There is a part of me that wishes Divekick had a “symmetric”, mode, though. There’s something appealing about the original version they had - no cruft or other mechanics / characters. Granted, some of the appeal is because of novelty. Since all fighters are asymmetrical, a symmetric one is going to stand out.
Look up Magic the Gathering variants called “EDH” or “Commander”. People who play them spend the vast majority of their time trying ti engineer interesting games, instead of numerous wins. I don’t understand it very well myself, but it’s a clear example for you.
I think that the main claims of the article are:
- Asymmetrical game design has inherent flaws
- All of the “good characteristics” commonly attributed to asymmetric games are either illusory or present in symmetrical games as well
- Because asymmetrical games are inherently flawed and their good aspects can also be achieved by symmetrical games, the ideal game design must be symmetrical
I agree with points one and two in the general sense, but I don’t think it is absolute. I think that there are flaws that asymmetrical games are inherently susceptible to, and that most of the design goals achieved by asymmetrical designs can be replicated in symmetrical games. However, I believe that it is possible through careful consideration and prodigious testing to avoid the common pitfalls. I also think that there are a couple of itches that only an asymmetrical game can truly scratch. The conclusion relies on the assumption that the first two are absolutely true. Since I only agree with them in the general sense, I do not agree with it.
I do not agree that the article was utter trash. I thought it was interesting.
Asymmetry gives people who arent good at one aspect of the game other options to still be competetive
Like a player who is mediocre with sent commando switching to MSP or the guy who doesnt have perfect rushdown execution so he picks cable cyke and stays on the ground and shoots everything or the guy who is lazy so he plays bbhood ironman juggernaut waiting for you to fuck up and get killed by a THC.
You can have that dynamic if every character could only do sent cap stuff
Well, in the article he states that
So it seems like instead of the playstyle variety that multiple characters adds, he wants more character independent subsystems added to the core engine, to allow players to express themselves even in mirror matches.
I imagine that a symmetrical fighter, by this guy’s standards of good symmetrical games he lists in the article, would be one in which you have one character with a full game’s worth of moves and character specific mechanics along with tons of universal system mechanics, so as to have the same depth without taking options away from either player based on their choices before the match starts.
CvS2 where Ryu has every character’s specials and supers, along with all grooves at the same time and several other meters and multiple BB/GG type character specific subsystems along with multiple engine level system mechanics from multiple games could be an interesting experiment, but eventually you would run out of buttons and motions to use all these options. I guess if it was a PC title and used every key on the keyboard…
I’m pretty sure you can. Mike Ross plays a more aggressive Honda than most other people. Mago plays a defensive Akuma. You just take that concept and run with it, just like in chess where distinct playstyles emerge despite the symmetry.
Interesting concept. A fighter like that still may get pretty stale though. And if it were to use some input device with a ridiculous amount of buttons, that would be a little overwhelming, and counter-productive. People would just figure out what which strategies work best and use those, ignoring everything else just to avoid the confusion. Then you’d have a handful of super-geniuses dominating the whole community simply because they are better at using all of those buttons.
But even without a ton of buttons to remember, that would be a bit much to learn. With current fighters, you have to learn the moves and a few combos of your chosen characters, and the rest you can forget while you’re in a match. If there was only one fighter, you’d have to know everything at the same time, or else you’d be at a disadvantage. Of course, that’s negated by my previous point, about only using the best strategies.
I think a more feasible option for a symmetrical fighter, would be to have a variety of fighters, but always a mirror match. Then implement some sort of 3 out 5 system(or something like that) where specific fighters are used for each subsequent match. Really, that’s something that can be done now in any fighting game, if the players agree to it beforehand
Man that sounds way more complicated then it needs to. Meter Management would be insane.
I haven’t read the article cuz I’m headed to bed. Will do so after work tomorrow, but I don’t really feel, at the moment, that one philosophy is better then the other. Seems narrow minded to present such an idea.
If every character had the same options, then it doesnt matter if you moved a queen or a pawn because they both can move everywhere on the board.
And what a boring and less deep game chess would be if that was the case
That’s a complete misnomer. Symmetry is about both sides being equal whatever tools they have, not having every button be Hadouken.
You lost the thread of the analogy. The “pieces” are the “moves”. People can be aggressive or defensive in chess, despite having the same pieces to play with.
Not necessarily - ‘International Karate +’ was brilliant.
I disagree with this article when it comes to fighting games because I, personally, feels fighting games don’t begin when the announcer says “fight.” They begin at the character select screen, at that point in the game everyone has the same chance of acquiring the best tools available to win, at that point the players choose the tools they feel give them the best opportunity to win. To think the game hasn’t begun just because it’s the character select screen is flawed imo.
