Honestly I am deeply concerned for management in this game

[SirTophamHatt]

Problem is, you OP want to manage everything.

I want to build a zoo.

They cannot please both of us.

I got tired of having to reset the exhibit enrichment items all the time or having to mess about tweaking staff to get them to do this or that. Same with I got tired of Planet Zoo's constant bombardment of pick pockets, or noticing a shop hasn't had a vendor for months because I didn't notice they quit, because I'm busy building something elsewhere.
I hate building things on pause because I want my zoo to develop, not be a big explosion of "ta da - there we are".

I should think the majority of users won't want to get bogged down in micro managing every single aspect of the game, like stock for stores and such. They're busy building habitats.


Fact is this isn't a managament sim.
This is a zoo building sim with a bit of management thrown in. That's what most people will want.

 

[NL_Mutso]

I think the level of management is just right.

You are right, people don't want to fiddle with micro-managing: Managing stock for stores shouldn't be a part of the game. Same goes for buying food..

Pickpockets, did you have enough security? And assigned to a work region? Setting up work regions is really easy done and you can really easy manage your staff, if you plan out your zoo pretty well.
When people quit, you'll get a very long notification notice.
Don't think those are completely valid points.

I've seen topics about people complaining about the similar stuff, but (for example) you can't have 4k visitors with only 1 or 2 security..
Or more common that their zookeepers are taking too much time: you can't run a 10 exhibit zoo with only 1 zoo keepers hut.
I think for most people who dislike the management part, will be more pleased with the sandbox and managing-focused players will enjoy franchise more..

 

[bamber]

Perfect game should "work" with no changes to default management - But it should work better with tinkering.

Remember it has been tinkered with Already in Beta most basic guest management has been made easy - why worry about guests hunger in BETA? its been proven in Planet Coaster - the game use the same engine and will use the same codes so no need to prove it in BETA - Management falls into the worry later bucket. I was getting massive donations in BETA which helped to get money, I expect donation buckets to be a thing in the real game but nowhere near the effectiveness of the BETA collections

 

[NikolaP]

There also should be said that a lot of odd things which were occurred in beta comes from not polished AI from both stuff and guests which should be expected to be fixed and tweaked for final release.

Management this time really looks very deep from my perspective as you have a lot of things and also some of them we didn't get to know yet like land taxes or animal diseases, also don't forget weather which will impact on gameplay this time and probably there is a few more. I don't know if that isn't the thing yet but as for shops maybe you could have evidence in each shop how much each earned and be familiar in their bussiness, like I saw that you can see for every donation box each those statistics, but everything else is right on spot for me.

So the real problem for the beta here is AI and when Frontier tweak all of those for final release I'm sure we will have a blast of fun time playing this game for years. And I'm sure they will worked on that properly cause that was a major reason why beta was released into the community at first place. One thing is when they Q/A team working on bugs reveal and fix them and totally different when they feel community impulse and needs for the same.

 

[NL_Mutso]

I agree with NikolaP, the not polished AI is among the sources for a lot of issues.
Pretty sure most will be fixed and some will be fixed in the weeks after release..

One thing I was bothered by: For visitors it was the lack of movement, they just stuck around the first part of your zoo and ignored the other parts..
Which means you set up shops etc, made planning decisions and then they just would'nt show up at all..
That one had a big impact on your management.

 

[nats]

I hope the core of the game will be sufficiently interesting, so they don't feel the need to add extraneous goals. Ideally it's a compelling zoo simulator, not a dull zoo simulator with some of the mechanics of Pokémon Snap duct taped onto the side.

I seem to recall an announcement saying the market will be the only way to trade animals - if I'm right that means no swaps, but anything's possible.

Zoo Tycoon 2 was a great zoo building simulator with some great management tasks to do, plus zoo keeper tasks, photographs, and some great missions. I hope Frontier arent just going to leave us with a zoo building sim and thats it.

I know there are community tasks like releasing lions into the wild but I am wondering what else there will be beyond those, because in Elite Dangerous the community tasks are pretty dreadfully uninspired just because of the need for them to be multiplayer compatible. I hope we see imaginative single player missions in this new game in the sandbox/franchise mode not just the career mode (which I likely wont play), otherwise just sandbox building zoos is going to get old quite quickly. There needs to be more than that to do.

