What is "A Love Letter to the Community?"
Thursday, August 25, 2011 at 10:56AM Saying that SF3:3s would be better if it was better balanced has resulted in a lot of personal attacks and hatred directed toward me. Not about the stated idea, but about me personally. That's sad to see after all the support I've given fighting games over the years, from helping running tournaments to working on the games themselves. Not real encouraging, you know. There's also a really strange claim that I only want 3s to be better because I don't like the game. As hard as it is to wrap your mind around that, let's think about it.
Street Fighter Alpha2
What would a love letter to the players of Street Alpha2 look like? I really like this game. Is the reason I like it because of the balance? No, it's because of the gameplay system. Regarding the balance, there's a top tier of ken, ryu, chun li, rose and they're pretty solid all around. I mean maaaaaybe chun li's Custom Combo does a bit too much damage (or maybe it's ok), but these top characters don't really need fixing. Zangief and Sakura are just below them, within striking distance, and they happen to have an unusually interesting match against each other. Probably don't want to mess with that. It is kind of annoying that Sakura's main combo is ducking short, short, stand short, dragon punch and that it overlaps with her near-useless triple hop move that gets you killed. Probably should make that a non-overlapping input, but the fun and balance are both ok here.
And then there's Birdie. Birdie is terrible and literally the worst character in the game, worse than Dan. Yes, really. If you write a love letter to me as a fan of the game, would it involve giving me the known-bad quantity of Birdie, a character who I can't really reasonably pick, or would this "love letter" give me what I liked about the game originally AND a pickable Birdie? Well, because I love the game, I would love to have a new choice in it, so of course I'd rather have reasonable Birdie instead of worthless Birdie. I played Birdie a bit in SF Alpha1, even, and he was stronger there but not even that good. It's not to hard to adjust him back up to at least be half-decent.
Adon is another example. He doesn't have much going for him, and just making his stand roundhouse half a decent hitbox and frame stats would be at least something. One of the very few good things he has is a good low strong, and interestingly that was actually *redrawn* and made worse in SFA2 Gold. So uh, that is not a love letter. A love letter would be fixing up Birdie, Adon, and a few other things with some of the worst characters. As I outlined above, there isn't really a problem with the first and second tiers.
Puzzle Fighter
I love Puzzle Fighter! Is the reason I love it because of the game balance? No. (There's a strawman argument I see all the time that I think balance is the only important quality in a game. It just happens to be an easier one to quantify than general fun.) Anyway, what a great game, but there's only two characters you can pick. Would a love letter to me give me 2 characters I can pick and the entire rest of the cast worthless, or would a love letter give me a whole cast to actually enjoy? To give me just those 2 guys playable when you know full well all the problems seems pretty sloppy to me, so yes please do something about that. There's a lot of reasonably playable characters in Puzzle Fighter HD, and I don't think anyone sees that as "bad."
Super Turbo
Another great game. Is the reason I like this game because of the balance? No. It has to do with how the game system works, how attacking is rewarded so much, how fast it is, etc. As far as fighting games go, the balance here is pretty good. It does have problem matchups and it could be better, so as "controversial" as it is, a love letter to me about this game would give some low tiers a little help, like maybe let Cammy's cannon drill be safer.
Ok now here's the plot twist for you. Street Fighter HD Remix does *not* really fit into this list very well. My original proposal at the start of development was to fix a few balance things amongst the low tiers, and it was like less than 10 things total. Maybe like 5 or something, I forget. Capcom said they would prefer that instead of changing a couple things, that it actually be a new version of the game, like a sequel, and that it also include the original game. There wasn't even going to be any old music or any way to see the old sprites. Luckily we *were* able to add support for those anyway later on in development (business people said it was too costly to include the correct implementations of the old backgrounds though). Anyway, the point is a new game. Very surprising to me, but sure ok let's do it. In that case, more drastic changes are on the table, like fixing all sorts of overlapping motions and the randomness involved in input detection. Remaking characters entirely like Fei Long and Sagat. So even though I think HD Remix turned out great, that it's more accessible, has improved balance, and has more fun (example: boring OP O.Sagat vs more mobile, fair Remixed Sagat), it doesn't fit into the list in this post very well because it's a sequel. It's not fixing a few things, it's a new game.
