I suspect that the SoCal haunts employ a healthy number of un- and under-employed actors, people professionally trained to inhabit a role, and to do so aggressively. Certainly not everyone working a haunt is on IMDB, but I suspect enough have been to have influenced the culture.
That said, I don't like aggressive scare-actors, either. I've always been aggressive, myself, in looking for and making eye contact with them before I am "in range." With the element of surprise gone, they leave me alone. (FWIW, I am at a huge advantage here given the number of times I visit parks, allowing me to have pathways memorized. Less experienced visitors have to look where they are going, while I can look for who's in the way.)
A fog and maze zone where I didn't have to deal with scare-actors would appeal to me, as would special overlays on classic attractions. As much as theme parks have succeeded with their Halloween events, I think that there even more money left on the table, from folks looking for that spooky, not scary environment.
Growing up here also makes it strange since you can be walking through a maze and have a ghoul come up behind you and call you by name! I don't think it helps that I am not the prime target. I am not one to scream and carry on.
I went to a Halloween kegger last night, which was a treat. This led to many tricks later on.
I suppose I choose "treat", but I consider beer a treat.
On a somewhat related note, my daughter and I got into a conversation this morning where we decided that the phrase really ought to be "treat or trick." Start with the demand, followed by the consequence of not meeting the demand. Made sense to me.
And that reminded me of the first roller coaster review I wrote for the LA Times. I started to type "head over heels" to describe an inversion, but then thought: "Wait a minute. I'm *always* head over heels. That's my normal position. What I really mean is 'heels over head.'" So that's what I wrote, and that's the phrase I've used in several other reviews since then.