Talk:Super Mario 64/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Older commentary

I would really like to see the math used to achieve a grand total of 2092 coins in the game. Perhaps the author has a list of how many coins per level? It would be greatly appreciated. Crisco 1492 20:45, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't think we need the glitches. This is not a player's guide.

I agree, but this has already been on VfD and the consensus was to keep them. Fredrik (talk) 22:27, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I think the glitches are nice info to have, but the problem is that the section is currently written like a player's guide. Still better than not having it at all, though. Every bit of detail helps. Everyking 23:18, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

"Not only was this Mario's first 3-D game, but it also made Mario the very first 2-D established video game character to appear in a 3-D game."

Not entirely true. Duke Nukem 3d was released January 29, 1996, so he beats Mario. One may argue: Duke didn't "appear" in Duke 3d, since it was in first person. At many points in the game you see his reflection, there is the "holo-duke" item, and you see his foot when he kicks. One may argue: Duke was a 2d sprite in a 3d world, so he wasn't a 3d character. Yes, but he was still in a 3d game.

So I guess I'll delete that line out of the article.

Change it to "one of the first". -- Grunt (talk) 00:52, 2004 Aug 29 (UTC)

This is old, but I'd like to point out that Duke wasn't really 3D in Duke Nukem 3D. It's what we like to call 2&1/2D.--SeizureDog 09:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

All right, I think we need to do something about the glitches section. I think the glitches deserve a mention, but only as a brief summary; we don't need the detailed game guide description of what to do. An encyclopedia article should describe aspects of the game, but it doesn't need to guide players in how to do things. Does anyone have a suggestion? Everyking 16:07, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

---

Glitches and metal box info removed, at least temporarily. Metal box because it's trivia blown out of proportion, and glitches because it's just an obstruction ATM. May I suggest the glitches howto is moved to Wikibooks? Fredrik | talk 21:00, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree that the Metal box is trivia blown out of proportion, but I found the Glitches section particularly interesting. When this article gets more information added to it, the Glitches section won't look so big compared to the other parts. I think anyone who owns the game would be interested in glitches, so I propose that we put the glitches section back in. --pie4all88 21:35, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If anything, it should be on a separate page. Fredrik | talk 21:45, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think we should stick the glitches in Wikibooks and link to that page in the article. Wikibooks should have a game guide on Super Mario 64 anyway, we'd just be giving it a start. We'd also drive some much-needed interest into that project, if the article ends up featured on the main page. ~ FriedMilk 22:29, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)

Done. -- [[User:Bobdoe|BobDoe]] 23:05, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Screenshots

Hi, I could make some higher quality screenshots like Image:N64_Super_Mario_64.jpg if you tell me what they should show. I don't think that the current screenshots are very helpful, because they don't help the reader to understand the game. Especially the third one is pure decoration without much value. No 2 is quite ok, but should show a little bit more landscape. The first one is not very typical for SM64 gameplay, it shows a very special scene. Image:N64_Super_Mario_64.jpg would be useful for a start, as it shows a regular gameplay scene, but what else should be shown and how many screenshots can be justified for that article? (typical size of a N64 screenshot is 100kb)--Tyan23 20:01, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree that the screenshots here aren't the best, so if you can take some that are better, that would be great. I'd say we need maybe one that illustrates the gameplay (like Image:N64_Super_Mario_64.jpg), one that focuses on the graphics of Super Mario 64 (like a screenshot of a memorable or unusual place), and maybe some that complement specific parts of the article. The first picture, it is true, does not illustrate typical gameplay--however, flying is a popular part of Super Mario 64. I mean, look at the cover of the box... Personally, I like a lot of pictures, but then again I have a cable connection :) pie4all88 19:49, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Suggest a memorable place. My screenshot concerns are about Wikipedia's storage capacity. The thumbnail in the article are much smaller, their size is under 10kb.--Tyan23 20:01, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I made a screenshot of Mario fighting Bowser, i think that's memorable. With 4-5 screenshots, as Fredrik suggested, 2-3 are left. Which courses/motives should I take? I guess it's a good idea to include at least one of the obstacle courses, like Lethal Lava Land or Bowser In the Dark World. And one of the missions... I have a picture of Mario carrying the baby penguin to its mother (Cool Cool Mountain). Better suggestions?--Tyan23 22:07, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

How about 2-3 images from each level (if it's not too much work)? We could have 4-5 images in the article and a separate gallery page. Fredrik | talk 19:53, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

How many levels are there? I have no idea, haven't played it for almost 10 years and my game currently has only 6 stars... concerning a gallery, see this discussion: Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Sega_Genesis_Screenshot_Gallery... Wikibooks would be a better place for a complete guide.--Tyan23 20:01, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

15 main courses (it says so in the article, too). Yeah, gallery articles have been a point of controversy in the past, so that might not be the thing to do. Everyking 20:05, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

oops, that's a little bit too much for me :)--Tyan23 22:07, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Just wanted to applaud you, Tyan23, for your excellent images of Super Mario 64. I think they greatly benefit the article as a whole. pie4all88 20:16, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've got a killer image of Dire, Dire Docks, but I'm not certain as to where to put it in the article. Anyone want to take a crack at it? -- [[User:Bobdoe|BobDoe]] 04:25, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ok, I put it in under the Courses section. I'm not sure if it would be better to put that under the Rumors section, though...then again, a picture illustrating "L is real 2004" would be great there, so I'll leave it open (I've never seen that texture they're talking about). After that, we should be all set with images--thanks for your contribution. pie4all88 02:44, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Done. -- [[User:Bobdoe|BobDoe]] 04:43, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

People, we need screenshots that are coming from the original game and not an emulator! --Kaleb.G 23:08, 2004 Nov 29 (UTC)

Why? Andre (talk) 23:09, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

What do you mean "Why?" The answer should be simple. An emulator GREATLY enhances the graphics of this game, but we need to display the game as it was originally designed. Posting nothing but screenshots from an emulator would be like trying to put nothing but Super Mario All-Stars pics in the Super Mario 3 wiki and then never mention Super Mario All-Stars, or like posting screenshots of jDoom all over the DOOM wiki. I will admit it's hard to find good Mario 64 screenshots online, but these are just a lie of the game's graphical ability.

--Kaleb.G 23:22, 2004 Nov 29 (UTC)

Emulators don't enhance graphics! That's nonsense. Games are developed while being played on emulators - how do you think the programmers write the code on a PC and check it in real time? The whole purpose of the emulator is to act like the actual game console - graphics aren't enhanced, they are interpreted literally. If you think emulated graphics are significantly better than graphics on a console connected to a TV, your TV is just bad. Andre (talk) 23:57, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

It's not quite true that emulators don't enhance graphics. These screenshots use higher resolution (the N64 has 640x480 support, but most games don't use that). Also, there are some differences in rendering. Most noticeably, the N64 uses some kind of dithered edge anti-aliasing that AFAIK is unsupported by PC graphics cards (at least it's not enabled in any of these screenshots). I don't think emulator screenshots are much of a problem for this kind of game, though; what I can't stand is screenshots of 2D games with 2xSaI (or jDoom... eww) -- Fredrik | talk 01:31, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I know what emulators are, and how they work; I am a programmer. They don't have to enhance graphics, but they most certainly can, and in this case, they most certainly do (which is why I specifically said "this game" in my previous post). As Fredrik pointed out, some 3D emulators can provide several video and rendering options that never existed for the original systems. The emulator "Project 64" (which I assume is being used here) can reach resolutions much, much higher than that of the original N64. This creates much smoother polygon edges and allows for more texture detail to be visible on screen at any given time. However, the biggest difference in these emulated screenshots as opposed to the graphics of the original game are the quality of the textures. The Nintendo 64 was known (especially in its early years) for its smooth yet rather blurry textures, which were the result of a special texture filtering process. However, in the emulated screenshots, the textures are leaps and bounds ahead in quality compared to the original game, and they even beat out some of the best looking textures to ever grace the Nintendo 64.

Now, the current screenshots aren't going to harm anything, but this being a featured article and all, it would be a lot more accurate and professional to show screens from the actual game instead of an illegal ROM dump running on some emulator developed by a team with no association to Nintendo whatsoever. Obtaining un-emulated screenshots should remain on the list of things to do without question.

--Kaleb.G 03:05, 2004 Nov 30 (UTC)

I don't think it's such a big deal. If you capture card is good enough, you can get very nice console screens, but this requires effort. Very few people know what emulators are, and even fewer can outrightly tell the difference between a rom screenshot and one from a console. Saying that they were acquired using an illegal dumping of Nintendo's intellectual property is irrelevent - many very cool wallpapers, animations and graphics on the internet are made by people using pirated software, but noone really cares how they were made. Um yeah, it's not a big deal, calm down :) alexpenev 04:42, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I would say that if at all possible, we should try to get real screenshots of Mario 64. I will say that even before looking at this conversation I had thought to myself, "These screenshots are too sharp. They must have been emulated." Since the article is about Mario 64 on the Nintendo 64, not Mario 64 on an emulator, it would be better to use non-emulated pictures. It provides a more accurate historical reference point. That said, it's not a super high priority. --Carl 02:15, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There isn't any point in trying to get "genuine" console screenshots. Using the Rice Video Plugin, you can set the game's graphics to simulate the original resolution of the Nintendo 64, and it's not worth the effort to hook up capture cards and get tangled in a mess of cables. Just forget about this idea, please. --Eugene2x -- ☺ Nintendo rox! 23:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Development

Anyone have any useful info about the game's development? I found this on the Internet, but that's pretty much it:

17 November -95
Information about Super Mario 64 starts to leak out and reliably sources assures
that it will be a totally 3dimensional platform game.
24 November -95
World premier for the N64 and 13 games at Shoshinkai in Tokyo. 2 playable games Super Mario 64
(50% completed )and Kirby Bowl (20% completed)

N64 History

I know I have one or two gaming magazine issues with possibly relevant previews of the Ultra 64 and Super Mario 64, but they're located 500 km from where I live right now... Fredrik | talk 22:39, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Read this interview and the other ones in the Miyamoto Shrine.--Tyan23 10:18, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Okay, could anyone write this part (basically -- rewrite the interview)? I tried, but apparently I'm totally out of focus today (have exam on Monday). Fredrik | talk 19:53, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

"L is real 2004."

