Poll: Downloadable Patches: Yea or Nay

[bokchoy]

This thought came to mind when CvS2:EO was released. They neutered that game, removing things like RC's, and "rebalanced" A and P grooves. Capcom received harsh criticism for it because it was different from the arcade version, but whether it makes CvS2 better or worse is still up for debate.

Anyway, presuming that the main venue for competitive SF4 will be online, what if Capcom were to impose downloadable "patches" for the purpose of balance, removing glitches, and with the intent of improving the game? If you've played Starcraft / Warcraft 3 before, it's a similar concept to what Blizzard does every couple of months, to keep the game competitive. Basically, everyone would have to update to the latest patch to play online, and re-adjust their play to adapt to the new changes.

Pros:
-Hardcore SF fans have grown accustomed to glitches, imbalance and monotony, but it may be easier to attract newcomers to the genre if imperfections are frequently removed and the game is constantly improving.
-If imbalance or unintended glitches break the game, the game can always be "fixed". Also, if the game turns out to be a flop, there is always the chance of being able to improve the game's weak points to salvage the game and turn it into something that's actually really good.
-Re-balancing might keep competitive players on their toes. Adapting to and taking advantages of changes in order to beat the competition might make the game more fun for even the most hardcore of hardcore. If it works for RTS games, there's no reason it can't work for fighting games.

Cons:
-Purists would argue that the game should be kept the same as it was from the beginning. The game's rules are set at the release date, and the players find ways to utilize and sometimes bend the rules, in order to achieve victory. A frequently changing environment might negatively alter the nature of fighting games.
-Some of the defining characteristics of Street Fighter were born from glitches. In fact, two-in-ones weren't initially intended by the developers of SF2.
-Some would argue that fighting games thrive on imbalance, and sometimes, glitches. Take MvC2 for example. The game has shitload of glitches and is horribly imbalanced, but it's considered one of the most successful competitive fighting games to this very day. Some argue that RC's in CvS2 improve that game. It's always debatable as to whether imbalance and glitches are a benefit or hindrance to SF.

What are your thoughts?

[Hisham]

I'm thinking a lot of people will say yes, but then go back on it when something they like is taken out for balance.

Like DC 3s, people bitch about that, even though it supposedly fixed a lot of things...

I for one, am all for it. Hell, it makes the game last longer if I am constantly learning and changing strats. It also makes it highly likely that you can pick the character who you like, rather than having to conform to tiers/matchups for high level play since a game getting updates should be more balanced then any other fighter most likely.

[Kataklysmic]

I think downloadable patches is an excellent idea, but there should be considerable time inbetween in order to figure out what needs to be improved, be it, I dunno, 2 years or more like the GGXX upgrades? That way fans will be given the heads up on when to make the switch, and if the rebalancing is done right, nobody will feel pressured into relearning their characters or the game.

What David Sirlin is doing right now with STHD is exactly how Capcom should approach these patches. Instead of weakening top-tiers, lower-tiered characters should be strengthened. And MAYBE, if an awkward glitch is apparent but seems like it has potential, they can adopt that into the gameplay like 2-in-1s and Dhalsim's teleports.

It'll all work out in the end if everyone grows up and provides them with useful feedback instead of bashing the game for it's (temporary) shortcomings.

[Hisham]

Yeah, the more I think about it, the more I think they should regulate patches to once a year or so... Therefore it gives time for the community to find out what is really wrong, and help strenghten weaker characters to balance out tiers. Sirlin in STHD has the right method for how to rebalance characters, so they should used that type of method.

In another idea, perhaps they could have it so you can play the game with the patchs you want... Like when you download the patch, you have to apply it to the game, then you have two versions of the game to play. Like you pop in the game for an online match after the first patch has come out and you can choose to play version A (retail) or version B (first patch).

The only problem I see with the above method is the community could not find a universal tournement standard then, but I think it could be worked out...

[Humbag]

why would we want a broken game if it can be fixed with an update?

DOA4 did that pretty well i think with their updates. (Didnt follow it that close though).

[SweetJohnnyV]

The only problem I see with the above method is the community could not find a universal tournement standard then, but I think it could be worked out...

Worse than that, the online community would be a disaster. It's annoying enough that in SF2:AE you can choose the speed you want and to find an opponent he has to choose the matching speed.

I'd rather just see the updates forced. Then there'd be no room for debate over which version to play.

[Kataklysmic]

Yeah, the more I think about it, the more I think they should regulate patches to once a year or so... Therefore it gives time for the community to find out what is really wrong, and help strenghten weaker characters to balance out tiers. Sirlin in STHD has the right method for how to rebalance characters, so they should used that type of method.

In another idea, perhaps they could have it so you can play the game with the patchs you want... Like when you download the patch, you have to apply it to the game, then you have two versions of the game to play. Like you pop in the game for an online match after the first patch has come out and you can choose to play version A (retail) or version B (first patch).

The only problem I see with the above method is the community could not find a universal tournement standard then, but I think it could be worked out...

That's pretty good. In fact, they could hold minor but consecutive tournaments for each version of the game so you're not left hanging. The standard for major tournaments though should always be set to the latest patch, IMO. From there, it's just a matter of scheduling the events late enough so everyone has adequate time to train.

[bokchoy]

Worse than that, the online community would be a disaster. It's annoying enough that in SF2:AE you can choose the speed you want and to find an opponent he has to choose the matching speed.

I'd rather just see the updates forced. Then there'd be no room for debate over which version to play.

I whole-heartedly agree. If SF4 ends up using this idea, I think the updates would have to be mandatory for all online play, or else defeat the purpose of the updates altogether. It's already a shame that PS3 and X360 owners can't play together. There's no use further segregating the community.

Also, I was thinking that the patches would come once every two-to-six months, depending on necessity, but that's just my guess, assuming that this idea is a possibility.

The only problem I see is that it could eliminate the chances of SF4 appearing in arcades. On the other hand, if electronics' firmware can be updated with the use of a flash drive, there's no reason why arcade machines can't do the same with patches.

[Kataklysmic]

That may be true, but it would be up to arcade owners. If they're not competent enough to see that paying for the service to get it updated is worth the investment, they could lose money off of it. It's not like they're buying the same hardware again, but y'know, they often have trouble keeping cabinets in good working condition.

I know mine does.

[tataki]

i want a final product i can put in every console when i want to host a tourny, and i don't want to be forced to d/l patches for every console the game will be played on.

[Hisham]

Isn't there arcades in Japan that can be connected to the internet?

Updates could be done that way if it is possible...

Otherwise, update via flashdrive sounds good too.

[bokchoy]

To be honest, I have my doubts for SF4 in arcades. There is a reason why Capcom is putting in this much effort to revitalize the SF scene, and that reason is the potential for online competition, not arcades.

RIP arcades. =(

[Humbag]

SF4 will do well in Japanese Arcades.

It will still be console for the US though due to our lack or Arcades and the switch to console at most all major tournies.

[Kataklysmic]

If there's no official arcade release in the states, we can always import it. I'm sure there are some on the coasts that could order one or more for their benefit.

[Kayin]

Revisions aren't bad at all, it's just Capcom has a track record of being very lazy and thoughtless when it comes to them.

"Oh hey, this looks somewhat useful! NERF!"

[ShinjiGohan]

I say keep the patches in a folder that we can install at will....

What I mean is once we patch the game, we may find that a previous patch was better, thus we may want to install the old patch.

But while this can be good to fix some things, it may cause chaos on what we as a community feel is the best and will be difficult to decide on something for countrywide use.

[megaultrasuper]

yes.

Even if it nerfs my favorite character, I will learn to adjust.

[bokchoy]

Balance is always a sensitive topic. Any nerf to a top-tier character or buff to a low-tier character will almost certainly be met with harsh criticism. If you've played a MMORPG, you'll know exactly what I mean. With that been said, if changes are too frequent or too major, it can possibly suck the fun out of the game. If Capcom went ahead with update patches to the game, it'll be hard to determine where to draw the line.

[YellowS4]

Patch every couple of months.

[AlterGenesis]

It's good. (If something is broke) Fix that broke ass game. :p Just don't go overboard with overpatching.

[COUM]

There's no way "every couple of months" is enough time to truly judge the nature of a game. I agree with what others have said in this thread, updates should be restricted to once a year, unless something is clearly grievously wrong (like someone's st.Jab doing 50% damage or something). Also, a sensible attitude has to be taken to glitches, evaluating if they enhance or damage the gameplay, not just "it's a glitch, get rid of it!"

