I honestly hope that you'll read the entire comment as it will be worth your time.
I've seen both versions of the comparison you made and can honestly say that you have done quite wel, but I do have a fair amount of nuances and criticism.
First of all, the campaign mode of Planet Coaster doesn't contain 36 missions as you mentioned but only 12, as each scenario consists of three objectives. RCTW provides a similar system with three objectives in each of the total amount of 40 scenarios as well. Besides, both games contain two game modes from my perspective, as the Campaign and Challenge mode of Planet Coaster are very similar. Both game modes give the player specific objectives to complete with certain restrictions, so I can't see the difference there to be honest (PC: minus 1)
Secondly, the amount of points awarded to both games for the shops and stalls should haven been equal. The amount of shops and stalls is equal in both games and both contain the ability to create your own. RCTW may contain the smaller shops you don't quite like, but this games does provide good-looking restaurants, which Planet Coaster does not. Besides, Planet Coaster provides only a very small amount of pre-built shops and always requires you to either build your own or resort to the Steam workshop, whereas RCTW does provide you with a good amount of pre-built versions, so you don't always have to build your own shops if you don't want to. (RCTW: plus 1)
Thirdly, Planet Coaster may have the ability to freely place the entrances and exits of the flat rides, whereas RCTW does not, but RCTW contains a lot more flat rides than Planet Coaster. RCTW contains 37 flat rides and Planet Coaster only 27, which is a significant difference and should result in an equal amount of points being awarded for the flat rides in both games (PC: minus 1)
Fourthly, the terrain tool of Planet Coaster is obviously better, but your commentary missed out on the fact that the placement of water levels is very restricted in Planet Coaster, especially if you compare it to RCTW which gives the player the ability to freely choose where and how much water to add and has a great feel and animation to it. It's not worth any additional points, but I think it's quite an important nuance (No change)
Fifthly, I think that the coaster builder of RCTW is a lot better (not just slightly), as the coaster builder from Planet Coaster nearly always requires you to rebuild half of the coaster track if you want to adjust it (the smooth tool usually does not provide a proper solution to a weird bum or twist in the track) and the piece-by-piece building system is outdated and an absolute chore to use at times. RCTW on the other hand does contain an innovative, flexible and fluid coaster builder with which it's always possible to easily adjust the track after the coaster has been completed. This coaster builder from RCTW is also easier to use and you even called it "the next generation of coaster building" (with which I agree), so I believe this features is worth more than just one point in difference, especially given the fact that coaster building is fundamental part of any theme park building game. (RCTW: plus 1)
Sixthly, concerning the social features from both games, you forgot to mention that RCTW contains the ability to add UGC (User Generated Content) to the game, whereas Planet Coaster does not have this feature. This renders it possible to add custom made scenery items to RCTW, but with Planet Coaster you are stuck with the items the game provides. I believe that's worth another point for RCTW. (RCTW: plus 1)
Seventhly, nearly all of the bugs in RCTW have been solved by the latest update of November 22 (one week after the launch date), so the critique on this matter is considerably exaggerated. In fact, the game runs better than Planet Coaster does, but I will elaborate on this in the last paragraph of this comment. At the moment both games still contain some tiny bugs and glitches, which doesn't deserve the deduction of any points for either of the games (RCTW: plus 3)
Eighthly, there are in fact animated scenery objects, visual effects and customizable signs in RCTW, so this is not true either. RCTW has had customizable ride signs from the very start of the game, simple as that. In the Decor menu (under Scenery Items) there is a variety of visual effects, such as fire, water, smoke, electricity and even fireworks and balloons effects (the latter two are not in Planet Coaster). There are also various animated scenery objects, such as the "Gate of Stars" (centre pieces), the "Solar System" (centre pieces) and a variety of fountains with water effects. There are even more animated objects wich can be downloaded through the UGC section of the Social Hub. Therefore, the three points which have been added to Planet Coaster for these features, should also be added to RCTW. (RCTW: plus 3)
Considering the seventh and eighth point of criticism, don't forget there are many haters of RCTW out there who are more than willing to provide false and incorrect information about this game.
