• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
but why even mention "7 playable species" if you can customize your own? Why tell someone you have only 7 options when they really have 100+ options?

Because some people don't want to design a species. They want a quick start. That's the same reason why FO1 and Arcanum give you the option to chose a predetermined character een if most people would make their own character.

And actually they clearly said on their site that you can have 'seven playable races or a custum one'.
 
Because some people don't want to design a species. They want a quick start. That's the same reason why FO1 and Arcanum give you the option to chose a predetermined character een if most people would make their own character.

And actually they clearly said on their site that you can have 'seven playable races or a custum one'.

I feel like we would make great politicians, argue all day and get nothing done ;)

And neither of us are going to change our opinions until a dev says otherwise.

changing the topic a bit, like i originally said, i think Order would be a better word then phenotype. While phenotype is correct, if we are using a biological breakdown, Order would be more accurate since fish/aquadics, insects, fungi, aviens, reptiles, primates & plants are all different orders. There would be some overlap in that Humans (genus Homo) and Apes (genus Gorillas) are in the same order (primate) but different Genus.
 
I interpreted it as meaning 7 base types, one that you pick a stock one of or customize. Then the other 6 are filled by randomized races. So even though you have 7, you have a vast number of possible combinations.
 
Then they would change the website.

They probably will but as you might have noticed johan posted that on a friday with half if not all of PDS in Cologne, i doubt anyone will bother changing it before next week if it needs to be changed.

We only knows there are 7 families and hundreds of unique kinds from the QA.

So for instance you have the mammal family but most likely within the mammals you'd have for example horse people, bear people etc. in the fungoid family you'd have plump helmet people and tower cap people and all kinds of weird mushroom people.
All of which would have some different traits i guess a be playable.
 
Sounds almost like there will be seven different regions populated by various deviations of a race in the form of nation like entities.

At least i'm hoping there will be a good deal of division that will allow for many playable space nations.
 
I interpreted it as meaning 7 base types, one that you pick a stock one of or customize. Then the other 6 are filled by randomized races. So even though you have 7, you have a vast number of possible combinations.
Again, no. There are seven types of aliens, and hundreds of variations of those type. Dozens of them are then seeded on the map randomly. There are not seven factions.
 
Sounds almost like there will be seven different regions populated by various deviations of a race in the form of nation like entities.

At least i'm hoping there will be a good deal of division that will allow for many playable space nations.
No this is also not right, as I understand it two planets from across the galaxy that are completely unrelated could both have races from the same phenotype because all a phenotype is, is a general category of life, so you might have two species that are both highly evolved birds that just both happened to evolve from birds just as we would be similar to an alien race if we met one which had also evolved from apes
 
We do realize that all of this interpretation being made on this thread is as wild as last week for the teaser clues, right? I mean, if they say something on the website, that is what they say. If they are not being clear about it, then it is on them to fix that. But they say 7 playable species on the webpage, so that is what they say. Johan can say phenotypes, but the page says species, and 7 of them playable, plus custom. All else is eisegesis.
 
We do realize that all of this interpretation being made on this thread is as wild as last week for the teaser clues, right? I mean, if they say something on the website, that is what they say. If they are not being clear about it, then it is on them to fix that. But they say 7 playable species on the webpage, so that is what they say. Johan can say phenotypes, but the page says species, and 7 of them playable, plus custom. All else is eisegesis.

Do you understand how dumb this post is?

"Johan is wrong even though he's like the ultimate authority on all this. Checkmate, everybody."
 
Do you understand how dumb this post is?

"Johan is wrong even though he's like the ultimate authority on all this. Checkmate, everybody."
I didn't say he was wrong but I am saying that I am questioning why Johan says one thing and the page says another, and if the page is wrong, then I would like to get more than a one line statement from Johan before interpreting what he means. What I am seeing though is a lot of eisegesis of what a phenotype is to Johan (as opposed to what is actually is in biology), and what the page means by species, and people are trying to interpret it to what they want to believe it is, and calling others wrong for their interpretations. Lets look at what is officially out there, and if Johan wants to expand on that, great. But I don't think it is dumb to compare an official page against what Johan says.
 
I didn't say he was wrong but I am saying that I am questioning why Johan says one thing and the page says another, and if the page is wrong, then I would like to get more than a one line statement from Johan before interpreting what he means. What I am seeing though is a lot of eisegesis of what a phenotype is to Johan (as opposed to what is actually is in biology), and what the page means by species, and people are trying to interpret it to what they want to believe it is, and calling others wrong for their interpretations. Lets look at what is officially out there, and if Johan wants to expand on that, great. But I don't think it is dumb to compare an official page against what Johan says.

Well consider this. The only time the number 7 is mention on the website is when it say there are 7 playable species. Then the developer comes in and say "not 7 species, 7 phenotypes". What else would he be correcting?
 
I didn't say he was wrong but I am saying that I am questioning why Johan says one thing and the page says another, and if the page is wrong, then I would like to get more than a one line statement from Johan before interpreting what he means. What I am seeing though is a lot of eisegesis of what a phenotype is to Johan (as opposed to what is actually is in biology), and what the page means by species, and people are trying to interpret it to what they want to believe it is, and calling others wrong for their interpretations. Lets look at what is officially out there, and if Johan wants to expand on that, great. But I don't think it is dumb to compare an official page against what Johan says.
The website is wrong, I hope for it to be corrected on Monday.
 
Its 6 phenotypes, human and mammalian is the same.

Now to convince the team that Chirper would be a great avian race.
 
Its 6 phenotypes, human and mammalian is the same.

Now to convince the team that Chirper would be a great avian race.

But there are many more mammals apart from humans O:
Though yeah that feels fair
 
That makes a lot of sense so now instead of there being 13~ species aesthetics per phenotype there is instead about 16. I'll update my what we know post.
 
But there are many more mammals apart from humans O:
Though yeah that feels fair
I guess that's why the correction is "6 phenotypes". All mammals would belong into the same category, including humans, so it's very likely that "mammals" will also have apes, humans, wolves, bears, etc. I find that very promising and hope that other categories can also expand their own stock of races that way.
 
I guess that's why the correction is "6 phenotypes". All mammals would belong into the same category, including humans, so it's very likely that "mammals" will also have apes, humans, wolves, bears, etc. I find that very promising and hope that other categories can also expand their own stock of races that way.

Pandarians :)