[SNAAAAKE]

I would have to say no unless its just for fixing slowdown or any game breaking glitch like random freeze or whatever.


patchs usually suck and people bitch about the fixed/patched gameplay.
"wah wah cant roll cancel anymore :crybaby:"

[Kataklysmic]

I don't understand what the problem is in buffing up low tiers. If everyone can be given a near-equal chance at competing, then I say go for it. If anything, it'll just make it less practical to horde upper tier characters. They'll still be good, it just won't be as easy for them to win.

[Kayin]

Yeah, less focus on nerfing the top tiers and more focus on buffing the low tiers would be much better.

[Shin00bi]

I vote for getting it right the first time through. Fixes and updates can be on Super SFIV Turbo :)

[Kayin]

If they try to get it right the first time, there better be an arcade version so that they can do plenty of loketests.

[Hyulvinji]

"Maybe, but as long as they are infrequent and only remove the really blatant imperfections."

And what Kataklysmic mentioned. Low tiers create way too many Kens... I don't want to keep cheering loud every time I see more than 3 different characters in a tournament. But I don't want constant updates to make every character equal in every way either. Some should be stronger against others to create more situations, but an overall balance would be great to achieve.

With that being said.. I'll wait a year or so to play it if patching is to be needed because of lousy tests or a too early realease.

[Kayin]

Balance doesn't necessarily mean everyone playing the same. Different characters can have the right options for certain situations but that doesn't mean they can't be different options. They can be executed differently and have different results, such as one being high damage and another being a knockdown.

[Hyulvinji]

That's what I was trying to say :sweat:

Well.. I'm one of those to enjoy more than just a few characters, no matter what tier they belong to.

[Fall_Child42]

You know I have mixed feeling about this,

I have always been under the impression downloadable patches cause PC game makers to be lazy and not test the game enough so they can rush a product out there and fix it later.

However I also do not like the prospect of buying the same damn game 3 times because there was a non-discovered combo that can break the game.

On the negative side, as it has been said , it will not be easily transportable (depending on the size of the updates) like I can't bring the disk over to a friends house pop it in and play with out waiting for 6 patches to download.

but on the positive side you can fix problems really quickly ... much like the Under the level Sentry guns in TF2 (an easily missable glitch)

I hope they do something like steam, where it just automatically updates everytime you connect to the SFIV server... that would be best.

[Demon Dash]

Of course! Why waste such a golden oppertunity to keep the game fresh...

[bokchoy]

Yeah, less focus on nerfing the top tiers and more focus on buffing the low tiers would be much better.

Isn't that pretty much the same thing? It's always character A vs character B. Everything is comparative. Nerfing the top half has the same effect as buffing the bottom half.

If a top-tier character has an imbalanced attack that enables him to slow down the pace of the game, with no drawback, why shouldn't he be nerfed? Even if other characters are buffed to his equal, he still makes the game less fun.

If they were to make balance changes to SFIV, they shouldn't be restricted to ONLY buffing bad characters.

[Shin00bi]

I'm still hoping for an arcade release. I think it will at least for sure be released in Japan in the arcade, unless they're relying heavily on downloadable content.

I really don't like the idea of downloadable content for an SF game. I mean, it violates all tradition for fighting games. There should be one solid arcade machine out there for the first release, that sets the standard, and all games released to the console thereafter should be arcade-perfect ports (with of course, tons of console-only features, and ability to switch around the default options etc -- but still keeping the gameplay aspect standard (((at least in the default options))) ).

Plus, whenever games start having downloadable content, it makes me think the company is just milking their fans for extra cash. Like for instance, the content was already there, but they held it back, and released it as a 'micro-transaction' later.

I would rather they do everything possible for the first release (and really, fighting games have never needed patches, not the ones that are released to the arcade. They just need sequels, or semi-sequels.)

It's just not natural for this type of game to have this download crap. (Unless it's just to de-lag the online play and convert to ggpo ftw!)

Oh and no matter what you do, there will be top tiers. Top players will always use certain characters, and people will have skill to watch and leech off of, and thus the cycle continues.

[omni]

One thing to keep in mind when it comes to Console games - it is very expensive to patch.

The big 3 (microsoft, nintendo, sony) require a game to be submitted and tested for as few crash bugs or progression stopping bugs that can be found. Even if all you do is patch - you have to resubmit the game to be tested. And the submissions aren't cheap at all. They are that expensive to drive the developer to be as clean as possible the first time the game is submitted.

Not that it won't happen - I'd say just don't plan on it happening on a frequent basis.

Derek Daniels
http://lowfierce.blogspot.com

[margalis]

Patching good, microtransactions not so good.

What exactly are they going to offer for microtransactions? New characters? That would be insanely stupid.

[COUM]

One thing to keep in mind when it comes to Console games - it is very expensive to patch.

The big 3 (microsoft, nintendo, sony) require a game to be submitted and tested for as few crash bugs or progression stopping bugs that can be found. Even if all you do is patch - you have to resubmit the game to be tested. And the submissions aren't cheap at all. They are that expensive to drive the developer to be as clean as possible the first time the game is submitted.

Not that it won't happen - I'd say just don't plan on it happening on a frequent basis.

Derek Daniels
http://lowfierce.blogspot.com

Is there no chance of Capcom getting reduced rates for patches to tweak gameplay balance, rather than rectify game-breaking issues?

[HuStLeMaN17]

Adding new characters in updates would rule!!!

[rush down]

I've always felt that making a fighting game and then just letting it loose to the wild is silly and only exists because when fighters were started they couldn't change the game unless they did a whole new version. In my mind putting out a fighter without revision is like making EQ or WoW and then never adjusting the classes and saying "If they aren't balanced, too bad!"

If anyone made an MMO and did that, no one would ever play it! The only reason fighter fans don't complain about no revisions is that we don't know any better. If we want a revision we have to wait for a new version (look at SF2).

The day xbox live comes out with a decent 2D fighter that has good online play and updates every few months is the day fighting games become revolutionized, but developers are too lazy and unvisionary to see this.

[Hawk]

Game updates to me mean one thing.

Tweaking/balancing without re-releases. So it is an immensely good thing.

[Fritz]

I think the pros outweigh the cons for sure... problem is it will take money to get this in place, and the reason online games can support this is because of monthly fee.

[COUM]

I think the pros outweigh the cons for sure... problem is it will take money to get this in place, and the reason online games can support this is because of monthly fee.

Not really. The monthly fee is for MMOs where there's a constant need to create new content, but non-subscription supported games like Starcraft and Counterstrike still receive updates several years (hell, almost a decade now...) into their respective lifespans. The difference is that the fans expect it, and the developers understand the value of supporting the community that supports them.

[The Fireboy]

I like the idea of patching games, but I like MvC2 and shit like that so, I'm used to glitches and things like that, it's a tough call since I don't know HOW much they'll patch (I can see some game breaking glitches being taken out, naturally..but SF is almost built around broken shit with MvC infinites, SFA3's crouch cancel infinites, CvS2's roll cancel and 3S kara-throwing and unblockables. People have grown used to it and come to see it as more of a high level thing now.

Though I can see of them removing things that just crush the game (IE; Gambit glitch and shit like that) basically I like the idea of patching but don't want to see it overdone (which the degree of that can vary from person-to-person.)

[Kamui]

Agreed, the community and fans shouldn't have much say in it. Too many conflicts arise with players complaining about tactics or moves that aren't actually broken. Things that don't need to be changed would be simply because of complaints from idiots with big mouths.

Worse than that, the online community would be a disaster. It's annoying enough that in SF2:AE you can choose the speed you want and to find an opponent he has to choose the matching speed.

I'd rather just see the updates forced. Then there'd be no room for debate over which version to play.

[Kataklysmic]

I like the idea of patching games, but I like MvC2 and shit like that so, I'm used to glitches and things like that, it's a tough call since I don't know HOW much they'll patch (I can see some game breaking glitches being taken out, naturally..but SF is almost built around broken shit with MvC infinites, SFA3's crouch cancel infinites, CvS2's roll cancel and 3S kara-throwing and unblockables. People have grown used to it and come to see it as more of a high level thing now.

It doesn't matter if everyone's used to game breaking aspects, nobody likes them. That's why game developers continue to make upgrades like ST. They're not always satisfactory, but they're keenly aware of the playerbase and, to an extent, what they want changed in competitive games. With the exception of scrubs wanting to achieve high status, I can't fathom why anybody would want them untouched.

