Fighting games that originated on consoles

Maybe the analogy isn’t 100 % sound.
(On the other hand, the various “Street Fighter II” games are pretty much exactly like that. You’re lucky that your examples of “III” and “Alpha” also contain one sequel and not only updates.)
But my objection still stands: “Street Fighter III” is a sequel to “Street Fighter II” in the same way “Street Fighter Alpha 3” is a sequel to “Street Fighter Alpha 2”. And it’s all part of the big “Street Fighter” franchise.

If I asked you about a cartoon character that originated on TV instead of cinema, you would never say Mickey Mouse and justify it with the fact that today’s Mickey Mouse that appears in TV shows has substantial differences from the guy in “Steamboat Willie”, would you?

You didn’t understand my analogy. What I tried to say was:
According to d3v’s understanding, the movie “Star Wars” from 1977 and the movie “The Empire Strikes Back” from 1980 belong to two different series.
But “The Empire Strikes Back” from 1980, its update from 1995, the DVD update and the BluRay update are the same series among each other.

I didn’t even say series. I said: “Are there any fighting games that got a certain popularity where the first game was first released on a home console?”

Nope, it started in arcades under the title Beastorizer.

Which is even more vague. Are you referring to a single title that hit console first? An entire franchise? Nothing specifically stating one or the other is mentioned in that statement.

Melty Blood was first Pc game, then later ported to Arcades after its popularity grew.

their plenty game that started off as console game and migrated to arcade, or just stay as console games. OP I think your being bit picky in asking for game that started as console and then transfer to arcade with popularity behind it.

  1. fighter is very niche thing only getting alot of activity in arcades, by the time home console became a thing, arcade was deing thing so most developer who made fighter for console wouldn’t bother with arcade. Its just ridiculousness standard at this point. so I’m gonna go by the thread title and list fighter originated on consoles.

Advance Variable Geo series
Asuka 120%
DBZ boutoden seires/ DBZ budokai
Sailormon
Smash?..
Naruto CoN/ Ninja Heros/ Ninja storm
Ready to Rumble?
Clay fighters
Xmen Mutant Academy
gundam battle assualt.
Yatagarasu series
AkastukiBlitzkampf
Phantom Breaker
King OF Fighter Maxium Impact.

I listed these game primary because they all had multiple revision or sequels which is only done if the series has some success.

note:
That Chaos Code originally was going to be pc fighter but late in was made into arcade fighter instead.

Just to make things clear, you’re looking for games (I guess really franchises, not individual games or even series) that have the following qualifications:

  • Is a totally original franchise that isn’t based on some kind of previous existing IP
  • Had (at least) its very first entry arrive on a console
  • Experienced some “moderate popularity” after the game was launched and/or still sees entries into the series today
  • Aren’t bad games

Do I have this correct? If that’s the case, aside from the first point, you’re gonna have to elaborate a bit on the rest of these. Does it matter at all if the game originated on console, but saw all of its success and popularity stems from its subsequent arcade releases, a la Guilty Gear? What kind of measure are you even performing in terms of “moderate popularity?” Are you asking for instance of the game was active in the tournament scene or what? And while I know you’d rather avoid people just listing off a bunch of games that are reputable for being awful a la Shaq-Fu and whatnot, asserting that you don’t want “bad games” seems to limit the usefulness of a list like this.

I do want to contest that first point even of wanting a list of franchises that aren’t based on any kind of existing IP. Yes, such games do tend to sell rather well based on the brand recognition alone and are promptly tossed to the side. But what do you say about fighting game franchises based on an IP that endured past that quick buck sales period? One example that comes to my head is Melty Blood, which also digs into my question about whether or not the >console< nature truly matters. Melty should certainly be disqualified based on the fact that it’s not a totally original IP, but unlike other similar one-off fighters based on a brand, this one got the royal treatment with sub-series releases and version updates. The franchise is still incredibly important in the arcades over here in Japan today. Should we ignore it being on a list like this purely because it happens to be using characters and some story/setting elements from a parent brand?

And how would your clause of original franchise IPs only deal with something like Smash Bros. which uses characters from all kinds of IPs both first party and third party, but otherwise is a totally unique brand as far as franchises are concerned? Do you ignore Smash Bros. because it’s not a traditional fighter with core gameplay borrowed from pivotal games that originated in the arcades such as Street Fighter or Virtua Fighter? That would then lead us into some messy philosophical territory about whether any of these console-originating-totally-original-franchise games are even truly console-based at all if they’re so wholly based on gameplay mechanics and conventions taken from games originally released in the arcades.

No, hence the ‘only’.

You see it isn’t that your criteria are vague or hard to understand as they seem to some, sequels are clearly excluded from “games that originated on console”. It’s simply that generally, no such games exist.

A fighting game cannot both originate on console and yet at the same time be popular and of high quality. It’s one or the other. Guilty Gear being the only one and thus exceptional, makes it the exception that proves the rule.

I would have thought that the context implied that I was talking about “game series” in the coloquial sense and not in the “Ryu’s fireball takes two frames longer in this game than in that game, so it’s a new series” sense.

Also, I find it funny how you see the various “Street Fighter” games as different series because they updated the game mechanics, but you completely fail to realize that, from a story point of view, this is an ongoing plot:
SF1 is Ryu’s victory over Sagat.
SFA2 is Ryu’s search for the meaning of the Satsui No Hado and Chun Li’s first encounter with Bison and learning about her father’s fate.
SFA3 is Ryu coming to terms with the Satsui No Hado and Charlie dying at the hands of Bison and Bison’s own death.
SF2 is Bison’s return, Guile’s revenge and Chun Li bringing down Shadoloo.
And the SF3 games are a new tournament in the future with a new threat where Ryu is still looking for new ways to improve and where Chun Li trains children and has become famous for destroying Shadoloo.

So, yeah, these games are basically one series in the same way as the six “Rocky” movies.
But for some reason, people who know everything about the game mechanics care shit about the actual plot. And you seem to be the game mechanics expert.
Although even you probably wouldn’t apply your logic to anything else but fighting games.

Right.
About point 2: Not arrive on console, but originate on console. For example, “Mortal Kombat” existed for consoles, but it was still originally an arcade game.

I would say, for a start, this doesn’t really matter.

I know this is highly subjective. It doesn’t need to be active in the tournament scene, but it should at least be remembered a bit.
For example, Retro Gamer had an article about “Eternal Champion” some months ago. So, it probably wasn’t an instantly forgotten game.
On the other hand, has anyone ever heard of “Doomsday Warrior”? I guess that game never got any fame to begin with. I only know it because I once had a look through the fighting games at www.snesguide.com.
So, it should be a game that people generally knew.

By the way, this is not supposed to become an encyclopedic list. I was just curious whether there are some fighting games that are still relatively known that originated on consoles.

About the IP: I made this distinction because I really wanted to have franchises that started as and are mainly fighting game franchises, like “Street Fighter”. I know that there are dozens of fighting games based on “Dragon Ball” and all that stuff.
Same with games like “Super Smash Bros.” which is just a crossover of other franchises: This game is not its own franchise in the same way “Street Fighter” or “Mortal Kombat” are. In this game, you play with Mario, Link and Mega Man, i.e. characters who are stars in their own right, outside of this fighting game.

As I said, just curiosity, not a list that can serve as an encyclopedia article.

And about the game mechanics borrowing from arcade games: That’s not a problem as long as the game is its own franchise. After all, every popular fighting game back then was created in the wake of the success of “Street Fighter II”, so I’m aware that any console fighting game is of course inspired by the arcade games, just like every early 90s arcade fighter is inspired by “Street Fighter II”. But just like “Sonic” didn’t originate on the NES in 1985, a console fighting game can still be its own thing even if it hadn’t been created if “Street Fighter II” had never existed.

I know that you’re right, but I’m still asking myself why this is the case.
I mean, I could understand if console fighting games sucked in general, i.e. because of the console not being able to recreate the gameplay.
But fighting game ports are pretty decent. Gameplay-wise, “Street Fighter II” for the Super Nintendo is on-par with its arcade version. Which means: Had Capcom created “Street Fighter II” as a Super Nintendo game from the start, it would have been a very good game and probably a famous one too.
So, why is it that, while console ports can be as good as their arcace originals, original console fighting games are never really that good? Clearly, the console’s abilities would allow for a decent game. Why is it never done in reality?

If Smash Bros is not it’s own franchise than KoF and Capcom’s VS series is not according to you.

Body Blows for the Amiga 500/600/1200 was the home computer alternative to Street Fighter II.

I’ve not played it in a long time, but it was okay from what I remember.

Fighters Destiny on N64 was pretty good, if quite different take on a 3D fighter.

IK+ for Commodore 64, Amstrad CPC and ZX Spectrum is a great game and still plays fantastically well.

That’s right. “King of Fighters” would go back to “Fatal Fury” as the “origin”.
And a VS series is, by its very definiton, a game that is based on existing franchises.

“International Karate” isn’t a fighting game like the typical ones. It’s more an actual karate sports simulation where you have to win by getting points for hits. I was talking more about the common fighting games where you have to decrease your opponent’s lifebar.

Someone did mention skullgirls and I think it should get a nod, it fits all the criteria except MAYBE the popularity one but there’s no set gauge for what is considered popular/successful.

I was trying to think of others, Melty Blood was pc first, though it’s based on something preexisting.

Skullgirls is relatively popular. It ain’t Street Fighter, Mortal Kombat or Tekken levels of popular. But its name is out there.

Skullgirls is popular, just not with the right crowd. A lot of casuals bought it just for the artstyle but most never go to tournaments.

Considering that SNK continued Fatal Fury alongside KoF, and that the latter includes non-Fatal Fury characters (not counting the AoF characters since that game counts as a prequel to Fatal Fury), I’d say that it counts as its own series. Same with the VS games.

Also, most people here would consider the Maximum Impact games their own series.

You aware of how ridiculous that sounds?

It doesn’t fit your weird ruleset, but Fighters Megamix was a personal favorite that NEVER featured as an arcade cab, despite being used as a test-bed for VF3 and containing VF2 and Fighting Vipers characters.

The Battle Arena Toshinden series originated on console. Time hasn’t been kind to the franchise, but me and my brothers had a lot of fun playing those games back in the day and they scored highly among critics at the time.

Edit: More thought - Bushido Blade was big back in the day among my mates and I thiiink the Dragon Ball fighting games originated on the Sega MegaDrive, although the franchise dates back to the Famicom. Dragonball fighters were generally both popular AND poor, but weren’t popular on account of being poor, if that’s a loophole into your system haha.

If he doesn’t consider International Karate a fighting game, I doubt he considers Bushido Blade one.

Body Blows was also popular back then. Team 17 released 3 games:


Body Blows
Body Blows Galactic
Ultimate Body Blows***

It was just a little worse than Mortal Kombat 1 in gameplay but it had a very good soundtrack and graphics.
It was bad but at least it was original