Talk:Super Smash Bros. Brawl/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20

Release date

Sora has to choke out that release date soon, since it's more than halfway done with 2007. When will the site release this info?--Demonworks

We don't know. -Sukecchi 13:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

More than likely, if its going to be this year, he would tell us at E3 --Kenny2k 03:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I remember reading somewhere that the game will be released in early 2008, but I can't remember where I found this information so don't post anything on the article.--Gundor Twintle Fluffy 15:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

For the last time: SORA IS NOT DOING IT! 165.228.218.160 07:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

According to Best Buy stores, it should come out in canada/america on November 30th, 2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.58.96.136 (talk • contribs)

Retail stores/sites are often incorrect on release dates because they have a habit of putting temporary dates that they assume would be around when the game will come out just so they have something to say when customers ask. This is regardless of whether it's the actual date or not, and in most cases, the producing company hasn't released a date, so the stores are flat out lying. That's the case here until Nintendo gives word of the official release date, which will very possibly occur during E3 this year. Arrow 20:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The GameStop website claims that it releases in America on September 1st, 2007. 71.232.1.243

Personally I believe any store that sells games that has a release date is lying. Even well known places like GameStop just make up dates. That goes for other stores too, like Best Buy, Circuit City, Target, etcetera etcetera. I'm pretty sure there won't be a real release date until e3 in like a month. Hopefully their will be a nice little trailer to go along with it, we haven't had one of those since November. 68.195.110.145 15:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

look, stores will not have the dates out before Nintendo comes out with it first. as crazy as it seems, we just have to wait to find out when it's coming out. we need to add to the FAQ: no more talking about the release date unless there is solid proof from Nintendo about when it's coming out. i am so sick of these discussions and arguments that go in circles. FyreNWater 00:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with Fyre: All we know is that the game is nearing completion since,if you recall,it was on the original site that they wouldn't begin updating again until the game is finished,so the release will come soon,we just need to be patient,and when it does,we'll put it up.XLS724 22:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

According to IGN, the release dates for Europe and Japan have been announced: Japan: December 31, 2007 Europe: September 30, 2007. Should this be added to this page?158.121.200.107 16:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't even make sense, Why would they release it in Europe first. In any case, I sincerely doubt that they'd give the info to IGN but not put it on their site. DurinsBane87 16:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Crates and barrels

Should the fact that they fit to match the stage be added anywhere in the article, or was it already done? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.133.192.156 (talk • contribs)

(please sign your posts) i don't think it's a relevant fact. nice touch, but very trivial. FyreNWater 09:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Could I add two sentences like 'Crates and barrels return from previous games. Now they will conform to the style of the stage and new rolling verities appear which a player can jump onto an ride downhill into anther player to inflict damage.' ?--041744 13:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Why not something like "Crates and barrels have undergone many changes since the last game, Not only by being able to change what they look like in different stages, but the ability to slide downhill and damage players." Forai 16:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I think what 41744 said was the better of the two. 66.133.192.156 23:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think its been clarified that the crates do damage, it only says that you get knocked for a loop, so it may only push you. A different thing though I noticed is the fact that in the picutre with the crate rolling, Pikachu is standing on top of it, that was not something that happened in the last ones.--69.210.124.129 03:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Is Brawl the first Wii game to use all four control styles?

Is Super Smash Bros. Brawl the first Wii game to use all four control styles? If it is, should that fact be mentioned somewhere in the article? --Kenny2k 01:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Likely it is, but still this is very trivial and shouldn't be added.--041744 01:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

it appears to be a first, but it may be the first of a long list. after all, the Wii has only been out for so long. i don't think we should add it, it's kinda trivial. FyreNWater 09:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, Snake isn't just the first third-party character, but also the first character from a M-rated series, but that's not notable, right? magiciandude (Talk) (review) 12:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

It being a first isn't very important, but mentioning the control scheme is, I think, notable. Useight 22:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the control scheme is a fairly big factor in the final game, after all it affects the way the game is played. With this game being the first to make use of all the available control methods, I think a quick mention wouldn't hurt, even if it was only "The games takes advantage of the different control methods offered by the Classic Controller, Gamecube controller, Wii remote, and Nunchuk. It is also the fist Wii title to do this". - admeister200x, 29th June

it does say that. DurinsBane87 03:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Time To Update FAQ?