[Rioting Soul]

Yea. But there should be a considerable amount of time between updates and if possible, Capcom should open a dialog with the community on the topic prior to patching. Like, after 5 months of SF4 being out, Capcom puts out a tentative changelog before patching the game. If there is an unintentional element in the game but actually makes it better then we can petition/argue/bitch/whine to have it kept in before they patch the game. I'm worried that Capcom will confuse "good" with "too good".

[Manx]

MMO's shouldn't even be mentioned here because the real reason they get patches is because they have about a billion different matchup situations to a fighting game's dozen or so. Add in the fact that the developers get payed according to how long it takes players to pass content and boom! patches are necessary!

For a fighting game, it's going to be really interesting to see what the developers deem worthy of changing. I really think it's all just a way to get them to sell microtransaction content.

[Fritz]

Not really. The monthly fee is for MMOs where there's a constant need to create new content, but non-subscription supported games like Starcraft and Counterstrike still receive updates several years (hell, almost a decade now...) into their respective lifespans. The difference is that the fans expect it, and the developers understand the value of supporting the community that supports them.

You're right, however i do think companies who are used to producing a game, then washing their hands of it and watching sales will be hard pressed to realize the value of such a tactic.

[archetype]

...Take MvC2 for example. The game has shitload of glitches and is horribly imbalanced, but it's considered one of the most successful competitive fighting games to this very day. Some argue that RC's in CvS2 improve that game. It's always debatable as to whether imbalance and glitches are a benefit or hindrance to SF.

What are your thoughts?

Lost most of your credibility there buddy with that marvel stuff. Look at Marvel as a TEAM based game and you will see there is a plethora of teams to play. By the way, RC's improves the balance of CvS2.

Now to get back to the matter at hand. Patching sounds like a great idea on paper but there are too many ways for this idea to fall apart and turn any game that implements it, into a steaming shit pile.

Fighting game players are a fickle group of people. I wouldn't know how Capcom would get their information to know what to patch in the first place but if they are going to get their data from casual players it will for sure ruin the game.

Things will be claimed as "broken" when in more cases than not, the said tactic, move or game glitch isn't broken in the slightest. Capcom will then fix these changes then some time after something else will be claimed as broken, cheap, and overpowered by someone. Capcom will then fix this again, however, someone e-mails them crying about something too powerful, so they change the aspects of the game once again. This cycle will continue until I'm sure until the game is bastardized so much that it will become unplayable because its stale.

If its not one thing, its another. Fix Yun's super in 3s, and Chun and Ken are too good, fix Chun and Ken, and Makoto is too good, etc.. Quite frankly I have no faith in [casual]fighting game players to accurately deduce a 1 real overpowered aspect instead of choosing 10 completely fine things. I would not want their input on something than can affect the game on levels like this.

A system that has been working is just to update the whole game fully and take into context all the contingencies and analyze them for the next game. Whether it be SF4: The Rise of Gill or SF5. They been doing it with SF2, They did it with Alpha, Virtua Fighter, Tekken, and every other fighting game.

So I see no need for patches, just look at what went wrong with the previous incarnation and improve upon it in the next game. I dont know about you guys but I will buy every single SF, Tekken, Virtua Fighter, Guilty Gear, incarnation if they actually care about improving upon, enhancing, and rebuilding the foundations.

[specs]

I voted for "Maybe, but as long as they are infrequent and only remove the really blatant imperfections." Which I believe is the best option. Fighting games aren't really MMOs; they don't need to hinge on new ways to play every new patch.

[Tigerboi]

Lost most of your credibility there buddy with that marvel stuff. Look at Marvel as a TEAM based game and you will see there is a plethora of teams to play.

Uh, that might be true, but he's still right. If marvel is balanced, then the sky is green.

[JED07]

K, when I was browsing the threads and I saw this poll I was like:

"HOLY COCKFUCK I'M NOT ALONE IN WANTING A BALANCED-ASSED GAME!":looney:

YES, for the love of god if it's going to be online and played a bazillion times a day like Dota I say patch da shit outta that game for every stupid ass piece of shit glitch THAT WE ALL KNOW the developers woulda nuked if it had showed up in the beta. Cough Crouch Cancelling Cough.

Not just patch it, but create a forum and get together were people can discuss the current versions gameplay and decide on what is garbage.

NOW.... just because the game is patchable I do not, repeat, I do not wanna see the same sloppyassed laziness crap whenever a new feature,character,move or whatever is added. AKA, oh let's add a new character from capcom game x and throw him/her in with whatever moves, supers, priorities etc we feel like at the time we're smoking crack and let the masses playtest that shit and do the work for us. Yes DOTA I'm soooo looking at you again. I hate to draw examples from one game here but while the patching for dota does work it also has the tedency to make the developers lazy and not properly test new stuff. For those that play dota perhaps they can remember the Tinker with his autofiring gatling gun? Or the wolfrider that could drag u in a net and TP to his fire bush ftw? Or Crix's ult having no cooldown so u could just stun + ult = dead ftw.

Basically what I'm saying is that while patching is the way to go it definitely has it's pitfalls.

Also I agree with Sirlin's philosphy for updating games. Nerf the high tiers within reason. Same for the low tier. Granted that's no easy task but with regular updates we can eventually find that sweet spot.

Combine patching with GGPO = pontentially greatest fighting game, no, greatest fucking game ever. PERIOD.

So maybe we can finally drag those lazyassed kids who are lurking on the edge of deciding whether they want to play Fighting games or not in to play with us but won't because they think:

a) Game is not balanced

b) Game is broken

c) Game is too hard to control

d) I can't play fighting games on my PC becuz I'm a PC elitist with one of those long cigarette sticks in my hands from the 30's who doesn't want to buy a console

Sigh... srry I had to sound like a madman but I've been thinking about this for awhile and I was gonna post this in the BBC or w/e Capcom forum and rant about this but I've been busy.

So in closing patching=goodness cuz let's face the hard facts gentlemen. Arcades are dead in most areas and if we can get a balanced online game we can play at home it will not damage the current scenes but make them stronger. People including myself will still travel to casuals and tourneys. There's nothing like playing in the same room as other people. However until scotty can beam me up to wherever I want in the world it's not feasible to go to every damn event. With online play we can practice our game whenever we want everyday. This will produce better players. So maybe we can finally pwn the Japanese in their own game.:annoy:

K shuttingtfu now.

[Yasanagi]

JED, if I could rep you, I would. That was a pretty funny and logical rant.

[Sephiroth73003]

Patches cost money to make. Keep in mind for patches your going to have to spend money, which i personally don't mind assuming the game is good. Just something to think about.

[Keits]

I'm all for this. Give us extra characters when you patch to, and make the update mandatory for online and tournament play.

Like many have said. Dont nerf the top tier, buff the low tier. Also, if a glitch is being used commonly in high level play, make the glitch's effect remain but make it easy enough for the common man to use so that we arent dealing with an insane execution barrier.

And no, those of you who claim to want a balanced game... you have no idea what you really want. A balanced game will be the most boring game you've ever played. You want a game where every character has enough of his own BS to be called broken. That yields an odd 'balance' out of chaos, and keeps the game FUN.

[bokchoy]

On the cost of implementing patches: I'm not an executive of a major video game developing company, nor can I accurately quantitate the costs/benefits of this whole patch idea. However, one thing is certain: there is more a lot more resting on the shoulders of SF4's success than just the revenue from one video game title. If SF4 is a huge hit, like we all know it can potentially be, it can restore the genre that Capcom created to its former glory. If downloadable patches can attract hardcore fighting game enthusiasts and win over newcomers by paying attention to the seemingly-minor details and keeping the game fresh, then it would have huge implications for the future of the fighting game genre and one of Capcom's most recognizable franchises. Perhaps the risk isn't worth the reward, but I think that the idea is still within reasonable possibility.

On balance vs imbalance: I think people overestimate the importance of "balance" in fighting games. I agree that a game with 50+ characters should have more than 7-8 tournament calibre characters, and a game with 20+ characters should have more than 3-4. However, at the same time, there is nothing wrong with disparity. Take CvS2 for example. The game is more-or-less dominated by 7-8 characters, but there are about 10 more that are still very playable at tournament level. The second tier may not be as good as the top tier, but it's close enough so that players can develop their own unique style and still maintain their competitiveness. (If you don't believe me, go look up "Buktooth" on YouTube). All-in-all, I'd like to see more relative balance than we've seen in the past SF games, and this can only be made possible by frequent balance patches. If they overdid it, and tried to get every single character up to snuff with the Blankas and Sagats, it would ruin the very essence of Street Fighter.

[TS]

If Capcom didn't have a long and storied history of listening to scrubs, I'd say patch the hell out of it.

[archetype]

pretty much.

