All of which is to say, technical greatness consists of both good design and popularity. Taking another roller coaster as example, say Space Mountain at WDW - it is a perfectly mediocre roller coaster design, but carries a popularity and execution that undoubtedly makes it good.
I would say this is the same problem I was having in another thread also, where people are equating lacking intensity to mediocrity. Space Mountain (in all incarnations) is better than Millennium Force at doing what it does and so is, imo, a better ride. Would I rather go on MF? Actually probably, but that's got nothing to do with either rides quality.
Which is why Ben is wrong.
It is not, and never will be, a piece of art. It might be a problem that stuff is designed to be marketed and not art but that's the way of the World unfortunately.
I don't understand this... If you agree that things could be better, then why are we letting anything exist in mediocrity? We absolutely should criticise things that are too preoccupied with marketing gimmicks than actually being good.
Whether MF specifically fills that category is another argument entirely, that's fair. But if it does, then it absolutely should get criticism the same way cash grab movies do. And we do, all the time, with Merlin's worlds firsts.
Again, your definition of what is good is clouding your judgement here. (Snip)
What makes your opinion, in the minority, so right that what you say is good IS good? Nothing at all.
So, let's talk about Nemesis? Which you routinely poo all over.
Sure it doesn't have snappy transitions - but it was never meant to. It was meant to be tall (very tall) and it is. It was meant to be fast (very fast) and it is. It was meant to be a big statement for the park - and it is.
Fury exists and proves that you can be tall, fast and a statement without sacrificing technical greatness.
It was meant to be a crowd pleaser (and 17 years on from it, it still is I think (been 4 years since I was at the park, but biq Qs then)). OK perhaps I can accept that some "enthusiasts" might not think its great (but I refer you to my earlier comment), but objectively its a hugely successful coaster and it has done exactly what it was meant to do ; be a mainstay "big ride" for one of the biggest parks there is.
I've explained already why I don't think it matters how popular it is, because popularity is not the same as being good. But, some other interesting points to make here is that with coasters, queue length is NEVER an accurate way to judge popularity.
Cedar Point is a very busy park, but if you could visit on a day where NOTHING had a line at all, but rides were still running to max capacity, and then took the throughputs... Then you could see what is popular. Existing queue length, capacity and reliability all factor into queue length on a normal day. But even then, the way a ride looks and the position in the park matters. But I am pretty certain that Maverick would have higher repeat riders than any ride in the park in those fantasy conditions, because it is actually good. On a normal day, the highest throughput probably belongs to Raptor, but no one is going to claim that is the most popular ride there.
Look, I get what you're all saying... But I don't understand why we're ok with them just being commercially successful. That does not equate to quality. If you guys genuinely think MF is a great ride, then that's perfectly fine, but argue that and explain that. Because the popularity has nothing to do with that. I don't think MF is critically good. It's not a terrible ride, obviously. It's just "good" when I believe it could be "great" or "outstanding".
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
