You don't have to be a zoologist to enjoy a level of consistency. Planet Zoo's full of this because it's made efforts to appeal to the subjective. We have both timer wolves (the whole species) and Arctic wolves (a subspecies from said species), so now we end up with 2 spaces that include Arctic wolves. This is ultimately just confusing and easily avoidable if you just don't bother dealing with the arbitrary regardless of vocality.
Planet Zoo 2: Who's first in?
- Thread starter tigris115
- Start date
That's why we have organisations like the IUCN that establish some amount of consistency. Are there people who disagree with the IUCN's ruling? Absolutely, and they're in full right to do so. However, the IUCN is both widely used and regularly updated to accommodate new findings. It's about as good of a baseline that we can get to make sense of natural selections' many trajectories.
Ultimately it's up to the developers, but some influence unquestionably comes from the meta-wishlist. But in any-case, the whims of developers can absolutely be influenced by us consumers based on our demands. We're the reason why they make money, so we should have a say on what needs to happen before they get it. And if our standards are for consistency, so it shall be.
A great example of why ignoring appearance as a criterion just doesn't work... If we only had the Timber Wolf in-game, we wouldn't have the arctic wolf (nor would we have the dingo, domestic dog, etc., which many, possibly most taxonomists classify as a subspecies - Certainly strict caldists, and certainly if you want anything approaching an objective definition of species / subspecies based solely on genetics). Irrespective of whether they're included within the species Canis lupus, arctic wolves look far too different to the Timber Wolf model. The genetics are irrelevant - the appearance is the key factor that matters in this case.
Last edited:
Exactly. Instead of having limited roster slots be compromised for a duplicate species, it could've went to something like an Arctic fox and a common wombat or a muskox and a Matschie's tree-kangaroo. If white and beige wolves were absolutely necessary, just make variants part of an accompanying updates for each pack.
If you want a higher-quality model, ask for model remakes instead of compromising roster slots. There's a way to be efficient with demands, and that's how you do it.
Zoo games, aiming to reflect zoos, should absolutely consider biodiversity when building their roster to match the source material. Catering to biases of appearances gets us nowhere but muddling about in the mundane and seldom innovates to greater potential. Limitations breed creativity, so working with the limits of species-level only helps generate a lot more creativity and therefore biodiversity.
IMO, variants wouldn't work - offspring need to always look like the correct subspecies if it's to work in-game.
Huh? Who said anything about a higher quality model? Since we're talking about a sequel, we can assume all the animals will be remade. In any case, the Timber wolf can't be an Arctic wolf because Arctic wolves are white, not because of model quality.
I'm not sure what you mean here... Wanting different slots for the Timber Wolf and the Arctic Wolf because they look completely different isn't 'catering to biases of appearances' = it's simply a matter of wanting Arctic Wolves in the game - which they would not be if only a generic Grey Wolf model is used. There;s nothing about appearance, in the context of a computer game, that is 'mundane'... Limitations only breed creativity up to a point - would only adding animals at the genus level increase creativity more than adding them at the species level?
Juveniles have variants too. If you're breeding for white tigers, your cubs will be white. Same principle would apply for white wolves.
Tell that to JWE2. Sure there was a new colour and pattern system, but the majority of the first game's models were the same as they are in JWE2.
Then have a general-purpose grey wolf that comes in grey and white. No need to do anything more for the sake of arbitrariness.
And what are the reasons for wanting a specific subspecies of grey wolf instead of a covering the species as a whole with more utility?
Videos games are so much more than graphics, and that's something that needs to be realised by developers and consumers alike. Games are fundamentally about gameplay, that's what truly matters. If a game isn't fun because it's too focused on realism and the roster is bloated with too much focus on specific niches and visual biases, the game is flawed.
Frankly, I give the most enthusiastic "Yes" I can. There's literally tens of millions of animal species in the world composing of hundreds of thousands of genera at minimum, so it's not like you have to pull at strings. Everyone seems to be desperate for small animals, and there's no better place to look in biodiversity than with small animals. Want more reptiles? There's loads of genera to pick from with both non-avian and avian reptiles. Want more primates? There's a bunch of primate genera too!
That said, adding animals at a species level is fine in moderation. So we shouldn't need all 6 ursine bears but we can have 2-3 of them. I'd go for polar bears, American black bears, and maybe sloth bears.
You're so right! If we never had the dingo in the Australia Pack everyone would have been placing the timber wolf in their new Australian areas, because it's the exact same animal after all. They should also give the timber wolf the Oceania tag!
