I’m a little rusty, since I haven’t played any fighting games in a couple weeks, but last time I played one, the characters were part of the game, and “balance” was between the characters.
Just briefly (haven’t had time to read the whole thread, so sorry for any repeats):
fishjie: Thanks for the follow-up. I can really see what you’re saying now. Reminds me of the way 3S players never approved of the DC “modified” version, and the general dislike of SFZ3Upper. Maybe Capcom should forget patches (especially such late ones) and focus on learning from the past as they make new titles?
Demon: After posting, I looked around SRK at your other posts, and realised how stupid I’d been. Sorry for not thinking before I acted. :sad: For what it’s worth, I was informed today that in a recent major 3S team tourney in Japan, an Akuma player dominated strongly, winning it for his team. I know 3S has obvious tier problems but there’s certainly something there worth exploring (if you still enjoy Akuma and 3S enough to want to keep at it).
Ignorant? No, it was based on logic and experience. Worded like an insensitive, condescending tool? Definitely. :sad: I really am unhappy that I went off the deep-end the way I did to begin with when I posted, as Demon was just letting off steam about something, and I need not have made such an insulting reply.
As for justifying the comment? (Tone aside, since that has no justification at all.) It’s because I’m inclined in that exact same way, just on the opposite side. I’m terrible at FPS/RTS (as you’d all have guessed), and I like to play with people in person rather than over the net. (I enjoy the face-to-face social aspect. BTW I personally like team gaming most when I’m weak at something, as I find it easier to get started with experienced players in that case.) But even though I can’t play FPS/RTS well, I’ve never called these games “broken”, and don’t appreciate when people tell me I’m failing to evolve as a gamer by staying with fighting games.
I was frustrated about many comments along these lines I’ve been hearing elsewhere, and again apologise for coming into here to take out that furstration out on the current discussion. (“Enter at your own risk” indeed. 
)
Watching Chikyuu play Twelve and Necro reminded me that 3s is still reasonably balanced, more so than a lot of other 2d fighters. He made them look equal to Chun Li when playing RF’s Chun.
Unless the character is REALLY sucky, it’s down to the player to work around strengths and weaknesses. It’s just that it’s a lot EASIER for ppl to pick Chun/Yun/Ken and dominate, and not too many ppl in the west seem to bother putting effort into lesser characters like Makoto, Dudley, Urien, Oro, Elena etc.
There are some dope players for most 3s characters, but not nearly as many as there are Chun/Yun/Ken users.
Of course I admit the lowest chars like Sean, Q, Twelve and Hugo might be a waste of time for most ppl, lol
As for balance, yeah VF owns. And look out for Tekken 5, they are trying to avoid the mistakes of the past and make it more balanced and like VF in some way. We’ll see.
Of course I prolly haven’t said anything you guys already didn’t know, quick reply button just making me post a lot more than usual (3 posts in 3 days!)
Rehan (Dead Man Inc.)
Serpent, your post is contradictory. Nobody runs from a balanced game. GGXX and all it’s incarnations are balanced due to the system and global options for all characters. Diversity is sacrificed for balance. THis is ingenious because you can still make the characters have VERY different options (something GG is known for) while they all still hve a fighting chance due to the global system specifics.
This is why it seems as if, when you see match vids, that May is played more similar to Millia than Ryu is to Ken. You, unfortunetaly, ahve decided to either feign ignorance or be ignorant about many things.
"If you want to talk about credibility, iirc, jcase is a pretty credible source. He’s an OG SF tourney player, and I believe he now works for a gaming mag. I’d actually think he’s somewhat of an authority on analyzing fighting games. Maybe I’m confusing him with someone else, but I don’t think I am."
OK… so?
“I think you need to go work in game development before you babble all this nonsense.”***
I have more experience in game development than you know. Next question.
"You give them far too little credit, while at the same time giving them far too MUCH credit for what they’re doing. If they’re smart enough to give certain characters options, then theres no reason why they can’t do that for everyone else."
While I won’t deny your Wolverine example, i’d still say you’re giving them far too little credit. Certain problems come up when you deal with liscenced games. Tell me, who is it they’re trying to appeal to in SF3TS by making certain characters good? Your arguement fails there, as Akuma rocked houses in 2I and now struggles in 3S. The tiers are rather different, now…
*
There are two philosophies to balancing games. Theres the ‘give everyone something broken’ and the ‘make everyone suck’.*
I’m sorry, but that shows your lack of knowledge on the subject. There is a medium, and it’s actually very plausible. YOU seem to associate a character not having something broken as being a character that sucks. If you have a Ryu vs Ryu match in 3S, which one is broken? Which one sucks? In essence, the match is balanced, and in order to fit with your philosophy, ONE of them has to suck. Heck, what about a Chunners vs Chunners match? There’s balance. Which one sucks? Which one is broken?
History has shown that players prefer the former style because the game is just more fun, and something stupid doesn’t unbalance the game.
Players prefer the former style? So… SVC has outsold every game in exestence and Mortal Kobat is the best game on the face of the earth? Those games are broken. Why aren’t they destroying the competition? And here’s the fun part:
"Every character has a chance because they all have damage options."
