(Archive) Advertising District / Project Brain Freeze

Well, I have to have another description. If you don't feel like reading it, skip over everything in italics (a LOT), but if you want to fully understand the park (or just need a good read), read it.

This park is, among other things, a tribute. Like all my parks, it's an experiment, and like all my parks, it's a little different from the last. I always like to try new things in my parks, for instance, all three of my High Rollers themes were new to me. They weren't executed as well as I liked them to (and I'm a bit dissappointed with my entry to be honest, but I'll work on it as well as I can), but I learned a good bit form them. This park I'm learning way more with. I'm tributing this park to a many people. Mantis, Blitz-sama, Pawn, Micool, Mala (lotsa M's), and Midnight Aurora (aaugh!) are all the tributees.

Mantis is the most, since his Entropy was the sole idea behind the park. I'm being inspired by more and more parks as I go through in this project (even though I have very little done, since I'm paying incredible attention to detail), but his section in Florencia Valley was what started it off. I looked through the sections and thought they were pretty good, but like most parks, I came back to them for various reasons (OZONE's section was one, his hacks in Mine Shaft and The Runaway Ore Cart), and looked at the "Chaos" building in depth for the first time. The sections of the ride where it was hanging under the paths amazed me, and my architecture was based heavily on that building. Also, W.O.M.B. is a major theming inspiration. It gave me new ideas of architecture, and rides. It also broke me away from using just trees, and you can see bits of inspiration here and there in the theming. Also, his unfinished (released at the Station a looong time ago) work "Cellular Emotion" (that's it, Glitchwolf. The coaster idea came from that) gave me the main basis of the park, but I'll talk about that later.

Blitz-sama and Mala really inspired me because of their fearless use of rides as scenery, and their crazy, incredible rides that cannot be recreated in a million years. They made me think of new ideas for rides, and architecture, which will become apparent in later sections. The last two, probably two of my favorite parkmakers, Pawn and Midnight Aurora, really made me want to have incredible, unique, hacked-up rides. Pawn's rides with incredible Beast hacks (with many, many spikes, which I have very many in the ride I'm showing), and Midnight Aurora's incredible hacks have shaped the ideas of the rides that I'm building.

This park is mainly based upon the idea of gravity. In RCT1, without being able to easily stack scenery and all buildings are automatically tied down to the ground (because of them being land, just colored), it's shaped most parks to become very flat. In RCT2, there is less of this, but it's still apparent, because of the obvious RCT1 influences (overall style of parkmaking, rides, layouts, etc.). I wanted to make a park that defied the gravity engine of the game. This is where Entropy's influence comes in. In the "Chaos" building, the coaster goes closely underpaths and has chairlifts under it, giving the illusion it's floating. I'm taking that to another level. I want most everything in the park not connected to the ground, but connected to something else. In an SLC or inverted coaster, the track is suspended under the supports, and the supports connect to a crossbeam, linking them to the ground. I want my architecture to be very open, and have lots of suspended levels. I wanna defy gravity, in short. This section isn't as defying as some of the planned sections will be, but you can see little bits of this emerging.

I also want some Mala and Blitz influences in the architecture and general park. Lots of winding paths going between many huge, towering structures. Also, quickly changing landscaping. I don't want rolling hills, I want tall, jagged pieces of land that quickly go up and down, giving an incredible enviroment to ride a coaster in. Some plateaus, some valleys, some flat spaces where structures and paths will be, but quickly changing landscape that has to regards to realism.

Most of the rides will be totally fantasy. Some will be a little bit realistic, but most will have wild hacks. There won't be a lot of lift hills, or a lot of shuttles, but there will be some mad hacks. There are some pretty sweet hacks in the coaster I'm building right now, including many spikes, gravity sections, water walking, and overall funky things. I'm pretty proud of it (except for the insanely terrible ratings, which I will improve later). I'm planning split-duelers (not just like the split in Dæmon where it quickly comes back together, big splits, like the one in Erwindale), some tight Upwards launch stuff, etc.

Overall, this park will be one of the biggest breaks in anyone's style ever. I'm not expecting anyone to like it, nor will I care if anyone doesn't. If it comes out hated by everyone, I'll keep going, I just won't show it. I wonder how this will be accepted.



...

Anyways, that's the end of that novel. It'll be kinda funny watching people bash my parks after writing that up for so long.

SCREEN HERE!

I put together a few screens, and made that. If you're 1024x768 or below (like me, I'm 1024x768), then there would've been scrolling, so I'll just link it. It's of the coaster that I was talking about with a ton of spikes. I'm working to improve the ratings (not like those matter much, but they're so bad that I wanna improve them) right now, but it'll be really hard, since the ride is 2 min. long and doesn't have a lift hill (really long).

There won't be a ton of updates, and none will be a whole screen (probably), since I'm leaving for Florida (St. Pete, near Tampa) for a week or two tomorrow, and this park is taking forever to make. So, enjoy every screen (if you like). It'll be like a W.O.M.B. update, I guess. Practically nothing, practially never.

Finally, my hand is getting tired from all the typing. Thank God I know home-type.

Hope you like. Comments please.

Aérôglòbe

Interesting to see all of the RCT1 parks still being created. Looks good; only suggestion would be to recolor the blue mouse track to match the rest of the brown there.

Only thing is, I don't have RCT1 any longer...

That's odd, cause my band's name is Brainfreeze...what's even odder is I also just started a radical fantasy park heavily inspired by roomraider, Mala, and such. Oh well, looks great, and very radical.

^Hehe, cool. Coincidence.

Aérôglòbe

It kinda has an Entropy fell. I like all the random objects and scenery, but the archy is just too flat. The coaster looks interesting.

$Hevydevy $

What in the world is with those right side up looking sushi things? There is one all alone out on that island. .

Dude, Cellular Emotion! I read your post in the Hi Rollers and thought "hmmm....I did a split loop....maybe he's talking 'bout that?" and I was right!

It's great you got inspiration from my stuff - means there's a little more wackiness in the community I love the hedges and the dark-red path (hardly anyone uses these - why? they rock!). The licorice pieces are kinda cool and the path hacked into buildings is great. Also, is that some wall-stacking you've got there with the brick walls? I can't really see properly. Looks cool, anyway Nice tree selection, dense tree/object placement (yay) and cool coaster-building interaction.

The only things i'd change would be the fences in front of the flowers on the left (it's cooler if there's nothing between the flowers and the path, but still fences behind the flowers).

Really cool to see this! Can't wait to see what else you come up with in the park. And maybe you could update slightly more often than I do

I hate you for becoming good.



Wonderful screen. Nice to see you leaving the norm.

After reading your description I thought you were building in RCT2. I thought you were actually going to build buidings and everything floating off the ground and some kind of elevated platforms so your coaster supports wouldn't touch the ground either. I don't know how you're going to accomplish your goal in RCT1. The screen wasn't at all what i was expecting but I do like some of the architecture elements and the trees do go together in a chaotic sort of way. I think that antigravity would be a great idea for an RCT2 park though because, like you said, buildings don't have to be tied down to the ground in RCT2.

It's so great to see someone actually put some time into a post like you Aérôglòbe.

Anyways.

The whole thing you wrote actually added to the park for me! It was like a science speech where you were briefing us on your ideas and trying to gt capital to go foward with your project, very cool.

Just from your writing I got a complete idea of what this park was going to be like, and I have not seen Florencia. I just hope you can pull it off corectly.

On to the park, eh?

++++++

Much like ED i am dissapointed in what I'm seeing here. And I would not be bothered if infact you made this park in RCT2. I think that idea would be and could be done better with its game engine.

What I was thinking is you make a mesh of say suspended monorail track for the buildings to anchor into and then procede to make your buildings 'float' from them. The rides would be something else, and I don't have any ideas on how to do them. But still RCT2 is a better pick for a park like this.

Anyways...

Even so what you've got here is doesn't live up to your amazing write up. It isn't the future-ish type of stuff I wanted to see.

I feel sorry for you trying to take on such a hard theme, and to add to that with RCT1. I'm going to withhold further comments because of this.

I highly recommend if you want your idea to work do it with RCT2.

Best of luck! I know you can do it!

After reading your description I thought you were building in RCT2. I thought you were actually going to build buidings and everything floating off the ground and some kind of elevated platforms so your coaster supports wouldn't touch the ground either. I don't know how you're going to accomplish your goal in RCT1. The screen wasn't at all what i was expecting but I do like some of the architecture elements and the trees do go together in a chaotic sort of way. I think that antigravity would be a great idea for an RCT2 park though because, like you said, buildings don't have to be tied down to the ground in RCT2.

Ed, Ed, Ed... I would think you off all people would know that it can be done in RCT1. Just not easily...

im actually already using rct2 to make elements of anti gravity, and wme is going to help me hack the hell out of project anti to get that same feel in our park together...

im glad that someone else out there thinks in these terms, more wackyness and just maybe... works of intellect in addition to being art.

CoasterED and I were having a discussion on realistic vs fantasy in an AIM convo the other day when I said something along the lines of "fantasy can have infinitely more depth, because you can go beyond what is simply seen."
Well... something like that.
Anyway, I'll rephrase it here in more detail.

In fantasy, you can go beyond what is known, and create something totally original. The mind is a vast space which harbors consciousness and intellect, two factors so huge that any amount of uniqueness can be found. Just look at us humans. There is no human on this earth that has all the appearance, experience, thoughts, and personality that another human possesses. Which is why reality is so constricting, you are limited to what you can see, hear, etc. Realism of any sort plays a role in fantasy, but only to make it believable.

This, by the way, is the same thinking I reserve for novels. I read/write sci-fantasy, because it goes beyond the realm of MY experience and knowledge and passes on to me, ideas and concepts which are new and creative.

Thank you for reading my tangent-er- rant

oh yes, nice screen, the architecture is actually interesting compared to most of whats coming out these days.

Since you're continuing the discussion here, I might as well too. You are right that fantasy does away with the arbitrary limits of realism and therefore allows you to stretch out even further with your creativity. That's more or less what you said and it's the same argument that's always put forth in favor of fantasy. Well it's not really an argument, just a statement of intent. My response though is that realism for me does not mean following any particular rules. A number of people have taken this path in creating purely realistic parks. For me realism is a way of taking creativity and ordering into a more familiar form. That's a really abstract way of saying it. Basically all creativity is grounded in what you already know. It probably isn't recognizeable, but even the craziest of ideas came from somewhere. An epiphany isn't a random thought from out of the ether, it's when that last nueron finally falls into place linking one idea to another idea. The suddenness with which it occurs may make it seem like something new and amazing but it's really been a long time in coming. Anyway, getting back to the topic at hand I think realism is important not as a set of rules to follow but as a more productive way to collect ideas. Let me elaborate on that:

This discussion about fantasy vs. realism has been the biggest preoccupation in the RCT community since the beginning (though I see that only in retrospect). Basically while one group of people (coaster fans mostly) put all their time and energy into recreating their favorite parks and coasters another group of people was spending all of their energy creating the biggest, craziest, most twisted combinations of steel ever seen. If you were to drop into the Danimation repositories around the year 2000 you would have seen a bunch of recreations and a bunch of parks filled to the brim with huge coasters. These two groups went about their business doing what they enjoy without bothering each other much. Over time some people began to blend the two styles. The spotlight park 'Adventures into Imagination' is a good example of that blending. Now it's much more common to see a mix of the two styles than it is to see purely fantasy or purely realism. This is why Blitz's work tends to catch people off guard and so does something very realistic like something NO would make. As someone who comes from a background in the realism school, I'm experimenting with fantasy more and more but I still appreciate something elegantly realistic like IOAH much more than I appreciate any of Mala's parks. I don't think either one can be considered better, fantasy and realism are on opposite ends of the spectrum but their value (I think) is the same.

You said yourself that realism plays a role in fantasy. Well the decision then is how much realism you choose to put into your fantasy. Even a purely realistic park is a creative outlet. You take all that you like about certain themeparks and try to create your own drawing in inspiration from other parts of your imagination for themes and such. The creativity in anything you make (Blitz) is more apparent than in a recreation perhaps but it's still there in both.

So anyway I think realism is an important tool for creating atmosphere. What I mean by that is making it so that the viewer can put themself into the park and experience it as if they were actually there. The biggest problem I have with extreme fantasy parkmaking (aside from the frequent disregard for aesthetics) is that there's so much going on that I can't even begin to know where to look. I have that problem with your stuff Blitz. I appreciate it on a surface level and the complexity of it all is quite awe inspiring but I can't really connect with it on a deeper level because it's sort of alienating. Of course I've only seen sections of it, not a full park so that may be part of the problem . Anyway you think about it, realism is always going to be a restriction but I think a certain level of restriction through realism is more desireable than a blast of creativity which is so dense and so unintelligable that it becomes meaningless. I don't mean that as a criticism. I'm sure it has tons of meaning to you. I simply mean that in evaluating other people's work I need a certain level of familiarity or I'm lost from the beginning. This is a personal limitation of mine, I can only presume it might be true for other people.

To use the same analogy that you used, I'll relate that to fiction, or specifically Science-Fiction. The best science-fiction to me has ideas which are grounded in something familiar. What's fun about science-fiction is that it puts you into a place very different from what is familiar. It's a form of escapism really. But for science fiction to really engage me it has to find some relevent issue to deal with. Maybe it questions the nature of humanity or memory, maybe it explores our interaction with the universe through time travel. When I see an issue that I recognize than I can really be drawn into the world. That element of the familiar is needed for me to get me started. It's like my subconscious won't leap off into the abyss until it feels some kind of reassurance that it won't get lost. Now I'm really stretching I know. I read a lot of Philip K. Dick books which are out there in terms of concepts that I've never seen anywhere else before. The guy was either brilliant or incredibly confused. Regardless I always find that what brings me the most enjoyment are the parts that I do identify with. The characters and their personal struggles. All that other stuff is just the icing on the cake really and wouldn't be much good without the element of familiarity holding it up. Basically I think creativity for the sake of creativity is wasted. It needs a focus. In RCT my focus is on creating a place that somebody could put themself into. The better job I do of creating a tangible place, the more succesful I feel I have been.

To use just one more example, I'm sure you've been to a modern art gallery. Uninhibited creativity at it's best. In a way I like the kind of freedom of expression seen there more than I do the stodgy sameness of an old european art gallery (portraits, portraits, and more portraits). However, while one could say that a bunch of paint splattered on a canvas is pure creativity one could also say that it is meaningless if the viewer can't get anything out of it. What is there to see in a mosaic? If there is something to see that implies intent which means the artist has deliberately created a visual metaphor for some object or some idea. This I would consider grounding it in realism. Something tangible and recognizeable allows the creativity to display greater meaning.

I've rambled on so long now I've forgotten the original topic. Fantasy vs. realism in RCT. Hmm, well the most obvious thing to say is that whatever means the most to you IS right and whatever feels wrong IS wrong. That's about it. All of this discussion is just for the fun of making our brains think a little bit. I find myself facing my big philosophical problem once again. Is all this analyzation/discussion really worthwhile or are we all better off simply letting the wind (or in this case our own instincts and preoccupations) carry us where it may. In other words, which is more useful: all of western philosophy or Taosim which by it's very nature negates all of western philosophy. I don't think I'll ever have an answer for that paradox. The more you think, the more you distance yourself from chance. If you give yourself up to chance than you shouldn't even think at all.

-----

I doubt anyone spent the time to read all of that. I wouldn't. I did feel like it was important for me to write this though, for my own sake. I just wanted to get back to the topic here and say that MA, you are absolutely right. As I've made a point of saying, anything is possible when you let your imagination go. It's more obvious how this concept can be done in RCT2 but that doesn't mean it isn't worth trying in RCT1. Aeroglobe, I hope your exploration brings meaning to you.

PS - I dedicate this topic to anyone who thought my posts were too long and rambling in the past. This is only the tip of the iceberg. Pray you never run into me on the street.

I don't think either one can be considered better, fantasy and realism are on opposite ends of the spectrum but their value (I think) is the same.

Very good point.
Good job Aero there are some very good and then some bad things in the screen. I like it overall it has a nice warm feeling to it, if you could think and tell us why the random black sweets are situated where they are it would make it a whole lot better. It's not a problem but its sometimes nice to know why something is there. Good job so far, the architecture is going well.

Actually, I was planning an anti-gravity section. It was gonna remain secret, but now that discussion has turned to that idea, I might as well say I'm gonna do it. Generally, it'll be an entire park section (pretty small, like a Florencia or Master's Isle section) that will be completely floating. I'm gonna figure out some crazy stuff to do with Beast, and nothing on the entire section will be on the ground. Huge buildings made of rides (like X-Sector's "Experience" dome), but floating.

I was thinking of doing it in RCT2 for a little, but since hacking is so dumbed down, then I said I would do it in RCT1 since it would be much more creative and unique. Plus, you can do so much more with the rides in RCT1.

Anyways, I probably will end up doing a follow up in RCT2. Right now, the "defying gravity" is path sections with eliminated supports, lots of overhangs, random Blitz-sama stuff, etc. It'll get more intense as we go along (such as the whole section).

And, with the black sweets thing, it's the same reason why the Martian thingies are there. They look cool to me. I'm hoping to go as far out of the way of normal theming as possible, and I'm gonna use what looks good, not what looks familiar. I forget they're sweets, and just think they're another part of the scenery. So, that's my reason of them being there.

Anyways, no updates for a while, I'm in Florida on vacation, and after that, I gotta touch up the High Rollers (which is dissapointing, so I'll need the fixing upping).

Keep being creative, and stay out of the norm.

Aérôglòbe

dont u think ur gonna have trouble with perception if everything is off the ground. its a really cool idea i just think its hard for the viewers to see that everything is off the ground. its kinda hard to explain but i think u understand what im saying. anyway i do wanna see what its gonna look like. (somebody may have already asked this but i dont think so.)

Yeah, I do know what you're saying, and I do know it might be difficult to percieve, but I'm planning to put it over water (or over a jagged rocky landscape, so you can see it). I'm planning a lot of stuff about this, and I am kind of using the Cloud City from Star Wars as an inspiration. Watching Star Wars was probably the basis of this section.

I'll see what'll happen. I might make an asteriod-type landscape with wooden track or something (so it'll have a really spacey feel like everyone's always wanted in RCT, rather than set on Earth or Mars, and actual Deep Space feel).

Hopefully it'll work, but it'll be a long while before that comes.

Aérôglòbe

hmmm
the thing is, a deep space thing would have to be "nailed" to a 2-D planescape to be worth looking at through an rct window.

and thanks for your thoughts Ed. I agree that it is just personal preference, but my PERSONAL opinion is well, you know already.
BUT... my stuff IS infact grounded on something realistic.
Like your fave sci-fi novel guy, I use characters. Very human characters infact, that live in stories behind my rct work. Doesn't do much good though considering only I know all the stories and concepts behind it (for now). Which is why I plan to write "shorts" and essays that look into the characters I have and use in reference to my rct work.
"Radikal" IS a character of mine, as is "Prodigy". The fanboy-ish scientist in that one data entry from the "lanus junction" readme is a character from my story-world. I allow the environments I make (rct, written, drawn, or played) to influence my characters and how they react. So while it may be completely random to others (again, for now), it makes complete sense to me ^_~.

But Ed, perhaps you don't need to put yourself into fantasy parks? I think that in the community realistic parks are generally more numerous - i could probably count the real fantasy-parkmakers on one hand. So we're all accustomed to realistic parks. We put ourselves in there and enjoy ourselves. Personally, I don't try and put myself in Fantasy parks cos I know I don't have the imagination to do so. I don't have the 'inside knowledge' that the creator did. I enjoy fantasy parks because I can be a spectator - looking in on someone else's thought processes. Far from pretending to be a guest I much prefer to regard the thing as a whole, as if it were a working model rather than a proper park. Talking about art - when you see a painting by a classical painter of a crowd scene, the viewer is supposed to imagine they are in there with the painted people, enjoying whatever's going on. But with performance art, or a modern art drawing of someone's genitalia (just generalising here =P) you're supposed to 'regard' rather than 'take part'. If you look at the Lanus Junction in Florencia then there's no way you're going to be able to 'take part' because you don't have the knowledge that Blitz had while making it. BUT you can quite easily appreciate what's there as if it were a toy or a drawing.

Unfortunately there's an exception. At least I see it so. Mala. He's strongly classified as a fantasy parkmaker, right? Yet I find it easiest to absorb myself in his parks - I can easily imagine walking through the Arcology in Cydonia City or racing around the mountains in Mountain Beach. It's easy for me to visualise what's going on. Funnily, I find it harder to imagine myself in egypTopia, yet it's my favourite park. Perhaps it's too real. Maybe because RCT is a computer game I associate it with a lack of realism and therefore find it hard to recognise realistic parks in an essentially unrealistic game. The buildings in egypTopia are what i'd expect to see in a real theme park, yet when looking at the park I can't imagine standing there and looking at them. They seem too...indistinct. Lack of identity is what stops me from relating to a lot of parks. Mala, however, makes sure that every single thing in his parks has identity - is somehow iconic. I think that makes it a lot easier for me to immerse myself.

So perhaps for me everything is reversed. Fantasy is what I find easiest to believe and Realism seems too far-fetched to be true. Strange really, but it's how I see things. RCT, being a computer game, should be unrealistic, and therefore i'll always find fantasy a much more friendly genre. But that doesn't mean I shun realism - in fact i'm impressed that people can create real things using an unrealistic medium. egypTopia is the essence of that, and I have to say it's a confusing conflict: impressive realism vs easily accessible fantasy.

But, I hope I give the impression that my tastes are varied and i'm pretty open-minded, so I seem to find something interesting in all styles. Makes it damn hard to make lists of my favourites though

You know I kinda lost track of what I was trying to say there so I don't know how much of it makes sense. You're right that appreciating an RCT park and feeling absorbed in it are both enjoyable and blend together more than I indicated before. Throwing out everything I said about grounding fantasy in realism I think perhaps I have more difficulty enjoying fantasy parks because they are so adamant about breaking the rules. There are unofficial aesthetic rules that I follow when building and I like to see them in other people's parks too. When I look at something by Mala or Blitz they break so many of those rules that it I guess I find it intimidating. When other people follow the same rules that you do it gives a nice comfortable feeling. When someone shows that they're going to build whatever the hell they want and they couldn't care less about your silly rules, well that becomes uncomfortable so you have to work harder to appreciate it. I thank it works that way on a subconsious level. I have a knee jerk reaction to it and only later will I come back and really take a closer look. I should thank people like Blitz for daring to do what I am afraid to do really.