Talk:Super Smash Bros./Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Sheik and Ganondorf Confirmed for Brawl

Link to gonintendo.com

http://gonintendo.com/?p=22340

It's confirmed, there's pretty much no other way to read it, they are in.

We already have a topic about this. And new topics go on the BOTTOM of the page. See my comments there. --HeroicJay 05:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Besides, there are plenty of ways to read it; like how it was misread in the first place. - Jishmeister 17:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

HOw wass it misread? How else can it be misunderstood, they're in the game.

Anyways, Peach is now in the game, it's confirmed. Go to smashbros.com for the new update.n

He doesn't actually say they're in. He says designs have been submitted. It's the title of the article (which he himself did not write) which claims "ZOMG SHIEK & GANONDORF IN BRAWL LOL!" - Jishmeister 18:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Playable Characters

I really think the table is not accurate. When you're actually playing you can't choose Sheik as a playable character you have to use Zelda and transform it, still, she's Zelda. Link and Young Link are OK, because you can choose either one of them. Also with Zero Suit Samus, it's not accurate to put it as a separate character, you'll have to choose Samus and then transform it.

I think this would be more accurate:

Fighter	SSB	Melee	Brawl	From game series
Bowser	N	Y	Y	Mario series
Captain Falcon	Y	Y	?	F-Zero series
Donkey Kong	Y	Y	Y	Donkey Kong series
Dr. Mario	N	Y	?	Dr. Mario series
Falco Lombardi	N	Y	?	Star Fox series
Fox McCloud	Y	Y	Y	Star Fox series
Ganondorf	N	Y	?	The Legend of Zelda series
Ice Climbers	N	Y	?	Ice Climber
Ike	N	N	Y}	Fire Emblem series
Jigglypuff	Y	Y	?	Pokémon series
Kirby	Y	Y	Y	Kirby series
Link	Y	Y	Y	The Legend of Zelda series
Luigi	Y	Y	?	Mario series
Mario	Y	Y	Y	Mario series
Marth	N	Y	?	Fire Emblem series
Meta Knight	N	N	Y	Kirby series
Mewtwo	N	Y	?	Pokémon series
Mr. Game & Watch	N	Y	?	Game & Watch games
Ness	Y	Y	?	Earthbound series
Pichu	N	Y	?	Pokémon series
Pikachu	Y	Y	Y	Pokémon series
Princess Peach3	N	Y	Y	Mario series
Princess Zelda / Sheik1	N	Y	Y / ?	The Legend of Zelda series
Pit	N	N	Y	Kid Icarus series
Roy	N	Y	?	Fire Emblem series
(Zero Suit)2 Samus	Y	Y	Y	Metroid series
Solid Snake	N	N	Y	Metal Gear series
Wario	N	N	Y	Wario series
Yoshi	Y	Y	?	Yoshi series
Young Link	N	Y	?	The Legend of Zelda series
Notes: 1. In Super Smash Bros. Melee, Sheik is not a stand alone character but a transformation of Princess Zelda. 2. In Super Smash Bros. Brawl, Samus Aran loses her armor after using her Final Smash and becomes Zero Suit Samus. 3. Although not comfirmed by Sakurai himself, Peach appears in the 42 second movie clip along with Zelda in the Subspace Emmisary Adventure Mode.

Sarkie 01:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

No. Zero Suit Samus has been labeled a newcomer character on [1]. --Son 01:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it has been labeled as a newcomer because it's a new TRANSFORMATION and probably will have different powers and abilities like they clearly explain it here [2]. If that's the case, then add Giga Bowser, it's the same thing, it's the Final Smash.

Sarkie 17:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Once again, no, it's not. Zero Suit Samus is the result of the Final Smash. Giga Bowser IS the Final Smash. Does Giga Bowser have his own section on the characters section of the site? No, he doesn't. Zero Suit Samus does, however! Would you look at that. They're not the same case. Giga Bowser is temporary, Zero Suit Samus is permanent -Sukecchi 17:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't we add Samurai Goroh and Dr. Wright to the non-playable characters list? They're in Brawl as Assist characters, which are unplayable (to our knowledge). --208.115.202.219 01:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

No, that would be like adding the list of pokemon used in the games. They are unplayable, but not worthy of the list of Non-playable characters. The non-playable characters are characters that are in the game that appear as fighters, but can't be played by the player. Samurai Goroh and Dr. Wright are items. Depressio 07:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Then remove that stupid sandbag! It's not a fighter, it's just an object you kick around. I don't care if a cheat device can let you play with it for a few seconds before crashing.Rglong 16:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Sandbag may have the properties of an item but Sandbag is a NPC because it has a smash symbol and health percentage, however because of its role in the game does not require moves it has no programmed move set. This was already discussed.→041744 19:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a great idea!! It'll finaly stop all the arguments about having transforamtions on the playable character's list! Just add Giga onto Bowser, can't forget him.--TailsClock 01:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Howcome on the playable charater list there is a number 3 next to meta knight's check. He is in the game and has been confirmed on the old dojo site. --Tim5(guest)--70.156.180.66 01:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Theres no 3 anywhere. Dengarde ► Complaints 02:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I guess they changed it but I saw it around 9 o clock Tim5(guest)--70.156.180.66 04:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Giga Bowser

Isn't it a bit redundant to describe Giga Bowser on both this and King Bowser's articles? They seem to contain pretty much the same information. Gurko 11:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Not at all. They're two separate articles. -Sukecchi 11:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I know. And that's why I think it's redundant. Gurko 12:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

...It's not. What if someone is interested in reading Bowser's article but has not interest in reading about Super Smash Brothers? And vice versa. -Sukecchi 12:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

It just makes sense to keep all information on a subject at one place. If someone wants to know about Giga Bowser but not about the Smash Bros. series, they can just read the little section on Giga Bowser instead of the whole article and then go back to reading about Bowser. Gurko 13:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

No, encyclopedias aren't about leading the reader on this little maze-like adventure where they have to find the "right" article with all the information. It's not redundant when it's two entirely separate articles. It would only be redundant if it discussed something twice in the same article.Rglong 16:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

you know its just like zero suit samus and sheik bowser can turn into giga bowser so why shoudnt he be allowed?

Because Giga Bowser IS the final smash. Zero Suit Samus is the result of the final smash. Not to mention Shiek is a separate character from Zelda. -Sukecchi 15:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Giga Bowser planned to be unlockable in Melee?

