Park / Ports of Magia

73 Comments

  • gymkid dude%s's Photo
    i think people are almost acting like chris has done something wrong by winning spotlight. This would be getting totally different comments if it was a SRU. I thought this was a good park and showed improvement from BGE (which was also a SRU).

    I agree with the argument of protecting the sanctity of the spotlight and whatnot, but don't take it out on Chris who HELPED NE by submitting his park, but calling it a ripoff, entirely unoriginal, etc.
  • iris%s's Photo

    Not to start up an argument (I'm glad I got SRU), but this statement doesn't seem fair. So what if Disney parks are flooding the market? If one is better than the others, don't let those others drag that one down.

    Anyway, congrats on both SRU and now this Spotlight, Chris. I'll take a look at the park later. I've already turned RCT2 off for the night.

    Iceman...it's not a knock on you. If anything, it's just bad luck. There are only so many times you can see the same couple themed areas in the same general way before you begin to get bored with it. You still had a very nice park though so don't think I'm taking away from you. But the first thing the Spotlight park has to do is make me excited...and I Just can't get excited over something I've seen done again and again for the past 6 months.
  • artist%s's Photo
    I happy with most of these replys but a little pissed at a few of them.

    I mean i knew this would spark some controversy and im glad it did, we BGE all i got was "this park was great" blah blah with the odd expects when people actually gave me realy comments. I like the comments i have gotten with Ports of Magia, it is the only way for me to improve. Although i should tell you that POM was started basicly as soon as i finished BGE so the style was going to be a little similar. Now i know what i have to do to improve and make my next park "spotlight material" which imo im going the right way with it atm.

    Like the frist three areas of PoM were made me my usal stuff, great looking but very infulenced and the same old stuff, but when it came to Watermelon valley i really thought about what i was doing and played around with a couple of buildings for about 5 hours then i had worked out the theme and imo refined my style a bit more. Many people will agree that calyspo cove wasn't the greatest but imo it was my second best area. Now my style is getting more refined and my own i shouldnt have a problem, plus im getting ALOT of new great ideas, well you will see in my new solo and hopefully if that one gets spotlight it wont be a dissapointment.

    To the people who have said pretty mean stuff, not slob not toon not x none of you were mean, i loved your replys and i have taken them in but to people who think i have done something wrong, well you can basicly shut the fuck up because i have done nothing wrong i have built a park and submitted into spotlight for you all to enjoy, how was i to know it would get spotlight..

    Anyways i guess i will see you soon with a new park or maybe not ;)
  • Corkscrewed%s's Photo
    :lol:

    Less than 24 hours and PoM has already reached the mandated third page (remember the old "three page rules" before a new Spotlight is posted? :p ). It took Bijou Magic like three months to get that far! :D

    I can respect Toon's argument. Essentially, he's saying even if we have to wait years, then so be it. And then he sticks to his argument without letting any subjectivity creep in. I disagree with the opinion, but that's better than arguing about styles and stuff. Honestly, I liked it a lot more than Toon. Whereas Toon thought half the park was kinda boring and not themed well, I really enjoyed all of it. The point that we differ on is that Spotlights "should be masterpieces," (and if that's the case, then that would be changing it from before, because I would argue that half of our Spotlights are not instant classics). I'm willing to bend, but Toon and Posix (even though I argued the semantics of your post, I understand the gist of it) and apparently many of you refuse to budge from your standards.

    Ultimately, this feedback is stuff I enjoy, because it:
    1. Shows the community is still interested and not dead
    2. Motivates people to action
    3. Generates buzz and interest. No publicity is bad publicity, I say.

    I want to make it clear that I didn't post this park just to cause a stir (or else Bayfront would be a Spotlight :p ), but I'm glad it HAS caused a stir. This has apparently already motivated at least one person to get off his ass and do something. Maybe it can do more too.



    On the subject of Iceman (and I know you're not trying to argue, but I wanted to point out a few things so you don't think you were being unfairly graded), there were a couple of glaring flaws that took it under Spotlight level.
    - Treeing = very bad
    - Rides = very lackluster

    The treeing is almost a consequence of your personal choice to change scales, so it's sort of something that can't be helped. Still, where you needed a dense collection trees, say on the Jungle Cruise, your execution really detracted from the atmosphere. When compared to how strong it is where your architecture is rich, the inconsistency proved to be a real downer.

