CrossUPDP asks: Is Street Fighter V too easy, or just about right for the intended audience?

By on May 9, 2017 at 5:00 pm

Does a greater quantity and complexity of mechanics make for a “better” game?

Inspired by BornFree‘s interviews of Street Fighter V pros at recent events, in which multiple players have stated something to the effect of Street Fighter V being too easy or simple, CrossUPDP has made a video examining that idea a little further. Comparing SFV to the much more elaborate Guilty Gear Xrd series, the question of whether or not more mechanics and more difficult execution make a game superior is explored. Their answer: yes, but to only a small percentage of the potential audience.

CrossUPDP divides the audience for Street Fighter V (and basically any fighting title) into three categories: the casuals, the pros, and the “in-betweeners”: more experienced players or casuals that are not at professional level and may or may not be looking to move up. With the vast majority of a game’s potential audience falling into the casual and in-between ranges, a game that is easier to understand and play will definitely be preferable to something more dauntingly complex, even while pros would prefer greater depth and versatility to accommodate their greater skill and experience. The high enrollment numbers for SFV events seem to indicate that the accessibility is drawing more players to compete.

The viewpoint of spectators–something clearly taken into consideration in SFV’s design–is also mentioned, as the average spectator can more easily enjoy watching a game with simpler, more obvious mechanics. Of course, spectators fall into the above categories too–so some will appreciate watching high-level mechanics and ability more than others.

Do you think Street Fighter V’s built-in “accessibility” serves it well, or should everyone just jump ship and play Guilty Gear Xrd REV 2 at the end of the month? Sound off in the comments.

Thanks to Craig for the tip.

Source: CrossUPDP Editor-in-Chief. Street Fighterin' since there was only a "II" in the title.