Best name change ever

Marvel vs Capcom looks pretty good. I just hope it has enough content to keep me entertained, kinda like..... THAT OTHER VIDEO GAME.

Games are classified by what you do in them.

The main thing you do is fight. There are platforms but jumping isn't the main thing, so it wouldn't be right to call it a platformer.

You don't shoot so it isn't an FPS. You don't role play so it isn't an RPG.

Dislike the term "Brawler" since that is more of a throwback term for stuff like Double Dragon and Final Fight.

You mean beat-em-ups? FPS means FIRST PERSON shooter. It has to be FIRST PERSON for it to be an FPS. Gears of War for example is NOT an FPS.

Smash Bros. isn't just about straight combat. It's also about items and has a lot to do with maneuvering. Blocking is rarely used. This is how I see those genres:

Fighting Games: Street Fighter, Tekken, Virtua Fighter, Mortal Kombat, Guilty Gear, etc
Shoot-Em-Up (sub-genre of shooter): Gradius, Ikaruga, Aero Fighters, etc
THIRD PERSON shooter (TPS) (sub-genre of shooter): Gears of War, Uncharted, Hitman, Freedom Fighters, etc
FIRST PERSON shooter (FPS) (sub-genre of shooter): Half-Life, Call of Duty, Battlefield, etc
Beat-em-up: Double Dragon, Final Fight, TMNT, Simpsons, X-Men, etc
Brawler (sub-genre of fighting games): Onimusha Blade Warriors, Smash Bros. TMNT Smash Up, Viewtiful Joe Red Hot Rumble, etc

These classifications make sense. There's further sub-genres and hybrids (like cover-shooter, which implies a TPS with a cover system)

Am I the only person that understands logical sets and subsets or something?

The reason I'd advocate calling Smash Bros. and games like it something other than "fighting games" is because it's not what people mean when they say "fighting games", it's a sub-genre, absolutely, but when something thinks of a fighting game they're thinking Street Fighter 2, not Smash Bros. They play ENTIRELY different. It's not to devalue Smash Bros or anything (I love smash bros.) it's to differentiate so people can understand what the game is like ... that's the entire point of genres ... If you start making a genre that means anything ... then the purpose of genres disappears.

Technically ... mathematic-logic speaking ... you could say Smash Bros. is a fighting game, because it's genre is a sub-set. But, for people ... it just makes it confusing (and that really only has use if you're doing something like abstraction which you can use to have sort of global association. i.e. if you like fighting games you might like smash bros. because it's like these base fighting games but is still different enough that it can be in a different genre)

But brawl and fight mean the same thing. It isn't even like strategy and tactics were they have different meanings.

A brawl could be considered a fight between many people and a fight can be a generic term for any sort of conflict. And the term Beat-Em-Up has been a genre name since those games started coming out in the 80s. So changing those to "Brawlers" just because is weird.

The fact that they eventually called one of the Smash Bros. games BRAWL is evidence of this. (To note, I was calling it a brawler before Smash Bros. Brawl was ever mentioned)

I think people would call an anything goes fight a brawl. Which is different to how more classic fighters work. And considering that Smash Bros. (along with power stone) have encouraged this as it's own genre, it sort of needs a name. If it was JUST Smash Bros. then sure, it'd be a "fighting game" because you can't have a genre of one. But it isn't alone at this point. There's many games that follow it and Power Stone's mold and they're not like traditional fighting games.

If FPS can magically mean anything with guns, then this should be perfectly fine.

lets sum up crono's post

fighter = 1 v 1 or 2 v 2 tag team style

brawl = 4 people free for all, 1 vs gajillions, multiple people fighting at the same time.

fps = guns

I still call Smash Bros a fighting game. I don't see why link has to keep it out of the general fighting games thread because he personally feels otherwise. I mean Guilty Gear Isuka feels alot like Smash Bros, can we talk about that game here or there?

This is the only post in this entire thread that isn't complete idiocy.

Yes, I realize I just insulted myself.

Can we please just archive this so we never have to look at it again and all the ugliness it started over the dumbest possible shit to argue over?

As opposed to street fighting which doesn't exactly follow Marquess of Queensberry rules. How many organized fights allow for fireballs?

In the context of the games. Fighting games generally have specific move-sets to the specific character(s) you're using and are an emphasis on direct combat.

If you're in an arena and all the characters have the EXACT same button configuration move-sets (like Smash Bros.) where the difference is it's a type of attack that every character has and the move-set has been simplified to one button per type of move ... that's not a technical fighting game.

No one is saying Smash Bros. isn't a worthy game ... it's just if you explain it to someone who has only played fighting games before but never a Smash Bros-like game ... they're going to be put off if you just tell them "Oh it's a fighting game" ... you wouldn't say that either, you'd say something like "It's a fighting game with teams, a more simplistic input system, and combat that hinges on items over move-sets" that doesn't sound like a fighting game it sounds like something built on-top of one, and that's exactly what it is.

If there weren't 100 games or whatever using the Power Stone/Smash Bros. mold, you'd just say "Arena-Fighter" or some sort of semi-sub-genre like that for people to know the difference in how the game plays (and it DOES play different, and not just different like between Mortal Kombat and Street Fighter, but it Smash doesn't even follow the same rudimentary and base mechanics.)

As a result ... if there's a bunch of games that are of a different type of gameplay similar to another genre but still with more features built on top, that's a sub-genre.

I mean it doesn't matter if you use it or not, it's not like we're having the intergalactic video games senate hearings on naming conventions, it's just if you were to explain to someone what Smash Bros. was and they had no idea what it was but they knew what fighting games were ... would they understand what you're saying in relation to fighting games they already know? Spoiler alert: The answer is NO, there would be ambiguity and it would take more explanation of the differences between this game and Street Fighter, mechanic-wise not setting, than just explaining it's more like a sub-genre of fighting games that operates on its own rules. And if you don't think Smash Bros. operates on different game-mechanical-rules than any given fighting game, then you're not paying attention to the game.

We can lock this whole thread based on one thing: http://www.nintendo.com/games/detail/Kn ... uretT-KLyA

Like one of the first sentences. If Nintendo themselves says it's a fighting game, it's a fighting game.

A surprising amount of text walls here, considering how simple the initial question is.

If the main focus of a game is fighting, it's a goddamn fighting game. Anything else is just splitting hairs.

Well Bobo actually I see it as a HERP DERP DURR HERR

HUUUUUUR DEERPERP HUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUR