(Archive) Advertising District / Workroom

Well... then... I dunno. You're just weird? but hey, as long as you ''have to build'' with me in the future I'll accept that.

I've got an Adam Mickey Mouse avatar.
So much for 'weird' ;P

Wow, all the anti-LL sentiment is a bit depressing. pierrot, I've always hated war stuff, but the skill the screen shows is still crazy admirable, as always.

Are you going to deny that you are able to build in a more complex and more detailed manner in rct2 than in LL? RCT2 allows for detail and complexity much more easily because of the use of scenery, it's just the way the game works. One can achieve that in LL as well, as pierrot has shown here, but it's much more difficult as it involves a lot of codex/hacking and overall skill. You should know that. This isn't an opinion, but a fact. And it isn't anti-LL.

^Something about me likes the creativity of the LL style. Not that I don't like RCT2, but LL can be easier to hack than RCT2 - 8Cars MOM is harder to use than Codex.

That reminds me so much of the CoD4 map Ambush.

Are you going to deny that you are able to build in a more complex and more detailed manner in rct2 than in LL? RCT2 allows for detail and complexity much more easily because of the use of scenery, it's just the way the game works. One can achieve that in LL as well, as pierrot has shown here, but it's much more difficult as it involves a lot of codex/hacking and overall skill. You should know that. This isn't an opinion, but a fact. And it isn't anti-LL.

Eh... it's been a pretty longstanding tradition to treat LL work like your 4 year old cousin finger painted you a picture of a pony. Good... for a 4 year-old. Always the qualifier. Good... for LL. Try complimenting your girlfriend like that for a while. Maybe "Good driving... for a girl." or "You look great... for a change." Maybe then you'd understand how much we hate to be minimized after she slaps you.

Eh... it's been a pretty longstanding tradition to treat LL work like your 4 year old cousin finger painted you a picture of a pony. Good... for a 4 year-old. Always the qualifier. Good... for LL. Try complimenting your girlfriend like that for a while. Maybe "Good driving... for a girl." or "You look great... for a change." Maybe then you'd understand how much we hate to be minimized after she slaps you.

Where did I say "Good... for LL?" I feel as though all you LLer's have a chip on your shoulder that you can't seem to handle. I know how difficult LL is; I've tried it. I've been around this site as a lurker since Natelox was still posting parks. My LL is terrible, I never could do the amazing things LL players here have accomplished. I have nothing but respect for LL parks, and I have never downplayed the quality of LL works. My comment still stands though: It is more difficult to make something detailed in LL than it is to make something detailed in RCT2, just by the nature of the games. That makes Pierrot's work even more fantastic as it really shows how good he is to be able to bring forth the complexity and detailing in a rct2 park in LL, which by default is more difficult and limited to work with. For pierrot's latest screens, I would say "Amazing", regardless if it's RCT2 or LL.

Hey, I thought both of them were great, and they both did have their unique charms too. so please stop argument in my thread

AC, I agree RCT2 is easier, but that's not the point. I didn't really bother to make the point terribly clear.

Ruben's comment that pierrot managed to "make LL bearable" clearly belittles the game. And you often get these kind of comments, he's just one example. Now, I really don't care what Ruben thinks about the game, what he likes, what he doesn't like. What I care for is that there is just so little positive sentiment towards LL, not even a fraction of what it used to be at this site, and that's depressing. Even broader, and more precise, there are just hardly any members at the site attracted to the kind of play style I like, and which would traditionally be attributed to LL (which ironically is very much not the case with pierrot's work, but whatever...). This means that I have little to no reason to expect to see a park soon that will actually really captivate me. Because I just don't like this detailistic RCT2 micro play with super-fine CSO. It bores the hell out of me because it's replication an not creation, thus it's void of creativity, void of any emotionally stimulating substance other than "look at how intricate and superior my brain is that I can cram so many objects into one place and still have it look remotely good".

Sorry pierrot, btw.

First off: Important, I should've added ''to me'' to that first sentence, and I thought I did so. Apparently I didn't, and I understand how this kind of changes the tone. Admittedly, my bad. It was really about how I feel about the game, not trying to speak as some authority on it.

Having that said: Thing is, usually I simply don't care for LL because I don't like it. That simple. If you don't like modern detailed rct2-ing that's okay right? And if a player makes something really cool in that style, and you post a comment that that person actually makes that style/game look really good to you for a change, than what is it but a compliment?