You need BROKEN things to do that? So… no one has damage options in Guilty Gear XX? That game is far from very broken and many say it’s got great balance. Last I checked, every character isn’t uber broken. I win matches with Ibuki in 3S. How, if she has no damage options? Dudley isn’t broken and he messes crap up? So… what exactly do you mean?
"Your comment that it shows that people want characters to be cheap is the dumbest thing I’ve ever read."
I like how your arguement is so weak that you take things beyond their context. That comment was directed to Demon. It was obvious because I quoted him. Bt tell me, you can you say that the best way to balance a game is to make everyone broken (i.e. cheap) and that that’s what people want (you said this, by the way) and then tell me I made a dumb comment saying that everyone wants characters to be cheap (which I did not say, but still…)
"People just want to have a chance, and have character variety. Thats how you balance a game."
That above doesn’t even make sense. People want to have a chance and character varaiety… that’s how you balance a game…? O…k… but now i’m nitpicking. There is no problem with people having a chance. There is no problem with character variety. The problem lies with you believing that Capcom is keeping all their games unbalanced on purpose. As if they can PREDICT who will be top tier in all their games. As if they KNEW RCing was in CVS2. Heck, if they flet making Chun Li so unbalanced would attract more players to TS, then they probably would have put her in the earlier SF games, right?
Nerfing all characters NEVER works, because something slips through and as a result a character is too good because of something retarded.
You’re argueing with yourself. You can take away broken crap and not necessarily nerf all characters. If you’re going to make counter points, at least counter points that i’ve made. I never even mentioned anything remotely close to ‘nerfing all characters.’ You are just saying not to keep broken crap out of games and that it’s better for everyone to have broken crap. Maybe we have different definitions of “broken” in mind, because last I checked, broken (i… the Geese SVC infinite) was a BAD thing.
"Take MSHvSF for example. Omega Red is good because of cr Roundhouse that most of the cast simply has no option against. Even if they beat it, at most they can do what, a quarter life damage? Whereas Red does what, half at least? Thats just dumb. And thats why thats known as one of the worst games Capcom has ever released."
I actually like that one, but that’s just personal preference. It’s my favorite vs game, but also the first one I played, so i’m biased. However, as you don’t know, the common view on that game is that it was… well, a bit boring and lacked options. XMen vs SF was WAY worse when it came to balance. In a sense, you’re arguement of “give everyone something broken” makes sense in that regard. Everyone had some firckin crazy options in XvsS. So people thought it wasn’t THAT unbalanced. Is there room for that in most games? No. Infinites for all characters in TS? No one wants that. Tekken? No. VF? No.
"Or take CvS2, Blanka and Sagat on paper really aren’t that good, but since everyone else got nerfed, they become good for stupid reasons."
BS. You made that up. RCing, high priority on things… frickin’ high damage. Capcom didn’t make everyone except those two overall do less damage. Capcom didn’t lower everyone except those characters priority. Everyone else didn’t get nerfed. Some frickin’ wack system specs from CVS1 were removed. As fun as Iori’s infinite was, it was crap. But you’re mad that’s gone, i’m sure. At least make true comments. The imbanalce of those characters comes from oversights, not the fact that EVERYONE EXCEPT THEM got nerfed.
*** “Cammy is essentially the same as in CvS1, except they upped her priority and damage. But then they toned everyone else down, oops. Now shes good for stupid reasons.”***
This is false. So i’ll disregard it.
"3s isn’t balanced well at all."
Now you’re off the deep end.
"Saying that is delusional. If Capcom made SvC and others played it, you’d be defending that too."
I’ve spent more time with SNK games than Capcom games. Conjecture ruins credibility. Next question.
"As shitty as kof2k3 was, it was played up until SBO2. Nobody playing it actually thought it was balanced or that the game was worth a damn, but they played it anyway."
And now no one plays it. Your point?
"3s is atleast better than these games, and holds up a bit more, but it pales in terms of balance to a game like #reload. Hell, not even reload, GGXX was a well balanced game itself."
Any reason why it performed better than GGXX then? Any reason why the so unbalanced CVS2 outdid GGXX? ebcause they’re good games.
"Nobody said Capcom only makes broken games. But even if they did, why would I have to be ‘grateful’? They’re not grateful that I play their games. They have the audacity to charge me money!!"
Audacity to charge you money? THAT’S THE FRICKIN’ POINT! You are ungrateful because of the asanine spin you put on the work that goes into the games. you belittle the work behind them and frickin’ pretend there are conspiracies behind keeping games balanced. WHERE or WHERE are the troupes and troupes of fans that flocked to CVS2 because the UBER POPULAR Blanka was now SO good! When we figured out RCing, how many new fans came in now that E. Honda was a force to be reckoned with? I mean, that’s why Capcom PURPOSELY leaves these characters unbalanced, right? To draw in fans?
Oh wait… you said it was because they nerfed everyone else… so it wasn’t on purpose? Is it or isn’t it? Have some consistency.
"As a discerning consumer, it is my duty to myself to choose what I spend my money on and what I don’t."
OK… So if you’re GOING to spend money on the games, do so. If not, don’t But if your’e going to complain, make it educated, at least.
"What kind of idiot brings up ‘grateful’ in an argument where he appeals to business sense? I hope you realize how stupid that was."
It wasn’t stupid at all. Because that part of my arguement has nothing to do with business sense. What did Context do to you that was so bad that you have to ignore it all the time? Don’t belittle the work behind these games. Don’t say developers are lazy when they spend hours tweaking and programming things, holding betas and doing as much as they can with the little time they have to make game as balacned as possible. I’m sure you’ve read developer interview before. The most common thing they say is “I wish we had more time to tweak the game further.” You’ve got the high execs breathing down your neck to get a game out on time and you’re trying to release a decent product and what do people say? “They don’t balance it on purpose! It’s SOOOO easy! They do NOTHING to balance the games… yet… there’s a semblance of balance… somehow…”
"If we’re going to talk business, its in Capcom’s best interests to get people to play their games."
Agreed.
"Releasing broken games that only a small handful of players actually likes and clings to is not conducive to succesful business."
Wait… so Broken is bad, now?
"In fact, I’d say that its quite counter-productive."
Indeed. The most broken game Capcom has ever released, in my opinion, is MVC2. And that is getting played to death. BUt the players made that game. It’s way beyond anything Capcom ever intended. Aside from that, many of Capcom’s games are VERY playable. SSF2T… still being played. SF3TS. Still being played. What the frick is your point? You are everywhere. Your inconsitancies are painful to read.
"RTS and FPS have better business models,"
NO, they have different foundations and options. Apples to oranges, my friend.
"but instead of copying those models and finding solutions to compete with them, fighting game fans would rather ignore reality and cling to the games they play now."
OK, tell me. What should they do? HOW should they copy the FPS models? Answer that. Seriously. And it better be PLAUSIBLE and SENSICAL. No frickin’ unrealistic BS.
"If we’re talking business, 2d fighting games are worthless now anyway, and Capcom shouldn’t even bother wasting its time releasing another game."
Any reason why SF3TS is able to sell so well despite being a 5 year old game? The market is there. The want is there. They frickin’ did one of the surveys 20 minutes from where I live. THat’s how CaFiJa came about. And you know what? They’ll make money with that, too. Which is the point. Of course, they were doing betas with that game. I wonder why? Oh yeah, because they hate balance. Anyway, you want to stay on topic here? We’re talking about people like you belittling the difficulty of balancing a game.
"Capcom shouldn’t even bother balancing at all, because the scrubs will be happy with anything, and thats where the money is made from."
Yeah. How many scrubs are playin SF3TS now after 5 years? The scrubs eat up games like MK:DA. And see waht happens? They drop that crap until the next new thing comes out, whereas SSF2T is still being played vigorously by die hards after 9 years. Hmmm… I bet your an MK fan. They love that “the scrubs make the money” statement.
"Not the competitive players. And even the scrubs won’t buy the game. You’re better off releasing a shitty 3d fighter from a business standpoint."
In a sense, sure. In the end, no. MK is a gmae targeted to scrubs. Tell me, how much play is MK:Gold getting? Can you even tell me who is in MK 4? THat’s what you get when you make scrub-only games. If they released a compilation of those gmes, Midway would make jack. Yet, SF anniversary collection sells well. What’s with that?
"And the last thing about patches. I don’t know if you play competitively at all, but in competitive play links and cancels and strategies change and are replaced by new, better links that you need to learn and use as the game evolves. 2004 Sagat plays almost nothing like 2002 Sagat, but people didn’t abondon him. Ken has come out of almost nowhere, and everyone that uses him had to learn his links and combos. Hows this that much different than a patch?"
Simple. A patch creates options that were not there and eliuminates options that were there. IF you purchase a SF3TS game and it gets patched in the arcade, do you have those new options? No. Then Capcom had to spend MORE money to rectify that. And when would they release a console version? It would be hard because they’d eitehr have to wait for years, or release the game again every 4 months. And, of course, the budget would be divided so a section of it can go to such things. It’s not a very good idea. But, see, you have to consider those other things. That’s a LOT of money to spend. And don’t forget about -bad patches.- A patch that could render the game nigh unplayable due to an oversight. It’s a very real danger when dealing with a fighting game.
"Whining about a patch is just an excuse for lazy people who don’t want to give up their crutches."
No. Whining about a patch is practical. Did you NOT read about how I preferred my TS Ibuki over the 2I Ibuki? I lost the frickin Hashin Sho… the core of her game. But I don’t care. So it’s not about crutches. It’s about praticality. When I had 2I, I knew what was there and it was always there. When something new was discovered, it was there. PAtching in a new Target Combo is WAY different than discovering one.
"FPS and RTS games aren’t beta tested for 3 years. They’re played and patches as things come along."
Glorified beta testing. They don’t CALL it testing, but you ARE still testing. That’s why the patches exist.
"You can probably ship a tiny card that you can slide into a board/cart or whatever if you plan intelligently. If it makes the games better and makes more people play, then it does make sense from a business standpoint. With memory cards and hard drives now coming with systems, you can download patches directly to the HD."
No. You forget MANY variables. Would it be better? How would one get these tiny cards? Who’s going to pay for these HD’s? Will they be allocated these funds? Would Capcom send them to people who ordered the boards? What about people who bought them second hand? Is the owner of the Movie Theater Arcade REALLY going to be aware that there is a patch out for his TS machine? And on top of that, will he care? All that would do is create a scene where there are a bunch of unpatched TS machines and we’re stuck driving to the place that at least has TS 1.6… even though there’s a 1.8, where Hugo has a new sewwp and Twelve has a new SA.
"One thing is for sure, the current model isn’t succeeding based on the state of the arcade industry and 2d fighting games in the US. Ignoring possible solutions just because you refuse to have change isn’t the smart way to go about things."
So… why did arcades succeed beforehand? What were we patching then? Why would be drivin away from arcades because games are not being patched anymore now than before? These things were always around. That doesn’t make ANY sense. The arcade scene is ding down because of the OPTIONS WE HAVE FROM HOME. Consoles can play games as good as (and sometimes better) than arcades now. Consoles are having processing systems OF arcades now. Online play makes it not necessary to go to the arcade. Many people think Arcades are just… “out” and decide not to have them in their establishments. Explain to me the specifics of the cause of this “plunge in the arcade scene” you talk about. While I admit that arcades aren’t as big as they were years ago (you know… when we didn’t have SF2 on SNES) I want you to tell me what that has to do with your point about balance and patching games and the FPS business models.
Street Fighter 4: Shotokan Dojo
12 all new characters come to show that their dojo is the best! Revolutionary design ensures perfect balance!
Maybe Capcom will make this to prove a point. Enjoy your palette swaps.
Dark Symphony:
You make alot of good points (though I disagree with alot of them), but I just wanted point out the one that irked me the most:
Yeah, CVS2 and 3S may be “good” games (well, I think CVS2 is trash but, hey), but GGXX is a better game (at least IMO). And pointing towards sales figures isn’t going to help substantiate that argument (which you should have done if you wanted that argument to hold up anyway, though most people know/believe Capcom fighters have outsold the GG series since it’s inception). GG has a better engine, more variety and some good balance.
The Capcom fighters sell better simply because of an established fanbase of a decade and a half, and an established, recognizable brand by the non-committed “casual gamer” (not to say casual gamers eat up 2d Capcom games).
It is my opinion that GG will never garner a very large fanbase in the states, simply because it’s asthetics are just way too quirky to be taken seriously by most out west.
-SynikaL
I’m not sure that CvS2 outperformed GGXX in Japan. I would love to see some arcade sales stats that proves this one way or the other.
As for America, there are two reasons. The first is name recognition and the second is marketing. CvS2 has the Street Fighter roster which almost everyone recognizes. CvS2 was actually released in mass to American arcades. Compare this to GGXX which might have 50 cabinets in the US.
Although it pains me to give any ground to CvS2, balance does not equal fun. You can have a balanced game that isn’t any fun (what some people call VF) and it’s not going to be as well received as a grossly unbalanced game that is fun (MvC2).
I’m going to combine most of the main points and answer those, instead of going sentence by sentence. People don’t make an argument with every sentence, but rather use context and combine a few thoughts to prove something.
I agree that they’re different, but my point was they usually try to at least have a few, usually popular, characters that are easy to use and are competitive. In 3s, they threw Chun in and she fulfills this role nicely.
Balance is intercharacter. Most games have the same matchup for character vs. character. When we discuss balance, i am assuming we’re discussing different characters. Relative to each other, you wouldn’t be able to claim one is more broken than the other, but relative to the rest of the cast you’d be able to make a claim. I understand what you’re saying here, but I honestly don’t think it applies to the issue.
I guess my definition of broken is inconsistent. The reason why XX is balanced is because all the characters have a high damage option, something thats strong. If you threw any of these characters into another game, then they’d be considered broken. This is what I meant by ‘giving everyone something broken’. SvC however DID NOT follow this pattern, as Zero and Geese simply have way too much compared to everyone else, hence ‘everyone’ did not recieve something broken. SvC also has plenty of other problems. I never claimed that just giving characters options was enough for a game to be good. You’re trying to muddle the argument.
I’m not going to go over this again. Reread the posts until you understand.
Where do I say that? If anything, you’re confusing me with The Demon here. I’m pretty certain I said something quite different. But reply with the quote where I claim Capcom purposely unbalances the game and should know RC was in CvS2, or even VCs in A3. I’ve already covered the Chun-li point earlier in this post.
I agree the Geese infinite was a bad thing, however, if everyone had the Geese infinite it probably wouldn’t be bad anymore. I’m not arguing with myself, you just refuse to understand simple things. I’m not going to put the effort into seeing what you wrote for nerfing, so I’ll accept what you said here unless it comes up again.
I considered XvSF fairly balanced as I mentioned before, and I know a lot of other people consider it balanced for the exact same reasons. It’s entirely consistent with my definitions of broken and balance.
No, I’m not making this up. Blanka and Sagat compared to CvS1 are really fairly similar, except for changes to priority and damage, and Sagat gets a few other new options. Ryu can no longer sweep into ShinSho, Nak isnt as dominating, etc. A lot of stuff was removed from CvS1. The Blanka and Sagat from their CvS2 incarnations, if ported to CvS1, would not be as dominant as they are in CvS2.
No, it isn’t false at all. We can get others opinions on this if you really need it, but that has been Capcoms solution historicaly: If a character sucks and they don’t know what to do, they just up priority and damage.
You’ve used conjecture much more than I have, throughout your arguments.
By that logic, I suppose DOA and MK:DA are better games than anything Capcom has released recently, since they outperformed SF by far. And I guess VF4 sucks, since it hasn’t done well. Also, GGXX and #r have performed very well in Japan throughout their runs.
Ridiculous. So now I have to throw my money at anything that takes effort? I’m not even going to bother continuing on this.
As for the rest, I’ve been entirely consistent. Reread if you need to. The server is busy crap pisses me off. I don’t know when Ill get to your next post.
Stop whining. I’ve already said I’ll spend on what I consider balanced, and that I enjoy those games more.
[quote]
"What kind of idiot brings up ‘grateful’ in an argument where he appeals to business sense? I hope you realize how stupid that was."
Ridiculous. Atleast show where I say this. As a consumer, it’s not my problem what it takes to develop the product, they are SELLING to ME, and I judge the result and choose whether it meets my standards or not. I have absolutely no obligation to care about how they meet the results, just as they don’t care how I made the money I spend on their product.
Yes. If the game itself is ‘Broken’ or ‘unbalanced’ then obviously thats bad. If you are having trouble understanding the distinction I can go more in debt, but I’m sure you can understand what I meant.
More like you’ve chosen to be too stupid to understand what I wrote. MvC2 has a certain balance among the Big 4, but critics question the balance of the game in general, as most of the characters simply do not have the options to compete. Many people refuse to play the game as a result, and there is no character diversity. I never said the games aren’t playable, but I have said time and time again if people don’t want to play games that aren’t balanced, they don’t have to. I play CvS2 and 3s, but I hate both games. I don’t play MvC2. I’d much rather play A3, KOF 98 and GGXX#r, and I play those games when I get the chance over the former games I mentioned.
That’s not my problem. They need to figure out the solutions and apply it themselves.
Its numbers are nowhere near the numbers of other games. It sells to a small niche market. You’re also the one that introduced this stuff, I’m just replying to your ‘points’.
Why don’t you stay consistent? You were talking about business and numbers. How much money is Capcom making off of 3s now? Not much. MK:DA still has made more money, and they can just release a new game that will make them more money. In fact, thats exactly what they’re doing. It doesn’t matter if diehards still play it. They’ve already bought the games, and the arcade industry is dead anyway. Do you honestly think Capcom makes money everytime you go to a tournament, especially if the tourney is held on console? And then you use ‘conjecture’ and ignore reality some more. If you’re not going to atleast try to have some semblance of coherence, I’m not going to continue this.
Yeah, I noticed how Blizzard went under and how people quit playing Starcraft each time it was patched. Terrible idea, obviously. And Starcraft had to be re-released every 4 months. Again, show me why patches are a bad idea. If you plan intelligently, it should not be a problem. Why can’t fighting games be released on the PC if consoles are ‘impossible to patch’? Even though with HDs or memory cards being standard I don’t believe they are.
So Capcom is much too stupid to figure out solutions to problems, and we can’t get patches because everything will go wrong, right? All of this is narrow minded conjecture that ignores the need for a change by claiming there is no solution, simply because a solution hasn’t yet been attempted.
It’s a different time now, and there are different standards. We have different technologies. SF2 was ‘patched’ repeatedly. Thats really what all the different versions were. Games were not played as thoroughly. The community simply was unable to break down games as it is now. When your consumer base changes, you need to change your product to meet this new base. This is simple business, and it happens with every major company. Claiming that Capcom and fighting games are exempt from this rule is ignorant. Whereas patches may not have been nessecary or even practical back then, they are certainly possible now and may help the industry.
ziggy yeah actually thats what i had in mind when i mentioned patching would turn off most players. iirc, a3 was completely changed when capcom released it for ps2 and so it pretty much turned off all the people who had been playing at the arcade. and i hear xbox fixed a lot of glitches in mvc2. also turning players (like me) off. yeah the games should definitely be patched, but years after they get released? no ones going to want to play.
now let me reiterate about MVC2 - PEOPLE ARE TURNED OFF BY THE LACK OF BALANCE. I HAVE SEEN MANY MANY MANY POTENTIAL NEW PLAYERS QUIT AND NEVER RETURN TO THE ARCADE JUST AFTER A FEW MONTHES OF PLAYING BECAUSE THE GAME IS POORLY BALANCED. yes there is a player base (VERY SMALL AND INSIGNIFICANT COMPARED TO THE FOLLOWING OTHER GAMES GET - AND DWINDLING EVERY DAY) - but that’s because we’re fanatical about the game, that doesn’t mean its balanced. now of course true balance is impossible - even chess, one of the most “balanced” games ever, has an imbalance in that white moves first, which gives white 1% more wins statistically in all the major tournaments. however, having SOME semblance of balance is good and VERY possible. when you have top tiers that horribly dominate the others thats just sloppy and poor designing on the part of the developer - ie CrapCom.
HOWEVER, most new games aren’t balanced because of lack of foresight as mentioned by the posters. THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT PATHCES ARE MEANT FOR. whenever there are things that are horribly broken, patches are released to address this issue. since they are released right away, the players will not cry, because they can adapt to the change.
and that’s why im suggesting that arcades (if they are even around for much longer - lets face it arcades are going to be dead and done in just a few more years) should have some kind of patch system.
anyway master chibi is WRONG. he was just spewing the usual - youre a scrub, its the player not the character that matters, man up and get better mentality that everyone mindlessly echos. anyway so all i have to say to that is…
HYPER VIPER BEAM
x3
peace
But I have to agree with Master Chibi to an extent. When does is the line drawn between blame of the developer for making a broken fighter or the player’s inability to cope?
The Demon has has good points. He’s no scrub and he’s no slouch, and he brought up a great discussion. But it seems that he’s good at complaining and not good at bringing up answers, or at least answers that might or might not result in a better game.
To what extent is a game balanced? If this or any other credible site says so? If the top winners at tournaments change characters every tourney? If the balanced characters make it to number one? What if the top tier makes it to #1 each and every time, but the remaining to 10 are entirely different rosters? What if the top tier is more of a result of the player’s talent?
The thing is, like Serpent said…a higher class of balance is acheivable. But the thing I keep on hearing, even with “balanced games” is:
It’s a balanced game BUT…
There’s always a but or an exception that seemingly throws off the entire notion of a balanced game out of the window. It’s not glaring differences like Hayato VS. Magneto. But often it comes down to splitting a fanbase that basically has peeps saying “It’s balanced” and other quoting stats about O. Yashiro, Iori, Goro etc.
And this leads me to believe that even in balanced games, people still crave not diversity, but specilization. There’s still going to be a tier system, but not by design or gameplay, but by the players.
The Demon mentioned something earlier about half the fun of a fighter should be the option of choosing a character that fits your personality, and that character being able to have an equal chance vs. any other character. And I don’t blame him for saying that because really, it’s fun to have a character you can relate to.
The thing is, that is only half the fun, and the other half if I could assume on his behalf…is winning. The other half of the game boils down to winning.
The thing is, in a balanced game…choosing a character that fits your personality and you having an equal chance of winning with it vs. every other character is great. But eventually, your specilization of loving a character because it’s just like you might be overcome by the other half of the fun…the specilization of winning. The choosing a character that gives you an inequal chance of choosing a character that will beat your opponent, regardless of your talent.
And when it comes to tournaments, having fun is a byproduct of winning, at least in the tournament goal. Winning is a thing that everyone can relate to.
The thing is, I feel that people will gravitate to winning rather than character choice because it feels great because if they win…the have to. That’s why in a balanced game like KOF you see O. Yashiros, Goros, Ioris etc. taking up the ranks.
Is it cheating yourself because you didn’t choose a character that you don’t like? Maybe. Is it cheating yourself because you picked a character that gives you a better chance at winning? In a tournament context no.
I think in some cases that is the problem with gaming in general with the US because it has become more about the specilization of winning THROUGH picking the best…instead of specilaziaiton of winning through your talent.
But that does bring up another series of questions. If the parties are split behind a game like KOF 98 on whether there is a set tier system or the game is balanced you have to wonder…if it’s so balanced, how come the same few characters appear at the top of most tournies? If the top players say Oh the game is balanced then why is it they use the same characters/team of characters with little to no variation? Should their opinion be invalid because they don’t represent the bulk of fighting game community? Should we look at the lifespan of the game overall, or it’s current status?
Like someone mentioned before, a player for 3S played as Twelve and beated people who had high leveled Kens, is that an expression of how balanced the game is? Or is it more of an expression of how talented the player is?
I don’t work for a gaming mag, fwiw.
The comment was ignorant because it’s blaming the players. It makes no sense. Its some hardcore player ethic that elevates video games to some sacred religion that everyone else apparently just cant hang with. Ultimately, it has no basis, outside of a hardcore few, for determining what people will play or not play.
Well, at the end of the day, theyre still video games. Theyre just entertainment. And when people arent entertained, they move on. It’s really that simple. Not because theyre so-called scrubs, but because theyre just flat-out bored.
Its a tough pill to swallow. I had a tough time accepting it back in 1993 when Super Street Fighter didnt deliver on the hype. Its a great game, I said, people just wont give it a chance. No, in many ways, it just flat-out bored people.
You put together a fun and challenging game experience that is accessible and people will play it. You put together a complicated cluster f*ck and (surprise surprise) no one plays it.
Accessibility means many things. Is the game understandable without five year’s experience in the genre? When I play the game, will the competition be accessible?
In 1992, you know how far I had to go to get competition? Three blocks - at the local liquor store. There were 15+ kids around two world warrior machines every single day. Within another three blocks there were five more machines with another 30 kids.
The last time I saw more than two people playing on one machine was at SVGL, about three months ago. I had to drive over an hour for that and I had to go to the mecca to get it. I guess because I don’t feel like driving an hour every day I must be a scrub.
