Planet Zoo 2: Who's first in?

Cool, they're still variants that can be achieved and thus provide representation. That's what people want at the end of the day. Just toss in a gene customiser to PZ2's Sandbox Mode and that solves the problem of consistency.
But they don't bred true, which was my point and which you have tacitly agreed. Consequently, they don't work well (IMO) in representing subspecies.
Actually, it 100% means the differences are subjective. To prove my point, I will ask that you to please identify the wolf in this photograph at the subspecies level.

View attachment 405272
Objectively, that wolf is white (or, rather, a very light shade) - The wolf's colour is objective. I did not say that every wolf is identifiable to subspecies level visually (i did not say all white wolves are Arctic wolves). I can, however, confidently say that the wolf below is not an arctic wolf, i'd also be confident in saying that the one above isn't a mexican wolf, and neither is a Dingo.... In game terms, no one model can accurately represent all subspecies, whether it's labelled Canis lupis or not.

1729487397474.jpeg

This is assuming all people have eyeballs that work the same way when that is objectively incorrect.
No it's not. We can objectively measure wavelength.
If there is a discrepancy in how something is evaluated, then it cannot be quantified in an objective manner whatsoever. Again, this is why genetics is superior; the removal of subjectivity and bias means the differences are objective and quantifiable.
So presumably you'll be able to supply me with an objective definition of a species and subspecies that is dependent on genetics that is universally (or broadly) agreed by taxonomists?..
I never proposed a system of just lumping all species of 1 genus altogether, that's too extreme for my liking. My thinking was that you'd just pick 1 species from each desired genus and be on your way.
So the equivalent of that, when dealing with subspecies, would be adding only one subspecies, not adding the whole species. So, for wolves, just having the arctic wolf.
It would be a tantalising thought experiment that can do a wonderful job and educating people on biodiversity.
But a terrible job of allowing people to make realistic(ish) zoos or selling zoo-based computer games... If you want to educate people about biodiversity as your main aim and don't care much about zoos or gameplay, then almost all the in-game animals should be insects.
 

Attachments

  • 1729487358708.jpeg
    1729487358708.jpeg
    10.2 KB · Views: 48
Last edited:
Frontier will always do subspecies. At least a few examples as it’s easy to do and saves the company money at the end of the day. My thing is if they only had the Siberian Tiger for example it gets boring building for the same tiger species every time. If they threw in the Sumatran tiger which is a much more realistic option then the Bengal it gives zoos in a more tropical setting a better and more realistic option as well. Subspecies are a good thing imo as no zoo universally has the same subspecies throughout. Now on the level zoo tycoon 2013 on up did it definitely overkill. But I have no problem with multiple choices of zebra, giraffe, lion, tiger, bear, etc.
 
But they don't bred true, which was my point and which you have tacitly agreed.
I never said about gene flow. It would be a cool feature though (and not unrealistic to add), but I never said that would happen either.
I can, however, confidently say that the wolf below is not an arctic wolf
But the wolf is white with long fur. Are these not morphological features that can identify an Arctic wolf? Or do these not matter anymore because there's no snow in the photograph?
We can objectively measure wavelength.
That would be a very tedious process for trying to measure arbitrariness. If you really want to do that to justify subspecies, be my guest. I'll just let genetics do the talking.
you'll be able to supply me with an objective definition of a species and subspecies that is dependent on genetics that is universally (or broadly) agreed by taxonomists?..
There are indeed multiple species concepts, fair point. That's a consequence of our increasing understanding of the natural world. We used to think it was tied to mating relations, but that doesn't check out anymore thanks to viable hybrids. We used to think it was through singular lineages until we started adopting braided stream models more often. Even concepts like ring species are tricky. This again is why we have organisations like the IUCN who try to make sense of things to give us a baseline that is at least mostly agreeable.
So the equivalent of that, when dealing with subspecies, would be adding only one subspecies, not adding the whole species. So, for wolves, just having the arctic wolf.
If you really wanted subspecies, then that's an approach you can take. I still feel as though you'd get more bang for your buck by just having the species as a whole with variants to yield the most flexibility from each roster slot.
But a terrible job of allowing people to make realistic(ish) zoos or selling zoo-based computer games... If you want to educate people about biodiversity as your main aim and don't care much about zoos or gameplay, then almost all the in-game animals should be insects.
While I admit that would be an interesting concept in its own right, I never did say the biodiversity should mimic ratios. The goal here is to encourage more variety with less repetition. So instead of dingoes; Arctic wolves; and timber wolves, use tiger quolls; Arctic foxes; and a generic grey wolf with lots of variants and environmental tolerances. This way you get more biodiversity for less bloat.
 
