Jump to content

Talk:Super Smash Bros./Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Talk:Super Smash Bros.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DarkRyan75 (talk | contribs) at 07:09, 13 August 2007. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

 If your question is on Super Smash Bros. Brawl,
please read The Brawl FAQ to make sure your question has not been already answered.
Archive
Archives

Archive 1
Archive 2



Archive 2

The page was growing larger than the orginal archive, 8 KBs more to be exact, I made into Talk:Super Smash Bros. (series)/Archive 2→041744 22:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Giga Bowser

To continue the previous discussion on whether or not Giga Bowser should be on the Playable Characters list. While I personally think he should be on it but has been decided that he should not be. Of course people are disputing this hence this discussion. The Light6 05:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Well I think that this discussion is not truly if giga bowser should be on the table or not but weather the characters table is for full characters or for the main characters, power ups and final smash attacks. If we include every power up such as giga Bowser, The table Would look like the NPC table with every pokemon and Assist trophy, there are bound to be more Fianl smashs like bowser's, we can't include every character that is just playable for a few seconds(which does not include Zero Suit samus) In the table Can We? What would differentiate full characters from the countless final smashes? That is no way to organize a encyclopedia.→041744 12:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Due to the fact that it appears to be the same 3 people that don't want G-Bowser to be included, I've added this poll to get the general opinion of what the majority of people thinks about including this:

Fighter SSB Melee Brawl Series
Bowser Red XN Green tickY Green tickY3 Mario series
Notes:

3. In Super Smash Bros. Brawl, Bowser's Final Smash allows him to temporarily transform into Giga Bowser.

Everyone is allowed to vote on whether or not we should include this note to the page, we should then decide what to do based on what the majority wants. Please sign your posts or your vote wont count.

Comments

  • Hold it, hold it, hold it, Giga bowser doesn't deserve a spot on the page just because he has yet to be covered on the ssbb website? So if we knew of the "Zero-Suit Samus" name but the website never talked of her as a diffrent character, she wouldn't count as a seperate character? BassxForte 22:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
    • I agree with him there. The "He's not listed on Dojo" comments are just stupid. If thats the case, why are Meta Knight and Snake on the list? (Though I still stand by my comment above) Dengarde ► Complaints 22:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Meta Knight and Snake are there because they had profiles on the old website. I do think the Dojo thing isn't a good argument; why did we add Donkey Kong before he appeared on Dojo? Because he was shown fighting in an E3 video. — Malcolm (talk) 23:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Hm, y'know, I don't think all of the reasons have ever been listed all in one place. I'll try to summarize the key reasons that have been made.

        1. Giga Bowser is only temporarily playable (whereas Zero Suit Samus is effectively playable indefinitely, once you "unlock" her).
        2. Unlike Zero Suit Samus, Giga Bowser doesn't have a different moveset from regular Bowser, except for the elemental properties of some attacks.
        3. Despite what people think, Giga Bowser is not a separate character from Bowser. Giga Bowser may have originated in Melee, but that doesn't mean he isn't still just a transformation of Bowser.

        I think some people dispute that #3 could also be applied to Zero Suit Samus, but the fact that she has an entirely different moveset and other statistics from Power Suit Samus effectively makes her a separate character, hence the reason why Nintendo insisted on giving Zero Suit Samus her own character page.
        Also, Meta Knight and Snake were featured on the first version of the Brawl website, both have been featured in gameplay video footage, and Meta Knight has been making appearances in several of the screenshots in recent updates, which is why they're on the list. (If I missed a reason as to why Giga Bowser isn't on the list that was mentioned here, feel free to mention it. I think I covered the main reasons though...) Disaster KirbyTalk 23:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • If Giga Bowser had a profile on Dojo this debate would probably have never started but what note is that we don't know why G-Bowser doesn't have a profile. It could be because the creators don't consider him a proper character as he is temporary and/or a final smash move or that he is so similar to Bowser with the same moveset and all that the creators deemed it unnecessary to give him his own profile. Unfortunately we do not know however their may be a circumstance where we may know and while could allow this debate to end. If another temporary character which is transformation brought on by the final smash is revealed and it's different enough to the untransformed state eg. Ganondorf and Ganon, then if they don't give them a profile then we know the creators don't consider them characters and we can leave them off the list while if they do get a profile we can assume that G-Bowser was too similar too Bowser to warrant a profile. The Light6 06:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
    • I think we should just change the NPC list to something more general. Make it so that it's a list of characters that began as a result of the Smash Bros. series. That way, you can put a check next to Giga Bowser's name. Just before the list starts, you can state that Giga Bowser is an exception in that he's not playable just like the other NPCs from the first two games, but playable in Brawl. Oubliette 13:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
      • A section name change just to check a character off is silly, it would be like changing a section named "100" to "10x10". There are just to many bad scenarios if we change the section name like "what if a game specific character that appears playable, would list it twice?" or if "A new NPC character that is close enough to a other character but is never said that they are the same, Where is that listed?". The NPC section is fine as it is; If it ain't broke don't fix it.→041744 15:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
      • I'm not saying we should put Giga Bowser in the Playable Character section. It's just that the characters in the current NPC section were predominantly created to appear as Smash foes. If we state that instead of stating that they're NPC people, perhaps the debates that Giga Bowser should or should not be in the Playable Character section will end. He'll already be in a section, checked off, and will not have to be added to another section. Besides, what's wrong with "100" to "10x10" if it's the same result? Not that it reflects my idea, mine is more like "100" to "100 + 1". You get Giga Bowser checked off as something, the people who want him checked will stop complaining, the people who don't feel he is a full-fledged character yet ZSS is get to keep him off the main list, everyone wins. Oubliette 00:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
        • Sorry for how I might come off, but we are here to uphold the rules of wikipedia, not to make people have everything they want on this page.→041744 01:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC) Sorry I spoke without thinking.→041744 21:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
      • What makes my suggestion violate Wikipedia's policy? Oubliette 01:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC) Understood. Oubliette 02:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
      • It's a simple switch. The section is meant to list characters that were created mainly for Smash. Master Hand, who has made a cameo appearance in some Kirby games, would still fit. I'm pretty sure that whoever created him years ago wasn't planning for him to be in Amazing Mirror, a game that wasn't even in production at the time. Plus, Roy was created for Fire Emblem. Even though he debuted in Melee, he was explicitly stated to be a Fire Emblem character in that game, is a playable character there anyway, and does not have a Smash Bros. logo. The idea is bulletproof, yet you don't want it put up because it seems "fine as it is"? If it was fine, we wouldn't have this poll up, and people would not be complaining or upset afterward about whatever the result will be.
And if it's "fine as it is" only because you don't want to change the list title yourself, i'll be more than happy to edit it in. Oubliette 01:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
It's ridiculous to change something like that just to please a couple people. -Sukecchi 10:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
It would make sense. At least we wouldn't have to make this poll over and over. It's not like a proposition to rewrite the entire article. The new section just explains that these characters originated for Smash to the reader. Oubliette 13:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should understand the diffrence between a "playable character" (PC) and a "non-playable character" (NPC), a playable character is a character the player can directly control, a non-playable character is a character the player cannot directly control barring cheating/hacking devices. BassxForte 17:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

This is why I say make the current "non-playable character" section slightly more general. I understand the difference between a playable character and a NPC fully - i'm not saying (nor have I ever suggested) that we should combine the two lists. If Giga Bowser can be directly controlled in Brawl but not in Melee, he's still in the game. Having him marked as a ? is only going to be misleading to the reader. It would appear inconsistent with the paragraph format below the initial list, and they will only question why Giga Bowser was excluded from such a list for the sole reason of being "playable" (however temporary). The current list of NPCs includes characters linked together as Smash-themed opponents. Focusing on that instead of the characters being NPCs in the first and second games would not compromise anything. Oubliette 01:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

To those of you who think the mention in Giga Bowser's section isn't enough...my response: Why mention it twice? -Sukecchi 23:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Then why do you have the current list of NPCs in the first place? By your logic, it's easier to remove it and keep the paragraph descriptions. Or do you plan on removing the paragraph format instead, keeping the list of NPCs only? At least Giga Bowser would be up only once. My point is that he's not there (on the list with Master Hand, Sandbag, etc.) at all now. Oubliette 01:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The game treats Giga Bowser as a wholly diffrent character, Giga bowser's symbol isn't Bowser's, in the Kanto stadium his name is registered as "G-Bowser" and there are multiple roars from him that can be found in sound test that aren't heard in-game, all this indicateshe was meant to be a playable character seperate from Bowser. BassxForte 01:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand he is considered seperate from Bowser, and that he may have been meant to be playable. If he wasn't, no one would write a whole paragraph about him in the first place. What you said about his logo being different is exactly what I am referring to. This logo that Giga Bowser has confirms that he is of Smash Bros. origin in concept. I am suggesting that we change the list title to that, then put a check next to Giga Bowser as he is a Smash Bros. origin character that makes an appearance in Brawl. No descriptions of characters need to be changed. Oubliette 02:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Then we are in agreement. BassxForte 03:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

We agree on Giga Bowser having been meant to be playable. However, what do you feel about changing the section from NPC to Smash Origin? Would stop this whole poll process from ever surfacing again, as these lists that felt it was necessary to include the Hands and the small fry teams acknowledged G-Bowser. Oubliette 03:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
To change a section name just to stop a poll from coming up again is pointless. Unless there is really important new information about a NPC, we can just direct questioners to this section either way this turns out. So this wouldn't "surface again" if that's your whole arguement.→041744 12:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Not just that, it's just so that we have to list Giga Bowser once in a list. Also, since he's listed under the Smash Origin category, we wouldn't have to put footnotes detailing that Bowser transforms into him. He's in Melee, playable or not. He's also in Brawl, playable or not. All I want is acknowledgement of it. I also want to know why this method does not "uphold the rules of wikipedia". Would you rather watch these arguments come up on the talk page from different people over and over? Ending the poll is just a byproduct. Oubliette 14:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
As of right now, all the NPCs happen to be of "Smash Origin." What if, in Brawl, it turns out that there are some NPCs from other series. What if Sonic is in Brawl, but is an NPC? What if...well, this is all speculation. Status quo is fine for the NPC section. My suggestion is that we add a line saying that all of the NPCs are not seen in any other game series. --Son 14:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
That makes little sense. For one thing, Master Hand appears in Kirby and the Amazing Mirror. After he's defeated, the player receives the Smash ability. Also, it's not like we're not going to list Goombas and Koopas as NPCs just to write paragraphs about them, they probably have their own articles. They have no logo, they take a set amount of hit points and then they're dead. The people on the Smash Origin list all have the smash logo, which is meant to detail their origin. Oubliette 15:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
But what if there is an NPC that is not of Smash Bros. origin? Then we would have to change the name of the table back to Non-playable characters, instead of calling it Smash Origin characters. --Son 16:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

A character that is not of Smash bros. origin will get a section wherever they are mentioned on wikipedia, non-smash bros. origin characters are always currently existing characters. BassxForte 16:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

An NPC that is not of Smash Bros. origin would likely either have a full moveset programmed, or be an Assist Trophy. I doubt anyone wants to list Assist trophies. If they did have a complete enough moveset, why not just make them playable? Still, are you referring to the Hammer Bro.? He's clearly an enemy from Adventure Mode, but I doubt he'd have a damage percentage or logo emblazoned on the screen. Oubliette 02:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Not to get off track, but Hammer Bro is an Assist Trophy in Brawl. Disaster KirbyTalk 03:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
I am fully aware. He appears as an antagonist in The Subspace Emissary. Fox is kicking his hammer back at him. Do you think he's an NPC with a damage percentage? It seems unlikely. Oubliette 03:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh, whoops. I forgot about that screenshot. How embarassing. Disaster KirbyTalk 03:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
It was just one screenshot of many, it's forgettable. Oubliette 03:55, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Unlock

I think this page needs to be unlocked so we can add things to it. It is missing some info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyclone1993 (talk • contribs) 22:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

It can still be edited by some people. (Me included), so no worries there. Dengarde ► Complaints 22:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
And...what info? Could you be a bit specific? -Sukecchi 23:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't have Peach listed as a character and she has been in pictures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyclone1993 (talk • contribs) 02:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Peach is only in the FMV, she hasn't appeared in any screenshots of playing the game. When she does, she will be added. -Sukecchi 02:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
This was discussed before (see archive 2) and it was decide despite the fact we know she will be in the game we don't know what role or purpose she would serve, although we assume that she will be playable there is no proof saying straight out that she will be playable, so adding her has been held off until it is proven that she is indeed playable such proof would most likely be a character profile on Dojo. Also about unprotecting the article, this article is the subject of numerous bogas edits and vandalism especially by unregistered users so unprotecting it would be a bad idea, also if you looked closely would would have seen that it is only semi-protected "Editing of this article by unregistered or newly registered users is currently disabled" so if you have an account that older then 4 days then you should be able to edit the article. The Light6 06:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Wait for Peach until she is confirmed!

Yes, she's in the video, but she must be confirmed without a doubt as a playable character. In other words, wait for the Dojo to put up her feature article on the website as they have done with everyone else.Rglong 17:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Well,didn't we have Mario,and a few others when we saw the first video?DOJO didn't have a Mario profile back then.We know for a fact that Peach is playable,as she come to help Mario,Kirby,and Zelda?Metaknight doesn't have a profile up yet,and we said "He's playable."Do you understand where i'm coming from?-SLJCOAAATR

Stop using Meta Knight as a freaking example. He's in screenshots of actual gameplay. -Sukecchi 23:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Do you not get the concept of 'gameplay footage'? Meta Knight has been seen in gameplay footage and in-battle screenshots, hence why he is on the list despite not being 'listed' on the site yet (same goes for Snake, but the recent lack of his appearances makes me think that he may be a secret character). In Peach's case, we've only seen her in an FMV, and a screenshot from that FMV. It may be obvious that Peach will be a playable character, but since that video doesn't specifically show her fighting, we can't prove that she is a playable character. Wikipedia isn't a place to just assume things. Disaster KirbyTalk 23:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
When Donkey was seen in a video he was added without being confirmed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.163.39.74 (talk) 23:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
And that was gameplay footage. We could clearly see Donkey Kong fighting Pikachu and Mario in the last bit of that video, so it was obvious that Donkey Kong was a playable character at that point. Disaster KirbyTalk 23:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually we did see one of Peach's moves in the FMV.She twirled her umbrella,and zoomed up with Zelda to help fight with Mario,and Kirby.I bet by the end of the week,Peach will have a profile up.Also,in last year's E3 video,Snake was only shown in an FMV video,and didn't use any attacks (Unless you consider hiding under a box an attack.) yet we confirmed him to be playable.I believe his profile on the old site didn't come up for a bit longer.-SLJCOAAATR

FREAKING SCREENSHOTS. Are you not understanding this? Snake was in several in game shots and the second trailer showed him fighting. he shot a freaking rocket launcher at Pit! Why aren't you grasping that we've seen them in screenshots of the actual game before? - Sukecchi 18:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
When snake emerged from his box it said "NEWCOMER SNAKE", impling he was playable, but with peach it was all FMV with no actual gameplay. It also never implied she was playable or showed her actually fighting, so wait for her profile if (yes IF, don't bite my head off) it comes.→041744 20:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I say we wait until final confirmation, especially since some of the comments are close to personal attacks, it is clear she was running to help Mario and Kirby, in my opinion that means she's confirmed, but Wikipedia's rules are not arugable. BassxForte 19:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

But in most video games as soon as we see a PIC of a char we add them. Not even gameplay pics.

