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)
Personally, I would absolutely love a re-balanced version of third strike much like ssf2thdr. Don't know why everyone is on the rag about the issue.
I still don't see how wanting an untouched 3s is damaging, like I get the starcraft analogy and I get that 3s needs balance changes but then again no one asked for them and those people wanted an arcade perfect port of 3s. If someone wants to make a 3s remix thats cool, I'd play it but I don't see how those who want 3s as is are hurting the fighting game community.
You've also taken an interesting stance on the "love letter" phrase, as if it the phrase love letter pseudonym for fix, alter or change, the love letter that is 3sO is exactly what the fans asked for, if they had asked for a rebalance they would have likely gotten it. It's not that some didn't care enough that 3s is as broken as ever its that thats what was repeatedly requested since fighting games made their come back.
Dont get me wrong I think you're on point in that 3s is way off balance, I just don't see why it needs to be changed when the audience want's the game as untouched as possible.
Again, that is more circular statements. You're saying the community doesn't want changes, therefore there shouldn't be any. True and true, apparently. The issue is not "changes should be forced in anyway." The issue is "why wouldn't the community want fixes? I mean I sure do for games I love." And yeah, a love letter to me means caring enough to do something about glaring problems.
Disclaimer: this is not a marketing plug, it's mentioning the exact same issue I'm facing right now as a developer. Puzzle Strike has some balance problems and it's a love letter to the puzzle strike community that I'm fixing that. It's not bragging, it's not to get you to buy it, it's because I care about the game being the best it can be, and that care means maintenence, not letting it languish with glaring known problems. It just so happens that Puzzle Strike players want glaring problems fixed, and that's a stance that makes sense to me. Compare it to: not wanting glaring problems fixed.
I don't know why the community doesn't want changes to 3s or why they're so ridiculously defensive about the prospect, I sure as hell want them, I guess my issue is with framing here, to me it seems like its been broken down to re-releasing 3s as an arcade perfect port is terrible and lazy where as re-releasing it with balances and changes is ST akuma of choices. Personally I do think that fixing is better than doing nothing, I just don't see why the other is made out as wrong. At least thats how it looks from how I see it.
I see what you're saying with your definition of love letter and it's not a bad one but if you requested something as is and some one gave it too you as is just as you wanted it for years would that not also be a form of a love letter? Granted they're quite different!
I'm not trying to say that the community doesn't want changes therefore there should be no changes, now that I'm rereading my post I can see where that comes through, I just didn't know how to word give them what they want, why is that bad?
Also, thanks for replying to my post and for being civil in the midst of the 3s community going ballistic over the idea that 3s isn't perfect.
I think the problem is that the no-changes attitude leads to no-changes. But the fix-things attitude leads to things being fixed. I keep bringing up Puzzle Fighter as an example, but it's a good one. The no-change attitude would have deprived the world of a version that's fixed, or at least a version that's better. (Still has old goodness, but doesn't have 80% of the cast as useless.) That fixed version is a great thing for the world to have, and future gamers win by it being around. Asymmetric games are really complicated and it's only natural that it takes iterations to work out the problems. And this isn't just about 3s. There's kind of a strange undercurrent about this sort of thing, and it could lead to denying the world of improvements to games.
I only said something because the reviewer's stance was so far to the extreme. The notion that any change, even a minor balance change (in a game that I think we agree has major balance problems) would be automatically inferior. Rejecting the set of all possible improvements to a game where just 2 characters dominate should raise some red flags.
Yeah I see what you're talking about, like some of the MvC 2 community gets when balance is brought up(or when ever MvC3 is brought up for that matter) and some of the sf2 community started getting about hdr and how nothing should have ever been changed and now with 3s. When I read your initial article I got tunnel vision a little bit.
That said what do you think about nether realm's very hands on approach on MK?
I don't really follow MK, but from what I gather, they've made a lot of progress since the initial release, and the game would be even worse without that attention. If that's wrong, sorry, I haven't looked closely.
Not everyone even agrees that Third Strike has balance problems. In the Destructoid review of SF3:TSO, Jonathan Holmes said "It's my opinion that this is the single most compelling and well-balanced roster in a Street Fighter title to date."
http://www.destructoid.com/review-street-fighter-iii-3rd-strike-online-edition-209542.phtml
When most of the comments were to counter that opinion, he went on to write a follow-up article to defend his position.
http://www.destructoid.com/on-fighting-games-balance-is-theory-tiers-aren-t-facts-209713.phtml
I would even know where to start with that. I mean...seriously. Maybe other commenters can quote their favorite nonsense from it.
