Is the "hyper" branding really important?

[Reanimated35]

There's plenty of debate, but which side will you sit on?

[jack.c]

Yes it's important. I'm tired of Australia being the "loser" of the roller coaster industry. Our only decent coaster is superman escape which yes has great theming but it's extremely basic. I'm ready for movie world to rip us a new one and put us on the map with a real hypercoaster!

[Reanimated35]

So a world first with green lantern wasn't good enough for it to be a "decent" coaster? 

I'm sure you'll find something to complain about with the new one too. 

[jack.c]

5 minutes ago, Reanimated35 said:

So a world first with green lantern wasn't good enough for it to be a "decent" coaster? 

I'm sure you'll find something to complain about with the new one too. 

I mean if you are happy settling with mediocre roller coasters then cool! I'm not - I'll encourage and support our theme parks to build bigger and better always. Green lantern doesn't exactly go very high in the ranks of the best coasters in the world at all. It's a fun and cute coaster but meh. 

[mission]

21 minutes ago, Reanimated35 said:

So a world first with green lantern wasn't good enough for it to be a "decent" coaster? 

 

A world first at what, boringness? Yeah, I don't really like GL, but that's another story and no need to debate

 

But seriously what was it for, the first hill being over vertical?

 

And yes I think the branding is important - surely they aren't building one that falls just shy of Hypercoaster status, that would be a massive "wtf?".

 

Yes the difference between 60 and 61m would make sfa difference to the ride experience, but being able to claim Hypercoaster would be beneficial - it just sounds big and fast.

 

And not to mention Mack being able to claim it as one of their accomplishments in design and construction.

Edited April 7, 2017 by mission

[Reanimated35]

GL was the first el loco to feature 4-across seating. 

 

Marketing can spin this any way they want. Given there is no "real" definition of what a "hyper coaster" is outside of enthusiast communities, it really means nothing. 

[Santa07]

Not at all

If it's over 200ft, then the marketing team at MW will have something to play with. If it's under, then they'll still have something to play with because it's going to be a bloody good ride and frankly not many people will care if it's a hypercoaster or not.

5 hours ago, jack.c said:

Yes it's important. I'm tired of Australia being the "loser" of the roller coaster industry. Our only decent coaster is superman escape which yes has great theming but it's extremely basic. I'm ready for movie world to rip us a new one and put us on the map with a real hypercoaster!

Before I say something serious - Australia is the loser of a lot of things, get used to it.

But I don't think we need a hypercoaster to be on the "map". Look at some of the coasters that put Europe on the map - Blue Fire, Helix, GeForce, Taron. Four coasters and none of these are a hypercoaster, yet look how big Europe has become in terms of theme parks because of great rides like these.

Plus, I would consider Africa to be the "loser" of the roller coaster industry - at least we have rollercoasters here  

2 hours ago, Reanimated35 said:

GL was the first el loco to feature 4-across seating. 

Not much of a "worlds-first" hahaha... someone should make the world's first kiddie coaster with 4-across seating and win a prize for that

[Reanimated35]

12 minutes ago, Santa07 said:

Not much of a "worlds-first

You're right, if you ignore the fact it was the first in the world to have that configuration, then no, it wasn't a world first. 

[CruiseSF]

Size does not matter it's the substance of the ride that matters. You could have one that goes higher then any other coaster in the world and it could be worse then one that never goes over 2m. There are no worlds first or height restrictions when determining if a ride is good. It's what they do with thone numbers that count. 

[Santa07]

17 minutes ago, Reanimated35 said:

You're right, if you ignore the fact it was the first in the world to have that configuration, then no, it wasn't a world first. 

You know what I mean - it was quite a trivial case, and didn't make the news worldwide.

[AllegroCrab]

10 hours ago, Reanimated35 said:

Given there is no "real" definition of what a "hyper coaster" is outside of enthusiast communities, it really means nothing. 

The 'hyper' term was coined by Cedar Fair when they first built Magnum XL-200, being the first coaster over 200 feet in height. (Common knowledge to you and most on here I'm sure.) I think there is a very strict definition that hyper coasters are over 200 feet. The same for Giga being 300ft+ with Millennium Force and then Strata (400ft) with TTD.

In the end, if it isn't over 200ft, it isn't a hyper.

Do I care in the end? Not really. Any decent enthusiast looks past the stats of the ride and analyses it for what it is. I think the whole hyper/giga/strata terminology is very GP in nature. Even if you need to be a bit of a coaster nerd to know what the terms mean, you're focusing on how tall a ride is rather than how good it is.

Of course, if it is over 200ft I'll be quite happy, the higher the better.

[Reanimated35]

2 minutes ago, AllegroCrab said:

Any decent enthusiast looks past the stats of the ride and analyses it for what it is.

*grabs popcorn*

[AllegroCrab]

@Reanimated35

GP Scum! The lot of them! 

[BNErider]

It's interesting, because I'd say in the US, you'd be more of an enthusiast if you DIDN'T think it counted as a hypercoaster. When beginning this poll, I thought all the 'no' voters were the most GP like (oh no, are we turning into obnoxious coaster geeks now?). 

[Pd46]

I don't care if it's 200 ft I'm sure it will be great regardless, BUT if it is less than 200 ft, it's not a hypercoaster. While it would be nice to have 'Australia's first hypercoaster' (potentially the first in the southern hemisphere?), I don't think many people will actually care about if its a hyper or not.

[joz]

If anyone was wondering what the correct answer to these questions are, I have them answered below:

*  If it's full circuit taller than 200feet OR has a drop taller than 200feet it's a hyper.  Anything less than that isn't a hyper

 

*  No it doesn't matter.  The general public wouldn't know that the word 'Hyper coaster' has any sort of special meaning relating to height, and there are generic marketing words that would work equally well if used as a prefix to the word coaster.  (Mammoth, Mega & Jumbo all spring instantly to mind).

 

Be sure to tune in next week where the questions will be "Is Sea World technically a theme park since it doesn't really have themed areas?" and a return of last weeks fan favorite question: "What colour is Movie World's new coaster?"

[Cactus_Matt]

It's MAGENTA!

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

On 4/7/2017 at 5:11 PM, Santa07 said:

Plus, I would consider Africa to be the "loser" of the roller coaster industry - at least we have rollercoasters here  

#fail

https://rcdb.com/r.htm?pl=26777&ot=2

RCDB lists 95 roller coasters on the continent of Africa.

Australia and New Zealand combined have only 71.

https://rcdb.com/r.htm?pl=26795&ot=2

(obviously this is a total count and includes defunct and relocated)

Edited April 9, 2017 by AlexB