The Anti-Progress Attitude
Monday, August 22, 2011 at 2:21PM Maybe read Archon Shiva's summary of this post first:
The way I read I, 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 oppose 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!"
This review of SF3:3rd Strike Online at 1up.com should be considered shameful. It casually embraces an attitude that's damaging to the quality of games we get to play. What's so wrong with what's said there? This (emphasis added):
Do the developers make adjustments to characters like Chun-Li and Yun -- who are leaps and bounds more powerful than the rest of the cast -- rebalancing them as to give characters like Q, Sean, and Hugo a fighting chance? Some argue this would allow newer players to ease into the game and even provide a fresh take on the series, possibly revitalizing the competitive scene.
At the same time, if they make changes to the game, even the slightest rebalance, players such as myself who have literally been playing the game for 10 years now, might feel it's an inferior port and not play it at all -- opting to continue to fight it out at the arcades or even on the PlayStation 2.
It's great that Capcom made such an effort to translate the game to a modern console. It's great they used the only reasonable kind of networking for a fighting game (GGPO). Well, strike that. It would be shameful and embarrassing for any fighting game to not use it, so it's more of a "phew, they did an obvious thing right there." It's great they did an obvious thing right with the way the button configuration screen works. There's really a whole lot of positive stuff to say here, and I agree with those saying those positive things. BUT...
There's a problem: 3s is one of the worst balanced fighting games around. I mean that literally. It's hard to even come up with worse balanced fighting game than it, yet if you throw a stick at a pile of fighting games, you'll hit a better balanced game. James Chen had this to say in 2008 about the Evolution tournament results:
Street Fighter III: Third Strike - This year [2008], in the Top 8, we had Chun, Chun, Chun, Chun, Chun, and Yun. In 2007, we had Chun, Chun, Chun, and Chun. In 2006, we had Yun, Yun, Yun, Yun, Chun, Chun, and Chun. In 2005, we had Chun, Chun, Chun, Chun, Chun, Yun, and Yun. I don't think there's anything left to say about this game.
Yeah it's pretty appalling. It's laughable to think addressing this might make it an "inferior port." I think parrying making projectiles and zoning hardly matter is an even bigger problem, as is the shallow hit-confirm-into-super gameplay in general, but let's not even go there. Let's just imagine that stuff is all great. A game where two characters totally dominate is a problem. (Yes I know about Japan, but balance is clearly disastrous anyway.)
So what's the problem here? Is it that Capcom didn't make any effort to fix this problem? Well, sort of. I do think that's a problem, but if you follow my subtle point it's not actually the biggest problem. Maybe they did some business analysis on how much that would cost, how much testing it would take, and how much money the game would make, and they didn't like the result. (Though maybe they asked Floe what he thought and he said he'd rather play a brokeny game.)
Anyway, there's a much bigger problem than Capcom's decision here, and that problem is the reaction to it as exemplified in the 1up review. It's damaging to gaming to profess the anti-progress ideal that problems should be kept broken. Somehow this reviewer and many players think that it's a good thing that two characters dominate and other characters are comparatively worthless. Well, that's not ok. That should be fixed and you should demand it be fixed. It's exasperating to even have to say that because it's so obvious in any other context. Imagine if Blizzard discovered that Protoss vs. Zerg was an 8-2 match, but hey, the game's been around for a while so we're going to leave it! After all, it is possible for Koreans to win it sometimes. It's just so deep to have a wildly imbalanced matchups like that, and for the game to be dominated by it. Seriously though, it isn't. It's ridiculous to even say all that about Starcraft, as it would be for any other type of asymmetric game. But somehow a segment of the fighting game community has begun to cling to the idea that problems shouldn't be fixed.
