Talk:Fighting game/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

super smash bros

super smash bros and melee deserve mention since they are in a very different style than most martial arts style fighters

Expanding on Weapon Vs Martial Arts combat and History of Fighting Game

I just filled out more about the differences between fighting games that focus primarily on hand to hand combat vs games that have weapon combat. As I finished, it occurred to me that the two subtopics below, "Golden age of scrolling fighting games" and "Modern scrolling fighting games" should be incorporated into one topic, "History." When I think of topic "Fighting Games" I tend to think(as a lot gamers I imagine) of just the old format of scrolling stages and beating up enemies to move on to the next stage. Somewhere down the line this format has faded away but it still has influences in modern games. There are a lot of modern 3D, third person, games(for example Onimusha, Devil May Cry, the new Ninja Gaiden) that have the same sort of format that the old scrolling, beat 'em ups had, albeit this time with weapons instead of martial arts. This influence should be mentioned in the "History" topic that I propose.

What's the pinnacle of this genre?

I think they're should be stated what game is widely recieved as tyhe pinnacle of this genre.

PC complaint must be maintained

Is very unpleasant that "certain people" use Wikipedia to accomplish "savage deletions" instead of having a collaborative aim. The idea of Wikipedia is all the people from all over the world, can collaborate to increase the global knowledge of the mandkind. Indiscriminate deletions do not collaborate; just limitate the growing of knowledge.

Personal opinions about if "I like or I dislike an article" NEVER and I repeat, NEVER, must be an excuse to delete entire paragraphs in an article. In fact, that conduct should be regulated, and ban this kind of users.

The topic "games" seems to be an "innocent topic". But if we allow this kind of people acting in other areas like History, then we can literally destroy Wikipedia. For example, let's take a controversial topic. The discovery of the Americas and Cristobal Colon. He was Spanish or Italian? Some sources says he was Spanish, other says he was Italian. If we allow the "I dont like this, I will delete it" users, then someday we will allow that history be destroyed, to satisfy the personal judgements and preferences.

Regarding grammar and style in the articles, the collaborative idea must be in fact, help, not destroy. That is clearly, if you don't like grammar in an article, help to stylish it, but not delete it.

No way. Indiscriminate deletions are unaceptable in any case.

Regarding the complaint part, it was opened time before from several users, and has been increased with several paragraphs from different people. What the complaint part says, about Fighting Games and PC is completely true, a fact, and of course encyclopedic inside the context of the complaint area. Facts are always an enclyclopedic subject. Personal opinions or ideas, never. For example, a personal opinion or idea, can fit in a doctoral thesis, must be submited to revision and if aproved, then it could be a fact. Is what all people do in physcis or mathematics, for example.

Exclusives in the game entertainment industry, are a fact. PC platform don't have the most important titles in the fighting scene, in fact, even don't have any titles from the principal companies. The idea of an encyclopedia is to deep in the knowledge and explain all those things that are FACTS, not personal ideas or opinions, just FACTS.

Consequently, what the critiscism part says is a fact, is not something invented, is not a personal opinion from someone, is something real. That part of the article, don't show personal opinions. A personal opinion could be "...and we dislike this... etc. etc., or... and this company create very bad games...". That's an attack, the article don't attack, just explain how run the business in the videogames industry, and the relationship it have, releasing new titles. The article, instead, is polite and respectful, and try to explain why some platforms, like PC don't have 3D fighting titles, allowing to understand the businesses in the video games industry.

Other possible explanation to the FULL deletion of this part of the article, is someone considers he/they are affected by the criticism and then hurry to delete the article.

Well I only can say, that Censorship is the most repugnant action anyone can accomplish in a free society, but people who still love the freedom of information, will never allow this continue happening. Thanks.

indiscrimiante deletions and censorship continues

I've reported to Wikipedia about these abuses. Stop the indiscriminate deletions, censoring information. Is always the same people, deleting JUST THE SAME PART of the article. What information there you dont like people know?

the ridiculous PC games section

I have removed the PC section because it is completely irrelevant, lacks completely in references, and is merely a long rant - longer than most of the legimitate sections of the articke. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.101.79.40 (talk • contribs) 19:07, 14 July 2007.

Most "Criticism" sections on articles are opinions, weasel words, and original research. This one was no exception. I have deleted it as well (as it was put right back as vandalism). If people want to keep undeleting the section, please address these problems first. As it is, that section made the whole article look trashy. JohnnyMrNinja

Personal attack of JohhnyMrNinja against me (again)

Well, again JohnnyMrNinja is very worried about the content of the article, and seems to be he is watching it every 5 minutes to check what is cooking inside, perhaps to run to delete again or find a reason to fight against any contributor.

Please, stop to use weasel words against me, I have stated very courteously all the reasons in my last remmark and ----> the words you have used against me 'Please stop slandering other editors' <---- are completely: defamatory, libellous and scandalous. Please, maintain a line of "basic education here". Do not insult. Saying I'm slandering is an insult against me. You can express your disagreement in a polite way. Please, do not insult.

Regarding what you say about: ----> 'considering the nature of your edits. Nobody is modifying your words. A catalog of every edit is kept, so it would be obvious.' <---- Certainly, you have deleted continuosly the article, which is even more severe, to satisfy your tastes, so you dont modify, just destroy the information continuosly. Sure that wikipedia have that catalog and will appear your IP and the IP of others deleting continuosly the article.

This time you are not deleting, now insulting with the use of the word "Slander" against me. This have to finish. So, I ask you politely to stop using weasel words against me. Thanks for your cooperation and comprehension.

Regarding promotion of brands etc., I will not expand more what I said, to reduce the content of this reply. You can read what I said in the part: ---> 7. Fair treatment and impartiality. Kwonho have been mentioned in the same fashion that are mentioned other games in the article, like: The King of Fighters XI, Street Fighter, Mortal Kombat, SNK's King of Fighters series, and Sega's Fighters Megamix (among others).

Additionally, your explanations about ----> "Your additions are entirely centered on promoting Kwonho" <---- are completely out of sense, because in the article have been posted clear information about TECMO and the release of their new online fighting game: Dead or Alive for PC. There is no intention in the contributors to promote a particular brand, just to inform about online gaming. So is very clear, you have misunderstood completely the sense of the article, and have began a personal war (deleting all) against the columnists contributing to expand it, perhaps because your personal tastes like to defend a certain game or brand (something similar to act in the fashion of defending "my football team", "my beer", or "my favourite sport" and then running to delete information about other "football team", "beer" or "sport").

========> Aditionally, I want to state very clearly to those tempeted in modifying my words, that you are not allowed to do so. If you want to comment something, reply below, but do not impose censorship to my words. Shut the mouth of other users, is something very unacceptable. Be respectfull, you have the right to be heard, also I.

The relevance issue

Besides the biased information and the lack of sources, the PC section as it stood was entirely out of proportion compared to the rest of the article. The PC section seemed to take up a huge chunk of the page when it is in fact NOT a major issue that that warrants this lopsided coverage. To the person that keeps uploading this material to the article, do you constantly create sections in the articles about genres like platformers or party games or Japanese RPGs and how they rarely appear on PC's? These genres have abandoned the PC to the same extent that fighting games have. And do you add sections to the articles about real time strategy games and MMORPGs about how they are underrepresented on consoles? Why do you think there is some sort of conspiracy against PC owners? Some genres just work better from a gameplay and sales perspective on different hardware, in different markets, and with different demographics. Now, back to putting the entire article in perspective, it would have to be hundreds of pages long before it was thorough enough to include information on such sensationally obscure topics such as the SEGA Lindbergh system and its PC-like qualities. If you want all this information on Wikipedia, you should really set up a whole new article about the Anti-PC Fighting Game Conspiracy or whatever you perceive the situation to be. -kicknz

Smash genre

In the Japanese website of Smash, it is labeled as "Action". It is not similar to "Kokutou" or something, which is the genre label used in Japan for fighting games. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 122.2.126.104 (talk) 15:59, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

Lack of mention of Street Fighter II

I mean, it is common knowledge that SFII launched the interest in not only the fighting genre but also the arcade scene, where the fighting genre first flourished. There's also no screenshots of SFII... it just seems strange. The entire article almost seems to make a point not to mention the game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.126.64 (talk) 04:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Consider writing it yourself. This article does need a lot of work, despite any of the (well-done if I do say so myself) revisions anyone has done so far. -MissingNOOO 05:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

D-Pads?!

I have never heard of anyone who found fighting games easier to control with a d-pad then an arcade style joystick, as this article seems to imply. Also, as far as I've heard it is definitely not a minority that find the Dreamcast and Playstation d-pads hard to use for fighting games. 69.244.110.43 23:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

i find it considerably easier with the D-pad. Playing Tekken with a joystick is not easy! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.108.47.97 (talk) 17:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree; I like Soul Calibur III with the D-pad, but nothing else. At any rate, the offending section was cleaned up because it was really POV. -MissingNOOO 12:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Unsplit

The "disambiguation" page that was here was redundant, and added nothing to the existing discussion of the genres it discussed. Furthermore the term "Versus Fighting game" was something of an informal babytalk term that is seldom, if ever, used in gaming media. I realize that there is some regional disparity regarding what is termed a "Fighting game", but that doesn't justify using an obscure term to refer to a popular, well defined genre. Furthermore, the article already had a disambiguation link at the top, which rather eliminates the need for a disambiguation page.

So this is now a discussion of "Fighting games," which is accepted almost universally among US media. Frogacuda 03:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Article split=

I split the article, as discussed under the "Naming" header, below. The versus fifgting game article is now found under Versus figthing game and the beat'wm ups under Beat'em up. This page is now a disambiguation, but that attempts to be somewhat more helpful and by clarifying a few points that has been sources of contention (suitably enough! *grin*) and confusion. While at it, I'd like to appeal for history sections to be added to both articles. --Mikademus 11:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Miscelanious=

AntonioMartin: I think the original writer did mean "at home in the arcades", not "at home or in the arcades", so I've changed it back. It's possibly a confusing phrase, since "at home" and "in the arcades" are the two places a beat 'em up would be. -- Prawn 18:24 May 10, 2003 (UTC)

Was very surprised that Double Dragons is not mentioned, I regard as the definitive game of the genre of the late 80's. Perhaps someone who knows something about it can add something on it? Htaccess 06:26, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

Just out of curiosity, but why hasnt a Mortal Kombat screenshot featured here? Anouymous 01:01, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Naming: "beat 'em up", "versus fighter" etc.

I've moved all the discussion on this talk regarding naming distinctions within the genre to this section. Please add additional comments to this section rather than starting a new one. --Nick R 15:59, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

---

This type of genre specification, where beat 'em up is a superset which covers both fighting games and double dragon style games is only used by a very small minority of arcade collectors. I think that the 2 genres should be split up into their own articles.

I believe the article should actually be called "Fighting game", which is the industry term used by developers and publishers. I'm not familiar with the term "beat 'em up". Where exactly is it used? For now I just put a redirect in Fighting Game to this article.

That said, they're clearly different genres and probably deserve separate articles -- what would we call the Double Dragon style games? Tempshill 18:23, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Double Dragon style games can be comfortably called Beam em ups, and thus remain in this article. Fighting games should get their own article.

How about "side-scroller" or "side-scrolling beat-em up"? kelvSYC 01:16, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

No, "side schroller" is to general and seemingly would include mario games, but "side schrolling beat em up" could be good.

Ok here is what we do then: call street fighter games "fighting games" and double dragon games "beat em up" or "side schrolling beat-em-up" games.

Many people (including myself, and Edge) often use the term beat 'em ups to apply to the entire fighting game genre. I've tried to make it a bit clearer (and fairer!) by changing the end of the introduction to read, "Fighting games can also be referred to as beat 'em ups, although this term is often used to apply specifically to the "scrolling fighter" sub-genre." I've also changed the "scrolling fighter" section to include the term brawler (a term I admittely haven't heard very often, but it's worth mentioning).

Addition to the above comment - I did change it to the above, but someone else has now changed it again. I'm really not too keen on the new wording, because phrases like "by some" and "almost exclusively" make it seem like people like me are weirdos. :) (And in my experience, that usage is not as "exclusive" as the current article makes out!)

I'll change it again to try and find some friendly middle ground between my version and the new one. --128.243.220.21 15:46, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Mael0010: Fighting games are not the same as beat'em up. We should separate the two. Fighting games are vs only. I've never heard anyone or game magazine calling Street Fighter Third Strike a beat'em up game. Nor have I heard that Final Fight is a fighting game. There are diferent kinds of beat'em up and there are diferent kinds of fighting games but they are not the same. We should really divide them up in two different categories.

So, if it's ok with everybody, I'm planning to divide the two genres: making a fighting games one and another one called beat'em up or brawler. I'll wait three days before doing any changes. Some feedback would be appreciated. mael0010 12:16AM, 30 Aug 2005 (UTC)

No. British games magazines (such as Edge, C&VG and many others) use the term "beat 'em up" to refer to things like Street Fighter. I know I've grown up using the term.

Wikipedia is a global resource. One term might be common in one part of the world, but if other terms are more common elsewhere, they should be at least mentioned. How about if we add a note that "the term beat 'em up is also common in some places such as the UK"?

By the way, I was the anonymous user who posted a similar point earlier on in this talk page. I wasn't registered then. :)

--Nick R 15:01, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

In my experience, and I've been playing arcades and computer games since the late 70's, "beat'em-ups" are side-scrolling games á la Double Dragon and Golden Axe, while "Fighters" are Street Fighter/Tekken-styled "versus-fighting" games. Beat'em-ups, in this distinction, are a distinct and different kind with a large population and should be treated in a separate article. If no-one objects or does this before me I might make this split myself, in that illusive future when I have time to spare. Mikademus 08:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I thought it'd been established that the naming differences were down to regional differences. I'm in the UK, and while I haven't been playing games as long as you, the first time I played Street Fighter 2 or Body Blows (I can't remember which I played first...) I was introduced to them as "beat 'em ups", and friends and games magazines have used the same naming ever since.

I agree that both genres should be given their own articles. How about:

• Fighting game - disambiguation page
• Versus fighting game - Street Fighter etc
• Scrolling beat 'em up - Streets of Rage etc

While calling the latter article simply "beat 'em up" is an option, I think the "scrolling" should be included. In any case, the message about naming differences (I'm happy how it's worded at the moment) should be placed on at least one of the above pages. --Nick R^Talk 18:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the split, but I dont lioke the term "Scrolling beat' em up" . It shoudl either be "beat 'em up" or "scrolling fighting game". --Larsinio 20:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I like "Beat 'em up" since we already have Shoot 'em up. Nifboy 23:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

in china, fighting game(FTG) is refered to those like street fighter, king of fighters. Action Game(ACT) include scrolling fighting games. there's no disamabiguation at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.171.101.122 (talk) 10:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Not a disambiguation page

This is not a disambiguation page, and I have accordingly removed that template from the page. Please see Wikipedia:Disambiguation and Manual of Style for an example of what a disambiguation page is. IMHO, it is better to leave this page as it is, as a substantive discussion of these genres of video game, than to try to convert it to a true disambiguation page. --Russ Blau (talk) 21:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Reduced to what?

To the person that modified the article in the part where it says "King Of Fighters, the most widely played fighting game" with "A fighting game reduced to only a cult following". You must be talking about the sad reality of the north american arcade scene, where it is indeed a not so well known game, unfortunately. But do you realize, and are you informed of the fact that the game is the biggest, most popular and most played fighting game, summing up all the countries where it is the most popular, and that that is a generally well known fact that everyone agrees to and that therefore has complete consensus? Just conduct a little poll of in how many countries it is the most popular and played game, the fact is an accepted and known thing in almost all the fighting game forums that I know. It's also the reality where I live, so I can give faith of it, and the public that plays it is nowhere near to being just a "cult following" PabloG 02:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Both comments are POV and should not be included in the article, unless you have a firm citation from a reputable, reliable source that can show statistics on how widely played (or how financially successful) the game is. In a general article about the genre, calling out specific games in terms of popularity is probably not appropriate anyway - about the only games that should be called out would be groundbreaking games (the first game of the genre, the first widely successful game, etc.), and again, only when backed up with good citations. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Notable story lines

