wilds in Ohio, but when herding animals don’t herd it looks stupid. I genuinely think the bigger the habitat the worse it looks too!

So we need herding and babies following adults ASAP
View attachment 419736

Same man. Had a plan to build a Wilds like zoo in my franchise but the couple of large habitats I do have the herding animals look so bad and just spread out everywhere and rush where all the food is and it just doesn’t look good especially Savannah habitats

 

[SuzieSky]

My Hot Take: I think many people take this game too seriously.

Example 1: We shouldn't have Saiga because they aren't any in captivity.
Counterargument: An imaginary scenario where the zoo I built is a breeding center for the endangered Saiga located in a country they are native too and that I release the babies into the wild. Imaginary scenario 2= I rescued an injured/ill saiga in a country it's native to and am holding at my rehabilitation facility.

Example 2: They should never add marine mammals like dolphins or orcas because it's too unethical to keep them.
Counterargument: My zoo is one of those Marine Mammal Rehab places that rehabs dolphins, smaller whale species, seals, sea turtles, etc. and then released them back into the wild and maybe some have to stay at my facility for life because they have a disability/injury that makes them non-releasable.
It would be totally fine to add marine mammals, and I don't think it would be controversial as long as they don't add shows/tricks for them and make them perform as part of the game.

Example 3: We shouldn't have common/least concern/ urban/ "pest" animals like raccoons, skunks, etc.
Counterargument: My zoo is a rehab of Native Wildlife animals and also has non-releasable ambassador animals. Many zoos include common native urban species as part of their Children's Zoo area besides just a petting zoo.

Example 4: We shouldn't have extinct species.
Counterargument: An imaginary scenario where it's way in the future and we've perfected cloning so much that there are several species back in existence now like the thylacine and wooly mammoth for example.

But even without the counterarguments, has Frontier ever actual made a statement anywhere that this game is meant to be realistic or focused on conservation?
I mean 2 of their other building games are a Theme Park Builder and a Dinosaur Park Builder, so I don't think their main focus for their Zoo Builder game is to be realistic/accurate/ focus on conservation. If we had Marine Mania and Extinct Animals for Zoo Tycoon 2, why wouldn't similar packs be something Frontier could potentially do for Planet Zoo? They would definitely have to focus on Modern Extinct Animals or only Prehistoric Mammals to avoid competing with their own Jurassic Park games if they made an Extinct Animals pack though. Heck, the game Wildlife Park 2 even had a Fantasy Expansion pack with Dragons and Unicorns. Although there's a lot of real animals I'd want first, I wouldn't even be opposed if the game wanted to put in fantasy or cryptid creatures because it's just a game and no one is forced to use any animal they include in the game.

I find the problem of how to efficiently represent zoos of the world, all relevant taxa, have good regional coverage, have good biome coverage, and still appeal to a wide range of players very interesting to discuss. There are many perspectives here, which I enjoy hearing. As for my takes on the individual examples:

• I think the saiga was a good pick, but I could live without it. I think more people would have liked it if its pack had fewer ungulates, and I like its funny nose. I would have preferred a muntjac, which would have more uses for interspecies enrichment and zoo recreations. Also, the Indian grasslands could use ~2 ungulates more. In general, I think the common in captivity argument matters more for underrepresented groups, especially monkeys and birds. I've said this before, but if I don't have enough generic animals to recreate the feel of zoos I've attended, oddballs are going to seem strange. On the other hand, they could add almost any ungulate, cat, or dog at this point, and it wouldn't stick out too much. For example, the uakari would seem like an awful choice for a South American monkey, but if we already had the howler monkey, spider monkey, and some tamarins, I'd see it as a fun oddball. The shoebill similarly seems like a terrible choice for an African bird at the moment, but if we already had a grey-crowned crane, pelican, and duck, I'd appreciate it as an interesting meme animal. Many people want to recreate their local zoos. Most would be happy with enough stuff to recreate the feel of an area, but a few others aren't content with highly similar subspecies in some cases. Most agree that birds, monkeys, and South American animals are the main gaps making the current roster incomplete.
• I think the vast majority of people would welcome cetaceans if they were implemented well. I'd heard secondhand that Frontier explicitly stated they didn't want to add them to PZ because of ethical concerns. I don't have a problem separating reality from video games, but I'll accept their decision. I don't think they'd work with the game's current mechanics. I also don't need them like I need other types of animals because I almost never see them in zoos. In PZ, I'd want to build a large aquarium, which would take a lot more than the typical DLC. I think a few simpler, slow-moving, and shallow-dwelling coastal animals could make a nice themed area as a compromise.
• I think the raccoon and skunk were great additions, if not the first I would have personally chosen. My problem is less with them and more about the way they were discussed on the forum. To many NA players, they are not interesting, or they'd be associated less with zoos and more with wildlife centers, for which we'd still need a few other animals to make work. There is a crowd with no interest in local animals, especially urban ones. There are also many NA players who have been waiting for their 'exciting' animals, especially the black bear, wapiti, and a few others. Racoons and other woodland critters are important for international zoo rep of NA, which is a good reason for their inclusion, but they didn't seem like animals targeted to most NA players wants. When some expressed their dissatisfaction about this ('not a zoo animal [to us]'), many were basically called greedy, dishonest, and ungrateful. I don't remember all of it, but it got kind of ugly. Some got so frustrated that they left the community. The raccoon and skunk are fine, but the expectation on groups that weren't really asking for them to be quietly grateful and stop clamoring for the local animals they are actually excited about wasn't reasonable. I think I like them better than many, but I still understand the other perspective and have encountered enough people to understand why it exists. Sometimes, I attempt to explain what happened when the topic resurfaces because the fuzzy definition of what constitutes a 'zoo animal' in peoples' minds probably doesn't come across well when talking with people from other countries. I mostly pick on the raccoon a lot because it seems like the biggest example of an animal that means different things to different people, but I don't think it was a bad addition.
• I like the idea of Ice Age and recently extinct animals. I also like the idea of cryptids, especially a throwback unicorn. However, there are still some more realistic options I still miss for the roster to feel complete. Also, while they'd be fun sometimes, they don't really fit the overall vibe of PZ, and they already have a series dedicated to extinct animals. Mods exist for that type of thing in PZ and many games.

 

[synthetase]

I find the problem of how to efficiently represent zoos of the world, all relevant taxa, have good regional coverage, have good biome coverage, and still appeal to a wide range of players very interesting to discuss. There are many perspectives here, which I enjoy hearing. As for my takes on the individual examples:

• I think the saiga was a good pick, but I could live without it. I think more people would have liked it if its pack had fewer ungulates, and I like its funny nose. I would have preferred a muntjac, which would have more uses for interspecies enrichment and zoo recreations. Also, the Indian grasslands could use ~2 ungulates more. In general, I think the common in captivity argument matters more for underrepresented groups, especially monkeys and birds. I've said this before, but if I don't have enough generic animals to recreate the feel of zoos I've attended, oddballs are going to seem strange. On the other hand, they could add almost any ungulate, cat, or dog at this point, and it wouldn't stick out too much. For example, the uakari would seem like an awful choice for a South American monkey, but if we already had the howler monkey, spider monkey, and some tamarins, I'd see it as a fun oddball. The shoebill similarly seems like a terrible choice for an African bird at the moment, but if we already had a grey-crowned crane, pelican, and duck, I'd appreciate it as an interesting meme animal. Many people want to recreate their local zoos. Most would be happy with enough stuff to recreate the feel of an area, but a few others aren't content with highly similar subspecies in some cases. Most agree that birds, monkeys, and South American animals are the main gaps making the current roster incomplete.
• I think the vast majority of people would welcome cetaceans if they were implemented well. I'd heard secondhand that Frontier explicitly stated they didn't want to add them to PZ because of ethical concerns. I don't have a problem separating reality from video games, but I'll accept their decision. I don't think they'd work with the game's current mechanics. I also don't need them like I need other types of animals because I almost never see them in zoos. In PZ, I'd want to build a large aquarium, which would take a lot more than the typical DLC. I think a few simpler, slow-moving, and shallow-dwelling coastal animals could make a nice themed area as a compromise.
• I think the raccoon and skunk were great additions, if not the first I would have personally chosen. My problem is less with them and more about the way they were discussed on the forum. To many NA players, they are not interesting, or they'd be associated less with zoos and more with wildlife centers, for which we'd still need a few other animals to make work. There is a crowd with no interest in local animals, especially urban ones. There are also many NA players who have been waiting for their 'exciting' animals, especially the black bear, wapiti, and a few others. Racoons and other woodland critters are important for international zoo rep of NA, which is a good reason for their inclusion, but they didn't seem like animals targeted to most NA players wants. When some expressed their dissatisfaction about this ('not a zoo animal [to us]'), many were basically called greedy, dishonest, and ungrateful. I don't remember all of it, but it got kind of ugly. Some got so frustrated that they left the community. The raccoon and skunk are fine, but the expectation on groups that weren't really asking for them to be quietly grateful and stop clamoring for the local animals they are actually excited about wasn't reasonable. I think I like them better than many, but I still understand the other perspective and have encountered enough people to understand why it exists. Sometimes, I attempt to explain what happened when the topic resurfaces because the fuzzy definition of what constitutes a 'zoo animal' in peoples' minds probably doesn't come across well when talking with people from other countries. I mostly pick on the raccoon a lot because it seems like the biggest example of an animal that means different things to different people, but I don't think it was a bad addition.
• I like the idea of Ice Age and recently extinct animals. I also like the idea of cryptids, especially a throwback unicorn. However, there are still some more realistic options I still miss for the roster to feel complete. Also, while they'd be fun sometimes, they don't really fit the overall vibe of PZ, and they already have a series dedicated to extinct animals. Mods exist for that type of thing in PZ and many games.

