Talk:Clone/Archive 3

Archives 1

Setting A Standard

So I have noticed a lot of mention in this Discussion Page that the reason so many edit wars are going on and disagreements are being had is because there is no official definition of a clone. I am going to attempt to create a more definite meaning for the words Clone and Semi-Clone:

CLONE: • Special Moves are the same or similar. - Special Moves are arguably more important in defining a character than the standard moves, so they should probably be used as a deciding factor rather than Normal moves.

• Normal Moves have some similarities at least. - Special Moves shouldn't be the only deciding factor though, as an example, Wolf and Fox are considered by many to be Semi-Clones, despite sharing all of their Specials. This is because of their vastly different Normal moves.

• Creators intended them to be clones. - This reasoning should only be used in the most obvious cases. Melee's Fox/Falco for example, or 64's Mario/Luigi. If they were intended to be clones, there is no point debating the point.

SEMI-CLONE: • Special Moves are similar. - Again, Special Moves are one of the most defining things for characters, so characters with similar Specials, but not identical, could be considered Semi-Clones. As an example, Melee's Mario and Luigi.

• Normal Moves are the same or similar. - In my opinion, clone status should not be judged by just normal moves. So, assuming there was a character who had very similar normal moves to another character, but different specials, I would consider them a Semi-Clone in most cases.

• Creators intended them to be semi-clones. - A simple one, characters like Mario and Luigi in Melee (to use that example again) is obviously the latter being based off the former and then given some unique traits.

SUMMARY: Clone Status = Special Moves are the same and Normal Moves are atleast similar OR Character was intended to be a clone OR Most Normal Moves are very similar and Special Moves are similar

Semi-Clone Status = Special Moves are similar. OR Normal Moves are similar. OR Intended to be semi-clones.

WHO IS THE CLONE?: I believe that who is a clone of who should be decided by this system: First check who appeared in the Smash series first. The person who came later is the clone.

If they appeared in the same game...

Then check who was unlocked first. The person who is unlocked later (by conventional methods) is the clone.

THE LIST: Going by the above criteria, here is my opinion:

64 CLONES: Mario & Luigi

64 SEMI-CLONES: Arguably Everyone. But going by the phrase "If everyone is special, no one is" it would probably make more sense to just say that 64 doesn't have semi-clones.

MELEE CLONES: Mario & Dr. Mario, Captain Falcon & Ganondorf, Fox & Falco, Link & Young Link, Pikachu & Pichu, Marth & Roy, Mario & Luigi

BRAWL CLONES: Link & Toon Link

BRAWL SEMI-CLONES: Ness & Lucas, Fox & Wolf (Debatable), Fox & Falco (Debatable), Mario & Luigi (Debatable)

DISCLAIMER: I am not trying to say my opinion is correct, or that we should immediately adopt this system. I merely posted this here as a potential guideline if anyone wants to go somewhere with this, an answer to the complaints of having no clear definition of Clone and Semi-Clone, and to simply post my opinion. I am not very knowledgeable when it comes to Brawl compared to Melee, so the list I made is probably incorrect.

Make of this what you will. Grim Tuesday (talk) 11:27, July 2, 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, you put new topics at the bottom of the page, Now to discuss your post. Firstly, their are no special moves that are the "same". For two moves to be the same, they have to have the same exact hitboxes, which no two attacks do. Special moves also should not be given higher significance, they are just attacks with special effects. They are also not what defines a character the most. What is Snake known for? Is it his special moves or his amazing tilts? The answer is quite obvious there. Now to the characters you listed. Firstly, Link and Toon Link are not clones, they are more different than Mario and Luigi were in Melee. I also find it completely ridiculous that you say Fox and Falco being semi-clones is debatable, but fully believe Fox and Wolf are. In case you didn't notice, Falco's specials are more similar to Fox's than Wolf's are as well as having multiple similar standard attacks. Fox and Wolf are not semi-clones. Just because Wolf's specials are somewhat similar do not mean they are semi-clones. Wolf's standard attacks are vastly different than Fox's. In the end, I heavily disagree what you stated. Your definition of cloneship is far too lenient. Like what Miles and I said in earlier posts, we should have a straight forward, strict definition or else we end with Link&Toon Link being labeled as clones and Wolf&Fox or even Marth&Ike being labeled semi-clones. Omega Tyrant 12:00, July 2, 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, chill. It was a small mistake because I wasn't paying attention. Thankyou for moving it.

People often say things like "Oh, those two flavours taste the same", 'the same' in that case, meaning similar. I'm not stupid enough to think that the attacks would be EXACTLY the same, I don't see why you needed to interpret my comment as such.

Think of it this way.

a) What defines a clone is how they were designed.

b) The creators most likely believed that Special Moves hold more design value over Normal Moves because they are the most iconic moves of that character in most cases, are given there own button (as opposed to tilts, smashes, etc... all being on the same button) and are associated with the game-winning Final Smashes.

c) The creators designed the clones, so assuming the above two points are correct, that means that the creators would have held the Special Moves with greater value when designing the clones.

Snake is known for his tilts in the competitive smash community, but not in the creator's eyes. I am surprised this point is being argued, I thought that Special Moves being regarded as the character's "iconic" and "main" moves was pretty common...

And, Link & Toon Link not clones? I disagree considerably.

Forward Smash, Up Smash, Down Smash, Dair, Forward B, Up B, Down B, Neutral B, Final Smash and Grab all have only minor differences. Mario and Luigi in Melee have a different Forward Special and (as with the third reason I stated in my original post) the creators were quite obviously trying to de-clone them. I guess they would still be considered clones on revision though, but I disagree strongly about Tink not being a clone.

Another error with Wolf, I forgot to put the *Debatable* there. Sorry for the confusion.

Finally, it will come down to opinion no matter what.

If you make guidelines which cause Link/Tink to not be considered Clones/Semi-Clones, then I will disagree. So what we would probably need to do is somehow get a majority vote of some sort by the intelligent wiki members on what should be done about the situation.

