Talk:Super Smash Bros. Brawl/Archive 22

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Rated Teen?

When I checked the reference for the ESRB rating for Super Smash Bros Brawl it had absolutely no information about the rating. The official site Smash Bros Dojo has no info on it either. ESRB's official site did not have an entry for Super Smash Bros. Brawl, only for Melee. We should edit this to rating pending. Smashbrosboy 19:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)Smashbrosboy

Please see this page; you'll be asked to sign in, so use the username "guest" and type in the password "nintendo" (no caps at all). Confirmation of the rating, boxart, and so forth can be found on that page. You Can't See Me! 19:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Just wondering, but... if a source requires a username/password to see it, can it still even be used as a source? -- POWERSLAVE 20:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

While it would be difficult to cite directly (the actual page for the image gets around that), there's nothing that blocks it from passing WP:V. My suggestion is to do something similar to the Story section of Final Fantasy VII; many citations there actually provide text in front of the cite link itself (when there even is a link). Arrowned 22:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I suppose that is indeed a verifiable, official source...interesting that it doesn't seem to have been mentioned on Nintendo's game page for Brawl (on their main site) or on Dojo.

For those who might be wondering, it's rated T for Cartoon Violence and Crude Humor, according to the press info page. Erik 23:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Lock the article

Couldn't we lock this article again to new wikipedia editors? It bugged me to see the added speculation in the playable characters area. I know it's deleted but to avoid this, could we lock the article again so things like "rumor has it" would not be put again? deecee 14:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I think we get enough vandalism for it to get locked. If anyone else agrees, I will put a request to the admins. Trevor "Tinkleheimer" Haworth 14:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Hasn't it been locked since October 5? That's the last time when some IP vandalism occurred. -Zomic13 15:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Yep, the article was protected on the 5th, and that protection isn't set to expire until November 5. --Onorem♠Dil 15:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Hehe, better yet, why not point all these speculatin' newbies towards SmashWiki instead? They can edit to their heart's desire there, and hopefully leave the Wikipedia Brawl article in peace. Nintenboy01 17:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

If there is nothing needed to be edited, then there should be nothing stoping you from putting it on full lockdown. I can edit, but right now I'm not sure if you should trust me, actualy, if you want my advice, don't trust anyone. You should put it on full lockdown because there are a lot of vandals out there, even admins.Green Kirby 21:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

??? I feel like I'm in a spy movie all of a sudden, since nobody can be trusted. <_< >_> Fear the cabal!

Anyways, full lockdown should always be a last resort, especially with ongoing/upcoming events, because there is no easy way to add new information to the article. Any day now, we can wind up with a new game mode or mechanic, for instance. If the page is on lockdown, the only way to add that in is to file a formal request, and administrators typically turn down any request to alter a locked page that is either content-related or not concise. You Can't See Me! 22:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, full protection due to vandalism is only for extreme cases (and I mean extreme). And Green Kirby, admins usually aren't vandals (controversial, perhaps); if they go "rouge"/rogue, they get desysopped and blocked on sight. — Malcolm (talk) 23:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I kinda got that spy movie feeling also. All I'm saying is to be cautious. There are a lot of admins out there, and one of them might turn out to be bad. But you're probaly right. There's probaly nothing to worry about. After all, this article is heavily guarded. I'm not an admin, but I still kinda guard this article.Green Kirby 00:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Damage percentage

Shouldn't we mention the percent goes from 0% beyond 100% and even maybe that it stops at 999%, although we don't know FOR SURE that second part (999%).
Blindman shady 01:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Why? It's been the same in the past two games. — Malcolm (talk) 01:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Meh, you're supposed to pretend everyone knows basically nothing about it. Whatever.
Blindman shady 03:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I mean why would it belong on this page? Super Smash Bros. (series) would be more appropriate. — Malcolm (talk) 18:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh because of this:

Following the style of its critically acclaimed predecessors, the game uses a battle system different from the typical fighting game. Choosing from a variety of characters, two to four players fight on various stages, all the while trying to knock their opponents off the screen. Instead of using health bars like other fighting games, it features percentage meters. They start at zero percent, and as the characters take damage, the percentage meter goes up, causing the characters to fly farther back each time when hit.

It kinda doesn't mention that it goes beyond 100%. I really don't care, I just thought it might have been necessary.
Blindman shady 20:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Box Art

That box art has not been official confirm, and I am 99% positive it is a fake. I suggest we turn it back to the Super Smash Bros. Brawl lettering, with the white background. Seriously, no wi-fi sticker, we've seen all those animations, and no Sonic or Snake further proves this. It is a fake boxart, and should be removed. Johnknight1 6:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

http://press.nintendo.com/object?id=9713. Username: guest, Password: nintendo. I get the feeling we're going to be fielding this question for months to come. -_- Arrowned 01:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Just to point out, The melee boxart didn't show every playable character, and actually, neither did the first Smash Bros. Depressio 11:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Well they would'nt show boxart untill all the characters on it were confirned on dojo, and have you ever seen those pictures on anything else? I mean look, it was shown right after Pokemon trainer was confirmed.Green Kirby 21:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Thats not true, just because some characters are missing doesn't mean they cant make a box art. The people who made the game have all the characters they are working with what they have.--FrosticeBlade 21:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the creators would show a character before the character's on dojo, but whatever, I don't want to start another argument.Green Kirby 21:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I hope you do know that the creators just didn't create the characters in one day and show them on their site, they had them for a while and then showed us take snake for ex we show him on many many different videos and didn't get to see him on the site for who knows how long.--FrosticeBlade 22:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I know that, but I think that the creators would want to introduce them on dojo, one by one otherwise, what's the point of dojo? I mean, they might as well show everything in one day if they did'nt want to do that. Dojo's around for a reason.Green Kirby 22:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Why wouldn't it be official if it's on nintendo's press site? — Malcolm (talk) 22:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Exactly.Green Kirby 22:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that box art is real, but if it is the creators could do what ever they want with the games box art if they want to add Lucas on it why not its their game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FrosticeBlade (talk • contribs) 22:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a reason why the boxart would not be real. I mean, what's not real about it? Where have you seen those pictures before? Tell me and give me a source otherwise there's no reason why this boxart should'nt be real.Green Kirby 22:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

right here http://www.vgboxart.com/browse/title/5435/--FrosticeBlade 22:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not there... — Malcolm (talk) 22:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it is real b/c that site is known for giving false box-art.--FrosticeBlade 22:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should take a look near the top of this conversation where nintendo.com was linked, making any further discussion on the potential of the boxart being fake rather pointless. Arrowned 22:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong its a nice box art but the last ones were more colorful if i'm not mistaken.--FrosticeBlade 22:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

There were no "last ones". This is the first official boxart Nintendo has released, period. Anything else you've seen over the last few months actually WAS fake. Arrowned 22:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm talking about the last box art for the old games SSB and SSBM.--FrosticeBlade 22:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think lack of color makes something fake. — Malcolm (talk) 22:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Thats is true maybe the SSBB site will give us this box art or maybe a final one?.--FrosticeBlade 22:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The FACT is Frostic, the cover we are using now if the one used by NINTENDO, its offical. Any other ones out there are FAKE. Now lets leave it at that. EDIT: We don't know, ans Wikipedia isnt a forum. Atomic Religione 22:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I know that this is highly controversial, but I am not so sure that this is the official artwork, for starters the site is incomplete. If you want to look at it with further detail you will notice that the graphics are not the same as on the brawl site(ie. link is kind of a mix between melee and brawl along with pikachu being that of melee as well as mario being that of melee). It has already been stated that there is no wifi and finally I think we should just leave off the box art until smashbros.com confirms it or until the game comes out.Sasst82 23:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

This is the real box art. GET OVER IT. I hate to sound like a brute, but COME ON. Nintendo is using this box art, so will we. That is all. -Sukecchi 23:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

This is the real box art i just got it reserved and it shows this box art on the front of it.--FrosticeBlade 23:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean ,"FrosticeBlade", by "it shows this box art on the front of it"?, and I don't mean to be a pain I just think it is a little rash for wikipedia to be putting on box art around 4 months in advance(especially since it is never final until the rating is on it) all because of a site that you need a password to view.Sasst82 23:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

