MK vs SoulCalibur

[No brains]

You know what might not be a horrible crossover? Mortal Kombat vs SoulCalibur.

Both franchises seemed desperate for kameo characters, and the both featured Kratos at one point.

This seems like a match made in Outland. That is to say this is riddled with problems I would like everyone to tell me!:smallbiggrin:

[Knight9910]

The plot's not too difficult, aside from the fact that SC is set in the renaissance, and MK has a modern/near future setting. But then again, that didn't stop them from shoehorning in Yoda and Darth Vader, so yeah. Like I said, aside from that the plot's not too difficult to think up. Pretty much all of the MK villains would love to get their hands on Soul Edge, either for the power or because they view it as competition in their own quest for souls. Of course, that means plenty of the heroes would love to stop them.

If they did do this I do hope they'd make the MK characters have more to do with the plot than Yoda, Vader, and The Apprentice did...or than Kratos did...or Link, Heihachi, or Spawn...anyway, yeah.

[No brains]

Well if it's a full-blown crossover rather than a $$$ cameo $$$, the plot is more likely to be balanced.

What I think would be hardest is the integration of gameplay. I've only rarely played MK, but I know a lot about how the Soul series likes to drop in elements that encourage fierce offense over turtle defense. Critical Finishes (and the weapon meter in Soul Edge) and guard impacts are mechanics that discourage a player from just blocking attacks to keep the game dynamic. I don't know if MK implements similar ideas.

[Knight9910]

MK doesn't really penalize blocking, but it doesn't actively encourage it either. If anything, I'd say Soul Calibur rewards defending more, what with the guard impact system.

The main difference and the most difficult thing to work with is the way fighting works. MK is simpler and based primarily around the use of your special moves (fireballs, teleportation, that sort of thing) wheras Soul Calibur has a deeper and more complex system, what with guard breaks, guard impacts, unblockable attacks, and so on.

[No brains]

SC does encourage a defensive strategy, but guard impacts are more interesting than just hitting the wall-like defense of a patient player. I've had more than one person whine about how blocking is 'cheap'. Yes, I lol'd. An attacker also has the chance to reverse a guard impact, keeping players on their toes.

As for the usage of special attacks, that does get in the way a bit. One thing the companies need to figure out is how to introduce fans of the other product to their own without alienating one or even both groups. If SC characters had SC controls and MK characters their own, would the game be unbalanced?

[Knight9910]

Probably. There are SC characters who have high range and even teleporting (ie Cervantes) but MK characters not having guard impacts and whatnot would seriously nerf them.

[Deth Muncher]

Probably. There are SC characters who have high range and even teleporting (ie Cervantes) but MK characters not having guard impacts and whatnot would seriously nerf them.

You realize in a crossover, all characters get homogenized to the system in which they are playing, right? i.e. Darth Vader and Yoda don't have Guard Breaks via their own canon, but they got them in the game. Of course if MK characters got into SC they'd be given those kinds of moves.

[KillianHawkeye]

I think the biggest challenge would be mixing the game systems, since SC uses a 3D fighting ring while MK is 2D (unless a lot has changed since MK4).

[Knight9910]

I seem to recall at least one of the MK's being 3D (Armageddon?) but as of MK9 (ie the new Mortal Kombat made by Warner Bros) it's 2D, just with hugely detailed backgrounds.

[Zevox]

I think the biggest challenge would be mixing the game systems, since SC uses a 3D fighting ring while MK is 2D (unless a lot has changed since MK4).
At least some of the Mortal Kombat games have been 3D fighters. I know for certain that Mortal Kombat vs DC Universe is, and I've have heard that others were but didn't play them.

And that wouldn't necessarily be an issue. You'd either pick one style and adapt the other game's characters to it or you'd do what they're doing with Street Fighter vs Tekken and release two games, one in each style.

Zevox

[No brains]

You realize in a crossover, all characters get homogenized to the system in which they are playing, right? i.e. Darth Vader and Yoda don't have Guard Breaks via their own canon, but they got them in the game. Of course if MK characters got into SC they'd be given those kinds of moves.


At least some of the Mortal Kombat games have been 3D fighters. I know for certain that Mortal Kombat vs DC Universe is, and I've have heard that others were but didn't play them.

