Nintendo partnering with Universal to make attractions.

[Surferboy567]

Until we get a full high-quality POV, I'm cautiously optimistic. I'm more than happy to join the bash train once we get the full POV, but right now, I don't really see a reason to hate it. We don't know if the mechanics are fun, or if the AR is convincing, or the other components of the ride, so my criticism is going to wait.

Same here

I'm hoping that the rest of the scenes look better, but this is the finale, and it's freakin' Rainbow Road. It should have looked fantastic, and it most certainly does not. We know what the mechanics are, it's MIB, only the things you shoot at are on your glasses, and projectors create wooshy images on the walls to simulate speed.

Couldn’t of said it better myself

 

[BrianLo]

*facepalm*

Every pitfall I feared they would take, and they took it. It's a screen ride, except you're wearing the screen. It's a game, except it looks significantly worse than the one on my Switch. I don't want to play an inferior version of the video game. I don't want simulated speed. I want to move fast through a physically realized environments. How did they not learn from the F&F backlash?

"Gee, our guests were really let down by the fact that we created a Fast & Furious ride - a franchise about racing, where you sit in a bus that only simulates speed. Let's not make that mistake again. How about a Mario Kart ride - a video game about racing, where you... don't actually go fast... and everything is simulated?"

Some of you are going to continue to spin this as a positive, but why try? You know what everyone wanted, and what everyone wanted was Radiator Springs Racers But Mario Kart. I feel like this is going to open up comparisons to Smuggler's Run or something, so let's compare the two. SR is also an interactive screen ride/simulator/video game. However, there's a big difference between simulating something that can't physically be done, such as piloting the Millennium Falcon, to simulating racing go karts, which unquestionably could be done with a non-simulated thrill ride concept. I'm not saying Smuggler's Run is great - it isn't. It plays like a bad on-rails Star Wars video game. However, the Star Wars franchise is not synonymous with its video games, even though they exist. Mario Kart is only a video game franchise, so what they've also done is open up comparisons to the experience of playing the actual games. There's no way whatever interactive element we're seeing here in any way holds up to the fantastic Mario Kart 8.

I'm glad to see @Mike S on the same page here because I know he's been super hyped about this since day one.

Personally I REALLY wish parks would give up on interactive rides. They're NEVER great, you just get an inferior ride AND an inferior video game experience. The one exception, IMO, would be MIB.

I will again say I like TSMM though, it is effective at what it does. Yes it's video-gamey, but it is still reasonably fun and manages to be approachable. This is reading like just tossing an inordinate number of shells.

At the end of he day I'm settling into it just doesn't look that good. There is just a nonsense of characters and transitions that really is not encapsulating the game very well. Since they decided to make it a video game it definitely invites comparisons. If Nintendo ever did truly did VR, Mario Kart would be much, much better than this. It feels more like Minion Mayhem than the soul of Mario Kart.

I don't take actual issue with the AR, that seems like its only redeemable quality and unfortunately they depended on it to fix an extremely bland ride warehouse with a slow moving vehicle.

The other huge issue I take, this would have been an incredibly poor fit in USF/Kidzone. It's exactly the type of ride everyone complains that they went totally overboard with in that park.


To backtrack though I still think the land looks amazing. Why Universal seems incapable of carrying that into their rides these days beats me. (Unless it's a coaster).

 

[Surferboy567]

SR is also an interactive screen ride/simulator/video game. However, there's a big difference between simulating something that can't physically be done, such as piloting the Millennium Falcon, to simulating racing go karts, which unquestionably could be done with a non-simulated thrill ride concept. I'm not saying Smuggler's Run is great - it isn't. It plays like a bad on-rails Star Wars video game. However, the Star Wars franchise is not synonymous with its video games, even though they exist.

I am not going to say SR is the best thing at the parks but it definitely is an enjoyable attraction. I don’t really think this can be compared to SR since they are wildly different. Yes, they are both screen attractions but beyond that they don’t share much.

EDIT: The thing about MK as you have said they could of easily made it Radiator Springs Racers ride system but instead chose this, that is a super obvious ride system decision. The same doesn’t exist for SR.

 

[Surferboy567]

I will again say I like TSMM though, it is effective at what it does. Yes it's video-gamey, but it is still reasonably fun and manages to be approachable. This is reading like just tossing an inordinate number of shells.

Agreed

 

[Tom Morrow]

I will again say I like TSMM though, it is effective at what it does. Yes it's video-gamey, but it is still reasonably fun and manages to be approachable.

While I don't think it's a great ride, it does manage to be a fun game. What it does right that basically every other video game ride gets wrong is that it requires skill, not just prior knowledge.

I am not going to say SR is the best thing at the parks but it definitely is an enjoyable attraction. I don’t really think this can be compared to SR since they are wildly different. Yes, they are both screen attractions but beyond that they don’t share much.

EDIT: The thing about MK as you have said they could of easily made it Radiator Springs Racers ride system but instead chose this, that is a super obvious ride system decision. The same doesn’t exist for SR.

I predict people will make comparisons to SR because it's Disney's most recent video game ride. "If it's okay for Disney to do it then why not here?", etc, while ignoring the obvious differences that make it an acceptable attempt vs a misguided one.

Sometimes the obvious ride system is also the best one. Any ride based off a franchise about RACING is going to set riders' expectations right off the bat. It's one of many reasons F&F is a fail, and why this could likely be a fail as well. Even if this does end up being a competent ride, the pre-conceived notions of being a ride based on a racing video game will be enough to damper its reception. An Avatar thrill ride could have been literally anything. We had no pre-conceived notions of what an Avatar thrill ride should be, so we're not let down when it turns out to be a simulator. There are also no obvious ride system comparisons for FoP that scream "this could have been a physical thrill ride", outside of a vaguely themed flying roller coaster. Or, with Smuggler's Run, no one is let down by the type of ride system it is, because everyone anticipates it being a flight simulator.

In my book this is at least the third time Universal based a ride on a well-known concept that lends itself to a physical thrill ride and creates pre-conceived notions of it being as such, and then not delivering. The previous two being F&F for obvious reasons, and Gringotts for promising a wild ride on the Gringotts cart system we all saw in the films, only to instead use it as a device to shuffle us from scene to scene as we pause to watch action play out.

 

[1HAPPYGHOSTHOST]

That's not the ceiling. That's the brim of the Mario hat which the visor is attached to. The person who filmed this video stuck their phone inside the visor to give us that POV.

I Dunno man. looks like the ceiling to me. hope you are right.

 

[Surferboy567]

While I don't think it's a great ride, it does manage to be a fun game. What it does right that basically every other video game ride gets wrong is that it requires skill, not just prior knowledge.


I predict people will make comparisons to SR because it's Disney's most recent video game ride. "If it's okay for Disney to do it then why not here?", etc, while ignoring the obvious differences that make it an acceptable attempt vs a misguided one.

Sometimes the obvious ride system is also the best one. Any ride based off a franchise about RACING is going to set riders' expectations right off the bat. It's one of many reasons F&F is a fail, and why this could likely be a fail as well. Even if this does end up being a competent ride, the pre-conceived notions of being a ride based on a racing video game will be enough to damper its reception. An Avatar thrill ride could have been literally anything. We had no pre-conceived notions of what an Avatar thrill ride should be, so we're not let down when it turns out to be a simulator. There are also no obvious ride system comparisons that scream "this could have been a physical thrill ride", outside of a vaguely themed flying roller coaster.

In my book this is at least the third time Universal based a ride on a well-known concept that lends itself to a physical thrill ride and creates pre-conceived notions of it being as such, and then not delivering. The previous two being F&F for obvious reasons, and Gringotts for promising a wild ride on the Gringotts cart system we all saw in the films, only to instead use it as a device to shuffle us from scene to scene as we pause to watch action play out.

Oh, I totally agree it should of have been Radiator Springs Racers ride system. What I was trying to say was that an obvious ride system doesn’t exist for SR besides a simulation. Whist MK should of been a Test Track/Radiator Springs slot car system.

I also said this a little back in the thread.

I do have an issue with Rainbow Road looking like that as the background is never black. With the exception of Super Mario Kart, and Mario Kart 64. A lot of the charm of rainbow road was floating though space with celestial objects. It may sound dumb but if you look though the games the bright colors of being in space really add to the experience. It looks so bland and rushed for one of the most famous of not the most famous race tracks in gaming. Most of the backgrounds included planets, a space station, cities, rainbow colored gates etc.

I worry they sucked all the “life” out of Mario Kart and replaced it with let’s hurl shells at everything game. These tracks are brimming with life and need to have sets (both physical and digital) to back this up. Their really should be AA’s of Mario and other racers. Would be incredibly disappointed if they didn’t. The tech on display here is incredibly cool and shows promise so I will reserve judgment till I see it all. I don’t want this to turn into Mario Kart: Supercharged. As I am assume the graphics could leave much to be desired.

Their are lots of other ride systems I could see working better here but maybe it isn’t feasible with all the digital elements. The most obvious system I can think of is Radiator Springs Racers/Test Track slot car racer to enable actual races..

 

[BrianLo]

Supposedly this is not very representative of a lot of the rest of the ride.

I'll happily walk some things back if that's the case.

I do think even if this is all it is though I'll still be disappointed by the missed potential, but find enjoyment in it. Instead of feeling disgruntled like I did with Gringotts.

 

[1HAPPYGHOSTHOST]

While I don't think it's a great ride, it does manage to be a fun game. What it does right that basically every other video game ride gets wrong is that it requires skill, not just prior knowledge.


I predict people will make comparisons to SR because it's Disney's most recent video game ride. "If it's okay for Disney to do it then why not here?", etc, while ignoring the obvious differences that make it an acceptable attempt vs a misguided one.

Sometimes the obvious ride system is also the best one. Any ride based off a franchise about RACING is going to set riders' expectations right off the bat. It's one of many reasons F&F is a fail, and why this could likely be a fail as well. Even if this does end up being a competent ride, the pre-conceived notions of being a ride based on a racing video game will be enough to damper its reception. An Avatar thrill ride could have been literally anything. We had no pre-conceived notions of what an Avatar thrill ride should be, so we're not let down when it turns out to be a simulator. There are also no obvious ride system comparisons that scream "this could have been a physical thrill ride", outside of a vaguely themed flying roller coaster. Or, with Smuggler's Run, no one is let down by the type of ride system it is, because everyone anticipates it being a flight simulator.

In my book this is at least the third time Universal based a ride on a well-known concept that lends itself to a physical thrill ride and creates pre-conceived notions of it being as such, and then not delivering. The previous two being F&F for obvious reasons, and Gringotts for promising a wild ride on the Gringotts cart system we all saw in the films, only to instead use it as a device to shuffle us from scene to scene as we pause to watch action play out.

Well said.

 

[Mike S]

Supposedly this is not very representative of a lot of the rest of the ride.

I'll happily walk some things back if that's the case.

I do think even if this is all it is though I'll still be disappointed by the missed potential, but find enjoyment in it. Instead of feeling disgruntled like I did with Gringotts.

Hopefully but I’m not holding my breath

 

[1HAPPYGHOSTHOST]

Supposedly this is not very representative of a lot of the rest of the ride.

I'll happily walk some things back if that's the case.

I do think even if this is all it is though I'll still be disappointed by the missed potential, but find enjoyment in it. Instead of feeling disgruntled like I did with Gringotts.

You know it is going to all be like this.

 

[JT3000]

The thing about MK as you have said they could of easily made it Radiator Springs Racers ride system but instead chose this, that is a super obvious ride system decision.

They could try making a similar ride system, but Disney patented that particular one.

 

[Giss Neric]

I personally think the "interactive" element of the Mario Kart ride affects the overall ride. It looks slow for a racing ride. I was expecting Radiator Springs Racer 2.0 but from what I have seen it's more MIB and Toy Story Mania 2.0.

 

[ToTBellHop]

Not impressed. At all.

Build Hyrule at IoA instead, please.

I understand it’s only 1-minute. But it’s the finale. If that were the climax of a date, there’d be no subsequent date...

 

[Disneyhead'71]

You guys are probably right. Universal and Nintendo will probably have to pay people to ride this abject failure.

Seriously, we're you guys really expecting a six lane 60 mph test track based VR ride that spins inside of a show building? Admittedly, Universal really slacked by not building Rainbow Road in actual outer space.......with AAs.

 

[Stripes]

Universal and Nintendo will probably have to pay people to ride this abject failure.

No. Disappointingly, they seemed to have figured out that the general public will happily consume mediocrity when it’s attached to a beloved property.

 

[BubbaisSleep]

No. Disappointingly, they seemed to have figured out that the general public will happily consume mediocrity when it’s attached to a beloved property.

Doubt that. With them already having to close down Fast & Furious seasonally & they have gotten a lot of heat for adding too many to screen rides in their studio parks. Their last slate of rides have been pretty physical actually (Hagrids, Velocicoaster, Secret Lives of Pets, Yoshi, and we still don't know much about Mario Kart beside 1 of 11 scenes).

If anything, Pixar Pier, Toy Story Land, Millennium Falcon, Guardians, & a purple wall has proven people will show up for mediocrity. I hope we don't have to add Spiderman to that list. Not to mention there are many opinions about MMRR & SWL. Mind you, I personally don't think most of those examples are mediocre but when you compare them so SNW we should probably acknowledge both companies do this.

 

[Disneyhead'71]

No. Disappointingly, they seemed to have figured out that the general public will happily consume mediocrity when it’s attached to a beloved property.

I think it's a bit early to declare this ride mediocre.

 

[Stripes]

I think it's a bit early to declare this ride mediocre.

I agree. I wasn’t necessarily referring to Bowser’s Challenge...yet, though I may in the future.

This was supposedly a super mega E. Shanghai Pirates. Tower of Terror. Radiator Springs Racers. Forbidden Journey. Rise of the Resistance. Those are my expectations.

 

[Stripes]

Their last slate of rides have been pretty physical

Physical, sure. But some of those are lacking as well. Just because something is physical doesn’t make it good *ahem* Little Mermaid. And just because a ride has screens doesn’t make it bad (Flight of Passage, ROTR, Shanghai Pirates, Forbidden Journey).

However, Universal has leaned heavily on screens because Universal Creative doesn’t have an in-house animatronics department. They contract out all of their animatronic figures. They recently found a good company for large creature animatronics (a company called Creature Technology, who did the Kong animatronic and I believe is doing the Jurassic World figures in Beijing), but other than that specific field, their figures are very rudimentary.

Disney will design the look and specifications of basic figures but will contract out their engineering and construction. But, their advanced AAs are done completely in-house by WDI.

So, because there are large technical limitations to Universal’s physical animation, they go almost exclusively with screen-based animation for advanced movements. Somewhat ironically, a lot of their screen based animation is done by a little known division of Disney, a division called Industrial Light and Magic.