Talk:Clone

Clones in Melee

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

Clones in Brawl

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

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

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

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

On the contrary...

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

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

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

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

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

Toon Link

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

Unique attacks:

• Upsmash (hits three times for Link)
• Nair (sex kick)
• Fair (hits three times IIRC)
• Bair (a kick)
• Back throw
• Forward Throw

- Gargomon251 (talk) 04:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

You forgot about Dair. Toon Link's is a stall and fall attack (which is more signifigant than having a different animation) while Link's is not. --TStick (talk) 13:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't really consider that a major difference. Other than the spiking properties, you get the same results from Link by Fastfalling. It's still the same animation, and the same basic attack. It just moves a little faster. Like Falcon Punch and Warlock Punch, to an extent. - Gargomon251 (talk) 01:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

If Toon Link lands his dair next to an opponent without actually hitting him/her, then they will get pushed away if Toon Link was close enough. If Link lands his dair next to somebody, it doesn't push them away. I consider that Toon Link's dair is different enough than Link's to be considered a different attack. --TStick (talk) 03:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The knockback on the first parts of two of Toon Link's smashes are pretty different from Link's as they are fixed. That means that TL can hit his opponent with both parts of his fsmash, and that the front part of his dsmash knocks others into the back part of his attack. I think of those attacks as being different enough to be unique attacks for Toon Link. --TStick (talk) 04:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The hitboxes and the animation (i.e. the way the swing their swords) are almsot identical. Gale Boomerang has that "push/pull" effect too, but boomerang is still boomerang. Luigi's Fireball hovers, but it's still almost identical to mario's. You can't nitpick at tiny little "effect" differences. Sure, TL's Fsmash has a bit of hitstun, but that doesn't make it a totally different attack. Compare Dr. Mario to Mario. Sure, the attacks have different damages and knockbacks, but each and every move moves in the same way. Even Megavitamins is basically a fireball with a different picture slapped on. - Gargomon251 (talk) 06:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

About Link fast-falling with dair. Link isn't forced to go downwards at a fast speed when he uses his dair, can still move around horizontally, and can even keep the momentum from jumping while doing it. TL has to go down in a straight line while doing so and loses upwards momentum from his jump. TL's dair is different enough to be a move of it's own. That would make seven moves that Toon Link has different from Link. Seven and a half if Fsmash counts, because if looked at closely, Link swings his sword in an arc that covers good horizontal and vertical distance while TL clearly swings more horizontally than vertically. --TStick (talk) 17:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

About that Dair...it's still the same animation. The fastfall (and spike) is the only difference, sort of like Fox and Falco's dair. It's still cloned because it used the same template. I will need to compare their fsmashes, but it sounds like the same issue ans Fox and Falco's uair: slightly different axis, same basic animation and effect. But TL has a little more hitstun. - Gargomon251 (talk) 21:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Fire Wolf

By looking at the history of the clone page, I see that you consider Fire Wolf different enough from Fire Fox to not be cloned, even though it's essentially Fire Fox without the fire effect at the beggining. The only other thing that's different is the kick animation at the end. If Fire Wolf is a different attack, then why isn't Lucas's PSI Magnet? Ness and Lucas hold their PSI Magnets in totally different ways from each other's.--TStick (talk) 12:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

That's because the only difference is the placement and the side effect. It's still the same size, shape, and color and is used much the same way, only Lucas's deals damage while Ness's pushes away. Fire Wolf not only lacks flame damage, but it does no charging damage and the final kick also deals different damage. Plus it charges faster. A better comparison would be PK Freeze and PK Flash. Sure, the controls are similar, but the attack itself is quite different in the end.

