Amazing Earl is back!

You also have to put things in context as well. At the time, the RCT world had hit a dead end and no new content was being made for it. Since you can only play with the same set of rides for so long, Earl came along at the right time and filled a void.

Sure they may be just reskinned rides, but most of them sure didn't look like it. So I don't get that beef at all.

Also, there was no other way to do it. So my feeling is "So what if they are reskinned". There wasn't any way for him to hack the code and make real new rides.

Honestly, I don't understand why some people are so quick to criticize.

---

Honestly, I don't understand why some people are so quick to criticize.

---

Oh dear God! Is there anything in this world you don't necessarily like? ;)

And besides, in the thread linked to above, I criticized the rides in February of 2004. Here we are 15 months later and I feel the exact same way. If anything that's a complete antonym of 'quick to criticize'

---

Sure they may be just reskinned rides, but most of them sure didn't look like it. So I don't get that beef at all.

---

I thought I covered it pretty well. If you play the game beyond making pretty things, then those rides did absolutely nothing for your game. The peeps simply saw the ride as whatever it was a reskinned version of. Putting two carousels in a park would have the exact same effect on gameplay as putting a carousel and Earl's Swing Ride (it was a reskinned carousel). Aside from bumping up the file size a good deal and making other people go "oooh pretty colors", it did nothing. Nada. Nuh-uh. Zip.

---

At the time, the RCT world had hit a dead end and no new content was being made for it. Since you can only play with the same set of rides for so long, Earl came along at the right time and filled a void.

---

I guess that depends on how creative you chose to be. The last RCT2 file I did was in August of last year - long after Earl made his rides - yet it uses only rides included in the original RCT2 (no expansion stuff). Nothing was doubled up ride wise. It includes custom scenery (one of the few files I made that did), but only because the additional scenery in the RCT2 expansions worked in the same sucky-ass, limiting, uncreative way the scenery does in RCT3.

One man's void is another's excuse to push himself.

I do find it funny that these are all being offered again. I think the demand (rather real or perceived) proves how large the group is that was disappointed with RCT3 and still plays the far superior RCT2.

If frontier really wanted to cash in 100%, they'd take all these 3D models of flats in RCT3 and convert them to sprites (the same process used in the first games, I believe) and release an special 'RCT3 expansion pack' for RCT2 that includes all the flats from RCT3.

It'd sell like hotcakes.

.

*** Edited 5/4/2005 6:02:59 AM UTC by Lord Gonchar***

Everyone has to critisize....in my opinion, Earl had done many amazing things, I didn't like all of it, but some of it was helpful in doing recreations and such. He provided what Chris Sawyer didn't. Even if some of you don't see whats so great, at least appreciate his effort for other players of the RCT series.

One of the biggest complaints about RCT2 was the lack of new flat rides. AE provided new animations and realistic rides that could be used to complete any park. Sure they have the same stats as the original rides they are based off of, but so can a Schwarzkopf looping coaster, an Arrow corkscrew and a B and M looping coaster in the game if they are made alike.

Some of us acutally enjoy making realistic parks and recreations. AE and the other ride makers allowed that to be more possible, just as the custom scenery makers did. They provided USEFUL items, not silly, made-up, unrealistic items like Wacky Worlds and Time Twister (although those expansion packages contained useful scenery, the rides for the most part were just stupid).

For those of us who are still playing 2, we are glad to see Earl producing some new items for the game.

It's amazing how anyone can criticize someone who has put their own free time into producing something that the players of the game have requested. We are glad he spent his time working on these items tha many of us find actually useful versus other uploads regarding this game. *** Edited 5/4/2005 2:05:21 PM UTC by super7****

Dc2Beltz3 I don't think Chris Sawyer is to blame for the crap in WW and TT. I think that is Ataris fault. I just want to know which programmer was at the design meeting going "Ooh, ooh, I know, how about a Sloth Coaster. Yea that would be soooo cool."

