Everything is possible thanks to the game's construction system.
Yes and no.
We can build indoor habitats using the null barrier, but you can't use a null barrier to build an aquarium, and it's doubtful that Frontier would create a barrier system that 'requires' on-grid building pieces in order to function. Could they design something that works? Probably - the devs are obviously very talented. I just think it's a huge gamble to take for something that might not be as popular as you might think.
In any case, the null barrier was initially slated as something to use to create natural barriers, with rocks, terrain, and foliage. I imagine Frontier knew people would use building pieces and create custom fences as well (hence why animals don't clip through them), but I don't believe this was the intended purpose (which is likely why barriers are graded in levels). When you look at it from a distance, the systems in place in
Planet Zoo are actually pretty basic; it's the creativity of the players that has led to these systems being used the way they are commonly used. In this regard I'd say we're just lucky that Frontier made such a versatile game.
This is likely for small fish. A small aquarium, just like the exhibit of insects and snakes.
Again, no, not necessarily. You could probably keep a modest school of red-bellied piranha in a tank the size of the current exhibit, as an example, or a common octopus, or a lionfish, a pair of porcupine puffers, a community of tropical reef animals (anenome, clownfish, damselfish, shrimp, corals, and so on). You'd miss out on a panther grouper, or a barracuda, or a shark, but those aren't commonly-seen zoo animals, even in zoos that have dedicated aquariums.
the game already allows this. people are already able to do things that are not real in this game so I am not very concerned with whether it is realistic or not.
As I said above, this is due to player creativity, not intended purpose. There is a big difference. Frontier has given us the tools to be creative, but the intent of the game is not to fill a glass barrier with water and throw a shark into it.
The in-game exhibits are a good indicator of this, since you have to ensure the animals in them have the right temperature and humidity. Though this is a very basic system in-game, it is designed to emulate a very real system which is much more complex. It would be the same with fish tanks. Water chemistry is hugely important when keeping live fish,
especially if you intend on setting up a breeding programme.
I guess I can guess why you think it's not realistic. It is impossible to hold so much water in such a high aquarium, the aquarium would probably explode. and also the ground of the ZT2's tank system was very bad. so I guess you're saying it's not realistic.
The systems in
Zoo Tycoon and
Zoo Tycoon 2 were fine for what they were, but neither of those games were intended to be especially realistic.
Planet Zoo is different in that regard; Frontier has paid close attention to detail in many different ways (as much as they can without making the game overly complex and nigh unplayable, I imagine).
yes i agree with it. I would have preferred a bigger game focused on completely separate aquariums, rather than buying a DLC pack with few sea animals. better in every way. Because at Planet Zoo, I don't think they will focus too much on aquariums and be detailed. but we have talked about this separate game many times before, people want to make different themed parks on a map. so I don't know if this will be okay. frankly I am on the side that likes to mix animals on a map.
I know it is possible to combine two separate games. but everything has to be the same, graphics, game engine and more.
If I remember correctly in ZT2, expansion packs allowed us to play in a separate game way. but when they had it all, they would unite. As far as I can remember, I played Marine Mania, Extinct animals and Endangered animals as a separate game. that is, it was only an aquarium game when it did not install other packages on Marine Mania.
Here we're falling into the trap again of comparing 'expansion packs' to DLC. Expansion packs are a thing of the past, generally speaking. The industry moves too quickly, gamers have shorter attention spans, so content needs to be more frequently produced in order to satisfy consumer demand. Even if they do make DLC with more content than we've gotten thus far (which if they add birds for example, they will doubtless have to, since you can't cover a group as broad as 'birds' with just four-five species), it won't be as extensive as the expansion packs of old, IMO.
In any case, I was more speaking from a personal perspective on that point that I'd rather not sacrifice the elements that make
Planet Zoo a 'zoo game'. Giving it too much of an aquarium vibe means it isn't
Planet Zoo anymore, and it would also mean we're sacrificing regular zoo content for aquarium content. The game isn't going to have eternal support, which means there will be a finite number of DLC packs we can expect to be added. Currently there are still so many missing animals from the game even without taking birds or aquaria into consideration, and
even then I think birds should take priority over aquaria.
Just in my own opinion, my order of priorities would basically be:
- Zoo animals (meerkats, black and/or white rhinos, more antelope and deer, clouded leopards, gibbons, more monkeys, and so on).
- Birds (macaws, cockatoos, birds of prey).
- Zoo marine animals (pinnipeds, penguins).
- Petting zoo animals (classic 'zoo barnyard').
- Aquarium animals (fish only, no cetaceans).
You could fold aquarium fish into a marine animal DLC, but I think it should only be 'exhibit-style' aquaria.
(but I dont think they will, so..)