Agree with everything except I don't want cetaceans as much as I don't want mythical animals.

 

[Marvinb]

I find the problem of how to efficiently represent zoos of the world, all relevant taxa, have good regional coverage, have good biome coverage, and still appeal to a wide range of players very interesting to discuss. There are many perspectives here, which I enjoy hearing. As for my takes on the individual examples:

• I think the saiga was a good pick, but I could live without it. I think more people would have liked it if its pack had fewer ungulates, and I like its funny nose. I would have preferred a muntjac, which would have more uses for interspecies enrichment and zoo recreations. Also, the Indian grasslands could use ~2 ungulates more. In general, I think the common in captivity argument matters more for underrepresented groups, especially monkeys and birds. I've said this before, but if I don't have enough generic animals to recreate the feel of zoos I've attended, oddballs are going to seem strange. On the other hand, they could add almost any ungulate, cat, or dog at this point, and it wouldn't stick out too much. For example, the uakari would seem like an awful choice for a South American monkey, but if we already had the howler monkey, spider monkey, and some tamarins, I'd see it as a fun oddball. The shoebill similarly seems like a terrible choice for an African bird at the moment, but if we already had a grey-crowned crane, pelican, and duck, I'd appreciate it as an interesting meme animal. Many people want to recreate their local zoos. Most would be happy with enough stuff to recreate the feel of an area, but a few others aren't content with highly similar subspecies in some cases. Most agree that birds, monkeys, and South American animals are the main gaps making the current roster incomplete.
• I think the vast majority of people would welcome cetaceans if they were implemented well. I'd heard secondhand that Frontier explicitly stated they didn't want to add them to PZ because of ethical concerns. I don't have a problem separating reality from video games, but I'll accept their decision. I don't think they'd work with the game's current mechanics. I also don't need them like I need other types of animals because I almost never see them in zoos. In PZ, I'd want to build a large aquarium, which would take a lot more than the typical DLC. I think a few simpler, slow-moving, and shallow-dwelling coastal animals could make a nice themed area as a compromise.
• I think the raccoon and skunk were great additions, if not the first I would have personally chosen. My problem is less with them and more about the way they were discussed on the forum. To many NA players, they are not interesting, or they'd be associated less with zoos and more with wildlife centers, for which we'd still need a few other animals to make work. There is a crowd with no interest in local animals, especially urban ones. There are also many NA players who have been waiting for their 'exciting' animals, especially the black bear, wapiti, and a few others. Racoons and other woodland critters are important for international zoo rep of NA, which is a good reason for their inclusion, but they didn't seem like animals targeted to most NA players wants. When some expressed their dissatisfaction about this ('not a zoo animal [to us]'), many were basically called greedy, dishonest, and ungrateful. I don't remember all of it, but it got kind of ugly. Some got so frustrated that they left the community. The raccoon and skunk are fine, but the expectation on groups that weren't really asking for them to be quietly grateful and stop clamoring for the local animals they are actually excited about wasn't reasonable. I think I like them better than many, but I still understand the other perspective and have encountered enough people to understand why it exists. Sometimes, I attempt to explain what happened when the topic resurfaces because the fuzzy definition of what constitutes a 'zoo animal' in peoples' minds probably doesn't come across well when talking with people from other countries. I mostly pick on the raccoon a lot because it seems like the biggest example of an animal that means different things to different people, but I don't think it was a bad addition.
• I like the idea of Ice Age and recently extinct animals. I also like the idea of cryptids, especially a throwback unicorn. However, there are still some more realistic options I still miss for the roster to feel complete. Also, while they'd be fun sometimes, they don't really fit the overall vibe of PZ, and they already have a series dedicated to extinct animals. Mods exist for that type of thing in PZ and many games.