Since inclusions of all characters, stages, items are apparently no longer allowed, should we update the FAQ stating that it is not neccessary to include every info on the game? magiciandude (Talk) (review) 14:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

When was that decided, anyway? I always thought that a Wiki article on a game should give the reader a good idea of what to expect if they were playing the game. Not in the sense of an instruction manual, but in the sense that as a writer, I'm describing the features of the average play session to a reader who has never seen the game before, and got this article when clicking the random article link over there on the sidebar. I feel that if the reader were to later play the game, or watch it in action after reading the article, and they see something and think "Hey! I didn't know that was in the game!", then the article is lacking. These articles are here to inform people about their subjects, right? SAMAS 16:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

No, because games are highly interactive. If everything in the game were talked about , it would be a game guide. This is an encyclopedia. We're attempting to write an article to give people a solid idea of what the game is, any interesting development history, and anything that makes it stand out from other games, maybe. But not everything. That's gamefaqs job, not ours.DurinsBane87 18:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean in the sense that we tell them about every detail, but I do believe that all unique features of a game, and the effect they have on the gameplay, should be mentioned.

Take these articles (the Smash Bros. ones), for instance. Particularly the part that's been causing so much dissent in this one: The items. Items happen to be a big part of the series' gameplay. A character who is normally weak close in becomes a little more dangerous with a Beam Sword, and a thrown PokéBall can, one way or another, clear out half a stage if an Electrode comes out of it. The right (or wrong!) item at the right time can sometimes turn the tide of a battle around. Thusly, a couple of sentences in the middle of a paragraph that basically say: "Oh, and there are some items that appear sometimes, too" is, in my somewhat humble opinion, not indicative of the role they play in the game. SAMAS 23:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

But there are a wide variety of items that are individualy not very special. The difference between the beam sword, home run bat, and fan isn't really all that big. and there are too many items. Any item you'd mention, someone would come along and say "oh, well, if they mention that item, lets put a blurb about MY favorite item." Then there's the fact that we don't know many of the items that will be available in the game. information about items, since their a huge function in game play, should be in the Super Smash Bros. SERIES article. it makes more sense there then to put the same blurb in every smash bros. article. DurinsBane87 23:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Huh? I'm a little confused on what you said. magiciandude (Talk) (review) 16:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

we need to edit the section about release dates. apparently people just don't know it's there. FyreNWater 00:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

So, can I update the FAQ? magiciandude (Talk) (review) 00:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Lock the page?

I've been watching the history of the Brawl page, and it seems to get vandelized every day. The page has been cleared, letters and words changed, and new characters coming out of nowhere (Although Johnny Appleseed WOULD be a good character). Could someone lock it how it was locked before? It seems like only people that dont have a Wikipedia Account are doing this, so that should stop most of the problem. --Kenny2k 22:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Might want to read this so that you'll know how to request a page protection. I won't do it, because I'm afraid that I'll be denied...again. magiciandude (Talk) (review) 22:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I can ask for it, but I have to warn you guys in advance, this page doesn't experience anywhere near the vandalism some articles on Wikipedia do, so we're likely to get just a one or two week-long semi-protection at the most. Arrow 23:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

NA release

Somebody just put a date from Best Buy online. Should it be removed? "Releases 30 Nov/07. Take the legends of gaming - Samus, Mario, Link and... Jigglypuff?That’s right - all of your Nintendo favourites are back in the havoc inducing, controller swinging, all singing, all dancing combat game extraordinaire - Super Smash Bros Brawl! Product Features Featuring countless unlockables, hidden characters and trophies" Some of this info hasnt even been released by the official website! User:Fonzie77

-Yes it should be removed. There should only be a release date if it is from a reliable source such as Nintendo or smashbros.com. Best Buy is not a reliable source. Depressio 03:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, COME ON! How do they know Jigglypuff is in? And singing and dancing??

