Mortal Kombat 11

[Andrew NDB]

Does anyone else play this? It's no secret I'm not a fan of them regressing the series back into 2D (though this is a gripe for 2 MK games ago, really)... but this is a really beautiful game. And it really shines on PS5.

For kicks, I also have Mortal Kombat XL downloading, too. Using the Alien and Predator is just too tempting not to check out.

[Leo656]

I'm actually dying to, but I'm a couple of games behind on that series, on account of I'm not "allowed" to play them before my wife does, and all she's played is Red Dead 2 for two years. :lol: If I play "her" games before she gets a chance to she makes a whole big thing about it. She even bought herself a fighting stick when MK11 came out and hasn't even used it yet, which I keep teasing her about.

I was figuring when I get done with "Oblivion" soon I'd pick up from the reboot game, then finally play XL and 11. I saw most of her Story Mode playthrough on the reboot and really dug it, but I only really messed with the Arcade Mode a little bit, then got distracted by other games. Hard to believe that game was so long ago, already.

On the subject of 2D vs 3D fighting games, I wish that SoulCalibur wasn't pretty much dead. Those games were for the most part amazing. And I think they worked a lot better in 3D than some of the other fighting game series did.

[IMJ]

The new movie has me sniffing out Youtube videos from games I've missed. I left Mortal Kombat behind back around number 4, and I've never been a fan of playing fighting games with a traditional controller.

I'd say at this point, although I'm curious I'm leaving the fighting games in the past. I don't even know that I'd have the patience, capacity or interest to even learn a fighter's moves anymore....

[Leo656]

MK4 underwhelmed me as well, but I was a big fan of "Deadly Alliance", "Deception" and "Armageddon". That brought me back. The reboot game was really, really good. "Injustice 2" might be my favorite fighting game ever. Technically not MK, but same company. I generally suck at fighting games but they've become infinitely more easy to pick up and play than the "classic" ones of yore. So anyone who's been "out of the loop" needn't feel intimidated, they're arguably easier to play now than ever before.

I think most people are in agreement that MK4 was the nadir of the main series. Everything after that was a pretty strong return to form, though.

[Coola Yagami]

I'm actually dying to, but I'm a couple of games behind on that series, on account of I'm not "allowed" to play them before my wife does, and all she's played is Red Dead 2 for two years. :lol: If I play "her" games before she gets a chance to she makes a whole big thing about it. She even bought herself a fighting stick when MK11 came out and hasn't even used it yet, which I keep teasing her about.

I was figuring when I get done with "Oblivion" soon I'd pick up from the reboot game, then finally play XL and 11. I saw most of her Story Mode playthrough on the reboot and really dug it, but I only really messed with the Arcade Mode a little bit, then got distracted by other games. Hard to believe that game was so long ago, already.

On the subject of 2D vs 3D fighting games, I wish that SoulCalibur wasn't pretty much dead. Those games were for the most part amazing. And I think they worked a lot better in 3D than some of the other fighting game series did.

Are you talking about SoulCalibur, as in part 1? Cause people are all up on part 6 nowadays. They actually added Haohmaru was DLC, finally the star of SoulCalibur VS The star of Haohmaru.

[Andrew NDB]

MK4 underwhelmed me as well, but I was a big fan of "Deadly Alliance", "Deception" and "Armageddon". That brought me back. The reboot game was really, really good. "Injustice 2" might be my favorite fighting game ever. Technically not MK, but same company. I generally suck at fighting games but they've become infinitely more easy to pick up and play than the "classic" ones of yore. So anyone who's been "out of the loop" needn't feel intimidated, they're arguably easier to play now than ever before.

I think most people are in agreement that MK4 was the nadir of the main series. Everything after that was a pretty strong return to form, though.

I wonder how much of that was MK going to polygons instead of digitized actors. As a kid that made MK4 way less cool, and I heard that a lot.

[sdp]

nobody cared about 2D in the 3D era, had MK4 been digitized actors it would've failed even more. Fighting games in general were a dead genre by the time MK4 came out so that also didn't help things. It was just a bad transition time for MK. It didn't help that it didn't have many iconic characters from the previous games, just the main characters. That's why Deadly Alliance was mostly promoted as a "new" mortal kombat despite being a sequel, they kill Liu Kang, the main character and Shao Kahn, the main villain in the opening cutscene.

MK11 character designs are awful, SJW at its worst, and isn't the story that they go back in time? MK needs to explore the world after the original trilogy. That's what I loved the most about the PS2 trilogy of games, it was fresh new story of the MK world and not a rehash like it's been the last 3 games.

[IMJ]

I wonder how much of that was MK going to polygons instead of digitized actors. As a kid that made MK4 way less cool, and I heard that a lot.

At the time, I remember it's launch in arcades - it looked good at the time. IT hasn't aged well... like N64.

But it was on fire for a while in arcades and the 3-D play mechanics were interesting - not quite Tekken, but added a dimension to the fighting just as much as the run button did in MK 3.

[Leo656]

With MK4, I think it was just overall a clunky attempt. It's been a while since I've played it; I don't remember it being "bad" but it felt slower, more clunky and less fluid than the first three. It looked okay but graphically lacked polish, and other fighting games had been doing 3D (or 2.5D) for a while already and MK was sort of a day late and a dollar short in finally jumping into that side of the pool. They tried some new things with it but they didn't quite land, like adding weapons. Not a bad idea but they were usually more trouble than they were worth.

Basically, at the time it came out it didn't feel like it did anything poorly, but it also didn't feel like it did anything "better" than most of the other contemporary fighting games were doing.

Taking a long break between MK4 and Deadly Alliance was smart, as Deadly Alliance really did feel more like a reinvention than "just" a sequel, and I think by that point it was necessary.

Are you talking about SoulCalibur, as in part 1? Cause people are all up on part 6 nowadays. They actually added Haohmaru was DLC, finally the star of SoulCalibur VS The star of Haohmaru.

I mean that whole series. It's dead. The good thing about Street Fighter and Mortal Kombat coming back is that their reboots were good, but the bad thing is that the market can only sustain so many fighting games and pretty much everything that WASN'T SF or MK (or Injustice) had to go away.

Too bad. The SoulCalibur series was great, overall.

[Andrew NDB]

MK11 character designs are awful, SJW at its worst, and isn't the story that they go back in time? MK needs to explore the world after the original trilogy. That's what I loved the most about the PS2 trilogy of games, it was fresh new story of the MK world and not a rehash like it's been the last 3 games.

Maybe at launch the character designs were...but there are plenty of non-SJW skins and costumes now. Skimpy ones for the chicks, even Sonya's MK3 outfit and so on.

MK11 is mostly about a new bad guy plucking MK characters from various times and places. In the story mode, a lot of older versions of characters meet their younger selves.

[CyberCubed]

MK11 along with the DLC is amazing. There's a few missing classic characters that didn't return that are still stuck in X though like Reptile, Goro, Ermac, Sektor/Cyborg, etc. I'm hoping MK11 gets more DLC and becomes an evergreen game instead of making MK12.

[Andrew NDB]

I mean that whole series. It's dead. The good thing about Street Fighter and Mortal Kombat coming back is that their reboots were good, but the bad thing is that the market can only sustain so many fighting games and pretty much everything that WASN'T SF or MK (or Injustice) had to go away.

Too bad. The SoulCalibur series was great, overall.

I'm not sure I follow. Soul Calibur 6 only came out a couple of years ago and 7 may or may not be far behind at this point.

[Leo656]

Wow, I hadn't even heard that they were doing any more of them. I know that the last few didn't make much of an impact and I hadn't heard anything at all since the last one. Huh.

Well, that's a spot of good news.

[Andrew NDB]

Yeah. Like, Soul Calibur's last game came out after Tekken 7... and Tekken 7 is still roaring. But the business model is changing. Rather than new #s every couple of years, now it's just more and more DLC for the last one. Apparently Soul Calibur 6 (like Tekken 7) will get another "season" of content soon.

I've been playing more of MK 11. Sheesh. Again, I always feel like I should preface any compliment of modern day MK with "It sucks they reverted from 3D to 2D gameplay!" (because it does -- there is no reason I shouldn't be able to dodge Scorpion's "get over here!!!" by just sidestepping, particularly in 2021 and particularly when something like Mortal Kombat vs. DCU got this so right years ago in 3D) but... this game is awesome. I was really worried it would feel like when I bought Deadly Alliance, or Deception ages ago... as in, I'd just quickly play the arcade/tower endings of all the characters and that's that, time to move on. Not so! The "Story Mode" of MK 11 alone is like a full on movie experience, with a good amount of interactivity. And it's good! And the tower stuff is fun, too. And the customization. Dabbing a bit into MK XL as well and it's pretty similar in these ways. I feel like this was money well spent.

Like, I just played Terminator vs. Rambo... and for my Fatality, Terminator got on a motorcycle and shotgunned Rambo to death. With the voices of both Stallone and Schwarzenegger at play. This is gold.

[Sumac]

I wish that SoulCalibur wasn't pretty much dead.
SoulCalibur 6 is active right now and there are some people online, which is also pretty good.

Fighting games in general were a dead genre by the time MK4 came out so that also didn't help things.
Sorry, but this is completely wrong: at the time of MK4 release there were multiple popular fighting games around, which were huge at the time: Tekken, Dead or Alive, Virtua Fighter. Heck, there were bunch of 3D fightings on PlayStation 1 and Sega Saturn. Genre was from dead.

One of the reasons why MK4 ended up with a bad reputation it got, was that there were much better fighting games around. So much for "dead" genre.

I mean that whole series.
New characters for SC6 was released just few months ago, but its dead. What.

Something like Virtua Fighter is dead - no new game in 10 years. SC is alive. Not in the best condition and its certainly Namco treats it like an unfavorite child, but its here and breathing.

[Leo656]

In my own defense, I don't ever play games online so I wouldn't have been aware of such things. Please take that into consideration before judging me too harshly. Thanks.

Given that I hadn't heard anything of SoulCalibur in a very long time, I'd assumed that it was dead. Clearly, that was an error. I appreciate that I was mistaken and also grateful to know that. I look forward to future games in the series. SoulCalibur II was the game that enticed me into giving fighting games another chance when it first came out, so I have great affection for the series as a whole.

[AquaParade]

Honestly, my least favorite thing about the Mk games are the mechanics, sometimes. Compared to many other fighters, it feels stiff in a way that is stifling.

Not that I hate the gameplay. I just prefer Street Fighter.
That said, I've always played and loved Mk way more because of the characters and aesthetics.

MK11 might be one the best playing Mortal Kombat games though. It feels like the games keep getting better as of the last decade or so, which is great.

[IMJ]

Yeah. Like, Soul Calibur's last game came out after Tekken 7... and Tekken 7 is still roaring. But the business model is changing. Rather than new #s every couple of years, now it's just more and more DLC for the last one. Apparently Soul Calibur 6 (like Tekken 7) will get another "season" of content soon.

I've been playing more of MK 11. Sheesh. Again, I always feel like I should preface any compliment of modern day MK with "It sucks they reverted from 3D to 2D gameplay!" (because it does -- there is no reason I shouldn't be able to dodge Scorpion's "get over here!!!" by just sidestepping, particularly in 2021 and particularly when something like Mortal Kombat vs. DCU got this so right years ago in 3D) but... this game is awesome. I was really worried it would feel like when I bought Deadly Alliance, or Deception ages ago... as in, I'd just quickly play the arcade/tower endings of all the characters and that's that, time to move on. Not so! The "Story Mode" of MK 11 alone is like a full on movie experience, with a good amount of interactivity. And it's good! And the tower stuff is fun, too. And the customization. Dabbing a bit into MK XL as well and it's pretty similar in these ways. I feel like this was money well spent.

Like, I just played Terminator vs. Rambo... and for my Fatality, Terminator got on a motorcycle and shotgunned Rambo to death. With the voices of both Stallone and Schwarzenegger at play. This is gold.

That sounds awesome. But I'm stuck in the past with fighting games. I got into Street Fighter II in the arcade in, I think it was like 7th or 8th grade. Followed those for years. But even with that history of gameplay, there are only a few that I'd want to dabble in again for fun.

Maybe Tekken 3, which was an amazing game at the time. I might've had Tekken Tag Tournament on PS2 but after that, nothing. I'm curious as to how far along that series has come now. I just remember that Tekken's "counter and reversal" function was amazing and added so much depth to a fighter.

I was really excited when they added a version of that to Street Fighter IV as well - I wouldn't mind playing that one again too....

[IMJ]

This damn conversation makes me want to find a Tekken game, SF IV. And then I saw this:

https://i.imgur.com/BSsLBCwm.jpg

Now that's something I could see having that would really draw me in to these again. Ugh.

Does anyone know if there is any kind of Tekken Compilation that houses maybe Tekken 1 - 3? Not that Tag Tournament games, but a legit comp.

[AquaParade]

Andrew, now that you mention it, I'm totally ready for MK to go three-dimensional again. I think the 2D style was a fantastic choice for the "rebirth" of the series in MK9, and I'm glad they built upon that formula, but I think it's time for them to freshen it up again and take us back to 3D.

The latest rumor is that Netherrealm is working on a Marvel game...and it's a pretty strong rumor, so that's probably what we are looking at next.

[Leo656]

I'd also like an Injustice 3 that ties up the story and ends it in a more hopeful place. Maybe some time-travel shenanigans to go back and "undo" everything so that Joker never made Superman kill Lois and the whole "Superman going Evil" thing "never happened".

You'd be amazed just how many people purposely ignore and have never played those two truly awesome "Injustice" games, simply because they refuse to accept the storyline. They're like "I don't care if it's the best fighting game ever made; Evil Superman, I'm not touching it."

I personally love the series, but I feel like there's still some story left to tell AND that if they manage to tie it off as a nice little trilogy with a "Happily Ever After" to boot, that might be something that can satisfy a lot of people.

Regime Superman died pretty definitively at the end of the "Masters of the Universe" cross-over, but I don't quite think those comics are canon. :lol: So they could still do one more if they wanted to.

[Coola Yagami]

Ugh..... I really don't want a Marvel game with the MK style gameplay.... but whatever.

[Leo656]

Why not? Might be cool. I'm not a "Marvel Guy" by any stretch but if it's a fun game I'll f*ck with it. I had a good time with those Marvel vs. Capcom games; totally different thing, I know.

I'unno... what's the problem, mang? If it plays anything like MK or Injustice it would probably be pretty fun.

[AquaParade]

I think it's just hard to imagine some of the Marvel characters having to fight like an MK fighter would. Spider-Man would feel somewhat restricted in a Mortal Kombat game, for example. The characters feel a bit more agile and freeform in something like Marvel vs Capcom, imo.

There are definitely ways to make it work and I think it'd be fun though.

I'd actually like to see the studio stretch it's wings here and give us something that doesn't play like the recent Mortal Kombat games. Maybe an arena fighter if they are up to the task.

[Sumac]

Andrew, now that you mention it, I'm totally ready for MK to go three-dimensional again. I think the 2D style was a fantastic choice for the "rebirth" of the series in MK9, and I'm glad they built upon that formula, but I think it's time for them to freshen it up again and take us back to 3D.
Won't happen 99%.
Just like Street Fighter won't go 3D so is MK: developers have comfortable formula and taking to 3D will most likely ruin it again and push away fans and goodwill it had accumulated, since MK9. Fundamentals of 2D and 3D fightings are too different to simply transition from one to the other and keep fans around.

It should be remembered - MK had a pale shadow of its former glory, when it was 3D. And when NRS messed with MKX formula to create MK11 a lot of people left series since they didn't like new gameplay. It would the same thing but multiplied to 10, if they move to 3D.

[AquaParade]

I see your reasoning Sumac. Especially now that MK has stepped into the e-sports arena.

The thing is though, Netherrealm have never been shy about mixing up the MK formula, so you never know what type of spin-off we may get.

[CyberCubed]

Mortal Kombat now is arguably the biggest its been since the 90's. MK11 sold incredibly well.

MK's low-point is probably between 2001-2010. The whole early 2000's felt like MK was on the backburner, and Deadly Alliance hype fizzled fast. MK9 in 2011 rebooted the series and its been popular since.

It's kind of ironic, it feels like all 90's franchises lost their popularity in the early 2000's, and then had a rebound after the 2010 decade started. I wonder why it was, I guess 90's kids grew up, then 2000's kids didn't get into it, then come a decade later, it had a resurgence. Pretty much every 90's property went out for awhile I remember.

[Leo656]

Deadly Alliance, Deception and Armageddon all got scores in the 8s and 9s. DA ended up selling almost four million copies and got the best reception since MKII. Deception was the first fighting game to have an online mode. They all won various "Game of the Year" and "Fighting Game of the Year" awards from multiple magazines and websites.

"On the backburner" my ass. Maybe you weren't paying any attention but the franchise was doing VERY well that decade. The reboot and return to 2D definitely got them even more attention - everything feels bigger and more urgent in the Social Media Era - but you are absolutely f*cking lying, here.

It probably is bigger Right Now but to say that it was "forgotten" during the 2000s is blatantly, provably untrue. Smack yourself.

[CyberCubed]

Yeah, but the 2000's games definitely sold less than MK1-3 in the 90's or the reboots from 2011 onward. I had Deadly Alliance on Gamecube and played it a ton, and even back then it felt like MK's time had passed. Even Mortal Kombat 4 seemed to have more of a following despite the gameplay being much worse.

Armaggeddon is also pretty much what caused the series to eventually be rebooted, the game was meant to bow out the series but the huge cast meant poor fatalies and characters having copy/paste movesets. I lived through that entire era, it also didn't help that Soul Calibur and Tekken were far bigger at the time.

[Leo656]

Consider:

MKII and III sold big numbers when the only competition was the 13th update of SFII.

DA, Deception and Armageddon sold big numbers and won Awards while Virtua Fighter, Tekken, SoulCalibur and DOA were all arguably at their peak.

And now, MK11 sells big numbers when once again, there's literally zero competition.

Not the same world, buddy.

You're not much of a Big Picture Guy, but you sure speak with a lot of unearned authority.

I'm not saying the MK games from that decade were necessarily "better", but you're saying they were practically invisible when in fact the complete opposite of that is true.

I don't like liars.

[CyberCubed]

Are there sales figures for all the original games? Closest I can find is this:

https://vgsales.fandom.com/wiki/Best_selling_fighting_games

MKX and MK11, the two most recent games of the series, are among the top selling games. MK1-3 sales are also counting the sales of the Arcade cabinets and then all the ports that came later, so obviously that inflates things a bit for the classic games.

[Leo656]

It's tough to measure the "success" in dollars and cents between the three eras (MK1-4 Era, DA+ Era, and Reboot Era, or whatever you'd call each of them) because arcade cabinet sales and quarter-drops were also factors towards how profitable the first four games were, and now they're not factors at all. Also, finding exact sales numbers for a lot of console games from that era is notoriously spotty, as precise records weren't often kept and even less often reported. Anything over a "million-seller" was considered "good", and past that they generally didn't talk much about specific numbers.

There's no doubt that the first three games were hugely successful, and there's no doubt that the reboot, MKX and MK11 have also all been very successful.

My point is simply that your statement implying that the three "Mid-Period" MK games also weren't very successful, or that "nobody was paying attention" to them, is patently false. They all sold very well, got very good scores, AND won a bunch of awards. All during an era where they had a LOT more high-end competition than MKII had in 1995, or MK11 does now. It's very easy to be the "big kid on the block" and get all the attention when there's literally nobody else worth talking about. It's harder to dominate the conversation when you actually have a lot of worthy competitors each taking their share of the pie.

What would be more accurate to say, is that despite being very successful those three games divided the MK audience somewhat, since not everyone was a fan of the shift to more 3D-based fighting or the "dial-a-combo" mechanics those games heavily relied on. And that the MK reboot game did a lot to win back people who weren't in love with DA, Deception or Armageddon, with its shift back to 2D and a more "back-to-basics" approach.

That would be a fair and true statement. To say that the mid-period games weren't hugely successful or "nobody cared about them", however, is a complete and total lie. And even if they did sell less than MKII or MK11, there are mitigating factors for that which need to be taken into consideration.

[Sumac]

The thing is though, Netherrealm have never been shy about mixing up the MK formula, so you never know what type of spin-off we may get.
2D and 3D are too different to easily move from one to another. Especially if you have popular franchise and bunch of fans.

Deadly Alliance, Deception and Armageddon all got scores in the 8s and 9s. DA ended up selling almost four million copies and got the best reception since MKII. Deception was the first fighting game to have an online mode. They all won various "Game of the Year" and "Fighting Game of the Year" awards from multiple magazines and websites.

"On the backburner" my ass. Maybe you weren't paying any attention but the franchise was doing VERY well that decade. The reboot and return to 2D definitely got them even more attention - everything feels bigger and more urgent in the Social Media Era - but you are absolutely f*cking lying, here.

It probably is bigger Right Now but to say that it was "forgotten" during the 2000s is blatantly, provably untrue. Smack yourself.
This situation was complex: MK was pretty big, but it was not that hard, since 2000s decade was a time of death for fighting games - most franchises had either died or went into slumber up until Street Fighter 4, which revived the genre.

To put it simply MK was big due to its legacy, gore, but most importantly, the fact there was almost no competition in its segment of casual fighting games. Tekken was a very big thing, but it was more complex, SoulCalibur was making mistake after mistake up until it had almost died with SoulCalibur 5 and 2D fighting games were almost eradicated, safe for Japanese indie titles like Melty Blood or Guilty Gear, which obviously didn't attracted lots of attention from mainstream public.

In fact, when MK4 ended up competing with 3D fighting games in the middle of the 90s it was crushed.

And about numbers - I've heard that MKDA sold about 2,1 million copies and each successive MK game sold less and less until MK9. Where did you get 4 million copies number?

Yeah, but the 2000's games definitely sold less than MK1-3 in the 90's or the reboots from 2011 onward. I had Deadly Alliance on Gamecube and played it a ton, and even back then it felt like MK's time had passed. Even Mortal Kombat 4 seemed to have more of a following despite the gameplay being much worse.
Not really: MK4 was maligned pretty hard almost from the start. AFAIK, most fans considered it misstep.
MKDA-MKD-MKA were considered pretty good for its time, though a lot of people wanted MK to return to 2D.

Armaggeddon is also pretty much what caused the series to eventually be rebooted, the game was meant to bow out the series but the huge cast meant poor fatalies and characters having copy/paste movesets. I lived through that entire era, it also didn't help that Soul Calibur and Tekken were far bigger at the time.
MKA was supposed to be storyless game, but higher ups at Midway forced developers to add story. Which in the end led to reboot (well, and Midway bankruptcy, which forced developers to start from scratch to prove their worthiness to new owners).

All during an era where they had a LOT more high-end competition than MKII had in 1995, or MK11 does now.
Sorry, but its simply not true - in 1995 MK had a lot more competition, than it did in 2000s or now. It was a time when a most companies could allow themselves to keep several fighting game series active, so there was strong competition from Capcom (Street Fighter, Darkstalkers, Marvel crossovers), SNK (Fatal Fury, Samurai Shodown, The King of Fighters), Nintendo (Killer Instinct (produced in part by Midway as well), not to mention rising popularity of 3D fighting games, like Virtua Fighter, Tekken and SoulEdge (SoulBlade). And crapton of lesser known 2D and 3D fighting games.

In 2000s it was basically only MK vs Tekken and SoulCalibur, which by mid 00s was not a factor anymore. Virtua Fighter was interesting only for hardcore players, Dead or Alive went exclusive for XBox and everything else was either dead or niche.

And nowadays MK belongs to higher end fighting games and its only viable competition is Tekken, with Street Fighter distant 3rd and everything else being for hardcore fans or 2D enthusiasts.

[Leo656]

2
And about numbers - I've heard that MKDA sold about 2,1 million copies and each successive MK game sold less and less until MK9. Where did you get 4 million copies number?


Wikipedia. And I said "almost 4 million".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortal_Kombat%3A_Deadly_Alliance
In April 2011, Ed Boon said the game had sold 3.5 million units.
It sold 2.1 million within its first year, then continued to sell more after that. 3.5 is "almost 4 million", which is what I said.

Deception did sell less by most accounts, but probably not by a huge margin (exact numbers are hard to come by). It's recorded as having sold 2 million in the same span of time that it took DA to sell 2 million, though. So round up and figure in the end it sold between 2.5 and 3 on the high end. It also sold 1 million copies faster than any previous game in the series did.

Numbers for Armageddon are the hardest to find, but by January 2007 it had reportedly sold about 1 million copies on Xbox and PS2, less than three months after its release. The Wii version didn't come out until May of that year, so we can roughly tack on another million copies for that console, give or take.

So there was a bit of a slope downward after DA, but it wasn't a sharp decline. DA sold about 3.5, Deception sold roughly 2.5 or 3, and Armageddon probably did about the same or only slightly less, if we factor in Wii sales (which weren't reported that I can find) and allow for the fact that it also probably continued to sell on PS2 and Xbox after that three-month window in which it moved the first million units.

Now, obviously none of that compares to the 8 million or so that MK11 has sold, but it's kind of an unfair comparison when we remember that nothing but Grand Theft Auto sold those kinds of numbers back then. NO fighting game in that era was going to sell more than 4 or 5 million copies, max. By the standards of the time, the numbers that MK was doing were considered quite successful.

And once again, ignoring sales completely, all three of those games were well-reviewed and received awards from numerous magazines and websites. That's a fact.

I'm not trying to say that the newer games haven't been more successful. They are. That's not up for debate.

But Cubed more or less said that the "mid-period" MK games were pretty much invisible and left no impact. Which is factually impossible, considering that they collectively moved about 10 million units altogether and won a bunch of awards. They got a lot of attention, and were very well-received by the standards of the day. That happened. "New games sell more" isn't the point of the argument.

[sdp]

Mortal Kombat's interest died in the late 90s, by the time Mortal Kombat Trilogy came out 2D fighters were dead and people were tired of fatalities/digitized graphics. Mortal Kombat 4 and MK Mythologies did not help things for the franchise and those were the darkest years from 97-2001. Deadly Alliance revived it, it was different from the old stories, it was in 3D and it had a lot of hype, Deception continued the trend and by the time armagedon came out, it didn't feel new anymore and people were ready for next gen consoles so it failed. But in general the 3D era was successful in keeping the brand alive and to a new generation even if not as successful as the first 3 games, it did far better than the late 90s.

MK does seem to be at a height of popularity now but I wouldn't say it's bigger than in the 90s.

[Leo656]

Sorry, but its simply not true - in 1995 MK had a lot more competition, than it did in 2000s or now. It was a time when a most companies could allow themselves to keep several fighting game series active, so there was strong competition from Capcom (Street Fighter, Darkstalkers, Marvel crossovers), SNK (Fatal Fury, Samurai Shodown, The King of Fighters), Nintendo (Killer Instinct (produced in part by Midway as well), not to mention rising popularity of 3D fighting games, like Virtua Fighter, Tekken and SoulEdge (SoulBlade). And crapton of lesser known 2D and 3D fighting games.

In 2000s it was basically only MK vs Tekken and SoulCalibur, which by mid 00s was not a factor anymore. Virtua Fighter was interesting only for hardcore players, Dead or Alive went exclusive for XBox and everything else was either dead or niche.

And nowadays MK belongs to higher end fighting games and its only viable competition is Tekken, with Street Fighter distant 3rd and everything else being for hardcore fans or 2D enthusiasts.

I'm not sure if living in different regions is playing a factor or what, but over here the only fighting games that were popular with anyone except "hardcores" in the 90s were SF, MK, Marvel vs., Tekken and Virtua Fighter. The other stuff was pretty "niche" and not a lot of people were playing them at home, and I'm not only looking at how popular things were in the arcade but in general across the board. If anything I'm focusing MORE on home console versions because the sales numbers are easier to nail down. Most of the franchises you bring up were more popular in the arcades than at home - and it's very hard to measure those numbers because there are too many variable factors in play. So to try and simplify the conversation I'm purposely focusing more on home console numbers.

It's true that the number of fighting game franchises shrunk in the 2000s after the arcades died down, but the number of fighting game series that instead had high-quality home ports went UP. Even though some games like the Marvel vs. series did have home ports in the 90s, most of them were crap and they didn't do well. A LOT of arcade fighting ports in the 90s weren't so hot. But in the 2000s, home console versions were the standards, and were even beyond what arcades at that time could offer. Sure, it was "only" MK, SoulCalibur, Tekken, VF, DOA and Guilty Gear, and a couple of others, but ALL of those games were GOOD, which was a brand new thing for home console fighting games, and that's what I'm talking about when I say there was "more competition". Instead of someone having their pick from a larger crop of mixed-quality fighters from two dozen franchises, they had a much smaller selection but everything they could pick from was A+ quality, which simply wasn't true in the 90s. The 2000s were "Quality Over Quantity" when it came to fighting games. ALL of those franchises were incredibly well-received and sold well across the board.

It's one thing to say, "The fighting game genre had a bit of a lull after the arcades died, and about a dozen or more series went away when everything shifted to home consoles." That's a true statement. But again, every single fighting game that came out for home consoles in the 2000s, just about, got huge scores and sold millions of copies. SC, Tekken, KoF all did good business. It's not like there was a lot of crap coming out; if anything, the games in the 2000s were better than those in the 90s, there were just fewer of them all-around.

THAT's what I mean by "The mid-period MK games had more competition". MKII and MK3 were up against a bunch of mostly-niche stuff that wasn't anywhere near as popular and a lot of which suffered greatly when ported to home consoles. Whereas DA and the others were coming out at the same time when every home fighting game got scores of 8/10 or higher and sold at least a million copies as a default. Darkstalkers and Fatal Fury weren't eating up any of MK's profits back in the 90s, that simply wasn't happening. The race between franchises in the 2000s was much, much tighter. There was much more parity in that era.


MK does seem to be at a height of popularity now but I wouldn't say it's bigger than in the 90s.

It might be. Maybe not in terms of "hype" but 8 million copies for MK11 is nothing to sneeze at. MK2 never came close to selling 8 million copies of all its home ports combined. Again, arcade numbers and inflation muddy the waters significantly.