Since this article says that Fighting games usually have lame ass story like an evil boss makes a martial arts tournament or something (I'm looking at you tekken) should the article also mention fighting games that have a deep story (I'm think of SoulCaliburIII here)? 196.3.88.166 14:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Warrior the first fighting game? Off by 3 years

I believe the game Heavyweight Champ by Sega deserves that honour: http://www.klov.com/game_detail.php?letter=&game_id=8099--64.229.26.175 12:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Good work, it's not often that Edge makes mistakes like this. Can you find it sourced elsewhere? Pluke 09:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Removal of the PC user complaint part of the Criticism section

The last paragraph of the Criticism section as of revision 15:40, 2 May 2007, authored by Mrmister001, has poor grammar, poor structure, cites no references and is of questionable relevance to the topic. The two criticisms preceding it are directed at the perceived shortcomings of the fighting game genre as a whole, and are therefore appropriate. The last paragraph just seems out of place, going into specifics that are not IMO relevant to an overall article about fighting games as a genre. A heavily edited, corrected and condensed version could be added to Sega Lindbergh, maybe?

The last revision without these changes was created 00:32, 30 April 2007; a revert would seem to be the ideal solution since no other changes have been made since. Please comment, I don't want to rush in and revert it unless my view is supported. Elamaton 13:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Done, though by means of editing instead of a revert. Mrmister001's previous, much longer contribution was apparently removed as well, and judging from the diffs this removed paragraph was a compressed rehash of the same content. Elamaton 08:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Last paragraph looks like an advertisement, I think it should be cut or made a lot shorter. // Anonymous :)

I removed it entirely, it was pointless and unencyclopedic. Looks like Mrmister001 has been at it again since I last made the edit, judging from the poor grammar and incoherent content. As for the paragraph preceding it, I cut it down heavily but left the core complaint of PC users there. I still think it's irrelevant to the topic and should be removed entirely. Maybe some day when doing so won't lead to an edit war. Elamaton 13:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The edits are back again. I'm removing them once more, but it looks like this cycle will continue until the article is somehow protected. Elamaton 12:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

attacks & indiscriminate deletions to the article, please stop deletions

Again, the deletion continues.

Opinions? The article dont show personal opinions, PC gamers dont have game 'cos the games exclusives. Weasel words? The article dont isult, you insult using the word ridiculous. The only vandalism here, comes from you 'Mr. Ninja' or 'Mr. I work for a company of the video games industry appearing in the article'. References are posted at the bottom of the article, and redaring the lack of games for PC, you only have to look at shops, to see that you dont have games.

The ridiculous thing here... is... that when deleting the article, the dudes run to delete KWONHO, a fighting game which is in direct competition with NAMCO, TECMO and SEGA. This is amazing... smells from the distance very bad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.122.167.111 (talk • contribs)

Please calm down. Links to external sites need to be directly related to the topic, like info on the genre of Fighting Games, not links to individual fighting games websites, or fighting game developers. A link to the official Kwonho site on this page is considered SPAM, and if you continue doing it you will be considered a spammer, which could eventually get you blocked from editing. If someone were favouring NAMCO, TECMO, or SEGA, then there would be links to all of their websites. This is not the case, so please STOP reverting the link deletes.

As for the Criticism section, first see Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words. There needs to be links to support the statements made in this section to make them not opinions. Phrases like "Some less serious players", "Others would also point out", "Some gamers are displeased" are all "weasel words", way of putting your own opinion into an article by giving it to unnamed "some people". And there are no sources for the entire section, which means it can be deleted by anybody. It also is irrelevant to the article altogether, and it is horrible English (almost unreadable).

To be honest, I do not appreciate you trying to slander other editors. If I were to guess by your attitude and modus operandi (not to mention grammar), I'd say you probably have some stake in the game Kwonho. But it doesn't matter what your motives are, what you are doing is unacceptable. Please stop reversing the deletion of this material, unless in the process you can bring it up to Wikipedia standards. JohnnyMrNinja 07:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree: There is no reason to have links to specific games or companies in this article, and the criticism section consisted of POV and Original Research, which does not belong on WP. Also see Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines for a reference on what material should be included and what should not. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protection

Can we please get this page semi-protected? I do not know how to go about requesting this, but it is constantly being vandalized. JohnnyMrNinja 07:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Nifboy 08:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. It's requested. JohnnyMrNinja 08:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Complaints section, article re-editing and deletions

1. Concerning deletions

Well first point is here we have a big confussion. -----I WAS NOT DELETING THE ARTICLE. THE RESPONSIBLE OF THE DELETIONS WAS JohnnyMrNinja and others-----. So, pelase, stop to say I'm deleting content and sending me a private message suggesting me to stop deletions, because simply is not true.

In fact, I preserve a backup of the original article in my hard disk, and I was reposting it, --- after JohnnyMrNinja have been deleting the article ---. In fact, I was the first saying this article is being deleted, so have no sense I expose this situation and I delete the article. CLEARLY, I NEVER DELETED A WORD OF THIS ARTICLE. -- Someone is taking the advantage of the confussion, and imputing me things I never did. --- I invite wikipedia moderators to investigate the IPs of those deleting content of the article, they will find is not my IP.

2. Concerning Spam and Advertising

Well... here we have some differences of opinion. In Britannica you will never find the history of commercial brands like NAMCO and SEGA. But Wikipedia seems to be mixed with news, history and commercial brands. In fact, you can find here pages talking about these companies. ==> That, is also, advertising. Directing to websites is spam? well, then why in the SEGA article, in the section of external links I find direct access to the SEGA website? is not also spam? is not advertising? Okay, I can understand this is a 'general article' about fighting games, and then is not a good idea to direct people to official websites, but YES, to other wikipedia pages. So, SEGA will be directed to SEGA in Wikipedia, and the same with other brands of the fighting games genre, like TECMO, NAMCO and Kowonho.

3. Concerning the criticism part

That part of the article was already opened by someone. After the article was increased with information about the fighting games exclusives, and the fact that SEGA and NAMCO dont release their fighting games for PC, magically ---- a black hand ---- runned to delete this information. I imagine (I guess) that this is being made by someone that have part on both companies (an employee, a fan, or someone else). The deletions have been indiscriminate and abusive, like if someone was very pending and worried about the content of the article, and runned to delete it again. Hidding information.

4. Concerning style and sources

I agree the article need a re-style and more sources. And you will have sources, I invite people here to collect sources, explaning how the fighting games business run, showing to the people what exclusives are, and why the companies operate in that way, do not releasing their fighting games games for PC. This information, is a fact and also historical, and can help to the readers to understand why some platforms never have games. This can be understood simply as a matter of choice, a company dont release their games in the PC platform, because is their choice to act so. Others, could understand... hey wait a minute... if they dont release the game and impose an exclusive... mmmmm, then is a very lucrative business. No one can find the game in other platforms, so the guys selling the consoles earn tons of money, and the guys selling the game too. Something similar like if I had the -exclusive- of the sugar in the New York city area. You want breakfast and coffee with sugar? okay, pay me. The way the reader will understand the information, is a question of freedom. Every one will have a personal opinion, some will think is just a question of tastes, other will think that is a technical question of specifications and performance, and others will think is just a question of money. People have the right to think in freedom, and you will not change that right, even if you run to delete the article.

I'm very sorry if this information dissapoint to someone in any company, but history is history. Is something that happened, and something to be told. But it will be told with sources, dont worry about that. I invite all people to collect sources about "Games Exclusives" - "Games Franchise" etc. A simple search in google, yielded 15.300 results about "Games Franchise", so I'm very sure it will not be difficult to pick up, 50 "well selected", explaning why PC dont have fighting games. Sure in those articles, from reputable sources, we find some -surprises-

5. Online gamings section and Games franchises section

The article have a big lack of information about fighting games and online gaming. I think was wrong to talk about Kowonho and TECMO in the part of PC games. It must be opened a new part of the articles, explaning the actual situation of online gaming and fighting games. Also a part, explaining how franchises run in the inustry. It will be documented with sources, fulfilling the standards of any encyclopedia.

6. Growing not destroying

I want to invite to all people, to construct articles, and never deleted them. If you dont like the style of something, try to re-edit constructing, contributing with your knowledge, not deleting.

7. Fair treatment and impartiality

Talking about some companies of fighting games, is flamimg to "some users" like JohnnyMrNinja and others, who runned to delete information of the article, censoring it. In a fighting games article, is completely unavoidable to talk about games developed by companies. The world of fighting games is not very wide, we always find the same fishes in the tank: Mr. SEGA, Mr. NAMCO, Mr. TECMO. Then we have other not so big fished, like Mr. Kownho and others. The convenient excuse of... dont talk about SEGA to tell a fact (for example) it is spam, is completely ridiculous and of course have no sense in this context. People will talk about SEGA, NAMCO and others, because they produce fighting games. If they dont want people talk about their fighting games, they have the option to stop to sell them.

Samely, I gree that a criticism section here have no sense and is an object of weasel words. It has been expanded, but the best is eliminate that section and rebuild the article with better standards and documented sources. It will be done.

========> Aditionally, I want to state very clearly to those tempeted in modifying my words, that you are not allowed to do so. If you want to comment something, reply below, but do not impose censorship to my words. Shut the mouth of other users, is something very unacceptable. Be respectfull, you have the right to be heard, also I.

I do not wish to keep arguing with you because you seem to not understand any of my arguments. The warning on your talk page was for SPAM, not deleting. Your additions are entirely centered on promoting Kwonho, and you are attempting to slander people that call you on it. This article does not need to be rebuilt so that it can more support Kwonho. That is what the Kwonho article is for. If you wish to make an unbiased addition to the article, feel free, but please stop trying to promote Kwonho through Wikipedia. Please stop slandering other editors, who have been more than respectful to you, considering the nature of your edits. Nobody is modifying your words. A catalog of every edit is kept, so it would be obvious.

And please sign your comments with "~~~~". ~ JohnnyMrNinja _{talk} 18:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Third party opinion to the above dispute

Can I confirm that the disputed material is the addition of Kwonho and M.U.G.E.N to the See Also section? If this is the case then:

• Adding these wikilinks isn't really appropriate. The 'See also' section is not meant to be a list of fighting games and/or engines. We have List of fighting games for that.
• However, it is not spamming either.

I'd also remind editors of our WP:Verifiability and WP:Original research policies, as there appears to be large chunks of unreferenced material here. ([1] was correctly removed, for example). Marašmusïne_Talk 20:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a good look a bit later, I've gotta go watch "Jekyll"! Marašmusïne_Talk 20:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[2] - Also notice the external links in the See also. That's the SPAM. For some reason I added M.U.G.E.N back in this one (I didn't look at it too closely and thought it was something broader than an engine.), but took it back out later after I looked at it. ~ JohnnyMrNinja _{talk} 20:15, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Beat 'em up

Beat 'em up article should be merged with this article or there should be a small section of it in here. This is the general fighting game article after all. --Mika1h 14:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

If fighting were what made a fighting game a fighting game, we'd have to begin including FPS's, MMO's and all sorts of other nonsense. This article is already far too big, and the last thing it needs is for beat 'em up to be merged in, because frankly the genres are not the same, and I'd say that the beat 'em up genre deserves its own article. This is why the article is linked in the "see also" section; the two genres have their similarities but rarely overlap (off the top of my head, I can think of the fact that Street Fighter games feature Final Fight characters, and that one Neo Geo game that had beat 'em up items and scrolling but fighting game life bars); beat 'em ups are mostly about beating the crap out of hordes of minions without dying, whereas fighting games are about taking down opponents with expert manipulation and/or timing. Semantics can be blamed here. "Fighting game" should mean "a game with fighting in it", but in reality the term "fighting game" is used to refer to this kind of game in most of the English-language press. Therefore, because it is by far the most common name for this genre, it is the name and subject the article should stick to, regardless of what the generic phrase means. -MissingNOOO 03:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Beat em ups are (in the template) listed as a sub-genre of 'fighting games', and the article title suggests that this is an umbrella article. In that case, having a small section on any sub-genres would be the thing to do. However, this article is about VS fighters, a distinct genre. I see no real evidence of beat em ups being a sub-genre of versus fighters either. As part of this article's eventual clean-up, the most commonly used descriptor of this genre (be it fighting game, 1-on-1 fighter, VS fighter or whatever) should be used as the article title, with all other commonly used similes presented in the lead and used as redirects here. Beat em ups should (IMO), simply be listed as a sub-genre of action games. Someone another 23:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps a merge is too drastic but article title is fighting game and beat 'em ups are fighting games and they are not mentioned anywhere in the article except for a link in the "see also" section. --Mika1h 15:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Having had a look around (particularly at the list of fighting games) it's become apparent that basically two camps of thought have set up shop and resulted in a confusing set of articles. The list basically represents all forms of fighting games, whereas this 'main' article is the versus fighters article and even differentiates itself from beat-em-ups.

What I'd suggest is leaving the fighting games list as-is, it's a great list, but listing the different fighting game genres under action games. VS fighters, beat em ups and hack and slash could all stand alone as sub-genres of action, with boxing and other sports-based combat games as sub-genres of sports (which in itself is a sub-genre of action games). Having sports games listed under 'fighting games' makes matters difficult - how can we have a 'sports' genre if one aspect of that is filed under something else? Having a list of fighting games means there's a single location with them all in, great, but the hierarchy of the genre articles doesn't need to follow suit so long as they're consistently hung on the right peg. Ugh, so many of these genre articles are in a bad state. Someone another 09:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Then again, that's not right. Sim racing is something that I've suggested is hung on the vehicle simulation genre, but that's sports too, so my previous suggestion is wrong. Scratch that. Instead, this article should be split off into a VS Fighter (or whatever) article, 'fighting games' should then have beat-em-up, VS fighters, hack and slash and all sports based fighting games discussed in brief. That would then make this article consistent, which is of course what you've suggested, and leave a clear path for expansion of the sub-genres. I'll readjust the suggested layout on the genre page to reflect that. Someone another 10:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

There is a serious flaw to the logic, though. General Wikipedia policy is to use the most common name as the title of the article; "versus fighter" and "versus fighting game" are terms that are rarely encountered, whereas "fighting game" almost always refers to a "versus fighter" in general use. Beat 'em ups are not fighting games in this sense. "Versus fighter" is an artificial construct of a term that I can't seem to find too much use of in the gaming media. I'm not going to say you are necessarily misguided, but there should probably be a better way to disambiguate than to change the name of the term around Wikipedia; this stands in stark contrast to what Wikipedia is supposed to do, which is document existing phenomena. -MissingNOOO 22:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to take note of what term various magazines use. I've just re-read the Edge "Making of Streetfighter II" article, and the genre is referred to as "fighting games". Marasmusine (talk) 08:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, trying to process the what's going on with the different genres and types has left me addled. I'm not fixated on changing this article's name to VS fighter, all I'm interested in is that this article says what it is (fighting games, as in Mortal Kombat), and that any alternative names for the genre are included in the opening (IE "Fighting games, also known as example, example and example"). That will avoid duplication and make it abundantly clear what this article is about. Beat em ups (IE Final Fight) don't need to be entangled with this article/genre, they're both types of action game and stacking one on top of the other doesn't actually do anything positive. Does that make sense? Someone another 16:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Makes perfect sense, actually! For what it's worth, I've heard some people say on the Internet that "beat 'em up" is what fighting games are called in Britain, and while I don't believe it, it is possible that there are quite a few people who do consider the "two" to be the same genre. -MissingNOOO 05:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Mk2.png

Image:Mk2.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:SC2Talim33A.jpg

Image:SC2Talim33A.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:C64 explodingfist.png

The image Image:C64 explodingfist.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

• Image:Virtua Fighter.png

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --01:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)