Talk:Super Smash Bros. Brawl/Archive 33

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Permission for MobyGames link

In light of the warning in the External links section, I'm asking permission to add this link:

Super Smash Bros. Brawl/Archive 33 at MobyGames

It has tons more screenshots than this article does (or ever will have). I don't watch this article, so someone else will have to add it. If no one objects, the wiki template code is: {{MobyGames|id=/wii/super-smash-bros-brawl}}. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 11:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

That page leads to a 404. Also, if any site has more screenshots than the article, it would be the Dojo...which we're already linking to. So to add a link just because of a few screenshots seems kind of silly when we have the Dojo. -Sukecchi (talk) 12:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't link to 404, but I agree that DOJO is the only one that's needed. --haha169 (talk) 16:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

When I viewed it this morning it did...then I saw it was fixed and I didn't bother changing my response. -Sukecchi (talk) 17:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok. --haha169 (talk) 17:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

FA Status

I just wanted to say good job to all those who contributed to this article and getting it up to FA standard. We've all done our part nicely. Stabby Joe (talk) 13:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! --haha169 (talk) 16:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

lol, WUT. I just got back. Hi, everyone. SSBB:FA - I didn't dare to hope, but wanted to see it... *sniff* --Coreycubed (talk) 14:38, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Lol. So much wiki-drama. :P SSB (series):FT now. Even better. :) --haha169 (talk) 01:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Though I'm not a contributor to the page, I've watchlisted this article since the game was announced. Wow! The talk was rife with speculation that ultimately wasn't true, as well as fights that rivaled Taiwanese demonstrations against Chen Shui-bian, even enough to fill 32 archives. You guys really deserve a good pat on the back for combating all the stuff that's happened here, much less the article itself. bibliomaniac15 04:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! This article will forever be the article that I worked the most hardest on. The article's subject was amazingly and surprisingly controversial considering that its a normal video game - but we did it. :) --haha169 (talk) 04:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

New image

Should we replace this image with this so we'll have an image of both of the third-partyers? --(trogga) 16:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

No, at least not with that image. A picture of both third-partyers would be nice, but one without the random confetti, without Sandbag partially in the picture, and with slightly clearer views of Sonic and Snake would work great.--The Ninth Bright Shiner 03:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. That image just isn't up to quality standards for non-free images... --haha169 (talk) 17:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Wi-Fi Spectator

are these Wi-Fi battles viewed here live? Because they don't seem to have muh lag. Or are they Wi-Fi recorded battles played back?--69.150.73.212 (talk) 04:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Question: How is this supposed to help improve the article? Or is this just forum talk, which is not supposed to be mentioned per the big template above? --haha169 (talk) 17:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

More developing Smash / adding characters

So I'm guessing this is the criteria the "39" characters had to pass to be included in a game: [1]

“ The popularity of the character is important, for instance, as is the consideration of whether the character has a unique ability that only he, she or it can bring to the game. ”

“ "I also have to think about if the character pulls the gameplay in a direction I don't want it to go in," he agrees "and, of course, whether there are any IP issues to get over and if it'd be too hard to get that particular fighter in the game". ”

Perhaps something here would be useful for one of the Smash-related articles. « ₣M₣ » 19:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

List of SSBB music article.

User:A Link to the Past/List of songs in Super Smash Bros. Brawl - Not going to be proposing anything at the moment, just want to see if anyone'd be interested in filling the Development and Reception sections. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Sales Figures

I've got a new article which states that SSBB has sold 5.2 million units. http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iXr6VLDHor5dXI_Ot2c0GdQUbJxA NinjaRooster (talk) 21:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, its 5.4 million. Secondly, its already in the article. --haha169 (talk) 04:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Not in the first paragraph, it's not. 128.113.201.190 (talk) 00:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Genre

A user called Joker Begins has been adding action, now replaced fighting with action. This should be disscused here. --Yowuza ZX Wolfie 17:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Fighting game is Street Fighter, Capcom vs SNK2, Smash Bros is an action game. Joker Begins (talk) 17:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

All the major sites (IGN, Gamespot, Mobygames which actually notes both, and even Nintendo's own page) classify it as a fighting game. Personal opinion does not work as a valid source for this article. Arrowned (talk) 22:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Even so, the Smash DOJO lists it as a "Action" game [2]. Personally, I think it should be listed as a "Fighting/Platformer" game. But that's just me. Unknownlight (talk) 01:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, according to imdb, Super Smash Bros. Brawl is action http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0928380/ Action | Adventure | Comedy | Fantasy | Sci-Fi | Thriller. Joker Begins (talk) 18:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

IMDB is unusable. Same follows for other user-created content sites. You'll have to do better. (If I'm wrong, slap me with a trout -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Call me Mr. Bonaparte!)} 19:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Metacritic says Smash series are "fighting, action" http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/wii/supersmashbrosbrawl?q=super%20smash%20bros.. 18:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amigo Fura Olho (talk • contribs)

Okay, so far we have three usable sources that say "action" (Metacritic, Mobygames, and the DOJO!) and five that say fighting (IGN, Gamespot, Mobygames, Metacritic, and Nintendo). Just because the DOJO! says it's action doesn't mean anything because Nintendo contradicts the DOJO! in this circumstance. In all honesty, I can see us stating the genre as "Fighting/Action" legitimately given that both share two sources and the game's official classification differs (the game's site says "action"; Nintendo says "fighting"). -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Call me Mr. Bonaparte!)} 19:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Since all available sources allow an easy compromise, we might as well go that route. Arrowned (talk) 19:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

But isn't a fighting a subgenre of action anyway? --trogga 01:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Not a sub-genre, I don't consider, but related. —Preceding unsigned comment added by YowuzaZXWolfie (talk • contribs) 15:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, since DOJO!!! is basically the official site of the game, then wouldnt it be accurate to say that it is a fighting game? 71.197.212.92 (talk) 05:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

No - the DOJO! says it's an action game, and Nintendo's official website contradicts this by calling it fighting. Also, reliable sources aren't in agreement about the genre; two of them call the game action/fighting. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 05:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Unless a very compelling source is provided to say that one or the other is incorrect, it should be action/fighting. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

...especially as even official sources are divided over this (DOJO! says action, Nintendo says fighting) and two other reliable sources say both. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 01:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, even though you attack opponents on a selectable stage, like a fighting game, a lot of Smash Bros. gameply isn't really that typical of a fighting game. And a gem can easily overlap 2 or more genres. --Yowuza ZX Wolfie 17:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Brawl is a fighting game, action game is something like Metal Gear Solid, GTA or Syphon Filter. I think is should be only "fighting game". aah the subspace emissary would be considered action/platformer and melee's adventure mode would be considered platformer. Pé de Chinelo (talk) 22:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Pé, Brawl is not strictly either according to reliable sources and the current existing consensus. Genre will remain "Action/Fighting" until the consensus says otherwise. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 00:00, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Metal Gear Solid is Tactical Espionage. GTA is a sandbox game, and Syphon Filter is a 3PS. Action is very different. Twinwarrior (talk) 04:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Without a source, the game could be defined as fighting, action, or even platforming. The fighting comes from the style of the game- characters on a small arena duke it out. The action comes from how it differentiates from regular fighters like Mortal Kombat or Soul Calibur, in that it gives players a lot more mobility. The platforming comes from Subspace Emissary, where the game runs a lot like a platformer. Though in the Smash DOJO!! site, Masahiro Sakurai actually defines it as a sport. So, I suppose this could be up for debate. I personally consider this an Action/Fighting, but hey- if the official website calls it a sport, if the director of the game calls it a sport, it's a sport. Twinwarrior (talk) 04:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

-Like previously stated, the genre should be Action/Fighting until proven otherwise. 70.243.34.104 (talk) 17:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't care what most people say, but SSBB is in fact a fighting game set up in "free-roaming", "sumo wrestling boundered" arenas. If this is the case, and since sumo wrestling is a sport, so is fighting, thus this game is considered a fighting game that is part of a sports genre. Who cares if players can move around freely, it is still a fighting game. Characters are fighting each other, punching, kicking, throwing stuff at each other, right? There is Mild Violence right? Then it's a fighting game. Enough said.Keetoman (talk) 15:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Boxart

Why isn't the image of the boxart appearing in the article? 76.109.0.160 (talk) 00:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The image was corrupted, somehow or another. I've fixed it; there should be no problems now. Arrowned (talk) 00:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

You mean the good image was replaced by a corrupted one. --haha169 (talk) 05:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

That makes more sense; I was seriously confused as to what had happened. Arrowned (talk) 19:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Havok

I've never understood the concept of engines that well, so I steered clear of most discussions related to this. However, I stand by community consensus of some of Wikipedia's most experienced VG editors in saying that Havok is not a video game engine (or something in that respect). Therefore, I believe it should be reverted unless Ellomate can give a satisfactory argument against those who previously discussed against Havok's addition. --haha169 (talk) 05:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

You're right - Havok is a physics engine, not a video game engine (compare Source). -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 05:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

What Happened?

I noticed that there were links to topics, but those topics don't exist.  ??????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.80.14.96 (talk) 17:28, 20 September 2008

Can you elaborate?—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 03:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

StrategyWiki is not a good external link

It's not very accurate and doesn't have very helpful information particularly in the character specific section. I suggest removing it. David Martin Chao (talk) 06:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not that; a link to startegry guides is against Wikipedia guidelines. See WP:NOT. --Yowuza ZX Wolfie 16:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

No mention of strategy guides in the entire policy - and I've read that so many times. There are, however, many things in that policy that say Strategywiki should not be allowed in the external links section - but consider that this article has gone through two FACs, multiple peer reviews, GANS, and 30+ archives of talk page discussion. Certainly, you can find a discussion about this issue in the archives. I distinctly remember one and think the argument for the link was quite good. --haha169 (talk) 03:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Awards section?

Does anyone besides me think that we should add an "Awards" section for this article? Link 486 (talk) 14:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

When there's enough content it would be worth distinguishing the awards. However, there's only about three lines worth at the moment. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 15:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Online Play

I'm surprised there isn't anything in the article or even the discussion about the major, major issues with the online play. I was a tournament player in the original and melee, but I and several of my fellow tourney friends quit playing Brawl early on due to the horrible lag in online play. With the fastest of all connections, you will often experience lag that makes the game totally unplayable, not to mention excessively long wait times in between matches even during prime time during the height of the game's popularity. I know that for me, personally, and many of my friends, the lag issues are what made the game a big bomb in spite of it being a great game in every other respect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.184.167.3 (talk) 20:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you can find some sources complaining about it, if it is such a big issue. But note that it has already been mentioned in the "Receptions" section of the article. But just my two cents, I'm not sure why everyone is complaining about this, since I've never experienced that problem before... --haha169 (talk) 18:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

tournament players dont like it

alot of melee tournament players dislike brawl. i think this shoulld be mentioned somewhere in the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.130.37.13 (talk) 02:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Reliable Source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.109.29.125 (talk) 16:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Echo 38., with the addendum that the tournament scene isn't going to be something the leyperson is going to be interested in; it's fancruft. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 21:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

That's opinion-based. It's probably true, but it doesn't have a source. Twinwarrior (talk) 03:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

An in depth description of the gameplay mechanics would be able to reveal the reasons for this pretty well. The only source needed is the game itself. i can do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.200.215.217 (talk) 23:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Did you read? You want to add an OPINION. Wikipedia is about facts. In other words, don't do it. All an in-depth description will show us is what's different, not reliable info on why it's not liked. The Stick Man (talk) 03:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps a discussion of the the systematically removed competitive elements, like Light-Shielding, directional airdodge (which by association also removes wave-dashing), jumpcancel grabing, ledge teching, ledgehogging, the addition of elements that decreased difficulty including auto-ledgegrab, dramatically increased ledge invincibility, dramatically increased directional influence, etcetera. This article deserves a technical comparison section that emphasizes the qualities that are different from Melee, as it stands now, the article indicates that this smash brothers game is very similar to the last 2 titles, which it is not, its been dramatically simplified (removing about 60% of Melee's gameplay functions) and thats why tournament players don't like it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.200.215.217 (talk) 00:55, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Claims of simplification is WP:OR. And discussing the in-depth mechanics difference is going too deep. Just drop it. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 05:29, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

• Brawl is widely panned by hard core fans of the series as less competitive. OR is fine if it is self-evident and will improve the article.AerobicFox (talk) 04:36, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

So... confusing readers who will most likely not be familiar with the in-depth mechanics of Brawl will help the article? I have doubts about the notability of the competitive scene, too. I consider the Street Fighter competitive scene to be far more notable, and I don't see any reason to discuss why some players prefer Street Fighter III: 3rd Strike over SSFIV:AE. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 17:26, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Unused music

What about the unused music in the game, like this youtube video. I know it's real because you can use the Ocarina cheat code engine to get it. (Most of the vids where people are playing in a level with unused music are fakes because they just used a video editor and the ripped mp3s) But anyways I thought that was worth mentioning, although there isn't much proof, it is real.--Retrotails (talk) 17:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

"There isn't much proof but I know it's real" doesn't fly here. We need reliable sources -- such as news stories -- to back up claims, and a Youtube video doesn't count. Xenon54 (talk) 18:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Who is right, and who isn't?

In the article, it is stated that SSBB sols 7.47 million copies worldwide, but this other article says it sold 8.1 million. Who I must believe to? --186.14.102.80 (talk) 00:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The List article, considering the source there is based on a more recently updated version of the official sales data provided by Nintendo. I'll update it now, thanks. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 01:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

SmashWiki link

Hey guys, could we add {{wikia|super-smash-bros|SmashWiki|Super Smash Bros. Brawl}} (link) to the External links section?--Richard (Talk - Contribs) 17:22, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

see Talk:Super Smash Bros. (series)#SmashWiki and Talk:Super Smash Bros. Brawl/Archive 32#Smash Bros. Wiki Logan GBA (talk) 19:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

About Brawl+

For those who don't know, Brawl+ is currently an (incomplete) hacked version of Smash Bros. Brawl created by members of the Smash World Forums, with the intent to make the game more balanced and tournament viable. The FAQ is available here.

