Talk:Super Mario 64

Platform List

Why isn't the Nintendo DS on the platform list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joruto (talk • contribs) 10:41, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Music

Even though this is a featured article, shouldn't there be more about the sound track? Perhaps with a few samples? JACOPLANE • 2008-02-13 18:28

Technically, if the content isn't reported on by a reliable source, then it isn't notable enough to be included in the article. Music and soundtracks in video games are not always required for comprehensiveness unless it was well received, done by a famous composer, or something else notable. Though it would certainly help round out the article. I'll see what I can find out and hopefully add it in. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC))

I understand the following comment does not belong in music. But I could not find another spot. I hope this will suffice. You've seen "L is real 2041"? 2+0+4+1=7, which might have something to do with the seventh game by Nintendo? No, it has to do with 7 in ANOTHER GAME. Another game where L is real, like in Luigi's mansion. The seventh portrait ghost is Madame Clairvoya. Speak to her 2041, and she will say "L is real, isn't he?". THAT'S your big secret. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.202.127 (talk) 20:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a fanboy website.

Someone is repeatedly removing criticisms just because he does not like it.This clearly violates Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.Do not vandalize this page.--133.2.9.161 (talk) 05:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I assume this is Handsome elite/Dr90s, if not please correct me. While I can understand how you would want this article to be as accurate as possible, the article does already include some negative content in regard to the game, albeit a small amount. Though the reason for the small amount was because the game was so well received.

However, the main reason for the information's removal is the reliability of the sources, per WP:Reliable sources. Nintendorks looks to be a privately owned blog, done by an non-notable person (i.e. someone who is not an industry expert). This does not satisfy Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion. Game Revolution may or may not qualify as reliable source, but I'd rather not take a chance with a Featured article. The FA criteria has been getting tighter and tighter lately and I see no reason to include some information that is actually already covered in the article—criticism about the camera—with a source that someone could use to take this article to WP:FAR.

I'm sorry things happened the way they did, but I still stand firm on my stance. Nintendorks does not constitute a reliable source, and unless you can demonstrate Game Revolution as a reliable source, I do not think it should be included. Thank you for starting a discussion here to talk this out, and I hope you have a good day. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC))

Metacritic score is influenced by both Game Revolution and Nintendorks.[1]Metacritic announces they uses only reliable reviews.Nintendork is not a privately owned blog, and not done by an non-notable person.Game Revolution and Nintendorks are both enough reliable.Adding criticisms improves this article as this article becomes more neutral, which is required in wikipedia."the shifting camera angle took getting used to" is not criticism and not enough information, there is a need to show readers bad points about the camera.--43.244.132.168 (talk) 15:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

While Metacritic may consider them to be reliable, they do not seem to qualify as such on Wikipedia. As I've stated before, "Nintendorks looks to be a privately owned blog, done by an non-notable person." That does not meet Wikipedia's guideline for a reliable source, per WP:V#SELF. If it not a blog, please explain why. As I've also stated before, "unless you can demonstrate Game Revolution as a reliable source, I do not think it should be included." It is privately owned and used on Metacritic, which are both good points in its favor. However, I could not find any information on their editorial oversight, and its Wikipedia article is under examination for its notability. Both of those are strong points against it in my mind.

In regard to the criticism, there is another comment in addition to the "getting use to" comment, "by present day standards the camera system 'would almost be considered broken'". And further down in the next section is information how the game is indirectly linked to the demise of the N64. So while Wikipedia is meant to be neutral, it is also suppose to portray the information as accurately as possible while being verifiable by reliable sources.

Now, while I'm happy to discuss this with you, continuing to edit while a discussion is still ongoing is not the best practice and can lead to your IP address(es) being blocked. If you want to discuss this further, that's fine, but controversial content should be removed while discussions are taking place. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC))

"Nintendorks looks to be a privately owned blog, done by an non-notable person." is just your opinion, and no evidence is shown. Metacritic is more reliable than you--43.244.132.168 (talk) 16:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Game Revolution is included in Template:VG Reviews.It is obvious they are reliable.--43.244.132.168 (talk) 16:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The first item listed on the main page is:

"DRCs 06-17-08 06.17.08 - Brandon
Blee blah bloo bleep.
Mr. Face say read more » "

There is no information that states who owns the site, a company owned website would display text or a logo to designate this. And, the authors only go by first names. It looks like an awful lot like a personal blog to me. And while this is an educated assumption, there is no information to state otherwise. If you can provide such information, instead of simply asserting that it is reliable, then we can discuss this further. But without it, I'm sorry to say see no reason to include it.

In regard to Game Revolution, there are several websites listed on the VG Reviews template that should probably not be on there. It is an unprotected template that anyone can edit. There have several discussion on WT:VG about the number of sources on there and their reliability. As I've stated before, "I could not find any information on their editorial oversight, and its Wikipedia article is under examination for its notability." (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC))

Let me get this straight: You consider Nintendorks reliable, but not Gaming Age? Why? You have not yet given one single good reason why the sources are reliable/not reliable. And why can't you just drop this one; is it so important for you that the article contains excessive information from Game Revolution and Nintendorks? If everyone thought the way you did, the reception section would eventually be as big as the article itself. You can't include every single source, just because you consider it reliable. You have to keep in mind that users like me and Guy have worked on this article to include the most important criticisms and praise, to make the article as comprehensible as possible. This is an FA, and adding excessive information for your benefit is not good for anyone. Sorry if I seem a little big rude, but it had to be said. The Prince (talk) 07:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

IP 43.244.132.168- While I understand the reasons behind you edits, I still have to disagree on the grounds that the sources do not look to satisfy WP:Reliable sources. Because of this I have removed the content and I kindly ask that please stop adding in such sources. A general sweep of the article is planned, during which I will look at the current sources for criticism about the game. If you happen to find other sources, you are welcome to post them here so we can check them against Wikipedia's reliability guidelines. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC))

That Game Revolution and The Video Game Critic do not look reliable sources is just your personal opinion. Over 140 articles use Game Revolution as reference.[2]Obviously your opinion is a minority opinion. Furthermore, If your criteria are adopted, it results in numerous sources considered unreliable, and nemerous information being removed. Your edits seem to be based on fanboyism.--43.244.132.168 (talk) 15:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you have not provided information to establish the sites' reliability. I have already stated above why I think Game Revolution is questionable. The video game critic looks to be owned and operated by a single person with no editorial oversight listed, which is the equivalent of a blog. I understand how this can be frustrating, but these are Wikipedia's guidelines. And while we're editing here, we have to abide by them. If you want more opinions on this matter, you are welcome to post on the Reliable sources Noticeboard and the Video games project talk page. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC))

what is editorial oversight? Please show GameSpot' editorial oversight as an example. Which page of GameSpot shows their editorial oversight?--43.244.132.168 (talk) 16:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Editorial oversight is a process in which content is checked for accuracy and reliability, and allows for corrections.

In regard to GameSpot, as a subsidiary CNET Networks, which is in turn a subsidiary of CBS Corporation, GameSpot falls under their editorial oversight which can be found here. Their reliability is furthered by the fact GameSpot has been sourced by other publications and some of their content is mirrored on Yahoo! Games. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC))

Actually, now that I think about it, I've seen Game Revolution been used quite a few times in GA/FA articles. AoEII just recently passed FA status with GR in it, and no one seemed to have a problem with it's reliability. I'm not saying we should include it or that it's a reliable source, I'm just spitballing. The Prince (talk) 09:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed it in Shadow of the Colossus yesterday too, but its FAC was a few years ago. My main problem with it is I can't seem to find much info about the site itself on http://www.gamerevolution.com/ or its parent site http://www.craveonline.com/. Also, User:Ealdgyth, the FAC sources guru, didn't post a check of the sources at the AoEII FAC. But User:Karanacs did do a sweep.

