Talk:Super Smash Bros. Brawl/Archive 32

Archive 25

←

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Isle of Ancients Image

The following image is in the SSBM article: Image:MeleeCharacters.jpg. I propose we put something like it in this article, the image of all the characters looking where the Isle of Ancients was (http://www.smashbros.com/en_us/gamemode/modea/images/modea17/modea17_080410l-l.jpg). It one of the most important images of Brawl, and I know another image might have to be removed, but it is more important the stage selection or the menu. They used it to replace the character selection menu, which could work here too. Epass (talk) 18:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Good luck finding a legit copy with a view facing their front. I suppose someone good with graphic manipulation could make their own using this page, but figuring out how exactly to Fair Use that would be headache-inducing. Arrowned (talk) 19:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Good point, although if anyone sees one, be sure to post a link here. Epass (talk) 19:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Give me some time, and I might be able to turn those sprites into a good image. Does anyone have a background image suggestion? --haha169 (talk) 00:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I just uploaded a partly done image to photobucket. I'm completely up for suggestions: [1] (and a background pic) --haha169 (talk) 04:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

List of praises and criticisms for this game

Positive points

• Graphics (character models)
• Wide variety/selection of music tracks
• Multiplayer
• Replay value/lasting power
• Amount of content/game modes
• Refines the tried-and-true Smash formula / gameplay more smooth and balanced

Negative points

Major critic complaints

• Subspace Emissary mode underwhelming (both in enemy and stage design)
• Long loading times
• Graphics
• Too similar to predecessors / lack of innovation
• Unstable/laggy online / limited functionality (only free-for-alls, no customizations, friend codes)

Other critic complaints

• Stage Editor restrictive / lots of limitations
• Hard for folks who aren't interested in Nintendo history to get into (GiantBomb)
• Doesn't really take advantage of the Wii's motion-sensing controls
• Random trophies/stickers lead to frustration in collecting them all / inflate game length
• Requirements for some unlockables serve only to inflate game length (play 100 hours of brawls, beat every mode w/every character, etc.)
• Some new modes serve only as filler/VC advertising (Masterpieces, Chronicles)

Fan complaints

• Roster size/selection
• Brawl physics/mechanics (tripping, etc.)

Sure, some of the complaints are overly nitpicky, but there are enough (as opposed to the pros which have pretty much been agreed-upon universally) such that a balanced perspective can be provided. Wikipedian06 (talk) 22:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Good job! You've got quite a nice list there. I haven't much time now, but if we could get some ref tags formatted and sentences scratched together, we'll be able to complete that Reception section and get the article underway for FA nomination! --haha169 (talk) 00:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

What exactly is your problem? No one is contesting any of the other complains or praises. It's the fan opinion from Jeff that's not a good source. We don't need to include any of those things, especially since the fans thing is opinionated in every aspect of the word. If you can source the negative complaints, go right ahead. It only makes you look like you're after to include as much negative in the article.

I'm completely dumbfounded as to why you even started a discussion about what negatives should be included.

I'd like to expand on that a bit more. The only heavily edited portion for the reception area would be "surprise" "surprise" Jeff' statements. So what does this serve to accomplish? Of course it has to neutral, but this is just ridiculous to how far people are taking this.--HeaveTheClay (talk) 00:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Nuetral yes, not making the reader think that the gme had no critism, perhaps after the overwhelming positive reveiws we just mention SOME of these on the list with a ref of course.→041744 13:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I've added pros as we're starting to go over board with the cons that before outweighed the pros. A comment from Game Informer on the games controls and one from Edge on the game/fighting mechanics. Plus it should be mentioned that we don't have to have 100% balance, for example like 6 pros and 6 cons. I mean its only one part that should be the focus on whether it becomes FA or not, there alot more article than that lol. The following featured articles highlight my point: Half Life 2, Okami, Shadow of the Colossus, BioShock, Super Smash Bros. Melee, Halo (and 2 and 3). Currently I personally feel the reception section is great. I'm actually supprised theres been so much "controversy" in the editting proccess, and I've done my share of reception sections... Stabby Joe (talk) 13:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The only thing I would do to the reception section is add something about the extensive number of songs. I found this quote:

There are nearly 40 musicians providing songs to what is one of the greatest Nintendo soundtracks available.

but since Matt Casamassina from IGN has already been quoted, I don't know if it would be better to find a different one.  Laptopdude  Talk  20:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It wouldn't be hard to find a comment on the songs given it being universally praised. EDIT: Added a pro from Game Revolution on the soundtrack. Stabby Joe (talk) 22:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, 1UP.com, however, suggests that Brawl is not directed exclusively towards gamers, since it offers "a curious diversion for uninterested gamers." seems more like a positive than a negative to me. Should it be moved? 76.6.33.126 (talk) 22:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Its not the most positive of comments, more neutral than a pro or con, given it being a concluding statement... that given, it should be the LAST comment for both pros and cons. Stabby Joe (talk) 23:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Archive

I have just archived this talk page. There were quite a few topics that were undiscussed for quite a long time. Since it is not appearing in the archive box for some reason, you can restore any accidentally archived discussions from here: [2] --haha169 (talk) 23:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Final Smashes

An article is being started at Super Smash Bros. Brawl: Final Smashes. Is this a reasonable split? I'd like the input of editors familiar with the game to evaluate it. —C.Fred (talk) 02:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no reason for that article to exist. It's pure fancruft. Satoryu (talk) 03:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

GiantBomb? (again) and GWN

Somehow it's concluded that GiantBomb is notable, influential and popular enough to act as a source of reviews? That a site established in March by a guy known only for being dismissed is popular? The archived conversation brought into account Alexa stats, they're pathetic for GiantBomb compared with the others listed.

The previous discussion was about whether it was a reliable source or not. I don't even care about this, I never bought this up when I first removed the reference or in my arguments previous. The argument is that reviews from Giant Bomb, and GWN have considerably less clout than Edge, GameSpot, Famitsu et al. The reception section has it wrong by shopping for reviews, oh, I need this piece of negativity, where shall I get that? Google->GiantBomb! It shouldn't be like that, it should be an overview of what the most popular and influential sources say. You shouldn't use GWN for slating the online mode, when GameSpy does it better,http://wii.gamespy.com/wii/super-smash-bros-wii/857904p2.html and you have Sakurai's comment on the matter.[3]

If you are having to resort to "boutique" review sites to source your piece of reception, then you're looking at it the wrong way and it shouldn't really be there. Incidentally, anyone who thinks "curious diversion" is positive, as 1UP's statement is quoted as implying is plain wrong. When it's being dismissed as nothing more than a curious diversion, it's not exactly a good thing. - 18:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

"Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." That is in Wikpedia policy. This discussion has been on for way to long, and if this keeps going the article will never get FA. The discussion is over, more people agreed to leave it in, can it be forgotten and we all move on? Epass (talk) 18:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I only skimmed through your message, but are you implying there are still people arguing over this? Since the consensus leans on letting Jeff stay, I haven't gone into BERSERK REVERT REVERT mode or something else. I have made healthy contributions to the article after reading the now archived discussion, although I will say I found it rather poor on some editor to archive it in less than a day before I have a chance to speak my mind, but whatever. What's done is done.