As I keep saying, it's really tough to compare apples and oranges because so many things are different Now vs. Then. There's no other fighting games that anyone cares about right now, and that certainly helps feed MK11's success. Plus a huge chunk of MK1-3's money came from a business model that is now extinct. So there's no way to possibly do a 1:1 comparison to see which is more "popular" or "successful".

I think MKII had a lot more hype, but I think MK11 probably made more money. But I could be wrong.

[Sumac]

THAT's what I mean by "The mid-period MK games had more competition".
I disagree with MK having more competition at home consoles in 2000s. Extinction of arcades and popularization of First Person-Shooter and availability of good network connection led to extinction of fighting games, so only few titles ended up being popular - MK, Tekken, SoulCalibur and Dead or Alive. But DOA was an exclusive at the time, SC was getting worse with each next game, so it was between MK and Tekken.

Everything else was so irrelevant and low key, that it is strange to compare, say Guilty Gear or Melty Blood to Mortal Kombat. Until recently Guilty Gear was extreme niche, no better than some one off titles, which never left Japan. I am not saying they were bad games, but they had nowhere near enough presence, unlike MK.


I think that at home consoles MK in the 90s was almost unrivaled - its only viable rival was Street Fighter and everything else at home market was too niche (SNK games, VS Marvel and the like, mostly due to the shoddy ports). That's up until quality ports of 3D fighting games started to appear. That's of course relevant to US only.

Other regions had different stuff being popular, like SNK being more popular in Latin America than Capcom titles or MK or MK having no presence in Asia.

[AquaParade]

I like the cut of your jib, Sumac. It’s also true that Street Fighter, another rival, was essentially dead on home console around that time.

[Leo656]

I disagree with MK having more competition at home consoles in 2000s. Extinction of arcades and popularization of First Person-Shooter and availability of good network connection led to extinction of fighting games, so only few titles ended up being popular - MK, Tekken, SoulCalibur and Dead or Alive. But DOA was an exclusive at the time, SC was getting worse with each next game, so it was between MK and Tekken.

Everything else was so irrelevant and low key, that it is strange to compare, say Guilty Gear or Melty Blood to Mortal Kombat. Until recently Guilty Gear was extreme niche, no better than some one off titles, which never left Japan. I am not saying they were bad games, but they had nowhere near enough presence, unlike MK.


I think that at home consoles MK in the 90s was almost unrivaled - its only viable rival was Street Fighter and everything else at home market was too niche (SNK games, VS Marvel and the like, mostly due to the shoddy ports). That's up until quality ports of 3D fighting games started to appear. That's of course relevant to US only.

Other regions had different stuff being popular, like SNK being more popular in Latin America than Capcom titles or MK or MK having no presence in Asia.

You're actually agreeing with me more than disagreeing with me, for the most part, except in a place where we're talking about different things. I'll address that part first.

- You're talking more about "quality" of fighting games in the 2000s and I'm talking about popularity on home consoles and the parity that existed between the "Big Brand" fighting games at that time. It wasn't "just between MK and Tekken" because those other fighting game franchises still sold a lot of copies and generally got good-to-great reviews. Nobody's speaking to whether or not the quality of SoulCalibur slipped. It was still a very popular franchise that moved a lot of units. Even the DOA franchise, despite being console-exclusive, sold a lot of copies. It had a movie made. If it wasn't "popular", that couldn't have happened.

- I don't recall saying that Guilty Gear ever sold a lot of copies. I know that I said Tekken, SoulCalibur etc. did, because they did. I'd put Guilty Gear with BlazBlue, in being a "good game most people never heard of." You're saying it's niche, and I don't - and didn't - disagree with that.

- "I think that at home consoles MK in the 90s was almost unrivaled - its only viable rival was Street Fighter and everything else at home market was too niche (SNK games, VS Marvel and the like, mostly due to the shoddy ports). That's up until quality ports of 3D fighting games started to appear."

This is literally exactly what I've been saying, sir. That MKII had an easier road to "success" in its day because there was less competition at home, whereas in the MK: DA era there were more choices of better quality available for home users. You're literally agreeing with me, here, almost word-for-word.

- "Other regions had different stuff being popular, like SNK being more popular in Latin America than Capcom titles or MK or MK having no presence in Asia."

I've already clarified that I can't speak to the happenings in parts of the world I don't exist in. and that regional differences exist. E.G.: Nobody in the U.S. cares about Darkstalkers, for the most part, but it does well elsewhere. So yes, obviously differences in regional popularity exist. That doesn't do much to move the needle on the broader conversation, though.

So yeah, the only real "disagreement" here is that while I'm speaking to the parity between the Big Brand fighting games available to home users in the 2000s - the fact that multiple franchises consistently got great scores and sold millions of copies - you've spoken more to the fact that some of those franchises "got worse" as they went on and that only MK and Tekken were "any good" (in your opinion) after a while. But that's different, that isn't the same conversation. Even if SCIII and IV were "worse" than SCII, for example, they still sold a lot of units and the series was very popular. DOA managed to become very popular despite being console-exclusive. And so on and so forth. And you agreed with me that during the MKII era, the only competition on home consoles was SFII, which is literally what I said from the beginning.

This all started when Cubed implied - wrongly - that fighting games were "dead" or invisible in the 2000s. And I've been saying, "That's literally impossible considering all the units sold and awards given out in that genre during that decade across the board." The genre didn't "die", arcades did, and with fighting games being the most popular staple of arcades then naturally their spotlight was diminished somewhat as the way people played games in general started to shift. But they were by no means "invisible". They remained very, very popular and the general quality of the various games went Up, not Down. And if a brand like MK was no longer a dominant topic of conversation, it was due to parity between its brethren moreso than "lack of popularity."

It’s also true that Street Fighter, another rival, was essentially dead on home console around that time.

It sure was! And that always bothered me. That would have potentially changed the entire landscape of fighting games, if there was a sincere and dedicated SF game out during that time. But Capcom decided to just "take a knee" for the whole decade and only push SF as part of the "vs. SNK" games.

I guess it actually worked out well for them, though. Since when SF did come back with SFIV, it made a huge splash and revitalized the whole genre in a way reminiscent of what SFII had done originally. I guess "absence made the heart grow fonder" for most people. Can't really argue with it, the results speak for themselves. But I was definitely wondering "Why no SF?" during that whole era when MK, Tekken and SoulCalibur were dominating the conversation. Looking back it makes that decade feel sort of "incomplete". You had all these fighting game franchises cleaning up, but not the one that started it all. Didn't feel right.

[Sumac]

- You're talking more about "quality" of fighting games in the 2000s and I'm talking about popularity on home consoles and the parity that existed between the "Big Brand" fighting games at that time. It wasn't "just between MK and Tekken" because those other fighting game franchises still sold a lot of copies and generally got good-to-great reviews. Nobody's speaking to whether or not the quality of SoulCalibur slipped. It was still a very popular franchise that moved a lot of units. Even the DOA franchise, despite being console-exclusive, sold a lot of copies. It had a movie made. If it wasn't "popular", that couldn't have happened.
I don't argue that they were not popular. But they didn't had the same mindshare as MK in the West.
Yes, they've sold a lot, but compared to MK and Tekken they were in background..

So yeah, the only real "disagreement" here is that while I'm speaking to the parity between the Big Brand fighting games available to home users in the 2000s - the fact that multiple franchises consistently got great scores and sold millions of copies - you've spoken more to the fact that some of those franchises "got worse" as they went on and that only MK and Tekken were "any good" (in your opinion) after a while. But that's different, that isn't the same conversation. Even if SCIII and IV were "worse" than SCII, for example, they still sold a lot of units and the series was very popular. DOA managed to become very popular despite being console-exclusive. And so on and so forth. And you agreed with me that during the MKII era, the only competition on home consoles was SFII, which is literally what I said from the beginning.
Neither amount of sold copies or high praise from critics can guarantee good word of mouth or good legacy for the franchise. Like, high box-office of the movie doesn't mean it will receive sequels.

For example, SoulCalibur 2 was very successful and was considered one of the best fighting games of its time, but SC3, thanks to its bugs and glitches lost a lot of fans. SC4 lost a bit more, until SC5 basically Fatalitied series into oblivion. With each passing installment series was losing fans and people were less anticipating next titles.

DOA was popular, but since it was exclusive and made more and more accent on cute girls as opposed to fighting component its reputation also worsened a lot, both among competitive players and casuals.

And everything else at the time is not even worthy of mentioning.

This all started when Cubed implied - wrongly - that fighting games were "dead" or invisible in the 2000s.
He was not very wrong - fighting games were barely there in 00s, compared to powerhouse genre was throughout the 90s.

And I've been saying, "That's literally impossible considering all the units sold and awards given out in that genre during that decade across the board." The genre didn't "die", arcades did, and with fighting games being the most popular staple of arcades then naturally their spotlight was diminished somewhat as the way people played games in general started to shift. But they were by no means "invisible". They remained very, very popular and the general quality of the various games went Up, not Down. And if a brand like MK was no longer a dominant topic of conversation, it was due to parity between its brethren moreso than "lack of popularity."
I can't agree that they were "very" popular.
People remembered them, but it was definitely a far cry from the 90s. Not to mention how many titles had died out in the meantime or were put on hiatus.

It sure was! And that always bothered me. That would have potentially changed the entire landscape of fighting games, if there was a sincere and dedicated SF game out during that time. But Capcom decided to just "take a knee" for the whole decade and only push SF as part of the "vs. SNK" games.

I guess it actually worked out well for them, though. Since when SF did come back with SFIV, it made a huge splash and revitalized the whole genre in a way reminiscent of what SFII had done. I guess "absence made the heart grow fonder" for most people. Can't really argue with it, the results speak for themselves. But I was definitely wondering "Why no SF?" during that whole era when MK, Tekken and SoulCalibur were dominating the conversation. Looking back it makes that decade feel sort of "incomplete".
Capcom didn't know what to do with the series.
Their most ambitious 2D fighting game Street Fighter 3 had failed commercially and they didn't want to move main series into 3D, since they (rightfully) assumed fans won't approve of that move.

They attempted to make another entry into in 3D subseries, Street Fighter EX3, but like the rest of EX series it was not successful and nowadays barely remembered.

They also attempted to make a 3D "Capcom vs Capcom" game called Capcom Fighting All-Stars (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnmLbsWx9I4), but during test runs, people found that game unsatisfying and it was canceled and remains of its budget were used to make Capcom Fighting Evolution, which was horrible piece of garbage, which, of course, failed.

With fighting games being neither as profitable or popular in the 00s, Capcom felt like there was no point in wasting budget on its revival.

If it was not for stubbornness of Yoshinori Ono, this days quite hated by Street Fighter fans, who pushed extremely hard for Street Fighter revival, we would not see new SF for quite some time.

[Leo656]

The three MK games in the 2000s sold roughly 10 million copies combined. The SoulCalibur series sold around 13 million. DOA series sold about 8 million. The Tekken franchise sold over 50 million copies (although granted about half of that was likely during the PS1 era). Each of those series had multiple games come out in the 2000s that got great review scores, word-of-mouth, and awards from the independent gaming media. Hard Facts.

If they "weren't popular" in that era then I'd like to know how you define the word "popular", that's all I gotta say. ((Shrug)) I don't know how an entire genre of games moves 60-80 million units in a vacuum.

[Sumac]

The three MK games in the 2000s sold roughly 10 million copies combined. The SoulCalibur series sold around 13 million. DOA series sold about 8 million. The Tekken franchise sold over 50 million copies (although granted about half of that was likely during the PS1 era). Each of those series had multiple games come out in the 2000s that got great review scores, word-of-mouth, and awards from the independent gaming media. Hard Facts.

If they "weren't popular" in that era then I'd like to know how you define the word "popular", that's all I gotta say. ((Shrug)) I don't know how an entire genre of games moves 60-80 million units in a vacuum.
I didn't say they were not popular at all.
Just that genre was not as poplar as in 90s.

[Leo656]

Well yeah, clearly, but again, wouldn't you say that had more to do with arcades dying than anything else?

That's why I tried to limit the conversation just to the home console market; there are fewer variables and more hard data for comparison. Obviously the visibility and impact of the genre was diminished slightly when arcades died, because fighters were 90% of the reason to even go to the arcade and that's where they thrived the most. But Cubed's implication that they were suddenly "invisible" after that simply isn't true. They just weren't THE most popular thing in gaming, anymore. But that's different than what he was initially implying. He pretty much said that fighters were "dead" in the 2000s and that simply isn't accurate.

[Sumac]

Well yeah, clearly, but again, wouldn't you say that had more to do with arcades dying than anything else?
There are multiple factors - arcades dying is just one of them.

Another factor was that fighting games used to show power of the hardware, especially 3D ones. However, once consoles reached parity with arcade machines and PCs, game developers decided that using First Person Shooters is much better, because, not only they are more casual friendly, but they also allowed modding, which lead to bigger communities as opposed to fighting games.

Also, early 00s online didn't allow for good fighting in online mode, but was sufficient for FPSs.

[sdp]

However, once consoles reached parity with arcade machines and PCs, g

consoles have never and will never reach PCs.

[Andrew NDB]

Hmm... I'd personally attribute the "decline" of the middle era of MK (MK4, Deadly Alliance, Deception, Armageddon), if not in sales then in general interest or "public impact"... well, a combination of the waning of arcade games, too many games pumped out over a fairly tight timespan (while they never bothered to really evolve the game, Capcom has been relatively good about putting out a new Street Fighter game at about "the right time" every time, conversely), and well, the games in that era being kind of sameish. Adding more characters and maybe fighting styles and all that... but how long will the same base still care about ripping off someone's head as Sub-Zero? If there was like 1 MK on PS1, 1 on PS2, then 1 on PS3, there'd have been much more "punch," I think. You have to at least make people crave seeing their favorite characters in next gen graphic engines. As is, MK4 kind of hit and actually made a decent impact as I recall in the arcades... but Deadly Alliance-Armageddon all kind of blur together for most people. And why is "Mortal Kombat vs. DC Universe" considered a numerical entry when it's neither canonical or a proper entry at all? Because as is it goes MK1-4, Deadly Alliance = 5, Deception = 6, Armageddon =7, the reboot = 8, and then MKX = ... 9?

Question: Can someone explain to me the history and chronology of Sub-Zero? I looked at a couple of wikis but I'm still confused. I figured the original Sub-Zero "died" during the first game, and it was his brother in every game afterward. But not so? And then the "reboot" revived the original anyway?

Also, I found pretty perfect emulation for "Deadly Alliance," "Deception," and "Armageddon" for PS2, which just leaves MK1-4, which are all available on GOG. But those are just pulling from the console versions... would it be more advantageous to try and emulate the arcade versions, graphically and otherwise?

[Leo656]

Question: Can someone explain to me the history and chronology of Sub-Zero? I looked at a couple of wikis but I'm still confused. I figured the original Sub-Zero "died" during the first game, and it was his brother in every game afterward. But not so? And then the "reboot" revived the original anyway?


No, that's right. And it's not actully very complicated. The original Sub-Zero (Bi-Han) was only "Sub-Zero" in the story of the very first MK game. According to the official series canon (which discounts individual characters' endings after winning the Arcade mode as non-canon), Sub-Zero was killed by Scorpion at the end of the first game's Mortal Kombat Tournament. After his death, his younger brother became the new Sub-Zero from MKII through MK Armageddon, while Bi-Han was resurrected by Quan Chi as Noob Saibot.

