(Archive) Advertising District / Something Inspired This Way Comes

i find it very dull.

You find everything dull, my boy.....you remind me a lot of Gwenyth Paltrow from the Royal Tenenbaums....very sullen....very IN to being "moody".....not unlike I was at 19 or 20....or 21 thru 30 for that matter. Oh well, I shall have to try harder to please you....wait...I'm building this park solely for MY enjoyment....if you don't like it....too fucking bad......there...moody enough for you? Think I'll go smoke cigarettes in the bathroom now, and pretend that I'm cool.

All right, it's not the smilies dropping their jaws to the floor like a bunch of people have been saying. Although it is a nice job, you have to consider how much of this is parkmaking skill and how much is the game's graphics and orientations doing the work. RCT2 is a good reference. I think that what you have would look pleasant in RCT2. Not hugely memorable, but pleasant. I think you should get rid of some of the really small dips on the woodie's hills. But yeah, I mean, the skill and effort that went into this are pretty good, but I'm not fooled by the graphics and it's nothing to wet my pants over. But I do like it.

If I got rid of the small dips on the small woodie, then I couldn't very well call it Kinder Coaster now could I?

As for the RCT3 vs. 2 thing......I'm not even gonna go there. I have seen more than enough RCT3 parks at the Atari forums, that I don't "wet my pants" over..........so, there ya go.

In the end it still comes down to being able to visualise a park. It doesn't matter which game they are created in........k. 'Nuff said.....going to bed.....cheerio.

It's not the greatest park ever.

I do, on the other hand, like it a lot. The architecture looks to be very nice, and the snapshot of the waterfall under the coaster is excellent. Nice ship, by the way...

sorry; do not try to dismiss my comments on the basis that i am an angry person tyring to be "in". in my view the park is very dull. the colors are flat. the rides are boring. you've got a bunch of tarmac with some pretty flowers and that is all. the games lighting adds a touch of atmosphere.

what i am trying to say is that you are depending on the game to make the park great. there is nothing 'creative' or 'outstanding' in the park, it is just mediocre.

The colors are flat, because that is how the game renders them. There are no "popping" colors in RCT3. The rides, wait, you've only seen two....and I make no apologies for them. The tarmac, means the park isn't done.....I am not depending on the game to make the park look good. It is supposed to be a charming little family type park. There isn't supposed to be a WOW factor, with groovy hacked rides. Merely someplace real. Sorry, it's not cool enough for you. I did smoke a whole carton of cigarettes in the bathroom last night, just trying to be half as cool as you are......guess I failed, huh chief?

And my comments about your attitude reach far beyond the scope of merely this thread....you seem to be acting like this across the board......buck up li'l camper.

i find it funny that you are so offended because i do not like your work. you attempt to insult, or condescend, my attidude so you can justify your opinion. pretty sad. i just think your park is horribly dull.

When are you going to Croatia?

Anyways, I find this extremely pleasing. Very cute, and charming. Looks like a really fun park. The architecture is lovely, especially the green restaurant.

I'm in love with the hypercoaster. Finish this soon

i find it funny that you are so offended because i do not like your work.  you attempt to insult, or condescend, my attidude so you can justify your opinion.  pretty sad.  i just think your park is horribly dull.

No, I don't care if you like my work.....it is your general attitude as of late that offends me.

Cheers.

