very fair
Planet Zoo 2: Who's first in?
- Thread starter tigris115
- Start date
To which you said no, and then later said that "they are all [white], not just some of them". Is having white fur the primary reason why Arctic wolves deserve to occupy a roster slot, yes or no?
Did I say it had to be a requirement? Quantifying data is still a solid foundation that helps eliminate bias and controls variables. That is my primary argument for this point.
In terms of shape? Not really no. There are no 2 subspecies of the same species that have wildly different bodyplans. In terms of colour? Sure, but colour isn't a deciding factor in whether or not something is a subspecies. We historically fell into that pitfall with spotted hyenas and promptly learned our lesson. In terms of size? Sure, but natural selection using the scale tool doesn't change anything about the species as a whole. If we dictated subspecies based on size, individuals with dwarfism would be considered their own subspecies.
The preferences are caused by how one perceives the value of purely visual differences between subspecies. This is ultimately left to the individual.
Colour isn't arbitrary in art, but it is arbitrary in terms of biodiversity. Animals can have artful appearances, but limiting them to just how they look is extremely restrictive and IMO defeats the purpose of a zoo game in the first place.
A good representation is satisfied by a variant IMO because I see no reason why they absolutely deserved the work needed to be stand-alone roster slots.
Which is why my hope for PZ2 is to trim the fat by abandoning subspecies entirely.
You are entitled to an opinion as well, I'm not knocking you for that. My stance is that I want to see smarter roster choices which would be reflected by prioritising biodiversity to make more efficient use of limited resources rather than wasting these on bloat that simply appeals to what people think they want. Is this subjective? Absolutely. Do I think it will pave a brighter future for zoo game rosters? Also yes.
Just gonna plop this here...
I'd hate to lose pretty much any of the birds or monkeys since their roster is so depressing right now. The only exceptions to this for me are the proboscis monkey and the chicken, the former for obvious reasons and the latter because while its unironically one of my favorite animals in the game, I don't mind waiting a bit for it's niche (petting zoos/farm areas/children's zoos/etc) to reappear, especially with most of the other animals used for it being less than stellar choices. I still think that niche is essential and should make it back in with the chicken eventually though.
I'd hate to lose pretty much any of the birds or monkeys since their roster is so depressing right now. The only exceptions to this for me are the proboscis monkey and the chicken, the former for obvious reasons and the latter because while its unironically one of my favorite animals in the game, I don't mind waiting a bit for it's niche (petting zoos/farm areas/children's zoos/etc) to reappear, especially with most of the other animals used for it being less than stellar choices. I still think that niche is essential and should make it back in with the chicken eventually though.
Last edited:
I might be blind but I don't see alpacas anywhere there
Yup, thanks for pointing that out. I was tired and mistook it for the second brown llama. It'd go in nice to have tier I guess.
Can you link the tierlist template you used I can't find one that has the animal icons like that
You updated right? Because i remeber when some icons were blurry and white
Yeah a handful of the icons have a weird formatting compared to all the others. Only the cheetah ever got an official update, the rest were re-uploaded though!
Yes i did, because those features are shared by some members of other subspecies.
Yes. They are extremely easy to tell from other subspecies and cannot, therefore, be adequately (IMO) represented by the overarching 'timber wolf' ecotype.
You have continually argued that colour isn't a valid trait for selecting in-game subspecies because its not quantifiable (even though it is). Here, you admitted that, even if it wasn't quantifiable, that doesn't mean it can't be used for classification. In any case, a good biological classification isn't the aim here anyway - the aim is to represent animals found in zoos in a game. Whether or not Arctic Wolves are a subspecies of the Grey Wolf, IMO including them only as colour variants would be a very poor way of including them for reasons we have already discussed.
At length.
There are many subspecies (and even just populations) that vary from each other substantially in their morphology. Whether those differences are 'wildly different' depends on your criteria for what constitutes a 'wild difference' and what you mean when you say 'bodyplan' but the differences can certainly be substantial and can certainly be greater than the differences often observed between species.
So subspecies can differ more in terms of colour - one of the most important traits when it comes to visually representing them in a game.
Again, we are talking about whether a subspecies should be added to the game as a unique type. NOT about what are the best traits to use for biological classification.
The value one places on the appearance is subjective.
The visual differences (wavelength, size, variation among individuals, etc. are objective (and are, in this case, quantitative).
Deciding to use visual traits of an animal when deciding whether it needs a unique model when depicting it in a computer game is not an arbitrary choice.
For instance, when depicting it in a computer game
Who said 'just' how they look?.. Other factors are important too (e.g., geographical origin, biome) but appearance is a very significant factor to consider.
It seems like we're not making any progress here - i think we're just going to have to agree to disagree.
One of the few decent ones I've seen haha. Only one I would definitely change is the hippo to essential.
This feels quite contradictory to me. If Arctic wolves share features seen in other subspecies (even if merely individuals), then how can it be that it's also "extremely easy to tell from other subspecies"? And it is for this reason why I disagree and believe that you absolutely can represent the whole species sufficiently with 1 roster slots that encompasses the entire species.
Again, it's only "quantifiable" if you use elaborate and tedium processes that have nothing to do with zoos or classification. We're working at a macro-scale, not bothering with spectrum and likewise.
This is exactly why we have such common animals like titan beetles, wild water buffaloes, proboscis monkeys, African leopards, saigas, Himalayan brown bears, and brown-throated sloths.
In case the joke wasn't clear, this is clearly not a restriction to which Frontier is adhered. It's also a direction that I believe does a lot more to make a game fun. Zoos are, at their core, facilities that help promote conservation values and educate visitors on biodiversity. A zoo game is purposely removed of shackles from reality that are why real zoos work with limited amounts of species. In a zoo game, it's the perfect opportunity to be more experimental and showcase biodiversity to an even greater degree. So why do have have to carry around this baggage when it just weighs everything down? There is such limitless potential and yet it's just more of the same. I find it to be extremely saddening...