I was sarcastic about Ness and Lucas's Down B. I was using their animation differences to show that they aren't much different other than that like how Fire Wolf has a different animation and that it's not much different from Fire Fox. Luigi's Super Jump Punch is a different story. It needs to be sweetspoted to not be really weak, it can do fire damage, knockback is very different when sweetspotted, able to go up a sraight line, has more landing lag than Mario's Super Jump Punch, and very different in function from Mario's version, yet they share an article together. Their main similaraties are that both are recovery moves and their names. I'm not saying that they should have seperate articles, it's just that Fire Wolf's differences from Fire Fox aren't as drastic as Luigi's Super Jump Punch is from Mario's Super Jump Punch. Besides, most cloned special attacks deal different damage from the attacks that they cloned anyways. --TStick (talk) 04:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

When you put it like that, as far as fire effect, landing lag, and damage, it sounds very much like the differences between Fire Wolf and Fire Fox. And the name isn't an issue since you both Super Jump Punches have the same name but you didn't consider them cloned. I'm willing to grant that maybe Luigi's ISN'T cloned per se, but I still say FW is about as different from FF as Charge Beam is from Aura Sphere. I need testing, but I believe FW has a different sweetspot as well. - Gargomon251 (talk) 06:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Kirby and Jigglypuff

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

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

What the! Kirby and Jiggly only share one animation their jump, and how can Mario and Ness be clones because of their shape! Sheesh! Dark Dedede (talk) 18:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Gargomon was being sarcastic. The idea that either of the two pairs are clones is ridiculous. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 18:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

How is it ridiculous? They have the same Neutral A combo (first 2 hits), ftilt, dtilt, utilt, fsmash, nair, dair and backthrow. They also have extremely similar down smashes (enough to call identical), and their fair looks the same except kirby is spinning more than once (kind of like fox and falcos dair). Their bairs are also very similar in use. Many of their animations, such as climbing and jumping are the same. Their only profound difference is in special moves. It's not a ridiculous notion that they're semi clones. They only have 6 completely different moves (specials, fthrow, usmash, uair). That's why I keep "vandalising" the page. Because I know I'm right about this one.

I admit that the others were wrong for calling your edits vandalism. in the Original EVERY CHARACTER had similar moves! all down smashes are extremely alike and fair/nairs which is why in the original only Mario and Luigi are considered clones since they're the only ones that follow the clone definition clearly. All character's moves are based off of one another which any smasher playing the original would know. Jigglypuff and Kirby are not based off each other in any way more than the other characters are. - Hatake91 (talk) 16:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

That would be fair enough if their moves were similar, but many of their moves are IDENTICAL. Yes every character has a standard sex kick as a nair (except donkey kong), but kirby and jigglypuff have the same kick. You're wrong about down smashes. Only Kirby, Jigglypuff and fox have split kicks. And they are similar in animations for alot of things.

Look I've already put forward all the arguments. It's up to the community to decide. However I think it should be mentioned on the article that every character in the original has similar moves if you decide not to agree with me. It's not common knowledge, and even if it was, it's still worth mentioning.

PS: Look at captain falcon and samus' down smashes happening at the same time. You'll laugh.

Mario and Squirtle

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

They should be in the semi-clone category. I don't consider Lucario to be a Mewtwo clone though, because they only share one attack. --TStick (talk) 15:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Did you notice that you can see electricity in Lucario's Aura Sphere as you can see it in Mewtwo's Shadow Ball? That proves that Aura Sphere is somewhat of a copy of Shadow Ball, just colored blue

--Blue Ninjakoopa (talk) 22:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

This is clearly a joke, they don't move the same, jump the same, or share any of the same attacks besides Water Gun. - Gargomon251 (talk) 04:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I had some time on my hands so I compared them side by side:

NO similar ground moves

NO similar throws

ONE similar special (MAYBE two if you count waterfall...sorta)

THREE similar aerials (Bair, Dair, Uair)

Nothing else is even close. It's like comparing Shiek to ZSS. - Gargomon251 (talk) 04:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Um, I think Sheik and ZSS are semi-clones. Granted, I won't add that until we prove it, but think about it... Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 03:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Where's your proof? I can check later, but I know for a FACT they have unique specials, smashes, nair, bair, and combos. -Gargomon251 (talk) 04:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Down aerial. Down tilt. That is all. But I never checked throws. Either way it hardly matters.

The similarities between Water Gun and F.L.U.D.D. is just because Nintendo wanted to give some new Idea they had to more than one character. Besides, if one character is a clone, the other one would have to have come first in my opinion... In the case of those two water attacks, which one came first? Nobody knows. The appeared in the same game. So one cant be considered a clone of another. In my opinion, i'd say the same so for Mario and Luigi. Who'se moveset came first? So Luigi is the clone just because Mario is the main character of the series? The debuted in Samsh Bros at the same time. Who can say which one is a clone of the other? Fox came before falco. Falco was a clone. Mario came before Dr. Mario. Dr. Mario was a clone. Pikachu came before Pichu. Etc. They can be clones. Although, it's not like I'm going to change anyone's mind... Squirtle however... no. Not a clone.24.47.185.43 02:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I have always used chronological order, not unlocking order. This would make, just for the sake of example, Lucas a clone of Ness, despite Ness being a hidden character. However, since Mario and Luigi first appeared in SSB64, I consider Luigi the clone due to his hidden status. - Gargomon251 (talk) 03:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

If squirtle's a mario clone, then charizard's definitely a bowser clone.

No, Charizard is not a Bowser Clone. They only share Fire breath, Charizard's racks up more damage and doesen't last long, while Bowser's has more range and lasts longer.

Secondly, Mario's DOWN B is F.L.U.D.D., he doesen't shoot water from his mouth. Also, water from fludd pushes farther than the water from Squirtle. Squirtle's NEUTRAL B is WATER GUN, and it has slightly better reach

Third, Mario's, Wario's and Squirtle's Dair are used the same (multiple hits then a blow with great knockback), but have different animations. Wario's sends a character in a random direction like Squirtle's, but Mario's sends a character up and is good for juggling.

I'm done, It's the truth, FACE IT!

--Blue Ninjakoopa (talk) 22:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

[<Faced>] 69.12.204.63 22:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Yo, number guy. You can insult me when you have a User Page! (P3WNED) --Blue Ninjakoopa (talk) 22:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, no, no, no. That wasn't an insult. Just an...inside joke. No offense towards anybody.69.12.204.63 22:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Falco and Fox

Unique moves:

• Down Special (YES, it moves much differently and has a different knockback, plus it can't be held)
• Neutral A combo
• Up Tilt
• F-air
• N-air
• Back Air (Falco kicks a bit differently)
• Fsmash

Different animation = different attack, otherwise all characters would be clones. Granted, some moves are still close enough. Both Fox and Falco flip-kick for the UAir, but at slightly different angles. Not enough to really matter. - Gargomon251 (talk) 04:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

A different animation doesn't mean it's a completely different attack. Falco's neutral A combo has a different animation, but it still has the same multi-hit properties of Fox's neutral A combo. Falco's Fair and Bair (the animation isn't that different) also have the same effects as Fox's Fair and Bair.

I'd have to agree with Down Special and Up Tilt though, because they are pretty different for Falco. --TStick (talk) 12:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Falco's Bair has more sex kick properties. And his forward aerial and combo are totally different other than the fact the hit more than once. Difference in animation is 50% what determines a "cloned" move. Otherwise the definition of "clone" becomes too broad. - Gargomon251 (talk) 01:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I never realized that Falco's bair was a sex kick. And now I found out that Fox's fair made him float in the air and Falco's didn't. Aside from animation and stat changes, there aren't really any major differences in their fsmash and combo attacks. They have their differences, just not as much as Fox and Wolf.--TStick (talk) 03:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

And I can see that. But they're not nearly as identical in Brawl as they were in Melee. - Gargomon251 (talk) 06:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Mario and Luigi (brawl)

Unique attacks include:

• Neutral Combo
• Utilt (kittenswipe)
• Forward Smash (Spear hand)
• D-air (Mario Tornado)
• F-air (karate chop)
• Green Missile
• Luigi Tornado
• Dash Attack
• Negative Zone

They are NOT clones. Semi-clones, barely, but NOT CLONES IN BRAWL AT ALL. - Gargomon251 (talk) 04:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

they are clones in 64 though. Solar flute (talk)

Ganondorf and C Falcon (Brawl)

Unique moves:

• Up Tilt (so it's a kick. But they both work so vastly differently.)
• Down Tilt
• Neutral A
• Flame Choke (totally different strike)
• Up Smash
• Up Throw (CF does a low uppercut, Ganon does a palm slam)
• F-air
• F-tilt and up special are close to being different, but debatable.

