RCT Discussion / The Macro Style Plea

This is an issue that is quite dear to me so I want to rant.

For later reference:

You will never finish anything if all you ever do is micro-detail things up. Be inspired by the macro style: _[ SACoasterFreak 1 ] [ sloB 1 2 3 ] [ RRP 1 ] [ Beagle 1 ] [ Paul999 1 ] [ eyeamthu1 1 ] [ Steve 1 ]

------------

From AC's Agencia AD topic.

Po Po I have beef with your signature. RRP's Castle Howard isn't a good example of macro style, and I'd even say that eyeamthu's Magic Realms isn't either. I was disappointed by your selection there

Yeah both of those are not macro style really. Not to mention four of the other parks in there went unfinished. Sense not made there..

I find it curious that you seem to have an understanding of the "macro style", when this is a concept that I do not recall anyone use to analyse RCT work with other than myself, and that I find rather difficult to pinpoint in the first place. I did spend quite a bit of time searching for good examples on the site, often having to add parks to the DB first since this style is so under-represented. It was difficult to find them, especially as I wanted no LL stuff, as this wouldn't be a suitable inspiration for today's RCT2 community. So I chose unfinished parks, too, as long as they made clear one of the qualities about macro play.

Please do write down your definitions of the macro style (not just Louis and dr dirt. Everyone). And to the two above quoted: explain how Castle Howard and Magic Realms Resort do not fit in in your opinion.

My own interpretation of macro style is the result of my resentment over the pure micro play, as in extreme detailism, which I see as the predominantly popular and thus "expected" style RCT creations have been measured against for the past 2-3 years. Micro style has introduced a world of zillions of small fine grain objects that, due to the tediousness they entail, has people telling me RCT feels like "work" to them. The consequence is that micro style wears out the majority of players who are trying to live up to what's expected. The few players, and they're indeed very few, who do manage to live up to it, take years to create a to-be-taken-seriously body of RCT work, namely a full size solo, that due to its extreme intricacy and loudness lacks any sign of harmonic atmosphere, yet instead offers endless amounts of superficiality, or as I would dub it: "soulless detailistic replication".

Other than the opposite of micro style, what really comprises the macro style? Initially I wanted to discern macro elements and mention them with the parks I chose, yet I refrained from doing so as they were too loosely defined and lacked clarity. I guess I will still have to try now. So here goes.

Perhaps the most important feature of the examples I chose is that I feel I am drawn into them so much. RRP called it "immersion" a while back which captures it perfectly. It's what flow is to me. With micro style parks, I feel agitated and notice how I try to filter out details immediately, hoping it'll help me "get into" the park as I try to see the larger picture, a strategy that usually fails me. Yet with both Castle Howard and Magic Realms Resort, I instantly felt like I was part of what I was looking at. Even more so in Paul999's and Beagle's work, everything blends together extremly well like a large organic mass of harmonic peace and beauty.

Second, I feel macro style advocates the importance of visually pleasing things, aesthetics, whereas micro play has accuracy as its primary concern. To create parks that are aesthetically elegant is a rare quality, yet sloB has done it almost like the old masters of LL did, and of which SA was the only to transport it to RCT2. Steve has shown he is capable of it as well, even if his Animal Kingdom was unfinished. I almost included Liampie's Pirana as well, yet it is not quite there for me yet. I myself have been so over-fascinated with aesthetics in RCT that my parks usually existed for nothing but, and lacked substance and features completely. Yet one can't exist without the other, which summarises my RCT dilemma. Still, other players like the aforementioned had both, and have thus become subjects of my admiration.

Third, there is a quite resolute decision to not detail if unjustified. Again, sloB does it very well, whose work as a result is immediately called "minimalistic" by some, although I do not think that a feature of macro play per se. RRP for instance does detail quite a bit yet has enough open areas that balance things out. Robbie very nicely explained to me it's called "positive and negative spaces", which made perfect sense. So I would say macro players have a stronger need for balance in their works than others.

I'll leave it with these three aspects for now. The most straightforward conclusion about macro play is what the word already implies: to focus on the big picture instead of minute fidelity. To see the whole process of a park in the back of one's mind instead of going step by step, each time adding little bits.

So why must posix come in and rant about how people are supposed to play? I really just want to point out that there are different approaches to RCT, and the macro approach has been underappreciated far too long in my opinion.

Morale of the story is the same as the sig: I would love for you guys to stop not finishing stuff because the detailing kills you. If this is you, be inspired by the qualities I tried to illustrate above. They usually cannot be part of your conscious building process. They happen unconsciously if you give them priority. Try it. Build stuff quickly, don't overdo it with precision or hacks. Finish a design within a week, a full park within 2 months, and recover the joy that is to create beauty, not accuracy, in RCT.

I agree, mostly in the sense that the ability to create hyper-detailism in RCT2 abandoned the creative beauty of LL. The best RCT2 park, in my opinion, is one that feels as welcoming as an LL park, with the expanded options that RCT2 gives. Details are nice, but should not be an extreme focus.

