QUESTION ABOUT MORTAL KOMBAT

[Girl Drink Drunk]

Originally Posted by RaNkeri

MK > SF

It was way too easy to play SF. just smash all the buttons in your controller and your character would do all kind of doomsday moves.

In MK however, you could easily notice a difference between a pro and a beginner

MK had easier controls, all the characters had projectiles, and couldnt do cross-overs or be hit in as many body sections, dickwad.

[RaNkeri]

Originally Posted by Sniperwulf

MK had easier controls, all the characters had projectiles, and couldnt do cross-overs or be hit in as many body sections, dickwad.

What the hell does all this have to do with my statement?

[Girl Drink Drunk]

Fighting in Mortal Combat amounts to some sap walking into a series of punches or crouching and upper-cutting. Every character has a projectile-based attack that can be done to death, and the moves dont require as much skill (Example: foward, back, punch). Because of the animation, programing, and less body sections to hit you cant confuse oponents as easily by jumping over them and hitting them in the back of the head (a crossup in SFII) and then leg-sweeping. This also means you cant do two-in-one combos like a punch right into a fireball (like in SF II) or connect into different attacks, which is why I think MK is inferior. As for those "Doomsday" attacks you mention, even the hadoken or psycho crusher can be countered in a manner other than jumping right over it.

[GADZOOKS]

This is worse then the WOW thread.