Talk:Super Smash Bros. Brawl/Archive 30

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

replace can we use this instead of the roster.--Lbrun12415 23:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

That is not a very good picture. A. Not all the characters are in it. B. Some are cut off. The roster is fine. -Sukecchi (talk) 23:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

There's 39 composers

As far as I know, Brawl features 39 music composers, not 38 as you state in the article. Why? You guys are forgetting Nobuo Uematsu, who composed the main theme of the game. He is not listed in the DOJO!!'s composers list, but he's credited in the game's main theme entry on the DOJO!! as the composition supervisor for the song, as seen here:

Hirokazu Tanaka was credited too before he got in the composers list, thanks to his work on the "Underworld" song from Kid Icarus. He was added to the composers list the day the Donkey Kong arcade song was revealed. Should we increase the number of composers to 39 (the 39th being Nobuo Uematsu) or should we wait until Sakurai includes him on the list? E.M. talkcontribs 00:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Composition supervisor =/= composer. (Or does it?) And if he wasn't on the list to begin with, he'll never be. Satoryu (talk) 00:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I just found this:
"The main theme was created for us by none other than famed Final Fantasy composer, Nobuo Uematsu!"
"Composer : Nobuo Uematsu"
Is that enoght to add Mr. Uematsu as one of Brawl's many composers? E.M. talkcontribs 01:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Is he in the game's credits? Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 05:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
He did the main theme, yeah.—Loveはドコ? (talkcontribs) 05:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I went ahead and made the change. If anyone disagrees, feel free to revert. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 06:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
To my knowledge, Uematsu didn't arrange any songs; he just wrote the main theme. --(trogga) 23:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Good-article reassessment

I have requested a reassessment of this article. -Jéské (v^_^v :L13 ½-Raichu Soulknife) 02:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The day before Brawl launches in North America? That doesn't sound like the best timing, in my opinion. Powerslave (talk|cont.) 02:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Well it worked. :)--haha169 (talk) 05:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Wait...that Good Article template was added by an editor who seems to have a bunch of warnings on his/her talkpage. Is that template legit? --haha169 (talk) 05:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

This article was nominated for good article reassessment to determine whether or not it met the good article criteria and so can be listed as a good article. This article was modified and listed as a good article. Please see the archived discussion for further information. PeterSymonds | talk 13:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Bad News

I will not be available tomorrow; thus I would recommend someone keep an eye on the article and report to WP:RPP when necessary. -Jéské (v^_^v :L13 ½-Raichu Soulknife) 03:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

What??? Jéské isn't going to be here? Oh wow...what about ReyBrujo? I just got home today after a tiring day of exams, and more tomorrow. Then I'm playing Brawl, so I can't be here either. Someone should speak up soon...(P.S. I got the article semi'd for one week.)--haha169 (talk) 05:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Do wii really care if you're not gonna be here? Sadly, my mom won't let mii go pick up my MANY copies of SSBB (I'm selling all but one on Ebay. Smart little me!) Untill the afternoon...SLJCOAAATR 1 (talk) 14:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The game is not going to be that hard to find...selling it on eBay is not that big of a deal. Also, using "wii" and "mii" in regular conversation instead of "we" and "me"...? Whatever. Game's awesome, btw. --Coreycubed (talk) 16:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Jéské told us so someone could watch the article. If anything do we really care you're selling Brawl on eBay? -Sukecchi (talk) 20:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I'll keep an eye out for you guys in case anything happens... that is, if you want me to. RingtailedFoxTalkContribs 00:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Review on super smash bros brawl is too cynical and negative

Honestly the majority of the reception article talks about it's faults, which btw is arguablle. one review you guys chose to describe said how it lacks innovation, yet IGN themselves praise some of it's innovative features.....Why not include that as well? Fix the reception page soon or I will. Badboysbadoyswhatugonnado (talk) 06:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

It looks pretty balanced to me. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 08:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Maybe we should wait a while so some more reviews will be available. Then we can see what is includeable and what isn't. Moccamonster Talk 12:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
The first paragraph could probably do with another pro to make things more balanced, otherwise its pretty much fine. Remember Wiki is supposed to be NEUTRAL, just because you disagree with what the reviewers say doesn't mean we should be biased/ignore the mentioned faults, there is a reason for critics you know? For example, both IGN, NGmaer and GameSpy noted the graphics to not be of the highest standard, while a minor complaint its still a rather commom one, regardless if you personally feel otherwise. I think the graphics are fine but that doesn't give me the right to shrug them off in this wiki article.
And of course the entire section could do with a extention to raise its overall standards. Stabby Joe (talk) 12:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
As per above, the whole section could do with expansion, but its early days yet and we've yet to see the majority of reviews. - hahnchen 14:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Exaclly, we still have ONM, Eurogamer, Game Trailers etc to note being credible sources mentioned in many other articles. We only have so many and we don't want to just talk about what 3 or 4 reviews said. Also please remember that there was a large discussion on the VG Project board that when mentioning Game Rankings and Metacritic, we should refrain from mentioning ranking. See board for more info. Stabby Joe (talk) 15:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, its ranking isn't really noteworthy. Anyway, I went with three pros and three cons, which I think provides a balanced perspective. If you have better ideas, please suggest away. Wikipedian06 (talk) 20:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay guys well how do you explain this " NGamer points to the franchise's lack of innovation with the verdict, "Smash Bros risks growing too familiar. It never breeds contempt, but it doesn't quite muster that Galaxy magic" when other critics PRAISED it's new innovation that it brought to the series, but you didin't include that in the article? Badboysbadoyswhatugonnado (talk) 17:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I did. Notice the Famitsu blurb? The lack of innovation is NGamer opinion, and NGamer is a very prominent gaming magazine in the UK. Wikipedian06 (talk) 20:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
First of all, Wikipedia is supposed to be Neutral! Secondly, we're not here to include EVERY SINGLE THING about Brawl. That's for other sites. We're here to give information, and if that information varies, we'll include the variations. The reception article hasn't yet been touched up because the reviews just started popping up yesterday. If you want to play with it, be my guest. Just make sure to follow guidelines and not over do it.--haha169 (talk) 18:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
No, don't do anything, currently we have 2 paragraphs in equal size for both pros and cons, any issues will quickly be resolved when more reviews come in, ok!? Stabby Joe (talk) 19:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually, nearly all of the big-name reviews have already been published at this point. I don't see many indie site reviews quoted on Wikipedia articles, though they do count on MC/GR/etc. Wikipedian06 (talk) 20:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

What about the famitsu article, Wikipedian06? They said nothing about what it brings new to the series, IGN though does. I guess i'll have to include it myself, tonight. Badboysbadoyswhatugonnado (talk) 20:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I think there's been a false perception on what NPOV really means. NPOV does not mean that there is no POV, or that 3 pros cancel out 3 cons. What it means is that issues and arguments are given due weight. If we note a featured video game article's reception section, you'll notice that more weight is placed on what the critics agree on. For example, in Super Mario 64, much more weight is placed on the positives rather than the negatives, which are few. Or what about Perfect Dark, or Metroid Prime, or F-Zero GX? All of these are acclaimed video games that put more weight on the pros (from critical opinion) but at the same time address the common criticisms. NPOV is not math, where 3-3=0.
Trying to compare Brawl with SM64 is ridiculous. SM64 is a 12-year-old game that has been agreed upon by numerous critics to be one of the most revolutionary games. Brawl was just released. Its Gamerankings average is one thing, but high review scores do not necessarily imply that a game will stand the test of time and be hailed by critics decades after its release. Look at Halo 3: it's among the top 50 highest-scoring games on GR, and yet it won no notable Game of the Year awards. SM64 has all those positives because of its contributions to the gaming industry. Even then, negatives are still pointed out, such as the glitchy camera. Wikipedian06 (talk) 01:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree that we should wait until more reviews start to come in, but since the game is universally acclaimed, I feel we need to give more weight to what the critics say. That means common acclaim and common criticism, but more weight on the acclaim. Right now, too much weight is being placed on criticism. bibliomaniac15 21:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I've only come across a few major negatives: IGN and a few others pointed out that the graphics weren't so good. Also, Gamespot and IGN both pointed out that the Subspace Emissary wasn't the best, and it had long loading times. However, just about every single reviewer so far gave music/soundtrack 10/10, so I think that should be notable. --haha169 (talk) 21:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
For the featured article Shadow of the Colossus, theres SLIGHTLY more pros than cons which as previously said Super Mario 64 makes sense. What we should do now is expand the PROS as so far the common criticism is on the graphics which has been pretty much covered here. Leave the cons but expand the pros so as said common ground can be made but of course don't go to much into it, reception sections are usually the longest part of an article and in those 2 featured articles, the pros make up 60% so going over board would be biased. First off to make a good start what good did Game Trailers hold up highly? Stabby Joe (talk) 21:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok, let me get this straight, people think we should expand the section so I add 1UP pro and Game Trailers pro that says other wise about graphics to weigh some more... and it gets removed? If people are this unsatisfied this article will never improve. Stabby Joe (talk) 13:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Here's a thought. As it reads about now, the 2nd para of reception does read a bit too negative, but then when you look at the table and see the high grades for those same sources, it's easy to see they're minor complaints about the game. I think if this 2nd para began with a sentence similar to "While the game has enjoyed much praise, critics have still identified some weaker aspects of the game."; something to not make this read like what people hated about the game, but that, really, every game has faults no matter how well done, for SSBB, there's a couple, but consider this in light of the high praise it's gotten. That will require: no additional review examples, and help to offset the tone of this paragraph. --MASEM 13:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
The graphics appraisal in that section is misleading, whereas it says reception was mixed, the proceeding section is mostly negative. This can easily be balanced out with quotes from the Gamespot and Gametrailers reviews which state that it's one of the best looking games on the Wii. I was thinking about doing this yesterday, but couldn't be bothered doing the sourcing and wording when there's an army of fanboys out there. - hahnchen 18:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it's excessively negative, considering how many positive points have been presented as well. Why not wait a few weeks for the reviews to stop pouring in? Metacritic and GR scores tend to go down by 1-2% in the weeks following the launch hype. Wikipedian06 (talk) 21:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Who is Scott Siegel and how does he rate an entire paragraph to his comments? I did a Wikipedia and Google search on him and came up with an author/writer, but unsure how it rates for what is in there. Just curious. Dark Phoenix (talk) 19:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Which publication is he apart of? Stabby Joe (talk) 19:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
This sentance is particularly bad: "NGamer points to the franchise's lack of innovation with the verdict, "Smash Bros risks growing too familiar. It never breeds contempt, but it doesn't quite muster that Galaxy magic."" It's stating that as if it is a fact that the game lacks innovation. That definitely needs to be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
No, that's your interpretation of it. You're reading between the lines. Satoryu (talk) 22:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

"Success of 'Fire Emblem' "

From the "Inclusion of Characters" section:

"However, reflecting upon Marth and Roy's inclusion in Melee leading to the international success of the formerly exclusive Fire Emblem series..."

This claim definitely needs a citation (or revision). It's quite a strong statement to make without one, and also questionable, considering that Marth and Roy have not, to my knowledge, been playable in any of the Fire Emblem games released internationally -- as in outside of Japan. One could say that their appearances helped lead to such success, or helped generate interest, but it's a stretch to say that their appearances in Smash Bros. led everyone outside Japan to go out and buy Fire Emblem. Citation needed if that's the case. --James26 (talk) 15:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree, and it was only a very poorly worded sentence that led to this one's creation in the first place. I thought about just editing it out, but I think it's important to somehow convey in that section that the Japan-exclusive characters were not going to be a big deal, then they put some in, then realized that it could be a good way to promote the international market for those franchises. With a citation, or without being as specific as the sentence above. --Coreycubed (talk) 16:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. I know that Smash Bros. helped lead to Fire Emblem being released outside of Japan, but success is an entirely different matter, and it's more likely that the continued success of a series revolves around its own merits. --James26 (talk) 06:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
How about "leading to increased awareness of the formerly exclusive..."? Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 10:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Just stick good old Template:fact at the end of the sentence and be done with it.--Henke37 (talk) 11:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Future tense

I've fixed a few instances of future tense being used to describe game features ("will be included", etc). I suspect there are a bunch more, though - as Brawl has been released in JP and US now, descriptions of game features don't need to be speculative any more. Zetawoof(ζ) 00:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


"Through Nintendo Wi-Fi Connection, players are able to submit their creations daily to Nintendo, and receive a daily stage from the service." Should it be included that Nintendo may cancel this at any time without warning like it says in the handbook?

Also, should it be said that as of now, Nintendo's Brawl servers are not working right in some areas? Ive heard many times that people get booted off while trying to connect, while waiting for opponents, and while playing a game.

Skane (talk) 18:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I was just thinking about this. I think that the truth is that Wi-Fi is not working in MOST areas, not just some. The problem is I just sifted through google news with various related search terms and was unable to find a single news story mentioning it. I think there will be news on it within the next few days, but without 3rd party sources we cant really just report things that are being said on online message boards. Something also to keep an eye on in the news: the claims that Spectator mode is simply creating Computer vs. Computer matches and letting people watch them. Since I believe this to be true, this may be a fairly large controversy in the coming days. Gwynand (talk) 18:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I brawled with a friend of mine last night in New Orleans, and it seems to be working there, and here in Windsor... RingtailedFoxTalkContribs 00:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

StrategyWiki link

I'm proposing adding a link to StrategyWiki:Super Smash Bros. Brawl in the external links section (using {{StrategyWiki}}). We handle all the guide information that doesn't belong here, and we only deal with verified information. -- Prod (Talk) 22:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

StrategyWiki looks like a commercial website to me. It has ads, after all. WP is not an advertising tool, which is the same rason links to other commercial sites like GameFAQs and Gamespot are not allowed. Wikipedian06 (talk) 04:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
That's not correct. We don't allow linking to commercial sites if the editor has a personal tie or benefit to gain from the linkage (even though WP does use nofollow links), per WP:EL. Sites, however, agreed to by the editing community as a whole to be acceptable can be included; StrategyWiki, like Gamespot, 1up, IGN, and other commercial gaming news sites, is considered an acceptable repository for game-guide specifics and is appropriate to link to. --MASEM 05:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


This topic has been avoided for quite a while. Gamespot and IGN and numerous other reviewers praised Brawl's' soundtrack, IGN giving it a 10/10 and Gamespot placing a little music template on its review page. Why isn't this mentioned in the article? It is definitely notable, plus the fact that it includes numerous amounts of songs from various Nintendo franchises, from songs like "Bombomb Battlefield" and "Zelda Theme" from popular and known games, to unique and partially unknown songs such as "Electroplankton" and "Golden Sun Battle Medley." The fact that the game received popular reviews across the board in music and sound effects would be incredibly useful in expanding the reference section if added on correctly. --haha169 (talk) 00:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect Information?

Melee can have Online Connection (Which is essentally Wi-Fi connection) using a special program, but the article states that Brawl is the first to have it. I would go ahead and change this, but to get Melee Wi-Fi, you have to download something (that I'm not sure is legal or not), or if the Online is Wi-Fi or not. Bearflip (talk) 00:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Nintendo Wi-Fi Connection is a specific online service run by Nintendo; it's not the same thing as "random game using IEEE 802.11b-1999 to allow online or LAN-play". Arrowned (talk) 01:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
There is a mention of 62 events. This is incorrect, there are actually 41 events "New to the mode, each of the sixty-two Events has three difficulties" I did read the correct number later in the article though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
You forgot about Co-op events. They're mentioned in the sentence right after the one you mentioned. Satoryu (talk) 22:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


Someone had the nerve to delete the page and replace it with hillo or something. They even said as much in their edit summary! This is the most recent of vandalism attacks. Is full protection needed?Smashbrosboy (talk) 02:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

That was an automatic edit summary; and, no, not yet. I'm going to be looking at his contribs, however; he's got pretty much only warnings on his TP. -Jéské (v^_^v :L5 Tediz Strong) 02:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
This was discussed in the archived discussion (kind of). I've already successfully requested to have this article semi-protected, and most vandals (which were IPs anyways), are gone. That only leaves a few registered users who will get booted if they continue vandalizing. I think that the vandalizing has gone down since March 8th by quite a bit. --haha169 (talk) 03:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Capcom

Over the course of the development of SSBB, a character from Capcom was going to be considered as the final three of the third-party roster. For some unofficial reason, Capcom and Nintendo had a falling out, and was ultimately dropped from the game. posted this article as a rumor (link is available here), despite no official word from Nintendo, Capcom or any of their affiliates. Is the Capcom debate acceptable for this article? ElMeroEse (talk) 22:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

There's no official backing to those words. It's pure speculation. Therefore, it won't be mentioned here. Satoryu (talk) 22:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Interesting, but speculation has only one place in Wikipedia, and that's right here. Useight (talk) 23:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Anyways, I've heard that before, and its old news. It won't be added to the article. --haha169 (talk) 23:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Further, unless you can show a Capcom character was second-place in the Japanese poll that got Sonic in, the information is worse than speculation; it's flat-out incorrect. -Jéské (v^_^v Detarder) 22:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Game Arts

I'm seeing a minor edit war regarding Game Arts. Its put under "developers", then deleted, then re-added. Gamespot puts Game Arts as the developer, so I think it should be there. Game Arts and Sora share the work. --haha169 (talk) 23:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

GameSpot does make mistakes sometimes. In this case, it's not so much a mistake as it's incomplete information: the game ending credits list 19 developers apart from Sora, and Game Arts is just one of them. I've been told the "various outsourced studios" are typically not included in infoboxes and articles, so there's no reason to include Game Arts while omitting the others. I know some are arguably obscure, but not Monolith Soft and Paon Corporation, Ltd.. FightingStreet (talk) 08:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, but we had already had a discussion about Game Arts way back then. It passed, and we added it on. That is simply because the Nintendo UK site placed Game Arts as the developer, and they also participated in the preliminary development by the game, as said in the interview between Sakurai and Iwata. --haha169 (talk) 04:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
The credits make no particular distinction between Game Arts and the other 18 developers; they're all listed in the same "Development Cooperation" section. FightingStreet (talk) 10:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


The game's title screen shows that the game is copyright Nintendo and Hal Labs... Even if this is inaccurate, it's worth mentioning. it says here, to quote(the capital letters and punctuation are completely accurate to the title screen. some companies show "Inc" while others show "inc".): (C)2008 Nintendo / HAL Labratory, Inc. Characters: (C)Nintendo / HAL Laboratory, Inc. / Pokémon. / Creatures Inc. / GAME FREAK inc. / SHIGESATO ITOI / APE inc. / INTELLIGENT SYSTEMS / Konami Digital Enterainment Co., Ltd. / SEGA —Preceding unsigned comment added by NuVanDibe (talkcontribs) 05:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure about HAL Laboratory, but the others seem to be the copyright holders of the characters, rather than the developers of this game. Solid Snake -> Konami, Sonic -> SEGA, etc. FightingStreet (talk) 08:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
NO. They are not developers. They are copyright holders. None of them developed anything, except for creating the original characters and maybe Shadow Moses Island. The developers are Game Arts and Sora. That's it.--haha169 (talk) 22:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Someone keeps deleting Game Arts. It is very annoying.Smashbrosboy (talk) 22:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Read the discussion directly above this one. Arrowned (talk) 22:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

U.S. Character Selection Screen

I noticed you guys removed the Japanese character selection screen. Do you have any idea as to when the complete U.S. character selection screen will be added?Brawlmaniac08 (talk) 22:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)brawlmaniac08

When somebody online takes a screencap of it, basically. Alternately, we might luck out and have Sakurai putting an image of the full select screen on Dojo once the last four secret characters are added. Arrowned (talk) 22:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Toon Link

Is that his name in the North America game? Since it is released somebody should know. Epass (talk) 22:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

