• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

"People don't buy fighting games for single player", but trophy data disagrees

I'll need a citation on Street Fighter II being a phenomenon due to its singleplayer. Street Fighter I was like the inverse of SFV where it's clearly a singleplayer fighting game with a tacked on versus mode and no one remembers that game. Granted, it played like shit, by SF2 was heralded for being an arcade game that pit two players against each other. It made billions in quarters and I can't believe it did that by allowing one person to hog the cabinet as opposed to two people putting in money with one losing the right to play in 3 minutes or less.

I accept the argument a lot of people play fighting games for singleplayer and that basic modes should appear in every console release. I don't buy that fighting games blew up in popularity as a singleplayer game and somehow the narrative of fighting games being popular primarily as multiplayer games was adopted and unquestioned until SFV was released.

SF1 was a novelty, almost a proof of concept.

I was 13 or so when SF2 hit arcades, and I was always looking for a way to get to any arcade and play against people. It was a big deal. But then there's the home console ports, which is a big part of SF and fighting games in general. I would bet most people who got SF or even MK for the SNES were good at the game but had a hard time finding others that could even do a fireball reliably. Multiplayer was limited, yet it was the home console ports that made fighting games a phenomenon. It wasn't the competition, it was all of the things I listed above- advanced game control, moment to moment creativity, characters and animation, etc.
 

CrazyHal

Member
I also play fighting games mostly for single player and local play because the slightest bit of lag completely ruins the experience for me.
 

mokeyjoe

Member
Yeah, I used to love fighting games, but the online focus has left me behind. Single player and local multiplayer was what drew me to them.

There is no room for casual play these days. Besides, the few fighting games I've got reasonably proficient at come from learning the characters inside out through hours of chilled single player. There's no 'gateway' to that without decent single player.

I liked the mode they had in VF4 where you toured 'arcades' and entered tournaments and stuff and different AI players would have their own strategies.
 
I mention Game of the Year because I assume this thread, if any, would be filled with people who can explain what's so appealing about single player in fighting games, what is lacking from other single player games that fighting games offer, and what a single player fighting game that could stand on its own and be considered GOTY would look like.




And MK9's story mode was better than X's because it was a Best Of playlist of the entire MK story. MKX's story was garbage even if it played better than MK9.


You say this like another studio did the writing for the past twenty years. It was still Boon and company. The idea that a fighting game could win Game of The Year is not a silly idea. I think the trailers for Injustice 2 look better narratively than Justice League. Think about that for a second there. Also vested characters have more narrative cache. Fighting game stories are still under exploited in my opinion.

I love Nathan Drake but he can't fuck with Ryu even from a story standpoint.
 
I never said SFV shouldn't have Arcade Mode. It's such a basic mode that it's ridiculous it was absent. I'm speaking very generally because I'm confused as to what people get out of mediocre modes that somehow aren't available in other games.

I mention Game of the Year because I assume this thread, if any, would be filled with people who can explain what's so appealing about single player in fighting games, what is lacking from other single player games that fighting games offer, and what a single player fighting game that could stand on its own and be considered GOTY would look like.

The whole GOTY element you are trying to inject into the discussion is completely irrelevant to a large portion of the audience. We don't care if someone somewhere doesn't think this game is the best to release in a given year, we just want to play it and have fun.

And what is hard to understand about finding play against the cpu in one on one combat to be fun? When I play TLOU I'm playing against the computer, reading the situation, and adjusting my actions accordingly. I'm doing the exact same thing in fighting games.
 

Pompadour

Member
The whole GOTY element you are trying to inject into the discussion is completely irrelevant to a large portion of the audience. We don't care if someone somewhere doesn't think this game is the best to release in a given year, we just want to play it and have fun.

And what is hard to understand about finding play against the cpu in one on one combat to be fun? When I play TLOU I'm playing against the computer, reading the situation, and adjusting my actions accordingly. I'm doing the exact same thing in fighting games.

I'm using "GOTY" to give the reader an idea of the kind of game I'm talking about. It's hard to express that by using terms like "fun" and "more fun".

My whole point is that for the vast majority of fighting games throughout history the focus is clearly on multiplayer. And it's understandably this way because they have their origins in arcades where more money could be made having two people plug in quarters vs. one.

So with games made with one on one multiplayer as the focus it introduces limitations that many singleplayer games don't have. As I mentioned earlier fighting game single player modes are either a series of fights with (maybe) some cutscenes breaking up the action or some sort of new mode where the basic gameplay has been modified to better suit a singleplayer experience (Tekken Force, Subspace Emissary, etc). A lot of the time this ends up with the fighting game actually turning into another genre entirely: the beat-em-up.

I'm not contesting that it's fun to play arcade against the CPU in a fighting game. I'm only asking what draws people to a fighting game if they're only interested in singleplayer. Because, to me, it's like a person is playing a game where the most interesting element is removed (playing against another human) and all your left is a game that when matched against all the singleplayer games out there comes up incredibly short. I'm not arguing that it isn't fun, I just know people don't have infinite time and money so a game shackled by the conventions of a mode the player isn't even interested in doesn't seem like a likely pick to me.

I like fighting games and how they play so when I try to get into the head of someone who likes singleplayer in fighting games I think I'd be drawn to something with similar mechanics, like a character action game. And if I really needed it to be a one-on-one affair I'd play something like Furi.

I'll concede the only thing I really can't account for is singleplayer games that have a wide variety of characters to choose from that each have their own unique playstyle. That's probably the only thing I can think of that other, singleplayer games come up short in offering.
 

Fraeon

Member
Street Fighter 2 was a phenomenon not because of it's one on one competition, but because of the SP. That hasn't changed, even though streaming and more local tournaments have made it more of a community of players. Soul Calibur is a good example of a fighting game that I imagine a lot of people bought without being into competition.

This kind of sidesteps what I'm saying. What you're saying is something that might've happened in the console space and there's no reason to disagree with that.

What I am saying is this: a fighting game makes for an inferior single player game compared to just about any other genre out there. It was fine in the 90s when a good chunk of games were arcade ports anyway but these days you can find a bunch of games that do the ARPG and/or RTS and/or character action parts better. Why spend money on a game to play a tacked-on ARPG version of that game when you can play a game specifically designed to be an ARPG (which probably has a better story too since it doesn't have to hamstring itself by coming up with excuses for all of those 1v1 fights).

That's what I am saying. With the above I'm quite puzzled why the genre isn't dead entirely.
 

Crayon

Member
A fighting game may make a shit single player game but it does have unique charms. It may be the closest thing to an archetypal kung fu movie with the cast of balanced characters representing different martial arts and backgrounds and that sort of thing.
 
Guilty as charged. I buy fighting games to play single player. I have not touched an online match in a fighting game ever. The last time I played against another player in a fighting game was on a couch, probably back in the N64 days.
I try to play, but my connection is not that good AND most of my friends have outgrown video games completely or switched to just FIFA//random car game of the moment..
Thus my fighting game time in versus//online versus has shrunk..

Plus honestly psn value per month is.. not to my liking, hence I let the subsciption lapse and I'm not really thrilled to PAY to frigging do a SFV//anything match..
It's bullshit...
 

HotHamBoy

Member
This does not account for local play. That was always my biggest reason for getting and playing fighting games.

There's nothing more fun than local play. Online sucks if you are a casual or a beginner because of the skill gaps and network issues. CPU play is a novelty.

Playing with a group of friends is THE BEST. Just fighting with your friends, shit talking, that's why I play.

Even playing people in person who are much better than you is 100 times better than playing that same guy in a random online match. I love playing SF2 at the barcade I frequent and there's a lot of good players that come through. Honestly, local play is a far more compelling reason to improve than online play is. Being a top player in your local community is much more manageable and much more satisfying. Online there's always going to be thousands of people with more time and effort.

Great way to meet people, too. I'm not making any friends playing randos online.
 

jjasso21

Member
I'm one of those people when playing fighting games. I will play Arcade and local Versus against another opponent. When playing online, most of the time the opponent is just too good. So I will never bother getting any online trophies.
 

poodaddy

Member
It was more of a joke how studios shouldn't use trophy percentages to inform their decisions.

It's obvious single player content is really important to people. The sales of SF5 is all you need to come to that conclusion. No need to be rude guy

Sorry brother, didn't pick up on the fact that it was a joke. My apologies :)
 

cordy

Banned
Probably play single player for practice.. also isn't the online achievements much harder?

That's a good question and it depends. Like Tekken's online trophies/achievements aren't really hard to do. SFV for example? There's a trophy that you get by entering Gold. Most people aren't going to reach that.
 
Top Bottom