For me, this but I extend this to any animal group/order.
It doesn't align with how I play the game. I am not building a zoo and then go: "Now I need a space for an ungulate habitat. Good thing we have plenty of ungulates."
Like, which ungulate? If I want African grassland antelope, then sure we have those plenty. But let's say endemic Asian deer? Not so much. So I couldn't say we have enough carnivorans/ungulates/crocodilians...etc in game.
I need specific kinds of animals all the time, that's why always welcome variety between picks already present in game.
Now I completely understand that there are people who build exactly the way opposite of me. That they're more interested in type of animal that corresponds with certain habitat style.
For example, many ungulates will have similar habitat designs, and if you're not that invested what exact animal is in there, as long as it meets the criteria, then I understand how someone can find the variety boring quickly.
For Crocodilians specifically, I 100% agree. We have many crocodiles in game, but when I want to build an African section none of them help. Even tho all of them look similar (on a grand scale) not one covers the "Aftican" niche. That's where variety comes into place.
Personally im in the middle on this.
I think we can propaply all agree on that something completly new >>>>something similar to what we allready have, but what we dont is what counts as something completly new.
The big 2 that we all agree on are flying birds and fully aquatics, but currently we got no reason to belive that they are on the table for planet zoo 1 and if someone said that otherwise every type of habitat is coverd, i actually tend to agree.
We have pretty much every kind of habitat coverd and even something taxonomically unique like a bunny or squirrel would fall into those established categorys of in this case small ground animal and agile small climber, with their habitats being just as suitable to them as theyd be to a prariedog or small primate, but if we are talking thematically thats a different case.
The most common way people split up their thematic areas are biome, continents or a mix of the two, aswell as sometimes highlighting specific subregions like india or madagascar and inside these borders, there are still many holes that can be fixed to flesh them out.
Europe for example is completly lacking a dedicated climber, not to mention a small and agile one. Yes the lynx and wolverine can climb, but you wouldnt put them into the same setup as a capuchin monkey would ya? Thats what makes the red squirrel or even a marten still a great addition to europe, as they would bring a new kind of habitat to europe centric zones.
At the same time though, not every "missing niche" is created equal. Some animals can reasonably be substituted with other animals that look the same, for example europe might not have a bear or diver on paper, but either of the brownbears and the beaver fill that role just fine, no need for another one.
Aslong as you cant differentiate them by looking at them, it aint worth spending a new slot for.
Thats why im against the nile but for the slender or dwarf, cause the only difference between nile and salty would be model quality, meanwhile the other two actually do look distinct