If it wasn't, it would have been changed on Sunday...yes, it's Toon Link. -Sukecchi (talk) 22:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of Toon Link, I think there is an answer to whether TL is a newcomer or a veteran. During the minigame after beating Classic, the character portraits are organized according to which game they debuted in, save for the person you used, who appears at the top. Toon Link is near the bottom of the list, where the Brawl newcomers are shown. It may be OR, but it's the best evidence that Toon Link and Young Link are different characters. Satoryu (talk) 23:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Or...y'know...maybe the fact that Toon Link and Young Link are two different looking characters with different names? DRaGZ (talk) 04:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I know that. But a lot of people insisted that they were the same because their moveset was...just read the archives. Satoryu (talk) 05:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
In a nutshell, Toon Link and Young Link are both Young versions of Link, but Toon Link and Young Link look different, but on the other hands they have similar movesets. But on another hand, the Toon Link is from WindWaker, and Link is from Twilight Princess, But Young Link and Link were from the same game in Melee. Another idea possible is that link and toon link have the same final smash, so it makes things more confusing.I think I covered everything. Epass (talk) 12:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

New Features

It says that destructible terrain is a new feature in the Stages section. I thought that Brinstar from Melee had destructible terrain, so, how come it says it is a new feature?Leprechaun Gamer (talk) 23:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

No that was not destructable terrain. It was an area of the stage that... Oh yeah it is destructable terrain.--Smashbrosboy 02:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Fixed. Satoryu (talk) 02:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I have added a sentence that says "Just like its predecessor, it features destructable terrain". After all, it does deserve mention at least.--Smashbrosboy 02:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm thinking that Melee ignored the Brinstar level when mentioning the destructible terrain was because Brinstar was just one level that could do that compared to the other levels in the game and Brawl has a bigger variety of destructable levels, so more people would notice Brawl's destructable levels compared to the Brinstar level in Melee. WikiUser42 —Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiUser42 (talkcontribs) 18:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Trophy Image

Maybe an image of a trophy could be added to the vault section. There are tons of images in the article, but not a single one between plot and playable characters. Epass (talk) 11:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

There's enough pictures as it is. I don't think putting another one in to fill space is a wise decision. Satoryu (talk) 14:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Event Matches

I don't see a section for Event Matches in the Gameplay section. They are important, because completing them can unlock new stages, and that this game has a multiplayer version (CO-OP Events), so I feel it deserves it's own section. Epass (talk) 12:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Read again. It's there. Satoryu (talk) 14:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I only read the table of contents. Sorry. Epass (talk) 16:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Smash Bros. DOJO!!

Perhaps the DOJO!!, aka, should be mentioned somewhere in the article. Maybe an advertising section? That website was probably Nintendo's cheapest marketing campaign ever, as they simply released a new tidbit about the game almost every day over the timespan of a few months. It was extremely effective too because the slow release of information hyped it up that much more and kept the game on people's minds. --Sdornan (talk) 18:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The article is about the game...nothing else. If anything, it should mentioned at the Smash Bros. article. -Sukecchi (talk) 20:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Of course it is about the game, but it is also about the advertising for the game, which is what the site is/was. --Sdornan (talk) 20:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
It's under external links. That should be sufficient. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 15:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Sdornan actually makes a good point, in that quite a few video games with articles on Wikipedia which had extensive marketing involving popular and/or reality game-based websites have mention of such websites in the articles, not just in a "one link to the site in question under External Links" way. So eventually something does need to be added on this end. It should, however, stay very short (a sentence or two would be sufficient), and would ideally slip into the Development section somewhere. My main worry is adding such information before the site's finished its daily update scheme; random IP's may attempt to use that excuse to fill that sentence out with examples of updates, and as we all know, we don't need any more examples. Arrowned (talk) 19:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

X-Play review

X-Play gave it a 5 out of 5. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:45, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Great. And? be bold and edit it in or something — TheBilly(Talk) 01:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't. The page is protected.

And while you are waiting for someone to place the citation perhaps you would be bold enough to list the link, reference, etc.Nukedoom (talk) 02:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

This is all I could find. [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

SSBB Reception

I agree that SSBB doesn't have the greatest graphics, and it has long loading times sometimes 15 seconds, and the Subspace wasn't the best and sometimes repetitive, but we should add some more pros like SSBB not being so focaused on multiplayer and adding a storyline, adding trials of classic video games, ability to build your own stages, able to make replay videos that people would love because they could make quality videos instead of using a poor quality camera, and adding Sonic and Solid Snake to the Brawl, adding muliplayer elements in all single player modes exept Classic, and the Wii is not suppose to be the best in graphics, so stop thinking that its an Xbox 360, and don't go all NPOV and Wikipedia is Neutral on me cause its annoying when I'm just trying to share some ideas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by C'tan Nightbringer (talkcontribs) 02:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not a matter of POV. It's a matter of verifiability. Satoryu (talk) 02:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
He's right. We mention what legitimate, sourced reviews say; we don't toss in our own opinions. Hunt down a review that says all that, from a proper third-party published website/publication, and we'll add it. Arrowned (talk) 03:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
IGN, GameSpy, NGamer and others have said such about the graphics, you need to understand what NPOV and Neutral really is. All pros and cons are NOT those from edittors but valid well known critics. Plus graphics wasn't the only thing some mentioned, let alone liked/disliked. Stabby Joe (talk) 19:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

As I read the "Reception" section, I noticed that it wholly seemed negative. I did a double take and had to look at the scores for some of the games, as most of the section seems rather negative to a widely acclaimed game. It needs to be balanced out with some positive feedback--just because a magazine doesn't give a game a perfect score doesn't mean you should only highlight the bad in it. (talk) 13:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, needs more balance. You're right Arrowned, in that wiki editors don't toss in their own opinions - but you do select what opinions appear in the article and what don't. Nearly all of the review sites and magazines had much more positive than negative to say, and many admit they are nitpicking when it comes to criticism. As it stands the scores do not match the wording in the criticism section.VatoFirme (talk) 19:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I actually did once but it got removed, why? I'll try and add it again. Stabby Joe (talk) 23:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Number of Characters

Yes, I remember the previous discussion and the general decision to just leave specific numbers out of the article. However, while I was poking around tonight, I found something interesting in the game -- in the Data section, on the Records list is an entry for Available Characters. This is in the game itself, the most primary of primary sources. Once someone has unlocked the entire game, we will have the true official count. Will that be worth putting back in, or more trouble than it's worth? Slurms MacKenzie (talk) 07:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

