Board Thread:Mortal Kombat X/@comment-21005855-20140627001148/@comment-21005855-20140702214603

Jayspyder wrote: 1---> I  know, but it just sort of feels like they discarded everything they'd done up to Armageddon, you know? Like why was Armageddon necessary in the first place if you were just going to say, "Yeah, lets re-do that!"? And Original timeline vs the New one? The Original would win...easily. Why? Because most of their characters are still alive...and they weren't all killed by one person! (Sorry, still recovering from Sindel's massacre.)

2---> My favorite depiction of MK will always be MK2. Just the dark and brutal feel to every thing about it, the characters, the fatalities, the music (DEFINITELY the music), the stages...but while still retaining that klassic tongue-in-cheek humor (Friendships) MK is known for. Shaolin Monks sort of took away from that with its inconsistencies and...well, just plain idiocy (Shang being able to completely mimic Raiden and fool Liu and Kung for the whole game, Raiden turning Shao Kahn into stone with lightning, Liu being so naive and dumb he makes young Shujinko look wise). 1---> I totally get ya on that. But if MK: A was to be the last game in the series then how do you revamp for a newer generation? And I agree with you about the Original Timeline winning but the entire cast of Mortal Kombat with the acception of a handful of characters were killed by each other. So if we're looking at the basis of who would win if everyone came back? Yes, Original would win, however, who would win if we go with those who died stay dead? It would be Alternate Timeline because there would be more characters who survived at the end of MK2011. It would also be heavily bad guys too.

2---> You make a great point about Liu and Shujinko.