RCT-LL and RCT2 are simply two different games, and there are a lot of people that love one but don't care for the other. Nothing wrong with that, or with admitting that right? My post wasn't so much meant to be a negative remark about LL from me, as I simply don't really care for it usually, as it was a major compliment for Pierrot for getting me interested in a game I usually really don't find all that interesting. That's not about ''belitteling'' a game, it is simply a matter of taste and preferences.


P.s. Sorry for messing up your topic Pierrot. Just trying to stir up the community every now and then. And as I said it before, my comment is, if anything, a major compliment towards you and your building style.


I love it when a plan comes together.

^So rude with that first comment.

Pierrot, this is so refreshing. This is the kind of work we'd see players like Fatha producing if he was still active. In fact, it reminds me a bit of a favela screen RMM posted a while back, albeit grittier and crazier. Keep up the amazing LL work!

RCT2 is easier

Anyway, Pierrot - Jerusalem + the 2 most recent screens have finally put you on my radar. FUcking impressive.

MA, the difference between the girlfriend/4-year old examples you gave and the choice to use LL is exactly that – a choice. The girl and child can’t choose to be a girl or a child, but a player can choose to use LL or RCT2. To me, it’s very similar to using twigs to build a house versus, say Lego bricks. The twig house may be very well crafted given the materials, but to me, the Lego will be able to intricately depict the details and give the structure the required look much more effectively.

However, I do agree with posix, that the inclusion of excessive CSO in RCT2 somewhat diminishes the need for creative object use. I personally prefer to use the long-standing CSO that have sort of become ‘standard’. But, to me, most of the creations in LL are constructed of compromises, with tunnels used for windows, stacked rapids for simple walls etc. RCT2 does that with one object and no hacking. I can’t help but feel that a lot of the appreciation of LL parks comes from knowing the difficulty the construction presented, rather than how appealing it is to view.

Apologies for tangent-ing off into LL/RCT2, pierrot. I think the last screen looks exceptionally good. Nice job with the aircraft too. I particularly like the de-banking of the track on the helicopter blades.

I can’t help but feel that a lot of the appreciation of LL parks comes from knowing the difficulty the construction presented, rather than how appealing it is to view.

Yes, smart observation you made there. What I feel some people (sorry Roomie) have been doing is to innovate for innovation's sake. I say an innovation is only worthwhile so long as it is visually appealing, too. Which is why pierrot is so many levels above other players, as his solutions, while maybe not always breathtakingly appealing, at least are clean and make perfect sense.

To me, a great factor whether something is appealing or not is organicness. SA made me realise this ages ago: too many hacks destroy the atmospherical charme the game innately has, and thus should be held to the absolute minimum. Yet again, pierrot bridges this like no other player thanks to his genius. Still, I would be totally fascinated to see what were to happen if he did a non-codex project at some point ...

LL's limitations privide a kind of charm, the simplicity of shapes, while (in a good case) being so delicately composed they do effectively portray a certain atmosphere or character, which says more than just "LL". Which is the case in this very thread. It also challenges the designer to get to the core essence of things, creating an impression whith few means, which makes every peice of scenery or land absolutely critical in the design, while small details in RCT2 often sort of "fade in".

I think "inventiveness" is very overrated though. Suggesting complex structures from real life with a few indelicate blocks looks somewhat.. crippled and stupid. There is no artistic purpose behind it. You're basically bragging with technical skill and virtuosity, instead of really creating something worthwhile.

That being said, I agree with posix on the fact that pierrot is not showing off his hacking/inventive abilities, but is really using them for aesthetic or atmospheric purposes, and the result is really amazing.

Keep it up, pierrot!

Hmm, well I can't speak for anyone else... but the reason I continued using LL for so long is because I was initially frustrated when I tried RCT2 that I couldn't do what I wanted to do with it. At that point the Beast trainer was so advanced in terms of how it could modify the game, and it would be a year or maybe three before RCT2 caught up with it. Actually, in some ways I don't think RCT2 ever caught up. Certainly I never saw a tool for editing RCT2 that compares to the Codex trainer. Certain people have done amazing things with hex editing, but I have no experience with that and the learning curve was more than I could deal with at the time. I still struggle with it. My skill was always more in creating images -- I just used the trainers to push the game a little closer to what I was imagining than would have been possible otherwise. And it's still just an imperfect representation.

