Let's all go and play "Mortal Kombat 4"... and then, after that, we'll play "Nina William's Death By Degrees"...


Mortal Kombat: Deception's "engine" is hardly the worst ever... Why do people say that? It's certainly flawed, though... Certainly flawed, but there are so many games out there that make Mk 4 look like a masterpiece!
I think this means that the industry standard itself is pretty low.
You have a few great fighting games; The Tekkens, The Soul Calibres, The DOAs, and in my opinion Mortal Kombat, but as a whole I think fighting games have always been difficult to perfect.
I was looking at some old magasines a while back, and I saw a review on Tekken; apparently it was the first fighting game ever to get a ten out of ten rating... Either this suggests that reviewers are overly critical, or it means that fighting games are generally failures. On the other hand, it probably doesn't mean anything... But you seem to get an FPS every week that gets this kind of rating...
What do you think, am I talking Bullkrap?
But before you answer; think how much easier it is to make a good racing game, than a good fighter?

comparing the ratio of Good racing games: Bad racing games to Good fighting games: Bad fighting game I'd have to say that fighting game developers have it easy.

Creating games for such a limited genre as the fighting game it's hard to mess it up.

Racing games are more open to what you can do, types of race, types of cars, competitions eg. rally racing games, F1, car mod games, crashing games. While fighting games will always be stuck to characters and their fighting style/s, and the usual different modes (Time attack, survival, mini games etc.)

MK's biggest design flaw is that it fails to present simplicity AND inherent depth. An easy example of simplicity, yet still inherent with depth is Soul Calibur. Soul Calibur has many many moves, it's easy to pick up, but any moderate player will squash new players because their understand of the moves and how to best manuever/use/outsmart/bait with those moves, etc. This is due to the vast usages of move properties such as unblockables, guard crushing, frame advantage, movement of your character to go over/to the side/etc., moves tracking differently, fake outs, soul charge, etc.

MKDA and MKD doesn't have many usages for moves due to lack of move properties, meaning most moves you use simply because they are of certain hit-level. Since the animation in MKD/MKDA is choppy and unrealistically fast, players are constantly forcing a mixup between heights between their two best options. Which renders all other options useless. MKD/MKDA thus met the goal for simplicity... maybe the most simple 3d fighting game of all time since many characters need only use two different moves (and the combos off of them), and win. However, it fails having any depth at all, since by playing the game more, you will find that the rest of the movelist becomes even more useless and useless as opposed to your ideal options.

This is why MKDA and MKD as a fighting game, is a failure to their design concept. Because 90% of the moves they've implemented are worthless.

Wait and Bleed you obviously arent that good because anyone knows that while playing mortal kombat is easy to pick up man there is a lot of strategy involved in each character it takes hundreds of matches to master one and get their timing down and figure out strategies to play against bad asses. And how many people do you know are bad asses at any game. If you mastered tekken which would be hard to do unless you have a lot of friends that like to play cuz you know the cpu gets old and annoying. Atleast mortal kombat is online and no matter how good you are there is usually one person better so theres always reason to play more online. If you get into it theres really an ass load of strategy to MK, combos arent even half f it against a seasoned player, sure some of the characters may be cheap such as Bo Rai Cho or Noob theres stil ways to beat them if your that good.

Actually Tekken is useless... Sure there's no 50/50, but Tekken is the game for noobs. Trust me, I learn all the 10 hit combos and then my friend beats me by constantly pressing one button. (Stale move) In MK at least there's moved you can do to give your character a chance out of a stale move if one occurs.

Have you even read HDTran's post before you bothered to post this ignorant one?This game doesn't have move properties and it's pure 50/50 mix ups.Want an example?Darrius' high level game consists of 4 moves and one combo;that is 3 in weapon stance,his throw,b+3,d,f+3, and 1,2,4,4,4 for the glitch combo after the throw.4 moves and 1 combo for high level play?It doesn't get simpler than this,so that takes away your claim that a lot of strategy is invloved in MK:D.It seems like you're the one who's not good at this game.Hell,the most broken fighters in some fighting games require more work to win than 4-5 moves with Darrius and the other top tiers in MK:D.