Wikipedia is very paranoid about ssbb. BassxForte 17:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay people,let's just wait a week,or 2,by then,Peach's profile should be up.And BassxForte,that's why i'm saying she's confirmed,and yes people are getting quite paranoid here,it makes me wonder why i even go online anymore.I'm sick of people yelling at me that i'm wrong,then,a bit later,new info. (about 90% of the time.) proves me correct.My agrument about S.P.M. being only for Wii on Amazon.com,and many other things on many different sites.I'm also in an argument on the Ben10 video game page about when the game takes place,and about Cream being in Sonic Rivals 2.-SLJCOAAATR

Really now, Wikipedia's not paranoid. It just has rules that have to be followed. We all know Peach will be playable (anybody who actually believes otherwise is pretty much fooling themselves), but as she has yet to appear in a screenshot or video that physically shows her fighting in the game engine itself, she's not confirmed as far as Wikipedia is concerned. By trying to claim she is, we run the risk of a later editor or administrator reverting our edits on the basis of speculation. It's easier to just leave it alone until there's absolutely no question.
So in conclusion, it's not really necessary to confuse our actions with a personal vendetta to strike down your opinion or anything like that. We're really on the same side, you know. Arrowned 18:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

When it comes to the ssbb page a lot of people seem to have gotton paranoid about the verifiability, but I guess that paranoia is the only thing that's keeping the ssbb page from being ripped apart by speculators. However, I think the "wait for Peach to be confirmed as a character" is just getting more and more retarded. BassxForte 21:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Arrowned:I can settle on that.Let's all just leave it at she WILL be playable,we know that for a fact.But not change the playable character list until she gets a profile.I can deal with that.What upsets me is the exactly what BassxForte said.I completely agree with that.-SLJCOAAATR

SLJCOAAATR, why don't you just get an account already? So you can sign your replies properly?
The fact is, Wikipedia has rules and we have to follow them. If you don't like them then don't come here. -Sukecchi 22:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Allow me to direct you to this. BassxForte 01:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Sukecchi:I don't use the site often enough to have an account.I doubt i'll be here much longer so,to me it's a waste when i'll only use it a few times throughout the year.-SLJCOAAATR

CSpuppydog: I cant figure out how her being in that video isnt proof enough that she isnt gonna be in the game... for gods sake poeople... Im pretty sure that it is confromation. God damn people whats the big deal with saying she isnt in it anyway?

Yes, Peach is in the game. There's no denying that. But what hasn't been confirmed is if she is a playable character or not.--Satoryu 20:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

CSpuppydog: Wow... you really think she isnt a playable character? Oh god... I still dont see the harm of saying she is playable right now...

We all know that Peach will be playable. It's just that she hasn't been shown as a playable character yet. And until there is proof that she is playable, whether it be from a gameplay video, screenshot, or the Dojo gives her a page, saying she is playable is speculation.--Satoryu 20:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Disgustingly correct speculation, but speculation. BassxForte 23:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

How about we just change the page to say "Although shown in an FMV,there is still not enough information known about Peach's appearence to have a proper article on her appearence as a playable character in Brawl."Sound good enough?-SLJCOAAATR

Princess Peach has been confirmed already through the video, and the reconfirmation of Sheik and Ganondorf through a recent interview with Nintendo's Zelda series master, Eiji Aonuma too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmanueltru (talk • contribs)

With all due respect... did you not read any of this discussion before you posted that? Also, new posts go at the bottom of sections, not the top. Arrowned 19:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Anyone making a comment on what i said before?-SLJCOAAATR

No, leave the page as is. It's not as if people won't still try to add her. --Satoryu 20:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

FINE...-SLJCOAAATR

Pardon me for adding Peach. I didnt saw all this discussion
Can I surgically inject some logic into this situation? Sakurai would not add peach in a video if not playable, especially next to zelda, mario, and kirby. Sakurai made melee, so it is completely PROBABLE that peach and every other charater in melee. Plus, dk was shown in a video before he was announced. my last point, is that peach and other characters mede the game FUN. isn't it nice to put away the hero for a while and use a normally not playable NPC? Wii2-13 00:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
(I hate edit conflicts) *sigh* Did you read this entire section before making that comment? Peach isn't shown fighting, so she isn't confirmed she is playable (however likely she will be). DK was put in because he was shown fighting. And that last part is your opinion. — Malcolm (talk) 01:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
It's true, Peach will most likely be in the game, but we still can't add her until she is 100% confirmed. Being in that video made it very probable, but still not 100% to be in it. We can't add any one until it explicitly says that they're in it. Depressio 01:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Stupid Sandbag is not a character!

It's just a damn object. Why isn't Bob-omb featured as a NPC then? It seems really silly to me to come to this article and see that dumbass sandbag getting an entire paragraph. (don't be offended by my tone, it's totally toward the sandbag, not at people)Rglong 17:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

If I had to guess, it's because no other NPC has a percentage meter. Don't quote me on that decision though; I wasn't around here back then to see how that consensus ended. Arrowned 17:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Remember, consensus can change. --Son 18:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually, Sandbag is a character. Notice the eyes, the fact that he gets up by himself if knocked down, his percentage meter, and the fact that he's playable via hacking? Sandbag is a character. Bomb-Omb is an item. Dengarde ► Complaints 17:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
As I have said before: "sandbag, he does have a symbol(the smash bros. symbol, as with all NPCs in that section) and damage meter, however because his role requires him to be a scingoat, he was given no moveset." And as the comment above has pointed out a Bob-omb is a item like pokemon and assist trophies, with one move or attack and no damge meter. Every character has a damage meter, but since Pokemon Assit trophies and a Bob-ombs have no Damage meter they are not "true" characters by this page's standard. As such they are not on this table. Just because you can't control something doesn't mean that is is a NPC.→041744 19:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
041744 is correct, the only thind which makes sandbag different from the other non-playable characters is the lack of a moveset which is unrequired for its role as 041744 also pointed out. The only reason to say that it doesn't count would be to say that a character requires a moveset to be in the list. While if that were agreed on it would be good enough reason to prevent any pokeball pokemon or assist trophy characters being added to the list the current decision seems to go along the lines of things which are defined by the game as characters and as it is playable through hacking it proves that sandbag was programmed as a character lacking a moveset. The Light6 06:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Sandbag is playable through hacking - bobombs are not. Sandbag lacks a complete moveset, yes. But sandbag does have the ability to jump! When playing as sandbag through hacked means, pressing the jump button will make him jump. (Although, double jumping will cause freezing). ~Kae.

Sandbag also has a trophy that mentions that it likes getting hit. Showing that he has some individuality. BassxForte 19:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no legit reason for having Sandbag as an NPC. Action Replay means nothing so stop mentioning that. He has no animations and is not on-par with NPCs like MasterHand and the Polygyon/Frame teams. Remove him.--ChibiMrBubbles 17:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't remove him. He has a logo and a damage counter. Oubliette 17:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
The action replay proves that programming wise he is a character and I believe he does have a few animations eg. getting back up, but as said before because of his role he was giving minimum programming. The Light6 06:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Zero Suit Samus

No, I'm not saying remove her but there is a little note on the page that you get ZSS when she uses her Final Smash. Isn't she an actual character?--12.210.228.164 20:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

No..."you get ZSS when she uses her Final Smash." — Malcolm (talk) 20:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


Why no Metal Mario?

Everyone knows it exists from game. It's silly thing to leave out. I would like some explanation. K^ aka Fooly-Dooly-00000 21:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Because Metal Mario is caused by an item now. This is going to turn into a Giga Bowser-esque discussion, and I think you should take him off the list until you see what other people think. -Sukecchi 23:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Seeing as a specific Metal Mario and Metal Luigi have appeared in two of the games so far, I don't see any reason not to include them. If they had just turned it into a random metal character (like they did with the giant battle), there would be no reason to have it, but he has been specifically included in both games. TTN 23:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Exactly my thoughts; So I was wondering why can't we. Besides, as TTN has said, Metal has been NPC, so it does belong in the list. K^ aka Fooly-Dooly-00000 00:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
This was discussed before but if it has to be discussed again let me point out why he wasn't on there before here and here. The Light6 06:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Pokemon Trainer

I for one am baffled. Do we list him as a character, or his three Pokemon? Or all four? I can't edit the page, so, yeah... DarkRyan75 07:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Super_Smash_Bros./Archive_7&oldid=150912817"