I agree, but I think focusing on definitions isn’t a good argument. Definitions are descriptive, not prescriptive, they change as time goes on and have multiple meanings. Its all based on utility, there is (unfortunately) more utility in calling a game a smash like than a platform fighter because more people are going to understand what you mean with the former over the latter
I think the argument that comes after is a lot better, the framing and how its harmful as opposed to it not being accurate as a definition is way more effective
Exactly what I'm saying. Open any dictionary in the world and all of a sudden 90% of the words in every language don't exist because they have multiple meanings
Yeah i agree with you. I'm waiting looking to the day people actually recognize platform fighters as its own genre of fighting games instead of just smash clones
@@SoftwareNeos @@SoftwareNeos it could be interesting, I don't really like the idea of a"Killer" when it comes to any game title because I don't feel like it necessary helps any genre and a lot of time it comes off as some sort of click bait, but I guess it could be a fun video depends on how it's been done
Responding to your request at the beginning of the video: I think “Smash clone” is basically just what people call platform fighters if they haven’t heard/don’t remember the term “platform fighter.” It’s similar to how a lot of people are probably going to continue to use the term “Souls-like” even after that genre gets a proper name (assuming it doesn’t have one already; I’m not into the genre, I just know there’s a lot of discourse about the name).
"Souls-like" may have been stretched by a lot of people for a definition but it is the genre - not a disparaging term. We've settled on using lite and like at the end of some genres which were inspired by a particular game. See Rogue. Clone is basically never healthy whether it is talking about GTA clones, Doom clones or whatever else. (Killer is even worse but more of a sign of bad discourse or console wars) Platform fighter is not a new term or a hard one to find.
You're right, there is no accepted definition for a smash clone. And yes, there is a better term for the genre in "platform fighter. Smash clone is poorly defined and it's still used anyway. I get that its 'the same' as calling every shooter "call of duty" or ever football video game "madden" I don't think there's anything wrong with that, though. There are several categories of things throughout history that were at one point referred to by the name of the most popular thing from that category. A good example of this being the word "dog" which comes from the Old English word "dogca" which is actually just the Old english word for Mastiff. Eventually, Old English speakers decided to call everything that reminded them of a dogca a "dog" in the same way that modern english speakers call everything that reminds them of smash bros a "smash clone". You don't get mad at someone every time they call a domesticated canine a "dog" and you shouldn't get mad at someone when they call every plat fighter a "smash clone". Respectfully, this video is a very poorly constructed linguistics appeal. You can't perscribe language to people, you have to accept how people use words, even if there is no accepted universal definition of the words they're using. Why? because there are countless words that wouldn't exist in the english language if we used this rule. Mathemeticians have not been able to agree on what a "set" is even 100 years after the debate began, but the word "set" was still instrumental to advancing mathematics and even inventing the first computer. We also don't even have a universal definition for "infinity", but I can gaurantee you its a useful word that has the right to exist. Smash bros is the best selling fighting game of all time. The sales of every other platform fighter combined might not even add up. You have to admit that when a game overshadows its genre that much, it's going to become the frame of reference for everything in that genre. People are going to keep calling multiversus, brawlhalla, rivals, NASB, RR, etc. "smash clones" wether you like it or not, so I would recommend just not letting it bother you.
Honestly i think this video is kinda redundant, i think 99% of people use platform fighter and smash clone interchangeably. People did this with other genres, for example fps being called doom clones in the past. Should we gatekeep the term metroidvania because other games in the genre arent litteraly metroid or castlevania? You could have just commented on that RUclipsrs video and saved everyone 18 minutes of their life
For real tho. It's like saying every fighting game is a "Street Fighter Clone" when there's sooooooo many differences between fighting games it's not even funny. Yet influencers can get away with dunking on plat fighters? This is why it's important to think for yourself
I like this take of yours. I've always got annoyed when people argue about something yet don't even agree what that "something" even really is. The pedant in me already gets unreasonably annoyed at the term "Souls-like" as if there weren't dozens of other ways to refer to an entire genre of video games beyond comparing it to one game series in particular. Video games are art. We don't define an artistic style by the painter that pioneered it. We define it according to a word that describes it, grouping similar things together with a simple linguistic descriptor that summarises it. If there is a linguistic descriptor with an inherent negative connotation ("clone" implies "rip-off" to me, or at least "more of the same") used as if it was a neutral term, that's Newspeak. Language designed to be defaming. This video has nicely put into words why I've felt this lingering annoyance when I see the term being used. Although personally, I really don't care all that much. In the end, language is a tool for communication. If I got offended at the tool someone else uses without considering whether they had negative intentions, I'd just have another aspect of negativity in my life that I can do without. So, despite the paragraph above, I personally choose to not care and don't bother correcting others. I use the term that the developers of each game use when referring to the genre, which just happens to be "platform fighter" for most of them.
Man you're taking this too seriously. Platform fighter is the better term but it is less known. And have you seen PFs in the past years, we are scraping. So any new advertisement is good. Until there a genuine good Smash Alternative then people will stop using smash clone, or smash killer. And I think Rivals 2 is on track to hit 1M+ players. Until a good fully fledged game comes out, this term will never go away. Until Smash becomes like SF, MK, Fatal Fury, GG, this term is here to stay whether you say it or not. In the 90s Fatal fury was SF clone. We just good devs and time. Patience young one. Our time will come.
The thing is... We've had MANY great Smash alternatives (platform fighters) both before and after Smash started. Content creators are just taking a shortcut to engagement by using Smash Clone/Killer for every game that doesn't surpass the trope codifier in sales, competition at a tournament or whatever else. Imagine if we ignored a bunch of games before Halo or COD to call the genre clones of those and only let a more neutral term exist after those series flopped. Platform fighters have this but much much worse. Even free to play platform fighters with crossplay and multiplatform releases stand no chance of outselling the worst performing Smash games let alone Ult. Same goes for the competitive circuit even if most games have slowed down or were throttled by Nintendo.
@@thelastgogeta your 1st point, all those PFs were not as good as Smash so they are not true alternatives. Rivals 2 can become the first alternative since it will be a fully fledged game. MVS could've been this but had bad monetization and game play. They just need to fix the game. 2nd, That's the game of the content creation. Don't hate the players. 3rd, yeah before FPS was a thing they were all called Doom Clones, until companies started really one's that can compete with doom, ie. With Bigger stories, better graphics and gameplay refinements. They don't stand a chance because they are not good games in the public eye. HALO had way better graphics at the time and expansion in gameplay. COD had some of the best campaigns.
@@luckymanx2978 1st) If Slap City, Rivals 1, Jump Superstars, Brawlout, NASB2, Lethal League Blaze, Brawlhalla, Rushdown Revolt, Flat Heroes, the One Piece Gigant Battle series and many more are all "not as good as Smash". We are never escaping Smash Clone territory. I like some of them more than specific Smash games at times, but they will never get the sales or Metacritic reception. I never considered MVS to even be part of the running as a potential favourite (so I never even installed it) since I have so many other options which don't have bad monetisation or gameplay issues. We've had fully fledged alternatives for decades by my measure if even one of the early One Piece or Naruto games are any good. 2nd) Fine, I'll hate the game instead and say that playing it doesn't make the content beneficial. 3rd) When is the transition then? Doom clone fell out in the late 90s which is good, but are we still in the GTA Clone era since no game is remotely close to outgoing GTA in the same way as Smash? How is a million players for Rivals 2 enough when Smash 4 Wii U (the less popular half of Smash 4) had 5 million sold and Ultimate has over 30 million sold?
I think specifically with the Coney example with rivals 2, he’s baiting casuals in and then exposing them to a cool game. I think you’re getting too hung up on language. I’m a huge platform fighter fan, but I don’t think rivals 2 is going to be negatively impacted because of the term smash clone.
What is the name of the first game in the video and the one in 9:53? Also, FINALLY, respect for another Platform Fighter akin to Smash and not treat them like clones!
I agree with some your points about the lack of a clear definition, as well as the point that some people who compare a smaller game to the smash series a mostly using that as an opportunity to spread some l=slight negativity around that smaller game. With that being said, as some other commenters mentioned: I think most people who use the term smash clone use it from a point of being uninformed of or unfamiliar with the greater platform fighter genre, and call what they see to be similar to the thing it draws some inspiration from. Yes, the term is loosely defined, but also the point of genre descriptions is that people can use them as a quick shorthand to describe an overall box it fits in even though genre descriptions can suck because they don’t adequately represent what they describe and are at times very reductive. I once had an argument with a friend about wether sifu was a roguelike, and I’ve seen extremely casual people who don’t play fighters outside of casual smash say smash clone for any non-smash fighting game, platform fighter or not. People can be uninformed or use the language they understand most, and if you want to you can add clarification or just engage with them off of the words they use. If you’re looking for any widely used descriptive word which has a definition everyone agrees on, it doesn’t exist. I don’t think the use of a loose descriptive word has that much power over a community, and can start the downfall of a title Also, I think arguing about semantics with people who are either influencers using a loosely defined internet term, or idiots, or people farming for internet reactions, or assholes is a waste of time and effort unless you’re devoted to combating misinformation around a loosely defined term that is slightly negative but close to harmless when not used in a derogatory context (most instances of smash clone or smash like I’ve encountered don’t seem to have a negative connotation).
Smash clone is reductive and quite outdated term to be honest. We don't call every 2d fighting game a 'Heavyweight Champ (1976)' clone because they're part of a genre. When the souls games were less popular and lords of the fallen came out it was called a dark-souls clone and critisized for it. Since then many similar games have come out and they aren't called 'clones' they're part of the 'soulslike' genre.
Nah you're absolutely right. The people that use the term Smash Clones are just lazy and know nothing about these platform fighters. The worst part is, is that all these new ones are so much different than Smash Bros. And they're better.
I mean bro is right, the few people in the comments that actually decided to make a definition of a “smash” clone couldn’t even agree. Mortal Kombat was considered a copy cat of street fighter until people started to understand that there was fundamental differences between the two. Now the two exist as two giant franchises with legacies for years on end. They both exist in the same genre just like other platform fighters and smash.
Alright, finished the video. I was going to edit my previous comment, but I noticed the like you gave it, and I didn’t want to edit it to something else after the fact, as it might come across as misrepresenting you. I will say that I feel like it’s ok for genre definitions to have some grey area, as some of my favorite anime genres (mecha and magical girls) have ambiguous definitions that people still argue about, (“are Transformers mecha” “is Kill la Kill a magical girl series” etc), so my issue with the term “Smash clone” is less the ambiguity and more the fact that there’s already a much better term for it. “Platform fighter” already explains everything it needs to, so using an outdated/derogatory alternative feels dumb. I definitely understand the frustration with the clout chasers though; nothing for me to add there.
Before continuing to see your point, I'll put down MY definition of a Smash Clone below... Thanks for reading 😁😁😁😁 I ALSO don't think "Smash Clones" are a real thing. I'm glad to find out I'm not alone.
And this is why you should always do your research BEFORE jumping on a bandwagon! Like seriously its like I always say: the people who say "smash clone" have zero clue on what even the word "clone" even means!
@@andrewprahst2529 I expected you to at least mention playing a later Fatal Fury or KOF which may have more similarities in places. I'll explain briefly. Fatal Fury had plains which meant that fighters could hit their opponent into the background/foreground which also had implications for co-op vs AI gameplay back in 1991 though that mode didn't return. Following the first game, characters got the ability to move between the plains on demand and fast which gave it more of a flow similar to a 3D sidestepping fighting game with Fatal Fury 3 even having 3 plains (I haven't played this one - my favourite is Special). Some games had ring outs or other stage interactions as well. Almost none of the above is in a numbered Street Fighter game. It is only a clone if you are really reductive to the point of just seeing a health bar. Even how it told the story in the first game was quite different to SF2 at the time despite being released in the same year. Even if the game WAS really similar to SF, I'd give them a bit of a pass since it was partially the same team at another studio. Art of Fighting (1992 - not sure if all of this was in the first one) was more obviously similar to SF2 in how characters were designed and played, but even that had battle damage, taunts to lower enemy meter, meter to use proper specials and manually charging meter almost like in Dragon Ball.
@@thelastgogeta Thank you for the explanation. That plane stuff does sound pretty different. You mean to say plane, right? I guess my comment was largely based on the existence of an "FGC" where games are similar enough that people can be expected to basically know how to play the different games. I don't actually know exactly what these games have in common, but I'm under the impression that a high-low blocking system is pretty standard, as are DP's and the fairly unusual input system in general of stick rolls and different buttons for light punch ect, a distinct prome state, walls on either side Of course there are differences between games, like if there are air dashes or a block button or whatever, but compare that to the differences even within a single series. Air dodging works differently in every Smash game, combos basically don't exist in Brawl aside from chain grabs which don't exist in later games, some games have input buffering and some don't, ledge trump vs ledge hog, all within the same series. When you consider how much variation there can be while still being the same franchise, other similar games don't seem so far apart. This might not be so true of SF-FF, I'm not really so informed, but I'd say definitely so for the games people insist be called platform fighters. It isn't just like FPS's being doom clones, it's closer to imitating the gamemodes, loadout archetypes, and formula of counter strike or something.
I agree with you on this. People need to use the correct term in order to better represent the genre and anyone who denies that is part of the problem.
