Issue of Balance in Fighters

[solidshark]

http://shoryuken.com/2011/11/25/5-reasons-why-you-shouldn%e2%80%99t-worry-about-balance/

Interesting article. I disagree with a lot of the article and the examples, but I see the point he tries to make. I really wish he would discuss more fighters outside of the Capcom ones.

What do you guys think of this?

[BioBooster]

Man, thanks for finding this.

Balance doesn’t make a game fun.

better balance is often achieved by normalizing the obvious strengths and weaknesses of characters, making them play more similarly. You then end up with a game that, while ostensibly more balanced, has less variety in the way characters actually play â€" defeating the purpose of balancing the game in the first place.

Delusional. Balance is one of the things that makes KOF amazing. No one became bland or uniform as KOF has incredible diversity in moveset archetypes and apologies for having to say it, but KOF chrs ooze of personality in comparison to most other franchises. The fact that you gain inspiration from knowing that with hard work, maybe, just maybe, your favorite chrs can dominate is priceless. Doesn't matter if it never happens or you do not put in the time, it makes the game more fun. Most of us embraced XIII's console changes - interesting thing is many of us wanted to try K' and Raiden post changes since they have been balanced and their movesets have become more viable in terms of even, situational use.

You don’t have to pick bad characters.

Looks like he is acknowledging... *something*. Dancing around it, but curiously and indignantly defending this point with version IV of a certain game in mind. There are some games on the other hand which are famously broken, people got over it quickly and still play chrs they love despite the difficulty level - cite Hokuto no Ken.

Man, play who you LIKE bc they are cool OR strong.

Balance isn’t static.
Agree, love it when people unearth new ways to play chrs especially in a game's mid-maturity.

Overall, some interesting points, but can't agree with much of it.

[omegaryuji]

I agree that balance isn't necessarily a prerequisite for a fun game.  Hokuto no Ken is broken as shit but still pretty fun to play.  However, if you have two similar games where one is well balanced and the other is broken as shit enough for only like 3 characters to be viable in serious play, the more balanced game will usually be more fun.

The idea that more balance means less variety of play is absurd.  Guilty Gear is one of the most balanced 2D fighters (in Slash and Accent Core, not so much before those *laughs* ) and no two characters are the same.  There is some common ground in terms of tactics (like Dizzy and Testament both usually want to zone until they can get a knockdown, then commence projectile-covered oki traps, or Jam and Slayer both want to harrass with safe normals and confirm into painful combos), but the deeper levels of playing each character is pretty damn unique.

The whole point about not "having" to pick bad characters is kind of a logic fail, since the developers aren't likely to include characters that are purposely made cool but gimpy (excepting a few obvious jokes like Shingo or Dan).  The game was (hopefully) made with the intention of every character being playable, so it's a deserved strike against the game when stuff is badly broken and developers should be willing to fix it in some way (either in subsequent revisions like in the past or with update patches these days) if it's obviously and ridiculously broken (yes, I do dream of some day playing an HnK2 where Rei can't jump cancel damn near everything including specials to give him stupid tk infinites and quadruple mixups off of an IAD).

So yeah, the article has some flaws.  Still, I guess the basic points is that a game can be fun without being balanced and that people should stop crying about imbalances instead of taking the time to man up and really learn the game, which I can dig.

[LouisCipher]

I disagree on a few points:

Balance does make a game fun. One or two characters being really bad and having 8-2 matchups against the the top 2 and everyone else is 5-5 or at the worst 6-4 is very manageable. I think this is partly why KOF 98 is still popular and consistently has a better turn out than OG 02 which had 4-5 characters literally rape everyone else.

What makes a character bad? Avoiding joke characters like Dan, what really makes a character bad? It's always a top tier character that has every advantage in the world and beats a low tier character because of it. A big part of character loyalty is not being like everyone else, you love that character because they're unique and you don't want to just pick Ryu/Ken/Akuma like everyone else and play exactly the same.

[Saitsuofleaves]

I think people are missing the point.

Balance is great, but the most important thing is HOW THE BALANCE IS ACHIEVED.

