It's 2011 we don't need cheap ass bosses to steal our quarters and gain glory in the arcades. That is a legit negative IMO.

I have to agree with the criticism of the cheap bosses - as we're not playing a money sink anymore, it's totally unnecessary.

I just finished playing through arcade for the first time. WTF is with the random flashing of, "oh, your moves suddenly aren't going to work now even though they did before in this same situation" bullcrap? Yes, Kintaro and Shao Kahn are beatable, but they're not hard because they're simply hard - expect A LOT of your moves to be randomly canceled or not work at all at the most seemingly random times.

Oh, and the first time I played Shao Kahn, he stunned me with his hammer throw... the then proceeded to do nothing but throw his hammer from across the screen. There is absolutely nothing you can about this, as you're stunned longer than his attack delay.

QFT, cant spell ignorant without IGN

Some review i do think are a tad harsh, however, some points some reviews bring up are valid. Such as the fan service with the female char's. Now i love the female chars in MK, but i do believe that NRS went over the top with them this time round. As some reviews said isn't the 90s anymore.

I remember Tekken 5 last boss, was such a pain in the backside. Beating it was great first time, other time was just annoying regarding the cheapness of the moves, don't get me wrong i want a hard boss. But i refuse to believe A.I programing hasn't progressed for 20 years.

Does NRS think on online mode after people beaten the 300 tower mode, and show off Mileena with the flesh pits outfit, that person will be treated like god? I don't think so unless they're a horny 14 year old.

This is the best MK game yet, but it still has some catching up too do.

Remembr how tough shao kahn was on MK SM? He was super ridiculous with that spinning hammer

Jinpachi in Tekken 5 was cheap, but beatable using normal tactics if you knew what you were doing. I had no problems beating Tekken 5 in arcades using characters that I was comfortable with.

UMK3/MKT Kahn is broken. More often than not, you must cheese him to win.

I haven't played the game yet, but a boss being too hard is a legitimate complaint. We're not in an arcade, we're not sinking our savings into trying to beat an unconquerable boss. I'm not saying that any developer should make the final boss of a game a total cakewalk, but all I'm hearing so far is that Kahn is a royal d-bag and to be honest, that concerns me. I have a life, I don't want to be spending an hour trying to take down Kintaro.

The thing with fighting games, and even THIS iteration of Mortal Kombat, is nobody is forcing you to fight the high-level bosses. If you want to coast through it, you can change the difficult down to easy. But if you want a tougher challenge, you can boost it back up. If the top of the Challenger Tower is giving you trouble, you can always just stick to replaying the lower, easier portions. The only legitimate complaint I can think of is if Story Mode gives you too much difficulty, but even then I've yet to see somebody spend less than a few tries on even the harder bosses.

Beyond that, at least having the option for tougher, cheaper bosses (and for the most part they ARE entirely optional) gives arcade fans that grew up with that sort of thing the chance to test their skills (and/or luck) against something even harder than average human AI. The bosses are, after all, unplayable, and it was their design philosophy (as stated in interviews) to make the bosses legitimate hurdles to be overcome rather than just another notch on the fighting game roster.

I know that's not to everyone's tastes, but, again, the harder content is for the most part optional, just like nobody is forcing everyone to play Ninja Gaiden's hardest mode right out of the bag or to play Soul Calibur IV's top tower challenge immediately once you start. I spent TWO HOURS fighting Akuma in Street Fighter II: HD Remix... and, yes, it was frustrating and I would never hope to do so again, but I'm glad I did beat that high-priority, teleport-spamming, 89% combo-hitting bastard, and I do believe there is a place for cheap bosses like that in fighting games, yes, even today.

Also, more scores are coming in.

GamePro gives the game a nice 4.5/5. link

Game Informer gives it a stellar 9.5/10. link

This IGN review is the biggest fucking piece of shit I have ever fucking read on a review site.

6.0 for presentation... because of the story mode being cheesy?

How much did you fucking enjoy the non existent story mode in MvC?

"The story is weak compared to other recent, non-MK video game efforts. I was entertained from start to finish -- partly because of all the dismembered limbs"

Ok, so... not to spoil anything,


The same cut scenes this guy is upset that he can't skip.


So he enjoyed the story mode because of the cut scenes, but is upset he can't bypass them which would then make him dislike the story mode. It makes sense.

IGN gave MvC3 a fucking 9.0 on gameplay, when it's a button masher... but had this dumb fuck review Mortal Kombat when he doesn't even know enough about the series to see that damage has been scaled back considerably in order to have fights require less spamming of special moves and more strategy required to win.

Yet if NRS kept it as a button mashing, chain-special move piece of shit, they would have knocked it for not having a deep fighting engine when comparing it to Street Fighter.

Which btw, I would have to say having a fucking yoga instructor who's arms stretch across the screen, a chick who's legs are bigger than Triple H's torso, and every fucking character who can shoot firey projectiles isn't much more of a stretch than "Ice Ninjas"

This guy is a fucking twat and all the d-bags at IGN are going to do their bullshit second opinions and back his review 100% like they always fucking do.

IGN can suck a dick.




OH YA... and good job having your fucking Fight Stick review be more in depth than the fucking game itself... assholes.

You know its funny they bitch about the hard bosses, but if the bosses where easier then people would bitch about that.

Ah, SF4 always gets great reviews, but fucking Seth is a pain in the ass. How is teleport piledriver fair?

Goro and Kintaro are not hard, and I play on expert.

greatest fighting game ever

So far the only complaint I have is that sometimes the two on one fights in story mode can be jarring/frustrating, especially when you haven't played XYZ character before.

... but that's still not enough to deduct so much off of it like IGN did.

He said it himself he played on medium. This is like starting from rest on gear 3 and complaining that the car doesn't accelerate fast enough.

Odd how there's a split between reviewers as to whether it's a 9.0-9.5 game or an 8.0 game. Almost all scores fall within those ranges.

IGN has always sucked though. GTA IV got a 10.0 and God Hand got a 3.0. They're awful.

Reliable and trustworthy source for technology news, Ars Technica, details the new Mortal Kombat with praises in its all-round review.

Cheat Code Central gives it a 4.5/5 link

The bosses should be difficult not frustrating. If it's gone past challenging to annoying something is wrong.

yes. you're on the wrong difficulty level.

it took me 5 tries to beat Kahn on expert. It was entertaining trying to get all the timing of his moves right and when I beat him it felt great (even if luck always does play a part). There's no reason I should have to cake walk it through expert mode because others aren't at the level required. Its the hardest mode for a reason.

In fact, there are those who probably wish it was harder and you know what? I would support that. Just because I wouldn't be able to do it shouldn't be an issue because there are 4 difficulties which are easier. As long as a boss is beatable AT ALL, then no one should complain that its too hard and not fun. If you don't like it, head to the options menu until you get comfortable enough with the game to crank it back up.

And this is not an attack on your skills, I'm just saying that there are different levels for each gamer to find their niche in. there has to be something at the top end for people who really go nuts in this game.

Bosses are more difficult in MK because they're not playable.

Bosses should be tough. Seth was piss easy and I'm not even good at SFIV.

Except for that goddamn pile driver he seems to love to spam whenever I'm playing..

I agree, though, that bosses are meant to be tough. Azazel was really easy in Tekken 6 IMO. However, in other fighting games, I totally suck against bosses. That's why I use Easy-Medium difficulty.

Whether the bosses are hard or not does that really ruin the game? No.

MvC3 got an 8.5. It doesn't even have a story mode to nitpick about. It also doesn't have a spectator mode. You know something that was in MvC2.

NRS did everything they needed to make the best MK game worthy of a 9 easy. But because this game isn't a capcom fighter it will only get an 8. Not to mention they gave MKD and MKA higher scores. WTF.

I have to agree with GT. Not just because its a 9.4. But because they gave an in depth review and they have consistantly given this series lower scores than IGN. GT tends to rate harder and they gave this game credible complaints.

GameSpot - 8.5 Click

gamespot's review was better than ign's. not because of the 8.5, i disagree with both ign and gs and feel mk is easily worthy of a 9/10, but because the review itself is written soooooo much better than ign's. i do not exactly see enough complaints in the gamespot review to justify the 8.5 score, but at least the review does a nice job of explaining all that mk has to offer and what makes it tick. you would never know that from ign's review. so, even though i strongly feel mk9 is a 9/10, gamespot's review is far more helpful for those not too familiar with mk9.

Diehard GameFAN has a very positive review for the game. Check it out here: link