Park / Piraña

46 Comments

  • Liampie%s's Photo
    Thanks everyone! :mantis:

    I kinda had trouble scoring this, which is why I am probably the 2nd lowest vote. Mainly because I see designs as coaster submissions and felt this was more of a cut-off of a park, and would have done better being submitted as a park.

    I honestly didn't feel anything with it. not only because I feel a design should be a coaster. but it just didn't look right for me... don't know why exactly.

    Accept the fact that NE design is open to any type of ride, or please get out of the panel. I'm not saying this because you had the lower votes; I expected such opinions and the 80% score is more than satisfying. I'm just saying this because it's unfair and wrong. I think I said it before somehwere: voting lower just because it's not a coaster is like voting a spotlight submission lower just because it doesn't contain a minigolf, a red vekoma SLC or a spaceman on a shop.

    Don't take it too personal, I knew it would happen regardless of who the voters were.

    Levis, I am going to assume that your vote's reason was that you didn't like his intepretation of Efteling, and further that he claimed to have recreated it, which among you Dutchmen, from the outside, sometimes seems to be made a task too difficult that any human being would ever be worthy of it, because the park is all too dear and holy to you, so that whenever someone dares to take on it, he is punished for his presumptuousness immediately.

    Just to make it clear: it's a semi-recreation. :)

    Finally, I am sorry this could not be released in 2010, as you had asked. It was just too beautiful of a release to not use it for the special occasion of New Year's day.

    It's no big deal! I'm glad that you like it this much, and new year's day is not the worst occasion for a release. I'm content. 8)

    that not it. Recreating the efteling is really hard indeed. and when i opened the park it didn't feel to me like the efteling. which is not a bad thing cause recreating that atmosphere is really hard. The problem was that I didn't feel anything with it. Probally because I've been there a couple of times and liked the ride I will judge it somewhat heavier that some other. but it just felt liked it missed something, and thats what made me vote this low. The archytecture wasn't that bad but at some points lacked a little bit also imo (especially given how few there is).
    I think the reason why I voted this low is because the ride IRL gives me a certain feeling, and this recreation doesn't.

    What do you think would've made it design-worthy?

    Well, I guess I should start by saying that I don't really understand why this is a design. No coaster=no design. Just my opinion. However, this park really kicked some serious ass, so if an exception had to be made, I suppose this was the time to do it.Honestly, the actual rapids ride wasn't all too interesting (I'll let that slide, as I'm assuming this is some sort of semi-recreation?), but it looked fantastic. To me, rapids are one of the hardest rides to pull off well in the game, and you really nailed it. That last lift into the station with the rotating gears just looked so sick. You really pulled that off well. The rest of the park was filled with so many awesome ideas: the mustard bomb thing, the peeps queueing for food, the people watching the performer, etc. The best aspect of the whole map was undoubtedly the foliage, though. Don't think I've ever seen it look that good. It's like it was part of the theming, rather than filler. Awesome work man.

    It's a semi-recreation indeed... The readme should explain it all! Thanks for the kind words too. :mantis:

    I really don't understand this thought that a design needs to be a coaster. If it is a tracked ride it must be designed and therefore any kind of ride that you have to build section by section should be concidered as a design. I don't care if it's a mini golf course, old fashion cars or those cool little helicopters. All should have an equal chance of winning design if they are built well and with amazing surroundings.

    Exactly my thoughts. :)

    ^no, this is bullshit. i get pissed when i see water coaster but this? is this really what the site is gonna come down to? anyone with good themeing and decent hacking skills can do something like this.

    As far as I know NE is about parkmaking, the art of combining rides, architecture, landscaping, concept, layout and optionally theming. You just ignored five out of the six in my opinion most important aspects of parkmaking... And watercoasters piss you off? What the fuck?



    Keep the replies coming! I appreciate both compliments and discussion.
  • posix%s's Photo

    Just to make it clear: it's a semi-recreation. :)

    That's enough for them.

    As far as I know NE is about parkmaking, the art of combining rides, architecture, landscaping, concept, layout and optionally theming. You just ignored five out of the six in my opinion most important aspects of parkmaking... And watercoasters piss you off? What the fuck?

    I agree completely. Your post sounds rather limited, JDP.

