Some of the Walkthrough Animals Make Little Sense

This has been an issue since the base game, but the wetlands pack has only made it worse by including more straight up dangerous animals for guests to be interacting with.

In base game, we all know some of the odd choices like okapi or aardvarks where it's not necessarily impossible, just... ill-advised. But several of the DLC animals are like. Seriously bad ideas.

The Giant Anteater is probably the worst one, considering they are one of the most dangerous animals in South America, and many people have been killed by them, including in zoo settings. Having a giant anteater walkthrough is like having a walkthrough for sun bears. It's dangerous and stressful for the animals.

Up until the Wetlands pack, I couldn't say any of the other DLCs add any that are so terrible I would say they are posing a genuine risk to your guests, but the Wetlands pack has several.

Let's start with the Lechwe. The Lechwe falls into a group I'd consider "weird choice but not necessarily the worst thing in the world" which includes just a ton of random ungulates that guests can walk through the exhibits of, but realistically it is probably hazardous to the guests or animals. This would be the Lechwe, Okapi, springbok, thomson's gazelle, and pronghorn. They are all animals that could seriously harm someone, but at the same time I can dispend my belief for a moment because they are similar enough to deer that it works.

Next up is the Platypus. Platypus are literally venomous, they are not known for being particularly fond of people, and due their small size, poor mobility on land, and low-slung bodies, I honestly think that a platypus walkthrough would just. eventually end up with either a dead platypus or a lawsuit, or both. I don't think it's unfair to say this is probably a really bad idea for the platypus in particular.

Finally we have the worst one in the pack- the Small-Clawed Otter. Now, if you know much about otters, you know they are very aggressive animals and very territorial. In the wild, small-clawed otters living in parks regularly attack people and their pets, and even kill small dogs. In a zoo setting, it is even more likely they will attack someone. Unlike the lechwe where it's a case of things could go wrong, with otters it's more akin to the giant anteater where things will go wrong eventually, and it's just really so unsafe it should not be in the game, and if anything just condones dangerous behavior. Small-clawed otters are already being abused and poached for the pet trade where they make awful pets, the last thing the game should be doing is giving the idea these animals are safe around people and potentially encourage someone to get one.
 
I agree with pretty much all of this.

What's even weirder to me is that, initially, neither the llama (a literal farm animal) or the fallow deer (an animal so common in walkthroughs and interactive habitats that it's not even funny) or the kangaroo (granted a more dangerous species than the usual grey kangaroos, but still fairly common as a walkthrough species in zoos) were included in this system and all had to be added later due to popular demand, yet frankly stupid choices like the giant anteater and otter were included from the get-go.

Honestly, no animal that is threatened or endangered in the wild should be a walkthrough.
 
I think people are confusing the "walkthrough" threshold for "likes people". This parameter tells the game that guests should be scared of close proximity to the species. If it's walkthrough, they won't be scared. If it's not, guests will flee as soon as possible.

Shyness is already a factored behaviour in the game with the confidence level. Shy walkabout animals can have guests walk into their habitat, but it will cause a lot of stress as a result. There discouragement is already a thing in the game.

Personally, I wouldn't change the current walkabout animals since it might ruin some people's habitats. Better to have more options as an error than patching in limitations.
 
I agree that the game has some weird choices regarding the walkthrough animals, however I dont see it as something that nessecerry has to be removed. As it add a bit of "roleplay" possibility of making wrong decisions. There are zoos in real life that make weird or outright stupid decisions about enclosures/animals, so it is up to player to make if they want to have one of "those" zoos. I know there are really no concenquences in this case, but there are some other inmoral and weird decisions already that you can make, such inbreeding the animals, mixing predator and prey animals etc.
 
I think people are confusing the "walkthrough" threshold for "likes people". This parameter tells the game that guests should be scared of close proximity to the species. If it's walkthrough, they won't be scared. If it's not, guests will flee as soon as possible.

Shyness is already a factored behaviour in the game with the confidence level. Shy walkabout animals can have guests walk into their habitat, but it will cause a lot of stress as a result. There discouragement is already a thing in the game.

Personally, I wouldn't change the current walkabout animals since it might ruin some people's habitats. Better to have more options as an error than patching in limitations.
Nope, not at all. I don't think aardvarks would make particularly good walkthrough animals IRL (especially because they can outweigh a person and will defend themselves if cornered) but I also don't think there's really much risk to the guests or aardvarks in having an aardvark walkthrough. But like... Small-clawed otters and giant anteaters actively attack people, and in the case of the giant anteater, kill people. I think there is a difference between condoning poor walkthrough exhibits (like with the lechwe and okapi) and promoting actively dangerous ones like the anteater, platypus, or small-clawed otter.

Frankly, my biggest worry is someone is gonna go and get seriously hurt doing something stupid because they saw Planet Zoo said it was ok to go and interact with a giant anteater or small-clawed otter pack. I don't think anyone wants that, and considering the game tries to market itself (at least to some degree) as educational, it is a possibility.
 
they can outweigh a person and will defend themselves if cornered
You could make reasonable arguments about capybaras falling under both of those traits. Any animal will defend itself if threatened.
I genuinely don't think anyone's gonna think about touching a wild anteater or otter just because guests can go into their habitats in a video game. That feels like saying someone will step on turtles just because they play Super Mario Bros.
 
Personally really thrilled the otters are walk through, though you're right, in real life, probably not a good idea. It's just my personal happiness that they are in the game though. Does it make sense, not really but what we like doesn't always make sense.

Everything else though I agree with you. Especially the platypus. Males are literally venomous. Shy animals also are really odd choices for walk through - no the guests may not be scared of them, but the animals are scared of the guests. Zoo should not encouraging this kind of behavior (and in that, I will include the otter on). Planet zoo is a game but also a learning experience.
 
You could make reasonable arguments about capybaras falling under both of those traits. Any animal will defend itself if threatened.
I genuinely don't think anyone's gonna think about touching a wild anteater or otter just because guests can go into their habitats in a video game. That feels like saying someone will step on turtles just because they play Super Mario Bros.
That's. That's literally why I said I was ok with the aardvark. I am not sure what you are trying to argue here.
 
Nope, not at all. I don't think aardvarks would make particularly good walkthrough animals IRL (especially because they can outweigh a person and will defend themselves if cornered) but I also don't think there's really much risk to the guests or aardvarks in having an aardvark walkthrough. But like... Small-clawed otters and giant anteaters actively attack people, and in the case of the giant anteater, kill people. I think there is a difference between condoning poor walkthrough exhibits (like with the lechwe and okapi) and promoting actively dangerous ones like the anteater, platypus, or small-clawed otter.

Frankly, my biggest worry is someone is gonna go and get seriously hurt doing something stupid because they saw Planet Zoo said it was ok to go and interact with a giant anteater or small-clawed otter pack. I don't think anyone wants that, and considering the game tries to market itself (at least to some degree) as educational, it is a possibility.
I agree, and while I think/hope that most people are smart enough to avoid a dangerous situation even if a game tells them otherwise, I still think the walkthrough choices are poor. Even if it's meant to represent what animals guests will flee from, it's still weird -- like I've mentioned before, they're scared of arctic foxes but not fennec foxes, ibex but not the larger lechwe and okapi. Whether it's meant to be shorthand for "non-threatening" animals or for "safe" animals, the walkabout designation is improperly applied to some species.
 
PZ already discourages it by making the confidence level shy.
I made a flowchart that might help understand what's intended in the game.
PZ Walkabout Guide.png
 
PZ already discourages it by making the confidence level shy.
I made a flowchart that might help understand what's intended in the game.
View attachment 301944
I'm not necessarily opposed to walkabout designation signifying just "guests shouldn't fear it" (although they really should fear platypi, anteaters, and otters -- though I suppose many in real life don't). But if that's the metric they were going with, I think they could be more consistent, applying it to all antelopes, small mammals, etc.
 
Maybe the whole concept should be revamped, but what about the habitats people have already built, they'll have to go through and change the gates and pathing.

