T37 Rampage, post: 5119726 wrote:
In a game with 35+ balanced characters it is impossible to learn every matchup as well as most players would like, which leads to people getting "randomned out." It can be speculated that when there are only 8 viable characters the level of play is higher because those 8 matchups are known more intimately.
RoGE9, post: 5119727 wrote:
I guess a balanced game with 30+ characters would just make the game boring because you have to focus more on learning to fight against different characters than adjusting to the actual fighting engine itself.
WTF-AKUMA-HAX wrote: »
pherai gouki dated gwen stefani in HighSchool. Thats why today she likes all things Japan.
RoGE9, post: 5119725 wrote:
I just don't see the reason for it, wouldn't there be more variety if the game was just balanced?
For me, SF4 got fighting games backward - combos are supposed to be easy and reversals are supposed to be hard.-Mike_Z
d3v, post: 5119736 wrote:
Because sometimes, it's the unbalanced nature of the game that gives it longevity. I mean, if it weren't for the fact that people kept breaking MvC2, it probably would have died out years ago.
MattO, post: 5119737 wrote:
I agree with this, some people enjoy abusing things rather then being good at using them.
pherai, post: 5119738 wrote:
I don't think thats what he was trying to say.
Starcade RIP, post: 5119734 wrote:
I'm of the opposite viewpoint. I love learning matchups. I don't mind zoners and grapplers being balanced against--unlike SF4:AE--herp derp dive kick characters.
ukyo_rulz, post: 5119745 wrote:
Some people will say that unbalanced fighting games are just "more fun" or "more hype". Those people are wrong. It's true that MVC2 was an unbalanced game that remained popular for 10 years, but Tekken 4 was an unbalanced game that remained popular for two minutes. CVS2 was a severely unbalanced game that became popular only after the advent of roll-cancelling, which increased the balance in that game by leaps and bounds. In general, games with more variety of play styles are more fun to play and games that have a large community playing them are more hype. Look at MVC2. Even though it had four playable characters out of 56, those four characters had a zoner, a rusher, a big bruiser and a hit & run pixie character. By contrast, Tekken 4 only has "JF laser scraper character" and old-school CVS2 had only "poking character".
The real reason people like fighting games to be unbalanced is revealed in what T37 Rampage said. A really balanced fighting game is hard to win at. Like Sun Tzu, hardcore fighting game players want to "win without fighting". With a balanced game you need to learn all the match-ups, figure out how to play against all the characters, and earn victory in every game. In MVC3 if I play Magneto/Wesker/Sentinel and you play Hsien Ko/Viewtiful Joe/Arthur I've pretty much won before the fight even began. Most hardcore players want to take the path of least resistance, and like games where that path is clear and well-defined. Even among the top tier characters, most people prefer to play the easier characters to use. Sim and Chun can counter any air attack but you have to know which anti-air to use. They are less popular than Shotos, who counter everything with a DP. Almost every character in SSF4 has safe jump-in options, but they are less popular than dive-kick characters who don't need to time their safe jumps exactly. Just look around at the forums here. Everyone is dedicated to finding strategies that make the game unbalanced in their favor. Of course they're going to love a game that does half the work for them.
pherai, post: 5119747 wrote:
Harder to win in a balanced fighting game? You know not everyone plays top tiers, even in unbalanced games. Really I'd say its just harder to win in a game with more characters assuming they aren't throwaway garbage.
M.D., post: 5119740 wrote:
Why do people prefer playing Marvel 3 over WWE All Stars?
RoGE9, post: 5119727, member: 7517 wrote:
Thanks for replying!
Yeah I can see what you mean, I remember SSF4 having that certain random factor, I guess a balanced game with 30+ characters would just make the game boring because you have to focus more on learning to fight against different characters than adjusting to the actual fighting engine itself.
otter, post: 7891166, member: 6476 wrote:
Balance is just one of many factors that determine fun, and it often comes at the price of true variety in the character designs. Some people just get too caught up in having 50 "balanced" skins to choose from even if the characters underneath are practically copy and pasted.
Airk, post: 7897694, member: 22498 wrote:
It sounds to me like people are afraid of something that's never happened, probably never will happen, and can be prevented by an ounce of good design.
otter, post: 7897715, member: 6476 wrote:
Depending on your priorities, it has happened. You mentioned Mortal Kombat giving most characters every tool needed to succeed which detracts from fun.
Beyond that, they're still sharing animations between characters and giving them too similar of frame data. If that's the price of balance
I'd rather have them make a second sweep animation instead of a character or even risk imbalance to have it all.
I think we just have different ideas of what a new character entails.
Airk, post: 7898144, member: 22498 wrote:
It could just be, for example, that it's hard to have nearly 40 characters in a game and have the frame data on a lot of things be radically different without being stupid.
otter, post: 7898458, member: 6476 wrote:
I totally agree. Don't get me wrong, I don't dislike tons of characters or the idea of perfect balance between them, it's just that, for me, having as many unique and powerful characters as possible is the priority before total character count or balance.
Maybe people should start there and instead of saying "only one third of mvc2 characters can compete while ninety percent can in sf4", they could say "MvC2 has 5-6 unique characters that push the limits of human execution,speed, and creativity, while SF4 has zero".