I am near the totality line, but stressing over this problem resulted in me giving up planning to see it.
Seeing the eclipse directly would be cool, sure, but it will certainly be photographed extensively. I feel like permanently damaging my vision is way too likely buying something off of Amazon, and I don’t have a clue where else I can find them.
If you can get to an area where it will be in totality, you can see it without eye protection during that brief 2-3 minute window. The danger to your eyes is when it's at anything less than full total eclipse.
Workaround: You can see the eclipse with a low tech solution of a pinhole camera. Google it for a better explanation, but
-poke a pin through a sheet of paper.
-during the eclipse, just hold it over something like another sheet of paper and you can see an accurate projection of the sun as the eclipse progresses
It's actually pretty neat.
But if your weather is good, consider going to a place where the eclipse will be total. I'm in the path, but I'm seriously considering driving several hours to a place with a better weather forecast. I've seen good quality photo and video of total eclipses since I was a child. And the people who showed it to me (astronomy nerds from a club) told me "it's not the same."
Thank you, yes…I’ll probably do the pinhole camera I suppose. I won’t be quite in totality, so definitely don’t want to risk it without protection. But I might try Lowes, from BeardedBlaze’s recommendation, since I assume there’s accountability in their distribution chain.
I’m driving about 15 hours (over 2 days, not all at once, lol) from Virginia to the totality path with a “just ok” forecast. I made a similar trip in 2017. It is definitely not the same as looking at a picture. It’s the changes in atmosphere, the insects’ behavior, the light quality all around you that make a totality viewing special. If you can make it somewhere with decent enough skies, you will be glad you did.
I buy a lot of my telescope equipment from Celestron so I got their kit. It was like $2 more than the knockoff brands but I like my eyeballs so went with a company I trust with relatively inexpensive optics.
Mortal Kombat 9, also known as “Mortal Kombat” or “Mortal Kombat (2011)” is where the modern canon starts. It’s also delisted from sale, so you’ll need to find a used copy for consoles or pirate it for PC. It’s a soft reboot of the story and also establishes the bar for what fighting game story modes should be. It’s campy and leans into it, and that’s the tone that MK always has when it’s at its best.
Mortal Kombat X and Mortal Kombat 11 are sequels to that, and they escalate the ridiculousness. These are direct sequels, so while they make efforts to ensure you can understand what’s happening even if you haven’t played the games before, MKX is best enjoyed after playing MK9, and MK11 is best enjoyed after playing MKX.
Mortal Kombat 1 is another soft reboot, but (slight spoiler) it also does this while preserving the canon of, and sequeling, MK9, MKX, and MK11.
MK9 is a throwback to your favorite characters with modern (at the time) mechanics.
MKX brings back the run button and tries to keep all of the different versions of each character over the years in the same game via its “variation” system.
MK11 tries to do away with some superfluous features of MKX while adding more defensive options.
MK1 introduces “kameos”, which is like a Marvel vs. Capcom 1 style assist system.
MK9 is also the start of the modern game mechanics, in addition to the story. They established the current gameplay formula in MK9, and have been iterating on it since then.
Unless you really want to play the classic games, I think MK9 is the best starting point.
edit: Wait wtf am I talking about you obviously start with the movie from 1995.
I thought Mortal Kombat 1 was a good introduction to the series for me. The cinematic story is a banger in the first 2 thirds, and the final part is weak, but doesn’t break its neck.
And for quite some hours I had a lot of fun just playing it. However the gameplay will not hold up past the 2 week honeymoon phase, with all the bugs, pricing, always online and truly awful invasion mode, which is the core single player experience next to the story.
So it depends what you expect of it, other fighting games are just better in many aspects.
I remember thinking that it was the pinnacle of graphics. I mean, it was photos of real people, that had to be as realistic as games could possibly look.
MK2 was my first, and i still think it’s one of the best, or the most classic. MK1, the roster is too small and it’s too basic. MK2 is where it embraces the classic MK vibes. UMK3 remixes that with more modern styling and character elements, which was interesting in progression, but I think you could skip straight from MK2 to Trilogy and just drop in the deep end of the character craziness.
MK4 was also an interesting one in terms of characters and the shift into 3D for the first time. It wasn’t… great… but it was interesting.
After that, I wasn’t a big fan of the early modern 3D MK games, I couldn’t even play them all since they didn’t come out for PC (yes, I’m still bitter), but again I feel like you could skip these straight to Armageddon for early modern-era character craziness. It’s basically a generational sequel to Trilogy.
Then we get to the ‘last gen’ modern era of 9, X, 11, which i thought were great fun, and worth playing. The story is a ridiculous soap opera, but that’s critical MK DNA. Mechanics further refined, good character options. Other people already discussed these.
I haven’t played 1 yet, but it’s clearly another soft reboot, and looks really good to me.
Ofc this is all just my view on it. I have nostalgia and bias towards MK2, (3) and Trilogy :D
To give two sides of answers to your question: I played the early MK games on the Sega Genesis, and I would say start where you want.
As others have said, the new canon for the series starts with the 2011 game. But honestly, the 2011 game is very similar to the OG games. If you only played the OG, then the new games will only be a better version of what you played up until that point.
If you only played the new ones, it gives prominent backstory to various characters, and the gameplay is almost identical. It’s a great starting point for newcomers.
Biggest difference is that the new games try to make everything one seamless story, the idea being comic book multiverse things, where in one universe, Ryu isn’t the God of Lightning, but a simple student at the temple. Stuff like that.
TL;DR: There’s no bad place to start in the Mortal Kombat games.
Going back though, I’d probably just skip the first now. 2 improved on 1 in every way. 3 and ultimate was also good but a bit bloated. Then we get a slew of mixed to bad games until we get to the nether realms era.
So basically play 2 then play series that starts with the 2011 Mortal Kombat
bin.pol.social
Najstarsze