Human Cyrax and Sektor, Shang Tsung Fatality

Re: Cyrax and sektor human alts + shangs tsungs other fatality

Reptikahn said:
War Eagle said:
I'm not even worked up over this. I think people are being ignorant like yourself. Period.

Edit: And just for the record since you think I don't now that about motion:

The Sheeva fatality had to have been taken before she made that stance. Because when it finishes it moves onto the next part that says "Sheeva wins... Fatality!" which happens quite fast. Thus your logic is still not fully correct on saying it has less movement. How does ripping a guy in half, equate to a clown standing there pulling out a gun and firing. Why is the clown blurry not the character being shot. Which causes impact?

Food for thought.
Click to expand...

Not fast enough, apparently. Also, I find it interesting how I am the ignorant one for speculating that THE GUY WHO HAS A COPY OF THE GAME AND POSTED LEGIT SHOTS WOULD WASTE THEIR TIME PHOTO SHOPPING TWO OF THEM. Then theres the achievement that hints to this fatality. It's probably just an homage to the uncensored Joker fatality from the last game. Easter eggs bro, easter eggs.

Also, you smell. :yumyum:
Click to expand...
 
Re: Cyrax and sektor human alts + shangs tsungs other fatality

War Eagle said:
Reptikahn said:
Not fast enough, apparently. Also, I find it interesting how I am the ignorant one for speculating that THE GUY WHO HAS A COPY OF THE GAME AND POSTED LEGIT SHOTS WOULD WASTE THEIR TIME PHOTO SHOPPING TWO OF THEM. Then theres the achievement that hints to this fatality. It's probably just an homage to the uncensored Joker fatality from the last game. Easter eggs bro, easter eggs.

Also, you smell. :yumyum:
Click to expand...

That's still not a good point. I've already covered this point 600+ times. Leakers do this **** all the time dude. The leaker for SSBB had pictures, and he faked a FF character in SSBB. Why would it be any different now? Also on a funny note: The pic with the FF character was also blurry like said Clown pic.

Again, I didn't say you couldn't say you believe it, but don't try and forcefeed me that, that specific picture looks legit. It doesn't. Not at all. That's why it is ignorant. Evidence has been shown, experience and more. It's naive, ignorant, whatever you want to call it to believe nobody can fake a picture which could take mere minutes to make. Reminds me of a certain leaker on Twitter who people blindly followed because he knew of information no one else did, then came out and said I'm trolling" lol on those people. That's exactly my point.
Click to expand...
 
Re: Cyrax and sektor human alts + shangs tsungs other fatality

I think you're wrong and I'm right. You think you're right and I'm wrong.

Care to make a wager? If this fatality is real, I choose your avatar for a month and vice versa if it is a fake.

You down like a clown or what?
 
Re: human sektor and other goodies

Immortal Reaver said:
Alright this is just getting ridiculous people, search before you post. There are already like 3 threads on the first page for this.
Click to expand...


It's also getting ridiculous the amount of times I have to say to people 'report offensive and duplicate posts' and having people totally ignore that.

;)

E-Wreck, I am going to merge your thread =)
 
Re: Cyrax and sektor human alts + shangs tsungs other fatality

War Eagle said:
I think you're wrong and I'm right. You think you're right and I'm wrong.

Care to make a wager? If this fatality is real, I choose your avatar for a month and vice versa if it is a fake.

You down like a clown or what?
Click to expand...


You're not reading what I'm saying, or at least I'm sure you're not.

I'm not saying the clown is not in the game. I'm saying those two pictures look fake. Like I said in a past post, I don't even mind it, but the people saying it looks absolutely fake are correct. With evidence. You're using a half-assed argument, I'm using an absolute proof ridden argument.

Like I said before, you can believe it all you want, just don't try and spoonfeed us that it looks absolutely real because using proof... It doesn't. Don't say we're paranoid because we notice details, because those details still exist.

That's it, that's all my argument has ever been.

Edit: Ignorant definition I'm using:

. Lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about something in particular: "ignorant of astronomy".
 