The term "Smash Clone/Killer" exists in the same notion as "Overwatch Clone/Killer", some people simply don't want their favorite game (or their severe addiction) to get any competition. These kind of people don't understand the difference between a genre and a bootleg knockoff. Other previous genres left behind that negativity very quickly, and yet for these 2, nobody wants to let it go. And then they complain that "there aren't any games to play". Smash and Overwatch aren't even the originators of their genres. The Outfoxies was the first platform fighter. TF2 existed before Overwatch, and even the "certified" OW clone (Paladins) was in development years before OW was even revealed. The thing is, Smash/OW players either hate everything that's not their game, or are fully indifferent. I've seen many posts of people recommending their friends (who play said games) other titles within the genre, only to be met with the most arbitrary reasons on why they don't want to try. All we can really do is wait for the one game that will shut everyone up
IT'S TRUE! IT SUCKS! I'm sure there's a lot of fighting games that have been called street fighter 2 clones, as there were with doom clones before the term fps got invented. But that's the kicker, THEY WERE CALLED THAT BEFORE THEY HAD A REAL, REASONABLE NAME! It's sad to hold a sub-genre so close to the game that they take the most inspiration from, so close that it strangles them, when there's no reason to. Sure, comparison is one thing, but this language and kind of apathy towards especially the indie games is just... it's disappointing. It's putting something down for merely existing. No one calls Guilty Gear a Street Fighter clone or knock-off or even really acknowledges that they have anything to do with each other. Why does it have to be like this for people? I can understand if you're a diehard Nintendo fan and you really don't want to play the game without Mario and Fox and Link in it, but you wouldn't even be here in the first place. The voices that come out to denounce these games as clones and knockoffs are so gross. What a bogus way to treat your genre that you supposedly like so much.
A super respect you, man. I do think the video is bit much a bit, just angry ranting, but i agree it's time to move on it's time to grow up it's time to use the term platform fighter back in the day there was street fighter clones then there was fighting games there was doom clones then there was fps there was smash clones but they were always platform fighters its time conetent creators grew up and used that term used platform fighter so it can grow
I have thoughts on this video that I'm going to expand on but the main thing that I do I want to say is that whilst the name smash clone is bad and comes with a negative connotation we also can't ignore the fact that a lot of these games are just trying to be melee 2 in that honestly needs to stop. It's nothing wrong with making a platform fighter but for the love of God if I wanted to play melee I would go play melee.
Being a "Smash Clone" is a lot more than just being a platform fighter with knockout rules and percentage-based knockback systems. To be considered a smash clone means being a full-on party game with crazy items and fights not just being restricted to skill and skill alone. Something more for people to play casually first and foremost, and professionally on higher-end levels of the skill ceiling. But hey, that's just me. I'd love to see what other people think.
a smash clone to me is a game that's exactly like smash melee but with non-nintendo characters. As a Smash Bros player the basic want is platform fighter will a low level of entry and a high skill floor with fun interesting characters
Pre-video opinion as requested: I think a Smash clone is a game that is made to appeal to people who like Smash Bros by providing a similar experience. This usually involves multiple of the following: 1. Increasing damage that makes you get launched further 2. Loss of the game buy getting sent off the screen 3. A directional input system Note: Simply being a fighting game with platforms does not necessarily constitute a Smash clone.
@@Nebulius_the_uuhhhh Gameplay is similar although they changed up the mechanics like Rivals 2 where it has Melee movement but no crossover characters.
You should read Foucault. Your actions against what you dislike are not very effective. You’re just gonna get weird looks and a sore throat. Philosophize this has a 3 video podcast on him. Personally I think a recounting of the history and analysis of platform fighters would have done a lot more to convince me to not use the term than yelling
I think Software has the potential to do just that, though he lacks some of the background with older games (I think he hasn't played Melee but no problem really). I've documented a lot on newer and older platform fighter games that I haven't played too much.
Im a platform fighter player. I have well over 2000 hours in the genre. Rivals 1 is in my top 5 games of all time. And I know you arent trying to cause any harm man. BUT! 1. The argument over definitions of a word is flat out not a good one. Language is by design an inconsistent form of conveying information. Its really hard to define things in objective manner, especially when how people use Language changes drastically from day to day. Especially with the age of the Internet. People have different definitions and conceptions of the exact same word, ALL THE TIME! some are less popular than other sure, but definitions have always been subjective. So when a term like "smash clone" has very ambiguous meaning depending on the individual that uses it. Thats normal. It might be perceived as harmful to the genre sure, but its not just, non existent. 2. Please dont use your platform to attack other channels. I know you don't mean harm but ive seen way to many examples of that leading to constant harassment and unnecessary death threats. Its just a derogatory fighting game term at the end of the day. No one is out here trying to nuke aether studios headquarters
But if you look at the other platform Fighters that are out there, there are no actual smash clones even the sequels that Nintendo created are different enough
To be frank...most of his videos are him complaining, as someone who recently discovered his channel lol but I try to just look at it as him loving things very much so that he hyperfixates on the negatives but still does have valid critiques
"Smash clone" is a platform fighting game that borrows heavily enough from the smash bros series to be considered highly derivative to the point of not contributing to the genre(or isna fangame made to celebrate the franchise)
This is such a stupid argument. I'm sure if falls into some sort of falacy but I'm not a philosopher, so who knows. "Everyone has different criteria for what a good movie is, so good movies don't exist" "each religion disagrees about who god is, so god can't exist" "none of us in the comments know what your name is, so you dont have a name" Even if only one of those examples made sense, do you see how we CANNOT think about things like that?? Everyone has a different definition of what a smash clone is so a smash clone cant exist? Wtf are you talking about? The ignorance of some does not mean that what they are ignorant of doesn't exist. This is such a wild and brain dead take. Like, i agree that smash clone is probably overused, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist, that's just not how anything works
Naw. The first example you said "Good movie" Noone doubts what a movie is. A movie isnt subjective. a good movie is. Even when it comes to WHO god is for different religions. They usually agree on WHAT god is. Powerful. Omnipotent. If there is no agreement on WHAT something is. You cant say it exists. plain and simple. And 20 people in the comments have different opinions on WHAT smash clone is. So it doesnt exist
@@SoftwareNeos first of all, liking your own comment while attempting to defend yourself is sad AF lmao. Secondly, I'll admit it, good movie was not a good example. Many cultures and religions don't believe Gods are powerful or omnipotent. There's a huge variety of different takes on what a god is. Sure you can say they are all powerful and supernatural, but you said it yourself, a definition can't be everything. If every platform fighter can't be a smash clone so smash clones can't exist, every thing people describe as a god can't be a god so God doesn't exist. Thirdly, you didn't even argue the one on names. So if 20 people all try and guess your name, you no longer have a name because we all guessed something differently? Or if we all decide to call you something different, that's your new name and your real one doesn't exist? Every single word and phrase in the English language has multiple definitions. You can open a random page in and dictionary on earth and find dozens of examples of this. Just because people define something differently from another person DOES NOT MEAN IT DOESN'T EXIST! THAT'S NOT HOW ENGLISH WORKS!
