Frankly I think Guilty Gear is a bad example of this. That game, for the most part, is very well respected and the player base as a whole is pining for a sequel. And again, I am in no way against having access to fixing issues in game play via hot fixes or fixing broken aspects of characters. What I am against is using that system as a safety net for allowing poorly thought out implementation of character specific game play aspects. It is not the run infinite, or any of the other BS that was rampant in MK9 that bothers me, as much as it is the small things that DO homogenize the game play. For example, Baraka has issues, NRS response, add damage to most moves, decrease damage scaling for Baraka, (character specific universal value adjustments are BS btw) and increase the pop up on his low hitting launch chain so it can make combo ops and chain into itself. Boom, suddenly Baraka is not Baraka, but a slightly different version of Kang. That is my issue with this type of BS. It is not well thought out. Baraka players bitched, fixes came in, and nothing was technically fixed for Baraka as much as he was given hit stun, launch height increases to increase damage potential, but no thought was put into How Baraka is SUPPOSED to play. These are fast knee jerk reactions to appease a player base that still doesn’t understand the game. There is nothing of note to compare it to. (MvC3 for example still has a very large base to draw ideas, test cases, character style archetypes in the VS family) MK9 is a hodgepodge of what NRS thinks worked in MK2/MK3 with a chain system from DA/Armagedon, and some half baked stance switching concepts that, for the most part, are barely elaborated on, let alone fully understood by even the advanced player base.
Seriously, I don’t hate this game, and I don’t think that having hooks into the spreadsheets that can control variables associated to move sets as a safe guard against serious balance issues instituted. I have an issue with using that as a way to make constant adjustments without regard for the overall feel of the game play, or for the resourcefulness of your player base.
Then again, this could in-fact, be exactly the way NRS wants MK9 to play out. We play, find broken or slightly unsavory stuff, they fix it, and we, as a collective whole, build the overall competitive landscape of MK9 through micromanagement of our casual and tournament play. It is an interesting idea, and a very interesting social experiment, but I wouldn’t necessarily call it great design, and certainly not a preferable method of balancing for competitive play.
This is NRS’s first shot at this type of game balancing, and frankly, there is a library of SF/VS/KOF/GG/VF/Tekken games that use the tried and true method of designing systems from the ground up with the specific goal of balanced, competitive game play. If MK9 is all we have to show for this “western” fighting game balance theory, it is a pretty questionable and rocky start.