To be honest I don’t have much to say regarding the whole roster, all I know is every bird, monkey, rodent, and habitat reptile should be a part of base game Planet Zoo 2.

I would be very upset if these groups, which are already on the short end of the stick, get shafted. We have so many antelope among other animals I don’t care if I have to “rebuy” them. However, the four habitat groups mentioned above are zoo staples and already make up a small roster as is. The:
  1. 12 bird species
  2. 4 rodents
  3. 5 monkeys (I’ll also throw in the lemurs here)
  4. 11 habitat reptiles
Should all make a return, start the roster at a more diverse place than Planet Zoo 1. Likewise, I expect all exhibit animals to return! Once again, I don’t care if I have to repay for some of the other mammals. But I want every exhibit animal to return so we can start off on a good footing.
 
To be honest I don’t have much to say regarding the whole roster, all I know is every bird, monkey, rodent, and habitat reptile should be a part of base game Planet Zoo 2.

I would be very upset if these groups, which are already on the short end of the stick, get shafted. We have so many antelope among other animals I don’t care if I have to “rebuy” them. However, the four habitat groups mentioned above are zoo staples and already make up a small roster as is. The:
  1. 12 bird species
  2. 4 rodents
  3. 5 monkeys (I’ll also throw in the lemurs here)
  4. 11 habitat reptiles
Should all make a return, start the roster at a more diverse place than Planet Zoo 1. Likewise, I expect all exhibit animals to return! Once again, I don’t care if I have to repay for some of the other mammals. But I want every exhibit animal to return so we can start off on a good footing.
I sort of agree, these groups are already shafted so they need better representation but I don't think they all need to return but I think those should be the minimum number of animals from those groups that make it in, for example I don't need the proboscis monkey to return I would prefer for it to be turned into a NWM, but if the probsocis monkey doesn't return and we don't get new monkeys to replace it I would be disappointed.
I think this is most impactful with exhibit animals, I want the diversity we have but I actively don't want animals like the titan beetle or goliath frog to return, I would prefer different animals to replace them
 
I don't think we're really getting anywhere here, so I'm just going to reply one last time...
I never said about gene flow. It would be a cool feature though (and not unrealistic to add), but I never said that would happen either.
It's nothing to do with gene flow, it's about dominant / recessive alleles.
But the wolf is white with long fur. Are these not morphological features that can identify an Arctic wolf? Or do these not matter anymore because there's no snow in the photograph?
No. By themselves those features are not enough to confirm if a particular animal is an arctic wolf. Those features do matter but are not shared by some individuals of some (but not all) other subspecies.
That would be a very tedious process for trying to measure arbitrariness. If you really want to do that to justify subspecies, be my guest. I'll just let genetics do the talking.
There is nothing about appearance that is arbitrary. 'Qualitative', 'Subjective' and 'Arbitrary' are not synonyms - neither are 'Quantitative' and 'Objective; they have very different meanings.
There are indeed multiple species concepts, fair point. That's a consequence of our increasing understanding of the natural world. We used to think it was tied to mating relations, but that doesn't check out anymore thanks to viable hybrids. We used to think it was through singular lineages until we started adopting braided stream models more often. Even concepts like ring species are tricky. This again is why we have organisations like the IUCN who try to make sense of things to give us a baseline that is at least mostly agreeable.
Exactly - there is no objective level of genetic difference that is used to determine species or subspecies... That doesn't mean genetics are irrelevant but they're not the only factor to consider. You're actually contradicting yourself, since you're saying you only want to consider genetics but also that you want to follow the ICUN, who don't only consider genetics.
If you really wanted subspecies, then that's an approach you can take. I still feel as though you'd get more bang for your buck by just having the species as a whole with variants to yield the most flexibility from each roster slot.
No. Since it's the same amount of work (though for a less-good outcome, IMO) it would just mean fewer slots.
While I admit that would be an interesting concept in its own right, I never did say the biodiversity should mimic ratios. The goal here is to encourage more variety with less repetition. So instead of dingoes; Arctic wolves; and timber wolves, use tiger quolls; Arctic foxes; and a generic grey wolf with lots of variants and environmental tolerances. This way you get more biodiversity for less bloat.
The bloat is the same, it's just got different labels - Effectively you're just asking for more total content which is fine, but you might as well ask for that content to be added as subspecies as that it be added as variants.
 
