RCT Discussion / Has the realistic "theme park" style reached it's pinnacle

RCTNW-You build some incredible things, your theme park style is still "in" and I wish you would build more, but your hotels and stadiums and everything are unique and incredible.

"Generic" realism won't die as long as amusement parks are still in business and coaster designers are making new things. There's always going to exist an impetus for recreation/adaptation of the stereotypical "amusement park" as long as they continue along the same path they always will. As long as there's creation, there'll be further pushing of boundaries in that recreation.

it's not so much the style of play that slows productivity, but rather the so-called criticism that ensues. when damn near everybody is playing with the same 'realistic style', everybody aims for the same exact look, therefore the criticism that follows is more of 'do this here, change that to blue, 8 cars!, start over' instead of 'maybe try an extra row or two of flowers on the left, try and throw is some more dense foliage to liven it up a bit, etc.'

when you play rct, you envison something and you do your best to create that in-game. unless your work in a recreation, somebody telling you that what you are doing is wrong, is, well... wrong, and discouraging to say the least.

so we get new members who never release a damn thing until their work is almost indistinguishable from the top guys around here. we complain about everybody's work looking like rob's, for example, without even realizing that our so called criticism is exactly what is driving the resemblance.

^ Indeed. That's what killing the game, not realism itself.
There seems to be little place left for imagination/randomness/subconsciousness, within the critical eye of the community. It basically does away with authenticity and playfulness.

As for the rest, people should do whatever they want, just don't force others to do the same.

we complain about everybody's work looking like rob's, for example, without even realizing that our so called criticism is exactly what is driving the resemblance.

Everyones style looks like robs because everyone makes those damn custom windows and uses road line fences, I've never told anyone to do that

the problem I think with the "style" that is currently showing is that the accolade panel is made of mostly realism favored builders..., I mean it's easier to get a design or accolade when you build in a realistic style than you do with a fantasy creation... and since we all want that recognition and how little even we still want it or we wouldn't be posting, it's a safer bet to go with realism..

Its obvious I don't build anymore and I rarely stop by so take this as you will, but do you really think its wise for NE to tell people what to build and what not to build? Last I checked, people build what ever they the fuck they want to build and if they find it enjoyable to build SF/CF style parks, let them. What gives you guys the right to dictate that to them? What harm is it causing? I guess if your trying to kill the community even more by discouraging those members to build and move to some other site, then go for it. I mean, look at the AD, it seems like a hot bed of activity with a whopping 15 topics updated on the past 7 days!

When I said "people definitely need to STOP building six flags/cedar fairs parks", that was my opinion. It wasn't a command if that's what you took from it, as if little ol' me could influence and dictate what people decide to build. I'm surprised you even took it that way!

I for one am bored of seeing six flags park after six flags park, each one good in terms of the realistic quality and details used, but boring in terms of imagination and creativity. They all look the same. They are realistic, yes, but boring as well...

Remember the days of Natelox, Mantis, Fatha', and Xcoaster? We RARELY see those kind of parks anymore, ones that really immerse you within the atmosphere and captures something that was unique to RCT. These "recreations" and "realistic" parks follow the trajectory of RCT's increasing level of detailism that renders the game more akin to a serious modeling program than a game (yes, that's what it is in nature but it wasn't so explicit before the rise of realism). If people want to play that way, then whatever, it's their right, but let's not forget about the excitement we had from the dying styles of semi-realism and fantasy.

And to imawesome: that's why I suggested AT LEAST more busch gardens/IOA/Phantasialand etc. type parks, because at least they incorporate themes into a realistic setting. I don't understand why realistic builders often opt out of these themes and opt for genericism... I mean, when was the last IOA-style park you saw released? Yeah... it saddens me a bit.

But to be clear: I HAVE NOTHING AGAINST REALISM, as long as that realism is applied to an exciting theme park in exciting ways. A lot of what we are seeing is just boring parks that I could care less to visit in real life if it actually existed. Do we really idolize parking lot coasters and generic amusement park architecture *that* much? If it is a recreation it's understandable, but if it's not, then why make such bland work? For those who do work in the realistic fairgrounds style, can you please explain what is so captivating about building tarmac/coaster parks with generic architecture? I would love to hear your thoughts on it because I for one can't wrap my head around it.

For those who do work in the realistic fairgrounds style, can you please explain what is so captivating about building tarmac/coaster parks with generic architecture?

When I set out to build Goliath, I built it because I wanted to build a car-park coaster. Everyone had built these generic amusement parks but no one had really considered a car-park coaster. I wanted to build it to show that a car-park coaster can be just as pretty. I think I succeeded, considering Liam said that the car-park was the prettiest part of the design.
Whats so captivating is creating something that many people would think is boring in reality, and making it interesting to look at in RCT.