Nothing wrong here, no siree
The less we validate dingos the better IMO, but that's a whole other can of worms.
I do enjoy the zoo you built though, as it makes me wish dingos; timber wolves; and Arctic wolves could reproduce with each-other like with giraffes and zebras in ZT2.
I'm sorry, I don't want to start a whole other debate here, but this is something I feel very strongly about. Regardless of what their origins might have been in the distant past, dingoes today are vital to maintaining the health of Australia's ecosystems, and their persecution across large areas of the continent has had all kinds of negative trickle-down effects for native flora and fauna. It is absolutely important to validate dingoes, and I think they make a ton of sense as a pick for a conservation-focused zoo game like Planet Zoo.
This whole situation make me wants even more a subspecie/Breed selector on a sequel: people who care about subspecie simply get the subspecies they want and more while people that don't care about then don't have a reason to considering the whole specie (aside from ultra specific things that people won't care about anyway, like south China tiger) is there.
Well that depends on the in-game genetics and which allele is dominant vs. recessive. Not too big an issue when there's only 2 but much trickier when there are more.
Nevertheless, I'd bet that all or nearly all the animals get re-done. Certainly those older ones, like the wolves, that are relatively low quality. In any case, it's irrelevant to the discussion.
Appearance is not arbitrary.
As i already pointed out, in the case of the grey wolf, it's not possible to have one model that can represent the whole species because there's way too much variation morphological variation among subspecies.
Of course video games are more than graphics, but the primary aspect of a species or subspecies in the game is its appearance.
So you'd be happy with just one member of the genus Panthera?
Grey Wolf should be the wolf species but dingo should be separate. What are the plains zebra subspecies? Also, brown bear should be separate sub species.
You're so right! If we never had the dingo in the Australia Pack everyone would have been placing the timber wolf in their new Australian areas, because it's the exact same animal after all. They should also give the timber wolf the Oceania tag!
Nothing wrong here, no siree
Attachments
And yet PZ1 manages barnyard animals, camels, foxes, emperor penguins, and axolotls perfectly fine despite having several variants (including piebald morphs between variants!)
Again, visual differences are in the eye of the beholder. What's considered "unqiue" based on looks alone is subjective and thus cannot be quantified.
If fur length is a concern, a far more novel strategy would be to have the game use a different model depending on the temperature being exposed to the animal. Is is realistic? No. Would it be fun? Yes. Does it give people want they want? (that is fur length differences based on climate) Yes.
It'd sting to have an incomplete Big 5, but the sheer novelty of such ambition is captivating enough to endorse wholeheartedly.
wdym emperor penguin? Also why do the variants matter? Now you better stop with the jibber jabber or we might end up with a WE spurred tortoise and generic leopards and tigers in PZ2
No it doesn't. Variants do not breed true unless you can be sure that all animals (including those purchased) are homomorphic for the relevant variant genes.
Just because the (major) difference between Arctic Wolves and Timber Wolves is visual, does not mean that saying there's a visual difference is subjective. There is a real, objective difference in the appearance of Arctic Wolves compared with Timber wolves. Objective is not the same as quantifiable. Nevertheless, visual elements, like colour, can absolutely be quantified.
Actually, for many species, including wolves it would be realistic (phenotypic plasticity), though the amount of fur at each temperature would vary among subspecies. It'd be great if they could do this but would likely be a LOT more work for each species or subspecies and would therefore mean fewer overall species.
Pretty sure your being facetious here, or would you genuinely prefer to just get "Panthera sp.", rather than P. leo, P. onca, P. pardus, P. tigris and P. unica?
Because my proposal is that the subspecies based on different colours could simply be achieved with variants and nobody would bother to spill milk over the minute differences. I did mistakenly say emperor penguin instead of king penguin, my apologies.
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.
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.
This is assuming all people have eyeballs that work the same way when that is objectively incorrect. 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.
My point here is that it would happen instantly and not be gradually changing based on seasons or whatnot. You also wouldn't see the fur moulting, just an instant model change then and there. The texturing would be the same, as it's the same individual of course. So you'd get short fur at 20-30C, medium fur at 0-19C, and long fur at -30--1C (very rough numbers, don't hold them as gospel). This would also happen regardless of the wolf's variant so you could have short-furred white wolves and long-furred beige wolves.
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. It would be a tantalising thought experiment that can do a wonderful job and educating people on biodiversity.