Talk:Super Smash Bros. Brawl/Archive 28

This is an archive of past discussions about Super Smash Bros. Brawl. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

→

Final edit warring warning

Well, I have had enough of all this edit warring. I have blocked Rikara (talk · contribs) for a pretty uncivil comment. A thing I hate is edit warring through edit summaries: we have talk pages to discuss, not the article itself. The game is nearing its release, and we all are a bit excited. However, reverting each other only makes things worse. If this happens again, I will fully protect the article until the release date so that only facts are added to it. Thanks. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 23:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you should so that doesn't happen again. -Sukecchi (talk) 23:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm for protecting Super Smash Bros. Brawl, AND Super Smash Bros. (series) until Brawls Release. It's been chaotic here since we're so close to the japanese release anyways. Dengarde ► Complaints 23:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I know I've not added to the articles in question, but I've seen what's been going on with my own eyes! I think protecting the page would be a good idea! Doktor Wilhelm 23:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

My original comment was written while I was on the Wii. Now I can go into further detail since I'm on the computer. You know when the block is up, Rikara is going to come back here with another "reliable leak" and continue to add it. I think protecting the article until the 31st would be a great idea. Of course, if we get a new character next week, it will have to be added by an admin. -Sukecchi (talk) 23:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

You and Jeske are admins, so That shouldn't be a problem. Dengarde ► Complaints 23:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

...I'm not an admin. -Sukecchi (talk) 23:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

...I could have sworn you were. O_o Well...Jeske is still an admin, so theres still not a problem. Dengarde ► Complaints 23:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Personally I think it'd be a better idea to protect it a few days beyond the 31st. There's going to be loads of fake rosters that day, and it would take us a few days to gather all the legit information that needs to be added to the article as necessary changes anyways. Feb. 2 or 3 perhaps? Arrowned (talk) 23:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the full protection here. If something absolutely NEEDS to be added, you can use {{editprotected}}. I'd advocate protection until 14th February. Not only is the unprotection date easy to remember, but it gives everyone a nice three weeks to cool down and most casual vandals will likely get disinterested. NF24^{(radio me!)} 23:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I also blocked 67.171.14.195 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (apparently Rikara). I am one of those who always assume good faith and believe people can change, so I would give everyone another opportunity of cooperating (even though the characters article is already fully protected). If Rikara comes back and continues the edit warring, I will just block him/her until the release date. Should not be difficult to spot the disruptive editor. If another war edit between other editors break, though, I will protect the article until release date. My actions can always be reviewed by another admin, who can fully protect the article now if necessary. Anyone can go to WP:RFPP and request an extended protection at any time. Given the history of edit warring, it may be granted immediately. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 00:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I think that this article should be blocked until at least February 2 2008. By then, we should have all the facts straight, and no more fake rosters circulating around. --haha169 (talk) 00:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I also agree at this point. I have attempted to set the standard for behaviour here with DFDL (now editing as Lbrun12415), and HeaveTheClay (Hide nor hair since the blocks...). Other editors have not seemed to get the point. This is just a game, hardly the Holy Grail of gaming in general either. So yes, until the title is released, I support a lock of the article, so that admin action is required to make a change. Edit Centric (talk) 00:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Protected per Request

Per request of the community I have Protected this article until February 14. Jeepday (talk) 00:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

For those who still don't know, use {{editprotected}} to add a note in the talk page requesting a change to the article. I would suggest getting some consensus before adding large new content (say, if MegaMan is announced today, get the paragraph with the description done and not ask for an edit protected every minute just because you forgot to mention something). And whenever you think the article won't be violated again, just go to WP:RFPP and request the unprotection. And if you want, you can create a sandbox to format new sections or changes instead of doing it here. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 00:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Created New Archive

Old discussions have all been cleared, and page has reached a length. --haha169 (talk) 01:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Try not to archive topics that may be active again (especially topics that have been edited only hours ago) as it may give the impression you are cutting the discussion flow. Also, please use edit summaries, or others will think it is vandalism. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 02:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing me. I'm aware of my mistake now, since someone left a message for me. It was quite careless, in my opinion. I think it slipped my mind at the last moment. --haha169 (talk) 05:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and also, the history, I believe, showed that either the topics hadn't been discussed for a while, or they had been resolved, except for the one I saved above. --haha169 (talk) 05:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Question for next character in Brawl

Now that the article can only be edited by admins, that means that normal users like myself cannot edit this page, correct? Anyway, I just wanted to ask, if a new character is revealed on the dojo website, and that character happens to be a third party character like MegaMan, how will we be able to edit him in?

Also, I've just heard that all of the characters on the dojo website (except for the third-party characters, as it's said that they'll be hidden characters) are the official starter characters in the game. I don't know if this is official, but whether or not a first party character gets in the game, we're not updating this article for him/her. We only update it if a new third party character like MegaMan gets in the game. Correct? Sorry, I want things clarified for me and many other users. Thanks!

WiiDS (talk) 03:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Scroll up and read the last paragraph in the Protected per Request discussion above; it explains how edits are made when the page is on full lockdown. Arrowned (talk) 03:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Wait, they locked it again? It was unlocked for a brief moment. I'm going to go see what happened...curiosity killed the cat. I hope that doesn't happen to me. --haha169 (talk) 05:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

If something needs to be edited in that badly before the article is unprotected, you can pretty much guarantee that someone who knows how or has permission to edit the article will do it before you get there. If it's not pertinent to the article (such as listing the starting roster), don't bother bringing it up here. Plus, if it's speculation, it'll just be reverted anyways. Coreycubed (talk) 15:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Correction

Under Game play, Stages, the text reads that the game is 3-D, but the characters are unable to move along the z-axis. Actually, in the common representation of Cartesian co-ordinates, the z-axis is vertical, and the y-axis measures depth. The characters cannot move into or out of the screen, that is, they cannot move along the y-axis. This is easy to confuse as the y-axis is generally vertical in 2-D co-ordinate systems. I think the obvious solution is not to refer to the stage in terms of its axes, and just say 'the characters may only move horizontally and vertically'. This is far less ambiguous and confusing. I don't know how to get an edit approved for a locked article, someone else do it :).--Erik the guy (talk) 06:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree. If the article doesn't define where the axes lie, it shouldn't refer to them.219.79.114.119 (talk) 09:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. In the future, please use the {{editprotected}} template here with an explanation of the edit you want performed. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 09:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I thought the x-axis was forward/back. That would mean they can't move along the x-axis. I know. Nitpicking. -Capefeather (talk) 04:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Is Sora the developer?

http://www.nintendo.co.uk/NOE/en_GB/games/wii/super_smash_bros_brawl_2785.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.209.5.150 (talk) 19:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow. And on a Nintendo site too! However, I think we'll still have to just wait a while. We'll find out the truth soon! --haha169 (talk) 19:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

And here we have another source that is supporting the ad-hoc team idea: http://us.wii.com/iwata_asks/ssbb/vol7_page3.jsp

"Even the development team itself is comprised of members that came together unexpectedly solely for this project..."--Henke37 (talk) 11:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Kazushige Nojima as Subspace Emissary Scenario Writer

{{editprotected}} I believe Kazushige Nojima should be named underneath Masahiro Sakurai in the Designers section underneath the game's boxart. The official interview by Satoru Iwata names him (in conjunction with Masahiro Sakurai) as the scenario writers for the Subspace Emissary. I'd therefore like to have
[[Masahiro Sakurai]] (director, scenario writer<ref name="IwataAsksSubspace"/>)<br />[[Kazushige Nojima]] (scenario writer<ref name="IwataAsksSubspace"/>)
in that box. "IwataAsksSubspace" is defined later in the article, so I hope it will work as a reference. Thanks! --pie4all88 (talk) 21:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Nobody objects? -- ReyBrujo (talk) 22:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't. Most video game articles tend to list director, producer, scenario writer, composer, and other such credits in their main infoboxes. This addition only makes sense. Arrowned (talk) 23:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Done I have moved the references around since they are meant to be used after punctuation marks. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 23:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks great, though I just realized I forgot to include the link to Game director, which I kind of liked. I don't see any articles on scenario writers, unfortunately. Anyways, thanks for the prompt attention! --pie4all88 (talk) 23:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Most infoboxes just link it as "scenario writer" or "original scenario concept" since the job itself has no article. Arrowned (talk) 02:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Release Date 2

According to DOJO, the release date was changed again. It will come out on March 9th. --User:Mkalv —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.85.237 (talk) 22:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Here is the link:[1]--User:Mkalv

We know, and have known for weeks. The article was updated the day it was announced. Refresh your cache if you're seeing the old date. Arrowned (talk) 22:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, somebody went and updated it before it was announced, since I was on Wikipedia before that fatal 11:00 PT, and it was already changed. But in any case, it was the correct date, so I left it as is. --haha169 (talk) 23:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

It was me actually. XD
Blind man shady 23:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Page Protection

What has happened to require full protection on the page? As well, when the website starts releasing more updates on the game's development progress on weekdays, will we have to notify an admin so THEY can edit the page, if the update is notable enough to be included (examples of this would include more confirmed characters, or new playing modes)? RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 22:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Not only lots of IP and registered user vandalism, but a nasty edit war that ended with one user getting blocked yesterday for a week. The article is fully protected until 14th February, hopefully everyone can cool down by then. NF24^{(radio me!)} 22:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Rikara (talk · contribs) is due back today, actually. He was only blocked for 31 hours, not a week. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 00:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

ick! I hope everyone cools off by then, too. as for the edits, if any new information comes up, i'll shove it on the front of my user page as a temporary holding place until the protection is removed or reduced. RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 23:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Would you like to read that edit war? It was a long week... Actually, there were 2 edit wars. The one linked above was bad. Plus, we reached a decision that we wouldn't add anymore confirmed characters to this article unless its a new third party. --haha169 (talk) 23:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

That sounds fair. I'm not one to go against consensus (except in extremely rare cases), so i'll follow what you guys are doing. Upon reading the edit war...my goodness. all i can say is "The Ego Has Landed!" from all the Personal attacks and lack of civility when it's needed the most from all sides. i was particularly surprised by the person that said wikipedia is not a "whorehouse of information". completely unexpected. RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 23:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering...is it absolutely necessary for this article to be blocked until mid-February? By then, everyone will know all the real information, and not even Rikara can say his information is true, (if it isn't). I think it should be pushed earlier a bit. --haha169 (talk) 06:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, the other purpose of the 14th February end date is so everyone can have time to calm down, what with the recent edit war and all. If the article was only protected a week, then the edit war could start up again. Three weeks also deters most casual vandals because they don't want to wait that long to edit. It also acts as damage control because now all edits must be screened by admins - hopefully, that means no more unsourced crap. NF24^{(radio me!)} 13:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

After having read that edit war, I partially agree. Don't think that it should be protected for as long as it will be, but I still understand where this is coming from. But I do fear that if, by chance, Rikara (talk · contribs) does end up being right, he may cause more trouble. Temporary Text, will change after exams. Apologies for any inconveniance 14:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC) 14:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Game Arts

Why does the Smash Bros. Series article use Game Arts and this article uses "the Studio" as the Developer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.102.73 (talk) 02:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, we don't know for sure who's exactly coding the video game. It could be HAL Labratories, Sora Ltd., or Game Arts, as those are the three most-likely developers, but nothing's confirmed yet. Nintendo's webpage is hinting that Sora is the developer, or at least developing it with Game Arts. I can pull up the URL in a second... RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 03:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually the series article does not call Game Arts the developer and only states that some members were borrowed to help work on the game. --69.156.206.112 (talk) 03:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification, 69.156.206.112 :) RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 22:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Read it:

"Iwata We were introduced to this company by Miyamoto-san. You can share the name if you like.

Sakurai Oh, okay. It was Game Arts. It was just after they had finished Grandia III and they told us that they had some staff free. So, we decided to leave the main part of preliminary development to them while we began to hire remaining staff. We did so by looking for people specifically for the Smash Bros. Brawl title. "

This fits with the quote from "How this game came to be made" that says the same studio that is working on Smash Bros. had just finished a major product and was introduced to Sakurai by Miyamoto. At the very least, Game Arts is confirmed to be the main developer. 75.152.155.200 (talk) 00:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, here's the quote from the old website: " So it was that Nintendo's Shigeru Miyamoto introduced me to a "particular team" that had just completed a large-scale game.

Until the day comes when I can announce the team's name, I shall simply refer to them as "The Studio.""

"The studio" is confirmed to be Game Arts. So either it should be changed to say "Unknown", or it should say "Game Arts", since this definitely confirms that the quote unquote studio is Game Arts. 75.152.155.200 (talk) 00:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Since you like quoting so much, here's some more:

It turned out that Nintendo would build a new team around me in Tokyo.
So, with the members of The Studio as our core, we dramatically increased our staff members.

Fascinating, is it not?--141.84.69.20 (talk) 02:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, "The Studio" is confirmed to be Game Arts. Both Famitsu and the Iwata Asks articles say that Game Arts was the group that Sakurai was introduced to. But, Game Arts only constitutes one part of the group making the game. I think we should change "The Studio" to just say that it's by various groups. There's no single name that covers everyone. - Zero1328 _Talk? 03:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Given that there's no source for claiming that Game Arts is the developer and not Sora Ltd., why not just wait until the game is released? We'll know then. --Coreycubed (talk) 03:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you perhaps read what I wrote again? I think you misunderstood what I meant. We can't say "The Studio" now, because "The Studio" = Game Arts. We should change it to just say it's by various groups, because there's no name that covers it as a whole. - Zero1328 _Talk? 03:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, it wasn't what you wrote that I misunderstood. I had forgotten that the old site had said it so specifically. In my mind, I'm remembering the following quote: "In other words, we would create a new studio." to be the reference to The Studio. Yet, it is clearly stated later on that page that the use of The Studio is in reference to Game Arts. (The above quotes are also accurate, but I somehow missed the boat there as well.) In that case, you are correct that The Studio can no longer be used as a placeholder, as it was described by Sakurai as such to prevent revelation of Game Arts' role. It needs to be changed to something else, but what? --Coreycubed (talk) 03:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Hm, well, none of us have any idea on how Brawl is going to be credited. It could be a list of all the companies that collaborated, or, a new studio name that consists of all those companies.

Maybe we should write "Ad hoc Studio" and cite all the quotes used here, and the Development section(if that's permitted) and/or all citations used in that section. - Zero1328 _Talk? 04:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Also see what I tried to bring up here. « ₣M₣ » 04:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I read that, but I was having a bad day at work and forgot about it. I agree with that approach pending full release of a developer's title. --Coreycubed (talk) 04:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Why don't we just change "The Studio" to "TBA"? --(trogga) 17:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Would it be so bad to put Sora Ltd and Game Arts if people wanted to change the name that desperately before it comes out? BudokaZ 18:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The back of the game box lists Sora as the developer. I can provide a photo shortly. Coreycubed (talk) 19:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't bother providing the photo. Here it is: http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/4962/boxart2yg8.png

http://brawlcentral.com/images/news/2008_01_28(1).jpg E.M. talk ● contribs 00:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Game Arts (Cont.)

