Park / Carnivore
-
19-September 10
- Views 6,001
- Downloads 762
- Fans 2
- Comments 33
-
-
72.31%(required: 65%) Design
Nokia 90% Louis! 85% SSSammy 85% Kumba 80% turbin3 80% Wicksteed 80% BelgianGuy 75% geewhzz 70% nin 70% ][ntamin22 70% chapelz 65% John 65% 5dave 60% RMM 55% Roomie 55% 72.31% -
2 fans Fans of this park
-
Full-Size Map
-
Download Park
762
-
Tags
I too didn't like the long underground parts and the spread-out layout. The amount of path was also a bit confusing, especially from a peep's perspective.
To me it was just a bit below the design mark.
Congrats nontheless on this achievement after your hiatus from the game. Even more impressive that you still care for this site that much.
Glad you like the logo btw!
"MFG"
Congrats on the design win Posix
James
I can't say much more but it's pretty cool to see something from you
Care to elaborate on "beauty is a function!" ? Do you mean that as long as something looks beautiful, it serves its purpose?
Yeah, granted, these were kind of thrown in. It's interesting how in these comments people have noticed precisely what I used as fillers or with little inspiration.
How is trying to have an idea for everything a weak part? (This question has no sense of anger. I ask out of serious interest for your opinion)
You mean the bury/unbury method to remove supports? I think it's tedious and too time consuming. Plus, it's too inflexible if you want a path underneath your track which is intended to still have supports. Obviously this wasn't the case here, but still, I only use bury/unbury for hard to reach with chaiflift places.
Thanks again for posting your thoughts guys.
Something like that indeed. If filler happens to be beautiful and you strive for beauty, would you actually consider the filler stuff filler or functional?
I thought my statement was more clear. It often leads to over analyzing to the point where nothing gets done. It's the strong point because you create something it is very well developed... when you actually manage to create something that is. The weakness is struggling to create. If I'm not mistaken, this is something you've noted many times as you've tried to pick up the game again over the years.
A further note is that, imo, it can lead to a very stark, minimalistic style that can lose it's charm. At a certain point having every aspect of your work screaming, "I'm well thought out, serving a specific purpose and nothing more or less!" can have a negative effect and feels unwelcoming or sterile. The few gripes with this and other works of yours like Darkwood really toe the line between well conceived and devoid of feeling. To me it also seems to hurt your focus on the project as a whole. You mention the filler awnings that were floating, something easy to spot and difficult to get past when everything else is built around function.
And to continue into a post that's getting way too long. I'd like to mention that besides the coaster and interaction, the paths fading away were my favorite part of this. It's an interesting approach to circumnavigate the usual route of building a path into a brick wall "into next area" and hacking off the map at that spot. You seem to accentuate the ethereal quality of ideas beyond the realm of the design itself. It kinda adds a "what could have been" to the whole thing whether it was intended or not.
I think you raise an important point here. This is something I've felt in this design, too. It's also apparent in RCTNW's, geewhzz' and CP6's stuff. But the question that this creates is: Is the very abstract idea of "charm" in RCT only possible through improvisation?
For some reason I still feel Darkwoods has a strong atmosphere. But we're mixing constructs of a certain aspect of RCT perception here: atmosphere, feeling, mood, charm.
The point that a stark contrast is created between function and filler makes good sense to me. It's something I hadn't thought of before.
Very glad people notice and appreciate
Also for the supports Roomie.