Park / Pharao
-
18-April 05
- Views 5,045
- Downloads 556
- Fans 0
- Comments 57
-
No fans of this park
-
Download Park
556
-
Tags
nedesigns
- Copyright © 2002-2024 New Element Designs
-
Community Forum Software by IP.Board
I think Posix is merely stating he would find it cool if other people went for realism, so he will do that. I think it would be really cool too. He has his own right to think any way he wants, as do you, and even me (yes, its true.)
Posix is outspoken and he has his opinion, so he will voice it
MfG
BG
See but when you say something like that, whatever your intentions, you're forcing me to respond. Because basically you're saying that everything I stand for in parkmaking (and surely you know this because I've written about it at length) is either laughably bad or only done to win awards. You may notice, however, that you have more spotlights than I do. And you also have more NEDesigns and more contest entries and more basically everything else. I admit I do make H2H parks with the intention of impressing people in an attempt to win votes, but that's the whole point of H2H. I don't enter contests usually because the possibility of winning isn't enough motivation for me to finish something. It has to mean something to me to be worth finishing.
I really don't get how you can say now that landscaping is ridiculous. An amusement park first and foremost is a business. It's goal is to make money. And if you want to make money, you put an amusement park where people are and you put in lots of shops and restaurants and enough rides to keep people coming back. You don't invent new rides because that's almost always a losing occupation. (take for example The Bat, Stealth, X, among others. didn't work out so well for the parks that built the prototypes) You also don't put amusment parks in exotic remote locations where few people could get to them. You don't think about the proper mix of rides for each area, you build whatever is popular. That's realistic. Your flowers aren't always fresh and wonderful looking. Something is always under construction. I'm sorry Posix, but what you do is not realism in that way. It's a kind of idealized vision. A utopian amusement park. And I have to say, the pretty buildings and flowers and nice, safe coaster layouts, it's all very good. But I saw that stuff 5 years ago and it wasn't much different than someone making it today.
What about those lift hill stairways and custom supports and train storage sheds and transfer tracks and block brake access ladders and employee only walkways? That's all realistic too. Does it take that much skill? Not really. And you should know Mr. Schuessler never used any of that. And for all his talents, his parks aren't realistic at all. Come on, little blocks of land with a couple windows in them? No park I've ever been to has buildings that look like that. Take any random aero21 park and it beats his stuff hands down in the realism department. What Schuessler made is artistic compositions of trees and flowers and buildings and coaster track. If I try to think of his parks as realistic, they are totally lacking in details that every true amusement park has. But I'm not pointing that out to pick on Schuessler, I'm just saying that there's more than one way to evaluate a park and realism is no better or worse than any other way.
As for skill, that's a wide open topic. Let's limit the discussion to 'realistic parks'. There's coaster building skill. There's architecture skill. There's landscaping skill. And there's also skill in recreating structures with what's available in RCT. By my reckoning, that's a hugely important skill to have in realistic parkmaking, but a lot of people don't think it's important at all. Try to recreate any amusement park and you'll run into something that just isn't in the game. Do you leave it out all together or do you find a way to make it out of what's available? So rather than saying 'this is what is in the game, what can I make with that?' you say 'this is what I want to make, now how I can I make it with the game?'.
As for 'purpose', I ask you. What is the 'purpose' of filling a map with huge double and triple wide walkways when there are never going to be any guests? Isn't it that there's really only one guest that matters, and that's the viewer? So when you put those walkways there, you're doing it to create an overall look. Isn't a huge sculpture as much a part of that look as the walkways? Aren't those huge temples just as relevant? Now I do agree that 'filler' is stupid. Lots of trees and buildings and walkways and generic rides that fill up a space so that you can slap a name on it like "Aruvial Adventure Park" or whatnot and show it off, that to me is incredibly boring. Which is why I wonder when I see somebody producing a lot of parks with a similar style, what motivates them to make parks? I've wondered this for a long time because I've never been very productive. Every park I've made is a long and laborious process. So when people toss them off and move on to the next one I wonder how much each of them sticks out in their mind. Sometimes I feel like people are just making parks for the sake of making parks. Like they'd rather fill it in with trees and call it done than take the time to go over it and really make it something special. And I wonder when I see rows of walkways surrounded by colorful assemblyline buildings, some coasters, and a sea of trees, I wonder what is supposed to hold my attention for more than 20 seconds.
