Jesus, stop saying artificial balance. The way you use it makes no sense. Artificial balance would be a form of balance that doesn't actually affect anything, some layer that doesn't have an actual, meaningful place where it stands. Guilty Gear's general system mechanics do not show any real resemblance to it, honestly. The only arbitrary thing in place would be the health modifiers. Characters have 420 health (460 in AC+R), and the combinations of Guts and defense modifiers can have potentially different health depending on what and when something hit on who, depending on the health remaining, and it can change pretty differently depending on the character. However, these are not entirely without reason.
Potemkin is a much slower, larger character than the others. While he has the options he needs to deal with faster/projectile heavy characters, he's still an overall easier to hit in some cases. Thus he takes overall less damage *his defense modifier is something like .86x in AC). Further modifiers exist in Guts, which makes characters take further reduced percentages of damage depending on what health they have left. Potemkin has a pretty good modifier, so he takes a lot less damage than some character. Chipp, on the other hand, is an incredibly fast, mobile character. He has the lowest health in the game as far as how much damage he takes from hits (1.3x the damage), but his Guts is some of the highest.
I think balance through health is silly, but it works pretty well in GG. Everyone technically has the same health, but takes different amounts of damage...effectively changing the maximum health a character has. Relatively arbitrary, or 'artificial' I suppose, but it works, and doesn't take much away from the game. It effects balance in a meaningful way at times as well.
To a degree, I can respect the notion of wanting a fight to be just the fight and nothing else. But having resource management adds to the things a person has to consider, and in some cases can add to more depth of decision. Resource building/spending, screen placement, damage, allowing for oki, these are all things you would have to consider. It can add to a much more meaningful or even satisfying experience through play by succesfully utilizing all you have through optimization and on-the-fly reaction to ever changing variables you can find within a single match. The lack of resources notion, however, makes very little sense when compared to DKS or FF. Removing the stamina bar from a Souls game removes the sense of commitment that would come from doing any action, in both PvE and PvP situations. If there was no risk of doing things, or no risk of expending the resources, combat in the game would become shallow. You could still have a focus of movement, but when it comes to attacks there would be no thought behind attacking. It would JUST be mindless offense without fear of over usage. For FF...well It just doesn't make sense because it's what makes its gameplay unique from a standard Turn Based RPG. Multiple FF games allow you to make it so the ATB waits for you to make options in the menu, making it less stressful and in some cases easier (IIRC the Ultima Weapon in FF8 could destroy you with Wait off and you not having perfect menu movement at all times)
Lastly, no. DOA is NOT the Rock Paper Scissors of fighting games. I like it's hold system, especially that you can have guaranteed situations, which it has strongly over Killer Instinct, but it's not unique in having an A>B>C>A situations. Every game has them in some form. King of Fighters has a very deep neutral game based around Hop attacks, standing attack, and low attacks. Hop beats lows. Lows beat standing. Standing beats Hops. Hop>Low>Standing>Hop. MANY (like all of them) 2D fighters have the whole, "Strike>Block>Throw>Strike" form of it going on, but in just about every case of RPS in fighters, DOA included, it's much deeper than an actual RPS situation.
This has been a funny little discussion, but we're really off topic at this point.
Log in to comment