Damn, I am like 0-2 in posting today~
Can these games really be called asymmetrical when we all have the same choice at the character select screen?
Or is it asymmetrical because I may like this character and you like another?
Or one’s lack of dexterity prevents him from playing a few characters?
Or I don’t like to play in a particular style so I avoid characters that play that way?
why shouldnt it?
SF has a story. Sagat and Akuma and Bison are among the strongest, Ryu ken next, etc etc etc (sue me if im wrong, i play mvc2).
If I follow the SF story and I like Sagat cause of how awesome and strong he is in the story, I’m going to be disappointed if I pick him and he’s the same damage output/priority/etc as Dan.
Or should the story be symmetrical too?
This is honestly sounding like just pretentious theory-philosophy. Like some dev (not you d3v) got drunk for the first time and started ranting about fighting games being unbalanced because he sucks at them
I think the author’s response to your question would be that the games are asymmetrical because the gameplay (everything after “FIGHT!”) involves opposing ways to approach the game which are unequal to each other. I say unequal not in terms of effectiveness, but rather in terms of application; in short, character selection is a way to limit the way in which the player can approach the game in most cases. A symmetrical game, for example, would probably offer a character or characters that would have access to a broader toolset and could play the way the player wanted without necessarily being limited strictly by the character.
I just dont see why asymmetry is a bad thing. It exists in literally everything.
From the lone comment, I think this is now what Sirlin thinks of the guy.
That’s a pretty arbitrary way of defining “when” to decide a game is asymmetrical or not.
Mind you I am not putting my personal opinion about this out there either way. I certainly hope you don’t intend to suggest that “gameplay” in fighting games begins before the “game is played.” I’m not even talking about anything meta or competitive or anything like that, but the gameplay begins…when the game begins. Even if that weren’t the case, you say that this distinction about gameplay is arbitrary, but asymmetry for fighting games is all about arbitrary limitations. One of the points the author attempts to make is that some choices in asymmetrical games are falsely advertised as “choice” when they are, indeed, “limitations” on how the player interacts with the game for what he describes several times as no real reason.
What’s more, again, he’s not specifically talking about fighting games even though the author does use a few in his examples.
The author isn’t saying asymmetry sucks. He’s saying games can be developed better and more thoroughly from the design point of view through symmetry instead of through artificial barriers and band-aids and whatever else he associates asymmetry with. That’s why this thread doesn’t belong in FG discussion, LOL, the context of this discussion is from ANY OTHER PERSPECTIVE than that of the competitive player!
in a nutshell he’s saying asymmetry in fighting games is a bad thing because its **impossible **to equally balance every character… thats his main complaint, because if you could equally balance every single character in any fighting game what would be the point of his article?
If you don’t think the game begins at the select screen then you started the match late.
Yeah, but why is a decision at the character select screen less valid than a decision after the start of the fight? I understand that Burgrun thinks this, what I don’t understand is why. Currently, it comes across as totally arbitrary. I haven’t yet heard a reason to assume that the game doesn’t start until the announcer says “FIGHT!”
I always figured tiers were a fair trade-off for the variety you get with fighters. Maybe there should be more symmetrical fighters out there, but one reason I prefer fighters over other genres is the variety.
And in shooters, I tend to prefer asymmetrical gameplay as well. Anyone remember Splinter Cell:CT? The multiplayer was a mash-up of 2 different genres, and it was insanely fun.
Yep, even if you main one character or team.
The only symmetrical games I know of that had a tournament play was Quake and a Unreal Tournament. Quake did become asymmetrical with Quake Wars though.
Even the first popular RTS had asymmetrical design which was Command & Conquer. GDI and Nod had different units and buildings even at the early levels of matches aka you just built your first barracks to make troops with.
So I don’t think the author is saying arbitrarily forced asymmetrical decisions (because that’s what they are) like character selection are invalid, I think he’s saying that he doesn’t think the player should have to make them.
And when I was talking about gameplay happening at “FIGHT!”, I was talking about ACTUAL GAME PLAY, not match play. Like…PLAYING THE GAME. Don’t take the capitalization as me thinking a certain way about you, but this particular point seems to not be reaching people. I’m, in my explanations, talking specifically about playing the actual game and explaining things in the context of the author almost explicitly looking at this from a non-player standpoint.
Again, what makes that decision any more arbitrarily forced than any other decision a player has to make?
I understand that you’re separating “playing the game” from “actual gameplay,” but saying that you’re doing it repeatedly doesn’t explain why we should. It’s weird to me to just decide that some part of the game just doesn’t count as gameplay, regardless of one’s perspective.
So we’re probably drifting away from the actual course of discussion and pressing on semantics and wording, so let me offer to right ourselves.
If we’re talking about decisions that the player is forced to make (like character selection), the author of this article is merely posing the idea that forcing the player to make decisions (like character selection) both 1] limit the ways in which they interact with the game and 2] provide a skewed way for players to decide strategy and tactics that’s masked under the guise of “choice” and how that choice combines with one’s own perception of “style of play” or an attraction to specific characters or character types.
What makes these decisions (arbitrary, forced, whatever) suboptimal for design is because, at least this is what I gather from the author’s point of view, players should focus on decisions that matter to them and their gameplay and anything they are required to decide should result from either some sort of determination about the way they want to play or as some sort of consequence of an action they made previously during the game. I would imagine in the author’s view, and probably in most designers’ views, that forcing players to do things for no real reason is generally not an optimal idea; the author views an asymmetrical idea like character selection and character archetypes as an unnecessary bridge a player has to cross when a well-designed symmetrical game can put forward a general environment that is just as robust and perhaps even more flexible than what we currently work with.
That’s what I’m understanding the author to say in terms of decisions that he feels players should or should not be making and how they affect the design of a game that can branch into complex asymmetry on its own without needing to introduce other forms of complexity.
Is this fair?
I don’t understand how the article writer can possible feel character selection isn’t a choice that matters to players, and this is why the article is garbage because he does a shit job (Or no job at all) explaining any of his points. He just presents positions and expects us to take them at face value. How is character selection not a decision that matters when it governs how your going to interact with the game. It’s arguably the most important decision you’re going to make in the match, hence why if you don’t think the match starts there, you’ve started late. Choosing your character is your opening move of the game. It’s no different then deciding where your first Pawn goes, or your first Go piece goes, or your first Checker. It’s your opening move.
He needs to explain how character selection is “Making a decision for no real reason” because as it stands his position is complete bullshit. Him arbitrarily deciding the character select screen is outside the scope of the game is stupid, and he does nothing to back up his points at all.
Quotation marks should be moved so it reads “debunking” assymetry. There were a couple interesting thoughts but nowhere near debunking anything.
Hmm.
The problem is that every time the player acts, the player is forced to make a choice; making choices is as much a part of symmetrical games as asymmetrical ones. Moreover, there’s no such thing as a choice that isn’t limiting; if I place a piece in one spot on the Go board, I cannot also place one at another point at the same time. As for point 2, tossing around words like “skewed” without supporting the claim is exactly what I’m talking about. How is character selection a more inherently skewed way of deciding tactics than any other?
I still don’t see why character selection isn’t the result of a determination about the way they want to play the game or arguably even the consequence of earlier play. Arguing new players won’t simply know which character reflects the way they want to play the game runs into the same problem; new players to any game can’t really know what style of play suits them.