RCT Discussion / Fantasy vs. realism

I like a mix in them.

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.

To go a little off-topic, that is what I have been trying to do in RCT lately, though I haven't shown anything of it. Yet

I can't believe I haven't looked at this topic before now.

You can argue a luge coaster is real, but have you ever seen one? No. However, is it possible, probably some day. Whether it is realistic or not is up to you. I think what really divides it is if it's a luge coaster with 20 loops, are a luge coaster with 2. It would be plain out ridiculous, if not nearly impossible, to build a ride with 20 loops.

It also gets confusing with new elements. Yes, they're new, but they don't exist in real life...so does that make them fantasy elements?

The question is so personal and specific, I don't think there is one true answer. Me, I tend to build for realism because I like to imagine the park as if it were actually possible and real according to standards and what can and cannot be done. Therefore, I think fantasy means something that would be completely stupid to see in real life.

I have to go now, but I'll follow up later.

Ahem. (page 3)

For the sake of redundancy. I'm interested what you guys have to say about it though.

Re-redundancy, because I just re-read it.

What I learned: Coaster Ed thinks everyone builds for realism, in a way. Mantis thinks everyone builds for fantasy, in a way.

In a way, I think they're both right.

I think what really divides it is if it's a luge coaster with 20 loops, are a luge coaster with 2. It would be plain out ridiculous, if not nearly impossible, to build a ride with 20 loops.

no, it would be very possible. Just not very cheap.

no, it would be very possible.  Just not very cheap.

maybe you'd get a discount price on the last 5 loops tho =).

Fantasy - well, that's what I prefer anyway. Sure, you can create a whole park based around objects, rides and ideas that already exist, or you can let your imagination run wild, and create wonderous new things, which...um..., damn, lost it.

no, it would be very possible.  Just not very cheap.

Well, it would be a ride that is quite physically demanding, and most people aren't up to that.

not really.
Afterall, I know i myself have ridden no lines viper 20 times in a row, and it certainly wasn't killing me.
As long as there are "rest" periods between the intense elements on a coaster, you could have pretty friggin long coasters. The only real issue truthfully would be money, but it would still be possible, even if it wasn't favorable. It's like a togo stand-up: they exist, but no one likes them.

You may be willing to ride a coaster with 20 loops, but the general public probably won't go for that. I'd say that most peolpe start getting sick after around 10 inversions -- I don't know though, I'm just taking a wild guess. Twenty inversions would be more fun than twenty loops anyways, that would be pretty boring.

I wasnt sick after Colossus's 10 inversions are Thorpe Park if that helps you...

Well, I just threw out ten because I know my dad has a pretty low tolerance for inversions. Maybe twenty would be a reasonable limit, but as Blitz said cost is a major factor. After I posted ten I realized someone would come back and counter with Colossus though. However, I don't want to act like Blitz and Mort represent everyone in the world. Ok, well, maybe I'm just wrong and I accept that. So it may one day be possible for a coaster with twenty inversions, there isn't one now. Thus, it might not be realistic to someone's standards if you had a twenty-looper. Others may say it's realistic, and I respect that. In my opinion however, I wouldn't be so thrilled to open a "real" park, say along the standards of Phatage's Six Flags: Worlds of Excitement, and viewing a coaster with twenty loops, or twenty inversions for that matter.

Well, I just threw out ten because I know my dad has a pretty low tolerance for inversions. Maybe twenty would be a reasonable limit, but as Blitz said cost is a major factor. After I posted ten I realized someone would come back and counter with Colossus though. However, I don't want to act like Blitz and Mort represent everyone in the world. Ok, well, maybe I'm just wrong and I accept that. So it may one day be possible for a coaster with twenty inversions, there isn't one now. Thus, it might not be realistic to someone's standards if you had a twenty-looper. Others may say it's realistic, and I respect that. In my opinion however, I wouldn't be so thrilled to open a "real" park, say along the standards of Phatage's Six Flags: Worlds of Excitement, and viewing a coaster with twenty loops, or twenty inversions for that matter.

