(Archive) Advertising District / Disneyland Philadelphia

Well obviously creating a huge map quickly has been your primary goal. I wish you'd pay more attention to the individual structures and areas though, they all lack care and creativity. I also very much dislike the brick-paths you used.
I really like the backstage area though.

Looks really good! One thing is the pink pathing and the use of pre-made objects. The path is really bright and I think brick would look a little better. Pre-made objects may look nice but it would be more innovative to build the ship or skull using building blocks.

Thank you.
I understand that you think the paths are really bright, I assume you are talking about the pink paths, but I don't think I will change it, I actually like it. I don't think the ship wpuld look good if I made it myself, the skull might so perhaps I will change it some day.

Sorry, but I really feel like you went overboard with the colors (even for a Disney Park) and you should have used more detailed objects.


Your building rate is shocking, seeing you did all this in 89 rct-years. (shocking in a positive sense) The way you plan your park and it's overall lay-out is great. Whý undo all that with a complete lack of detail? For example big thunder mountain, it's just one big red blur with some track through it and 10 shrubs on it. Why not be less hasty and make something great out of it?

This park has loads of potential. You as a builder have loads of potential. However, this does not do you right... sorry.

Where should I have used more detailed objects? And where are the colours not good?

I can add some things on the Big Thunder Mountain but there are already small structures and ladders.

Is this going to be released at some point.

Yes, if I know how.

some parts of it look too similair to the old, outdated disney parks because of the standard scenery types you use. the rest of it just seems way too bare and does not give a disney vibe at all. imo, this park feels way too outdated to get excited about.

Well, I don't really know how the parks were exactly but remember that this is 1965, it is not so weird that it looks old. What do you mean with too bare exactly?

Well obviously creating a huge map quickly has been your primary goal. I wish you'd pay more attention to the individual structures and areas though, they all lack care and creativity. I also very much dislike the brick-paths you used.
I really like the backstage area though.

Well, that was not my primary goal, it took me over 90 hours to create this, I started it in september last year and I just finnished it a week ago. Why do you say I should have payed more attention to inividiual structures? please give me some examples so I know what you mean exactly.

Now give that to me and I'll spruce it up for you

A decent park is much easier to complete when half the work is done for you

Well, if you would like to do that, it can only get better right?

It obviously has a lot of potential, the park layout and general plans are great, it's just the scenery, architecture, foliage, colour choices etc that let you down.

Well, than please tell me what I did wrong with the foliage, I spend a lot amound of time trying to make it fit, and what is wrond with the architecture for example?

It's your object selection.

Your buildings are lacking in detail, they are very flat faced and boxy. But your bench seems to lack the objects that will allow you to create the detail that would improve your architecture.

Same with the foliage. Foliage doesn't mean placing trees everywhere, it involves land textures, bushes, flowers, plants, open space. And it's a case of having the right objects to be able to do this. Colour is also a big help with foliage. Some of your greenery is too bright and unrealistic.

You have the park layout great, the plans and the structures of the buildings are a good start, but you just need to almost take this Disneyland 'skeleton' and add the 'body', flesh it out.

I wasn't speaking about any specific area. My comment was basically the same as the second to last one Louis gave. Spot on.

The archy is too blocky, too less detail, (imo) too flashy. The landscaping isn't diverse enough, and needs more shrubs (as compared to almost entirely trees), open areas, more densely packed areas etc. Just diversify. I think if you look critically at your work and compare it with accoladed parks, you know very well whát to improve. It's a matter of wanting to see it.


Don't let my/Louis' comments get you down. We both point out that there's a lot of potential in it, because there réálly is. Thing is it is a shame that you don't get all the greatness out of this park that could've been in there.

Once again: Great builder, great potential, just be more critical about your work and compare it to that of ''big'' names at NE.

(P.s. 90 hours is nót much for a park this size. It shows that it didn't get the time/attention it deserves. I know smaller parks that took 250+ hours. That directly goes to show why most people speak about a lack of detail.)

The Adventure Land is the best part of your park (for me)!
The other zones are really good too! Just one thing that I don't like is the entrance zone, I don't know how but it doesn't work for me. Keep it up!

Well, I changed Big Thunder Mountain Railroad (pics will come later) and I must say, you were right and I think it looks better now.

What I don't understand is why you don't like the folliage, there are areas with a lot of trees, there are areas with flowers, there are areas with trees and shrubs, I just cannot really see where that could be better to be verry honest.

Same for the buildings, I don't know now which you like and which you dislike, please give me an example and what could be done better because for my feeling I've done all I could.

Do you check out other parks at NE every now and then? Skim through gold/spotlight winners and analyze them? If you do that than you múst see the differences between your use of foliage and that of others. Same goes for buildings.

It's not about liking one (part) and not liking the other. It's about overall comments that count for more or less the entire park. The buildings are blocky, they could use more (interesting) shapes. You could try including different levels of roof steepness, using different building sizes, using more than one type of roof in the main street, not using the same window type for 2/3rd of all windows in the main street etc. etc. etc.

It's really just a matter of looking at the work of others/pictures of the real disney main street/other parts, critically analyzing them and applying what you see. Same goes for foliage.

I can't give any more specific comments as long as the problem I see is one that isn't specifically concerned with one area/topic. It's just the overall feel of it.

And once more, don't let this get you off. It's not meant to be rude/negative, and focus on what both Louis and I said: It has a lot of potential. Your parkplanning is outstanding, your building rate is superb, but I (and I think I can speak for Louis as well in this one) find it a shame that you don't get out of this park what is potentially in it.

So my tip: Look at accoladed parks/disney parks by accoladed players. I know Cena for example has done some great Disney stuff. Look at pictures of Disney. Be critical, really critical, about the differences between your work and what you see in the examples. Then you'll understand what Louis and I mean.

Frankly I like the park the way it is and wouldn't mind having a copy just the way you have showed it.

I meant outdated as in outdated rct. It seems like something that could have been done five years ago, and the lack of detailing and bare spots (huge areas of unbroken path and bland architecture) also hurt this.

What I don't understand is why you don't like the folliage, there are areas with a lot of trees, there are areas with flowers, there are areas with trees and shrubs, I just cannot really see where that could be better to be verry honest.

Same for the buildings, I don't know now which you like and which you dislike, please give me an example and what could be done better because for my feeling I've done all I could.

Check your PMs

Alright, I understand now what you try to say and I accept that it should be better, at first I didn't like the negative comments but I understand it, I changed BTMR, is this what you meant?

Before:



After:

really cool!

Alright, the last months I have been trying to take your advise into account and I must say, you were right.

I am now doing all of the foliage again and I have modified some building, mainly adding some details.
I hope I can show it to you sonn but it is still a lot of work and I have to look out that I don't use to many objects, I have already used about 80% of the availble data structures.

The pink paths are also gone at the entrace and the mainstreet, you can now only find it at the Alice in Wonderland section.

80% of the max data? You must've added a lót of detail then.


p.s. wouldn't hurt if you show a bit or two that you díd change already. No need to wait untill the entire park is revised. Our tips could only help in finishing the rest, and next to that I'm simply pretty curious to see what you've been up to by now.

Nice and original structure.

Thanks,

Here are a few pics, not all the things you see sre finnished, the only two areas that are completely finnished are Main Street U.S.A. and Frontierland.











Hope you like it now.