Actually Tekken is useless... Sure there's no 50/50, but Tekken is the game for noobs. Trust me, I learn all the 10 hit combos and then my friend beats me by constantly pressing one button. (Stale move) In MK at least there's moved you can do to give your character a chance out of a stale move if one occurs.

Now,this is officially the stupidest post in this thread.First of all,you do realize that in ANY Tekken "10-hit-combos" are totally useless,especially in the latest Tekken games due to the universal low-parry?Second of all,they're not called "10-hit-combos";they're called 10-hit-strings.If they were 10-hit-combos,then when the first hit would hit,the rest would be entirely guaranteed (i.e. dial-a-combos in MK:D).But it's not that way,so they're just useless strings.Oh,and the only reason you lose to your friend is because you suck at the game.I guarantee it.

It's easy,people.If you don't know what you're talking about,then just don't post.Nobody wants to listen to your uneducated and un-thoughtful gameplay experience as well as opinion.

Whoa! Sup, HDT? Good to see you still breathing.

Well, in regards to T5...it was starting to get stale for me only a couple of months after beta. From what I hear about the changes in 5.1, the oki system is getting hella butchered. Which is odd, because that's what tekken is. It's going to become even more of a 50/50 game, just with good movement options.

MK, in retrospect, has always "sucked." We just didn't know better. Now we do but, the game consistently lacks progression as the years go by. What people percieve as progression is simply sugar coated short cuts As HDT said, it simply lacks the ability to coherently produce function with simplicity.

MK has a wonderfull opportunity to be something great. Not just a fun, broken ass piece of shit fighter; but an asthetically impressive, mechanicly progressve fighter that can be played at low level, high level and everything in between. I don't know if the MK dev team is trying to be so different that they neglect the concepts that actually provide function or if they are simply retarded. Either way, it's a shame.

lol Satya, I still hover around. I've seen a lot of impressive posts and insightful ones from you and dave and all. The one that I've found most recently useful is that whole shpiel (probably spelled that wrong) on getting better, that was some good shit man. I agree some of the Tekken 5.1 changes are odd, but it's nice to see some characters losing/toning down of a few things and others gaining a few others, hopefully it all works out in the end.

Anyways, I don't mind MK being simple if they didn't implement so many useless moves. If MK intended to be the mindless 50/50 game that it is and only implemented a handful of moves per char, then at least I would understand where Midway wants the game to be. But we just have so many useless moves to verify that, Midway obviously wants players to use the other moves, but there is no reason to use most of them. That's the biggest problem with MKDA/MKD.

MK2Dave, lol bro try that Darious crap on me and ill whoop your ass three ways to sunday. I said you have to be actually good for you to need strategy, thats all newb shit for people who havnt spent much time playing with a character, sure you may beat mediocre players online with crap like that but not a great one. And dial a combo or whatevr people keep calling them amounts to about one third of their combos cuz the good combos are all custum. 50\50's are easy to stop so i dont know why people are crying about that.

{It's easy,people.If you don't know what you're talking about,then just don't post.Nobody wants to listen to your uneducated and un-thoughtful gameplay experience as well as opinion.}

No its easy for people to act like they know what their talking about, like you. Man o man and aside from his post being well written HDTran doesn't seem to know much either. He seems to be transfixed on characters like Noob or Bo or Dariou who do only have a few moves worth considering, theres more to consider than that such as a distance game you have to play to be effective, Noob has to get inside to be effective Bo needs you to be out of breakers so use them effectively and Dariou has to be completely across the screen from you to do most of his damage with only a few moves. These guys are good but you act like thats all you need to know, they can be beaten by a smart player who know how to play against them to their weeknesses. And HD give me the only two moves you need to know to play with Baraka, Raiden, Jade, Shujinko, Mileena, Havik, or 90% of the other fighters because im pretty sure they arent as broken as the only three or four characters you were talking about in your post man.

And unlike some folks round here im not claiming to be some fighting game mastermind or some shit, any fighting game is fun if you are good and there competition. I'm also not calling anyone ignorant and shit thinking im smarter than anyone else cuz frankly both your arguments are great especially if those are the only things you look for in a fighting game but realistically most the characters in the game arent broken and need timing and practice to dominate with.

I gotta say one thing that I agree with though. Soul Caliber 1 on the Dreamcast is bad ass and ranks up there with Mk2 as one of my all time favorite fighting games. That was the shiznit.

Sweet! Another back and forth gameplay thread! It's about time. The board was getting a bit dull.

That is all. Carry on.

LMAO.I'm not going to bother explaining the stupidity of your post considering you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.BRC,for example,is by FAR the best character in the game.No one even comes close to beating him if he's used correctly.

SImply let's play online on the PS2.I'll pick BRC,Dairou,and Darrius,and you can try to beat me with any character.So,give me your ID,and once I beat you 10:0,maybe you'll change your mind.

My example of "two moves" is to illustrate how simple it is to play any sort of mixup in MK. Because of the ease of mixup, you will see people that rotate between the usage of two moves. Example, Scorpion (a non-top 4 character) can suffice with d+1 and f+1 in his weapon stance to a stupid degree. He has some other two move 50/50s as well in his first stance. If you play the "two move" whore with many of the characters, you will beat most of the competition due to MK's 50/50 nature. How do I know? Because my little 9 year old brother can beat many people simply by doing that. Now given, some character's need other things because they don't have many good moves, however given the amount of effort needed to win with say.. Sub-Zero against most of the cast, the payoff is very low.

The question then becomes, should people who only use two moves and the followups of these moves be able to play at a competitive level? I don't think so... but they could in MK... they might not be high-level, but they're good enough to stomp any player who isn't mid-level. And to say that high-level play does not sometimes become the "two move" game would be a lie. But a fighter should never devolve to where two moves are so ideal for such a long amount of time because in Tekken, Virtua Fighter, Soul Calibur, etc. you're constantly using moves to put yourself in advantage so you can apply a mixup. Whether it be frame advantage, movement, etc. so basically you need setups in other games to play even at a moderately competitive level.
Surely enough, in MKD/MKDA you may need 2-8 moves total. But how many "moves" does your character have? About 18-25 per stance, do you use nearly all of them? Your character has about 75 moves total. For you to use 10% of your character's moves, you would be using 7-8 moves that they have. So I stand by the fact that 90% of the moves are worthless.

Whereas in other 3d fighters, I'm using 30 different moves average per round due to different situations that arises with some of the characters that I play. Can you definately say you use 30 different moves in every round in MK? Surely not.

Really when it comes down to it, you just have to seriously ask a very simple question. Why can't I use just two moves (with their followups) in a game such as Soul Calibur even in casual-mid-level play? You will then begin listing certain things such as the opponent being able to do X, or you being able to do Y instead because it's better for situation X, etc. Soon, many many things will become factors and you've realized that you've developed various strategies to beat your opponent that encompasses many different setups and many many different moves. And that's what MK is lacking.

First off all, the MK plot has more holes than swiss cheese. How can anyone say the MK storyline is good? It's basically bad guy attacks, gains evil army to fight the good folk, good folk win. Plus throw in some mysterious objects that appear out of thin air, a good dozen or more ressurections, people turning out to be not dead and you have MK storyline in a nutshell. Woohoo.

Secondly, MK will never be better than Tekken, because it's engine is pure shit. Canned dial-combos and 50/50 guessing games with some infinite combos and you have MK fight engine. And anyone tries to tell me the moves in MK are authentic will be laughed at. The fighting styles are so far off the mark it's embarassing. Tekken has much more realism to it in that respect.

I, like the author of this thread, believed MK to be a good fighting game. I now see the error of my judgements by experiementing more with other fighting games. I played Tekken Tag, 4 &5 and they showed me how embarassingly poor MK actually is. It didn't take me long to learn how to use Tekken and now I find myself enjoying Tekken more than I ever enjoyed MK.

Bottom line is, MK is not worthy to be compared to Tekken. Tekken is doing what it were meant to, provide competitive play. First goal is not to enjoy the story but to win. I am amazed at how fast and fluid Tekken 5 is, with the extensive movelist, you are free to combined different kicks and punches rather than dialing in a pre-set combo. Plus there is various ways to play a defensive game in Tekken 5, keeping opponents at bay, rather than land on the floor only to get trapped into yet another infinite combo because of poor frame rate, ala MK.

Tekken 5 is the only fighting game I know to be nearing perfection, and requires a little more patience to get to grips with, which some people, judging by their posts, don't have enough of. So don't even compare MK to Tekken, because MK is just not worthy of Tekken's time. In fact MK is so bad, it actually takes points away from Tekken 5 just to be associated with it.

Actually I thought video games were meant for fun, which IMO MK does FAR better than Tekken since Tekken is boring shit. I guess I was wrong though.

Actually, the bad guys won in MKDA.

I'll be in later to give my insight on the whole gameplay/fun thing, but I'm going to the cad'e to play tome T. Though, people need to realize, both parties need to btw, that for some people, competition, learning and developing is fun. Just randomly throwing broken shit out is boring to them. It's just two different people who view joy in a different context. Anywho, peace and love y'all.

Agreed, "fun" is a highly subjective term. Some people like to play a game that requires strategic depth and out-thinking your opponent, some people like to play games where there are vast amounts of unlockables, some people like to play games for the story, etc.

Like Satya says, both sides need to understand this. "Fun" for a vast majority of the MK fanbase means blood, fatalities, story, and all the fluff that MK is associated with. Even though a fighting game's purpose is to provide strategic play, that is usually not the purpose of an "MK game." Hell, most people would be happy if they bought MK and it was a DVD showing fights rather than providing any actual gameplay in my opinion, or maybe a full-blown MK RPG, which is what MK should probably be if the fighting aspect is never really gonna be taken care of.

I do, however, agree with the vast amount of people that play MK for the actual "fun" of playing a challenging game that provides a basis for strategy that it fails immensely. It doesn't accomplish it's purpose of providing a game that is challenging and deep as well as other 3d fighters of the same genre such as Tekken, Virtua Fighter, etc. It's simplicity isn't also due to intuitive nature that could foster the depth of games such as Soul Calibur either, but rather the how predominant 50/50s are in MK.

On the basis of game design alone, MK implemented a huge movelist where most moves are useless. That is a fact. If MK was supposed to be made so that it doesn't foster competitive play and was supposed to be the alternating usage of a handful of moves, then they shouldn't have implemented all the other ones.

word...

Well, I do think that the MK fighting engine needs to be revamped. I think that the MK team's attempt to make the MK games different from other fighters ends up making the game not that great. Maybe they don't realize what they're doing is wrong. If that's the case, they need to program better programmers and testers.

Regarding to the storyline, there's more to it than that. If you look at Tekken's storyline, yes, it doesn't really have as many plotholes as MKs storyline. However, I find MK's storyline to be much more interesting. I think when some complain about MK's storyline having plotholes, I feel that they tend to overexaggerate without thinking about how many plotholes actually exist..

As for the accuracy of the moves. Well, I think you need to actually think about what you're saying. Although it does seem to me that the accuracy went down in MKD, the stuff in MKDA had quite a bit of authenticity, especially with styles like Snake, Crane, Muay Thai, and for the most part, Ninjutsu.

Tekken 5 has a lot of authenticity as well, but not all of the styles are 100% accurate. While I'm not sure about the Koppojutsu aspects of Nina's and Anna's fighting styles, Yoshimitsu's style does NOT look much like Ninjutsu, especially when it comes to the kicks.

From what I know, Ninjutsu uses kicks that are simple in nature and are usually slammed into place. There's an unclear reason why though I think it's because almost all Japanese martial arts that uses kicks uses slamming type kicks. In addition, Ninjutsu also uses various stomp kicks.

Looking at Yoshimitsu's movesets, I only see 2 kicks that are actually used in Ninjutsu: the Front Kick (4 when rising) and some kind of Stomp Kick (DF + 3). That's about it. When it comes to the hand techniques, that's also not completely accurate. Basic jabs and punches, yeah, I could buy that. But spinning punches and backfists aren't used, at least to my knowledge.

I've always wondered why they list Law's style as "Martial Arts". Since he's a Bruce Lee type character and seems to emulate him fighting wise, you'd think they'd put "Jun Fan Gung Fu" as his style.

Anyway, I liked Tekken 5 and thought it was a pretty good game overall. However, it was not without it's problems. I still say Tekken 3 is the best Tekken game. When I actually got back to playing it, which I haven't in a very long time, I was so damn shocked as to how fluid it felt compared to Tekken 5. That's not to say that Tekken 5 lacks fluidity. It's just that I found Tekken 3 to be more fluid. One thing I never liked about the Tekken games was the walking and I wonder why they never seem to fix that.

After spending some months playing MKD, I did start to get a bit bored with it though I still liked the game even though it suffers from major problems. When it comes to Tekken 5, I also spent quite a bit of time with it, but I eventually get bored with it at times.

Either way, like I said before, both series need improvements.

If Ed really does try to listen to what the fans have to say, he better focus his attention on the ones who have good ideas on making the fighting engine better as opposed to ones who want other -alities

It's kind of funny how MK does well in terms of storyline and ambience but lacks in terms of gameplay and Tekken and Soul Calibur are the opposite.

.

Erm tekken 3 is almost unplayable now. Too many things have been discovered previously unknown and add that to the known things on the game and you make for a VERY broken game. I could list all the broken things on tekken 3 if you'd like and it far exceeds tekken 5. Really even the broken things from when it was new outdo the list of tekken 5 flaws.

I'd comment on some of the other posts but there are just too many that are flat out moronic and I won't bother.

I love people who say things like this. You play games for fun and mk is fun blah blah blah. It just shows your own idiocy. The fact is, I know it's hard to believe, but everybody plays games for fun. I know it's a shock you prolly thought I hate to play tekken so I torture myself day in and day out to master it because it's not fun for me. The best part is that you think MK does fun better. The FACT is tekken outsells mk. The FACT is tekken outsells mk despite mk being on three systems and tekken being on one. The FACT is tekken outsells MK in the US market and when you go worldwide it's not even close. So the FACT is you were wrong. Tekken does fun better than mk. Why would it outsell MK otherwsie? The majority are not hardcore players. The majority are the casual scrubs, like yourself, who play for "fun", unlike us hardcore types that play for vitamin c. This is the mk target audience and they can't even win that audience.

Nevermind, was already said.

m2dave its ---19--- on MK PS2.No shit BRC is the best player in the game hes completely broken. You say hes by far the best if used correctly? you mean used cheaply, or used in about the only way he can win. He moves extremely slow, even though his moves are lightning quick. I don't know why the hell this guy is even in the game. Hook me up with your id and ill put you on the buddy list till i se you on next time, i'm on real late at night and in the afternoon.

Anyways, i do agree the engine needs a complete overhaul but that doesnt mean i dont think MKD is a great game. I'm still not a fan of Tekken though i dont think its fun at all, maybe cuz i dont know anyone who owns it or would play it with me and i hate playing the cpu in fighting games. If tekken were to come out online maybe i would come around to it.

My post wasn't in regards to whether Tekken 3 was broken or not. When it comes to fighting game technical stuff, I'm no expert although I'm slowly but surely learning.

When it comes to Tekken 3, whether it's more broken than Tekken 5 doesn't particularly matter to me in this case as I enjoyed Tekken 3 more than Tekken 5 overall. You may be just looking at the game from a technical gameplay POV, but I'm looking at it from an overall POV.

So, I honesty don't care whether or not you list all of the broken things in Tekken 3. Yes, I have some problems with it, but it's my favorite Tekken game and one of my favorite fighting games overall.

Listen, I'm sure you're someone who means well and is definitely knowledgeable about these sorts of things. You and I share something in common other than just liking MK. It's that we both want MK to be a good fighting game in terms of fighting engine mechanics and all of that.

However, it seemed to me like you didn't comprehend what I was saying. No offense 1TruKing, but if you're going to quote part of my post and reply to it, at least have the courtesy of actually reading my post and trying to put 2 and 2 together as to what I'm trying to say. In all honesty, what I was trying to say isn't really hard to understand at all.

I'm a fan of both series, and I feel that both of them needs to improve in various needed aspects. It's as simple as that.