RCT Discussion / Fantasy vs. realism

the only "realistic" parks are the recreations, if anything, because the rest is just imagined up.
Then, it'd just be about how far you stretch your imagination, and in what direction. So to me, all parks, except for recreations, are "fantasy".

well fuck, that works for me.

I totally disagree.
If parks resemble real life existing ones very much then there's no way to call them fantasy. You misunderstand the meaning of "realism", darkjanus.

4. Blitz's parks are fantasy because they have meaning beyond what is seen on the screen. I can't think of anyone else who would fit this definition though.

Aww.. I do that with every one of my parks. No one "got" that about my only solo release thus far, Ghost World.. though.

I agree with Posix on this. When you add "ism" to the end of "real".. it's becomes a belief or a process. So a park can still follow this belief and not be a recreation. Park recreations are just "real".

Does that make sense, or am I just crazy?

I agree with Posix on this.  When you add "ism" to the end of "real".. it's becomes a belief or a process.  So a park can still follow this belief and not be a recreation.  Park recreations are just "real".

Does that make sense, or am I just crazy? 

Yes that makes perfect sense. Realism and real are two seperate styles of parkmaking. Real parks refer to recreations and such, as Jacko said, and realism refers to "like real." Thus to be like real doesn't mean it is already in existance. Realism is a style that is creative, but still maintains certain standards that apply to real life. Fantasy is a creative style, but does not necessarily represent possible situations, in example, going 100 miles per hour through a small loop. At least, that is my interpretation.

Yes. Real and realism are completly different things... Real parks are parks that exist, not that could exist, because they already do. If that makes any sense what-so-ever.

Realism/ Realistic parks are simply parks that are build to normal conformities of exitistance as we currenty know it. They are parks that are ment to be exactly that- parks. Everything follows a normal order of existance.

Fantasy parks could be called realistic in the way that realistic parks could be called fantacy. I mean are rides like Two Forces immpossable? Hell no. Those pair could be built almost exactly how they are in the game as far as clearences, layout, pacing etc. Personally I feel like even though fantasy pushes what you know of or think of as acceptable for true existance to the breaking point it still is possable. I'll even go out on a limb here and say that if the money was generated that even Soul Harvester could be constructed (man that'd be sweet).

ride6

100 mph through a small loop?!! Don't be retarded, that isn't fantasy... that's just bad coaster making.

The problem I'm seeing now is that what is deemed as "realism" as it pertains to coasters and parks that exist now, will change drastically in the next 5 or ever 2 years. What you'd think was "unrealistic" will no longer be unrealistic, because some park actually went ahead and did it.

So why bother with the label in that sense? It would only represent what we know as of right now. But what about a park that was "unrealistic" now, but later the community would think it perfectly realistic?

That's the problem with saying "realistic parks are more realistic than fantasy", because it may sound "duh" on the surface, but it's truly the distinction between two styles, one of which has been tragically dubbed "realism" by no other merit other than what the people have agreed upon as being representative of realism.

Like I've been saying, it all boils down to what the persons personal opinion of what constitutes a realistic park (though if you look at a fair amount of posts, it seems that much is apparent).

Here's my argument for people who think fantasy parks could not be built.



If this is possible, than just about anything is.

This looks remarkably like something out of a Mala park.

Ah god bless those Japanese. They know what a coaster is.

And the best part, it's called "Thunder Dolphin" How cool is that?

that's a fucking sweet coaster.

Okay, I'm about to get really really mad at you guys.
Can you please begin to understand that to us, realism is not what "could" be built but what "would" be built. Those pictures are just curiosities that exist once in the whole world and only for the sake of being weird, strange, outrageous and new. It's just not a common thing. Realistic parks have to be common and usual and typical. You hate that, I know, but I fucking don't give a shit.

I try to make parks, not creative ideas.

Does it really matter that much? I know what you mean by realistic parks. But if you take IOA Hollywood and put a luge coaster in it, is it any less realistic? A luge coaster is totally plausible even though no one has built one yet. How about a B&M standup coaster with a vertical drop. Just cause it hasn't been built yet doesn't mean it won't ever be. We all know what you mean by realistic parks Posix, that isn't the argument. If you take what is commonly referred to as realistic and add a Luge coaster to it for example, is it any less realistic now? What about a Hammerhead Stall? Parks don't just build those but we at least know that ride exists. What about a trackless rally ride? There's nothing unfeasible about that is there? Now what if you get really crazy and plop in a Mala coaster. Does the rest of the park become any less realistic or just that one coaster? So you can have a realistic park with 'unrealistic coasters' but then I look at the exceptions above and start to think that maybe it could still be realistic with a crazy coaster or two. So the point I'm getting at is that realism doesn't HAVE to be about mixing up elements of parks that already do exist. People in real life are creative too. People in real life build crazy things like tilt coasters. If you want to stick to the traditional idea of what a realistic park is, than I don't really care what you call realistic. That isn't the issue. The issue is whether that traditional definition is actually realistic at all and many people (myself included) have suggested reasons why it might not be.

Ed, you just don't understand.
Sorry, but I've really grown tired of this argue.

You're right, I don't understand.
I don't understand why you're so adamant that realistic parks have to be 'common and usual and typical' and they can't be anything else. It's not that I hate those parks, they just don't interest me. But this isn't even about what I do and do not like. It's about what the word realistic means.

Of or relating to the representation of objects, actions, or social conditions as they actually are.

That leaves a whole lot of room for interpretation doesn't it? As they actually are - does that mean it has to exist in real life like recreations? Does that mean all rides have to be clones of reallife rides? Is Dragon Flight really a realistic coaster by that description? We all have some intuition for what the word means, though it's been so over-used by this point that we have conflicting intuitions about what it means. Not even thinking about Mala parks or Micool or Blitz parks or even mantis parks for a minute, there are still other ways to represent reality than the typical way. And really, I think the buildings I made in the Harbor District of Cataclysm are much better representations of real buildings than anything Schuessler built. I like what Schuessler does but if you really think about what the word means, it's really not all that realistic afterall. I don't know why you take this personally. You can make up a new word if you want. How about Schuessler-esque? Your parks are Schuessler-esque. There's no arguments there. Do you really feel like you must lay claim to the term realistic? It's not like anyone is saying your way of parkmaking isn't valid or even artistic. Just that perhaps there's a better word for it than realistic.

I said earlier that realism doesn't necessarily need to be the typical old school style type of park and that there can be a thousand ways to do realism in RCT, but whatever...

I honestly think your stuff in Cataclysm isn't realistic by any means. The layout of the paths and the rides are too "un-real". Oh god, this word, "real", I can't hear it any longer. You're right. This thread has lead us to total confusion about what it really is in the end...

Dragonflight; It's really tricky. I don't understand the coaster at all. But really everything Schuessler has done I absolutely adore. His parks are the only that can set me in total awe. Therefore, I've come to the conclusion that Dragonflight must be so overly genius that I don't understand it. I love it's looks and it's flow, but it's just so untypical that it confuses me.

And I feel horrible about my schuessler-esque style. If he came back, he'd detest me. Would you not detest someone who rips off your parks so shamelessly?
All I'm trying RCT-wise at the moment is finding my way back to a more personal style.

I honestly think your stuff in Cataclysm isn't realistic by any means. The layout of the paths and the rides are too "un-real".

So you are saying "realism" is just limited to theme parks? If you look at the harbour area in Cataclysm, for example, the path layout is good for a harbour. Not for a theme park, but as an harbour it's very accurate, and so, according to your own definition of the word, "realistic".

If a park is not a recreation, I see no reason to put restrictions on myself that the game does not put on me already.

I don't understand why you're so adamant that realistic parks have to be 'common and usual and typical' and they can't be anything else. It's not that I hate those parks, they just don't interest me.

If a park is not a recreation, I see no reason to put restrictions on myself that the game does not put on me already.

I think the appeal to a realistic park is that you can look at it, and feel it. You can imagine yourself strolling along the walkways, or going up the lift hill of a coaster. A good realistic park is like taking a trip to your favorite real life theme park without ever leaving your chair. A fantasy creation is nice as well, but in a totally different way. Kind of like "Wow, thats crazy, I wish it was real". Its like leaving Earth and venturing to another world, wilst a good realistic park sort of lets you enjoy the pleasures of the world we all ready live in.

Although I love both styles, a lot of times I enjoy realism more. Which is rather unfortunate, as I suck at building at realism in general, and can't seem to grasp any aesthetic appeal (see--Euroscape). Realism takes a lot of talent. It can be a lot harder than you think to capture 'the feel'.

I too, don't think The Harbor District or any other such creations are realistic. Sure, they make a great representation of what a real harbor is like, so they are real in that manner. We are talking amusment parks though, and harbors with trollies and cargo ships generally are not used in amusment parks. Sure, I guess you could use the argument that parks like IOA might build something like that, but we are talking in general.



All in all, obviously everyone has their own interpretation of what a realistic park and a fantasy park is, so I think we should just leave it at that.


EDIT- Ed, what is that picture you posted of anyway? Is it like a track segment that transfers the train to a vertical drop position? Apologies for any stupidity or ignorance located in this question.

Sure, they make a great representation of what a real harbor is like, so they are real in that manner. We are talking amusment parks though, and harbors with trollies and cargo ships generally are not used in amusment parks.

That's where we disagree. There's nothing about the word 'realistic' which implies that it has to look like an amusement park. That's one kind of realistic, it's not the only kind. That's all I'm saying. Not everyone wants to build an amusement park, and it isn't like noone else is concerned with realism and aesthetics. And most of what you would call fantasy parks can be experienced in the same way as the realistic themeparks. You can imagine walking around a harbor district can't you? Does it really have to be an amusement park to be realistic?

Ed, what is that picture you posted of anyway? Is it like a track segment that transfers the train to a vertical drop position? Apologies for any stupidity or ignorance located in this question.

That's Gravity Max at Discovery World in Taiwan. It's the only existing Vekoma Tilt Coaster and it works pretty much like you said. You can read more about it at Vekoma.com. I remember hearing about this thing a few years ago and saying they'd never build it because of the safety problems. But they built it, and people ride it so I guess it must be safe.

There's nothing about the word 'realistic' which implies that it has to look like an amusement park.

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.