MK9 (the 2011 reboot simply titled "Mortal Kombat") goes back to the beginning and retells the story of the first three MK games, but with slightly different events happening along the way as Raiden tries to stop the Armageddon timeline from happening. So in the first section of the Story mode, Sub-Zero is once again Bi-Han, until he is once again killed by Scorpion, just like in the original timeline. At that point, his brother again assumes the Sub-Zero mantle nd Bi-Han is again resurrected as Noob Saibot, just like in the original timeline. The only major difference from how things played out for the Sub-Zeros in the original timeline is that when Raiden saves Smoke from being turned into a cyborg by the Lin Kuei, Sub-Zero II gets turned instead. After Sub-Zero II was killed by Sindel and resurrected by Quan Chi, he was returned to human form.

In any case, the reboot game didn't change much with regard to the Sub-Zero's: Bi-Han dies at the end of the events of the first Tournament and becomes Noob, while his brother becomes the new Sub-Zero, and they each retain those identities for the duration of each of the two timelines (MKII through Armageddon in the original timeline, "Mortal Kombat" through MK11 in the Reboot Timeline).

So, put simply, you only see/play Bi-Han as Sub-Zero during the events of MK1; after that it's his brother, and it's the same in either timeline. In the reboot game's Arcade and Exhibition modes, both Sub-Zeros share a character slot and moveset but are differentiated by their costume skins. The unlockable "Cyber Sub-Zero" is obviously Sub-Zero II as per the game's Story mode.

I think the only reason it's confusing for some people, is because in MK3 they unmasked Sub-Zero II, but then after that he went back to dressing like the original one again. They specifically unmasked him so that people would know it was a different character than the original, and that worked, but people preferred the masked costume so much that they put him back into it and kept him there for the rest of the series. I can see that maybe being confusing, but otherwise its pretty simple.

Bi-Han was also Sub-Zero during the events of "Mortal Kombat Mythologies: Sub Zero", but that should be obvious as that game was a prequel to the first MK.
-----------

And MK vs. DCU is considered "MK8" simply because it was the eight game to come out for the series and they didn't want to confuse things any more than they have to or already did. Conveniently enough, it came out at a time when they weren't doing numbered entries so it wasn't an issue then anyway; but when it was time for the tenth game to come out they probably didn't want to break the numbering flow and/or miss the chance to call it "MKX."

It's true that it doesn't truly "fit" in canonically with the rest of the games, but it was the eighth game in a row to come out, so there it is. If you dance around it being the eighth game then MKX would have had a much sh*ttier title. They were just keeping it as simple as possible. Best not to over-think it.

[Andrew NDB]

Ah. So MKX is... exactly like the iPhone X. Got it. And I actually really, really enjoyed and got a ton of play out of MK vs. DCU. I got really good at playing as GL in it and unlike a lot of other fighters when I brave the online mode... I was actually owning a lot of cats, consistently.

So... interesting. Every time we've ever seen Noob Saibot, it has been the original Sub-Zero? Though wasn't he a thing in some version of MK1, or am I misremembering that?

[Leo656]

MKX is called that because it's the tenth game and sounds cool. Completely the opposite of "Mega Man X", which sounded cool but was NOT the tenth game in the series and thus confused the crap out of everyone. :lol:

Yes, every time we've ever seen Noob it was Bi-Han (aka "Sub-Zero 1"), although that wasn't made explicitly clear until more recently, in "Deception" to be precise. It's fuzzy on whether or not he was always planned to be Bi-Han or if it's a retcon. Regardless, retroactively Noob has "always" been Sub-Zero revived, even if that wasn't the original plan. And it may very well have been the plan, anyway, as one of his first in-game appearances and Bio described him as "a lost fighter" from the first game's MK Tournament; considering that his first appearance sprite was literally just a black Sub-Zero, and Sub-Zero canonically died after the MK1 Tournament, who else could it have even been, anyway?

What I think happened was, they decided early on (maybe from the beginning) that Noob was Bi-Han and just didn't want to explain it right away, let people try and guess at it. OR they just decided later on that Noob had to be someone "important" and decided that it all just fit together too perfectly to ignore. I can believe either.

And he debuted as "Noob" in MKII as a secret opponent, so the timeline fits. Like I said, if his identity WAS a retcon, it's all pretty airtight so I can actually believe that it was either planned all along or decided upon very early on. On the other hand, one could wonder why it took them five whole games to reveal it, if it was always the plan.

Either way, it's creative. I dig it. I feel like Bi-Han/Sub-Zero 1 was too important and iconic of a character to just be "The guy who got killed offscreen between the first and second game"; being Noob gives him a continued major ongoing role in things. It feels right, even if it may have been a late-game retcon.

[Andrew NDB]

MKX is called that because it's the tenth game and sounds cool.

But it's not REALLY the tenth game. No one was ever calling "Street Fighter x Tekken" Street Fighter 5 or Tekken 7 or anything.

Though really... why wouldn't they just make MK vs. DCU canonical? They can still say it happened. It doesn't mean we ever need to see Superman or Batman in an MK game again.

Completely the opposite of "Mega Man X", which sounded cool but was NOT the tenth game in the series and thus confused the crap out of everyone. :lol:

It didn't confuse me but as time went on I wished they'd made that be the case. Like, stop at MM9 and then just continue the X series... seamless.

Also, I've never played Mortal Kombat (9). Did any of the characters from the original timeline carry on into the new timeline? Some of the story stuff in 11 makes me wonder.

[Leo656]

Given the fact that you once insisted on calling the first BayTurtles movie "TMNT 4", or whatever it was (was it "TMNT 5"? I forget if you counted the 2007 movie in your "chronology" :trazz:), I'm not sure we need to split these particular hairs. :lol:

It was simply the tenth fighting game in a row with "Mortal Kombat" in the title; thus, "MKX". The alternative would have been to call it something like "The NEW Mortal Kombat II" and that would have been both confusing AND stupid. You're right, other games had different precedents, but I'm willing to allow for each brand-holder to use their own discretion in such matters. In this case, being the tenth game released was good enough to let it have that title, and it ultimately had more to do with simplicity than anything else.

I mean, given the fact that MK2011 was a storyline reboot that covered MK1, 2 and 3's material, if we're going strictly by storyline and what's "canon", then "MKX" could have even been called something like "The New MK4". Since everything from the original games' chronology from 4 through "Armageddon" was thrown out by what Raiden did. But even that's all kind of confusing, if we apply your logic to it even a little bit. Should MK2011 have been called "NEW MK1-3" or "New MK Trilogy", or something, since it remixed the events of the original three games? And then where would that leave MKX? Is it "New MK2", since it's only the second game in the Reboot Timeline? Or is it "New MK4", since it picks up where the original MK4 would have been and overwrites it in the new timeline?

You can see why they didn't dwell on things being in "storyline order" when they named it MKX. It's not even the tenth game "storyline-wise" since most of the previous games' events were "erased". It's simply the tenth game in the series to be called "Mortal Kombat". That was 100% of their logic and frankly that's all the thought that needed to be put into it.
------------

As for any storyline or canon implications to MK vs. DCU, allegedly that game technically happens parallel to the events of the original MKII. But nobody's honestly very concerned about it.


Also, I've never played Mortal Kombat (9). Did any of the characters from the original timeline carry on into the new timeline? Some of the story stuff in 11 makes me wonder.

Ah, you should. Many of your questions would be answered. :lol: I'm actually playing it now, almost done with the Story mode.

I haven't played MKX or MK11, yet, so I'm fuzzy on this myself. I know that most of the original characters are dead because Raiden's attempt to prevent the Armageddon timeline did not go at all as he'd planned and he accidentally got a lot of the main characters killed. Some of them get resurrected, I think, but I haven't played the sequels yet so I don't know.

All I know for sure is that the events of MK1, 2 and 3 happen slightly differently in MK2011, and that after that things go in a completely new direction and everything from MK4 and beyond never happened at all, thanks to Raiden changing the timeline.

[Sumac]

consoles have never and will never reach PCs.
Relatively they did - as long as they can run the same games as PC without compromising them.

Hmm... I'd personally attribute the "decline" of the middle era of MK (MK4, Deadly Alliance, Deception, Armageddon), if not in sales then in general interest or "public impact"... well, a combination of the waning of arcade games, too many games pumped out over a fairly tight timespan (while they never bothered to really evolve the game, Capcom has been relatively good about putting out a new Street Fighter game at about "the right time" every time, conversely), and well, the games in that era being kind of sameish.
I agree with this - especially with the part of them being sameish - Midway pumped out MK-MK4 in a span of just 6 years, but games were so different from each other, so they managed to stood on their own.

Also, it should be mentioned, that it was time of general decline of interest in fighting games and the fact that gore was no longer selling point of the series, since by that time there were plenty of gory games everywhere. Not to mention that gore in MKDA-MKA looked laughable.

I mean, character ripping some meaty looking things from bodies leaving no wounds and copious amounts of blood, which looked like syrup? Far cry from MK2 or even MK3.

And why is "Mortal Kombat vs. DC Universe" considered a numerical entry when it's neither canonical or a proper entry at all? Because as is it goes MK1-4, Deadly Alliance = 5, Deception = 6, Armageddon =7, the reboot = 8, and then MKX = ... 9?
I don't know either.
MKvsDC has started as canonical MK8, but quite soon Midway higher ups somehow made a deal with Warners and the game was turned into crossover. For whatever reason developers still consider it not only 8th game in the series (which is true), but 8th MK chapter, as if it was another canonical game, which is strange, since MKvsDC set in a separate world and has no consequences for MK universe.

It makes as much sense, if they considered Shaolin Monks as canonical MK7.

Question: Can someone explain to me the history and chronology of Sub-Zero? I looked at a couple of wikis but I'm still confused. I figured the original Sub-Zero "died" during the first game, and it was his brother in every game afterward. But not so? And then the "reboot" revived the original anyway?
Elder Sub-Zero, Bi-Han, was hired to kill Shang Tsung in MK1, but was killed by Scorpion. Then he was revived as Noob Saibot and was acting as a spy until events of MKDA, where he lethally wounded Goro and found Smoke cyborg in Shao Kahns' fortress.

He wanted to create army of demon-cyborgs and nearly killed his younger brother, but was stopped by Sareena. Then he attacked Delia's temple, which served as Sub-Zero Junior's headquarters in the Arctic, but was defeated by Taven. After that he died during battle near Argus Pyramid.

Sub-Zero Junior, Kuai Liang, was sent to Outworld to kill Shang Tsung in MK2, but helped Earth Realm warriors instead. In MK3 he deserted from Lin Kuei and helped to defeat Shao Kahn and cyborgs send after him. In MK4 he helped to defeat Shinnok's army and then defeated Sektor, who attempted to usurp control over Link Kuei.

After that, he reformed Lin Kuei into force fighting to defend Earth and was summoned by Raiden to defeat Deadly Alliance. He took his apprentice Frost with him and she betrayed him, trying to stole his medallion, which could give her enormous power boost. She was unable to control it and was frozen to death. Sub-Zero buried her, found tomb of his ancestors and later saved life of deadly wounded Kenshi. Together they've escaped from Outworld and later were killed in the battle near Argus Pyramid.

Basically everyone, but Shao Kahn, have died in the battle near Argus Pyramid, which prompted Raiden to reboot MK universe and story has started from MK1 basically.

In the new timeline:
Sub-Zero Senior, Bi-Han, participated in MK1 not to kill Shang Tsung, but to seize victory for the Outworld. He is killed by Scorpion in the MK1 events and revived as Noob-Saibot. Then he was thrown into Soulnado by Nightwolf, I think, and killed. In MK11 he was revived by Kronika.

Sub-Zero Junior, Kuai Li , escaped to Outworld on his own, without Lin Kuei orders to find out what had happened with his brother. He was captured by Link Kuei cyborgs and transformed into cyborg himself. Somehow, he was killed by Sindel, during Shao Earth invasion. But revived by Quan Chi, who brainwashed him into loyal revenant. Later, he was cured from brainwashing, alongside with Scorpion and Jax and restarted Lin Kuei as a force to defend Earth. He made piece with Scorpion and took Frost as his apprentice.

During events of MK11 Lin Kuei was attacked by cyber Frost, but he defeated her.

Also, I found pretty perfect emulation for "Deadly Alliance," "Deception," and "Armageddon" for PS2, which just leaves MK1-4, which are all available on GOG. But those are just pulling from the console versions... would it be more advantageous to try and emulate the arcade versions, graphically and otherwise?
There was a MK Classic Arcade Collection, but it was removed from all platforms for some reason. Also, MK1 was included in MK Deception in US and MK Shaolin Monks had MK2, once again, only in US. There were also Midway collections released, but I think, they can't be bought on any platforms anymore.

In general, all first MK games can be emulated by MAME, no problem. So you get your perfect arcade experience with no compromises.

So... interesting. Every time we've ever seen Noob Saibot, it has been the original Sub-Zero? Though wasn't he a thing in some version of MK1, or am I misremembering that?
I think, it was not invented until MK Deception.

What I think happened was, they decided early on (maybe from the beginning) that Noob was Bi-Han and just didn't want to explain it right away, let people try and guess at it. OR they just decided later on that Noob had to be someone "important" and decided that it all just fit together too perfectly to ignore. I can believe either.
I think, it was not the case: UMK3 had Classic Sub-Zero, which was kinda supposed to represent Sub-Zero from MK1 and Noob as separate characters. And nothing indicated that they were the same character up until revelation in MKD.

But this retcon was absolutely masterful - it is a rare case, when retcon fits perfectly in an established timeline without messing anything and enriched story of both characters.

Even with MK Mythology in mind it still works. In fact, MKM can be seen as prediction of Bi-Han's fate.

Also, I've never played Mortal Kombat (9). Did any of the characters from the original timeline carry on into the new timeline? Some of the story stuff in 11 makes me wonder.
No, all characters, except for Raiden, were "nullified" after reboot and don't remember about OG timeline.

And some of their background stories were drastically altered without any explanation or Raiden's interference.

You can see why they didn't dwell on things being in "storyline order" when they named it MKX. It's not even the tenth game "storyline-wise" since most of the previous games' events were "erased". It's simply the tenth game in the series to be called "Mortal Kombat". That was 100% of their logic and frankly that's all the thought that needed to be put into it.
Argument can be made that, since MK9 (reboot) is also a continuation of old timeline, than MKX can be considered as next numbered chapter.

All I know for sure is that the events of MK1, 2 and 3 happen slightly differently in MK2011, and that after that things go in a completely new direction and everything from MK4 and beyond never happened at all, thanks to Raiden changing the timeline.
MKX was kinda-sorta based on MK4, but it quickly went awry in favor of touching story about daughter of Johnny and Sonya.

[Leo656]

I know this is the "Mortal Kombat 11" thread, but I've been playing the MK 2011 game for the last few days and I figured it just made more sense to talk about it here than the "Currently Playing" thread.

