Talk:Super Smash Bros. Brawl/Archive 29

Archive 25

←

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Famitsu score in lead - discussion

As this is more a general matter for all video games, I have opened up a discussion regarding Famitsu, Kotaku, and using Famitsu's ranking in the lead section of this article. I will say right now that unless Famitsu itself has stated that it is the 7th perfect scored game to date, this statement is original research and must not stay. --MASEM 22:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Exactly how is counting OR?Satoryu (talk) 02:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

That is definitely not OR. --Son (talk) 02:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:OR which includes any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. Going back through all Famitsu reviews to determine that SSBB is #7 is original synthesis, even if it is a fact, of multiple sources, and the only reason to include this fact is to show how good SSBB is reviewed. Now, I will point out that someone did point me to several reliable source that said that SSBB is the 7th game to get perfects from FAmitsu, so we can provide a source for that and state it (and thus it's now appropriate to add it back in) --MASEM 02:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The better question is, who cares? There are plenty of other selective critics (I wouldn't use the term "harsh" because many of their choices have been questionable at best and resulted in controversy, such as Nintendogs') and I don't see their perfects being counted one by one. For example, Gamespot has awarded 4 perfects to date, three fewer than Famitsu. Keep in mind that publications which use quotas and award 10s only once in a blue moon do so intentionally to increase the public perception that they are "tough" critics, when in fact, it's far from the case. As mentioned in the Famitsu article, the popular news magazine has been exposed by Kotaku for assigning ratings driven by hype and reader popularity. Plus, Famitsu's quota system ensures that at most one game per console or system can receive all 10s, meaning that no other Wii game after Smash Bros. will ever get it, no matter how good it is. "Counting" awards in this manner also serves to promote this kind of stupidity and is hence 100% unnecessary. My two cents. Wikipedian06 (talk) 05:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I guess Nintendogs was the most hyped game in Famitsu when they scored it 40/40. And maybe you are too young, but when GameSpot awarded a 10 to Tony Hawk's game, there was a lot of controversy as well. Anyways, Kotaku is no more reliable than Joystiq, so think whatever you want. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 05:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

And please tell me the SNES, Genesis, Saturn, Turbo-Grafx and Xbox games that got that perfect score as well. Or why they waited until Ocarina of Time was released. All this is just a conspiracy theory. It may be included in the Famitsu article (if another reliable source is found), but to begin pushing against a reliable media just because of a theory is really dubious. Are you now thinking twice before adding a GameSpot review since the Gerstmann controversy? -- ReyBrujo (talk) 05:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Kotaku was referencing a forum post. Unreliable to say the least. There's no proof that's how Famitsu's perfect scores work. As for including the mention in the article, now I'm unsure. Being only the seventh perfect score in the magazine's 20+ year history is a pretty big milestone, but is it worth noting on Wikipedia? If it was the first 40/40, then yes, it should be. But now I don't know.Satoryu (talk) 05:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Why should it be in the lead? There's no reason for it to be. If it's notable (I think it is,) there's a Reception section for it. In fact, it's already there, so having it in the lead is redundant. Also, the lead section is supposed to be a quick summary of the subject, having something like a review would constitute as bias in my mind. - Zero1328 _Talk? 05:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I could do without it in the lead section of the article, but it's fine in the reception section. Coreycubed (talk) 13:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The fact that it was the 7th game to receive a Famitsu perfect score should be in the reception section, not the article lead. It's notable for being the 7th perfect, given that sources have repeatedly reported this fact. Compared to other publications, this is pretty damn rare. Famitsu is the most well read and influential games publication in Japan. The Kotaku article is a fuckton away from being a reliable source. - hahnchen 17:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, this has never been about mentioning this in the lead. It's about mentioning it in the #Reception and sales section. And I agree that it's perfectly reasonable to mention it there. --Conti|✉ 18:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The Kotaku article is very reliable, actually. Wikipedian06 (talk) 21:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, people respect Famitsu more due to its age than the quality of its reviews. No other publication can get away with 1-2 sentence blurbs. IGN's reviews are typically 2-4 pages long detailing every aspect of every game. Wikipedian06 (talk) 21:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I ask how Kotaku is reliable. I thought they were a blog, not a reputable gaming site or publication.  Comandante  Talk  21:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

"Reputable" gaming sites and publications wouldn't publish something like that (even though it's true) because they wouldn't want to risk getting sued. Wikipedian06 (talk) 21:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Just saying reliable doesn't stop it from being a forum post. This doesn't even matter, given that there's a plethora of sources reporting on how the game is the seventh to receive the top accolade at Famitsu. The forum posting of a man fired from PlanetGamecube and your opinion of the publication does not overwrite the fact that it is the most respected and widely read gaming publication in Japan. Incidentally, my thoughts on Famitsu can be found in this edit summary. If you'd like further sources on Famitsu, I have a multi-page feature and interviews on the subject from Edge, there's also a short bluffer's guide available at http://www.gamesetwatch.com/2007/01/column_game_mag_weaseling_the_2.php- hahnchen 22:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

One more time, Kotaku referenced a forum post that had nothing to back up their claims. It cannot be taken as fact. Not just per Wikipedia verifiability, but in a general case. It's a conspiracy theory.Satoryu (talk) 22:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Spoiler Policy

Ok, WTF is with people trying to withhold spoilers before the NA release? In the SSE section, I added information about Taboo and his role in the game, and it got deleted with the reasoning that "it's unnecessary." In the characters section, there's a comment asking editors to refrain from adding any more examples -- and all examples listed there are from the starting lineup. The screenshot is of the starting lineup, not with all 35 characters unlocked. Last I checked, Wikipedia's policy is to refrain from withholding information, especially for products that have already been released. This is completely ridiculous. Wikipedian06 (talk) 21:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I removed the Taboo sentence not because it was a spoiler, but because it felt out of place. Taboo does already have a section in the Series Boss section. I think that's enough mention. We're using that starting roster pic because it's the only one in English as of right now. As for examples, what does it matter that they're starters? They're there solely as examples. Their status as starter characters is not an issue.Satoryu (talk) 22:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedian06, I think the problem lies with original research and less with spoilers. Not that anyone thinks you're making things up or anything, but every significant piece of info has to be sourced, and even then, sometimes there's just no place for that piece of info to seamlessly fit. Besides, the idea is a general overview of Brawl, and not particularly every detail of it.

That reminds me, the reason the full roster isn't shown is because the only images of it are poor quality. As soon as a fresher one shows up, maybe it will be used instead. Powerslave (talk|cont.) 02:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Specifically, since this is en.wikipedia.org, we're waiting for a picture of the full roster from the North American release. We could've long used a Japanese image of the full roster if we wanted. Arrowned (talk) 02:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I would normally say "Go for it", but since the image would be the Japanese version, it would probably cause some confusion due to some of the characters using their Japanese names (Bowser would be shown as "Koopa", Jigglypuff as "Purin", ect). So it's best to wait until we can get an image of the full roster in English.
As for the Characters, Mentioning Taboo is very unnecessary right now. The examples are from the starting lineup because those examples were put there FAR BEFORE we knew the secret characters, and again, the screenshot only shows the starting characters because thats the only English roster picture there is, full or not.
In short, none of this has ANYTHING to do with Spoilers. Dengarde ► Complaints 03:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

What about if SSBBDojo gives out "spoilers" of their own, including Marth and Ness?Rusober (talk) 03:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter, unless you have some relevant point to contribute to the article and need to use Dojo as a source. Coreycubed (talk) 17:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Archive

I think it might be time to archive the page because it has 37 sections (38 counting this one). I'd do it myself, but I don't know how. Epass (talk) 22:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. Dengarde ► Complaints 00:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

When we do know the full SSE plot...

I know right now we should not put the full plot in the article becuase most plots across the internet are choppy and/or incomplete, but when we do know the full plot how should we handle it? I am personally for just a lv 4 "plot overveiw" section under the SSE sub-section. I do not think that the SSE should have it's own article becuase the plot really does not need to be that detailed. Also if there were a article it would swarmed with fancruft like enemy lists, stratagies and other spectulation.→041744 13:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

As large as the SSE is, I doubt it warrants its own article; any such article would be merged within a week of creation. A plot overview would be fine, though, and a nice touch to the article after the game's release. I only say that because I won't stand to have a summary that's OR ridden ("Then Ganondorf who was mad at Wario and bowser for ruining his atak went back to skywrlod and then mario and kirby decided it would be a good idea to go fight and then they did" etc). You know what I mean. Coreycubed (talk) 15:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I do. I've seen quite a lot of those articles. However, I think that a properly written article may get past the first stage of establishing notablility. If we include history, impact on video gaming, and other important stuff...an article for SEE is definitely possible, in my opinion. We just need a good established editor writing it. --haha169 (talk) 03:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, in the article now we include much of the important background and gameplay in that one paragraph. Anything much else would seem like filler to me. And besides that, I doubt that the SSE would have a large impact outside of the smash series. Also if you check news results on this most of them come from IGN, the Wiire as well as sevral unreilable unheard of gaming websites. Overall a game mode in the game just does not notable. →041744 13:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, we'll see. Time will tell. When HAL first released the Smash Bros. for N64, no one thought it would be a bestseller. Now look! Braw just solde 500,000 and 80% initial stock sell-through on its first day! Video games are unpredictable.--haha169 (talk) 01:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Reception Section

Now that reviews are coming in, due to the manner of many previous games with high profile pre-release, when reviews do come out, please do refrain from just a string of scores (those would be in the table, and not everyone of course, the notable ones like IGN, GameSpot, ONM etc) and comments like "best game". We need to mention WHAT the reviewers liked and disliked. I know that this article has been editted a large amount from day 1, most likley by hardcore Nintendo fans. Well my message to those people in particular is of course INCLUDED VALID CRITISISM! Unless this game unlikely gets a 100% from all reviews, you MUST include cons, I can't stress that enough. Granted, if the game has mostly pros then it would be larger to mention than the cons, like other popular near perfect reviewed games. Stabby Joe (talk) 15:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly what I did last night. I added criticisms from IGN. Wikipedian06 (talk) 01:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

We have another issue now however. It seems people are going to start adding reviews to the table as they come in... we can't have that because we'd end up with not only an edit war but and unpresentable oversized table. We need to add the more well known sources like IGN, GameSpot, ONM etc but they haven't said anything thus we need to NOT add any at this point in time. Stabby Joe (talk) 14:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Why is Thunderbolt's score listed when it is one of the reviews counted in MediaCritic's average %? Also, why is NGamer listed, last time I checked their reviews weren't well known enough to be listed in the Reception section of other games, why this one? Xiivi (talk) 00:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Well so far there are barelly any reviews so we have to include all we get at this point to actually MAKE a reception section but don't worry, when the major sources like IGN, GameSpot and ONM etc come in we can trump the current ones. As Thunderbolt and NGamer for example aren't the most notable ones but leave them for now. Stabby Joe (talk) 16:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Cassamasina's review is misrepresented in the reception section. He did not dismiss the graphics as a simple upgreade from Mele. That out of context quote doesn't even appear in the IGN review. Paqi —Preceding comment was added at 14:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Character Count (Exaggeration)

An active discussion was accidentally archived during the most recent archival of the page. A portion of the discussion, plus new content, is shown below. The full discussion can be found here. - oobug^talk/_contrib 18:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

<unindent>On PT profile they list his moves as Pokemon Trainers moves, with Squirtle, Ivasuar and Charazard beanth him, meaning they reconize him as a single character. In additioon to that he also has one final snash while Zelda/sheik have 2 similar but seprate FS, and Samuas/ZSS has two diffrent and seprate FS. And your point that Dojo!! clearly states he is 3 characters is unfounded POV. please don't use "I guess you could say using this character is like playing three for the price of one!" as evidnece either way becuase it is unclear how he ment it. Alright if may be illogical how about we come to a compromise how about we state this in the article:

"The offical site list 37 character profiles for the game, but a player can only chose between 35 characters at the selection screen, two of which have 2 personifacations."

I think that would satify everyone.?041744 12:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

How about we not mention Dojo at all in the article? That would seem out of place. How about we say "There are 35 characters the player can choose from, plus several of the characters have more than one personification or variation."? TrueTsumetai (talk) 14:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh please no. None of the "personification" stuff. It's over complicating the situation. Either there needs to be an agreed upon number, or no number (I'm fine with either). Also, Jéské, ZSS is selectable the same way Sheik was in Melee, by holding down a button at the start of the match. (Not the way Sheik works now, where you can just click on her.) The Final Smash argument is moot as well, since three characters share a Final Smash and they're definitely not the same character. Coreycubed (talk) 15:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Coreycubed's first sentiment – if we can't agree upon a number, then I'd much rather not list the number of characters at all. However, I wouldn't actually be opposed to saying "Super Smash Bros. Brawl features 35 playable characters, some of which have standard transformations that [significantly] alter their playing styles", or "...have the ability to transform, thereby modifying their appearence and style of play." Would that be more acceptable? oobug^talk/_contrib 19:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Strongly agree. Now there's a tune we can all dance to. --Coreycubed (talk) 20:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I also agree to not list any number at all. Satoryu (talk) 21:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with oobug seggestion being the most well balanced. I think that same (besides the SSBB part) sentance should be put in SSBM article, there is a similar disscussion on the series page.?041744 00:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

It would be nice to get a consensus on this issue. Therefore, does anyone disagree with the above proposal? Satoryu, you said that you agree not to list a number, but if the article were to (eventually) mention the number of characters, do you agree that the proposed method of display is acceptable? oobug^talk/_contrib 17:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not particularly a fan of it. I'd much prefer there being no number at all. But if there absolutely has to be a number, I won't cry home about that wording.Satoryu (talk) 22:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

For the immediate future, I see no need to list the number of characters either. It would be nice, however, to have a standard for listing "transformable" characters in Super Smash Bros. games, which is why I'm hoping for some sort of consensus. oobug^talk/_contrib 18:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason why there even needs to be a #, we link to the characters table, people can decide for theselfs how man ssbb characters there are with the Checks, Xs and notes.→041744 23:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe I've said the very same thing sometime before.Satoryu (talk) 23:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

In that case, should we add an HTML comment in the Characters section mentioning that we reached a consensus not to add the number of playable characters, for future reference? Or, make note of it in a consensus template at the top of the talk page? Or is that just overkill? I'd hate to see future users having the exact same discussion again. oobug^talk/_contrib 16:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I think hidden comments don't help at all, so I wouldn't put one in. Just don't mention it until something is brought up. Then we can redirect them to here and hope they listen.Satoryu (talk) 22:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree I like oobug's wording. It's really well-balanced and fits the article perfectly. As for future users having a discussion like this again, one of us will just post a link to the archive page of wherever this discussion will wind up in. --haha169 (talk) 01:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

There are no mines in the coin launcher.

title says it. 203.218.206.108 (talk) 13:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

This isn't Gamefaqs. You should explain yourself with a bit more tact than that. -Sukecchi (talk) 13:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I think this is the sentence in question.

The Coin Launcher is a machine that uses coins as projectiles to shoot trophies and counter incoming dangers such as missiles and mines. Hope I helped! Epass (talk) 17:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

How is this relevant to this article?Satoryu (talk) 22:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The above line is in the article; I assume OP is contesting its wording and wants it changed. Arrowned (talk) 23:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

nm me, I had a brain fart when I typed that. There's no mention of mines in the Dojo, so yeah, let's get rid of that bit.Satoryu (talk) 23:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Just making sure we can't use this picture...(Full Roster Spoilers in link)

Well,found the full Japanese roster pic,extremely clear in .png format.

http://i151.photobucket.com/albums/s129/XLS723/Roster2.png

I know you guys probably won't want to use it since it's Japanese,but whatever. XLS724 (talk) 21:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Not only can we not use it because it's from the Japanese version, the quality is also questionable. Notice the blurring. We'd need a clearer picture than that. Also, the NEW over Wolf's picture shouldn't be there on the final product.Satoryu (talk) 22:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Alright,I figured as much...XLS724 (talk) 04:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

There is also the issue of Japanese names. -71.59.237.110 (talk) 18:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

No worries, only two weeks to go, and we can get a crystal-clear picture of the NA release. I'll even take the pic myself, if need be, I've got a good video input card. Coreycubed (talk) 18:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Voice Actors

Has a full list of voice actors for the American version been released, and if so, should it be on this page? Atomic Religione (talk) 03:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain VA lists aren't recommended at WP. And with this name, there's no big speaking roles. Just grunts and one liners. There's no real need for it here.Satoryu (talk) 04:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Depends on the situation actually; VA lists are fine for television shows where VA's are prominent, even if the show also has live actors often (Japanese tokusatsu programming comes to mind). Video game articles, however, rarely bother with VA lists. Arrowned (talk) 04:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Mostly One liners and Grunts, but lets not forget the Codec scenes on Shadow Moses Island, Lylat, and Corneria. Those have actual Conversations between characters. If we KNOW They'll be in English because of the Codec videos on Dojo, the Melee Codecs are English, and Alessya Glidewell's (an English voice actor) leak that she's voicing Krystal, who's role is now known. It may be notable in SOME way, I'm just not sure how that is yet. Dengarde ► Complaints 21:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of lists on pages. If this was a game that featured extensive voice overs, maybe. But even the article for Kingdom Hearts, with well-known celebrity voice actors that were exceptionally faithful to the source material, does not use a full voice actor list. I hardly doubt that Brawl will qualify as notable in that regard. Coreycubed (talk) 21:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

A full voice actors list seems more appropriate for IMDb than it does here. Speaking of which, the IMDb voice actors list is incomplete, and it has some errors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dogman15 (talk • contribs) 03:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Disc Read Errors

[1] Need this be mentioned?Smashbrosboy (talk)

No. -Sukecchi (talk) 02:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe. It's a error with the Japanese version thats even recognized by the Dojo. It' notable to SOME extent.Dengarde ► Complaints 02:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

When has the dojo recognized it?Smashbrosboy (talk) 04:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

http://www.smashbros.com/jp/index.html. In the infobox which, on the en_us side, is where it mentions the delay to March 9. Arrowned (talk) 04:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Breaking old record

http://www.el33tonline.com/main/show_news/3730

Should there be any indication of that? In short, it says that the previous Nintendo record-holder for best-selling first week game was Ocarina of Time, with 386, 234 copies sold in its first week. Brawl just sold 820,000 on its first week, a 433,766 difference. Now that's a big thing, and I think it should be placed somewhere in Reception. --haha169 (talk) 05:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

820,000 seems like a rounded number, while 386,234 does not. I think that before you add it you should find Brawl's exact number. Epass (talk) 15:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Or we could simply round the OOT number and give an estimate. No one is really going to want to know that Brawl sold 819,648 copies or something, and saying that OOT sold 386,000 copies would be fine, i thin24.186.101.182 (talk) 18:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I think thats a nice idea. Round the OoT number to 386,000, and slap it in the reception article. Now...who wants to come up with a draft here? --haha169 (talk) 19:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I added a draft into the sales/reception section. Useight (talk) 21:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Remember to add the source next time! --haha169 (talk) 21:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I thought I'd leave that up to WP:SOFIXIT. Useight (talk) 22:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Too bad this source is complete garbage. Pokemon Diamond and Pearl sold 1.6 million copies during launch week and it's apparently not the record holder, even among Nintendo games (anyone know which one is?) New Super Mario Bros. sold 910,000 copies. Brawl is far from the record. Wikipedian06 (talk) 22:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Japanese. Luckily I know a little. 158万6360本 means 158 thousand copies. I don't understand what the second part of numbers mean but 本 means units (or copies). Once again, a reference please. --haha169 (talk) 23:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

No, it means 158 x 10^4 copies, or 1.58 million. Wikipedian06 (talk) 23:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay...I'll just accept that now. I'm needed elsewhere, but I'll translate that later to see what it means. In the meantime, this discussion IS NOT TO BE ARCHIVED. --haha169 (talk) 23:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll translate it right now. "の初週販売本数(集計は9月28日～10月1日までの4日間)が、158万6360本に上ったと発表した。" = "First week sales totals (between 9/28 and 10/1/06, in these four days) are 1,586,360 copies." Wikipedian06 (talk) 23:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Australian release was announced 24th of February it will be released June 12th(User talk:215.532.35.32{talk} 7:05, 24th February 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.216.33.216 (talk) 06:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Uh-huh, source? TJ Spyke 11:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

It breaks the Japanese sales record for the Wii. I don't know how important that is though. 213.166.17.12 (talk) 16:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's very important. This is the most (over)hyped Wii game, and perhaps the most (over)hyped game of all time. The director himself has been posting daily blog updates for almost a full year now. Hype results in front-heavy sales, because more players want to get the game as early as possible. However, a strong launch doesn't necessarily indicate strong lifetime sales, and conversely, the best selling Wii titles overall (Wii Sports and Wii Play) didn't exactly smash day 1 records. Ultimately, lifetime sales are far more noteworthy than launch sales. Wikipedian06 (talk) 21:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The beginning of the first week's units sold (between 9 month 28 day to 10 month 1 day's sales are... to put it more literal. :P All right. I accept defeat. --haha169 (talk) 19:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Cover Image

Is it just me, or does the Brawl cover image look all chunky and weird? When I first started working on this article, it looks fine. What happened to it? It looks even worse than the Golden Sun Wikia's image. http://goldensun.wikia.com/wiki/Brawl --haha169 (talk) 22:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and might I elaborate that they are the same image? 320x450 dimensions. I think that when the image was reduced in size on the article, it became chunky at the same time. --haha169 (talk) 22:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Question

Please forgive my ignorance, but can this game be played online via wii browser? If so, shouldn't this be metioned in the article? RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 19:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Not by the Wii browser...no game does that...but Wi-Fi Connection, yes. It's mentioned in the infobox ("online multiplayer") and there's a whole section named "Nintendo Wi-Fi Connection". So just be sure to read before asking questions.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 20:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

GDC

A few days ago there was a discussion on data for certain chars that was in Brawl's hardware. Somewhere in the discussion the Game Developers Conference, which takes place this year from Feb 18-22 (this week), and that Sakurai would be giving a speech on the inclusion and exclusion of certain chars there. I know it's only two days into the event, but does anyone know if Sakurai has yet made any such speech? 24.186.101.182 (talk) 17:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Not yet...SLJCOAAATR 1 (talk) 20:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

IGN: We have to ask because there are so many rumors about this. Are there any hidden characters to come? Can you unlock more hidden fighters by way of WiiConnect24 or will you offer new downloadable content -- new fighters, for example. -- using the service?

Masahiro Sakurai: No. There are no characters that can be unlocked via connecting to WiiConnect24 or interacting in that fashion. And I may be mistaken here, but the Wii doesn't have a hard drive -- it's a disc-based system -- so I don't think we'll be doing that, I don't think it's going to happen.

http://wii.ign.com/articles/853/853748p1.html (It's on page 2)

He also answers a question concerning why only Metal Gear and Sonic were the cross-over third party franchises, but his answer is pretty ambiguous... -Crimsonseiko (talk) 04:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I actually just saw that before reading this, and I thought that answered my question until I read it because I heard he was supposed to be giving some sort of speech on Brawl. I guess I got my hopes up. 24.186.101.182 (talk) 18:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Sakurai has a speech today sometime, I don't know when. 74.244.28.20 (talk) 12:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Characters

There might be information that the article can use, especially the "Inclusion of characters" section via Liveblog @ GDC. « ₣M₣ » 23:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

European release date?

According to this German site, Nintendo of Europe announced the European release date of Brawl at the "Micromania Games Awards" in France. Does anyone have more information about this, or could someone who's good in French have a look at the Micromania site to find some more information (And hopefully, usable references)? --Conti|✉ 15:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I checked Micromania thoroughly and couldn't find any reference to the release date. However, the French version of this page already lists the date as June 6th. On the other hand, that page is riddled with lists, cruft and the like, so I don't think we should change the date. The French page could use some serious work, but my grasp of the language is only passing. You should read the talk page, though -- it's like an alternate version of our own! Coreycubed (talk) 18:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Not anymore. Its now listed as "2nd Quarter of 2008" and Australia simply as "2008". --24.6.103.162 (talk) 04:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Blah...I got logged out again. Does anyone know why I always get randomly logged out even if I clicked the "Remember Me" button? --haha169 (talk) 04:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah; your cookie expires every thirty days. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v +2 Pen of Editing)} 00:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

There's more info here: [2] and here: [3]. And "6 juni in europa" definately sounds like 6th of June in Europe. M4192 (talk) 07:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

According to GoNintendo, Reggie said Europe is getting this sometime in Fall. [4] M4192 (talk) 10:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually he just said that it has been pushed out of the Winter/Spring time frame. [5]. LOL, I'm argueing with myself. M4192 (talk) 10:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Yep, then as it stands the EU and AUS releases are still completely up in the air. Typical huh? Still, I was releived when that turns out "false" so to speak. Would it be a good idea to remove the source for the EU release? SuperLink9 (talk) 09:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Supposed European Release Date

A European release date appears on the article, but a quick plug in to Google News finds no other sources confirming the supposed release date. In fact, Nintendo UK denies these rumours. [6]

Therefore, I shall remove this date from the main article until proven otherwise, is that site completely reliable or are there many other sources that are reliable about this June 6? Hoogiman (talk) 11:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, it should be removed (why is it still there?) because Nintendo UK have denied it, and the sources that mention it aren't all that reliable. SuperLink9 (talk) 12:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

See above for the source of that rumour. Some more information about this "Micromania Games Awards" would be greatly appreciated. --Conti|✉ 13:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree, and the French page has already changed their date back to the old version. Apparently, the source was challenged there as well, and people were trying to find videos of NoE announcing the date (they won't find any). Coreycubed (talk) 13:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I found a video here, which seems to be the announcement. Can anyone translate that? --Conti|✉ 21:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

He says that the game will be launched on June - Looler (talk) 22:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't think Nintendo of UK and Nintendo of France would be so out of touch that Nintendo of UK deny what Nintendo of France says. It just doesn't sound right. SuperLink9 (talk) 10:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no Nintendo of UK or Nintendo of France. There's only NoE, Nintendo of Europe.Edit -- there do appear to be UK and France divisions of the company, but they're not in charge of releases like NoE is. If someone wants to clarify that, please do so, since I'm unfamiliar with the way European releases are handled. Coreycubed (talk) 14:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

GAN

I'd rather not fail this article, so I'm going to ask that someone remove the article from the Good Nominations Queue- I just can't see how I could pass an article which fails comprehensiveness since it hasn't met with major release. David Fuchs ^(talk) 23:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, guess we should wait till it's released in the West. Nomination withdrawn for now. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Judge, did you nominate it? I think the majority of regular editors around here wanted to wait on that...we've been working on the article for months and still don't find it ready for GA nom. Coreycubed (talk) 18:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The major problem with this article is that it rarely stays the same, and with the NA release date approaching, this article is going to become volatile once more, similar to how it did when the daily updates first began. It would be much better to wait a while after the release date so this article calms down a bit. 24.186.101.182 (talk) 17:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Lucas in SSBM

Since the source is in Japanese (and is the profile for Ness, so I don't see how its relevent), there is a claim that Lucas was supposed to be in SSBM until Mother 3 was delayed. I doubt this since Nintendo did not even announce the game until June 2003, nearly 2 years after SSBM's Japanese launch (September 2001). I know companies sometimes start work on a game before announcing it, but I doubt that Nintendo was working on the game over 2 years before they announced it. TJ Spyke 06:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Er, nevermind. I forgot that the game was originally announced for the Nintendo 64 (and was even announced in Nintendo Power under the name EarthBound 64). TJ Spyke 06:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Reference

For the ratings section of the chart, is says

Cero: A ESRB: T

and then references following it. Those reference marks look ugly, and I don't really think they are needed anymore, since the game itself is a reference. --haha169 (talk) 04:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable, since you can see the T just by looking in the image of the box-art. Epass (talk) 11:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

So, I'll delete the reference for the T for now. Actually, I'm going to wait for someone more familiar with the article, since the refname at the beginning indicates that the reference is being used elsewhere in the article. --haha169 (talk) 05:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Nope, that's the only place it's used. You can get rid of the references.Satoryu (talk) 06:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Question, are you also getting rid of the A ref or just the T ref? Epass (talk) 11:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Both can be done away with. As you said previously, the rating can be seen clearly on the boxes. There's no longer any need for either reference.Satoryu (talk) 21:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I have just added the Australian rating, however in order to keep the infobox tidy, I haven't provided a source (although I have mentioned the source in my edit summary). It has been rated PG for "Mild violence, Mild gambling references, Gaming experience may change online." Sillygostly (talk) 07:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

External Links

Under the "External Links" it says to not post any without discussion, so I'm bringing it to your attention. GameInvasion has 47 High Definition trailers and movies that I think would be acceptable to post to for the fans of Super Smash Bros. Brawl. I really wouldn't bring it up if there weren't so many and being Hi-Def. Please let me know if I can post the link to these videos (publisher approved of course if GameInvasion has them) under External Links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JPalumbo (talk • contribs) 21:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Here is the link to check out all the stuff (which is also the one I'll be using) http://gameinvasion.comcast.net/gameinvasion/show/#1330596_smash_bros_brawl/profile —Preceding unsigned comment added by JPalumbo (talk • contribs) 21:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

No. We don't need to link to videos.Satoryu (talk) 21:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, thank you for getting back to me. If you are using this wiki as a simple informational tool, then I can see why you wouldn't want a link to any videos. I do however think videos (trailers, dev. interviews, etc) are a legitimate concern and fans of the series should be able to view something other than screenshots to help promote the product. Being a fan of this series, if I can be of assistance in this area, please let me know and I will be available to help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JPalumbo (talk • contribs) 15:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a promotional tool. It's an encyclopedia.Satoryu (talk) 17:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, but if you don't have ANY of the places that have videos up, then you are neglecting a percentage of people who want to see the trailers, interview and gameplay videos. I'm not saying put the one up from GameInvasion, but at least put one of the sites up. There are 3-5 really good sites. I'll even post it for you, just pick one. I'm actually suprised the SSBB website actually doesn't have anything but screenshots tbh. But hey, do what you want. Only trying to make this wiki better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JPalumbo (talk • contribs) 17:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

If people want to see videos, they can go to YouTube: a place that provides videos. -Sukecchi (talk) 18:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Encyclopedias don't provide videos, per above. And the SSBB site does have videos. Coreycubed (talk) 18:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I just had an idea. Since Brawlcentral is no longer a site providing speculation, but now a site that holds facts, and in the case of the trophies section, high quality pictures. How about it? --haha169 (talk) 00:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so, though I'm not 100% on how to deal with fansites.Satoryu (talk) 05:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Although it is indeed a fansite, I don't really think it can be the stereotypical one. It has information and compiled lists and facts not available elsewhere, using high-quality pictures to prove its authenticity. I don't really think Brawlcentral breaks any rules, and should be able to wiggle itself onto External Links sooner or later.

Anyways, the Golden Sun article, which is also a Featured Article, uses the Golden Sun wikia as an external link. And I might say that the Golden Sun wikia is in much worse shape than the Smash wikia. I've also done an extensive search, and there doesn't seem to be much false information on it (though there are huge amounts of poorly written articles). --haha169 (talk) 05:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I've said this before: Just because an article uses something doesn't make it right. Wikias shouldn't be linked to cause they tend to be disorganized and speculative. I have no idea what to do with Brawlcentral, though.Satoryu (talk) 06:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but Golden Sun isn't just an ordinary article. It's Featured. And I'd like to point out that Smash Wiki is one of those wikia wikis which aren't quite disorganized at all. Does this article look incredibly disorganized? [7][8]. I'll admit, these articles are Stub Class by Wikipedia standards, but Smash Wiki offers some more detailed informations and lists [9] that just simply cannot be found any where else. But if not, whatever.

Brawlcentral, on the other hand, seems perfectly reliable at the moment, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with it.

• Contains no speculation
• Contains no false information
• Contains high-quality trophy, assist trophy, and pokemon lists
• Contains other interesting misc. items.--haha169 (talk) 23:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Developers

Here is the full list of studios who co-developed the game. Apart from Game Arts and Sora, there are Monolith Soft, ROBOT, etc.: [10] Diipu Surotu (talk) 16:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Isn't that already known since the game was released like, a month ago in Japan? Epass (talk) 19:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Not all of us know how to read Japanese fluently, and plus, these are NAMES in a foreign language. Compounding to that fact is the picture's blurriness. I don't know about that... We already know that SEGA, Game Freak, and others are also developers from the opening animation, but we didn't need to add that. --haha169 (talk) 00:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

ngamer review

9.3. http://computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=183358--24.109.218.172 (talk) 23:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

useful...but it's already been there days ago. --haha169 (talk) 00:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

And already linked to in the Metacritic page. Generally we don't include specific review sites unless they're particularly notage. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 03:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Subspace Emissary

Question: Should we have a full article for the Subspace Emissary? If not, the section needs to be more extensive on the plot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.180.85.70 (talk) 22:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

No we should not, and no it doesn't. We don't need to go into extensive details about the plot of Subspace. Dengarde ► Complaints 22:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I personally think wii (Bad pun...) should. It would help people who'd like to know more about the game. I mean, c'mon, wii go FULL fledged for the story-line of other games, why not this game? Hm? Are you all just TOO DANG LAZY?!SLJCOAAATR 1 (talk) 22:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Uh, no, "wii" don't go full fledged for other games, and any article that does needs to have it trimmed down. The entire plot isn't necessary, just a quick summary of it, which we have. Dengarde ► Complaints 22:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

It may be a summary, but it leaves some questions unanswered. For instance, why is the Subspace Army attacking in the first place? What is its purpose in the whole thing? The section as it is now seems to only focus on how to play the SE mode and what it is in relation to the game, not what the story is.  Comandante Talk 22:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

We aren't story tellers, we don't have to answer every question in the game. What he have is fine. Dengarde ► Complaints 23:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The way the story is presented in SSE makes it very difficult to formulate an actual plot without OR. 98% of the mode is mimed; the only person I recall even saying anything was Snake, and that was just a one liner. So most of the questions you have, Comandante, aren't even answered in the game itself.Satoryu (talk) 23:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

In that case, then I can see the plot's omission is justified. I simply assumed that a game as heavily hyped as SSBB would have plot that could be easily summarized, like more typical games with stories. I can definitely see the impracticalities of a dialogue-based plot for this particular game, though. Thanks for clearing that up.  Comandante Talk 00:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

As did i. But i do believe that we should improve it a bit. Perhaps when it's out in the US? I think we should tell others like who's on what side, who the MAIN antagonists are,etc. That's all i ask. Maybe some other important stuff. I'd do it myself but, i'm trying not to spoil too much of the game...SLJCOAAATR 1 (talk) 03:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a game ad. It doesn't need to brag about the Subspace's features. If people really need to know so much about it, they can look it up on a walkthrough or gameguide site. Epass (talk) 17:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, bassically EVERY game has a good description of the story for the games. You're all just being to critical, and too lazy to type something that's important!SLJCOAAATR 1 (talk) 03:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

This is coming from the person who won't do it either. I'm in agreement with those who say what we have now is fine due to the complexity of the Subspace Emissary. -Sukecchi (talk) 03:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, actually. I was recently involved in getting a few other articles to FA status, including Metroid Prime, and we were actually told that the original Plot section listed there, about the size of the current SE section here (except this current section is only about 1/3 plot and 2/3 description of the differences in gameplay style), was far too short for a GA/FA nom. We don't have to go into retardedly long and exquisite detail, but the section will indeed need to be fleshed out further than it currently is. Arrowned (talk) 23:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll do it once i get SSBB, and beat it! I'm trying to resist spoilers right now...SLJCOAAATR 1 (talk) 22:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Havok engine

The game is confirmed to use the Havoks engine.

Here is the proof, watch this video in which at 4:24 during the official credits of the game you see that the game uses havok.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=tcIe8bfX7Yo&feature=related

I know it is youtube, but it is the official credits of the game.

Sign your name with ~~~~ please. And it doesn't matter if it uses havok, since it isn't incredibly notable. Also, please don't insert that sentence between an existing sentence and its reference (<ref>) as it may confuse readers. Thank you. --haha169 (talk) 23:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, but it is notable, since it affects the entire gameplay of the game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiimonkey9 (talk • contribs) 19:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Not really. I don't see how that's particularly notable. Satoryu (talk) 19:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I note that Half-Life 2 doesn't mention how the Source engine (which is a modified Havok) affects gameplay. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v +2 Pen of Editing)} 03:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The Source engine isn't a modified Havok. Havok is a physics engine. Source uses Havok for physics simulation. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 04:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I see that the Havok engine is a middleware physics engine, and that is it not a game engine itself, as it seems to looks in the VG Infobox as of 03:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC). Also, I have a problem that the [source] used is a blog post of a forum post. Logan GBA (talk) 03:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

So we should get rid of it then, right? I'm on it. Satoryu (talk) 03:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

New link

Could you guys add a link to SmashWiki? It merged with Wikia's SSB wiki, so there's no longer 2 SSB wikis. Please and thanks.

Here's the code:

SmashWiki, an external wiki

Thanks.--Roady161616 (talk) 03:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

There have been many discussions about SmashWiki before. We're not going to link to it because it has a lot of incorrect info, among other things.Satoryu (talk) 05:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Music

Shouldn't the extremely large amount of music merit some sort of mention in the article? It seems fairly landmark for a videogame to have around 300 songs. Dfsghjkgfhdg (talk) 05:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Not really.Satoryu (talk) 05:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe there should be some mention though. Some games actually have a whole article just about the music from the game. Epass (talk) 17:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Just because other articles have them doesn't make them right. Satoryu (talk) 19:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you should give some reasoning as to why you oppose these additions. I've noticed similar responses in other areas of this talk page. Not that I think that all of these additions should be made, but people need to be able to understand why their suggestions are being denied.

In this case, it would probably be best to add a line in the Music section. The level of attention that the music got in this game is very unusual, and would best be mentioned somewhere. Erik (talk) 20:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily against mentioning it. I just don't feel it's noteworthy enough to mention the soundtrack has 300+ songs. I feel all the important facts concerning the music were already touched upon.Satoryu (talk) 07:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Really? That's a lot of songs for a video game. As above, I think a brief mention would be good to include. Erik (talk) 17:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems fairly important. Rather than asking "Why should it be in there?" We should ask "Why SHOULDN'T it be in there?" There isn't really a reason not to include it. Having such a huge soundtrack sounds like it would be important to me. 86.131.69.103 (talk) 18:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Fine, I'll just simply say that there are at least 50 franchises represented, so that MUST be notable in some way. --haha169 (talk) 20:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Full Protection on March 9th

Is this article going to be full-protection on March 9th? I know Brawl has already been released in Japan and all that, but this is the English Wikipedia and this is the English release, so I'm guessing there will be a ton of vandalism in the first week of release. Any thoughts? Epass (talk) 18:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what the normal procedure is, but I would imagine that since there'll be a lot of new information available very rapidly from March 9-15, full protection could be a hindrance, so I'm guessing semi-protection, which would prevent both anon IPs and newly created accounts, together with the article's major contributors keeping a close watch on any vandalism. At the same time, I've heard that pre-emptive page protection is a no-no. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 18:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

You are correct, Dansi. The prot-pol says, and I quote, "Semi-protection should not be used as a pre-emptive measure against vandalism that has not yet occurred, nor should it be used solely to prevent editing by anonymous and newly registered users. In particular, it should not be used to settle content disputes." So Declined – Pages are not protected preemptively. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v +2 Pen of Editing)} 18:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Unless Stephen Colbert is involved... -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 04:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Declined – Pages are not protected preemptively... even IFF Colbert gets involved. Read over the prot-pol, which explicitly forbids preemptive protection. If we start getting Behemoths and Ult. Chimeras, then this page can be protected, but not before. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v +2 Pen of Editing)} 04:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

It has happened, and I don't think it was controversial. I'm not suggesting it here, though. Also, my is bigger -- Consumed Crustacean (talk)

