By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Street Fighter IV - watered down? "Casual?"

Capcom know their audiences and they will toughen up or dumb down the games according to their preferences.
It is not something new. As long as they don`t ruin the series (they did it a lot less than other developers).



Satan said:

"You are for ever angry, all you care about is intelligence, but I repeat again that I would give away all this superstellar life, all the ranks and honours, simply to be transformed into the soul of a merchant's wife weighing eighteen stone and set candles at God's shrine."

Around the Network

Well it was dumbed down to be more like SF2 then how SF3 was.

That was announced way back when the project first was.



KylieDog said:
Good, SFIII sucked, SFII was much more fun.

I'd love to play you in Street fighter 2, or 3...

If someone announces openly that SF3 flew over their head by a mile and they don't get it...saying it sucks...they definetly will make an easy oponent in any street fighter game.

 



Yeah, this has been known since around the time the game was first announced. Instead of catering to the hardcore audience that stuck with them, they're trying to both recapture the SF2 fans that abandoned the series, as well as making the game accessible to new players. You talk about how SF3 isn't hard to play at all, but your examples basically say "play it just like SF2". That's the entire problem: the new features of SF3 weren't accessible to more casual players, and the gameplay refinements weren't noticable to them. Because of this, it just felt like "more of the same" to them, and they lost interest in the series. This isn't just a problem with Street Fighter, either; most competitive fighting games suffer from this problem, and over time they lose their more casual fans as a result.

For SF3, Capcom is trying to make the new features easy for more casual players to see and use. They want to game to feel fresh and different to these players, and not "just another SF2 rehash". (Funnily enough, at the same time they're trying to play heavily on the nostalgia angle. It looks like they've done a pretty good job walking that tightrope though, and have made a game that feels both new and nostalgic.)



You know, the inaccessibility is why the fanbase of most fighters never grows much from the original masters of the game. This is why VF will always sell like ass.

Games need to take the cod4/sc4 approach i.e make a game where experts feel like they're very good while allowing the noobs some fun too. Thats the recipe for success in my opinion.



"Dr. Tenma, according to you, lives are equal. That's why I live today. But you must have realised it by now...the only thing people are equal in is death"---Johann Liebert (MONSTER)

"WAR is a racket. It always has been.

It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives"---Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler

Around the Network
KylieDog said:
disolitude said:
KylieDog said:
Good, SFIII sucked, SFII was much more fun.

I'd love to play you in Street fighter 2, or 3...

If someone announces openly that SF3 flew over their head by a mile and they don't get it...saying it sucks...they definetly will make an easy oponent in any street fighter game.

 

 

Not really, SF II was just more fun, SF III was less fun, there for it failed to improve the series with the direction it took, which is probably a good part of why it wasn't as big a hit.

 

I really don't understand this challenge concept, like winning or losing at a game will somehow change the game itself to not suck?  How does that work?

lol...well winning is usually more fun than losing. If someone loses constantly they will surely think a game sucks.

In any case, I can find you countless publications which list street fighter 3 third strike as the best street fighter ever, including screw attack which gives it the best fighting game ever made award.

What street fighter 3 did is called evolving. People who enjoyed SF2 wanted to play something new and exciting...Alpha evolved the series and introduced many things(god bless the custom combo V-ism) but SF3:Third strike took the cake with innovations.

You can still play SF3 like SF2 for a while and it should be as fun as any other SF game...but if you spend a few weeks with it...and learn how to apply the long jump attack, how to parry a fireball here and there, how to tie in Kens jump in 4 hit combo with a super and take off 1/2 of the opponets health, when to use the EX moves, how to properly zone your opponent...it gives your brain something else to think about during the fight. Ad makes it hell of a lot cooler than...jump in, throw, crossover...over and over...

 



The Street Fighter series was the first game to really popularize gratuitous complexity: the trend that drove all demographics but one out of gaming during the 1990s. It seems that Capcom was not only aware of this but capitalized on it as the series grew.

If Capcom has chosen the next mainline title in that particular series to represent coming to its senses concerning gaming for everyone, then it may be the best thing to happen to gaming in years. Gaming for everyone is not watered down; nor is it casual. It's just sensible game design.



Complexity is not depth. Machismo is not maturity. Obsession is not dedication. Tedium is not challenge. Support gaming: support the Wii.

Be the ultimate ninja! Play Billy Vs. SNAKEMAN today! Poisson Village welcomes new players.

What do I hate about modern gaming? I hate tedium replacing challenge, complexity replacing depth, and domination replacing entertainment. I hate the outsourcing of mechanics to physics textbooks, art direction to photocopiers, and story to cheap Hollywood screenwriters. I hate the confusion of obsession with dedication, style with substance, new with gimmicky, old with obsolete, new with evolutionary, and old with time-tested.
There is much to hate about modern gaming. That is why I support the Wii.

More casually oriented, the more players the better. I'll still kick ass ... George St. Town Hall Galaxy World Sydney. Take all noobs on ...



Millennium said:
The Street Fighter series was the first game to really popularize gratuitous complexity: the trend that drove all demographics but one out of gaming during the 1990s. It seems that Capcom was not only aware of this but capitalized on it as the series grew.

If Capcom has chosen the next mainline title in that particular series to represent coming to its senses concerning gaming for everyone, then it may be the best thing to happen to gaming in years. Gaming for everyone is not watered down; nor is it casual. It's just sensible game design.

Street fighter was always way more approachable than games such as Mortal Kombat 3, King of Fighters, Fatal Fury, Samurai Showdown etc...so right off the bat you are wrong.

Otherwise, videogame media goes in circles just like any other media. Right now its at the stage where new gammers are here and they have money so capcom must capture their dollars. For all we know capcom could just be saying "we are casual" with this Street Fgihter to make the casuals not shit their panties and purchase the game. Sure seems that way if you read the preview that Snakeyez made...who played and knows what hes talking about when it comes to fighting games.

http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=40852



disolitude said:
KylieDog said:
disolitude said:
KylieDog said:
Good, SFIII sucked, SFII was much more fun.

I'd love to play you in Street fighter 2, or 3...

If someone announces openly that SF3 flew over their head by a mile and they don't get it...saying it sucks...they definetly will make an easy oponent in any street fighter game.

 

 

Not really, SF II was just more fun, SF III was less fun, there for it failed to improve the series with the direction it took, which is probably a good part of why it wasn't as big a hit.

 

I really don't understand this challenge concept, like winning or losing at a game will somehow change the game itself to not suck?  How does that work?

lol...well winning is usually more fun than losing. If someone loses constantly they will surely think a game sucks.

In any case, I can find you countless publications which list street fighter 3 third strike as the best street fighter ever, including screw attack which gives it the best fighting game ever made award.

What street fighter 3 did is called evolving. People who enjoyed SF2 wanted to play something new and exciting...Alpha evolved the series and introduced many things(god bless the custom combo V-ism) but SF3:Third strike took the cake with innovations.

You can still play SF3 like SF2 for a while and it should be as fun as any other SF game...but if you spend a few weeks with it...and learn how to apply the long jump attack, how to parry a fireball here and there, how to tie in Kens jump in 4 hit combo with a super and take off 1/2 of the opponets health, when to use the EX moves, how to properly zone your opponent...it gives your brain something else to think about during the fight. Ad makes it hell of a lot cooler than...jump in, throw, crossover...over and over...

 

Wow....just Wow. We have had our differences in many things, mainly the "console war" but when it comes to fighting games (and especially SF3) we share the same mind state. Honestly, I would LOVE to play u in SF4 when it releases (that is if the online play is not that laggy), IDK if u plan on rebuying a PS3 or not, it'd be a shame IMO if I don't get to play u. I wanna see wat u got.

 

*lightbulb* hopefully somebody (prolly me if needed) can make an official VGChartz SF4 bi-weekly tournament or something, that'd kick ass.