• As part of the relaunch of Skullheart, ALL previous threads have been archived. You can find them at the bottom of the forum in the Archives (2021) section. The archives are locked, so please use the new forum sections to create new discussion threads.

Marvel vs Capcom 2

I've been having crazy urges to play mvc2 again recently, of course low tier warrior as always my teams being Juggernaut/Tron/Omega Red and Omega Red/Rouge/Tron

Now you all know the secret as to why I wanted Ileum so badly! lol
I use to play mvc2 at my local arcade so much when I lived in Portland... too bad the scene was really small but it was still some of my favorite arcade experiences.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Covenant
asteriskblue said:
MVC2 is the game that most clearly shows that playstyle/strategy balance matters much more than character balance. The top 10-12 characters have so many unique strategies available to them (that can't be replicated at all by the low tier characters) that they end up just feeling like they're apart of a different game from the rest of the cast. Low tier marvel is fun but top tier marvel is so far beyond it, that no one really cares that low tier MVC2 exists.
That's subjective and doesnt prove anything. I enjoy watching and playing marvel2, but people like different things for different reasons and some people, like me, want both the characters and strategies to be balanced; if a game is only balanced when most of the roster is ignored, then it's jot balanced enough for me. To me, characters are half the game; I simply adjust to whatever playstyle that character has as long as as that playstyle doesnt annoy me. Even if a playstyle connects with me, I may not enjoy how that character executes it or I may just not like the character. I play storm not because she's good, but because she feels right in my hands and I happen to also like the character.

It's pretty much the same reason I use Hakan/Tager/Hakumen/Dedede; I don't usually like or play slow/heavy characters, but they feel right, are fun to play, and I happen to like the characters.
 
Kankato said:
Well the thing is I like playing Spiral and Sentinel but I don't enjoy Cable and most Spiral teams are built around making Cable amazing. The big question is should I run Cyclops 2nd and DHC into Sentinel or run Cyclops 3rd and find ways to set up HSF loops?

I'd see if you can sword super into HSF. If you can, Sent makes sense in the 2 slot
 
Covenant said:
I play storm not because she's good, but because she feels right in my hands and I happen to also like the character.
One may posit the argument that if she didn't have the things that made her god tier she wouldn't feel as "right" to you, though, so they are possibly more related than you'd like to believe.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mcpeanuts
Covenant said:
...some people, like me, want both the characters and strategies to be balanced...

You've misunderstood what I was saying. Everybody would like to have both of those things.

Im saying that since the top characters in Marvel 2 are so well balanced amongst themselves and there are so many different ways to play each of them people were more willing to ignore the rest of cast and imbalance they create.

Conversely, you could make a game where all characters are balanced against each other, but also have identical options and it would probably turn a lot of people off.
 
Mike_Z said:
One may posit the argument that if she didn't have the things that made her god tier she wouldn't feel as "right" to you, though, so they are possibly more related than you'd like to believe.
They could be, but I also think Gambit and Marrow feel right. I think Magneto feels terrible. The feel of a character (to me this is more closely related to satisfaction of movement; how I want a character to move/respond compared to how they actually move and what I need to do to get them to move) and how good they are could have a correlation, but it's by no means exceptionally strong or consistent across all boards. It happens in all games; people end up choosing vastly different characters with greatly differing levels of success, certain expectations, and varying levels of personal satisfaction. This happens regardless of whether the character is good or not. Player personality makes a big difference imo. Some people just mesh better with certain characters due to small things. Something as simple as dash speed or distance could be the difference between a character feeling right to a person.
 
The problem i have with unbalaced games is when i can't play a character that i love because he is not even viable. I know that fighting games veteran just look for a character of certain style and use the best possible at it, but i can't do that. So for me, the balancing affects how i see the game as "good" or "bad". :/
 
  • Like
Reactions: Covenant
Sotherius said:
The problem i have with unbalaced games is when i can't play a character that i love because he is not even viable. I know that fighting games veteran just look for a character of certain style and use the best possible at it, but i can't do that. So for me, the balancing affects how i see the game as "good" or "bad". :/
I feel you. I'm right in the middle; I generally choose characters I like and then try to play the best ones. Unfortunately sometimes the characters we like are terrible...
 
I say stop worrying about tiers and start playing characters you like, if they happen to be in a high tier whatever its cause you like that team not cause its the strats that win the most. Me I like Guile, Morrigan, Sonson sometimes CapCom
 
  • Like
Reactions: Covenant
PKStoopKid said:
I say stop worrying about tiers and start playing characters you like, if they happen to be in a high tier whatever its cause you like that team not cause its the strats that win the most. Me I like Guile, Morrigan, Sonson sometimes CapCom
Son-Son is another character I love playing. So much fun.
 
I'm not sure if I've made this argument before, but as I said the top tier characters are so deep and have so many playstyles available, that you should be able to find a character that has what you want.

Like playing Wolverine or Cammy? Magneto can do all they can and more. etc.
 
but what if I don't like Magneto but like Cammy and Wolverine?
what if I don't like Magneto?
what if I literally could not care less how complex a character is?
 
Squire Grooktook said:
I'm not sure if I've made this argument before, but as I said the top tier characters are so deep and have so many playstyles available, that you should be able to find a character that has what you want.

Like playing Wolverine or Cammy? Magneto can do all they can and more. etc.
You did, but there's more to characters than play style. And how that playstyle is executed matters to some. Nothing wrong with being satisfied by what's available, but it's not good to make assumptions for others.
 
Squire Grooktook said:
I'm not sure if I've made this argument before, but as I said the top tier characters are so deep and have so many playstyles available, that you should be able to find a character that has what you want.

Like playing Wolverine or Cammy? Magneto can do all they can and more. etc.

I like wolverine, i don't like magneto, that is why i would play wolverine. and suffer.
 
SanoBaron said:
but what if I don't like Magneto but like Cammy and Wolverine?
what if I don't like Magneto?
what if I literally could not care less how complex a character is?
Sotherius said:
I like wolverine, i don't like magneto, that is why i would play wolverine. and suffer.

Okay, but here's the question? Why?

If one character does everything the other does, does it better, and can do more, then what makes you like one more then other? Genuine question.
 
I play Sonson just cause I like her personality its how I base my decisions on who I'll play not whether Magneto saves me character space cause he is two and one but if I like the characters themselves
 
  • Like
Reactions: SanoBaron
Squire Grooktook said:
Okay, but here's the question? Why?

If one character does everything the other does, does it better, and can do more, then what makes you like one more then other? Genuine question.

I like Wolverine because of the comics and cartoons i've seen where he is in, and i don't like magneto because what i've seen of him in comics and cartoons, simple.

I am a guy, that bought marvel vs capcom 3 (i know this is the mvc2 thread), when i first got my xbox 360 in 2011 (and i was not into fighters that time), just because the game has x-23 playable, she is my favorite comic book character, and i would get umvc3 if it was acessible, by the same reason (dante and vergil helps tho.)

See, as i said, it may be hard for a fighting game veteran to understand, because all you want is play a good character that fits your playstyle, i, choose a character that i like, and then i try to learn what i should be doing with that character.

So, if i'm going to play marvel 2, i would pick wolverine, spiderman, characters that i like.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SanoBaron
Pretty much what @Sotherius said
There are many paradigms when it comes to games and choosing characters in them.

Here's a personal example from a different game: Necro. I hate Blanka. I hate Dhalsim. I love Necro. He reminds me of me, an often misunderstood goofball who does his best. He's entertaining to watch, somehow manages to be fun to play, and I feel a non-gameplay related connection to him. My drive to get better at third strike wasn't inspired by seeing a gameplay style I liked, it was inspired by a character I liked. So I got better at the game with a character I liked. I probably wont win any tournaments, but I enjoy all of my time with the game. Much more so than I would playing the game with a character I cant stand playing...or simply cant stand.

I like Q and Hugo for similar reasons.

People just have different reasons for liking a game and wanting to get better at them. I mean some people like skullgirls or certain characters for the art and story....

This is slightly off topic, but in my opinion, the sole way to get better at a game should almost never be "pick another character".

mcpeanuts said:
How much are you gonna like Wolverine after he gets dunked on by the machine for 1000 games straight lmbo
It's ok, he can just play me lol
 
  • Like
Reactions: SanoBaron
Well okay, if you're playing characters for aesthetic reasons, then that's one game you'll be out of luck in.

For the record I like Wolverine too and play him in the older Marvels and in low tier matches, although I don't like playing him in mvc3, he's not as fun there IMO.
 