Sirlin, I think the reason people assume you don't know much about the game is because you keep saying that there are only two useful characters in 3s, which is the conclusion that most people who know next to nothing about the game and watch a few tourney videos come to. Sure Yun and Chun are powerful, but in addition to them, you have Ken, Makoto, Urien, Akuma, Ryu, Oro, Dudley and Yang who are also viable characters. So 10 characters out of however many in the roster.The REASON you don't see them a lot is because tourney players in the US are lazy if they don't really love the game and just want to win the prize money. They don't want to bother putting in a lot of time to really learn the ins and outs so they pick a top tier and rely on their basics. I can understand Wong not wanting to put in a lot of time in 3s, I can't imagine taking Marvel seriously, but hey, people do.
The biggest reason I can see for not wanting a rebalance is that Capcom sucks at rebalancing things. HF and Vampire Savior were accidents. SF4 has been labored over in a way 3SO won't be. There's a potential to make the game a real mess. Even if the tiers were improved, there'd STILL be top tiers and people would still whore them. And what you're proposing is like (and yes, I'm going for drama here) saying we should re-record parts of the Beatles' albums and fix the out of tune notes, tape noise, delete "She's So Heavy"and fix other "warts" just because we can. If you want to play, you get over it and it makes you a better player. Once you really learn to play, you find out that Yun and Chun aren't all that tough without meter, and that Ken is actually MORE dangerous than either of them because he doesn't NEED meter to do a lot of damage and is more well rounded. Makoto and Urien are also pretty deadly what with their 100% and unblockables respectively. So once you get into the nuts and bolts of the game, you realize that it's not really as unbalanced as some (admittedly uneducated on the topic usually) think it is. Play the first two iterations of SF3 and tell me if you still think 3s is that unbalanced. Ibuki, and Ibuki/Akuma run the first two by much greater margins than Yun or Chun. In fact, they truly invalidate the rest of the cast if played the right way.
I'm not saying the game is perfect, but I love it the way it is. Sure it could be better, but some of us just want to play the damn game without having to worry about the what-ifs. It's 10+ years old. Leave it be and let them focus that rebalancing energy on newer titles.
"They don't want to bother putting in a lot of time to really learn the ins and outs so they pick a top tier and rely on their basics."
So you're saying that a moderately skilled Chun player has an advantage over any but a greatly skilled Ken player? And you don't see that as a problem or an imbalance that needs correcting?
"So you're saying that a moderately skilled Chun player has an advantage over any but a greatly skilled Ken player? And you don't see that as a problem or an imbalance that needs correcting?"
No. And you know better if you've played the game for more than a few minutes. The better player will generally always win regardless of who they pick. As a Remy player, I've beaten plenty of Yuns and Chuns because I'm better than them. If they were better, they would have won but they weren't so they didn't. Why do you think Kuroda can beast Chun players with Q? If you really love the game and want to learn as much as you can about it, balance doesn't matter. You'll do well with whoever you pick and Kuroda is proof of this superhuman though he may seem.
"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)"
That's just it though. You can't predict what outcome rebalancing 3S would have. You can't predict that rebalancing wouldn't split the community because no-one can predict how the community will respond. Older 3S players, or at least the vocal ones speaking up, want the old version untouched. Outside of that, it's impossible to predict how a rebalanced version would affect the community. You say don't bring up HD Remix as a response but it's the only other example of a rebalanced fighting game re-released on console. And that did split the community, which you've acknowledged yourself in the above quote.
But that was a peripheral point to the one I wanted to make, which is a lot of the anger and vitriol surely stems from how quick you are to label those wanting 3S untouched with words like 'anti-progress', 'toxic', 'venom', 'hate' and so on. Your article above is a huge improvement on the original 3SOE article but the comments section shows you're still making huge leaps in logic to support your argument.
"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."
Why would it be an anti-progress attitude that would split the community? Says who? There are so many potential reasons why a rebalancing would split the community yet a theoritical split in the community because of a theoritical rebalance has already been blamed on anti-progress? Not all 3S players are taking offence to the idea of a rebalance, some are taking offence to the idea of us all being labelled as anti-progress, toxic neanderthals.
