Millennium Force or Forceless?

[Snoo]

^Awesome. Cool to see you join up for the discussion.

I don't really feel like I strayed much from fact into opinion. I'm curious to hear if you think other coasters have beat it on speed or drop since then, if that's what you're referencing. More than willing to hear counter-examples...gives me a good "to do" list of rides

As he pointed out, the whole analysis of the ride experience was basically an opinion. You cannot take your own ride experience, as the way he described it, and say that as fact because I honestly have hardly felt half the forces that he has described while riding MF.

Other rides? If we are talking sheer speed, look right across the park at TTD and at KK.. as those both beat it when we are speaking about velocity and G's. Maintained speed? I-305 will destroy MF when that puppy debuts.. but until then.. nothing of course as there isn't another coaster built which is based around pure speed with that sort of length. Drop? To be honest, I enjoyed the Dive Machines drops more then I enjoy MF's. Also, you could throw El Toro's drop out there as that was superb.. but I have never denied the fact MF does have a great drop.

I'd like to point out that my opinion has been an evolving one, as I've had the pleasure to ride MF every year since it has opened on top of experience other rides along the way. Some people have a static view on the ride as they either dry hump the hell out of it because they haven't ridden it as much/been on a larger variety of coasters or simply like the experience. To be honest, my opinion of the ride started to fade even before I started to make my way around the country to experience other rides as TTD and Magnum were turning out to be better experiences (Maggy dropped off tho).

 

[rollermonkey]

I certainly don't 'dry hump' MF.
I like it a lot, and what it offers.

I'd also say that having ridden it this past year more times than any other, I'm comparing it against a fairly broad array of other coasters.

As for TTD? I absolutely LOVED that ride when first I rode.

Now? I'll skip it, Ka, Stealth or Zaturn, the one-trick / trick-and-a-half launch coasters in favor of Dodonpa, Xcelerator or yes even Millie, any day, every time.

(And Snoo, I know you weren't directing your comments at me. )

 

[wolverinechris]

Well, it's a bit different to actually critique an article in front of the author. You're actually going out, finding data, and writing about it, which is pretty admirable. I hope this wasn't too personal. I went back and read the article so that I could actually do you justice with a full critique.

Re: objectivity, the second paragraph starts off with the idea that "...the future was not riding on it; the future further passed it by with each new year...". I did originally miss the statement that "If you like height and sustained speed, Millennium Force is still your ride." Of course, that was then followed up with "...more refined coaster connoisseurs have learned that despite the record-breaking statistics there’s not much in terms of substance and have begun to turn their nose up at the once adored..." which seems to me to paint anyone that disagrees as unrefined. Admittedly, that isn't part of the force analysis, but I also didn't get the impression that that was the only part of the article you were aiming for objectivity then.

Admittedly, I did miss your discussion on peripheral sensations, and that does balance it a lot. That said, you spent a paragraph and a half on those - compare that to the amount you spent on force analysis. While the content of the article may be mostly factually correct, there's also the error of omission to consider. I would say it's the same problem as an analysis of Flight of Fear that focuses on the lack of any visuals and only spent a small time talking about forces - technically factually correct, missing the mark on analysis. Maybe you don't find the sensations provided by speed as interesting as some of us do, but I feel like a complete analysis would have included that alongside the force descriptions (beyond just noting where it's slowed down). Actually, given MF's specific characteristics, I would say a rundown of forces should be the aspect confined to a paragraph and a half.

Given the length of the article, distribution of content can become even more important, as obviously plenty of people will just skim it - and, like I did, miss at least a few things (especially things given less text).

It is good to see that you included discussion of speed, though, and it is my own fault I didn't read the whole thing and see that earlier. My statement that "to neglect other aspects of the ride is to compromise your entire analysis and understanding..." was a bit off base, as you didn't neglect other aspects (though I will still maintain the relative space alloted to the different aspects was off).

Re: conclusions, I wasn't making a statement one way or the other about a conclusion from the article - my comment on the force chart was directed at the methodology of the analysis, which I saw as focused mainly on the forces.

OK, yes, there are a number of other elements necessary to create the sensation of speed - like points of reference, presence of air, and openness to the external environment. I didn't really feel the discussion of how it creates the sensation of speed was necessary so much as the fact that it does and does so in a manner and degree unique among coasters.

A couple of other things I noticed:
"And that’s all Millennium Force seems to be about… long, sustained, frequently forceless forces. A bit of speed, a bit of height..." As you might have guessed, I don't think that's particularly accurate. As you noted earlier in the article, MF is well-known for its height, and I know a graph of speed over time on MF would indicate it has more than "a bit of speed". Then there's "...nothing you can actually feel if you close your eyes except for some particularly gusty wind, and nothing more." If you were able to turn of the sensation of feeling as easily as you can vision, you could make the same sort of argument against any coaster with ejector airtime. I don't consider how much closing your eyes affects the experience a great point of analysis.

I guess I'm also worried that this article will provide something those who prefer other coasters will point to and say "here's data that backs up my existing opinion on Millennium Force, and you just disagree because you're a fanboy [or insert other excuse here]" instead of actually trying to understand other perspectives.

PS - you did hit the mark on the negative opinions / perceptions related to MF.

Snoo, I suppose I should have been a bit more specific with what I was asking, although I certainly appreciate the suggestions. I wasn't so much as looking for an example of 'better' drops, as that's very subjective, but rather drops that exceed MF's notable characteristics. Maybe an example would help me clarify - Expedition Geforce's curving drop is something that's fairly unique. It wasn't something that appealed to me; I honestly felt it detracted from the drop sensation. However, I certainly wouldn't overlook its uniqueness in a discussion, as that's clearly something that does appeal to many people.
I was indeed referencing sustained speed, and I did note that 305 would be the only real challenge. Though it could well be better, I'm somewhat doubtful it will 'destroy' MF, but I guess time will tell.
Finally, about your "dry hump" comment...yeah; good thing those people that don't like MF don't feel the need to incessantly bring that up every time the ride is mentioned .

 

[Anonymous]

Probably if I could go back and restructure the article from the start I would because I learned more about how I actually wanted to assess the ride after I wrote it, but I don't have a huge amount of time to write multiple drafts so I just have to write it straight through and hope I get as much right as possible on the first try. I forgot about some of those phrases you cited. I think in the part about 'refined coaster connoisseurs' was intended to be more detached irony rather than state any opinions... especially since in a lot of my other articles I argue strongly against that sort of judging criteria which we associate with a lot of really well-traveled enthusiasts who report back with nothing but notes on forces and fast pacing. Same thing with the second part you quoted using "a bit of speed/height" was partly an ironic rhetorical device to properly frame the criticism part of the ride.

Trying to find an actual set of objective criteria to judge a ride against can be kind of hard, so in this case I did present a lot of opinions about the ride, some that I hope were entirely original (i.e. I don't think I've ever heard anyone discuss the symettric layout sequencing before), but again notice that I don't think in reading it anyone would be able to get a solid opinion of how much I personally like the ride in real life. (It's my number 6 steel, sometimes begrudgingly, sometimes deservedly).

In any event, thank you for replying (and commenting in the first place, didn't mean to startle you by suddenly jumping into this thread when you thought these were just private comments).

 

[wolverinechris]

^ No worries; I certainly understand that preplanning the distribution of writing, especially for extensive pieces, can be difficult. It was good to have you come by and comment; I just was a bit surprised, and I hoped you wouldn't take my previous comments personally.

I certainly wouldn't have guessed it ranked that highly for you...I guess either you do a great job of seeing other perspectives, or those peripheral sensations compensate more than you let on .

And yeah; that was the first I'd heard of the symmetry...or the ride's um, masculine implications.

We'd love to see you around more...and I look forward to actually reading the whole article before commenting next time .

 

[vividtrauma]

I still love it.

One of those rides that just has sex appeal, of course it has lost some of it's spark, considering I have probably rode it 100 times...

 

[Gavin]

^Well done for reading the whole of this year-old topic, including the article it was based on, instead of just seeing the name Millenium Force and jumping in with a pointless comment, as others would have.

Oh wait...