The other fighting games don't have the same story, but they pretty much involve tournaments.

Judging by the things you're saying, it seems to me that you don't know that there are different departments in the MK team that work different parts of the game.

How did you get the idea that they only cared about story in MK4?

For MKDA, their idea was to give somewhat of a fresh new start on MK by having a new fighting system, one that ended up needing a lot fixed. What was wrong with MKDA's overall story?

They tightened up the gameplay for MKD? I don't know which game you were playing, but it couldn't have been MKD. MKD's gameplay was MORE BROKEN than MKDA's. I'm talking about characters who had easy, unbreakable, unduckable, unblockable infinite combos that simply involved repeating 2 or 3 moves over and over again.

The reason why they are re-doing the fighting system for MK8 is because MKA is supposed to be the end of this generation's story and they really want to bring in a lot of newness.

MKT's storyline is the final update to UMK3's and MK3's stories, thus why the overall story wasn't changed. From a gameplay perspective, UMK3 is said to be the best due to its relative depth and relative balance.

Mortal Kombat doesn't have gothic roots. I like the games like MK1 and MKDA. Because they never got in your face with over the top stuff like elaborite fatalities, or animalities, or hara kiris.

Maverick, I agree that gameplay should be the MK team's number one concern, especially with the new generation games. But I think you're way off with saying the gameplay's bad because the MK team concentrates too much on storyline.

MK4 they worried about story only....and there was a SHITTY game.
How do you know they only worried about the story? And it's not like MK4 had the greatest storyline either....

In MKDA they realized they needed to overhaul the shitty gameplay...and lets face it the story was weak by MK standards...but it brought life back into the series.
MK:DA actually had a very tight, detailed, and coherant story. By MK standards, it was actually one of...if not the...best storyline.

In MKD the story was alright...but they tightened up the gameplay
Then how come everybody I see says Deception had a horribly broken engine?

in MKA....the story is interesting....the gameplay is horrendous
What storyline? "Everybody race up the pyramid?" Vogel even said they told him not to bother with the storyline while they were making the game. We're only now getting an actual story for it.


I know there are a lot of things wrong with MK's fighting engine and it desperately needs to be fixed or revamped completely. But it's not the storyline that's fucking everything up. Armageddon should be proof of that.
If anything should be blamed for unbalanced and broken gameplay it should be the mini-games, unlockable bullshit, rushing everything, and trying to cram in too many characters.

@ Sub...first I want to say Thank God...you seem to be one of the few peeps around here who have a clue about this game.

I know they have peeps who work on different aspects of the game. However, it is clear that on certain games things were emphasized more.
MKT and UMK3 there was little story adjustment other than to accommodate new characters...THE ENTIRE FOCUS WAS ON GAMEPLAY and it showed. Meanwhile if you look at MK4 they tried real hard to make this story that introduced ALL these new (horrible) characters...lets be honest....did you like ANYTHING about MK4 other than the intro of Quan Chi.

Now MKDA...yes...the gameplay system was flawed...and imo there was little story. It made no sense. MKD...seemed like they tried real hard to tie up the bad story threads of MKDA...they only made minor changes gameplay wise (few of which were good). MKA....well they tried to do too much or everything and got ALOT of nothing. They put too many characters in and simplified some of the depth (3 stances) that were unique to the previous versions. They tried to mask it by putting new gameplay element in...wakeups , air combat, parry...NONE of which was done particularly well.

So NOW here we are they are making a NEW game...well I hope the story sucks...that means they didnt waste their time on perfecting it...hopefully the game will come out when ALL the kinks of the engine are worked out.

There are actually several others who know about the flaws of the MK fighting games. However, a lot of those other people I'm referring to know far more than I know. I only know little bits here and there and am trying to learn gradually somehow.



Again, let me explain something.

MKT's story is an upgrade of UMK3's, which was an upgrade of MK3's. MK4 has its own story. I wouldn't say the entire focus on UMK3 and MKT was on gameplay...



Actually, Quan Chi was introduced in MKM: Sub-Zero.



I'm really not getting you here. How was there little story? How did the story not make any sense? Did you even pay attention to its story?



What bad story threads were there in MKDA?

They really didn't do much to the gameplay except make it more broken. The good things were that the throws were now unblockable, some characters getting toned up, other characters getting toned down, longer juggles, combo breakers (kind of), and damage adjustments. However, there were NO throw escapes. Characters like Scorpion and Bo' Rai Cho were still very broken, especially Bo' Rai Cho. Combo breakers were a cheap band-aid at some probable attempt to cover up the fact that MK STILL uses the crappy dial-a-combo system. There were way more infinites and other glitches.



Since when did having 3 styles equate to depth? I think 2 styles works better as it is easier to decide on and motion capture than 3 styles per character. Imagine if they had to program 180 styles. Not only does that take up space, but it also takes up time, time that could be used for fixing some of the gameplay problems. And besides, if you looked at things carefully enough in MKDA and MKD, most of the characters have only 1 or 2 useful styles.

It's good that they at least put in wakeups and parries even though they didn't do them as well as they should've.



Basically, you want another MK: Shaolin Monks, which had very fun gameplay but a terrible storyline, so terrible that it rapes MK's entire story, not just MK2's.

Seems like we have some difference in opinion when it comes to story...I agree however to varying degree on everythign else you said. I will say this...what I want isnt Shaolin Monks (although I loved that game)..I am looking for something on par with DOA...look how good it looks and how great the gameplay is. The story however is lacking...but the gameplay is sooo good that you dont care. Dont get me wrong...if the story is awsome that makes the game EVEN better....but they need to get the gameplay perfect...story is second to me.

i agree wit u. since when is mk gothic?

I'm beginning to wonder if anyone here actually knows what Gothic is. I don't think the thread starter was referring to the make-up and nails, but rather the historical age and the primitive, grim and dark association with it.

Mortal Kombat was VERY Gothic. There was little to no technology in the early games (except for maybe Kano's eye, which was a permitted anachronism), and the concept behind the games was a tournament to decide the fate of realms. Who decides anything with a martial arts tournament in this day and age?

Mortal Kombat has a very ancient and barbaric tone to it, and I believe that is the Gothic feel the thread starter is trying to convey.

Wow just wow....

Gothicism was pominent in 1050-1500 and then alter as the neo-gothic, having ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with barbarism (referring to the origin, barbaricum in latin, the name of the German and Post Danubic lands). The gothicism emeerged in 1100 which is like..already the HIGH MIDDLE AGES for Gods sake, the Dark ages were lasting from 490 -960.

Origin is derived from the Ostrogothic and Visigothic nations that ran through Europe but managed to elave down settled gotho-germanic legacies within Europe. Tell me, how would a barbaric culture raise hundreds of feet tall, precisely designed and ornamented, thin-as-hell cathedrals with perfect metric design? BTW, gothic was the epitomy of technology at the time.

Justifiable if you do not know that the pre-gothic overall design of art and structures was called the Roman (not the remains of the ancient romans and neither the Roman people in Eastern Europe).

Your knowledge of history is either surface thin, or very lacking as it seems.

Good work on missing the point entirely.

I was merely identifying the original poster's intent to use Gothic as a legitimate English term, not as the current "emo" crap people associate it with.

The Goths were a Germanic race who took part in the "barbarian invasions." Please explain that to me. I don't think I got where you separated these two concepts historically. The term "Gothic," as supported by Merriam-Webster, can, in fact, refer to barbarianism. Sorry, but you overplayed your cards.

I didn't say that they didn't use technology at all, I said it was limited. If you think they had cybernetic ninjas during the 1500s, please go hit yourself in a head with a brick, it may actually make you smarter.

