"More than one and less than 50!"
So the cast might have grown or shrunk since initial planning?
I don't know what to make of this:
"...you won't see much back-and forth, and there won't be much meaning in using the less powerful moves that make up the main portion of the gameplay."
I took this as an indictment of say, street fighter IV's ultras, and how the threat of one can destroy the momentum of a match. And then he praised Street Fighter IV specifically.
Are 5/5 matchups across the board really what everyone wants in a fighting game (assuming this is possible in a game with character variance)? Sounds fancifully democratic but I don't know.
I understand what you're saying and I agree with you. I think people misunderstand the intent of the statement. And I know you have quite a bit more knowledge than I do so I hope I don't just come off sounding like an idiot. But, in regards to character matchups, I think that is what people really want in a manner of speaking. I think people would like to be able to play competitively and still give more regard to personal style than tier lists and risk/reward ratios.
That said it seems like something that's incredibly hard if not impossible to deliver on. At least not without the danger of some homogenization. Add to that that when a fighter is highly technical and another has a fairly simple methodology it becomes even harder to gauge balance. I think it's only realistic to expect that some imbalances are going to occur. What I think people have a problem with though is when a developer settles on a roster where one character's win brackets are 80% 6's and 7's and another's are 80% 3's and 4's. That's just lazy.
If you can avoid that, it wouldn't just be more democratic, it'd also be good design.
