Talk:Super Mario Bros. 3

The Miyamoto photo

No one seems to want to bring this to the talk page, but it's obviously a point of contention, so I'll do it. Now, what does everyone think about having the Miyamoto photo in this article? I don't see the need for it. There are enough pictures already. Yet I don't feel strongly one way or another. Some discussion about this would be useful. Belasted (talk) 15:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• I have no problem with Miyamoto's photo on the page: the image is free-use, and thus doesn't contribute to the fair-use limitation. In fact the only thing I could really say something about are the first two screenshots: it might work better if the first focused solely on the world map with a regular looking mario in the shot (possibly showing the quick item menu too) and the second discussing the addition of suits in general to the game.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• I feel the photo is compeltely unnecessary because it does nothing to illuminate the subject at hand, which is the game itself and not Mr. Miyamoto. Furthermore, no other Miyamoto game has his image, and that includes two featured articles, Super Mario 64 and Ocarina of Time. Here, the photo just adds needless clutter. Indrian (talk) 17:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I do not think that the Miyamoto image is of relevance to this article. It's free use, yes, and so we can use it for decorative purposes, but I don't think the article needs it. If you had a photograph of a younger Miyamoto from the time of the release, then maybe, but I agree with the above, it's detracting. - hahnchen 17:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Like Indrian said, the other articles don't have his picture, nor should they. If this game was his one defining moment as a game developer, it MIGHT be appropriate. But it's only one in a sea other great accomplishments. And if people really want to see him, they can go to his article and see the exact same picture. Also, I don't like that it's the exact same picture. Belasted (talk) 17:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
    • And like someone else said, maybe it would be better if it was a picture from that time, particularly one where he is working on the game or promoting the game or something. Belasted (talk) 17:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
      • One where HE was promoting the game would be good. One of him just as him is really unrelated to the article. It'd be like having a picture of an NES. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 18:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Something I'd like to clarify- Super Mario 64 does not and did not have a picture of Miyamoto because I was very unfamiliar with image usage when it went back to FAC. If I knew about the image then, I certainly would have included it, and I'm certain there would have been little resistance from the FAC regulars.
If we are going to use FAC as examples to follow, several of the more recent FAs have used similar images in development sections. Even some GAs have them as well.

• Metroid Prime 2: Echoes has an image of Retro Studios.
• The Lord of the Rings: The Battle for Middle-earth II has an image of Hugo Weaving.
• The Simpsons Game has images of Matt Groening, Matt Selman, and EA Redwood Shores.
• The Simpsons Hit & Run has an image of Matt Groening.
• Super Columbine Massacre RPG! has images of Danny Ledonne, Brian Crecente, and Jonathan Blow.
• Metroid Prime Hunters has an image of Nintendo Software Technology.
• Max Payne 2: The Fall of Max Payne has an image of Sam Lake.

Having said all that now, I believe the scope of the discussion has exceeded the scope of this talk page and that of KHII. I recommend further discussion on both talk pages be continued at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#Free use images being removed from VG articles. This will bring in more view points, and prevent the discussion from being fractured. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC))

• Well, the discussion on the project page has been archived, and I count four people against the images to three people for the images with one person feeling that the KHII image should be out and the SMB3 image is borderline. As I see it, no strong consensus was established project wide on the issue. On this talk page, however, a stronger consensus developed 4-2 (or 5-2 if you count Tempest, the original remover, who did not take part in the discussion here) to remove the Miyamoto image. I will leave the statement here for a little while as notice, but then I am going to remove that image based on this consensus. Indrian (talk) 17:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't know if I'd call a vote count as consensus. The fact of the matter is that there is no guideline or policy that gives guidance for this situation. Its inclusion is a subjective interpretation that will naturally yield different view points. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC))
    • Look, I know how you feel on the matter, but there is consensus here. You are correct that there is no specific policy, which means that the leading "subjective interpretation" as you call it wins out in my mind. How else are we supposed to reach a conclusion on this matter? There is a disagreement here, it was discussed, opinions were aired, and a majority came down on one side of the issue. Wikipedia may not be a democracy, but that does not mean minority rules in the abscence of a policy either. You don't get your way just because you feel strongly on the matter. I consider you a valuable contributor to wikipedia's video game articles and a good editor, so I hope you can let this relatively minor issue go. Indrian (talk) 18:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
      • To be quite honest, I believe a strict guideline meant for non-free images is being applied to a free image. I would not have added the image if I did not think it was an improvement, and am well aware that feeling very strongly does not equate to getting your way; I've been involved on both sides of similar discussions several times before. However, in the interest of goodwill/avoiding a needless debacle, I will honor your polite request and let this relatively minor issue go. Though I question whether or not this minor issue will pop up on other articles I plan on sending to GAN and FAC in the near future as I plan to exercise the same judgment in adding images. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC))
        • To be quite honest, I believe a strict guideline meant for non-free images is being applied to a free image --- I don't agree at all. It's the 'pro' side that's arguing that the image should be there to counterbalance the lack of usable images because of their non-free nature. All opposition has been about the fact the picture itself isn't needed here. It's like whenever the topic of offensive pics comes up -- there's nothing wrong with a picture of a penis in an article, but it needs to make sense to HAVE a penis there, even though WP isn't censored. (but now we're going in circles again aren't we?) ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 20:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
          • With all due respect Melodia, I see little reason in arguing a point that has already been conceded. Regardless, balancing the article with free and non-free images was not a point I was actively pushing. If you'd like me to put the image back and discuss further, I'm more than willing to. However, Indrian asked for an amicable close to this matter, and that is what I hope will come of this. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC))

Box cover

I know this is minor, but the box cover claims it to be "The North American cover art". I know there's barely a difference, but the box cover seems to be based from a different country, proclaiming Netherlands and French language options. Should this be updated/replaced? Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Just pretend you never saw that. Belasted (talk) 14:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Since the artwork and design is identical to the North American version, I didn't even look at the wording. I've removed the region designation. Thanks for the heads up. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC))

Verb tense agreement

I know BuddingJournalist implied there are still issues with verb tense agreement, but I'm not so sure most of the development section should be in present tense. When I wrote the section, I had the perspective that the creation of the designs and choices made happened in the past. I know I'm not a great writer, but I'm just not seeing the verb tense disagreement. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 03:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC))

I'm not sure either. I have never written a video game article, and don't know much about video games, even. So, feel free to change anything I did. It was a shot in the dark on my part. —Mattisse (Talk) 03:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Nah, I appreciate the copy edits. Without your edits, I'm not sure Marble Madness would have passed FA, and your edits have really improved this one too. I'm just not seeing what Budding was saying right now. But then again, I miss a lot of prose issues. I guess let's see what he says when he gives the article another look. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 03:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC))

I just now went over to the development section and made it sound the way I think it should sound. I think it got confusing before. It still might be. Belasted (talk) 03:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I did some tweaking too. And after reading through the section again, I noticed that "Character Generator Computer Aided Design" system is a bit confusing. Maybe you guys can sort it out better than I can. The CGCAD was a special computer used to create the game sprites, and outputted them as a collection to the game's memory. The game's code can access that collection to create the on-screen images. Essentially, they were created on another computer first, then put on to the cartridge to be accessed by the game code during play. Any ideas? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 04:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC))

Well, a lot of it was already described in the present tense, as if it is a continually happening event, not a one time event. I personally have no idea what the situation really is. —Mattisse (Talk) 04:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Awesome! The whole article which discusses that is scanned here: http://nintendope.iodized.net/smb3/info.html Go the the third page to see about the Character Generator thing. And maybe cite it since the original citation only cites the actual article, which no one can see. Belasted (talk) 04:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The game code accessing the collection is a continual thing that happens when the game is played, but the creation of the collection was a one time thing that happened during the development process.