I wish they had incorporated the career functionality into the sandbox gameplay instead of having them as completely separate games modes. That doesnt bode well to me, because I hate linear games so I won't be doing the career mode most likely.

Frontier have a record of having great ideas, producing beautiful games that look really superb, but then leaving out gameplay depth. Hope thats not going to be the case here as well. So far Elite Dangerous and Jurassic World Evolution have both suffered from a lack of gameplay depth. Not sure how Planet Coaster plays as I haven't got that, not being interested in rollercoaster games.

 

[LoneBlind]

Frontier have a record of having great ideas, producing beautiful games that look really superb, but then leaving out gameplay depth. Hope thats not going to be the case here as well.

See, in my opinion everything we've seen so far is more than enough to hold up an entire game, especially with the inclusion of even more species. So from my perspective there's pretty much no where to go but up because I don't feel the gameplay mechanics have been shallow, AND we already know they didn't include all the features of the game. But personally I'm not here for the hardcore management mechanics, I'm here for the zoo building and running. I definitely think the game would become more of a chore than fun if there was even more focus on management rather than just building and maintaining your zoo.

 

[NL_Mutso]

Frontier have a record of having great ideas, producing beautiful games that look really superb, but then leaving out gameplay depth. Hope thats not going to be the case here as well. So far Elite Dangerous and Jurassic World Evolution have both suffered from a lack of gameplay depth. Not sure how Planet Coaster plays as I haven't got that, not being interested in rollercoaster games.

I only play JWE, but managing in that game is easy.

While I personally think a lot of in-game depth is fun, for a lot of casual gamers it already feels like micro-managing.
For sims like these you'll need a nice balance.. A steep learning curve is enough for people to refund their games on Steam.
I want a game to thrive, especially when it has an online feature...

 

[nats]

See, in my opinion everything we've seen so far is more than enough to hold up an entire game, especially with the inclusion of even more species. So from my perspective there's pretty much no where to go but up because I don't feel the gameplay mechanics have been shallow, AND we already know they didn't include all the features of the game. But personally I'm not here for the hardcore management mechanics, I'm here for the zoo building and running. I definitely think the game would become more of a chore than fun if there was even more focus on management rather than just building and maintaining your zoo.

Never said I wanted 'hardcore management' but having management missions to do is a necessity imo. I have City Skylines for example and have hardly played that game at all because the creating of cities with nothing else to do is just so bland and boring. There needs to be some point to playing beyond just building more and more enclosures. Very few developers realise how to create addictive games these days, I think good old Microprose was the best at it (glad to see them coming back!). Sid Meier is one such bloke who certainly seemed to have a magic touch, in that he helped make a heck of a lot of the most addictive games in the 90s.

There is an art to making a game fun and involving for all sorts of players, as there may be people who might not be that interested in just building the zoo but might want to experience what running a zoo is actually like as well. Not particularly saying there should be earthquakes that damage all the fences like in ZT2 but there were some wonderful ideas in that game for keeping the gameplay from getting stale as you wait for your money to stack up again.

But yes I agree that missions should be optional on the whole for people who dont want to do them. Otherwise things like that can get a bit annoying if they get in the way of the zoo creation too much. But the more there is for the player to do, if he/she wants to, the better imo.

 

[LoneBlind]

Never said I wanted 'hardcore management' but having management missions to do is a necessity imo. I have City Skylines for example and have hardly played that game at all because the creating of cities with nothing else to do is just so bland and boring. There needs to be some point to playing beyond just building more and more enclosures. Very few developers realise how to create addictive games these days, I think good old Microprose was the best at it (glad to see them coming back!). Sid Meier is one such bloke who certainly seemed to have a magic touch in making a heck of a lot of the most addictive games in the 90s.

There is an art to making a game fun and involving for all sorts of players, as there may be people who might not be that interested in just building the zoo but might want to experience what running a zoo is actually like as well. Not particularly saying there should be earthquakes that damage all the fences like in ZT2 but there were some wonderful ideas in that game for keeping the gameplay from getting stale as you wait for your money to stack up again.

But yes I agree that missions should be optional on the whole for people who dont want to do them. Otherwise things like that can get a bit annoying if they get in the way of the zoo creation too much. But the more there is for the player to do, if he/she wants to, the better imo.

