Pretty straightforward. While I think that both Indy and Dinosaur are solid attractions, I feel that Dinosaur is just better executed. However, consensus seems to be that Indy is better and Dinosaur is often labelled as "lazy", which definitely isn't true.
That being said, I'm interested in breaking down these two attractions and finding out exactly what makes people usually prefer Indy over Dinosaur. I'm interested in hearing specific arguments (not "it was too scary for my child") relating to the design and execution of both attractions. For example, a criticism I often hear is that Dinosaur uses darkness as a crutch in place of fully theming the ride track. It's clear to me that this is not the case though, and is an intentional design choice, made to utilize the technical capability of the EMV and disorient the riders.
So, yeah, what do you like and dislike about these attractions from the perspective of design and story execution?
That being said, I'm interested in breaking down these two attractions and finding out exactly what makes people usually prefer Indy over Dinosaur. I'm interested in hearing specific arguments (not "it was too scary for my child") relating to the design and execution of both attractions. For example, a criticism I often hear is that Dinosaur uses darkness as a crutch in place of fully theming the ride track. It's clear to me that this is not the case though, and is an intentional design choice, made to utilize the technical capability of the EMV and disorient the riders.
So, yeah, what do you like and dislike about these attractions from the perspective of design and story execution?
Last edited: