Putting Smash Bros on the top 10 list of best fighters ever is disrespectful to any fighting game veteran. The only reason it's more "original" than other fighters is because it's not a fighting game. Depth? I almost spit out my lunch.

iLLmatic, just because it doesn't use health bars and has a lot more jumping around doesn't mean it isn't a fighting game. It just doesn't follow many of the genre's conventions.

As for depth, yes. No, the depth doesn't come from memorizing difficult inputs or obscure combos. It comes from knowing when to effectively use the moves your character has. And if you play the game for a bit, you'll see there is indeed a great deal of strategy involved.

How would putting Smash on the list be disrespectful to fighting game veterans? Even if you think the game is awful, do you really think someone who enjoys games is going to be offended to see a game they dislike on the list? And if so, who's problem is that in the first place?

Just because it has innovation doesn't mean it isn't a fighter game, Final Blade. Tell me, then. What genre would it fall under?

Just because it isn't a traditional fighter doesn't mean that it isn't a fighter. It's just not a fighter that's also traditional.

Whatever genre SSB is classified as is apparently very relevant, seeing as it's apparently "not a fighter", but there is really no other genre to place it in, except maybe a platformer.

But it is relevant. What genre could you possibly think that a game that presents nothing but characters battling be under, if it isn't a fighter? It makes no *bleep*ing sense.

Well, I suppose Mario Kart isn't a racing game because it's not traditional.
And EarthBound isn't an RPG because it's also not traditional.
And Super Mario Galaxy isn't a platformer, because it's not traditional.

Just because a game is different, doesn't mean it doesn't have a genre.

Final Blade, I'm going to second Capn Droid here. His question is highly relevant, and I'm curious as well. What genre would you place Super Smash Bros. in.

My understanding is that a fighting game is a game in which players or a combination of players and AI characters fight with each other in an arena, with the goal of knocking out or killing them. This is usually one on one, but in more recent games, is also sometimes up to four players in various combinations.

In addition to this, all characters have a variety of different attacks they can use, and always have access to these, with the possible exception of a subset of super moves, which can generally be accessed over a period of time once they have charged.

Smash clearly fits this definition, as do any other fighting games I can think of off the top of my head. If you disagree, please tell us your definition so we know where you're coming from.

That's the problem with you, I can never tell when your being sarcastic.

Don't worry; I'm serious here.

Well it was pretty much based on me being pissed off about this list. Made me forgot about the awesome MK series... but really it's not that i don't appreciate them, i did play them but never enjoyed them as much as i did with either VF or Tekken.

Man..what are you doing commenting on the best fighters ever, when the only Street Fighter II you played was on Super Nintendo..

iLLmatic, not everyone gets access to the arcade versions of games. Some people don't even have a local arcade (we've recently lost ours where I live because they were losing money due to high rent bills). Even if there is a local arcade, they may not have every game you might hope to play. Given that, it's perfectly reasonable that one might play on a console instead. Besides which, playing on a console over a long time is much cheaper than pumping a machine full of quarters.

confused about what? You said the only version of Street Fighter II Turbo you played was on SNES