Edit: Did someone forgot to sign in? Did you write that Epass?--HeaveTheClay (talk) 21:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

While many were arguing over GiantBomb, the reception section has been expanded to the point of it being a small sentance in a massive bulk of text, text that is both positive and negative. Stabby Joe (talk) 22:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

According to the Edit History, the first paragraphs (up until the part about Wikipedia Policy) was written by user:Hahnchen. Epass (talk) 22:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Paragraphs? You mean the discussion right? Either way it doesn't matter now about GiantBomb, its not like its the only, let alone most important review comment given the large mount of others. Stabby Joe (talk) 23:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Full Roster Image

Could someone upload a better quality one? This one seems well...kind of...unclear compared to the other screenshots in the article--Smashbrosboy 03:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I could use some help with a new image that we're trying to develop. (See first discussion topic) --haha169 (talk) 23:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

FA Push

Alright. I believe that if we delete the stages image, then everything will be pretty much in order. Any comments? (Except for the reception section. We still need to work on that.) The rest of the article seems really nice. --haha169 (talk) 23:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

See Talk:Super Smash Bros. Brawl/Archive 31#What is left? for other things that need to be done. Epass (talk) 23:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Besides the images, of which I don't know much about and haven't be involved in, everything seems fine for an assessment AT LEAST! The reception disputes seems to have been settled... not to mention expanded (yes music has been mentioned to *sigh*) in the mean time lol! But of course if there is anything for the article on the whole to be improved then by all means state your reasons. Stabby Joe (talk) 23:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Epass, I've already seen that. I'm afraid I don't know how to do a copyedit, so I'm obviously not one to attempt it. There really isn't much left there to use as a foundation and discuss atop...so, should it be assessed, at least? In the last peer review, it was reviewed as it would have been by a FA assessor, and quite a lot of issues were fixed. (See peer review 2/review by User:Ashnard) --haha169 (talk) 04:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Than we should go for it. If it doesn't make FA now we just fix what needs fixing and nominate it again. Epass (talk) 10:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

alright. I will, once somebody figures out how to put that 1up comment has the conclusion to the reception section. --haha169 (talk) 19:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Which comment is it? Epass (talk) 19:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I just went a bit brain-dead. I was certain that there was some discussion on it...but whatever. Forget it. I'm putting this up for FA nomination since I just finished fixing those ref tags. --haha169 (talk) 20:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Can people who edit the article support the nom? I know that a GAN can't be reviewed by people who edit it, but I'm not sure if it applies to a FAC too. Epass (talk) 20:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Anybody can support it. With GAN, you can also support it, just not review it. With FAC, Raul reviews it and does everything. We can all support/oppose, though. --haha169 (talk) 20:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Australian Release Date

The Australian release date is supposed to be June. 1. The EB Games website [4] says June 2008. 2. Video game stores are saying June 2008. So can I put the date in? Mick 96 (talk) 11:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Those are placeholder dates. -Sukecchi (talk) 11:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Why can't we put them in anyway? Mick 96 (talk) 11:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

No, WP:VG/DATE lists that "For unreleased games, vendor sites should not be used as verifiable sources since their date is likely based on their best estimate of when the game is to be out; always look for corroborating statements from reliable sources to confirm these dates." Logan GBA (talk) 14:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

There's no official sources, but I heard from a local games shop it's June 15 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.215.219.127 (talk) 23:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

"No official sources" = We're not putting it in the article, and you shouldn't believe it. Until Nintendo themselves reveal a release date, nothing should be taken as legit. Arrowned (talk) 23:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

In the infobox, the Australian Release date, (TBA), has been redlinked because it was deleted by an administrator. What replacement should be use? --haha169 (talk) 00:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Either TBD 2008 or just 2008. I'd opt for just 2008. Satoryu (talk) 00:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Probably. Does the cite say its in 2008, though? If so, add simply, 2008. --haha169 (talk) 00:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the source says only TBC. Satoryu (talk) 02:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Well there is a TBC article, but it seems to be having same issues with as the TBA one. I fear it will soon be deleted as well. Hopefully, by then, we will have a real Australian release date. Add that on if you’d like. --haha169 (talk) 04:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Recent Reception Edits

Wikipedian06 has recently removed a multiple comments from reception because he PERSONALLY thinks that its "bloated" despite the fact you can pick out many other FEATURED articles with larger reception sections: BioShock, Rise and Fall: Civilizations at War, Age of Mythology, Super Smash Bros. Melee, Halo: Combat Evolved, Okami, Supreme Commander, The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind and others. Stabby Joe (talk) 21:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

You can edit it. Go ahead! I personally don't agree with Wikipedian's removal either. --haha169 (talk) 21:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Way ahead of you lol! And BTW, those are the FA articles with larger ones that I know of. Stabby Joe (talk) 21:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Wait, but not like that. You just messed up the reference templates to make it just a simple link again (what Wikipedian did). I recently re-did them to match up with the rest of the article, but your reversion changed it back. Could you manually revert it, this time?

I couldn't revert it as many other edits came since then, so I copied the last version of the original section. I was afraid that something like that would happen, my bad sorry. Stabby Joe (talk) 21:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

It's all right. You should copy it to Notepad, do your edits, and copy&paste immediately to avoid edit conflicts. I'm doing a major ref tag revision right now (see FAC), so this article might be a bit busy. --haha169 (talk) 21:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I can't fix it right now as I have no idea what needs to stay over the original. Stabby Joe (talk) 21:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I already restored the GCN graphics comment. Chris Slate's comment needs to be put back in. The 1up one should be put back in (just not all that stuff below it. Only the 1up comment and its ref tag). That should clear it up. I agree with all his defluffing, just not his removal of full comments. --haha169 (talk) 21:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Well I've re-added comments that were removed, not to mention restored some that were shortened, as some comments made better sense with full, of course one or 2 wers shortened fine however. Now I don't know about Wiki6 but I thought it was quite obvious that the reception was of good length, if you look at many others. Stabby Joe (talk) 21:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedian! You said look at Twilight Princess. I'm looking, and I see 3 full paragraphs of reception, plus several more on sales. If you trim it down like that, we have two small paragraphs of reception, plus one even smaller one on sales. --haha169 (talk) 23:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and now I'm looking at Wii Play. Do you honestly want us to mimic that article? Its not HALF as long as Brawl. Mario Galaxy isn't even GA-class yet, so what would you expect? The only good example you gave was Twilight Princess, and their reception section (as I said before), was longer than what you stated. (Now....lets look at BioShock, Rise and Fall: Civilizations at War, Age of Mythology, Super Smash Bros. Melee, Halo: Combat Evolved, Okami, Supreme Commander, The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind)--haha169 (talk) 23:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what happened, but I appreciate those who condensed the reception. Each critique lead to another quite nicely and for what it's worth, I think right now we have mentioned everything worthwhile (be it music, gameplay, or WiFi). I stand behind the current revision and wish to speak my concern over the editor who is removing portions of it. --HeaveTheClay (talk) 23:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, HeaveTheClay. You should thank Stabby Joe, although I did help a bit. I was finally satisfied with the reception section, which is why I nominated it for FA. We can't have this now...we just can't. --haha169 (talk) 23:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