Its pretty scary that a group of people with preconceived notions of whats "broken", "glitched", "overpowered", etc. can undoubtedly destroy a fighting game. I pray to Sheng Long that Capcom does not even ponder about patching any fighting games EVER. I cant fathom a more horrible death for Street Fighter.

[Fall_Child42]

good as the top tier, but it's close enough so that players can develop their own unique style and still maintain their competitiveness. (If you don't believe me, go look up "Buktooth" on YouTube). All-in-all, I'd like to see more relative balance than we've seen in the past SF games, and this can only be made possible by frequent balance patches. If they overdid it, and tried to get every single character up to snuff with the Blankas and Sagats, it would ruin the very essence of Street Fighter.


I agree, I like playing low tier characters. Sure I lose alot, but I like the challenge and when I win it makes the victory even more sweet. I BEAT YOU WITH DAN ... LOL WUT?

but if there were no tiers, the game would kinda be bland. Of course, this is assuming there are no God-tiers. That would suck.

So, if people discover something that can make one character absolutely god-like, then it should be patched, but is some characters are just slightly better than others than just leave it be.

[EveryFlowerFlow]

nay.

look at kwonho.

[JED07]

Obviously if patches will be implemented and the masses consulted about what to change/fix, their needs to be an authority among the players that knows their shit. A laison between the developers and the player base. This could perhaps avoid the instant "OMG I LOSE TO THIS GIMMIK THERE4 IT IS BROKEN!" AKA I don't like to lose so let's slash a limb off the game. On the other hand they would need to eliminate the god-tier. Oh and of course there's no such thing as 100% balanced gameplay. That's stupid. That kind of holy grail of fighting games might even suck too. I'd settle for 90%-95% rather than 3-4 characters outta 30 or whatever.

As for the cost of patching. Hey you'know what? I'd rather pay $24 a month for an online fighting game that is regularly maintained thru patches then those piece of $!#% MMORPGs that make me work my ass off in the most boring grinding way that they dare to call gameplay! So what can I say gentlemen? Open those wallets and give the artists their due!

[Kataklysmic]

pretty much.

Its pretty scary that a group of people with preconceived notions of whats "broken", "glitched", "overpowered", etc. can undoubtedly destroy a fighting game. I pray to Sheng Long that Capcom does not even ponder about patching any fighting games EVER. I cant fathom a more horrible death for Street Fighter.

If they're gonna patch any fighting games, I think it's best not to listen to us, but rather the more serious players who know what can make or break a game; guys like Choi, Valle, JChen, the works. Shit, if they can put whole strategy guides together for retail, Capcom could just hire THEM to make the patches. Some Japanese input wouldn't hurt as well.

[UltraDavid]

How are people against this? The best way to balance a game is by patching, not by putting out new games. It costs less, it makes the company's risk in balancing a game less because they won't have to bet the high cost of printing new copies, it can more rapidly address problems, and if a fix turns out to be bad, it can be undone more rapidly as well.

I don't want daily updates, I want time to figure things out, and I don't want everything to get tweaked, only the serious stuff, but crap yeah I want downloadable patches.

And I want 'em for free, a la Battle.net. Patches are a way for Blizzard to convince new people to pick up the game, it's a form of constant advertising both in the sense that it convinces people to play or keep playing and in the sense that they actually do some advertising through it. Learn from Blizzard, Capcom!

[Rico!]

Yes, downloadable content seems pretty cool.

[bokchoy]

Obviously if patches will be implemented and the masses consulted about what to change/fix, their needs to be an authority among the players that knows their shit. A laison between the developers and the player base. This could perhaps avoid the instant "OMG I LOSE TO THIS GIMMIK THERE4 IT IS BROKEN!" AKA I don't like to lose so let's slash a limb off the game. On the other hand they would need to eliminate the god-tier. Oh and of course there's no such thing as 100% balanced gameplay. That's stupid. That kind of holy grail of fighting games might even suck too. I'd settle for 90%-95% rather than 3-4 characters outta 30 or whatever.

As for the cost of patching. Hey you'know what? I'd rather pay $24 a month for an online fighting game that is regularly maintained thru patches then those piece of $!#% MMORPGs that make me work my ass off in the most boring grinding way that they dare to call gameplay! So what can I say gentlemen? Open those wallets and give the artists their due!

As much as I would be willing to pay a monthly fee to play a perfect SFIV, I think Capcom's goal is to attract newcomers first, and satisfy the hardcores second. But yeah, this might seem like I'm stating the obvious, but I really hope Capcom realizes how important this one game can be, and dumps a lot of money into making it perfect for both noobs and competitive players alike.

[[iHate]Youthattack]

I say patch it. Leave the glitches and brokenness for mvc3 :rofl:

[Shotokan Symphony]

I don't think bi-yearly patches are a lot to ask for, but I can't believe people in this thread act as if they're willing to buy a new version of the SAME FUCKING GAME.
No matter how expensive patching is, it's considerably cheaper than making and distributing hard copies.

[DS]

I don't think bi-yearly patches are a lot to ask for, but I can't believe people in this thread act as if they're willing to buy a new version of the SAME FUCKING GAME.
No matter how expensive patching is, it's considerably cheaper than making and distributing hard copies.

Yeah, patching is the easiest way to do it. And it's the most inexpensive route. I mean, why do you think these consoles have that online capability? It's there to make things easier.

[bokchoy]

Youthattack;4601572']I say patch it. Leave the glitches and brokenness for mvc3 :rofl:

...and MvC3 with its 4 playable characters and fuckload of glitches will probably be 100x more fun than SFIV v1.54. Hahaha jk.

[jabhadouken]

If they're gonna patch any fighting games, I think it's best not to listen to most of us, but rather the more serious players who know what can make or break a game; guys like Choi, Valle, JChen, the works. Shit, if they can put whole strategy guides together for retail, Capcom could just hire THEM to test the patches. Lots of Japanese input wouldn't hurt as well.

Agreed, almost to a tee.

I wouldn't mind one bit if they told the whole of the non-Japanese community to bugger off and just listened to their best players' advice.

The key word in that last bit being best.

At least that way it'd be a pretty safe bet that the changes would actually constitute genuine fixes.

[bokchoy]

I wouldn't assume that Capcom would take a random scrub's word over someone who knows and understands Street Fighter even better than they do. I'd give Capcom more credit than that. As for the "Japanese input", I wouldn't assume that all Japanese players are SF gods either. They have their fair share of dumbass nublets. It's just that nobody ever hears about that because shitty players get no publicity, while the Daigos and BAS's are widely recognized by the competitive SF crowd. I'm certain that the non-Japanese community is just as important as the Japanese community, when it comes to player feedback.

[jabhadouken]

I wouldn't assume that Capcom would take a random scrub's word over someone who knows and understands Street Fighter even better than they do. I'd give Capcom more credit than that. As for the "Japanese input", I wouldn't assume that all Japanese players are SF gods either. They have their fair share of dumbass nublets. It's just that nobody ever hears about that because shitty players get no publicity, while the Daigos and BAS's are widely recognized by the competitive SF crowd. I'm certain that the non-Japanese community is just as important as the Japanese community, when it comes to player feedback.

No doubt.

My point was that I'd be glad even if they only listened the best Japanese players... just so long as it results in the best possible game.

[Shin00bi]

For the purpose of player vs. player (what makes these games tick), there should not be patches.

I don't think they will, but IF they decided to patch this game "because they listen to the players", I foresee this scenario:

[Top Player] beats most other players using a handful of "the same cheap technique that shouldn't be in the game"

Capcom patches it.

[The Same Top Player] adapts, and possibly redefines the tier-list by "using cheap techniques that are too godly and should be patched"

Capcom patches it.

Repeat the above a few times and eventually do a full circle (because no matter what you do, there will always be top-players, and in-turn, 'top-tiers', regardless of how 'balanced' a game is - even games of chance have top-players; ie poker).

-

The thing is, patching usually consists of fixing major, enormous glitches (PC games, anyone?).

These glitches simply never make their way to most major fighting games by the time they're released (especially games that are built from the ground up, like SF1-3, SFA1-3 etc).

Vs games are a bit more notorious for having glitches, especially the ones involving Marvel. MvC2 had quantity, and lots of flashiness. It was a rushed game. It had a few fancy backgrounds (which look horrible when coupled with the outdated sprites), a few new sprites to match the outdated sprites, etc. Overall, it's still a killer game, and if it were to follow the tradition of previous successful fighting games, we would see MvC3 (or something like it), which fixes what Capcom considers 'oopsies' and adds tons more to the game. Such as additions to the game that expand the depth of the fighting system, based on player feedback/capcom-wisdom, adds characters etc to make it a distinct game from the predecessor, etc.

