BX
If the price were more appropriate, like $9.99, you'd see a lot fewer upset people. For $29.99, people expect bugs to be fixed and a few new rides or something.
Every expansion for RCT1 included new things, including new game-play changes, new rides, etc. And the new things were more or less realistic. Monkey car trains? There's just nothing realistic or "generally useful" (outside the designated pre-packaged scenreos) that these 'new' things are useful for. So why pay that much money? For 16 new sceneos? We have a scenereo editor and an object editor already. We can get much of this stuff free.
It just looks, sounds, and smells like a total rip-off.
-really well sed, i totally agree!-
Most of these new additions just look like crap & it just doesn't justify the $30 price tag,if they were to drop the price by more than half with the promise of a beter expansion within a year then maybe I'll consider buying it.
What about the actual new scenarios? there are now 21 new chances to create new parks based on the new park maps,so that can be considered a trade off for a lack of new rides.
That's "new" in the same way the rides in WW are "new".
In other words, NOBODY considers them NEW RIDES except for maybe you.
A log flume is a log flume, whether the boats look like logs or like corcodiles. A tea-cups ride is a tea-cups ride, whether there's a snowman or a diamond in the center.
It's not a new ride the way the air-powered vertical coaster and the Enterprise were new rides in the previous expansions.
What it is is a rip-off. It's an attempt by Atari/Infogrames to screw a bunch of gullible people out of their money. This thing would be over-priced at $15, let alone double that.
Anonymouse said:
Lord Gonchar, I guess by your definition, then "WildCat" is a new coaster at Cedar Point this year, because they changed the look by re-painting it.That's "new" in the same way the rides in WW are "new".
Heh, no you could always change the color of the rides in RCT. If they added new color options and tried to call that new coasters, then I'd be right there with you...whining...loudly.
Let me throw a CP example back at you. Avalanche Run was a bobsled ride by the beach. They enclosed it, added some new theming and marketed it as a new coaster - Disaster Transport. It was technically the same ride, it just looked and felt different. It was new. That's what this add-on does.
There's a new thread where people (heck the person who started THIS thread) admit that after some time - and realizing what 50 new rides realistically means - find the game quite enjoyable. I finally got my copy and posted my thoughts on it in that thread. This will sell just fine. There is a very limited segment of the market who will be disappointed.
I'm officially done trying to reason with people who refuse to understand it was their expectations that made this a let down. There was no false advertising, the game includes everything it promised on the box and was well worth the $30 I paid for it. Rather than waste my time any longer I think I'll go enjoy this great game for a little bit - I'm really interested in some of those windblown rock formations :)
In other words, NOBODY considers them NEW RIDES except for maybe you.
Yeah, throughout history most great minds were mocked for their thoughts and ideas - until the rest of the world realized they were right ;)
------------------
www.coasterimage.com
Dorney Park Visits in 2003: 2
*** This post was edited by Lord Gonchar 5/10/2003 11:56:48 PM ***
--------------------------------
I got WW and did not listen to those who were upset by the lack of the wishlist items. None of you mentioned actually emailing Chris Sawyer or InfoGrames or anything like that about your wishlists.
You want your zero-g rolls vertically or steep 90+ degree drops...go by NoLimits or games like NL that are geared more toward the enthusiasts. Everyone else can enjoy RCT.
It's maybe worth $10. It's a rip off. You can get tons of great scenery and scenereos off the internet for free.
If the expansion pack had been anything like previous ones, which included fixes, game-play enhancement, and truly NEW rides, it might have been worth it. But it's certainly not worth $30, no way, no how.
Let me throw a CP example back at you. Avalanche Run was a bobsled ride by the beach. They enclosed it, added some new theming and marketed it as a new coaster - Disaster Transport. It was technically the same ride, it just looked and felt different. It was new. That's what this add-on does.
Well, while I have said before that people shouldn't have had their expectations so high, I really do think the "new ride" line is misleading.
And Lord Gonchar, I understand your point, but I still think Infograms/Atari is wrong and is misleading people. If you went to a new theme park, and all they had were 50 scrambler or teacup rides themed 50 different ways, would you think each one was a new experience? Would you be disappointed at paying 30 bucks to get in and ride 50 rides that were essentially the same? Your comparison of Disaster Transport is not the same thing as WW. Enclosing and theming gave a completely different experience. The WW analogy is closer to being just a new color of paint then a "new" ride.