When you reserve SSBB you have to put down a $5 deposit they give you a proof of reservation thats shows you the games box-art on the front and on the back it shows a lil preview of the game also.--FrosticeBlade 00:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

And also the box art is more colorful its not all blue like shown.--FrosticeBlade 00:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Wi-fi edit war

Will people please stop edit warring? Can't we just discuss this calmly here? — Malcolm (talk) 20:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem is the information about taunts falls under WiFi play in general. And the information therefore applies to Homerun contest. Which is false, as given the screenshots for Homerun contest nicknames do not apply. And before you say this was a random match, Sakurai says this mode can only be played with people under "With Friends".--MrBubbles 20:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I added that the names show up specifically during multiplayer matches. Perhaps this would satisfy both parties.Satoryu 20:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

That still doesn't matter. The nicknames still appear in the Multiplayer matches, so the statement holds true. Dengarde ► Complaints 20:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC) Scratch that. I'm good with Satoryu's edit. Dengarde ► Complaints 20:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but it doesn't TRUE to the other game modes during WiFi, one of them is Homerun. Think of it as branches off each particular mode.

Single Player---Classic/Subspace

Multiplayer-Melee/Special Melee

WiFi Play---CopOp/Homerun

The statements should fall under all or should be specified like Satoryu did.--MrBubbles 20:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps names only appear while characters are static, much like P1 etc. in the previous games. Speculation, yes, but still something to consider.Satoryu 20:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Satoryu saved the day. When you have stubborn editors such as myself things get heated for simple things, then again, there are more bigger silly edit wars than this.--MrBubbles 20:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

To avoid another war: There is no confirmation of Online SE game play. The Dojo!! SE Co-op update says nothing about Wifi, and the Source at IGN only says "...it will have online cooperative play of some form". It could be referring to the Home-run Contest co-op game play. Dengarde ► Complaints 20:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Assist Trophy

Could we add some thing about assist trophy like talk about a few of them?--FrosticeBlade 17:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Ugh, no, just... no. Too many examples on this article already. We don't want to be all fancrufty, you know. Yoshiguy 18:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

It's all good.--FrosticeBlade 18:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, at least a list of known assist trophies. 24.59.31.58 21:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Super_Smash_Bros._%28series%29#Tables_for_Assist_Trophies.2FStages -Sukecchi 21:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Too many images

We have to do something about all these images people! There can't be this many. Claycrow 17:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

We should take the best images and post them on the SSBB page.--FrosticeBlade 19:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

From my own perspective the Subspace Emissary with Mario and Pit should be considered the least valuable and the first to delete should a picture downsizing is necessary. -Adv193 19:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I think we should wait till we get a picture with all the players and use that one to replace Subspace Emissary with Mario and Pit.--FrosticeBlade 19:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Um no offense Adv193, but that's just your opinion.Green Kirby 19:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Mario and Pit are out, I suggest removing Snake's and the characters one doesn't need to be there. Claycrow 19:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with any of the pictures on the article. There wasn't a problem with Mario and Pit, but I won't contest it being deleted. Don't delete anything else.Satoryu 20:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

You should'nt be deleting pictures because certain people don't like them. Perhaps there's another way we can decide? A way that's fair.Green Kirby 20:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

We should take the best images and post them on the SSBB page--FrosticeBlade 20:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be anything wrong with the images now (including Mario and Pit). They all seem necessary, and five images is hardly a breach of WP:FAIR. — Malcolm (talk) 00:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The only image I see that should be up for debate about changing is the one in the playable character section. I think it would be good to take a screen capture of the character section of the Dojo showing all the confirmed characters. That would show all the playable characters we know of. Chances are this is actually a horrible idea however, just suggesting something. Shyrangerr 22:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

A better idea than that is to get a character select picture from a demo which I imagine would also be tricky to do. -Adv193 02:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Special Brawl and Tourney

These are not any more notable then every character, assist trohpey, or stage being listed, they should be removed. Claycrow 19:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

They are notable. They're unique modes that change how the game is played. Lists are just fancruft.Satoryu 20:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

However, they are NOT new aspects of the game, and assist trophies and new characters are.Purplepurplepurple 02:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

