Talk:Super Smash Bros. Brawl

HALT! STOP! DISCONTINUE! Before asking any questions, please read this handy FAQ to make sure your question has not been answered.

Archive?

This page is 83 kilobytes long. But what section should we archive up to?  Laptopdude  Talk  15:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

It is usually not archived until it is 100 long. Epass (talk) 20:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, it's over 100 now. I'm archiving it. Epass (talk) 21:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Awards

Any particular reason the awards part of the reception section was removed? I was about to add in another one from Game Informer, but the two from IGN and Gamespot are gone. Was it some clash with notability that I missed or did no one else notice the removal either? In any case, I'd appreciate a valid reason for the removal if possible. -- Comandante {Talk} 02:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that too. I'd be interested to find out why since it just suddenly disappeared, and I find no discussions or any edit summary describing this. I'm not interested in crawling through every edit summary just to find out what happened. --haha169 (talk) 03:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, whatever happened, I'll go ahead and re-add them and the Game Informer award sometime tomorrow if no one opposes. -- Comandante {Talk} 03:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, apparently game of the month awards aren't notable according to this: [1]. Unfortunate, since I'd think any award from a reputable site or publication would be notable in itself. I'm still in favor of adding them in, since their original inclusion wasn't hotly contested, however; one user isn't a consensus in both instances, so if there's any support for re-addition I'll be glad to do so. -- Comandante {Talk} 03:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

But those are Editor's Choices, not Games of the Months, unless I'm mistaken? --haha169 (talk) 04:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

If you mean "Edittors Choice" then thats pretty redundent and no notable considering most sites have these and they're given for high marks, not anything special like in the end of year awards. Stabby Joe (talk) 12:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Main Menu Image vs Group or Solo

I understand some people may take interest in looking at a mini-picture of the main menu of the game, but aren't images on Wikipedia usually there to give an illustration to, usually, adjacent text? An image of group mode would be the most suitable, or even possibly solo, but nothing near the image is referring to the main menu. King Rhyono (talk) 17:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

bad sources

Incorrect sources for the EUR and AUS release dates, the links provided for citation say no such thing about a release date at all. But I don't know how to remove the dates or citations, it is such a mess in there I don't know which code to remove. JayKeaton (talk) 21:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It's vandalism, nothing more. The citations that were there already are citing the fact that the dates are unknown. Arrowned (talk) 22:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It depends on who did it. Most IPs don't know the rules of Wikipedia, and don't know what the ref tags are. They just put a date they think is true, so it would be a good faith edit. However, some actually do vandalize by purposely putting that date there to annoy us. Was it vandalism? I need to check...--haha169 (talk) 23:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

In that case, it probably is good faith, as it was done by a user who's edited here before (to the article's benefit) and who is posting from a registered account. My fault for jumping to conclusions. Arrowned (talk) 23:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The references did have nothing to do with any release dates though, one of them didn't talk about the release at all and the European date actually said they were disappointed that no date was released. I'm leaning towards vandalism with the two false references placed there to try and cover it up. JayKeaton (talk) 18:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The "false references" were there, cited, in this article, for months now. They have nothing whatsoever to do with Alexander Vince trying to add in unsourced release dates. As I said before, those references were citations towards the fact that there are no release dates; they're there to prove that TBA should be listed for those two spots. Arrowned (talk) 20:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

If Alex wasn't putting in false dates or vandalism/made up information, where did he get those dates from? A lot of European and Australian Wikipedians would be very interested in knowing the sources for his information JayKeaton (talk) 13:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

That I'm not sure about, and he doesn't seem to be replying to recent discussions here, so I've asked on his personal talk page. Cause yeah, if it turns out his sources are legitimate, then obviously we could just cite anew and stop reverting. Arrowned (talk) 16:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible NOT to put up a release date until the Dojo site does? It would be the first credible resource for such sort of data. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.228.195 (talk) 06:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Not really. The official Nintendo sites would work, as would Gamespot or IGN. The only source we can't use are individual vendor locations or sites. (Except Amazon and/or Walmart/Target)--haha169 (talk) 18:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

FA Questions

I've been on Wikipedia since 2006...and yet, this is the first time I've ever been heavily involved in an article (except for Al Gore, but that article is a hopeless case now) that's on the verge of achieving FA nomination. So how long do peer reviews last and when are they archived? And also...when do we decide that article is ripe for FA nomination? In my opinion, Brawl's condition is better than The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess, but they've already (although failed) nominated it for FA once. And also, generally, how long does a FA nomination take? I remember the GA took almost a week...--haha169 (talk) 04:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

No article about the DRE?

Because it is important to post. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.2.119.243 (talk) 13:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Super Smash Bros. Brawl#Development - Last sentence. Already there. Arrowned (talk) 16:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Stages Section

In the most recent peer review, one of the reviewers, Ashnard, said that the stages section is a bit questionable. He uses the Melee FA as an example, since it doesn't have a stages section. Anyways, he wants me to bring it up to the talk page, so here I am.

• "Yeah, but thats because Melee doesn't have a "Stage Builder", 3rd party stages, destructible terrain, or live events happening depending on the Wii's internal clock."--haha169 (talk) 21:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with haha, especially on the stage builder (very notable), and think that the stages section should be kept. However, as a side note, I would like to point out that the stage Brinstar in Melee had destructible terrain.  Laptopdude  Talk  02:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

As did Green Greens!SLJCOAAATR 1 (talk) 02:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah...yes. I didn't have Melee, so I don't really know. But I've played on those stages. Its just bursting boxes and cutting a wobbly thing. Its not really big, unlike Brawl's destroying the cloud platforms, blasting the Mario boxes, creating holes, bringing walls crashing down...--haha169 (talk) 04:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The stage section should definitely stay. Honestly, I'm sort of surprised that Melee doesn't have a stages section since stages are one of the few, but crucial elements that make up Smash Bros. -05:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

It's just a component of gameplay, so a whole section devoted to the stages in Melee isn't necessary. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 08:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

It's a very important component of gameplay. And must I reiterate that the stages in Brawl have much more notable aspects than those in Melee? If we must, we could cut down on it, but the way its written seems quite notable to me, and not so much in detail at all. In fact, its only 3 short paragraphs. One describing the stage, one stating all the notable aspects (ie. destructible terrain, live concerts...) and one paragraph explaining the very notable Stage Builder. --haha169 (talk) 18:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that the stages are just as important a part of the game as, say characters, and it should remain. It is pretty short anyway. Epass (talk) 20:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

About the images

It's not that 8 images is too many, but we can definitely cut back on them. Remember that images are not for decoration but to inform. Here are my suggestions for what we should do. Please discuss any agreements or disagreements.

Oh, and don't delete this topic just because you disagree with it or just don't want to see it. That is counter-productive.

1. The boxart is necessary since it identifies the product that the article is about. Keep
2. The screenshot of Mario, Yoshi, Wario and Ike about to fight is good because it demonstrates the gameplay. Keep unless a better screenshot can be found (one where they're actually fighting and not standing around).
3. The image of the "main menu" is very questionable. The game's menu navigation isn't unique enough to warrant an image of it. It isn't any more notable than the menu screens of Tetris or Mortal Kombat. Also, I find that this image is only there for decoration. Remove
4. The image of Mario and Pit in The Subspace Emissary has been cropped to the point of being useless. The HUD and most other helpful details have all been cropped out so now it just shows two characters taking a swing at unimportant enemies. Not any more notable than an image of a dog defecating. Remove
5. Screenshot of the full roster is ok. Keep
6. The screenshot of the stage selection is a little iffy in my opinion. It seems like a sneaky, fancrufty attempt to list all of the stages in a single image. It also contributes very little. Remove
7. As for the screenshots of Snake and Sonic, they both serve the same purpose, to point out that there are third-party characters in Brawl. However, we don't need two images for that. One should be removed.