Well, if anybody is not playing the game, somebody should keep a lookout for vandalism in any case. Epass (talk) 13:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't even have a Wii yet, so I'll be sitting here watching for the usual punks finding a random/current article to vandalize. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v +2 Pen of Editing)} 19:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll be at Chinese School taking a huge final exam, and before that, a huge CMEA Piano and Musical Theory Examination. Then, I get to play the game. I won't be on wikipedia at all that weekend. --haha169 (talk) 19:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll be picking up my copy at midnight and playing it immediately thereafter. Good luck to those without Wiis who will be monitoring the page. Useight (talk) 18:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I recall the last time someone sugested that we would full protect this article when the game was getting released. That someone was I, and guess what? It's still in the talkpage archives. Unless some big editwaring is going to happen the next few days, the page won't get any protection.--Henke37 (talk) 19:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

(ri) Editwarring is less likely than the other protection criteria: vandalism. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v :L13 ½-Raichu Soulknife)} 19:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that semi-protection should be sufficient, and preemptive is not necessary.  Laptopdude  Talk  20:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Preemptive is forbidden. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v :L13 ½-Raichu Soulknife)} 21:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Ignore all rules begs to differ IF it makes the encyclopedia better. The Placebo Effect (talk) 21:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there is no evidence that there will be massive disruption on March 9th; thus IAR does not apply here. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v :L13 ½-Raichu Soulknife)} 00:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I feel like I should point out that the series page will probably receive vandalism also, and it doesn't even have semi-protection! Epass (talk) 22:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I reiterate, preemptive protection is proscribed by policy, and there is no evidence the article is going to turn into the beaches at Normandy on March 9. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v :L13 ½-Raichu Soulknife)} 00:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

So if it gets too bad on the 9th we'll simply get it semi-protected. Otherwise, I'd say it's fine.  Laptopdude  Talk  01:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey, guys! Lets all calm down here. Just because we'll all be playing Brawl, doesn't mean Jéské will. He'll be here, monitoring the article for any vandalism and edit warring. It won't be much problem to us, anyways, since when we return, the only evidence of any vandalism will be in the history. Therefore, I propose we leave this article to Jéské and other trustworthy editors who aren't playing Brawl. The rest of us, just go and have fun.--haha169 (talk) 05:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, you're mean. :P Useight (talk) 07:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind actually. Not to disrespect the late, but he picked the right time to die. I needed a break from creating custom D&D material, and I can cop "mourning" to explain why I'm not creating new material for the next 6 days (And, yes, that's why my sig is now black). -Jéské ^{(v^_^v :L13 ½-Raichu Soulknife)} 08:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Archive?

Seeing as the game is about to be released, and this talk page is already very long, I think it would be a good idea to archive it. However, I'm not sure up to what section to include. Suggestions?  Laptopdude  Talk  20:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it can wait a few thousand bytes longer. 68K isn't terribly big.Satoryu (talk) 21:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we usually wait for it to pass 100, but maybe the day before the release (March 8th) it can be archived because their will be a lot of questions coming in. Epass (talk) 22:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

On second thought, maybe it is alright to archive now. We've archived earlier than this before, and most discussions have no activity. It probably wouldn't hurt to do it now.Satoryu (talk) 23:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there isn't much active discussion right now. We should wait until March 8th, and then archive. We'll then be ready with a blank page for questions. --haha169 (talk) 00:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, so I'll archive it on March 8. So I should archive the entire page? (My vote is YES).  Laptopdude  Talk  01:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with archiving on the 8th; the whole page should be fine, I think. Useight (talk) 02:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure, go and archive the entire page on the second half of March 8th. Remember to leave an edit summary and a notice on the top of the newly blanked talk page. --haha169 (talk) 04:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Unless a discussion is starts between now and then, the entire page. Epass (talk) 11:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

All-Star Mode

Today on the Dojo!! Sakurai mentioned All-Star Mode while explaining the Heart Container Item:

"You should also know that the three Heart Containers that appear in All-Star Mode heal all accumulated damage."

Can this mode be added to Solo now? --Mayor Coffee Bean (talk) 13:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

It is probably already known, due to the fact the game is already released (in Japan). If it is not mentioned, there is probably a reason. Epass (talk) 15:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

GA or FA

A few weeks after the game is released, can it be nominated for GA? I think that it is a better article than Melee, and Melee's nominated for FA! Opinions? Epass (talk) 16:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I think so yes. RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 16:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Can we nominate it for FA first? If it fails we fix what was complained about and nominate it for GA, if it is accepted, well, that'd be great. Epass (talk) 18:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't. Way too much weight is given to the gameplay of this game. I mean, it probably should be cut to about the third of its original size to be suitable for FA. Users outside of the VG project usually want to keep the gameplay section as short as it can be. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 21:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the gameplay section does seem a little long, though I doubt reviewers would want to cut a third of it. More like a fourth. And I would also nominate for GA first.--haha169 (talk) 23:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Guys, there's no use in jumping the gun. We have to wait for a certain amount of stability before heading over to GA or FA, or even a Peer review. I suggest after the European release for GA, then PR if all goes well, then FA. Right now, too much focus is given towards gameplay and not enough for reception (for obvious reasons), and I'm thinking a synopsis should be given for Subspace Emissary. bibliomaniac15 I see no changes 23:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Gameplay should be cut down, I think Subspace is fine, reception should be lengthened once information is released, and I think we're on our way! --haha169 (talk) 01:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Without having to dumb it down too much simply for FA status, the gameplay section could easily link over to Super Smash Bros. (series)#Gameplay, with a little extra information on what's new. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 22:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

IGN Review Quotes

Sorry for any formatting problems, first time posting on a talk page. Two concerns on this one:

A) Seems to be a lot of "etc, etc, etc" fill in text and more "etc, etc, etc". Very broken up and reads funny for an encyclopedia.

B) The reference regarding graphics in the IGN review is misleading. The graphics portion of the review was actually positive, while the Wikipedia mention of that is toned negative. Original text from IGN review: "Brawl looks like an enhanced version of Melee....... and that the title features some of the most beautiful particle explosions in any Nintendo entry yet. "

If another neg mention needs to be pulled from IGN there are actual ones they detailed. Thanks for consideration. Dark Phoenix (talk) 02:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, IGN thought of Brawl as more of an "enhanced" Melee, but in the end, where it summarizes everything, you find out that enhanced means better, but not much. It is also said that Brawl's graphics don't seem to have been upgraded. IGN's score of Brawl's graphics are to worst of the lot. --haha169 (talk) 04:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

GameSpy was more blunt, saying it "looks like a Game Cube" game so the graphics is a minor yet still common critisism so the IGN comment should stay BUT that paragraph is confusing. We should have a paragraph EACH for pros and cons like most other articles. Stabby Joe (talk) 12:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that paragraph has gone back to "funny" again. It reads very weird. The previous paragraph is organized very well. It might be a better idea to just shorten the IGN portion (kind of lengthy). Maybe remove the first sentence (I think that has been up there since the podcast, not the review). But the ping pong between pros and cons in the same paragraph reads poorly. Suggest consolidate the pros and consolidate the cons within the paragraph.Dark Phoenix (talk) 13:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Well we can keep all of the comments, just seperate them as in IGN say good in pro paragraph and cons in the next. Stabby Joe (talk) 17:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

English Voice Actors

Did anyone see this? [11] It's (apparently) the English credits for Brawl. Of course, we can't use a YouTube link as a reference, nor is the link a good one as whoever was tapping the credits was constantly moving the camera around (therefore making the screen blurry and cutting out a small portion of the VA list). However, I did make out a good portion of the voice actors.

