Worst MK release???
- Thread starter Tim Static
- Start date
MKF30-mkdc
New member
Wrong. You DID flame not to mention you just contradicted yourself....First off, anyone that takes Urban dictionary seriously is a freaking retard.....LMAO wow, so now you're resorting to "Urban Dictionary" for guidance? Pathetic much? UD is nothing more then an underground website for definitions of dumb, slang words made up by people who don't understand or use the REAL English language......Secondly, actually you did flame obviously you have no clue as to what the definition of "flaming is"
Flaming-insulting another party( as you EVEN admitted), cursing another user in a nasty matter on a forum, putting them down or instigating/baiting them online via websites, forums, message boards or blogs. It's just another word for insulting. Thus why it's not allowed on MOST forums/sites, or until the mods get irritated by it. Perhaps you didn't see that thread on here even few months back that got closed due to flaming? yeah.... Live and learn kid. Because you obviously still need to learn what the real definition of flaming is, and yes you did flame me ok there" mr. Pompous" btw, I actually did read what you called an argument the last post. It just comes down to you having none and calling me "a pompous baffoon" quite a few times and still doing so hoping that makes up for your lack there of an argument all together....when all it really does is show everyone how pathetic you sound for not fully understanding or debating for that matter in a mature fashion.
Now you're just repeating what I have been trying to get thru to you the past 4 posts or so yet FINALLY you seem to understand? OMG...miracle. Now you're saying "Thing is no game with CRAPPY gameplay is going to be good" ummm hello? That's what I've been saying the past few posts I've made already, you can have everything else in there from art to voiceacting...it won't mean diddly doo unless the gameplay is there. So, what's your point other then repeating what I've already told you countless times now?
As far as MKD compared to MKA, let me tell ya something despite what any popular "gaming site, or mag" says they DON'T know shit half the time about gameplay, balance, what works and doesn't. They're simply people PAID for their opinions on gaming, period. You think a reviewer will know more then an elite, high level MK, SF, SC etc player? I think not....MKD got rated higher according to "popular game sits/mags" so what? The reasons I'll tell ya for that were A.improved konquest, B. nostalgic characters back and C. ONLINE play. That's the only reasons why they rated MKD higher then MKA and NOT from a gameplay point of view because if they actually knew the problems in MKD they would laugh at it.
It still doesn't prove anything especially without reasonable explaination other then "they're liking for the game or not" which is great, you like it or don't like it...now how about a logical explanation on the gameplay since that defines how the game actually ummm...plays.
To reviewers, they saw MKA as a good game but nothing "much different from MKD due to the engine" yes...thanks for stating the obvious, now here's the real truth and what they neglect. I've seen them put down GOOD games such as a Mario sports game, yet funny elsewhere I'll read they're good, fun games....opinions-opinions. But the truth of the matter is "reviewers" and "testers" are two different things. Not to mention since they have to play, review TONS of games that come out they won't have the time to "analyze" one game, thus they can't know everything within the game like someone like Check can. I'll get to who he is in a sec.
As a competitive player, and understanding the mechanics, what works, balance, glitches etc MKA IS better then MKD. This is undeniable FACT. As far as gameplay is concerned, why? simple, like I mentioned earlier horrible glitches like OTGs(off the ground hits that you can't block), FT's(free throws), infinites( something you can't get out of) that were in MKD made it HORRIBLY UNBALANCED, glitchy to hell and so many characters had easy as pie infinites a 5th grader could do it.....that's pretty bad. Now, MKA implemented "wake up game" and "parry" to actually counter and play more defensively(which MKD lacked in bigtime) and offers the player more options, thus makes MKA easily the better game in that department.
Also, if you don't believe me. Please, by all means Glamador ask a guy on youtube or MKO named Check. He's the most respected, well known "glitch discoverly" and combo king you'll find out of the 3D games. He has TONS of vids on there literally showing, explaining why MKA is better, combos, what works and doesn't etc, etc. I also know him personally as a friend, he knows his shit and was one of the guys I took "gameplay advice" from and formed my own style to be competitive online.
Now, in saying that MKA is not perfect, it has some problems with AC(air cancelling) who not all online players even use btw, only some which allows you to get more damage, free throws which most online players consider moot overall since you can avoid them in MKA with the prior hit being parried(as oppose to MKD where you couldn't escape or dodge them at all other then "guessing right and getting lucky") OTG's and plants are pretty much gone in MKA, and easy infinites are only a few and minimal such as Jades throw, teleport move, throw etc. Quan's corner and Hotaru's but again, this compared to MKD's amount of infinites isn't comparable....which was I believe around 800 or so, something around there. I'll have to ask Check again but yeah...MKD=broken mess MKA=actually playable.
Between Bo, N/S alone who have tons of infinites between them on top of being the top guys in the game own everyone. Dairou also is a top tier. Those 3 own everything in MKD, much to the ignorance of "reviewers that think MKD is better then MKA"
Now, as far as other things like say presentation, art, voice acting, mini games, KAK, konquest etc, etc by all means that's all about personal opinion and preference. So, if one wants to love MKD or more then MKA fine. But please don't say bs like MKD is better gameplay wise then MKA because that's simply not true to put it lightly.
I'll give you a fast chart pertaining to strickly gameplay for the 3D MK's.
MK
A-best 3D MK balance wise and glitch amount wiseMK
- easily the best 3D MK game online wise being the first(less lag then MKA and plays smoother, and MKA has no online period) but most broken, horrible gameplay wise, glitch wise and infinite wise.MK:A-Best 3D MK game in terms of character amount, defensive options offered to the player with wake up, parries and a jumping system that doesn't feel like you're fighting in mud like the previous 2 prior to MK:A
That's the deal gameplay wise, if you want to enjoy one over the other for other reasons...by all means go right ahead, but gameplay wise these are the facts about the above 3D MK games. But hey, if you're just going to repeat yourself calling me pompous and ignoring anything I've said I might as well ignore you all together.
Glamador
New member
Is he nuts? Can anybody tell me if it's me or him? I think he's nuts.
Now I pretty much know you're just trying to bait me. You're using straw man arguements for the first few paragraphs of that last post. And you clearly misunderstand the definition of flaming. All you've really said was that MKA has more balanced gameplay. A fact I never once disputed. And again you fail to even mention my balance criteria or even acknowledge that I've said anything like it.
Let me give you an overview of the Straw Man logical falacy. You start by putting up a "straw man" which is to say, you display a position contrary to your own (the "man") which is extremely flimsy and easy to argue against (Hence, made of straw). With each progressing post I've steadily destroyed everything you keep trying to say and yet you continue to repeat your original mission statement over and over. You misquote me, you overgeneralize from irefutable points (in this case, that high level testers and glitchers agree that MKA has fewer game-breaking glitches than MKD), and you refuse to acknowledge or even attempt to refute my claims.
The only conclusions I can draw are
1: You are a moron. (Not calling you a moron, just one of the possibilities)
2: You are in denial of the ludicrous nature of your posts.
3: You are aware of how terrible your arguement is and merely want to salvage what's left of it.
4: You are attempting to get a rise out of me. But I'm just enjoying being so very right.
5: You believe that better gameplay and balance makes a better game. If this is the case, then I really do feel sorry for you.
Now, onto what I have to say (and this is my final point, unless you bring up a new one). Let's set up a scenario. Say they took away all bios, endings, krypt, konquest, Kart racing, and textures leaving only blank models (with movesets intact mind you) and stages that amount to a white floor with raised white polygons for obstacles no victory animations and only a "YOU WIN" message when you knock an opponent out off the stage (deathtraps, if there were graphics). Now, by your standards if those boring white models fighting on a boring white stage have better balance but still use the MKA engine, it would be a better game. No. It is absolutely not. It would not just be critically panned, it would be panned by almost everybody. Everybody except people like you, who would play it because it has great balance.
The thing is, games are a visual/auditory/interactive medium. First we had pictures, a visual medium. Then we had books. We also have music, an auditory medium. People combined books and music into theatre plays, operas, and the like. Eventually we learned to make films, combining pictures with books and music to form a new medium. Games combine what you have in movies with interactivity creating a unique method of entertainment and mental stimulation. You can't have a great movie with a crappy story or poor visuals. You can't have a great play without a great story and great actors. You can't judge a game based only on one element of it's creation.
You view a game like a sport, a competitive venture where testing your mettle against your fellow gamer (and I use that term lightly with you, you're more like an athlete) takes precedence. If you change the rules of a sport in an attempt to rebalance it then people will judge it's merit solely on it's affect on the game, since sports have no picture, music, or book elements padding out the experience. But what about games where you can't compete? Where balance isn't an issue? Do you have a different criteria for grading them?
The point I'm trying to drive home to you is this. Yes, no game will survive with crappy gameplay. But it is another LOGICAL FALACY to apply that to it's inverse. That is to say, a great game is great only because it has great gameplay. Do you see the error there? No, I shouldn't ask you a question. Then you might answer and I'll have to repeat myself again. Just answer that one in your head.
Now I pretty much know you're just trying to bait me. You're using straw man arguements for the first few paragraphs of that last post. And you clearly misunderstand the definition of flaming. All you've really said was that MKA has more balanced gameplay. A fact I never once disputed. And again you fail to even mention my balance criteria or even acknowledge that I've said anything like it.
Let me give you an overview of the Straw Man logical falacy. You start by putting up a "straw man" which is to say, you display a position contrary to your own (the "man") which is extremely flimsy and easy to argue against (Hence, made of straw). With each progressing post I've steadily destroyed everything you keep trying to say and yet you continue to repeat your original mission statement over and over. You misquote me, you overgeneralize from irefutable points (in this case, that high level testers and glitchers agree that MKA has fewer game-breaking glitches than MKD), and you refuse to acknowledge or even attempt to refute my claims.
The only conclusions I can draw are
1: You are a moron. (Not calling you a moron, just one of the possibilities)
2: You are in denial of the ludicrous nature of your posts.
3: You are aware of how terrible your arguement is and merely want to salvage what's left of it.
4: You are attempting to get a rise out of me. But I'm just enjoying being so very right.
5: You believe that better gameplay and balance makes a better game. If this is the case, then I really do feel sorry for you.
Now, onto what I have to say (and this is my final point, unless you bring up a new one). Let's set up a scenario. Say they took away all bios, endings, krypt, konquest, Kart racing, and textures leaving only blank models (with movesets intact mind you) and stages that amount to a white floor with raised white polygons for obstacles no victory animations and only a "YOU WIN" message when you knock an opponent out off the stage (deathtraps, if there were graphics). Now, by your standards if those boring white models fighting on a boring white stage have better balance but still use the MKA engine, it would be a better game. No. It is absolutely not. It would not just be critically panned, it would be panned by almost everybody. Everybody except people like you, who would play it because it has great balance.
The thing is, games are a visual/auditory/interactive medium. First we had pictures, a visual medium. Then we had books. We also have music, an auditory medium. People combined books and music into theatre plays, operas, and the like. Eventually we learned to make films, combining pictures with books and music to form a new medium. Games combine what you have in movies with interactivity creating a unique method of entertainment and mental stimulation. You can't have a great movie with a crappy story or poor visuals. You can't have a great play without a great story and great actors. You can't judge a game based only on one element of it's creation.
You view a game like a sport, a competitive venture where testing your mettle against your fellow gamer (and I use that term lightly with you, you're more like an athlete) takes precedence. If you change the rules of a sport in an attempt to rebalance it then people will judge it's merit solely on it's affect on the game, since sports have no picture, music, or book elements padding out the experience. But what about games where you can't compete? Where balance isn't an issue? Do you have a different criteria for grading them?
The point I'm trying to drive home to you is this. Yes, no game will survive with crappy gameplay. But it is another LOGICAL FALACY to apply that to it's inverse. That is to say, a great game is great only because it has great gameplay. Do you see the error there? No, I shouldn't ask you a question. Then you might answer and I'll have to repeat myself again. Just answer that one in your head.