And I want to point out that I'm not dictating what's going or staying. I'm giving my unbiased opinions on what I think would help the article, and also trying to persuade a little. Powerslave (talk|cont.) 02:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Could we use a pic. of Mario, Sonic, and Snake together instead?SLJCOAAATR 1 (talk) 02:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

No. I've spent a good chunk of time trying to track one down, and also trying to take a good image. Very difficult to find all 3rd party characters in one image. We should leave those two, since they are obviously best quality. I think we need a better SSE image, and the stage selection could be deleted if needed. Thats it. Oh, and I think we need rid of main menu. Thats pretty obvious. --haha169 (talk) 04:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Also, the original version of the SSE image can be found here: [2].  Laptopdude  Talk  17:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't like that image. I'm looking for more of a Pikachu or Samus surrounded by Primids R.O.B.s, and platforms flying about them, all located in that research center. Or maybe DK and all those Goombas and wooden platforms. That's my style. --haha169 (talk) 18:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Can we also get some widescreen images of the game? All of the full frame ones look a bit off, considering the game was probably made with widescreen in mind JayKeaton (talk) 21:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's a screenshot of Sonic fighting Snake. http://ssbbmasters.com/i/sonicvssnake.jpg King Rhyono (talk) 09:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, the quality is blurry, you can't see Snake at all, the yellow flash in the middle seems awkward. Plus, Mario isn't in sight. --haha169 (talk) 22:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

After X years, I thought it'd be kinda apparent Mario was in the game? King Rhyono (talk) 08:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

But the whole point of an image is to include all three of them. (Snake and Sonic's image both include Mario). Those images were produced by Sakurai and all his gaming tools and stuff. We only have a basic snapshot taker...It really is a bit difficult. --haha169 (talk) 15:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe someone can take a snapshot of the trio and upload it from their SD card. Any volunteers? Powerslave (talk|cont.) 02:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I've tried. Its hard to get a good picture. There is always some weird smash-y yellow blob in between, or something is blocking the head...or... --haha169 (talk) 03:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we could use this image from Dojo? --(trogga) 05:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

We already use that one. If anything, we were looking for one of a real fight. -Sukecchi (talk) 11:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I mean it could replace this image. --(trogga) 15:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Nah. We're looking for one with a real fight. Also, that wouldn't work as a third party because...well, it looks boring! --haha169 (talk) 01:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Balance of positive and negative

If every single review is positive, and it averages 95%, we certainly dont need to balance out praise and criticism in the discussion section. That implies "mixed reviews" which Brawl certainly didnt get. It's throwing in a negative bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.249.126 (talk) 17:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Well I've added alot ofpros and cons to that section and it appears that cons listed paragraph is larger so naturally I added a pro comments from Eurogamer for balance and that we need more non American opinions, it was quickly removed "for balance" by Satoryu. Now it seems to me that we've done a good job warding off fanboys but really do we have to be so negative? Let me show you, my added/removed pro in bold:

Super Smash Bros. Brawl has received high critical acclaim. The editors of Famitsu, who awarded a perfect score,[86] praised the variety and depth of the single-player content, the unpredictability of Final Smashes, and the dynamic fighting styles of the characters.[78] Chris Slate of Nintendo Power also awarded Brawl a perfect score in the March 2008 issue, calling it "one of the very best games that Nintendo has ever produced".[83] GameSpot praised the simplicity of the game, noting that "its simple controls and gameplay make it remarkably accessible to beginners yet still appealing to Smash Bros. veterans."[79] GameTrailers praised the amount of content that gives the game "staying power that few other games possess."[81] Eurogamer noted the games ability to stay fun in both single and multiplayer modes, that its "fulfilling its usual role of dominating a willing crowd's evening into the early hours, and now allowing you to sustain that after everyone's gone home."[77]

IGN critic Matt Casamassina noted that although Brawl is "completely engrossing and wholly entertaining," it suffers from "long loading times" and "uninspired enemies" in the Subspace Emissary adventure mode. The review also gave a mixed response to the quality of the graphics, and described them as "an enhanced version of Melee" with improved character models and backgrounds that "lack detail in areas."[82] GameSpy claimed the graphics look "like the GameCube game."[80] NGamer points to the franchise's lack of innovation with the verdict, "Smash Bros risks growing too familiar. It never breeds contempt, but it doesn't quite muster that Galaxy magic."[84] Former GameSpot editor Jeff Gerstmann rated the game 4 out of 5 stars on GiantBomb, saying that players who are not into Nintendo's history or multiplayer "probably won’t understand what all the fuss is about in the first place."[87]

Now how was that a problem with balance Satoryu? 5 lines with the next being 5 lines. Stabby Joe (talk) 12:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I removed it not because of the length of the section, but of the imbalance of opinions. With your addition, there are 5 positive voices and 4 negatives. I removed your addition so that there was an equal amount of positive and negative viewpoints. Satoryu (talk) 21:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Its really quite difficult to find negatives (aside from the graphics) in this game. So if we keep this up, the reception section will never be expanded. Instead, I propose we bring up a positive about something else: music + soundtrack. Thats been positive across the board, and it hasn't been discussed yet. --haha169 (talk) 22:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I like that idea. But only if that is put in place of something else. For instance, a quote about music from Nintendo Power. Because the quote that's there now doesn't say anything about the game. Satoryu (talk) 23:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I've been looking around. Gamespot compared the music to the impressive display of character movements and graphics. IGN praised the music's orchestrated feel, and how over 40 composers created the "best Nintendo soundtrack available". --haha169 (talk) 23:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Interesting Satoryu, because the following featured aritlce don't 100% balance out games which got more positive reception; Half Life 2, Okami, Shadow of the Colossus, BioShock, Super Smash Bros. Melee, Halo (and 2 and 3) plus many more so I really doubt my Eurogamer comment to allow more imput fro non US sources is going to prevent this from attaining a higher mark. Stabby Joe (talk) 12:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Whatever. Do what you want. I'm not the authority here. Satoryu (talk) 17:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Golden Sun, featured article, only includes 2 negatives compared to over 10 positives. If there isn't enough negatives to balance out the positives, forget it. Our first priority is to expand the reception section. If a rule gets in the way, ignore it. --haha169 (talk) 22:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Well I've re-added the Eurogamer comment, which addeds an entire new line to it. While theres plenty of info in the reception section, it look unpresentable next to the large table so we could lose 1 or 2 reviews in it while expanding the bulk of text? Stabby Joe (talk) 23:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

This article doesn't need balance. If it recieved mostly positive reviews, it would probaly make sense if there were mostly positives. Narusonic182 (talk) 19:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Well no, thing wiki has to do is not sound biased. Granted we could do we expanding the pros since many featured articles do this however cons is very good at the moment in terms of balance. Stabby Joe (talk) 23:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying we shouldn't add cons. In fact, that should be a top priority. However, I am unable to locate more than poor graphics and a few trivial items. Nonetheless, I do not have access to copies of Nintendo Power or Famitsu, and do not read every game review (only ones from IGN and Gamespot). If you want, Stabby Joe, you can find your own cons and list them here. --haha169 (talk) 04:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and by find, I mean find your own cons from published and notable sources. --haha169 (talk) 04:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Not required, we've got pretty much the cons settled, all we need to to is expanded on both in terms of sentance structure so it doesn't look out of place next to the reviews table. I'll see if I can remove 1 or 2 reviews to help this along and make it easier. Stabby Joe (talk) 12:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've removed 2 reviews from the table and a thought has occured, theres about 3 lines needed to make the text and table the same length, and this game hasn't been released in Europe yet so if we were to wait until then we could fill out the rest with info on its sales there, see what I mean? Although I am aware that would be awhile. Stabby Joe (talk) 12:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The height of the text vs the height of the table is dependent on the display media's width, and the text size scaling, it would be very hard to match them up across all the possible different screen and print-out setups. Logan GBA (talk) 15:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

But there wouldn't be much to say about Europe's release though. The most we could say are probably the sales numbers, since all of the European game review sites are either in a foreign language or are British magazines who snagged an American copy. Its all there already... I think we should put that deleted paragraph back.--haha169 (talk) 21:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Sales is what I meant, but it will be awhile until we know them, I mean we've got a European review (Eurogamer) and of course the UK mag Edge, which is in most game articles due to its harsh nature of reviewing and we also have the Japanese mag Famitsu (which is in foreign language) so we've got non US reviews, plus the US and PAL copies are usually always the same regardless. And by paragraph do you mean that Eurogamer comment? Because I added that again awhile ago. Stabby Joe (talk) 12:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

No, sorry. Forget what I said. I was blanking out over an older revision... --haha169 (talk) 18:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Nintendo Wi-Fi Connection

This paragraph is kind of short. Should it be expanded? Epass (talk) 20:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

There's two paragraphs, actually. And what else needs to be said? It looks fine. Satoryu (talk) 22:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

IGN review ref

It now links to a 404 page. Its now at [3]. (add p(pg#) at the end of the URL. --haha169 (talk) 23:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Fixed --haha169 (talk) 03:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Wii Want More

http://www.n4g.com/News-129471.aspx

I've been told it's just a pre-April Fools' Day hoax, but...

Anyways, it's been on a few sites, should it be added to the article?76.24.125.96 (talk) 01:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I just did some digging, and I think the root of it is a fake news site.

http://press-nintendo.110mb.com/article-jsp-id-14788.htm

It's possible that that site just copy-pasta'd it from somewhere, of course.76.24.125.96 (talk) 01:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Somebody already tried posting the fake news with the second citation in the article; we've since reverted it. Arrowned (talk) 01:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, first of all, the back button on the bottom left didn't work. Secondly, when I checked it a few hours ago, it wouldn't let me access it because someone was "editing" the site. Now...isn't that odd. Plus, its hosted on 110mb, which is a free hosting site. Why wouldn't Nintendo put it on its real site? Interesting April Fool's, though. --haha169 (talk) 03:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

They went to all that trouble to produce a realistic press release, but they made one critical error: "Starting May 13, 2008, players will be able to add four undisclosed new characters and two new stages to the already large roster included in the stand-alone game for only 10.00 USD." For it to have been perfect, they should have said 1000 Wii Points. Nintendo would never say "10.00 USD"... Funny April Fools joke though. -Zomic13 (talk) 08:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Europe Release Date

Nintendo Official Magasine (Sold in the UK) has said Super Smash Brothers Brawl will be released in "Summer '08". --86.12.232.113 (talk) 16:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I have an more recent confirmation about the european release of Brawl: May 30th, as it can be seen here.

200.207.19.200 (talk) 00:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Brawl fighting image

I vote we replace this image with this, or something with more fighting going on. --haha169 (talk) 18:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I am for it! User:Mkalv —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.46.58 (talk) 19:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Japanese Language?

In Melee, You could change the language from English to Japanese. Why not in Brawl?--71.123.249.135 (talk) 22:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)Pocket

Roy, Young Link, Mewtwo, Dr. Mario and Pichu

So let me get this straight, Roy is an unlockable trophy because his data was in the game, Young Link was replaced with Toon Link, Mewtwo was Most Likely replaced with Lucario, I heard Dr. Mario was Scrapped like Roy, Pichu was a Stupid and Unreasonable Addition to Melee. Am I wrong?--71.123.249.135 (talk) 22:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)Pocket

SSB4?

Is there any chance of a sequel?