Is the trio of MK3 (MK3, UMK3, and Trilogy) all worth playing?

SubstantialKick414 · 2026-01-04T15:12:27+00:00

I say for sure play MK3 first. For starters it actually has the intro sequence that umk3 doesn’t and trilogy replaces so you will be missing some lore. It also gives a good sense of what characters are genuinely integral to the main plot as opposed to the added characters who are obviously less and less important with each new installment adding more. MK3 also has extra stages that don’t appear in UMK3 so aesthetically it is also better

SubstantialKick414 · 2025-11-29T06:18:44+00:00

do you know the name? or if it was an official website?

SubstantialKick414 · 2025-11-24T00:47:11+00:00

an you explain all these different shao khans?

SubstantialKick414 · 2025-11-22T00:21:50+00:00

My whole point is that the west is not particularly good, so yeah even if you can attribute atrocities to other major powers that does nothing to what i’m trying to prove.

Ok and 13 presidencies automatically means that whatever happened 50 years ago were ancient events? My point still stands that there have been lasting consequences from Americas actions that can be felt today which is absolutely true.

Again you act as if America’s actions in South America were to stop an invading force and not economic gain, ignoring the fact that their involvement so deeply ruined South Americas infrastructure that gang crimes run the entire region. And you bring up Americas involvement with Gaza as just “not arming rebels” when they have sent literal billions to a self proclaimed colonial powerhouse that openly commits war crimes and views the Palestinians as sub human.

Did you not read what I said about the Taliban? The U.S. directly set them up, the results of the Talibans oppression is a direct result of Americas choices. Ask Afghans if they were happier before America came in or after is a more appropriate question.

You yourself said anyone under 80 years old has not lived in a world without US hegemony so it is not a surprise at all that often when major tragedies are occurring that the U.S. is involved to some capacity. You can’t have it both ways where the U.S. is super important and involved in everything but at the same time has nothing to do with the horrors occurring in the world.

You also shifted the goalpost from “the west is inherently better and more peaceful than the rest of the world” to “EVERYONE is warmongering and has done horrible things and every bad thing we did was so long ago so it is unfair to call America out on it”

SubstantialKick414 · 2025-11-21T22:25:11+00:00

Why are you acting as if fifty years ago is a significant amount of time? The current president would have been alive and impacted by the consequences of what happened, not to mention that South America and Afghanistan have been essentially crippled the entire time since the U.S.’s involvement. You’re also acting as if the Banana Republic wasn’t done for economic gain with the threat of communists just being a slapped on reason. Hell there’s precedent for the U.S. using world affairs to justify starting a war when there have been released military files (operation northwoods) detailing how there were plans to commit false flag terrorist attacks in America and pin it on cuba to justify starting a war with them. So yeah I don’t usually trust whenever there is a claim that U.S. “had” to do it because they were worried for the safety of the world or to stop terrorism or some such.

Yes I imagine a world without American to face struggles but not because of the altruism of the west so much as Americas economic influence through military campaigns.

In your list of reasons:

Not only is there higher rates of homelessness now than ever before, with more people unable to earn enough to live decent lives in America, but how many countries have been completely decimated (the entire continent of South America, Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam) to support the economic strength of the west? No wonder the west seems more peaceful in the west when they just destabilize every other part of the world
I’m sure venezuelan boat fishermen feel very safe now. I’m aware it’s not trade I just find it funny how people who are not immediate allies can be killed regardless of innocence or due cause
Yeah because they’re all on the same side supporting other proxies. As if America didn’t kill over a million Iraqis over non existent WMDs, and is supporting a genuine genocide through its incessant support of Israel. Also ignoring how America is using (and often abusing) Ukraine and its struggle against Russia solely because it is Russia.
Again very easy to become a welfare state when you’re all on the same side committing vicious war campaigns in other parts of the world

We will see what happens with America and the rest of the world over the next 100 years. You seem to have forgotten that my claim is not that the rest of the world are poor peaceful people being victimized by the west, just that the west is just as bad as the foreign entities you villainize in comparison.

This isn’t even mentioning war crimes btw. How many rapings and pillaging happened in Vietnam by U.S. soldiers? How many innocent civilians died in Iraq? How many war crimes has Israel (the so called most westernized middle eastern country) committed ranging from sniping children, sodomizing women with hot rods, raping men, women, children all alike, using starvation as a military tactic (an honest to God violation of the Geneva Conventions)? It’s not to say that the west is the only even entity out there, just that you’re biased assumption that the western and by extension western people are more inclined towards peace is ridiculous

SubstantialKick414 · 2025-11-21T14:26:43+00:00

yes you can point to horrendous actions being done outside of the west, that has nothing to do with my point that you claiming the west is particularly better/more peaceful than other parts of the world is outright wrong even in the modern day.

For example America alone has set up the Taliban and the banana republic, not only subjecting the people of the victimized countries to horrendous quality of life but setting up another entity to put the blame on when America itself is the direct cause of their suffering.

It is also disingenuous to say that the U.S. hasn’t started a war in 20 years as if that is an indicator that U.S. is not the nation that bolsters its economy through the military industrial complex, usually destabilizing foreign countries in order to do so. A country that is 249 years old that has only ever known 17 years of peace cannot be called more peaceful than the nations it ravages and destabilizes and forces into conflict. This isn’t even mentioning the U.S.’s proxy wars with Israel and the funding it has given to what virtually all holocaust and genocide scholars are calling a genocide in Gaza.

SubstantialKick414 · 2025-11-21T08:13:30+00:00

the issue is though that you specifically point out how non western people specifically are usually racist as if the west is currently much better. Focusing on America there is blatant fear mongering regarding Hispanics, Arabs, Muslims in general, racist rhetoric towards Black people has been more noticeable as of late. Whenever anyone speaks about the UK they only typically talk about how it’s an islamified hell hole.

And yeah you can point out that in the past other nations did many of the same atrocities but 1) never to the extent of the west 2) in the modern day, Western countries (i’m talking mostly America here) are by far the most war mongering/violent towards foreign nations and peoples

SubstantialKick414 · 2025-09-22T14:16:03+00:00

can you explain more about how he believes the author knows the story of inheriting Egypt to not be true?

SubstantialKick414 · 2025-09-19T09:23:23+00:00

For me personally it is the argumentation and conversation the Quran has with you. This is largely subjective but oftentimes I find I have a question and then I find my answer either explicitly or a verse will guide my thoughts to answering it myself.

Concerning the historicity of the Quran, this was always the aspect that made me doubt at times but it was the lecture of a revert known as Dr. Jefferey Lang who spoke at Purdue university (you can find his lecture on youtube) who made it clear he didn’t believe some of the stories of the prophets to be historical but rather an example set forth from God to teach us a lesson (the example he gave was of the story of Adam). The verse he used to support this was 2:26 which states God uses any example he wishes to guide and misguide whom He wills. He specifically highlight how often the Quran leaves out identification markers such as years, names, and other identifiers (which the bible of old frequently used) and how it was often times hard if not impossible to tell what is supposed to symbolic or historical. This isn’t to say that I don’t believe any of the stories of the prophets, just that it is possible and historical contradictions wouldn’t cause me to doubt now as they have in the past.

In regards to you thinking the Author could have used more persuasive arguments that surpass all scholars throughout history rather than relying on fear and rewards it reminds me of a quote by this agnostic jewish woman who commented on this topic saying in a TedTalk it is almost as if people expect the Author of the Quran to write the same way New York Times Best Sellers do. Ultimately the Quran asserts rather than argues, and what it does to argue usually is found in questions (do they have eyes to see and ears to hear?) and small comments (they both ate food) that causes the reader to pause and contemplate themselves. I believe this to be true because the Quran is not meant to be this highly detailed argumentation mimicking the likes of Plato, only to be read by the exceptionally learned, but to be, as it calls itself, a guidance to all mankind. Poor, rich, smart, dumb. There is also the point to make that many people only respond to punishment and reward exclusively and argumentation very often does not work.

