If having a small roster means better gameplay, then I'm fine with that. I mean, look at MKA. A HUGE roster but a weakened gameplay. Heck, look at MvC2, again a huge roster but a weakened gameplay. See? A big roster doesn't equal a great game. I'm not saying I don't want a big roster but if that's what it takes to have a better gameplay, then I'm all for it.
Originally posted by Nemesis X
Saying that you don't want a big roster is kinda like saying you don't want a roster at all. There's still some MK characters missing and I'm sure that DC could let Midway add more heroes or villains but for some reason, that ain't happening.
WTF are you talking about? What he is saying that he would prefer a small roster with good gameplay and the chance for DLC as opposed to a crappy game with a huge roster.
Which would you rather have a game with a bunch of characters and crappy gameplay or a game with a small roster and great gameplay?
Originally posted by SmashBro
If having a small roster means better gameplay, then I'm fine with that. I mean, look at MKA. A HUGE roster but a weakened gameplay. Heck, look at MvC2, again a huge roster but a weakened gameplay. See? You can't just stick characters in the game just for the sake of it. I'm not saying I don't want a big roster but if that's what it takes to have a better gameplay, then I'm all for it.
Actually I loved MVC2's gameplay. What was wrong with it?
Originally posted by Wei Phoenix
Actually I loved MVC2's gameplay. What was wrong with it?
Some characters just seemed a bit too overpowered compared to the others. Plus, it just didn't seem as fluid as many other 2D games at the time. I will admit it's a fun game but it just wasn't the best in terms of gameplay.
Originally posted by SmashBro
Some characters just seemed a bit too overpowered compared to the others. Plus, it just didn't seem as fluid as many other 2D games at the time. I will admit it's a fun game but it just wasn't the best in terms of gameplay.
Yeah I'll agree that some like Cable, Juggernaut, Blackheart, Iron Man and a few others were overpowered.
Originally posted by Nemesis X
How does a huge roster screw up gameplay? If a big roster does screw up gameplay, hows about they only put one chracter on each side so the game can be more exciting? How's about Superman vs. Scorpion, or maybe Batman vs. Sub-Zero. I'm sure that would get great reviews *sarcasm*.
What we are saying is that if you put most of your focus on the roster and character movesets and stuff then you won't have enough time to work on the gameplay. By giving us a small roster with good gameplay they have enough time in the world to expand on characters with DLC and make more money.
Originally posted by Nemesis X
So they can't make a huge roster and awesome gameplay at the same time? That's almost hard to believe.
It takes time and we don't know the time that they had. I never said that it was impossible but depending on the team they had working on it, the amount of workers and time would all be a factor. If I have 3 months to make a game that is great then I'm going to keep the roster short with good gameplay. If I have 2-3 years to make a game then there is no excuse why I shouldn't have a decent roster with good gameplay. As the first title they didn't want to throw out a bunch of their best characters anyway.
Originally posted by Nemesis X
How does a huge roster screw up gameplay? If a big roster does screw up gameplay, hows about they only put one chracter on each side so the game can be more exciting? How's about Superman vs. Scorpion, or maybe Batman vs. Sub-Zero. I'm sure that would get great reviews *sarcasm*.
Okay, that sarcasm was poor and pointless. The whole point of this is having a decent roster while trying to keep the gameplay good. Doing that obviously doesn't require reducing the roster to just one or two characters like you're claiming. It's not that hard to understand, Nemesis X.
What about games that have a short rosters yet still have weak gameplay. I've played my share of those.
I've also played my share of fighters that have large rosters and have superb gameplay.
So in other words, not all fighters that have large rosters suck and not all short rostered fighters have superb gameplay.
Large rostered fighting games have worked..
Originally posted by NonSensi-Klown
MvC was awesome.
I personally like the first one better than the second one.
Originally posted by NonSensi-Klown
Soul Calibur has a reasonably large cast (like twenty-five characters).
That's not that big compared to this game (which got like 22 or 23 characters in it).
Originally posted by NonSensi-Klown
Armageddon had almost 40 people I think. 😐
Way more than that. It had like 60 something characters.
Originally posted by Ridley_Prime
Yeah. That bit there is true, but the game's roster itself just leaves much to be desired, though most of us have sucked it up by now.
i think it's fine, actually... if the game is a success, we should see bigger rosters if they make a sequel anyways...
Originally posted by Nemesis X
There's a lot of characters missing. So DC only gave 11 characters to Midway? That's weak. You think with an awesome crossover like this, there'd be more characters. Even SCIV and other fighter games have a bigger roster.
do you ever stop whining?
this is the first time mortal kombat has ever done anything like this... 22 characters is not small by any means when you take into account that it's the first dc vs mk crossover, it has a brand new game engine and a new fighting system...
Originally posted by SmashBro
And what games are these? Besides, I never said ALL games are like that.
mvc2 is a prime example of a large rostered game that delivered. sc4 and umk3 proved worthy too witheveryone they had, as well.
and for the shorties that blew you got games like pit fighter, world heroes, dark stalkers and guilty gear x just to name a few.
and yea I said pit fighter and world heroes.