Squire Grooktook said:
Well okay, if you're playing characters for aesthetic reasons, then that's one game you'll be out of luck in.

For the record I like Wolverine too and play him in the older Marvels and in low tier matches, although I don't like playing him in mvc3, he's not as fun there IMO.
I'm...not sure if that was directed at me since I didnt list any visual reasons for my personal preferences. I did mention that some people like skullgirls for the visuals so maybe it was that.

But yeah, unless you only play top tier (in most games really) because their top tier, then choosing a good character is luck of the draw and winning is definitely more likely to be an up hill battle. I cant argue with you on that point lol. I did get lucky in a few games though.
 
Covenant said:
I'm...not sure if that was directed at me since I didnt list any visual reasons for my personal preferences. I did mention that some people like skullgirls for the visuals so maybe it was that.

Well, connection, story, non-gameplay related, basically.

Covenant said:
But yeah, unless you only play top tier (in most games really) because their top tier, then choosing a good character is luck of the draw and winning is definitely more likely to be an up hill battle. I cant argue with you on that point lol. I did get lucky in a few games though.

That's kinda part of what I'm trying to get at. It's not just "just pick a top tier" but more about finding a playstyle you find fun. If you choose characters for gameplay/playstyle related reasons, then you can probably find someone in the top tiers you like and find very fun, because every possible playstyle is represented there.

For example, if you like "pixie" characters, you might like Wolverine, but in the long run you'd probably like Mags or Storm better because they're also pixies but are faster, have more variety, more fun stuff all around, basically.

I usually pick characters based on what corresponds to my playstyle. For example I generally like playing characters that have good neutral games and specialize in high mobility.
 
Squire Grooktook said:
Well, connection, story, non-gameplay related, basically.



That's kinda part of what I'm trying to get at. It's not just "just pick a top tier" but more about finding a playstyle you find fun. If you choose characters for gameplay/playstyle related reasons, then you can probably find someone in the top tiers you like and find very fun, because every possible playstyle is represented there.

For example, if you like "pixie" characters, you might like Wolverine, but in the long run you'd probably like Mags or Storm better because they're also pixies but are faster, have more variety, more fun stuff all around, basically.

I usually pick characters based on what corresponds to my playstyle. For example I generally like playing characters that have good neutral games and specialize in high mobility.
That's the thing, there's no specific playstyle I like. I simply like trying to out think my opponents and adapt my gameplan to fit the characters I like. If a character I like sucks so be it; I'll still support the community. I mean I played freaking Ness in melee and still went to tournaments...

This isn't an "If A->B then B->A" type of situation. What I like about fighting games isnt just a specific play style, it's just out playing/out thinking the opponent. I just happen to want to do it with a character I like.

I mean, you're making it sound like I don't enjoy the game, which is far from the truth. It's just that what I like in a character and what I find fun are different from what you think is fun.
It's merely a difference in value.

And for the record, I have tried the other characters even if it was only to try to understand how to beat them. Aside from just not particularly liking magneto as a character I also just didnt like playing as him. And I dont mind having one spot for a character I dont in a team based game. However, in single player games......nah.
 
Hey hey, it's all cool. I'm just trying to understand the reasoning here.

Like I said, my point is just that if you pick characters based on gameplay reasons, then you can find what you like in the top cast because every kind of gameplay is strongly represented there.

If you're picking them for emotional connections, appearances, story reasons, personal reasons, etc. that's cool, and I guess the problems with Mvc2 would be more noticeable.

I'm just saying, a lot of people act like Mvc2 is limited because certain characters aren't viable, but everything that really makes up that characters gameplay can be found in a viable character in the high tier cast.

So assuming someone's main consideration is gameplay, then it's not like other games where maybe there's 1 trap character or hardcore zoning character, but if they're bottom tier you're shit out of luck for playing that way in that game. Every kind of gameplay you'd want is represented in high tier gameplay. If anything, I'd characterize mvc2 as a game with massive amount of freedom for finding a fighting style that fits you.
 
Squire Grooktook said:
Hey hey, it's all cool. I'm just trying to understand the reasoning here.

Like I said, my point is just that if you pick characters based on gameplay reasons, then you can find what you like in the top cast because every kind of gameplay is strongly represented there.

If you're picking them for emotional connections, appearances, story reasons, personal reasons, etc. that's cool, and I guess the problems with Mvc2 would be more noticeable.

