What does asymmetry mean in games today?
<div class="IPBDescription">I think the meaning has been lost somewhat</div>Something that really annoys me is people referring to games like Starcraft 2 as "asymmetric". I think that, in the midst of games like COD and BF, where every player is essentially indistinguishable from the next, gamers have begun to overreact to slight differences.
Don't get me wrong. I am fully aware that the individual units in a game like Starcraft 2 are very different. Similarly, I know that in counter strike, the M4A1 and the AK47 differ in many aspects including fire rate, damage, recoil, cost, and even audibility. However, I also know that the AK47 and the M4A1 are used in the exact same way. And to me, that is what it comes down to at the end of the day. Yes the units in SC2 are largely different from one another, but the game isn't about units. Two players don't join a game and start saying "Space Marine! Zergling! Vulture! Roach! GG GG GG!!!!". They <b>play </b>the game, and there is almost no difference between the way two players play Starcraft 2, regardless of their race. Note that I did say almost no difference, just as there is almost no difference between the playstyle of an M4A1 and an AK47, but there are still differences.
I mean take a look at a game like Dota. I would say that the two most different units in starcraft 2 are nowhere near as different to one another as the two most similar heroes are in Dota. Is Dota asymmetric? Certainly not by my books it isn't.
My own personal definition of asymmetry is based on how well skill translates between two entities which are claimed to be asymmetric. That is to say, if a player is very good with team A, but very bad with team B, then it is possible that A and B may be highly asymmetrical. One could quantifiably define this level of asymmetry by comparing quantifiable levels of skill. For example, if a SC2 player was in the top 95 percentile of all SC2 players while he used Zerg, and he was in the top 90 percentile of all players while he used Terran, then the game could be said to be 5% asymmetric.
In my opinion, the skills that are important in SC2 are highly transferable between entities. Sure, a player who is only familiar with zerg isn't going to be as good with terran, but he isn't going to be vastly inferior either. On the other hand, if you took a professional FPS player, best in the world even, and put him in NS2, how would he perform? On marines? I think he would do pretty well, don't you? He would probably use his practised aim to kill aliens without a problem. On the alien team though? As a skulk? I don't think any of his knowledge would count for a thing. He would probably be just as bad as any first day noob. In my opinion, THAT is the height of asymmetry. To go from complete domination on one team, to being completely useless on the other. Not many games can boast asymmetry of that level.
Don't get me wrong. I am fully aware that the individual units in a game like Starcraft 2 are very different. Similarly, I know that in counter strike, the M4A1 and the AK47 differ in many aspects including fire rate, damage, recoil, cost, and even audibility. However, I also know that the AK47 and the M4A1 are used in the exact same way. And to me, that is what it comes down to at the end of the day. Yes the units in SC2 are largely different from one another, but the game isn't about units. Two players don't join a game and start saying "Space Marine! Zergling! Vulture! Roach! GG GG GG!!!!". They <b>play </b>the game, and there is almost no difference between the way two players play Starcraft 2, regardless of their race. Note that I did say almost no difference, just as there is almost no difference between the playstyle of an M4A1 and an AK47, but there are still differences.
I mean take a look at a game like Dota. I would say that the two most different units in starcraft 2 are nowhere near as different to one another as the two most similar heroes are in Dota. Is Dota asymmetric? Certainly not by my books it isn't.
My own personal definition of asymmetry is based on how well skill translates between two entities which are claimed to be asymmetric. That is to say, if a player is very good with team A, but very bad with team B, then it is possible that A and B may be highly asymmetrical. One could quantifiably define this level of asymmetry by comparing quantifiable levels of skill. For example, if a SC2 player was in the top 95 percentile of all SC2 players while he used Zerg, and he was in the top 90 percentile of all players while he used Terran, then the game could be said to be 5% asymmetric.
In my opinion, the skills that are important in SC2 are highly transferable between entities. Sure, a player who is only familiar with zerg isn't going to be as good with terran, but he isn't going to be vastly inferior either. On the other hand, if you took a professional FPS player, best in the world even, and put him in NS2, how would he perform? On marines? I think he would do pretty well, don't you? He would probably use his practised aim to kill aliens without a problem. On the alien team though? As a skulk? I don't think any of his knowledge would count for a thing. He would probably be just as bad as any first day noob. In my opinion, THAT is the height of asymmetry. To go from complete domination on one team, to being completely useless on the other. Not many games can boast asymmetry of that level.
Comments
Starcraft is unique because it's a highly asymmetrical game, with more than 2 sides, in which it's entirely viable to just be one race. Professional zerg players only play zerg competitively. They are never expected to do a "terran round" or a "protoss round". That speaks volumes to the balance of that game. Don't get me wrong, I like playing both alien and marine in NS, but we could never have something quite like what starcraft does in this game (although that's also partly because you can't play marine vs marine or kharra vs kharra, and even if you could the game wouldn't be balanced for those)
[edit] so who's up for a game of good ol tennis vs chess? :)
Hell, I'd go so far as to say, it's easier to go from playing marine to skulk in NS2 than from Terran to Zerg. At least 'generally aim at the other guy' will be effective. Even something that simple will get you stomped at someone even within a couple leagues of you in Starcraft.
On a whole I'd say NS has more asymmetry, but don't mistake generic RTS skills for being 'not a big difference' between SC races. Most progamers regard it as a career impossibility to switch races- if they do it, they tend to have the opinion that they will <i>never</i> be competitive again. Ever. That's how bad it is.
Currently, in SC2, there is only one person who managed to stay competitive while switching races(MorroW). One who tried, TLO, never recovered.
Sure we have the choice of all 3 races (or for example all the characters in Street Fighter) but once you're locked in asymmetry takes over. You would never use the same set of strats as a Protoss when playing the other races. Sure you have core tactics and plans, but you should be reacting very differently if you're facing Terran than a Zerg player.
And honestly SC2 still succeeds with your definition. Switching races completely destroys your sense of timings. Being able to reliably MULE drop doesn't mean I can reliably hit Queen Injects, not to mention the havoc that creates on my economy. DotA also would succeed. I have several friends who play a subset of types of heroes. I mostly main supports. Switching to carries and I become extremely suboptimal. Sure skills transfer over (game sense, knowledge of other hero's and their kits, last hitting), but being able to fully exploit my new abilities and role is hard and worth at least a good 200 ELO.