- Gargomon251 (talk) 04:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Marth and Ike

before someone considers this...THERE IS NO WAY IN HECK THAT IKE IS A CLONE.He has TWO attacks that are some what simaler.What,is he a clone for having a side-B simaler to Marths Final Smash,i dont think so.72.197.66.113 02:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, way to start an argument with nobody! WHOO! PWND! --RJM ^Talk 02:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't hate, it's true! Marth and Ike aren't clones. Face it! --Blue Ninjakoopa (talk) 21:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Agrees. It's on my userpage. Ike's Best Buddy^{Great Aether!} 18:44, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

so umm uh, yeah...

kirby and jigglypuff in ssb64? im placing my vote of NO. Kperfekt722 (talk) 08:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I vote an emphatic NO. - Gargomon251 (talk) 21:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Move Evaluation

Not all moves should be evaluated the same. This is a chart I came up with and it has examples.

• Totally/Very different A attack|Toon Link's Nair and Luigi's Dash Attack = 1 Unique Attack Point
• A attack with a different animation, but same basic funtion|Falco's AAA Combo and Wolf's Dtilt = 0.5 UA
• Totally/Very different B attack|Luigi's Green Missile and Falco's Reflector = 2 UA
• Special Attack with the same/similar execution pattern, but has a different type of hitbox|Ganondorf's Side B has a grab hitbox instead of a standard one. = 0.5 UA
• Different throw|Some of Wolf's throws = 1 UA

Maybe something like that should be used? --TStick (talk) 19:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's fair to use a concrete "point" scale, when it's clearly up to interpretation. How is Lucas's Fsmash anywhere close to Falco's combo? Also throws are a little harder to judge because they are more direction-specific. For example, Wario's Dair has upward knockback while Falco's is downward. But every upthrow in the game launches the opponent more or less upward. You can't judge by hitbox.

As far as other moves, I consider animation to be an integral part of what makes a clone. Some people were comparing Falco and Fox's Uptilt. Sure, they have similar hitboxes, but the animation is vastly "original" between them. Then you have the opposite: Flame Choke may START similar to Raptor Boost, but it's totally different once it reaches the opponent, so I don't consider it cloned any more. But their up specials are. It's the same flip, the same grab, but the difference is that little uppercut Ganondorf does. Therefore it's still similar enough to be cloned. For another example, take Fox and Falco's uair. They're both flip-kick, but Falco's has a slightly different axis. I still consider it cloned though, the animation is very similar.

Additionally, special moves have more bearing in clone status that physical attacks usually. That's one of the big arguments I had against the "Jigglypuff=Kirby" argument. HOWEVER special moves alone aren't the only factor: for example, Squirtle and Mario have been claimed to "share" two special moves. And one of the initial arguments for Ike was that he supposedly shared two specials of Marth. Even Wolf, who has two specials that are somewhat similar to Falco, has a totally unique Standard moveset, and thus shouldn't be considered a clone, despite the final smash. Does this help clear things up? - Gargomon251 (talk) 21:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Man, you misread my chart bigtime. I never said that Falco's AAA combo was comparable with Lucas's Fsmash. I was giving out two examples of moves that had a different animation and I was in a hurry and happened to make a mistake. I'll replace Lucas's Fsmash attack which has the same animation as Ness's Fsmash with Wolf's Dtilt, since it has a different animation and has pretty much the same function as Fox's (and Falco's) Dtilt. --TStick (talk) 22:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Now I'm even more confused. - Gargomon251 (talk) 00:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh wait ok I got mixed up with your first sentence. So you're saying wolf's dtilt=falco's dtilt? I'll have to check, but I don't think "function" is high priority. After all, doesn't every uair in the game have the same "function"? - Gargomon251 (talk) 00:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Samus and Pit's Uairs are rapid multi-hit attacks while Sonic's (and I'm sure Fox's as well) has two hits to it. However, other things that affect the gameplay such as disjointed hitboxes, duration, etc aren't completely out of the question for A moves. Falco's AAA combo doesn't use any sort of disjointed hitbox and it doesn't seem much different from Fox's. If the (semi) clones didn't have so many specials that were taken from their respective characters, then their A moves wouldn't be as much of a deal. --TStick (talk) 01:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Origin of "Luigification"

I have read that this term actually came well before the Smash series. In the original SMB, and many other spinoffs such as Wrecking Crew and Mario Bros, Luigi was given no unique moves OR personality, but as the years and games passed, he's been given character development, special attributes, and even physically he has changed in appearence from the mere palette swap he was in the beginning. See http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Luigification - Gargomon251 (talk) 22:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, who knows where it originally came from, but all the same I think a healthy dose of ambiguity as to the exact origin is in order.–Entrea Sumatae 05:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Mario and Ness

This definately needs to be added. In the first Smash Bros, Mario and Ness shared ledge attacks, and getting up attacks, as well as a forward tilt.

