Ooofmatic
World Warrior
You must be the illiterate one because I never mentioned anything about us needing a leader who is like me.I said someone "LIKE" you, you illiterate scrub.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You must be the illiterate one because I never mentioned anything about us needing a leader who is like me.I said someone "LIKE" you, you illiterate scrub.
Weren't you implying it.You must be the illiterate one because I never mentioned anything about us needing a leader who is like me.
Now you're saying that I implied it? Where in my post that you quoted did I imply it? lolNo, but you implied it.
But your right we don't need someone like you leading.
haha nice editing skillz. And no, I wasn't implying it. Like I said, maybe you're the illiterate one. lolWeren't you implying it.
Nobody fucks with the Iron Sheik.
No one can withstand that kind of pressure.
I don't understand how Americans are so contradictory.
They bitch, whine, and criticise about some imaginary balanced game of 26 options, and act like it's entirely within ordinary to policy auto-ban some of those characters to 'avoid headaches'. I am talking about Devil Jin.
In Japan, balanced means having everything there to 'stay afloat'. A game will have its not so good characters. A game will have characters with absolute flaws. A game will have its Dan Hibiki - either the comedy element, the weak-as-shit element, or both in one (as Dan is). I claim: a game is better when it has the Dan Hibiki than when it doesn't. But that game isn't American "balanced" - Dan sucks! And so, is it too hard to imagine the other choices actually making a game better, putting aside the logical possibility of the American ideal?
What angers me is the contradiction. Everyone accepts that of moves there are better and worse. You can't do whatever you want there and expect victory. If character choice is privileged in some special way - where, unlike moves, everybody has an inalienable right to dispense whupass donning whatever avatar they wish - then how can you in the next breath say "[X] character needs to go, and we have to not let the opinion against that get too much momentum" I've even seen the following part expressed, along the lines of, "because, it's obvious, but going into arguing this opinion is annoying", which looks to me like "because my opinion is baseless, I am stubborn, and have no idea how to handle an argument, or balancing values with my own."
There may -be- a way to reason to ban Devil Jin from SCV. But I can't stand to hear it aside such obvious contradictory framework.
Daishi has a peculiar view over top of that, with which I might not agree: of having a well-defined, 'pushed' single character to be the one to beat. The one to rage against or build hype. This is the main character, used by He Who Is Winning A Lot, in the widest tournaments consistently. This approach - intentionally breeding that character option - is an interesting position which, to be fair, I think becomes reasonable when viewed as a kind of satisficing: Balance is hard, it's much more likely one character is boss rather than three in a perfectly neat trifecta of A-tier goodness, and games have come before with that property which yet cultivated a positive tournament environment and meta-game identity/community. That is, it seems players can 'deal with' such scenarios in some cases, so why not settle for making a game have one of the 'good cases' of that, if working on another ideal could sacrifice any benefit if mis-executed? So it looks reasonable.
I will criticize that nonetheless, and say, I think I agree a pushed date is preferable to this sort of design. Try to get the three top characters instead. I would also hope any Dev would agree with me that having a singleton S-tier is not desirable, over an elite, but still oligarchic, A-tier (or oligarchic S-tier). The (uncontested) top character, if exists, should share a tier; being 'better' than the rest of that tier, nothing more.
Aside on unviable charcters (strong unviability: informed players can curbstomp theory-perfect users of the unviable option)
If no character is literally unviable (or at most one is, and its existence is hilarious), then the consumers know the devs haven't wasted time - because, unviability being an extreme defect, means nothing but wasted time. That's the only reason unviable characters can upset the discriminating consumer, I say. Unviability implies irrelevance to competition, so you can add arbitrarily many unviable pieces of garbage to a "balanced game" and it should still be good in every way - implying it even counts as balanced; but for the discomfort players have knowing this cost time.
At the end of the day, there is the fact that "equal" rosters beyond ... 5 characters, being generous, are a pipe dream. Development time is finite and games are complicated. But let's grant infinite development time. Balance is still impossible. The reason why for that, is because the characters are different. The very thing that makes the game attractive is exclusive of this ideal that people have derived from nowhere. I have come to believe that , actually, when the attention to balance and break-safety is painstaking, a spark of some kind is lost in a Fighter. When the players can see what makes the game balanced, the pursuit of exploiting the system is quieted, and I think that bores people. A contest of minds is brilliant, and there is much to be said of the learning curve, but I honestly believe players greatly value the idea of finding and proving that some aspect of the system can grant an advantage, but only with some choices.
If the system, pushed to its extreme in competition by players motivated to win, is consistent everywhere you go, then the game tests Skill, and it passes the litmus test for being a decent Competitive Fighting Game. That's always my bottom line.
When a person expresses recognition of the impossibility of this faux ideal, American balance, then they can come back to me and make sense to talk about headache-prevention bans. Only when you admit that there are some things that do not belong, when you don't in one breath say "every character is the same" and in the next say "This character, uniquely, is a cancer upon us all", are you talking sense.
Over optimistic fanboyism is overrated.
But sometimes ppl are being blinded by over optimism that they just don't see the fault in the game and acknowledge to themselves that it's already perfect.Better optimistic fanboyism than pessimism devoid of empirical data and any REAL reason. The scene's general disapproval of a few of Namco's minor decisions shouldn't make people give up on the series. The implications of these decisions might affect some more than others, but there's no reason to cry about it. Its much easier for people to dismiss something they haven't experienced. Also, considering the absolute trash Capcom has released in the past few years...I'd say SCV isn't looking half bad.
This is completely off topic.
Can anyone recommend a small TV for Soul Calibur? I'm going to play other games on it too, but I'll probably get a 19 inch one for my desk. Any recommendations will be appreciated.
So much bigotry and unfounded rudeness in this thread. STD, you're a dick. If you had no interest in the effort Mandritti put forth, why spend time quoting and shitting on it. I've only been part of the forum a few weeks and already I'm questioning the maturity of the T.O. SC scene.
On a brighter note, I hope to see you guys @ A and C this Wednesday. I have so many questions regarding basic match theory, and I want to play IV and get into the SC mindset before V drops.
Better optimistic fanboyism than pessimism devoid of empirical data and any REAL reason. The scene's general disapproval of a few of Namco's minor decisions shouldn't make people give up on the series. The implications of these decisions might affect some more than others, but there's no reason to cry about it. Its much easier for people to dismiss something they haven't experienced. Also, considering the absolute trash Capcom has released in the past few years...I'd say SCV isn't looking half bad.
So much bigotry and unfounded rudeness in this thread. STD, you're a dick. If you had no interest in the effort Mandritti put forth, why spend time quoting and shitting on it. I've only been part of the forum a few weeks and already I'm questioning the maturity of the T.O. SC scene.
.
Noone is a dick here, and noone is really hate filled... Just stating thoughts, opinions and venting uhh and random trolling going on.
Believe it or not the community is a pretty tight, mature, and welcoming community. People just want the best for the game they are passionate for, so the attitude is expected.
Also keep in mind that not every0ne is complaining and not everyone is trolling. A few people here do not speak for an entire community.
People will be talking on a more serious level when the game is around to discuss. You will also begin to see more members of the community posting rather than what appears to be the regulars....
But sometimes ppl are being blinded by over optimism that they just don't see the fault in the game and acknowledge to themselves that it's already perfect.
Now it's true that game play should be the final verdict but there are times when having a good impression is just as important and there are those pessimistic bunch who would walk away from that. Now I like to meet more players but it's a shame that I don't get to face these type of audience.
I'm just one of those ppl who still has a lot of optimism only to acknowledge with some pessimism that there are some faults with this game.