Talk:Mortal Kombat (2011 video game)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Confirmation of Baraka

First off, apologies if this is not in the right format. I'm a n00b. Feel free to edit my entry to make it meet all the right guidelines, etc.

A video was released today that confirms Baraka's inclusion in the game (at 1:16 in the video). I can't update the main page because my account is too new. Can somebody else take care of this? r3t0dd--R3t0dd (talk) 19:57, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Rumored/leaked characters

There are multiple sources on the Kratos and other character leaks. Mostly NEWS sources. And a bunch of news sources as well. Why wouldn't this make it on Wikipedia? It's officially part of the history of the product, whether rumor or not. --Boosh (talk) 19:25, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

We don't have a good grasp on the event at the moment. Leaks can be placed as I did with Sonya because I referenced it wih Computer and Video games, a known reliable source. The guys you refeenced were also good but you didn't use the template. I which you do this:

<ref>{{citeweb|first=|last=|date=|title=|url=|publisher=|work=|accessdate=}}</ref> First and last meaning the first and last name of the author.

But also, we can't exactly take this for fact violating WP:CRYSTAL, unless we have a reliable source posted (which you did post but not formatted correctly). Please be patient with other editors though. WP:CRYSTAL is taken very seriously in WP:VG. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 21:47, 9 December 2010 (UTC) Kratos was officaly confirmed as PS3 exclusive for MK9 by Playstation Magazine and IGN, and Ermac and Goro pics have been leaked, I think we can add 'em —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.203.112.147 (talk) 13:33, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I have seen those pictures, and I think it was enough for sources that fall under WP:RS to believe it, so I'll be putting in the leaked characters this afternoon. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 16:28, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

What is the source that Kratos will only be available in versus mode? Since xbox and ps3 owners are on two different networks, there should be nothing conceptual that prevents him from being in the ps3 version. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.185.185.92 (talk) 16:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Babalities and Jax?

"December 16, 2009. 5:08 PM"

I saw it below the article. Where is this information located at? If it is a complete lie, I hope they put this article to semi-lock. I am sick and totally tired of lies on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.222.214.72 (talk) 00:07, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

See John Tobias' Twitter page. For some reason the on who added it did not add a source. By the way, I don't how TMRK.com is a reliable source.Tintor2 (talk) 02:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Basically, TRMK.com has a history of providing factual information. The information may be elsewhere but it all links back to that website. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 00:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no other site showing that. Even a user from the site asked where did he get such info.Tintor2 (talk) 01:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

[This site] used to have an actual page but it was taken off. But that sourced TRMK.com. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 01:59, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits

• NetherRealm reference removed as it had no supporting citation.

I have a problem with the following things, seemingly added in a deliberate intent to inflate the article.

• "Ed Boon stated that he believed Mortal Kombat vs. DC Universe's performance would reflect upon what features what would be put in "the next game", presumably Mortal Kombat 9." Now, what does this even mean? It's a completely meaningless sentence, that doesn't even directly refer to MK9, being only ASSUMED to.
• "When 411Mania, a pop culture news site, had a Q&A on March 2, 2010 over the current events of video games, its editors stated that Mortal Kombat 9 would indeed be bloody and gory but not a crossover. The fact that it's not a crossover is already mentioned and sourced in the article.
• Continuing about 411 mania, They additionally noted that Mortal Kombat was not the same without its over the top violence." I personally don't think two random guys in a totally unknown fansite are really worth mentioning, particularly over a brainless statement like saying they like violence in MK.
• The article prose doesn't have to mention where every bit of information comes from. That's what inline sources are for.

If you really have any arguments against any of these points, feel free to present them, and if deemed necessary, we can ask for a third opinion. --uKER (talk) 22:27, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

First off, I don't edit to inflate articles I edit to add subtance, to try to explain something more clearly.

I'll level with you on the first point, it does assume that he's talking about MK9 and WP:CRYSTAL is against such things, however it does state the fact that the predecessor's success would reflect on the successor's development, something obvious stated in actual words by the developer. The second part that you speak on is sourced but the sources placed there I don't believe has substance for a reliable source. The first is just a copy and paste of the conversation off of Twitter, the second is on a not so established site. The 411Mania source speaks of it in a secondary source perspective added with reception.

Reception is the purpose of why I placed the part about "Mortal Kombat isn't the same without blood and gore", this video game is already gaining reception from the first few things spoken over it by developers. It's already time to be adding a reception section to this article. 411Mania, isn't a totally unknown fansite, it is an established popular culture newssite, used in many other articles, not just this one.

As for that last part, I specifically stated that is was a newssite because of you. It doesn't have its own article so we have to elaborate on it ourselves when mentioning it in an article so it won't be mistaken as "just another fansite." Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 22:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Despite your explanation, my discontent stands, except for maybe the first point (the one about the MKvsDC influence) altough its relevance remains uncertain. Then, I don't understand your necessity to write something about reception when there's nothing actually meaningful to be said. I call that inflating the article. Also, again, someone saying MK should have gore is by no means something that deserves notice. Even my grandma could say it. And again, 411mania doesn't stand out as a reliable source, and certainly no better than a post in Ed Boon's personal Twitter account. So what's it gonna be? Shall we ask for a third opinion? For the time being, I'll remove the mention of the sources from the prose, as it's clearly unsuitable. --uKER (talk) 03:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Wait, I just noticed that you're the citing Q&A on 411Mania as a source for your saying that the game will be bloody and not a crossover, but that so called Q&A didn't involve anybody from the MK team but only the two Joes from the site itself, so no, sir. I'm removing that since it's purely speculation from two schmoes. You're out of luck on that. --uKER (talk) 03:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think they're schmoes simply because they're on the same level of IGN reviewers but I'll concede that you remove the gore and crossover stuff but don't remove the reception their sentiment is the same as MK fans. I'll also ask that you keep the reception from the GamePro article (considering that the focus on online play is a "smart move") because they're one of the only organizaations that has said that has published that statement. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 03:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

411Mania on the same level as IGN? What the...? And what is that about you wanting to put fans' sentiment in the article? I have no problem keeping the GamePro part. If you check, you'll see I already worked it into proper prose. Please, from now on, when you put information in, DO NOT CITE THE SOURCE IN THE PROSE. This will help you notice what information is worthy and what's not. For example, the sentence that reads "In the GamePro November 2009 issue, it noted that Ed Boon hinted at a return to the bloody form." is just blurb, inflated by the mention of its source. You remove that, keeping only the information itself, and you're left with "MK9 has been hinted to return to bloody form". Now is that really worth mentioning? I don't think so, especially when in the previous paragraph, Boon mentions the game borderlining on the Adults Only rating. --uKER (talk) 03:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edit is agreeable. You may have removed the 411Mania source (which is a bit opinionated) but the site itself is not unreliable. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 14:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad we've come to terms then. About 411Mania, the thing is there may be sites one can personally trust, but they're not necessarily considered reliable sources here on Wikipedia, and citable as such. In particular, the article you cited is just two guys as it could be me and one of my friends, writing on a blog about our personal opinions on the gaming scene: we won't deliberately spread lies, and people may trust us, but our opinion is not citable material. --uKER (talk) 15:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I've come to terms with your edit, but your views on 411Mania is something I cannot simply agree with. While it may appear as a blog, it is similar in content to any review by a known video game reviewing site. It is an independently owned site, maintained and moderated on its own. It is similar in style to Entertainment Tonight. It takes current events and adds their own opinion on the event. If you take a look at their ([About Us]) it's been established and run since 1996. It may have been a Geocities site, but now it is a current events newssite tht can be trusted regarding the information it has. You yourself, know that Ed Boon nhas confirmed blood and gore for the next MK, if a secondary source says the same, then no harm is done. Case in point, it is secondary, it is an independent site and most importantly it is not something self-published. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 21:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Inclusion of characters

I've seen anons including Kitana and Sonya as confirmed characters, this is merely speculation as it has not been confirmed by the MK team. WP:SPS is against such sources (some of which are on here) but characters is a vital part of the game and I would prefer it if we could keep them out. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 15:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, these reliable sources: http://www.destructoid.com/some-updates-on-mortal-kombat-9-166045.phtml http://www.gamingtarget.com/article.php?artid=11076

are quoting TRMK.org on the leaked information of MK9. Does anyone think it warrants inclusison now? I'm uneasy about any speculation but it is verifiable and spoken on by reliable sources. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 22:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

In any case, the source is this. --uKER (talk) 23:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Something similar has recently occured here: http://www.gameplanet.co.nz/news/134830.20100503.Snippets-New-L4D2-mode-Mortal-Kombat-9-teased-IW-coverage-overdone/

Do we deal with it the same way we did the last source? Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 20:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

More reliable source mentioning focus on online play

http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3175510

I don't have the slightest on how to include this into the prose. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 20:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure 1UP is a better source than GameSpot. --uKER (talk) 23:19, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, it just looks like a more in-depth look at it to me. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 23:42, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I just added it as an additional ref. --uKER (talk) 00:40, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Adding the characters

The trailer was released and it looks awesome! Now the characters can be added and the video can be used as rhe source.

Characters:

• Shao Kahn
• Raiden
• Johnny Cage
• Sub-Zero
• Reptile
• Nightwolf
• Mileena
• Kung Lao
• Sektor

Kira, Li Mei and another girl can be seen as Kung Lao performs his Fatality. Bo' Rai Cho is laying in the Living Forest(He's not Bo Rai Cho but only a man strangled by the hevil tree's roots, like in the background of MK II). There are also people fighting in the background of the Pit, and have anyone noticed that Shang Tsung is on the throne while Mileena fights Sub-Zero??

I'm also quite sure that everyone is going to return from MKvsDCU, the MK ones obviously, as their models will only need some touches for this game. I think they are bringing the ones the fans wanted to be on DCU, like Kung Lao, Reptile, Cage etc. Based on this, I hope the line up will be:

Good side:

• Cyrax
• Ermac
• Jade
• Jax
• Johnny Cage
• Kenshi (new players seems to like him)
• Kitana
• Kung Lao
• Liu Kang
• Nightwolf
• Raiden
• Sindel
• Sonya Blade
• Sub-Zero
• Taven (by the looks of things (inclusion of Kira and Li Mei), they are not rebooting the storyline so maybe this guy may still be in)

Evil side:

• Baraka
• Goro (or Kintaro)
• Kabal
• Kano
• Mileena
• Motaro (they said they would make him with four legs in next games and I believed, so...)
• Noob Saibot
• Quan Chi
• Rain (if Taven is in, maybe he is too as there is some kind of rivalry)
• Reptile
• Scorpion
• Sektor
• Shang Tsung
• Shao Kahn
• Smoke (human)

I would not be shocked if they include Shinnok, Onaga or Shujinko in this as they were important in the past. What do you guys think?

We can't add anyone to the list that we don't have confirmation for, and the talk page isn't really for speculation about who we want to see in the game. The fact that Kira or Bo' Rai Cho are in the background of levels is totally irrelevant; MK2 had a level that featured Kano and Sonya tied up in the background, but they weren't in the game. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I could see some relevance in including background characters but marking them as such, not as playable characters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.16.81.38 (talk) 16:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

LOL i want reiko in it to —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.53.129.5 (talk) 04:08, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Arenas

I'll be blunt: there's no reason to present the list of arenas visible in the same bulleted format as we handle the characters (and I've removed them a few times now). However, I'd be open to mentioning them in a sentence if we can get a reliable source for the listing. Considering the fact that a lot of these seem to be reused from older games, we can easily write a sentence (not a bulleted list) pointing out the return of the living forest, etc.

Thoughts? EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good, but i've mostly seen fansites stating as such. But i'll try to find a source. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 17:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

E3 news?

I haven't heard anything about MK to come out of E3 yet, though I've had to remove some unsourced characters. If anybody has seen anything and can provide a source for what's happened, that'd be lovely. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

As I added in, there have been plenty of screenshots circulating. No comprehensive articles have been written (only MK fansites). Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 22:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

according to ed boon, this game is a back to the future type storyline. http://ps3.ign.com/articles/109/1098513p1.html 99.102.246.186 (talk) 02:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

That source can also be used as confirmation that Scorpion will be in the game (in addition to the screenshots, some of which are rather blurry). EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

77.101.118.174 (talk) 16:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC) Raiden & Shao Kahn - Both were seen in the trailer but neither were playable at the E3 demo. Considering the storyline revolves around Raiden changing history, it is unknown if he will be playable or indeed if Shao Kahn is still the boss or playable. Including them just for being seen in the trailer would be the same as including Kira & Li Mei!

