From SmashWiki, the Super Smash Bros. wiki


This sounds like some seriously [[unofficial lingo]. Plus the information isn't even accurate, as Luigi was not a direct clone of Mario in SSB. -- Randall00 Talk 02:14, March 7, 2007 (GMT)

I agree. In fact, we're currently having this same debate in the "talk" of the Clone characters page. Gargomon251 keeps re-adding Luigi as clone of Mario in SSB, and I proposed a vote on it. As of the last time I checked, our side is winning. I'm going to wait until the end of the day, if we still have the most votes by then, I'm going ahead and editing both these pages.--Bman87301 19:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Did you look at their movesets? Luigi is the closer clone than even Ganondorf was to CF in SSB64! And what's this about Ike? Other than Counter, what moves do they share? And why has someone said that ZSS is a clone of Sheik now? I have yet to see a single move they share. It's like saying Jigglypuff is a clone of Kirby just because of how they jump.... - Gargomon251 21:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
You can't even see how Ike and Marth are related? Okay... I'm starting to get the strong impression you really don't understand the full concept of semi-clones/Luigification. They don't have to be the exact same moves, they just have to be loosely based on someone else. You must be blind, if you can't tell how Ike's moveset is based off Marth's. Zero Suit Samus isn't as certain, but after examining the moves I can certainly understand the reasoning. They both have a whip-like forward special, and a chargeable projectile as a neutral special, as well similar body movements. Depending how neutral forward moves end up working during gameplay, I'd say suggesting her moves were based off Sheik's wouldn't be a stretch at all. But I'd have to actually play as her first before I could give a solid opinion either way... But we only have about one more day, then we'll all know for sure. --Bman87301 23:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Look at Infil's character exposés on youtube. Their attacks are very different in most cases. Even more than Mario and Luigi (in Brawl). And if "movement style" is any indication, Jigglypuff is practically a clone of Kirby.- Gargomon251 00:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you are mistaken. Melee clones were defined through similar attack animations. Even though even cloned attacks usually varied in strength, knockback, hitbox etc. or had a specific effect like fire added. they still had the same base animations. Ganondorf was the first exception ebcause of his Unique Fair, and Luigi was rightfully called a "luigified" clone because a bunch of his animations were different. This included his Side B, his Jab Combo, his Dash Attack, his Up-Tilt, his F-Smash and his F-Air. Unless I missed something here, that's 6 different moves including 1 different special move. The same applies to the luigified Brawl clones (Toon Link, Falco, Ganondorf). However, clones or luigified clones are not defined through special mvoes alone. The rest of Luigi's moveset had the same animations as Mario's, including 2 specials, 2 smashes, 2 tilts, 4 aerials and 4 throws. This is what made him a luigified clone instead of a character with a few vague resemblences to another one LIKE IKE IS. He has a similar Down B (Counter) and a vaguely conceptually similar Neutral B. His Up B isn't really comparable to Marth's, and neither is his Side B. However, the rest of his moveset, including pretty much all smashes, tilts, throws, jab, dash attack and aerials are completely different. Obviously that's a different case as with Luigi, where the majority of his moveset, both special and standard, was the same as Mario's. The bottom line is that when defining a clone, you shouldn't only take the special moves into account and also look at the animations of the attack, not just their concepts. Otherwise, you could say Link and Samus would be luigified clones, as they share an Up B Spin Attack, a Side B Non-chargeable projectile, a Neutral B chargeable projectile and Down B bombs. Ike = Semi-clone. He's a blue-haired swordsman and that's it. Have you actually played the game? Serpit 17:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Ike and Marth[edit]

For some reason individuals are removing Ike and Marth from the listing. Let's open a discussion and clear up any confusion that may be going on. First of all. "Luigified" refers to characters whose special moveset is at least loosely based off another's. Ike's moves seem clear to be undoubtedly based off Marth's. Gargomon251 argued that Ike's Quick Draw and Marth's Dancing Blade are nothing alike. First of all, I disagree with that, they seem based off each other to me, but the degree to which Quick Draw may differ from Dancing Blade is irrelevant, since the very term "Luigified" allows for some moves to be completely different anyways, such as Luigi's Green Missile and Luigi Cyclone versus Mario's Cape and F.L.U.D.D. If anyone else has any other debates about this feel free to add and discuss.--Bman87301 17:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

See again Infil's character vids on youtube. And as soon as I unlock Marth, I will know for sure and put this whole thing to rest. Until then, they are as different as Lucario and Mewtwo (I am aware that they are not present in the same Smash). - Gargomon251 17:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Please refer to my argument on the intersection above. Clones and luigified clones aren't defined by special moves alone. the rest of the mvoveset has to be taken into account as well. Ike has one similar special move (2 arguably similar ones, I'm leaning towards no) and a completely different standard moveset, while Luigi had 3 similar special moves and a 3/4 similar standard moveset. Serpit 17:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
You have to keep in mind that unlike the "Melee clone" classification, the "Luigified clone" classification is completely unofficial and is based primarily on opinion so a single formula to determine what classifies as such isn't really plausible. Some have clearly been a lot more/less Luigified than others, so they're all going to vary by degree. Maybe what we should instead is the keep the list more open ended. First, instead of just putting a listing of names, we put descriptions of the similarities that "could" make them clones and let the reader decide. Secondly, make the list less rigid Rather than only listing the ones we've predetermined to be the most characteristic of the "Luigified clone" classification, we should simply list "Possible examples of Luigification". For example:

===Possible examples of Luigification===

====[[Lucas]] and [[Ness]]==== '''Cloness Ratio:''' ''Medium''
Both share same basic special moves such as...blah, blah,
blah, different normal moves.... blah.. blah, blah, blah..

====[[Toon Link]] and [[Link]]==== '''Cloness Ratio:''' ''Very high''
blah blah blah blah blah....

====[[Ike]] and [[Marth]]==== '''Cloness Ratio:''' ''Low''
blah blah blah blah blah....

====[[Wolf]] and [[Fox]]==== '''Cloness Ratio:''' ''whatever''
blah blah blah blah blah....

Does something like this seem more fair?--Bman87301 23:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Great idea, I was just doing the math myself. How about we do it as a percentile? Each character has 21 attacks, including final smash and throws, right? So to find the clone ratio we take (similar moves)/21. Also, the animation and hitboxes is more important than the overall effect e.g. Eruption vs Shield Breaker. But where is the line between actual clone (Ganondorf (SSBM)) and semi-clone (Lucas (SSBB))? That is something else that will have to be discussed. - Gargomon251 00:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly why I didn't go ahead try to implement it myself already. It's gonna take a bit of planning first. First, we're gonna all have to play the game and familiarize ourselves with the characters and make our own determinations. When we recognize aspects that could be considered "cloness", we post it, and others can add to it. Like I was saying before, since the line between clone and semi-clone is pretty vague, I think it would just be easier just to say high,low, medium, very high, very low, etc. Trying to come up with an exact formula for the precise percentage of "cloness" seems pretty impossible, so trying would seem like a waste of time to me. Besides a "ball park" should be pretty easy to determine just by playing as them, some are obvious even without playing-- Link/Toon Link's "ball park" already seems obvious to be very high (since they're arguably direct clones), Ness/Lucas would be medium since they seem evenly split between normal and special moves. Marth/Ike's would be Low, and Sheik/Zero Suit Samus would be Very Low . That seems like the best method to me but if you think you can come up with a way and are willing to take the time to calculate an accurate precise percentage, then by all means go for it. --Bman87301 01:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

