In my mind, there are a few different ways to categorise crossovers. To begin with, we
can do so by purpose. There is the "Meets" crossover, and the "Versus" crossover. Meets
is fairly standard; it's born from the simple desire to explore what would happen if these
characters were to meet and interact. Versus, meanwhile, is predicated entirely on the idea
of the involved parties being pitted against each other in combat. Fights can still occur
in a Meets crossover, but that's generally a natural result of the clashing personalities
of the characters, whereas a Versus crossover will intentionally craft a scenario to lead
into a physical clash, which can often feel contrived. Obviously, I much prefer the former.
An example of a Meets crossover that results in a fight is Batman/Judge Dredd: Judgment
on Gotham. An example of a Versus crossover is basically any that has "Vs" in the title.
Or "V" if you hold nothing but contempt for the characters involved.
Another way to categorise crossovers (usually the Versus kind) is by how the characters
are divided for the conflicts to come. There are "Brand vs Brand" and "Good vs Evil". It's
fairly self-explanatory, but Brand vs Brand divides the characters based on their home
IPs, while Good vs Evil divides the characters based on their moral alignments. Mortal Kombat
vs DC Universe is an example of the former, while Marvel vs Capcom Infinite is the latter.
There are actually two other options: "One vs All", where it's every man for himself;
and "All vs One", where everyone comes together, regardless of brand or alignment to oppose
the final antagonist, a la Super Smash Bros Brawl's climax and the entirety of Smash Ultimate.
But, that's usually reserved for the climax and I'd like to focus on the pros and cons
of the other two approaches, as showcased by the two aforementioned games in their cinematic
story modes.
Both stories have the same basic premise: a big bad from each IP gets merged into a
new antagonist, who sets the merger of both universes into motion, resulting in heroes
and villains from both universes getting caught up in this conflict. The difference is that
the MK heroes and villains unite to fight the DC heroes and villains, while the Marvel
and Capcom heroes unite to defeat an alliance of their respective foes. I'm gonna steal
a bit from a friend of mine to discuss the pros and cons of these two approaches, in
the context of a fighting game story mode. Let's start with MvC.
Pro
MvCI goes for the MCU style of funny banter, which is ideal for a crossover story. You
get fun interactions between the characters, even if it's quite cringey and lost-in-translation
at times. It's undeniably fun to see Dante and Hawkeye's Legolas and Gimli-style kill
contest, or Morrigan hitting on Ghost Rider who is having none of it. And there are even
some nice non-comedic interactions, like how Ryu has apparently been helping Hulk to control
his rage, since that's something he himself has to deal with. For me, a crossover where
two characters just sit down and talk is way more interesting than one where they put their
personalities aside and just pit their movesets against each other. It's why I dislike Death
Battle so much.
Con
Because the cast is divided by alignment here, the enemy roster is pathetically small. After
all, you want to represent as many franchises from each side as possible, right? So, if
you're only going to have one Devil May Cry rep, it's going to be Dante, not Vergil. If
you have one Thor rep, it's Thor, not Loki. As a result, while you have a wide range of
playable heroes, the fights are mostly against generic Ultron bots until you reach one of
a handful of proper villains you only see once, making the game feel like it would work
better as an Ultimate Alliance-style action game, rather than a fighting game. The only
real variety comes in fights with other heroes, brought about by disagreements, misunderstandings,
or just mind control.
Now, onto MK vs DCU.
Pro
The cast being divided by IP means that nobody is placed into an "unfightable hero" category.
Everybody is fought at 2-4 times, aside from boss characters (and poor Scorpion), giving
us pretty much optimal variety when it comes to gameplay. Sure, we don't get to play as
everyone here either, thanks to Midway/Netherrealm's rigid story structure, but we do get to play
as the major villains, which is not the case in MVCI.
Con
However, keeping the characters locked to just their IP means we don't get the cool
team-up moments and fun banter MVC offers, with most interactions being antagonistic
in nature. We don't break from this style until the very last fight of the story, where
Raiden and Superman finally realise they aren't enemies and start working together. While
it was novel to see Shang Tsung or Kano working with their long-time nemeses, this was less
noteworthy on the DC side, and left the game feeling like a wasted opportunity.
In summary, Good vs Evil gives us really good interactions between the two IPs, but the
gameplay side suffers due to lack of variety (unless you let the villains win some fights);
while Brand vs Brand has much more variety in its opponents, but with crossover interactions
limited to fairly generic antagonism that is often artificially enforced.
So, what can we learn from these two games? How should these story modes be approached
in future fighting game crossovers, like the enigmatic Tekken X Street Fighter, or the
seemingly inevitable DOA vs KOF? Well, sticking to just one style is a mistake. Doing so sacrifices
variety of either matchups or interactions. I'd say the best approach is to go primarily
Brand vs Brand for the first act as the characters stick with the enemy they know and clash with
the other IP's characters. At the end of this act, the villainous alliance is formed or
exposed and we switch to Good vs Evil, possibly switching into All vs One for the climax,
where the main villain tries to dispose of his underlings, who then join the heroes to
oppose him. MVCI probably would have been like this, had they not... you know... skipped
the first act where everyone meets for the first time, which is easily the most interesting
and enjoyable part of most crossovers, and instead launched right into the start of the
second act.
If you liked this video, why not subscribe and support me on Patreon like these fine
people here? If not, then make sure to share it with your enemies so they can suffer along
with you.
Today's recommended content is Chris Gildart's Pros vs Cons videos on Warriors Orochi for
Musou May. I have to shill him because he's gonna come after me if I steal his bit without
pointing people to his content. I'm serious, he's immersed in the conflict of time-displaced
Chinese and Japanese warriors and he's gonna come at me like Lu Bu if I don't. Send help,
please.