Talk:Super Smash Bros. Brawl/Archive 15

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.
Archive 15


Contents

gameplay section picture

Could we have a different picture for the gameplay section? The picture of Mario begining his Final Smash doesn't represent the general gameplay. I don't have time to upload a picture myself, which is why i'm asking.Tuesday42 11:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there is one avible. Anubiz ? 12:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Maybe a picture from one of the posts about characters? --MunchableSandwich 12:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Can we put the Goldene imge up plese. Anubiz ? 12:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
It's just wario Dodging a goldeen. not much exiting about that. Perhaps a pic of mario using his special move to get pack on the stage?--Demonworks
Get one under the What is Smash? update on the official site. Showing the damage percentages of the character's is a true gameplay screen. (Zojo 16:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC))
If at all possible, can we find one that's at least 300px wide? I don't know that they have any, but it'd be nice... —Disavian (talk/contribs) 19:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Theres far too much new gameplay details to pick out a certain pic that represents all aspects. The mario picks represents one of the more major new gameplay introductions, the Final Smash, which was neither in melee or the original. I'd just leave it for now. But I suppose a better pic would be the one of mario, link, pikachu, and kirby reaching for the smash ball[1], I prefer that one a bit. If someone else finds a better pic though, of Final Smash or something else that represents the gameplay better i can be made to change. 68.195.110.145 19:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

But it's not a reason to remove an image. The article looks bad without one. --myselfalso 19:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Brief "guidelines" on posting on talk page

Okay when people are discussing on here can I request two things? One: Indent your posts. If you want to see how the formatting is done, I'll direct you to the powerhouse of discussions: WP:AN/I. While not perfect, people try to indent on every post, unless they need to respond to a particular post several lines back. Resetting the indent is either done for that reason or if the indenting becomes too far in. I'm not perfect, and no one is, but at least make an effort. Second: please try to spell correctly. I'm a terrible speller, but the spelling has reached a point where it is impeding on the general understanding of what is trying to be said. I know no one cares in forums, I get that, but here, what you say may be quoted later, responded to, or read. Nothing ever disappears here. If you blank it, it is in the history and will be restored, if an admin deletes it, other admins can still see it. I'm not great, no one is, but at least make an attempt. Okay down off the soapbox now. --Clyde (talk) 18:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. It's getting tiring trying to decipher bad spelling and trying to find out what message goes where. (Course, I'm not one to talk about spelling. I once said "My d*ck got stuck in my playstation". Haha!) Dengarde 18:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
firefox v2 has built-in spell checking (underlines words as in a word processor). i highly advise those with bad spelling to use it (+ it's better than internet explorer, for those who didn't know). Djchallis 10:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Developer?

The development section now says that the developer is Sora. First, where is the reference for this? And second, if it is true why isn't it on the "Developer(s)" part of the information box? It still reads "TBA". Unknownlight 00:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

It does? Where? ;o --Guess Who 01:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
It's gone now. It seemed to be added by 82.9.127.199 (comparison here). Unknownlight 04:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't even know why anyone thinks Sora is the developer... it's just idiocy. 07:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
I remember reading (I think on the main site) that Sora was established solely for the purpose of SSBB. I think thats why. Dengarde 07:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
And maybe the fact that Sakurai founded Sora and Sakurai is currently working on Brawl.--Viridistalk|contributions 07:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Sora was founded quite soon after Sakurai left, before Nintendo approached Sakurai about Brawl (which was post E3 2005). The old main site talked about a new studio being founded just for Brawl, but only referred to it as "The Studio". This has been brought up many, many times before. The developer cannot be Sora, or HAL. --Guess Who 08:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

It's a big, hodgepodge of a team. You got people from everywhere. Why not put under Developer "The Studio" and add the reference to it from when Sakurai called the developement team, "The Studio." (Course, now he just mentions Sora all the time so that might be "The Studio" now.) (Zojo 17:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC))

I agree with Zojo. We should put "The Studio" until a name is officially given, since Sakurai has called it "The Studio" himself. --myselfalso 17:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

This sound familiar, maybe because I suggested it up back in Archive 7... FMF|contact 18:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Can someone find a statement from Sakurai when he called them "The Studio" so we can use it as a source? --myselfalso 14:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Zojo. We should put "The Studio" until a name is officially given, since Sakurai has called it "The Studio" himself. --myselfalso 17:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


He has already confirmed that the studio name is Sora, go ahead and check it out on the site. As for the source for "The Studio", I don't think it's necessary we need it. However, as there is a development section in the article, I suppose it can be in there, but I stand by opinion. --Lostmeatthelost 21:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

That's fine with me, since it's already in the article. --myselfalso 21:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
If you're talking about where it says (Sora Ltd.) next to his name, that's his JOB. It isn't necesarily the company developing the game. Compareit to if you see a quote somewhere in a magazine or something. The ..?quotist's?.. proffesion usually follows their name.DurinsBane87 21:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm in the newspaper business (I'm the Editor-in-chief of Harrisburg Area Community College's newspaper The Fourth Estate), and we usually do Name (business). Or in the college case...name, age, major. Anyway, I would find it quite odd if he is developing this game with another organization while running another...that having been said, in the world of bands and music, some musicians have been known to be in multiple bands at once. (Take for example Jerry Garcia. While he was in the Grateful Dead, he was also in the Jerry Garcia Band. So, while I find it odd if Sakurai worked for two organizations at the same time, it's not like there aren't millions of people...if not a billion or two...who have more than one job.) --myselfalso 21:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, consider that while WE know who he is, people who play these games more casually might not know him. That being said, many of those people would visit the site, and see a quote from "some random guy." Having the company he works for would give his quote more meaning to those people. DurinsBane87 21:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, it's a hodgepodge of people who probably wouldn't be working together otherwise. It was a group created to make Super Smash Bros Brawl. "The Studio" is the only name they've been called. (Zojo 22:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC))

Can we find a link for "The Studio"? User Tuesday42 (talk · contribs) continues to remove "The Studio" from the developer row in the infobox. --myselfalso 04:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Citation found via google cache:[2]
Weekly Famitsu Column "Masahiro Sakurai's Thoughts About Games" Reproduced with permission from volumes 130-vol.132
Until the day comes when I can announce the team's name, I shall simply refer to them as "The Studio." - Page 3, possibly vol 132, but that's just a guess
- Zero1328 Talk? 06:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I do want to argue about how ridiculous this is, but my computer keeps crashing.Tuesday42 14:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps coming out in July?

I went to Hastings today and for some reason I saw a TBA list with Brawl marked as coming out in june. I asked the employees about the source and they said that they get the info from their company. Does anyone think this is possible? If so, is there info we don't know....? --24.183.231.30 06:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I seriously doubt that Brawl would come out in June. If it was, then the site would have alot more info. My best guess, by how the site's being updated, is that it will be released somewhere around september-october.

But, never believe what stores say. Why would Nintendo just secretly tell Hastings, and not the rest of the world? --Kenny2k 06:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

please, no more release dates. if they have one, it'll be from Nintendo themselves or an official Nintendo site. anything else is expected to be speculation &/or rumor. FyreNWater 07:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

It's exactly as you say. Many stores may put in a speculated date instead of TBA for various reasons, so it can never be used as a source. - Zero1328 Talk? 08:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't know. I was just wondering.
I personally think that Brawl will be released Nov. 23, 2007... Unknownlight 15:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
It's also a way, I believe, for stores to get you to reserve it now. They want to seal the deal with the customers but someone's not going to reserve a game that they have no idea when it's coming out. Any store's date is false (unless an official site has said it.) (Zojo 18:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC))

We had a discussion about this on one of the archives. Its been over 3 months since the date Best buy originally put up, and its not on shelves. 75.46.121.48 01:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the Gameplay merge

Although it was once whole stages and gameplay were merged there are two reasons why I disagree with this merge.