As much as I would like to believe this, I don't think there's any real proof to back this up. I believe it to be nothing more than speculation, as Giga Bowser was probably made playable simply to test out his moves. Should it be removed? Telemachus Claudius Rhade 20:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Unless there's actual proof, it's pretty much speculation and should be removed. -Sukecchi 20:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Sonic in Brawl

I was just at the feed page on G4tv.com and their reporting that Sonic is already in the game but they still have to wait for Sega's okay to make him a playable character or something of that sort. I was wondering if some one could look into this for me and put it in the article or to make sure I read it right on their page. I'm not going to put it in myself because I know I'll just piss off some one somewhere. So some one should check this out. I don't have the exact link but it's on g4tv.com/thefeed. Zabbethx 16:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's the link [3] I'm not totally familiar site the site so I don't know how valid it is. But basically it seems to say Sonic is going to be in the game but they are waiting for Sega's final approval to add him in but since the game is so near completion Sega has a deadline of 26th of July which is 3 days from the date of writing this so we should wait until we hear more news before adding anything, especially since it seems according to that that he hasn't been fully approved to be in the game yet. The Light6 17:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

on videogamesblogger.com in the article sonic hint as next wii fighter miyamato himself comented saying thursday they will update the site to wheather hes in or not —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Smashinglegs (talk • contribs) 18:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

That's a combination of multiple reports. One report stated that Sonic was the most requested character. Another, the one we have now, states we'll know by Thursday if Sonic is the game. You haven't really found anything. -Sukecchi 19:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The article G4 cites as a source was removed from TSS. The regular editors at Super Smash Bros. Brawl have deemed the information to be currently unreliable. Dancter 20:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of Sonic... do you guys think we should put sonic in the playable characters table as a X X ? at least until the 26th? Wii2-13 23:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd say leave it until it's confirmed before adding anything. -masa ♫ 02:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Seems that it was a hoax. [4] The Light6 11:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

one day left though!

You don't seem to understand. It was a HOAX. Not real. Meaning nothing will happen tomorrow. -Sukecchi 15:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Right. It was a hoax. Thursday has passed, and Sonic was NOT confirmed.--Scotty12 13:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Giga bowser "playable"

Technically, Gigabowser is playable in brawl. Bowser's super smash turns him into Giga Bowser, which is able to be controlled by the player for a short time. Thus he should be marked under playable. Please someone edit that chart. For proof, check the super smash bros. brawl official website.

"Technically" yes, but if you look at preveuos disscusions and go to Giga Bowser 1, 2 and 3 you'll see why he's not there... PLEASE look back to past topics before bringing a new one up.→041744 20:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

That section is for the NPC Giga Bowser. The NPC Giga Bowser has yet to appear in the game. Depressio 04:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I mentioned this before but it kind of got archived. Could "Bowser/Giga Bowser" maybe be listed as such in the same cell in the playable characters box with a footnote explaining that Giga is playable legitimately in Brawl. Plus, Giga can also be left in the NPC box since we don't know if he'll be a boss character again. -SaturnYoshi ^{THE VOICES} 15:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

No, Giga bowser is not a full character, thus he should not be in the playable character's template at all, and please don't come back and say "Then lets take down Zero Suit Samus as a full character", beucuse she, unlike giga bowser, is on the playable characters table on the offical site.→041744 19:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Zero Suit Samus is listed under there because she has greater depth as a character than Giga Bowser, but is nothing more than a part of Samus. If you're going to call it a playable character, you must also call "Names", "This World...", and "Four Kinds of Control" game modes. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that on the ssbb page, they should have a check mark for giga bowser. because he's back, and playable. Also, don't just argue, we all know this game will be AWSOME! - Ssbbrules

Believe me, I've read all the arguments and I wasn't going to even bring up Zero Suit Samus. So no need to bite my head off. I was just trying to help come up with a solution that would stop the posting of comments about having Giga Bowser on the table. But if you like having to answer the same questions over and over again, have at it! -SaturnYoshi ^{THE VOICES} 14:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

These talk pages are for suggesting for the article, not for disscussing about the game. On Giga Bowser: Shiek can be playable for an entire game. Zero Suit Samus has more depth than G-bowser, since Zero Suit seems to have different moves than normal Samus. G-Bowser is a bigger and stronger Bowser, but has all the same moves. The NPC should NOT be added, since we do not know if a NPC G-Bowser is avaiable. Aramjm 14:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the point in that, Aramjm. The most of the clones on Melee had the same moves as their counterparts. Why bother putting Dr. Mario, Ganondorf, Falco, Young Link, Pichu, or Roy on the list if characters with the same moves as another person can't be on the list? Roy's moves are Marth's moves with fire properties. Young Link's moves are Link's moves, but he has Fire Arrows. Giga Bowswer relates to Bowser in the same way. In Melee, at least, different moves had different properties. I think that his smash down + A move could freeze people. His tilt side + A had the "darkness" property that Mewtwo's and Ganondorf's moves had. I'm 100% sure there were more than that. In that sense, Giga Bowswer is a Bowser clone. Even if he is temporarily playable, he is playable on Brawl through normal means (without cheat devices). Why not even put a note about it on the list? Tell people that he is only a temporarily playable transformation of Bowswer. The title says "Playable Charactesr," not "Playable Characters That Can Only Be Selected at the Beginning of the Match." I also don't know if this has been brought up, but we don't know if Zero Suit Samus can be used at the beginning of the match (a la holding A at the beginning of the match to transform from Zelda into Sheik). Why even put Zero Suit Samus on the list? Don't tell me that she has more depth. Giga Bowser has a FULL set of moves, too, with different properties than that of Bowswer, just like a clone. Giga Bowswer eventually turns back into Bowswer, while Zero Suit Samus remains that way for the rest of the match. Basically, one character is temporarily playable while one is playable until the end of the match. The ONLY difference is the amount of time that the character is playable. Either change the name of the list to let people know that it only includes people who aren't temporarily playable, or add Giga Bowser to the list with a note saying he is only temporarily playable. EDIT: I have some more to add. It is correct that Giga Bowswer isn't on the character list on the official Brawl site. So what? There was no need to put him on that list. His moves are similar to Bowser's, only having different properties (ice, fire, darkness, etc.). Also, why does it matter if Giga Bowswer is only temporarily playable? He is playable. Period. A playable character, for no matter how long, should be included on a list of playable characters in order for said list to be complete. It is common sense. At the very least, put some kind of note before the table noting that Giga Bowswer is temporarily playable. -(Vert Bandit 22:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC))

One: Good job posting in a topic thats been dead since July 26th. Second: It's already been decided, so stop crying. Dengarde ► Complaints 04:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot. My opinion is wrong because I don't agree with you. See, I was under the impression that the purpose of the discussion thread was to discuss the different sides of an issue, but I guess I was mistaken. I won't make that mistake again. My opinion will no longer burden you. I was also under the impression that the information could be changed at any time, but I guess that since it has been "decided," it is set in stone and the page cannot be changed, so again, my mistake. Anyway, I'll just make a new topic, since this one is "dead" ;). (Seriously, July 26th was like 8 days ago. How is this topic dead?)

Sarcasm aside, I did nothing wrong. I expressed my opinion on a public forum. I can't say that I'm sorry if that offended you. -(Vert Bandit 09:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC))

Zero Suit Samus

What's all this nonsense about actually removing Zero Suit Samus from the list? She's a separate character. Why would you remove her? This is ridiculous. -Sukecchi 22:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right! I mean, even though she can only be accessed by selecting Samus and it has been stated a whopping NEVER that she can be selected from the character select menu, we must put original research in this article! Even though there's no reference to state that she is selectable like Sheik is, she MUST be because she's in the character section of the SSBB page! We must also say that a tutorial on the various controllers is a mode of play too! - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The list should just stay how it is. Giga Bowser can be add only if they show him as a playable character. and since that will most likely never happen, he remains off the list. Giga Bowser is just a bigger Bowser. Depressio 04:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

If you can show me where she's called a character (and no, filing her under the only applicable category for the update on the Zero Suit Samus moveset does NOT count), you can include her. However, he has not called her a character. All we have is original research from Wikipedians. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

If this isn't good enough for you, I can't imagine anything will be. This is not original research if it's following the categorization scheme of the official website. --HeroicJay 07:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Just a wild guess - there isn't a better category, is there? If you think that being filed under Characters = making them their own character, then the info about the controller support is a Mode of Play, and I will add it to the Smash Bros. Brawl article. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

They could have put the info in Samus's profile, could they not? --HeroicJay 08:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. Neither do you. And guess what that means?