Hmmm.... I guess we should probably get some feedback at WT:VG. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 12:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC))

strategywiki is obviously has no reliability. Ownt.com is not a reliable source. It has no information on their editorial oversight. nsider is Privately Owned, not reliable. discuss before adding contents with no reliability.--43.244.132.168 (talk) 15:19, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

After the discussion at WT:VG, it looks like reviews from Game Revolution are suitable for sources. I've added the content from there back in and also included a review from Next Gen magazine. I plan to do some tweaking of the Reception section later to iron out the flow of the writing.

I'm sorry things have worked out this way. And hope this result is a happy mid point for both sides. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC))

L is Real

Firstly, can anyone even prove the plaque reads "L is Real 2041"? I saw gibberish. But people will see anything if they look hard enough. If it says "L is real", which, to be perfectly honest, I don't think it does, then it was a joke, that the game's designers obviously thought would never be found. Did I hear something about "L is real 2401" or "2401 Eternal Star" in Legend Of Zelda? Any information will be helpful. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.202.127 (talk) 15:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

All the reliable and verifiable information we have is in the article. Please see the Rumors section. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC))

There must be more to it. How can you even prove it says anything. Then again, if there's nothing to it, maybe Nintendo should just say that that's NOT WHAT IT SAYS? And that's apparently not the only mention of "L is real". I heard something about it being scrawled onto a wall in Luigi's Mansion. HAs anybody seen this. I don't want to drop the issue until I understand it. But thanks Guyinblack25. At least you tried. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.202.127 (talk) 21:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Removed speculative comments leaning towards an internet forum discussion. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC))

SM64 DS merger

When did this happen? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC))

It happened after A Link to the Past decided to go with with the usual "merge without discussion/consensus". The Prince (talk) 16:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

After doing some digging, I've found some sources for the reception and development sections of the DS game. The development isn't anything too in-depth, but I'd say it's enough to warrant a section. I still have a few sites to check so I may find some more. Any objections to splitting it back out? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC))

I would not be surprised if there were enough material for a separate article. Pagrashtak 18:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I support it. SM64DS is definitely notable enough for it's own page. The SM64 article should be reverted back again once the split has been done, though. The Prince (talk) 18:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Some of it is from Super Mario 64 2. Quick question, what's the difference between Super Mario 64 2 and Super Mario 128? If they are related, perhaps the two should be merged. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC))

I don't think they are quite the same thing why they are both mentioned as sequals to 64 Mario 128 was never mentioned to be for the 64DD implying that they were two sperate unreleased products. --76.71.215.109 (talk) 17:19, 18 October 2008 (UTC) I think Super Mario 128 was a working title or hype title for Super Mario Sunshine

I recreated the DS article from the redirect. It looks like it could make GA, so I'll try to rewrite and expand on it more later. But at the moment, this article needs some attention for Version 0.7. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC))

New Play Control! version?

Someone (using an IP address) added that this game will be re-released for the "New Play Control!" line of Wii games. The New Play Control! page has also been updated with this information (by a separate IP address user). Is this true? A quick Google search turned up nothing to confirm this, and it doesn't seem to fit, as "New Play Control!" games are all former GameCube games, not N64 games. -Sesu Prime (talk) 10:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

It should be removed now. Thanks for bringing it to the talk page. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC))

Star Fox 2

According to Dylan Cuthbert of Q-Games in this documentary, some programming elements done for Star Fox 2, such as the camera and platforming programs, were adapted and reused for the development of Super Mario 64. Should this info be included in the article? Parrothead1983 (talk) 02:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Key sentence factually incorrect, misleading and nonsensical

Paragraph 2, 1st sentence: "As one of the first three dimensional (3D) platform games, Super Mario 64 features free-roaming analog degrees of freedom, large open-ended areas, and true 3D polygons as opposed to two-dimensional (2D) sprites."

"features free-roaming analog degrees of freedom" - I have no idea what this means.

"large open-ended areas" - 'Large' is fairly subjective and 'open-ended' I disagree with. The areas in Mario 64 are definitely finite in terms of game-play objectives and geometry.

"true 3D polygons as opposed to two-dimensional (2D) sprites" - True 3d polygons are indeed featured, but so are sprites (You have a picture of some further down the page!) To say 'as opposed' is misleading.

