MK9 and SF4, how comparable?

[digitaldemize]

Not true.
Reaction time is less to do with training and more about genetics and age, mostly you're really just learning how to enter a deeper focus and read things better, which translates to more consistent reactions.
theres a small 1% thats just going to be MUCH faster (100ms) than the rest of us. Luckily they probably gravitate towards sports.

That's part of it. Yes, your reaction time is physically limited and there isn't dick you can do about that.

Street Fighter requires you react faster, you have less of a window in which to react, and it's far more demanding on your execution within that window.

If you're used to something that demanding doing less demanding things naturally comes easier. It feels like you have forever and a day to put in the inputs and you'll really start to feel how more leinient the game is with it's inputs and it's timing about things.

MK is an automatic, SF is a stick.

It's a bit more than that. Playing MK is like driving in a circle with an automatic, SF is making hair pin turns going as fast as you possibly can with a stick.

Will it improve your physical and genetic makeup, no. But it will force you to drive a lot better and make other things seem easier.

And I should state that some of the stuff in SF and some the tricks seem and feel like they are overly complicated for the sake of being overly complicated. The entire game is really geared towards making the learning curve turn into a cliff at a certain point. There are problems with that, less fun for some, way too brutal on newer and mid level players, and prone to make sure that the slightest case of jitters in a tournament means you're going to drop combos and get eaten.

But if you really want to torture yourself and improve things, it's not a half bad way to go about it.

Most of my friends prefer MK because they can actually do all the combos they see in combo videos. Trying to pull that sort of stuff on SF turns into a massive case of frustration because the game is deliberately brutal about it.

I've really gotten a lot better at combos and reversals in all games after having to deal with the 1 frame BS that is in street fighter, it's a pain but it's worth learning.

 

[Eight]

Why did this thread turn into an MK vs. SF thread?

Why can't we all be friends?

Haters should not hate.

 

[Subby]

I have the utmost respect of anyone who plays SF competivley.

It's VERY....VERY....hard.

 

[HurlingDervish]

@digitaldemize
yes you're technically correct, but those skills aren't exclusive to SF. It can come from peoples jobs, musicianship, athleticism, or any number of ways including non-fighting games. Its ultimately self-discipline. Just because you're whipped into submission by one game doesn't mean anything other than the gap between low and mid level play will be larger than it arguably should be (eg: people who've invested hundreds of hours practicing execution but still fail horribly at reads and improvising counters).

SF can definitely serve as a wake-up call to how bad some people may or may not be slouching in MK though. However, I think playing music is a better way to acquire that focus and execution for a fighting game, especially if you play shows. The jitters are 100x worse than playing a videogame in front of other videogame nerds (relax, we're all friends here lol) and depending on the genre the timing can be relentless.

Why did this thread turn into an MK vs. SF thread?

Why can't we all be friends?

Haters should not hate.

"MK9 and SF4, how comparable?"

why would it not

but seriously, people are trying to make good points on the difference, I think its been the most civil discussion on the differences so far. At least compared to if this was a discussion on SRK: "I've played MK9 online against laggy scrubs for 20 minutes on a fightstick heres why it sucks"

 

[BATTLEBEAR]

Hrm..well They are both 2d.....oh yea and have Meter and special moves

 

[jtom]

SF isnt complex its just very technical
But MK beats it in almost every department especially just being fun

Best SF's: SF3, SFA3
Best MK's: MKT, Mk9

I also dont understand why people think linking combos is hard? Its all time memorization.

SF isnt complex? MK beats it in every department? lol dude grow up a little. You're a fan of MK and don't care for SF, thats all you got to say. It is clear as day that you have very little experience playing SF competitively. Your assertions are completely unfounded.

However alot of people in this thread have made accurate claims about the two games. I play both games, SF competitively, and I tried to play MK competitively but my local scene is non existent. And like a previous poster had said, I have played SF much longer then MK, yet I feel I am better at MK. Its just a much easier and simpler game to play. Execution isnt a factor in MK whereas in SF it takes a lot of time and effort to stay consistent. Also MK obviously has no real footsy game to speak of. Blind/random aggression is awarded whereas it gets you killed in SF rather quickly.

All that said, I feel MK is funner and is a more relaxing experience. For all of MK's tangible shortcomings (frame data, a trainer etc), it has an intangible fun factor.

0.02

 

[LoneCenturion]

SFIV is VERY complex. As far as 2D fighters go, it's right behind KOF in terms of complexity, by only a small margin.

However, SFIV still, in my opinions, pales compared to it's Alpha and SF3 incarnations.

Compared to SFIV, MK is a much greater game for me.
Compared to SFA/3, MK is a bit inferior.