P.S. As I said at the very start, chill man, I was only putting forward an idea (which is quite opinion-based, so I expected disagreement) you didn't need to try and shoot me down in flames. Grim Tuesday (talk) 12:25, July 2, 2010 (UTC)

So we should get some sort of vote by the intelligent Wiki members? By that statement, it seems you don't consider me an intelligent user. As for you using the term "the same", I don't care what you hear other people say, similar is a much more accurate term and I was correcting you as I'm quite tired of hearing people claim such and such moves as being the same. As for Link and Toon Link, their up smash is not similar, they have a different animation and function completely differently. Their forward and down smashes along with their dair may have similar animations, but function completely differently. When you compare Mario and Luigi in Melee, their only attacks that were completely different were their f-smashes, fairs, and side Bs. Link and Toon Link have more differences than Mario and Luigi had. I can give you the full run down of their attacks, but I don't feel like right now. Just because Luigi had a different side special while Link and Toon Link have all their specials being similar to a degree does not mean that Luigi&Mario were more different. Special moves should not be given higher consideration. Since when did you get to decide that they decide clones? Were you one of the developers? Clearly you are not. Standard attacks are not "random extra attacks", they are the core of a character and are what defines a character, not the special moves. How many top/high tier characters do you know that have crappy standard attacks? Simply, none of them do, yet there have been top/high tier character with crappy special moves. A special move is just another attack in a character arsenal. Also you stating that a character's most iconic moves are their specials is again false. Look at Captain Falcon and his fair, Ganondorf and his dair, Bowser and his f-smash, or Zelda and her fair/bair. The list goes on. Like I stated before, the definition of cloneship has to be straight forward and strict, not lenient and special based. On a final note, don't tell me to chill. I'm tired of seeing IPs and new users who haven't made a single mainspace edit posting these long rants on our talk pages, then take offense when an established user points out the flaws of their post and then show these users no respect. Omega Tyrant 13:10, July 2, 2010 (UTC)

OT, please calm down. Now, special moves should be placed higher because, while they may not be the character's "best" moves, they usually are the character's "unique" moves. They are called "special" moves for a reason. In SSB 64, all characters had very similar "A" moves, and the Special moves were what made each character different (along with speed, weight, etc). In Melee and Brawl, characters were given some different standard moves, but usually all the standard moves had the same purpose. Side Smash was for a strong KO move, D smash for medium powered strikes to both sides of the character, U smash for star KOs, dair for meteor smashing, tilts and neutral A's for comboing, etc. Now, most special moves are completely different for each character. The creator's obviously placed them in to make the characters unique. Thus, I agree with Grim Tuesday that they should be held higher. Mr. Anon (talk) 18:41, July 2, 2010 (UTC)

Must we argue about this? Everyone has a different opinion on this; debating about it is not going to solve anything. Dr. Pain 99 Talk 18:49, July 2, 2010 (UTC)

Now do not tell me to calm down when I'm clearly not angry. But I do not like it when IPs and new users who have zero mainspace edits posts these long and nonsensical posts on our talk pages, then take offense when an established user argues against them. No, special moves should not be considered more important than standard attacks. Again, standard attacks are the core of a character, not their specials. No character can be successful without good standard attacks, but they can be without a good special moveset. They are called special moves because they have "special effects", such as launching a projectile or propelling the character upwards. It is standard attacks that make characters different, not special moves. If it was special moves that decided how a character plays, how come Link and Toon Link are played quite differently? Simply, standard attacks make a much larger impact on a character than their special moves. Your generalizations of each type of attack is also wrong. Not everyone's f-smash is a strong KO move, not everyone's d-smash is a medium powerful attack that strikes both sides, not every u-smash is meant for vertical KOs, less than half of the dairs are single purpose meteors, and there are many tilts capable of KOing. Like I told Grim Tuesday, were you one of the developers? If not, how do you know that they were meant to make characters unique? Special moves were likely given to each character to give them a projectile, recovery move, etc., not to make them unique. Special moves should not be considered more important than standard attacks when it is standard attacks that defines a characters more than anything else. Like Miles said, two characters should not be considered semi-clones unless more than half their attacks are similar in animation and function. Omega Tyrant 20:09, July 2, 2010 (UTC)

I don't really want to get into this, but I think the original idea was that special moves are more important to a character's identity as a video game character, not their playstyle or identity as a Smasher. In this context, special moves are a bit more important when deciding clones, but that context isn't the reason for determining clones in the first place. Toomai Glittershine The Table Designer 20:15, July 2, 2010 (UTC)

Special moves may be more important to a character's identity, but cloneship is about their playstyles or their identity as smashers, where standard attacks are more important in determining a character's playstyle than special moves, except maybe in the case of the few characters who rely heavily upon projectiles, such as Samus. As such, special moves should not be considered more important than standard attacks in determining cloneship, they're just another attack in the character's arsenal. Omega Tyrant 20:23, July 2, 2010 (UTC)

Now, (responding to both of your posts) just because a user has not edited much does not make them have any less say than other users. SW: YAV. Getting back on track, I did not say that all characters have very powerful F-smashes (Zamus' sucks), or that all dairs meteor, I just gave a generalization of that. Let's look again at characters' standard moves. The general case of characters is that their standard attacks are just their weapon (whether it be a sword, hammer, or simply the characters punches and kicks) in the direction of the attack, smash attacks being powerful versions. There are some exceptions, such as Zamus using her whip and blaster in her smashes or G&W using a different weapon for each attack, however these characters undoubtably have no clones or semiclones. Now let's look at the existing Clones and Semiclones. In every case, with the exception of Mario and Luigi, and maybe Fox and Wolf, all of the characters' special moves are based off of each other. I'm not saying standard moves don't matter, just that many characters have standard attacks with similar functions (and don't even think about using the hitbox argument. I know that all characters have different hitboxes for every attack). About Fox and Wolf, by the way, all of their standard moves are very different, as are their specials, with the exception of B-up and Final smash. They should not be considered semiclones. Mr. Anon (talk) 20:45, July 2, 2010 (UTC)

No, many standard attacks do not have similar functions. If that is the case, then many special moves have similar functions. How much up-B moves are used for recovering? There are certainly much more of those than dair meteors or strong, KOing f-smashes. Look at how much neutral B moves are projectiles or side B moves that are approach attacks. So your argument for many standard attacks having similar functions fails as many special attacks do as well. Also, there are no "existing" clones and semi-clones for Brawl, the characters currently on the page were just adding in by editors that no one felt taking off. They are not official. I know what SW:YAV means, but it does not mean that every user is equally respected. A new user with absolutely no mainspace edits is not and should not receive the same respect as an established user who had made thousands of edits over multiple years, especially when that new user brings up a flawed argument on a talk page and then shows little respect towards an established user for disagreeing with them. As such, I will not give a new user the same respect that I give an established user until they have earned it. As for Fox's and Wolf's similar moves, their down B is more similar than their up B. Omega Tyrant 21:59, July 2, 2010 (UTC)

You are not lisnening to what I posted. I said that it was a general thing, and that there are exceptions. Now, let me word my argument a different way. Every sword guy has the exact same D smash, most have the same up smash, and they all have similar F-smashes. Further more, they all have the same Neutral A combo, and similar dairs (Marth, Roy, and MK all have the same dair animation, just with different properties, as do the Links and Ike). Does this make them semiclones? No. How about if they all had the exact same special moves? Then you would start to think so. Now let's look at Marth and Roy. They are undoubtably clones. However, they have vastly different playstyles, Roy players use Dancing blade and F-smash to KO but Marth players use the Ken combo. Their attacks also have different properties. Roy's attacks mostly have a "fiery" affect. According to your argument they should be considered semiclones.