It's nothing to do with gene flow, it's about dominant / recessive alleles.
Terminology aside, it's still something that can be realistically added. If Mojang can figure it out, I see no reason why Frontier couldn't.
By themselves those features are not enough to confirm if a particular animal is an arctic wolf. Those features do matter but are not shared by some individuals of some (but not all) other subspecies.
So what are these ever important features that make Arctic wolves so important that they must be occupying a roster slot?
There is nothing about appearance that is arbitrary. 'Qualitative', 'Subjective' and 'Arbitrary' are not synonyms - neither are 'Quantitative' and 'Objective; they have very different meanings.
Pedantry on proper terminology aside (you get what I mean, it's not worth splitting hairs over precise definitions), the simple truth is that differences are viewed differently and to varying degrees of significance between different people. This is something that cannot be measured with clear and consistent metrics.
You're actually contradicting yourself, since you're saying you only want to consider genetics but also that you want to follow the ICUN, who don't only consider genetics.
While the IUCN may not only consider genetics, that is still a factor that takes presence over morphology (and for very good reason). Looks mater less than genetics, that's the baseline.
Since it's the same amount of work (though for a less-good outcome, IMO) it would just mean fewer slots.
If you decide to have 100 slots and you use 2 of them on grey wolves (to denote desired subspecies), that takes up 2 slots. If you only have 1 grey wolves that covers the species as a whole, you have 99 slots leftover. That's just basic mathematics.
The bloat is the same, it's just got different labels
Where is the bloat in 3 distinct genera vs. 3 subspecies of 1 species? You get way more variety for less clones. I cannot fathom another way this can be viewed.
you might as well ask for that content to be added as subspecies as that it be added as variants.
Variants are easier to make than subspecies occupying whole roster slots, so I might as well not ask for that.
 
Terminology aside, it's still something that can be realistically added. If Mojang can figure it out, I see no reason why Frontier couldn't.
Recessiveness dominance is already in the game - That's what prevents variants breeding true and, therefore, why variants won't work well for subspecies
So what are these ever important features that make Arctic wolves so important that they must be occupying a roster slot?
They are all whit, not just some of them
Pedantry on proper terminology aside (you get what I mean, it's not worth splitting hairs over precise definitions), the simple truth is that differences are viewed differently and to varying degrees of significance between different people. This is something that cannot be measured with clear and consistent metrics.
It's not pedantry when your entire argument rests on using the terms interchangeably so that, because appearance isn't quantitative (it can be) therefore it's subjective (it isn't) therefore its arbitrary (it isn't).
While the IUCN may not only consider genetics, that is still a factor that takes presence over morphology (and for very good reason). Looks mater less than genetics, that's the baseline.
But appearance is the only feature that matters when you're creating an image of one.
If you decide to have 100 slots and you use 2 of them on grey wolves (to denote desired subspecies), that takes up 2 slots. If you only have 1 grey wolves that covers the species as a whole, you have 99 slots leftover. That's just basic mathematics.
If you have 100 person-hours for development, it doesn't matter if you spend 5 of them making a subspecies or five of them making a variant - you have still spent 5 person-hours and, therefore, have less time available for other animals.
Variants are easier to make than subspecies occupying whole roster slots, so I might as well not ask for that.
Why would variants representing subspecies be any easier to create than subspecies? If anything, it'd be more work if you wanted a system that actually worked well rather than a sub-optimal work-around.
 