I think people underestimate just how hard it is to make good looking generic work. I'll take your work AC as an example. The recent screen you posted, you've built that from your imagination, no one can tell you whether what you've built is right or wrong, all they can tell you is about the colours, textures and objects used and whether they like the screen or not, even if your park is meant to be one based in reality, no one can tell you you're doing it wrong, because it's all your imaginaton. When someone posts a generic screen, take nin for example, you open yourself up to so much more criticism because it's not just about colours, textures and objects, it's about whether it looks good from a real point of view, because it's SO close to reality.

Now, I'm not saying that to build something from your imagination would be quicker, as I actually find building generic work is something I can do really quickly (I built Goliath in under 2 weeks), but its a lot harder for someone to capture the generic style perfectly and takes a lot more time for people to get to a high skill level.

This post is probably just one big waffle of crap so in short:

It's piss easy to make something from your imagination, it's ridiculously hard to make something from a real perspective.

When I set out to build Goliath, I built it because I wanted to build a car-park coaster. Everyone had built these generic amusement parks but no one had really considered a car-park coaster. I wanted to build it to show that a car-park coaster can be just as pretty. I think I succeeded, considering Liam said that the car-park was the prettiest part of the design.
Whats so captivating is creating something that many people would think is boring in reality, and making it interesting to look at in RCT.

I think people underestimate just how hard it is to make good looking generic work. I'll take your work AC as an example. The recent screen you posted, you've built that from your imagination, no one can tell you whether what you've built is right or wrong, all they can tell you is about the colours, textures and objects used and whether they like the screen or not, even if your park is meant to be one based in reality, no one can tell you you're doing it wrong, because it's all your imaginaton. When someone posts a generic screen, take nin for example, you open yourself up to so much more criticism because it's not just about colours, textures and objects, it's about whether it looks good from a real point of view, because it's SO close to reality.

Now, I'm not saying that to build something from your imagination would be quicker, as I actually find building generic work is something I can do really quickly (I built Goliath in under 2 weeks), but its a lot harder for someone to capture the generic style perfectly and takes a lot more time for people to get to a high skill level.

This post is probably just one big waffle of crap so in short:

It's piss easy to make something from your imagination, it's ridiculously hard to make something from a real perspective.

Well.

1.Never have I claimed genericism to be easy... I don't know where you're getting that idea from?

2. This is exactly what Nin was talking about: the amount of criticism due to the realistic nature of generic parks deters many players from ever having any releases and it decreases participation because everyone is seeking that "realistic perfection". As Leonidas was saying, there's little left for imagination and creativity... it's all about "does it look real". I feel like this kills the "fun" in rct for many.

3. This still doesn't address why people dislike working with theme parks instead of amusement parks. When was the last IOA release? Or the last realistic Busch Gardens release? Everyone nowadays seem to be building generic parks with tarmac and very few realistic theme parks. I was asking not about realism vs. fantasy as you've addressed, Louis, but rather about genericism vs. theme parks (BOTH realism, none fantasy). For example, I really enjoyed Pac's latest design because it incorporated a theme into a realistic park. The same level of realism's critique can be applied to Ruishi because it is still a realistic park... why more people don't do this I'll never understand.

4. I won't spend too much time getting fussy about the shade you're throwing there, but to me it makes more sense for the betterment of the NE community to promote fantasy parks because, apparently, it's "piss easy". />

1. I never said you had claimed it to be easy.

2. I don't think it deters players from ever having any releases. I mean christ back in the day people were ripped to shit, nothing compared to now. I criticise in an aim to improve the standard of RCT, just like people criticised my work and turned me into the player I am now.

3. Because I honestly think themed realistic parks take to long, and as many people strive for realism they settle on the quicker, generic option. Plus there are more generic parks out there to take inspiration from.

4. I didn't say building fantasy was piss easy, I said building from your imagination is piss easy Fantasy is fucking difficult

the problem I think with the "style" that is currently showing is that the accolade panel is made of mostly realism favored builders..., I mean it's easier to get a design or accolade when you build in a realistic style than you do with a fantasy creation... and since we all want that recognition and how little even we still want it or we wouldn't be posting, it's a safer bet to go with realism..

no, not even the slightest.



i'm shameful for even acknowledging this post. it doesn't deserve the grace of quotations.

I love the enthusiasm on debates like this and I've partaken in some in the past, but am I the only one that finds this ridiculous? This is a game that's going on well over ten years and we're still finding ways to innovate and revolutionize the game. Granted, the ways aren't as defined and significant as they were back in the early days of the site, but look at how far we've come. For anyone to even question the longevity of this game anymore is absurd to me. If interest has lasted this long, I honestly can see it continuing for another ten years. Robbie is right, as long as there are real life parks continuing to push the envelope, people will do the same here. Even if fantasy building dies completely (which it won't), this site will always have realism and will push it as far as it can go. It will never reach it peak, I think. I remember when Phatage released his Six Flags and people were shitting themselves over the realism it portrayed. Now players like nin, and Rob and Pacificoaster are doing it all over again thanks to pioneers like geewhzz. It's only going to continue happening. We're in a specific era right now and it's only a matter of time until the next one comes along.

