What is the justification on making games more "casual friendly?"

There have been a lot of back and forth messages about making games more casual friendly to appeal to the masses, but what exactly does that mean?

Let’s take a look at Super Turbo (Original). Compared to present fighting games, there isn’t too many game engine oriented options (such counters, alpha counters, EX moves, air blocking, etc…), and while it may seem basic, that is far from the truth, but it is basic enough to where casual players can just play it without worrying about the game engine (except maybe for supers and tech throwing). The game is harder than most games to get out the moves, but with the high damage and the quick pace, casuals probably wouldn’t worry about getting off the moves, rather than just finishing off their opponent by whatever they know, or are able to do.

Let’s take a look at the Alpha series (specifically Alpha 2 and Alpha 3). The inputs in those games for getting off moves are more lenient than ST, but not to the point where you would unintentionally get out other moves that overlap. For Alpha 2, you can smack three buttons (2 punches/kicks and 1 punch/kick), or you can smack all of them, then you can mash buttons and see instant results and a high combo counter. Alpha 3 is somewhat different, but the results are still similar.

Let’s take a look at Marvel Vs. Capcom 2, the inputs in this game are probably a little bit more lenient than the Alpha series in terms of getting off moves. This is a game that casuals would love, they can pick a character, roll the joystick or d-pad around, press buttons, and see instant results (huge beams, fast pace, big combos). They can super jump by pressing down up (or by pressing two kicks), dash by tapping back or forward twice (or by pressing two punches), call out an assist by pressing one button, do a magic series, etc. You can even do a triple team super and get a 100+ combo, what casual player wouldn’t like that? Very few.

But, you will almost never, (and by almost, I mean you would have to be Powerball lucky), see a casual player beat a high level player in their respective game, and that should never happen in these types of games (or any fighting game, for that matter). A casual players goal and a high level players goal towards the game are different, the casual player just wants to play some matches, do some moves with success, beat the computer, play against friends and have a good time. The high level player wants to win tournaments, they are usually competing against the best, to be the best. If the casual player and high level player ever face off, then the high level player should win, 100/100 (unless the high level player fools around, and even then, it might still be 100/100). Of course the casual player is going to be frustrated, a lot of that is due to the high level player just being better, but also a difference in philosophies.

So what exactly is the justification on making games more friendly to casual players? If they can do the moves, beat the computer, and play some matches against friends and have fun, isn’t that good enough? Is the casual player supposed to beat a high level player (and when I say high level, I mean a world class player)? If the companies can strike a balance without hindering the game, that is fine, but I would prefer less games where I get a move out that I didn’t intend to do, or comeback mechanics that do huge amounts of damage (K-Groove is cool, though).

In this age of high costs for games, a pitch will only go through if it looks like it’ll turn a profit - To the people calling the shots (hint: not usually the game designers), making it as new-player-friendly as possible probably seems like the wisest business decision (and it’s difficult to dispute). People that actually hold the money that goes into making games see things through the lenses of people running a business, and it’s to be expected

In my opinion that’s the kind of thing that only works on paper - To use what’s likely to be a poor analogy, simplify the base layers and the potential skill ceiling usually ends up getting lower because the subsequent levels of “depth” stack on top of the bases in the first place. Usually things that are difficult to get into also possess greater depth, because their “bare minimum” doesn’t concern itself with catering to people that don’t want to get good in the first place


Dumb down games and make them as cheap as possible to make while pandering to the biggest scrubs and idiots with the most money.


It’s Genius, but not very fun.

I see everyone thus far has just ignored the point you’re making but yeah I agree and I think the answer is that developers have no idea what is actually necessary to appeal to casual players so they just just go way overboard

Here’s the real answer:

Because 95% of games shouldn’t be about execution, they should be about strategy. If Tic-Tac-Toe required you to perfectly recreate the logo to the 1990s Phoenix Coyotes for X and the Florida Gator for O, and if you do a shitty job, you forfeit your turn you can bet that Tic-Tac-Toe wouldn’t have been around long.

So if you’re playing SF and one of the factors in the quality of the game is “how hard is it to do a hadoken?” then you’re an idiot.

there’s not a single good justification mods please lock thread

i know man, sometimes i’m playing tennis and i just get fed up with that BULLSHIT like how i can’t hit the stupid ball like roger federer. what fucking idiot designed tennis anyway, he oughta give legendary game designer and bullet-time inventor david sirlin a call so he can set him straight

I am convinced that games just need good marketing for them to sell.
developers need to realize the only way players can be on an equal level is in a game of pure chance.

like tennis how it’s marketed look at all those hottiez playin it @_______________@


msg too short

people are stupid

to put it more accurrately, tennis equipment and services

I bet Anna Kournikova has great service

Get it


This is the equivalent of execution require to play SF at the most basic level. You don’t have recreate the 1990s Phoenix Coyotes logo to perform a hadoken.

Seriously though, who wants to play (or even watch) a competitive game with 5% execution? Better question: When you play a competitive game that’s 5% execution and 95% strategy, and there’s little to no strategy present or necessary to be effective (or even win a match), what do you have left and whatever that it, is it fun?

You misread my post. I’m not saying that 5% of a game’s content should be execution-based. I’m saying that only 5% of games are about execution. That would be games like Rock Band or Guitar Hero where the entire purpose of the game is to be able to get better at playing songs with more/faster notes.

Tennis isn’t a game. It’s a sport.

a better way to sell the games imo would be to include indepth story mode, cutscenes, side missions, mini-games, etc. this is what casual gamers find cool nowadays. it splits the audience in half, but it still caters to both. the competitive gamers will ignore the extras but appreciate the indepth fighting engine, and the casual gamers will turn the difficulty setting to level 1 and enjoy all the bells and whistles.

the current solution works to a degree, but i don’t think its the best option. they’re trying to put casual gamers and competitive gamers into one pot and dictate them to play the game the exact same way. won’t work. rather than providing one mode where you force both groups to play the exact same way, provide multiple options so that each user can play his or her own way.

I agree witht he guy about marketing. seriously you market it will enough and people will flock to buy it and play it.


If you can’t understand this then you should stick to single player games.