95 replies to this topic

[Meretrix]

I'm intrigued by this park, but not wowed.

There are some really great things happening, but some of the theming seems a bit random, especially near the Lollipop Guild. I am not aware of some of the attractions that you have in this area (Matchmaker Manor) anywhere in the movie or the book. At any rate, the stand up coaster ROCKED!!! The tin man area had a great start, but I felt that the flowers were wrong. Just my aesthetic I'm sure. Frankly, I'm not sure why I'm posting any of this, as it will probably come back to bite me in the rear when someone from RCTI judges the Sept. VP entries, but I did feel that some elements of the park didn't make sense to me. The last criticism that I have is about the archy. I thought it should have been tighter and flowed more smoothly between the sections. Also, way too much 2x2 archy going on for my taste. Anyway, congrats on the VP win. It does look like a lot of work went into the park. Just maybe too fantasy for my own personal taste.

[rwadams]

I'd like to take a look at it but the link doesn't work for me. I've tried it on Netscape and IE.

Rog

[ToonTowner]

I have to say I was a little disappointed with this park. I was just expecting something a little better out of the VP. Maybe my expectations were a little high after cBass's brilliant Wisconsin.

Personally I found the park greatly lacking in the 'magical' feeling I would expect from Oz. The Emerald City didn't sparkle the way it should (maybe some taller architecture would've been appropriate). I felt the wicked witch area could've have been better executed (maybe rockier with a castle atop a mountain). There were a few wonderful things. The entrance to the Emerald City was fantastic, but the city itself wasn't anywhere close to as good as the entrance. I found some of the architecture elsewhere in the park to be well executed, but other buildings just looked like big boxes. The coasters on the whole were good (I especially liked the idea of the Kansas Twister), but personally I like to see a little more interaction with the landscape.

All in all, a very good park idea that I felt was just not quite pulled off. This could be done a lot better. Still a nice park with some creative ideas and flashes of excellent parkmaking.

[cBass]

I can't see it either -- "Page cannot be displayed."

[Sambo]

I'd like to take a look at it but the link doesn't work for me. I've tried it on Netscape and IE.

Rog

Are you refering to the VP site, the brochure, or the download of the park?

If it is the brochure, I have noticed that some Pop-up blocking software prevents it from coming up. Could this be a factor? Also java scripting must be enabled in the browser. Some security settings won't allow the script to run. Please let me know so I can get you there...

[Marshy]

Great job guys, you deserve it, although I too didnt think the park was that brilliant.

[deanosrs]

Firstly, well done to the staff in getting this up in a difficult period and to everyone who contributed to this park.

It had some great little bits in - the stand-up going through the waterfall, the joint inverter ships, the custom supports of Whole-Heartedly (mmm, not v. good name though ) and some of the archy - my favourite parts in Metro's section.... However, you could tell far too easily it was made by loads of different people. The style's conflicted majorly, and the Emerald City section dissapointed because of a few things like lack of character, too many conflicting scenery pieces (castle walls, way too much glass...). The stand-up twister had the potential to be amazing, but apart from one lonesome building and a waterfall, it looked bare and unthemed.

But it's a good park nonetheless. Good, but not brilliant.

IMO

[VooDoo]

Hmmm well to be brutally honest, I dont think this deserved VP. The only reason I could see this park winning would be because there were absolubtly no good parks submitted, but I doubt that because I know RCT2.com has some wicked parks around at the moment.

Emerald city? what a let down, after everybody was saying it looked amazing, I was completely dissapointed, the architecture just looked dated and blocky IMO. The only coaster worth mentioning was the Wicked Witch, it had aa nice layout, but it was a lil heavy on the brakes before the corkscrews (I hate brakes before elements) My coaster was totaly crap, Il admit that now, the flying monkies was too slow and looked plain, side from a few trees there was no theming. The rocket coaster was un origional. The woodie was just plain ugly.

After such a wonderful VP in Wisconsin, this months park IMO was more like a hidden park. Im sorry but if this is the quality of the most prestigeous award at RCT2.com then I think il avoid wasting bandwidth on future VP's and just simply not download them.

[The Iron Dragon]

Congrats, RCT:I! i'm going to check out the park right now.

[John2889]

I would definitely agree with VooDoo. This park was started too long ago and is just not up to par with what people can do today and a complete letdown from Wisconsin which was brilliant.

It'd be interesting to know where Meretrix's Disney's Tilted Acres fits into this equation...