Dinosaurs Buildings & Attractions Concept of a "possible" marine dinosaur inclusion update/DLC (and how it could work in depth)

I must confirm something first!!!
Frontier Developments confirmed countless times their focus right now are the land based stuff, especially since they’ve confirmed on the official JWE Twitter account there are so many land dinosaur options to choose from.
This means their focus now are the land dinosaurs and not stuff like mosasauruses.

However, Frontier game director Michael Brookes, who directed Jurassic World Evolution, in an interview with a big known YouTuber, TheGamingBeaver, while confirming there won't be any aquatic stuff at launch, he neither confirmed or declined on the possibility when asked about the possibility of such. Not only do they have to listen to community feedback to include it, they also have to make sure that if aquatic stuff is to be a thing in the game, everything must be done right with meaningful purpose and so fourth.
Source: https://youtu.be/EeIM1yUoyJ4

(The question and answer about aquatic stuff begins at 5:51 of the video.)

SO, I’ve decided to post out a “plausible” concept on how aquatic stuff could work in-game. I’m posting this now because I have no doubt it’s going to be a lot more difficult to plan and (if decided) to develop than with land stuff, and I know that they still got a lot of more potential exciting land stuff down the line, just so they already have a potential concept to consider and build upon or whatever for the "far" future ahead.

I am aware that plans can change over time, such as what they said above in that video, but that doesn’t mean I can’t try.

So, here we go!




First off, I believe that aquatics should have their own map, particularly those on any of the Five Death islands that aren’t prone to violent storms by lore. All for good reasons.

I don’t believe the current location maps are applicable for well-made aquatic creature habitats for several sub-reasons. If you look back at the mosasaurus's lagoon in Jurassic World, it's enormous in size, and no current map in-game seem like it could handle something like that because when I think aquatic creatures, I think a lot of space usage. The maps (excluding Isla Nublar North in campaign mode) in-game are designed for you to make the best 5 star rating parks you can get, and with so much space being taken up by expansive water exhibits, that's likely a waste of potential for more important stuff to use to make the best 5 star rating parks to progress, even with the most expansive maps I could think of like Matanceros or Sorna, the latter being the biggest of the main campaign story maps.

Another reason, is because of the shear sizes of the exhibits they would be placed in, can you imagine the memory eat up they would take when they're either constructing or so fourth if they were "building entities"? A piece by piece exhibit build up I don't see being a thing either, because I think it would be rather awkward for both in-game and development perspectives. Everything in this game is made to be cohesively well made, keep that in mind.

I believe the aquatic stuff like the lagoons and theaters should be map built-in elements that you can utilize yourself with out having to place them in the maps themselves, to make both the in-game and development perspectives out the best together.

No, don't go suggesting to just expand the current maps like Tacano or the Tacano Research Facility just because they already have giant lakes in them, like what some on Twitter conceptually made last year as below with the Isla Tacano map.
Source: https://twitter.com/steamblust/status/1043883833265967104

Redesigning the current in-game maps would with out a doubt mean "breaking" every single person's saves on main campaign, challenge, and sandbox saves with those specific maps. How many people in the entire world who bought and play this game, including my little brothers who play this game on their PS4, would think destroying their saves is the "fair way" just to include new exiting stuff like in those Twitter images above? I'll bet you very, very, very few of them.



So instead, they would be "completely separated maps".

For those maps, to fit within the game's story and lore, would likely be placed on islands that aren't prone to harsh stormy weather. The islands I can see where these kinds of maps would be a thing would be either Isla Matanceros, Isla Tacano and maybe Isla Sorna since that island is not prone to storms by description, despite having such in the main campaign, but I presume it's not by description because of its size.

Reason for this is because you can't really do much in the containment of the marine creatures as opposed to the containment of the land dinosaurs. Storms can damage certain structures, but I don't think that could be reasonable to have in those maps. Also, because these would be different maps and locations from the current ones, they can flesh out as to how they got so much saltwater for the creatures in a similar fashion as in the movies: A channel connecting from the lagoon to the sea. JWE is designed to have a well-fleshed out lore and story, taking elements from the film universe to make its own.