I have to ask: What is that logo underneath Sora, then? Plus, that second picture is small and unreadable. At this moment, the UK Brawl site (linked above) has a better chance of cite then this picture. --haha169 (talk) 01:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The Havok engine. Since no one can agree on even using a term to describe everyone involved, this discussion, as already mentioned, needs to be placed to hold until the game comes out or until a reliable source has the full staff credit information. « ₣M₣ » 01:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Vault

Masterpieces should be moved to the Vault section. 1 or 2 sentences should be said about Chronicles, Replays and the Album. Stage Builder should be talked about here instead of in the Wi-fi section. Spectator Mode should be mentioned in Wi-fi not here. I think stickers and trophies are talked about too much here. CDs have got nothing to do with the Vault and should be removed. M4192 (talk) 10:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

All valid points. My Music, and CDs by extension, are a subsection of Options and should be placed in an Options section. As I have time, I'll draft a rewrite of the appropriate sections. Coreycubed (talk) 15:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Before you or anyone rewrite anything, take a look at the Melee page which has recently reached GA, but failed its FA nom. The whole "Group", "Solo", etc may eventually have to be renamed to something more... suitable if it wants to pass, the last thing that is needed is a section called "Options". « ₣M₣ » 18:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes Masterpieces should not have its own section but remember that the info in your first sentence was just added today on the dojo and should be discussed first so someone doesn't edit without any logical thought or plan to incorporate it neatly LukewarmHoliday (talk) 20:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Well I think it should be changed post-haste. It feels kind of weird having a section about everything in Vault and then a separate section (which isn't really filled with too much info to be a proper section)for Masterpieces when Masterpieces are IN Vault. 24.186.101.182 (talk) 21:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Problem is, the article's full-protted. I'd do it myself but I don't get off of work for another hour. Coreycubed (talk) 21:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

If you want it changed quickly:{{editprotected}}

NF24^{(radio me!)} 21:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we're well aware of the {{editprotected}} tag, but you just inserted it onto the page without asking for a specific edit to be performed. The reason we haven't done so yet, is because this is a substantial rewrite, and needs to be drafted beforehand so the editing administrator only has to make one change.--Coreycubed (talk) 22:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Given that full game details are being released, we'll probably stave that rewrite off pending a full revision of the article after the majority of the info is out. Coreycubed (talk) 06:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

HAL labs is developing Brawl and I have confirmation

Check out this vid. It confirms marth and ness and that HAL is developing brawl if you look at it at the end.[2]--Smashbrosboy (talk) 03:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess it need not be mentioned that the video also confirms Marth and Ness. Powerslave (talk|cont.) 04:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC) <removed editprotected tag pending consensus>

Developer HAL labs. Reference [3]--Smashbrosboy (talk) 04:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I hope you aren't seriously trying to cite YouTube. Anyways, where does that say that HAL is the developer? It says that HAL holds copyrights along with Nintendo; they do. Coreycubed (talk) 04:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Removed the tag. I'd like to get a second opinion before we chuck that in; it's a good start though. Coreycubed (talk) 06:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

For those that don't get how HAL holds the copyright, remember that the game is not completely written from scratch, they used the meleé codebase as a start.--Henke37 (talk) 15:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

This video is perfectly reliable (even if it is on youtube). However, HAL Labs does hold copyright, so its not a good cite. P.S. I don't see Marth. --haha169 (talk) 06:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's reliable, that's not the point. Also, Marth is at 1:29 and 1:44. Coreycubed (talk) 06:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Ridely was in the intro for melee, but was not a playable character.--Henke37 (talk) 15:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

At this point in the game, since the game is out now, there's no need for citations. Unless you want to cite the game itself.Satoryu (talk) 06:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC) Ah...I see! Go Marth! Plus, those images on Luigi in Brawlcentral look incredibly legit. Hopefully, Isaac will appear in the midst of this massive leak fest. --haha169 (talk) 06:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC) The video is also on Gametrailers, and is listed as the opening movie. [4] I like to think that's a more 'reliable' source. But then again, as I think I've said before, is everyone really that desperate to edit the page this close to the games release? Marth and Ness could be NPCs...although highly unlikely. BudokaZ 10:04, 29th January 2008 (UTC)

Thats what i said when peach was first seen, so true, perhaps we can all just ignore all leaks till thrusday, then we'll have tons of japanese info.→041744 13:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Ness and Marth have already been shown playable, but Gametrailers is almost as bad as Brawl Central -- they were using a fake roster in one of their highlight videos. Coreycubed (talk) 13:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

They used it to highlight there's been huge controversy on the roster front. They didn't use it as an actual list of characters...either way there's such an explosion of content going on it'd be hard to wade through it all at the moment, and also there's the question of whether or not everything is true.BudokaZ 15:05, 29th January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up, I never watched the video in question. Coreycubed (talk) 15:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The Pokemon website serebii.net also has a picture of the roster but my opinion is to wait for the Japanese version to be released first so someone at least can confirm it. -71.59.237.110 (talk) 03:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Interwiki

Please add [[is:Super smash bros. brawl]] to this site. Thank you. =) --BiT (talk) 02:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Done bibliomaniac 1 5 02:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Characters

Could an admn. use the character selection screen from DOJO!! as the pics in the character section. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.102.73 (talk) 11:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

This is fine, unless someone objects to using the starting roster instead of the incomplete one (in which case we'd have to wait for a verifiable shot of all 35 unlocked). Coreycubed (talk) 17:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Lets use the starting roster then On Feb 1st we change it to the full 35 roster.--Lbrun12415 18:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

a full roster like this one? http://s248.photobucket.com/albums/gg181/xblah/ssbm/?action=view&current=up254065.jpg 67.189.162.24 (talk) 21:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

No, a full roster like this: http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.joystiq.com/media/2008/01/ssbbwolfroster.jpg . Bowser is missing on yours :P SirVenom (talk) 22:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Acualy Wolf is missing (i didn't notice till i looked XD)67.189.162.24 (talk) 22:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but this is the EN version of Wikipedia, I don't think there's any reason to use the full 35 roster in Japanese, when we have the NA version of the starter roster, and will have by next month a 35 NA roster. Coreycubed (talk) 22:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I like the idea, possibly like the Mario & Sonic version at MarioWiki? - Dancingcyberman —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dancingcyberman (talk • contribs) 18:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Sirvenoms is the real one. 75.119.16.95 (talk)

It's just a game

Why is everyone going bananas over Brawl? All of this protection and Youtube leaks is very silly. Brawl is nothing more than Smash Bros. 1 on steroids. My main point is to reduce the article until enough valid information comes out.DeathMark (talk) 17:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

We're going "bananas" in an attempt to protect the article until the valid information can be inserted. While some of the edit warring here has been extreme, this is still a case of editors trying to preserve Wikipedia's rules and regulations; whether the article is about a video game or World War II matters little. Arrowned (talk) 17:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

No one's 'going bananas' -- suggest an edit to the article, or don't bring up your opinions on the talk page. In case you hadn't noticed, the article is under full-prot and hasn't been edited since yesterday. Coreycubed (talk) 17:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It's silly and pointless. It's more pointless than people going crazy over a pen and paper game. All of this "security" is unnecessary seeing as the game IS released in Japan.DeathMark (talk) 18:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

In a way I actually agree with DeathMark, but it's more the Edit war, 20 or so archives and repeated questions, not "The sensible Wikipedians" telling everybody what to do. Pezzar (talk) 10:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Yay i'm not going to lie, there is a brawl over the wikipedia page on Brawl! it's just a game, nothing more, but I also agree people do put some random stuff on thereOnepiece226 (talk) 17:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)Onepiece226

It's released in Japan...

the opening blurb still says it's an "upcoming" game... 64.180.72.202 (talk) 19:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It's going to be released in Japan tomorrow. --Ryu-chan (Talk | Contributions) 19:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it is Jan. 31st over there.

Please remove {{future game}} from the article. Thanks for reminding me, anon. Coreycubed (talk) 19:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Wait! It's actually one hour away from January 31 there. - 64.180.72.202 (talk) 19:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm? How do you figure? It's GMT +9, 7:39pm +9 = well beyond midnight. Coreycubed (talk) 19:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Silly me, I checked an old/cached paged of the Japan date and time. I should've trusted my calculation with the +9. 64.180.72.202 (talk) 19:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Done -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 20:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Jéské. Coreycubed (talk) 20:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Kinda makes you want to learn japanese; doesn't it? RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 20:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Eh, I could read enough to figure out what was going on if I had to, but one conversational Japanese class in high school doesn't make me an expert; sadly, I fall somewhere in the crack between gaijin and weeaboo. Coreycubed (talk) 20:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I suppose it's minor, but it still says "upcoming" in the actual opening text.

"...is an upcoming crossover fighting game to be published..." 64.180.72.202 (talk) 20:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Jéské! {{editprotected}} Please change the text "is an upcoming crossover fighting game" to "is a crossover fighting game". Coreycubed (talk) 20:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

As well as anything in the text that indicates it has not been released yet. « ₣M₣ » 21:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. I think I got all the mentions in the heading, checking the rest of the article now. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 22:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Low Importance?

A mega-hyped game with tons of content, and it's LOW importance?!?!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.124.29.37 (talk) 21:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

That's for inclusion in a DVD or possible print version of Wikipedia. Space is limited so they need to put the important things in first. XENON54 | talk | who? 22:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, Wikipedia 1.0 is a "final" (so-to-speak) version of Wikipedia, and this game's not even out yet, and Wikipedia 1.0's been in the works for a long time. It's of Low importance to "make the cut" onto the 1.0, within the scope of WikiProject Gaming. It's of High importance within WikiProject Nintendo, however. Coreycubed (talk) 22:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Official SSBB site?

I'm really surprised that we didn't add the official website to the external link. I can see it is used throughout the article, but only specific pages; not the site itself. I wanted to add it to the external links section, but it says you needed "Discussion". walkingonthesun Say something to me 01:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

It's already there. In fact, it's literally the only link listed in the External Links section. Arrowned (talk) 01:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I usually visit supersmashbros.com. They both go to the same site. My bad, then. walkingonthesun Say something to me 01:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Developer

Nintendo UK's site says that Sora is the developer for Brawl. See here.

Thoughts? --Son (talk) 02:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The game's title screen makes no mention of Sora. Only Nintendo and HAL.Satoryu (talk) 02:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

And then why would Nintendo's site say the developer was Sora? --Son (talk) 02:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Those are probably just the copyrights. Owning copyright doesn't necessarily mean you made the game. A better source would be the game credits at the end. - Zero1328 _Talk? 03:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

That's not the discussion. The discussion is about the developer. Nintendo's official (UK) website says it's Sora. Unless someone says otherwise, that's a legitimate, verifiable source, and it should be in the article. --Son (talk) 04:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure my comment is relevant to the discussion. I was telling Satoryu on why the Title screen isn't sufficient to determine the developer, and I was suggesting another ingame source. - Zero1328 _Talk? 05:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

You're right. The title screen doesn't necessarily always list the developer. Is there a scan of the game's case floating around?Satoryu (talk) 19:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Newly Confirmed Characters-Do Not Erase

excuse me, i seemed to have stumbled upon this little item. [5] Could anyone please tell me whether this is acknowledgable? This is very important.4.130.0.242 (talk) 16:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

yes all of those have already been confirmed by the official website.--Dlo2012 (talk) 17:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Even Jiggs and Lucario and Luigi and Toon link and all of those other characters? But where and how are they confirmed, and don't say "Youtube video" and then give me the link. ♥,Ivyluv (talk) 17:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC) 17:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The game has already been released in Japan; therefore, we no longer need to rely only on DOJO!! for confirmation of new items. The game itself serves as all the confirmation we need. Arrowned (talk) 19:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

What if, just what if, there are more than just language differences between the in-game features of the game? ♥,Ivyluv (talk) 20:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

That has little to do with any perceived issues in the article. It's not like we're claiming there aren't any more characters; we're not saying anything either way. We've just listing who's known to be playable in the game up to this point. Arrowned (talk) 20:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

How to add info with references

I found an article that said that in the first day of sales in Japan, super smash bros brawl has already sold 500,000 copies. Should i add this? Here's the link:

http://www.cubed3.com/news/9449

I saw something about that on the article a little while ago. I came back, and that info was gone. I think it would be great to put that back in. Jareds2007 (talk) 20:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Do we really need a section for Assist Trophies?

I'm wondering if there needs to be an AT section. The page seemed fine before, but now it looks crowded around the middle, especially with the AT table. Going into details about items and such, even impressive ones, is boardering on guide material. A brief description is fine, but a section and table seems to be a bit much. Thoughts? 96.232.244.100 (talk) 17:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. AT need to be mentioned in an items section instead of having its own. 150.201.63.107 (talk) 19:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

In fact, they are already mentioned in the items section with Pokeballs. Everything's already taken care of.Satoryu (talk) 19:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I do think we need to have a list of the Assist Trophies themselves, since it is new to the seriesOnepiece226 (talk) 19:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)Onepiece226

We have one list already. Notice how we only list characters. No item lists, no stage lists, and no Pokemon lists. Same goes for ATs.Satoryu (talk) 19:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Then maybe someone should make another page devoted to all of the stages, and items, in the smash bros seriesOnepiece226 (talk) 20:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)Onepiece226

I think instead you need to look through Wikipedia's policies regarding game guide material. All of those things are better suited to game faqs. DurinsBane87 (talk) 21:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I think so too. Usable items from Super Smash Bros. Sounds like a good article name, though it could be considered as a game guide. --haha169 (talk) 21:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

It would be no different than the random weapon lists from games. All of which got deleted. DurinsBane87 (talk) 21:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really sure if this game can be considered "random weapon lists from games". This game is a combination of many different games, and therefore, it can be argued that this article is merely combining all the weapon lists from multiple games. If we use a description, not too long, yet short enough to describe it thoroughly with an encyclopedic tone, I think that it will definitely make the cut. --haha169 (talk) 00:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

So you're saying that because it will have items from several other games, it'll be kept. I HIGHLY Doubt it. DurinsBane87 (talk) 06:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Subspace Emissary Paragraph

I was reading the article and noticed some grammatical and composition mistakes. Specifically, the SSE section was kind of strange. The first paragraph didn't flow right. I don't know, could just be me. Any English majors want to check it out? Jareds2007 (talk) 20:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it looks like a 2nd Grader wrote it. I don't know how to get an english major to fix it, but it is in need of revising. Thanks for bringing it to our attention.AlexanderLD (talk) 03:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

First day sales in Japan

I just wanted to point out something:

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=9569856&postcount=228 http://ameblo.jp/sinobi/

So, according to those linkies, Brawl apparently sold 500,000 copies on its first day in Japan. It's probably noteworthy enough to mention, right? Although, problem is, I don't think those two links in particular qualify for Wikipedia's verifiability rules and junk, so does anyone know where people can get legitimate info on game sales and stuff? DRaGZ (talk) 22:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The article is already using Jeuxvidéos.com as reference for that. I noticed IGN picked the news (calling Sinobi a trusted source) as well as Joystiq (who called them untrustworthy). -- ReyBrujo (talk) 23:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Something to ask

On various character pages people wrote about those characters' roles in the Subspace Emissary based on the footage from the previews. Should they be put up this prematurely? Because I ask unless if there are different variations, then should this stuff be postponed until more confrontation details are found. I only asked this because of the mention I removed from Samus's page stating that she and Pikachu would be fighting Riley from Metroid and I was wondering if there are different variations of that. -71.59.237.110 (talk) 02:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

That's really a problem that needs to be brought up on those individual pages and not here. Also, it's not exactly a problem anymore; the game is out, and while incomplete plot details are somewhat annoying, it's not the same thing as putting up information that can't be verified to be true because the game isn't available. Arrowned (talk) 02:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Exaggeration?