I think a large part of the negative feedback to the saiga wasnt that its rare in captivity, but that there arent alternatives for its niche (asian antelope) for those that care about captive presence. So if we had the blackbuck as an alternative for a more common asian antelope, i think alot of people wouldnt mind the saiga. Same for the proboscis monkey as the only tropical asian monkey (If i had a nickel for everytime an animal niche for asia only has one super rare representative with a weird enlarged nose i had two nickels, which isnt alot but its weird that it happend twice).
In contrast i rarely, if ever hear similar feedback to the platypus, pronghorn or pangolin. All somewhat comparably rare in captivity animals, but they feel a little different since they are more unique cases as a whole instead of a animal niche common in zoos if that makes sense, idk how to put it in words.

 

[NachoB]

I think a large part of the negative feedback to the saiga wasnt that its rare in captivity, but that there arent alternatives for its niche (asian antelope) for those that care about captive presence. So if we had the blackbuck as an alternative for a more common asian antelope, i think alot of people wouldnt mind the saiga. Same for the proboscis monkey as the only tropical asian monkey (If i had a nickel for everytime an animal niche for asia only has one super rare representative with a weird enlarged nose i had two nickels, which isnt alot but its weird that it happend twice).
In contrast i rarely, if ever hear similar feedback to the platypus, pronghorn or pangolin. All somewhat comparably rare in captivity animals, but they feel a little different since they are more unique cases as a whole instead of a animal niche common in zoos if that makes sense, idk how to put it in words.

The problem with the saiga is that it was the perfect time for the blacbuck and it stole the indian antelope's chance

It was high on the metawishlist at the time apparently, and i think Frontier thought they were picking the cooler more popular option with the saiga but it backfired lol

 

[SanRazo]

The problem with the saiga is that it was the perfect time for the blacbuck and it stole the indian antelope's chance

It was high on the metawishlist at the time apparently, and i think Frontier thought they were picking the cooler more popular option with the saiga but it backfired lol

Saiga matched the Eastern European feel of the pack though. I know the sloth bear is in the pack, but it always felt like an outlier get me wrong I’m happy it’s in the game, but this can go both ways. The blackbuck could’ve made the pack more of an overall Europe + Asia pack strengthening India, even more.

 

[The_Riot22]

• I think the vast majority of people would welcome cetaceans if they were implemented well. I'd heard secondhand that Frontier explicitly stated they didn't want to add them to PZ because of ethical concerns. I don't have a problem separating reality from video games, but I'll accept their decision. I don't think they'd work with the game's current mechanics. I also don't need them like I need other types of animals because I almost never see them in zoos. In PZ, I'd want to build a large aquarium, which would take a lot more than the typical DLC. I think a few simpler, slow-moving, and shallow-dwelling coastal animals could make a nice themed area as a compromise.

Completely agree. In no way are cetaceans essential for my enjoyment of PZ. However, they would be very cool to have as an option.
PZ has 200 animals. Taking 3 slots for a dolphin, porpoise and beluga isn't much.
I understand the pushback, but will never understand the hate. If you don't like em, just don't buy the DLC, or just don't use em. This is just a game.

But yeah, a coastal pack centering around the Manatee would be a banger that all could enjoy.

