SFGAM new rides? Any?
Additionally, I never said SFGAm shouldn't add attractions that have family appeal. On the contrary, I think SFGAm's coaster collection is fine as is and would be happy to see some nice family additions. However, family attractions do not have to be low capacity. It's just that the ones being suggested here *are* low capacity, and there are simply far better alternatives.
-Nate
Legendary said:
angnjcThankfully, you'd lose your bet.
Can you with 100% certainty name one SF park getting any real new ride? :)
Just a couple of G-Force junkies!
I am, however, not going to name those parks on a public forum, much to your dismay. ;) Sorry! *** Edited 12/2/2003 6:49:47 PM UTC by Legendary***
As for new additions to SF parks, stay tuned. Many SF parks didn't announce their additions until February last season. All things considered, I'd say SFoG is a good bet for new additions at this point...
-Nate
And you can easily build dark ride attractions that can handle good sized crowds if done right and made big enough, other parks have dark rides that can handle good sized crowds.
SFGAM is sorely in need of rides the whole family can enjoy together and as much as i love roller coasters what SFGAM need's isnt a thrill ride that has a height limit of 54'' or even 48'' inches.
PKI is a great example of a park that builds excellant rides for kids that are family friendly.
When i went to SFTSL this summer the ride that had the longest wait and was most popular wasnt any of their coasters but was their newly re-done Scooby doo dark ride, the ride had 1htr to 90 minutes waits while The Boss/Mr Freeze/Batman had 10-15 minute waits and their new flat ride Xcaliber had much short waits.
Until SF parks learn that you have to cater to the whole family they will stay a company that is deeply in debt, and blaming their financial problems on the weather rather than the mix of attractions the parks have and how they treat their guests.
But again, that was said as a devil's advocate and a pre-emptive guess at what CD318 would say.
I personally think that GAm _DOES_ need to beef up its' lineup for non-high speed roller coaster freaks. And a Sally type dark ride would fit the bill perfectly
Bob O said:
SFGAM should most defintely get rid of the go-karts which serve no useful purpose in a THEMED amusement park which SFGAM is supposed to be.
No, SFGAm is a business. Upcharge attractions like go-karts make money. That's the useful purpose they serve.
And you can easily build dark ride attractions that can handle good sized crowds if done right and made big enough, other parks have dark rides that can handle good sized crowds.
Which? There really aren't many out there, and most are not in regional amusement parks.
When i went to SFTSL this summer the ride that had the longest wait and was most popular wasnt any of their coasters but was their newly re-done Scooby doo dark ride, the ride had 1htr to 90 minutes waits while The Boss/Mr Freeze/Batman had 10-15 minute waits
Why do you think that is? Because SFStL's Scooby Doo is extremely low capacity, while Boss, Freeze, and Batman all have decent capacities. It has little to do with popularity. Do the math.
Until SF parks learn that you have to cater to the whole family they will stay a company that is deeply in debt
Sure, and they day they begin adding family attractions enthusiasts start whining like crazy. For instance, The Great Escape added a great family coaster this year, but all I heard was complaints about it not being thrilling enough. Let's face facts - most enthusiasts don't know crap about how the industry works or what would be a good addition and what would not.
-Nate *** Edited 12/2/2003 8:33:46 PM UTC by coasterdude318***
Hate to break it to you it is FAMILIES who fill the parks, not enthusiasts. We all have season passes that after two visits "costs" the park money.
And, yes, I understand it doesn't cost them anything - but it sure as heck doesn't add as much $$$ into their wallets as me buying a $30-40 ticket every time I stroll into the park.
Besides that, enthusiasts make up a very, very small percentage of the attendees of a park. *** Edited 12/2/2003 9:33:39 PM UTC by redman822***
That's how I'd do it, anyway.
redman822 said:
Nate,Hate to break it to you it is FAMILIES who fill the parks, not enthusiasts. We all have season passes that after two visits "costs" the park money.
And, yes, I understand it doesn't cost them anything - but it sure as heck doesn't add as much $$$ into their wallets as me buying a $30-40 ticket every time I stroll into the park.
Besides that, enthusiasts make up a very, very small percentage of the attendees of a park. *** Edited 12/2/2003 9:33:39 PM UTC by redman822***
Well this post gets the award for most pointless and useless post in the thread. Nate is NOT arguing park demographics! It looks like he AGREES that parks definitely need family rides, but a park the size of Great America needs to add HIGH-CAPACITY family attractions. It can be done!
And by polluting their parks with things like fastlane/go-karts they may make a little money but will lose more in the long run by turning off the casusal park goer/family that doesnt believe they should be nickled and dimed to death every time they turn around in a theme park.
The disney parks/Universal(while not regional but surely superior)have shown that it is easy to build dark rides that can easily match the capacity of a roller coaster(unless one thinks V2/DeJaVue are high capacity rides)
Abd the math is easy to do when you compare Scooby-do to rides like Mr Freeze/Boss etc. When i was at the park Mr Freeze was only running one side and The Boss two trains which makes neither capacity monsters but both were virtual walk-ons while Scooby had over a hour wait all day!!! And that is because the ride can be enjoyed by the WHOLE family and not those who are tall enough to make the height limit.
And as stated enthusiasts dont make or break parks, but families can and do make/break parks. And SF as a company has to learn this lesson soon if they wish to get out from under all the debt that they have. Under this reasoning i guess then Holiday World will go under because they have dissed the enthusiast community by getting rid of SRM!!!
The enthusiast community is their worst enemy and parks dont live an dies with us, though some may believe that is the case.
VolcanoTBC said:
Well this post gets the award for most pointless and useless post in the thread. Nate is NOT arguing park demographics! It looks like he AGREES that parks definitely need family rides, but a park the size of Great America needs to add HIGH-CAPACITY family attractions. It can be done!
Actually, if you had read the last portion of his prior post...
Coasterdude318 said:
Sure, and they day they begin adding family attractions enthusiasts start whining like crazy. For instance, The Great Escape added a great family coaster this year, but all I heard was complaints about it not being thrilling enough. Let's face facts - most enthusiasts don't know crap about how the industry works or what would be a good addition and what would not.
...perhaps then you would understand what I was responding to. If you don't know how to read and understand things in context, do not blame me.
And as far as dark rides having to be capacity monsters...what about Scooby Doo at PKI - a very large park - should they have not put it in? Should GAm tear out the Whizzer? it doesn't have as great a PPM rating as Raging Bull. Before enthusiasses go pounding their chests that "We saved the Whizzer from the wrecking ball," remember that the park received tens of thousands of emails, phone calls and snail mail - not to mention news stories asking why they were going to take out a great FAMILY RIDE. Not a COASTER but a FAMILY RIDE. 'Nuff said.
coasterdude318 said:
Additionally, I never said SFGAm shouldn't add attractions that have family appeal. On the contrary, I think SFGAm's coaster collection is fine as is and would be happy to see some nice family additions. However, family attractions do not have to be low capacity. It's just that the ones being suggested here *are* low capacity, and there are simply far better alternatives.
How much more clear do I have to be? The park can and *should* add family rides, but they do not have to be the low capacity options being suggested here! There are plenty of family attractions with high capacity, but these are not wild mice or Sally dark rides.
What I was saying above (about TGE and Canyon Blaster) was that no matter what the parks do enthusiasts are going to complain. All I see here is complaining about how SFGAm should add a family attraction, yet when TGE did that this year all people around here did was complain. Thus, my conclusion that "most enthusiasts don't know crap about how the industry works or what would be a good addition and what would not."
As for Whizzer and PKI's dark ride, both have existed in the park for a long time. Whizzer was built well before the park drew 3 million guests each summer. It's now 25+ years old, popularity has dwindled, and so the capacity it has is fine. PKI's dark ride was a simple re-theme on a ride that's been there for years. None of these were "brand new low capacity rides" like a wild mouse of Sally ride at SFGAm would be.
Finally, I don't see any enthusiasts claiming they saved the Whizzer (on the contrary, as far as I'm aware no enthusiast groups moved in on it). I don't know what you're arguing with the "COASTER but a FAMILY RIDE. 'Nuff said" comment. Who do you think you are arguing with??
As for (SF)Great American, PT300, and Bob O, I posted a nice long reply to all three of you last night but it was deleted. The gist of it was that (a) You can't expect SFGAm to add a new ride and not market the hell out of it (thus, capacity will be a concern from the beginning). The business of building and worrying about consequences later was what got the SF company in trouble in the first place. (b) I was referring to Animal Kingdom's mouse, comletely forgetting about DCA's. However, that only furthers my point because notice that the *next* time Disney bought a mouse-type attraction, they built two (for higher capacity). (c) Bob O, a regional SF park cannot afford a dark ride along the lines of Universal or Disney. It's just completely out of the question. No casual park goer gets turned off by the go-karts and decides never to return (on the contrary, it's only enthusiasts who complain about them). And the Boss with two trains and Freeze with one *still* get almost twice the capacity of the Sally ride (another simple re-theme of an existing ride, I might add). The lines are long because it's low capacity, not because it's especially popular.
-Nate
You can't expect SFGAm to add a new ride and not market the hell out of it (thus, capacity will be a concern from the beginning)
I'm afraid that there, you're just plain wrong. What we're talking about is adding something like the Condor, possibly even similair to the addition of Camp Cartoon Network (although that upped capacity more than anything we're talking about). Now, how did Great America market these additions? They almost didn't. The most these attractions got was a logo on the discount cans and the shortest sentence possible at the end of some commercials. Not inconsiderable, to be sure, but certainly nothing like the blitzkrieg for any of their coastes.
I notice you keep saying that there are some nice, high-capacity family rides SFGAm could put in. I'm not that into the amusment scene, so I'm wondering just what you're refering to.
My favorite MJ tune: "Billie Jean" which I have been listening to alot now. RIP MJ.
If the park were to add one small flat, (such as Condor which you mentioned) then a whole advertising campaign is NOT justified.
-Mark
Never Has Gravity Been So Uplifting.
You must be logged in to post
