@Pertho
And yet Sf4 has mechanics that you don’t see in any other SF games like FADC’s off of DPs. That’s a mechanic which I have never liked because I felt it destroys the inherent trade offs that keep the game playing a certain way, thus a certain “feel” or “picture.” Now we could make ‘objective’ arguments let’s say in measuring if FADC, given the other mechanics let’s say, in some MU, is inherently balanced in terms of risk and reward. It would be very complex, if we can do it at all, but we could at least try to make an argument about if this or that move is played vs. other options, and subsequently what one’s odds are in the MU i.e. 5.5 or w/e and specifically how FADC changes those odds. One method might be to calculate the odds based on the current setup, and then take away the FADC mechanic as if it wasn’t an option, and compare the numbers.
As for “shitty opinions.” I don’t recognize such subjective terms when they are touted at objective fact. That sort of thing tends to be something that is deployed when there is an attempt made to use the imposition of some value to control another people by using peer pressure to force them to change their opinion i.e. by calling names you make people feel bad so they are more likely to agree with you. Is that an adult thing to do, or is that a childish way to throw a tantrum because someone doesn’t share the same likes or dislikes and they are being vocal about it in a place designated for that purpose of talking about what you ‘do’ want to see.
See what I find so ironic is that a few people wanted to try in vein to jump on me, but all the while failed to actually bother to ask what I ‘did’ want to see in the game, because they couldn’t get beyond the fact that I didn’t like something ‘they’ liked in the game, because they were to narrow minded not to slot me in with some category of people they had already prejudged me to belong to (prejudice by definition). The irony of course being that some of my ‘main’ opinions, at least one of them agreed with. If they could have got beyond their bigotry, they would have immediately seen that. So let’s not act like it’s ‘me’ who’s scrubbing out on this forum. Nah dog, the shoe is on the other foot with that one.
A much better strategy might be to show the reason for why changing a mechanic isn’t ideally in everyone’s best interest. To do that you have to identify what people’s interests actually are.
For example. It’s a fact that people at least tend to prefer games which are accessible. Thus it is wise for game designers to make games that are as such, as opposed to those which have a steep learning curve. Now there is a market of course for those who don’t like accessible games as well, but the percentage isn’t as high.
You might be able to make an argument let’s say, challenging the premise that it is a fact that people prefer accessible games. The way you would make such an argument wouldn’t be to contradict people’s opinions, or even statistics, but to show that in light of those opinions and statistics, that people do in fact want or enjoy games with a higher learning curve. You would probably have to appeal to human psychology and argue along those lines, but as you said, at least it would be a ‘proper’ point of view insofar as it would be ‘backed’ by something.
Unless someone can make an argument about what our universal preferences are, or unless for the purposes of discussion with respect to the participants involved, everyone can come to a consensus, how is it honestly possible to make an ‘argument’ as to a mechanic being ‘good’ or bad?
At some point you’re going to have to assume a certain ideal fun factor. If you go touting that as gospel, you’re ultimately being question begging, and to criticize other’s for sharing a difference of opinion, is bigotry.
So, yeah, I’m all for ‘arguments,’ and believe me, I damn sure know what an argument is, whereas others around here, clearly don’t.
But let’s not get opinion, facts, and arguments all twisted up to be the same thing is all I’m saying.
Exactly how is anything in this point unreasonable?
Two points that radically undercut what you are saying here, which I have already stated more than once.
- I’m actually open to all sorts of ideas, including keeping tic throws in the game. My beef is ‘ultimately’ with the ‘overall’ way the game plays. So assuming it doesn’t play ideal, and assuming there is a more ideal way that we all might agree on, talking about the ways that might play out is something which is up for grabs in my book, unlike what you presume here.
btw, yes I played those games, although not as much on ST. I ran Slayer main, kay, and Potemkin.
- I totally agree with your point that if you change a game so much that you detract from the original essence, then it ends up destroying the game. But that’s exactly what my beefs around SF4 center on. Characters, mechanics, just don’t feel like SF in part…Yet…you can’t seem to recognize that we actually see eye to eye on that point cause we might disagree on one point, which I already said I am not absolutely committed too.
Except of course, I AM willing to reconsider my shit, and I never said anything to contrary. Pointing out something ‘is’ an opinion, isn’t the same as saying one is unwilling to change their opinion is it?
Logic dog.
