RCT Discussion / More Roller Coaster Tycoon theorising.

I have been thinking about what I wrote yesterday, particularly the line, which I am loosely paraphrasing, "I want to free people of the limits of reality, and entangle them in the limits of art!"

The reason I have been thinking about this line is that, well, it is so completely true. That is what I want to do! However, are the four rules laid out by myself yesterday really the best way to do it within RCT?

No.

Of course, demanding freedom from reality is an important part, however, what about having people tangled up in art? Or RCT?

After all, if one is to truly be caught up in RCT, must not they be tangled up with it as a game, not just a building tool?

Yes.

So, then, the new ideals are as follows:

1. Ensure that the needs, and desires, of your guests are all cared for.
2. Ensure that the goals of your scenario are completed on time.
3. Ensure everything you construct aides the two aforementioned ideals.
4. Do not use custom scenery, hacks, trainers, and the like.

In other words, build a park as if you were playing a scenario. Or, perhaps, more accurately, play a scenario as if you were building a park.

Now, these rules do make it difficult to construct in RCT1, however, certainly, with RCT2, and RCT3, there should not be any problems building truly wonderful parks within these limits, and in absolutely any style.

This is "Dogma 2005."

Edit: I made a few minor, but important, changes.

Edited by cg?, 03 January 2005 - 02:35 PM.

I agree with point 1, 3 and 4 but I dont see what relevence point 2 has.

I agree with point 1, 3 and 4 but I dont see what relevence point 2 has.

I feel that excluding it would be counterproductive of the intent of the other 3 points, but otherwise don't really care for it myself, either.

I disagree. You may be eliminating the rules of the percieved "reality", but I think it also entangles you in the rules and limits of the game, and I don't think abiding by the rules of rct necessary means you're using rct to it's full potential to express yourself. I think forcing a park to meet these goals is like forcing a park to meet the "NE style", It limits creativeness. Now obviously parks that acheive what you posted are more unique and original then parks that don't, but I (usually) don't find them any more artistic than most "ne style" parks. I think truely great parks are ones that cast all rules aside, except for the rules the parkmaker makes for himself. That's what makes a unique park, every time.

I think I may have to agree with cg? here only because if 1) what you want to build, you can build, and 2) what you do build can follow his four rules, and you fail to follow 1, 3 and 4 (I agree that rule 2 is unneccessary since quite often it is irrelevent to the other 3 rules), then you are either a lazy ass, or at the time being a lazy ass.*





*DISCLAIMER: if I ever do happen to build a park in the two sequels, I fully reserve the right to ignore this post and be a lazy ass.

What? Come on cg, admit it - you're just inventing a "style" so you can claim authorship over it. What does any of this really have to do with anything? First you make the rules explicitly as anti-realism. Certainly not anew idea. Then you make the rules so that anyone who plays the game is included if they abide by the games' rules (which by the way I think are terribly silly - I couldn't care less about peeps or ride stats, they're simplistic and arbitrary, it may as well be Monopoly. Does playing Monopoly make you an 'artiste?'). Really, in the spirit of your new rules, you shouldn't allow trainers either, people should be forced to build with the money they earn pleasing guests and running the park. Now try building even a modestly sized mountain and you'll see what a silly idea that is. Landscaping is prohibitively expensive. If you want to build a flat park with a bunch of short little coasters with high stats and stalls everywhere then be my guest. But don't ask me to take any of those parks seriously as a revolutionary new minimalist art form. Come to think of it, I would apply those comments to Dogma 95 films too. What a bunch of self-imnportant BS. Seriously. Stop thinking about art for art's sake or knowledge for it's own sake either. Wisdom comes from life and art is an attempt to communicate our personal feelings about life. If there's one thing I believe in it's Truth (with a capitol T) and any attempt to rationalize or give credibility to something through intellectual concepts strikes me as decietful. Let's call things what they are. Most 'artists' are aristocrats whose money buys them time to play around with things and then rationalize what makes them 'important' or 'significant'. If you've got something to say, art is a way to say it. Who cares what 'style' or 'technique' you use to express it? And if you've got nothing to say, stop making 'art' and start living your life.

not only that, there is no "form" to good art... and definately no rules

4. Do not use custom scenery, hacks, trainers, and the like.

...

In other words, build a park as if you were playing a scenario. Or, perhaps, more accurately, play a scenario as if you were building a park.

I've been against hacks and trainers since RCT1...

Custom scenery I'm just now trying, but I don't think it's necessary.

...

I've always thought building a park was the point of the game. I don't mean the "throw rides in wherever" type of building. I mean planning, building, and expanding in a way that it best suits the park you're working on. Be it a scenario or not.


You're just now figuring this out?

roller coaster tycoon? Is that what this game is called?

You're just now figuring this out?

No. I am just now putting it into words, that is all. Actually, I think I may have mentioned something along these lines to Iris, or perhaps it was someone else, right before I gave up RCT the last time... hmm...

