It's a fighting game.  A fighting game quite literally is a "competitive brawler" or "competitive beat 'em up".  That's where games like Yei Air King Fu or Street Fighter originated from.

Seth Killian, of Capcom, world ranked Street Fighter champion said when asked about Smash Bros. that "It's a real fighting game.  I didn't always think that, but I changed my mind after spending more time playing both Melee and Brawl".   Smash has been featured at Evo.  It has a HUGE competitive tournament scene.  These things are reflective of fighting games.  Not brawlers. Not "party" games. Fighters.

On neither.  It runs of MT Framework.  Same engine as Dead Rising, Lost Planet 1-2 and RE5.

The game looks horrible.... I was really looking foward to this game.

So wait, Wii has already sold more than ps2?

Also, Dragon Ball Z: Budokai Tenkaichi 3 sold much more in 2007 in ps2 (a 7 year old console) than the wii (2.21 vs 0.90m)

Dragon Ball: Revenge of King Piccolo (I know, not a fighting game) sold only 0.11m.

Naruto: Clash of Ninja revolution sold very well (0.95m), but its sequels terribly in comparison: 0,30, 0.25m

And although Capcom sold more games in Wii, how many of them were fighting games and how much did they sell?

Not more total, but more so far in it's cycle.  Wii's selling better than PS2 ever did actually.

Those DBZ and Naruto figures are still pretty great considering.  And your Naruto figures are comparing NA EU for the first game to just NA for 2-3.

TVC was the only Wii fighting game Capcom sold last fiscal year.  And comparing it to SF4 shipments for the entire year (200k), it probably moved about the same if a little more.

Dude, SSMB is a party brawler (much like naruto for the gamecube). It s a button mash fest. Fighting games have more sophisticated controls that control limbs more appropriately, executing different special abilities. Brawl does all that with a couple buttons compared. If SSMB (or the franchise at all) contributed anything to the fighting genre it would've received praise for saving a dying genre, but whilst it made its millions in sales while actual fighting games were dying it continued. SSMB is far too different to be taken seriously. The most one could give it is a sub genre created by Nintendo. 

Having a huge competitive scene means by definition that it isn't a button mash fest. Why some guys need to deny that Smash is a fighter so stubbornly, I have no idea, but it's extremely annoying.

I like SSMB. Don't get me wrong you do need to develop a game plan, but it needs to be separated from the traditional world of fighting....seriously. I am not saying there isn't difficulty either, because there is. Games like SSMB were meant to be party games, not serious fighters, but hardcore fans of the nintendo franchises play the games competitively and I do as well. The difference I know the difference and accept it. Because of games like brawl the fighting genre is evolving into offerings like Small Arms (fail) DBZ Budokai and its likeness, Naruto and Marvel Nemesis. 

The difference between SSB and Traditional fighters.

1. It's mostly not one on one.

2. You don't deplete a power bar.

3. Buttons dont focus on limbs.

4. Unlike traditional fighters moves are simplified. A complex and elaborate scheme of control is not required.

5. There are no block bubbles in fighters.

6. Every fight demands a ring out.....in 3D fighters this can be so, but isn't the only way.

7. You get three chances and only one round. In serious competitive fighters its the first to three rounds.

8. Doesn't demand sophisticated button techniques.

9. If its a fighter at all it is a subgenre only meant to survive in the casual world of Nintendo.

True fighting fans are a minority which is why the top actual fighting games sales are so low. SSF4 is a breath of fresh air.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/88905/the_state_of_fighting_games_what_happened.html

You're just saying Brawl is different on some aspects than more traditional fighters. That doesn't mean Brawl isn't a fighter. A JRPG is still an RPG even though it's completely different than a WRPG. Mario Kart is completely different from Forza but both are still racing games. And Smash is a game where the goal is to win in a direct fight with your opponent. It is a fighting game.

It *is* a subgenre I guess, I've already said (repeatedly) it doesn't slot into the classic SF or VF molds (which most modern fighters do) and it's even had it's own imitators (TV Mix World Fighters, Small Arms, etc).  As is though, Brawl uses more buttons that Virtua Fighter if we're getting into button counts (lol seriously?) and "limbs based" buttons is hardly a qualifier.  If it were then Tatsunoko Vs. Capcom isn't a fighter.  Virtual On isn't a fighter.  Blazblue isn't a fighter.  Of course, there's also brawlers with "limbs based" button assignments too... I guess Diehard Arcade is fighter?  ;)

And the success argument is such a non-starter, since Smash's success has been largely insular.  Mario Kart DS/Wii haven't revived the flagging racing genre despite gigantic success, they're not racing games?  Platformers are still on life support after NSMB/Galaxy rebounded the Mario series to record success, I guess it's not a platformer?

If Smash weren't a fighter, it wouldn't have been at Evo.  Period.  Seth Killian wouldn't be calling it a fighter.  Period.