@Dankster Morgan @Eddy Wang
I will tell you what puzzles me off: people's contradictions (not talking about you, just in general from what I read). Not gonna talk about inj2 balance in particular, but more about the "conformist" (or maybe hypocritical) point of view some people seem to be taking regarding how they judge the general mechanics of this game in comparison with the previous nrs game. Some examples:
- In mkx, everybody complained about pokes into specials, it was a scrub tactic, they said, that should be eliminated. In Injustice 2, pokes can be cancelled into specials and in most cases you can get a full combo off that, unlike in mkx. Literally nobody complains now.
-In mkx, war campaigns were done against armor launchers, until (practically) all of them were removed. In injustice 2 everybody has 2 armored launchers, some have insane range, most of them safe, or plus (they are slower, yes but not even the slowest armored launchers were allowed to live in mkx, so...). Nobody complains now.
-In mkx, everybody complained about 50/50s (and not without a reason most of the times). In Injustice 2, on the top of 50/50s, you have the ambiguous crossups which are basically a left/right 50/50 with even less visual clues to block it than an overhead/low 50/50 since both options come from the same animation. Nobody complains now, because "it is injustice, bro". Btw, this last expression is the only one you usually get when someone tries to justify the kind of interactables Injustice 2 has.
These are things that belong to the core of Injustice 2, were also in mkx in a very similar form, and whereas people shitted about them then, now they seem to accept them because "it's injustice".
So I'm not comparing games nor saying this one is more balanced than the other. I'm just observing the way people are judging them, which seems to have changed.