The character section of the Brawl article says that there are a "total of 40 characters". I just looked at the Playable Characters in Smash Bros. section of the series' article and saw that, there are only 37 characters, and even double-checked it, so um, would somebody fix that? Nightmare77 (talk) 18:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think it is 40 characters if you include Sheik, Zer0-Suit Samus, and Charizard, Ivysard, and Squirtle. But thanks for keepings your eyes open for mistakes. AlexanderLD (talk) 20:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it would be 39 by that logic. Since you're counting Squirtle, Ivysaur and Charizard separately, then you wouldn't count the Pokemon Trainer because he just stands in the background. 'Tis 39. Powerslave (talk|cont.) 23:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the best might be to write 35 characters. In the Melee page, it says that there are 25 characters, so, by that logic, Sheik isn't a stand alone character. So, for Brawl, Sheik, Zero Suit Samus, Charizard, Squirtle and Ivysaur shouldn't be considered as stand alone characters. Yes, it's 37 if we count Sheik and ZS Samus... but, I don't think we should count them...DjinnFighter (talk) 23:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

They are counted on the DOJO site, and we follow the DOJO site here. --haha169 (talk) 04:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The articial says that there are only 37 characters, but in reality, there are 44. Proof is this pic: http://ui25.gamespot.com/24/brawlroster_2.jpg Much more proof else where, look on youtube. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.4.94 (talk) 16:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

i think u should count again. 24.186.101.182 (talk) 16:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

There are 37 characters. -Sukecchi (talk) 16:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

35 if you don't count Sheik and ZSS though. Unknownlight (talk) 17:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how you got 44, but there are 37 characters including Sheik and Zero Suit Samus. Therefore, the info currently in the article is correct. .:Alex :. 17:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow, i heard 44 some where, im i always am too lazy to count twice can this be deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.4.94 (talk) 19:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

No. This is going to an archive--haha169 (talk) 19:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

These articles should be consistant, look at dojo, Samuas/ZSS = 2, Zelda/Sheik =2 Pokemon Trainer = 1. Thus 37 characters, just like there are 26 in Melee.→041744 13:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

By the way this was disscussed and consused -Here→041744 13:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

No In the Start Screen Sheik and Zelda share the same panell. You get to choose wich one same with P. Trainer, not with the Samus-Zreo Samus issue. BaconBoy914 (talk) 15:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

We're talking about characters, so look at the character select screen, only 35 portraits, meaning only 35 characters. That is what matters, not how many movesets there are, or whether there are transformations, just how many characters you're able to select from from the select screen, and that is 35. I don't see why people feel like they need to count Sheik/ZSS/Squirtle/Ivysaur/Charizard all as separate characters.Shyrangerr (talk) 18:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The Dojo counts Zero Suit and Sheik as two different characters, so we go by 37. If people want to count the three Pokémon, 39. But we're going by 37 here. Dengarde ► Complaints 18:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Did anybody count Pikmin? The character is after all "Olimar and Pikmin." bibliomaniac 1 5 00:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Olimar and Pikmin is a group. You can't have one without the other, really. It's like Ice Climbers (although that's another interesting issue). They count as one. BlueCanary9999 (talk) 00:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

It's 40. If you're going to count Zelda/Sheik and Samus/ZeroSuitSamus as two separate characters, then the Pokémon Trainer should count as three, and Bowser/Giga Bowser as two. Pikmin are used by Olimar in the same sense that Toad is used by Peach, but no one is arguing that Peach and Toad should count as two separate characters. TrueTsumetai (talk) 03:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I wonder how many times we're going to have to repeat that we count the way Dojo counts. Arrowned (talk) 03:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Dojo, and the game itself count the Pokémon Trainer as three separate characters, even denoting individual movesets for each Pokémon. The game itself announces the currently active Pokémon as the winner of the match (in the same way it does with Sheik) and even features special matches with individual Pokémon. Now, if you want to talk numbers, neither Dojo, nor the game itself specifically denotes how many characters are considered to be in the game.TrueTsumetai (talk) 03:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

No P. Trainer count as four P. trainer having two moves Triple Finish and Pokemon Swap as said by Dojo, hes four characters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BaconBoy914 (talk • contribs) 03:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Those moves are shared between all three Pokémon. Of course, that's obvious, and you clearly posted this to be an ass. Don't be an ass. TrueTsumetai (talk) 03:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that would be don't be a dick. --Son (talk) 03:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

We have always gone by dojo on this page, not by our opions, shareing the same square does not mean they are the same character, just look at dojo!
Samus / ZSS = 2
Zelda / Sheik = 2
Pokemon Trainer = 1
Pikmin and Olmar = 1.
We can always argue to the point of no return but we always use profiles, not winner stances, or movesets to determine what is character of not. thus 37 characters.→041744 13:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Wanted to remind y'all that Sakurai states on the Pokémon Trainer profile page that "using this character is like playing three for the price of one!" I'm not really for one side or the other here, but take that for what it's worth. It seems to me like he's counting the Trainer as three. Coreycubed (talk) 13:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the Pokemon Trainer should count as 3! Think about it. Samus and ZZS count as 2 because both characters are the sam person, but with different attacks and moveset, same thing as Zelda and Shiek, so it counts as 2. But it should be the same as Pokemon Trainer since Charizard, Squirtle, and Ivysaur have all different movesets! so it should count as 3! and Olimar only uses the Pikmin as wepons so he still counts as 1 characterOnepiece226 (talk) 14:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Sources that Wikipedia has deemed as notable and verifiable, like IGN, list Super Smash Bros. Melee as having 25 characters [6], but if Zelda and Sheik were counted separately, the count would be 26 characters. Sheik and Zero Suit Samus are, officially, the same characters as Zelda and Samus, respectively. Just because Samus takes off her power suit doesn't mean she becomes a different character! She's still Samus – her moveset has just changed. Similarly, Sheik is a transformation of Zelda. The movesets of the characters are irrelevant; it's the characters that actually matter! If Zelda transformed into, say, Dixie Kong, then obviously the characters would have to be listed separately. But she doesn't! She's still Zelda, only in a different form, meaning that she is still the same character. As for the Pokémon Trainer, I would have to argue that this character only counts as one. In the Pokémon series of games, you never actually control the Pokémon themselves, you just tell them what to do. In this case, you're actually playing as the Pokémon trainer, your role being to give instructions to the 3 Pokémon you train. Unlike playing as Pikachu or Jigglypuff, you don't actually play as Ivysaur, Charizard, or Squirtle, you play as their Trainer, who is telling them what to do. oobug^talk/_contrib 17:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with what you've said above, and wouldn't mind using the official portrait at selection screen count of 25 and 35 for Melee and Brawl, respectively. However, this does mean abandoning the Dojo profile standard (currently consensus) and removing some cells from the playable character table. Coreycubed (talk) 17:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see where we get the authority to abandon what the creators at Dojo say. Sakurai has said the Melee has 26 characters and Dojo devotes only one page to Pokemon Trainer (and Olimar and Peach/Toad and Bowser/Giga, etc...) but two pages each to Samus/ZSS and Zelda/Sheik. Let the creators decide how many characters there are and we will follow their word. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we should keep the current consesus to use the dojo profiles on what is charcter or not, as was done on the Playable characters table. Use what the offical site calls character or not, in melee zelda/sheik had seprate trophies, now they have seprate profiles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 041744 (talk • contribs) 22:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we should be going with the Dojo profiles because apart from any other sources any other method could be considered point of view however the game counts a source so you could argue the select screen for Zelda/Sheik and Samus/ZZS to be one character each however based off trophies in Melee the game also rebuts this and unaware of the trophies for Brawl but I assume they are the same. Also the Melee site lists Zelda and Sheik as separate characters. The Light6 (talk) 23:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I just had a thought, this will probably result in what source be used to choose (Dojo (or another official site), the character select screen or the trophies) well if you went by the majority (2 out of 3 sources) then Zelda/Sheik would have (for Melee at least) two separate profiles on the official Melee site and have separate trophies but share the square on the select screen so they have 2/3 sources calling them separate characters.

