Peter.1986 Posted July 25, 2017 Share Posted July 25, 2017 <p>I know there has been countless discussions on this, but I keep changing my mind and would like people's input/opinions.</p><p> </p><p> So I'm the game star quality can be on of the biggest skills. It helps with the pop cap, also helps pop grow and helps in segments and matches especially for pop based companies.</p><p> </p><p> It also declines with time decline, but increases with workers bulking up</p><p> </p><p> So my issue is when rating people in real life. If we were to compare every wrestler at every point in their career and the 100 rating would be for only one person, how would we rate people?</p><p> </p><p> In my eyes it's clear that hulk hogan and the rock are in a category of their own here. I would say hulk hogan, the look, the height he got to pop wise and looking at his other skills, his star quality definitely was his biggest thing.</p><p> </p><p> So I'd say pretty much 100</p><p> </p><p> Then there's the rock, although I believe the rock had a lot of other skills that were better than hulk, you look at the height of his popularity and everything and again I'd say the rock is pretty much 100 on this.</p><p> </p><p> But then begs the question, if you compare the rock in 2000 to the rock after he bulls up then is the rock in 2000 a 100 in star quality?</p><p> </p><p> Then I look at stone cold, one of the biggest names in wrestling, but outside wrestling never got anywhere near these two. Again had better skills than hulk hogan else where, in ring and outside the ring, but the 'look' certainly doesn't beat hulk hogan. Taking into account everything I'd be loooing around 90</p><p> </p><p> Ric flair is one of the greatest workers of all time, in the ring, he looked like a major star, but if you took his gimmick away from him and put him in the ring in pants and boots, would he come across the same as the other two? Also I'd say flair had greater in ring skills than the others above, was better in mic, charisma etc than hogan, probably similar to stone cold, but not as good as the rock in the entertainment skills. So what stopped him being bigger than hulk hogan when all his other skills pretty much exceed? Is it star quality? I used to think flair would be in the 90s for star quality, but the more I think about it, he is that good in every other department that the only thing that could stop him in game being bigger than hulk hogan and the rock is star quality, maybe in the mid 80's?</p><p> </p><p> Macho man, again not bad in the ring, much more entertaining than hogan. A guy who I always thought had star quality in abundance, but again something held him back? So would savage be around mid, to late 80's when you look at macho man in all the gear he looks like a major star, but isnthat the gimmick and not the worker?</p><p> </p><p> Bret hart. I always thought star quality was what let Bret down, but the more I think about it, the less it think that's true. Bret was one of the greatest to watch in ring, but had poor entertainment skills, the more I watch his promos the worse I think they are. But to look at Bret and back in the day he was a major star, would he actually have low entertainment skills (which held him back) but higher star quality say mid 80s?</p><p> </p><p> There are many many more which I just can't decide on, especially the bigger workers who were not so good in the ring and had low entertainment skills, but star quality could be the only thing hat got them over etc warrior, Yokozuna (although I believe Yokozuna was better at selling than people give him credit for and he had decent ring psychology)</p><p> </p><p> The more I think about what star quality does on the game, the more I change my opinion on their ratings</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.