RCT Discussion / LL vs RCT2 debate

I'm quite interested now in how the games are distributed throughout the community. Which games do you own, and which games do you not own? And why don't you care about RCT2 or LL?

i was going to give my 2 cents before i saw liampe asking for everyone to shut up and i figured maybe other ppl wanted to continue the discussion too
 
i genuinely prefer looking at LL to looking at 2, it's not at all an "LL is harder" thing for me. the parks i fondly remember looking at are pretty much all LL parks, with a negligible amount of exceptions (ROB and DisneyAir are the only i can think of at the moment). there's a difference in values. things work differently in each game. cso and accessible item stacking added a dimension to 2 that completely shifted not just the look of the game, but how people built parks. and i dont think players who have never touched LL should be expected to understand those values.
 
we're at a point where a very sizable chunk (is it the majority now???) of the community doesn't play or truly ""appreciate"" LL (this sounds so fucking elitist and gatekeeper-y but hopefully yall understand what i mean) and going forward i think we need to understand that they are DIFFERENT GAMES, not a superior and inferior version of the same game. 
 
((PS if anyone wants to help me get LL running on a macbook id love you forever))
 
((PPS can i change my name please i picked this when i was 13 and im not even a man anymore so))
 
 
 
ahhhhhh sorry liampe posted his thread while i was writing this



Liampie edit: merged! No worries

LL is interesting to me because of the constraints. There is problem solving involved - you have to find workarounds, creative solutions. It's probably the same reason people like building in NCSO?

Dr Dude: I'm running LL on my macbook through wineskin. I bought/downloaded the game from GOG and used this method: http://themeparkrevi...php?f=3&t=62472

However I cannot for the life of me get trainers to work in the wineskin, or install the drexler patch (so I can barely view any parks ).

People should finally make up their mind. Is LL a different game or not? Because if it is, it shouldn't be in the same contest. There is really not a good comparison in real life because it would be like a sports match, where one team plays soccer and the other plays basketball at the same time. It's just weird.

 

For me, RCT is about art. It's about creating something that looks good. It's about bringing a vision into a computer game, and that's how this game has been treated. We have new objects, new hacks, everything just to make the outcome as good as possible. For that simple reason I don't get into LL. It seems that the biggest argument for LL is that it is more complicated and you have to find more workarounds. Let me tell you something: I don't care. If someone builds a station in RCT2 and builds the same station in LL but needs more time, I would probably just think "This guy wasted a lot of time". For me it's about the overall visual appeal of the park and as far as "proffessional" building goes, I just don't like LL. When I look at LL screens I'm just thinking like "there is a couple of things placed on top of each other" and "What's the point, let's look at RCT2".

 

Judging from the overview alone, Jerusalem is a great park...for LL. I still couldn't think of a single finished RCT2 H2H Park that I would vote lower. And still, I see a lot of RCT2 parks struggling against LL parks. And most of the arguments come done to either "LL is harder" or "LL is a different game and should be held to different standards". What's the point of having LL in a Conest then? I feel like it's a little cheap to build LL because ppl who don't care about LL won't vote and people who do are more likely to vote for LL anyways.

 

I don't mind LL. I don't mind seeing LL parks released, I don't mind LL parks getting high accolades when they don't look so good from the overview (BlackBriar being the obvious example). Because that doesn't take away anything from my expierience of this site. There isn't a fixed number of accolades and the LL park can't snatch one away from RCT2 parks. But it's sad to see a contest where visually inferior LL parks could possibly wind against RCT2 parks because "it's LL".

People should finally make up their mind. Is LL a different game or not? Because if it is, it shouldn't be in the same contest. There is really not a good comparison in real life because it would be like a sports match, where one team plays soccer and the other plays basketball at the same time. It's just weird.

 

 

sports arent an apt metaphor for rct competitions. rct competitions involve subjective judgements from observers, not competitors competing for an objective within the parameters of set rules. an art competition  can have pieces submitted from different mediums. it can have photographs, paintings, drawings etc. the pieces need to be understood within their own context and judged on their merits and faults within that context. then the observer picks whichever they feel is most deserving within these separate contexts. if you dont trust yourself to do that, dont vote. but a lot of people on this site do trust their understanding of each game enough to do this

 

 

 

RCTLL: hacks to awesome

RCT2: hacks and cso to awesome

RCT3: cso to awesome

RCT4 mobile: $ to awesome

RCT World: $ and more $ (DLC) to awesome

LL is interesting to me because of the constraints. There is problem solving involved - you have to find workarounds, creative solutions. It's probably the same reason people like building in NCSO?

Dr Dude: I'm running LL on my macbook through wineskin. I bought/downloaded the game from GOG and used this method: http://themeparkrevi...php?f=3&t=62472

However I cannot for the life of me get trainers to work in the wineskin, or install the drexler patch (so I can barely view any parks ).

 

Did you try installing RCT Awesome? 

The issue with these "constraints" LL has, it that people are far more forgiving. I've just noticed that after looking at the Canes/Stallions matchup, where it was questioned why Pridelands had the Texas Giant sign. The  viewer looked at that object exactly as it was originally intended to be (a ride sign), instead of what the object could be (a poster, mural, whatever). If this were LL, viewers often don't question why something is there, but instead give a miscellaneous object a purpose. Gongs become street lamps, barrels become chimneys, ride track becomes a huge sort of thing, and then people praise it for it's ingenuity.

Comparing an LL park to a RCT park is very difficult for me if they are both of high quality. I don't think that LL v RCT2 should be allowed personally because that are different. Its kind of like trying to decide if a Football or Soccer team is better, you just can't because they are different...

I guess what would make this whole topic easier. If the ref could align LL parks to go against each other in H2H, which I think would allow a true winner from an LL park, the "best LL of the contest". Though it's really nice to see LL parks getting votes this round, but it would have been cool to see them battle it out together. But next H2H is a few years away, so by then who will remember this debate...

 

I agree that you need to factor in the difficulty of LL in voting. Any park in H2H is different than the other one anyway, plain and simple. I'd like to see all those against LL (aka "The Whiners and Complainers") make a nice park themselves in LL. LL is the nostalgic appreciation for where RCT2 got it's roots, show some appreciation.

The average LL park and the average RCT2 park are more comparable than Kayte Ridge and Internet City, to name a famous match. The games aren't that different, but the approaches that come with it usually are. Parks in different games with a comparable approach can be surprisingly similar...

Im surprised by how many people seem to think LL revolves around hacking. That's not true at all, it's possible to create huge wonderful parks without extensive hacking. It's only a few people like Corkscrew, ][ntamin, pierrot and RMM who are very focused on the technical aspects. Traditionally, building in LL is actually ridiculously fast, significantly faster than RCT2, cso or ncso. Not the other way around. I could start a LL right now and have something decent finished before the H2H r3 deadline. Not because it's easy, but because it takes less time to realise my ideas.

Stop the sports analogies please. This isn't anything like sports. Sports each have unique goals, unique team lineups, and are completely different from each other. Rct2 vs LL is more like baking a cake vs baking a pie in a baking contest. Or maybe a tiramisu vs a cheesecake. LL is a cheesecake, few ingredients, but unique twists can make it stand out, and it's easy to make quickly. Rct2 is a tiramisu, with lots of ingredients coming together to make a different flavor, a different kinds dessert that takes longer to make, but can be less than, equal to, or greater than a cheesecake in quality.

Maybe I should have come up with a burrito analogy, tie it in to the other debate

your analogy 2/10

 

your analogy in a burrito with rice 10/10

Batter should be lumpy. That is all.

Yeah i made a food analogy in the other topic too.

I find it weird that people who admittedly have never opened ll in their life are saying things about how they should be judged. .. it's very telling that anyone who actually has and cares for ll totally defends them facing rct2 parks. It sort of feels like you guys are just whining because you can't vote for your favorite rct2 park

I keep hearing "i just don't like the aesthetic". ...is it really that different than rct2? Almost every single art aspect is the same. the difference is really about style. You can find rct2 and ll parks that span the whole range of styles, but you've limited yourself to one. What kind of art-lover only associates one style? It feels like an excuse developed out of being too stubborn to download the game and actualy spend some time in it.

I keep hearing "i just don't like the aesthetic". ...is it really that different than rct2? Almost every single art aspect is the same. the difference is really about style. You can find rct2 and ll parks that span the whole range of styles, but you've limited yourself to one. What kind of art-lover only associates one style? It feels like an excuse developed out of being too stubborn to download the game and actualy spend some time in it.

 

Yes, it is that different. You can tell a LL park by looking at the overview within 3 seconds tops.

 

About excuses: I hereby declare that you only can call yourself a rollercoaster tycoon fan if you play Rollercoaster Tycoon 3 on a top level, so that you can recognize how hard it is to build in 3D. While we're at it, I hereby declare that you must play NoLimits 2 and Design coasters, so you can truly recognize the difficulty to build a coaster. I additionally declare that you have to play Locomotion, so you can recognize how hard it is to build an infrastructure.

Maybe I should have come up with a burrito analogy, tie it in to the other debate

I would pay any amount of money for RCTLL right now if it involved me getting Chipotle out of it in some way. #iknowtheguacisextra

I actually did play rct3 for ages, it was indeed hard

No need to resort to the logical fallacy of exagerating the other sides points, logic 101 mate

It feels like an excuse developed out of being too stubborn to download the game and actualy spend some time in it.

 

Okay, gonna say it differently: I don't need an excuse for not playing LL because playing LL is not in any way needed to participate in the New Elements Community.

What I enjoy about LL - building in it and viewing stuff others have built in it - is the wonder.

 

The difficulty of executing your ideas in LL is only one facet of that wonder, and it shares that aspect with RCT2, with Minecraft, with LEGO, with any kind of drawing or sculpting or design work.  Your medium, no matter how lo- or high-fidelity, presents certain rules, and breaking them is fun.  

 

For me it is more fun to see the same cool thing done in LL vs RCT2 for what amounts to the exact opposite of why some people dislike LL - When I see something like a dock crane done in LL, I get to appreciate not just the idea of "I bet a dock crane would look cool here," I get to appreciate a kind of craftsmanship in using unexpected resources in new and exciting ways to get that dock crane.  

 

Of course, we primarily judge RCT work on how it looks, not how hard it was to make it look that way.  In both games there are loose areas of definition where things over- or under-detailed don't seem to fit.  LL requires an adjustment on the viewer's part for the hi- and low-detail ends of the spectrum, but we judge LL alongside RCT2 because for both games the criteria are extremely similar.