RCT Discussion / An RCT Theory

I've had this thought for a while now on the detailed Vs. simple parkmaking. It's almost Mala Vs. Posix.

What I personally have come to believe is that detailed (as in stacking, layering, 1/4 tile, ect.) is artificial or man made in style. The simpler parks are more natural, leaving gaps for your naturally-aquanted mind (as in your mind that is automacally in touch with nature) to fill in; making them more natural.

Just a thought.

ride6

you suck.

I don't get it...

But the fact that you think Posix builds simple parks is "simply" incorrect. Look at Audrix Towers for instance. Everything he's ever built has had so many levels to them, and each thing he builds has a purpose, just as much as every extreme detail Mala uses does.

In reality, all parkmakers share at least one thread, no matter how thin it is...

mala has more scope than posix...

Don't mean to rag on ya pos, but mala understands the game engine better.

Well ride6, the trouble with finding a universal theme to anything is that, as tempting as it is to reduce everything to black and white, it's always a stretch. We live in a world of greys. Detail and simplicity can be represented by Mala and Posix but there are unlimited gradations of each. Detail to some people means filling every square with trees and bushes and fences. Detail to other people means taking themes beyond the level of color and texture selection to where you're actually creating little mini-events with your theming. You can't really break all parkmakers into two categories.

I think what you were trying to make a point about though was about simple parks being natural. I get that too. It's why I love IOA Hollywood and it's why I place trees and bushes the way I do. Cinematographers have this saying that the most important lights are the ones you don't turn on. The point is that lighting is also about allowing areas to not be lit. In RCT the same theory applies. Really realistic trees don't fill every square, there are gaps. That simple style of parkmaking is very appealing because it gives you all the essential information without overloading you with information. It's like the focus on a camera lens (I can't help it, all my metaphors come from what I know). You choose what will be in focus and that tells the viewer what to look at. So with RCT parks, simple parks are the easiest to appreciate because there's never any doubt about what the parkmaker wants you to look at.

But where I disagree with you, and where I think you're oversimplifying, is the implication I get that this is somehow a magic button. That we should all be building simple parks now because it looks more natural. No doubt there are advantages to building that way. Aesthetics are important, and they're the first thing everyone sees. But it's not the full story. Sometimes people want to be abstract and they want to confuse you. There's room for hundreds of interpretations in any kind of art. What's great about art is that it's an individual thing - it comes from different points of view - but we can all relate to it. Because even though we all have different points of view, we all have a point of view so we can appreciate that other people have one and it's different from ours. Great art both reminds us what we have in common and that we're all individuals.

Mala vs. Posix are extreme examples. It used to be Mala vs Joe Holland but not many people even remember Joe anymore around here. In a little while it'll be someone else but everyone else fits in somewhere on the scale and the important thing to remember is that none of them is any more right than the others.

Really, Blitz, what is wrong with you today?! I mean, you haven't even seen my last two parks.
If you would be that oh so intelligent RCT analyser you claim to be then you would know that there is no "he understands it better". People play the game this way, other people play the game that way. In the end it all depens on your personal taste, what appeals to you more and that's all, fullstop. We've already come to that conclusion in the fantasy vs. realism thread.

And in the awards night we were all just joking. So whenever I said something about mala, it isn't to be taken all too seriously, okay? Yes, I don't like his parks, but what's the problem with that?

Now I'm going to read Ed's post...

I liked ride6's analysis better than ed's.

I vote for Posix.

Seriously, I agree with what Ed said about IOA Hollywood.
Schuessler put so much work into making that park look natural.

dude, I didn't mean his parks are flat out better, I'm saying he is simply better AT the game. You can have all the skill in the world when it comes to art, but if nothing you do is interesting to anybody, then you are out of luck.

as for the topic...
contrast

you develop interest with contrast.

The contrast in color, the contrast in shape...

But the most important one is detail. Piling everything on willy nilly makes it lose it's edge. You develop the intensity by adding contrast. Sometimes you'll want thick patches of foliage, and sometimes, you'll want sparse ones. You need to be complex, but also concise. The natural way can be very plain, but it can also be more complex than rct can handle. So nothing can be TOO detailed, but you can have an overabundance OF detail, to the point where the surroundings don't make sense.

In music, you develop the strength of it by using contrast. A truly powerful piece will have it's quiet parts to set the contrast. Contrast is what makes that powerful part ACTUALLY powerful. The same applies to any artform. It's simply moderation.