    Though theming is more important to me than rides, I do like rides, and yours weren't quite to the caliber. That's not meant to be offensive to you. After all, my rides, for the most part, suck too. But since Disney rides and theming are connected, your rides affected your theming there (case A: Big Thunder Mountain), and detracted from the quality too.

    So basically, to me, it wasn't that your park was Disney that it didn't make it. The two above reasons were the biggest factors, given what I had to judge (which, as it was, equaled like 6000 screenshots). I admit that I can't make a 100% accurate accessment, since I don't have WW, but hopefully, that explanation allays your worries about being unfairly judged. :)


    Still waiting for cg? to rip this park a new one... or something.

    It's kinda funny, because I honestly think this park was better than Bijou, but Bijou got MUCH more positive feedback than this. The only reason I can think of is because people seem to be put off by the "unoriginality" of this, how it's "too similar" to recent parks or something. I don't think that should really matter, but to each his own. It makes for a more colorful site!


    EDIT:

    To the people who have said pretty mean stuff, not slob not toon not x none of you were mean, i loved your replys and i have taken them in but to people who think i have done something wrong, well you can basicly shut the fuck up because i have done nothing wrong i have built a park and submitted into spotlight for you all to enjoy, how was i to know it would get spotlight..

    I dunno... most of the stuff seems aimed at me, not you, Chris. :lol:
  • Evil WME%s's Photo
    Well, i think i'll finally meddle in the discussion.


    When I look at this park, i don't see "five different parkmakers." Really, I don't. The entrance area looks as much as some early xsector work, as corkscrewed's, as johns to me. Maybe it looks like a bit of turtle too, well, who cares. It's actually a very plain, calm theme, which doesn't spark out any one who particularly made it. The problems I had with this areas was the obvious coaster end. Goddamn you Chris for not changing that! :@ and, well. What xsector implied on. It all looks great to me, i think it's wonderful when i try to view it "objectively." Yet, when i look at it as a whole it doesn't really capture me. The buildings don't have individual purposes. Not even names for that matter. They're just... facades even though they aren't meant to be just that. The giga section actually improves somewhat on that, yet it still has that feeling. The coaster is nicely done, though. The western section is probably the area i like least because this particular one does look just a tad much like sierra glen. And well, the coaster really looks very ugly to me. I do like the "crazy old man" idea, but somehow that idea isn't really very 'visual.' throughout the theme again. To say it doesn't have atmosphere would be using that word wrongly, but it seems to miss some aspect (which isn't originality, however much other people have said that...) that makes it nice to explore, look at, and dig out the details. To skip an area and save the best for last... I thought the colorful area was quite horrible. Its not bad objectively speaking, but just something that doesn't fit into my taste very well when looking at (semi)realistic parks. The invert didn't exactly "make my day" either. Bland, odd choices that didn't seem to work. If i were building an invert in your park that would help drastically, of course ;). However, the watermelon area is great. People can't say you "copied" this because its so blatantly your own. The 2 by 2 interesting architecture, the incredibly dense foliage... incredible. Not the most aesthetic area, not one i'll look at again and again possibly, but one i looked at for more than i ever did look at the rest of the park. Not so much "fake architecture" that seems like something 'new' these days... or maybe its always been there.. nahh. Banana mountain is great, the coaster is great, even the smoothies building looks like one building with one purpose. By far the best area.

