![[Bman87301]](http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/messaging/images/1/19/Avatar.jpg){kind=avatar}
From SmashWiki, the Super Smash Bros. wiki
| Hi there! | |
Welcome to our wiki, and thank you for your contributions! There's a lot to do around here, so I hope you'll stay with us and make many more improvements.
We're really happy to have you here, and look forward to working with you! |  |
JoePlay (talk) 17:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Clones
Please explain what moves Luigi did in SSB64 that weren't identical to Mario's. Dash attack and.....nothing? -Gargomon251 01:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC) That's right. The dash attack and nothing else. That and the fact that clones weren't introduced until Melee, disqualifies him as being a clone in SSB.--Bman87301 02:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- So your only argument against them being clones is that somehow "clones don't exist in 64"....- Gargomon251 02:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- No, the argument is that they don't have the same identical normal moveset. The dash A move alone is different enough to disqualify him-- if differs completely in both animation and the fact that it's a multi-hit attack. No clone has that in Melee-- not even Ganondorf, even though his down A differs quite a bit from Captain Falcon's in its effect, it's still considered the same basic move. The fact that the term "clone" didn't come into being until Melee was released anyway, is just an extra.--Bman87301 14:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure only Dr Mario and Young Link share moves 100%. And 99% a clone might as well BE a clone... - Gargomon251 15:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Can you not at least agree with me that Luigi's A dash was a lot more different than any of the minor differences between clones in Melee? It was a completely different move that clearly made Luigi visually and tangibly unique. Yes, it's one move but it's a defining move. None of the Melee clones have a defining move like that-- it wasn't based off Mario's A dash in any way. All the minor differences clones had in Melee were still based off those of their mainstream counterparts. A character with that kind of difference would be considered Luigified in Brawl. Therefore, Luigi was already Luigified in SSB, and wasn't a direct clone. That's my point.--Bman87301 16:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Minor differences...You mean like Ganondorf? Whom, just like Luigi, had more or less ONE completely unique defining attack, his Fair. So does that mean Ganondorf wasn't a clone either? Really...Luigi WAS a clone, and didn't become Luigified until Melee. Clones are not based on preexisting characters. Just look at Roy/Marth. All that matters is they are two characters, in the same game, that share a vast majority of the overall moveset, especially Special moves. If two characters have similar normal moves but totally different special moves, they are NOT clones, or really Luigified, like Jigglypuff and Kirby. For that matter, you could consider Luigi practically a unique character now, no longer Luigified, simply due to having hardly any similar moves anymore. It doesn't matter that he was a clone in PAST games. Each character's Luigification is specific to each game. Let's say, for example, let's say Falco totally 100% unique, totally unrelated moves in Brawl. Does that make him Luigified? No, because in order to be so, he would have to share some attacks. Even though he was previously a clone, he would now be a totally original character.
- Anyway, my point is, Luigi was a clone simply by virtue of sharing every move but one. You can't argue that "clones didn't exist". One move alone does not make a Luigification. Same as every other Smash game. And a Newcomer like Lucas can still be Luigified, even though he was never a clone to begin with. I hope I made my point. - Gargomon251 23:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- I may have been against it at the time but now I'm going to agree with you about Luigi. After thoroughly examining Ganondorf's Melee moves, he clearly had (and still does have in Brawl) a completely different F-Air, and was still considered a clone so by those standards that Luigi should probably count as well. Still, one of my reasons for my opposition against Luigi's listing on that particular page was because the context of the term "clone" in that article was referring to the official "clone class" from Melee so I'm still not entirely convinced his listing was fully appropriate for that page, but I can't deny he's pretty much the same as Ganondorf as far as move differences.
