Menu
What's new
By:
Filters

Technically Good Coasters You Don't Feel

jayjay

jayjay

Giga Poster
This is a topic for those very well crafted coasters. The ones where, on a technical level, you recognise their beatiful design, engineering or importance, but just can't bring yourself to enjoy like other people do.

For example, I am not a Katun fan. It's fast, intense, well paced and reasonably smooth but it doesn't hit me in the gut like it does for some people. What's yours?
 
I think I can speak for many and say Millennium Force. It's supposed to be the crown jewel of coasters. 12 years of GTAs, broke records, and set the standard in the coaster industry when it opened. But it's just 'eh'. I can kinda see why people would love it, but I just did not feel a thing on it.
 
Not gonna know what to think when I eventually end up at Cedar Point. Hopefully I fit into the category of lovers, but it doesn't fit the profile of what I tend to love.

Just thought of another one while writing my top 10 wood: Twister at Gröna Lund. It's a masterpiece fitting that much action and airtime into a postage stamp plot of land, but didn't really warm to it as a ride like some people have.
 
I'd have to say the same for Millennium Force. Not saying it's bad, but it has a massive rattle to it. I was expecting glossy smooth like Gatekeeper.
 
This is going to sound really up-myself, but I'm pretty sure that all the major coasters I'm not a fan of (such as Millenium Force) are objectively bad and that's why I'm not much of a fan. :p

There's a bunch of objectively bad coasters I like... Like Beast, Ultimate, Excalibur and Big One.

But using Millenium Force as an example, that's not a good ride. It's just tall. The entire purpose of its existence is to be really tall, so that's all it does. It doesn't stop to question whether tallness is a good enough trait to carry it and I just don't think it is. The thing about tall coasters is they have to have super drawn out maneuvers to account for their speed and it always seems like they take it too far? And not only that, even at its lowest points it seems too high off the ground to appreciate your speed compared to passing scenery.

Millenium Force is enjoyed by a lot of people, but that's not what objectively good is. That's popular.

How do you define an objectively good ride? Well that's... That's it's own topic right there. Staying at Cedar Point I would say that Maverick is the only objectively good ride there that I have been on. (2010 last visit) Maverick isn't a gimmicky mess. It's not ticking a box like height or speed and being done with it, it feels well crafted and thought out. The pacing is good, the variety in forces and wildness is good. It lives up to its name, which to me is always a sign that the design team knew what they were doing? There's a lot of rides that don't convey their theme through ride experience and I just think that's rather telling... My favorite example is SkyRush and I know I go on about it a lot, but that colour scheme, name and the park director literally saying the seating gave families "choices" demonstrates that they had no ****ing clue it was gonna be that crazy intense. So I would say, being well designed is what objectively good means. Air is objectively good even though it's a bit lame for most people, Superman isn't objectively good in the slightest. Tatsu is best, perhaps because it appeals to enthusiast sensibilities whilst still being well designed.
 
Intimidator 305 is a fantastically crafted coaster for those who love positive Gs. I like positive Gs, but this was simply too much. Thunderhead and a lot of GCIs have fantastic layouts and great pops of airtime, but they tend to leave me unimpressed. They are a good experience, but I never get off blown away. They are usually just, good. Twisted Colossus is technically brilliantly crafted, weaving elements of two coasters dueling and then combining them into one coaster. It's brilliant on paper, but it doesn't work great in real life since that brake kills the ride. I appreciate what they were trying to do, but I just don't think it holds a candle to most other RMC experiences.
 
Dragon Khan: First rode it around 2003 then again in 2016 and to be honest, it's just not the one for me. It is a lovely looking ride and it does have some fun moments, and was one of the big boy B&M's in Europe back in the day. It's unfortunately overshadowed by Shambhala now though.

OzIris: This was tipped as one of the better B&M inverts around, so had high hopes for this prior to riding. Don't get me wrong, it's not bad at all, but I just think that the likes of Nemesis, Mamba & Batman (La Fuga) achieve more as inverts than this.
 
Steel coasters:
- GateKeeper: I really wanted to like this one since it's big, long and looks really good on paper. It just didn't do anything special. It was 'fun' I guess but felt too controlled.
- Black Mamba: I had high hopes for this one too. The queue line was among the best I have experienced, the station and the overall experience. As for the coaster itself, it was not as intense as I expected it to bed. It felt too formulaic (I know it's a B&M but still)... I guess I was expecting something on par with Nemesis and it just wasn't.

Wooden coasters:
- Balder: don't get me wrong. It's an amazing ride. It's just too repetitive and predictable.
- Goliath (SFGAm): this was my first RMC and the hype surrounding this coaster was big. It didn't meet my expectations. Sure those airtime pops on the first turn and the killer first drop were fun, but it was not as intense as I expected it to be and certainly on the short side. Wickedy Cyclone proved that RMC can go big on small coasters.
- Wildfire (Kolmarden): this might be controversial but it's almost as if the ride tried to be too good. It had everything to make it a killer coaster and it certainly has some kick to it, but it feels a bit too controlled at times. Too well engineered, if you will.
 
Voyage - While I did enjoy this I didn't get the airtime I was hoping for. It was a little extreme. Depending on where I sat the airtime was either too intense and I'd get stapled by the lap bar, or it rode a bit smoother but with weak airtime. It's kind of annoying for me because it seems like most people continue to be wowed by it. More rides on it would've been nice, but it's hard to get quick re rides because it's exhausting.

Banshee - I actually don't think this is that great of ride imo (weakest B&M invert I've done), so this might fall under the line of what Joey talked about. But I understand that Banshee is an intense ride and people do love what it does. Banshee's intensity isn't found in its inversions though (main reason why I think it's the weakest invert), but in between each one. There's a lot of g-force near the ground but it gets rather rattly. That's not really for me thank you.

And I guess GCI hasn't really done it for me yet. I enjoyed the good ones I've done (Lighting Racer, White Lightning) but they're not really special.
 
Wicked Cyclone is this to me. I still like it a lot, but it looks like I am not enjoying it as much as most others do. #8 below Goliath (Walibi) and Superman. Really well crafted and designed, but some laterals and even airtime felt a little too agressive to me. It feels overcalculated like its trying too hard as well. Great coaster for sure, but not marathon potential based on my last visit. Although I would like to try it again to reassess my judgment... :p
 
Joey said:
But using Millenium Force as an example, that's not a good ride. It's just tall. The entire purpose of its existence is to be really tall, so that's all it does. It doesn't stop to question whether tallness is a good enough trait to carry it and I just don't think it is. The thing about tall coasters is they have to have super drawn out maneuvers to account for their speed and it always seems like they take it too far? And not only that, even at its lowest points it seems too high off the ground to appreciate your speed compared to passing scenery.

Millenium Force is enjoyed by a lot of people, but that's not what objectively good is. That's popular.
Click to expand...

Well, no.

The entire point and purpose of a Roller Coaster is to bring people to a theme park, for them to be entertained and thrilled. Millennium Force is one of the most popular rides on the planet, it thrills and entertains the mass population more than nearly any other ride out there, and therefore it achieves the entire point and purpose of a Coaster better than nearly every other ride on the planet.

Whether or not it matches your opinion on what you enjoy in a Coaster doesn't matter. You can't say 'that Coaster is not objectively good because everyone likes it apart from me'. That's elitist, short sighted, and dumb. What is good for enthusiasts and just plain good in real terms are different things, and just because you're an enthusiast doesn't mean you matter more - it's the opposite.
 
Balder is the one for me. I only rode it once when we went there for the live and I wasn't impressed at all. Felt like a slightly better Wodan, not the amazing airtime machine everyone hyped and I expected it to be.
I love the other 2 pre fabs I've ridden, but this was miles off those.
Didn't bother with the later re ride and got a coffee instead.
I'll ride it next time I go of course and I may have a better ride.
 
Ben said:
Well, no.

The entire point and purpose of a Roller Coaster is to bring people to a theme park, for them to be entertained and thrilled. Millennium Force is one of the most popular rides on the planet, it thrills and entertains the mass population more than nearly any other ride out there, and therefore it achieves the entire point and purpose of a Coaster better than nearly every other ride on the planet.
Click to expand...

I understand your point, but I think you've missed Joey's point completely here.

Of course every coaster is supposed to draw in crowds, otherwise nothing new would ever be built. I think Joey was saying that if Millennium Force didn't have the tall first drop, it wouldn't be as impactful in a visual/marketing sense. They made a huge point about it being the tallest and the best coaster on the planet, and that was it's primary function. Without that (surpassed) height record, what does the coaster offer?

Yes, whether you like it or not is purely opinion. But on paper, the ride doesn't have much going for it other than a huge drop. There isn't anything original if you look at it as it is.
 
No, don't worry, I 100% understand Joey's point, I'm just explaining how it's wrong. It seems to be in fact, you, who has missed my point.

The Coaster actually has plenty going for it other than the first drop, and the GP lap it up, which is the important thing.
 
Which is a fair enough point, although this is a topic about our opinions on these coasters, not what the general public (of which you're also a part of) think overall. Joey and myself have said that we don't feel the ride does much and that it's built to break records (the latter is fact), so how can an opinion be "wrong"?

I simply said that I think you just misunderstood his post, and that I agree with his post. No need to get defensive when people disagree.

As for coasters I think disappoint, I have to say Nemesis. I actually rate Inferno higher. The layout is good on the original, landscaping is great, and the theming is alright, but I just don't feel this intensity that others seem to feel. I much prefer Black Mamba personally, even if it's a bit more generic in terms of layout.
 
Last edited:
^You have spectacularly missed the point, well done.

This is a topic about what 'technically good' coasters you don't like - we're discussing what a 'technically good' coaster is. Joey has stated that Millennium Force is not a 'technically good' coaster because he, as an enthusiast, does not like it.

I am correcting him on this definition of what a 'technically good' coaster is.

Whether or not you like said technically good coaster is the point of this topic but not what was being discussed at the time.

I'm not getting defensive (Joey didn't attack me, so I can't be being defensive) but I would really appreciate it if you're going to comment on posts that you read and understand them properly first.
 
Eh, you did miss my point @Ben.

Joey has stated that Millennium Force is not a 'technically good' coaster because he, as an enthusiast, does not like it.
Click to expand...
I actually stated that it's not technically good and then tried to explain why, but you seem to think that popularity equals quality... Which is a logical fallacy above all else.

This topic kind of requires that everyone state why they think x coaster is "technically good" before stating why it's not their thing, so I guess yours is "popular"? I mean, I think you're wrong, but you're more than welcome to be wrong. :p

I do agree with this, sort of...
therefore it achieves the entire point and purpose
Click to expand...
...However, Millenium Force's point, as Ethan said, was to be tall, fast and have airtime.

It is tall. Check.

It's... I mean it is fast, but it doesn't feel fast because it's too removed from passing scenery and it doesn't make any snappy transitions. It doesn't matter how fast it is if it doesn't feel fast. So, failure there. And airtime? People don't mockingly call it "Millenium Forceless" for nothing. Like I said, it's too drawn out.

What you end up with is a product instead of art, it's the coaster equivalent of bull**** like the Emoji movie (actually that is unreasonably harsh, but you get my drift).

I mean, sure... MF is a success, I never said it wasn't. But it isn't objectively good, because being popular is not exclusively the result of being good. The problem with so much stuff in this world is that it is designed to be marketed and not with the initial intention to make something awesome. I think both are possible, but it's comparatively rare. MF's marketing, it's packaging, is that it is tall. So that's why it is popular. And, I would argue, that it would be more popular if it was also good. :p
 
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.

Some additional roller coasters to throw out there:

Dueling Dragons will always have one of the coolest dueling layouts, and undoubtedly remain one of the most iconic B&M coasters ever built. I, however, never enjoyed the shortness of the ride, and found it all round rather underwhelming, given the epic aesthetic.

A lot of the old vanguard wooden coasters were of equal epic proportion. CCI, Dinn Corp, RCCA all looked really cool. Giant sprawling layouts, the quintessential roller coaster look.... and all of it crap. :p
 
The entire point of a Roller Coaster ride is to get people in to a park, thrill them, and get them to come back and do it all again.

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.

Again, your definition of what is good is clouding your judgement here. YOUR opinion is that it doesn't have airtime and you don't enjoy it - I've always got airtime off it and I think it's a really great ride. Me and all of the other thousands of people that think it's great.

What makes your opinion, in the minority, so right that what you say is good IS good? Nothing at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top