RCT Discussion / RCT Hot Takes

yeah what the fuck were you thinking chris sawyer

Megapark seems like a catchall for parks that aren't cohesive and just a collection of random ideas. Or in other words, parks with no transitions.

In my eyes it's also a genre of parkmaking where the park is playful, dense and collage-like. The final evolution of scenario play, and a stepping stone to more ordinary styles of park. Many Danimation spotlights apply, and more recently (haha) Mount Sinister, WME's RCT2 parks. Even more recently... Does Magnum Snopus qualify? Historyfreak92's parks definitely do. The genre is still alive but mostly as bronze tier parks by mostly newcomers. Not a hot take, but a lukewarm question: what would a modern, top tier megapark look like? Is it even possible for a non-coherent and a low concept park to score over 80%?

Some of the recent multiplayer parks were possibly heading towards that I think.  

An old school four corners park with four different builders could be a top tier mega park.. if there’s some semblance of cohesion

An old school four corners park with four different builders could be a top tier mega park.. if there’s some semblance of cohesion

But then it wouldn't be your definition of a mega park. Right?

Yeah you're probably right. Im picturing four corners that are completely different in theme. Thus megapark-y. But in order to get a good accolade vote, it needs something to tie it all together. 

 

So probably wouldn't be that high of a score.

I'm quite new to the term Megapark, but why is this frowned upon? I couldn't think of anything better than 4 different themes to look at for example, the parks that Turtle and Artist created that delivered different experiences with every area.

 

Am I missing something? Fantasyland and Frontierland are completely different themes so translated to RCT, these would score low?

Needing/having (a lot of) peeps outside of theme park concepts is dumb. I'm refering totally to realistic approaches especially to the upcoming trend of doing cityscapes. Having regular cities on seemingly regular days with streets filled of people is utterly breaking any immersion for me. Look out of your window, how many people do you see walking in the street?

 

Also connected to this the need of having constantly something 'moving' to look at. I representatively cite Liam on trav's latest screen.

 

This is just a bunch of peeps and some movement away from being spectacular and oozing with atmosphere.

 

Imo quaint places that deliberatly are kept as this can ooze equally atmosphere if not more. Thinking back of the second half of the 2010s and the non existing requirement of peepability, those parks ooze atmosphere. Oftentimes to me peeps are even a nuisance in theme park settings.

I see your point Tolsimir and I'll dial it back a bit. You don't need a whole ton of peeps, but a little bit of movement can go a long way making a difference from a scene that is entirely static. We talk about adding splashes of colours to scenes that may be too monotone. We can think of movement in the same way. An example off the top of my mind, and my memory may be off: H2H6's Frankenstein. There's a graveyard area to the side with not much going on. Pretty much entirely static, save for one detail: a crow flapping its wings. It makes the scene for me. Two or three peeps wandering that Japanese neighbourhood trav built can be enough to convince me that this is an actual place that is lived in. It can also be falling leaves, a rat emerging from a trash can, or some laundry swaying in the wind.

It's definitely a delicate balance, and having very few or just enough peeps is difficult to design. But I agree with Liam that a little peep-life goes a long way - especially when you see them through windows in buildings, sat at tables and drinking etc.

Ok, then I think we are more on the same page! Also I agree it's hard to manage the amount of peeps from the technical point. As alex said it's a delicate balance to be taken. Thinking of H2H style maximalist parks where you want to add as many "little scenes" as possible. In other occasions this style of parkmaking might feel off.

Also agreeing with alex on the need of making buildings look actually used. That was for example one problem I had with christchurch. Great archy, lot of buzz in the street but then looking into the buildings that were built with glass.. just void. Also on nicely crafted roof terraces. It felt strange.

RCT2 is a digital art form and to have a competitive meta for it, although fun, is also counter-intuitive. While every RCT2 creation shares a level of quality based on the understanding of both the game and the material the creator is replicating, to take a tool that can be used to make literally anything and pigeonhole it into a specific meta doesn't do justice to what it can produce. Pacificoaster and G Force do photorealism. Hoobaroo does surrealist dream sequence stuff. Walto somehow ping-pongs between both. Lurker does cozy NCSO scenes that take a little and give a lot. 73 makes his towering pink abstract things. Hydro is crunchy. SRF is clean. It's no different than how a traditional artist would take to the canvas.

RCT2 is a digital art form and to have a competitive meta for it, although fun, is also counter-intuitive. While every RCT2 creation shares a level of quality based on the understanding of both the game and the material the creator is replicating, to take a tool that can be used to make literally anything and pigeonhole it into a specific meta doesn't do justice to what it can produce. Pacificoaster and G Force do photorealism. Hoobaroo does surrealist dream sequence stuff. Walto somehow ping-pongs between both. Lurker does cozy NCSO scenes that take a little and give a lot. 73 makes his towering pink abstract things. Hydro is crunchy. SRF is clean. It's no different than how a traditional artist would take to the canvas.

What would be the point of competition in creative spaces in general then? Unless this hot take would extend to that.

RCT2 is a digital art form and to have a competitive meta for it, although fun, is also counter-intuitive. While every RCT2 creation shares a level of quality based on the understanding of both the game and the material the creator is replicating, to take a tool that can be used to make literally anything and pigeonhole it into a specific meta doesn't do justice to what it can produce. Pacificoaster and G Force do photorealism. Hoobaroo does surrealist dream sequence stuff. Walto somehow ping-pongs between both. Lurker does cozy NCSO scenes that take a little and give a lot. 73 makes his towering pink abstract things. Hydro is crunchy. SRF is clean. It's no different than how a traditional artist would take to the canvas.

 

I need to make friends with Walto, but somehow I've never chatted with the guy.

Cold take: Walto is the GOAT