Related Games / RCT3 Park Making: An art form or just gaming?

A lot of people argue that some video games can be considered artistic, especially with the famous PlayStation 3 game Journey. But what about games where you can implement your own creativity? The gist of what I'm trying to say is, would park making in the Roller Coaster Tycoon series be considered an art form? There is no doubt that some people put an absolute exorbitant amount of time into making sure every single fine detail is perfect and that no stone is left unturned when it comes to making realistic parks that would be able to exist in real life, much how an artist in hyperrealism takes extra measures to make sure that the painting is absolutely flawless. Also; and I'm talking from first-hand experience, in order to get good at park making, you just need to keep doing it over and over again to hone your skills.

With all of this in mind, would it be considered an art form?

It´s a game. It´s just a shame more and more people keep forgetting that.

Judging by the way the game can be (and is) presented, like it's more about the photos than the parks being built, I'd align it with the art of photography, and that it's all about finding that perfect shot. 

 

In RCT1/2, we tend to make incredible things with blocks and pieces of track- things that the game gives us, but in RCT3, we present incredible things by presenting incredible photos, something that you simply can't do when the game is made to be seen in only an isometric view. Yet, once people zoom out and change the angle of the overhead camera, you see that parks simply aren't as impressive as they once were, retaining their grid-like form that keeps that game looking terrible. Don't get me wrong, we all know that it can look great, but it's all about finding that perfect shot to make appear as so.

Art must have no other purpose than itself. It's debatable because while it is a largely aesthetic platform (at NE's level, anyway), we all started playing because we like roller coasters and/or theme parks in general, so watching a lot of it "go" is fun. RCT can be used to depict things that are not theme parks but can't really be "about" anything. It also can't be sold or bought (work within the game, not the game itself). On these grounds I think it's safe to dismiss the "RCT as art" argument but that doesn't mean it cannot be visually beautiful in the right hands.

 

EDIT: nin's post came in just before mine so I didn't see it, but I agree with his point about photography. Especially for RCT3.

Any creative outlet can be art, so RCT can be art. In that regard I'd label most parks on this website as kitsch. We're not as talented as we like to think, I always refer to former RCt-capital Uden to illustrate this: four accolade-winning parkmakers happened to be in the same school at the same time. Almost anyone can win an accolade with some practive. There are a few parkmakers on this website that I see as truly talented though, and I'm not talking about being able to create smooth or accurate layouts or something like that. XCoaster and Coaster Ed truly have great ideas. The perfect design in Rivers of Babylon truly suggests talent. Turtle truly could've been a great painter with his excellent talent for designin unique Ghibli-esque environments with great taste.

 

I think RCT can be a game and art at the same time Faas. It's got nothing to do with taking it serious. I don't think the guy who covered the floor in peanut butter, which was suddenly worth €40.000, thought he was saving the world and curing cancer.

 

Personally I don't see RCT as a game, at least not the parks I show on NE. I use a game as a creative outlet, and I ignore the game aspects. If a painter paints with a toothbrush, he's painting and not brushing his teeth right? Anyway, whatever creative outlet I use (RCT, pencil and paper, my synth, camera, rearranging poop nuggets), I occassionally like to add layers, symbolism, meaning and statements to it. Regardless of the quality of the end product, that places it somewhere in the art spectrum in my opinion. The last time I did this was probably the Escapist Experience, though Thoughts definitely got some meaningful bits too, and Lijiang before that. Definitely not all of my work.

 

If this sounds arrogant or pretentious, that's entirely because of wielding different notions of 'art'. I have barely touched the game in weeks and I don't care.

 

 

edit: regarding RCT3 the cartoony and terrible graphics probably push parks into the kitsch category much quicker than in the classic RCT games.

I agree with Liam. Except the rearranging your poop part. That's some weird shit.

I just like to make things look pretty

i agree with faas, calling it an artform removes the fun from the game, i just enjoy building and making things look as good as possible. 

I do like some RCT3 parks on http://www.shyguyswo....php?board=15.0 I think some works are absolutly beautiful. And I think it's very easy for you to make something nice with RCT3 than RCT2. 

To be honest I don't have too much interest in rollercoaster or theme park but I love this site cause I found people can make a game looks such nice. For me it's a game like "minecraft" "terraria" or "gmod". 

^Surprised you put gmod in the same echelon as those other two, but hey, whatever floats your boat 

@gdb: Who says art can't be fun?

not me, it's just that taking it too serious is bad in my opinion

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Bvdz0tliRHs

So yeah, RCT 3 can be art.
(this is all from Belotto btw, he's amazing. His topic on SGW: http://www.shyguyswo...pic,3225.0.html)

There's so many unfortunate connotations that go along with the word "art".  Art does not have to be serious, boring, stressful, arrogant, pretentious, or fit for a museum.  Art does not have to be sold, that component is business and I would argue a distraction from the primary function of art.  I would say that anything that is judged based on its aesthetic merit, regardless of its purpose of creation, is art.  Games are much more objective and "winning" is for the most part not up to interpretation.  Get X number of guests in your park.  Kill X number of bad guys.  Get more balls in the hoop than the other team.  Sure, we have contests here, but I would compare that more to a battle of the bands or an art competition, where the criteria for winning is much more subjective and requires judging rather than meeting clearly defined objectives.  We post screens and release parks for them to be judged based on their aesthetics, not based on how many guests are in our park, or how good our park rating is, or how fast we beat the game.  So I believe even if your park is highly realistic," just for fun", or not abstract and "artsy", we still are creating art and not playing a game.   Its just a shame that so many people think that art has to be mundane and soul-sucking...

 

But in the end its all just a testament to how unsuccessful language can be in describing extremely complex and abstract concepts. 

Found the liberal arts major

In my opinion it's more craft and hobby than art. I compare RCT to model-making hobbyists who recreate train stations and civil war era battles. It's not really a true art form as it is more akin to simulacrum than anything real, but there is an art to it as it is a creative process. It is one step removed from true art, which is directly related to its core ideas. RCT adds another layer of distancing from the real due to the nature of the model and of amusement parks in general - it's nothing more than a model meant to represent something else rather than the thing itself; it's fakery, it creates the illusion of the real.