Let's dispel the strawman response before it happens. "If you keep fixing things, players don't have to learn." Yes, there's truth in that and Blizzard is very conscious of it. They want to fix actual real problems with their games, but not fix every *claimed* problem. Fixing every claimed problem would mean flavor-of-the-month fixes, constant change for no real reason, and if any tactic becomes even slightly ok, bad players demand it be "fixed." Players would have trouble even developing strategies because constant changes would be happening under their feet all the time. I think that's bad, Blizzard thinks it's bad, and you think it's bad. So we can file this away as "it's not what we're talking about." What we are talking about is actual real problems, the ones that might make Protoss vs. Zerg a tragically problematic 8-2 matchup. You can bet they'd fix that and rightly so. Anyone "defending" keeping it 8-2 would look silly. And if anyone did make that defense, we'd wonder about their attitude if Blizzard announced that Protoss vs. Zerg was actually 5-5, but Blizzard plans to make it much more unfair in the future, slanting it to 8-2 in Zerg's favor to make the game more manly. Better game right?
I hope we can fight against this bad mindset and create a community where we expect major problems to be fixed in games, at least when those problems are as huge as 3s's problems. I'm certainly glad Blizzard lives in that world, but over in fighting game land, we get reviewers congratulating a company for NOT fixing the balance in nearly the worst balanced game in the genre. This issue directly affects my own games as well. Yomi, luckily, remains better balanced than any fighting game I know of, so even though it's not perfect (nothing is), it's in great shape. Puzzle Strike, on the other hand, has shown itself to have less-than-desirable balance in a tournament setting. Still better than 3s, but not really good enough. I suppose it might help me financially if I were to take the attitude that these problems are great to have, and that it makes a game deep to have 1 or 2 playable characters and a bunch of trash characters. But I just can't do it because it makes no sense. So at great cost of time and money, I've worked with my playtesters to develop the "Puzzle Strike Upgrade Pack" that adds several non-gameplay-affecting components to the game, as well as a bit of new gameplay...and...balance fixes put all the characters on equal footing. More details and pictures of it will come soon. I really hope Puzzle Strike players are going to be happy about improving and progressing the game, even though 1up's reviewer "might feel it's an inferior port and not play it at all."
Also see this followup post about loving games and allowing them to be the best they can be.
Reader Comments (95)
Nybb: yeah the good parts are good, I'm with you there. I hope that those good features will become more and more standard in future fighting games. And just to restate, the deeper problem ins't even Capcom's choice here. Their choice is just a reflection of what the community will or will not accept. It would be nice if the community was very upset over things not being fixed or at the very worst *indifferent* over it. To be actually *happy* that things aren't fixed is sending the wrong message to game companies though. Moribund Cadaver explains why that attitude is out there.
Smidge: a game's feel is defined by its top tier. I think it's reasonable to make an effort in development to figure out which characters would make for a bad game if they ended up too strong. You generally want characters well-rounded in the fundamentals to be the best, if someone has to be the best. It's possibly bad if Zangief is the best because it would mean that getting in is the best in a game that's supposed to be about zoning. (Pre-emptive response to snarky people who think Zangief is the best in HD Remix: it's a good thing that he gets beat by literally more than half the cast.) That said, I think what I'm saying and what you're saying are different. I'm talking about making all the characters as close as possible, and when a razor-thin judgment call is needed, make it in favor whichever character makes for a better game if they end up top. You're talking about intentionally making overpowered and worthless characters, which is too mind-blowing to even imagine being true.
I just want to say I admire Sirlin to standing up for his beliefs on a matter where he will face a large amount of close-minded opponents. Progress is always a good thing. My opinion on this is that 3s is a cool game. I really dig the music, the style and the characters. But it's really the balance that is the reason why I'm not going to purchase this game. I remember playing this with my cousin who has no idea how to play the game. I'm not too great as well. Anyway, she picks Chun and I pick Q. We play several times and she wins, no joke, 80% of the time She just jumps all over and spams high priority stuff. Even when I pick Dan in SSF4AE I can have a chance against Yun. The balance is really off. I'd rather buy 3S Remix.