About Grim Tuesday, it might by your opinion that he deserves less respect than you, but that does not mean you can violate policies, and now he says he might not edit here at all anymore. Please, be nice to him, OT. 98.111.95.78 04:41, July 3, 2010 (UTC)

OmegaTyrant is not violating any policies; stop trying to pin that mess on him. He is arguing points against a user who believes the clone article is mostly incorrect, and you aren't contributing positively to the argument.

I hope your failed request for adminship has nothing to do with your recent behavior. Most of your talk edits are "calm down, stop being mean, etc." to make it look as though you're trying to resolve conflict. The reality is that you aren't helping much. All I'll tell you now is that there is a time and place for everything. BNK ^[E|T|C] 06:48, July 3, 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I have a lot to go through. Firstly, just because I am new to this specific Wiki doesn't make me have any less of an opinion than anyone else, I am an established member of Smash World Forums and a pro Aussie player. In fact, going by what you said in your profile I have been playing Smash longer than you have.

How was I showing you disrespect? YOU came at me with your "matter-of-fact" tone like your opinion was absolute and proceeded to flame me as a newbie, and my arguments as flawed. If becoming an established member means acting like you have, I don't see any point in me staying here.

Now then, Special Moves. I think where the confusion seems to lie is the difference between the players and the creators.

No, I did not create Smash, but I am a game developer, so that does give me a bit of an insight into how they were thinking. Super Smash Bros. is a fighting game starring Nintendo's all stars, correct? Now, if you were going to make a cross-over fighting game, what would you hold in more importance: a) The Character's iconic moves from their franchise. b) Some extra moves used to expand the character's moveset.

Now, when Smash became competitive (which it was never meant to be mind you), many players found that the Normal moves were more useful than the Specials, fair enough, but clones weren't created by the players.

And the minute differences in attacks is unimportant. Link and Tink's Fsmashes have the following in common: a) They look the same. b) They are used for the same purpose. c) They both have that "two-hit" thing. d) They use the same button input.

The only difference is some stuff with timing, hitboxes, etc...

Brawl was the most difficult of those to create a clone list for, as I do not have much experience with the game, but I thought it would be better to post my opinion then leave it out. I see that it was the only one which you think is wrong, so does that give some merit to my guidelines? If the developers changed the moveset enough to care about the Special Moves, that means they were actually trying to diversify the character. If the developers didn't care enough to change the Special Moves, it shows that they just intended the character to be a clone.

So the only points you are criticizing is the special moves thing and the Brawl list right? Well, disregard the Brawl list, and actually listen to my reasoning for Special Moves, and I think my Guidelines are pretty sound.

Oh, and with Wolf/Fox. They both have the same specials (but altered) and the same Final Smash. Hence why I put "debatable", as they could just fit into the semi-clone category depending on who is looking at it.

Finally, I don't think you can complain about my system much unless you can propose a better one.Grim Tuesday (talk) 04:26, July 3, 2010 (UTC)

This is what I mean by the disrespect. When I go against your argument, you say "we should have a vote of intelligent Smash Wiki members", which right away seems you to be claiming that I'm not intelligent (and judging by your userpage, I'm most certainly am more intelligent than you are). Then you claim to have played smash more than I have. I took a look at your userpage and simply, I can tell you have not. I don't care if you are a SWF member or so called "pro", that does not make you all knowing. I guarantee that I know more about Melee and Brawl than you do. Have you went and tested every single character's momentum cancelling abilities? Have you gone and tested the KO% as well as the base knockback and knockback scaling of every forward and up smash? Did you go against years of knowledge about priority and proved that the pros were wrong about it? Just because I'm not an active member of SWF or a professional smasher yet does not mean that I'm automatically less knowledgeable about smash than them. I was not a flaming you a newbie, I was what you call "flaming you" because you made a long, flawed, and unnecessary post that I have seen multiple IPs and new users do in the past who have 0 mainspace edits. I keep saying this, but everyone keeps seeming to ignore this, standard attacks are the core of the character, not special moves. They are not "some extra moves used to expand the character movesets". Some of these standard attacks where taking directly from the character's games, such as Link's dair and uair, Mario's jab and dash, and Snake's jab and dash. Many of the special moves are not taking from the character's games. Pikachu is unable to learn Skull Bash in the generation 3 and 4 Pokémon games nor can it learn "Thunder Jolt" because the attack doesn't exist in the Pokémon games. Luigi never did anything similar to the Green Missle in any Mario game. Fox never utilizes a Reflector, the Fox Illusion, or Fire Fox in any Star Fox game. Captain Falcon does not have the famed Falcon Punch in any of the F-Zero games or any of his special moves for that matter. So your argument about special moves being taking from the character's games while standard attacks are not completely fails.

Now to dissect some of the other similarities you claim. First off, not every sword character's down smash is exactly the same. Now don't go and say "I said they were the same but meant they were similar", you put the word "exactly" in your statement and I'm going with that you're saying that every sword character's down smash is exactly the same in every way. Now that statement is wrong in so many ways. Sure they all may be a slash to the front then a slash to the back, but that does not make them "exactly the same". Like I stated before, all of them have completely differently hitboxes, different reaches, different lag times, and even the animation which they do it in is different. They also all don't have the same function. Toon Link's down smash has the first slash leading the opponent in to the second slash. Meta Knight has his second slash being stronger with horizontal knockback. Marth has his front slash being the strongest when tipped while producing vertical knockback. So your argument for all sword character's down smash being "exactly the same" completely fails. Now onto Link's and Toon Link's f-smashes. They may basically have the same animation and both consists of two separate slashes, but they function differently. Each of Link's two slashes are both powerful slashes designed to KO and not link into each other. Toon Link on the other hand, has his first hit being a weak, set knockback slash designed to link the opponent into the very powerful second slash. So no, they are not the same and function differently.

Now onto the developers case. You claim to be a game developer yourself, thus causing you to act like your opinion on cloneship is automatically more important than mine. First off, your userpage says you are 14, there is no way that you are a real game developer. Secondly, it doesn't matter if you are a game developer, you were not a game developer for any of the Smash Bros. games, so you do not have any inside knowledge that us smashers don't have. You argue that if a character was intended to be clones by the developers, than they are automatically clones. The problem with this though is that we are not the developers, therefore it would be completely false of us to say a character was designed to be a clone. Sure this is highly plausible in Melee, with the characters we call clones. The fact that their character select icon was right next to the character that they are supposed to be cloned from but recessed is strong evidence to these characters being clones. Almost all of these Melee clones' standard attacks share the same animation as the character they are cloned from except in a few cases, such as Ganonorf's fair or Pichu's u-smash. In Brawl, there is no such evidence. My understanding is that the developers of Brawl actively did not develop clone characters, due to some the backlash the clone characters got in Melee. This is most likely why the two returning characters that we call clones in Melee were as we say "decloned" in Brawl. So your argument about developers intending certain characters to be clones in Brawl fails, as we have absolutely no evidence. Your primary argument for Link and Toon Link being clones is that if the developers gave them the "same" specials, then they didn't care enough to diversify them, thus making them clones. Like your other points, this is again false. Link's and Toon Link's specials may share the same names and consist of using the same weapon, but they all function differently. Toon Link's arrows travel slowly and don't travel as far while Link's arrows travels fast and covers long distances. Toon Link's boomerang is a slow moving projectile that comes back to Toon Link after reaching a certain distance, disappearing upon making contact with the opponent while Link's boomerang pushes the opponents away after the initial hitbox or drags the opponent towards Link while on the return arc. Toon Link's Spin Attack is a multi hit attack that sucks the opponent, with the final hit producing weak knockback and Toon Link's Spin Attack gains more horizontal and vertical distance when recovering. Link's Spin Attack on the other hand is a powerful single strike meant to KO the opponent. Besides these differences in their specials, they have many different standard attacks, which includes their u-smash, b-throw, nair, fair, and bair. Even for those that have similar animations, they have vastly different functions, such as their f-smash, d-smash, and dair. Link and Toon Link have more than enough differences to not be clones and claiming them to clones just because their specials have the same name and utilized the same weapon is a blasphemy. I will also ask you this, what other specials could Toon Link have had besides the parry from Wind Waker?

You also didn't seem read the past posts before making your so called guidelines. We already did have a guideline proposed by Miles. A simple, straightforward, and strict definition that for two characters to be semi-clones, more than half of their attacks must share similar animations, with no special attention be giving to special moves. I would agree with this guideline over any sort of guideline with the proposition similar to "two characters must have 10 clone points to be semi-clones, with similar special moves counting as 3 clone points". On a final note, don't ever act like you know more than I do just because you're an active member of SWF and a "pro" smasher. I guarantee that I tested more aspects of this game than almost every smasher out there and I'm one of the most knowledgeable smashers around, even if I'm not currently a professional smasher. I don't need to propose a better system when Miles has already propose a system/definition for cloneship that I'm going to support over your flawed guidelines. As such, I will argue against yours, not complain (there is a big difference between the two), until you either recede your proposition or actually put up a sound argument that I cannot counter. Omega Tyrant 12:02, July 3, 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how you interpreted "we should have a vote of intelligent Smash Wiki members" as excluding you unless you are just naturally pessimistic or something, I didn't mean that all. I just added the "intelligent" there so no n00b would have a say in it.

What about my userpage makes me seem unintelligent?

I have played since Smash 64. You have not. I never said I was "all knowing", YOU claimed that my opinion meant next to nothing because I am new to Smash Wiki, I was trying to show that I have a lot of experience with Smash and that being new to this Wiki is different to being new to Smash in general.

About the Specials thing. May I direct you to this guy's youtube page: http://www.youtube.com/user/CrappyCaptureDevice. Anyway, my argument does not completely fail. The character's who you listed who's Normal Attacks are taken from their games, only have 1 or 2 taken. Compared to the 4 Special Moves. Pikachu has some special moves made up, he is an exception to the rule. As with Fox and Falcon, they have NO moves to take from their games, the moves which are taken are inspired by their games.

Sorry if I sound ignorant or have had a mental blank of some sort, but where did I say that every sword using character's down smash is the same? I completely disagree with that. With Tink/Link Fsmash issue, I said in my post that they had differences with hitboxes, etc... And when I said they have the same function, that function is to KO. Both attacks are primarily used for that. You consider Pikachu and Pichu clones correct? All of their attacks have different hitboxes, range, etc... so they obviously aren't clones. In fact, no one is a clone. Well done.

This is coming from the person who thought his opinion automatically meant more than mine because he has made more edits? How hypo-critic. I am an indie game developer, I have taken several classes on the subject and I have been doing it since I was 8. I believe that it would give me a bit more knowledge on the game development process than someone who isn't a developer, even if I haven't worked on the Smash games themselves.

Now, I agree completely that my statement works for Melee but not Brawl. As I keep saying, I'm not a huge fan of the game and am not as knowledgeable in it as Melee and 64. Quite frankly, if any of my arguments don't work specifically for Brawl, feel free to disregard them in that sense.

Again with the Link/Tink argument. The moves have been changed slightly so they aren't clones doesn't work as a counter-argument. For example: Ganondorf is not a Falcon clone. His neutral special is slower, more powerful and has a very different effect. His Up Special has different knockback, distance, damage and it has an electricity effect. His Fspecial knocks opponents in a different direction, has a different amount of damage and a shadow effect. This all also applies for his down special. He also has a lower jumping height and is slower. His fair is completely different as well. See why that reasoning doesn't work?

Now, attacks that Tink could have had. So easy. Let's see now... Deku Leaf, Grappling Hook, Skull Hammer and Wind Waker. That is all just from memory and those weapons could be incorporated into various attacks.

I didn't read the whole thread. You are correct. I assumed nobody had done anything about it. Looking at the scroll bar intimidated me, and nothing in the contents suggested someone else had done it. I think that other system you mentioned seems sound enough, mine wasn't supposed to be definite anyway, hence the ambiguity, just something to work off of.

I still stand by my decision that special moves mean more than normal moves for the reasons I have stated. I honestly cannot believe you think differently. I expected my post to be argued, but not that specific point. And, I didn't act like I knew more than you, you acted like your opinion means more than mine and I was trying to show that you were wrong.

And the actual definition of complain (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/complain) is "to find fault", so what I said did make sense, actually. And you can't say that you have successfully countered my argument until we have stopped debating.

Finally, is it too much to ask to discuss something on the internet without lolrage? I'm trying to be as civil as I can, but you just seem to love trying to subtly insult me.Grim Tuesday (talk) 13:22, July 3, 2010 (UTC)

You're more persistent than I thought you would be but I'm done yet. I'm most certainly being civil and I'm far from angry. Just because I didn't play the original Smash Bros. does not mean you played Smash Bros. more than I have or are more knowledgeable. Just what is your combined play time? I have put well over 2200 hours into Melee and Brawl. My inexperience in the original Smash Bros. is completely irrelevant in this argument. Also, I'm not complaining. Me complaining would be me just saying you're wrong without any sort of counter argument, which I most certainly have not done. I have also provided a successful counter argument, it is successful until you provide a argument that successfully counters it. Also, you taking video game development classes does not make you a game developer, there is a difference between a student and a master of a profession. As for what you said about the vote involving the Smash Wiki members, you could have easily and more factually reworded as "we should have a vote with all the intelligent Smash Wiki members" or you could have just cut out the intelligent part. It may have been a misinterpretation on my part, but the way you said it sounded like you were excluding me and I do not take kindly to my intelligence being insulted.

Now back to dissecting your argument. Pikachu is not the only exception to not having special moves taken from the games they are from. Just how is Fox's Fox Illusion, Reflector, and Fire Fox based off of the Star Fox games? He had absolutely no abilities in Star Fox 64 that those special moves could be based off of. The same applies for Falco and Wolf with their non Blaster specials. What about Captain Falcon? How the hell can the Falcon Punch be based off any driving maneuver? Again, the same applies for his other specials. Now I will go and list every character who has multiple moves that is not based off anything in their games. Like I said before, Luigi never had a move similar to the Green Missle in any Mario game. I'm less knowledgeable about the DK games, but I'm pretty sure DK didn't have a move similar to the Giant Punch, Headbutt, or Spinning Kong in any DK game preceding the original Smash Bros. Sheik doesn't use anything resembling the Chain or Needle Storm in OoT. None of Ganondorf's specials are based off of anything he does in the Zelda games, he punches the ground in the final battle against him in OoT, he does not kick and he dives to stab the sage in TP, he doesn't grab and choke them. All but Zero Suit Samus' neutral special aren't based off of anything she could do in Zero Mission. The Ice Climbers couldn't do anything remotely similar to their specials in Ice Climber. R.O.B. was a video game accessory, but he couldn't shoot lasers, fly around using the Robo Burner, or charge up and shoot a gyro. None of the special moves that Marth, Roy, or Ike are moves that they do in the Fire Emblem games with the exception of Ike's Aether. As you can see, there are many special moves that are not used by the characters in their respective games.

Now you did say all sword characters' down smashes are exactly the same. In this statement on your third post "Every sword guy has the exact same D smash, most have the same up smash, and they all have similar F-smashes.", a very flawed statement it was that I'm willing to spare you on how much it was flawed. Now back to Link and Toon Link. While I accept that they have enough similarities to be considered "semi-clones", they do not have enough to be full fledged "clones". I'll give you that Toon Link could have use the Deku Leaf for his Up-B and recovery, but the Skull Hammer would not be very fitting at all for his style and the Wind Waker has no offensive properties at all. Now their f-smashes do not have the same function, it is more complicated than simply "their function is to KO". Under that logic, you can say almost every smash attack's function is the same because they're meant to KO. An attack's function is how they work, not what one perceives their purpose to be. Link's f-smash is a two hit strike with both hits being designed to have enough knockback to KO while Toon Link's f-smash is the typical two hit smash with the first hit being a weak hit simply meant to link the opponent into the much stronger second hit. Therefore, the functioning of their f-smashes is different. Learn what the word function means. Their moves have not been changed slightly, they have multiple attacks that are different in every way and three of their other standard attacks along with all their special moves function differently. As for Ganondorf and Captain Falcon in Melee, yes Ganondorf attacks had different effects, but almost all of their attacks had similar animations and more importantly, many of their attack had similar functions. Both characters' side B was a dash forward that uppercutted the opponent, both characters' dair was a stomp that meteor smash the opponent, and both characters' uair produce horizontal knockback with the first two hitboxes and produced a semi-spike with the hitbox at the end of their feet. If you ask me, I believe they could of had enough differences to be labeled semi-clones instead of clones, but Ganondorf fit the criteria the other characters that were labeled clones had in Melee, such as the recessed character select icon right next to the character that they are cloned from.

If you fully read my posts, you would see that I say if almost every attack of two characters have similar animations and functions, then they can be considered clones, as was the case with Mario and Luigi in the original Super Smash Bros. and the "clones" in Melee. There are no such characters in Brawl that fit this criteria. If you haven't figure it by now, I do not like the terms "clone" and "semi-clone", since they imply that two characters are the same or almost the same. There are similarities but no two characters are the same. While you may believe special moves are what defines a character, I believe that it is their standard attacks that do as they are the core of the character and make a larger impact on the character's play style than anything else. Like I said before, name a top/high tier character who does not have good standard attacks. While the tone of my posts may come off as me acting like my opinion is more valid, you mentioning that you are SWF member, a game developer, and a professional smasher came off to me as you acting like your opinion was more valid than mine as their mentioning was not necessary. But honestly, I do trust my opinion more than someone who had not shown knowledge of the game on the same level I have or put up sound arguments. You can believe what you want on what makes a clone and semi-clone, but if you post your thoughts on this Wiki's talk pages, you should be prepared for them to be challenged. Omega Tyrant 16:21, July 3, 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I said I have been playing longer than you. Not that I have more hours than you. I was just showing that I was experienced in the series, having played it since it's birth. I've got roughly 1500 hours under my belt. I say roughly because I have restarted each of the games a few times, so I'm not sure exactly.

Actually, going by the meaning I posted previously, whether you argued the point or not. I think what makes you a game maker is, quite obviously, developing games, which I have done. With the "intelligent" thing, I originally said: "get a majority vote of some sort by the intelligent wiki members". You suggested to use instead: "we should have a vote with all the intelligent Smash Wiki members". If I'm not mistaken, aren't those two phrases synonymous? Anyway, I think we should just talk about the issue at hand rather than all of this, it isn't contributing to the debate. Agreed?

Okay, so. Fox's Reflector is based off the ability to deflect shots in Star Fox 64 and takes the shape of one of the power-ups (the SHIELD power-up mind you). The blaster is obviously based on the main attack the Arwing's can make, and a picture of Fox holding a blaster can be seen in the instruction manual. In Star Fox 64, after getting the medal on Venom on expert mode, you unlock a new "on-foot" option for multiplayer (instead of the Arwing/Landmaster). Fox also has a blaster here. With the Fox Illusion, in the Starfox series you can temporarily increase the speed of your arwing by boosting. The motions of the Fox Illusion and the Boost are similar. Fire Fox was made up from scratch as far as I can tell.