Hey, what's wrong with everybody's work looking like mine?

Well, because your ego is already bordering on Kumba's

edit: should have put (i don't want people thinking i don't like rob rob)

3. Because I honestly think themed realistic parks take to long, and as many people strive for realism they settle on the quicker, generic option. Plus there are more generic parks out there to take inspiration from.

4. I didn't say building fantasy was piss easy, I said building from your imagination is piss easy /> Fantasy is fucking difficult />

That's unfortunate that we're *settling* for less because themed realistic parks take too long.

And to me, all fantasy is born from imagination, it's part of the definition of fantasy. I can't think of a fantasy park built not from the imagination... that's practically an oxymoron.

I love the enthusiasm on debates like this and I've partaken in some in the past, but am I the only one that finds this ridiculous? This is a game that's going on well over ten years and we're still finding ways to innovate and revolutionize the game. Granted, the ways aren't as defined and significant as they were back in the early days of the site, but look at how far we've come. For anyone to even question the longevity of this game anymore is absurd to me. If interest has lasted this long, I honestly can see it continuing for another ten years. Robbie is right, as long as there are real life parks continuing to push the envelope, people will do the same here. Even if fantasy building dies completely (which it won't), this site will always have realism and will push it as far as it can go. It will never reach it peak, I think. I remember when Phatage released his Six Flags and people were shitting themselves over the realism it portrayed. Now players like nin, and Rob and Pacificoaster are doing it all over again thanks to pioneers like geewhzz. It's only going to continue happening. We're in a specific era right now and it's only a matter of time until the next one comes along.

I agree with you, RCT will not die as long as we are here to keep playing it. It's true, we are in a specific era and there will be another one after this one. I'm excited to see just how far we can push this game's limits...

Fantasy is not necessarily born from the imagination, I have plenty of RCT inspiration pictures that are fantasy that I could work from.

Fantasy is not necessarily born from the imagination, I have plenty of RCT inspiration pictures that are fantasy that I could work from.

But... that came from someones imagination...

Yeh and a themed area in a real life park comes from someone's imagination. That isn't my point.

Fantasy is not necessarily born from the imagination, I have plenty of RCT inspiration pictures that are fantasy that I could work from.

I don't understand.

Maybe you are talking about real-life based fantasy vs. purely imagined fantasy?

If I got this right, then:

Parks like "Winter is Coming", "Monstrocity", "Howl's Moving Castle", "Myst", and "Disney's Shadowlands" could be considered real-life based fantasy, as in there is a direct source of inspiration from real-life television or video games. This would allow people to critique the park in terms of how accurate their representation of the theme is: there are specific details, specific buildings/characters/places that are to be represented in RCT.

This would be the difficult category of fantasy parks you're talking about.

Parks like "Dimensions: RoC", "City of Dreams", "Divinity Ridge", "Chronicles of Arransia", "Le Rêve de Parapluie", and "Sylan Realm", and many of the old-school LL spotlights are purely imagined fantasy, in that while there are multiple sources of thematic inspiration from real-life, it does not directly relate to those sources and therefore cannot be judged on its representational accuracy; you can't say whether or not they built it accurately to the theme if the theme isn't a direct translation from real-life inspiration to RCT, but rather an imagined interpretation that allows for a mixing of many themes/inspirations.

This would be considered the piss-easy category of parks you're talking about, right?

Or maybe I'm not understanding the categories of fantasy that you're thinking of.






Also, I've reflected a little more and I still don't understand the obsession with genericism.

Given that Ruishi is the latest example of a highly realistic park with a very well crafted theme and given how it was finished within a few months, I wouldn't necessarily say that people settle for genericism in realistic parks because it's easier than themed realism. If this truly were the case, then it points to a difficulty hierarchy in which themed realism would reign at the top as the goal that is rarely achieved because it is too difficult and generic realism as the go-to for realistic players because it's more mangeable.

Therefore, in terms of difficulty:

themed realism > generic realism > real-life based fantasy (could be semi-realistic) > purely imagined fantasy

And this makes sense in terms of the number of releases for each category:

In terms of # of releases:

generic realism (because it's the most mangeable form of realism, which has preference over fantasy)

real-life based fantasy (semi-realism, because has a similar rigor of critique as realism but isn't as popular because it's fantasy)

purely imagined fantasy (because it's easy but not many are into creating easy things )

and then themed realism (because it's difficult so very few attempt it).

I don't know, maybe I'm just thinking too much.

You hit the nail on the head with the first part