Why is MK2 still largely considered the best of the 2d MKs (including UMK3)?

jbgames

New member
I have to admit it's probably still my fav, with UMK3 in a close second followed by Deception. I think it has to do with the fact it was so much more refined than the original, and redefined 2 player battles in a way. It's a true classic. UMK3 (and MK3 for that matter) added to it with the ground combos and launchers, along with faster, more aggressive gameplay, so it would seem that it would be the best of the bunch, but somehow MK2 perseveringly makes its presence known and its impact be felt.

Any other thoughts or ideas...
 
Hi Jbgames, welcome to the boards. Great first topic too. I agree, somehow MK2 draws me back time and again. Was it the fact that the sheer amount of improvement over the original has not been matched over time. Surely thats not the case, MKDA made MK4 look like the joke it is. The dark, gritty edge was maybe not so apparent in MK3-4. Instead more humorous approaches were taken, maybe that's what defined them. The fact that the modern 3d games play so differently to old school is also a possibility. Whilst still accessable maybe they aren't as much fun at times? For me Kintaro was one of the best boss charecters in video game history, so that might help too. Whaddya think of that?
 
Hey, Fellas. This topic has been brought to light in many different forms, not only on this board but every other MK related forum and site accross the worldwide Net. My personal view is that MK2 is/was the most balanced MK fighting game ever made in terms of all of its components. Good character roster, great sub boss and main boss. Great stories, great fatalities. Awesome special moves and level finishers. And not to forget the few but very cool secret stuff. The game was literally a perfect balancing act when considering all of the above features.

I still play MK3 to death, but I recognise MK2 as the perfect 2D Mk fighting game. My feeling towards this will not change.
 
Last edited:
I've been an advocate for MKII since I very first played it in an arcade at my local bowling alley. It's intro with Kahn standing over a wheeping and begging Shang Tsung captured me. It was such a tremendous improvement over MK1 yet it retained that classic chinese mythological style. MK3 americanized MK and added such streamlined and hollywood characters as Sindel, Nightwolf, and *shudder and cringe* Stryker. It was glitchy and broken as well. But most of all, the artstyle of MK2 keeps my attention the most. The ninjas wear cloth (instead of spandex) and every character fights in his or her own unique style. There was not a single bad character in MK2 and it has the single greatest roster of fatalities of all the MK games (although there were some terrific ones in DA those few bad ones *cough* quan chi's neck stretch *cough* ruined it a bit). I could not find a single fatality I could truly say I did not like to perform in MK2 (although Reptile's invisible slaughter was borderline). And Sub-Zero appeared at his best in MK2 with the inclusion of his ground freeze (the single most useful move ever).
 
"Why is MK2 still largely considered the best of the 2d MKs (including UMK3)?"

Yeah... UMK3 is coming to X-box 360 Live Arcade, not MKII.



My personal view is that MK2 is/was the most balanced MK fighting game ever made in terms of all of its components.
Balance is not one of those things you can have in your personal view. MK2 was not balanced, let alone the MOST balanced. Some characters have little to no use (reptile) while others have very simple strats that can dominate the match (pinning down enemies with aaSai Throw).


-----------

No offense Glamador but I disagree with you on some levels. But first, I must say that MKII was such an improvement over MK1, it IS what really got MK going.

Glamador said:
MK3 americanized MK and added such streamlined and hollywood characters as Sindel, Nightwolf, and *shudder and cringe* Stryker.
It was made in... America, and the intended audience was... America. Although I don't see how nightwolf is a "hollywood" character, "Holywoodness" does sell unfortunately. If there was a game with the title "Paris Hilton" it would sell like crazy, even if the game was about something irrelavent like boat sailling.

Glamador said:
It was glitchy and broken as well.
And MKII wasn't?


Glamador said:
There was not a single bad character in MK2
Reptile
 
Balance is not one of those things you can have in your personal view. MK2 was not balanced, let alone the MOST balanced. Some characters have little to no use (reptile) while others have very simple strats that can dominate the match (pinning down enemies with aaSai Throw).
He asked for my opinion, And I gave it. My personal view is that MK2 was balanced in the sum of all it's parts. I did not say that it was balanced in terms of individual characters. That is another issue altogether. Granted that some players were better than others but you get that in every fighting game. But I liked them all.
 
He asked for my opinion, And I gave it. My personal view is that MK2 was balanced in the sum of all it's parts. I did not say that it was balanced in terms of individual characters. That is another issue altogether. Granted that some players were better than others but you get that in every fighting game. But I liked them all.

Yeah spot on. I also thought that just about all of the kombatants were good to go with some easy tricks to hook up specials into damaging combos.
 
Reptile was easy to win with on MK2. Force ball, slide, very useful indeed.

Punishable too. The forceball is worthless is most situations. It explodes automaticly when it get's close to the opponent. You can even jump directly into it and chances are it will explode to soon and nothing will happen.

You can jump over the forceball and the sliding reptile and turnaround kick reptile during his slide or recovery animations. There your options grow. Here is something you could do if you happen to be Scorpion.

http://www.zippyvideos.com/1802951545896426/movie/
(no audio)
That's nearly 50% damage, well deserved for making a bad decision like that.

He asked for my opinion, And I gave it. My personal view is that MK2 was balanced in the sum of all it's parts. I did not say that it was balanced in terms of individual characters. That is another issue altogether. Granted that some players were better than others but you get that in every fighting game. But I liked them all.
Yeah, I know where your coming from. It's opinion. But I just don't see how something like balance can be an opinion. Balance means all aspects, like you said. That means it covers anything and it could only be one or the other. Personal views barely fit into that subject. Get what I'm saying?

Edit: Anway, I love talking about all this stuff. It's not often people actually talk about the mechanics about a game rather than who their favorite character is. Any more discusion is encouraged. :D
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't know why you're bashing Reptile. Forceball is unbelievably useful. Much like Sub-Zero's freeze you have to create a situation in which your enemy cannot counter, avoid, or block it. It is a move which truly shines when meant to be used in a combo and I agree it is quite useless as a standalone move. Reptile's head eater fatality was just plain amazing too. *Crunch*
 
I have to conform and agree with the majority that MK2 was the Best of the MK's (let alone the 2d's alone). There was something about it that made it insanely amazing. Was it the difficulty I had with it for so many years, and still do? Was it how I almost died when Lui Kang did his Disco dance? Was it how many new moves improved gameplay by so much over MK1, and how MK3 didn't follow up as well move-wise? Or was it how every character could be used in a way that you could beat any other... Even the slightly over powered Lui Kang and Kitana (****ing arial throws? Are you kidding me?)? It was all of these combined, along with memorable new characters like Mileena and Baraka, and Kintaro and Shao Kahn. It was insanely enjoyable, and still is for at least one MK fan (yo :P).
 
Great replies everyone! This board seems pretty cool so far. Much better, more mature discussion than IGN's MK board *ughhh*. I hope MK2 becomes available for Xbox Live Arcade too, since vs. matches in it are in a way superior to even UMK3.

I also agree about Reptile; he's a very good character in the hands of an experienced player.
 
A few facts:

MKII is a broken, unbalanced fighting game with a fan base comprised of people who cannot adequately or tangibly explain why it is a great game.

UMK3 is a more balanced fighting game than MKII, and the most competitive game in the MK series.

Reptile is the lowest ranked/least effective character in MKII in terms of competitive play.

UMK3 has far deeper, faster, more complex, more varied gameplay than MKII, therefore it is impossible for MKII matches to be superior to/more impressive than UMK3 because not nearly as much is possible.

Overall game and character balance is not a topic open for opinion once a game has been completely explored. MKII has been completely explored.
 
Last edited:
Um...ok. Who cares if some people think that Reptile is low tier ranked player in MK2. He is an awesome character, dude. Story-wise and concept-wise. Really, who cares if some people think he's crap or good. The fact remains that he fits into the MK Universe perfectly. For better or for worse. I love Reptile. Competitive wise or not. Although I did hate everything about him in MKDA.

MK2 is a great game and there's not really any need to explain why. I just enjoy playing it. UMK3 has got alot more to offer in general. But I still play all of them regardless. One thing I do prefer is the run button in UMK3. Even now, when playing MK2, I always go to hit the run button. Lol
 
Last edited:
The point here is, you cannot compare character storyline, overall game storyline, character designs, between two different references, and still say you are comparing video games. It then becomes something entirely different, as in "Which Mortal Kombat game did you LIKE more than the others." Like, enjoy, prefer, etc, have nothing to do with a game being good, because the words, "good", "better", and "best" have nothing to do with "opinion." When someone says "I liked MK1 the best" they are using the term "the best" incorrectly. Best implies measurable and quantifiable limitation.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=opinion&x=0&y=0

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=best&x=0&y=0

As you can see, it is possible for them to be completely unrelated.

When you compare games, you have to look at the gameplay first and foremost. It's the only measurable aspect of the game. Gameplay includes:

Character Count. The more characters in a game, the more chance there is for variety. More does not always present variety however.

On the fly options. Not gameplay modes or difficulty etc, things you can do in the game, to turn a match around, or get out of a situation. This can be considered to be described as the overall game's engine.

Playability differences per character. Human Smoke and Scorpion are virtually identical upon looking at them and their moes, but Human Smoke is ranked #2 in UMK3 and Scorpion is ranked #14. The reason for this is Human Smoke's combos, and a little bit based upon his faster walking speed (ie: even if Scorp had the pop up he still wouldn't be able to perform every combo Human Smoke can)

Tier list. This is something that eventually becomes an established fact. MKII's tier list is set in stone and has been for years. The reason I point out that Reptile is the worst character in MKII is because someone said there wasn't a single bad character in MKII as a reason to like it. This is because they aren't aware of high level play. MKII's top tier consists of Mileena and Jax. Kitana has some usage as well, but not to the same level as MJ. UMK3's top 10 tier list changed significantly this year due to combo discoveries.

It is great that people still play all the 2D MK games, but when saying whether one is better than another, you can't just base it on things that a multitude of people can disagree on. There are plenty of aspects that have been described in this thread in which people can just as easily say "But I think that is better in MKD than MKII." In all honesty, the way everyone here talks about MKII, that hat should really be given to MKDA because it's superior to MKII in every conceivable way. But even still, MKDA's variety doesn't compare to UMK3's overall gameplay and tier list.

I understand it seems like an elitest concept but I have explained on countless threads why UMK3 is the best MK game ever made. It's not about graphics, sounds, fatalities, stages, storyline, character designs, etc, because anyone can have an opinion on which they like better in what game.

Gameplay mechanics cannot be argued, and you simply have to take people's word when they know more about the games that others. I myself think that MKII's atmosphere (even including the time frame in which it was released in the arcade) is a big factor. I think MKII had more intentionally violent fatalities, in most cases, people think this is better. There are however people who don't care about fatalities at all since they have nothing to do with gameplay. I understand that there are also people who don't care about gameplay at all, in which case, there leaves very little reason for them to play fighting games, except Mortal Kombat. MKII introduced blatantly "attractive" characters, like Baraka, Kung Lao, and the female Ninjas.

I think what people would have wanted with MK3 was to have the entire cast of MKII return, plus Kano and Sonya, and keep all the original fatalities, and add more. Then there is another factor, the way MK3 presents the fatalities. On top of the new fatalities being hokey in most cases, even the old fatalities were made comical. For instance, look at Reptile's "Eat" fatality. In MKII, it was a simple head eat, with a very sinister sound to it for each part, the tongue lash, the crunch, and the "mmm" all very well placed. Would fans have been satisfied if this was completely preserved in UMK3? No. They would say it's recycled garbage and complain anyway. Instead, in UMK3 Reptile's Eat fatality had multiple parts, and Reptile's head morphs to enormous size as he does it. I mean, people complain that the people's bodies don't fall down after being decapitated? Is it that important? Obviously the developers didn't think so because they clearely focused on making a good game over good fatalities.

The things that separate MKII from UMK3 in the eyes of MK fans: Fatalities, new and non returning characters. There are expandable arguments all over the internet about this, and that's all well and good since it's all opinion based.

The thing that separates MKII from UMK3 in the eyes of MK players: The gameplay. Mechanically, MKII is in no way a contender to UMK3.
 
Last edited:
The point here is, you cannot compare character storyline, overall game storyline, character designs, between two different references, and still say you are comparing video games. It then becomes something entirely different, as in "Which Mortal Kombat game did you LIKE more than the others." Like, enjoy, prefer, etc, have nothing to do with a game being good, because the words, "good", "better", and "best" have nothing to do with "opinion." When someone says "I liked MK1 the best" they are using the term "the best" incorrectly. Best implies measurable and quantifiable limitation.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=opinion&x=0&y=0

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=best&x=0&y=0

As you can see, it is possible for them to be completely unrelated.

When you compare games, you have to look at the gameplay first and foremost. It's the only measurable aspect of the game. Gameplay includes:

Character Count. The more characters in a game, the more chance there is for variety. More does not always present variety however.

On the fly options. Not gameplay modes or difficulty etc, things you can do in the game, to turn a match around, or get out of a situation. This can be considered to be described as the overall game's engine.