All who agree, sign below please. --Blue Ninjakoopa (talk) 21:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm...

• Shared Between Luigi and Ness
• AAA Combo
• Down tilt
• Forward tilt
• Neutral Air
• Back Air
• Walking animation
• Running animation
• Ledge attack
• Getting Up attack
• Shield Break Animation
• Fighting Polygon

I wouldn't call them clones, and semi clone is an even further stretch than kirby/jigglypuff, but it's worth mentioning.

Indeed in the original, all the unlockable characters appear to be modified versions of the default ones. Mario=Luigi~Ness, Kirby=Jigglypuff and Samus~Captain Falcon.

I know they aren't clones, but it has to be mentioned somewhere.

203.54.225.166 08:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

No. It really doesn't. All characters are "clones" of a character model suited for the game--that's why they don't glitch out and crash the system. It's not like we're talking about the differences between Mario and Ryu here...I mean, they build a character model and once it works within the virtual environments they have created, the same properties are applied to every character so all the preliminary work doesn't have to be done again. I think we can put this clone issue to rest and leave the article the way it is for now. C'mon, Mario and Ness?? How much more ridiculous is this going to get? That's like calling Olimar and Link semi-clones for sharing a tether recovery... --RJM ^Talk 20:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Ahhh, shut up, you know-it-all asshole >:( We're not talking about Olimar and Link! Plus, they don't use their tether recovery the same way! --Blue Ninjakoopa (talk) 22:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I refuse to agree with this for several important reasons:

1. There were very few truly unique normal attacks in SSB64.
2. Get-up attacks and ledge attacks are not a viable means of offense therefore are not a major part of any character moveset. That's like saying two people have the same Roll.
3. There was only 12 characters, making it hard to have true variety, especially with the low res models.
4. I don't have SSB64 so I can hardly compare them myself.

- Gargomon251 (talk) 21:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

OKAY!!!

Will everyone get the fuck off my back. It's in the first game, not melee or brawl (although they still share a forward tilt)

Semi clone is what it is, don't deny the inevitable truth.

--Blue Ninjakoopa (talk) 21:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd just like to say that the grounds for clone or semi-clone in SSB64 are a lot more strict. - Gargomon251 (talk) 21:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Why? Because there'd be so many of them? So fucking what. The grounds should be the same for all three games, and it is worth noting the similarities.

shouldnt cussing be sensored or something...

SSB64

It has been established that there is a general air of similarity between the characters, especially (kirby/jigglypuff). Why isn't any of this worth mentioning in the article? 203.54.225.83 03:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

it is, in my opion anyways. im just too lazy to do it haha. KP317 (talk) 02:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it comes down to figuring out how useful and/or interesting the information really is. I don't think mentioning the fact that Jigglypuff and Kirby share floaty multiple jumps adds anything to the article. --RJM ^Talk 05:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

NOTE: i am not at all by any means calling these two semi-clones even by the slightest. now then, when you think about it, fsmash, down throws, air attacks... KP317 (talk) 02:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I have a theory that the reason there's 4 alloys in Brawl is because most of the characters are based off 4 kinds of main designs. Here's a list of examples:

Red Alloy-Falcon,Ganon,Snake.