I'm just saying, a lot of people act like Mvc2 is limited because certain characters aren't viable, but everything that really makes up that characters gameplay can be found in a viable character in the high tier cast.

So assuming someone's main consideration is gameplay, then it's not like other games where maybe there's 1 trap character or hardcore zoning character, but if they're bottom tier you're shit out of luck for playing that way in that game. Every kind of gameplay you'd want is represented in high tier gameplay. If anything, I'd characterize mvc2 as a game with massive amount of freedom for finding a fighting style that fits you.
No worries, man. I get your point and I do mostly agree with that, though personally I think there a difference between the concept of a characters and the execution that makes a big difference, but at the same time freedom and flexibility comes with a price. Too much freedom and flexibility could result in homogenization, even if it's isolated to a small group. If gameplay is all that matters and 4-6 characters out of 100 can do everything then not only do I ask why those others characters exist, but I also may ask what are the major differences between the 4-6 viable characters (not necessarily MVC2)? Being flexible in the sense that you have an answer for any problem is not an issue in and of it self, but it removes much of the risk involved in character selection (whether or no that's good depends on the person) and makes the meta and match-up a blank slate in the sense that, theoretically, as long as both teams have three character it's a 5:5 matchup due to each team having a viable answer (whether it be similar or identical) to everything; essentially every top tier team is Ryu in the sense that they tend to be well rounded and have minor advantage/disadvantage relative to other top tier teams (whether or not that's good depends on the person).

None of that is inherently bad. It's good in the sense that at top level play whether or not you win can't be blamed on character match up; the victory is almost solely due to player skill since it's more about beating the player and less about beating a team/character, and that is an aspect I respect about the game and it's top players. But at the same time some aspects that many find interesting or fun are no longer as relevant or viable: no more extreme differences in team composure; reduced specialization teams (why be a master at one thing when you can master them all); no teams based on themes; no more, or at the very least greatly reduced, inherent strength/weakness due to team matchup (yeah sentinel is vulnerable to instant over heads and pseudo infinites, but he's gonna be in the air most of the time...) and thus there's no need to work hard to over come them; and, arguably, less creative answers to problems due to a lack of need.

Again, none of that is inherently bad. It's just different and a lot of people, including me, like mvc2, though to varying degrees. Gameplay is very much a factor to consider and it's arguably the most important factor. But in my own studies I've come to believe that a game is often more than it's gameplay in the same way a book is more than it's story. There are outside elements, personal elements or cultural elements or social elements and many others, that people bring with them that become part of the game as well, though that's seldom a thing that a developed can account for, and as a result people enjoy different aspects of a game. They connect and have fun with different elements. I personally just like playing as or with interesting things. Heck, when I play jenga I start with the lowest blocks and work my way up because that's what I find interesting and fun, winning be damned......for the record, I have yet to lose a game of jenga and my family hates it when I start working on the bottom pieces! I'm a friggin surgeon at that game. XD
 
I'm with you covenant. I dislike magneto and even dictator. You may or may not like dictator but I hate him. I tend to really hate villainous characters in general. That won't totally choose who I play, but it's rare for me to play an out and out villain in a game. Double is probably the closest to a villain character that I've used in a long time.

Saying that, I understand totally where you are coming from as far as liking characters aesthetically speaking or just finding a character that meshes with you. I'd much rather use painwheel, whom I like looking at, than say Bella who I do not like looking at. That's just a lot of time in training mode and playing the game where my satisfaction isn't high if I play a character that aesthetically sucks in my opinion.


And it's for this reason what I like balanced games. I was somewhat lucky in mvc2 since I liked both cable and sentinel play styles and aesthetics, but they were the only top tier I really liked. Blackheart was my other favorite character and if I were to play the game today I would use those characters. But blaxkheart being a tier or so under the gods can be problematic. Luckily I don't actually play the game to see it as a problem, plus there aren't that many people that that would even matter against anyways... Somewhat.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Covenant
Its not that I dislike the characters or that I wouldn't play them, I just like other characters I don't care about winning I don't care about losing I just like to have fun, I just want my opponent to have fun, I don't care that Wolverine will get stuffed 1000 times. I just like Sonson I just like Guile and I just like CapCom(and then I realized he had an amazing assist and that it seemed like that's why I picked him). I'm tired of hive mind mentality in fighting games... unless everybody really likes the same like 6 characters hmmm. Plus its just boring to see in tournaments but I won't complain about that since money takes precedents over fun
 