So the competition is rarely accessible. Think about what that means for a game who’s best feature is competing against other people.
How far do I have to go for comp when I play Unreal Tournament? About five feet. To my computer. And there are always hundreds of people playing.
I miss being in the arcade, too, but welcome to 2004.
This whole “scrub-this” and “scrub-that” mindset is fine for bragging rights, folks, but if you want to discuss ideas for a game that people will actually play and take the time to master, you need to get over yourselves.
Here is something most of you don’t want to hear on this topic: the scene in the US is more “scrubby” now than it has ever been. And any old skool player knows that. The level of skill from player to player was higher back then, and the knowledge more thorough.
Nowadays? With 50+ characters and 6 grooves, you can pretty much bet that if you’ve studied the faq you can pull something out that the other guy hasn’t seen and you’ll get the win. That’s not skill. You just knew something the other guy didn’t.
Some other post mentioned that all those scrub-friendly games give all the scrubs “places to hide”. There is a lot of hiding space in 300+ character/groove combinations.
In 1994, there was very little the other guy didn’t know. He knew what was coming but there was nothing he could do to stop you. Thats when you had skill.
I’m not saying for a second that the top players are not skilled or that the modern games don’t require skill. They require tremendous skill. The question is whether or not you want to wade through the endless roster, dated graphics, retarded modes and stupid features to get to a point in the gameplay where skill even begins to matter. The gaming community has said (shouted) NO!
So is the answer going back to eight fighters and zero extra features? Of course not. The answer is that you balance complexity with fun while continuing to improve the overall gaming experience with each version. The answer is incorporating new technology effectively and changing with a changing market that left the arcades years ago and is now firmly rooted in the home. The answer is you make a game that is easy to pick up, but difficult to master.
Very good point, and thanks for highlighting it. I really don’t think my outburst deserved the detailed and thorough replies that have been given, and I really appreciate that people have bothered at all. (Looking back, I only deserved the “that was pure ignorance” that I was hit with.)
The rest of jcasetnl’s post is very thought-provoking, and I’d have to agree with basically all of it. For example:
Yes, that was part of my original outburst, and I confess I’ve never thought about the impact of “overstacking” modern fighters with options in this way, although I’ve experienced exactly what you mention first-hand. A lot of good points made here, and I’m definitely taking note.
Somewhere in my earlier nonsense I did mention that I felt fighters had suffered by being less-accessible to the gamers of today than other genres. Whether you cite the “home vs arcade” issue, “presentation level (e.g. graphics)”, or “gameplay styles”, they’re all very relevant, and have combined to create the environment we find ourselves in today.
Well said. New technology should be a staple for any game producer IMO. Balancing complexity with fun, and ease of access with rewards for experience are the most difficult, but you could definitely argue that these companies are in the money-making business of doing exactly that. There’s no excuse for professionals in the industry today. If they can’t get it right, then consumers will (and should) give them exactly what they deserve.
Alright, quick point, I’d like to make.
How are you going to put an arcade on the internet for downloading patches? The cabinets and boards aren’t designed for that. You’d have to design a completely new system, hope that it’ll swap into an existing cabinet with minimal difficulty, and that people will actually buy these things.
Anyways, in real life- no one really cares about new patches. Do you really want a loading screen or something that says “Ken’s cr.mp no longer has until the end of the world to hit confirm, Chun’s super does less damage, Genei Jin has a larger bar, but 2 of them now…” and the list goes on. Or better yet, to find out without a warning that qcfx2 is no longer the way to activate your super, but qcf,hcb is thew new method?
Please, people. Put some sense into what you’re talking about. In an ideal world where everyone knows how to break a game immediately, you could have a perfectly balanced game. But if you throw in new features that are character specific (ie. trijumping), as opposed to engine specific (ie. 3s’s juggle limit), you’ll always run the risk of disturbing a balance, and make SOMETHING broken.
Finally…
Last time I checked it was AHVBx3, not HVBxpwned on recovery. 
Seriously though. Someone try to explain how the AHVB fucks everything in the engine to give you an instant startup.
AHVBx3 example was funny because out of the commonly accepted top 4, Cable runs into the most trouble from lower-ranked characters. Magneto can have trouble too, but he does 100% off of random hits/throws and tends to have better escape options if it comes to that (DHC to Hail, cAHVB, etc).
strakka- how do you patch PC games? The company couldn’t just send the arcade a CD with some files to be uploaded to a hard drive?
About the patches idea in general…people will just find the version of the game they decide is best. There are like 6 versions of SFA3. Everyone knows which is preffered. It was a fucking miracle that DC 3s was used by so many people, but everyone would have played arcade version if it were available, and the PS2 version has replaced it. People refuse to play the PS2/Xbox version of MvC2, and Gamecube(?) CvS2. So for the sake of the game patches might be better, but there’s a good chance people won’t be playing THAT game.
