New Element - Park - The Ragnarök

Corkscrewed Offline

If Titan had decided to come to USC, we could have a Fatha/Ed/Panic vs Corkscrewed/Blitz/Titan battle. :lol:

Anyway, this whole idea about LL being judged higher... but not really, but yes it is, represents the dichotomy of RCT vs LL that I've discussed with... someone.

The point being taht a good RCT 2 park will beat a good LL park. A truly amazing LL park should beat a great RCT 2 park. It's harder to make something truly amazing in LL these days, but once you do, it's awe-inspiring. If you adjust for comparativeness, the great LL parks are a ton better than the good LL parks compared to great RCT 2 parks versus good RCT 2 parks.

It's... slightly confusing, and to understand it, you have to be able to accept something being two things at once. Once you do, you'll realize what I mean. :lol:

Emergo Offline

Mantis: Don't you include any assessment of the skill that went into something when you're deciding how good it is? If something looked horrible but you could see there was a lot of technical skill involved (of course the two are linked, but I think it's possible for something to have lots of skill involved but not look that great) wouldn't you see it as slightly better than when you first looked at it? Maybe not aesthetically, but in terms of appreciation of the work that went into it... Maybe you don't care about that aspect of rct, I don't know.

Personally I can be very impressed by the skill that goes into a park, whether LL or RCT2, or whatever....not only it impresses me, but I also appreciate it a lot when tons of effort/skill have been put into something.

Still, the effort and skill as such for me personally is not what makes a park a "good park".
I am convinced that into any good park a lot of effort and skill is put into, but the same thing is not true vice versa (being that every park in which a lot of effort and/or skill is put into automatically is a "good" park).
Tons of skill alone do not create a good or nice park imo.
Simply because some people are more talented than others and/or do have more "feel" for the game and can create a hell of a park with an attractive atmosphere, which can make the end-result far better than the result of someone who actually did put far more effort into it or has far more skills (but did just have less talent or far less feel for the feel for the overall atmosphere). It's a combination of things which makes a good park, like it is with a good meal....... .

Just like in RL: effort and skill is fine and great and appreciated (I hope at least), but on it's own just not enough to always produce the best things, let alone to produce things that are enjoyed by lots of others....

Hey Stefon. You and Ed vs Me and Blitz. LL vs RCT 2.
Everyone else:

LoooLL!

What I don´t get about this whole discussion is the following:

How could we or would we be supposed to "judge" which is the better "race": is it that one with the original coaches and horses on a hilly terrain, or is it the same one with formule 1-cars on the same terrain (but asphalted roads) some 60 years later??? Or whatever?

How could anyone set a relative objective standard to compare those things?.
Some people might be just nostalgic, and/or heavily impressed by how the horses did their job.
(others, while they still have some horses and coaches in their backyard while living in a spacy area instead of in a big and crowded town, may be less easily inpressed)

Others will be more impressed by the current technology and how the racers handle their machines. (maybe they do have a racing-club nearby?)

Anyway, what's the use of "comparing" those two so different things (but still connected 'cause in this example they both are going for "who's the fastest/best", like in RCt it centers around "who makes the best park");Both, in the example as well as in RCT have their own charms and possibilities and limitations, both need their own specific skills, etc......

A contest like this imo does not have to do anything with "which sport is the better one" (coaches or formula 1), but just with "who can beat whom in media that you cannot compare objectively".......

I prefer to just judge those different things each on their own merites...meaning that sometimes I am jumping from joy by how the coaches-and-horses gave me a terrific day (because they performed so well within their own possibilities/limitations and the horses all where in shape and the atmosphere was pleasant), while another day the Formula 1 races made my day (because they did such a great job within their possibilities and expectations and noone had an accident ).

Just comparing those two different things on only one same day (one match), does not say me anything, not about "which is the better sport/game", neither about "which is/are the better parkmaker/parkmakers"....only time can learn us that I think (probably long after the actives ones from now have retired, LoL!!)

Just me, I know....

artist Offline

One of the other reasons is because I think simply more attractive things can be created in the game. Of course that's disputable, but for me nothing in RCT2 can rival the Greece area in The Aegean, or the entrance area in Loopy's new solo, or the heaven area in Divine Comedy, to name a few. Something about raised land looks purer and more like a painting to me. I don't know why. Maybe it's because the building-from-the-ground-up nature of RCT2 makes things look like they were placed on the landscape, whereas LL stuff looks like it is just a part of it, inseparable from it.