Good catch; I've removed both of them from the "Confirmed characters" list. Thanks! EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

when were Cyrax, Kitana, Sindel, And Kono confirmed? i am looking at the sources given for their confirmation, but cannot find it anywhere in those sources that they have been confirmed playable characters. 23:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)23:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)23:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.109.178.127 (talk)

also, in an interview with gamespot, which can be found on trmk.org, Ed Boon Said Raiden WILL BE PLAYABLE. hopefully the video will settle that debate.23:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)99.109.178.127 (talk)

I've been to trmk.org, nothing is confirmed. Raiden is only an integral part of the story line, not confirmed to be playable. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 03:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi! I want too add that on GameSpot I think I heard Rayden will be playable I iwll try too find a link (: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.62.120.119 (talk) 20:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Wrong Logo

The Mortal Kombat logo that someone uploaded and posted for this article is not the real logo for the game. The real logo can be found at Mortal Kombat's official website.

If you can't use this logo, please explain why. 66.227.220.139 (talk) 11:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

New logo uploaded. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:20, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! 66.227.220.139 (talk) 19:07, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Continual Adding of characters

Since a lot of IPs seem to be adding speculative lists, I can't help but think maybe this page needs protection. CBFan (talk) 14:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Some of the IP edits to the article are also constructive, though; I'd rather we just keep reverting than protect the page, rather than deny otherwise good editors the ability to edit just because they don't have an account. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:19, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

2010

Well some time back, Ed said that they might realse the game at December this year, I just thoutgh its worth mintioning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.144.4.24 (talk) 20:15, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that's probably too far back to be a reliable estimate, but it'd need a source regardless. EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Raiden and Shang Tsung

Because no one seems to want to post the reference to where these two have been confirmed, I guess I'll have to do it.

It isn't in English, but hopefully this will stop the edits. Maybe someone can add the information with the reference now.

That is all. CBFan (talk) 06:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Have good faith. It's not they don't want it, it's because they don't have any wp:reliable source to support such information.Tintor2 (talk) 13:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I apologise, but I just wish this edit dispute would end. CBFan (talk) 15:25, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd be willing to consider that a reasonable source. Is there any trick to using non-English sources? I've never run across it before... EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Valve?

Someone added Valve as its Distributor? Wheres the reference? & is it Time Warner the distributor? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dusk83 (talk • contribs) 15:13, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Removed until there's a source. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:59, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Whenw as Shao Khan confirmed?

When did that happen? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.144.4.11 (talk) 21:39, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

1. Learn to spell.

2. In the E3 trailer. --86.87.28.191 (talk) 21:59, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

1. I know whow too spell, I just didnt hit the space button hard enough and 2. He was only showed in a cutscene, not in action. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.144.3.44 (talk) 23:18, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

PC version?

Anything mentioned about that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chudinho (talk • contribs) 14:07, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Nope, they only announced for now the PS3 version and 360 version. ~ sincerly Scorpion362 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.144.3.40 (talk) 15:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

According to this, Ed Boon said he'd like to do a PC version:

http://kotaku.com/5618460/mortal-kombats-post+launch-balancing-add+on-character--pc-plans Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 22:16, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Someone tried to list PC as one of the platforms the game's being made for in the information box at the top of the page. I deleted it from the box, because even though Boon said he was thinking about making the game for PC, he didn't actually say he was going to do it. Yet. 66.227.220.139 (talk) 23:03, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Confirmed Characters

I believe that this (regarding the MKUniverse reference), and this, this, and this, (regarding a similar debate on Mortal Kombat Wikia) provide good reason for the removal of Jax, Kitana, Liu Kang, Smoke, and Sonya from the confirmed characters list. To summarize the discussions, according to MKUniverse those characters are expected to be in the new game, not confirmed. Reading the post makes it quite clear that those characters have not been officially confirmed. It is speculation. In addition, I have had to (yet again) update the Sub-Zero link to link to the subsection about his first incarnation, an edit that was previously accepted without debate. And, I've re-added the reference to the fact that the Sub-Zero in the new game is the original Sub-Zero (unfortunately that site appears to be down momentarily, however, the reference was previously accepted on this page, and has been accepted on every Mortal Kombat-related website, and was the same source that confirmed Raiden and Shang Tsung as characters in the game. 173.63.104.211 (talk) 07:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is understood that Cyrax and Kano were confirmed unofficially (as it it was more like a mere mention in passing as the article they were mentioned in wasn't even very long), and yes it is understood that it is the original Sub-Zero, as the EGM reference mentions it (but has yet to be placed behind his name as the character section is not very stable) but the thing is, mkuniverse.lu as well as other references on this page fall under WP:SPS. I agree it should be added, but since the game is in development we will receive an entire roster soon enough and referenced by reliable sources. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 22:08, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

• Will you please stop editing the character list? Is someone on a power trip or something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.122.92.155 (talk) 07:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The character list is as established by official confirmations, official meaning stated by the developers with released screenshots as viable proof that the character is in the game, backed by WP:RS echoing the same exact thing. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 20:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The following links lists Liu Kang, Kano, Rayden, Shang Tsung, Jax, Sonya and Smoke as confirmed characters. Previously Shao Kahn was also listed as a confirmed boss. Omelete is a Brazilian site specialized on this kind of information and they were at Gamescom on Germany.

Here it is: [1] [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.222.57.26 (talk) 01:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

... Look, I have bookmarked: TotalMortalKombat, Kamidogu.com, The Realm of Mortal Kombat, Mortal Kombat Online, Midway Forums, MKuniverse.de and mkuniverse.lu and a million more. I've seen the excerpt in which Kano is mentioned in passing by a German magazine. I've bought the issue of PS Magazine in which they state, "It's expected the roster will be rounded up with Kombat's usual assortment of gods, creeps, and weirdos including Raiden, Sonya, Jax, Smoke, Kitana, Liu Kang, and more". I've seen the interview in which Hector Sanchez states where Raiden will be in the game, and where he states in regards to Shang Tsung that "We wouldn't make a new character model if he wasn't in the game." I've also seen the interview where Ed Boon states that there will be a boss playable. However, we cannot, by under any circumstance violate WP:Crystal if there is no official confirmation by Netherrealm studios and there is no reliable source actually echoing what the MK team says. I personally would like to include all of those characters in the roster list but we cannot violate the guideline. I'm sorry but we can't. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 01:49, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I understand, but didn't Boon and Sanchez represent Netherealm Studios? I mean, if the developers are confirming these characters are in the game, ain't that enough? At least for now I think Raiden and Shang Tsung are confirmed, the others could at least be mentioned. And by the Elder Gods' sake, why is Shao Kahn always being removed? The previous edits were clearly saying he was in the game (as shown in the trailer and the story elements), but not confirmed as playable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.222.193.130 (talk) 19:49, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

No, unfortunately it's not enough. Unless there is an official announcement as what happened at Gamescom (meaning websites getting screenshots of the characters, more than 30 reliable websites mentioning their inclusion and to some extent a mention of gameplay), they aren't confirmed. As I said before, it would be a violation of WP:CRYSTAL to include them without a reliable source. As to the mention of Liu Kang, Smoke, Sonya, etc.; we can't place it in Wikipedia as it violates WP:OR. We'd be taking a brief unofficial mention and restating it as fact. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 20:03, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Why Ermac is in the character list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.77.145.24 (talk) 22:06, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

And Noob Saibot, we all know he's playable now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.3.241.2 (talk) 18:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

"First appearance" column in characters list

Some days ago I removed the "first appearance" column, and it was restored, calling my edit a negative contribution. That information is totally random and meaningless, and only seems to be there because someone needs it as an excuse to have a table instead of a list. It doesn't provide anything useful more than any other random fact would. --uKER (talk) 17:50, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

This is a reboot, as in it is changing the entire series. A first appearance column would help readers to navigate where the characters debutted as significant changes will be made to a few characters. The second reason I put it is so that it would deter vandals from editing in non-confirmed characters. I have personally seen a minor amount of vandalism compared to when it was simply a bulleted listing. Also, please follow civility as your tone puts off an attitude of hostility. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 18:34, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

If one wanted to know what game a character debuted in, they can follow the corresponding link and find out. Your column is no more useful than a column about the characters' LAST appearance and just as random. The argument about it helping deter vandalism is total nonsense. About my attitude, your edit summary when reverting my change wasn't particularly friendly either. --uKER (talk) 23:37, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Fine, I guess you can link to the character's page. But it doesn't look any better in a bulleted listing than in a table. I'll just take off that half and leave it as a tabled listing. But when all characters are announced (or after the game is released), I'll change it into prose like in the MKD character section. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 16:30, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

If it suits you having it in a table, I'm fine with it. Not a problem with prose either. --uKER (talk) 18:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

-Yet again somebody has ruined the article by messing with the 'characters' section and leaving a reference to a confirmed character list that now doesn't exist. Nice work - you must be proud. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.122.92.155 (talk) 09:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't know what you're talking about but you're welcome to fix it. --uKER (talk) 14:26, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I stripped the table down to just text, since it made no sense to have a single sortable column in a table; an unordered list would work better than that (and might work better than just straight text like it is now). EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

It looked more organized (albeit contributing a large amount of whitespace to the article) to have it in a table rather than a bulleted list (as that really creates a mess) or in a sentence. If you could create an unsortable table instead i'd be fine with that (as I have no idea how to do so). Also, as I said before I was going to convert it into prose later but I guess editors clearly want it prose now. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 23:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

If there's only a single column, there's not much reason to put it in a table; it isn't tabular data. It's just a list, which is best served as being a list. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Mention of Twitter and facebook integration

http://www.gamespot.com/features/6275311/index.html?part=rss&tag=gs_features&subj=6275311

The new Mortal Kombat is also set to dip its toe into the social market. The game's producer, Hector Sanchez, says the social aspect of gaming helps bring back the essence of the arcade days.

"Social gaming is bringing the community back together. With Mortal Kombat, we're going to have a Twitter feed that will broadcast match results, and we're also hoping to have Facebook integration as well as a robust online mode that brings back the essence of the arcade days. That was social gaming in those days--people went to the arcade to play together. That's where it began. We're trying for the same feeling with our online mode. I think we as game developers need to incorporate more and more social aspects into our games."

Would this go under the development or Gameplay section? I'm just wondering as the article is looking to be heavily unweighted towards the Development section. I really have no idea how to proceed. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 23:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

CVG overview of new trailer

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=268087 This could prove of use for the video game. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 21:32, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Misinterpretation of article

IG: Will you be doing new characters for this one, or is this more of a ‘greatest hits’-style game?

Himmerick: We’re definitely starting with that. The ten playable here, with Shao Kahn and Raiden being the other two we’ve already announced, so those are all coming back. We’re not announcing any other characters, but with those twelve you can kind of see the direction we’re going with all the characters.

Ip User:143.229.183.141, I believe is misinterpreting the words i've quoted above. When Himmerick responds, he is speaking in context of the playable characters, he's also mentioning Shao Kahn and Raiden merely announced as they've shown no gameplay of either of them. Also, if you look on the official website, they mention Kahn and Raiden. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 16:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Year quarters vs half?