After playing as both, I conclude that Marth/Ike are BY NO MEANS clones. Compare: up tilt, down aerial, SIDE SPECIAL. Quick draw is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING LIKE double edge. He's not even close enough for luigification! It's like comparing them to Link really, just because they have swords. The ways they move and damage and knockback are totally different. I'm removing them both from the list until further notice. If anyone disagrees, go into Training Mode. I would even post a youtube video myself if I had the software. - Gargomon251 04:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

You, my friend, are in utter denial. Upon playing, there's no longer any shred of doubt that Ike's a Luigified version of Marth... no doubt whatsoever. Yes, they have many differences, and are definitely a lot higher on the Luigifcation scale than Lucas and Ness, but Ike's overall special moveset definitely originated from Marth's Melee design. You can't ignore that Ike's Eruption is pretty much the same move as the Melee version of Shield Breaker (granted, with some small differences). And while the "up special" has significantly been altered for Ike and is now a more like Kirby's, it still has a strong enough resemblance to Marth's original move and it retains the same spirit. Marth and Ike still share the same overall style, and it doesn't take long for anyone who mastered Marth/Roy in Melee, to adjust and master Ike-- that fact alone proves there's a Luigified relation between the two and definitely deserve mention on this page. Now that I've had plenty of hands on experience, I can definitely agree with you that Sheik and Zero Suit Samus have no relation besides appearance, but if you can't admit there's a relationship between Marth and Ike's special moves, you're just kidding yourself.--Bman87301 19:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
YOU are the one in denial here. Let's look again, shall we? Here are the moves they both share: Down Smash, Forward Smash, and Down B. THAT IS ALL. Ok, I'm even willing to give you Eruption, despite the fact that the hitbox, animation, and damage are TOTALLY DIFFERENT from Shield Breaker. No more similar than Stone and Bowser Bomb. So that said, let's do the math: 21 moves, 4 the same, 4/21=19%. That's not even enough to be Luigified. Just because Ike replaced Roy doesn't make him a clone any more than Lucario is of Mewtwo, Luigified or not. - Gargomon251 21:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
C'mon, you and I both know that they both play the same basic way and those who were good with Marth/Roy, will be able to learn Ike fairly quick-- despite their high degree of differation, they're still loosely based off each other. Like I said before (and you agreed), this is an "unofficial term" and is largely based on individual POV rather than on any specific criteria. Just because you personally disagree with it doesn't mean it should necessarily be removed. Let's face it, I can stop changing it back but it'll never end because there are plenty of other like-minded people out there who will keep re-adding it since there's no way to prove or disprove either way. Like I suggested, let's keep it open-ended and instead of removing listings, just add information to to explain why some might not consider them Luigified.--Bman87301 22:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
"Playing the same way" has nothing to do with being Luigified. Ganondorf and Snake "play the same way" but they're totally different in move structuring. - Gargomon251 22:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
That's got to be one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. I don't know who you think you're kidding. You know perfectly well that Ganondorf and Snake play nothing alike.--Bman87301 18:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


OK, we're talking about SSBB, yes? The non-Special attacks Ganondorf and C Falcon share are:

  • All aerials except forward
  • All Smashes except up
  • Down and back throws
  • Dash attack

That is all. The other moves only have superficial similarity, for example, both down tilts some type of kick. But they animate differently and have different properties. It's like comparing Link and Marth's Up-Smashes. Add in the Final Smashes and all the unique tilt attacks and they are as different as Mario and Luigi were in Melee. -Gargomon251 19:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

