Talk:Clone/Archive 3

current talk page

Archives

1. 1
2. 2

what about

Falco and wolf?Lucas-IV- Try to Talk 07:33, 14 July 2011 (EDT)

Clone-ness is transitive. So if Fox and Falco are semiclones, and Fox and Wolf are semiclones, then Falco and Wolf are semiclones. Toomai Glittershine The SMASH-GINEER 08:49, 14 July 2011 (EDT)

So try to make the reader do the logical thinking by him/herself?.... sounds fine to me i guessLucas-IV- Try to Talk 08:57, 14 July 2011 (EDT)

Is it really necessary...

To have a note saying some people consider Lucario and Mewtwo "semi-clones", just because one move is similar? If we did that, we might as well as have Roy and Ike there as "semi-clones" (neutral special), Bowser and Charizard (neutral special again), Mario and Yoshi (up smash, neutral aerial, forward aerial), etc. Also, I say Fox and Wolf would fit a note section, rather than actually being listed as semi-clones (they only have three specials similar in function and name, with the rest of their movesets being completely different, as well as not so similar physics). Omega Tyrant 18:59, 7 August 2011 (EDT)

Unlike some of the other things you mentioned, the Mewtwo/Lucario thing is rather notorious and a very strong point of contention earlier in Brawl's lifetime. As for Fox/Wolf - I'm very sure that the mentality of the general public is that they are more like semi-clones than non-clones, so while it's probably the biggest stretch on the page, it should be kept. Toomai Glittershine The Bold 19:04, 7 August 2011 (EDT)

The Mewtwo/Lucario stems from false speculation that Lucario "replaced" Mewtwo, and those that makes such claims that they're clones have done so with terrible arguments that shows ignorance stemming from the replacing mentality (and lack of experience). Just because some people made the ridiculous claim that they have cloneship, doesn't exactly mean we should have to mention that on the mainspace page. If we're to mention it, it has to have some logical backing behind it, and calling two characters semi-clones just because of one move is not. Otherwise, we'll have to start acknowledging other ridiculous clone claims based on such a ridiculously lenient standard of what constitutes cloneship and general ignorance of the game (Ike and Marth being such an example that would have to go on, who also got claims of being semi-clones in the past, despite that their similarities being little to none).

Rather than acknowledge these claims, it would be better to just ignore them, and keep an acceptable standard to the page.

As for Fox and Wolf, while casuals tend to view them as semi-clones due to ignorance/inexperience, examination of their moveset and other statistics show they have very little to call them clones. As such, the note mentioning that they get sometimes viewed as semi-clones, despite the large amount of differences, is sufficient, rather than listing them among the semi-clones. Omega Tyrant 19:29, 7 August 2011 (EDT)

I mostly agree with Omega Tyrant, though I'm mostly neutral on the Wolf/Fox one. If we consider this pair as Semiclones, then we would have a pretty clear "lower line" of Clone/Semiclone category. Mr. Anon (talk) 00:20, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

Mario and Luigi

Are Mario and Luigi really clones in Brawl????--Thejfh1999 (talk) 18:09, 3 November 2011 (EDT)

They're definitely not clones, but they have enough similar to qualify as semi-clones. Omega Tyrant 18:33, 3 November 2011 (EDT)

Apparently Masahiro Sakurai said that there will not be clones in Brawl, and this is true in a way. ..... More Food........ 18:41, 3 November 2011 (EDT)

Um, okay? BlindColours 18:47, 3 November 2011 (EDT)

Too bad he forgot to change Toon Link, the only remaining clone. 71.87.116.224 20:03, 14 June 2013 (EDT)

Don't comment on old and resolved discussions. Omega Tyrant 20:10, 14 June 2013 (EDT)

Clones and Semiclones

The following should be considered Semiclones in Brawl: Post here about clones and semiclones and your thought.

