Most Miniscule Addition

I don't want some of the things you all want. I look at the peeps as just a representation groups of people. I look at it costing $49 per week to operate a ride to include ride ops that need not be represented by a peep in a uniform. I "pretend" that one peep = many peeps and one mechanic = many machanics. If I didn't view the game this way then I would definately be overworking my employees. It is a simulation, isn't it?

Do any of you havfe this kind of perspective on the game? If some of you did, you wouldn't want some of these things that you are listing.

I'm not saying that you are wrong to want these things; I'm just saying that acording to the way I understand the game, it wouldn't be necessary.

-----------------
KoRn is the Mellennium Force of ROCK

I never looked at it in quite that way, Dexter, but I do see your point.

There are many abstracts in the game and are at best a representation of reality, not a direct simulation of it. Two areas where you see this are Economics and Weather. Face it, the cost that the game charges to do things (even a minor thing such as remove or add a tree) are well BELOW the actual cost, while yet the cost that the individual "peeps" pay for things are pretty close. For instance... what does it cost to construct even a rest room in the game... $250? What does it cost for a "peep" to enter a park if you set the price reasonable $40-$50? Now at that rate, all you would have to do is have 5 people visit your park and your new rest room would be paid for. In reality what does a new restroom at a park coast? Let's say that it would cost $2,500 (I know it is more than that). Using that 1 to 5 ratio of cost to entrance fee, then you would be paying $500 to enter! Same with weather... considering the time frame of the game... then an average rain shower in game time would last an entire week! Think of a single rain shower as a "trend"... a rainy week... Think of the $ as a way to show trends... and it makes much more sense.

If you think of the peeps as groups of guests, things do make much more sense. For example, let's say you look at guest #743. Ever notice how long, in game time, this guest stays in a given park? For weeks on end! Your "average" person does not do this (though to listen to some on here...), but if you think of this one "peep" representing a trend... groups of people over time... then it makes more sense.

To think of the game in a ration of 1 to 1 with reality will cause some very big brain teasers. To think of it as simply a simulation of reality... an abstract view of reality... will make things make much more sense.

I would admit that an "off season" would be a nice feature though.

-----------------
"I wasn't always this cynical, but then I started kindergarden..."

*** This post was edited by SLFAKE on 6/28/2002. ***

*** This post was edited by SLFAKE on 7/3/2002. ***

Jesus SLFAKE the game can't be perfect

What I want is:

-If there is a problem on a coaster a mechanic will actually have to go to the problem and not walk back and forth on the station (example-lift problem-climbs the lift stairs)

-more realistic coaster accidents

-a G force meeter to see AS U BUILD if ur going to far

-different viewing angles

-people talking to each other

-if a certain coaster has like 100 people in line, i want to see like 3 people out of 4 seats for like a 3some group. cause not everyone will sit nex to everyone

-tree delete button

-people have actually arms legs and faces instead of a blur up close

that was 1/4 of my list. i dont feel like the rest of it being shown. o ya and:

-que lines for food/drink

-night/day

---

Teenage Ninja said:
Jesus SLFAKE the game can't be perfect

---

Hey, don't tell that to me. There are only 2 things that I "don't like" (and that is even a strong term) about the current version. 1) single width paths 2) narrow choice of flat rides.

I was not complaining. Actually, I was sort of agreeing with Dexter's comment... If you think of the game in abstract, you will enjoy it much better than if you think of it as an EXACT recreation. I've been thinking it in that way for quite a while and found that it is much more enjoyable that way.

If you want to comment on people who complain because the game is "not perfect", talk to those who get all bent out of shape because we may not see a certain type of restraints on a certain type of coaster train in RCT2 or those who constantly whine because they want to be able to "ride" their creations through some sort of POV programming.

-----------------
Face it, call ourselves what we want, but to the parks we are all "GP".

track-editing similar to sim theme park. IMO that's the most important thing. Don't get me wrong, RCT is RCT, and I don't want it to look like sim theme park. But the way you can manipulate each peice of track in stp is incredible, and I don't think it would be that terribly hard to incorporate that into RCT.

-------------
Troy Sherman
Formerly SFGAManiac
My RCT Site

---

dexter said:

It is a simulation, isn't it?

Do any of you have this kind of perspective on the game?

---

You're the first I have seen actually say this and up until I just read your post I thought I was the only one who "got it".

It is indeed a simulation game. I don't see RCT as an "eye candy" type of game. It wasn't designed with just watching and oohing and aahing over graphics in mind. However a majority of players seems to want that from the game and I think Chris Sawyer is addressing some of those issues as best as possible in the sequel.

There are some great ideas in this list but exactly like Dexter said, to me they seem unecessary. I've always been one to enjoy the "running a park" aspect of the game over the "building a park" aspect. I don't sit around and watch the splash on the water rides or look at all the individual peeps and wonder why they don't travel in groups. I don't stop and consider that I just built a huge steel twister for under $25,000. It's not meant to be that literal of a game.

I'm just glad I'm not the only one who understands where Sawyer was coming from when he made RCT. :)

-----------------
www.coasterimage.com
Dorney Park visits in 2002: 12

You think you know? Look - no offense or anything but I dopn't think Chris Sawyer thought of everything you just said. I think what you were trying to say was that Chris Sawyer created the game for the "running a park" aspect. If that was so, then why did he choose to let us build all sorts of coasters and rides? Why did he enable us to add shops and even little bathrooms? If the game were simply created as a way to "run" a park then why didn't he just put a bunch of already built parks to have us manage? IMO, that would be really boring. I think Chris Sawyer didn't mean for the game to be "literal" but it turned out to be. I know not everything is that realistic but it does trully show some of the most important aspects of building AND managing a park. RCT2 only helps us to do that more literally, like you say the first one isn't.

Lord Gonchar, I am sorry if I misinterpretted you in any way and I will apolagize in advance before finding out I have possibly made a fool of myself. Thank you.