Talk:Super Smash Bros. Brawl/Archive 31

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 29

Archive?

This page is 83 kilobytes long. But what section should we archive up to? Laptopdude Talk 15:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

It is usually not archived until it is 100 long. Epass (talk) 20:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, it's over 100 now. I'm archiving it. Epass (talk) 21:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Awards

Any particular reason the awards part of the reception section was removed? I was about to add in another one from Game Informer, but the two from IGN and Gamespot are gone. Was it some clash with notability that I missed or did no one else notice the removal either? In any case, I'd appreciate a valid reason for the removal if possible. -- Comandante {Talk} 02:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that too. I'd be interested to find out why since it just suddenly disappeared, and I find no discussions or any edit summary describing this. I'm not interested in crawling through every edit summary just to find out what happened. --haha169 (talk) 03:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, whatever happened, I'll go ahead and re-add them and the Game Informer award sometime tomorrow if no one opposes. -- Comandante {Talk} 03:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, apparently game of the month awards aren't notable according to this: [1]. Unfortunate, since I'd think any award from a reputable site or publication would be notable in itself. I'm still in favor of adding them in, since their original inclusion wasn't hotly contested, however; one user isn't a consensus in both instances, so if there's any support for re-addition I'll be glad to do so. -- Comandante {Talk} 03:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

But those are Editor's Choices, not Games of the Months, unless I'm mistaken? --haha169 (talk) 04:06, 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)

Main Menu Image vs Group or Solo

I understand some people may take interest in looking at a mini-picture of the main menu of the game, but aren't images on Wikipedia usually there to give an illustration to, usually, adjacent text? An image of group mode would be the most suitable, or even possibly solo, but nothing near the image is referring to the main menu. King Rhyono (talk) 17:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

bad sources

Incorrect sources for the EUR and AUS release dates, the links provided for citation say no such thing about a release date at all. But I don't know how to remove the dates or citations, it is such a mess in there I don't know which code to remove. JayKeaton (talk) 21:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It's vandalism, nothing more. The citations that were there already are citing the fact that the dates are unknown. Arrowned (talk) 22:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It depends on who did it. Most IPs don't know the rules of Wikipedia, and don't know what the ref tags are. They just put a date they think is true, so it would be a good faith edit. However, some actually do vandalize by purposely putting that date there to annoy us. Was it vandalism? I need to check...--haha169 (talk) 23:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

In that case, it probably is good faith, as it was done by a user who's edited here before (to the article's benefit) and who is posting from a registered account. My fault for jumping to conclusions. Arrowned (talk) 23:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The references did have nothing to do with any release dates though, one of them didn't talk about the release at all and the European date actually said they were disappointed that no date was released. I'm leaning towards vandalism with the two false references placed there to try and cover it up. JayKeaton (talk) 18:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The "false references" were there, cited, in this article, for months now. They have nothing whatsoever to do with Alexander Vince trying to add in unsourced release dates. As I said before, those references were citations towards the fact that there are no release dates; they're there to prove that TBA should be listed for those two spots. Arrowned (talk) 20:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

If Alex wasn't putting in false dates or vandalism/made up information, where did he get those dates from? A lot of European and Australian Wikipedians would be very interested in knowing the sources for his information JayKeaton (talk) 13:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

That I'm not sure about, and he doesn't seem to be replying to recent discussions here, so I've asked on his personal talk page. Cause yeah, if it turns out his sources are legitimate, then obviously we could just cite anew and stop reverting. Arrowned (talk) 16:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible NOT to put up a release date until the Dojo site does? It would be the first credible resource for such sort of data. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.228.195 (talk) 06:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Not really. The official Nintendo sites would work, as would Gamespot or IGN. The only source we can't use are individual vendor locations or sites. (Except Amazon and/or Walmart/Target)--haha169 (talk) 18:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Gamespot and IGN also use placeholders sometimes. For a perfect example of this, just look at Mario Kart Wii in which the Gamespot and IGN were completely wrong until Nintendo released an official date. -Zomic13 (talk) 03:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

FA Questions

I've been on Wikipedia since 2006...and yet, this is the first time I've ever been heavily involved in an article (except for Al Gore, but that article is a hopeless case now) that's on the verge of achieving FA nomination. So how long do peer reviews last and when are they archived? And also...when do we decide that article is ripe for FA nomination? In my opinion, Brawl's condition is better than The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess, but they've already (although failed) nominated it for FA once. And also, generally, how long does a FA nomination take? I remember the GA took almost a week...--haha169 (talk) 04:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Generally a week. If consensus is clear and there aren't many problems to fix, maybe less. bibliomaniac 1 5 04:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

No article about the DRE?

Because it is important to post. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.2.119.243 (talk) 13:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Super Smash Bros. Brawl#Development - Last sentence. Already there. Arrowned (talk) 16:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Stages Section

In the most recent peer review, one of the reviewers, Ashnard, said that the stages section is a bit questionable. He uses the Melee FA as an example, since it doesn't have a stages section. Anyways, he wants me to bring it up to the talk page, so here I am.

"Yeah, but thats because Melee doesn't have a "Stage Builder", 3rd party stages, destructible terrain, or live events happening depending on the Wii's internal clock."--haha169 (talk) 21:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with haha, especially on the stage builder (very notable), and think that the stages section should be kept. However, as a side note, I would like to point out that the stage Brinstar in Melee had destructible terrain. Laptopdude Talk 02:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

As did Green Greens!SLJCOAAATR 1 (talk) 02:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah...yes. I didn't have Melee, so I don't really know. But I've played on those stages. Its just bursting boxes and cutting a wobbly thing. Its not really big, unlike Brawl's destroying the cloud platforms, blasting the Mario boxes, creating holes, bringing walls crashing down...--haha169 (talk) 04:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The stage section should definitely stay. Honestly, I'm sort of surprised that Melee doesn't have a stages section since stages are one of the few, but crucial elements that make up Smash Bros. -05:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

It's just a component of gameplay, so a whole section devoted to the stages in Melee isn't necessary. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 08:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

It's a very important component of gameplay. And must I reiterate that the stages in Brawl have much more notable aspects than those in Melee? If we must, we could cut down on it, but the way its written seems quite notable to me, and not so much in detail at all. In fact, its only 3 short paragraphs. One describing the stage, one stating all the notable aspects (ie. destructible terrain, live concerts...) and one paragraph explaining the very notable Stage Builder. --haha169 (talk) 18:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that the stages are just as important a part of the game as, say characters, and it should remain. It is pretty short anyway. Epass (talk) 20:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

About the images

It's not that 8 images is too many, but we can definitely cut back on them. Remember that images are not for decoration but to inform. Here are my suggestions for what we should do. Please discuss any agreements or disagreements.

Oh, and don't delete this topic just because you disagree with it or just don't want to see it. That is counter-productive.