And that wouldn't necessarily be an issue. You'd either pick one style and adapt the other game's characters to it or you'd do what they're doing with Street Fighter vs Tekken and release two games, one in each style.

The problem with homogenization is that it will inevitably alienate one group of fans from the other. The dual version strategy might help, but then players will begrudge having to buy both versions...

It wouldn't be too hard to give MK characters guard impacts, though. MK already has a 'block button' IIRC, and adding the option to press a direction while pressing the block button probably won't interfere with the feel of an MK character while still allowing them to compete with SC guys.

One looming problem is the roster of SC characters to include in the crossover. I can get that in SC the heroes might not have completely compatible ideas, but I don't think they would rip their skeletons out. Also, some people might not like seeing Talim ripped in half...

[Knight9910]

Eh, to be fair, did that ever really make sense that you could -if you so chose- perform fatalities on the character's own allies? I mean, did it ever make that much sense that Liu Kang could kill Kung Lao, or that Sonya Blade could kill Jax, and so on?

That said, there's enough Soul Calibur ryona out there that I can say with certainty that there are people who wouldn't mind seeing fatalities injected into Soul Calibur. Also, they'd probably pull an MKvDC and PG-13-itize all the fatalities.

For me the bigger issue would be the Soul Calibur characters gaining fatalities. You talk about people not wanting to see sweet, innocent Talim get chopped in half, but it's even more bizarre to imagine her actually brutally dismembering someone herself.

[Mando Knight]

Take the third option: cross them both over with Capcom (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CapcomVsWhatever).

...I'm still waiting for Nintendo (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/VideoGame/SuperSmashBros) vs Capcom, though...

[Zevox]

The problem with homogenization is that it will inevitably alienate one group of fans from the other. The dual version strategy might help, but then players will begrudge having to buy both versions...
The former is possible, although since MK has been both 2D and 3D it may not be such a big issue for that series' fans.

The latter shouldn't be an issue. There's no reason players would have to buy both versions; just pick the one that appeals to you.

Zevox

[Psyren]

We just pulled MK kicking and screaming from the 3D fighter fad, and they made the best game in the series as a result. Huge thumbs down to this idea.

[Knight9910]

Right, because clearly the only reason MK9 was good -or even better than the ones before it- was the fact that it was in 2D instead of 3D.

It wasn't the fact that it was owned by a new company that actually gave the developers inspiration and drive and creative freedom, unlike Midway who just didn't care anymore. I mean, it's not like MK9 had any cool things like "story" or "character design" or anything like that that made it good.

Nope. The credit for MK9's success rests 100% on the fact that it wasn't 3D. Yeah, that makes complete sense.

Seriously though, first off, you're confusing "fad" with "genre." 3D fighter is a genre, like first person shooter is a genre, or turn-based RPG is a genre. 3D fighters have been around for a long time and will likely be around for a while yet, and you know, a lot of them are actually quite good. The fact that you personally don't like the genre does not make it a "fad."

Furthermore, I love how you say "we" pulled them kicking and screaming from the 3D fighter genre. That's right, it was all you. You did it. You saved Mortal Kombat. Hooray for you.

Your entire claim is not only extremely ignorant but, quite frankly, also highly insulting to the people who actually spent a lot of time and resources trying to make something for you to enjoy.

[Psyren]

Right, because clearly the only reason MK9 was good -or even better than the ones before it- was the fact that it was in 2D instead of 3D.

Of course that wasn't the only reason for the game's success, and I'll thank you not to put words in my mouth. But I firmly believe going back to the series' roots played a major factor. 3D may work well for other series (just like weapons-based combat works for other series) but in my opinion, it didn't add nearly enough benefit to offset the effort to include it.


Seriously though, first off, you're confusing "fad" with "genre." 3D fighter is a genre, like first person shooter is a genre, or turn-based RPG is a genre. 3D fighters have been around for a long time and will likely be around for a while yet, and you know, a lot of them are actually quite good. The fact that you personally don't like the genre does not make it a "fad."

