MK vs DC Universe

[McManicMan]

"Fatality"

 

[KittensCake]

There's only one idiot here if you don't realise that extreme gore would be very appealing to younger age groups.

Uhh wait no, you're the ******* idiot because you can't see the difference between appeal and quality. You quite clearly stated that gore makes a good game on a number of occassions, but now you're going on about appeal to younger age groups? So which one is it? And again I will ask this, are you honestly saying just some gore makes a game good. I can take any game and add some gore and it'll be a good game? You still haven't answered this question, you've totally deviated either intentionally to avoid answering the question of unknowingly because you're an idiot.

and now it's so **** even the gore can't save it.

Right, so you've played this game have you?

The only thing that seperates MK from a million other identikit fighters is the gore....So you like the series (or more specifically one or two games from the series), good for you. You keep playing it while the rest of us continue to see the franchise for the joke it is.

I direct you back to this part of my last post which you have ignored most likely because I'm right.

You obviously haven't played MK enough or gotten good at it and played against decent players, because then you'd realise why it's a great fighting game. Again mostly talking about the later 2D versions like Trilogy and UMK3.

The later 2D MK's are some of the best 2D fighters around for their depth, the sheer amount of possible combos (Not just programmed combos) and innovations at the time like run button, stamina bar and block button. People are still discovering combos years and years after their release.

As I said before I felt the 3D fighters were a step down, but I only ever played Deadly Alliance and I never got into competitive fighting with that game so I can't comment in that respect, but as far as single player goes it was as good as if not better than many of the other fighting games around at the time.

 

[KittensCake]

Double post

 

[wedgie]

Uhh wait no, you're the ******* idiot because you can't see the difference between appeal and quality. You quite clearly stated that gore makes a good game on a number of occassions,

Show me these 'number of occasions'.

Which bit is confusing you? I said it was a good game at the time, the gore was the main content that made the game enjoyable.

but now you're going on about appeal to younger age groups? So which one is it? And again I will ask this, are you honestly saying just some gore makes a game good. I can take any game and add some gore and it'll be a good game? You still haven't answered this question, you've totally deviated either intentionally to avoid answering the question of unknowingly because you're an idiot.

What do you mean which one is it? Both comments are connected, you don't really need everything spelling out for you surely?

And no, gore can't make a poor game good, but it can make an average game much more enjoyable, which is how MK has worked over the years. Which makes the early success of MK due mainly to the violence, I can't believe anyone of sane mind wouldn't think this to be the case.

Right, so you've played this game have you?

Talking about the series in general. Why on earth would you think I wasn't?

I direct you back to this part of my last post which you have ignored most likely because I'm right.

Right about what? That you personally liked it? I can't argue that, but it's not exactly the general consensus is it.

The later 2D MK's are some of the best 2D fighters around for their depth, the sheer amount of possible combos (Not just programmed combos) and innovations at the time like run button, stamina bar and block button. People are still discovering combos years and years after their release.

As I said before I felt the 3D fighters were a step down, but I only ever played Deadly Alliance and I never got into competitive fighting with that game so I can't comment in that respect, but as far as single player goes it was as good as if not better than many of the other fighting games around at the time.

I'll have to take your word for it, I stopped bothering at 3 (and MKII was the last I actually enjoyed). Can't say I've seen reviews that make me think I've been missing out over recent years though.

 

[KittensCake]

Right about what? That you personally liked it? I can't argue that, but it's not exactly the general consensus is it.

Uhhh no, right about the fact that you haven't played it at all or haven't played it properly, and it seems I am right, so how can you sit there and say the entire series is a joke, they're not good games...etc when you haven't even played them? Especially the ones which are generally considered the best of the series?

Talking about the series in general. Why on earth would you think I wasn't?

If you were referring to the old games surely you would have said something like "Not even the gore saved them from their mediocrity"...etc.

"and now it's so **** even the gore can't save it."

Even the gore CAN'T save it, as if it hasn't happened yet, which implies you're not talking about old already released games.

And this is a thread about the new game, I've already established that the later 3D games weren't that great, but you're already knocking the new game and it's not even out.

 

[wedgie]

Uhhh no, right about the fact that you haven't played it at all or haven't played it properly, and it seems I am right, so how can you sit there and say the entire series is a joke, they're not good games...etc when you haven't even played them? Especially the ones which are generally considered the best of the series?

I can go by general opinion, I can go by limited time with demo's, I can go by review scores. Those are more than enough to base my opinion on. You seem to be trying to trip me up, except I never said I played every version.

Because you were speaking in present tense. If you were referring to the old games surely you would have said something like "Not even the gore saved them from their mediocrity"...etc.

You are correct, I was speaking present tense, because at this present moment in time, the series is seen as a joke. It's laughable that you would miss that and assume I'm talking strictly about a game that isn't even released yet, and subsequently go on another ridiculous tirade because of this assumption. And you're question might change, but the answer remains the same.

And this is a thread about the new game, I've already established that the later 3D games weren't that great, but you're already knocking the new game and it's not even out.

I don't know if I'd say I'm knocking it, I said it doesn't look great (and that I don't know what to make of it). The MK series has done nothing any time recently to get me automatically excited for the next installment, infact it's done a very good job of making me expect very little.

 

[KittensCake]

See edited post.

You said "even the gore CAN'T save it", as if it hasn't happened yet, which implies you're not talking about old already released games.

