Talk:Super Smash Bros. Brawl

Permission for MobyGames link

In light of the warning in the External links section, I'm asking permission to add this link:

Super Smash Bros. Brawl at MobyGames

It has tons more screenshots than this article does (or ever will have). I don't watch this article, so someone else will have to add it. If no one objects, the wiki template code is: {{MobyGames|id=/wii/super-smash-bros-brawl}}. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 11:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

That page leads to a 404. Also, if any site has more screenshots than the article, it would be the Dojo...which we're already linking to. So to add a link just because of a few screenshots seems kind of silly when we have the Dojo. -Sukecchi (talk) 12:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't link to 404, but I agree that DOJO is the only one that's needed. --haha169 (talk) 16:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

When I viewed it this morning it did...then I saw it was fixed and I didn't bother changing my response. -Sukecchi (talk) 17:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok. --haha169 (talk) 17:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

FA Status

I just wanted to say good job to all those who contributed to this article and getting it up to FA standard. We've all done our part nicely. Stabby Joe (talk) 13:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! --haha169 (talk) 16:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

lol, WUT. I just got back. Hi, everyone. SSBB:FA - I didn't dare to hope, but wanted to see it... *sniff* --Coreycubed (talk) 14:38, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Lol. So much wiki-drama. :P SSB (series):FT now. Even better. :) --haha169 (talk) 01:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Though I'm not a contributor to the page, I've watchlisted this article since the game was announced. Wow! The talk was rife with speculation that ultimately wasn't true, as well as fights that rivaled Taiwanese demonstrations against Chen Shui-bian, even enough to fill 32 archives. You guys really deserve a good pat on the back for combating all the stuff that's happened here, much less the article itself. bibliomaniac15 04:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! This article will forever be the article that I worked the most hardest on. The article's subject was amazingly and surprisingly controversial considering that its a normal video game - but we did it. :) --haha169 (talk) 04:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

New image

Should we replace this image with this so we'll have an image of both of the third-partyers? --(trogga) 16:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

No, at least not with that image. A picture of both third-partyers would be nice, but one without the random confetti, without Sandbag partially in the picture, and with slightly clearer views of Sonic and Snake would work great.--The Ninth Bright Shiner 03:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. That image just isn't up to quality standards for non-free images... --haha169 (talk) 17:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Wi-Fi Spectator

are these Wi-Fi battles viewed here live? Because they don't seem to have muh lag. Or are they Wi-Fi recorded battles played back?--69.150.73.212 (talk) 04:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Question: How is this supposed to help improve the article? Or is this just forum talk, which is not supposed to be mentioned per the big template above? --haha169 (talk) 17:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

More developing Smash / adding characters

So I'm guessing this is the criteria the "39" characters had to pass to be included in a game: [6]

“ The popularity of the character is important, for instance, as is the consideration of whether the character has a unique ability that only he, she or it can bring to the game. ”

“ "I also have to think about if the character pulls the gameplay in a direction I don't want it to go in," he agrees "and, of course, whether there are any IP issues to get over and if it'd be too hard to get that particular fighter in the game". ”

Perhaps something here would be useful for one of the Smash-related articles. « ₣M₣ » 19:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

List of SSBB music article.

User:A Link to the Past/List of songs in Super Smash Bros. Brawl - Not going to be proposing anything at the moment, just want to see if anyone'd be interested in filling the Development and Reception sections. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Sales Figures

I've got a new article which states that SSBB has sold 5.2 million units. http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iXr6VLDHor5dXI_Ot2c0GdQUbJxA NinjaRooster (talk) 21:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, its 5.4 million. Secondly, its already in the article. --haha169 (talk) 04:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Not in the first paragraph, it's not. 128.113.201.190 (talk) 00:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Genre

A user called Joker Begins has been adding action, now replaced fighting with action. This should be disscused here. --Yowuza ZX Wolfie 17:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Fighting game is Street Fighter, Capcom vs SNK2, Smash Bros is an action game. Joker Begins (talk) 17:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

All the major sites (IGN, Gamespot, Mobygames which actually notes both, and even Nintendo's own page) classify it as a fighting game. Personal opinion does not work as a valid source for this article. Arrowned (talk) 22:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Even so, the Smash DOJO lists it as a "Action" game [7]. Personally, I think it should be listed as a "Fighting/Platformer" game. But that's just me. Unknownlight (talk) 01:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, according to imdb, Super Smash Bros. Brawl is action http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0928380/ Action | Adventure | Comedy | Fantasy | Sci-Fi | Thriller. Joker Begins (talk) 18:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

IMDB is unusable. Same follows for other user-created content sites. You'll have to do better. (If I'm wrong, slap me with a trout -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Call me Mr. Bonaparte!)} 19:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Metacritic says Smash series are "fighting, action" http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/wii/supersmashbrosbrawl?q=super%20smash%20bros.. 18:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amigo Fura Olho (talk • contribs)

Okay, so far we have three usable sources that say "action" (Metacritic, Mobygames, and the DOJO!) and five that say fighting (IGN, Gamespot, Mobygames, Metacritic, and Nintendo). Just because the DOJO! says it's action doesn't mean anything because Nintendo contradicts the DOJO! in this circumstance. In all honesty, I can see us stating the genre as "Fighting/Action" legitimately given that both share two sources and the game's official classification differs (the game's site says "action"; Nintendo says "fighting"). -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Call me Mr. Bonaparte!)} 19:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Since all available sources allow an easy compromise, we might as well go that route. Arrowned (talk) 19:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

But isn't a fighting a subgenre of action anyway? --trogga 01:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Not a sub-genre, I don't consider, but related. —Preceding unsigned comment added by YowuzaZXWolfie (talk • contribs) 15:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, since DOJO!!! is basically the official site of the game, then wouldnt it be accurate to say that it is a fighting game? 71.197.212.92 (talk) 05:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

No - the DOJO! says it's an action game, and Nintendo's official website contradicts this by calling it fighting. Also, reliable sources aren't in agreement about the genre; two of them call the game action/fighting. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 05:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Unless a very compelling source is provided to say that one or the other is incorrect, it should be action/fighting. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

...especially as even official sources are divided over this (DOJO! says action, Nintendo says fighting) and two other reliable sources say both. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 01:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, even though you attack opponents on a selectable stage, like a fighting game, a lot of Smash Bros. gameply isn't really that typical of a fighting game. And a gem can easily overlap 2 or more genres. --Yowuza ZX Wolfie 17:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Brawl is a fighting game, action game is something like Metal Gear Solid, GTA or Syphon Filter. I think is should be only "fighting game". aah the subspace emissary would be considered action/platformer and melee's adventure mode would be considered platformer. Pé de Chinelo (talk) 22:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Pé, Brawl is not strictly either according to reliable sources and the current existing consensus. Genre will remain "Action/Fighting" until the consensus says otherwise. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 00:00, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Metal Gear Solid is Tactical Espionage. GTA is a sandbox game, and Syphon Filter is a 3PS. Action is very different. Twinwarrior (talk) 04:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Without a source, the game could be defined as fighting, action, or even platforming. The fighting comes from the style of the game- characters on a small arena duke it out. The action comes from how it differentiates from regular fighters like Mortal Kombat or Soul Calibur, in that it gives players a lot more mobility. The platforming comes from Subspace Emissary, where the game runs a lot like a platformer. Though in the Smash DOJO!! site, Masahiro Sakurai actually defines it as a sport. So, I suppose this could be up for debate. I personally consider this an Action/Fighting, but hey- if the official website calls it a sport, if the director of the game calls it a sport, it's a sport. Twinwarrior (talk) 04:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

-Like previously stated, the genre should be Action/Fighting until proven otherwise. 70.243.34.104 (talk) 17:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't care what most people say, but SSBB is in fact a fighting game set up in "free-roaming", "sumo wrestling boundered" arenas. If this is the case, and since sumo wrestling is a sport, so is fighting, thus this game is considered a fighting game that is part of a sports genre. Who cares if players can move around freely, it is still a fighting game. Characters are fighting each other, punching, kicking, throwing stuff at each other, right? There is Mild Violence right? Then it's a fighting game. Enough said.Keetoman (talk) 15:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Boxart

Why isn't the image of the boxart appearing in the article? 76.109.0.160 (talk) 00:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The image was corrupted, somehow or another. I've fixed it; there should be no problems now. Arrowned (talk) 00:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

You mean the good image was replaced by a corrupted one. --haha169 (talk) 05:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

That makes more sense; I was seriously confused as to what had happened. Arrowned (talk) 19:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Havok

I've never understood the concept of engines that well, so I steered clear of most discussions related to this. However, I stand by community consensus of some of Wikipedia's most experienced VG editors in saying that Havok is not a video game engine (or something in that respect). Therefore, I believe it should be reverted unless Ellomate can give a satisfactory argument against those who previously discussed against Havok's addition. --haha169 (talk) 05:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

You're right - Havok is a physics engine, not a video game engine (compare Source). -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 05:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

What Happened?

I noticed that there were links to topics, but those topics don't exist.  ??????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.80.14.96 (talk) 17:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you elaborate?—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 03:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

StrategyWiki is not a good external link

It's not very accurate and doesn't have very helpful information particularly in the character specific section. I suggest removing it. David Martin Chao (talk) 06:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not that; a link to startegry guides is against Wikipedia guidelines. See WP:NOT. --Yowuza ZX Wolfie 16:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

No mention of strategy guides in the entire policy - and I've read that so many times. There are, however, many things in that policy that say Strategywiki should not be allowed in the external links section - but consider that this article has gone through two FACs, multiple peer reviews, GANS, and 30+ archives of talk page discussion. Certainly, you can find a discussion about this issue in the archives. I distinctly remember one and think the argument for the link was quite good. --haha169 (talk) 03:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Awards section?

Does anyone besides me think that we should add an "Awards" section for this article? Link 486 (talk) 14:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

When there's enough content it would be worth distinguishing the awards. However, there's only about three lines worth at the moment. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 15:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Online Play

I'm surprised there isn't anything in the article or even the discussion about the major, major issues with the online play. I was a tournament player in the original and melee, but I and several of my fellow tourney friends quit playing Brawl early on due to the horrible lag in online play. With the fastest of all connections, you will often experience lag that makes the game totally unplayable, not to mention excessively long wait times in between matches even during prime time during the height of the game's popularity. I know that for me, personally, and many of my friends, the lag issues are what made the game a big bomb in spite of it being a great game in every other respect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.184.167.3 (talk) 20:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you can find some sources complaining about it, if it is such a big issue. But note that it has already been mentioned in the "Receptions" section of the article. But just my two cents, I'm not sure why everyone is complaining about this, since I've never experienced that problem before... --haha169 (talk) 18:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

tournament players dont like it

alot of melee tournament players dislike brawl. i think this shoulld be mentioned somewhere in the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.130.37.13 (talk) 02:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Reliable Source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.109.29.125 (talk) 16:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Echo 38., with the addendum that the tournament scene isn't going to be something the leyperson is going to be interested in; it's fancruft. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 21:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

That's opinion-based. It's probably true, but it doesn't have a source. Twinwarrior (talk) 03:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Unused music

What about the unused music in the game, like this youtube video. I know it's real because you can use the Ocarina cheat code engine to get it. (Most of the vids where people are playing in a level with unused music are fakes because they just used a video editor and the ripped mp3s) But anyways I thought that was worth mentioning, although there isn't much proof, it is real.--Retrotails (talk) 17:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

"There isn't much proof but I know it's real" doesn't fly here. We need reliable sources -- such as news stories -- to back up claims, and a Youtube video doesn't count. Xenon54 (talk) 18:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Who is right, and who isn't?

In the article, it is stated that SSBB sols 7.47 million copies worldwide, but this other article says it sold 8.1 million. Who I must believe to? --186.14.102.80 (talk) 00:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The List article, considering the source there is based on a more recently updated version of the official sales data provided by Nintendo. I'll update it now, thanks. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 01:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

SmashWiki link

Hey guys, could we add {{wikia|super-smash-bros|SmashWiki|Super Smash Bros. Brawl}} (link) to the External links section?--Richard (Talk - Contribs) 17:22, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

see Talk:Super Smash Bros. (series)#SmashWiki and Talk:Super Smash Bros. Brawl/Archive 32#Smash Bros. Wiki Logan GBA (talk) 19:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

About Brawl+

For those who don't know, Brawl+ is currently an (incomplete) hacked version of Smash Bros. Brawl created by members of the Smash World Forums, with the intent to make the game more balanced and tournament viable. The FAQ is available here.

Now, in any other case I would not consider a hacked version of a game relevant enough to be mentioned in the article, but it's different in this case: Brawl+ has apparently (as in, according to the FAQ, I haven't had the time to go search around Google) been used in multiple tournaments so far. If this is true, I think that the Brawl+ hack is relevant enough to be mentioned somewhere in this article, since, if the BrawlPlusery get their way, Brawl+ may become the tournament standard, replacing normal Brawl.

So yeah, does anyone have any objections? Unknownlight (talk) 23:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Reliable source? It might merit inclusion if there exist such sources. --155.246.129.226 (talk) 05:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

It seems quite notable, but I agree with the IP that there needs to be a reliable source. --haha169 (talk) 05:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Modifications/Hacking

Ever since the launch began, several devices like USBGeko and Orcarina can enable the user to go deeper and enable user generated modifications (textures, picture cover, etc.) into the game which contains a series of coded events that grant players to customize their own match or modify this game with unofficial patches that can 'damage' the game's stability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JBRPG (talk • contribs) 18:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Irrelevant. Next! -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 06:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Edit Page

{{editsemiprotected}}

 Question: Welcome and thanks for wanting to improve this article. Please describe what you would like to change about the article and add a new {{editsemiprotected}} and somebody will be glad to help. Celestra (talk) 02:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Playable Characters and Inclusion of Characters

The sections Playable Charaters and Inclusion of Characters should combined. --Regular Mario o}8|3) (talk) 02:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The inclusion of characters is written in a development standpoint. So I think it should stay in Development. Does anyone else have ideas? --haha169 (talk) 04:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Havok physics

I am sure this game uses Havok physics, so could someone kindly add that to the article in some way? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Olifromsolly (talk • contribs) 18:50, August 22, 2009 (UTC)

You'll need a reliable source backing that up before it can be included in the article. -sesuPRIME 07:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, it is included on Wikipedia's article on Havok. I'll add a source to this article, though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Olifromsolly (talk • contribs) 09:32, August 23, 2009 (UTC)

See above section. Added back contents box. « ₣M₣ » 11:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The FAQ

Do we really need the out-of-date and completely useless FAQ for this game anymore? I'm not sure why we still have it. Unknownlight (talk) 04:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Main page! Hooray!

I must say, bravo everyone. The days when misinformation and uncited sources were rampant seemed such a short time ago, and now Brawl is on the front page! The bulk of my editing was in the old still-in-development days, mostly in the form of heated discussion. From those who put in big edits to the hundreds of WikiGnomes, pat yourself on the back!--The Ninth Bright Shiner 00:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

its a god damn shame that this piece of--dont want to get banned-- game is featured. Its a tripping simulator and does not deserve the praise it gets. 69.106.230.122 (talk) 02:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC)