Talk:Clone/Archive 3

Clones in Melee

Should it be mentioned that clones in Melee have a slightly recessed portrait and are directly next to who they are clones of? Webrunner 10:32, February 15, 2008 (EST)

Clones in Brawl

Before anyone puts Lucas or Wolf back on the list, remember that, like Luigi, they aren't really clones per se, as mentioned in the article already. Special Moves alone do not a clone make. Gargomon251 13:24, February 15, 2008 (EST)

• The same thing goes for Link and Toon Link. TL's Boomerang doesn't cause a small European windstorm/Typhoon/Tornado/whatever too say, the bomb-explosion is bigger and he's lighter and faster. King M (talk•contribs•logs) 31 March 2008 16:23 (GMT +01)

You're forgetting that they share almost every standard attack, plus the same Final Smash, UNLIKE Lucas or Wolf to their counterparts. - Gargomon251 20:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

You need to use some human common sense here-this is 'Unnoficial' lingo. I personally consider Lucas and Ness to be clones, but only through their special moves do I consider them that. Unfortunately, everybody will have a different oppinion, so I will add Ness and Lucas and the like, but I will ad how not all consider them clones, and why. M'kay then? Zenzpore 00:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)Zenzpore

On the contrary...

In fact, I can pretend that Luigification doesn't exist. Because it doesn't....cite me some sources or something. Find a SmashBoards thread, maybe a website. The terminology is childish and vague. You can't justify a "partial clone that's not actually a clone because it's not similar enough to be a clone but let's give it a name anyway." By this definition, you could draw relationships between any two characters and call them "Luigified," which is precisely how your silly Ike/Marth debate got started in the first place. What? Because two B moves that both charge and both have swords deserve to be lumped together under some bogus category as though the developers and players actually care? Notability is the question here. What is this information worth? Nothing. --Randall00 05:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey, chill. It's a nickname that I've seen used quite a bit for clones that have variation. You can't exactly call Wolf a clone of Fox, as their standard moves are different. It's a type of clone, so let them have a section. You already took away the article, at least leave them with something. FyreNWater - (Talk • Contributions ) 07:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I would be downright surprised if none of the early Wolf threads mentioned it. I got 394 thread results for "Luigified" on the entire Smashboards, so you can't give me that "it doesn't exist" excuse. Just because it's not an official term means it should be totally disregarded. - Gargomon251 09:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Many terms are not official but are widely used and as i read the comments posted it looks as if everyone's criteria of a clone and a luigified character differs from person to person. The article should stay but saying which characters are clones and who are luigified should be carefully choosen to avoid bias ( from people who use the clone or luigified characters ) and to avoid much backlash ( which is expected in this subject ). Let it stand but don't be surprised when you post someone's favorite character as a clone and they vandalize your talk page as well as the article. This subject ( along with tiers ) is very touchy and should be handled by people who obviously understand the risks associated with it and who are knowledgeable here on the wiki( meaning not me ). Gargomon, Randall and Silverdragon should decide since it's just one of those subjects that shouldn't be left for everyone to decide on. ( none of the character I really like have be considered clones or luigified so i'd rather try not to get involved in who is a clone and who is ) (Carbonkirby 14:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC))

Ever since the Luigification article became protected, I've been trying my best to be as open-ended as possible to prevent backlash, but as a result it does end up sounding very unclear. However, I have been trying to explain possible reasoning rather than treating everything as concrete fact. This way it's still up to the individual opinion, but at least the concept can be understood, even if some people, even me, don't agree with some specific characters. - Gargomon251 23:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Toon Link

Last time I checked, Toon Link had, what, two, three unique attacks? Because he doesn't use kicks for his aerials. Meanwhile Ike and Marth only share one special and a two or three standard attacks. I know clones are up to opinion, but clearly these two are well past the line. They are respectively the most and least similar clones in the game! Which will be even more obvious when the Attacks lists on the various pages are finised. - Gargomon251 (talk) 03:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Kirby and Jigglypuff

I noticed that in all smash bros. games, Kirby and Jigglypuff have similar movesets, such as their ability to "puff up" and float. Shouldn't Jigglypuff be considered a clone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.85.140 (talk • contribs) 01:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Right, and Ness is a clone of Mario because they're the same shape.... - Gargomon251 (talk) 01:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Mario and Squirtle

Almost all of their ground attacks are different except for foward tilt and down throw. However, most of their aerials are pretty much like each other's. Squirtle's nair has a completely different animation to Mario's, but both have the same Sex Kick properties. Aside from button mapping and what they do uncharged, Water Gun is very similar to F.L.U.D.D..

They should be in the semi-clone category. I don't consider Lucario to be a Mewtwo clone though, because they only share one attack.

--TStick (talk) 15:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)