Originally Posted by bittman
Honestly, the two points here are synonymous. What the fans want is quality gameplay, and it's generally what they will get unless the studio has a brain-snap.
So from your point about Street Fighter, apparently putting quality into characters with a large fanbase was a poor decision and equal quality should have been given to all? It's like saying that, if they made another Final Fantasy 7, they should make Barret as good as Cloud or Vincent.
Also, your points on balance I would assume are of a personal opinion. Are those characters really much much better than others, and can this judgement really be made so soon after release? Isn't it more that the people playing tend to work on the characters they know and love first?
Should they not make Barret good in some equal way though? Also, with fighting games, it's quite different. Everyone should be as balanced as possible in those type of games and I'll provide two different examples.
Let's say that you were to go to court. Wouldn't you feel better if your lawyer and the prosecutor or other lawyer was equal in value? You're competing against others, not some monsters that are programmed into the game. It should be equal chance, equal chance. If I were to lose in a game that I had a fair advantage with, I wouldn't be mad, but that's not the case. Anyhow, it's a fallacy to state just because the majority says something's good, it is good, you know? Plus, the fans would say something like "Hey! Give him this and that because we love this character and we want him to be better than others and we don't care about what those fans that like those other characters like." Can you really trust the fan's opinions if they do that kind of stuff and would that honestly make a quality game? The balance is that so someone can feel okay and they stand a chance with improvement. If you have to break into sweat and tears just to do something anywhere near as good as someone that doesn't try with a cheap character, it wouldn't be fun anymore.