    Now this, people, should be what a post about a park is about first hand. Whether you think it was spotlight quality is actually almost irrelevant, it seems. Now the discussion has been started I'll meddle in too, and i stand almost where corkscrewed and iris stand. I might have been edging for a super runner up but after giving the park more of a chance i might have made the same decision. Furthermore, waiting for an "incredible" park from parkmakers that just aren't there yet for the most part seems nonsense. In the beginning of NE the bar for spotlights was lower as well, and why shouldn't it be now? Because of all those whiny people that know "better"? And not even talking about the beginning of NE, what about DNET spotlights? And yes, a lot of parkmakers have dissapeared or almost dissapeared. For one thing, even though iris said this h2h captaining took me away from soloing, it actually got me back into rct and atleast making h2h parks. I haven't even attempted to start a solo in a long time, and i don't think i will anytime soon as i know i just won't finish it. And possibly, that's because my 'standard' is too high. I take ages to get something the way i like. Although, yes, inspiration can drive you to make something quickly, but a full solo needs more than that. Thought on how the paths weave the areas together, the way the areas look in comparison to one another, the way the entire park looks like one park and not like four. All this is really an incredibly hard concept, and its actually easiest not to know what you're doing and just building straight off and forget about what you've learned from your previous park efforts. Possibly half of the extra efforts most parkmakers put in their parks go unnoticed, because other people don't have the experience themselves, too. What i notice most about my last solo efforts is that i often just get stuck, and don't really build anything but just change minor things here and there. The outcome is a feeling you've done the absolute personal best, yet most people won't really notice it until they're able to look really well into a park. I'm probably not making much sense now, and i think i'll stop. What corkscrewed said is right though, who are you guys to critique artist like this? For one thing, artist, imo, is well on his way to becoming one of the better, maybe best, parkmakers on this site. If not with this park, look forward to his next.
  • Corkscrewed%s's Photo
    Well said, Mark. It's probably more important to concentrate on the highs and lows of this park, not whether or not it should have been Spotlight. Although there's nothing wrong with setting your opinion for the level of a Spotlight, I believe it is misguided when you zealously elevate it to a nearly impossible to achieve level. And even more misaligned when that mindset sways you into viewing an otherwise outstanding park with a black eye.

    I don't think we'd be having so much "outrage" if I had waited until April and then posted this as an SRU. Honestly. I'd probably have 15 people say it should have been Spotlight, and then the rest of you comment on how great it is. By my placing it as a Spotlight, many seem to have immediately raised their glasses to utopian subjectivity, thus ignoring what's there. It's like when Iris unveiled Sea World Atlanta and called it "perfect." At once, people channeled in on how it wasn't actually "perfect," as Iris had said, rather than talk about the park. They only nitpicked on negatives, or mostly nitpicked on negatives.

    This is RCT. It's a game, and a fun one at that. Why must we be cynical? In six years of playing, I personally think I've retained the same awe and respect for fine work now as I did when I first discovered Danimation. The knowledge and understanding of "what is good" may have changed and expanded, but I don't go around calling good parks "boring" or "crappy" or whatnot. I get a lot of that at NE... it's like the only way people can be impressed nowadays is by cutting edge, totally original, previously unimaginable works. If not, it's just a 'meh.'

    Whatever happened to simple enjoyment of the game? This park is still better than 99.9% of all other RCT parks in existence. I think that counts for something. I feel that often, we're so consumed with innovation that anything less is failure. To strive for innovation and use that as motivation is one thing; to let this demand govern your mindset is to inhibit your own progress.

    As with the way I govern my life, I believe balance is the key. You can never go completely gung-ho in any direction and hope to move. Just as you don't escape quicksand by thrashing about intensely, you don't go anywhere with parkmaking by always striving towards a pinnacle. It won't happen, and as many of our members have found, if you keep on aiming toward something and stopping yourself because you haven't gotten there, you'll never produce anything. In turn, if you view others' parks in the same way, you'll never GET anything.

    The fact is that this is a great park. I don't find its flaws to be glaring. I don't see them detracting enough to hurt its chances. Once again, I maintain that this park is better than Bijou Magic. If that could get a Spotlight and a great reception, why can't this? Because it's "similar?" That's just boulderdash.



    *** Note: these past few giant posts I've been making in this thread is more of a comment to the community in general, rather than personal defense. That's why this one above isn't only about Spotlight vs SRU but also about attitudes in general. But this thread seems to be the right place to vent these musings. ***

    *** Note 2: Actually, reflecting upon this, I'd like to get your opinions on just what should be a Spotlight and what shouldn't. Talk about that here. Keep this thread on track about Ports of Magia, but I'm actually interested in what people have to say about judging parks in general. ***
  • posix%s's Photo

    As for the spotlight question.  I have talked a little to Iris about my thoughts.  I honestly feel that Spotlight should be reserved for parks that have an obvious brilliance to them.  If you open the park up and have to think about it, then it shouldn't win.  If this means that there is no spotlight for 6 months, then so be it.  If it means that there are four in four weeks, because that many amazing parks are submitted, then so be it.  Spotlight should be the ultimate park achievement and I think by giving the award away too easily it tarnishes that achievement.  In Corky's opinion this park was worthy and I respect that, but I hate to see it being awarded because it's the best park submitted in the last 4 months.  It may be the best you see for 4 more months, but that still doesn't make it worthy of Spotlight.

    amen.
    corkscrewed, hmm, i guess i could keep discussing with you for a while, quoting every word you wrote and give my shit to it, but honestly, i'm little too lazy, and i'd rather talk on aim about it.
    anyway, chauncey's posts are always top consumable quality, i agree.
  • Metropole%s's Photo
    I liked the park very much. The right hand side of the island was far superior to the left if you understand what i mean.

    Watermelon valley (as everyone said) was by far the best area. Those watercoasters were supreme and the colours worked excellent. A great display of originality.

    The area with the invert was quite nice, probably the second best area in the park, again with some nice colours, it just seemed that not quite as much care was put into this section.

    The left hand side of the park was solid, nothing more, nothing less. The architecture was mainly uninspiring and all similar in style and design. It's when buildings become unique that an area looks better (like watermelon valley) It must be said that you did pull this area/s off well, and there was nothing bad about them so to speak, but they just didn't jump out at me at all. If the park was based off more original ideas that I know you can do then there would be no doubt that this is spotlight worthy.

    In a way, I don't think this should have quite made spotlight, personally. Yes, it was better than BGE, and BGE did deserve a super runner up, so it would make sense for this to be spotlight, but I don't think it is quite there. I think Bijou was spotlight quality, and this was very nearly there. I don't think it should be based on the fact that this was the best park in 4 months or whatever. Spotlight quality is spotlight quality. On the other hand, I don't think a park needs to totally bewilder and Wow you to be spotlight. Turtle's park didn't do that, as that was not it's aim, but the parkmaking skills and the aesthetically pleasing architecture, landscape and rides were definately spotlight quality. I think that in all of these aspects, Bijou was superior to PoS.

    However, the feeling I get from these replies is that Chris is to blame for that fact that his park was made spotlight when in some people's opinions it didn't deserve it. Like Iris said, at least he is releasing quality parks at the moment, which is more than most of us (myself included) Comments like "this is the second worst spotlight" just aren't needed in my opinion, putting down the parkmaker and park, when quite simply, it is a quality park that deserves recognition. They don't really get anyone anywhere.

    Anyway, congradulations on the quality park and spotlight place Chris, and I look forward to seeing more parks that you are churning out at an incredible pace. Congradulations.

    Metro B)
  • x-sector%s's Photo
    EDIT:Deleted I have had a bad day.
  • killing_moon%s's Photo

    Its the last time I comment on a park. ...
    ...I won't post anymore comments on peoples parks.

    Ok, you had a point, but there's no need to be a drama queen about it. That sort of comment is obviously aimed at people saying, "oh no010101!!!xx!!! d0|\|7-5t0p-ur-commentS!!!!1".

    I can't open the park - saying I'm missing an object?
  • Toon%s's Photo
    X, I really don't think anyone was mad at you for stating your opinion. If you want to look at it positively, you started a fantastic dialogue. It's unfortunate that Artist has to suffer for this dialogue, but this is the most action I've seen around here for a long time. I hate to say it too, but I think your over-reacting a bit.
  • x-sector%s's Photo
    Sorry everyone I've just had a shit day forget whatever I posted.
  • artist%s's Photo
    Its alright x .

    Your posts were fine and i didnt have no problem with them. Although i didnt get to see the edited ones, lol.

    It was chapel's reply that had pissed me off, i have done nothing wrong and even though you may have not blamed me but the way you phrased your comment was like it was my fault.

    Anyways thanks for the comments everyone.
  • Tech Artist%s's Photo
    This style argument seems way to familiar to me. Oh wait, I was in one with my PT Mine Train entry.

    I don't see why some of you are getting all uptight with this. Who cares if he wants to build in a style that someone else builds in.
    For an example I'll use my PT entry. Some people said things like I was trying to imitate Foozy or John when in reality I was trying out their styles and putting my own spin on it just like Artist did here. Now look how many people are building in that over-detailed way.
    Imo, building in someone elses style helps you move on to invent your own style(Which I've done since that entry.). I think as long as you don't rip of their ideas or actully copy the person, then I don't see the problem in building in their style.