True, but they've been refined from the previous game. So has the Adventure Mode. Should we delete that too? As I said, each of the modes offers a new way to play the game. Assists and stages are only additions to the existing gameplay.Satoryu 03:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Isn't an addition to gameplay a new way to play? They add new strategic elements to battle, and are just as important as new/improved game modes. I think that a couple of the recurring game modes, such as tourney and special, need not be extensivly mentioned, although Adventure offers up enough new features (co-op, a story, cutscenes, etc) that it is worth a mention.Purplepurplepurple 19:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I think we could condense those sections a bit. Instead of having a seperate section for each, we should just touch upon the different modes in one section. If someone wants to know more they can go to the official website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.237.35.178 (talk) 15:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

ZSamus Final Smash?

I brought this up before, but it was deleted due to the "not a forum rule", but this is for the sake of the FAQ.

In this video Pit is shown using his Final Smash twice in one match. This means that Zero Suit Samus has a final smash of her own. Many people on the Smash World Forums say that it's been confirmed her Final Smash returns her to normal Samus. Is there a source for this? Luigi "Kurai" III 21:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

It's sensible to assume ZSS has a Final Smash, but debating its function is speculation unless a citable page somewhere says exactly what it is. (I thought I remember seeing a relatively legit site somewhere saying she did her SM Crystal Flash but with the radiating energy damaging others, but I've lost that link, and so didn't feel I should bother mentioning it because it would do no good)

And speaking of speculation, assuming anything based on the number of Smash Balls that appear per match is probably a bad idea, considering all these gameplay videos were two minute matches with item appearance (of which Smash Balls have been confirmed to be able to be set) already set for a specific ratio. How many items appear isn't necessarily dependent on number of characters playing. Arrowned 22:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

ZSamus's FS has been confirmed by many attendees of E4ALL and also by one or two video game blogs. Her suit simply reattaches to her body as harmful light energy glows harming anyone that touches it. Though, Final Smash details do not need to nor should be added to the main article. *kaburicho 02:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm aware it doesn't belong in the article. I was asking for the sake of the FAQ, which (last I checked) said it's not yet known if ZSamus can turn back into Samus. Luigi "Kurai" III 19:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

This seems to be in opposition to the statement on http://www.smashbros.com/en_us/howto/basic/basic02.html "The Final Smash is a secret skill that can be performed but once…and only after obtaining an item called the Smash Ball, which is a precious item, indeed." Has this changed since that info was released? STLocutus 19:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there have been multiple gameplay video which show characters using Final Smashes more than once per match. Shyrangerr 21:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the quote from the official site means that a Final Smash can only be used once per smash ball, so as long as another smash ball is obtained, it could be used again. Nick 8 04:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Just for your own reference, here's a video of Zero Suit Samus doing her Final Smash.Check at around :50 - *kaburicho 12:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Luigi confirmed in interview

At 1:28 he includes Luigi in the cast of characters. JesseMeza 20:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The guy doesn't seem so reliable (who is he, anyway?), and seemed just to be rattling off names of Nintendo characters (especially considering how he said "Luigi" so nonchalantly, as if it's been known for a while). — Malcolm (talk) 20:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not an official confirmation.Satoryu 20:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Even if it is true, we really should just wait until he's confirmed on dojo.Green Kirby 20:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

That guy appeared to have little knowledge on Smash itself. Don't take it as a confirmation. Fangz the Wolf 23:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for linking to Luigi, I didn't know what he looked like! ^_^ Anyway... Take this with a grain of salt. This guy wouldn't be saying that if he knew because then, he'd be fired. He's probably just naming off names from Melee.
Blindman shady 23:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, after viewing the footage, I consider it more of naming names rather than a conformation, more conclusive evidence should be gathered either through a demo or through Dojo. -Adv193 02:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

There can't be a Mario with-out a Luigi. I think he will come back but think his final smash would be something from Luigi's mansion I just thought about it but i dont think it would fit. .--FrosticeBlade 02:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)::::::That's kinda off topic. And I don't know why you tried to block me. I was only trying to do the right thing.Green Kirby 03:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

not really b/c i'm still talking about Luigi but the final smash is off topic i think.--FrosticeBlade 03:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

This guy might loose his job after what he told us about Luigi.--FrosticeBlade 07:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Does this mean we should put a check beside Luigi on the SSB Series article? --Mr.Mario 192 21:26, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Not yet I say we wait till he is on the offial site.--FrosticeBlade 21:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Trivia & fancruft

I know you guys have been disscusing about whether or not there should be a trivia section in this article, so I made this so you can disscuss it. Use it or delete it.Green Kirby 21:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

No need for discussion when it comes to this. No trivia sections. -- POWERSLAVE 21:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Saying "No trivia section" is'nt gonna help that much. Believe me, there have been about 12 people saying that, and it has'nt helped.Green Kirby 21:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

How about this? No trivia sections as per WP:Trivia? Trevor "Tinkleheimer" Haworth 22:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, G.K I believe someone already said that, no trivia >

Atomic Religione 22:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I know that. Don't tell me that, I'm not the one causing the problem. I don't care about a trivia section. Others however, may not feel the same way, so I made this section so you can try to get it in their heads that there's not gonna be a trivia section. Like I said before, use it or delete it. I'm only trying to help.Green Kirby 22:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I always thought of the trivia guideline as encouragement to integrate useful information into the article and discard the rest. Is there something in particular you'd like to include that you don't see an appropriate place for, Green Kirby?--chaser - t 23:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

You should'nt bother asking me that becauase it is'nt gonna happen. However, if there ever was a trivia section, I think it should be put on that so far, Kirby is the only character who has'nt changed his appearance from melee.Green Kirby 23:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Now, Green Kirby, that's a piece of information which is tentative, on a subject which should only be discussed after it's out. Did that make sense? Let me put it this way; If in the end, the only character whose appearance changed from Melee is indeed Kirby, then maybe a mention could be made, but now, it's a very small piece of info that's not that important. Anyway, his appearance has changed, he's higher resolution and has more frames per second(Joking there.)! Yoshiguy 02:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I understand what you mean. Don't worry, I'm not gonna put a trivia section on there because I know the rules.Green Kirby 02:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Trivia sections happen by chance on established articles when users add to articles that aren't closely being watched. This shouldn't be a concern on this article. Trivial things should be removed. Legitimate trivia should be moved to appropriate sections. As a page under development and with more than several eyes watching it, a section with a "trivia" title should never appear on this article. There should be no discussion about whether or not a trivia section is appropriate. --Onorem♠Dil 03:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Request to consider a "Playable Stages" section

This section of discussion is about the creation of a section in the SSBB article called "Playable Stages" and/or the creation of a new article called "Super Smash Brothers: playable stages"
To view the article currently being discussed please go to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Super_Smash_Brothers:_playable_stages&oldid=164165491

---

I belive that it would be a good idea if we were to add a section under the Playable Characters section. Or at least have a seperate article for the playable stages and link to it.

Here is my example:

Example

Battlefield

The battlefield stage is considered a very basic stage and was in the original Super Smash Bros game. It has a main platform below 3 smaller floating platforms. Unlike previous smash games this one now has a changing enviroment as the stage goes through the different times of the day. (daytime, evening, night, and morning)

No, no, read the FAQ, no, and...no.

InsaneZeroG 00:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I checked it and although it does say no lists in this site wouldn't it be a good idea to have seperate article such as Super Smash Brothers: playable stages or something similiar? Then it wouldn't exactly be on the SSBB article but it would be information availible, we would just have a link to it from the SSBB article. That's all.

Spitfire 01:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

No. If you want to add fancruft, go the the Smash Wiki. If you want to add something constructive, try again. Plus, I don't care if you're part of the Nintendo Wiki Project. I can be if I made a few edits here and there. It doesn't mean much unless you've really made some contributions to the articles.