But what I do like about RCT2 is that custom objects have opened up the visual pallete in so many other ways that go way beyond anything LL can do, even with the codex. Sometimes it's almost too much since you can (and I have) spend a full day just picking out the right objects to use for a certain project. If we could somehow combine the functionality of the codex with the custom objects of RCT2 we'd really have something great, but I think maybe darkfire has given up on getting the codex working in RCT2? In any case, it's not about the game itself but what you do with it right? This topic is a testament to that.

PS - Hello NE!

Hmm, well I can't speak for anyone else... but the reason I continued using LL for so long is because I was initially frustrated when I tried RCT2 that I couldn't do what I wanted to do with it. At that point the Beast trainer was so advanced in terms of how it could modify the game, and it would be a year or maybe three before RCT2 caught up with it. Actually, in some ways I don't think RCT2 ever caught up. Certainly I never saw a tool for editing RCT2 that compares to the Codex trainer. Certain people have done amazing things with hex editing, but I have no experience with that and the learning curve was more than I could deal with at the time. I still struggle with it. My skill was always more in creating images -- I just used the trainers to push the game a little closer to what I was imagining than would have been possible otherwise. And it's still just an imperfect representation.

But what I do like about RCT2 is that custom objects have opened up the visual pallete in so many other ways that go way beyond anything LL can do, even with the codex. Sometimes it's almost too much since you can (and I have) spend a full day just picking out the right objects to use for a certain project. If we could somehow combine the functionality of the codex with the custom objects of RCT2 we'd really have something great, but I think maybe darkfire has given up on getting the codex working in RCT2? In any case, it's not about the game itself but what you do with it right? This topic is a testament to that.

PS - Hello NE!

Ed, I would say that in most ways, this community has never matched your ability to create a concept or narrative through a park. Pierrot is probably the closest thing to your heir even though I doubt he even knows your work, and I mean that as a compliment to both of you.

There's a lot of good points about LL in this thread. For me, the fact that that there needs to be a more complicated process to every problem means that the eventual solution is that much more elegant. It's a shame that there are so few of us left that appreciate these kind of accomplishments, but there are some of us that remember building parks in numbers and code and checking the work in game afterward to see what you did. Maybe just me at this point. I get that it's not valued anymore, and I get that you can do much more with RCT2, but I'll never get why the old stuff is so universally forgotten, even if you only check out Ed's work.

I hate myself for loosing my LL years ago becouse it would be awesome to open all those amazing parks. Pierrot you are my favourite LL player from what I can see from the screens.

I'll just echo Ed and say that the Codex trainer is what has kept me in the game these past several years. No other rct tool comes close to it's usefulness and intuitive design. I prefer to use it to try to bring ideas to life through clicking and thinking ahead in LL than using control keys and rct2 blocks. I think a person's game of choice says more about a member's personality more than their artistic integrity.

To be honest, after messing around with the Codex for a few weeks, all I get from it is that it was built to make LL more like Rct2. I don't see how it promotes thinking ahead in LL any more so than in Rct2, and it's main function is obviously stacking, which you don't need to do in Rct2 cos you have the shift key. In other words, whilst Codex is by far and away the best tool for any Rct game out there, Rct2 doesn't need it because a lot of it's functions are built into the game anyway. Yeah I know I'm not as good with Codex as some of the other LL players around here, but really, I can't think of anything I can do in Codex that I can't do in Rct2 with custom scenery/8 Cars.

For my money the main function isn't stacking. You could do that before with the Beast trainer just fine. It was obnoxious but you could do it and get a lot out of it.

No, the main function of Codex is cloning. This allows for wall stacking, building on water quickly, makes track sculpture easier and also allows for easier changes to work that's already done.

I didn't say that Codex did anything rct2 couldn't, but I do prefer working with the numbers of the codex window than the keys of the rct2 control scheme. Abilities that are "built into the game" have no more merit than a well built utility that does the same thing in a different manner.

Tile for tile I do an immense amount of pre planning since I've worked with Codex and am constantly thinking and testing to see what objects work, what doesn't and how I'll execute something that is supposed to deviate from normal game mechanics (stacking something from underground to above the ground to avoid supports is one example of this). LL in general promotes more of this sort of thinking than rct2 does and I personally find it more invigorating and rewarding.