If I can make one suggestion, the Nintendo Power quote does not really add anything to the game's reception. Either the quote should be removed or a better quote should be used in its place. Satoryu (talk) 02:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The Nintendo Power does seem a little general...plus, there is some issues with that particular reference template. Could someone fix it, since the reference leads to the Nintendo Power wikipedia article? Fixed --haha169 (talk) 19:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Stages image

Should it be deleted, or kept? I count 7 non-free images. It would be safe to keep it with 6. --haha169 (talk) 22:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Its not the most piece of info, I'd remove it. Stabby Joe (talk) 22:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and as a side note, I added fair use rationale templates to an image. I didn't realize that they were lacking... --haha169 (talk) 22:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, then. I'll remove that image within an hour if no one opposes. --haha169 (talk) 19:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

"E-Sport" Criticisms

I've heard a lot of mention of SSBB being a failure as an e-sport due to certain amounts of dumbing-down compared to SSBM (the removal of wave-dash is the only actual example I have managed to find). I've heard this from a number of people from various forums on the Internet, but haven't found anything credible on the topic. I came to Wikipedia trying to learn what the criticisms were, but they're not here.

Does anyone know if such criticisms are actually prevalent among the "pro-gamer" crowd? Is SSBB considered a step backward by serious, competitive players? That seems quite relevant for an article like this if so, but I don't know and don't know where to find out if this is true. Just thought I would bring it up. --134.173.59.171 (talk) 23:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The removal of the wavedash doesn't hurt the competitive players. The problem is the slower play, falling, multiple air dodge, which nerfs the usefulness of techniques like fast falling. And with many characters the most efficient way to win is by camping. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.253.52 (talk) 22:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Criticisms of this nature aren't mentioned here on Wikipedia because no legitimate news source has touched on them, primarily because the game only just came out and it's far too early for places like 1up.com, IGN, or Gamespot to be mentioning such things when the competitive crowd hasn't even figured it out themselves. All I can suggest to you is to keep an eye on the competitive scene over the next few months. By then, views will likely be more cemented, to a point where other sources may mention them, which in turn would allow us to mention them in this article. Arrowned (talk) 23:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

All Star mode was not even mentioned?

I have added a sentence about it under Solo. Why wasn't it mentioned at all?--Smashbrosboy 03:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, um, we're trying to cut down on the Gameplay section. Let's see how it looks now. --haha169 (talk) 19:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

It's kind of just there as its own paragraph. Perhaps it should be merged into the first paragraph. Beat me to it. Satoryu (talk) 19:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I've integrated that into the first paragraph of the Solo section. --haha169 (talk) 19:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

On a similar note, should Boss Battles be mentioned as well? Satoryu (talk) 19:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought about that too. This is problematic. We've already received complaints about an over-long Gameplay section by Ashnard in the previous peer review. I honestly don't know. If you could make it as inconspicuous as possible...--haha169 (talk) 19:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking of making one sentence to cover both All Star and Boss Battles, like below:

Similar to Classic Mode are All Star Mode and Boss Battles, but the player has only one life to defeat all of the playable characters and bosses, respectively.

Satoryu (talk) 20:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Perfect...perfect. Though this is probably our last addition to the gameplay section. --haha169 (talk) 20:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, I personally feel that it's too long as it is, and am wincing at the thought of expansion. When writing gameplay, I give the fundamentals, notable changes form predecessor, and just the general jist of how the game is played, which is what I done for Melee. By the way, I won't get to review the article at FAC beacuse, as my userpage says, I'm too busy with work at school right now. See if anybody else brings this up, although if they do, I have a feeling it will be somebody outside WP:VG. Good luck with the FAC. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 19:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm hoping to get away with it, since our Gameplay section isn't too horribly bad. If worst comes to worst, we obliterate the SSE plot and get rid of some random solo artifacts. --haha169 (talk) 20:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Zero Punctuation not a reliable source?

How are the Zero Punctuation reviews not reliable sources? They're reviews done by a man for escapist magazine. Why can't they be cited exactly? They are on many other wikipedia pages. Unless you want to go through every single page a Zero Punctuation review is and remove them, there's no reason to remove this one.Geshpenst (talk) 05:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Show me those pages. They may be done by "a man for the escapist magazine"^[sic], but I feel the nature of Zero Punctuation (i.e. by someone who isn't exactly a professional video game reviewer) disqualifies it. And even if I am proven wrong, there are already undue-weight concerns regarding the criticism. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Karistaa Usko)} 05:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I've cited the review. I don't feel that the review isn't NPOV, for example many gamespot reviewers have reputations around the place for having their own opinions, yet they're still reviews and as such are still valid reference points. Zero Punctuation is getting some fairly good exposure around the place (For example, he was invited to the Game Developer's Choice Awards), and a reputation for being 'painfully honest' about games. All the points he makes are valid, it's on a notable website, and I honestly don't feel as though there's any reason for this review not to be mentioned, even if it does contrast the majority of views. It's still a legitimate review whether people agree with it or not. Geshpenst (talk) 07:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

No no no, there's problems with undue weight in this article, not the review. As it sits the ZP review here just seems a bit like piling on. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Karistaa Usko)} 09:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I see what you mean, but I don't think that's a terribly good basis to not include the review. If Gamespot were the ones saying this, would it still be considered undue weight? Geshpenst (talk) 10:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Its hard to say given the GS are alway mentioned when reception sections are first creative. Now we're dragging the reception out now, which it seems fine to be in an FA article, now it seems we're being positive and/or negative for the sake of it (mostly negative). Stabby Joe (talk) 12:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Stabby Joe sums it up exactly. There appears to be far too much negativity in the Reception section; could we see if there is any redundance in critics' criticisms and remove some of them? -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Karistaa Usko)} 18:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Slow down, I meant that there have been a couple of ones ON TOP of what we already have which is being negative/positive for the sake of it. The current state has more pros than cons (7:6), just that there plenty of both. And its not that con based given that the cons are minor, IGN have a pro comment before and the pros included "one of the best Nintendo games" and other strong words. I wouldn't change any personally, although I see where you're coming from. Just make sure to dicuss it first here before making any major edits. Stabby Joe (talk) 19:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

