You completely missed my point, not surprisingly. I'm saying that to show that now Mewtwo and Lucario share one less "characteristic," in that they were "special" Pokemon. Don't put words in my mouth.
I understood your point, but it seems you missed my two points.
1. No longer being a "special pokemon" hurts Lucario a lot. He's just ever so closer to being as mundane as sentret now, and I think we could both agree that being a sentret kinda sucks. Lol.
2. What they have in common now has nothing to do with the original claim: Lucario replaced Mewtwo in Brawl, and is a conceptual clone of him. For all intents and purposes, you must pretend that this is Lucario in late 2007, because that's the Lucario in Brawl.
Regardless, this section is irrelevant. Brawl has already happened, and a discussion about "what happened in deciding Brawl's Roster" only has to do with stuff that happened during or before the development of Brawl. We really don't need to talk about that.
But the thing you're not getting is that it doesn't matter. If Sakurai wants to add both Lucario and Mewtwo, he will, no matter what superficial shared characteristic you bring up. He listens to what fans want. And most fans want Mewtwo and Lucario, if given the choice.
I haven't made a single suggestion about what's going to be in Smash 4. This was about what happened in Brawl. (At least, in regards to our conversation.)
Waitwaitwait...I'm the one making baseless assumptions? Your whole "conceptual clone" idea is a baseless assumption, for god's sake...
I told you to look up the term corroborative evidence. My basis is a corroboration of evidence. You can't pretend the "conceptual clone" claim is baseless if my basis is a corroboration of evidence. You might not agree with it, but you must admit that it's actually working with something.
Do you realize your contradiction here? You claim you're being "mutually inclusive," which in this context, would mean Mewtwo and Lucario can coexist. However, you then completely go against yourself with the bolded...
They're mutually inclusive in the sense that they're the same "kind of Pokemon" or "fill the same kind of Pokemon rep role." If I was being mutually exclusive, I'd be exemplifying the differences between Lucario and Mewtwo, but rather, I'm trying to show their extensive similarities in an attempt to make the case for Lucario being a conceptual clone that replaced Mewtwo.
Again, my mistake. I meant to write "double jump" and edited that before you replied.
But you aren't realizing that these so-called similarities really don't matter when the two are almost (barring two moves) completely different in Smash Bros., which is really the only thing that matters here.
Different fighting styles,
The same basic concept/Role. I am not talking about clones in regards to moves or etc, but them being clones
concept-wise. The
concept of a "larger, smarter, powerful, energy-based, kinda human-like, not-like-the-others Pokemon rep.
Wait, so you were saying that Lugia, the guardian of the sea, who is a gigantic legendary...bird thing that is a wall as far as gameplay is concerned, is a "conceptual clone" of Mewtwo, a wrathful cloned cat-fetus thing that is an amazing Special sweeper? The only things they have in common are the fact that they're Psychic-type (and only half in Lugia's case) legendary Pokemon.
Lugia and Ho-Oh are conceptual clones of each other. "gigantic legendary...bird thing"
And you really have an attitude problem. You want to be a smartass?
Pretty hypocritical. I will be as sophisticated in an argument as you will be.
In my 1st post: I stated what I thought of Lucario and Mewtwo, and asked for enlightenment if there is enlightenment to be had.
Your reply to my first post: You replied with two "rolling-eye" smileys and a significant amount of sarcasm. This was pretty rude, and in response to your condescension, I was condescending back.
My reply to your reply: I had one intended bit of condescension (I was unaware that pikachu...) The exclamation point in the grasping as straws example was meant to exemplify enthusiasm in the example, not to condescend.
The Entei's reply to my post: Loaded with ad hominems.
My reply to Entei's reply: Condescension in response to ad hominems.
Your reply to my reply to you: Another rolling eye smiley, several instances of condescending sarcasm, and some word on the lines of "stupid."
My reply to your reply: A few more instances of condescension in response to your own, and an amount of frustration at having to repeat myself over and over, whilst having to deal with constant rebuttals of singular arguments with false analogies.
Your reply after this is the post I am quoting now. I hope now that you understand why I "threw mud."
All in all, I hold no distaste for you, and I hope nothing comes off at this way, but if you take throw a little mud at me, then I will do the same in return. I tend to write in a serious tone, but try not to mistake that for something negative, as it's not intended to be.
Concept: an abstract or generic idea generalized from particular instances.
I'll give you this, you sure are generalizing. However, considering you obviously didn't know what it meant to be "mutually inclusive," it's not surprising that you are generalizing two different concepts into one concept. I think there's a word for this. Oh yeah.
Generalizing: to form generalizations; also : to make vague or indefinite statements
That second part fits what you are trying to do to a tee.
Yes, I am talking about the general ideas of Mewtwo and Lucario as pokemon reps. This includes, but is not limited to, artstyle, apparent personality, coloration, posture, gameplay mechanics, details in their own franchise, role in their own franchise, history of the character, and role of their position as a pokemon rep in representing the Pokemon Franchise. When viewing as many factors as you can as the "general concept" of the characters as Smashers, then they're differences become minute when compared to Ness or Pikachu. There similarities are extensive and when making generalities about generalities, then they're "almost the same thing, save some exceptions."
