Does Broken=More Fun?

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

I've been on a few sites that shall not be named and I noticed a theme that really bugs me. This idea that a game needs to have ridiculously OP characters to be "fun" and that the more balanced it is, the more boring it is. What's really weird is that these people are playing more simple games like Street Fighter and not over the top games that have those elements.

What do you think? Does a badly balanced mean a more fun one?

[JACK-2]

It's just a rationalization for people who like strong characters. Fgc has a hard on for strong characters even outside a tournament context.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Nov 3, 2015 16:32:24 GMT -5 JACK-2 said:

It's just a rationalization for people who like strong characters. Fgc has a hard on for strong characters even outside a tournament context.

You hit the nail on the head. People want to play overpowered characters and they rationalize it by saying it's "fun" and they're taking the "fun" away. By that logic Mugen would be the most awesome competitive game ever because you can have all kinds of broken characters and no other roster compares.

It's fun for them because they want to bring a gun to a fistfight and don't want to lose their ill gotten gains.

This also happens in other genres. Twisted Metal had the same thing when they nerfed a broken helicopter character in a car combat game. This was broken for obvious reasons, but people insisted it took skill.

Same thing even in single player games. Baldur's Gate nerds want wizards overpowered because "it's magic and it should be cheap". Of course when other characters are strong they whine.

SMH.

[JACK-2]

m.ign.com/videos/2015/11/03/history-of-awesome-marvel-vs-capcom-2?utm_source=IGN%20hub%20page&utm_medium=IGN%20(front%20page)&utm_content=4&utm_campaign=Blogroll

MARVEL VS. CAPCOM 2 WAS BROKEN AND UNBALANCED, BUT WE STILL LOVED IT

We all acknowledge Marvel vs. Capcom 2 is an unbalanced game, but that's part of its charm and what makes it so fun.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

That's bad logic though, it wasn't because older games were imbalanced that they were fun, it was because they had a lot of elements that were explored and people came up with neat things. They also didn't neuter gameplay like they do now. I like the oldschool not because it's imbalance but because how the systems worked. There are many shitty and imbalanced games that are just not fun because the strategic options are meaningless.


Their logic is that "because the game is broken it's fun" that's just like saying wet sidewalks cause rain. There are many games that are balanced that are enjoyable. I mean how imbalanced should a game be to make it fun. This is why I like the VF community over the Capcom community. They like rewarding skill and not neutering options, resulting in less variety. It's not fun for the people using the weaker characters who are irrelevant unless they choose another dominant strategy. Fun is subjective from person to person and it happens to be fun for tier whores to pick top tiers.

I mean would basketball be more fun to play and watch if you had 8 man vs 2 man teams? Maybe 2 older kids against the neighborhood kids, but not at a competitive level.

Here's a great article on the matter.

forums2.battleon.com/f/tm.asp?m=21946662&mpage=1&key=�

[WarMachineRhodey]

Ever heard of the hokuto no ken fighting game. Might be the most hilariously broken fighting game ever. Every char has infinites. It still played heavily in Japan.

There was a huge 3v3 tournament in Japan a few months ago.I don't know how many players were in it but it took 9 hrs to complete. iplaywinner.com/news/2015/5/4/archive-of-hokuto-no-ken-4th-sekimatsu-butoukai-final-tourna.html

[spliffybaz]

Well balanced games don't really exist for the most part. Like VF5FS isn't balanced very well, sure anyone can win if you are massively better than you're oppoenent, but I can win easier with an S or SS tier character that I have basically no experience with, versus a character I have played for 3+ years. SF4 was imbalanced in basically all iterations, USF4 has Elena and E.Ryu up top and the balance is decent, but it still has top tiers. 3rd Strike has Yun, Chun and Ken, with Makoto a peg below, balance in that game isn't super awesome. Alpha 3 has high tiers, same with CVS2. Fun factor, challenge, rewarding gameplay, and balance are all important. Some people enjoy broken games, some enjoy more balanced games. Balance is much better, but instead of making everyone mediocre and bland it would be better to make everyone strong with similar damage output. What ultimately happens is popular characters are stronger or get better, and lesser characters get weaker or worse. Or you just have years of dozens upon dozens of reactionary balance patches like DOA based on players crying instead of improving or MK games balance patches etc. Lots of nerfs result from weak players crying about characters they don't like playing and patches are released. In SF5 they're saying this is what they'll be doing based on player feedback aka crying and so far everyone is getting nerfed for the most part.

