Kain, I understand why you would say something like that in terms of gameplay additions being too much, but remember, MK3 was around for a while before UMK3, and the major additions to gameplay in MK3 were combos, and Run. RH's still operated the same in the corners, there were no JP or straight up JK combo starters in MK3. The juggle system was also tightened in MK3 which was something to get use to. Damage protection is something that was inherent to the game, you didn't have to get use to it, you had to find ways around it, or deal with it when it wasn't possible. When UMK3 came out, it changed some very specific things about MK3 that were in need of fixing, it added corner push back for roundhouses (similar to the uppercut but not a complete crippling of the move), the jumping starters. All other gameplay changes essentially are character specific between MK3 and UMK3, and in some instances MKII to both games. In all fighting games, if characters return and have the same moves, they generally try to find ways to balance them because of input from competitive players.
My point is, the jump from MK1 to MKII was just as far a leap in terms of gameplay as it was for MKII to MK3, and no one complains about that because MK1 was so terrible. If you played MK1, and enjoyed/accepted the necessary changes to MKII, then think of MK3 being the same gameplay overhaul to MKII that it was to MK1. You should be able to accept MK3 as a necessary evolution in gameplay at the very least, having had enough time spent with MKII to completely acquaint yourself with the game. UMK3 was not as big a leap from MK3 but it was enough to require some significant re-examining of the game. There should be little trouble adapting to UMK3 after MK3.
I'm sorry that I look at things in such concrete ways, but I really think there is a certain intelligence level behind serious fighting game fans, and people can recognize what a better game is when presented with the two, comparing them as is. Honestly, the vast majority of fighting game fans prefer games far more complex than UMK3. This is part of how I define "best". It's not just my opinion, the opinion of countless fighting game players. People who have never played any MK game, but have a wealth of experience in others would be able to tell you after a few minutes of comparison which is the better game because it is that obvious. I have far more experience with MKII gameplay than most MK players. I spent countless hours playing people in it before MK3 came out because I liked the game. When MK3 came out, I didn't like MKII anymore, there was no reason to play it because it just doesn't have what I need in a fighting game for it to be good. It is no coincidence that probably 99 out of 100 fighting game players share that feeling.
MKII can not pull its weight as a fighter, and I cannot think of a term adequate enough to describe what MKII atcually is. It's almost like an adventure game to some people, but in that sense it is also limited. It's the hybrid of adventure/fighting which is why I think they made Shaolin Monks.
IMHO, if UMK3 was a bunch of stick figures with no sound effects on a solid background, it'd still be more fun to play than MKII. And as I've said many times, there's nothing wrong with thinking MKII is awesome, because it is, it's just not a good fighting game based upon expert opinion, and that was my opinion before I cared about experts.