Now, in any other case I would not consider a hacked version of a game relevant enough to be mentioned in the article, but it's different in this case: Brawl+ has apparently (as in, according to the FAQ, I haven't had the time to go search around Google) been used in multiple tournaments so far. If this is true, I think that the Brawl+ hack is relevant enough to be mentioned somewhere in this article, since, if the BrawlPlusery get their way, Brawl+ may become the tournament standard, replacing normal Brawl.

So yeah, does anyone have any objections? Unknownlight (talk) 23:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Reliable source? It might merit inclusion if there exist such sources. --155.246.129.226 (talk) 05:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

It seems quite notable, but I agree with the IP that there needs to be a reliable source. --haha169 (talk) 05:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Smashboards.com has an entire forum dedicated to Brawl+ tournament dates/locations, results, videos, etc. It's a pretty active community in comparison to other modded games. Brawl+'s forums (I think they have some) might also be a place to look at. ShardFenix (talk) 05:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Modifications/Hacking

Ever since the launch began, several devices like USBGeko and Orcarina can enable the user to go deeper and enable user generated modifications (textures, picture cover, etc.) into the game which contains a series of coded events that grant players to customize their own match or modify this game with unofficial patches that can 'damage' the game's stability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JBRPG (talk • contribs) 18:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Irrelevant. Next! -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 06:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Irrelevent? So I guess Doom Engine Mods are irrelevant as well, right? Maybe you don't realize the extent that things like Brawl+ and Balanced Brawl are going to...Nintendo Maniac 64 (talk) 07:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so. Softmodding the game has become incredibly popular. The Wizard Of Aus The Wizard of Aus (talk) 10:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Softmodding the game HAS become very populer, with tens of thousands of players downloading one of the FOUR major mods, 1 of which is a competitive modification and a significant technical feat (Project M) that has made a number of news articles, and is still in active development. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.200.215.217 (talk) 00:58, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Not that I doubt you, but if you really want to prove this... then actually show the articles from reliable sources instead of just claiming their existence. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 21:54, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit Page

{{editsemiprotected}}

Question: Welcome and thanks for wanting to improve this article. Please describe what you would like to change about the article and add a new {{editsemiprotected}} and somebody will be glad to help. Celestra (talk) 02:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Playable Characters and Inclusion of Characters

The sections Playable Charaters and Inclusion of Characters should combined. --Regular Mario o}8|3) (talk) 02:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The inclusion of characters is written in a development standpoint. So I think it should stay in Development. Does anyone else have ideas? --haha169 (talk) 04:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Havok physics

I am sure this game uses Havok physics, so could someone kindly add that to the article in some way? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Olifromsolly (talk • contribs) 18:50, August 22, 2009 (UTC)

You'll need a reliable source backing that up before it can be included in the article. -sesuPRIME 07:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, it is included on Wikipedia's article on Havok. I'll add a source to this article, though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Olifromsolly (talk • contribs) 09:32, August 23, 2009 (UTC)

See above section. Added back contents box. « ₣M₣ » 11:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The FAQ

Do we really need the out-of-date and completely useless FAQ for this game anymore? I'm not sure why we still have it. Unknownlight (talk) 04:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I do have a question that i have been looking for an answer for months. One time while fighting online, we fought on the target test 1 stage. Ive been trying to figure out how that happened. The stage still had the targets in it but it was a fight, not smashing the targets. anybody know how? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.122.237.252 (talk) 17:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea but Wikipedia is not a forum. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 18:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

That just means that your opponents hacked the game (though the word "hack" gives them too much credit, all they need to do is run Gecko OS on their Wii using the HBC). The Target Test stages seem like very common stages for people to use online. How your question is relevant to my original question, I have no idea. Unknownlight (talk) 08:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Main page! Hooray!

I must say, bravo everyone. The days when misinformation and uncited sources were rampant seemed such a short time ago, and now Brawl is on the front page! The bulk of my editing was in the old still-in-development days, mostly in the form of heated discussion. From those who put in big edits to the hundreds of WikiGnomes, pat yourself on the back!--The Ninth Bright Shiner 00:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

ahahhahahahaha brawl ftw!!!!!!IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 04:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Congrats! Never thought I'd see this on the Main Page. I haven't read any of the discussion comments, but it seems to me as if the article was featured because it was so concise. There's really not a lot of extra things. Really to the point. Which is good, but you just don't see that super often. Great game, but I still think it's extremely inferior to Melee (they went overboard when they tried to cater to the casual players :P Sporlo (talk) 07:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

It's kind of pointless do say this on a Wikipedia talk page, but what the hell, I'm a nerd. I disagree that the gameplay is worse than Melee's, but even if it is I don't see how Nintendo 'went overboard'. Hardcore gamers tend to see themselves as the 'core' gaming community, when they're really not; they're the fringe, and the amazing sales for games like Wii Fit really show that. Nintendo is in the business of making money, and they're making gaming mainstream in the process; as a 'hardcore' gamer who's tired of people going all 'oh wow you game all day get a life blah blah blah' I'm happy with the games they're putting out. Admittedly, I'm spamming up this talk page but it's not like this section contributed anything anyway, so oh well. 99.244.97.75 (talk) 21:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

This game is wau too new for a featured article - Wikipedia isn't an advertisement site

Closed per WP:SOAP and WP:NOTFORUM: no productive direction for this thread
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This is reason alone not to have that article on the main page - it makes Wikipedia look like an advertisement site for Nintendo.-70.254.46.126 (talk) 08:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC) Disagree. Featured articles are articles that the community considers the best on Wikipedia. This article has already gone through a nomination discussion lasting for two months before it was deemed suitable to be promoted to being a featured article. The appearance of other games on the main page (when it does happen) doesn't make Wikipedia look like an advertisment site at all, and this isn't any different. Everyone who worked on this should be proud that the article is on the main page. Looneyman (talk) 09:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC) Chummer, if the article was writ like an ad the damn thing wouldn't be on the front page - it'd be deleted. -Jéské (v^_^v Call me Mr. Bonaparte!) 09:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC) Exactly, plus one of the criteria for being an FA is that the article be neutral, precisely the opposite of an advertisement. I don't think anyone is mistaking Wikipedia for a Nintendo promotional site. :) Cheers! Scapler (talk) 10:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC) Even a game that isn't out yet could be a Featured Article. (if there was enough information given to stuff in an article) Blake (Talk·Edits) 13:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC) I don't know of any promotional/advertising content on this page. If I did, I'd take it out. And if I didn't, someone else would. Useight (talk) 13:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC) Having looked through the article, I don't think that there is any. Someone just thought that the article being on the main page as a featured article was advertising. Looneyman (talk) 18:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC) Surprised the IP didn't ask how much Nintendo payed WP, as people often do. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 18:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC) This is a great game. Why shouldn't it be on the front page? User:Sakurai (talk) 18:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.228.60.27 (talk)

Number of playable characters

Some parts of the article state that there are only 35 playable characters, but there are actually 37 if you include Shiek and Zero Suit Samus (which are selectable), or 39 if you include Pokemon Trainer's individual pokemon (although you're usually forced to use all of them within a match). ShardFenix (talk) 05:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Those are the same characters, but different forms. Doesn't count. Although Toon Link is a different character from Link, as most of the Links in a game are different people except for squeals like Phantom Hourglass. I don't really see why Zelda from Twilight Princess turns into Sheik from OoT, but whatever. lol _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 15:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

It seems too subjective to for us to determine what "counts" as a separate character and what doesn't. Looking at it objectively, there are 39 different entities that the player could choose to control anytime. Just because some of them are "the same" character in whatever obscure continuity, doesn't really matter. Can this be taken into consideration? POWERSLAVE^TALK/_CONT 10:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

There are 35 characters to choose on the player screen. Shiek IS Zelda. Zero Suit Samus IS Samus. The Pokemon are controlled BY the Pokemon Trainer. It is not being subjective. It's just how it is. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 14:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

No, there are 39 characters to choose from on the select screen, but there are only 35 "buttons." You can choose between Shiek and Zelda freely, you can choose between the pokemon freely, and you can choose between Samus/ZSS by holding a button, and there is nothing forcing you to play all transformations of those characters in a match. They are not the same character. Characters shouldn't be omitted from this number simply because other characters can change into them. They are still separate characters. [b]ALL[/b] smash fansites and forums list all 39 characters separately in any kind of list, whether it be a tier list, a moveset/hitbox list, or whatever. Nobody (read: nobody who plays the game) considers Shiek and Zelda the same character. ShardFenix (talk) 06:36, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

There Will Be Brawl —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.137.173.218 (talk) 13:28, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

More related links

Why aren't there any links to Smashboards, All Is Brawl or even the DOJO!! in the related links section? They seem more useful than (for instance) that strategy wiki page. They are all highly relevant and they aren't even mentioned outside of the references section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Wizard of Aus (talk • contribs) 10:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Add a link on external link

Hi I want to add this chat/website that plays all Wii game, including Super Smash Brawl. Here is the link : http://xat.com/SuperNintendoWii I want the brawl community to be informed so they can play friendly matches online with friend codes :) Please add it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ferrjimenez (talk • contribs) 15:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC) No. You want matchmaking, go to a larger site. AiB and SmashBoards both have sections for match making and are significantly larger. The Wizard of Aus (talk) 08:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Overhaul

Infobox:

• removed obsolete fields
• removed composers (almost 40 of them, way too many to list in the infobox)
• developer really only makes sense if there is a name for the development team, but I kept it for now and linked to the "Development" section
• added producers and artists
• added Sakurai as co-writer for the adventure mode (mentioned in Iwata Asks)
• media -> distribution (non-ambiguous media format)

Article:

• fixed the "foreword" reference
• included footnote as part of the development section, removed original research

Prime Blue (talk) 23:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Young Link/ Toon Link

In the article it says that Young Link has been removed but shouldn't it be mentioned that Toon Link has been added instead ,as he is another type of Link from the Legend of Zelda series, just like Young Link was, just back when Super Smash Bros. Melee was released Harryj2198 (talk) 17:37, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Why "instead"? Is there a source somewhere that says that Toon Link was meant to replace Young Link? The sentence just says that YL is gone along with some other characters, and that's all it needs to say. The Stick Man (talk) 17:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

It probably isn't instead but Toon Link is definitely similar to Young Link. Young Link is quicker and faster with some of his moves than link [ref:http://uk.guides.ign.com/guides/16387/page_21.html],not unlike how Toon link is different to Link in Brawl. [ref:http://www.smashbros.com/en_us/characters/hidden11.html]Brawl represents characters from their latest versions and this is why Toon link was used to represent the Link from Phantom Hourglass, and young link was not used as three links would have been excessive. Harryj2198 (talk) 19:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

It is unnecessary to mention. Only the main new characters are mentioned. You don't see it saying that Lucario replaced Mewtwo. It doesn't need to say that Toon Link replaced Young Link. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 19:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Goodsson2, 9 June 2011

add another category to page

Goodsson2 (talk) 12:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

 Not done. Specify what category you want. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 13:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Goodsson2, 11 June 2011

Add Super Smash Bros. Brawl to the "Fighting games used at the Evolution Championship Series touranment" category

Goodsson2 (talk) 12:40, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 14:48, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Source

I found a Japanese interview at:

• http://www.nintendo.co.jp/wii/interview/rsbj/vol1/index.html
• http://www.nintendo.co.jp/wii/interview/rsbj/vol1/index2.html
• http://www.nintendo.co.jp/wii/interview/rsbj/vol1/index3.html
• http://www.nintendo.co.jp/wii/interview/rsbj/vol1/index4.html

Involves both Iwata and Sakurai WhisperToMe (talk) 22:45, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit proposal

I suggest that we should add a level table in the Levels section like this.

Stage	Original Series
75m	Donkey Kong
Battlefield
Bridge of Eldin	The Legend of Zelda
Castle Siege	Fire Emblem
Delfino Plaza	Mario
Distant Planet	Pikmin
Final Destination
Flat Zone 2	Game and Watch
Frigate Orpheon	Metroid
Green Hill Zone	Sonic the Hedgehog
Halberd	Kirby
Hanenbow	Electroplankton
Luigi's Mansion	Mario
Lylat Cruise	Star Fox
Mario Bros.	Mario
Mario Circuit	Mario
Mushroomy Kingdom	Mario
New Pork City	EarthBound
Norfair	Metroid
PictoChat	Nintendo DS
Pirate Ship	The Legend of Zelda
Pokémon Stadium 2	Pokémon
Port Town Aero Dive	F-Zero
Rumble Falls	Donkey Kong
Shadow Moses Island	Metal Gear
Skyworld	Kid Icarus
Smashville	Animal Crossing
Summit	Ice Climber
Spear Pillar	Pokémon
WarioWare, Inc.	Wario
Yoshi's Island	Yoshi

And also I think we should add this external link to this article.

Super Smash Bros. Brawl on SmashWiki

Oh and one more thing, we should replace this cover with this cover . It's a higher quality image. Cutecutecuteface2000 (Cutecuteface needs attention) 01:09, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Non-free content such as game cover art should be as low quality as possible. Salvidrim! 01:13, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

What about the external link or the levels table? Cutecutecuteface2000 (Cutecuteface needs attention) 01:14, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

You might want to review the folowing guidelines: WP:ELNO & WP:GAMECRUFT. Salvidrim! 01:18, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay. I was just asking. Cutecutecuteface2000 (Cutecuteface needs attention) 01:19, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Smash Dojo is no more

Just a heads up for FNs sourcing the smashbros site, the Smash Bros now only has information for the upcoming SSB4 game. Erick (talk) 09:29, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

It's all been moved down. en_us/ to wii/en_us/. --Addict 2006 02:29, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I fixed all the links and removed the notice. I didn't check for other broken links, so I left that notice untouched. Takinzinnia (talk • contribs) 03:48, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Project M

With Project M now having its own article, it does seem a little odd that it's not mentioned at all in the article for the game it modifies. Is there any way we can make a quick mention of it in the lead, as well as maybe a "Legacy" section that talks about both it and SSB4? -- 136.181.195.25 (talk) 20:52, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh wow, didn't know there are an article on it now. It's definitely notable enough for a mention at this point. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 00:58, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Cool. Can someone else work it in somewhere, maybe on the main SSB series article as well? I'd do it myself, but with the page being protected, that's not an option. -- 136.181.195.25 (talk) 19:34, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Well you could make it up here and let another editor apply it for you. Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 06:07, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

How about this? It should be a comprehensive enough summary for a mod section without becoming too long or stealing too heavily from the actual Project M page's lead.

In 2011, a team of Super Smash Bros. players, known collectively as the Project M Back Room, began development on a mod of Brawl titled Project M. It was designed to retool Brawl to play more like its predecessor, Super Smash Bros. Melee, in response to fan complaints about Brawl's physics, slower-paced gameplay, use of chance elements rather than pure skill, and mechanics of certain attacks. The mod rebalances each of Brawl's playable characters, adds new character costumes and gameplay modes, and restores the characters Mewtwo and Roy, who were present in Melee but omitted from Brawl's roster. The mod has received praise from reviewers and fans, with the "Version 3.0" demo having received over 300,000 downloads as of February 2014.

-- 136.181.195.25 (talk) 18:37, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Converting this to a proper request to make sure it doesn't get forgotten. As mentioned, the above summary should suffice to fill out the modding section, especially now that it's got references and sources to back it up. -- 136.181.195.25 (talk) 18:35, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. That is quite a chunk of text you want added, and looking at it, the only potentially reliable source in there that I could see was the "Wired" magazine one. The rest are all either directly associated with games and gaming or Twitter which make them primary (or not a RS at all in the case of Twitter). Someone else may disagree and be willing to make this edit for you, but I'd need to see more independent reliable sources to add that. Good luck. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 19:03, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me? I got all these from the Project M Wikipedia page, and many of these sources are from the same sites sourced on this very page, including IGN, Kotaku, and 1Up. As an article about a video game mod, why would coverage on mainstream video game news websites NOT be considered reliable? And Twitter is a primary, reliable source in this case because it's direct from the creators. Considering the Smash Bros. Dojo, a primary source, accounts for almost 40% of the existing sources on the Brawl page, I don't see why using this as a source is an issue. -- 136.181.195.25 (talk) 19:20, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not seeing issues with the sources, either. I think they're fine. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 20:34, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

In that case, Stick Man, would you mind adding it to the Modding section? Technical obviously stated already that while it doesn't meet his personal standards, there's nothing stopping other users from disagreeing and adding it instead. -- 136.181.195.25 (talk) 13:59, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done, with some minor changes of my own. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 16:45, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks much. Though now that you removed "than pure skill" from the second sentence, that "rather" is just hanging there with no point of comparison attached. Might want to get rid of it. -- 136.181.195.25 (talk) 16:50, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Whoops, thanks for catching that! TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 21:49, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

References

More character count discussion, now with Sakurai article

Someone from the other thread recently showed this article, in which Sakurai explicitly states that there are 39 characters in Brawl. IIRC, before editors were told to keep the count at 35, because the data section of the game stated that there were only 35. The standard set by the Brawl FAQ would lead to the character count being 37. I know that this is a pretty petty issue, but I figured that it might as well be something to solve and get over with, because everyone has their own idea of what counts as a character and (at least in the main SSB article) the Brawl character count is changed all of the time. Thoughts? TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 15:08, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

support It is quite minor isn't it, wouldn't of cared if Charizard wasn't separated from the trainer in 4 (I originally edited the character table without knowledge of the consensus), nevertheless I'd support the 39 roster as it would make the table more consistent in the series article, and the director himself confirming it as 39 seems pretty definite. - Wario garlic (talk) 01:29, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

It should definitely be 39. Sakurai himself says it's 39. Thus Squirtle and Ivysaur should be separate in the chart but noted to be with the trainer UberPyro64 (talk) 02:52, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

support here too. I've already said before (long time ago), it's just silly website design. If there were dedicated webpages for each Pokemon they will probably look very empty to the viewers. Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 08:45, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I support it as well, it makes more sense. Looney Guy

I rarely edit but thought I'd comment that it is weird that Charizard has a cross for brawl for the sake of keeping the number at 37. I'd think it be better at 39 with PKMN trainer split into 3 with a note below the table, especially if Sheik and ZSS are already split. 180.24.189.63 (talk) 10:16, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Cool, cool, this looks like plenty. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 15:05, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2014