Nintendo is the ONLY one who knows FOR SURE when the game is going to be released.

Best Buy and EVERY other store in the world are just guessing. If they were right about the release date, how come NONE of them have the SAME release date?

Sorry if I'm overreacting, but this is seriously getting old. --Kenny2k 04:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

It might be getting old, but it won't stop happening any time soon. Get used to it. - Zero1328 _Talk? 04:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Protect the Confirmed section

Please protect it with all your MIGHT! I jus got all that stuff off the official website. 0.0 Also can some one make it into a chart? best regards--Hitamaru 23:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

It isn't necesary, and it's already in the article, with the exception of the trivial stuff that shouldn't be in the articleDurinsBane87 23:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Its supposed to be an encyclopedic article, not a list. Plus, if we did keep it in the article, people will vandlize it like crazy. --Kenny2k 23:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

It does however sum up the ssbb confirmed stuff, why not just make it into the chart, if it does get vandalized then we just get the page locked, it needs locking anyways. What is the worst that can happen? Atleast give it a try, to lengthen the article.Sasst82 00:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Look at the other smash bros. articles. They don't have any of it. The characters are covered in the Super Smash Bros. Series page in a chart. And none of the items are really important enough to mention. DurinsBane87 00:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

though there aren't many the new items are atleast worth mentioning, because these are new to the smash bros. series.Sasst82 00:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The SSBM article doesnt mention new items, and the SSB article doesnt mention all the items. They don't change gameplay, not really, they just use the same gameplay in slightly different ways. The Final Smash is mentioned because it will change gameplay by giving every character a super move. That's why it was mentioned. Furthermore, any items that DO get mentioned should be integrated to the gameplay section, not given in a list. DurinsBane87 01:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Alright I guess that sounds ok,all I was thinking is a table would look nice,be easier to understand and lengthen this articleSasst82 05:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

A table for day-by-day updates (if i understand right) is a BAD idea, It just fills the article with trivia. we need to mention only note worthy things, in the correct section, like characters and maybe stages, not EVERY item or attack.→041744 05:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Remember, its gotta match the other two Smash Bros. pages. --Kenny2k 06:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The character sections are different, in melee it is an unordered list whereas this article has the characters put in a paragraph(just pointing it outa)Sasst82 03:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Trailer Levels

Should the various levels seen in Nintendo's trailers for Brawl be mentioned somewhere? I'm not sure, as many could be just betas. Deoxys911 10:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Which is exatly why they won't be mentioned. Only confirmed stages like Battlefield and Delfino Plaza should be mentioned, if at all. Just a thought, dores anybody else think that it's kinda odd/lame that they're using MENU music for a stage? 195.195.15.250 12:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC) Mojanboss

We will not be discussing that part about the menu music. This is a talk page, not a forum. -Sukecchi 13:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

E-mail to Tips and Tricks (regarding Sonic)

Yesterday, I e-mailed to Tips and Tricks, I asked them if it was true that in their issue, if they stated that Nintendo has contacted Sega, here's the response I got from someone: I don't think we stated in print that Nintendo had contacted Sega. However, he did stated that: that Nintendo was actively negotiating for the rights to include at least one other non-Nintendo character. I guess we can now remove the part about Nintendo contacting Sega and add in the fact that Nintendo is activtely seeking to have rights for non-Nintendo characters. Source: August 06 issue. magiciandude (Talk) (review) 17:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Good work. I say we remove it. JMJ 18:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

not that I dont beleive you, but lets not all rely on 1 person--Demonworks

Correct me if I'm wrong but, aren't we are relying on one article to keep it?, which for all we could be written by 1 person; so why believe what we have. I know this was a while ago, when we had sonic in his own section why was it that it said the magazine's credibility has been question? If the magazine's credibility is questioned that is like adding a release date to this article. Before this goes any farther though it might be helpfull for someone to upload the article.Sasst82 03:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

we need more solid proof, like a link from an official site or the e-mail. even then, it's hard to tell. who e-mailed back and how valid is their word? FyreNWater 10:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Is there a way to send a transcript to Wikipedia? magiciandude (Talk) (review) 18:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Is the game finished?

