H2H5 / [H2H5] Round Robin | Round 4 | Match 1

^Excuse me sir(s) but I am going to have to totally disagree with you. I honestly would not be playing this game if it was not for the roller coasters... and with out roller coasters would there have ever been a phatage, geewhzz, or CP6??

In my own opinion I think it's the other way around.. it's the coasters a park needs and it's the scenery that is just something "fun" to put it.
-JDP

Oh for sure dude, I wouldn't be playing if it weren't for coasters either. I just meant that a theme can be a world and doesn't need a coaster to be. I guess it just depends on whether you look at RCT parkmaking as an evolved version of a theme park simulator or a creative medium that we like to put coasters and rides in. It's both, technically. In my opinion it's just closer to the latter because I spend like over 90% of parkmaking time on theming.

Edited by Panic, 06 June 2009 - 03:25 AM.

i want to say the vague argument brought up by some that the park wins because it's ll is totally wrong, imho. like louis said, i don't see how you can assume people to be so stupid. furthermore, what i also read in some posts is a sort of "aww, come on, just get over ll, it's old and nothing new can be done with it. stop trying already, move on, and play rct2", kind of attitude, which obviously upsets me. then, i am tired of this false common sense that says an ll park today has to be hacked apart like no tomorrow or else it's not worth anything which people have come to believe. extreme hacking is just one way to play the game. there are others. whichever you like. which leads me to my next point: there was no coaster in the elementalists park because it wasn't a theme park. yeah, it was a FANTASY creation. in case you didn't notice, it told the story of aliens attacking earth and how humanity tried to fight against them in a highly futuristic setting. i mean it says 2287 for a reason ...
i can understand anyone who says he did not like the park for it was not following the concept of a realistic park, because he likes those better, but saying one did not like the park because there was no coaster to check out is kinda disregarding the whole idea of the park and allows to guess you did not understand the reasons why the park was made the way it was at all. after all, you do not have to create parks with the game. or rollercoasters. not even if it's called rollercoaster tycoon.

i should add however, that this was the reason why i did not like the park's entrance much, because it looked too much like it was imitating reality and, in my opinion, therefore broke with the concept of itself.

another thing i wanted to get out: say we did an h2h6, maybe it would be an idea to change the votings as such that all 6 parks are being posted at once where people are supposed to rank them from 1 (most favoured) to 6 (least favoured), and each week we average the rank a park gets. in the end, the team with the best rank average wins.

the idea is to allow giving some "score" to parks that were good but maybe not as good as some other park also in the round, which, should both parks go up against one another in the match mechanism we're using right now, would win 100% and the other 0%, simply because it was better and people can only choose one. the 1-6 ranking would then not disregard by "how much" it was better, or worse. i see a benefit created here because i don't see how a team like the minutemen, who produced nice parks throughout the season, could possibly end it winless. i don't think that's a turnout they deserve.

This was an interesting matchup, and tough to vote on since the 'parks' were really different.

From the overview I thought I'd like the LL park more. Inside there was something missing for me. It just seemed kind of tricked. In a way, it is newer built in an older medium.

The RCT2 park reminded me of something I myself could make. Both coasters were interesting enough to me to watch them, full circuit. The woody was especially impressive. The theming wasn't perfect, but had it's moments. It's not the best park so far by a long shot, but I had a lot of fun looking at it. It felt more nostalgic looking at this park than the LL park.

The LL park is leaning towards winning, which would make the third winning LL park. SWS was a different story to me, but these matchups can lead to the belief that LL parks actually have an advantage as mentioned above. This matchup is by no means clear to me, though, so in order to carry that argument, for me, i'd say a clearly inferior (to me, again, obviously) LL park would have to beat an RCT2 park. These parks are both nice, and very different, and it thus becomes a matter of opinion.

To clear one thing up right off the bat - I LOVE RCT 2 and I am one of those people who think why the heck are people are still playing RCT1? Although sometimes I play the scenarios, but that is not important. I agree that the LL park could have been done in RCT2 and probably better...but that is not a point at all. It's a personal preference for gods sake and to each his own.

The fact that some people think the only reason the LL park is winning is because its LL and those of us judging the LL parks don't understand LL...what kind of crazy remark was that? If we have LL, you can pretty much assume we have been around awhile and 'understand' LL. I think it is the RCT2 people who are not being objective and not seeing the big picture...i.e. aren't looking at both parks objectively. Milo brings up an excellent point about why H2H4 LL parks didn't win. The way of judging this year is soooo much more objective.