@@SoftwareNeos I don't think these examples are that different from the smash clone definition. People who believe there's such a thing as a clone generally agree that a smash clone is a game more or less similar to a smash game. They may disagree on how close it has to be to be considered one, but it's not like one person is saying it has to have a coin launcher minigame in it to be a smash clone and another is saying it has to have buyable bikini skins in it to be one. The reason people have different definitions is just because similarity is a spectrum. It may not have a strict definition like you'd expect in legal terms, but that's basically par for the course. You could find disagreement among plenty of genres. Fighting games is a good example. Do platform fighters count as fighting games? What about games like For Honor? There may not be an agreed upon definition, but there is definitely a general sense people are getting at, because it's not as if people are giving contradictory definitions.
I kind of disagree on the Coney and TheMacroShow comparison, I don't see how someone making up a character list for a hypothetical game would introduce more people to platform fighters than a tierlist video that actually discusses different platform fighters.
Smash clone = 2D platform fighter-party game that seeks to “unite” all characters under a certain brand, IP, or network. I’d also say the percentage health gauge is pretty reminiscent to smash too
Im going to have to stop you right here. You can't say X doesn't exist because you used a different word to describe the same things. If my vocabulary is consistent and it gets the point across, then it exists.
Bro is too stuck thinking smash clone is an insult when its rlly not. Its like when people say souls-like. They dont mean that its worse than dark souls just that it plays similar to dark souls. Super smash brother is the first platform fighter serie and most platform fighter might never have existed without it. Its not rlly an insult smash is the just the most recongnizable entery. People do the same with Metroidvenia or rogue-like.
I think smash closes are games like nic all stars and multiverses, which play just like smash, except they are crappier. games like rivals, brawhalla and rushdown revolt are platform fighters, they do their own thing, i don't consider them smash clones
I think you’re just upset at the term “smash clone” because you feel it gives the genre a bad rep. That’s a fine opinion to have, but I feel like there’s a better way to express that than this. I know you want Rivals 2 and the platform fighter genre as a whole to be successful, but I don’t see how calling content creators “greedy assholes” for using terminology you don’t like and blaming them for the state of the genre is going to do that.
Imo smash clones are games that market themselves and move as if they are a new competitive plat fighter for smash players. Rivals 1 was built off this. And in R2 they changed the mechanics to make it more like smash. It is a smash clone by design. Not saying its bad by any means. Just saying its not all that unique.
Smash Clone is just like Street Fighter Clone. I would call Rivals 2 a Smash clone/like but not the first one since it lacks to many mechanics and plays too different from smash. I also prefer Rivals 2 a lot for being a smash clone not just a platform fighter that tries to do its own thing, It is way more fun from my experience with the demo.
I'll stop calling them smash clones the day they actually do something unique with the formula, nick brawl 2 gets close to doing that with the gauges but still very smash like. Besides, we say rogue like and metroidvania, why are people so stingy with calling them smash likes/clones?
Hey look, another mindless Smash fan who treats other platform fighters like dirt and think that their precious series is perfect in just about every way. Pathetic
I never use the term, but to me a Smash Clone would have to be a platform fighter that uses the percent damage system as its core "health" mechanic and every character has a moveset exactly like a smash character would (directional attacks, grounded tilt/smash attacks, shield & grab.) If you can put a character from a "Smash Clone" inside of a Smash Bros game without needing to change ANY mechanic, then I'd call it a clone.
Having listened to the video, tbh I don't think the people using the term aren't doing it for greed/clout. They're probably doing it because like you said, it's in the cultural zeitgeist. They just don't put any thought into it and use the most eye catching words they can. There is no ulterior motive, they just don't care enough. It would be cool if more people were passionate about platform fighters and actually cared. Either way I agree with the overall point. Smash Clone aren't real.
Bro the intro is so long and says a whole lot of nothing. I get the style and I want to like it, but it’s not it mate. Good luck with future vids, I hope you improve and keep going.
to me a Smash Clone is: A Platforming Fighting Game that sells itself exclusively on having a roster of memorable characters from outside media fighting without any actual unique characters made by devs. Smash Bros sells itself on having popular Nintendo characters fighting each other, so if your Platforming fighter game follows that philosophy then you’re making a smash clone. What this means is that Rivals of Aether isn’t a Smash Clone while NASB and Multiversus are Smash Clones
@@pkchiptune By unique I specifically mean characters designed JUST for that game, like for smash, the closest you get to unique character is mashing a bunch of Game and Watch characters into one. I should've probably mentioned it doesn't mean play style, just character origins.
![[#2024MAMA] ROSÉ (로제), Bruno Mars - APT. | Mnet 241122 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/dgGqD28J6aQ/mqdefault.jpg)
I agree, but I think focusing on definitions isn’t a good argument. Definitions are descriptive, not prescriptive, they change as time goes on and have multiple meanings. Its all based on utility, there is (unfortunately) more utility in calling a game a smash like than a platform fighter because more people are going to understand what you mean with the former over the latter
I think the argument that comes after is a lot better, the framing and how its harmful as opposed to it not being accurate as a definition is way more effective
most people who know what smash is know the term platform fighter by now.
@@3eve0n most GAMERS sure, not most normies
The name "Smash Clone" is actually the name for illegal duplicates of Smash Bros Discs/Cartridges
That can apply to "Doom clones" for illegal copies of Doom II since Doom II wasn't free like the original
"people can't have different definitions of a word and still have that word have meaning"
Oh boy, linguists would have a field day with this video
Exactly what I'm saying. Open any dictionary in the world and all of a sudden 90% of the words in every language don't exist because they have multiple meanings
Yeah i agree with you. I'm waiting looking to the day people actually recognize platform fighters as its own genre of fighting games instead of just smash clones
The next video was gonna be on the term "Smash Killer" but idk if itll be interesting
Yeah no you NEED to make a video about that destructive term
@@SoftwareNeos @@SoftwareNeos it could be interesting, I don't really like the idea of a"Killer" when it comes to any game title because I don't feel like it necessary helps any genre and a lot of time it comes off as some sort of click bait, but I guess it could be a fun video depends on how it's been done
Seriously do people who unironically use “Smash Killer” not realize the possibility that there can be more than one game in a given genre?
I agree with this. No one calls Tekken a Virtua Fighter clone. Or guilty gear a street fighter clone.
Actually people do, they just happen to be dumb as rocks
They actually call Virtua Fighter a Tekken clone. It is worse than you thought.
Responding to your request at the beginning of the video: I think “Smash clone” is basically just what people call platform fighters if they haven’t heard/don’t remember the term “platform fighter.” It’s similar to how a lot of people are probably going to continue to use the term “Souls-like” even after that genre gets a proper name (assuming it doesn’t have one already; I’m not into the genre, I just know there’s a lot of discourse about the name).
"Souls-like" may have been stretched by a lot of people for a definition but it is the genre - not a disparaging term. We've settled on using lite and like at the end of some genres which were inspired by a particular game. See Rogue.
Clone is basically never healthy whether it is talking about GTA clones, Doom clones or whatever else. (Killer is even worse but more of a sign of bad discourse or console wars)
Platform fighter is not a new term or a hard one to find.
