MK Topic Wish List

[Manic Red]

Hey TYM community, I run the MK HEADs Podcast where we discuss a range of Mortal Kombat topics from lore to titles, characters, leaks, and more. I wanted to see if you guys had topics that you wish someone would cover or discuss that you have not seen or seen, but wished it was a deep dive.

 

[scrubjesus111]

Hey TYM community, I run the MK HEADs Podcast where we discuss a range of Mortal Kombat topics from lore to titles, characters, leaks, and more. I wanted to see if you guys had topics that you wish someone would cover or discuss that you have not seen or seen, but wished it was a deep dive.

“Is MKX Liu Kang broken?”
-IMO Liu is actually bar none the best character in MKX, but ONLY when Ninjakilla unlocks his full potential.

“Should the next Mortal Kombat be more fast-paced like MKX, or neutral-focused like MK11?”
-IMO MKX is the epitome of Mortal Kombat in both gameplay and stylistically.

“Are we due a Shaolin Monks sequel? History of MK‘s adventure titles/modes, should MK explore other game genres like Open World?”

“What is the best MK story to date (movies/games)? What makes a good MK story? Since the next title is moving on from the tournament arc, what do you expect/hope it will cover?”

“Did NRS ruin Reptile?”
-(riffing off of TrueUnderDawg’s recent video)

 

[Manic Red]

“Is MKX Liu Kang broken?”
-IMO Liu is actually bar none the best character in MKX, but ONLY when Ninjakilla unlocks his full potential.

“Should the next Mortal Kombat be more fast-paced like MKX, or neutral-focused like MK11?”
-IMO MKX is the epitome of Mortal Kombat in both gameplay and stylistically.

“Are we due a Shaolin Monks sequel? History of MK‘s adventure titles/modes, should MK explore other game genres like Open World?”

“What is the best MK story to date (movies/games)? What makes a good MK story? Since the next title is moving on from the tournament arc, what do you expect/hope it will be?”

Some good stuff in there man, we’ve discussed some of this in previous episodes. I have these written down for future topics though! Thank you for the input!

-Manic Red

 

[Wigy]

Is pee stored in the balls?

 

[Manic Red]

Is pee stored in the balls?

no, that’s called a bladder… science

 

[Marlow]

A lot of fighting games seem to follow a cycle:

1. Game A comes out. People love game A.
2. Game B comes out. People who loved game A are unsatisfied with Game B, and wish it was more like Game A. Meanwhile, a new player base forms around Game B, and really enjoys Game B.
3. Game C comes out. A and B fans mostly pander Game C, and accuse it of being too simple, too casual friendly, too broken, too boring, not broken enough, not enough freedom of expression, not hype enough, too random, not enough fundamentals, etc. Meanwhile, a new player base forms around Game C, and really enjoys Game C.

And so on and so on, with practically all fighting games experiencing this cycle. My questions:

1. Is there a legitimacy to this cycle and to the fans of Game A and Game B? Is it just a fact of life that most games in a franchise tend to get worse over time? Or is part of this just human nature, since we see it repeating so often amongst games? In other words, is it just our nature that when we fall in love with a game we tend to be more prone to being skeptical of games that follow after?
2. Is there something a fighting game can do to try and break out of this cycle?
3. Is it possible that when we criticize new games that we overlook the fact that we ourselves have probably changed a lot since the last game came out, and it's possible that our tastes and preferences have changed and thus influence our take on the newest game?

 

[Manic Red]

A lot of fighting games seem to follow a cycle:

1. Game A comes out. People love game A.
2. Game B comes out. People who loved game A are unsatisfied with Game B, and wish it was more like Game A. Meanwhile, a new player base forms around Game B, and really enjoys Game B.
3. Game C comes out. A and B fans mostly pander Game C, and accuse it of being too simple, too casual friendly, too broken, too boring, not broken enough, not enough freedom of expression, not hype enough, too random, not enough fundamentals, etc. Meanwhile, a new player base forms around Game C, and really enjoys Game C.

