Support NeoGAF

[HappehLemons]

I always felt like MK was a terribly designed game from a competitive perspective which is all I look for when I play a fighting game. Looks and has always felt really awkward to me, and I hate that it still relies on the gimmick of gore.

 

[Petrae]

Street Fighter. Mortal Kombat loses me with Block and Run buttons.

I respect what Boon's team has done with the franchise... making single-player important, branching out into several genres (Shaolin Monks 2, please), and continuing to tinker with & change elements of the base game. At the same time, I prefer Street Fighter's (for the most part) consistency. What I learned 20+ years ago has continued to serve me well today-- retro or modern. Fireball/Dragon Punch motions are unconscious movements, and this opens up experimenting with a lot of characters that I might not ordinarily play as.

 

[Herman Cain]

In your OP (that the poster actually replied to)? Quote yourself for me.

And I can understand the whole MKvDC = MK8 stuff... but again, why SFEX then? Because it didn't do well?



Haha, nah I picked the year after XvsSF hit.

Sfex was the only SF fighting game series that weren't ports.

 

[Kain]

I still don't get what relevance and sales have to do with one series being better than the other.

 

[SephLuis]

THIS GUY knows what he is saying, and did it more clearly than I.

So, basically, your whole point is to compare sales and public recognition of a brand ?

Competitive-wise, SF has the upper hand against MK. SF2T, SFA3, SF3S were played for years and still appear at some big tournaments. The only thing I know about the competitive scene of MK is about MK2, MK3 and MK9. Never heard anything about competitive scene of MK4 to MK8.

Regarding the actual games, SF and MK were always too different from each other. I always prefered SF gameplay and that's why I think the games are better, since gameplay is king in fighting games.

On the other hand, MK has been doing a great job on single-player content, especially on the story mode side and other bonus, such as the crypt and the towers. Last game from Capcom, that I remember, that had something close to it was SFA3 on the PSP.

Capcom took notice from what MK9 did, so I expect something from them in SF V. Street Fighter story is good (I like it, based on what I read from comics), but it needs to be much better told.

 

[BronsonLee]

Street Fighter 2010 >>>>>> MK Special Forces

Dear god no

 

[pants]

Street Fighter. Even if I didnt like 4 much

 

[Herman Cain]

We should narrow it down to just mainline stuff, because if we bring spinoffs into it, that ends bad for everybody.

Mkvs.dc is actually mk8.

 

[BronsonLee]

Mkvs.dc is actually mk8.

I'm referring to SFEX. And we can leave out the Mortal Kombat action games too, since those only did ok.

 

[Hot Coldman]

Dear god no

I haven't played either, thank god

all I know is both are probably better than Death by Degrees

 

[Cyber Caesar]

I still don't get what relevance and sales have to do with one series being better than the other.

See "better" is a subjective term we have to make it objective some how.

 

[Herman Cain]

So, basically, your whole point is to compare sales and public recognition of a brand ?

Competitive-wise, SF has the upper hand against MK. SF2T, SFA3, SF3S were played for years and still appear at some big tournaments. The only thing I know about the competitive scene of MK is about MK2, MK3 and MK9. Never heard anything about competitive scene of MK4 to MK8.

Regarding the actual games, SF and MK were always too different from each other. I always prefered SF gameplay and that's why I think the games are better, since gameplay is king in fighting games.

On the other hand, MK has been doing a great job on single-player content, especially on the story mode side and other bonus, such as the crypt and the towers. Last game from Capcom, that I remember, that had something close to it was SFA3 on the PSP.

Capcom took notice from what MK9 did, so I expect something from them in SF V. Street Fighter story is good (I like it, based on what I read from comics), but it needs to be much better told.

Yeah, it would be cool to actually have story in SF, with viewpoint from all the characters. That would be a great way to increase the appeal of SF.

Sfv art style still annoys me though.

 

[RM8]

I'm referring to SFEX. And we can leave out the Mortal Kombat action games too, since those only did ok.

I love the EX games <3

 

[BronsonLee]

I haven't played either, thank god

all I know is both are probably better than Death by Degrees

Oh jesus. Fighting games should just not do spinoffs

I love the EX games <3

I love Allen Snider.
TRI-PLE BREAK

 

[Herman Cain]

I'll be first to da that a collaboration game of a NEW IP combing fighting engines of cap on and midway/nr, with midway/nr story and content, and capcoms balance, would possible be an unstoppable game.

I think the Main issue with the collab would be weather T include blood and more gruesome violence. Maybe two versions could be made.

It wont happen though sadly.