Street Fighter 2: Hyper Fighting
I really, really like this game. Some people think it's even better than ST, and I won't really take sides on that but I think it's on par, at the least. Is it because of the balance? Again, no, it's about the gameplay. How is the balance though? It happens to be pretty fantastic. The top tier of about 5 characters are all solid, and not there due to some degenerate strategy. The second tier, and actually--almost the entire cast--is reasonably pickable. Wow!
And then there's Vega and Bison. These poor guys stand out as weaker than the rest, and they really could use some help. Poor neutered Vega. And Bison, who was way too good in the previous version of the game, really got overnerfed here. A love letter to me about this game would do something about these two guys. I really like the game, and the game plus a decent Vega and Bison would be even better. The only two other things that come to mind are the bug allowing low short to chain into fierce (that should probably be fixed...) and maybe something about throw softening. I like that throws are good, but it's a bit harsh that they do huge damage and can't even be softened. That one's negotiable though. Basically fix up Vega/Bison and show that you cared enough and I'd be happy.
SF3:3s
In the comments section for my last post on this, someone suggested disabling parrying in the air and parrying of projectiles. The reason would be to increase the importance of zoning. I think that is likely to lead to more interesting gameplay, but that is a real big change. It sounds more like a sequel to me. A "love letter to fans" would be more like everything else in my list above. You love the game because of the gameplay system (not because of the balance), so you'd want that intact. But if you could play that game with a decent Q or Twelve or whoever, that would be quite a love letter. It would show that someone cared enough to fix the very well-known balance problems with the game, and hopefully they'd leave most things how you liked them unless it was an actual sequel to the game, like HD Remix. In the games I listed above, I didn't mention changing any of the top tier characters. Often it's a good idea to leave those, but in the special case of 3s, such a love letter might slightly weaken the two best characters because the gap happens to be so large.
Puzzle Strike
You might think a love letter means intentionally leaving known-problems unfixed, but to me it means treating those with care and doing something about it. I also noticed some people are offended(???) by my mention of my own games in a post on my own website. I think bringing up Puzzle Strike is very relevant to this discussion actually, and not as some sort of marketing plug (though if it had been a marketing plug--which it wasn't really--I don't see the problem there either). I mentioned it before because the issues were talking about here aren't just theoretical. I have to deal with them all the time, for real, in my actual work. We've found that Puzzle Strike has some balance problems, so what should we do about it? The most common answers in traditional board games are to do nothing or to release an expansion that addresses whatever the issue was while leaving the first game in a problem-state. Well, I don't really like those answers. That isn't a love letter to the community in my opinion, and I think I have sort of an obligation to address the balance issues that have been shown in tournaments after the game's release. If someone likes Puzzle Strike, I think they'd like it more with the worst couple guys reasonable to play and the best couple guys not dominating all the tournaments. Same for 3s, same for Puzzle Fighter the video game, and so on.
So if someone said that a love letter to fans about Puzzle Fighter involved making sure that *only* Ken and Donovan are good enough to pick, and that true-love means keeping the other characters in a sorry state, I'd be pretty mad as a player. It would ruin the much better love letter of giving fans the game they love with, say, 6 or 8 real characters instead of 2.
Reader Comments (103)
There's nothing toxic or venomous or destructive about wanting an arcade perfect release of an old game. There is something toxic about calling that toxic, though, because I fail to see what a rebalance would bring to the table. The people who want an arcade perfect game wouldn't go to it, or some would and some wouldn't. If there's an option to play an arcade perfect version and the rebalanced, then there's another split, and so on. What the 3S community wanted was an arcade perfect port of 3S; is there a problem for receiving a requested product?
I'm not defending the balance of the game, and I haven't seen anyone do that other thing some folks saying "Kuroda can, you can too!" which is madness, frankly. But I also think the tier issues are being dramatically overstated. At the top tier of US play, there's one set of results, in the top tier of Japanese play, there's a different set of results, and we know that the Japanese scene for 3S is stronger (although they play under a different ruleset). For the majority of people playing 3S:OE, the tier issue is not going to matter. I'm not going to be destroying everyone left and right just by tapping A on Chun Li or Yun in the character select screen. They have easier and more powerful options, but in general, most of the cast can deal with them given equal playing fields, although Chun, Yun, and Ken do start to pull ahead as we approach the more elite levels of play.
Ultimately, what I'm saying is that I don't think there's anything wrong with the 3S community wanting an arcade perfect port, and I think you're overstating both the problems of 3S and the community's desire for an arcade perfect port. If there were a new iteration of SF3 called 4th Collision or something, no one would be disgruntled if the tier list shuffled. People WOULD be disgruntled at that shuffling in a supposed arcade perfect port of 3S, because it's supposed to be arcade perfect. I feel like you're missing the point and construing the desire for arcade perfect online play as a negative, then dramatically overstating that negative.
And ultimately anyway, the important thing is that the community that supports the game is happy, isn't it? Not achieving some abstract ideal on design. Just because you find the balance in 3S lacking doesn't mean that the game is less than. MvC2 has absolutely atrocious balance and that game was beloved for a decade by it's fanbase.
Hmm, I kind of feel like I'm repeating myself, but here we go. So let's take the argument "Changing the balance, even if it was really bad before and the changes make it much better...would split the community, and therefore we don't want any change." Let's say that's TRUE. The result would be that you might demand no change, and then the game company would hear that and give you no change. And then you don't have a split community. So...is this great?
If you compare it to the split community situation, maybe it is great. I'm not comparing it to that though. If the balance changes added more valid choices to the game while leaving the old ones intact, and keeping the system you already like, then it would be pretty unreasonable for the community to split. Don't even think of bringing up HD Remix as a response, as that is a sequel, and a totally different game (which also shouldn't have split the community, but that's a different story). Like imagine Puzzle Fighter where the community would be "split" between the version with only 2 good characters and the better balanced one with the same 2 good characters + a bunch of other valid choices. If the community split over THAT, then the community would be displaying a pretty bad mentality.
Now if you're saying in this theoretical version with some changes, that the changes are terrible and ruin things, then uh...of course we are against it. I'm talking about like the Puzzle Fighter case where they are pretty obvious improvements. The very idea that there'd be a split *is* the problem.
Now maybe you're thinking a split happening even if everyone in the US agreed the new version was better, because of Japan. Yeah ok, that's a question about distribution and having a company serious about handling that problem. But that's a separate issue again. I mean for sake of argument, assume that is planned too.
(Paragraph upon paragraph of bizarre insults deleted)
From Sirlin: You're pretty bent out of shape over the mere suggestion of improving balance in a game that needs it. Maybe do some introspection.
As requested, I'll be trying to repost once a page or so:
The way I read I, and David confirmed this interpretation, the original article had nothing against this release of Third Strike - he agreed with all design decisions that went into it, and I'm pretty sure David's not actually opposed to unlockable artwork. What he did attack was the attitude of some players that tweaking an unbalanced game into a balanced one was a net loss. At no point was it hinted that the original balance shouldn't be part of the release, or even that a rebalanced mode should have been in: he just said he feels the proper reaction is "too bad they didn't have time/budget to add it, but that's life!", rather than "thank god we didn't get a rebalanced mode selectable at the title screen, that would have ruined everything!"
(Personal insults deleted. Seriously what is up with this) You can't just accept this: the playerbase simply DOES NOT¨WANT a "true balanced" game. We believe that some imbalance IS NEEDED to get out interest in the game. sure, Chun, Yun and Ken are cheap, but dedicated players will find ways to fight against it. Anyone who had played in japanese arcades will tell you the same thing.
You already showed disgust for 3S in the past, HOW we can trust if your design comments are biased in your personal taste or not? I see no proof, AFAIK.
Riff Raff, perhaps you could explain why you think me liking or not liking 3s is at all relevant. If I loved and was one of the very best players of it, do you think I'd be saying different things about balance? Maybe you think in that case I'd say that I really want to make sure that 2 characters dominate? I just wrote an entire long article here showing that's not true, and that the games I really like and am very good at, I think fixing their worst problems is better than not fixing them. So you'll have to clarify your position about what me liking or not liking 3s has to do with anything?
