POLL: Does Virtual Reality have a place in Theme Parks?

[Coaster]

Virtual Reality has made its debut in UK theme parks as well as worldwide, with mixed reception.

 

In your opinion, does VR have a place in theme parks?

[ThemeParkCrafter]

Yes if it is appropriate for its' job

[Benin]

Once VR is widely available in the home (I.e. Once PSVR drops like a stone in price), then the fad will end very quickly before a park can actually implement it in a consistent and unique way...

[SteveJ]

Virtual reality has a place so long as the attraction is designed as a theme park ride, and not a VR demo or flash in the pan novelty like certain attractions in the UK.. 

It won't replace other formats of attractions like people constantly claim they will, a claim that comes about every time there has ever been a new entertainment technology ever. It will become a new format used in a combination of other fun techniques old and new, hopefully.

 

VR attractions could be amazing if designed inventively!

[L7123456]

If VR is used well and isn't just a gimmick (cough cough Galactica), then I believe yes it does have a place in theme parks. 

[JoshC.]

I'd say it has a place.

 

With VR becoming more widely available, I reckon the fad of chucking cheap VR on roller coasters (see Six Flags' attempts) will die away very quickly and lose all appeal.  And I don't see VR roller coasters have too much of a long term future - having them as optional add-ons seems like an okay idea, or having them in special events, but that's still an awful lot of work for what it is and that effort probably could be spent elsewhere in most cases.

 

However, high-quality VR used in an appropriate manner certainly has a place.  It could be the new-age simulator attractions.  It could be used as a way to disguise unsightly ride systems.  It could be used as a way to distract people from movements (such as how DBGT does - you think the train movements are all to do with the VR, and forget / don't realise you're actually moving until you leave).

 

So yeah, tl;dr - VR has a place in theme parks, just not on coasters, thrill rides, etc

[Stuntman707]

VR definitely allows for new types / genres of rides which is very exciting. I'm really not sold on it being retrofitted to rollercoasters though. I just don't think you can make a compelling VR show on a ride that only lasts a few minutes at most. The hardware and graphics will eventually improve. You can tell that VR in general has just emerged from the experimental testing phase and has yet to mature. The technology just isn't polished enough to make a convincing ride with yet.

 

Theme parks are all about taking people into different worlds and suspending reality which I believe VR will certainly do very well in the near future. Theme Parks are always looking for unique experiences to thrill and entice people through the gates. New technologies allow for new experiences such as Linear Induction Motors, Hydraulic Winch launch systems, Eddy current brakes, Mack's new Linear / Rotary track loading stations for rides, Gerstlauer's vertical lift hill and magnetic anti-rollback fins, Intamin's free-falling rollercoaster etc. VR is just another technology element like these.

[Coaster]

Answering my own question, no, VR doesn't have a place at theme parks.

 

In my opinion, theme parks should be about taking you away from everyday things like screens, and letting you enjoy the thrill of a coaster, or an immersive dark ride with REAL theming and effects.

There's no escapism or fun about having a screen on your face, but that's just my personal opinion.

 

Virtual Reality also causes issues such as lower throughputs, unreliability of the headsets, a larger number of staff required for the attraction and a much wider range of problems in the case of DBGT.  I'd say that whilst it may be suitable for use on a smaller scale, the headsets are not capable of being used in the way that they are at theme parks.

[JoshC.]

4 hours ago, Coaster said:

 

In my opinion, theme parks should be about taking you away from everyday things like screens, and letting you enjoy the thrill of a coaster, or an immersive dark ride with REAL theming and effects.

There's no escapism or fun about having a screen on your face, but that's just my personal opinion.

 

Just out of interest, how many dark rides have you done that involve screens?  

 

I completely get your opinion and stance; theme parks are one of the few mediums that can put you in a 'real' place with real things, and get you to interact with them, be that by zooming past them on a roller coaster, slowly moving through them as things happen all around you or whatever.  

 

However, that doesn't mean screens (and in turn, VR) have no place in parks.  For me personally, I love Maus au Chocolat at Phantasia, at the use of screens allows it to do what it does - there's no way you can create hundreds of mice-shaped targets running around a chocolate factory causing havoc with real theming and make it look believable.  And look at rides like Spiderman and Forbidden Journey at IOA; screen based rides which are almost universally adored.  Yes, screens might be everyday things, but that doesn't mean you can't do extraordinary things with them.

 

I only ask if you've done screen-based dark rides because I'm curious as to whether you just aren't keen on the idea, or if you've just not liked any you've experienced, or what.  I know in the past I was somewhat unsure of the idea of the idea.  Whichever it is, I hope you get the chance to experience one which could show you that not everything has to be real.

[Benin]

To be fair, he also goes on to say about having 'a screen on your face', so I think its not about having screens in general, but just having them on your face meaning that parks don't need to put the effort in for those portions of the attraction (or the whole thing)...

[SteveJ]

You can't really judge screen based dark rides or VR attractions based on anything I know of in the UK, they're mostly mediocre examples or poorly integrated digital FX that sticks out in a very un-theme parky way. Otherwise when done properly they open up a very different kind of experience.

 

Digital/screen FX are an alternative to the practical or scenic styles, I dont think they should ever replace each other. The same changes happened with movies in the 2000s and so many that went heavy on stand-out digital FX from that time aged awfully and feel dated to watch now. The same will quickly happen to all the new attractions that use screens & VR as a novelty. The way forwards is to use the tech only if the intended effect necessitates it or if its used creatively.

I'd love a big good old fashioned practical animations dark ride to be built in the UK too. But the fact is its often cheaper to create digitally now rather, because so many of the scenic/animation/theatre studios went out of business in the UK when attractions started becoming so minimalistic and cheap in the 2000s, whereas there are many growing digital FX businesses currently. Shows what happens when one company dominates a market and all other businesses live or die depending on what the monopoly company want that year...

[Coaster]

I've only experienced rides in the UK so it may be the case that I haven't been on a good screen-based dark ride, but I'm yet to be convinced.

Dark rides that use a few screens is different, but I don't like the idea of relying on them at the expense of animations, theming and effects.

 

In terms of VR, I don't see the point in their use on dark rides as it's basically like having a television on your head whilst moving; almost like a glorified simulator.

As for their use on coasters, it defeats the point of them IMO.

 

Some of the rides Baron has mentioned look great, however I cannot judge them having not been on them.

[Mitchada04]

Key thing with Spiderman and FJ etc are that they have practical sets in between and special effects so it does depend on the balance. But when used well screens are a great way to enhance sets,give them more depth at a fraction of the cost and space used! 

 

As for VR, I see it as a good "add on" like at Europa. The VR is high quality, isn't something you have to do and adds a whole new ride basically. Galactica would work if it wasn't so unreliable, poor quality and a rushed story. But yeah it's a fad that will probably wear off even though Disney are apparently developing something for star wars land that will be a VR attraction. And if anyone can do it I'd have most faith in them. 

[Matt 236]

Maus Au Chocolate and Ratatouille are certainly great examples of how modern (screen) dark rides should be.

 

They both integrate an interesting storyline, where the effects and animation both work appropriately and the addition of theming in both certainly helps emphasis both of these. The perfect modern dark ride will have a good consistency between visual and real effects and animatronics. Hopefully Symbolica will implement these.

 

As for VR, we shall have to see. If it can evolve to tailor the themepark environment then maybe it will continue, otherwise no. I've heard stories of rides with VR implemented featuring crushed throughputs, with loading sometimes in excess of 10 minutes. That's before the countless problems Galactica and DBGT have so far encountered.

 

Shockingly I never did the Europa VR stuff (especially since I went last May), but hearing what most gave said, I think more park's should implement the Europa way of doing it.

 

With Kraken, Magic Mountain and Batman La Fuga getting the VR treatment, the phase is still going strong. For now.

[Benin]

Europa are apparently going to remove the VR off Pegasus next year because of throughput issues and stuff...

 

Not that it'll affect the whole thing, but it's something to note...

[Marhelorpe]

This is a really tricky one because the only VR I have ever experienced was on both DBGT and Galactica this year and I have had mixed opinions for both experiences offered.

As it currently stands, the answer is both yes and no. Yes for the following reasons:

• It offers an entirely new experience for many riders which immerses you into another world.
• Many people are yet to experience VR and considering the decent headsets out there such as the HTC Vive, PlayStation VR and the Oculus Rift can cost hundreds of pounds, this is an excellent opportunity for people to try it for the first time without forking out lots of money to get your hands on the technology.
• When audio is added with the visual content, it pretty much shuts you off from the real world and keeps you focused on what is playing, therefore making the experience more enjoyable. An example with Six Flags where you wear the headset but with no audio is not a great introduction to VR for riders in my opinion.
• If it is optional, this is a huge selling point and advantage for riders because they can still get the same previous experience they were used to before as well as a new one if they wish, which is a big reason why I firmly believe Galactica is better than Air.
• Over time, the technology will advance and the hardware accompanied with the software will too. So it can only get better, not worse.

However, there are some reasons why I believe it doesn't have a place in theme parks:

• Reliability. This is the biggest problem for me because both Galactica and DBGT fall victim to this where several headsets are broken which can cause issues with the throughput of each ride. In addition, if the VR content is not synchronised properly with the physical movements you experience, it can really mess with your head if you are easily nauseous with motion sickness. Also, the content needs to be consistent and not glitch everywhere similar to Galactica, unlike Ghost Train which only seems to work about 10% of the time.
• Dependability. Whilst I mentioned as an advantage the VR being optional, when it is mandatory like DBGT, this is where it fails for me. If you need to have a VR headset on to ride an attraction, you've already failed. It eliminates an entire market of people who either do not wish to use the headsets or cannot even use them due to medical conditions such as epilepsy and motion sickness for example. Making it optional is a crucial goal to make it a success.
• Novelty. Much like most things in technology, once everyone experiences it and have become accustomed, the whole novelty and excitement wears off and the popularity will naturally decrease. This is why I believe Ghost Train will suffer in the long-term starting the end of next year, not just because the ride is absolutely abysmal, but the dependance it has on the headsets as mentioned on the previous point. The novelty will wear off, people won't ride it anymore and therefore it will suffer from popularity. Galactica on the other hand is optional, so many people will still ride it in the future regardless whether the VR is there or not. Ghost Train needs VR to function and that's a huge problem.
• Quality. It's no lie to say that virtually every single VR headset out there at the moment has displays which when viewed through the lenses looks pixelated and blurry to the viewer, even if the display is classified as high definition. The truth is, until the pixel density of these displays becomes high enough that your eyes cannot discern the individual pixels at such a close proximity, this will always be an issue. When a small display that is 4K in resolution comes along which could be very possible in 2017 with the Samsung Gear VR, the problem will be fixed and the density of those pixels will be enough to make it a sharp and clear image.

So to conclude, for me, I would say VR does and can have it's place in theme parks, but only when it works the way it is intended and is optional. Not only do you then sustain interest for riders, but you offer something entirely new to them which was never available before at a theme park.

[Mark9]

I feel like VR is fine if you aren't forced to use it which really is a big problem for me. I loved it on Alpen Express as an add-on but hate it on Galatica. Haven't done Derren Brown so couldn't comment but from the two I've done, its a novelty and nothing more.