Secondly, rides and coasters...people, seriously? You don't tell people how to make parks. You can certainly not like a park without rides or coasters...your prerogative. But you can't tell me that I shouldn't like a park because it doesn't have a ride or coaster. Cam has that right.

Oh and Kong, I'm probably one of the few here who got your War song...so and now I can't get the dang thing outta my head.

Louis and Milo are the ones talking sense here and since Milo is interested in knowing my reasoning for picking the LL park, here goes:

You are right, I like traditional parks (yes, rides and coasters)but I like fantasy once in awhile too, especially if its LL...no I'm just kidding . If the park is interesting, creative, and has a point to it, I'm going to like it (whether fantasy, realistic, RCT1 or RCT2). What was in the RCT2 park was nice, but nothing that made me say WOW except maybe that big ugly statue where I said WOW (why did they put that there and ruin the atmosphere). The architecture wasn't that great and very repetitive and symmetrical which I don't like. However, the park did have some nice landscaping (loved the rice paddies) and it did create an atmosphere, so good job on that. I spent much more time in the LL park exploring what they did and not much at all with the RCT2 park. The LL park had a concept and filled it with a slew of ideas, hacks I've never seen before, and also created an atmosphere of the future. The monotonous colors didn't matter to me because it wasn't meant to be a pretty park..although I did like the pink The crashing monorail was awesome, the tower, the battleship...or maybe I just saw Star Trek (awesome movie btw) and this park just made me smile!

^I don't think anybody thinks that a park will win just because it's done with LL. It has to be good, of course.

And this is a hard argument for me to make because all three LL parks this season have been very deserving of a win.

Edited by zburns999, 06 June 2009 - 08:53 AM.

^I'm not trying to start an argument, but surely the post you have just made is entirely hypocrytical as that is the exact impression you gave off in your first post, which ultimately led to parts of this discussion.

^Yeah, I know. It's hard to put into words what I'm trying to say. Essentially, I just see LL parks as already being at an advantage just because they're LL parks. Hypothetically, if I were rushing to get in a park for a round, I would probably try to build it in LL, as I feel that ideas executed in LL are more appreciated than those executed in RCT2. For instance, would the Elementalist's park be winning this round if it were RCT2? I just don't know. Whatever, it's just my opinion--agree or disagree. I wasn't intending to start an argument.

I still don't understand the reason why ll parks would be advantaged.

In my opinion what really matters is how strong the concept is and then how well and cleanly it is executed. No matter the game. And the Elemenatlist's park did a very good job here.

I've just had a thought about that last question, zburns.

Now, let me get my position straight. As one of the Minutemen, who are pretty much buggered season wise if this park doesn't win, I obviously want it to win. However.

"Would the Elementalists' park be winning if it was made in RCT2?" Honestly, the answer for me would be NO. But the fact remains that it wasn't made in RCT2. It was made in LL, and you DO have to work harder in LL to make the same effect. I'm sure some people build in LL for exactly this reason. And I actually really love looking through this park and seeing the new usage of rides and scenery to create a vision. For example, the waterfall rapids sections as larger sections of wall, really nice touch. The crashed monorail, bloody brilliant. The battleship coming out of the hangar, in a kind of forcefield black effect. UNBELIEVABLE.

Hey our park is good too. There's plenty of small touches. You should look for them.

i should add however, that this was the reason why i did not like the park's entrance much, because it looked too much like it was imitating reality and, in my opinion, therefore broke with the concept of itself.

I will agree with you there. If a park that is shooting for realism but is lacking the realistic vibe, I then feel as if the park fails. As everyone knows, coasters are my stand point so I would pick a fantasy park over a park with bad roller coasters.

And posix I like that idea for h2h6.
-JDP

Thanks JDP. I've had a chat with some ne guys about this just now and we found a possibly "sacrifice" would be that the strategic element of planning what kind of park, fantasy/realism and what kind of parkmakers, your best/your beginners, would be best to through at the team you're up against. this task would pretty much disappear for captains. however, i personally wouldn't consider this to be a great loss. also, we were wondering if the fact that you can not guess what you will be confronted with, after all there are 5 other parks instead of just one, creators might be more incentivised due to the increased competition and comparison.

Unless H2H6 was completely and utterly different I think I'd rather have a PT4 and that's saying something.

PT4 would be great fun!

I thought for sure from the overviews that I would be voting for the Minutemen in this one. However, after looking at both parks in detail in-game, I thought the clear winner was in fact the Elementalists.

