• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

What makes a fighting game a fighting game?

DrArchon

Member
arms-thumb-1484310559205_large.jpg]


So I was reading through the comments on an Eventhubs article about the recently revealed Switch game Arms and I was surprised by a couple of people saying that they don't consider Arms to be a fighting game, which makes no sense to me. It's 1v1 melee combat with blocking, throws, combos, and super moves. Sounds like a fighting game to me, and I'm not sure where other people are coming from when they say it's not a fighting game. I guess the behind the back camera?

Super_Smash_Bros._U_-_new_characters.jpg


This got to me to remember the utterly MASSIVE number of debates that the internet has had regarding the nature of the Super Smash Brothers series, especially when those games have ever appeared at "traditional" fighting game tournaments like EVO. Again, I never saw them as anything other than fighting games, especially how they're played at tournaments, where it's generally 1v1 with no items and a focus on melee combat with combos and such. Again, sounds like a fighting game to me. But we all know that so many people can't agree on what Smash Bros is. Tons of people see it as a casual party game, which no one will debate that it can certainly be played as, but more traditional fighting games can be played casually as well, right? More and more fighters are being released with "easy mode" controls, like single button specials and one button combo chains. Hell, Person 4 Arena mode their one button combo mechanic mandatory for all players regardless of skill level.

fitnt09multiscrnmorapose_656x369.jpg


Then there are games like the Fight Night games and the UFC games, which I don't think I've seen anyone discuss as fighting games on a regular basis. And those games are literally simulating actual fights! But there's never been a proper boxing game at EVO as far as I know. I've never seen a tournament match for a UFC game, but can you describe either of those as anything other than fighting games? Gamefaqs lists the Fight Night games as "Combat >> Boxing/Martial Arts" (which is the same distinction the the UFC games have, as well as Arms), while games like Mortal Kombat X are listed as "Fighting >> 2D", but no one would debate that boxing is a form of fighting, right? And there are boxers in fighting games, so why the distinction?

-------------

Anyway, the question I'd like answered (assuming there is an answer) is "What determines what a fighting game is?" Is it enough that it's two characters fighting each other with punches and kicks and throws? Does the camera matter? Can a fighting game be split-screen? Can it be more than two people? What about random elements, like items and stage interactions? Is it still a fighting game with those, or only like they're avoided?

What makes a fighting game, a fighting game?
 
Shitty pricing and DLC models, low playerbases, ass online, lots of smelly people gathering around TV's at convention centers, no one plays them but instead complains about SFV.
 
1 v 1 in my view.

Yea there are things like Smash, Powerstone, Dr Mario that challenge this idea. Play it by ear in my view.
 
The FGC is one of the most rigid and conservative communities around, so it's not surprising at all. Look at how long it took the to accept that Smash is a fighting game.

The funny thing is that at its core, ARMS has a lot more in common with a traditional fighter than Smash.
 
I was thinking about making this thread myself, thanks OP. I still think people just say its not a fighter just on the sole basis that they dont like the game. Arms is sooo a fighter by the way.


Ive had people tell me Dissidia is not a fighting game when it clearly is one, albeit a action/arena one.
 
The FGC is one of the most rigid and conservative communities around, so it's not surprising at all.

For better of for worse. I love how there's little superiority complex amongst top players. You can just be any average joe on the street and still run a match with Justin Wong.

OT: I haven't heard these comments regarding Pokken or ARMS, but I do think a lot of people in the community have not been sold on taking these games seriously on a competitive level.
 
When your opponent whine about you spamming an attack and sends you insults through the message box, it's a fighting game.
 
Stay away from Eventhubs. Especially their comment section.

Most players consider fighting games to be in the same vein/evovled from SF2. I think in modern standards this concept that only those are fighting games needs to change to include more titles and games that are still 1v1 2v2 etc. but don't meet that SF2 standard.
 
Well, the FGC will prolly argue that "real" fighting games are those that follow the strict formula created by the original street fighter, which covers even games like tekken (despite having a degree of 3d movement) but disqualifies things like Power stone, Smash bros, Erheiz, etc.

Personally, i think that any game that doesnt have large levels to traverse to reach a goal and defeat a boss in which the main form of combat involves punches, kicks, throws and special moves is a fighting game (otherwise it would be a beat em up).

Boxing games are sport games with few exceptions (like FaceBreaker, which was more like a boxing themed fighting game than a boxing game) and Wrestling games are also sport games which often have pinning and submission as the main winning mechanic (exceptions would be games lik DefJam Fight for NY).

Hmmm, in what ways? Its been almost 10 years since smash was introduced at evo.

And yet, people still bitch about it not being "a real fighting game".
 
I'm 50/50 on trying to answer this and just being dismissive... Ok, let's do it!

Genre names don't usually pinpoint a set of specific characteristics, moreso they gesture to a broad similarity in nature. So, what you are trying to do is I think impossible, and goes against the basic nature of what a genre is.

For reasons, people are protective of the things they like, and so sometimes really want to hold on to a genre's purity (kind of like people fruitlessly did in the 70s with punk) as if it even is such a thing, and thus you get arguments like SSB, as if being a "Fighting Game" is some hallowed thing, and not just a two word description for a concept. There's not much logic to find here, it's mostly just ego and identity problems. Why people feel threatened by a game "being a fighting game" is beyond me, but it's not a unique situation. I'm sure in a country music thread somewhere the same BS is going on. That shit ain't country, bitch. Now, because people have this attitude at large, it causes others (some of them like you) to question if there is any validity in what they are saying. Is that shit not country?

What is a fighting game to me? I guess I call em like I see em. ARMS? Fighting game. SSB? Fighting game. Samurai Gunn? Fighting game. What am I saying? A) It's not a "big deal" to be a fighting game and B) games often belong to many genres anyways.

Fighting games are simply a combative competition between at least 2 parties. And in the end, there can be only one OH MY GOD fighting games are just Highlander, holy shit.

Solved it. Thank me later.
 
This. It's just a label. Some game will fit more than others in the definition.

I agree, it's just a category that happens to have had the name Fighting Game the longest. But if it's just a label then I'm tired of seeing Fighting game fans jump other people's asses when they use the word differently.
 
"Fighting game" is not a badge of honor, I don't understand people who get defensive about the term. It doesn't imply quality.

dr17.png


Dino Rex is a fighting game, and I bet people who believe Arms / SSB / Pokken (lol, there's a whole lot of Nintendo here) / Power Stone aren't fighters, wouldn't disagree that it's a fighting game.
 
Similarity to Street Fighter II.

Yeah.

That's not to say that a game like Virtual On Oratorio Tangram is somehow less complex or deserves to be treated less seriously or any nonsense like that, but when it comes to, say, competitive 1v1 action games, VOOT and SF2 are pretty safely in different subgenres.

In more practical terms, I think that it would be nice to see more general acceptance of 1v1 games outside of the traditional fighting game mold, and the FGC seems like a good place for these kinds of games to gain traction. Look at Catherine.
 
Well, the FGC will prolly argue that "real" fighting games are those that follow the strict formula created by the original street fighter, which covers even games like tekken (despite having a degree of 3d movement) but disqualifies things like Power stone, Smash bros, Erheiz, etc.

It's probably just because I was never an Arcade kid and I didn't seriously get into fighters until 2009 with SF4, so saying that Tekken follows the strict formula set forth by SF2 is weird to me. I honestly see more similarities between Smash and SF2 than Tekken and SF2, because Smash at least has projectiles and no third degree of movement.

What am I saying? A) It's not a "big deal" to be a fighting game and B) games often belong to many genres anyways..

Yeah, this is probably the best way to look at it overall. It's not like their haven't been dogshit fighting games and God knows that you don't need to be a fighting game to be a successful competitive game (hell, being a fighter is pretty much a guarantee to NOT be a super successful competitive game).

Still, it's funny that so many people can disagree on exactly what a genre is and contains within it.
 
I think I would have to play Arms to figure out if it's a boxing game or a fighting game. Does it have free running with the analog sticks or just dodging? If you can freely run around then it would be harder to say it's just a sci-fi boxing game.
 
ARMS is a fighting game. So is Smash Bros. So is Power Stone.

People who only think 2D games in the vein of Street Fighter or 3D games in the vein of Tekken are fighters are being too close minded.

I'm happy whenever the genre sees some innovation and new ideas rather than just releasing the exact same kind of game with slightly different characters and mechanics. Not that I don't enjoy those (I do quite a bit), but having more types of games that are genuinely different is a positive and shouldn't be discouraged.
 
Dino Rex is a fighting game, and I bet people who believe Arms / SSB / Pokken (lol, there's a whole lot of Nintendo here) / Power Stone aren't fighters, wouldn't disagree that it's a fighting game.

A 1v1 2D game with lifebars seems like the traditional fighting game mold. I agree with you in saying that strict traditionalists would agree that it's a fighting game.

So I think I'm missing your point.


My opinion is that everything can be a fighting game. If you need to find a way to classify it, there are sub-genres and probably sub-sub-genres. But why do we need to classify everything?
 
I think I would have to play Arms to figure out if it's a boxing game or a fighting game. Does it have free running with the analog sticks or just dodging? If you can freely run around then it would be harder to say it's just a sci-fi boxing game.

You can strafe and dodge left and right, you can move forwards and backwards. You can jump and do all these same things. Your view is always locked on to your opponent so you can't run around as you please.
 
Most Capcom fighting game players don't even consider Smash a fighting game still.

ARMS will never be a fighting game for most of the FGC.

Which is absolutely dumb because it obviously is a fighting game.

But again, who the fuck cares? Most of the FGC is OK playing the most subpar fighting game out there right now just because it's a numbered Street Fighter.
 
ARMS is a fighting game. So is Smash Bros. So is Power Stone.

People who only think 2D games in the vein of Street Fighter or 3D games in the vein of Tekken are fighters are being too close minded.

I'm happy whenever the genre sees some innovation and new ideas rather than just releasing the exact same kind of game with slightly different characters and mechanics. Not that I don't enjoy those (I do quite a bit), but having more types of games that are genuinely different is a positive and shouldn't be discouraged.

Putting these games in separate subgenres isn't inherently saying anything about their quality, or even barring them from being compared to one another.
 
To me, games where you beat up other players = fighting game
Fighting games on a 2d plane with healthbars and all that SF2 stuff = "classic fighting game"
Dunno if that's an official term for a genre, but that's how I always went about it
 
A 1v1 2D game with lifebars seems like the traditional fighting game mold. I agree with you in saying that strict traditionalists would agree that it's a fighting game.

So I think I'm missing your point.
My point is that there's no reason to be defensive about the genre, as it doesn't have any inherently positive quality. BTW International Karate has no lifebars.

International_Karate.png
 
For me

Street Fighter , Mortal Kombat, Tekken,Dead or Alive,Virtua Fighter,Injustice etc.


Smash , Dragon Ballz,Naruto ,Pokken and their friends belongs some different category along with UFC etc.. More like CQC
 
For me

Street Fighter , Mortal Kombat, Tekken,Dead or Alive,Virtua Fighter,Injustice etc.


Smash , Dragon Ballz,Naruto ,Pokken and their friends belongs some different category along with UFC etc.. More like CQC
SSB is similar to UFC games? Or to Dragon Ball Z games? These game you just listed play nothing alike, lol.
 
The math behind a good fighting game is pretty simple:

Good roster + good engine + satisfying combos + decent amount of single player content = good fighting game.

(imo)
 
Is its a 2D fighter then it must be like Street Fighter II.
If it's a 3D fighter then it must be similar to Virtua Fighter.

In my opinion EA UFC is the ultimate fighting simulator but to others it's just a sports game...
 
Top Bottom