Park / Cinemagix

  • 20-February 06
Park_168 Cinemagix

28 Comments

  • Ge-Ride%s's Photo
    United States Ge-Ride Offline
    ^Actually, I did read the readme. I just thought that the other entries were more my style, and when I look at a park, I don't look for the most realistic, or even the best architecture. I look for the creative ideas behind the park, the mood or scene of the park, and when I look at this park, there is no recreation nor extremely innovative ideas.
    posted 18 years ago
  • Geoff%s's Photo
    United States Geoff Offline
    Your architecture has imporved massively.

    I think the park wasn't that bad, but the movie themes were stupid. Sorry, Austin Powers? Seriously. What hurt this the most were the themes.... I think you could have had a lot more flexibility with your theming if you just had a better idea.

    It was nice though. A BIG step up from the last two entries.
    posted 18 years ago
  • Steve%s's Photo
    United States Steve Offline
    I just felt the naming to be uninspired. You had things like Pizza Hut in the Peter Pan area and the coasters were just named after the movie you've chosen. Not really that noticable but maybe could be improved upon.
    posted 18 years ago
  • Xcoaster%s's Photo
    Xcoaster Offline

    J K- I thought the urban theme music was kinda groovy, so that's why I picked it for the AustinPowers coaster.. I agree it's not the best of all rct-songs though..

    View Post


    I actually really liked the urban music in that area. I thought it fit pretty well. And it's usually something I never use.
    posted 18 years ago
  • JKay%s's Photo
    United States JKay Offline
    Ok, I got a chance to look at this this morning.

    I'm probably sounding like a broken record here, but I must say the highlight of this park is the architecture. I pretty much enjoyed every building in the park. My only complaint about the architecture is that is wasn't varied enough from one area to the next. It seemed like you had the same textures and building forms, but just used a few different deco pieces and colors to differentiate to the next area. Still the best architecture I've ever seen from you SF. I won't drone on too much about what I didn't like, so I'll sum it by saying I didn't like any of the rides except the Desperado mine train and only slightly the Peter Pan ride. The rest just either weren't exciting enough or themed well enough for me to really enjoy.

    So in the end, I have to agree with the judges scores, although I probably would've given it at least a 4 due to the quality architecture.

    Can't wait to see this solo SF!
    posted 18 years ago
  • Toon%s's Photo
    Canada Toon Offline
    JKay, just so you know, the judges scores are based on their rankings (1st gets 14, last get 1), not an actual numerical score.
    posted 18 years ago
  • Buckeye Becky%s's Photo
    United States Buckeye Becky Offline
    I was so surprised when I saw your entry as #12. The park is not as good as I would have expected from you....but in your defense, you have been sooo busy doing all kinds of 'other' work in 'other' parks that I can see where you did not have the creative juices left for this one.

    I really liked the entrance area and Mexico but I really did not like the other two so much. The futuristic area reminded me way too much of Titan's Arch Angel and the Austin Powers area was just way off for me. Art Deco for Austin Powers?? He's British :lol:

    I suspect you will amaze us all with your new solo because your 'other' work is done now and you can concentrate on one thing!

    So have a bunny..... :bunny:

    :kiss:

    Edited by Buckeye Becky, 21 February 2006 - 06:45 PM.

    posted 18 years ago
  • Corkscrewed%s's Photo
    Corkscrewed Offline
    Yeah, I've got to echo everyone else's comments. The architecture shows a sophistication beyond that of the average parkmaker, but it's not spectacular. Unfortunately, it's the architecture and theming that's the strongest part of the park. I was quite surprised exploring the park after looking at the overview. It looked so full from afar, but ended up being rather bare. The coasters themselves are minimally themed. Though I think you did that on purpose, it ends up backfiring, because the coasters themselves are not solid enough to stand alone on minimal theming. None of them go beyond average in my book, unfortunately. The mine train is too short. You've still got plenty of momentum, but suddenly the ride's over. Austin Powers looked promising but suffered from speed problems. The SLC was ok, but not too memorable.

    So I can understand why it placed where it did. It's not bad, but it's one of those parks that you look at, note a few nice things, and probably never open again. Credit goes to completing a full park and putting in decent content, however, I must confess to being disappointed as well, as I feel you've put in more quality in previous releases.
    posted 18 years ago
  • Panic%s's Photo
    United States Panic Offline
    Part of the reason I gave this park a 2 was because it seemed as though it wasn't built by anyone in particular. It looked like an exhibition of NE's sort of "taste" in RCT2 parkmaking as of a few months ago, not the work of a single person. The jungle area, for example, seemed built on the basis of "what does NE look for in a good jungle theme?" rather than on any film, and the other areas were exactly the same. I couldn't see Six Frags anywhere I looked, like I could in his far better PT1 entry. This park could have been built by any of about 40 people at NE.

    Edited by Panic, 26 February 2006 - 09:33 PM.

    posted 18 years ago