Way to misquote and misinterpret. Essentially, my question was, “how is this one game where everyone has access to similar movement options somehow more homogenized and worse than this other game where everyone also has access to similar movement options?” Apparently, you think everyone having similar options, but having less of them, is somehow better than everyone having similar options, but having a little more of them.
Yeah, because I totally mentioned attacking options during any of my posts. That’s not the focus here; the focus is on basic movement. (And for the record, I agree with you that shoto characters are very homogenized; despite slight differences in their attacks, they’re all just fireball/anti-air characters who play very similarly.) We also seem to have differing definitions on “homogenization” and different views on what types of similarities are acceptable and which ones are bad. Similarities in basic movement are acceptable and necessary for any fighting game to have any sort of steady framework. What kind of fighting game would it be if one character could walk, jump, and run, another character could only walk, another character could only run, another character could only jump, another character could only teleport, etc. etc. Movement-wise, you’d have a diverse cast, sure. But at a cost, because now some people without basic areas of movement have had multiple options taken away from them. Every game needs some sort of basic framework, although it’s good to have a few characters who break the mold.
On the other hand, homogenization in attacks is, needless to say, a bad thing, since it’s the most defining factor in determining the uniqueness of a character.
Wait. You add more things into the offensive and defensive game, giving players more options to think about when attacking and defending, which somehow creates less depth?
Did you seriously read what you typed just now? I think you need to sit in that dunce corner that you presented for me. I’m not sure why I’m either responding to you at this point, seeing as you clearly are on a tunnel-visioned path to idiocy, and anything that disagrees with what you say will just fly over you head, but here goes anyway.
In a game like Street Fighter, when I’m in the air, I have significantly less options compared to when I’m on the ground. I can only make one attack before I hit the ground, I can’t change my trajectory, and most of the time, I can’t even block. In most situations, being in the air means I’m a sitting duck, and it’s significantly more dangerous to be there than on the ground. Hence, most of the game is a ground game, with ground space control being a key factor. It’s almost the only factor, as the air, while still an option, isn’t nearly as viable as the ground. So the defensive game is almost entirely based in this one dimension; the ground.
But in an airdasher, when I’m in the air, I have just as many options there as I do on the ground. I can do more than one attack, I can change my trajectory by double jumping or airdashing, I can block, and other such things. This means that I now have a new viable dimension for my offensive approach, which greatly expands my options. On the defensive end, I now have much more to think about in my defense, as my opponent now has the air and the ground to approach from. But given that the game was based around this airdash framework, the defending player is also given the same amount of options to deal with this new dimension. So as both players now have a larger amount of offensive and defensive options, the game has more depth as a result. The mindgames that you’re so fond of become greater, because now each player has a larger palette to select from.
But you seem to believe that more options = less depth, so I don’t know what to say.
Not necessarily. Enhanced movement is also crucially important to the defensive game as well. And fighting games with airdashes–here’s a shocker–have their fighting system built around characters having airdashes.
“SF is players waddling back and forth” is just as much of a silly exaggeration as your comments that “airdash fighters are all mindless rushdown.” So I make the same recommendation to you for that latter comment.
You’ll also notice that I never said that the ground game was unimportant. This is a problem that I’ve seen with you during the time that I’ve lurked here; you tend to thrust words into other people’s mouths. My comment was that making the air a viable space increased depth rather than decreasing it. “Footsies” by themselves isn’t one of the most important factors in a fighting game. I agree, ground control is very important. But overall “space control” is more important; managing overall space and distance between you and your opponent. And fighting games with airdashes certainly don’t neglect that, as has been explained to you countless times.
Just throwing in mechanics willy-nilly is bad design. I agree with you there. But if you put in certain mechanics, and then base your fighting system and characters around those mechanics, then it’s good design. And most good air-based fighters do that.
Now, wasn’t this thread supposed to be about “fairness and balance?”
Less than half the viable cast has an air dash in VS.