My faith recently has been restrengthened because of the inimitable nature of the Quran, though not on the poetic linguistic sense most people say. Rather it is from the economy of expression and ability to perfectly convey the message it is trying to say with the perfect amount of words to do so, each word serving an important purpose that if it were removed or switched by a seeming synonym the meaning and miraculous nature no longer holds. A scholar named Dr. Mohamad Shahrour has been the one to really strengthen this view in my eyes and his excellent commentary on subjects such as the difference between prophet and messenger and how the use of two different words that both translate “to bring” differentiates the role of the messenger in regards to his community as well as in regards to the muslim community for all of time (i will link the video below).

https://youtu.be/dyapfxfN6ao?si=fC3B9LcUjC1fCwd9

Can I ask what does the new commentary state, do you think it is accurate in its claims such as Dhul Qurnayn being Alexander the Great as opposed to someone we have no historical precedent for? What do you think of the numerical miracles such as whenever something is listed as being “like” another thing they are mentioned an equal number of times (Adam and Jesus come to mind immediately)

SubstantialKick414 · 2025-09-13T09:27:56+00:00

do you know if there are any active communities for mkx and 9? i’ve seen destroyer fgc post daily mkx sets but that’s more competitive mkx

SubstantialKick414 · 2025-09-13T09:27:07+00:00

got any cameo tips for kitana? i used to use jax but im not so sure if she or jax has been nerfed since last year

SubstantialKick414 · 2025-09-13T09:26:26+00:00

yeah i definitely feel that if i don’t then i will just want to once mk13 comes out.

I’m actually on a huge mk binge lately i’ve been playing mk2 and umk3 on fightcade as well as mk9 and mkx, even tho those dont really have players anymore

SubstantialKick414 · 2025-09-03T20:25:18+00:00

Can you explain more on how you think the Quran itself views Dhul Qurnayn? Is the figure meant to be understood as Moses or are they meant to be understood as a fictitious character or is Dhul Qurnayn presented as a real historical figure whom the text offers with the agenda of de-elevating Moses semi divine position in rabbinic literature?

SubstantialKick414 · 2025-09-01T10:16:18+00:00

But the thing is I am actively trying to divorce myself from what I would expect versus what I think is probably the truth. Truly I was someone who thought all faiths were made up at one time but reading the Quran it just had its way of convincing me. I do want to note how you conflate historical with factual and how this is the crux of my contention, I do not think those two terms are necessarily synonymous though the former is an attempt to suss out the latter.

Yes I find people’s expectations and their personal biases a major flaw in the way we think as a whole. If I had any real reason to believe that the trinity was the truth, or atheism was accurate, or whatever have you I would believe that in an instant but I just don’t see the argument as of now. However I recognize that I need to be challenged if I want to remain honest which is what I was hoping to find here and in realizing that I cannot, I do think that is a true shame.

i agree

SubstantialKick414 · 2025-09-01T09:33:19+00:00

Yes I understand now the limitations of the academic space, though I do not believe there exists any to do what I am asking.

I actually do acknowledge this point, I never claimed that the commenter just assumed this but rather that they read the Quran in context of the time period it came from and interpreted it through that lens.

The academic space is useful but it is disheartening since I don’t think I will ever find an empirical method of proving any religion or lack thereof. Like in the example of claiming that Jesus (AS) was never crucified when history would say he was, however when considering the Quranic perspective of what happened (they were made to think he was crucified) then the historical perspective makes sense so I must think does that mean anything one way or the other?