I only played it a little bit when it first came out, for whatever reason; I beat the Arcade Ladder with Sub-Zero and did about 50 Challenges, and after that I guess I got distracted by something else because I never went back to it. I feel bad about it now, though, because I'm having a lot of fun with it... Even though I still am not very good at these types of games.

I think that's a Positive, though, that even someone like me who can barely string a combo together can find a lot to do and have fun with. So far I played through the Story mode, did a bunch more Challenge Tower stuff, and unlocked a little over half of the Krypt, but there's still a ton more stuff to do. I know I've said this before, but I'm a huge fan of how so many fighting games in recent years come with such a robust amount of single-player content. When I was a kid, I didn't play fighting games very often since I wasn't competent enough to play against other people and so the experience was very thin. Like I'd play SFII or MK for like an hour or so every once in a while, but after that I'd pretty much be done with it. But ever since SoulCalibur II, so many fighting games are just packed with stuff to keep busy with in Single-Player, and it just makes for a much richer overall experience, I feel.

I'm still not good, but so far at least I haven't run into anything I couldn't eventually figure out with persistence. The Challenge Tower does a good job at subtly teaching you some of the game's finer points, too.

Good game, lots of fun. I plan to keep with it at least until I've unlocked the whole Krypt and hopefully I'll be able to do all the Challenge Tower stuff, too. And I'll probably try and beat Arcade mode with a few other characters, at least.

[Sumac]

Sadly there are no unlockable characters in a Krypt and reward for completing Challenge Tower is...so-so. But as they say, journey is more important than the goal.

[Andrew NDB]

It looks like the only way I can play MK (2011) is by getting it on PC. The 360 version isn't compatible with X-Box One and the only way to play it on PS4 or PS5 is by paying not just for Sony's online service, but their other service that lets you stream old PS3 and PS2 games.

[Leo656]

That's a bummer. Glad we keep all of our old consoles over here.

When I was having problems with my Microsoft account, the customer service rep (who was VERY helpful and polite, I have to stress) did ask me while we were waiting for one of his superiors to try and address a problem, "So I have to ask, if you have an Xbox One, why are you still downloading and playing games on your 360? Just curious." And I basically was like "That's just how I roll, man," and then I mentioned how I was playing my NES a couple'a weeks ago and the guy was like, "...WOW." :lol:

But yeah, I gotta replace my original Xbox so I can play "MK: Shaolin Monks" one'a these days, too. I only watched my wife play it for a bit but it looked awesome.

[AquaParade]

Shaolin Monks was dope. There is a code to play as Sub Zero and Scorpion, if I remember correctly.

[IMJ]

I've been looking at those Jazwares 3 3/4" Mortal Kombat figures online now because of you influential SOB's.....

Thank God they are outlandishly expensive, causing me to delay action as I've made no preparation to buy them... yet. Ugh.

[Leo656]

:lol: My wife's got a couple of the new-ish McFarlane ones. They're pretty spiffy!

For my part, I have those Funko "Savage World" 5.5-scale MOTU knock-off figures. :lol: They're actually great for being little 5-POA throwback figures. Except Kitana's fans don't stay in her hands for sh*t.

I also have the "Savage World" Street Fighter wave they did, because I am a f*cking fiend for 5.5-scale action figures. Hook that sh*t t'muh veins! :lol:

[Sumac]

Shaolin Monks can be emulated perfectly from what I've heard.

[Andrew NDB]

Shaolin Monks can be emulated perfectly from what I've heard.

But is it worth playing?

I'm actually pretty pleased. I got a Playstation-like controller in the mail and it works perfectly with PS2 emulation. MKDA-MKA play just the same or better as they would on a real PS2. I don't see or hear any difference. I haven't done much looking into PS3 emulation... I wonder if that is a thing yet?

I was also playing a little more Tekken 7 tonight. While it is DEFINITELY not as beautiful as a game as MK11 (when played on a 4K TV, all of the characters look way more "smooth" -- not in a good way -- and not as well textured and not in as good of resolution as MK11)... I still circle back to the argument of "3D fighting games vs. 2D fighting games." I'll make the case with Akuma in Tekken 7, whom I hadn't played as in ages but did tonight. You can't tell me when you play as him in Tekken 7 -- in a full 3D playing field in which you can sidestep and all -- is in any way inhibiting of the experience of playing Akuma (who, let's be honest... is basically the same as playing as either Ryu or Ken in any SF game, with minor variables) vs. playing him in any 2D-based SF game (as in, all of them). I was landing SF-based combos, traditional Shorrrrrrukens, harrruuuukens, and haraptaparuuuukens just fine, hitting the same buttons as in any SF game, just with the added caveat of me being able to sidestep stuff with only a gentle tap or tap tap of the directional buttons. I'm still flummoxed at how being able to do so is somehow honestly being looked at as limiting or overly complicated in any way.

Like, I'm playing MK11 and while the visual treat of it is amazing... every time I'm hit with a projectile or spear or anything when I could just sidestep, or hit an "invisible wall" at the left or right end of the level the same as MK1-3 25 years ago (some of them aren't invisible and some of them can be interacted with, to be fair, but not all)... this just makes me sad. This truly isn't progress. If the argument is that MKDA-MKA got to be "too much" with all the Animalities and different fighting styles and weapons and stuff, I would agree with you... but the basic benefits of operating on a 3D playing field shouldn't have been lost.

A quick bit on the "Aftermath" storyline. I finished it. I was a little disappointed in that I'd swore I'd read that Robocop and a couple other "weird" new fighters were integrated into the storyline only to not see them at all. Undoubtedly my fault -- I'm sure I misread something. So Shang Tsung teams up to help Liu Kang reconstruct reality by fetching the crown, betrays everybody at the end (surprise!), gets erased... and now Liu Kang basically facilitates what is essentially another MK reboot? That's what he does. Like, I don't believe for a moment anyone goes into the MK series expecting a clear and concise saga by any means... but is this a good idea? Like 2 games from the last reboot? I kind of thought what they might do was use the main MK11 story as a way to kill off older versions of existing characters to then swap in their now-altered younger selves to keep things fresh. But literally, Liu Kang recreating all of reality and everyone in it, dead or alive? Now? Hm...

[Andrew NDB]

So I'm definitely on a Mortal Kombat kick.

I've DLed the Arcade Kollection for PC (doesn't seem available on anything else atm). That covers MK1-UMK3.

I've DLed the GOG version of MK4 for PC. I'm told this is superior to, like, playing the arcade version of MK4 on MAME... but maybe not superior to playing MK "Gold" on Dreamcast emulation. Though not visually. Can anyone speak to MK Gold?

I've got MK Komplete Edition for PC on the way... this covers MK 2011.

Already have MKXL fully loaded on PS5 and MK11 fully loaded on PS5 as well.

[sdp]

Shaolin Monks is one of the best MK games and best 3D beat em ups, you will love it, full of MK Easter eggs and a blast to Play with a friend.

MK Gold is likely the best version of MK4, granted it's still MK4 but you get good graphics and more characters. If I remember the arcade version is really barebones, even the N64/PS1 versions had two extra characters.

Don't forget MK Trilogy, it's an official hack with everyone, not balanced and glitchy as hell but that's part of the fun.

[Andrew NDB]

Don't forget MK Trilogy, it's an official hack with everyone, not balanced and glitchy as hell but that's part of the fun.

I owned that for PS1 wayyyy back. Decent.

Update: I tried out MK Gold on emulation. This emulator is shockingly easy to use out of the "box," and the ROM only took 10 seconds to find. Bam. I was playing. Recognized my controller right away, reconfigured buttons no prob.

*Another update: Tried out MK Komplete Edition (MK 2011) on PC. This looks better than MKXL even on PS5. I guess maybe MKXL never quite got the PS5 upgrades that MK11 did. But this looks super slick. The gameplay isn't on par with MK11, but it's purdy.

[Andrew NDB]

Also... MK4. Or rather MK Gold. This is what I'm trying out. And yes! If any version of MK4 including this one is in any way your reason for citing MK being incompatible with 3D fighting... well, you're wrong and you're right. MK4/Gold is a HORRIBLE way to introduce 3D fighting. I mean it's a little thing they did, and it is dependant on the "run button" which I never liked, even in MK3.

But shesus. Again. I point to playing as Akuma in Tekken 7. Where are all the voices against this, who have tried this? You people act like this changes everything. It doesn't! It just makes things not in a straight line. 2D fighters can be played on a phone.

[Sumac]

I've DLed the GOG version of MK4 for PC. I'm told this is superior to, like, playing the arcade version of MK4 on MAME... but maybe not superior to playing MK "Gold" on Dreamcast emulation. Though not visually. Can anyone speak to MK Gold?
MK4 on PC is the worst port of MK4 out there. MK4 on Arcade maybe doesn't have same amount of optional content (and secret characters), but it plays and looks much better.

But is it worth playing?
It is one of the best beat'em ups ever.

And one of the best MK games ever. Amazing atmosphere, amazing gameplay, copious amounts of Fatalities and unlockable content, like playable Scorpion and Sub-Zero in singleplayer mode and semi-remake of MK2 with Shaolin Monks gameplay.

I'm actually pretty pleased. I got a Playstation-like controller in the mail and it works perfectly with PS2 emulation. MKDA-MKA play just the same or better as they would on a real PS2. I don't see or hear any difference. I haven't done much looking into PS3 emulation... I wonder if that is a thing yet?
Majority of PS3 games emulated this days with no problems.
Though you will need a beefy machine for this and use some specific settings to make some games work. But it is not harder to work with than most other emulators.

I was also playing a little more Tekken 7 tonight. While it is DEFINITELY not as beautiful as a game as MK11 (when played on a 4K TV, all of the characters look way more "smooth" -- not in a good way -- and not as well textured and not in as good of resolution as MK11)... I still circle back to the argument of "3D fighting games vs. 2D fighting games." I'll make the case with Akuma in Tekken 7, whom I hadn't played as in ages but did tonight. You can't tell me when you play as him in Tekken 7 -- in a full 3D playing field in which you can sidestep and all -- is in any way inhibiting of the experience of playing Akuma (who, let's be honest... is basically the same as playing as either Ryu or Ken in any SF game, with minor variables) vs. playing him in any 2D-based SF game (as in, all of them). I was landing SF-based combos, traditional Shorrrrrrukens, harrruuuukens, and haraptaparuuuukens just fine, hitting the same buttons as in any SF game, just with the added caveat of me being able to sidestep stuff with only a gentle tap or tap tap of the directional buttons. I'm still flummoxed at how being able to do so is somehow honestly being looked at as limiting or overly complicated in any way.
Funny you mention that, because, Akuma was specifically designed to play as close to the 2D games as possible.

Which made essentially "broken", since he doesn't follow the rules of other characters in the game and has an unfair advantage over them. Which is why you can see him a lot in the Tekken 7 tournaments.

So, in a weird way, you singing praises about how he plays, is admitting, that 2D gameplay is superior to 3D one, because, you are enjoying character who essentially breaks rules of the game he is in.

Like, I'm playing MK11 and while the visual treat of it is amazing... every time I'm hit with a projectile or spear or anything when I could just sidestep, or hit an "invisible wall" at the left or right end of the level the same as MK1-3 25 years ago (some of them aren't invisible and some of them can be interacted with, to be fair, but not all)... this just makes me sad. This truly isn't progress. If the argument is that MKDA-MKA got to be "too much" with all the Animalities and different fighting styles and weapons and stuff, I would agree with you... but the basic benefits of operating on a 3D playing field shouldn't have been lost.
3D fighting games are not "progress".
They operate on entirely different ruleset from 2D fighting games.

Its like comparing Turn Based RPGs and Action RPGs. They both RPGs at its core, but both have their own specific rules and gimmicks and one is not better than the other.

A quick bit on the "Aftermath" storyline. I finished it. I was a little disappointed in that I'd swore I'd read that Robocop and a couple other "weird" new fighters were integrated into the storyline only to not see them at all. Undoubtedly my fault -- I'm sure I misread something. So Shang Tsung teams up to help Liu Kang reconstruct reality by fetching the crown, betrays everybody at the end (surprise!), gets erased... and now Liu Kang basically facilitates what is essentially another MK reboot? That's what he does. Like, I don't believe for a moment anyone goes into the MK series expecting a clear and concise saga by any means... but is this a good idea? Like 2 games from the last reboot? I kind of thought what they might do was use the main MK11 story as a way to kill off older versions of existing characters to then swap in their now-altered younger selves to keep things fresh. But literally, Liu Kang recreating all of reality and everyone in it, dead or alive? Now? Hm...
I could rant for hours about how ****** MK11 story is...but I just say: it sucks major ass.

It retcons a lot of ****, it introduces countless amount of plotholes and questions in regards to previously established characters and lore. And, of course, it ***** all over character progress.

**** that trash and people who wrote it. After this game I've lost interest in MK story and possibly MK overall. The fact that gameplay sucked ass as well (IMO) doesn't help.

Also... MK4. Or rather MK Gold. This is what I'm trying out. And yes! If any version of MK4 including this one is in any way your reason for citing MK being incompatible with 3D fighting... well, you're wrong and you're right. MK4/Gold is a HORRIBLE way to introduce 3D fighting. I mean it's a little thing they did, and it is dependant on the "run button" which I never liked, even in MK3.
MK Gold and in general MK4 were undercooked and essentially still 2D fighting games with 3D gimmicks thrown here and there. Its quite similar in concept to Street Fighter EX series, except SFEX still had quality Street Fighter gameplay and variety, something that classic MK were not known for.

But shesus. Again. I point to playing as Akuma in Tekken 7. Where are all the voices against this, who have tried this? You people act like this changes everything. It doesn't! It just makes things not in a straight line. 2D fighters can be played on a phone.
Weird argument to make against 2D fighting games. This days, pretty every genre can be played on mobile. Does it mean that most of those genres are bad or outdated?

[Andrew NDB]

MK4 on PC is the worst port of MK4 out there. MK4 on Arcade maybe doesn't have same amount of optional content (and secret characters), but it plays and looks much better.

Are you sure you're talking about the GOG version of MK4? Because while it is taking from the old PC version of MK4, it improves the graphics to an almost modern level, I understand, resolution wise.

Majority of PS3 games emulated this days with no problems.
Though you will need a beefy machine for this and use some specific settings to make some games work. But it is not harder to work with than most other emulators.

Good. I see "MK vs. DC Universe" is one of the games currently emulatable.

Funny you mention that, because, Akuma was specifically designed to play as close to the 2D games as possible.

Which made essentially "broken", since he doesn't follow the rules of other characters in the game and has an unfair advantage over them. Which is why you can see him a lot in the Tekken 7 tournaments.

Interesting. I'm not arguing with you, though when I'm getting my ass kicked really bad at Tekken 7 online, it's never by someone playing as Akuma. It's one of these new lady characters, or Lee, or something. And usually it is ME playing as Akuma.

So, in a weird way, you singing praises about how he plays, is admitting, that 2D gameplay is superior to 3D one, because, you are enjoying character who essentially breaks rules of the game he is in.


3D fighting games are not "progress".
They operate on entirely different ruleset from 2D fighting games.

I'm not entirely sure I follow. If you say Akuma in Tekken 7 only works and you agree he does play like Akuma/Ryu/Ken in a normal SF 2D game, but only by cheating the rest of the "normal" characters and game in Tekken 7... what is the problem with making a new game -- be it a new SF game, or a new MK game -- where Akuma in Tekken 7 gameplay is the norm? Meaning, where you can sidestep, but otherwise moves and combos are essentially the same? i.e., everyone operating under Akuma "rules"?

If all characters and game is calibrated to it, I don't understand the problem.

Its like comparing Turn Based RPGs and Action RPGs. They both RPGs at its core, but both have their own specific rules and gimmicks and one is not better than the other.

Well, I don't agree. On the general comparison. Adding one dimension to a fighting game doesn't make it something else entirely, I don't think.

I could rant for hours about how ****** MK11 story is...but I just say: it sucks major ass.

It retcons a lot of ****, it introduces countless amount of plotholes and questions in regards to previously established characters and lore. And, of course, it ***** all over character progress.

**** that trash and people who wrote it. After this game I've lost interest in MK story and possibly MK overall. The fact that gameplay sucked ass as well (IMO) doesn't help.

I'm just curious. What were the things that bothered you the most? You're more invested in MK than me, but me as someone coming into MK11 after not playing any MK in a long time... MK11's core story was OK enough, but toward the end and then going into the "Aftermath," it really became like bad fanfiction.

MK Gold and in general MK4 were undercooked and essentially still 2D fighting games with 3D gimmicks thrown here and there.

I guess that's right. Again, the fighting with the Run button to sidestep feels super inorganic and cumbersome and often times just plain doesn't work. Though I do appreciate them trying to join the 3D fighting game field without radically jarring gamers.

Its quite similar in concept to Street Fighter EX series, except SFEX still had quality Street Fighter gameplay and variety, something that classic MK were not known for.

Meh. SF EX, like SF4 and SF5, is just another 2D game cloaked with 3D graphics and characters. There is no sidestepping or anything new, just ugly polygons, even by the standards of when it came out. I think they thought Virtua Fighter represented the future, and they were right in a way... but for the wrong reasons. IMO.

Weird argument to make against 2D fighting games. This days, pretty every genre can be played on mobile. Does it mean that most of those genres are bad or outdated?

It probably wasn't a good argument for me to make. Obviously even a 2D fighting game with more than 2 buttons is going to be incredibly hard to play on a phone.

My general point was just that 2D fighters are simpler. And by simpler I don't mean DRASTICALLY simpler, I just mean unnecessarily so. And while you may be right that Akuma may represent an unfair character in Tekken 7 for the reasons you give (I'm not sure, I'll take your word for it), I see it as both proof positive that 2D fighters like MK and SF could integrate 3D fighting fairly simply... if every character is handled like Akuma in Tekken 7. If you take my meaning.

And also, again, DC Universe vs. MK. I've brought this up before, but I have nothing but awesome and fond memories of it. Particularly in that all of the MK characters operated perfectly fine in the 3D gaming there, while the moves still executed basically the same as 1-3 (more or less). Do you disagree there? Or if I were to word it differently... what do you feel DC Universe vs. MK took away from the previously traditional MK 2D experience (and by traditional MK 2D experience I mean the traditional MK 2D experience that was 5 games ago at that point), if anything? Because for me, as you might imagine, my big gripe was "Mortal Kombat with no blood or real Fatalities?!?! How dumb!" but beyond that... it really did feel like a proper MK game, just with some DC characters in it.

[Sumac]

Are you sure you're talking about the GOG version of MK4? Because while it is taking from the old PC version of MK4, it improves the graphics to an almost modern level, I understand, resolution wise.
No, quality of the models is nowhere near close to the Arcade version. Also, it runs faster and controls looser than Arcade.

N64 version was the closest to the Arcade, than PS1 version and PC version was the worst. MK Gold arguably is the best home version of MK4, both graphics and content-wise.

Interesting. I'm not arguing with you, though when I'm getting my ass kicked really bad at Tekken 7 online, it's never by someone playing as Akuma. It's one of these new lady characters, or Lee, or something. And usually it is ME playing as Akuma.
You are just not good enough. Sorry.
Akuma is "broken", but he is not an automatic ticket to the victory. Especially after multiple revisions of the game.

I'm not entirely sure I follow. If you say Akuma in Tekken 7 only works and you agree he does play like Akuma/Ryu/Ken in a normal SF 2D game, but only by cheating the rest of the "normal" characters and game in Tekken 7... what is the problem with making a new game -- be it a new SF game, or a new MK game -- where Akuma in Tekken 7 gameplay is the norm? Meaning, where you can sidestep, but otherwise moves and combos are essentially the same? i.e., everyone operating under Akuma "rules"?
Sidestepping changes a lot about gameplay. For one it completely changes usage of projectiles, which is a traditional meta for Street Fighter and even more so for MK. Not to mention it changes how teleports work and some other factors, like physics and juggling. Its also influences speed and dynamic of the game, since 3D fighting games are slower than 2D ones. When they try to be fast, you usually get MK4.

Basically, as I said: 2D and 3D fighting games are fundamentally different. You can't just copypaste 2D gameplay into 3D, add sidesteps and keep meta the same. This is not how it works and 3D is not better than 2D - it is just a different thing all together.

If all characters and game is calibrated to it, I don't understand the problem.
It won't play like a Street Fighter game. Just like when MK moved to 3D it barely played like old MK games.

Even, though individual SF games are different from each other, all of them have the same fundamental rules. Moving series to 3D will change those rules, which will alienate a lot of fans and won't make new ones.

Well, I don't agree. On the general comparison. Adding one dimension to a fighting game doesn't make it something else entirely, I don't think.
You are completely wrong.
I've explained why above.

I'm just curious. What were the things that bothered you the most? You're more invested in MK than me, but me as someone coming into MK11 after not playing any MK in a long time... MK11's core story was OK enough, but toward the end and then going into the "Aftermath," it really became like bad fanfiction.
Without going into long rant: what bothered me the most that they mutilated lore of the series and destroyed character progress.

One of the most interesting things in the MK for me, even above gameplay, were lore and character progression. Each game added something new, but new stuff was usually working within previously established framework. MK11 effectively added so much stupid stuff (Titans who are parents of the Elder Gods, MK story being conflict between Liu and Raiden, set up by Kronika), which was never mentioned or hinted before, that it has effectively broke the lore for me. It was, basically like Rise of the Skywalkers for SW movies, which established that Emperor was alive and his death in Return of the Jedi was meaningless and sacrifice of Vader was basically for nothing.

And character progression was terminated as well. I am was not OK with MK9, since it invalidated all the progress and stories I was following, since 1994, but I made reluctant peace with it, since MK9 was more or less continuation of MKA and it was interesting to see, how story will go this time around.

MK11 terminates character progression again! At this point, I don't even know why I should bother following or care about individual stories, since next game can nullify them as well. Not to mention unexplained changes in the design, bunch of plotholes and unwarranted dumb retcons (origin of Mileena, Sindel being evil). Not to mention possibility that the next game will start story from scratch. If that happens...I don't know why I should even bother following MK story any more.

For me one of the key components of it, was that it was a continuous and mostly coherent story. Now its just a shredded towel, divided into multiple pieces.

I guess that's right. Again, the fighting with the Run button to sidestep feels super inorganic and cumbersome and often times just plain doesn't work. Though I do appreciate them trying to join the 3D fighting game field without radically jarring gamers.
They could have just added different moveset for characters, which would have been much better and more coveted innovation, than sidesteps or weapons.

Main problem of MK4 was not only all characters played mostly the same, but Midway even removed individual MK3 combos. They wanted to create an open-ended combo system, but since all characters fundamentally has the same base moveset, it made all characters feel like almost clones of each other. Even ease of use of special moves was not good enough.

Meh. SF EX, like SF4 and SF5, is just another 2D game cloaked with 3D graphics and characters. There is no sidestepping or anything new, just ugly polygons, even by the standards of when it came out. I think they thought Virtua Fighter represented the future, and they were right in a way... but for the wrong reasons. IMO.
Whatever you thoughts on SFEX it is still fundamentally a good series, when it comes to gameplay.

Also, it never attempted to be similar to Virtua Fighter. Core idea was similar to MK4 - take classic gameplay and put it into 3D with some 3D bells and whistles, but keep it familiar. Even SFEX was never very successful it is still worked better than MK4, since fundamentals of SF are just better.

My general point was just that 2D fighters are simpler. And by simpler I don't mean DRASTICALLY simpler, I just mean unnecessarily so. And while you may be right that Akuma may represent an unfair character in Tekken 7 for the reasons you give (I'm not sure, I'll take your word for it), I see it as both proof positive that 2D fighters like MK and SF could integrate 3D fighting fairly simply... if every character is handled like Akuma in Tekken 7. If you take my meaning.
2D games are not "simpler". They are fundamentally different.
Also, as I said before - Akuma works in Tekken 7 that well only, because, he is an outlier and if you built 3D Street Fighter game, it will be radically different, like MKDA was different from MK4.

And also, again, DC Universe vs. MK. I've brought this up before, but I have nothing but awesome and fond memories of it. Particularly in that all of the MK characters operated perfectly fine in the 3D gaming there, while the moves still executed basically the same as 1-3 (more or less). Do you disagree there? Or if I were to word it differently... what do you feel DC Universe vs. MK took away from the previously traditional MK 2D experience (and by traditional MK 2D experience I mean the traditional MK 2D experience that was 5 games ago at that point), if anything? Because for me, as you might imagine, my big gripe was "Mortal Kombat with no blood or real Fatalities?!?! How dumb!" but beyond that... it really did feel like a proper MK game, just with some DC characters in it.
I've never played MKvsDC myself so I can't comment on its gameplay, but from I know its fundamental formula was similar to MK4 - 2D gameplay in 3D with sidesteps. Which is not the same as 2D gameplay.

Once again, you can't keep gameplay the same, if you add 3D dimension. It will be radically different. And it won't make it better, it will make it just different.

[Leo656]

I don't really have a strong preference either way. I just really like that there's variety in the genre. As I've said many times, I ain't good at 'em, but I do enjoy fighters a lot more than I used to.

I think I've seen Andrew make the point in the past that, essentially, "In Real Life if someone throws a projectile you'd be able to do more than just Jump or Duck, you'd be able to move side-to-side" and so forth, and therefore 3D-based fighters are "more realistic" and "better" - if I'm misspeaking or misinterpreting, Andrew, please feel free to correct me - and I do get the logic in that. It's one of my favorite things about SoulCalibur, for example; that extra dimension adds an entirely different element of strategy. I don't think it's "better" than Street Fighter-style gameplay, just different, and lots of fun in its own way.

But I also like Sumac's RPG analogy. In "Real Life" you don't take turns fighting and choose attacks from a menu while the enemies patiently wait their turn. But even given that, I wouldn't automatically say that Fable or Elder Scrolls are "better" than Final Fantasy just because the gameplay is more "real-time" based. I just love RPGs and I really don't have any strong preference for turn-based or action-RPG type of games.

Likewise, I've found a lot of fun with both 2D and 3D fighting games and I agree with Sumac that there are some pretty fundamental differences that go beyond just the ability to sidestep. You have to play them differently; if you try and play SoulCalibur the same way you play Street Fighter, you'll lose badly.

Given how I have no strong preference, though - and being more of a "casual fan" at best of MK at the time - I didn't have any problem with the series attempting to transition to 3D. And I really had a lot of fun with those games (even though it's been a while since I played them). But at the same time, I don't have a serious problem with them going "back to the roots" for MK9, X and 11, either. Both for marketing purposes and recapturing some of the audience that drifted away after MK4, it was probably the smart thing to do. Would I, personally, have complained if they'd kept the series in 3D, though? Nah.

I also agree with Andrew that MK vs. DC was a lot better than people say it is. I think that the MK and Injustice games since then are objectively a lot better, but I seriously think people got SO hung up on the fact that it was "neutered" by MK standards that they couldn't just enjoy the game as it was. Graphically, mechanically, and gameplay-wise, I think it's a fine game. The only thing "missing" was the splatter, and while that IS a fundamental part of the "MK Experience", if a person sincerely can't enjoy a game simply because there's no chance of seeing Sub-Zero rip Superman's head off, then that person needs to grow the f*ck up. For me, the story was decent and the character interaction was fun. And it played well. I think going back to it now, especially, since we've seen the MK games go more over-the-top than ever with the gore, the "sin" of MK vs DC being watered-down should be a non-issue. It's ONE game in a whole series that happens to be a little more tame than the rest; big deal!
--------------

Anyways, I'm still playing MK 2011, and probably will be for a bit since there's so much to do. I've done about 215 of the Challenge Tower missions - I think there's 300? - and I still need to beat Arcade with pretty much everyone. It's a lot of fun, but some of the Challenges are pretty annoying. Some of them are super-easy but a couple of them took me almost an hour. That said, there's definitely a big "YEAH!" feeling whenever I finally get past one of the ones that I'm stuck on, and I haven't had to pay Koins to skip any of them, yet. Definitely more fun than frustrating, though. I'm sure that people who are actually good at these games can whip through it no problem.

Also, I know it's "controversial" for some people but I'm glad that they actually just have Fatalities listed in the Moves List with the newer games. That always annoyed me as a kid, having to buy or borrow magazines and write all the stuff down; I get that for some people finding all the "secrets" was part of the fun but I always would have rather they just put them in the instruction manual or something. Back in those days I'd only have rented a game like MK for a weekend and I didn't want to spend my entire time with it fumbling around trying to find the magic button combo for Sub-Zero's finisher. It's more fun to just do the thing, for me.
--------

For the record, as pretty much a neophyte in this genre I really like observing these conversations.

[TigerClaw]

I own the original PC port of MK4.

However I have a Raspberry Pi 4 with a 512GB Retropie image, And it has different versions of MK4, Mortal Kombat Gold is the better version of MK4.

[Sumac]

Also, I know it's "controversial" for some people but I'm glad that they actually just have Fatalities listed in the Moves List with the newer games. That always annoyed me as a kid, having to buy or borrow magazines and write all the stuff down; I get that for some people finding all the "secrets" was part of the fun but I always would have rather they just put them in the instruction manual or something. Back in those days I'd only have rented a game like MK for a weekend and I didn't want to spend my entire time with it fumbling around trying to find the magic button combo for Sub-Zero's finisher. It's more fun to just do the thing, for me.
I don't like that you need to unlock them in the Krypt.
Especially in MK11 where prizes are randomly generated.

Also, any analogies between real world and fighting games don't make sense since in real world your won't be able to shoot energy from your hands, casually jump over people or wake up after 10-hit combo. :lol:

[Leo656]

I haven't played up to MK11 yet; in MK 2011 only the alternate Fatalities are the ones you have to unlock so at least you still have one to start out with. Pretty sure I bought all the Fatalities in the Krypt before I bought anything else. That sucks if the prizes in the newer game are random, though. That'd be pretty annoying, I imagine.

[Sumac]

I haven't played up to MK11 yet; in MK 2011 only the alternate Fatalities are the ones you have to unlock so at least you still have one to start out with. Pretty sure I bought all the Fatalities in the Krypt before I bought anything else. That sucks if the prizes in the newer game are random, though. That'd be pretty annoying, I imagine.
In MK11 you either hope to get lucky to unlock what you need in Krypt or spent real money to get rolls in a lottery.
Welcome to the age of microtransactions!

[CyberCubed]

Since there's still no MK12 announced, I do wonder if we'll still get another DLC round. Its basically gotten to the point where fighters are evergreen and don't need sequels to keep going. They can also continue to add more Story DLC like they did already to keep the plot moving without a new game.

MK11 is still missing some classic fighters like Reptile, Ermac, Sektor/Cyrax/Smoke, and a few others, I'd like it to keep going then re-build everyone from scratch again. I feel like MK's fighting style has been perfected in MK11, so rebuilding everyone from start will be pointless. Also the graphics especially the PS5 version look amazing still.

[TigerClaw]

Since there's still no MK12 announced, I do wonder if we'll still get another DLC round. Its basically gotten to the point where fighters are evergreen and don't need sequels to keep going. They can also continue to add more Story DLC like they did already to keep the plot moving without a new game.

MK11 is still missing some classic fighters like Reptile, Ermac, Sektor/Cyrax/Smoke, and a few others, I'd like it to keep going then re-build everyone from scratch again. I feel like MK's fighting style has been perfected in MK11, so rebuilding everyone from start will be pointless. Also the graphics especially the PS5 version look amazing still.
It will be a while until we get any MK12 announcement, When Injustice is due for another game, Or possibly a Marvel game if the rumors are true.

[Sumac]

Since there's still no MK12 announced, I do wonder if we'll still get another DLC round. Its basically gotten to the point where fighters are evergreen and don't need sequels to keep going. They can also continue to add more Story DLC like they did already to keep the plot moving without a new game.

MK11 is still missing some classic fighters like Reptile, Ermac, Sektor/Cyrax/Smoke, and a few others, I'd like it to keep going then re-build everyone from scratch again. I feel like MK's fighting style has been perfected in MK11, so rebuilding everyone from start will be pointless. Also the graphics especially the PS5 version look amazing still.
We'll see at E3: if NRS won't announce anything there, it might be a good chance they will do announcement of the next game in August (GamesCom and EVO) or December (Game Awards).

I wouldn't exclude EVO or GamesCom as places when and where DLC 3 can be announced, but further from anniversary - less chances it'll happen.

[Leo656]

In MK11 you either hope to get lucky to unlock what you need in Krypt or spent real money to get rolls in a lottery.
Welcome to the age of microtransactions!

OH yeah, I remember a bunch of angry articles about that when the game came out. Yeesh, that's a real bummer.

[TigerClaw]

OH yeah, I remember a bunch of angry articles about that when the game came out. Yeesh, that's a real bummer.
Yeah I remember that, Some of the microtransaction stuff were things like easy fatalities, Where you just have to press one button to do it instead of some combination, But they were one time use only.

[Sumac]

MTX for easy Fatalities have appeared back in MKX, sadly.
But it least it didn't had randomized Krypt.

[AquaParade]

“Sunday, Monday, happy days...”

[Leo656]

Isn't there some kind of gimmick in Injustice 2 where you can pay money to get better loot, like armor pieces and whatnot? I think I remember hearing about that. I played that game a bunch but I never went in for that stuff since I was fine just getting stuff as I happened upon it.

I guess I sort of understand the microtransaction part of these games nowadays, like if someone's a Dad with a full-time job or whatever and they don't have infinite time or patience to unlock the "better" stuff or all the secrets or whatever... in that case it can be a convenient perk for them. But at the same time it sort of seems like it "stacks the deck" against other people by making it harder or less likely to come across those things without spending real money as a workaround.

[Sumac]

Isn't there some kind of gimmick in Injustice 2 where you can pay money to get better loot, like armor pieces and whatnot? I think I remember hearing about that. I played that game a bunch but I never went in for that stuff since I was fine just getting stuff as I happened upon it.

Yes, it is basically a lottery: pay money and receive random loot box containing some item. Not sure how it works in case of Injustice 2, but usually there is a high chance you receive nothing useful. MK11 has the same mechanic in place in the Krypt on top of Easy Fatality tokens.

Sadly this mechanic mostly done to attract younger people who are not so responsible with money and want to get everything "here and now".

[Leo656]

I imagine that it's worse in MK11, then; it's been a while sine I played Injustice 2, but while I definitely got a good number of duplicates of items I already had I still got plenty of "good" stuff fairly often, to the point where I never felt compelled to use the microtransaction option.

And yeah, I can definitely see some dumb kids spending a hundred bucks in one shot on stuff like that, unfortunately.

[Andrew NDB]

No, quality of the models is nowhere near close to the Arcade version. Also, it runs faster and controls looser than Arcade.

N64 version was the closest to the Arcade, than PS1 version and PC version was the worst. MK Gold arguably is the best home version of MK4, both graphics and content-wise.

Interesting. The reviews I read speak to the contrary, but I'll trust ya. Like, literally... everyone screaming that the GOG version of MK4 is the best visually and "flow" wise. But I'm totally screwing with the Gold version just because of the added characters.

You are just not good enough. Sorry.
Akuma is "broken", but he is not an automatic ticket to the victory. Especially after multiple revisions of the game.

Heh. Well, this is fair. I make no bones about it.

Sidestepping changes a lot about gameplay. For one it completely changes usage of projectiles, which is a traditional meta for Street Fighter and even more so for MK. Not to mention it changes how teleports work and some other factors, like physics and juggling. Its also influences speed and dynamic of the game, since 3D fighting games are slower than 2D ones. When they try to be fast, you usually get MK4.

Changes projectiles... in how they hit? As in, in a 2D fighter a projectile is this inevitable thing coming toward you... but 3D you get to change the plane? This seems like neither a groundbreakingly different thing or game breakingly thing. It just seems like the obvious way to go.

Someone shoots a haryuken at you... you should probably go sideways. Rather than pretend you can't because you're locked into 1992 gameplay for no other reason than because the video game company still thinks we're in 1992.

Basically, as I said: 2D and 3D fighting games are fundamentally different. You can't just copypaste 2D gameplay into 3D, add sidesteps and keep meta the same. This is not how it works and 3D is not better than 2D - it is just a different thing all together.

I'm following you. I'm just not understanding your rationale to such. You've said fireballs and all that as one... but I'm not completely getting your argument.

Like, if the logistics of a fireball getting thrown in a 3D fighting game aren't "right," then surely they can just adjust or improve or perfect those "physics"? This is a thing they can do.

It won't play like a Street Fighter game. Just like when MK moved to 3D it barely played like old MK games.

Look. Both of us are men who emulate games. I urge you to try DC Universe vs. MK. Try it. Give it a good try. Then tell me what you think. I think that alone is proof positive of results.

And, maybe, my argument.

Even, though individual SF games are different from each other, all of them have the same fundamental rules. Moving series to 3D will change those rules, which will alienate a lot of fans and won't make new ones.

Eh. OK. A little bit of this or that. But ultimately it is the same experience. Flashier in some ways.

Without going into long rant: what bothered me the most that they mutilated lore of the series and destroyed character progress.

One of the most interesting things in the MK for me, even above gameplay, were lore and character progression. Each game added something new, but new stuff was usually working within previously established framework. MK11 effectively added so much stupid stuff (Titans who are parents of the Elder Gods, MK story being conflict between Liu and Raiden, set up by Kronika), which was never mentioned or hinted before, that it has effectively broke the lore for me. It was, basically like Rise of the Skywalkers for SW movies, which established that Emperor was alive and his death in Return of the Jedi was meaningless and sacrifice of Vader was basically for nothing.

And character progression was terminated as well. I am was not OK with MK9, since it invalidated all the progress and stories I was following, since 1994, but I made reluctant peace with it, since MK9 was more or less continuation of MKA and it was interesting to see, how story will go this time around.

MK11 terminates character progression again! At this point, I don't even know why I should bother following or care about individual stories, since next game can nullify them as well. Not to mention unexplained changes in the design, bunch of plotholes and unwarranted dumb retcons (origin of Mileena, Sindel being evil). Not to mention possibility that the next game will start story from scratch. If that happens...I don't know why I should even bother following MK story any more.

For me one of the key components of it, was that it was a continuous and mostly coherent story. Now its just a shredded towel, divided into multiple pieces.

Yeah, I can understand that. Even when I was playing "Deception" eons ago... I respected that even how convoluted things became, I felt like I was playing the Next Chapter in the ongoing Mortal Kombat saga. And I seem to remember... as a kid... there was something... I don't quite remember now... you had to clip something, or mail something in... then you got an MK comic. I remember doing that. And getting that. I fully appreciated the mythology and care there.

Anyway, now it feels like a toxic property continuity wise. Because of MK 2011 and now MK 11. Like Geoff Johns did his usual job, then came back and did a 180 and did another one. Crazy. The good news is there probably won't be an MK12 for many years... there will just be more DLC and more DLC.

They could have just added different moveset for characters, which would have been much better and more coveted innovation, than sidesteps or weapons.

In other words... nothing to introduce 3D stuff.

Main problem of MK4 was not only all characters played mostly the same, but Midway even removed individual MK3 combos. They wanted to create an open-ended combo system, but since all characters fundamentally has the same base moveset, it made all characters feel like almost clones of each other. Even ease of use of special moves was not good enough.

Hm. You're probably right. It all does seem a bit sameish.

Whatever you thoughts on SFEX it is still fundamentally a good series, when it comes to gameplay.

Also, it never attempted to be similar to Virtua Fighter. Core idea was similar to MK4 - take classic gameplay and put it into 3D with some 3D bells and whistles, but keep it familiar. Even SFEX was never very successful it is still worked better than MK4, since fundamentals of SF are just better.

My point is only Capcom obviously saw Virtua Fighter and stuff like it and went, "Uh oh! We better not be a dinosaur! We better do something!" So they put out Street Fighter Ex. But it's just almost exactly the same game/engine as SF2. Just with polygons.

Boring. Didn't advance anything. I remember seeing it in the arcade and nobody playing it.

2D games are not "simpler". They are fundamentally different.
Also, as I said before - Akuma works in Tekken 7 that well only, because, he is an outlier and if you built 3D Street Fighter game, it will be radically different, like MKDA was different from MK4.

*sigh* I just don't think you and I are going to agree on this fundamental point. But that's OK. Again, please... please try out DC Universe vs. MK and tell me otherwise and why.

[Sumac]

Interesting. The reviews I read speak to the contrary, but I'll trust ya. Like, literally... everyone screaming that the GOG version of MK4 is the best visually and "flow" wise. But I'm totally screwing with the Gold version just because of the added characters.
I've checked description on GOG - it says nothing about quality of the graphics, unless I've missed something.

Changes projectiles... in how they hit? As in, in a 2D fighter a projectile is this inevitable thing coming toward you... but 3D you get to change the plane? This seems like neither a groundbreakingly different thing or game breakingly thing. It just seems like the obvious way to go.
It is a game changing thing.
Because, in Street Fighter and Mortal Kombat (and other 2D fighting games) a lot depends on how players use projectiles. In 3D the whole gameplan would be completely different, if players will be able to sidestep projectiles.

Someone shoots a haryuken at you... you should probably go sideways. Rather than pretend you can't because you're locked into 1992 gameplay for no other reason than because the video game company still thinks we're in 1992.
There were 2D fighting games (Fatal Fury 3 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZa05jLtFi0&)), where players could dodge projectiles by sidestepping them as far back as 1992, but they never become popular enough for this mechanic to become widespread, for a reason. There were even 2D fighting games with a similar combo structure to Tekken (Art of Fighting 3 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Sf70tjIxTQ&)) and they never has become popular enough as well.

It is not a gameplay limitation of 2D fighting game genre per se. It is entirely possible to make a 2D fighting game where players can dodge projectiles. It isn't done, however, because it radically changes gameplay and slows gameplay speed.

Once again, it is not question of limitations or traditions, it is all about game design, which makes game faster and more fun for people who prefer 2D fighting games.

I'm following you. I'm just not understanding your rationale to such. You've said fireballs and all that as one... but I'm not completely getting your argument.

Like, if the logistics of a fireball getting thrown in a 3D fighting game aren't "right," then surely they can just adjust or improve or perfect those "physics"? This is a thing they can do.
No.
It is not about "physics" - it is about gameplan and strategy. Projectiles in 2D fighting games can be used to keep opponent at bay or bait them into attacking, among other usages, like creating setups (Cyrax's bombs (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7niOPWBsRg) in MK9, MKX, Bridget (https://youtu.be/Ddc8oMSHGFc?t=307) in Guilty Gear or Menat (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9SCERqS9rs) and Rose (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGk3mv_VBHE&) in Street Fighter V). In 3D this strategy is not viable in most cases, due to ability to sidestep.

This is why most 3D fighting games (Virtua Fighter, Tekken, SoulCalibur, Dead or Alive) do not use projectiles at all. And when some characters do so, like Akuma, Eliza or Geese in Tekken 7, those characters considered to be "broken", since the gameplay was not built to account for their abilities, which we've discussed above.

There is also case of hitboxes, which in 3D are much bigger than in 2D games, to account for possibility of being attacked from the side. Which means there is possibility for the character to be hit by projectile, even if they sidestepped it. It is a common issue in 3D Mortal Kombats, where visually you've sidesteped projectile or attack, but you still get hit by it. Also, similar things occur in Tekken 7.

Once again, it is not about tradition, but about gameplan, which is extremely different between 2D and 3D fighting games.

Look. Both of us are men who emulate games. I urge you to try DC Universe vs. MK. Try it. Give it a good try. Then tell me what you think. I think that alone is proof positive of results.

And, maybe, my argument.
I will give it a try, maybe.

Eh. OK. A little bit of this or that. But ultimately it is the same experience. Flashier in some ways.
No, fully 3D Street Fighter will completely different from 2D SF.
3D MKs are testament to that, since even MKA, which was the closest to classic games in terms of gameplay was very different from them.

Yeah, I can understand that. Even when I was playing "Deception" eons ago... I respected that even how convoluted things became, I felt like I was playing the Next Chapter in the ongoing Mortal Kombat saga. And I seem to remember... as a kid... there was something... I don't quite remember now... you had to clip something, or mail something in... then you got an MK comic. I remember doing that. And getting that. I fully appreciated the mythology and care there.

Anyway, now it feels like a toxic property continuity wise. Because of MK 2011 and now MK 11. Like Geoff Johns did his usual job, then came back and did a 180 and did another one. Crazy. The good news is there probably won't be an MK12 for many years... there will just be more DLC and more DLC.
MK12 will be released someday...but I am not sure, if a current situation will make me care enough about it.

In other words... nothing to introduce 3D stuff.
Lack of 3D was not the main problem of MK gameplay moving forward.
It was how basic and samey each character were, which 3D wouldn't rectified.

I can't say I am a big fun of introducing 3 fighting styles per character in MKDA, but at least it helped to make characters unique from each other, until MKD and MKA cut movesets and make characters too similar to each other again. lol

My point is only Capcom obviously saw Virtua Fighter and stuff like it and went, "Uh oh! We better not be a dinosaur! We better do something!" So they put out Street Fighter Ex. But it's just almost exactly the same game/engine as SF2. Just with polygons.

