Concerns Regarding The Direction Of Planet Zoo. Has Frontier Lost Sight Of Their Vision For Planet Zoo?

[MaximusSC]

Hi everyone, we've just got some more information on this topic from dev! As you can imagine with Planet Zoo, animal lifespans and breeding play a critical role in many aspects of the simulation so it's something that we consider very carefully when addressing feedback. The issue has been marked as Fixed because for launch, the team have made a number of balancing tweaks and changes, specifically to animal lifespan and breeding, in an effort to address the Beta feedback.

Thank you for all of your constructive comments so far; we can't wait for Tuesday.

As great as it might be for the dev's to listen to the players and their concerns with the game one has to wonder if changes made as a result of player feedback detracts from the creator of the games original vision of the game.

On the 7th of June 2019 an article was published on PCGamers website. That article was an interview with Piers Jackson, Planet Zoo’s game director. The title of that article was: Planet Zoo is a tycoon game striving for perfect animal realism. Within that article Mr Jackson describes the vision of the game.

“We just didn’t have time. So Planet Zoo is really the animal management game I’ve been wanting to make for 15 years, and being self-published means we can make the game we want.”

Clearly the creators of the game had a vision. They wanted to make the game an 'animal management game'. But, they wanted the game to be so much more than being a Giga Pet or a Tamagotchi. They wanted the game, including the animals themselves, to have much more depth than any other zoo or pet game before it. Examples of the vision for the game can be seen in the following quotes:

“Animal husbandry is core to any modern zoo, and some of these zoos are doing a fantastic job in that regard,” says Jackson. “We’ve spoken to zoo keepers as part of our research on this project, and they are there for the animals. They’re trying to repopulate the wild wherever they can. That’s something we very much wanted to reflect in Planet Zoo.”

"Attention to detail is almost an obsession at Frontier. Grounding things with a scientific background is what we do best, whether it’s mapping a galaxy or making the most authentic rollercoasters down to the nuts and bolts.

“Or in the case of Planet Zoo, making sure the zoo the animals are part of is representative of what a modern zoo stands for, and that conservation and husbandry are catered for properly.”

“A streak of authenticity runs through all our games at Frontier,” says Jonny Watts. “I’d love it if people were inspired by them to pursue a career in zoology or astronomy, the same way Life on Earth inspired me to study zoology. Our games are fun, but there’s always a message in there. Not an overt one. But enough to inspire people, I hope.”

The idea, Frontier says, is to make you really care for the creatures in your zoo, so you don’t just think of them as expendable exhibits.

“We want these animals to feel like they’re important to you, that you do need to look after them and care for them,” says Piers Jackson. “And we have seen these attachments grow. One team member followed one of his elephants through a full life cycle, and it was distressing when it died. That’s a really cool moment. A real bond. The work of the team, be it the character modellers, the animators, or the guys doing the AI, has come together to create something that people are really invested in.”

But if a management game is going to challenge the player, there needs to be moments where things go to hell. You don’t have to worry about guests being eaten by lions here, though. An escaped animal will cause a panic, but no blood will be shed, unlike Frontier’s other ‘zoo’ sim, Jurassic World Evolution. But there’s still plenty that can go wrong, forcing you to step in and deal with the crisis, spinning the appropriate plates.

“There’s the welfare of the animals, whether you’re building the right habitats and if they’re big enough,” says Piers Jackson. “You also have to be able to breed these animals effectively to increase their population.

“You have to provide enrichment for them to fight off boredom, give them the right food, research them, prevent them from getting diseases.

“In any simulation management game you have to allow people to do things badly. People have to be allowed to fail or push the simulation in a way that you didn’t intend. And there can be consequences to that. Creating a habitat that isn’t good for an animal will have a negative impact on its well being and the guests. But I think people will find ways of creating successful habitats that we haven’t thought of, and that’s part of the joy of making a customisable game like this.”

“Running a zoo is all about making sure the animals are well cared for, and that’s really the core of Planet Zoo,” says Jonny Watts. “You have to make sure the habitats have the correct biomes and temperatures. But there’s also a whole other area called enrichment. This means things you put into the habitat to stimulate the animals and break up their day, or recreate experiences they would have if they were in the wild. You’ll have emotional highs and lows. When an animal dies it also affects the economy. Money stops coming in, which is an important gameplay mechanic. It works on two levels, emotional and financial. If a ride breaks down in Planet Coaster you can send the engineers to fix it. But you can’t bring a dead animal back to life. That’s a beautiful bit of destruction and, from a pure gameplay perspective, a great ingredient for the simulation. And from that you get this emotional ebb and flow.”