The best way to differentiate animals in a zoo game is their shape, actually. This is why we have things like silhouette tests and glowing effects that outline the shape of the model. They're meant to show that colour cannot be used to unquestionably identify something. And as I mentioned, shapes don't vary greatly between subspecies as per being part of a shared species.
And I strive to have biodiversity through genetic phylogeny be used as a tool to decide roster slots.
Virtually everyone campaigning for roster slots to be given to subspecies because they happen to be a certain colour most of the time.
And given this quote in the very same paragraph, that includes you. Unless you're going to argue that appearance isn't how something looks (good luck with that).
Like its classification and how its evolutionary history can be mapped compared to other species. If you care about morphology so much, why not look for all the physical and diagnostic features that varying species and genera have?
We've been over this many, many times already, but the animals you listed have all been found in some form of captivity. Some are common in zoos in their specific region (Proboscis and Brown-throated sloths), some are unique to a single zoo (Saiga), some are just less common (Wild Water buffalo, African leopards, Himalyan brown bear) and one exception being the Titan Beetle being kept in some private collections.
The single animal that forms somewhat an exception does not mean that Frontier "clearly does not adhere to that restriction". There's plenty of evidence that they do, claiming otherwise is just blatant misinformation.
The single animal that forms somewhat an exception does not mean that Frontier "clearly does not adhere to that restriction". There's plenty of evidence that they do, claiming otherwise is just blatant misinformation.
The main idea that they aren't "standard" zoo animals. The whole argument by ElectricMonk is that the roster should reflect what you'd "typically" find in zoos (such as specifically Arctic wolves). That's why everyone holds meerkats to such a high pedestal for example. But of course, the problem here is that what count for such criteria has no consistency. Zoo animals vary by region, as you mentioned. One man's commonplace is another's rarity.
If that one zoo didn't have saigas, I see no reason why that'd stop Frontier from adding them. Saigas are simply a charismatic animal that do a good job filling in a spot for Central Asian fauna. They have a significant role in conservation (something that goes beyond whether or not they're common in zoos), and do a good job at teaching population dynamics and how they can have huge effects. They're popular, and business-wise it makes more sense to appeal to such value rather than adhering to self-proclaimed higher ground.
And even if it is an unquestionable "rule" that Frontier "must" follow (because these have totally never been broken before), that doesn't mean they need to keep said "rule" for a sequel. I think sequels do best when they have room to experiment and springboard from the foundations laid by their predecessor. And Frontier would be doing the genre a huge service by having a more experimental roster.
According to me we should have most of the roster we already have, at the exception of the full roster of the barnyarn pack. Farm animals should be a dlc again. Replace some the animals we have by south american ones, a couple of birds (even flying) and aquatic animals (fresh water fauna like fishes, some reptiles and mammals). And DLC should be giving more space to building a nice collection of flying birds, smaller mammals and freshwater wildlife + adding some key "land" animals.
That wasn't really my point, you said Frontier clearly doesn't adhere to focusing on animals in captivity, which just isn't true. I'm not going to step into a debate about whether that's a good choice or not, you do you in that regard; but correct info is important in every debate.
Oh my god I don't know what I was thinking, the hippo totally goes in essential! That's what I get for making this while sleep deprived
I must've accidentally put it there when moving it up the list, because I distinctly remember thinking to myself that I'd be fine waiting for the pygmy hippo but the common should be essential.
Last edited:
Sorry for the double post. I know it was already linked, but I'd feel rude not answering lol : p
https://tiermaker.com/create/planet-zoo-tier-list-79
The overlap in morphology between Artic wolves and some other species is very small. If a single model were to represent both then only extreme individuals from both subspecies would be represented, meaning that neither would be well represented.
It is easy to do with a phone camera and an app but, again, being quantifiable is irrelevant to the discussion.
Whether they're common in zoos is beside the point. The point is that, within the context of a zoo game, a major consideration is that animals need to be Visually represented as accurately as practicable.
Whether or not Frontier adhere to it (they mostly do, in any case) is totally irrelevant when individuals are expressing what they would like to see in the game. In any case, as above, this misses the point i was making entirely.
True. Good ones anyway.
No. A zoo game is not 'purposefully' removed from reality - it's just a consequence of the fact that it's a game. To the extent that its practicable and enjoyable to play it is perfectly reasonable for a zoo simulation game to aim to reflect reality.
I would prefer (and you don't have to agree) that animals found in zoos are prioritised in this zoo simulation game over those that aren't because i would like to build (simulate) mostly realistic zoos.
I have never said colour is the only factor. Morphology generally is important, including colour, but also including shape.
And as i said, shape often varies significantly among subspecies. Whether you consider these differences as varying 'greatly' depends on what you would consider to be a large difference. The differences between subspecies are, however, often greater than the morphological differences between many species.
And i think its one of many considerations that is important but is certainly not the only one.
'Virtually everyone' isn't me and i was replying to a statement of yours that wasn't limited to selection of subspecies, it was about the selection of additional slots in general.
No, I'm going to point out that saying appearance is very important is not the same as saying its the only thing that's important (you used the words 'just appearance'). As is even more obvious in the words of mine you quote next.
Yes. Like taxonomic diversity - that's also important but it isn't the only thing that's important.
Not only is that not my 'whole argument', it's not even an argument I have made prior to your post. As it happens, i do think that species found in zoos should be prioritised over those that aren't but that has nothing to do with any argument i have made in this thread.