For me,it's still not enough evidence, Both brown bears inhabit very simillar environment,and look nearly same. I'd like to have andean bear/sun bear/polar bear/sloth bear instead of himalayan brown bear,unless we got all unique bears of the earth,existence of himalayan brown bear in game is sort of unexplained. (at least siberian tiger has much more fur,and inhabits rather taiga than tropical rainforest)
We Shouldn't be Bound to Animals Only Found in Zoos
- Thread starter Mjmannella
- Start date
-
- Tags
- planet zoo
Fair enough, but the Himalayan brown bear isn't the worst choice if they really HAD to choose another brown bear subspecies. Also Himalayan brown bears are critically endangered which is prob the only reason why they're in
I brought up another endangered bear.. Here's the thing.. i think the game isn't just based off what is in our "Normal" zoo's. I think this has more to do with the reality of what's happening in our world.. There are so many animals on the endangered list, it isn't funny. The sad part, if these animals go extinct, it will cause an impact to the plant that a lot of people don't understand.. This isn't just a case of "they died out". human's are impacting every animal on that list, in one way or another.. People talk about global warming, it is a major part of what's happening to a lot of the species on the endangered/critically endangered lists.. Then you talk about hunting and the rest of it.. Man is a big influence.. and it is now being put into the younger generations hands to pick up an keep these animals from dying out..... but we have to take a stand somewhere.. The game shouldn't just be about "my favorite animal", this should be about all animals.. period.
They started the conservation part of the game, and now they have to decide on if that is really what they want to do. But not all of your "typical" zoo animals need conservation.
I feel the way they've tried to emphasize the educational/conservation side of the game is basically just for some good PR. I don't remember seeing a donation from the game sales to anything conservation related. Every month they could sponsor/donate to a charity (or even a zoo with a heavy focus on conservation) for the community events - it would certainly make the community goals far more meaningful! They could have an entire page about the charity/zoos work, where people could learn more/donate if they were interested.
If they actually start donating some percentage of their DLC sales towards some sort of conservation scheme then I'll be super impressed; actions speak louder than words in this case. Didn't mean to sound quite so cynical, I just don't think their choice of in-game animals matters much when it comes to conservation in the real world - they're really missing out on a huge opportunity to promote various conservation schemes/charities/zoos via their community events.
Last edited:
"Let's put mythical dragons in Death Stranding. People love dragons and it might bring in nice profits!"
There's such a thing as being not fitting the theme. Does a zoo simulation with realistically-rendered animals scream "let's put extinct animals and cryptids and fictional animals here, it'll fit the theme!" to you?
Look, I'm not saying they won't do it. I'm saying they shouldn't.
Yes, the whole point of this thread is to encourage people to think outside the zoo paradigm and be more open with what animals could be added.
They won't do it, so It's still the same.
I hate to tell you this, but if they change their base game theme is, they are most likely going to end up with mad people.. Conservation is something worth looking into.. and it is honestly about time someone brought up the real issues in the real world.. Not that you seem to be bothered by what is going on in the real world.. (yep, just a bit agitated at the fact that people are to involved with self preservation over whole preservation). There are serious issues that will happen if the animals that are on the endangered list get whipped out.. and guess what.. that will then make you think twice about what this company is actually doing.. You may think this is drivel.. but when the world starts to crumble at your feet because we have species that are disappearing, like the bee, that give us the things we need to survive.. it will be to late for you to change your mind.. The world is in trouble.. and it's about time that people actually realize what's going on..
Organizations like WWF don't exist just for the fun of it..
What ever happened to prioritizing fun in video games? If care about conservation (don't get me wrong, conservation is super important), you can still have it play a back-burning role. The point of video games if to deliver fun, first and foremost. If the game's not fun, then why bother?
And to be frank again, having a conservation-focused video game isn't gonna move mountains. The zoo simulator genre is already niche, and this video game isn't gonna make the people contributing most to species extinction (via pollution, deforestation, poaching, or other means) wake up and start caring all of the sudden. It's a romantic idea to think that this game is actually make an impact in our world, but it's realistically a pipe-dream.
You can't state that it is a pipe-dream.. there has been many things that have been called "pipe-dreams" that have actually happened... So i think while yes, this is a "zoo" type game.. they based their whole motive of the game on conservation.. it is now their job to decide which way the game goes.. Most of us are hear to back Frontier up and try to help them bring in new animals.. and make the game better..
And I am sorry, but I doubt this game will flop just because one person thinks it will.. will take more then that.
"Pipe dream" is term used to describe things that just about won't happen. Planet Zoo actually changing the minds of people who impact the environment the worst is something that probably isn't going to be happening, making it a pipe dream.
I'm doing the same thing as the masses, just with a different perspective. I'm supporting Frontier and encouraging them to add in new animals.
I also never said anything about the game flopping. I actually want this same to sell, and catering outside the zoo paradigm is something I believe can help bring in sales.
Never said the game would stop poaching or deforesting, but what it might do is bring awareness to the younger generation on the problems surrounding our planet and the animals our planet harbors... we have to step up..
Regardless this is the venture that planet zoo started with.. They made conservation one of the main keys in the zoo's we make.. ya know, education? There is a reason for it..
Last edited:
There’s already millions who are aware of the issues. The proper step is action, something that I don’t believe this game can generate.
And just because they start with conservation doesn’t mean they have to finish with it. DLC allows games to expand their horizons and bring in more audiences.
Look, the film Madagascar is filmed wit a zoo in mind. It's zany, it's cartoony. Why can't they put a T-Rex and Big Foot in it? We should totally be more open to the zoo paradigm!
And I'm totally looking forward to the Lion King sequel where Simba befriends a pack of velociraptors and teams up with the Moth Man to fight the incoming aliens. Because we should be open.
See how ridiculous it sounds?
Conservation is the main theme of the game, whether you think it's a PR move is irrelevant. Part of the game's core target audience are animal lovers who are concerned about actual animals and y'know, preserving them. Much like you'd the target audience of JWE if you add bears and tigers, you'd of a lot of PZ's target audience.
And shocker, "zoo" is actually and established theme, much more so than "dinosaurs in a park" is.
Definition of zoo
(Entry 1 of 2)
1: an establishment which maintains a collection of wild animals, typically in a park or gardens, for study, conservation, or display to the public.
^perfectly pointed. Also. imagine that "fun" is very flexible Word. You may like Frontier to add things like chupacabra or bunyuuuuuyp. But most people don't like it. I personally hate this idea as far as i can as it would destroy the whole fun from this game for me(as this happened with ARK after they started adding wyverns,golems etc. Still They were optional on DLC,but people on multi still kept using them becasue they were OP compared to casual dinos)
Last edited:
To illustrate my point, imagine if this is what they did to The Lion King:
Frontier made a game around dinos, so people can't complain about them, and recently extinct animals do make sense if they have confirmed that some of them did come back in real life. Like most extinct.
There are so many animals not yet in the game, I don't see the point discussing animals which are extinct/not existant, before we have at least a decent coverage of every biome, conteinent and major taxonomical group of animals in the game.
Just some of the groups not yet properly represented in the game:
Just some of the groups not yet properly represented in the game:
- contienents:
- South America
- Europe
- Australia
- Antarctica
- biomes:
- desert
- Tundra
- Alpine/Taige
- Reef
- Pelagic
- Lakes and rivers
- taxonomical groups:
- anteaters/sloths/armadillos
- otters
- foxes
- all birds
- amphibians
- marsupials
- all aquatic animals
- all avian birds
- bats