Which makes lucario "less special" And that's referring to NOW, not when Lucario was introduced, which is the only thing that matters in his introduction. If Falco's personality changes to Villain in 2004, that doesn't make his inclusion for Melee as "a teammate/sidekick" to Fox no longer the case (obviously this didn't really happen. It's an example to make the point.) This has 0 relevance to Brawl, because Brawl was finished over 5 years ago.
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.
Sakurai talks about what a character would bring to smashes environment. Everything from the color of their hair to the way they interact with others (based on canonicity) is contribution.
It's just that when relating Pokemon characters to each other, Lucario and Mewtwo are by far the most different from "general pokemon," and outstandingly similar as "special pokemon."
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.
Your strawman is not my problem. You seem to be exemplifying a penchant for putting more where more just doesn't exist: for baselessly assuming.
Waitwaitwait...
I'm the one making baseless assumptions? Your whole "conceptual clone" idea is a baseless assumption, for god's sake...
I'm making them seem "mutually inclusive," not exclusive, with countless noteworthy similarities especially when put into the context of what typically constitutes a Pokemon. "Movie Pokemon" are definitely noteworthy Pokemon, just like starters and Pikachu. Nintendo only has so many spots for reps, so repping Pokemon better get "an exemplification of everything Pokemon has to offer," which is why "two 'special', talking, smart, popular, powerful, kinda-human-like, movie pokemon" is counter-productive to making the best use of the limited roster.
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...
Mewtwo's up B was copied from Ness' up-B,
What.
...that much is pretty obvious, but they are not both "the-most-human-like-and-intelligent--and-somewhat-human-like-and-popular-due-to-movies Pokemon." One is a little boy with psychic powers from the Mother Franchise, two are of a very unique flavor of Pokemon (which are typically really basic like Zigzagoon.) Let me know when Ness and Lucario have as many similarities as Lucario and Mewtwo. What you are doing his is taking just one single similarity and acting as if I am making that be the basis for everything, when I've said numerous times that I'm talking about "the vast amount of similarities they have, especially when put into the context that they are both pokemon reps."
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.
The bolded was a typing mistake and I corrected it before you replied. I meant to say Lugia, not Lucario. And there is a reason I have said over and over that they are conceptual clones. I am not going to repeat that term. again. If you need to learn what a "concept" is, then the internet is a fantastic tool.
As "a pokemon," Sneasel might be more unique than Jigglypuff or Meowth, but as a character? Meowth is like "the antihero" pokemon, and is loaded with more personality than Mewtwo. Jigglypuff I somewhat agree is a weird smash fit, but given the context of the time of her inclusion, Jigglypuff was quite a character in the late 90's. Her being a veteran is probably the whole reason she's still in Smash.
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.
And you really have an attitude problem. You want to be a smartass?
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.
Please read my comment again. Charizard is more like Bowser given more context to his "size" than just the literal height. The point of my comment is that most pokemon are going to be "pretty small" like Pikachu or Squirtle. And yes, I'd argue that Smash wanted a "bigger than tiny" Pokemon to help exemplify that Pokemon is not a franchise with "just little things."
So if they wanted to show that not all Pokemon are "pretty small," shouldn't you
advocate keeping Lucario and Mewtwo?
What sounds stupid is that you continue to look at very minute differences as opposed to looking at the grand scheme of things. I am not saying that Ness is a conceptual clone of Mario because they both wear red hats. I am also not saying that Lucario and Mewtwo are conceptual clones just because they share a recovery. I am saying that they are conceptual clones because the amount of characteristics they share is staggering, unlike these terrible false analogies you keep providing of different franchises that have "1 similarity" as some lackluster attempt to tear apart the point that I'm making about Lucario and Mewtwo having tons of similarities. I am using examples as examples of their numerous similarities as opposed to using singular examples as the entire basis for my conclusion.
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.
Go look up the words "conceptual" and "corroborating evidence" before you try to reply again.
I just find it funny that you berated Golden for such behavior, and then you go and be a complete ass a few posts after...
Your debate skills are as out of my league as that Golden Entei guy. I totes concede.
Fine. You want me to tear that apart, too?
Conceptual. Mario and Luigi have many separate moves, but they're still "conceptual clones" of each other, and have been since the first Mario Bros & Smash. They have different moves, but when you get beyond just the moveset or playstyle and start looking at non-gameplay related characteristics, Lucario and Mewtwo are practically the same thing. The fact that they have some significant gameplay-related similarities is just the icing on the cake to cement their conceptual clone status.
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.
I never suggested it was a defining characteristic, the defining characteristic is "how would it supplement the Smash environment." You're still affirming the consequent. A just as likely possibility is that they were both intended to be together, but as time got short, the dev team said, "you know, Lucario and Mewtwo are so similar, we can probably due without one of them." The problem is, we can't argue for either because there is no basis for either, or at least not argue for them "as an undeniable matter-of-fact."
It's a much more likely hypothesis, as anyone knowledgeable here could vouch for what I said.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to come to that conclusion because rocket scientists don't insert evidence where evidence doesn't exist to affirm a consequent they really want to be true, they work within the confines of what is actually confirmed, so that much is true.
And you just argued with an idiomatic expression. Please tell me you're trolling...
Yeah, you did a fantastic job of picking apart singular pieces of evidence while ignoring the entire basis I was trying to make with corroborating evidence. Powerful strategy.
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.
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.
)