Playability differences per character. Human Smoke and Scorpion are virtually identical upon looking at them and their moes, but Human Smoke is ranked #2 in UMK3 and Scorpion is ranked #14. The reason for this is Human Smoke's combos, and a little bit based upon his faster walking speed (ie: even if Scorp had the pop up he still wouldn't be able to perform every combo Human Smoke can)

Tier list. This is something that eventually becomes an established fact. MKII's tier list is set in stone and has been for years. The reason I point out that Reptile is the worst character in MKII is because someone said there wasn't a single bad character in MKII as a reason to like it. This is because they aren't aware of high level play. MKII's top tier consists of Mileena and Jax. Kitana has some usage as well, but not to the same level as MJ. UMK3's top 10 tier list changed significantly this year due to combo discoveries.

It is great that people still play all the 2D MK games, but when saying whether one is better than another, you can't just base it on things that a multitude of people can disagree on. There are plenty of aspects that have been described in this thread in which people can just as easily say "But I think that is better in MKD than MKII." In all honesty, the way everyone here talks about MKII, that hat should really be given to MKDA because it's superior to MKII in every conceivable way. But even still, MKDA's variety doesn't compare to UMK3's overall gameplay and tier list.

I understand it seems like an elitest concept but I have explained on countless threads why UMK3 is the best MK game ever made. It's not about graphics, sounds, fatalities, stages, storyline, character designs, etc, because anyone can have an opinion on which they like better in what game.

Gameplay mechanics cannot be argued, and you simply have to take people's word when they know more about the games that others. I myself think that MKII's atmosphere (even including the time frame in which it was released in the arcade) is a big factor. I think MKII had more intentionally violent fatalities, in most cases, people think this is better. There are however people who don't care about fatalities at all since they have nothing to do with gameplay. I understand that there are also people who don't care about gameplay at all, in which case, there leaves very little reason for them to play fighting games, except Mortal Kombat. MKII introduced blatantly "attractive" characters, like Baraka, Kung Lao, and the female Ninjas.

I think what people would have wanted with MK3 was to have the entire cast of MKII return, plus Kano and Sonya, and keep all the original fatalities, and add more. Then there is another factor, the way MK3 presents the fatalities. On top of the new fatalities being hokey in most cases, even the old fatalities were made comical. For instance, look at Reptile's "Eat" fatality. In MKII, it was a simple head eat, with a very sinister sound to it for each part, the tongue lash, the crunch, and the "mmm" all very well placed. Would fans have been satisfied if this was completely preserved in UMK3? No. They would say it's recycled garbage and complain anyway. Instead, in UMK3 Reptile's Eat fatality had multiple parts, and Reptile's head morphs to enormous size as he does it. I mean, people complain that the people's bodies don't fall down after being decapitated? Is it that important? Obviously the developers didn't think so because they clearely focused on making a good game over good fatalities.

The things that separate MKII from UMK3 in the eyes of MK fans: Fatalities, new and non returning characters. There are expandable arguments all over the internet about this, and that's all well and good since it's all opinion based.

The thing that separates MKII from UMK3 in the eyes of MK players: The gameplay. Mechanically, MKII is in no way a contender to UMK3.



I think the main thing with MK2 is that it was the installment that legitimized the series as a solid fighter. It was unique and it worked. MK3 expanded on that, but was still more or less the same. The next big change wouldn't be until MK: DA, which was also very good but a different era. I'm still looking forward to MK: A but the classics (MK2, (U)MK3) will always be my favorites.
 
As far as I'm concerned the MK series has gotten better with every new game (not including the 'mythologies' games). MK1 was really pretty crappy compared to Street Fighter II Turbo, which sat on my shelf along side it. I had asked for Super Street Fighter II for christmas, and due to it's over-the-top sales, my parents bought me MKII instead. It was pretty good, but not perfect. I preferred MK3 a few years later, as it seemed faster and easier to play, and when UMK3 came out it improved it a great deal, as I've always been a fan of Pallete Swap Ninjas (hence why my first KAK will be Tremor). Then MKT perfected MK3 completely.
MK4 was slain by the critics but I loved it. I liked how the series had progressed away from the whole Outworld/Shao Kahn storyline, and I loved the FMV endings, as poorly animated as they were. Shinnok was a great boss, and it was great to see Goro again. Until then, this was the MK I played the most. Again, MKG took this and perfected it.
I was sceptical over MKDA, as I don't particularly like change, but it was great, and MKD was the best yet.
So I'm pissing into the wind here, but I think MK2 is the second worst game of the series
 
Top