What Defines a Ride’s Success?

[OrlandoGuy]

My point is, not everyone sees everything the same. Remember that episode of Spongebob where Squidward stayed in Squidville and everyone acted like him and liked the same stuff as Squidward? Well, we don't live in Squidville nor do I want to. People like different rides for different reasons.

Theme Parks are supposed to be more than "fun", and no, Disney isn't the theme park empire it is today strictly because people only have "fun" there.

Whatever anyone thinks of the individual merits (or not) of Cosmic Rewind (and TRON, if we want to lump that in) and VelociCoaster, they are fundamentally not comparable. The intentions behind the attractions were different, and the execution of those intentions was different.

True. Beyond subjectivity of experience and preference, there are also semantic differences when we're talking about "fun" and "better."

Theme Parks Should Be More Than Just Fun - Former Imagineer Joe Rohde Says “Fun is Cheap” - WDW News Today (wdwnt.com)

This is a conversation weighing down the Guardians thread, but it is a sort of interesting discussion worth elaborating on in a more appropriate spot.

In short, what factors make a great attraction?

For the record, I actually do understand the point that theme park attractions are about more than just “fun” (despite my original post). With that said, it’s still (in my opinion) the most significant factor in considering a ride’s success.

To kick the debate off I’d pose this question:

Do you prefer a ride that checks off all the enthusiast’s boxes (animatronics, original storytelling, no flash-in-the-pan IP, innovative effects) but fails to offer any element of thrill or more “visceral” fun

-OR-

A ride that doesn’t bring anything new to the table in terms of theming or special effects but offers an exhilarating, re-rideable, and more physically exciting ride?


To the point about this “more than just fun” quote…I understand the sentiment. But I also would argue that a ride not being fun is more of a failure than not being a top-of-the-line artistic experience.

Thoughts?

 

[Jerroddragon]

Fun is apart of if a ride is well done but its about balance as well

Like how I complain about generic coasters being added to the parks

I love coasters but do not think in this day and age we should just have a new coaster, I would like it themed or near something nice.

Emperor at Sea World SD to me is an example of a fun coaster that I think fails. Sure its fun but the loading system sucks, there is no shade, no theme at all and nothing to look at for most the coaster.....so to me it fails
The DK coaster on the other hand is more what im taking about, its themed and most everyone can ride it....cool thats perfect

But I like them trying to make the park you are at the best it can be....and to some that means big thrills and for me its theming/fun

 

[Brian G.]

This is a conversation weighing down the Guardians thread, but it is a sort of interesting discussion worth elaborating on in a more appropriate spot.

In short, what factors make a great attraction?

For the record, I actually do understand the point that theme park attractions are about more than just “fun” (despite my original post). With that said, it’s still (in my opinion) the most significant factor in considering a ride’s success.

To kick the debate off I’d pose this question:

Do you prefer a ride that checks off all the enthusiast’s boxes (animatronics, original storytelling, no flash-in-the-pan IP, innovative effects) but fails to offer any element of thrill or more “visceral” fun

-OR-

A ride that doesn’t bring anything new to the table in terms of theming or special effects but offers an exhilarating, re-rideable, and more physically exciting ride?


To the point about this “more than just fun” quote…I understand the sentiment. But I also would argue that a ride not being fun is more of a failure than not being a top-of-the-line artistic experience.

Thoughts?

There's gotta be an element of fun. I think Krakatau Aqua Coaster is the best ride in Orlando based purely on fun. Whereas Na'vi River Journey is pretty and technologically impressive but soulless, IMO.

 

[JoeCamel]

There's gotta be an element of fun. I think Krakatau Aqua Coaster is the best ride in Orlando based purely on fun. Whereas Na'vi River Journey is pretty and technologically impressive but soulless, IMO.

I haven't done VB but I can't ride Hagrid without full smiling satisfaction and if you watch the departing guests it seems to be the norm.
Has to be fun (I'm paying for that) and leave me feeling satisfied if it does that for most people then it is a successful ride.
Many different strokes for different folks so not everyone agrees on a best ride but if the elements that deliver fun and satisfaction to most people are incorporated then it will be a "great" ride.

 

[Mad Dog]

Enjoyment and Fun is at the top of the list. I don't give a damn about tech achievements and/or tech numbers. Re rideability is also a key point. I also appreciate a really good facade and queue. An attraction
is the sum total of all of that and not just the ride. Theming is also very important to me.

 

[JoeCamel]

Enjoyment and Fun is at the top of the list. I don't give a damn about tech achievements and/or tech numbers. Re rideability is also a key point. I also appreciate a really good facade and queue. An attraction
is the sum total of all of that and not just the ride. Theming is also very important to me.

It has to be the total package, if they stuff me in a concrete box with railing switchbacks (transformers/hulk) I don't care if it is in theme it's not going to leave me satisfied with the experience. Someone might be into that, just not my thing so all boils down to how many like it.

Side note: GS numbers are widely touted but those can be manipulated by framing the questions in a way to achieve an end so while they may be the standard for evaluation they don't have enough weight to be the penultimate indicator of a "successful ride". IMO

 

[Parkscope Joe]

What is the purchaser's goal for the ride? If it fulfills that, it's successful.

As for a great attraction, I go back to the old school philosophy for rides - I want well-paced pieces of entertainment from start to stop. A good ride/show/fireworks/etc can carry my attention and keep me engaged throughout the experience through good effects and pacing. A great example is Mickey & Minnie's Runaway Railway, lots of fun, new gags and jokes paced throughout the ride. Loads to see, fun from start to finish. A bad example is Harmonious or Rivers of Light, they show all they have to offer within the first few minutes and they kinda veer off and i get bored.

 

[SailwiththeTide]

Matterhorn is a successful ride even though it is terrible and rough. On the flip side Green Lantern at SFMM was terrible and rough and was much maligned and removed.

 

[UniversalRBLX]

I would have said cloned attractions, but Supercharged & Ratatouille exist.

 

[GA-MBIT]

I do think expectations and purpose are big factors. Velocicoaster is a great coaster that I don't imagine would be a huge hit with guests if it was an attraction at the Peppa Pig Theme Park.

 

[shiekra38]

I do think expectations and purpose are big factors. Velocicoaster is a great coaster that I don't imagine would be a huge hit with guests if it was an attraction at the Peppa Pig Theme Park.

Daddy Pig's X-Scream Rider

 

[JoeCamel]

I do think expectations and purpose are big factors. Velocicoaster is a great coaster that I don't imagine would be a huge hit with guests if it was an attraction at the Peppa Pig Theme Park.

There's a Peppa park? Sorry Universal, I want a divorce....

 

[Parkscope Joe]

There's a Peppa park? Sorry Universal, I want a divorce....

 

[JoeCamel]

Well done on the intro, nice lift

 

[OrlandoGuy]

It has to be the total package, if they stuff me in a concrete box with railing switchbacks (transformers/hulk) I don't care if it is in theme it's not going to leave me satisfied with the experience. Someone might be into that, just not my thing so all boils down to how many like it.

This is actually a really interesting part of this…I think of the Millennium Falcon queue which is objectively extremely well-done and in-theme…but the theme is an industrial garage. Makes you wonder what’s more important to the average consumer—hyper-detail they can’t find anywhere else, or something that just resonates on a more lighthearted level.

What is the purchaser's goal for the ride? If it fulfills that, it's successful.

The purchaser as in the park who funded the ride? Or the purchaser as in the guest who bought the ticket to ride the ride? I think the former is largely irrelevant and their intentions don’t mean much if the end result is still a success.

 

[shiekra38]

"If a ride is not dumb, it is good..if a ride is dumb it is not good" - Michael Eisner (on how he plans to pay for Euro Disney)

 

[MrRoamer]

I definitely like having new technology and bringing things together, but putting in tech for the sake of having it be new technology can be a bit of a disaster too.

the OG Cat in the Hat was a ton of fun, and it didn't have anything really special going on other than just being fun. Once they slowed it down and removed key pieces it lost its luster

Jaws was a pretty big technological jump, but it was the skippers and human element that made the ride fun
Gringotts was just a bunch of tech with nothing really cohesive in it, and it feels flat and not fun

Now some of the big rides we're seeing come out are hybrids bringing together different components and technology together which has been IMO paying off large dividends on the fun o meter
Hagrids, Rise, Cosmic Rewind

Inherently, there isn't a whole lot of super fancy technology in them other than brining together and incorporating lots of different aspects and ride types, which I think ends up becoming something altogether new even though its an iteration.
I know its pretty difficult for me to stop smiling on any of those

 

[tyro]

A ride’s success is based on how quick the virtual queue sells out. But in reality I think the real success that you can measure is the % of the time you’re at the park and you see a wait time you’re willing to wait for. Like hagrids and VC I’ll basically wait any time for it, but cat in the hat I won’t however cat in the hat is basically always at under a 10 minute wait which I’m willing to wait for.

 

[GAcoaster]

I think a rides success can only really be determined long term. Does it have staying power and is it re-ridable for years/decades? Most rides when they open are popular, but the ones that continue to draw long after they opened and other attractions in the same park have opened are "successful".

 

[Mad Dog]

I think a rides success can only really be determined long term. Does it have staying power and is it re-ridable for years/decades? Most rides when they open are popular, but the ones that continue to draw long after they opened and other attractions in the same park have opened are "successful".

Yes, big time. Disney Imagineer legend Tony Baxter always emphasized that re-rideablity was the key to how good an attraction was.