I think the days of awesome games like Alpha 3 and CVS2 that are fun and have some broken stuff are probably gone in favor of reactionary patching to push more sales of DLC.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Nov 11, 2015 2:15:14 GMT -5 spliffybaz said:

Well balanced games don't really exist for the most part. Like VF5FS isn't balanced very well, sure anyone can win if you are massively better than you're oppoenent, but I can win easier with an S or SS tier character that I have basically no experience with, versus a character I have played for 3+ years. SF4 was imbalanced in basically all iterations, USF4 has Elena and E.Ryu up top and the balance is decent, but it still has top tiers. 3rd Strike has Yun, Chun and Ken, with Makoto a peg below, balance in that game isn't super awesome. Alpha 3 has high tiers, same with CVS2. Fun factor, challenge, rewarding gameplay, and balance are all important. Some people enjoy broken games, some enjoy more balanced games. Balance is much better, but instead of making everyone mediocre and bland it would be better to make everyone strong with similar damage output. What ultimately happens is popular characters are stronger or get better, and lesser characters get weaker or worse. Or you just have years of dozens upon dozens of reactionary balance patches like DOA based on players crying instead of improving or MK games balance patches etc. Lots of nerfs result from weak players crying about characters they don't like playing and patches are released. In SF5 they're saying this is what they'll be doing based on player feedback aka crying and so far everyone is getting nerfed for the most part.

I think the days of awesome games like Alpha 3 and CVS2 that are fun and have some broken stuff are probably gone in favor of reactionary patching to push more sales of DLC.

Well there are some games more balanced games than other games. The bottom line comes down to how well do all characters stand against the entire cast. Some games have unwinnable matches or characters that are useless while other games have characters that are extremely useful.

The VF series as a whole is pretty known for being balanced. FS might be an exception, but I've never seen anything on Marvel levels. USF4 was the most balanced and I've never jumped on the hype train with Evil Ryu. His "top tierness" was based on Sako's Capcom Cup and Daigo using him. The bandwagon soon followed. He was Mid tierish (around top 20 with Juri and Ken) in the 2012 version and then he was nerfed after that (lost his unblockables, had health but lost it, other characters had better tools, and his matchups didn't get better overall outside of the former top getting some mild nerfs) Viper was top, Cammy and Akuma were still strong, and Fei Long was too. Only Seth really got hit hard. USF4 is the example why I've ignored tier lists because they're just popularity contests and bandwagon jumping and that was the worst bandwasgon jumping ever.

Old school games were definitely less balanced overall due to the lack of balance updates, but the old school games weren't watered down. That doesn't mean that they're more fun because of bad balance. Making characters face unwinnable situations isn't enjoyable to me at all. I think people who enjoy "broken" games just like "broken" characters. The games that last the longest are games with more balance. Games like Starcraft or some older versions of Kof. Kof XIII was pretty decently balanced as well, but the top tier could have used some toning down. Everyone was usable though.

Could you imagine basketball being more fun if one team had 7 players and the other team had 3 players? Or football if one team had 15 players and the other team had 7 players? I think it would be an awful wreck, but I guess the winning side would always say it was fun.

The hardest challenge is to make a good game where all characters are strong in their own right and most developers can't pull it off. I definitely don't encourage NRS style "whine nerfs" or the way SF is going. Nerfing the bs while strengthening weak stuff is the way to go. Not too much power creep or power seep.


The problem is fun is too subjective. Killer Instinct was broken as all hell back in 1994 and that game died quickly. I think at this point Street Fighter will sell and have a scene by being SF alone whether it's balanced, broken, fun, or shit. Probably why they're doing what they're doing now.

[spliffybaz]

I think SF5 will sell well initially but there will be many players that drop off quickly. VF in general was very balanced, FS is not well balanced but isn't MVC levels or even close. The tier issues and large gaps between the characters in that game are real though, despite many community members (who are not good strong VF players) being dishonest and saying the game is well balanced, lies wont make people wanna play VF and all the vets know it's not well balanced. Again I agree with your general thoughts on fun factor and balance, but we aren't likely to be getting any really fun games anymore. Also dumped hundreds into KI1 machines loved that game.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Nov 11, 2015 13:52:27 GMT -5 spliffybaz said:

I think SF5 will sell well initially but there will be many players that drop off quickly. VF in general was very balanced, FS is not well balanced but isn't MVC levels or even close. The tier issues and large gaps between the characters in that game are real though, despite many community members (who are not good strong VF players) being dishonest and saying the game is well balanced, lies wont make people wanna play VF and all the vets know it's not well balanced. Again I agree with your general thoughts on fun factor and balance, but we aren't likely to be getting any really fun games anymore. Also dumped hundreds into KI1 machines loved that game.

They're probably just ignorant aboit the tiers in that case.

I think the games becoming shittier is due to modernization and casualizing the market to attract the average idiot. This happens in all genres. Sf5 js headed that way and now they're censoring stuff so you know where this is going.

Do you think Sf5 will just die?

