MrSum1_55

What seems a bit ironic is that Atari's financial plan of moving to mobile does not seem to be selling too well, as many people who would have bought the game if it was any good are now holding off. I would pay $50 if they released an actual new game any day, as I am sure many fans would. (Hell, I might even pay that much for a mobile port of RCT2, with no micro transactions, of course). Really, this move seems to be more about grabbing cash quickly than making the most money in the long term. The best case scnario I can think of is that this fiasco reduced the value of the RCT brand, forcing Atari to sell it for a lower price, into better hands. I do not think that would actually happen, but one can only hope.

I do not even know why Atari is even trying anymore. With every question and answer given, this sounds more like an interview with a politician than a game publisher. I think we can safely assume that the PC experience will have micro transactions, therefore meaning that the PC game will probably be met with as much backlash as the mobile one. Atari would have to be 'blind and deaf' to not understand this.

I actually placed Firehawk quite high in my ballot, though I placed Nighthawk considerably lower. When I rode Firehawk, I tried different seats on different trains, and found the whole ride to be very smooth, actually smoother the most B&M's. In fact, the first time I rode, I came off actually shocked at how smooth it was, ask was expecting it to suck. I placed it above any S:UF clone in my poll. However, the same cannot be said about Nighthawk. Most of the ride was ok, but the corkscrews were truly awful. Though the final twists are well executed on Firehawk, Nighthawk's ending was not a pleasant experience. Still, I did like the ride overall, and even the rough bits do not have much head banging, thanks to the actually good restraints. So, I can see why people dislike Nighthawk, but I do not understand why Firehawk was so low. I may have caught it on a good day, but I tried riding it throughout the day in different seats of different trains to find where all the roughness was people were talking about, and I found the ride to be glass smooth every single time. It is easily better than a Superman clone, and , to me, should be ranked higher.

The length of a roller coaster should be like a woman's skirt: long enough to cover everything, but short enough to leave you wanting more.

The fact that CP is investing in to proper attractions as opposed to real ones makes me very happy. I am not a fan of record breaking, as this practice tends to promote rides with gimmicks to them as opposed to complete ride experiences. (I do like the rush to add inversions to wood coasters, but this is just because it means more RMC projects) While CP has installed an unique wing coaster, SFMM got the world's worst zac spin and a triple launcher that is shorter than most single-launch coasters. I doubt SFMM would ever get a polar coaster, because this type of ride would probably be expensive, and SFMM's main goal is to install the cheapest possible ride that can still break a record.

Atari seems to be digging themselves progressively deeper with each statement they make. At the very least, they are aware of why fans of the series are unhappy with the game, so when the series hopefully does flop, they will at least know why, and only then will I regain a minute amount of hope for a real RCT sequel. People have remained optimistic about the "PC" RCT4. With how many contradictions are in this, I can safely say that no hope remains for this redheaded stepchild of a sequel. I am now playing the original scenarios from the original 1999 RCT, and wondering how in the world a game like this one looks so much better than its successor 15 years down the line.

I have been trying to comprehend Atari's logic with their gaming. One reason they may be ignoring fans is the fact that most of the current fans tend to be people who were hooked on the games at younger ages, and continued to play into young adulthood. Therefore, it seems as if they are trying to re-appeal to the young audience that made the original a hit. But, the problem is that the beauty of the original RCT (as well as games such as Sim City) is that they are not made for very young kids. They were made for more of a pre teen to young adult audience. With complex interfaces and scenarios that took hours to beat, I could see few young kids (less than 10 years of age) getting in to an RCT type game. However, now Atari is shooting for an audience that is even younger than their original audience, which makes absolutely no sense. If they want their next game to be a hit, they should go back and target the original audience that made the games a hit, instead of running a once great series to the ground. Edit: Just to point this out, Justin Bieber's "Baby" video has 2,262,327 likes and 3,869,469 dislikes, leaving about a 0.506 ratio of likes to dislikes. RCT4 has 122 likes and 4,645 dislikes, leaving a 0.026 like to dislike ratio. Therefore, Justin Bieber is 19.5 times more preferred on the internet than RCT4. A new and well-made theme park game should come out, and considering the original success, I do not see why nothing even remotely similar to RCT has come out since (though Theme Park Studio could be a very good supplement, as far as we have seen). So, why will Atari not make a real game, if that is what made them money in the first place?

Remember, years back, when Atari stated that they were "thinking hard" about the next RCT game? I am fairly certain they never read a single comment in that section. Also, it sounds like this game announcement would be better as an April Fool's Joke. To say that Atari is out of touch with their fanbase is an understatement.

I know Gerstlauer is the manufacturer, but I do believe that their accusations are too realistic. For one, even if a test seat was not used, this still does not explain the accident, as using this is purely optional. Secondly, it is up to Gerstlauer to decide whether or not the ride is safe without seat belts, considering that they are the ones who designed the restraints. If they said it was safe without seat belts, there is no reason for the park to think against that. I guess they might have a point with the check system, but I do not believe V is giving fair accusations.

I would have nice landscaping, a charming appeal, a top ten wood coaster, at least two solid steel coasters, a great classic family coaster, a 300 foot drop tower, top notch operations and employees, and place it in a location known for having attractive residents. So, basically Liseberg.

I will say, though, that I do hope the game does get running smoothly, as my laptop can run No Limits as a manageable fame rate, but is having problems getting TPS to run at above 18 FPS, even in a park with not much in it, and no moving objects. Also, the controls are a bit tight , and as someone who plays No Limits 1 and RCT3, they are a bit unusual, and may take some more getting used to. However, there are still many great options in this game, and it does have he potential to be one of the greatest coaster simulators out there, but I just hope my computer is powerful enough to handle it. (Like I said above, it can run NL1, one of the most powerful simulators on the market)

^^I have been having the same problem. The last update I received was project update 21, back in January. And, I did pledge $50, so I believe I should be receiving something. I will continue to try to find out why I cannot find the code.

I have seen SFGAdv operate Green Lantern efficiently with three trains. However, one factor to note is that ops at SFGAdv>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>ops at SFMM.

Wild guess: South Africa. Because all other clues relate to places TPR has been to. But, the continent of Africa has yet to be touched by TPR.

^That post seems a bit too optimistic, considering that an occurrence like that in Orlando handicapped someone for the rest of their life and caused a popular coaster to run differently than it had been for the past ten years.

^^I think that the people who are placing El Toro in the middle are just people who want to rank it dead last and sabotage the results, but ranking an obviously excellent coaster in last place would be too obvious, so these people are just sticking it in the middle in order to avoid being discovered. The people doing this have to be: a) internet trolls, b) too fat to fit in Intamin coasters, c) masochists or d) all of the above.

^^That is what I have been thinking. In fact, it would not surprise me too much if the park just decided to add new trains, then then modify only one part of the ride to add an inversion. Still, even if they only decided to do a full RMC of just one side, it would still be the one of the best things to happen to the park in the last ten years. This may be the first opportunity in a while for a park to build an exceptional coaster, as the last large-scale attraction built at the park was Tatsu in 2006. Anything added after that was either just a modification to an existing ride, or an attraction that could be easily be found at a medium sized park.

I am surprised this one is not mentioned more often, but the Seattle/Vancouver area really comes to mind. The metro area of Seattle has about 3.5 million people, while the metro area of Vancouver has over 2 million people. Both of these cities are well-known for having high average incomes and having many business and technological related jobs, yet the only theme park in the Seattle area has an old loop-screw as its second largest coaster. Vancouver does have it better, as their wood coaster is supposed to be excellent. Still, a full sized park could probably do well in the area, and it does baffle me that Waldameer Park has a better lineup than Wild Waves, yet Waldameer is located in an area with about 15% of the population of Seattle. This is not to mention places like Lagoon or Silverwood, with Lagoon being located in an area with about 1/3rd the population of Seattle. When places like Salt Lake City and Northern Idaho can support better theme parks than Seattle, Denver, or Phoenix, you would think that something is not quite right. Perhaps it is required by federal law that no good theme parks can exist anywhere east of Missouri or Texas, excluding California, Utah, and Idaho.

I have seen it run two trains. It runs exactly like any other coaster would with two trains. The only difference is a slight delay of the train on the block advancing into the station, because the train on the block remains on the block until the previous train clears the top hat. Other than that, the ride runs two trains as any other coaster would. Edit: And, during stacking, the final block is actually the u turn before the station. That is where the trains wait. There is plenty of space to slow down before the curve.

Elitch Gardens. The last non-kiddie coarser was added 10 years ago. That equates to zero adult coasters and one kiddie coaster added in 10 years. By comparison, Lagoon in SLC has added two adult coasters and two kiddie coasters in the past 10 years, and is already planning another adult coaster. And, if the SLC area is only half the size of the Denver area, this proves that Elitch's should deserve a new ride.

Big Sexy Cool Cool Streak? Come on! Don't hesitate.

This is probably one of the best ways I have ever seen a park cover for a ride removal. It certainly beats the Invertigarden. In fact, I think they did better than Disney's Maliboomer removal, considering that the potted trees there look much less permanent than this flower pot.

So, what is it like being a coaster enthusiast? Well, it has its ups and downs. Usually, I prefer it in the rear, because you feel the movements more back there. But, it is usually rougher in the rear. Therefore, in some circumstances, I avoid the rear in favor of the front because I do not like it to be too rough.

My answer would be several coasters at Magic Mountain. RR and Superman for having bent rows, which are always a terrible idea. What is even worse is that on Superman they assign seats, yet the ops do nothing to combat the fact that the rows are bent. So, even the seat assigning can cause you to wait considerably longer for a particular row, which is exactly what the concept of assigning seats is supposed to prevent. Only SFMM could screw this system up so well. Also, I second YOLOcoaster. It is a platform with a tarp over it. Also, the station gives you a good view of how ugly the surrounding area has become; what was once a nice area filled with trees is now a dirt mound on a hill. YOLOcoaster is really the epitome of an SFMM coaster. It has an ugly station, a hideous landscape, low capacity, and it is a very gimmicky ride overall.

What somewhat boggles my mind is how coasters from different manufacturers are receiving the safety belts as well. Sure, it makes sense for NTAG and IRat to receive them, but placing them on trains are by different manufacturers is just plain overkill, unless in the fairly unlikely event that an actual study showed that seatbelts would keep a person safe on a coaster with these different restraint systems. It seems that, while Cedar Fair parks are improving, SF parks are turning into mid 2000's Cedar Fair parks, with extra safety devices being added to many coasters, as well as declines in park upkeep and operations. (SFMM and SFOT most come to mind)