Don't be ridiculous, of course if you put anything to it's paroxysm, it will turn out to be stupide -_-'
Moreover, something that would kill the game so that you can't play it properly don't fit in the definition of gameplay. Gameplay = way to play a game. If you have no chance of winning, it's not playing.
No playing = no gameplay, you can add something that will make one player to win instantly, but it can't be called gameplay, it's cheating.
However, you can go on with conter exemple, but it will take some time...
Now if you still believe in your last argument about balance, it's still a matter of time before an utterly unbalanced add is fixed.
I guess that this debate depends on your definition of gameplay. "If it kill the game, it's no more a gameplay" is my answer
I would first like to point out that a number of people have become jaded to TN's idea of game balance; attempting to bring about faith that something will eventually be fixed will only fall on deaf ears. That aside, 'broken' can be defined in a number of ways, which in this particular case seems to be 'breaking the balance of the game.' In this sense, it could be considered synonymous to, or a more extreme variation of, 'overpowered.' That is to say, playing Sarah does not render the game unplayable, she doesn't
literally break the game; she is simply more powerful in many ways than the vast majority of the roster, thus 'breaking' the game's balance.
Now, don't get me wrong. I do not intend to argue on another person's behalf, nor do I believe myself able to do such; I simply find a problem in that you're arguing semantics, which in this case is
highly subjective ("I don't think they'll add something with a negative impact on the game, because I disagree with your definition of broken") rather than addressing the actual point made ("I don't think they'll add something with a negative impact on the game, because <insert reasoning here>").
Again, don't get me wrong; what can be considered a bad addition is, as you had stated, highly subjective. Your argument just stood out to me in that you were no longer addressing the points made, but rather invalidating them by saying that the terms used, which have no real concrete definition and can change wildly based on context, are incorrect.
All that aside, however...
I wanted to make a joke about this, but I can't actually think of anything.