Angel
New member
I'll side with Glamador on this one: "a great game is great only because it has great gameplay" is completely absurd.
I've known a few good games where the gameplay was rubbish yet the game was still enjoyable for one reason or another. Games should be played as their name sake suggests; for fun. I can't think of a better example of pure crap thats fun then Smash Bros. Visionally and game play wise is one of the worst fighting games ever and is purely made to satitisfy fans. I could go on and list the reasons why its bad, but I won't. But why do I play it? Because its fun to me.
Another example is my old nemsis"Fatal Frame/Project Zero" particulay the PS versions. Gameplay wise... Man do they stink on the PS controllers, but I enjoy them because their the only game that can scare me. I have to stop after every encounter to calm down, but its fun for this reason. This is the atmosphere built up by the game, not the gameplay, making it fun.
I've found in the last 8 years, shoot 'em ups have become dull and boring yet they hav good gameplay (mostly). Simply because going around shooting people bores me. I need a change of pace and its no fun because in order to get a good game experience you have to go on-line, and there you met the cheaters... I gave up on them when I entered a game where about 40-60% of the people were cheating. I wasn't enjoying myself anyway.
And as for gameplay wise as an issue, most of that has been lost in the 2D to 3D transition. I find 2D platformers still more fun then 3D ones because the gameplay was simple (not always better).
I've known a few good games where the gameplay was rubbish yet the game was still enjoyable for one reason or another. Games should be played as their name sake suggests; for fun. I can't think of a better example of pure crap thats fun then Smash Bros. Visionally and game play wise is one of the worst fighting games ever and is purely made to satitisfy fans. I could go on and list the reasons why its bad, but I won't. But why do I play it? Because its fun to me.
Another example is my old nemsis"Fatal Frame/Project Zero" particulay the PS versions. Gameplay wise... Man do they stink on the PS controllers, but I enjoy them because their the only game that can scare me. I have to stop after every encounter to calm down, but its fun for this reason. This is the atmosphere built up by the game, not the gameplay, making it fun.
I've found in the last 8 years, shoot 'em ups have become dull and boring yet they hav good gameplay (mostly). Simply because going around shooting people bores me. I need a change of pace and its no fun because in order to get a good game experience you have to go on-line, and there you met the cheaters... I gave up on them when I entered a game where about 40-60% of the people were cheating. I wasn't enjoying myself anyway.
And as for gameplay wise as an issue, most of that has been lost in the 2D to 3D transition. I find 2D platformers still more fun then 3D ones because the gameplay was simple (not always better).
I guess we also need a thread on the worst PORT because there are a difference between releases and ports of games. There were some TERRIBLE ports.
MKF30-mkdc
New member
@ Angel, that's fine but I'm guessing from that view you don't care about gameplay? You'd rather have other things above gameplay? Is that right? Just want to make sure dude, you're entitled don't get me wrong just saying. Gameplay is how the actual game plays, so if it plays shitty then the game will suck overall. I mean, by that logic just want to make an example here it's not absurd because E.T. the game "must rock" then for being a good idea...that failed horribly and fell flat on it's face. Understand what I'm saying bud? : )
I'm not trying to bait anything, just merely trying to get a simple, logical point that's obviously
A. going completely over your head
B. you're purposely ignoring and being an idiot
C. Just posting on and on for the sake of arguing
D.Doing all of the above, thus makes your argument completely moot
Who's in denial of posts? lol and they're no ludacrous when they hold water, lots of water. Obviously you've made it quite clear that you don't care much about gameplay initially then you altered your view which I'll get to in a sec? You like other things about vid games, art, presentation etc which you've clearly said(so please don't attempt to deny I have you even quoted in prior posts)....then you later on after saying otherwise in my previous post, I have you quoted saying what I've been telling you for the past 10 posts now roughly) so now you're just sounding a bit hypocritical and contradicting yourself a bit.