The way the specials are partly based off of Falcon's game is: The name "Falcon" before most of them, the same naming convention as his craft the Falcon Flyer. The fact that Raptor Boost and Falcon Kick give a "boost" of sorts is similar to the game as well.

Luigi never had the green missile, correct.

In DK Country 2, Dixie Kong could do the Spinning Kong thing. He couldn't do the headbutt or the punch.

You are correct about Sheik, Ganondorf and Samus. But those attacks could be implied, as Sheik is a ninja of sorts, Ganon has the dark power and Zamus's attacks are slightly based off of Metroid. The Ice Climber's Ice Block is taken from their game. And the Up B is probably based off of how jumping on another Climber made you bounce up into the air. R.O.B.'s Gyro comes from Gyromite. This is true about the Fire Emblem guys. Now then, tell me what kind of a moveset could have been used for Zamus, Sheik, Ice Climbers and R.O.B. instead?

About the sword thing, I just checked, an IP said that, not me -_-.

Back to the Toon Link thing. Skull Hammer could have been used as a Forward Special easily. Look at the different songs played with the Wind Waker, "Command Melody" could have been used to maybe bring someone into the game to help you (like an Assist Trophy) or even to briefly control the opponent into sleeping or something. The "Ballad of Gales" could have been used as a teleport function, and "Wind's Requiem" could have been used to blow a gust of wind in a certain direction, like with FLUDD.

Here I am quoting the dictionary again: "the purpose for which something is designed or exists" (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/function). I suggest you learn what the word function means. Similarities between Link's Fsmash and Tink's Fsmash:

a) Two-Hit attack.

b) Same button input.

c) Both of the second moves are powerful KO moves.

d) They use a very similar animation (almost identical).

e) They are using the same weapon.

Now, differences:

a) Tink's first hit is weak, while Link's is strong.

b) They have different damage.

c) They have different knockback.

d) They have slightly different range.

Compare this with Warlock Punch and Falcon Punch:

Similarities:

a) Same button input.

b) They use a very similar animation (almost identical).

c) They are using the same limb.

Differences:

a) They have different damage.

b) They have different knockback.

c) They have slightly different range.

So there is one less similarity and one less difference as far as I can see. Warlock Punch can no longer be used as a reason Falcon and Ganon are clones. I could keep going with this for all of Ganon's moves.

If you think that Ganon and Falcon have enough differences to be considered semi-clones (not including the whole "next to each other" thing), I'm curious as to who you would consider clones.

Clone also means "a population of identical units, cells, or individuals that derive from the same ancestral line", so it sort of makes sense to use that word. But I agree that a better term could be used. A bit more than the tone of your posts came off like that, it was more about when you said "I'm tired of seeing IPs and new users who haven't made a single mainspace edit posting these long rants on our talk pages, then take offense when an established user points out the flaws of their post and then show these users no respect". It was almost like you were saying "How dare you, a newbie, attempt to counter my argument". As I keep saying, the only reason I mentioned the SWF and "pro" thing was so you WOULDN'T treat me like that. My mentioning the game development thing was SUPPOSED to validate my opinion, it's like if someone needed CPR at some random place, and a doctor said "Let me do it, I am a doctor".

I think we can agree that the things that define a clone are: Similarity in Animations, next to each other on the Select Screen and similarity in purpose. The only one of those that has to do with gameplay is the last one, and even that has lots of elements of character design in it. So I think we can say that Character Design > Gameplay when it comes to wether a character is a clone. Now, I argue that when the character's were created, the creators put more focus on the Special Moves than the Normal Moves, you argue that the Normal Moves are more important gameplay wise (I agree with this). But given what I said above about design being more important than gameplay when it comes to clones, there is my reasoning for Specials > Normals.

It isn't for you to decide wether your arguments are sound or not, and it is irritating how you keep saying things to that description as if I haven't been able to counter them in the slightest. I was prepared for my thoughts to be challenged... as I have already stated...

Oh, and with me not "showing knowledge of the game" which is above your godly level, I might not have shown much knowledge about Brawl, but I certainly seem to know more about Nintendo games, the game development process, the english language and controlling my temper. I know the general damage, knockback, appearance, etc... of most attacks and that is good enough for this debate.

Here are a few things I/others brought up which you missed/ignored or I just noticed on a re-read of the debate btw:

• The main thing which differentiated characters in 64 was Specials, correct? Doesn't this instantly give them importance?

• A lot of Normal Attacks have similar purposes: Side Smashes for side KOs, Down Smashes for a medium strength attack with larger range, Up Smash for Star KOs, Dair for spiking/meteor smashes/drills, etc... You countered by saying that Up Specials are for recovery, Neutral Special for projectile, etc... However, the special moves have more differences with each other overall than the Normal ones.

• You said earlier "If it was special moves that decided how a character plays, how come Link and Toon Link are played quite differently?". Isn't this kind of hypocritic as you were arguing with me that they have quite different Specials just recently?

• How have I shown you disrespect in this thread? You told me to expect what I said to be argued, you should do the same.

• Super Smash Bros. is a fighting game starring Nintendo's all stars, correct? Now, if you were going to make a cross-over fighting game, what would you hold in more importance: a) The Character's iconic moves from their franchise. b) Extra moves used to expand the character's moveset that aren't iconic to their franchise?

• I'd just like to point this out: Accusing me of showing you disrespect after all the things you have said to me (Let me just take a quote from you "I'm most certainly am more intelligent than you are". Ignoring, the irony that you said 'I'm' instead of 'I' in a post about how intelligent you are) and saying that being a SWF member and "pro" doesn't make me all knowing, when you have pretty much acted as if you are as well is quite flawed and hypocritic.

• What about my userpage makes me seem unintelligent? Grim Tuesday (talk) 01:37, July 4, 2010 (UTC)

Okay, this is getting far too long. I'm going to try and pin it down.

SSBM has definitely defined clones. Even the developers recognized them as clones through their recessed boxes in the selection screen. Taking this as the standard for the term "clone", a clone is a character whose moveset is mostly visually identical to another character's, with a few unique standard moves and some tweaks to both standard and special moves (though the special moves still have the same mechanics). Assuming for the moment that "visual moveset" is the definition of being a clone, and ignoring floor and edge moves, these are the (rounded) numbers:

Original	Possible Clone	Significantly Different Animations	If Standards And Specials Are Equally Important	If Specials are 5 Times More Important
SSB
Mario	Luigi	2	89%	93%
SSBM
Mario	Luigi	7 (1 special)	68%	71%
Mario	Dr. Mario	0	100%	100%
Link	Young Link	0	100%	100%
Fox	Falco	0	100%	100%
Pikachu	Pichu	1	95%	97%
Captain Falcon	Ganondorf	2	91%	95%
Marth	Roy	0	100%	100%
SSBB
Mario	Luigi	10 (2 specials)	57%	58%
Link	Toon Link	6	74%	86%
Fox	Falco	7 (1 special)	70%	74%
Fox	Wolf	16	30%	63%
Captain Falcon	Ganondorf	8 (2 specials)	65%	62%
Ness	Lucas	14	39%	67%

Now, I did this in a bit of a hurry, so it might be a bit off, and I gave some guys the benefit of the doubt (Falco's Reflector and the Flame Choke count as different). But it's still pretty obvious these numbers match up with the idea that there are clones in SSBM and semi-clones in SSBB: no pair of characters has a "degree of clone" of above 90% in Brawl, and no pair of clones in SSBM drop below that number.

I really want this argument to end, since it's becoming more and more convoluted and hard to follow (as most arguments around here). So can we at least agree, with the backup of this math, that the clone page pretty much has it right already, especially the part where it says that the term "semi-clone" has a different meaning for different people? Toomai Glittershine eXemplary Logic 03:40, July 4, 2010 (UTC)

Very well done, this is what I was hoping someone would do. I'm fine with this outcome. Grim Tuesday (talk) 03:59, July 4, 2010 (UTC)

Now about that sword statement, you made an edit around the same time that edit was made, so I thought it was you made it but didn't sign your comment, I did not realize that it was part of Mr.Anon's post (who does not always sign in). Now about the disrespect thing, we misinterpreted what we said, which results in accusations, and I apoligize for that. But again, I'm far from angry. I may be a little irritated, but do not accuse me of losing my temper, there is nothing in my posts which suggest I'm being angry and irrational. I admit I had a bias against you at first. If you look through our talk pages and forums, you'll see that there have been many IPs and new users who have not contributed to the mainspace that make these long and flawed posts on these pages. Then when an established user comes along and effectively points out the flaws in their post, they do what I call "complaining". They just whine that they're right without putting up a valid counter argument. Almost all of the IPs/new users who do this end up never contributing to the mainspace. A few of them admit they are wrong and do end up becoming productive contributors. So as a result, I have a bias against IPs and new users who's first posts outside their userpage are long and flawed rants on talk pages and forums, which does apply to you. As I can see, you are not one of these users and you're a much more worthy adversary than they were. But don't say you know more about the English language than I do. So what if I made a minor grammar mistake, it was unintentional and with all these words I typed in the past 24 hours, I'm bound to make some sort of error. As such, don't act like you never made a grammer mistake before. I also didn't use the word "function" wrong. I was using it in the context "how something is designed", which when used in this context, it is not synonymous with purpose. As such, Link's and Toon Link's f-smashes are designed differently. Do not also say you know more about Nintendo history than I do. Since you brought that you played Smash Bros. before I did, I'll bring up the fact that I've been literally playing Nintendo games before you were born. I have also played the games I have owned in my life to great depths and researched information relating to them.

Now the intro is over, time to get back to the argument. First off, I never said that Fox's Blaster wasn't based off the games he was from, so there was no reason to point out what the Blaster was based off of. As for Fox Illusion, just how could it be based on a turbo boost? As for DK, I was aware of the Spinning Kong being similar to the twirly thing Dixie Kong did in DKC2, but DK himself does not use a move similar to it. As such, why would a character have a move based off a move that another character uses? As for Captain Falcon, the fact that his moves have "Falcon" in their names does not mean they were based off his games. Raptor Boost could be very vaguely based off a boost, but Falcon Kick simply is not. Now you ask, what other moves from their game could they have be their special moves? For Ganondorf, he could have ues the lightning ball that he uses in OoT and could have used the ground punch that he also uses in OoT as a special move or standard attack. As for Sheik, I don't see any other moves she could have had bases off of her games as she only appeared in OoT and that often. As for Ike, he could of have the abilities in the two Fire Emblem games he's in as some of his special moves, such as Adept. Marth on the other hand was in a less complex Fire Emblem and doesn't have any sort of notable attacks. As for the other characters, I don't have access to their games or they're not in my tastes so I can't think of any other moves for them (though I did read somewhere that R.O.B. could have used the blocks he came with as a special move). The point of me bringing this part of the argument up was to show you that Pikachu is not the only character to not have specials that aren't based of moves that they have in their games and it seems we finally agree on something.

Now to Link and Toon Link, who seem to be the primary focus of this argument. As for the other moves you mentioned for Toon Link, the Skull Hammer would be unsuitable for him. I would imagine that it would be very slow (just like it is in the games), thus making it incompatible with Toon Link's fast sword and projectile based play style. As for the Wind Waker attacks, all but the Wind Requiem would be unsuitable, though the Wind Requiem itself would be pointless if he had the Deku Leaf. The Ballad of Gales teleports Link long distances via cyclone, which is unsuitable for reasons I assume are obvious. As for the other two, their effects sound too overpowering. No character should have the ability to summon a partner whenever they want. It's bad enough that Diddy Kong can spawn bananas whenever he wants (but that is a different argument). Now for Toon Link's and Link's f-smashes. The fact that both move have the same control input is completely irrelevant. You wouldn't say that Ike and Peach's f-smashes are similar for having the same controller input. You are absolutely correct that they have almost the same animation and I won't argue against it. Now to be specific, they are not using the same exact weapon, they are wielding two different Master Swords of two different sizes, but them wielding a sword for their f-smash is also irrelevant as that is part of the animation. Both of them being two hit attacks is also irrelevant, as that is part of the animation. So for your similarities, you basically have the same reason listed three times and the same button input is irrelevant as a similarity. But as their function, or how they were designed since you took my use of function out of context last time, Link's f-smash is designed to be a single hit f-smash that strikes twice, while Toon Link's f-smash is designed to be a two hit f-smash, except you can control when the second hitbox comes out. As such, these moves have similar animations, but different functions, resulting in these moves being what you can call "semi-clone moves". When I go through Link's and Toon Link's moveset, they have six different attacks (u-smash, f-throw, b-throw, nair, fair, bair), 8 semi-cloned attacks (d-tilt, dash attack, f-smash, d-smash, dair, neutral B, side B, and up B), and 8 cloned attacks (jab, f-tilt, u-tilt, pummel, u-throw, d-throw, uair, and down B). By going by a moveset percentage that does not give preferential treatment to specials, their movesets are 54.54% similar. As such, this percentage is far from being enough for them to be clones. Now to Captain Falcon and Ganondorf in Melee. They had two different attacks (jab, fair), 5 semi cloned attacks (u-tilt, f-smash, u-smash, d-smash, and nair), and 15 cloned attacks (f-tilt, d-tilt, dash attack, pummel, all throws, bair, uair, dair, and all specials). This results in a moveset similarity of 79.54%. As such, these two were much similar in Melee than the Links are in Brawl. As for you claiming me to be hypocritical about the Links' special moves being the same, I never once said they were. I was pointing out how many people claim them to be the same and I was pointing out that if this was true and that special moves decided how characters play, then how can Link and Toon Link have different playstyles. I will admit the developers could have put more effort into making Toon Link more different, but he obviously has some similarities with Young Link. As such, the developers probably designed him to be based on Young Link's play style as to appease the Young Link fans.

