Well to be perfectly pedantic, there was a strong implication of such a sentiment in the OP. To elaborate:DoPo said:that came up while I was typing this post. The same as above: nobody claimed that the two were incompatible. At most, there is the fact that freedom makes balance difficult - it doesn't invalidate it.
Now, as I read it, the above (particularly the bolded sections) seemed a rather overt statement that as per the definitions used for this discussion at least 'freedom' entailed a lack of balance. Indeed, that's about the only qualifier regarding it that I could see in the post, which in turn is implicitly restated when he specifies single-player and that 'nobody would ever know'. I'm really not sure how else to read that other than the inclusion of things that break the balance of a given game.Krantos said:They went on to say that if they were forced to choose between player freedom and balance they would choose to keep the freedom.
To me, that's great. I've always said that it's better to let players police themselves in single-player. If something (a skill, an item, etc.) breaks the game and makes it stop being fun, the simple response is not to use it.
However, this seems (on the surface at least) to be a minority opinion. Numerous times I've seen games lambasted for having a broken something.
By "broken" in this instance I mean Over-powered, not non-functioning, of course.
Additionally, I found the question itself flawed, so my only other answer to the question would be "Mu"