Now I don't know about the trophies in Brawl but we know about their status on Dojo and the select screen so Pokemon Trainer is a single character due to one icon on the select screen and one profile on Dojo while Samus/ZZS and Zelda/Sheik depends on the trophy but that gives the possibility of overruling the Melee outcome so using the latest outcome (eg Brawl) could be used if the outcomes between Melee and Brawl were different. So if anyone can think of anything else to add to that idea please do. The Light6 (talk) 04:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

.:can we really be sure that the japanese players have managed to unlock evrey single player available. i wouldn't put it past the creaters to make a special way to unlock more characters. e.g mr game n watch and mewtwo in melee were both unlocked in an extreme way compared to the other characters. there could quite easily be more undiscoverd yet purly because the game hasn't been out for long:. .:shadow:.Shadow shinobi (talk) 12:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)shadow_shinobi

In melee that is true, I rember i did one 1 life sudden death matches to get X matches. Anyway in this game almost all characters can be unlocked via the SEE which i think takes about 3-4 hours so I think we can trust all the rosters accross the internet.

So can we finally agree, use profiles and that there are 37 characters.→041744 13:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Zelda and Sheik are not separate characters. You cannot select to play as one or the other; by choosing Zelda you automatically gain the functionality of Sheik and vice versa. Sure, you don't have to play as the other character, but what if you accidentally trigger their down-special? Besides, as I stated above, movesets do not define characters! If using the down-special move while playing as Pikachu suddenly triggered a brand new moveset, but you were still Pikachu, you wouldn't list the two movesets as separate characters! Similarly, if you're playing as Samus and use her final smash, and all of a sudden she takes off her Power Suit, granting her a new moveset, has she become a different character? No! She's still Samus. If, while playing as Zelda, she uses her magic powers to disguise herself as Sheik, she hasn't lost her "Zeldaness." We cannot say that Samus and Samus are different characters, regardless of her state of dress. The fact that the DOJO!! lists them separately does not change the fact that Samus is Samus, and that Sheik is just a disguised Zelda. oobug^talk/_contrib 17:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Opions, opions... We don't use those, we use offical sources, Dojo list ZSS/Samus seprately indicating that they reconize them as seprate characters, despiote them being tied together, same with Zelda/Sheik. Despite that your last comment is irrelevant, we are not using movesets or winner stances or even the character select screen! Like I said, here we are using the offical site. On this touchy subject it is virtually impossible to get everyone to agree (as you just showed) that is why we use the offiacl site, not our opions on determining how many characters there are.→041744 22:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The only solution that avoids any editor's POV or OR interpretation of the fictional universe of the game is to go by Dojo. Zelda and Sheik can physically be separate characters, but if Dojo treats them as separate, then they must be considered separate. Axem Titanium (talk) 01:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

You all are confusing a point. Just because Dojo only commits one profile to the PTrainer, that doesn't mean Dojo only considers the PTrainer to be one character. If we're going by what Dojo says, then the count is 39 because Dojo clearly states the PTrainer consists of three characters. Of course, I'm perfectly content to go with what's currently on the page: to not bother mentioning exact numbers at all! That takes care of that problem. TrueTsumetai (talk) 12:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

We should mention a # once we are all content with the consesus.

We are not using what dojo says, we are using the profiles, on that note that is still a POV, dojo can be interprited many ways (see Ness' Note Debate) so can we just simply count the # of profiles (after they reval all the secret characters that is)→041744 13:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

<unindent> That's fine, but there are no more characters to be revealed that aren't quite obviously only one character. Waiting for Wolf, Jigglypuff, or R.O.B. to be revealed won't affect the total in any way, since we already know exactly how many more playable character profiles there are left to be revealed (10). Coreycubed (talk) 13:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The question I would have to ask is this: why are we using the DOJO!! profiles to count characters at all? Sure, the DOJO!! is an official and reliable source, but the game itself is the most official and reliable source of them all! Well, we have the game, and the character selection screen lists 35 characters that the player may select from. You can't choose to select Zelda or Sheik, you have to select both of them. Yes, you may choose which of those appearances/movesets you'll start with, but that doesn't make either of them individual characters. Zelda and Sheik are a unit, Samus is a single character, and the Pokémon Trainer is the playable character whose playstyle consists of issuing commands to his three Pokémon. As I've stated on the SSB series talk page (albeit about Melee), telling the user that there are 37 or 39 characters in the game when, in reality, they can only choose from 35 characters is just deceptive. The game shows 35 characters; I say we stick with the game as our official source. oobug^talk/_contrib 16:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Becuase the game can be interprited sevral differnt ways, If I were to just use the game I would count the PC tropheis, while some one else would count the character icon in battle and someone else might count the Charactet select screen. Also we are not being "deceptive" by saying there are more characters than at the select screen. In that since that would make us a border line game guide. Also your opion is far less convincing compared to the "strait-from-the-creator" website. Between those 2 I would trust the creator on any aspect of the game than a random person from the internet.

The Offical site gives use indisputable count of characters based on their character profile. And profile is a profile of a charcter, one profile represents one single character. That is why we use the site, it the best way to interprit the character number.→041744 22:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The official site cannot compare to the official game. I'm not so much spouting an opinion as much as I'm simply looking at the evidence. The game allows you to select from 35 characters, some of those characters having different transformations/appearances/iterations. The opinion involved here is that the number of profiles on the DOJO!! website represents an accurate number of playable characters in the game.

Now, I'll admit that the way in which the number of characters is presented does make a difference to me regarding the number of in-game characters. For example, if the article read, "The game features 37 characters" (or even 41, if you count Zelda, Sheik, Samus, Zero-Suit Samus, Pokémon Trainer, Ivysaur, Charizard, Squirtle, Popo, and Nana separately), I would agree with that sentence, but I would not agree with "The game features 37 playable characters," or "The game allows the player to select from 37 characters." The latter two sentences are incorrect. There are 35 playable characters. oobug^talk/_contrib 00:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Saying "the game features 37 characters" is wrong because it's too general. There are many more characters in the game aside from the playable ones. Pokemon, Assist Trophies, Bosses, and other NPCs are characters too, donchano.

