Poll: Is Quality Really More Important Then Quantity?

[Sovereignty]

Alright, so after browsing the complete list of playable characters for Marvel Vs Capcom 3, I am severely disappointed. Not only were a large number of choice characters I'd love from the previous game left out, but the list in general was significantly shorter.

Marvel Vs Capcom had 22 playable characters,
Marvel Vs Capcom 2 had 56 playable characters,
Marvel Vs Capcom 3 has only 36 (or 38 counting DLC).


Now I don't get why the downgrade in character numbers happens. It couldn't have been development time, as the game came out 11 years after the second version was released. (So making us wait a bit longer wouldn't have been too far fetched would it?)


So I ask you, Escapist forum dwellers, if you think Quality > Quantity. It's not just our fighters they're shrinking rosters of (Damn those anime-themed fighters do the same thing)

But games like Marvel Ultimate Alliance and quite a few others.


Is the significantly reduced roster numbers justified by the quality increases? (If there is one.)

I just want some opinion on why they removed characters as opposed to updating and adding new ones. What fun is a Marvel Vs Capcom game without Gambit?!

Where is the joy in Ultimate Alliance if the roster is halved?

And my God why can't I use the guy with the giant sword in Naruto fighters anymore!?



But yeah, what do YOU think about quality over quantity? I understand the poll doesn't have many detailed choices, but I do expect people to back up their votes. As I am seriously hoping I'm not the only one disliking of shrinking rosters =(

 

[Katana314]

I think in a lot of these games it's a matter of balancing everyone. There's a "critical mass" of characters at which they either all become samy, or a whole bunch become inevitably unbalanced. Team Fortress 2 has 9 characters, just barely balancing them all. Most fighting games seem to succeed with around 20-30.

 

[amoamaremetallum]

I think you need an equal balance. Warriors Orochi is a great example, I mean, there are like 70-100 characters each with four distinct models, unique voices, and unique movesets, and then they have the skill sets, and then there are four different storylines to go from each with about 10-20 levels, each mixing up the formula a tiny bit.

 

[Frozen Donkey Wheel2]

OK, what's better: One square foot of solid gold, or 10 square feet of solid shit?

 

[Bon_Clay]

I guess it depends. If they're adding characters just to pad out the game and make it seem like it has more to offer, that isn't as good as focusing on making the characters individually better. I don't really mind clone characters, but they should only be added in once they are sure the rest of the game is balanced and fun.

But I have sort of noticed this trend as well. Rosters should generally only get bigger across sequels. If they are getting the characters from an anime or comic series, etc they should add as many of the important characters as possible without having to half ass them. If a character was a useless clone before, in sequels I would rather they just tweak them into being different enough to warrant being there, rather than remove them.

 

[Durxom]

Marvel Vs Capcom had 22 playable characters,
Marvel Vs Capcom 2 had 56 playable characters,
Marvel Vs Capcom 3 has only 36 (or 38 counting DLC).

About 90% of the MvC2 cast was either copy and pasted from the previous game, from Street Fighter, Darkstalkers, or any other source, which is why there was so many, and even with that, only about 8 of them were worth playing.

All of the MvC3 characters had to be created from scratch, new models, new textures, new engine. MvC2 was the rushjob game, not MvC3, but it also could have been development time too for some of MvC3's characters.

They didn't really start working on MvC3 till after the release of Tatsunoko vs. Capcom(which they were using as a gauge to see if people wanted a new vs. game). So stuff like Frank West and other things got cut out due to either production costs or time.

And I prefer quality over quantity, especially in fighting games. You don't need 4-5 characters with exactly the same moveset with only minor tweaks, and a skin color change in the same game.
Which is why Arc System Works is so good at developing fighters..hell they even had a character in their game that was just another character from the past..and they both fought completely different.

 

[Blind Sight]

OK, what's better: One square foot of solid gold, or 10 square feet of solid shit?

Depends on the situation. If I'm in society, the gold. If I'm stuck on an island with nutrient deprived soil and need to fertilize some crops I'm going for the shit.

 

[icyneesan]

In most games I prefer quality but in fighters I'd prefer quantity only because I like trying new characters every few matches or so. I rarely buy fighting games. They're just party games to me when I go over to a friends house.

And my God why can't I use the guy with the giant sword in Naruto fighters anymore!?

Probably because he wasn't a main character and died in the second arc of the original series.

 

[Tupolev]

This is actually a vastly more complicated issue than simply "quality versus quantity". Even if you have the development structure to create many items that are high-quality in and of themselves, it can be better for the game itself to drop them. Too many factors causes things to get out of control, and when that happens, developers are forced to use terribad balancing mechanisms that basically involve "make this object behave incredibly one-dimensionally so it's actually technically possible to balance it out against other factors".