Again, with separate maps, there can be a different variety of structures in place of others or any other features to manage those maps to get five stars separated from the other maps. Claire's Sanctuary did something similar on Nublar North where you have access to only a handful of structures, so it's not impossible this concept would be expanded to future maps, particularly if something like this were to be in the game in the "far" future from now, you won't have access to all structures you can build on the previous maps, but you will also have access to structures exclusive only to those maps.

Since the features would be pre-built onto the map, there would be multiple lagoons in-place for one or more possible maps with only a handful of species for the water areas (which likely means, no land dinosaurs for these kinds of maps as the current in-game ones for the sake of the consistency of the new maps), and just enough to have a species variety rating. I see the lagoon structures being like separate tanks that are separated by tanks walls with doors that connect to a "huge" water area where shows, like the mosasaurus feeding show in Jurassic World, can take place. It's similar as to like how the orca shows at the SeaWorld parks work: The animals live in a separate water area while being able to move to the show area to perform. You will be able to manage the exhibit areas as well as the shows.

(I also wonder if the concept does come to be, if it would be possible to have "show" and "non-show" creatures for the maps, if you know what I mean?)

I'm not sure if something like this would be in free updates or charged DLCs, but if I had to choose, marine creatures would probably be best if they were in charged DLCd, considering there would be a lot of whatevers that would be involved that would be worth charging.



And this is where I will end it. What are your thoughts on this?
(14.11.2019 Update: Edited top paragraph after partial reveal of the Return to Jurassic Park DLC)
 
Last edited:
I think it's almost certain that they're trying their best to do something involving aquatics for this game, it's just a bit more likely for it to be on a smaller scale.

If they did go the dedicated map route, then it would need a dedicated paid DLC (they would need at least 8-10 species, especially if it was 2 maps as is usual, all of which kind of have to be built from the ground up, as well as a whole bunch of new buildings, by a team that's now a fair bit smaller than pre-launch. It certainly would take a while.).

The only potential I could really see with a free version is that of a building, leaving it open to expansion of the roster with DLC.
 
Tbh, I believe I tackled the need of a separate map system in my Marine DLC Idea, IF the devs ever plan on adding such a thing, & add their own storyline.
The memory requirements in having a marine & land park running at the same time would be high, & I doubt consoles can even handle such a system load, separating a marine park from the land parks would be the best(probably even the only) way to go.

As for the maps, you dont really have to limit ourselves to just 2, we can maybe have like 3 or 4 maps, spread out over a storyline. +1 more for Nublar.
 
I think it's almost certain that they're trying their best to do something involving aquatics for this game, it's just a bit more likely for it to be on a smaller scale.

If they did go the dedicated map route, then it would need a dedicated paid DLC (they would need at least 8-10 species, especially if it was 2 maps as is usual, all of which kind of have to be built from the ground up, as well as a whole bunch of new buildings, by a team that's now a fair bit smaller than pre-launch. It certainly would take a while.).

The only potential I could really see with a free version is that of a building, leaving it open to expansion of the roster with DLC.
Tbh, I believe I tackled the need of a separate map system in my Marine DLC Idea, IF the devs ever plan on adding such a thing, & add their own storyline.
The memory requirements in having a marine & land park running at the same time would be high, & I doubt consoles can even handle such a system load, separating a marine park from the land parks would be the best(probably even the only) way to go.

As for the maps, you dont really have to limit ourselves to just 2, we can maybe have like 3 or 4 maps, spread out over a storyline. +1 more for Nublar.
I agree that, if marine dinos are to be a thing in separate maps, they should be the only “dino entity” attractions in them. As I said above, only a handful of species. By that, I mean at last ten species, assuming there shall be more than just the mosasaurus.

As for structures, the maps can have access to all power and guest structures (except the the shelters because why would you need them when you have absolutely nothing to worry about escaping?). But for certain operation structures, you have access to only a small handful of them. Everything else from all enclosure structures, certain operation buildings, and potentially new visitor structures (albeit at a small number) that’s when and where lots of resources and time would go to.

In regards to map numbers, 2 minimum or 3 maximum main campaign story maps is good for the main campaign story of the game (excluding the potential extra sandbox version on Isla Nublar). The other islands can have location maps for something else planned in mind, but I want to wait to see what the next major update and DLC will really have first. There are rumors from one of the posts from the series of leaks that occurred from the presumed same person last Spring. However, due to several small inconsistencies in those posts, despite having such true information at best, I'm skeptical if the "aviary" as suggested is even the kind of "aviary" nearly everyone who read it believes it to be. So I want to wait and see if such "pterosaur aviary", as nearly everyone believes it to be, is going to be a thing or not. In my book, it's better to be safe than sorry.

There aren’t “too many” more new land based DLC and big update stuff I could potentially think of and see for the entire rest of the game’s remaining supporting time span (possibly only two more potential story based DLCs, a potential free update with more new dinosaurs to tie-in with new series installments, a few more 3+ dino pack DLCs, and free updates with more gameplay features and tweaks for your the game in general. All speculated based on my observations on how the game is made and works as a whole). What else could they do for big updates and DLCs together as before (Dr. Wu and Claire Dearing DLCs that each released with a big sized update) if that’s the case, after finishing up their land based stuff focus for later this year and most of next year, besides tying-in something to the next movie? This, or at least anything related to marine stuff, can be an opportunity to fill in the gaps.
 
Last edited:
(List post comment)

When it comes to unique visitor structures, perhaps there can be up to three new attractions that can fit well with the whole “marine park” theme to the potential dedicated maps, and also to make it a bit easier for the development team. (This of course is if terrariums would theoretical become a thing at some point.)
Something like, let’s say;

1. Touch pools: Where guests can just walk over and perform a touching animation before walking away

2. Ammonite aquarium: However the building shall be designed, it would be something where you can see the ammonites from outside through glass.

3. Placodont pond: Due to the fairly small size of some marine or aquatic reptiles like placodonts, this can be a way for other but smaller sea reptiles like placodonts (species like Henodus, Psephoderma, or Placodus) to make it into the game.



As for species as unique dino entities or whatever (assuming more than just the Mosasaurus would be a thing), there should be a smaller amount of them like perhaps around ten species or so, but I shall only say five of the most plausible ones I can think of. Particularly those that I think can be in shows like in Jurassic World.

1. Mosasaurus (because it’s such a big deal in the Jurassic World trilogy saga of the JP series)
2. Ichthyosaurus
3. Kronosaurus
4. Pleiseosaurus
5. Dolichorhynchops
 
Last edited:
I love the idea of touch ponds.

I don't think large aquariums or buildable lakes will ever be something we get in this game.
But having shallow pools or ponds wouldn't have the same problems. We could have small creatures in those. Most Mosasaurs, Ichthyosaurs and Plesiosaurs would all be a no go.

You could have like a shallow aquarium/pond/pool that could work pretty much like an incubator, except the animals never really leave the "building". You could introduce various smaller aquatic animals such as some that have already been mentioned like ammonites and placodonts. Other animals could include Nothosaurs and maybe even the smallest Ichthyosaurs and Mosasaurs like Carinodens and Halisaurus.
Though it fits less with the theme, maybe some small Placoderms as well.

They wouldn't be able to escape and would likely just need some basic swimming animations. With relatively little effort it could be a pretty fun attraction.
 
[/QUOTE]
Though it fits less with the theme, maybe some small Placoderms as well.
You know, with the touch pool idea, I was thinking they would have animated Trilobites as well. Now, I know they never existed during the time of the dinosaurs, but still.

On the side note, I was also thinking they (or even any other potential kind of marine animal structure attraction) could have some more modern "living fossil" animals such as the living horseshoe crabs.
 
You know, with the touch pool idea, I was thinking they would have animated Trilobites as well. Now, I know they never existed during the time of the dinosaurs, but still.

On the side note, I was also thinking they (or even any other potential kind of marine animal structure attraction) could have some more modern "living fossil" animals such as the living horseshoe crabs.
Well neither did placoderms, which is why I said it wouldn't fit as well. But yeah, Horseshoe crabs could work.
 
Speaking of a marine reptile DLC, anybody want to the following species in the game?

1. Archelon
2. Ichthyosaurus
3. Mosasaurus
4. Plesiosaurus
 
Speaking of a marine reptile DLC, anybody want to the following species in the game?

1. Archelon
2. Ichthyosaurus
3. Mosasaurus
4. Plesiosaurus
The Tylosaurus would be another that ought to be in it. preferably more of a JP:TG look for it
 
The Tylosaurus would be another that ought to be in it. preferably more of a JP:TG look for it
Well, if Tylosaurus is to be a thing in the game, I think it will have its own design as Frontier don’t copy designs from other existing Jurassic games.
 
At this point in time, I still currently don't believe aquatic creatures can still be a thing in any of the current maps, absolutely not, not even the upcoming two maps from the Return to Jurassic Park DLC. However, with the reveal of the aviary that can be used on all current known maps in the game with lands dinosaur access, I think it can also be used on maps where only aquatic creatures would be accessible and the replacements for land dinosaurs on those maps as I laid out above in the thread.
153578

The aviary above can be placed on maps with the lands dinosaurs, so why not do the same with maps where only aquatics are going to be a thing and no lands dinosaurs as I currently predict above, conceptually?
Why do I think so, you might be wondering? Assuming the idea of aquatics being map exclusive with those maps having no access to any land dinosaurs for the consistence of my conceptual idea in this thread will be a thing, it wouldn't sound fair at all if one map can have access to two types of creatures and another to only one type. Having all three types placed on maps that would be too different from the others may not sound fair at all either from a general perspective. So, in order to balance this idea, if ever planned and decided, I think the aviary above should be accessible to both map types, land and aquatic. After all, the pteranodons from the upcoming DLC and any other potential future flying creatures are likely to be building exclusive. There's no reason not to say they shouldn't be accessible on aquatic based only maps on only land based maps if they will all have land to build upon, right? It can certainly provide the positive effects for those kinds of maps as they will for the current ten released and two upcoming maps.
 
Last edited:
At this point in time, I still currently don't believe aquatic creatures can still be a thing in any of the current maps, absolutely not, not even the upcoming two maps from the Return to Jurassic Park DLC.
I dunno, It seems completely doable to have pretty much the same system as the aviary for a shallow pool/aquarium. Just have a big building that is placed on land that can have a bunch of aquatic reptiles in it. The only big downside is that you wouldn't be able to have any real big animals like the gigantically oversized Mosasaurus from the film. But you would be able to have smaller mosasaur species as well as things like plesiosaurs or ichthyosaurs.
The requirements would be mostly the same as the aviary, you just need a big plot of flat land to place it on.
 
IMO, I'd prefer having the Marine DLC (If ever it becomes a thing), to have separate dedicated maps.
What makes the difference between the Aviary & a Marine DLC(IF ever), is that the former just requires a bird cage, meaning its easy for it to be placed alongside the land dinos, while the latter requires space for roaming, which I assume would be obstensively big, like those required by the Brachios.

The next issue would be the mechanics of viewing. Limiting ourselves to shallow water is fine since we can basically see the bottom, the problem is with the deepwater. Cant really see much if the animal is basically sitting at the very bottom, from which would require a new mechanism for viewing.

Third, though I'm not 100% sure of this, would be system requirements. Running a marine & land parks in parallel would likely require more system resources, particulary RAM. Considering the game is a multi-platform. IF this game WERE a pc exclusive like Planet Zoo, it probably would not be a problem.
 
Last edited:
I dunno, It seems completely doable to have pretty much the same system as the aviary for a shallow pool/aquarium. Just have a big building that is placed on land that can have a bunch of aquatic reptiles in it. The only big downside is that you wouldn't be able to have any real big animals like the gigantically oversized Mosasaurus from the film. But you would be able to have smaller mosasaur species as well as things like plesiosaurs or ichthyosaurs.
The requirements would be mostly the same as the aviary, you just need a big plot of flat land to place it on.
IMO, I'd prefer having the Marine DLC (If ever it becomes a thing), to have separate dedicated maps.
What makes the difference between the Aviary & a Marine DLC(IF ever), is that the former just requires a bird cage, meaning its easy for it to be placed alongside the land dinos, while the latter requires space for roaming, which I assume would be obstensively big, like those required by the Brachios.

The next issue would be the mechanics of viewing. Limiting ourselves to shallow water is fine since we can basically see the bottom, the problem is with the deepwater. Cant really see much if the animal is basically sitting at the very bottom, from which would require a new mechanism for viewing.