 

[Bergerac]

I'd say SF but I'm not a mega fan of either. Overall I think MK's characters are more interesting and more to my taste but SF has a far more polished fighting game within it. I do appreciate the effort of MK's campaign though and think it shines above all fighters there.

Personally no fighting game has ever completely won me over, half of the game I'll like, the other half I won't. I won't be happy until VF's sense of balance and largely human-only, martial arts centric ensemble is put into a game with Tekken's sense of production values (animations, music). I want to love VF but the fighting animations are dull and floaty and the story is near non existant. I want to love Tekken... but not with the comical edge, bullshit mechanics like floors collapsing and bounds, juggles, and assymetrical characters with swords and fantasy characters like robots and demons.

Every fighting game to me is a 50%er.

 

[Pancakes R Us]

Street Fighter. Mortal Kombat only wishes it was as awesome.

 

[RM8]

I love Allen Snider.
TRI-PLE BREAK

Pullum, though. RRRRES ARRRCAANA!

 

[Red Liquorice]

I've never known anyone who enjoyed MK let alone thought it was better than SF.

The dorky character designs, the jilted stiff combat, the childish fatalities. No.

 

[Neff]

I love the EX games <3

If we draw the line at 3, then I'm right with you buddy.

I've never known anyone who enjoyed MK let alone thought it was better than SF.

The dorky character designs, the jilted stiff combat, the childish fatalities. No.

Kids today probably have a stronger recognition of Mortal Kombat due to the '90s notoriety, movies/media, and the fact that the series has always been generally extremely well marketed.

 

[Synth]

Sfex was the only SF fighting game series that weren't ports.

Considering they mostly overlap with SFIII releases (and aren't even made by Capcom), they don't seem very necessary. So yea, I think it's best to ignore them, or acknowledge XvSF and the like.

Either way, I don't think it's very important because they're all better games than what MK was doing at the same time.

 

[Herman Cain]

I'd say SF but I'm not a mega fan of either. Overall I think MK's characters are more interesting and more to my taste but SF has a far more polished fighting game within it. I do appreciate the effort of MK's campaign though and think it shines above all fighters there.

Personally no fighting game has ever completely won me over, half of the game I'll like, the other half I won't. I won't be happy until VF's sense of balance and largely human-only, martial arts centric ensemble is put into a game with Tekken's sense of production values (animations, music). I want to love VF but the fighting animations are dull and floaty and the story is near non existant. I want to love Tekken... but not with the comical edge, bullshit mechanics like floors collapsing and bounds, juggles, and assymetrical characters with swords and fantasy characters like robots and demons.

Every fighting game to me is a 50%er.

Killer instinct might be something to look at then.

 

[Biker19]

So, basically, your whole point is to compare sales and public recognition of a brand ?

Competitive-wise, SF has the upper hand against MK. SF2T, SFA3, SF3S were played for years and still appear at some big tournaments. The only thing I know about the competitive scene of MK is about MK2, MK3 and MK9. Never heard anything about competitive scene of MK4 to MK8.

Regarding the actual games, SF and MK were always too different from each other. I always prefered SF gameplay and that's why I think the games are better, since gameplay is king in fighting games.

On the other hand, MK has been doing a great job on single-player content, especially on the story mode side and other bonus, such as the crypt and the towers. Last game from Capcom, that I remember, that had something close to it was SFA3 on the PSP.

Capcom took notice from what MK9 did, so I expect something from them in SF V. Street Fighter story is good (I like it, based on what I read from comics), but it needs to be much better told.

This I'll have to agree with.

 

[Coriolanus]

Counting Mk vs Dc but discounting Marvel vs Capcom seems a bit absurd.

 

[Rehynn]

Fights featuring stiff, mediocre gameplay against a series of dumb characters, connected by a dumb story. Tries to pile a ton of shit on top of the gameplay in an attempt to hide its shortcomings.

Versus

Fights involving deep, rewarding, polished gameplay with very little focus on characters or story. All about the gameplay, barely any BS.

It's not even a contest. MK is a popular product, but so is the Transformers movie franchise. SF is obsessively dedicated to gameplay, which makes it the better game.

 

[ivanthebearable]

The only western fighters not Mk now are realistic fighting games, son of which are under the sports lable. There are smal exceptions, but the market is high risk unless its a low graph 2d game.

I might be reading this posts context incorrectly, but isn't Skullgirls a Western fighter? EDIT: lol oops didn't read that all the way.

Anyhow on topic, I prefer SF just because the character design and gameplay appeal to me more. The game controls like an extension of yourself in a lot of ways IMO and just FEELS good to play. The single player may be lacking in a lot of aspects but there's a reason so many SF games are still played to this day.

Granted I don't have a lot of experience with MK but the few I have played have all felt... Clunky for lack of a better word. Where SF feels more reactionary and responsive, I feel MK is more 'throw stuff out and hope it sticks'. I'm not a fan of the characters either, I find them rather atrocious to be quite honest.

Blocking with a button is also just a a little too unusual for me in a non-3D fighter as well but I don't really think that's the fault of MK as it is me being unused to that style of play. Regardless, I'm not a fan

 

[Herman Cain]

Considering they mostly overlap with SFIII releases (and aren't even made by Capcom), they don't seem very necessary. So yea, I think it's best to ignore them, or acknowledge XvSF and the like.

Either way, I don't think it's very important because they're all better games than what MK was doing at the same time.

From 1998-2002? I actually agree with that, outside trilogy of course.

But yeah SF mainline games were having a few issues then, add some other FG series taking off, there wasn't much breathing room

 

[OmegaDL50]

I legitimately wouldn't be surprised if more people have been exposed to Evo Moment #37 than any MK between UMK3 and MK9 though. It was hardly "not on the map".

Well it's not so much a issue of SFIII being a success but rather the CPSIII Arcade hardware being a failure.

It was released at a poor time, the arcade scene was quickly becoming irrelevant in the US and consoles finally reached the point of exceeding what Arcade hardware was capable of. I mean Soul Calbur DC for example was superior to the Arcade version in all ways, also there was no console specific flaws to the DC versions of 3rd Strike, MvC or MvC2. I mean compared to the PSX which 2D fighters had issues like missing sprites, inaccurate timing, inability to tag in the VS games, Saturn was an exception of course because of the additional Ram cart.

Not to mention CPS3 units were very expensive to produce and apparently very fragile and volatile.

It's just a shame that only 6 games were produced for it. To wonder what could have been if the CPS3 hardware took off like the CPS2 did.

 

[Herman Cain]

I might be reading this posts context incorrectly, but isn't Skullgirls a Western fighter?

Read the rest of the post you didn't bold.

 

[ivanthebearable]

Read the rest of the post you didn't bold.

Ah yeah I just noticed that. Blame it on being up early. My mistake.

 

[Herman Cain]

Counting Mk vs Dc but discounting Marvel vs Capcom seems a bit absurd.

Vs.dc is mk8 and a canonical release.

 

[Manu]

I wish for once we could have one of these threads without SF fans calling MK's gameplay "shit" and "stiff" and "gimmicky."

I understand liking SF better but come on.

 

[Bloodrage]

I also feel that MKX character design is much better (except Jacqui Briggs) than SF.

 

[OmegaDL50]

I wish for once we could have one of these threads without SF fans calling MK's gameplay "shit" and "stiff" and "gimmicky."

I understand liking SF better but come on.

Yes I agree this comes across as if MK9 or MKX is some sort of no entry-level fighter that doesn't have a higher levels of competitive play.

Saying this counting the fact that SFIV exists despite the fact of it's numerous input shortcuts allowed for easier special moves to make canceling into FADC easier is dubious at best.

As for one frame links. I generally don't see these used often in high level play often. Also MK9 and MKX has it's own degree of heavy execution barrier in some the more strict timing combos to pull off, which are also equally impractical in competitive play.

 

[Synth]

I wish for once we could have one of these threads without SF fans calling MK's gameplay "shit" and "stiff" and "gimmicky."

I understand liking SF better but come on.

I've posted this about various topics, but gamers seem to have a tendency to prefer things feeling "analog" or "digital" in design, and usually have a strong dislike of the other. Games that share a lot in common, yet can be separated by being describe as smooth/rolling vs precise/tapping. See...

Sonic vs Mario
Quake vs Unreal
WipEout vs F-Zero
and
Street Fighter vs Mortal Kombat

 

[GodParticle]

SF design(gameplay/animation/characters) makes MK look like amateur hour. I consider MK games to be party games. I did love me some MK 2, but the rest are pretty meh

 

[Werewolf Jones]

MK didn't get good character design and actually get me to take it seriously until MK9.

SF easily beats MK as a fighting game but as an SP experience with a real story MK shames SF.

 

[roflwaffles]

If we're doing crossovers, X-Men vs SF > both.

Also, the character models in SF4 look awful.

 

[NoctisVsStar]

Street Fighter. Mortal Kombat loses me with Block and Run buttons.

this.

 

[ChouGoku]

MK easily for the SP, and starting to like it more for the MP as well. A block button is only weird for a week unless you are barely playing the game.