XIII did it right.  Tweaked the two top characters by getting rid of their harsh BS but on the backend, giving them buffs to compliment their new fighting style.  Every character in the game got a buff.

On the other hand, we have the SF4 series who love to nerf a lot of characters.  Hell, Akuma's been nerfed in every single iteration.

Balance is great, especially when done correctly, but when you sacrifice what makes the characters and the game fun in the first place in order to achieve it, it wasn't worth it.

[BioBooster]

Nice, in total agreement with how balance is achieved as well. Unilateral nerfing = loss in interest. Fix what's broken, but add depth in other areas is the formula XIII used to do it right.

So to circle back to one of the main arguments, think we can say balancing is good when done correctly (and should be done) versus just do nothing bc balancing hurts the experience which was a focal message in the article.

[BiGGDaddyCane]

Im character loyalty 100% ever since i can remember playing fighting games, I love picking cool characters who appeal to my liking, even in tourneys. Guess Im just a play for fun FG'er lol.

[sibarraz]

mmm, I could some points being true

For example, almost all of us are not high level players, in some games like 3-3 I had seen some people winning tournaments with almost any character, the problem is that when you are in a tourney, you will like to pick the character that will gave you the bigger chances to win, so that' why almost always we see the chun li - Yun Festival

There are other games when you really know that the game is well balanced, like garou, sure, kevin and jenet are godlike, but still, almost anyone feels that stand a chance against each other, on any level

XIII did it well, since almost everybody received buffs, even the 2 top tiers, but also, worried to remove the BS mechanics that they had

Now on 98um, the game will be better, if weren't because Krauser almost plays alone

But yeah, the article is not that good

[LouisCipher]

But yeah, the article is not that good

I agree with that. The whole thing just reeks of being a forum post by someone who mains Phoenix.

[Saitsuofleaves]

Yeah, honestly, give me a week of extra research, and a couple days, and I could probably write a better article.  You know...if I actually cared lol.

[omegaryuji]

I also found it funny how it claimed that a game can't become more balanced in subsequent revisions.  That might be true of the small sample size that it looked at, but it's a pretty dumb thing to say in general.  GGXX started out nearly as bad as HnK (GG:TML and GGX were even worse *laughs* ) and became one of the most balanced 2D fighters by GGXXAC.  98UM is more balanced than 98, even with Krauser.  Each revision of BB has been more balanced than the previous, and BBCSEX looks like it's continuing that trend.  XIII home seems more balanced than XIII arcade (though I'd give it some time before saying that for sure).

Just because certain games only shift balance instead of becoming balanced doesn't mean that'll be the case with all of them.

[Aenthin]

I find it funny that his idea of balance involves giving characters the same moves. True, the ultimate balanced game is basically a mirror match wherein the deciding factor revolves around the skill between two players. However, there's so much more depth in a fighting game than just giving everyone the same moveset.

Let's take Terry and Andy, for example. Both have fireballs, but Terry's fireball is on the ground, which is much easier to dodge with a hyper hop than Andy's. On the flip side, Terry's C version Power Wave knocks down which Andy couldn't accomplish without using 1 stock. Both have anti-airs, but Terry's version is a charge motion rather than a dp motion, in itself has an implication to the player. Both have a horizontal punch/elbow attack but Andy's has a much faster recovery and can be used to close in on gaps, but when you factor in the overall damage output of both characters, they're pretty much the same. The only real difference is that Terry couldn't do flashier combos than Andy could, yet he still remains as a solid character in XIII.

[BiGGDaddyCane]

Many people who are writing these certain articles for the front pages of sites like SRK need to start fully understanding both sides of the argument, and proof reading there shit for themselves and try to take what they wrote then read in a different perspectives before they send it out.

[marchefelix]

Have you guys seen the comments section in that article? There's a lot of dickriding in there.

[BiGGDaddyCane]

Have you guys seen the comments section in that article? There's a lot of dickriding in there.

Lol, yea and alot of people wrote comments on that article big enough for them to be a article it's self.