--Dinoboy411 (talk) 09:12, 31 January 2012 (EST)

There are no clones in SSBB, but some are considered semi clones. ..... The Overmind 09:15, 31 January 2012 (EST)

This is not appropriate talk page discussion. Refer to SW:TALK. Mr. Anontalk 18:54, 31 January 2012 (EST)

Are you talking about my post? ..... The Liquid 19:06, 31 January 2012 (EST)

He aimed it at the OP, he should have indented correctly though. Omega Tyrant 19:24, 31 January 2012 (EST)

Both of your posts violated SW:SIGN, and I was addressing both of them. Discussion of who is a clone and who is not, unless it will impact the article itself, does not belong here. The discussion seemed to be about a general discussion of who is a clone and who is a semiclone, rather than about how this article's standards should be. Mr. Anontalk 21:36, 31 January 2012 (EST)

How does SW:SIGN in this talk have anything to do with? I do however agree that my post was irrelevant so sorry about that. ..... The Liquid 23:24, 31 January 2012 (EST)

I meant SW:TALK. I was writing on my phone, and it autocorrected to "SW:SIGN" (because I had previously added it to autocorrect during my edit to Mr. Curious' page). Mr. Anontalk 16:34, 1 February 2012 (EST)

Kirby and Jigglypuff

When it says that Ganondorf and C. Falcon are the only clones to come from different universes, that contradicts the fact that Kirby and Jigglypuff are clones in SSB. Hands off my Bread!King KirbyD (talk) 19:21, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

Kirby and Jigglypuff are only semi-clones in SSB. Also, read SW:SIGN, as your sig violates this by using a mainspace image, which would be too big anyway. Toast ltimatum 19:25, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

Mewtwo and Lucario

I know there not even close to similar but should just be a tiny note talking about Shadow Ball and Aura Sphere? --Dinoboy411 (talk) 16:50, 10 December 2013 (EST)

It's not really relevant. Scr7(talk · contribs) 16:57, 10 December 2013 (EST)

Most characters have a move that's very similar to that of another character's; e.g. Bowser's Flame Breath and Charizard's Flamethrower, Luigi's Green Missile and Pikachu's/Pichu's Skull Bash, most neutral aerial sex kicks, most sword character's down smashes, etc. So no, a note about one move isn't necessary. Omega Tyrant 21:59, 10 December 2013 (EST)

Well then again we have a note in the brawl section about how some people think Ike and Marth are clones when they arent so why not talk about how Mewtwo and Lucario are not clones despite people thinking they are --Dinoboy411 (talk) 16:50, 10 December 2013 (EST)

The characters mentioned by the article previously had clones in Melee, but lack even a semi-clone in Brawl. Roy and Marth were clones, and some people believe that Ike replaced Roy. They are also just as quick to assume that Marth and Ike must be clones just because Ike "replaced" Marth's old clone. Mewtwo didn't have a clone, and is only misconceived as "replaced" while Ike "replaced" Roy, who was a clone of Marth. Also, when responding, put : in the front of your post so that it is indented to represent a response to a statement, adding one more : for each : used by the user being responded to (Respond to this statement with two ::). MegaTron1XD 18:35, 12 December 2013 (EST)

Marth/Ike in the early days had a fair bit of the clone claims though, in a level similar to Fox/Wolf. It died down of course, as anyone with half a brain could see Marth/Ike aren't remotely similar beyond just being blue-haired characters with swords and having similar neutral and down specials. With Mewtwo/Lucario, it's really just a few whackjobs who seemingly never played one of the characters who say they must be clones because of the insistent "Lucario replaced Mewtwo!" myth and the similar neutral special. Really, if the "Lucario replaced Mewtwo!" myth wasn't as big as it is, this clone discussion about it wouldn't be happening at all.

To summarise; Marth/Ike are in a position similar to Fox/Wolf, though to a lesser degree that was more prominent in the early days, while Mewtwo/Lucario is simply a blatant misconception spouted out by a few idiots who obviously never played one of the characters, fueled by the "Lucario replaced Mewtwo!" myth.

Also Mega, "Ike replaced Roy" is a myth as well. Omega Tyrant 18:54, 12 December 2013 (EST)

Link/Toon Link SSB4

I don't know many technical things, so I won't be good at this, but I'm pretty sure Link and Toon Link are still semi-clones (at least) in SSB4. Nutta Butta (talk)

...well I could have done that... lol A new challengeris approaching...

Are Roy and Lucina Cross Generation Clones?

Both are basically designed to be Marth without the tip based spacing. Though maybe we should wait and see what Lucina's other differences from Marth are. Guybrush20X6 (talk) 11:03, 15 July 2014 (EDT)

"Both are basically designed to be Marth without the tip based spacing."

This is false, Roy had Marth's gimmick but reversed, while Lucina has no sweetspotting gimmicks whatsoever. Not to mention Lucina doesn't possess Roy's other notable qualities (such as the fire-based moves). As such, they don't fill the same character niche, and would not be considered cross generation clones of each other. Omega Tyrant 11:16, 15 July 2014 (EDT)

Also, Lucina's and Roy's relationship to each other would be like Dr. Mario's and Luigi's; two characters that were cloned from the same character, but on two distinct and diverging paths (rather than the relationship of Young and Toon Link, where they're clearly on the same cloning path). Omega Tyrant 11:50, 15 July 2014 (EDT)

I wouldn't make it a definite no, we should wait for Lucina to be playable in a demo or when it comes out and see just how similar she is to Marth. I'd say they are cross-generation semi-clones no matter what, but whether or not they are full-blown clones we'll see later. ...a new Nuttais approaching... 11:06, 21 July 2014 (EDT)

Roy and Toon Link

Should Brawl Toon Link be considered a Total Clone. They really do not have very many differences. Likewise, Melee Roy has a lot of differences Melee Marth. This have inverted sweet spots and Roy has some Fire Based attacks. I don't get how the same system can both consider Roy a total clone and Toon Link as semi-clone (at least Brawl Toon Link).

MarioIsTheBest (talk) 12:55, 15 July 2014 (EDT)

Toon Link has a lot of different moves, plus his physics are very, very different compared to Link's. On the other hand, Roy shares most of his moves with Marth and has similar physics, with only visual fire effects and the different tipper location being added to his moves, but that doesn't make him a semi-clone. Scr7(talk · contribs) 13:08, 15 July 2014 (EDT)

Also how is Luigi still a semi-clone in Smash Bros 4. He has been given a small amount of changes. However, I'd say that was enough to kick him off to the point of no longer being a clone or a semiclone. MarioIsTheBest (talk) 2:29, 15 July 2014 (EDT)

Luigi still shares enough moves with Mario to be his semi-clone, such as n-air and fireball. blue ninjakoopa 15:53, 15 July 2014 (EDT)

Should Young Link and Toon Link be considered cross generation complete clones?

Do they share enough traits to be considered that? I know that one is a semi-clone while the other is a complete clone clone of Link but most of the differences Young Link has with Link, Toon Link also has those differences and Toon Link is already on the borderline of being considered a complete clone himself of regular Link.

MarioIsTheBest (talk) 17:02, 19 August 2014 (EDT)

Dr. Mario and Dark Pit

I'm considering adding these two to the Smash 4 table. So far, I noted the following differences between them and the original:

• Dr. Mario retains his down special while Mario has F.L.U.D.D., making it a noticable difference. Along with the differences between them in Melee, Dr.'s Final Smash is like Mario Finale, with pills instead of fire.
• Out of the footage I've seen with Dark Pit, only difference I noted was the Electroshock Arm used in place of Pit's Upperdash Arm. Haven't seen Dark Pit's Final Smash yet. There were other differences, but they're mostly cosmetic.

As the info/analysis is incomplete, I decided to post it here instead of in the table. Is there anything else that could be added to what I got? Berrenta (talk) 13:26, 11 September 2014 (EDT)

In the Marios, I feel that the down special and down aerials are different enough to warrant semi clone status. For the Pits, I feel that final smashes aren't major enough for semi-clone status, but those are just my opinions. PikaSamus (talk) 12:19, 12 September 2014 (EDT)

Ganondorf has three unique moves in melee, should he be listed as a semi-clone?!?! No, plus Doc's grouped with the other clones, I see no real reason why he should be listed as a semi-clone. (Even if he's slightly less of a clone than Lucina or Dark Pit) There really aren't enough unique moves to rationalize him being a semi-clone, I mean really, Mario pseudo-keeps the tornado anyway. I feel he should be moved back to the clone section. Laikue (talk|contribs) 14:13, 12 September 2014 (EDT)

If Melee Ganondorf had, say, an up special that teleported him, would you argue for complete clone status? PikaSamus (talk) 15:11, 12 September 2014 (EDT)

Does Dr. Mario have a teleportation move? No, no he does not, you're dodging my point, Dr. Mario is as unique as Meleedorf, less so actually, due to the fact that their physics are practically the same, while Ganon's are very different from Falcon's. I see no real reason why he shouldn't be considered a Clone other than "Oh, he has a somewhat unique Down Special!" Yet, Roy's Up special had radically different speed, range, damage, and knockback, I still say we should move it back into the clone section. Laikue (talk|contribs) 15:28, 12 September 2014 (EDT)

Personally I think we should wait a bit longer for extra confirmation how different they are. Dark Pit Especially. Guybrush20X6 (talk) 15:31, 12 September 2014 (EDT)

Alright, I guess the customs will be the final nail in the clone coffin. Laikue (talk|contribs) 20:51, 12 September 2014 (EDT)

I've been looking at Dark Pit's moves and I noticed that the blades he's using aren't from his sniper staff. They're just copies of Pit's split bow. What the hell? Blue Ninjakoopa 20:56, 12 September 2014 (EDT)

Yeah, they're just from his signature Silver Bow, why they put the Staff in the artwork I'll never know, but it's only used for his Final Smash (hence his clone status). Sad, but true (at least he was added last minute with the other clones and most likely did not take away a player spot from anyone.). Laikue (talk|contribs) 21:00, 12 September 2014 (EDT)

@Lakiue: That was not my intention. Doctor Mario has a differently functioning aerial. I believe Ganon was considered a complete clone due to functioning nearly identically, despite having a different animation. PikaSamus (talk) 10:12, 15 September 2014 (EDT)

Dr. Mario's SSB4 Clone Status

My reasoning is this, two unique moves and one unique custom (of the moves cloned from Mario) do not make a character a semi-clone. Let's look at what we have here; almost all of Dr. Mario's moves are identical in animation to Mario's (yet have different effects, ala most clones), this includes his Up, Side, and Standard Specials, as well as his Final Smash (although the latter two use Pills instead of Fireballs), with his Down Special and Down Aerial being similar to Luigi's respective versions with one of his Tornado Customs being cloned from Luigi and one being unique, however, although they are similar, aside from the cloned custom, they are only similar due to both originally being full clones of Mario (before he had F.L.U.D.D.). Overall this gives him two unique moves (Down-Aerial and Dr. Tornado) and three unique custom specials (The Ol' one-two, Tornado ones) from Mario with the two unique moves being similar to Luigi's with one of his Tornado Customs being cloned from Luigi's. Overall giving him (if you look at him as a Mario/Luigi clones) two fully non-cloned custom special or if you see him as a solo Mario clone, he gets 2 unique moves and a unique custom (not gonna count the Tornado Customs, which Mario naturally wouldn't get). So, now that I've kinda rambled through that, I'd like to bring up that Ganondorf in Melee had three fully unique moves (Up-Tilt, Forward Aerial, and Neutral Aerial) and vastly different physics in Melee and he is considered a full clone. So why should we consider Dr. Mario, who has around or less than that many unique moves and mostly cloned physics in SSB4 a Semi-Clone?

TL;DR: Dr. Mario is too similar to Mario to be called a Semi-Clone, and if Dr. Mario is de-cloned enough to be considered a Semi-Clone, Ganondorf in Melee should be considered a Semi-Clone. Laikue (talk|contribs) 21:15, 3 October 2014 (EDT)

Dr. Mario is basically unchanged from Melee to Smash 4 in terms of his moveset. But with Mario in Brawl, he had a few changes to him, namely his down special moving to his down air and getting a new down special. That said, Ganondorf was in a similar case in Melee, being an almost-full clone of Captain Falcon. But in Brawl, he got a new side special to differentiate him from the Falcon. In short, a semi-clone, from my understanding, has to have either one different move, or multiple changes to several similar moves. Aidan the Gamer 21:26, 3 October 2014 (EDT)

I agree that Dr. Mario is to be considered a clone, due to sharing so many attacks, and aspects such as voice. He's in the dedicated clones part of the roster for a reason. Toast ltimatum 01:05, 11 October 2014 (EDT)

Sakurai also officially called Dr. Mario a clone, I think with that with my evidence (some of which has been made stronger with the discovery that all of his customs are cloned), I believe that we should change his status as a semi-clone to a clone. Laikue (talk|contribs) 12:05, 11 October 2014 (EDT)

I believe that Dr. Mario should be counted as a semi-clone, due to Mario's changes, with a differently working Mario Tornado (it may seem similar, but it works differently) and the FLUDD as his down special. That may not be considered a very strong argument, but those are my points. A moderator of Smashboards liked my post saying Dr. Mario is a semi-clone in Smash 4, if that means anything, though I doubt it does. Lakiue, may you please list the source of Sakurai saying that? PikaSamus (talk) 12:43, 13 October 2014 (EDT)

Just like in Melee, SSB4 directly identifies its clones by their placement on the character selection screen. The question is whether we treat that as a given or not. Toomai Glittershine The Producer 12:53, 13 October 2014 (EDT)

[1] is where I got my information and [2] is the source of said information (which comes from Famitsu) It doesn't look like he actually called any of the clones "clones" so that's a strike in my argument and I have to re-edit the term as unofficial (to be fair, Zelda informer edited their article, since I know clones wasn't bubbled.), but he still put him in the same boat as Lucina and Dark Pit. Additionally, just playing from experience, Dr. Mario is still too similar to Mario to call him a semi-clone. Also, no, a mod liking your post doesn't mean jack for the argument (although the total number of people who liked the post or heck, the post itself might help the argument). Laikue (talk|contribs) 15:00, 13 October 2014 (EDT)

(resetting indent) I don't really care if he's listed as a clone or a semi-clone. Some people believe Pichu is a semi-clone (I remember reading a post saying that Pichu is a semi-clone on Smashboards), but it's listed as a clone. People's opinions will often differ from the page, but that doesn't always change them. If no more people believe he's a semi-clone, you should likely change it. PikaSamus (talk) 10:01, 14 October 2014 (EDT)

By that, then I suggest we take a quick vote, I believe he should be listed as a clone as he is not changed enough to be considered otherwise. Laikue (talk|contribs) 11:31, 14 October 2014 (EDT)

I agree with Laikue. Dr. Mario is still a clone of Mario and one vastly different special doesn't make him any less than one; Luigi is the actual semi-clone. Blue Ninjakoopa 12:49, 14 October 2014 (EDT)

Since it doesn't seem like anyone else is gonna say anything and we got three "gos" with Pikasamus being the only one to explicitly go against it (Not sure if Aidan was for or against it....), I'm just gonna go and move him to the clones section, I guess it can be discussed more if anyone has a problem with it after the fact, though. Laikue (talk|contribs) 01:02, 15 October 2014 (EDT)

SSB4 Luigi

Can we even call Luigi a semi-clone in SSB4 anymore? Barely any of his moves are similar to Mario's anymore, with the only moves he still does share with him are Fireball and Super Jump Punch, but with different animations. I may be wrong about this, but I feel Luigi can no longer be considered anymore, but is it really the case or is there something still holding him as semi-clone? Bulbaboy (talk) 22:03, 10 October 2014 (EDT)

Luigi and Mario share neutral air, back air, up air, down smash, up smash, first two hits of neutral combo, forward tilt, up throw, back throw and forward throw. I think it's safe to say he is still a semi-clone. --AwesomeLuigi (talk) 22:08, 10 October 2014 (EDT)

I don't care how many moves they share, they don't play anything alike anymore. Those 12 moves are nothing compared to physics, specials, several other moves, grabs, the rest of the "neutral combo", animations, taunts, victory poses, size, shape, power, etc. The theory of Luigi being a semi-clone changes the level of clone-ness for everyone else. Ganondorf, Falco, and Dr. Mario share several moves, have basically the same physics, and in Dr. Mario's case very similar physics. Luigi was barely a semi-clone in SSBB. Now we might as well call Charizard a clone of Bowser because he has similar clawing attacks and standard special. ...a new Nuttais approaching... 22:17, 10 October 2014 (EDT)

"I don't care how many moves they share, they don't play anything alike anymore."

Mario and Luigi never "played anything alike." What the hell are you talking about?

"Those 12 moves are nothing compared to physics, specials, several other moves, grabs, the rest of the "neutral combo", animations, taunts, victory poses, size, shape, power, etc."

You're wrong about everything except for the physics, but character physics don't dictate clone status. That said, I do think that special move physics do, which is why Wolf should be considered a semi-clone of Fox since their sets of specials share an archetype (down B reflector, blaster neutral B, angular up B, flash side B).

"The theory of Luigi being a semi-clone changes the level of clone-ness for everyone else. Ganondorf, Falco, and Dr. Mario share several moves, have basically the same physics, and in Dr. Mario's case very similar physics."

It's not a "theory;" Luigi started out as an outright clone of Mario in Super Smash Bros. and has had slight, gradual changes in his moveset across newer games. However, many of his normal moves are identical in function (neutral attack), identical in animation (n-air, b-air, up smash), or both (back throw, forward throw) to Mario's, and his special moves are semi-cloned except for Green Missile (Luigi Cycloned began as a cloned move). How can you not see that? As for your second sentence... yeah, and? They're still listed as semi-clones (though Dr. Mario is actually a clone). What are you going on about?

"Luigi was barely a semi-clone in SSBB. Now we might as well call Charizard a clone of Bowser because he has similar clawing attacks and standard special."

Luigi was barely a clone in SSBB, which makes him a semi-clone. Your second sentence here is a slippery slope argument; without presenting evidence that Luigi is different enough from Mario to no longer be classified as a semi-clone (Luigi's up special and neutral special are still semi-cloned, and Luigi's down special originated as a cloned move; the article states that differences in special moves mostly determine clone status, hence for example Captain Falcon in Smash 64 not being considered a "semi-clone" of Samus, even though the two share a down tilt, down smash, up tilt, neutral aerial, and floor attacks), you erroneously conclude that Charizard and Bowser should be considered "semi-clones" because their vast differences/puny similarities (clawing attacks? So was Wolf also a "semi-clone" of Bowser in Brawl?) can somehow be compared to the ones between Mario and Luigi. Blue Ninjakoopa 13:22, 14 October 2014 (EDT)

You're wrong about everything except for the physics, but character physics don't dictate clone status. That said, I do think that special move physics do, which is why Wolf should be considered a semi-clone of Fox since their sets of specials share an archetype (down B reflector, blaster neutral B, angular up B, flash side B).

I'm pretty sure Mario and Luigi don't share taunts, victory poses, or (most of their) animations. And there are a large number of moves that aren't shared besides specials. And the only specials that are in any way the same are fireball and Super Jump Punch, and Super Jump Punch is pretty different. BY definition, a clone is identical to its original. Clearly that's not true in smash, but you can't distance very far from the original. A semi-clone, therefore, has slightly more major differences but still with several being the same- for example, Falco's blaster can't rapid-fire and his reflector is nearly completely different, but they share several similarities in Fox Illusion/Falco Phantasm, Fire Fox/Falco, Landmaster, and a large number of their standard moves. Luigi, on the other hand, has twelve things in common and everything else completely different. Whereas you can point out a large number of similarities between Fox/Falco, Falcon/Ganon, and Link/Toon Link, Mario/Luigi have twelve. Yes, they were full clones in Smash Bros. (although I could debate that, it's close enough). They were semi-clones in Melee with Green Missile being basically the only unique move. Luigi was not barely a clone in Brawl. He was barely a clone in Melee, which is what made him a semi-clone. In Brawl, the moves he shared with Mario gained a number of new physics, his down special became unique (even if Mario originated it, he doesn't have it now, and that makes it Luigi's move, not Mario's), his Final Smash, most of his grabs, most of his standards, etc., which made him only a semi-clone in Brawl, but barely. I think physics should count more to clone-ness than anything else. Mario and Luigi's physics are not the same. Mario and Dr. Mario's are (for the most part). And if specials are what are used, then Luigi only shares half of his specials while Ganondorf shares three while Toon Link and Falco share all of theirs (with their parents). I'm not very technical in Smash but it's pretty clear that Mario and Luigi don't have enough similarities to be semi-clones anymore. They should have a small mention in the notes, like Falcon/Samus in the original. ---Previously unsigned comment added by you. Or maybe Nutta. 22:39, 20 October 2014 (EDT)

"I'm pretty sure Mario and Luigi don't share taunts, victory poses, or (most of their) animations."

Falco doesn't share his taunts with Fox and only shares one of his three victory poses with him, Toon Link/Young Link doesn't share his taunts or victory poses with Link, and Ganondorf doesn't share his taunts or victory poses with Falcon, so this sentence proves nothing.

"And there are a large number of moves that aren't shared besides specials. And the only specials that are in any way the same are fireball and Super Jump Punch, and Super Jump Punch is pretty different."

Those being f-air, d-air (which originated as a cloned move), f-smash, and neutral combo. That's not nearly enough for them to be considered entirely separate, or worth placing (underrepresenting) Luigi in the "notes" section.

"BY definition, a clone is identical to its original. Clearly that's not true in smash, but you can't distance very far from the original. A semi-clone, therefore, has slightly more major differences but still with several being the same- for example, Falco's blaster can't rapid-fire and his reflector is nearly completely different, but they share several similarities in Fox Illusion/Falco Phantasm, Fire Fox/Falco, Landmaster, and a large number of their standard moves. Luigi, on the other hand, has twelve things in common and everything else completely different. Whereas you can point out a large number of similarities between Fox/Falco, Falcon/Ganon, and Link/Toon Link, Mario/Luigi have twelve."

You can't point out that many more similarities between the clone-parent pairs you mentioned, and having twenty-five (not "twelve") similarities is enough for semi-clone status. Falco's set of standard attacks is more different from Fox's than Luigi's is from Mario's, so he's a terrible example. Additionally, all of Ganondorf's standard and special moves are semi-cloned off of Falcon's in appearance and effect in Brawl, while Luigi still retains moves still fully cloned in animation. That said, Ganondorf is also a bad example.

"Yes, they were full clones in Smash Bros. (although I could debate that, it's close enough). They were semi-clones in Melee with Green Missile being basically the only unique move. Luigi was not barely a clone in Brawl. He was barely a clone in Melee, which is what made him a semi-clone. In Brawl, the moves he shared with Mario gained a number of new physics, his down special became unique (even if Mario originated it, he doesn't have it now, and that makes it Luigi's move, not Mario's), his Final Smash, most of his grabs, most of his standards, etc., which made him only a semi-clone in Brawl, but barely."