Third, though I'm not 100% sure of this, would be system requirements. Running a marine & land parks in parallel would likely require more system resources, particulary RAM. Considering the game is a multi-platform. IF this game WERE a pc exclusive like Planet Zoo, it probably would not be a problem.
If you look at the Mosasaurus and its lagoon in the film series, you’ll see they are both absolutely huge. For a game like this, I think it would make sense if the animal was given a big enough water source to roam around happily and not in a tightly compact space where it won’t be able to move around so much.

With the pteranodons, all they need is big enough cage to roam about, but the mosasaurs would need more space than what the upcoming aviary will take up. From what I’ve seen in my opinion, the aviary is just the right size to fit in all maps, including the tiniest of them all (Pena and Tacano Research Facility), for you to use and to still give you enough room for you to make a five star park. On my Isla Pena progression park, I could just remove my rex enclosure that encompassed a good portion of the far end of that island and replace it with the aviary. But, both it and the Tacano facility may not leave enough room for you to build a functional five star rating park if a Mosasaurus lagoon were to be placed in.
 
If you look at the Mosasaurus and its lagoon in the film series, you’ll see they are both absolutely huge. For a game like this, I think it would make sense if the animal was given a big enough water source to roam around happily and not in a tightly compact space where it won’t be able to move around so much.

With the pteranodons, all they need is big enough cage to roam about, but the mosasaurs would need more space than what the upcoming aviary will take up. From what I’ve seen in my opinion, the aviary is just the right size to fit in all maps, including the tiniest of them all (Pena and Tacano Research Facility), for you to use and to still give you enough room for you to make a five star park. On my Isla Pena progression park, I could just remove my rex enclosure that encompassed a good portion of the far end of that island and replace it with the aviary. But, both it and the Tacano facility may not leave enough room for you to build a functional five star rating park if a Mosasaurus lagoon were to be placed in.
Which is exactly why I'm saying it should be smaller aquatic reptiles only. I think the canon Mosasaur should just be forgotten as an option for this game as it's just ridiculously large. It's the largest creature that would ever have lived. It's larger than the largest sauropod and larger than the blue whale. I don't think there's a good way to implement such a gigantic creature in this game. Having separate maps for gigantic sea creatures wouldn't be practical nor fun.
So from here on out I say, just forget about that particular animal.
A realistic Mosasaurus hoffmanni might be more doable since it's roughly T.rex size at around 12 meters, instead of the 60-ish meters that we see in the film. But even large lizards such as that would be problematic.

Which is why I'm saying lets just have small mosasaurs and other aquatic reptiles. There's plenty of nifty animals that are more like 3 to 5 meters.
Think like Clidastes, Platecarpus and Carinodens for different Mosasaurs. Platypterygius and Opthalmosaurus for Ichthyosaurs. Maybe Cryptoclidus for Plesiosaurs. And then there's Nothosaurus and Placodus for some nice Triassic reptiles.
Even with smaller aquatic reptiles there's plenty of fun options.
 
Which is exactly why I'm saying it should be smaller aquatic reptiles only. I think the canon Mosasaur should just be forgotten as an option for this game as it's just ridiculously large. It's the largest creature that would ever have lived. It's larger than the largest sauropod and larger than the blue whale. I don't think there's a good way to implement such a gigantic creature in this game. Having separate maps for gigantic sea creatures wouldn't be practical nor fun.
So from here on out I say, just forget about that particular animal.
A realistic Mosasaurus hoffmanni might be more doable since it's roughly T.rex size at around 12 meters, instead of the 60-ish meters that we see in the film. But even large lizards such as that would be problematic.

Which is why I'm saying lets just have small mosasaurs and other aquatic reptiles. There's plenty of nifty animals that are more like 3 to 5 meters.
Think like Clidastes, Platecarpus and Carinodens for different Mosasaurs. Platypterygius and Opthalmosaurus for Ichthyosaurs. Maybe Cryptoclidus for Plesiosaurs. And then there's Nothosaurus and Placodus for some nice Triassic reptiles.
Even with smaller aquatic reptiles there's plenty of fun options.
IF FD ever goes that way, they better brace themselves from players who'd cry "We want the big Mosasaur in the film!".