I'll repeat what everyone else has already said. We go by the website because it gives a definite number, whereas the game only leaves it up to interpretation. Satoryu (talk) 00:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

But the website's definite number includes the PTrainer as three separate characters. Stating that the game contains 37 playable characters when you're, in fact, counting Dojo profiles is both misleading and illogical. The way I see it, the only logical solution is to state 35 characters (the number of selectable character sets on the select screen), or 40 characters (the number of unique individuals the player may take control of at any given time in Brawl). [P.S. Ice Climbers have always, and will always count as one character, lets not add a new dimension to an already complicated debate.] TrueTsumetai (talk) 04:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's the way I see it. Characters who are different sides of a coin (or, in PT's case, 1d3) are not seperate and should not be counted as such. Giga Bowser, Super Sonic, and Wario-Man specifically are not extra characters because they are simply temporary Final Smash Transformations. Ice Climber(s) (Note the punctuation; the Japanese versions omit the "s") should be treated as one character. Squirtle, Ivysaur, and Charizard altogether should be treated as one, despite being able to cherry-pick from the character select screen, because they are not independent of each other; they share damage, stock, coins, points, etc.; the same applies to Sheik/Zelda and Samus either clothed or naked (although she is the result of a Final Smash and is not selectable from the main screen AFAIK). -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 06:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Counting Dojo profiles may be misleading and illogical, but it's the only thing we can use that fits WP:V; 27 pictures currently on the character page plus the remaining secret characters not yet listed (who there's no question are one each) is something that's absolutely defined; there's no way you can have different opinions on how many 89x89 .JPG files are linked on that page. Any other attempt at qualifying a count uses proof that isn't as definite, is open to multiple interpretations, and will possibly never result in a consensus. Arrowned (talk) 07:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Misleading and illogical don't belong in the article. And once again counting profiles is misleading when you use that as the number of characters. No one is disputing how many profiles are on Dojo, but we're not counting profiles, we're counting characters. As for verifiability, anyone can easily go to the Dojo website and see that the PTrainer counts as three characters. The fact that PTrainer is three characters is just as "present" on the Dojo website as the profiles. 09:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

<unindent>On PT profile they list his moves as Pokemon Trainers moves, with Squirtle, Ivasuar and Charazard beanth him, meaning they reconize him as a single character. In additioon to that he also has one final snash while Zelda/sheik have 2 similar but seprate FS, and Samuas/ZSS has two diffrent and seprate FS. And your point that Dojo!! clearly states he is 3 characters is unfounded POV. please don't use "I guess you could say using this character is like playing three for the price of one!" as evidnece either way becuase it is unclear how he ment it. Alright if may be illogical how about we come to a compromise how about we state this in the article:

"The offical site list 37 character profiles for the game, but a player can only chose between 35 characters at the selection screen, two of which have 2 personifacations."

I think that would satify everyone.→041744 12:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

How about we not mention Dojo at all in the article? That would seem out of place. How about we say "There are 35 characters the player can choose from, plus several of the characters have more than one personification or variation."? TrueTsumetai (talk) 14:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh please no. None of the "personification" stuff. It's over complicating the situation. Either there needs to be an agreed upon number, or no number (I'm fine with either). Also, Jéské, ZSS is selectable the same way Sheik was in Melee, by holding down a button at the start of the match. (Not the way Sheik works now, where you can just click on her.) The Final Smash argument is moot as well, since three characters share a Final Smash and they're definitely not the same character. Coreycubed (talk) 15:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Coreycubed's first sentiment – if we can't agree upon a number, then I'd much rather not list the number of characters at all. However, I wouldn't actually be opposed to saying "Super Smash Bros. Brawl features 35 playable characters, some of which have standard transformations that [significantly] alter their playing styles", or "...have the ability to transform, thereby modifying their appearence and style of play." Would that be more acceptable? oobug^talk/_contrib 19:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Strongly agree. Now there's a tune we can all dance to. --Coreycubed (talk) 20:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I also agree to not list any number at all. Satoryu (talk) 21:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with oobug seggestion being the most well balanced. I think that same (besides the SSBB part) sentance should be put in SSBM article, there is a similar disscussion on the series page.→041744 00:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

It would be nice to get a consensus on this issue. Therefore, does anyone disagree with the above proposal? Satoryu, you said that you agree not to list a number, but if the article were to (eventually) mention the number of characters, do you agree that the proposed method of display is acceptable? oobug^talk/_contrib 17:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not particularly a fan of it. I'd much prefer there being no number at all. But if there absolutely has to be a number, I won't cry home about that wording.Satoryu (talk) 22:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Techical Issue

Should we add a Technical Issue section to this article? Because this is a dual-layered disc, it is more sensitive than single layered discs. If the Wii's lens has dust, it will have a hard time reading Brawl. This can be fixed by cleaning the lens. Also, because Wii owners are less likely to have a disc lens cleaner that works on the Wii, this causes even more problems. Nintendo (at least in Japan) is willing to fix affected Wii consoles for free if it's under warranty. I don't know if the North American version will have this problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmark089 (talk • contribs) 07:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I say add the fact that there has been problems with Brawl on Wiis in Japan (IGN has reported on them), but do not say anything about the NA-region one because it is speculation at this juncture. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 08:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I beleive the Japanese Dojo also mentions the technical issues in the Notices section on the front page. I can't read Japanese, but a file it links to has some images displaying the start-up glitch. Dengarde ► Complaints 08:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

New Character Count Question

I know that the back box art of Super Smash Bros Brawl says that 12 new characters were added but I counted 17 including Zero Suit Samus. What's up with that?Brawlmaniac08 (talk) 21:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)brawlmaniac08

They're not including hidden characters, mostly because they're...well...hidden. Dengarde ► Complaints 22:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Just because they're hidden :p JoshuaMD —Preceding comment was added at 08:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Removed characters from Super Smash Bros. Brawl

Several players of SSBB have hacked the game and discovered some partial character data for characters than are not used in the final retail version. I don't know if this information can be used at this point in time, but I felt it was worth mentioning nonetheless.

 \RSBJ01\effect\fighter\ef_dixie.pac
 \RSBJ01\effect\fighter\ef_dr_mario.pac
 \RSBJ01\effect\fighter\ef_mewtwo.pac
 \RSBJ01\effect\fighter\ef_pra_mai.pac
 \RSBJ01\effect\fighter\ef_roy.pac
 \RSBJ01\effect\fighter\ef_toon_sheik.pac
 \RSBJ01\effect\fighter\ef_toon_zelda.pac

The characters listed are: Dixie Kong, Dr. Mario, Mewtwo, Purasuru and Mainan, Roy and Toon Zelda/Sheik.

There are also Assist Trophies and Pokémon that were seen and used in playable demos that were removed from the final code. Missing ATs include: Sothe, Rosalina, Duster, and Pegasus Knight. Missing Pokémon include: Onix, Regigigas, and Shaymin.

As I said, this may not be able to be included at this particular time (after a long time this kind of stuff can usually be added as it can then somehow be verified) but I felt like mentioning it. .:Alex :. 17:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Plusle and Minun as a tag-team combo like Popo and Nana? That's fascinating. If there's any sourced info, I'd love to see it included one day. Right now, with just that though, there's not much to go on. Maybe something will come of it. Coreycubed (talk) 17:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. Can you give me a link to where u got this info from please? 24.186.101.182 (talk) 19:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

You mention those people who were supposedly ATs and Pokeballs, but I don't think they can be added. They aren't mentioned in the game's code, and the only source we have for them even being in the demo are people who claimed they saw them at certain events. And they could easily have lied. There are still people who believe Tails and Porky are ATs from a person at E for All who lied about seeing them.