As we can clearly see the intended play of the game is not solely about "enjoying the animals", as many seem to believe. The game was intended to be much more than that.

The beta was great as it allowed players the opportunity to familiarize themselves with the game. Players only got a taste of the franchise mode and the first scenario in the career mode. NONE of the beta was intended for players to grow attached to their animals in any way. The beta was intended for players to find bugs, glitches, and issues with the game itself. Although the beta was playable critiquing the pace of the game should NOT have been part of the intent for the beta. Critiquing the birthrates of the animals and their lifespans, unless there was an actual bug or glitch, also should NOT have been part of the intent for the beta. There absolutely should NOT be any changes made in regards to any 'balancing' of the game as a result of complaints from the beta for the fact that players were familiarizing themself with the game and the point of the beta was to find and to isolate and to fix any bugs and glitches. We didn't even have access to every feature. Therefore, a fair analysis of any 'balancing' issues is impossible to ascertain.

By the developers adjusting things based off of beta feedback before the game launches raises flags and questions as to whether the game will be remotely close to what the original visions of the game were. How much power and control of the game is gifted to a vocal few whose envisions of what they want or expect the game to be? I, for one, preordered multiple copies of this game for the visions of the game that are highlighted in the quotes above. I liked the original vision of the game and those selling points. I now fear that with the changes the game will not be what it was intended to be.

 

[Kinah]

I debated for a good long while about replying, because it feels like this will turn toxic very quickly, but there is so much in your post I take issue with, I had to. I for one, feel that the animals are a key selling point. That's why its planet zoo. Otherwise it could just be more planet coaster or whatever else. That's like saying Arks key selling point isn't the dinosaurs, because it's a survival game. Or that jurrasic world evolution isn't about the dinos. Sadly I do feel it was a little lacking, but mainly because I grew up playing zoo tycoon and I was looking for something with that level of creature care and breeding.

Now I unfortunately wasnt able to play the beta because I didnt have a computer capable yet at the time, but saying there shouldnt have been any balancing in response to the beta blows my mind. Betas are for bug testing sure, but they are also for testing ALL aspects of the game, and balancing in response to something many beta testers had issue with, is not just smart, and kind of the whole point, its awesome to have a studio that actually listens to their community.

Bringing me to the last point. Game studios and developers that care about their community have much larger, happier player bases, and make more money (dlc please!!!). I think frontier did exactly what they should have by addressing player concerns, and I expect more tweaks following release. And I am so excited. I say high five you guys, and please, keep up the great work.

 

[Shenzy]

What makes you think that because it was a beta test, people shouldn't be suggesting changes for the gameplay? In my opinion, the enjoyment of a game ist just as important as how smoothly it runs.
I don't think that the developers are dumb enough to just follow feedback of the community without looking at the project as a whole. They are also doing a number of tests internally, so it's not like they don't know what they are doing.

Also, I don't quite understand how the changes they made so far supposedly take away from the original vision of the game, as you only provided one example. The example you gave (concerning the breeding rate and animal lifespan) only confirms what you quoted in your post. How are you supposed to get attached to your animals and care about their welfare when they breed like rabbits and die in just a couple of hours of gameplay, as they did in the original beta version?

 

[MaximusSC]

What you 'feel' the 'key selling point' is irrelevant when I quoted Piers Jackson, Planet Zoo’s game director, own words on what the game is about. Each selling point he made carries equal weight and are why I got excited about the game and purchased multiple copies for me and my friends.

Betas are for bug testing sure,

Yes. That's true.

but they are also for testing ALL aspects of the game,

The problem with that in this case is that we did NOT have access to many aspect of the game. Therefore, balancing will still remain a potential issue after launch.

 

[[VR] Deggial]

Thank you for stating your opinion, MaximusSC.
I do, however, disagree.

Because:

... Also, I don't quite understand how the changes they made so far supposedly take away from the original vision of the game, as you only provided one example. The example you gave (concerning the breeding rate and animal lifespan) only confirms what you quoted in your post. How are you supposed to get attached to your animals and care about their welfare when they breed like rabbits and die in just a couple of hours of gameplay, as they did in the original beta version?

 

[MaximusSC]

What makes you think that because it was a beta test, people shouldn't be suggesting changes for the gameplay? In my opinion, the enjoyment of a game ist just as important as how smoothly it runs.
I don't think that the developers are dumb enough to just follow feedback of the community without looking at the project as a whole. They are also doing a number of tests internally, so it's not like they don't know what they are doing.

Also, I don't quite understand how the changes they made so far supposedly take away from the original vision of the game, as you only provided one example. The example you gave (concerning the breeding rate and animal lifespan) only confirms what you quoted in your post. How are you supposed to get attached to your animals and care about their welfare when they breed like rabbits and die in just a couple of hours of gameplay, as they did in the original beta version?

Where did I say that "people shouldn't be suggesting changes for the gameplay"? I never stated such. So please don't misquote people and place words into their mouths. I stated no changes should have been made in regards to balancing prior to launch based off of those suggestions because we didn't have access to every feature in the game. Thus, balancing will likely still be an issue after launch.

 

[Aero-Bubbles]

I don’t understand how adjusting the speed at which time passes affects frontiers vision of the game? Like am I missing something here? Like everything you posted has absolutely nothing to do with distorting the original image of the game?


The vast majority of people found the game time moved far too quickly, meaning animals were dying left, right and center from old age, things broke down every 5 minutes and you couldn’t get attached to your animals.

I for one am glad the devs looked into this to make the players happy.

 

[Masteradstriker]

I'm sorry, I kinda don't understand what exactly is Maximus's worry towards PZ. Can anyone (preferably the OP) reexplain what the fuss is?

 

[MaximusSC]

Thank you for stating your opinion, MaximusSC.
I do, however, disagree.

Because:

Appreciated.

Hence why I used the word "concerns" and outlined my concerns. I never stated that anything has changed that drastically. We'll know more on Tuesday.

 

[Shenzy]

Where did I say that "people shouldn't be suggesting changes for the gameplay"? I never stated such. So please don't misquote people and place words into their mouths. I stated no changes should have been made in regards to balancing prior to launch based off of those suggestions because we didn't have access to every feature in the game. Thus, balancing will likely still be an issue after launch.

Then I don't quite understand the problem with applying balancing patches during the beta. Just because they changed something, doesn't mean it has to stay this exact way up until launch.

 

[MaximusSC]

I'm sorry, I kinda don't understand what exactly is Maximus's worry towards PZ. Can anyone (preferably the OP) reexplain what the fuss is?

I can certainly try to explain in a better way.

To me it's simple. I quoted Piers Jackson expressing the visions of the game which include features and aspects that are far beyond players just 'enjoying the animals'. Management, facing and dealing with issues, and even "there needs to be moments where things go to hell." I simply expressed my concerns that by altering the breeding rates, lifespans, and other modifications that have been made prelaunch might detract from the original vision of the game. My fear is that the game will be less challenging than it was originally intended and why I purchased the game.

I hope that clears it up for you.

With that said, I am certain that for many the changes won't matter at all. Others will love the changes. And that's perfectly fine. However, the devs at Frontier should hear all feedback even if some feedback isn't popular with the players.

 

[MaximusSC]

Then I don't quite understand the problem with applying balancing patches during the beta. Just because they changed something, doesn't mean it has to stay this exact way up until launch.

Of course it doesn't mean it has to stay the same. I merely stated that changes in regards to balancing shouldn't have been made prelaunch because it might require being changed again due to the fact that we didn't have access to every feature and aspect of the game. My opinion is that it was unnecessary thing to do when the risk of needing to modify and rebalance things again is high.

 

[Shenzy]

I mean, they managed to do the changes quite quickly, so they were probably not even big changes to begin with and relatively easy to adjust. They would've done the changes anyway and the fact that they did it during the beta gave us the chance to test them and give additional feedback. Otherwise we only would've been given the chance after the launch, which would give them more work during a time where addressing any remaining or new issues would be a whole lot more vital.

 

[MaximusSC]

I mean, they managed to do the changes quite quickly, so they were probably not even big changes to begin with and relatively easy to adjust. They would've done the changes anyway and the fact that they did it during the beta gave us the chance to test them and give additional feedback. Otherwise we only would've been given the chance after the launch, which would give them more work during a time where addressing any remaining or new issues would be a whole lot more vital.

They may not be big changes and my concerns may be for naught. But my concerns are my concerns and I feel, just as you and others do, that I should be able to voice my concerns and the devs should consider them. That's not saying the devs have to act upon nor respond to anyone's concerns. But everyone's concerns and opinions should be respected.

 

[JamieCA]

The speed of the game during the beta was not challening-it simply wasn't compatible with being a game. There was no time for experiencing the gameplay. You had to play in pause. Birth rates were often not realistic to the species either. A game should actually be able to be played and not held in pause and I hope that any tweaks they've made will actually allow that. High speed is a lazy way to make something challenging. There are many aspects of the zoo and animals that need to be managed manually by use. If the PZ team has done their job right the game (outside of sandbox) should be challenging while being able to actually be played. I really hope they actually lowered the slowest speed option and didn't just change the lifespans and breeding rates.

