Park / Infineon

12 Comments

• 

  posix Offline

  Really impressed by the improvement in your game. Didn't see you take on this style at all but I'm excited you have. Could have used a couple of more ideas to be less empty, and the landscaping was nice but a bit forced at times, still, what you have is solid and your buildings make good sense to me. Nicely done.

  posted 12 years ago

  • #1
  • Back to top
• 

  Comment System Offline

  posted 12 years ago

  • #2
  • Back to top
• 

  Liampie Offline

  I thought this was very good, and definitely design worthy. I expected this to win... It may be a concrete-type creation, it felt quite organic. Love how the coaster was really the centerpiece, quite original how you did it.

  posted 12 years ago

  • #3
  • Back to top
• 

  Fisch Offline

  Sorry it didn't make design but I think the score is probably right.
  It's on a good technical level obviously but for me with the focus being almost 100% on the coaster and not so much on a themed environment the layout should have been stronger.
  Also I think that the area as a hole wasn't cohesive enough.
  There was a lot of path but none of the supporting rides seemed to have a real intent...I always have a problem with areas that seem to be put together kind of randomly...what I'm trying to say is I could switch the supporting rides around, they could be replaced by anything, it would make no difference, because there's no real reason behind their placement.
  
  Everything else was nice, if you work on these things for your next design and try to put things into more of a context then I'm sure it's gonna score.

  posted 12 years ago

  • #4
  • Back to top
• 

  imawesome1124 Offline

  I thought it was good, but it was really empty. The architecture was really good and so was the layout, but there wasn't enough on the map. If I was on the panel I would have voted a 65%, design worthy, but only just. I did enjoy it though.

  posted 12 years ago

  • #5
  • Back to top
• 

  Ling Offline

  The setting was intended to be a reflection of what an amusement park might look like here where I live, in southern Montana. Between the mountains it's extremely flat - almost like plains states, but with more trees here and there. I was originally going to do a kind of mountain town theme, but without forcing a lot of landscaping that would have felt just wrong, I lost interest in trying to do that in devolved into "generic with some wood touches". The rides were very interchangeable, and I designed it that way - they just sit on the landscape where there is space for them. But I guess I'll avoid that from now on.
  
  Trying to recreate a local area is also why there's no water whatsoever on the map (other than it being the single most overused filler in RCT history, and I wanted to get away from that) - the only water on the flat bits here is tiny, tiny streams connecting the mountain ranges, that would be smaller than a quarter-tile's width in RCT.
  
  I'm glad people seem to think my architecture is improving over Skyline, though.

  posted 12 years ago

  • #6
  • Back to top
• 

  Jaguar Offline

  I wish this were a design. I haven't downloaded it yet but it looks very interesting. It would've won if those 6 people that voted 60% voted 65%.

  posted 12 years ago

  • #7
  • Back to top
• 

  FK+Coastermind Offline

  i don't know how to accurately describe my feelings on this. I felt the coaster looked awesome from above, but when i zoomed in i wasn't impressed. It wasn't bad, it just didn't wow me either. The shambhala element(that i'm sure you will deny is a shambhala element) looked terrible from 3 of the 4 angles, and i wasn't a fan of the long diagonal hill, diagonals have a way of looking really hard-edged without steep bits...
  
  I liked the archy, felt it was an improvement, but it was weird. again it looked awesome zoomed out, but when zoomed in just looked abit odd. Like, you had alot of fun shapes, but after a closer look there was something missing, and too much layering on 2x2 buildings.
  
  So, i liked this, but it was just so hard to pin down why i didn't love it. I did love the landscaping however, felt original and thought out.
  
  FK

  posted 12 years ago

  • #8
  • Back to top
• 

  Arjan v l Offline

  The coaster wasn't really impressive ,also the cluster of supports at the lifthill looked sloppy ,i did however liked the arched support track underneath.
  The diagonal hill had a terrible flow ,it should've had a steepness to make it look better like FK-Coastermind mentioned.
  I can learn from your foilage placement ,that's for sure ,because that was very nicely done.
  
  Better luck next time.

  posted 12 years ago

  • #9
  • Back to top
• 

  Ruben Offline

  Okay, so overall I liked this, but I can see why it didn't win. I think the biggest problem with it is that the focus is scattered, the surroundings don't highlight/add to the coaster (like in most designs) but attract attention away from it. It's all good stuff, but it's just not the best way of framing the ride. Another small thing I didn't like was the diagonal hop that seemed to go on forever.
  
  Don't get me wrong, overall I really liked the coaster, the theming, the surroundings, the foliage etc. All up to design quality. It's just that you seem te have failed in framing the coaster at its best.
  
  P.s. the name sounds like a pokemon.

  posted 12 years ago

  • #10
  • Back to top
• 

  hulkpower25 Offline

  Overall, amazing design. I really saw it as a design

  posted 12 years ago

  • #11
  • Back to top
• 

  Louis! Offline

  I think this could have easily won design had the layout been slightly improved in places. The setting and surroundings are great, and it can been quickly seen what sort of feel you were going for. It's just little bits of the layout that let you down.

  posted 12 years ago

  • #12
  • Back to top
• 

  disneylandian192 Offline

  Seemed stale and empty. It seems that you created a park around the coaster, not because it was necessary for the cohesion of the map, but just for the hell of it. I do get what you were trying to achieve with a Michigan-based park, but it certainly couldn't be this dismal. A design doesn't have to be half a park as long as the layout (the most important thing) is spot on. You don't want to distract the viewer from the 'design' unless it isn't worth highlighting. I feel like this is a step backwards from Skyline.

  posted 12 years ago

  • #13
  • Back to top