They were: Charles Martinet, Samantha Kelly, Eric Newsome, Jason Adkins, Lani Minella, Michelle Knotz, Makiko Ōmoto, Jim Walker, Alesia Glidewell, Craig Blair, Bill Rogers, David Hayter, Adam Caroleson, Rachael Lillis, Hikaru Midorikawa, Akira Sasanuma, Sachi Matsumoto, Hironori Miyata, Sanae Kobayashi, Jun Mizusawa, Ikue Ōtani, Paul Eiding, Kim Mai Guest, Christopher Randolph, Akio Ohtsuka, Mike McAuliffe, Aya Hara, Billy Beach, and Jamie Peacock.

While this isn't exactly concrete evidence, this does show that some articles (or character pages) might need to be updated. ChromeWulf ZX (talk) 21:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

No it doesn't, you said so yourself. It isn't concrete evidence. Wait 3 more days, for Pete's Sake, and then, we'll have the real credits, and not some blurry video. Besides, if that video was real, why didn't he take a picture of the English Select Screen? He would've gotten more attention. --haha169 (talk) 22:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course, I'm going to wait 'til Brawl actually comes out. And I never said that this was concrete, I just said that it might (might being a key word) show that some articles need revision. ChromeWulf ZX (talk) 22:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yes. I missed that. Sorry. :P --haha169 (talk) 22:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

This doesn't really matter to this article, though. We shouldn't include a voice actor list, especially since the game has very little voice acting in it. Satoryu (talk) 23:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

very true. Satoryu has a point, we won't be needing that. And what just happened to this talk page again? One second, I was editing this talk page, the next second, I was led to an "edit conflict", and the next second, the talk page was an exact replica of the article, then the next second, it was reverted. No...this won't do. This brings up the number of vandals to around 5, I believe?--haha169 (talk) 00:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't exactly hoping for a VA list anyway. I know that very few articles actually have them, esp. GAs/FAs. What I was beckoning at was that, by obtaining to VA list, we'd be able to correct some other articles (ex. Bowser's page says that Scott Burns has still been voicing Bowser and that Eric Newsome only voiced Bowser in 2007; if the above link is indeed true, then that info on Bowser's page would be faulty). See what I'm getting at? ChromeWulf ZX (talk) 03:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

As you can see by taking a quick look into the History section, we've already seen an influx of vandalism recently. There was one vandal yesterday, (up from one), and two today. Does this not seem like a trend as the release date becomes closer? --haha169 (talk) 22:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Your point? Satoryu (talk) 23:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah...yes, my point. I bet this page will be fully protected before March 9, since these vandals decided to vandalize before the release date. None of us thought of that, eh? --haha169 (talk) 00:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

More "kills" for us then huh? Besides, we aren't nominated for anything at the present. So I say let 'em do it; the revert it. waddaya say? RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 00:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. That recent vandalism on this talk page made me re-write that comment above me over again, because there was an edit conflict. Then, due to wikipedia trying to save the HUGE amount of information the vandal put here, plus the guy trying to revert it, plus me with an edit conflict, my computer froze for a whole 5 minutes, which never happens. Who goes and copies over the article to the talk page, then adds a bunch of nonsense? --haha169 (talk) 00:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

A vandal probably. RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 00:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Jeske, now, we don't have to wait. If we just look at the history, we'll see quite a lot of vandals. In fact, almost every edit recently has been vandalism and reversion. However, they are mostly IP addresses, so I think semi should be put back. --haha169 (talk) 00:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

There we go, and attempt to blank the talk page, plus the addition of this word into the article. Semi-protection!--haha169 (talk) 00:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Jeske, that's another two attempts to blank the Brawl article page. I vote for semi-protection.--haha169 (talk) 00:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I've seen worse. But if you feel the IP vandalism is much, why not request it yourself at WP:RPP? Satoryu (talk) 01:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

You can do that? I never bothered with vandalism. I knew there was a place to do it...thanks, anyways. And it actually is quite a bit since there hasn't been any vandalism at all on this article until yesterday. --haha169 (talk) 02:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't spaz out, man. Vandalism on the article gives me an easy way to buff my edit count during the work day :) And poor Jéské probably already feels like our personal anti-vandal bot. Coreycubed (talk) 13:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Same here, mostly just reversions or welcoming of new editors during the work day. And as for rewriting your huge comment, whenever I make a big comment, I copy it, just in case of an edit conflict and then I can just paste it back in if there is a conflict. Useight (talk) 23:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Usually, when there is an edit conflict, my computer already saved it and I can go back and re-save it. But that time (read above), my computer froze...so everything lost. What kind of yr. 2002 computer can handle someone copy/pasting the entire Brawl article to this talk page, while removing this entire talk page, and some one reverting it, all in one second? It was really interesting, though.--haha169 (talk) 23:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Frag, always when I'm busy killing Zakarumites... -Jéské ^{(v^_^v :L13 ½-Raichu Soulknife)} 05:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Metacritic and Gamerankings

How are these supposed to be ordered? Should it be with Gamerankings first because it was the first to compile, or Metacritic because it was the most recently updated? Or should it go alphabetically? I believe it would be GR before MC, but I don't know for sure. Satoryu (talk) 01:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

On the actual template page, it lists Metacritic before Gamerankings, but not for any particular reason I can see except that whoever made the template in the first place put them that way.  Comandante Talk 02:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Nintendo Wi-Fi Connection

A Spectator mode allows players to watch matches from players who have enabled the 'Allow Spectators' option, and bet on the outcome using coins earned within the game. The winner receives a jackpot of coins.[38]

This is a little confusing. Is it the winner of the match that receives the jackpot, or the winner of the bet? Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 17:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Fixing in a few seconds. Satoryu (talk) 20:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 20:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

gamestop torny

i believe teh gamestop torny should be added to this

gamestop.com/brawl —Preceding unsigned comment added by GamerSam (talk • contribs) 04:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

At the most, a single line could be added to the intro paragraphs about the fact that Brawl is being used for various gaming tournaments (the Melee page notes this as well), but specific tournaments and details about them should be left out, as Wikipedia is not for news coverage. Arrowned (talk) 04:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

There's absolutely no reason to mention the Gamestop tournaments. Satoryu (talk) 17:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)