Which game is more realistic - RCT2 or RCT3 ?

[AlmereStars]

@the ghost: you are 100% right.

 

If you only take the base game, so no custom stuff. Then RCT2 is way more realistic in way of how everything looks. Just look at the Giga Coaster or the geusts. RCT2 made there rides way more realistic then they are in RCT3. Although most of the flat rides in RCT3 look pretty realistic.

 

However, if you take the engine of the game. Then RCT3 is more realistic. The way the cars travel along the track is more realistic. Geusts that come in families, including kids and grandpa's. Instead of just generic geusts in RCT2.

 

But if you add the custom scnerey thats available nowadays

 

This is a picture from a park i'm currently making (will probably share the park within a couple of weeks). Its not even close to the pictures that Edge of Beast posted. But this one isn't photoshopped. If you add the realistic 3d trees, then I think that this looks more realistic (and works more realistic) then anything in RCT2. even with CS

[grrt]

I can't resist commenting on this anymore.. Obviously both games have their advantages, but to me, I prefer RCT3 in terms of realism. And this is coming from a realism junkie. It's a lot more work to have it look nice, but in the end I feel the result is more satisfying. Yes, loads of CS is required at times, but I don't have a problem with this. The fact that it's custom shouldn't mean anything. A good RCT2 park uses just as much in-game scenery, it just so happens that they made it a lot better. RCT2 parks use custom scenery too though.

 

The game dynamics are smoother in 2 than in 3, but for me, I don't usually build a park just to watch the little peeps run around and spend money. The game for me is creative release, not so much business or logistics release (if that's even a thing...) I just prefer to make parks that look good! I'm not super interested in how it functions, though when designing my parks I still do keep that in mind.

 

The limitations are nearly endless in both games, but my preference lies in RCT3.

[Coupon]

I find RCT2 to be more realistic. In RCT3, I found myself downloading about 13 sets just to get items similar to the main pieces in RCT2. Plus, it took way to long to find one piece with the non-sorted scenery menu with all the sets I have. In RCT2, you have an easy to use user interface that makes it easy to create a nice looking buildings. The size of detailed parks in RCT3 is also miniscule compared to RCT2.

Take for example robbie92's SFSF park:

 

A huge detailed park that comprises of only one map file.

 

Meanwhile take for example Liam.'s Baha Bay park:

 

 

3 files for a smallish realistic park..

 

~Coupon

[-Edge of Beast-]

I can't resist commenting on this anymore.. Obviously both games have their advantages, but to me, I prefer RCT3 in terms of realism. And this is coming from a realism junkie. It's a lot more work to have it look nice, but in the end I feel the result is more satisfying. Yes, loads of CS is required at times, but I don't have a problem with this. The fact that it's custom shouldn't mean anything. A good RCT2 park uses just as much in-game scenery, it just so happens that they made it a lot better. RCT2 parks use custom scenery too though.

 

The game dynamics are smoother in 2 than in 3, but for me, I don't usually build a park just to watch the little peeps run around and spend money. The game for me is creative release, not so much business or logistics release (if that's even a thing...) I just prefer to make parks that look good! I'm not super interested in how it functions, though when designing my parks I still do keep that in mind.

 

The limitations are nearly endless in both games, but my preference lies in RCT3.

 

 

This.

 

I prefer RCT2 for those little projects out of boredom. I might throw together something when I have nothing to do. RCT3 is more for those full-blown, out of this world projects. Although, people might think differently - this is just my opinion.

[grrt]

I counter that with this.. No offense to Liam, but that isn't the greatest example of RCT3's capabilities. There's three maps because the park was designed as part of a competition and the files were partitioned for various reasons.

 

 

Giant maps are certainly possible. The map has expanded even since this photo, and I don't think there's any shortage of detail!

[Coupon]

How much lag is there though? Its not like NGT plays on those graphics.

[grrt]

I don't think he complains much about lag. Though I do know he has a beast of a computer. Of course, RCT3's engine is basically garbage which I'll certainly give the leg up there to RCT2. I can almost guarantee that my computer wouldn't be able to handle that file. So lag on an above average computer would probably be fairly high.

 

Though again, to many of the people on forums, they play to make pretty pictures and stories for others, so the playability of the file for NGT I don't believe is an issue.

