I am surprised by the insistence with which the PZ community promotes some requests and by the vision it has on the game. It is clear from the debates that most people here see this game as a simulator very close to the reality of a zoo. From this point of view, the ideal goal is to build a zoo as realistic as possible. The mechanics of the game, some unlikely elements in management for a zoo, even the way animals look and move, are far for closely simulating reality. The game has a double addressability. In my opinion, it is primarily a game that stimulates constructive creativity. The fact that it has as its basic background the theme of zoo gardens takes second place in purpose and importance. The fact that the most passionate players are attracted only by the most elaborate construction of a zoo in the sandbox, shows that the game did not aim to really simulate the life of animals and the mechanism of operation of a zoo. There is a lot of talk in this community about the way the animals not realistically look and behave, although, if we take into account the time allotted to the construction by players, these details almost do not matter in a way that affects their style of play. Few are watching the life of the zoo they created for a long time. What I want to point out is that the demands of the community do not reflect why this game is being played. Birds, aquatic animals, animals modeled close to perfection and the most real behaviors are required. The expectations are very high. If it had been thought of as a realistic simulation game, it would have had a different mechanics, and maybe the real animals would have to be scanned and then transposed into 3D and then Frontier should have hired behavioral specialists of each species to faithfully reproduce the behavior in captivity. In most cases, the newly introduced facilities about animals cannot be easily traced. Few people have been watching reptiles and insects in exhibitions for a long time. Sinking animals are, most of the time, difficult to follow below water, because majority of players prefer to have an aerial view of their zoo. And birds, which are almost obsessively sought after, will be hard to follow beyond the cage net, from this aerial view. And, as a parenthesis, a ranking of the most desired animals has been made and, surprisingly if exotism matter as it claims, the capybara is in first place. An animal that has nothing original in the way it looks and behaves. There are still many elements to change, if the desire to turn the game into a realistic zoo simulator prevails. The animals are still skating on the field, the climbing mechanism is far from reality and the interaction between the animals, compared to reality, is inconsistent. But these very important elements for realism are mostly discussed by chance, when the community insists on something to receive. And that brings me to the question I wanted to ask: what does the community really want from this game?! Is PZ, as a concept, a realistic simulator game for a zoo, who has the ambition to reproduce reality as accurately as possible? Should the expectations we have from the devs go in this direction?
Is PZ a realistic simulator game for a zoo?
- Thread starter stonegarden
- Start date
What I want is for PZ to be a fun management game and not just a creation engine. Even if it's clunky at times, I do not think there is much to change about construction / creation: the level of freedom is insane.
My opinion is that Sandbox is fine but Franchise (i.e. actually playing the game) is terrible because of too many unfun and boring micro-management actions required in real time, most of which relate to genetics.
IMO the fun part of management games is the conception and design of automated systems, and then watching these systems run smoothly within the framework of the game (with some optimization here and there). I would have loved PZ if it allowed me to create these systems, and then either relax by surveying my zoo for a while, or expand. The crazy freedom in design / construction (although incidental to management) would have been the cherry on the cake. The issue is that the game makes you manually pull levers every 2 minutes once you have a few habitats in place (e.g. releasing animals into the wild according to their genetics and having to select new ones from the marketplace). Because of the sheer amount of time this takes, it leaves me no time to actually enjoy the game.
I disagree that we need better animations etc... I am not the kind of person who needs a picture perfect reproduction of reality in my video games, I just want fun, even if sometimes it is not realistic.
I have been meaning to write a detailed post about this in a long time, and I will eventually. But here I just want to stop and say that every decision in game design should be guided by one principle: is this idea fun and engaging for the player ? If the answer is no then why the hell are you including this into the game ? Can someone please explain how genetics and the marketplace are fun and engaging for us ? Where is the meaningful interaction ? I have little hope of seeing meaningful changes to Franchise in Planet Zoo (you have my money, I bought all packs because of how beautiful the game is when it isn't actually running and I want to support you), but please do not fall into the trap of trying to make over realistic games, there are so many examples in gaming history to show that the games that leave an imprint are the ones that are fun, and not the ones that mimic reality... Do you really think original zoo tycoon was so loved because it was realistic ?
PS: I know there is a slider to slow aging, all this does is slow down the timer until you reach the critical moment when the number of boring interactions prevent you from playing / also you are not incentivised to use it since you need CC to buy animals.
My opinion is that Sandbox is fine but Franchise (i.e. actually playing the game) is terrible because of too many unfun and boring micro-management actions required in real time, most of which relate to genetics.
IMO the fun part of management games is the conception and design of automated systems, and then watching these systems run smoothly within the framework of the game (with some optimization here and there). I would have loved PZ if it allowed me to create these systems, and then either relax by surveying my zoo for a while, or expand. The crazy freedom in design / construction (although incidental to management) would have been the cherry on the cake. The issue is that the game makes you manually pull levers every 2 minutes once you have a few habitats in place (e.g. releasing animals into the wild according to their genetics and having to select new ones from the marketplace). Because of the sheer amount of time this takes, it leaves me no time to actually enjoy the game.
I disagree that we need better animations etc... I am not the kind of person who needs a picture perfect reproduction of reality in my video games, I just want fun, even if sometimes it is not realistic.
I have been meaning to write a detailed post about this in a long time, and I will eventually. But here I just want to stop and say that every decision in game design should be guided by one principle: is this idea fun and engaging for the player ? If the answer is no then why the hell are you including this into the game ? Can someone please explain how genetics and the marketplace are fun and engaging for us ? Where is the meaningful interaction ? I have little hope of seeing meaningful changes to Franchise in Planet Zoo (you have my money, I bought all packs because of how beautiful the game is when it isn't actually running and I want to support you), but please do not fall into the trap of trying to make over realistic games, there are so many examples in gaming history to show that the games that leave an imprint are the ones that are fun, and not the ones that mimic reality... Do you really think original zoo tycoon was so loved because it was realistic ?
PS: I know there is a slider to slow aging, all this does is slow down the timer until you reach the critical moment when the number of boring interactions prevent you from playing / also you are not incentivised to use it since you need CC to buy animals.
Different players want very different things from the game; there is a strong building community and PZ's heritage from other detailed building games is very evident. I'd say that, for all the discussions about the animals, the building side of the game is most developed.
The level of detail and relatively complex engagement the animals have with their environments is pretty unique - being able to create unique habitats and the animals are generally able to engage with them is a fairly advanced process. The level of detail, despite some missetps with some animals, really is remarkable - I'm especially impressed with the sound effects.
I would have liked to see more emphasis, as many have mentioned, on animal behaviors - more unique behaviors, better interactions among the animals, more species specific behaviors (flamingo flocking behaviors, for example, more social grooming among the primates, more assertive/rough behavior from the zebras, etc). Perhaps the next iteration of the game - whether Frontier makes another zoo game or a different developer - will have more of these things.
I think for me, the way the game fell down the most was the ... management side, but not what most people mean. I don't particularly want the sort of complex, supply chain mechanics in the game but ... there could have been much more management emphasis on animal care, breeding and so on. I had expected it and I'm a bit bummed that it isn't there - I'd happily give up on the four different info panels for guests (including what the have in each hand!) for tierd breeding difficulty based on the actual difficulties in breeding certain animals, or more in-depth genetics or ... well, pretty much anything that focused on the animals, not the guests. The guest should be the generic moving props in the game, not the animals. I greatly enjoy the game, I play PZ almost exclusively at this point - but I do wish there were some real meat on the animal care side of the game.
The level of detail and relatively complex engagement the animals have with their environments is pretty unique - being able to create unique habitats and the animals are generally able to engage with them is a fairly advanced process. The level of detail, despite some missetps with some animals, really is remarkable - I'm especially impressed with the sound effects.
I would have liked to see more emphasis, as many have mentioned, on animal behaviors - more unique behaviors, better interactions among the animals, more species specific behaviors (flamingo flocking behaviors, for example, more social grooming among the primates, more assertive/rough behavior from the zebras, etc). Perhaps the next iteration of the game - whether Frontier makes another zoo game or a different developer - will have more of these things.
I think for me, the way the game fell down the most was the ... management side, but not what most people mean. I don't particularly want the sort of complex, supply chain mechanics in the game but ... there could have been much more management emphasis on animal care, breeding and so on. I had expected it and I'm a bit bummed that it isn't there - I'd happily give up on the four different info panels for guests (including what the have in each hand!) for tierd breeding difficulty based on the actual difficulties in breeding certain animals, or more in-depth genetics or ... well, pretty much anything that focused on the animals, not the guests. The guest should be the generic moving props in the game, not the animals. I greatly enjoy the game, I play PZ almost exclusively at this point - but I do wish there were some real meat on the animal care side of the game.
Well, it seems that the individual is free to take what he or she makes of the game and decide if it be something they like or dislike. Is it a simulator? In the general sense it is but it also is just a game. With the various game modes and the ability to set the amount and types of management in sandbox, most players interested in a zoo format can find something that suits their level of entertainment. And that is what it's all about.... Having a little fun. And if the player enjoys creating things or making their concept of what a zoo should be or some whimsical unreal thing then I say let them.
It is the best zoo game as of today, in my opinion.
However, it was and it develops more and more into a zoo building simulator and not a zoo simulator. And why I understand and certainly enjoy the building aspect and the building heritage Planet games have, I think there is still a lot of room to explore for PZ, PZ 2 or a competitor.