And as for clutter, it's quite simple to me why that is more realistic. Because I'm not trying to create an amusement park, I'm trying to create real life. An amusement park by definition is a utopian place. The happiest place on Earth. A kind of escape from the vague ugliness of everyday life into a fairytale land where everything is black and white, good and evil. Where the flowers are all magically watered and beautiful any time of the year. Where the walkways are clean and trash free and there's a friendly little storefront around every corner. It's all fake. It's a big money machine, manufacturing dreams for the sake of peddling merchandise. And I guess it's nice to recreate that kind of utopian vision on the screen. That's part of what attracted all of us to amusment parks I think, and makes the possibility of creating our own an enjoyable experience. I guess somewhere along the line I got cynical and thought it would be a sick little joke to make an amusement park that was actually genuine. That wasn't all black and white and good triumphs over evil, but was ambiguous and sometimes ugly and dirty and cluttered and falling apart. That's my big joke, but I still say, while that may be unrealistic for an amusement park, it's far more realistic in the general sense of the word than any Disneyfied utopian play-place.
Anyway, my train of thought just crashed and burned so I don't even have a decent sentence or two to conclude this little mini-rant. All I have to say is, you don't need to discredit other people's work to justify your own. RCT is whatever you want it to be. And if you let yourself care that so-and-so is making the kind of crap that you could make easily but don't because it's below you and they're netting all the praise for it, well I don't know if you actually think that, but if you do, it's better that you just let it go. People are going to like whatever they like. So get whatever enjoyment you can out of people's work, and let the rest go. Congratulate people when you think they deserve it, and let the rest take care of itself. It's less stressful than trying to change people. It's only ever worth trying to change people when the alternative (not changing them) is far worse. With regards to RCT, I don't think that's the case.
really, a lot of misunderstanding here and also a lot of interesting aspects to be talked about. let me try...
first off, toon and ed, maybe it's just me but in some of your lines, i got the impression as if you felt offended by that one post of mine with too much... let's call it "temperament".
please believe me, you two, phatage, adix, wme and a handful of other people are, apart from my love for the game itself, the only reason why i stay at this site. i like you guys, you know? i don't want you any bad. ever.
but enough sentimental shit.
i guess you are right. i have no right to call other people's styles noobish or stupid. it is indeed demanding and just not like me. i feel ashamed, really.
i want to tell you why i said it. it has nothing to do with me thinking i'm better than them, thinking i deserve more praise, more admiration, or whatever shit. it has more to do with me being pissed off of people playing rct in a mindless way and because of that intersperse little means of realism, like a café or a transfer station, just because they don't know better and don't care about it in the first place. if they get fun out of the game that way, perfect. i congratulate them. honest. however, and this might be little demanding again althought we've been through it a couple of times, i think most play not for fun but solely for the praise-factor, and that i find truly ugly. i can't cope with it. moreover, i want them to have fun when playing. because i believe it'll all bring us more numerous and more positive results, ending in a stronger scene.
then again, i know you're right ed. you can't change people. trying to is demanding again to begin with. so, duh, i feel insanely stupid and noobish right now
okay then, the rest is more of for ed only, hehe.
i must say i was shocked when you said that everything i wrote was directed and that i was laughing at you. how the fuck did you get it that way? i consider you to be one of the most important people ever in rct history due to your deep knowledge, incredible talent and skill. the way you play is as skillful as hardly anyone else. just your style isn't for me. that means, you impress me tremendously with what you do, yet i can not love your parks because they don't conform to my ideals. but i thouht you'd know this all?
