They're super casual already. It's just that casuals are more interested in other genres atm, so if you want to get into FG, you'll most likely play with the hardcore crowd and of course they'll kick your ass to the moon and beyond. Imagine if you wanted to play CSGO but you could only play with pro teams. Sure, if you persevere you'll probably learn a lot in a short time, but most people won't.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Can fighting games be casual?
- Thread starter Weiss
- Start date
I agree, I think this is the main issue for a lot of people, but it boggles my mind. When I first experienced high level Melee I was impressed. My whole world changed.
I think a good competitive game has a balance of mental skill and technical skill. Games that lean too heavily on one side or the other make me lose interest. I also don't care much for team games/team sports. 1v1 and 2v2 is basically the only stuff I find to be interesting.
Aside from Melee I think Rocket League is pretty close to perfect as well. Both of these show the importance of creative options, but too often making a game more accessible is what removes options and free form play. Games that require some tech skill can have more freedom in the number of options they allow. This helps the game's meta game to evolve and for the movement in the game to feel good.
I think Melee with Nintendo's support can continue to grow and thrive so I imagine a traditional fighting game could as well with the right mechanics. For all we know, Marvel vs Capcom Infinite could end up being it, but I haven't followed anything about the game. Capcom's butchering of SFV's launch is the biggest reason why it bombed.
Does a game that leans too heavily on mental skill even exist, though?
I think they can, they just need to do a better job at teaching you how to play. I remember the tutorial in Skullgirls being absolutely fantastic. They teach you the basics of everything and also provide you with some bread and butter combos for each character. I actually recommend that game for anyone looking to get into fighting games because it explains a lot of things that are pretty universal to 2D fighting games.
Xenoverse 2, while obviously not the same kind of hardcore fighting game, also has a similarly fantastic tutorial that does a good job of easing you into the mechanics and also showing you why they are useful.
Why so many fighting games seem to take joy out of being completely obtuse is beyond me.
Xenoverse 2, while obviously not the same kind of hardcore fighting game, also has a similarly fantastic tutorial that does a good job of easing you into the mechanics and also showing you why they are useful.
Why so many fighting games seem to take joy out of being completely obtuse is beyond me.
I would say Chess is an example.
However in video games I would say things like Rising Thunder or Brawl. More so Brawl since I think RT had some strict timings.
It's all relative, but I think Street Fighter V is more mental than technical than let's say UMvC3, but UMvC3 is pretty tech heavy if you focus on the top top players.
As a spectator I prefer Marvel, but both lean too much in either direction for me personally.
Trickster
Member
Depends on which part of the game you want to be for casuals. The online multiplayer part? Probably not, fighting games are skillbased in a way that I can't recall any other type of games being. There's not random elements in fighting games. In shooters you might catch a guy looking the other way, in moba's you have fog of war and a team. But in fighting games ther's nothing to distract your opponent
However it's definitely possible to appeal to casual gamers. It's just something you have to do via singleplayer focused content like NRS are doing with their games.
However it's definitely possible to appeal to casual gamers. It's just something you have to do via singleplayer focused content like NRS are doing with their games.
FunkyDealer
Banned
I've been having a lot of fun playing SFV "casually". I suck at the game, but have a great time with the story modes.
Looking forward to trying out two-player versus as well.
Looking forward to trying out two-player versus as well.
GhostOfSparta305
Banned
It's interesting you say that, because I'm pretty much the opposite. I tend to find most competitive 1v1 games unbearingly predictable, and personally couldn't care less for "competitive" 1v1 Melee.
For me, team based (2v2 and up) and multiplayer (Deathmatch, FFA) competition are both more fun to watch and infinitely more skillful to excel at. They provide more unfamiliar situations for players to react and adapt to, which I think is the true test of "skill" and overall mastery of a game's mechanics.
TheTylerRob
Member
A fighting game can succeed casually as long as the offline modes and other unlockables can last long enough for the average non fighting game fan. That's why namco games do so well with casual audiences. Tekken and Soul Calibur always put in tons of little distractions from the core fighting engine, like weapon master mode and character customization, and going through all that content usually takes enough time for casual players to feel satisfied.
Fighting games are compedetive by nature, so to make them casual friendly you end up with smash bros having players who put on items and players who take items off. (Smash 4 has probably the worst set of items, too. I used to have some items on in older smash games when I wanted to have a looser match, but almost everything is an instant kill throwable from the other side of the screen now so the items balance ends up being the worst its ever been. So many of them are just instakills with no downsides...)
Part of the main thing with fighting games is that you're meant to play them over and over and fight different people, but casual players usually get bored of something after they've seen it once or twice, so you have people looking for entirely different things. You actually can't please everyone all the time because people don't like the same things and hate things other people like. You just have to target a demographic. (Though the items on/items off and ability to customize the random stage select pool helps broaden smash bros' appeal)
The influx of cinematic story modes are really the big thing drawing in casual players. Alternate modes like what you found in old soul calibur games really ramped up the non-compedative player value for that game, too...
Part of the main thing with fighting games is that you're meant to play them over and over and fight different people, but casual players usually get bored of something after they've seen it once or twice, so you have people looking for entirely different things. You actually can't please everyone all the time because people don't like the same things and hate things other people like. You just have to target a demographic. (Though the items on/items off and ability to customize the random stage select pool helps broaden smash bros' appeal)
The influx of cinematic story modes are really the big thing drawing in casual players. Alternate modes like what you found in old soul calibur games really ramped up the non-compedative player value for that game, too...
Dreams-Visions
Member
I thought Dead or Alive and Smash Bros are pretty casual. Can be played at higher levels, but very low barriers to entry.
Marvel too. Once you understand the most basic combo of 1,2,3, launch, the game becomes very easy to play casually.
Marvel too. Once you understand the most basic combo of 1,2,3, launch, the game becomes very easy to play casually.
Auto-Reply
Member
Complex fighting games seem to be ill suited for online gaming, everybody can point and shoot at something in an online fps, doesn't mean they are good at it but they get a feeling of accomplishment even with many pro players around.
In a fighting game you don't get that.
In a fighting game you don't get that.
That's just how it is. Even if a game is made in an attempt to have a low skill ceiling, you'll still end up bodied by someone who took it to a place you haven't (Brawl, for instance).
All fighting games can be played on a casual level.
I think all they're trying to do with MvCI is make it more accessible to everyone while trying not to hamper depth (which is actually the real challenge).
All fighting games can be played on a casual level.
I think all they're trying to do with MvCI is make it more accessible to everyone while trying not to hamper depth (which is actually the real challenge).
That's just a matter of practice, though. Execution is still a barrier in a shooter and in most games. It doesn't matter what tool/tactic you use if your opponent has a faster and more accurate draw.
Most people don't want to work hard to acquire a skill when so many other people have already put in the time and effort to earn theirs. Fighting games push people to get better so they can beat other people, who in turn push themselves to get better to beat them. The skill barrier is so high because it goes up with the players who are pushing themselves to top one another. It's not that the game is necessarily hard, it's that people are dedicated. People are hard.
Accessibilty doesn't mean artificially lowering the ceiling. Even if you try to cap the execution level, the best players will figure out techniques that require higher execution. I mean, hell, that's how wavedashing started. That's how snaking started in Mario Kart DS!
The goal isn't to make the game easy to play at a high level - that's impossible in any competitive game, you need to put the work in.
The goal is to not start people so over their heads that they immediately lose interest. You do that by not having ridiculously over-complicated mechanics and by teaching as best as you can.
Blame that on fighting game developers not easing new players in properly. Everyone gets thrown into the deep end. That doesn't mean mechanical complexity needs to be stripped away to a bare minimum.
Fundamentals are the most important thing but everyone wants to go straight into the flashy stuff. Devs need to impart the importance of fundamentals.
A story mode that is divided into chapters, where each chapter opens up a new concept that was previously locked from the player, and each stage within explores that concept and presents scenarios for practical application, would have a great effect.
The funny thing about the genre as of now is that on one end we have some relatively complex games from an execution standpoint and on the other end we have... Nidhogg and Divekick.
Maybe it's just a case of having some games in between?
GhostOfSparta305
Banned
It's not anywhere near the extent it is in most fighting games. Not even close.
Again, if I'm playing a shooter, the inputs are so simple that I don't have to think about them: the controller seems to just melt away so that I can focus on practicing unfamiliar tactics/mechanics, not commands. And this usually happens within the first hour of play.
In fighting games, that process of just mastering inputs can take days/weeks/months. Before players can even think about practicing mechanics and tactics, they have to get over the execution barrier. That's what I think makes fighting games unattractive to most: that extra commitment required to master inputs.
It's the equivalent of having to learn a language that doesn't use your alphabet. Given the choice between learning Spanish and Mandarin Chinese, I think most English speakers would choose Spanish, despite the latter being the most spoken language in the world.
That's almost exactly what I said, or were you elaborating?
I think they'll never be casual-friendly online games for as long as you are unable to lay the blame on your defeat on someone else. 
I often don't give a single fuck if I lose in Rocket League or in *insert random shooter*, but in SFV I often find it incredibly frustrating.
Smash is an exception I guess.
edit: This thread has truly fantastic examples on what Capcom can do to appeal to casuals more, and it certainly has nothing to do with dumbing down combat.
I often don't give a single fuck if I lose in Rocket League or in *insert random shooter*, but in SFV I often find it incredibly frustrating.Smash is an exception I guess.
edit: This thread has truly fantastic examples on what Capcom can do to appeal to casuals more, and it certainly has nothing to do with dumbing down combat.
A lot of thoughtful responses in this thread, but this right here is the heart of the matter.
That's not true. Learning the dual analog control scheme for FPS/TPS is not easy at all, I've seen plenty of people struggle with it. But once you learned it, you can reuse it in pretty much every game in the genre. FG are the same, but since they are less popular, there's more people that need to learn the basics and just don't want to. Sure, advanced combos are hard, but so is rocket jumping while nailing an headshot with the railgun.
It depends.
Whatever skills I got in Street Fighter, they don't help me at all in GGXrd (and it's why I only played that for five hours).
Yeah- give someone who's never played and FPS a controller and any typical twin stick shooter and it's painful to watch. People really take for granted how difficult I can be coordinating movement, aiming, and keeping in mind other mechanics and what's going on around you.
GhostOfSparta305
Banned
I think you're missing the point of the difference in time investment between the two. Learning dual analog in a shooter is nowhere near as time consuming as mastering complex quarter/half circles consistently, for example. Hence why so many children easily pick up COD, but not MvC.
I also don't think that's a fair example for compatability: learning dual analog is applicable to nearly all modern AAA games. A complex command learned in a fighting game applies to probably less than 10% of those.
I'd assume this is a huge reason why so many people who claim to dislike fighting games still love competitive Smash: inputs are simple, so they can focus on tactics.
Low execution barrier is for sure one of if not the single greatest strength Smash has.
I've never held complicated execution as some sort of high standard, in fact I truly wish it went away for most fighters. It kinda infuriates me a bit when some people claim SFV is oh so easier to play because it doesn't have one-frame links anymore LOL. As if that shit was ever going to make a difference to me or to even more casual fans. In the most technical of ways, those people might be correct, but it's a difference that isn't remotely meaningful to me.
tintin1029
Member
I think they'll never be casual-friendly online games for as long as you are unable to lay the blame on your defeat on someone else.
Smash is an exception I guess.
While the execution barrier in Smash is much lesser than Street Fighter, you can still get bodied by people better than you in 1v1 like most fighters.
I guess the difference is with smash, and most non-fighter multiplayer games, you usually have teamates to play with, or multiple enemies to shoot or fight. There's a lot more than "You're not as good". You can be really bad at Battlefield but still win because the rest of your team is great or the red team was bad. There's a lot more variables. And with all those variables, it's a lot easier to relax and not deal with losing.
However with 1 on 1 fighters. All you have is yourself and the person you must beat. All you got is you're own skill to lean on, which can be very frustrating if you're not very skilled. With most other multiplayer games, you don't need to rely on your own skill as much in order to win.
tl,dr: It's easier to blame others for losing in a MOBA or a TDM FPS, but with fite gaems, you have no one to blame but yourself. Unless you're one of those a-holes that rely super heavily on the fact that Mika just got nerfed lol
What part of Yashagaeshi during guard press right (or perhaps left if you're facing left) plus skittle punches V rectangle don't you understand?
Casual people can definitely enjoy fighting games. Those Mortal Kombat games sell a ton. What do they do differently from Street Fighter V? No seriously, tell me because I haven't played them. Is it just the single player features? The input methods are easier?
As for online, to me fighting games are meant to be played locally with your friends. Trying out different characters, swapping turns, putting random arbitrary rulesets etc... winning and losing doesn't matter in this scenario. But when you go online, you get completely destroyed by some dude and then your ranking goes down. That doesn't feel good at all.
Which brings me to my next point: online gaming has largely shifted to team-focused efforts as opposed to 1v1. Games like Overwatch, League of Legends, Rocket League etc. are some of the most popular online games today, and all of them are team-based. Even if you are not particularly good at the game, you can still contribute in some way. Even in FPS death matches, you can probably get in a few kills through sheer luck. This is not so with 1v1 games, where you either win or lose. If you are not good at fighting games, there is no way you're going to do anything in a 1v1 scenario against someone who actually knows what they're doing.
I definitely think fighting games could have more single player content that doesn't focus on teaching players to get good, but instead are just fun. Like an RPG mode where you can just boost your character and give them different abilities, or even minigames like you see in Smash.
tintin1029
Member
Gore sells
I'm not talking about complex commands, I'm talking about the basics: move around, jump, throw a basic attack. This isn't hard at all in FG. A fireball would be the equivalent of shooting while strafing: a bit more complex, but still easy after a bit of practice. But as you said, controls are similar for pretty much all popular 3D games so for most people it feels "natural" when it really isn't (I've seen people struggle with controls in Journey).
Fighting games were always best for local co-op. Some of my best memories involve a group of my friends huddled around a ps1 taking it in turns with SFEx+Alpha. So yeh, I think they used to be at their best when they were casual.
Harder to organize these things as an adult, which is a real shame. And with the prevalence of online one of the best ways to experience the game causally is less common by default.
Matchmaking can alleviate the issue, but it's difficult to really enjoy online modes at a purely casual level when everything is geared towards improving and fighting better foes. Some smarter kind of MM system might help, but it's still not the same as sitting around with mates in a group goofing around.
Harder to organize these things as an adult, which is a real shame. And with the prevalence of online one of the best ways to experience the game causally is less common by default.
Matchmaking can alleviate the issue, but it's difficult to really enjoy online modes at a purely casual level when everything is geared towards improving and fighting better foes. Some smarter kind of MM system might help, but it's still not the same as sitting around with mates in a group goofing around.
petran79
Banned
Respectfully disagree about being a chore. Will always be preferences, but Sticks do not automatically make casual players enjoy a fighting game more. If anything it is more daunting to pick up a large peripheral and learn a whole new way to play, than to learn on a controller pad that you are used to. I dont see sticks, etc as casual devices.
Capcom Cup was just won by a guy using a dualshock 4, so even at competitive levels pads can be just as viable and fun too
Even on a casual level arcade sticks are more enjoyable, not just for fighting games. Shmups, puzzle and action-platform arcades as well. A cheap stick is as expensive as an official PS4 controller, which is not the best pad for fighters anyway.
In the 80s and 90s I always wished for an authentic arcade stick at home. But choices were very few and far from perfect.
A pity that the most common, easy and casual control method of the past turned into a hardcore device
GhostOfSparta305
Banned
I don't think those two are even remotely comparable, as that greatly undermines the complexity of learning the fireball command.
A fireball is pressing 3 buttons in a specific sequence and in quick succession, and if you're not quick enough or you miss one/press one twice, you'll perform one of at least 6 entirely different commands. Maybe more.
Shooting while strafing is pushing a stick and holding a button together. Both still do their assigned action whether or not you push them together correctly. There's notably less room for error here.
Well, I think that's a bit subjective.
I personally can't stand playing fighting games with anything but a stick. Using a d-pad makes my thumb hurt and the analog stick is too imprecise for my liking.
That said, I know people who play fighting games perfectly fine without one. Some people try sticks and never get used to them because it just doesn't feel right for them.
As many fighting game pro's prove, you don't need a stick at high level either. NuckleDu won the Capcom Cup convincingly without one, and he isn't the only pro who doesn't use a stick.
It's all just preference.
I third the Naruto suggestions on here. Any of the ninja storm series offers fantastic solo content and an easily accessible combat system. Narutimate Hero 3 on the PS2 was the best fighting game for me as someone who is physically incapable of playing any fighting games with any semblance of skill. I keep picking up the Street Fighter games and even went in on Guilty Gear Xrd last year but I just can't dedicate the time required to get good or even process most of what I'm asked to do even through a simple tutorial.
Street Fighter 2 was good because anyone could play it at a basic level and now the genre went up its own asshole.
You know what I miss about older fighting games? How the basic shit actually did damage.
When normals, throws and specials actually hurt, it means that you can be bad but still feel effective. You didn't HAVE to learn combos or spend time in training mode just to get your foot in the door.
If you try playing a modern fighter like that it just feels like you're wasting your time. It's why I have such a hard time talking people into playing these games now.
You know what I miss about older fighting games? How the basic shit actually did damage.
When normals, throws and specials actually hurt, it means that you can be bad but still feel effective. You didn't HAVE to learn combos or spend time in training mode just to get your foot in the door.
If you try playing a modern fighter like that it just feels like you're wasting your time. It's why I have such a hard time talking people into playing these games now.
Leafhopper
Banned
IbukiLordSA
Member
You did actually have to learn things, the problem with older fighting games is that people never got exposure to other people besides a few friends. Everyone thought they were amazing until they actually ran into someone that did spend time learning combo's, the systems and playing everyday against good human opponents.
where a normal etc does lots of damage or no damage, a good player is still going to beat you badly enough that you don't feel effective anymore.
It's only in the past few years with online coming into play that people realize just how much they actually suck at fighting games and they aren't the best anymore outside their groups of friends how don't even really play the game.
There are lots of casual fighting games out at the moment, the main thing it comes down to is the players attitude. I own lots of fighters and just play them because they are fun and I enjoy them whether I am getting beaten senseless where I can't even press a button to where I can dominate in a match playing the characters I enjoy. In the end it's all just casual play and while I try to learn and understand the game like any other genre I still see myself as just casually playing the game.
If you lose to a button maher you probably aren't good enough. And I'm saying that having been defeated by a button masher before.
You are missing my point.
Of fucking course a beginner will to lose to an expert regardless of how much damage things do, my issue is with how low damage outside of combos makes novice players no longer feel effective against each other, which makes them lose interest quickly.
I would argue the arcades were full of casual players. These games created the hardcore crowds.
To be honest I dont think there was even a thing as "hardcore gamers" back then.
Jaded Alyx
Member
It would be great if fighting games had this.
Or hell if Street Fighter even had the level of explanation about your character Ovrwatch has.
vs
This is slightly unfair. The character demonstrations do explain a fair bit.
It would be great if fighting games had this.
Or hell if Street Fighter even had the level of explanation about your character Ovrwatch has.
vs
SFV has an in-game demonstration and tutorial system that explains most moves and mechanics whose uses may not be immediately obvious to beginners including each character's V-skills and triggers.
petran79
Banned
They were hardcore, but mostly it didnt have to do with videogames. Hence why minors were prohibited from entering, especially at late hours.