[Sumac]

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

You sound like someone who really likes 2D fighters from 1992.

Modern 2D fighters play nothing like they old counterparts.
If you actually played them you would have knew it. Or maybe, you just don't care and you are one of those people who can't make difference between Pac-Man and Minecraft.

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

Oh, there's new bells and whistles and combos and even styles of combos, and maybe the camera even whips around on a 3D plane at times... but you're still locked onto a 2D plane. If a kick or punch is thrown, your options are jump to avoid it, duck, or move backwards... no sideways movement.
Cool in 1992. Bizarre in 2017.

LOL. It's like saying all First Person Shooters are the same because in every single one you are playing from First Person Perspective.
You are either trolling or really don't give a single **** about actually understanding what are you talking about.

And 2D perspective didn't stop new MK games selling millions, whereas, so "innovative" 3D games were barely selling beyond 1 million copies. Also, if you hadn't noticed most 3D fighting games are dead and most bestselling fighting games are in 2D. The same applies to Street Fighter 4.

Could it be, because, so "bad and outdated" 2D gameplay they are actually good game, that managed to bring some interesting innovations to the table, while most 3D fighting games were basically the same ****, which failed to make people care about them?

The sole reason why 3D fighting games were popular, because back in the day all 3D games were "hip and cool" and people were thinking like you "2D is outdated and sux". In the end history proved that 2D FGs are not outdated and your views are just plain ignorant.

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

What? How is taking a fighting series that evolved from 2D into 3D then back into 2D anything but the perfect definition of regressive?

2D is outdated by itself. It's a different way of making fighting games and it has nothing to do with technology. Like making 2D platformer in 2017 is not regressive and outdated.

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

That's one piece of it. Fighting mechanics, even fighting styles in a game. I remember Mortal Kombat: Deception, you could toggle between about 3 or 4 different fighting styles (I remember one mode, you take out your melee weapon). Depending on your mood and interest, you could play through the game 100 times or against others, and every time have a completely different experience. All the while being able to freakin' sidestep.

You can do it in any other fighting game, by using different combos and moves. If you can't figure out how to play game differently in 2D it's a problem with your imagination and experience. Learn how to play better, learn different moves and combos.

Also, MK: Decepdtion didn't had much variety in fighting styles. Developers started to homogenize all styles to make them similar to each other to make MKD closer to classic games. It resulted in many styles being truncated, compared to Deadly Alliance and some mechanics being universal for all characters, which was not the case in MKDA. MKA went further down that road and make characters play even more similar to each other.

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

Mortal Kombat 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 "appeal to their audiences differently" than MKs 1, 2, 3, 9, 10, and 11? That's pretty strange. And obviously untrue.

You are wrong. Plain and simple.
After critical failure of MK4, Midway attempted to remake MK to appeal to Tekken crowd, because 3D fighting games were on the rise and 2D fightings were dying or becoming niche, hence a lot of ideas were borrowed straight from it.
Saying that "transition to 3D took nothing away" is another admission that you know absolutely nothing about fighting games and don't have even rudimentary understanding of mechanics.

Transition to 3D added 3D movement (duh!) and fighting styles. However, took away speed and traditional for MK accent on using special moves, like fireballs and teleportation. Even though MKDA was a good experiment, developers realized that they strayed from traditional MK gameplay too far and with each subsequent game, made them closer and closer to classic 2D entries, until in MK9 they have completely eliminated 3D movement and styles system, concentrating only on core fighting mechanics, perfecting classic 2D MK formula and guess what? The game has become enormous success, unlike 3D entries. So much for being outdated!!

Interestingly enough that by the end of the 00-s 3D fighting games were also mostly dead in the water. Only several series kept existing and most others have disappeared, which is a stark contrast to the times, when 2D fighting were ruling the scene, where you few big hits and many smaller games. Gladly Street Fighter 4 revived genre, but somewhat killed what little remained from 3D fighting games popularity, which in my opinion, not a big loss, since main appeal of 3D fightings were graphics. As soon as everybody got used to those, they have died.

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

You act like I don't play any. I was huge into MK until they regressed after MK vs DC. I always enjoy a good game of SF but I've gotten a bit bored with the same exact 2D-limited gameplay since Street Fighter 1 came out in 1987 (which isn't to say SF sucks... I'm just saying, to me, it's seeming more than a bit tired and doesn't show any interest in growing beyond its bubble of comfort). I'm huge into Tekken... Lei Wulong is my guy.

You certainly sound like you haven't played any. Or at least, like you never took your time to properly understand what exactly you have played.
Comparing SF1 gameplay to modern 2D fightings is hilarious admission that you pack zero knowledge about subject.
2D fighting games constantly change and renovate themselves, which can be seen in mostly niche projects, but saying that they haven't grow from days of SF1 because they are using the same axis - is incredibly hilarious and incompetent statement. It's like saying that FPS haven't progressed since Wolfenstein 3D.