Played MK last night.....

#41stunSEED(Topic Creator)Posted 11/15/2013 8:03:09 AM
Zekenar posted...
SmashK posted...
Zekenar posted...
An argument could be made asking how fatalities.... "evolved" the genre.


Um....dude, really?

Fatalities evolved not only the fighting game genre, but the entire frickin' video game industry, prompting the creation of the ESRB and while bringing video game violence to the forefront of the mainstream awareness.


Please explain HOW that evolved gameplay in any way. All a ratings system does is absolve the developers from any blame that they may receive.(though it never seems to work) How does that affect gameplay?

Fatalities are not as much gameplay mechanics, as they are perks for being better than your opponent. They have absolutely NO effect on gameplay, and are really nothing more than QTEs without the screen prompt.

So again, how have Fatalities evolved the fighting game genre?


Well for me and my group that have played fighters together growing up, it made the end of the fight more satisfying. Lets not be stuck up with our noses in the air thinking anything that may be considered neat or cool is bad simply because. I take my hat off to them for adding something a little different to their games back then instead of spitting out the same old stuff with different characters/abilities. If you don't think what NRS has done in all aspects is innovative and not bad, then I am confused. I don't see ANY wrong they did to the fighter genre by adding what they have to their titles over the years. Do you maybe not like some of the stuff or not prefer some of it? Maybe. But does it hurt you or the genre? No. Why can't people just think it is cool that things are made differently, and different people will like/flock to different things?
---
"These pretzels are making me thirsty"
#42ZekenarPosted 11/15/2013 10:01:37 AM
stunSEED posted...
Well for me and my group that have played fighters together growing up, it made the end of the fight more satisfying. Lets not be stuck up with our noses in the air thinking anything that may be considered neat or cool is bad simply because. I take my hat off to them for adding something a little different to their games back then instead of spitting out the same old stuff with different characters/abilities. If you don't think what NRS has done in all aspects is innovative and not bad, then I am confused. I don't see ANY wrong they did to the fighter genre by adding what they have to their titles over the years. Do you maybe not like some of the stuff or not prefer some of it? Maybe. But does it hurt you or the genre? No. Why can't people just think it is cool that things are made differently, and different people will like/flock to different things?

"Made the end of the fight more satisfying" that is what I said. It still has no affect on gameplay. You keep trying to make me out to be some NRS-hating elitist. I never said they did anything bad, I simply pointed out that their gameplay is not up to par with other fighters. It is by no means bad, but there is much better out there. Why are you having such a hard time understanding that?

Hell, I even said Injustice is one of my favorite fighters.

Your last sentence leads me to believe that you are unable to accept that not everyone is going to agree with you.
---
Alan Scott's weakness is wood. Hmm.....
Now it all makes sense.
#43stunSEED(Topic Creator)Posted 11/15/2013 10:39:43 AM
Zekenar posted...
stunSEED posted...
Well for me and my group that have played fighters together growing up, it made the end of the fight more satisfying. Lets not be stuck up with our noses in the air thinking anything that may be considered neat or cool is bad simply because. I take my hat off to them for adding something a little different to their games back then instead of spitting out the same old stuff with different characters/abilities. If you don't think what NRS has done in all aspects is innovative and not bad, then I am confused. I don't see ANY wrong they did to the fighter genre by adding what they have to their titles over the years. Do you maybe not like some of the stuff or not prefer some of it? Maybe. But does it hurt you or the genre? No. Why can't people just think it is cool that things are made differently, and different people will like/flock to different things?

"Made the end of the fight more satisfying" that is what I said. It still has no affect on gameplay. You keep trying to make me out to be some NRS-hating elitist. I never said they did anything bad, I simply pointed out that their gameplay is not up to par with other fighters. It is by no means bad, but there is much better out there. Why are you having such a hard time understanding that?

Hell, I even said Injustice is one of my favorite fighters.

Your last sentence leads me to believe that you are unable to accept that not everyone is going to agree with you.


to YOU! NOT to everyone! ME for example. I could not care any less about people agreeing with me or not! Here or anywhere else. All I have been preaching about here was accepting different views, and beauty being n the eye of the beholder. How in the world did my last sentence mean anything negative to you?! I haven't once said that game A is better than game B. And if I did, I wouldn't be diluted enough to believe it was a fact. It would simply be my opinion. Herein lies the issue you aren't understanding.......
---
"These pretzels are making me thirsty"
#44ZekenarPosted 11/15/2013 12:33:13 PM
stunSEED posted...
to YOU! NOT to everyone! ME for example. I could not care any less about people agreeing with me or not! Here or anywhere else. All I have been preaching about here was accepting different views, and beauty being n the eye of the beholder. How in the world did my last sentence mean anything negative to you?! I haven't once said that game A is better than game B. And if I did, I wouldn't be diluted enough to believe it was a fact. It would simply be my opinion. Herein lies the issue you aren't understanding.......

When game A has faster, more responsive and fluid gameplay than game B, it is a fact that game A has better gameplay. Personal opinion is irrelevant. In that regard, MK and Injustice fall short of other fighting games. Does that make them bad games? No. Does that mean everybody should enjoy game A more than game B? No. It just means it has better gameplay.

There is nothing for me to not understand. You can't seem to accept that there are games out there that are factually better than the one you are white-knighting. BloodRayne is one of my favorite series of all time, but it doesn't blind me to the fact that there are other games that are just plain better.
---
Alan Scott's weakness is wood. Hmm.....
Now it all makes sense.
#45stunSEED(Topic Creator)Posted 11/15/2013 2:42:28 PM
Zekenar posted...
stunSEED posted...
to YOU! NOT to everyone! ME for example. I could not care any less about people agreeing with me or not! Here or anywhere else. All I have been preaching about here was accepting different views, and beauty being n the eye of the beholder. How in the world did my last sentence mean anything negative to you?! I haven't once said that game A is better than game B. And if I did, I wouldn't be diluted enough to believe it was a fact. It would simply be my opinion. Herein lies the issue you aren't understanding.......

When game A has faster, more responsive and fluid gameplay than game B, it is a fact that game A has better gameplay. Personal opinion is irrelevant. In that regard, MK and Injustice fall short of other fighting games. Does that make them bad games? No. Does that mean everybody should enjoy game A more than game B? No. It just means it has better gameplay.

There is nothing for me to not understand. You can't seem to accept that there are games out there that are factually better than the one you are white-knighting. BloodRayne is one of my favorite series of all time, but it doesn't blind me to the fact that there are other games that are just plain better.


k
---
"These pretzels are making me thirsty"