Can I please get some formal justification (ie a guideline or MOS suggesting it) for my changes being reverted, with H1 2010 being removed in favor of Q1/Q2 2010? Thanks. --uKER (talk) 20:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

When it comes to release dates, targets are usually given in terms of quarter years, not half years. I don't have a MOS link to share, just a general "that's how I've always seen it" sense. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Fiscal year#United States this link shows it divided as they do when there is only a tentative release dates, GameSpot used to have it as Q2 but changed it to 03/01/10 but Q1/Q2 is less speculative and more accurate than Spring 2011 (which was my personal choice to have but WP:SEASON trumps that). Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 20:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The whole "no seasons" bit is also mentioned at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines#Release dates. It also recommends against using retailers for release dates (since, as you showed, those dates are subject to change). EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:41, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Fight stick article

http://kotaku.com/5713975/designer-makes-an-american-fighting-stick-for-an-american-fighting-game

It mentions in great detail the fight stick but I don't think it goes in the release section. Any thoughts? Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 22:36, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Sindel was confirmed

She was confirmed in a magazine scan, but it doesn't seem like that would be reliable, how would I put it? Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 19:05, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

There must be a source, do you have the magazine or just saw a pic of It? If Its a article or something, then put the resource up and go ahead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.203.112.147 (talk) 08:15, 26 December 2010 (UTC) Yep, she Is confirmed, I found a source, Its more of a video, but meh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.203.112.147 (talk) 12:21, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

A pre-release reception section

I've noticed that quite a few games have that section and I believe MK9 can have one, does anyone want to work together on that now? We can start with this link:http://games.news24.com/index.php/looking-forward-to-2011-part-two/ Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 17:47, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Additonally, this:

• http://reviews.cnet.com/2300-9995_7-10005898-15.html?s=1&o=10005920
• and this http://www.product-reviews.net/2010/06/22/mortal-kombat-2011-character-select-screen-revealed/
• http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2010/12/27/the-most-anticipated-ps3-games-of-2011.aspx?PostPageIndex=2
• http://www.gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2010/12/28/most-anticipated-xbox-360-games-of-2011.aspx?PostPageIndex=2
• http://www.techtree.com/India/Features/10_Reasons_to_Own_a_Gaming_Console_in_2011/551-113825-899.html
• http://www.gamefocus.ca/?nav=article&did=539
• Various Titles to Mortal Kombat E3 Previews
• http://www.gamesreviews2010.com/20-most-expected-games-coming-in-2011/#more-3512
• GameSpot's Most Anticipated of 2011 at 1:42
• http://articles.cnn.com/2011-01-06/tech/video.game.preview_1_killzone-video-game-junkies-playstation?_s=PM:TECH Article calls MK9 long-awaited
• http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2011/jan/11/most-anticipated-games-2011/

Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 17:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Also, Ipsos ranked MK as one of the most anticipated for 2011

http://www.industrygamers.com/news/xbox-360-has-most-anticipated-title-of-2011-in-gears-of-war-3---ipsos/ 9th in the UK, 6th in the US, so top ten? That's great. Should be added in later. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 00:44, 20 February 2011 (UTC) Oh, it's 9th and 6th for the Xbox 360 version in the UK and US, respectively and 12th and 2nd for the PS3 version in the UK and US respectively. Good news. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 00:46, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, Xbox 360 achievements and videogame writers:

• http://www.xbox360achievements.org/news-1946-Our-20-Most-Anticipated-Games-of-2011.html
• http://videogamewriters.com/11-for-2011-our-most-anticipated-games-1143

Good year for Mortal Kombat. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 23:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

DLC section

I've been considering to expand but the newest references are disappearing so i'll be making this a repository of all the links of reliable sources talking about DLC. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 22:58, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

• http://www.computerandvideogames.com/283541/news/ed-boon-teases-mortal-kombat-dlc-characters/
• http://www.joystiq.com/2011/01/13/ed-boon-outs-potential-downloadable-characters-for-new-mortal-ko/
• http://www.strategyinformer.com/news/10487/mortal-kombat-team-ask-fans-for-dlc-no-news-on-360-only-star
• http://www.world-gaming.com/console-gaming-news/19-general-console-news/2299-ed-boon-tweets-about-mortal-kombat-dlc-characters.html

Release Date

The release date in the UK is April 18th. This is not mentioned in the article. Could this please be amended.

Thanks Mortal Kombat Fan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.252.214 (talk) 21:40, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Other articles have mentioned a WorldWide release of April 19th. The article referencing the date currently also mentions the UK date, but the actual press release has not been released to the public. I've been trying to research more on the date, because forums also mention conflicting dates. As soon as I (or any other editor) finds some information corroborating one or the other it'll be amended. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 22:11, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I've done a bit of research and you are looking to be correct:

• http://www.ripten.com/2011/01/22/mortal-kombat-official-us-release-date-and-box-art-revealed/ It states here that April 19 is US only
• http://www.computerandvideogames.com/284795/news/mortal-kombat-release-date-confirmed/ This says it's midnight April 18th in the UK
• http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-01-21-mortal-kombat-uk-release-date Same here as from CVG
• http://www.gamespot.com/news/6286758.html?tag=latestheadlines%3Btitle%3B4 This mentions April 19, but says nothing about the UK release
• http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2011/01/21/mark-your-calendars-for-mortal-kombat-39-s-release-date.aspx This also agrees with the April 19th release date
• http://topnews.net.nz/content/211419-uk-see-mortal-kombat-april New Zealand newsite agrees with you, i'll add this later

As far as the reliable sources are going, you're right, i'm going out right now so i'll add that when I get back. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 22:53, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

UK release is pushed back

• http://www.videogamer.com/news/mortal_kombat_release_pushed_back.html
• http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-02-18-mortal-kombat-uk-release-date
• http://www.strategyinformer.com/news/11072/warners-mortal-kombat-reboot-out-in-uk-april-21st-a-little-delay

It's now April 21st. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 00:40, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Lui Kang and Goro confirmed!

Here is a link to a video released on IGN.com showing some xray action, in the video Lui Kang and Goro are both seen performing xrays...so that pretty much confirmes them.

Link: http://www.ign.com/videos/2011/01/27/mortal-kombat-brutal-x-ray-action-video —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.48.169.154 (talk) 15:46, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Baraka and Stryker are revealed in the video aswell! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.48.169.154 (talk) 16:11, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, when an editor who has access to the video confirms it (I cannot because it is blocked where I am right now) it'll be added to the article. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 17:28, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I could see it. Liu Kang is not a zombi in this game while Goro is seen doing his typical combos.Tintor2 (talk) 19:38, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Cool, I guess Liu Kang is in. Until we get an article by a reliable source, then this'll be it. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 23:59, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I thought a quite a bit of information could be taken from the interview so I wrote down the dialogue for easy reading. My punctuation may be off but the text is correct.

Dialogue:

John Edwards (Lead Designer)-"A new addition to Mortal Kombat this time around is an attack we're calling the X-ray attack. The X-ray attack is definitely the most brutal attack that we've ever had in a Mortal Kombat and it's something that we're proud of, not only from an artistic standpoint but from a gameplay standpoint as well."

Steve Beran (Director of Art)-"We started experimenting with x-ray early on in the project, it took a lot of experimenting. We actually went through 2 or 3 different models trying to perfect how the skeleton looked and what the effects were."

Carlos Pesina (Art Lead- Animation)-"The proposal was to have that reveal of muscle, skeletal, and then internal organs."

Steve Beran-"Pretty much everybody touches the X-ray mode. Our artists start out by modeling the internal organs, the skeleton, the actual muscle tissue that goes in there. From there it's handed off to the animators, who motion capture the actual X-ray move. From there it's handed off to the cinema guys who put everything together, they put the effects on, they choreograph the whole thing, they choreograph the camera moves, make it all happen, make it all presentable. We made custom skeletons and custom organs and custom skulls for every one of the alien creatures."

John Edwards-"Each fighter has their own custom X-ray, that we pick based on the fighter's personality as well as the type of gameplay that that fighter encompasses."

Carlos Pesina-"The viewer actually sees that and cringes, 'Oh my god,', and their bones are shattering and then you can see that he's hitting him so hard that his internal organ are either going to rupt, explode or you're going to have internal damage."

John Edwards-"It's very important to understand each fighter's fighting style as well as how their X-ray is initiated to have the best chance to land it."

Steve Beran-"The first time I knew we were on to something really big with X-ray mode was at E3 and hearing people cheer time and time again when they saw it was probably one of the best experiences about this game that we knew we were really doing something right." Subzerosmokerain (talk) 03:59, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Stryker also revealed in the new video!

Styker is also revealed in the new video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIRSoIaIbfE

19 - 20 seconds in the video he is seen fighting Subzero, subzero performs an xray on him. It is very clear that it is stryker because he is wearing a SWAT hat and has handcuffs hooked to his pants!. So its 21 confirmed characters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.48.169.154 (talk) 05:47, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

It's really quick, i've paused it myself and seen it but it's too quick for anyone not looking for it. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 22:26, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Interview with Paulo Garcia by GameSpot

http://www.gamespot.com/special_feature/most-anticipated-2011/day-2/index.html?page=1&tag=topslot;img;1

Great interview, leaving here for repository. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 00:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Noob?

Wasn't Noob Saibot confirmed?

Yes, there's gameplay videos of him. --uKER (talk) 16:38, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Steve Beran description of making a Fatality

http://blog.us.playstation.com/2011/02/15/finish-him-how-to-make-a-killer-fatality-for-mortal-kombat/

Here's the link for it to be added later. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 00:36, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

MK banning in Australia link repository

• http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/02/26/3149628.htm?section=justin
• http://techland.time.com/2011/02/25/dont-get-over-here-australia-bans-upcoming-mortal-kombat-re-boot/
• http://www.destructoid.com/shock-mortal-kombat-banned-in-australia-195028.phtml
• http://www.joystiq.com/2011/02/25/mortal-kombat-refused-classification-in-australia/
• http://www.kotaku.com.au/2011/02/mortal-kombat-banned-in-australia/
• http://kotaku.com/#!5769924/guess-which-country-just-banned-mortal-kombat
• http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/115/1152075p1.html
• http://www.gamespot.com/news/6300910.html
• http://www.tomsguide.com/us/mortal-kombat-street-fighter-killer-instinct-left-4-dead,news-10268.html
• http://www.pcworld.idg.com.au/article/377973/mortal_kombat_banned_australia/
• http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-02-25-mortal-kombat-banned-in-australia
• http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/33218/Mortal_Kombat_Reboot_Banned_in_Australia.php

Quite a few links and quite a bit of reception on one game, I am kind of shocked at the press attention this is getting. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 04:07, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Challenge Tower Video

http://www.ign.com/videos/2011/03/02/mortal-kombat-challenge-tower-video

This as well. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 01:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC) With commentary from other sites: http://www.gamefocus.ca/?nav=new&nid=13116 http://www.thesixthaxis.com/2011/03/02/mortal-kombat-challenge-tower-revealed/ Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 02:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Demo Press Release

http://ps3.ign.com/articles/115/1153382p1.html http://blog.eu.playstation.com/2011/03/03/playstation-plus-exclusive-mortal-kombat-demo/

Wow, this is a lot of stuff they gave us in a two day span. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 23:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Demo/Challenge tower Previews

• http://gdc.gamespot.com/story/6302274/mortal-kombat-preview-challenge-tower-jax-sonya-and-more/?tag=recent_updates%3Btitle%3B1
• http://ps3.ign.com/articles/115/1153416p1.html
• http://blog.eu.playstation.com/2011/03/04/mortal-kombat-demo-3d-hands-on-what-youll-get-on-wednesday/

Promise to get working on this as soon as I can. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 01:42, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Non-demo Preview

• http://www.joystiq.com/2011/03/07/mortal-kombat-preview/
• http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/video-games/8361332/Mortal-Kombat-hands-on-preview.html
• http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2011/03/the-devil-dont-change-mortal-kombat-is-wonderfully-inviting-bloody.ars?comments=1#comments-bar

Quite a bit of news. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 01:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Ed Boon GDC interview

• http://www.youtube.com/v/wL0vL-MZapc

Video speaks more indepth about having tournament players to come and check out the game. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 15:30, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

MK Playable Demo

Should we add a note about the playable demo coming out sometime today? (3/8/11, around 4:09 EST, I haven't seen anything coming out yet)

http://xboxlive.ign.com/articles/115/1153381p1.html

This seems to be something noteworthy, unless we should instead wait for the demo to come out and then write information based on it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.40.243.178 (talk) 21:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Sheeva revealed in mk9

Sheeva was revealed in a video for raiden. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.175.123.180 (talk) 22:47, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Not really, Bo' Rai Cho was in Liu Kang's video but we don't know if he's gonna be in the game. We'll have to wait and see if some gameplay comes out, or a character render. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 23:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Sheeva and Kintaro have both been confirmed to be playable and part of the main roster. Goro was also revealed to be playable but he must be unlocked and Shao Kahn will not be playable. I will try to find the source; but its all true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.48.175.168 (talk) 03:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Mass Removal

McWhertor, Michael (2011-02-25). "The Fatalities That Got Mortal Kombat 'Banned' In Australia". Kotaku. Retrieved 2011-02-27. I am removing some of the information such as this reference to Kabal's appearance in MK9 (although will add a GTTV link) and Quan Chi's appearance as well as Kintaro's, Sheeva's, and Smoke's appearances with these links: "Mortal Kombat". NextVideoGames. 2011-03-10. Retrieved 2011-03-10. "Mortal Kombat (2011) Game Code Revealed". Retrieved 2011-03-13. The game coding isn't exactly a reliable source even if it is "true" it isn't verifiable. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 20:09, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I will point out that the information regarding Quan Chi (and, at the time, Kabal) did not come about as a result of the recent leak of the game code. It came about from the release of the Australian Classification Board's report for refusing classification of the game. My understanding is that the game may not be 100% finished, but I imagine that the copy of the game provided to the censor cannot be substantially different from that which the publisher intends to release to the public in that jurisdiction. Quan Chi hasn't been revealed by WB/NRS, but Wikipedia:Spoiler would seem to apply here. Having said that, there is only a month until release, so I won't contest the removal of this information. I'll leave it at that. RobWill80 (talk) 00:08, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

EDIT: Actually, scratch that. Withholding information simply for time's sake doesn't sit that well with me. The ACB is a government mandated body, and certification is a part of their law. It would be grossly inappropriate for them to lie in their reports, since their business is the public wellbeing (the lack of an 18 certificate notwithstanding). It's another story for the information gathered from the leaked code, as Ed Boon has gone on record before, saying that he has added fake code to games to throw off hackers. So, I'm adding the information about Quan Chi back into the article, but the rest of your edit will be unchanged. RobWill80 (talk) 03:12, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, your reasoning is sound, it seemed kind of rash to remove everything per leak. So, i'm cool with it. Glad to see more editors like you getting into the MK9 article BTW, besides the handful from before. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 03:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Mortal Kombat Music for the Warriors Interview

http://music.ign.com/articles/115/1153115p1.html Need to add this and many other things into the article. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 01:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Music for the warriors Press release. http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/115/1157732p1.html?RSSwhen2011-03-25_115500&RSSid=1157732

Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 22:18, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Kintaro

Wasn't Kintaro one of the comfirmed DLC characters for MK9? [3] 81.154.86.125 (talk) 22:51, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps not. [4] What magazine is that? EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

No he was not confirmed, as GamePro (the magazine the article is from) never directly declared Kintaro is and plus MK_MortalKombat denied it and CVG/G4TV has stated here directly it is solely Kenshi and "Scarlet"/Lady in Red for now. http://www.g4tv.com/thefeed/blog/post/711327/mortal-kombats-first-dlc-announced-will-include-scarlet-and-kenshi/ Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 00:02, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Do we have evidence that @MK_MortalKombat is the official Twitter account for the MK marketing department? Don't mistake what I mean with that; I'm 99% sure that they are, but is there anything we can point at and say "yup, they're a reliable source"? 99% sure isn't good enough. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

TheMortalKombat.com and the GameStop Widget link to that Twitter account. RobWill80 (talk) 22:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah, didn't see the link on the website (got to the "create an account or login" screen and didn't want to do either, but didn't see the "skip this" link). Groovy, always nice to have another reliable source of information. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:00, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Mortal Kombat's twitter (twitter.com/MK_MortalKombat) confirmed Kintaro is not DLC but is an Unlockable boss; so is Goro. A render of Kintaro was even released. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.48.175.168 (talk) 03:21, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Mortal Kombat 9 not given a rating in Germany

I'll throw this link up here to get the ball rolling... [5] I don't speak German, but after throwing this through a few Translation services, and looking at a few MK forums, it looks like the game hasn't been given a rating in Germany. I don't know how credible a source this is, or any rules here regarding the use of non-English language sources. Anyway, I think the subject is something to look out for. RobWill80 (talk) 16:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

# of Characters in the Game

The article currently states that there will be about 26 characters in the game and that 26 characters have been revealed. However, I count 27 on that bulletted list. Do we really need the statement about the rough estimate of the character roster? Tubularbells1993 (talk) 22:09, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Looks like one case of suspect reporting has been replaced with another. The MK Twitter feed did say that Kintaro is in the game, but it didn't say he would be playable. I fixed the article to reflect that. As for the estimate of how many playable characters there will be, I suppose it helps for the time being. The select screens published so far have all had 26 open slots, so it should allow the reader to conclude for themselves that the figure isn't currently expected to grow beyond that number. Having said that, NRS do like to up the MK hype with secrets, so we can't pin that down as the final number with absolute certainty yet. RobWill80 (talk) 22:51, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Unplayable bosses and Lady In Red name confirmation

In a recent radio interview with Hector Sanchez, he confirms the name of "Lady in Red" to be Scarlet, or Skarlett. Exact spelling is unknown.

Here is the link, I am new to this and I am not good with citing and stuff:

http://www.radioplanet.tv/hector-sanchez-shade45-april11/

Also, Hector confirmed that bosses Shao Kahn and Goro in particular are unplayable in a Gamesworld 2011 interview in Brazil. He claims that they wanted to go back to the old feeling of not having bosses playable and big obstacles.

Here is the link for that:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5oXWakjxoxc&feature=player_embedded

Therefore, the section where Goro and Shao Kahn are said to be bosses, can be changed to confirmed to be only bosses and are unplayable.

As for the Kintaro debate, Gamepro was supposed to reveal him but things got mixed up and they said he was DLC. He is in the game and he is a boss, and probably the only unlockable one.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sartaj15 (talk • contribs) 16:58, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

We'll need something more than a YouTube link to cite the unplayability of the bosses. Tubularbells1993 (talk) 18:17, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

That is definitely Hector in the video, so I'm willing to accept that the bosses will be unplayable. The radio interview won't play for me (perhaps it's restricted to U.S. only), so I can't change the info on "Lady in Red" myself. As for Kintaro, I'm certain he is a boss, but that doesn't constitute fact here. As such, we cannot call him a boss unless there is evidence of it. RobWill80 (talk) 18:42, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Idea for an Updated chracters section

The characters sections should include sub - headlines titled: "Main Roster", "Bosses", "Downloadable Characters", and "Cameo Appereances".

I think it would be a more organized looking list and will be sectioned off that way when people get on here to read about the game they look at a detailed list and see who's playable, who's in te main roster, who's the bosses, who's DLC, and who just makes a brief appearance or cameo. I don't know; just thought it would look and be better for the article; just my opinion. Hope you consider doing this! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.48.175.168 (talk) 08:41, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you guys should change it to "Characters and Arenas" and have a detailed list of characters and list all of the arenas that are in the game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.48.175.168 (talk) 08:46, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

It's covered in Wikipedia policy. Specifically, Wikipedia is not a video game guide. RobWill80 (talk) 13:46, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Smoke Officially revealed, Sheeva source

Today, the Xbox marketplace posted new screenshots of the game, one of which, includes Smoke.

Here is the link, image 7 out of 20: http://marketplace.xbox.com/en-US/Product/Mortal-Kombat/66acd000-77fe-1000-9115-d802575207fd?cid=search

I guess this can be an official reveal and credible source for Smoke being in the character list.

Also, Sheeva was seen in both Raiden's and Shang Tsung's character vignettes, so I guess they can be used as sources for her reveal. Sartaj15 (talk) 23:58, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, it could possibly count as that what was able to be referenced for Baraka and Stryker but other editors should chime in too. Being devil's advocate though, saying that the picture is Smoke does violate WP:OR Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 00:31, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

It is original research. But there have been so many leaks, and we won't need character sources shortly, except for DLC. I say let it pass. RobWill80 (talk) 01:50, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Article Name

I believe the game has officially been named "Mortal Kombat: Fatality Lives" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRPt1yS00pw Charwinger21 (talk) 15:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

"Fatality Lives" is a Strapline. RobWill80 (talk) 16:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Cyber Sub-Zero

Cyber Sub-Zero was confirmed as an unlockable character, according to pictures posted on the web, he appears on the left row, at the final

--Metroplex-10 (talk) 22:28, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

It's OR, i've seen it, but we can't state it without any real verifiability, but don't worry i'm pretty sure we'll be able to reference it soon once the review embargo is lifted. It'll all be taken care of easily soon. No need to be eager to add it. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 03:22, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Characters section

I notice that the list is said to be of characters "in the game" but the DLC characters are not "in the game" when it is first bought. They must be downloaded. I also see that there is a footnote for the DLC characters saying that they are DLC, then a statement below the list that says that they are DLC. Some redundancy going on here. Could we just split the list of characters that are downloadable from the list of characters that are actually on-disc? Tubularbells1993 (talk) 19:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Maybe it should be split to have the DLC characters mentioned in passing in the primary Characters section and linked down to the downloadable content section? What about referencing, do we need to reference all the characters anymore or is it fine now? Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 04:11, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I would say we don't need multiple references for the on-disc characters, but I would think we should have references for any downloadable content. I'm fine with the passing mention of downloadable characters in the primary section. Any other thoughts, people? Tubularbells1993 (talk) 02:02, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I've removed Kenshi and Skarlet from the character listing. The character listing is for characters that are in the game now. Personally, I don't think we need to have the DLC characters in the same list as the original roster, but that's not as relevant to my edit as the fact that the two characters haven't been released yet. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Sounds pretty good to me. If/when they have more characters out for DLC, we can convert that also to list form instead of prose. Plus it should be noted that certain characters haven't been released yet, so that works for me too. Tubularbells1993 (talk) 12:59, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Motaro Appearance

Throughout the story mode Motaro makes cameos in the background. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.6.153.64 (talk) 10:56, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

So? It's completely unimportant for the plot and the playable characters section.Tintor2 (talk) 11:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Thought this would interest people... Also Fujin has cameo in Kratos' ladder story —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.6.153.64 (talk) 21:23, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

For Wikipedia, cameos would be heading into the WP:GAMECRUFT category of info. For Shinnok it makes sense because he speaks and has a somewhat active role in the story but Motaro says nothing and Fujin only bows to Kratos. Perfect info. for the Mortal Kombat Wikia page, hit them up for that, unless they don't already have the info. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 01:10, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Somebody added it, I'm removing it and also taking a vote against it. Tubularbells1993 (talk) 02:24, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Tier?

What is this unsourced "tier" business? I haven't yet played the game so I don't know, but who added this and why? It makes no sense. Tubularbells1993 (talk) 15:22, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Removed. GamerPro64 18:15, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

A user has been making these kind of lists in many fighting games articles.Tintor2 (talk) 18:26, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Tier List

I tried adding a tier list to the Characters section of the article yesterday, but someone deleted it without stating why.

I think it'd be a good addition to have a tier list in the article. Tier lists rank the characters in the game by how good they are overall. High-ranking characters are viable for tournament play, while low-ranking characters are not. A lot of people use these tier lists so that they can find a good character to use and master in the game.

I already added tier lists to the MK1, MKII, UMK3, and MK4 articles (all the lists came from UltimateMK). Having a tier list for the 2011 game in the article would help out several newcomers. This is the list I wanted to use. It comes from Prima's official strategy guide.

If you deny the addition of the tier list, please state why. 66.227.220.139 (talk) 19:30, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a game guide. --uKER (talk) 20:33, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Plus, tiering the characters is based on personal opinion. Tubularbells1993 (talk) 17:39, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, the tier classifications are based on statistical analysis of the characters' performance in arcades, so they're actually pretty much objective. That said, they're still not suited for Wikipedia. --uKER (talk) 19:45, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

To repeat what uKER and Tubularbells1993 both said, we aren't a game guide, we're an encyclopedia. We document the characters in the game, we don't document opinions of said characters. The only time opinions should be presented in Wikipedia are in the form of critical reaction sections, which the article already has. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I would also think that if we were to tier the characters, we would need to explain why, which would require an overview of their performance as fighters in the game, which would also require the addition of movelists. As said before, all of that fits into the category of things that WP cannot allow. Tubularbells1993 (talk) 14:52, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree with all of the above. The list of characters also needs rearranging. Thebladesofchaos (talk) 04:28, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Heads up on costumes

If anyone starts adding stuff about the "classic" costumes and fatalities being released soon for the game, it's valid ([6][7]), but hopefully we'll have better sources than just those two tweets soon. (as an official account, it counts as a reliable source, but still) EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:26, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Characters list

Um, why did someone change that list to prose? It is not suited to prose. Tubularbells1993 (talk) 21:24, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't know, but listing every single character appears to be gameguide and gamecruft. Maybe the latest fighting game FA article, Tatsunoko vs. Capcom: Ultimate All-Stars, would serve as better example to follow (There was also a discussion regarding the list in here)Tintor2 (talk) 23:51, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

As I said, grouping them this way is less fannish and goes to the point above. Adding brackets will also help. Thebladesofchaos (talk) 04:39, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Further to this, many of the changes were made due to poor language, image placement etc. with many more corrections needed. The article needs to go forward rather than backward. Please discuss here if querying any changes. Thebladesofchaos (talk) 02:53, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Wrong section. Anyway, removing prerelease info is unneeded.Tintor2 (talk) 11:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

If we're listing all the playable characters anyways, what difference does it make whether it's prose or a bulleted list? I personally favor the bulleted list, as it's easier to read, but what makes the list form more gamecrufty? I just want to know. (Not trying to start an edit war here, I promise. I won't touch anything until I get a response.) Tubularbells1993 (talk) 19:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I've no issues regarding the formats from the characters section. However, character lists in video games articles tend to be fancruft as it is pointing every single character from a video game, making it like a gameguide. The official website should already have a list from all playable characters to use as an external link, while the characters section should only focus on notable ones, such as new characters, exclusives or bosses who are unplayable.Tintor2 (talk) 00:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you're saying. Yeah, I agree. Tubularbells1993 (talk) 18:31, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Game Revolution?