I actually agree with you there, even though rct2 is for me (mainly because i started with rct2) i do agree LL parks do look more like paintings, as rct2 parks most of the time dont. Although some rct2 parks when built right can look truely beautiful and like you said, resemble a painting (Parks like BM, BGSS-RCT2 version, Alot of slob's and Egg's work) and thats the sort of parkmaking i adore and thats the sort of style i like to build in, i like to try and create a beautiful atmoshpere, beautiful coasters and just a beautiful park. I mean i havent actually got my style no where near refined enough to be called beautiful work, but that's my aim in the game.

I had never thought of LL parks like that before, your post Panic may have just changed the way i see LL parks. Although i dont think i have seen more beautiful work in RCT1 than Posix's RR and Nate's The Aegean.

EDIT: Sorry went a bit of topic there, but your post got me thinking.

mantis Offline

I was conceding that point in my brackets, Emergo, that obviously skill isn't the be-all and end-all. I was trying to work out whether WME actually ignores any measure of skill when he looks at parks (which is what he seemed to be saying).

I don't see this as a discussion of which game/parkmakers are better. I see it as a discussion about why it is LL H2H parks are held to an apparently higher standard than rct2 parks.

Emergo Offline

I was conceding that point in my brackets, Emergo, that obviously skill isn't the be-all and end-all. I was trying to work out whether WME actually ignores any measure of skill when he looks at parks (which is what he seemed to be saying).

I don't see this as a discussion of which game/parkmakers are better. I see it as a discussion about why it is LL H2H parks are held to an apparently higher standard than rct2 parks.

^ you are right Mantis, obviously I mixed up some posts and quoted yours because it also was about skill and whether WME takes that into account anyway, while I better could have quoted another one of this long and lively thread (sorry).

Your question to WME still stands open.....

Coaster Ed Offline

I know you could Ed, and probably some others too, but I just want to see it.. No really, we all were blown away when you build that canyon coaster in RCT3 and even so the work you did in Kumba's and AP's rct2 solo's; It shows you always find creative solutions with your skills, no mather what problems you're facing..
If only more LL 'veterans' would try to get used to rct2, like fatha', mala and phatage did, we would get a much clearer view of the (H2H/rct2) parks that are being build nowadays.. Et vice versa, of course.

I've been itching to give RCT2 another try for some time now because I want to play with all the new toys that have been invented too. The biggest reason you haven't seen an RCT2 park from me yet is that the only parkmaking I've had time for in the past couple years is H2H. And I wasn't even able to complete either of my parks in H2H3. If I'd attempted to learn RCT2 and produce a H2H park, I might not have had anything to turn in by the deadline. Without giving anything away though, you might see an RCT2 park from me before this competition is over. I was going to do it in H2H3 actually but my team didn't make the playoffs and I sortof lost interest at that point.

Just to address one of the things you've said in this thread, Ed - you've spoken out about how LL parks should be expected to keep up with the furthest that RCT2 has gone. But I think that's like comparing two different forms of art. You can't criticize a stage production of Hamlet because the visual effects aren't as cool as in the Lord of the Rings movies, nor can you expect them to create a perfect full-size Elsinore Castle on stage just because LotR has Minas Tirith. You know what I mean?

Let me try to clarify my view a little. I don't think it's reasonable to expect something made in LL to look like the best Phatage or Mala RCT2 parks. I know that's not possible and I would agree that the two games should be judged on their own merits to a certain extent. What I'm saying is that you have to look at a park in the context which it was built. Erwindale Forest coming out today would be judged differently then when it actually came out wouldn't it? And I think it should be. When you start an RCT park, whichever game you use, you're making a mark in the "RCT timeline". You're saying "this is what came before, and this is what I can do". That "this is what came before" part is important too. And if you're talking about the state of the RCT community now, you have to acknowledge all the work being done in RCT2. If you never look at a single RCT2 park, you're cutting yourself off from the "RCT timeline" just like you would if you never looked at a single spotlight park. Look at any H2H season and you can see how the expectations get higher even as the season goes on. So what I was saying then about not excusing LL parks from meeting the same standard that RCT2 parks are expected to meet is just that LL parkmaking never stopped. It's still advancing. There are a lot less people still doing it, so the progress is slower, but the expectation should continue to change. And that also means competing with the new ideas being thrown out there in RCT2.