I originally had that link in the citation, but it was rightfully removed for copy right violations. If you guys have any questions on other the printed sources, let me know and I'll find the direct quotes. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 04:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC))

CGCAD

I'm wondering if maybe the whole part about the Character Generator Computer Aided Design machine should left out completely. The only mention of it I can find in all of the web is that one article. And it doesn't seem very official. It seems like Nintendo Power made promoted that name to make the article more interesting to its young readers. And I don't believe SMB3 was the first game to use such technology. In fact, I think most games for the NES used similar technology. It just happened to be mentioned for SMB3 in that article. Belasted (talk) 04:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Super Leaf and Tanooki Suit

My understanding is that the Tanooki is basically like a raccoon, but it is its own thing in Japan. You must make this distinction clear, particularly in the sentence that says "The Super Leaf and the Tanooki suit give Mario the appearance of a raccoon." Well, apparently it is the appearance of a Tanooki, and the fact that the name of the suit is Tanooki pretty much makes that point indisputable. Belasted (talk) 23:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply.

You're correct that a tanuki (Japanese raccoon dog) is different from a regular raccoon. However, I think that for sake of simplicity, sticking with a generic description will be less confusing for readers. I think most of the gaming press referred to the Tanooki Suit as having a raccoon appearance as well.

But I don't see the harm in pointing out the distinction if it's worded properly—clear and concise. What did you have in mind? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC))

A-class assessment review

To avoid future issues with roaming editors, putting this here. The article seems perfectly fine for A-class, the only thing bugging me though is the third image as it seems really out of place (it ended up working for more games than just the modified SMB3, so it does feel out of place). A shot of the animated series may be a better bet there, to go along with the legacy discussion to the left. Other than that, the caption for the first image should probably be modified: at a glance it currently is a tiny bit confusing if the suit or the world map is being emphasized there. Could change it to focus solely on the world map perhaps, and maybe swap the image out for one showing the item menu to discuss that in the same blow? Especially since the image further down already focuses on the subjects of suits and their purpose in the game.

Other than image issues I've got no qualms with the article. It's very well written and nicely done, and would support A-class.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I tweaked the overworld caption, but I left in the eReader. If it's alright, I'd like to know what the other assessor thinks about it before removing it. An image that shows the item selection would be great, but I spent over an hour searching into the 30th page on google images for an overworld screen shot. I chose this one from about two or three others that weren't that great. I'll do another search and see what I can find.

Also, there was talk at the FAC of removing the overworld map image. If that does happen, then the article would be only have the cover and a gameplay image, without the eReader. I'll see what I can dig up for the TV series. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC))

Support A-class. Sorry it's been long overdue for me to do so Guyinblack.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments

Images

• I like the first two images and I think they're necessary to understand the gameplay of Super Mario Bros. 3. I'm also satisfied with their fair use rationale. The third picture, however, might pose a problem at any future FAC, even though I think it's fine.

Prose/Layout/Style

• "By 1993, it had sold 4 and 7 million units in Japan and the United States respectively..." - This sentence refers to "it", which could be misunderstood as the Wizard movie because that was what the previous sentence discussed.
• "Nintendo licensed its products for inclusion in the film, The Wizard, and was given approval for the game footage and script." - Kind of unclear. Why would Nintendo be given approval for the movie? It's not their movie, after all. Did Nintendo give approval to the filmmakers?
• Should the second paragraph in Legacy be a "Ports" or "Re-releases" subsection instead?

Sources

• "In 1989, Tom Pollack of Universal Studios approached Nintendo of America's marketing department about a video game movie; inspired by Nintendo video game competitions, Pollack envisioned a video game version of Tommy for younger audiences." - Does this statement need an inline citation?

Support. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 07:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. Here are are the answers

• Tweaked wording for that part. Hopefully it's less ambiguous now.
• I remember spending some time trying to think of how to word that part. I'll have to check the book again when I get home tonight, but I believe it was that Nintendo had input on what game footage and products could be used in scenes. Like if they weren't happy with the video game elements in a scene they could object. Any ideas to better convey this?
• I'd rather not subdivide that section because it's already so short (only two normal sized paragraphs). I wouldn't want the ports to be given undue weight.
• The part about Pollack is in ref 15 from David Sheff's book. Everything from "The delay, however..." to "...game footage and script." is in that source.

Let me know if you have any ideas for the footage and script approval, or any other issues you may have. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC))

Sure, maybe something like "Nintendo licensed its products for inclusion in what would become the film The Wizard. During the movie's production, the filmmakers requested and were granted approval from Nintendo regarding the script and portrayal of the company's games." — Levi van Tine (t – c) 05:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

That looks good to me. I've updated the article with that sentence. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC))

Marsha Kinder content

I'm not quite sure why this info is irrelevant to the topic, but here's the rational.
Dr. Marsha Kinder is [http://cinema.usc.edu/faculty/kinder-marsha.htm faculty member at the University of Southern California and a publisher author. The book cited for the content (Playing with Power in Movies, Television, and Video Games) was published by University of California Press, an academic publisher. Wikipedia:Reliable sources states that "academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources when available." While this may be a minority viewpoint, it is not given undue weight; only one paragraph out of four deals with negative criticism, and it only takes up two sentences. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view tells us to present a spectrum of viewpoints in proper proportions. I fail to see how it did not comply with policy. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 06:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC))

Having worked in a field related to academic publishing, I can tell you from experience that there are literally hundreds of books published by professors every year in a wide variety of fields due to the "publish or perish" mentality that pervades academia. Just like any other segment of society, some of these professors are brilliant and insightful, and some of them less so. Every one of these academics is attempting to make their mark and present fresh or unique takes on a wide variety of issues, but not all of them are successful. One book by one author does not make for a sound theory in academia. Consensus on "proper" interpretation is reached as multiple professors take up and expand a theory presented by an individual. On many topics, there will be several important dissenting views, but there will also be a large number of minority views that are considered ridiculous by the community as a whole or just ignored entirely.

To tie the above more concretely into wikipedia policy there are two that come to mind, WP:NPOV and WP:V. In terms of WP:V, I think this qualifies as an exceptional claim, as while gender bias is a complaint lobbied against video games all the time, the additional material about contributing to the oedipalization of American society and the game's wands as phallic symbols seems a little out there and not in line with mainstream interpretation of the game. I am worried that this constitutes "claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community" and therefore feel we need more evidence that this is actually a theory that has traction with other experts in the field. I bring up WP:NPOV because I assume trying to add some negative to balance the positive in the article was the reason the information was added in the first place. NPOV does not require that bad be added to an article to balance the good; it merely requries that all important interpretations of a person, thing, or event be given equal treatment. Specifically, it calls for "representation of all significant views that have been published by reliable sources" (emphasis in original). As previously stated, this view cannot be proven as significant without verification that the theory is taken seriously within academia. I can see adding general info on the belief that Mario rescuing a princess is part of a larger problem of gender bias in video games that serves to exclude girls from gaming, but some of the specific claims made by Dr. Kinder need more support. Indrian (talk) 12:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

You know what, I'm done with this article. I have no access to such scholarly reviews and do not need the distraction. Do with the article as you wish. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC))

Other (print) sources

There are some other print sources out there that I'm going to list here from some of the older magazines that I have which provides a bit of preview coverage of SMB3:

GamePro

• "Overseas ProSpects – Super Mario Bros. 3". GamePro (1): 40–42. May 1989. 

