|
Post by maddog1981 on Feb 3, 2011 19:28:31 GMT -4
Some ridiculously bad ratings for 2010:
Kane - 1425 - really, he held the World Title for like 6 months. Daniel Bryan - 1050 - guy got a huge push this year. Dolph Ziggler - 1360 - again really, he got a big push. Yoshi Tatsu - 1575 - it doesn't feel like he should be rated higher than any of the above. Tommy Dreamer - 1820 - this one has to be a joke, right? Matt Hardy - 1990 - what did he do in 2010? John Morrison - 1800 - Dreamer is rated better than Morrison, wow.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2011 19:38:08 GMT -4
Some ridiculously bad ratings for 2010: Kane - 1425 - really, he held the World Title for like 6 months. Daniel Bryan - 1050 - guy got a huge push this year. Dolph Ziggler - 1360 - again really, he got a big push. Yoshi Tatsu - 1575 - it doesn't feel like he should be rated higher than any of the above. Tommy Dreamer - 1820 - this one has to be a joke, right? Matt Hardy - 1990 - what did he do in 2010? John Morrison - 1800 - Dreamer is rated better than Morrison, wow. Not sure what the ratings mean exactly, but I was going to use the 2010 set as a jump in point for UQ, is that a bad idea?
|
|
|
Post by maddog1981 on Feb 3, 2011 20:04:36 GMT -4
The higher the rating the better the wrestler is for that year. So Kane at 1425 is essentially on the low side of a mid-tier mid-carder. So if you want realism for 2010, Kane would have next to no shot at winning the World Title for you.
The game is fun despite itself. I'm sure I'll enjoy the set despite it's flaws. I enjoy the WCCW set a ton and I bitch about the ratings constantly.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2011 20:09:41 GMT -4
The higher the rating the better the wrestler is for that year. So Kane at 1425 is essentially on the low side of a mid-tier mid-carder. So if you want realism for 2010, Kane would have next to no shot at winning the World Title for you. Wow. I mean I get it since for the first half of the year he did next to nothing but he killed everybody for the second half.
|
|
|
Post by maddog1981 on Feb 3, 2011 20:14:35 GMT -4
And to further go into that. Batista is like the 3rd best rated guy in the game despite not being an active wrestler for half of the year.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2011 20:16:31 GMT -4
And to further go into that. Batista is like the 3rd best rated guy in the game despite not being an active wrestler for half of the year. Wow. Question, which is better, the game as is or with the die cut cards? I'm just asking because I've never ordered this game so I want to know what's better.
|
|
|
Post by maddog1981 on Feb 3, 2011 20:20:49 GMT -4
I only have the PDFs.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2011 20:51:21 GMT -4
Looking at the 2010 cards, the overall ratings ARE pretty whack. The game looks pretty fun though, going to buy the stuff to play this week.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2011 23:19:06 GMT -4
It seems the 1973 set is pretty close. 1991 I have no qualms with. The WCCW set ratings are a bit off especially on the Von Erichs (meaning Kerry, David, and Kevin). I'm about to check out the 1985 set and see how they are. Like maddog said, despite the flaws the game is fun. I have a blast playing it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2011 23:25:55 GMT -4
It seems the 1973 set is pretty close. 1991 I have no qualms with. The WCCW set ratings are a bit off especially on the Von Erichs (meaning Kerry, David, and Kevin). I'm about to check out the 1985 set and see how they are. Like maddog said, despite the flaws the game is fun. I have a blast playing it. Oh man I didn't even know there was a 1991 set. Just found it on the site, so buying that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2011 23:58:37 GMT -4
It seems the 1973 set is pretty close. 1991 I have no qualms with. The WCCW set ratings are a bit off especially on the Von Erichs (meaning Kerry, David, and Kevin). I'm about to check out the 1985 set and see how they are. Like maddog said, despite the flaws the game is fun. I have a blast playing it. Oh man I didn't even know there was a 1991 set. Just found it on the site, so buying that. Two of them actually... the Ultra Quick Wrestling and the 1991 Supplemental Set.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2011 0:01:23 GMT -4
The 1985 set is pretty accurate to who was being pushed in the WWF in that timeframe.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2011 0:01:44 GMT -4
Oh man I didn't even know there was a 1991 set. Just found it on the site, so buying that. Two of them actually... the Ultra Quick Wrestling and the 1991 Supplemental Set. Probably gonna go with the main set. I'm assuming the Supplemental set is just International talent, right?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2011 0:03:54 GMT -4
Two of them actually... the Ultra Quick Wrestling and the 1991 Supplemental Set. Probably gonna go with the main set. I'm assuming the Supplemental set is just International talent, right? It's got some International guys but not a whole lot. It features mostly mid-carders and jobbers.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2011 0:07:40 GMT -4
I think I'm done purchasing UQW sets for now... I dont see myself getting any of the current or recent yearbooks. The ECW yearbook doesnt thrill me much either. I think my next purchase will be one of the football games. That decision will be tough!
|
|