I think I've worked out what sticks in my throat about Planet Zoo and what it is about the game that makes it un-fun to play in Franchise mode... After watching a video on YouTube last night about developers "protecting players from themselves"
In short, the video talks about how developers will try to weed out "undesirable player behaviours" by punishing the player for certain strategies. Think along the lines of turn limits in XCom2 or more aggressive AI for indecisive players in Civ6 etc. And this got me thinking about why, for me, Planet Zoo is just not enjoyable when Planet Coaster is.
My conclusion is that, for whatever reasons they have decided, the game punishes you for certain play styles and almost forces your hand to play their way or no way at all. How many franchise zoos have you lost through bankruptcy because of the refund thing? Or how many times you've lost prestige because of protestors? How many complaints about guests being unhappy because you didn't spam education boards everywhere? Placing facilities and being punished for them being too close to guests (and then their ranges not being effective enough to warrant hiding them anyway) when every-one knows in reality guests don't care about these things. The game punishes you for not doing these things (either the way they want you to or not at all), rather than rewarding your for doing them. Sometimes it isn't even the players fault but you are still punished. So, rather than an uplift in results, you get a negative impact instead. But, that means that if you DO want to run a basic or even a bad zoo in Franchise, you can't.. you are pretty much stuck with how Frontier WANT you to treat your animals, keep your guests happy, lay your zoo out etc.
Of course, there are design reasons for this and many people will argue the contrary to my point (usually citing "you just need to play the game better"): There is an element of animal welfare education they want players to have, you have to plan your zoo etc. But what this STOPS you doing is being rewarded for spending hours diving into the building tools creating a beautiful zoo when that effort is thrown in your face when your zoo goes under because you haven't played the way Frontier wanted you to. So, instead you opt for a more shallow, plop-and-move-on strategy because you're punished for not keeping animals happy or guests educated by spamming boards every-where over using the powerful building tools. Now, this is then further emphasised by some players selling animals on the market for heightened prices - because THAT is the place the player gets their sense of success.. Not from their zoo. They get more of a rush from farming a tonne and selling peafowl for 100 credits than they do building beautiful, well kept zoos. Frontier seem to have missed that players will find their own level of success in whatever way they can and will shy away from anything that punishes them for their traits.
Planet Coaster on the other hand does the opposite. You are rewarded for building beautiful parks, great rides, more interesting flat rides, themed dark rides with the park rating and prestige system. Your park will operate just fine if you put minimal effort in, but you get BETTER results by making the effort. No, while this is a thin line between the 2, this does not mean you are punished for not making the effort because you're able to survive without; unlike Planet Zoo where you can say goodbye to a 2 or 3 week project for making one simple mistake.
And this for me, sums up why I put the game down after 40 or so hours but have clocked up 3000 on PlanCo and have no intention of going back while it is in this form. Planet Coaster for me is a much more rewarding game because it adapts to your play style; I'm not forced to build a theme park in the way that Frontier want me to, I am free to do whatever and find my own successes from it. Planet Zoo however punishes me for not feeding birds when it is their own keepers being bugged out that make this an issue, not my inability to feed them. I'm sometimes being punished for things that aren't even in my control.
In short, the video talks about how developers will try to weed out "undesirable player behaviours" by punishing the player for certain strategies. Think along the lines of turn limits in XCom2 or more aggressive AI for indecisive players in Civ6 etc. And this got me thinking about why, for me, Planet Zoo is just not enjoyable when Planet Coaster is.
My conclusion is that, for whatever reasons they have decided, the game punishes you for certain play styles and almost forces your hand to play their way or no way at all. How many franchise zoos have you lost through bankruptcy because of the refund thing? Or how many times you've lost prestige because of protestors? How many complaints about guests being unhappy because you didn't spam education boards everywhere? Placing facilities and being punished for them being too close to guests (and then their ranges not being effective enough to warrant hiding them anyway) when every-one knows in reality guests don't care about these things. The game punishes you for not doing these things (either the way they want you to or not at all), rather than rewarding your for doing them. Sometimes it isn't even the players fault but you are still punished. So, rather than an uplift in results, you get a negative impact instead. But, that means that if you DO want to run a basic or even a bad zoo in Franchise, you can't.. you are pretty much stuck with how Frontier WANT you to treat your animals, keep your guests happy, lay your zoo out etc.
Of course, there are design reasons for this and many people will argue the contrary to my point (usually citing "you just need to play the game better"): There is an element of animal welfare education they want players to have, you have to plan your zoo etc. But what this STOPS you doing is being rewarded for spending hours diving into the building tools creating a beautiful zoo when that effort is thrown in your face when your zoo goes under because you haven't played the way Frontier wanted you to. So, instead you opt for a more shallow, plop-and-move-on strategy because you're punished for not keeping animals happy or guests educated by spamming boards every-where over using the powerful building tools. Now, this is then further emphasised by some players selling animals on the market for heightened prices - because THAT is the place the player gets their sense of success.. Not from their zoo. They get more of a rush from farming a tonne and selling peafowl for 100 credits than they do building beautiful, well kept zoos. Frontier seem to have missed that players will find their own level of success in whatever way they can and will shy away from anything that punishes them for their traits.
Planet Coaster on the other hand does the opposite. You are rewarded for building beautiful parks, great rides, more interesting flat rides, themed dark rides with the park rating and prestige system. Your park will operate just fine if you put minimal effort in, but you get BETTER results by making the effort. No, while this is a thin line between the 2, this does not mean you are punished for not making the effort because you're able to survive without; unlike Planet Zoo where you can say goodbye to a 2 or 3 week project for making one simple mistake.
And this for me, sums up why I put the game down after 40 or so hours but have clocked up 3000 on PlanCo and have no intention of going back while it is in this form. Planet Coaster for me is a much more rewarding game because it adapts to your play style; I'm not forced to build a theme park in the way that Frontier want me to, I am free to do whatever and find my own successes from it. Planet Zoo however punishes me for not feeding birds when it is their own keepers being bugged out that make this an issue, not my inability to feed them. I'm sometimes being punished for things that aren't even in my control.