It's unfortunate you're attacking the messenger. Why don't you imagine that your closest friend and top 3s player said "maybe if we like this game so much, we'd like it more with a few more viable characters." Then you won't be able to use the non-argument that he doesn't like the game, because we're imagining he thinks it's awesome and he's better than you at it. You'd have to actually think the core issue there. You'd have to think about why it is you want to deny him and others more viable choices without being able to sink to insults about him, or irrelevant side issues. If your best buddy brought up that exact same issue, would you post angry hate at him? Why throw it at me then. I'm not hating you, certainly not you personally. I'm saying the world would probably better off if beloved games had, I don't know, 5 good characters, instead of 2. I expect a more calm response.
Did I post something particularly vitriolic? Is that why my original post didn't receive approval?
Anyway, to summarize: it makes no sense not to balance an old game, while keeping the original game as a backup for those who like nostalgia.
(personal attacks deleted, no other content was in the post)
One question that needs to be asked:
Why is the Capcom community like this? You don't just see it in 3S. You see it with folks defending AE as well. You also saw folks defending pre-patch Sentinel (though in Sentinel's case there is a semi-reasonable argument that the nerf came too quickly), as well as folks decrying the removal of infinites.
Also, Haunts speaks positively of KOF13's console changes, while KOF13 arcade isn't as imbalanced as 3S (though it does have 2 dominant characters just like 3S). In fact, the console port of KOF won't even have an arcade mode, just the revised version. Curious what you'd think of that- though KOF is a 1 yr old game, not 10.
So apparently his complaints are specific to Capcom games,or at least 3S.
My theory is that it's largely peer pressure as well as side effects from the 90s arcade culture, which isn't necessary anymore. Why is it that non-Capcom communities appreciate change more?
Why is it so hard to understand that Sirlin's view is not "Capcom should not give player's what they want" but rather "It is strange that players demand that Capcom does not improve weak aspects of an otherwise great game."
Starcraft has been brought up several times in this debate. I don't think comparing SC to 3S makes sense here.
Whenever Blizzard deployed a balance patch to SC, all previous versions effectively ceased to exist. The end result is still the same game, because it's what everyone has (unless you never connect to Bnet of course, but then you probably don't care about competitive play).
OTOH re-releasing an old fighting game with rebalanced rules does make it a different game, because the game has been playable in its original form by everyone at this point, and still continues to be so.
Modern fighting games can and do receive minor balance patches, for example BlazBlue:CS had some. And that's a good thing! But for old fighting games, the game is a fixed point in time because the original incarnation cannot be retroactively fixed. Yeah it sucks, but that's just how it is.
For the record I enjoyed SSF2THDR. But the game wasn't Super Turbo. It was Super Turbo HD Remix. A different game than the original ST.
As for 3rd Strike Online Capcom has been honest with everyone, they were clear it was just a port of the original game. So it's just that, really.
When you said that HD Remix was not a minor rebalance of ST, but instead a totally different game, you are just repeating what I said in this very post. Maybe you know that already, I don't know. It seems that most people discussing this don't know that though, and are only able to imagine huge differences like in HD Remix, when just tweaking balance here and there would be more appropriate for something that isn't a sequel.
That Starcraft's new versions replace old versions doesn't make the entire point moot here. All it does is add "and if there are revisions, it would be good if everyone had access to them, like all over the world." If everyone did have access to them, then you're back to having to think about the core issue: "hmm, what if Twelve were a bit less bad" or "Hmm, what if Chun Li / Yun were a bit worse?" If anything, noting the differences from Starcraft changes the theoretical community plea from "I wish the developer would care about fixing problems" to the even more demanding "I wish the developer would fix problems AND be serious about distributing the fixes in a way where everyone can play the same game." If the community were asking for that even stronger demand, sure that would make sense.
And just for the record, for like the 10th time, this isn't about claiming Capcom did anything wrong. They are reacting to what the community will accept / wants. They are giving people what they want, and they are going to make money because of that, so their choices make sense. The only question is about why the community doesn't want a bit more. For the games I love in the original post, I did want a bit more. Luckily for (us all??), we got it for Puzzle Fighter at least.
"Changing the balance, even if it was really bad before and the changes make it much better...would split the community, and therefore we don't want any change."
Rather, therefore it makes sense to only have one version. This is an argument against shipping Third Strike Online and Third Strike Online Remix in the same box. Whichever version you feel is better, its value is going to be diminished by the fact that some percentage of the fanbase is going to be playing the other version. Even if 3S's fanbase weren't extremely conservative by self-selection (the anti-progress attitude you refer to) after a decade, it's going to be extremely small after a decade, and splitting that fanbase further just makes it harder to find a match.
My point is simply that if you prefer either version of the game, it's reasonable to want that to be the only version of the game in the box.
Hi Dave! Love the blog - first time posting.
I've just very recently gotten into fighting games, and have been playing SFIV. I'm enjoying it, for the most part, except for things that you have pointed out previously (missed your nigh-impossible, 2% damage link? get ready to eat this 50% ultra combo).
There are so many little things throughout these games that just baffle me. Kara throws are a great example. Apparently, this 'bug' (feature?) allows you to cancel a normal with a throw, extending your throw range. So, this happened in a 90s arcade game, and it turned out to add some depth to the game. However, this 'feature' was then included in SFIV. Try as I might, I have never once pulled this off. I imagine that if I spent on the order of 3 hours practicing JUST this technique, I could perform it with some competency. However, as someone new to the scene, I must ask "why on EARTH would they include such a stupid 'tic' in this game"? Call me a lame beginner all you want, but I would much rather play the game than master a useless, arbitrarily difficult technique by myself.
I imagine that the same attitude of someone who would defend kara-throwing would defend the apparent balance issues in 3S.
"It adds depth."
"It makes it an interesting game."
"Changing it would break the game."
If you think that a poorly balanced game is deep and compelling, I guess you are free to that opinion. What Dave's series of articles here seem to be about, though, are "WHY is this poor design choice superior?" Everyone who has posted here thus far (besides a neat comment about a 3-character fighting game) has never really offered a reason as to why having OP characters makes a better game.
I think this attitude of not fixing obviously-broken and easily fixed mechanics goes a lot deeper than we might realize, thinking about conservative mindsets in general. If you really got an honest answer from a defender of the 3S balance, I imagine it would be "I'm not the best, but I'm happy with my skill in the game as it is. I would prefer not to learn any new strategies, and just play the game." Honestly, I think this is the best possible defense one could put forth about this game, the concern of not being able to play as you once did.
Again, thanks for blogging, and have a good one.
For anybody who's worried about "splitting the community" with new game versions:
Can you explain to me why 3 (soon to be 4) different revisions of SF4 haven't split the community? Especially when the current one is widely regarded to be worse than the previous versions?
What's the exact length of time a game has to exist before it becomes sacrosanct?
"Can you explain to me why 3 (soon to be 4) different revisions of SF4 haven't split the community?"
They have, to some extent. Both the people who don't like the new version and the people who haven't ponied up the cash for the new version are left behind. The difference is that there are lots and lots of SF4 players, and each new version of SF4 brings in a ton more players because they see the box in a store with the new games and pick it up.
3S isn't sacrosanct. Rather, it's just old, and few people like it any more. Splitting the fanbase of the new and shiny game with its huge following means that you're still well above the critical mass you need to find a good match online. Splitting the fanbase of a game with a tiny, withered following means that the already-difficult task of finding a good match online gets even harder.
Kind of circular reasoning though. The question isn't *whether* it would be split, it's *why* it would be split. You can say "it would be split, therefore it's a bad idea." And that can be true, yet we are still left wondering why the anti-progress attitude splits them. When Puzzle Fighter goes from 2-characters-only to many-characters-viable, it's still the same game, just with more choices, and no one is like "I will only play the 2-characters-only version!"