[CoasterB]

I only play rct3 now on mac but loved rct2 on my old PC. I find the proportion of rides in rct3 all wrong, I think the large loops are too big and i think building a 200/300 ft coaster looks to big compared to the flat rides and people, where as on rct2 you could build a good sized B&M with large inversion and it would look right. I do think the rct2 landscaping was easier to use but as a game in general you can do so much more with rct3 if you put the time in.

[-Edge of Beast-]

I only play rct3 now on mac but loved rct2 on my old PC. I find the proportion of rides in rct3 all wrong, I think the large loops are too big and i think building a 200/300 ft coaster looks to big compared to the flat rides and people, where as on rct2 you could build a good sized B&M with large inversion and it would look right. I do think the rct2 landscaping was easier to use but as a game in general you can do so much more with rct3 if you put the time in.

 

You seem to like taking the easy way out. Foliage in RCT2 is simple because you place it on each square simply, whereas RCT3 you have to position them into spots where they look perfect. It's not an easy challenge like RCT2's.

 

And also, I think Liam's park takes up 7 sandboxes now. NGT's park is a fantastic idea of what RCT3 can accomplish due to its size.

[Coupon]

^Foliage isnt simple in RCT2. You can get annoying white glitches! Plus, having the right amount of bushes/trees is pretty hard to perfect..

RCT3's foliage is about the same. I find them equal.

[SoCalCoasters]

^I think that may be one thing that sets them apart in terms of realism is the amount of glitches you see in a park like that. RCT3 doesn't have problems where a car will suddenly disappear when it's on a hacked track segment it wasn't animated for.

 

Yes, RCT3 usually has more sets from more creators and there's more options. You can also minimize the large icons in RCT3 so you can navigate through the stuff easier so finding stuff isn't a huge issue.

[RCTrioFan]

Even as an RCT2 player, I might have to say RCT3. Here's why:

 

The roller coaster tracks in RCT3 have many more realistic, though not close enough to real life, track segments and inversions. RCT2's trains are slightly more accurate, and wooden. steel and suspended coaster supports are much prettier and realistic. The water rides in RCT3 are much more accurate, owing to the fact that there is an expansion pack allowing for pools to be built, while RCT2 STAYS a theme park tycoon. The splashes are much more realistic, the waterslides are accurate to a point, and dinghy slides are slightly improved.

 

RCT3 allows the option to create a zoo. RCT2 is strictly limited to, as I said, theme parks. Lions and other predators can even escape if the right fence material is not used, creating a rampage and focring peeps to flee. The player must then board a helicopter and snipe them with a tranquilzer rifle, though they can also shoot peeps.

 

RCT3 has a day. night. and day/night option, allowing for large realism. The park will open in the morning, guests will flock around in the park, and at night close, making the player have to perform status checks on all rides and building new attractions. However, there is NO season pass system, meaning the guests will pay for each day, having the money build up very quickly and making the game easy. RCT2 just has the same brightness throughout, unless it rains, and guests will stay in the park for years on end.

 

RCT3 isn't limited to isometric view, instead being 3d, and the staff members look more like their real life counterparts. However, even though RCT2's guests are less detailed then RCT3 peeps, the peeps are triangular pieces glued together with eyes. Not much realism in that. But they have much smarter AI and pathfinding, even if it is lackluster. The art-deco stalls in both versions are both unpleasing to the eye and unrealistic, but in RCT2 they look better then their 3 counterparts. But the general stall in RCT3, or whatever you call the counter that can sell anything, is both realistic and reliable. I've seen many use it in all areas of their RCT3 park.

 

If you crash a ride in RCT2, the trains will seperate, fly randomly in all directions with minimal gravity effect, and explode on impact, killing anyone riding and completely unscathing others. In RCT3, the trains will follow the law of gravity and obey physics, and will still explode, but I expect this is to remove the train from the game.

 

Water and hills, in RCT3, is the high point of rct3, the reason I got Platinum for 9 bucks. The water, especially waterfalls, are sooo realistic. It reflects, it glares, it creates mist, it actually ripples when peeps swim in it. RCT2, its just water at the top, that doesn't need walls to stay in. Hills, they're so smooth or rough, and not gridded. You can create a rugged peak, or rolling hills, it goes so well. RCT2, well, you've got around 8 different positions land can take, so you better get creative.

[Metrofan56]

You can make a coaster that launches at over 14,000MPH instantly much easier in RCT3.

[Tomes1225]

It all depends on how you play the games.

 

I've noticed the detail on the RCT3 projects on TPR seem to be lacking compared to other websites. If you guys want to see some incredibly themed and realistic projects. Check out the Weekly Ambassador, where every week a list of the best projects are compiled.

 

RCT3 can be very realistic if you work hard. It can take a very long time to make something realistic. I can spend over 10 hours just designing a single coaster. This coaster isn't a Big Thunder Mountain ride either, it's a normal coaster that you could find in any park really. the amount of cs you have also helps out. I have 4 gigs of cs, ctrs, and more in my installation directory.

 

 

This is my roller coaster Mustang in my Fisher Park file. I spent almost 2 weeks designing and building this ride.

 

 

Here is a photo of Maverick I took in May. With a littlbe bit of effort, I was able to replicate the first drop pretty well.

 

Another advantage of RCT3 is the immense amount of track segments. In RCT2 an immelman, or dive loop always look a little odd. The same goes with zero-g rolls. RCT3 does a better job with providing more realistic inversions.

 

A thing I've seen commonly in this thread is the comparison of the supports. Sure the ingame supports are trash, but a good supported ride can look incredible. As with my previous statement, it all depends on how much effort you want to put in. I'll commonly spend a few days supporting a ride. I compare with real-life coasters to make my supports accurate. I'll even find myself completely redoing segments. (Invert lift-hills kill me).

 

RCT3 lets you see a park from a 3D vantage point. Some people do not take advantage enough of this fact. You can get some amazing shot from the ground looking up at a coaster or structures or flatride or whatever.

 

EDIT: Finally, I see people saying that RCT2 is easier to make realistic. Easy doesn't always mean better. RCT3 takers a lot more attention to detail to make look right. Everything in RCT3 is much closer up. Facades must be more detailed, there has to be more props. You are looking on the park as if you were in it. RCT2 is like looking at a park map in a way. You can see everything for what it is. But you don't get the same detail as RCT3.

 

Basically, RCT2 is like looking at a park map, while RCT3 is like being in the actual park.

 

Those are just my opinions.

Edited July 29, 2012 by QueerRudie

[Twitch]

I don't really play either for realism. That gets boring after a while. I like to see what my imagination can create as well as what others can too.

Edited July 29, 2012 by QueerRudie

[Zakmartin1]

RCT2 is way more realistic of the bobsleigh roller coaster RCT3 bobsled texture I was like what is that? Ya so the RCT2 Bobsleigh is dead real, mine are like the avalanche at blackpool unlike custom ones,

 

Realistic rides on RCT2

 

Bobsleigh coaster

Looping roller coaster / Steel roller coaster

Log flume

Vertical drop coaster

Twister roller coaster

Corkscrew roller coaster

Wooden roller coaster

Wooden wild mouse

Stand up coaster

Ostrich ride

Stampeding herd coaster

Seaplane ride

Suspended Swinging coaster

Launched freefall coaster

And that's all folks

[Schwarzillard]

RCT2 is way more realistic of the bobsleigh roller coaster RCT3 bobsled texture I was like what is that? Ya so the RCT2 Bobsleigh is dead real, mine are like the avalanche at blackpool unlike custom ones,

 

Realistic rides on RCT2

 

Bobsleigh coaster

Looping roller coaster / Steel roller coaster

Log flume

Vertical drop coaster

Twister roller coaster

Corkscrew roller coaster

Wooden roller coaster

Wooden wild mouse

Stand up coaster

Ostrich ride

Stampeding herd coaster

Seaplane ride

Suspended Swinging coaster

Launched freefall coaster

And that's all folks

 

I would disagree with the vertical drop coaster, only because it doesn't offer an Immelmann, I think. Most of the time I don't use VD coasters in my parks. But on the whole, RCT 2 is a more realistic game for park design, looks, and ride designs, but RCT 3 is better for overall park experience. I like RCT 2 much better.

[coasterbill]

It all depends on how you play the games.

 

I've noticed the detail on the RCT3 projects on TPR seem to be lacking compared to other websites. If you guys want to see some incredibly themed and realistic projects. Check out the Weekly Ambassador, where every week a list of the best projects are compiled.