Game Players

• "Game Player's Annual Awards – 1990". Game Players (20): 16. February 1991.  ← Won "Game of the Year" for the NES

Electronic Gaming Monthly

• Semrad, Edward (June 1989). "International Outlook – Super Mario Bros. 3". Electronic Gaming Monthly (2): 44–45. 
• "Best and Worst of 1989". Electronic Gaming Monthly (5): 20. December 1989.  ← Named "Most Eagerly Anticipated Game (That Wasn't Released)"
• "Best and Worst of 1989". Electronic Gaming Monthly (5): 24. December 1989.  ← Forecasting that SMB3 will be the magazine's "Game of the Year" for 1990

Nintendo Power

• "Pak Watch". Nintendo Power (6): 104. May–June 1989.  ← First mention of SMB3 in Nintendo Power
• "Pak Watch". Nintendo Power (9): 92. November–December 1989. 
• "The Making of Super Mario Bros. 3". Nintendo Power (10): 20–23. January–February 1990. 
• "Super Mario Bros. 3". Nintendo Power (11): 8–15. March–April 1990.  ← Full coverage of game; was also featured on this issue's front cover
• "Nintendo Power Awards '90". Nintendo Power (22): 80–84. March 1991.  ← Nominated for "Best Graphics and Sound", "Best Theme and Fun", "Best Play Control", "Best Hero" (Mario), "Best Bad Guy" (Koopalings), and "Best Overall"
• "Nintendo Power Awards '90". Nintendo Powre (24): 30–33. May 1991.  ← Won awards for "Best Theme and Fun", "Best Play Control", and "Best Overall"; 2nd Place for "Best Graphics and Sound" and for "Best Hero" (Mario); 3rd Place for "Best Bad Guy" (Koopalings)

I can also probably track down (if not in the article already) how long SMB3 was #1 on Nintendo Power's "Top 30" list if I get time; I know it was #1 for a very long time before The Legend of Zelda eventually took over at #1 around the last year of the NES's lifespan.

Anyways, if someone wants to work on doing any additional expansion using the abovementioned sources, let me know. –MuZemike 20:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

World Names

I noticed that the article mentions the different world names, like Desert Land and Giant Land, but does not mention that early copies of the game had different names for the different worlds, at least in the US. For example, World 3 was Ocean Side in the early copies of the game but later copies, and subsequent reissues of the game, have named World 3 Water Land. I believe that World 8 is Dark Land in the second edition and Land of the Koopa (or Castle of the Koopa?) in the first edition. The names of the different worlds were reflected in the manual and in the ending. I think these changes are important enough to have at least a brief mention.

Ilbbaicl (talk) 09:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Also includes a remake of Mario Bros

In the Super Mario Bros 3 remake there is a Battle Mode which is essentially a remake of the original Mario Bros —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.122.13.32 (talk) 07:30, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Release dates

Are there any contemporary articles which can explain the reasoning behind why such a high profile game took 16 months after its Japanese release to be released in the US, and then a further 18 months to be released in the UK? Was there some kind of cartridge production problem, or a lack of people to translate the game? Or perhaps a technical issue running the game on PAL machines?

Considering the (almost) 3 year gap between the release dates..... I feel it is something which needs including in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.248.49 (talk) 19:57, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

• There are two reasons for the delayed release. First, the US did not get a Super Mario Bros. 2 (different game than SMB2 in Japan) until late 1988 so Nintendo of America did not want to cannibalize the market for that game. Second, there was a ROM chip shortage in 1988-89 that caused several games to be delayed including this one and Zelda II. Indrian (talk) 15:25, 27 March 2011 (UTC))

Merge discussion

As I said in my edit summary, none of the other "Advance" remakes have their own articles. I don't see what's so uniquely notable about this one that it should have it's own article.

Looking at the other article, much of it is redundant to here, or constitutes overly detailed, game guide like material (especially about the card reader effects). And the extensive critical reception is just too much; we don't need every review of the remake to be included in Wikipedia; a very brief summary of examples stating that the reviewers though it a good protect is sufficient.

