I think, on top of your ideas, what I would like to add is my original point. More moves make it easier to define your own STYLE. This is not your point, which stresses the fact that a small move-list can still bring out a PLAY-STYLE. You can play, using the same hypothetical 8 move-list, very differently to someone who also has access tot he same. You can be a super agressive, frame-busting baller, or you can be a turtle. This wont bring out your flare as a character though.
I'm calling bullshit on this. Flare is an arbitrary term. Define it, then we can discuss it.
"But Zanaken, flare is useless, style is pointless, and frames are all that count." Sure thing, Bub. I'm quiting then. Would you play a game that's based on the same pokes and jabs? Even with the game engine remaining, graphics staying strong, the game becomes weak.
Please don't insult my intelligence by using hyperbole, then following it up with a statement based on hyperbole.
What if you like guard-crush moves? What if you want to focus on playing a grab heavy Ivy, or one based on her unblockables?
Characters are styles. All characters are designed with a style in mind, and are given specific moves to support that. If you want to play a character in a way that isn't supported by their intended playstyle, then of course it won't work. you are better off choosing one that does fit what you want to do.
Before you even say it, no, giving characters more tools to fit multiple playstyles isn't a good thing. Why? Because the more you do this, the closer you get to making everyone the same. If everyone has roughly comparable tools for the sake of allowing multiple "playstyles" (by your definition, not mine and not the developers), then the differences between the characters becomes less relevant.
This is what happened to Tekken. Mishimas were the best characters in the game. Instead of increasing the uniqueness of the given characters and giving them specialities; they all got varying shades of what made Mishimas good. Now we have a roster of MORE which is functionally less. 50 characters that are virtually no different that one another. I do not want this just so people can have "flare and style". Just pick a different character.
I am on my lunch at work, and can't put the rest down right now, but let me say this; Be careful with your mind-set. You assume that people who want more moves either want to gimmick others, or are blaming their losses on move-lists as the main factor. This is a slippery slope. It leads to ego. You have to assume a valid opinion until you see otherwise.
Enjoy your lunch, but do me a favor and don't explain to me the rules of discussion. It comes off as patronizing and I don't appreciate it. The opinion business has to stop, otherwise we get to a point where innane things become said, like for example "my opinion is you have no right to your opinion." It's a circle jerk, and no discussion can be had in good faith unless people wager their thoughts without resorting to "WELL THATS MY OPINION" like its a trump card.
I thought of the game Dive Kick when you said this. In this day and age, Dive Kick is a prime example of what "interests" the fighting game community now.
Rather unfortunate for me, because I hate that game, but I can't say the same for everyone else.
Divekick is deeper than 90% of fighting games ever made. Divekick is deeper than Soul Calibur 2. It is the epitome of "less is more". You strip away all the esoteric knowledge FG's ask of you, all the bullshit, and it is essentially a game about reading your opponent and space control. The game has
emergent gameplay, something that is like the holy grail of game design.
