Well, I know that Disneyland is certainly more condensed with attractions then WDW. But only 10 more total?
I wonder at what time period that person counted and what he or she considered an "attraction.":shrug:
I was somewhat skeptical of this claim, so I set out to see if it was correct. If the person who initially made this claim accounted for it in the same way that I did, then the claim is
sort of correct.
What I did was made a list of all the WDW attractions that do not exist at DLR. Then I made a similar list of attractions at DLR that do not exist at WDW. Based on those lists (assuming I didn't forget any from either resort), then WDW had 10 more attractions. I have since misplaced the list, but if my memory serves, WDW had 31 attractions that DLR doesn't have, and DLR has 21 attractions that WDW doesn't have. Based on those numbers alone, one could argue that either resort would unquestionably be worthwhile to visit. After all, 31 attractions that would be completely new to you would be pretty impressive....but so would 21 for that matter. But here's where things start to look a lot less impressive for DLR...Most of the attractions that are unique to DLR are the basic carnival type rides at DCA. All of the "unique" attractions in A Bug's Land, for example, are the little kiddie rides that you could easily find at any traveling fair for that matter. The only difference is that they've added some Disney themeing to them. That makes them cute, sure, but hardly worth a trip across the country to experience them. Many of the other "unique" attractions were the ones in Paradise Pier which, once again, are mostly your basic off the shelf carnival rides.
In contrast, the vast majority of the unique attractions at WDW are actual, major attractions that are uniquely Disney. Most of those were the attractions that exist at Epcot and at Disney's Animal Kingdom. And....there's 10 more of those!!
So if that is one's deciding factor in determing which resort is superior, then WDW wins hands down. For me, it goes beyond simply counting the number of attractions. It is about the overall experience. Based on this, I would still say that WDW wins hands down. It is a totally immersive escape into a Disney created world. When you visit WDW, you truly feel as though you are on a vacation like no other. I just don't get that from a visit to Disneyland like I do at WDW. I personally grew up with Disneyland and I still live in California. But in the past 10 years, I've visited WDW probably 5 times for every 1 time I've visited DLR. The addition of DCA has done nothing to create an extra draw to DLR. Most of what you will find there already exists either at WDW or at non-Disney amusement parks.
That's not to say there aren't things at DLR that make it worth visiting. The Matterhorn is a great attraction! In my opinion, it's a much better experience than Expedition Everest, the attraction that many say it inspired. It is also far superior to WDW's Space Mountain, which has a very similar track and vehicle style, but it just seems to work better in this type of attraction. And speaking of Space Mountain, WDW's version is not even in the same league as DL's. When they built DL's version, they just got it right in the sense that it feels like much more of a sleek, speedy race through the stars. WDW's feel like....well, like the Matterhorn. The experience works great when it's supposed to be bobsled ride around a mountain. It doesn't work when it's supposed to be a ride through space.
Haunted Mansion and Pirates are also two attractions that are much better at Disneyland. And New Orleans Square, found only at DL, is the best themed land of any Disney park in my opinion.
And of course, there is Indiana Jones, which doesn't exist at WDW at all.
So which one is better? WDW by far! But is DLR still worth visiting whether or not you are a hardcore Disney fan? No question!