Of course, mankind evolved over time, and used technology to its fullest, but believe it or not, there are still some places in the world that choose to remain stuck a few hundred years in the past. This primitive (by today's standards, you completely missed the point and thought I was calling the Goths as they were at the time "primitive") lifestyle, whilst not exactly accurate historically in reference with Mortal Kombat, is still related if you try and understand what the original poster was trying to say.

Everyone is either tearing into this poor guy for not being entirely accurate. If you apply a little empathy, you get what he's trying to ask. There is no need to be arrogant about it.

Indeed.

The goths were Baltic-germanic tribes, true, no debate about that, but when were the ostrogothic and visigothic invasions (yes, invasions, there was no ONE big invasion)? Around 450-488. Around that time people had no technology to construct cathedrals etc. thanks to the destruction of Rome, the enmpire, the cultural degradation of the provincial principalities, the Great Migration Wave etc...

The first gothic (coming from the word gotticao, gotico or gutico, which indeed does refer to "rough") structures could only be constructed around 970-1000, thanks to the invention of the Threadmill Crane. As said, the previous Roman style dominated. Ever seen Nosferatu? Count Orloks fort is Roman, and incorrectly labelled gothic thanks to the movies atmosphe-re. Long, thin, ornamented, and -get this- colorful is gothic.

Back to the context of MK, how on the bloody earth could you misdirect my sentence concerning the technological level of construction to cybernin-jas? With all due respect, but to twist my words in such way is not a legiti-mately ethical way of reasonable conversation, or intelligent on anz long or short term.
In MK? I do not recall MK1 having any kind of gothic element, mainly litera-rygothic element (such pioneered by Shelley), nor did MK2 sport them. Oh, and the Armory could be considered almost anything. Perhaps Goro's lair, perhaps not. MK3 is probably the most consistent with gothic elements. But MK3 is hardly the root of MK.



I practice medieval swordsmanship. You do not have to tell me. Summa Summarum: it is completely irrelevant wether i can tear or would tear as a matter of fact into this poor sods post. It is blatantly obvious that MK has absolutely no reference within it's core that may be asociated with the high middle ages, or the literary gothic. It has in some meager extent, but not within it's core.

Of course, I could also post a detailed synopsis of gothic when stretches from the syntactic meaning of the latinic-italian Gotico through the high middle ages lifestyle, dressing, artistic history and finishes with the roman-ticist remedievalism, what spawned Shelley and the literal reinterpretation of ages long past (that is, gothic implements the horrendrous and the dark, obsoleted and historically decayed as both setting and character).

I just realized how much I love theese debates wether they stay in focus, or go completely out of context with sheer idiocy sometimes. -sigh- Name one point what I may have missed in the above reasoning.

I'll admit it, you seem to know a lot more about Gothic times than me. :P

Let me just say that I can see where the kid's coming from, and I think all these posts lined up attacking him for it is a little silly. I think what he means are the dark priests, and imminent death looming in the air. Not historically accurate, but not indecipherable.

I think what she meant by "gothic" was dark and gloomy, not devil-worshipping.

Gee, is it so hard to read between the lines sometimes?

Read the MESSAGE not the diction.

Same for all u other whores that said "Gothic. Wtf?"

No, he said it was gonna be dirty-looking without the vibrant colors of the current games.

I do hope the next games are darker though. MKD had dark qualities for me, except for the extra modes. I want something like that but more original and more spooky looking with skulls, evil statues, shadowy things and stuff.

In fact, I want the Cemetary arena to return. That had it all, didn't it?

Thank you, QueenSindel. You summed up what I wanted to say, only better.

I'd love for death to kind of be final in the new games. That would make the performance of Fatalities and the like just as effective as they used to be. You aren't simply setting aside a character for the rest of the game, you're ending their existence. Perfect.

I think losing the colours, as much a fan of palette swaps as I was growing up, is the right move.

If a character like Tanya returns, I want to see her wearing black, not bright yellow. If Cyrax comes back, I'd love to see the coloured plating on his costume replaced with khaki-style camouflage.