Sakurai stated like a year ago that the game would be playable very soon, and that he wouldnt update it much because of the games production. Now, he updates the site nearly every day now, so if the game is finished, then it shall be released soon--Demonworks

That's original research, he could do all the updates for the week in a hour one day and put them on the site one at a time, he likely still working on it or else he would say something like "the game's almost ready". Don't infer get facts.→041744 16:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

And, if anything, the daily updates makes me think the game is not done. Fans are getting so anxious, this is a way to help keep them waiting. These updates can very well go on for months. (Zojo 17:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC))

The game obviously isnt done, or else it would be out. But ya, it is pretty far into development, and there have been reports that its playable. However, they are still putting the finishing touchs on it, adding more levels, characters, items, etc.~sdhonda

Stick with confirmed / official updates

Guys I know we all have good intentions here. We all want to provide the best information possible but I think for the most part things are getting a little too detailed. We are getting some pretty decent CONFIRMED updates now a days why not just stick with confirmed & offical updates and information until the game comes out. I think it would do everyone and the article good to just settle down a little with trying to include little details before the game is out. Just a thouhgt I think a lot of people share. (Poweroverwhelming 17:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC))

Agreed, everything has been a little intense around here ever since the site has relaunched. magiciandude (Talk) (review) 18:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

We all know to get updates from official sources but some ignorant people think a comment from a random blogger is as true as a comment from the game makers, I wish people had more common sense.→041744 18:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

It is not so much that they believe it as they want to believe it.Sasst82 19:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

honestly, how many games give daily updates?? personally, i'm happy with these. i don't know why people don't just accept those and wait, rather than speculate and spread rumors? we should be focusing on taking care of broken links. FyreNWater 21:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I suppose, but more impatient people like me arent satisfied by information of characters we already know about and items of little importance. i suppose it will have to hold eveybody off till E3. God help us if there is any new info at E3......--User:Fonzie77

We need to make sure the page is protected during E3, or we might as well destroy the page now and save time. --Kenny2k 05:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Good points. My biggest complaint is that although we all have these good intents wikipedia isn't a fan site (I know we hear it a lot) but what I mean is that we don't have to be the first place on the internet to provide facts or other information on this or anything else. We need to be more concerned about if the information is correct and true instead of being the first ones to provide the information. Any worthwhile information, in my opinion, will be announced officially. Again just my thoughts. (Poweroverwhelming 16:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC))

I don't know. I know a lot of people (including myself) who come here first for the information. What is an encyclopedia but a source for information? (Zojo 16:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC))

Wikipedia is useless if the information isn't verified. The information has to have a source before it is sourced here. DurinsBane87 16:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I understand your frustration and I want the most updated accurate information too. But keeping things in context the game doesn't even officially exist yet. If Nintendo wanted to they could still scrap the whole thing (highly unlikely and near impossible). My point is that although we want the newest information possible this is still an encyclopedia and as such most don't talk about stuff that is yet to happen. I haven't seen a encyclopedia that predicts a presidential election based on poll numbers and things that are likely to happen or talking about major disasters or war or anything else before it has already happened. Anyways I think I have made my point now... I'll shut up. I encourage people to speak their mind on this subject as I think it's important. (Poweroverwhelming 22:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC))

Sonic

If you guys really want to get serious about this article, you can't be putting useless comments like "As of June 2007, it is still unkown if Sonic will be included." (206.105.116.41 17:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC))

Stop bitching, if you hate it so much remove it....but it will be reverted and put back there so just stop bitching. --User:Fonzie77

...was that behavior called for? Maybe you can tell us why that text is needed.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 18:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

ummmm.....calm down Fonz....he can delete it if he wants...68.195.110.145 18:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

then the entire portion of sonic would be speculation; no offense, but if you take that out the info on sonic should go to and we don't need peope getting into edit wars, not with E3 coming so soon, we need to concentrate on important stuff like locking the article. Sasst82 19:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

No, Sonic is worth mentioning because the character is the most requested third party character. The info is fine as is. There is no need to have the statement "As of ..." because a person already says that "That's not in the cards at the moment". Obviously, if Sonic were to be announced, that would change. --myselfalso 19:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Didn't see that.Sasst82 20:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't like wikipedia's rules and even I relize that the "As of..." sentance is needed. And it is a redundant statement with "That's not on the cards at the moment" and the fact that he's absent from the confirmed charater section. All that is is a statement from a fan who's doing too much wishfull thinking. You're basically saying "He's not confirmed yet...but he probably will be soon. Just not now." (Zojo 22:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC))

If you say "As of June 2007, Sonic is still not confirmed", you might as well say the same thing about Yoshi. Nintendo talked about Sonic in Brawl. Nintendo talked about Yoshi in Brawl. Unless you also put "As of June 2007, Yoshi is still not confirmed", take it off the article. --Kenny2k 23:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Page Protection

See Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Current requests for protection. I've requested to protect the page. --myselfalso 20:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

It was declined.Sasst82 21:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Request again. This page is getting vandelized with the stupidest stuff, and has been completly cleared several times. --Kenny2k 23:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I did, but my timing was terrible, when I got it out there were already ones in front of it (I think they missed it). Sadly when the article is submitted for lockdown people spam it more, I hope I haven't lost anything, but I have reverted this article twice in the same day!!! It is getting very frustrating. I have requested a full lock during E3, no editing by anyone, but the admins.Sasst82 00:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

E3 protection is mandatory. I would perfer that it stayed protected until its released, though... --Kenny2k 02:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

myselfalso has commented on having the article locked until the game comes out.I personally would settle for through E3 over not having it locked at all. Also we don't know when it comes out (probably just have to get locked repeatedly)[[User:Sasst82|<font color=red>Sasst82</font>]] 02:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the page for a month. It's not preemptive (we don't protect pages preemptively, see WP:PROT), but it's because of the ridiculous amounts of vandalism for the past few weeks. Full protection during E3 is unlikely, as that should only be done when there are extreme levels of vandalism (though that could happen). — Malcolm^{Use the schwartz!} 21:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

WHY is there a section about Stages??

We've all been over this before. There isn't a Stages section on the other pages, and I think we all agreed at one point that it dosn't belong in the article. Should I remove it? --Kenny2k 22:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Somebody already removed it, I feel sorry for the guy who typed all that just to have it deleted. magiciandude (Talk) (review) 22:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Are they at least mentioned in the article somewhere. Even "a few new stages will be added such as [stage here]" somewhere would be good right?
Blindman shady 18:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Right. magiciandude (Talk) (review) 21:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. --Kenny2k 00:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? There IS a stages section on the other pages.--Claude 02:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes there are sections for stages in the other two articles, Kenny do your research before stating things --User:Fonzie77

So I can't state an opinion now? If you payed attention, I said "wrong" to having a stage section. On ANY SSB article. Its too trivial.--Kenny2k 09:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

no, you said "there isn't a stages section on the other pages", which was what they were complaining about. you're allowed to have opinions all you like, and we'll happily listen to them. :) Djchallis 11:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I think stages is a good idea so it must be a bad idea Anubiz ♦ 11:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Personally I think anything about the stages should be, at most, a subsection under the Gameplay section, or even just a paragraph within the Gameplay section. The fact that nearly all of the stages have something going on in them during battle is probably the most notable thing about the stages so far, as the said 'going ons' are fairly more significant and noticeable than those of the previous two games in the series. Disaster Kirby 11:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with the stages subsection, but we can't speculate as much as the section that was removed(It speculated on stages that were in the trailers). It would be a subsection because there is very little info on stages.The other two games do have stage sections, but one of them is just an overview of how many stages there are and the other mentions examples, so we don't need to name all the stages (from the game) in the article.Sasst82 15:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Should we place a vote then? magiciandude (Talk) (review) 15:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Tell me why does this article not have a stage section while the other two do? Is it becasue it hasnt been released yet? User:Fonzie77

