I have a question for people who believe that all characters should stay, even..

[3D Player 2004]

clones, with no exceptions whatsoever because it causes their mains to have to spend time adapting to another character (the character their main is a clone of).

Does that also mean that you are against any veteran characters getting any changes whatsoever? After all, it would mean that their mains would have to adapt to the changes that were put into their character. What is the difference between these 2 scenarios?

 

[LeftyGreenMario]

clones, with no exceptions whatsoever because it causes their mains to have to spend time adapting to another character.

Does that also mean that you are against any veteran characters getting any changes whatsoever? After all, it would mean that their mains would have to adapt to the changes that were put into their character. What is the difference between these 2 scenarios?

1. What?

2. Non sequitur?

 

[Yoshi K]

I think the difference is that if a veteran gets a move changed or something minor, it's easier to adapt to because the play style will still be similar.

Clones often have major differences which affect the playstyle a lot despite having similar moves to the original character, for example, knockback, hitbox, speed, and recovery to name a few.

I think that's what the arguement is (not saying I agree with it, I just wanted to clarify).

 

[Vommack]

Case-by-case basis. I doubt you'd see anyone willing to defend Ganondorf being a Falcon clone.

 

[Cirdec]

I don't mind Ganondorf staying a Falcon clone because I main him at Melee and Brawl, but what upsets me is Ganondorf looks to be a crap character again. Why then can't make him like he was in Melee?