 

[Frozen Donkey Wheel2]

OK, what's better: One square foot of solid gold, or 10 square feet of solid shit?

Depends on the situation. If I'm in society, the gold. If I'm stuck on an island with nutrient deprived soil and need to fertilize some crops I'm going for the shit.

Well played, sir. Well played.

 

[MrGalactus]

OK, what's better: One square foot of solid gold, or 10 square feet of solid shit?

Depends if you're a jeweler or a farmer.

 

[BoredDragon]

I've seen time and time again that games were rushed out before there polishing was done and were significantly worse because of that.

From what I've heard, the latest example would be FF14 and Mind Jack. I haven't played it myself (and never will), but from reviews and word of mouth I have learned that the game was no where near ready for launch and still could take around 1 years worth of time of polish. With Mind Jack... just go watch Yahtzee's review. It had some cool ideas, but fell on its face on execution.

Also (since I can't ever resist the chance to hate on Square Enix for doing this) I will remind everyone that, because of the lack of quality in FF14, Square has postponed Deus Ex: Human Revolution until 2012

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

Alright, so after browsing the complete list of playable characters for Marvel Vs Capcom 3, I am severely disappointed. Not only were a large number of choice characters I'd love from the previous game left out, but the list in general was significantly shorter.

Marvel Vs Capcom had 22 playable characters,
Marvel Vs Capcom 2 had 56 playable characters,
Marvel Vs Capcom 3 has only 36 (or 38 counting DLC).


Now I don't get why the downgrade in character numbers happens. It couldn't have been development time, as the game came out 11 years after the second version was released. (So making us wait a bit longer wouldn't have been too far fetched would it?)


So I ask you, Escapist forum dwellers, if you think Quality > Quantity. It's not just our fighters they're shrinking rosters of (Damn those anime-themed fighters do the same thing)

But games like Marvel Ultimate Alliance and quite a few others.


Is the significantly reduced roster numbers justified by the quality increases? (If there is one.)

I just want some opinion on why they removed characters as opposed to updating and adding new ones. What fun is a Marvel Vs Capcom game without Gambit?!

Where is the joy in Ultimate Alliance if the roster is halved?

And my God why can't I use the guy with the giant sword in Naruto fighters anymore!?



But yeah, what do YOU think about quality over quantity? I understand the poll doesn't have many detailed choices, but I do expect people to back up their votes. As I am seriously hoping I'm not the only one disliking of shrinking rosters =(

Zabuza died a long time ago. I never saw the need for a big roster that was big for the sake of being big. BB: CS has only has 15 characters, but they are all unique and it is an amazing fighter.

 

[kickyourass]

Usually I'd say quality, but sometimes quantity has a quality all its own. I mean Two Worlds is far from the best game out there (And in some ways is just down right terrible) but it's cheap as hell (I've seen working copies go for just 2 bucks) and can take up hundreds of hours of time. Make no mistake there are countless games out there that are infinitly better, but the sheer size of Two Worlds (Along with it costing next to nothing) makes it at least a little entertaining, even if it's only for the hilariously bad voices.

 

[Radeonx]

Marvel vs. Capcom 2 had a lot of fighters, but tons of them were incredibly similar in move sets/hyper combos.
I've noticed that MvC 3 is much more varied in terms of move sets, at least.
Which is better.

 

[Twilight.falls]

Quality, most likely.

Although I'm still upset they cut out Servbot. Could we cut Zero instead?

 

[-Seraph-]

Quality should always take top priority, plain and simple. Although when it comes to fighting games, a balance between quality and quantity should be met. The roster should be of a healthy size (15-30 is fairly decent until you start entering the threshold), but also be diverse enough to avoid the dreaded clone or what have you. Sheer numbers should not be thrown in for the sake of numbers, it just clutters the roster and is sloppy design.

There is no point in having 50 characters if only a handful are viable and the rest are junk or copies of each other. There is a certain limit developers should reach before pleasing fans gets in the way of proper design. People will cry about certain characters not being included, but chances are it was for a good reason due to balance issues, time, or what have you.

If I play a fighting game, I do not want 1/3 of the characters being stupid clones and having negligible differences between each other. THis is why my favorite and best fighters are the ones that avoid the terrible design choice of "MOAR IS BETTER!!" Although rosters should get bigger over time, there comes a point where it will reach critical mass and at that point something has to be done that could very well change the foundations of the game.

Guilty Gear, Blazblue, Dissidia, Killer Instinct, Fate Unlimited Codes, and plenty of other high quality fighters show how you manage to balance quality and quantity together to achieve the best experience possible.