    Also, when did the idea of "Someone who builds in a certain style owns that style" come around? I don't see how someone could own a style.

    I don't really want to get into a whole long post about this. My point is, if Artist wants to build using the style of other parkmakers then let him. I think this is a good way for him to invent his own style and become a great parkmaker. Plus, if I was one of those parkmakers, I'd actully be glad that someone wants to build in my style. It shows that person/people truely like your work. Just as long as they did it to improve there parkmaking skills. Now if Artist used the styles of other people in every single one of his parks, then I could see why some people would get mad about it but he doesn't seem to be doing that.
  • Turtle%s's Photo
    I think there's nothing wrong with taking inspiration from parks, even to the point of building in someone's style.

    slob was touching on a point here -

    honestly, i am flattered that you like my work and i'm sure the other guys are too, but at the same time, it kinda sucks for me to see you winning spotlight off of all this work that isn't completley yours.


    When the park that's serving as the inspiration is unreleased, it seems a little unfair.
  • Toon%s's Photo

    When the park that's serving as the inspiration is unreleased, it seems a little unfair.

    Then be more careful who you show your unfinished work to. It's near impossible to see something you love and not incorporate aspects of it into your own work. It's not Artist's fault he builds faster than the rest of you. Trust me a lot more is done on IOA than people have seen or may think is done. I just decided to keep it to myself for this very reason.
  • John%s's Photo
    Well, I decided to post about all of this after all. I was absolutely floored when I first opened the park and didn't know what to say.

    My problem with the park isn't that it was "inspired" by other work, which is what people seem to so adamantly defend; my problem is that the themes were not pulled off well enough given how similiar they to the originals.

    At first glance I was shocked and surprised to see that someone would be inspired by Venetia Harbour - because I don't care for it too much myself. After the original flattery subsided, I felt insulted. A park of mine that I am not exactly particular to served as "inspiration" for an area that was no better - and perhaps worse - than what I had originally built! It's a far cry from just looking alike due to scenery or texture limits... just looking at the two eliminates that as a possibility. But maybe that's because I built the "inspiration" and see it differently, I don't know. It's one thing to take an idea or theme and expand on it - because that's what everybody does in one way or another; it's a completely different thing to just take the idea or theme... and virtually copy it. I'm sorry if all of this has come off as sounding arrogant because that was not my intent and that's not how I am. No grudges or hard feelings. I know that it's all just a part of your growth in the game. Sometimes it needs a little venting though. ;)

    I'm happy that Ports of Magia exceeded Corkscrewed's expectations for spotlight.
    It's a little depressing that at the same time, it had to exceed my limit for "inspiration".
    Next time I hope to see less everybody else work - and more Chris - in there.
  • Ride6%s's Photo

    Then be more careful who you show your unfinished work to. It's near impossible to see something you love and not incorporate aspects of it into your own work.  It's not Artist's fault he builds faster than the rest of you.  Trust me a lot more is done on IOA than people have seen or may think is done.  I just decided to keep it to myself for this very reason.

    ooo... Good news for once. IOA.

    I honestly do like this park a lot, I'm just very unsure is spotlight is the right title for it. Artist it's not your faunt that the whole place has blown up over your park, nor is it really Corks or Iris's. This is really a release of NE's negitivity, all at once. I really think the site will be far better off for it in the long run and the activity is rather refreashing. The last time I remember topics going to three pages in two days was two and a half years ago when I first joined.

    ride6
  • Roberto Roboparks%s's Photo
    Damn, this park kicks some serious ass. I agree with this park being picked for spotlight. Ports Of Magia blew me away, the SRU's did not. And to add to the spotlight discusion; I'd rather wait for a really, really good park then do to see some lesser parks. If that means waiting for months, then so be it. Meanwhile, you can please us with SRU's.

    :yup:
  • Themeparkmaster%s's Photo
    I haven't looked at the park in game, but the screens do look very good. I can't say whether I think it deserved to get spotlight or not I can only congratulate Artist for winning it.

    However, I do agree with Toons view on the spotlight. I'm also going to play devils advocate and raise the question of whether this park would have won spotlight if Busch Gardens Eurpoe hadn't have come first? It just seems that this being a slight improvement over BGE had a large baring on the decision.