Why does it matter if some of them were terrible? They were made because they made a shit load of money and they were high in demand. An MK movie was inevitable due to the game being highly popular, so Hollywood made a movie. The first did great in the box office so they made another.

We're also talking about Smash Bros. Not the entire company of Nintendo. You know what else was a shit movie? Super Mario.

MK9 did not sell 6 million copies, it sold 5 at best, which is less than the worst selling SSB. Also it doesn't matter if the Wii U has a mediocre install base since the new SSB is coming out on the 3DS as well, which has sold insanely amount of millions, sales won't fall short, especially not compared to MK.

Nintendo proves time & time again that stagnancy is the way to be. Mario is the savior of videogames & if you don't respect Mario, then you're no longer a gamer. even though I prefer that he friggin talks again. Like in Mario vs Donkey Kong for the GBA.

Nah, I'd rather give the casuals a little more credit and not assume that they're as narrow-minded as SOME people. Also, sarcastic derision and anger are not the same thing, bub.

I mean that's nice but SSB is still more popular than MK. It's just more well received is all. And more consistently good as well.

People keep saying this but more than a few franchises offer consistency while preventing things from getting stale.

Then the competition is pointless. I could have told IGN back in March that the game which was 90% complete was gonna look better than the game that's only revealing 10% of it's total content (and still needs polishing).

Well all awards ceremonies are SOME degree of pointless.

Actually it did sell over 6 million copies. It's a fact. Don't know where you got "it sold 5 at best" info from, but I'd love to see your source.

Why do some people love to shit on the things they are ostensibly fans of?

Directly from Boon' twitter: "outr last game sold 4 or 5 million". LOL at the need to come and make up figures like 6m, etc. Sad.

That's because Smash Bros are better at picking their rosters and introducing new characters. MK on the other hand are not good when it comes to picking their roster.

While the games are clearly better selling, Super Smash Bros. is just a popular video game series.

Mortal Kombat is an iconic gaming franchise, with over 20 years on its belt. On that level, SSB cannot yet compare.

^ The Super smash bros. series has been around for 15 years, not too shabby either, especially seeing how the sequels keep selling more tan the previous game, and how all the SSB games sell more than the "iconic" MK games. Not to mention most, if not all SSB characters are iconic, unlike 80% of MK's cast.

SSB a fighting game? News to me.

MK had like...what 5 playable characters, and 2 stage?

I wouldn't take this thing to heart.

And we care because...?

This is still being discussed? Why? I said it before, the game is getting all the hype. Does one measly little website award make a difference if the game is good or not? If anyone says yes, I pity you.

Not to mention, I haven't cared about what IGN says in a lot of their reviews. That means jack shit to me. I seriously would not get so offended that a kid friendly game won over a game that's been around for almost a quarter of a century. That sentence alone should be something to respect. Because I honestly can't see Super Smash last as long as Mortal Kombat.

The thing that gets me is that people are acting like Super Smash Bros. is bad series.

The series is amazing! Really, it's just tears from a bunch of butthurt MK fans.

I like Smash as well and I am not going to say it is a horrible series. But people here are comparing two different games based on one appearance at a gaming expo. People have stated this and it's getting ignored for some ungodly reason, Smash is almost a completed game to where Mortal Kombat X was JUST released. That certainly makes a huge freaking difference, and if you can't tell between that, then I should have to have the right to call you ignorant. (You being used in general here)

Smash has more characters, arenas, and other goodies to showcase where Mortal Kombat has six characters, three arenas, and a few fatalities to showcase. That's it. That's all that was shown. So why should people be this upset over an "award" given by someone people tend to care oh so less about? Because Mortal Kombat needs to dominate in every single freaking thing? I love the series to death but it's got competition no doubt. If it loses to something it loses to something I'm not going to be a little baby about it. It's a twenty-something year old franchise up against younger franchises. Not everything is gonna go to Mortal Kombat, award-wise. The series has fans. That's all you need to care about. If it sells it sells, if it doesn't then we start worrying.

You're an idiot tbh. The game isn't even out. You don't even know the roster. Take that false information shit else where. Thanks.

I haven't clicked on an IGN link that wasn't from this site in like five years.

The bitterness is real.

And i don't see how the argument about MK being almost 25 years old is relevant, when SSB is 15 years old and has been outselling MK those 15 years.

I'm going to assume this is about what I wrote, and I doubt you even read what I was stating.

Because if this is what you're referring to, you would have realized that I was stating that the Mortal Kombat franchise has been going up against younger franchises. Thus, not everything is always going to end up with Mortal Kombat being the victor every time, and we should be okay with that.

So yes, it is relevant.

Because it's true

*trollface*