I'm not in the right frame of mind or have the time to fully orchastrate a full reply to analyse my thoughts etc but I will do eventually.

-----------------------------------------------

In the mean time...

I believe that Micro is the style of building where the creator is adding such a high level of detail that when people view the park they don't pick up on the very little things and almost take those little tiny touches of detail for granted and see it as the overall picture, but start to pick up on them when they look closer, or even look for the details.

I believe Macro is the style of building where the creator is adding just the main, almost major, details, so that when people view the park they don't pick up on them and see the overall picture as a whole, the details are there to help the atmosphere, aid the viewer.

Basically, I believe that Micro and Macro both offer the same feeling, they both help the viewer in formulating an idea or atmosphere, they help the viewer see the park how the creator wants them to see it, the difference is the level of detailing, which thus creates a different style of atmosphere and seperates each style into it's own Micro/Macro heading but ultimately achieves the same goal.

-----------------------------------------------

Macro doesn't mean minimal. Micro doesn't mean over detailed. Example:

A lot of Steve's work is Macro. He places only the necessary details required to portray the setting to his viewers. His work isn't minimal, it isn't ever lacking, he uses the main, major details that blend in with the surroundings, but aid the viewer in seeing what he is trying to display.

A lot of Robbie's work is Micro. When he builds a rollercoaster, he doesn't just build the layout in the style of the manufacturer, but he looks into how they build the supports, and tries to emulate this. He isn't being over detailed. He is just placing a high level of thought and fine detail into his building, and people wont necessarily pick up on this when they view it, because they blend in with the surroundings and aid the viewer into seeing what robbie is portraying. When people look further, they pick up on these details that weren't necessarily apparent on first glance.

-----------------------------------------------

Posix, on your list I agree with RoB, Thrillmatic, Seven Stars & Europapark in being Macro style. To me, Solaris, Sierra Glen and DAK aren't macro, they're just minimal in their content. I believe Castle Howard and Magic Realms are neither Macro or Micro, all based on what I outlined.

Hopefully this gives you an insight into what I feel the two styles are, and that I believe they share a common goal. Also, this is just my opinion, and I hope Steve and Robbie aren't offended in anything i've said etc.

I also love that I said I wouldn't write a long post, but have ended up doing so. I still think I have more to say on the matter but I'll leave it at that for now.

Personally I always thought RCTNW was pretty good at not falling victim to the micro detailing and has amazing productivity.

Good read posix. I'm curious to see what others have to say.

you know mine pos

Interesting that you list all of Slobs work but leave out his sexiest work ever, Gotheburg. I think that still fits into your macro ideal too.

you know mine pos

hi you must be new here

hi you must be new here

i don't really care . he and i are having a good pm chat a couple days before he started this thread.

So you're like best buds now?

So you're like best buds now?

lol'd

was this on your hd?

This is a reasonable suggestion if you can do it.

I know I just can't. When it comes down to it, the details are what allow me to really enjoy what I create and allow me to immerse myself in it. At the same time, it's not sustainable. I want to build full parks. Scenery is getting more detailed. The object limit remains the same. These things can't work together. Combined with the fact that it take me 2 years to put together a park, it's a problem. But I wouldn't build any other way. I can appreciate a style like RCTNW, but I personally couldn't build that way. For me it seems like stuff is missing. If I ever finish SeaWorld, it's my intention to transition to smaller parks while maintaining and increasing my level of detail... but trying to make something that's actually sustainable.

I think from a standpoint of wanting to see finished stuff, you have a good point. From a personal preference, I'll take the detail, even if it means working on a smaller map to make it happen. It just takes a heck of a lot of patience and direction to actually churn out one of these...

Thank you for the response Louis. I agree with all of that.

As far as the argument, I do agree that "macro" does deserve a resurgence. However, I'm going to avoid joining into the discussion, because I will say that decrying "micro" as superficial and "soulless detailistic representation" is frankly insulting to those of us who do practice that style and comes off as incredibly pretentious.

I myself (whatever meaning this gives to the discussion) hate the "micro" style. Cramming hundreds of tiny details into a small section of a park or coaster seems ridiculous to me, and it's not how scenery objects were meant to be used, in my opinion. I prefer using NCSO with minimal trainer usage because it places limitations on you, and you have to come up with creative ways to get the look you want, like in LL. I'm not going to rip on those who enjoy the tiny details, but I just think that NCSO is so much more refreshing.

I have also looked back at some of the early spotlights, especially all of the LL parks, and they are (to me) the definiton of the "macro" style. I think that the criteria for accolades has gotten much tougher, at least when comparing accolades from 2003 to accolades from now. But that is a topic for discussion elsewhere.

As for me, if you care, I think I'll be working with NCSO and the "macro" style. Sometimes it looks better if you leave the small details in the eye of the beholder.

My thoughts.