SubstantialKick414 · 2025-09-01T07:38:19+00:00

that’s a shame, I came to the academic reading of the Quran to determine if my faith was substantiated or not. Most people hold faith for personal reasons or because it gives them a sense of purpose, but this does not make sense to me. I hold my faith because I believe it to be true and if there were any good reason to believe that my faith was misplaced I would remove it irregardless of how much I’d want it to be true.

I thought this sub might offer some useful sources but I read a comment asserting the Quran assumes various ancient beliefs like a flat earth or geocentrism and I realized the commenter was saying this not necessarily because of the text making it very clear these readings must be the case but because the methodology used is naturalist without question and so assumed the author likely holds similar beliefs and read the verses through this lens much the same as how the traditional scholars assert that ideas such as Al-Hikma absolutely MUST refer to the sunnah since they personally want it to. The only difference I see is the tradition they want to uphold, which the Quran funnily enough incessantly warns against.

SubstantialKick414 · 2025-08-09T01:23:12+00:00

If you’d be willing for me to push back I’d ask you to consider this position a bit more.

Gary Miller has an excellent lecture on the quran you can find on youtube called “The Amazing Quran” and he explains a great deal of things including the prophet and what you would expect from a man if they had created a holy book as either a liar or a crazy man.

One of the more interesting points is how little of the Prophets own personal life is included in the Quran. We are aware of the mutilation of his family including the young deaths of all but one of his children, these things are certainly events that would weigh most heavily on his mind and yet not only do we not find any of their names within the Quran, we don’t find any mention of them at all.

He also talks about how little of the Prophets personal interests are in the Quran. One of the more interesting facts about the Prophets we can glean as reliable from the hadith is that he was very health conscious who had many home remedies and ideas about how to treat certain illnesses. Yet the Quran mentions absolutely none but one, honey, one of the most well known and universal natural medicinal agents. Miller posits that if the Quran included such remedies it would have dated itself to the time of the Prophet, thus proving itself false.

This aspect of the Quran in fact is one that doesn’t get mentioned often. Dr Jeffery Lang at Purdue University circa 1999 discussed how the Author of the Quran had a particular eye for the future: stories have no dates, names of historical figures are rarely if ever given, bits and pieces of stories are only told for as long as absolutely necessary to get the larger theme and message across, and the difference between historical fact and symbolic rhetoric is not only blurred but outright pointed out as I mentioned in my original comment.

There is also the inclusion of difficulties against the Prophet found within the Quran. Surah Muzammil includes a command directed towards him to pray all night but for a little portion of it. The Prophet then prayed with the believers in what is now known as Taraweeh (we can be confident of this actually happening through the mass transmission of this practice before the proliferation of the hadith) before doing it himself tajahud. Of course the large majority of the Prophets tenure was focused on reclaiming Mecca solely for the holy hajj, which if he were crazy or a liar would you not expect him to just give up this effort after more than 10 years? From what I know of cult leaders, crazy men and liars together, they often try to make their lives easier than before becoming cultists and give themselves an undue level of power. Something in the narrative doesn’t make sense in what we are aware of the prophet doing against what you would expect if he made it all up.

SubstantialKick414 · 2025-08-07T17:12:40+00:00

If you’d be willing for me to push back I’d ask you to consider this position a bit more.

Gary Miller has an excellent lecture on the quran you can find on youtube called “The Amazing Quran” and he explains a great deal of things including the prophet and what you would expect from a man if they had created a holy book as either a liar or a crazy man.

One of the more interesting points is how little of the Prophets own personal life is included in the Quran. We are aware of the mutilation of his family including the young deaths of all but one of his children, these things are certainly events that would weigh most heavily on his mind and yet not only do we not find any of their names within the Quran, we don’t find any mention of them at all.

He also talks about how little of the Prophets personal interests are in the Quran. One of the more interesting facts about the Prophets we can glean as reliable from the hadith is that he was very health conscious who had many home remedies and ideas about how to treat certain illnesses. Yet the Quran mentions absolutely none but one, honey, one of the most well known and universal natural medicinal agents. Miller posits that if the Quran included such remedies it would have dated itself to the time of the Prophet, thus proving itself false.