...Yahtzee's reviews are satire. He has stressed he often focuses on the negatives because his reviews are funnier. Including a satire review into a critique portion is simply foolish, that's like adding Stephen Colbert comments on people's receptions over at Wikipedia because he said it. --HeaveTheClay (talk) 23:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I haven't heard of this source nor even seen it, let alone in this article. Does it go by another name or have I missed it? Stabby Joe (talk) 00:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Zero Punctuation is a weekly video review by "Yahtzee" Croshaw; at present it's one of the most popular weeklies at the Escapist's website. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Karistaa Usko)} 00:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah... then no its not credible. Stabby Joe (talk) 01:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Then shall I remove it? nm, already done. Coincidentally, I also removed the ZP review note from Condemned 2. I'm checking the articles of other games Yahtzee's thoroughly trashed. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Karistaa Usko)} 06:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh come on, seriously? May I see where he said his own reviews are considered satire? Sure, his reviews are a tad 'alternative' and he has no problem trashing a game if he feels it deserves it, but so far you haven't given any evidence to say why his reviews aren't credible. Is the Escapist on a blacklist of unsourcable websites? I'd also like to add that both Ben Croshaw and Escapist Magazine both already feature on wikipedia. Ben also writes the back page column in PC Gamer, and The Escapist has around 150,000 readers a month. The Zero Punctuation section caused their monthly bandwidth to increase by 400%. Geshpenst (talk) 08:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Zero Punctuation is a prominent source of online reviews, I can't understand why his reviews would not be accepted here. Some of his most positive and negative reviews so far are included in "Reception" sections on The Orange Box and Turok (2008 video game). While he tends to focus on the negative aspects of a game, this doesn't mean his reviews are not notable. He has done several strongly positive reviews of games that deserved it. Also, I would question what makes Yahtzee not a professional reviewer: he does get paid by the Escapist to do his reviews Minion-for-hire (talk) 10:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Care to list better examples like FA articles? You look as those for whats best. Stabby Joe (talk) 12:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

GA or FA articles? Geshpenst (talk) 12:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I had listed a GA article The Orange Box, but not, I'll grant an FA. A brief riffle through a handful of the games reviewed on Zero Punctuation finds mention in the Medal of Honor: Airborne (B-class) article, in addition to the two I'd already mentioned, as well as the deleted references in this one and the Condemned 2 article mentioned already in this discussion. Most of the articles don't mention qualatative reviews, only giving the quantative score, which Yahtzee doesn't do. However, the better articles seem to go into detail, both good and bad. Minion-for-hire (talk) 15:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Well I more confused on why we need to add more comments, regardless of which source. I mean in theory if we add ZP then why not other sources? There are many more than just that. We've got pros and cons covering most if not all. Many appear to be ok with its current state. Further expansion to that section will come with PAL sales and any awards by the end of the year if thats what you're concerned about. I would like to be enlightened on why ZP MUST BE in the article, given that its not in many, let alone FA articles. And I'm really asking and not trying to start and heated debate or edit war. Stabby Joe (talk) 17:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I would think just because it adds an interesting / alternative opinion of the game, for example I wouldn't bother putting his thoughts on Jericho into the article because he's basically said what every other reviewer said in that instance, while in reviews of games like Brawl he beings up legitimate points which other reviewers have not. Geshpenst (talk) 22:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Such as? Stabby Joe (talk) 23:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

(reindent) Actually, complaints about unlockable content and button-mashing are contradictory to what other professional reveiwers have noted (they don't mind the unlockable content and have not criticized the gameplay). -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Karistaa Usko)} 01:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I also find it curious that M-f-H would make such a jump, from biographies to video game articles. Look, I'm a ZP fan, too, but I base my arguments on whether or not to allow them in WP:RS and WP:UNDUE.-Jéské ^{(v^_^v Karistaa Usko)} 01:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Jéské... What is the point you're making about biographies? I didn't mention any biographies here, unless I mistyped a link by accident, which I don't think I did. In in any case, the point I had been making was that I don't agree with the argument that ZP is not a suitable reference. One suggestion was that yahtzee was not a professional reviewer: this is simply not true. Now I'm not trying to argue that ZP should always be accepted. I'll even accept the argument that there may be enough pros and cons here. However, deleting ZP references as unacceptable in general seems odd to me. 89.101.87.209 (talk) 10:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC) Apologies, this is me. Minion-for-hire (talk) 10:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Look at your contributions, Minion. Click the link called "my contributions" at the top of the page. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Karistaa Usko)} 18:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

What's M-f-H exactly? I think the stance you're trying to say now is that if one reviewer says something, and is the only one to say it, then it's not worth putting in a wiki article. If that's what's keeping Ben Croshaw's review out, then you'd better go to every article on every video game ever and make sure you haven't included any comments from gamespot/ign that weren't backed up by another reviewer. Geshpenst (talk) 12:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

M-f-H is Minion-for-hire (talk · contribs). The stance I'm trying to say is that Yahtzee is not a professional reviewer; thus his reviews aren't the wisest idea with regards to Wikipedia sourcing. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Karistaa Usko)} 18:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm still waiting on why MUST he be included given we've covered alot with MANY other reviews? What has he said exaclly? Stabby Joe (talk)

He gets paid to do his reviews, so therefore he's a professional reviewer. I do agree that his input may not be necessary in this particular article as his thoughts don't particularly reflect the general reception of the game though Geshpenst (talk) 03:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I could get paid to review something like, say, Shin Megami Tensei. Doesn't make me a professional reviewer. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Karistaa Usko)} 20:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

This isn't the point. The fact is that the PUBLISHER needs to be reliable. If IGN pays you to review, then IGN will proofread your review to make sure it does not include false information. You need to establish Zero Punctuation's notability and reliability; the reviewer is merely the publisher's writer. --haha169 (talk) 23:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/ There's your website. I don't exactly see why they couldn't be considered reliable: They've been nominated for a Webby award. Also, I don't think you'll explicitly find it stated on IGN anywhere that they 'check to see if reviewers are reviewing something notably', so I doubt I'll find such a statement on the Escapist website. Here's their about page if that's good enough though: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/content/about Not sure what else I could provide. Geshpenst (talk) 23:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

That's interesting news, yes, but according to WP:V, could you find anything more reliable than an about page? IGN, Gamespot, 1up, and Famitsu have all passed WP:V's screening. I don't know how, since I wasn't part of the process, but you might need to find that out. And finally, I think the reception section looks nice, why do you want this particular review in the article? --haha169 (talk) 23:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Because a lot of the time ZP reviews bring up VERY true points that other reviewers don't even touch (IMO I think a lot of sites' reviews are paid, but hey, that's just my opinion). Particularly the point about half the game's content needing to be unlocked, I've heard that from a fair few people who've brought it to parties only to find that they've been limited to half a game Geshpenst (talk) 23:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Then stop playing video games. All of them have content that needs unlocking before you can access them (such as new levels, new items, etc); Mortal Kombat and The Legend of Zelda: Oracle of Ages are especially heinous in this regard. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Karistaa Usko)} 23:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Metroid Prime 3 has a large amount of unlocking as well. I heard that IGN brought up the fact that Brawl is attempting to prolong gameplay time by use of all these unlocking mechanisms. Its not unheard of, just a bit rare. Also, it isn't too notable to add into the reception section. --haha169 (talk) 00:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep that's fine, I can see how it's not really notable enough for this article Geshpenst (talk) 13:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Yahtzee has also done professional reviews for Australian gaming magazine Hyper. I fail to see how his opinion on a game can be discredited and regarded as an unreliable source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.57.76.80 (talk • contribs) 20:44, 1 May 2008

His Hyper reviews may be credible, but as ZP is known to be for entertainment and not serious review purposes it is unfathomable to include the ZP reviews. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v E pluribus unum)} 23:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The Zero Punctuation review should not be cited. It's a review of a fighting game by a guy who hates fighting games. Besides, there's enough criticism of a game that has a metacritic average of 94%. Quit being ridiculous.

You miss the point, 24. The problem is with the review itself - Zero Punctuation is not intended as a serious review. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v E pluribus unum)} 23:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Mind showing us where that is stated? Geshpenst (talk) 22:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Geshpenst, the problem with this discussion is the fact that there is absolutely no need for another review to be put in the article. --haha169 (talk) 23:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd include him because A) It's important to state that other opinions besides "This is the best game ever" are out there and B) it was big enough to warrent a response. Nothing huge, just a couple of sentences.

EU release date confirmed by Nintendo

http://www.nintendo.co.uk/NOE/en_GB/news/2008/nintendo_announces_q2_release_schedule_7920.html

That is pretty official. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mustanaamio - resurrection (talk • contribs) 10:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and it is definitely not a filler date, they just don't put one in if there is no set date. Add it in. Epass (talk) 10:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I've updated the info box with this source and dateSylvanelite (talk) 11:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Famitsu Reference

Current Ref number 66 needs replacement. It doesn't establish notability, (see FAC). Same with current ref 68. Those two are of some serious concerns right now. --haha169 (talk) 20:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Does anybody know the page number of Famitsu's review? --haha169 (talk) 18:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

nvm. I fixed it. --haha169 (talk) 23:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Pictures

Can someone get a better picture? The one of Pit is really awful. You can't really see anything. It really detracts from the article as a whole. ForestAngel (talk) 20:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I personally think the new one is awful. The previous one shows a platform gaming, while the new one looks just like another stage. --haha169 (talk) 22:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I see nobody is arguing my point. Not even NES Boy after I left a note on his talk page. Does this mean that I can revert it back to its previous version? --haha169 (talk) 04:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm with you on this. The Mario and Pit picture had a better purpose. Satoryu (talk) 05:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the full, original picture is even better. --(trogga) 16:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, I agree that the full version is better. I feel the enemy life bar is important in differentiating SSE from regular Brawl gameplay. Satoryu (talk) 20:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is a good idea. But what about the player's life icons? You have to keep that in there as well. --haha169 (talk) 21:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Featured topic

I don't know if this has already been said, but if this article becomes a FA, this topic (Super Smash Bros.) should qualify as a featured topic under its criteria, with two FAs and two GAs. Mr. Absurd (talk) 06:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for mentioning that! Its interesting news...seeing as I don't know much about Featured Topics.--haha169 (talk) 23:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Enemies Page?

I was just wondering if it would be possible to make an article for the enemies of the story mode. I've been wondering about this for a while. If anyone could, please answer my question. Pokemon Guy (talk) 13:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

No per WP:CRUFT. Satoryu (talk) 16:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

It's irrelivant, especially since they only appear in Brawl, and not in the other games, like Master Hand. Chaoshi (talk) 17:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Physics Engine

Should we at some point in this article mention that this game uses the Source Engine for its physics, because that seems like a pretty important thing, like something you would want to mention... Raptor Messiah (talk) 18:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Havok =/= Source. Just because Source is based off Havok does not mean they are one and the same. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v E pluribus unum)} 18:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Rotation isn't new

The game mode rotation is stated in the article to be new to this game, but in the previous game, Super Smash Bros. Melee, you could play in a winner/loser out- game mode as a rule under tournament mode.
I think that stating that this mode is new is wrong.

Margnus1 (talk) 10:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, then. Could you make a revision and put it on this talk page? It would be helpful. (Make sure to be grammatically correct, since this article is coming under heavy fire about this at the FAC.) --haha169 (talk) 17:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Rotation does the work for you in selecting what players play in a match through multiple options. For one, multiple people can be swapped out between matches. From what I remember, Melee only had basic options. Satoryu (talk) 19:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

We should leave it the way it was. Sakurai pretty much mentioned it was new in the cite, and we can't original research. We can't do 1+1=2 unless a site says so. --haha169 (talk) 03:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Spectator

I just put a fact tag next to the sentence that says Spectator matches are previously recorded online matches. Previously, the article said the matches were offline. Checking the Iwata Asks interview, I did not see a confirmation of either. Is there a source out there to confirm this? Cause if not, the sentence should be deleted altogether. Satoryu (talk) 01:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I deleted it, and then I saw your message. I believe it should be removed as well, since the whole online/offline topic is controversial. --haha169 (talk) 03:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

SSE Plot

Should this be removed? It was brought up as "confusing" by an FAC reviewer and I think she has a point; most people won't care unless they no stuff about Nintendo history. Fancruft? --haha169 (talk) 03:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't really see it as fancruft; it's expected for games with storylines to have sections on said plot in their articles. I'm sure it could be streamlined though. Arrowned (talk) 04:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but it's current quality isn't an argument against its existance. No matter how insignificant it is, it needs to be covered to grant comprehensiveness. Saying that, I don't know why it's a subsection within gameplay, even if it ties closely with SSE. Just work on improving it. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 08:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

PC Image Caption

Ok, this is going on long enough. I'll answer any question HeaveTheClay or anyone else has regarding to the playable characters image's caption. Sonic is mentioned due to his status as a third-party and previous rival of Mario/Nintendo. That enough? Third-parties are a big news and large additions to Brawl. --haha169 (talk) 02:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Finally, it says "Nintendo mascots". Snake and Sonic aren't Nintendo mascots. --haha169 (talk) 02:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I feel your caption was perfectly fine. The examples used were just that: examples. Whether Snake or Sonic is mentioned does not matter, as long as one of them is mentioned because of their thrid party notability. Though I believe I see where HtC is coming from, if I can assume a little bit. People might try to change the examples like they did/do throughout the rest of the page. The composer debate comes to mind. So the question is whether or not actual examples are absolutely necessary. Satoryu (talk) 15:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Well then, I feel we have to mention third party, so how about this: "Nintendo mascots such as Mario as well as third-party representatives such as Sega's Sonic are among the 35 selectable characters from the final roster." ? The only character mentioned is Mario and Sonic, and seeing that their rivalry was rather famous, it is quite notable. --haha169 (talk) 00:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. Satoryu (talk) 02:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't. I feel like Snake has just as much as a right as Sonic to be mentioned. He was the first third party character shown and started his franchise in America on the NES. Which is why since I don't agree with Sonic (and vice versa), we don't mention any third parties.--HeaveTheClay (talk) 14:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

However, you have to know, before, "Selection of characters from Super Smash Bros. Brawl" isn't a sentence. It is a fragment. Lacks a subject. At least now, we have a subject (final roster). --haha169 (talk) 22:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I think mentioning no examples whatsoever would please both sides. Perhaps only the amount of playable characters should be mentioned. Something like "The final roster in Super Smash Bros. Brawl consists of 35 playable characters." Satoryu (talk) 01:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure. A more expanded one, "The final character roster consists of 35 playable Nintendo and third-party mascots." --haha169 (talk) 03:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Wait a second, third-party means "not created by Nintendo, but appearing on a Nintendo console," right? Sonic applies to that, but Snake does not! (there's never been a Metal Gear game on a Nintendo console, has there?) That makes him... 0th party? 4th party? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.70.113 (talk) 04:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

There have been four: Metal Gear, Snake's Revenge, Metal Gear: Ghost Babel, and Metal Gear Solid: The Twin Snakes. Satoryu (talk) 04:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

PC Image

The guy at FAC (elco) has said that the PC Image doesn't need to be there since the cover already offers what the game's roster looks like. Discussion? Agree or Disagree. --haha169 (talk) 04:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

PEGI age rating?

Just wondering, why there is PEGI age rating listed in article? Does anyone know this reason? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.27.0.251 (talk) 14:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Because the game is coming out in Europe in a month and a half and people there who browse en.wikipedia may care to know what the rating is? Not to mention {{vgratings}} offers a range of options, and you're expected to use the ones relative to the article you're using the template in. Arrowned (talk) 14:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Reception

It shouldn't be said that Brawl got "generally positive reviews". Its lowest score was 93%. I consider that very postive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.229.168.72 (talk) 00:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Please read previous discussions before bringing up a question. It has been asked; we have a policy of WP:NPOV here on Wikipedia, so that is just to be safe. Anyways, you just mentioned the average - some reviewers thoroughly disliked Brawl. --haha169 (talk) 06:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Throughly disliked Brawl? The absolute lowest score given to Brawl (that I know of) was 8/10 by Giant Bomb. If it was given an 8/10 score, then obviously the reviewer didn't "throughly dislike" it. Unknownlight (talk) 03:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

While "generally positive" is used in the intro, "critical acclaim" is used in the Reception and Sales section. We should pick one or the other. Satoryu (talk) 03:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

A lot of other highly acclaimed games use the words "highly acclaim" or "universal acclaim", so i don't see how this breaks the NPOV policy. I say we use highly acclaim in the intro, since it is obvious it has been given great acclaim. Moccamonster Talk 19:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

We ran into problems with that previously, but by all means, do it. It doesn't matter to me, and this article is recieving lower traffic now. Oh, and what will be the status of the article after the British release?--haha169 (talk) 02:11, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Well we have got some British reviews mentioned already, regardless of the later release date. Stabby Joe (talk) 22:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I meant rampant editing like what happened after the Japanese release, and on a lesser scale, the American release. --haha169 (talk) 22:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, well I'm going to guess not as much given that unlike the Japanese and North American released, the UK and Australian release is long after pretty much all wiki info required has been added (except for PAL sales of course). I mean sure more would look at this page but can they really do anything else? Stabby Joe (talk) 00:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. If I remember correctly, the semi expires sometime in June, and some IPs have been waiting for ages to edit this article... --haha169 (talk) 06:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC) Ahh...yes... Wikipedia's Protection Log: [5] States that Brawl is:

• Super Smash Bros. Brawl‎ (56,301 bytes) ‎(semi protected, expires 18:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC))
• Brawl's Protection Log Page: [6] --haha169 (talk) 06:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Who's waiting and what do they want to edit? To do anything major at this stage isn't required. Stabby Joe (talk) 20:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

There are 39 characters in Brawl, not 35

I'd like to request that the section related to the playable characters be changed. It states that there are a total of 35 playable characters, but in actuality, there are 39. Please note that Pokemon Trainer counts not as 1 but 3 separate characters (Squirtle, Ivysaur, and Charizard). Also, Zelda can transform into Sheik (shiek?), and Sheik into Zelda, making her count as 2 separate characters. Finally, Samus can transform into Zero Suit Samus, and Zero Suit into Samus, making her count as 2 separate characters as well. Although there are indeed 35 portraits on the character select screen, players can choose from a grand total of 39 different characters by clicking on their portraits when applicable (click on the Sheik portion of Zelda's portrait to begin the match as Sheik; click on any of the three Pokemon in the Pokemon Trainer portrait to begin the match with a specific Pokemon; finally, hold the shield button before selecting Samus to play as Zero Suit. Keep it held until the screen moves on to the stage selection). Agreed? Rubilacxe (talk) 20:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The game says 35 characters. We've had this discussion before. Thank you for asking though. -Sukecchi (talk) 20:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

no, Pokemon Trainer is one character. if the characters are listed as one set, they are one character. so Zelda/Sheik is one, Zero Suit Samus/Samus is one, and pokemon trainer is one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.67.128.65 (talk) 20:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

North America and Japan release dates

I added references for the North American and Japanese release dates, which were deleted because "the game has already been released". I must disagree, however, because just because a game has been released doesn't mean we don't document any references about it. Yes, the information may not be too important, but it certainly doesn't detract anything from Wikipedia. In fact, removal of it seems to contradict Wikipedia's policy of referencing data, as well as the policy on no original research.

--Gaijin Ninja (talk) 21:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

References are only needed for future releases. When a game has been released, there's no need for a citation. Check any other game article. Past releases are not cited. Satoryu (talk) 22:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

--First off, I cite Wikipedia:When_to_cite#Examples as my backup to this. The article states that references are to be to be used for "data and statistics". A (release) date is a numerical statistic, just like any other piece of data. Your argument "check any other game article", is also weak. Wikipedia:Be bold, states that if you see something that can be improved, do it yourself. This is a simple reference to make sure that we're not just making stuff up. Right now, for all we know, somebody could have just thrown a dart at a calender and called it the release date. Furthermore, check the Halo 3 article. The release dates for a past date are referenced, making your previous statement incorrect. --Gaijin Ninja (talk) 01:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Some do, some don't. There doesn't seem to be a concrete ruling for this.

I won't argue about putting the info in, but I do have to question the reliability of GameFAQs. Satoryu (talk) 03:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I question the reliability as well. And also, when you add a reference, please do not include a bare reference. Please template it like this: <ref>{{citeweb|url=|title=|publisher=|author=|date=|accessdate=}}</ref>. Thank you. --haha169 (talk) 03:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Now, I see only one example. Halo 3 can do whatever they want, but for uncontroversial issues like this, it is up to the article to determine what to do. And also, if you'll check the article's history, nobody can get away with putting up a false date, so that's not an issue. I really don't care if there is a reference, but if there is, find one that is reliable (such as the smashbros site, Gamespot, etc.) and please format it using the above template. --haha169 (talk) 03:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Smash Bros. Wiki

we should link to the smash bros. wiki at http://super-smash-bros.wikia.com/wiki —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.62.226.101 (talk) 12:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Old discussion, talked about several times already. ((series) Talk archive 5, (series) Talk archive 8, Brawl Talk archive 23, Brawl Talk archive 29, and Brawl Talk archive 31) The answer is likely still no, the reasons are in those discussions. Re-arguing consensus is up to you, but just make sure you've read those old discussions first, please. Arrowned (talk) 18:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The answer is most likely no again. I was also responsible for bringing up one of those discussions. But you have to know, the quality of Smashwiki has improved greatly, especially after the merge. They have verifiability policies now...and all their images are now low-res to comply with fair-use. Its becoming better. We might be able to link to it one day - just not today. --haha169 (talk) 03:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

FA push

I'm not sure how many people are still visiting this talk page, but I want to get the message across that I am attempting another FA push. Does anybody have any suggestions to fix this article up a bit? Anybody want to help me as a co-nom? (Trust me...that last nomination was crazy. These reviewers are tough).

Simply, if you have any fixing up ideas, last ditch copy-editing, or some random fixing here and there, please do it! I'll be on vacation soon (see userpage), so I won't respond to any requests, etc. Have fun with this article, and hope we can soon achieve that FT! --haha169 (talk) 06:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

As a random Wiki reader I'd say you've done a fab job guys! The only grammatical things I noticed were a rather clumsy case of quotation marks in the paragraph before the contents, where it mentions Game Revolution's comments on the soundtrack, and an extra "with" in the sentence discussing the Chronicles section ("Along with the Masterpieces comes with the inclusion of the Chronicles section...") And perhaps seperating the Gameplay section into "Gameplay" and "Game Modes"?? Just throwing it out there... Best of luck with your FA! SpinachPuffs (talk) 03:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Main theme

Shouldn't it be mentioned in the "music" section that Nobuo Uematsu composed the main theme of Brawl? The Prince (talk) 21:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

No. Per a previous discussion, we're not going to include examples of composers so as to not make one seem more or less notable than another. Satoryu (talk) 22:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

But unlike the other composers, Uematsu didn't arrange any songs. --(trogga) 01:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

He did compose the main theme. That's quite notable. However, we're still going to need to warp and weave the new words to make it fit snugly with the existing ones. --haha169 (talk) 03:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of notability, I'm pretty sure Uematsu is the most notable video game composer there is. But it's up to you whether it should be added or not. I'm not familiar with this article. BTW: can you please show me a link to the previous discussion. Thanks. The Prince (talk) 16:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

"I'm pretty sure Uematsu is the most notable video game composer there is". That's your opinion, we can't but that in the article, unless a poll created by a notable source says so. Moccamonster Talk 16:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Uematsu being the most notable composer is an opinion. I could say Koji Kondo is the most notable composer. See? -Sukecchi (talk) 16:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

You shouldn't use that argument, seeing that Uematsu isn't in the list of 38 arrangers. --(trogga) 17:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

It is of course my opinion, but with my experience in video game music, I have to say that Uematsu in most instances has gotten the most attention from critics and fans. I don't think a poll would be necessary to determine whether Uematsu or Kondo, or whoever is most notable. A source would be enough, and I can list plenty of them. But then again, it really doesn't matter if it's not included. I just think that the most famous video game composer of all time deserves a mention in Brawl as he did compose the main theme. The Prince (talk) 18:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

If he has made contributions which are notable enough then i see no problem with including him, regardless if he is famous or not. Moccamonster Talk 19:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Well he did compose the score for all the Final Fantasy games till the ninth installment. The fact that he composed the main theme, which is quoted as the core song of Brawl, is probably something to contemplate. The Prince (talk) 20:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Regardless, the reason for not mentioning him out of the rest of the composers is to not make one seem more or less notable than the others. So...yeah. -Sukecchi (talk) 21:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I guess that seems reasonable, so we can end this discussion now. However, I still stand by my opinion all in all. The Prince (talk) 22:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

And like I said before, you shouldn't use that argument because Uematsu is "different" from the other composers. --(trogga) 23:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I stand by my argument. Can we please end this discussion? Thanks. The Prince (talk) 23:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't talking you, I was taking to everyone who said "mentioning him makes seem more notable than the others". --(trogga) 01:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Can't we just say he composed the main theme? Since it is a fact, i don't see how this make him more notable than other. Moccamonster Talk 11:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

ONM Review

Fidio (talk) 12:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Official Nintendo Magazine gave this game a 95% rating, someone should add that.

We don't need every single review. What we have is fine. -Sukecchi (talk) 12:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Article on the music of SSBB

That is, either SSBB, or the series as a whole.

The music got great reception, was widely covered on many major web sites and magazines, and had a ton of notable composers. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikia.com

Should we include the link http://super-smash-bros.wikia.com/ in this article, as well as the other Smash Bros. articles? RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 23:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

It's already been discussed, and the answer, at present, is no. There's a discussion about the same topic three or four threads above this one. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v E pluribus unum)} 23:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Besides, isn't it a wiki itself? You could catch the page when it is vandalised. All material on a wiki is subject to change. Anyway, we could probably use the sources from that wiki right?--Smashbrosboy 17:39, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Not really. Firstly, you said so yourself - "wikis change". That could easily make existing sources outdated, quickly. And secondly, any wiki can be vandalised. The most that can be done is slap it into the external links section. (And consensus for that hasn't been reached yet)--haha169 (talk) 01:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Japanese Translation

Is it really necessary to have a Japanese translation of the title at the beginning of the article? Wikipedia is in different languages for a reason. I can see this might be because it was made in Japan, but it's been published for English audiences... ShadowFusion (talk) 16:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The game was originally made and released in Japan, and it is standard to include a translation of the subject's name in its native language (see sharia). -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Trump XXI)} 20:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I guess, but it is a bit of a mouth full with 2 translations, an alternate title, and abbreviations all in the same first sentence... ShadowFusion (talk) 08:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Super Smash Bros. Revolution Confirmed!!!

the next installment for Super Smash Bros has been confirmed! im in a rush so read all the links for proof!!![[7]] | [[8]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.161.5.232 (talk) 20:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Where is the actual announcement by Nintendo? We can't accept two game-review sites as proof; we need official word from Nintendo or screenshots from the game-in-progress. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Trump XXI)} 20:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

i think that they are going to reveal it at E3 2008, its probably a secret! Nintendo said they were revealing 7 secret games a huge announcement!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.161.5.232 (talk) 20:51, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Calm down! How about waiting until E3 for an official word? We can't go on a forum post and a blog entry that is "90% confirmed". Xenon54 21:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't "Super Smash Bros. Revolution" Brawl's working title? --(trogga) 00:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd wager so, as the Wii was codenamed "Revolution" (much like the Nintendo GameCube was referred to as the "Dolphin"). P.S. one of your links returns as an invalid and the other insta-timesout on Firefox 3; they're effectively 404'd. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Trump XXI)} 05:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Did anyone notice that so far, they make one SSB per console, I predict the next one is coming out on the next Nintendo console, we will probably have to wait until the end of 2009-2010 or later until we actually hear of another SSB. Sorry •USER•Androo123•TALK• 06/26/008

Wait I see it here: http://cube.ign.com/articles/667/667525p1.html, and http://www.gamespot.com/news/6140706.html, but again, don't get your hopes high, they didn't start yet, wait some time again, 2009-2010 at the least. •USER•Androo123•TALK•

Those articles are 2.5 years old, they're referring to Brawl. Useight (talk) 02:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

You guys are beyond me. Absolute intelligence, brilliance, and craft.
Blindman shady 05:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Beyond you? Thanks for the comment I guess. At the back of the North American version of the Brawl cover, there is a quote

“ The Brawl to end them all! ”

. Will Brawl be the last SSB? I suspect Nintendo will evolve into a simulator of some kind, kind of bringing back the concept of the Power Glove, and SSB will have difficulty creating the game, since all three SSB's are the controller concept kind of game. But they had so much success..... Androo123 (talk) 05:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

It may just be a play on words. --(trogga) 18:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah... pretty sure that was news years ago referring to Brawl... Stabby Joe (talk) 20:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

European voices

The European version of the game has voice translations, which has never happened before. Shouldn't that be mentioned on the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.150.78.19 (talk) 11:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

And where is your reliable cite? That may be interesting to put in. Try it, but you still need a reliable cite. --haha169 (talk) 01:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

DOJO?

Why is Brawl code names DOJO. The official Brawl site states it as DOJO, why? •USER•Androo123•TALK• 06/26/008 —Preceding comment was added at 02:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

"DOJO" is actually the site's name. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Trump XXI)} 06:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Character Stats

I found a video on YouTube that shows who can run the fastest in Brawl. I was thinking about making a new article about character stats. The article could show who runs the fastest, who is the strongest, and etc. Unknown the Hedgehog (talk) 18:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Now I now you can't show an article or section without proof, but on the strongest character part I have Ike having to have 25% damage to get killed by a Side Smash Attack. I put Ike in the middle of the stage and I played as Ike in Final Destionation (in training mode). I made the other Ike go in the middle of the stage and I put the damage high enough to make the other Ike die from going off the side of the stage with a fully charged Side Smash attack. Unknown the Hedgehog (talk) 18:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

See WP:NOT, more specifically, WP:NOTGUIDE We're not a Game Guide. --haha169 (talk) 20:09, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Ya, make a Wetpaint site or wiki farm, don't put it on Wikipedia. Not to spam or anything but i have a wetpaint site on SSB series. [9] Androo123 (talk) 03:03, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

unreadable on early wii

the disc is unreadable on a small number of early wii [10] (including mine :(, already swapped it for another and no dice) - nintendo appear to be offering collect-and-repair (wii and disk) service, even if OOW. worth a mention? --Kaini (talk) 01:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

We've had this discussion before. I believe the consensus was no. --haha169 (talk) 02:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

If it was more rampant...then maybe. But I have a Wii from launch day and it works perfectly. -Sukecchi (talk) 12:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Nintendo did publish a page about this issue, meaning that there may have been a significant amount of complaints. http://www.nintendo.co.uk/NOE/en_GB/news/2008/super_smash_bros_brawl_game_disc_information_8780.html Moccamonster Talk 19:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Where's your source for "significant amount of complaints?" --haha169 (talk) 20:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

And they said it wouldn't work due to a dirty lens. Dirty does not equal early Wii. -Sukecchi (talk) 21:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Dirty = family with smoker or unclean house environment, and that's only a small amount as well. We don't need the information, we've got everything needed inside the article already. Just some minor cleanup, and it should be FA ready. --haha169 (talk) 21:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Dude, that happened to me. Now I need to send it off to Ninty. When are you planning on nominating? I was planning on reviewing at FAC, but it may be better if I do a preliminary assessment so you can get things fixed. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 21:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, shoot. Just nominated. ... Erm, leave a review on the FAC page, I suppose. This time, I've got Judgesurreal co-noming with me.--haha169 (talk) 03:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

That's unlucky. I'll guess I'll leave my thoughts on the FAC either today or tomorrow. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 07:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Like i said, they have given out a news report, therefore, there MAY BE a significant amount of complaints. And even without a source of the number of complaints, i think it is at least a bit notable that Nintendo gave out a message about this issue. Moccamonster Talk 07:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

i'd tend to agree. primary source, very definition of notable/verifiable. --Kaini (talk) 23:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say the source was bad. We were discussing where to put it, and how, because although a notable source said something, it didn't say why the event itself was notable. --haha169 (talk) 04:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Metacritic and priority level

There has been a small dispute about whether the a sentence about the ratings from Metacritic should be restated in the prose. And also whether the priority levels for this article are "High" and "Top", or "Mid." I invite the editor in question to discuss his views on this talk page so we can work something out.

Firstly, plenty of FA video game articles state Metacritic's score in both the prose and table (i.e. Golden Sun.) So I think it would be perfectly fine to keep that info in.

Also, Brawl was one of the most perceived games ever, because of the success of Melee. I think that would make it "Top" and "High" priority. Importance isn't based on sales and reception. Artichoker^[talk] 14:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

There's no reason to not include MC's score both in text and prose, though I'm of the opinion that we don't need to duplicate information if its already in the table, but that's just me, it's not a MOS or guideline issue.

The importance is related to how key is understanding that key to the casaul, non-gamer, reader trying to research video games. SSBB may be very important, but it certain has yet to be shown to be "Top", and even its hard to argue it would be "High" given that it really doesn't break any new ground that is not an amalogation of existing elements or concepts. It is at least "Mid", however, due to probably the Snake/Sonic crossover and per sales. --MASEM 14:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

WTF do you mean by "most perceived?"

Anyway, I agree with MASEM on this matter. Brawl's importance has not been established through sales, critical acclaim, or innovation. The only thing it might have going for it is an extremely rabid fanbase, but that's irrelevant for an encyclopedia article.

Wikipedian06 (talk) 18:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Try looking up "perceived" in a dictionary; its definition is exactly what I mean. Anyway, every single core Pokémon game (Pokémon Red and Blue, Pokémon Gold and Silver, Pokémon Ruby and Sapphire, and Pokémon Diamond and Pearl) are rated Top and High priority, yet after about the first two, they don't really break any new ground. Artichoker^[talk] 18:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Sales - Critical acclaim - Innovation

Pokemon games may not have "broken new ground," but they were the top selling games of their respective consoles. Wikipedian06 (talk) 22:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

There's no reason to include the metacritic scores in both prose and text. Sometimes I feel like I'm missing something because it's so frequent in so many articles, inluding FAs, and I don't know why. I will raise at the VG talk page. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 08:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I added the Metacritic sentence into the prose due to the "Lead" suggestions given to me during the previous FAC that linked to a VG newsletter. I think that this entire discussion needs to be moved to WP:VG, and not on a specific article's talk page. (btw, has anyone noticed that Brawl is constantly being compared to Golden Sun?) --haha169 (talk) 20:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the info in the lead, I'd say that's fine because it's supposed to reiterate what's in the body of text anyway. I have noticed the Golden Sun thing alot. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 10:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Sakurai's quote

Please locate and source Sakurai's comments on the Japanese official site that "there would be many hurdles to cross". Thank you. Jappalang (talk) 06:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

On a similar note, I have the ONM issue with Sakurai interview. It's probably best to update after the FAC, though. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 10:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Additional information can be added later, but it would be troubling that an article is promoted to FA (if successful) with a "Article with unsourced quotes" tag at the bottom and a [cite this quote] in its text. It is kind of funny that WP:FACR does not mention that FACs have to be free of tags... Jappalang (talk) 23:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The Smash site goes through numerous redesigns, taking down and replacing the information. According to the Smash boards, that quote is located here. « ₣M₣ » 01:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the site, although you need not put it through Google's translation service. In any case, I inserted the reference and feeling that the translation was slightly off, replaced it with my own. Jappalang (talk) 09:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Kind of embarrassing that the nominator missed out on such an important discussion. Thanks, Falcon and Ashnard for solving this issue. --haha169 (talk) 23:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)