See? I can add 1+1 and get 3 to support my arguments too.
My own personal view is that the reason this has been such a raw nerve for 3S players (besides the language you're using) is that, like most retro re-releases, it's wrapped up in nostalgia. Not saying that's the right or wrong attitude to have but you yourself will have seen the response to ANY retro re-release when anything is changed. At all. It's not that an anti-progress attitude is specific to the 3rd Strike community, or even the fighting games community. It's that those who want retro re-releases don't think retro re-releases are the time or the place progress should be made.
Re-balancing and progress should be the job of 4th Strike.
"The better player will generally always win regardless of who they pick."
Obviously. But you didn't address my question. Are you happy with the fact that choosing a character other than Chun or Yun is a significant handicap, one which is sufficient to bias any match between players of approximately comparable skill?
"Obviously. But you didn't address my question. Are you happy with the fact that choosing a character other than Chun or Yun is a significant handicap, one which is sufficient to bias any match between players of approximately comparable skill?"
It's only a "significant handicap" if you either don't know the matchup, or you're playing as Sean. But if you don't know the matchup, ANY matchup can be a handicap. Do you know WHY Yun and Chun are top tier?
I'll agree that 3s isn't as balanced as Hyper Fighting or SF4, but it's nowhere near as unbalanced as people think it is.
"I'll agree that 3s isn't as balanced as Hyper Fighting or SF4, but it's nowhere near as unbalanced as people think it is."
So after dithering around about the definition of "significant" and trying to turn this into a 3S skill penis-measuring contest, it comes down to yes, you're happy with this imbalance.
What sort of corrections to this imbalance would make you unhappy, and why?
" So after dithering around about the definition of "significant" and trying to turn this into a 3S skill penis-measuring contest, it comes down to yes, you're happy with this imbalance.
What sort of corrections to this imbalance would make you unhappy, and why?"
How is actually knowing some of the ins and outs of a game "ttrying to turn this into a 3S skill penis-measuring contest?" Seriously, how long have you played the game? I really do want to know. Because it seems like most of the people who think rebalancing a 12 year old game is a fantastic idea either don't play the game or have played it a week.
Like I said before, should we re-record the Beatles albums just because we now have 128-track digital state of the art studios with noiseless microphone inputs and tune/performance correcting software? Will that REALLY make them any better than they already are? Granted 3s isn't as old as "Revolver" but the point still stands. Do you really think that there STILL won't be top tiers for people to whore even IF it gets a rebalance? The game has stood as is for 12+ years. Let sleeping dogs lie. If they were gonna make another SF3 game, fine, balance it to your heart's content, but leave this one as it is.
I'm a REMY player for christ's sake and I don't want to see it rebalanced. Just pick Ken and stop crying about balance. You people who think that everything old and new needs to be as fair and balanced as humanly possible need to just get over yourselves and let things be. If you don't like the balance of it, just play another game. Go play SF4 or Marvel Super Heroes if you want awesome balance.
"It's that those who want retro re-releases don't think retro re-releases are the time or the place progress should be made."
I really liked Bionic Commando, that is what sold me on the remake, actually. And I thought the improvements they made in Rearmed were also great. I miss the iconic drums from the main theme, but that's it. The crappy bosses, overpowered rocket launcher, and grindy health system I don't miss at all.
Both critics and hardcore fans liked the changes, too, so I don't think it's fair to say that all retro re-releases are faced with expectations of no progress.
So your only reason to not rebalance it is because it's old. That's disappointing, I was hoping you had some new insight.
"So your only reason to not rebalance it is because it's old. That's disappointing, I was hoping you had some new insight."
If that's all you got out of what I wrote then you didn't read what I posted. You also didn't answer my question about how long you've been playing 3s, nor did you answer my question about whether we should re-record the Beatles' albums and you're calling ME out about my honest answers to your questions (half of which you didn't even bother to read)?
Okay, let's put the shoe on the other foot: Why SHOULD we rebalance 3s? It's not like it's going to suddenly bring millions of new players to the fold. Even HDR and re-relased Marvel 2 couldn't do that with their flashy new graphics, so what makes you think 3s would with just a rebalance? You're delusional. And you need to read better.