Roller Coaster Tycoon vs. Theme Park
Donna Suarez
the evolution of RCT. Is it actually an updated (and somewhat changed)
version of Theme Park? Was it programmed by the same person(s)?
Thanks,
Donna
Donna Suarez
it; the rides, the scenery, the park attendants; the food concessions.
About the only thing that RCT doesn't have that Theme Park did have is the
arcade games. If they weren't designed by the same programmer then the
Theme Park folks should sue the RCT programmers for plagiarism.
Donna
Anthony Houghton wrote in message <7drpkh$i4q$1...@irk.zetnet.co.uk>...
Donna Suarez wrote in message <7dpjr2$77l$1...@fir.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
>There are so many similarities between these two games. Does anyone know
>the evolution of RCT. Is it actually an updated (and somewhat changed)
>version of Theme Park? Was it programmed by the same person(s)?
No. Roller Coaster Tycoon is the creation of Chris Sawyer, of Transport
Tycoon fame, and shares the same look and feel as his earlier game. It's
basically a development of the railway building idea, except that these ones
can loop the loop, turn corkscrews, etc.
Theme Park is more of a business sim based around constructing a Theme Park.
Inevitably when you're designing a game based on Theme/Amusement Parks there
are going to be similarities, but these similarities seem to have come about
at the end of the design process; the two games appear to have started from
rather different points.
Ant
Anthony Houghton
Jason Iannuzzi
And Westwood would sue Blizzard.
etc, etc.
It's called a genre.
:)
Ron Watkins
> it; the rides, the scenery, the park attendants; the food concessions.
> About the only thing that RCT doesn't have that Theme Park did have is the
> arcade games. If they weren't designed by the same programmer then the
> Theme Park folks should sue the RCT programmers for plagiarism.
But Theme Park kinda sucked. It was slow and buggy. RollerCoaster Tycoon is
the exact opposite -- slick, polished, and very stable. A truly outstanding
game. Cheap, too!
<<RON>>
S FRANKS
>Everything about RCT is very similar to
>> it; the rides, the scenery, the park attendants; the food concessions.
>> About the only thing that RCT doesn't have that Theme Park did have is the
>> arcade games.
>But Theme Park kinda sucked. It was slow and buggy. RollerCoaster Tycoon is
>the exact opposite -- slick, polished, and very stable. A truly outstanding
>game. Cheap, too!
>
While the comparisons are unmistakeable, the rides in Theme Park were juvenile.
In RollerCoast Tycoon, they are all REAL rides that can be found in any decent
park. If you ever played Theme Park but was left wanting more, come to RCT and
fill your plate high.
Steve F.
foamy
sfr...@aol.com (S FRANKS) wrote:
>>From: Ron Watkins
>
>>Everything about RCT is very similar to
>>> it; the rides, the scenery, the park attendants; the food concessions.
>>> About the only thing that RCT doesn't have that Theme Park did have is the
>>> arcade games.
>While the comparisons are unmistakeable, the rides in Theme Park were juvenile.
> In RollerCoast Tycoon, they are all REAL rides that can be found in any decent
>park. If you ever played Theme Park but was left wanting more, come to RCT and
>fill your plate high.
>Steve F.
I'm curious as to how RCT can be produced. It appears to be a blatant
knockoff of Theme Park.
Jim
foamy
look@the_bottom.com (rrevved) wrote
>>I'm curious as to how RCT can be produced. It appears to be a blatant
>>knockoff of Theme Park.
>>Jim
>Foamy, I guess you're wrong.. LOL!!!!!!
Well I looked at the screen shots, and read a preview, and I can't see
any difference. Even the concession stands looked the same.
What does RCT have now that TP didn't have then ?
Jim
Chris Miller
the same way Unreal is similar to Quake.
<Or> in the same way Total Annihilation is similar to the original Command
and Conquer.
<Or> in the same way Falcon 4.0 is similar to F16: Top Gun.
Clearly very similar games, but one has distinct advantages (in most peoples
minds) over the other. These advantages (and the many other "little
differences") make it unique enough to sell.
That's my thinking anyway.
RCT and Theme Park are certainly in the same ballpark, but for lots of
reasons RCT seems to have "hooked" many more people than Theme Park ever did
so there must be some significant differences.
Chris
foamy wrote in message ...
>In article <19990406233641...@ng123.aol.com>,
> sfr...@aol.com (S FRANKS) wrote:
>>>From: Ron Watkins
>>
>>>Everything about RCT is very similar to
>>>> it; the rides, the scenery, the park attendants; the food concessions.
>>>> About the only thing that RCT doesn't have that Theme Park did have is
the
>>>> arcade games.
>xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>While the comparisons are unmistakeable, the rides in Theme Park were
juvenile.
>> In RollerCoast Tycoon, they are all REAL rides that can be found in any
decent
>>park. If you ever played Theme Park but was left wanting more, come to
RCT and
>>fill your plate high.
>>Steve F.
>xxxxxxxxxxxx
>
foamy
look@the_bottom.com (rrevved) wrote:
>So if a knight in one game looks similar to a knight in another game,
>there is "blatant" knockoff-ing occuring? LOL!!!!
You know, I've been very polite, and simply asked questions. I'm getting a
little fucking sick of your responses, with their inherent air of superiority.
First of all, judging from this last non-answer, you wouldn't recognize a
syllogism if it jumped up and bit your ass. No, it's not a matter of a
" knight " looking similar in two different games. It's a matter of the two
games in question being virtually identical, with any differences being
subtle and / or irrelevant. The philosophy, objective, and means by which
objectives are met, result in very little distinction being able to be made
between the two games.
>Jim, why not read the rave comments here and in the alt.games.rctycoon
>newsgroup and learn for yourself?
What do rave reviews have to do with my questions which you failed to
address. Your function appears to be that of an online asskisser for
Microprose. My questions had NOTHING to do with whether the game is
good, bad or indifferent.
For the benefit of others, I have the game and like it a lot. My questions
are addressed to anyone, who like me is curious how Microprose is able
to virtually duplicate another publishers game, and apparently not break
any laws. Are games considered intellectual property [ with the attendant
protection ] or are they similar to the " Amazing Vegomatic " patentable
for a period of time, or are they fair game [ npi ] to be replicated without
protection ? Could anyone take RCT, add a couple more bells and whistles
and market it with impunity under a different name ?
Jim
tv's Spatch
>What does RCT have now that TP didn't have then ?
Playability.
Replayability.
Roller coasters that actually follow the laws of physics.
More advanced coasters and ride designs.
A more sophisticated guest AI.
Smoother, less overly-cartoony graphics.
Better finance handling.
Details where it counts (ride operation) and less details where
it really doesn't count (how much freakin' salt to put on fries,
when to re-order food)
Authentic coaster animation -- the inverted coaster's track
actually looks like a B&M inverted, the corkscrew coaster looks
like an Arrow multi-looper, etc.
Emphasis on ride construction, not park micromanagement
I believe this is a decent enough list to start with without having to
stoop to "guh, what an incredibly lame blanket statement to make"
arguments. Sure, both games let you create amusement parks and watch
the little people run around them and when they puke they make the
same little noise and leave the same-looking puddle on the ground, but
that does not mean Rollercoaster Tycoon is blatantly ripping off Theme
Park. If anything, it's enhancing -- and finishing -- what Theme Park
started.
--
der Spatchel R. Noyes
Reading, MA 01867
http://spatch.ne.mediaone.net/
1.Steel Force 2.Texas Giant 3.Alpengeist 4.Excalibur 5.Phoenix 6.GE Comet
foamy
spatula@!nnuendo.com (tv's Spatch) wrote:
>>What does RCT have now that TP didn't have then ?
>Playability.
Subjective and personal preference, therefore not relevant.
>Replayability.
Above applies, not relevant.
>Roller coasters that actually follow the laws of physics.
>More advanced coasters and ride designs.
Better coasters does not address the question of what RCT has
that TP doesn't. They both have coasters. The question is NOT
what RCT does better, it is was is unique to RCT.
>A more sophisticated guest AI.
Above applies...not relevant.
>Smoother, less overly-cartoony graphics.
Subjective, see above.
>Better finance handling
*yawn*...see above
>Details where it counts (ride operation) and less details where
> it really doesn't count (how much freakin' salt to put on fries,
> when to re-order food)
See above..hmm I wonder if you ever are going to address the
question, well let's see.
>Authentic coaster animation -- the inverted coaster's track
> actually looks like a B&M inverted, the corkscrew coaster looks
> like an Arrow multi-looper, etc.
Nope, not relevant to the question.
>Emphasis on ride construction, not park micromanagement
Redundantly irrelevant.
>I believe this is a decent enough list to start with without having to
>stoop to "guh, what an incredibly lame blanket statement to make"
>arguments.
You still have not posted a SINGLE thing RCT has that TP doesn't. So what
you like certain aspects of RTC, and you feel some aspects are " better " ?
I probably agree with you, however you still have failed to demonstrate
any tangible differences between the games.
Sure, both games let you create amusement parks and watch
>the little people run around them and when they puke they make the
>same little noise and leave the same-looking puddle on the ground, but
>that does not mean Rollercoaster Tycoon is blatantly ripping off Theme
>Park. If anything, it's enhancing -- and finishing -- what Theme Park
>started.
Your post has demonstrated you are unable to provide any differences,
other than things you like better, or feel is accomplished better.
Jim
shadows
>What do rave reviews have to do with my questions which you failed to
>address. Your function appears to be that of an online asskisser for
>Microprose. My questions had NOTHING to do with whether the game is
>good, bad or indifferent.
If its any consulation, most posters will claim a game is great.
Those who are not interested may post a small flame but will usually
be battered by idiotic fanatics from hell who think a game is gawd's
hand coming down and touching them. No really, I saw the flurry of
HOMM3 posts and thought "you have got to be kidding me." I found by
kill filing the abbreviated prefix (see README_FIRST) to a game one
can do away with those games one feels are utterly pathetic.
What sickens me the most is that every subscriber on the planet has
to post about a game being great. I've seen like 10 posts going "RCT
rules." But very few of them will respond to critcism responsibly
and coherently. The original poster is just as you said a blind pup.
I'm not kill filing RCT posts just yet. I sort of like to see
mindless drones draw rollercoasters, watch them go, and shout "game!
game!" In saying that, kill filing a game means I don't like it,
which is an opinion and not necessarily gospel.
>For the benefit of others, I have the game and like it a lot. My questions
Die drone! :-)
--
Thamer Al-Herbish <URL http://www.whitefang.com/>
[ The Secure UNIX Programming FAQ <URL http://www.whitefang.com/sup/ > ]
Bruce Gottfred
> If its any consulation, most posters will claim a game is great.
> Those who are not interested may post a small flame but will usually
> be battered by idiotic fanatics from hell who think a game is gawd's
> hand coming down and touching them. No really, I saw the flurry of
> HOMM3 posts and thought "you have got to be kidding me." I found by
> kill filing the abbreviated prefix (see README_FIRST) to a game one
> can do away with those games one feels are utterly pathetic.
>
> What sickens me the most is that every subscriber on the planet has
> to post about a game being great. I've seen like 10 posts going "RCT
> rules." But very few of them will respond to critcism responsibly
> and coherently. The original poster is just as you said a blind pup.
>
> I'm not kill filing RCT posts just yet. I sort of like to see
> mindless drones draw rollercoasters, watch them go, and shout "game!
> game!" In saying that, kill filing a game means I don't like it,
> which is an opinion and not necessarily gospel.
Shadows, I'm very concerned. I've always endevored to make your visit to this
newsgroup more pleasurable for you. But up until now I have had no idea that
the many posts praising games like HOMM3 or RCT were so sickening to you. I
know ignorance is no excuse, so all I can do is apologize for the inconvenience
I've caused you. I think I can speak for most of the other 'drones' and 'idiot
fanatics' here by saying from now all we will keep our comments on games from
cluttering up this gaming newsgroup. I will try to confine my posts to topics
such as operating systems that you like to participate in. I may make the
occasional error though, so please feel free to flame me if that happens.
--
Bruce Gottfred
gott...@cyberus.ca
Bruce Gottfred
> In article <370e32cd...@news.ne.mediaone.net>,
> spatula@!nnuendo.com (tv's Spatch) wrote:
<snip>
> >Better finance handling
>
> *yawn*...see above
>
> >Details where it counts (ride operation) and less details where
> > it really doesn't count (how much freakin' salt to put on fries,
> > when to re-order food)
>
> See above..hmm I wonder if you ever are going to address the
> question, well let's see.
>
> >Authentic coaster animation -- the inverted coaster's track
> > actually looks like a B&M inverted, the corkscrew coaster looks
> > like an Arrow multi-looper, etc.
>
> Nope, not relevant to the question.
<snip more of same>
So foamy, you asked a question, got someone's earnest reply, and then decided
out to mock it. Do you want to discuss the game or have a flamewar? I really
only can believe you're after the latter. If you really wanted information you
would treat his reply with respect, and maybe refine your question to get the
information you're interested in. But if you want a flamewar you're going
about it the correct way...
--
Bruce Gottfred
gott...@cyberus.ca
Trent
>
> foamy fo...@direct.ca wrote:
>
> >What do rave reviews have to do with my questions which you failed to
> >address. Your function appears to be that of an online asskisser for
> >Microprose. My questions had NOTHING to do with whether the game is
> >good, bad or indifferent.
>
> Those who are not interested may post a small flame but will usually
> be battered by idiotic fanatics from hell who think a game is gawd's
> hand coming down and touching them. No really, I saw the flurry of
> HOMM3 posts and thought "you have got to be kidding me." I found by
> kill filing the abbreviated prefix (see README_FIRST) to a game one
> can do away with those games one feels are utterly pathetic.
>
> What sickens me the most is that every subscriber on the planet has
> to post about a game being great.
It's called "word of mouth."
> I've seen like 10 posts going "RCT
> rules."
Compared to the 100 posts about "CTP: Returning it", "CTP:
Disappointed", etc..
>But very few of them will respond to critcism responsibly
> and coherently. The original poster is just as you said a blind pup.
>
Well, I haven't played Theme Park, so I really can't compare the two
games. But ask me an honest question about RCT, and I'll give you an
honest answer. I do think it has some minor problems (most of these
problems are only problems when contrasted with the rest of the game,
like "How come I can name guests but not my workers?").
> I'm not kill filing RCT posts just yet. I sort of like to see
> mindless drones draw rollercoasters, watch them go, and shout "game!
> game!"
With this statement, you have clearly illustrated that you have not
played the game and know practically nothing about it.
>In saying that, kill filing a game means I don't like it,
> which is an opinion and not necessarily gospel.
I don't think RCT has been getting enough attention. I have written to
most of the major gameing websites asking them how come they haven't
reviewed the game yet. In my opinion, this game deserves more
attention.
>
> >For the benefit of others, I have the game and like it a lot. My questions
>
> Die drone! :-)
>
-----> Trent
"High ping builds character."
Sam Liao
<snip>
> What do rave reviews have to do with my questions which you failed to
> address. Your function appears to be that of an online asskisser for
> Microprose. My questions had NOTHING to do with whether the game is
> good, bad or indifferent.
>
> to virtually duplicate another publishers game, and apparently not break
> any laws. Are games considered intellectual property [ with the attendant
> protection ] or are they similar to the " Amazing Vegomatic " patentable
> for a period of time, or are they fair game [ npi ] to be replicated without
> protection ? Could anyone take RCT, add a couple more bells and whistles
> and market it with impunity under a different name ?
Ideas are not protected by any copyright law, since many people could
have the same idea at the same time, only the end product is protected.
Since Microprose didn't steal TP's source code or anything, and they do
have many unique features and differences[improvements] (graphics,
authenticity, realistic physics), it's not at all a rip-off. Likewise,
anyone can take, say the Civilization idea, add couple of bells and
whistles, as you call it, set it in another galaxy, and call it Alpha
Centauri.
> Jim
name
> For the benefit of others, I have the game and like it a lot. My questions
> are addressed to anyone, who like me is curious how Microprose is able
> to virtually duplicate another publishers game, and apparently not break
> any laws. Are games considered intellectual property [ with the attendant
> protection ] or are they similar to the " Amazing Vegomatic " patentable
> for a period of time, or are they fair game [ npi ] to be replicated without
> protection ? Could anyone take RCT, add a couple more bells and whistles
> and market it with impunity under a different name ?
I'm no expert by a long shot, but it's my understanding that you
cannot copyright an _idea_, only the particulars in how you
implemented it; otherwise creativity would be completely stifled. If
you think about it, there are very few truly original ideas. Most
things "new" owe their existence to what has gone before. Now I own
neither game, but I doubt RCT is similar enough to TP to be considered
a violation of copyright. A rip-off sure, but not illegal. But then
again, I'm not expert and that's what lawyers are for... :-)
Thomas Diederich
Trent <tlu...@bu.edu> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag: 370CF1...@bu.edu...
> I don't think RCT has been getting enough attention. I have written to
> most of the major gameing websites asking them how come they haven't
> reviewed the game yet. In my opinion, this game deserves more
> attention.
Hm, the two major german game mags, GameStar and PC Games, reviewed the
game. But RCT scored about 79-80% in both of them. This rating is not bad,
but not as high as I think it should be. It愀 not the first time my favorite
games get lower scores than deserved (I-War for example was rated way below
Prophecy, though I-War is far better, and got lots of raving reviews in the
action and space-sim newsgroups, meanwhile Prophecy was rarely mentioned
there...)
That愀 live, I guess :)
Regards, Thomas
foamy
Sam Liao <wt...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
<snipped>
Likewise,
>anyone can take, say the Civilization idea, add couple of bells and
>whistles, as you call it, set it in another galaxy, and call it Alpha
>Centauri.
>> Jim
Well except the same person created Civ, added bells and whistles, set
it in another Galaxy, and called it Alpha Centauri....Sid Meier.
Jim
foamy
Bruce Gottfred <gott...@cyberus.ca> wrote:
>So foamy, you asked a question, got someone's earnest reply, and then decided
>out to mock it.
Bruce the reply might have been earnest, but it didn't answer the question
which I sincerely asked. Didn't you understand any of the points I made to
him, regardless of if you think it was mocking ?
The question was what does RCT have that TP didn't. Everyone of his
answers were either RCT does that better, or I like this better. I'm sorry
but those responses are irrelevant to the question.
If you really wanted information you
>would treat his reply with respect, and maybe refine your question to get the
>information you're interested in.
Well I can't believe you read the post. How much clearer [ or refined ] can
the question I posed and repeated numerous times get ?
What does RCT have that TP didn't ? If you had been with the thread from
the beginning you would understand that this question was relative to RCT
being a knockoff of TP. The question cannot be any more straightforward.
Jim
Sam Liao
Sid Meier didn't create AC, but that's another topic. You snapped the
important part of the post though. My point was that ideas are not, and
cannot be copyrighted. In the other post you said "The question was what
does RCT have that TP didn't. Everyone of his answers were either RCT
does that better, or I like this better.", well, if they haven't done
anything different, how could it possibly be better. They must have done
something different to make it better. The NEW things in RCT are
authenticity of rollercoasters and other rides, realistic physics, and
advanced AI. Even though the idea is the same, the implementation was
much different, and RCT did it a lot better than TP.
Bruce Gottfred
> In article <370C9883...@cyberus.ca>,
> Bruce Gottfred <gott...@cyberus.ca> wrote:
>
> >So foamy, you asked a question, got someone's earnest reply, and then decided
> >out to mock it.
>
> Bruce the reply might have been earnest, but it didn't answer the question
> which I sincerely asked. Didn't you understand any of the points I made to
> him, regardless of if you think it was mocking ?
I think you misunderstand the purpose of a newsgroup. It is not your personal
intelligence service. If someone takes the time to try to answer your questions
and doesn't give the answer you want (whatever it is, I'm still not sure) you
don't have the right to mock him. At the risk of sounding like someones mother:
You've been very rude. Bad boy.
> The question was what does RCT have that TP didn't. Everyone of his
> answers were either RCT does that better, or I like this better. I'm sorry
> but those responses are irrelevant to the question.
I thought they were pretty good answers. One thing he said was that RCT has
realistic modeling of the physics of coasters. How is that irrelevant?
> If you really wanted information you
> >would treat his reply with respect, and maybe refine your question to get the
> >information you're interested in.
>
> Well I can't believe you read the post. How much clearer [ or refined ] can
> the question I posed and repeated numerous times get ?
> What does RCT have that TP didn't ? If you had been with the thread from
> the beginning you would understand that this question was relative to RCT
> being a knockoff of TP. The question cannot be any more straightforward.
And it has been answered many times. If you don't like the answers say why. Say
what you think. Have a discussion. Mother Bruce again: I just don't understand
the need for this nasty attitude, young man...
--
Bruce Gottfred
gott...@cyberus.ca
Jason Travis
> the beginning you would understand that this question was relative to RCT
> being a knockoff of TP. The question cannot be any more straightforward.
What does RCT have that TP doesn't? Realism. In Theme Park, all you
basically had to do to build a coaster was make a square with some slight up
and down hills. You *could* do more, but creating a coaster that was in any
way appealing caused it to fling the guests off of it left and right.
It also has detail. You can paint the coasters and rides different colors,
set the number of trains and cars per train, and even change ride vehicles
if your research develops new ones. You can send track underground. I
don't remember if TP had land contours either, I think it was all flat.
It also has variety. TP had two types of rollercoasters. RCT has about
ten.
If you're just trying to make the point that RCT is ripped off of TP...well,
it is some way. But how many different ways can a sim game run? You have
squares, you have roads, you have research structures...
tv's Spatch
>Better coasters does not address the question of what RCT has
>that TP doesn't. They both have coasters. The question is NOT
>what RCT does better, it is was is unique to RCT.
However, substantial improvements towards gameplay and design should
not automatically make a game a "ripoff" of a previous work. I'd love
to discuss this more with you, but you're clearly not worth my, nor
anybody else's time. Thank god my killfile is purely subjective and a
personal preference.
Goodbye.
*plonk*
foamy
Sam Liao <wt...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Sid Meier didn't create AC, but that's another topic.
Well as co-owner with Reynolds of Fireaxis who developed the game
called Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri, I think it would be picking nits to
suggest he didn't " create " the game. He might no have written the code,
but he certainly was responsible for the games creation, and the foundation
upon which the game was built.
You snapped the
>important part of the post though. My point was that ideas are not, and
>cannot be copyrighted.
I didn't snip it for any sinister motive. I snipped it because ideas can be
copyrighted under certain circumstances, and intellectual property rights
do exist. An obvious example would be the notes you scribbled down
when you had an idea for a movie. The ideas expressed in those notes
could and most likely would be protected. I simply felt it was too complex
an issue deal with in this thread, in that the actual production of TP took
it a step farther than simply an idea.
In the other post you said "The question was what
>does RCT have that TP didn't. Everyone of his answers were either RCT
>does that better, or I like this better.", well, if they haven't done
>anything different, how could it possibly be better.
With all due respect, you are missing the point. DOING the same thing
more efficiently [ ie better ] does not mean there is any substantial
difference in the content between the games. For example, a keyboard
shortcut that allows you to place an hot-dog stand, does not alter the
fact that there are hot-dog stands in both games.
They must have done
>something different to make it better. The NEW things in RCT are
>authenticity of rollercoasters and other rides, realistic physics, and
>advanced AI. Even though the idea is the same, the implementation was
>much different, and RCT did it a lot better than TP.
I give up. You are also stuck on the " better " issue. I'm talking
quantitative differences, while you are talking qualitative. I guess
we will simply have to agree to disagree.
Jim
Unkempt
On Thu, 08 Apr 1999 23:21:14 GMT fo...@direct.ca (foamy) wrote:
> Well I can't believe you read the post. How much clearer [ or refined ] can
> the question I posed and repeated numerous times get ?
> What does RCT have that TP didn't ? If you had been with the thread from
> the beginning you would understand that this question was relative to RCT
> being a knockoff of TP. The question cannot be any more straightforward.
>
I really don't understand this argument. Both games are simulations of
something that exists in real life. How many flight sims are there out
there? How many WW2 flight sims that model, say, the Spitfire? In which
you have to shoot down Me 109s? Is every one since the first a rip off?
Nobody owns the idea for WW2; similarly, nobody owns the idea for theme
parks. Games that simulate aspects of real life have been around since
gaming started. What's the problem?
Cheers,
Conrad
--
Posted via Talkway - http://www.talkway.com
Surf Usenet at home, on the road, and by email -- always at Talkway.
Sam Liao
>
> In article <370D577A...@ix.netcom.com>,
> Sam Liao <wt...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >Sid Meier didn't create AC, but that's another topic.
>
> Well as co-owner with Reynolds of Fireaxis who developed the game
> called Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri, I think it would be picking nits to
> suggest he didn't " create " the game. He might no have written the code,
> but he certainly was responsible for the games creation, and the foundation
> upon which the game was built.
The name was placed to add more sales. It has the big letter "Brian
Reynolds Design" on it. However, like I said, it's another topic.
> You snapped the
> >important part of the post though. My point was that ideas are not, and
> >cannot be copyrighted.
>
> I didn't snip it for any sinister motive. I snipped it because ideas can be
> copyrighted under certain circumstances, and intellectual property rights
> do exist. An obvious example would be the notes you scribbled down
> when you had an idea for a movie. The ideas expressed in those notes
> could and most likely would be protected. I simply felt it was too complex
> an issue deal with in this thread, in that the actual production of TP took
> it a step farther than simply an idea.
Actually, the notes itself is protected but the idea isn't. People can
use the idea written in the notes but not the exact word. Look at the
amount of Shakespearean movies, W.W.II movies, Titanic movies, even EDtv
and Truman Show. Just because Spielberg write down "Y2K" doesn't mean no
one else can do anything on the year 2000, the year 2000 bug, or
whatever he likes to explain those 3 alphanumerals.
> In the other post you said "The question was what
> >does RCT have that TP didn't. Everyone of his answers were either RCT
> >does that better, or I like this better.", well, if they haven't done
> >anything different, how could it possibly be better.
>
> With all due respect, you are missing the point. DOING the same thing
> more efficiently [ ie better ] does not mean there is any substantial
> difference in the content between the games. For example, a keyboard
> shortcut that allows you to place an hot-dog stand, does not alter the
> fact that there are hot-dog stands in both games.
But if one hot dog stand sells hot dog (realistic) and the other sells,
say, ketchup & pickles (unrealistic), then there is a significant
difference. The same applies for the rides physics.
> They must have done
> >something different to make it better. The NEW things in RCT are
> >authenticity of rollercoasters and other rides, realistic physics, and
> >advanced AI. Even though the idea is the same, the implementation was
> >much different, and RCT did it a lot better than TP.
>
> I give up. You are also stuck on the " better " issue. I'm talking
> quantitative differences, while you are talking qualitative. I guess
> we will simply have to agree to disagree.
You never used the word quantitative difference in any other post,
instead you use the word "difference", which includes both. All right,
you want something that is not in TP, a separate queue line, a sand
path, martian texture, egyptian theme, roman theme, wonderland theme...
I mean how else can you implement a theme park simulation without a
roller coaster, some rides, entrance/exit, people, and all those stuff?
That is not called ripping off, there is simply no other way. They can
only make "qualitative differences" or it wouldn't be a theme par
simulation.
> Jim
Rich LaPorte
I do have something kind of Interesting in the way of Roller Coaster Tycoon
Reviews.
The first is from David Pipes who is a regular contributor to Gone Gold, and
he gives the game our highest rating "Pure Gold":
http://www.gonegold.com/reviews/mostwanted/rct/rct.shtml
Then, in addition, I have a Guest Reviewer. Mike Weiner. While everyone is
comparing RCT to Theme Park (And rightfully so.) do any of you remember a
little game by the name of "Coaster", which was published by Disney back in
the late 80's? Well, Mike was the guy behind that project, and he also gives
his thoughts on the game (Again rating it Pure Gold.)...
http://www.gonegold.com/reviews/mostwanted/rct/rctreview2.shtml
So although Gone Gold is hardly a pimple on the ass of the Internet, we did
give the game a lot of attention. ;-)
--
~Rich LaPorte
Gone Gold
http://www.gonegold.com
The New Releases Section Of The Web
Thomas Diederich <thomas.d...@stud.tu-muenchen.de> wrote in message
news:7ej7si$2ns$1...@sparcserver.lrz-muenchen.de...
Phaedrus
foamy <fo...@direct.ca> wrote:
>In article <370D577A...@ix.netcom.com>,
> Sam Liao <wt...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>You snapped the
>>important part of the post though. My point was that ideas are not, and
>>cannot be copyrighted.
>I didn't snip it for any sinister motive. I snipped it because ideas can be
>copyrighted under certain circumstances, and intellectual property rights
>do exist. An obvious example would be the notes you scribbled down
>when you had an idea for a movie. The ideas expressed in those notes
>could and most likely would be protected. I simply felt it was too complex
>an issue deal with in this thread, in that the actual production of TP took
>it a step farther than simply an idea.
At least under US copyright law (and, I believe, under Canadian
copyright law as well), "Ideas can be copyrighted under certain
circumstances" simply isn't true. An idea can _never_ be copyrighted; only
a particular _expression_ of an idea can be. If you write a novel, the
ideas in your head aren't copyrightable; only the words you wrote, in the
particular order you wrote them, are. If I start printing copies of your
novel without your consent, that's copyright violation. But if I shamelessly
steal every detail of plot and characterization from your novel, and rewrite
it in my own words, that's not copyright violation. (If I use your character
names, that may or may not be a _trademark_ violation, but that's a different
kettle of fish.) If I steal your notes, and write my novel based on those
notes, that's not copyright violation either (though it may well be theft).
--
\o\ If you're interested in books and stories with transformation themes, \o\
/o/ please have a look at <URL:http://www.halcyon.com/phaedrus>. Thanks! /o/
\o\ FC1.21:FC(W/C)p6arw A- C->++ D>++ H+ M>+ P R T++++ W** Z+ Sm RLCT \o\
/o/ a cmn++++$ d e++ f+++ h- i++wf p-- sm# /o/
Ron Watkins
> and market it with impunity under a different name ?
As long as it's a re-implementation from scratch (doesn't steal any source
code), and which doesn't use any patented algorithms.
<<RON>>
Patrick Maloney
Distribution:
No, this guy is not a loser who needs a life. Look, who gives a
shit what you think. Either you like the game or you don't. I
do find your "the facts are irrelevant in this case" approach
though...very funny.
foamy (fo...@direct.ca) wrote:
: In article <370e32cd...@news.ne.mediaone.net>,
: spatula@!nnuendo.com (tv's Spatch) wrote:
:
: >>What does RCT have now that TP didn't have then ?
: