Talk:Super Smash Bros. (video game)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archived

Something seemed to be wrong with this page. Anything lower than the last GA nom of the archive did not show up on the table of contents.--Smashbrosboy (talk) 00:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I have added a Legacy Section

I have added a legacy section. The melee article has one so I thought, why not?--Smashbrosboy (talk) 17:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

GA nom

I have nominated this article for GA.--Smashbrosboy (talk) 18:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I have responded to this, and have began to review this article. - Robert Skyhawk (Talk|Contribs) 00:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I have also made a few small edits (deleting stuff), I hope you don't mind.--Smashbrosboy (talk) 03:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Not at all...you certainly removed quite a bit of content! But, it seems like it reads better now, and anyway, Wikipedia is not a guide, and the former content was a bit guide-like. Well done. - Robert Skyhawk (Talk|Contribs) 17:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank You for the compliment!--Smashbrosboy (talk) 17:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

GA Status Awarded

Congratulations! This article has met the criteria for good articles sufficiently, and has been awarded good article status.

Here's a summary of my findings:

1. The Good:
   1. Excellent grammar
   2. Good style; sections are in the right order.
   3. Very well sourced, for the most part.
   4. Content is brief and to the point, as all encyclopedia articles should be.
   5. Neutral point of view is maintained throughout the article.
   6. The article has been fairly stable, that is, there are no ongoing edit wars, and the content does not change severely from day to day.
   7. Images are of very high quality; all with good captions and fair-use rationales.
2. The Not so Good:
   1. My only real beef with this article is the Reception section. It seems to be quite short-coming, although it does maintain a very good neutral point of view. With the right sources, though, this could certainly be improved.

All in all, the editors of this article are to be commended. You have made a very good article here. A job well done by all of you.

Your friend in editing, - Robert Skyhawk (Talk|Contribs) 18:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

about Super_Smash_Proto.jpg

I have two problems with this image, one, there is no fair use rationale on it at this time, and two, how the image is currently placed in this article, making the column of text much smaller then I think it should be. Logan GBA (talk) 04:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

That image is not needed. I have deleted it.Smashbrosboy (talk) 03:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Image is interesting and relevant. Needs to be there.--66.237.193.43 (talk) 02:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Scam ad at the bottom of page

I'm trying to remove it, but it doesn't show up at all. Any ideas?

A.J. Comix (talk) 18:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

GA delisted

This is nowhere near GA status. The prose throughout is average, and most of the sections (except gameplay) are short and nowhere near the broad level expected. Reception, especially, is unsatisfactory. Needs a fair bit of expansion before it can be GA. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Ugh, it has just been 3 months and a delisting. I fully agree on why it has been delisted though. This article was in much better shape in February.--Smashbrosboy 02:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Not much has changed in Feburary. I've changed my Feature Topic hopes in a different direction. The FAC failure of Brawl and this article's delisting is a big blow. At least Melee made it to the front page...--haha169 (talk) 23:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I am going to work on it as soon as I get time.--Smashbrosboy 02:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

---

This GAN has passed, and this is now a good article! If you found this review helpful, please consider helping out a fellow editor by reviewing another good article nomination. Help and advice on how to do so is available at Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles, and you can ask for the help of a GAN mentor, if you wish.

Cheers, giggy _(:O) 05:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

About the image

The image is not from super smash brothers, but from super smash brothers melee —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.232.30.82 (talk) 14:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you talking about the screenshot? It was done on a emulator apparently, so it's highly unlikely that it was from Melee. --Thaddius (talk) 18:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

You're joking, right? The graphics are, without a doubt, 32-bit; not Gamecube graphics. --haha169 (talk) 04:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, i played through that whole game and know the levels by heart. That Mushroom Kingdom level does not exist in the game. The Mario Bros have the one castle, but that is all. Explain how you got that —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.224.25.70 (talk) 01:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Beat the game with the 8 starters. 24.128.181.242 (talk) 21:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

That's Melee. There is no Mushroom Kingdom level in the 64 version, now let's either delete it or replace it before we start a fight over who knows more about Super Smash Bros. -76.30.200.52 (talk) 02:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if these are RS, but here some images I found of this level, GameFAQs Super Smash Bros. (US, 04/26/99), GameFAQs Super Smash Bros. (US, 04/26/99), IGN: Super Smash Bros. Pictures (N64): Image 41 of 99, and IGN64 cheats section lists Mushroom Kingdom Logan GBA (talk) 11:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Guys, Mushroom Kingdom IS in Smash 64 and apparently the people who SAY that they have played through the whole game didn't really play through the entire game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayt55 (talk • contribs) 02:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

emulation

SSB64 is just one of those games that gets emulated and "hacked" alot, like zelda OoT. there are v-gs-ers on this game ALOT, i think that the texture hacks and all that should be noted SOMEWHERE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.121.132.170 (talk) 15:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia content is based on reliable sources; if you can provide some talking about the information you would like to include, then please go ahead. Giggy (talk) 07:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Virtual Console Release?

Does anyone know when this game is going to be released on the Virtual Console? Any reliable sources would do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.175.171.124 (talk) 02:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Now it's released I think some reviews on the remake are worthwhile. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.175.171.124 (talk) 03:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

From Dolls to Trophies?

In SSBM and B, all the characters come to life from trophication by being touched, in SSB however, characters come to life from plush-like dolls, as shown in the opening sequence and the 'Continue?' screen. Why the change? Also, what ever happened to the characters turning in motion at the bottom screen? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.211.217.224 (talk) 07:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Image

I feel that the image should be replaced with one that shows off the game's four-player mode. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 18:00, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm cool with this if a good image is found. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 01:49, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I can't find one with Ness in it though :( - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 07:16, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't say he's necessary. JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 10:04, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

He's necessary to meee. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 11:51, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Citations

I tend to nitpick about this, but Gameplay needs several additional citations. Tezero (talk) 03:37, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

... Such as? TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 06:03, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Characters

The "Characters" section says there are 12 of them total, but does not list all of there names. Should I include a sentence doing so? I think it would make it more convenient for the reader if we did that, so they wouldn't have to go to another page to get that information. Thoughts? Triforces (talk) 21:32, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Legacy

I added the total number of copies sold for Super Smash Bros Melee/Brawl -- if anyone wants to talk about that edit, let me know, please. I also sourced both the sales figures. Thank you. Triforces (talk) 21:45, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

A move of this page to Super Smash Bros. (Nintendo 64)

I don't feel that Super Smash Bros. on 64 is anywhere near noteworthy enough to hold onto the main title of the article. As we do with Castlevania (video game), The Legend of Zelda (video game), and Metroid (video game), we should disambig this and move the series page to Super Smash Bros.. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 14:22, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Is there something wrong with Super Smash Bros. (video game)? If this page ends up getting moved I'd prefer that it get moved to that. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 17:16, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

• (Copying my reply from WT:NIN) - Per convention, I think it should be Super Smash Bros. as the series article, Super Smash Bros. (series) as a redirect to Super Smash Bros., and Super Smash Bros. (video game) as the N64 game article (with Super Smash Bros. (Nintendo 64) as a redirect to Super Smash Bros. (video game); period-less titles (such as Super Smash Bros (series)) and abbreviations (such as SSB64) can be redirects as needed. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:39, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Because of the possibility that the upcoming Smash titles will be simply "Super Smash Bros." to a lot of people, I've come to feel that calling the N64 game "video game" could have some confusion. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 19:54, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
    • I don't think there's any need to worry about that yet. As far as I've seen, Nintendo is set on the "for 3DS/Wii U" stuff being part of the "official" title. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 20:17, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I just noticed this again, myself. The proper convention with WPVG is the franchise name gets to carry the un-parenthetical article title ... that is, Super Smash Bros. represents the entire franchise and all five games, with Super Smash Bros. (video game) being the N64 version. I think this makes better sense now that the new games' full names have been locked down as Super Smash Bros. for Nintendo 3DS and Super Smash Bros. for Wii U, so there's no need for the "Nintendo 64" addition. --McDoobAU93 18:40, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

