the game not having much depth isnt necessarily a bad thing. and its ok if its true. every game dosent have to be a 15 year classic for it to be considered a “good” game
You might have but its true
I wasn’t disagreeing with him.
Well about this point: Defense, zoning, footsies and mixups are A LOT different than in SSF4.
In SF you have to guess which direction to block. In MK you have a block button that blocks both sides. So if there’s no chip on block then turtles would be a pain in the ass and matches would last forever or always end by time out.
Also, defense in fighting games is not only about blocking. In SSF4 for example, a character with great pokes will often have a superior defense because his pokes are like a wall that the opponent has to break through. Defense in MK is more about limiting your opponent’s space and options. Dash blocking is a defensive tech that limits zoners. Footsies, zoning, parry, breakers, armored moves, baiting and anti-airs all serve defensive purposes and are greatly rewarded.
So no, the game doesn’t penalize people for being defensive, on the contrary. The game penalizes lazy people that only block and don’t move around. This forces constant movement by both players and encourages the use of anti-air, space control and dash blocking which in the end equates to more exiting matches.
Maybe that’s what James Chen was talking about: MK forces you to be a bit more aggressive in your defense and use your mind more. But like James Chen also said, it’s not necessarily a bad thing.
Well said my friend. Well said. 
You basically said what I said, lol. You just used more words. I never said you are penalized I just said you aren’t really rewarded which is true. The game pushes the players to be more aggro to get things done. This is not good or bad. It’s just the game. I could also argue that defense in this game is WAY lazier then it is in SF and far more braindead which is why everything chips. To balance that out.
BTW zoning and footsies are not neccesarily defensive or offensive. It depends on how they are executed.
But I do think that as the game evolves blocking will become more of a liability as people rely less on throwing out random teleports and specials and more on solid pressure with normals and good jail string mix-ups.
My thoughts exactly.
There are no predetermined teams in MvC3. Team building is the root of MvC3’s depth.
lol, sorry. That will teach me to read the whole post before replying something.
I never said that. There’s plenty of depth in team building and I’m not knocking mvc3 in that regard. However, in regards to how each character is played - almost all of them have a tactic that works better than the rest. There are really only a few that allow for a lot of creativity in playstyle.
The game’s meter system and chip on normals are that way because if they weren’t, the game would have a heavy defensive lean. Attempting to get in is fairly risky in this game, so it needs to have a good payoff. Otherwise we’d just see a lot of zoners take an early lead and sit on it.
With Sub-Zero and Ermac doing so well at zoning right now, I think it’s very hard to claim that the game is overly aggressive.
depth and balance are both overrated, assuming you are using ‘depth’ in its actual definition as having a ton of valid options in a given situation. too many options and the mixups lose context. mk has that 3d-ish feel with strong momentum and guessing games and i think everyone likes it that way
also james chen is biased as fuck and seems to have hardly any experience with the 3D side of the game.
I’m not really sure what the point of the article was, to be honest; the only thing I can think of is that there is something bugging him about MK which he feels the need to be heard on, but if that was the case, why not just do an in-depth article on SRK? The article right now is in some horrid middle ground, and I’m not sure what benefit it is to anyone.
What is depth? Baby, don’t judge me, don’t judge me…no more. OHOH OOOOO-OOO-OO-O
Seriously, though, depth is one of those things that are said but not exactly understood. Even if it were described, can it really be said that it “lacks depth”? I mean, James stated that the game keeps people from being “creative”, but that is a nebulous charge that can be applied to accepted games like SSF4. That game clearly doesn’t lack depth, so why should MK be labeled as such?
The game is young, it will be worked on, and it will evolve throughout the months. I say worry less about it being tournament worthy since that is something that only community enthusiasm can determine. This reminds me of people calling out SC2 as depthless since it had multiple building select, unit balls, and automining.
there isn’t a ton of mechanics or tactics that give the game multiple options offensively or defensively, i honestly feel the game would be crazy if it had an sf blocking mechanic but that would make teleports very difficult to block on reaction
I’d like to see a rise in tag mode as a tournament default. Team building can also be a root of depth in MK9, so while MvC3 has more options in that department (3 member teams vs. 2), I don’t think this argument holds water when comparing it to a game which also allows for team building.
So James Chen knows what exactly about MK?
Well his Opinion kinda seems rushed, Im mean the game is pretty new.
Im more interested in the opinion Of Markman who thinks MK will die out after Evo 2011.
Bad Markman. You can’t sell sticks if you think a game won’t last.
er…anyone who played mk3 or umk in the arcade and not on the snes.
well, like most people on srk. obviously, nothing other than the fact it’s not SF.
He was Gief on steroids from day 1. Check the guide…
‘Prescribed’ my ass… Haggar is a keepaway character and Felicia is a grappler. If you thought that would be the case at day 1 you should go try you luck in the lottery.
Anyone who read the guide on TYM.
The team mode in MK is add on gimmick like headless kombat. There’s no comparison.