Actually, considering these, it almost seems like the SMA 4 article is full of padding just to justify a separate article when none of the other Mario remakes have them. oknazevad (talk) 05:34, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Quite frankly, there is really no debate as to whether it satisfies notability criteria. It has a unique development section, a unique reception section, unique game features, including "DLC" (in e-Card form), new power-ups from later games, voice acting, etc. The new levels were made available through store-bought packs of cards; these cards were highly covered in the media. As for the merge requester wondering why the other versions don't have articles, it is because no one has been able to find evidence of notability. This is the only Super Mario Advance game where I can see any of the reception being anything other than aging well or how it works on a handheld. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 05:26, 27 July 2011 (UTC

Unique content:

The fact that Tezuka and Miyamoto, who were not as involved in previous Mario remakes, came on to produce this one; its voice acting; Its video creation feature; its release history; the entire e-Card section; its sales; its high quality as a Game Boy Advance release, as indicated by IGN, GameSpot, and GameSpy; multiple paragraphs discussing both the quality of the e-Reader features as well as the possibilities involved. There is no redundancies in the reception; perhaps it could be trimmed down by condensing reviews that say basically the same thing to "Super Mario Advance 4 was considered a great game by so-and-so and so-and-so"; however, it's pretty apparent that the reception for the game was significant, and it's more than apparent that a lot of the content in the article is not redundant to the content in this article. Half of your argument seems to be the pitch perfect poster child for deleting a notable article because other potentially notable articles do not exist. It is not the responsibility of those who wrote this article to maintain the upkeep of other similar articles. This article is clearly notable, and not just as a port, but also for its e-Reader functionality, which is clearly big enough, since it has >three paragraphs devoted entirely to that functionality alone. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 05:56, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

And I would argue that these additional features don't really make it a different game. Certainly, they're value adding enhancements, but the fundamental core of the game is the same. As such, they could be covered within the section here on the port, but in a briefer fashion, and not given the near undue weight they are now given. In short, SMA 4 is still first and foremost a port of Super Mario Bros. 3; anything beyond that is bells and whistles that are deserving of mention, but do not, as I see it, elevate it to a different game. oknazevad (talk) 06:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I do not see how covering a topic - which has received significant reception (the e-Cards, that is) - is undue. There are two paragraphs because reliable secondary sources wrote content that added up to two paragraphs of content on Wikipedia. Wikipedia has never made a guideline or policy that suggests that a port or remake cannot have its own article. Significant non-trivial secondary coverage of the sources exist, and beyond that, there is nothing I should have to worry about any further. Wikipedia is not a collection of games; it is a collection of articles. The Super Mario Bros. 3 is already rather large as it is, and the SMA4 port is, as evidenced in reliable sources for both development and reception (as well as overall content), the most significantly different Mario port released at the time. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 06:21, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Oknazevad, your argument of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is invalid. Super Mario 64 DS has a similar amount of coverage, if not less. Having original content really means little. Merging this article would be silly because it obviously meets guidelines. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 18:26, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, my argument is more an "other stuff doesn't exist" one, whereas the mention of Suoer Mario 64 DS is an other stuff exists argument. But it's one based on content. Thinking on it, you two are probably right; coverage of the unique content of the SMA 4 version of SMB 3 would be a bit large for this article, creating WP:UNDUE and length issues, and following WP:SUMMARY splitting it off into it's own article makes sense. As such, I am withdrawing the merge suggestion. Still have some concerns that the material on SMA 4 is routine coverage of a non-original work, but it's not a deal breaker. oknazevad (talk) 16:12, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

4 million plus 7 million times $40 does not equal 500 million dollars

It says "By 1993, the game had sold 4 and 7 million units in Japan and the United States respectively, earning Nintendo over US$500 million in revenue." That's 11 million copies of a game that sold $40 retail. So how would that equal 500 million dollars? Did games sell for more than that in Japan, and even so, most were sold in America, and the stores take a third of the sales, so I don't see how its possible they made that much. Dream Focus 22:13, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Remember the order of operations. Multiplication and division must be done before addition and subtraction. Georgia guy (talk) 22:18, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

4+7=11. 11 million times $40 would be $440 million, not $500 million. And of course they didn't keep 100% of the retail price. Dream Focus 22:22, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

