|
|
Post by stardust on Sept 16, 2014 16:20:32 GMT -5
The general consensus on these boards is "bring back Wargames." Why? Watching old ppvs, they were so boring. Now nostalgia aside, insert today's superstars instead...there's nothing to bring back. Watch Fall Brawl 94, 95 etc. They were horrible. Then. Now. Even the one that gets all the hoopla, the Sting Squadron one wasn't all that great.
|
|
Mozenrath
FANatic
Foppery and Whim
Speedy Speed Boy
Posts: 121,016
|
Post by Mozenrath on Sept 16, 2014 16:22:48 GMT -5
I would be interested to see, if not War Games, a team version of the Elimination Chamber, like you can play in some of the games.
|
|
Brood Lone Wolf Funker
Ozymandius
Got fined anyway.
Possibly a Moose
James Franco is the white Donald Glover
Posts: 61,747 
|
Post by Brood Lone Wolf Funker on Sept 16, 2014 16:31:16 GMT -5
I am watching the Wargames dvd and I like the idea and concept. Mainly because its about endurance, and strategy about who to send in and when. TNA still does the Wargames match
|
|
mrjl
Fry's dog Seymour
Posts: 20,319
|
Post by mrjl on Sept 16, 2014 17:56:37 GMT -5
The general consensus on these boards is "bring back Wargames." Why? Watching old ppvs, they were so boring. Now nostalgia aside, insert today's superstars instead...there's nothing to bring back. Watch Fall Brawl 94, 95 etc. They were horrible. Then. Now. Even the one that gets all the hoopla, the Sting Squadron one wasn't all that great. I've watched them, they don't bore me generally. I like brawls more than spotfests. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2014 18:37:52 GMT -5
The general consensus on these boards is "bring back Wargames." Why? Watching old ppvs, they were so boring. Now nostalgia aside, insert today's superstars instead...there's nothing to bring back. Watch Fall Brawl 94, 95 etc. They were horrible. Then. Now. Even the one that gets all the hoopla, the Sting Squadron one wasn't all that great. The general consensus to bring back War Games is because all of those people disagree with you. Count me as one of them. The first 4 or 5 War Games were excellent matches. In the mid 90's they were terrible, but that doesn't mean the match concept was bad any more than all the terrible Royal Rumbles over the last decade makes that concept bad. Put today's superstars in the War Games and you would have a horrible spotfest, just like the Royal Rumbles and every other gimmick match. So, in a sense I agree that War Games for the sake of it wouldn't be all that great, but to blame that on the match concept is just silly. |
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Sept 16, 2014 18:57:03 GMT -5
To really appreciate a War Games match, it pays to be watching the entire lead up to it; get to know the feuds, the characters involved, see how hyped the crowd was to see certain wrestlers butt heads and go at it until one of them literally can't take anymore and gives up.
If you watch it on its own, it loses some of its luster. It's like the old Royal Rumbles; not many memorable spots, but the sheer spectacle of them back in the day was something that's hard to translate to modern viewers.
But yeah, I agree they'd do it poorly now; WWE's gimmick matches tend to be really obnoxious in the way spots get shoehorned in, often at the expense of actual emotions and feelings of bitter rivalry.
|
|
|
|
Post by Can you afford to pay me, Gah on Sept 16, 2014 19:47:07 GMT -5
92 was my favorite and for most considered the best one because it defined the turn war. The story of hate was told and they wanted to hurt each other. Both teams everyone on it bleed and was covered in it. It seems everyone after 92 went down hill. I mean I beat 96 would been ten times better if they had blood and the whole Sting non sense didn't happen. The NWO ones should been all out wars that we should have remembered but really didn't go that way.
|
|
Sephiroth
Wade Wilson
Surviving
Posts: 28,884
|
Post by Sephiroth on Sept 16, 2014 20:04:56 GMT -5
It was a very unique concept as a gimmick match, something that has been lacking for a while.
|
|
|
|
Post by stardust on Sept 17, 2014 10:15:39 GMT -5
My peeve is that they were all exactly the same.
Heels win coin toss.
Major face is last to enter.
No chance of anything ending before all are in ring.
Quick ending once last face is in.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2014 10:32:09 GMT -5
I'll grant you that the coin toss was very predictable, but no chance of anything ending before they all enter is just the rules of the match. Overall it was a great concept but as someone else said, it really needed a great rivalry to give it purpose. They also needed to find new approaches to the match after the first couple of years so that they all didn't play out so similarly. I also agree that after about '92, they really weren't very good.
|
|
domrep
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 7,461
|
Post by domrep on Sept 17, 2014 10:36:09 GMT -5
The ones in 96 and 97 were much better than the ones from 93-95. The no blood rule which WCW seemed to have at the time lessened the heat a bit, IMO. You had two factions in a cage and not one ounce of blood? Come on...
|
|
|
|
Post by thetower52 on Sept 17, 2014 17:54:52 GMT -5
Bought the war games blu ray.
They sucked.
Bored me to death.
I feel like its a match that could be done good but I haven't seen one I enjoyed expect I think the triple cage one
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2014 19:01:48 GMT -5
Bought the war games blu ray. They sucked. Bored me to death. I feel like its a match that could be done good but I haven't seen one I enjoyed expect I think the triple cage one Could you elaborate on what made the triple cage match more enjoyable than all the boring War Games matches? |
|
|
|
Post by ________ has left the building on Sept 17, 2014 19:43:48 GMT -5
To me, War Games all hinged on the Match Beyond part. Before that, it's the usual momentum shifting from heel to face advantage. Once all of the people are in, the match really begins. Problem is that sometimes the match ends quickly after that. So you spent over 10 minutes building to the climax and it is over before you can savor it.
|
|
|
|
Post by thetower52 on Sept 17, 2014 19:50:19 GMT -5
Bought the war games blu ray. They sucked. Bored me to death. I feel like its a match that could be done good but I haven't seen one I enjoyed expect I think the triple cage one Could you elaborate on what made the triple cage match more enjoyable than all the boring War Games matches? First off ill admit I loved ready to rumble so that might have something to do with it. I also have more emotional connections to the guys in the triple cage then the older ones. I feel like I need to of followed the story and been invested in the older war games to enjoy them. |
|
|
|
Post by "Evil Brood" Jackson Vanik on Sept 17, 2014 21:26:49 GMT -5
It is one of the best match gimmicks in my opinion because it is designed to get heat on the heels and get pops for the faces. It is also very chaotic and can lead to good spots. I never saw one I would call bad. The later ones were average, but it is great when done with decent workers.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2014 21:28:43 GMT -5
Could you elaborate on what made the triple cage match more enjoyable than all the boring War Games matches? First off ill admit I loved ready to rumble so that might have something to do with it. I also have more emotional connections to the guys in the triple cage then the older ones. I feel like I need to of followed the story and been invested in the older war games to enjoy them. Ok, this I can understand. It's the "they sucked" comment that had me scratching my head. |
|
|
|
Post by thetower52 on Sept 17, 2014 22:02:55 GMT -5
First off ill admit I loved ready to rumble so that might have something to do with it. I also have more emotional connections to the guys in the triple cage then the older ones. I feel like I need to of followed the story and been invested in the older war games to enjoy them. Ok, this I can understand. It's the "they sucked" comment that had me scratching my head. That mostly comes from the fact they where hyped so much and they dissapointed me |
|
|
|
Post by BlackoutCreature on Sept 18, 2014 5:45:23 GMT -5
After watching the War Games DVD the one thing I didn't like was that the heels always won the coin toss. I understand the psychology in wanting to give the bad guys the man advantage, but it happening every single time kinda pushed the suspension of disbelief too far.
That would be my booking challenge to the WWE if they did bring it back - find a way for the faces to win the coin toss and have the man advantage yet still keep the psychology of them coming off as the underdogs.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ryushinku on Sept 18, 2014 6:40:16 GMT -5
Yeah, that is definitely a problem. I guess I'd have two ideas for letting the faces win it for once.
Firstly by having a non-wrestling type on the face side, maybe a manager or referee or official or whatever, that's obviously the weak link physically but has a personal grudge to settle with a heel wrestler. To the point where they'd flat out insist on going in first. They'd start well in a rage but then get beaten down, needing the help of the second face from there. Even through he wouldn't be a strong enough presence (it'd be like 3-and-a-half vs 4) to offset things too much.
Other way would be for the first face wrestler to get ambushed in some way, either on the way down the ramp or with some nefarious kind of outside interference like slipping the first heel a weapon from outside to quickly use, to the point where he's out cold and injured. The heel can't just pin him, can't end it until the Match Beyond, but would be able to take on the second face while the first is crumpled up in a heap or handcuffed to a ring post or something. Also an opportunity there for the big heroic comeback from that first face nearer the end.
|
|