What struck me as queer about all the CFJ talk when the details were first coming out was that people kept wanting more than 21 characters, blah blah…slow down, everybody. CFJ is advanced as hell for the first (maybe only) game in a series. Remember SF2? It was deep (or hypothetically could have been), but was the most simple of the SF2 games. 8 playable characters, two players can’t select the same character, no reversals or any number of subtle tweaks that would come later. Remember SF3? CvS1? SFA1? Samurai Showdown? Fatal Fury? VF1? Guilty Gear? The first game in a series is always the most simple, as you build things from the ground up. There’s a reason CvS1 isn’t anyone’s favorite game, or SF3:NG, or VF1, etc. So from what I’ve seen of CFJ so far, Capcom has done a pretty outstanding job.
That was a tangent that really had little to do with anything mentioned in this thread.
Regarding balance, SF2:HF is widely regarded as the most balanced of the SF games…I have never even heard anyone dispute that Ryu is the best character in the game.
Bored as fuck, lounging around on wireless while waiting for class, so here goes.
Patching a PC game is usually done via downloading. ie. Steam checks for updates, and updates itself and CS/whatever game you’re playing every time you run it. Same with Windows- Windows Update, SPx, etc. Granted, you could “theoretically” use a CD to keep patching your version of 3s in the arcade, but what’s the point? From what I’ve heard, it takes a few hours to load it into the system. Arcades would lose money because the machine is offline and not earning money during these updates. If they do it at night, they’re still losing money because they have to pay their techinician to come in to install it. And doing this each and every time an update comes out? Arcades aren’t even that high-profit to begin. It’s an unnecessary cost. If someone wants to challenge me on that, I’d like to tell you this: I used to work in an arcade.
Either way, most of the CS patches are things like “fixed riot shield glitch” and “fixed something glitch”. Minor things. Can you imagine if they said “Altered Akuma to have EX moves”? It would fuck up the entire game royaly, unless they did that from the start. Like telling ppl 4 years later that now, AHVB x3 doesn’t work anymore becuase AHVB now has startup time.
And if they managed to link an entire arcade to the internet to download patches & updates, why not just have ppl challenge other ppl online? Oh wait, now we’ve come into the realm of online gaming again. Whee! And you wonder why arcades are dying.
Let’s be realistic here. If Capcom kept sending out CD’s with patches on them, they’d have a nice shipping cost with it. And if they put the patches online for arcade managers to download and install, could they count on them to constantly update their machines?
Go work on Mugen if you want to create a game with balanced characters.
It’s really not all that complicated and the technology to do it is mainstream. It’s the arcades that have fallen behind in this regard. Patches are old hat in the PC game market because the infrastructure has been there for years.
Logistically, I could see it being a nitemare. You’d need a real monolith of a company to pull it off (one that really has firm control of the industry), and currently, no such company exists in the arcade market.
Patches are not that outlandish, either. There were a few different versions of the original Mortal Kombat when it first came out. The prototype allowed for infinates and that was taken out. There was even a patch to the original WW game to fix several of the glitch moves (it was ill-timed, however, and no one played it).
yeah i also do agree with master chibi to an extent in that you do have to deal. capcoms not gonna do anything for its games anymore so you can either step up or quit playing. but thats the thing do. no one really wants to step up and potential new players quit in droves.
anyway the patching thing was just a suggestion that i was throwing out. obviously the logistics involved in implementing such a system would be complicated, nowhere near as easy as patching a pc game. btw patches for pc games do make changes in order to address game balance issues.
OKAY one final thing - in order to address someone anonymous post about how increasing FAB damage on gief would improve him against the top 4 - well, by increasing the damage on gief’s moves, you remain faithful to his character design, but actually make him worth playing. its hard to land hits with gief, so when you finally do, you should be rewarded amply. with the top 4, one hit equals massive damage and often damage. now with the FAB, you’d have to do much more than just increase the damage. they could decrease the startup of FAB, increase its range and speed at which gief walks across the screen (maybe make him dash across), make it impossible to escape out of by jumping backwards, and finally increase the damage - maybe to… 3/4 life 
also they could increase range and damage and recovery to his spd, and give him that air super. in other words make him like the fearsome guy he is in street fighter, and not the gimp he is now.
You know, its not like those patches in Starcraft didn’t change gameplay. I remember playing that game competitively back in HS for a year (not to the Korean level, but still) and abusing the glitches. In a lot of tourneys the glitches were banned anyway, so the patches were usually aesthetic. But even aside from glitches, small changes in build time, cost, and damage changed lots of strategies from patch to patch. The fighting game extension would be to remove stupid glitches (RC?) remove overpowered tactics or characters (ST Akuma) and change damage/priotity/speed of moves that might be overpowered (Cammy St. Fierce?) If you really need something overpowered in order to play the game and can’t play it without it, then I really don’t care if you play the game in the first place. The good players will simply readjust and still compete. Theres no point in patching 3s or MvC2 because its been way too long, but for a game that gets released in the near future you can patch for years anyway. I think thats part of the reason Starcraft was so fun for so long, with each patch you could try new stuff out, it was like playing a sequel, the game was different now but still familiar and similar to the old game. It’s kind of a moot point though now. Theres no need to worry about arcade owners patching games or not, for the simple fact that there really aren’t any arcades now anyway. Fighting games will probably move towards PCs and online play. Internet technology is moving ahead, and once we’re at fiber optics maybe it becomes a realistic goal to play online.