I agree with what you're saying, but I should point out that this article is littered with typos. (fixed now)
This explains a lot: http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/08/users-treat-criticism-of-favorite-brands-as-threat-to-self-image.ars
Someone who is deeply into one single game will see any change to it as a desecration, no matter if the change is good or bad. And with a cast of 40 characters I would never expect more than 10-20 being tournament-worthy. But Chun only? That's just ridiculous (and very easy to fix, by the way. Just nerf Chun hard, and suddenly, the meta explodes into a Cambrian variety show). Would it piss off all the Chun players? Yes.
I'm more of a GGXX player, which has sadly been replaced by BlazBlu which I somehow can't get into.
Awesome post, Sirlin. *bows*
I have to say, respect to Haunts for being one who properly reviews stuff in an age where the majority of game reviewers have no friggin idea what fighting games are supposed to be about.
Still. The option to have a balanced 3rd Strike never striked(!) me as hard before, but after reading this, I am rally starting to play with this idea. Even if it is optional, it would VERY, VERY easy to make adjustments that, when active, could make the bottom half of the cast viable.
But at the end of the day, this is one very important game release. It is a first in Capcom's history where all the training options and all the online options are there, as well as single player unlockables. I hope this is their preferred route with FG's in the future, XBLA/PSN or retail.
I think you somewhat miss the point here, which could be adverse natural selection and consanguinity.
SF3 is a bad, imbalanced game. Better games exist, but a bunch of guys are still heavily invested into it. Players interested in good games already switched to something better (do I get a bonus cookie if I say SF2 HDR?). People interested in changes or variety already switched from this obsolete game.
So you get stuck with a community which likes the game for what it is : a bad game they master through some brick walls (picking any char apart from the two good ones is fail), "rural dominance" (if the game came better it would have more competition and they wouldn't be at the top anymore, better being the champ of your village than average in champion's league) and custom habits (they may be bad at handling multiple matchups, having only 2 relevant matchups fulfill their lust for strategic variation).
This may or may not be true at the very top level (maybe guys like Daigo excel at all fighters anyway), but I can bet you this is true at the "competitor" level (people who go int ournaments and win some matches), and more generally true for any gamer who specializes in SF3 (as opposed to more polyvalent figthers)
From a commercial point of vue, a revamped SF3 will not get any newcomers. And it wouldn't be old timer's SF3 anymore.. Which is a problem for a game which only has a community consisting on peope reluctant to any change whatsoever.
@Burlin: You need to do a little bit of counting there. He said "in the top 8" and then listed a number of Chuns and Yuns that didn't add up to 8. Any given top 8 he listed would not be a problem by itself (5 of the top 8 being represented by one character could easily happen in a game with a reasonable top tier of 4 or 5 good characters), but taken together, you have Chun in over 53% of slots (absurd!), and Yun over 21%. This is not healthy.
What point is Haunt hoping to make? That publishers will lose money if they rattle the cages of the timid little gamers? Is he reviewing FOR publishers, or for consumers of the product?
You've been playing this game for ten years and if it's not exactly the same you won't buy it...? Does this strike anyone else as completely ridiculous? Just me perhaps.
As for your reply to criticism here: Any review should be a robust presentation of your actual opinion, rather than an abridged version for a particular audience... If your writing can't stand up to the whole community reading it (not just the scrubs) then you should check if you dropped your journalistic integrity anywhere.
Seriously, you DON'T want developers reading your stuff? A sad, sad indictment of games journalism indeed.
Hopefully, improved balance would attract new fans. There are many late adopters to franchises - it's short-sighted to think otherwise.
"I hope that those good features will become more and more standard in future fighting games... It would be nice if the community was very upset over things not being fixed or at the very worst *indifferent* over it. To be actually *happy* that things aren't fixed is sending the wrong message to game companies though."
I'm pretty sure that the point of Capcom porting (and not enhancing) 3S was twofold: (1) Historical preservation -- like it or not -- and (2) giving all of those "good features" a test run. (Well, threefold if you count P&L.) You may be right when you say that 3SOE is not progress, but hopefully it leads to progress with future games. The game is very much a known quantity, and people are pleased to see it working as originally designed, with all of these new features gracefully incorporated. As for the progress you desire, perhaps lessons from 3SOE's development and reception will be useful in developing a new online, 2D fighter.
Timely news just a day after this post: http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/36737/Virtua_Fighter_5_Definitive_Version_Coming_To_XBLA_PSN.php
I was more interested in 3SO before checking the tier list, following reading of this article. As a SFIV player, it's shocking to see a tier list so imbalanced. That said, of the people I know that play 3S, I don't know of any of them that are bothered by not adjusting the game - I guess since they've played the same game for so long they're not terribly interested in the prospect of re-learning the game... they've invested hundreds or thousands of hours playing the game already, a re-balance could only negatively impact their investment, at least in the short term.
Had Capcom included a re-balanced version alongside the original version, similar to SF2THDR, I think that would have been more likely to attract new players while satisfying the old. As is I think 3SO is a love letter to the existing 3S community.
Lameador and Branstar: I think you might not be getting what I'm saying. Lameador explains that if there are any changes, maybe old players won't want it. Branstar says no changes means it's a "love letter to the existing community." And my entire point is that THAT is the problem. We'll get better games if a company's love letter involves fixing the near-worst balanced fighting game there is and if the existing community wouldn't accept leaving it in such a sorry state.
Blizzard's community doesn't have this problem. If Blizzard released Starcraft 1.0 (with major balance problems) it wouldn't be a "love letter to the hardcore." It would just make no sense and people would wonder why they are playing this faulty version where spawning pool is too inexpensive. There's a mirroring going on between Blizzard and fans that goes like this:
Fans: we want the game to be as good as possible.
Blizzard: Ok, we'll work on that.
That process leads to much better games than...
Fans: we want nothing to be improved.
Blizzard: wait, really? So obvious, tragic problems, we should just do nothing about?
Fans: yep! In fact, if you fix them, I might have to learn something, so I'll stop playing.
I know which process will create the games I'd rather play.
yeah, except nobody wants to play the games you like. hello hdr
This is in reply to Haunts:
easy solution: you keep a classic mode. Then the folks who don't want to move forward can stay in 1999, those who want a better game can get a better game.
3S though is just a symptom of what I consider a cancerous attitude among many in the FGC though, where people want to keep their competitive advantages even if the overall game/competitiveness of a game suffers.
That's an attitude that Sirlin rightfully put on blast here, and I'm all for it.
This is no different then folks who whine about (to use a game you're hyping a lot lately) K' and Raiden getting nerfed in KOF13 console.
Jay: Can't tell if that's trolling or a real comment you actually believe. If it's the latter, then you're exemplifying the exact bad attitude I was talking about: preferring a worse thing because it's older. As a really specific example, Dhalsim vs. Guile is not a great match. John Choi argued hard to fix that match by not letting Dhalsim get a free low punch under sonic boom. He believed this one change made more stuff happen in the match (aka more fun) instead of Guile having to sit there mostly and not be able to do much. And that it also made the match more fair. He provided several videos of Kurahashi Guile's play against Dhalsim to note exactly where this change would be relevant and why. Choi playtested the match himself as well, and highly trust his skills. But your one-line troll would have us believe that we shouldn't enjoy the benefit of this improvement because some dinosaurs want nothing fixed ever. Actually your one-line seems to imply NO ONE wants things fixed. Nice attitude and with it you'll contribute to the anti-progress mentality.
If people in the fighting game community want 'love letters' from developers, shouldn't those come in the form of good new games instead of tweaking ancient ones?
