RCT Discussion / Fantasy vs. realism

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.

yeah, basically.

Let me simplify this. Who gives a fuck. Download the park / Look at the screens. Everyone has their own opinions. Judge it for your self, who gives a fuck what other people think.

[font="Times"]
I think it's funny that you guys need something so tangible that you need to define how a game works.
It's like art, everyone has thier own style, you can't really define it, it's THIER style.

This is one of the most pathetic "argues" (haha) that we have had here at NewElement.
Nevertheless, define if you must define.
[/font]

Argue all you want it all will boil down to this: RCT is an art form


The End

ride6

A pathetic argue? Not at all. We're all just having a bit of fun. Why anyone would need to jump in to tell us how pathetic we are is what I'm wondering - but I guess you're just having a bit of fun too. So, uh, carry on.

Yeah, how dare you guys actually discuss Roller Coaster Tycoon on this website. Please get back to calling each other fags and talking about movies.

[/sarcasm]

I want to have fun too. How about saying something like a park is only as realistic as its least realistic ride, or really to most people (because most people don't look at every ride in a park) least realistic coaster? I'm not saying that necessarily that realism has to boil down to coasters/rides, but those are basically the only things that set apart parks from the real world in terms of what they are composed of. Parks like the real world both have for example restaurants, shops, scenery/theming for parks that would translate into characteristics of a certain area in real life, maintance things, behind the scenes work, ect. Really the only major difference is layout and size, being that a park is obviously smaller and if themed, a condensed version of the theme as to make it possible for guest to walk though it and see the whole thing. Anything possible architecturally and such in real life is pretty much possible in parks, again disregarding size and layout most of the time. The main key though is the rides. Rides by themselves don't come as natural in the real world. Probably the one thing I didn't like about the Agean is that its theming was more like the real thing than a park's interpretation of the real thing, and it was sort of like seeing rides in those actual areas. I liked that it was different, especially compared to Nate's previous works, and in the end was pretty good, but not necessarily a pretty good "park". Even as much as I tried, it still got to me when I saw things like a S&S swat ride in the middle of the Greek section or whatever that was with the adventure ride.

I guess my definition of a realistic park would be really anything that could exist in real life, not just real parks, plus rides, although I really do see the natural human trait of classification and segregation as some of our useless ones. I prefer anything that is new and creative, because where other people see restriction, I see accuracy. Regardless of whether a park is uselessly characterized as realistic or not, a park has to vary which is why I don't like parks that are repetitive. A park that has variation in whatever it has usually comes off as a good park to me, I'm not really one to dwell too much on looks and the superficial perspective of things but rather the ideas and time behind them.

A pathetic argue? Not at all. We're all just having a bit of fun. Why anyone would need to jump in to tell us how pathetic we are is what I'm wondering - but I guess you're just having a bit of fun too. So, uh, carry on.

[font="Times"]
That was deep, baby.
[/font]

It is very hard to classify something as unrealistic. I say just build as you wish. There is no way to put a definition to relism and fantasy. People see something and simply think, "thats unrealistic, that can never exist in real life." Or they see the other side and say, "that looks like it could be at Six Flags or Something" or "I wish i could ride that coaster." What it all comes down to is personal preference on what "fits in" to their environment or realism which is usually set in their mind by what theme parks they have been to or even what city they are exposed to.

I personally just look for looks and nothing else. There is no reason to judge on whether a park falls under, realism or fantasy, regardless of the definition. If i was to say something is fantasy, or unrealistic now, in some years it can and possibly will be realistic and used somewhere. Just think of the many things from the "fantasy world" that people in the olden days thought would never be possible. Most of it is here in todays world and if it isnt, its being worked on. There is no way to say something is unrealistic. If it can be thought of and put together, simply put, its realistic.

thats just my two cents...