To say "Zero Suit Samus is a playable character" even though the only reason one is adding that information is "I decided this based on my own POV" is original research. Give me a single, solitary reason to agree that it is physically impossible for her to NOT be selectable. I've already provided a just-fine reason why she's in the character's section, on top of the fact that she's different enough to warrant her own section. You have completely and utterly failed to show that my interpretation is wrong. So to use your interpretation of Zero Suit Samus over mine is unbiased, POV, and original research. - A Link to the Past (talk) 09:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The reason for that is because you haven't provided a way for anyone TO prove you wrong. You're ignoring the only evidence that exists and creating your own definition of what the list is for; thus, yours is the one that's biased and POV. Sheik has been on the list for who-knows-how-long and you don't seem to have an issue with that. --HeroicJay 16:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Zero Suit Samus has never been stated as her own character, but she has been stated as a playable character, much like Sheik. And the list is not of characters that are their own, but just playable. Giga Bowser isn't on there because he was only shown as a form that Bowser has temporarily, not permanently. Depressio 12:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Zero Suit Samus could only be playable by using Samus' Final Smash. AFAIC, that is NOT good enough to say "Playable character". We don't call one of Ryu's Dragon transformations in BoF a playable character. And tell me - what is biased in my assumption? I guess it's just AWFUL of me to NOT make assumptions based on insufficient evidence, huh? All I see in this discussion is everyone wanting to classify Zero Suit Samus as a playable character, but completely and utterly failing to do so. Give me ONE SINGLE REASON why what you're doing is not "assuming what Sakurai is saying"? Did he ever say "you can select her from the character select screen"? Did he ever say "I consider her her own character"? Am I wrong in saying that when you're taking inconclusive evidence and deciding that this is the way it is, you're using OR? If you're saying that I am biased towards the POV of not using OR, then you'd be correct. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Like I stated before, Zero Suit Samus was never said to be her own character, but she is playable. You can't deny that she's playable. Because she's playable, she stays on the list of playable characters. Depressio 18:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: All I see in this discussion is everyone wanting to classify Zero Suit Samus as a playable character,: She IS a playable character. She's referred to as or shown to be a playable character on the site and the trailers umpteen zillion times. YOU have to explain to US why the fact that she's playable through Samus does not warrant a mention in the character list. Sheik was, despite all your gripes to the contrary, not selectable from the character select screen from Melee; you had to select Zelda to get Sheik. So why are you taking a double standard with ZSS? --HeroicJay 18:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

1. You're right - she's playable like Giga Bowser is playable!
2. Yeah - I mean, she's clearly the exact same situation as Sheik. Sakurai has stated a whole NEVER ONCE AT ALL that they're similar. To say "They are similar" is to say "I found this out by making a decision based on the evidence". And that, my friend, is OR. At no point will you be capable to show that Zero Suit Samus is accessible in any way other than the Final Smash. You have utterly failed to show that my observation - that they put her in the characters section only because she has a different moveset - is wrong. If there's an alternate theory to yours, you cannot put your own theory up. So explain to me - why is my observation impossible? - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

ZSS works differently from Giga Bowser, and that's not original research - that's what is printed on the official site! This discussion is no longer about Giga Bowser anyway; you want to address Giga Bowser, you can discuss Giga Bowser. ZSS's inclusion on this page is NOT an issue of whether or not she's accessible through a method other than a Final Smash. --HeroicJay 20:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

So are you saying that I am allowed to put the various control information under Modes of Play at SSBB's article only because it's filed under Game Modes? - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

1. "Allowed"? What could I do to stop you?
2. There is no such section on the SSBB page.
3. This is not a discussion about that. --HeroicJay 20:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Answer me this: Do you consider controller descriptions to be a Mode of Play? - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Not relevant to this discussion. --HeroicJay 21:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Going out on a limb here - you're not answering because you do not want to say that it is a Mode of Play, and you can't say no, because then it invalidates your argument. Right?

Yeah, I guess the fact that your answer determines the validity of your evidence makes it SO irrelevant. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not answering because it's not relevant to the discussion. You're just trying to taunt me now. I could go into irrelevant non-sequiturs too, but I won't, because that's not a proper debate technique. Zero Suit Samus is a character regardless of any wordplay you attempt - that she is an alternate form of Samus does not affect this point - and she is playable - that the only known way to get her involves using Samus's Final Smash does not affect this point - so why should she not be on the list of playable characters? --HeroicJay 22:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

And please answer without discussing Giga Bowser's placement. I split the discussions. This is to talk about Zero Suit Samus. Without regard to Giga Bowser's placement, why should Zero Suit Samus not be on the playable character list? --HeroicJay 22:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

It kills your argument. How is it not relevant? If Zero Suit Samus is a Character, then Methods of Control is a Mode of Play. You can either have both or neither. It is directly relevant to the discussion because your answer determines your stance on the ZSS issue. And also, she should not be on the list of characters because you've completely failed to denounce my argument, that's she's there because her updates are too big to put on Samus Aran, and there's no "Transformations" category. They can't place it on Samus' page because it would be too big, so guess where the only place it could be is? Characters. I provided an alternate theory that clearly shows your theory to not be "absolute fact".

And are you saying that I can NOT play as Giga Bowser? - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

No, it doesn't kill my argument, and I'm not talking about Giga Bowser. And the fact (which I do not dispute) that putting the information on Samus's page would make the page too long is not a reason for us not to list ZSS on the page. Putting ANY character's info in another character's bio would make the page too long, so by that argument, we can't include anyone. And please be civil. --HeroicJay 23:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Tell me this - where at all does it specify "Playable characters"? Why won't you explain why this most only be about playable characters? Has anyone ever referred to that section as being for playable characters except for you and other Wikipedians? - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

If Sakurai didn't consider Zero Suit Samus a separate character, then Zero Suit Samus wouldn't be listed as a newcomer character. As for "Methods of Control" it is not a "Mode of Play". Methods of control has nothing to do with modes of play other than you have to use different methods of control in different modes of play. There should be a separate section of Methods of Control and Mode of Play. However, Methods of Control and Methods of Play has nothing to do with the argument of whether or not Zero Suit Samus should be included in the list. Other stuff exists is not a legitimate argument. --Son 23:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

It has EVERYTHING to do with my argument. They classified Methods of Control as a Mode of Play. You either believe Methods of Control to be a Mode of Play and that Zero Suit Samus should be considered a playable character, or believe that Methods of Control is NOT a Mode of Play and that Zero Suit Samus is not on the same level as other characters. You can't hand pick which statements from Sakurai you want to believe. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

False dilemma. --HeroicJay 00:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Except that now, you ignore your faulty Giga Bowser argument. Giga Bowser isn't listed under the character list on Dojo, unlike Zero Suit Samus. So, that automatically strikes Giga Bowser. As for the methods of control, while it is listed under game modes, it is only listed so because, as I said before, in the different modes of play, one would use different modes of control. While on Dojo it would be logical to organize in that manner, in an encyclopedic article, it would make no sense to organize it that way. It would make sense to keep modes of play and modes of control under separate sections. --Son 00:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

That's your original research. Only the people involved with the game and/or site can say why it was put there. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary Section Break 1

Granted, only the people who created the site can say why the game controls were put where they were. Now then, what does any of this have to do with Zero Suit Samus? And, please, do not try that False dilemma argument again. --HeroicJay 00:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Only the people who created the site can say why Zero Suit Samus were put where they were. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

And yet they did, and we're just the reporters. Do you have an argument why Zero Suit Samus should not be on the page that can stand on its own? So far, I have yet to see one. --HeroicJay 00:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Because they've never once classified her as a character equal to Mario in importance as a character. We only see that she is A character, but at no point have you shown the reason to say that we KNOW what Sakurai is saying when he classifies ZSS under Characters. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

This is not a debate about the importance of Zero Suit Samus with comparison to Mario (it would be a silly debate anyway; I dare say that NO character in the game is as important as Mario!) She is a character and she is playable. Why should she not be in the playable character list? --HeroicJay 01:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Giga Bowser is a character and he is playable. Guess why he didn't get his own section? Because there was no need. He didn't have enough differences compared to Bowser himself. ZSS has differences compared to Samus, and THAT is the only reason she has her own character profile page - because there was enough content to warrant it. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Dude, it's a faulty argument. You say that Zero Suit Samus hasn't once been classified as a character equal to Mario in importance. However, she is equal to Mario because she is listed as a newcomer character on the characters page. You say that there was no need for Giga Bowser to have his own character section, yet you say that only the people who created the site can say why Zero-Suit Samus was put where the character was put. You can't have it both ways. You can't say in one statement "Giga Bowser doesn't need his own section" while on the other hand, you say that Zero-Suit Samus does, because it's "too big". Meanwhile, you're arguing that there's no way to know because only the creators do. --Son 19:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Giga Bowser discussion goes up in the last topic. We're talking about Zero Suit Samus right now. --HeroicJay 01:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

If you're not going to answer, this talk page will probably can a few extra MBs with me asking the question and you ignoring it because it doesn't suit your argument. It is directly related to my argument. You are just trying to stonewall the argument by refusing to discuss anything except for Zero Suit Samus. You do not know what Sakurai was thinking. Give me a single reason why she's on the same level as ANY playable character. Can you access her from the character select menu? Yes? No? - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to understand why you think she shouldn't be on the list. And so far that's the only standalone reason you have given, but in this case it's easily refutable by stating that Sheik is on the list. ZSS is playable. ZSS is a character. Thus, ZSS is a playable character. As for Giga Bowser, I don't know and I don't care either way, but if/when he gets his own character bio on the official site, then of course he should be on the list! However, even if I didn't think Giga Bowser should be on the list, he's a different case entirely; he's merely a temporary transformation that has the same moves as regular Bowser. As I have pointed out in other discussions, Zero Suit Samus is a side effect of Samus's Final Smash; Giga Bowser is Bowser's Final Smash. Okay? And your "Game Modes" argument is totally irrelevant and your attempts at parallels with Zero Suit Samus convince me of nothing. Meanwhile, on an only-sorta-related note, you need to stop taking these disagreements so personally. --HeroicJay 01:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, she is playable. Therefore, she stays on the playable list. Stop arguing. Why would a playable character not be on the playable list(except Giga Bowser)? Depressio 20:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Why is Giga Bowser different? Because he has the same moveset as Bowser does? He's STILL playable - one could argue that Captain Falcon and Ganondorf have the same movesets. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Giga Bowser is just an attack of Bowser's, Zero Suit Samus is a result of an attack, and don't even bring Ganondorf in here, he's his own selectable player. I know it never mentioned that Zero Suit Samus was a selectable character, but technically Sheik wasn't selectable unless you choose Zelda and is a result of Zelda's attack(down and B). Depressio 04:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Giga-Bowser = Temporary powered-up version of Bowser brought on by use of Final Smash; otherwise identical to base character & therefore not a playable "character" in & of himself.

Zero-Suit Samus = Character permanently changed into as a result of use of Final Smash (one can only assume (that's right, assume) that the use of Zero-Suit Samus' Final Smash might cause her to change back); possesses separate characteristics, profile & moveset from base character & therefore qualifies as separate "character" for the purposes of classification as such.

Giga-Bowser qualified as a separate NPC from Bowser in Melée because in that game, Bowser did not transform into him during actual gameplay & therefore Giga-Bowser (although identical to Bowser in almost every aspect aside from his intended appearance as a super-powerful boss character) existed as a separate entity. Until Giga-Bowser is confirmed as being a character separate from his "Bowser-into" transformation (doubtful, taking into account the perceived redundancy), he counts only as a much larger, more powerful version of Bowser right down to his nearly identical moveset; & not as a separate character.

The End. - Jishmeister 12:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Navbox discussion

There's a discussion going on at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games about possibly shortening the {{Super Smash Bros. series}} navbox. Anyone who wants to have their say on what, if any, changes should be made are invited to join. Thanks. Nall 05:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Bowser Jr, Ridley, Link (Wind Waker), Ice Climbers, Game&Watch, Young Link

If this is a reliable source, we can tell for sure that Ice Climbers, Game & Watch and Young Link won't be in Brawl. I'm not sure if I can go ahead and add it to the page though. There's a link in that article to a French page, that originally gave the information, and it also mentions that "It's been confirmed that the following characters appear in the new part of Smash Bros: Bowser Junior, Ridley, Link version Wind Waker". The reason I don't edit it in, is because the French text is dated june 2006. Does anyone know more on this subject? --MooNFisH 07:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

That rumor has been around for over a year. Why won't it just die already? And why does NOBODY seem to see that "dropping Young Link and adding Wind Waker Link" is an absurdity? Wind Waker Link is Young Link! --HeroicJay 07:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

We don't know if that source is reliable, so we shouldn't add any information until it's confirmed by a reliable source. It is probably just a rumor. And Young Link is not the same as Wind Waker Link: Young Link refers to the younger version of the Link in Ocarina of Time and Majora's Mask, while Wind Waker Link is a different cartoonish-looking character from Wind Waker. --Jason ost 17:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

More nonsense. This has been floating around for a year. It's not real. There is no waiting for a reliable source. -Sukecchi 17:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Knuckle Joe

For some reason it wont let me edit the Playable charecters if someone wants to do it for me it keeps logging me out i need to add Knuckle Joe they just announced him on the official sight

FYI: It's "site" as in place not "sight" as in seeing.→041744 15:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Knuckle Joe was an assist trophy, not a playable character. Depressio 04:41, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

To anyone who might read this if a character is announced on the official site make sure to also check the characters section to see if that character is playable to avoid confusing the playable characters from the assist trophies. -Adv193 02:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Page lock

Isn't today the day the page is supposed to be un-blocked from new and unregistered editors? Although, I sense that it may just end up getting locked again. -SaturnYoshi ^{THE VOICES} 14:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is unblocked so I removed the semi-protect announcement, also with it gone there have been 3 edits by unregistered users all of them unneeded and reversed or removed. The Light6 09:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Captain Falcon

Is it premature to assume that Captain Falcon is to be included as the newspost announcing Samurai Goroh has Falcon's (as opposed to a generic F-Zero) emblem in its header? - Jishmeister

Yes it is premature, despite the massive proof for Yoshi, he was not added until it was confirmed that he would be returning. The Light6 10:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Right. They also use an Animal Crossing symbol for the new stage "Smashville", but that doesn't mean that there will be a character from that series. -SaturnYoshi ^{THE VOICES} 15:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

But who's to say there won't be? I'm not suggesting the jumping-to of any conclusions; I'm just saying it's damn likely, & I thought it best to clear it by you mighty Admins first. Not every unsubstantiated theory needs to be shot down in a fiery debunking. - Jishmeister

Yes but until something has been actually confirmed it is a rumour and should not be added. The Light6 16:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Who's adding? I was just debating the premise's merit; not insisting we should slap it up there on the article for the sake of doing so. I've seen enough Wikis to have a fair idea of what'll fly & what won't; but you don't learn if you don't ask, right? - Jishmeister

Well, you see, the thing is, this has been brought up in the past. It is helpful to look through the archive of these talk pages to see what has been asked before. And please sign your posts properly with four of these ~ -Sukecchi 17:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I shall take greater care to look through these archives in future. That being said; I believe my point remains valid, as does your own, if somewhat unneccessary (you don't need to repeatedly warn me not to add a topic of speculation when I clearly have no intention of doing so); but thank you for your time all the same. I believe it best this unproductive area of discussion be ended. - Jishmeister 17:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Eh, it wasn't all that unproductive. Just means that when someone else does go and add a speculative section(s) we can just point them here. -masa ♫ 22:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

True; though it seems somewhat cluttery. - Jishmeister 12:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Should there be a link on this page to that Brawl FAQ that is on the game's article talk page? Something that stands out in case some users don't actually go to that page. -SaturnYoshi ^{THE VOICES} 15:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Final Smash

Well; there are quite a few Final Smashes that've now been made public, & it's clear that they're going to be a be a pretty big aspect of this game; so, should we begin mentioning them as they pertain to each individual character; or should we wait for a more complete list, or is it just too trivial altogether? - Jishmeister 14:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

No lists of any kind will be in this article. What we have in the Brawl article pertaining to Final Smashes is fine. -Sukecchi 14:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

No lists of any kind? - Jishmeister 15:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

An encyclopedic article should not list things, that's why we have a table for characters and not a list in each game article, so unless it's REALLY important to the series (NOT a game) we don't to list or even mention it.→041744 16:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

wikipedia is not a player's guide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.75.95 (talk • contribs)

Characters' first appearances?

Maybe we could add a "First Appearance" column to the character chart, that way more people know when and in which game the characters made their debut. Think about it... Link 486 15:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Isn't that what the "x"s and check marks do? Take Ike for example. Next to his name is an "x" in the SSB column, and another in the SSBM column. The check mark means that SSBB is his debut game. Characters with an "x" in the first column but a check under Melee means they debuted in Melee. Likewise, all characters with a check in the first column debuted in the first game. -SaturnYoshi ^{THE VOICES} 15:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe Link 486 meant adding the title of each character's first appearance in their respective series. Like Mario's first appearance being in Donkey Kong. It could be a decent way to fill up that white space that eats up the right side of the screen, but then again that'd only apply to screens with high resolution, since the table would likely wrap on smaller screens. Disaster Kirby 15:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah Disaster Kirby's probably right, Link 486 probably meant "the title of each character's first appearance in their respective series". However I fail to see how that is relavent to this article, besides it already listens the series each character comes from. The Light6 16:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Besides, they'll probably have something like that in the actual game; like they did with the trophies in Melee. - Jishmeister 17:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Yah, but if you don't know what game the characters are from, you have to go to a whole different page, and as an encyclopedia it is not our duty to make a maze of pages you have to go to to find your information. Wii2-13 19:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

As long as it is relevant to the article, of which this is not. Anyone reading up on Super Smash Bros. who is interested in finding out the history of a character in the game can very easily click the link provided. --Son 21:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

New Characters?

Screen shots show Koopas and Samurai Goro from F-Zero are they going to be added to the list.--Hitamaru 20:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

No, because they aren't playable characters. Disaster Kirby 20:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Princess Daisy

Why was Daisy added to the table? There is no proof that she will be in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dartheyegouger (talk • contribs)

It's called vandalism. -Sukecchi 22:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Re-protect page?

Well after the semi-protection for this article was removed the amount of vandalism in this article has went through the roof, should I re-request semi-protection for this page until SSBB is released? The Light6 03:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I re-requested semi-protection. The Light6 12:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Template on the character articles

Hm, this may be out of place on the series talk page, but no one was responding on the template's talk page, so... Since the series template no longer lists every playable character, is there any reason to keep the template on every character's article? Every playable character either has an entire section about being in Super Smash Bros. or at least a mention of being in the game, with links to the respective Super Smash Bros. games. The template just seems to be a space-consuming add-on now, in my opinion. Disaster Kirby 05:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

It's helpful to those viewing this article with no knowledge of the characters involved prior to reading the template. If someone doesn't want to go to Jigglypuff's article to see if he(/she?) was in the Super Smash Bros. series, they can go to this page. No action is necessary. Hyukan 07:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Action Replay references

Are they really necessary? Seems like fancruft to me.--Imaginationac (Talk | Edits | Email) 16:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Burn it with fire. Action replay is not-notable. Axem Titanium 17:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Shiek and Ganondorf

http://www.gameinformer.com/News/Story/200708/N07.0802.1741.54921.htm ChozoBoy 03:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

It's evidence but it's not confirmation. It's a second-hand source and tricky wording. Besides, they could be ATs or something. (Theoretically. Sure, I am very confident Ganondorf is in, but let's not jump on every second-hand source we see; we still get people talking about the ICs/G&W/Young Link droppage rumor.) --HeroicJay 04:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. I figure that at this point we should only go as far as to make mention of it in a paragraph and not part of any "official" character template, until Dojo or a first-hand source says so outright. Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate|Laugh At)} 05:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Leave it until we have official confirmation from the DOJO or from Nintendo themselves NinjaRooster 07:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean to second guess you, but is Eiji Aonuma not "Nintendo" enough? ChozoBoy 08:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

It's more "how do you know Aonuma really said what the article says he said?" Again, erring on the side of caution. I do, however, concede Peach due to today's Dojo update. --HeroicJay 08:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Ganondorf has a pretty solid case for inclusion, being that he starred in Twilight Princess; the same title that this installment's Link & Zelda seem to be pulled directly from. Shiek, however; is pretty iffy. After all, TP-version Zelda had no Shiek. Why would they bother going back to a seperate Legend of Zelda title just for the sake of preserving a character who isn't even compatible with the current iteration of the character she transformed from in the first place? - Jishmeister 16:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Chozo is right though. Aonuma is pretty high up, he isnt some european marketing director. But ya, the real question is if the interveiw is real. Im not familiar with gameinformer, so I dont know if they would pull a stunt like this. I agree, we should at least wait until its confirmed or not whether this interveiw is real. If it is, then we should seriously consider labelling them as confirmed.~sdhonda

I'm the one who put that up there in the first place. It's definitely real, because Game Informer is well known and certainly reliable, and it's AONUMA, for crying out loud! However, I don't think it should go up there, simply because the evidence is solid--when putting it up there I didn't really consider that they could've been redesigned for trophies or something. (Though most trophies use their "classic" design, so I suppose a redesign wouldn't be necessary) While I do take this as 100% confirmation as I don't see them POSSIBLY doing anything else with them, it's just not going to check out with Wikipedia standards just because I don't see them redesigning them for any other purpose. Lastly and on a smaller note, to Jishmeister, this is NOT TP Zelda, it's the SSBB Zelda! All characters take moves from many different games. Why should Zelda be any different just because she has a new model? Evan1109 16:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, so that's why "NOT TP Zelda" looks exactly like "TP Zelda?" Just like how "NOT OoT Zelda" looked exactly (albeit somewhat less "last generation") like "OoT Zelda," complete with "OoT (not to mention the only other appearance of) Shiek?" - Jishmeister 16:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Exactaly. They LOOK like TP Zelda and OoT Zelda, because they're BASED of TP and OoT Zelda. But they ARE NOT TP and OoT Zelda. Dengarde ► Complaints 18:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. So why would a Zelda that LOOKS like TP Zelda transform into a Shiek that LOOKS like TP Shiek, when there is none? You can't tell me that Zeld LOOKING like TP Zelda transforming into Shiek LOOKING like OoT Shiek wouldn't just be weird, & that Shiek changed to LOOK like some hypothetical TP Shiek wouldn't just be tacky. - Jishmeister 18:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Whatever the case may be, we know Sheik will be in SSBB, redesigned, in some form or another. Whatever you believe about Sheik's playable status, that's true. We'll just have to see. I'll leave it up to you guys if you want to put Sheik and Ganondorf as confirmed (I certainly believe they are) but it was against my better judgement to rush to put them on the article so soon. Evan1109 21:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Even though SSBB Zelda is based off of TP Zelda, thats where the similarities end. SSBB Zelda can, and most likely WILL be able to transform into SSBB Sheik. As for Gannondorf...I'm not so sure about him. Regardless, they should not be included in ther article until confirmed. Dengarde ► Complaints 21:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Believe what you want; but it's a matter of tangibility. Until we see a SSBB Ganondorf & (ugh) Shiek (that's right, all this time my argument has been primarily based on personal bias; I hate that a second-rate one-shot gets more praise than the staple character she spawned from), they are assumed to be nothing more than designs sitting on a harddrive somewhere. - Jishmeister 14:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Using the "Premature Character Confirmation" Logic...

Shouldn't Peach NOT be included on the confirmed character list? While it is pretty obvious that she will be playable, Aonuma allegedly confirmed Ganondorf and Sheik, but they are not considered confirmed yet and Captain Falcon isn't confirmed, despite the logo for F-ZERO being *his* emblem...

Plus, Palutena is clearly in one of the new screenshots too, and nobody added her to the list using the images as evidence of her inclusion in the game (which is what's being done with Peach).

I know its nitpicking, but I figured since you can't add anything that's not "written as confirmed" on the Smash Dojo site that it wouldn't make sense for Peach to included. -- MoldyClay 09:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

It's the fact that Peach actually appears in the video for today's update getting ready to fight along with 3 other, confirmed playable characters. I doubt they would leave her out as a playable character and then show her as getting ready to fight alongside other playable characters. My vote is we keep Peach as confirmed. Ixistant 09:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

But you never for certain. Perhaps one of the playable schemes is that traditional "save the princess" motfif. Maybe she's captured at this point in the game and you can't play her? I'm playing devil's advocate here, but we should wait for a definite "yes" from the site before adding her for sure. 74.111.162.132 11:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I think Peach should stay confirmed, but we could but a ? in place of Palutena. Sounds good?

Yes for Peach, no for Palutena. She has no business being on the list. -Sukecchi 11:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

As obvious as it is that Peach will be playable in Brawl, I agree that we should hold off on adding her to the list unless there is some additional confirmation. Jeff Silvers 13:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

We've used video confirmation for other characters before...and we're still using it for Snake. He's never been confirmed on the Dojo site. Even more, the Peach sighting took place on Dojo, which makes it even more reliable than the Nintendo movies released last year with Snake in it. If Peach doesn't stay on, in my mind, neither should Snake. --Son 14:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Snake was confirmed on the old Dojo site before they decided to restart the site in it's current format, however as Peach has been viewed on the offical site I believe she should be added on the site and if there is too much argument about it I would go with putting Peach on the list but with a ? for Brawl with a note explaining why. The Light6 14:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

But why would they show her ready to fight, if she doesn't fight? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexanderLD (talk • contribs)

I think she should be added with a note that she appears in the Adventure Mode trailer and is heavily implied to be fighting with Mario, Zelda, and Kirby. ShadowUltra 15:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I (like almost every other person in the entire universe who isn't all hung-up on the scary & dangerous "speculation" (wooOOooOOoo *makes scary hands*)) am almost 1,000% percent sure that Peach will be included, & as a playable character (likely to be confirmed sometime within the next week (I mean look how quickly they revealed Castle Siege after a Fire Emblem character was confirmed (& I don't mean to stir any more speculation; but I've got a gut feeling that Ike will be replacing Marth & Roy, due to his "current generation"-ness; again, don't quote me on that; it's just a "feeling"))). But Palutena is a little more doubtful. For starters; she's only appeared so far in a cinematic (hell, we don't even know if she'll be a character; either playable or non). Second; she's a goddess (a GODDESS), albeit an easily-kidnapped goddess; but a goddess none-the-less. When you think about it; would it really be plausible (or fair) to match up a deity against a bunch of, let's face it; mortals (yes, Pit is an angel; but a mortal angel all the same)? - Jishmeister 16:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Not quite true actually. I'm 1000% sure Peach will be playable (forget 'almost'), but I'm still "hung-up on the scary and dangerous 'speculation'" because it's a Wikipedia rule. We all know it's true, but it can't be added without breaking said rule, not until we get screenshots or videos actually showing her fighting, or a full out profile page. There's not much more to say about it. Arrowned 16:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

This is more confirmation than we have for any other character that doesn't have an on-site bio save Meta Knight and Snake, but I can agree to leave her off for now (besides, once her bio is up - something that could easily happen next week - she'll go up officially anyway.) --HeroicJay 16:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

So it's settled? We don't confirm Peach on the list until she gets her own profile page on dojo? I'm totally confident she will be a playable character so she should get confirmed next week, hopefully Monday so that this issue can be settled completely quickly. The Light6 18:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, with all this said and discussed it looks like this should be the policy we should use from here on out: whenever an official source implies the inclusion of a character in Brawl, that piece of news with its source should be posted in Wikipedia articles away from the "official" sections until that character gets an official profile on Dojo, in which case the official character template would be updated.

And hey: The Sheik-Ganondorf news item said how their character designs were submitted to Sakurai... My Keepers user subpage involves users submitting to me funny vandalisms they find on Wikipedia, and I put whatever I deem worthy on display, leaving the less spectacular ones out. For all we know the character designs were submitted but one or both of them didn't make it in the game based on Sakurai's decision; you can see how it's still risky to call them official fighters if they're not profiled by Dojo yet. Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate|Laugh At)} 19:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Bottom line: no adding characters if they don't have profiles in the Dojo. Ryan the Game Master 22:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

...besides Meta Knight and Snake, since they're confirmed. — Malcolm (talk) 22:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Damn, I need to read more carefully... — Malcolm (talk) 22:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Princess Peach in Brawl

At the official website they just put up a video with her. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyty812 (talk • contribs) 15:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

1. There is already a discussion about this going on. 2. Please start new discussions at the bottom of the page. 3. Please sign your posts in the future with four ~. The Light6 15:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

We can't include Peach as a playable until Nintendo explicitly confirms her in some way, i.e. until a Nintendo rep mentions her or she is featured with her own page on the Dojo.Rglong 17:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

She's only shown to be in the game, it never actually stated that she's playable, even though she most likely will be. We can't have her up until she's said to be playable. Depressio 18:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

After watching the movie on DOJOs website, I was impressed to see that Peach would be returning as a playable character. It is pretty easy to judge this. Infact, unless you are INCREDIBLY stupid, you also know that Peach is returning as a playable character.

Disagree? Well, i'll come back here after the weekend, just to point out that I was right. As it may seem logical to not add her, but it's just teatering on stupidity. Even you know that. 88.107.191.161 02:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

You're missing the entire point. We KNOW that she will be a playable character, and we expect Mondays update to be Peach. but until then, there is no actual proof that she's playable, so we can't add her yet. Dengarde ► Complaints 03:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

yeah we really do KNOW she is in brawl as a playable character but lets just do it their way and wait71.194.137.245 03:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we are not "incredibly stupid", we know she's in it. But wikipedia has guidelines. Even articles about video games must adhere to them. If the topic were more socially important or controversial, like about the holocaust or something, it might be easier for you to see why strict guidelines are necessary. But just because this is about a little cartoon character (one of my favorites, might I add) doesn't mean the guidelines don't apply.

So that is the key to wikipedia. Proof.Rglong 05:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Take away Snake and Meta Knight then, they're not confirmed! They are just in a trailer they are maybe like Giga Bowser or a Assist. Ofcourse Peach shall be on the list, otherwise you can take away Snake and Meta Knight... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.234.118.224 (talk) 08:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

No they were confirmed on the old site to be playable characters and the first trailer confirms them as new comers, also I fail to see how they could be like Giga Bowser as he is Bowser's Final Smash. The Light6 10:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok people lets just leave Peach as unconfirmed. Yes we know she is playabe from that video footage but until we see her character model she isn't on the list. That is also why Giga Bowser isn't listed with Zero Suit Samus is, because she has a character page and model while Giga Bowser is just a Final Smash. --Gaiash 02:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

That's not why we're leaving her off the list. We're leaving her off because there's no footage of her fighting. Otherwise, I doubt this discussion would even have happened; there'd be no room to argue her playability then. Arrowned 03:50, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's make a Giga Bowser compromise

This makes some people cry.

Fighter	SSB	Melee	Brawl	Series
Giga Bowser	N	N	Y	Mario series

Not including Giga Bowswer on the list also makes people cry.

Let's do this.

Fighter	SSB	Melee	Brawl	Series
Bowser	N	Y	Y1	Mario series
Notes: 1. In Super Smash Bros. Brawl, Bowser's Final Smash allows him to temporarily transform into Giga Bowser.

That shouldn't make anyone cry. Should it?

I understand that other topic have been made, but since the most recent one has been dead since July 26th (apparently remaining dormant for 8 days constitutes as dead), I thought I'd start a new one. -(Vert Bandit 06:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC))

No. And Giga Bowser isn't from the Mario Series. -Sukecchi 11:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

1. As Sukecchi said Gigi Bowser isn't from the Mario series. 2. That a note like that was on the list before but I believe the decision was made to remove it. The Light6 11:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Giga bowser is not a playable character in Brawl, he is just a temporary transformation of bowser. Look at the Playable characters table on the official site if you don't believe me, maybe you'll believe the MAKERS OF THE GAME, they would know more than you on Giga bowser's status in brawl. Also your taking this WAY too seriously, no wikipedia article would make a person cry by looking at a table, come on.→041744 14:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

He is playable. He is just not unlockable. I know he is a temporary transformation of Bowswer. He doesn't need a page. His moves are common sense. Whatever Bowser does, Giga Bowser does better. Besides, since when has a page determined whether or not someone is playable? Solid Snake and Metaknight don't have a profile on the official site. Sure we've seen them in videos and screen shots, but we've also seen Giga Bowser in screen shots.

Let me do everyone a favor. The one and only difference between Giga Bowser and other character transformations like Sheik or Zero Suit Samsus is that Giga Bowser is temporarily playable. The list says that it is a list of playable characters. It does not say that it is a list of permenantly playable characters.

"Giga bowser is not a playable character in Brawl..." Hm...

...And I quote, from THE MAKERS OF THE GAME

"What?! You can control Giga Bowser from Super Smash Bros. Melee?!"

Let me make a correction to the former quoted statement. Giga Bowser is a playable character in Brawl, but he is only temporarily playable. On a list of playable characters, he should be included because, again I will say it, Giga Bowser is a temporarily playable, but playable none the less, character on Brawl. Honestly, I don't see what the big deal is with just putting a note on Bowser's Brawl checkmark that Giga Bowser is temporarily playable. If we don't put it there, then where would we let people know that Giga Bowser is playable? We can't put him on the NPC list (at least not yet). We can't put him on the Playable Character list. Where do we put Giga Bowser? I don't think that it is neccesary to make a list of temporarily playable characters just for one person. That is why I think that the note is neccesary.

I know this is a "what if" scenario, but I bet that if Ganondorf is playable on Brawl (which seems very likely if he is not an Assist Trophy), and he had a Final Smash that transformed him into Ganon, with a completely different moveset than Ganondorf, Ganon would be put on the list in a second. I bet that if Giga Bowser wasn't a clone of Bowser, he would be added to the list, even if temporarily playable. -(Vert Bandit 21:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC))

This is not a "What if" scenario, Giga bowser should not be on this table even if he has a diffrent movset than regular bowser, like he's not Playable characters table on the official site, he is temporary transformation like as with Volt attack Pickachu. He should not be on this list, the makers of this game do state you can control him, temporarily, but you will transform back quickly and thus is not a full character. He's not on the character's table, on the offical site and thus the creaters of the game state he's not a full character, we should not follow the game creater's lead and not put him on the table at all. If you use that old come back "then lets take down Zero Suit Samuas" beceause you need to look at the charater's on the offical site again. Do we really need to resurrect this dead argument again?→041744 22:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Vert Bandit just made me realise a good point. If there is a senario where there is another temp-playable character and they get a profile page then we can asume the reason behind G-Bowser's lack of one is due to the similarities making it unnecessary. This would require us to change what a character needs to be on the list. Because if one has a profile but is a temp-character like G-Bowser then should G-Bowser be added or will the fact that they are temp-playable characters prevent both from being on the list? However unless a character like this does appear this discussion is irrelevant. The Light6 00:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Just because there is no Giga Bowser page, it doesn't mean he shouldn't be included on the list. Take down Snake and Metaknight, then. They don't have a page. Why does everyone ignore this arguement? The arguement of adding Volt Tackle Pikachu to the list if we add Giga Bowser is null and void. Volk Tackle is a move. Giga Bowser is a fully programmed character with just as many moves as everyone else. I fully understand that he is temporarily playable. However, Giga Bowser is a full character in the sense that he has a complete set of moves. Giga Bowser is a character. Giga Bowser is playable. Therefore, Giga Bowser is a playable character, even if it is only temporary.

I have said it before, and I will say it again. The only difference between any other character and Giga Bowser is that Giga Bowser is a temporary transformation. Beyond that, he has a full move set, he is controllable, and a player can make a conscious decision to control him (via Final Smash). Everyone seems to ignore the solid arguements for putting Giga Bowser on the list. I will bold it not out of frustration. I am not angry. I just want to make sure everyone notices it so no one has an excuse to ignore it. The list is a list is called "Playable characters." It is not called "Permenantly playable characters" or "Non-temporary playable characters." In order for a list of playable characters to be complete, all playable characters must be included, no matter the amount of time said characters are playable. If this change is not made, then a change should be made to the name of the list, a note should be made mentioning that Giga Bowser is playable, or some other fitting action should be taken. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vert Bandit (talk • contribs) 00:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I can use bold too, buku. We KNOW Meta Knight and Snake are playable AS WE SAW THEIR PROFILES BEFORE THE SITE CHANGED. Giga Bowser is noT permanent like Zero Suit Samus; he's a temporary transformation. Nothing you're going to say hasn't already been brought up before. Nothing will change the consensus on this matter. He's not on the list. -Sukecchi 00:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

It's simple: Giga Bowser is NOT a playable character if you think a playable character is only one you choose in the selection screen. However, PLAYABLE CHARACTER means playable at any time. Sheik is a playable character, right? Zero Suit Samus is a playable character, so Giga Bowser is a playable character, too. The second definition is the correct one, but if you really trust the first one, remove Sheik and Zero Suit Samus. Slyth1 02:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Please do not remove my edit unless you can find a valid reason that proves otherwise Pluvia 12:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Countless discussions on this subject have resulted in NOT having Giga Bowser mentioned on the list of characters. What aren't you understanding? Articles area group effort; and the group concensus is to not include him. You want evidence? We have archives of discussion. Take your pick. -Sukecchi 12:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I have added the evidence that proves he is, I read these talk pages all the time. What a group thinks does not change what Sakurai has said. You are needlessly removing that edit, yet you cannot find anything that proves otherwise. Please do not do this as it is almost like vandilism. Pluvia 13:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Sheik and Ganondorf in SSBB

http://www.gameinformer.com/News/Story/200708/N07.0802.1741.54921.htm

IN the end it stands that hew works on the design on Link Sheik and Ganondorgf in SSBB so I guess that someone coulld add them to the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.234.118.224 (talk) 07:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

There is already a discussion for this here [5] The Light6 11:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Nonplayable characters

Since Sandbag is on the list, along with wireframes and fighting polygons, shouldn't we add the other non playable characters that appear, or at least have a list of Assist Trophies and/or the other minor enemies that appear in melee and brawl? 75.4.195.0 17:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

No those characters don't have a symbol, damage meter or full move set so they are not a NPC by any standard. As for sandbag, he does have a symbol(the smash bros. symbol, as with all NPCs in that section) and damage meter, however because his role requires him to be a scingoat, he was given no moveset.→041744 17:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Some Changes

In the character tables, Peach and Giga Bowser should be checked as they both appear in Brawl. Also Ike should be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.239.78.153 (talk) 02:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

1. Please start all new discussions at the bottom.

2. Please sign your posts with 4 ~.

3. Ike has been added to the list (unless you mean this talk page which is not important but I shall add him).

4. About Princess Peach there is already a discussion about this and a reason why she is not on the list on this page found here.

5. There is a discussion and a reason why Giga Bowser isn't on this list on this page here and here. The Light6 11:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Evidence for Giga Bowser being temporarily playable

Bowser Character Profile E3 Video Conference

Unless you can find something that proves otherwise, please do not remove that notice. I would put this in the previous talk, but you seem to be ignoring that. Pluvia 12:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I responded there. Now, listen. We are aware he is playable in the game. But it's TEMPORARY. Unlike Sheik or Zero Suit Samus who are permanent transformations. We have discussed this MANY times in this talk page and the archives, and the CONSENSUS is that since it's temporary that he should not be mentioned on the list in any way. Sorry you disagree with that, but you need to stop. Why aren't you understanding that this has been discussed before? Stop being stubborn and read. -Sukecchi 13:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

That is EXACTLY what my edit, Sakurai and the spokes person for the Nintedon says. Why do you keep removing it?

Because prior discussions on the subject have resulted in the decision to not include Giga Bowser on the list because he's a temporary transformation. You need to read Wikipedia:Consensus. Concensus is not to have him on the list. -Sukecchi 13:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

But, as proven in those two pieces of evidence, one by the creator of the game, it shows that GBowser is temporarily playable. That is what I have added. Your argument is that you do not want to add this because he is only temporarily playable. So therefore, should not have a notice about him saying that he is temporarily playable. That does not make sense.

And we as a comunity cannot choose what we want to add to SSBB. If Sakurai has said it, it must be true. No matter what you or the small group of wiki editors that agree with you think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pluvia (talk • contribs)

And when did anyone say that the list was for anything but permanently playable characters? Arrowned 13:47, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

In SSBB Samus is temporaly playable because when she use her final smash she converts into Zero Suit Samus. Giga Bowser should be in the list but noting he is only playable by few seconds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.163.39.74 (talk • contribs)

Samus isn't temporarily playable. You can simply not grab the smash ball so you can keep playing as her permanently. Dengarde ► Complaints 18:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

But then, of course; you'd miss out on unleashing what appears to be one of the most powerful Final Smashes in the game. Besides, it would stand to reason that Zero-Suit Samus would likely be able to change back somehow. But that's neither here nor there. The point is: Temporarily playable as essentially a powered-up version of a character it is otherwise identical to = Not notable as a playable "character." - Jishmeister 19:27, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Giga Bowser should be in the list but it should be noted that he is only playable for few seconds —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.163.39.74 (talk • contribs)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5