SFIV will be like SF3 NG when it first came out, in that it will be a solid, glitch-free game. There will be unforeseen technique, and things that catch developers by surprise. Think of it like Chess. To this day, there is still not a AI-Chess that can always beat every human player. There is not documentation of every possible move. There are not patches to chess (hah.), only the AI.

The SF games are basically their own thing, and shouldn't be patched. Every entry into the series has its following; if you patch that, it divides the SF-fans even more (you know how people stick to one earlier patch of a game, like Diablo 2 for example; people have their own servers for their favourite patch).

All that aside, I think they should definitely patch the AI to get smarter and smarter at least for 8-Star difficulty. I've always wanted the SF games to be more difficult at some point in single-player. Perhaps an alternate diffculty, that models itself off the current best online-players? That would work wonders for the competition level of the game if they could pull it off.

[jabhadouken]

For the purpose of player vs. player (what makes these games tick), there should not be patches.

I don't think they will, but IF they decided to patch this game "because they listen to the players", I foresee this scenario:

[Top Player] beats most other players using a handful of "the same cheap technique that shouldn't be in the game"

Capcom patches it.

[The Same Top Player] adapts, and possibly redefines the tier-list by "using cheap techniques that are too godly and should be patched"

Capcom patches it.

Repeat the above a few times and eventually you have pong.

Yeah - but the problem of unforseen glitches and balancing issues are still very much existent in most modern fighting games.

It used to be that fighting games came out in the arcades first. When truly stupid, gamebreaking shit was found, the company that made the game would issue a rev. SC2 is a perfect example of this (so are T5 and SF3, even though they got moniker changes beyond ver. 1.2 or whatever as well).

With the decline of arcades, it's only natural that these remedies get fixed in another manner.

It's either that, live with the inevitable BS that gets discovered, or pony up for a whole other game DVD.

I'd much rather the patch method get implemented competently, and a better game ensue.

Besides, as long as a game's community sets an official standard (the latest patch, most easily), there really shouldn't be a D2 server-esque issue. People are going to play what is established as the standard in a fighting game, because that'll be the only way that they will be able achieve any standing amongst their fellows.

[aznchristmas]

Although patches can be used to balance the game, I really don't think fighting games would work well with patches.

I understand that a game can't be tested for every glitch. Most glitches are discovered by players within a period of time; it takes longer to exploit them, but not long to discover them. this is becasue a player base is much larger than the team of developers, so there are more people just trying random shit.

Therefore, to compensate for the fact that not every glitch can be tested by the developers, I think there should be about a 1 year period where the game is constantly being patched. But after the 1 year, the final product is "released" in that it will no longer be patched. This way, major glitches that would break the game immediately are overcome, and the game starts out fairly balanced (time could still create tiers).

I don't really know how Blizzard handles Starcraft, but I do know it's patched frequently.. how does the competitive community handle this?

[jabhadouken]

Although patches can be used to balance the game, I really don't think fighting games would work well with patches.

I understand that a game can't be tested for every glitch. Most glitches are discovered by players within a period of time; it takes longer to exploit them, but not long to discover them. this is becasue a player base is much larger than the team of developers, so there are more people just trying random shit.

Therefore, to compensate for the fact that not every glitch can be tested by the developers, I think there should be about a 1 year period where the game is constantly being patched. But after the 1 year, the final product is "released" in that it will no longer be patched. This way, major glitches that would break the game immediately are overcome, and the game starts out fairly balanced (time could still create tiers).

I don't really know how Blizzard handles Starcraft, but I do know it's patched frequently.. how does the competitive community handle this?

It's not a bad idea, but it'd require more/better testing than 3S got.

I mean, if the game were ST after a year, fine.

If the game were 3S after a year, we'd still have top 2 running the game with a healthy smattering of #3 and a sprinkling of #4 and #5.

One can argue that it's 3S's system that is intrinsically flawed - and with good reasoning - but maybe, just maybe, a 'lil patch o' love could tweak the tiers into at least a semblance of balance.

Without patches, it all hinges on the quality of the initial framework of the game.

Not that this is a bad thing - but devs these days simply don't seem to put as much work into such important principles.

[bokchoy]

For the purpose of player vs. player (what makes these games tick), there should not be patches.

I don't think they will, but IF they decided to patch this game "because they listen to the players", I foresee this scenario:

[Top Player] beats most other players using a handful of "the same cheap technique that shouldn't be in the game"

Capcom patches it.

[The Same Top Player] adapts, and possibly redefines the tier-list by "using cheap techniques that are too godly and should be patched"

Capcom patches it.

Repeat the above a few times and eventually do a full circle (because no matter what you do, there will always be top-players, and in-turn, 'top-tiers', regardless of how 'balanced' a game is - even games of chance have top-players; ie poker).


The purpose of patching isn't to de-throne top players, or to rob the best characters of their most valuable assets. If that was the case, then yes, we would all be 100% opposed to patches, and this thread would be completely moot. However, the purpose of patching would be to allow more characters to be reasonably viable characters at all levels of play, and to allow players to adopt their own unique style without necessarily compromising their competitive edge.

Yes, there will always be top-tiers. Out of the X characters in SF4, there will inevitably be a few characters that stand above the rest. The question is, how far above the rest will they stand? Will the gap between Top-tier and bottom-tier be the equivalent to C-Sagat vs S-Kyosuke in CvS2? Or perhaps something more reasonable like between Sagat and Iori.

SFIV will be like SF3 NG when it first came out, in that it will be a solid, glitch-free game. There will be unforeseen technique, and things that catch developers by surprise. Think of it like Chess. To this day, there is still not a AI-Chess that can always beat every human player. There is not documentation of every possible move. There are not patches to chess (hah.), only the AI.

Competitive chess does not suffer from imbalance because of its symmetry. Before a match begins, there are only two variables, white & black. A tournament match consists of an equal amount of games playing as black and white. Street Fighter has traditionally presented you with a variety of choices: characters, assist types, super arts, grooves, isms, ratios, you name it.

Competitive chess does not require variety because the game thrives on simplicity. Street Fighter, when compared to chess, thrives on complexity. Chess is turn based, where your legal moves are very heavily restricted, and victory is achieved by outsmarting your opponent. Street Fighter plays in real time, where there is a seemingly limitless number of choices you can make at any given second. Victory is achieved by outsmarting your opponent, fully understanding the mechanics of every characters and their moves, precisely executing your intended commands, and reacting to split-second changes in circumstance.

I'm not saying that Street Fighter is a more competitive game than chess. They are far too different to compare, and the relevant differences are the reasons why chess requires no rule changes in 5 centuries of competitive play, where some video games may require updates up to once every three months.

[snakedizzle209]

No. Because then you get a bunch of people whining with their scrub banter about stupid shit trying to get it "fixed". If the game is broken then deal with it and get used to it. If a few little tricks in the game are gonna stop you from playing then just dont play any fighting game ever made. Fix it if it goes too far, but I dont see how anybody can take a game seriously when it keeps getting messed with every time you get used to it. If it isnt gamebreaking then it isnt worth messing with. Unless if the game sucks. Then you can fuck with it all you want, but I hope that wont be the case.

[Shin00bi]

Yes, there will always be top-tiers. Out of the X characters in SF4, there will inevitably be a few characters that stand above the rest. The question is, how far above the rest will they stand? Will the gap between Top-tier and bottom-tier be the equivalent to C-Sagat vs S-Kyosuke in CvS2? Or perhaps something more reasonable like between Sagat and Iori.

Think about what exactly makes a Top Tier, Top Tier. The top players are the single most important factor. The difference between C-Sagat and S-Kyosuke, is that the top players decided to use Sagat more. The reason Iori stands a chance, is because Buktooth decided he like Iori enough to make it work.

The thing that defines the top-tiers are what we see in top-level play (like at tournies). The people who insist on knowing the tier-list, are the non-top-players. The day this game comes out, we will have posts from people like you demanding the tier list, and then subsequent posts complaining about imbalance; when all it really comes down to is who the trend-setters use.

If we went by your reasoning, there would be never-ending patches, and if/when they decided to put out a final-patch and not patch it again, we would still have complaints of imbalance, because the top-players continued to win, with the characters they just want to play with.

On a purely theoretical level, S-Kyosuke would dominate C-Sagat, if the S-Kyosuke player knew how to use him like none other and did.

The key factor is skill, play-style, and subsequent preference based off the play-style.