And yes, I'm generalizing. That's the point. That's why early on, I made the fox & falco shine reference, because while they're extremely different in regards to knockback direction, they're still 'both a shine." It's to exemplify that as, as another example, an apple and an orange can be massively different in regards to specific aspects while still being equally viable and fulfilling for being the fruit portion of a balanced breakfast.
Again, I am indeed arguing for them being mutually ("both") inclusive "together" in regards to their concepts/roles/traits, as a generality. You are arguing that they are mutually (both) exclusive (separate) because of their fighting style and certain difference. I argue in return that these certain differences aren't that big "in the big picture" and "in the context of being a Pokemon."
So if they wanted to show that not all Pokemon are "pretty small," shouldn't you advocate keeping Lucario and Mewtwo?
Again, I am making no suggestions about what the roster
should be. I'm trying to talk about what happened in Brawl. Personally, I think having both would be pretty cool, but in the same way, I think it'd be pretty cool having 4 or 5 fire emblem swordsman with 4 or 5 star fox space animals.
Except, as I've said, you are grasping at straws to find these "similarities." It doesn't matter if they exist. Both are popular, iconic, well-received Pokemon that have completely different playstyles. That's all that matters for Smash Bros.
Here's the problem: You say I am grasping at straws because I am looking for similarities, except when they only noteworthy differences you can find are in gameplay. Game design is so much more than just physics and movesets, and that's what I'm trying to note. I have said, "Although they are very different gameplay wise, they are
approximately the same thing in almost every other regard,
especially when put into the context of being a pokemon rep.
I just find it funny that you berated Golden for such behavior, and then you go and be a complete *** a few posts after...
He threw mud at me, and I threw mud at him to berate him for throwing mud at me.
You've done a good job of throwing mud at me, and so I did it back to you, but somehow I'm the hypocrite. Like I said, I'll be as sophisticated as you are, but admittedly I'm getting a little bothered at having to repeat the same point that you keep trying to derail with the "straw of fighting style" or by ignoring the corroborative evidence and instead trying to act like the singular bits and pieces of it were the basis.
Fine. You want me to tear that apart, too?
As the morbidly altruistic guy pointed out, saying "that argument sucks" is not a rebuttal. If you want to counter an argument, try to counter it, and I'll try to counter your counter, and hopefully in the end we'd come to some sort of agreement or conclusion.
In other words, you're saying, "if you take away everything that makes them different, they're totally similar!" And as far as "significant gameplay similarities?" Two moves aren't really significant. Not to mention that Mario and Luigi are essentially completely decloned from Melee onward...
Such compelling arguments. You are truly a god among men.
No, I'm saying that "if you look at everything, they're far more similar than they are different. There differences are overridden by their much more vast similarities." Mario and luigi are completely different fighting style wise, but are still the same
concept as a whole.
And yes, obviously if you take away every difference they're the exact same, but the point was that "while they're strikingly difference
in this one particular regard they're vastly similar in the vast majority of other regards.
It's a much more likely hypothesis, as anyone knowledgeable here could vouch for what I said.
Don't just say it or try to argumentum ad populum, put out the evidence and deductive reasoning.
And you just argued with an idiomatic expression. Please tell me you're trolling...
I like debate, but the reason I said that was to make you stop going further without anything to work with. I'll concede that they were both intended to be in the game at the same time, but the same can be said for Dr. Mario, and I don't think there's any arguing that Dr. Mario is a definite conceptual clone of Mario. You're telling me that they absolutely did not cut Mewtwo because "Lucario filled the same role"? On what basis? What are you working with to come to that conclusion?
As a closing statement, stop being a prick. You are acting as if you're above everyone else, and speaking in a demeaning fashion with words that carry harsh connotations. Others will be forced to react to these in an appropriate fashion, which in the vernacular would be "an eye for an eye." People aren't going to like the way you act, especially when debating something that could be seen as common sense around here.
Then next time you start up a debate, don't start it off with "rolling eyes" and sarcastic language. I'll consider myself "above you" if you start off a debate by acting like you're above me (what with the rolling eyes and etc,) and that'll make me type like I'm above you. It's your choice how sophisticated you want this debate to be.
Just keep that in mind. I rarely get angry, and people here can vouch for me when I say that, but this has me a bit agitated. Just saying.
Then don't give me a reason to treat you in the same basic way you began treating me. And again, be careful not to mistake serious language for something else.
The main thing hurting AW is that its popularity lies mostly in the West, and the Smash team tends to cater to Japanese fans above all else (see: Mother 3 rep, 2 FE reps before the series even released in the West, etc). Still, with Little Mac a likely inclusion I have hope that Sakurai may be aiming some newcomers more so at Western fans this time.