Hey, I was checking around when I noticed the statement attributed to Game Revolution in Reception. Not only is the citation given not Game Revolution (it's IGN), but the statement cited does not appear there at all! How did that happen? Tubularbells1993 (talk) 17:27, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I believe it was when reception was being added and reversions were running rampant but it should attributed to IGN since it is one of their comments from the video review (one I disagree with but I won't air that here). I'll do it myself right now to fix it. BTW, it's at 3 minutes and 50 seconds here: [8] Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 19:49, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm a lazy bastard and didn't really watch it, but I've not known you to make things up. So I'll take your word for it. I probably could have fixed it myself but I didn't know where to start. Thanks though. Tubularbells1993 (talk) 05:16, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Blanking

In some previous edits, the whole pre-release reception has been removed from the article, while the article's lead has been highly trimmed to few sentences, making it fail wp:lead. The reason for the former was "poor language", but that blanking the section is not a solution to the issues.Tintor2 (talk) 15:22, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I placed my comments above as in falls into the general discussion about the need for an upgrade of the article. Anyway, wp:lead states the lead should be "written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view to invite a reading of the full article" and also mentions succinctness. The old version has some unnecessary padding, specifically mention of game aspects better suited to gameplay and some unsourced opinions. The story mention was changed to be both succinct and a "tease" for readers, which is something wp:lead also mentions. We can always add more information, but it must be relevant, sourced and succinct as we should always try to ensure articles are encyclopedia standard.

As for the pre- vs. post release reception information, that's a no-brainer. Much of the pre- material is now superfluous and repeats itself (ie. various sources saying the same thing), and is trumped by the post- material. The most famous FF game, Final Fantasy VII, does not adere to this format, nor do any of the God of War games. Another random contemporary example is Call of Duty: Black Ops, which also eschews this format. I do, however, like the layout as there is a "Sales" and "Critical Response" section. I belive this is nice way to present the information.Thebladesofchaos (talk) 02:49, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Other stuff is not valid. Games like FFVII barely had previews info, so its imposible to make them. None of the God of War articles became FA, so they are not an example to follow. The lead does not require sources as it is already sourced in the article and should have a mention of every section in the article. By the way, VG Chartz is an unreliable source and making a section for just one sentence is really pointless. Tintor2 (talk) 11:28, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll go with you on the Sales issue unless more information comes along. As for leads, some do have sources but the key here is brevity. As for the remainder of the Reception material, it is unnecessary as it just belabours the point. Thebladesofchaos (talk) 05:43, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

As I said, other stuff is not a valid point. As with reception, I can't avoid seeing discriminating between pre-release and post-release information. The two show actually show ways of how the public received the game, and while it is repetitive there really little post-release reception in the article, with its organizing also needing clean up. The pre-release information actually had a flow as sentences connected with each other and avoided the use of quotes.Tintor2 (talk) 11:06, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm going with Tintor on this one, trying to follow Black Ops (which isn't even featured or even good for that matter) and Final Fantasy VII (a game of a completely different genre altogether) is not really valid, we're trying to be as thorough as we can for a fighting game but at the same time keeping from WP:CRUFT. Although you seem to have good intentions, essentially, you are simply removing/rewording what is already in the article rather than adding actual information. The lead section has also been basically mutilated, removing info such as: When it was announced, How well it was received, and a succinct description of the game itself, information contained on the featured article, Tatsunoko vs. Capcom: Ultimate All-Stars. This'll take some mass reversions to fix. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 14:17, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

As regards pre-release info I'd say a good yardstick is LittleBigPlanet. If the pre-release reception is of a high enough magnitude that it can match the comments in the reception section of the LBP article then create a small section on it. Otherwise, remove all but the most important parts especially the advertising puffery. - X201 (talk) 16:06, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

The previews were already blanked without achieving wp:consensus while are the actual reviews that need cleaning. They make abuse of quotes and go saying "(reviewer1) says this, while (reviewer2) says this.Tintor2 (talk) 01:04, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

We can continue to discuss this but you have blundered in attempting a mass revert, especially given the fact that you contributed to the changes and then changed your mind - attempting to perform a revert and readding a great deal of colloquial poorly written information. This is where you are falling down - much of what was present (and some still is) was never encyclopedia standard to begin with. The remainder of the article - including a rather clumsily worded Gameplay section and verbose and fannish Plot, need to be reworked. With regards to quotes, it perfectly reasonable to state who said what in a formal tense, without all the colloquial language, which was rife.

As to titles, all I've done is used the titles from another game, which fit perfectly and help group the information in a concise fashion. Note I said concise - a lot of what was there needed rewording as this article is a long off being rated a Good Article. Too much of it still reads like a fan page.

That said, I am all for X201' s suggestion, who also states that there is no place for "puffery". This means that while more information can be added to the lead, it must be relevant, to the point, and above all sourced.

Let's argue the merits of each section here without any more unproductive mass reverts, as the changes to date were not done in this fashion. Thank you. Thebladesofchaos (talk) 04:38, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Added sentence to lead: if at all relevant and fitting the above criteria, but all means lets add it. Thebladesofchaos (talk) 05:26, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

But that did not stop you rfom reverting it many times without getting to a consensus. Every user already gave a reason for the issues with these revision. Nobody says that the lead needs references and yes a lot of content was removed from the article and the sections you mention still have lots of grammar issues.Tintor2 (talk) 11:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd say judging what there was before the pre-release info is unnecessary at this stage. There are places where reception to previews can be worthwhile to cover (for instance, if previews were completely different to the final product's reviews and this was noted by the press), but this isn't really one. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:16, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, the pre-reception might've stood a trim, but a blanket removal? At least two lines mentioning its approval at E3 and its mentions on several "most anticipated" lists of 2011. As for the descriptions in the gameplay section, I wrote them with an intent to revise them later, but I was hoping we could do it with collaboration not with conflict. Could we actually discuss what needs changing part by part now that there are some more interested editors? Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 22:29, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

As has been indicated, the remainder simply repeated what went before. By this stage, the reader gets it. We try for the gist. The same applies to reviews: 4 or 5 are sufficient. Again, remember that much of what is there needs a rework, and in some instances outright removal as unclear, repetitive or unsourced. And yes, of course there will be more discussion. Thanks to Tubularbells1993 for the assistance with grammar. Thebladesofchaos (talk) 03:40, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Who are you replying to? Anyway, discussion for what if you are stating everything was done regarding the reception? Again, three small paragraphs are not enough to make it pass wp:lead, while some pre-release info actually had opinions not shown in the current and used its own words rather than quotes.Tintor2 (talk) 20:35, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I have an idea for the lead. To tease readers a bit more about the plot, I wrote this sentence:

However, because of the thunder god Raiden sending visions of the future backward in time to himself, the events of this time period are altered substantially.

I'd put that in after the last sentence of the lead as it is now. But I haven't done that yet because I want some feedback. Any objections? Tubularbells1993 (talk) 17:29, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking of something more simple like "The plot follows the thunder god Raiden who starts receiving visions from a catastrophic future, and thus tries to altere the events from the Mortal Kombat tournaments".Tintor2 (talk) 18:20, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Should we mention it is during the time of MK1-MK3? Or that it is himself sending the visions back in time? Or even that Armageddon had occurred? According to WP:MOSINTRO: The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article. so maybe something along the lines of "Mortal Kombat's story is set after the events of MK:A, in which a catastrophic future has caused the thunder god Raiden to send visions of the future to the events of MK1, MK2 and MK3 where he tries to prevent the events of the Armageddon." I tried to merge your two sentences with the Halo 3 story intro. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 18:57, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Yep. That should mentioned. I just thought it meant only about the plot intro.Tintor2 (talk) 20:49, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I was saying in addition to that. I was saying, put it after the part where we pointed out that it takes place during the first three games. But I like the way Tintor2 wrote it best. I've added it now, but feel free to revert or change it. Tubularbells1993 (talk) 03:24, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Specifically something specific I found in this article

So I did some more cleanup. I found something regarding the Fatality training mode that really bugs me.

Here it is: "...specific Fatalities for specific characters..."

What? Are they only allowed to use certain Fatalities per character? And what about the 'specific characters' part? I'm mainly aiming to get rid of the word 'specific' from this phrase. Tubularbells1993 (talk) 18:10, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

You mean to avoid repetition? I'm not good at grammar as English is not my original language but it could simply be "This mode allows players to practice Fatalities." The character's mention is kind of redundant as they are that execute the Fatalities. Or maybe the whole sentence is redundant as previously it has "A Fatality training mode is also available in Mortal Kombat" and could be changed "A Fatality training mode is also available in Mortal Kombat to practise the finishing moves."Tintor2 (talk) 18:17, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, now that I look at that it does seem a bit redundant. Ideally what I wanted to say is that the fatality training mode only gives you the option of doing each character's first Fatality and only their first but if you learn the combination of the characters' other Fatalities then you can also perform them in training mode. However, Tintor wrote it the best (A Fatality training mode is also available in Mortal Kombat to practice the Finishing moves). I think it could work like that. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 18:42, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for being cool with it. I went ahead and changed it. If the other combinations are hidden, we may want to note that, keeping WP:GAMEGUIDE in mind. Tubularbells1993 (talk) 03:28, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

3D

Is the PS3 already 3D-compatible or is that still in the works? When I was updating the verb tense in the 'design' section, I left that alone as I wasn't sure how that was going. Tubularbells1993 (talk) 18:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

It already is, so you can play MK9 in 3D on the PS3 already. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 19:38, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Where things were mentioned

Since I'm here I want to bring up something else. Do we really need to mention where things about the game were revealed? For example, for the 3D-compatibility, do we really need to point out the convention where that was revealed? That seems kinda superfluous to me. Tubularbells1993 (talk) 18:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

If it is about the development section, then I guess yes. It was more important when the game was not released but at least gives more context to the sentence.Tintor2 (talk) 18:30, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Like Tintor says, it says more than saying "MK has 3D stereoscopic compatability". And if we have the info. and can be worked without adding "fluff" to the sentence we should be able to keep it. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 19:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Notice to active editors

Just for a common courtesy, i'm giving a notice to editors that i'm going to be restoring the previous reception section as well as the pre-release reception section. I'd like for editors to return the courtesy by not interupting my edits as I will be changing many things around that the previous version had issues with, so please do not revert my edits until I state here that I am done. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 18:12, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

You got it Tubularbells1993 (talk) 23:14, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I have responded on your Talk page. Thebladesofchaos (talk) 01:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

It would be better to leave any comment regarding this section here cos you already reverted his edits without any response here.Tintor2 (talk) 02:05, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

If you're actively editing the article, it would probably be a good idea to tag the article with {{under construction}} (as long as you remove it when you're done). That should help minimize incorrect reverts. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:10, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I directed some comments to Subzerosmokerain's page as they were appropriate to him. Other comments in ES. Anything to come can go here. And yes, as EVula indicates, a tag would have been better. Thebladesofchaos (talk) 04:13, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I asked for common courtesy. I didn't use a tag because I thought the notice would suffice and considering you simply circumvented my request, well you seem to just not want to work together. To be frank, a lot of what you are editing into the article is inaccurate and insufficient to describe the title, both in-universe (plot, etc.) and out-universe (reception, development, etc.). Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 04:47, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, how about we avoid finger-pointing here; it's not going to be productive for the article, and despite everyone's methods, that is the common goal here. I'm not saying one person is right and the other is wrong, but let's just move past what happened in the past. If nothing else, exchange Xbox/Playstation screen names and kick each others' asses in the game. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:41, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I would like it noted that I did not remove all the attempted edits, as the development information is invaluable. I suppose what I object to more than anything is the questionable language. That said, let's break it down here. Perhaps a day off for everyone would be prudent. Regards Thebladesofchaos (talk) 05:54, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, most Subzerosmokerain's edits were reverted. Shouldn't the stuff discussed here be the reason for why some material cannot be here, and reaching a consensus making a revert? I know that copy-edited stuff is needed a lot, but removing entire sections that contain never said comments like pre-reception is not the answer to this problem.Tintor2 (talk) 12:02, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd simply like to know your reasoning for removing actual content. I understand i'm not the best writer when it comes to saying a lot in a few words, but your recent revision cut out what I tried to keep in. If it's alright, we'll do a comparison and contrast between the two revisions to look at what improved and what was worsened. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 15:36, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Sure. Try a cut and paste here. Regards Thebladesofchaos (talk) 04:29, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Cite errors

Somehow citation material got deleted when someone was editing. I won't point fingers, even if I knew, but what happened? Tubularbells1993 (talk) 01:35, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

It happened because twice now, editors went for mass reverts to inferior material and in the act of restoring some material was sidelined. By that, I mean I am trying to sift and keep the good additions (and there have been some) and lose the not so good, as there have been repeated reversions back to what is essentially clumsy colloquial speak (e.g. "as well"). I will fix this and try for another cut and paste on the Development section today. The lesson here is for editors to insert material a section at a time. Thebladesofchaos (talk) 01:39, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

The actual answer is at the above section. The last revision before the last revert actually had no sourcing issues, while the current actually has.Tintor2 (talk) 03:11, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Which would not have happened, had there not been another clumsy mass revert. Thebladesofchaos (talk) 04:06, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

There was actually no mass revert of any revision, just readdition of material removed.Tintor2 (talk) 11:56, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

There was no mass revert, I added back what was blanked, restored the wording and formatting to the reception section contributed after the section was originally blanked. Additionally, I would like to ask that you refrain from using the words "clumsy", "wonky", "poor", and other variations as that's really banking on incivility. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 16:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

It is a reversion if you are restoring material that was removed. To say it was "blanked" is also a misnomer and much of it was unfortunately lacklustre, and by that I mean verbose or poorly worded. That said, you have made some fine additions to Design - they just needed some tidying. This helps bring the article closer to being encyclopedia standard. Once again, anyone assuming the article was fine prior to the past few weeks edits would be in error, as there were multiple issues, including awkward and verbose language, repetition, a lack of brevity and sources for statements.

At this stage, I think all the article needs is new information in Development and Design if it can found. The lead can be added to, but it is in fact of sufficient length and rates alongside the original entry that was there prior to the edits (and other article leads for that matter). I'm happy to contribute to this, but the next time that subjective tag at the top is removed, it can remain lifted - folks can discuss here if there are still any issues.

As to the terms used in the ES, sure. If people can stop making subjective claims such as "you don't seem to know what you are doing", there will be no issue. Regards Thebladesofchaos (talk) 04:27, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

A revert in wikipedia is reverting somebody else's edit that tends to end in an edit war, not adding material. Actually the article has more issues than neeed of expansion of design. The reception requires expansion with connections with each sentence to improve grammar. The lead should be expanded with generalizations based on the article's body and references within should be removed. Regarding people's comments, I have seen none in this talk page. Once again, you keep ignoring Subzerosmokerain's and other user's opinions regarding the need of a pre-release reception section without providing any guideline and saying that blanking is not an appropiate word when the whole section was deleted.Tintor2 (talk) 17:09, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

First of all, poor wording is no excuse for blanket removal, verbosity and poor wording are commonplace in Wikipedia (more common in articles I have edited) that's why we have Peer Review and Copy-editing, so the article can sound professional and encyclopediac. If we removed every section that was once written unprofessionally on Wikipedia we'd have pretty small articles. No one gets stuff right the first time, that's why there's a chunk missing from the Wikipedia logo since there's always more to add or change. As for unsourced statements, as Tintor said, the lead has generalizations echoing what is said and more importantly already referenced in the body. It needs no new information in design, i'm sure there's more out there but what was in there already was viable info. but poorly worded, which as I said before, had no reason to be removed. We need info. for the reception section. As for my comment, I told you already in your talk page I didn't mean anything mean about it. I was saying you seem inexperienced/didn't play the game, I didn't mean to sound like I was saying you didn't know what you were doing at all. If that offended you, I apologize. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 23:28, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

It is all fine. You've backed up your comments and made some solid additions, and we need to see more of these. The lead is not a point of contention, and can be expanded in a similar style. As to pre-release, I'm of the opinion that this can be placed in the existing section that covers marketing prior to release. Thebladesofchaos (talk) 06:12, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

The point is that the pre-release information also shows how public received the game across development, adding more material to reception (which is extremely small). I won't point every source, but I recall that the pre-release reception actually had information never commented in post-release such as one publisher commenting on the violent tone and its relation with previous games, something never mentioned in post-release. Even more, the Did you know the article obtained was based on all the pre-release reception, so various experienced encyclopedians appear to have found it important to the point of placing a note in the main page.Tintor2 (talk) 14:30, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Lead

Despite one user's protests, the lead is not "too short", being of a comparative length to the old version which contained unsourced statements and generalizations. That said, something else may be found to add that is both sourced and relevant. The article is moving towards encyclopedia standard, but still requires more work. Thebladesofchaos (talk) 03:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it is. It makes no mention of various of the article's sections like production and critical reception, and should avoid so short paragraphs. Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section)#Citations, the lead does not require sourcing as long as the article's body have it. The GA Mortal Kombat vs. DC Universe is shorter than this article but it still has a lead longer than this one.Tintor2 (talk) 11:38, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Not one user's, multiple users. The rule I believe is that the lead should mention every subsection in the body. As Tintor stated, it is too short to adequately describe the game and it does not require sourcing as long as sources for the same comments are in the body (that's why there's the rule of summing up each subsection of the article in the lead). Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 15:08, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll take Subzerosmokerain's opinion on board as he's contributing. Will try for more. Thebladesofchaos (talk) 11:10, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Curious. The two had the same opinion.Tintor2 (talk) 14:40, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah... Tintor is contributing too, and I even said, "As Tintor stated". Anyways, we still need to mention the development as well as the post-release reception in the lead. And the reception section could stand for some expansion such as commentary on gameplay(playability AND controls), story, character roster, content, Fatalities and X-rays, graphics, etc. The reception section we have now barely scratches the surface of what MK9 has, much less what was said on it. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 16:55, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

So long as it is sourced, succinct, non-repetitive and on point. Thebladesofchaos (talk) 04:37, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

What if most of it is praise, but simply praising different aspects of the game? Because that's why the original reception was cut down. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 16:09, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Now, I've made some sourced claims to the Lead to help pad it out, but take note: no edit warring thanks. The additions are valid and while emphasizing certain sections do not repeat the information. The quotes are also appropriate as they go to making a comment on the social significance of the series. What I would like to see from here on in are actual suggestions and additions (which two editors have done) as opposed to empty preaching. Thanks in advance. Thebladesofchaos (talk) 02:51, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

For the second time the lead requires generalizations over the article's references, rather than unique content since the lead is the article's introduction. Being bold, I removed some refs and reorganized it per the article's organization. My English has notable issues, but I still did the edits per your edit summary. By the way, I see you don't want edit warring, but it's better to first comment, reach an agreement and then finally make the edit per wp:consensus. If not, edit warring cannot be avoided.Tintor2 (talk) 03:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

You mean well, but we must avoid making generalizations that cannot be sourced. Keep it short, and it is fine to use sourced claims not found anywhere else in the article as it avoids the repetition trap. Those sources used were brought back from limbo and are now in sections where they have real punch, so there shouldn't be any real debate about that. As for mentioning the team, that's a fairly association and means nothing to someone who knows nothing about the franchise. Thebladesofchaos (talk) 03:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

It's the same as mentioning the developers or characters from the game. We are not expecting that everybody knows who is Boon, Raiden, Khan, what is the E3 2010, etc. The point of the lead is that its whole content is summarised in the body so the lead's content should not not be unique. "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article." If the article has a reception section, then the lead should give a short overview of such section.Tintor2 (talk) 11:46, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Various reception edits

There seems to be a lot of discussion over recent blankets and edits, but beyond all the confusion I simply just ask the original need to cause such drastic edits to the reception to begin with. The original written section template was based of previous reception sections written for feature articles. Many of the recent issues in the previously moved larger WEREN'T even in the first version.Stabby Joe (talk) 16:43, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I see. What do you suggest? In the above section, I recently commented about that.Tintor2 (talk) 17:18, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I understand many of the points raised, I'm just still confused over the initial change. Stabby Joe (talk) 19:23, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

It's about bad grammar. Me and another user tried restoring the lost content, but such edits were reverted without getting to wp:consensus.Tintor2 (talk) 19:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm. Now I'm confused why they got reverted. The reception is currently ridiculously short. Stabby Joe (talk) 22:08, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

For the whole story, see #Blanking, and #Notice to active editors for the attempts to recover the pre-release. There is currently one discussion at #Cite errors, but so far, there is no attempt to add pre and post reception.Tintor2 (talk) 23:21, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, you tried reverting to not so great language. That may have played a factor in the reversion. Thebladesofchaos (talk) 11:43, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

And you reverted it to the trimmed version without reaching a consensus in the talk page regarding it. Moreover, Subzerosmokerain tried restoring lost reception without reversion, but he was reverted without even finishing.Tintor2 (talk) 16:09, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I think a consensus needs to be met, otherwise expansion and/or restoration of the section won't happen. Stabby Joe (talk) 00:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I thought it was the other way round cause of the sudden change to the article. I already stated the reasons for this so I'll copypaste my comment:

"The point is that the pre-release information also shows how public received the game across development, adding more material to reception (which is extremely small). I won't point every source, but I recall that the pre-release reception actually had information never commented in post-release such as one publisher commenting on the violent tone and its relation with previous games, something never mentioned in post-release. Even more, the Did you know the article obtained was based on all the pre-release reception, so various experienced encyclopedians appear to have found it important to the point of placing a note in the main page."Tintor2 (talk) 00:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Except that much of the pre-release section was repetitve and not particularly significant. Saying a game is ranked 15th on a list of 40 anticipated games isn't saying much. Quote the material that counts. Quality as opposed to bland quantity. Thebladesofchaos (talk) 02:53, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

If the source from list of 40 anticipated games is reliable, then there is no reason to find it unnotable unless it is an article completely unrelated from the game. The pre-release section actually brought different opinions regarding the critics, but you actually kept some of them with one of them being in the lead. Nevertheless, the reception section is still very small, and all the reviewers from the box should be used in such section.Tintor2 (talk) 11:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

DLC characters

So, I just made the some-people-may-disagree decision to remove direct mention of DLC characters from the Characters section of the article. We end up with redundant information, plus... well, it doesn't matter how many DLC characters get released for the game, it doesn't change what the stock roster is. I'd rather keep the section limited to the characters in the stock game, and discussion relevant to development of the game (like the character design stuff, or the remark about the lack of a 360-exclusive character).

For that matter, I also made an earlier change to the DLC section. I pushed the stuff about all the pre-order costumes into the Retail versions section, which seemed to make a lot more sense; that streamlines the DLC section to focus only on the post-release content. Now that there's actually content (three characters, one released costume pack, with a second on the way) to have there, this seems like a better way of handling it. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I personally agree with your decision. However, someone has taken the liberty of reverting your change without discussing it. I will undo it but in the meantime I invite that editor to bring it up here. Tubularbells1993 (talk) 06:10, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the problem is that such section is named "Characters" which will give users the attempt to add downloadable ones in good faith. Maybe if it were changed to "Playable characters", users would not add the downloadable. If not, adding a hidden note would be useful.Tintor2 (talk) 14:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I think a hidden note might work best, and I've just added one to the section. "Playable characters" would still suggest (in my opinion) that DLC characters should be added. Hopefully it's not something that we'll have to spend too much time fighting, though a minor stream of drive-by editors trying to help out is something we might just have to deal with. C'est la vie. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. I just tidied it up a tad. Thebladesofchaos (talk) 02:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

DLC section updated again; info about the compatibility packs has been added (which I should have done the first time around, damn), and I added the just-announced Season Pass information.[9] Pretty cool. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Nice.Tintor2 (talk) 16:06, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

DLC Table

I think it makes more sense to have a table instead of a wall of text, especially since there will be even more DLC to be revealed.

Looks neater.

Yay or nay? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maninthewomb (talk • contribs)

DLC	Release	Characters	Costumes	Fatalities	Availability
Klassic Scorpion	4.19.11	---	Klassic Scorpion	Klassic Scorpion	w/Pre-order @ Gamestop
Klassic Reptile	4.19.11	---	Klassic Reptile	Klassic Reptile	w/Pre-order @ Amazon
Klassic Sub-Zero	4.19.11	---	Klassic Sub-Zero	Klassic Sub-Zero	w/Pre-order @ Best Buy
Klassic Mileena	4.19.11	---	Klassic Mileena	---	w/Pre-order @ Wal-Mart
Klassic Kitana	4.19.11	---	Klassic Kitana	---	w/Pre-order @ Toys R' Us
Klassic Jade	4.19.11	---	Klassic Jade	---	w/Pre-order of Mortal Kombat Mortal Kombat Annihilation
Klassic DLC	6.7.11	---	Klassic Reptile Klassic Scorpion Klassic Ermac Klassic Sub Zero Klassic Mileena Klassic Jade Klassic Kitana	Klassic Reptile Klassic Sub Zero Klassic Scorpion	XBL/PSN
Season Pass	6.21.11	Skarlett Kenshi* Rain* Unrevealed Character*	Klassic Sektor Klassic Cyrax 4 Other unrevealed costumes*	---	XBL
Skarlett	6.21.11	Skarlett	Klassic Sektor Klassic Cyrax	---	XBL/PSN
Skarlett Compatibility DLC	6.21.11	---	Klassic Sektor Klassic Cyrax	---	XBL/PSN
Kenshi	TBA	Kenshi	2 Costumes TBA	---	XBL/PSN
Kenshi Compatibility DLC	TBA	None	2 Costumes TBA	---	XBL/PSN
Rain	TBA	Rain	2 Costumes TBA	---	XBL/PSN
Rain Compatibility DLC	TBA	None	2 Costumes TBA	---	XBL/PSN
Unrevealed Character	TBA	TBA	2 Costumes TBA	---	XBL/PSN
Unrevealed Character Compatibility DLC	TBA	None	2 Costumes TBA	---	XBL/PSN

* When available.

• Honestly? I hate it. (as evidenced by the fact that I reverted its addition to the article) It's a massive table showing information that isn't best served as a table. Three (short) paragraphs aren't a "wall of text"; an encyclopedia isn't something that we should be TLDRing our way out of. We also aren't a pricing guide: when listing DLC, we don't list price (for an example, see 2011 in downloadable songs for the Rock Band series).
  The pre-order stuff isn't (per se) DLC; those are pre-order bonuses, which is why they are mentioned in the "Retail versions" of the article. The table also lists a whole lot of "TBA" information; why do we need to be reporting this? We report what we know, and what can be verified; there's no reason to bother stating the unknowns, when there are plenty of knowns to state.
  There's also the matter of expandability, that actually ties into the fact that this isn't tabular data: not every pack has a new character, and not every pack has new fatalities. (early reports from devs stated they might do stages as DLCs, but there's no need to accommodate those yet) If you've got line after line with holes in columns, that means it shouldn't be in a table. Again, see 2011 in downloadable songs for the Rock Band series for an excellent example of tabular data: each line has a data point for the heading. Furthermore, the character purchasable pack doesn't necessarily need to be separate from the compatibility pack; the only difference between them is price and whether it allows the downloader to use the DLC character themselves, so dual listings for effectively the same content is confusing. Prose is not confusing: you read it, you comprehend it. EVula // talk // ☯ // 02:28, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

For starters, the information in the last column isn't suited for an encyclopedia, be it in a table or in prose. Prices? Names of stores? Hell no. --uKER (talk) 02:34, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, the store name information is currently in the article, but suitably relegated to a section about the various retail versions of the game, which also covers the Kollector and Tournament editions of the game. Handled like that, it's appropriate documentation of readily verified information. But in this table? Yeah, it's a mess, especially once you throw pricing into the mix. EVula // talk // ☯ // 02:43, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, Maninthewomb just updated the table, so it doesn't look quite the same as what uKER and I were talking about. (original) Specifically, the pricing heading was replaced with an Availability heading. However, I still dislike it, for all the other reasons I listed above. Availability is also a poor final column, as everything except the season pass is available for Xbox and PS3, but the season pass isn't technically DLC; it's just a cheaper deal for getting future DLC (and in prose, can be handled as such, but in a table, it doesn't fit; yet again a reason why a table doesn't work for non-tabular data). EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I want to point out that changing your comments on talk pages isn't really kosher for Wikipedia, as it alters context and creates logical fallacies in later comments. I'm not sure Maninthewomb is familiar with that, but in the offchance that he sees this, hopefully he won't do it again. On-topic, I don't like the idea of a table either. Tubularbells1993 (talk) 18:27, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the constructive criticism, guys. Much appreciated. The way I see the table, it's more of a checklist of sorts for all the content that will be available. Any changes you want to implement to make the table more useful please feel free. Still kinda new to this whole discussion thing. --Boosh (talk) 03:57, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's part of the problem: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a checklist. Sure, sometimes people use our content as a checklist (when I had time to play Rock Band a lot more, you had better believe that I made use of that DLC list), but that's not our goal in how we present information. EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

To get this specific with content runs into WP:GAMECRUFT territory, but I'd hate to see this go to waste. Maybe it could be used over at the Mortal Kombat Wiki. --Teancum (talk) 23:01, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree with EVula. Not here - too fannish and there are presentation issues.

Thebladesofchaos (talk) 03:27, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Goro on the Challenge Tower

I decided that that mention of Goro's playability qualifies as gamecruft, so I removed it. His playability does not carry over to the rest of the game, so one tiny instance where his unplayability is excepted is not significant or worthy of coverage. (Plus, it was a YouTube citation. WP has no room for YouTube citations.) Tubularbells1993 (talk) 22:13, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

No issue with that one! Thebladesofchaos (talk) 00:29, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Sales sources

I found these two GameSpot sources talking about the sales from the video game:

• Game sales to break skid in April - Analyst,
• Mortal Kombat tops booming April sales - NPD

However, I was not sure about how adding them, so I just added one from Gamasutra to the article that appears to be its latest record. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 02:50, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

State of Online Play

Should the state of the online play for this game not be mentioned? I realise that it may be rather hard to get proper citations, but a fighting game often hinges on the state of the multiplayer. Also, for a big name studio like NetherRealm and a hyped game like Mortal Kombat to have a multiplayer component in such a state of disrepair so long after release, seems noteworthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petrus Padda (talk • contribs) 16:05, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

It already has been commented on in the reception, and I sincerely believe that's the most we're getting from reliable sources. It is a big deal game-wise but that drifts into WP:GAMECRUFT which is not allowed in Wikipedia. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 23:29, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Characters

I think it would be useful to state which characters need to be unlocked before they can be used. I know I'd like to know (I'm in Australia and can't yet get the game). Also can anyone tell me how many characters you need to fight to get up to the bosses (and do you fight all 3 bosses)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.45.112.118 (talk) 08:08, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

It might be considered as game guide material, thus unsuitable for inclusion in the article. But I will answer your question. All characters are unlocked automatically, except two: Cyber Sub-Zero and Quan Chi. Both are unlocked during Story Mode. The Ladder Mode consists of 10 fights, 7 against randomly selected opponents (DLC is included in the selection pool), then 1 against Shang Tsung, 1 against Goro or Kintaro, and 1 against Shao Kahn. RobWill80 (talk) 12:21, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Does that include Kratos. Also where does he appear on the select screen, I can't find any images that show him there.203.45.112.118 (talk) 05:43, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Kratos is included in the selection pool for Ladder Mode. Click here [10] to see the current Select Screen, including Kratos and released DLC. I don't mind answering your questions, but if you have any more that don't directly concern the Wikipedia article, I'd recommend that you ask them on a MK forum. RobWill80 (talk) 21:20, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry. 203.45.112.118 (talk) 06:59, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Germany banned it too

...but so far there's no mention of it in the article beyond the Ratings box saying "USK: Banned". I remember that article from way back, the title roughly translated to "Mortal Kombat does not appear", but I ran that through a translator and can't read German, so I can only bring it up here. I would add it myself if I could. It would fit nicely into the "Controversy" subsection under "Reception". Any thoughts? Tubularbells1993 22:31, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

As far as I know, it is banned, but never during the time i've checked Mortal Kombat on google news, it hasn't appeared. There might be a reference somewhere, but at this point it'll be difficult to find it. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 00:20, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

• if you can find a legitimate source, by all means let's add it. It goes to notability. Regards Thebladesofchaos (talk) 06:21, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

If we can't find it, should we remove the "USK" bit from the infobox? Because until we do find this elusive article, it's unsourced and degrades the quality of the article. Tubularbells1993 15:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

• Yes - best to do this so we are consistent and abiding by the same standards we apply to those that just drop by for a casual edit. Regards Thebladesofchaos (talk) 01:18, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I've removed it for the time being. If/when we find the article, we can put it back in. Tubularbells1993 17:01, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Somebody put back in and I've removed it again... it seems that somebody knows where to locate such an article but doesn't want to cite it or put it into a relevant section on the article. It will just be removed over and over again if nobody cites a source for it. Tubularbells1993 23:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I can't say for sure if it's the same person or multiple ones doing it, but I removed it again. This time I put a hidden note that actually says we won't accept it without two things: 1) a reliable source, and 2) mentioning it in the main body of the article. I'm getting sick of constantly undoing it but this hidden note should do the trick. Tubularbells1993 16:46, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Cruft abbreviation

"...containing the pre-order exclusive classic outfits for characters Reptile, Scorpion, Ermac, Sub Zero, Mileena, Jade, and Kitana, and classic fatalities for Reptile, Sub Zero, and Scorpion..."

I think that would work better as just "containing the pre-order exclusive classic outfits and fatalities." What do you guys think? Tubularbells1993 05:17, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually I think I like this better: "...containing the classic outfits and fatalities that were exclusive to pre-order deals." Tubularbells1993 18:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, that would require prior knowledge of the Pre-order exclusives, which is in the retail versions section. I'd like to assume that the readers read the article downwards, but it might be too presumptuous so someone might get onto it on GAN, but I say go ahead with it, and if someone mentions it, there'll be no problem to re-add it since we have plenty of users available. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 16:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I did it, and I'm hoping that if someone has any questions about it that they'll at least take the time to locate the relevant information elsewhere in the article before deciding to revert my change. Tubularbells1993 17:10, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I like it. We don't need to spoon-feed stuff to readers, and what we're referring to is literally just a paragraph above. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm also thinking about abbreviating Boon's quote where he explains why there's no 360-exclusive character. I would replace the quote with something like this: "...No exclusive character was made for the Xbox 360; Boon stated that the team wanted to make one but was not allowed, for reasons he could not explain." Tubularbells1993 17:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I probably should have put another, "What do you guys think?" but I guess since nobody said anything that was the greenlight. I went ahead and did it. Feel free to revert or change it and tell me why here. Tubularbells1993 00:03, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Mortal Kombat 2011 - Addition - First attempt at a competitive fighting game, chosen for EVO

I would like to request that NetherRealms Studio's efforts in competitive gaming be recognised in this article. MK9 is the first attempt by them to create a MK that is accessible to the Fighting Game Community as well as MK fans and casual gamers. NRS has supported the game with constant patches addressing infinite combos and buffing and/or nerfing characters (like the initially dominant Kung Lao) where necessary.

The MK9 Nationals tournament had $21,000 prize money and was won by Justin Wong, the highest profile Street Fighter/Marvel vs. Capcom player to support it to date. MK9 was chosen to be represented as one of five games at the biggest Fighting Game Community event, the Evo Championship Series. During the tournaments leading up to Evo 2011 (Evo Tournament Series), NRS members, predominantly Producer Hector Sanchez, would travel to events to take notes and feedback from the FGC in order to better the gameplay. Mortal Kombat was arguably the most balanced game at Evo 2011, the top 8 finals were represented by 8 different characters.

References will be provided of course, just putting this out there for approval beforehand. --FLStyle (talk) 22:47, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

If we have sufficient sources, yes, this sort of thing should be added to the article. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:08, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

That sounds very good for the reception section.Tintor2 (talk) 00:16, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Reverted the removal, it's well referenced and fine, removal was unwarranted. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 01:55, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

It is "fine" (wrong word - symptomatic of the overall problem here) now that the language has been corrected, the focus changed and the passage placed in the appropriate section. BladeofOlympus (talk) 04:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Not only is it now misrepresentative of what it was there for in the first place, it now has mistakes confusing the PDP event to have some form of relevance to Evo. A consensus was built in favour of WP:NNC and now user Thebladesofchaos/BladesofOlympus seems to be intent on changing it to how he/she sees fit. A lack of etiquette and civility is also present due to personal attacks. I suggest a further consensus is built, centred around co-opertation in which the edits in question can be correctly represented while complying with any issues that may arise. --FLStyle (talk) 13:04, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Now hold on, TheBladesofChaos may just be ignorant of the facts, not insulting, but not knowing can mistranslate on how information is conveyed, we simply need to explain. BladesofChaos, the National PDP tournament and the Evo 2011 Championship are two separate entities, the way the wording is set right now puts them linked in some form, however as I just said, they are not, and should be represented as such in the paragraph.

Additionally, i'm not sure that Marketing is the appropriate section for the paragraph. The PDP tournament served as a Promotion of sorts for the PDP fight stick that was linked in direct correlation with MK9. The Evolution 2011 Championship however was not, if you contact Netherrealm studios, EVO 2011 was not used to promote their product. It is analogous to the Woodstock festival, the bands were there to play (and were paid in some form) but the Festival was not to advertise/promote the bands, but a location for the showing. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 02:29, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, well done on the DLC move. It is a Marketing effort and I should have seen that.FLStyle, I am sorry if I offended, as that was not my intent. Just remember for next time there is a difference between spoken colloquial speech and the written word. That said, yes I realize there are two different bodies involved, but it was rather unclear as to what was actually being said and there seemed to be some repetition. I'll take another pass at it. Regards

PurpleHeartEditor (talk) 02:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

On rechecking, PDP did in fact sponsor the LV event, which was recognized by Evo, so...what can be done here? PurpleHeartEditor (talk) 02:55, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, let's just examine the facts of what needs to be said. There were two nationally recognized tournaments in Las Vegas in which Mortal Kombat was featured, PDP's tournament that took place May 14th-15th (the dates aren't necessary) in which Mortal Kombat was the only fighting game featured there. The second nationally recognized tournament that took place also in Las Vegas from July 29th-31st, it was featured as a main tournament along with other fighters.

My own take would be, Performance Design Products sponsored the inaugural National Mortal Kombat Championship in Las Vegas in May 2011.[56] Mortal Kombat was also internationally represented in the 2011 Evo Championship Series, by being recognized as a main tournament fighting game.[57] Mortal Kombat was also the only game during the Evo Series' finals in which eight different game characters were represented.[58] PDP Nationals champion Justin Wong and Evo 2011 champion Carl "Perfect Legend" White spoke positively of Mortal Kombat's appearance in future major tournament events.[59] The wording may be off, but that should distinguish the two from each other, so readers can read it as two separate entities. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 03:12, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Done! Good work PurpleHeartEditor (talk) 03:50, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Shao Kahn in reception

There seems to have been a mini edit war regarding one line in the reception:

• "One complaint concerned the shifting levels of difficulty being described by IGN as "needlessly cheap" that "forces you to fight cheap tactics with cheap tactics."

Now I know that this is a trimmed version of a comment added awhile back. That line was about the recurring complaint by reviewers that the final boss Shao Kahn was cheap, hence why the above reviews were cited. However without the mention of Shao Kahn, these lines seem to imply that the cheap fights and tactics are problem with the core game however this is not the case with reviews and as it stands seems more misquoted. I fail to see the problem with simply adding somewhere "in particular the fights with Shao Kahn" or something similar in the line. Stabby Joe (talk) 01:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that an article shouldn't label one small section of the story mode (boss battles), it itself only one part of a lot of game modes that Mortal Kombat 2011 features, as representative of the entire game. Especially in this case in which the issue is due to a misquote. --FLStyle (talk) 16:21, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The GameSpot reviewer also gave the same opinion about Shao Kahn's battle, so it makes it more worthwhile to place it.Tintor2 (talk) 19:03, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The reviewer don't just mean Shao Kahn in story mode but also ladder, a good chunk of the experience. Stabby Joe (talk) 21:47, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Banning turnaround in Australia?

Somebody put that Australia had rated the game after all in the infobox, writing this:

ACB: RC (original rating), R18+ (re-rating)

I couldn't substantiate that claim in the article so I removed it. Tubularbells1993 18:52, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

You can't just say that Raiden Killed Liu Kang!

Seriously, you can't say that Raiden Killed Liu Kang! Why? Cause there is'nt any proof that he is dead nor got killed by the blast! Please stop saying that raiden kills liu kang. Cause unless you have proof of it, you can't just say that liu kang is dead. 83.223.24.41 (talk) 01:08, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

That section as a whole needs more sources. I'll leave your edit intact for the time being, keeping in mind that I've seen the Story Mode for myself and it looks pretty obvious to me that Liu Kang is dead, but I'm mainly paying respect to your point that it needs a source. That is absolutely true. Tubularbells1993 16:34, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, as no one says that he died ingame. Even though that it looked like that Liu Kang died, there is no proof/source to it. Kabal had some simular damages, like getting incinerated and his left eye blinded. Kabal survived, with the help of Shang Tsung's black magic and Kano's respirator. Also, Mortal Kombat is known for having their own "rules" during combat. 83.223.24.41 (talk) 21:35, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

So I'm assuming you would support my addition of a template asking for more sources to that section? Anyone who doesn't agree feel free to bring it up here. Tubularbells1993 23:26, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I doubt that third-party sources talked about the story to avoid spoiling in their reviews, so should the game script be the source? It can be obtained in Gamefaqs and other sites, but the fact about Liu Kang's death is kind of tricky. They never say that Raiden killed him but Liu Kang says "You've killed us all" before falling.Tintor2 (talk) 23:30, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd go with the game's script, but some OR might have to go into it, which is what i'm afraid of. Yeah the Kang death thing is pretty tricky, and that phrase can be symbolic (the "You killed us all"), so we don't know for a fact. I say we put a ref. tag, and discuss here what's the best option. So far, it's the script. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 23:56, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'd say that'd be okay. Of course the only thing left to do would be to write a citation for it, which I haven't seen anyone do. I might do it if no one else does. Citing a game itself as the source is allowed here, right? Tubularbells1993 03:15, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

It would also require the quote to be more specific.Tintor2 (talk) 11:46, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes Tubularbells1993. I would support that. Cause several times, on the Mortal Kombat Wikia, i had to edit that up, that people can't just say that in Liu Kang was killed in Raiden's alternative timeline. That would be a wikia that has really has an eye on the game. 83.223.9.190 (talk) 12:22, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

New design info.

http://blog.us.playstation.com/2011/02/15/finish-him-how-to-make-a-killer-fatality-for-mortal-kombat/ Not really new, but it covers the development of Fatalities in MK9 so I think it could add a sentence to the design section, good luck! ^_^ Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 00:39, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

http://www.nowgamer.com/features/921573/mortal_kombat_ed_boon_interview.html Here is another between Dave Cook and Ed Boon.Tintor2 (talk) 01:05, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Mortal Kombat Komplete Edition

BBFC listed Mortal Kombat Komplete Edition with 17 Feb 12 release date.more information on http://www.bbfc.co.uk/DDM276948/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkpotentate (talk • contribs) 09:10, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Germany... for crying out loud.

STOP. ADDING. THAT. IT. WAS. BANNED/INDEXED. IN. GERMANY. WITHOUT. A. SOURCE. I don't care who's doing it but it has to stop. Find a good, reliable source and use it, people! LazyBastardGuy 20:23, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

58.111.177.189 (talk) 17:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC) http://n4g.com/news/717454/mortal-kombat-9-no-release-in-germany sorry im new to wikipedia XD

No problem, it's just that people have been doing this repeatedly in the past. Sorry if I seemed mad. Unfortunately I can't read German, and I wonder why no news in English was published about this XD LazyBastardGuy 20:27, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

New section consensus discussion - Professional Gaming

Now that MK9 has been announced for both Evo 2012 (Evo Championship Series, http://shoryuken.com/2012/01/03/introducing-the-evo-2012-game-linup-and-tournament-season/) and MLG (Major League Gaming, http://partners.majorleaguegaming.com/mortalkombat) I want a consensus built on making a professional gaming section under Reception as per the Marvel vs. Capcom 3: Fate of Two Worlds page.

I believe that it's now notable for it's own section and too important to be left in the Marketing section with the current professional gaming edits.--FLStyle (talk) 19:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Was that discussed in Marvel vs. Capcom 3: Fate of Two Worlds? I suppose that since these sections are never used, it would be better to ask in the project for more opinion to see whether it's appropiate or not.Tintor2 (talk) 21:46, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

PlayStation Vita version

Anyone care to explain why any mention of it continues to get removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.220.100.201 (talk) 15:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Must proably be the lack of WP:Reliable source to back it up. However, I fail to see any edit summary with such explanations. I'll see if I can find something.Tintor2 (talk) 15:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, although I just came across this comparing revisions *rolls eyes*..

"The Vita platform does not belong here!"

I'm not usually involved in conflicts like this, nor do I have the highest possible grasp of writing code, but look guys (not you specifically Tintor), I don't care what personal insecurities you guys might have about pieces of plastic and metal, the fact of the matter is, this game is slated for release on the Vita, with a significant amount of notably exclusive content at that, deal with it. I'll relist what information I can, but if this happens again, I'd like to request a semi-protect. Strykie-boy (talk) 11:43, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't get your point (you want to add the info but think I don't want it?), but somebody removed the short content I added about the PS Vita port and added links to every section. I'll revert them.Tintor2 (talk) 11:53, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

A lot of details from Hans Lo in the PAX East 2012 Interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Td_C-bhsGSE Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 02:26, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the author. Is there an official website that also has the same video? Thanks.Tintor2 (talk) 02:33, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Someone keeps adding "rumored" characters as fact for the Vita version. These rumored characters have no source. This article is the only place I've seen these "rumors". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.58.0.146 (talk) 01:36, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Mortal Kombat 9?

I have a quick question. Where is the citation for the claim that heads up the larger article about the game being commonly referred to as MK 2011 and/or MK9? Yeah, early on in its development the game was definitely referred to as such by the media and fans alike, but the quote doesn't address that. Readers would be lead to believe that the game is still widely referred to as both MK 2011 and MK9 post-release, and I don't see anything in the references that would lend weight to that claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.56.50.82 (talk) 04:10, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

It is indeed "still widely referred to as both MK 2011 and MK9 post-release". Even on Wikipedia it is usually called "MK 2011" (or "MK2011") in the releated articles (other games and characters in the series). That's how IGN describes it: "Mortal Kombat (known as Mortal Kombat 9 by the fans)".[11] It IS icorrect, but it's very widespread, on forums, deviantART (where even only yesterday 2 new pics came with "Mortal Kombat 9"[http://browse.deviantart.com/?order=5&q=%22mortal+kombat+9%22] and three with "MK9"[http://browse.deviantart.com/?order=5&q=MK9]) and such. --Niemti (talk) 07:10, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

What does this sentence mean?

One complaint concerned the shifting levels of difficulty in the 
game's story mode, being described by IGN as forcing the player 
"to fight cheap tactics with cheap tactics." 

It is in the article but I don't understand it. (I have never played the game before) 71.52.196.100 (talk) 07:32, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mortal Kombat (2011 video game)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 04:25, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Hey Niemti, I'll be glad to take this review. As before, I'll start with an initial readthrough, listing any issues I can't easily fix, and then turn to the checklist. I know your nominations have been controversial lately, but I want to thank you as always for your many contributions. Looking forward to working with you again -- Khazar2 (talk) 04:25, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Initial readthrough

This looks very solid on a first pass: well written, well sourced, and comprehensive. I've made some minor tweaks for grammar and style as I went; feel free to revert anything you disagree with, and please double-check that I haven't inadvertently introduced any errors.

Checklist

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Prose is clear and correct; spotchecks show no evidence of copyright problems.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass

Reverted change

I just reverted a change that attempted to correct the Vita version being listed as being a Komplete Edition, a problem that didn't actually exist. Also, I think the DLC section should be kept close to the Komplete Edition, and the Windows port should go under Komplete Edition. --uKER (talk) 16:53, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I think the Komplete Edition and the ports need to be organized better. Clubbing them under "Release" just doesn't seem right. I'm in favor of putting the port information under "Development", but that would make "Komplete Edition" the odd one out, since it's more closely related to the DLC. What we could do is have a separate section altogether for "Komplete Edition", and put the ports under 'Development". Either way I'm open to discussion. --CoolingGibbon (talk) 18:22, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

How is that not right? Aren't they re-releases of the original game?18:45, 6 July 2013 (UTC)Tintor2 (talk)

Although they are re-releses, they have substantial differences from the original version. Mixing them up with information pertaining to the original version can get problematic. Which is why I'm suggesting separate sections for them (similar to the way DLC is handled) instead of being categorized under "Release". --CoolingGibbon (talk) 02:29, 7 July 2013 (UTC)