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

One thing I hated most about MK3 upgrading to UMK3 was the pacing from the AI. That was really shitty and it was annoying. I also liked MK4/Gold, man. Great game with alot of kool features. Remember, MK1 may look and play like shit to some, but this one game started a phenomena that has brought us all here today just 5 weeks before MKA' release. I always like Shinnok as a character, but not as a boss. He has some very nice fatalites.

Like you, I also want to create Tremor. Did you see this fake with him in it, dude? Note he's the biggest of all the Ninjas?

Please click the below thumbnail to view the larger image.

Thumb resize.
Click To Enlarge
 
...

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.

To be honest, you present a pretty solid argument. I'm finding myself having a hard time coming up with strong enough opposition, and my qualms with your definition of "best" are just short of niggling.

However, I am still going to argue that gameplay can not be broken down strictly to mechanics. My biggest beef is that you are discounting accessibility as part of the gameplay and therefore as a measurement of what makes a game the "best." To me, UMK3 added far too much to the mechanics resulting in a game that is damaging to its position. This is in fact why I like MKII more, despite all of the extras added in UMK3. Complexity be damned if the learning curve is too high.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.



I understand what you mean here. But saying MK2 is more of an adventure game than a fighting game is kind of a stretch as well. It's by no means as deep as Tekken or even Street Fighter for example, but that's irrelevent due to the fact that it invented a new fighting engine with the juggle system. In my opinion this system still took a lot of skill to master. I for one was never really impressed by fighting games that sported a huge number of moves, half of which are hardly used in actual matches or even practical to begin with. The MK series, particularly with 2 & 3, made the most of the few moves available and focused more on incorporating them into the combo system. Think about it, a 5 hit corner combo in MK2 is definitely as difficult if not more difficult in some cases to pull off as a 10 hit string out of Tekken 2. For this reason I consider MK2 (and 3) to be pound-for-pound more challenging than most other fighters out there. These days (especially with competition from the latest MK installments) the only thing other fighters like Tekken, Soul Caliber, Virtua Fighter, etc. have going for them is more moves. And more moves to me just means quantity over quality, and more memorization required than anything. So yes, in this way they offer more depth, and I can see why they garner a massive following.

In the end though it's all up to the fighting fan and what they consider to be a more fun game.
 
Yeah, I'd always go Fun=Better. No fun, then what am I doing it for, it's not supposed to be work. I am not a robot. (unless...)

Actually, to be honest one of the things that killed UMK3 for me was that it was tooooo cheesy, I like cheese, but not that much. Like I said, the grittyness and presentation was why I still prefer MK2. Maybe also the fantasy element of a ruined earth is not as good as another realm. Felt more like MK features in Dawn of the Dead. I'm quite glad we are past palette swapping and Ninja/Lin Kieu/whatever kombatants are presented differently as it made appearances of them dull. And a tiny difference between two charecters (Human Smoke/Scorpian) is lazy at best regardless of which game.

As far as feature went: Kombat Kodes sucked and the secrets were more fun in MK2. Animalities were a poxy addition. For me, the more fun the better. Yay, I mastered all of Tekken 5's big combos but I still want to play TTT more, why? FUN. Dial-a-kombo, gee didn't they improve on that in MK4, let alone that I found them boring. Would of rathered the single big pop-up dizzy blow or the proper combos they have now.

Doesn't matter what tier a charecter is, just makes it more of a challenge to win, which is also fun. I hate Street Fighter players because I only ever see them select the upper tiers and they are as boring as blocks of wood. Whoopee doo it's the Firecracker for the umpteenth million time. Blocked though.
 
Complexity always makes a game better, and MKII had the biggest leap in that area. That's probably why MKII is known for really getting the genre going.

Since people are starting to think less and less about gameplay and more and more about graphics and stuff, gameplay is not the only thing that determines how good a game is. Since people like different things in a game, it comes out to what the majority likes. A better game has more aspects than just gameplay. Magazines can rate games however they want, one could give it a solid ten and another can rate the same game pretty low. It's like their opinions of the best. Same thing with any particular concept, like visuals. What makes good visuals? Color? Texture? Pixels? Smoothness? Let's say two games both have very good graphics, but one is better in some areas vs the other and Vice Versa. It would depend on what area you prefer. Gameplay can be broken down similarly, what makes good gameplay? Fun? Complexity? Those two are very different factors. In fact, they are opposite. You can have those "Pick up and play" games and you can have those "you have to be good at it" games. Both have their pros and cons on gameplay, but they are opposite.
 
I must admit though, MK3 beats out MK2 in terms of fun, and gameplay. And in fact, is no more cheesy than MK2. I have an easier time beating the cpu on master ladder in MK3 than default in MK2. It may seem cheesier simply because there's more options available to exploit that cheese...but likewise there are also more options available to counter it.

After playing through both again, I'd say the only major advantages of MK2 are that it established that classic feel, made the juggle system completely playable and legitimized the series. It is the foundation, so to speak. MK1 dug the hole, MK2 set the foundation, and MK3 built the first floor. It keeps expanding upon the previous installments. I still enjoy playing MK2, but I actually prefer playing (U)MK3 the most out of all of them so far. I personally think it's the fastest, most engaging and competitive one yet.
 
I must admit though, MK3 beats out MK2 in terms of fun, and gameplay. And in fact, is no more cheesy than MK2. I have an easier time beating the cpu on master ladder in MK3 than default in MK2. It may seem cheesier simply because there's more options available to exploit that cheese...but likewise there are also more options available to counter it.

After playing through both again, I'd say the only major advantages of MK2 are that it established that classic feel, made the juggle system completely playable and legitimized the series. It is the foundation, so to speak. MK1 dug the hole, MK2 set the foundation, and MK3 built the first floor. It keeps expanding upon the previous installments. I still enjoy playing MK2, but I actually prefer playing (U)MK3 the most out of all of them so far. I personally think it's the fastest, most engaging and competitive one yet.

What I mean by cheesy is in terms of presentation. Kombat Kodes, animalities, sillier Fatals and Friendships, too silly at times. Almost kiddy.
 
Yeah, dark and harsh is the way to go. As long as the Kreate A Fatal doesn't feature neck stretch. I'd love my MK2 favourite of Kung Lao slice in half to be an option, defined the character really. I also like the stage fatals a lot more on MK2 then 1,3 or 4. (Note that I love the modern death traps)
 
Top