You're right, there is no accepted definition for a smash clone. And yes, there is a better term for the genre in "platform fighter. Smash clone is poorly defined and it's still used anyway. I get that its 'the same' as calling every shooter "call of duty" or ever football video game "madden"
I don't think there's anything wrong with that, though. There are several categories of things throughout history that were at one point referred to by the name of the most popular thing from that category. A good example of this being the word "dog" which comes from the Old English word "dogca" which is actually just the Old english word for Mastiff. Eventually, Old English speakers decided to call everything that reminded them of a dogca a "dog" in the same way that modern english speakers call everything that reminds them of smash bros a "smash clone". You don't get mad at someone every time they call a domesticated canine a "dog" and you shouldn't get mad at someone when they call every plat fighter a "smash clone".
Respectfully, this video is a very poorly constructed linguistics appeal. You can't perscribe language to people, you have to accept how people use words, even if there is no accepted universal definition of the words they're using. Why? because there are countless words that wouldn't exist in the english language if we used this rule. Mathemeticians have not been able to agree on what a "set" is even 100 years after the debate began, but the word "set" was still instrumental to advancing mathematics and even inventing the first computer. We also don't even have a universal definition for "infinity", but I can gaurantee you its a useful word that has the right to exist.
Smash bros is the best selling fighting game of all time. The sales of every other platform fighter combined might not even add up. You have to admit that when a game overshadows its genre that much, it's going to become the frame of reference for everything in that genre. People are going to keep calling multiversus, brawlhalla, rivals, NASB, RR, etc. "smash clones" wether you like it or not, so I would recommend just not letting it bother you.
Yeah, that’s the internet, have you ever seen a unanimous consensus online?
Smash is just a Kirby Super Star clone anyways
🤨
hes right, theres no little mac in other fighters. so no clones
Honestly i think this video is kinda redundant, i think 99% of people use platform fighter and smash clone interchangeably.
People did this with other genres, for example fps being called doom clones in the past. Should we gatekeep the term metroidvania because other games in the genre arent litteraly metroid or castlevania?
You could have just commented on that RUclipsrs video and saved everyone 18 minutes of their life
For real tho. It's like saying every fighting game is a "Street Fighter Clone" when there's sooooooo many differences between fighting games it's not even funny. Yet influencers can get away with dunking on plat fighters? This is why it's important to think for yourself
I like this take of yours. I've always got annoyed when people argue about something yet don't even agree what that "something" even really is. The pedant in me already gets unreasonably annoyed at the term "Souls-like" as if there weren't dozens of other ways to refer to an entire genre of video games beyond comparing it to one game series in particular. Video games are art. We don't define an artistic style by the painter that pioneered it. We define it according to a word that describes it, grouping similar things together with a simple linguistic descriptor that summarises it. If there is a linguistic descriptor with an inherent negative connotation ("clone" implies "rip-off" to me, or at least "more of the same") used as if it was a neutral term, that's Newspeak. Language designed to be defaming. This video has nicely put into words why I've felt this lingering annoyance when I see the term being used.
Although personally, I really don't care all that much. In the end, language is a tool for communication. If I got offended at the tool someone else uses without considering whether they had negative intentions, I'd just have another aspect of negativity in my life that I can do without. So, despite the paragraph above, I personally choose to not care and don't bother correcting others. I use the term that the developers of each game use when referring to the genre, which just happens to be "platform fighter" for most of them.
Man you're taking this too seriously. Platform fighter is the better term but it is less known. And have you seen PFs in the past years, we are scraping. So any new advertisement is good.
Until there a genuine good Smash Alternative then people will stop using smash clone, or smash killer.
And I think Rivals 2 is on track to hit 1M+ players. Until a good fully fledged game comes out, this term will never go away.
Until Smash becomes like SF, MK, Fatal Fury, GG, this term is here to stay whether you say it or not. In the 90s Fatal fury was SF clone.
We just good devs and time. Patience young one. Our time will come.
The thing is... We've had MANY great Smash alternatives (platform fighters) both before and after Smash started.
Content creators are just taking a shortcut to engagement by using Smash Clone/Killer for every game that doesn't surpass the trope codifier in sales, competition at a tournament or whatever else.
Imagine if we ignored a bunch of games before Halo or COD to call the genre clones of those and only let a more neutral term exist after those series flopped.
Platform fighters have this but much much worse. Even free to play platform fighters with crossplay and multiplatform releases stand no chance of outselling the worst performing Smash games let alone Ult. Same goes for the competitive circuit even if most games have slowed down or were throttled by Nintendo.
@@thelastgogeta your 1st point, all those PFs were not as good as Smash so they are not true alternatives.
Rivals 2 can become the first alternative since it will be a fully fledged game. MVS could've been this but had bad monetization and game play. They just need to fix the game.
2nd, That's the game of the content creation. Don't hate the players.
3rd, yeah before FPS was a thing they were all called Doom Clones, until companies started really one's that can compete with doom, ie. With Bigger stories, better graphics and gameplay refinements.
They don't stand a chance because they are not good games in the public eye. HALO had way better graphics at the time and expansion in gameplay. COD had some of the best campaigns.
@@luckymanx2978 1st) If Slap City, Rivals 1, Jump Superstars, Brawlout, NASB2, Lethal League Blaze, Brawlhalla, Rushdown Revolt, Flat Heroes, the One Piece Gigant Battle series and many more are all "not as good as Smash". We are never escaping Smash Clone territory. I like some of them more than specific Smash games at times, but they will never get the sales or Metacritic reception.
I never considered MVS to even be part of the running as a potential favourite (so I never even installed it) since I have so many other options which don't have bad monetisation or gameplay issues. We've had fully fledged alternatives for decades by my measure if even one of the early One Piece or Naruto games are any good.
2nd) Fine, I'll hate the game instead and say that playing it doesn't make the content beneficial.
3rd) When is the transition then? Doom clone fell out in the late 90s which is good, but are we still in the GTA Clone era since no game is remotely close to outgoing GTA in the same way as Smash?
How is a million players for Rivals 2 enough when Smash 4 Wii U (the less popular half of Smash 4) had 5 million sold and Ultimate has over 30 million sold?
The fact that this video has little views goes to show that they don't care
I think specifically with the Coney example with rivals 2, he’s baiting casuals in and then exposing them to a cool game. I think you’re getting too hung up on language.
I’m a huge platform fighter fan, but I don’t think rivals 2 is going to be negatively impacted because of the term smash clone.
If I know Coney, he's doing it because he knows it's going to piss people off
it’s an archaic term for platform fighter, duh
What is the name of the first game in the video and the one in 9:53? Also, FINALLY, respect for another Platform Fighter akin to Smash and not treat them like clones!
Thats Blindsight. They got a trailer and demo. If you want to play the new character... i believe they have a patreon
@@SoftwareNeos Thanks! And awesome video Neos!
