Mixed or average reviews - based on 31 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 15 out of 31
  2. Negative: 0 out of 31
  1. 78
    Though neither one of them are strong as the '94 through '97 installments, they're still very good when compared to more recent combat titles like Budokai 2 and Bloody Roar 4. Even if their graphical qualities and production values do leave a lot to be desired.
  2. Regardless of its presentation, The King of Fighters 2000/2001 contains two solid ports of two great 2D fighting games, and the two-disc compilation retails at a very reasonable suggested price of $40.
  3. Don’t expect breakthrough graphics or new innovations, expect King of Fighter nostalgia and good old fashion 2D fighting.
  4. While it may not be fair to say that if you've played one fighting game, you've played them all, I could probably say with certainty that if you've played more than a few fighting games you've played better ones than KOF 2000/2001.
  5. It won't inspire anyone to forsake "Virtual Fighter" or "Tekken," but for fans who don't already own this on Dreamcast, it's a boon. [Dec 2003, p.146]
  6. 75
    Not as good as "Guilty Gear X2" and maybe "Capcom vs. SNK 2," and is so complex and steeped in tradition that it's not the best introductory package for someone wholly unfamiliar with The King of Fighters.
  7. 70
    By today’s standards, these games probably won’t mean much to gamers who grew up on the combo flow-charts of Tekken and Soul Calibur, but these King games are nevertheless very playable thanks to responsive controls and intuitive easy-to-execute moves.
  8. With dozens of characters to master, hundreds of possible teams, and the variety of strategies that the strikers make possible, King of Fighters 2000 might be worth the purchase by itself. 2001 is a decidedly inferior effort, but is still occasionally entertaining.
  9. There aren’t many extras in each title and the two titles feel dated. But hardcore fight fans get a lot substance for a little cash.
  10. They are fun, interesting, huge, and have considerable depth within the gameplay. But I find reality frustrating enough to not want to pick up a game that threatens to compound that frustration further.
  11. 60
    Those of you who are patient enough to learn its intricacies, and open-minded enough to put up with its modest production values will find a rich experience.
  12. Both games sound really good, however. Plenty of digital dialogue clips were recorded for each character in the games. All the sound effects of the originals have successfully made the jump to the PS2.
  13. Words can't really describe how unbearable 2000's graphics are. They are blocky, unpolished and the colours used for the characters are pretty appalling.
  14. Not a lot of surprises, not a lot to be called revolutionary...just a double-dose of some of the finest gameplay ever. [Dec 2003, p.72]
  15. Ravaged by age and running on obsolete technology, it's uglier than ever. Still, you can't call KOF incompetent - atrociously lazy and reluctant to change, but not incompetent. [Jan 2004, p.133]
  16. For those who missed the boat on those games and really like the King of Fighters series, or are just looking for a new 2D fighter, this title won’t disappoint despite looking a tad dated.
  17. It feels good on the PS2 pad, even, though a joystick is (of course!) preferable.
  18. It's not significantly superior to 2000, but we defy any fighting game fan not to be totally entertained and impressed by the scope for astonishingly satisfying and complex battles in both titles.
  19. The bigger problem is that 2000 and 2001 aren't the best games in the series. [Jan 2004, p.123]
  20. It may not push the boundaries of the genre in any real way, but it does provide a wealth of characters, depth and generally well-balanced gameplay. [Feb 2004, p.32]
  21. This set is reasonably priced, and features two of the most playable fighting games to come along in years.
  22. A game that is generally easy to control, but that has a lot of issues when it comes to the finer movements usually associated with the special attacks and combos used by most characters.
  23. Ultimately, the main reason to pick up this 2-pack is its "bang for the buck." Two excellent fighting games for $30 is a bargain.
  24. The big downer is that both games have some animation censored (no bouncing boobies), and no blood.
  25. These two versions of SNK’s long-running franchise compensate for their outdated visuals and muffled sounds with well-honed and rewarding gameplay that’s as hard as it is rewarding if you’re into this type of game.
  26. The only problem with SNK's KoF double-pack is the two KOF's SNK chose to pack together. [Jan 2004, p.72]
  27. All in all KOF 2000 and 2001 are average games. The gameplay is the same as in any other fighting game. Plus, there is a lack of customization in every department.
  28. If ‘old school’ to you means the class of Eton 2003 then this is not your thing, if on the other hand you’re a graduate of the early nineties arcades then it’s a welcome return for some streetwise gaming.
  29. 67
    SNK creates quirky, memorable characters with interesting moves, and KOF 2001 in particular showcases a huge number of these. [Jan 2004, p.58]
  30. Graphically, both King of Fighters 2000 and 2001 are nearly pixel-perfect ports. Unfortunately, this is as much a liability as anything. The character sprites are low-resolution, as befits three-year-old Neo-Geo games, and the backgrounds are muddy and annoyingly aliased.
  31. The unlockables are likely only going to appeal to hardcore KoF fans, but the huge number of fighters and team combinations can keep players in search of D-pad kung fu mastery playing for a long time.

There are no user reviews yet.