SoWL Posted August 5, 2013 Posted August 5, 2013 That poll result just shows me how little the general populace knows about Guilty Gear (or cares). v_v Stupid 4chan making Bridget popular for all the wrong reasons... You realize that the participants of the poll are mostly Japanese, right?
Blade Posted August 5, 2013 Posted August 5, 2013 Not really, that poll was open to anyone for a while, IIRC. You had to know about it of course but still...
Pete278 Posted August 5, 2013 Posted August 5, 2013 Just because they were open to everyone doesn't make the majority of the voters not Japanese, considering it had no English official advertising and the website wasn't even in English.
Chipp12 Posted August 5, 2013 Posted August 5, 2013 considering it had no English official advertising and the website wasn't even in English. http://arcsystemworks.us/arc-system-works-character-popularity-vote
Rhiya Posted August 5, 2013 Posted August 5, 2013 (edited) I don't remember being anti-FRC anywhere? I am quite a fan of that mechanic, and did another dissertation arguing in favor of them pages back. Edit: I would also simplify my argument to fixing what isn't broken, but I wasn't sure people would understand exactly why these additions could be so damaging without a proper explanation behind it. This is thing: you keep splitting talk into "tools" and "options." No one is saying that having more "tools" is inherently better, which is what you seemed to be arguing against. Everyone is saying having more viable options is better. You basically addressed a giant post to no one and addressed an argument branch that didn't exist. It took me a reread to even notice how you divided things up. Also, to be extra clear, I'm assuming: Tools: set of all your character's moves and capabilities, including things deriving from interactions between your character's specific abilities and the system mechanics Options: the subset of tools that are useful and match-viable; the moves you actually choose between while playing Edited August 5, 2013 by Dusk Thanatos
mynus Posted August 5, 2013 Posted August 5, 2013 http://arcsystemworks.us/arc-system-works-character-popularity-vote Exposed. Also I wrote an article giving a heads up about it on the Dustloop front page as well.
Blade Posted August 5, 2013 Posted August 5, 2013 So YOU GUYS are to blame for Bridget's popularity. I should've known...
Kitsoru Posted August 5, 2013 Posted August 5, 2013 So YOU GUYS are to blame for Bridget's popularity. I should've known... Yeah, you know, because the Japanese never fetishize Bridget on their own... (nsfw link, obviously.)
Destin Posted August 5, 2013 Posted August 5, 2013 (edited) This is thing: you keep splitting talk into "tools" and "options." No one is saying that having more "tools" is inherently better, which is what you seemed to be arguing against. Everyone is saying having more viable options is better. You basically addressed a giant post to no one and addressed an argument branch that didn't exist. It took me a reread to even notice how you divided things up. Also, to be extra clear, I'm assuming: Tools: set of all your character's moves and capabilities, including things deriving from interactions between your character's specific abilities and the system mechanics Options: the subset of tools that are useful and match-viable; the moves you actually choose between while playing Dunno you man, but for me taking out tools & options from the characters is not a good thing, period. Also, not every forcebreak is a powerful version/version with different propeties of an existing move, look at Chipp, Zappa and Testament for example. Also, i can't stress how worried makes me to know that they are using #R as a base for this new entry, smh. I believe he was arguing that the removal of FB's and SB's was an absolute negative because of a decrease of tools. I was responding to this and a few others like it. Trying to show how by your definition, increasing "tools" can decrease net "options" within a characters own moveset, though I admit I myself used the words interchangeably. Specifically I found this issue in many places in AC, and am happy to see them pull backwards to Reload. Edited August 5, 2013 by Destin
Chipp12 Posted August 5, 2013 Posted August 5, 2013 My favs are Chipp and A.B.A. (and maybe Robo-Ky) but I've voted for the 2nd one. Meanwhile they're still not planning to update a page so I guess I'll be back later after some sleep~ x_x
Hecatom Posted August 5, 2013 Posted August 5, 2013 I believe he was arguing that the removal of FB's and SB's was an absolute negative because of a decrease of tools. I was responding to this and a few others like it. Trying to show how by your definition, increasing "tools" can decrease net "options" within a characters own moveset, though I admit I myself used the words interchangeably. Specifically I found this issue in many places in AC, and am happy to see them pull backwards to Reload. LMAO If you have taken the time to see my previous post instead of jumping to conclusions you will see that i am not only talking about FB's and SB's, i am also talking (primarily i have to add) about FRC's and other moves that more than probable will gone now that they are returning to #R. Also, in this particular case i really believe that the lose of all of them would be detrimental (i can give that the SB is debatable), the major part of them are meaningful to the strategies of the characters, not to mention that are part of what makes GG the balanced game that is now. Too add to Destin's thing succintly: The wealth of viable decision trees is more important than amount of tools offered (Think ST vs like, Sengoku Basara X or something). #R had clear strengths and weaknesses and a less homogenized system. AC has more homogenized power (all characters have great oki/damage). Most of the balance comes from two heavy swings or one extreme swing of momentum usually meaning the round. I like #Rs intent more, but I think AC is a better competitive game. Taking what #R had and balancing it would make for a better game than AC IMO. Anyway, I wanna see some characters revealed haha. The thing is that the almost all the decisions trees that are being truncated are viable and important to the strategies of the players. Also i disagree with the notion that AC is more homogenized than #R, AC improved everything found on #R and imo the notion to returning to #R is just dumb. On another note, am i the only one that is worried that the adition of different clashes would end hurting the neutral game? The more that i think about it, i feel that it could end hurting the balance like the priority system on 3s.
Destin Posted August 5, 2013 Posted August 5, 2013 LMAO If you have taken the time to see my previous post instead of jumping to conclusions you will see that i am not only talking about FB's and SB's, i am also talking (primarily i have to add) about FRC's and other moves that more than probable will gone now that they are returning to #R. Also, in this particular case i really believe that the lose of all of them would be detrimental (i can give that the SB is debatable), the major part of them are meaningful to the strategies of the characters, not to mention that are part of what makes GG the balanced game that is now. The thing is that the almost all the decisions trees that are being truncated are viable and important to the strategies of the players. Also i disagree with the notion that AC is more homogenized than #R, AC improved everything found on #R and imo the notion to returning to #R is just dumb. On another note, am i the only one that is worried that the adition of different clashes would end hurting the neutral game? The more that i think about it, i feel that it could end hurting the balance like the priority system on 3s. Although I was just arguing the general ideas of tools versus options(Is this the lingo we are using?), it was pretty much this mindset that I was arguing against.
Henaki Posted August 5, 2013 Posted August 5, 2013 Although I was just arguing the general ideas of tools versus options(Is this the lingo we are using?), it was pretty much this mindset that I was arguing against. More tools don't matter when every problem is a nail.
Destin Posted August 5, 2013 Posted August 5, 2013 More tools don't matter when every problem is a nail. I'm just going to let you paraphrase my arguments from now on.
Blade Posted August 5, 2013 Posted August 5, 2013 Snip. Last I checked, the Japanese didn't invent the term "Everyone is Gay for Bridget", (though they might've invented the term 'trap'). Regardless, I didn't vote on that poll, so maybe next time I *will* vote if a more accurate poll presents itself. And to anyone who is worried about Slashbacks / Forcebreaks ...I wouldn't. We lived without them in #Reload, we can live without them now.
Dandy J Posted August 5, 2013 Posted August 5, 2013 i disagree with the notion that AC is more homogenized than #R, AC improved everything found on #R ................................
mynus Posted August 5, 2013 Posted August 5, 2013 The thing is that the almost all the decisions trees that are being truncated are viable and important to the strategies of the players. Also i disagree with the notion that AC is more homogenized than #R, AC improved everything found on #R and imo the notion to returning to #R is just dumb. This. Is. Truth. Evolution goes forward, not backwards.
SolxBaiken Posted August 5, 2013 Posted August 5, 2013 It's not EVOLUTION, it's REVOLUTION! = w= Also lol, why are we bringing up that character poll at all? Millia barely made top 20 and Eddie didn't at all. Popularity polls only matter in manga because that's means you get a special illustration of the top winners [often creating groupings you'll probably never see in canon]. And I just realized the actual test is the 9, that means more waiting ; -; but I can deal with just character reveals, I've never F5'd this hard! My keyboard is chaffing ; -;
SuperJ Posted August 5, 2013 Posted August 5, 2013 lemme attempt paraphrasing: if a character's toolset is complete*, adding a new tool will have 3 possible outcomes: 1. the tool is useless 2. the tool is redundant 3. the tool removes a weakness inherent to the character's existing toolset #1 and #2 are pointless. #3 is, for example, giving everyone and their extended families a projectile invulnerable ex special in sf4 the keyword here is completeness imo. character/game design is an engineering discipline; characters are defined equally by what they can do and what they can't do. you shouldn't just add things because "well you're not taking away anything." you might end up with homogenization (i.e. tekken), or degenerate situations (st boxer with super) * were #r characters complete? i dunno i'm relatively new to anime games so i'll leave that discussion to others also i don't think westerners started affectionately calling bridget ブリ... :/
TheMonsterKing Posted August 5, 2013 Posted August 5, 2013 f5f5f5ctrlf5f5f5f5ctrlf5f5f5f5ctrlf5f5f5f5ctrlf5f5f5f5ctrlf5f5f5f5ctrlf5 come ooooon ishiwatari
Tokkan Posted August 5, 2013 Posted August 5, 2013 LOL, F5-ing now for an update that's at least 7 hours away.
AMB Bakery Posted August 5, 2013 Posted August 5, 2013 Force breaks are great because you get to spend meter on two EX specials/braindead moves instead of a garbage-ass super~ (unless you're Slayer, a character whose supers aren't garbage) Also, obvious sarcasm aside, but you all (arguing) should really calm down. I swear if it's not one thing it's another with you people.
Rhiya Posted August 5, 2013 Posted August 5, 2013 Forums practically exist for argument, in its politer forms. A forum without some kind of debate is probably a dead forum.
Recommended Posts