Anywho, I shouldn't delve too much into theory fighter. But let's just say if they were to apply patches to the game to achieve 'balance' it wouldn't work in the long-run.

[bokchoy]

Think about what exactly makes a Top Tier, Top Tier. The top players are the single most important factor. The difference between C-Sagat and S-Kyosuke, is that the top players decided to use Sagat more. The reason Iori stands a chance, is because Buktooth decided he like Iori enough to make it work.

The thing that defines the top-tiers are what we see in top-level play (like at tournies). The people who insist on knowing the tier-list, are the non-top-players. The day this game comes out, we will have posts from people like you demanding the tier list, and then subsequent posts complaining about imbalance; when all it really comes down to is who the trend-setters use.

If we went by your reasoning, there would be never-ending patches, and if/when they decided to put out a final-patch and not patch it again, we would still have complaints of imbalance, because the top-players continued to win, with the characters they just want to play with.

On a purely theoretical level, S-Kyosuke would dominate C-Sagat, if the S-Kyosuke player knew how to use him like none other and did.

The key factor is skill, play-style, and subsequent preference based off the play-style.

Anywho, I shouldn't delve too much into theory fighter. But let's just say if they were to apply patches to the game to achieve 'balance' it wouldn't work in the long-run.

Sagat isn't top-tier because the the best players use him. The best players use Sagat because he is top-tier. There is no denying that Sagat short-to-mid ranged prowess, high-priority/low-risk attacks, ground superiority, and combo-friendly supers trump Kyosuke's strengths (or lack thereof). Trendsetters are trendsetters because they are usually the first to discover and prove a character's worth.

Also, if you've read some of my previous posts, I've already stated that constant patching with the purpose of trying to achieve absolutely perfect balance is a bad thing for SF. Balance patches should simply shorten the gap between top-tier and bottom-tier, to a degree in which all, or at least most, characters are viable choices at all levels of competition.

Since you seem like chess, let's use it in an example. This time, the example will draw similarities that are actually relevant to Street Fighter. What are the most viable black responses to 1. e4? Three choices that are considered the most dominant are e5, c5 and e6. Grand Masters have played these openings to victory for the past 400 years, but that's not what makes them dominant.
-They are the "top-tier" choices, not because the pros made them popular. They are simply theoretically advantageous choices that the pros have employed in high-level competition. Grandmasters easily recognize the advantages of these three defenses and proved them to be the best, just like how the SF pros have easily recognized the advantages of picking characters like Sagat, Blanka and M.Bison.
-Pros have succeeded with some unorthodox defenses, such as Nc6, just like Buktooth has found success with N-Morrigan, but this does not imply that every defense to 1. e4 is potentially viable in competitive play. It simply means that Nc6 is a slightly less-powerful, but still a viable response.
-It is not merely coincedence that f5 and d5 defenses are pretty much never used among top competition. An f5 response to e4 would put black at a disadvantage against an equally skilled player, regardess of whether or not he could use it effectively, just like a player matching up Kyosuke against the top-tier versus an equally skilled opponent.

Street Fighter shares these similarities with chess. The main difference is, again, restriction is what makes Chess great while Street Fighter thrives on choices. This has been true since the day the game allowed you to choose between eight unique characters (Okay, seven unique characters. Sorry, Ken). Therefore, the best way to make Street Fighter better is for the game's mechanics to encourage variety and to make it so choice and competitive edge can actually go hand in hand. I'm certain that Capcom tries to execute this, to some degree, with each fighting game they make. They just fail miserably at it. Patching can alleviate this problem, and help Capcom make SFIV the product that they intend for it to be.

[Kayin]

No. Because then you get a bunch of people whining with their scrub banter about stupid shit trying to get it "fixed". If the game is broken then deal with it and get used to it. If a few little tricks in the game are gonna stop you from playing then just dont play any fighting game ever made. Fix it if it goes too far, but I dont see how anybody can take a game seriously when it keeps getting messed with every time you get used to it. If it isnt gamebreaking then it isnt worth messing with. Unless if the game sucks. Then you can fuck with it all you want, but I hope that wont be the case.

Didn't you read ANYTHING about the possibility of buffing the low tier?

[Xenozip.]

nay.

look at kwonho. That's an MMO. No, look at Melty Blood and Big Bang Beat instead.

- First, Melty Blood was originally a doujin released for the PC and received many patches. It use to be broken shit. There were a ton of bugs, infinites, and ridiculously broken BS moves. The roster was also smaller and didn't have things like dodges, ex/held-shields, sparks, etc.

Now after many patches and an arcade release later, many would say that Melty Blood has benefited greatly from the patches. It's undeniable that the patches have improved the game aesthetically and fixed a ton bugs and infinites. Zar and many others have said that Melty Blood is also a very balanced game with only a few ridiculous match ups. Absolutely no one would take the original (unpatched) game seriously, not when they can play the patched versions (including the arcade version which was patched).

- Second, Big Bang Beat was another doujin released for the PC that received many patches. It use to be kinda broken. Now it's total crap.

After many patches the game has gotten steadily worse to the point where it's absolute garbage and not even remotely fun.

Point: the quality and effect patches have on games depends entirely on the company producing the patches. Now keep in mind every Capcom game we play is not the first of the series, we almost always move on to the sequel game (ST, 3S, MvC2, CvS2, A2/A3). Do you have faith in Capcom?

[bokchoy]

That's an MMO. No, look at Melty Blood and Big Bang Beat instead.

- First, Melty Blood was originally a doujin released for the PC and received many patches. It use to be broken shit. There were a ton of bugs, infinites, and ridiculously broken BS moves. The roster was also smaller and didn't have things like dodges, ex/held-shields, sparks, etc.

Now after many patches and an arcade release later, many would say that Melty Blood has benefited greatly from the patches. It's undeniable that the patches have improved the game aesthetically and fixed a ton bugs and infinites. Zar and many others have said that Melty Blood is also a very balanced game with only a few ridiculous match ups. Absolutely no one would take the original (unpatched) game seriously, not when they can play the patched versions (including the arcade version which was patched).

- Second, Big Bang Beat was another doujin released for the PC that received many patches. It use to be kinda broken. Now it's total crap.

After many patches the game has gotten steadily worse to the point where it's absolute garbage and not even remotely fun.

Point: the quality and effect patches have on games depends entirely on the company producing the patches. Now keep in mind every Capcom game we play is not the first of the series, we almost always move on to the sequel game (ST, 3S, MvC2, CvS2, A2/A3). Do you have faith in Capcom?

That's a really good point. Patching can potentially make SFIV infinitely better, but it can also have disastrous results.

I think it's safe to say that the latest version of each pseudo-series is, more often than not, the best one. Although I consider them more as independent games, rather than patched versions of the previous games.

Do I have faith in Capcom? To be honest, I have a few doubts here and there, but if I didn't have faith in Capcom, I would rather be posting in a Tekken 6 forum somewhere.

[Xenozip.]

Although I consider them more as independent games, rather than patched versions of the previous games.
Depends which game. A lot of sequels feel exactly like patches (I can personally think of quite a few), but not all of them do.

[Sephiroth73003]

In the end it depends on how well the patches are implemented.
I'd argue for yes if it wasn't the idea capcom is having towards SFIV. They are wanting to make it more simple because they believe SFIII was unapproachable because of it's complexity or so the SFIV producer mentioned in his interview (I'd argue lack of advertising in all honesty and it being released on a dying system, but that's for another thread). If the patching team had these same ideas I'd be angry when they start nerfing and buffing things or what not. I couldn't imagine SFIII or CvS2 without "karas" and "rollcancels". They are very strong high level techniques which imo don't really effect the scrub community as the majority of scrubs can't do them or don't know what they are. Yet in competitive play they are used continuously because of their extreme usefulness. However "rollcancels" especially require alot of practice and make the game VERY unapproachable for new comers who don't have experience doing similar techniques who want to enter competitive play. Which is the exact opposite of what the game is trying to achieve. Hell the current SFIV description sounds a lot like Naruto Gekitou Ninja Taisen 4 with a High/Low system thrown in and an additional super bar, which though i enjoyed playing it is truly "Fighting Games for Dummies". It's of course to early to judge the game, but we can only hope that if Capcom does decide to make patches they will not listen to the whining and take an objective view and maybe take the opinions of some top players into consideration rather than simply fixing things to appease people.

Remember well over 90% of all players that play a game are scrubs and who should capcom listen to if they really want money? The majority or the minority?

[snakedizzle209]

Didn't you read ANYTHING about the possibility of buffing the low tier?

What's the deal with people and balanced tiers anyways? No game has ever been completely balanced, but it never stopped any game from being good (despite what low tier players say). Tiers are always gonna be there and there is no point in fucking with the game constantly just because a few scrubs wanna use Dan competitively and have the option of gathering together and whining about it to Capcom. Why not just hope for Capcom to thoroughly test the game, instead of assuming they'll fuck it up for sure and need to cover their tracks. Leaving the gameplay in the hands of millions of casual players doesnt sound like a good idea to me.

[polarity]

the idea that the rules of chess have remained unmodified for centuries is totally false anyway. even up into the early 90s (and possibly beyond), minor adjustments have been made to the tournament rule set.

[Kataklysmic]

What's the deal with people and balanced tiers anyways? No game has ever been completely balanced, but it never stopped any game from being good (despite what low tier players say). Tiers are always gonna be there and there is no point in fucking with the game constantly just because a few scrubs wanna use Dan competitively and have the option of gathering together and whining about it to Capcom. Why not just hope for Capcom to thoroughly test the game, instead of assuming they'll fuck it up for sure and need to cover their tracks. Leaving the gameplay in the hands of millions of casual players doesnt sound like a good idea to me.

That's generalizing. Making a game completely balanced has always been impossible. That's not the same as balancing a game to its limit. It only makes sense to do so. If you're going to load a game with so many characters, why not have them play on near-equal terms? It increases the game's longetivity. There's no reason to settle for anything less.

And the changes made between revisions have always been the result of hardcore activity. The casual players can't whine about anything if they don't know any better.

[Xiii]

Games can have tons of characters and still be competitively balanced. GG is a good example, but even the likes of 3S see everyone being played competitively except for Sean which is pretty good for a cast of 19 playable characters. ST is also well balanced in a sense though there are ridiculous match-ups, every character can in a sense be playable at a competitive level, even T Hawk... against certain characters.

I'm all for patches when it comes to Capcom because it never seems like they are ever good at getting anything right the first time, especially with new system mechanics.

[bokchoy]

What's the deal with people and balanced tiers anyways? No game has ever been completely balanced, but it never stopped any game from being good (despite what low tier players say). Tiers are always gonna be there and there is no point in fucking with the game constantly just because a few scrubs wanna use Dan competitively and have the option of gathering together and whining about it to Capcom. Why not just hope for Capcom to thoroughly test the game, instead of assuming they'll fuck it up for sure and need to cover their tracks. Leaving the gameplay in the hands of millions of casual players doesnt sound like a good idea to me.

1. Nobody said that the game needs to be "completely balanced", and while I agree that disparity and glitches haven't prevented 3s or MvC2 from being good games. However, we will never know how much better they could have been if 3s had more than 4-5 viable characters or if MvC2 had more than 7-8.

2. There will always be tiers. Nobody will disagree with that. Have you considered that the top-tier usually consists of about 10-15% of the game's roster, and only about 25% is actually viable in competitive tournament play? There will always be a relative top-tier and a relative bottom-tier, and tiers in between. But what if the top-tier consisted of 20-30% of the roster, and what if 50% of the game's characters were competitive. Would that really be so bad?

3. Who ever said that the gameplay would be in the hands of millions of casual players? What if Capcom made their changes on their own accord? After all, if you trust Capcom to properly thoroughly test the game, why wouldn't you trust Capcom to improve on this game even more.

[bokchoy]

the idea that the rules of chess have remained unmodified for centuries is totally false anyway. even up into the early 90s (and possibly beyond), minor adjustments have been made to the tournament rule set.

The rules that have been changed pertain to with time-management, tournament structure, ranking system, etc... Any rules pertaining to the actual mechanics of the game itself has been unmodified for centuries. Proof: Transcripts for famous games from the 1700's are still available, under the same rules as the games are played today.

[Shin00bi]

*snip* Chess etc.

My main point about chess, is that it's a static unchanging game. I feel like an SF game (and perhaps most fighting games) should each be there own thing, and be untouched. If it were a smaller company, releasing the game on PC for example, I can see them using beta testers, and taking in player feedback to consistently patch it over the course of a year or indefinitely (still just referring to fighting games).

(I wasn't attempting to compare much beyond that with chess).

But overall, Capcom has a good reputation for releasing a good solid game during the first release. When that game does well, they eventually release a new version. Like with SFA, they released a sequel, because the first one did so well, and finally SFA3. The only difference is they chose to name them like they would name sequels, instead of naming it "Street Fighter Alpha Blah edition.

(the 2nd SF3 came out only 6 months later, but I think that was more of a desperate attempt to gain back their fans).

The game itself shouldn't be patched when it comes out. The only thing I would be concerned about is maybe a broken ranking system (I will be very surprised if they manage to have a broken online ranking system when it's first released like CvS2 EO Live). Also, I would love to see them improve on the AI in single-player through patches or have a certain mode of difficulty that is based off the top-playing online peeps... but it won't happen (the AI is such an after-thought with fighting games).

[bokchoy]

My main point about chess, is that it's a static unchanging game. I feel like an SF game (and perhaps most fighting games) should each be there own thing, and be untouched. If it were a smaller company, releasing the game on PC for example, I can see them using beta testers, and taking in player feedback to consistently patch it over the course of a year or indefinitely (still just referring to fighting games).

(I wasn't attempting to compare much beyond that with chess).

But overall, Capcom has a good reputation for releasing a good solid game during the first release. When that game does well, they eventually release a new version. Like with SFA, they released a sequel, because the first one did so well, and finally SFA3. The only difference is they chose to name them like they would name sequels, instead of naming it "Street Fighter Alpha Blah edition.

(the 2nd SF3 came out only 6 months later, but I think that was more of a desperate attempt to gain back their fans).

The game itself shouldn't be patched when it comes out. The only thing I would be concerned about is maybe a broken ranking system (I will be very surprised if they manage to have a broken online ranking system when it's first released like CvS2 EO Live). Also, I would love to see them improve on the AI in single-player through patches or have a certain mode of difficulty that is based off the top-playing online peeps... but it won't happen (the AI is such an after-thought with fighting games).

Yeah, I agree that many SF games have been huge successes, despite not having the luxury of being patched. The games themselves were good enough to survive disparity between characters and glitches here and there. It's hard to determine whether or not patches will make it better or not.

[DTJB]

I think patches would be a better alternative to purchasing the 8th update to SFIV: Ultra Hyper Mega X Championship Platinum Edition.

Plus, I liked one of the ideas brought up in EGM. New characters can be added with the use of patches. It can also help if players are asking for more veteran characters.

[{PFH}-Lake]

Didnt they say the game is going to nintendo DS also? I dont think they'll make patch's for it, just seems un-fair to make a patch for a console and not for the DS.

[Kataklysmic]

The competitive focus is on arcade and console games anyway. Who gives a shit about the DS?

[Arxinal]

Its a tough choice. Ive seen many good games get patched to hell ultimately ruining it. But I've also seen games go to hell for lack of patching. I say fix whats broken. And anyhing else added should be all visual.

[Judgement]

problems with online games and balance patching is they usually nerf everything to balance and in the end the gameplay feels watered down. sure theres the idea of buffing the lower tiers but,
with online comes whiners and scrubs who really in truth are still the loudest majority.

but yea if it isnt gamebreaking it shouldnt be touched. i probably agree with the infrequent patches and yet part of me feels it being done the old way still might be the best.

yea i think we could benefit from it in the long run but im not sure if i would like the final iteration of the game. but yea all this is speculation so its probably way to early to even say.

i support online patching. just feeling not 100% on it.

[bokchoy]

problems with online games and balance patching is they usually nerf everything to balance and in the end the gameplay feels watered down. sure theres the idea of buffing the lower tiers but,
with online comes whiners and scrubs who really in truth are still the loudest majority.

but yea if it isnt gamebreaking it shouldnt be touched. i probably agree with the infrequent patches and yet part of me feels it being done the old way still might be the best.

yea i think we could benefit from it in the long run but im not sure if i would like the final iteration of the game. but yea all this is speculation so its probably way to early to even say.

i support online patching. just feeling not 100% on it.

There is a difference between "modifying the game" and "modifying the game based solely on the recommendations of whiners and scrubs". If we assume that, with online patches, Capcom will fuck it up by doing whatever the random idiots tell them to, of course it's gonna be a bad idea.

[MiyagiShin X]

^ not only that but its goona cost money or something... time too. Online Patches are welcome for adding online modes but for patching the game or doing tweeks not so much.