Ninthly, in this review you haven't really touched on the User Interface (UI) of both games, but I believe that this is quite an important feature of any game and there are some significant differences to mention. From my perspective, the User Interface of Planet Coaster falls a bit short, as it's quite hard to find the desired objects at times, without having to resort to the search bars and filter options. The User Interface of Planet Coaster just provides a long arbitrary and illogically organized list of items and objects and always requires you to use various filter options and searc bars to find what you're looking for, which renders the building process longer and more tedious than it should be. With RCTW it's a lot easier and quicker to find the desired objects, as these items have been organized in a more sensible and well-categorized manner (withou having the need of filter options). Building coasters and paths can also be chore at times with Planet Coaster, as the game always requires you to constanly move back and forth between the screen (where you actually build) and the User Interface to use all the buttons and sliders, whereas with RCTW you don't have to move back to the User Interface that often to build and place items in the desired way. It seems that the developers of Planet Coaster found it harder to integrate the User Interface and all the functionaliaties with the playability of the game, than the developers of RCTW did. The User Interface of Planet Coaster definitely needs some improvements from my perspective, especially in comparison to RCTW, so I would deduct a point for that. (PC: minus 1)
Tenthly, another aspect that's missing from this comparison is the fact that the buildable area (the maximum size of the park) is a lot smaller for Planet Coaster in comparison to RCTW, which is worth another point for RCTW. (RCTW: plus 1)
At this moment (taking all the points you have added and deducted and all my adjustments, which are listed above) Planet Coaster has a total of 39 points (minus 3) and RCTW 38 points (plus 10), so Planet Coaster would indeed win (albeit by a much smaller margin than you suggested). However, I still haven't touched on a very important matter.
Finally (and this is my most important criticism), you forgot to mention a very important aspect of both games, which completely turns the tables: performance. To start with, it's obivous that the minimum system requirements for Planet Coaster are a lot higher and require a high-end machine to be able to play the game at decent frame rates, whereas RCTW will also run well on lower-end computers, especially given the required processing power and amount of RAM (see the minimum system requirements on the Steam pages of both games).
This has some serious consequences for both games, as Planet Coaster has performance issues when the park reaches a medium size, which is due to the amount of highly detailed objects within the game. This problem even occurs on the latest high-end pc builds; just take a look at the review onf Planet Coaster of LGR (Lazy Game Reviews) to find the samen conclusion on the performance issue. The graphic settings need to be cranked all the way down to low in order to keep the game from lagging so much that it becomes unplayable, which means that the higher graphical quality of Planet Coaster becomes redundant and somewhat of a nuisance once your park starts to grow to a medium size. In fact, I've a high-end pc myself and have noticed that the game already displays performance issues (lag mostly) once I've used (and decorated) only half of the available land to build on. This performance issue is aggravated by the fact that each object in Planet Coaster is highly detailed, which in turn makes the game lag and run poorly at a very fast rate once your park starts to grow. I don't have this issue with RCTW, as this game even runs quite well when the park starts to become bigger and the slightly lower graphical quality seems to be the major cause of that. This flaw in the overall design of Planet Coaster seems unsolvable, as the game has already been optimized to its full extent with last update from November 17, so we'll have to live with the fact that it's not possible to build a sizeable park in Planet Coaster without having to lower the graphic settings to its minimum (which would bring the graphical quality of Planet Coaster to - approximately - the same level as RCTW). I think it's fair to deduct at least one point for this designer's flaw( which is quite kind, as I should actually deduct even more points for this issue). PC: minus 1)
Final conclusion:
Planet Coaster :38 points
Rollercoaster Tycoon World: 38 points
especially corkscrews when you want to do a turning going into one, I think Planet Coaster needs 2 things... a special track piece for custom inversions that smooths track pieces differently than the currant smooth tool, and the ability to save custom inversions, or certain track pieces.
