Park / PineHills Orlando

  • 25-April 12
Park_2346 PineHills Orlando

66 Comments

  • CoolCody%s's Photo
    United States CoolCody Offline
    This is the best realistic RCT2 Park I've ever seen.

    Pros:
    1. The ride & buildings scale ratio fit perfect for RCT2 guest.

    2. Your park map actually looks like a blue print for an actual park.

    3. Rides couldn't of been more realistic, love love love the layouts.

    4. I cannot get over the ride & building scale! Its perfect. Most of the time in rct2 parks you get these buildings that just look too big for guest or you get rides that are just so huge in the air that it just donesn't have a flow.

    5. Love the way you integrated outside businesses.

    Cons:

    1. Foliage was a debbie downer in some parts, but realistically thats in every Amusement/Theme Park

    2. looks a little grey, but again realistically, there are some pretty popular irl parks that have nothing but blacktop for paths.


    Well deserved gold.

    I would of voted: 90%

    edit: I going to retract my first con, after over looking again. This park has perfect foliage to go along with its atmosphere, it kind of reminds me of those Mini Florida Amusement Parks.
    posted 13 years ago
  • Phatage%s's Photo
    United States Phatage Offline
    I really liked this park for what it was, especially the concept of having a bunch of neat rides in close proximity to each other, kind of like an expo. It definitely doesn't fit the standard park format of grand entrance, distinct areas of some degree of theming, and blockbuster attractions but I think this would be a cool local hangout if this was near my town (and prices weren't as outrageous as they are at GADV). I can see how people tend to prefer the more traditional format, after all it has that status for a reason, and I think that's a big part of why people were a little let down by this park along with some of the layouts themselves. I mean it's essentially a standard, maybe upscale, water park but with roller coasters instead of slides (and some really nice, robust architecture too). I wouldn't fly across the country to visit a park like this in real life but I would try to fit it in my schedule if I'm in the area.
    posted 13 years ago
  • Nitrous Oxide%s's Photo
    United States Nitrous Oxide Offline
    Congrats man, I really enjoyed the park. It was very different from what you normally see here. I felt that your scale on everything was perfect. To be honest, I think it's the best "scaled" park I have seen. I noticed with the map that there is TONS of room for expansion, I'd really like to see you do some future updates to this park. Condor was obviously my favorite coaster, the others were just 'so-so'. Congrats again man, can't wait to see some more work from you, as you've now become one of my favorite park makers.
    posted 13 years ago
  • Sephiroth%s's Photo
    United States Sephiroth Offline
    Personally, I didn't really like the park, mainly because all of the coasters were too small/short to seem that thrilling. The invert had decent size, but still I thought it was too small to be considered a major attraction for the park, which I think every park needs.

    EDIT August 8, 2013: Got rid of the rant - robbie has it quoted a few posts down [as of this edit]. I still feel the same way on the topic, I just think that what I wrote wasn't very well refined.
    posted 13 years ago
  • Steve%s's Photo
    United States Steve Offline
    Posted Image
    posted 13 years ago
  • Gwazi%s's Photo
    United States Gwazi Offline
    No park deserves a 100%, not even RoB.

    That said, I thoroughly enjoyed the foliage. It really gave off that Floridian atmosphere. It was somewhat reminiscent of driving to Florida for vacation. The scale was unusual but refreshing. The style was very clean and enjoyable. That said, it was yet another bland and generic amusement park that I've seen thousands of times before. No offense, but it was boring and lost my interest quickly. Solid effort, and technically well-done, but not worth more than a 60-65% in my opinion.

    I'd love to see you try something with a theme, a bit more semi-realism. I think it'd turn out wonderfully.
    posted 13 years ago
  • robbie92%s's Photo
    United Kingdom robbie92 Offline

    Personally, I didn't really like the park, mainly because all of the coasters were too small/short to seem that thrilling. The invert had decent size, but still I thought it was too small to be considered a major attraction for the park, which I think every park needs.

    To respond to CoolCody, Pierrot, and what seems to be much of the NE community as of late, what in the world up with the foliage fetish around here? Yes, that green stuff that no one pays attention to. Or so I thought. However, it seems that the latest excuse not to like something is to give a very general, vague, un-helpful, un-descriptive, and as far as I’m concerned, un-intelligent “criticism” of the foliage.

