OpenRCT2
OpenRCT2 copied to clipboard
OpenRCT2
Change Wacky Worlds and Time Twister's scenario names to match their park names.
The names for WW and TT's scenarios are quite lengthy and don't follow the usual naming conventions of the vanilla scenarios. In addition, some inaccuracies or inconveniences are created by their current names. Below are a few examples.
"Great Wall of China" would be more succinct than "Asia - Great Wall of China Tourism Enhancement." The same is also true of "North America - Rollercoaster Heaven" vs. "Rollercoaster Heaven."
The primary structure displayed inside the park boundaries of "South America - Inca Lost City" is the Chichén Itzá, which is a Mayan structure in Mexico. This scenario is neither in South America nor Incan. Changing it to "Lost City Founder" would resolve this.
Hawaii is not located inside of North America. Changing "N. America - Extreme Hawaiian Island" to "Wacky Waikiki" fixes this.
"Future World" is already a scenario that exists in Added Attractions/Corkscrew Follies. Changing "Future - Future World" to "Gemini City" would resolve this confusion.
The scenario name "Rock 'n' Roll - Rock 'n' Roll" is a redundancy. Changing it to "Rock 'n' Roll Revival" clears this up.
The .SC6 scenario filenames would still retain their original names.
I think this is a marked improvement. However, I wonder if the old name should show up somewhere. I don't think we have any secondary fields to use for such purposes, though. (I know the filenames will still show the original name, but those are hidden unless debug tools are active.)
We could list them in the description. With the UCES scenarios I put "Author: ######" at the bottom of each description since there's no such field for scenarios. I think we could perhaps say "Original Name: ###### - ##############"
@karst Hard disagree, I’m afraid. That just takes away immersion in my opinion.
I think the game should look and feel like one piece, adding trivia like that takes that away.
We could list them in the description. With the UCES scenarios I put "Author: ######" at the bottom of each description since there's no such field for scenarios. I think we could perhaps say "Original Name: ###### - ##############"
While that would be nice, it would also feel very much out of place being put there, sadly.
Why should the park name always be the same as the scenario name? Vanilla base RCT2 already allows to give those a different name. So is that a problem? I'm against changing those if that's the only reason. I'm ok with it for specific parks if there is a better reason like the redundancy with rock and roll. If the theme (continent or time era) will not be visible anymore, I would like to see it somewhere in the side. That theme also indicates which scenery theme and rides you will get. Because of that the argument of Inca Lost City and Extreme Hawaiian Island being in the wrong continent is a bit farfetched in my opinion. Especially for Hawaii: the islands may not be geographically in North America but it belongs to the USA which is in North America. And not everything in a game should be super realistic. The Antarctic theme for example has some objects that are actually arctic which is odd but also funny.
Why should the park name always be the same as the scenario name? Vanilla base RCT2 already allows to give those a different name. So is that a problem? I'm against changing those if that's the only reason. I'm ok with it for specific parks if there is a better reason like the redundancy with rock and roll. If the theme (continent or time era) will not be visible anymore, I would like to see it somewhere in the side. That theme also indicates which scenery theme and rides you will get. Because of that the argument of Inca Lost City and Extreme Hawaiian Island being in the wrong continent is a bit farfetched in my opinion. Especially for Hawaii: the islands may not be geographically in North America but it belongs to the USA which is in North America. And not everything in a game should be super realistic. The Antarctic theme for example has some objects that are actually arctic which is odd but also funny.
So something along the lines of keeping the categorization prefix, but changing the sub-header for each where it is needed? ex: (Future - Gemini City)
Going into this PR I fully expected pushback, and am completely okay with this going either way. I don't think a change of this significance should proceed without a conversation first.
@karst Hard disagree, I’m afraid. That just takes away immersion in my opinion.
I think the game should look and feel like one piece, adding trivia like that takes that away.
What about Timeline for TT and Location for WW? Or that still be too much trivia?
IDM either way with or without.
Perhaps the names could resemble the old names without the timeline/location in the name with the exception of confusing ones like you mentioned before.
The other option I could think of would be adding an overall toggle between scenario names and park names, but that would be a bigger thing to implement.
The other option I could think of would be adding an overall toggle between scenario names and park names, but that would be a bigger thing to implement.
Nah, I don't think we should give that option. It's unnecessary.
What about this:
<Africa - African Diamond Mine>
STR_SCNR :African Diamond Mine
STR_PARK :Mines of Africa
STR_DTLS :Location: Africa{NEWLINE}You inherited a disused diamond mine, and find a valuable diamond. You decide to invest that money to build a world-famous theme park.
<Dark Age - Castle>
STR_SCNR :Castle
STR_PARK :Cliffside Castle
STR_DTLS :Timeline: Dark Age{NEWLINE}Local members of the battle re-enactment society are rather serious about their hobby. They’ve entrusted you with the job of constructing a Dark Age theme park on the grounds of Cliffside Castle.
It almost makes them sound like missions, which I think adds to the immersion.
I don’t think that would improve anything. Most themes are already evident from the title or description to begin with, and for the cases where they aren’t (like Beach Barbecue Blast), it’s a surprise to the player. Which is fine in my book - we don’t need to pre-chew everything.
I know you are big on adding trivia, but let’s just keep this simple ;-)
That's fine! Then I recommend just keeping the old names without their location/timeline, with the exception of confusing names.
I'm against changing the names, there are probably a lot of things that reference it by their current name and changing that will cause just confusion.
That's fine! Then I recommend just keeping the old names without their location/timeline, with the exception of confusing names.
I agree with keeping most of the scenario names. I would be sad to see those thrown away. Although I would like the themes somewhere in the side if those would be removed from the scenario name. I would like to have an easy overview, even as a quite experienced player that knows the scenarios.
Another idea would be to drop the title descriptors, but keep most of the original names, with the exception of ones like Future World (Gemini City) and Rock 'n' Roll (Rock 'n' Roll Revival).
Maybe we should just put up a poll on Reddit for a week, then. I really like this change and I think most people would like it once they get used to it. (That is, if they care for the WW/TT scenarios in the first place.)
Maybe, but if this proposal would be voted for, I still question how this change is made, when I look to the changed files: it makes all scenario name strings the same as the park name strings, resulting in redundant strings. So I wonder if it would be better then to keep the current names internally but use the park name strings in the overview. That would have 2 advantages:
- reduced chance of ZehMatt's concern about breaking references
- The current/old name could be shown somewhere in the side (what I would REALLY like if this change will pass) without needing extra fields or strings.
Maybe we should just put up a poll on Reddit for a week, then. I really like this change and I think most people would like it once they get used to it. (That is, if they care for the WW/TT scenarios in the first place.)
So something along the lines of showing the options in full, and asking which ones everyone prefers?
Keep Original
Drop Categorization, keep scenario names
Drop Categorization, use park names
Drop Categorization, use a mix of park and scenario names (this example prioritizes needed location names & catchier titles)
A suggestion was brought up in the discord to synchronize the park names and scenario names in all cases, even for the hybrid choice, as significant differences there become an obstacle for finding your save file, like looking for a file named "Over The Edge" for the scenario titled "Victoria Falls".
Maybe we should just put up a poll on Reddit for a week, then. I really like this change and I think most people would like it once they get used to it. (That is, if they care for the WW/TT scenarios in the first place.)
here's that poll in proper: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdL3LIeomzNDP3gbEJyJDDul1MgAnOxeP59zqXxtlOtCMOwyQ/viewform
It's been posted on reddit, the openrct2 forums, rctgo, and a couple different discord servers. I'll check back on it in about a week.
We're roughly a week out since i began the poll (I shared it here 2 days after I initially opened it), and votes have slowed down significantly.
Here's what we've got.
Seems like the majority are for changing it.
Only thing I'm concerned about is Victoria Falls and Inca Lost City, as their park names don't quite work as scenario names?
But otherwise it seems like we're good to go.
Part of me thinks this change shouldn't be pushed through until the list for the scenario order is finalized, so it's one simultaneous big change to the list, rather than having to deal with it twice.
I still don't think that changing the scenario names is a good idea. People are used to what it is and guidelines will have the name that it currently is, so why change it?
By guidelines, are you meaning what the scenario names are referred to as in various other parts of the code & documents?
By guidelines, are you meaning what the scenario names are referred to as in various other parts of the code & documents?
There is for example also the RCT wiki, which will still have to refer to the original names for people who play vanilla. So I still think it's a bad idea to just throw away those official names, and I would rather do a change like I posted in my previous comment here.
I still don't think that changing the scenario names is a good idea. People are used to what it is and guidelines will have the name that it currently is, so why change it?
Because the majority is clearly in favour of it. That was the whole purpose of that poll. As for existing documentation: pretty much the only place where this would be a thing is the RCT Wiki, and the problem is solved by adding a few redirects (and adding those is a good idea anyway, even without this change). Since I’m a bureaucrat for that Wiki, I think I can safely say that adding a few redirects is really no problem at all.
I still don't think that changing the scenario names is a good idea. People are used to what it is and guidelines will have the name that it currently is, so why change it?
Because the majority is clearly in favour of it. That was the whole purpose of that poll. As for existing documentation: pretty much the only place where this would be a thing is the RCT Wiki, and the problem is solved by adding a few redirects (and adding those is a good idea anyway, even without this change). Since I’m a bureaucrat for that Wiki, I think I can safely say that adding a few redirects is really no problem at all.
I'm still against it, there are also hard prints that have those names in it, there are plenty other sources such as this https://www.ign.com/wikis/rollercoaster-tycoon/Scenarios, it will just create confusion and I still see no real justification other than "people want it" which isn't a good justification, we are not exactly in a position to rename content created by someone else, that was the decision and we should stick to it.
You make a good point there; I don't know what the whole legal stance on modifying the names is. I want to say at minimum Future - Future World should be adjusted to clear up confusion between two scenarios sharing the same name, but ultimately this decision is in your hands; all I can do is provide polling data.