Park / Harkview Heights
-
02-October 06
- Views 10,886
- Downloads 880
- Fans 1
- Comments 61
-
1 fan Fans of this park
-
Full-Size Map
-
Download Park
880
-
Objects
295
-
Tags
Fatha' Offline
Come now, you know Iris has to tools to beat this park on his team
Mind you I have only looked at the overview, but what is unrealistic? Really, think about it. Is Slime Meridian unrealistic? Is Kayte Ridge even realistic? Is this park realistic? The answer to all three is really "no!" WME, I'll tell you what this and Kayte Ridge really is, and remember it well.
"Kayte Ridge and Harkview Heights are simply mimic jobs that attempt to copy what has already been done by real theme park chains"
Again, I'll restate it.
"Kayte Ridge and Harkview Heights are simply mimic jobs that attempt to copy what has already been done by real theme park chains"
Does that make it realistic? Even better, ask yourself this: Does it make it enjoyable? Or do you enjoy it simply because it looks like something out of Kennywood or Six Flags? Ask yourself: Is it thoughtful? Is it well planned? And from the overview I see I can already critique this and answer all of these questions:
1) Its not VERY thoughtful in my mind because it doesn't take much creativity to build a park next to two hills, NOT incorporate those elevation changes into the park circulation. The coasters (Aside from the Giga) seem to actually have some thoughfullness put into them, because they do actually use the hill to their advantage (Even though at times the land seems to follow the coasters instead of the coasters following the land).
2) Is it well planned out? Well, it seems like its fairly simply done, and seems to take a "safe route" in terms of circulation and landscaping. See above.
3) Is it realistic? No, not really, its a copy job. It mimics what has been done...so really you could call any park that does the NE style realistic, because its "realistic" in regards to the NE Style, just like this is "realistic" in regards to a theme park chain like Six Flags. 90% of the parks built on this website can be constructed in real life.
4) Do I enjoy it? From the overview, No. Kayte Ridge seems to be better well planned and looked natural, and this seems to be "unnatural from the overview.
Ill comment on your last sentence. This park gets what it deserves....Again, it really does get what it deserves. Do you know what the real problem is? Other parks get WAY, WAY, WAY, WAY WAY WAY WAY WAY too much credit. So this park is a victim of that, in the sense its mediocre and getting treated like its shit, while other equally mediocre parks get hailed as great. So really, it gets a 6/10 or a 7/10 just by the overview from me, and that really should not be a shock.
Not trying to bust your balls, just trying to put things in perspective.
you summed up pretty much exactly my thoughts. especially about the praisery going on.
no idea how many times we've been through this. but it's funny how ed always pops up when it's realism vs fantasy debate time
anyways,
i was just whoring because cork implied it's a good park because it's realistic, which it isn't. like phatage and fatha, both veterans and rct genius-es, explained to you.
furthermore, realistic parks are what i want to see. why i come to this site. sure, everyone shall make parks in whatever appearance they prefer, i'm not telling people to go change.
but in my opinion, making realistic parks is much much much much harder than fantasy parks. and i can see that realistic parks are much better appreciated and liked by the community than fantasy parks. again, look at beagle's park.
honestly, what he builds, does it look like anything special to you? aren't those buildings kinda cheap?
where's the clutterness?
where are objects that take 1/23523523526 of a tile?
and still, people are going crazy about the park. the topic has a silly high view count compared to its replies.
guess what, we my friends, are theme park fans.
if we weren't, we'd care shit about this game. even so called "fantasy parkmakers" didn't start playing the game because they liked its gameplay (which is terribly unintuitive) or the its graphics (256 colours were laughed upon even by the time rct1 was released) but because they love rollercoasters and amusement parks.
so, i conclude, recreating these things, makes ultimatively more sense than creating something else, which in 95% of all cases is just freestyle randomness.
i know it's a very biased and primitive opinion, but to me, realistic style parkmaking is better and more skillfull than fantasy style.
simply because in order to make realism, you need to know and understand a park's economy, a coaster's layout and physics, the storyline concept behind the rides of your favourite parks, etc. etc.
if you work all that in, you end up with something i'd call truly realistic.
now back to beagle. he knows this whole park he's building all out. heck, he's simulating its history in rct2!!!
he's 100% aware of everything. and it shows.
why else would people go crazy over those screens which are even made unsharp and have other cheap effects thrown onto them??
anyways...
i can always do this kind of debate. it's crazy.
just intended to explain where my standpoint concerning this h2h4 park comes from. i suppose you're now able to understand me and why it doesn't deserve the attribute "realistic" in my opinion.
Also, HH isn't the best example, but what's with people hating on the idea of incorporating the best of fantasy and realism into one park? I thought that's what made the NE style enjoyable. Personally I'd spend ten times as long exploring Loopy's IOA as I would Beagle's park, both in game and if they existed in real life.
Lmao.
Remember the following quote. Take it to heart:
"The price of endless innovation is that when you run out of good ideas, you only have bad ones left."
Not everything has to be new, or endlessly creative. All it has to do is look at an old idea in a different way.
I've discussed this park with geewhzz since it started (though I never saw it). It started with an idea (the waterfall coaster) and it was continued into completion. Not only that, but it did so in a way no one has yet done.
Seriously, what's the point of having a fantasy v. realism debate about a park that simply doesn't belong in either category?
Bloody hell, people.
-ACE
Very soild realistic style park. All the coasters layouts were great, the invert was clearly the best, the only problem they had some slow spots, so work on your paceing. I think your a little insane for useing all those landblocks, but you did use them very well. The details were all really nice, great work with building blocks and custom lines and such.
An enjoyable park for sure, also likely my vote for park of the week.
Great job guys.
There were things I didn't like, such as the fact that the whole park seemed a bit drab, but it was a very well constructed park, and I appreciate all that went into it. Well done.
And, as I said before, I really don't see the point in a fantasy vs. realism debate anymore. It's really quite trivial because, frankly, either point of view can be justified. There are just as many crappy attempts at realistic parks out there as crappy fantasy parks, and vice versa. And at it's worst realism is the "mimic job" that Fatha describes it as. And fantasy, at it's worst, is the disorganized chaotic mess that others have described. But I used to think Mala's RCT1 parks were a chaotic mess until I learned how to see what he was doing. And it is a tradeoff. Taking the extra amount of effort to place your trees precisely and to work with the landscaping slopes and place fences and all of that -- all of that makes a park better. Designing original and exciting rides and filling your park with unique theming ideas and hacks -- that's important too. And sometimes those two conflict with each other so you have to compromise one way or another.
I tend to get most critical of "realistic parks" when they accomplish their beauty by not taking chances. Totally flat landscape, copies of real-life coasters, repetitive architecture, and every peice of theming used only for it's original purpose. It's great that they took the time to place trees nicely and come up with a working park layout, but they're also not challenging themselves with coaster layouts or landscaping or hacks or theming or ride designing, etc. And that's really vital for me. It is impressive when you can create something beautiful, but only so much so.
On the other hand, for a fantasy park to really work you actually have to put some effort into making things look good too. Even if you've got the best hacks ever, if the whole thing looks terrible, it's more of a technical achievment than an actual park. All those hacks are less impressive when they exist only to show off your hacking ability.
So that's why i think the best parks achieve the proper balance of realism and fantasy elements. They have the unique rides, the cool ideas, sometimes hacking -- and they back that up with the aesthetics. They pay attention to tree selection and placement, to architecture, and so on. And maybe that's all the NE style is. It's the best balance of realism and fantasy that you find in all the best parks, in the spotlights and contest winners and H2H parks of the year. Everyone has their own secret formula, but you know when the mix is right.
Anyway thats my thoughts on the realism/non realism debate. I see both sides very clearly.
Great park, theres something about your work that i like because ever since i viewed Kayte and Harkview ive just continued to look at them again and still have fun viewing them. I loved the dive machine with the waterfall, you both did a really good job. All in all a very solid park.
JK
Corkscrewed Offline
You simply assumed something. I'm not even sure how you could have, either...
C'mon Phil. I don't care when you or anyone else is an RCT snob (and really, that's what this community is, and it's what makes this community lively, interesting, and entertaining), but if you're gonna take a shot at me, at least make sure you've got a target.
Unless that's Kumba under your name....
-ACE
...winning an argument on the internet is like winning the special olympics; even if you win, you're still retarded...
lol.
Thanks, Geoff. I'm going to let you win this one...
Fatha' Offline
By looking at an overview one can automatically tell when a park is truly special. In reality, the details are all nice and dandy (You know, the actual program elements of the parks IE coasters, rides, buildings, etc), but what it really comes down to on a large scale is how the park mixes as a whole, and the overview shows it well. I don't think this park mixes well, it has certain areas on the map which really don't make sense to me, such as "Coasters interacting with the main circulation path (they all seem off to the side and in their own area), etc etc. It the little things that I notice about composition that tells me whether a park has an initial "WOW" factor....thus this does not, so thus it gets a mediocre grade of 7/10...could that change when I open it? Possible, do i think it will? No.
And as for enjoying things, I really do, just throwing somes thoughts out about why people really think they like this. The reason, in my mind, is because its strictly immitating something we are use to and love...amusement parks. I enjoy it for what it "is", i guess....but not as much as I feel it "should" be.
-JDP
Stop that. We all see parks in our own ways.
You know better what to think of a park by the overview than what i can see in game? I'm sure you're amazingly talented and all-knowing but that's definitely taking it a bit too far don't you think? If anyone criticizes the rest of the parks around here it would be me as well, i just particularly like this one. Even if it's mediocre, and the rest is bad.. it still sticks out above the rest. But really, what do you know. Oh right, you can see everything from an overview. Whether the coasters are fluent and well paced, the landscaping good-looking and the details spot on.
And posix, i'd like to see a comment about the park itself because i haven't really sensed you looking at the park either. You're praising mr.big mouth fatha here when he's honestly telling us what this park looks like and how much it should be praised because he can see all that from an overview.
I don't care what you think about the park in the end, i like it and i will just as much if you two don't. But a fair, intelligent discussion about it should really be the only discussion about it.
And steve, no disrespect?
-ACE
It's a fucking game that your supposed to play for fun, and just reading this topic or any of the other topics that go on about fantasy and realism just take the fun right out of it. You build for what you want, neither realism or fantasy, and if you do strive for one of them, then I can't possibly see how you can still have fun playing the game.