I don't even know what to call this... "Visual cues"?

[SaiyanHajime]

Here's some theoretical **** for you. I really need to write a blog post on this matter, but in the meantime it'll be fun to hear your thoughts.

The order in which you ride coasters determines your opinion of them. Now, that doesn't sound too off the wall, I guess, but here's what I mean... Parks, coasters and the styles with which they do things train you to follow cues which change your perceptions of future rides. The park you visit the most has the most impact, but parks you form a nostalgia filled admiration of also effect you massively.

Think I'm talking ****? Going to whip out my favourite example coaster, Oblivion.

I can't think of a better example of thrill ride so epically creative and intentional. You enter that area, are faced side on with the most intimidating visual spectacle. The entire queue is a vile, brutalised, winding waiting game that feels longer than it actually takes designed to make you increasingly nervous. The loud station, slow acent, turn at the top and hanging. Everything is about that drop.

For those of us who've been to Alton Towers a lot and know a lot about Oblivion, the emotions associated with it are second nature. Even if you're not a huge fan, you are (unusual... and) still familiar with it's intentions. But if you're from the US, for example, you're really not. And if Griffon or Sheikra were you're first, you've been trained very differently.

First of all, you've been trained to expect vibrant demanding colour schemes, which visually excite. You've not been trained to make the connection between bright and garish coasters and less intense or less serious coasters, like us Brits have. You've been trained to see in height, not architecture. There's a lot more depth to this obviously, that I haven't spent too long thinking about right now, but the point is nothing seems especially "wow" about Oblivion, and any claims that it is actually more intense than it's big US sisters probably seems rather absurd. I mean, how can it be? It's shorter, lighter and not so steep.

My argument would be that it genuinely is not any more intense, it's entirely psychological.... Entirely believable, but entirely psychological. And someone who has had a very different "training" in how to respond to coaster aesthetics, such as someone who grew up in the USA visiting Six Flags parks, will think very differently of Oblivion. Or, at least, most will.

I would LOVE to know what those who grew up with somewhere filled with garish giant coasters like Cedar Point thinks of what I have to say.

Taylor?

But anyway. Have a think.

 

[reddude333]

I live in the US and have visited various big-name amusement parks and I think you made an interesting, although somewhat sweeping point. Even though I have visited the likes of SFMM and CP, I had much more humble beginnings to my coaster experience. I respect Oblivion for what it is and would be more than happy to take it on if I ever get the chance. I actually care about the history of coasters and a specific coaster's significance in the advancement of thrill rides. This being said, would Oblivion top the likes of Griffon or Sheikra in my books (regardless of the fact that I have been on none of these coasters)? Probably not, but it would hold a greater spot in terms of its historical value. I may be the exception, but it's true.

As for nostalgic value, I can totally relate in that it massively affects how I view other parks and rides. For example, my home park is essentially Silverwood Theme Park, a virtual unknown for people outside the pacific northwest (and even among those who live here) and yet I will compare it to major parks I visit and sometimes leave thinking that Six Flags could learn a thing or two from the independent park that has a soft spot in my heart. The nostalgic value of this park is also the reason why Tremors (another virtual unknown in the coaster community) breaks my top 10 list. It means so much more to me than face value.

I hope that made sense and maybe even gives you a new perspective on the topic.

 

[furie]

I think you started well Joey, but lost me when you started about visuals rather than ride experience :lol:

I think you're right that as we grow, we absorb "the norm" around us and assimilate it into our perceptions. However, we're also rapidly adaptable too.

Now, don't get me wrong, the US parks are impressive in terms of height and "garishness", but because everything is so big and brash, you just realign your perception and accept it.

Erm, examples... SFGAdv. Ka is "**** me!" massive. There's no doubt about that in the slightest. However, in "UK terms", El Toro, Nitro and even Medusa and Superman are big coasters. Yet while you think Ka is huge, the other coasters at GAdv are just "the right size" and "the right level of vomit inducing brightness".

We see the same over here. PMBO is "**** me!" massive in its context. I remember standing next to Superman at SFNE and thinking "About the size of PMBO? No way, it's nowhere near as tall as PMBO". In context, Superman just doesn't (oddly) stand out as much. So like with El Toro, you look at Grand National and think "it's kind of the right size". It's not small, but it's not huge either.

So you're just putting yourself in context and changing your perceptions to fit the environment.

I understand what you're saying about Oblivion and I probably agree in principle, but I think that as with all things, some people are always more perceptive of what's trying to be achieved than others. We do have a much more subtle approach, but that doesn't mean that people brought up with a more brash design are blind to it. Plus, you're always going to have a lot of people who are simply looking for the "ride experience", the core enjoyment rather than the overall presentation.

I agree, it'd be interesting for somebody from the other side to see if they agree, that the UK parks seem "the right size" contextually.

As for colouring, obviously it's something I tend to ignore completely anyway

 

[SaiyanHajime]

My point is more that the way a ride looks effects the ride experience, massively. And that perception changes depending on what you're used to.

Yes, it changes depending on context. Maverick doesn't look 100ft, because everything around it dwarfs it. But it's not really my point here.

Because Oblivion looks intimidating, and we've "grown up" (as enthusiasts at least) learning to understand that kind of aesthetic change our ride experience of it, and of rides that look completely different? My logic would be that it enhances Oblivion, because we "get it" whilst it decreases it on a typical American garish tall behind a fence out of sight beast because we haven't got the same visual cues we know and understand telling us what to expect.

What we expect from a ride is entirely based on our previous experiences - that I doubt anyone would argue with, but I'm suggesting that what we GET from a ride is based on our previous experiences, predominantly out of perception and not actual objective ride experience. In other words, if you perceive it as being ****, it will be.

You'll say that in that case rides would never surprise us, but I think that's missing the point a bit. It goes far deeper than alertness. Thinking something looks cool, or interesting, or not cool or interesting, hasn't got anything to do with the information we are gathering about it from it's visual cues.

 

[Ben]

To be honest, I think this might apply to say, a member of the general public who turned up at Great Adventure, but, I think that we as enthusiasts are so exposed to coasters from all over the World (looking at them, reading about them, or, if you're awesome like me, just plain riding them) that something like this kind of doesn't have much effect anymore.

I love Oblivion, but, struggle to see it as better than Sheikra or the other big Dive Machines. I kind of want to like it better, but, the logical part of my brain knows it's not really true.

 

[SaiyanHajime]

I love Oblivion, but, struggle to see it as better than Sheikra or the other big Dive Machines. I kind of want to like it better, but, the logical part of my brain knows it's not really true.

But would Sheikra or Griffon be better if they were creatively/visually more like Oblivion? Or the opposite, potentially.

I'm the same a you though, I want Oblivion to be better - and I actually think it is in many ways, but logically I know it's not from an objective perspective. I think every other dive machine massively misses the point. But the only reason I think that is because I was trained by Alton Towers to read a vertical drop as something menacing. When I go to BGE, and I'm met with the baby blue joke that is Griffon, it dumbs the ride experience.

Well, either that, or Griffon really is ****.

Sheikra isn't SO bad, but it's drops were no where near as intense as Oblivions. Not even close. Loads of Brits say the same, and yet, you won't find a yank who agrees.

I think "knowing" a coaster is bad is problematic in itself. People do the same with food, people "know" McDonald's is crap and they "know" a burger from somewhere else is better and it effects the way they experience the taste. I'm sure you get the same with anything. Does "knowing" Oblivion is actually a crap coaster (in the same way Stealth, Ka or TTD are - a one trick pony with in Oblivion's case a very outdated trick) actually effect the riding experience?

I recon it does.

 

[furie]

UC agreed. He thought that Oblivions drop was superb and came off grinning and wanted to get straight back onto it.

Minor_Furie thought Griffon was brilliant and probably the best ride he went on on our East Coast trip, but clearly he's deluded

I really liked Griffon actually, but I wanted an Oblivion drop with extras. I think it's simply the hole that makes the difference, it's a physical thing, not just visual though. As you hit the hole, everything changes and all your senses are thrown into turmoil. That's why Oblivion feels more intense, but I know a few Americans who think that ruins the whole drop thing, especially the mist.

 

[Intricks]

Re: I don't even know what to call this... "Visual cues"?

Im just going to interject here with something I personally feel you are not adding into the equation. Oblivion's drop is into just that, oblivion. The tunnel gives you a far worse scenario psychological wise, than just your average dive on Sheikra. So, to make up for the fact that we don't seemingly use tunnels in larger parks (and that OUR dive machines hold more across), we intimidate you with the height of the drop itself.

The tunnel and underground portion (ride perspective only as Ive never been to England, nor have I seen the station itself) are seemingly what makes Oblivion "more intense". So comparing the two, I feel, is a mass misjudgement for the topic to get your point across.

Everything else though, I agree with. America lacks the visual scenery to help set the tone and mood for the ride at most theme parks. Disney does it best, Universal and BG accomplish it to an extent, and all the CF and SF owned parks havent got a clue.

I also agree with Ben on the fact that we as enthusiasts are kinda "numbed" to it, as we are always enthralled with them in some manner, whether it is having a very high count or having a very deep and immense knowledge of them.

Switching between the hideouts'...

 

[SaiyanHajime]

UC agreed. He thought that Oblivions drop was superb and came off grinning and wanted to get straight back onto it.

Minor_Furie thought Griffon was brilliant and probably the best ride he went on on our East Coast trip, but clearly he's deluded

I really liked Griffon actually, but I wanted an Oblivion drop with extras. I think it's simply the hole that makes the difference, it's a physical thing, not just visual though. As you hit the hole, everything changes and all your senses are thrown into turmoil. That's why Oblivion feels more intense, but I know a few Americans who think that ruins the whole drop thing, especially the mist.

UC is the exception that proves the rule. That's my excuse here.

...As for the hole thing, I think that's utter crap frankly. I think the idea of it, the visual spectacle of it, yes... that matters, actually going underground? No, why would it, how would it?

The mist thing I've heard "ruins the ride" before, especially from glasses wearers... But I think the impact it has on non-riders is far more important than the riding experience of those onboard. And for those riding, it creates a brief moment of not being able to see anything, followed by darkness, followed by bright light which creates a sense that you really did "go" somewhere. Only enthusiasts have a sense really of just how huge Oblivion actually is, that isn't a factor the general public have to concern themselves with. Any fear created by Oblivion is very much created by it's visual cues.

Everything else though, I agree with. America lacks the visual scenery to help set the tone and mood for the ride at most theme parks

I don't think it lacks it, it's just very different. There's a completely different set of aesthetic rules. The US audience is far less skeptical and serious than we are in Europe, and drawing attention with bright, tall, garish things is the norm. Without even thinking about amusement parks, think of the comparison between British and American road signage. US coasters aren't as often about fear as they are in the Europe, they are about excitement.

 

[furie]

...As for the hole thing, I think that's utter crap frankly. I think the idea of it, the visual spectacle of it, yes... that matters, actually going underground? No, why would it, how would it?

As I said, it assails your senses.

You first go from bright light and warmth to darkness and chill. Then the coaster moves at pretty much the same instance from weightlessness to high positive G (okay, this also happens on the others, but not at the same time as everything else).

As you hit the tunnel, your ears are hit by the change in noise as everything reverberates and becomes intense. The vibrations in the air come off the tunnel and hit you and the air is is different in the tunnel (I'm tempted to say it has a higher pressure), but certainly the closeness of the tunnel as the large train enters it completely changes the way the air feels around you.

It's more than just visual, it's almost a complete sensual overhaul.

 

[Error]

My first park and only park up until I was about 16 was Cedar Point. So much so I didn't know of any other parks.

But you do prove a very good point: growing up with CP made me feel like the "Best Rides in the World" came from the fact they had the most. For the longest time I though any park that had less rides would be less good, and rides that weren't the tallest fastest something or other wouldn't thrill.

I've kinda trained away from that ideal the more I visit different parks. The reverse end of the spectrum, Busch Gardens has less coasters than my nearby Michigan's Adventure, but the quality of them made them so much better.

I think if I visit UK parks, I won't be incredibly scared by the rides. However, I would be impressed by the themeing and feel of the area, as you mentioned above. Would it scare me? Likely no. But I would still want to go there.

 

[Intricks]

Re: Re: I don't even know what to call this... "Visual cues"

I don't think it lacks it, it's just very different. There's a completely different set of aesthetic rules. The US audience is far less skeptical and serious than we are in Europe, and drawing attention with bright, tall, garish things is the norm. Without even thinking about amusement parks, think of the comparison between British and American road signage. US coasters aren't as often about fear as they are in the Europe, they are about excitement.

I dont think the color is there draw your attention to it easier, as the height/speed of the ride pulls them in quicker. The garish, bright color is probably their way of trying to make the ride seem less intimidating (whats scary about Pink or Neon Green for instance). Plus, the bright coloring gives them a distinction...a beacon if you will...against the sky, as the GP will go to them without a park map and use the ride itself as their guide.

The more I think about it, our parks seem to base themselves off their tallest rides as to whether they will be an amazing park or not. We only want seem to care about the 'cover' aspect of the ride, not the whole story your parks seem to give.

Im probably an exception to this as I grew up on Kennywood, Geauga Lake and Conneaut Lake. They didnt push all their rides to the front to draw you in visually, but let you find the rides on your own from within the park (to me it seems). You can see Cedar Point miles away, you drive against X2 for SFMM, you go underneath Goliath at SFoG, you see Beast and Diamondback driving into KI. We try to be pleasing only on the cover, and not give you a full story to enjoy it seems...

I hope I didnt ramble in this or made no utter sense at all (which I most likely did).

Switching between the hideouts'...

 

[LiveForTheLaunch]

I can see what you're saying, and as far as Oblivion goes, I don't think it's a more intense ride, but it's absolutely a more intense experience. It properly scared me the three or four times I went on it, each time just as much as the ride prior. The psychological experience was really good but I think that dive machines SHOULD be one trick ponies because I never expected the ride to be incredible simply because it only does one thing, but the one thing it does left me very satisfied, much like Top Thrill Dragster. I think having grown up with amusement parks that put their focus more on "bigger is better" rather than the whole packages has made me appreciate parks and coasters that provide the entire package more. Alton Towers has less coasters than Cedar Point, but as a whole I was able to appreciate the gardens, the atmosphere, and the coasters a lot more because it seemed like so much effort was put into it.

So yah, having grown up with parks that are "quantity over quality" with theming that never really goes beyond a plaster facade here and there, I have come to appreciate parks like Alton Towers that provide what the WHOLE theme park experience should be, because I go to them far and few in between.

 

[SaiyanHajime]

Re: Re: I don't even know what to call this... "Visual cues"

I don't think it lacks it, it's just very different. There's a completely different set of aesthetic rules. The US audience is far less skeptical and serious than we are in Europe, and drawing attention with bright, tall, garish things is the norm. Without even thinking about amusement parks, think of the comparison between British and American road signage. US coasters aren't as often about fear as they are in the Europe, they are about excitement.

I dont think the color is there draw your attention to it easier, as the height/speed of the ride pulls them in quicker. The garish, bright color is probably their way of trying to make the ride seem less intimidating (whats scary about Pink or Neon Green for instance). Plus, the bright coloring gives them a distinction...a beacon if you will...against the sky, as the GP will go to them without a park map and use the ride itself as their guide.

The more I think about it, our parks seem to base themselves off their tallest rides as to whether they will be an amazing park or not. We only want seem to care about the 'cover' aspect of the ride, not the whole story your parks seem to give.

Im probably an exception to this as I grew up on Kennywood, Geauga Lake and Conneaut Lake. They didnt push all their rides to the front to draw you in visually, but let you find the rides on your own from within the park (to me it seems). You can see Cedar Point miles away, you drive against X2 for SFMM, you go underneath Goliath at SFoG, you see Beast and Diamondback driving into KI. We try to be pleasing only on the cover, and not give you a full story to enjoy it seems...

I hope I didnt ramble in this or made no utter sense at all (which I most likely did).

Switching between the hideouts'...

I don't think height is the draw with a lot of US coasters other than in a marketing statistical arms race. It's not present on park most of the time, because as Furie said height is comparative. If everything is tall, the height is reduced to meaningless from a visual point of view.

I made the "colours dumb down coasters" argument before and you, above everyone else, called bullsh!t on it. What's made you change your mind on that? I agree that the colours can't be to convey fear, like they often are in the UK and Europe, but the only other option is they are there to draw attention. Especially at a park where competing for attention is made difficult by numerous tall coasters. Mantis, at Cedar Point, is a great example. That ludicrous colour scheme seems to be trying DESPERATELY to grab attention. It looks like an exciting ride, in fact, compared to most B&Ms it appears a lot more dynamic... Which couldn't be further from the ride experience. So I think you're right in some sense. And I agree that colour schemes so vibrant and varied create an easily recognisable brand image. It's easier to tie a coaster name to "the red one" or whatever in someone's head.

Kennywood and the like are very different in their delivery, they are what I like to call "no bullsh!t" parks. I hated Kennywood, but it's one of those parks that builds something and doesn't brag about any worlds first, speed, height... It just says "look, new ride, it's awesome, come have a go!" And the fact that these parks still exist and still do pretty well is scary for everyone in marketing and creative entertainment.

 

[Intricks]

Re: I don't even know what to call this... "Visual cues"?

^ I changed my mind cause as I thought on it, I saw what you meant, but I still didnt exactly agree with the "colors dumbs down a ride" view. A better correlation between the two would be the taller a ride is, the more horrid the color is going to be. Case in point, Ka and Dragster: Bright Neon Green/darkerish bright green and Pink/neon piss yellow. Think of the tallest rides in America, they are all brightly colored to make the ride less intimidating (You're more likely to pick a fight with a guy wearing a brightly/tame colored shirt, than one wearing black or darker and more menacing colors).

I agree with you about the Mantis bit. Garish colors draw your attention to the ride that isnt as tall as the others, and doesnt really have the same "fear" factor the others sport. Is it a tame ride? Not really, but Ive never seen a young kid cry in line or fight to not get on it like I have for Top Thrill, Magnum and Millie.

Stateside, height and speed are the main intimidating factors due to the fact that we only seem to want to use the basic marketing scheme and be lazy (we dont have a station like Oblivion or the use of a theme like Nemesis). CF and SF owned parks intimidation factors are their height and speed. What theme is there to make kids and adults cry, let alone want to turn the other way and not ride? Not trying to sound like a dick, but Millennium Force doesnt have the intimidation factor that Steel Phantom had.

Kennywood is such a WONDERFUL example of how all American parks need to do their marketing. They dont try and make their new rides less scary (like the dumb dancing found in the Fun and Only campaign of the Point), but rather show that it is new, and will give you a set of mixed reactions (the dad was a little bitch, the daughter loved it).

America needs to take more time on their marketing and themeing instead of trying to make height and speed the only way to set a mood for the ride.

Switching between the hideouts'...

Switching between the hideouts'...