SF4 Boss Talks Mortal Kombat, Western Design Philosophy
- Thread starter John Funk
- Start date
The guy is right about his comparison but we really gotta stop this, east does this but west does this, crap. First of all, MK can't speak for all western games and SF can't speak for all eastern games. There are many different philosophies within both regions. This help creates unnecessary discrimination between people (which I won't be surprised if there's some retard comment on how much Japanese/Western games suck) that is more shameful than the console wars.
It was reasonable to compare 2 games but it wasn't for 2 regions, that's all I'm saying.
It was reasonable to compare 2 games but it wasn't for 2 regions, that's all I'm saying.
Makes me think of the Intro to Baseketball where the narrator is commenting about how sports are changing in regards to the execution no longer being as important as the victory dance.
The new MK thats coming out really seems to improve on the actual gameplay or the "process" of getting to the Fatalities. I found it to be ALOT more fun than MvC3 when I played it at PAX. I suppose thats because I didn't get my ass handed to me by my friend when we played.
Good to see the ol' ethnocentrism is still prevalent amongst Japanese devs. I mean, when I play a fighter, "Western" or otherwise (god I hate that term), it's all about the inconsequential bonus input after the match has been decided.
I mean, it isn't as though a great many Mortal Kombat games, and other "Western" fighters, have their in-match mechanics and mindgames. Nope, all about dem after match bonuses!
Ono's an idiot. But this shouldn't be surprising; he's the guy that says "parrying was too hard," when the reality was "parrying was way, way, way too easy."
I mean, it isn't as though a great many Mortal Kombat games, and other "Western" fighters, have their in-match mechanics and mindgames. Nope, all about dem after match bonuses!
Ono's an idiot. But this shouldn't be surprising; he's the guy that says "parrying was too hard," when the reality was "parrying was way, way, way too easy."
BB and GG (both developed by Arc System Works) are the only two big Japanese fighting games I actually enjoyed. Although, I wouldn't say that either of them rely heavily on timing of the actions. I'd say they're fun centric with a slight classical Japanese twist.Frank_Sinatra_ said:
i dunno bout this because in the new Mortal Kombat game from what i`ve played of the demo it does a good jo of leading up to the bid finish. With the new MK the damage on ur opanent a acumilates as you fight give a real sense of satisfaction once the fight is over. It lets you look at the game and go i did that and its not just a combo or cutscene its real time and is different every fight. I dont know if i got my point across hear but these are just my thoughts.
I really dont see mortal kombat or street fighter at deep as all that. They are both about the same to me. I mean it depends on the player not the game. I dont usually waste time on the fatalities just punch him so he goes down. They are both nice franchises in my opinion, but to compare most fighting games on a deeper level when most are pretty much as shallow as it gets seems a little to speculative and opinion based to me.
I find the whole "chess" referance kind of silly to be honest.
The reason being that especially with the older MK titles, the characters had a very specific set of moves that were universal between the characters. Punch, kick, sweep, uppercut, etc... with minimal differances between the characters except for their special moves which were reasonably well balanced.
This to me made MK more "chess like" as both players function using the same exact rules for the most part.
In comparison, Street Fighter has always been a game balance nightmare. While Mortal Kombat was never balanced, Street Fighter has always been extremely unbalanced. The characters in Street Fighter are more unique, but do adhere to something of a "tier" system, with some characters simply being outright better than others. Even arguements by fanboys about it being balanced tend to fall flat when you start looking beyond the moves themselves, but towards things like ease of execution compared to relative power.
I remember reading that when they were working on Guilty Gear, their design philsophy was oddly one of ignoring any conception of game balance, and making every character as broken as possible, hoping that it would more or less even out, and they could balance it later. It worked to an extent, but one of the reasons why I think they moved on to "Blazblue" (which is not without it's problems) was that they were running out of things they could do to help with what was a fundementally broken product.
