neil009

^That's a very interesting point you make.

Two thoughts. 1. Given the scale of the ride in question (already a kick-ass hyper), this could potentially be AMAZING and I can't wait to try it. It'll really take the edge off the fact that other than the paint job the renovation hasn't actually improved the ride experience in the slightest. I couldn't care less about assigned seating since I'll have a VR headset strapped to my face and given the awful capacity hit, I doubt I'll bother riding the coaster more than once a visit. 2. My enthusiasm is tempered by the fact that the resolution on the Gear VR is terrible. It's like looking through a dirty window. Specifically, it's like looking through the screen on a screen door because you can see a net of black lines separating the individual pixels. That's because you're essentially looking at an ordinary cell phone screen through a magnifying glass. So while it may be awesome to try once, it's really nothing more than a one-season gimmick. It's really not anything like TRUE virtual reality.

I'm really curious what happens when one of the headsets stops working halfway down the first drop, and you're suddenly riding a hyper coaster blindfolded while you're desperately fumbling with the straps trying to get it off your head as you zoom along at 70+ mph.

People are seriously overstating things around here. Here's a perfectly nice video about something that should appeal strongly to the hard-cores around here, the ability to fully customize the game, but instead of being praised the creators are said to be "failing miserably" for literally no reason.

Of course it doesn't matter as long as they ride great but those new trains look really weird. Not at all what I would've expected. The headrests are so... tall. I wonder why they didn't go with the trains Super Dooper Looper got.

^It's a suspended coaster, and the track doesn't look that low to the ground, so the danger isn't as obvious, hence the argument for making it more obvious.

What I mean by trusting people's intelligence is actually telling them the REASON something is dangerous, because they're smart enough to know what to do with that information. Signs that basically say nothing but "KEEP OUT" assume that you're too dumb to take actions to protect your own safety, or do anything beyond follow simple commands.

And what rock solid empirical evidence are you basing that on? We trust people's intelligence enough to have signs that say "CAUTION: WET FLOOR" rather than "CAUTION: WALK SLOW HERE". I could very easily see someone thinking to themselves "Ok, restricted area, well I'll just be quick and no one will catch me." Train of thought might go a little differently if the warning was more explicit.

Admitting liability is the LEGAL rationale for not changing the signage. I never said they were actually at fault. I just said the signs could be clearer, and making them clearer *might* prevent future accidents. Which is not the same as saying it definitely would have prevented this one. It's a simple change, it's not like I suggested putting razor wire up. And the superiority thing is palpable whenever this topic comes up, if you don't notice it then you don't pay that much attention. It always turns into "Cedar Point [or whatever park] Versus the Stupids".

Screw Skull Mountain and Valravn, I think we should talk about Raptor's fences some more, considering my last post about it was such a hit. I didn't know people felt so strongly about slight changes to signage. I guess this sort of cold "if people are that dumb then they deserve to die" sentiment makes the kids these days feel cool and hip. It's great feeling smarter and better than other people, doesn't it?

Some quick thoughts on the Raptor issue: This is an example where our sue-happy society actually makes us LESS safe. Cedar Point should put signs on the fence that say something along the lines of DANGER: HIGH SPEED TRAINS with a picture of the clearance between the ground and the train so at least if someone does hop the fence, they know to look around before crossing under the track. Current signage says it's a restricted area but doesn't explicitly state the danger (like a "warning: high voltage" sign does). I'm not saying this should be necessary, but it might help and would cost virtually nothing to implement. The only reason CP isn't doing this is because it would be an admition of liability and open them up to getting sued. Which is really dumb.

^Six Flags doesn't trust their costumers not to vandalize it. I'm not even kidding, they actually said that. I guess they're afraid of kids throwing rocks at it or something. The real reason, of course? $$$

Nobody should be surprised at the loss of velocity through the second half. Skyrush CRAWLS over it's last couple turns heading towards the station, it's actually kind of amazing how quickly it happens. Something about the trains, they just don't hold their speed that well. But Intamin knows this and I'm sure they've accounted for it in their designs. Their rides usually keep the level of intensity up pretty well to the end, so I bet this ride will be no different. It also doesn't surprise me at all that the straight airtime hills look to be going for more floater than ejector, considering the reactions people had to Skyrush. Ultimately I think that will fit better with the restraint system then having these hills that make everyone's upper body shoot forward until they're practically snapping in half.

I'm thinking with those wing seats, this ride is going to still be pretty insane. It's hard for me to even imagine going upside down in those office chairs with naught but a bar across your thighs. There's no way this ride will disappoint. Kill some thighs, maybe, but not disappoint. This is definitely one of those rides that's going to feel a lot faster when you're on it. Even if it's slightly less crazy than Skyrush, I don't think you could keep up Skyrush's intensity for that long without it getting really uncomfortable.

That looks SO FRICKIN GOOD. I was planning on putting off my return trip to this park another year or two but now I'm not sure I'll be able to.

Big time. It's everything, look at the bench compared to the guy in that fourth picture. It looks as tall as he is. The shops in the last picture are the most obvious though. The counter where they order their food towers over them.

5 rides on the only rides a non-local would travel to Luna park for. When I went you could get 7 rides for that much if you don't go on any of the smaller rides. How is that a deal?

^$70 for five rides, versus that much or less for unlimited rides at any regional park? I don't understand how they justify charging that much.

This game looks like it's actually attempting what I thought the RCTW designers should have done, with pre-made coaster pieces that are scalable and customizable.

It's all coming out of the same pot anyways, so why does it matter if there isn't an in-game way of dividing your cash into twelfths? Calculator. Never played RCT 3, but in 1 and 2 it got mighty old having to stop building your roller coaster halfway through because the monthly bills were taken out, then building it piece by piece, waiting for just two or three more peeps to pay the park entrance fee. A set budget would make the game easier and more fun to play, and also bring the experience a little closer to how parks are actually run. Also I have no idea where twelfths came from (I don't feel like you'd get very far only spending a twelfth of your money on rides), but I'm a fairly casual gamer if that explains anything. Where a calcuter enters the picture, my interest ends.

I'm glad I can get on this ride here after waiting maybe 30 minutes in between rerides on Boulder Dash, rather than going and waiting two hours for the same thing at BGW.

It could be anything, from low screen resolution contributing to the 480p video to bad compression when exporting the video from whichever editor they used to make the titles. I use Premiere and After Effects and I always export my videos at the absolute highest quality (which results in 1 GB+ for even a couple of minutes of video) and then compress them down using Media Encoder. Sometimes, though, if you're not sure what you're doing, reducing the video resolution and frame rate will get the file size down to something more manageable. Right, well, whatever the reason, it was pretty awful. I wouldn't say they've "learned their lesson" but considering it was so strange to have happened in the first place, I doubt it will happen again. The video only got 9,000 views, as opposed to, say, Lightning Rod's first video which got 117,000 (and wasn't even a full pov).

Did you see the video though? Fine, use No Limits, but at least get a computer that will run it with decent graphics and a better frame rate. No video would've been better than what we got.

Personally I'm willing to overlook a few wonky ride animations if the game is fun... and that's a big IF. Are people really looking for 100% accuracy and realism from RCT? Is that really the ultimate goal? I have plenty of misgivings about what we've seen so far too, but I think a lot of the complaints people have can be overlooked if the game is playable and fun. What I really want to know more about is the management side. Are they going to introduce an off season mechanic? How about giving the player a separate "build budget" every month based off your park's profitability that you're free to spend all of, rather than everything, research/maintenance/expansion/etc. coming out of the same pot? A lot of questions here...

I watched video of the beta, and honestly I was very impressed with the scale of their ambition as far as the coaster creation tool. But the more I thought about it, the less sense it made. Why the heck did they try reinventing No Limits from scratch, rather than expand upon the foundation already laid by the previous RCT games? People who play RCT want to create coasters that look and run like real coasters. They don't want to spend hours tweaking a loop just to try and make it look like a real loop. You don't need to be able to do ANYTHING to still have a powerful creative tool. Every manufacturer has basic shapes that they fall back on and use over and over. Give the player a library of those basic shapes, allow them to tweak certain aspects of them, and that's really all you need. You want a drop? Ok, here's sliders for height, steepness, radius of pull-out, etc. I'm not saying designing this kind of system would be easy, but with the direction the design team chose, they're seriously throwing money in a pit and burning it. Their heart is in the right place but it's like they have no idea what the f*ck they're doing. It's a game. First and foremost it has to run flawlessly and be easy to pick up (while still being deep enough to keep players engaged). It really boggles me how they so thoroughly missed the mark on this. I'm still hopeful for this game, I think there's still a chance they could end up with something awesome. Like I said, their heart is in the right place. They just need to focus their ideas and streamline, a LOT.