Jump to content

Talk:Super Mario Galaxy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 69.244.234.39 (talk) at 22:31, 17 February 2008 (→Nausea?: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconVideo games B‑class High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles
BThis article has been rated as B-class on the project's quality scale.
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Template:NESproj

Please note that discussion on this talk page has determined that the UR MR GAY meme is not notable enough for inclusion in this article, and any additions of the meme without discussion here first will be reverted on sight. If you wish to propose the addition of the meme on this talk page, please ensure that your proposal is accompanied by external citations and adheres to Wikipedia's policies on original research and undue weight/neutral point of view.
Archive
Archives

Mario's last words

We currently have his dialogue at the end of the game listed as "Welcome, welcome new galaxy!"... but when I listen to it, it sounds to me like he says "galaxies." Plural. Anyone care to argue the point? I'm tempted to change it but would like to know if someone feels otherwise. I know Kotaku recently linked to a "Mario Galaxy Spoilers" video that shows the line, and you can also find it on YouTube if you need to double-check without fighting Bowser again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bishop2 (talk • contribs) 15:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you start watching this video from 9:53, it's pretty clear that he is saying the singular. That being said, he sounds really dumb and maybe we should go into denial by removing any reference to him speaking from the article. He really needs to take some pointers from Link about being the strong, silent hero type. clicketyclickyaketyyak 07:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For whatever reason, it still sounds like he says "Galaxiiiiiies!" to me. It's still a very awkwardly worded non-sentence either way, but I like hearing Mario talk more rather than less. --Bishop2 (talk) 15:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with clicketyclick (about the article; I could care less about whether he wants to make Ness look more like him). Dialogue in a game is not notable unless it explodes out beyond the game ("You spoony bard!", "All your base are belong to us"). -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 08:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My favs are "You cocky boxes of bolts! You'll never get away with this!" and "butterfly, butterfly, I want to masticate you with my teeth to a mushy pulp and sprinkle you in my cereal". Okay so I may have paraphrased the latter one. To make some semblance of being on-topic, I would say just remove the Mario quotation. It's not really a major plot point. clicketyclickyaketyyak 08:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it is actually a plot point, since it shows that a new Galaxy was created(somehow). 86.88.117.225 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 10:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
... which can be stated without quotation (i.e. "The scene then cuts to Mario, Peach, and Bowser waking up back in the Mushroom Kingdom during a fireworks display after a new Galaxy was created", or, "A new Galaxy is created and then the scene cuts..." etc.) clicketyclickyaketyyak 11:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand where you are going, but the creation isnt that obvious. Its everyone waking up, and suddenly, Mario sees a new Galaxy, so to me it seems that is is a relevant plot point and that it is important enough to be quoted. 86.88.117.225 (talk)
You don't need to directly quote everything in order to establish that it happened. If the scene right before they wake up was not enough to suggest that the original galaxy has been replaced, then an allusion to the line without actually quoting it is enough. Writing the words "new Galaxy" is enough of an allusion to the line to be an acceptable paraphrasementizationthat'snotaword. clicketyclickyaketyyak 23:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remember, it was a new Universe that was created. The black hole sucked in the entire universe. Which makes sense, since at the end alot of things were mixed up. SUch as the queen Bee being at the mushroom kingdom, and several planets native to other galaxies being around the mushroom Kingdom. Like Rosalina said, they never quite live in the same way, so the Universe was destroyed in the big Bang, an the new Universe is similar to the old one, but mixed together and different. 24.205.92.204 (talk) 02:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to discuss the Plot ending, make a new article in the discussion. In my opinion, the qoute should be qouted, since they are Mario's only words (except for some "Huh's" and "Ya's"). And i don't really see any difference between qouting him, or make it a sentence. 86.88.117.225 (talk)
I'm pretty sure that it's "Galaxies". If you notice, absolutely everything got sucked into one area. Not just one galaxy was sucked in, all of them were. He is welcoming ALL the galaxies that are now with their galaxy, not just one of the galaxies.--Shroopliss T/C\U 03:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I'm not a big fan of having large, elaborate plot summaries as is. Nonetheless, if you're going to state the ending, I think its original research to omit the quote because of its grammatical awkwardness. Drumpler (talk) 05:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Original research would be including it and assuming we understand it to be correct. --Bishop2 (talk) 16:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plot error?

From the Plot section- "She then departs, although the Luma who traveled with Mario is shown to be alive and he is hiding in one of the Toads ships."

The luma is hiding in the young girl's ship, not the toads'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 33LB (talk • contribs) 19:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it can be either one, since the toads have the same shaped ships, though i never really thought of it. Maybe just make it "hiding in a crashed spaceship."... 86.88.117.225 (talk)

Game of the Year Roundup

Won

Unannounced

Didn't Win

Wikipedian06 (talk) 01:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

We can't list all of them, the more notable sites like IGN, GameSpot etc are already there so we shouldn't have much of a problem. What we need is a link that has all it won like Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion. Nor is it worth mentioning what it didn't win or hasn't been mentioned yet... Stabby Joe (talk) 15:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I posted this purely for information because someone else had been wondering. I agree that only the big ones should be mentioned in the article, though none of these are exactly trivial, either. Wikipedian06 (talk) 08:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a link with most, if not all of them? Because that way we can post it next to the statments that say it won awards. No way in hell can we mention al the above, just like we don't mention all the reviews. Plus, an award from Nintendo Power wouldn't be game of the year since they arelimited to one company, mor elike Nintendo game of the year. Stabby Joe (talk) 15:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This list makes it rather clear that it has won the most GOTY awards. I'm adding the line "The game has received extremely positive reviews from the gaming press and won more game of the year awards than any other 2007 release." back into the article. Knowitall (talk) 23:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can add that up but we will need a citation that does list them all. Alot of the time its on their offical site. Stabby Joe (talk) 13:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need a citation that lists them all if we have links to all of the individual GOTY awards it has won. It has clearly won more GOTY awards then any game this year. Knowitall (talk) 22:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I can get several citations but they're all blogs I think. Knowitall (talk) 22:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, my point is we don't list them all. If we do it will take up way to much space and will make the page unpresentable. Every page I've come across always does this but ends up mentioning the awards from the most notable sources with a link for all of them, we can't mention everyone. Its not hard, most of the time you can find its official game or publisher's website. I don't know why you're making a fuss over something so reasonable that other game articles do. Stabby Joe (talk) 00:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find a page listing that though, besides blogs. If we know that it has won the most GOTY awards, why do we need a source? Also, this is the best thing I could find. [14] Knowitall (talk) 03:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It would be better for a link because it its such a bold claim and only people here who are most likely SMG fans know how many it won but everyone else will be skeptical because theres no way we can list them all... we know how many it won but this article isn't for us if you get my point. But I've just thought of something, first off do these blogs have links of their own? And secondly awards season isn't over yet so maybe we can get something after? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stabby Joe (talk • contribs) 14:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Insanity

It's obvious that we don't want UR MR GAY in the article. There is clear consensus for that. But labeling any addition (even with a reference!) as vandalism and blocking those who repeatedly add it without telling them what they're doing wrong is rediculous. (This is probably the first time I've ever seen "vandalism" sourced.) Not everyone (especially IPs) reads the talk page. It may just be that they come to this article to learn about this particular bit of trivia, see it isn't mentioned, and decide to put it in themselves. Is it so bad to leave a note on their talk page or in the edit summary that there's consensus against it's inclusion and if they disagree, come discuss it? The blocked IP is irate and I can't say I blame them. Please tell me this isn't going to become the norm. I apoligize for ranting but this really got on my nerves. Bleeding Blue 00:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think they deserve what they're getting. I've seen too many posts on gaming message boards about the MR. GAY "subliminal message." Every one of them was made by a badly-disguised troll who quite clearly had the full intention of annoying people. I vote to continue the zero-tolerance policy. Wikipedian06 (talk) 06:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plot description of ending

People are attempting to add in interpretation of what the ending means. Please realize that unless this can be cited through a reliable source, discussion of the various interpretation of the endings is considered original research and must not be included. --MASEM 23:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any problem with the way the plot is described now, since it only contains obvious moments thagt can be traced back to the game's scenes itself. [[User:Moccamonster|Moccamonster]] (talk) 10:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The plot is way too long the way you want it. Mario 3D games aren't known for their plot, but their innovative gameplay. That's why it got trimmed down to one paragraph. For examples, see Super Mario Sunshine#Story and Super Mario 64#Story, and please don't bring the original plot back. The Prince (talk) 13:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rosalina's description of the Luma's, their lifestyle and other related things regarding the Luma's is much more than the plot from any previous Mario game. both Bowsers plot and Rosalina's story are described in the game. The plot section is fine the way it is now. [[User:Moccamonster|Moccamonster]] (talk) 15:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not. It's excessive, and we need to follow Wikipedias guidelines (WP:PLOT). If you continue reverting, I'll get an admin to block you. Please cooperate. The Prince (talk) 15:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The whole Rosalina/Luma side-story is not of interest to the main story. What Rosalina did as a child is not relevant to Mario saving the princess, or any of the game play for that matter. Afterall, several reviewers thought that subplot was out of place to begin with. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 16:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edge and Eurogamer

Lets not start yet another edit war. Articles with those never get promoted.

Well I find little reason to mention a 10/10 from Edge and Eurogamer due to the following:

  • There is nothing notable or high profile about either, if we mention them then why not GameSpy, Play Magazine or X-Play?
  • Eurogamer have given out plenty of 10/10s and Edge gave out 3 last years (Halo 3 and Orange Box).
  • Can't find anyother articles that have an intro that mentions a 10/10 score.

There are my reasons, now I want to see why were SHOULD mention them. Stabby Joe (talk) 19:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Super Mario Sunshine is one example. I think it's notable that a game gets a perfect score, as this the the best score a game can get. I also added this because it fits well into the lead. I want to make this a GA like SMS and SM64 (which hopefully soon will become an FA). In order to achieve this status, the article needs a lead which summarises the text. The Prince (talk) 20:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Acutally alot of the time to summerise reception, Game Rankings and Metacritic are used alot and no offense but you're making it seem like its rare for any game to get a 10/10... LOTS OF GAMES get 10/10. I perfectly understand what you're getting at but I'd use the review round up sites if I were you since thts a better indication than just 2 of 60+(?) reviews. And of course we have a rough list later in the article. Stabby Joe (talk) 21:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO, no single publication these days is notable enough for a top-of-the-page mention. It used to be Famitsu until Kotaku exposed its shenanigans and people stopped taking it seriously. The "extremely positive reviews from the collective gaming press" sentence stands well enough on its own, I think. Wikipedian06 (talk) 21:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"LOTS OF GAMES get 10/10" Not for publications that set quotas to prevent too many titles from getting perfect or near-perfect scores (which in turn, creates the false perception that they are "harsh" critics). I still stand by my above comment. Wikipedian06 (talk) 21:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to keep reverting me, then please reorganise the refs. You have now broken two of the refs. Please be aware of this the next time you're editing articles. The Prince (talk) 22:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Woah! Multiple responses:
Wiki6 - Thats perfectly fine. I would rather leave it as just "postives reviews", the GR ref was just to see if that could be a substiute for the other current issue at hand.
Prince - Actually I didn't so much as revert/undo but changed it to GR which seems more plausbile than just 2 random reviews. But fair enough, I'll check to make sure the refs are still there. But ref or no ref, I'm pointing out that it doesn't seem to be required to mention those. Stabby Joe (talk) 23:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed it myself. Just remember to do it the next time. The Prince (talk) 12:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who keeps deleting the plot?