A move has been requested for this article at Talk:Super_Smash_Bros._(series)#Requested_moves czar ♔ 20:34, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Super Smash Bros. (series) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 20:45, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

smashwiki says

Dragon King: The Fighting Game was supposed be the first installment in a planned series of fighting video games for the Nintendo 64, with the game also being designed to make unique use of the joystick on the controller; unlike other games which took advantage of the analogue stick, like Super Mario 64 or The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, Sakurai wanted to see how he could use it in a multiplayer environment. Sakurai was also interested in creating a fighting game experience that involved four players fighting at once, instead of the standard one-on-one format seen in most of the era's fighting games. During preliminary development for the game, however, Sakurai felt that the game lacked the appropriate atmosphere for a fighting game on a home console, stating that the characters he had planned for inclusion in the game seemed too similar to one another; while he thought this would be acceptable in an arcade setting, he felt that games for home consoles would need better depth in order to captivate its audience. As a result, Sakurai scrapped most of the original concepts for the game and instead added elements from multiple existing Nintendo franchises. The game was ultimately retooled into Super Smash Bros., which became an unexpected success; the game later spawned a successful series of games, with multiple new installments having since been released. Valehd (talk) 23:30, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

SmashWiki isn't considered a reliable source. TheMeaningOfBlah (talk) 15:37, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

but that paragraph is true Valehd (talk) 16:13, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Translation of title

From my user talk page:

Then the Super Smash Bros. (video game) article should be changed to "Fray" as well. The point is that the translated series name doesn't conflict with the English name of one of the games in the series. An article being denoted a good article doesn't necessarily mean all translations in the article are optimal. Zowayix001 (talk) 02:44, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't find "conflicting with the English name" to be a compelling reason, given that it's not the English name, but the English translation of the Japanese name with which we are dealing. Regards being a GA, it seems preferable to keep the current translation since that name has undergone quality review (though I agree any particular fact in the article may be sub-optimally worded, placed, etc--it is still a wiki). I will ping WT:VG. --Izno (talk) 18:23, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

What do secondary sources call it? Also the whole Japanese portion of the lede should be relegated to a footnote—it isn't known by its Japanese name at all in English-speaking places and the first sentence of the lede is prime real estate. czar 18:36, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Not likely to have a good answer to the first question; no opinion on the second point. --Izno (talk) 18:48, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

There's WP:USEENGLISH and WP:NCVG. Even if the "correct" translation is Fray, we go by sources. I don't recall seeing any WP:RS ever calling the game Fray. Changing seems WP:OR. --Soetermans. T / C 20:45, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't believe there's an official source citing an English translation of the Japanese name, so someone had to have originally come up with it. I'm getting "Fray" from the translation the SmashWiki (ssbwiki.com) consistently uses, and I've seen that translation used many times before prior to knowing about that site. I have never ever seen "Great Melee" used before, and it's still visually jarring to see the same word used as in "Super Smash Bros. Melee" (almost always abbreviated "Melee" when talking about that one game itself). With no official source, why not just use the name translation that the most people are familiar with? Zowayix001 (talk) 19:22, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I thought because of this remark "Then the Super Smash Bros. (video game) article should be changed to "Fray" as well." you wanted to change the article title of Super Smash Bros. to Fray, but now I think you're referring to the Japanese title in the lead of the Super Smash Bros. article, am I right? On what sources is the SSB wiki based upon? And what would suggest Fray is more common than another translation? --Soetermans. T / C 20:07, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I'm referring to the opinion that 大乱闘 in the series and game titles should be translated as "Great Fray" rather than "Great Melee". There is no official source stating which translation is 'intended' or 'correct', so someone must have separately come up with both of them out of thin air and neither is official. The best way to settle this might be to have a professional/native Japanese translator explain which is more likely closer to the original meaning. Outside of that, I'm wondering if there's any in-game text, promotional materials/advertisements, or anything else that happens to directly translate 乱闘 between the Japanese and English versions. (I recall the phrase "Enter the fray" being officially used a number of times somewhere Smash-related, but I can't remember where and wouldn't know if there's a Japanese counterpart to that phrase.) Zowayix001 (talk) 19:24, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I thought you meant wanted the article title to change, the one the above the article body, but you mean how the title is in bold in the lead. Have you tried WikiProject Japan? If you leave a message at their talk page, maybe someone there can help you out. --Soetermans. T / C 06:48, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Super Smash Bros. (video game). 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/20120225111748/http://www.gamecritics.com/review/smashbros/main.php to http://www.gamecritics.com/review/smashbros/main.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120225111748/http://www.gamecritics.com/review/smashbros/main.php to http://www.gamecritics.com/review/smashbros/main.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080302093215/http://www.smashbros.com/en_us/gamemode/various/various01.html to http://www.smashbros.com/en_us/gamemode/various/various01.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071130053541/http://www.smashbros.com/en_us/characters/link.html to http://www.smashbros.com/en_us/characters/link.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080316053646/http://www.smashbros.com/en_us/items/assist/assist01.html to http://www.smashbros.com/en_us/items/assist/assist01.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110611021542/http://gonintendo.com/viewstory.php?id=160176 to http://gonintendo.com/viewstory.php?id=160176