You can have all the skill in the world when it comes to art, but if nothing you do is interesting to anybody, then you are out of luck.

Wrong. The true artist does art for himself, not for other people, not for money, not like a .....capitalist. (<-- different word for once)

Actually Posix, he didn't say art is worthless if it isn't interesting to anybody, he just said you're out of luck. You're out of luck because you're going to have to do something else if you want to eat. And that's something that Blitz does know about.

But you raise a more interesting point about art and capitalism which I'd like to say a little more about. I don't think you should blame the artist for compromising himself to what others will pay for. Art is a reflection of what people are experiencing. So if you think the art is too commercial, than that points directly back to the society that created it. Hollywood movies are the best example. So much money is involved, that the art is totally driven by marketing.

Hollywood movies are the best example. So much money is involved, that the art is totally driven by marketing.

Even if the movie is an incredable effort by the actors/actress's, director, producers, editers, set designers and everyone else involved. An who's to say that creative art doesn't pay off? The Matrix was the most "out there" movie when it came out and it's full of creative cinema, but it's also been the most successful R-rated movie of all time.

The original didn't even have that large of a budget (in compairison to other movies).

ride6

[font="tahoma"]Wrong. The true artist does art for himself, not for other people, not for money, not like a .....capitalist. (<-- different word for once)[/font]

agreed. Finally! There is some sense in this sensless topic.

RCT pisses me off because not too many people build parks for themselves, they are too worried about if somone is going to flame them about petty shit. Build what you have in your head and fuck everyone else, if they dont like it, oh well, RCT should be about fun and enhancing your own style, not dick riding and people who think RCT should look like this or that.

Just have fun and shut up.

Just have fun and shut up.

I second that notion.

[insert pmsing here]

isn't blitz somewhat talking about, for example, when building the coasters, knowing the speeds it will achieve, arranging excitement and intensity, etc. etc.? A bit, i think that's lying underneath, and really, it's almost unfair when posix has totally eliminated that part of skill to work on. Whether posix or mala has more skill themingwise is one really really opinionated thing. Mala uses layers, detail and all kinds of loveliness. Posix uses the loveliness, but purposefully tries to eliminate layers and detail.

Actually Posix, he didn't say art is worthless if it isn't interesting to anybody, he just said you're out of luck. You're out of luck because you're going to have to do something else if you want to eat. And that's something that Blitz does know about.

But you raise a more interesting point about art and capitalism which I'd like to say a little more about. I don't think you should blame the artist for compromising himself to what others will pay for. Art is a reflection of what people are experiencing. So if you think the art is too commercial, than that points directly back to the society that created it. Hollywood movies are the best example. So much money is involved, that the art is totally driven by marketing.

while I appreciate the sentiment ed (and you make a good point as far as "reality" is concerned), I feel I need to explain myself a bit better...

Posix, I'm not saying your parks are better or worse FOR A FACT than mala's because that would be an OPINION, and not a fact. However, from what I can tell, he is more adept at using the tools in the game than you. He has more "skill" than you. When I made that comment, I made it with a single presumption in mind: the value of your art to OTHER people is ALWAYS an undefined quantity. What I am SAYING is that, while I can't say for a fact that his art has more or less VALUE than yours in the eyes of the masses, or that he values his own art more or less than you value yours, I DO believe that his talent with the tools inherent to the game and his understanding of how the game engine works is a notch above you. This was in direct response to your statement about how "understanding" doesn't matter, which completely assumes I am judging your work based on personal aesthetic. I am actually basing it on the level of skill used in the actual production. Whether you think you build "prettier" than mala is a non-issue, because what I am referring to is his ability to manipulate The tools he is given.

I know the paragraph above is a bit repetitive, but then maybe you will stop twisting what I say just to get another lame jab at me.

But don't you see? Everything you just said was an opinion. In my eyes, Posix has equal skill to Mala. He uses all the tools available to him in ways that produce the best look. What it comes down to is your bias towards Mala. I like both styles personally, and I hate seeing one not given the credit they deserve.

Build what you have in your head

Excellent advice.

I should've known better than to use Posix and Mala as examples .

^I think Alchemist L7 has valid advice. Mala and Posix both refuse to be changed by the 'normal' way of parkmaking, proving that neither of them build for anyone other than himself. Which is exactly what Posix is complaining about.

Posix and Mala? Equal skill? I don't think I'm jumping into that quicksand people.

And how does almost any of this have to do with the theory?

ride6