You should take a second look, their up smashes are actually the same. Ganondorf's version is just slowed down and given an explosive property. The only normal move that is completely different that I've seen is the forward aerial. The rest are all just cloned variations, of Captain Falcon's. Granted, some have some different properties, but that's what makes a move "cloned" in the first place.--Bman87301 20:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
No. A move is only consideration for clone status if it moves the same. Take Toon Link's up aerial. It's visually identical to Link's. The only difference is the damage it deals. Also notice Ganon and CF's up aerial. They perform the very same kick-flip. It's the same animation, perhaps different properties, but it all comes down to if you only had wireframes it would look like the same character. Now look at their Up smashes. Ganon kicks powerfully, forcing his heel straight up, much like his forward tilt. CF, meanwhile, does a triple spinning kick that moves in a circle. It's not a straight extension of the leg. Thus it is a different move. Another example: notice Fox and Falco's Dairs compared to Wolf's. All three it down, yes. But Fox and Falco both do the same spinning drill kick, except Falco's spikes. Wolf, meanwhile, slams both claws straight down. Now I'll admit that's a bit bigger difference, but the idea is the same. - Gargomon251 20:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Before you revert my edits again, I suggest you read up on Ganondorf's attacks and changes from Melee to Brawl. - Gargomon251 22:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Clone Aspects[edit]

Just to clear things up, I think some people on here (looking in Gargomon251's direction) may not understand what separates "Clone Aspects" from "Luigified" aspects by the way the terms are being used in the article. "Clone moves" by definition, are variations of original moves. Simply having a different speed, minor animation difference, or lack of combos does not stop a move from being considered "cloned". In order for a normal move to be considered "Luigified" it has to have a completely different animation. --Bman87301 19:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

"Luigification" applies to CHARACTERS, not moves. If you want to make a separate article, fine. But that's not the point, Ganondorf and C Falcon do not have "all the same attacks". Volcano Kick is nowhere near like CF's uptilt, just because it starts out the same. - Gargomon251 20:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

What? How can you say "Luigifcation" doesn't refer to moves if the different moves are what makes the characters "Luigified" in the first place? And what's different about Ganondorf's up tilt from Captain Falcon's besides the explosion and speed? --Bman87301 20:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok I'm willing to grant that their up tilts are CONCEPTUALLY similar, but much like Flame Choke and Raptor Boost, so much is far different that it isn't really just a copycat move anymore. And what I was saying is Luigification is judged by how many moves have the same animation and hitbox. There is no such thing as a "Luigified attack". It's more than just speed and secondary special effects. - Gargomon251 20:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
You apparently didn't understand what I meant by a "Luigified move". I was simply referring to it being replaced by a different kind of move, thus "Luigifying" it. As for the up-tilts, you're kidding yourself if you consider them to be different moves. Aside from the fact that Ganondorf's is significantly delayed due to his slower speed, they have the EXACT SAME animation. The only other difference is the explosion, but I don't think even you can argue that makes it into a different move (using that logic then Ness's PK Flash and Lucas's PK Freeze couldn't be considered "cloned moves" because the freezing property would separate them into being only CONCEPTUALLY similar). But that's beside the point, since either way Ganondorf's up-tilt (as well his forward aerial) in Brawl is unaltered from Melee. Since Ganondorf was unarguably a clone in Melee, that makes it and all other unaltered moves Clone Aspects. Therefore, Ganondorf's "Remaining Clone Aspects" should read as Above half. No matter how you try to argue them, there's no legitimacy to your edits. I am going to revert them one more time and if you change it again I'll have no other choice than to report it as vandalism.--Bman87301 20:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Luigification is NOT "replacing one move with another". The more unique the moveset is, the LESS Luigified the character is. Ganondorf is similar to Falco in this manner, other than the new Final Smash. And I will report YOU for vandalism. - Gargomon251 20:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

You're not making any sense. "Luigification", the way it's being used in this article, is referring to the uniqueness that separates that character from being considered a clone. If a character was LESS Luigified by their moveset's uniqueness then that would make them CLOSER to being a clone. Now, I'm not sure whether you simply didn't understand what I meant when I referred to moves being "Luigified" or if you're just being stubborn and nitpicking over my choice of words. Obviously, I was using the term loosely (it is an unofficial term after all, so there really are no right or wrong uses except for context and my context was consistent). Maybe what I should have said was "Luigifying" instead of "Luigified", but I think it's clear what I was referring to regardless and it certainly wasn't inaccurate. If you try to bring this up again I'm just going to ignore it since it's just getting off the subject and not relevant to anything in the actual article (plus, I'm starting to suspect you're just bringing it up as a diversion from the fact that you can't provide any facts to legitimize your edits).

Now back to the dispute at hand, the majority of Ganondorf's gameplay aspects remain unchanged between his Melee and Brawl incarnations: All normal attacks remain unchanged (at least by any notable significance) aside from reach. While they may differ from Captain Falcon's moves, they DO NOT differ between the Melee and Brawl versions in which the "Luigification" would have occurred. That being said, the differences between the Brawl and Melee versions of Ganondorf DO NOT outnumber the retained moves which means the "Remaining Clone Aspects" can only accurately read: "Above half" . After being warned, you re-edited the article contradicting the factual claims previously mentioned in this discussion and did not provide any kind of factual evidence of your own to legitimize the edit... Instead, only citing a completely irrelevant subject and somewhat childishly threatening to report vandalism back with no legitimate reasoning. That is more than a "lack of good faith", it's an attempt to dictate through bias, and arguably a personal attack. I was going to report you for vandalism immediately, but after re-reading this discussion I realize I may not have made all my points 100% clear the first time, so I'll give you one last chance. If you change it again (and don't give some legitimate reason for doing so) you will be reported.--Bman87301 17:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I have had enough of your constant vandalism, and have already reported you to the sysops. I already explained that Ganon's normal moves are almost entirely different. It doesn't matter what changed from Melee. For that matter, nowhere does it say "Luigification percentage". Very Low means HIGH Luigification, LOW clone qualities. Since Ganon now shares LESS THAN HALF of CF's attacks, regardless of Melee, that makes his Remaining Clone Aspects "Less Than Half", not "More". "Remaining" does not mean "compared to melee", it means "total moveset that is cloned". In other words, (moves that are th same)/(total moves), NOT (moves that are the same in Brawl)/(moves that are the same in Melee). If this was the case, then Luigi's Remainig Clone Aspects would be Very High, since only one or two attacks has changed since his Melee moveset.
I've already given examples and references of how every one of his Tilts/neutral A and Final Smash is completely different, as well as half of his Specials, throws, Upsmash, and Fair. And you say "aside from reach". Reach is not the issue. Toon Link has less reach than Link does, even for the same attacks. But Ganondorf has totally different animation as well. And I have been constantly giving evidence and comparisons, yet you still insist it's not "factual evidence" or "legitimate", even when I provided a link to the Ganondorf article itself the DESCRIBES the moves in depth, and throw around insults like "childish", attacking me instead of reasoning your edits.
Finally, I hope I worded this properly. I don't mean to repeat myself or get my topics out of order, but it's hard to edit this when I can only see two lines at a time, and no copy/paste. Any paragraph flow errors are entirely unintentional. - Gargomon251 23:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit War[edit]

Look, I don't own Brawl so I can't say I'm familiar with the characters. However, I am stepping in and stopping this edit war before it gets out of hand. Please make a new discussion and discuss the differences between Ike and Marth, as well as between Capt. Falcon and Ganondorf. Once an answer has been reached, notify a sysop and this page will be unprotected to make changes (if needed). FyreNWater - (TalkContributions ) 02:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

So you mean, like make a [[Category:Forums]] page or something? - Gargomon251 03:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
The discussion should be on this page, under a new title. FyreNWater - (TalkContributions ) 03:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

This article should have been merged with clone a year ago. Discuss. --Randall00 15:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Great. Then maybe we should merge both Pokemon Stadiums? Or all the different Final Destinations? A Luigi is different than a clone but still similar yes. An orange is similar an apple but still different. Luigification is a fan made measure of how clone-y a clone is. But just because they are similar doesn't mean that they should merge. You don't merge the Richter scale with earthquakes. Solox 16:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see what discussing the differences between Marth and Ike or Ganondorf and C. Falcon is supposed to accomplish since the Marth/Ike issue was resolved a long time ago and the Ganondorf/Captain Falcon issue wasn't even directly part of the controversy. Read the discussion and look at the edit history. The controversy was over Gorgomon251's insistence on presenting his personal interpretation as indisputable fact and failure to work to compromise (which is something the logs show he's had a long history of doing). Instead of compromising, he usually completely reverts, with poor attempts to explain why. And now that someone has finally called him out on it, he goes crying to the sysops. The problem wasn't about any particular issue up to debate, it was about Gargomon251's lack of understanding of how a Wiki is supposed to work. --Bman87301 17:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

And again with the insults. I didn't just revert without saying anything, and as you can see, I clearly explained my reasoning, even if I was a bit stubborn. And you were going to "run crying to the sysops" yourself, in case you forgot.
Actually, I was merely attempting to point out how your editing practices were being unfair and could easily qualify as being vandalism if you didn't lighten up, thinking perhaps it might finally get your attention. If you'll look, you can see that each time you changed it back, I made another attempt to explain my point and gave you another opportunity at redemption. You're the one who actually went running to the sysops. You didn't try to re-explain your reasoning, you stubbornly relied on what you previously said even though it was obvious your point wasn't convincing when I continued to refute it. I continued to give further explanation for my position and I kept giving you opportunity to compromise. I made it perfectly clear I was willing to compromise and wasn't going to contact the sysops if you explained yourself. You made no attempt to do so and instead went to the sysops yourself, in case you forgot.--Bman87301 20:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and about the merge thing: clones are a general fighting game occurence, and a pretty common term. Luigification is more or less exclusive to Smash, and the requirements are a lot more open to interpretation. I say keep them separate. - Gargomon251 20:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

And incidentally, I see no problem merging the FDs and PSes, since they are more or less the same stage, with minor variations. You'd only need a screenshot from each one, and a brief note over how it has changed between versions. They are even in the same "location" in each form, so you wouldn't need a different infobox. And the trophy data could go there too. Seems simple enough.- Gargomon251 20:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Fair point, the only difference between them really is a graphical change and PS2 has different modes. I just got a little angry at Randall00's comment, he was just trying to start a fight.Solox 22:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Pardon me, but I have better things to do with my time than bicker with a bunch of whiny editors taking things personally over an obvious merge for my own amusement. Listen to what you're arguing for! "Luigification"?? Seriously? This terminology sounds like it was invented by a four year-old and it describes something apparently equivalent to "partial cloning." Which sounds a whole lot to me like the definition for clone--"characters that have nearly identical movesets with slight variations in the attacks." If a clone is not an exact copy of a character's moveset, then what is the difference between a clone and a "partial clone."? Why is Luigi and Mario a part of this list of "Luigified" characters but Dr. Mario and Mario appear on the list of clone characters? I beg of you to give a rational explanation of how the physical properties of Doc's moveset constitute "cloning" (wherein all of his aerials, ground attacks and smashes have different knockback both in power, speed of execution and angle, in addition to his special moves serving entirely different purposes and sporting unique properties of their own), yet Luigi's moveset is only a "partial clone" for exactly the same reasons. And how exactly do you justify having both Fox & Falco, as well as Ganondorf and Captain Falcon, listed as both clones and "Luigification"s when you're fighting to keep the article separated? You don't even have a case! Give me a link or something to show me some evidence of this term being "used in the Super Smash Bros. fan community" under a reputable source and then you'd be making some headway, but good luck with that. And what is with this "Remaining clone aspects" attribute attached to these pairings? "Low"? "Slightly below half"? What is this article talking about??? Why would you support such incredibly ambiguous information? These articles will be merged. --Randall00 04:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
The reason Doc is a clone and Luigi is not is because he shares EVERY SINGLE ATTACK that Mario has. It doesn't matter that the name, knockback, or damage is slightly different, or that they have slightly different speeds, weights, or jump heights. They all share identical animations. Luigification may sound like an uncreative term, but, while there is no exact dividing line, the concept is quite different from a clone. - Gargomon251 05:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Man, your justifications just give me a headache. Your reasons for keeping these articles separate are the same as your reasons for supporting a merge of the Pokemon Stadium and Final Destination stages (which are obviously totally different stages on every level) and the double standard just hurts. Please feel free to address any of my other more pressing points and while you're at it, might as well explain how pills and fireballs share identical animations. Or don't bother, because I'm pretty sure I'm not even listening. --Randall00 12:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
While having different IMAGES, fireballs and pills both bounce in an arc and have similar effects. Now compare something like Wolf and Fox's Up Special. Wolf's has no initial charging damage, moves faster, and delivers a powerful kick at the end. Even though the initial "dash" may seem similar to Fire Fox, he actually poses quite different, despite moving in a straight line. And then there's the furthest extreme: Compare Luigi's dash attack to Mario's. Totally different. Not much to say about it. If Doc had actually had many moves that were exclusive to him, he would be Luigified, but as he is now, if you remove the visual effects and outfit, leaving only the hitbox bubbles (the ones in debug mode that show where he GETS hit), he is virtually indistinguishable from Mario during all his attack poses. Just a copycat. It doesn't mater if th Super Sheet is wider, or hi f-air dosn't spike, they are the same moves in appearance.
All Final Destinations are essentially flat stages with no obstacles or platforms, the only difference is the look, for example Brawl's version is slightly more angled underneath. You still fight Master Hand at al of thm, and the minor differences are not really enough to warrant separate articles. As for both Stadiums, they are exactly identical EXCEPT for the different modes, each of which is practically its own stage anyway. That's not to say I want a separate article for each. Basically both stadiums WORK the same way: start on the basic two-platform stage, and randomly change to other types. All yo'd ned to do to merge them is say PS1 was originally in Melee, and such-and-such are the different terrain effects, and then mention PS2 and analysis of its terrain effects. - Gargomon251 23:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


What's the final decision on the status of Luigified characters? Is it still being discussed? FyreNWater - (TalkContributions ) 02:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to merge these two articles and turn this one into a redirect. At my earliest convenience. Unless someone beats me to it. --Randall00 02:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Well I tried as hard as I could to explain it but I guess you don't care. - Gargomon251 04:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, the point of the protection and debate was to end the argument over the amount of similarity between Ganondorf/Capt. Falcon and Ike/Marth. How in the world did the decision come down to a merge? FyreNWater - (TalkContributions ) 23:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Read clone and then read Luigification. Then read clone again for good measure. I'd be surprised if you didn't see how obvious the merge is. --Randall00 00:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, you make a good point. However, this still leaves the initial question unanswered: What about the Ganon/Capt and Ike/Marth issue? FyreNWater - (TalkContributions ) 01:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I think it has been clearly shown that Ike has nothing in common with Marth other than Counter, and maybe one or two other negligible moves. I never bothered to do a side-by-side comparison yet but their standard attacks are only as similar to each other as they are to Link. As for Ganondorf, I've already put all my explanations, some here, some on Bman's user talk page. The attacks are also described in their respective "(SSBB)" articles.
For the record, I find it odd that Ness and Lucas have not had any contraversy, yet characters that are have equal or greater differences such as these have such drawn out discussions.- Gargomon251 02:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I really think this article should have the redirect removed, at least until some of the information is actually put on the clone article. This is actually fairly helpful, whereas the clone page just nearly ignores the issue. Entrea Sumatae 03:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree, but my opinions on this article seem largely disregarded...-Gargomon251 (talk) 04:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, I put basic summaries of Semi-clones onto the Clone page, so now they really have been merged.Entrea Sumatae 23:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)