Is game balance nessisairly needed

Vf2 was not as balanced as 3, nor is 4 as balanced as 3...but, is such balance truly needed? I think sometimes having characters that are just inherintly weaker can make a game more interesting, and also much more satisfying to win with someone who is not as strong.

 

Re: Is game balance necessarily needed

From a certain perspective that sort of philosphy will work, but then VF would become like all the other fighting games out there. Where people choose the strongest characters whenever possible.

At an elite level you'll find that most players will exploit unbalanced elements of a game to the extreme.

For example:

VF2: Akira
SF2 : Guile
SF2 Ex: Blanka
KOFx: Iori, Clark, Takuma, Mei Ling etc etc

Quake: Rockets, Railgun
Counterstrike: AK-47
Diablo 2: Sorc, Barb, Amazon

In the end its the character and luck that dictates sucess and then everyone ends up using the same characters and then things get boring.

I put quake and CS in as an example. The player's skill should be the variable and deciding element for winning not the character.

In quake, everyone competes in the same game with the same weapons. A rocket launcher is much better than a shotgun. Having a faster computer and internet connection will give you an advantage. The list goes on.

In Diablo 2, anything that is not the best is worth nothing. In the end everyone plays 3 of the 7 classes because the other 4 are simply shit. Item-wise people will go to any lengths to scam each other, dupe, cheat, pk... etc etc... If an item is not the best then its not used. In the end all the classes use the same bow, armour, rings, etc.

People will exploit strengths and weaknesses wherever they exist if they feel it will give them an advantage. This has been proven with every single game out there.

Balance is very important. Weak characters simply won't be used. Everyone end up playing the same few characters at the upper levels.

 

i don't know about game balance, but you need a fucking dictionary, and badly.

"nessisairly" - larf. that is a prize.

 

While I never made a claim to be a good speller, I will take your non-reply as a claim to ignorance or general stupidity?

 

Re: Is game balance necessarily needed

Good balance is one of the main things that separates VF from the crowd... if there was virtually no chance that a good Pai player could beat a good Akira player, almost nobody would use Pai seriously. If a few characters are knocked out like this in such a small lineup as VF, things get boring very fast.

 

Of course Balance is needed. Why knowingly design one character to be superior or inferior than all others? Your logic baffles me. There's no honour in playing an inferior character if everyone else is clearly better thought out. Frustration would soon come in and you'd loose interest rather quickly.

Using the character with all your innate skill within an equal environment should be the challenge in itself, why handicap yourself, do you believe that your skills are beyond everyone else's?

Don't put too much faith in others seeing your point of view, if one character is, or perceived to be stronger then that's where the majority will go, regardless of their fickleness. The other weaker characters simply won't be played, and why should they, if they cannot compete because the odds are so against the players that it just isn't fun.

The principal of balance and the strive to achieve it should always be a factor in gameplay.

 

I agree with everyone who thinks balance is a good idea and should be strived for. One thing that balance also does is it can help keep a casual player interested. If you're only interested in one character and that character can't win you probably won't be playing for too long. Another thing is that different players have different play styles and different mentalities so it's best to try and cater to those different mentalities as fair as possible. You don't want to force a player with a Shun style mindset to play Jacky just to be competitive. Only a hardcore comp player would play somebody just because they have to. For those who don't want to be a Phoenix you're giving them incentive to play another game. If you're making the games it shows you care about the game as much as it's biggest fans do. Basically balance is cool and it makes multiplayer games more interesting and fun in the long run.

 

I completely agree Adio.

p.s. How's my avatar?

 

I think there is a fundimental difference in view here - such that has been seen when I have advocated for uneven terrain.
I ENJOY and take pleasure in not everything being completely equal and not having everything being 100% predictable. To put it on a grander scale - would life be as interesting if EVERYTHING was COMPLETELY equal? No. THough I loved VF3 for its excellent balanance, I also loved the game for the terrain system which could cause funny things to happen. I think, should proper time be put into research, that concept could of really been fleshed out. This goes with character balance. Say we make all characters overall the same, but for each to have significant weaknesses and strengths. Make the wrestlers a lot harder to knock down, a expansive ground game but not as adept at defending strikers...reverse for strikers..or whatever. I find it makes a game more HUMAN...though I understand video games to be successfull for their escapism elements, which not having complete balance can destroy. I, on the other hand, do not always turn to games for their escapist (not saying you, nor anybody here does per say, but I do know that is a draw of computer/video games). elements.
I am not talking about making a character so weak it is near impossible to compete with them...but hell, look at shun, he was in NO way as good as Akira or Lau in VF2, but still people enjoyed and played him as a main character...

 

that's right, josh. in pointing out that you have grammar skills worse than those of a first-grader, i am claiming that i am ignorant and stupid. right. do you go out of your way to be a moron? asshole.

you don't need to wrongly claim that you're a good speller to take shit for your laughable writing ability. i am well aware that criticizing someone's spelling ability over the net is one of the basest things that one can do. however, one can only take so much. witnessing your butchering of the english language and your fake, invented words for so long rubs off on me. it's disgusting and embarrassing. have some dignity, for christ's sake. my three year old niece has better speaking ability than you do.

 

Re: Is game balance necessarily needed

Diablo 2 used to be more balanced before the Expansion pack, Amazons went the longest as being weak because of a bug. Prefix damage wasn't truely added and dealt with their bows, thus lowering their effectiveness greatly, but that winter it was fixed and they were improved. A few of us were prepared for this and quickly dominating the PvP scene with 10/11 frames bows and speed gear, or even 8frame rune bows causing shield lock on barbs. Counters were developed and it was decently balanced.
The game was always fairly good but the general opinion was often based off ignorance.
Paladins owned at first because of a basic Charge+Conc/Vigor set up, but slowly Whirlwind became popular (friend of mine made it popular on USWest, he caught the top barbs fast with his pike). Then sorcs as meteor was labeled as weak and fOrb became popular.

Not sure about the Expansion pack though, we never played it much. Hit the ladders hard for a couple weeks, our team ended up with top characters on each ladder including the first Lv99 assassin in the world, Natalya and top firewall sorcs. We were doing mass cow runs before the first week was close to over and most were leveling in Act 5 still. We had full cow sets, alk valors, etc, etc by our second week. We pretty much owned USEast, so most of ebayed and left for Anarchy Online or the Dark Age of Camelot beta (another game I owned with the 3rd top magic-user in the world). But this has got quite off-topic of PvP balance, so ah well.
Just felt like elaborating as a stranger here on something I know very well.

ADDED:
On a note to balance, it is not always needed in a Fighter.
But balance is needed in a competitive game, which Virtua Fighter is.

 

Well, what can I say but at least you put a smile on my face that I can so easily ruin yours.

 

..ruin my face?

you never fail to amaze and amuse.

 

Ruin your day, I would of thought even you would have enough intuition to see that...But oh well, if you really feel you want to get into a battle of insults, any day.

 

Back on topic...

I think such imbalances only show up in serious, no holds-barred tournament play.

In the Tekken scene at least, it's entirely possible to at least compete with lower-tier characters in casual play. Players like MIC are just notorious for this (though he actually wins with those characters too!). For me, half the fun is choosing a character and sticking it out because I happen to like the character, be it story, character design, or how visually pleasing the moves are. There's no shame busting out that Akira in tournaments, but isn't it always more about "process, not product?"

 

Hmm,, for me, it is both. I have always enjoyed and thrived on challenge. Tekken, which definatly has a HUGE difference in power is an example of this. While I find that some of the characters just are crap by both designe and ability, its cool to see people do really well with characters that are not considered powerhouses, but can be played with finess (Howrang (sp?) is a perfect example of this. He does not have nearly the options of King, Nina, Paul, etc, but you see a lot of high level players using him.
Back to Virtua Fighter. I think balance is both its strongest point, but also its achilles heel. Part of the complaints about character designe is that they seem to all come from the same mold, something which inherintly comes from the fact that they are all so well balanced. In the end, it comes down to personal preferance...