Boring. Didn't advance anything. I remember seeing it in the arcade and nobody playing it.
I would say the main problem was that Capcom oversaturated market with Street Fighter games - there were multiple games and their revisions co-existing at the same time: last version of Street Fighter 2, multiple revisions of Street Fighter Alpha and Street Fighter 3. On top of that Capcom VS games and Street Fighter: The Movie and now Street Fighter EX.

I think, one of the main reasons why Street Fighter was losing popularity, aside from Capcom turning unrelated spin-off into Street Fighter 3, was that people just tired to see so many versions of the same series.

MK kept it curt with only 4 widely different games and only 1 update to MK3. Most other games did so as well and Capcom just didn't know when to stop.

*sigh* I just don't think you and I are going to agree on this fundamental point. But that's OK. Again, please... please try out DC Universe vs. MK and tell me otherwise and why.
My fundamental is that 2D games are different thing from 3D and they are interchangeable. Just like JRPGs and Action RPGs.

Both are good and have their own value for players.

[Leo656]

Working my way through MK2011's Challenge Tower, still. I'm at #293, I think, but I had to forget about getting the Achievement because I ended up having to pay Koins to skip a few. :ohwell: I made it all the way through #250 with only a few that gave me a hard time, but I was able to get through them, but then #251 just pissed me off too much and took way too much of my time. I spent like two hours on it, then looked it up online to find that some people spent the better part of a week trying to beat it, and that everyone hates it, and most people just skip it, I'm like "Yeah, screw that." Then there were a couple others, like the ones where you have to fight three Shao Khans and three Goros; I could get really close but then something would always screw it up on the third guy. And the one where all your control inputs are reversed, I just couldn't even get close to hacking that one. So I think I skipped like 7 or 8 of them between 251 and where I'm at.

I was pretty pissed, because I was hoping to not skip any, but then I hit a wall on the second-to-last Test Your Might Challenge, anyway; all the earlier ones were super-easy but then on that one I couldn't get close, and there's still one more to go and I know I'll have to skip that one, too. So even if I'd beaten the other Challenges I still would have to skip those and not get the Achievement anyway, so I don't feel quite so bad anymore. Especially when every single one that I did skip, I looked them up online for tips and most of the "tips" people gave for those specific Challenges were "Just skip it, it's not worth it, the developers were smoking crack." :lol: I guess being able to do like 280-something out of 293 (so far) is still pretty good. It's just so oddly unbalanced, like some of the Challenges are stupid easy and a handful are absolute torture, and there's no rhyme or reason. It's not like they all get harder as they go along or anything, they just randomly drop a lousy one in between a bunch of simple ones.

I did manage to unlock the rest of the Alternate Attires in the Krypt, so that's pretty cool. I think there's like 40 more things I need to unlock but I think it's all just music and concept art. I need to play more Arcade mode to get money, now, because I know there's at least two of the remaining Challenges I'm gonna have to skip past to get the Mileena alternate outfit.

[sdp]

We will never see a time jump in mortal kombat that doesn't somehow bring the legacy characters over in some way, they're too iconic and they realize it now. So there'll be some type of shenanigan's to keep all the characters in their most iconic form.
Same reason why Street Fighter 4 & 5 take place before SF 3 since everyone would be too old if it took place after 3. A shame that the days of capcom or midway just saying all new characters except for these 3 are gone, now it's the opposite, all old characters are in with 3 new original characters.

[Sumac]

We will never see a time jump in mortal kombat that doesn't somehow bring the legacy characters over in some way, they're too iconic and they realize it now. So there'll be some type of shenanigan's to keep all the characters in their most iconic form.
Same reason why Street Fighter 4 & 5 take place before SF 3 since everyone would be too old if it took place after 3. A shame that the days of capcom or midway just saying all new characters except for these 3 are gone, now it's the opposite, all old characters are in with 3 new original characters.
SF3 was an outlier. It have ended up like this, because, Capcom had repurposed spin-off into Street Fighter 3.

Originally it was supposed to feature only one returning character: an older Dan Hibiki, then he was replaced with Sean Matsuda, until pressure from fans didn't force them to include Ryu and Ken and rename game into SF3. All other characters were supposed to be completely new.

MK with its approach to add a lot of new characters in each game was really an outlier - most other fighting games usually reused old rosters + added 3-4 new characters with each installment. It was done partially to reuse resources and partially to not alienate fans.

Early MK could allow themselves to add more new characters, because, classic MK games didn't reuse assets from previous installments, and neither they had multiple revisions (with UMK3 / MKT being a sole exceptions).

[Andrew NDB]

Yeah, SF3 really is this odd duck. It was so amazing to think that finally Capcom would release SF3 and not just yet another edition of SF2... and it came out and it was weird an no one really liked it. More Darkstalkers than SF.

[Leo656]

I never played SFIII until recently, when the Anniversary Collection compilation came out.

I think it was good, but I think part of it was that it just came out at the wrong time. For one thing, they probably waited too long by a year or two. For another, when it did come out the media was so focused on "Every single game needs to be 3D polygons, now" that SFIII was considered both a disappointment and a relic.

I was just reading a whole series of retrospective articles about the SF franchise a few weeks ago, and much was said from both developers and review critics about how when that game came out people were SO fixated on stuff like "WHY is this another 2D sprite game? That is SO dated, it needs to be like Virtua Fighter! Didn't Capcom get the memo that we're in The Future, now?" And it got to the point that people couldn't get past the graphics being "outdated" and appreciate the game on its own merits.

There were obviously other factors in play but that was part of it, for sure. I'unno, like I said I didn't play it at all until like two years ago but I thought it was fine.

[Coola Yagami]

From what I heard Alex was supposed to be the main character, but pressure had them bring in Ryu and Ken. But originally it was gonna be all new characters with Sean being the only possible link to Ken.

I remember the magazine complaints about SF3, everyone was on a 3D buzz back then. I forgot what game it was, either Darkstalkers 3 or one of the VS games where a magazine complained that the ending was just a picture or 2 with some text and whatnot, since everyone was so spoiled on short FMV endings with games like Tekken and whatnot.

For me, SF3 just felt weird, like idk.... no one really resonated with me but Ryu and Ken. Like there was no one I could really get into of all the new characters. They all got improvements and became better characters in the later revisions of SF3 (and they would improve in SF 4 and 5), but in that very first game SF3 The New Generation, it felt everybody sucked except Ryu and Ken. I remember in the arcades everyone would get tired of it and go to either the older SF games or the 3D ones. Like yeah SF 2 also had Ryu and Ken, but I could win matches with Guile, Chun Li, and Blanka in the arcades. Like I WANTED to use Elena and Dudley to kick some ass, but I just couldn't get into them as easily and always had to fall back on Ryu/Ken if I ever play at the arcade.

Part 3s were weird man, like they had this extra pressure to really change and mix things up. SF3 was Ryu and Ken and bunch of weird new characters. Art of Fighting 3 was just Ryo and Robert and a bunch of weird new characters. Fatal Fury 3 brought back the Bogards, Mai and Geese, then a bunch of weird new characters. Mortal Kombat 3 mixed it up a bit with lots of new characters to replace old character as well as the return of Kano and Sonya with new looks. Tekken 3 only brought back a handful and the rest were all new characters (though to be fair some were sons or students of older characters).

[Leo656]

I do think the "upgraded" versions of SFIII were big improvements, for sure. They kind of stumbled out of the gate.

But at the very least, if nothing else, that game series gave us Elena. She's SO HAWT, man. :lol:

I was pretty annoyed when I finally played those games like two-ish years ago. "Dammit, I definitely would've gotten on board way sooner if anyone bothered to tell me there's a chick running around practically naked doing Capoeira!" :lol:

[Andrew NDB]

Things were just so clean until then.

SF1: A low-key street fighting tournament is held with only a few fighters. Ryu and Ken go into the tournament as friends, the rest don't know each other. Ryu wins by beating Sagat.

SF2: A higher key street fighting tournament is held, open to the world. There are lots of complex relationships between a lot of the fighters and one another. Guile (or whoever) wins by defeating M. Bison.

SF3: Many years in the future some kind of alien creature in charge of the Illuminati (!!!) has some kind of vague machinations over the planet... and rather than a street fighting tournament, it's basically just random fighters (who are almost none of the same fighters from SF1 or SF2 and largely alien/cartoon character-like) bumping into one another? Until it's time to fight the alien creature at the end?

It's like whiplash. Huh?! What? Why are we going here, exactly? And apparently it was such a blight to the series that all we're ever going to get is more prequels in between SF2 and SF3 like SF4 and SF5.

[Coola Yagami]

I do think the "upgraded" versions of SFIII were big improvements, for sure. They kind of stumbled out of the gate.

But at the very least, if nothing else, that game series gave us Elena. She's SO HAWT, man. :lol:

I was pretty annoyed when I finally played those games like two-ish years ago. "Dammit, I definitely would've gotten on board way sooner if anyone bothered to tell me there's a chick running around practically naked doing Capoeira!" :lol:

Well yeah....

For me the perfect combination of a 'hot' videogame fighting woman is both that she's hot, but also that she's someone I can use to kick a lot of ass and win a lot of matches with. Elena would help me win a lot of matches in the SF4 days.

[Coola Yagami]

Things were just so clean until then.

SF1: A low-key street fighting tournament is held with only a few fighters. Ryu and Ken go into the tournament as friends, the rest don't know each other. Ryu wins by beating Sagat.

SF2: A higher key street fighting tournament is held, open to the world. There are lots of complex relationships between a lot of the fighters and one another. Guile (or whoever) wins by defeating M. Bison.

SF3: Many years in the future some kind of alien creature in charge of the Illuminati (!!!) has some kind of vague machinations over the planet... and rather than a street fighting tournament, it's basically just random fighters (who are largely alien/cartoon character-like) bumping into one another? Until it's time to fight the alien creature at the end?

It's like whiplash. Huh?! What? And apparently it was such a blight to the series that all we're ever going to get is more prequels in between SF2 and SF3.

I mean...

MK1- martial arts tournament where you fight for your life

MK2- another martial arts tournament but this time takes place in Outworld

MK3- OUTWORLD MERGES WITH EARTH REALM, TONS OF SOULS INSTANTLY FORFEIT TO SHAO KAHN, MASS EXTERMINATION SQUADS SENT WORLDWIDE TO WIPE OUT OPPOSITION.

Damn that escalated quickly.

Fatal Fury- Bogards enter a tournament to take down their father's killer

Fatal Fury- now the tournament is worldwide

Fatal Fury 3- now Geese (and others) are after scrolls that unlock the secret of immortality and whatnot? the whaaa???

Tekken 1- Kazuya is out to stop Heihachi in a tournament

Tekken 2- Heihachi is out to stop Kazuya in a tournament who is now the devil

Tekken 3- jump forward years later, characters are older, we got sons or students of past characters, now they're fighting a monster called Ogre the 'god of fighting' that goes around killing other fighers. WTF

[Leo656]

I sure learn a lot here.

[Sumac]

Yeah, SF3 really is this odd duck. It was so amazing to think that finally Capcom would release SF3 and not just yet another edition of SF2... and it came out and it was weird an no one really liked it. More Darkstalkers than SF.
In terms of roster or gameplay?

I think it was good, but I think part of it was that it just came out at the wrong time. For one thing, they probably waited too long by a year or two. For another, when it did come out the media was so focused on "Every single game needs to be 3D polygons, now" that SFIII was considered both a disappointment and a relic.
Indeed.
Just by virtue of being a 2D game, SF3 was doomed to fail at that moment.
Lack of familiar faces didn't help.

From what I heard Alex was supposed to be the main character, but pressure had them bring in Ryu and Ken. But originally it was gonna be all new characters with Sean being the only possible link to Ken.
Alex is still main character in SF3, but story of the game is so non-existent, so it is not obvious at all. The same thing had happened with Abel in SF4. At least Capcom managed to make Rashid feel more like a protagonist in SF5.

New Generation was blatantly unfinished, because, usual Capcom policy regarding fighting games at the time was "release game as fast as possible and fix everything in later revisions". It had happened with Super Street Fighter 2: New Challengers and Street Fighter Alpha 1 - both were unfinished and had some blatantly broken stuff.

In case of New Generation, they couldn't even give all moves to all characters and Yang was clone of Yun. Second Impact is basically what New Generation was supposed to be, if not for Capcom usual meddling.

Part 3s were weird man, like they had this extra pressure to really change and mix things up. SF3 was Ryu and Ken and bunch of weird new characters. Art of Fighting 3 was just Ryo and Robert and a bunch of weird new characters. Fatal Fury 3 brought back the Bogards, Mai and Geese, then a bunch of weird new characters. Mortal Kombat 3 mixed it up a bit with lots of new characters to replace old character as well as the return of Kano and Sonya with new looks. Tekken 3 only brought back a handful and the rest were all new characters (though to be fair some were sons or students of older characters).
Yeah, fighting games loved to experiment with 3rd parts.
Though, in case of Art of Fighting 3, technically it is a spin-off of the main AOF series, which is why it is so different. It was called "Art of Fighting 3" in the West only to sell more units.

This game is super gorgeous and one of my favorites, when it comes to the graphic style, but really has nothing to do with previous AOF games, aside from inclusion of Ryo and Robert.

[Coola Yagami]

In terms of roster or gameplay?


Indeed.
Just by virtue of being a 2D game, SF3 was doomed to fail at that moment.
Lack of familiar faces didn't help.


Alex is still main character in SF3, but story of the game is so non-existent, so it is not obvious at all. The same thing had happened with Abel in SF4. At least Capcom managed to make Rashid feel more like a protagonist in SF5.

New Generation was blatantly unfinished, because, usual Capcom policy regarding fighting games at the time was "release game as fast as possible and fix everything in later revisions". It had happened with Super Street Fighter 2: New Challengers and Street Fighter Alpha 1 - both were unfinished and had some blatantly broken stuff.

In case of New Generation, they couldn't even give all moves to all characters and Yang was clone of Yun. Second Impact is basically what New Generation was supposed to be, if not for Capcom usual meddling.


Yeah, fighting games loved to experiment with 3rd parts.
Though, in case of Art of Fighting 3, technically it is a spin-off of the main AOF series, which is why it is so different. It was called "Art of Fighting 3" in the West only to sell more units.

This game is super gorgeous and one of my favorites, when it comes to the graphic style, but really has nothing to do with previous AOF games, aside from inclusion of Ryo and Robert.

My favorite part was Jin Fuha, a character that was in the game solely looking to fight Eiji Kisaragi from AOF2... a character that isn't in AOF3 at all. Unless that was made up for the American version.

Such a shame it's a forgotten or dropped subplot. KOF could have made these two finally face off.

Another thing is, I kinda wish KOF would bring back more Art of Fighting characters, I think the last character ever brought in was Lee Pai Long and his appearance is questionable since he was ripped from Neo Geo Battle Coliseum. Like they keep bringing in new Fatal Fury characters, the latest ones thrown into the mix being Raiden and Hwa Jai, but they still got a handful of Art of Fighting characters they can bring in, especially since the new games go all-out with new designs. If John Crawley looks too much like Guile, I'm sure a KOF 15 redesign would fix that.

[shredder orokusaki]

Tell me which ones of you have it on pc so i can add you on steam and play online!

[neatoman]

ZGKrUwescmE