anyway, just don't ever think i'm bashing your work, because that's bullshit. truly. and about the spotlights and designs; you don't judge a parkmaker's skill on what he's won, now do you? i know you don't. and i think you just said it all to pay me respect. makes me feel shy.
you mean you understood it as if i'd said lanscaping "in general" is ridiculous? that's not what i meant.
i meant the filler-landscaping that a lot of people do and that i used to do myself. i find that ridiculous and bad. yet i'm not so sure if leaving everything grass is the better idea, lol. so yeah, i hope i can improve and make everything look like nothing is a filler.
i enjoyed your description of what makes a realistic park and i basically agree with it. in fact, i think you're most right when telling me that what i do is not realism. aero is doing it. i'm not. and maybe i should think it over if realism is really what i want. for the moment, it think it is, but you've got me little confused. i wonder how i'd like a fantasy park with harmonic and artistic colours and shapes all out...
anyway, i'm losing track, talking too much about myself..
the idealised vision of a park, isn't that paradise for all of fanboys? rct makes it possible for us to create it, so of course, i'm trying. having a few of the flowers unwatered for realism's sake is little over the top, if you ask me. i mean really, you have to draw the line somewhere. although you have a point. and i've tried myself several times at making a "new for 2006" ride somewhere in my parks and make it look like a new ride is being built. i failed miserably. have to try that again sometime though. kind of forgot about it...
what you said about schuessler is a bit too abstractly seen as well, in my opinion. the concepts of his parks all, without a doubt, aim at realism. and he does a pretty good job if you ask me. also i don't think it's very easy to create the walkways, ladders, service platforms and what not correctly, and by that i mean as in authentic, and at the same time have it look good. i'd imagine it to be much easier to raise land to the highest point possible in rct, give it a few x-sector-ish rooves here and there, put pink und orange on it with a few windows and go on like that through the whole map. (i did it again, i know...)
but really, i hope you see what i mean. and i'm little exhausted from typing right now. i'll cut this short;
the purpose of 3wide paths are to make it look like a park, duh. really, you can't possibly argue about something like that...
the beauty of the design, the harmonic interaction of things and the fun of consuming the feeling the park gives you, if it manages to.
i think that's it. i'm trying to create an utopian perfect amusement park and you don't. what i didn't get though is why clutter is more realisitc. i haven't been to too many parks, but it doesn't seem to me like any, except disney, have so many shrubs or bushes planted like the people who are into clutterism plant them.
anyhow, i'm lost right now. at the end of your post it somehow felt as if you were trying to tell me off. didn't like it. but you know.. you possibly weren't, blah.
it's sad that we have to hold this in huge paragraphs on the forum and not on aim, where a lot less would be lost, i think. but still, that's what the forums are here for after all, right?
It has forced me to rethink where i'm going with the park that i'm building at the moment. And i've just realised something - I don't know. I definitely feel that i've moved on from my last park, and that in turn was a progression from the one before, but I honestly have no clue what direction it is that i'm moving. Is that a bad thing?
I don't think so. As long as i'm moving some direction, i'm happy, I guess. It makes me feel as though i'm achieving something, and not just repeating the same thing. I told myself when planning this park that I was going to go the completely old-school realism route, because I find that incredibly beautiful. However, it soon mutated into something completely different. I don't think i'll ever be able to build in that style, as it doesn't suit the way I like to build. It requires an incredible amount of restraint with regards to detail, which I personally don't possess.
I'm no good at concluding points, so I think i'll just leave it there. I'll carry on building the way I build, which may change in the future. It might be changing right now, who knows? Everyone changes, but almost no-one changes becuase you want them to.
I'm trying my hardest to stay out of this because I dont want to trap myself into thinking im something im not.
But anyways, i hope you guys come to terms with this style, because i think its really cool.