Not only that, there is no "form" to good art... and definately no rules.

I disagree. Good art is all "form", and "rules" (actually, so is all bad art.)

What? Come on cg, admit it - you're just inventing a "style" so you can claim authorship over it. What does any of this really have to do with anything? First you make the rules explicitly as anti-realism. Certainly not anew idea. Then you make the rules so that anyone who plays the game is included if they abide by the games' rules (which by the way I think are terribly silly - I couldn't care less about peeps or ride stats, they're simplistic and arbitrary, it may as well be Monopoly. Does playing Monopoly make you an 'artiste?'). Really, in the spirit of your new rules, you shouldn't allow trainers either, people should be forced to build with the money they earn pleasing guests and running the park. Now try building even a modestly sized mountain and you'll see what a silly idea that is. Landscaping is prohibitively expensive. If you want to build a flat park with a bunch of short little coasters with high stats and stalls everywhere then be my guest. But don't ask me to take any of those parks seriously as a revolutionary new minimalist art form.

If that's what your parks looked like when you played a scenario, then, well, frankly, I'll just say this: you're not a very good parkmaker. My scenario parks, while devoid of architecture, and indeed featuring stalls (of course), were all wonderful little parks, with great rides, beautiful landscaping, etc.

Also, I do ban trainers, as mentioned above.

i would really be interested to see those. not to make fun of. if you find them beautiful then there must be something about them.

i will not get into the art argue because i've never seen rct as art. and won't for a while.
about the trainers though, i agree partly.
i believe that hacks hurt the game's harmonic nature. it's also why i consider classical parks (hardly any hacks) the best. trainers can be used for freezing the weather or watering the flowers when building but apart from that, they are more to create wow-factors which impress you once or maybe twice if they are good. a wow-factor in atmosphere is, for me, way more impressive and lasts forever. it comes from within unlike obvious hacks.

I agree with Ed here. I think you're trying to hard, and who are you to tell people how they should express themselves?

So what you're saying cg? is that all artists are only able to use paint and a paintbrush to create whatever their heart desires? That seems too outrageous for me. You're basically telling us the buddhist way of creating masterpieces (note trying to slam buddhism in any way, just an example). Starving parkmakers and novices alike from their traditional ways of making their creations with utilities, hacks, and tools all for the sake of striving for the "nirvana" of ultimate, godly parkmaking is not for everyone, only for the "buddhists" among us.

My basic idea is that you shouldn't try to press, or even denounce the ways of park creation entirely based upon your ideas and ideals, just as religion should be chosen by those who seek it.

So what you're saying cg? is that all artists are only able to use paint and a paintbrush to create whatever their heart desires? That seems too outrageous for me. You're basically telling us the buddhist way of creating masterpieces (note trying to slam buddhism in any way, just an example). Starving parkmakers and novices alike from their traditional ways of making their creations with utilities, hacks, and tools all for the sake of striving for the "nirvana" of ultimate, godly parkmaking is not for everyone, only for the "buddhists" among us.

I am not doing that at all! I am just asking people to try something outside of what they usually do, and see what happens. Actually, I am much more interested in seeing the interesting failures it might produce, than the "ultimate, godly" parks.

No need to over react.

i would really be interested to see those. not to make fun of. if you find them beautiful then there must be something about them.

That would be difficult as I played the game on the only 2 Windows computers we have ever had, and they are now both dead. We will be getting a new one in February probably, so maybe I will do a few then.

But really, they are not that amazing, just a lot better than most people seem to think scenario parks can be.

[font="tahoma"]i would really be interested to see those. not to make fun of. if you find them beautiful then there must be something about them.

i will not get into the art argue because i've never seen rct as art. and won't for a while.
about the trainers though, i agree partly.
i believe that hacks hurt the game's harmonic nature. it's also why i consider classical parks (hardly any hacks) the best. trainers can be used for freezing the weather or watering the flowers when building but apart from that, they are more to create wow-factors which impress you once or maybe twice if they are good. a wow-factor in atmosphere is, for me, way more impressive and lasts forever. it comes from within unlike obvious hacks.[/font]

Yeah but isn't dealing with the weather and hiring handymen to water the flowers part of the game's design rules too? I see why you would prefer a more back to basics approach cg. The Beast trainer really opened the lid on all sorts of crazy hack and that has resulted in a lot of work which is pretty boring. Cool once maybe, but little lasting appeal. On the other hand, by emphasizing a return to scenario playing (basically) instead of parkmaking I think you're just giving yourself more limitations rather than more freedom. That's what Dogma 95 does too. It's supposed to be freeing to use available light and locations and props and handheld camera but when you start formulating rules you must follow then you've totally turned the tables on yourself and actually ruined what you were trying to achieve. A better approach is to dispense with any preconceived 'rules' about how you are 'supposed' to play the game and just use the tools it provides in whatever way satisfies you. Maybe you want to build a zoo or a garden. Maybe you want to build a village. Maybe you want one coaster to fill the whole map. Maybe you want the park to exist in space instead of on land. Maybe you have one structure fill the whole map. Or have it all water. All of those things are theoretically impossible or somehow break with the way the game is 'supposed' to be played but they all have been done. Imagine if people hadn't stopped playing scenarios, none of this would have been possible.

Maybe it's just been too much of a good thing. The 'NE Style' (which I would contend is not a style at all, but a group of people with similar interests and a similar aesthetic progressing in how they use the game because of a great deal of practice and a great deal of inventive thinking) has reigned supreme for so long that there's bound to be backlash. The 'good old days' talk. Everyone wants to be a contrarian. (Me too. It's more fun.) Those 'classic' parks have as much to do with the NE style as anything. I was there, making parks then too way before NE and I'm still making them now and so are a lot of other people. The innovation and creativity was there then in the same way it's there now. There'll always be leaders and followers and the two aren't mutually exclusive either. The followers ultimately will become the new leaders.

As for the wow factor, I feel in some way partly responsible for coining the term and I grimace whenever I hear it used disparagingly like that. It's not just about gimmicks, it's about truly excellent work. It's about pushing the boundries in every way. Reinventing what is possible and what is not possible. In the early days of NE I remember saying that eventually we would hit a limit with what can be done in LL because there's only a limited number of theming options available. cg, you disagreed then saying there is no limit and I've since learned that you were right. I was thinking logically that limited resources will always produce a finite sum but I like your interpretation better. There may be a theoretical limit but it's so high we'll never ever reach it. So I enjoy trying to push the limit further. Other people like yourself may enjoy creating beautiful parks without the use of hacks or trainers. As ever the solution to worries about follow the leader parkmaking becoming the general rule is to push yourself to be an original and then hope others will do the same. Trying to formulate a new set of rules is not going to accomplish that.

And anyway, I rather resent the implication that just because a park may be built with a realist aesthetic or employ some outrageous hacks that it can't also be beautiful or atmospheric or artistic. It's not like we're making money off these parks. It's not like any of us can be accused of being sellouts. So maybe a lot of people like something and want to imitate it. Should that in any way lessen the quality of the original work? I build the way I do because it's the way I build not because of some NE style. I was there before NE and I'll be there after NE and the parks will always be my own. And the same should be said of everyone.

I don't know if RCT is art for you Posix, that's really up to you. It depends on how you think about the game, and what it means for you in your life. All I can say for sure is that at times RCT has functioned as a means of personal expression for me and it definately is an artistic activity in my life.

And as for the game's harmonic nature, I see it there in well executed work with or without hacks. See it's never about the hacks, or shouldn't be. It's about an idea and hacks are just one way to acheive an idea in the game. It's like computer graphics in movies. It can do some things for you that are not possible otherwise and therefore opens new options for storytelling, but you can still tell a fantastic story without them. There are other tools available to acheive your goals. For me, any tool is in itself a good thing, but in the end it's how you use it that really matters. In other words, there's good hacking and bad hacking, but hacking itself is good because it reresents potential.

I don't like the idea of parkmaking rules. Rules are for people without imagination.

In the early days of NE I remember saying that eventually we would hit a limit with what can be done in LL because there's only a limited number of theming options available. cg, you disagreed then saying there is no limit and I've since learned that you were right. I was thinking logically that limited resources will always produce a finite sum but I like your interpretation better. There may be a theoretical limit but it's so high we'll never ever reach it. So I enjoy trying to push the limit further.

I stand by the statement actually. All limits, even those "proven" by science, or "preached" by relegion, are "theoretcial", or "logical", but not factual. Something I have also realised is that the reason we create limits through "theory", and "logic", is because a world truly, completely, and totally, free of limits is a very difficult world to cope with.

I got to thinking about this, and started creating limits on how to live my life (all of which I follow, all of which I know are bullshit.)

These are what I came up with for RCT, and I decided to post them here to see what, if any, the reaction to them might be.

That's what Dogma 95 does too. It's supposed to be freeing to use available light and locations and props and handheld camera but when you start formulating rules you must follow then you've totally turned the tables on yourself and actually ruined what you were trying to achieve.

I named it after Dogma 95 ironically. Dogma 95 seeks to find "truth" through cinema by emphasing the limits of "reality" in the cinematic process. I seek to find "truth" through all art forms be de-emphasing the limts of "reality", and emphasing, instead, the limits of the art form itself.

Im realy interested in making a park that comply's with Dogma 05's ideas. When I get some spare time on my hands ill give it a go in RCT3.

cg...

You idea is sound, but it feels like giving up.

Personally, I will always grasp futilely for the absolute limits that the game can offer, no matter how "theoretical" they are. Afterall, in any quest, it's the journey that counts most, not the destination.