I really don't get this whole "it was the biggest selling fighter of the year so it's obviously better than the others" thing that people bring up to support mk9.
What I meant is that a failed game can't outsell "not failed" games, I didn't mean that mk9 is better than Marvel because people bought more units from mk9 than marvel.
I'm glad the game sold well as it they did a great job at revitalising the series, but sales means buggerall to how good the actual game is as a fighting game goes. I'm sure at least 3 quarters of the people who bought the game did so because it's a throw back to classic, gory Mortal Kombat, bringing back memories of the good old arcade days and such, not because they actually give a shit about MK, or any fighting games at a competitve level.
I think the competitive level of a game is just one aspect of the game, we can't judge a game as failed without consider other aspects. But I got you, some movies (like star wars episode I) raised a lot of money in the premiere but not because they are amazing (again, think of episode I) but because they generated great expectations.
Fact is, Marvel, SF, KoF, BB etc etc are all superiour fighters, you can't argue that fact even if you don't like them, they are just much deeper and better supported games.
I don't know if they are deeper but I think that yes, they are better supported.
MK9 is a super fun game, but as it stands with the problems it does have, it's a joke in comparison to the other popular fighters of the moment...
It has problems but definetly is not a joke compared to other games. I think it's a matter of personal preferences, and if you are referring to competitive level I really don't know what to say just that some games are better supported. I think marketing, advertising and community managment play a big role in regard to a game being perceived as a better or worse game than others.