[Rioting Soul]

I want online patches because expecting a balanced fighter on the first go is insane. Something dumb will be found and abused even if they delayed the game an extra year just to playtest. And really, if they could find all the broke(or really really good) aspects of the game just like that, then the game must not be very deep. So the best thing is for Capcom to try their best with SF4 and when somebody wins EVO 2010 with 19 well-positioned cr.MPs they'll be on top of it.

EDIT: And Capcom needs to make sure that Street Fighter 4 is the ONLY Street Fighter 4 there will ever need to be.

[Krizalid99v2]

I think downloadable patches is a good idea to re-tune balance issues and to sort out any bugs/glitches.

Would be nice to be able to pick ANY character and have a good/reasonable chance of winning if your skill is more or less equal to your opponent's.

[MiyagiShin X]

EDIT: And Capcom needs to make sure that Street Fighter 4 is the ONLY Street Fighter 4 there will ever need to be.

So your saying theres no way there be Street Fighter 4 : Second Slap or SF4 : 3rd Attempt ?

[DevilJin 01]

Yeah I highly doubt that there isn't going to be some semi sequel to SFIV. That would be a radical change for the SF series. It just hasn't really happened ever. Guilty Gear is spamming semi sequels all over the place so I find it hard to believe that they will simply settle on just patching up SFIV a couple times. Especially if the game is getting an arcade release. Unless the semi sequel can be downloaded as an update as well.

[Rioting Soul]

So your saying theres no way there be Street Fighter 4 : Second Slap or SF4 : 3rd Attempt ?

Hopefully, the updates will be downloads applied to the original and not sold as a stand alone game.

[pherai]

I don't know if someone has brought this up yet, but my concern with downloadable patches is the game getting "balanced" before players have time to figure it out. Patches can be released with higher frequency than a new release. Online games can have up to or more than 2-3 patches a year. So many competitive fighters today took 2 or more years before everything was figured out. What's broken a year after release can turn into a relatively minor, unimportant thing 2-3 years after release. Even glitches/bugs have gone on to shape games competitively. Fighters have done pretty well without patching so far. Why fix something that's not broken?

[Redmyst]

It really wont matter because you will see the same fighters being picked in the high tier comp anyway.

[ramberk]

Fighters have done pretty well without patching so far. Why fix something that's not broken?

Since SF2, I think most people will agree that only a handful of 2D fighters are relatively well balanced. I think a lot of people would be happy if CvS2 and 3S got some serious tweaking. I don't know too much about MvC2 but I think people are relatively happy with the enormous amount of BS in that game only because there is so much other BS that it all just cancels itself out. Besides, thats why MvC2 is fun-- because its just a fucking nutty game.

I do think it'll be kinda weird if an SF game got regular or semi-regular patches/updates/fixes. I do agree that it takes longer to find out the broken stuff in SF games. I feel kind rather weird about the whole idea. I damn well would love to play a re-balanced 3S. But it also kinda scares me. I don't use any of the broken characters but I'd almost feel pity for the folks who do, if their characters seriously got nerfed. Even if they deserve to be nerfed.

My final thought on this is... if they do decide to do the the regular update/patch thing-- they better do it early and quickly so people don't get accustomed to broken features/tactics.

[Jonathan Ingram]

Patches are a good idea, as long as they don't do something gay like microtransactions.

One thing they could do is have a Regulations system ala Armored Core 4, where you can choose the revision of the game you prefer in the options menu.

[ShinAkuma204]

No patches.

Downloadable content is fine, new costumes etc. However the game should be good to go before it ever hits retail. The patch option usually results in buggy game released to the public.

Besides, even if there is some game altering bug in SF4, Capcom can just fix it in the next release - SF4 Double Champion Super Impact 2 X Hyper.

[Shotokan Symphony]

Besides, even if there is some game altering bug in SF4, Capcom can just fix it in the next release - SF4 Double Champion Super Impact 2 X Hyper.

A release no one would have to spend ridiculous amounts of money on if there were a patch.

[ShinAkuma204]

A release no one would have to spend ridiculous amounts of money on if there were a patch.

Since when would a patch prevent a new release of a game?

Sequels and semi sequels will always be released regardless of the existence of patches.

[Lonewolf_Fenrir]

O_o
The sf2 sequels just added minor corrections seriously.(bunch of new moves / small changes on existing ones, only ssf2 added real content)
I'd rather have patches than have to buy the game 4 or 5 times

[Shotokan Symphony]

Since when would a patch prevent a new release of a game?

Sequels and semi sequels will always be released regardless of the existence of patches.

If you've looked at Capcom's(or any company that produces fighting games) "sequel" history, you know that most of it's SF/Marvel/Etc sequels are barely sequels at all, and usually are minor upgrades at best. Did we really need to pay $50 for a hard copy of a"full game" with only two new characters, an extra backround and minor attack tweaks, when we could pay $10-$15 for a patch/expansion that solves that problem?

[ShinAkuma204]

If you've looked at Capcom's(or any company that produces fighting games) "sequel" history, you know that most of it's SF/Marvel/Etc sequels are barely sequels at all, and usually are minor upgrades at best. Did we really need to pay $50 for a hard copy of a"full game" with only two new characters, an extra backround and minor attack tweaks, when we could pay $10-$15 for a patch/expansion that solves that problem?

That is never going to happen.

The ability to patch a game has existed on the PC for over a decade, yet in that time the costumer still has to purchase a new Madden/NHL/etc.

In a market where a sequel is expected a developer is not going to replace that option with a patch.

Now if you are suggesting that patches are preferable to sequels, then maybe you're right. However that is not realistic and very unlikely. In such an environment I would prefer no patches because the option of a patch makes for semi lazy development.

[YellowS4]

That is never going to happen.

The ability to patch a game has existed on the PC for over a decade, yet in that time the costumer still has to purchase a new Madden/NHL/etc.



Those shit games should not be mentioned with SF.

[ShinAkuma204]

Those shit games should not be mentioned with SF.

Those games are an example of patchable franchises that rely on sequels rather than patches.

I'm not comparing the quality of those games to SF.

[Shotokan Symphony]

That is never going to happen.
It already is. If people can download demos and upgrades from the XBL market place, then Capcom is shooting itself in the foot for passing up such an easy market to take foothold of.
In a market where a sequel is expected a developer is not going to replace that option with a patch.
Capcom does not have the staying power of EA, a company with access to numerous multi-million dollar licenses. Capcom's history of releases and re-releases proves that they don't have that kind of market power. At least, not until they can draw the crowds in again.
Now if you are suggesting that patches are preferable to sequels, then maybe you're right. However that is not realistic and very unlikely. In such an environment I would prefer no patches because the option of a patch makes for semi lazy development.
I would prefer free patches for lazy development than pay $60+ for lazy development disguised as a true sequel.

[ShinAkuma204]

It already is. If people can download demos and upgrades from the XBL market place, then Capcom is shooting itself in the foot for passing up such an easy market to take foothold of.

That is the same market as people who purchase new games.

Capcom does not have the staying power of EA, a company with access to numerous multi-million dollar licenses. Capcom's history of releases and re-releases proves that they don't have that kind of market power. At least, not until they can draw the crowds in again.

While Capcom may not be as large as EA, they certainly aren't doing to bad for themselves.

And in the fighting game genre, Capcom has more market power than EA.

I would prefer free patches for lazy development than pay $60+ for lazy development disguised as a true sequel.

I'm not really sure what you are referring to here.

What version of Street Fighter isn't a true sequel?

[Shezi]

Patches for GP Tweeking , new music , levels , Characters. I'm all for that ,but do not over do on the GP tweeking.

[Shotokan Symphony]

I'm not really sure what you are referring to here.

What version of Street Fighter isn't a true sequel?

To name a few:
Every secondary itineration of SFII
Same with SFIII

For NON-Capcom related games:
Same with Guilty Gear XX
KOF in general

[ShinAkuma204]

To name a few:
Every secondary itineration of SFII
Same with SFIII

For NON-Capcom related games:
Same with Guilty Gear XX
KOF in general

A couple of things:

You really couldn't purchase the SF2 series at the time, and the differences between SF2 and Hyper Fighting where enough to justify a sequel.

As for the sequel debate, let's be honest, most of the SF series has enough revisions to be called a true sequel compared to other big sequels in the industry. (DMC/Halo)

New moves, music art, whatever. All sequels share these traits and Street Fighter is no different.

As for the other games, I can't say beyond KOF. It's true an annual game such as KOF doesn't seem to offer much in terms of upgrades, but that was designed as an arcade game, not something for the consumer to purchase every year, unlike Madden and the like.

[n8archer_XI]

Why the heck not? If you can help the game grow nearer to perfection, who would say no?