Blue Alloy-Zelda,Sheik,Peach,

Yellow Alloy-Mario,Luigi,Wario

Green Alloy-Kirby,Jigglypuff,Meta-knight

This, I believe goes beyond anything I can consider cloning.

ok, im gonna put a stand to this

Should roy, REALLY be the clone of marth? they both debuted in the same game, and marth and roy were right next to each other in unlockable order. KP317 (talk) 02:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm so glad i asked. KP317 (talk) 04:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

im taking him off now. so there. *watches as someone cares now that i did something about it*. now that that's taken care of, i think in brawl, luigi & mario shouldn't even be listed under anything. fox and wolf should be semi-clones, as they are now. fox and falco should be regular clones. im kind of on the fence with ganondorf and captain falcon right now though... Ness & Lucas should be moved to full clones. im also on the fence with about marth and ike. User:Kperfekt722 (talk) 02:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Marth came first. He's unlocked before Roy. And that's totally besides the point: what makes them clones is sharing moves, it doesn't matter if they appeared in the same game, or even the same time. 90% of their attacks share the same animations. Now stop "winning" arguments with yourself.

By the way, don't even get me started on lucas, ness, fox, falco, and wolf. I already explained (AND REVERTED) many times why they are not entirely clones.- Gargomon251 (talk) 05:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Link and Toon link are very different

OK ,how are they exact clones of each other? THey are different! Here are some exapmles:

1. Different Neutral-B
2. Different Side-B
3. Somewhat different Up-B
4. Somewhat different Down-B
5. Different Up-Smash
6. Different Run speed
7. Different Jumps
8. Different aerials

The list goes on and on. If Fox and Falco aren't exact clones of each other, then neither should Link and Toon Link. Cheezperson {talk}stuff 04:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Look up. This was already discussed. - 71.90.137.45 21:41, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Also movement speed and body type have no bearing whatsoever on the clone issue. - Gargomon251 (talk) 10:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous

Fox, Falco and Wolf are obviously at least semi-clones. Same with Link and Toon link, Marth and Roy and with Falcon and Ganon. And saying Mario and Luigi should be removed all together is just ridiculous. Now, I'm only gonna say this once: If Nintendo clearly made them have similar movests, then there at least semi-clones. . This seems pretty obvious if you ask me. I'm also still on the fence wit Marth and Ike though, because that could still be a coincidence.74.73.142.163 17:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

IKE AND MARTH ARE NOT SEMI CLONES! WILL SOMEONE LIST THE SIMILARITIES SO I CAN SEE WHAT YOU'RE ON ABOUT! THE ONLY MOVE THEY SHARE IS THE COUNTER! AND QUICK DRAW IS NOTHING LIKE MARTH'S FS! Ike's Best Buddy^{Great Aether!} 18:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with IBB, Ike and Marth are not clones. People only assume this because Ike replaced Roy, who was a clone of Marth. It is stupid! Ike and Marth have no moves the same!!! Pikabro^PIKACHU! 03:56, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. They really only do have 1 shared attack.74.73.142.163 03:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

While they may only have on true attack shared, if you pay attention, many of the animations for their moves are similar. I'd rather not divulge becasue I don't want to start an edit war.Smoreking^(T) _(c) 17:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh ya, lets talk about this instead of talking about my actual point!74.73.142.163 20:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

OMG

OK I HAVE HAD ENOUGH OF THIS PAGE. Do we REALLY need to listen to some IP adresses complaining about how "O TEHY R SO NOT CLONESS"? If they are "Barely Considered Clones At All" then they wouldn't be freaking listed. This is just one thing that is REALLY bothering me. This page may as well be run by vandals. Kperfekt ^{BURN!!! Revert That!} 02:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Different opinions. The thing is that there's no official determination for what makes a clone, and so each person's different definition will include different characters. So listing them all and explaining why and why not seems a sensible way to run the page. Miles (talk) 02:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Saying that they are "Barely even semi-clones at all" is an opinion in itself. Kperfekt ^{BURN!!! Revert That!} 02:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

"These categorizations are not official, and are subject to interpretation." Miles (talk) 02:50, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

How about we just list them and get rid of all the other shit like "THEY ONLY SHARE 3 SPECIAL ATTACKS AND THE ONES THEY SHARE ARE BARELY ALIKE" so that its just the listed characters like it is in the SSBM section? Kperfekt ^{BURN!!! Revert That!} 03:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Because in Melee, the situation was obvious: the placement on the character screen gave all the full clone pairs, and Luigi was evidently differentiated (Luigified). Brawl's situation is more complicated, and needs further explanation. Miles (talk) 03:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

There are no clones in Brawl. Blue Ninjakoopa 03:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

"These categorizations are not official, and are subject to interpretation." Miles (talk) 03:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I dun liek reading. Blue Ninjakoopa 03:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Once again, let me reiterate that Barely Considered Clones At All is a compromise because people would keep adding them back regardless and I didn't want an edit war. I would be perfectly happy if those names weren't on the page at all. I have already explained, in detail, my reasoning for not considering them clones many times on this talk page. And explain again why having almost identical specials, almost identical final smashes, and sharing almost every nonspecial attack and throw prevents them from being clones. If there's no clones in Brawl, then there are no clones in Melee. Similarly, if Wolf is a clone of Fox, then Squirtle is a clone of Mario. They share about the same number of attacks.- Gargomon251 (talk) 10:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

*resists trolling Gargomon* Blue Ninjakoopa 16:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

On another note, I think Gargomon is right about Brawl clones. Blue Ninjakoopa 16:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

If someone said you were going to Georgia for the summer, you'd call it "trolling". And you wonder WHY I troll you in the first place... Blue Ninjakoopa 19:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

That's not what was typed before. That's why I thought you were trolling. And with you, I'm always suspicious. - Gargomon251 (talk) 19:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, you. Blue Ninjakoopa 20:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Couple things, which I expect are going to become the official line of SmashWiki on this issue, and the page is going to be protected afterwards if there are edit wars. We have ways of dealing with those. So:

• There are no clones in Brawl. A clone looks something more like Roy/Marth in SSBM. It does not look like Ike/Marth in SSBB. Animation is hardly relevant. Look at ZSS and Sheik in SSBB. Many of their animations/faculties are similar, yet they are not clones.
• Luigified is a dumb term and we're not using it. 'Nuff said.
• Semi-clones are a posited idea; there is no proof of such a thing. Characters inevitably will share characteristics. That doesn't make them clones. If a set of characters shares ~50% of all characteristics, then they may be called such a thing, but I'm going to keep my reservations about the issue until I see a detailed analysis.

Feel free to challenge me, but don't feel free to think you have a chance. I am right and you are wrong, and that's the way we're going to play it. Semicolon (talk) 21:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

God I love you. Blue Ninjakoopa 21:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

OK then here is my rebuttal:

• Toon Link is a clone. Period. He and Link have as many near-identical moves as Melee Ganondorf did with Captain Falcon. I've stated this multiple times. So tell me, what is your definition of "clone", in this context?
• Luigified/Luigification is a totally valid and common term. It even had its own article here quite some time, as well as http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Luigification . Also 50 results on SWF for Luigification, and 429 for Luigified. This is not some random jargon some guy took it upon himself to throw around like he owns it.
• It's already mentioned that most of this article is based on opinion. HOWEVER, just like tiers, they are still notable to the community, even if they don't exactly impact tournaments. Oh and about your "I'm right everyone's wrong"...yeah that's what they all say. And it's not going to change anyone's mind. I've backed up my position with facts and detailed analysis whenever possible, I've even tried to be as open ended as possible on this article, even to the point of vagueness and inconsistency. You can't just clear-cut it and say everyone who doesn't agree is wrong. - Gargomon251 (talk) 02:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• Toon Link is not a clone. You're judging mostly on animation rather than mechanics. For starters, his aerial game is quite different, and that constitutes about a quarter of a character's moves. His neutral special is very different from Link's. His up special is also different from Link's in terms of mechanic. His up and down smashes are considerably different from Link's. He is lighter, faster, and has higher priority than Link. So, if his aerial game, with one exception, is different from Link's, half his smashes are different, and half his specials are different, then he's basically about 50% similar with Link, making him a semi-clone.
• I just think it's a dumb term. It can be mentioned in passing, but I think it's stupid. I don't care about how prominent it's use is; technical terms are more precise than jargon, thus technical terms>jargon.
• Of course I can say everyone else is wrong. Doesn't mean I'm right, necessarily, although I am. Semicolon (talk) 03:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• Animation is what clones are all about! It doesn't matter how much damage they deal, or what direction the knockback is, the moves themselves are clearly near identical. Compare Dr. Mario to Mario: Each and every last move is identical in pose. Toon Link may run faster or whatever, but that's besides the point. It's not about body shape or speed, it's about posture. His down aerial may move fast, but it's still the same exact Sword Plant with different side effects.
• You may think it's stupid, but I think "planking" and "wobbling" are stupid names. That doesn't mean they're not noteworthy and commonly used.
• LOL whatever.

- Gargomon251 (talk) 00:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I left this for so long...I didn't see it in the RC's so I had presumed you did not respond. Alright, here goes.

• Take away the animations from Marth and Roy. Make it pure wireframes and hitboxes. There are undoubted similarities in the way those characters would play. It's not about animations. Look at the moves for ZZS and Sheik. ZZS's uptilt throws her legs in the air and spins them around. Sheik's downsmash throws her legs up in the air and spins them around. Yet the moves are very dissimilar. Sheik's uptilt and Snake's uptilt both have them throw their leg up in the air, yet they are quite different in what they do, both in the hitbox, lag, and directional knockback. Now look at Bowser's forward smash and Charizard's rock. They look very different, but their direction knockback and hitboxes are rather similar. Imagine two hypothetical characters, one who's a fish, the other who's a flightless bird. For a forward tilt, the fish spins and smacks an opponent with his tail. The bird shoots down a peck. The hitboxes are identical in place, they have identical number of lag frames (which if we want to go really to the extreme, these lag frames are very very long, and the fish plays dead, and the bird does a little dance before they can attack again). Imagine that all of the moves are similar between these two, but each move plays, and thus do the characters, exactly the same. By your standards, these would be completely different characters but of course, to anybody playing, they're exactly the same.
• Eh. Irrelevant.
• LOL, yeah. Semicolon (talk) 04:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

PEOPLE! You can't try to define clones by saying "Well if they only share 3 attacks..." because it's a fan term, so if 1 person (Just for example) said Luigi was a clone of Mario, and 3 other people say no he isn't, BOTH ideas have to be mentioned because they're both fans, and clone is a fan term. So even if more people think Luigi isn't a clone, there's a handful of fans who do, and we have to mention the opinions of ALL fans in a fan term article. And please don't respond to this comment by arguing about Luigi being a clone of Mario, because it's just an example, (I could have used Wario being a clone of Captain Falcon and it would have gotten the princible across.) 74.73.142.163 21:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

While it is fan-defined, that doesn't mean we have to represent every opinion. Mario and Luigi have been clones, semi-clones, etc., and that has logic behind it. Wario and C.Falcon, however, have nothing in common that an argument about a clone relationship could be based off of. So let's be clear: there has to be substance to an argument beyond "I THINK THIS SO ITS TRUE" to merit representation. Miles (talk) 21:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Just because one person says something doesn't make it true or even notable. In fact, usually it turns out to be vandalism. It has to be known and accepted by a large amount of players, like chaingrabs.- Gargomon251 (talk) 00:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Why can't you accept that you're wrong? You aren't a freakin' expert on everything, ya know... Blue Ninjakoopa 01:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, falcon-wario is just me trying to make clear that I was just using an example, and that those weren't necessary factual statistics. But a if a handful of people think that Luigi is a real clone, another handful think he's a semi-clone, blablabla, then it has to be mentioned. If one or two think something crazy is a clone such as Wario and Captain Falcon, then we don't. But any ideas that about, I'd say, over 30 or 40 people with a fair idea what there talking about think something, it should atleast be mentioned in the notes.74.73.142.163 03:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Let's not set numbers, becuase then we'll set a precedent and we'll have 30 IPs coming and saying they get to do whatever they want to a page just because of how many of them there are. So no. A notable consensus is not defined by numbers alone, at least not in this context. Miles (talk) 03:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

But we can't just not mention ideas if a lot of people think.74.73.142.163 02:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Give proof that a lot of people think so, and we'd consider adding other relationships. No proof = no place in the article. Miles (talk) 20:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

"A lot of people" think we should worship the devil and stop playing video games. Should we mention that as well? Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 20:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, we could mention what everybody thinks but then we'd get shit like "Well I think that Sheik and Fox are clones because they both have limbs and faces" and then we get more shit like "I think everybody's a clone of everybody else because they're all characters in Super Smash Bros" and then we'd get more shit like "I think nobody's a clone because they weren't made of stem cells" and then we'd get shit like what I'm typing right now. Bam. Don't want that. 13375poolR (talk) 05:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)