Take architecture for example. There are ways to make architecture more interesting in LL. It's time consuming, but certainly the examples are out there and the only expertise they take is clicking 'zero clearances' on the Beast trainer. It's not like that's a big secret. The standard for architecture has gone up a lot since RCT2. Something like Mont Saint Michel is light years beyond what is possible in LL. Look back at SACoasterFreak's first Legend park. That was a spotlight. The architecture consists of little more than large blocks of land. You can't get away with that anymore. You have to put more work in than that. I think it's good that the expectation keeps getting raised in that way. And when I judge LL architecture, I'm not looking for Mont Saint Michel. But I am looking for something a lot better than Legends. That's one way LL parks can be held to the same standard as RCT2. It's not equivalent, but it does acknowledge what has come before.

And to borrow your metaphor, I can appreciate the various qualities that make a stage play entertaining without wishing it were a 200 million dollar movie with state of the art special effects and what not. True. And this is actually a very good comparison. Am I impressed by good theater? Of course. It's still difficult to do well and a good story, good writing, good acting -- those things are universal. But then I'm not going to be blown away by any theater production of Hamlet the same way I was with LotR am I? And should I be? That's actually part of what annoys me, what I called a double standard, what I've been arguing against. It seems to me that people take the attitude "that was a good play, I'm going to vote for that instead of LotR because we don't see a lot of good plays anymore" Now if the experience of the play is better than the experience of the movie -- if the story is really well done, if it speaks to me or enlightens me, than I would call it better than the movie even if the movie is more visually impressive. I can make that comparison. But it's a lot harder to make a good play than a visually impressive movie. That makes it so much more impressive when someone really pulls it off well -- and in those cases I'm all about praising good work -- but if the play doesn't blow me away, I'm probably not going to rate it very highly.

(On a side note -- I'm not talking specifically about this matchup. I've listed my reasons for voting the way I did. I don't think Ragnarok was LotR. This was a very close match I think, on the basis of how I try to compare LL and RCT2 parks. Very close.)

How could we or would we be supposed to "judge" which is the better "race": is it that one with the original coaches and horses on a hilly terrain, or is it the same one with formule 1-cars on the same terrain (but asphalted roads) some 60 years later??? Or whatever?

How could anyone set a relative objective standard to compare those things?.
Some people might be just nostalgic, and/or heavily impressed by how the horses did their job.
(others, while they still have some horses and coaches in their backyard while living in a spacy area instead of in a big and crowded town, may be less easily inpressed)

Others will be more impressed by the current technology and how the racers handle their machines. (maybe they do have a racing-club nearby?)

Anyway, what's the use of "comparing" those two so different things (but still connected 'cause in this example they both are going for "who's the fastest/best", like in RCt it centers around "who makes the best park");Both, in the example as well as in RCT have their own charms and possibilities and limitations, both need their own specific skills, etc......

A contest like this imo does not have to do anything with "which sport is the better one" (coaches or formula 1), but just with "who can beat whom in media that you cannot compare objectively".......

I prefer to just judge those different things each on their own merites...meaning that sometimes I am jumping from joy by how the coaches-and-horses gave me a terrific day (because they performed so well within their own possibilities/limitations and the horses all where in shape and the atmosphere was pleasant), while another day the Formula 1 races made my day (because they did such a great job within their possibilities and expectations and noone had an accident ).

Another good analogy. And here's how I would try to interpret it. The people who just love horse races - the biological element of pushing a live animal to it's limit, the nostalgia of the horse and buggy, and the good clean air of an unspoiled countryside -- those people can't fairly compare the two. The people who love car races -- the expertise of the engine maker and the mechanic, the skill of maneuvering a fast car around tight turns at high speed, the danger of cars racing in close proximity -- those people can't fairly compare the two either. I think if you're going to try to make a fair comparison you've got to look for what's the same between the two. What makes for a good race? A close finish? A come from behind victory? An old diehard winning it's last race? A rookie coming out of nowhere to surprise everyone? A near disaster on turn three or a pileup right at the finish? You can correlate those aspects of just 'the race' between the two to make some kind of a fair comparison. That's the kind of comparison I try to make. And it's always complicated and I'm never quite sure if I agree with my final assesment, but I feel like I at least made an effort to be fair.

The 'cult of LL' I was talking about is like the people who love the horse races. People who are going to vote for a good horse race over a good car race any day of the week if the two are otherwise comparable. I argue against the idea that LL is "harder" or "takes more skill" because I don't think it's fair to pre-dispose yourself in that way to "appreciate" the LL parks more. If I'm impressed by something, I go with it. That's what I vote for. It's the park that gave me the best experience. (The best race so to speak) I'm harder to impress in LL, I acknowledge that. But I do try to be fair. That's because (going back to the race analogy) I've seen just about every horse race there's ever been, and I haven't seen nearly as many car races. I'm probably a little prone to being dazzled by the cool cars and the high speed collisions. But in the end, when I make my judgement, I'm looking at the quality of the race more than anything else. I try to reward ambitious ideas over conservative ones. I try to reward daring and creativity. But I also try to be fair when comparing skill. Maybe the 'cult of LL' is just in my imagination. Maybe it doesn't really exist. It just the way people sometimes speak in glorious tones about what I think is a decent LL park starts to make me a little suspicious.