Because there's hardly any information about stages available. For the other games, there is information on all the levels...for this game there's so far...5? Maybe 6? When characters and stages were merged into game play, it was the consensus at the time to have a characters subsection but not a stages subsection because of the lack of info. It was suggested to wait until release to have a stages section. --Son 17:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no way to have an actual section for them. The current set up is as in depth as we are going to go. At most, there may be a couple of decent details to add, but there won't be more than a paragraph on them at any time. TTN 17:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. --Kenny2k 03:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Zelda

Hey there, Zelda was revealed on the website today, she's been revamped to have her Twilight Princess look, the same as Link, can we add this to the character section?

You can, but it isn't neccessary. Deoxys911 07:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Um, I pretty much did when I put her name between Link and Fox in the 'new design' sentence of the Characters section. Disaster Kirby 07:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Is her hair darker than in Twilate Princess? Anubiz ♦ 09:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing, actually. It's definitely darker than in Melee. In any event, it's not really encyclopedic and probably doesn't need to be mention unless a big deal is made of it in the coming days. Jeff Silvers 12:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree.. Zelda's color tones are more vivid than in Twilight Princess (even on her dress).. but that's probably because TP's artistic style consisted mostly of washed up colors... maybe they decided to make her hair more contrasted in the transition from TP to Brawl so she would fit better with the abundance of shiny colors that are present in this game. Bleako 09:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The comment was "She has a slightly more subdued color scheme." But, still that really isn't necessary in the article. (Zojo 13:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC))

Fighters

We should split the chatours we barly evin meacon thim right now.Anubiz ♦ 11:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The characters section is fine. By going into some detail, and linking to the list of playable characters, it's organized. There is no need to really expand upon it. -Sukecchi 12:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Right now, the section does a nice, brief overview of the returning and debuting characters without going into unnecessary detail. Really, any additional details would either turn this into a game guide (for a game that hasn't been released, no less) or would require the posting of speculation--neither of which belongs at Wikipedia. Jeff Silvers 12:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

In time, though, a list might not be a bad idea if we start having to list 30+ fighters. (Zojo 13:37, 25 June 2007

(UTC))

Isn't that what the Playable Characters link is for? -Sukecchi 14:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

But for now it isn't unreabul to serpreat the fighters with a couple of seneses for each. Anubiz ♦ 13:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I cannot make heads or tails of what this is trying to say. Where's your spell check thing? -Sukecchi 14:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Sukecchi and Jeff Silvers. What we've got as the characters section is fine. TTN I believe was the editor to make the change and I agree with that. For what Zojo said, I can see that point because, when the game is released (and there are 30+ characters), I could see the need for a list. At the moment, it's unnecessary. We don't even know when the game is coming out yet (other than 2007). --Son 14:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Well Anubiz has been indef blocked so we wont have to worry about him anymore. Seems he was abusing multiple accounts. --User:Fonzie77

No he wasn't you numbskull. He was playing around. He always does that and we always forgive him. He's partially allowed to do that. He always reverts his bad edits. Way to ban a good did nothing wrong member there. Are you even an admin? Angry Sun 16:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

A admin DID block him. Stop yelling at me and check out the block itself. --User:Fonzie77

Calling people "numbskulls" (especially in a situation when you're wrong and the other user is right) doesn't solve anything, Angry Sun. — Malcolm ^talk 17:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Anyways....back to the point. It's fine as it is right now. But let me point something else out. Since Zelda was revealed directly from the site today, there is a definite possibility for other characters to be revealed soon. But we shouldn't add to the characters changes all the new characters as they start to come. You know, where it says some characters like Link, Zelda, Fox, etc etc have been slightly redefined?? I'm not saying we have to take out Zelda, just let's not add anymore to that list (Link, Zelda[insert ten chars here], Fox have been sli....) And, once there are 30+ chars, wouldn't it just be better to add them ONLY to the playable characters in the series section rather than on this article. I mean, we did give a link, right?? 68.195.110.145 19:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's more convinient for a person to look at list of characters for Brawl instead of going through that checklist of characters for all three games (remember some characters aren't returning and are going to be exclusive to Melee). I'd say when we get to a certain number we oughta make two lists; veterans and newcomers.