Last edited:
Re: Cyrax and sektor human alts + shangs tsungs other fatality

I seriously hope the clown fatality IS one of Shang Tsungs other fatalities. I love the idea!

Why all the hate for it?

This is retribution for the T-Rated MK VS DC censored fatalities. Seeing him morph into a clown (Obviously can't be the Joker) and blow someones head off WITHOUT any cut-aways is very satisfying to me. My guess is that he'll have three fatalities, just like in MK 2. His second will be a soul steal and this will be his third.

Random Kintaro morph fatality, anyone? It's happened before.

9 DAYS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Reptikahn said:
You're not reading what I'm saying, or at least I'm sure you're not.

I'm not saying the clown is not in the game. I'm saying those two pictures look fake. Like I said in a past post, I don't even mind it, but the people saying it looks absolutely fake are correct. With evidence. You're using a half-assed argument, I'm using an absolute proof ridden argument.

Like I said before, you can believe it all you want, just don't try and spoonfeed us that it looks absolutely real because using proof... It doesn't. Don't say we're paranoid because we notice details, because those details still exist.

That's it, that's all my argument has ever been.
Click to expand...

How is it possible to prove something which is subjective?

The_Cold_Kombatant said:
I seriously hope the clown fatality IS one of Shang Tsungs other fatalities. I love the idea!

Why all the hate for it?

This is retribution for the T-Rated MK VS DC censored fatalities. Seeing him morph into a clown (Obviously can't be the Joker) and blow someones head off WITHOUT any cut-aways is very satisfying to me. My guess is that he'll have three fatalities, just like in MK 2. His second will be a soul steal and this will be his third.

Random Kintaro morph fatality, anyone? It's happened before.

9 DAYS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...

Yeah I think it'd make a great third fatality. A nice little easter egg to those disappointed in the last game's fatalities.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Re: Cyrax and sektor human alts + shangs tsungs other fatality

The_Cold_Kombatant said:
I seriously hope the clown fatality IS one of Shang Tsungs other fatalities. I love the idea!

Why all the hate for it?

This is retribution for the T-Rated MK VS DC censored fatalities. Seeing him morph into a clown (Obviously can't be the Joker) and blow someones head off WITHOUT any cut-aways is very satisfying to me.
Click to expand...

But that's the thing! Why wouldn't they be able to use Joker's face? The demo leak says "previous opponents" not random clowns. They are partnered with WB. They have already done a crossover game with DC. They seem to be using the exact same outfit. They seem to be using the exact same animation. Why not just get permission to use the same Joker face while they're at it?
 
Last edited:
Re: Cyrax and sektor human alts + shangs tsungs other fatality

War Eagle said:
How is it possible to prove something which is subjective?
Click to expand...

How is it subjetive? Being uber blurry compared to the rest of the pics does not make any logical sense whatsoever. It's based on objectivity. If he had the game [which we aren't arguing] why couldn't he have retook the pic to be less blurry.

Backing with evidence=objective. Remember you used an argument against it that is called "grasping at straws"

Argument 1: You guys are paranoid. Strawman if I've ever seen one.

Argument 2: It was in action. So was Sheeva's fatality. It'd be appropriate to guess the fatalities work at the same speed.

Argument 3: Maybe NRS cut corner. That could be argued for anything. Not very great.

Our argument:

Argument 1: It's very blurry in contrast to the other pics, one which obviously was in motion. It makes absolutely no sense.

Argument 2: Parts of the body look off. There's a different between cutting corners and just throwing crap on a model and placing it in the full game.

Argument 3: Leakers are known to do crap like this for kicks. What makes this guy different from the others?

Edit: See, it being very blurry is objective evidence. Saying someone is paranoid is just grasping at straws for an argument. Parts of the body looking off is objective because most people have already shown how it is. Leakers are known for doing that crap is objective. Your best argument is "Why would they do it here?"