I'm saying gameplay is important in ALL games, depsite WHICH level you play it on, despite which genre the game is. So, no I'm not viewing it as a "a sport" but still even a simple game like say Bowling(that can be played for fun or competitively) you will still A. find a ball that suits you B. Wear shoes that fit you and feel comfortable and C. Try you best right?
Yet, who said anything about "strickly competitive"? You see this is where you don't understand what I'm saying....I'm saying a good game overall will be judged by logical people off "of gameplay" #1. Then everything else, if you ever read a professional review. They will give you their thoughts on gameplay ALWAYS then talk about voice acting, art and all that other shit.
Yes, for more competitive players like myself gameplay matters, but it also matters to the casual gamer as well. It doesn't matter if you play a game for competitive reasons or "fun" reasons, either way if you're a gamer that wants a good game honestly you won't be satisfied unless it plays well and is an enjoyable experience.
A perfect game is a good balance of everything(which rarely happens) but the #1 thing HAS to be gameplay, I know you disagree but I assure you there's TONS of people out there that agree with me on this.
I'm not trying to bait anything, just merely trying to get a simple, logical point that's obviously
A. going completely over your head
B. you're purposely ignoring and being an idiot
C. Just posting on and on for the sake of arguing
D.Doing all of the above, thus makes your argument completely moot
Who's in denial of posts? lol and they're no ludacrous when they hold water, lots of water. Obviously you've made it quite clear that you don't care much about gameplay initially then you altered your view which I'll get to in a sec? You like other things about vid games, art, presentation etc which you've clearly said(so please don't attempt to deny I have you even quoted in prior posts)....then you later on after saying otherwise in my previous post, I have you quoted saying what I've been telling you for the past 10 posts now roughly) so now you're just sounding a bit hypocritical and contradicting yourself a bit.
I'm saying gameplay is important in ALL games, depsite WHICH level you play it on, despite which genre the game is. So, no I'm not viewing it as a "a sport" but still even a simple game like say Bowling(that can be played for fun or competitively) you will still A. find a ball that suits you B. Wear shoes that fit you and feel comfortable and C. Try you best right?
Yet, who said anything about "strickly competitive"? You see this is where you don't understand what I'm saying....I'm saying a good game overall will be judged by logical people off "of gameplay" #1. Then everything else, if you ever read a professional review. They will give you their thoughts on gameplay ALWAYS then talk about voice acting, art and all that other shit.
Yes, for more competitive players like myself gameplay matters, but it also matters to the casual gamer as well. It doesn't matter if you play a game for competitive reasons or "fun" reasons, either way if you're a gamer that wants a good game honestly you won't be satisfied unless it plays well and is an enjoyable experience.
A perfect game is a good balance of everything(which rarely happens) but the #1 thing HAS to be gameplay, I know you disagree but I assure you there's TONS of people out there that agree with me on this.
Tim Static
New member
HELLS YES.
Actually, the best ports would be, by far, MKII on the PSN and the UMK3 on the DS, even though it runs at MKT speeds.
Worst ports: MKT for N64; MK4 for PSX, N64 & PC; UMK3 for SNES; MK3 for the PSX; The whole Midway Arcade Treasure ports in general, even though the MK1 port on the PSP version is the best of the group.
But all the ports have their limitations. The arcade era games were made to be played on a jamma board, not a CD-rom or a carttridge.
Tim Static
New member
Glam & MKF....just stop it.
I totally agree with what MKF is saying, and sorry, but he is right. But stop arguing. This thread doesnt need a big fat terd in the middle. Keep it to PM's.
I totally agree with what MKF is saying, and sorry, but he is right. But stop arguing. This thread doesnt need a big fat terd in the middle. Keep it to PM's.
Glamador
New member
Ok, one for me and one for MKF. Anyway, I knew you'd side with him, you think the 3D MK games are shit anyway. And there's something to be said for that.
But Tim, I'm not going to stop. This is just too much fun. And MKF, I assure you you've not been reading what I've been saying. I'm going to say this simply. Gameplay is always important. So are graphics. So is storyline and content. I've been saying all along that if ANY ONE of them is COMPLETELY lacking then the game will be terrible. BALANCE BALANCE BALANCE BALANCE BALANCE. If gameplay is truly great then the game will be successful because it is carried by that. But look at all the artsy games that are loved for their story and looks despite having sub-par (but not completely unplayable) gameplay. Survival horror is the best example of this phenominon. Silent Hill, Rule of Rose, the early Resident Evil games, all of them suffered from insufferable gameplay issues but I've seen people that herald them as fantastic games. The idea is, you have a good game if you've got good gameplay, good graphics (note that doens't mean more polygons or higher resolution textures, it also means art and style), and a good storyline with lots of content then it will be a good game. Not necessarily a great game, but a good one.
If a game has HORRIBLE gameplay, INCREDIBLE artsy graphics, and a FANTASTIC storyline, then there will be those who love it for it's art and those that hate it for being frustrated and unfun. But if you have a game with GREAT gameplay, TERRIBLE graphics, and GOOD story, then it will still be in balance enough to be a GOOD game.
What you have misunderstood this entire time MKF, is that I DO value gameplay and I've said that from the beginning. I never said all 3 areas had to have similar weighting, that varies from person to person. I know one guy who won't play a game for older consoles because they don't have as many polygons as games today. He puts a lot of weight on graphics and not so much on gameplay. Personally, I put weight on story and gameplay far more than graphics. It's up to the individual to decide that. You seem to put almost all the weight on gameplay. I think that's a poor way to view things.
But it seems like this conversation has gone off from my original intention, which is to say that MKD is a better game than MKA despite MKA have ever-so-slightly better gameplay. Better balance doesn't outweight horrible story and content cuts. What I've been trying to drive home about balance applies here more than anywhere. There was, for all intents and purposes, barely ANY improvement in gameplay from MKD to MKA, just balance issues. But there were drastic cuts to storyline (no bios, bad endings, shorter konquest), and content (Chess and Puzzle Kombat, Smaller Krypt, etc.) which SEVERELY outweigh any benefits you get from balance tweaks.
But Tim, I'm not going to stop. This is just too much fun. And MKF, I assure you you've not been reading what I've been saying. I'm going to say this simply. Gameplay is always important. So are graphics. So is storyline and content. I've been saying all along that if ANY ONE of them is COMPLETELY lacking then the game will be terrible. BALANCE BALANCE BALANCE BALANCE BALANCE. If gameplay is truly great then the game will be successful because it is carried by that. But look at all the artsy games that are loved for their story and looks despite having sub-par (but not completely unplayable) gameplay. Survival horror is the best example of this phenominon. Silent Hill, Rule of Rose, the early Resident Evil games, all of them suffered from insufferable gameplay issues but I've seen people that herald them as fantastic games. The idea is, you have a good game if you've got good gameplay, good graphics (note that doens't mean more polygons or higher resolution textures, it also means art and style), and a good storyline with lots of content then it will be a good game. Not necessarily a great game, but a good one.
If a game has HORRIBLE gameplay, INCREDIBLE artsy graphics, and a FANTASTIC storyline, then there will be those who love it for it's art and those that hate it for being frustrated and unfun. But if you have a game with GREAT gameplay, TERRIBLE graphics, and GOOD story, then it will still be in balance enough to be a GOOD game.
What you have misunderstood this entire time MKF, is that I DO value gameplay and I've said that from the beginning. I never said all 3 areas had to have similar weighting, that varies from person to person. I know one guy who won't play a game for older consoles because they don't have as many polygons as games today. He puts a lot of weight on graphics and not so much on gameplay. Personally, I put weight on story and gameplay far more than graphics. It's up to the individual to decide that. You seem to put almost all the weight on gameplay. I think that's a poor way to view things.
But it seems like this conversation has gone off from my original intention, which is to say that MKD is a better game than MKA despite MKA have ever-so-slightly better gameplay. Better balance doesn't outweight horrible story and content cuts. What I've been trying to drive home about balance applies here more than anywhere. There was, for all intents and purposes, barely ANY improvement in gameplay from MKD to MKA, just balance issues. But there were drastic cuts to storyline (no bios, bad endings, shorter konquest), and content (Chess and Puzzle Kombat, Smaller Krypt, etc.) which SEVERELY outweigh any benefits you get from balance tweaks.