 

[synthetase]

Its not hate. But I definitely have pushback to cetaceans. There are still a ton of land animals I hope to see. I feel like cetaceans would take away what slim chance there is of some animals I want to see showing up...

I understand the pushback, but will never understand the hate.

This is just a game.

Its a zoo game. Not an aquarium game though. I like to see aquarium features maybe but not a full on aquarium DLC...

 

[caninesrock]

I thought I wanted an Aquarium DLC for Planet Zoo but then I realized that there's no way one DLC could cover all the animals I would want to build an aquarium, so I now kind of agree with not wanting an Aquarium DLC. Also I haven't figured out how to build fish tanks in the game even for the fish mods I've downloaded. I'd rather Frontier make a new game "Planet Aquarium" , which is targeted towards fully aquatic animals like fish, sea turtles, whales, dolphins, sharks, manatees, etc. and has a building system dedicated specifically to build tanks or pools for them depending on what the species is (Ex: Tanks for fish, sharks, and sea turtles but large pools for dolphins, whales, and manatees)
Or even if it only had fish and aquatic inverts (octopus, squid, jellyfish, lobster, shrimp, etc.) and no marine mammals or sea turtles, I would still like the game.

 

[synthetase]

hat there's no way one DLC could cover all the animals I would want to build an aquarium

That too. You'd have to have a full on expansion pack for it to be decentish coverage!

 

[Iben]

Example 1: We shouldn't have Saiga because they aren't any in captivity.

Ignoring the fact that Saigas are kept in captivity, I'm personally very lenient about captive presence, as I see anything that's ever been held in captivity as an option; but I always had a hard time with the fact that people struggle with the idea that some people prefer to have animals that are kept in a captivity.

But to me that just makes perfect sense? Like, if someone were to make a pizzeria simulator game, you'd be expecting them to add pizzas as a food to serve right? You'd also find it weird if part of the gameplay would be for you to make hamburgers and fries?

The same goes for a zoo simulator game for me tbh. It's core is to simulate a zoo, so you'd want animals that are kept in zoos. Like that doesn't seem rocket science to me. That doesn't mean that I don't get that people want all kinds of animals either; but it has always been so strange to me that that sentiment doesn't seem to go both ways.

If we had Marine Mania and Extinct Animals for Zoo Tycoon 2, why wouldn't similar packs be something Frontier could potentially do for Planet Zoo?

Because the context is different.

For extinct animals, it's just a no go completely. Even your "focusing on modern extinct animals or only prehistoric mammals" isn't going to fly, I can guarantee you that Universal left no gap for Frontier to add extinct animals of any kind to any zoo game of their own making for the foreseeable future, because that would mean that they couldn't add it to their own games and they're not going to cut that possibility. I know that's a hard thing to hear for some people, but even a recently extinct species DLC is far of into the unlikely territory because of JWE. Even if the movie franchise itself doesn't even remotely touch it

It might feel like a shame, but that's how the industry works, and it's logical to do so. Otherwise they could cash on making it for Universal and then cash again by making their own game which is better. It's just not going to happen. These kind of contracts are really strict, I remember that I couldn't touch any kind of medical related project when I changed jobs from my previous job, whilst I was only working in a very very specific subset of healthcare.

Then why no Marine Mania? Simple as well really, the world is too polarized atm. And this is coming from someone who wants those animals in the game as well and believes that with proper research we're at least capable of keeping a bunch of these animals well in captivity. But it's controversial and whilst this wasn't the case when Marine Mania was released; nowadays social media becomes a cesspool in an instant. Frontier not touching it isn't most likely isn't necessarily because they don't agree with it on an ethical level; it's more to avoid the very vocal backlash that people who are against it will bring. And at the end of the day, I'd much rather not have a bunch of CMs and social media managers deal with endless slop and harassment if that means that I'm not getting a dolphin in my game. It's a game after all, the well being of the people who develop the game is more important to me.

So I don't think the majority of the people out there are against an extinct animals pack or a marine animals pack. Yes there are people who don't want it, but heck, there were plenty of people who didn't when ZT1 and ZT2 was a thing. To an extant that there are people who didn't have the updated zookeeper AI for years because they never bought Extinct Animals. But I still don't think that's it.

I think it's more that people have come to understand why these packs are really unlikely to happen and moved on really.

I'd rather Frontier make a new game "Planet Aquarium"

Here's my hot take: any attempt at a Planet Aquarium is doomed to fail.

There's basically three niches in today's aquarium simulator market. You've got the simple "I want to see digital fish swimming on my screen" niche, the "I want to build zoos with fish" niche or the "I want to simulate keeping fish in aquariums as realistic as possible with lots of management" niche.

The first niche is quite filled, and so is the third one. Especially the third one, because a lot of aquarium games seem to have pretty in depth management. And let's call a spade a spade here, that's just not Frontier's strongest asset. They've got the creative building part down and they're incredibly good at it, but the common critique any Planet game seems to get is that the management side is really shallow. Could Frontier try to compete in that market? Of course! Is it smart to do so in their current financial situation? I'd personally say not at all.

Frontiers best shot is to integrate it into their zoo franchise, because frankly that's the niche that has the least amount of competition in the market. And as you said, that won't happen as a DLC, if that's going to happen that's most likely going to happen in a sequel. They wouldn't even have to go far, with a bunch of little tweaks the current exhibit system works wonders and scratches the itch of the niche described earlier enough.

But an entire game about aquariums from Frontier? Nah. I don't see it happen. The people who are heavy in to management will stay with the options they have right now and the people who wanted fish integrated in Planet Zoo would be disappointed. Releasing a sequel where fish are on of the big hooks (pardon the pun) like waterparks were with PC2 is a much, much safer bet.

 

[The_Riot22]

Its a zoo game. Not an aquarium game though. I like to see aquarium features maybe but not a full on aquarium DLC...

Most zoo games have some aquarium animals, and every zoo I've been to(except for really small "hole in the wall" zoos) has at least some fully aquatic animals. Sure they aren't usually a major theme of zoos, but they are a common-dare I say essential-feature.
Again, we've had what, 20 DLCs? And only 1 of them featured aquatics, and none of those animals were even fully aquatic.

But the conversation is purely hypothetical because no way Frontier is actually going to add fully aquatic animals at this point in the game - and certainly not cetaceans, for reasons that Iben spelled out quite well above.

 

[Marvinb]

Ignoring the fact that Saigas are kept in captivity, I'm personally very lenient about captive presence, as I see anything that's ever been held in captivity as an option; but I always had a hard time with the fact that people struggle with the idea that some people prefer to have animals that are kept in a captivity.

But to me that just makes perfect sense? Like, if someone were to make a pizzeria simulator game, you'd be expecting them to add pizzas as a food to serve right? You'd also find it weird if part of the gameplay would be for you to make hamburgers and fries?

The same goes for a zoo simulator game for me tbh. It's core is to simulate a zoo, so you'd want animals that are kept in zoos. Like that doesn't seem rocket science to me. That doesn't mean that I don't get that people want all kinds of animals either; but it has always been so strange to me that that sentiment doesn't seem to go both ways.


Because the context is different.

For extinct animals, it's just a no go completely. Even your "focusing on modern extinct animals or only prehistoric mammals" isn't going to fly, I can guarantee you that Universal left no gap for Frontier to add extinct animals of any kind to any zoo game of their own making for the foreseeable future, because that would mean that they couldn't add it to their own games and they're not going to cut that possibility. I know that's a hard thing to hear for some people, but even a recently extinct species DLC is far of into the unlikely territory because of JWE. Even if the movie franchise itself doesn't even remotely touch it

It might feel like a shame, but that's how the industry works, and it's logical to do so. Otherwise they could cash on making it for Universal and then cash again by making their own game which is better. It's just not going to happen. These kind of contracts are really strict, I remember that I couldn't touch any kind of medical related project when I changed jobs from my previous job, whilst I was only working in a very very specific subset of healthcare.

Then why no Marine Mania? Simple as well really, the world is too polarized atm. And this is coming from someone who wants those animals in the game as well and believes that with proper research we're at least capable of keeping a bunch of these animals well in captivity. But it's controversial and whilst this wasn't the case when Marine Mania was released; nowadays social media becomes a cesspool in an instant. Frontier not touching it isn't most likely isn't necessarily because they don't agree with it on an ethical level; it's more to avoid the very vocal backlash that people who are against it will bring. And at the end of the day, I'd much rather not have a bunch of CMs and social media managers deal with endless slop and harassment if that means that I'm not getting a dolphin in my game. It's a game after all, the well being of the people who develop the game is more important to me.

