Advertisement

Register for free to remove this ad

which game would you choose if you only got one of them?

if you wouldn't mind, please add a quick little response to your decision so i can get some opinions about the pros and cons of each game

thanks,

hM

mk2 rules!!!! i cant believe your comparing sf2 to it....lol....i got both of these games for snes onthe same day....and i played mk2 like 75 % more

It depends on which version of SFII your talking about. MKII over the first 16-meg SFII? Certainly. MKII over SFII Turbo, not a chance. MK II is a great fighter and one I play constantly, but since the characters base moves are exactly the same regardless of the character you pick, SFII Turbo's variety slaughters MK.

I love the street fighter series. To me, I always felt that MK was a bit too gimmicky to really hold my attention. Once you saw everyone's mortality and stuff you got bored. Streetfighter was a more polished fighter that my friends and I always went back to.

MK is boring, once the shock value of the blood and fatalities wears off the game has nothing, the characters a barely memorable and the fighting stiff and lifeless.

Ironic how a game with digitized humans is less lifelike than animated sprites.

i played MK2 to death and still remember going to get a copy with my friend.

personally though, I have always been bigger into street fighter and will remain more into street fighter

Originally Posted by Mr Unoriginal Once you saw everyone's mortality and stuff you got bored.

I think what you meant to say was Fatality. And yes, that was their gimick. Once people got over that, they moved on. Compare the popularity of the SF series over the MK series and my point becomes clear.

MK = Johnny come lately fighter with a little bit of staying power.
SF = The standard that everyone else tries to reach.

Street Fighter II, MK2 gets boring after you play for a couple of hours but SF2 never does.

it's like trying to compare mario world with bubsy.

mortal kombat is bubsy.

Overall, in terms of play mechanics, I personally think SF II is the better game.....plus, my Guile and M.Bison were unbeatable (but I digress).....

I will, however, qualify that by saying that I don't ever remember a game being more popular in the local arcades around me than MK II, with its constantly expanding fatality move list......it was quite a phenomenon. Even SF II never was able to draw the same crowds as MK II did.......those were the days.

ok, thanks for the input, it seems like a majority of you guys prefer SF 2, i played a little of it and it was fun. now i am going to go buy it as soon as i can!

thanks,

hM

me hate MK. all ov dem. me no like.

murda you in streefighter. bumbo klaat's betta run.

It's not even a contest. SF 2, hands down.

Originally Posted by DenisDFat it's like trying to compare mario world with bubsy. mortal kombat is bubsy.

Hey... I actually liked Bubsy... :?

I don't like MK all that much though. Americans have never had much luck designing a fighting game. I think we are more obsessed how it looks like than how it actually plays like.

SF2 and similar fighting games have survived without gimmicky fatality/babality/shutthefupality gameplay, hopefully for MK6 they put some depth behind the superrealistic and traumatizing (yet strangely satisfying) violence.

doesn't matter what system, what year, what edition, how many pixels it has, how much everclear it drank, STREET FIGHTER!! CAPCOM all the way!, sorry midway, you're only there "mid" way... lets hope their new nba jam is worth talking about.

Mortal kombat II.

I have played so many variations of sf2 for so long that I'm sick of it. I've since moved on to the superior SFIII 'series'.

MORTAL KOMBAT GAMES SUCK! BAH, HUMBUG

I am better at the MKII game, but I prefer SF II Turbo. The game is a classic, and all others are derivatives of it.

mortal kombat is for button mashers.

Street fighter is for the upper crust elite who actually care about technique's

......look im flowin'