Of course I might be wrong as Chris did give us the Panda stuff and the pink water.

Gonch that expansion would sell BETTER than hotcakes

RCT 4 anyone?

It is true that Earl simply reskinned rides however.....
Frontier had the capabilities to do much, much more. Making games is their expertise. Frontier reskinned rides because they were lazy and in pursuit of a quick buck by capitalizing on an already successful game. Earl is one guy, not an entire company, he reskinned rides in his free time as a voluntary service to the RCT community and I feel that he did a better job.

Their intentions are completely different also. Frontier wants to make money from us, Earl is passionate about RCT and his rides were his gift to the RCT community. That is why I think Earl rocks.

A new shirt may not add functionality to my wardrobe, but that doesn’t mean I won’t buy one simply because I like the way it looks. The same goes for buying new china, decorating my house or repainting a room. It’s just to have something we like to look at. Of course there is a difference between painting a house out of necessity and painting a picture to appease one’s artisctic nature.

Real parks add things that have no purpose other than to add to the aesthetic quality of the park. These things are there just to make the place pretty. So then we as game players try to emulate that aesthetic quality of parks we love and use any tools available.

Above all the game is for my pleasure alone. Earl’s rides make playing more pleasurable for me. To me that is all that really matters. *** Edited 5/4/2005 3:58:21 PM UTC by Wabash Cannonball***

Just because this part of my comments seems to have been forgotten:

---

Lord Gonchar said:
I'm glad so many found enjoyment in Earl's stuff. They didn't affect gameplay beyond the 'pretty' factor. It wasn't for me. It still isn't.

---

I think it's great that you guys found something useful to you. Really, I do.

---

Wabash Cannonball said:
Above all the game is for my pleasure alone. Earl’s
rides make playing more pleasurable for me. To me that is all that really matters.

---

Well said. I agree with the core point:

Above all the game is for my pleasure.

Earl's rides do nothing for my game. To me that is all that really matters.

I'm not wrong for disliking them and you're not wrong for enjoying them.

We all win. :)

I was just thinking about this so I thought I'd say it. I remember playing RCT 1. I loved the scenarios. I would sometimes play 2 in an evening, wanting to beat them all. During this time I longed for a huge park with all the items available to me. Finally, I got it and much more, but the magic of playing the first set of scenarios that came with RCT 1 and the expansions was lost. I still enjoy the game and I play once in awhile, but the hunger is gone, the passion is gone, and I tire quickly of the game often not even finishing a scenario. Oh how I wish I could once again recapture that incredible feeling. Will a game ever come along that moved me like the oringinal Roller Coaster Tycoon? I can only hope. I feel that I owe my love of amusment parks and roller coaster to that game. I honestly didn't care much for them before and I never want to go back to that state of mind again.
*** Edited 5/4/2005 11:56:01 PM UTC by Wabash Cannonball***

See, I'm no themer. I'm not one who builds big, pretty rides. I like realism, and also speed in finishing scenarios.

Examples being: in seaside scenarios, I use rides that you'd typically find on piers or at oceanside parks. On the parking lot scenario posted on CBGames, I made it a representation of a park you could plop down in a parking lot. I could've done something fancy there, but it wouldn't have made sense. (Much like Chewbacca livin' with the Ewoks.)

I guess what I'm saying is that I like to be true to a theme, although I could care less about doing the actual themeing.

That being said, in scenarios with huge... tracts of land, I refuse to put three Enterprises or Scramblers. In many of these larger scenarios, there's just not enough flats to go around.

Do I know that the Tilt-A-Whirl is just reskinned? Yep, but I don't care, because it makes it more realistic without any real effort on my part. I like my parks to at least resemble real parks, and real parks aren't stupid enough to buy four Huss Rangers, because even one of them would suck.

Reskinned or not, I think he provided a valuable service when everyone wanted more flat rides, and Atari was pumping out expansions with crappy scenarios and 35 friggin' corkscrew trains.

