and actually i want to whine about a somewhat different area.... why are almost all players rated the same? there is really no darn difference in players...
you have a few marquee stars that are rated in the 90's (crosby, malkin, ovechkin) and then pretty much the entire rest of the nhl is rated btween about 78 and 90. so you have a whole 12 points that seperate adam pardy from nick lidstrom???? (nothing against pardy btw, loved him in the qc)
i think the game needs to have a much bigger skill differential. i know in the videos that it was stated that crappy players can't pull off slick dekes and stuff, so lets really emphasize that... if you go to nhl94.com you can look at all the rosters for that game. i just did a quick check of the ducks, and stu grimson was rated 37!!!!! while that number may be somewhat embarrassing, at least they were using the whole rating scale... it makes no sense to have a scale of 0-100 when 99% of the players are rated between 75-90...
/end rant
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by New Era
This individual is not affluent and more of a member of that shrinking middle class. It is likely the individual does not have a high paying job, is limited on benefits, and has to make due with those benefits provided by employer.
|
|