- As far as Luigification goes, the thing you're not seeming to get is that there is NO concrete definition for the term. You keep arguing as if your personal interpretation of the term is the only right use. Since it's "unofficial lingo" it has open-ended meaning. What counts as "Luigification" to you isn't necessarily what others might consider it and those others wouldn't be wrong. So, arguing over how many changes counts until it's no longer "Luigification" is a waste of time since it's not something that can be proved. The term is so open-ended, it's all a matter of opinion so its meaning it can really be used to describe any origins from one character's moves to another's no matter how big the difference without technically being wrong (whether or not you or I personally agree with its use or not). As long as someone can find some kind of noticeable remnants of another character's moves, it could count as "Luigification" whether we like it or not. I'll agree with you, if they truly took all of the moves that originated from Fox away from Falco he wouldn't be "Luigified" anymore, but the thing is it may not be possible to do. After all, once a character gets "Luigified", Pandora's Box opens. Since so many moves share similar aspects, who's to say which moves' similarities are remnants of origination and which are just coincidental? Basically, it's all a matter of speculation, interpretation, and personal opinion.--Bman87301 16:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not arguing whether or not Ganondorf IS Luigified, the issue here is HOW Luigified. And while I do understand it is up to interpretation, I still think you were overemphasizing the similarities between their attacks. In fact, the purpose of the article is not to indicate which characters ARE Luigified, but which could, and often are, considered by many to be Luigified. I wasn't directly meaning to say Luigi is no longer Luigified per se, it was just an example to show the extent. I don't care what characters go on the page, as long as there's sound reasoning and evidence, even if it is all a matter of opinion. But ther needs to be some sort of factual basis, not just "they feel the same". That's why we went for the "remaining clone aspects" section, and why it's in vague terms instead of a fixed number. Is there any sort of wording we can both agree on for Ganondorf? Or is ther a way we need to rewrite the article to emphasize the objectivity of the concept? - Gargomon251 20:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- Obviously, Ganondorf is Luigified in Brawl. There's no arguing about that. But he wasn't considered such as in Melee. Some of the differences you seem to be trying count towards "Luigifcation" are differences he already had in Melee. Like the F-air, if it didn't count as a Luigifying move in Melee, then how could you still considering a Luigifying aspect in Brawl? It seems like an inconsistent argument on your side, since at the same time you aren't considering Luigi's F-dash Luigifying when you used it previously in the same kind of comparison with Ganondorf. The only Luigifying moves I see when looking at Ganondorf in Brawl are his special moves. His throws may or may not be too, I haven't had a chance to compare, but even if they are that's still isn't putting his Luigifying moves over the top. I don't see what you're seeing, so to me your position has no legitimate basis. Despite my better attempts to see your side, I can't. The only way I can see settle this is maybe if you want to put an asterisk by the description and put your position underneath. Or have the clone amount read something like: Arguably below half or above half. It's fine with me if you want keep your position in, just don't remove the other position.--Bman87301 16:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not arguing whether or not Ganondorf IS Luigified, the issue here is HOW Luigified. And while I do understand it is up to interpretation, I still think you were overemphasizing the similarities between their attacks. In fact, the purpose of the article is not to indicate which characters ARE Luigified, but which could, and often are, considered by many to be Luigified. I wasn't directly meaning to say Luigi is no longer Luigified per se, it was just an example to show the extent. I don't care what characters go on the page, as long as there's sound reasoning and evidence, even if it is all a matter of opinion. But ther needs to be some sort of factual basis, not just "they feel the same". That's why we went for the "remaining clone aspects" section, and why it's in vague terms instead of a fixed number. Is there any sort of wording we can both agree on for Ganondorf? Or is ther a way we need to rewrite the article to emphasize the objectivity of the concept? - Gargomon251 20:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- I may have been against it at the time but now I'm going to agree with you about Luigi. After thoroughly examining Ganondorf's Melee moves, he clearly had (and still does have in Brawl) a completely different F-Air, and was still considered a clone so by those standards that Luigi should probably count as well. Still, one of my reasons for my opposition against Luigi's listing on that particular page was because the context of the term "clone" in that article was referring to the official "clone class" from Melee so I'm still not entirely convinced his listing was fully appropriate for that page, but I can't deny he's pretty much the same as Ganondorf as far as move differences.
- Can you not at least agree with me that Luigi's A dash was a lot more different than any of the minor differences between clones in Melee? It was a completely different move that clearly made Luigi visually and tangibly unique. Yes, it's one move but it's a defining move. None of the Melee clones have a defining move like that-- it wasn't based off Mario's A dash in any way. All the minor differences clones had in Melee were still based off those of their mainstream counterparts. A character with that kind of difference would be considered Luigified in Brawl. Therefore, Luigi was already Luigified in SSB, and wasn't a direct clone. That's my point.--Bman87301 16:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure only Dr Mario and Young Link share moves 100%. And 99% a clone might as well BE a clone... - Gargomon251 15:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- No, the argument is that they don't have the same identical normal moveset. The dash A move alone is different enough to disqualify him-- if differs completely in both animation and the fact that it's a multi-hit attack. No clone has that in Melee-- not even Ganondorf, even though his down A differs quite a bit from Captain Falcon's in its effect, it's still considered the same basic move. The fact that the term "clone" didn't come into being until Melee was released anyway, is just an extra.--Bman87301 14:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- So your only argument against them being clones is that somehow "clones don't exist in 64"....- Gargomon251 02:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Arbitrary section break due to text box being too big
Sorry, I was getting lag from the walls of text.
Anyway, move TRANSITIONS aren't taken into account. I go by Remaining Clone Aspects, not "which specific moves have changed". I already know Ganon's F-air hasn't changed, it doesn't count as a remaining clone aspect from the start. Just like Luigi's dash attack. Remaining means after you eliminate all changed or different attacks, it's not meant to compare appearances of the character in different games in the series. Maybe I should have found a different word to compare them. But when the vast majority of moves are the same, that's when it starts to become considered for clone status. Again, Less Than Half means that less than half of his attacks are the same as CF's, NOT that less than half are the same as they were in Melee. - Gargomon251 21:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- That's still arguable. After all, I was the one who originally wrote the term "Remaining clone aspects" so I think I know what I intended it to mean better than you, but if you still want to list your alternate point of view in the article that'll be fine with me.--Bman87301 14:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- Your original concept was "cloneness ratio", so I assumed "remaining clone aspects" were the same. Regardless of definition, I don't think it should matter what moves have changed over the course of the series, only how similar they are in the game they are being comparied, i.e. Falco in Melee vs Falco in Brawl. If you are trying to decide if he is Luigified in Brawl or not, prior games don't have any bearing, only Brawl itself. - Gargomon251 22:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] centering text in a navbox
Please use "| liststyle = text-align:center;", not the center html tag. Logan - (Talk·Contributions) 15:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Your Recent Character Redirects
First of all, thank you for your edits and moves of the character pages. It was a good idea and was a great help. However, for large scale moves like that, it is better to notify an admin so that we can merge the page histories. I'm not going to mess with it this time, but from now on, let an admin know before redirecting a highly edited page. Again, thank you for your help. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 18:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- Whoops, that didn't cross my mind. I'll be sure to remember that for the future... speaking of which, I was thinking the Mr. Game and Watch and Mr. Game and Watch (SSBM) articles would probably be more appropriate redirected to Mr. Game & Watch and Mr. Game & Watch (SSBM). But I'll leave that to you guys this time to be safe. --Bman87301 (talk) 01:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- Why don't you contact Sky2042 about that. I'm not great with page history merges yet and I wouldn't like my first time to cause any permanent damage, as that can happen when merging histories. Sky is great with that and should be glad to help you out. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 22:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] He
Are you the guy that keeps saying Lucario isn't a boy? If you aren't disregard this. But if you are, listen up. LISTEN to his voice. He is OBVIOUSLY a boy. BTW Pokemon are NOT genderless, they all (minus Legendaries) have gender. This Lucario is a boy I am going to go fix that article.--Oxico (talk) 19:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC) Are you the guy that keeps saying Lucario isn't a boy? If you aren't disregard this. But if you are, listen up. LISTEN to his voice. He is OBVIOUSLY a boy. BTW Pokemon are NOT genderless, they all (minus Legendaries) have gender. This Lucario is a boy I am going to go fix that article.--Oxico (talk) 19:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- This topic was discussed on talk:Lucario and agreed upon. I've simply been sticking to what was ultimately decided. And yes, Pokémon ARE genderless. Nintendo's official policy is that all Pokémon go by gender neutral pronouns regardless of sex. The text appears this way in all the games and official related materials. Granted, Pokémon may have sexes, but by the true definition of the word, they DON'T have genders. "Sex" refers to reproductive organs, "gender" is how one is interpreted by society. In this case society is Nintendo, and as far as Nintendo's concerned Pokémon have no genders. In order to keep this wiki professional looking we have to stay consistent with the game its officially-related materials. Granted, Snake's codec as well as one of the event descriptions do call Lucario "he", the trophy descriptions, the "Dojo!!" site and all other officially-related materials say "it". Plus, the two uses of "he" aren't being ignored-- they're mentioned on Lucario (SSBB)'s trivia section. --Bman87301 (talk) 23:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Moves
Don't move information that is on talk pages. Even if it in the wrong spot, people need to know where to find their old posts. Anyway, discussions about characters are fine on whatever version of the talk page. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 01:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