The other one is earth romancer. Unfortunately thats been cancelled for years@@Juanito40-q6p
Here we go!
Damn, this is an angry video.
Very. @@MrGameguyC
I agree with some your points about the lack of a clear definition, as well as the point that some people who compare a smaller game to the smash series a mostly using that as an opportunity to spread some l=slight negativity around that smaller game.
With that being said, as some other commenters mentioned: I think most people who use the term smash clone use it from a point of being uninformed of or unfamiliar with the greater platform fighter genre, and call what they see to be similar to the thing it draws some inspiration from. Yes, the term is loosely defined, but also the point of genre descriptions is that people can use them as a quick shorthand to describe an overall box it fits in even though genre descriptions can suck because they don’t adequately represent what they describe and are at times very reductive. I once had an argument with a friend about wether sifu was a roguelike, and I’ve seen extremely casual people who don’t play fighters outside of casual smash say smash clone for any non-smash fighting game, platform fighter or not. People can be uninformed or use the language they understand most, and if you want to you can add clarification or just engage with them off of the words they use. If you’re looking for any widely used descriptive word which has a definition everyone agrees on, it doesn’t exist.
I don’t think the use of a loose descriptive word has that much power over a community, and can start the downfall of a title
Also, I think arguing about semantics with people who are either influencers using a loosely defined internet term, or idiots, or people farming for internet reactions, or assholes is a waste of time and effort unless you’re devoted to combating misinformation around a loosely defined term that is slightly negative but close to harmless when not used in a derogatory context (most instances of smash clone or smash like I’ve encountered don’t seem to have a negative connotation).
Smash clone is reductive and quite outdated term to be honest. We don't call every 2d fighting game a 'Heavyweight Champ (1976)' clone because they're part of a genre. When the souls games were less popular and lords of the fallen came out it was called a dark-souls clone and critisized for it. Since then many similar games have come out and they aren't called 'clones' they're part of the 'soulslike' genre.
The term is actually Smash Echo.
*YOU DARE?*
Nah you're absolutely right. The people that use the term Smash Clones are just lazy and know nothing about these platform fighters. The worst part is, is that all these new ones are so much different than Smash Bros. And they're better.
And "Smash clone" sounds like toxic defamation and is as offensive as "Who asked"
Titanfall 2 is my favorite Quake clone
I mean bro is right, the few people in the comments that actually decided to make a definition of a “smash” clone couldn’t even agree. Mortal Kombat was considered a copy cat of street fighter until people started to understand that there was fundamental differences between the two. Now the two exist as two giant franchises with legacies for years on end. They both exist in the same genre just like other platform fighters and smash.
The fundamental difference is that MK sucks ass and Street Fighter is good
Alright, finished the video. I was going to edit my previous comment, but I noticed the like you gave it, and I didn’t want to edit it to something else after the fact, as it might come across as misrepresenting you. I will say that I feel like it’s ok for genre definitions to have some grey area, as some of my favorite anime genres (mecha and magical girls) have ambiguous definitions that people still argue about, (“are Transformers mecha” “is Kill la Kill a magical girl series” etc), so my issue with the term “Smash clone” is less the ambiguity and more the fact that there’s already a much better term for it. “Platform fighter” already explains everything it needs to, so using an outdated/derogatory alternative feels dumb.
I definitely understand the frustration with the clout chasers though; nothing for me to add there.
Smash clones are just icons' battle arena and nothing else.
That is exactly what I was going to say. It is probably the most literal "Smash clone" you can get.
Smash clone is Super Smash Bros. Crusade and Smash Flash. They literally have "Super Smash Bros." in the name. :)
What game was that on 0:41?
That is Stick Figurez. you can wishlist it on steam
Before continuing to see your point, I'll put down MY definition of a Smash Clone below...
Thanks for reading 😁😁😁😁 I ALSO don't think "Smash Clones" are a real thing. I'm glad to find out I'm not alone.
And this is why you should always do your research BEFORE jumping on a bandwagon! Like seriously its like I always say: the people who say "smash clone" have zero clue on what even the word "clone" even means!
Calling other platform fighters smash clones is like calling Fatal Fury a Street Fighter clone.
I mean it kind of is, isn't it?
@@andrewprahst2529Have you played a Fatal Fury before?
@@thelastgogeta No
@@andrewprahst2529 I expected you to at least mention playing a later Fatal Fury or KOF which may have more similarities in places.
I'll explain briefly. Fatal Fury had plains which meant that fighters could hit their opponent into the background/foreground which also had implications for co-op vs AI gameplay back in 1991 though that mode didn't return. Following the first game, characters got the ability to move between the plains on demand and fast which gave it more of a flow similar to a 3D sidestepping fighting game with Fatal Fury 3 even having 3 plains (I haven't played this one - my favourite is Special).
Some games had ring outs or other stage interactions as well.
Almost none of the above is in a numbered Street Fighter game.
It is only a clone if you are really reductive to the point of just seeing a health bar. Even how it told the story in the first game was quite different to SF2 at the time despite being released in the same year. Even if the game WAS really similar to SF, I'd give them a bit of a pass since it was partially the same team at another studio.
Art of Fighting (1992 - not sure if all of this was in the first one) was more obviously similar to SF2 in how characters were designed and played, but even that had battle damage, taunts to lower enemy meter, meter to use proper specials and manually charging meter almost like in Dragon Ball.
@@thelastgogeta Thank you for the explanation. That plane stuff does sound pretty different. You mean to say plane, right?
I guess my comment was largely based on the existence of an "FGC" where games are similar enough that people can be expected to basically know how to play the different games.
I don't actually know exactly what these games have in common, but I'm under the impression that a high-low blocking system is pretty standard, as are DP's and the fairly unusual input system in general of stick rolls and different buttons for light punch ect, a distinct prome state, walls on either side
Of course there are differences between games, like if there are air dashes or a block button or whatever, but compare that to the differences even within a single series. Air dodging works differently in every Smash game, combos basically don't exist in Brawl aside from chain grabs which don't exist in later games, some games have input buffering and some don't, ledge trump vs ledge hog, all within the same series.
When you consider how much variation there can be while still being the same franchise, other similar games don't seem so far apart.
This might not be so true of SF-FF, I'm not really so informed, but I'd say definitely so for the games people insist be called platform fighters. It isn't just like FPS's being doom clones, it's closer to imitating the gamemodes, loadout archetypes, and formula of counter strike or something.
I agree with you on this. People need to use the correct term in order to better represent the genre and anyone who denies that is part of the problem.
The term "Smash Clone/Killer" exists in the same notion as "Overwatch Clone/Killer", some people simply don't want their favorite game (or their severe addiction) to get any competition. These kind of people don't understand the difference between a genre and a bootleg knockoff. Other previous genres left behind that negativity very quickly, and yet for these 2, nobody wants to let it go. And then they complain that "there aren't any games to play". Smash and Overwatch aren't even the originators of their genres. The Outfoxies was the first platform fighter. TF2 existed before Overwatch, and even the "certified" OW clone (Paladins) was in development years before OW was even revealed.
