Does "Coaster Scenery Rating" affect Excitement Rating?

Just curious... I spent a couple hours last night messing with scenery around a new roller coaster I was building to gauge it's effect on excitement rating and the effect was minuscule at best (not sure it even affected the score). Maybe I just suck at scenery... but I thought I made it... pretty.

(sorry no pics, I'm at "work"... shhhh)

Is it supposed to effect the Excitement Rating like in previous RCT (1,2,3) titles?
 
It currently has no effect.
It only effects the Track Scenery Quality in the Results tab at the bottom, which when High, does effect the willingness to pay more for the ride.
Also, currently terraforming, tunnels, and water features have no effect on ride scenery quality. [bored]
 
It currently has no effect.
It only effects the Track Scenery Quality in the Results tab at the bottom, which when High, does effect the willingness to pay more for the ride.
Also, currently terraforming, tunnels, and water features have no effect on ride scenery quality. [bored]

That's seriously a bummer... it only affects the monetary portion of the ride.

Thank you for the information!
 
Last edited:
I was just wondering this also.... I hope this changes in a future update :) It doesn't have to have a massive effect but just boost excitment a little bit....

Devs.... Cough cough.... ;)
 
No, but it does affect how much money you can get out of the ride.
8377316E8555E5B59F2CEB5B95AEDB63860F4D83

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=808586159
 
I have just come across this 'problem' now at 1.2.1. I am going to call it a problem for a couple of reasons; Firstly excitement HAS to be increased by various things such as Special effects, Scenery proximity (Some - not all), Tunnels and Underground areas, Dark areas and light effects. Otherwise it shouldn't be called 'excitement', call it something else such as 'Thrill' but it's not excitement. If a developer wants to say here and now that exciement will be affected by these factors at some stage in the future then I am happy and will let this 'problem' go. Again, otherwise I will argue it's case until, until, well actually I will never stop arguing for this. As the previous poster has said, as in RCT1, 2 and 3 as it should be. Secondly it makes SOoo many things in and around coasters seem meaningless, triggerred effects, tunnels etc. They may increase income but they should also affect excitement otherwise as has been shown in this post the effect is largely hidden.
 
well, the entire rating system in PC is just sham anyways. you can take a random crap object with 200 non-fitting parts and place it underground, no one sees it and the rating (park scenery, ride scenery, queue scenery) increases significant.

enjoy building nice scenery, but don't take the ratings serious, that's my best advice for this game.
 
enjoy building nice scenery, but don't take the ratings serious, that's my best advice for this game.

Coaster ratings are more important than flat rides IMO, but its not just about the scenery rating, its about the prestige. Some rides have too much, others not enough, and it doesn't always make sense. Like you can have an insanity with 1 ride animation sequence, its excitement is a 6.5 but ride time is 75sec and prestige is too low so no guests will ride, but increase the animation sequences and excitement goes down while prestige goes up (shouldnt both go up?) yet it hardly increases the actual duration. Its kind of important that prestige is balanced as that dictates profits
 
breezer, i see your point and the question what 's more important for me when i pay for a ride ticket (no matter if coaster, flat or whatever ride) is definitly the enjoyment factor. usually scenery adds to this in real life, and sadly pc is entirely different here. sure, main reason is that it's a close to impossible task for a developer to design an algorithm which could analyze scenery and return an objective rating based on beauty standards.

any kind of rating beside excitement, fear and nausea when building custom coasters seems to be evaluated only by quantitive aspects. the more the merrier. and therefore the prestige rating is as nuts as scenery rating, park rating, guest happiness, a.s.o.

Planet Coaster seems not a park simulation for strategic minds. it simplifies everything which could be a strategic approach, i assume that this game should stay userfriendly and entertaining even for 10 year old kiddies and we have to respect that.
 
i assume that this game should stay userfriendly and entertaining even for 10 year old kiddies and we have to respect that.

A game can have strategic depth and still be accessible or user-friendly, and a game can also be shallow/simple but not be accessible fun or user-friendly. I don't think the two are connected. PC doesn't come across as a "pick up and play" type of game to me the way RCT was. I could build a sick coaster in RCT in 5-10 mins and have good ratings, but in PC it can take 30-45mins to get a simple design down, and then could take hours perfecting it.

My mom played theme park and rct1, but not rct3 or PC because they are too daunting. But the game could be more inviting to new players if it had a better level of progression to its career mode, and that starts with understanding basic economic mechanics to have that deeper element of strategy.

Another example of a simple little feature missing from PC is having small parks. In RCT you had small parks and had to decide whether or not to buy land or try and fill in the little area more, thats not something inaccessible but it does add a little more depth to the game rather than every scenario feeling like a big open blank slate.

Some people prefer sandbox, but other people prefer the restrictions of challenge mode, and when everybody asked for more management I think people expected more than a simple aging/reputation system that purely lowers profits in a game where you make too much money anyway. Don't get me wrong, PC is an amazing incredible outstanding game that I absolutely know will still be played in 5-10 years from now, which is why I think its so important to have an improved career mode for the game at some point [up]
 
Last edited:
A game can have strategic depth and still be accessible or user-friendly

sure. but can it have strategic depth and raise the attention of a younger audience (and not just the one lonely classmate who plays chess like a champ with 9 years). This game is quite obviously not made with main a focus on fans of Sid Meier, that was my point, there is no diversity with "strategies" to play this game. the diversity comes mainly from the scenery editor ("be creative!"), not from the park management system ("be strategic!").

i don't value this business decision bad or good. i knew what i get with this game before i've bought it.
 
Last edited:
sure. but can it have strategic depth and raise the attention of a younger audience

I could give you a lot of examples of games that a 5 year old can play that still have strategic depth.


not just the one lonely classmate who plays chess like a champ
thats a bit insulting . . .


the diversity comes mainly from the scenery editor ("be creative!"), not from the park management system ("be strategic!").

i don't value this business decision bad or good. i knew what i get with this game before i've bought it.

Just because some people want more management, doesnt mean your not going to still have sandbox to enjoy... see, its fine if you enjoy the non-management features, but theres a lot of people who play RCT Classic or parkitect and other similar games over PC because PC lacks strong management and not everybody plays coaster games to build like silvarret. Its fine if you don't think the game needs management (I'm not trying to argue with you) simply stating my opinion because I believe a lot more copies of the game could be sold if it wasnt for the fact that many reviews of PC do point out the lack of management (which is one of the reasons people play management games) PC is advertised as construction AND management, but its career mode is pretty sad IMO

diversity comes from the fact that it has a sandbox mode (for those who prefer creativity) and it offers a challenge/scenario mode for those people who are not like you who do not play the game for the same reason as those who prefer one or the other. Thats diversity, and like with anything in life both sides of that coin can be improved in various ways, and I don't know why anybody would argue against improving the game. By the way I also make suggestions for improving sandbox too so, again different strokes for different folks ya know what I mean?


This game is quite obviously not made with main a focus on fans of Sid Meier, that was my point, there is no diversity with "strategies" to play this game.
your basically saying you dont want to see PC improved for a greater audience... because..... because... this isnt a sid meier strategy game... hmmm. Okay i guess you win, stop the forums nobody else is allowed to make suggestions on improving management [wink]


the question what 's more important for me when i pay for a ride ticket (no matter if coaster, flat or whatever ride) is definitly the enjoyment factor. usually scenery adds to this in real life, and sadly pc is entirely different here.
people in real life don't go ride coasters with a clipboard and point system to track EFN values, this is a game and has gaming machanics which are intended to add "gameplay" mechanics such as "management" and "economy" unfortunately things are not perfectly balanced to have an enjoyable challenge mode experience (as many people have posted about already) because after a certain point you just have too much money (there is no risk vs reward in PC)
 
Last edited:
breezer, you misunderstood me.

i was trying to explain that the makers of PC had to make a business decision (what kind of audience do we want to attract?) to get a conceptual direction for the development team. if they'd startet with the intension to make a strategy game, the focus would be very different, it would be less time thrown at the editor and more time thrown at the park management. i would definitly enjoy more diversity and depth in park management, but that's not of importance here. the direction of this game was set long ago and if i still moan around, ask for more RCT or whatever, i should rather play RCT or whatever instead of wasting my time with a game which may just not fit into my preferences.

I could give you a lot of examples of games that a 5 year old can play that still have strategic depth.

yes please. but PC games with a simulation environment please, to not compare apples and oranges. :)
 
Last edited:
How about we just compare PC to RCT1? If I had to pick one aspect of management that is lacking in PC it would be the park size. Every park in PC is the same size and shape, with the majority of land being completely flat (except for the occasional terraformed sculpture) I liked in RCT having to figure out how to make the most of the land that I had available and to decide when to spend money on buying new land. Its a small thing, but it adds a bit more puzzle aspect to the game that I found charming in RCT1.

Now, I admit that it can be difficult to execute a strategy game and a simulation/construction game into one combined tool set, but there are other ideas that could be added to improve management without going too far. The game Theme Hospital is an example I often use, as being a simple management game with fun and interesting gameplay mechanics, such as staff getting tired and requiring rest, or training employees with actual training rooms and having "higher educated employees" train lower trained employees, or deciding to hire a low trained employee vs hiring a pre-trained one who requires more money. Not to mention all the silly differences between each employees work ethic.

Lets also not forget the original Theme Park game in 1994 had a world map with the ability to sell your park and move or buy new land, and also competitive parks that you would get ranked against at the end of each year. Or the rewards system of RCT1 where you could get a "worst park award" or other prizes (I guess thats similar to the challenge mode now, but still its the little things that make a game great) like when you beat a scenario in RCT1 the guests would clap and their balloons would fly into the air (it was cute) but in PC there is no win or lose its just keep building until your CPU crashes [big grin] part of the draw in replaying RCT1 is to break your high score, but you cant do that in PC

I understand PC is picking up where RCT3 left off, there has been a long period of down time in the series, and frontier is re-establishing their "roots" in the genre (so to speak) but I also would like to see this game have a deeper or more interesting career mode for the sake of bringing in non-creative players to the game as well. RCT1 did not appeal to just builders, it appealed to almost any theme park enthusiast because it was a simple and casual game. PC on the other hand went full hardcore toolset with little actual game play, so it only appeals to those who are willing to spend the hundreds of hours it takes to build something pretty.

Then we could also go on and on about the tiny little flaws of the game that don't specifically make it a bad game (I think PC is amazing) but theres tons of little tedious things that could be fixed that are currently keeping many people from playing the game. I dont have to go into the details because theres threads all over the place discussing the different things each person wants as everybody has a different view and opinion of the game. As for appealing to kids, I think RCT1 would be the easier to pick up and play game for all the same reasons that makes PC more advanced (if people could look passed the outdated graphics)

The most basic of functions within the games career/challenge mode should be the economy and prestige system, but they are not balanced enough to be challenging even on the hardest difficulty. Sure the occasional coaster challenge is probably the biggest difficulty in the game, but it should not be such a drastic difference, and to me that makes it seem like the game doesnt understand its own challenges. Many people have played career and said the game is too easy, except for some of the coaster challenges. I wish there were more coaster challenges, but they need a progression to them. Like in RCT1 you would start off with a simple woodie or junior, before getting the bigger rides. PC doesnt really follow a progression system in that many of the scenarios can be completed without any coasters, and then some require you to build coasters with perfect ratings (wheres the inbetween?)

But I do have faith that frontier will satisfy all their fans in the end [yesnod] I just hope the game doesnt get littered with microtransaction DLC scenery. Hopefully, well get a scenario editor someday to fix the lackluster scenarios we currently have, and maybe even some mods later down the road to give us a truly "evolved" management game
 
Last edited:
Getting back to original reason for this post. i.e. Excitement not being affected by scenery. While I agree with the OP that I would like to see this (as in RCT1,2,3 and makes logical sense), it has been pointed out to me that there IS a measure of the scenery at the bottom of the 'Results' tab on the Test ratings screen (Called 'Track Scenery Rating'). Therefore, maybe what needs to happen is that this needs to be moved to the top of the screen so that we have 4 values for the ride rating: Excitement; Fear; Nausea AND Track scenery rating. And that this also need to be shown as a value rather than just low, med, high (or whatever it is at the moment). This would hopefully make it WAYYY clearer that scenery IS being considered and make it look less like an afterthought that is hidden at the bottom of the second tab.
 
And that this also need to be shown as a value rather than just low, med, high (or whatever it is at the moment).

I think the general problem lies in the fact we all are assuming things about how the game generates values but in the end we don't exactly know how this is done so we are having hard times to fixing it.
 
Last edited:
well, the entire rating system in PC is just sham anyways. you can take a random crap object with 200 non-fitting parts and place it underground, no one sees it and the rating (park scenery, ride scenery, queue scenery) increases significant.

enjoy building nice scenery, but don't take the ratings serious, that's my best advice for this game.


The problem is that it's impossible for the game to know if scenery is congruent or well-designed. Think about how many items in this game are used for things they weren't necessarily intended for -- if someone uses lighted signs to create window effects, it's not just 200 signs, it's something that could make a building look awesome. Another piece might use pillar bases as bricks in a building facade, or use a dozen "buildings" to get a circular effect that you can't get normally.

To get a game to recognize aesthetic value, we're talking about a fairly sophisticated custom AI, which is beyond the scope of a game developer. (Note that I mean AI in the classic sense, not the gaming sense. Getting a machine to recognize aesthetic value is on a completely different level than NPC pathing or mob behavior.)
 
I actually don't want scenery to effect the coaster excitement rating.
In RCT3 you could spam trees on a 7 excitement coaster to get it up to 10.
Having the scenery rating seperate is a good thing.

This is an IMPROVEMENT over past RCT's
 
I HAVE raised the excitement score of a ride by adding scenery - over 1/2 of 1 point! The fear has to also increase tho - bummer. This ride -
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=901207677
was boosted by adding the trees and building with no roof. I had to take the roof off because keeping the roof on caused the fear to go out of the green.
***This was pre-anticolllision. When I put this coaster in a park I am building with collision turned off it still gives me 8.29 excitement.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom