That is fair, I will do thatWould definitely buy it
Even though I would probably replace the Nubian Ibex and the Emperor Penguin with the Massai Giraffe and the Grevy Zebra
One clone I'd really like
- Thread starter tigris115
- Start date
Modders have already made one and ... animal rigs aren't built bone by bone but (I think and a modder would know more) by movement points. I mean, they make whales out of the caiman or otter rig and it visually looks fine (movement is a different issue).
If we had to get another oryx, I think the scimitar species would be the best pick. They're the most visually distinct thanks to the red chest and are also a major point in favour of zoos given the species is (currently) extinct in the wild with recent reintroductions. That said, Arabian oryxes were in a similar boat too.
(Sidenote: addaxes might be in the Oryx genus too, making them true oryx and thus a viable "filler" or "clone" animal)
And in any case, beisas would be the least appealing for a second oryx.
(Sidenote: addaxes might be in the Oryx genus too, making them true oryx and thus a viable "filler" or "clone" animal)
And in any case, beisas would be the least appealing for a second oryx.
I'd love a Extinct in the Wild Pack. Especially if it's released after a Aviary Pack because that could mean, we might get the Spix Macaw in it
I visited Disney’s Animal Kingdom for the first time in a decade as well as their phenomenal Animal Kingdom Lodge for the first time ever this past week. Blue wildebeest were the species I ended up seeing more of than anything, by far. Above all else this trip really hammered home how lacking we still are in antelopes. We have 6 by my count, haven’t gotten any since the game launched, and had two less-than-stellar choices out of the gate with the far less common and iconic black wildebeest and the too-similar springbok and Thomson’s gazelle duo when there were much more visually distinct options for very-close-clones on the table (roan antelope and Arabian/scimitar oryx are the big ones in my eyes).
All that to say, yes, I very strongly agree that we could use a lot more antelopes (I’ve been kicking around a list for a full antelope pack in my head for a few days now) and the blue wildebeest is probably one of the most iconic ones to include.
All that to say, yes, I very strongly agree that we could use a lot more antelopes (I’ve been kicking around a list for a full antelope pack in my head for a few days now) and the blue wildebeest is probably one of the most iconic ones to include.
By that logic literally any antelope could be a viable "filler or clone" animal.
Note that I said, "within the Oryx genus". The paper I linked to would give reasonable support for the addax's binomial being Oryx nasomaculatus rather than the traditional Addax nasomaculatus. Hence it would be easier to "objectively" quantify as a "filler" animal due to the Oryx genus already being in-game.
Personally, I would have preferred something other than the Thomson's Gazelle as a Deluxe animal. Many people prefer it over the springbok, but I think the latter is a great South African animal (I'm biased), and it's a lot less interesting than the Dragon and Hippo from the same pack. There are so many additional antelopes that would have worked better as a semi-clone, IMO.
I am aware of what you said, but morphologically the addax is as different from the gemsbok as the giant eland would be, or the lesser kudu, or the topi, hartebeest, blackbuck, etc.
I would hope that we're at a point where we can have genetics supercede simple morphology. Genetics are a much more objective analysis tool than eyeballing the physical differences between 2 species.
I’m really not sure why genetics should have any bearing in this case. It feels like you’re intentionally tackling the concept of “clone” animals using a different criteria than everyone else broadly understands and agrees on, and then taking issue when nobody else abides by your own metrics. Ultimately the reason people discuss clone animals is because of their perceived ease of implementation from a game dev perspective, and the number 1 factor there is absolutely physical similarity. To get from the gemsbok to the scimitar oryx would objectively be a simpler effort than getting from the gemsbok to the addax, regardless of how closely related the species are. That’s all that should really matter in this discussion.
What are you even talking about?
Why would genetics have any bearing on how easy it is to make an animal for the game?
It is this subjective perception that I feel muddies the issue behind what really constitutes a "clone" animal. If the developers added an African spurred tortoise, there'd be a divide over people who think it's a clone and people who think it isn't solely based on the models and what their eyeballs see. Even more for some other frequently requested animals like Asiatic lions or American black bears.
Instead, we should be above the influence that physical appearances have on determining the relationship between species, and genetics helps us break that paradigm. While it's not a perfect solution, it is one that can help us more "objectively" pinpoint the relatedness (and therefore similarity) between species to determine their "clone" or "filler" status.
The old saying of, "don't judge a book by its cover" feels quite apt here.
I think this is a good definition in regard to taxonomic debates, but arguments about clones generally apply based on similarities in model and rigging. Regardless of differences in genetics, most tortoises will have the same general behaviors and model, for example — in my opinion, not a clone, but still very similar despite genetic differences. I’m not quite able to put into words what I mean, but basically I just think that clone is more of a gameplay term, referring to morphological (eg, model) and behavioral (eg, animations) similarities, as opposed to actually referring to genetic similarities. By your logic, in a hypothetical rpg with two completely different characters, they would be clones if they were related, even if their gameplay was totally different.
Last edited:
I don't think RPGs are the best facet of comparison, given that the focus there is on characters rather than managing animals.
Animals can absolutely be similar and not be clones. Canids and hyenas tend to behave similarly in zoo games, but I don't think anyone would say that the spotted hyena is a clone of the timber wolf. But my original point of shifting away from the paradigm of appearances still stands. People should care more about animals than how they look, that's what gets us into biases. Genetics is at least an attempt to remove human bias for visuals so more objective conclusions can be drawn. If there happen to be morphological idiosyncrasies, then so be it.
Animals can absolutely be similar and not be clones. Canids and hyenas tend to behave similarly in zoo games, but I don't think anyone would say that the spotted hyena is a clone of the timber wolf. But my original point of shifting away from the paradigm of appearances still stands. People should care more about animals than how they look, that's what gets us into biases. Genetics is at least an attempt to remove human bias for visuals so more objective conclusions can be drawn. If there happen to be morphological idiosyncrasies, then so be it.
But this whole discussion is based on physical appearances and how a new animal can be made from an animal which already exists in game with as little effort as necessary, this apparent effort being based solely on how similar the two animals are in appearance.
Last edited: