Just because it spins doesn't mean it HAS to be a mouse...
My grandparents would never dream of riding an Arrow Corkscrew or Blue Streak with my 5-year-old cousin (and to be honest, he wouldn't dream of riding them either). But both my grandpa and cousin love Pepsi Ripsaw at Knott's Camp Snoopy. See a difference?
Yes, you happen to take people with ages on the extreme ends of the spectrum to the park with you. You in turn base your perception of rider preferences based on your own experience. That's the difference. My fictional family could all ride those rides. Your real family can't. This just proves there is no set standard or generalization for who rides what. Yet you continue to quote "facts" about what people will and will not ride.
But we're beyond the 'family' arguement at this point. All we have established is that all families are different and what is a "family coaster" to my family may be totally different that what it is to someone else - even at the same park.
You can believe it will be a big hit all you want.
Again with the filling in the blanks.
Big hit? No.
Non-seller? Maybe.
A ride that no one would ever possibly ride because it's not thrilling enough for thrill seekers and not tame enough for "families? Some of most absurd logic ever typed onto these message boards.
The fact that there's nothing out there like this Japanese ride (ie one that combines one or two "big thrill" elements with a sedated family ride) seems to support my argument, no?
No. It seems to support the logic that it fills a certain niche that currently doesn't exist.
I don't know where else this can go. Your views on the parks, rides and riders themselves are...ummm....different than mine.
We're now at that impasse we always reach at this time in our debates, my friend. We're at the fork in the road known as "agree to disagree". I'd be heading off in this direction and you can go that-a-way pardner. I'm sure we'll find ourselves on the same road sometime yet again in the future.
*** Edited 3/2/2004 6:52:55 PM UTC by Lord Gonchar***
Lord Gonchar said:Yes, you happen to take people with ages on the extreme ends of the spectrum to the park with you. You in turn base your perception of rider preferences based on your own experience. That's the difference. My fictional family could all ride those rides. Your real family can't. This just proves there is no set standard or generalization for who rides what.
I think a factual family is far more evidence than a fictional one, which is exactly why I quote facts about what people will and won't ride. Bottom line, it *is* fact that the more intense a ride the more potential riders you limit from riding it. That *is* fact.
But we're beyond the 'family' arguement at this point. All we have established is that all families are different and what is a "family coaster" to my family may be totally different that what it is to someone else - even at the same park.
Okay, but what are parks marketing as family coasters? It certainly isn't looping rides.
A ride that no one would ever possibly ride because it's not thrilling enough for thrill seekers and not tame enough for "families? Some of most absurd logic ever typed onto these message boards.
Absurd? The only absurd thing here is that you believe a ride like that would actually have a following. Plop it down in virtually any park in the country and you have a gigantic failure on your hands.
No. It seems to support the logic that it fills a certain niche that currently doesn't exist.
The niche doesn't exist, and never will. It's like claiming there should be a new film genre in which the film begins as an animated cartoon that kids like and parents basically don't and ends as a horror movie with lots of gore. Who does that appeal to? It's not appealing for kids (too graphic) and not appealing for adults (the majority of it is kid-oriented boredom). Some things just don't mix.
-Nate *** Edited 3/2/2004 10:08:52 PM UTC by coasterdude318***
Passion of the Christ tells a Bible story in such graphic terms Ebert calls it "the most violent film I've ever seen." Would you call it a flop cuz it lacks a specific genre?
Final question: How many kids do you have? How many years have you been hauling them to which parks? If you don't have any real-life, honest-to-goodness experience, what the heck are you gonna tell anyone about the family experience?
-CO
NOTE: Severe fecal impaction may render the above words highly debatable.
I'll be reeeaally quiet and won't ask to try on your utility belt, cape or anything.
I swear this is the last reply. Please, someone give me the strength to look away from here on out.
Here goes nothing...