It's not even for inversions. I've been on Wild Wild West at WB Movieworld Germany in the back car. It's a wooden coaster btw. It was very intense and very fun, but it it shouldn't been be any longer, because as I said it was very intense. Not that I can't handle it though

gir makes a good point. And when he said 20 inversions he didn't mean exactly 20 but "too many". Is it so difficult to get that?
I think that Blitz sees realism different. I guess he says that when a park is supposed to be real it is real. Maybe real but not realistic. Realistic means, as I've posted it before, accurate, and a coaster with 20 loops is just not accurate. Besides, for us coaster lunatics it's hard to find a coaster intense enough. But park companies don't focus on the little group of us but on the mass of course. Therefore, too intense coasters, and too intense is in one way implied through too many inversions, are just not realistic.

im also tired of those of you that think there is somehow more aesthetic (and some nutjobs claim SKILL) involved in "realistic" endeavors just because it's been dubbed "realistic". Honestly? It's just a style, and no more "realistic" than "fantasy". I measure realism on what COULD be constructed, not what WOULD be constructed. It is perfectly possible to have 20 loops, and while that may never actually be constructed, it's still possible to construct. If you are going by what WOULD be constructed though... then there is another issue to deal with. That is, the way parks are constructed in RCT are extremely unrealistic because it's on an isometric grid to begin with. You can't create what WOULD be constructed, because all you could ever build would have to be a metaphor for what WOULD be there. In which case, it again falls into the same category as fantasy. Which again brings me to that fact that since both styles are based on the same toolset in the game, then they are equally plausible to be viewed as realistic.

I really don't see why people get disgusted at fantasy just because it would never be built. The ONLY reason I play this fucking game is so that I can see things that will NEVER be built.

...
ok, realistic parks just flat out bore the shit out of me. Yeah, that basically sums it up for me.
*grabs hat, walks out the door*

I measure realism on what COULD be constructed, not what WOULD be constructed. If you are going by what WOULD be constructed though... then there is another issue to deal with.  That is, the way parks are constructed in RCT are extremely unrealistic because it's on an isometric grid to begin with.  You can't create what WOULD be constructed, because all you could ever build would have to be a metaphor for what WOULD be there.

A LOT of parkmakers from the past have MANAGED to pull of REALISTIC parks with this so limited toolset you speak of. If YOU don't see in HOW FAR these parks resemble the existing ones then that's YOUR thing.
But realism is NOT what COULD be but what WOULD be built.

Oh, fine then, if that's the definition you stand by...

Then no, no one has ever made a realistic park. It's impossible to clone the overview, it's impossible to exact the curvature and slight elevations of the paths and such, it's impossible to mime the exact amount of detail for some buildings (inside and out). Everything in an isometric world is therefore, an estimate of what WOULD be built, and not EXACTLY what would be built. It becomes dependant to fill that gap of realism by the person who is making the park. Therefore, their own idea of what "would" be built is what is getting made, and that differs from person to person. Sure, there are a few things you could stand by, like no 50 loops, or 4320 degree helixes on a B&M. But frankly, when was the last time you saw a GOOD fantasy park with either of those? Are fantasy coaster really unrealistic? I could see a lot of coasters that people claim to be fantasy actually being made. Don't ever underestimate the power of rich people, they do crazy things with money. I guess what WOULD be built can either be completely subjective (which makes it very fuzzy, and more of a "style"), or completely objective (which makes it completely boring and uninventive, since you can only assume what would be built based on what is already built, and people will build crazier parks in the future), so who are YOU to say what WOULD be built?

I prefer to refer to what people call "realism" as just a different style. This "would" be built stuff is just annoying, and a poor excuse.

I could see a lot of coasters that people claim to be fantasy actually being made.

Wonderful Blitz. Maybe you, and maybe Ed and possibly mantis. But a lot other can't.
You play the know-it-all lately and it makes me sick. JUST stop this CAPITAL LETTER shit, okay ?!..?!..?!..?!..!
Because in case you haven't noticed, I was making fun of it in my post earlier.

And of course, RCT's engine and the isometrics are limitations. But I mean, that was clear at the beginning of this argue and it's really beside the point anyway. You can never make something 100% authentic. It's a game, it has limitations. We all know that. The art is to come closer and closer to the ideal.
And could you please stop saying shit like "Realistic parks are sooooooo boring. They have no innovation, I can't stand looking at them. Damn, I can't think of any parks that suck more than realistic ones!!!"
Have you heard me talking bad about your style once? Yes, I don't like your work, or rather, I don't like fantasy style. But I respect those who do it well. You, for example. You simply have too much disrespect in your posts.

Why does it seem like you both consider liking and building in one of the "styles" exclude the ability to enjoy another "style"?
The funny thing is that similar discussions has been had so many times before, though about other art mediums...
IMO (yes, I've changed my opinion again), 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".

Though I'm still not sure why some people are so very interested in categorizing everything. What difference does it make?

...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".

That's probably the most lucid statement I've read in this entire topic....I couldnt' agree more with you....