And so on and so on, with practically all fighting games experiencing this cycle. My questions:

1. Is there a legitimacy to this cycle and to the fans of Game A and Game B? Is it just a fact of life that most games in a franchise tend to get worse over time? Or is part of this just human nature, since we see it repeating so often amongst games? In other words, is it just our nature that when we fall in love with a game we tend to be more prone to being skeptical of games that follow after?
2. Is there something a fighting game can do to try and break out of this cycle?
3. Is it possible that when we criticize new games that we overlook the fact that we ourselves have probably changed a lot since the last game came out, and it's possible that our tastes and preferences have changed and thus influence our take on the newest game?

That is a deep and well thought out topic… I need to chew on this one.

 

[Wigy]

no, that’s called a bladder… science

In all seriousness

Does NRS provide as much support as other similarly large AAA developers in terms of numbers and effectiveness of patching and communication.

 

[John Grizzly]

In all seriousness

Does NRS provide as much support as other similarly large AAA developers in terms of numbers and effectiveness of patching and communication.

I think we all know the answer to that already.

 

[Wigy]

I think we all know the answer to that already.

Yes i imagine it will be a fast discussion.

 

[Marlow]

A lot of fighting games seem to follow a cycle:

1. Game A comes out. People love game A.
2. Game B comes out. People who loved game A are unsatisfied with Game B, and wish it was more like Game A. Meanwhile, a new player base forms around Game B, and really enjoys Game B.
3. Game C comes out. A and B fans mostly pander Game C, and accuse it of being too simple, too casual friendly, too broken, too boring, not broken enough, not enough freedom of expression, not hype enough, too random, not enough fundamentals, etc. Meanwhile, a new player base forms around Game C, and really enjoys Game C.

And so on and so on, with practically all fighting games experiencing this cycle. My questions:

1. Is there a legitimacy to this cycle and to the fans of Game A and Game B? Is it just a fact of life that most games in a franchise tend to get worse over time? Or is part of this just human nature, since we see it repeating so often amongst games? In other words, is it just our nature that when we fall in love with a game we tend to be more prone to being skeptical of games that follow after?
2. Is there something a fighting game can do to try and break out of this cycle?
3. Is it possible that when we criticize new games that we overlook the fact that we ourselves have probably changed a lot since the last game came out, and it's possible that our tastes and preferences have changed and thus influence our take on the newest game?

Adjacent or follow up question:

What were the differences between the environment and time period when MK9, MKX, and MK11 came out? How do those differences affect our perception of the games?

For example, just comparing the fighting game landscape when MK9 came out compared to MK11, it's crazy how different things are. The gaming community was much smaller, our general understanding of fighting games was probably less than it is now (how many people back in 2011 actually understood and knew how to use frame data, and how many games were actually even disclosing frame data, compared to now?), online play was different, even tournaments were different in terms of venues, streaming, and payouts.

Sorry to go on about this, I just find this stuff fascinating to think about. I think in a lot of ways the way people interact with games now is just so different than how they did in 2011, 2013, 2016, etc. Makes interested to see how things will be whenever MK12 comes out, or Injustice 3, or whatever is next.

 

[Cobainevermind87]

(how many people back in 2011 actually understood and knew how to use frame data, and how many games were actually even disclosing frame data, compared to now?)

Funny you should ask, MK9 had no in-game frame data. Guy on here by the name of Somberness labbed it all out and posted it here. There were also many pro players posting extremely detailed character and tech guides here every day. It was a great time to be a TYMer if you were thirsty for knowledge.

That being said, it was hard to apply much of what you learned here online. Playing online was more about reading what your opponent's next move would be. You weren't reacting to anything in that netcode. It was like you were playing in quicksand.

 

[fredhardy]

Adjacent or follow up question:
Kodi nox
What were the differences between the environment and time period when MK9, MKX, and MK11 came out? How do those differences affect our perception of the games?

For example, just comparing the fighting game landscape when MK9 came out compared to MK11, it's crazy how different things are. The gaming community was much smaller, our general understanding of fighting games was probably less than it is now (how many people back in 2011 actually understood and knew how to use frame data, and how many games were actually even disclosing frame data, compared to now?), online play was different, even tournaments were different in terms of venues, streaming, and payouts.

Sorry to go on about this, I just find this stuff fascinating to think about. I think in a lot of ways the way people interact with games now is just so different than how they did in 2011, 2013, 2016, etc. Makes interested to see how things will be whenever MK12 comes out, or Injustice 3, or whatever is next.

I hope in the next versions they do take this in consideration