Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
I never said that. You have to listen to what people are actually saying and respond accordingly in order for the conversation to work.
lmao that was not the reply i was expecting
I don't see what's so hard for people to understand about that.
Not really though, in the Mario games Mario and Luigi largely play identically except for the fact that luigi is slippery and has a higher jump. Meanwhile Dixie has a glide ability, she picks up items using her hair and unlike Diddy's cartwheel she has a hair spin that was later changed to a pirouette. They could share misc animations because of their similar builds but in terms of an actual moveset her playing anything like Diddy would entirely misrepresent the character, it'd be like if DK and Diddy were clones of one another, in the actual DKC games those 2 are actually closer in gameplay than dixie is to diddy.
Oh that actually makes sense, thanks for explaining that! Although I still disagree a little bit@Imadethistoseealeak
Bradli Wartooth
MoonlitIllusion
Pokechu
@Pacack
I have the strange feeling that you guys don't actually know how clones work. I actually I know it for a fact. Because you are objectively wrong about the process by which clones happen/don't happen.
So when you say "Why can't Dixie be unique?", it's just as ridicolous as saying "Why can't Lucas be unique? Why can't Wolf be unique? Why can't Toon Link be unique?"
- Clones are a result of characters who can be built from a similar model, animations, and ABILITIES with the base character. The fact that said character has their own uniqueness separate from the base character, is not a determining factor that they would not be a clone. Clones have their own unique traits, and yet they are still clones. Dark Pit has his staff and electroshock arm, Lucas uses different PSI abilities, Wolf has claws, a unique posture, and several of his own unique moves and ways of performing them.
- Characters that share similar models, animations, abilities are reserved as lower priority characters that are added late in development because they can be made easily by borrowing those assets, and because those traits make them less unique than other characters. The fact that Dixie shares a similar model, animations, and abilities with Diddy is what determines that she would in fact be a clone added late in development, because she can be made quicker that way.
- Dixie Kong objectively has a similar model to Diddy, which means she can easily borrow moves, animations, and abilities from Diddy. The Gumball Gun and Monkey Flip are examples of this.
Just because these characters COULD be unique, doesn't mean that they ARE or that they WILL BE. There's a reason Lucas doesn't have unique PSI abilities, or why Toon Link doesn't have his own items or weapons, or why Robin was chosen over Chrom.
And the nuance of this needs to be established. The big determining factors are, firstly, the model structure. This is the first requirement, because once you have this, you can then move on to animations. So when a character has a similar model, which then gives them similar animations, they can then perform similar abilities.
So for example
- Rosalina may look similar to Peach, but her different model (such as her dress) prevents her from performing the same animations as Peach, which, in combination with her canonical lack of said abilities, prevents her from performing similar abilities.
- Someone like Dixie, has a very similar model, which allows her to perform some of the same animations as Diddy, which in turn allows her to perform similar abilities, like the Gumball Gun and Monkey Flip. However, as mentioned, she DOES have unique abilities such as her hair and guitar, but this only means some of her non special attacks and her final smash would be different. No that her entire move set would be. That would be like saying that Wolf has claws so he would be an entirely different character.
While I think it's likely that Dixie and Diddy would inevitably share some moves I think they'd still work somewhat differently and they wouldn't share enough moves to be classified as a clone. For the most part they'd have their own movesets, which isn't what I'd call a clone or semi clone.
Gotta say I agree with this.@Imadethistoseealeak
@Pacack
I have the strange feeling that you guys don't actually know how clones work. I actually I know it for a fact. Because you are objectively wrong about the process by which clones happen/don't happen.
So when you say "Why can't Dixie be unique?", it's just as ridicolous as saying "Why can't Lucas be unique? Why can't Wolf be unique? Why can't Toon Link be unique?"
- Clones are a result of characters who can be built from a similar model, animations, and ABILITIES with the base character. The fact that said character has their own uniqueness separate from the base character, is not a determining factor that they would not be a clone. Clones have their own unique traits, and yet they are still clones. Dark Pit has his staff and electroshock arm, Lucas uses different PSI abilities, Wolf has claws, a unique posture, and several of his own unique moves and ways of performing them.
- Characters that share similar models, animations, abilities are reserved as lower priority characters that are added late in development because they can be made easily by borrowing those assets, and because those traits make them less unique than other characters. The fact that Dixie shares a similar model, animations, and abilities with Diddy is what determines that she would in fact be a clone added late in development, because she can be made quicker that way.
- Dixie Kong objectively has a similar model to Diddy, which means she can easily borrow moves, animations, and abilities from Diddy. The Gumball Gun and Monkey Flip are examples of this.
Just because these characters COULD be unique, doesn't mean that they ARE or that they WILL BE. There's a reason Lucas doesn't have unique PSI abilities, or why Toon Link doesn't have his own items or weapons, or why Robin was chosen over Chrom.
And the nuance of this needs to be established. The big determining factors are, firstly, the model structure. This is the first requirement, because once you have this, you can then move on to animations. So when a character has a similar model, which then gives them similar animations, they can then perform similar abilities.
So for example
- Rosalina may look similar to Peach, but her different model (such as her dress) prevents her from performing the same animations as Peach, which, in combination with her canonical lack of said abilities, prevents her from performing similar abilities.
- Someone like Dixie, has a very similar model, which allows her to perform some of the same animations as Diddy, which in turn allows her to perform similar abilities, like the Gumball Gun and Monkey Flip. However, as mentioned, she DOES have unique abilities such as her hair and guitar, but this only means some of her non special attacks and her final smash would be different. No that her entire move set would be. That would be like saying that Wolf has claws so he would be an entirely different character.
I'm not a fan of this word around Art or game design at least when talking about clones in this context.
Boswer Jr. never really uses anything similar to Bowser if I'm recalling correctly. While Links are always fairly similar in the games.
Even I didn't think Yoshi sold that much...Since the topic came up, I thought I should do some digging.
Nintendo Franchises by Sales:
S+:(Sales > 625 Million)
S:
S-:
AAA:
AA:
A+:
A:
A-:
B+:
B:
B-:
C:
D:
E:
The fire breathing, swiping his claws (which tbh is most of bowser's moveset now that i'm thinking about it lol), most of the shell attacks
TBH, after reading your previous few posts, it just sounds like the real problem here is that you have a different definition and criteria for what makes a character a clone, what makes a character unique, and how those factor into the referral to the overall character than I do.
This kind of response is actually quite common, not even just here, but in comment sections in general. You get used to it after a while, it happens all the time.
This is a really good way of putting it.
Pacack probably got the list from this website:
I find it distressing that you talk about objective truth with bullet points and then insinuate that Wolf is a clone.TheLastJinjo said:
He is a type of clone, though. That's why he even made it into Smash.
My dad is a guy who worked at a convenience store that Miyamoto went to back in 1973, he told me Dixie Kong was going to be in smash 5
I know you know this, but the type of recycling that Wolf uses is not comparable to the type of recycling that Falco uses outside of specials. He's not a clone, he's just low-effort, but he still doesn't play like the other two Space animals because he only shares a couple of moves with them. You can also see that the insinuation is reinforced at the bottom of the post that I quoted where he implies Wolf isn't unique despite his claws, even though he happens to be designed in large part around using his claws to attack, unlike Fox and Falco.
As was pointed out to me, Batman's Joker is referred to in numerous ways, which is rather unfortunate.
Lucario was not created by using assets from Mewtwo, so it's not comparable.
Wolf is the type of clone that we all need.
Can you make me an icon of a THICC joker? plz
Eh, I don't see how Dark Pit is the wrong type of clone myself. What I do see wrong is him having almost zero differences that makes it hard to play either differently, which means that their metagame can't evolve well. Lucina's not much different.
Take requests to the icons thread in the future https://smashboards.com/threads/smash-switchs-signature-icons-thread.453386/
Does their meta game needs to evolve? I people think they are that similar, they can just pretend they are like Alph.
But he's not like Alph. He still has differences. This is enough that people use different playstyles. It's just overly difficult to try new strategies when the character has little to work with. Lucina doesn't fare nearly as bad.
I don't want to squabble, but you're either wrong or using a bad definition. A clone is a duplicate with some changes. It can be overly near like Doc or relatively distant like Luigi (or very distant like Jiggs). Wolf is not like that, because there is not a singular other thing that he comes from. Because he's a patchwork it doesn't make sense because he's not a clone of someone.
So what your saying is that they should remove Mewtwo.
Smash stopped being about all-stars since Roy got in
You're trying to use a different definition from what Sakurai is doing. All he's doing is taking a character and creating another character using their assets as a base. His way of creating clones isn't similar to other games at all. He has more than one way to do one, as he has unique development processes. The only thing in common is that most clones were last minute(Toon Link is one of the few exceptions to this, but to be fair, he was a retool of Young Link's role, so it was pretty much just a vet with a new paint job. On the other hand, Jigglypuff is usually done last, despite being a vet).
I think the problem here is that some people only see moveset clones as clones, whereas others just use the term clone to refer to characters built off of other characters in general.
TBH, that's my biggest problem with that post.
I personally disagree, but to each their own.
Fixed that for ya.
That... is certainly an argument that can be made. And one I don't disagree with 100%.