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) 08:43, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Removing the Legacy section

As someone pointed out in a discussion I started on WP:VG talk, the Legacy section of this article is not covering the long-lasting impact of this game, it is simply listing all the sequels. This is already covered in the main series article, which this section already refers to. I am boldly deleting this section, but have started a thread if someone objects and we can discuss. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 18:55, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

@ThomasO1989 Is, in your opinion, possible to write something about the legacy of the game and reintroduce the information about his sequels? Redjedi23 (talk) 10:50, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

IMO, the legacy section should cover this specific game's notability over time, or its direct influence on future games or other unrelated games. If its legacy is just "it made a bunch of sequels" then what is there is write about that isn't already covered in the main series article? ThomasO1989 (talk) 12:26, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Super Smash Bros. (video game)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:52, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

The article has numerous uncited statements. The reception section is quite short, considering the amount of literature that has been written about it. I am also surprised there isn't a legacy section, considering that this is the first in a very successful video game franchise. Z1720 (talk) 16:12, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Upon performing my own quick look at this article,

• Release date is sourced in lead, but not in the actual article?
• Reception is too short to conclude anything of how critics felt.
• No legacy section, per above, which could easily be made even if it just goes over the sequels established by it. A start could be seeing if this games competitive scene has SIGCOV to warrant placement in this article, or even including some parts about the Smash Remix mod.
• A lot of gameplay is unsourced.
• Development seems to be okay?

If someone took the time to address the issues mentioned here and above I'm willing to change my stance but in my opinion this is a very clear Delist. λ NegativeMP1 17:16, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Comment: I had boldly removed the legacy section because it merely lists all the sequels, which functionally makes it no different than the Super Smash Bros. series article and is thus redundant. It did not cover this particular game's legacy in the same way that Melee's Legacy section does with the its still active competitive scene. I had previously brought this up at WP:VG and the consensus seemed to agree. ThomasO1989 (talk) 17:21, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

While that seems fair and I agree that it's pointless if it only lists sequels, a substantial Legacy section should still at least mention them. I do think however that it should go more into detail about other things of the games legacy, and contain the sequels to a small bit. λ NegativeMP1 17:31, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

A legacy section can probably include the sequels to the game, its impact on the fighting genre, its impact on sales for the N64, and its use in tournaments, among other topics. Z1720 (talk) 18:07, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I think a legacy section could be created with its use in tournaments and mods like Smash Remix. (Oinkers42) (talk) 20:49, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

It appears that lot of reliable sources exist for Smash 64's esports coverage, and a pretty decently-sized reliable source exists for Smash Remix [1]. Both are definitely material that can be included in a Legacy section. λ NegativeMP1 20:54, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

A lot of legacy sections on a first work in a franchise seem to just turn into redundancy with the series article, so I agree with the axing. But aside from the listing of sequels the relevance on the fighting game community and such does seem reasonable to include. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 20:57, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Comment - I feel like the screenshot does not really do a good job at showcasing the gameplay of the series. I think a better screenshot showing 4 players actively fighting on a fairly complex stage like Hyrule Castle or Saffron City would be good. (Oinkers42) (talk) 21:01, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

• Delist. For the breadth criterion, Reception should be greatly expanded from contemporaneous and retrospective reviews. A Legacy section is currently unhandled, per above. And the Gameplay section should be easily sourced to reliable, secondary sources. czar 15:35, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
• Delist. There are citations in the lead. Also stuff in the lead is NOT present in the body itself. Brachy08 _(Talk) 02:27, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.