MKG=Exclusive to DC,MK4 2.0 as I like to call it.Added a few more charcters.

MKT=A mix of MK3 and UMK3.PS1,N64,Gameboy(I think)

I believe MK Trilogy was available for the PC as well.

MKT was on the Saturn too

And MKT was for game.com too.

and MKT was a mix of MK1, MK2, and UMK3.

Matt

I really don't consider MKT a "mix" of MK1, MK2, and MK3. I consider it a tweak of UMK3. UMK3 engine + style with "some" MK1/MKII characters/costumes and new moves thrown in. But the default costumes are UMK3, the engine, the fonts, the way decaps work, all the fonts, etc. and none of that is really changable, though I always thought it would be cool if it were. Imagine making all the text more MKII-like.

Yeah I know what you mean, when the game first came out I thought it was just going to be a compilation of the games seperately, and I thought "Why not just do UMK3 instead" But I was pretty happy with Trilogy otherwise. I think making all the characters have the option of playing as if they were in the previous games would be a step back. If the MK1 and MK2 characters played like did in the other games they wouldn't stand a chance, even without damage protection and the higher overall damage.

Matt

That's why I never played that much UMK3/MKT. I thought everything about MK II was the coolest (the music, the fonts, the blood, etc...). If MK T had MK II fonts, sounds, screams, it would be the best, at least in my opinion.
Peace

I always wondered why they didn't throw in all that extra stuff like the sounds at least, it would have been cool and a bit more variety even than what was already there.

Matt

Never speak of this again.

But in some ways, MK3 was a step back from MKII. Example, in MKII when you decapitate someone, their head rolls off, and body falls down. In MK3, their heads go straight down without rolling and their body stands up. In MKII, the guts looked really cool when someone exploded, in MK3, everyone has 20 arms and 20 legs. For MKT, "heads" and "guts" would have been nice options, so that we could make things in the game more MKII-like, it would have been cooler and made it more of a "Trilogy" anyway. And it would only be a little bit of work, it's not like they'd have to go and refilm everyone.

I think it's the sacrifice they had to make in order to ween people off what I call being "the movie reviewer" and training them to be "the movie actor". That to me is the important difference between MK2 and MK3. If MK2 was more fun than UMK3, I'd play it more, but it's just not a good fighting game. MK3 took everything about MK2's engine, and improved all of it, and then UMK3 improved even more upon MK3's engine.

In terms of graphics, sounds, music, backgrounds, character costumes, animation, anyone can say why they like one game better than the other, infact I like a lot of the sounds, graphics, music, and bgs in MK2 better than the ones in MK3 and UMK3 , but when it comes to gameplay, even though someone can still like MK2's more, it's usually overshadowed by the graphics, sounds, bgs, etc, and they aren't judging the game on the actual mechanics of the gameplay. Replay value makes or breaks the game and I've always felt that if someone is playing the game merely to see the fatalities, or playing and beating the computer to achieve the fatality, there's something unright going on there. The games are obviously designed for two player competition.

I've never heard a single good reason why someone thought MK2 was more fun to "play" than MK3, UMK3, or MKT, but I always hear "I dunno I just like the fatalities." or something similar. If you're a turtle, you generally lean towards MK2, if you're aggressive, then go for MK3+, but you can still play defensively in MK3+ and be somewhat successful. When someone is overly aggressive, it backfires, MK2 players can take advantage of that in UMK3 as there are many defensively playable characters, but in the same token, those characters can be used offensively as well, but more efficently.

As far as how the characters sell their own decapition, it's just the concept they had to fulfill in order to even produce the game. It had to be surreal in order to even be considered for production because of the controversy. But as you said, it would have been easy to duplicate because of the way characters fall down, they could reverse the falling animation after hitting someone during fatality, and remove the head, added in any and all MK2 effects that were just sitting there unused.

But again, how a decapitation influences how much you like a game is truly a matter of taste, however it's not the same thing as saying "The run button sucks." As I've heard this from a handful of people and whenever I say "Well why do you think that?" the response, similarly to "Why do you like MK2 more" is "I don't know it just does." The problem here is, you can consciously not use the run button ever in MK3, UMK3, MKT, and MK4, but you're going to lose. If that is the case, then it is an important element to the gameplay.

If the run button was not there at all, the games would not be as fun and I probably would never post on MK boards because I wouldn't be into Mortal Kombat in general if MK existed entirely as it is, minus the run button. It would slow the game down tremendously and in essence, play exactly like MK2, only with autocombos, and a better juggle/damage system. The lack of a run button would consequently result in fewer combos, and fewer juggles because of the inability to get in close to your opponent.

It is a universal belief by competitive MK players that the run button is the greatest thing to happen to Mortal Kombat. Unfortunately, MK1 and MK2 players aren't even remotely considered "competitive players" by those who play MK3, UMK3, MKT, and MK4, I don't know if it's vice versa, but I use to play MK2 religiously and when MK3 came out, MK2 was dead to me. Everything I had always been annoyed by was virtually removed by the run button. People sitting in the corner tapping back back back over and over again buffering moves with various characters is just garbage gameplay. I can do the exact same thing and the match will end in a draw. In UMK3, I come across people who do the same thing and they lose because of run, however, if you apply skill to that tactic, it can still be useful.

I hope that sheds some light on why I prefer MK3 engine over MK2's. I don't care about graphics, sounds, backgrounds, and musics, the core of MK2, "asthetics" if you will, as much as I care about being able to have fun. When I started playing MK3, I wasn't that great, I got beat a lot, but I still had fun. Losing in MK2 leaves me with an empty feeling, like it never really counts or something, or I didn't even really play because the other person can dictate the match too easily by positioning. Mobility and stability is key in fighting games, it's why SF3 is superior to SF2, in the same sense that MK3 is surperior to MK2. The graphics, sounds, music, and BGs are so incredibly close that it would require the same type of scrutinty to determine which you like better as it would for someone to determine why they like MK3's fighting engine better.

In the end, MK2 is overall more popular, because the average MK fan is more interested in gore, deadly realism, innovative fatalities, but no matter what they change about it, it's still a fighting game.

Matt