The "new" version of the plot section is terrible and has no detail. It sounds like something that Nintendo would put on the back of the box of the game. I'm reverting to back to the old version. Knowitall (talk) 13:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See #Plot description of ending for my reason. The Prince (talk) 13:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The plot section is meant for telling the basic story of the game, not transliterating every event that occurs (i.e. Mario must play hide and seek with the rabbits; the scene cuts to Mario, Peach, and Bowser). If the basic idea can be told so that a person unknowing of the game can understand it, then a completely detailed synopsis is unneeded. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 15:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's right. Games like FFVII and FFX are known for having a detailed plot, and therefore they have bigger plot sections. It's as simple as that. The Prince (talk) 15:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can we at least say how it ends and stuff, instead of it being like a "Back of the game box" description? It seems so lazy this way, like its a newly created aricle and it still needs to be expanded. Why is Wikipedia so insistent on REMOVING information recently? Anyway, make it like the Sunshine story section (with another quick paragraph discussing what actually happens in the game) and I can accept that. I cannot however accept a teaser paragraph that does not even say how the game ends or what happens at any point beyond the very beginning of the game. Knowitall (talk) 22:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's fair enough. Keep it concise, though. The Prince (talk) 23:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Knowitall. We can make the plot shorter like Prince described, as long as it doesn't become a trailer/teaser like description. As long as the key elements are described, it will probably be fine. Moccamonster (talk) 10:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to make a short plot section while still showing the most important elements. Of course, it can probably be shortened, so any shortening and criticism (in a good, polite way) is welcome. Moccamonster (talk) 10:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was too long, so I reverted your edits. Please attemt to keep it concise. The Prince (talk) 12:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I put in my version of the ending description, making it as brief as possible. Rosalina's subplot is not needed to tell the main story (plus people unfamiliar with the game wouldn't be able to make sense of it). --ThomasO1989 (talk) 14:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice plot you made. Seems like a pretty much perfect version to me. Everyone agrees? Great work on the gameplay section too. Moccamonster (talk) 18:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Nice work on the gameplay section as well, Thomas. The Prince (talk) 19:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good work Thomas, I like the new plot section and good work with the gameplay section. Knowitall (talk) 21:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Development Section

The Development section is extremely sparse, as it mostly covers the release date log of the game, rather than the actual development itself. I suggest that more info regarding the ideas around the game should be added. Two things I can think of are how the spherical world concept originated in Super Mario 128, and how the first proto-type came to be-- Miyamoto trying out different versions of the game, commenting on how "spicy" or "delicious" different versions felt. The Iwata Asks interview goes into detail about the development very much, I suggest that this be a very good source of info for later edits. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 17:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As long as it's all sourced, i don't see any problems with expanding it, as long as it won't become extremely long. 86.88.117.225 (talk) 17:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Thomas. Why is it bad that the development section becomes long? That's what is needed; more real-world content, and less in-universe content. The Prince (talk) 17:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any problem with long. I said "extremely long". With that, i mean like 2 pages covering the every bit of detail(and with that i mean EVERY bit). 86.88.117.225 (talk) 18:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Protection?

Seeing the vandalism on this article, should we consider asking for protection of this article? Moccamonster (talk) 20:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good idea. I'm getting tired of reverting all these IP addresses. The Prince (talk) 21:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to issue 234 of Gamepro, Super Mario Galaxy is the highest rated game in history

"Nintendo's moustached mascot dethroned Ocarina of Time as the highest rated game of all time, averaging an astonishing 97.8 percent across 35 different review scores" Still though, that is only 35, I don't kno whow many critics rated OOT. Radiohumor (talk) 18:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's true. Mario Galaxy did surpass OoT at 31 reviews vs. 31 reviews (in fact, all the way up to 52 vs. 31), but due to alleged data manipulation by the GameRankings editor, this is no longer the case. Because of these concerns, we (the editors of WikiProject Video Games) have come to a consensus to stop citing rankings entirely. Wikipedian06 (talk) 02:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

242 Stars

There seems to be a disagreement on the number of Power Stars available in the game. I personally argue that the game offers 242 to collect, total. First Mario gets all 120 stars, and then Luigi gets all 120, making 240. Then, for each brother, a new star is opened, giving 242. I would consider Luigi's star collecting to be slightly different due to the increased difficulty. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 17:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does the last star count for both brothers? In that case, it would be 242. Moccamonster (talk) 14:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nausea?

Should the article talk about how this game has caused nausea in some players?

http://us.wii.com/iwata_asks_vol1_page2.jsp http://episteme.arstechnica.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/174096756/m/987007468831/p/3 http://forums.gametrailers.com/showthread.php?t=245668&page=4

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Super_Mario_Galaxy&oldid=192157865"