You're Welcome Turtle
It's interesting debate, altough I haven't read Ed's and Posix' entire post. I mean, that would take at least a few hours...
Also I like both theming styles, simple but nice.
your post does absolutely nothing.
...jesus christ.
But Marshy kind of has a point. :\
Firstly we have the Artists. It's not surprising that a large number of the people at this site have artistic leanings whether it be Ed's film making, Blitz's animation, Corky's architectre or just a general affinity to drawing or painting that so many members lean toward. I think the artistic side of the game is what attracts these people and that's what they strive for in their parks, tho in different ways. Is it any surprise that Ed tries to tell stories with his work or that Corky's parks are heavily influenced architecturally? You can see their personalities coming thru in the parks they build and the fact that they do this in original ways is what makes them great parkmakers.
Secondly, we have what I'll call the Engineers. Of course there are different kinds of engineers. We have the mechanical engineers like Kumba who go heavy on the hacks and try to impress with mechanical ingenuity. We have the civil engineers like Posix who are into the functionality of the whole and how everything works together. They seem to not play for the artistic message as much, but still use at as an outlet for their creativity.
Of course there is no solid line between the Artists and Engineers, but I definitely see leanings within each parkmaker. I think it is finding your own personal balance and letting your personality shine through your work that truly makes one's parks interesting to look at. If more parkmakers followed their own path and didn't try so much to fit into the expectations of others, this site would truly be a far more exciting place.
It occured to me, as I was reading your post, that a big part of our vision for what realism is has to do with our own amusement park experiences. The parks you've been to are probably pretty different from the parks I've been to. There are similarities of course, but differences as well. I tend to latch onto images when I remember things. Like postcards in my head. I probably wouldn't have thought of putting construction walls in a park if I hadn't seen them in my trips to PGA. When I create something in a park that I've seen in real life, I'm putting a peice of myself in the park. And everytime I see that, it takes me back to those memories. Which is a cool thing. It's like poetry in a way. It's trying to convey emotion in some kind of physical form. That's what got me into RCT in the first place. I had some good memories of hanging out with friends at amusement parks and some of those feelings came back to me as I built stuff in the game. As time went on, I became more interested in other things and I found that I could still express things through RCT, just in different forms.
I think Toon is definately onto something with his Artist/Engineer distinction. I think there might be other ways of using the game too, but I can definately see that distinction if I look for it. My work is mostly an expression of emotions and ideas. Of places I've been to or imagined and the feelings they inspire in me. And I'm most happy with my work when I don't try to make it anything else. When I don't compare it to what other people are doing and just build what inspires me.
As for the coaster itself, I have to admit I haven't looked at it yet. But I fully intend to once I've got some free time. Anyway, I appreciate that we can debate these kinds of things and share our experiences without getting overly angry and defensive. It's really a special thing when this kind of discussion can take place. It expands everyone's collection of 'truth' I think.
I'm pretty sure phil never meant to offend anybody, and his comments about things he doesn't like in rct were most likely not aimed at you toon and ed. I think this because I share his beliefs but think that you two are part of the antithesis of the 90% whose work is a collection of rippoffs multiplied over a large map to look impressive from a zoomed out view. I do agree that less emphasis has been put in the design category in the ne designs, and I'm probably guilty of that as well with both of mine, but I never build anything just to take up space. One thing that phil and I are upset about is the amount of parks these days with massive space filling, especially with ripped off, unoriginal work, because its just so easy and yet gets so much praise for some reason. Honestly my mirage woodie I think is a better coaster than either fright nights or fire dragon, yet I knew people would object to it being a design even if it got it because of how "little" work appeared to be done because there wasn't a lot of buildings or volcanoes and mountainous terrain surrounding the area. I'm lost in seeing how space filling could make one self-satisfyed, and thus I'm inclined to believe that it isn't to make themselves proud but rather to appear "skilled" to others, and the sad part is that it works. Not everybody is like this though, we still have people like you ed and toon. There is always hope.