The thing is, Smash/OW players either hate everything that's not their game, or are fully indifferent. I've seen many posts of people recommending their friends (who play said games) other titles within the genre, only to be met with the most arbitrary reasons on why they don't want to try. All we can really do is wait for the one game that will shut everyone up
What's the stick figure game at 0:35
IT'S TRUE! IT SUCKS! I'm sure there's a lot of fighting games that have been called street fighter 2 clones, as there were with doom clones before the term fps got invented. But that's the kicker, THEY WERE CALLED THAT BEFORE THEY HAD A REAL, REASONABLE NAME! It's sad to hold a sub-genre so close to the game that they take the most inspiration from, so close that it strangles them, when there's no reason to. Sure, comparison is one thing, but this language and kind of apathy towards especially the indie games is just... it's disappointing. It's putting something down for merely existing. No one calls Guilty Gear a Street Fighter clone or knock-off or even really acknowledges that they have anything to do with each other. Why does it have to be like this for people? I can understand if you're a diehard Nintendo fan and you really don't want to play the game without Mario and Fox and Link in it, but you wouldn't even be here in the first place. The voices that come out to denounce these games as clones and knockoffs are so gross. What a bogus way to treat your genre that you supposedly like so much.
Ay whats that arena fighter that appeared in the video? Not often you see those things in indie stuff.
Thats Netcode Warriors.
A super respect you, man. I do think the video is bit much a bit, just angry ranting, but i agree it's time to move on it's time to grow up it's time to use the term platform fighter
back in the day there was street fighter clones then there was fighting games there was doom clones then there was fps
there was smash clones but they were always platform fighters its time conetent creators grew up and used that term used platform fighter so it can grow
I have thoughts on this video that I'm going to expand on but the main thing that I do I want to say is that whilst the name smash clone is bad and comes with a negative connotation we also can't ignore the fact that a lot of these games are just trying to be melee 2 in that honestly needs to stop. It's nothing wrong with making a platform fighter but for the love of God if I wanted to play melee I would go play melee.
Being a "Smash Clone" is a lot more than just being a platform fighter with knockout rules and percentage-based knockback systems. To be considered a smash clone means being a full-on party game with crazy items and fights not just being restricted to skill and skill alone. Something more for people to play casually first and foremost, and professionally on higher-end levels of the skill ceiling.
But hey, that's just me. I'd love to see what other people think.
I’d say the term ”melee-clone” would be better cause many games try to be competetive melee but modern
a smash clone to me is a game that's exactly like smash melee but with non-nintendo characters. As a Smash Bros player the basic want is platform fighter will a low level of entry and a high skill floor with fun interesting characters
Pre-video opinion as requested:
I think a Smash clone is a game that is made to appeal to people who like Smash Bros by providing a similar experience.
This usually involves multiple of the following:
1. Increasing damage that makes you get launched further
2. Loss of the game buy getting sent off the screen
3. A directional input system
Note: Simply being a fighting game with platforms does not necessarily constitute a Smash clone.
"If people don't agree on the definition of a thing, does that thing even exist?"
Yes, of course. Cool video but that's a silly question.
It’s called platform fighters, what are you on about people
I’ll still call it Smash clones
@@thegam3rcube686 yeah I call them that but they arent
@@Nebulius_the_uuhhhh Gameplay is similar although they changed up the mechanics like Rivals 2 where it has Melee movement but no crossover characters.
@@thegam3rcube686 Ignorant Smash fans be like:
You should read Foucault. Your actions against what you dislike are not very effective. You’re just gonna get weird looks and a sore throat. Philosophize this has a 3 video podcast on him.
Personally I think a recounting of the history and analysis of platform fighters would have done a lot more to convince me to not use the term than yelling
Out of all the things in this comment section, I didn't predict a Foucault reference
I think Software has the potential to do just that, though he lacks some of the background with older games (I think he hasn't played Melee but no problem really). I've documented a lot on newer and older platform fighter games that I haven't played too much.
Im a platform fighter player. I have well over 2000 hours in the genre. Rivals 1 is in my top 5 games of all time. And I know you arent trying to cause any harm man. BUT!
1. The argument over definitions of a word is flat out not a good one. Language is by design an inconsistent form of conveying information. Its really hard to define things in objective manner, especially when how people use Language changes drastically from day to day. Especially with the age of the Internet. People have different definitions and conceptions of the exact same word, ALL THE TIME! some are less popular than other sure, but definitions have always been subjective. So when a term like "smash clone" has very ambiguous meaning depending on the individual that uses it. Thats normal. It might be perceived as harmful to the genre sure, but its not just, non existent.
2. Please dont use your platform to attack other channels. I know you don't mean harm but ive seen way to many examples of that leading to constant harassment and unnecessary death threats. Its just a derogatory fighting game term at the end of the day. No one is out here trying to nuke aether studios headquarters
I think smash like or Smash light is a better name for games inspired by Smash Bros series
But if you look at the other platform Fighters that are out there, there are no actual smash clones even the sequels that Nintendo created are different enough
this video is a waste of time. 17 minutes of him yelling and complaining
I love comments that say nothing.
Womp womp
@@SoftwareNeosyour entire video says nothing
To be frank...most of his videos are him complaining, as someone who recently discovered his channel lol but I try to just look at it as him loving things very much so that he hyperfixates on the negatives but still does have valid critiques
"Smash clone" is a platform fighting game that borrows heavily enough from the smash bros series to be considered highly derivative to the point of not contributing to the genre(or isna fangame made to celebrate the franchise)
This is such a stupid argument. I'm sure if falls into some sort of falacy but I'm not a philosopher, so who knows. "Everyone has different criteria for what a good movie is, so good movies don't exist" "each religion disagrees about who god is, so god can't exist" "none of us in the comments know what your name is, so you dont have a name"
Even if only one of those examples made sense, do you see how we CANNOT think about things like that?? Everyone has a different definition of what a smash clone is so a smash clone cant exist? Wtf are you talking about? The ignorance of some does not mean that what they are ignorant of doesn't exist. This is such a wild and brain dead take. Like, i agree that smash clone is probably overused, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist, that's just not how anything works
Naw. The first example you said "Good movie" Noone doubts what a movie is. A movie isnt subjective. a good movie is.
Even when it comes to WHO god is for different religions. They usually agree on WHAT god is. Powerful. Omnipotent.
If there is no agreement on WHAT something is. You cant say it exists. plain and simple.
And 20 people in the comments have different opinions on WHAT smash clone is. So it doesnt exist
If an argument is stupid, but you can't actually think of a reason why, then it might not be the argument that is stupid.