The difference is just that not all players are addicted by the same type of gameplay. ZT2 was a relatively shallow game (in comparison to PZ) and yet it STILL has an active and healthy fanbase over a decade later. I definitely think even just pure building games have a lot of longevity when given such extensive mechanics to play with. And PZ has WAY more than just that. For me, games that feature constant micromanaging aspects don't addict me, they drive me away. I want to put effort that I want to into the game, not stress about every little detail and facet of running the zoo.

But yes, I think the best way to satisfy everyone is to feature different difficult levels. Even if it was just "Casual" and "Challenge" or something. Even then there's people who hate that idea because of the online aspect. So it really is impossible to please everybody.

 

[Balwick]

IMO, I want to be managing a zoo, not also be a plumber, electrician, HR rep, counsellor, and so on.

I can already decide if people get ice in their drinks (and how much), if they get ketchup on their hotdogs, whether the staff get a playstation in the staff room, which security guard deals with vandals and which with pickpockets.

With disease, taxation, and other features held back from the beta being introduced, that's quite enough micromanaging.

 

[nats]

The difference is just that not all players are addicted by the same type of gameplay. ZT2 was a relatively shallow game (in comparison to PZ) and yet it STILL has an active and healthy fanbase over a decade later.

I would imagine the longevity of ZT2 has a lot to do with the addictive nature of the gameplay because lets face it the zoo building on its own is not great in ZT2, the the graphics are pretty poor by todays standards! I think the longevity comes down to the variation of gameplay that is available in the game. There are always new things to discover, there is a ton of depth there. But it took three (I think) expansions to get the game to that level.

Hope the same depth will be available in PZ, even if it requires a few dlc packs to get it there. It will certainly be exciting to find out.

 

[tobyhine]

I hope we see imaginative single player missions in this new game in the sandbox/franchise mode not just the career mode (which I likely wont play)

Wanting imaginative single player missions and then not playing the single-player mission mode seems a bit of an own-goal in this case.

I wish they had incorporated the career functionality into the sandbox gameplay instead of having them as completely separate games modes. That doesnt bode well to me, because I hate linear games so I won't be doing the career mode most likely.

It worked for Planet Coaster. Unsure what you mean by 'linear'... they're probably objectives on a starting map, and then you find your own way to fulfil those goals, unless they go for something more directed, although that seems unlike in a zoo game. Nobody's seen Planet Zoo career mode, so writing it off at this point is an odd choice.

Frontier have a record of having great ideas, producing beautiful games that look really superb, but then leaving out gameplay depth... So far Elite Dangerous and Jurassic World Evolution have both suffered from a lack of gameplay depth.

Neither of those two grabbed me, but they also don't represent a trend for Frontier from my perspective - Planet Coaster a much more developed concept, in my view, and closer to what Planet Zoo is trying to do.

Not sure how Planet Coaster plays as I haven't got that, not being interested in rollercoaster games.

It's somewhat more representative of the play components and depth of Planet Zoo - JW:E seemed like a misfire in a number of ways, and they've moved on having learned from those mistakes. They're also not shackled by the license, and having to make the game palatable for such a general audience.

On the whole, just have to make a decision based on the game it is. If it doesn't please you because of stuff Zoo Tycoon had that it lacks, then fine, but it's its own game, and isn't required to have any functions from any other games if the developers don't decide to include them.

I'm still hoping they leave out the Pokémon Snap, and make a zoo management game - the evidence suggests that's what they've done.

 

[tobyhine]

I have City Skylines for example and have hardly played that game at all because the creating of cities with nothing else to do is just so bland and boring.

Yet people play SimCity 4 and other sandbox games for thousands of hours. I agree that Skylines feels a bit like a paintbox stapled to a traffic simulation, but I would hesitate before writing off sandbox games in general because they 'don't have a point'.

Sid Meier is one such bloke who certainly seemed to have a magic touch, in that he helped make a heck of a lot of the most addictive games in the 90s.

And yet Railroad Tycoon is exactly the kind of sandbox game you don't enjoy? Do you just mean Civilization? Comparison a sandbox game with 4X is always going to ring a bit false.

It's clear you don't much like sandbox games, but there's a reason SimCity, Railroad Tycoon, Transport Tycoon 2 were such hits, and I don't imagine they would be much improved with the addition of mini objectives.