  • Like
Reactions: Covenant
PKStoopKid said:
Its not that I dislike the characters or that I wouldn't play them, I just like other characters I don't care about winning I don't care about losing I just like to have fun, I just want my opponent to have fun, I don't care that Wolverine will get stuffed 1000 times. I just like Sonson I just like Guile and I just like CapCom(and then I realized he had an amazing assist and that it seemed like that's why I picked him). I'm tired of hive mind mentality in fighting games... unless everybody really likes the same like 6 characters hmmm. Plus its just boring to see in tournaments but I won't complain about that since money takes precedents over fun
Yeah. I mean I like seeing high level gameplay with those six characters, but I know I'd like it more if I didn't see the same faces over and over and over again. It can be seen as a minor gripe, but it can also be seen as a valid one.
 
PKStoopKid said:
I'm tired of hive mind mentality in fighting games...
Err?
It's not "hive mind" that the god tier characters destroy all the other ones. People aren't accepting that just because other people say it, they accept it because it's the truth! They will be who you mostly see, either at home or at tournaments, because they keep WINNING. Winner stays.
If you want the freedom to play anyone, you kind of HAVE to play something more balanced than MvC2. No matter who you are, you won't enjoy basically not getting to play for 50 games straight...you can pick Sonson/Guile/Capcom and you will straight up lose to Iron Man. Just Iron Man. Etc.
 
PKStoopKid said:
Its not that I dislike the characters or that I wouldn't play them, I just like other characters I don't care about winning I don't care about losing I just like to have fun, I just want my opponent to have fun, I don't care that Wolverine will get stuffed 1000 times. I just like Sonson I just like Guile and I just like CapCom(and then I realized he had an amazing assist and that it seemed like that's why I picked him). I'm tired of hive mind mentality in fighting games... unless everybody really likes the same like 6 characters hmmm. Plus its just boring to see in tournaments but I won't complain about that since money takes precedents over fun

People didn't play the game for 10 years straight at Evo and somehow make up that the God Tier are as good as they are. Those characters are actually that good.

Unless you're claiming that Servbot is somehow just as good as Sentinel, in which case, please present your argument by all means.
 
I think Covenant was probably saying he doesn't like the mentality of "if you wanna play, you have to play the characters we want you to, not the characters you want to play"

I'm not saying anyone here is like that, but that's just my observation of what he's saying.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Covenant
So annoying seeing people complain of balance in mvc2.

The game wasn't designed to be balanced. They just threw in as many characters they could from all their games...
You should play the game for the GAME, not just because your waifu is in it or whatever.

besides the whole reason marvel 2 is good is because of the top tiers. They have such a huge skill ceiling and options. Low tier mvc2 is kinda boring since everyone is just ABC-> super and has poor mobility and less options.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Beefy Heropon, mcpeanuts and Broken Loose
Dagwood said:
So annoying seeing people complain of balance in mvc2.

The game wasn't designed to be balanced. They just threw in as many characters they could from all their games...
You should play the game for the GAME, not just because your waifu is in it or whatever.

besides the whole reason marvel 2 is good is because of the top tiers. They have such a huge skill ceiling and options. Low tier mvc2 is kinda boring since everyone is just ABC-> super and has poor mobility and less options.

While i understand your point of view, i'm pretty sure, long time ago, when marvel 2 was released, people were not like this:

"Dude, let's play marvel 2, the game mechanics are so great if you play characters like doom, sentinel, magneto because of the system and you can do so much with them."

I bet people were like this:

"Dude, you should play marvel 2, it got Wolverine, Ryu, Spiderman, the game is so sick!"

Of course, people learned how to play the game, and of course, the people that play the game now don't care at all about characters, but about mechanics and playstyle, but i (and a lot of people) need both. =P

I really can't complain about a more than 10 years old game to be unbalanced, because really, they (the devs) didn't know the monster they were creating back in the day.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Covenant and SanoBaron
Okay, the problem with that sentiment is that the entire reason MvC2 lasted 10 years at Evo was because the game portion played by the top tiers was so good. Note how nobody is playing MvC1, MvSF, TvC, SvC:Chaos, CvS1, Sengoku Basara, Mortal Kombat vs. DC Universe, or CFJ seriously anymore, even though those games have equally fanservicey casts. The type of player who plays Dan/Felicia/Rogue and makes "bold claims" about player skill trumping character ability or who just wanna main their waifu aren't the type of player who maintain a scene of any kind.

