video game red scare imo
also lol @ OP thinking metagames need time to “be born”. Does it really matter whether a metagame reaches a point with or without a nudge from the developers? Does it really matter if a meta isn’t mature? What matters is that it’s fun and that it doesn’t get stale, and patches generally achieve that.
Does context mean anything to you? Are you seriously looking at the parts of the definition that don’t apply at all to the discussion at hand? I think you need to do some more research than 3 minutes on Answers.com. Or at least attempt to understand what you read during your brief research. But let’s go blatantly off-topic and break down some basic fascism down for you.
Off-Topic
[details=Spoiler]
Points relevant to discussion bolded for your convenience. Because I’m so nice.
The OP’s post is obviously discussing recent patching practices as comparable to a totalitarian regime. The game companies want you to play the game the way they want you to play it. There is little room for deviation. If a player discovers something that goes against the established ruleset, regardless of any possible merit it might have, it gets patched, and you can’t to that anymore. And lo and behold, facism aims towards having a singular national identity. A collective mind where things that go against the established rules are subsequently squashed. Sound familiar? Yeah, the OP’s position regarding recent patching, right?
So yeah, it’s more like fascism.[/details]
I think you’re the one who needs to skip a few elections, buddy. 
In spirit I agree with OP - flawed argument, but I also think patching things so quickly is problematic. How long did it take people to discover Hawk’s inescapable throw loop? Over a decade, right? Yea, it matters if the metagame is mature or not - I’m definitely against patching something before people have a chance to discover counters to it.
Instead of the long term meta like Hawk’s loop in ST, how about medium-term stuff, like the Phoenix game in MvC3 - UltraDavid and Chen commented on the last Wednesday/Friday Night fights how quickly things are changing. After a deluge of Phoenixes in the immediate aftermath of the Sentinel nerf, people found counters to Phoenix shenanigans, and suddenly there’s less Phoenixes in the top of tournaments.
Or how about when SSF4 first came out? The general consensus was that Hawk was going to be “shin-Gief” and all grappler players were going to flock to Hawk. And lo and behold, Live was flooded with Hawks…for about a month. Do you see alot of Hawks in tournaments now? Yea, didn’t think so. What if capcom had nerfed Hawk in the first month or so after SSFIV was released? He would be completely unusable now - instead of just bottom tier he’d be trash.
The metagame really needs time to mature a bit before companies get patch crazy - and DEAR LORD please let NRS give detailed change logs. They’ve said in interviews they would do change logs, I believe their words were “when they could.” Yea, that doesn’t fly for a tournament game.
Translation: I’m upset over Sentinel nerf and will write a long-winded essay to disguise my ramblings as something more prestigious.
a recent cali tournament had 5 phoenix players in the top 8. She’s not going anywhere.
patching as of now is both good and bad. Sometimes the games needs to be tweaked to removed something like the MK9 parry glitch. Other times the wrong people are too outspoken about what should be changed, sentinel nerf.
Its a tricky concept because every consumer is entitled to an opinion. I personally believe the scrubs over on capcomunity should generally never be listened to about balance.
Translation: Im an asshole who thinks I am better than everyone.
My MvC3 team is Dante, Modok, Akuma. I’ve never played Sentinel as someone on my team.
I actually meant communism, as I was referring to the “equalness” of a communist state. Regardless, this is off topic.
Games were played for years in tournaments before patches, so why didn’t they get stale? The metagame evolved with it. The game won’t get stale if people give it room to breath.
All this drama wouldn’t be here if FS was just released on consoles.
I swear, all this talk about metagame and balance, if VF5 ever gets a home version, it better be the most played fighting game in the US.
Ever.
That’s the point I was making.
It doesn’t.
In the end, on the competitive stage, it doesn’t matter if games get patched or not. Is Starcraft a less competitive game solely because it gets balance changes? LoL/HoN/DoTA? Counter-Strike? Super Street Fighter IV Arcade Edition? Is MvC2 a better game because it wasn’t patched?
Patches aren’t inherently good or bad, but it’s up to the creators to be putting out good patches that pave the way for just as many strategies as they destroy. Patches keep games constantly changing and give players a sense of community and involvement (If I discover the new IWAY and convince people it’s the new top tier, it’ll get nerfed - I alone as one person have the power to change this game. I’m sure Desk goes to sleep every night thinking he’s god). They keep players in the game, putting in hundreds of hours to adapt to the constant changes and trying to discover the new broke ass strategy.
It’s fine if fighting games don’t get patched. It’s still fine if they do.
One thing I do find unusual… What is it about Starcraft and Street Fighter that creates such a stark contrast in attitudes towards patches?
Definitely some interesting stuff being discussed. However, I’ll say one thing. Glitches are really just oversights in the game’s code. Most of the time, the developers might not notice the glitches into after the game comes out. Some glitches are good for the game (CPS1 chain combo and Impossible Dust?) while others not so much. If a glitch really screws with the game from being played (like the Ino freeze glitch) then a patch is necessary. It all depends.