InsaneZeroG 01:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Then I will try again, I know I can find something that will work

Spitfire 01:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I really doubt anything centered on fighting game stages will hold its own as an article. More specifically, it's unlikely that any out-of-universe information will come out of it, and as a result, there will be an extreme lack of second/third-party sources, if there are any sources at all. That boat may float for a few months while people don't care and/or give it time to expand, but it will hopelessly sink when it crashes into its first iceberg of an AFD. You Can'

An official Nintendo website is a lack of resources?Spitfire 01:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. You may get a crapload of primary sources, but you won't get any secondary sources at all. A good article requires a surplus of both, not one or the other. You Can't See Me! 01:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see. While I personaly belive that it is a good idea to have a "playable stages" article or section. I understand now that further edits should not be added at least until the game comes out.

Afterwards it should be applicable to post edits thereafter due to a likely range of secondary sources to emerge after the game is realeased. Agreed?
Spitfire 01:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

If there are no secondary sources for the stages in Melee, why would be any for Brawl when it comes out? — Malcolm (talk) 01:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Also consider WP:CON InsaneZeroG 01:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about finding other secondary sources but there is another primary source. And that is the official Nintendo Power guide to SSBM It contained a section in it defining each stage. Yes, it is a hard copy reference.

I'm going to have to disagree. There is no need for a list of stages anywhere in this article. If you want to see the stages, go to Dojo. -Sukecchi 01:46, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

That is why we also are contimplating the idea of a seperate article for playable stages. Please click the link at the beginning of this discussion section for more information.

Still disagreeing. All you're doing is describing the image. They can go to Dojo. -Sukecchi 02:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Besides the obvious fancruft, having lists of characters/stages/assist-trophies is bad because... well, Brawl is going to be huge. And even devoting just one paragraph to each of these things will stretch the article to unwieldy lengths. We need to consider article length, and in my opinion, it is at a perfect length right now. -- POWERSLAVE 02:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

How is a list of playable stages encyclopedic? Wikipedia is not a game guide. Listing playable characters is a stretch, but it's still useful. - Zero1328 _Talk? 02:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and if we were to list stages, we may have to list music, items, moves, and so on...all being pretty much unencyclopedic. InsaneZeroG 02:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

On a related note, look at the article you made: There are three paragraphs coupled with six frivolous nonfree images. That's an absurdity! Please read through WP:NONFREE for a tutorial on the use of nonfree images. There is absolutely no reason that any of those even needed to be there. You Can't See Me! 02:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I give up. It's obviously 5 vs. 1 and I have no way to win this argument.  :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spitfire19 (talk • contribs) 12:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Not needed. Keep this level of detail to SmashWiki. This site is for general information. Wikipedian06 20:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Mention the reintroduction of Intros?

I noticed in the gameplay video, that they reintroduced fighter introductions. Should we mention this? Fangz the Wolf 22:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about?→041744 22:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I know what he's talking about. In the original SSB, right before a fight, Mario and Luigi would come out of a warp pipe, Pikachu out of a pokeball, Captain Falcon from his car, etc. This has returned in SSBB. In SSBM, the characters would simply spawn from platforms before a fight. Doppelganger 23:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not totally sure if this should be included in the article. It could possibly be briefly mentioned somewhere, but I am not a good article writer, so I don't know where. Trevor "Tinkleheimer" Haworth 23:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Now, as kick-ass as that is, it might not be important enough to include. It is a simply aesthetic feature, right? Maybe, just maybe we could make a brief mention of it in the... development section? I dunno. Yoshiguy 23:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not important enough to mention. It doesn't impact the game any.Satoryu 23:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Triva section, I don't think so, but the info is worth saying. We ALL know no trivia because everyone (including me) has said no. But that doesn't mean the info should be left out. Hear me out:

• One of the reasons we don't mention everything (ATs Stages and Characters) is because someone can go to Dojo and see twice the amount of infomation then what is listed here. However we know stuff Dojo hasn't said, making the info more inportant (Not everyone knows yet).
• This seems to furher connect SSBB with SSB. Notice SSB Unlockables are not revealed, notice the Bumpers are back, and that Meowth will return. Basicly I'm saying people come to Wikipedia for infomation, and this is inporant info to a Smash player as it is one of the few things that made SSB better than SSBM. The Development section should have this: "Battle Enterences will return, which were present in the original, but were absent in the sequal." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Claycrow (talk • contribs)