 

[Fortyseven]

DC should have spoken to Capcom really.
In my opinion, MK doesn't cut it against Tekken, DOA or Street Fighter anymore (Well, last generation)
What I would like to see is Marvel Vs. DC done by Capcom.

 

[wedgie]

See edited post.

You said "even the gore CAN'T save it", as if it hasn't happened yet, which implies you're not talking about old already released games.

I don't give a monkey's what it implies, the game not being released implies I'm not talking about it. At most I'm making the (probably accurate) assumption that MK v DC will be grouped with the rest of the trash in the series.

Do you actually try to misinterpret posts on such a regular basis?

 

[insane200]

none of the 3d mk's have been any good, it all went down hill after mk2

 

[KittensCake]

I don't give a monkey's what it implies, the game not being released implies I'm not talking about it. At most I'm making the (probably accurate) assumption that MK v DC will be grouped with the rest of the trash in the series.

Do you actually try to misinterpret posts on such a regular basis?

No I'm just reading what it says, like any normal person would do. What you apparently meant and what you wrote do not match up.

 

[Fortyseven]

I read it as, "Since there is less gore in this game, it will not be present to save the game from failure."

 

[wannabedamned]

I read it as the series has fallen too far, and the Gore that helped it succeed in the beginning will probably not work to save the series now,

 

[wedgie]

No I'm just reading what it says, like any normal person would do. What you apparently meant and what you wrote do not match up.

So because I used the word 'can't', that means there's no way I could possibly be talking about the present standing of the series as a whole? If you're just reading what it says, why do you even have to suggest what it implies?

OK, if I accept that some of my posts might confuse stupid people, then you have to accept that you make stuff up as you go. Because unless you can find me saying gore = good game on a 'number of occasions', you clearly do just make it up as you go.

 

[KittensCake]

Ok that was a mistake, I had just woken up and I was basing that on my recollection of the thread from the night before, but you did say it once, so at the end of the day what difference does it make, my point made with regard to that comment still remains regardless of how many times you said it as long as you said it at least once.

 

[wedgie]

The problem is, you're assuming I meant you could turn a bad game good just with a little gore. At no point have I said that. I said MK was a good game at the time because of the gore. That doesn't mean it's a terrible game without it, but it did mean it was considerably more enjoyable with the gore than it would have been without. I can say for certain I wouldn't have played it anywhere near as much if there was no violence in the game. I don't doubt that's the reason many people played it, it's no surprise that when people got bored of the gore, they got bored of the game.

 

[KittensCake]

All you said was it was a good game because of the gore. That means without the gore it wouldn't have been a good game. Therefore you're saying that a bit of gore makes this game good, which I still think is just ridiculous.

I have never played any MK game for the gore, and I don't know anyone who has. Like I said before the violence and gore is what got it attention initially. The first game probably wouldn't have received much attention if not for the gore, because at the time it was new and controversial, but these days it means nothing.

Even if UMK3 had 0 gore I'd still play it, because it's a great fighting game, gore or not doesn't change anything in that respect, the gore is just minor cosmetics. Maybe some idiot 8 year olds play the game for the gore because it's "cool" but apart from that I doubt anyone does.

 

[Kreeeee]

I read it as the series has fallen too far, and the Gore that helped it succeed in the beginning will probably not work to save the series now,

That's how any normal, non-pedantic, person would interpret it.

 

[wedgie]

All you said was it was a good game because of the gore. That means without the gore it wouldn't have been a good game. Therefore you're saying that a bit of gore makes this game good, which I still think is just ridiculous.

Must suck to be you then.

Why is it such a big deal in the first place, or do you just go out of your way to be an annoying ****? It's just an opinion (and hardly an outrageous one at that). The level of violence is no less a part of the game content than for example the story, the characters, or the difference between having 100 cars in a racer over having just 20. It doesn't necessarily explicitly change the way you play the game, but all go towards how much you enjoy the game. It can easily go the other way, a game could be seen as too violent, or be seen to have too much bad language (which was one of the main complaints jeff gerstmann had with K&L). Doesn't make a difference to the core gameplay, but it does affect how much you enjoy the game. It's hardly ridiculous, more like common sense and personal taste.

I have never played any MK game for the gore, and I don't know anyone who has. Like I said before the violence and gore is what got it attention initially. The first game probably wouldn't have received much attention if not for the gore, because at the time it was new and controversial, but these days it means nothing.

So you enjoyed for reasons deeper than simply liking the violence - well done, *high five*. Lets try to stear clear of using our own opinion as fact where possible, but well done for admitting the controversy means nothing these days. You know why it means nothing? Because people got bored with the gore a long time ago and by pure coincidence the series has been going down the pan ever since.

Even if UMK3 had 0 gore I'd still play it, because it's a great fighting game, gore or not doesn't change anything in that respect, the gore is just minor cosmetics. Maybe some idiot 8 year olds play the game for the gore because it's "cool" but apart from that I doubt anyone does.

You doubt anyone else does? You may want to rethink that after looking into the success of violent video games over the years. You could come up with two seprate lists both as long as each other. One list of adult themed games that have done well despite being average, and another list of high quality games that have flopped because they were too 'cutesy'. And ripping someones spine out is a little more than minor cosmetics. You could maybe say the blood was cosmetic, but the fatalities were gameplay elements, not cosmetic differences.

I'm done with you anyway, you're attitude stinks tbh and if I had any sense I'd have ignored you in the first place.

 

[mcwildcard]

I vote we change the name of this thread to; 'Kreeeee vs KittensCake vs wedgie'

All in favour say 'Aye'