The "single player game doesn't need balancing" argument is talking about overpowered mechanics being rebalanced so that they are no longer overpowered. This is unnecessary because the game is not competative and players can (artificially) limited themselves to not using those mechanics.
Noaloha, you make some excellent point but I think you're ultimately talking about game design in general, which includes balancing towards providing a certain kind of experience.
I see, I think.
Well, can we at least agree that these ideas of (1) whether or not adjustments to overpowered stuff is necessary, and (2) the relative value of balancing towards providing a certain kind of experience, can we agree that both of these decisions belong in the domain of the game's designer?
No. At least I can't agree entirely. (Sorry ;/)
It's like something I put in another post: of course the designer can do whatever they want whenever they want. It's their product and they have the freedom to change it however they want. But more realistically, at some point your going to piss off your supporters/fans when you change things too drastically, or when you don't remain faithful to the product you initially released. At some point, the players come to "own" the game and their (reasoned) opinions matter more than initial design intentions (ie The People vs George Lucas).
The question is: having been out for a few months, who "owns" the game now?
