Planet Zoo 2: Who's first in?

[Mjmannella]

Spoiler: Continued

The overlap in morphology between Artic wolves and some other species is very small.

The fact of the matter is that there is overlap, which means these traits aren't uniquely defining and and therefore not a good metric to be giving a standard. Animals don't fit into neat stereotypes regardless of what we see in the media we consume, and that should be acknowledged by incorporating species as a whole.

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.

Or just have 2 extremes and an intermediate in terms of variants.

It is easy to do with a phone camera and an app

Such apps aren't exactly trending on the download listings

being quantifiable is irrelevant to the discussion.

Quantifying helps provide clarity and consistency which in turn helps make more informed decisions.

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.

Morphology generally is important, including colour, but also including shape.

Yes, and having just 1 model for grey wolves represents the species as a whole because again, subspecies don't vary significantly in shape.

A zoo game is not 'purposefully' removed from reality - it's just a consequence of the fact that it's a game.

A game in which the constraints of reality need not apply. There's no need to make self-imposed limits that are based on the plane from which we use game as a tool of escapism.

its practicable and enjoyable to play it is perfectly reasonable for a zoo simulation game to aim to reflect reality.

And as long as the grey wolf model is shaped like a grey wolf and the range of colours it sports is in range seen across grey wolves as a species, then the job is done.

Whether you consider these differences as varying 'greatly' depends on what you would consider to be a large difference.

I consider shapes to be significant if they produce pronounced changes in the skeleton of a vertebrate animal. There are seldom (if any) vertebrate subspecies that have wildly different skeletons.

The differences between subspecies are, however, often greater than the morphological differences between many species.

I fundamentally disagree, that's not how subspecies work. More exclusive taxonomic rankings (i.e. subspecies) have more overall similarities while more inclusive rankings (i.e. species, genera) have less overall similarities.

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.

And using multiple of said slots on a singular species would be a huge waste of limited resources IMO because it's less biodiversity for more bloat.

saying appearance is very important is not the same as saying its the only thing that's important (you used the words 'just appearance')

That seems to be the primarily justification for Arctic wolves occupying a whole roster slot, because they are mostly white as proponents would say.

Like taxonomic diversity - that's also important but it isn't the only thing that's important.

And I'm saying biodiversity should be the strongest factor when determining a zoo game roster because it best reflects animals as a whole, the the selling point of a zoo game.

 

[USzoofan42]

Spoiler: Continued

The fact of the matter is that there is overlap, which means these traits aren't uniquely defining and and therefore not a good metric to be giving a standard. Animals don't fit into neat stereotypes regardless of what we see in the media we consume, and that should be acknowledged by incorporating species as a whole.

Or just have 2 extremes and an intermediate in terms of variants.

Such apps aren't exactly trending on the download listings

Quantifying helps provide clarity and consistency which in turn helps make more informed decisions.


Yes, and having just 1 model for grey wolves represents the species as a whole because again, subspecies don't vary significantly in shape.

A game in which the constraints of reality need not apply. There's no need to make self-imposed limits that are based on the plane from which we use game as a tool of escapism.

And as long as the grey wolf model is shaped like a grey wolf and the range of colours it sports is in range seen across grey wolves as a species, then the job is done.

I consider shapes to be significant if they produce pronounced changes in the skeleton of a vertebrate animal. There are seldom (if any) vertebrate subspecies that have wildly different skeletons.

I fundamentally disagree, that's not how subspecies work. More exclusive taxonomic rankings (i.e. subspecies) have more overall similarities while more inclusive rankings (i.e. species, genera) have less overall similarities.

And using multiple of said slots on a singular species would be a huge waste of limited resources IMO because it's less biodiversity for more bloat.

That seems to be the primarily justification for Arctic wolves occupying a whole roster slot, because they are mostly white as proponents would say.

And I'm saying biodiversity should be the strongest factor when determining a zoo game roster because it best reflects animals as a whole, the the selling point of a zoo game.

[/SPOILER]
Pronghorn is the best animal in PZ, true statement
[/SPOILER]
I’m dumb lol

 

[Mjmannella]

The tab only works if the spoiler parts sandwich the text you want to hide

 

[Mr-Hyrax 2]

[/SPOILER]
Pronghorn is the best animal in PZ, true statement
[/SPOILER]
I’m dumb lol

Your wrong it is the hyrax, you might be thinking its not in the game, but you are wrong, you can get it by naming a Black Wildebeest "Mr.mcfly64" trust me it works

 

[Mjmannella]

[/SPOILER]
Pronghorn is the best animal in PZ, true statement
[/SPOILER]
I’m dumb lol

Remove the second slash. This is what it should look like:

[SPOILER="Sample Title Here"]
Sample text here
[/SPOILER]

The above yields this:

Spoiler: Sample Title Here

Sample text here

 

[Mr-Hyrax 2]

Edit: never mind, hey HeatherG could you delete this message, thanks

 

[ElectricMonk]

Spoiler: Continued

The fact of the matter is that there is overlap, which means these traits aren't uniquely defining

I didn't say they were uniquely defining (in fact i have repeatedly said they're not) but the range of phenotypes exhibited by one subspecies is different from the range of phenotypes exhbited by the other.

For example. Across a species a trait varies from 1 to 5.
Subspecies 1: Normal distribution of trait from 1 - 3, mean = 2
Subspecies 2: Normal distribution of trait from 3 - 5, mean = 4

and and therefore not a good metric to be giving a standard.

Huh?

Or just have 2 extremes and an intermediate in terms of variants.

In which case neither subspecies is accurately represented since each would give birth to the other.

Such apps aren't exactly trending on the download listings

This whole sidetrack is irrelevant, but you could so it in photoshop or, for free in GIMP or any other semi-decent image processing software.

Quantifying helps provide clarity and consistency which in turn helps make more informed decisions.

Not really, if the decision is about what subspecies / species to add.

Yes, and having just 1 model for grey wolves represents the species as a whole because again, subspecies don't vary significantly in shape.

Subspecies often vary in shape.

A game in which the constraints of reality need not apply. There's no need to make self-imposed limits that are based on the plane from which we use game as a tool of escapism.

But its a better game with constraints - it wouldn't be better (IMO) if, for example, we included mythical animals.

And as long as the grey wolf model is shaped like a grey wolf and the range of colours it sports is in range seen across grey wolves as a species, then the job is done.

It isn't, because for some species, like wolves, a single model can not well represent all its subspecies for the reasons i have noted already many times.

I consider shapes to be significant if they produce pronounced changes in the skeleton of a vertebrate animal. There are seldom (if any) vertebrate subspecies that have wildly different skeletons.;

That's an extremely major difference that FAR surpasses changes that would be very apparent in-game.

I fundamentally disagree, that's not how subspecies work. More exclusive taxonomic rankings (i.e. subspecies) have more overall similarities while more inclusive rankings (i.e. species, genera) have less overall similarities.

Nope. Morphological change isn't a great way to determine subspecies or relatedness in species or in higher level taxa because it often isn't the case that more closely-related taxa are more similar which is why we generally incorporate genetics into taxonomies.

That seems to be the primarily justification for Arctic wolves occupying a whole roster slot, because they are mostly white as proponents would say.

It is a primary one but its not the only one and it is an especially important one for grey / arctic wolves whereas general morphology or biome etc. may be more important when it comes to other subspecies choices.

And I'm saying biodiversity should be the strongest factor when determining a zoo game roster because it best reflects animals as a whole, the the selling point of a zoo game.

An I'm saying it shouldn't because the primary aim of a zoo simulation game should be to enable players to simulate zoos.

 

[Mjmannella]

Spoiler: Episode Count: Lost Track

the range of phenotypes exhibited by one subspecies is different from the range of phenotypes exhbited by the other.

Matter of the fact is that they entirety of all phenotypes across the subspecies within a species are produced by the species as a whole by the vary nature of what a subspecies is.

In which case neither subspecies is accurately represented since each would give birth to the other.

This doesn't really concern me IMO, it's all grey wolves so it still does what I want from wolves in a zoo game.

Not really, if the decision is about what subspecies / species to add.

Being informed can 100% influence how a zoo game roster is made. For example, I never knew how much I wanted to see dorcopises until I knew what they are.

its a better game with constraints

Hard disagree. The constrained roster is why it feels so underwhelming compared to the first 2 Zoo Tycoon games (hell, I'll go as far as to say the roster for ZT2DS was more appealing). A constrained roster is how we end up with a game like ZT3, all padding and bloat without any fun or anything to really make it stand out on its own.

for some species, like wolves, a single model can not well represent all its subspecies for the reasons i have noted already many times.

It is a primary one but its not the only one and it is an especially important one for grey / arctic wolves whereas general morphology

Grey wolves are shaped like grey wolves. No amount of individual variation or extremity of subspecies wildly distorts from the basic shape of a grey wolf.

That's an extremely major difference that FAR surpasses changes that would be very apparent in-game.

Exactly my point. These internal morphological differences are translated outward to what we would see, producing said greater external shape differences. This doesn't happen with subspecies because their skeletons are too similar.

Morphological change isn't a great way to determine subspecies or relatedness in species or in higher level taxa because it often isn't the case that more closely-related taxa are more similar which is why we generally incorporate genetics into taxonomies.

This is why genetics should take priority, because it avoids into pitfalls like you mentioned. The differences I mentioned would also apply when comparing the sequenced genomes between 2 species, just FYI.

or biome etc. may be more important when it comes to other subspecies choices.

Simple solution is to just have 1 grey wolf that tolerates plants from desert, grassland, temperate, taiga, and tundra biomes (as long as they're from North America, Asia, or Europe). This represents grey wolves gameplay-wise because it reflects the locations and habitats in which this species is found in real life.

 

[ElectricMonk]

Spoiler: still going

Matter of the fact is that they entirety of all phenotypes across the subspecies within a species are produced by the species as a whole by the vary nature of what a subspecies is.

The fact is that subspecies and even sub-populations very often, even generally, exhibit phenotypes not exhibited by other populations. If you're just saying that a phenotype exhibited by any subspecies is, therefore exhibited by some member of the species then yes. That's at the same time obviously and necessarily true, by definition, but doesn't contradict anything I said.

This doesn't really concern me IMO, it's all grey wolves so it still does what I want from wolves in a zoo game.

Fair enough. It does concern me.

Being informed can 100% influence how a zoo game roster is made. For example, I never knew how much I wanted to see dorcopises until I knew what they are.

That has nothing to do with quantitative vs. qualitative differences.

Hard disagree. The constrained roster is why it feels so underwhelming compared to the first 2 Zoo Tycoon games (hell, I'll go as far as to say the roster for ZT2DS was more appealing). A constrained roster is how we end up with a game like ZT3, all padding and bloat without any fun or anything to really make it stand out on its own.

Hard disagree. PZ's roster is FAR better than either ZT1 or ZT2.

Grey wolves are shaped like grey wolves. No amount of individual variation or extremity of subspecies wildly distorts from the basic shape of a grey wolf.

True, although there are substantial differences in build and size, which IMO is enough to warrant different models. But i wasn't talking about grey wolves. I was talking about subspecies in general because your statement that subspecies' morphologies don't vary substantially was not restricted to grey wolves.

Exactly my point. These internal morphological differences are translated outward to what we would see, producing said greater external shape differences. This doesn't happen with subspecies because their skeletons are too similar.

I think you need to re-read what i wrote. i.e., A much smaller morphological difference, such as that seen among subspecies, than what you consider to be great enough to matter would be obvious in-game and would, therefore, not adequately represent the subspecies.

This is why genetics should take priority, because it avoids into pitfalls like you mentioned. The differences I mentioned would also apply when comparing the sequenced genomes between 2 species, just FYI.

If its true that subspecies "have more overall similarities while more inclusive rankings (i.e. species, genera) have less overall similarities" (your words) you wouldn't need to look at the genetics - you'd just look at the morphology. Taxonomists, however, consider a range of factors, including but certainly not limited to genetics, when classifying organisms.

Simple solution is to just have 1 grey wolf that tolerates plants from desert, grassland, temperate, taiga, and tundra biomes (as long as they're from North America, Asia, or Europe). This represents grey wolves gameplay-wise because it reflects the locations and habitats in which this species is found in real life.

Except it works very, very badly because it fails to represent some subspecies at all accurately. For example, in PZ, we currently have (to a degree - the wolf models aren't great) a good representation (The Timber Wolf) of temperate forest ecomorphs of the Grey Wolf (including a host of North American subspecies and some populations of the Eurasian Wolf) and a good representation of the Artic Wolf but we do not have good representations of any warmer-climate ecomorphs. Is another Grey Wolf subspecies or ecomorph a priority?... No, definitely not. Are warmer-climate greay wolves (e.g., the mexican wolf) currently in the game?... No, because neither the 'Timber Wolf' nor the Arctic Wolf models look like warm climate wolves.

 

[CharlieXGaming]

I speak for everyone when I say this debate as gone on way too long.

 

[Markiz]

This Spoilered version of debate are giving me same vibes this scene does

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fOQlhdzcrA

 

[ElectricMonk]

I speak for everyone when I say this debate as gone on way too long.

TBH I agree... I'll stop.

 

[jcp011c]

Been hesitant to dip my toe into this thread, but this is what I consider absolutely essential to a zoo game.

In broad terms in regards to animals, to specific to species or subspecies per se, though there are a few exceptions to that (and are marked *)

These are, to me, the big 10 animals that must be in a game's roster. Case in point, The Zoo Tycoon from 2013 had neither a Zebra or Giant Panda, thus it failed (tongue in cheek humor, but it certainly caused me to have no interest in it)
Elephant
Giraffe
Tiger
Lion
Giant Panda
Zebra
Hippo
Rhino
Gorilla
Chimpanzee

Secondary tiered animals - animals that should certainly be considered near essential and should definitely have priorities to be in the base game (bolding the ones that came in DLC for us)
Wolf
Grizzly Bear*
Polar Bear*
American Bison
Kangaroo
Warthog
Cheetah
Meerkat
Hyena
Penguin
Jaguar
Capybara
Caribou (aka) Reindeer
Peafowl
Flamingo
Ostrich
Emu
Orangutan
Snow Leopard
African Wild Dog
American Alligator
Nile Crocodile (ironically, the only animal on my entire list that isn't in PZ)
Galapagos Tortoise
Ring Tailed Lemur
Dromedary or Camel
Llama
Koala
Mandrill or Baboon (Old World Monkey, basically)
Komodo Dragon
Moose
Cougar

Misc: to this tier:

**At least 3 African Antelopes but species specific doesn't matter
** A second Elephant. Redundancy should be avoided in general but both African and Indian Elephants seem different enough and both are iconic enough that I'd make an exception here.
** A New World Monkey, of which we did at least get one.

This is nearly 50 animals that I would consider priorities to get into the base game. That's a lot but to me personally, this would be sufficient for the land-based base game offerings. More would be welcome of course and I have my personal favorites, but I can't look at an Otter or Red Panda and say they are essential from the get-go. Same for a second Tiger or Rhino, though I'd want more than one eventually.

 

[Mjmannella]

Spoiler: The Finale, Maybe?

If you're just saying that a phenotype exhibited by any subspecies is, therefore exhibited by some member of the species then yes. That's at the same time obviously and necessarily true, by definition, but doesn't contradict anything I said.

The point isn't to contradict, but to explain why strict adhering to what "mostly" appears due to perceived stereotypes in a subspecies/population has limits and shouldn't be considered as a reliable metric for determining roster slots in a zoo game.

That has nothing to do with quantitative vs. qualitative differences.

It does because said differences are being used to take roster slots away from animals like dorcopises and instead given to bloat like Arctic wolves because of adhering to what "looks different" (even though dorcopises are significantly more distinguished from other macropod families)

i wasn't talking about grey wolves. I was talking about subspecies in general because your statement that subspecies' morphologies don't vary substantially was not restricted to grey wolves.

Even ignoring the locality of this days-long argument being Arctic wolves, subspecies will always retain the basic body-plan of the species in which they are apart.

A much smaller morphological difference, such as that seen among subspecies, than what you consider to be great enough to matter would be obvious in-game and would, therefore, not adequately represent the subspecies.

I don't quite understand what you're saying here. Even small changes in a skeleton can produce immense outward differences. Subspecies, by virtue of not deviating from the skeleton, don't have the same intensity of outward differences seen between 2 different species. The small morphological differences between subspecies are easy to chalk up to individual variation (something that realistically isn't going to happen in a zoo game beyond randomised pattern generation).

If its true that subspecies "have more overall similarities while more inclusive rankings (i.e. species, genera) have less overall similarities" (your words) you wouldn't need to look at the genetics - you'd just look at the morphology.

Looking purely at morphology comes with pitfalls, as we've both mentioned. That's how we ended up thinking of sloths as primates dozens of decades before genetics emerged as a field in biology. Similar features can convergently evolve, and that trips us up when comparing more distantly related species.

Taxonomists, however, consider a range of factors, including but certainly not limited to genetics, when classifying organisms.

And as I've mentioned before, genetics holds the highest priority because it falls into the least amount of pitfalls.

in PZ, we currently have... a good representation... of temperate forest ecomorphs of the Grey Wolf... and a good representation of the Artic Wolf but we do not have good representations of any warmer-climate ecomorphs. Is another Grey Wolf subspecies or ecomorph a priority?... No, definitely not. Are warmer-climate greay wolves... currently in the game?... No, because neither the 'Timber Wolf' nor the Arctic Wolf models look like warm climate wolves.

The remedy to your dilemma is, as I mentioned many times before, to give the "timber wolf" a beige-coloured variant in an update and more tolerance to warmer temperatures, kills 2 niches with 1 slot. Add a white variant and more tolerance to colder temperatures for even more roster slot efficiency. And just like that, you have a grey wolf that can be in any of the 3 ecotypes (which is even lower on the ranking than subspecies, and therefore an even greater waste IMO).
And I'd much rather resources go to adding dorcopises than, "a beige wolf with marginally shorter fur that only tolerates only the specific temperatures and habitats seen in exactly 1 country". There is no one species that "needs" more than 1 roster slot and this is a hill upon which I will die.

I speak for everyone when I say this debate as gone on way too long.

I debate because I care about the future of Planet Zoo and zoo game rosters as a whole. If I see a systemic mindset that is actively encouraging filler and bloat, I'm going to challenge the source of the problem (i.e. the mentality) as to help steer things in a more biodiverse direction. If I didn't care about biodiversity, wildlife, zoos, and zoo games, I wouldn't be debating. I apologise if this reality is an inconvenience.

 

[CharlieXGaming]

I debate because I care about the future of Planet Zoo and zoo game rosters as a whole. If I see a systemic mindset that is actively encouraging filler and bloat, I'm going to challenge the source of the problem (i.e. the mentality) as to help steer things in a more biodiverse direction. If I didn't care about biodiversity, wildlife, zoos, and zoo games, I wouldn't be debating. I apologise if this reality is an inconvenience.

I get it that you care about Planet Zoo and the rosters just like the rest of us but is going back and fourth like this for almost 2 pages really worth it?

 

[Mjmannella]

If it helps promote a more biodiverse roster for zoo games, then I think it's a worthwhile discussion for a public forum

 

[USzoofan42]

---

---

Spoiler: Continued

I think pronghorn and dhole were some of my favorite additions to pz, still sour about the poor zebra