@@sefflikejeff1917 I gave multiple reasons why it's stupid, but I don't need to come up with one for why you're stupid
@@SoftwareNeos first of all, liking your own comment while attempting to defend yourself is sad AF lmao. Secondly, I'll admit it, good movie was not a good example. Many cultures and religions don't believe Gods are powerful or omnipotent. There's a huge variety of different takes on what a god is. Sure you can say they are all powerful and supernatural, but you said it yourself, a definition can't be everything. If every platform fighter can't be a smash clone so smash clones can't exist, every thing people describe as a god can't be a god so God doesn't exist. Thirdly, you didn't even argue the one on names. So if 20 people all try and guess your name, you no longer have a name because we all guessed something differently? Or if we all decide to call you something different, that's your new name and your real one doesn't exist?
Every single word and phrase in the English language has multiple definitions. You can open a random page in and dictionary on earth and find dozens of examples of this. Just because people define something differently from another person DOES NOT MEAN IT DOESN'T EXIST! THAT'S NOT HOW ENGLISH WORKS!
@@SoftwareNeos I don't think these examples are that different from the smash clone definition.
People who believe there's such a thing as a clone generally agree that a smash clone is a game more or less similar to a smash game. They may disagree on how close it has to be to be considered one, but it's not like one person is saying it has to have a coin launcher minigame in it to be a smash clone and another is saying it has to have buyable bikini skins in it to be one.
The reason people have different definitions is just because similarity is a spectrum. It may not have a strict definition like you'd expect in legal terms, but that's basically par for the course. You could find disagreement among plenty of genres. Fighting games is a good example. Do platform fighters count as fighting games? What about games like For Honor? There may not be an agreed upon definition, but there is definitely a general sense people are getting at, because it's not as if people are giving contradictory definitions.
The truth is .. the game was rigged from the start
I kind of disagree on the Coney and TheMacroShow comparison, I don't see how someone making up a character list for a hypothetical game would introduce more people to platform fighters than a tierlist video that actually discusses different platform fighters.
Holy yap sesh. If a game has the same features and mechanics as another game, it is the originals clone. xDefiant is a COD clone.
People like you are just another part of the problem
Smash clone = 2D platform fighter-party game that seeks to “unite” all characters under a certain brand, IP, or network. I’d also say the percentage health gauge is pretty reminiscent to smash too
Im going to have to stop you right here. You can't say X doesn't exist because you used a different word to describe the same things. If my vocabulary is consistent and it gets the point across, then it exists.
If you look into the comment section. 15 people have already used different definitions of the term. its not consistent.
It doesnt exist.
Bro is too stuck thinking smash clone is an insult when its rlly not. Its like when people say souls-like. They dont mean that its worse than dark souls just that it plays similar to dark souls. Super smash brother is the first platform fighter serie and most platform fighter might never have existed without it. Its not rlly an insult smash is the just the most recongnizable entery. People do the same with Metroidvenia or rogue-like.
Never attribute malice to behavior that was motivated by ignorance 💯
Except it IS an insult and people like you who say otherwise are part of the problem by denying your own ignorance
@SR.PlayAlot64 "part of the problem"
You should care about things that matter instead I think
@@sefflikejeff1917 Who are you to tell people what they should and should not care about?
I think smash closes are games like nic all stars and multiverses, which play just like smash, except they are crappier. games like rivals, brawhalla and rushdown revolt are platform fighters, they do their own thing, i don't consider them smash clones
MultiVersus is also a Brawlhalla clone
are you saying that smash bros isn't a platform fighter?
Dude, have you actually played those game. They feel nothing like one another. Do your research next time 😹
You said a lot but I'm still wondering what you're talking about
I think you’re just upset at the term “smash clone” because you feel it gives the genre a bad rep. That’s a fine opinion to have, but I feel like there’s a better way to express that than this. I know you want Rivals 2 and the platform fighter genre as a whole to be successful, but I don’t see how calling content creators “greedy assholes” for using terminology you don’t like and blaming them for the state of the genre is going to do that.
Imo smash clones are games that market themselves and move as if they are a new competitive plat fighter for smash players. Rivals 1 was built off this. And in R2 they changed the mechanics to make it more like smash. It is a smash clone by design. Not saying its bad by any means. Just saying its not all that unique.
Ok, smash clone is any game after Smash that is 2d platform fighting games that uses percentages and knock back to get kills
Smash Clone is just like Street Fighter Clone.
I would call Rivals 2 a Smash clone/like but not the first one since it lacks to many mechanics and plays too different from smash.
I also prefer Rivals 2 a lot for being a smash clone not just a platform fighter that tries to do its own thing, It is way more fun from my experience with the demo.
So it’s like people saying Fatal Fury, Darkstalkers, and Mortal Kombat are just clones of street fighter
I'll stop calling them smash clones the day they actually do something unique with the formula, nick brawl 2 gets close to doing that with the gauges but still very smash like. Besides, we say rogue like and metroidvania, why are people so stingy with calling them smash likes/clones?
Hey look, another mindless Smash fan who treats other platform fighters like dirt and think that their precious series is perfect in just about every way.
Pathetic
I never use the term, but to me a Smash Clone would have to be a platform fighter that uses the percent damage system as its core "health" mechanic and every character has a moveset exactly like a smash character would (directional attacks, grounded tilt/smash attacks, shield & grab.)
If you can put a character from a "Smash Clone" inside of a Smash Bros game without needing to change ANY mechanic, then I'd call it a clone.
Having listened to the video, tbh I don't think the people using the term aren't doing it for greed/clout. They're probably doing it because like you said, it's in the cultural zeitgeist. They just don't put any thought into it and use the most eye catching words they can. There is no ulterior motive, they just don't care enough. It would be cool if more people were passionate about platform fighters and actually cared.
Either way I agree with the overall point. Smash Clone aren't real.
Bro the intro is so long and says a whole lot of nothing. I get the style and I want to like it, but it’s not it mate. Good luck with future vids, I hope you improve and keep going.
Smash clones are platform fighters
to me a Smash Clone is:
A Platforming Fighting Game that sells itself exclusively on having a roster of memorable characters from outside media fighting without any actual unique characters made by devs.
Smash Bros sells itself on having popular Nintendo characters fighting each other, so if your Platforming fighter game follows that philosophy then you’re making a smash clone.
What this means is that Rivals of Aether isn’t a Smash Clone while NASB and Multiversus are Smash Clones
how do NASB and multiversus not have unique characters? some of them loosely follow archetypes, but they definitely feel like unique characters
@@pkchiptune By unique I specifically mean characters designed JUST for that game, like for smash, the closest you get to unique character is mashing a bunch of Game and Watch characters into one.
I should've probably mentioned it doesn't mean play style, just character origins.
Oh my god stop talking about definitions and start talking about game design
The video is about definitions
@@sefflikejeff1917He wants em to stop talking about definitions
@andrewprahst2529 they should probably find another video that isn't about genre definitions, then
@@sefflikejeff1917 Maybe he is concerned with the state of the broader landscape and not just with what immediately concerns himself