Looking at the full list, there's 22 that are right now. Maybe it should just be Capybara, Reindeer (which aren't even walkthrough right now), Llama, Capuchian Monkey and Peafowl. All animals pose some potential danger to people, even domesticated ones, but feeling like these 5 have as a species enough interaction and history with human contact that they would be acceptable.
 
Yep, I made argument for platypus before pack came out. I also join the argument that limits the number of walkthrough animals. In roster with next to none domestic animals number of walkthrough ones should be really low. For this reason or the other

Because it's just not that common. There's special species that work well for that kind of exhibits, and those handful of species are well known and implemented throughout zoos worldwide.

So, in my opinion, if there isn't a zoo out there that have some species as walkthrough it should automatically be out of consideration.

Because if not explicitly stated otherwise and for each separate species; wild animals are either dangerous or are in danger.
 
Personally, I'm glad that we're getting the walk-through option for more animals. It is, after all, an option rather than a requirement, and one that opens up a lot of functionality for players who aren't in sandbox (where players can turn off the guests fleeing for everything, even lions).

And as a game mechanic specifically, it opens up the ability to build smaller habitats where guests are closer to the animals, even if they aren't actually walk-through in real life. Sometimes the gap between paths and barriers can just feel too large for what you're trying to make.

I understand that some people may not want walk throughs at all, for any animal, and can respect that. But I think it would be a shame for the game to allow this mechanic, and then limit it to only a small handful of animals. I'm glad that Frontier is giving us the power to choose (and then making us live with out choices, in the case of shy animals, for example).

I also sometimes use this mechanic to create habitats where the staff can walk through on staff paths, but not guests. It's been very helpful with some of my workzones, when I can let the keepers/vets/mechanics have a shortcut, instead of having to go all the way around a habitat. And for these aquatic animals, it's been especially helpful for allowing my mechanics to reach the designated water cleaning/temperature utilities.
 
Setting aside the way it can or cannot impact gameplay, I find the weird walkthrough choices from Frontier annoying because it's ... hypocritical. They give the polar bear a huge space requirement (still!) because they're trying to teach us about conservation but allow something like the platypus or anteater to mechanically be walkthrough animals because ..? That's not a message to send and, frankly, we've been seeing more and more people being foolish in the real world because of things like cute youtube videos of people's pet pumas, or someone who managed to pet a wild buffalo without being trampled so, yes, alas, people do get their learnings from places like random internet tictoks or games. So, if a game is supposed to be even vaguely educational (and I'd say PZ is vague at best), then having the platypus as a walkthrough (regardless of shy/confident behavior) is really not in line with that educational goal.
 
I'd say there's a difference between exaggerating the space requirements for a polar bear and having guests be afraid of a small and timid beaver-duck. I really doubt this game is going to be as impressionable to people as you make it out to be; the genre is already quite niche, limited further for people who want a specifically realistic experience. Nobody's tried stepping on turtles because they played Super Mario Bros. and I can't see anyone picking up a wild platypus because of PZ.
 
People probably don't step on wild tortoises/turtles (on purpose), but they sure do pick them up in unsafe ways that damage their spines, move them to places they shouldn't be, and take them home out of the wild! Most of the people that do this are thinking that they're helping, due to lack of knowledge/miseducation. Wildlife education isn't fantastic in a lot of places. A startling number of people I spoke to back when I did tortoise talks thought that a tortoise could ditch its shell!

Not to mention, if you spend any amount of time working with/researching wildlife management, you learn very, very quickly that humans will try to touch EVERYTHING. Especially cute, furry animals that the majority of people won't have much more information on than 'that weird Australian animal that lays eggs and has a popular representation in that one cartoon'. That they're venomous isn't what I'd call common knowledge, even less so is how devastating that venom can be. I'd hope that Australians would at least be clued up on their local wildlife and what not to do, but you can never be too sure about tourists.

I definitely have more of a problem with the ASCOs though! They're small and cute, definitely, but they're still a decently-sized mustelid and have the biggest teeth for their skulls out of all the otters. Those guys can and will bite fingers off easily, so they're not exactly an animal I'd recommend any sort of physical contact with.

If Planet Zoo is aiming for realism, then they need to look more closely into what animals are/aren't safe for people to be around.
 
Back
Top Bottom