No trivia section. There's enough info here to do without the needless padding. If you really want to put in trivia go the the freaking Smash Wiki and edit it to your heart's content. If you really feel like editing Wikipedia with some of this stuff, put it on the respective character pages (Meowth, Fire Emblem, Mario (character) etc.). Keep it off here. InsaneZeroG 00:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

It looks like you're suggesting that original research be inserted into the article. How do we know the stuff that Dojo hasn't said yet? Is there a reliable source for the information? --Onorem♠Dil 12:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

How is it original research when there is a video above. And I wasn't say we need to mention the SSB and SSBB connection, I'm saying just say that the melee-absent Character Battle Enterence should be stated to return. Claycrow 12:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Well...It's possible, although not likely, that not every fight starts with the entrance. It's also possible, although again not likely, that they're included in the demo but won't make it to the final game. Also up for debate is whether or not the 2 second "entrance" is worth noting in the article anyway. Is it really that big of a deal? I'd argue that unless a reliable source comments on the entrances being back, we shouldn't comment on the entrances being back. --Onorem♠Dil 13:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

All of the videos that are posted are reliable sources in my opinion. They all show gameplay and the all show entrances. If we do find some way to include it in the article, and they end up being taken out, then just take it out of the article.Trevor "Tinkleheimer" Haworth 15:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh crap. This is all my fault. I should've never meitioned a trivia section.Green Kirby 20:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Trivia has been a concern on many an article during Wikipedia's lifetime, and has been brought up occasionally on this one before you started editing. It has little to do with you, so don't worry about it. Arrowned 20:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Moving Stadium to Multiplayer Section?

Stadium is listed under the single player section in the article, but perhaps it should be moved into multiplayer? After all, it's like the normal matches in melee: they could be played with just one person, but were classified as multiplayer. Luigi "Kurai" III 14:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Why not. You have permittion to move whatever you want to move, aslong as you keep on giving good reasons for it as you have just given us now. -The Bold Guy- 14:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

How about we wait until some of the wise users like Atomic Religion, Saytoru, and Sukecchi to disscuss this matter.Green Kirby 15:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

No, it stays under Single Player.

Single Player---Classic/Subspace/Stadium

Multiplayer-Melee/Special Melee

WiFi Play---CopOp/Home-run

It's only played through single player. That's its primary mode since Melee.--MrBubbles 16:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Given that all the stuff announced so far can be potentially played by at least 2 people, would it be simpler to just remove the "single player" and "multiplayer" headings, since the distinction doesn't really seem to apply. Could divide it up as "Adventure Mode" "Stadium" and probably stuff like Tourney and Special Brawl could be lumped together under a heading like "Vs. Mode" MarkSutton 16:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Personally I don't have a problem with that, but I don't know who put Single Player back. It was originally Adventure and Multiplayer.--MrBubbles 16:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with that either. But I also agree that Stadium is still primarily a single player mode. The co-op functions are entirely optional, just like in TSE. And flattery will get you nowhere GK. Satoryu 16:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

In all truth, the Stadium mode could be put on the Series page as it's in both Melee and Brawl. InsaneZeroG 17:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I was'nt trying to be flatery. Sarcasim's my thing. It's just that you, Sukecchi, and Atomic Religon always appear to be the ones who solve the problem, so I thought you could handle this situation.Green Kirby 17:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Stadium should stay under single player. It can be played with more than one person, but it's still primarily single player. Shyrangerr 20:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I will have to go with MarkSutton on this one. Dojo only lists everything under "Game Modes", "Adventure", etc. The site does not specify if it is still classified as just Single Player anymore. « FMF » 21:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Sora Ltd.

Isn't Sora Ltd. working on SSBB? If he says it in his name, most likely it is the company that is developing it.--Water111 01:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

And that's important why?Green Kirby 01:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

It's important because the developer of a game is noted in any video game article's starting infobox. And in fact, this topic has apparently been discussed a lot. Having missed out on all those discussions personally though, I'll wait to see everyone else's responses. Arrowned 01:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I find responses such as yours, GK, to be unprofessional and certainly unhelpful. There have been two different names for the development group: "The Studio" and "Sora Ltd." We don't know which one to use. As you have suggested to use Sora because it's "most likely"...we can't because that would be an assumption. Which is not allowed. We need sources to state these things. -Sukecchi 01:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I just did'nt see what was so important about it. I can see that you don't really like me that much Sukecchi, because you have always been saying negative stuff to me, not that I blame you. I have flaws, and you can either except that, or block me, which people like Frostice B have wanted to do. Green Kirby 01:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Arrowned we should add this.--FrosticeBlade 01:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Well unless some official source (Dojo or the Press site or something equally as reliable) says the proper developer, we should just use what we're using right now. InsaneZeroG 02:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow this got lots of discussion fast. I just thought I'd bring this up because I just noticed on DOJO!! it says:

"This is the official site for the Wii game Super Smash Bros. Brawl — a place where I offer personal, straight-from-the-creator reports on the project. -Masahiro Sakurai (Sora Ltd.)"

Sakurai puts Sora Ltd. at the end of his name; usually people to do that to show you know who they're working for/their corporation. Seeing this at the end of his name seems to me like Sora Ltd. is the developer. But yeah I guess an alternate source that explicitly says this is recommended... But it really sounds like Sora Ltd. is the developer.

Oh and looking at the ref for "The Studio", if you click on "Index" at the top, it says:

"I'm Masahiro Sakurai of Sora, director of the "Super Smash Bros." series of fighting games featuring Nintendo's most popular characters. Hello. (Note: Sora is the name of my company.)"

Seems like pretty convincing evidence to me.--Water111 02:26, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Here we go again. Your right, its the name of his company, thats all it is. You also mention about clicking "Index", if Sora is developing the game, then why does the director say he cannot reveal the name of the developer? « FMF » 03:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Where does he say he can't reveal the name of the developer? Sora Ltd. is his company; why would he let another company make his game? Why would he have his company beside his name, but let another company develop the game? I don't mean to be rude or anything, just in case it seems like I am.--Water111 03:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry, its not surprising this subject comes up a lot, after all it is the developer. :)

Even though our own FAQ is up to date on this matter, to help explain, I'll use this comment from GameFaqs : An official connection between Sora and SSBB has not been stated by either party. Sora developing SSBB is currently speculation. Adding "Masahiro Sakurai (Sora Ltd)" means nothing, by that logic, if Yuji Naka contributed something one day and added "Yuji Naka (Prope)", is Prope suddenly working on the game? No, it's part of his title.

The source that is provided for "The Studio" says he cannot reveal the name. I'll add the quote parameter to the article so people do not need to search for it. However, I still advise you to read the source provided. Edited: Scratch that, I forgot quote cannot be added to that template. « FMF » 04:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it should stay as "The Studio" for the moment. Oh, and in a massive coincidence, that Yuji Naka-Prope analogy was made by me, BlackDoomShadow's my GFAQs name. What a strange world we live in...ShadowUltra 05:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Voice actor listed on the IMDB

I know this may have been discussed before, but Ganondorf's voice actor is listed on the IMDB. I know people are going to say, well thats not a reliable source, but so far they managed to get right all the other voice actors (e.g. David Hayter's voice for English Snake before it was confirmed). This brings me to my next point, should the article have a list of the voice actors for the Japanese and English versions? **BM** 11:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

IMDB is built up from user contributions, therefore we cannot use it. Just because they've been right in the past doesn't mean they'll be right in the future. A list of voice actors is useless; people can go to the character's article to see their voice actor. -Sukecchi 12:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

There has already been an article released in Japan where producers discuss Ganondorf's model in Brawl. But, again, nothing is verified as 100% certain. And even if some IMDB user posted it from a source he/she found, we can't add it to the article. Is he playable/AT/background? *kaburicho 17:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The only mention of Ganondorf is from Eiji Aonuma when he answered a question from Game Informer. Here is the interview. In it Aonuma says Sheik and Ganondorf's models were submitted then tweaked to fit in the Brawl eviornment. So Sheik and Ganondorf are going to appear in some form. It's very likely to be in playable forms, but nothing can be said because anything further than saying they're in Brawl in some form is Original Research. Shyrangerr 02:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Orignal research is something else. You talk about guesswork.--141.84.69.20 23:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)