 

[paul187]

This thread is just pure ignorance.

To answer the question I vastly prefer SF. MK has never been a competitive game to me outside of MK2. I never sank any time into umk3. MK is fun to see the fatalities and how silly it all is. The vs game play in MK has never felt right to me. Definitely not right enough to become competitive in it.

Also to the dude going on about MK5. People were anticipating it until it came out. The game was trash and paved the way for more underwhelming sequels. Using a meta critic to back your claims is really weird to me for fighting games. No one was playing MK5 competively or any of the other MK's released during the PS2 era.

 

[Ivan Amiibo]

Dear god no

whaaaaat? have you played both? Special Forces might be the most boring beat em up ever. SF 2010 gets a bad rap because it's tough, but it's actually a very cool game.

Spin off non-fighting genre tier list:
S-rank:
Shaolin Monks

A rank:
nothing

B rank:
SF 2010

C:
Nothing

D:
MK Mythologies

E:
nothing

F:
Special Forces
SF2 Anime FMV game

G:
MK Mythologies MegaDrive romhack made in russia

 

[EGOMON]

None
I love Tekken

 

[Cyber Caesar]

MK easily for the SP, and starting to like it more for the MP as well. A block button is only weird for a week unless you are barely playing the game.

 

[Moaradin]

I love both but SF is the one I actually try to get decent at.

 

[Skilletor]

I wish for once we could have one of these threads without SF fans calling MK's gameplay "shit" and "stiff" and "gimmicky."

I understand liking SF better but come on.

I wish we could stop having these threads. They're series that pay different, focus on different things, and have people that appreciate both. There's no need to declare which is 'better,' whatever that means. These threads are doomed from inception because it's a shitty question to start.

 

[Slamtastic]

Street Fighter feels better when pressing single buttons. Normals are faster and feel more responsive.

When comboing, the string and juggle based system of MK feels better. You look at the move list, press what is shown, and it clearly creates a combo as it was intended to do so. When they're in the air, you hit them with almost anything you have and it works.
(That isn't to say MK is perfect in this regard, there are other games that do string type chain combos better than MK's Dial A Combo system, games where there is less disconnect between your inputs and what is happening on screen).

In contrast, in a link based game (Street Fighter, King of Fighters), a new player has no real idea what to press after their button that hit to get a combo. And when they are given a combo that exists, they proceed to hit one button in it, then the next, and get nothing because of strict timing requirements, that have to be drilled in practice mode over an over again to get, which is a one player experience in a game some argue should be 100% about two player interaction.

The execution barrier of Street Fighter is one flaw it has.

In addition, the "footsie" focus of Street Fighter with lost of walking back and forth using individual normals at optimal ranges, or the fireball war zoning game with Guile down backing, etc. can be less interesting to watch for a lot of people.

As a matter of personal opinion I also find pretty much every Street Fighter character really boring in design, and think Mortal Kombat absolutely destroys it in that regard.

Of course, this is obviously only MK9 and MKX vs SF. MK4 through MKvsDC are of course, really bad and only good for drunken mocking with your friends, while MK 1 through UMK3 have nostalgia and a unique aesthetic style that I have a fondness for, I'd still play SF2, Alpha, or 3 over them. But I'll prefer watching high level MK2 and UMK3.

Street Fighter has better music by an incredible margin, though.

 

[Biker19]

If we're doing crossovers, X-Men vs SF > both.

Also, the character models in SF4 look awful.

Also agree. The character models in SF V look more superior.

 

[Bloodrage]

Also, the character models in SF4 look awful.

Netherrealms Studios doesn't even know how to make human faces. Their models have always been worse, especially their female faces.

Poor Johnny, wtf happened.

MKX looks so bad.

 

[OmegaDL50]

This thread is just pure ignorance.

To answer the question I vastly prefer SF. MK has never been a competitive game to me outside of MK2. I never sank any time into umk3. MK is fun to see the fatalities and how silly it all is. The vs game play in MK has never felt right to me. Definitely not right enough to become competitive in it.

I believe this is the sort of hyperbole post Manu was alluding to in his post above.

You say MK isn't competitive and yet you never put time into UMK3? The irony the height of competitive MK play prior to MK9 and MKX was pretty much entirely UMK3.

Yes NONE of the PS2 MKs were viable due to the garbage way Breakers were implemented but to go so far to say MK has never been competitively viable, this is incorrect.

I just find it odd people are going so far to claim that MK is a "party game" and "its not competitive" when there are games like Smash that is technically even less traditional a fighter than MK is and are showcased at EVO. Just something to ponder.