Yes you're right, that's exactly what I'm saying. The point in my saying it is to communicate across the barrier what both sides of this are getting at.
My theory is that if you say something along the lines of 'this is why it seems like that, and yes there's a point, but its irrelevant to their gameplay being different', people might work through the whole 'they're clones, how can you even deny it?!' thing.
~~~
Also, I'd totally cop to the 'well, actually...' habit, that annoying nerdy tendency to 'precision'. Because they are clones :p
This is not your best-written post ever; it’s a bit ambiguous what you even mean.
I have no wish to get embroiled in whatever this discussion is about, but I think if you both want it to be productive then you need to agree on what a clone is in the context of Soul Calibur. I would have considered a clone to copy over the majority, or at least a significant plurality, of one character’s moveset to another’s. 3-5 moves don’t count. This being a fighting game, the gameplay mechanics are the most significant aspect of a character with respect to functional redundancy in the roster.
For what it’s worth, I can play as Amy and have a sense of what I’m doing and why; the same cannot be said for Raphael, because the majority of their moves are quite different. Their effective strategies are very different. Their appearance is (obviously) different, even if vampiric gothic lolita girl and vampiric victorian fencer guy are more similar than, say, Astaroth and Yoda. Their fighting aesthetic is similarly separate, even if it is closer in style than that of some other characters.
What I’m trying to say is, in English the word “clone” denotes a much greater sense of identicalness than the mere
similarities exhibited by Amy/Raph. Rock/Asta are closer, but I’d still not rely on
clone as the appropriate description.
If however you are merely using the word clone merely to mean “derivative,” then yes, these characters have an undeniable basis in each other.
