RCT Discussion / Fantasy vs. realism

[font="tahoma"]Yet the game is called "Rollercoaster Tycoon", Ed.
It's not called "Amusement Park Tycoon", unfortunately. There's a special emphasis on coasters.
Still the game allows parkmaking.
Blitz and you use to use it for a different purpose. And I find that pretty much senseless, honestly, because the game wants you to make parks and especially coasters. Of course you will say "the game doesn't want you to do shit".
But really, why don't you play "Harbour Tycoon" when you want to construct a harbour?

And Butterfinger, I love you.[/font]

If you reason that way, you could say the game is called "Rollercoaster Tycoon", thus implying that the game is simply just a management sim. Which it really isn't, the way we use it.
And to me, using coasters to make a detailed harbour area sounds a lot more fun than using coasters to make, well, coasters.

Why let a name stop you from doing what you like to do, anyway?

I'm not. I was just saying what in my opinion RCT is made for. And you're right that it is just a management sim.
And what sounds fun to you and what not doesn't matter a shit to me.

I don't think posix's parks are realistic in the sense that they could exist in real life at all (although as RCT parks I think they are brilliant). If you think about it, real parks generally look quite ugly from above because of the way the themeing is done, and the buildings tend to be bigger and more seperated from one another. In fact, I don't think it's that possible to do realistic parks in LL anyway because of the architectural restrictions. The way parkmaking has evolved in that game - ie, mostly smaller buildings or a string of 1x2, 2x2, 1x1 3x2 etc blocks constituting buildings - shows that that is the way beauty is best created in the game.

The only realistic park I've ever seen - and excuse my ignorance for not having seen many parks realised before I arrived a year ago - is Corkscrewed's hi-rollers entry. Now that could very possibly be built in real life.

But I think this argument is somewhat stupid. Sorry to make another analogy to music, but it is like that. Putting bands into genres is the same thing as saying parks are "realistic" or "fantasy". I mean, we could have an equally extended argument about what the term "rock" actually means, and which bands are included in that, but like this argument it wouldn't get anywhere.

[font="tahoma"]Yet the game is called "Rollercoaster Tycoon", Ed.
It's not called "Amusement Park Tycoon", unfortunately. There's a special emphasis on coasters.
Still the game allows parkmaking.
Blitz and you use to use it for a different purpose. And I find that pretty much senseless, honestly, because the game wants you to make parks and especially coasters. Of course you will say "the game doesn't want you to do shit".
But really, why don't you play "Harbour Tycoon" when you want to construct a harbour?

And Butterfinger, I love you.[/font]

Ah, Posix. You of all people resulting to the "it's called Rollercoaster Tycoon" argument. Remember this:

Realistic parks have to be common and usual and typical. You hate that, I know, but I fucking don't give a shit.

And this:

I was just saying what in my opinion RCT is made for. And you're right that it is just a management sim.
And what sounds fun to you and what not doesn't matter a shit to me.

You've put yourself in a box now. I play RCT because I like the game and I'll create whatever the hell I want with it. And if you don't like that, well in your own words, "I fucking don't give a shit." You're the one being narrow-minded here cause you're telling me now that your way is right and my way is wrong. If you don't give a shit about how I want to play the game, why should I give a shit about the way you want to play it? I've never said that your way of making parks is wrong, just that it might not be realistic. Now you're saying that my way of making parks is wrong and your argument is "It's called Rollercoaster Tycoon"?! I never asked to be called a parkmaker anyway. I'd rather be called an RCT artist than a parkmaker. Yeah I like making parks but that isn't all the game can do so why limit yourself to that? I find it fun to make "parks" without coasters and without paths. At the time, I wanted to build a harbor district. Would you have preferred it if I threw in a carousel in the middle and a soda stall? Would that have made it a "real park" for you? You're acting like I'm corrupting the purity of the game in some way by doing this. This was just an argument about words, why make it into an argument about what the game was "made to do"? Don't you know that "It's called Rollercoaster Tycoon...not architecture tycoon or garden tycoon" is the argument that people use to show how the NE style is wrong and those parks with 50 coasters in them are closer to the spirit of the game? Whatever happened to tolerance and "I'll build whatever the hell I want to build"? I should be tolerant of you but you don't have to be tolerant of me?

And to answer your question, I don't play Harbor Tycoon because I don't get a kick out of arranging pre-rendered buildings. I'm not interested in helping a sim-Harbor generate sim-income. What I wanted to do was use a game called Rollercoaster Tycoon and build a semi-realistic looking harbor with it. Some time ago (years actually) people were saying that LL is all washed up. Everything that could be done had been done. Well those people were dead wrong and I enjoy proving them wrong any chance I get. The game can be whatever you want it to be. It's a blank slate and a set of tools. You can paint your 'Michelangelo' and I'll paint my 'Jackson Pollock' and you can say that my painting is not what the canvas was designed for as much as you want, but that doesn't make it true. Who really cares what the canvas was "designed" to do anyway? If you want to be literal, the game was designed to play scenarios. Yeah amusement parks are closer to that than a harbor but why go one step beyond what it was intended for and then stop? Is it really wrong to take another two or three steps?

Oh and BTW, take a close look at Mount Sinister. It is an amusement park. It has restaurants, flat rides, wide paths, and coasters. It stretches reality a bit but it's just an exaggerated amusement park. It really is magnificent. People see the huge coasters and cliffs and the heavy use of bushes and they miss the train cafe and the aquariums and the walkthrough fountain and all of the other cool details that Mala puts in to make it feel like a real place. That park has more cool little hacks and theming touches than just about any other and all anyone talks about is the coasters. If you want to see what an amusement park can be in RCT, just spend some time with Mount Sinister. It may look different than your typical realistic Warner Bros. or Universal RCT park but it's even more realistic because the level of detail makes it easy to imagine being there. Really look at the park for a few minutes. This goes for all who think Mala builds like a noob. You're glancing at the packaging and missing what's underneath.

This makes no sense. We're talking at cross-purposes.

Alright, I'll put it as simply as possible:

RCT does not have a purpose, it can be used to make whatever you want to make with it.

I like realism better.

Realism all the way

Alright, I'll put it as simply as possible:

RCT does not have a purpose, it can be used to make whatever you want to make with it.

Thanks Ed, now we can go on. (And hopefully we'll stick to this "short-form" )

I answer to your point: Yes, that's correct, but, originally, it's purpose was to make coasters. Later then, when LL came, it was to make even more coasters but it allowed also buildings and landscapes. These three in combination make a park to me. And all the scenarios focus on parks as well. So, it's parkmaking all the way
But you can of course do other things with it.

hmmm...

first definiton:
realism in parkmaking is recreating something that already exists
ratio of existing rct parks-

fantasy__realism
_90%____10%_

second definition:
realism in parkmaking is creating something that mimics what already exists
ratio of existing rct parks-

fantasy__realism
_80%____20%_

third definition:
realism in parkmaking is creating something that doesn't use metaphor or interpretation in construction
ratio of existing rct parks-

fantasy__realism
_95%___5%__

fourth definition:
realism in parkmaking is creating a themepark
ratio of existing rct parks-

fantasy__realism
_25%____75%_

fifth definition:
realism in parkmaking is creating something that is visibly tangeable
ratio of existing rct parks-

fantasy__realism
_0%____100%_


just... ya know... fyi.

fourth definition:
realism in parkmaking is creating a themepark
ratio of existing rct parks-

fantasy__realism
_25%____75%_

That sounds sort of strange. I thought there aren't very many non-park parks. Maybe that's just my definition.

that's pretty accurate if you look through every release at NE you can find.

I prefer realism in parks becuase fantacy is just to false to look at unless the park happens to be a disney'ish park. Most fantacy parks I have seen don't look that great. I mean its my opinion. Real parks are harder to do but in the long run are better looking unless your someone like "ToonTowner" or something who can do a fantacy park in like a snap and make it look X.Lent.

please specify which definiton you are using.

please specify which definiton you are using.

Are you refering to me or?

Please explain?

you must use one of the definitions presented in my post for absolute clarity on your opinion.

you must use one of the definitions presented in my post for absolute clarity on your opinion.

wtf ?!

What Blitz meant is that saying you prefer realism without saying what you think realism is isn't very clear. When yu say realism you have some idea in your head of what it is, but not everyone has that same idea so if you want to be clear you should also say what you think realism is. It doesn't have to be one of our definitions though, it's just whatever you're thinking of when you say the word 'realism'.

I guess you're right FindingNemo that fantasy parks usually don't look as good as realistic parks, however it depends what you're looking for. I think the simplest way to appreciate a park is the way it looks. Just look at the surface and you can appreciate a park that way. Then if you look deeper you can appreciate a park for the skill involved in making it such as complex hacks that are hard to pull off or well-designed coasters with high ratings. Then you can appreciate a park for how original it is. As a member of the community, you'll see a lot of parks released and some of them will stand out as trying something totally new. You can also appreciate a park for it's personality, fun and quirky little things like staff names and ride names or unusual rides or theming can make a park fun to explore. There are all sorts of ways to appreciate a park. Realism may be at an advantage as far as looks but there are so many other ways to appreciate parks. What it really comes down to is a mix of parkmaker skill, creativity, attention to detail. All of those are part of what make parks great - and rather than trying to sort them into realistic and fantasy, it's probably better to approach each park as a unique creation and appreciate all of it's qualities as they are. Not as they measure up to some abstract notion like realism or fantasy.

...and rather than trying to sort them into realistic and fantasy, it's probably better to approach each park as a unique creation and appreciate all of it's qualities as they are. Not as they measure up to some abstract notion like realism or fantasy.

Thank you

Ed, that wasn't what I meant. You missed the point. But Blitz was taking the piss anyway I guess, so I'm the fool.

But whatever, I'm done with this thread.