Additionally, MvC2 wasn't initially played because of its cast-- it was played because X-Men vs. Street Fighter was a really good game. It was so good that 2 shitty sequels didn't turn people off, and it still gets played in side tournaments.

As somebody who was actually around 14 years ago, people were just as hungry for a deep and interesting gameplay experience then as they are now; just go look at some alt.games.sf2 posts or Viscant's old guides. Once word got out that MvC2 was way less shitty and busted than MvC1 was, player hype skyrocketed and people were really interested in seeing what cool and powerful things they could do under the new system (that didn't revolve around doing a single boring thing over and over, despite what people initially thought of Cable 4xFierce). Additionally, the tiers were petering out within a year or 2, contrary to rumors you might hear about Iceman running amok for half a decade, because the best and also most fun characters were pretty obviously the best and also most fun.
 
  • Like
Reactions: North888, mcpeanuts, Yomabuddy and 2 others
Broken Loose said:
Additionally, the tiers were petering out within a year or 2, contrary to rumors you might hear about Iceman running amok for half a decade, because the best and also most fun characters were pretty obviously the best and also most fun.
Most of what you said was spot on, but this isn't true. They were getting smaller but you still had Gambit, Iceman, Cammy, etc mains being plentiful enough until 4-5 years in. Once Sentinel became what he is now, instead of "the downside of BH+Sentinel", was when lower tier characters starting becoming more non-used even in local scenes.
 
Mike_Z said:
Most of what you said was spot on, but this isn't true. They were getting smaller but you still had Gambit, Iceman, Cammy, etc mains being plentiful enough until 4-5 years in. Once Sentinel became what he is now, instead of "the downside of BH+Sentinel", was when lower tier characters starting becoming more non-used even in local scenes.
You're right that a few pot monsters mained them, but I'm 70% sure that the longest of the old tops was Iceman who was dropped after 2003. I didn't see much Gambit use after the glitch was banned, and Cammy didn't last in my scene once the whole cast was unlocked. Blackheart was the weirdo outlier that stuck around, but even he faded away before too long. I don't think really any of them realistically lasted after the first or second Evo.
 
Broken Loose said:
Unless you're claiming that Servbot is somehow just as good as Sentinel, in which case, please present your argument by all means.


I never said anything about anyone being as good as each other I just said play who you want, the only point I was trying to stress, Eh 10yrs ago I was 12 and the only place I could play sometimes was at a cabinet in the movies so I assume my eyes haven't been opened yet, so imma leave that all alone (no sarcasm intended)
 
Broken Loose said:
I don't think really any of them realistically lasted after the first or second Evo.
I speak as a CA (FFA/Regency/Camelot) and Midwest (MN, Chicago) player - they were around until at LEAST 2005 before basically everyone except Joe Zaza, me, VDO, and a few other die-hards stayed low tier. Justin K. (Morrigan/Gambit/Sonson) was one of the last to go, and there is totally footage of him from 2005. I wonder where he is now...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Broken Loose
SanoBaron said:
I think Covenant was probably saying he doesn't like the mentality of "if you wanna play, you have to play the characters we want you to, not the characters you want to play"

I'm not saying anyone here is like that, but that's just my observation of what he's saying.
Pretty much. I accept that characters will seldom, if ever, be truly equal; however, I believe a balanced game essentially means that any character is at least viable.

That said, balance and fun are two different things. Marvel2 does a great job at being fun and a terrible job at being balanced; no, ignoring most of the roster doesnt make the game balanced, though it can arguably make high level play balanced.

Dagwood said:
So annoying seeing people complain of balance in mvc2.

The game wasn't designed to be balanced. They just threw in as many characters they could from all their games...
You should play the game for the GAME, not just because your waifu is in it or whatever.

besides the whole reason marvel 2 is good is because of the top tiers. They have such a huge skill ceiling and options. Low tier mvc2 is kinda boring since everyone is just ABC-> super and has poor mobility and less options.

OR
.....
People can play and enjoy games for whatever reasons they want to!
Yay, differences!
 
  • Like
Reactions: SanoBaron and PKStoopKid
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back