Talk:Super Mario Galaxy/Archive for February 2008

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Who keeps deleting the plot?

The "new" version of the plot section is terrible and has no detail. It sounds like something that Nintendo would put on the back of the box of the game. I'm reverting to back to the old version. Knowitall (talk) 13:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

See #Plot description of ending for my reason. The Prince (talk) 13:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
The plot section is meant for telling the basic story of the game, not transliterating every event that occurs (i.e. Mario must play hide and seek with the rabbits; the scene cuts to Mario, Peach, and Bowser). If the basic idea can be told so that a person unknowing of the game can understand it, then a completely detailed synopsis is unneeded. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 15:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
That's right. Games like FFVII and FFX are known for having a detailed plot, and therefore they have bigger plot sections. It's as simple as that. The Prince (talk) 15:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Can we at least say how it ends and stuff, instead of it being like a "Back of the game box" description? It seems so lazy this way, like its a newly created aricle and it still needs to be expanded. Why is Wikipedia so insistent on REMOVING information recently? Anyway, make it like the Sunshine story section (with another quick paragraph discussing what actually happens in the game) and I can accept that. I cannot however accept a teaser paragraph that does not even say how the game ends or what happens at any point beyond the very beginning of the game. Knowitall (talk) 22:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that's fair enough. Keep it concise, though. The Prince (talk) 23:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Knowitall. We can make the plot shorter like Prince described, as long as it doesn't become a trailer/teaser like description. As long as the key elements are described, it will probably be fine. Moccamonster (talk) 10:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I have tried to make a short plot section while still showing the most important elements. Of course, it can probably be shortened, so any shortening and criticism (in a good, polite way) is welcome. Moccamonster (talk) 10:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

It was too long, so I reverted your edits. Please attemt to keep it concise. The Prince (talk) 12:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I put in my version of the ending description, making it as brief as possible. Rosalina's subplot is not needed to tell the main story (plus people unfamiliar with the game wouldn't be able to make sense of it). --ThomasO1989 (talk) 14:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Nice plot you made. Seems like a pretty much perfect version to me. Everyone agrees? Great work on the gameplay section too. Moccamonster (talk) 18:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Nice work on the gameplay section as well, Thomas. The Prince (talk) 19:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Good work Thomas, I like the new plot section and good work with the gameplay section. Knowitall (talk) 21:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Protection?

Seeing the vandalism on this article, should we consider asking for protection of this article? Moccamonster (talk) 20:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

That's a good idea. I'm getting tired of reverting all these IP addresses. The Prince (talk) 21:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Nausea?

Should the article talk about how this game has caused nausea in some players?

http://us.wii.com/iwata_asks_vol1_page2.jsp http://episteme.arstechnica.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/174096756/m/987007468831/p/3 http://forums.gametrailers.com/showthread.php?t=245668&page=4 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.244.234.39 (talk) 22:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Nah, not notable enough. The last two links are forums, which can't be used as sources. The Prince (talk) 23:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
And besides, it's either a joke (which i think it is) in the first link or personal issues like in the latter two. Moccamonster (talk) 17:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Game of the Year Roundup

Won

Didn't Win

Wikipedian06 (talk) 04:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

We can't list all of them, the more notable sites like IGN, GameSpot etc are already there so we shouldn't have much of a problem. What we need is a link that has all it won like Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion. Nor is it worth mentioning what it didn't win or hasn't been mentioned yet... Stabby Joe (talk) 15:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I posted this purely for information because someone else had been wondering. I agree that only the big ones should be mentioned in the article, though none of these are exactly trivial, either. Wikipedian06 (talk) 08:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Do you have a link with most, if not all of them? Because that way we can post it next to the statments that say it won awards. No way in hell can we mention al the above, just like we don't mention all the reviews. Plus, an award from Nintendo Power wouldn't be game of the year since they arelimited to one company, mor elike Nintendo game of the year. Stabby Joe (talk) 15:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
This list makes it rather clear that it has won the most GOTY awards. I'm adding the line "The game has received extremely positive reviews from the gaming press and won more game of the year awards than any other 2007 release." back into the article. Knowitall (talk) 23:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
You can add that up but we will need a citation that does list them all. Alot of the time its on their offical site. Stabby Joe (talk) 13:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
We don't need a citation that lists them all if we have links to all of the individual GOTY awards it has won. It has clearly won more GOTY awards then any game this year. Knowitall (talk) 22:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Also, I can get several citations but they're all blogs I think. Knowitall (talk) 22:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
No, my point is we don't list them all. If we do it will take up way to much space and will make the page unpresentable. Every page I've come across always does this but ends up mentioning the awards from the most notable sources with a link for all of them, we can't mention everyone. Its not hard, most of the time you can find its official game or publisher's website. I don't know why you're making a fuss over something so reasonable that other game articles do. Stabby Joe (talk) 00:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I can't find a page listing that though, besides blogs. If we know that it has won the most GOTY awards, why do we need a source? Also, this is the best thing I could find. [16] Knowitall (talk) 03:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
It would be better for a link because it its such a bold claim and only people here who are most likely SMG fans know how many it won but everyone else will be skeptical because theres no way we can list them all... we know how many it won but this article isn't for us if you get my point. But I've just thought of something, first off do these blogs have links of their own? And secondly awards season isn't over yet so maybe we can get something after? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stabby Joe (talk • contribs) 14:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Development Section