With the exception of that last sentence about mod-stacking and Brawl+/-/Balanced, everything in the first paragraph of the modding section can be explained using the Wired source found under the Project M section. You're not going to find any significant coverage about the other non-Project M mods on reliable sites; believe me, I've looked. Therefore, I propose we omit the last sentence entirely and use that Wired link as the source for Modding's opening paragraph, getting rid of the last remaining citation request on the page. 69.136.149.237 (talk) 23:45, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 01:37, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I thought I was pretty concrete in my explanation, but whatever. Remove "Multiple mods can be loaded simultaneously, while numerous bundles and major overhauls exist online, such as Balanced Brawl, Brawl+, and Brawl-." from the Modding section, and use to source the remainder of the paragraph. -- 69.136.149.237 (talk) 17:37, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done Dunno what Technical's issue is, but it makes sense, so I've gone and done it. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 18:29, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. That said, the Modding paragraph and "The mod has received praise from many reviewers and fans, with the "Version 3.0" demo having received over 300,000 downloads as of February 2014." now both source the same page, so we should probably make one of the two a named citation so we can cut back on redundant linking. -- 69.136.149.237 (talk) 19:34, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Already done Apparently already done by The Stick Man. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 13:32, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Uh, what? I just did it now. I mean, no offense, but are you actually reading these requests, Technical 13? TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 18:14, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

References

WHY IS THIS LOCKED?? / about the talk page

the game is 2008 and old why wouldn't you have the one for wii u instead? CAN SOMEONE FIX THIS?????71.35.21.213 (talk) 02:10, 10 June 2014 (UTC) :/

this talk page goes back to 2008 is this really the archives way of posting messages on here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.35.21.213 (talk) 02:13, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

It's locked because vandalism by anonymous IP addresses/new users happens often.

Dunno what you mean by the talk page. This is a (relatively) old game, so there will be (relatively) old messages. I don't see what the problem is. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 02:34, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 June 2014

Add the following passage under "Inclusion of Characters":

During Brawl's development, Sakurai briefly considered adding Miis as playable characters. However, due to concerns about the Miis' lighter tone not meshing with that of Brawl or potential associations with bullying, he ultimately decided against it. Miis would later be integrated into the series as playable characters in Super Smash Bros. for Nintendo 3DS and Super Smash Bros. for Wii U 136.181.195.25 (talk) 18:49, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

 Not done. Your source has a broken link. Please provide it again. Arfæst Ealdwrítere (talk) 19:04, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what you're talking about. I just copied and pasted the link, and it showed up just fine. -- 136.181.195.25 (talk) 19:08, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

There always seems to be edit request trouble here.  Done. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 20:11, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

References

um, hello?

add http://www.ssbwiki.com/Super_Smash_Bros._Brawl to external links. it has accurate info. Valehd (talk) 00:58, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

 Not done @Valehd: Wikis are not reliable sources. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 01:49, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

oh really? then why is everything i read on them true? Valehd (talk) 02:50, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

The problem is not that the info on it isn't true, the problem is that it's a wiki. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 16:17, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Super Smash Bros. Brawl. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091226054817/http://www.gamespot.com:80/wii/action/supersmashbros/similar.html?mode=versions to http://www.gamespot.com/wii/action/supersmashbros/similar.html?mode=versions
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.interactive.org/awards/annual_awards.asp?idAward=2009

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:35, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Super Smash Bros. Brawl. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120324141438/http://kotaku.com:80/173071/e306-super-smash-bros-brawl-qa?tag=gamingnintendo to http://kotaku.com/173071/e306-super-smash-bros-brawl-qa?tag=gamingnintendo
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.gamedaily.com/articles/news/npd-nintendo-drives-08-industry-sales-past-21-billion-/?biz=1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081230225326/http://au.gamespot.com:80/best-of/genre-awards/index.html?page=4 to http://au.gamespot.com/best-of/genre-awards/index.html?page=4

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:36, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Super Smash Bros. Brawl. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071011231602/http://www.irwebcasting.com/071010/53/f078bbc3f8/main/index_hi.htm to http://www.irwebcasting.com/071010/53/f078bbc3f8/main/index_hi.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081222092744/http://uk.bestof.ign.com/2008/wii/2.html to http://uk.bestof.ign.com/2008/wii/2.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081222092729/http://uk.bestof.ign.com/2008/wii/18.html to http://uk.bestof.ign.com/2008/wii/18.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081222092654/http://uk.bestof.ign.com/2008/wii/13.html to http://uk.bestof.ign.com/2008/wii/13.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081222092643/http://uk.bestof.ign.com/2008/wii/11.html to http://uk.bestof.ign.com/2008/wii/11.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081222092704/http://uk.bestof.ign.com/2008/wii/14.html to http://uk.bestof.ign.com/2008/wii/14.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081222092739/http://uk.bestof.ign.com/2008/wii/19.html to http://uk.bestof.ign.com/2008/wii/19.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081222092824/http://uk.bestof.ign.com/2008/wii/25.html to http://uk.bestof.ign.com/2008/wii/25.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:42, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33