For me, rct is a design tool to create my own theme parks with relative ease. When I play rct2, I want to create an image that I have in my head of something; a building, an area, a ride, whatever. I want it to look as close as it can to that image in my head. And that, sometimes, means detailing. And I enjoy it! I'm obviously a terrible example of finishing work, but that doesn't bother me. I enjoy taking an hour or so out of my day to create a nice little building or plaza or whatever; for me it makes very little difference if it gets released or not. Frankly, you get almost the same amount of replies when you post a screen and when you release something (and I wouldn't expect otherwise; there's only so many people who visit this site daily). What I'm saying is that I actually enjoy detailing. When you play RCT, its almost like a meditation. Try and remember what it's like to play; you don't really think of anything other than the creation process. Is this a good color? Does this trim work here? Any other thoughts I'm preoccupied with are pushed aside and I can just build.

Aesthetics is, of course, important. But I don't think it should be the crux of rct. We love to compare RCT to other art, like painting, or drawing, or sculpting, whatever. In those forms you can have abstract aesthetics as something beautiful and meaningful. And maybe in a limited amount, to rct. (Ivo?) But rct, IMO needs a theme park or related structure in order to describe its aesthetics. And so I don't think aesthetics should be looked at as a separate avenue than 'micro' work. You can get aesthetics with every kind of work, but it boils down to the skill of the builder.
Monet didn't get 'aesthetics' just because he worked in impressionism over classical realism. No, he got it because he was a damn good painter and he had the ability to create it. I'm sure you could find thousands of impressionist pieces with absolutely no aesthetics.

At any rate, when I want to purely focus on atmosphere and flow, I load up LL. Unfortunately, LL does have a rather limited amount of theming options, which always pushes me back to rct2.

In conclusion: maybe it sucks for everyone else that I never release anything, but I don't think releases are necessarily what defines the game. I build RCT for me, and nothing is going to change that. Also, maybe I misinterpreted what you are saying />.

was this on your hd?

Haha! No, I don't like the muscular, hairy types.

Well, imo;

Micro; Small/focus on details

Macro; Large/focus on quantity

So micro parkmakers are (imo) Pacificoaster and Robbie
Macro parkmakers are RCTNW and Iceman.

I think you're mixing in your personal preferable style posix, which makes the macro/micro difference a bit fuzzy. Personally I like both styles; they offer something entirely different but that doesn't make one style 'better' than the other.

What can i really say about this....

It's personal taste, that's for sure.

I'm personally more a macro style person, but that doesn't mean i don't like the micro style, because i do.
Like mentioned before, i also think that it's such a hassle to detail everything to perfection, i mean... the picture is already there, but somehow it needs a golden edge...
It's the bigger picture for me instead of always detailing, detailing and detailing...
Surely i'll put detail into my work, but only the necessary ones.
I'm not going to look around to fill every spot with detail, because it'll mean that a park takes up to a year or more to finish and that's just too long i.m.o.

Detailed rct is nice, but is it always necessary? And where's the limit?

Again personal taste and that's just the way it is, i guess.

In the end... if you enjoy your personal taste in creating rct, then keep doing it.
I know i will.

This thread is worthless without pics.

Comon guise, there's a place for all styles on NE. I think there are 3 main styles that branch into and intertwine with other styles:

-Macro: less focus on detail, more on the entire package & atmosphere
-Micro: as you look dive deeper into the park/design you will find more details
-Simple: extremely minimal details, extreme focus on atmosphere and smooth cohesion

From there they all branch and intertwine:
-Realistic: the work attempts to imitate real buildings, coasters, environments
-Semi-realistic: the work is guided by realistic ideas, but extends the limitations of realism a bit
-Fantastic: the work lets go of all real life barriers and stretches physics

I think this can be extended even further by looking at overall organization:
-Organized: tends to imitate real parks with path layouts, elevation changes, etc
-Chaotic: everything intertwines
-Controlled chaos: there is some organization in between all of the chaos

So where does this leave us? I say, let's enjoy them all!

I've seen pretty much every combination here.
A couple of examples in my eyes:
-Slob falls into simple/semi realistic/organized
-Rivers of Babylon falls into macro/semi realistic/organized
-Robbie/Gee/Pac/Prodigy fall into micro/realistic/organized
-Kumba falls into macro/semi realistic OR fantasy/controlled chaos
-AvanineCommuter falls into micro/fantasy/organized
-Mala falls into macro/fantasy/controlled chaos OR chaotic
-Evil WME's Mount Doom falls into macro/fantasy/chaotic


My point is that I LOVE ALL STYLES!

Pos, one thing that I did not tell you is that the reason i believe most do not finish parks is for the fact of their mind losing focus. Possibly it may be to do with all the details, but i find whenever i'm having to fish out for ideas i usually quit.

Also, the "best" pieces have a balance between macro and micro. It has the composition down foremost but then light, yet purposeful details are added that, for me, bring the piece into a whole new realm of goodness. perfect example, RRP.