I think the author mashes up two different things and uses the same argumentation on them. He shouldn't.
First there are things like
RPGs, where the decisions you make have a lasting, usually not extreme effect.
- For such games, asymetry has the problem that somethimes you will have to live with a bad decision you made for a long time.
- Also this asymetry doesn't add too much to the game.
- Adding more symmetrical content (like levels or enemies) is a simpler way to add play value to those games, though it still means work.
Second there are things like
fighters, where the decisions you make have a very short but big effect.
- For those games the opposite is true, because making a wrong decision will not spoil your long-term gaming experience.
- Nor is asymetry dispensable for them, because as he states, without it they would grow boring fast.
- Adding asymetrical content is usually easier here than adding symmetrical content, but it also means work, most notably the issue of balancing.
What i don't understand is why he automatically assumes one kind of game was automatically better than the other. One gets its main value from symmetrical content, and the work is in that content. The other gains it from asymmetrical content, and the work is in that content. so what do we get from that? Don't make a horribly balanced fighter, just as you shouldn't make a RPG with many poorly copy-pasted dungeons. The only difference is that bad balance is more common and less obvious than bad level/enemy design.
On a side note, Blazblue is an amazing fighting game that offers both huge variety and good balance. I wish i hadn't trashed my old X-Box
