I’m upgrading my response from “don’t be an idiot” to a full blown “you’re an idiot.”
“Reading between the lines” is bullshit for “straw-man argument.” Look it up.
I’d say that’s the goal. Perfect balance isn’t this magic panacea that leads to immense gameplay nirvana, but at the same time designers of competitive fighters should aim to ensure the gap between top and bottom tier isn’t too big. There are fighters where some characters really can’t overcome the lack of options the top tier readily possesses.
Anywho, this thread ran its course the moment that “specs” guy posted on page 1. And some good came out of it, since Viscant posted, and his posts are like always chock full of insightful, um, insight, but seriously the amount of dipshittery in this thread can barely be contained by a Dr. B who’s also fighting Mad Jim Jaspers.
I commend your ability to hold a civil and articulate discussion. I dine well this evening.
No, a straw-man’s fallacy is arguing against someone by instead debating some extreme perversion of their opinion. For example, debating someone who is pro-choice from a pro-life standpoint in an abortion debate by arguing that murdering babies is bad. Or arguing against someone who is pro-gun rights by arguing that people shouldn’t be allowed to buy rocket launchers off the street whenever they wanted.
Declaring that the highness and lowness of Guile and Ryu’s respective tier positions are a good measurement of the game being poor is what he actually said. Hence, not a straw-man.
You could argue that I’m simply trolling or being intentionally obtuse by stripping away everything but one aspect of his argument, but it’s hardly a straw man.
So are you going to show an example and give a thorough explanation, or are you just going to focus on a trivial (and unrelated) point, then re-use vague points with nothing to back them up with?
You know, funny thing, NASCAR decided that it wasn’t perfectly balanced enough having a rulebook that allowed for 3 or 4 distinct body styles and a range of freedom in the chassis, not to mention having 3 or 4 significantly different engines and has pretty much turned it into Chevy WW Ken vs. Toyota WW Ryu.
They may or may not have realized this is boring as all fuck and may or may not be re-introducing some of what little variety they had in the '90s. Which is nothing compared to every previous decade for various reasons.
Anyways, in forms of racing where the rulebook isn’t obscenely restrictive those who you would consider amateurs are liable to pick their car based somewhat more on enjoyment. Albeit, there’s always that element of what you know being better than what you don’t know.
So? My inexperience with NASCAR has been revealed, however shall I go on.
Unfortunately, my point still stands. In a tournament that matters, you still use what you can to win. If that means you have to use Chun in 3s or Tom Brady in the Super Bowl, so be it.
I don’t play in tournaments to make money since I’m not the ultra-serious Justin Wong type. I enter to just have fun and see how far I can go with my preferred character. I value the fun I have just competing against strong players more than I value any sort of prize. Yeah, with that sort of attitude I’m not going to make it to the top or anything, but, I don’t mind. Not that I have the skill to make it to the top regardless of my attitude.
So, if I just play to have fun, why do I give a shit about balance? Because it annoys me that I have to spend twice as much effort with a low tier character that I enjoy playing to obtain the same results I would obtain had I played a higher tier character I don’t necessarily enjoy playing. That’s pretty much all it boils down to, really.
I don’t think the Patriots using Tom Brady is selling out, I think that is using a good quaterback. Just like how using Akuma in A3 isn’t selling out, it’s using a damaging and effective character.
i think the point of GG was to give everyone enough universal defense mechanics they could crank the offense up to 11 and it would still be a fun time
viscant: is it the screen size change to about ST proportions that makes full screen zoning more powerful? coupled with the easy reversal window and general defensiveness of SF4 it makes it more powerful than in ST. i need to know if i got it! it would also slow down the game and make it more defensive (generally means less enjoyable), but i still have no idea how it would affect cammy.
GG is balanced because every character has their own bullshit but the bullshit is contained. Everyone has strong points about their character and THAT’S what makes the game fun. There isn’t a character in that game that can’t win. No one is CLEARLY inferior to the other.
But then with SSF4, you can look at some characters and see that some are just blatantly better than others. There’s not much character diversity because of the simplistic system so the design flaws come out, where mostly a handful or more of characters can win at higher levels. I think there is a decent spread of useable characters this time but I definitely don’t think we’ll be seeing some ever win tournaments. Some characters are just better for a tournament environment than others and that’s a fact.
Some strategies don’t work effectively or very well in certain games. Part of a strategy is picking your character. If you don’t like the strategies used in the game to win, than perhaps it’s time to pick a different game to play.
Viewing a game solely through tiers is detrimental of how much fun it is. Stop trying to view characters as the entire game, they are just one part of it.
Seriously though green block is the answer to every stupid fucking “derp you can’t get chipped with fireballs with parries” argument. That and games that just don’t allow chip victories…
Accent Core is much more balanced than X though. The aformentioned Slashbacks and throw techs (which I never see either actually) are the only defensive mechanism added. AC did give people Forcebreaks to fill in some of their weaknesses, but even if we ignore those additions Slash is a pretty balanced game.
