The first and best tool I always want to use when analyzing, comparing, and measure different things is of course, objectivity, because it is the fastest and easiest way to solve anything when possible, so let's see how much, or how little I can use objectivity when talking about fighting game design:
As obvious as it sounds, objectivity is a thing when we know 100% of what we are talking about: "leaves fall off trees" is an objective fact: the word "tree" was created by us humans, what is considered or not a tree is decided by humans, same with "leaves" and same with "fall off". It may not be very usefull information because we are not specifying what tree is it, when the leaves fall off, how many or why they fall off, but I can safely say with objectivity that "leaves fall of trees".
When comparing 2 things shit gets more complicated, but we can still apply objectivity in some occasions, lets talk bridges:
We can objectively say bridge A is better than bridge B if bridge B is cut in half because the word "bridge" has a core objective in its definition: "a structure carrying a road, path, railway, etc. across a river, road, or other obstacle", we can even say that bridge B is not even a bridge because it isn't accomplishing that core objective.
Now let's move on to when we can't use objectivity, The Golden Gate for example: when it was planned, San Francisco, the state or the country had a need, maybe it was the need to connect 2 pieces of land to gain better access to the city, or a publicity stunt to improve San Francisco image towards everyone else, I don't know or care and it's probably documented, but let's say we don't know that information.
There is also another bridge project in consideration, much more ugly than the Golden Gate but with more car lanes to improve congestion and access. If we don't know the objective that the people planning its construction have, how are we gonna compare both bridges and say that one is better than the other? Easy, subjectivity, our own personal preferences and needs. I'm European, so as a tourist I want to see a gorgeous looking bridge to take photos of, but as a San Francisco citizen, the bridge probably lost its magic the first week I moved in and I much prefer not waiting an hour in traffic to cross it.
"Improve congestion" and "better looking" are secondary stuff, not the core of what a bridge is, even a more beautifull bridge with lots of car lanes isn't objectively better in every way, maybe in the case of San Francisco, but I may want a bridge that is crossed by only 3 cars a day in the middle of nowhere so I don't care at all about congestion or looks, a bridge's definition does not encompass that prettier or/and bigger is better.
Leaving aside the bridges, let's talk about videogames, they are an art form, videogames are normally defined by the interactivity, but not by how much. A game isn't a better game for being more interactive, so we are already waaay fucked up in the objectivity factor.
And now about competition, a competition emerges when 2 or more parties strive for a common goal which cannot be shared, one wins and one losses. The story mode of Ratchet and Clank can be beaten by everyone, but only one person can be the fastest in the world to complete it, that's when a competition starts, in this case speedrunning. Competition can emerge from a lot of situations and as before, more competition isn't better competition.
So, how do I measure games or elements inside a game and make comparisons with all those variables that make it impossible to make an objective conclusion? simple: I created my own core measure when talking about any competitive sport, a standard that can cover any form of competition:
"Interesting interactions emerge when competitors are at the best version of themselves."
This definition is mine, I created it, I embrace subjectivity. Like "leaves fall off trees" the sentence isn't complicated so I can handle it. I'm open to edit and change the definition if my likes and needs evolve, I don't want to enclose myself, but at the moment i'm really happy with it.
The weakest term in my definition is "interesting" because it is my own interest, I may find some stuff interesting that other people don't, but it's good enough for me.
I created that objective because is really easy to deviate when talking about balance or design or whatever, I can cut all the bullshit and stop deviating and contradicting myself if I have that objective always in mind. I'm being objective with my own subjectivity because i don't want to undermine it.
A first example, this video, spam techskill and win, lazy, never trying. A competitor is defined by the objective to win, a competitor at its peak is playing his best to win. The mario portrayed in this video allows a competitor to win without going trough "being in the best version of themselves" and no interesting interactions. With the information of that video, I don't want Mario to be nerfed, I want him to be erased from Project M, in my own definition of a competitive sport, Mario should be murdered 70 times. But in matters apart from competitiveness, yeah, Mario is THE nintendo image, smash without Mario wtf, blah blah blah.
I don't like to use the word "health" when talking about this stuff, i see it as a cheap resource: "that's unhealthy for the game" sounds like an strong argument but has the same meat as "i don't like that". I don't want the Mario shown in the video because he is against what I like about competition, It doesn't sound like a strong argument because I'm not trying to hide that it is my own subjective taste, I'm not going to use the world "unhealthy".
"Interesting interactions emerge when competitors are at the best version of themselves."
Another topic: Balance, "equal, even", when people talk about balance i don't even know what they are referring to. Maybe optimal balance is every character having equal imaginary Dragon Ball Z power levels? no idea, but what i know is that it doesn't directly benefit nor hurt my definition/objective. Some natural balance will come out of my objective since if a character is too bad he cannot interact with the rest because he gets beaten by everything, same but opposite will probably happen if someone is too powerful, he won't need to interact a lot to win, no interactions means no interesting interactions, the number of interactions are not inside my objective, so they are secondary stuff just like "improve congestion", but 0 interactions is against MY OWN core objective, balance is NOT my main objective.
A lower tier character with a few UNIQUE interesting interaction that will probably stop being interesting if i see them everyday is something that isn't against my objective because I wont see it a lot, in general, worse characters are played by less people thanks to the nature of competition, but it's uniqueness may complement and release the best version of the people who choose to play them in the first place, watch Knullebibs's Bowser and you will understand, I want Bowser to stay low tier, I'm not interested to watch many Bowsers as a consequence of buffs, Bowser is not my favorite character, but in few quantities, hey, he's welcome. In this example I prefer wider diversity of interactions rathen than "normalization" or balance to equal strength.
When I hear "that move is too strong" or "too free" or "that's broken", to strong for what? what I care is if less damage, knockback or a different angle in a hitbox is gonna solidify my objective or not. I want the mario stuff to be gone but the interesting to stay, and I can only find that out by exhaustive analysis and testing. "Sounds good" is the most I can probably say if I don't know the change is going to affect the way the character interacts.
I'm very reluctant to use the words "nerf" and "buff", of couse they exist, if you give Lucas a jab that can kill at 0% that's a buff, there is no way around that. But nerfs and buffs don't directly weaken nor benefit my objective, they will naturally come when my objective is followed, but they aren't important.
"Interesting interactions emerge when competitors are at the best version of themselves."
And now the last topic, JANK, Project M and jank, jank is normally referred as "weird things that shouldn't work" and if you have been paying attention to this boring exposition, that's a contradicting statement, because when I talked about balance and nerfing, I said I needed to thoroughly test the consequences of a change before I can have a conclusion on it, so if a thing is "weird" it also means that I know shit about it, including "this is the first time I've seen it" and "I've been killed 200 times by that thing and i still have not research a way to avoid it"
I'm generally opposed to the balance changes Project+ team introduced to expiritually succeed the the dismanteling of the original Project M development back in 2015, in part because of some of the changes themselves go farther away than Project M for what i like about a competitive game, but there is another more important reason, the consequences of those changes on the people
The real problem Project M has is that the game is too big, with 4 times more viable characters compared to Melee, more stages and more mechanics, but with 50 times less playerbase and less overall seriousness because there is no proffesionality or a plausible way of living out of this game, I love the undergroundness and the fuck corporations aura Project M has, but when big money is on the line, people will push harder and push that meta, maybe a weird underdeveloped character like, I dont know, Game and Watch will emerge out of nowhere.
All this is also apparent when I watch a good Melee player who has a background in PM, not only is really cool to watch Magi because that Link is cool and she gave a top player a run for his money, but also because it demonstrates how badly PM tier lists can age on the purpose of finding out what characters are better or worse, don't get me wrong, they can be used as bases for interesting discussion about the meta and all that like Junebug did back in December, but look at this one he made 5 years ago, Donkey Kong is bottom tier, I've never seen a character from the bottom of a tierlist start dominating so badly in such a small timeframe without some kind of mayor exploit or bug being discovered.
There are only 2 reasons to play Project M, first are the people, you made good friendships, you like the environment and/or the content people makes, this is common in every single game with a community of course, but the big one is the second reason: the game itself: mechanics, characters, stages or even the modding make people lose their minds, travel with CRTs and use Smashcast to stream, but that's it, there is no money, no popularity, is kinda difficult to access it compared to the popular esports titles and it's already old, Ultra Street Fighter 4 old.
So changing the main reason to play the game is risky. Yes, you can hear the noisy Trucker Hat's of the community complain, but there is also another portion of the community, the people who accept whatever their surrounding does, we don't know who they are, and they may not have any problem, the may accept the changes with a smile because they will "save PM" "revive the scene" and "balance the jank" but these people may unconsciously lose interest in the game, change characters, stop going to tournaments and find other hobbies with better reasons to be invested in.
And as unreasonable and stupid some situations may sound, It isn't up to anyone of us to critizice what others find interesting or love about the game, as much as I hate how reaction techchase reduces the game to a 4 option simon's says while waiting eternities for each throw animation, if there is a Sheik main who loves to reaction techchase even in friendlies, but moves his ass to every local and carries his CRT from an hour and a half drive in public transport from where he lives, you'll be damn sure I won't nerf or touch that down throw, same thing with the Mario example I complained about before, this is an already stablished game with some long history at this point, It isn't a new game or a proving grounds.
P+ is still PM, it rocks, and I don't see it dying anytime soon, but is leaving behind some of the people that made this community what it is in exchange for what I see as empty purposes of balance, healthiness and freshness.
So in conclusion, I started talking about my view on objectivity and how difficult it is to achieve it, then I gave my own subjective view on how I like competition and then ended up talking about balance and the situation in the game I've spent more time and energy, that was fun.
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario