216
edits
Talk:Clone/Archive 5: Difference between revisions
→Echo Fighter definition
| Line 125: | Line 125: | ||
:Where the hell did I say anything about the fighters status ? I said : THE WIKI DEFINITION IS WRONG, the '''WIKI DEFINITION''', not the list of fighters, not the classification, the '''DEFINITION''', the text at the begining of the section. Can people stop replying without reading what I said please ! [[User:YoshiRyu|YoshiRyu]] ([[User talk:YoshiRyu|talk]]) 11:45, 28 January 2019 (EST) | :Where the hell did I say anything about the fighters status ? I said : THE WIKI DEFINITION IS WRONG, the '''WIKI DEFINITION''', not the list of fighters, not the classification, the '''DEFINITION''', the text at the begining of the section. Can people stop replying without reading what I said please ! [[User:YoshiRyu|YoshiRyu]] ([[User talk:YoshiRyu|talk]]) 11:45, 28 January 2019 (EST) | ||
I feel that explaining what happened here may help : Prior to SSBU, we had "clones", clones was a concept defined by players to adresse characters with similarities. When Nintendo announced the echo fighters, players thought it was nothing but an aknowledgement of the concept of clones, and simply slapped the clone definition on that new concept : Echo fighters are clones. But then, dissonances started to appear : Dr Mario is a clone, but he isn't an echo fighter. And instead of rethinking what echo fighters may be, players started twisting the definition they previously copied from clones to make it fit despite those dissonance, adding made up exceptions : like echo fighters are clones, but not the one that are prior to SSB4, that's why Dr Mario isn't an echo fighter (seriously, you think that the way Sakurai went, that he said in a meeting "Echo fighters are characters that are similar but not the one prior to SSB4, because I don't want to" ?). My version, build from scratch, by analysing the characters, is simple, functionnal, fits all the characters, and makes sense from a development perspective, from Sakurai's perspective : There is two type of characters in SSBU, the ones with a full budget, and the low cost one, the laters, made possible by mostly reusing animations to cut cost, are called Echo fighters. All the seven echo fighters recycle animations, none of the regular fighters does, it's a straight forward explanation that make sense, that every single character in the game fits, and that works without any dissonance, without having to make up some random rule about character being prior to SSB4. You should really stop clinging to that flawed definition built upon the clone definition and start considering that echo fighters are not related to what players consider to be a clone, but to what Sakurai consider to be a factual technical difference between two type of fighters. [[User:YoshiRyu|YoshiRyu]] ([[User talk:YoshiRyu|talk]]) 11:45, 28 January 2019 (EST) | I feel that explaining what happened here may help : Prior to SSBU, we had "clones", clones was a concept defined by players to adresse characters with similarities. When Nintendo announced the echo fighters, players thought it was nothing but an aknowledgement of the concept of clones, and simply slapped the clone definition on that new concept : Echo fighters are clones. But then, dissonances started to appear : Dr Mario is a clone, but he isn't an echo fighter. And instead of rethinking what echo fighters may be, players started twisting the definition they previously copied from clones to make it fit despite those dissonance, adding made up exceptions : like echo fighters are clones, but not the one that are prior to SSB4, that's why Dr Mario isn't an echo fighter (seriously, you think that the way Sakurai went, that he said in a meeting "Echo fighters are characters that are similar but not the one prior to SSB4, because I don't want to" ?). My version, build from scratch, by analysing the characters, is simple, functionnal, fits all the characters, and makes sense from a development perspective, from Sakurai's perspective : There is two type of characters in SSBU, the ones with a full budget, and the low cost one, the laters, made possible by mostly reusing animations to cut cost, are called Echo fighters. All the seven echo fighters recycle animations, none of the regular fighters does, it's a straight forward explanation that make sense, that every single character in the game fits, and that works without any dissonance, without having to make up some random rule about character being prior to SSB4. You should really stop clinging to that flawed definition built upon the clone definition and start considering that echo fighters are not related to what players consider to be a clone, but to what Sakurai consider to be a factual technical difference between two type of fighters. [[User:YoshiRyu|YoshiRyu]] ([[User talk:YoshiRyu|talk]]) 11:45, 28 January 2019 (EST) | ||
:::It appears that I misunderstood your argument, so I apologize for that. In regards to the bits of speculation scattered around the article, it might be a good idea to do away with them entirely. One example that you brought up is the arbitrary exception that characters introduced prior to Smash 4 cannot be echo fighters. I agree that there is no evidence for this and was simply an assumption an editor felt was worth including in the article. Your knowledge on the matter of video game development can serve the wiki well, and we appreciate the fact that you used the talk page first before drastically altering the article (Although I'm pretty sure the page is protected at of the time of this post). However, it is worth noting that certain echo fighters possess unique moves as well, with Ken being the most obvious example.[[User:OldLink5|OldLink5]] ([[User talk:OldLink5|talk]]) 12:02, 28 January 2019 (EST) | |||