MK4 was actually a pretty good game, my 2nd fave after #1 in fact, but it just didn't offer anything new. It was exactly the same game we've seen 5 or 6 times before.

DrCube Wrote: MK4 was actually a pretty good game, my 2nd fave after #1 in fact, but it just didn't offer anything new. It was exactly the same game we've seen 5 or 6 times before.

Lol, that's a funny statement... MK4 WAS IN 3D, DUDE. If you saw that in the previous MKs, I must have never played them.

I would agree that there was nothing new, and would actually say they took away.

They gave it 3D graphics, yeah, but it was still 2D gameplay. The sidestep was pretty much worthless.

They took away all the individuality that the characters had as far as regular moves because they just reused the same animation for everybody practically. They could have just had a generic wireframe and you picked a couple of special moves for it.

Also, the gameplay got old, and they didn't bother to balance or tighten the game, they just stuck a Maximum Damage clause in the contract. Utter crap.

Ugly graphics crappy gameplay boring fatalities.Way to cartoonish just crap.I dont think the younger fans of mk appreciate the 2-d look some do some dont sure maybe its a little outdated but i give anything to have mk back in 2-d maybe im just to old school. :(

I disagree, MK4 was great. People complain about it too much.

the game was boring at first, but the number of special moves, the fact that it was well balanced and the endings made it a very enjoyable game

The gameplay is actually not bad, the weapons were a new thing, and a nice touch to the old MK gameplay. It's just because MK4 came when MK's popularity was down among more casual gamers, who just felt it was the same old MK. Considering the time, the graphics are OK, not up to Tekken standard, but some of the MK gamepplay style would have been lost if they had spent more time on prettier graphics.

MK4 was, for me, a back to basics MK. The stupidness of things like animalities and overused pallete swaps from MK3/MKT did a lot of damage to the series, with many more casual fans going to other fighting games. The fatalities were more like MK1/MK2, and the whole theme of the game was darker than the Earth invasion years.

The other thing most people dislike about MK4 was the new characters. Most of them were either clones of old favourites, or simply generic space fillers. It's no wonder that only Quan Chi became accepted by most MK fans out of this lot.

Technically, there's only two characters in MK4, and the rest are pallet swaps of the two characters.

Matt

There were only two things that I did't like about it.
1)The game was WAY to easy.I brought it home,popped it in,and beat it in less than 5 minutes.
2)The ending FMV's on the PS1 version were horrible.I could'nt help but laugh when I saw them.

I cant find anything wrong with it. Matter of fact, if you put MK3 and MK4 , then they both outdo UMK3 in many ways.

Huh?

MK2KungBroken Wrote: Technically, there's only two characters in MK4, and the rest are pallet swaps of the two characters. Matt

outworld222 Wrote: I cant find anything wrong with it. Matter of fact, if you put MK3 and MK4 , then they both outdo UMK3 in many ways.

I cannot think of any.

DrCube Wrote: Huh? MK2KungBroken Wrote: Technically, there's only two characters in MK4, and the rest are pallet swaps of the two characters. Matt

There are two sets of attack types in MK4. They are divided amongst all the characters. So all they did was slap a different skin on everyone and adjust heights here and there slightly. The form, range, priority, etc, is the exact same. To break it down, in essence it's a game of Scorpion, Sub-zero and Reptile, vs Kitana Jade and Mileena.

Matt