2 possible options I believe.
1-Limit the Marine DLC to smaller animals that'll fit in shallow water as what we currently have, so as they can be run along side the land park.
OR
2-Separate dedicated map, with separate mechanics & features.

That's how I think it'll happen, IF it does happen for that matter.

PS: Current problem w/ the shallow water we have is that its way too shallow. Like 3-4 feet of water. Then again, how shallow is shallow?
 
IF FD ever goes that way, they better brace themselves from players who'd cry "We want the big Mosasaur in the film!".

2 possible options I believe.
1-Limit the Marine DLC to smaller animals that'll fit in shallow water as what we currently have, so as they can be run along side the land park.
OR
2-Separate dedicated map, with separate mechanics & features.

That's how I think it'll happen, IF it does happen for that matter.

PS: Current problem w/ the shallow water we have is that its way too shallow. Like 3-4 feet of water. Then again, how shallow is shallow?
One thing is for certain, Frontier will have to add Mosasaurus into JWE. With the addition of the Pteranodon Aviary in Return to Jurassic Park, Dimorphodon is virtually guaranteed to be added at some point in the near future; that would leave Mosasaurus as the only onscreen animal to not be in the game. Undoubtedly, there would be significant pressure from both the fans and the higher ups to try and add the marine reptile.

I believe if an aquatic enclosure were to be added, it would be somewhat similar to the aviary; an exhibit with a built in hatchery, and fixed viewing points that are both on the surface and underwater. It would also have to be unlocked at some point during the main campaign (after completing the DLC campaign) because it’s too iconic and deeply ingrained within Jurassic World for it to be exclusive to only the DLC campaign and Sandbox.

As for the Mosasaurus, it would have to be bigger than its real life counterpart because it is the Jurassic universe. But it wouldn’t be the leviathan that it was in the movies, I believe the ideal size for it would be 21 metres long.

2AC05708-042A-4814-A762-906E50489EBA.jpeg
 
That's some serious discrepancy in the Mosa's size. Though I bet FD wouldn't go for the Fallen Kingdom version as its horrendously too large, the JW version would possibly be a better candidate.

You know, if you guys remember the movie "Deep Blue Sea", yeah, that one with the sharks, thats the reason why its better if the Marine DLC is given separate & dedicated maps IMO. At least that way, FD would make new mechanics & features for us to experience, without increasing system requirements(if possible, by only a small margin). Because combining them all would likely limit players at to what they can put on an already limited map size.
Marine animals require places to swim around, it'll be boring if they'd just sit in 1 place like a croc because their habitat is too small.
 
Last edited:
One thing is for certain, Frontier will have to add Mosasaurus into JWE. With the addition of the Pteranodon Aviary in Return to Jurassic Park, Dimorphodon is virtually guaranteed to be added at some point in the near future; that would leave Mosasaurus as the only onscreen animal to not be in the game. Undoubtedly, there would be significant pressure from both the fans and the higher ups to try and add the marine reptile.

I believe if an aquatic enclosure were to be added, it would be somewhat similar to the aviary; an exhibit with a built in hatchery, and fixed viewing points that are both on the surface and underwater. It would also have to be unlocked at some point during the main campaign (after completing the DLC campaign) because it’s too iconic and deeply ingrained within Jurassic World for it to be exclusive to only the DLC campaign and Sandbox.

As for the Mosasaurus, it would have to be bigger than its real life counterpart because it is the Jurassic universe. But it wouldn’t be the leviathan that it was in the movies, I believe the ideal size for it would be 21 metres long.

View attachment 153724
Mosasaurus in the film series is definitely larger than the current largest known specimen in the current fossil record, but I don't think it was ever THAT BIG in Fallen Kingdom. Was it really? I always thought it was always the same size as it was in the first JW film, what ever it really is.

I've seen multiple pictures of what the size of that this really is in the film series, but often times they're really over exaggerating as opposed to what it may actually have been in both films if I look again at some JW trilogy video clips from the two movies. I'm unable to find a straight answer on how big it was in Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom or indeed any of the films specifically, because reliable in-universe sources vary so much and everywhere else is just generic people who think they know so much as "right" and/or just filling the gaps with their own interpretations. Also, because of the way the animal was shown on-screen, regardless which film it is, it makes it really difficult to see how big "exactly" it really is from a general perspective.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom