How many Headliner animals are left?

There is no such thing as headliner animal at all.
It depends on overall pack theme. Remember, frontier always pick pack theme first and later chose 5/8 animals from big list. No the other way around.
Sure. And I don't think anyone is saying picking a headliner/flagship animal to lead a DLC has been Frontier's method or that it will be in the future.
However, it's an interesting concept to think about, because having a "headliner animal" is a legit thing, whether intentional or not. We have had 2 DLCs that had a clear headliner animal. Arctic - Polar Bear & South America - Jaguar
 
I would probably never understand what is so special about the red deer that people desire it so much and even see it as the headliner species?

It has no conservation value and it’s rarely seen in the most important zoological gardens that put all their efforts on conservation and rare species breeding programs.
And please don’t compare European animal parks to zoo’s because it’s totally not the same thing.

Don’t get me wrong I think that the species itself is absolutely gorgeous but in my opinion there are many more deer species that should find it’s way into the game.
Wait so an entire sub category of zoos specialised on european wildlife doesnt count as a zoo?
In a game for building zoos, why should they now be not the same thing and should be ignored when people request those animals to build these zoos?
So what? Are people not allowed to build zoos in this game that arnt your top of the line super zoos and cant wish to just build something with the feel of their smaller local zoos?
Its 100% cool to simply not see the appeal or just not want something, but dont disregard what other people want to build just because you dont and especally dont act like those less flashy zoos with local fauna arnt real zoos and not worth to be considerd when picking or in this case just wishing for animals.

There are over 500 zoological facilities in the EAZA keeping red deer, thats a stupid high number.
For context, across all species and subspecies there are 219 zoological facilities that keep elephants in the EAZA.
There are more then double as much red deer holdings then elephants, a classic and rather common zoo staple, but no i guess they all do not count.
Silly me, thinking that my local zoo is something i want to recreate, when its apparantly not a zoo at all and doesnt count for my wishlist.
How stupid i must be
 
The red deer is the most iconic wild animal in my country, it is considered the crown jewel of our nature, and it is the largest wild animal that lives here. The red deer is majestic and elusive, has a deep resonating call that can be heard deep in the forests, and is featured in paintings and fairytales, family sigils and municipality flags, it is deeply rooted in our culture... For me it is an animal with magical qualities, and has been ever since I was a little child. ❤️

So of course I'd want it in this game! 🤩
 
And while I'd love many more deer species in game, such as the muntjac, pudu, wapiti, musk deer, pere davids deer, marsh deer... the deer species at the very top of my wishlist is the Red deer!

burlend-edelhert1b469981.jpg
 
Yes the remaining top animals don’t feel like great big headliners.
I’d say the remainder animals are generally going to have mixed reactions from players only due to requests made.
With all these posts and lists since the conservation dlc, all I have seen are simply what people want.
Some are begging for a tropical, forest, island, nocturnal type of dlc.
I personally want dlc animal packs that
 
I would probably never understand what is so special about the red deer that people desire it so much and even see it as the headliner species?

It has no conservation value and it’s rarely seen in the most important zoological gardens that put all their efforts on conservation and rare species breeding programs.
And please don’t compare European animal parks to zoo’s because it’s totally not the same thing.

Don’t get me wrong I think that the species itself is absolutely gorgeous but in my opinion there are many more deer species that should find it’s way into the game.
I don't like them much personally, but from a wide cultural perspective they are the default deer when most people think "deer", even if they don't even know they are thinking of a red deer.

They have huge horns, are large, and are "prettier" than the other large deers like the Moose.

They'd not even be my third choice for a deer, but I understand theur appeal ti general, especially european, audiences.
 
Wait so an entire sub category of zoos specialised on european wildlife doesnt count as a zoo?
In a game for building zoos, why should they now be not the same thing and should be ignored when people request those animals to build these zoos?
So what? Are people not allowed to build zoos in this game that arnt your top of the line super zoos and cant wish to just build something with the feel of their smaller local zoos?
Its 100% cool to simply not see the appeal or just not want something, but dont disregard what other people want to build just because you dont and especally dont act like those less flashy zoos with local fauna arnt real zoos and not worth to be considerd when picking or in this case just wishing for animals.

There are over 500 zoological facilities in the EAZA keeping red deer, thats a stupid high number.
For context, across all species and subspecies there are 219 zoological facilities that keep elephants in the EAZA.
There are more then double as much red deer holdings then elephants, a classic and rather common zoo staple, but no i guess they all do not count.
Silly me, thinking that my local zoo is something i want to recreate, when its apparantly not a zoo at all and doesnt count for my wishlist.
How stupid i must be
I will gladly answer all your questions 😁

First of all I have never said that red deer should not be in the game I said that I would never understand people that want it so much and it’s just my opinion valid like any other.

