• ℹ️ Heads up...

    This is a popular topic that is fast moving Guest - before posting, please ensure that you check out the first post in the topic for a quick reminder of guidelines, and importantly a summary of the known facts and information so far. Thanks.

Uniqueness; how important is it?

Matt N

TS Member
Favourite Ride
Shambhala (PortAventura Park)
Hi guys. Many parks across the world aspire for unique attractions in order to stand out from the competition; even close to home at the Merlin parks, the aspiration for uniqueness is a key pillar of the creative process. I don’t know about you, but I think Merlin are one of the most innovative companies out there. They don’t stay within the mould when designing attractions; they think outside the box, and nearly everything they build is very much outside the norm for a ride of its type.

But my question to you today is; how important is uniqueness, in your view? How important do you think it is for parks to shun cliches & norms and think outside the box? Is uniqueness absolutely vital, in your view? Or do you not think it’s important at all? Or are you somewhere in between?

Personally, I think uniqueness is somewhat important to an extent, but not super important; it’s far from the be all and end all, in my opinion.

I do think uniqueness is important to an extent. Without uniqueness, the industry would be totally stagnant, and progress would never happen! The desire for uniqueness has produced some of the industry’s most loved and revered attractions, so for that reason, I definitely think uniqueness has at least a certain degree of importance.

However, I don’t think uniqueness is necessary in every case, personally. Perhaps controversially, I don’t have an issue with more “conventional” attractions that follow a pre-existing design philosophy as long as they’re executed well. Cliched themes? I like them! Cloned rides or rides designed using a very similar philosophy (for instance, many of B&M’s models)? I like the consistency, and look forward to a proven ride experience! My point is; as much as an experience might be cookie cutter, the mould exists for a reason, and to have become the mould for that genre of attraction, a ride must be pretty good, so as long as it’s fun, I don’t personally see the issue with imitating another attraction. As they always say, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, so if something has clones, or has become somewhat of a cliche, then it must be a good sign that it works! I’m a firm believer in the phrase “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”, so if the mould works, I see no real reason to deviate from it too much. As much as I do value and admire those who break the rules and think outside the box, I also think that staying inside the box can be great and valuable too; if a base concept is proven, then you can work harder on refining it to make the best version of it!

But how important do you feel uniqueness is?
 
Paultons most certainly aren't unique but what they do, they do well. All their coasters are cloned layouts (Vekoma SFC 395, Mack Spinner Sierra Sidewinder etc.) and their themes are fairly common, many parks have a dinosaur themed area and a wild West area (although Paultons have done 1950s America instead of the usual cowboys).
 
It's all about balance. Building only tried and tested concepts leads to stagnation. Being unique is great until creativity overtakes practicality.

From my experience too much creativity becomes a problem when:
- The concept is too abstract for someone to understand. I sat through a meeting once that ended with a really cool concept, but when I tried explaining it to someone else I realised I needed to recap the whole thought process that got us there before they understood it. That's no good for a ride, due to the nature of indirect story telling.
- Too many ideas muddle a concept. Like the point above if a ride is trying to do too many things it can mess up the parts that actually work.
- The budget simply won't allow for it. Chances are if a ride doesn't deliver this is why. Most mid-tier operators really struggle with this point. Their creative team desperately wants to compete with Disney and Universal (sometimes they'll even hire the same people), but the budget simply won't allow it. By the time the true cost of the budget is clear its often too late to change course so elements have to be cut instead.

The parks that manage to avoide these 3 issues and still make their rides stand out will do really well.

The Sea World and Busch Gardens parks have always done quite well. Their rides are normally second generations of a new concept. Still unique but proven to be successfull. And the themes are clear and distinct.
Or Phantasialand that build unique prototype rides but infrequently enough that they can put a really sizable budget towards them.
 
I think it's budgetary constraints that stifle uniqueness. Merlin are the perfect example of that, there's a clearly loads of creative talent in the business but rarely the budget to match. If cash is a problem, it's easier to go for a safe bet.

That said, I'm tired of cookie cutter themes and attractions. I'd far sooner have a park that gives a new idea a go than just build another safe bet but then the risk isn't being taken with my money.
 
Because of the Internet I think enthusiasts can have very high expectations when it comes to originality. I don't think every rides needs a worlds first element, a complex storyline or an original character. But it is nice to have unique rides that don't feel like they've been ordered as a job lot out of a catalogue. Some of the best rides are the ones that really suit their park. I'm thinking of compact parks where rides weave around each other, or parks with interesting terrains where rides follow the contours of the land, or weave around ancient woodland. Gröna Lund feels like a good example of a park that wouldn't be as good if they just ordered standard rides rather than making them all mesh together. Parks can also feel better when they reflect their local area. For example the most successful children's areas in the UK seem to have used British brands, rather than international brands that could have been dropped into any park around the world. I think originality generally is good, as long as it's practical and not too gimmicky.
 
Top