Is it a fighting game?

Now I have read quite a number of comments about the definition of fighting games (granted, most of them were sarcastic but anyway), and I have made a list that will, I hope, be a clear guide on what a fighting game is.

1: Does it have a “Round 1… Fight!” or something to that effect before every round?
2: Is the objective of the game to beat your opponent by means of intricate button presses and joystick handling until its life points turn to zero? And do you win if you accomplish this objective to the number of wins needed?
3: Does it have a “K.O.” or something to that effect after every round?
4: Can it be analyzed?

2 dudes beat eachother up also theres some sort of competitive aspect going on thats about it

this.

If the definition for a fighting game were as strict as people think it is, games like power stone wouldn’t be one.

A repost of mine from somewhere else:

Definition of a Fighting Game

I’m not sure if you can create one all encompassing definition for the term “fighting game”. At best, I think a “fighting game” is a just a collection of certain traits. I think you have some core traits, and then a large number of optional traits built on top of those.

CORE TRAITS

The only core traits that are truly core to a fighting game is one player, controlling [an] avatar[s] beating up some other guy’s avatar[s] in an enclosed screen/space. This “other guy” could be another player or CPU (SF2 without 2 player would still be a fighting game, just nowhere near as fun).

This is still a very broad definition. Let’s go into further detail.

One player Vs. Something

The player is pitting his will against some other entity, be it another player or against the CPU. The player must control an avatar of some sort that represents him, and not just some abstract entity. The player can control multiple avatars vs. another opponent’s multiple avatars (i.e. in team-based fighters like KoF or Vs. games), but typically the player only has direct control over one avatar at a time. Even in MvC2, the only true 3 on 3 based fighter, the player mainly controls one character (3 player glitch notwithstanding), with the others being relegated to a single solitary actions and do not operate independently of the player.

Beating up the other guy

One player is engaging in some sort of contest against another player. This refers fundamentally to physical combat between the avatars, i.e. punches, kicks, throws, etc. This includes projectiles, of course, which are really just extensions of physical combat. This is arguably the most basic trait of fighter: You can’t have a fighting game without actual fighting in it somewhere along the way!

Enclosed Screen/Space

The enclosed space means that it’s not possible for the avatars to lose track each other. Each player is aware of where the other player’s avatar is at all times. Even in the case where the opponent isn’t immediately in view/reach, such as Storm flying off the top of the screen in XSF or in those DBZ fighters were the players can go FAR away from each other with a split screen effect, you’re always aware of where your opponent is.

To summarize, the three broad traits of a fighting game include:

1) One controlling avatar/set of avatars vs. another entity's avatar/set of avatars.
2) Victory primarily involves one player beating the other player up through fighting.
3) Avatars must engage in an enclosed space such that both players are aware of each other at all times.

NON-TRADITIONAL FIGHTERS

Non-Traditional Fighters are games that have many/most of the basic tenets of traditional fighters, but also have unique properties, possibly borrowed from other genres, that make it difficult, if not impossible, to lump them with the more standard fighters. The most famous example of this, of course, is Super Smash Bros.

Super Smash Bros. is definitely a fighting game. In fact, if you do a breakdown analysis of its features (items, changing stages, stage hazards, etc.), you will find 99% of them can be found in other traditional fighting games. One of these days I’m going to do just that. It’s just that having all of these features at once in the same game makes Super Smash Bros. very unorthodox.

Underneath it all, the two key traits that separate Smash Bros. from its more traditional brethren are its multi-player nature and its Percentage system. The multi-player aspect can be neutralized merely by sticking to 1 on 1, as they do in tournaments (it’s still a fighting game with more players; just that reducing it to standard 1 on 1 helps reveal its basic nature better; if you played 1 on 1 in, say, Halo, though, it wouldn’t suddenly turn Halo into a fighting game). That leaves the percentage system. The percentage system is actually a combination of a traditional life bar system and a variable gravity system, both of which can be found in traditional fighters, so it’s really not that alien.

HYBRID FIGHTERS

Some games incorporate many of the important elements of fighters and merge them with other genres, sufficient to label them as hybrid fighters depending on how much of each genre they incorporate. A key example of this is Senko no Ronde, which is a bizarre shooter/fighter hybrid. It’s 1 on 1 and it has an enclosed space, but the fighting takes the form of two ships shooting at each other, which makes it more shooter than fighter, but it still has enough recognizable elements of a fighter that the hybrid label is justified.

RELATED GENRES

There are some genres that are related to fighting games that people seem confused as to how they stand in the grand scheme of things. These are as follows:

Wrestling/Boxing games

Wrestling games and boxing games can safely be considered fighting games. I don’t know why this is a problem. Hell, originally, Street Fighter 2 itself was described as a cross between a wrestling game and a martial arts game.

Beat 'em Ups

Beat 'em ups are actually the original fighting games. Before Street Fighter 2 and its clones/follow ups monopolized the term, games like Double Dragon and Final Fight were called “fighting games” because the central premise to these games was, well, fighting. You could say 1 on 1 fighters are a subset of beat 'em ups, the “true” fighting game genre. This is certainly true, but as it is now, because of the sheer dominance of 1 on 1 fighters and the near total lack of their predecessors (Dynasty Warriors notwithstanding), beat 'em ups are considered a closely-related but separate class to what we refer to as “fighting games”, i.e. the more 1 on 1 [or rather, X on X] variety. It may not be correct, but that’s the way I see things at this point.

Again, about Smash…

In Japan, there have been many games similar to Smash, enough to be considered its own genre (vs. Action), as opposed to state-side.

Even if you want to classify them as such, they’re still close enough to fighters to warrant being a subset of fighters.

Also, “many games”? I know of Jump Superstars (?), that lousy Takara/Konami one, the Onimusha and Viewtiful Joe knockoffs, and I think maybe a Bleach game? What else is there?

Guilty Gear Dust Strikers… and it’s baaaaad. Only fun thing are the minigame graphics -.-

NHL 2k9/NHL 09 are good fighting games. I love to drop the gloves and bust a nigga nose.

how do you guys feel about Virtual On

Where do we place Super Dodge Ball for the Neo-Geo? If you call throwing the ball a ‘projectile’ - granted of a shared variety - then…?

Now Neo Super Dodge Ball has the benefit of supers, counters and specials… but if we let that in, what is keeping out regular ol’ Super Dodge Ball?

It’s a slippery slope. Part of what you gotta do is acknowledge that “Fighting Game / Not Fighting Game” is a false dichotomy. Like so many things it’s a spectrum.

I think Super Dodge Ball is pretty much fantasy sports. Cause even with specials, counters, supers, etc., the goal isn’t to beat up the other guy, but to score points, right? After all, no one in their right mind would refer to, say, Mario Strikers Charged as a fighter.

The goal is to deplete the rival team’s life bar IIRC.

If it gives me a boner when I play it

I posted something of my own simplified take on it in the dissidia thread when some decided to bust in and say that it wasn’t a fighting game…

http://forums.shoryuken.com/showpost.php?p=5795488&postcount=449

Edit:
I think your post does pretty good justice Ultima…where’s my rep button dammit? lol

Nope. It’s lifebar based.

http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n92/ecgxpo/118124217514.png

Even the older NES one was based on lifebars.

The point of the game is to damage the other team enough to knock them out. In the recent Super Dodgeball Brawlers for the DS, you can kick and punch the other team as well to lower their health.

Like I said, it’s a spectrum. It’s not a binary ‘is fighter’ / ‘is not fighter’.

Lifebars don’t mean shit.

Enlighten me. What does mean shit? This way we can fiddlefuck in circles forever.

Or… for the third time: It’s not an either or situation. It’s a continuum.

Don’t forget that Bushido Blade is a fighting game w/o health bars.

What?

First off, Smash doesn’t focus majorly on any other aspect of being a game like GTA or MGS. Fighting is the ONLY element it has. Where is GTA has shooting, driving, exploration, etc. Smash doesn’t have any of that. It has multiple playable characters with unique movesets and mainly focuses on having those characters get in an arena a beat each other up. It IS a fighting game.

Lifebars simply gauge how close you are to losing. That’s all. I don’t how that COULD mean anything. If you took away life bars from SF an replaced it with a number that counts down everytime you get hit until it gets to zero, it would be the same game.

All a fighting game needs is some sort of device to gauge how close you are to losing. It doesn’t have to be a “lifebar”.

There are a bunch of games without lifebars that are in the ‘fighter’ range of games.

My point wasn’t that it automatically makes it a fighter - but SDB isn’t a sports game where the object was to score points or goals… the way that Super Mario Strikers is based on scoring goals or Mutant League Football.