Park / Land of Wonders
-
20-April 09
- Views 33,026
- Downloads 921
- Fans 1
- Comments 147
-
63.00%(required: 60%) Silver
Cocoa 70% Scoop 70% Xtreme97 70% chorkiel 65% Liampie 65% robbie92 65% Camcorder22 60% CoasterCreator9 60% nin 60% posix 60% geewhzz 55% saxman1089 55% 63.00% -
1 fan Fans of this park
-
Full-Size Map
-
Download Park
921
-
Objects
382
-
Tags
I mean, me and eyeamthu1 did a Vampire themed park for RCPro Summer Showdown back in 2006 (link in my sig). Granted its nothing in comparison to what the Germans park would have been, I feel like some of the ideas were there.
Couldn't agree more with Camcorder22. Next time, I'll submit a blank map and a hot dog stand. And people can vote according to it's "potential". Maybe I can walk away with 27.5% of the vote, without even trying.
I know that FG's park was a quite a bit more than just a hot dog stand. But a few things swayed my vote. Mostly, it was just the one coaster. No other attractions. I'm one who thinks that a park isn't just a showcase for a stand-alone coaster.
I really don't care how well it was built. (good use of supports I might add.) But if there is relatively nothing else in the park BUT the coaster, then it's not really a "park".
It's a coaster design, in a "park-like" setting.
IF FG's take all the comments made about their entry, and apply them to the park and finish it. I'm sure they can use it for an entry for submission to NEs accolades.
Although a very good article to read, please note the very first paragraph...
"...Amusement park or more commonly theme park is the generic term for a collection of rides and other entertainment attractions assembled for the purpose of entertaining a large group of people. An amusement park is more elaborate than a simple city park or playground, usually providing attractions meant to cater to adults, teenagers, and small children. A theme park is a type of amusement park which has been built around one or more themes, such as an American West theme, or Atlantis. Today, the terms amusement parks and theme parks are often used interchangeably..."
Note: "A collection of rides and other entertainment attractions..."
A single coaster, and nothing else except a few structures, (no matter how far along they may be,) at least, according to Wikipedia, is not an amusement or a theme park. Because Wiki defines a park as a "collection", not an "isolation" of one attraction.
Now. Lets go to the H2H Rules and Regulations...
"The concept of Head-2-Head 5 is two teams face off in a matchup, each submitting a mini-park made by one to three players."
A "Mini-Park". And a park defined by Wiki, means a collection of attractions. So, reguardless if NE defines what a park consists of. Wiki has already taken care of that for us. So, a mini-park is a smaller collection of attractions. It does not define a park as consisting of only one attraction.
Edited by Wolfman, 27 April 2009 - 01:58 PM.
Maybe I missed something, but I haven't read anywhere H2H is about making amusement parks.
I mean take a look at Ghost Cell Crisis, Ed's H2H parks. These are some of the most admired and beautiful works in RCT and you can't really define them as parks.
I'd like to say thanks to Louis for putting up with me. Due to the project starting out as a design (I had the layout already done although it was tweaked a lot) and I had such a clear vision in my head, I can only imagine I was too critical of your work and hence why its mostly my stuff on the map thats all unfinished
Thanks to everyone who voted for us and equally to those who voted against us.
And lastly thanks to Magnus for believing that I could complete a park for week one
To me the difference is in execution. What you have is a selection of rides with a theme draped over them, it would look the same regardless of the theme but it just so happens that it is halloween. It doesn't seem like anything has been integrated well, both with the theme and other rides. However the park is three years old.........
Which leads me onto another point, what is a park exactly? I won't go into too much of a rant but since when did the map size dictate what should be built on it? Its all a matter of scale and to me a map of this size is better for an area of a larger theme park. It allows me to use more objects for a single theme instead of having to stretch them out over several, therefore hopefully enriching the atmosphere.
In any case, lets move onto match 3
Gareth
The vote is over,
Whzz Kids won.
Get over it already.
And Gareth, lol, you werent critical in a bad way, hell if you hadnt had been as critical as you were then I wouldnt have been able to produce some great stuff on that map.
And yes, at least my work was finished
I would much rather listen to a musician that's not the greatest player in the world sing a truelly inspired song than listen to a song by someone with perfect technique and an amazing producer with absolutely no inspiration, and I would rather look at a park with beautiful ideas that never quite reached perfection than a park that is technically perfect and has no reason to ever have actually existed (complete opinion). Looking at the pictures, it just looks like every curve and building interaction in Vampyre, and even every tree and bush were placed with the utmost care and forethought... something I'm not seeing in the Whzz park (again, complete opinion.) And fuck, I just like it better... That's the real reason, I guess.
...
But you're right... I was trying to pick up Darren. That Jew 'fro makes me weak in the knees.
agreed MA its all about quality not quantity
no, not thread summary.
Vampyre is simply not completed to the level that merits judging the two parks on an equal basis. A really good appetizer can of course be better than the main dish, but that's thinking about it in the wrong terms- this isn't purely quantity vs quality. You are being served two main dishes here, one of which is only partially cooked and has a few bites out of it. The parts that are done might be delicious- perhaps better than the other main dish- but I don't know anyone who would accept a half-cooked, unfinished dinner just because the few bites that weren't raw were pretty good.
The way this deal works is that you judge the submitted park with the assumption that it is exactly as the creators wanted it to be submitted. I can completely understand that you don't need the arms or head on the venus de milo or the winged nike to have an incredible work of art, but this is like getting a left leg, a breast, and two fingernails and calling it a masterpiece because you can mentally fill in the rest. "one of the most stunning RCT2 works ever made finished or not. " ?? Don't delude yourselves, please.
You, as a judge of this contest, must consider the entire canvas. It's one thing to deliberately leave blank portions of your canvas for effect - when used properly plain grass areas are quite popular here - but it is something entirely different to begin painting a whole scene, in such a way that both you and the viewer know it should be a whole scene, and then not finish it, but present it as a completed work regardless. This is pretty harsh on the Germans and their technical difficulties, but this isn't a pity contest or a potential contest.
and most of all-
MA, by definition someone with perfect technique and amazing production must sound more inspirational than the untrained musician. Your argument is invalid.
And I agree that it's a pretty unfair scale to subject to this kind of contest, but look on the bright side... I'm not voting, and this is one of those reasons why.
I wasn't aware that we were arguing semantics. Actually, I wasn't aware my last post was arguing anything, other than trying desperately to gain some much sought after respect from KONG. Please take me back, KONG. I'll change, I promise... Just... Hold me.
So, let me clarify what I intended to say if my words by definition don't agree with their intended message.
Number one, I claimed the works lack inspiration (the creator had no reason to create the work, no message to share, no emotion in mind, etc.), not that the works they created weren't inspirational (creates emotion in the viewers mind, calls them to action, etc.). They might as well be completing a colouring book or a paint-by-numbers in the most devine and perfect way if they had absolutely no reason to create art. It's sterile. It's boring. (I'm talking about it in general now.... not specifically towards the Whzz Kids park.)
And number two, I said a person who does not have perfect technique, not an untrained musician. The only reason I bring that up is because it makes sense in the analogy I used. Unless, of course, you are comparing the work in Vampyre to someone who is not trained in the game at all, which is not the case. The argument throughout the thread is that there wasn't enough there, not if the work that was there was any good--you claimed this yourself in the rest of your post.
I could go ahead and debate your argument all day, but none of it would have anything to do with this thread or these parks. So, I'll let it go. You like perfection, I like emotion. Agree to disagree.
Edited by Midnight Aurora, 28 April 2009 - 04:20 AM.