    I find this resistance interesting. iris put it into people's heads that designs must be coasters. We believe it should be up to the creator to decide what his submission is. I see everything related to ride design appropriate as a design submission.
  • pierrot%s's Photo

    ^no, this is bullshit. i get pissed when i see water coaster but this? is this really what the site is gonna come down to? anyone with good themeing and decent hacking skills can do something like this. either way pie, you did set a standard for future designs like this, and unless their foliage and architecture is as good as this then i wont even bother to look (no roller coasters? why look).

    ^ i think this is bullshit. isn't it?
  • SSSammy%s's Photo
    if you don't like it don't look at it :D

    just be greatful you have a beautiful design to look at! :D
  • Louis!%s's Photo

    I kinda had trouble scoring this, which is why I am probably the 2nd lowest vote. Mainly because I see designs as coaster submissions and felt this was more of a cut-off of a park, and would have done better being submitted as a park.

    I did think it was worthy of an acolade though, hence my 70% score, but yeah, had it been submitted as a park, I would have viewed it as a park, not as a design, which would have boosted my score quite a bit.

    Anyhoo, really nice work.



    Accept the fact that NE design is open to any type of ride, or please get out of the panel. I'm not saying this because you had the lower votes; I expected such opinions and the 80% score is more than satisfying. I'm just saying this because it's unfair and wrong. I think I said it before somehwere: voting lower just because it's not a coaster is like voting a spotlight submission lower just because it doesn't contain a minigolf, a red vekoma SLC or a spaceman on a shop.


    Sorry, in my post I don't think I ever said that an NE Design isnt open to any type of ride, I didn't even say that this shouldn't have been a design, if I thought that, I wouldn't have voted it at 70% (which is above the design border).

    I was just stating my opinion that it was harder than usual to score it, due to the fact I thought it would suit a park submission more, I wasn't saying that it wasn't worthy of design, which it is (which, again, is why i scored it at 70%), and in fact I went on to praise it, next time I wont bother.
  • RCTNW%s's Photo
    Just like Louis, I had a hard time voting on this as well. And Like Louis, I have no problem seeing non-coaster submissions earning the "Design" accolade. I did sign up to judge this but decided to pass as I just could not put a score on it. I made that mistake on Turtle's "Les Trois Mousquetaires" with my vote and didn't want to do that again.

    All that said, this is exceptional work and I very much enjoyed the ride. I really wish I could do this kind of landscapping as there are very few that do it this well. One thing I do agree with JDP is that you have really set the standard for a non coaster Design which is a very good thing.

    Looking forward to your next release and congrats

    James
  • rK_%s's Photo
    nothing against the ride which was very nice as well but your foliage is beautiful, i loved it liam, very nice work!
  • Wanted%s's Photo
    Designs should be coasters...that is how the creators of this site meant it to be.

    I do, however, believe that "creations" like this deserve their own category.
  • That Guy%s's Photo

    I do, however, believe that "creations" like this deserve their own category.


    Why? So that we can let it rot like the old CC category? Even though this might inspire new non-coaster design submissions, it will never be enough to sustain it's own category.
  • robbie92%s's Photo
    I think if a non-coaster should win design, it needs ot be exceptional on all regards. Sure, the archy was nice, sure the atmosphere was great, but the rapids themselves were nothing to write home about. I have no qualms with a non-coaster winning design, considering it's specifically said that any tracked ride can win. However, a non-coaster should have an accolade-worthy layout, and I see this no better than any rapids I've seen, and certainly not at the level of rapids rides that were in parks or other designs. This could work well with a coaster, but on their own, they weren't special at all.
  • Dotrobot%s's Photo

    ^no, this is bullshit. i get pissed when i see water coaster but this? is this really what the site is gonna come down to? anyone with good themeing and decent hacking skills can do something like this. either way pie, you did set a standard for future designs like this, and unless their foliage and architecture is as good as this then i wont even bother to look (no roller coasters? why look).

    nothing against you liampie, it did look fantastic overall. i personally think this should be a bronze rather then called a design though. and that bobsled looked way too good to not operate.
    -JDP


    I liked it more than your design and I belived this SHOULD be a design.
  • SSSammy%s's Photo
    so you guys want NE to stagnate and grind to a halt?

    that's an "if the boot fits, wear it" statement.
  • dmaxsba%s's Photo

    so you guys want NE to stagnate and grind to a halt?


    This is why I love this win so much. It opened the door to great new design possibilities by members who always wanted to build something, anything other than a coaster and try for a win. While I haven't been a member here at NE very long I have downloaded most of the design wins and I must say after viewing B&M after B&M and then another B&M with a few woodies tossed in for good measure it got to be very stagnate! Don't get me wrong they were all fun to see and for the most part worthy of winning. It just got boring and the anticipation for the next one to open slowly vanished. Hopefully with this win the idea of something different will impact the members and break up the repetitiveness that was the design category.
  • geewhzz%s's Photo
    robbie, your logic makes no sense. is every ride in real life a ride you love? i would guess not. you're trying to say that people should only build "good" rides in rct which is nonsense. ignoring the fact that it's all relative to the viewer, with your logic, SFC should not be spotlight because it doesn't depict a "good" park like IoA, Disney, or (insert your favorite park here).

    jdp, you're also being ridiculous. i would much rather look at this magnificent design over the majority of designs throughout the entire history of the design category.

    well done liampie, you're now my favorite parkmaker.
  • Wanted%s's Photo
    Was that neccessary Dotrobot?

    @That_Guy I still believe there should be a seperate category...not my fault if people don't appreciate creations as much as coaster designs if they are in seperate categories.

    @Geewhzz I believe that people should be trying to recreate GOOD rides...not the shitty ones. When I open up a park I imagine myself being there and riding the rides. Sooo...
  • robbie92%s's Photo
    Gee, I'm not saying that everything needs to be IoA level, especially for parks, nor that everyone should build, as you say, "'good' rides." My point is that the ride here was nothing special. I look at your rapids for El Encierro or the ones you've done elsewhere, and those are good rides. CP6's rapids in SFC weren't incredible, but he wasn't submitting them for a design. This is a design, where the ride layout is important. I'm just saying that I feel that this would have a better impact for me if it was an exceptional layout, and that this design is riding on its archy, foliage, and atmosphere. If I look at the layout alone, it's just a simple loop. Even Knotts, which is a crappy park in real-life, adds at least another bend in terms of layout. If Liam recreated Grizzly River Run or RiverQuest at Phantasialand, I'd feel this more design-worthy because the layout would be an exceptional layout. The simple fact for me is that these rapids don't look that exciting in game, and that I'd be completely sold if the layout was more interesting or unique. If this was in a park context, they'd be perfect as a good supporting ride, but as the main focal point, it'd be nice to see more risks taken. I'm sorry if I want a design to have a good, interesting layout. Next time, if I see a run-of-the-mill ride like a boomerang or a shuttle loop, I'll vote those designs, because I guess it's wrong to expect a design to have a "good" layout.
  • 7Thumbs%s's Photo
    My mind exploded. Great rides. Great. Landscape. 10/10
  • RamSam12%s's Photo
    This is one of my favorite designs as of lately. Just because a ride's layout is not in the form of a coaster should not disqualify it from a design. This was a focus on a large ride with fantastic landscaping and architecture creating an awesome atmosphere to the whole area. Besides, I agree with zburns about rapids rides being hard to pull off well in the game and this one was fantastic. How would all these things combined not qualify as a design? Gee had a good point about if quality of rides in real life were the basis for judging, then SFC would not win because it's mostly a bunch of clones. Even if that were the case, I would still give this a deign vote because Piraña looks like something that would be great in real life; as opposed to something like Elitch's Disaster Canyon which is a mediocre rapids ride with minimal theming / landscaping (something I would not vote for).
  • geewhzz%s's Photo
    my point was, compared to other rides that are obviously better and have more money invested into them, this layout is nothing exceptional, but that doesn't change the fact that the execution of a less than exceptional ride was brilliant in this design.

    it's one thing to have a realistic ride, it's entirely another thing to have a realistic ride that is good. of course most people want to see one end of the spectrum only, but that doesn't change the fact that there is another end that can be built just as gracefully as its opposite.

    take for example, most B&Ms are very similar in layout and design. if everyone only built the ones that are somewhat unique and have good atmosphere, theming, etc. we wouldn't get to experience the entire realm of great rct building. i'd rather see things from every spectrum executed to perfection in rct than only see "good" rides done to perfection.
  • Dotrobot%s's Photo

    Was that neccessary Dotrobot?

    Im just stating my opinion in a crude but less crude than some of jdps comments