So far, the animals are just props while the building aspect is the main focus of the game. The management aspect is same old same old and unlike in real life does not differ too much from the menagement of a theme park simulator. It's waaay to easy to breed and manage animals, as they have no behaviour and with full research you can turn almost any animal into a baby making machine. That accidentally also ruins the conservation claims that the game has, because, well, even the most endangered species are becoming a pest in game at some point.
So in short: It's a zoo game, but not a zoo simulator. And I wish we had one, combined with the creative freedom and beauty of PZ.
However, it was and it develops more and more into a zoo building simulator and not a zoo simulator. And why I understand and certainly enjoy the building aspect and the building heritage Planet games have, I think there is still a lot of room to explore for PZ, PZ 2 or a competitor.
So far, the animals are just props while the building aspect is the main focus of the game. The management aspect is same old same old and unlike in real life does not differ too much from the menagement of a theme park simulator. It's waaay to easy to breed and manage animals, as they have no behaviour and with full research you can turn almost any animal into a baby making machine. That accidentally also ruins the conservation claims that the game has, because, well, even the most endangered species are becoming a pest in game at some point.
So in short: It's a zoo game, but not a zoo simulator. And I wish we had one, combined with the creative freedom and beauty of PZ.
Can't agree more. The management aspect of the game is very thin and superficial.
I hate to see that animals breed so easily - and animals are way too easy to get. Sure, conservation credits are there to get "special animals", but the reality is, it's easy to farm conservation credits - because animals breed like crazy.
I remember playing ZT1, that scenario where your goal was to breed giant panda. The pandas felt precious back then - now it's just part of the same.
Another thing I don't like is that if you open a zoo with a single iguana, as an example, you will receive hundreds of guests.
The way I see a good simulation game would be a turn or cycle based game. In each cycle guest enter the zoo and when the cycle is over, guest leave the zoo. In between cycles, is where all the building happens, acquisition or transfer of new animal. Just before a new cycle begins, your zoo manager provides you with an idea of the numbers of guests your zoo will receive (based on animal popularity, weather, season, random events, holidays,...) and bills get paid. The user decides when to start a new turn/cycle.
This something I'd like to see more often in simulation games.
On a little side note, I appreciate the deep genetics system (compared to everything else). However, what I don't like is the message that it transmits: aim genetically perfect animals - those don't exist!
I know this isn't your main point but if anything, the collective desire for the capybara is in part because of it being a very common zoo animal. The PZ base game included several animals which are very uncommon in zoos (the West African lion, Bengal tiger, and Himalayan brown bear as uncommon subspecies compared to say, South African lion/Malayan tiger/Eurasian brown bear, as well as odd choices like the Chinese pangolin), and the primate in the SEA pack was one which is not exhibited at all outside its native range (the proboscis monkey).
With the exceptions of the walrus and platypus, most of the biggest animal-related requests are for animals that are common in zoos but were passed over in the base game or in previous DLC--capybaras, porcupines, Asian small-clawed otters, red river hogs, etc. More generally, people also want to see fleshing-out of South American, Oceanian, Middle Eastern, and habitat bird (wading birds/waterfowl) representation. A lot of these are the sort of animals that are common in zoos but aren't necessarily the centerpieces or main attractions, but it's unrealistic for a zoo to consist entirely or even primarily of "ABC" species (big cats, elephants, great apes, etc.)
However, the professional forum users are not necessarily the same people who keep the game alive.
Maybe I'm an odd one out but I like all game modes but I do spend most of my time in sandbox. I will keep most things active though so that I can manage everything at the zoo but just have unlimited budget. I also just realized that you can set a budget to start with on sandbox which I think is awesome. The money constraint is one reason I stray away from franchise because I think the starting with only $40k is a bit absurd.
I like the building aspect most, so I play mostly sandbox. But I love the animals, too (although I don't see a lot of them, because my game runs 99% of time in pause mode). PZ is the game I play most but not the only game I love.
Regarding Realism, Planet Zoo is .... well: meh. There is a constant cartoony look about it, which keeps disturbing and distracting me. It's not only the silly looking guests and the silly overacting behaviour of the staff/the guests, but some little things in the animals, too (e.g.: the eyes are too large, the coat is too fluffy, every animal seems to be smiling...) - so I don't think, Frontier goes for realism much.
But it is nevertheless the best zoo game ever (my opinion - and I played ZT 1+2, too)
Regarding Realism, Planet Zoo is .... well: meh. There is a constant cartoony look about it, which keeps disturbing and distracting me. It's not only the silly looking guests and the silly overacting behaviour of the staff/the guests, but some little things in the animals, too (e.g.: the eyes are too large, the coat is too fluffy, every animal seems to be smiling...) - so I don't think, Frontier goes for realism much.
But it is nevertheless the best zoo game ever (my opinion - and I played ZT 1+2, too)