(on a side note, July issue of NP had nothing new on Brawl) (Zojo 17:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC))

E3, cant come soon enough. All though with the (hopefully) massive in-flux of info, there will be rumors. And we will have to deal with some kid that will say, "So-and-so confirmed Megaman, my brother was there" and add it to the page. But we must be ever vigilante, as we are the sole protector's of the Blood Emereld....ehh...SSBB article on Wikipedia. --User:Fonzie77

Well we don't know if some of the chars wont return. Sakurai said they MAY not return. He also said that he MAY not choose to use the wiimote for brawl, and now we have four different styles. 68.195.110.145 02:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

To correct the previous person, Sakurai never said characters "may not return." The exact translation that wikipedia used for a source said something along the lines as, "As for the previous games characters...some of them will disappear. Definetly." I remember that "Definetly" in there. Which is also why the thing at the bottom of the article about characters in the Smash Bros series isn't a complete list of the Brawl cast. (Zojo 22:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC))

In the melee article they do not list all the characters or give any descriptions of them because of the link to the table of playable characters, this has all been discussed on a different page people, So that should apply to this page too.→041744 04:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Have you niticed the page about melee characters not returning is gone? I don't know, but these games are KNOWN TO CHANGE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wii2-13 (talk • contribs)

It dissappeared because it was on the japanese official site before the makeover. Considering he used the word "definetely" I'd say the decision on some characters not returning will not change. (Zojo 22:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC))

Names

Should this be added to the article.... but where?

This time, names are extremely important. That’s because we’ve included personalized button configurations. We’ve made this game compatible with four different controllers. You can change button configurations for each one for each registered name, and alter those configurations any way you like. Assigning personal button configurations each time you fight would be a bit of a pain...but if you just choose your name from the list, BAM! You get to play with your preferred configuration! There’s no waiting! We’re also considering allowing you to save your name to the memory in your Wii Remote so you can bring your settings with you to your friend’s house...

DivineShadow218 07:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

It has already been added, just worded differently.Sasst82 15:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

no it hasn't DivineShadow218 19:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

That blurb is written from a weird perspective that wouldn't fit into the article, anyways. DurinsBane87 19:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

If it's not mentioned in the SSBM article, then I don't see why it should here. magiciandude (Talk) (review) 20:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

However, the names are now part of the gameplay. Unlike the last game, you can customize the controls to your name. It seems fairly important. --Kenny2k 21:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

magiciandude...that made no sense whatsoever. There are a lot of important transitions from Melee to Brawl that need to be added. This is one of them. The name you choose has a sort of memory to it that has your preferred "control" attached to it. In that control you can customize your well...configuration. This is a little fuzzy, I can't understand what he's saying. Is he referring to the different control styles, or that you can choose what buttons make what moves? I'm guessing the latter is impossible, but like I said it's fuzzy. Anyway, it's already added. Not in the detail it should be, but it's added nonetheless. 68.195.110.145 22:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd say adding the names screenshot with Samus to the article wouldn't be that bad of an idea... (Zojo 22:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC))

I'd say no to that. We don't even know of thats the real screen. Remember the caption "The character-selection screen is still a secret!"? That could mean anything, including that it's a fake image. Dengarde 23:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that there is something like the above quote in the article"The game can be played using four different control schemes: the Wii Remote on its side, the Wii Remote/Nunchuk combo, the Classic controller, or the standard GameCube controller.[7] Players will be able to create profiles with personalised button configurations for each control method.[10".Sasst82 00:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I would like to further point out that what you quoted, it dosn't state anything about the names. I think there should be mention of the names.DivineShadow218 00:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

It calls them profiles instead of names. Which is what they are. the name is the name of a profile. DurinsBane87 01:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)