The Development section is extremely sparse, as it mostly covers the release date log of the game, rather than the actual development itself. I suggest that more info regarding the ideas around the game should be added. Two things I can think of are how the spherical world concept originated in Super Mario 128, and how the first proto-type came to be-- Miyamoto trying out different versions of the game, commenting on how "spicy" or "delicious" different versions felt. The Iwata Asks interview goes into detail about the development very much, I suggest that this be a very good source of info for later edits. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 17:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

As long as it's all sourced, i don't see any problems with expanding it, as long as it won't become extremely long. 86.88.117.225 (talk) 17:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Thomas. Why is it bad that the development section becomes long? That's what is needed; more real-world content, and less in-universe content. The Prince (talk) 17:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't have any problem with long. I said "extremely long". With that, i mean like 2 pages covering the every bit of detail(and with that i mean EVERY bit). 86.88.117.225 (talk) 18:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Small cleanup. First sentence contradicted article and was not sourced. First sentence stated that Galaxy was not 128, but then went on to talk about a 2000 demo. That 2000 demo was a part of the Mario 128 "experiments". Sheeeeeeep (talk) 23:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

According to issue 234 of Gamepro, Super Mario Galaxy is the highest rated game in history

"Nintendo's moustached mascot dethroned Ocarina of Time as the highest rated game of all time, averaging an astonishing 97.8 percent across 35 different review scores" Still though, that is only 35, I don't kno whow many critics rated OOT. Radiohumor (talk) 18:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

It's true. Mario Galaxy did surpass OoT at 31 reviews vs. 31 reviews (in fact, all the way up to 52 vs. 31), but due to alleged data manipulation by the GameRankings editor, this is no longer the case. Because of these concerns, we (the editors of WikiProject Video Games) have come to a consensus to stop citing rankings entirely. Wikipedian06 (talk) 02:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Well actually it was just you who thought there was a conspiricy, DON'T try and pass off what was widely discredited as fact to users who don't know why. What we did agree on however is mention of rankings is considered BIASED in wiki pages. Stabby Joe (talk) 12:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

242 Stars

There seems to be a disagreement on the number of Power Stars available in the game. I personally argue that the game offers 242 to collect, total. First Mario gets all 120 stars, and then Luigi gets all 120, making 240. Then, for each brother, a new star is opened, giving 242. I would consider Luigi's star collecting to be slightly different due to the increased difficulty. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 17:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Does the last star count for both brothers? In that case, it would be 242. Moccamonster (talk) 14:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
It is generally accepted that there are 121 stars that all can be gotten twice.→041744 03:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

GA Nom

This article looks great, and the game has been out for a long time. I used to edit the article before it came out, and the article has come a long way since then. So, I nominated it for ga status. Epass (talk) 16:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

That was inappropriate. The article still needs a lot of work on the development and reception sections. You should have discussed this first. The Prince (talk) 16:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
The game has been out for over 3 months. All major problems have been addressed. It doesn't have to be super-mega-perfect, it's just GA, not FA. It isn't under heavy editing anymore, so if there is something that needs fixing, it should be fixed, not just talked about. Epass (talk) 17:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
If you read this you'll probably understand that it's not ready yet. The "Sales performance" section also needs to be trimmed. And why are you implying that GA doesn't need to fulfill certain criteria? Before the things I mentioned are improved, this article is not GA material. The Prince (talk) 17:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I meant that I don't think the article is good enough for FA, but it is for GA. I suggest you add a template to the sales performance section. If there had been a template I would have not nominated it. I will withdraw my nomination and add said template to the article if you would like. I don't enjoy being in arguments. Epass (talk) 17:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate that. It is getting close to GA though, and when the things I mentioned are done, the article can be re-nominated. The Prince (talk) 18:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I added the two templates that I found describe the problem best. If anyone can find better ones, don't hesitate in changing them. Epass (talk) 18:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd approve it if the article didn't include guide content as it does. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
The article is fine. I don't really see any game guide content in the article, at all. It's just information about the gameplay of the game, which is a good thing. Game guide content is "To get this star you must blah blah jump on the goomba blah blah" Knowitall (talk) 21:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
"To get this end-game bonus, you must collect all of the stars". How many featured articles discuss end-game bonuses, and for the ones that do, how many have more notable ones than this? - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Maybe I'm insane, but I think that's fine to say what the SECOND CHARACTER YOU CAN PLAY AS IN THE GAME IS. Perhaps you can remove how to unlock him, but I really don't see it as game guide content. Knowitall (talk) 21:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
It's a secret character, it's not like we're presenting two equal characters, like we would if we were writing of the original Super Mario Bros. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

It depends upon the interpretation of how significant it is. Personally, I feel that it's needless to say how to get it, like" you must collect all of the stars". However, in omitting any reference to Luigi, the article may not be comprehensive. Ashnard Talk Contribs 10:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you could say Luigi becomes playable if certain conditions are met or something like that. I agree that Luigi should be mentioned somewhere. Epass (talk) 18:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)