"Ordinary animals" (and common "Exotic" ones)

Faodaghan

F
Not only do I really miss the Australian animals (but, hey, give me my Blue-Tongued-Lizards and Kasuars and I'll get over it. Promise. ;)), but there's a couple animals which aren't exactly highly endangered but are a common feature in many Zoos I've visited (and they are no less lovable just because they're "common"! ;))... So animals I'd also love to see in a future DLC include:
Donkeys, (Yes. I know. Shhhh.)
Meerkats,
Marmots,
Penguins (really? no penguins in the Artic DLC? Or did I just not get it? ;) I have a certain tendancy to be confused, so... not entirely out of the question.)
Otter
Sealions

and many Aquatic animals (but I suppose that's a different chapter with the engine and has to be implemented/tested first)... just don't forget the Octopus Habitat in the DLC. ;-)
 

Faodaghan

F
True, so maybe that's a point for the developers for being very specific - I'm just very used to everything being called "artic" also containing "antarctic things", so my subconciousness must have automatically assumed it's the usual "arctic" stand-in meaning "Arctic, Antarctic and generally cold regions close to the Poles if not too far inland or mountainous" (which would be a horrible name for a DLC). I've been a gamer for a good 25 years now, but I haven't come across much scientifically correct nomenclature in this time, so I guess I've long ago started switching off the nitpicking part of my brain when switching on my hobby computer. ;)
 

NZFanatic

NZFanatic
Faodaghan said:
True, so maybe that's a point for the developers for being very specific - I'm just very used to everything being called "artic" also containing "antarctic things", so my subconciousness must have automatically assumed it's the usual "arctic" stand-in meaning "Arctic, Antarctic and generally cold regions close to the Poles if not too far inland or mountainous" (which would be a horrible name for a DLC). I've been a gamer for a good 25 years now, but I haven't come across much scientifically correct nomenclature in this time, so I guess I've long ago started switching off the nitpicking part of my brain when switching on my hobby computer. ;)
Click to expand...

I've never heard 'Arctic' used to describe anything 'Antarctic' before, being honest. Literally never. You might be thinking of the word 'polar' which refers to both the North and South Poles.
 

Faodaghan

F
Seems we're a lot lazier in my mother tongue - there's a bunch of common, say, "language simplicities" in daily use, where everyone knows they're technically using the wrong word, including the speaker, but uses "English" referring to the whole of Britain etc. It's no problem in a relaxed everyday conversation, unless it turns into a heated political discussion. Then everyone uses precise words (at least, if they're five-letters plus). I apologize if this sort of lazyness is unknown to native speakers of English. ;-) Then especially in the region I live in, we're able to use a superlative to "only" - and everyone knows it's grammatically highly incorrect, but also everyone does it in everyday conversations.
However, part of my mental mistake was probably I'm used to cutting people, especially in an everyday conversation, some slack. More importantly, I don't know if you can remember the days we had to buy Games on Floppy discs - back then an expansion used to be quite a big thing, and in a game bound to cover a lot more content they would have shoved as much as they could onto one disc (so, in this case, both polar regions, including the Tundra and Taiga regions, and probably the Himalaya Mountains as well - there's snow there, isn't it? IS it, still?), especially after CDs were invented. People would have been disappointed otherwise and by word of mouth the publishing company would have gotten a bad reputation. Then came "the Sims"... Anyhoo, an expansion in the old times would very likely have been called something "arctic" (seeing we live in a northern-hemisphere-biased world, which might also be a contributing factor to us having this lengthy conversation ;)) and then subtitled "including... Antarctica, and...". I still haven't got used to this "DLC"-world, where everything gets cut into as little pieces as possible. Not saying this is necessarily bad, just too modern for this oldtimer here. ;) It certainly seems to allow for a much more precise use of language. I'll file that under "new things learned today" - it's amazing you can still fill that drawer, no matter how old you get.
 

NZFanatic

NZFanatic
Even in the 'old days' I've never heard Arctic/Antarctic used interchangeably; they refer to two completely different parts of the world. As I said, 'Polar' refers to both, which is probably what they might have used back then if they were making a 'Frozen Planet' expansion pack or something. I don't think it's about people being specific or lazy with language, it's about being correct and incorrect (especially for Frontier, which has marketed itself as a leading force in terms of accuracy for its games).

As to the rest, the gaming industry moves too fast now for the same kind of 'expansion packs' we used to get. People don't have the attention span anymore to wait that long for new content. Hence, DLC, small bursts of new content on a more frequent basis to ensure your game has a consistent following. Even with Planet Zoo we saw this happen, with a huge lapse in general interest between the Arctic Pack and the South America Pack. People are just generally spoiled for choice in the modern age, so it's a lot easier to move on to something else when you get bored with what you are doing (and, as much as I love Planet Zoo, the replayability of it isn't huge, since everything in the game requires a lot of patience and time).

In saying that, there's always the chance we might see something more substantial come along. A lot of people talk about Frontier adding in birds to the game, for example, but a four-animal DLC pack wouldn't be sufficient to cover such a theme. I'm not at all confident we'll ever see too much in the way of aquatic animals (there's no system in place for diving/underwater swimming, and Frontier has said that it would be more difficult to implement than the climbing system was), but if we do then there's a chance we could see a host of aquarium fish show up alongside a few key habitat species (sea lions, seals, penguins).

As to the crux of your wishlist - I would say that the meerkat is probably the most highly-requested 'non-aquatic' animal on that list. It's certainly a common sight in just about every zoo in the world (even the smaller less notable ones). Many people have suggested that it might be too small to successfully add to the game, but I really don't think that's an issue; Frontier did, after all, add the miniscule compsognathus to Jurassic World Evolution which is a game on a much, much bigger scale than Planet Zoo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom