The second Survivor Series took place at the Richfield Coliseum in Richfield Township, Ohio. The date was November 24, 1988, the eve of Thanksgiving (what better way to spend Thanksgiving than by getting Survivor Series on Pay Per View)? But, that's not what I'm here to talk about. The real question is THIS event better than the previous year's? Well, there's good news and bad news. The good news: it is slightly better than the previous year's event. The bad news: not by much. So...why am I saying this? Well, for starters, the event was put together better. The matches were more exciting (at least in my opinion) and the teams themselves were better. The highlight of the event was NOT The Mega Powers winning, but Mr. Fuji double crossing Demolition in favor of the Powers of Pain. I found this to be a smart move because Demolition, despite being heels at the time, were very popular (hey, if you're holding the tag team titles and your team isn't popular, then something's wrong) and making them faces was a good idea, and making the Powers of Pain heels was also a very good move (that's not to say The Mega Powers weren't popular, because believe me, Hogan and Savage as a tag team catapulted Savage's career and with the help of Hogan's experience, made the team all the better (and having Liz as a manager never hurt things either...or does it?). Now with that said, let's get down to the bad things: the event itself wasn't that good, despite me saying the matches were more exciting (contradicting, right? Hear me out). My point is that the event as a whole was rather disappointing. It left a bad taste in my mouth after watching the event, and I begged that the teams were assembled better. I say this because there were a lot of mid-carders with main eventers (nothing wrong with that), and if done incorrectly, could lead to catastrophic results. On a scale of 1 to 5: I give this event a 2.5 out of 5. Be sure to come back in April for my next review.
Ah, summer. You're the favorite season of school kids (and it's not hard to see why) and you give us day after day of warm weather (which I'm not a fan of as I am a winter person) and what better way to end summer (or at least getting ready to wrap summer up) than giving us SummerSlam? SummerSlam 88 was the first SummerSlam given to us by the WWE (formerly the WWF) on August 29th, 1988. The event took place at good old Madison Square Garden. What's interesting to know that this event took place on a Monday (really odd for a Pay Per View to take place). Anyways, here is my overall impression on the event. Here are the highlights: two of the four tag team matches were really fun to watch (that being the British Bulldogs vs the Fabulous Rougeau Brothers. and Demolition vs The Hart Foundation). Which was the better of the two matches? I don't know; it's kind of hard to say. When it comes down to the finishing moments, I would have to give that award to the Hart Foundation vs Demolition, despite the predictability. Another highlight was Honky Tonk Man vs Ultimate Warrior. The only criticism I have is that the match was over too quick. Making this a squash match was a horrible idea, but making the Ultimate Warrior the winner was a smart move. The third and final highlight was (okay, call me a perv for this) was the ending for the Mega Powers vs Mega Bucks (if you didn't see this coming, then what would you have expected?) match. Elizabeth (oh Elizabeth Hulette, we still miss you) taking off her skirt something nobody expected, even me. Bravo, Miss Elizabeth, bravo into making Mega Bucks and Jesse Ventura speechless. The rest of the event was either uninteresting, boring, or had no purpose. If you were there and you saw those matches, I hope you went to the concession stand. Overall on a scale of 1 to 5, this event gets a solid 2 out of 5. Be sure to stay tuned when I take a look at Survivor Series 1988.
Remember several blogs back I made a teaser about my favorite pizza? Well, here it is: Tombstone's Garlic Bread pizza (the pepperoni type, of course). What do I think of it? Well, since I'm not completely fussy about what's good pizza and what isn't (I know there's a few out there that left a bad taste in my mouth, but more on that later), it is safe to say that this particular pizza is one of my favorites. Where do I start? The concept: brilliant! Combining garlic bread with pizza is a match made in heaven. Each bite leaves behind a garlicy flavor that actually lasts for quite a while. So taste wise; this pizza is worth every bite. The crust itself is also excellent when cooked to perfection (believe me, I've burnt a few pizzas back when I was living in the dorms a few years back, but nothing too serious). The texture is perfectly balanced, and the crunch is well...crunchy. The toppings aren't over crowded in any way, so this makes the pizza all the more desirable. Do I have any complaints? As a matter of fact, I do have a few. One complaint is that the price is a little bit higher (depending on where you live, it maybe cheaper). Another complaint is that this pizza takes a little longer to cook (probably because the crust is a little thicker?) Overall, if you want a pizza that's anything but ordinary, this one's for you. This pizza is worth your time and effort. On a scale of 1 to 5, I give this pizza a 4.5. (Note: DO NOT TRY the garlic bread pizza from Pizza Hut. They are terrible, and you're not getting a whole lot of bang for your buck).
WrestleMania IV took place at Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino in Atlantic City, New Jersey on March 27th, 1988. This WrestleMania was most noted for the 14 man tournament for the vacant WWF title, all thanks to Andre the Giant getting a bittersweet victory over Hulk Hogan a month and a half earlier. There were breaks between rounds in the tournament, but this was the main focus.beta month and a lahf earlier. mononth an 55555 1988.666666666 Wrestw Jotel I felt like that this was the best solution for what happened to the WWF Title Match back on February 5. Now filling in the slots...I thought they could've done better, but they did alright, I guess. Having Hogan and Andre start the second round? On one side of the coin, not a bad choice, but on the other side...eh, something SHOULD'VE taken place to make this happen. Besides the tournament, were there any other matches worth mentioning? Yes, there is. The opening match that took place before the tournament was interesting to watch. The ending was something that not very many expected, and actually got the audience in the mood. What did I think of the event as a whole? It was pretty good. Having Donald Trump host WrestleMania IV was obviously a good choice (after all, he's the man responsible for hosting WrestleMania V (more on that later)). On a scale of 1 to 5, I give the event a solid 3. The good and bad balanced itself out. Be sure to check back for the first SummerSlam review.
Going back once more to Examiner.com, you have noticed that I've posted some older games (and I'm talking OLDER games; like DOS). You're probably wondering why I do this. Is it because I want to? Am I doing this to take an easy way out of reviewing games? Don't I keep up with the times? The answers to those questions, respectively, are no, no and yes. While I do keep up with the current games, I also like to play older games because those are the type of games I grew up with. I also do this so that I can expand horizons and let the readers know that those games ARE still out there. GOG.com has them for purchase (to an extent). Steam has them for purchase (again, to an extent). These older games shouldn't be ignored because without them, you wouldn't have your current generation console games. We'd still be in the era of the Video Game Crash of 1983. So if you still have your DOS games (the ones you had as a child growing up), I take my hat off to you (even though I don't wear hats). Another thing that DOS games had (besides TONS and TONS of first person shooters) was charm. These are the types of games that had that little something that's rarely seen in games today. I'm not saying that today's games are bad (believe me, some are quite good), I'm saying that these types of games don't have the same charm as DOS games did. Okay, I hope this clarified things up.
Okay, right off the bat, I have a small confession: I should've made this blog the second blog instead of waiting about 2 months. This would've set a reason as to why I score the games I review as is. Speaking of which, when I give a score, that score is FINAL! NO EXCEPTIONS!!! If you've been reading my reviews on Examiner.com (thank you for doing so), I do explain my overall reason why a game is good or bad, but I really don't explain why I gave this score a number, or if I do, not in great detail (i.e. a 4 out of 5). Well, this blog will clear things up, but first, what determines the score? And if you already knew this, kudos! But if not, that's okay, I'm here to clarify. I break a game down into four categories: Graphics, Sound, Gameplay, and one miscellaneous section (I try to keep it relevant to the game). The graphics count for roughly 30% of the review. That's a pretty big percentage, but nothing too serious. Sound counts for roughly 20% of the review. It may not sound like much, but sometimes a good soundtrack or voice acting can really make the game come alive. Gameplay counts for 45% of the review. This is what usually determines the score (most of the time). If the game was fun, chances are the gameplay was good. If not, that can bring the score down, drastically. Miscellaneous is only 5% of the review, and I like to point out anything interesting that separates that game from the rest. With all that said and done, I give an overall impression and a final score. Here are the reasons why I give games these numbers. 1 out of 5: These scores are for the worst of the worst. It could be that the game is unoriginal, buggy, VERY boring, or just plain lousy. Don't spend any money on these types of games (even if they're free!) (Fun fact: I ALMOST gave Thief 2014 this score. The graphics saved this game). 2 out of 5: I give these scores because I had a little fun, but didn't have a good experience playing. Maybe the game wasn't that interesting. There were issues that should've been taken care of before release. But does that make the game unenjoyable? No. It's that the game wouldn't hold attention for very long. 3 out 5: A balanced score. There were just as much good things as there were bad. 4 out of 5: Now we're getting to the good stuff. This game had a lot going for it. The game was fun, kept me busy for hours, and I couldn't stop playing. Only a few minor things held the game back from getting a perfect score. 5 out of 5: Behold! The game of games! These are the games worth buying! If you didn't, shame on you! You're missing out on a great game! These are the games that also had a LOT going for it! And there you go! Remember, these scores only reflect my experience, and yours will differ from mine.
It seems that I got a little bit of flak from my review of Thief 2014, because I gave the score a 2 out of 5 (but I also got praised for writing an honest review). If you said you enjoyed the game, well, good for you. If you didn't, well, at least you were honest enough to say so. I respect opinions, and I call everything down the middle. It isn't often I give games low scores, but when I do, I provide a good reason to do in the review itself. Remember, the scores reflect my honest opinion about a game. This isn't a popularity contest; it's reviewing a video game. With that said, here's a slightly deeper explanation as to why I gave Thief 2014 a 2 out of 5. I felt that the features in the game weren't necessary, and I felt that they shouldn't have been included. I also felt that this game isn't as fun as the previous games. I felt rather bored playing this game. The stealth mechanic left a bad taste in my mouth. The other games made stealth fun and rather simple. This game? Heh, not really. While I did admit that the Challenge mode and Custom difficulties were the better features, I also felt like that they really didn't need to be there. Another thing that I wasn't too crazy about were the new arrows: the Blunt arrow and Sawtooth arrow. I really didn't like the Blunt arrow that much, as I felt that this would've made the stealth mechanic even more redundant than it should be. I also wasn't too keen on the closet hiding creating save points. Why have that, when you have a simple Click Save, Save game, done? It sort of defeats the purpose of having closets in the first place. I also felt disappointed by the treasures themselves (but not all of them). If you owned a pair of scissors that are silver or gold, you deserve to be robbed by Garrett. While the game does offer unique treasures, I felt like they shouldn't have been included, or instead implement them better. Instead of showcasing them, why not just make them like the rest? The last thing I want to point out is the use of birds and dogs as alarms. It was a stupid idea from the get go. In the first game, it was just you and the enemy. In the second game, it was you, the enemy, and machinery (some of the machines acted as sentries). The third game had factions (which I admit was pretty cool) that you can either team up or go against. What's wrong with this picture? Are we missing something? Oh yeah, variety. This game had NONE of this. Okay, I hope this clears things up. If it didn't, well, you're going to have to take this with a grain of salt.
The Royal Rumble; an experience that every wrestler wants. They want to show the world that they're worthy of headlining WrestleMania (more on that later). It's every man for himself. No friends, only enemies. And in the year 1988, we are treated to the Royal Rumble event, but not on Pay Per View, but on USA network (kinda odd, but whatever). Was this a smart move for Vince McMahon to make an event like this on Cable TV instead of Pay TV? The answer to this question is...kind of. One plus to this concept is that we, the viewers, get an event like this free (you know what I mean). One negative is that it does feel odd for an event like this not to be on Pay Per View (after all, if Survivor Series and WrestleMania III were on Pay TV, why wasn't this)? Were there any highlights? The answer is yes. The opening match between Rick Rude and Ricky 'The Dragon' Steamboat was very solid. Both performers did very well, but the ending was rather flat and uninteresting. Another highlight was a women's tag team match for the women's tag team titles (the TNA Knockouts Tag Title's got nothing on this). Like mentioned before, women's wrestling was rare, and giving them time to perform was a sight to be seen, and a 2 out of 3 falls match? Well, semi common, but the match was fun to watch. With all the good, let's take a look at the bad. The first bad part was the bench-pressing record attempt by Dino Bravo. It was completely pointless, unfitting, and ate up a lot of time (despite that Dino Bravo's gimmick did him more good than harm). Another bad part was the contract signing for the WrestleMania III rematch between Hulk Hogan and Andre the Giant, but this segment was the lesser of two evils. With Ted DiBiase being in the WWF for a few months, both Andre and Ted played their gimmicks very well, but the segment went on for too long, and the ending was really predictable. Not a bad segment, but maybe making it shorter would've been better. What about the Royal Rumble match itself? Was it any fun to watch? To my surprise, it was interesting. 20 (back then, now it's 30 men (with the exception of the 2011 Royal Rumble, which had 40)) of the top WWF superstars in a massive free for all to determine the winner (won't spoil the winner, unless you wiki the event). A better concept than the survivor series match, and far more entertaining. Overall, on a scale of 1 to 5, this event gets a 3.5 out of 5. Make sure to check out the next review: WrestleMania IV.
|
AuthorI am a videographer, producer and director. I have a YouTube and Twitch channel. I also have a graduate with a degree in Graphic Design from UWEC. Archives
November 2023
Categories
|