Why do so many people want progress to take the form of "Polished Old Games" instead of "Good New Games"?
krang, tweaking old games makes more sense than entirely new games, in some ways. With a totally new game, you really have no idea how it will turn out. Like...BlazBlue. All sorts of new stuff, new characters, and it could turn out great, or...um...not great. But Guilty Gear was already good. It's a known quantity and identifying the few parts of it that need help is totally doable. If you had one team tweaking the already good guilty gear and another team making an entirely new BlazBlue, it seems much more likely the tweaked Guilty Gear would turn out better than the crap-shoot BlazBlue.
I suggest Christopher Alexander's book Notes on the Synthesis of Form for more on the concept of why improvements on old things over a long period are likely to be better than completely new things. The premise here is that you'd prefer a good thing to a new thing that's not as good. Mysteriously, many prefer new things that are worse though, so I don't know.
Before I go on, Sirlin, I want you to know that I think your ST HDR game is better than ST. I really do.
But look at what happened with it. By now, your game is largely ignored / not-played at majors in favor of ST. HDR was barely played at Evo because... everyone already entered ST. The fanbase is fractured between people who just want to play HDR, and the people (who generally are running the tournament majors) that just want to play the original game they've been playing for almost two decades. Mike Watson once had nasty things to say about you for making HDR, and as scathing and unconstructive as it was, it proves one thing: People are very attached to the games they've been playing since forever. Passionate, even. For games as old as ST and 3S, rebalancing the game is hazardous.
It's all about the timing. There's a solid arguement that says that 2i is a better game than 3S, but people moved to 3s because that was the newest SF3 at the time. And then played it for 12 years. Super SFIV and AE and the upcoming AE2012 are okay with everyone because they came quickly for a game people haven't been playing for very long. Even when AE was to the detriment of the awesomely-balanced Super SFIV and the producer had to personally apologize for it and promise a balance patch at Evo. 90% of the gamers weren't so attached to Super SFIV that they would keep playing it in favor of the new version, because they haven't been playing it for a decade.
"Embrace progress and fix your broken games" is a very nice attitude to have. I agree, and it works in any other case. But for games with as loyal players as ST and 3S, an update only serves to eventually split the fanbase. I assume that people would play 3S #2 for a couple of years before going back to the old, flawed game they love, and then the fanbase would be split betweem them and those who don't want to go back to 3S.
For ancient games, it's best to just keep them agreeing on everything. As much as I would like a not-awful Remy, Alex and Q, no one's going to want to play the game I new game with a viable Remy two years down the line.
Nick, I think your conclusion doesn't fit your premise. The build up of your argument is similar to what other said, that people are unreasonably attached to older, worse things. Your conclusion is that game companies should make worse things to satisfy players. In my original post, I point out that Capcom's decision here isn't the worst part. The worst part is the attitude of the players seeing it as *good* to leave things unfixed. You're taking that attitude as a given that we should work around, while I'm pointing it out as the actual problem.
So...I think a better conclusion for your argument would be "maybe if a fighting game company (not other types of games, because only fighting games are so backwards as this) wants to make more money, they should not improve their games. Further, that situation *is the problem*."
The problem is that the community is asking for worse things, and that makes it business-smart for game companies to give you awful Remy, Alex, Q, and so on. What a shitty mindset that is now actually leading to worse games. I mean, do you personally want a game with 2 good characters and a terrible Remy? It makes little sense to want that. We should all be vigilant against this mindset, and hope it dies out with the dinosaurs. It probably will, actually, as even fighting games enter the modern era where patches are possible.
Incidentally, Mike Watson provide zero feedback, zero pieces of advice, and showed up to zero playtests. ALL players were welcome to playtest and not one was ever turned away for any reason. I know it's easier to sit around hating things than to actually contribute though.
Actually I do want things fixed. My thing is that
a) It's possible to make things worse.
b) Some folks don't want change
c) Having the historical version around makes sense.
Take KOF98UM for example. They included arcade 98, I'm glad they did, but I'd never play it.
What I'm saying is that often the people who have a preference for the old, are doing it for selfish purposes.