Anyone else read this article. He makes some good points, but I think its a unfair comparison to say that being easy characters in a fighting game is like doing cheap tactics in Starcraft or using a noob-tube in call of duty. 2 completely different things. If a zerg rush fails your set back, and a noob-tube is just one dimensional, its just a grenade launcher and that's it. In a fighting game if you find a character that's great on a basic level and considered "cheap" at a beginners level, guaranteed then that character is double as good at a tourny level since the effort to be good in the first place is small. People pick those characters in the first place because they have obvious advantages over other characters. The article also mentions that these characters are put in deliberately to make newer players feel like they are actually skilled so that they don't get discouraged. I don't buy that either, why would you spend years making a great roster only to have more than half of your player base only using 6-7 characters over and over. In SF4 people usually are Ken, Ryu, and Saget. Why? because their easy to play, but their balanced. And you see those characters climbing Tourny brackets. I can live with people spamming beams and I'll learn to get around that, but I can't live with the idea that I'm forced to play certain characters if I want to have a better % at winning.
I don't consider mvc3 to be broken in any way since its difficult to balance such a fast paced and chaotic fighting game, but to say there's nothing wrong with it seems a bit off. Its questionable if your playing a fighting game where someone can learn a combo that can kill a character at full health, and sometimes (especially in mvc2) even kill all your characters. The author of the Shoryuken article just seems a bit misguided.