With that said I don’t understand half of this article. WTF is Componential Asymmetry with regard to videogame asymmetry? The components that make up the game? If so I feel this backs up my stance above, as the select screen is a component of the game, it is not outside the bounds of the game.
I think his first point about Asymmetry making the player into a designer is not only silly, but puzzling cuz he makes it sound like giving the player a choice of play style based on Avatar is a bad thing. Since when are choices a bad thing? This doesn’t make you into a designer, it makes you into a pro-active participant in the proceedings. Your deciding how your “play piece” is going to handle, what works best for you. This isn’t a bad thing.
Elegance is over rated to, and his paragraph on it does nothing but make him sound lazy and unwilling to invest time in something that requires a deep understanding of match ups. He’d rather the play field be even so he only needs to understand what he can do, cuz that way he knows what they can do as well, without having to invest the time in learning beyond his own skill set.
Balance is over rated. Asymmetrical games require the dedication to continue to work on the project long after it’s “done” in order to tighten the tier list, and this takes an ass load of work and dedication but it can be done, and is worth while to do, but he comes off as preferring to design symmetrical games because it’s easier. While this may, or may not be true, it doesn’t debunk anything. It just says that one is harder then the other and requires more work and attention, and that he’s not interested in doing as such. It’s not a point, it’s a preference.
Also character selection is ABSOLUTELY a strategic decision and to say otherwise makes me think he doesn’t understand wtf he is talking about in regard to fighting games, or games like Star Craft and the like. To say the decision you make “At the select screen” is not a strategic decision is silly. I don’t even really understand how he can say this isn’t a strategic decision, as your deciding on what your tools are going to be. Hence why i say this is where the game truly begins, at not at the “Fight” announcement.
He’s also not really going into depth on some of the claims he is making. How is SFII’s system flat? Even if you had only Ryu to choose from, Ryu is capable of bveing played a multitude of ways, and the system offers a lot of different ways to use him. Just the way the game handle how his Hurricane kick works depending on how you use it (To copter in, to copter out, to use it as a meaty to shunt wake up, to pass over projectile) shows the system does have a lot of depth to it beyond just the move itself at the most basic level, to move forward across the screen. Even beyond that, random damage output, changing input windows, a dynamic dizzy system. Just WTF about SFII’s system is flat? Also it’s not about just seeing how two characters push up against eachother. I’m not understanding this “Grass is greener” thing. I’m not playing Sol Badguy till I’ve seen all his combos and then quiting. I’m applying them against other people, and the different way they handle their avatars. Hell the way I play Sol isn’t the way someone else may play Sol, so it;s not about just seeing what they can do and then moving on, it’s about seeing if you can apply them BETTER then someone else.
…What? You mean a game can’t be symmetrical and asymmetrical at the same time? Why? Why does it have to be one or the other? Why do you have to limit options in order to force your circular game through the square hole?
In defense 4 is really saying that people don;t have a natural affluence to strategic thinking and style of play? That someone would naturally click better with Rush Down strategy over Defense and Distance? That has nothing to do with not knowing how the game plays before you play it, and everything to do with how our brains handle, process, and then deliver information, and our brains do this differently. Mine doesn’t work exactly like your does, or his does, or someone else does, and thus is more naturally affluent to digesting specific strategic styles over others at the introductory level. This seems super narrow minded to me, like he thinks people should be able to understand and adapt to every kind of play style easily at the beginning of the game because it’s new or something.
That’s why Asymmetrical games offer a verity of play styles in the form of avatars, so you CAN play the way you like to, even before you played the game. Not to say Symmetrical games can’t do this either as that’s clearly not true, but honestly he’s not saying anything here. He’s just dismissing something because it doesn’t align with his stance, and then giving a round about reason as to why. I mean shit I can do that. “Playing fighting games is about the creative search for more optimal ways of using a character within a multitude of situations, and good players know to find what works and discard what doesn’t.” The “Personal Expression” point isn’t a point because it doesn’t do anything to “debunk” asymmetry. It’s just there to fill in space and distract you from the fact that so far he hasn’t really made much of a point.
Learning 1 character =/= learning match ups. I honestly am beginning to think his claims about knowing how to play fighting games (or SFII anyway) are bullshit. While having pocket characters is a good idea, you can do well, go far, whatever, with only one character in most asymmetrical games. You don’t have to learn to play Zangeif. You just need to know how to keep his hands off you, and that’s pretty different from learning how to actually play him.
Using LoL as his main example that all asymmetric games are flawed is stupid as fuck because LoL isn’t a very good game to begin with.
Then you are either playing a shitty game, or you suck balls at the game. Most people I meet who spend as much time arguing about Tier Lists as they do playing the game tend to also really really suck at the game. They are so invested in the theory of the game they have shitty practical knowledge of the game. They spend too much time going “This should work!” instead of going “I’ve done this and I know it works.” This also not a point against Asymmetry, it’s just a point about shitty players playing games like shit.
