RCT Discussion / Are RCT2’s expansions NCSO?

Answer honestly, I’m genuinely curious how people would categorize expansion parks. I’ve heard varied discussion over the years (including some of my own work) regarding this topic. 

 

I know for a long time it was a challenge to get WW/TT content scored due to a lack of people owning or even interested in the expansions for a variety of reasons. It’s interesting to see people coming up with new ways to use expansion objects even now.

 

My point of view is a little mixed. I think there are a lot of objects in the expansions that fit the aesthetic of the game, namely a lot of the Shogi fences and roofs. Most of these widely useful objects got converted to CSO objects. On the other end of the spectrum, there are some pretty horrible objects too.

 

What do people think? WW/TT content doesn’t exclusively fit what I think of when I hear “NCSO” - but at the same time, it’s not Custom Scenery Objects.

Expansions are a different game experience than NCSO. I would make two different categories out of them.

They are ncso, but that doesnt mean they dont suck.

They are not custom scenery objects, so they are NCSO. I think people on NE more often speak of NCSO as the playstyle of players that played without the expansions. While most objects are garbage, many objects like the corner pieces and some of the roof pieces and roof trims allow you to add a whole new dimension to buildings.

I've definitely warmed up to the idea that expansion objects are NCSO. Still a much different aesthetic to WW/TT style than CSO. Not having the plethora of 1/4 tile or trim objects I think is a huge factor in that.

I voted 'egg' because I assume that means 'sort of.' By literal definition, the expansions are NCSO, but are they the same aesthetic style as NCSO? In most cases, certainly not.

 

The NCSO style is like a maximalist extension of LL-building, it's very imaginative, abstract, and when cleanly done, has that distinct but frankly limited RCT style from the first game. When sloppily done with the heavy use of trackitecture and improvised objects, NCSO almost has a scrap art or, for lack of better words, 'coasterpunk' feel to it. The expansions don't have these limitations... you don't need to pretend a mess of heartline twister coaster is a space station or wooden track is the roof of a pagoda, or coaster cars are animatronic animals when you have the objects to represent them. In many instances there's less need for improvisation than even the CSO benches.

 

The expansions do have a similar playstyle to NCSO though... most custom scenery benches emphasize quarter tile building while, like NCSO, the expansion objects are primarily full-tile and most people have an more macro-oriented approach (early CSO also has far more in common with NCSO for this reason). Heck, you don't even have to worry about layering like with expansion-free NCSO.

 

So both literally and functionally, WW and TT are NCSO, but in terms of aesthetic style, they're vastly different. Ordinary NCSO, like LL, aims for the traditional 'this is pure RCT' look, while Expansion parks sacrifice those traditional aesthetics in favor of more conceptual stuff.

No. They are bad CSO made by Frontier development with the codes and tools offered by Chris Sawyer for making money (to Atari).

No. They are bad CSO made by Frontier development with the codes and tools offered by Chris Sawyer for making money (to Atari).

 

While I agree with this sentiment - both that WW/TT objects are (mostly) bad and that they ontologically can be considered a form of custom content - the fact that the objects are official content is an important aspect distinguishing them from the fan created content we usually mean when talking about CSO. One can buy the game (in Triple Thrill Pack form) and get all of the expansion rides and objects basically pre-installed, without any third party content to be downloaded. Also, if I recall correctly, CSO was around before WW (the first expansion) was released, so the meaning of CSO as "unofficial, third party content" was already established when the expansions appeared. 

 

Based on this reasoning, I voted "Yes". Still, I agree there's a big difference between WW/TT usage and "pure" NCSO building. Like some of you already pointed out, it would be more correct to view NCSO as a style rather than a technique (if that was indeed the question and I misinterpreted it - count my vote as a "No" instead).

 

Another thing to ponder: where does the pre-expansion pack official extra content - the pink water and the Panda World scenario with its associated objects - fit in this discussion? 

Another thing to ponder: where does the pre-expansion pack official extra content - the pink water and the Panda World scenario with its associated objects - fit in this discussion? 