Words in mouth again; nowhere did I say I didn't like 3D fighters. I'm in fact an avid fan of both the Soul Calibur and Bloody Roar series, among others. I just happen to think MK specifically works better in 2D, and the title's smash success - both critically and financially - suggests I'm not alone in thinking so. Several reviews have in fact cited the 2D specifically as being a positive for this entry.


Furthermore, I love how you say "we" pulled them kicking and screaming from the 3D fighter genre. That's right, it was all you. You did it. You saved Mortal Kombat. Hooray for you.

My use of "We" was clearly a hyperbolic expression rather than a serious statement. The fact that I have to explain even that much is frankly mind-boggling.


Your entire claim is not only extremely ignorant but, quite frankly, also highly insulting to the people who actually spent a lot of time and resources trying to make something for you to enjoy.

This fact may upset you, but I'm allowed to both have and express my opinion. As for the "people who spent a lot of time and resources" - lest you forget, they spent that time and those resources bringing the game back to 2D. If anyone here is mocking their effort, it's you, not me.

[Knight9910]

You're allowed to have and express your opinion and I'm allowed to have and express my opinion that your opinion is ignorant. :smallyuk:

And I think I've already said everything I'm interested in saying about that. So...I guess you've proven your opinion wasn't ignorant, just very poorly worded. Good for you.

[Psyren]

You're allowed to have and express your opinion and I'm allowed to have and express my opinion that your opinion is ignorant. :smallyuk:

Whereas I'm of the opinion that your opinion of my opinion is utterly irrelevant by any meaningful metric. Opinion. :smalltongue:

And yes, good for me, because I'm willing to bet the next installment will be 2D as well.

[Knight9910]

Probably. Personally, though, I do hope they bring back the more interesting elements from the 3D versions. You know, the ability to knock your opponent to another arena, break parts of the ring, that sorta thing. The battlefields in MK9 were certaintly beautiful and elaborately decorated, but gameplay-wise they were...lacking.

[Psyren]

Actually, knocking opponents to a new arena was not introduced to the series in the 3D version; you were able to do this all the way back in MK3 (1995) with an uppercut in certain areas.

I'm with you that they should bring this back, and they can even make the actual transition between areas 3D without changing the gameplay from MK9.

[Knight9910]

That's right, I do remember that. Specifically, I remember a skyscraper where you could uppercut the enemy and make them fly through the ceiling and up onto the roof. I think you could then do a ring-out fatality where you knock them off the building.

Yeah, I really hope they bring that back. I loved that. Real no-holds-barred combat can't be confined to one tiny little ring, after all.

[Zevox]

The battlefields in MK9 were certaintly beautiful and elaborately decorated, but gameplay-wise they were...lacking.
That's kind of the point. In 2D fighters, the stages are just window dressing. They're supposed to look nice and have no impact whatsoever on the gameplay. The gameplay is based purely on the interactions of the characters in the fight, never the terrain.

Zevox

[Knight9910]

Nah, don't hand me that. It has nothing to do with "the way things work in 2D fighters." That's a cop-out.

Because even if that was true who cares what 2D fighters have always done? Greatness doesn't come from playing by the rules, it comes from bending them. Just look at Super Smash Brothers. One of the best 2D fighting game series of all time, in spite of (and in some ways because of) the fact that it breaks basically every one of the rules of how 2D fighters are "supposed" to work.

Now, MK10 doesn't have to be like SSB, and in fact it'd be better if it wasn't. MK is MK and SSB is SSB. But there's absolutely no reason why the arenas have to be purely aesthetic.

[Zevox]

Nah, don't hand me that. It has nothing to do with "the way things work in 2D fighters." That's a cop-out.
No, it's reality. The entire point of traditional 2D fighters is to provide that sort of competition, where the only factors are the skill of the players and the balancing of the characters. The stages have always been left blank of anything but backgrounds for precisely that reason.


Because even if that was true who cares what 2D fighters have always done? Greatness doesn't come from playing by the rules, it comes from bending them. Just look at Super Smash Brothers. One of the best 2D fighting game series of all time, in spite of (and in some ways because of) the fact that it breaks basically every one of the rules of how 2D fighters are "supposed" to work.
Super Smash Brothers basically created an entirely new sub-genre of fighting games, though - it's not a traditional fighter like Mortal Kombat at all, but a blend of fighting games and platformers. And it's easy to see the complications this adds for the series' combat and competition, with the balancing of the stages being a huge factor, and a healthy number needing to be banned from tournament play because of how much their hazards and randomness can impact the fights.

If more games wanted to go that route and use the sub-genre that SSB pioneered, that'd be great, but it would be an entirely different route from the traditional 2D fighter style, not just some minor variant.

Zevox

[No brains]

:smalleek::smalltongue::smallfrown:I AM OF THE OPINION MODS ARE CASTING AN EVIL GAZE!:smallfrown::smalltongue::smalleek:

Edit: Oh, good to see things calmed down.:smallbiggrin:

So gameplay isn't totally compatible. Hm. What are the advantages of strict 2d to 3d controls? I guess you would only have to press one button to jump or crouch. SC more strikes me as a 2 and 1/2 d game because the fighters are still on a face-off rail, and side-stepping only matters for instants.

[Psyren]

Eternal Champions (very old 2D fighting game for Sega Genesis/Megadrive) had a really kickass "danger-room" style stage where you could activate various traps that added t the complexity of the fight. In addition, every character's stage had a special stage fatality, though that's neither here nor there for the fight mechanics.

As far as game balance goes, I agree - the stages themselves shouldn't really factor into gameplay . It works for the SSB series because of stock-standard Nintendo "chaos gameplay," which tends to permeate their competitive games - from Mario Kart to Mario Strikers to Mario Party - wherein they mix up the gameplay by adding in random elements that can give losing players a bigger chance to pull off a comeback.

But I don't think merely being able to transition stages mid-fight affects the gamplay balance that much.



So gameplay isn't totally compatible. Hm. What are the advantages of strict 2d to 3d controls? I guess you would only have to press one button to jump or crouch. SC more strikes me as a 2 and 1/2 d game because the fighters are still on a face-off rail, and side-stepping only matters for instants.

Not at all; SC is probably the most 3D fighter out there. Characters can attack using all 3 axes, and attacks specific to one or two axes can be evaded using the third. It does eschew projectiles (mostly) though, which limits the hitboxes to the reach of a fighter's weapon and makes priority more of a concern.

[No brains]

Not at all; SC is probably the most 3D fighter out there. Characters can attack using all 3 axes, and attacks specific to one or two axes can be evaded using the third. It does eschew projectiles (mostly) though, which limits the hitboxes to the reach of a fighter's weapon and makes priority more of a concern.

One or two axes... evaded using third. Got it. Astaroth and Lizardman, your days are numbered! :smalltongue:

[Knight9910]

*eyeroll @ No brains' last post*

Don't get me wrong here. I'm not saying it needs to be Super Mortal Kombat Brothers. Like I said, MK is MK and SSB is SSB and that's the way it should stay. I'm just saying that I'd like to see the stages do a bit more.

To give an example...let's say you were fighting in the City arena from MK9. You know, the one where it's out on the streets, with the battle happening in the background and all that. If you get close to the left wall and smash the enemy with a powerful knockback move, then they'd get blown down through an open door and into the Subway arena.

See, that instantly makes the arenas feel more alive, while not affecting gameplay too much. You can also make some rings smaller or larger than others. That affects gameplay a little, but not to the extent that it would severely hinder tournament play.

I assume what you're worried about is something like a few of the MKArmageddon arenas, where if you stood to close to a certain wall arms would reach out and hold you in place, or you could die from a ring-out fatality in the first ten seconds, or others things like that. I didn't mind those that much (except for that one arena where you were on a tiny crumbling rock over a spike pit, and it was common to see both characters fall to their death in the first few seconds) but I can certainly see how they would adversely affect tourney play.

[No brains]

It might be fun or interesting to see what fatalities the SC characters would get if they would get them.

For Voldo, they could have him spin his katars and draw out organs. They could even make a crack about how it's "Machiavellian Spaghetti" or something. Nightmare would have some soul-stealing move, but since MK likes gore, maybe they could have the victim's body get absorbed into Soul Edge's fleshiness too. Astaroth could plop his half-ton butt onto somebody. Crude and effective.