DCR
New member
I want to delve into this topic just because it gives me another reason to proclaim my everlasting indignation for Probe, who developed the Sega versions of the first two games. As far as gameplay is concerned, the Genesis ports played fine (for the most part), but the presentations were just awful.
For MK1, the Genesis was treated almost as if it were an 8-bit machine. Almost no voice effects, grainy graphics, and music tracks that often elude the ability to pin them to their arcade counterparts. Even when it was ported to the Sega CD, which should have endowed them with the option to easily swap in the original arcade soundtrack, they still managed to **** almost everything up. There were, at best, about a half a dozen of the actual arcade tracks on the disc, most of which played at the wrong times (the Pit track playing in the Courtyard, the Courtyard track playing in the Warrior Shrine, etc.) interspersed with strange and out of place sound cues. On top of that, the graphics and wacky 6-button controls remained unchanged from what was still a poor Genesis port.
The Genesis MK2 port was a noticeable step-up, mostly graphically, but there was still an amazing amount of voice effects missing (how many times can you hear the same generic "uhh" when someone gets hit?). The most baffling of all MK2 ports, however, was certainly the Saturn version. Here you have a system that's easily capable of handling an arcade perfect port, and while it looks great at standstill, again we have a ton of missing voice effects, messed up gameplay, and perhaps strangest of all, a completely and unnecessarily reworked CD soundtrack. I will add that, although it reused the tinny Genesis soundtrack and wasn't as good as it should have been, the 32X port was halfway decent and made me want to kill Probe just a bit less.
What gets me most about the Genesis ports of those games is that, even if you use the supposed hardware limitations as an excuse for the quality, that doesn't explain why the MK3 port was suddenly such a tremendous improvement. It surely had its faults, but nearly all of the voice effects from the arcade were there, and even the soundtrack was much more recognizable when compared to that of the arcade's. That was actually the first MK port I owned that I didn't feel was so vastly inferior to the original.
So anyway, my vote for the worst ports basically goes to anything Probe had their hands in. I could probably toss the Gameboy version of MK3 onto that pile, though, since that was the only time I've really found an MK game to be nearly unplayable.
Angel
New member
I'm not saying good gameplay isn't an asset as it pretty much makes half the game, I'm just saying that there is that other 50% that makes the rest of the game worth while. You know, the bits that STOP the gameplay from getting DULL, repeatitive and unintereasting. Storyline that makes you "feel" whats the game about, graphic visuals that don't disrupt the gameplay, music that doesn't put you to sleep halfway down to killing Diablo when you facing him in Hell in the second game. A lot fo people like MK:M even though its got bad gameplay for its storyline (amongst other things).
Basically, you can have the best game in the world gameplay wise and have it let down by dozens of minor things that disturb your experience while playing. I'll give another example of a bad gameplay game I enjoy, One Piece Grand Adventure (yeah: OP fan). Its fun, you can't control the characters well, but its madness on the level of Super Smash Brothers. Another one is the MK Kart racing in MK:Arm, enjoyed that more then the actualy MK:Arm game itself. MK:Arm had bad gameplay and so did the Kart game, but its was FUN, hence why I spent more time playing karts then the MK Game...
Incidently... E.T. a good game? ^_-
I don't even consider that a game to be honest... I like to think of it as something in a small cage with the words "Do not fed the animals" written on it. It was THAT bad in gameplay and graphically it wasn't good either. I tripped over buying that and was annoyed when someone actually did buy it for me from a car boot sale for 10p. I threw it in the draw and got out Atic-Atac for the Spectrum. (Atic-Atac is one of the best games ever made and the computer they made it for has 8 colours, yet beats the socks off of most of modern games).
There are worst then E.T. I note.
I've actually seen it But I can't remember the name.
My first home console version of MK1 was the Master system version. Its properly one of the dullest but simplest versions. I remember my fingers felt "sticky" for weeks after playing it when I tried to play the arcade versions afterwards. Not good. In my opinion, without going to the gameboy versions, that was the worst port of all. But then again not incuding GB ports I've only played Nintendo, Master System and Mega Drive ports.
Er... Genesis to the Americans sorry not Mega Drive.
MKF30-mkdc
New member
Ok, Glamador I'm going to end this and Tim's right no need to continue this at this stage. So you admit you like arguing about nothing because you're missing the point or like to fight for the hell of it? Well I'm not interested in that, bahh...if you want to fight, play me in MK online hehe I'll give you more then a fight ; ) that's where I like to duke it out know what I'm saying? Perhaps sometime we can play MKD and MKA online : ) it would be a pleasure.
Actually I have been reading everything you've said, it's you that seems to not be reading what I have been saying and as Tim has mentioned he's someone that also is concerned about solid gameplay. I mean, he's hardly been in here and understands as "an outsider" what I'm saying. What can I say? Some people care more about gameplay then other trivial stuff in a game. But hey, enjoy whatever you wish dude. I'm not going to tell you what games to play or what to like and not like. Just making a point about gameplay in general and it's importance in games.
But yeah, I'm not going to argue or go on and on with you. I've made my point which you either choose to digest or not. At this point I honestly don't care.
Anywho, going on what tim said about ports. Yeah dude, lol no kidding. Some of the home ports were just horrible as oppose to the arcade : (
Actually I have been reading everything you've said, it's you that seems to not be reading what I have been saying and as Tim has mentioned he's someone that also is concerned about solid gameplay. I mean, he's hardly been in here and understands as "an outsider" what I'm saying. What can I say? Some people care more about gameplay then other trivial stuff in a game. But hey, enjoy whatever you wish dude. I'm not going to tell you what games to play or what to like and not like. Just making a point about gameplay in general and it's importance in games.
But yeah, I'm not going to argue or go on and on with you. I've made my point which you either choose to digest or not. At this point I honestly don't care.
Anywho, going on what tim said about ports. Yeah dude, lol no kidding. Some of the home ports were just horrible as oppose to the arcade : (
mkchampion
Member
yeah i agree with most of whats said up there except for MK trilogy which is my favorite of them all, but in my opinon the worst characters are meat (who was a joke and did nothing),kobra & kira (a losuy pair of ninjas or whatever the hell they are) and stryker(for some reason is liked by millions and has done absolutely nothing and has pretty much no involvment in the story). the worst combo is scorpions in MK trilogy and the worst game would have to be MK1. MK2 was the S*** and so was MK3. But Mk4 also caught my attention the least so it'd be between the two of them, MK1 and MK4.
MK Advanced, hands down.
mkchampion
Member
I'd have to disagree with that statement death. they were great back in `91 and `92 and im sure the fans loved them but now that we've been exposed to so much new development in the world of video gaming and graphics we've been less and less drawn to appreciate the work and creativity in them.
The Crazed Wiseman
New member
Worst game: Deadly Alliance
Worst fatality: Quan Chi's Neck Stretch
Worst characters: Mavado, Hsu Hao, Kobra, Nitara, Kira, Taven, Dagon, Darrius, Tanya, Lie Mei
Worst fatality: Quan Chi's Neck Stretch
Worst characters: Mavado, Hsu Hao, Kobra, Nitara, Kira, Taven, Dagon, Darrius, Tanya, Lie Mei
Camu-san
New member
Worst MK game:Mortal Kombat(It was the fetis.Undeveloped story and worse gameplay wise.Which is THE most important factor in a game.If you don't agree then go watch a ****in' movie.)
Worst Fatality:Sub-Zero's mk v dc fatality(I'm a vampire, dude.I NEED blood)
Worst character:ashrah(show some skin *****(sorry thats vulgar))
Worst Fatality:Sub-Zero's mk v dc fatality(I'm a vampire, dude.I NEED blood)
Worst character:ashrah(show some skin *****(sorry thats vulgar))