StaticFalconar

This was actually similar to the topic I wrote on in my game design class. My topic was what makes a perfectly balanced game and i tackled it from the two extremes.

Basically the results are always the same; but its much easier to achieve perfectly balanced than perfectly imbalanced.

A perfectly balanced game is one that was updates every single week. They may seem small and nothing, but its all based on what the creator wants the overall metagame to go. If people cry foul over it, its either because the creator has failed to achieve the balance between fun factor and game mechanics or simply because the audience doesn't get what the creator of the game was trying to achieve.

A lot of the times a perfectly balanced game will not happen due to the game not being fun any more when everything is perfectly balanced., or what the game creator intends to be balanced gameplay is not what the overall audience agrees with.

Then you have your perfectly imbalanced. This is the same damn game from day one to ten years after it was released without any updates at all and people still play it. This is the every glitch found is now a feature and if one doesn't like it then too bad there's no patch coming ever. There's only one game I can think of that does that. MVC2. With enough super crazy glitches, ultra cheap stuff from every side ever, its the one game that after ten years of being released, they still had a fan base that was willing to not only keep playing, but put like insane $50k money matches on the line.

So, to answer the question, its really a matter of taste. Would you rather play a game knowing what you ultimately pick (character, faction, etc) doesn't matter because the overall game is designed to be balanced anyway (going for pure mind games in a fair environment), or would you rather play a game of trying to see how much BS you can get away with, and the mind games all revolves around each other's BS set up?

Its simple, Life's not fair.

Certain people either won the genetic lottery and worked thier asses off to get to that point. They live the good life and so on until one day career ending injury. Those millions made is now something different. Did that athlete have some kind of backup plan? Did he waste his entire life on the sport he was in?

Also, think of everything from the parking and food money to actually buying a ticket to see them play. You are the ones that ultimately pay these athletes.

The story to all of them are overall silly summer blockbuster movie feel. Uncharted 2's combat just feels better than 1 for some reason (this was back cover mechanics was all the rage), and overall they all give you that roller coaster ride feel like some summer action flick with good dialog.

The sims, so I guess if I just keep putting things on my way I should be fine.

This game is like the epitome of the distilled version of what fighting games is all about at its core fundamentals. Spacing, and mindgames. No need to say you suck because you don't know any combos, or can't do the moves. its only two buttons. That is why the game is all about online or at least with another player. Other fighting games might have enjoyable single player for practicing your moves, combos, and learning your character, but in divekick that could be achieved so quickly, that the whole playing against another human player is where its at.

I somewhat agree but at the same time, before July 3rd, there was a long thread about what would you do if one the of the core cast members left or died. Perhaps we were thinking too much from our perspective and not maybe the site quality will suffer because the core cast was just that vital.

Of course this is coming from a non paying member, so I don't feel like I'm not getting my moneys worth like some others are.

Yeah, seems like the game is rushed since 8 chars is less than what the original game came with. It may be priced right, but even the story mode is non existent and you only get 6 chars in the begginning (even if you buy the 40 buck version, you have to wait a while to get the last 2 chars).

I'll have to wait til the game actually comes out and see if the gameplay with worth it (we all get Jago for free). Afterall, for the past 5 years Street Fighter has done something similar, and the only reason why I didn't quite mind that was becasue the gameplay was just that solid in SF4. Granted SF4 started with more than 8 chars so the new KI has to overcome some obstacles.

Yes, even if it evolves to a fuck all the star and number system, but instead just write an article about the game type of review, having reviews is how game companies will keep the game sites in the loop. That and, we aren't always around for every Ql, TNT, whatever segment on any said videogame, so if in the future say a steam sale for whatever goes up and I'm on the fence about it; I can always have a written article in the archives that I can quickly read for decision making purposes instead of trying to go through a video or audio clip that takes much longer. The latter may be the fun way of putting info across, but the former is just better for quick references.

did you guys not see a Baz kicking ass at a tournamnet until Justin Wong came around and was like fuck that I',m rushing him down since his lightning actually takes a few frames to hit despite it being on the screen.

Because games are different in that it requires player input to reach the end. You can read the words in a book and not understand it the first time around. You can see a movie and not catch all the little clues and stuff until the nth playback. Songs only get better the more a person relates to it. Paintings, are more treasured when you investigate the background surrounding the piece.

However, games are not complete until you have already for filled the requirement of learning and skill just to complete it the first time. So when the bar is set higher just for completing the game the first time around, what more is there when you do it the second time around? Perhaps just like all those things you mentioned, there are some stuff that may have been missed the first time around; and those are the great replayability games. The second way games do this is the multiplayer aspect. Playing the same game is never quite the same when your opponent always does something different.

You can read out loud to a kid, the great gatsby; but they probably won't fully appreciate it until their teenage years.

You can show somebody Pulp Fiction, but unless they have that will to put together the puzzle pieces, it would just be a weird violent movie.

Stairway to Heaven doesn't get its full notice in the first hearing.

Everybody has certainly seen some rendition of the mona lisa, but seeing it live in a museum with some explanation of the background will make someone appreciate it much more than seeing it for the first time with no context.