DC vs. MK

Originally posted by Dark-Jaxx
Based on nothing.

Except for what's shown in the videos.

Originally posted by Dark-Jaxx
MK is not as iconic as SF, or as well known, not by a long shot.

Well duh, SF was the game that introduced players to the fighting game genre so of course, many games aren't as iconic. Doesn't change the fact that MK still has a big fanbase and is still being played often to today. MK is very well-known.

Originally posted by Dark-Jaxx
Ask around, alot of people have been disappointed with MK's latest games, hell, some say there hasn't been a good one since 2.

And some also say that MKT is just as good as MK2.

Originally posted by Dark-Jaxx
It won't do near as well as SFIV in the long run.

We'll see but I think that's very unlikely.

Originally posted by SmashBro
Except for what's shown in the videos.

Well duh, SF was the game that introduced players to the fighting game genre so of course, many games aren't as iconic. Doesn't change the fact that MK still has a big fanbase and is still being played often to today. MK is very well-known.

And some also say that MKT is just as good as MK2.

We'll see but I think that's very unlikely.

2. Exactly, it is more popular, iconic, and has the "nostalgia factor" when playing. MK is well known, sure, but has nothing on SF.

3. ...Kay. And? Many(most even) agree that in terms of gameplay MK is very simplistic(it is), and that the game is not all that groundbreaking.

4. I disagree.

Originally posted by Dark-Jaxx
1. What videos? I wasn't commenting on the gameplay of MK vs. DC if that is what you were thinking.

2. Exactly, it is more popular, iconic, and has the "nostalgia factor" when playing. MK is well known, sure, but has nothing on SF.

3. ...Kay. And? Many(most even) agree that in terms of gameplay MK is very simplistic(it is), and that the game is not all that groundbreaking.

4. I disagree.

1. Then what did you mean?

2. SF only seems more popular because some people underrate MK, while at the same time, overrate SF, that's it. They just give it too much credit as if it's the best fighting game series ever.

3. How is it simplistic?

Originally posted by SmashBro
1. Then what did you mean?

2. SF only seems more popular because some people underrate MK, while at the same time, overrate SF, that's it. They just give it too much credit as if it's the best fighting game series ever.

3. How is it simplistic?

2. There is no "seems" about it, this is like debating which is more popular, Superman or Martian Manhunter. SF is iconic, MK is not. And SF IS considered by many the best fighting game series ever. I'm not saying it is, in all honesty, I actually prefer Darkstalkers and Tekken to it.

3. Simply combos, simply controls, simple counter moves, the gameplay is just really simple.

Originally posted by Dark-Jaxx
1. That you were basing your opinion on nothing.

2. There is no "seems" about it, this is like debating which is more popular, Superman or Martian Manhunter. SF is iconic, MK is not. And SF IS considered by many the best fighting game series ever. I'm not saying it is, in all honesty, I actually prefer Darkstalkers and Tekken to it.

3. Simply combos, simply controls, simple counter moves, the gameplay is just really simple.

1. Based on the videos.

2. I never said it wasn't more iconic. It's the most iconic fighting game but that doesn't change the fact that it's overrated. And yes it does "seems" like it's more popular but we can't say for sure that it is.

3. I don't see what's so simple about the combos. They're actually a bit more challenging than SF, especially in the last three games.

Originally posted by SmashBro
1. Based on the videos.

2. I never said it wasn't more iconic. It's the most iconic fighting game but that doesn't change the fact that it's overrated. And yes it does "seems" like it's more popular but we can't say for sure that it is.

3. I don't see what's so simple about the combos. They're actually a bit more challenging than SF, especially in the last three games.

2. Overrated how? People say it became the archype for fighting games. It has. The gameplay was considered innovative. It is. Many people still play it today. Seem more popular? It IS more popular. It is iconic, and WILL be remembered long after MK vs. DC is mostly forgotten.

3. Lol wut? X,X,Y isn't a challenging combo. MK combos are VERY easy to pull off.

Originally posted by Dark-Jaxx
1. ...You're not the sharpest tool in the shed, are you?

2. Overrated how? People say it became the archype for fighting games. It has. The gameplay was considered innovative. It is. Many people still play it today. Seem more popular? It IS more popular. It is iconic, and WILL be remembered long after MK vs. DC is mostly forgotten.

3. Lol wut? X,X,Y isn't a challenging combo. MK combos are VERY easy to pull off.

1. What's that got to do with anything?

2. It's getting too much credit for things it didn't even make, yet it's considered innovative? Yeah, that's just overrating it. And so what if it's still played today? So is MK and MKvDC might possibly be played longer than SFIV.

3. Then I guess SF is just easier. And you do know there's longer combos than that, right?

Originally posted by SmashBro
1. What's that got to do with anything?

2. It's getting too much credit for things it didn't even make, yet it's considered innovative? Yeah, that's just overrating it. And so what if it's still played today? So is MK and MKvDC might possibly be played longer than SFIV.

3. Then I guess SF is just easier. And you do know there's longer combos than that, right?

2. It IS innovative, it is the archtype for the fighting genre, and Ryu is the archtype for the fighting protagonist. MK is still played today, but it has also had much more recent games(which many agree sucked, though I personally did like MKA), MK vs. DC if played longer than SFIV will only be because of DC, I assure you.

3. SF easier? lol wut? MK is easy AS FVCK. In MKA, the biggest combos are like...5 hit at best I think.

Originally posted by Dark-Jaxx
1. 😐

2. It IS innovative, it is the archtype for the fighting genre, and Ryu is the archtype for the fighting protagonist. MK is still played today, but it has also had much more recent games(which many agree sucked, though I personally did like MKA), MK vs. DC if played longer than SFIV will only be because of DC, I assure you.

3. SF easier? lol wut? MK is easy AS FVCK. In MKA, the biggest combos are like...5 hit at best I think.

2. Just because of DC? 😐 It's gonna be because of the gameplay because it not only seems much better but it's also closer to the older games. MKDA and MKD are usually considered better than MKA, especially MKD. I don't know why they said they all suck when it's usually agreed that MKDA revived the series. And again, I don't see how SF is innovative.

3. I think they did kind of shortened the combos in that game but in MKD, they had much longer combos. They sure weren't easy.

Mortal Kobat Armageddon is a joke in the fighting game world.

There's a reason none of the 3-d MK games are used in tournaments. Ever.

There's a reason.

Originally posted by NonSensi-Klown
Mortal Kobat Armageddon is a joke in the fighting game world.

There's a reason none of the 3-d MK games are used in tournaments. Ever.

There's a reason.

Who cares about tournaments?

Originally posted by SmashBro
Who cares about tournaments?

Exactly.
Why pull that up?

X-Play mentioned the last four characters in the game and neither of them is Johnny Cage or Goro. You can expect Cage fans to freak in 3..2..1...

Nah, I'm not going to freak out.

I'll just raise my optimism to a dangerously high level since anything can happen before the game is released.

Originally posted by SmashBro
Who cares about tournaments?

Time does.

And it's time that decides what game is good compared to another, not sales, or hype, or fan base.

Originally posted by SmashBro
Well, I can see it doing a little bit better than SFIV, I'll tell ya that.

Originally posted by SmashBro
I don't know why they said they all suck when it's usually agreed that MKDA revived the series

Originally posted by NonSensi-Klown
Time does.

And it's time that decides what game is good compared to another, not sales, or hype, or fan base.

Really what does all of this got to do with tournaments?

Originally posted by SmashBro
Really what does all of this got to do with tournaments?

The fact that Street Fighter 2 still has thousands of people coming together to play the game, compared to Mortal Kombat, who's last three games are considered to be the laughing stock of the fighting game genre (MK is considered to be the Halo of fighting games). Please.As far as violence is concerned MK is plenty fun, but it's fighting mechanics and fighting depth are factually shit compared to Street Fighter and Tekken. There's a reason why Mortal Kombat has never been considered big enough to be played on the international theater, and spends most of it's days at the bottom of the "nostalgia" box.

Although one thing good to say about MK...The first movie was far better than the SF live action movie. haermm