Talk:Super Mario 64

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Skip to Table of Contents Skip to Table of Contents
Famicom style controller This article is part of WikiProject Computer and video games, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Portal:CVG
 CVG Portal
A This article has been rated as A-Class on the assessment scale.
Top This article is on a subject of Top priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
This is a selected article of WikiProject Computer and video games.
This article was previously selected for Gaming Collaboration of the week.
CVG To-do:
Wikitendo logo This article is part of WikiProject Nintendo, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Nintendo related merchandise and video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
A This article has been rated as A-Class on the assessment scale.
Top This article is on a subject of Top-importance within Project Nintendo.
Nintendo To-do:


WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia The spoken word version of this revision (diff) of this article is part of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, an attempt to produce recordings of Wikipedia articles being read aloud. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and find out how to contribute.
Former featured article This article is a former featured article. Please see its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Former featured article removal candidate This article (or a previous version) was reviewed ending 3 July 2006 and was found to still embody the qualities of a featured article.
Former featured article removal candidate This article is a former featured article removal candidate. Please see the archive to see why its featured status was upheld.
Main Page trophy Super Mario 64 appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 31, 2005.
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Everydaylife article has been rated A-Class on the assessment scale.
To-do list for Super Mario 64: edit · history · watch · refresh
  • copyedit - weasel words, peacock words, unsourced statements, a strange section of quotes from people who have played Super Mario 64, but has little to do with its legacy. The development section is patchy and not very comprehensive, needs sources.
Good articles Super Mario 64 has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do.
If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.

Contents

[edit] Older commentary

I would really like to see the math used to achieve a grand total of 2092 coins in the game. Perhaps the author has a list of how many coins per level? It would be greatly appreciated. Crisco 1492 20:45, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't think we need the glitches. This is not a player's guide.

I agree, but this has already been on VfD and the consensus was to keep them. Fredrik (talk) 22:27, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I think the glitches are nice info to have, but the problem is that the section is currently written like a player's guide. Still better than not having it at all, though. Every bit of detail helps. Everyking 23:18, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)


"Not only was this Mario's first 3-D game, but it also made Mario the very first 2-D established video game character to appear in a 3-D game."

Not entirely true. Duke Nukem 3d was released January 29, 1996, so he beats Mario. One may argue: Duke didn't "appear" in Duke 3d, since it was in first person. At many points in the game you see his reflection, there is the "holo-duke" item, and you see his foot when he kicks. One may argue: Duke was a 2d sprite in a 3d world, so he wasn't a 3d character. Yes, but he was still in a 3d game.

So I guess I'll delete that line out of the article.

Change it to "one of the first". -- Grunt (talk) 00:52, 2004 Aug 29 (UTC)
This is old, but I'd like to point out that Duke wasn't really 3D in Duke Nukem 3D. It's what we like to call 2&1/2D.--SeizureDog 09:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

All right, I think we need to do something about the glitches section. I think the glitches deserve a mention, but only as a brief summary; we don't need the detailed game guide description of what to do. An encyclopedia article should describe aspects of the game, but it doesn't need to guide players in how to do things. Does anyone have a suggestion? Everyking 16:07, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Glitches and metal box info removed, at least temporarily. Metal box because it's trivia blown out of proportion, and glitches because it's just an obstruction ATM. May I suggest the glitches howto is moved to Wikibooks? Fredrik | talk 21:00, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree that the Metal box is trivia blown out of proportion, but I found the Glitches section particularly interesting. When this article gets more information added to it, the Glitches section won't look so big compared to the other parts. I think anyone who owns the game would be interested in glitches, so I propose that we put the glitches section back in. --pie4all88 21:35, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If anything, it should be on a separate page. Fredrik | talk 21:45, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think we should stick the glitches in Wikibooks and link to that page in the article. Wikibooks should have a game guide on Super Mario 64 anyway, we'd just be giving it a start. We'd also drive some much-needed interest into that project, if the article ends up featured on the main page. ~ FriedMilk 22:29, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)

Done. -- [[User:Bobdoe|BobDoe]] 23:05, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Screenshots