Ultimately this sentence is supposed to act as a lofty intro to Mario 64 but when scrutinised contains no meaningful information. I would edit it myself but feel that I cannot do justice to the article nor the game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christuborg (talk • contribs) 18:33, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Every single "world" has boundaries to it, which the player cannot venture beyond. This is also true of the courtyard and the area around the castle. Even when flying, if you try to move past the boundary, you'll get bounced back by an invisible wall. So, no -- there are no "open-ended" areas. Source: playing the game.76.113.25.252 (talk) 06:29, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Use of Emulator Screenshots

I think the use of images that are obviously from an N64 emulator cannot possibly be justified here. The page is about the N64 version and thus the graphical capabilities (or rather limitations) should be noted, not those of a higher resolution version. HolyB144 (talk) 13:21, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you can tell whether or not they are from an emulator. It doesn't matter either way. The game would still have the same graphics. Emulators don't magically make the graphics better just because they are on your computer. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 13:57, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 6 October 2011

In Impact and Legacy, there should be a brief reference to the Paper Mario L is Real theory. It was noted in many gameing websites.

Whatamidoingtoday (talk) 17:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Bility (talk) 17:34, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

User unlikely to do so, he is indefinitely blocked. Salvidrim (talk) 18:12, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Cuthbert: "Super Mario FX" was never in production

Hi! I was searching through a fansite when I found a page discussing "Super Mario FX"...

http://www.snescentral.com/article.php?id=1032 - http://www.webcitation.org/6B3583nxh

The Super Mario 64 article uses this IGN article (Archive) as a source, but the above site argues that IGN likely had sourced it from an interview with Shigeru Miyamoto in a Nintendo Power issue (Archive) (I can't tell exactly which year and day it is) but that IGN got what the interview said wrong. The IGN article does not say where it got its information.

"If you read the IGN page, it is obvious that they were looking at the above article (which mentions the five year development schedule). The only problem is that if you actually read the article, it simply states that he got the idea for making a 3D Mario game while making Star Fox (which was in development five years previous to the publication of the article), not that he was actually developing a Super FX Mario game. Nintendo announced Project Reality in August 1993 - only a half a year after the initial release of Star Fox. It is implausible that Miyamoto would work on a Super FX Mario game while also working on the Nintendo 64 hardware."

So he proceeded to contact Dylan Cuthbert on Twitter, and got this: http://twitter.com/#!/dylancuthbert/statuses/165596909413728256

• Fansite operator: "I'm researching unreleased SNES games, was a game called "Super Mario FX" ever in development?"
• Cuthbert: "no, that was the internal code name for the FX chip"

So that means that the name "Super Mario FX" has nothing to do with Super Mario 64, and that the IGN source is faulty, correct? WhisperToMe (talk) 04:19, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I just informed the fansite owner of this discussion, to show him that I am initiating this discussion after reading the content on his site. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Since there was no further input I went ahead and did the edits. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 June 2012

Reference #50, the link to GamePro's article on games.net is dead, and should be marked as such. Derektom14 (talk) 05:54, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• Archived here. Salvidrim! 06:14, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Soundtracks and audio

There is a current discussion going on here Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Discussion about how Soundtracks, and audio are presented in the articles. Other users wanted to start a discussion on it, and the results will effect this page also, so if your interested please contribute to the discussion. (Floppydog66 (talk) 07:57, 12 December 2012 (UTC))

Interesting quote

I stumbled across an interesting quote that neatly summarized the game's legacy. I'll leave it here in case anyone wants to incorporate it into the article, or just so you can read it.

Super Mario 64 was not only the first true 3-D video game, according to LucasArts vice president of product development Peter Hirschmann, but also the game that established a number of conventions--"such as how you navigate a 3-D space and how a camera moves in 3-D space," Hirschmann says--which game designers still use today.

— Vanity Fair

CaseyPenk (talk) 17:44, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposed Addition to "Impact and Legacy"

Gabe Newell, co-founder of Valve Corporation, has called Super Mario 64 his favorite game of all time, saying that while Doom convinced him that video games were the future of entertainment, it was Super Mario 64 that convinced him that video games were art.