The only thing that makes SFIV lesser than the others is the fact that it's not... fun.
Even MvC3, in all it's broken glory, manages to be more enjoyable.

 

[digitaldemize]

SFIV is VERY complex. As far as 2D fighters go, it's right behind KOF in terms of complexity, by only a small margin.

However, SFIV still, in my opinions, pales compared to it's Alpha and SF3 incarnations.

Compared to SFIV, MK is a much greater game for me.
Compared to SFA/3, MK is a bit inferior.

The only thing that makes SFIV lesser than the others is the fact that it's not... fun.
Even MvC3, in all it's broken glory, manages to be more enjoyable.

I've never been a fan of the VS series in general but I kinda agree.

Why did this thread turn into an MK vs. SF thread?

Why can't we all be friends?

Haters should not hate.

Look at the title, it's a comparison, and I also don't see that much hate going around so don't worry.

Think about it this way, if people didn't like MK they wouldn't be posting here so don't worry. Out of all the 2d fighters that came out so far that people know of (SFIV, MVC3, BB, MK9) I'd say MK was the only one that actually improved on the prior titles. The others were all a step back or a lateral move. I'd also say as a product, MK has the most polish. It's training mode is pretty good, it actually has a single player campaign worth noting and actually offers ways for new people to get in... and so far it's debatably more fun.

However it's a cold fact that SF is much harder.

Look at it this way. My friend who sucks at fighting games was able to pick up MK9 and get down two characters BnB's and larger punisher combos within a few hours, along with the basics of the game and is thus actually able to play it in a way that's fun and not get destroyed by our local group. That's a good thing. Now Street Fighters combo system is vastly more complex and requires a ton more skill, and he still can't fully land multi link combo's several months after starting it.

That doesn't make SF's combo system better, there are arguments for it being better in that you have a lot more freedom in creating your owns, but the reflex's required, the timing required, the margin for error are so much higher than MK's that it sucks for a lot of people and just creates a sort of brick wall.

Likewise the lack of footsies, sold counter hit situations, reversals, and other items is great for him as well. That stuff takes for ever to get down and SF is ultra heavy on it to the point where you can just be kept out and shut down without that much of a skill gap. In MK it's not that important so he can get in and do some real damage.

If you're asking for a comparison, SF is just harder and rougher. But that can often be an impediment to fun and frustrate people. Some of the stuff in it is complex just for the sake of being hard. The stuff in MK isn't like that so you can concentrate on having fun rather than worrying about one frame links, perfect spacing, and 8 level mind games.

I'm not against complexity, I like it. But any time it starts to get in the way of actually being able to master the fundamentals of the game or make the character do what you want it to do it can become problematic. Which is the SF situation. It's complex, but it's just brutal about it at times in ways that aren't always that fun.

 

[Shadowclaimer]

His playstyle is not nearly the same. He might be solid in SSF4: AE but its for a different reason than in 3rd strike

Understandable, I like both iterations of Dudley (I play Urien main in 3S though, and Vega in 4AE), I can see how some people can lean towards his 3S version though. I really like playing third strike because it really gets me in the habit of proper blocking and tighter combos and exact movements, SF4 does the tighter combos as well, I find that when I play MK after sessions of SF I tend to notice improvements in my timing and movements, even though fractions of a second, its still enough to matter, and overtime I notice it improving in general.

Also I stand that SF's combo system is actually more restrictive truthfully, only certain moves link into certain moves or cancel properly. As opposed to MK where basically anything works with anything as long as the hitboxes match.

 

[RagingNight]

Understandable, I like both iterations of Dudley (I play Urien main in 3S though, and Vega in 4AE), I can see how some people can lean towards his 3S version though. I really like playing third strike because it really gets me in the habit of proper blocking and tighter combos and exact movements, SF4 does the tighter combos as well, I find that when I play MK after sessions of SF I tend to notice improvements in my timing and movements, even though fractions of a second, its still enough to matter, and overtime I notice it improving in general.

Also I stand that SF's combo system is actually more restrictive truthfully, only certain moves link into certain moves or cancel properly. As opposed to MK where basically anything works with anything as long as the hitboxes match.

3S Dudley is more offensive and is all about the yomi game. Playing 3S gives you a higher response time on things, like you just react faster to stuff in the game.

 

[jtom]

Look at the title, it's a comparison, and I also don't see that much hate going around so don't worry.

Think about it this way, if people didn't like MK they wouldn't be posting here so don't worry. Out of all the 2d fighters that came out so far that people know of (SFIV, MVC3, BB, MK9) I'd say MK was the only one that actually improved on the prior titles. The others were all a step back or a lateral move. I'd also say as a product, MK has the most polish. It's training mode is pretty good, it actually has a single player campaign worth noting and actually offers ways for new people to get in... and so far it's debatably more fun.

However it's a cold fact that SF is much harder.

Look at it this way. My friend who sucks at fighting games was able to pick up MK9 and get down two characters BnB's and larger punisher combos within a few hours, along with the basics of the game and is thus actually able to play it in a way that's fun and not get destroyed by our local group. That's a good thing. Now Street Fighters combo system is vastly more complex and requires a ton more skill, and he still can't fully land multi link combo's several months after starting it.

That doesn't make SF's combo system better, there are arguments for it being better in that you have a lot more freedom in creating your owns, but the reflex's required, the timing required, the margin for error are so much higher than MK's that it sucks for a lot of people and just creates a sort of brick wall.

Likewise the lack of footsies, sold counter hit situations, reversals, and other items is great for him as well. That stuff takes for ever to get down and SF is ultra heavy on it to the point where you can just be kept out and shut down without that much of a skill gap. In MK it's not that important so he can get in and do some real damage.

If you're asking for a comparison, SF is just harder and rougher. But that can often be an impediment to fun and frustrate people. Some of the stuff in it is complex just for the sake of being hard. The stuff in MK isn't like that so you can concentrate on having fun rather than worrying about one frame links, perfect spacing, and 8 level mind games.

I'm not against complexity, I like it. But any time it starts to get in the way of actually being able to master the fundamentals of the game or make the character do what you want it to do it can become problematic. Which is the SF situation. It's complex, but it's just brutal about it at times in ways that aren't always that fun.

in summary, MK is a casual game.

 

[LoneCenturion]

Define: Casual game.

 

[digitaldemize]

in summary, MK is a casual game.

If a game is casual or not typically depends completely on the settings you are playing in and who you are playing against.

 

[Vulcan Hades]

lol MK9 is not a casual game.

A casual game is a game so easy that anyone (kids and old geezers) can pick up and be good at with minimal effort. But MK9 requires as much knowledge as SF to be good at.

It's just that SF requires more execution skills and advanced understanding of footsies than MK. Yes, SSF4 is more hard to play than MK9. But that doesn't mean anything.

 

[HurlingDervish]

.

It's just that SF requires more execution skills and advanced understanding of footsies than MK. Yes, SSF4 is more hard to play than MK9. But that doesn't mean anything.

It means that all the people who spent 1000 hours practicing in training mode but still suck have something to gloat about. If those types of people, for the most part, weren't so vile and obnoxious I'd just want to hug them and say "Your life isn't meaningless!"


That game just does something to certain types of people's egos in a way that I've only ever seen DOTA/HoN accomplish. Like the bad players need to justify how much time they've wasted, when its more than the time that players, better than them, have spent with the game.

I think the best comparison I can make would be SSF4=DOTA/HoN, MK=League of Legends.

 

[cyke_out]

I totally disagree that simply becuase a game is harder to control, it automatically makes it better or more hardcore than a game that is easier to control. difficult inputs is just a barrier for entry level competitive play, at the higher levels it means absolutely nothing, since pro's hit their combo's 95% of the time, regardless of game.

The reason why people say they feel they are better at MK is becuase they don't have to focus so much of their time on practice insignificant details like one frame links, they can learn a BnB is an hour and spend the majority of their practice time, actually playing the game.

Now some moves require a certain input, charge moves for example are balanced around the fact that you can not use them anytime you want. but some moves are just complex for the sake of being complex which is silly design. is there any different from fei's chicken wing being a tigerknee motion to just a qcf? of course not, a pro player will be able to perform both at a moment's notice, one is just harder to the entry level player.

Winning should come down to your mental skills, game knowldge, match up experience. Yes execution skill is a part, but it shouldn't be the deciding factor or arbitrary.

 

[digitaldemize]

It's not just the moves. SFIV takes deeper tactics and has a far more advanced footsie game, reversal game, there is just more depth there.

MK's strengths are it's lack of depth and it's lack of execution. That makes it more fun, easier for people to get into, and helps narrow the skill gap.

That's a GOOD thing for it.

But that doesn't make it casual, unless of course you are just mucking around with people.

 

[LoneCenturion]

While I agree that SFIV is far more technical, I will have to say MK has one major thing in it's favor: Characters.

Now, I don't mean MK's designs are better (that's a matter of opinion), but what I meant is the diverse playstyles between each individual character makes learning each one a change from another.

It's been, in my experience, that there are certain characters in SFIV that, once you've learned to use them, learning another is an absolute breeze.

Ryu, Ken, Akuma, Rose, Gouken.
Blanka, Honda, to a lesser extent Guile.
T. Hawk, Zangief, Hakan, etc etc.

I feel that while the character designs are far more varied in SF, their playstyles seem to be mirrors or there's very little that separates them.

 

[digitaldemize]

Well... Ryu, Ken, Akuma, Gouken, and Rose play nothing alike at all. Not by any stretch once you get to mid level or above. The differences are massive.

Some of the inputs are the same, which is what I think you're getting at, but they don't play alike at all. Ryu is all about zoning and control. Ken revolves around his kicks, kara throws, and good combos. Akuma is entirely about his vortex. You can play them alike because the moveset is similar, but if you're doing it that way then, no offense, you have no idea how to actually play street fighter.

Though I won't defend "variety" in SF because it tends to involve a ton of tier whoring so you do run into the same characters a ton. And capcom is really guilty about copying moves so they look the same, but then tweaking the normals ever so much and tweaking the special propterties to make the characters play utterly differently at higher levels.

To drag another game in, if you want real character variety, check out blaz-blue. Nobody plays remotely similar at all.

 

[LoneCenturion]

Well... Ryu, Ken, Akuma, Gouken, and Rose play nothing alike at all. Not by any stretch once you get to mid level or above. The differences are massive.

Some of the inputs are the same, which is what I think you're getting at, but they don't play alike at all. Ryu is all about zoning and control. Ken revolves around his kicks, kara throws, and good combos. Akuma is entirely about his vortex. You can play them alike because the moveset is similar, but if you're doing it that way then, no offense, you have no idea how to actually play street fighter.

Though I won't defend "variety" in SF because it tends to involve a ton of tier whoring so you do run into the same characters a ton. And capcom is really guilty about copying moves so they look the same, but then tweaking the normals ever so much and tweaking the special propterties to make the characters play utterly differently at higher levels.

To drag another game in, if you want real character variety, check out blaz-blue. Nobody plays remotely similar at all.

I'd say that King of Fighters and Virtua Fighter seem to have the most in terms of character variety and playstyles.

Either way, it was just a matter of observation. Most of those characters all seem the same to me. I know that they're fundamentally difficult in high level play, but I'm no good enough at fighters yet to really mark those differences as being enough to consider them diverse.

They're still shoto clones to me.

That, and the commands/inputs for the game are far too intensive.

 

[RagingNight]

While I agree that SFIV is far more technical, I will have to say MK has one major thing in it's favor: Characters.

Now, I don't mean MK's designs are better (that's a matter of opinion), but what I meant is the diverse playstyles between each individual character makes learning each one a change from another.

It's been, in my experience, that there are certain characters in SFIV that, once you've learned to use them, learning another is an absolute breeze.

Ryu, Ken, Akuma, Rose, Gouken.
Blanka, Honda, to a lesser extent Guile.
T. Hawk, Zangief, Hakan, etc etc.

I feel that while the character designs are far more varied in SF, their playstyles seem to be mirrors or there's very little that separates them.

Rose is a shoto? Hakan, Zangief and T.Hawk as well? (even tho T-Hawk is partially a charge character?)

I mean its the same people that say Sakura is a ryu clone, when in reality the only thing they have in common is the very basic foundation of their special moves.

Lets not even talk about SF4 and go back to 3S.
How were any of the 3s characters similar is play? SF is not more technical because of execution, its more technical because of gameplay. The two games are on a whole different field when it comes to the yomi game, footsies, and spacing.

I'm not saying SF is straight up better than MK, even though I think 3S is easily top 3 best fighting games ever made, but that the two games are completely different and should be treated so.What you learn from MK for the most part does not translate to SF and it goes the same the other way around. The only thing that translate over is basic fighting game skills such as yomi, reactions, and execution.

edit

If you think SF command/inputs are intensive, KoF and MvC2/3 were way more difficult. Let me try to bust out deadly rave, or raging storm in KoF and Re-fly/unfly, c-viper TK feints in MvC2/3.

 

[digitaldemize]

Well....

I can play (drag MK into this) subzero, scorpion, and smoke the same way... toss projectile if it hits uppercut them, if they jump in uppercut them, thus they must be the same!

Saying the "shoto's" are the same is reducing it to that level almost. And Gouken and Rose have as much to do with "shoto's" as say Ibuki or Guile.

Since you aren't familiar with SF let's do this!

Ryu- based off zoning. His fireball is the best out of all of them. He's got the most ways to set up his ultra so he's very dependent on it, and his moves are generally safe. He's a god at footsies in some cases as his crouching MK is very strong and comboing it into his FB is pretty much safe. His punishing combo's are all fairly strong, and he has an air juggles and a few quality command normals.

Ken- has generally (other than 3s) been by far the weakest of the lot. His multi hit DP is good for combos but not so much as an AA, his fireballs aren't all that good either, he's got crap for ways to combo into his ultra. However his command normal kicks move him around insanely well and set him up for kara throws, which is his entire game in a nut shell. He has some great combos and as his spin kick doesn't knock down he can use that a bit for pressure and some fun combos.

Akuma- no life at all he's a glass cannon. Has extreme run aways games with air fireballs and teleports. Has more options than any character (but seth) at any point in time. Has a massive vortex game due to demon flips and other tricks that is hard as hell to break and shreds people. Get's a ton out of FADC'ing normal moves and has no way to combo into his ultra. His ultra however is a command grab that can be used with certain traps.

Really, unless you approach them as "toss fireball dp when they jump over" they have almost nothing in common. And nobody really plays like that anyways.

Goken on the other hand... has no reverse at all, no real traps or tricks either. He's pretty far from them in all aspects, his move list isn't the same either. However he has great juggles to push into the corner and utterly rape people, and he can't throw into ultra setting up another pressure.

Not at all alike.

Or take Gief and T-hawk... other than being large and having a command throw they have nothing in common. Gief has his spin to counter and green hand to get in and a fairly good mix up there. T-hawk is a poking god at most points and plays a strong arial game.

 

[digitaldemize]

If you think SF command/inputs are intensive, KoF and MvC2/3 were way more difficult. Let me try to bust out deadly rave, or raging storm in KoF and Re-fly/unfly, c-viper TK feints in MvC2/3.

While true.... I play this


MVC can eat a dick

 

[LockM]

I totally disagree that simply becuase a game is harder to control, it automatically makes it better or more hardcore than a game that is easier to control. difficult inputs is just a barrier for entry level competitive play, at the higher levels it means absolutely nothing, since pro's hit their combo's 95% of the time, regardless of game.

The reason why people say they feel they are better at MK is becuase they don't have to focus so much of their time on practice insignificant details like one frame links, they can learn a BnB is an hour and spend the majority of their practice time, actually playing the game.

Now some moves require a certain input, charge moves for example are balanced around the fact that you can not use them anytime you want. but some moves are just complex for the sake of being complex which is silly design. is there any different from fei's chicken wing being a tigerknee motion to just a qcf? of course not, a pro player will be able to perform both at a moment's notice, one is just harder to the entry level player.

Winning should come down to your mental skills, game knowldge, match up experience. Yes execution skill is a part, but it shouldn't be the deciding factor or arbitrary.

This is exactly how i feel about SSFIV, and SF in general, don't get me wrong it is still my favorite fighting game, but when i first started learning it and the franchise it was a pure grind, it was frustrating at alot of points during that learning process. I don't mind the more complex single motions as much as the Super Jump Cancels and 1 frame links(i play Ibuki and Cody) for example, those 720 motions are ridiculous also, buffering them during other moves and dashes, would have never learned that if i didn't visit SRK. How can a novice learn to appreciate a game if they can't even perform a "simple" BnB or do the things they want. Only after having put a ridiculous amount of practice in can i perform the more difficult combo's in this game.

MK is really easy to grasp unlike SF, especially for beginners, and because i can pick it up faster i can actually start "playing" the game faster too. I have full access to everything MK has to offer unlike SF where i'm limited to a toolset unless i practice RIDICULOUS amounts of hours, i truly mean ALOT of time.

MK in my eyes is more streamlined compared to SF that has alot of unnecessary mechanics to give it "depth". I'm not saying it is easy to get good at MK, it just simply closes the gap that is called excecution between novice and veteran players faster than SF and the deciding factor should be matchup knowledge, strategies, mixups, reads etc etc.

 

[FlsGd2BAgngsta]

people should just stop trying to compare mk9 to ssf4 like its in the same league because its not...not by a mile...in any aspect. mk can be learned to play at the highest level in a few weeks of practicing while ssf4 takes years. the difficulty in pulling off combos/other moves that you want at the right time isnt even the half of it. the two games are nothing remotely alike and i would imagine an mk player trying to transition to sf would be going in completely cold as if they had not played mk to begin with...honestly believe it actually might hurt them in the beginning and they would be bringing in alot of bad habits they learned.

not looking to argue with the fanboys who think being good at "their game" is just as impressive as being good at sf but...its not. anyone can get to a high level of play in mk9 in a short period of time. anyone. i think less than 50% of players who played ssf4 everyday all day for a year could could compete at a high level.