Dr. M

Skyrush's "slowed lift hill" was a great big nothing, I suspect this is as well, if there is even any truth to the rumors, which I doubt. They generally make rides slower by adding trims, not changing the wheels, am I wrong?

I would guess that people always used to just drive past the safari and hurry on to the park, rather than stay in their car for another hour after already driving a long way to get there. Now that it's just like another ride, people are like, "Ooh! A line to stand in! Let's go get in it!" Even though before, you could stay in your nice air-conditioned car the whole time, and now you get to bake in the sun in line, and then bake in the sun some more on the ride. Moral of the story: People are dumb.

It would be nice if someone who's actually ridden it before and after could confirm this.

You're definitely very close to that fine line between genius and nuts.

The last time I did the drive-through safari the monkeys were kept away from your car in an enclosure. Huge disappointment, that was one of the best things about it.

This made me giggle. Makes me think of, you know, Russia or something.

I'd love to see a detailed story on coaster design, from inception to planning to completion. How involved is the park in the actual layout of the ride? Does the park say how intense they want the ride to be, beyond simply whether it's a family ride or thrill ride? Does the park ever come up with specific things they want to see in the layout? I know a lot of these things probably depend on the park, it'd be awesome if you could maybe contrast the relationship John Wardley has with the coaster design process versus, say, the people at SFOT. What kind of software do the designers use? Do any coaster designers consider themselves artists, beyond simply engineers? If the show expanded to PA, I'd love to see the show tell more of the backstory behind Flying Turns and Skyrush, particular challenges faced in each case. Ah so many questions. I'll try to think of some more specific ones. Here's two I just thought of: How do they make sure the catchcars on boomerangs and coasters like that never release too early? How do construction crews get the different pieces of track to line up so perfectly so high in the air?

^^In all of those examples the radius doesn't look nearly as tight to me, or as high off the ground of course.

^^That's already been posted. The consensus is "fat chance".

"Overbank" doesn't even do it justice. That ain't no Millenium Force-style turnaround. It's like a pin-point turn 150 feet in the air. Can anyone think of a turn on a ride that looks even remotely like that?

I can't imagine why a company that put out fifty versions of the same game wouldn't succeed long-term.

They aren't entirely wrong. A cheap mobile game like this is much easier for public consumptuion on a mass market scale. Although this probably won't make as much as a full title, the ratio of time and cost in production to monetary return is vastly greater. Remember the death of arcades, before the home console revolution, when everyone thought video games were dead? People were wrong then, and the people today saying that immersive, quality gaming experiences are on their way out in favor of cheap, shallow mobile games are wrong now. Video games are an artform, albeit a young one, and no matter how discouraging recent developments may seem, there will always be a demand for real, quality interactive entertainment. Not saying you're necessarily making that argument, I just think it's important to take our cynicism with a little bit of perspective. I do think PC gaming will basically continue to become more and more niche to the point of obsolescence.

That track for the overbank looks so utterly unique and insane... does it kind of remind anyone else of Crystal Beach Cyclone? Not that I'm one of those people that kind of obsesses over that ride but that's the first thing I thought of when I saw it.

I can see simply placing them in a separate category from traditional dark rides. My issue is I've never been on one I liked. Often times a park might get one dark ride, maybe two, and if they pick this kind of ride then it means the world gets one less traditional dark ride. That's why I say it's the "enemy of the genre", I want to see more and better dark rides, and I see this ride type as being detrimental to that. It's fine for Disney or Universal to have one, but just imagine what Reese's Xtreme Cup Whatever could have been if Hershey had applied just a little more imagination and a lot less laser guns. One more thing, I'm no strict traditionalist here. I loved DarKastle. 3D video, new technologies, all that's great. It's the interactive element I see as being distracting and shallow.

This is worth repeating: If the PC version was really going to be radically different/better, they would have announced that first. Obviously they would want the initial buzz to be as positive as possible. Has there ever been a crappy mobile version of a great game that was released before the actual game, before we even saw any news or screenshots of the actual game? Not on this planet. I think it's safe to say the RCT franchise is effectively dead. Time to cut our emotional losses and move on.

I disagree entirely. The first drop has plenty of nice air to it, and the return run *usually* has solid airtime over every hill. But even when it's at its slowest, it doesn't rattle you to death, it's comfortable to ride, has a nice location, and is still very fast. I find the helix much more exciting than Magnum's turnaround. No it won't throw you around with extreme force, but does every coaster have to? It's the kind of ride you can just do over and over again, which I have done often. Also, no long straightways, and the helix isn't followed by another big helix. I.E. better than Superman at SFA.

I've probably been to this park 20 or 30 times in my life as it's only a few hours from my house. We usually go on Saturdays, sometimes in October even and I would agree with this. The flats can get 1-2 cycle waits sometimes but the coasters have always been 5 minute waits tops and they're usually walk ons (except the Mouse which won't be more than 15 minutes and that's only because of it's slow operations). The longest line in the dry park is usually the Flume but it's worth it. The line is usually only 15 minutes but it seems long when you've been walking on to everything else all day. ** The Rapids are technically in the dry park and always have a huge line, but I'd argue that this is closer to the waterpark than the dry park and I think that's the reason why. Maybe I've just been really unlucky, but any time I go during the summer I typically see 30-45 minute waits for all the major coasters. I don't know why I seem to be the only one who reports this, but the only time I've seen everything a walk-on it's early or late in the season. Anyway, I also don't know why Steel Force never gets any love around here. It's an awesome ride. Possibly the worst hyper in the area, but that hardly makes it bad.

If people on this forum are to be believed, you can go literally any day of the year and expect naught but the stray tumbleweed.

Part of the appeal of RollerCoaster Tycoon as a series is definitely being able to create anything - some of the stuff that NewElement puts out is nuts (in a good way). But the other part of the appeal is the real-time strategy scenario gameplay, something of which Theme Park Studio is currently lacking. I believe that RollerCoaster Tycoon was always a game first and a simulation second, at least until [insert name here] starting putting custom content into RCT2. I think this is very important to remember. I also think it would be harder putting out a proper sequel to RCT than most people seem to think. RCT was a hell of a game, but once you had it figured out, all the things you had to do to make your park successful, it wasn't hard to beat it. RCT 2 came out and it wasn't anything revolutionary, it simply added content, features, and streamlined the interface. And what people don't seem to remember is that RCT 2 was a big disappointment for a lot of people, precisely because it felt too close to the original. Same gameplay/graphics, same tricks to beating it. I never played RCT 3 so I can't comment there, but it seems like developing the game has the same challenges as developing any other series, how do you keep the formula, but update it and make it fresh? For all the people saying "all they'd have to do is make the same game all over again but add some stuff", I disagree, there'd be no point, you might as well go play the original. Would it be better than this abomination? Sure, but it still wouldn't be "good". One more thing. If anyone thinks the backlash, or "competition" from TPS, or anything short of a direct act of God, could make Atari want to do anything different from what they're doing, I'd say you're being willfully naïve.

People have probably already responded to this but I had to say no I think RCT had tons of appeal to a broad variety of gamers, including people who'd never ridden a roller coaster in their life. RCT was a bonafide phenomenon, not some niche market product. But I think it's safe to say that what was, is no more. Hardly anyone plays PC games now period, and why should they? Developers release games with tons of glitches, making their costumers into unpaid beta testers, and that's besides needing a $200 graphics card and the blood of a virgin just to make the darn things run. Who needs it?

I love dark rides. Allow me to describe for you my idea of the perfect dark ride: It's a ride that teleports you to another place. It uses sight, sound, and physical sensation creatively to craft for you an experience like no other. A sense of mystery, of awe, of the unknown. Most importantly, you FEEL something as you ride it. Nostalgia, terror, laughter, SOMETHING. Sound pretty reasonable? I'm sure anybody who's been to Disney World can agree with this, not that that's the only place you can find great dark rides. Now I'll describe for you my idea of a terrible, hollow dark ride: One that takes money away from scenery and effects and puts it into laser guns and targets. It isn't a ride, it's an elaborate arcade game. No awe, no mystery, just vacant stares and twitching index fingers. After the riders get off, instead of laughing or talking about the ride experience, they'll be bickering over whose gun didn't work or who hit targets that didn't register, if they're still thinking about the ride at all. It doesn't matter how good the atmosphere or sets are, because it's impossible to truly appreciate a dark ride and play a game at the same time. Video games can be artistic and a game because the content and gameplay aren't at odds with each other. Last I checked zombies don't have light-up targets on their foreheads. Would anyone list that Toy Story ride as one of their favorites at the Magic Kingdom? Anybody? I bring this up because occasionally I've read people actually saying they hope their own park gets one of these rides. WHY??? To me you might as well be saying you hope they raise the price of parking this year. Interactive dark rides are the enemy of the genre, they're the reality television of the amusement industry, the utter absence of creativity and artistic expression. They're the cheap and easy solution for parks that don't have the creative manpower to actually build a decent ride. They're a misguided attempt at interpreting the needs of the market, a market that doesn't even know what the f*** it wants, but hey they sure love tapping on those cell phones and ignoring the people around them, let's put a gun in their hands and maybe they'll be entertained. That's enough ranting on my part. So, what's the story? Why does everybody not hate these rides as much as I do?

I don't know where this idea came from that a park can't have two awesome wooden coasters. It's really bizarre. Steel? Sure, we've already got like six of those and they're all awesome, but please build another. A woodie? Naw we got El Toro we're good.

and see, all of the cool elements cost you ACTUAL money (tickets have to be bought) or you get very stingily during the game. More of a ripoff than a game. I wonder if you have to pay money to drown your handymen.

Haha yeah, as if I need yet another reason to be staring at my phone 18 out of 24 hours a day.

What people are missing here is that it has nothing to do with the "number" but everything to do with the overall direction of the franchise. Don't forget there was a 3DS game a couple of years ago, and that was a hot mess also. I don't have ANY confidence that Atari knows anything about this franchise anymore, what made it a success in the first place, or what they need to do to make it a success again. iOS would have seemed like the PERFECT platform to port the old RCT2 over, even if they had included in-app purchases, and at least that would have had a chance. People also seem to forget that games cost a TON of money to develop, and when you are selling a mobile app for 99 cents, you pretty much HAVE to create in-app purchases to make a game viable. I don't have a problem paying a dollar or two for a roller coaster pack IF the game was something I was interested in and in this case, looked and felt like an RCT game should. But everything I've seen so far leads me to believe the direction of the franchise is completely off course. I agree with all of this. What hope is there for another decent PC game at this point? They say a PC version is on the way, but that smells like BS to me. Nothing we've seen indicates they've got the creative power necessary for a true sequel. If there is a PC version, I bet it'll just be more shovelware. Can anybody tell me the last truly decent PC game that carried the name "Atari"?