But the more there is for the player to do, if he/she wants to, the better imo.

I struggle with this. More stuff doesn't necessarily mean a better experience.

Hope the same depth will be available in PZ, even if it requires a few dlc packs to get it there.

More stuff doesn't necessarily mean more depth, either.

I am reminded of this video:

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVL4st0blGU

 

[Balwick]

Pointing to JWE doesn't make much sense. The game was licensed, with parameters for its intended audience, and designed to be playable on a console with the finite control and managerial depth that comes with. It wasn't Frontier's brainchild in the way PC and PZ are.

 

[B4DD4WG]

Pointing to JWE doesn't make much sense. The game was licensed, with parameters for its intended audience, and designed to be playable on a console with the finite control and managerial depth that comes with. It wasn't Frontier's brainchild in the way PC and PZ are.

Agreed...Though, they are taking a few things from JWE. Like the disease, and genetics portion. Which i was hoping they would do, when I first heard Frontier was going to make a zoo game. I kinda wish/hope that they change the substation, and water station to act like they did in JWE. Like a substation only being able to power X amount of buildings, depending on how much was needed from those buildings.

 

[LoneBlind]

I kinda wish/hope that they change the substation, and water station to act like they did in JWE. Like a substation only being able to power X amount of buildings, depending on how much was needed from those buildings.

That is the level of nightmare I would hate to deal with in PZ lol. Please don't ask me to do math

 

[AndyZoos]

I would imagine the longevity of ZT2 has a lot to do with the addictive nature of the gameplay because lets face it the zoo building on its own is not great in ZT2, the the graphics are pretty poor by todays standards! I think the longevity comes down to the variation of gameplay that is available in the game. There are always new things to discover, there is a ton of depth there. But it took three (I think) expansions to get the game to that level.

Hope the same depth will be available in PZ, even if it requires a few dlc packs to get it there. It will certainly be exciting to find out.

The longevity of ZT2 has everything to do with the thousands of user-created mods, animals, plants, re-skins, scenery items, rocks, etc. available online that allow people to design different and unique zoos with varied animals, foliage, etc. dependent upon the whimsy of the user. No one zoo looks alike, and most have an incredibly versatile array of animals from one to the next. The base game itself was plenty immersive (for its time) but the reason people still play it now is the design aspect/elements and the additional content people have created over time... Not so much the managerial aspects.

People will still throw on the career mode or whatever it's called and mess around with it, but it really seems to be more just a fun "art" project for most people at this point.

I suspect that, with time, we'll see something similar form for Planet Zoo. Some people will play it for the depth of management, others focusing mostly on the design and animal elements. The latter is where much of the staying power will be for most folks (in Sandbox mode) over an extended period of time (I'm talking years here, not months). Playing the game in a relatively casual manner while focusing on what sort of creative things you can get into.

 

[NL_Mutso]

Yeah, games with no proper successor and modding have more longetivity than most games.
Really surprising that some old games still survive nowadays with the modded community..

Let's face it, there aren't many zoo games.. Wildlife Park series were very limited and looked very poor. (Menu/UI was really bad)

Personally I think the ZT2 community will take a big hit, people will move on to PZ.

 

[alaiksandreis]

I feel that Planet Zoo just does management wrong. I say this not to hate or be overly critical, but it is a problem that already affected PlanCo and JWE.

If we take a look at Planet Zoo, there are two often heard complaints:

1) the (exquisitely beautiful) animals do not interact much with the environment and with each other and are therefore kind of static eye-candy.
2) the management aspect is built on identifying problems that consist of statistic bars whose levels need to be improved which makes solving the problem not very satisfying

The unifying problem here is that there are not enough transparent visual hints that inform us what the problem is with the animals or the enclosure which subsequently subtracts from the satisfaction of solving the problem. Interestingly enough, this is where visually "more simple" games like Megaquarium, Parkitect and Two Point Hospital actually do a lot better. Problems are immediately visible on screen in the aquarium/park/hospital itself, not in the UI or in text messages. Solving the problem is thereby also a loy motr satisfying.

Making a good management game is not just done by making it more difficult to succeed and adding tons of parameters that need to be met: it is done by making satisfying gameplay loops.

I fear that once the hype dies down, more and more reviewers will come to realize that this game is an exquisite building game which does not reach the bar set by other management games.