Lol at people suggesting they make flagship characters not good. Good luck on trying to sell that game to anyone outside of the .01% who wanted Ryu/Sagat to be “meh”.
not really, GGAC is more balanced, you only need to pass the scrubby “Oh my god, eddie is too strong” phase and you will see it
Comparing tier lists to a game that has only been out for a few months is funny, but the “characters are more unique” part is the punchline.
Not really. The point is for the character to be a joke, that’s done primarily through aesthetics, no reason to have a wasted character slot. Balancing a game around how powerful a character is in the game’s story seems kind of silly… Would SSF4 really be better if Gen, Akuma and Gouken for instance were just designed to obliterate the rest of the cast just because they’re really strong in some cutscenes?
So… Every SF sucks then according to your weird ‘logic’ ?
And you’re incorrect in saying that a character being good is purely indicative of the core mechanics of the game.
People use the word broken like it means something in SF4, even old sagat wasn’t “broken”
I like SF as much as the next guy on this forum but character variety is not something the series is known for. GG characters are much more unique.
Also, I disagree with certain characters having to be top tier or better than the rest to make a quality game.
I’m sorry, but you’re being stupid now…just like on Willvolution.
Especially your comments on Sagat being broken in every game. Damn do you not know anything about SF.
I’ve always said that its for the best when shoto or shoto-like characters (Sagat) are the strongest in a SF game. Not overpowered, just the strongest. Reason is, if someone is going to be top tier, it might as well be a well-rounded, solid character design that everyone knows how to fight. People might complain about shotos (usually inexperienced players; when someone says they don’t like shotos, I interpret that as “I don’t like Street Fighter.”, or sometimes “I don’t like fighting games.”), but if there was a traditional SF game where characters like Blanka, Honda, or Zangief are the strongest, no one would ever want to play. Perfect example is A3 at low (basic) level. Watch someone pick Zangief and suck the fun right out of the game. Of course, A3 is not a traditional SF game and became about something completely beyond that (with top tier Zangief to boot, but not for Zangief reasons), but I think it’s a very good example for anyone who played A3 at a scrubby level.
Strangely enough Ryu is top tier and Guile, Vega, and Dhalsim aren’t even close in SFIV. :shake:
There is a certain kind of character that it’s kind of dangerous to have as top tier. An Abare character like Zangief is so damn scary even when he’s on the low end that he can be absolutely silly on the top end where he has both solid tools and the ability to random you out with massive unpredictable damage (alternatively see Accent Core Potemkin). It’s the same with a lot of gimmick characters. Balance isn’t just about matchup charts, but also avoiding really abusive, stupid tactics.
A3 Scrubgief even rolls A3 Scrub Li because he beats her best anti-air for free. :sad:
how many trap characters are there in SSF4? how many characters can have multiple projectiles? how many characters have meaty projectiles with sick rushdown? how many characters have stances?
fact of the matter is, GG is a more diverse game. it has more tools available to you and yet it still has an incredibly close tier list DESPITE having more varied characters with more broken abilities. that is the essence of good balance.
ssf4 managed to balance the game where every character has very few tools. gg succeeded in achieving extremely similar (perhaps better) balance while making every character even more different.
gg passed a college examination while ssf4 passed a 1st grade english test, and gg still got the higher score.
I think that depends on what you actually mean by ‘unique’. They are more unique on a micro level, but not in their goals. I think the fact that Negative Penalty exists in that game says enough about character diversity.
Also Narcowski’s comment fucking owns; GGAC became more balanced specifically because they made everyone less unique.
Casuals hate balanced games because they can’t win at them. No one i going to play a game they can’t win at. Losing and getting clowned for months on end is not fun. They don’t have the time to learn the game or don’t care to learn the game. They want all the glory of winning without the hard work getting skunked by a better player until you learn the game. They just want to spam/random/cheat away. Capcom and any other interactive entertainment software company want to make money. These are were the money is at. They are not stupid to turn potential sale away. Think about it.Seth want to sell millions of copies of SSFIV. Get real people.
Me I like to work for my wins against people that are good and win because they are good. Not because of brokenness or overpowered gimmicks.
Guess what guys balanced games don’t sell. Offense(winning) and glitter(effects,realism,tits,guns,explosions,shock value,etc) sell movies,sports,video games and ads. Unbalanced games are crap games from a game developers POV. Everyone doesn’t have to have 5-5 match-ups. You can balance games 5 ways and all of them work.
1)Heavily match-up Dependant: Design the game with skill,hard work,timing,zoning strategy against a certain match-up is rewarded. No single attack or mechanic beats EVERYTHING. Everything can be countered or gimped. Nothing wins against ALL match-ups. But if you optimize your a good match-up WITH a good defensive strategy its a 6-4 match-up now.
2)Break everyone(Xm vs S,MvC2,KI, Alot of mortal kombats,brawl-)
3)balances everyone(Balanced Brawl,Make a 5-5 match-up for everyone.Takes forever,is extremely hard and takes several revisions to get done)
- Selective brokenness(create artificial balence by nerfing characters against a matchup and making them almost top tier agianst other match-ups. But how they fair overall agianst the rest of the cast is still 5-5. Example:
Bob’s match-ups against the rest of the roster.
1 Bob 5-5
2 Jane 7-3
3 Jack 7-3
4 Ted 7-3
5 Tasha 5-5
6 Kyo 5-5
7) Lex 5-5
8) Gloria 3-7
9) Tim 3-7
10) Chris 3-7
So overall his advantage against the rest of the cast is a wash. The game doesn’t get boring(defensive,only the hardcore like balanced games) and at certain match-ups Bob has a huge advantage. Problem is balanced games don’t sell. Noobs hate balanced game because it exposes their crap ass skills. So why bother? lol.
Hardcore love balanced games because it exposes their high level skill of a game.
You don’t have to make a game were everyone is the same you just have to reward skill,timing,planning,strategy, hard work, and discipline. Not spam. Not gimmicks or defensive gimmicks like parries. Not randoming. No skill no win. No outworking your opponent no win. Simple as that.
Name one balanced game that is also fun?
Clue
chess.
David Sirlin’s Chess 2
SSFIV of course.
mario bros on atari
Can you define these two a bit better and explain why you think they’re bad?
Can I sig this I died after reading ^that is so true