Originally posted by dcs221
Also, technically boring tracks may at times seem boring...to those who don't consider what the ride would be like relative to those in real life. I hate when I see a ride built by anyone that has say a 60 mph turn at 3.5 g's rated down because someone thinks the turn should have 5 g's and should have a twist in the middle or something dumb like that. If a ride of style X averages 8 elements in real life, why do people seem to rate down for a ride of that style in NL with less than 15 or 16 elements?
Ahh, I was hoping someone would bring this up. These days, people will rate you down for not having relentless pacing throughout the entire ride. I just want to say that every ride in real life that is like this (that I have been on) has left me sick. Even ultra-intense rides like Hades have some let up points. Rides do not have to be completely adrenaline-packed in order to be good... Think of blue streak. That is an awesome ride that doesn't really pull any amazing stuff... it is just fun. People here are forgetting that straight airtime hills can still be fun, and that turns don't have to be taken at 60 mph to be intense. When you rate a ride, think about actually riding it, because in many cases here, these rides would be incredibly painful. Every passenger would come off with bruises on their legs and torso.
Also, when someone creates a out-and-back woodie (or any kind of coaster that fits in to a particular style), and labels it as a realistic ride, I think that people forget that the intent was to have it fit into that style. Like, if someone built this out-and-back, some person might come along and say... "good, but it'd be better if you added a twister section...", and take off points for it. If the author wanted it to be a twister, they would have made it one. The point is, sometimes I think people here forget that even a row of bunny hops can be incredibly fun; rides don't have to be completely over the top to be good.
[/rant]