jmw31878 Posted June 28, 2007 Share Posted June 28, 2007 I'm not sure what I'm suppose to do here. Should I change their gimmick or is there something else I might be missing ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lita Maivia Posted June 28, 2007 Share Posted June 28, 2007 I believe freshen up means change their gimmick and stale means turn their alignment. But I'm not 100% sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Remianen Posted June 28, 2007 Share Posted June 28, 2007 [QUOTE=Lita Maivia;252050]I believe freshen up means change their gimmick and stale means turn their alignment. But I'm not 100% sure.[/QUOTE] Yup. A worker whose character needs freshening needs a gimmick change. A worker who has grown stale in their current role, needs a turn. Character = gimmick Role = turn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Day_Dreamer Posted June 28, 2007 Share Posted June 28, 2007 I always found this part of the game to be weird. Not everybody's role gets stale, guys like Kowalski made a career out of being heels, they never turned face their entire life, and, Steamboat never needed a turn. I cant put my finger on it, but something has to be done in this department. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VBigB Posted June 28, 2007 Share Posted June 28, 2007 [QUOTE=Day_Dreamer;252146]I always found this part of the game to be weird. Not everybody's role gets stale, guys like Kowalski made a career out of being heels, they never turned face their entire life, and, Steamboat never needed a turn. I cant put my finger on it, but something has to be done in this department.[/QUOTE] As always game mechanics does play a part. Although I've had a situation now where I've had Wanda a fish for a heel for more than a year with no complaints. Now I know this is just my opinion so don't take it the wrong way but somtimes gameplay mechanics needs to be looked at in a little more detail than what would happen IRL in the WWE (or other promotions in that matter reguardless of the simulation aspects of TEW). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Remianen Posted June 28, 2007 Share Posted June 28, 2007 [QUOTE=Day_Dreamer;252146]I always found this part of the game to be weird. Not everybody's role gets stale, guys like Kowalski made a career out of being heels, they never turned face their entire life, and, Steamboat never needed a turn. I cant put my finger on it, but something has to be done in this department.[/QUOTE] Umm, you've used two examples from two completely different eras of wrestling. There are/were MANY differences between the era Killer was active in and the one Steamboat was active in and both of those eras are VERY different from the more modern/TV oriented eras. Plus, you also have to keep in mind that in the modern era of wrestling, turns give characters new life. Need an example? How 'bout Hulk Hogan? And like VBigV pointed out, sometimes "reality" must be tempered for gameplay's sake. If it wasn't, SWF would NEVER fall to cult because, as its real life counterpart has proven, that doesn't happen to the top SE promotion in the world. They never fall in size, they never lose TV deals, they never lose PPV deals, they have TV shows on a dozen networks (due largely to their deal with a media conglomerate), etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piemaster Posted June 28, 2007 Share Posted June 28, 2007 [QUOTE=Remianen;252185] And like VBigV pointed out, sometimes "reality" must be tempered for gameplay's sake. If it wasn't, SWF would NEVER fall to cult because, as its real life counterpart has proven, that doesn't happen to the top SE promotion in the world. They never fall in size, they never lose TV deals, they never lose PPV deals, they have TV shows on a dozen networks (due largely to their deal with a media conglomerate), etc.[/QUOTE] You're basing your conclusion on a sample size of 1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Remianen Posted June 28, 2007 Share Posted June 28, 2007 [QUOTE=Piemaster;252187]You're basing your conclusion on a sample size of 1.[/QUOTE] Perhaps because there's only been one occurrence in history of said phenomena? With a world existing with many real life parallels as the Cornellverse, it has to diverge from real life at some point. With the game being designed around it, it makes it even more vital to do so. Is it unrealistic to say that people in today's world get tired of the same ol, same ol', fairly quickly, especially where entertainment is concerned? Was that the case 40 years ago? Was it as prevalent 20 years ago? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piemaster Posted June 28, 2007 Share Posted June 28, 2007 [QUOTE=Remianen;252192]Perhaps because there's only been one occurrence in history of said phenomena? [/quote] Exactly, that's my point. Just because WWF/WWE hasn't faded into oblivion, been overtaken by a rival, died due to gross mismanagement or some other fate, it doesn't mean that could never happen to a promotion in their position. It's realistic that if you are at the top and you screw it up, then you will either lose popularity or get overtaken. The fact that WWE is still at the top after 20 years just means that they have done things right, not that they are invincible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.