    “I liked everything except the foliage, I’m just not feeling it.” “The park was great! Architecture, Rides, park layout, I enjoyed it. The one thing that bothers me though is you landscaping/foliage, I just couldn’t get into it and it didn’t seem right.” “The foliage doesn’t look natural. Where I’m from [and therefore I assume this is how it is where everyone else is from as well], the trees don’t grow like that, in that type of pattern, with the colors you choose, with [without] that much [that little] underbrush.” “Needs more underbrush.” “Needs less underbrush.” “Too random looking.” “Looks too planned, make it look more random.” “Dude, not every tree has brush under it!” “Dude, why didn’t you put any brush under your trees!? Not all trees are planted in people’s manicured back yards!” “This is supposed to be the wilderness, not a garden for a castle planted all neat in a row, let it flow.”

    Is it just me, or do the things above sound like they are being pulled right out of someone’s rear-end? I thought classes like art appreciation and global issues were full of BS, but comments like these somehow manage to fill themselves with more nonsense then what I wish I would’ve written in my essays about abstract art. “How does this painting [worth millions of dollars] make you feel?” [painting looks like a 3-year-old tipped over 5-8 different paint jars, all containing different colors, and then smudged them around for awhile] What I want to say: “I feel like the next time I have diarrhea, I should make sure that I have may canvas ready, because I could make millions.”

    “I’m just not feeling it.” Honestly this must be one of the most asinine English language sentences that modern society has had the misfortune of defecating. Does it offer useful advice? Suggestions? Pointers? Does it even point out what the critic thought was wrong about it? Let me ask you this: did the critic himself even know what he thought was wrong about it? I have come to the conclusion that the loftiness of the critic’s vicissitudes precludes the fact that critics and I simply cannot see eye to eye.

    “You’re foliage just didn’t seem right. It doesn’t feel natural.” Tell you what: you find a way to define natural, then come back to me when you are able to hold all foliage to a universal standard of what “natural” is, because as far as I can tell, none of you know what in the wonderland of a virtual world we call Rollercoaster Tycoon you’re talking about. Honestly, I’m starting to think that most of you don’t get out much. I don’t know about you, but I don’t even have to drive half an hour and the foliage patterns, moisture content of the ground, and other factors, all change. So what is “natural”, to you, the critic? Obviously whatever is the nearest cluster of wildlife to where you live, and since NE has players from all over the world, I don’t think any of you will ever be able to agree.

    “Needs more/less underbrush.” I laugh out loud every time I read a comment like this. Mostly because it is followed by a comment saying “Needs less/more underbrush.” It’s even more funny when the people making the comments are from the same country, because both of them are saying things like “In real life, trees do/don’t have that much underbrush.”

    “Let it flow.” Brilliant, Holmes. This is a piece of advice for the ages, all you need to do is “Let it flow”, whatever the hell it is, and your foliage might actually look “natural” enough for the people who aren’t “feeling it”. Except for one small detail: no one has any idea how to instruct someone on how to “let it flow”, much less even describe what “let it flow” means. Do you just click randomly? Do you make rivers out of your trees, which do/don’t have enough underbrush under them, so that they don’t look too planned/too unplanned? Oh, wait, I forgot that many of the critics are writing these responses from an artist’s point of view. I’ll have to get back to you with my essay on how I feel about that later; in the mean time I ate some expired Crisco and will be busy producing abstract art momentarily.

    Face it people: trees are trees. They grow with absolutely no rhyme or reason other than where the wind happened to place the seeds. After that, weeds and grass grow, with, once again, no rhyme or reason. If the foliage looks planned, then the builder probably thinks that the park would maintain that bit of landscaping due to location, ease of access, or whatever. Also, and I know this one is hard for a lot of you to wrap your heads around: foliage looks different in different parts of the world, and not everyone is making a park that is set in your country, or even your continent for that matter. Natural to you may not be natural to someone else. Get over it. Or just score their submission lower and be done with it. This is a democracy after all, so the majority opinion will dominate any off-balance votes due to “unnatural foliage”.

    In the end I feel like these vague criticisms are also an excuse and/or alternate way to state that, for some unknown reason, you can’t really explain what you find wrong, you simply don’t like someone’s work. Since you don’t know how to put it into words, you try to put your finger on what the problem is as to be more help to them in the future. You find that you can’t fault the rides, architecture, or path layout, but since no one can agree on what “good” and “natural” foliage is that we can all “feel”, you pin foliage as the problem, and simply state something along the lines of “it doesn’t look right”. This is because the reality is you couldn’t describe what you didn’t like in the first place, therefore you probably still can’t describe it now. You just found something to say besides, “I don’t like it”.

    Honestly, I find it annoying. If you don’t like something, just say so. It you don’t want to sound rude, try to do something that many, many people in the world fail miserably at, at a rather alarming rate: keep your mouth shut. What I’m getting at here is “get off the fence”: Man up and say you don’t like it, or don’t say anything. Just please, please, don’t say “I’m just not feeling it”. I swear that every time I read that I take a baby’s piece of candy and punch a kitten across the room.

    Who pays that much attention to trees, in either real life or RCT, while visiting an amusement park, anyway? I spend most my time riding rides, not staring at trees and buildings. Ugh. Don’t even get me started on architecture.


    But what if someone really just "isn't feeling" the foliage? They don't actively hate it or actively love it, so why make them choose a side? I honestly find annoying how many self-important bastards there are at NE who feel the need to type out a manifesto to members complaining about their gripes with someone's opinion, or the need to dictate what people should or shouldn't say. If they're "not feeling" something, let them say it; a forum is a place for discussion, not a place to keep your mouth shut (unless you're posting completely off-topic random threads, but that's a different story).

    By the way, I just wasn't feeling that lecture of yours. No offense...
    posted 13 years ago
  • Roomie%s's Photo
    United Kingdom Roomie Offline
    ^ Buhahahaha. Wheeeeze...

    One moment let me catch my breath.

    I enjoyed this park. it was well crafted and i liked the coasters. However it was a high silver for me. An almost perfect example of the park type but not a type i particularly enjoy. If that makes sense.
    posted 13 years ago
  • nin%s's Photo
    United States nin Offline
    Keep challenging the masses, Sephiroth. I like it.

    To be honest robbie, you're response is quite the contradiction compared to many of your posts in the past.
    posted 13 years ago
  • Cocoa%s's Photo
    Australia Cocoa Fan Offline
    I really enjoyed this park. Your architecture is wonderful (if a bit small and the tan wood was overused) and the realistic details really make the park shine. The peeps really improved the park and made it feel lively, and especially the back half of the park with the road in it was really great. I especially like how many little things you put into the park, like the kiddie helicopter ride thing and those sort of things. The layouts did leave something to be desired (also the names were weird as hell: jellyfish coaster? :p)

    but overall a very good park and worthy of gold for sure. good work on the 100% score too :D
    posted 13 years ago
  • Brent%s's Photo
    United States Brent Offline
    Nice little park, some great layouts, but possibly the least inspiring entrance ever "built." Might as well just used the regular RCT entrance... I seriously looked over the park twice before I finally realized that what was the entrance, really was. Shoulda cut out the out of the park stuff and concentrated more on that.
    posted 13 years ago
  • Jazz%s's Photo
    United States Jazz Offline
    i feel like i'm missing something here. it's a nifty little park, with some nice detailing, for sure. the coasters were "cute" but not much more beyond that for me. i'm baffled as to how so many people felt this was easily spotlight-worthy, or even gold, for that matter. just my two cents.
    posted 13 years ago
  • Liampie%s's Photo
    Netherlands Liampie Offline
    + Feels very real in places. Fantastic.
    + Brilliant clean detailing
    + Unique scale
    + Custom 2x2 flatrides. Holy crap.
    - Boring architecture, everything looks the same. No themes.
    - Relatively boring rides... The small coasters were too small to be memorable and I didn't like the B&M that much.
    - Poor planning
    - Hardly any foliage, bare atmosphere

    Pros outweigh the cons, anyway. 75% for the skills. Congratulations on finishing and winning. Please make a theme park now.
    posted 13 years ago
  • posix%s's Photo
    Germany posix Offline
    Sephiroth, the performer must do something that will evoke positive emotions in the audience. Music, movie, painting, book story, furniture, ...or an RCT park! Their ultimate function, to the viewer, is to give good feelings through an experience. Thus the notion "I'm just not feeling it" makes absolute perfect sense to me. And like you said, few people can be arsed, or even have the ability, to dig into their emotional apparatus and find out precisely why the outburst of positive emotions did not happen. Frankly, you didn't do it terribly elaborately either.
    posted 13 years ago
  • trav%s's Photo
    United Kingdom trav Offline
    I'm sorry, but whilst I can tell this took a lot of skill to build, I really did not enjoy this. The small architecture just confused me and didn't look good or very realistic in my opinion, as most parks I go to tend to have bigger buildings or facades rather than tiny buildings which would only fit 6 people in it at a time.
    posted 13 years ago
  • BelgianGuy%s's Photo
    Belgium BelgianGuy Offline
    I don't see how this got gold, depending on it's size and atmosphere I'd never ahve ginven it more than I did and I believe the hype for this park made it score gold, no offense...

    all was too small and felt unispired and highly reproductive of people like nin and other builders with a personal detailed style, this felt copied in a lot of ways

    the entrance wasn't inviting at all to me, so was the rest of the park aswell, it all felt lifeless even with the peeps, almost no colours or whatsoever to make it have that fun factor, this to me showcases that skill to reproduce realistic details apparently goes over innovative ideas and actual own designed themed areas and less reproductive work that relies on creativity, something I was missing in this. I mean naming was weird to boot, the coaster layouts didn't do much for me, as robbie pointed out the boomerang was the best layout of the park and to me that's a shame really. also the fact that this was glitch: the park made it an eyesore at places.
    posted 13 years ago
  • Fisch%s's Photo
    Germany Fisch Offline
    Come on BG don't be so harsh. He completed a park on a high level which is a big task and he stepped up and did it. Congrats for that! I hope to see more work from you. But as some others have said, the park did feel kind of lifeless in my opinion as well.

    The problem really was that it showed no purpose behind anything. I didn't think there was anything in the park that stood out at all. All the buildings were the same size basically and they were all very similar variations of a light brown house with some wood on it. The parklayout seemed really random in my opinion. Think, if you were to open a park in real life, why would this be the layout? Why would the park expand like this, after having started with some small rides? While it's supposed to be realistic, it's not realistic at all in my opinion. Aside of the color choices the main thing that destroyed the atmosphere for me was that there was NO interaction whatsoever. There is path, there are rides, but it all doesn't feel like one big unit. It feels like an assembly of a bunch of rides on a field. And WHY on earth were there no real queues anywhere? The longest queues were like 3 tiles long? Queue interaction can make the stalest parks so much better.

    While I think everything was on a very high standard when it comes to object use and placement of detail, the composition was just not up to par. There seemed to be no ideas in the park.

    Congrats though.
    posted 13 years ago
  • djbrcace1234%s's Photo
    United States djbrcace1234 Offline
    I agree with Robbie that the only good layout was a cloned ride... I'm still having a hard time seeing what so great about this. If It just had maybe the boomerang and maybe one cheap kiddie ride, I can see this being a lot believable as a cheap roadside attraction like it looks already.

    Anyways, congrats.
    posted 13 years ago
  • ScOtLaNdS_FiNeSt%s's Photo
    United Kingdom ScOtLaNdS_FiNeSt Offline
    I agree ^ i thought it was quite nice to look at and explore but also found it cramped. On the other hand just becase the rides weren't spectacular doesn't mean it isn't a good park. gold ? maybe not but i think it was a silver, Louis must have been high on poppers to vote 100% I would have voted 65%,

    Anyway well done gjissie, Try a theme though because your work ... This and what i have just seen in the dump seems to be just generic, i think you will excell in a themed/partially themed park.
    posted 13 years ago
  • BelgianGuy%s's Photo
    Belgium BelgianGuy Offline
    sorry fisch but you basically said in your final sentence why i'm so harsh,
    this park is void of any ideas. and I've seen better parks score way lower because they weren't hyped at all, I mean really this score encourages players to go for stale amusement parks with nothing else but realistic details for the sake of details instead of a decent concept behind them...
    posted 13 years ago