  • 1) With subsections, casual readers can quickly access to whatever they looking for, whether it be for stages or items, they can quickly get there by clicking on the menu.
  • 2) For us editors, if we want to make an immediate change to a certain, it would be a lot easier to click on the [edit] right next to the section instead of having to scroll down on the huge wall of text. magiciandude (Talk) (review) 20:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
We're going with a standard format: list gameplay elements under gameplay and create subsections if needed. Only characters needs its own subheading. TTN 20:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
And why is it only characters? magiciandude (Talk) (review) 20:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
It is a large enough topic to warrant it. The rest flow nicely in gameplay (or they will once we can fill it with better information.) TTN 20:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I beg to differ however, if someone is looking for something more specific than gameplay, then instead of scrolling all the way down, he/she could just use the subsection to get there faster. I don't know about you, but I don't like scrolling down on a wall of text just to find or edit to just a specific topic. magiciandude (Talk) (review) 20:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Go look at some of our featured game articles. They only split sections if it will help improve the flow of the article. In this case where much of the information will be cut eventually, it isn't necessary. TTN 20:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Except that all of those featured games have been released. There isn't a single featured article on a game that's not out so I don't see how this should follow those featured articles yet. magiciandude (Talk) (review) 20:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a video game. The others are video games. They all contain gameplay elements. How is the actual content any different? What real reason do we have to ignore them (besides your own preference)? TTN 20:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I know that they have gameplay elements, but using Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask as an example, it still has subsections (in fact, more than this article does). However, the reason that LoZ: MM doesn't have a list of every item or quest is because the game is already out. We wouldn't need to add content to that because Wikipedia isn't a walk-through, there is an article on items and characters on Majora's Mask, and it would make the article to long. But with Brawl, a game that still has barely any info, is different because there isn't different articles on specific things here. Not only that, but it's too early to generalize anything until the game comes out. Why merge when we don't know what new info we will be getting. For all we know, anything can have a drastic change from Melee to Brawl. And no, looking at the history page, from May 06 to now, the whole gameplay wasn't merged. The items and abilities had it's subsection just like the stages did. magiciandude (Talk) (review) 21:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with keeping the sections merged. I had mentioned this (probably in Archive 14), based on other gaming articles. Just because a game is not released does not mean we shouldn't follow in the example of other good or featured articles. The fact that it isn't released would suggest that there wouldn't be enough information for subsections at all. Only one new stage has been announced; a number of newcomer characters (Pit, Wario, Meta Knight) have been announced. This is why I believe that the characters section deserves to be a subsection and the levels does not. As far as I'm concerned, an article should not be written in the mind of convenience for the editor, but rather for the convenience of the reader, to make it the best article possible. More so, we can't have different standards for not-as-of-yet released games, because those standards could be all over the map depending at what stage of development the game is in. Not to mention the fact that it's a bit bureaucratic. I believe the way it is now is much better than how it was a week ago. --myselfalso 21:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I see, since I can't argue two against one, I guess that's an instant defeat for me. magiciandude (Talk) (review) 21:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

If it makes you feel any better, I agree with you. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 01:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

NP unveils Sakurai's daily weekday blog

Guys, on the "Hugely Anticipated Brawler" talk it was said that on the next NP issue they were going to reveal something new. Well, on the newest issue on the calendar part it was saying something about a character most rumored bearing the name of "Fabio". I think they mispelled Falco, but I don't think that this "Fabio" is the most rumored character. Maybe they revealed another charater. Remember, this is just my opinion. I would like to hear your opinions about it. Mr. Mario 192 16:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.193.117.66 (talk • contribs) 16:27, 10 June 2007

If a published work states something, we by default assume that it is true in terms of encyclopedic value and must wait for an official correction if we want it to change. I doubt that Fabio is the most rumored character (Fabio who?), but we'll go with that for now. Besides, "Fabio" and "Falco" are pretty far off. You Can't See Me! 20:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Fabio was mentioned a joke. Link provided FMF|contact 23:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Replace article citations from Smashbros.com

As a heads up, it would be best to find alternative references from the media since Smashbros.com is always subject to change again. Just a reminder - use the cite web template for the citations and fill out as much fields as possible. FMF|contact 23:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, for non-web related work (Famitsu, etc) see the citation templates. FMF|contact 17:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

hey, this is a really good idea. gives those constant editors something constructive to do. if had more time, i'd run through and find alternative links for sources. i guess i'll run through and find broken/relocated links to be fixed. FyreNWater 20:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Music Section

Speaking of music, what does everyone think of adding a section for music under Development, mentioning the wide collection of composers and the tracks that have been displayed on the site?--Viridistalk|contributions 08:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

A listing would be unencyclopedic, but I'm all for the mention of composer variety. - Zero1328 Talk? 10:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
No, it doesn't seem right, it would take up most of the article. OBEY STARMAN 11:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't really think it would take up most of the article, a few sentences is more than sufficient. To show the range we only need to give a few examples at most. - Zero1328 Talk? 11:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
If we do, we should atleast the song they just released today on the site, Metroid: Boss Battle Music (Ridley Fight). OBEY STARMAN 12:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

We should mention that there's a wide variety of proven composers, but i think it would be far too much to mention specific songs. The only particularly notable thing about the music IS the wide variety of composers. Making a Ridley theme in the game isn't particularly ground breakingDurinsBane87 12:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

True. It could lead people astray into thinking that Ridley is in the game (I hope he is, but there's nothing to confirm this, as usual). Joiz A. Shmo 14:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Sakurai did make a big deal about the number of musicians...at most that should be mentioned. No specific people or songs. Though, it may be worth mentioning that Sakurai is putting out music samples on the official site. (Zojo 23:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC))

ridley fight song

Why does the official brawl site have the ridley fight from metroid when sakurai didnt mention ANYTHING about brawl!! why is that? Did he forget that hes working on brawl, not metroid?--Demonworks

The music is going to be in the game. Be sensible. Joiz A|A. Shmo 15:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
It could possibly be the BG music for a Metroid-related stage, much like in the previous games. - Jeremy Plaza

Release date

Even I am reluctant while writing this, because release date suggestions are frowned upon. But to me, AOL looks like a reliable source. Take a gander at this. Winter huh?? Should it be mentioned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.195.110.145 (talk • contribs)

No, this is just as unspecific as all the other release dates we've seen. We all know it will be coming out in fall or winter. Joiz A. Shmo 19:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
"AOL looks like a reliable source." HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. no. why would Nintendo say it through AOHell and not their official site? FyreNWater 08:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

o ok now lets just end the discussion here before someone lectures me about no release date being given. I just thought it was from a reliable source and wanted to check it out with u guys. If we all know it'll be in winter, and it's somewhat confirmed, should we put that in the release dates? You know, just Winter 2007 rather than TBA 2007?? 68.195.110.145 21:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Thats totally wrong. Sakurai called me today and told me it's coming out on October 27, 2007. --Kenny2k 21:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

How about the only reliable source is Dojo right now? I'm pretty sure that's where we'll hear anything new about the release date first. Notice that the site has a catagory "Notices." (Zojo 22:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC))

If it IS coming out in 2007, then there are 201 possible days it could be released (as of June 13). However, I'm more than sure that its not coming out this month, so you could say theres 184 possible days... --Kenny2k 06:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Reference for "The Studio"

Exactly where is there anything on that article that is a valid reference to why it's called "The Studio"? It's not even mentioned. Dengarde 23:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Good point. Can anyone find anything where he refered to the team as "The Studio"? The only source I can recall is the official site before it's makeover. Still, even if a source is not found it can only be changed to UNKOWN. (Zojo 23:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC))

Sakurai did mention "The Studio", it was on DOJO! but it was taken off along with everything else about development after the remodeling a couple of weeks ago. You'll just have to take their word for it and know that he did mention it. 68.195.110.145 17:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The Studio was mentioned on the old site. As I recall, Sakurai stated that "The Studio" was ANOTHER game developer (which recently completely a game title) that was helping with the production. "The Studio" is NOT the team Nintendo set up for Sakurai to make Brawl, it is an as-of-yet unnamed company that is helping with production. The team set up for Sakurai is also as-of-yet unnamed, but in the original statements it was made quite clear. --Ultima 18:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Items paragraph

The paragraph was getting ridiculously chunky, so I have cut it down. We want a general overview, so most of the information was pointless. If someone want to describe the specific weapon types in a general manner, that would probably be fine. TTN 19:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Cut it down? You nearly cut it out!

The section was going to be restored anyway once the game comes out, so let's not inact solutions that involve the complete removal of the sub-section. SAMAS 21:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

It will not be brought back like that. We cannot just give random examples. We have to describe how the gameplay works, not give every detail. Only major points like the crates and Final Smashes need to be mentioned. TTN 21:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

List the characters?

On the first page of the Super Smash Bros. Brawl, shouldn't it say every character that will be in the game?--Scotty12 21:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Info on characters in Brawl can easily be found in the Super Smash Bros. (series) page in a handy chart in the Playable Characters section, so naming every character on the Brawl article seems like a waste of space. Disaster Kirby 21:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Plus, the official website has a movie with all the known characters, and articles on more than half. --Kenny2k 21:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)