Him not being in the game is objective. [Note, I'm not saying he isn't in] The argument whether he is in or not [that fatality] is objective. It either is or it isn't. Same as if that pic is fake or not. The evidence is pointing towards the pictures at the very least being fake.
 
Last edited:
You can't really argue a subjective statement, guys. It looks real to some, fake to others, but it's all opinion. And now you've just been saying the same things for two pages. I think the argument is over, lol.

So let's all stop comparing our e-peen, because everyone on the internet know everything about everything already.

Edit: In reply to the post edit above me: none of it is objective, because there are no facts to back it up. You're basing an argument on 6 unofficial photos. There's no hard evidence that they are real or fake, therefore it's based on opinion, therefore it's a subjective statement. Proof of my point: You say, "I THINK these are fake", rather than, "These ARE fake because blah blah blah proof".
 
Last edited:
Strangea said:
You can't really argue a subjective statement, guys. It looks real to some, fake to others, but it's all opinion. And now you've just been saying the same things for two pages. I think the argument is over, lol.

So let's all stop comparing our e-peen, because everyone on the internet know everything about everything already.
Click to expand...

This is what I meant by subjective. Obviously the picture is blurry, I'm not blind. You think it looks fake, I think it looks real. The keyword is think.

Also, my e-peen is bigger.
 
Re: Cyrax and sektor human alts + shangs tsungs other fatality

kaballer said:
But that's the thing! Why wouldn't they be able to use Joker's face? The demo leak says "previous opponents" not random clowns. They are partnered with WB. They have already done a crossover game with DC. They seem to be using the exact same outfit. They seem to be using the exact same animation. Why not just get permission to use the same Joker face while they're at it?

Okay. Let's say they decide to pay tribute to a game- one that is supposed to be forgotten in this installment- via an easter egg, via the medium of Shang Tsung. Disregarding how completely random all of that is, why not do it properly? A crudely drawn, generic scary clown face that looks nothing like Joker? How is that a tribute? I don't understand. Please someone explain it to me.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, even though they are partnered with WB, getting The Jokers complete likeness is a much more involved process than we think. Maybe NRS wanted to do a tribute "easter egg" fatality but didn't want to go through all the paperwork of actually having THE JOKER in the game.

What if NRS is deciding to completely forget about MK VS DC so by putting a generic clown, giving him the exact animation/pose would be paying tribute without actually completely doing it?

Not that it matters too much but the outfit isn't the same at all. The only thing similar to The Joker is the shooting animation (as far as we can see) and the winning pose.
 
War Eagle said:
This is what I meant by subjective. Obviously the picture is blurry, I'm not blind. You think it looks fake, I think it looks real. The keyword is think.

Also, my e-peen is bigger.
Click to expand...

Okay. Let's disregard the argument of whether it's real or fake for a moment and discuss the concept behind the fatality.

Let's say they decide to pay tribute to a game- one that is supposed to be forgotten in this installment- via an easter egg, via the medium of Shang Tsung. Disregarding how completely random all of that is, why not do it properly? A crudely drawn, generic scary clown face? How is that a proper tribute? Why couldn't they use Joker's face?

You honestly want to tell me they couldn't have gotten the rights to Joker's MK face, currently being partnered with WB and previously doing a crossover with DC? And then you want to tell me they did manage to get the rights specifically to everything about him aside from his face?

In my opinion, the only reason the clown face is different is because if whoever made the picture kept the same Joker face, any average schmo would be able to realize that is simply a recolour of a MK vs DC screen. With Kabal pasted in.

The_Cold_Kombatant said:
Not that it matters too much but the outfit isn't the same at all. The only thing similar to The Joker is the shooting animation (as far as we can see) and the winning pose.
Click to expand...

The outfit is entirely the same, down to the very last button. Just with a different colour. The only exception is the cuffs.
 
War Eagle said:
This is what I meant by subjective. Obviously the picture is blurry, I'm not blind. You think it looks fake, I think it looks real. The keyword is think.

Also, my e-peen is bigger.
Click to expand...

The evidence for the side saying it looks fake is still objective as it exists. Where the side saying it looks real doesn't have any evidence other than half-baked examples or points. "I Like it" "You are paranoid" "He owns the game, he couldn't possibly post a fake."

The thing is, it's either real or not, that's what objectivity is. Here I'll just define them and end my point.

Subjectivity refers to the subject and his or her perspective, feelings, beliefs, and desires.[1] In philosophy, the term is usually contrasted with objectivity.[1]

That means opinions. However what is an opinion?


A view or judgment formed about something, not based on fact or knowledge

Now whats a fact, and objectivity:

Objectivity:

judgment based on observable phenomena and uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices

I have no problem with the clown fatality but we observe the discreet blur, and other odd problems.

Fact:

A thing that is indisputably the case.

---

There is no evidence that proves that picture looks real other than personal belief, the problem is, it is observable by standard objectivity that there are problems with the picture.

The pic looking fake=/=Clown not being real. Two seperate arguments. Both are based on objectivity. It either looks fake or it doesn't. That's not shades of black and white, that is black and white.

Edit: One final note:

Knowledge:

Information and skills acquired through experience or education
 
Reptikahn said:
The evidence for the side saying it looks fake is still objective as it exists. Where the side saying it looks real doesn't have any evidence other than half-baked examples or points. "I Like it" "You are paranoid" "He owns the game, he couldn't possibly post a fake."

The thing is, it's either real or not, that's what objectivity is. Here I'll just define them and end my point.



Subjectivity refers to the subject and his or her perspective, feelings, beliefs, and desires.[1] In philosophy, the term is usually contrasted with objectivity.[1]

That means opinions. However what is an opinion?


A view or judgment formed about something, not based on fact or knowledge

Now whats a fact, and objectivity:

Objectivity:

judgment based on observable phenomena and uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices

I have no problem with the clown fatality but we observe the discreet blur, and other odd problems.

Fact:

A thing that is indisputably the case.

---

There is no evidence that proves that picture looks real other than personal belief, the problem is, it is observable by standard objectivity that there are problems with the picture.

The pic looking fake=/=Clown not being real. Two seperate arguments. Both are based on objectivity. It either looks fake or it doesn't. That's not shades of black and white, that is black and white.

Edit: One final note:

Knowledge:

Information and skills acquired through experience or education
Click to expand...


I know the difference between objective and subjective. I'm not retarded, and I have a college degree. Whether it is real or not is a moot point by now.

I think it looks real. That's my opinion and that's subjective.


Also, thanks for the references at the bottom. I'll check them later.
 
The_Cold_Kombatant said:
Cuffs AND....The HAT!
Click to expand...

Haha fair enough :laugh:! I wasn't counting the hat. I have never used photoshop in my life, but I'm positive I can add that hat to any still just by using copy and paste on MS paint. Which is another reason why I find this hard to believe. So much work put into every single character in this game so far, and suddenly a copy and paste of a clown from a previous game for the primary fatality of an important character?
 
War Eagle said:
I know the difference between objective and subjective. I'm not retarded, and I have a college degree. Whether it is real or not is a moot point by now.

I think it looks real. That's my opinion and that's subjective.


Also, thanks for the references at the bottom. I'll check them later.
Click to expand...

An opinion can not go against discreet proof. We have proof it looks blurry which would be implied to Look fake.

Here's another example since you obviously didn't grasp my point.

Onion News Network LOOKS real, this is fact. It looks just like any other news show. However, when you watch it, it becomes apparant it is a mockery of real news networks.

It is fact it looks real, it is also fact it isn't real.

"Wait that doesn't make sense." No it does, because objectively they follow the same standards as normal news networks but they have jokes instead of live reports. Only difference.

The same thing is here.


The reason I posted that information? Because people confuse the two, same thing you did. You say an opinion can debase facts which is again incorrect.

The picture DOES NOT look real due to evidence. Until you have at least one point of evidence it does look real, well see my ONN example.

Edit: If the clown IS real. Then it fits exactly like my example.

Looks fake, but is real.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top