Assault on Earth Base was extremely creative. From the overview it looked sterile, empty, and boring. But I think it is definitely a park that needs to be seen in game. I normally am wary of claims of this sort, but exploring it is definitely worth it. There are, in fact, rides everywhere. All themed to the T. The hacks were all genius and pulled off flawlessly. There were some parts that were clunky though. And the Austin Powers bits were icing on the cake. The discussion about the lack of a rollercoaster does not make sense to me at all. I've never really cared if a park had a coaster or not depending on the concept. A while back, me, SirSpinster, and Ello started a park called Archicon which was meant to be architecture only. It was eventually completed by almost everyone in RCT Fusion as one of our last club parks. So, maybe I'm biased on that point. It eventually did have coasters, but it was originally not meant to. In addition it had a very limited selection of custom scenery to push people to be more creative with what was available.

River Delta was a very solid park. It has a lot of atmosphere and is themed very well. The flyer was great. I thought the woodie had some pacing issues though. The building tucked in behind the woodie was nice though. You could tell a lot of planning and work went into this park, so it is a shame it will probably lose this round.

As for the RCT2 vs LL discussion...I think this matchup is a great example of the strengths of LL and the current weaknesses of RCT2. The beauty of LL is in its constraints. It demands an efficiency of its builders and a level of creativity that is less important in RCT2. Each element used has a much greater necessity and is much more thought out in its use and placement in LL. I think the overabundance of scenery in RCT2 is currently one of its most restrictive attributes. People are allowing the scenery to dictate the creating rather than using the scenery as a tool. This park shows that. It is a fairly generic theme choice with a limited story behind it but is jam packed with scenery pieces. The LL park has an immersive story and each hack and each piece of scenery has been bent to fit that idea. The detail level and atmosphere are there in the RCT2 park but the creative control, and immersive quality are not.

i am sorry but for those that feel that i think the voting public is stupid tell me why exactly do we have a private panel for accolades? why not just hold a public poll about each submission for an accolade? apparently some people's opinions are valued over others in this community and that is just a fact. my argument against ll is thus that when i view anymore it seems the only fair judgement i can pass on such parks is to judge how much time the creator spent on it. why? because to be honest ll parks have become that. the creator spends more time thinking about how to hack a certain thing to get the looks he wants rather than things like park flow or bringing new ideas. i mean, honestly look at elementalists park and tell me one new hack or idea or theme that has not been done before and better in either ll or 2? now some of you will rebut with well what new did your park do? but this is not the point as the elementalists thrives on being new that is the whole points of its park is to wow you with these big structures that provide some new way of looking at an aging game. but really it provides no new way of looking at ll that battlefield or sws did before them. while our park thrives on just being subtly beautiful. to be honest i don't think many of you are grasping the architecture of the village because you obviously could not be saying that the flyer station or castle architecture is bad. so let me spell it out for you: vietnam is a very poor country and also a country where a lot of different cultures have mixed. and in poor countries you build with what you have when you have it thus all the different textures and to be honest i thought the textures where what made the village. and as for the coasters that is the second best wooden coaster this entire contest only behind the germans in round three. and personally i loved the flyers design not a single element seemed forced and the way it flowed down the mountain naturally with the landscaping was serene.

maybe i am just a little pissed off because the voting public seems to be fickle at best. also, i will not get into the changes made that i think ruined this season of h2h.

if by fickle you mean they don't vote how you would want them to vote, then yes, in this case they would seem to be fickle.
I think the reason for a panel of judges is and has always been a matter of suspense. you submit a park and await judgement to see how you did based on the comments of a cross-section of the community. if everyone voted it would defeat the purpose. though I would say judges are generally selected based on their ability not to be biased, which would certainly be an issue with your vote in this round.

i am sorry but for those that feel that i think the voting public is stupid tell me why exactly do we have a private panel for accolades? why not just hold a public poll about each submission for an accolade?

we did want that at first and asked the community how they'd like it. they didn't. instead people suggested to establish a panel. which we did. and i think it's much better that way now.

someone tell my why we cant all play nicely?
chapelz, i sense bitterness in your posts these days.
critisising the opsing parks most of the time.
im usre if these parks werent against you you would enjoy them.

K0NG, many people view the game as an artistic medium, not a program just for making parks. Please just realize that this competition/RCT is not just for making so-called "amusement parks."

I just got a chance to look at Assault, and I have to say it was pretty neat even though I'm not a huge fan of fantasy-style parks. I understand why people think LL parks have an advantage, but I think it's a poor excuse. I certainly respect the beauty of the Minutemen's park, perhaps even more so if I could view it in-game. However, in this competition--and I think this has been known a long time--looking good isn't quite good enough. That's all I have to say off the top of my head right now.