It would seem a better attitude to play the improved version. I think the real answer is that people are so clouded by a bunch of side issues, like how SF HD Remix is a sequel, but they imagine that no balance changes can happen without it being tons of big ones like that in the form of a sequel. Further, they probably imagine a few balance changes that are bad, instead of a few that are good. Of course we all reject a few that are bad, so why even consider that case. Also maybe some forget that almost any change would improve the balance, because of how bad a state it's in, so fear of worse balance is unreasonable. Anyway, people are afraid of a lot of boogymen. That someone would categorically denounce the set of *all possible* balance changes really says something about screwy the attitude is though.
"And that can be true, yet we are still left wondering why the anti-progress attitude splits them."
And rightly so. I'm simply addressing the lesser point, "How can anyone be opposed to a 3SO Remix that also includes the original version?" The answer to that question is "Because it'd make it harder to find a 3SO Vanilla or Remix match, because the 3S following is so small."
Alright, Sirlin, lets give you a hypothetical example. Lets say that Street Fighter 2 was perfect. Would SF2: HD Remix be necessary? What if it was slightly flawed, but near perfection? And what if it was reasonably flawed, but most people would be able to look beyond this? Got an answer in mind? Now, what if someone else came up to you, told you that your opinion was wrong and that you were poisoning your community with your opinion? Now, lets say that person was someone who never played SF2 all that much. Doesn't that make a difference?
See, as someone who isn't part of the SF3 community, you can make those kinds of judgments, but you're just causing interference in something you aren't an active part of. That's why so many people are bringing up your non-history with SF3; you're attacking something that you don't "actively understand". Do I think the non-demands for rebalancing of SF3 dumb? A bit. But it's also very closed-minded to attempt to attack a community I am not a part of and do not understand. Everything has its own context. You can, of course, say "But SF3 only has a tier list of 2 characters, how can that ever be healthy?" Well, what do you know? I've watched those SF3 players and they seem perfectly content with their game. It's not like the SF3 tourney scene has imploded on itself and it still has a decent following. And there are players who absolutely enjoy the game; just listen to, say, Maximillian going "LOVE THIS GAME AGAIN". It's hardly fair for bystanders to condemn a community unless you have contacts within that community who know the general conscience of that community. It just comes off as "twirl my mustache, my knowledge is almighty."
And it really doesn't help when you're very nasty about it in a very unprovoked way. It's not like the SF3 community went like "Oh man, that Sirlin guy. Lets go randomly attack him." The SF3 community was more than content to leave you alone until you came knocking on their door.
AncientSpark, I really disagree with what you're saying. First, you start with a hypothetical of "What if SF2 was perfect" and then ask if we should change a perfect thing. It's like a tautology that it's already perfect. That's a pointless question because neither SF2 nor SF3 are "perfect." Far from it.... Then you ask what if it has some problems, should those be fixed. And you're expecting me to say no. Why would I not want problems fixed?
Next, you have the same tired argument about me not liking or liking SF3. Or even me being an expert or not an expert on it. Again, this is totally irrelevant. Perhaps you think if I loved and was an expert, I would say never change anything no matter what. Yet my original post here debunks that in great depth. Knowing a lot about a game and loving it doesn't change anything regarding "problems should be fixed."
Next, you're saying that people don't want a game with major balance problems changed. Yeah, we all realize that people don't, but the question is why be content with so little. That the "SF3 tournament scene hasn't imploded" is not some kind of proof that no possible change can improve the game.
It really makes no difference whether the message of "it is possible to improve a game with terrible balance" is said by someone who loves the game or hates the game. As I told a previous poster, why don't you imagine your best friend who loves the game and is better than you made the same suggestion? Then you'll have to wrestle with the actual issue instead of personal attacks like saying I'm twirling my mustache and that my knowledge is almighty. There's a real strong trend of avoiding discourse here and replacing it with insults, and that's really troubling. I am not "attacking the SF3 community." It has very little to do with SF3. ANY game with major balance problems where some players said "please don't address these," it would be the same issue. Also, I posted this general thing (that happened to use SF3 as just one example) on my own website, yet I'm personally attacked and bashed here and on srk. It's me who is "being attacked" here. I said an idea, yet the response is an avalanche of ad hominem.