Instant kill moves would be a rather stale addition to the game, and would allow too much of an advantage for those players in Versus who knew how to do them. Plus, there would be no real fighting to be had between combatants in the Arcade mode, where the enemies are decidedly easier and would be getting Instant Killed left, right and centre.

The Death Traps require at least some degree of maneuvring in order to make them work, and are not by any means an Instant Kill, since no one in their right mind would allow themselves to be (for instance) chucked into a rock crusher. The death traps added a bit of danger to the battle, and an unexpected twist, in that even someone with a fraction of health could beat an opponent with full health if they managed to get their positioning right. Still, some people disagree with the Death Traps as well, and I think they are well within their right to do so, since they do cheapen the gameplay down to games of "who can shove their opponent off the building first", rather that honest-to-God one-on-one confrontations like MK is really all about.

Personally, I think the next Mortal Kombat game should work on making the fights longer, not shorter. They should then pack these longer battles full of action. How they do this is kind of up to them, and I have no suggestions of my own, but in my mind, you can never have too much of a good thing. If they finally perfected the fighting engine then I would want to be playing for longer periods of time so that I could enjoy it in its entirety. So, to answer your question, I think Instant Kills would be a horrendous idea. Still, each angle needs to be discussed, and I haven't seen this one addressed yet. Kudos to you on the topic.

No, Mortal Kombat isn't Guilty Gear.

No no no no no.....!

Its a really bad idea for Mk, it would be too cheap, too easy, too boring. I hope they never do this, never.

No. They're not needed or wanted and would certainly suck. Weskerian has said all that needs to be said really on such an addition.

I don't like this idea at all, I think moves like this, and MKD's death traps (which I also don't like) take a lot away from the player's skill, and matches just turn into luck as everyone tries to be the first to score their one hit kill, rather than winning becuase you're a better player.

There aren't many things worse than coming close to winning a match, only to be knocked into a death trap by one lucky hit costing you the round. That's not how a fighting game should be, and it would be the same with instant kill moves.

I think it should go back to the old school Stage Fatality where at the end of the round you could have a Stage Fatality. I think everyone would be happier but time will tell us.

i agree with you all, yeah the DT's were cool at the beginning, but playing online all the person would do is push u over to a side and kill you, not very fun at all. I think that the addition of an Instant Kill would not work at all becuase of the fact that fights would reduce to whoever can get the IK in, making matches last maybe no more than 10 seconds, 15 seconds tops.

I say in the next game keep the Multilayered arenas, but take out the death traps. like you can knock the guy off a building onto a lower level, but thats it, and have the fall cause little...VERY little damage. it would be cool, but then it wouldn't totally unbalance a fight. and this is also if they keep the same fighting engine that they used for DA and D

One of the many reasons I have grown to hate MK is that there are no proper moves that do justice to damage. There is no fuckin' human who could withstand more than two blows from a sword colliding with body.

Another thing, the two-round-win system is stale, unoriginal and comple-tely senseless. If MK would have been a tournament (justice to MK1 in this case) than it could be explained why, but since MK3???

Just to comparison if a halberd's peak can punch a hole into a motorcross helm with a simple swing, then why the heck does Shang Tsung straight sword backlash only scarcely damage an opponent?

Okay, it's not realistic, but it's completely average in every aspect. All fighters save for Bio F.R.E.A.K.S. etc. depend on this competitive bull-
shit style of two rounds.

Either explain the blows with avopidance animation or increase damage.

1 round with an extended life bar would be good.

they could just say Fight!, instead of naming the rounds.

This "competitive bullshit" as you put it Chrome, is what makes a fighting game worth playing, it's probably the most necessary element of a beat em up, and MK is a beat em up. This is why people play them against friends and hold tournaments, and this is why the best fighters, no matter how old they may be, are still worth playing against other people.

Instant kills or other gameplay elements which deal with destroying or damaging an opponent's limb beyond use take away a lot from the competitiveness, which is a big reason why no one really cares about Bio Freaks, or those Ultimate Fighting games that introduced body/limb damage. What seems like a good idea in theory doesn't always work in reality, as the fact that tthese games have turned most fighting game fans off has proved.

Besides, why are we even thinking about the limits of a human body, when MK deals with a world in which monsters and magic exist, and even seemingly "normal" humans like Johnny Cage can conjure up powerful fireballs with no explanation (not even standard superhero crap like "bitten by a radioactive whatever"). Nobody complains that a human wouldn't survive a big Street Fighter fireball, or a Soul Calibur sword combo, so why the hell should we want these limits brought into Mortal Kombat?

To add: At least we get blood, cuts and bruises in our games. In SC and SF you get those bizarre crackles of fire or energy or whatever to indicate attacks hitting their mark. How is that possibly considered realism? If you ask me, MK has possibly one of the most realistic damage representations in the fighting genre.

Which is quite sad because I am not the only one who left fighters to rot becouse of their repetitiveness. Then again, Mk would look awkward with them. let the fairy tale have it's setting then I don't care. Lot of people want
to outsmart the other by technicality and MK nor any other mainstream fighter game can't offer that. And I am not talking about quick reaction or combos, strings whatever... I am talking about players who win because
of well calculated and complex substance during playtime.

because you set me off know that i never liked fighters in the first place. Only MK to an extent. Johnny Cage was bitten by a radioactive furball. He throws glowing radio-active genital furballs.

Fair enough, you're not into fighting games, and I won't try and make you like them. The "Well calculated and complex substance" comes from learning and mastering each character's moves and combos to a competitive level. There is very real skill involved in taking the time to learn these moves, and whether you enjoy fighters or not, you have to acknowledge this point.

And quick reactions will always play a part in doing this. You cannot have a fighting game that doesn't rely on this aspect, if you want a game where fast reactions and responses don't matter, you're looking in the wrong videogame genre. And first and foremost, Mortal Kombat is a beat em up, OK not always a good example of one, but that's another story. The "repetitive" two round system has stayed so long, because it works, many games and competitions run on a "best of three equals victory" system, although I do think there should be an option to change the number of round.

Going back to your point about winning by outsmarting the other player by technicality, I'd be interested to see what ideas you would offer as a credible, workable alternative to the tried and true system most beat em ups use?

OK you've convinced me that instant kill isn't that good an idea.

The way how it could possibly work is if you needed to set it up, or maybe beat the other player into a stunned state, a bit like in a wrestling game. I guess this is much the same as a fatality though.

Whoever said about 1 round only is right. You shouldn't be a ble to deathtrap/fatality someone twice in one fight.

Seeing as that's a whole other topic, i think i'll start a new thread with a poll.

Point.

what buggers me the most that there is no differnce between the characters no matter what styles thez use. Take for example a weapon fighter. SC sucks in warfare demonstaration though, but it§s of course another caliber of a world.

Example: gameplay difference. Two characters: lightly armed medieval brigand with two stilettos vs. full plated knight with herald shield. Outco-me: in reality 95% knight. Bodyclose combat cannot be achieved against a shield of such shape and proportions. 5% if the rogue even gets close.

In the gameplay the rogue should have complex directional taps for his lunge in-out attacks (thats how you use daggers), whereas the knight could have a such simpler time, swinging his weapon around with a much easier achievement and more damage.

*

Another thing: you know what happens if a 9.5 spatha hits your forearm? It is gone. Sewered. A longsword weapon like that WON'T leave scars, it sewers. A simple arminger sword (medieval weapons in Europe were far more specialized than in the oriental - meaning much more diversity and efficiency with other amranents) can cleave through a hanged up pig in it's entirety with Minimal Effort.

Conclusion: if the player fails to block an attack in it's entirety -> goner.
That would also need a reasonable amount of gameplay focus on parry, fencing, leaning, the guards and weapons physics. If the characters uses a low blocking stance (Tail guard) against a neck-level swipe, then his head is most probably should be cleaved off. THATS the challenge, not
the administration of how much damage can I "suck" in.

A 1 wrong move = game over game could be good, but to pull it off well would be a very hard task indeed. Bushido blade had something this. Never played it though. Wish they'd do a ps2 remake.


I would like a happy medium. I propose they have it like a basic fighting game, but make it so that moves with a lot of momentum cannot be stopped dead in their tracks by jabs and that.

By this i mean, say if someone (generally a larger character) swings a giant axe at your head, in standard fighting games, if you interrupt them with a light slap before they hit you, they stop, and you carry on hitting them.

A better system would be where you can get the quick hit in, but their axe continues on it's arc, and you still have to duck it if you don't want to get hit.

Howabout also a system whereby you can get inside the range of certain attacks- ie too close for them to be effective. You could have `close-in` moves for this purpose- they'd work a bit like throws.

I like how you say that different characters should play completely differently. I think in such a game they'd be very hard pressed to `balance` it, but that isn't so important really.

I'd love to see someone try and reinvent the fighting genre. It wouldn't have to be balanced, or even that great. I just want something a bit different, hopefully wth less flashy physics-law-breaking nonsense, and with a bit more grit- like gran turismo rather than ridge racer.

Chrome..if you're looking for a realistic weapon fighter, i suggest Bushido Balde for PS1 and Dreamcast, it may be old but it's damn fun. and realistic. Also, Virtua Fighter 4 is pretty good also.

-larger characters attack slower myth: nonexistent. initiative might be slo-wer, but use a flasmberge and it can be as fast as a dagger. Rewielding it and making another attack, especially in the case of "wide moves" with polearms are what peoploe mistake with such things.

-it's not wether it should interrupt it, but how does it interrupt. A knifer cannot interrupt a knight with a slash, since the armor would only laugh at the attempt, but a half naked spearman would hiss and probably feel bad when the dagger gets plunged into his side.

-inside ranging: weapon and wielding dependent. mpossible with shields of nordic, roman or pavese design. Especially impossible with later foot-man shieds. Quite the effectivity against spearmen though, or against tho-se who use such things as straight scythes, trashers, flails.

-play differently for balance. Why balance? IN real combat there is no such thing as balance, and there should be cases where a certain character is indeed less probable to win against the other. or i yes, with much more and larger efforts.