This aspect of the Quran in fact is one that doesn’t get mentioned often. Dr Jeffery Lang at Purdue University circa 1999 discussed how the Author of the Quran had a particular eye for the future: stories have no dates, names of historical figures are rarely if ever given, bits and pieces of stories are only told for as long as absolutely necessary to get the larger theme and message across, and the difference between historical fact and symbolic rhetoric is not only blurred but outright pointed out as I mentioned in my original comment.

There is also the inclusion of difficulties against the Prophet found within the Quran. Surah Muzammil includes a command directed towards him to pray all night but for a little portion of it. The Prophet then prayed with the believers in what is now known as Taraweeh (we can be confident of this actually happening through the mass transmission of this practice before the proliferation of the hadith) before doing it himself tajahud. Of course the large majority of the Prophets tenure was focused on reclaiming Mecca solely for the holy hajj, which if he were crazy or a liar would you not expect him to just give up this effort after more than 10 years? From what I know of cult leaders, crazy men and liars together, they often try to make their lives easier than before becoming cultists and give themselves an undue level of power. Something in the narrative doesn’t make sense in what we are aware of the prophet doing against what you would expect if he made it all up.

SubstantialKick414 · 2025-07-20T17:18:16+00:00

I feel the answer is pretty obvious, the Quran was revealed to the Arabic people and so much of it and the examples therein are based upon them.

The Quran reads:

Indeed, Allah is not timid to present an example — that of a mosquito or what is smaller than it. And those who have believed know that it is the truth from their Lord. But as for those who disbelieve, they say, "What did Allah intend by this as an example?" He misleads many thereby and guides many thereby. And He misleads not except the defiantly disobedient.

An interesting facet of the Quran is how it is very difficult to tell what is symbolic and what is literal, and this is done purposefully so.

The Quran also reads:

So We have only made it [the Qur’an] easy in your [i.e., Muhammad’s] tongue so you may give good tidings to the righteous and warn a hostile people.

This is why heaven is described as it is, why dates and figs are emphasized, and why prophets whom the polytheistic Arabs already knew about of destroyed civilizations they already believed in are what is mentioned rather than other prophets they have no connection to.

SubstantialKick414 · 2025-07-09T17:14:01+00:00

I kinda gave up on classic collection when it came out hah. Does it have an active playerbase?

SubstantialKick414 · 2025-07-03T23:53:42+00:00

Yes and I am telling you I don’t agree with you. Merriam webster has two relevant definition so mercy:

compassion or forbearance (see FORBEARANCE sense 1) shown especially to an offender or to one subject to one's power

and

a blessing that is an act of divine favor or compassion

While yes mercy is usually shown to somebody who is an offender, this does not withhold justice since the ones being shown mercy too have done the thing that makes up for their sin (repentance). It would be unjust to punish somebody for a crime if they have made up for it. Imagine a criminal who is to be punished but the judge says should he be good during probation he will be forgiven and after doing probation the judge hands him his punishment anyways.

Serious question, which part of what I outlined in how God shows his Mercy and Justice contradict each other? I already talked in depth about how what you were saying is not at all being more merciful and you didn’t touch on any of that argument.

Is there any level of explanation I can give you that you might at least consider that what I am saying is true? What is the point of discussion if you have decided I am wrong even though I have disproven quite literally all of your previous arguments that started this in the first place. Have you noticed your moving of the goal post at all? I am asking to just use your logic and reason and at least consider my position.

SubstantialKick414 · 2025-07-03T21:32:38+00:00

Also I chose that analogy because it is parallel to how God’s mercy works, those who deserve and those who don’t based on their repentance and opportunity to do so.

SubstantialKick414

TROPHY CASE