I'm not getting into whether Street Fighter, or Mortal Kombat is more fun. What's more nowadays I think they are both on a fairly even level of broken game balance, and tier arguements. Showing why I don't think fighting games in their current state will ever become a major form of mainstream competition. I just think Mortal Kombat has in the past come far closer to being a "Chess like" experience where everything comes purely down to the player.
Of course arguably, we saw a "chess like" approach to the genere beore either Street Fighter or Mortal Kombat, in the form of things like "Karate Champ" where both of the characters were identical in their move sets. I think it's possible to get to a "chess-like" competitive level without resorting tot hat with fighting games, but it's a case where balance has to be put before everything, rather than just being given lip service.
Then again I'm one of the people who has argued that they should add about 3 extra nessicary motions to the "Shoto" fireball of Streetfighter and other ranged attacks. The moves are fine, but are far too easy to spam rapidly given the results that can be achieved by even a relatively unpracticed player in doing so.
The reason being that especially with the older MK titles, the characters had a very specific set of moves that were universal between the characters. Punch, kick, sweep, uppercut, etc... with minimal differances between the characters except for their special moves which were reasonably well balanced.
This to me made MK more "chess like" as both players function using the same exact rules for the most part.
In comparison, Street Fighter has always been a game balance nightmare. While Mortal Kombat was never balanced, Street Fighter has always been extremely unbalanced. The characters in Street Fighter are more unique, but do adhere to something of a "tier" system, with some characters simply being outright better than others. Even arguements by fanboys about it being balanced tend to fall flat when you start looking beyond the moves themselves, but towards things like ease of execution compared to relative power.
I remember reading that when they were working on Guilty Gear, their design philsophy was oddly one of ignoring any conception of game balance, and making every character as broken as possible, hoping that it would more or less even out, and they could balance it later. It worked to an extent, but one of the reasons why I think they moved on to "Blazblue" (which is not without it's problems) was that they were running out of things they could do to help with what was a fundementally broken product.
I'm not getting into whether Street Fighter, or Mortal Kombat is more fun. What's more nowadays I think they are both on a fairly even level of broken game balance, and tier arguements. Showing why I don't think fighting games in their current state will ever become a major form of mainstream competition. I just think Mortal Kombat has in the past come far closer to being a "Chess like" experience where everything comes purely down to the player.
Of course arguably, we saw a "chess like" approach to the genere beore either Street Fighter or Mortal Kombat, in the form of things like "Karate Champ" where both of the characters were identical in their move sets. I think it's possible to get to a "chess-like" competitive level without resorting tot hat with fighting games, but it's a case where balance has to be put before everything, rather than just being given lip service.
Then again I'm one of the people who has argued that they should add about 3 extra nessicary motions to the "Shoto" fireball of Streetfighter and other ranged attacks. The moves are fine, but are far too easy to spam rapidly given the results that can be achieved by even a relatively unpracticed player in doing so.
And MK doesn't? Tell me, whose side is Scorpion on? How about Raiden?Sir John the Net Knight said:
Both sides are equally guilty. (Gear.)
I dont typically care for Eastern or Western developers pointing out problems with the others style. But I do actually agree with this. But I have an interesting question, How many Western fighting games are there? All I can think of is Mortal Kombat. Doesnt really seem like a fair comparison.
Err...I'm kinda hung up your idea on MK stories makin...well...any sense at all. By the time Armageddon had been released every character has either had some form of change of heart, been killed and resurrected, or became a god only to be killed anyway. Its one of the more convoluted storylines out there honestly.Sir John the Net Knight said:
HankMan said:
Yeah man, the queens Fatality is MADNESS. If she takes down a pawn, she just fuckin eats it!
Indeed. While I agree with his assessment of Mortal Kombat on the whole, little of what he said applies to this new one, which plays almost as well as Street Fighter. However, I get the feeling that his assessment of Western design overall is pretty weak.BrunDeign said:
What in the name of ass is this fuckness?demoman_chaos said:
