Midian Posted January 29, 2010 Share Posted January 29, 2010 I was trying to sign some guys on my SWF game and lots of them came back saying "---- has rejected your negotitation request as he would not feel morally comfortable working for a company that promotes such a risque type of entertainment".... What makes people not want to sign? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sudo_Nym Posted January 29, 2010 Share Posted January 29, 2010 The new trait, Conservative/Liberal- more conservative workers are more likely to have moral objections to working for companies that are too risque, or take part in risque matches or angles. For a real life example, Sting has steadfastly refused to work for WWE for precisely this reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midian Posted January 29, 2010 Author Share Posted January 29, 2010 Damn, so theres no way of me being able to sign Johnny Bloodstone at all? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antithesis Posted January 30, 2010 Share Posted January 30, 2010 I would think if you changed your product settings to something less qisque it could work. I will also say, since I've learned TCW can't sign SWF guys to contracts (at least early on) it is nice to know that there are some folks out there the SWF can't sign either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigpapa42 Posted January 30, 2010 Share Posted January 30, 2010 Or just edit the mighty Mr. Bloodstone! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Remianen Posted January 30, 2010 Share Posted January 30, 2010 Bloodstone works for NOTBPW and he'll gladly accept a contract with TCW, but he won't sign with SWF. Why? Because of one very simple product feature that two promotions don't have but one does. Thus, if you want said worker, you either remove that product feature (which will affect everyone else on the roster, potentially) or you edit the worker in question...or just chalk it up to 'you can't win 'em all'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sigilistic Posted January 30, 2010 Share Posted January 30, 2010 Can it go the other way though? Are there workers whose liberal rating is SO high they won't sign with you UNLESS you're really risque? "I'd love to sign with you but you're just not edgy enough, sorry." Does that happen? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pantaloons Posted January 30, 2010 Share Posted January 30, 2010 Can it go the other way though? Are there workers who's liberal rating is SO high they won't sign with you UNLESS you're really risque? "I'd love to sign with you but you're just not edgy enough, sorry." Does that happen? That would be pretty cool actually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Shape Posted January 30, 2010 Share Posted January 30, 2010 I like the clear distinction between SWF/TCW and who'll work for them, although I look at SWF's roster and I really don't see much risque about them. It's got as much of a family friendly feel as USPW for the most part, with a few exceptions. Then again there's still a lot that can be done xD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ampulator Posted January 30, 2010 Share Posted January 30, 2010 *Shrug* Now that DAVE is dead, I can't see why SWF Should keeping their risque and cult aspects of their product. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GruntMark Posted January 30, 2010 Share Posted January 30, 2010 *Shrug* Now that DAVE is dead, I can't see why SWF Should keeping their risque and cult aspects of their product. To be different from TCW and USPW? And just from a game design POV, it offers something to play besides "more popular and wealthy version of USPW." Seeing as I forgot to give Larry Wood a written deal in USPW, Im hoping his conservitive stat protects him from those SWF vultures tell I can offer a new deal. (Assuming he gains the overness I expect him to ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Remianen Posted January 30, 2010 Share Posted January 30, 2010 I like the clear distinction between SWF/TCW and who'll work for them, although I look at SWF's roster and I really don't see much risque about them. It's got as much of a family friendly feel as USPW for the most part, with a few exceptions. Then again there's still a lot that can be done xD I don't get it. You're expecting the workers involved to create a risque atmosphere or something? It's not about the workers (and never has been). You might be mistaking Risque for Hardcore. Risque is content. High risk angles, gimmicks, and matches are what are commonly used in promotions with high risque. The workers don't matter. If SWF runs an angle where a woman loses her top, does it matter if the woman is Emma Chase....or Nicola Halliwell? Nope! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ampulator Posted January 30, 2010 Share Posted January 30, 2010 To be different from TCW and USPW? And just from a game design POV, it offers something to play besides "more popular and wealthy version of USPW." Seeing as I forgot to give Larry Wood a written deal in USPW, Im hoping his conservitive stat protects him from those SWF vultures tell I can offer a new deal. (Assuming he gains the overness I expect him to ) Tha's a agreat point, but being "Risque" really isn't what SWF is about, if you look at their roster. For example, BSC still has a roster that should be able to do that kind of stuff, but SWF doesn't really have that kind of roster. But you brought up another point. How can a guy like Larry Wood be "conservative"? He's a Hardcore icon! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Remianen Posted January 30, 2010 Share Posted January 30, 2010 Tha's a agreat point, but being "Risque" really isn't what SWF is about, if you look at their roster. For example, BSC still has a roster that should be able to do that kind of stuff, but SWF doesn't really have that kind of roster. Again I have to ask, what the heck does a roster have to do with content? Is a porn flick not porn if Roseanne Barr is in it? Or is it pornographic because of what is actually taking place in said video? You use BSC as some kind of example but that's ignoring the important part. If Christian Faith called Remo an 'Uncle Tom' or a 'coon', that's risque. Has nothing to do with the workers involved, it's the content. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EWBSDM Posted January 30, 2010 Share Posted January 30, 2010 Again I have to ask, what the heck does a roster have to do with content? Is a porn flick not porn if Roseanne Barr is in it? DID NOT WANT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antithesis Posted January 30, 2010 Share Posted January 30, 2010 If SWF runs an angle where a woman loses her top, does it matter if the woman is Emma Chase....or Nicola Halliwell? Nope! It would matter to Sammy bach I bet... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ampulator Posted January 30, 2010 Share Posted January 30, 2010 Again I have to ask, what the heck does a roster have to do with content? Is a porn flick not porn if Roseanne Barr is in it? Or is it pornographic because of what is actually taking place in said video? You use BSC as some kind of example but that's ignoring the important part. If Christian Faith called Remo an 'Uncle Tom' or a 'coon', that's risque. Has nothing to do with the workers involved, it's the content. Of course a roster has to do with content. You don't see a guy like Big Show in a Modern-style promotion doing moonsaults on a regular basis, do you? Or the Rock doing constant chain wrestling in a Pure-style promotion? Is it possible to seperate content from the roster? Sure, you can. but it's more entwined that it seems to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gnrfan Posted January 30, 2010 Share Posted January 30, 2010 I like the fact that you can't get some people. I was really looking forward to getting Jacob Jett, but he didn't want to sign for the exact same reason. It forces you to look deeper into the game for alternatives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Shape Posted January 30, 2010 Share Posted January 30, 2010 I don't get it. You're expecting the workers involved to create a risque atmosphere or something? It's not about the workers (and never has been). You might be mistaking Risque for Hardcore. Risque is content. High risk angles, gimmicks, and matches are what are commonly used in promotions with high risque. The workers don't matter. If SWF runs an angle where a woman loses her top, does it matter if the woman is Emma Chase....or Nicola Halliwell? Nope! I'm just saying, you've got a couple of monsters, a couple of straight edge guys, Vengeance, Jungle Lord and especially Greed who's gimmicks are at all risky, and they're matched by the old school faces and fan favourites ("100% babies who never cheat, protect the innocent" etc) alone. Throw in the patriots, Lobster Warrior and Robbie Retro and you've got a lot of guys who seem like they belong nowhere near a "heavy" risque product because their characters don't seem to fit it. An "old school face" using racial slurs doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense I'm not saying they can't fit in, just that it feels a little weird. Of course, there's a lot of wiggle room for product adjustment, character changes and so on, and there is of course ways to get even Lobby involved so long as the imagination permits it. All I meant that was the initial feel of the promotion, which I think it is possible to be garnered in a little way if not entirely from looking at the characters who compete within it, meant that I was initially surprised to see it had a heavily risque product. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kamikazekopec22 Posted January 30, 2010 Share Posted January 30, 2010 I agree with the fact that they don't really have any risky characters on their show. Riskiest probably would be those 2 white thugs(can't think of their name) but they aren't even featured in the show from what the C-Verse shows in the beginning of the game. Eddie Peak, Ghengis Rahn, and Sammy Bach all seem like they play more risque characters than anyone of SWF's roster. But if it says they are risque than I guess they are risque can't really debate with the game can you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nedew Posted January 30, 2010 Share Posted January 30, 2010 Simple characters can do risque things. Robbie Retro can be booked as a fun-loving disco man or an ecstasy-fuelled non-stop party animal, under basically the same gimmick definition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phantom Stranger Posted January 30, 2010 Share Posted January 30, 2010 I'm just saying, you've got a couple of monsters, a couple of straight edge guys, Vengeance, Jungle Lord and especially Greed who's gimmicks are at all risky, and they're matched by the old school faces and fan favourites ("100% babies who never cheat, protect the innocent" etc) alone. Throw in the patriots, Lobster Warrior and Robbie Retro and you've got a lot of guys who seem like they belong nowhere near a "heavy" risque product because their characters don't seem to fit it. An "old school face" using racial slurs doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense I'm not saying they can't fit in, just that it feels a little weird. Did you WATCH early Attitude Era? A lot of pieces indicate that SWF has gotten more violent and/or nearer the knuckle over 2009 - so the start of Attitude isn't a bad comparison. Some of these guys are just going to end up being booked in a nastier direction, that's all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crayon Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 Is a porn flick not porn if Roseanne Barr is in it? DID NOT WANT. I find your use of past-tense highly amusing. I certainly hope you didn't pay full price for that Roseanne Barr feature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigpapa42 Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 Having a relatively goofy gimmick, at least on paper, doesn't mean something is not risque or edgy at all. Look at a lot of what Foley did (particularly Dude Love) and Socko and so on. On paper, that looks awfully campy. Yet it really wasn't. Like Newdew days, its about how you interpret the character. The gimmick and the basic idea of the character doesn't necessarily have to be risque, but what they do still could be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben_91 Posted February 1, 2010 Share Posted February 1, 2010 No Mohammad Hassan's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.