I don't play scenarios. I just like to build big, functional parks, so I liked Earl's stuff. But I do like to dabble in scenario play once in a while, if it is good. I did it a lot on RCT1, but the second game's scenarios sucked.

In a sense yes they did, the RCT2 Scenarios were quite easy in my opinion. RCT1 you actually had to work and complete one to go on to the next one. All of them are cool with me except RCT3 Scenarios, I hardly ever play them, I just don't like the way most of them are set up.

That was what I liked about RCT1, you did have to work to complete one.

See, I thought the RCT2 scenarios were harder than RCT1's.

The lake one (Leafy Lake?) had a goal of something like 500 guests in three years. I remember consistently hitting the 500 peep mark by July of Year 1, then paying down the loan before year one ended. Bumbly Beach was another good one for hitting the goal in a few months. Heck, most of them were that way.

If anything, the RCT1 scenarios required more creativity. But I do have to agree, the RCT2 scenarios didn't hold my attention like the original ones. I played through RCT2's once and that was it. I must have played the RCT1 scenarios several times over and played my favorite ones an ungodly amount of times.

The RCT3 scenarios are a joke in comparison and they show how little thought went into them and how little the person (people?) in charge of creating them knew about the game.

I say it all the time, but I actually got past all three levels of one scenario (the spooky theme one) and the final map had only a few paths to nothing and two non-functional coasters.

Granted that's a case of taking advantage of the gaping holes in the scenario goals, but the first two games had nothing that stunningly wrong with them.

The only thing that even comes close is the 'build a bunch of one ride to reach park value' trick.

To me there is no challenge in creating in sandbox mode. It can be a good time killer to create from scratch, but I'm so much more satisfied with myself in adhering to limitations and emerging victorious thanks to both left brain and right brain functions.

I still maintain RCT has always worked best as a sim-style game and that's exactly where RCT3 falls horribly short.

Maybe that was it, you had to be more creative on the first game, which was why I liked it. I like being creative with parks more than I like the scenario play in RCT2.

I understand what you are saying about not feeling a challenge in creating in Sandbox mode, better than I would have thought, actually. See, I love sandbox mode because it allows me to build and create and decorate and color. All the things I loved when I was an aspiring artist at an early age (Art Honor member here :)).

Which is the reason that I set limits to challenge myself when I create in Sandbox mode. I got the ideas from looking at real time parks that have limits, such as noise limits, height limits (Alton for both), space limits, etc., but are still really good parks. Then there is terrain. Also, I like to created a wooded area in which I have to leave as many trees as possible for construction.

Once I started dealing with 'real life' situations in building, I noticed that my parks and coasters got much better. I still wasn't on the level of some others in what I wanted to create from scratch, but I'm a good imitator and can adapt what I see to what I need.

I guess that when the Art Honor Society had a function or was decorating for some event, I did my work, then went and finished what everyone else started and didn't have time to finish. They always complimented on how I took what they did and went in a different direction, but that it worked.

As to RCT3, it just doesn't have much of anything to keep me entertained. I can build really cool coasters, but stats aren't realistic (my biggest ride pet peeve in RCT2 was the Gyro Drop/Drop Tower stats). That, and the performance issues really bug me.

Gonch Have you ever tried my Kimberly Woods senario? It should still be in the games section. It had a fairly easy objective but also included an unofficial goal of meeting a 10 year expansion plan.

When was Kimberly Woods uploaded? I don't remember ever seeing it.

No I don't believe I ever did the Kimberly Woods Scenario.

It was an RCT2 scenario, Dominator56.

Dominator56 it was before the games section went members only

Funny side story: Matthew Gelmas actually re uploaded it under his name and called the park Matthew Woods. For those who don't remember Gelmas either was a very young kid who didn't know much about what should be shared with others and what should not or he was a retard. He was generally got blasted for everything he uploaded. When he re uploaded my park he got some good reviews until I called him on it then he really got flamed.

It would have been ok if he had played the senario and made some changes to the park but all he did was re-name it