That's the loosest definition of a shotoclone I've seen, but okay. You see, the term shoto clone in the SF community is much more so different than that very loose one. I see what it's implying, but the term shotoclone doesn't really seem like the correct context. I mean keep in mind that Ryu, Ken, and Akuma are all basically head swaps. They also share the same normals too. They are A LOT more similar than a lot of characters on that list, some I can see as 'shotoclones' in actually having both hadoken and shoryuken like specials., but a lot of them are just "this character as a physical anti air and projectile" but don't explain how they work. I mean, again, even Igniz sounds like a shotoclone when you narrow it down like a lot of characters on that list.(Because of the "rising attack and fireball".) Megaman doesn't make sense as a shotoclone because if you took away the only shoto move he has, he wouldn't resemble one whatsoever besides having a projectile, which again, why wouldn't Megaman have projectiles?
He resembles the archtype(again, a shotoclone archtype isn't the same as a shotoclone clone. Archtypes are supposed to actually be loose enough to fit multiple characters. And a lot of those examples are zero context, but do make sense under this definition. It's also part of the site's golden rule; tropes are flexible. In fact, the definition evolved to fit in multiple characters, otherwise, if it had no real examples besides literal clones of Ryu. That would pretty much make the page not only tiny in itself, but ignore another key point of what tropes are; common occurrences in fiction. Again, you keep describing a moveset clone, which means having almost every move the same. Also, it doesn't much matter about the origin of the term. The site evolves tons of tropes in order to properly allow for a strong list of examples but still make the term understandable. It even notes that gamers constantly label those shotoclones when they're not entirely one. The reason why it also requires you to have 2 out of 3 of the important moves listed is that those shotclones are meant to be loose and somewhat fit the archtype, but obviously would be different to some degree instead of pointless carbon copies of the same character.
Just take away the shoryuken and he's not even close to a shoto clone anymore. It's not the hardest thing to change.
Why would you remove the Mega Upper? It's one of his best move options and didn't originate in MvC, as noted in an earlier post. It also fits the character well, being he has tons of options. It's in Smash too for good reasons. Fact of the matter is, it's a move that fits MegaMan's style of constantly being prepared for multiple situations, using tools from various enemies. With all these crossovers and when you have a moveset clone of Ryu(Magma Dragoon) who purposely displays the shotoclone archtype in the X series, it's obvious they wanted Street Fighter to influence the MegaMan series with the most notable moves. X literally can learn the Shoryuken too. They're not going to remove it cause some players are using a hard definition of "must have every move" when it's fairly clear it's just a call back to the top two shoto moves available.
The issue isn't him being a shotoclone. Removing that would again, ruin his character. The issue is they refused to give him any actual other moves besides keeping his old moveset. Smash 4 managed to actually capture much of his MvC moveset while still using his tons of options. But also do heavily note that they had one MegaMan series slot available. The clear problem was, after they selected Zero because they feel he could be more original while not removing MegaMan's iconic playstyle in the MvC series(which was a spin on the shotoclone style), they still added another MegaMan character due to demand. That's why their reasoning holds little water after this. First, they kept a character in despite being "not original at all"(Akuma), but also still added another one despite having one designated MegaMan series slot(Tron). There was literally no excuse not to keep MegaMan in. Updating him a little by adding a few more moves as long as it wasn't removing his core moves(meaning his actual normal attacks, and slightly changing up his specials) would've been fine. The biggest thing is people were used to using his Mega Buster and the Mega Upper. They also got used to having a rushdown attack. There's also enough ways to change his Supers, which also were changed in MvC2 a bit, without losing his main playstyle anyway. Whether he had Rush Drill or the Mega Slide didn't matter, as long as one was there, and they overall both did the same thing, go fast into the character while directly or indirectly making combos available. If the Mega Slide was a simple trip attack, that'd be different, but it wasn't designed that way.
Also, the slidekick isn't even a special and is hardly even a rushdown, not even close to one which works like a tetsumaki. It seems like the biggest stretch to consider him a shotoclone. All of him moves have appeared in his series before.
You're trying to overthink how the archtype works. That's not the point of the archtypes. It's an overall playstyle. Many in the archtype don't act like hard copies of the rising attack, fireball, and rush attack. And that's because they don't need to outright copy the exact moves.
