And all that is BREAKABLE so its not usefull. What meaning has to put something in a game that you cannot use. Nothing personal Darth but KI is way more limited than umk despite its vague resemblances with Sf…
sorry i can be rude most days.
you dont understand, im saying mk2s strategy is easy to see like sf2s, im not comparing im just saying its plain to see
um, if you break out of a combo you risk being ultimated (instant death move on low health)
so yeah the KI combos are well rounded.
I like how this topic has gone totally off course.
Anyway, I absolutely love MK Armageddon, but it’s a guilty pleasure. It’s clearly much more simple than the other 3D fighters on the market, but there is in fact plenty of depth to it. Most people will just never bother to explore or enjoy it, and I blame this partly on the “lol MK sux” stigma from non-MK players, and the “lol only UMK3 is good” attitude from the rest.
Yeah, it’s broken in parts, and I really wish that Midway would stop wasting my time with stuff like konquest and motor kombat and instead dedicate that time and those resources to ironing out the problems in the fighting engine. Of course, I also wish Namco would stop wasting my time with Chronicles of the Sword and Devil Within, and instead implement online play and resolve the issues in their fighting engines.
Also, frankly the argument that only games that are played in tourneys are the only ones that are deep or worth time is flawed. That’s just a self-serving argument for someone who likes a particular game but dislikes another. Soul Calibur has more going for it than Smash melee and as far as I know, Smash melee is currently prevalent in tournaments while Soul Calibur is not. Frankly, MKA is arguably deeper and more tournament worthy than Smash Melee. That’s not to say that Smash Melee isn’t (I may even play it at Evo in July), but rather that there are far too many factors, including just a general arbitrariness, that goes into the outcome of what games go to the big tournaments instead of “this game is deep because it’s play at a tournament and this one isn’t because it’s not.” Shallow thinking, if you can call it thinking.
You are saying silly things with no basis that’s why. :looney:
You even quoted me saying that I like MK2 because I’m more used to it. How is that not basis for my opinions? It may be biased as all hell, but it’s still backs up what I said. I also explained why I liked KI combos better, but if that’s still not enough for you, then here: I don’t like the chain combos in UMK3 because the preset button combinations used for them leave no room for customization. The exception for this is juggling, but then again, that isn’t chain comboing. Also, because they’re character specific, it just seems like a different type of special move.
Sorry for not liking UMK3 as much as MKII.
Saying you don’t like something because you are merely use to something else is your problem. It’s like saying “I don’t like lighters because I’m use to matches.”
But this isn’t the only thing you’ve said. You talked about the SNES version of UMK3 like it was applicable to the subject matter. You disable combos in MKT, and then talk about how great the combo system is in KI, when the very combo system you mention, in the manner of which you referenced it, is completely and totally useless, essentially disabled by the system of the game itself.
KI has smaller juggle combos that do full damage when linked and are unbreakable, what’s funny is UMK3 has this too.
You also play fighting games primarily by yourself, which is again, your problem. It’s not a matter of liking them, it’s the ridiculous lack of reasoning. You don’t back up opinions with facts, that’s why they are opinions, definitively, statements envoked by emotion, and not backed by facts. If you go as far as to try to substantiate an opinion by backing it up with facts, you step out of the realm of opinion, in which your statement can be proven to be false.
Breaking down the whole “reasons why I like MKII” or “why I like KI more than MK” generally comes down to “I like them because they are worse.”
Yeah, sweet idea dude, you have really good ideas. And like, Patrick Henry would be a character, and his win quote would be, “Give me liberty. I gave you death.”
How have I not used facts to back up my opinions? And just because there are similarities between juggling in UMK3 and KI doesn’t mean they’re the same. Also, just because combos are breakable in KI doesn’t mean it renders the system useless. Combo breakers are hard to use unless easy combo breakers are turned on.
Essentially, you’re saying that MKII and KI being inferior to UMK3 is fact? This whole argument is a difference of opinion. Now, I will admit that my experience with UMK3 on zbattle wasn’t fair judgment, but at the same time it’s not like I have no experience with the game. I got the genesis port right when it came out, and although it has a lot more characters and some inconsistencies with the arcade version, it’s essentially the same game as far as the system goes; you can still get a general understanding of it at least.
I don’t like UMK3 as much, plain and simple. Don’t think you’re arguing with a brick wall either. I actually read what you say and don’t automatically dismiss it, and you did motivate me to play UMK3 on mame for a few hours. My opinion stands though, I think MKII is better.
One last thing… Maybe UMK3 is better for competitive play, but I’m not a competitive player like you, I just play games because they’re fun. So basically arguing with me about this is useless because we’re different types of players.
Edit: Look, I respect your opinion ( I wouldn’t have bothered replaying UMK3 if I didn’t), but I’m done with this argument before it starts going in circles.
It is a fact that UMK3 is a better fighting game than MKII and all versions of Killer Instinct. 100% inarguable fact based on mathematics, comparison, pros and cons, player base, longevity, etc. There’s no opinions here. Liking a game is different than classifying it as being more competitive or deep, ie: a better game based on the very qualities people look for in fighting games.
It comes down to the age old saying “You don’t know what you’re talking about.” For some reason, MKII fans seem to think that when someone says the game sucks, it means they aren’t allowed to still like it. If you like lame games you have fun playing by yourself, that’s cool, but don’t then go as far as to say something like “the combo system in KI is better than UMK3.” because it isn’t, and you can’t prove that it is.
There is no way that a more competitive game means it’s better. Back to my example of MvC2, that game has so many balance issues, and it’s used in tournaments all the time.
What mathematics prove UMK3 is better? I’d really like to know. I’m pretty sure MKII made more money in the arcade, and as far as longevity goes, people still like it. If they didn’t, why was it released on ps3’s online service?
Maybe you get the impression that MKII fans think they can’t like the game because, um I don’t know, you tell them it sucks. Thats like saying, “You like shitty games” It’s an insult to the person. If you started off saying “I think MKII sucks because…” then they wouldn’t get so defensive about it.
Also prove to me why UMK3’s combo system is better then KI’s. You can’t prove shit either because it’s a matter of opinion. Just like this whole argument. Now that is fact. Honestly, you say I say “silly” things, and then you flip something like “UMK3 is better. It’s fact based on mathematics.” I was laughing during work all day because of that.
Look at it like this. MKII is skim milk and UMK3 is 2% milk. 2% has more fat to it. However, people still drink both.
Well,its very great game for a Tournament,and then,the God Tiers Onaga,Blaze and Moloch they’re banned for this.
In terms of overall gameplay, it’s up to the person.
Obviously, in terms of depth of gameplay, UMK3 is superior.
MKII and UMK3 are both fun games.
MKA is fun for some people; are there seriously any tournaments for this? Just curious.
UMK3 improved upon a number of flaws in MKII’s gameplay, such things have been listed already.
That is all you need to know.
Your MvC2 correlation doesn’t make any sense, because you aren’t really comparing anything. People have turned MvC2 into something special and don’t care about the low number of usable characters since it’s unlike any other fighting game.
It is unproven that MKII earned more $$$ in the arcade than UMK3. It’s possible that MK4 even earned more than MKII did, you also cannot say “Well I know MKII machines always had a ton of people around them.” Remember, most of those people were just watching. I know, I lived it, and saw it all the time.
UMK3 is infinitely more popular right now than MKII. UMK3 is available on 360 and has an extremely successful run going for it. MKII on PS3 will never see even close to this level of competition because it’s not as good a game, and people can see right through that once they play it.
MKII is like curdled milke, UMK3 is like buying a fresh gallon of milk from the back of the bossey with the best expiration date.
UMK3 and KI have autocombos. KI’s are more ellaborate but you are still hitting definite button combinations to perform a series of linkable hits, in the case of KI, it can result in gigantic combos that are purely eye candy and have no in game substance. The difference is, KI’s autocombos can be broken, and in high level play they are broken easily and consistently, making them useless. This fact alone makes KI’s built in combo system worthless. Aside from that, they both have comboing systems outside their autocombos, like the juggling or linking moves together, which cannot be broken.
KI and MKII are played very similarly on a high level. One dimensional turtle fests coming down to a couple characters being the only ones usable in high level play. You don’t know what a good game is or have enough overall experience to say “You can’t tell me why one game is better than another.” Don’t get offended or upset by that, or try to come back and tell me “Who are you to say something like that to me” because it doesn’t matter. This is obvious from what you’ve said, and it’s apparent to at least 90% of the people who look at this thread.
There is a very small % of players who prefer a slow, turtling based game with low strategic value. Games with a greater amount of internal, on the fly gameplay options that allow for more variety within the game itself are better than ones without it. It’s the definition of gameplay quality.
Sticky controls, limited tactics, broken damage, no realistic means of manueverability, incomplete overall gameplay, are all factual statements about MKII. UMK3 fixed almost all of these problems and layed waste to the emphasis on fatalities because the shock value was lost by the time MK3 came out. Essentially here on shoryuken.com, MK = 0 and Fatalities < 0.
If I say MKII sucks, you don’t have to defend it, but if you try to infer that merely liking MKII can mean it’s a better game, just because that’s in your eyes, I will lay the cards on the table. UMK3 hits a royal flush, and MKII gets a pair of deuces in the card game of MK. I don’t have to say “I think MKII sucks because…” here because…everyone on here who knows about fighting games already knows that.