 

[Seasiren]

The fact is the way time was running in the game was a huge problem that needed to be addressed before launch. In the short time beta lasted, there were zoo well over 100 years old. That is well over a century in a couple weeks. That is just unrealistic, in my opinion. Visitors could literally live and die thier lifespan in the time they spent in the zoo ( if they actually aged). The animals came and went so quickly it was simply not an enjoyable experience. My hope is they slowed the time down, tho by the wording I suspect they did something other than that. But we don't know for sure for another couple of days. This has nothing at all to do with the creator's vision. This is about a game mechanic that needed to be tweaked in some form.

 

[MaximusSC]

The speed of the game during the beta was not challening-it simply wasn't compatible with being a game. There was no time for experiencing the gameplay. You had to play in pause. Birth rates were often not realistic to the species either. A game should actually be able to be played and not held in pause and I hope that any tweaks they've made will actually allow that. High speed is a lazy way to make something challenging. There are many aspects of the zoo and animals that need to be managed manually by use. If the PZ team has done their job right the game (outside of sandbox) should be challenging while being able to actually be played. I really hope they actually lowered the slowest speed option and didn't just change the lifespans and breeding rates.

The devs changing birthrates of lions from 1 to 5 cubs per litter every 2 or three years to one cub once every 5 to 6 years was realistic?

It simply is not true that "you had to play in pause". I certainly didn't play the game in pause - even if I did pause on a rare occasion. I even used the fast forward buttons on occasion. IMHO, this is a player issue (doing something wrong on their part) and not a game issue.

If they lowered the slowest speed setting to a rate that is too slow I certainly won't be wasting my time playing the game. I don't want to play the game in fast mode all the time anymore than you want the pace slowed down for you. I would accept more slow speed options. But to force the game to be too slow for all players is unfair to all players!

 

[Kinah]

The fact is the way time was running in the game was a huge problem that needed to be addressed before launch. In the short time beta lasted, there were zoo well over 100 years old. That is well over a century in a couple weeks. That is just unrealistic, in my opinion. Visitors could literally live and die thier lifespan in the time they spent in the zoo ( if they actually aged). The animals came and went so quickly it was simply not an enjoyable experience. My hope is they slowed the time down, tho by the wording I suspect they did something other than that. But we don't know for sure for another couple of days. This has nothing at all to do with the creator's vision. This is about a game mechanic that needed to be tweaked in some form.

I wasnt able to play the beta , and I am very excited for this game, more so than any other game in a very long time, but I am concerned about this. I have read so many complaints about how fast time progressed even in the slowest mode. I was super excited about the genetics and every animal being unique and having different personalities, I read something somewhere that they could even get scars (?). What is the point of making them all unique and what not if they die within an hour or so? Have a nice slow mode for those that want to enjoy their animals and grow attached, but leave the fast forward option for those who are just interested in the management sim and dont care about the animals at all (sad in my opinion but to each their own). I think this allows many different players and playstyles to enjoy the game without ruining it for anyone.

 

[MaximusSC]

The fact is the way time was running in the game was a huge problem that needed to be addressed before launch. In the short time beta lasted, there were zoo well over 100 years old. That is well over a century in a couple weeks. That is just unrealistic, in my opinion. Visitors could literally live and die thier lifespan in the time they spent in the zoo ( if they actually aged). The animals came and went so quickly it was simply not an enjoyable experience. My hope is they slowed the time down, tho by the wording I suspect they did something other than that. But we don't know for sure for another couple of days. This has nothing at all to do with the creator's vision. This is about a game mechanic that needed to be tweaked in some form.

What does it matter to anyone that some players zoos were over 100 years old? If I'm playing my game and I'm ok that my zoo has reached 100 years old it only affects me and I'm ok with it.

I played 130 hours of the beta and I didn't have a single issue with the time/pace/speed of the game. I simply did what I needed to do to manage my zoo. That included hitting the pause button when I felt the need to. I even had close to 100 animals in my zoo at its highest population.

 

[Seasiren]

What does it matter to anyone that some players zoos were over 100 years old? If I'm playing my game and I'm ok that my zoo has reached 100 years old it only affects me and I'm ok with it.

I played 130 hours of the beta and I didn't have a single issue with the time/pace/speed of the game. I simply did what I needed to do to manage my zoo. That included hitting the pause button when I felt the need to. I even had close to 100 animals in my zoo at its highest population.

Which would be fine if it only affected you, but it affects everyone playing the game, not just you. Time is running at the same pace for everyone, which many of us felt was way to fast, in the slowest mode. There were options to speed the game up if you so desired, there was no way to slow it down if you so desired.