Now about general purpose for a move category and such. I won't elaborate here, but I believe I made myself pretty clear that there are much more up B moves with the purpose of recovering than there are of any of standard attack categories containing attacks wit the purpose you decided they have. For example, in Brawl, all up Bs but Jigglypuff's can be used for recovering while only about half the dairs are notable meteor smashes.

Now ultimately, this debate isn't going anywhere, as it is a debate of ideaoligies. I adamantly believe I'm right while you adamantly believe you're right. Chances are, none of us will be able to convince the other side. You believe special moves > standard attacks in determining cloneship since they are usually based off of moves that character's had in their games and as you said, that standard attacks are just "extra moves to complete a character's moveset". I believe standard attacks = special moves in determining cloneship since special moves are just attacks with special effects while standard attacks build the core of the character. As for you wondering on what I believe constitutes a clone, if two characters have a moveset similarity percentage of at least 70% to 80%, then I believe it is acceptable to call them clones (as the case with all the Melee characters we call clones). If two characters have a moveset similarity percentage of at least 40% to 50%, then I believe it is acceptable to call them semi-clones. As for what on your userpage turned me the wrong way, it was the face thing you pasted on your picture, which comes as immaturity (which in turn I interpret as unniintelligence) to me. I never did say you were unintelligent, I just said that I'm clearly more intelligent than you are, mainly as backlash to you bringing up that you are a SWF member, game developer, and professional smasher. I can see you are more intelligent that the average 14 year old and I underestimated you. Again, I'm not acting like I'm all knowing and my opinion > everyone else. If I really wanted to act like I was superior, I could have rubbed it in your face that I'm an admin on this site, which I never mentioned, while you made your statement about being a pro, which came off to me as you trying to say that your opinion > mine. Again, none of us meant our posts to be seen in this way, which resulted in us being offended and making this debate not as clean as it should have been. Again, I apologize for my misinterpretations. You can keep debating with me on what is more important in regards to special moves vs. standard attacks and whether or not Link and Toon Link are full fledged clones. Continue this debate and it's in my nature to argue on unless given an argument that I cannot properly counter, but honestly I'm getting tired of typing these walls of text as must you. We can call a truce on this or we can continue, I'm willing to do either. You are clearly intelligent and I would like to see contribute to the mainspace. However, don't think mentioning that you are from SWF or a pro would cause me to give you the same respect I give an established user. It would have been better for you to have made some edits to the main space before making your first post on here, then maybe we would have not gotten in such a messy debate. I also made this post before Toomai posted, but I must still post this as I can't let two hours go to absolute waste. Omega Tyrant 04:49, July 4, 2010 (UTC)

I also apologize for what I have said, and I'm glad you explained your actions in that post. I accept your truce, I doubt there is any way we will convince one another to agree so... yeah.

Now to explain myself. I made the comment about being better at English just to try and get a +1 on you, but that was pretty stupid. I said the Nintendo thing, once again, as a stupid +1 attempt.

Even though I accepted the truce, I'll try and explain some things. The Fox Illusion/Boost comparison isn't precise, as with many attacks in SSB. Like Sonic's Up Smash, it is based off of Sonic's general movements, even though he never uses an attack like that in any of his games. Once again with the Spinning Kong, I was just showing how it did have an origin. I agree completely that Ganon could have had an original moveset, as well as Ike and Marth (that is why I didn't mention them in that post if you look back), I never thought of that thing with R.O.B. though.

I disagree about a move being "unsuitable". Captain Falcon, the fastest character in the game (both in speed and arguably in a lot of his moves) has the Falcon Punch. The Ballad of Gales could probably create a small cyclone to carry Link short-distances (like Mach Tornado), and the Command one wouldn't give you a permanent partner, I imagine it as having Medli appear in some kind of small beam of light, do an attack, and then beam out. Link/Tink are using pretty much the same weapon though, but like you said, that is the animation. The two-attack thing isn't just part of the animation, it's a unique trait. From memory no other character has forward smash which acts like theirs.

Remember that Link/Tink also have the same Final Smash, and if you were going by my preferred system of Specials > Normals, he would have 12 cloned moves, 5 of them being special. I can't be bothered working out the percentage but it would definitely be closer to clone-status than semi-clone, but this is just where the differing opinions comes into it, so whatever.

Yes, all but one Up B can be used to recover. But how many jabs are weak short-range moves with better knockback? How many f-tilts are altered versions of the jab with a forward motion, often slower and more powerful? Dsmashes being wide-range moves is also very common. This is compared to how many similar down special there are (very few), similar forward specials (an average amount) and neutral specials (an average amount).

Who do you specifically believe are clones/semi-clones though?

Oh, and with my profile pic, you probably already know this but it is a meme, google 'Awesome Face'. Grim Tuesday (talk) 05:48, July 4, 2010 (UTC)

I knew you were an admin :P I've lurked here for a few months. Grim Tuesday (talk) 06:21, July 4, 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about not signing in, I didn't know about that. I did not mean to accuse you, and I'm sorry if I mistakenly thought you were angry. Here on the internet, it is hard to tell emotions, as 90% of our ability to tell emotion comes from body language. I also somewhat agree that new users should make some mainspace edits first, but I still believe that they are important. However, I cannot change your opinion, so I'll stop badgering you there. Still, though, how should the article be worded to show who's a clone and who's not? Mr. Anon teh awsome 06:03, July 4, 2010 (UTC)