Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

etc., etc.

View
10 Replies. 1 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 ] Older >

10. Re: etc., etc. Jun 11, 2010, 03:09 Dr. D. Schreber
 
It's like I'm 14 again. Also, my token was totally up on the machine first, it's MY turn.  
Avatar 51686
 
NOT THE BEES! NOT THE BEES THEY'RE IN MY EYES AARRGRHGHGGAFHGHFGHFG!
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
9. Re: MK Jun 10, 2010, 13:23 Cram
 
I regret posting that particular comment only because of it the thread got derailed nicely into a MK vs SF festival somehow.

I'll go back to the topic of movies and since it's already happened mention the SF franchise. It too has an atrocious movie franchise. Thoughts on which game franchise is better makes no difference in regards to their movie potentials. I'm sure a reboot for a SF movie could do well $ wise in the box office, but it too would have to take the Marketing Budget > $ to make movie budget.

Edit: Clarification on a movie doing "well"; they could potentially bring in some cash in the boxoffice but not enough to cover the total costs of making the film decent enough looking/enticing to actually bring enough people into the theater or buy DVDs.

Kobalt wrote on Jun 10, 2010, 03:37:
Cram wrote on Jun 9, 2010, 21:35:
The games have never offered anything new or innovative.

Fixed for you. Ok yeah the mk 1 came up with the gimmicky fatalities that all the 10 year olds in america loved(or did time killers come out first? whatever). I'll admit, at least mortal kombat 3 was decent, and actually supported tournament level play. But beside that, mortal kombat has always been a poor mans street fighter with blood added on instead of fun or balanced gameplay.

This comment was edited on Jun 10, 2010, 13:32.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
8. Re: etc., etc. Jun 10, 2010, 06:27 Kobalt
 
Dr. D. Schreber wrote on Jun 10, 2010, 03:50:
Mortal Kombat and MK2 were a hell of a lot more balanced then the equivilent Street Fighters of the time; quite a lot of us chose MK over SF2 precisely because special moves were the only thing that differentiated players in gameplay, and we found SF2 to be too complicated for its own good. Figuring out what moves had priority over others was an exercise in frustration because not only was every character's basic set different, it often worked in bizarre and nonsensical ways and Capcom games in general are far more unforgiving about tiers, which is why playing Street Fighter 4 or Marvel Vs Capcom 2 online is boring as shit; you're going to see Ken, Akuma and Sagat nine times out of ten. Back in the nineties I made a few bucks every weekend off of people who thought they'd beat my Reptile with Jax because a magazine told them Jax was top-tier and Reptile sucked. This was completely true, but skill mattered more than tier in the 2D MK games.

It's irrelevant anyway, since Killer Instinct 1/2 and Eternal Champions CftDS are still better then anything in either of those franchises.

There's just..so much wrong here. Found SF2 too complicated? Implying that mk2 was balanced(Yes just because you could beat shitty players with someone other than millena or jax does not change the fact that a decent player would beat you everytime)? It sounds like you just played with bad players back in the day and those good ole rose tinted nostalgia glasses don't let you see that with the advent of online you have more competition. You are right about MvC2 having shit balance though, with a handful of characters being used in tournaments. But at the local arcade? You saw everyone being used(much like ken and ryu being the most popular characters in the original street fighter 2..even though they were by far the worst).

Really the only fighting games with balanced gameplay WAS capcom games(besides snk). You see a lot of different characters used in games like 3rd strike and ssf2. Even low tier characters like Q get play. You did not see anyone besides jax and milena used by serious players. But people realized pretty quickly mk2 was a shitty game for competitive play so it's hard to find tournaments.

Killer instinct and eternal champions was fun for shits n giggles when you are a kid but are pretty shallow.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
7. Re: etc., etc. Jun 10, 2010, 05:19 Dr. D. Schreber
 
Of course they are, that's why the characters can be broken down into tiers like any other fighting game. Unlike many others, a good player with a low-tier character could beat a mediocre player with a high-tier character.

Scorpion and Sub-Zero were on the low-end of the mid-tier in MK2, in particular, less so in UMK3, but even when they weren't as good on paper as the likes of Kitana and Mileena, they were extremely good at taking advantage of the other player's position, if not their outright mistakes. You needed to fight smarter, but you were rewarded for doing so.

Although, Sub-Zero did have a hilarious straightforward advantage over Baraka, where his freeze move put him low enough for Baraka's projectile to pass over him.
 
Avatar 51686
 
NOT THE BEES! NOT THE BEES THEY'RE IN MY EYES AARRGRHGHGGAFHGHFGHFG!
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
6. Re: etc., etc. Jun 10, 2010, 04:04 Jerykk
 
Mortal Kombat and MK2 were a hell of a lot more balanced then the equivilent Street Fighters of the time; quite a lot of us chose MK over SF2 precisely because special moves were the only thing that differentiated players in gameplay, and we found SF2 to be too complicated for its own good.

The problem is that some MK fighters had much better special moves than others (which is why Scorpion and Sub-Zero became so popular). Balance has always been an issue in fighting games but at least in Street Fighter, there's more variety and a higher potential for skill.
 
Avatar 20715
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
5. Re: etc., etc. Jun 10, 2010, 03:50 Dr. D. Schreber
 
Mortal Kombat and MK2 were a hell of a lot more balanced then the equivilent Street Fighters of the time; quite a lot of us chose MK over SF2 precisely because special moves were the only thing that differentiated players in gameplay, and we found SF2 to be too complicated for its own good. Figuring out what moves had priority over others was an exercise in frustration because not only was every character's basic set different, it often worked in bizarre and nonsensical ways and Capcom games in general are far more unforgiving about tiers, which is why playing Street Fighter 4 or Marvel Vs Capcom 2 online is boring as shit; you're going to see Ken, Akuma and Sagat nine times out of ten. Back in the nineties I made a few bucks every weekend off of people who thought they'd beat my Reptile with Jax because a magazine told them Jax was top-tier and Reptile sucked. This was completely true, but skill mattered more than tier in the 2D MK games.

It's irrelevant anyway, since Killer Instinct 1/2 and Eternal Champions CftDS are still better then anything in either of those franchises.
 
Avatar 51686
 
NOT THE BEES! NOT THE BEES THEY'RE IN MY EYES AARRGRHGHGGAFHGHFGHFG!
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
4. Re: MK Jun 10, 2010, 03:37 Kobalt
 
Cram wrote on Jun 9, 2010, 21:35:
The games have never offered anything new or innovative.

Fixed for you. Ok yeah the mk 1 came up with the gimmicky fatalities that all the 10 year olds in america loved(or did time killers come out first? whatever). I'll admit, at least mortal kombat 3 was decent, and actually supported tournament level play. But beside that, mortal kombat has always been a poor mans street fighter with blood added on instead of fun or balanced gameplay.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
3. Re: etc., etc. Jun 9, 2010, 23:41 PHJF
 
I thought it was pretty god damned stupid.

Mortal Kombat isn't exactly a game that takes itself too seriously. Not nearly as seriously as this short takes itself, anyways.
 
Avatar 17251
 
Steam + PSN: PHJF
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
2. Re: etc., etc. Jun 9, 2010, 23:08 Wallshadows
 
Poor Johnny Cage.

I have mixed feelings about it. On one hand, I enjoy how it's taking a different approach on the franchise and going for a more gritty environment. The concept for Reptile is pretty bad ass. Baraka, I feel like they've just included him to add extra grit by being the fucked up thing which he embodies.

On the other hand, it seems like aside from the name of the characters, they could have given this any title. It actually feels forced to call this movie Mortal Kombat because of how they portrait it. It would be like making a Final Fantasy movie in the modern era, except instead of using magic they would sit around with paper hats and talk about taxes.
 
Avatar 50040
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
1. MK Jun 9, 2010, 21:35 Cram
 
I'm of the group that enjoyed that 8 minute "trailer" for Mortal Kombat; there seems to be a rather large group on the internetz very against it (specifically because it deviates from canon lore). To each his/her own I guess. That said, I still wouldn't go to theaters to see it. Rental, at best.

I enjoyed it, but I also adamantly believe no MK film could do well. The franchise is stale/stagnant. The games have offered nothing new or innovative since MK2 (imo). Each successive game introduces slightly better graphics and new chars with more and more ludicrous back-stories. The movie envisioned in that clip could do well BUT it would require a marketing budget higher than that of the budget required to actually make the film. Business wise, I see no reason for WB or anyone to ever make another MK film because I don't think there are even close to enough people that really care (fans of the franchise or not) enough to go out and see it, thus not making it worthwhile to WB.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
10 Replies. 1 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 ] Older >


footer

.. .. ..

Blue's News logo