Either way, it’s FUCKING DODGE BALL, the idea of that game was never to score points.
Right… the point is to use projectiles and physical attacks to beat the enemy until you deplete them of life.
You can’t say “anything that meets these criteria is a fighting game, except for blank - just because”. It’s the logical fallacy of special pleading.
Look, seriously - you are never going to come up with a one-size-fits-all definition. That should be clear by now. There are many levels and many in-between states.
It’s not an “is it” or “isn’t it” question.
It’s not, really.
Even Capcom has said that they didn’t intend Power Stone to be a fighting game.
I can’t rep, but thanks to Ultima for a very intelligent and well-ordered post on this subject.
No thanks to pee wee for doing his very best to fuck up an otherwise useful and interesting thread with his silly attempt at trolling.
Ironically, though Capcom had a big hand in laying the groundwork for the genre, they have no special authority as to what constitutes a fighting game and what doesn’t.
I don’t care if people consider Smash a fighting game or not. It still requires many of the same skills as more conventional fighting games
Halo?
Yep… keep making my point. Eventually you’ll see it.
This is a pointless discussion. As I’ve said before, it’s like trying to define “art”.
So far NotBlaine has the best approach to this topic.
I’m going from the Advance version of the old Dodgeball and vids of the NES version, but Super Dodgeball can be described as somewhat of a hybrid as there’s actual fighting aspects to it, like late catches cause guard damage and 100% combos.
You didn’t lose your partners when you lost, they just got demoted to assists.
Also there were actual disadvantages to special moves and treating the game like the NES version. Like Kunio could get hit four to two times guaranteed if he misses his kick and you can counter against running throws with clashes.
Naw man,I get your point. I just don’t agree with it. Fighting games do fit a certain definition, otherwise the classification wouldn’t exist.
Just because something isn’t easy or clean doesn’t mean it can’t be done.
Do it then.
There’s not a single, exact definition of “fighting game”, just like there’s not a single, exact definition of “art”.
It’s quite simple honestly. If there weren’t, then there would be no such thing as genres. There are, so…yeah.
Not to dork too much, but you’re argument is fallacious. Specificaly it’s a logical fallacy known as ‘the argument from final consequences’. Your point translates into:
A definitive definition must exist , otherwise there would not be absolute genres.
The problem with that is it doesn’t account for the possibility that absolute genres do NOT exist. Which, in absence of a proper definition of a genre is not only possible, it’s actually proable.
There are no lines of demarcation between genres, meaning you can’t reasonably say where one stops and one starts.
Of course there isn’t. There are entire fields of study devoted to defining various aspects of art. There isn’t a quick, one-stop definition that delineates art from non-art, but that’s not the same thing as there not being a definition at all. As I said, defining fighting games is not an easy or clean process, but it can be done.
It’s like sculpture. Start out by cutting away the things that definitely aren’t fighting games and go from there.
P.S. No, I’m not going to hand you a definition. I realize that was the lynch pin of your rebuttal, but really, like I have that kind of time.
Really though, you can, imo. Certain aspects included in a game can make it closer to game type a. Take away those aspects and that makes it closer to game type b.
You change the first person aspect aspect of left 4 dead and it becomes a third person shooter. You switch the main feature from shooting, and mainly have it focus on melee, it becomes not a shooter at all. I think it’s that simple really.
how about this:
“smash is a bad fighting game”
there everyone wins. the haters get to hate and the players get to say SEE ITS A FIGHTAN GAEM
SSMB is like a sanctioned bar fight; it’s still a fight.
I’m on this ban wagon.:woot:
just not to get banned…
If one game has part of the features of a fighting game it is often referred to by developers as such even if just only in part.
If we only consider “pure fighters” then we must exclude all games that include “non-fighting based” features.
If we attribute this to race than Pres. elect Obama is neither black (like his dad) nor white (like his mom)
So lets return to the question of defining a fighting game… or not; Ultima did a good job on page 1.
When a game has more traits of one genre than another can it still have traits of both? So how is it defined as one and not the other?
When a game blends two or more concept genres it is a hybrid.:amazed:
Embrace the differences, I mean 3d and 2d fighters… are fighters right?
So SSBM has a few extra ways to win; it’s still based on beating an opponent.
It’s easier to do it subtractively when you’re cherry picking games and traits. I can do the same thing in reverse. But it still doesn’t deal with absolutes. There’s nothing you can hang your hat on. It’s on an arbitrary, per game basis.
The problem arises not from games well inside of the spectrum but those on the ends.
A few people in this thread have claimed that you can set an absolute definition, yet it hasn’t appeared. I’m simply pointing out the futility of doing so because genres don’t have a specific start and stop point. They have ideal examples; i.e. Left 4 Dead is an ideal example of a FPS. However, genres don’t have defined boundaries.
Here is the futility, you’re never going to come up with a set of heuristics to define ‘fighter’ without:
a) Leaving out games you’d want to include.
b) Including games you’d want to leave out.
Logistically, it’s just not feasible. I can’t prove to you it’s impossible past the logic point. It’s actually not possible to prove the negative, that you can’t do it. However it’s also unnecessary because when you construct the theory, all I have to do is offer one example that breaks it down.
You just can’t say “All fighters have A,B,C,D,E” because you open yourself up to games with “A,B,C,D,E and F”. Is it a fighter? It just has “F”. What about a game that has all those and G? And what about H? It’s the slippery slope I mentioned.
What’ll happen is in order to include everything you want to include, the boundaries of ‘fighter’ become so vague that it’s essentially useless.
UFC for the Dreamcast - fighter or not? It’s one on one, you have techniques and moves, you can consider the game analytically. There’s pre-set health, timers, etc. etc. etc.
Victory conditions are no different than…say… Time Killers, where you can K.O. or end the match early with a special move (submission). If you say “Yes” it’s a fighter than, the flood gates open to pretty much any wrestling game. If you say “No” then you have a game that meets all of the criteria you could possibly lay out, yet is inexplicably removed.
And that’ll be the problem no matter what you come up with.
I’m not sure I see the problem here.