Pardon me, but that hypercoaster layout is actually really awkward. I don't mean to keep harping on you Mer, but it needs to be tweaked. You've got a nice SROS-esque start...and then the far helix, even if it doesn't make the G-forces as recorded by the game go into the red, looks painful. Looks painful. If there's no way to replicate the SROS far helixes then just make something up - it'll probably turn out better for you anyway. Then you have a series of four airtime hills, all which look the same height, that neither looks interesting visually nor looks like it would be particularly interesting to ride in real life. The middle section is pretty nice. I'll give you that. Then, if it even makes it over that twisted series with a decent amount of speed, the next hills would come as painful speed bumps rather than airtime hills. The end is alright. I get the feeling that if you released this in RCT2, the layout might be appreciated by some but quickly forgotten by all but a few, simply for being too generic and awkward other than its best section, the twisted middle part. I'm sorry if this sounds offensive or anything, but I think brutal honesty is necessary just to balance out so many other people shitting their pants over something that is OK. Because the game's improved graphics are no excuse for letting parkmaking quality slide, anyone who plays RCT3 needs to think at every step of the way what things would look like in RCT2. And people looking at the park also need to consider the same thing. That's the true quality test, in my opinion.

anyone who plays RCT3 needs to think at every step of the way what things would look like in RCT2. And people looking at the park also need to consider the same thing. That's the true quality test, in my opinion.

Um...no, actually they don't. RCT3 is a DIFFERENT GAME!!!!!!!!!!!!! Just like RCT2 was a DIFFERENT GAME!!!!!!! After RCT2 was released, no one called anyone sloppy because they started using actual awnings instead of hacking coaster track to make scenery....well , actually they did, but it's pointless. This whole, bullshit of letting the graphics do the work is hogwash. You still have to sort through the myriad of stuff in the game, compile it into some semblance of a different looking park, and then take into account that you will, if you've designed a park over 100 x 100, hit lag so ferocious it screeches your comp to a halt, when most peeps try to view it.

To say that RCT3 should be viewed through RCT2 eyes, is like comparing Degas to Brett Easton Ellis....they don't synch up. I'm OK if you don't like the park. That doesn't bother me. What does is the ridiculously stupid argument that RCT3 and 2 are even remotely similar, and one step further.....that ANYONE can make a decent RCT3 park. I defy you to do so. C'mon boy, put ya money where your mouth is. For you to even suggest that, raises the whole RCT2 custom scenery argument. Surely anyone with toons walls and awnings can compile them into something breathtaking right? We've seen that is clearly not the case.

On that happy note, I think I'll be spending more time over at the Atari forums, as I don't play RCT1 or 2 anymore. And since there are peeps over there that can actually impart real wisdom about the game, rather than pedantic bullshit, it seems more beneficial for me as an RCT3 parkmaker, to improving my skills.



Cheers.

P.S. If you'd read my earlier post....the hyper looks nothing like that anymore.

Meretrix, you really are a true professional when it comes to taking umbridge.

I'm not trying to scare you off or offend you, I think you're a very valuable asset to the community and that you should stay. I think you should take my comment as the word of someone who perhaps overestimates how easy it is to make something look good in RCT3, as a balancing device for all the people that seem to way overestimate how good something made in the game actually is. But I can't pretend to understand the workings of RCT3 construction and perhaps you are right: most of the RCT3 comments in this forum seem to come from two kinds of people, the grumps like me and JB who always doubt what they see in RCT3, and the people who post the jaw-dropping smilies at a piece of work that is decent and call it just about the greatest work they have ever seen in any RCT game. This forum's RCT3 tastes are very out of whack and perhaps other places can indeed provide better feedback. But you should stay anyway.

Meretrix, you really are a true professional when it comes to taking umbridge.

what is this umbridge of which you speak? If you mean criticsim, actually, when it's directed properly, I'm quite receptive. When it's the aforementioned argument, erm....not so good.

I never said I was leaving...merely spending more time over at Atari.

RCT1 and 2 bore me.

So, I guess you could say that this is my official "I'm not entering Pro Tour" announcement.

I turned on RCT2 the other day, and found myself completely underwhelmed by the games mechanics, from scrolling, to land management. I made a lake........and it took forever, because I had to adjust each tile individually.....plus, what fun is creating dark rides, that you can't actually RIDE. Or coasters for that matter. Or being able to "walk into" a gift shop that you've just spent 3 hours on. Yes, RCT3 has some issues.....but a parkmakers' skills being "upgraded" by good graphics is not one of them. Just go to the Atari forums, and you'll see some very "primitive" parks........skill comes from knowing how to see, and then transferring that vision to the masses.

Perhaps I stated the RCT3 vs. RCT2 argument differently than I intended. I'm a conservative parkmaker and so I'm comfortable with the RCT2 and LL diagonal overhead view as a reference point for analyzing the quality of something. You're now used to the RCT3 view and have broken from that more. Perhaps I should use how it would look to be wandering through it as a reference point, with how something looks from overhead in RCT2 translated into how it would look from a peep's perspective. In that sense, would most RCT2 work from about ride6's work a year ago up in quality be more impressive to walk through than this? Probably. Could a quality but mostly forgotten runner-up like Klamath Lake Amusement Park blow this out of the water from a peep's perspective? Probably. When you think about it that way, the only remaining possible reason for people to be posting jaw-dropping smilies and "OMG GREATEST WORK EVER" phrases in response to this and not in response to Klamath Lake is because the game's graphics are giving it a boost. The graphics are the factor that accounts for the difference in response between this and RCT2 work that would in fact be more amazing to walk through in real life.

Your (partial) saving grace is the difficulty in putting stuff together in RCT3, and I respect the effort you go through to one-up the difficulties presented by lag, etc. But overcoming hardships encountered in the gameplay doesn't make something amazing. If how hard you had to work and work around the difficulties in the game were such a huge factor in how people viewed parks as to make this jaw-dropping work, then there would be probably 20 or 25 LL parks that were more admirable than Rivers of Babylon, because LL is technically a harder game to get great-looking stuff out of than RCT2 is. But the difficulty of gameplay doesn't carry that much weight. So I respect what you have to employ to make this what it is, but it doesn't make it that amazing.

.....he said with a back handed slap.


The more important question is....COULD any of the GREAT (and I'll include DTA in this discussion since it is THE most downloaded Spotlight at NE) parks be made in RCT3? The answer is a resounding NO. There simply aren't the scenery options.

So.....since techincally, Euroscape is the only "Non" Custom RCT2 Spotlight.......I guess that begs the question....would that hold up under RCT3 standards..........sadly, it would crash EVERY computer known to mankind, as the game even in RCT2 maxed out the sprites. So, until someone either releases all of the quarter tile scenery pieces, not to mention fountains, walls, etc. that EVERY fucking peep here uses to create the masterpieces (which you deem the litmus test for ANYTHING RCT) that this site churns out, I guess this site will just have to be left in the RCT3 dust.......sad really....if you look at guys like Circle Cision at Atari....he makes works by Fooz and Fatha (taking into account your apparent need to draw parallels between RCT2 & 3) look like pre-school........seriously....

Finally......the peeps that are saying "Greatest Work Ever".......please go to Atari......make the jump NOW, and see what true RCT3 mastery is.

I have found my new home. They have much to teach me.

I'll hang out to bitch and stuff......but my RCT1 & 2 days.......are over.

Hallelujah!!!!!

lol, you are so predictable.
"OH NO ONE LIKES MY WORK, I WILL LEAVE NOW! A MASTER, YOU ARE LOOSING. woe is me."

lol, you are so predictable.
"OH NO ONE LIKES MY WORK, I WILL LEAVE NOW! A MASTER, YOU ARE LOOSING.  woe is me."

You are even more ridiculous than I thought if that is truly what you think.......typical of you Glitch....

Then that's RCT3's loss if the game requirements are so overwhelming that a very high-quality park of good size cannot be created or looked at, as you say. I mean, the best LL stuff ever created and the best RCT2 stuff ever created are comparable in quality. But if RCT3 is such a behemoth of a game that the best stuff ever created in that game that's more than like a 30x30 square is required by the game limits to be drastically below 1 and 2's best in quality, then in the pursuit of great and large-scale parkmaking RCT3 will just get left behind. That's the reason why most people here stick to 2 or 1. I believe we already went over this several months back.