EGM has a cover story on SF4 coming up, and Wired has an article about it already.

Basically the idea behind the game's development is that fighting games have turned into an unhealthy niche genre with increasingly angry fans, and weaker sales due to low accessability. Anyone could pick up SF2 or one of the first Tekkens or Virtua Fighters, but they've been getting ridiculously complex over the last decade, and require huge amounts of effort to become rewarding. With Street Fighter 4 the developers intend to bring back the magic of the second part, where you can learn the basics in half an hour, but keep learning forever.  

This sounds incredibly awesome to me. I've tried playing some of the later Street Fighter games, but they were really hard to get into, and I had no idea what was happening. I have a feeling this part will bring a lot of people back to the franchise.

There's also a link to a forum post linking to a GAF topic, but it doesn't seem to work. It contained a bunch of whining about "dumbed down" game mechanics, and a list of Famitsu stuff that included how the platforms haven't been decided yet, and they're considering even a DS and PS2 version. In other words, SF4 for the Wii practically guaranteed.

Simplifying fighting games is a bad idea. It's their complexity that makes them fun. I used to think Street Fighter 2 was awesome back in the day, but playing it now shows how far fighters have moved on. Button-mashing FTL.

 QFT

I think if you are suggesting SF2 was a button masher and/or was not complex as a SF2 world champion I can tell you that you are totally wrong and were probably not very good at it.  You can quickly learn the game but mastering it was another thing.  I could play a million games against someone who is well above average in SF2 and never lose once because once you mastered the game the gap between being a master and being a good player is immense.  But today's fighting games are not like that at all.  As long as you are above average you at least have a chance.

You seem to be thinking simple = button-masher. The way I see it there are three types of gameplays:

1. Ridiculous amounts of button combinations to memorise. Small, but angry fanbase.
2. Mash 'em buttans! Shitty games like Dead or Alive. (in b4 angry DoA fans)
3. Simple gameplay with lots of tactical depth that is easy to learn, but takes a lifetime to master.

For a very long time now developers have been catering to the hardcore fans of the first type. That's nice for them, but the type of game isn't fun to other people, even dedicated gamers like myself who just haven't taken the time to learn the game inside out. They also sell like shit, which might explain why there are so few new ones every year.

Anyway SF4 might suck, but it might also make a lot of people return to the Street Fighter franchise, or even the entire fighting genre. I'm looking forward to it, espeically since it seems like it'll be coming to the Wii.

i dont really think the SF games have increased in complexity that much, atleast not so much that its alienating amateur players. On any streetfighter game you could do as much or as little as you wanted, if you were to face a very experienced player you would get slaughtered unless you were as equally skilled.

this is what makes SF games so good, tekken, DOA and some others can be mastered but even the masters of those games can be rumbled by cheap shots which is VERY frustrating.

I hope they dont screw up this new game, but even if its perfect I doubt its every going to have the market presence it did in the snes days, theres too many people out there who want button mashers with flashy effects.

this actually makes me more interested in SF4. I always liked fighting games but the newer ones are just painful. when learning a games controls take longer than learning physical chemistry the fun factor is completely lost. regardless of which system it goes to i'm glad to hear they are using a wii-esque approach to game design.

 If you had read the EGM article you would not that they aren't taking away the deep of Street Fighter in SF4. They are making it more accessable to the average gamer. The EGM article details the "Saving" system. The expert player can do much more damage with it than a newcomer but unike the parrying system of SF3, the average player is actually able to use the Saving system. I loved SF3 but if you couldn't get a grasp of the parrying system you were toast.

after reading the article's forums one guy brought up a good point. They way SFIV is described it will resemble more of smash brothers then virtual fighter. Easy for anyone to learn the controls in about ten minutes, but that doesn't mean a good player can't dominate a novice.

coincidentally, smash brothers is the only fighter i've enjoyed over the last 10ish year. again, optimistic for SFIV.

Well I am very excited now. I have always felt that once Mortal Kombat added fatalities the genre starting heading in the wrong direction. The next step was the combo system. Nothing drives me more nuts than a game that counts your combos in big flashy letters. Combos in SF2 were jsut about knowing the timing of moves and which ones worked together. Not some rediculous Killer Instinct 64 hit combo. And don't even get me started on Super Moves that you have to power up. Maybe for Dragon Ball Z because they are story related.

Attention developers. I buy games, but I have not bought fighting games in a long time. I will not but any more games like Tekken or DoA. I will buy games that are like Street Fghter 2 or Bushido Blade. Simple, deep, uncluttered.