The other things (the unused people listed in the character listing) are possibly worthy of mention somewhere, but only if we can find out what they were for (for all we know, they could have all been alternate costumes except for Plusle and Minum). Sakurai is supposed to be speaking about characters that did and didn't make it in at GDC later this month, so we should wait for that and see what he says.206.132.133.129 (talk) 20:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Sakurai's speech at GDC would be a perfect opportunity to get sources for this information (as well as much more). Those character files are definitely not alternate costumes as they are under a different filename altogether. I'm not 100% sure about all the AT's and Pokémon, but I believe some of them were captured on video and put onto youtube so I'll check that one out. But the characters are definitely in the files. .:Alex :. 21:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

when exactly is GDC... and Alex I'm still waiting for that link (:p) 24.186.101.182 (talk) 21:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Game Developers Conference 2008 will take place at the Moscone Center on February 18-22, 2008. And Alex will post the link when he can, I'm sure. Coreycubed (talk) 21:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

So, does this mean there are not possibilities of other hidden characters ,that we don't know until now, being in Brawl?201.163.43.49 (talk) 21:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

That's already been established; the roster that is out is the final roster. However, at the conference, Sakurai may go into detail about the reasoning behind the inclusion or exclusion of certain characters, as well as the potential new characters listed above, and what their purpose was. Coreycubed (talk) 22:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Well the info put in front of us can be looked at in two ways: IF there was data for playable chars that were ultimately excluded from the final game in Melee, which I believe there were, than this info is null. However, if melee did not have something similar lurking inside its software, than its mention somewhere in the article could be arguable. But we'd still need a source, otherwise it would just end up getting deleted anyway. 24.186.101.182 (talk) 00:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there was any extra character data in Melee. Closest thing to that was a few unused stages (ICETOP, AKENIA, DUMMY, and TEST), which were easily accessible in the debug mode (although no one them except TEST and ICETOP are playable, and ICETOP is just the Ice Climbers stage with no music). Also through that debug mode you could access all the character data, and there was nothing beyond the 26 characters, plus Sandbag, Giga, The Hands, and the Wireframes.
But unless this turns out to be true by hacking on the Wii becomes possible and playing as them is an option, working or not, I don't think it's notable Dengarde ► Complaints 01:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

but I remember hearing on IGN that there was hidden data in Melee for the Balloon Fighter, who was taken out of the game before its release. 24.186.101.182 (talk) 22:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

That info isn't really true. The Balloon Fighter was planned but eliminated as a character choice early on in development, as stated by the Ice Climbers' profile on the Melee site. There's no data for the character in the game.206.132.133.129 (talk) 14:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Is it needed

Does the article really need to say that getting to 999% damage is rarely reached. I do not think it is needed in the article and that the article would not be any different if that was deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cubbiesfan644 (talk • contribs) 20:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

That does seem pretty trivial. I'll remove that bit.Satoryu (talk) 20:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Subspace Emissary

Do we yet know the whole plot of the SSE? If so, should it be added? 24.186.101.182 (talk) 21:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

To answer your first question: yes, though I'm not sure if any of the editors here are privy to that information. To answer your second: nothing more than a cursory synopsis is necessary; something to the efftect of character x, y, and z are involved in a struggle against nemeses a, b, and c. Coreycubed (talk) 21:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

i understand, but if Smash Bros seriously does have a "fleshed out" storyline comparable to that in a Mario or Zelda game, shouldn't it have a bit more in depth synopsis? I'm just wondering because the SSE is a big part of Brawl and its storyline seems to be complex enough to deserve a larger mention. 24.186.101.182 (talk) 21:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not going to be as in-depth as a Zelda game, and Mario games don't have much plot to begin with. Besides, most plot section are over-lengthy in articles as is. I've worked too hard on this article to let a plot section ruin it now! Just kidding, TTN would probably delete it before I had a chance to. Coreycubed (talk) 21:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

alright kool, I was just wondering because through what I've seen through cutscenes on youtube and SSE info on the individual pages of some playable chars, It seemed that the SSE deserved a bit of a more detailed storyline synopsis. I was kinda basing what it should look like on plot sections on articles of Zelda games I've looked at, but now that you mention that THOSE plot sections are over-lengthy, I change my mind. Stil, I believe that sometime in the future, possibly after the NA release, the SSE's plot should be elaborated at least a smidge. 24.186.101.182 (talk) 00:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that once the whole plot is discovered, someone should make a new sub-section entiled "Subspace Emissary Storyline."Ivyluv (talk) 21:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The Nintendo Power reveiew

is 10/10! Source: [7]. Add to reception? Unknownlight (talk) 04:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course they would give a game they make money off of a good review. Don't get me wrong I know this game is going to rock.

Sign your signature with the signature button on the top, or with 4 ~~~~. Thanks. --24.6.103.162 (talk) 06:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Their source is the same one we can't use. Just wait until the magazine is in the hand's of the public. -Sukecchi (talk) 11:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Nintendo Power is no longer owned by Nintendo so they wouldn't make money off of it. Tommy11111 (talk) 17:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe the user meant that Nintendo would benefit from increased sales of SSBB after good reviews. Not that Nintendo Power would directly profit from it. .:Alex :. 17:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay well I got my issue in the mail today, that's the public, (essentially), let's put it up! —Preceding unsigned comment added by BioYu-Gi! (talk • contribs) 01:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

All right, then. Put it up! Be bold. If its public, then there is no need for citation. --haha169 (talk) 02:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe it still needs to be cited. Also, just saying the score isn't enough. A reason for the score, such as a direct quote from the review, is required.Satoryu (talk) 02:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Scan on your com. put it on a RELIABLE site, and the cite that source here.SLJCOAAATR 1 (talk) 22:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Pretty sure an electronic source isn't required. Just citing the magazine itself should be fine.Satoryu (talk) 23:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Music

If there is no vocal part in a composition, it is a piece. Using the word song is slang, nothing more 212.17.141.54 (talk) 00:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Could you please leave a quote or some part of the article as a reference? That way, we can fix it. Also, how does the word song constitute as slang? --haha169 (talk) 05:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I think he means that technically we should only use "song" if it has vocals. If it's instrumental, use "piece".—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 05:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Let it be noted that the "song" article cites no sources when it says that a song must contain vocals. Dfsghjkgfhdg (talk) 15:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Urutapu got it right. (sorry if I was unclear) Here's a source: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/song (there are many more - look around) And I was talking about the music section of the article, of course. It should at least use correct language. 212.17.141.53 (talk) 04:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem here is that some of the songs have lyrics, and some don't.Satoryu (talk) 20:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Then piece is the right word to use, since piece is just a general word for a musical composition. Song however, only refers to a piece/composition with lyrics 212.17.141.54 (talk) 12:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The article looks great!

I just wanted to say that the article is looking amazing. This article went from being a worhtless piece of crap that just had bits and pieces fo Dojo info to an actual informative article that people might need. Great work everyone!

Ragingtsunami726 (talk) 02:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

European Release Date?

I was browsing game.co.uk, and they have Brawl listed for a 1st of May, 2008, release.[8]

Their guess is probably as good as ours, but I thought I'd post it here :) Kev19 (talk) 09:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Considering Nintendo said it won't be out before July, I highly doubt a May release.Satoryu (talk) 16:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

"However, a day later, a spokesman refuted these claims insisting that there is currently no solid release date for Europe as of yet." It says so in the article. Maybe it isn't correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.209.5.150 (talk) 13:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Video games come out on a Friday in the UK; May 1st is a Thursday, so it's just a ballpark date given by the website. Amazon and Play both say 30th April, which is a Wednesday. So I wouldn't say any of these is accurate. Nintendo's unwillingness to say anything probably means the post-June estimate is correct but they don't want to publicly upset people. If they announce June nearer the time then people won't be so bothered by it. EDIT: Forgot to log in. AeolusStorm (talk) 15:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Zero Suit Samus Transformation

I usually only edit Wikipedia for minor/small facts, and/or grammatical/spelling errors, so in the line under "playable Characters" it says:

"while Samus has gained the ability to change into a new form, "Zero Suit Samus", by using her Final Smash."

It was just revealed on the DOJO!! that ZSS can transform from the start, and by rapidly taunting. Can someone take out/change the line "by using her Final Smash"? EDIT: I forgot to sign: 99.144.228.81 (talk) 20:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Done.Satoryu (talk) 20:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)