His point about counter picking proves that the game starts at the select screen, which completely invalidates most of the top half of the article about character select not being a strategic decision. Oops.
While he’s right that asymmetry does at a lot of content to the game, and a a lot complexity, But he did a pretty pitiful job of explaining how these are bad things, and on top of all of this he never once bothers to talk about any kind of negatives to symmetrical games. Yea sure Guilty Gear is a complex assymetrical game that’s hard to learn, but the hardest game i ever tried to learn was fucking Go, a symmetrical, perfectly even game. Waaaaaay the fuck more complex the Guilty Gear, and one you can fuck up on move on.
Which is another thing why are people pointing out that asymmetrical games make it hard for you to get into cuz you can mess up so easily if you don’t understand what you’re doing, as if this doesn;t apply to every fucking thing on earth? You can fuck up in chess from move one. Same with Go, or shit Checkers. It’s like people think this only applies to asymmetrical games or something. You mean cuz choosing the shoe in monopoly isn’t a fuck up that the games easier to play really really well then Three Musketeers cuz can you choose whether to be the 50 marble army, or the 3 marble Musketeers?
I dunno, the article sounds like justification for being lazy, to make the easier game, not because he likes them better, but because they are easier to make. That doesn’t debunk anything, except the idea that he has motivation to do something hard.
I think the article’s main problem is that Burgrun apparently doesn’t feel the need to back up his claims. The reader is informed that the engine of Street Fighter II was not “elastic” and “interesting,” without any explanation of why it isn’t elastic or interesting or, for that matter, what those words even mean in this context; we’re just supposed to accept, move on, accept everything else, and then be converted to a claim we do not and arguably cannot understand. It’s hard to be convinced by an argument that doesn’t actually explain or justify its points, but it’s also unfair to discount its premises simply because they’re poorly articulated.
imagine a street fighter game with just one character but that one character has the move set of the entire main street fighter cast. The obvious benefit I can see in a game like this is not having to balance any particular characters.
Mirror matches would be the only option (just like chess) but the fact that you have a wide variety of moves and tactics to switch from seems interesting… would a game like this work? I dont think anyone would know for sure because its never been done.
Urgh, isn’t that called Rainbow edition, you had access to all the characters all the time since you could switch mid game so technically isn’t that one character with all the moved and the article writer’s ideal game?
Rainbow edition for ultimate symetrical fighter.
Like, so…
I’m not sure why people are getting hung up on the character select screen.
All this dude is saying is that (IDEALLY) with regards to symmetry, the tools, tactics and strategy a player uses to determine their best way to win shouldn’t start at the character select screen. Remember that he regards modern day play-to-win thinking at the character select screen as a decision that the player shouldn’t have to make–why would you give the player options that are non-starters for winning (i.e., bad characters, incomplete characters, characters that are watered-down versions of other characters, characters just not equipped to function in the game, etc.)?
Now, an ideal symmetrical game would only have one character (which I think is another thing people get too hung up on), but I think general asymmetry would just call for a greatly pared-down roster with more or less universal tools to use so that the player can choose their path to victory. It’s not saying give every character every other characters’ moves or making all moves the same or anything equally retarded, but rather to shift the focus onto pretty much a universal toolbox instead of just “moves”. That toolbox might obviously vary slightly from one character to another, but would be more focused on a solid engine and a more kind of “custom” experience overall, instead of “pick X character, do X things.”
I think people need to not read this article from the POV of a player, LOL. Players look for the direct opposite things in games that developers do–this def doesn’t belong in FG Discussion, haha.
P.S. - Edited egregious mistakes between symmetry and asymmetry.
Wouldn’t that be a symmetrical game then?
I mentioned that in the comments of the article. Also mentioned how people simply switched to Ken ASAP so that they could DP and open a portal to fireball hell.
So instead of picking characters because of how good they are in game you should pick them because of how “cool” you think they are or how much you like them?
Meh. I like and think characters are cool BECAUSE of how good
Chess isn’t symmetrical.
I’m really not getting was is not “ideal”. That the characters/race are more than avatars? That the variables are overwhelming? It would be improved to have access to all tools on hand?
“Ideal” design also ignores tastes/preferences of the consumer.
It’s just too much theory for me, I need to see this “ideal” symmetrical game with all the fun parts of asymmetrical design because I find it hard to imagine.
Sorry, was getting my vocab mixed up. My bad. 
Not quite. The dude is just saying how good a character is shouldn’t be a factor in character selection. What other parameters you choose are whatever, but the character selection and, in turn, the way in which you are then allowed to interact with the game shouldn’t limit the player.