[spliffybaz]

My honest thoughts are SF5 sells well while mashers say they love the game, top players will attend tournies and win money if the game isn't completely nerfed to neutrality. Then after several months with nothing complex to do in the game they may start playing other things in their free time and just start tuning up with SF5 for free money in tournies when the dates approach. The game feels very boring so I just don't see how many good players will want to spend anymore time than necessary with the game other than whats required to make income. It is really dull to play and terribly boring to watch, it's gonna have money but casuals wont be able to earn it and they'll drop off to their respective other games and genres from where they came. Then capcom will likely do revisions and make some system changes and try to add more to the game after year one or so and bring players back into it. Something this boring and flat is gonna get real old real fast, none of my local friends even want to play it in any capacity. I'll still be playing USF4 and will play SF5 somewhat, but it's too boring and low skill for me to commit tons of time too as it is now. Even if I lost a match in the BETA I didn't care unless it was because of PSN wifi lag, which just enrages me as I had PSN only for a long time last gen and am use to that in all PSN games.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Nov 11, 2015 19:01:30 GMT -5 spliffybaz said:

My honest thoughts are SF5 sells well while mashers say they love the game, top players will attend tournies and win money if the game isn't completely nerfed to neutrality. Then after several months with nothing complex to do in the game they may start playing other things in their free time and just start tuning up with SF5 for free money in tournies when the dates approach. The game feels very boring so I just don't see how many good players will want to spend anymore time than necessary with the game other than whats required to make income. It is really dull to play and terribly boring to watch, it's gonna have money but casuals wont be able to earn it and they'll drop off to their respective other games and genres from where they came. Then capcom will likely do revisions and make some system changes and try to add more to the game after year one or so and bring players back into it. Something this boring and flat is gonna get real old real fast, none of my local friends even want to play it in any capacity. I'll still be playing USF4 and will play SF5 somewhat, but it's too boring and low skill for me to commit tons of time too as it is now. Even if I lost a match in the BETA I didn't care unless it was because of PSN wifi lag, which just enrages me as I had PSN only for a long time last gen and am use to that in all PSN games.

Well top players play where the money is. Otherwise we'd still have CvS2, MvC2, SF3, etc. One thing that might happen is that it could be nerfed whenever some new tech is found. They say they won't touch the game again until after Capcom Cup once it's released next year outside of major glitches, but I'm not sure. When it comes to tech even games like Smash Bros came up with new tech as it went along.

They want SF5 to focus more on neutral with less gimmicks, but the tools are weaker in neutral. I think they want to emphasize more commitment and less on safe options or gimmicks. Not sure why the constant nerfing though.

[spliffybaz]

SF3 failed horribly despite SF3 and Alpha being amazing and well accepted games. Like I said money will keep top players playing, but they wont be in love with the game and it can still fail like SF3 did. Resident Evil 6 failed horribly, if the FGC in large decides they find SF5 to be too boring and unfun the money for tournaments and attendance will drop, people will migrate to games they enjoy and seek money in those. Capcom is gambling new players will surge into the series and stay, but what if they get bored with the game quickly and drop it, then what? It is not guaranteed that casuals and people that buy SF5 will be amazed with it and continue playing it regardless. Resident Evil 6 completely failed and lost them tons of money. It also had a demo that was horrible and boring, that seems to be the new capcom standard.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Nov 11, 2015 19:18:19 GMT -5 spliffybaz said:

SF3 failed horribly despite SF3 and Alpha being amazing and well accepted games. Like I said money will keep top players playing, but they wont be in love with the game and it can still fail like SF3 did. Resident Evil 6 failed horribly, if the FGC in large decides they find SF5 to be too boring and unfun the money for tournaments and attendance will drop, people will migrate to games they enjoy and seek money in those. Capcom is gambling new players will surge into the series and stay, but what if they get bored with the game quickly and drop it, then what? It is not guaranteed that casuals and people that buy SF5 will be amazed with it and continue playing it regardless. Resident Evil 6 completely failed and lost them tons of money. It also had a demo that was horrible and boring, that seems to be the new capcom standard.

Yea SF3 was solid but it had some problems in terms of appeal and parrying had its good and bad. Custom combos were as much bs as parrying was though. I'm convinced the OG top players didn't love 4. The new wave of top players did. The next wave of top players will love 5 and hate 6 too.

It's funny because Resident Evil 6 was catered to the CoD crowd, some games are just niche and don't work large scale. Casual players don't hold onto a game for years and years trying to get better.

I think the skill increase and discovered tech will keep most players interested. Not to mention the character reveals.


We have Juri, Ibuki, Balrog, Alex, Urien, and Guile. That will definitely get some fanboy hype. Though after the censorship stuff they may tone the female characters down so who knows?