Tough question. Some strategy RPGs would qualify by that definition. 2 Player Double Dragon would also qualify, even though it's regarded as a beat-em-up (at the end of the game you fight, and there's a winner and a loser). You can't include lifebars because that would rule out Smash/PSASBR, unless you don't wish to regard those as FGs. Then you have Joust, where you could argue about whether or not 2 Knights on a mount constitutes fighting. Same with Starwhal, Nidhogg and Dive Kick. IMO if you try to define fighting games within a hierarchical structure, you will invariably fail. Instead, what you can do is try to identify elements that are common across everything you consider a "conventional" fighting game and then build on that, but you still won't get it 100% right all the time. In this sense, it's similar to music. For example, at what point does house music become techno (and vice versa)? You can define a sub-genre like tech-house (which does exist), but you're still left with the same problem ie. At which point doe house become tech-house? On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 11:57 AM, Ashraf Barendse <ashraf.barendse@xxxxxxxxx > wrote: > That was our round table discussion after the session. What makes a > fighting game? > > At the most basic level, it must have fighting, and be a game where there > is a winner and a loser. > > > > On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 10:29 AM, Ilitirit Sama <ilitirit@xxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > >> If I can beat you in it easily, it's probably a fighting game. >> >> Platinum Games does it again: >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vPwLCg3MTE >> >> On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 10:25 AM, lindsey kiviets <lindseyak@xxxxxxxxxxx> >> wrote: >> >>> salie what makes a fighting game. >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2014 10:20:59 +0200 >>> Subject: Re: USF4 changes! >>> From: ilitirit@xxxxxxxxx >>> To: cpt-fgc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx >>> >>> I get the feeling FFXV will never come out. The producer says the game >>> is about 55% complete. >>> >> >> >