The boxart is necessary since it identifies the product that the article is about. Keep
The screenshot of Mario, Yoshi, Wario and Ike about to fight is good because it demonstrates the gameplay. Keep unless a better screenshot can be found (one where they're actually fighting and not standing around).
The image of the "main menu" is very questionable. The game's menu navigation isn't unique enough to warrant an image of it. It isn't any more notable than the menu screens of Tetris or Mortal Kombat. Also, I find that this image is only there for decoration. Remove
The image of Mario and Pit in The Subspace Emissary has been cropped to the point of being useless. The HUD and most other helpful details have all been cropped out so now it just shows two characters taking a swing at unimportant enemies. Not any more notable than an image of a dog defecating. Remove
Screenshot of the full roster is ok. Keep
The screenshot of the stage selection is a little iffy in my opinion. It seems like a sneaky, fancrufty attempt to list all of the stages in a single image. It also contributes very little. Remove
As for the screenshots of Snake and Sonic, they both serve the same purpose, to point out that there are third-party characters in Brawl. However, we don't need two images for that. One should be removed.

And I want to point out that I'm not dictating what's going or staying. I'm giving my unbiased opinions on what I think would help the article, and also trying to persuade a little. Powerslave (talk|cont.) 02:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Could we use a pic. of Mario, Sonic, and Snake together instead?SLJCOAAATR 1 (talk) 02:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

No. I've spent a good chunk of time trying to track one down, and also trying to take a good image. Very difficult to find all 3rd party characters in one image. We should leave those two, since they are obviously best quality. I think we need a better SSE image, and the stage selection could be deleted if needed. Thats it. Oh, and I think we need rid of main menu. Thats pretty obvious. --haha169 (talk) 04:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Also, the original version of the SSE image can be found here: [2]. Laptopdude Talk 17:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't like that image. I'm looking for more of a Pikachu or Samus surrounded by ~~Primids~~ R.O.B.s, and platforms flying about them, all located in that research center. Or maybe DK and all those Goombas and wooden platforms. That's my style. --haha169 (talk) 18:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Can we also get some widescreen images of the game? All of the full frame ones look a bit off, considering the game was probably made with widescreen in mind JayKeaton (talk) 21:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's a screenshot of Sonic fighting Snake. http://ssbbmasters.com/i/sonicvssnake.jpg King Rhyono (talk) 09:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, the quality is blurry, you can't see Snake at all, the yellow flash in the middle seems awkward. Plus, Mario isn't in sight. --haha169 (talk) 22:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

After X years, I thought it'd be kinda apparent Mario was in the game? King Rhyono (talk) 08:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

But the whole point of an image is to include all three of them. (Snake and Sonic's image both include Mario). Those images were produced by Sakurai and all his gaming tools and stuff. We only have a basic snapshot taker...It really is a bit difficult. --haha169 (talk) 15:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe someone can take a snapshot of the trio and upload it from their SD card. Any volunteers? Powerslave (talk|cont.) 02:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I've tried. Its hard to get a good picture. There is always some weird smash-y yellow blob in between, or something is blocking the head...or... --haha169 (talk) 03:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we could use this image from Dojo? --(trogga) 05:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

We already use that one. If anything, we were looking for one of a real fight. -Sukecchi (talk) 11:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I mean it could replace this image. --(trogga) 15:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Nah. We're looking for one with a real fight. Also, that wouldn't work as a third party because...well, it looks boring! --haha169 (talk) 01:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I have a good picture of all three fighting, but I don't know how to properly edit pages here. someone explain how to upload, rules etc. please? or If someone sent me their Wii code/Friend code on my talk page, I'll send it for you to do, since most likely will have more knowledge in editing then I do Suppakid (talk) 22:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Balance of positive and negative

If every single review is positive, and it averages 95%, we certainly dont need to balance out praise and criticism in the discussion section. That implies "mixed reviews" which Brawl certainly didnt get. It's throwing in a negative bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.249.126 (talk) 17:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Well I've added alot ofpros and cons to that section and it appears that cons listed paragraph is larger so naturally I added a pro comments from Eurogamer for balance and that we need more non American opinions, it was quickly removed "for balance" by Satoryu. Now it seems to me that we've done a good job warding off fanboys but really do we have to be so negative? Let me show you, my added/removed pro in bold:

Super Smash Bros. Brawl has received high critical acclaim. The editors of Famitsu, who awarded a perfect score,[86] praised the variety and depth of the single-player content, the unpredictability of Final Smashes, and the dynamic fighting styles of the characters.[78] Chris Slate of Nintendo Power also awarded Brawl a perfect score in the March 2008 issue, calling it "one of the very best games that Nintendo has ever produced".[83] GameSpot praised the simplicity of the game, noting that "its simple controls and gameplay make it remarkably accessible to beginners yet still appealing to Smash Bros. veterans."[79] GameTrailers praised the amount of content that gives the game "staying power that few other games possess."[81] Eurogamer noted the games ability to stay fun in both single and multiplayer modes, that its "fulfilling its usual role of dominating a willing crowd's evening into the early hours, and now allowing you to sustain that after everyone's gone home."[77]

IGN critic Matt Casamassina noted that although Brawl is "completely engrossing and wholly entertaining," it suffers from "long loading times" and "uninspired enemies" in the Subspace Emissary adventure mode. The review also gave a mixed response to the quality of the graphics, and described them as "an enhanced version of Melee" with improved character models and backgrounds that "lack detail in areas."[82] GameSpy claimed the graphics look "like the GameCube game."[80] 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."[84] Former GameSpot editor Jeff Gerstmann rated the game 4 out of 5 stars on GiantBomb, saying that players who are not into Nintendo's history or multiplayer "probably won’t understand what all the fuss is about in the first place."[87]

Now how was that a problem with balance Satoryu? 5 lines with the next being 5 lines. Stabby Joe (talk) 12:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I removed it not because of the length of the section, but of the imbalance of opinions. With your addition, there are 5 positive voices and 4 negatives. I removed your addition so that there was an equal amount of positive and negative viewpoints. Satoryu (talk) 21:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Its really quite difficult to find negatives (aside from the graphics) in this game. So if we keep this up, the reception section will never be expanded. Instead, I propose we bring up a positive about something else: music + soundtrack. Thats been positive across the board, and it hasn't been discussed yet. --haha169 (talk) 22:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I like that idea. But only if that is put in place of something else. For instance, a quote about music from Nintendo Power. Because the quote that's there now doesn't say anything about the game. Satoryu (talk) 23:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I've been looking around. Gamespot compared the music to the impressive display of character movements and graphics. IGN praised the music's orchestrated feel, and how over 40 composers created the "best Nintendo soundtrack available". --haha169 (talk) 23:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Interesting Satoryu, because the following featured aritlce don't 100% balance out games which got more positive reception; Half Life 2, Okami, Shadow of the Colossus, BioShock, Super Smash Bros. Melee, Halo (and 2 and 3) plus many more so I really doubt my Eurogamer comment to allow more imput fro non US sources is going to prevent this from attaining a higher mark. Stabby Joe (talk) 12:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Whatever. Do what you want. I'm not the authority here. Satoryu (talk) 17:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Golden Sun, featured article, only includes 2 negatives compared to over 10 positives. If there isn't enough negatives to balance out the positives, forget it. Our first priority is to expand the reception section. If a rule gets in the way, ignore it. --haha169 (talk) 22:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Well I've re-added the Eurogamer comment, which addeds an entire new line to it. While theres plenty of info in the reception section, it look unpresentable next to the large table so we could lose 1 or 2 reviews in it while expanding the bulk of text? Stabby Joe (talk) 23:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

This article doesn't need balance. If it recieved mostly positive reviews, it would probaly make sense if there were mostly positives. Narusonic182 (talk) 19:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Well no, thing wiki has to do is not sound biased. Granted we could do we expanding the pros since many featured articles do this however cons is very good at the moment in terms of balance. Stabby Joe (talk) 23:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying we shouldn't add cons. In fact, that should be a top priority. However, I am unable to locate more than poor graphics and a few trivial items. Nonetheless, I do not have access to copies of Nintendo Power or Famitsu, and do not read every game review (only ones from IGN and Gamespot). If you want, Stabby Joe, you can find your own cons and list them here. --haha169 (talk) 04:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and by find, I mean find your own cons from published and notable sources. --haha169 (talk) 04:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Not required, we've got pretty much the cons settled, all we need to to is expanded on both in terms of sentance structure so it doesn't look out of place next to the reviews table. I'll see if I can remove 1 or 2 reviews to help this along and make it easier. Stabby Joe (talk) 12:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've removed 2 reviews from the table and a thought has occured, theres about 3 lines needed to make the text and table the same length, and this game hasn't been released in Europe yet so if we were to wait until then we could fill out the rest with info on its sales there, see what I mean? Although I am aware that would be awhile. Stabby Joe (talk) 12:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The height of the text vs the height of the table is dependent on the display media's width, and the text size scaling, it would be very hard to match them up across all the possible different screen and print-out setups. Logan GBA (talk) 15:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

But there wouldn't be much to say about Europe's release though. The most we could say are probably the sales numbers, since all of the European game review sites are either in a foreign language or are British magazines who snagged an American copy. Its all there already... I think we should put that deleted paragraph back.--haha169 (talk) 21:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Sales is what I meant, but it will be awhile until we know them, I mean we've got a European review (Eurogamer) and of course the UK mag Edge, which is in most game articles due to its harsh nature of reviewing and we also have the Japanese mag Famitsu (which is in foreign language) so we've got non US reviews, plus the US and PAL copies are usually always the same regardless. And by paragraph do you mean that Eurogamer comment? Because I added that again awhile ago. Stabby Joe (talk) 12:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

No, sorry. Forget what I said. I was blanking out over an older revision... --haha169 (talk) 18:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I'll have the Official Nintendo Magazine review when that comes out, which could be added. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 08:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The game has received a majority of positive reviews. Shouldn't both sides be FAIRLY represented? In NPOV it discusses fairness and equal representation as well. In the "This page in a nutshell" it says: "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing significant views fairly, proportionately and without bias" (note the bold I added). We should represent each side proportionately. Furthermore, by restricting the reviews, I believe we have unintentionally created a new bias, leading the reader to believe that there is as much criticism as there is praise. We should simply list the facts. Just because there happen to be more positive reviews than negative would not make the article biased. And since there is more information available, we should expand the article. I think that any citations, positive or negative, should be welcome in the article. Laptopdude Talk 23:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

EXACTLY! Thank you, Laptopdude. I'm am really getting annoyed at those who tell us we can't expand the reception section because our information is positive. If we can't expand the reception section (which is the only major issue left according to peer review, unless I'm mistaken), then we can't get FA. No, we expand reception section first, then worry about balance. Just don't over-do it with positive reviews. --haha169 (talk) 03:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Can I suggest a course of action? First lets get a list of general positive and negative points that have been found in most reviews (i've listed a few of each on my talk page); then get a list of quotes for each of these points (two or three for each should be enough); then we can select a quote for each point (from a variety of sources) and put together a paragraph for positive/negative; if either is too long/short we can then switch between the stock quotes until a consensus is reached. You're welcome to use my talk page as a test-bed if you like. :) Darrek Attilla (talk) 10:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I just read over the peer review and it mentions several times that the reception section needs to be expanded. Since there are no more notable criticisms (that I know of) the only option is to add to the positive reviews. We must represent both sides PROPORTIONATELY. More positive reviews are needed. Laptopdude Talk 00:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thats right Laptopdude, I mean you can even read the list of other featured game articles for clarification, we can EASILY exapnd the pros or expand on what we already have, we've got plenty of cons for a well received game. Stabby Joe (talk) 12:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I seriously think the reception section is fine as is. Are you guys (peer reviewers included) just being fanboys or do you think that's not enough positives? Nearly all of the reviews revolve around the same pros, too: content, replayability, soundtrack, etc. What more can you add? Just leave it. Wikipedian06 (talk) 10:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Nintendo Wi-Fi Connection

This paragraph is kind of short. Should it be expanded? Epass (talk) 20:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

There's two paragraphs, actually. And what else needs to be said? It looks fine. Satoryu (talk) 22:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

IGN review ref

It now links to a 404 page. Its now at [3]. (add p(pg#) at the end of the URL. --haha169 (talk) 23:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Fixed --haha169 (talk) 03:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Wii Want More

http://www.n4g.com/News-129471.aspx

I've been told it's just a pre-April Fools' Day hoax, but...

Anyways, it's been on a few sites, should it be added to the article?76.24.125.96 (talk) 01:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I just did some digging, and I think the root of it is a fake news site.

http://press-nintendo.110mb.com/article-jsp-id-14788.htm

It's possible that that site just copy-pasta'd it from somewhere, of course.76.24.125.96 (talk) 01:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Somebody already tried posting the fake news with the second citation in the article; we've since reverted it. Arrowned (talk) 01:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, first of all, the back button on the bottom left didn't work. Secondly, when I checked it a few hours ago, it wouldn't let me access it because someone was "editing" the site. Now...isn't that odd. Plus, its hosted on 110mb, which is a free hosting site. Why wouldn't Nintendo put it on its real site? Interesting April Fool's, though. --haha169 (talk) 03:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

They went to all that trouble to produce a realistic press release, but they made one critical error: "Starting May 13, 2008, players will be able to add four undisclosed new characters and two new stages to the already large roster included in the stand-alone game for only 10.00 USD." For it to have been perfect, they should have said 1000 Wii Points. Nintendo would never say "10.00 USD"... Funny April Fools joke though. -Zomic13 (talk) 08:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Too many errors all over the place for it to be considered genuine. It was a good idea, but very poorly executed, I don't think any of the gaming sites considered even for a second that it was real. JayKeaton (talk) 10:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

And the supervisor(forgot his name) already said that there will be no DLC, especially since there is a new stage every day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.88.117.225 (talk) 17:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Europe Release Date

Nintendo Official Magasine (Sold in the UK) has said Super Smash Brothers Brawl will be released in "Summer '08". --86.12.232.113 (talk) 16:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I have an more recent confirmation about the european release of Brawl: May 30th, as it can be seen here.

200.207.19.200 (talk) 00:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

It's only a speculation. It is written there that the date May 30th is not oficial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.54.43.236 (talk) 20:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Unless this page [4] is updated or an official press release is issued (which will very quickly make it onto most gaming websites), no date is considered official and thus cannot be added. -Zomic13 (talk) 20:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Though we can be sure about one thing, its in 2008. Thats what that webpage says on it, thats what I think should be added to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noskap (talk • contribs) 00:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Its already in the article. Been there ages ago.--haha169 (talk) 03:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Brawl fighting image

I vote we replace this image with this, or something with more fighting going on. --haha169 (talk) 18:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I am for it! User:Mkalv —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.46.58 (talk) 19:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Alright then. Trogga replaced it. Fine image. :) --haha169 (talk) 04:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I can't see the old image, but the new one looks great. Good choice JayKeaton (talk) 07:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Found it while searching Golden Sun wikia. Think about it - Golden Sun wikia got a better image before us... :P --haha169 (talk) 17:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that the text below the picture is based on the original picture and is now innarucarte. It currently starts with Mario, Yoshi, Ike, and Wario preparing to fight. The rest of the text appears fine but that part needs to be changed because in this picture the characters are different and they are fighting opposed to prepearing to fight. I can't change this since the page is protected so can someone please make the change. --76.69.167.197 (talk) 02:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? It says "Mario and Kirby fighting Bowser and King Dedede"; that's accurate to me. --(trogga) 02:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

He probably needs to refresh his cache or something...but I doubt it, since text appears immediately. If he was having problems with the picture, maybe...but. --haha169 (talk) 03:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The text appears proplerly now. It probabally was the cache but I am not completly sure. Obviously we can drop this issue. --76.69.167.197 (talk) 03:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Peer Review

The peer review is quite inactive at the moment. Is this a signal that its over? I mean, most of the issues have already been corrected. --haha169 (talk) 00:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The peer review needs to be added to the article milestones box. I'd do it, but I'm not sure how to. Epass (talk) 18:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Brawl Reviews

Why was the score Thunderbolt gave Brawl taken off and why isn't there one from 1up? Teebay (talk) 15:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

see the Balance of positive and negative section Logan GBA (talk) 20:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that's not the point. The point is that it was removed because it made the references chart simply too big. The two compilation reviews plus some really notable ones are good enough. --haha169 (talk) 22:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I removed some due to chart size, here is an overview on why those there now are there:

Edge - Well known UK mag, famous for being a strict reviewer.
Eurogamer - More imput from non US sources.
Famitsu - Biggest Japanese game mag.
GameSpot - Well known with large active gamer community.
GameSpy - Possibly one of the oldest given their non-reviewing aspects awell.
GameTrailers - Popular site that always review with lengthy videos.
IGN - Same as GameSpot.
Nintendo Power - Popular mag for Nintendo projucts, plus we still haven't got ONM.
NGamer - One of the first that highlights the needed cons for balance quite well.

Basically, the table is pretty much complete, its the bulk of the text that needs expanding. Stabby Joe (talk) 12:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. That table is fine. We actually don't want to expand it because it'll make the text look quite a bit smaller. --haha169 (talk) 17:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I would get rid of either GameSpy, Game Trailers or NGamer. And then add in either 1UP or EGM, right now there's nothing from Ziff Davis. 204.104.55.243 (talk) 17:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I think its fine. --haha169 (talk) 02:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, the table is as big as it needs to be. And GameSpy has to be one of the most important actually. 1UP and EGM can be added to the text as it needs an expansion there more. Stabby Joe (talk) 20:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

It's just that GameSpy is just another IGN site. You mention that it's one of the oldest sites, but its traditional focus has always been multiplayer services back in the Quake days. EGM have been around a lot longer and their viewpoint is not represented. Gametrailers may be popular, but the focus is on trailers, their reviews are not held in the same regard as the others pointed above. 204.104.55.244 (talk) 14:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

IGN is more like GameSpot than GameSpy. And your Game Trailers comment is odd because how do you know how "regarded" they are? They're longer than GS's and are in-depth, not to mention have an active community. I mean just looking over the internet in general, its not like GS is highly regarded at this point? And BTW, you CAN add what EGM said, pros and/or cons in the text. Its just the table is a big as it needs to be. Stabby Joe (talk) 00:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

A longer review doesn't make it better, how long are Famitsu's, how long are Edge's? They stay focused and on the point, I don't regard GameSpot, GameTrailers, or IGN at all, any publication which is still breaking down reviews into separate scores for sound and graphics and then drilling down into pointless minutiae is writing for kids. IGN is more like Gamespot, it's just that GameSpy is a division of IGN anyway, so I thought that a differing opinion would be worthwhile given Ziff Davis' long association with video games. 204.104.55.244 (talk) 14:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say GT's were better but they have a large viewership and community so their inclusion seem fine, not to mention listed in most other articles. As for GameSpy, its a veteran source, regardless of ties with IGN. And YET AGAIN I must mnetion that you can add EGM in the bulk of text as it needs an expansion. If we increase the table size, we're just adding to that problem. Stabby Joe (talk) 23:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Europe and Australiasia

Has there been a confirmed date for Europe and Australiasia. Before anyone decides to remove this, I am NOT just asking because I can't wait till this game comes out, I'm asking so the article can be updated. 58.174.98.29 (talk) 08:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

No there hasn't, at least not yet. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v X of Swords)} 10:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

About the archive box

Do we really need it if the talk header already provides a list of the archives? Logan GBA (talk) 20:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Woah. Well, that archive box there was recently added, here, so nobody had any chance to do anything about it. I dunno what to do about the other box, though, and frankly, I don't think it really matters. --haha169 (talk) 01:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Smash Wikia

I'm not taking any sides on whether or not Smash Wikia should be included in the External Links, but I'd like to ask why there is a {{Template:Wikia}} if we're not allowed to put Wikia links in the External Links section. --haha169 (talk) 02:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

(series) Talk archive 5, (series) Talk archive 8, Brawl Talk archive 23, and Brawl Talk archive 29. The first link is definitely the most explanatory since that was the original consensus discussion. Since then, WP:EL's links to be avoided has moved what was #13 down to #12, and the wikia doesn't really individually fail #12 anymore. It's still questionable on #2 though. At any rate, you're free to re-argue consensus if you wish, since the wikia's circumstances have changed (mainly, the merge). Arrowned (talk) 06:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It has changed quite a bit. I have edited there since the merge, and the entire Wikia is doing great. Except for a few over-zealous fanboys, I'd say there is absolutely no speculation (though it is missing quite a bit references). The writing style is also quite appropriate, and all images have correct licensing and fair-use resolution. --haha169 (talk) 02:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Release confirmed in Australia

The release date has been confirmed for June. There are a few sources that indicate this including http://www.ebgames.com.au/wii/product.cfm?ID=7566 So you better add it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wwemaniac1 (talk • contribs) 01:39, 15 April 2008

No, no, that's quite alright. Here's why. Arrowned (talk) 06:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

What is left?

What is left to fix before this article can be nominated for FA? Epass (talk) 18:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

A copyedit to make sure prose is brilliant, a trimming of the number of images, and the adding of very specific fair use rationales saying exactly what is demonstrated and why it is crucial that it be demonstrated, and I think we will be ready. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

If you need help copyediting, I'll do it. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 04:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Nice! Also, there is very little on how they made the music for this game, and no reaction in the reception section to the music, and as I believe it was very acclaimed, both should be added to have a comprehensive Featured article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, if this is a reliable source, then we have some info on music for the reception section. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 04:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

There's still alot on the PR that hasn't been looked at i.e. cut down alot of gameplay, expand reception, and modify the prose. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 09:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

UK Release Date

In the most recent issue of the Official Nintendo Magazine it states on an advert for a particular company that the game will be released on the 30th May. Would I need to maybe scan this page and send it to someone for proof?? --Mikey-is-lost (talk) 19:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Unless somebody else has the magazine and can confirm, then I'd say you should scan it. Unknownlight (talk) 23:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

And I say you should scan it, and keep QUALITY in mind. --haha169 (talk) 02:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I've got that issue if anybody needs confirmation. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 09:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Great! --haha169 (talk) 16:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I can confirm it too. It said May 30th. 62.31.242.55 (talk) 23:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Slight grammar change

OK, I read the article, and you guys have a few slight grammar problems. The biggest one I noticed was your overuse of the games name. Try using some more pronouns, especially in the lead. You also might want to change things like this, "The date would later be delayed to February 10, 2008, and then again to March 9, 2008 when the game was finally released." to, "The game would later be delayed to February 10, 2008 and then again to March 9, 2008 when the it was released." I would have changed these myself but I didn't want to make anybody mad. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 16:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

If you have a way to make the article better, feel free to act on it. You don't need any permission, and nobody can get mad at you for improving grammar. Knock yourself out. Joiz ^A. Shmo 17:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Will do :) RC-0722 ^247.5/1 19:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Monolith Soft

I took the credits list from GameFAQs and I've searched which company each developer came from using MobyGames, IMDB and Google. Here's what I found for Game Arts and Monolith Soft:

Game Arts (about 33 people) Kazuhire Irie Hiroyuki Koyama Toshihiko Higashi Takao Fujita Yoshiyasu Okawara Shintaro Kataoka Miki Yakabe Daisuke Shimizu Kazuyuki Ohata Yasushi Nomoto Morito Ishii Nobuo Yamukai Shigohiro Yanbe Isao Machida Kazuto Kawahira Shingo Hayakawa Kazuya Suzuki Takayuki Hiramatsu Mitsuru Hashimoto Ryuji Inomata Takahiro Nishi Yutaka Iraha Keigo Ozaki Satoshi Oshiki Takamasa Ehara Masanori Ishikawa Atsushi Kon Minoru Tezuka Masahiro Ohmomo Kentaro Yokokawa Takashi Ochifuji Isamu Ikeda Emi Imamura

Monolith Soft (about 22 people) Kou Arai Norihiko Yonosaka Yasuyuki Honne Tetsure Abe Asami Fujita Takaaki Koide Koji Shode Kazue Hiramoto Sayaka Matsuzawa Shoko Fukuchi Masato Adachi Tatsunobu Imoto Hiromi Hayashi Daiki Hayashidani Tayzou Inukai Akinobu Yamakawa Tatsuo Oshima Chizue Utazu Kango Inoue Toru Honbu Nami Shimura Hiromi Fujii

The other people either came from other companies or I couldn't tell exactly which company it was. Note that sometimes there are different spellings for these names (Kazuhiro Irie vs. Kazuhire Irie), but it's still easy to recognize who's who (I didn't list those I wasn't sure about). In any case, Game Arts has the most people involved, as expected. Monolith Soft is definitely at the second rank though. 22 people is a big number (they were mostly involved with the Adventure Mode art or game design). Also, remember that Monolith Soft is listed directly after Game Arts in the game's ending credits. The order in which the developer studios were listed there seems to be by importance. For these reasons I think Monolith Soft should be mentioned in the article in the development section and the categories. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 15:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Just because they "seem" to be ranked by importance does not make it so. You're speculating. Satoryu (talk) 17:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

These names appear mostly in "Adventure Mode Design" and stuff like that in the credits. It's not like they're listed in "Special Thanks", "QA Assistance" or non important ranks. The fact is there are many Monolith Soft developers listed in the credits. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 17:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

If Monolith Soft is going to be there the following sentence needs to be removed or something because as is makes the statement untrue. « ₣M₣ » 00:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't even thing Game Arts should be there. The only thing holding me back is the Ask Iwata interview. Monolith Soft doesn't really deserve a Category Template on this article, or much anything else. Is this why there is a blocking template here? Wow...we're not getting that FA anytime soon anymore... --haha169 (talk) 04:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

If Monolith Soft doesn't deserve a category, then neither does Game Arts. As for Iwata's interview, that's some very useful information for the Game Arts article, but it's not absolutely necessary for this one article here. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 07:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

There wasn't a Game Arts category until you added it. I meant the one sentence in the intro that mentioned about other companies pitching in to help, but it was also subsequently removed. Therefore, your argument is no longer valid. --haha169 (talk) 17:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Playable Characters Image

I'm not sure if it was because its been like this for a long time, but I liked it better when that image was on the left. --haha169 (talk) 05:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The general rule of thumb is to keep it right aligned when it's directly under a section header so that the text and the header aren't divorced from each other. If you want me to change it back, I'll happily undo my edit. bibliomaniac 1 5 05:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Based on WP:MOS#Images: "Do not place left-aligned images directly below second-level (===) headings, as this disconnects the heading from the text it precedes. Instead, either right-align the image, remove it, or move it to another relevant location." The "Playable characters" section is not using "second-level (===) headings". --Silver Edge (talk) 05:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, okay. Wait...so, er, should it be on the left or right? --haha169 (talk) 17:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It can be either left or right, unless a section is using "second-level (===) headings". --Silver Edge (talk) 20:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, then I prefer left so we have alternating image locations. --24.6.103.162 (talk) 03:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Dispute? What dispute?

I saw that this article was full protected until the dispute was resolved, and I realized I had no clue what's going on. What is this dispute on? Epass (talk) 10:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to know to, sure there are 1 or 2 minor disagreements, but nothing that I can see to be ruining the page like edit wars or vandalism... Stabby Joe (talk)

I just took a look into the history, and sure enough, there was an edit war. Someone was adding a sourced review that someone gave Brawl 4 out of 5 stars and with a negative comment, and others were removing it. So it's all a dispute about the review... You know, it's kind of dumb to fight over the inclusion/exclusion of one review given how many there are of Brawl. I'm glad this dispute wasn't happening when I came here to give the article its GA review, otherwise I would have had to quick-fail it. It was pretty stable at the time, though. Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...}^{protector of all...} 16:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

And now, I'm worried about when the FA nominator comes, when we've got the article ready...I honestly think that whoever keeps on trying to delete the sourced statement is in the wrong. And the article is still protected... --haha169 (talk) 16:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Because the review is from a blog website and we are not going to advertise for Jeff.--HeaveTheClay (talk) 16:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

We're not advertising for Jeff here. We're merely placing one of the few negative comments into a 99% positive reception section. If Jeff here wrote a semi-negative review, then we're placing it here. It doesn't matter that his site is a blog, he used to be one of the major reviewers at Gamespot. --haha169 (talk) 16:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

No. We are not placing his review here because that is not a professional website and is a blog. It's staying off, do we not have guidelines? If YOU get to leave it there then whooping fuckin do, I can add anyone from any blog because they're 'credible' for a review? Jeff worked for GameSpot. He doesn't have a company and isn't notable enough to warrant mention on a review. I don't give a fuck until HE has a professional website. He's launching it summer, then wait until summer. As of now, it's a blog and should not be mentioned at all. It's advertising his new blog before it takes off.--HeaveTheClay (talk) 17:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Woah, there. I'm not answering any of those ridiculous questions until you calm down. --haha169 (talk) 17:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

No, you can't add anyone from any blog and call them credible, but the policy does say that "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." If you want to argue that the review isn't needed, fine...but that it comes from a blog doesn't seem to matter in this specific case. --Onorem ♠Dil 17:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

BBAWWWWWWWW more. Since you're not debating, I'm asking Wikipedian06 to show me the previous consensus. I couldn't find it on the archives. --HeaveTheClay (talk) 17:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and I'd like to point out that this supposed "blog" has a Wikipedia article that's not being nominated for deletion. Therefore, its a notable blog similar to the DOJO site. --haha169 (talk) 17:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a blog and not a professional video game website. End of story. --HeaveTheClay (talk) 17:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

No, not end of story. GiantBomb is going on nicely, and even though it is a blog, some blogs can be trusted. We're relying on the DOJO blog heavily right now, so why not Giant Bomb? It has its own article, and the blog itself is written by a professional video game reviewer. Is that not enough? Or do we have to delete all the comments in the reception section and keep one sentence that says "Brawl has received mostly positive reviews."? --haha169 (talk) 17:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Stop spouting off nonsense. Delete any negative comment about Brawl? Is that why I fucking removed criticism from IGN's Matt or anyone else who criticized the game aside from a blog website? I haven't done such thing, so unless your attack is founded, which is not, drop those remarks. Second, the Dojo is published by Brawl's producer and is sponsored by Nintendo. Who is vouching for GiantBomb? Jeff himself? Awesome. I care. And by that I mean no, we are not going to promote his work. --HeaveTheClay (talk) 17:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Wash your mouth out with soap.

Forgot to sign? Did you feel obligated to respond with just that? Cry, much more.--HeaveTheClay (talk) 01:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

We're not promoting his work. If you can find more negative reviews, then great! But until that happens, I only know of this particular review that actually says something besides "poor graphics...but everything else was great". --haha169 (talk) 17:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Onorem sorry I skipped your message, kind of hard to see. A better source for critique would be 1Up's statements. Jeff's opinion should be replaced by a better candidate.

Brawl is a good game, with solid controls, a lot of options, and not-much-better-than-the-last-one-graphics. For the uninterested gamer, it's a curious diversion. For the Nintendo fanatic, Super Smash Bros. Brawl is like manna from heaven. [5]

Same message Jeff states "If you're not a fan, you won't care, otherwise it's great for the fan". Is this a better compromise? Using that?

Hmm...that's an interesting quote. And we've reached a consensus without Wikipedian being involved. When the protection is lifted, you can add that accordingly into the article. --haha169 (talk) 17:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Remove Giant Bomb - Giant Bomb is a ridiculously new website with low traffic figures and no established audience or indluence. I removed the quote originally, thinking it to be spam, I didn't even know at the time that it was added by Wikipedian06. No one gave a toss about Jeff Gerstmann before he became a martyr (he worked for Gamespot after all). The reception section does need expanding, but there are so many better sources to choose from. More popular, notable and influential sources, such as 1UP as mentioned.

The reception should be expanded with the most important piece of criticism in my eyes, that of the gimped communication features. This is important because not only is it indicative of SSBB, but of Nintendo's entire kid gloves online strategy.[6][7] - hahnch e n 17:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

"Low traffic figures and no established audience or influence?" It's ranked in the 50,000s by Alexa [8] (top 0.x% of all websites) and recognized by every major review aggregator, including Gamerankings, Metacritic, etc. On the other hand, Thunderbolt Games, which published the second SSBB review (after Famitsu), has an Alexa rank of 170,000 [9], and that didn't stop people from quoting it. Wikipedian06 (talk) 20:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

This whole debate is beyond ridiculous IMHO. Jeff Gerstmann is one of the most prominent members of the gaming media, regardless of his dismissal from Gamespot. Per WP:SPS, Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. This statement definitely applies to Gerstmann, who has been a professional game reviewer for at least 11 years. And if we're going to argue about "promoting" his website, you might as well call an AfD on the Giant Bomb article, which I believe failed shortly after it was put up.

Plus, Jeff's comment was a very valid point to begin with. The whole game is built off of nostalgia and fanservice, and no one can really deny that. I've asked my 89-year-old grandmother what she thought of the game, and she said she didn't understand what was going on, or what was the big deal about it (which is a logical thought brought up by a non-gamer who doesn't recognize any of the characters featured in the game.)

Just my two cents. Wikipedian06 (talk) 20:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Jeff isn't prominent regardless of his dismissal from GameSpot, he's prominent solely because of his dismissal. I do actually agree with you that the entire Smash series is fanservice, and I'd much rather get my hands on Street Fighter IV than whatever the Wii's latest diversion is. - hahnch e n 12:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

You posted within someone else's comment. Anyway: Alexa proves nothing, absolutely nothing. Lastly Metacritic and GameRanking are under GameSpot, and if you check the requirements needed to be counted, GiantBomb does not meet them. The only he's on is because the editor is a friend of Jeff. He did not reach the requirements by that website and is only in because favors. 1Up says the same thing and should replace as such. Jeff isn't important.

And to elaborate on his credibility on GameRankings:

[10]

Jeff's site does not meet ANY of those criteria yet he's still counted, oddly enough because it's associated with GameSpot. His comments could easily be replaced with a better source.

--HeaveTheClay (talk) 21:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Speak of the devil! Giant bomb was deleted by Wikipedia deletion policy! OH MY! Why should we advertise his new website again? --HeaveTheClay (talk) 22:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Isn't GiantBomb on Game Rankings and/or Metacritic? Seems like a perfectly good reason to add... But since it looks like we're not then I'd find another source with the same con instead, which given it being a minor complaint and the many non perfect scores Brawl has got, it shouldn't be hard to find. Stabby Joe (talk) 23:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I just said that the guidelines on GameRankings should not allow GiantBomb to be counted. Anyway I found a replacement for his same complaint:

Brawl is a good game, with solid controls, a lot of options, and not-much-better-than-the-last-one-graphics. For the uninterested gamer, it's a curious diversion. For the Nintendo fanatic, Super Smash Bros. Brawl is like manna from heaven. [5] I posted earlier, but again for Stabby. it's from 1up's review.--HeaveTheClay (talk) 23:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I added that one once before, no idea why it got removed since its a great comment with both pros and cons in one, we could put that in place of GiantBomb if it comes to it. Considering I added most of the direct comments in the reception section, I was puzzled given the rest I added (GameSpy, GameSpot, Eurogamer, Game Trailers) weren't... a second time atleast lol. By the way, in joint reply with another discussion, any scans or links to EGM comments? Stabby Joe (talk) 00:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

That's not a criticism. "A curious diversion" suggests that those who aren't Smash fanboys should still try it out. Jeff simply said that people who aren't Smash fanboys "probably wouldn't understand what the fuss is about," period. The 1up quote is not the same -- you're trying to spin a criticism into yet another word of praise. And the reception section has enough pros as is. Wikipedian06 (talk) 08:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Wiki6, that doesn't make any sense. I say it has pros and cons (graphics mostly being the con and the curious diversion is hardly the most glowing of statements) and you say its not a con then accuse me of making it into a pro? Stabby Joe (talk) 11:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems that this is returning to the "Balance of Positive and Negative" discussion. I would like to point out to Wiki6 that on NPOV in the "This page in a nutshell" box it says: "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing significant views fairly, proportionately and without bias" (note the bold I added). Since Brawl obviously has had more positive reviews and ratings, we should represent them proportionately. However, I think that, based on the peer review, any notable additions should be welcome. Laptopdude Talk 17:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

A curious diversion. From Wikipedia,

A hobby or other thing done during spare time

It's JUST the same as 'not knowing what the fuss' is about. That's a better quote than Jeff since it comes from a respectable source in the gaming media, Jeff has a blog. And reading what is a good source and not for articles, we can replace Jeff's statements with a better sourced material. Again, you need to lay off your unfounded statements about LOL ANY CRITICISM FROM BRAWL = REMOVED. It's not that, it's just the matter of having a better source material. Giant Bomb article was deleted from Wikipedia, not by me mind you nor did I request such a thing, so his review blog isn't noteable material.

1. 1Up statements didn't say "IF YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT SMASH IS ABOUT, YOU'LL LOVE IT!". It said it's a curious diversion. Something you don't understand and won't appreciate unless you're a fan. A diversion is something short, not something to put a lot of time in.

Jeff says you won't know what the fuss is all about, HELLO? That's the same thing. You won't appreciate the game because you're not a fan, which goes RIGHT along with the diversion comment.

2. NO ONE IS REMOVING CRITICISM and placing nothing but praise. Notice how the only DISPUTED portion of that is the one comment coming from a blog site.

Some other editor also even SUGGESTED the idea of finding a better negative feedback about the game's lackluster online play. No one is objecting to that. Calm the hell down about this LOL EVERYONE HERE IS BIASED, LOLOLO STOP REMOVING BAD FEEDBACK. You have no basis for that. You're using a strawman argument, it's disgusting and pathetic. I also want to add that DESPITE the fact that 1up's statement is JUST about the SAME as Jeff, you're not even willing to compromise. What is it with you? --HeaveTheClay (talk) 17:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

And why do you stubbornly refuse to acknowledge that Jeff G. is an established game critic? It doesn't matter if he wrote it on GiantBomb or not; he may as well have been quoted in an interview and that alone would have been notable enough for Wikipedia. As posted before several times, Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Jeff G. definitely meets this requirement.

As for the crappy online, we will add that in, too, as it's a very notable and widespread criticism at this point. Finding a source will be harder, though, as most reviews (especially ones that you'd consider reliable) were published before the game's release or during launch week. This is what happens when you have critics rushing out reviews.

Lastly, I ask that you be more civil on Wikipedia and refrain from using ad hominem attacks. Thank you. Wikipedian06 (talk) 21:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Jeff is fired from his position. Clearly he is someone to hold in high regard. It is not noteable because the source is from a blog, and we already can replace it. His fan opinion vs someone more credible that's WORKING on the field and is on professional website.

Good job with your rebuttal. You mentioned many times how it wasn't the same thing, attacked me and other editors with slander, and now call ad hominem? Every time I disprove one of your little attacks on me and others, you come back sidestepping the issues. Since you won't, then I don't have to. --HeaveTheClay (talk) 00:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I was reading the Jeff G. page here on Wikipedia and found some interesting quotes. I'll post them here: "Jeff Gerstmann (born August 1, 1975) is the former editorial director of the gaming website GameSpot. He began working at GameSpot in the fall of 1996, around the launch of VideoGameSpot when GameSpot separated PC and console games into separate areas. He shared his thoughts on a variety of other subjects every Monday on his GameSpot blog. He has also been quoted by the New York Times as a video game expert, and says that he owns over 2000 games. Gerstmann also appeared on ABC's T.V. show, Good Morning America as a guest in September 1999 to discuss the launch of Sega's Dreamcast gaming console."

Since at the very least the New York Times and ABC seem to recognize him as an expert in the field, and since he has previously published articles on video games by a third-party publication, including his review should be no problem under the self-publication rules. Unless someone has a vendetta against this man, there seems to be no reason not to include the review. CorrTerek (talk) 17:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Dispute? What dispute? (cont.)

Honestly, why can't we include it? Everyone knows Jeff is an established game reviewer, and his statement makes perfect sense. If you want to add other negative reviews, fine, but seriously, I see absolutely nothing wrong with Jeff's comment.

We can remove that site from the sentence and replace it with "He noted that..." or something similar. However, we still need to balance all this stuff out, and some negative comments are the first things we have to do to improve the reception section. --haha169 (talk) 19:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Even if we remove the reference to him being from Giant Bomb, he'll stand as out as what? A fired editor? This is noteable? Please. I already posted again again a quote from 1UP which states just about the same thing. In fact, another editor actually had it (I assume it was later removed for Jeff). I am against promoting this man in any shape way or form, he's no longer a professional and is working as of now on a video game blog site. I suggested, countless times, an alternative. That being 1Up's comments.

Since it's somewhat time consuming, here it is:

Brawl is a good game, with solid controls, a lot of options, and not-much-better-than-the-last-one-graphics. For the uninterested gamer, it's a curious diversion. For the Nintendo fanatic, Super Smash Bros. Brawl is like manna from heaven. [11]

--HeaveTheClay (talk) 00:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. That's what I have been needing. Only one complaint: Give me a link that leads directly to the 1up site, not Gamerankings. (By the way, I know you've already seen it, but the list below is much more helpful than all this complaining and arguing. --haha169 (talk) 03:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Heres a link to 1UP's review. [12] Given the way it is written, I suggest (only suggesting) that we put it at the end of the reception section (or before sales if that stays merged) as its a concluding comment that mentions both pros and cons. Stabby Joe (talk) 11:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

That says curious diversion, which means they'll try it, and they might like it. Probably wouldn't understand what the fuss is about means that they won't understand and probably not try the game. They mean two different things! You've posted that 1up quote 3 times, but it doesn't mean the same thing as the Giant Bomb one. 1up makes it sound like a pro not a con; basically that even if they're not interested they could like it. Giant Bombs says more that anybody who doesn't like games wouldn't really care. Epass (talk) 12:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Stretching that aren't we? A diversion would be a distraction. You do know what the word curious is in that sentence? A curious diversion = something that someone doesn't understand but may be willing to try. Giant Bomb is not notable, it was even deleted from Wikipedia, and what it makes it sound like a pro? What's going on through your head? They flat out give a negative, being the graphics and state it's not something YOU NEED TO BUY right away but you may dwell into it as a diversion. You won't enjoy it. Fuss is all about? If you don't know what the fuss is about you won't be enjoying it to the fullest potential. Same with diversion. It's just about the same thing. You're grasping at straws by saying "ITS MORE OF A PRO THAN ANYTHING". Really, grasping at straws.

Here's a better quote from another source if you don't like the 1up one.

So what's wrong with Smash Brothers Brawl? Honestly, the only universal problem that I think everyone would agree with is the lack of a truly robust online mode, complete with stat tracking, voice chat, and a mostly lag free environment. All of the other problems with the game really only affect certain groups. If you're a hardcore pro Melee player, you might not like the slowed down pace, the elimination of some advanced techniques, and the forgiving ledge grabbing system. If the first two games didn't appeal to you, Brawl won't do anything to change your mind.

But if you don't fall into either of those groups, you'll find a lot to love about Brawl. It's one of the most complete video games you'll ever play, and one that you'll be playing for years to come. [13]

Counted on GameRankings before you ask. --HeaveTheClay (talk) 14:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Jeff's reviews on GS were and still are acknowledged. If he was a reliable source for review then, he's a reliable source for review now. No one cares that it's a blog besides you - blogs are not inherently bad. If blogs were automatically bad, then the Dojo would be a bad source of information. - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The Dojo example is made of so much fail. It's obviously sponsored by Nintendo where ass Jeff claims he's some authority on his personal blog. In fact, the Dojo is the official Smash Website. Not a blog. It is the franchise's official website acknowledged by Nintendo. There is no LOL BUT THE DOJO IS A BLOG counterpoint, it's bullshit.

We already established that if the person is knowledgeable in that field by a past third party there are no problems for them being cited, but he was fired and his credibility comes into question. Not to mention since we have another source that's better than Jeff and states the same message, it should be replaced.

Also, "NOBODY CARES BUT YOU" comment on your part. There are others WHO do care if you check the history since it's been disputed. --HeaveTheClay (talk) 17:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

DOJO is a blog. No matter how much you throw a tantrum, swear, and deny it, it is still a blog. True, its a Nintendo sponsored blog, but Jeff's site is a blog sponsored by Jeff, and weren't we mentioning Jeff's review? Therefore, it is a reliable source coming from a notable reviewer. Personally, I'd like to find a Wikipedia rule that states we're not allowed to put the review into the reception section. --haha169 (talk) 19:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The definition of blog: A personal or corporate website in the form of an online journal, with new entries appearing in sequence as they are written, especially as dealing with reflections or opinion, and typically incorporating links to other articles. Epass (talk) 20:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Considering people have already posted links to 1up.com and GWN reviews that mirror Jeff's statements criticism-wise and that we can very easily put in the article and nip this in the bud with, I'm trying to figure out why we're still arguing. Arrowned (talk) 20:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Because the statements found do not have the same meaning, so the the argument is over which to use. Epass (talk) 20:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I want to use both, since there obviously isn't enough reception, much less negative reception, but Heave the Clay is stubbornly not allowing us to use Jeff's comment in favor of an argument in which he hasn't provided a Wikipedia Rule to back up his claim with. --haha169 (talk) 22:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The rule he appears to be invoking is WP:RS, from what I'm reading. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Karistaa Usko)} 22:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Jeff was fired for speaking his honest opinion about a game. He didn't do anything lacking in journalistic integrity, which is why so many of his coworkers in the industry expressed sympathy for him and many even quit Gamespot in protest. He wasn't fired because he did something that ruined his credibility. Wikipedian06 (talk) 22:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The reliable sources rule was countered with this earlier: "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Epass (talk) 22:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Then this is a nonissue. I'm unprotecting; I see a consensus here in favor of Jeff's review. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Karistaa Usko)} 22:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

(long sigh) every time I see one of these disputes, I start thinking about whether it was right or not to pass the GA for the article. Don't get me wrong, it's a great article by Wikipedia's standards, but all this arguing and the recent edit war violates that criterion about being a stable article. Oh well, I'll look up. I wasn't an active contributor before I reviewed it, but now I'd like to be. Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...}^{protector of all...} 22:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Really? Thank you. We could use some help here. However, I don't believe we've had an edit war on this article since someone attempted to put Sora and Dixie Kong in as playable characters. I think this is quite minor in my opinion, not a big worry. However, it will set back any attempt to nominate it for FA. --haha169 (talk) 23:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

More Images?!?!?!

The online brawl image is great, but wasn't the article trying to delete images, not get new ones? Epass (talk) 11:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Just get rid of it. I think we don't need new images either. --haha169 (talk) 16:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} I believe that the new online image in the Nintendo Wi-fi section should be removed, since we were already trying to remove images, not add new ones. Plus, this image is pretty much the same as the one in the Gameplay section. Quite irrelevant. --haha169 (talk) 17:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Concur with the previous editors. It adds nothing to the reader's knowledge. And we already have an image in the article that refers to the online portion, the main menu illustrates the WiFi option. --HeaveTheClay (talk) 17:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Done Happy‑melon 21:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Uk release date

I was doing some looking and came across a possible release date of which i found at IGN, which i believe are sometimes official. You check it out and confirm this.

April 19th 2008

IGN has no source and they do placeholder release dates all the time. --HeaveTheClay (talk) 17:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

IGN does indeed use placeholders. At the moment IGN says May 2008. -Zomic13 (talk) 18:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

It is April 19th today, IGN was wrong

People! Please sign your comments with "~~~~". It feels better knowing who wrote what, so I could possibly know what I'm responding to. And also, for our convenience, please provide links to where you find these information. --haha169 (talk) 19:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Australian release date confirmed -valid source

http://au.gamespot.com/wii/action/supersmashbros/index.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.172.41.225 (talk) 23:42, 19 April 2008

Wrong. Gamespot uses placeholder dates as well. To save everyone time, unless it comes from Nintendo, DO NOT TRY AND PASS ANY PAL PLACEHOLDER DATES FROM VENDORS AND REVIEW SITES AS LEGITIMATE! -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Karistaa Usko)} 23:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it should be added to the FAQ... unless it is already there. Epass (talk) 01:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

It is. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Karistaa Usko)} 08:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Is this real?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4E8Ly__F6MM&feature=related

Is that Roy data you guys were talking about a while ago? SLJCOAAATR 1 (talk) 19:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Thats...um...quite an obvious fake. Could you possibly expand on what Roy data you were talking about? --haha169 (talk) 19:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

That's a video of Roy from Melee. You can tell because as soon as the match starts, the bottom of the screen (with the character icons and damage counter) turn to Melee's style. -Zomic13 (talk) 19:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)