 

 

Excellent point. I think that was Chris Sawyer's doing, and it shows. I'm not sure how involved he was with WW and certainly TT.

I didn't know about Panda World and the pink water! A new secret unveiled.

I didn't know about Panda World and the pink water! A new secret unveiled.

The pink water is basically useless, but Panda World brought us the bamboo stalks object that sees quite a bit of use! 

I agreen with you mintliqueur.

The original RCT2 shares the same graphic style with RCT1, which was created by Simon Foster. For someone of us who are talking about NCSO they are referring to this style which is totally diferent from what the Frontier brought to us. And I agreen that WW and TT are theoretically and technically NCSO. The synonym here for the word is official. 

I think RCTER brings up a good point.  WW and TT were drawn by a completely different artist/team likely with different methods.

 

NCSO in theory includes all "official RCT" objects sure, but in the way we use it and the true emotion of the word is just the original art style objects IMO.

 

Connotation vs Denotation

Couldn’t have said it better myself rusty.

As Liam once put it, NCSO is an approach, not a single style. NCSO parkmaking is as diverse as its CS and LL counterparts, with almost every building style existing in those two categories--realism, fantasy, old skool, etc.--also represented in NCSO. Moreover, even if you exclude the WW/TT content, you still have everything between no hacks and trackitecture-only represented within NCSO; the only common thread between Inselfieber, Fenimore Hall and nin's Six Flags Over Texas is that all of the builders chose not to use custom objects. By this logic, said common thread extends to any builders who incorporate the expansion objects, but not custom objects, into their work. 

 

And if a new company released an official expansion pack for RCT2 with objects that looked nothing like anything we've seen, it would still qualify as NCSO.

 

Part of the problem with "NCSO" is that it describes what the objects are not rather than what they are. Even though "traditional" NCSO conjures images for most of us of parks using only vanilla game objects, the WW/TT content (and all potential future content from theoretical official RCT2 expansion packs) fits in on a technicality due to the initially poor choice of labeling.

 

A more appropriate tag would be "VSO"--Vanilla Scenery Only--as it states very directly that only objects from vanilla RCT2 are used (rather than just anything that is "not custom scenery"). This would effectively eliminate the ambiguity in what is and is not included in the tag; the aesthetics most commonly associated with NCSO would be represented in an airtight category rather than one with considerable wiggle room. It's obviously too late now to change common vernacular (or to manually look through every NCSO park and tag it accordingly based on whether or not it uses expansion pack content), but it's something to consider for unofficial use.

The expansion rides really look like something made with Buggy's ridemaker. They're all just sprite swaps of existing objects - it's like Chris Saywer forgot how his own game worked. They don't even use the RLE encoding (which other objects do). The graphics don't fit the original style either - many of them are so half-assed you'd never suspect they were official objects.

If you define custom objects as being anything not official (or anything that doesn't start with a zero byte), then the expansion objects aren't custom, but I would have thought that the main to reason to avoid custom scenery is to keep the aesthetic of the original game, and the expansion objects don't fit with that.

Also, would you count parks using built-in OpenRCT2 sprites but not custom objects  (or RCT1 sprites not found in RCT2) NSCO?

I think whether the objects feel like native RCT is a subjective one, but I'd argue that for the simple technical reason that they don't export they cannot be called CSO.

I think whether the objects feel like native RCT is a subjective one, but I'd argue that for the simple technical reason that they don't export they cannot be called CSO.

 

So were non-exportable CSO NCSO prior to open?  

You make a very good point, Terry (and X-7123etc.)!

I went with a "no" here.  The original Simon Foster / Chris Sawyer objects look completely different than WW/TT.  I honestly see the expansions as similar to the UCES project, which was created by community members as opposed to Frontier but I feel it's still an outsider adding to RCT with new rides, scenery, etc.

 

I'd reckon that we as a community could create an expansion pack that is "more-NCSO," meaning more true to vanilla scenery styles, than WW/TT was.  On a technical sense though, I suppose WW/TT falls into NCSO but it's just so far removed from vanilla for me that I think the community could make its own decision on where it falls.