AndrewTS

Uhm, what? He was face on Raw for like two weeks at the most before being shipped off to Heat. It's not like they actually tried to make him a face outside of him snapping on Test. Dude, they guy didn't get very much heat after snapping on TEST! If you can't get instantly super-over working with that heat machine, you obviously should rot on the B show.

Posing for Playboy is the ultimate life goal for every human being with a functioning vagina. No matter what they do after that, it will be their defining moment in their life and they'll forever treasure the memory, and remind people at every opportunity. In fact, the highest form of flattery to those lucky girls is to tell them you whacked off to their centerfolds. They'll go to any lengths to achieve it, and if some one they know achieves it instead of them, they'll be so bitter they'll turn into a jealous whiny bitch and harrass the wonderful, classy, woman so deserving of admiration that did make it in. This will eventually lead to a horribly shitty match on PPV.

HA!! Truth be told, I always thought the psychoness was really forced, and she wasn't very good acting in that role. However, it's 5x better than this crap. I don't think I'd even be so pissed at how it's insulting and degrading to women. I'd be pissed at HOW WE'VE ALREADY HAD THIS CRAP HOW MANY TIMES?!?! If that means Victoria turns heel, I'm all for Torrie taking about 5 Widow's Peaks. Thing is, that won't happen. She'll ally herself with Torrie and Sable and take on Trish, Stacy, and Jackie in a 6-woman bra and panties match at WM. Or, God help us, replace Trish's name there with Chyna's. *shudder* I was wondering why the hell they just fired GM, when they might as well pair him with Victoria and Rosie for Too Cool - Raw Edition.

It's accelerated real time, and at times you have to kill time because a task you need to accomplish isn't available at a given time. It's really freakin' boring. The point is, there's no interest in performing mundane activities like eating, drinking, and going to the crapper. Playing games that simulate real life is a paradox that I just don't get. Obviously the aim is to help the player actually feel like he/she is a completely different person, but why throw in the unnecessary baggage of doing boring stuff that in and of itself is no fun? No one was debating that free-roaming can be done well, but this seems a step towards ruining the fun of gameplay. Even if it doesn't distract from gameplay completely, I still think it is a freakin' waste of time, regardless.

You tell me, because I have no idea how the hell this is relevant. You say that is if this would be published, when in fact the board's reviews would only be reported to the publisher itself. Plus this is hardly a radical idea. Just about ever respected developer has an internal quality control board. Companies like Acclaim don't. This is simply imposing one on them if they want to develop games for WBI. Again. Who the hell would see it besides WBI? It wouldn't be published. So the developer won't agree to it at the risk of making a shitty game, so instead of taking the gamble and urging the programmers to do a good job, they'll risk losing ALL the revenue that they could have gotten. Yeah, I'm sure they'd do that. As for the reviewers themselves, we're talking the sort competent enough to give a certain game it's props regardless of the genre (so naturally, ignore the GI ratings ). Plus it wouldn't be the only criteria used to rate it, after all. If say, 2 out of 7 hate a certain game because of its genre, is that really going to be a major issue to the publisher? It's easy to contact magazines for bribes. Although you forget that the HUGE PENALTY for making these shitty games isn't a termination of the license, but rather a raise in the licensing fees. For all the bribes the developers would have to throw around, it would be probably around the same cost to throw in the extra month or two of development. All they have to accomplish is the frankly-average score of 70%. That's not too damn hard. Basically they're saying that the least they'll accept is mediocre. Damn those high standards!! If they company can't do that, they shouldn't be making games in the first place. If they can't do it, they'll have to pay increased licensing fees. Big whoop. I guarantee you if it had already happened and Enter the Matrix came out, Atari still would have made a sizeable profit anyway. Seriously, what's so damn radical about this? It's a very conservative at best approach, and if anything it's merely setting a minimum bar of quality where previously there was none. X-Box has an RPG besides KotoR?! The board's ratings would not be published, and if this hypothetical RPG was just "pretty damn good" then it would exceed the 70%, correct? As for the PS2 version of an RPG over the X-Box--what moron would do that unless the X-Box version was programmed poorly? And what score is better is moot, because if the different is enough for them to hover around 70%, they were both borderline in the first place. If a game that is essentially the same on both systems gets 69% for one and 90% on the other, that'd be damn suspicious, wouldn't it? What's the issue? ...and yes, I basically just named the two big ones on both systems, and I will now have to defend that. But that's another thread for another time. I was asking for the sake of argument for one to be named. I can't think of a single one. More often than not they're WORSE than the console versions (except for Crouching Tiger), which in and of itself is sad. Most of your concerns I don't see the problem about.

What the hell does this even mean? The ESRB rates, you know, potentially offensive content in games, not game quality. My suggestion would be a group employed by the publisher (WBI), occasionally rotated, and with identities unknown to the outside. Confidentiality agreements and so forth. Exactly how to recruit them would be the issue. A mix of casual, hardcore, and maybe former game magazine reviewers might work. Game mags have their reviewers usually use their real names and provide contact info. You don't see a difference? If you have a multi-console game, except for the GBA it's the same flippin' game except for hardware limitations. If you have a PS2 and an X-Box, generally you'd be an idiot to buy a multi-console game on PS2. The exceptions would be something like Soul Calibur II, with exclusive features. If there's a difference between multi-console games enough to dip below the minimum, then the games overall were borderline to begin with, right? Although the GBA licensed movie games ALWAYS suck. I've yet to be informed of an exception. Besides, I was suggesting using the idea in conjunction with the current plan illustrated here. Obviously it's not perfect, but it's a start. It's fine to try to foresee complications the situation brings, but don't invent them when they aren't quite there. The ESRB...?!?

An interesting look at it from a 411 Games article--addressing some of the fears I had: http://411mania.com/games/columns/article....columns_id=2535 "The movie studio has had it with sub-standard games based on movies, and has decided to do something about it. From now on, Warner Bros. will be looking at the reviews that these games get. If the median score is below 70 percent for any of these games, the studio will increase their royalty rates to the publisher that created the game. The lower the median score, the more WB will charge. There's a LOT that goes into this. First, and most obviously, what took so long? An announcement like this has been long overdue, and give credit to Warner Bros. for admitting how important these games are to the overall movie packages that are released today. Look for other studios to follow the lead of the WB once they see how well this works. The next piece is the publishers and developers. These people will be under such stress to please WB that they might forget to innovate and instead pander to the masses. Will Warner be okay with a total sellout game for a movie where that kind of game isn't really justified? There's a chance that this edict will backfire on the WB because companies might try too hard. But that's not likely. The third, last, and perhaps most important element here - and this is one that the Kliq have been kicking around all day - is the integrity of reviewers. Anyone who visits 411 Games regularly know that we consider 5 the average, so a 7 rating for a game is something that's considerably above average. And these people also know that this is not how business is conducted elsewhere. At the big (i.e. on the take) sites and in the big (i.e. on the take) publications, 7 is average and a game has to really blow to rank below a 7. First, how will a game ever dip below a 7 if enough pockets are lined to offset those reviewers with integrity who will call it like it is? Second, how many more companies will grease the palms of those with the opinions who matter if thousands of dollars are on the line? We could be headed toward a total state of chaos when it comes to honest reviewing. Chances are that some companies won't improve their games at all, instead relying on payouts to big-name magazines and websites to heap praise upon praise on an average game. This is one very real weakness of Warner Bros. relying on sites like GameRankings to make decisions for them. WB needs to hire some people to test these games out and determine if they're of a good enough quality. Because, as we all know, some reviews, reviewers, and the sites that host these reviews and reviewers, simply cannot be trusted. I think we'll see a few things happen in the aftermath of this announcement. First, we'll see a ton of other movie studios implement similar plans. Secondly, we'll see a decent - but not spectacular - improvement in the quality of the games. Lastly, we'll see some unscrupulous companies attempt to buy a better ranking rather than create a better game. And this won't be the worst thing. At least we'll see who's got integrity and who's selling out. Thanks to the WB for making this happen." So on second thought, a quality control board of gamers probably would be more reliable. Heaven knows how much Rockstar pressures game magazines to give their games the ratings they think they deserve. A similar situation could occur here.

Plus, except for, say, 411Games, 70% isn't really that hard to achieve. Any competent game, even if rather unoriginal or somewhat flawed, can reach that. All they're doing is setting a realistic goal and expecting developers to comply. Now, if WB will apply it to the movies they make we'll have something. Not bloody likely, though.

Yeah. The Shenmue games were a f***ing blast, weren't they?

If they hire quality developers, this won't be a problem. They might piss off Acclaim or some one. Big f'n deal.

The only problem here is that you need to find a reliable barometer of quality. A quality control board of real gamers would be a far more accurate assessment of quality than some online reviewers. Enter the Matrix is just like the movies--neither deserved to be successes but were anyway. Whatever. However, I'd like to see it stuck to companies like Acclaim. Oh, I see. I never checked out Gamerankings so I didn't know. On the downside, I expect this to work out kind of like high school kids doing just enough to get a C. Unfortunately, that STILL would be an improvement as licensed games go. Enter the Matrix wasn't quite as bad as ET, but it deserved a similar vomiting-up by the game community. However, a company bearing the Atari name doesn't give a shit about quality. Color me surprised.

The hell? Stacy has a cute face. I don't want her to have a boob job, but she is too thin. Why you'd want to cover one of her best qualities I don't know. Although at times Stacy appears to have man-hands. =P When King was gushing over Lita during the Rios days, I didn't get it then. I still don't get what people saw her in her. She's got a nice body, but that's about it. Everything else about her is the pits. Plus the tattoos and tongue ring are turn-offs for me.

Semi off-topic...if you thought MKA was bad, Talisa Soto stars also in the horribly crappy Vampirella, the movie. Judging by her performance, I thought it may have been early in her career--it was in between MK and MKA, though. She really phones it in, and you can tell she's just reading off cue cards. It would take a lot of time to detail just why it sucks, but let's sum up: Roger Corman exec produced VAMPIRES FROM OUTER SPACE!...but they're vampires in a SYNTHETIC sense, except for "Vlad's" cult. Satellites trying to block out the sun, but since they're VAMPIRE satellites, they need special shielding. Vampires in gimp outfits. Dracula as a really bad goth-ish rock star. High-tech vampire hunters...who use really large flashlight guns, needles with holy water, and wear HBK hats. Vampirella herself is really freakin' boring. Only one good "one liner" and it sounds like something a Conehead would say. Vampirella's chemistry with "Adam Van Helsing" makes you long for Talisa's chemistry with Robin Shou. RANDOM GRATUITOUS BREAST SHOTS (well, that could be a plus...) Hilarious death scene for the villian. Really horrible all around. It's a laugh riot.

Final Fantasy? Not quite. They didn't get insanely overrated until, oh, say FFVII. Plus X and XI didn't get nearly as much attention as VII. The GTAs get attention in the gaming press rivaling fucking Friends.

Smackdown still sucks? Good, more time to play Metal Slug 3 for me.

*parades in with sign* MOST OVERRATED GAME SERIES EVER

...no mention of how the game actually plays. Are we talking like River City Ransom (beat 'em up with RPG elements), Zelda, Beyond/Legend of Oasis, or what?

Lita = Torrie with slightly more morals and without the looks. That's news to me. Isn't she currently doing an angle where there's implied sexual interaction with Kane? At least she's doing it for a noble cause--Kane not killing Matt. It's not like she made a bet that she's screw Kane then fulfilled it. Plus, you forgot Torrie was with Nidia.

Lita = Torrie with slightly more morals and without the looks.

"You Fucked Up" is a horrible fucking chant. These guys are working their fucking ass's off to entertain those redneck trash when most of them could have signed with the WWF or WcW for decent money. "You Fucked Up" is minor-league bull shit. There's no better way of showing a lack of class. The guy who had that as his gimmick probably didn't mind. It was a show of affection by the fans, actually. Although I'd love to have Gail/Lita take place in front of a Philly crowd. I preferred "Elmer, Elmer" myself.

Actually Funk uses the spinning toe hold, but both moves are valid finishers, IMO.

The Dragon Screw is more for the knee/thigh region, and the half crab is more for the thigh/lower back (at least from what I've seen). SS had some good suggestions, but it would be quite a stretch for Angle to begin imitating Bret Hart.

HHH won that match, actually. Thanks, Papacita. I stand by my above assertions. HHH has a 2-3 singles win lead over HBK, and HBK hasn't beaten him in nearly two years. What does Trips have to prove here, and why is HBK such a sore loser?

Only because of Heyman overdoing it. You still had lower-level guys like Matt and Tajiri who could have good buffer feuds also. That's why Raw's roster seems much more diverse and better utilized, although you don't as many great matches on a weekly basis like you did back then.

Just because Benoit escaped it doesn't mean it's "easy to escape." I think only Benoit, Jericho, Taker, and maybe Brock have escaped it regularly.