I don't see this as a discussion of which game/parkmakers are better. I see it as a discussion about why it is LL H2H parks are held to an apparently higher standard than rct2 parks.

I think you're right. And I think the reason is pretty obvious. This is H2H4 now. Go back and look at H2H1. Very few of those parks would win a match in H2H2. There's less of a gap between H2H2 and H2H3 except that few of the RCT2 parks in H2H2 would win a match in H2H3 since RCT2 was still fairly new then, as was custom scenery. The reason the standard is so high now for LL parks is that most of the LL parks we've seen in the past two seasons of H2H have been made by people like Fatha' and me who've been playing LL for, well, it seems like forever. So when you place a new LL park in the "RCT timeline" so to speak, or even just the "H2H timeline" the parks you're comparing it too are some of the best parks ever made by people who've been playing the game since the day it came out. That makes it a lot harder to achieve the elusive "wow factor" that guarantees you a win. With RCT2, there are also amazing pieces of work like Ghost Cell Crisis and Aviara Cove in the "H2H timeline" but there's also a lot more average quality work to compare it to. And probably that does influence the vote. But I think for those of us posting here anyway, people who obviously put a lot of thought into this, there's a certain maturity level that we can look past that and make a more fair evaluation before voting.

mantis Offline

Exactly.
And the cult of LL does only exist in your head.
*hides membership card*

Panic Offline

Cork, we'll let you have Xcoaster in place of Titan. We can take you guys. :woot:

lol that'd actually be fun to try.

And good words there Ed. I think it's good that we've illuminated both sides of the debate, the "absolute" and the "relative" preferences, and you've made a very good case for the former.
I think the so-called "cult of LL" (I wouldn't use that term to describe it but I know what you mean) actually saved the game, I mean the sheer respect people had for the old game. It was a damned narrow bridge between the old LL generation and the smaller but thriving new one, but I think we made it over because of the legacy of LL and the respect for someone who chose to play it. I'm not for voting for the horse race because it's the horse race, but I am for viewing the fastest horse and the fastest racecar on equal terms, because they are the champions of their respective fields.

Coaster Ed Offline

I think the so-called "cult of LL" (I wouldn't use that term to describe it but I know what you mean) actually saved the game, I mean the sheer respect people had for the old game. It was a damned narrow bridge between the old LL generation and the smaller but thriving new one, but I think we made it over because of the legacy of LL and the respect for someone who chose to play it.

I'm not for voting for the horse race because it's the horse race, but I am for viewing the fastest horse and the fastest racecar on equal terms, because they are the champions of their respective fields.

Very well put about the car and the horse. It's an easier comparison to make in a race then with RCT parks -- people couldn't even agree about what was good in an RCT park when it was just the one game -- but we're certainly on the same page about what the comparison should be.

And I think you're right about the 'cult of LL' saving that game. As you pointed out earlier, interest in LL was at a low point about the time of H2H3 and it's amazing how much it's come up since then. Maybe it's reached that stage now where the shock and awe of the new toys has worn off a bit and the old classics which were never really broken are getting love again. I hope that's the case and I look forward to seeing more LL parks if it is. I don't like to see people get so enamored with the past that they devote their time to trying to recreate it rather than take it further. I would hope that people are still interested in taking it further, and looking at the people around here, I think that people are.

PS - I've been promsing OLE a treasure trove of old LL parks for some time now and haven't gotten around to sending them yet (sorry!) -- but it occurs to me that others might be interested in the same thing. Maybe someone has a place we can host them so we can resurrect them for everyone?

mantis Offline

I have hosting space if you need it.
What sort of parks were you thinking of?

Coaster Ed Offline

A lot of them. All RCT1. The ones that aren't available anymore (ie not NE spotlights).

mantis Offline

Xcoaster uploaded a lot in that post in the ramblings forum, but if there are any others then PM me the names and i'll see if I have them. If I have i'll upload them, if I haven't then i'll have to get you to send them to me.

Corkscrewed Offline

send 'em. I can upload from home or work.

Cork, we'll let you have Xcoaster in place of Titan. We can take you guys.

That'll work.

Interestingly enough, at Disneyland last month, we were talking about an H2H all star game and how cool that'd be to look at from a spectator's point of view. *maybe* should do that after the season's over... lol.

Just make sure it's a small map, like 75x75, or there's no way we'd get another collabo done.

Coaster Ed Offline

Interestingly enough, at Disneyland last month, we were talking about an H2H all star game and how cool that'd be to look at from a spectator's point of view. *maybe* should do that after the season's over... lol.

Just make sure it's a small map, like 75x75, or there's no way we'd get another collabo done.

That's actually a cool idea now that I think about it. Have a North Division park against a South Division park. The tough part (of course) would be deciding if it's going to be LL or RCT2

...er, East and West I guess. Sorry.

Oh yeah, and I'm going to have to wait until I get home to start sending parks. I can't remember all the names off the top of my head, and I was just going to go through all my old files too to find parks I don't remember by name that I haven't looked at in a while.

Milo Offline

That's ok about the parks Ed. I knew you had to be busy with stuff and Xcoaster did upload quite a few parks. Having someone host what you have (and it sounds like a lot) sounds like a good idea though. It would be nice for people to download old stuff not just from Danimation.

And that h2h all star game sounds like it would kick ass.

Fatha' Offline

It would have to be an RCT2 park....I fear that some of the RCT2 people wouldn't be able to make something brilliant in LL.....but you could say the same about LLers I guess.

Ride6 Offline

Actually even though I haven't finished reading all of the new (to me) posts I'll comment on the core reason I flew off the handle when "Seige" lost.

I could've built nearly the EXACT same thing in rct2 and it would've won. That's the main thing that eats me up as a player of both games. If I'd gone with the other game for this match and put as much time and effort as I did with LL the park would've been less complete, but it would've looked "better" to enough people to probably have won.

I donno, I just feel like I could've built the better park or I could've built what everyone wants to see, I chose to build the better park (within the time restrictions) and I lost for it. I'm sure anyone could understand how fusterating that could be, particularly if they play both games.

EDIT: Now that I've read a little more I'll say this: I'm a more talented engine builder than I am a horse trainer, but I could have the horse ready to compete on time while the engine would've still been in pieces or slapped together poorly so it *should* come apart half-way through the race. But in "endurence" racing it's all about how many laps you have at the end and I think that even with the engine coming apart we would've costed to the finish with a win if I'd taken the safe route of building the car...

Not that I'm really explaining much of anything with all this rambling (other than that it must be early in the morning and I'm tired) but I felt I had to expand on why I was so fusterated. There's always excuses, reasons are what take searching to find. In this situation the only reason for my spazzing was my own emotional connection to my team and my park. I was certain that it would win when judged fairly and when it did not I obviously wish I could've gone back and tossed together a POS engine out of leftover parts.

Ride6

Coaster Ed Offline

Yeah, I understand why you were upset. You obviously put a lot of work into Castle Grijs. The architecture details and the sculptures are not easy to make. I see your point about building in RCT2 vs. LL. You're damn good at RCT2 and I'm fairly confident in saying whatever park you built would have won. That doesn't mean it was a failure though. You went with what you wanted to build. I definately respect that. Sometimes it just doesn't work out. And the reason I voted against you is mostly that I didn't like the ride selection. If I were voting purely on architecture and theming, you would have won hands down. I don't know if that makes you feel better or worse about it though. Maybe I should stop trying to be helpful and just drop it. I'm still not sure I made the right choice in this one.

Ride6 Offline

Well I respect you choice and it's quite alright really. It's part of the game. You win some you lose some. Yet we (Strangelove) keep loosing matchs by very small margins.

Last year on the Flying Germans there were matches we knew were almost certainly going to be losses but we turned in a weak park in hopes that the other team would do the same or forfiet. We only had maybe 3 parks that we had confidence in (in the main season). This year my team has really been pouring much more time and effort into the parks, trying our best to make a winner every week. Strangly we have the same record we did last year at this time (3 matches in for us as a team). It's fusterating because this time we're trying so much harder and we're not sure if we can put more in enough to start winning (as a team, there's always Fatha who's now past his bad luck).

Ride6

Park / The Ragnarök

Which is the better park?

138 Comments

Corkscrewed Offline

Emergo Offline

artist Offline

mantis Offline

Emergo Offline

Coaster Ed Offline

mantis Offline

Panic Offline

Coaster Ed Offline

mantis Offline

Coaster Ed Offline

mantis Offline

Corkscrewed Offline

Coaster Ed Offline

Milo Offline

Fatha' Offline

Ride6 Offline

Coaster Ed Offline

Ride6 Offline

Similar Parks

Members Reading