Hi, I could make some higher quality screenshots like Image:N64_Super_Mario_64.jpg if you tell me what they should show. I don't think that the current screenshots are very helpful, because they don't help the reader to understand the game. Especially the third one is pure decoration without much value. No 2 is quite ok, but should show a little bit more landscape. The first one is not very typical for SM64 gameplay, it shows a very special scene. Image:N64_Super_Mario_64.jpg would be useful for a start, as it shows a regular gameplay scene, but what else should be shown and how many screenshots can be justified for that article? (typical size of a N64 screenshot is 100kb)--Tyan23 20:01, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree that the screenshots here aren't the best, so if you can take some that are better, that would be great. I'd say we need maybe one that illustrates the gameplay (like Image:N64_Super_Mario_64.jpg), one that focuses on the graphics of Super Mario 64 (like a screenshot of a memorable or unusual place), and maybe some that complement specific parts of the article. The first picture, it is true, does not illustrate typical gameplay--however, flying is a popular part of Super Mario 64. I mean, look at the cover of the box... Personally, I like a lot of pictures, but then again I have a cable connection :) pie4all88 19:49, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Suggest a memorable place. My screenshot concerns are about Wikipedia's storage capacity. The thumbnail in the article are much smaller, their size is under 10kb.--Tyan23 20:01, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I made a screenshot of Mario fighting Bowser, i think that's memorable. With 4-5 screenshots, as Fredrik suggested, 2-3 are left. Which courses/motives should I take? I guess it's a good idea to include at least one of the obstacle courses, like Lethal Lava Land or Bowser In the Dark World. And one of the missions... I have a picture of Mario carrying the baby penguin to its mother (Cool Cool Mountain). Better suggestions?--Tyan23 22:07, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
How about 2-3 images from each level (if it's not too much work)? We could have 4-5 images in the article and a separate gallery page. Fredrik | talk 19:53, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
How many levels are there? I have no idea, haven't played it for almost 10 years and my game currently has only 6 stars... concerning a gallery, see this discussion: Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Sega_Genesis_Screenshot_Gallery... Wikibooks would be a better place for a complete guide.--Tyan23 20:01, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
15 main courses (it says so in the article, too). Yeah, gallery articles have been a point of controversy in the past, so that might not be the thing to do. Everyking 20:05, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
oops, that's a little bit too much for me :)--Tyan23 22:07, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Just wanted to applaud you, Tyan23, for your excellent images of Super Mario 64. I think they greatly benefit the article as a whole. pie4all88 20:16, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I've got a killer image of Dire, Dire Docks, but I'm not certain as to where to put it in the article. Anyone want to take a crack at it? -- [[User:Bobdoe|BobDoe]] 04:25, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Ok, I put it in under the Courses section. I'm not sure if it would be better to put that under the Rumors section, though...then again, a picture illustrating "L is real 2004" would be great there, so I'll leave it open (I've never seen that texture they're talking about). After that, we should be all set with images--thanks for your contribution. pie4all88 02:44, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Done. -- [[User:Bobdoe|BobDoe]] 04:43, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

People, we need screenshots that are coming from the original game and not an emulator! --Kaleb.G 23:08, 2004 Nov 29 (UTC)

Why? Andre (talk) 23:09, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
What do you mean "Why?" The answer should be simple. An emulator GREATLY enhances the graphics of this game, but we need to display the game as it was originally designed. Posting nothing but screenshots from an emulator would be like trying to put nothing but Super Mario All-Stars pics in the Super Mario 3 wiki and then never mention Super Mario All-Stars, or like posting screenshots of jDoom all over the DOOM wiki. I will admit it's hard to find good Mario 64 screenshots online, but these are just a lie of the game's graphical ability.
--Kaleb.G 23:22, 2004 Nov 29 (UTC)
Emulators don't enhance graphics! That's nonsense. Games are developed while being played on emulators - how do you think the programmers write the code on a PC and check it in real time? The whole purpose of the emulator is to act like the actual game console - graphics aren't enhanced, they are interpreted literally. If you think emulated graphics are significantly better than graphics on a console connected to a TV, your TV is just bad. Andre (talk) 23:57, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
It's not quite true that emulators don't enhance graphics. These screenshots use higher resolution (the N64 has 640x480 support, but most games don't use that). Also, there are some differences in rendering. Most noticeably, the N64 uses some kind of dithered edge anti-aliasing that AFAIK is unsupported by PC graphics cards (at least it's not enabled in any of these screenshots). I don't think emulator screenshots are much of a problem for this kind of game, though; what I can't stand is screenshots of 2D games with 2xSaI (or jDoom... eww) -- Fredrik | talk 01:31, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I know what emulators are, and how they work; I am a programmer. They don't have to enhance graphics, but they most certainly can, and in this case, they most certainly do (which is why I specifically said "this game" in my previous post). As Fredrik pointed out, some 3D emulators can provide several video and rendering options that never existed for the original systems. The emulator "Project 64" (which I assume is being used here) can reach resolutions much, much higher than that of the original N64. This creates much smoother polygon edges and allows for more texture detail to be visible on screen at any given time. However, the biggest difference in these emulated screenshots as opposed to the graphics of the original game are the quality of the textures. The Nintendo 64 was known (especially in its early years) for its smooth yet rather blurry textures, which were the result of a special texture filtering process. However, in the emulated screenshots, the textures are leaps and bounds ahead in quality compared to the original game, and they even beat out some of the best looking textures to ever grace the Nintendo 64.
Now, the current screenshots aren't going to harm anything, but this being a featured article and all, it would be a lot more accurate and professional to show screens from the actual game instead of an illegal ROM dump running on some emulator developed by a team with no association to Nintendo whatsoever. Obtaining un-emulated screenshots should remain on the list of things to do without question.
--Kaleb.G 03:05, 2004 Nov 30 (UTC)
I don't think it's such a big deal. If you capture card is good enough, you can get very nice console screens, but this requires effort. Very few people know what emulators are, and even fewer can outrightly tell the difference between a rom screenshot and one from a console. Saying that they were acquired using an illegal dumping of Nintendo's intellectual property is irrelevent - many very cool wallpapers, animations and graphics on the internet are made by people using pirated software, but noone really cares how they were made. Um yeah, it's not a big deal, calm down :) alexpenev 04:42, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I would say that if at all possible, we should try to get real screenshots of Mario 64. I will say that even before looking at this conversation I had thought to myself, "These screenshots are too sharp. They must have been emulated." Since the article is about Mario 64 on the Nintendo 64, not Mario 64 on an emulator, it would be better to use non-emulated pictures. It provides a more accurate historical reference point. That said, it's not a super high priority. --Carl 02:15, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
There isn't any point in trying to get "genuine" console screenshots. Using the Rice Video Plugin, you can set the game's graphics to simulate the original resolution of the Nintendo 64, and it's not worth the effort to hook up capture cards and get tangled in a mess of cables. Just forget about this idea, please. --Eugene2x -- ☺ Nintendo rox! 23:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Development

Anyone have any useful info about the game's development? I found this on the Internet, but that's pretty much it:

17 November -95
Information about Super Mario 64 starts to leak out and reliably sources assures
that it will be a totally 3dimensional platform game.
24 November -95
World premier for the N64 and 13 games at Shoshinkai in Tokyo. 2 playable games Super Mario 64
(50% completed )and Kirby Bowl (20% completed)

N64 History

I know I have one or two gaming magazine issues with possibly relevant previews of the Ultra 64 and Super Mario 64, but they're located 500 km from where I live right now... Fredrik | talk 22:39, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Read this interview and the other ones in the Miyamoto Shrine.--Tyan23 10:18, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Okay, could anyone write this part (basically -- rewrite the interview)? I tried, but apparently I'm totally out of focus today (have exam on Monday). Fredrik | talk 19:53, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"L is real 2004."

I don't know much about it, but apparently some people interpreted one of the blurry textures in M64 as saying this. They then turned it into a big theory of what it meant and how Luigi is somehow hidden in the game. If anyone knows more about this, we should add a section about fans searching for Luigi in M64 and the many things they tried to make him appear.

Also, there should be a better explanation of the end of the game, how with <70 stars the staircase goes on endlessly, and how with 120 stars, one can go on the roof and talk to Yoshi, who gives you 1-ups and encourages you to continue playing (though at that point no major secrets remain, feeding the speculation about Luigi...).

--Carl 06:31, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I will add stuff about that. –Andre (talk) 11:08, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)
There used to be rumors about the cannon that appears in the front of the castle (used to access Yoshi once the player has 120 stars). The rumors involved firing the cannon in a particular way (the actual way varied from rumor to rumor) to access some hidden area where you could meet Luigi and then play through a secret stage with him. These rumors were probably fueled by some buggy things you could do with that particular cannon. ~~Anon 02:04, Jan 31, 2005 (EST)
I'm currently working on reverse-engineering Super Mario 64, I already have an online Shockwave based demo where you can fly around a few of the levels. I may provide interesting insights about the game development in the future. Until then, this addition to the discussion is to tell you that I uploaded the "L is Real 2041" texture, as decoded directly from the game. The original texture is 32x32 pixels, and my uploaded replica is zoomed 400% and has no blurring or filtering so you can discern the original pixels. Image:L_is_Real_Texture_SM64.png See for yourself, each "letter" is 2 pixels wide! --VL-Tone

[edit] Note

The N64 launched with Super Mario 64, PilotWings 64, and Star Wars: Shadows of the Empire, right? I changed the first sentence to "one of the first games released for the Nintendo 64". pie4all88 23:20, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

In the US, it launched with just SM64 and Pilotwings, and the Star Wars game followed a few months later. Everyking 00:05, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Some anonymous user changed it to the first, but that seems to have be forgotten in all the vandalism that comes of being a front page article. I'll fix it. --Carl 02:36, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] References

Perhaps this is an odd question, but how exactly do we reference some of the claims we've made in this article? For instance, can we cite the game for all of the course information? Is that original research? -- [[User:Bobdoe|BobDoe]] 17:00, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • No, it's not original research. Direct observations (and apparently even critical analysis) are OK (Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not: "But of course critical analysis of art is welcome, if grounded in direct observations."). The game itself ought to suffice as a reference for the course information. Fredrik | talk 17:14, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • It's direct observation, yeah. If we must, we can cite player's guides. Andre (talk) 17:21, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

A question: why do we have a separate "Notes" section? I thought the policy was to put links inline with the text to make [1] and [2] and so on. Andre (talk) 17:31, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

Because then there is a way of seeing them all. If they are not collected at the bottom they can be very tedious to find. On another note, is it possible to get some general references for this article? Are there any online resources that would qualify as a reliable reference? Or could the game manual be cited as a general reference? - Taxman 19:03, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Influence on other games

In a speech to the European Developer's forum (a transcript of which can be found at http://www.zoonami.com/briefing/2004-09-02.php), Martin Hollis, a designer on the N64 game GoldenEye, explained how the development team at Rareware was infuenced by Mario 64 when they created their mission structure. Perhaps some mention could be made of that, perhaps under a section dedicated to Mario 64's influence on later titles - or would it be more appropriate to just include it on the GoldenEye page?

I've integrated this into the "Precedents" section. --Slowking Man 00:23, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Original game of franchise?

Wasn't this Mario Brothers (1984) and not Super Mario Brothers (1985)? --Eric 00:22, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Mario Brothers was an arcade game. Super Mario Brothers gave birth to the Mario platforming games, which is the vein that Super Mario 64 is in. --Slowking Man 00:31, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
Was Mario Brothers ported to the NES before or after the debut of Super Mario Brothers? The article seems to imply that it was the former, making Mario Brothers the actual ancestor of the series. Although it was, admittedly, not a side-scrolling platformer like the rest of the series, the gameplay was prototypical of the later games in the series. As the article also notes, several items introduced in the game were later reused for Super Mario Brothers. --Eric 02:01, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Whoops! A closer read of the article shows that it wasn't ported to the NES until '85. I stand corrected! --Eric 02:05, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Hang on a second! I remember The Mario Bros were on a monochrome LCD game in the early eighties (much like the Doney Kong Version) To elaborate, it was a fixed view (not even side scrolling) game with controls for Mario and Luigi either side of a stack of conveyer belts loading boxes. This predates NES and must have been around 83. It does not matter how the game was played compared to today's version the franchise began earlier and whether it was the arcade, LCD version or wharever needs to be clarified. Dainamo 11:39, 31 Jan 1983 (UTC)
Mario Bros. was among the first Nintendo games for the Famicom, it was released in September 1983. [1]
Surely that would be Donkey Kong (1981)? The gameplay doesn't really bear much resemblance to the Super Mario games - but it is a platformer, and features Mario as the central character. 217.34.39.123 12:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV statment

Thanks to the anon who removed the unsourced POV statement "It is considered by many to be one of the greatest games of all time." I have posted a note to Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/January 31, 2005 asking for an admin to remove it from the main page as well. HI If an admin is reading this here, though, would you be so kind as to remove it? Thanks. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 03:19, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

Reading further down, I see some cites for the popularity of the game. I still think the sentence is inappropriate for the introductory paragraph, though. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 03:24, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
I agree, this entire article is soaked in Nintendo-centric POV. Comments such as "As the first 3D game in the Mario franchise, Super Mario 64 defined the 3D platformer, much as the franchise's original game, Super Mario Bros., defined the 2D sidescrolling platformer." are completely inappropriate on Wikipedia's main page. GRider\talk 22:44, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Have a look at our article on Miles Davis. In the very first sentence, you'll find that he "was one of the most influential, innovative and original musicians of the twentieth century". Is that Miles Davis-centric fanboyism? Does such a statement violate the NPOV policy? No, and WP:NPOV explains why:
By "fact," we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." In this sense, that a survey produced a certain published result is a fact. That Mars is a planet is a fact. That Socrates was a philosopher is a fact. No one seriously disputes any of these things. So we can feel free to assert as many of them as we can.
The keywords are "serious dispute". No one seriously disputes that Miles Davis was one of the most influential musicians of the twentieth century. Likewise, I haven't read a magazine that claims Super Mario 64 wasn't the defining 3D platformer. I agree that references should be provided for such assertions, though, but here they should be added to the "reception" section, not the lead section. Fredrik | talk 23:20, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I added references and restored some of the text of an earlier version. Andre (talk) 00:16, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
Maybe these should be moved to the "notes" section? Fredrik | talk 00:38, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think it looks bad to have five external links cited in the intro. I'd say pick one or two, and either remove the others or move them to another spot in the article. Everyking 01:05, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

GRider has reverted again without any explanation except what I have challenged above. Content disputes must be resolved by seeking consensus through discussion. Until GRider he shows willingness to discuss, I am going to revert his edits. Fredrik | talk 19:59, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As will I. To GRider: I think you don't understand that we're not saying the game is fun, or good, or unique, which you could dispute. We're saying it was hugely influential and it changed the face of gaming. The conventions of 3D platformers today stem largely from Super Mario 64. I think you would have a lot of trouble disputing this, but at any rate it's a well-established fact, as many of our sources say. As an analogy, in 10 or 20 years I'll probably be saying that George W. Bush and his administration revolutionized the world. I'm a staunch libertarian/liberal Democrat who was pro-Gore and then pro-Kerry, but that doesn't mean I can't admit George W. Bush is a really influential guy, and as a source there's his TIME Man of the Year bit (which is about being influential and important, not being good or poltically skilled). Andre (talk) 21:18, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Screenshots (2)

I have a TV Tuner which I play my N64 and other consoles on, would that do? And, sorry about starting a new section; I thought the section was getting too big and cluttered. Also, what screenshots are needed? -- A Link to the Past July 2, 2005 08:03 (UTC)

From what I've read of the original Screenshots thread, it seems that screenshots close to the current emulated screenshots would be ideal, so the captions still match. --Poiuyt Man talk 3 July 2005 13:07 (UTC)
So, what, is that a yes or no? I'm kinda an idiot, so you'll have to be blunt 'bout that. -- A Link to the Past July 3, 2005 19:29 (UTC)
It's a yes. Please recreate the scenes in the existing screenshots and take captures of them. You can even overwrite the existing files without touching this page using the upload function. The existing screenshots are really nice, but just a little bit too clear to give the reader an accurate impression of the rendering power of the N64. Your screen captures would solve the problem. Thanks a bunch in advance. --Carl 4 July 2005 02:10 (UTC)
I can do every shot, except for the Yoshi-on-the-Castle shot. Truth be told, I can reach about every area that are shown in the screenshots, except for that 120 Star shot. Never could get all of those Stars, and never could reach the top of the Castle through that Wall Jump Trick. -- A Link to the Past July 4, 2005 20:14 (UTC)

[edit] Other languages

Does anyone think that we should take this information and attempt to improve other SM64 articles? -- A Link to the Past 20:52, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Edits by User:The-

User:The- removed the entire "Impact" section, arguing that it should go into an article about 3D gaming. I agree that the section could be trimmed, but SM64 was central in the development of 3D games and this certainly needs to be covered in depth. Removing the details about the courses was entirely unjustified. Why should it be put on a separate page (which hasn't happened anyway)? As for the reference to Mario Kart, no other Mario Kart games had been released at the time. Fredrik | talk 10:58, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

The descriptions of courses belongs on Wikibooks. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:34, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
I disagree. Course walkthroughs belong on Wikibooks, the encyclopedia article should describe the game and the courses are part of it. Fredrik | talk 17:50, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
This is one of, if not THE only, Mario article to actually have a description of every level in the game. This is not content for an encyclopedia. No offense to the article writers (who wrote it well), but I'm surprised this content got past the voters. Look at Wario - while not a game article, it doesn't go crazy with his powerups, or some character list. Mario, as it is, has an excessive amount of powerup descriptions (although that's my doing, I changed it from the even worst list of powerups). - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:02, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
Actually, Super Mario Sunshine has similar level description, and Super Mario Bros. for example describes all levels although in less space because there is less variety. The course information is relevant and useful because it describes the extent of the game's virtual universe, and how many different concepts the designers were able to incorporate.
I think the guiding principle for including details is whether they contribute to the bigger picture. The fact that there are 2093 coins, or that five of them are located beneath the bridge in Bob-omb Battlefield, clearly don't, but the breadth of the content and the functional aspects of the gameplay are. On the other hand, the level information must not necessarily be covered in a bullet list.
I would however agree entirely that the secret, cap, and Bowser courses don't need to be covered with as much detail as they are (i.e. it would be sufficient to say something along the lines of "Mario encounters Bowser three times along the way; in the 'Dark World', 'Fire Sea' and finally in the 'Sky'. By beating Bowser in each course, Mario is granted a key to unlock a new floor of the castle."). Fredrik | talk 18:33, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Fredrik. Andre (talk) 19:34, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

I admit I was wrong removing the Impact section, but still think I was right in removing the course descriptions. The- 16:40, 8 December, 2005

[edit] Removing cruft

I think you stripped far too much from the Rumors section, and the other sections. Please put some back. This is a featured article, remember. Andre (talk) 22:42, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. I thought the elaboration on "L is Real 2041" was especially interesting. --Poiuyt Man talk 23:44, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
Wild, unsourced speculation along the lines of "Some have suggested that in the year 2041 Nintendo will unveil the secret" and "many have thought that in a Bowser stage, where Bowser's flames give off coins, this could be possible, although nobody has managed to get more than 1000 coins" is not informative. Fredrik | talk 11:11, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] FARC

While I don't want to get in bad with anyone, I feel that this article is no longer up to FA standards. If the cruft can't be eliminated, I'll be forced to, 'Kay?

For one, trim or remove the level list, unless you can explain why it's needed (considering a lot of the levels you cannot even access until a certain point in the game).
Delete IMDB link. IMDB is not a good source of information in regards of video games.
Flesh out sequels a bit.
Flesh out the many "Sentencegraphs" (sentence-long paragraphs). That applies to TWO sentence-long paragraphs as well!
Cut out two of the images (Kicking a Goomba, Carrying a penguin, etc.), and move the remaining image to the right.

And there you go. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:11, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with you, in general. Andre (talk) 02:12, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Courses

Please keep them. They aren't an attempt to lengthen the page - they provide useful information and exposition. Andre (talk) 03:37, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. Link (Legend of Zelda) is different because the enemies and allies can be described in other articles, but we really don't need a separate article for the courses. Unless we create a page called "Courses in Mario games", which on the other hand would be an interesting topic in itself. Fredrik | talk 11:14, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Beta image

The beta version image is preferable to the Dire, Dire Docks image. First, the original image was placed in the "Courses" section, but there are too many images to fit comfortably in that section, so it got "shoved" downwards into the Development section. It is more relevant in the Development section. Second, the Docks image being older or being in a featured article doesn't necessarily make it best. Articles don't become frozen after they're featured; if the article can be improved, it should be. - Evil saltine 01:58, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

  • This is probably a dumb question, but can we use a screenshot that a wikipedian did not take or get explicit permision to use? -- Bobdoe (Talk) 08:51, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
    • If you're thinking of the beta image in particular, I believe it was taken by Nintendo (because I've seen it in more than one magazine). I doubt we could get their explicit permission, but we can claim fair use. Fredrik | talk 14:10, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I liked the Docks image. I think it should be re-added in elsewhere, though the beta one can be kept as well. Andre (talk) 18:58, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Two phrases from the lead section that I don't like

I don't like "flagship killer game", because it seems to say the same thing twice. And I don't like "redefined", because the 3D platform genre at that time wasn't really defined to begin with. Fredrik | talk 19:38, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Flagship and killer game are different. A flagship product is the one produced and promoted by a company over all others, and a killer game is a system seller. Though many killer games are often flagship games as well, not all are, necessarily. I agree about redefined though - I just switched it to plain old "define." Andre (talk) 19:48, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
I'm aware of the difference, but it sounds awkward nevertheless. Perhaps it can be reworded. Fredrik | talk 20:01, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Images

Here's the full list of images of this game:

We should delete those that serve no purpose for this article. Fredrik | tc 02:24, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikibooks

If you have time why not help with writing a player's guide for Super Mario 64 on Wikibooks? Gerard Foley 15:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Well that book was deleted along with the rest of the videogame books. I have started to write my own guide from scratch in the Public Domain at WikiKnowledge if anyone wants to help with that instead. Gerard Foley 15:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More on development

This should be incorporated: http://www.miyamotoshrine.com/kong/features/mario64/index.shtml - Fredrik | tc 03:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oooh

omg. look at google video there is a luigi is real thing there. Whoa

Thats some bad grammar you got there. And its pretty easy to make a screen shot/video that streches mario out a little and makes him green... Wesz 12:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:FARC

The article Super Mario 64 includes:

  1. Limited references concerning the history and the development of the game. The references in the article are not formatted correctly.
  2. Furthermore, there are no references concerning other aspects of the game. Example: Shifting Sand Land is somewhat reminiscent of Super Mario Bros. 3's Desert Land. Citation? The "Rumors" and "Impact" section requires citations as well.
  3. Far too many fair use images.
  4. The "basic controls" section could do with some trimming.
  5. Is the "remakes and sequels" section necessary?
  6. The spoiler warning is quite lengthy.

—Eternal Equinox | talk 00:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I've dealt with #2 #3 you threw out #5 and I dealt with #6. Number 1 i'm working on, and #4 is not a valid issue. You should have posted a cleanup instead of doing a FARC Seraphim 04:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of spoilers tag

The list of levels does not consist of "Plot and/or ending details" which is what the spoiler tag is used for. While playing the game you are not suppossed to be surprised by any of the main levels. What would be considered a spoiler is explaining how to find Shifting Sand land, but since that is not mentioned, there are no spoilers that I can see. Seraphim 23:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the list of the levels featured in the game certainly adheres to the title of "spoiler warning". Perhaps one reading this article does not want to know that about the levels in the game? We cannot be careless and need to patch up all loose ends. —Eternal Equinox | talk 03:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
In the game if you hit the start button you get a list of all the levels in the game. It is not a spoiler, and there is no way you can consider a level list to be giving away "Plot and/or ending details" which is what the spoiler tag covers.Seraphim 04:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unreferenced Rumors

I just removed the Rumors section. Wikipedia is not a place for rumors or speculation, however, I realize that the rumors were posted to adknowledge that the rumors exist which does fall inline with wikipedia standards. With that said, we cannot add unverifiable information to articles, and the rumors section definatly needs some references added. I'll post the content of the section here, and whoever added the rumor can add in a reference, and then once it's all referenced we can add it back into the article. Here it is:

Because of Super Mario 64's great popularity, rumors spread like wildfire after its release.
The most infamous rumor is that Mario's brother Luigi is an unlockable character in the game. This rumor was fueled by a blurry texture on the pedestal of a statue in the castle courtyard that some think reads "L is Real 2401" (or alternately, 2041), for which various speculative explanations have been proposed by fans. Others believe the text to read "Eternal Star," which makes sense since the texture appears on the pedestal of a star-shaped statue. The phrase "Eternal Star" has been used by Nintendo in other games, most notably as an unlockable board in the first Mario Party title. Luigi is a playable character in the Nintendo DS version of the game.
Photoshopped pictures of Mario with a green tint have been presented as evidence of Luigi being playable, but no one has been able to accomplish this feat in the game. Nintendo has consistently denied Luigi's playability, and never commented on the meaning of "L is Real 2401." However, in one Nintendo Power April Fool's issue, the table of contents said that this cryptic phrase would be discussed on a page whose number did not exist in the magazine.
The suspicious texture also appears in Dodongo's Cavern in The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, a game which recycled and revamped the graphics engine from Super Mario 64. The artists may simply have reused the texture as a joke, knowing the fuss it would create amongst keen-eyed fans. Several other out-of-the-way Mario references exist in that game.
Thanks Seraphim 04:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


Just a thought, could "L is Real 2401" mean "Luigi is real to April First"? Just an intrepration, but, makes sense... 65.96.98.74 22:03, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent removals

Please discuss your removals before doing them unilaterally. Do not remove sections - find references, don't kill the entire section. Andre (talk) 13:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I, for one, feel that it has not been established that we have too many screenshots on this page. Though the line about Desert Land and the rumors section need references, they should not be removed out of hand. We will locate references for them. Andre (talk) 13:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Um.... Look up 1 section on the talk page called "Unreferenced Rumors". Right now someone is trying to get the page's Featured Article status removed. All issues need to be dealt with immediatly so people don't post Remove decisions and then never check back again. Seraphim 17:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I have to agree with Andrevan here, that the first choice should be fixing text, not removing it. Fredrik Johansson - talk - contribs 17:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you 100% that the first choice should be fixing text not removing it. However the first choice should also have been posting a cleanup tag on the article, not creating a nomination to remove this as a featured article. But Eternal_Equinox did http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_removal_candidates. One of his reasons was alot of uncited text, specifically the rumors section. Since no part of the rumors section had any references that is an extremely valid point, and people would have to vote for removal of the article's featured status. Most people don't go back to re-check their votes a few days later, I removed it to here to prevent people that view the FARC's only once from voting Remove. There has been too much work put in this article, for it to loose featured status. Once the FARC is over i'll gladly put the rumors section back in and tag it with references needed, however right now this was needed since one of the biggest reasons for removing featured article status is that they have tags all over them. I also suggest you all vote on the FARC nomination, since it's "your" article that will be loosing it's star.Seraphim 19:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Eternal Equinox doesn't have authority. He's just a user, and at the moment there's little risk of this article losing FA status. Please stop removing the text, and let's discuss how to fix it. Andre (talk) 22:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • You are also a user so I don't follow your message. —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I'll leave it up for now. But if the FA vote gets another remove vote (becomes tied) I will have to remove it again. There is a much greater risk then you believe. There is a FARC vote going on, that right now is 3-2 for keep, that is not "little risk". I'll tag the section as needing references. Seraphim 22:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
What I meant by that message was, your criticisms and the FARC nomination are not necessarily important. Any user can make them, and doing so does not necessitate authority. Because of Seraphim's reaction, I was unsure if he was aware of this. Andre (talk) 15:44, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
You don't seem to understand understand what the FARC nomination is. If that passes, this page looses it's FA status. It doesn't matter who nominates the page. Seraphim 20:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Uch, so much talking on such a minor topic. Nevertheless, I agree with Andre. But who is this Andre? Bcem2 01:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article Status?

What is the current article status? Is is a featured article still or not? And where is the star if it is? User:Judgesurreal777 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.2.166.217 (talk • contribs) .

Yes, it's still featured. The templates at the top of this page explain it. I still see the star. Pagrashtak 03:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

There is something funky with the star on this page. I see it about 1/2 the time I come here for some strange reason. *shrug* It is still a FA. Seraphim 08:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] High Resolution Screenshots

Bowser start of snow level Big Boo's Mansion Fortress The monkey that steals Mario's cap Dire Dire Docks 2nd snow level Rainbow Road with Wing cap

Placing them here so they're not forgotten. Do what you want with them except deleting them. I'm using some of the best hardware avaliable to render them. Renegadeviking

I don't think high-resolution screenshots are appropriate here since the game doesn't look like that on the Nintendo 64. Emulator screenshots are fine IMO, but the configuration should be as close as possible to the original hardware. Fredrik Johansson 11:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
That's why it's called high res instead of low-res. I promise you no body will be confused. Renegadeviking
I've converted the included images into links, since images claiming fair use can only be used in the article namespace according to Wikipedia's fair use policy, item 9. A few comments about these screenshots: High-resolution screenshots should be avoided in favor of low-resolution screens, which appear the same in the article and make a stronger fair use argument. (Fair use policy, item 3). Retouched or enhanced screens are typically not as useful as the original screen; the raw screens give the user a better idea of the game. These enhanced screens, while pretty, will mislead the reader and also weakens the case for fair use. Pagrashtak 03:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Luigi model

While it's known that Luigi is not a playable character in the game, there is a model for Luigi hidden in the game. Somebody looked through the ROM and found the polygon data and was able to produce this: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1531148774953443944

Should this be added anywhere in the rumors section?

You can't even be sure this is even true. M2K e 02:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I did this video. I reverse-engineered the polygon data and distorted Mario's head, then changed the suit and hat color to green, then the red M to a green L icon. The Luigi model is not in the original game, I modified it. I'm currently building a Super Mario 64 editor, and Luigi is nowhere to be found in the game. There is an unused animated beta Yoshi egg though...
Do you have a website for this project? It'd be a nice reference to prove, once and for all, that Luigi is not in Mario64. -- Bobdoe (Talk) 03:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] flying 1-up mushrooms

There flying mushrooms in this game, like the outside the castle in 3rd tree from the waterfall. Why do these mushrooms chase you? Why did the programmers design the mushrooms to chase you?

So you wouldn't have to go through all the trouble of chasing them. The Legend of Miyamoto 20:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of levels and FAR

Hi all - as you know, this article is currently undergoing a minor Featured article review to tighten up the language. (I want to emphasize that this is NOT a nomination for the removal of featured article status.) One issue that's come up is the list of levels - is it too crufty? Is it too long? Should it be spun off into its own article? Should it be converted into prose, and if so, how? Input from people who regularly edit this page would be absolutely wonderful; you can comment here. Cheers! The Disco King 13:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Glitches

An anon added a long list of SM64 glitches to the article, but I've removed it. This is exactly the type of cruft the FAR listed above is meant to address. The section was also unsourced. -- BrianSmithson 22:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use images

I've counted 13 fair use images in this article, which seems a little excessive to me (especially since this is meant to be a featured article). It would be good if someone could sort through the screenshots and take out the ones that are least useful.--Kingston Jr. 12:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and I've reverted to the version where you removed some of them. Each image in this article needs to be directly related to something in the text. I can buy that seven or eight images do this, but not 13. Also, the reversion to the article before your cuts also deleted a bunch of {{fact}} requests for source citations, so I've put those back, too. — BrianSmithson 15:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. If the screenshots were free images then there wouldn't be a problem, but since they're not we should follow the policy for fair use images set out in WP:FU, which states that "the amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible". Given that this is supposed to be a featured article I believe the article should follow this policy to the letter. Aside from that and some minor unsourced info here and there, it's a pretty good article.--Kingston Jr. 17:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bowser's voice?

According to the article, Bowser was voiced by an uncredited Issac Marshall. However, according to an issue of the The Mushroom Kingdom Mailbag (the second "the" is deliberate in this case), the user "Stealth Yoshi" proves (via an audio sample) that Bowser's low-pitched growl is the same as the shrill laugh of a Boo, only slowed down by a factor of about 8. (It is important to note that both sound bytes originated in this game.) Does this mean that he also provided the voice for Boo, or has the article simply been misinformed? --Ppk01 19:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A benchmark for all 3D games

"Super Mario 64 was considered so revolutionary that many consider it the benchmark for all later 3D platformer games and 3D games in general"

The source provided for this sentence ([2]) does not mention anything about the game being considered a benchmark. Its very weasel worded anyway, but I've removed the source and tagged it with 'citation needed' instead of taking it out completely.--58.169.31.200 01:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

"Nintendo basically set the standards for how 3D space would be navigated within video games with Super Mario 64." That seems pretty clear to me, but just to make it crystal I've changed the wording to "set the standard." Andre (talk) 05:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
This seems totally wrong. There are a lot of different control types. I.e. Croc or Crash Bandicoot use totally different navigation types. 84.178.73.248 17:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
I think it should be changed. "Many" is not composed of a single gamespot article. And besides, Jumping Flash! did this a year before mario 64.--58.169.0.94 08:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
It's not about that -- it's about setting the standard, influencing and inspiring other games, as diverse as GoldenEye. Control schemes are not the issue. Andre (talk) 21:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rumours quote -- is it unnecessary?

The quote I'm referring to is the "Headless Snowman 64" game article. It's not exactly a rumour, but a joke about Luigi not being in SM64. Is it worth keeping it there? 143.238.194.33 10:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FA status removed?

How did this happen without the removal discussion being advertised? Andre (talk) 19:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Which is to say, how did we go from FAR to FARC? Also, it seems like there have only been two or three people weighing in on the discussion to remove it. I'm going to revert the removal for now until this is explained. Andre (talk) 19:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Missing Famitsu review

Geez guys, you've got reviews from every country except Japan. Get this worldwide view straight. Famitsu gave the game a 39/40, which is an impressive feat. I can't just add that though, as someone still has to find a source for it (and I don't want to help as I rather want to review the article).--SeizureDog 08:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review

This is my review of this article for a GA status:

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is well written.
    a (prose): b (structure): c (MoS): d (jargon):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (inline citations): c (reliable): d (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
  5. It is stable.
  6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/u/p/Talk%7ESuper_Mario_64_6654.html"