Minority opinion on match ratings

[Trashbear]

I'm probably in the minority here, but I think I could really do without the match ratings. Since, as it says in the FAQ, the ratings have no impact and are purely for the player's enjoyment, I don't even feel the need to check and see what my performance is. I mean, I thought it was a neat idea in Wrespi 1, but here it feels out of place. Mostly I think it's because this is a fighting game and I feel I should be rewarded for a quick and predictable victory, as it means that my fighter and my strategy is just that good. Unfortunately, I usually get a "that match sucked" chant thrown at me. I don't know, it just seems like an odd addition to a game that seems to be trying its hardest to be a legitimate fighting game, and not a wrestling sim disguised as a fighting game. To that end, it definitely succeeds as it is very fun, but it just makes the inclusion of match ratings all the more superfluous. But I guess people really dig them, so that's why they were included. The ratings certainly aren't deal breakers.

[Sartagis]

Even in legit fights people love the "better" (longer) matches more. Look at the Couture vs Liddell 2 match that ended quickly and tons of people were pissed at how quick it was and thought the match sucked. Just because it's legit fighting doesn't mean the crowds want a minute squash fest. Personally I'd rather watch a fight (boxing, MMA, etc) that goes near the max time limit. I'd rather watch a MMA fight that ends in the last round then one that ends in the first.

[Rob4590]

I guess you could compare them to rating a boxing match. Think of Hagler v Leonard, Pacquiao (sp) v Morales, any of the Benn v Eubank v Watson matches etc and you immediately think A* match, cos they were tight, back and forth, great fights. But then think a Tyson fight (when he was young and awesome) - they usually lasted about 3 minutes - but do any of them stand out ? NO - cos they were so one sided that you would never call them a fight of the year candidate, hence they would not get a high rating. Besides - the rating only appears at the end of the fight - and in my case, I've forgotten them about 2 mins later (except my A* match with BLZ Bubb v RDJ :p ) so they are no big deal for me.

[Adam Ryland]

They are superfluous, but by the same token it's not like it requires any effort on the player's part to see them, they happen on a screen that you would see regardless. So for player's who want them, it's there, for those that don't they can just ignore them.

[Remianen]

[QUOTE=Rob4590]But then think a Tyson fight (when he was young and awesome) - they usually lasted about 3 minutes - but do any of them stand out ? NO - cos they were so one sided that you would never call them a fight of the year candidate, hence they would not get a high rating.[/QUOTE] Uhh, no. Maybe to boxing insiders, Tyson's early fights 'sucked' but the one thing you cannot take away from him is the fact that his fights DREW. People came to see how fast he was gonna put somebody out. In fact, boxing hasn't made as much money since as they did when Mike was actually the monster of the heavyweight division. People don't generally pony up $50,000+ for a ringside seat to see Julio Caesar Chavez take half an hour to win a fight. Nobody pays to see jabs, except possibly the boxing smarks. They pay to see uncontested uppercuts and hooks and crosses. Remember, Leonard-Hagler wasn't a plodding snoozefest. Marvin landed some pretty big shots on Ray throughout the fight. And it didn't go back and forth like some may try to assert. It was Ray standing up to the bigger, stronger fighter and bringing him down to size, DESPITE the big shots he took. Fight of the year candidates don't grow the business like purely entertaining matches do. How many match of the year candidates did Hulk Hogan amass? How much did he grow the business DESPITE that? So yeah, to "insiders" Tyson's matches "sucked" but to the people who actually matter (the folks shelling out the money to watch these events), those fights were some of the most entertaining of all time. And, professional boxing being a sport in name only (thank Don King), the entertainment and the spectacle is what pays the bills and thus, is most important. Today, if you go to Vegas or Atlantic City when a "major" fight is scheduled, you can get free tickets (good seats even) by being a minor VIP at the host hotel. That NEVER happened during Tyson's dominant period. You can even get free (or heavily discounted) tickets on the night of the fight if you're staying at the host hotel or an affiliated hotel (like, fight's at the MGM Grand, you're staying at the Mirage. Talk to the concierge and pick up your tickets). There is currently no one in boxing that's a guaranteed draw like Tyson was since Roy Jones, Jr fell off. No one. And even Roy wasn't that great after he moved up to light heavy. How many fighters since Tyson command upwards of $50 million per fight (purse + % of PPV revenue over the guarantee)? Match ratings in WreSpi2 are icing and I like it like that. It's all about the Benjamins, baby and losing an A* match doesn't make me near as much as winning a D does. Helps me concentrate on what's important when there's only one thing that's important. :)

[D. Boons Ghost]

[QUOTE=Remianen]Uhh, no. Maybe to boxing insiders, Tyson's early fights 'sucked' but the one thing you cannot take away from him is the fact that his fights DREW. People came to see how fast he was gonna put somebody out. In fact, boxing hasn't made as much money since as they did when Mike was actually the monster of the heavyweight division...[/QUOTE] No doubt. My friends and I actually began watching boxing specifically because of Tyson. When he started out, Tyson's one-round explosions were a cultural celebrity unto themselves; everyone I knew wanted to watch them.

[Moderndaywarrior]

Well,be it boxing or wrestling,the bottom line is money, the promoters,workers,etc. all want to make money....but how do they make money? By putting butts in seats and through PPV buys.....but at the same time quality DOES matter....Promoting a boxing card with a bunch of unskilled bums who can't draw won't generate tickets sales or PPV buys,and neither will a wrestling card with bad workers who generate no interest. Generally speaking,a boxer or wrestler known for putting on an interesting contestwill draw alot more interest than a boxer or wrestler who is not very good.It's a little different though;in boxing,its alot of hard hitting that draws interest,regardless of the duration.In wrestling,it is more the ability to tell a story and really draw the crowd into the experience,getting them into enough to actually suspend disbelief for a few minutes,regardless of the duration. In wrestling,a good example of a draw would be Ric Flair(skilled in the ring,people stood in line for a chance at seeing him get that arrogant smile wiped off his face)or Andre the Giant(not very skilled,but the first time someone THAT big was ever really seen,people lined up to seem him mandhandle the local villain).On the flip side,you have Kevin Nash when he was WWF champ (Big guy,not so great to watch so people could really care less) ir Verne Gagne in his later years (very skilled in the ring but very stale and un-entertaining)

[Trashbear]

[QUOTE=Remianen] It's all about the Benjamins, baby and losing an A* match doesn't make me near as much as winning a D does. Helps me concentrate on what's important when there's only one thing that's important. :)[/QUOTE] Word. Cream, get the money, dollar dollar bill y'all. T-Rex and The Extinction upside ya head. Okay, I'm done. And thanks Remi for pointing out what I was too lazy to point out.

[Rob4590]

[QUOTE=Remianen]Uhh, no. Maybe to boxing insiders, Tyson's early fights 'sucked' but the one thing you cannot take away from him is the fact that his fights DREW. People came to see how fast he was gonna put somebody out. In fact, boxing hasn't made as much money since as they did when Mike was actually the monster of the heavyweight division. People don't generally pony up $50,000+ for a ringside seat to see Julio Caesar Chavez take half an hour to win a fight. Nobody pays to see jabs, except possibly the boxing smarks. They pay to see uncontested uppercuts and hooks and crosses. Remember, Leonard-Hagler wasn't a plodding snoozefest. Marvin landed some pretty big shots on Ray throughout the fight. And it didn't go back and forth like some may try to assert. It was Ray standing up to the bigger, stronger fighter and bringing him down to size, DESPITE the big shots he took. Fight of the year candidates don't grow the business like purely entertaining matches do. How many match of the year candidates did Hulk Hogan amass? How much did he grow the business DESPITE that? So yeah, to "insiders" Tyson's matches "sucked" but to the people who actually matter (the folks shelling out the money to watch these events), those fights were some of the most entertaining of all time. And, professional boxing being a sport in name only (thank Don King), the entertainment and the spectacle is what pays the bills and thus, is most important. Today, if you go to Vegas or Atlantic City when a "major" fight is scheduled, you can get free tickets (good seats even) by being a minor VIP at the host hotel. That NEVER happened during Tyson's dominant period. You can even get free (or heavily discounted) tickets on the night of the fight if you're staying at the host hotel or an affiliated hotel (like, fight's at the MGM Grand, you're staying at the Mirage. Talk to the concierge and pick up your tickets). There is currently no one in boxing that's a guaranteed draw like Tyson was since Roy Jones, Jr fell off. No one. And even Roy wasn't that great after he moved up to light heavy. How many fighters since Tyson command upwards of $50 million per fight (purse + % of PPV revenue over the guarantee)? Match ratings in WreSpi2 are icing and I like it like that. It's all about the Benjamins, baby and losing an A* match doesn't make me near as much as winning a D does. Helps me concentrate on what's important when there's only one thing that's important. :)[/QUOTE] Just to put you straight there Remi - I never suggested anywhere in my statement that Tyson wasn't probably the biggest DRAW in boxing - just that his fights would never get a good rating in terms of being a "great" match. The whole discussion was on match ratings - which to be honest - none of your post had anything to do with - apart from the last sentence which I whole-heartedly agree with - it IS all about the winning ! Maybe my example wasn't the best but there we go. :D

[Remianen]

[QUOTE=Rob4590]Just to put you straight there Remi - I never suggested anywhere in my statement that Tyson wasn't probably the biggest DRAW in boxing - just that his fights would never get a good rating in terms of being a "great" match. The whole discussion was on match ratings - which to be honest - none of your post had anything to do with - apart from the last sentence which I whole-heartedly agree with - it IS all about the winning ! Maybe my example wasn't the best but there we go. :D[/QUOTE] No no, I think a distinction needs to be made. Remember, different promotion types rate their matches differently. Pure feds would rate flow and progression very highly while Sports Entertainment types rate on a far more generous curve and Spot Monkey types would rate the match almost solely on the number of big spots that occur. My convoluted, verbose post was trying to illustrate that though obviously I failed miserably. I meant to show that entertainment value counts far higher than technical mastery. The Tyson example was a bad one, I felt, because early in his career with Cus D'Amato in his corner shouting numbers, he was the most technically sound fighter of that period. But while the new and/or casual fans loved to see the RESULTS of that technical mastery (the knockouts and big punches), the purists for some reason ignored it. I mean, just look at the Trevor Berbick and Bonecrusher Smith fights. He had a counter for seemingly every punch they threw. Even the all-time greats (Ali, Frazier, Norton, Foreman, Leonard, Duran, Hagler) said that he was a monster because of his technique, power, and intelligence. Just because he hit like a freight train at noon doesn't mean he wasn't a technician. But then he got married and.....doh. :p On topic, I think the match ratings should stay mainly because it's the only feedback you get from the audience. Sometimes it's nice to see how well you entertained the crowd, though in the end it doesn't matter. I'm sure folks can think of similar examples that fit this same scenario. :p

[Rob4590]

[QUOTE=Remianen] But then he got married and.....doh. :p[/QUOTE] Marriage is the ruin of many a good sportsman! I play pro golf for a living and the golf and my (albeit brief) marriage DEFINITELY didn't mix :D

[HHUK]

Are there awards on WreSpi2? I haven't seen any yet, but if there are.. it would be the perfect incentive to getting highly rated matches.