1. European Wildlife parks are not zoo’s. Those places use animals for showcasing and not for conservation. Keeping animals for enjoyment of people is nothing that makes them zoos. There are no subcategories of zoos. Either something is a zoo or it’s not. Zoos primarily deal with three aspects of conservation – practice, advocacy and research. Conservation practice entails captive breeding, species reintroduction programs, Species survival plans and the use of zoo revenue for conservation programs in the wild. Wildlife parks only showcase animals and some of them even breeds them for the purpose of hunting which is disgusting so please don’t mix those two institutions because they have nothing to do with each other.

2. You can build whatever you want in this amazing game and I would never interfere with that. I am just expressing my opinion and preferences here. You can just ignore that. That’s why I think that planet zoo should put species important for conservation first especially in the situations where there is a choice. Amur leopard before African leopard and Père David’s deer (extinct in the wild) before Red deer. There are already 3 species of deer from Europe so I hope that the next one would be typically asiatic.

3. I hope that everyone of us would eventually receive all the animals that they really want.
 
Last edited:
European Wildlife parks are not zoo’s.
Yes they are.

A zoo is defined as: a facility with usually indoor and outdoor settings where living, typically wild animals are kept especially for public exhibition.

Any facility that holds wild animals for public viewing is a zoo. This technically includes aquariums, which also means that aquariums are a "subcategory" of zoos that specialise in marine species. Conservation practices are not what makes a zoo a zoo, they are simply one part of what zoos do, and even more to the point most European 'wild-parks' actually do work to conserve native European species.
 
Yes they are.

A zoo is defined as: a facility with usually indoor and outdoor settings where living, typically wild animals are kept especially for public exhibition.

Any facility that holds wild animals for public viewing is a zoo. This technically includes aquariums, which also means that aquariums are a "subcategory" of zoos that specialise in marine species. Conservation practices are not what makes a zoo a zoo, they are simply one part of what zoos do, and even more to the point most European 'wild-parks' actually do work to conserve native European species.
No they are absolutely not. Read more about the subject and then maybe you will understand. I especially recommend:

Vernon N. Kisling

Zoo and Aquarium History: Ancient Animal Collections To Zoological Gardens

Or

Nigel Rothfels

Savages and Beasts: The Birth of the Modern Zoo (Animals, History, Culture)

or any other position on history of zoological gardens.

I am not here to argue but what you say is just herecy and has nothing to do with function of zoo’s today.

In how many European wildlife parks have you already been to base your opinion?
I have visited more than 100 and worked with more than 20. Believe me those institutions are not zoo’s.

To become a associated zoo those institutions must work very very hard on conservation projects and animal breeding conditions. Some of them do and become something more than animals showcased in cages but most of them unfortunately are not.
It is not even allowed to be officially called a zoo in Europe if the institution doesn’t meet very strict conditions.
 
Last edited:
Lets look at all PC paid titles not counting DLCs.
(help if i missed something).

  • Planet Zoo
  • Zoo Constructor
  • Zookeeper
  • SimpliZoo (upcoming)
  • Zoo Tycoon
  • Zoo Tycoon 2
  • Wildlife Park
  • Wildlife Park 2
  • Wildlife Park 3
  • Zoo Empire
  • Zoo Empire: Marine Park Empire
  • Zoo Park
  • Zoo Tycoon: Ultimate Animal Collection
  • Let's Build a Zoo
  • JWE
  • JWE2
  • Prehistoric Kingdom
  • Parkasaurus
  • JPOG
  • Mesozoica (xd, was it even released?)
  • Jurassic Island: The Dinosaur Zoo
 
No they are absolutely not. Read more about the subject and then maybe you will understand. I especially recommend:

Vernon N. Kisling

Zoo and Aquarium History: Ancient Animal Collections To Zoological Gardens

Or

Nigel Rothfels

Savages and Beasts: The Birth of the Modern Zoo (Animals, History, Culture)

or any other position on history of zoological gardens.

I am not here to argue but what you say is just herecy and has nothing to do with function of zoo’s today.

In how many European wildlife parks have you already been to base your opinion?
I have visited more than 100 and worked with more than 20. Believe me those institutions are not zoo’s.

To become a associated zoo those institutions must work very very hard on conservation projects and animal breeding conditions. Some of them do and become something more than animals showcased in cages but most of them unfortunately are not.
It is not even allowed to be officially called a zoo in Europe if the institution doesn’t meet very strict conditions.
There are good zoos, bad zoos, rather neutral zoos, and all in-between. Like it or not. What you are describing sounds like the image most modern zoos which are part of EAZA, AZA or similar want the word zoo to live up to, but not all zoos are a part of a system like that. And those systems are not always flawless anyway, and nobody owns the word Zoo.
I have also worked in places on both sides of EAZA.
The rules for zoos are also very different from country to country.

This is the definition of the word Zoo according to Google. Notice it says or.
:an establishment which maintains a collection of wild animals, typically in a park or gardens, for study, conservation, or display to the public.
 
Yes they absolutely are, literally by inarguable definition, but if this is the hill you want to die on then you do you my guy.
I am ok with your point of view.
Although check this out if you’d have a time and let me know what you think.

“There is no precise definition for a menagerie, but in determining that animal collections evolved into menageries, certain characteristics may be recognized. In a menagerie, as many species as possible are exhibited, animals are exhibited in taxonomically arranged rows of barred cages, staff is somewhat knowledgeable about animals, and there are limited education and science programs; the main emphasis is on recreation or entertainment. Menagerie, as a word, did not enter the European vocabulary until it was first used in France in the early eighteenth century, and it was some time before it was used to refer to a collection of wild animals. However, menagerie is not a well-defined word and the above characteristics are not precise criteria. Menagerie tends to be a concept that individuals, including zoo historians, view differently.

Neither is there any precise definition for a zoological garden, but in determining that menageries became zoological gardens, certain characteristics may again be recognized. In a sense, zoological gardens are simply sophisticated menageries. Nevertheless, they have more naturalistic animal exhibits arranged ecologically or zoogeographically, staff that is increasingly knowledgeable about animals, and improved education, research, and conservation programs. Conservation parks (or bioparks) are similar to zoological gardens, but with an increased emphasis on immersion exhibits that re-create natural habitats and on conservation (in situ field programs, as well as ex situ captive management programs).
Moving along the continuum from menageries to zoological gardens (and on to conservation parks), it is difficult to pinpoint any clearly defined transition points. However, it can be said with some degree of certainty that particular institutions led the transition from menageries to zoological gardens, such as Schönbrunn (Vienna), the Jardin des Plantes (Paris), the London Zoological Garden, and the Philadelphia Zoological Garden. Other institutions of the world have performed similar roles for their regions.

Whatever definition one chooses, modern zoos may include a variety of facilities: zoological parks, conservation parks, aviaries, herpetariums, safari parks, insectariums, butterfly parks, and endangered species rehabilitation centers. Aquariums and oceanariums are unique forms of zoological gardens and are here distinguished from the other terrestrially oriented facilities (as the aquarium profession generally prefers). All of these variations are considered in this history under the umbrella term zoological gardens. In addition, other modern institutions are merging with the zoological garden concept. National parks and wildlife reserves are becoming so inten- sively managed that they are becoming zoogeographic megazoos. Although they are not bona fide zoos, they do resemble the ancient royal animal parks, and as natural habitats decrease and management of the remaining park areas increases, these park areas may one day be included in the zoological garden concept.”
 
What
Wildparks arnt zoos because they have lots of animals in cages without educational value?
A trade mark of wildparks are the small amounts of animals but big natural habitats for them, often just being a fenced in part of a forest. They are all about education, local fauna and flora, conservation of our forests and animals with an on hands approach of education. At times they even host "waldschulen" (forest schools), which are all about learning in nature, about nature.
They are the literal opposite of a bunch of cages trying to show of as many animals possible with only little educational effort.
 
What
Wildparks arnt zoos because they have lots of animals in cages without educational value?
A trade mark of wildparks are the small amounts of animals but big natural habitats for them, often just being a fenced in part of a forest. They are all about education, local fauna and flora, conservation of our forests and animals with an on hands approach of education. At times they even host "waldschulen" (forest schools), which are all about learning in nature, about nature.
They are the literal opposite of a bunch of cages trying to show of as many animals possible with only little educational effort.
No in my opinion and knowledge they are not.
But I respect your point of view and I understand that maybe you have visited the good one’s.
For me zoological garden is something more than the wildlife parks I have visited.
 
What
Wildparks arnt zoos because they have lots of animals in cages without educational value?
A trade mark of wildparks are the small amounts of animals but big natural habitats for them, often just being a fenced in part of a forest. They are all about education, local fauna and flora, conservation of our forests and animals with an on hands approach of education. At times they even host "waldschulen" (forest schools), which are all about learning in nature, about nature.
They are the literal opposite of a bunch of cages trying to show of as many animals possible with only little educational effort.
As a Dutch person I am also puzzled, and I share your pov.
 
I’ll quote myself, not for the first time, from another thread:

Although some might make a cultural distinction between a “Zoo” and a “Wildpark” according to German law, zoos are “permanent establishments in which live animals of wild animal species that are kept for a period of at least seven days a year”.

No distinction is made between the different kinds of collections.

UK law says: zoo is defined as being: “an establishment where wild animals are kept for exhibition. to which members of the public have access, with or without charge for admission, seven or more days in any period of twelve consecutive months”.
 
Back
Top Bottom