You added before multiplying. Do you know the order of operations?? Georgia guy (talk) 22:31, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

4 times 40 would be 160. 7 times 40 would be 280. And those together and its 440. It does not matter if you add the total number of games before multiplying them by the sale price or not. You really need to work on your math skills, much like whoever put that in the article. Dream Focus 22:40, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the order matters. What is 2 plus 3 times 4?? Georgia guy (talk) 23:01, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you read the content, and not just the title. This is not 4+7*40, it is (4+7)*40. This is quite a silly argument anyhow. I suggest finding a source for the statement, see if either 11M sales or $500M is verifiable. Salvidrim (talk) 23:17, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh; I saw it written without parentheses originally. Georgia guy (talk) 23:22, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

• To get back to the original concern, the numbers above seem to be taken from Game Over by David Sheff, but have not been presented completely accurately. Accoring to Sheff, "In America alone, revenues for [Super Mario Bros. 3] have topped $500 million." And on the very next page "Super Mario Bros. 3 would sell more copies than any video game in history - 7 million in the United States and 4 million in Japan." I did a google news search as well (http://www.google.com/search?aq=f&hl=en&gl=us&tbm=nws&btnmeta_news_search=1&q=%22super+mario+bros.+3%22#q=%22super+mario+bros.+3%22&hl=en&safe=off&gl=us&sa=X&ei=sKKPTomtIsO4tgeM2MCDDA&ved=0CB0QpwUoCw&source=lnt&tbs=cdr:1%2Ccd_min%3A1%2F1%2F1990%2Ccd_max%3A12%2F31%2F1993&tbm=nws&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=eedfa8c152ffdf9b&biw=1920&bih=974), and while the articles are pay-per-view, the excerpts provide a little more information. In 1991, two separate articles state the game is approaching 8 million in sales and that games sales have generated $400 million in revenue for Nintendo, though it is impossible from the excerpts to tell whether these are US figures or worldwide. Doing the search a slightly different way (http://www.google.com/search?aq=f&hl=en&gl=us&tbm=nws&btnmeta_news_search=1&q=%22super+mario+bros.+3%22#sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&safe=off&gl=us&tbs=cdr:1%2Ccd_min%3A1%2F1%2F1990%2Ccd_max%3A12%2F31%2F1993&tbm=nws&source=hp&q=%22super+mario+bros.+3%22+7+million+us&pbx=1&oq=%22super+mario+bros.+3%22+7+million+us&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=235048l236936l2l237044l13l11l0l0l0l0l293l2045l0.5.5l10l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=eedfa8c152ffdf9b&biw=1920&bih=974) we see that the 4 and 7 million unit figures come directly from Nintendo via Perrin Kaplan in 1993. Sheff's sales figures then are certainly accurate, and I see no outright reason to question the $500 million figure either, though obviously that figure would have to include more than merely the money brought in from 7 million in cartridge sales. For the figure to be accurate, it presumably includes merchandising and other revenue streams as well. The sentence in the article should be reworded, however, as the way it is currently written does imply that cartridge sales alone led to that $500 million revenue figure, and Sheff never actually makes that direct claim. Indrian (talk) 01:21, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

The television show didn't last long. The Adventures of Super Mario Bros. 3 But they did have a lot of merchandising. [1] Still, could they make say even 10 dollars on merchandise for every game sold? That number still seems rather high. Dream Focus 01:51, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the number appears high, but we also have another source that gives a $400 million figure from two years previous for cartridge sales alone, so it is not out of the question. I don't claim to know how that figure was reached, but based on the evidence, it is almost certainly a number he got from Nintendo. Corporations have many tricky ways to make themselves look good when it comes to presenting financial information, so without another source directly contradicting Sheff I think it should stand since he is generally a reliable source of information. However, I agree that the sentence should be altered to reflect that there is no claim that cartridge sales alone generated that revenue. Indrian (talk) 02:09, 8 October 2011 (UTC)