ccgmacc69 Posted July 16, 2008 Share Posted July 16, 2008 Let's debate real world Star Quality. A previous thread got me thinking...what grade would stars such as Scott Stiener, Ted DeBiase, Honky Tonk Man, Ricky Steamboat, etc. I wanted to throw a few names in and discuss and debate it. I'm an instigator :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cappyboy Posted July 16, 2008 Share Posted July 16, 2008 Well, Scott Steiner's a bit of a tricky one. Do you mean the pretty boy former All-American Steiner or latter day Big Poppa Plump When You Cook Him? I would definitely say his Menace shot through the roof after he turned into a walking Michelin Man. But I think case could be made for Scott's star quality being better in whichever of the two periods you choose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccgmacc69 Posted July 17, 2008 Author Share Posted July 17, 2008 Thats true. Sott wasnt oozing with star quality until Big Poppa Pump, but even then, how would you lettr grade him in comparison to Hogan, Flair, Undertaker? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cappyboy Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 [QUOTE=ccgmacc69;462886]Thats true. Sott wasnt oozing with star quality until Big Poppa Pump, but even then, how would you lettr grade him in comparison to Hogan, Flair, Undertaker?[/QUOTE] Actually I don't know I'd say he didn't have star quality until Big Poppa Plump When You Cook Him. Had he not juiced up and been pushed as the pretty boy All-American all the ladies mooned over, I could see that having worked. There certainly were pockets of that thought within their fan base at the time even if it wasn't his gimmick or his push then. Star Quality is one of those stats I find awfully fuzzy and sometimes think would be better as a hidden stat like Destiny. Too much intepretation and too many variables there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccgmacc69 Posted July 17, 2008 Author Share Posted July 17, 2008 OK----Dusty Rhodes...whatssay you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sigilistic Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 Dusty strikes me as a solid C. In the NWA he had long world title reigns. In the WWF/WCW, he was a JttS at best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CubsFan915 Posted July 18, 2008 Share Posted July 18, 2008 Dusty still had plenty of star quality in the WWF, he just had a gimmick with a E- rating in TEW terms. People still wanted to see him in the ring in the WWF and WCW. FWIW, personally, I think that a C is a bit harsh for Dusty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toerag Posted July 18, 2008 Share Posted July 18, 2008 steamboat had definite star quality, one of the best good guy looks, he just didnt have much in terms of charisma, so probably a b, b+ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccgmacc69 Posted July 18, 2008 Author Share Posted July 18, 2008 I think at his pinnacle in the NWA heyday when he was the lead face, before Sting, I wouldve given him at least a B+. I know I was glued to the screen when he interviewed and he had great in-ring presence damn near rivaling Ric, IMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ColtCabana Posted July 18, 2008 Share Posted July 18, 2008 [QUOTE=cappyboy;462351]Well, Scott Steiner's a bit of a tricky one. Do you mean the pretty boy former All-American Steiner or latter day Big Poppa Plump When You Cook Him? I would definitely say his Menace shot through the roof after he turned into a walking Michelin Man. But I think case could be made for Scott's star quality being better in whichever of the two periods you choose.[/QUOTE] Well Steiner is over with me just because he is crazy and provides funny moments in his promos. His past work in wCw has a bit to do with it also, especially his feud with Booker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccgmacc69 Posted July 18, 2008 Author Share Posted July 18, 2008 I wonder if star quality is more "era defined" Lets take Sting in the peak of his popularity in the 90's How does he compare to The Rock or Stone Cold at their peak? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CubsFan915 Posted July 19, 2008 Share Posted July 19, 2008 [QUOTE=ccgmacc69;463701]I wonder if star quality is more "era defined" Lets take Sting in the peak of his popularity in the 90's How does he compare to The Rock or Stone Cold at their peak?[/QUOTE] Personally, I think the star quality for all three at their peak would be pretty comparable. Sting was the lead dog in WCW for the faces. If you get a chance, pick up the new Ric Flair DVD and watch the match they had at Clash of Champions. The crowd went bananas every time he so much threw a punch, much less actually doing something to pop the crowd. And even more, listen to the crowd reaction when he runs in to save Flair from the double-team by Funk and Muta. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djthefunkchris Posted July 19, 2008 Share Posted July 19, 2008 Personally, in my opinion that is... I think Star Quality in TEW game terms is a great thing for gameplay... If everyone could be top dawg, the game would be way to easy to play period. HOWEVER>>> In real life. In my opinion, anyone can be "Made" into a great star. Meaning, I think anyone could be a "Main Eventer" if they are cooperative, and used right. Meaning, exploiting all their pleasantries, while hiding all thier negatives, as well as turning negatives into positives. Some will never reach "Iconic" levels, but I think anyone handled expertly could be made into at the very least, the top dawg for a few months. It's hard to have that type of reason in a game like TEW though, as there are no where near enough options to make it as hard as it would be in real life to figure out the right "Method" to your madness, so to speak. I look at all the poster's here, and although I dissagree with tons of people in who they think should have great "Star Quality" in the game terms of it, I do not doubt there are thousands of people just like them that would "Mark Out" if their guy was put over. I also believe their are thousands more like myself, that can be "Won Over" if pushed right. It's nothing more then a "Subjective" stat, which does not exist in real life. However, for game purpose's, it can help a great deal to "evolve" the world into something as a mirror image of the real world. A "Tool" designed to help modder's keep things realistic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scorpion Posted July 19, 2008 Share Posted July 19, 2008 [QUOTE=djthefunkchris;463806]Personally, in my opinion that is... I think Star Quality in TEW game terms is a great thing for gameplay... If everyone could be top dawg, the game would be way to easy to play period. HOWEVER>>> In real life. In my opinion, anyone can be "Made" into a great star. Meaning, I think anyone could be a "Main Eventer" if they are cooperative, and used right. Meaning, exploiting all their pleasantries, while hiding all their negatives, as well as turning negatives into positives. Some will never reach "Iconic" levels, but I think anyone handled expertly could be made into at the very least, the top dawg for a few months. It's hard to have that type of reason in a game like TEW though, as there are no where near enough options to make it as hard as it would be in real life to figure out the right "Method" to your madness, so to speak. I look at all the poster's here, and although I disagree with tons of people in who they think should have great "Star Quality" in the game terms of it, I do not doubt there are thousands of people just like them that would "Mark Out" if their guy was put over. I also believe their are thousands more like myself, that can be "Won Over" if pushed right. It's nothing more then a "Subjective" stat, which does not exist in real life. However, for game purpose's, it can help a great deal to "evolve" the world into something as a mirror image of the real world. A "Tool" designed to help modder's keep things realistic.[/QUOTE] I think you are right when you say that just about anybody can be pushed right and made into a star, but I disagree that star quality is "subjective." I think theres a confusion in several posts between "Star Quality" and "Overness." "Star Quality" is a stat that reflects how easily the fans will accept this person as a star. Brock Lesnar is a person that, to me, has high star quality. The fans took to him immediately and even began heeling The Rock in their match. On the other hand I would rank The Rock with a lower star quality (at least at the beginning of his career) The fans didn't buy him as a star right away. Once he got the right combination of gimmick and charisma, however, he did gain "overness." I think the idea is that someone with lesser "Star quality" takes more work to get over, and they might not ever get over. At least thats how I understand it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccgmacc69 Posted July 19, 2008 Author Share Posted July 19, 2008 Then you have a worker like The Ultimate Warrior, who in my opinion, was over on gimmick alone. He wasnt much of a wrestler and his mic skills were passable at best, but he had an energy that gave him the extra star qual. points to put hm over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djthefunkchris Posted July 20, 2008 Share Posted July 20, 2008 [QUOTE=scorpion;463833]I think you are right when you say that just about anybody can be pushed right and made into a star, but I disagree that star quality is "subjective." I think theres a confusion in several posts between "Star Quality" and "Overness." "Star Quality" is a stat that reflects how easily the fans will accept this person as a star. Brock Lesnar is a person that, to me, has high star quality. The fans took to him immediately and even began heeling The Rock in their match. On the other hand I would rank The Rock with a lower star quality (at least at the beginning of his career) The fans didn't buy him as a star right away. Once he got the right combination of gimmick and charisma, however, he did gain "overness." I think the idea is that someone with lesser "Star quality" takes more work to get over, and they might not ever get over. At least thats how I understand it.[/QUOTE] The best answer to your rebuttle, from me is this post by ccgmacc69. [QUOTE=ccgmacc69;463946]Then you have a worker like The Ultimate Warrior, who in my opinion, was over on gimmick alone. He wasnt much of a wrestler and his mic skills were passable at best, but he had an energy that gave him the extra star qual. points to put hm over.[/QUOTE] My thoughts specifically on Scorpion's comment is: I think that your just using a "Lucky the first time" thing, going with a "Unlucky first time" thing. The Rock has more then prooved he would definately have more Star Quality then Brock as time goes on (and more and more movie's "rave" about him). Just like I think if an Actor finds that RIGHT role, they become an overnight success. Brock I think was lucky enough to by packaged in a way that hit a home run. The Rock was unlucky enough to get packaged the way he did the first time out. I'm pretty sure everyone bought him as a star, but the gimmick was just lame (for him, perhaps another could have made it work much better). I understand the thought on it, and I totally understand the reason for such a thing to be in a game... I just differ in opinion, not on your reasoning though, if that makes sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.