Talk:Super Mario 128/Archive 1

Archive 1

Alternate Theory

From what I've read in the article and can piece together, it seems as if Mario 128 is nothing more than a "code name" for what the "next" mario will be. If Miyamoto uses this again past the release of SMG, then I believe we have the answer. The first quote of him talking about Mario 128 as being the Mario 64+the latest tech, it seems as if he's just using this label for the future of Mario, no matter which Mario game is being discussed. --Pdurland 20:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe that would firmly establish whether or not Mario 128 is a codename for "the next Mario", a code name for an on going set of experiments, or a codename for a now defunct set of experiments. Sheeeeeeep (talk) 23:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

My theory was that it's called mario 128 because the gamecube has 128 mb of RAM. And all mario 128 did was show how many marios could be displayed on screen using...128 mb of RAM --Magikmm 05:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe it's called Mario 128 because the Gamecube is a 128 bit machine, where as the N64 was a 64 bit machine. Mario 64 - Mario 128. The Gamecube only had 43 megabytes of RAM.

Should this even be here?

Should we even have an article for a game we don't know even exists yet? Fact is, people have been talking about this "game" since 1997, when the name was used as a joke to refer to its sequel. So far we have nothing, no concrete info, only mindless speculation and assumptions with nothing to back them up, and a tech demo. Proof is, all we've got here is a bunch of interviews that basically state that nothing has been decided yet.

Is it really right to have an article like this on Wikipedia? It seems rather srange for an encyclopedia, if you ask me...

For the moment, I am removing this from the Mario template because there are no concrete facts on this game. Feel free to revert it if you disagree with me.-82.7.125.142 22:25, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I think it has a strong a case as Duke Nukem Forever, and even if the game is never released, it could be an article on the term "Super Mario 128" - TW2k5

It's significant enough that basically everybody in the Mario gaming community (and even some who aren't) are familiar with the term and what it means, even if they don't know the full history. I say keep it. Jeff Silvers 06:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep it, its useful. In fact, I just used it! --BakugekiNZ 22:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course it should be here. Mario 128 might not be a game, but it is named, and it is a series of experiments, tech demos, and tests that eventually made it into other games. ~ Sheeeeeeep 19:13, 14 November 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.175.136.62 (talk)

Yes it should definately remain until the myth is disproven. Wikipedia covers other urban myths. I think it's for real though.

There is a video on the internet that may have some footage of this game. Understand that it is a fake video however, the Revolution doesn't really look like this. I would like to know where it came from, so I am hosting it on my web site because the original site (some japanese "media company") no longer has it. --Nerd42 (talk) 18:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Can't access the video, but if it is the "Nintendo ON" video as the filename suggests, then it is very very fake, and putting it in article could lead to nothing good. Anyway, regardless of the fact its fake, it doesn't even say that it is Mario 128. --BakugekiNZ 03:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I had it on my wishlist for a while on IGN but I took it down after IGN said that it was cancelled. - Guest. http://cube.ign.com/objects/014/014915.html

It's cancelled on the GameCube. Development has been moved to the Revolution/GO.—thegreentrilby 02:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Tech demo

The tech demo Nintendo showed at SpaceWorld 2000 was, in fact, called Mario 128.

• http://imgboot.com/images/thegreentrilby/mario128.png
• http://cube.ign.com/articles/084/084030p1.html

—thegreentrilby 16:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

"Unverifiable content"

All unverifiable content needs to be removed. Such as most of the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.40.48.212 (talk • contribs) 04:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah! Because quoting from magazines means it's totally unverified. BlazeHedgehog 04:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I hate you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.40.45.236 (talk • contribs) 06:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

SMG

Are we sure this is Super Mario Galaxy?—thegreentrilby 12:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

The Miyamoto interview in the article and the SM64 reference/comparison in the trailer with SMG prove it. Theunknown42 13:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Good enough. I hadn't seen anything but a five-second clip on IGN, so I wasn't sure. ^{(I haven't really been following E3 this year, mostly because we're getting royally screwed by all three companies this generation.)}—thegreentrilby 14:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Prove it? O RLY? Unless they actually state it, I think we should assume that these two games are separate and should not be merged. Hbdragon88 06:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

And even if 128 really was the predecessor to SMG, this page contains enough unique information about 128 that it should say separate. Most of the information here would just clutter the SMG article (especially when we find out more about SMG) and would likely be deleted, which wouldn't be good. Jeff Silvers 22:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm with Jeff Silvers on this one. This article contains historical information on Mario 128 as it was originally envisioned, and should remain as it is. Malamockq 00:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

This is Mario 128 if not in name but in spirit. Miyamoto said that the new game on the Wii would be 128. I vote for either a section on Galaxy about it being 128 or total deletion. Bendragonbrown47 20:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I think Mario Galaxy is actually a part of Super Mario 128 as if it was a Level, like as if they show a new Mario game called "Super Mario Sky" showing a similiar Level for Super Mario 64's Rainbow Ride Level. Then, people see that Super Mario 64 came and they see the "Super Mario Sky" in the game. I think SMG is actually a name for Super Mario 128 in a a form that nobody notices. Their way is showing missions in outer space(which takes a long time to finish them), making it look like a Mario game. So, I call Super Mario Galaxy a distraction

- Mr. Mario192 1/23/07 (UFC)

I believe they are significantly different games. According to Miyamoto (in an interview with IGN):

"Some percentage [of Mario 128] is included as Mario Galaxy on the Wii." Miyamoto wouldn't break down exactly what in Mario Galaxy originated from Mario 128, but did give a few hints. "Mario 128 was a test concept for Mario, so, for instance, the parts in Mario Galaxy where you're running around on the surface have come from Mario 128."

Surely this shows that SMG is a separate development from Mario 128. --Gogogadgetearl (talk) 18:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Mario 128 Vs 128 Marios

Ok there seems to be some confusion regarding this topic, Super Mario 128 as a game has never "officially" appeared in any form, what has appeared is Super Mario Galaxy and a tech demo called 128 Mario's: none of us know for sure if either one of these are in fact Mario 128. I made an edit that was RVted by someone given the reasn that if you read the article it's "pretty clear" that Mario Galaxy is the same game, to this I say "Pretty good" is not good enough for an encyclapedia unless Nintendo officially anounces that Mario 128 turned into Galaxy we shouldn't make such assumptions. Deathawk 01:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Mario 128 info--roger6106 20:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. If I was looking for Galaxy, I would have searched for that. I want to read about the tech demo. 72.223.56.173 21:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Merge Mario 128 with Mario 64 2

Oppose These 2 titles are separate development efforts. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 01:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC) Oppose. Same as Cyberskull. Djsonik 00:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC) Oppose. I agree with Cyberskull--NFAN3 16:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC) Agree. Nintendo cancelled Super Mario 64 2. I think they decided to revive the idea and change the name to "Super Maio 128.--Voxxdude

Recategorization proposal

I'm proposing to move this and a few other games from Category:Mario platform games. Please see discussion there. --Heywood 18:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

Do we have any confirmation of the supposed technology that has been incorporated into other games, listed in the opening paragraph? --Zooba 15:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

This article isn't worthwhile anymore

Shigeru Miyamoto said this month that Mario 128 was only a demo for the Gamecube, and that most of what was learned went into Pikmin. Despite our long fascination with what the game could be, it's been solidly debunked as not an actual game, and it never will be one. This doesn't deserve an article on Wikipedia anymore, and we should delete it. As such, I'm nominating it for deletion. Klondike 19:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I for one, disagree. Even though the change has already been made, I'd like to voice my opposition to the redirect because even though it was a mere tech demo, it sparked considerable interest and still does.

Also, even though it ended up cancelled in the end, does that mean we should just delete every single entry for a cancelled game? If so, bye bye, Star Fox 2!

This mere "demo" has been an influence, however slight, on all of the 3D Mario platformers after Mario 64 and seems to have become the obligatory "working title" for all of those games. As long as the article isn't outright deleted and the history can still be visited, I have no problem, but I'd still like to voice my support of bringing it back.

GaeMFreeK 18:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

What is Mario 128 supposed to be?

The article's opening paragraph defines Mario 128 as "a series of development projects to create a sequel to Super Mario 64." I think this is the best we can describe, but the article itself, I think, doesn't represent this. With all the information and speculation and discussions that there have been on Mario 128, it's confusing to figure out what it's supposed to be. In the beginning, Mario 128 was Miyamoto's jokey name for the next Mario game. Then we had the GameCube tech demo that featured 128 Marios. Is THAT supposed to be Mario 128? If Mario 128 was supposed to be the next Mario game, how come people don't consider Super Mario Sunshine to be Mario 128? Because it wasn't like the tech demo, which was, after all, just a tech demo? What exactly is Mario 128 supposed to be? The next Mario? A full game version of that tech demo? I think Mario 128 is just experiments and proofs of concept, just like the opening paragraph describes, but the article needs to be changed to account for this confusion about what people think Mario 128 is, and why it's NOT one game or another. The article as it is, which is just a list of quotes from Miyamoto, doesn't paint the picture well enough.Colin Y. 21:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Gamecube AND Wii ??

Why does it say that the game's platforms are Wii and Gamecube. It should be only Wii. Mr. Mario 192 14:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

It should be neither or both. Mario 128 is not an actual game. All it is is a bunch of experiments to be used in various games. Some are in Pikmin (many characters on-screen at once), some are in Super Mario Sunshine (Mario's newer, more mature look), and some are in Super Mario Galaxy (3D spheres and maybe a few other things). I think we should leave it the way it is now, both, since all it is is a collection of experiments and it's been used in both Wii and GC games. Mega Man 5 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Launch

I think it would make sense if Mario 128 is Galaxy. One fact that I want to share. NiGHTS and Mario 64 launched at the same period of the year. Now, after the launch of both games were said to have a sequel. Then both had demos of the so called sequels. But after that, a long time has passed and both titles were said to be cancelled. Now, NiGHTS's sequel (NiGHTS: Into Dreams) has been revealed with Mario Galaxy. So, you guys can see their launch dates. They launch at the same period, similiar to the period in which their prequels were launched. We still got a lot of time to wait for their launches, and there is time to see if Nintendo reveals if Galaxy is Mario 128. One thing is that maybe they would reveal on Leipzig Games Convention which is 4 days away. Remember that Galaxy's plot has not been revealed, and that a plot could change the whole game's appereance. Mr. Mario 192 14:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Merge

I think I have a great idea. How about merging together SM128 with SM64 2 with the name of SM128. This is because SM64 2 was a try to make a sequel but got cancelled after the beggining of 2005, which they later started with the development of SM128. --Mr.Mario 192 02:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Development

I just noticed, since when did they started already saying something about the game's status in 2004??? The development started in 2005, 2 months before the launch of DKJB, after SM64 2 had been cancelled. This is absurd! --Mr.Mario 192 02:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Redirect

Reverted redirect. Mario 128 and Mario Galaxy are not the same software. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.175.136.62 (talk) 01:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Mario 128 and SMG are not the same game, and therefore the redirect should be reverted. According to Miyamoto in the IGN interview, parts of Mario 128 were included in SMG. If SMG were Mario 128, surely he would have talked about the concepts that were removed (and used in games such as Pikmin and Super Mario Sunshine) and about renaming it "Galaxy" instead of speaking of it as 2 different projects. --Gogogadgetearl (talk) 18:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup

Made a small attempt at cleaning up the article. Sheeeeeeep (talk) 00:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Merge

I suggest merging the content of this article into Pikmin and Super Mario Galaxy, at least some of it, and cover the tech demo in the Mario (series) article. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Twilight Princess?

"sphere walking" technology used in The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess There is really sphere walking in Zelda Tp? Like REALLY? Wasn't it more wall walking and such? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.80.239.162 (talk) 09:35, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, I can only think of the magnetism when Link is wearing Iron Boots on magnetic surfaces. -220.245.253.81 (talk) 05:07, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if this is stupid....

I'm sorry if this sounds stupid, but, is Super Mario 128 going to be or not? I didn't pick it up from the article. -Some loser without an account —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.168.231.55 (talk) 21:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Even though it really does sound stupid, I´m going to answer it anyway. Everybody claims that this game had indeed become parts of Mario Galaxy and Twilight Princess (even Miyamoto-san said it), but there are still possibilities of this statement to change, even if they are extremely small (just read in the article, Miyamoto claimed the game´s existence in one time, and in the other he claims it to be a technological demo). Some things could even indicate its existence today (depending on how you see it), like a huge Mario sequel proposed by Miyamoto. I´m sure that (sorry guys, for putting my point of view) they are waiting for Mario to get his biggest popularity (like right now) so they could launch this fantastic game. --Mr.Mario 192 (talk) 22:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

template

Why's it under 'Nintendo 64' in the mario series template? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.107.89.126 (talk) 21:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Final Word

The "Final Word" section was hilarious to read, given that it could have been the entire contents of the article. (Unless you want to change the article name to Miyamoto's Mario 128 Hoodwink). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.192.39.111 (talk) 05:25, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

It really is. "Super Mario 128 was intended to be a sequel to Super Mario 64. Here's an article about it. Footnote: It wasn't really". ArtistScientist (talk) 10:34, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Archive 1