Also, where did you get the idea they have to be special moves? That isn't the point of the moves existing. Some clearly are special moves, but in most cases, the rushdown attack, outside of Street Fighter, tend to be normal moves that are combo starters. Also, MegaMan's first rushdown move is a special move, the Rush Drill(which frankly acts pretty much the same as the Hurricane Kick's point more than the Mega Slide does, which is to trap the opponent and heavily combo damage them. The second MvC game just put in a different style of rushdown attack).
I consider their term of shotoclone incorrect because while some I can see, a lot are pretty frickin' vague. Even a character that has all of those special characteristics, like K' from KoF, is pretty far from being anything like Ryu when you get into how the moves actually work rather than just saying he has a projectile, a shoryuken-like anti-air, and a rushdown kick.
Because again, an archtype isn't a moveset clone. It's a very specific characteristics of that archtype that are seen in multiple characters. They are not and never were the same thing.
It's more so like a vague similarity archetype. It's sounds like the same thing when you break it all down to the basics, but in terms of play style a lot of those characters listed play completely differently and have their specials work in a different manner despite it sounding the same as a basic description. I mean, there are definitely a lot that do fit the bill. But I think that it should be narrowed down a bit. I get it when they're literally using a projectile exactly like a hadoken and shoryuken, but still. Especially when the characters moveset and playstyle goes beyond just those basics.
The focus of an archtype doesn't actually go beyond the basics. The part that goes beyond it just shows that it's not a moveset clone and how there's many unique ways to do the same archtype over and over without just literally being Ryu with a different model. If nobody bothered to make them halfway unique, then the fighting games industry would be rather poor right now because everybody would be a terrible carbon copy of somebody. But that's not the case at all. Instead, they took the only 3 relevant moves for the specific archtype and created many variations of how to do the archtype.
There's barely anything vague about it. It's not an all encompassing "must be beyond exact thing". Again, you're arguing for them to be moveset clones, not shotoclones. The only problem that I can legitimately see, as a full member of the site, is many lack context. But they also do admit many of them barely fit the archtype, and that's okay too. The archtype wasn't about being a Ryu clone anyway. It was about using 2/3 of the most infamous moves among that archtype, the extremely and overused trend in the fighting game industry. Like all tropes, they're just trends you see. It's also a sub-trope of Moveset Clone, a very different trope, for a reason.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MovesetClone You keep arguing that this is the only trope that matters. But it's not for fighting games. It's quite possible to expand archtypes by using the most basic defining moves while still being unique.
I'm aware I'm repeating some points a little, but you are heavily ignoring why it's an actual unique trope in the first place from moveset clone. It's due to the trend of repeating those 3 specific traits of the Ryu style of gameplay more than anything else, enough to make its own unique trope. For the record, the origin of a term may not necessarily fit the regular definition a fan has for it. The reason is because the site grows and reworks tropes in many different ways to make things flexible enough to allow for a lot of useful examples. But as I said, many examples don't to try have any real context, and that is a legit issue.
I probably sound like a walking dictionary/advertisement by now, but you're going to see many people look at shotoclones as more of an archtype based upon specific moves, not literal Ryu carbon copies anyway. They're just using a trend they feel fits. Also, I happen to agree with the trend, but this is obviously an opinion. I did bring up the other definition you're using to show why people use shotoclone for a more specific archtype than just "moveset clone". You probably may have noticed that even the trope notes the "true" shotoclone stuff up above. But there's a major fallacy with your argument. It's a "no true scotsman" fallacy. If they're not exactly like Ryu, they can't be a shotoclone. The problem with that logic is, not all who even have the same moveset for the most part(a moveset clone is going to share most, all, or the most notable moves available, like the iconic moves of the character(which often are the specials, but this can vary. As noted, MegaMan in SSB's iconic moves are not specials, but this also shows how flexible some definition/trends in fiction can be) can be shotoclones if they don't have the same move commands either or they aren't carbon copies with the stats/knockback/damage/etc. A hard definition should not be used. It should be flexible enough. I'm not saying it needs to be so flexible you can literally ignore every potential move that a shoto does if they have something as simple as Ryu's usual aerial punch where he punches at a downwards angle. It just means that it can allow for something to be extremely similar to some moves, just enough to fit a character archtype. Also, there was another point made in the trope that they're often a jack of all stats. Key term being "often". It was a flexible trope from the start(I still agree that the lacking on context does sound like it may need a bit of cleaning up on some examples, though).
That said, these posts are getting too long so would you be okay with agreeing to disagree and move on?
