truendymion
New member
I think Ed is doing the right thing. I hope we can get our hands on this at Evo!
Is Ed Boon sure he's doing the right thing?
- Thread starter the_pathfinder
- Start date
- Status
-BARAKA-
New member
give me the few "face" kombatants which we have already seen 2..love for baraka to make it also...but really i just want that same feeling of damn they made this game better than the last feeling like i had from mk1 going to mk2 ...perhaps more creativity in the fatality department..i get that you can only kill someone so many ways and most of the awesome ways have already been done (to death ) but the game must progress in all aspects..we've needed new characters for a long while, and have been basically stagnant since mk2 with good or franchise building characters..time for some growth and change
ujustgotcaged
New member
Less is more, right?
ujustgotcaged
New member
Yea...I'm fine with 24-28.. I think we can all agree that there will be a ton of patches ahead of us with all of those variations we will have.
Cyber Reptile
Member
The 24 roster of Deception was already more than enough.In this case,less is more.How many characters people used in Armageddon anyway?
Tarkatan Trash
Active member
How many characters did SFA3 have total (including console and portable ports)? That has a variation system that's similar to MKX.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I547 using Tapatalk
londonhellgate
BANALITY
Imo 40 or 36 is a fair number. But make an invited character is useless except if the roster are 99% mk chars. In others word imo 36 or 40 mk chars + 1 invited character i mean. Anyway i don´t know cause i don´t see very well to bring back certain stupids characters that everyone saw between mkda-mkar. Maybe is good idea starts to add the npc character and some minor character too, i mean characters that never had an oportunity in roster.
Commander
Well-known member
Terrible comparison.
That's a different developer.
We're talking about NRS here, which previously made Armageddon (as Midway) in which the characters were half-assed, and MK9 in which Cyber Sub-Zero felt half-assed.
I don't trust NRS with such a huge roster.
I'd rather them focus on a 24 - 28 character roster and do it right than do a 48 character roster where the characters start feeling sloppy, like they did in Armageddon.
Tarkatan Trash
Active member
How about one-upping Mugen with the roster size? A developer should at the very least try it.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I547 using Tapatalk
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I547 using Tapatalk
MitsuharuSan
New member
In all honesty, it'll never please everyone. I don't mean that in a "we're all a bunch of whiny spoiled kids" way; rather, I mean that MK is a series that is old enough to have problems when changing too much... But also being a problem if it stays too long the same. Am I making sense? Hopefully.
We're taking into consideration that the new era features only relevant new characters, but I would like to think that this is valid for previous games too. I don't think that they ever wanted to release a half-assed game with poor characters - but even so, they did. Taking that into consideration, I am afraid of what MK X may be. IMO D'Vorah and Ferra/Torr look to much like comics' characters, and while they may be nice I'm still struggling to see how exactly they fit the MK world. Cassie is OK and she represents elements that are part of the series since, like, ever. Kotal Kahn is interesting since he's a descendant of the friggin' Outworld Emperor and fan-favorite boss Shao Kahn, but I have mixed feelings about his existence. Of course this is all personal opinion but I have a feeling that this is exactly one of the issues when we talk about "new" characters in MK canon: MK4 actually got some (some) new characters right and they did fit the MK world, but after that how many characters are we able to pin down as fitting additions to the series? Seriously, we have a bunch of piss-poor imitations of previous characters, others are extremely generic and then we have a few that may not be imitations or really generic but just won't fit, like Nitara. And so far I'm seeing shades of this issue with the new MK X characters.
I totally agree that the series must move forward in order to be relevant and coexist with newer games! But I have to agree with Tarkatan in that familiar faces make a difference, especially in a series as old as Mortal Kombat. This isn't a spin-off, it's one of the main games - old characters end up making a big difference in the end. I don't think they should fill up half or more of the roster with old faces, but they definitely will have to keep some more names from the past in order to balance everything, otherwise some of you cheering up for MK's "ressurection" will end up being reminded of why exactly the 3D era didn't work until MK 9. This is the fine line that MK walks as a veteran series, by the way. As I said, if it changes too much too fast, it'll fail. If they stay in the past, it'll fail too. The key is in balancing everything until they're ready to move, and therein lies my fear: I really can't agree that the "ultimate massacre" from MK 9 was the way to do it.
PS.: Since I was "around" when Tekken 3 was released, let me say that it worked because Tekken was still fresh AND because they did exactly what I was speaking of previously: the new characters did fit the series' universe and/or had links to previous characters or elements from the series. You can bet that it would have totally failed if it was such a radical change like some MK games did. You just don't go "to hell with you fanbase, I'm going to kill all of your favorites and replace them with new names" and expect it to be a pleasant change. You gotta prepare your fans/players.
We're taking into consideration that the new era features only relevant new characters, but I would like to think that this is valid for previous games too. I don't think that they ever wanted to release a half-assed game with poor characters - but even so, they did. Taking that into consideration, I am afraid of what MK X may be. IMO D'Vorah and Ferra/Torr look to much like comics' characters, and while they may be nice I'm still struggling to see how exactly they fit the MK world. Cassie is OK and she represents elements that are part of the series since, like, ever. Kotal Kahn is interesting since he's a descendant of the friggin' Outworld Emperor and fan-favorite boss Shao Kahn, but I have mixed feelings about his existence. Of course this is all personal opinion but I have a feeling that this is exactly one of the issues when we talk about "new" characters in MK canon: MK4 actually got some (some) new characters right and they did fit the MK world, but after that how many characters are we able to pin down as fitting additions to the series? Seriously, we have a bunch of piss-poor imitations of previous characters, others are extremely generic and then we have a few that may not be imitations or really generic but just won't fit, like Nitara. And so far I'm seeing shades of this issue with the new MK X characters.
I totally agree that the series must move forward in order to be relevant and coexist with newer games! But I have to agree with Tarkatan in that familiar faces make a difference, especially in a series as old as Mortal Kombat. This isn't a spin-off, it's one of the main games - old characters end up making a big difference in the end. I don't think they should fill up half or more of the roster with old faces, but they definitely will have to keep some more names from the past in order to balance everything, otherwise some of you cheering up for MK's "ressurection" will end up being reminded of why exactly the 3D era didn't work until MK 9. This is the fine line that MK walks as a veteran series, by the way. As I said, if it changes too much too fast, it'll fail. If they stay in the past, it'll fail too. The key is in balancing everything until they're ready to move, and therein lies my fear: I really can't agree that the "ultimate massacre" from MK 9 was the way to do it.
PS.: Since I was "around" when Tekken 3 was released, let me say that it worked because Tekken was still fresh AND because they did exactly what I was speaking of previously: the new characters did fit the series' universe and/or had links to previous characters or elements from the series. You can bet that it would have totally failed if it was such a radical change like some MK games did. You just don't go "to hell with you fanbase, I'm going to kill all of your favorites and replace them with new names" and expect it to be a pleasant change. You gotta prepare your fans/players.
Last edited:
sub-one
New member
we already had an anthology. time to move things forward. rehashes get stale after a while. they rewrote mk so they could undo their mistakes with the ps2 era. though its kinda a nod to that era with the fighting styles. Sub'zero's combos look like updates of his MKda and mkD combos with the low kicks and mini uppercut. scorpion's ninjutsu style definitely has some of the same movements as his weapon style from the ps2 mks.
MitsuharuSan
New member
Thanks for the reply. Do we know that for sure, though?
Edit: OK, just saw the Ed Boon "tweet". I'm not into Twitter so I missed it. Thanks for the observation! There goes on of the main reasons why I was intrigued by Kotal Kahn, though.
PapaGreg
New member
https://twitter.com/noobde/status/483254830622707712, also what do you think of the Kove and Outworld market because I see both Dvoaroh and Ferra/Torr fiting in those stages. I could see Dvorah have a nest in the Kove and letting her babies eat on poor unsupecting sailors and I could see Ferra and Tor running the Outworld market and messing with merchants
Marcelino Rodrigues
New member
One thing is Ultra Street Fighter IV with 40 characters, another thing is a Mortal Kombat game with that same number of fighters. MK has never been known as a franchise that could handle such a vast number of characters for competitive play without a considerable part of them looking like copycats in some way or another (Cyber Sub-Zero, I'm looking at you).
- Status