Last edited:
Recessiveness dominance is already in the game - That's what prevents variants breeding true and, therefore, why variants won't work well for subspecies
Being a variant is enough to represent a subspecies IMO. If people are happy with that direction for American black bears (which are wildly polymorphic), then I see no reason why the same can't happen with grey wolves.
They are all whit, not just some of them
1729591772974.png
1729591799467.png

Please identify the wolves in the above photographs at the subspecies level.
It's not pedantry when your entire argument rests on using the terms interchangeably so that, because appearance isn't quantitative (it can be) therefore it's subjective (it isn't) therefore its arbitrary (it isn't).
The quantitative measurement of appearances with wavelengths is far too tedious to be a commonly used practice. Nobody's going around with spectrometers and calculators to mathematically measure wavelength as a reason to justify why something is different. Pretty sure they wouldn't let you past the zoo admission both with that anyways. :p
The metric that is instead used is what we just happen to see with our own eyeballs. And as I mentioned before, no two eyeballs are alike. The consequence of our own individual variance is that colour appears differently to differently people. In practice, the objective differences between the eyeballs of different people yields subjective results when trying to visualise colour.
And it is this very basis of subjectivity that is used as an argument as to why they "deserve" to occupy one of the limited slots of a zoo game's roster. When decisions are made on a personal whim (i.e. colours as viewed by one's eyeballs), that is called arbitrariness.
I hope this exercise has helped demonstrate how all 3 terms your challenge directly apply to my argument. We can now drop this (as you had originally intended).
But appearance is the only feature that matters when you're creating an image of one.
You can use genetics to strategize how you use your roster slots. You can skim Wikipedia to try and hit as many unique genera as is realistic and then go through photos to get your image references. This is very barbones research, and a ton of fields do it. I see no reason why the games industry couldn't do the same (especially when they're already doing more extensive research for the zoopedias that already includes listing the Latin name).
If you have 100 person-hours for development, it doesn't matter if you spend 5 of them making a subspecies or five of them making a variant - you have still spent 5 person-hours and, therefore, have less time available for other animals.
If it takes 5 hours to make a variant and 5 hours to make a variant plus all the coding; programming necessities; and language file-writing that apply to each roster slot, I would think there's a significant inconsistency with time management.
Why would variants representing subspecies be any easier to create than subspecies? If anything, it'd be more work if you wanted a system that actually worked well rather than a sub-optimal work-around.
Here's what is needed to create any new animal:
  • Textures (at least 3)
  • Several language files (upwards of a dozen languages for PZ, last I checked)
  • Researching enough material for an entire new Zoopedia entry
  • Programming new in-game research for said animal
  • Deciding which career/timed scenarios such animal will be permitted for acquisition
  • Adding new entries to .fdb files (there are dozens of parameters for that)
  • Potentially more things I missed because I'm not an extensive modder for PZ
If we're going the extra kilometre, it would also need these:
  • Models x3
  • New specular and normal textures
  • New animations
  • A new sign for complimentary habitat-building (guess what building fans, subspecies bloat affects you too!)
Compare these criteria to what's needed to make 1 variant:
  • 3 diffuse textures (specular and normal textures are already included with the existing model)
  • Adding 1 parameter entry to 1 .fdb file that tells the game how likely the variant is to appear
  • That's it really. If there's anything I missed, it will unquestionably also apply to making a whole new animal
But sure, both take the exact same time to accomplish.
 
What's considered "unqiue" based on looks alone is subjective and thus cannot be quantified.
Every system is going to be subjective, even yours, because its based on subjective wants towards the game.

I'm going to be extremely honest with you here, but to me everything you said so far comes across more as you trying to advocate that your preferred system is the only objective way of doing it and therefor the only right way of doing it.

The way you're presenting your case isn't really helping you here, especially with the "please identify the subspecies here" posts.
 
Being a variant is enough to represent a subspecies IMO. If people are happy with that direction for American black bears (which are wildly polymorphic), then I see no reason why the same can't happen with grey wolves.

View attachment 405369View attachment 405370
Please identify the wolves in the above photographs at the subspecies level.
I answerd this question several posts ago and described why it misses the point.
The quantitative measurement of appearances with wavelengths is far too tedious to be a commonly used practice. Nobody's going around with spectrometers and calculators to mathematically measure wavelength as a reason to justify why something is different. Pretty sure they wouldn't let you past the zoo admission both with that anyways. :p
And again you come back to traits needing to be quantitatively measurable is not at all relevant in asking whether a particular model can pass as a particular subspecies.
The metric that is instead used is what we just happen to see with our own eyeballs. And as I mentioned before, no two eyeballs are alike. The consequence of our own individual variance is that colour appears differently to differently people. In practice, the objective differences between the eyeballs of different people yields subjective results when trying to visualise colour.
And it is this very basis of subjectivity that is used as an argument as to why they "deserve" to occupy one of the limited slots of a zoo game's roster.
Mostly word salad, Again you’re mistaking quantifiable for subjective - they are not the same…. Arctic wolves being whiter than Mexican wolves is not subjective.
When decisions are made on a personal whim (i.e. colours as viewed by one's eyeballs), that is called arbitrariness.
Nope. It really isn’t.
I hope this exercise has helped demonstrate how all 3 terms your challenge directly apply to my argument. We can now drop this (as you had originally intended).
I have a real problem not being able to resist correcting glaring misconceptions…. I’m working on it.
You can use genetics to strategize how you use your roster slots. You can skim Wikipedia to try and hit as many unique genera as is realistic and then go through photos to get your image references. This is very barbones research, and a ton of fields do it. I see no reason why the games industry couldn't do the same (especially when they're already doing more extensive research for the zoopedias that already includes listing the Latin name).
I don’t even know how this is relevant.
If it takes 5 hours to make a variant and 5 hours to make a variant plus all the coding; programming necessities; and language file-writing that apply to each roster slot, I would think there's a significant inconsistency with time management.

Here's what is needed to create any new animal:
  • Textures (at least 3)
  • Several language files (upwards of a dozen languages for PZ, last I checked)
  • Researching enough material for an entire new Zoopedia entry
  • Programming new in-game research for said animal
  • Deciding which career/timed scenarios such animal will be permitted for acquisition
  • Adding new entries to .fdb files (there are dozens of parameters for that)
  • Potentially more things I missed because I'm not an extensive modder for PZ
If we're going the extra kilometre, it would also need these:
  • Models x3
  • New specular and normal textures
  • New animations
  • A new sign for complimentary habitat-building (guess what building fans, subspecies bloat affects you too!)
Compare these criteria to what's needed to make 1 variant:
  • 3 diffuse textures (specular and normal textures are already included with the existing model)
  • Adding 1 parameter entry to 1 .fdb file that tells the game how likely the variant is to appear
  • That's it really. If there's anything I missed, it will unquestionably also apply to making a whole new animal
But sure, both take the exact same time to accomplish.
Nope… pretty much ecerything you’ve listed is needed whether the new subspecies is added as a variant or as a stand-alone animal. If added as a new stand-alone it’s almost entirely cut and paste… Any new species would have been much more work to add than the arctic wolf was in Pz1
 
Last edited:
I responded to exactly this question several posts ago and explained why it entirely misses the point.
Are you referring to this?
Objectively, that wolf is white (or, rather, a very light shade) - The wolf's colour is objective. I did not say that every wolf is identifiable to subspecies level visually (i did not say all white wolves are Arctic wolves). I can, however, confidently say that the wolf below is not an arctic wolf, i'd also be confident in saying that the one above isn't a mexican wolf, and neither is a Dingo.... In game terms, no one model can accurately represent all subspecies, whether it's labelled Canis lupis or not.
I already addressed this several posts ago. Just have models that morph based on the temperature that's exposed to the animal.
Whether a trait is quantitative is not a requirement for classification.
Exactly my point, the visual traits that we perceive are subservient to genetic factors of species classification. That's literally what I've been arguing this whole time, and I want the more dominant form of evidence to have priority in terms of building zoo game rosters.
you come back to traits needing to be quantitatively measurable.
They do if you want to eliminate bias and have controlled variables, which is what yields the most empirical data possible.
Which is... not at all relevant in asking whether a particular model can pass as a particular subspecies.
My whole point is that subspecies shouldn't need entire new models because you already made 1 model that encapsulates the species. Subspecies by definition do not vary greatly enough where their morphologies are significantly different as corroborated by genetic evidence reflecting relatively recent times of divergence.
Arctic wolves being whiter than Mexican wolves is not subjective.
1729598433065.png

Please identify the animal in this photograph to the subspecies level.
Nope. It really isn’t.
Merriam-Webster would like to disagree.
I don’t even know how this is relevant.
It promotes smart roster choices by yielding more biodiversity based on research that would already be happening by the developers.
pretty much ecerything you’ve listed is needed whether the new subspecies is added as a variant or as a stand-alone animal
Please tell me why a variant needs more than 3 diffuse textures, dozens of new .fdb entries, addition to career/timed scenarios, new zoopedia entries, and new additions to to in-game research. Literally none of this happened when variants were added as part of free updates in the past, why would it suddenly be different for a white wolf?
If added as a new stand-alone it’s almost entirely cut and paste.
You can copy-paste faster than a greyhound being chased by an AC unit but this is a time investment that only occurs when you're making a whole new animal. This time investment literally does not exist when you're doing less. I have no idea how else to explain this.
Every system is going to be subjective, even yours, because its based on subjective wants towards the game.
While it is true my own opinion is 100% subjective, it is also subjectivity that pushes for objectivity.
everything you said so far comes across more as you trying to advocate that your preferred system is the only objective way of doing it and therefor the only right way of doing it.
Having an objective lens means there's less bias, less splitting hairs, and less roster bloat. Maybe these are thing you personally enjoy, but it still stands a lot of people would prefer not bothering with that and just want to get on with their lives. Objective goals require objective data, and we have objective data.
The way you're presenting your case isn't really helping you here, especially with the "please identify the subspecies here" posts.
The purposes of those exercises is to demonstrate the inherit weakness of claiming that a subspecies must "look" a certain way. Not every Arctic wolf is white, and some Mexican wolves are white. The most parsimonious resolution here is to just have 1 roster slot that encompasses everything and includes the full spectrum of colours and patterns to generate the most flexibility with each limited slot.
Video games have limited support spans with finite time and money investments. Wasting it on frivolous bloat as seen with subspecies just seems obviously impractical to me. That's why I'm arguing against such practices.
 
Frontier will always do subspecies. At least a few examples as it’s easy to do and saves the company money at the end of the day. My thing is if they only had the Siberian Tiger for example it gets boring building for the same tiger species every time. If they threw in the Sumatran tiger which is a much more realistic option then the Bengal it gives zoos in a more tropical setting a better and more realistic option as well. Subspecies are a good thing imo as no zoo universally has the same subspecies throughout. Now on the level zoo tycoon 2013 on up did it definitely overkill. But I have no problem with multiple choices of zebra, giraffe, lion, tiger, bear, etc.
Exactly, this is why I discard the argument that some of these animals "took" the spot of another animal. It didn't, because making a secretary bird/walrus/treeroo etc. would cost more resources.

Personally I find myself being very content with having things that I didn't want at first. Did I ask for the asian water monitor? no. Did I really want something else instead of the asian water monitor? yes. Did I use the asian water monitor in one of my zoos and secretly fell in love with them? absolutely
 
Honestly I think that supports my case even more. The reality is that people don't know what they want until it's given to them. I didn't know I really liked the dama gazelles and Nile lechwes until they were added. Had they have been Mexican wolves and Florida panthers instead, I wouldn't have been so happy with those DLC packs.
And that's what I strive to do. I want to teach people what they don't know so it can leave a long-lasting impression that gives a more varied viewpoint than just adhering to what species are already popular thanks to the constant positive feedback loops.
 
Are you referring to this? I already addressed this several posts ago. Just have models that morph based on the temperature that's exposed to the animal.
Yes, but your response did not address what i said the first time either. Specifically: "I did not say that every wolf is identifiable to subspecies level visually (i did not say all white wolves are Arctic wolves). I can, however, confidently say that the wolf below is not an arctic wolf"
Exactly my point, the visual traits that we perceive are subservient to genetic factors of species classification. That's literally what I've been arguing this whole time, and I want the more dominant form of evidence to have priority in terms of building zoo game rosters.
You may want to re-read what i wrote.
They do if you want to eliminate bias and have controlled variables, which is what yields the most empirical data possible.
Observations do not have to be quantitative to either eliminate bias or to be controlled for.
My whole point is that subspecies shouldn't need entire new models because you already made 1 model that encapsulates the species.
Which is true whether its included as a variant or as a stand-alone animal
Subspecies by definition do not vary greatly enough where their morphologies are significantly different as corroborated by genetic evidence reflecting relatively recent times of divergence.
This sentence doesn't actually make sense but I think your saying that subspecies, by definition, do not substantially vary morphologically? If so, that is not true. Subspecies can have substantial morphological differences (even populations can).
View attachment 405372
Please identify the animal in this photograph to the subspecies level.
See previous comments about identifying individual's subspecies from images.
None of those definitions relate to differences in perception.
It promotes smart roster choices by yielding more biodiversity based on research that would already be happening by the developers.
I disagree
Please tell me why a variant needs more than 3 diffuse textures, dozens of new .fdb entries, addition to career/timed scenarios, new zoopedia entries, and new additions to to in-game research. Literally none of this happened when variants were added as part of free updates in the past, why would it suddenly be different for a white wolf?
Because variants added up to now do not represent, and are not meant to represent, subspecies.
You can copy-paste faster than a greyhound being chased by an AC unit but this is a time investment that only occurs when you're making a whole new animal. This time investment literally does not exist when you're doing less. I have no idea how else to explain this.
You're not doing less if you actually want to adequately represent subspecies since (IMO) you'd need that information for the subspecies anyway.
 
I did not say that every wolf is identifiable to subspecies level visually (i did not say all white wolves are Arctic wolves). I can, however, confidently say that the wolf below is not an arctic wolf
And the response you provided when I asked for specific features that unquestionably make Arctic wolves unique is that they're "all white" (even though there are Arctic wolves with mottled patterning that both adds colours beyond white and doesn't conform to the "all-white" stereotype).
Observations do not have to be quantitative to either eliminate bias or to be controlled for.
While it's not a requirement, it certainly helps a lot. Never hurts to have specific measurements.
I think your saying that subspecies, by definition, do not substantially vary morphologically?
That would be a strawman. As I said, subspecies by definition do not have the same amount of differences that are observed between different species and are therefore ranked lower in the taxonomic hierarchy.
None of those definitions relate to differences in perception.
The favouritism for adding specific subspecies is "based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something". It is the preference towards the convenience look at their colours as opposed to the intrinsic nature of their biodiversity that leads me to point that as being arbitrary.
Because variants added up to now do not represent, and are not meant to represent, subspecies.
And I've been say variants should represent subspecies because it's less work for same desire. Again, nobody thinks it's a problem for American black bears. But suddenly everybody loses their mind if you dare suggest it for grey wolves or leopards.
You're not doing less if you actually want to adequately represent subspecies since (IMO) you'd need that information for the subspecies anyway.
Cool, throw in a paragraph that lists some differences between subspecies. It doesn't warrant taking time to write an entire new Zoopedia entry.
 
And the response you provided when I asked for specific features that unquestionably make Arctic wolves unique
You didn't ask that. You asked "Are these [being white with long fur] not morphological features that can identify an Arctic wolf?".

While it's not a requirement, it certainly helps a lot. Never hurts to have specific measurements.
So you agree that it isn't a requirement
That would be a strawman. As I said, subspecies by definition do not have the same amount of differences that are observed between different species and are therefore ranked lower in the taxonomic hierarchy.
No. Subspecies can differ more morpholoically than species.
The favouritism for adding specific subspecies is "based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something".
"Individual preference or convenience" does not encompass difference in perception. Difference in perception of colour does not make colour arbitrary, especially when it comes to visually representing something.
And I've been say variants should represent subspecies because it's less work for same desire.
And i say variants are a bad way of representing particular subspecies (e.g., the arctic wolf) because, to get a good (IMO) representation of subspecies would require the same amount of (or more) work but would work less well than simply including them as stand-alone animals.
Cool, throw in a paragraph that lists some differences between subspecies. It doesn't warrant taking time to write an entire new Zoopedia entry.
It does warrant that IMO, if particular subspecies are to be represented as they are currently... You may not want any subspecies to be represented as well as the arctic wolf is currently, which is fine - You are absolutely entitled to that opinion but it is not an objectively better option. It is entirely subjective preference (as is my preference that some subspecies are better represented by stand-alone animals).
 
Back
Top Bottom