I think a factual family is far more evidence than a fictional one, which is exactly why I quote facts about what people will and won't ride. Bottom line, it *is* fact that the more intense a ride the more potential riders you limit from riding it. That *is* fact.
First off, that's two totally different points. Let's cover both.
1. Ok if you didn't enjoy my little Six Pack family here's a real world example. Kennywood. I've gone with my kids and had a 6 year old sitting beside me on the Racer and JackRabbit. A few years earlier we visited for a work outing for my wife. I rode in the same train on those same two rides as an 81 year old man who was with the group. Real world, first hand experience of people from ages 6 to 81 riding both Kennywood's Racer and JackRabbit. So you've never seen people at the extreme ages ride bigger rides. I have. Who's real world, seen with my own two eyes experience is incorrect. Neither. The point is no matter how many times you try to generalize, that there will always be exceptions. You could take a group of 50 random people covering all ages, races, park experience, etc and stand them in front of a ride. There's no way to predict exactly which people in that group will ride. You could make eductaed guesses, but you'd never hit it 100% - what this all has to do with whether or not our little japanese coaster would draw riders I'm not sure, but it's a point in an already tired arguement.
2. OK, we get it. The more thrilling a ride is the more people who are alienated by the ride. Again, I'm left wondering how this ties in to no one riding this japanese coaster if it were operating at a park. Great, it alienates the same segment of riders that the other countless thrill coasters do. Those rides are still very popular, just as this one would be.
The only absurd thing here is that you believe a ride like that would actually have a following.
Well, me and every single other person who's decided to waste time posting on the subject, but ok.
Plop it down in virtually any park in the country and you have a gigantic failure on your hands.
Hey, I'm shocked. You're presenting opinion as fact! I've never seen such spin. Oh wait, yes I have - In every single one of your posts in this thread. That's merely your opinion. Several other people here disagree - you're not changing our minds nor are we changing yours. This will go around and around forever. (and already is)
Unless, of course, that was told to you by an 'industry person' in which case it is clearly fact and we are all fools.
The niche doesn't exist, and never will.
The niche for a thrill ride that leans towards the weaker side of the thrills doesn't exist?
Sure, there are some elements that will probably be pleasing to thrill seekers. But bottom line is, if the entire family can ride... it's a family ride.
But Spinning Dragons (the ride you are referring to in that quote) is a 'family' ride with thrill elements fills a niche that does exist?
Well, color me informed. One ride catering to both areas is being installed in a park, but another doing something similar (albeit in a different way) is a hopeless idea that would never sell and if it did, would be a total failure.
Is that 'new' math?
Start the van, Captain Obvious, I'm ready to roll.
*** Edited 3/2/2004 11:16:38 PM UTC by Lord Gonchar***
Bluuuh bluh blah blah if I type a whole lotta stuff maybe people will nod off, wake up and believe me blather blather blither I have the facts and ask anybody in the industry too.
Just add water and empty verbage, allow to bloat until nauseating and post. Just one serving weirds out 30-40 people.
-CO
*** Edited 3/2/2004 11:55:22 PM UTC by CoastaPlaya***
NOTE: Severe fecal impaction may render the above words highly debatable.
http://www.coastersandmore.com/pic/eas04/family_inverted_coaster.jpg
How about this. a FAMILY inverted coaster (note the word family) and it has an inversion.. so in your world its not a family coaster... Vekoma also have a new FAMILY flying coaster and you can be damn sure u will go upsidedown on that.
Also you say that not every kid is a coaster entusiasts kid so we are giving an un fair account of kids attitudes to rides. Fair enough but if 0.1% of the kids i see in line for revolution and rides like Magic Mountain at gardaland are enthusiast uhh... related. then they must all be from non enthusiast familys? surely giving a good view of the general public?
It's a pretty commonly-known fact that once you include inversions on a ride, you limit the number of potential riders by a certain percentage.
This statement is True!
Have you never seen a kid say:
That ride goes Loopty-loop. I don't want to get on that.
Since you probably have, then there. You have your answer. That kid's unwillingness to ride lowered the willingness to ride by a certain percentage. No arguing with that. Now of course, you could say the same for a few other elements, but that statement in it's pure unmixed form is true.
---------------
"Now back to your hip new family coaster debate"
CoastaPlaya said:
That's funny...Kill Bill mixed anime and live action violence and grossed $70 million in the US so far.Passion of the Christ tells a Bible story in such graphic terms Ebert calls it "the most violent film I've ever seen." Would you call it a flop cuz it lacks a specific genre?
How many children do you think went to see Kill Bill? Probably not many. Not that I'm an expert, but anime often contains action and violence. The Passion of the Christ's genre is also fairly clear, I think. It's an epic drama, just like many of Gibson's other films (Braveheart, for example). Neither of these movies were radical departures from normal genres, and neither lacked a genre.
On the other hand, does anyone remember Cop Rock? It was a Bochco show that briefly aired in the early 90's. It attempted to infuse a cop drama with a musical. It also failed miserably. Why? Because (generally) people who enjoy cop dramas don't enjoy musicals, and (generally) people who enjoy musicals don't enjoy cop dramas. Those who greatly enjoy both probably don't enjoy them together. Unlike Kill Bill and The Passion of the Christ, Cop Rock absolutely was a radical departure from normal genres, and failed because it attempted to mix two completely different genres. Such is the case we have here.
Final question: How many kids do you have? How many years have you been hauling them to which parks?
I don't have to have kids of my own to have been to parks with kids, and seen how kids react to certain rides. I also don't need to have kids to get a good feel for what the industry feels are good moves and bad moves. You might have been to parks with your own kids, and that's great. But seeing just your own kids (who, let's be honest, are probably at least a little influenced by Dad) maybe aren't the most true sample of the whole.
Lord Gonchar said:
The point is no matter how many times you try to generalize, that there will always be exceptions. You could take a group of 50 random people covering all ages, races, park experience, etc and stand them in front of a ride. There's no way to predict exactly which people in that group will ride. You could make eductaed guesses, but you'd never hit it 100% - what this all has to do with whether or not our little japanese coaster would draw riders I'm not sure
If you don't understand what that has to do with the Japanese coaster - essentially the entire agrument here - then it's clear why you're not comprehending what I'm typing. Yes, there are exceptions to basically everything. But there are also averages and generalizations. And averages and generalizations in this case can give us a pretty good idea of how the majority of people are going to react. That is, by knowing that families, particularly those with younger children, *tend* (on average) to be turned off by rides with extreme elements we can conclude that a ride with extreme elements (such as the Japanese coaster) will turn them away. That's the entire point here.
Great, it alienates the same segment of riders that the other countless thrill coasters do. Those rides are still very popular, just as this one would be.
Those thrill rides are popular because that's all they are - thrill rides. This ride, on the other hand, is *not* just a thrill ride. It's basically a family ride with a single extreme element. Millennium Force doesn't drop 300' and then turn into Jaguar or Ripsaw. But that's essentially what this ride does. Therefore, the thrillseekers (with some exceptions, yes, but generally) will leave it for more thrilling rides and the families will pass on it (in general) because it's too extreme. So where's your ridership?
Hey, I'm shocked. You're presenting opinion as fact! I've never seen such spin. Oh wait, yes I have - In every single one of your posts in this thread. That's merely your opinion.
I think you need to familiarize yourself with the definitions of "fact" and "opinion." Fact can be proven. And the claim that "Plop it down in virtually any park in the country and you have a gigantic failure on your hands" *absolutely* can be proven! There's a true, hard answer to that question. It may be difficult to prove (because, as I said in the beginning, nobody will ever buy one) but it *can* be proven. But I don't need to see it proven to know what the outcome will be. Neither will people in the industry who make such decisions. Based on the nature of the ride, it's clear that it won't serve a purpose. Believe what you will, that's fine. This ride is destined to become just like those models that make it to IAAPA year after year and *never* sell.
The niche for a thrill ride that leans towards the weaker side of the thrills doesn't exist?
This isn't a thrill ride that leans toward the weaker side of the thrills. It's a family ride with an extreme element tacked onto it.
But Spinning Dragons (the ride you are referring to in that quote) is a 'family' ride with thrill elements fills a niche that does exist?
There's a huge difference between what we're calling "thrilling elements" on Spinning Dragon and those on this Japanese ride. Spinning Dragons is basically a slightly wilder Ripsaw with spinning cars tacked onto it. The Japanese ride is a wild mouse with an Oblivion drop tacked onto it. How do you not see a difference there?
roomraider said:
Family Rides with thrill elemends dont exist...?? i point again to chessington's new ride. Its a family ride with the same element you describe as being "Too extreme" for family's.
No. The element I described as being "too extreme" for families is a vertical drop. In a previous post I said, "the near inversion is far less of a turnoff than the vertical drop, and probably would have little effect." I'm well aware that the many Maurer rides contain a horeshoe turnaround.
How about this. a FAMILY inverted coaster (note the word family) and it has an inversion.. so in your world its not a family coaster... Vekoma also have a new FAMILY flying coaster and you can be damn sure u will go upsidedown on that.
1) Chessington's (and Alton's) Maurer rides to not have inversions. It is basically a glorified (albeit highly banked) u-turn.
2) Vekoma's ride will likely never sell for the same reasons described above.
Also you say that not every kid is a coaster entusiasts kid so we are giving an un fair account of kids attitudes to rides. Fair enough but if 0.1% of the kids i see in line for revolution and rides like Magic Mountain at gardaland are enthusiast uhh... related. then they must all be from non enthusiast familys?
I'm well aware that certain kids can and do ride coasters with loops. But first, it's clear from previous posts of yours that the age group you're talking about is eight years old or older. And second, you're not accounting for the large number of children who *aren't* riding them - those children who are still too scared and are thus content riding things like Rollerskaters and wild mice. Where do you think those rides get all of their ridership from?
In closing, there's certainly no need to be rude. The fact that Playa' can never continue an argument for more than one or two posts without attempting to hurl insults really shows some big skill in debate.
-Nate
Fact can be proven. And the claim that "Plop it down in virtually any park in the country and you have a gigantic failure on your hands" *absolutely* can be proven!
Yes, fact can be proven. However until it is proven, it is merely opinion. If that's too abstract to grasp check the definitions of the words (courtesy of dictionary.com):
Fact
1. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences
2. Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed
3. A real occurrence; an event
Opinion
1. A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof
2. A judgment based on special knowledge and given by an expert
3. A judgment or estimation of the merit of a person or thing
Now read your statement again:
"Plop it down in virtually any park in the country and you have a gigantic failure on your hands"
It fits all three definitions of one of those words. (hint: it's not 'fact')
Therefore, it is Nate's opinion that if you plop this ride down in any park in any country and you have a gigantic failure on your hands.
It is everybody else's (still participating in this thread) opinion that this ride would attract a sufficient number of riders.
If this ride is built we'll know the facts.
That's how it works.
This whole thing has gotten so twisted that I'm going to summarize.
I believe I jumped in right after something along the lines of (and I'm paraphrasing):
"This ride is a failure before it's even built. No park would build this and on the off chance that some park was silly enough to - no one would ride it because it's too boring for thrill seekers and too thrilling for 'families"
That's the reason I'm even in on this thread. All the silly side arguements (while helping to back our opinions) are just mucking up this main issue - this one issue that I chose to chime in with a disagreement of. I don't care about any of the other crap.
You stated your opinion. I stated mine. You rebutted. I did too. Things got WAY off track from my original reason for even jumping in as you are so often the master of doing to people. Again, I can actually appreciate that.
My bottom line arguement is that even though it is your opinion that this ride couldn't find an audience, it is my opinion (as well as the others who've added their two cents) that this ride, if built, would do just fine and actually be a rather unique attraction for the park lucky enough to add it.
Every reply using opinions presented as fact attempting to prove your original opinion is needless at this point as the ride doesn't even exist.
The only point even remotely born of fact is the whole "thrill elements turn off a certain segement of riders" thing. All that proves is that a certain segment (not all) riders would find this japanese coaster to be too much for their liking.
Jumping from that conclusion to "this ride will never sell, no one would ever ride this" is a leap in logic that simply doesn't hold water.
You presented your opinion. Others disagreed. Now we've gone around the same circle roughly 4 times spouting the same reasons over and over why we all individually behold the opinion that this ride would or would not be "successful"
The third time is a charm and I really for real am letting this go this time. If you feel the need to get the last word (and I'm sure you will) then so be it.
My only suggestion is that in 2004 while visiting the parks you take a little time on each trip to actually look around at who's riding what. I think you'd be really surprised. Adults ride kiddie rides. Kids ride thrill rides. Thrill seekers ride wild mice. Mom's ride big scary flat rides. Grandpa's ride looping coasters. Gazillions of people ride TTD just for one thrill element. Many of those people (maybe even most) will try to ride every other coaster in the park during their stay, not overanalyzing the rides, but just looking to have a good time.
You know I simply LOVE debating with you, Nate. Seriously! No matter how heated, silly or redundant it may become it's always good fun in the end and I'm sure we'll have the chance again here in the future - probably sooner than later :)
coasterdude318 said:
The Passion of the Christ's genre is also fairly clear, I think. It's an epic drama, just like many of Gibson's other films (Braveheart, for example). Neither of these movies were radical departures from normal genres, and neither lacked a genre.
Really? The industry says you're wrong. It was an intense, violent, R-rated religious film. It doesn't fit the classic religious film genre, the recent religious film genre or the independent film genre in terms of budget. But don't take my word for it...The Associated Press says you're wrong and the New York Times says you're wrong and Mel Gibson's marketing strategy says you're wrong. In short, you have no clue what you're talking about. And there's the hard proof.
I didn't have to dig back 14 years to find anything that just might validate my point, did I?
Npw let's get to that other limp, sad 'point' of yours...
coasterdude318 said:
I don't have to have kids of my own to have been to parks with kids, and seen how kids react to certain rides. I also don't need to have kids to get a good feel for what the industry feels are good moves and bad moves.
And why? Cuz you think so? You haven't pitched one coaster or ride from the IAAPA show floor for any company on the planet. You haven't visited any park executives with a portfolio of any company's products. You don't have any family of your own, haven't taken your kids along with anyone else's kids to a park but you can tell everybody who actually does that they're wrong and you're right.
Meanwhile--outside of your wild imagination--actual park execs with jobs, stock options and salaries run all over themselves paying for surveys, polling focus groups and just plain getting out and asking family folk themselves--that's right, those dumb ol' rubes with none of your remarkable 'industry knowledge' and flat-out psychic savvy--what THEY think would make them happy. What THEY would like. What would get THEM to open up their wallets and spend money.
And you're smarter than all of them how?
-CO
*** Edited 3/3/2004 7:43:14 AM UTC by CoastaPlaya***
NOTE: Severe fecal impaction may render the above words highly debatable.
Lord Gonchar said:
The only point even remotely born of fact is the whole "thrill elements turn off a certain segement of riders" thing. All that proves is that a certain segment (not all) riders would find this japanese coaster to be too much for their liking.Jumping from that conclusion to "this ride will never sell, no one would ever ride this" is a leap in logic that simply doesn't hold water.
Of course, it's your opinion that the so-called "leap in logic" doesn't hold water. Thus, if your opinion were to be wrong, then doesn't that make my "leap in logic" fact? :)
My only suggestion is that in 2004 while visiting the parks you take a little time on each trip to actually look around at who's riding what. I think you'd be really surprised.
Doubtful. I don't think I'd be surprised at all; I know who is riding what. I just think you took my generalizations (something like, "families don't ride Kumba") as all-encompassing statements ("no families ride Kumba.") As you said, there are exceptions.
In my (final) defense, taking a look at the definitions of "fact" and "opinion" on www.m-w.com will give a much different idea than those presented at www.dictionary.com. Basically, Marriam-Webster seems to believe as I do (and was always taught): opinion is something subjective and that varies from person to person, thus can never be proven; fact is something that can be proven, regardless of whether or not it has been proven.
I'm not going to comment on the rest, mainly because I've said all I need to say at this point. But I will say that a career as a politician or televangelist couldn't be more unappealing to me.
CoastaPlaya said:
Really? The industry says you're wrong. It was an intense, violent, R-rated religious film. It doesn't fit the classic religious film genre, the recent religious film genre or the independent film genre in terms of budget. But don't take my word for it...The Associated Press says you're wrong
Did you even bother reading the articles you quoted? The Associated Press article calls it a "religious epic." "Intense, violent, R-rated religious film" is not a genre, nor will it ever be. "Indendent film" is not a genre either. Rotten Tomatoes fits the film into the genres of "Drama, Bible Epic," etc. The Internet Movie Database just plain calls it a drama. Yahoo Movies calls it a Historical/Religious Drama.
And here's a fun fact you probably didn't know about me: I'm a Communications major with a TV/Film emphasis. So you really don't need to try to tell me I don't know what I'm talking about. Aside from the fact that none of the articles you linked to outright address genre (if it's mentioned, it's done so fleetingly) the NY Times and the Associated Press are not part of the industry. So please, tell me again, who's saying I'm wrong?
You haven't pitched one coaster or ride from the IAAPA show floor for any company on the planet. You haven't visited any park executives with a portfolio of any company's products. You don't have any family of your own, haven't taken your kids along with anyone else's kids to a park but you can tell everybody who actually does that they're wrong and you're right.
Oh please. You're actually going to try to tell me it doesn't matter how many kids I've taken to parks - even if I were do that for a living - because they're not my kids? I've been to parks with kids. I've seen how kids react to rides. I never told anyone they were wrong in their observations of their kids, I simply explained how they're perhaps not seeing a very true-to-life sample.
Your last paragraph is downright hilarious. The basis of your argument is that I can't argue against that ride because I'm not a park exec. Okay, fine - do you see those park execs buying those rides left and right?
I didn't think so.
-Nate
I wondered why this thread was so long! What's the ride in question? I'm too lazy to read through the Nate Manifesto, even though I'm sure it's damn near The Gospel.
Jeff - Editor - CoasterBuzz.com - My Blog
If you have the time, I suggest reading it. It's one of the only topics I've actually enjoyed following lately, though I agree with Lord Gonchar that the entire debate is rather tired at this point (and I'm quite impressed that he kept going as long as he has--I gave up a while ago).
If they were to sell one (which they never, never will) it also fits in the "wild mouse/family coaster hybrid" category. Or, in this case, "wild mouse/looping coaster hybrid" (which is exactly why it won't ever sell).
Why not dial 1-900-ASK-NATE instead?
Nate walks around amusement parks all the time. He sees other people's kids. He sees total strangers. He has his fingers on the pulse of exactly what they're thinking. Plus, he's still in college too. Oooooooh, wow. I know. You're impressed.
But there's more. Take him to your meetings with manufacturers and he'll tell you just what to do. Just let the reps babble and babble away...and when they finish, let all eyes in the room turn Nateward. His silent thumbs-up or thumbs-down will save you bajillions of dollars and make everyone happy.
Nate knows. Ride manufacturers don't. Park execs don't. And those ordinary people strolling around spending ordinary bucks? They sure as BLAZES don't know. Up theirs.
-CO *** Edited 3/3/2004 3:05:22 PM UTC by CoastaPlaya***
NOTE: Severe fecal impaction may render the above words highly debatable.
And why not? Let's review...
- They're relatively inexpensive for that they do.
- They appeal to a very wide array of guests.
- Even small local parks can afford them.
- The capacity to footprint ratio is very high.
- They don't likely require zoning variances.
- They're fun. Duh.
Yeah, I can't see why anyone would want one.
Jeff - Editor - CoasterBuzz.com - My Blog
When did I suggest I know more than park executives?
When did I claim nobody but me knows?
The answer is never. I'm tired of your selective reading comprehension. You see what you want to see, and then reply based on something that was never, ever stated. For example, a quote from my last reply: "I've been to parks with kids." But you skip right over that, and again attack me with the claim that my only basis for argument is that I've seen kids certain queues and not in others. Please.
I'm not trying to impress anyone. I simply made a fleeting prediction which ended up starting a debate about that prediction. Where does that imply superiority?
For someone who calls himself "Captain Obvious", it's funny how much you seem unable to comprehend when you read people's posts.
Jeff: I never said mouse-style rides would never sell. I think it's pretty obvious they've been relatively huge. You'd have to read more than one paragraph of the thread in order to understand the argument (which I'm sure would still be more than CO ever read in the first place).
-Nate
Jeff - Editor - CoasterBuzz.com - My Blog
What Nate thinks: If just-plain-normal people sees a loop or a vertical drop they'll run for their life and never come back. The true-thrill-seeker maniac will see the loop, drop or whatever scary stuff you can put on a roller coaster but when he see that after those lifethreathening elements there are just flat turns and some drops and they'll think: meh, not scary enough, I'll go and jump of a bridge without the bungycord instead. Therefor a coaster that aim to both family/non thrillseeker and thrillseekers/weirdos will never ever sell, even if such coasters allready has been sold lately and had a big success...
Now what does the people who's arguing against him think? Well, somehow todays kids are too stupid or has seen too many horror flicks to understand that loops and terrifying drops are suposed to scare you away and they'll still ride those stupid rides anyway...if they have a funny ride or not, we're not sure. But that's how todays kids are and there's not much we can do. So the conclution is that these ride will sell and people will ride them, even against there will.
That's my hypothesis of what this debate in this topic is all about. Might not be correct at all but hey at least I tried.
My opinion of the Sangyo coaster? It looks pretty damn fun and that's what counts, or?
Jeff said:
Why do I have to read the rest? It's what you said, isn't it? CO's point is that you aren't qualified to form such an opinion as credible. That's not "selective reading," that's his opinion.
But that's not what he said at all, which is exactly why he's suggesting you read the rest of the thread.
From what I gathered, Nate is implying that Wild Mouse coasters need to remain family-oriented in order to sell. There's not a market for Wild Mouse coasters with heartline rolls and vertical drops because they don't appeal to the same family demographic.
Others, such as Lord Gonchar, suggest that families will still ride "thrilling" (for lack of a better term) Wild Mouse coasters because today's kids have a higher threshold for thrills. I disagree with that argument. If you add a vertical drop or heartline roll to a Wild Mouse coaster then you're likely going to have more complex restraints, and consequently the height requirement will increase from 42" to 48" or 54", which is hardly a family attraction. A family attraction is one where the ENTIRE FAMILY can ride- from your 3-year-old child to your 70-year-old grandparents. If all children are as brave as some people in this thread are implying then the world wouldn't need Looney Tunes Lands or Camp Snoopys.
CoastaPlaya seems to have a personal vendetta against Nate and his replies are largely incoherent and do not work against Nate's arguments. It seems to me as if he's arguing just to argue because he doesn't like Nate.
You must be logged in to post
