Indeed. She launches her opponent up into the air in an attempt to follow with a backflip grab, but she misses, gets upset about not it not going right, and just torches him instead…then curls up to sleep satisfied that she did a good job.
What’s not to get?
How about the lack of a body in the flames? Do we just assume they disintegrated? Did they run away and she missed? You’re right. Not confusing at all.
And maybe they should’ve added a cute little kitty for her to curl up with as well. That would make it extra special.
Reminder: This is free content for a niche F2P game.
I definitely wish the new Riptor ultimate was done better as well and I mentioned my issue with its presentation in another thread, but there’s really nothing more you can do than say your piece about it and let your opinion be known.
Getting upset or throwing around petty, heavily debatable criticisms toward the talent of the developers isn’t going to change the final result. All it can do is stir up resentment in the community.
What matters most is how big the product is in the market, not how big the company is. KI is a F2P niche game in a niche genre, and the content in question is free and will provide no direct profit to its developers.
You say it’s confusing, yet you just explained the possibilities the scene was trying to lay out in two sentences. It doesn’t take much imagination to interpret the scene. The devs have in fact said they don’t want to show anyone as definitively dead and they intentionally keep it ambiguous.
Hyperbole always makes the best inspiration for memes, so thanks for that.
After seeing several of your posts, it appears that you’re under the assumption that the Ultimates are intended to be definitive kill moves, and they’re not. Adam Isgreen told us awhile back that they are intentionally leaving whether or not the opponent died ambiguous. My guess is it is to avoid the WTF-ery MK brings when an opponent gets beheaded, disembowled, torn limb from limb, exploded, and walks into the next match with not so much as a scratch on him.
That’s not what creative is, friend…
Riptor’s had an old No Mercy where she ate her opponent.
Sad to see how you dumb skulls try to pull the [quote=“fuzzd0rk, post:71, topic:20288”]
My bad. I didn’t realize it was in poor taste to discuss our opinions of aspects of a game on its official forum.
[/quote] card and try to flip crap on the members who have a different opinion about the things you say.
Nobody has to like what you have to say, constructive or not.
Riptor’s Ultimate is better than that old KI garbage Ultimates and that’s a fact.
Don’t like it? Cool, but watch what you say.
Thats exactly what he does.
The most basic meaning of the word “ultimate” is final. Something cannot go any further. It’s over.
If these are meant to be ambiguous, then that goes against very definition of the word “ultimate.” If they could still be alive, than that’s not an ultimate. That’s a “maybe they’re dead.” Hey, maybe that’s what we should just call them. MTDs. I think I’ll go with that instead.
This statement doesn’t make any sense. When does that happen? I’ve never killed an opponent in MK, then fought them again in the next match.
Never said anyone has to. And I have yet to criticize anyone’s opinion about the MTDs (maybe they’re dead, aka Ultimates). However, that’s all everyone has done about mine. Practice what you preach.
Nice try, but that doesn’t happen in arcade mode. You also can’t do fatalities in story mode. Your little vid was a fail. Sorry.
You’ve never played MK with a friend?
As far as you definition of ultimate, no. Just no.
“being or happening at the end of a process; final.”
It’s a bizarre leap of logic from that to ultimate combo has to mean death. This is similar to your challenge with “creative.” I don’t think the meanings of words is really a strength for you.
That’s different. That’s not story mode. There’s a difference. Once the match is over, that’s the end of it.
Since when does “Ultimate” necessarily mean the ultimate demise of the opponent? Not all ultimates definitively killed in the original KI, either. All it inherently means is a finishing attack to end the battle.
Way to cherry pick a definition that suit your argument.
From dictionary.com:
last; furthest or farthest; ending a process or series
maximum; decisive; conclusive
3.highest; not subsidiary
4.basic; fundamental; representing a limit beyond which further progress, as in investigation or analysis, is impossible
5.final; total
6.not to be improved upon or surpassed; greatest; unsurpassed
All definitions point to ultimate meaning final or can’t go any further.
Indeed. Riptor’s where she “eats” her opponent is only implied. They don’t show it, the screen goes black. Using a bit of hyperbole here, but how do we know she didn’t order her opponent to go make her a huge meal and you just don’t see them whipping up a huge turkey dinner in the kitchen and then she lets them go? All you see is her leaping at them, the screen goes black, and then they show her with a huge gut.
No where have I seen them say that ultimates mean absolute death but you’re right about ultimate meaning final in that the ultimates we have are the final ending combo that finishes the fight outright hence why it can only be performed in combo.
As for MK come on you’re not serious right? Nearly every X-ray move in MKX alone should kill the opponent it makes no sense for them to get back up like it’s nothing. Take predators for example he pretty much decapitates his opponent if that’s not death then I don’t know what is.
And TJ’s. All he did was punch you toward or off the screen.
And Orchid’s boob flash definitely doesn’t kill, especially other female opponents who just gave up in frustration.
I’m not even going to try and argue at just how dumb that was. I think it speaks for itself.
None of these other definitions help you either.
You remind me of a school kid arguing with the teacher that his multiple choice answer could also be right under the right circumstances. Sorry bud, ultimate just doesn’t inherently imply death. That’s in no way a compelling argument.
