Raven, Legend, & Voyage reviews
Jeremy
Technically there's four if you count the fact that I analyzed the
Voyage two different times, each from a different perspective
(resulting in an overly-long article I should probably think about
splitting up into halves).
http://www.rollercoasterphilosophy.com/2009/raven-analysis/
http://www.rollercoasterphilosophy.com/2009/legend-analysis/
http://www.rollercoasterphilosophy.com/2009/voyage-analysis/
Honestly at the end of the day I had a very hard time ranking them in
order of favorite to least, all nine combination of ranking I think I
could argue for with myself. What was odd about this was that I don't
think they're all that close together in terms of quality, it just
depended on which mindset I wanted to adopt and then suddenly my
opinion of each would rearrange themselves drastically.
Considering all three are sort of variations on the same general
concept, does anyone have their own perspectives on which is Holiday
World's most/least successful?
David Sandborg
<fcebeb72-4e61-4b83...@v20g2000yqv.googlegroups.com>,
Jeremy <jkthom...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Three more reviews each on Holiday World's wooden coaster collection.
> Technically there's four if you count the fact that I analyzed the
> Voyage two different times, each from a different perspective
> (resulting in an overly-long article I should probably think about
> splitting up into halves).
>
> http://www.rollercoasterphilosophy.com/2009/raven-analysis/
I guess I've never really thought of Raven as primarily an airtime
coaster at all. Yes it has the fifth drop, but that's really the only
significantly notable instance of airtime (though there are certainly
other airtime moments). Perhaps others have touted it as an airtime
machine but I don't really remember it really being "sold" that way. In
fact it's always been a bit surprising that Raven does so well amidst an
airtime-loving community of enthusiasts.
I have certainly seen the element of "progression" that you highlight,
but I see it somewhat more simply. I think you used the idea of a
musical theme, but to me it's more a question of simple volume or speed.
The first half is a peppy little ride, but one that would be somewhat
unremarkable on its own. However there's that little poignant pause set
up by the small fourth drop, then all hell breaks loose with the fifth
and it's a nonstop rush to the end. That sequence is certainly part of
Raven's signature but I see it just in terms of simple pacing rather
than the more complex analysis you give.
You make a point about whether coasters should be considered in the same
intellectual terms as works of art. I see what you mean, and as a
somewhat analytic rider I have some sympathy, but ultimately I don't
think I agree. Music and literature at least, can take advantage of
more expressive forms than coasters could ever hope to do. And I don't
react very well to coasters or other rides--notably simulators--that
literally do try to "tell a story". Maybe things are more comparable to
the visual arts, but there I think the reaction becomes more visceral
and less intellectual anyway.
> http://www.rollercoasterphilosophy.com/2009/legend-analysis/
I'm not quite sure how to pin down the Legend. It was never my style of
ride in the first place, so though I respected it greatly in its first
couple of years, it never topped my favorites list. However there were
many who absolutely raved about it in its first year. At the time it
seemed that it would completely overshadow the Raven, but for some
reason it didn't wear well.
Since it didn't ever really crack the top of my list I never tried to
explain why it fell in overall rankings, though I did rank it lower with
the passage of years on my personal ride list--and this before the
Voyage came to steal any possible thunder the Legend might have kept.
The one thing that I really do recall is that two distinct moments of
complex direction changes got lost in various reprofilings, one around
the second hill and the other at the entrance to the helix. I
considered those "magic" moments because it was really hard to figure
out what was going on, and I really miss them. If those moments still
existed I'd probably give Legend more than the one perfunctory ride I
take with every visit nowadays.
> http://www.rollercoasterphilosophy.com/2009/voyage-analysis/
I find your dual analysis interesting, but didn't quite get the point.
However I just can't agree with your negative second analysis,
particularly your claim of lack of intensity. From this claim I wonder
if you've never ridden at night? Your complaints about the sterility of
overengineered designs become totally irrelevant in those circumstances.
Whether subjective due to darkness or objective due to increased speed,
the ride just feels like it's totally crazy. You might not be able to
get that during a daytime ride. And here I see your tendency to analyze
rides deeply to be going too far, as it prevents one from being immersed
in the experience.
Back to your earlier more positive description, Voyage is probably the
most mature idea of the concept of "progression" you speak of, but
perhaps almost for that reason I don't pay much attention to the
details. Though I savor individual elements (the straight hill exiting
the triple down tunnel is one of my favorites because of the sound
contrast), I really appreciate the coaster more for the overall
experience.
> Honestly at the end of the day I had a very hard time ranking them in
> order of favorite to least, all nine combination of ranking I think I
> could argue for with myself.
Nine? Do you mean six?
> What was odd about this was that I don't
> think they're all that close together in terms of quality, it just
> depended on which mindset I wanted to adopt and then suddenly my
> opinion of each would rearrange themselves drastically.
>
> Considering all three are sort of variations on the same general
> concept, does anyone have their own perspectives on which is Holiday
> World's most/least successful?
I would easily rank them Voyage, Raven, Legend, and have never really
had any doubt about that. It's just a reflection of my tastes, I
wouldn't necessarily claim anything about "success", though I do think
ultimately Legend fails because it didn't have staying power. (Maybe in
its first year I might have considered giving Legend the nod over Raven,
but even then I wouldn't have been sure, and now there's no question.)
But Voyage rules over both, because it gives me so much of what I crave.
For somebody with my tastes there is no question.
--
Dave Sandborg
Remove Spam-away to respond via e-mail.
Jeremy
On the Raven, I myself have never thought of it as an airtime coaster
either, but that seemed to be what I had heard other enthusiasts
claiming (Raven for the air, Legend for the lats) so I guess maybe
that mindset isn't as true around here. Actually, your description of
the Raven's progression does seem pretty similar to what I was trying
to describe; it is a pretty simple thing the Raven does, but I think
it's sometime overlooked, and the exact reasons why that progression
should have any impact on the quality of the coaster at all might be a
bit hard to define at first so I tried my best to describe some of the
underlying principles.
Actually I think an important distinction should be made about how to
classify what 'art' is, and this is why I think coasters could fit
into that category rather well. Technically speaking, real artwork,
and aesthetic experiences of 'beauty', shouldn't engage one's
faculties of reason or intellect at all. Once you do it starts to
become something else that lacks that metaphysically human dimension
that a real aesthetic experience is about and is more about logic and
numbers and things that aren't really about the existential dimension
of humanity. The tricky thing about it is that to analyze what makes
those experiences of beauty work does require quite a bit of
intellectualizing, but to actually experience it is something
different. One can explain that a coaster progresses using a rational
method and why that particular form has special significance, but for
that to mean anything the actual experience itself extends beyond the
realms of logic and rationality. I think the music analogy holds up
quite well, since a lot of what makes a great piece of music so moving
can be traced to the way it progresses through different movements,
but when actually listening to the music it's not an intellectual
activity to figure out what is at work... although for many people, it
maybe is, but then that's not an aesthetic experience any more. Same
thing with coasters, only replace the basic sensory inputs from
soundwaves to g-forces and you've got the same basic idea. I
completely agree that whenever a literal story is told in an amusement
ride it tends not to work very well, precisely because it tries to
engage the intellect rather than aesthetics (and being amusement
parks, they generally fail quite horribly at engaging the intellect).
Which is probably why one of my favorite dark rides was Nights in
White Satin, even over much more technically elaborate attractions
that tried to have some storyline running through it.
As for the Voyage, the dual analysis came about because before I went
on it I was considering making it my new #1 because my thinking about
the ride in those ideal forms of progression, intensity, originality,
etc seemed to be the best I could find anywhere. That's the first half
of the review, and it's all true and honest. But then after riding on
it all day I found I wasn't anywhere as affected by the ride as I
predicted, I was just sort of "yeah, it's an alright ride" but
otherwise wasn't even sure if I had enjoyed Legend or Raven more at
any random instantaneous moment. So I wrote the second part giving the
reasons why I felt that way, and that was also all true and honest to
my experience. And afterward I had no idea what to do with my top ten
list because I had two sides to me that were both true and yet both
completely contradictory. Rather than try to find a middle ground
between my two perspectives to arrive at a single opinion, I just
decided to leave the dialectic as is, and let the fact that it was
left unresolved do a better job to describe my opinion of the ride
than trying to put it into words.
I had one ride at night, in the front, just after a massive rainstorm
back in 2006, and that was my first. I got a lot more rides on it the
next day when it was also running extremely fast and left me feeling
sore from the lateral bruises. However, during the day, especially on
my 2009 visit, while I could 'feel' that intensity and was aware that
it was attempting to do much more extreme tricks than the Raven or
Legend ever tried, the fact that I could 'see' a lot more calculation
in the track to be able to navigate these tricked spoiled the illusion
and it wasn't translating to me as a better one or more interesting
with a lot of character, just with more raw forces. You are perhaps
right that a night ride would change that, and on reflection I can't
defend my argument too much farther since the same is true of many
steel coasters I'd praise for being intense. However, given the
relative scarcity of good night riding opportunities I'm not sure if
that can absolve the ride if the same isn't true of most of the
daytime rides as well. I think you do understand what I'm talking
about and maybe we've just had different experiences with the ride,
but to clarify just in case, holding 2 lateral g's for three seconds
and then transitioning out in a quarter of a second, for me, does not
describe what 'intensity' is, at least in a way that contributes
positively to the riding experience, it's something a bit more subtle
and psychological that's harder to describe. I do think the way CCI
shaped their track (with low, consistent banking, circular hills
plugged into straight track and harsher transitions) was much better
at crafting that sort of experience, so even if the Voyage does
compensate with faster speeds, greater forces and the like, it still
doesn't make them the same. The turnaround and return run I might be
able to change my mind on, but I'm fairly certain the airtime hills
are of inferior quality by those standards I'm looking for.
I think from now on whenever I do something like this I want to cut
out the play-by-play analysis since they take up way too much space
and generally doesn't accomplish as much in illuminating the more
fundamental perspectives I'd like to discuss about the ride. My point
in the second Voyage analysis was that there seemed to be a really
great progression in there that I could enjoy the entire experience as
a whole by like you say, but because it tried to be so 'forceful' and
'intense' at every moment I was far too distracted to be able to
appreciate that progression and instead was forced to focus on the
moment. I know this is an unpopular ride around here, but for me the
perfect contrast is the Beast where it's only about the progression
with pretty much nothing else happening in the moment interfering with
that overall experience, and as a result it comes through to the rider
much more powerfully than if there were things constantly happening in
the moment like on the Voyage. Also, when riding I do try to get
immersed in the experience without analyzing each moment, but once I'm
back on my computer, if I has a great experience or not, I'd rather
not just leave it at "well, I had a really great immersive experience
on the entire thing" without trying to trace the causal reasoning that
made it so. That way, when designing fantasy coasters in my head, I
can figure out what parts of good coasters I've been on made them so
good, and by distilling those properties, come up with something far
better. And my long-term plan is that they won't remain fantasy
designs forever... ;)
Sorry, I realized I messed up my math and meant six combinations as
soon as I published it but didn't feel like posting a correction by
itself when I hoped it was obvious what I meant.
Yeah, I think I'd even officially claim to share your ranking of the
three coasters (that's what I put on my last Mitch Hawker poll at
least), although after my last visit I was really surprised at the end
of the day when I found a little voice nagging at the back of my head
saying that I really enjoyed the Legend's element line-up mixed with
unrestrained CCI out-of-control lateral intensity the most, or that I
really enjoyed the Voyage far less than my idealization of it told me
I should.
P.S. I swear I'm not as intense in real life as I come across online,
it's just I seem to have found a specialty niche area writing this
sort of stuff. :)
David Sandborg
but as always I appreciate your thoughtful commentary.
In article
<411032c8-b0c2-411a...@r18g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
Jeremy <jkthom...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On the Raven, I myself have never thought of it as an airtime coaster
> either, but that seemed to be what I had heard other enthusiasts
> claiming (Raven for the air, Legend for the lats) so I guess maybe
> that mindset isn't as true around here.
I can't say what you'd heard; in fact it would be considerable work to
go back and get a general picture of how Raven was spoken of here in the
past. Certainly in relative terms, it's more about airtime than Legend,
but I wouldn't call it an airtime coaster.
> I
> completely agree that whenever a literal story is told in an amusement
> ride it tends not to work very well, precisely because it tries to
> engage the intellect rather than aesthetics (and being amusement
> parks, they generally fail quite horribly at engaging the intellect).
> Which is probably why one of my favorite dark rides was Nights in
> White Satin, even over much more technically elaborate attractions
> that tried to have some storyline running through it.
I agree with you about Nights in White Satin! And I think I agree in a
broader sense. The kinds of themed rides I tend to like tend to be more
immersive than they have definitive storylines.
> As for the Voyage, the dual analysis came about because before I went
> on it I was considering making it my new #1 because my thinking about
> the ride in those ideal forms of progression, intensity, originality,
> etc seemed to be the best I could find anywhere. That's the first half
> of the review, and it's all true and honest. But then after riding on
> it all day I found I wasn't anywhere as affected by the ride as I
> predicted, I was just sort of "yeah, it's an alright ride" but
> otherwise wasn't even sure if I had enjoyed Legend or Raven more at
> any random instantaneous moment. So I wrote the second part giving the
> reasons why I felt that way, and that was also all true and honest to
> my experience. And afterward I had no idea what to do with my top ten
> list because I had two sides to me that were both true and yet both
> completely contradictory. Rather than try to find a middle ground
> between my two perspectives to arrive at a single opinion, I just
> decided to leave the dialectic as is, and let the fact that it was
> left unresolved do a better job to describe my opinion of the ride
> than trying to put it into words.
That's fine. I was trying to work it out; at one point I thought
perhaps the first description was based on videos rather than your
personal on-ride experience.
> I had one ride at night, in the front, just after a massive rainstorm
> back in 2006, and that was my first. I got a lot more rides on it the
> next day when it was also running extremely fast and left me feeling
> sore from the lateral bruises. However, during the day, especially on
> my 2009 visit, while I could 'feel' that intensity and was aware that
> it was attempting to do much more extreme tricks than the Raven or
> Legend ever tried, the fact that I could 'see' a lot more calculation
> in the track to be able to navigate these tricked spoiled the illusion
> and it wasn't translating to me as a better one or more interesting
> with a lot of character, just with more raw forces. You are perhaps
> right that a night ride would change that, and on reflection I can't
> defend my argument too much farther since the same is true of many
> steel coasters I'd praise for being intense. However, given the
> relative scarcity of good night riding opportunities I'm not sure if
> that can absolve the ride if the same isn't true of most of the
> daytime rides as well.
Fair enough. Night rides are always special circumstances, and it's
definitely true that my ranking of Voyage is primarily based on such
rides. However for me that's nothing unusual; I'd feel completely
differently about such rides as Boulder Dash, Rampage, and Big Bad Wolf
if I had never had a night ride on them. And I may have judged
MegaFobia unfairly because I was unable to get night rides on it. So
for me the nighttime experience is a perfectly valid point to judge by.
>I think you do understand what I'm talking
> about and maybe we've just had different experiences with the ride,
> but to clarify just in case, holding 2 lateral g's for three seconds
> and then transitioning out in a quarter of a second, for me, does not
> describe what 'intensity' is, at least in a way that contributes
> positively to the riding experience, it's something a bit more subtle
> and psychological that's harder to describe.
I would never judge it in such a way. "Intensity" for me is very much a
visceral feeling, though clearly strong forces do contribute to that.
Similarly for "out of control".
> P.S. I swear I'm not as intense in real life as I come across online,
> it's just I seem to have found a specialty niche area writing this
> sort of stuff. :)
No worries, I imagine we all project a bit differently online than we do
in person. :-)
Nashville Mike
long winded and overdid the analysis, but he is the new king. I pass
the crown along gleefully :)
I will make a few points - figured responding to Daves thread was
about the best place - or, what the hell, like I really give a shit
about protocol, especially on this dying (but once awesome)
newsgroup... anyway... a rare coaster analysis post of mine since I've
been silent as of late....
Raven: Yea, I'm with Dave. Not an airtime ride. One has to think back
to the time it was introduced. What Raven "brought to the table" was
really one of the first "accelerative pace out of control" experience
rides - rides of that era (remember, we didn't have as much good stuff
then and this was what put CCI on the map) typically didn't have this
dual character where part of the ride was somewhat "traditional" and
then a transition into a wild and crazy speedfest of a finale. It is
the Raven ending series (from 5th drop on) that made this ride and at
night, when you couldn't see a damned thing in the woods. So at the
time the Raven came out, it was a fairly new sensation. (One could
argue the Beast in it's prime (84/85 or so, give or take) had this,
but it never had the transition from "traditional" to "crazy" that
made the Raven so interesting). I think in TR's of the past I called
this feeling "attack".
Legend: During it's time, it most definitely lacked airtime, but was
one of the first rides that instead of maximizing airtime (like ST
did), it maximized intensity with a more lateral/speed infested
journey. It was the yang to the yin of Shivering Timbers in some ways
- extending the out of control sequence a bit beyond Rampage of that
era (Rampage predated Legend by 2 years IIRC, and had a great out of
control ending, but it was pretty short in terms of duration). At the
time, with Gerstlauer trains, it had a powerful series in the middle
that again took the "out of control" experience briefly to new heights
in a non-linear (non out and back) arrangement. The problem, in my
eyes, with the Legend now is that it was so lacking in airtime, and
then with the reprofile of the double up which took one of the few
airtime/violent moments out, it was only laterals and speed, and in
the years past there have been coasters which have moved quite a bit
beyond the Legend in terms of attack. So now that there are rides with
greater intensity and attack AND that have far better airtime and
often a more inspired ending, the Legend pales. I love HW, but could
care less if I ever rode the Legend again, and it was #1 for a short
period back in the day.
Voyage: I agree that the vertical nature of the outbound hills could
have been "pushed" with even stronger airtime - maybe more like ST's
hills, but I get the distinct feeling that due to events in earlier
years and unfortunate incidents, that the designers of gravity group
weren't going to go "as far" with the so-called ejector airtime as
perhaps some of the designs CCI had done. But the Voyage is a simple
three act play - act one looks scary, rides fairly scary, but really
sets the rider up - it's a tall, scary looking out and back that
transitions into some speed before it gets to the turnaround - and I
agree that the tunnel-hill-tunnel section inspired by Tremors is
nowhere as amazing as Tremors was back in the 2000 con or the last CAC
I went to (2003? - can't remember), - but it's a setup for the
turnaround - cause that double down swoop into the left turn that
ignites the turnaround is one amazing piece of track - some of the
most inspired track I've seen on a wooden coaster and I've been on a
few. In it's original incarnations, the turnaround was IMO more
powerful than it is now (IMO they traded - the triple down is far more
effective as of last year with the tweaks but the turnaround itself
lost a touch of amazement and frankly it's a nice trade off, I think).
The turnaround announces to the rider that the game has most
definitely changed and it's quite aggressive. The block pause and the
triple down are then the beginning of the grand final statement of the
coaster - like Jeremy says, it starts off somewhat innocent, but
rapidly goes into out-of-this-stratosphere mode, as it hurtles down
near the ending. And as mentioned, the Voyage is the first coaster
I've been on where I get off and go "okay, I am satisfied" - with
every other ride there always was a "but if they had only done...." or
"man, it's almost right" but with Voyage, it's complete. It is, I
think, the first time a designers intention has been fully brought to
a fruition. Sure, you could tweak or dream changes up to it, but as
it stands, it represents, better than any other coaster out there,
what I think they wanted to do - no dead spots, no seriously weak
moments - and while any part of it could, like most anything on earth,
be improved, it does well for what it is and I don't care.
I do think the ride works best at night and as late as possible -
that's why HWN is the premiere event of the season because you get
rides you can't get any other time of the year. There is something
about a late night rain ride (like we had last year at HWN) that is
stupendous - it moves the coaster into territories that one can not
imagine if they've never experienced it - and while during the day one
might try and analyze the pieces, I guarantee you that even Jeremy,
had he been on the famous rain ride during the ERT of HWN last year,
would have totally forgotten about the analysis and totally caught up
in the overall overwhelming, almost spiritual experience. During the
day it's a nice ride that I too could analyze to death and see
"flaws", but man, when everything lines up (night, weather, moisture,
etc), it's a singular experience that I've never felt on any coaster
in the 25 years I've been riding. Nothing comes close. Not even
remotely. Not even the very best of the early 2000 Tremors rides, the
old TX Cyclone rides from my memory in the mid 80's - nothing. And
thus, that experience is what some of us crave - not the individual
parts of it, but THAT thing, that craziness, that it does when all the
planets align. It's the only place to get that, at least on
traditional track wooden coaster, which is my preference (I could care
less about headbasher 305 or any of the other steelies on the planet
at this point in time)
The big question for me is whether the switch to Timberliner trains
will take away any of the craziness and magic that this ride has in
it's very best moments. I've typically been pretty train-agnostic on
wooden rides (except for Morgans, which IMO ruin a coaster), but I am
admittedly a touch nervous.
-m
Pathetic BaSSclown
> I will make a few points - figured responding to Daves thread was
> about the best place - or, what the hell, like I really give a shit
> about protocol, especially on this dying (but once awesome)
> newsgroup... anyway... a rare coaster analysis post of mine since I've
> been silent as of late....
Dying? Hardly! It's appeal has just become more...selective.