Mamba219

I'll write my experience, as I imagine it's pretty different from a lot of people here's.

First, some context. This is my first live Wrestlemania or WWE event of any kind. I've watched only the original 'Mania before this all the way through and select matches from earlier 'Manias (Steamboat/Savage, Hart/Austin, Hart/Michaels, Owen/Bret, Michaels/Ramon, Austin/Rock X7, Michaels/HHH/Benoit). I only became interested in professional wrestling about a month ago. Before that, all I had as reference was vague knowledge of Hulk Hogan and the Rock, and a friend who was a fan of Steve Austin. In the last month I've watched those matches above as well as Starrcade '83, Hell in the Cell '98, and a bit of '97 Raw and '96 Nitro. However, the biggest bulk of my time on the WWE Network has been spent watching as much 80s wrestling as possible, since that's sort of when pro-wrestling really "took off."

My favorite wrestlers I've watched so far have been Bret Hart, Ricky Steamboat, and Randy Savage. Steve Austin was great too and I've come around on Ric Flair's shtick as well. Mankind and the Undertaker have a special place for me since their gimmicks are so wonderfully dumb, and even the Hulkster's crowd-pandering is endearing. The biggest shock of all for me was Roddy Piper's absolutely PHENOMENAL promo skills - the man is a genius, even though his actual matches haven't been so great. I have never seen John Cena wrestle, nor anyone else on the card except Triple H, which I'll touch on a bit later.

That said - going from superb promos with Roddy Piper and Hulk Hogan to the small amount of promos in this event was jarring. Going from Jesse Ventura to these announcers was REALLY jarring. What really stood out to me was just how...plodding...some of these matches felt. The Women's Championship was probably my favorite match of the night just because there was constantly something interesting going on, even though their botches were really noticeable, and it seemed like they were all scared of wardrobe malfuctions. Seeing all the praise for the ladder match on this thread is interesting since I felt it was really predictable all the way through until the finish, which I take it no one really saw coming. Undertaker and Shane dragged on and on.

And man, the quality of the wrestling in that main event was so poor. I'm probably the only person in this thread to say with all honesty that I've only seen one Triple H match (his triple threat with Michaels and Benoit at Mania XX), and that match I felt he was carried. So to see this dude main eventing a Wrestlemania in 2016 was pretty strange. As well, you could tell this Roman Reigns guy was trying so hard to be a good guy that it came off super forced. All his moves and poses were met with disdain from the crowd, and quite frankly I can understand given what I perceived to be underdeveloped skills in the ring. I looked up his Wikipedia profile and it said Bret Hart was his wrestling idol - but his style reminds me more of someone far more showboaty and overbearing than the Hitman was, without the skill to really back it up. More like the Rock, I'd say. But the Rock carried himself on the mic, whereas from what people are saying it sounds like Reigns is more like Hart in that regard. Why the WWE would push someone like him as their main guy, I don't get.

I think it says a lot that people's favorite moments of the event was when the black guy tag team (New Day?) came out dressed like Dragon Ball Z characters. Mine was probably seeing Austin, Michaels, and Foley, since I knew all their gimmicks and enjoyed them. They're still new to me!

TL;DR - Liked the event, didn't like the main event, why is this wrestling so plodding, get these women wearing less revealing clothes so they can focus on real wrestling and not wrestling with their tops, I miss Roddy Piper, and it was nice to see Foley, Michaels, and Austin.

Ace Attorney Investigations: Miles Edgeworth was the last game I preordered. I only preorder Ace Attorney games, as it's the only game franchise I feel secure enough about the quality of to preorder.

This is the Plan 9 from Outer Space of video games. It's so bad that it forces you to reconsider all the previous notions of badness you had, yet still manages to have weirdly enjoyable moments strewn about that redeems it from a curiosity standpoint more than anything else.

Superfans of this game are one of ten things on Planet Earth I will never understand.

@ll_exile_ll: It bothers me because there's no good reason backwards compatibility isn't available on said system. They even use the same proprietary format. It's greed, pure and simple.

This realization dawned on me at some point as well, after having played god knows how much Dota, Smite, and League. I haven't really touched them since other than an occasional Smite arena match with Sobek.

The Suikoden games are the main games that did this right. They confined you to a portion of the overall world, with regular references being made to places outside that sphere, but the plot never takes you there, and events within the area you are confined force you to remain there. So in sequels, they bring you to a new area with completely different places to explore and political situations to overcome.

I think that's why most RPGs go the Final Fantasy route, where they make sequels that are more gameplay focused and less about the actual continuity between games. Video games are the only medium in which this is possible.

Considering the title of the game, i.e. the Story of the Vagrant, never even happened, there's obviously more to Ashley Riot's story after he dons the mantle of the Vagrant. Plus that game is so totally unique that even a bare-bones follow-up in terms of story would still be welcome for its gameplay alone.

Skies of Arcadia. I'm in the minority here, but that's a complete game. Everything's explored, everything's wrapped up, a happy ending, character sketches at the end, just phenomenal.

No Funky Student, no sale.

To repeat what several others have said, it really should have Everquest over World of Warcraft. But judging from all the games on the list, it strikes me that these are particularly popular games in various genres, not necessarily the most groundbreaking.

Pokemon copied Dragon Quest V for its monster collecting focus, Doom wouldn't exist without Wolfenstein, games like Tank and Asteroid paved the way for Pac-Man. But I don't think anyone would argue that any of the nominees wouldn't be worthy inductions (except maybe Angry Birds, since it's so recent).