Is Falco Really A Clone of Fox?

[Zekk]

Ok since I play Falco and some fox I have noticed something when someone says they are

clones, I think to myself well I'm good at Falco but suck at fox and foxes moves are different when

it comes to damage example falcos up air vs foxes up air fox wins but Falcos forward smash vs

foxes Falco wins the sines are different so my question to you is what classifies a character as a clone and use these two characters

 

[Crazc]

no, they are not clones, but some consider them to be. mainly when they get they ass whooped.

 

[Sartron]

Animation-wise, they are clones. The actual properties of the moves and properties of the characters are different, however.

 

[Empyrean]

There are no two characters that play alike. Hence there are no clones.

/thread

 

[Mera Mera]

Most people say characters are clones because they share a lot of animations. But "clone characters" all play SUPER differently, especially at a high level. Fox and Falco are as far apart as night and day in play style, except for the their shield pressure maybe.

 

[Tryst]

If you look at it from a competitive perceptive, They are different as night and day. If you look at them from a casual perspective, they are the exact same. Casuals don't tend to study and pay close enough attention to the differences it percentage, or distiance they can travel or specific properties. For example, Falco's DAir is a Spike, which means it hits opponents down very quickly, Fox's however is not. That can be seen as an advantage and disadvantage to both characters. Some people prefer to spike characters as Falco, and some people prefer to elongate their combos with Fox. So to wrap this up, they are the similar in a few ways, but very, very different in many more ways.

 

[BJN39]

No, just no. They aren't.


Does this even warrant a thread?

 

[Zujx]

It depends on how you define clone

I consider them clones because, the core concepts of his move set are definitely taken from fox
I just use clone as more of the concept of the move-set not the actual game play

Gameplay-wise it really is a night and day difference though I play a solid falco but, I can barely even play fox

 

[Renji64]

I don't see them as clones their playstyles are different. It is crazy how people complain about them being clones when they are from the same team and some people enjoy SF with semi cloned characters.

 

[EdgeTheLucas]

Clone is a term that isn't meant to be taken literally here in the Smash community. Falco is considered a clone not because all of his attacks are exactly the same as Fox, but because so many of them borrow the animations, endlag and startup on moves. A "clone's" properties are nonetheless usually very different from its base. Fox's dtilt isn't nearly as strong as Falco's, Fox's up smash is definitely deadlier than Falco's, for instance. All in all, they play differently enough to justify calling them different characters.

Hence, when people call Falco / Ganondorf / Roy a clone, they are not trying to say that the characters are 100% carbon copies, merely that their attack properties and a few normals are the only thing that makes that character different.

No, this is not a bad thing.

 

[guedes the brawler]

Yes.

Clone characters share animations, but usually not their playstyle, even if sometimes they belong in the same archtype (which are expanded in smash. Like, say, both Flacon and Gdorf can be said to be Mighty Glaciers, but you can also say Falcon is a Glass Cannon AND a Lighting Bruiser)

 

[Deleted member]

Aesthetically/animation-wise - yes.
Functionally/playstyle-wise - no.

I'm not sure why people have so much trouble grasping this concept.

 

[Fortress]

Yes.

10yes.

F-, please see me after class. Do your homework, kids.

 

[Manatikik]

I wouldn't call them straight clones, but that said clones simply followed a template that was laid out with values tweaked in a way to make them completely separate characters in their own ways.

 

[PajamasM]

Yes, they are for sure clones, because a person's definition in smash for a clone is usually characters with the same move animations. Even my filthy casual friends know that the moves do different stuff or have different amounts of knockback even though they look the same, but they still consider them clones based on their animations.

 

[Bleck]

Fox and Falco are clones, yes.

 

[Remo]

Technically. Yes. They use the same models/animations. However, they play differently so in that aspect they aren't.

 

[Dhillz521]

Yeah Their Clones.

 

[Raijinken]

They are clones. That doesn't mean they play identically, it just means their moves and animations are almost entirely visually identical. They still have different properties for hits and motion, and thus play differently. But yes, they are moveset clones, just like Marth and Roy (moreso before PM), Pikachu and Pichu, CFalc and Gdorf (more in Melee than in Brawl/PM), and Mario/Luigi (pre-Brawl, more or less).

 

[Saikyoshi]

Mechanically, of course not.

Aesthetically, though, yes he **** is and it drives me up the wall. That's the only thing I actively hate about P:M - how they handled Falco. He's the only character that I will never play as even if held at blaster point.

 

[Smash G]

Wat?

How the heck do I say something that isn't trolling when people suggest crazy things like "there are no clones"? I mean seriously? SERIOUSLY? I'm not sure science can find the answer with how to appropriately respond to statements like that.

I'm sure you can get more wrong but you rarely see it...

 

[shapular]

Like other people said, they're considered clones because they share similar animations. Yes, they play differently, but they played more differently in Brawl, and there was no need to take that away from Falco.

 

[Narpas_sword]

they're considered clones because their portrait in melee is further back behind the others on the CSS next to the character theyre based off.

of course theyre not 'clones' in that they have the same 'DNA' and act identically.