As a side note, when you beat the game, each of the characters, assist trophies, PokéBalls, etc. scroll up the screen so you can try to shoot them to get some coins. During the time when the characters are scrolling by, Squirtle, Ivysaur, and Charizard are listed separately. Useight (talk) 07:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
That doesn't matter. The game specifically says 35 characters. The game trumps any possible idea of counting Squritle, Ivysaur, and Charizard as separate characters. -Sukecchi (talk) 11:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Where does it say so? I haven't encountered an actual number. Satoryu (talk) 05:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
As stated above, once everyone has been unlocked, from the main menu of the game, select Data, then Records, then scroll down to Available Characters. Slurms MacKenzie (talk) 07:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Or Sheik and Zero Suit for that matter (talk) 19:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that the characters that are played through the ones on the character select all count for the same person. For example, Pokemon Trainer counts for Squirtle, Ivysaur, and Charizard. As for Sheik and Zero Suit Samus, there the same person in different forms. Even Wario counts because you can change his costume to have him wear his classic clothing. WikiUser42 —Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiUser42 (talkcontribs) 18:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Ending Lyrics

Shouldn't the end poem thats written in Latin be included in the summary of the Adventure Mode? And a link to where the poem came from would be excellent. A link to the poem is here. Zidel333 (talk) 20:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

No, it has no relevance to the actual plot or game —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
It has relevance to the Music section. A link to the lyrics is not allowed though due to copyrights. FightingStreet (talk) 21:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't mean the entire poem, I mean a simple reference there is a poem at the end before the credits rolls. And surely a simple link to an outside source where the entire poem is displayed is acceptable?! Zidel333 (talk) 03:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

EU Date

On this, [2] the europe date is June 6th. Is this true? (talk) 7:54 16th March 2008 (UTC)

They reference to here,, if it helps. Epass (talk) 12:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I didn't see anything about June 6th in the article. It's just seems to be about them not being sure about the release date. Tommy11111 (talk) 17:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Technical Issue Section?

I read the article and found the dual-layer disc issue in the reception section of the article. Shouldn't that last paragraph be in its own section for technical issues? LUIGI074 (talk) 23:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

No, it does not warrant a whole section, in my opion. Thus far there is only one problem effecting very few systems, still it should be a paragraph in devolpment or somewhere, but devolopment seems the best place for the information right now.→041744 05:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't we have a section explaining the issues some of the players had with their Wiis and Brawls due the game disc? (talk) 19:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Super Smash Bros. Brawl#Development - It's already there. Arrowned (talk) 22:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


This topic might of been bought up, maybe not, but shouldn't Subspace have it's own article? Going into deeper explantion, because in the main article, there is only a small part about it, and since it's the main plot, you would think it would have it's own article, even though the plot isn't that deep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Red Guy (talkcontribs) 00:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

You answered yourself. Plot isn't deep, and I don't think there's any reason to have a separate article for one part of the game.—Loveはドコ? (talkcontribs) 00:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Even fairly hefty RPG's like Final Fantasy VII don't separate the plot from the main article. Arrowned (talk) 02:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
The FFVII article is far from the best example to follow. FightingStreet (talk) 12:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
It's a featured article, why wouldn't it be a good example to follow? Regardless, a cursory search on my end of another dozen random RPG titles showed they used the same format: all the plot in the main article, no second article for plot unless the plot was spread among multiple games/sequels. Which Brawl's plot is not. Arrowned (talk) 12:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The characters hardly even talk in Subspace. Believe me, Subspace dosen't deserve it's own article. User:Prepsear 8:45 PM, March 26, 2008 Prepsear (talk) 01:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


In the Stages Section, there are way too many alsos. It is rather repetitive. <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 04:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Than fix it. I recommend And, As Well, and Because as other words. Epass (talk) 12:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
It may have been previously touched up, because only the last paragraph had excessive "also"s, but I removed them from there as well. King Rhyono (talk) 23:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

there should be a section that talks about the online problem brawl has been having. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why Brawl's online problems are any more notable than other games' online troubles. It's not like Brawl is the first game to make servers go on the fritz. Satoryu (talk) 22:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


Go go go!


Wii Game Sells at a Rate of More than 120 per Minute

REDMOND, Wash., March 17, 2008 – After just one week on store shelves, Super Smash Bros.® Brawl for Wii has become the fastest-selling video game in Nintendo of America's history. Since its launch on March 9, the feature-packed fighting action game has sold more than 1.4 million units in the United States, including more than 874,000 on March 9 alone. It has sold at a rate of more than 120 units per minute between launch and March 16. (talk) 22:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Help me

I'd like to direct you here. I posted that question some time ago, and I was correct. People are avoiding it. Why? Don't ask me. I just ask you guys to please discuss it and how to include it into the article. The music's 100% review streak is a big deal in the game, so why isn't it mentioned in the article? (Not even in the music section...last time I checked) --haha169 (talk) 04:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Select Screen image

Ok. This is getting ridiculous. Does anybody have any idea how long it will take to fish out a complete English select screen? I could probably post an image taken by a camera directly from my TV. However, if anybody can teach me a better method, I'm all ears! --haha169 (talk) 04:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Why is this important? An image of the character selection screen says "This is the thing we're talking about. This is what it looks like". Images are not for illustration, they're for indentifying or further explaining the thing in question. A complete roster of characters being present is only interesting to people playing the game, and only serves to introduce game guide type information into Wikipedia. I'm not saying it itself is bad, but since we already have an image of the screen, I personally would revert any addition of a complete screen on those grounds, because it makes no improvement except to introduce more information on unlockable characters. We don't deal in tips, tricks, and secrets — TheBilly(Talk) 05:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
It would not be a "game guide". If we told how to unlock all the characters and stages then it would devinitly be. But that is not we do here on this site. Melee posts a image of of every character and stage select (both without even listing every stage or character) with no problem. In addition the series page lists every character all 3 games with absolutly no Game-guide problem or worry, agian without a mention of how to unlock hidden characters. Also your logic of how the image might be interprited is flawed: "An image of the character selection screen says "This is the thing we're talking about. This is what it looks like". Images are not for illustration, they're for indentifying or further explaining the thing in question.", "This is the thing we're talking about. This is what it looks like" is exactly what want the image to say. If it helps the reader understand the article or section better than the image is not decrative, if they look at it and say "so that's the character screen, I think I understand it now." than mission accomplished.→041744 13:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. A game guide is a post on how to unlock the character. An image would be which characters are actually in the game. Melee and the original both have an image. Just about every game has an article called "List of characters in [Game Title]". That's not a game guide. It's merely information. Now...can someone please answer my question? I'll probably post that complete character select screen tomorrow if I get the chance. --haha169 (talk) 22:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and also, our previous reversions of complete rosters were due to the fact that they were in Japanese. I'm putting up an English one.--haha169 (talk) 22:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok. Nobody is opposing the proposition in putting up a full English select screen. In fact, it is quite needed. I add one on, and it gets reverted by Trogga, and it doesn't seem he/she even bothered looking at the talk page. I'm attempting to bring this conversation back again, but if no one bothers arguing, I'm reverting back to the complete roster. --haha169 (talk) 01:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Objection to claim of "fastest-selling Nintendo game"

Pokemon Diamond and Pearl definitely sold more copies within its launch week, both in Japan and in North America.

  • This Gamespot article announces that 1 million copies have been sold in North America within the first five days, suggesting similar numbers for the entire launch week.
  • VGChartz isn't the most reliable source out there, but it's reported similar numbers. It shows 1,646,064 copies sold for Japan's launch week and 1,404,722 for North America's, which seem to be consistent with the two (reliable) sources shown above.
  • For the purpose of reporting sales numbers, Nintendo has always bundled complementary Pokemon games. Diamond/Pearl, Ruby/Sapphire, Gold/Silver, etc. are all tallied as one game each. See Nintendo's financial statements.

It seems like something fishy is going on with Nintendo's press release about Brawl being the "fastest selling game" in Nintendo history or having the highest launch week numbers. Most likely, Nintendo separated Diamond and Pearl exclusively for this event. 1.4 million copies / (60 * 24 * 7) minutes = 138.8 copies per minute

Wikipedian06 (talk) 10:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

We work based on verifiability, not truth. If Nintendo of America says it is their best selling game ever, why shouldn't we use it? Remember, verifiability, not truth. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 11:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
What about just a compromise. USe it in context, somthing like "Nintendo claims this is the fastest selling Nintendo game[1]." →041744 16:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
First, please note that the press release states "Super Smash Bros.® Brawl for Wii has become the fastest-selling video game in Nintendo of America's history", so Japan sales are irrelevant. Additionally, the other sources provided show that Pokemon D&P's North American sales are very close to Brawls, but not having a clear first week's lead over Brawl. Finally, I think Nintendo would know best on how their top games have sold and Wikipedia is (as stated by ReyBrujo) about verifiability, so that the statement should not be changed. -Zomic13 (talk) 16:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Diamond and Pearl are separate games - Alexander Vince (talk) 16:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Article from IGN, saying that it is NOA's fastest selling game in its history.

DegenerationX219 (talk) 16:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Wikipedian. I believe it was you who we had this discussion about a while ago, but I'm not sure. Anyways, please stop it with the Pokemon Diamond and Pearl. Yes, we know that the Japanese Language site says that Diamond & Pearl was faster selling, but IGN and NOA states that Brawl is the fastest selling title in North America. Back then, when I added this info with a source, It could be arguable. Now, it cannot. --haha169 (talk) 22:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

PAL Release Date Announced.

I heard that Brawl will be coming to Europe on June, 6 2008. As for Australia, June 2008. Should this be put up there? DegenerationX219 (talk) 16:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Not unless you've got a reliable source, which none of the dozen people who have edited the article to include that date in the last week have had. Arrowned (talk) 16:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Depends. Where did you hear it from? Please post your source. -Zomic13 (talk) 16:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I think it was G4, I lost the link and I will try to find it again. Europe Release date ConfirmedDegenerationX219 (talk) 16:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Is this reliable? I'm not sure. Satoryu (talk) 20:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

That's What do you think? Also, that article is just talking about that "confirmed" event in France, which I believe our discussions before have proved unreliable. --haha169 (talk) 22:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Who changed the date to May 1? DegenerationX219 (talk) 23:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Nasarrafan1 did, using this as his/her source, Google cache of ref Logan GBA (talk) 00:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not convinced by Game as the source. I mean Play says 30/05 and Amazon says 30/04. Unless someone contacts Game for their source, I think it should be changed back to TBA --Aceizace (talk) 01:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
What about GameSpot UK as a reliable source? They're adamant it's 6 June. Cipher (Talk) 12:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
According to WP:VG/DATE#Release dates, that's enough for now; the guideline suggests that unless the date is an obvious placeholder such as Jan. 1 or Dec. 31, sites like Gamespot, IGN, and are reliable enough to use in this situation. Arrowned (talk) 14:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but Gamespot US is adamant that the main developer is Game Arts, when in reality, its Sora. I think Gamespot is slow on updating for this particular subject, so we should wait and be certain. --haha169 (talk) 02:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

39, 38, 36 What?

At first the article said 38 composers, then 39 was said, now the page says there's only 36. King Rhyono (talk) 20:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Read more carefully. You're looking at the Music section, where the sentence references the original list of 36 composers. The full number is reflected at the beginning of the article. Satoryu (talk) 20:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Gratittious fair use imagery

I count eight images. That is at least five images too much. Please trim it down per WP:NFCC#3 and WP:NFCC#8. hbdragon88 (talk) 01:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

FIVE images? I would've expected the number to be decried as three images too much... But I suppose what the article ultimately needs are the cover, a gameplay shot, and a character select screen shot. (And that's "Gratuitous", not "Gratittious". :P) Erik Jensen (Appreciate or Laugh At) 01:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
So I can't spell...just saying, there are some really superfluous images, but i no longer edit this article (oh for the awesome days of 2006). hbdragon88 (talk) 01:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, 2006 was the golden age of this article. Jesus was on the "playable characters" list for three days, I recall. Powerslave (talk|cont.) 02:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
One small point but I also believe that the main menu shot should stay as well. -- (talk) 04:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Those images are perfectly fine. There does not seem to be an excessive amount of images, considering the article's sheer size. If you must, the main menu could be deleted, because there are too many images near the top. We could consider removing the image with Snake, but I think it is quite important to the article, along with the Sonic and Mario image. I propose we leave the images as they currently are. --haha169 (talk) 04:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

We could probably get Snake and Sonic into the same screenshot. Anyone got a video capture card? Three selection screens seems a bit much, though. Nifboy (talk) 05:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Is there a way we could put all the selection screen shots into one image? Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 13:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Creating a montage of multiple non-free images is still as bad as a multiple non-free images (it's a derivative work of "x" number of images).
There's no exact number, but one needs to consider what the image is adding to the article and how much of it is just decroative. Going down the images in the article now:
  • Box cover - has to be there
  • Battle screen shot - Pretty much best example of game's interface, percentage-based health, etc. Stay
  • Main menu - highly questionable, it shows the style of the game but offers little that is not already in text or can be described further.
  • SSE shot - Reasonable to keep to show what the foes look like; only possible improvement is to add one of Snake or Sonic to this to do double duty.
  • Character select screen - Can be kept doing double duty: showing what the interface is like (removing the main menu and stage select screen) and gives an example of what the character list is from the start. Reasonable stay.
  • Stage select screen - Redudant, if anything replace with shot of a specific, "unique" stage (like the AC one, as described in text), with at least one of Sonic or Snake on there.
  • Snake / Sonic screens - First, see advice for stage select screen; if one can be included in that, then the other one character's picture here can stay (preferrably, keep Snake & box, since that's more iconic of Snake than Sonic's move).
That gets it down to 6, maybe 5, maybe 4. Thing is, I don't believe that getting down to 3 is reasonable - again, there's no exact number, but one needs to consider purpose vs decroration and there is definitely some of that right now. --MASEM 14:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that Golden Sun, which is a featured article, has 5 non-free images. Since Brawl is obviously more important than Golden Sun (even though IGN gave Golden Sun a higher score), and that the Golden Sun article is a tad shorter than the Brawl article, we should leave the 7 images. I still see nothing wrong, except for the possibility of removing the main select screen image. --haha169 (talk) 04:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah...yes, and the featured article, Super Smash Bros. Melee has 6 non-free images. (I'll stop it with the examples now.)--haha169 (talk) 05:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


Good job to all of you who worked to make Super Smash Bros. Melee a featured article. Now...lets hurry up and move forward with the GA status! (Why is it taking so long, anyways?) --haha169 (talk) 05:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Last game in the series?

Is brawl the last game in the series? In the local game stores, the Brawl posters say "The Brawl to end them all! If this is the last game, it needs a reference

It's just an expression. No, there's absolutely no indication that this is the last game in the series. --Bishop2 (talk) 19:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

They just noticed that "all" rhymed with "brawl". It could be completely different in other languages. Anyways, they said that National Treasure was going to be the last, but they made a sequel.--haha169 (talk) 01:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Worldwide Sales

I don't think information on worldwide sales is needed. In addition to WP:SYN, the game hasn't truly been released worldwide as of yet, just Japan and NA. More importantly, I don't see the reason why the numbers have to be added up for a worldwide total. imo it's taking up space. Most people can add, and stating the sum is kind of redundant.
Is my reasoning for this incorrect? Satoryu (talk) 19:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

With the reviews table there, more text in reception would look better than less. Because the less text there, the bigger the review table looks. Which would probably lead to someone else questioning if it is necessary. For the most part, the text of the article looks good, although there's a bit of controversy over the images. King Rhyono (talk) 03:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
There's no controversy over the images. I just squashed all opposition by mentioning 2 FA articles with quite a few non-free images. --haha169 (talk) 05:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Playable Characters

Is it better to show the players you start with (as currently), or a screenshot of the final roster? King Rhyono (talk) 03:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Final roster. We've already discussed this, but a certain user won't let me add the final roster... I'd revert it...but nobody seems to even care what happens, and that user isn't responding. --haha169 (talk) 05:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
But the image with the staring roster is more official (and has less crappy quality). --(trogga) 18:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
The quality of the image is less important than the information it conveys. For example, having a blurry box art image is often better than having no image at all. Besides, the final roster image isn't that bad. I've seen worse, and unless someone is willing to find a better screen, this one should stay.  Comandante Talk 18:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not blurry. That's a bad accusation. You could say that its a bit dark and slanted though...--haha169 (talk) 01:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mean this particular image; I made up the example, and besides, the slanting is hardly noticeable. It's mostly just the darkness.  Comandante Talk 01:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh. Sorry. Didn't read the comment closely enough. --haha169 (talk) 02:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

These are some screenshots I took a few hours ago. and I think they look slightly better than the one on the article currently. Regardless, just throwing it out there. King Rhyono (talk) 05:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

They are better than mine in the brightness regard. If you could make it a tad bit clearer and larger, it would be perfect! --haha169 (talk) 00:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I shrunk it a ton so it'd be about the size of yours. About how big would you like? King Rhyono (talk) 06:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's a new one: I used a picture sharpening tool this time. King Rhyono (talk) 12:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Good Article nomination on hold

Hey, guys. I'm your Good Article reviewer. Anyway, I really like the article and think it meets the Good Article criteria, but I have a couple of issues first. First off, the image you guys have of the Brawl main menu does not have a fair use rationale. Now, it looks like someone didn't code for it right but had intentions of putting up one. Please edit the page for that image to include a concrete fair use rationale. Also, there is a discrepancy between the opening where it says "Brawl sold over 1.4 million units in Japan and North America" and later where it says "Brawl has sold 1.45 million in the first week in Japan and 1.4 million in North America" (that's not the actual text, but you get what I mean). Please clarify this in the introduction to the article so as not to confuse readers. Once someone has addressed the issues, notify me on my talk page, and I'll look at the article again. Thanks. Red Phoenix (Talk) 00:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Sdornan (talk) 01:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Dairantō =/= Super

Yes, I'm aware the US Wii site says "Super Smash Bros. X". But that's not what the nihongo text is for. It's supposed to translate from Japanese to English. And as discussed before, dairantō is translated as "great melee." Also, I question how "Super Smash Bros. X" is it's official name, where Super is nowhere in the Japanese title. It's either Super Smash Bros. Brawl or Dairantō Smash Bros. X, depending on which region is in question. Satoryu (talk) 02:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Dairantou can mean 1001+ things -- whether it be Brawl, Melee, Battle Royale, Great Fray... or even Super. To translate the name of the game to Melee when that was the previous game's English title is moronic. A true translator of the Japanese language would know that "Dai" in itself can mean "Super", and the "Rantou" would just hold that it's a fight. But I know how hard it is to get over stiff and wooden translations, because I passed that phase years ago. Heck, even the Japanese fans abbreviate the name of the game to SSBX - Super Smash Brothers X. Plus it's folly to argue with the Nintendo localization team, when it's on the official site. I hope you understand. WeeklyJumpman (talk) 02:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
How does dairantou translate to super? Sure dai can mean super, but that leaves rantou unaccounted for. And maybe I just haven't encountered it, but I've only seen japanese abbreviations with 1 S. As in sumaburaX. And the "moronic" note is moot. Satoryu (talk) 17:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

GA Nomination Pass

I'm glad to see you guys have fixed the minor issues, and I can now pass this article. Here's a quick checklist and a little commentary:

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria



  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    {{subst:#if:Well done.|Well done.|}}
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
    C. It contains no original research:
    {{subst:#if:Very well cited and sourced.|Very well cited and sourced.|}}
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: [[File:|16px|alt=|link=]]
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
    {{subst:#if:Looks like there's been some reverts for vandalism, but not edit wars.|Looks like there's been some reverts for vandalism, but not edit wars.|}}
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    {{subst:#if:Now that the last image has been fixed, yes, they've all got good fair use rationales.|Now that the last image has been fixed, yes, they've all got good fair use rationales.|}}
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    {{subst:#if:Looking good, keep up the work, this article could make FA status with some more work.|Looking good, keep up the work, this article could make FA status with some more work.|}}

Great! Let's get working on FA status now. Should we request peer review to see any issues that are in need of fixing? --haha169 (talk) 03:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
That's a step in the right direction, yes. I recommend you do that if you want to promote the article to FA status. Red Phoenix (Talk) 23:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Dubious Leaks template

Do we really need that anymore, since Brawl has obviously been released in the U.S. now? --haha169 (talk) 03:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think a lot of it is unnecessary now. Things seem to be quite stable around here. King Rhyono (talk) 05:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Theres some problems with the Europe and Australian release dates. There should be a new template at the top of the talk page telling people not to create new sections about it, and not to add it unless there is a reliable source. --haha169 (talk) 03:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Australian Release Date

The Australian EB Games site says it's coming June 2008. So does Gamespot. Although it probably will come out in Australia in June sometime there is no official announcement from Nintendo that I have heard. The Nintendo Australia site hasn't updated the Brawl info since May 2006. Any other info on this? M4192 (talk) 09:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Go check the discussion section above that talks about the Euro and Aus. release dates. --haha169 (talk) 16:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

not generally positive reviews... EXCELLENT REVIEWS!!

in the first paragraph of the article u write that it gained generally positive reviews. i am sorry if im wrong but when a game takes a 40/40 by famitsu (one of the most important and stricked magazines of all time, i mean there are like only 5 games with a perfect score by famitsu), a 9.5% by IGN (IGN very rarely puts scores higher than 8.5 - 9, a 9.5 is actually a perfect score!) and a perfect score by Nintendo Power and by many other magazines, it doesnt have generally positive reviews, it has EXCELLENT REVIEWS!!! actually some of the best reviews in the history of video games!!!! this should be edited... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

This is actually a valid point. No game has or will probably ever get "perfect" reviews (all 10/10s), so I think a 9.5-10.0 would count as "excellent". Doesn't that sound right? --BiT (talk) 11:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
The guy who changed it to "generally positive" said in his edit summary that "some reviews were in the 8x region." (Meaning 8.0-8.9) --haha169 (talk) 16:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Generally implies it got some negative reviews, which it hasn't. However for some reason Excellent doesn't sound right. What about "recieved a positive reception"? To be fair, what we have right now is fine. Stabby Joe (talk) 17:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Character Selection Error

Where it shows the selection screen it says thet it is the final selecetion screen so if could change it that would be perfect. Im new here and I do not know how to change it yet. Smash Bros Guy13 (talk) 7:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, what needs to be changed? That is the final selection screen as far as I can tell, and the caption also says that it is the final selection screen. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 21:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I think he may still be seeing the original starting screen, which was replaced by the final screen recently. The problem could be solved by him refreshing his cache.  Comandante Talk 21:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Now I see it thanks. Samsh Bros Guy13 (talk) 8:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Closer To Australian Release Date?

I just went to a EB Games store and asked for Brawl's release date and they told me 1st of June and just to make sure I checked at another EB Games store and said 1st of June. Ths has bieng brought up recently by M4192 saying it was June on as well as so should we put it the article? Samsh Bros Guy13 (talk) 6:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a placeholder date to me. Nifboy (talk) 10:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
WP:VG/DATE: "For unreleased games, vendor sites should not be used as verifiable sources since their date is likely based on their best estimate of when the game is to be out; always look for corroborating statements from reliable sources to confirm these dates." Arrowned (talk) 15:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Powerslave (talk|cont.) 01:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
WP:VG/DATE would overrule WP:V in this instance as it is a clarification of the rule. -Zomic13 (talk) 02:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

They seem to be given automatically to any game that scores above 9.0, so listing them there is kind of redundant. Save that spot for Game of the Year awards...if Brawl can manage to earn any. Wikipedian06 (talk) 06:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Surely, my removal of the awards was explained succinctly in the edit summary - removing worthless "awards". - hahnchen 14:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)\
Yes, but you didn't cite any particular policy or guideline. An award is an award, they're not handed out every day for no reason. In any case, I won't push the matter further; I'll take this as a consensus to not include them. -- Comandante {Talk} 15:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
If you mean "Edittors Choice" then thats pretty redundent and no notable considering most sites have these and they're given for high marks, not anything special like in the end of year awards. Stabby Joe (talk) 12:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


Is it better to show the starting stages selection screen (as currently), or a screenshot of the final screen? King Rhyono (talk) 07:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

A good shot of the final screen is preferred, but so far there doesn't seem to be any, or no one has attempted to upload one yet. -- Comandante {Talk} 15:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I put up the final screen. King Rhyono (talk) 03:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Brawl Central

The previous reason(s) for not including Brawl Central in the External Links was because it was a speculation site. Now, its pretty much like a strategy guide, similar to the StrategyWiki link currently in the external links. --haha169 (talk) 22:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

It's still a fansite...-Sukecchi (talk) 22:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Links aren't added for promotional purposes. Powerslave (talk|cont.) 23:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Its not promotional. Its informational. See the side bar with all the information about the game which can't be added to Wikipedia because it will be too fluffed up (ie. List of Assist Trophies). --haha169 (talk) 23:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Looks to me like it's just a fansite by some college kids who want to get more traffic by linking to it on Wikipedia. Powerslave (talk|cont.) 01:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an editor of that site. And if they wanted more traffic, they'd advertise for it. But I don't really think they want more traffic since their bandwidth exploded in January. I'm just stating that there are some information and pictures expanding from the information that are on Wikipedia. Of course, its forums and tournament isn't info, but the rest of the stuff is. --haha169 (talk) 03:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Technical Oddities

I suggest the main article get a new section which states some technical oddities I (and others) have found with the game. 1. The savefile of the game can't be backed up or moved, only erase is available. 2. The firmware update that follows the disc can replace Photo Channel 1.0 (on a machine that originally had 1.0) with 1.1 to the extent that it is irreversible. I have a USA-machine and this has happened to me. It does not happen to everyone. The problem is known in Japan and Nintendo of Japan has made available on WiiWare a "Photo Channel 1.0 restoration". More info on (for those who doesn't know why anyone would want 1.0 over 1.1 I can mention that 1.0 has MP3 support and 1.1 has AAC support) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Psychad (talkcontribs) 14:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

1: Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. As such, generally all video games that don't allow moving their save files (F-Zero GX immediately jumps to mind) don't mention that info in their articles. #2: This article is about Brawl, so firmware updates that result in changed Channels don't belong here. I'm not even really sure that's important enough to be mentioned anywhere, but if it was, it would go in Wii Menu#Photo Channel, not here. Arrowned (talk) 15:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

1. Hmm, ok, I can buy that 2. I could agree that it would fit in Photo Channel Article - however I find it noteworthy that the game issued/resulted in a special patch from Nintendo of Japan. I guess this will interrest more people on when/if the patch reaches USA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Psychad (talkcontribs) 21:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)