*** This post was edited by Coasterbuf 5/12/2003 3:25:46 AM ***
If the expansion pack had been anything like previous ones, which included fixes, game-play enhancement, and truly NEW rides, it might have been worth it. But it's certainly not worth $30, no way, no how.
As long as everyone understands this is one person's opinion, then more power to you. $30 is nothing for me to drop on Wacky Worlds. I thought $30 for scenery items that are heads and tail above anything I could find on the net was well worth it...certainly and positively. Plus the new rides really round out the game. Refer to my post (6th down) in this thread for an honest review of what to expect and who may be disappointed by the add-on assuming they went in with realistic expectations.
Coasterbuf, the amusement park comparison is ridiculous on every level. The only reason I referred to CP is to play on the same level as Anonymouse's CP comparison. It is not misleading, it is advertising. Advertising by nature is enticing someone to buy your product. It's not hard to understand. One of the biggest examples I can think of is automobile commercials. They show a top of the line model with all the options and proudly proclaim it can be yours for just $28,000. While doing this there is teeny tiny fine print at the bottom of the screen (that only idiots like me pay attention to) that explain that $28,000 is just a base price the model shown in the commercial runs about $35,000. When you go to the dealer expecting to get what you saw in the commercial for $7000 less, they laugh you out of the dealership quicker than anything. Hell that's being deceptive on a level that costs the consumer $7000. Suddenly $30 for a game that made even less deceptive claims seems like a steal. There was no "misleading" about it. There are 50 rides that were not available before - bottom line. If you researched you purchase on even the simplest level you could see what these "new" rides were. Many of us were discussing it as far back as 8 or 10 weeks ago. No surprises. The funniest thing is that all of those people seem to be the ones happy with the game.
I can simplify it no more than this. If it still goes over your head then we're at a dead end. This is the way the world works. Be smart and be happy.
------------------
www.coasterimage.com
Dorney Park Visits in 2003: 4
------------------
JOHN
RCT INSOMNIACS
KIMBERLY LAKE INC.
I wouldn't consider the others you mentioned clones though. Other than being dark rides, they tell different stories, so I would not consider them the same.
I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with your theory, and in general I agree with your opinions. Just pointing out that there's a real fine line to what can be considered new.
I think that if KP advertised the Volcano as a new ride, there'd be about 750,000 complaints at the park office.
I can definitely see where both sides of this debate are coming from, and I think a line was definitely crossed somewhere. Was the advertising tag about new rides misleading? Absolutely. Was it false advertising? That you'd be hard pressed to prove.
------------------
Come on, fhqwgads!
------------------
SFWoA Ride Op!
Boomtown 2003
1. Let me first state that I think it's totally unrealistic to compare video game advertisments with real life amusement parks, but since it's gone that direction, I guess I'll have to play if I want to stay. (note: this has nothing to do with the arguement - just saying you really can't compare realistically)
2. Wacky Worlds was advertised as having 50 new rides. I agree that they're new rides in the sense that they were not previous available in the game. It fits the textbook definition of "new" perfectly.
3. Now that we've established Infogrames chosen definition for new we must apply it to a real life park. We'll use the Enterprise/Volcano comparison since I'm taking the "kpjb challenge" ;) It is indeed a very fine line.
First off all, yes to a certain degree it IS a new ride. I know I have interest in seeing what's been done to the old Enterprise and Kennywood is advertising the entire Volcano Valley area as new for 2003, correct? Well the area isn't new at all (just one ride) - the theme is new. Well using the logic of the naysayers, then Kennywood is false advertising and when people pay their money and find that it's just a rethemed area with one new ride, they'll complain and Kennywood will be out of business by next season.
Second arguement: what if (for whatever reason, make up your own and be creative :) ) Kennywood left the Enterprise there and put their "Volcano Valley" in another section of the park. As part of this new area they want to add a themed Enterprise called Volcano. They bring in a second ride that's exactly the same as the current Enterprise but give it a volcano theme and put it in that area of the park.Now that most certainly would be a new addition to the park. But it's just like a ride that's already there, just looks different. I doubt anyone would argue that it's a new addition to the park. Well, that's exactly what WW did for RCT. It brought in new themed versions of existing rides...or as we learned in the example above (say it with me) NEW RIDES.
Of course there's no reason Kennywood (or any park) would really do that and that's my complaint about comparing the game to real life, it just wouldn't happen for the most part. But there you have it. Not one, but two arguements. One from the real life side of things and another from the game side of things.
I should've been on the debate team back in high school ;)
------------------
www.coasterimage.com
Dorney Park Visits in 2003: 4
You must be logged in to post