 

RCT3 can be very realistic if you work hard. It can take a very long time to make something realistic. I can spend over 10 hours just designing a single coaster. This coaster isn't a Big Thunder Mountain ride either, it's a normal coaster that you could find in any park really. the amount of cs you have also helps out. I have 4 gigs of cs, ctrs, and more in my installation directory.

 

This is my roller coaster Mustang in my Fisher Park file. I spent almost 2 weeks designing and building this ride.

 

Here is a photo of Maverick I took in May. With a littlbe bit of effort, I was able to replicate the first drop pretty well.

 

Another advantage of RCT3 is the immense amount of track segments. In RCT2 an immelman, or dive loop always look a little odd. The same goes with zero-g rolls. RCT3 does a better job with providing more realistic inversions.

 

A thing I've seen commonly in this thread is the comparison of the supports. Sure the ingame supports are trash, but a good supported ride can look incredible. As with my previous statement, it all depends on how much effort you want to put in. I'll commonly spend a few days supporting a ride. I compare with real-life coasters to make my supports accurate. I'll even find myself completely redoing segments. (Invert lift-hills kill me).

 

RCT3 lets you see a park from a 3D vantage point. Some people do not take advantage enough of this fact. You can get some amazing shot from the ground looking up at a coaster or structures or flatride or whatever.

 

EDIT: Finally, I see people saying that RCT2 is easier to make realistic. Easy doesn't always mean better. RCT3 takers a lot more attention to detail to make look right. Everything in RCT3 is much closer up. Facades must be more detailed, there has to be more props. You are looking on the park as if you were in it. RCT2 is like looking at a park map in a way. You can see everything for what it is. But you don't get the same detail as RCT3.

 

Basically, RCT2 is like looking at a park map, while RCT3 is like being in the actual park.

 

Those are just my opinions.

 

The timeframes you're talking about hold true for RCT2 and RCT3. Spotlight level NE parks for example require countless hours of work. You can easily spend 10-20 game years on a single coaster... maybe more depending on the level of custom supports, theming and interaction the ride has. I think Pacificoaster's "Starpointe" which is currently the highest scoring legitimate RCT2 spotlight ever took well over 700 game years.

 

I'm a fan of some of the RCT3 work I've seen floating around the community but as a whole I think RCT2 is a much better game that's much more realistic and fun to play. To each his own though.

[fraroc]

Both can be extremely realistic and unrealistic depending on how you play. With the sheer amount of CFR, CTR, No Limits import tracks, and CS for RCT3, you can easily make parks and roller coasters that look extraordinarily realistic. However, I've never liked using the No Limits imports. Even thought it makes the park look more realistic, honestly, it's no fun to just plop one down and be done with it. I find it a much more fun and gratifying experience to use coaster types that allow you to make your own design, whether it's default or CTR.

 

RCT2 is undoubtly more popular amongst parkmakers and some of the projects I've seen using RCT2 are just absolutely freakin' AMAZING. However, I feel that it takes so much more extra work to make a realistic park. Dealing with the 8 Cars Per Trainer, SOB Trainer, the sheer amount of CS, the lack of "Extended Coaster" pieces, 2.5D Isometric view instead of full 3D. It just seems so much harder which really makes me appreciate the work that goes into those parks.

[Cullvion]

It all depends on how you play the games.

 

 

This is my roller coaster Mustang in my Fisher Park file. I spent almost 2 weeks designing and building this ride.

 

HOLY CRAP! I thought that was a real ride! It's so realistic!

 

 

On its own, RCT3 is kind of cartoony, and RCT2 is somewhat more realistic, but the terraforming in rct3 can make parks look far more realistic than rct2 parks. With custom scenery... RCT3 bombs RCT2 out of the water.

[Zakmartin1]

Ya I agree with this

[GamingPro941]

Well... RCT2 has better money- I don't get into negatives as much.I wish I was in RCT3.

[SFNE Fan]

RCT3 has better guests ,its 3D instead of 2D and a few more things, but otherwise, RCT2 looks much more realistic. The scenery, rides, almost everything. To make a realistic park in RCT2, you only have to download a few CS sets,CTRs and CFRs, how in RCT3 you have to drown a park in those things to make it look Realistic.