You can't even argue for classifying Luigi as a unique character, so I don't expect you to challenge Luigi's status as a clone of Mario in Smash 64. Green Missile was not the "only unique move", Luigi gained a different f-air and f-smash in transition from Smash 64 to Melee. Luigi was semi-clone in Brawl, with the same running and walking animation, jump animations (all four in Brawl, only three in Smash 4) crouch, back air, neutral air, up air, forward tilt, throws (5 attacks total, including the pummel), up smash, floor attacks (3; after tripping, from a faceplant, and from falling on his back), ledge attack(s) (2 in Brawl, 1 in Smash 4), and a semi-cloned down smash, up special, and neutral special (that's twenty-five similarities in Brawl, twenty-three in Smash 4). All of that is enough to classify him as a semi-clone, regardless of the "new physics". His moves gained "new physics" in Melee, and Ganondorf's semi-cloned moves all have "different physics," as do Toon Link's in comparison to Link's and Falco's in comparison to Fox's. "New" or "different" physics don't make a move or moveset any less [semi-]cloned, they just keep the character in question from being a simple palette swap. Also, a move that had its origins as a cloned move does not necessarily "belong" to the character that keeps it.

"I think physics should count more to clone-ness than anything else. Mario and Luigi's physics are not the same. Mario and Dr. Mario's are (for the most part). And if specials are what are used, then Luigi only shares half of his specials while Ganondorf shares three while Toon Link and Falco share all of theirs (with their parents). I'm not very technical in Smash but it's pretty clear that Mario and Luigi don't have enough similarities to be semi-clones anymore. They should have a small mention in the notes, like Falcon/Samus in the original."

Mario and Luigi's physics have never been the same. Not even full on clones have the exact same physics. That said, Dr. Mario's physics for his moves aren't the same "for the most part." Dr. Mario doesn't even share his jumping height and falling speed with Mario anymore, but does that relinquish him of his clone status? Not at all. Did Falco jumping higher and running slower than Fox in Melee make him "barely a clone"? Luigi sharing half of his specials or even one still would qualify him as a semi-clone, and you'd still need to consider their standard movesets in determining their status as unique/cloned characters. Blue Ninjakoopa 00:32, 21 October 2014 (EDT)

at this point you're just repeating yourself (whether or not i've proven you wrong i won't say, but you haven't made any new points in either of those posts) so does anyone else have an argument ---Previously unsigned comment added by you. Or maybe Nutta. 21:54, 21 October 2014 (EDT)

I'm quite debated about this. Luigi and Mario share some moves, but the question is how different are they from each other? If the moves they share are similar, then Luigi is a semi-clone of Mario. If they're different, however, enough to tell a difference between the two, then Luigi is not a semi-clone of Mario. Simply put, I'm not sure if Luigi is a semi-clone or not; it all depends on if the shared moves Mario and Luigi have are different enough from each other. Rtzxy Smashing! 22:06, 21 October 2014 (EDT)

All you have to do is look at the 25 attacks/animations (23 in Smash 4) I mentioned that they have in common to conclude that they're still semi-clones. Nutta Butta basically doesn't have an argument besides "I don't want them to be semi-clones" and "I ran out of talking points, so I'll accuse BNK of repeating himself as if I've fucking forgotten how to read, then ask other people to chip in on the off chance that they'll agree with any of the shit I've been spouting", and wasn't even able to defend his own... er, case, if you want to call it that. The evidence is in the game and speaks for itself; don't take my word for it, take Luigi to training mode and you'll see that he's still quite similar to Mario. If we're to say that his attacks having different physics from Mario makes him "unique", then Ganondorf and Falco are "unique" as well. Lol. Blue Ninjakoopa 22:47, 21 October 2014 (EDT)