Planet Zoo 2: Who's first in?

[tigris115]

Also, with subspecies, what I'd do is I'd have the artists compare different individuals of that subspecies visually as well as discussing with zoologists on whether or not they'd be viable to split

For example, with tigers, I think having a generic mainland Asian tiger would be fine. Perhaps have the coat vary in fluffiness depending on the temperature and region (for example, Bengal tigers that live way up in the cold mountains of Bhutan look just like Siberian tigers). However, I'd definitely have the Sunda Island tiger (represented by the Sumatran tiger) as its own subspecies.

Same with the Southern lion (represented by a typical Southern/Eastern African lion) and Northern lion (represented by a typical Asiatic lion)

Then some others like zebras, leopards, etc.

However, for species like either of the two black bears, cougars, moose (maybe?), etc., it's not that worth it and you can just include high variation

 

[Mjmannella]

I'd have the artists compare different individuals of that subspecies visually as well as discussing with zoologists on whether or not they'd be viable to split

I wouldn't bother with consulting artists because ultimately that's just continuing the problem of over-valuing appearances. We need objective criteria if we're going to make splits, and it's not good to split hairs over how differently something look.

Perhaps have the coat vary in fluffiness depending on the temperature and region (for example, Bengal tigers that live way up in the cold mountains of Bhutan look just like Siberian tigers). However, I'd definitely have the Sunda Island tiger (represented by the Sumatran tiger) as its own subspecies.

What tiger is in this photograph?

 

[tigris115]

I wouldn't bother with consulting artists because ultimately that's just continuing the problem of over-valuing appearances. We need objective criteria if we're going to make splits, and it's not good to split hairs over how differently something look.

View attachment 405248
What tiger is in this photograph?

I assume a Sumatran given how big the eyes are

 

[Mjmannella]

I really don't think slightly bigger eyes is enough justification to go through the hassle of making an entire new roster spot. It's still a tiger, and it serves the role of being a large, mammalian, Asian predator regardless.

 

[tigris115]

I really don't think slightly bigger eyes is enough justification to go through the hassle of making an entire new roster spot. It's still a tiger, and it serves the role of being a large, mammalian, Asian predator regardless.

idk the way I see it, people are gonna want specific variations for certain purposes and it shouldn't be a gamble on what they get

Having the subspecies is a good way for that. I'm rly not trying to be difficult here

 

[Mjmannella]

If you don't want to gamble, don't bother with subspecies. You don't need more work to be made than what gets the job done.

 

[NZFanatic]

It's funny, there are some species I don't mind being generic (Plains zebra, Asian black bear, even the lion (sort of*)), and others I think need to be specified (tigers, brown bears, wolves).

*I'd like a separate Asiatic lion but I wouldn't mind a generic "African lion", since most real zoos certainly do not specify their lions down to the subpopulation.

 

[tigris115]

It's funny, there are some species I don't mind being generic (Plains zebra, Asian black bear, even the lion (sort of*)), and others I think need to be specified (tigers, brown bears, wolves).

*I'd like a separate Asiatic lion but I wouldn't mind a generic "African lion", since most real zoos certainly do not specify their lions down to the subpopulation.

Well, lions are just two subspecies anyway

 

[Aramar]

I hope to get all the animals from PZ1 with the changes below. I wouldn't mind if a few of them came in DLCs or the deluxe/pre-order bonus, but I really hope most of the animals are included in the basegame for PZ2:

1. African buffalo Cape buffalo
2. Alpine goat African pigmy goat
3. Arctic wolf *
4. Bengal tiger Sumatran tiger
5. Formosan black bear Asiatic black bear
6. Grizzly bear American black bear
7. Himalayan brown bear Brown bear
8. Indian elephant Asian elephant
9. Tamworth pig Kunekune pig
10. Timber wolf Grey wolf*
11. West African lion Lion
12. Wild water buffalo Domestic water buffalo
13. Brazilian wandering spider Blue baboon tarantula
14. Brown-throated sloth Linné's Two-toed Sloth
15. Diamondback terrapin (Malaclemys terrapin terrapin)
16. Giant forest scorpion (Heterometrus swammerdami titanicus)
17. Goliath frog African bullfrog
18. Lehmann's poison frog Dyeing Poison Frog
19. Spectacled flying fox Large flying fox
20. Titan beetle Hercules beetle

*According to the IUCN, the grey wolf includes the Arctic wolf, but not the dingo, so I would remove the arctic wolf and keep the dingo: https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/3746/247624660

 

[Mjmannella]

*According to the IUCN, the grey wolf includes the Arctic wolf, but not the dingo, so I would remove the arctic wolf and keep the dingo:

I believe that's because the IUCN considers dingos to be Canis familiaris (feral dogs), which may or may not be a subspecies of Canis lupus (grey wolf)

 

[ElectricMonk]

I wouldn't bother with consulting artists because ultimately that's just continuing the problem of over-valuing appearances. We need objective criteria if we're going to make splits, and it's not good to split hairs over how differently something look.

Totally disagree. Within the context of the game the only reason to split a species into subspecies (or sub-population) is if they are visually distinct. It’s perfectly ok (IMO) for it to be inconsistent among the in-game species as to whether they’re split into sub-species or populations with appearance as the sole (or main) criterion.

 

[Mjmannella]

The problem is that visual differences are in the eye of the beholder. Some people may highly value the minute differences between Sri Lankan and Sumatran elephants, while other may not care at all. Appearances are far too subjective to have a deciding factor in what animals do or don't get a roster slot (and which species get to occupy multiple spot for the sake of appeasing subjectivity).

 

[Stygi]

Well the animals range and the environment it lives in I would argue are quite important, the Amur tiger is a cold climate species living in Northern Asia, the Sumatran tiger is a warm climate species living in South-East Asia, they have quite distinct habitats and ranges

 

[Mjmannella]

Or you just have 1 tiger that loves it all and give yourself as a player more flexibility. No need for arbitrary limitations based on arbitrary criteria.

 

[Aramar]

Totally disagree. Within the context of the game the only reason to split a species into subspecies (or sub-population) is if they are visually distinct. It’s perfectly ok (IMO) for it to be inconsistent among the in-game species as to whether they’re split into sub-species or populations with appearance as the sole (or main) criterion.

Although visual difference is very important, I think other factors like biomes or continents are important too.

For example, a Cape buffalo and a forest red buffalo look so different that having the 2 subspecies is justified. Talking about a grizzly bear and a Eurasian brown bear, since they look somehow similar and live in similar biomes, having the two different subspecies might be less necessary. However, an African leopard and Amur leopard live in different continents and completely opposite biomes. Therefore, having 2 subspecies of leopard seems more necessary than having 2 subspecies of brown bear.

In any case, and to be honest, if I have to choose between 1 subspecies or 1 species, I will always go for the species level. But, if I were Frontier, with the experience and knowledge they have now of what we want, I would do several subspecies for the most iconic animals. It's an easy way for them to increase the number of animals while pleasing many people. Make 2 grey wolves, 2 brown bears, 2 leopards, 2 lions and 2 tigers and everyone is happy (assuming this variants are extra animals that do not take other animals place).

 

[Stygi]

Or you just have 1 tiger that loves it all and give yourself as a player more flexibility. No need for arbitrary limitations based on arbitrary criteria.

Well what would that one tiger look like? Would it be based of one subspecies or would it be a fusion? If a fusion how would you combine them so it doesn't look like one specific subspecies?

 

[Mjmannella]

A large cat that's primarily orange with black stripes and a white belly. It lives in Asia and tolerates a wide variety of temperatures and habitats thanks to its ability to grow coats of fur that change in thickness seasonally. That's all a tiger needs to be.

 

[Aramar]

Well what would that one tiger look like?

 

[Markiz]

Appearances are far too subjective to have a deciding factor in what animals do or don't get a roster slot (and which species get to occupy multiple spot for the sake of appeasing subjectivity).

But that's only a problem if we reached consensus that animal inclusions must be consistent and objective. I don't think we've reached it, and I personally don't think it's necessary for a zoo game.

If enough of players care about certain subspecies, it's easy to include it to appease those players, while if other subspecies doesn't get much attention, they don't have to bother.

I don't see practical reason for decisively going in one direction or the other. Just dabble here and there, depending of what players are asking for.

It's not like the main audience for this game are Zoologists.

 

[ElectricMonk]

The problem is that visual differences are in the eye of the beholder. Some people may highly value the minute differences between Sri Lankan and Sumatran elephants, while other may not care at all. Appearances are far too subjective to have a deciding factor in what animals do or don't get a roster slot (and which species get to occupy multiple spot for the sake of appeasing subjectivity).

You’re assuming that.species / subspecies / population designations have clear and universally agreed objective definitions but they don’t. Taxonomists differ in their definitions of each of these and all of them differ.in how they’re defined among and within taxonomic groups.
What animals get or don’t get a spot is entirely subjective anyway.. why should the Yellow footed rock wallaby not be included but the quokka should be?… there are no objective criteria.