So I don't think the majority of the people out there are against an extinct animals pack or a marine animals pack. Yes there are people who don't want it, but heck, there were plenty of people who didn't when ZT1 and ZT2 was a thing. To an extant that there are people who didn't have the updated zookeeper AI for years because they never bought Extinct Animals. But I still don't think that's it.

I think it's more that people have come to understand why these packs are really unlikely to happen and moved on really.



Here's my hot take: any attempt at a Planet Aquarium is doomed to fail.

There's basically three niches in today's aquarium simulator market. You've got the simple "I want to see digital fish swimming on my screen" niche, the "I want to build zoos with fish" niche or the "I want to simulate keeping fish in aquariums as realistic as possible with lots of management" niche.

The first niche is quite filled, and so is the third one. Especially the third one, because a lot of aquarium games seem to have pretty in depth management. And let's call a spade a spade here, that's just not Frontier's strongest asset. They've got the creative building part down and they're incredibly good at it, but the common critique any Planet game seems to get is that the management side is really shallow. Could Frontier try to compete in that market? Of course! Is it smart to do so in their current financial situation? I'd personally say not at all.

Frontiers best shot is to integrate it into their zoo franchise, because frankly that's the niche that has the least amount of competition in the market. And as you said, that won't happen as a DLC, if that's going to happen that's most likely going to happen in a sequel. They wouldn't even have to go far, with a bunch of little tweaks the current exhibit system works wonders and scratches the itch of the niche described earlier enough.

But an entire game about aquariums from Frontier? Nah. I don't see it happen. The people who are heavy in to management will stay with the options they have right now and the people who wanted fish integrated in Planet Zoo would be disappointed. Releasing a sequel where fish are on of the big hooks (pardon the pun) like waterparks were with PC2 is a much, much safer bet.

Yeah social media is absolute insanity these days.
One of the biggest zoo youtubers here in germany recently got featured in a video of another channel with a very anti zoo mindset, which also was the case for his community. Unfortunately the other Channel linked his channels and even his personal instagram in the video.
So the zoo youtuber got absolutely overrun with a feral mob of people hating on him, they apperently even came after his family and friends due to his instagram being linked.
Can totally see why anyone would avoid upsetting someone on the internet, harassment and death threats just aint worth it.

 

[NZFanatic]

very anti zoo mindset

The biggest thing I've learned about "anti-zoo" people is that they have literally no idea what a zoo is actually for and what a zoo actually does, and they're completely uninterested in learning. They're basically the MAGA arm of the animal rights movement. Ignorant and wilfully so.

Like most people can agree that zoos aren't perfect, but I'd rather see a gorilla in a "cage" than know they're doomed to extinction.

 

[RightWhale]

The biggest thing I've learned about "anti-zoo" people is that they have literally no idea what a zoo is actually for and what a zoo actually does, and they're completely uninterested in learning. They're basically the MAGA arm of the animal rights movement. Ignorant and wilfully so.

Like most people can agree that zoos aren't perfect, but I'd rather see a gorilla in a "cage" than know they're doomed to extinction.

I think a big part of it is they cannot separate the animals from their own human emotions.

1. “Animals prefer freedom”, most animals just want a full belly and to not be eaten alive
2. “They must hate being cooped up all day”, it is incredibly hard to gauge what animals feel about that. But animals do not travel thousands of miles every day because they enjoy it. They do it because they have to.

As you said too, animal populations are already tanking in the wild too, so there isn’t even a lot of wild spaces left for these animals to go to.

 

[Marvinb]

I think a big part of it is they cannot separate the animals from their own human emotions.

1. “Animals prefer freedom”, most animals just want a full belly and to not be eaten alive
2. “They must hate being cooped up all day”, it is incredibly hard to gauge what animals feel about that. But animals do not travel thousands of miles every day because they enjoy it. They do it because they have to.

As you said too, animal populations are already tanking in the wild too, so there isn’t even a lot of wild spaces left for these animals to go to.

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"