I don't know much about it, but apparently some people interpreted one of the blurry textures in M64 as saying this. They then turned it into a big theory of what it meant and how Luigi is somehow hidden in the game. If anyone knows more about this, we should add a section about fans searching for Luigi in M64 and the many things they tried to make him appear.

Also, there should be a better explanation of the end of the game, how with <70 stars the staircase goes on endlessly, and how with 120 stars, one can go on the roof and talk to Yoshi, who gives you 1-ups and encourages you to continue playing (though at that point no major secrets remain, feeding the speculation about Luigi...).

--Carl 06:31, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I will add stuff about that. –Andre (talk) 11:08, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

There used to be rumors about the cannon that appears in the front of the castle (used to access Yoshi once the player has 120 stars). The rumors involved firing the cannon in a particular way (the actual way varied from rumor to rumor) to access some hidden area where you could meet Luigi and then play through a secret stage with him. These rumors were probably fueled by some buggy things you could do with that particular cannon. ~~Anon 02:04, Jan 31, 2005 (EST)

I'm currently working on reverse-engineering Super Mario 64, I already have an online Shockwave based demo where you can fly around a few of the levels. I may provide interesting insights about the game development in the future. Until then, this addition to the discussion is to tell you that I uploaded the "L is Real 2041" texture, as decoded directly from the game. The original texture is 32x32 pixels, and my uploaded replica is zoomed 400% and has no blurring or filtering so you can discern the original pixels. Image:L_is_Real_Texture_SM64.png See for yourself, each "letter" is 2 pixels wide! --VL-Tone

Note

The N64 launched with Super Mario 64, PilotWings 64, and Star Wars: Shadows of the Empire, right? I changed the first sentence to "one of the first games released for the Nintendo 64". pie4all88 23:20, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

In the US, it launched with just SM64 and Pilotwings, and the Star Wars game followed a few months later. Everyking 00:05, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Some anonymous user changed it to the first, but that seems to have be forgotten in all the vandalism that comes of being a front page article. I'll fix it. --Carl 02:36, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

References

Perhaps this is an odd question, but how exactly do we reference some of the claims we've made in this article? For instance, can we cite the game for all of the course information? Is that original research? -- [[User:Bobdoe|BobDoe]] 17:00, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• No, it's not original research. Direct observations (and apparently even critical analysis) are OK (Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not: "But of course critical analysis of art is welcome, if grounded in direct observations."). The game itself ought to suffice as a reference for the course information. Fredrik | talk 17:14, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• It's direct observation, yeah. If we must, we can cite player's guides. Andre (talk) 17:21, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

A question: why do we have a separate "Notes" section? I thought the policy was to put links inline with the text to make [1] and [2] and so on. Andre (talk) 17:31, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

Because then there is a way of seeing them all. If they are not collected at the bottom they can be very tedious to find. On another note, is it possible to get some general references for this article? Are there any online resources that would qualify as a reliable reference? Or could the game manual be cited as a general reference? - Taxman 19:03, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Influence on other games

In a speech to the European Developer's forum (a transcript of which can be found at http://www.zoonami.com/briefing/2004-09-02.php), Martin Hollis, a designer on the N64 game GoldenEye, explained how the development team at Rareware was infuenced by Mario 64 when they created their mission structure. Perhaps some mention could be made of that, perhaps under a section dedicated to Mario 64's influence on later titles - or would it be more appropriate to just include it on the GoldenEye page?

I've integrated this into the "Precedents" section. --Slowking Man 00:23, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

Original game of franchise?

Wasn't this Mario Brothers (1984) and not Super Mario Brothers (1985)? --Eric 00:22, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Mario Brothers was an arcade game. Super Mario Brothers gave birth to the Mario platforming games, which is the vein that Super Mario 64 is in. --Slowking Man 00:31, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

Was Mario Brothers ported to the NES before or after the debut of Super Mario Brothers? The article seems to imply that it was the former, making Mario Brothers the actual ancestor of the series. Although it was, admittedly, not a side-scrolling platformer like the rest of the series, the gameplay was prototypical of the later games in the series. As the article also notes, several items introduced in the game were later reused for Super Mario Brothers. --Eric 02:01, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Whoops! A closer read of the article shows that it wasn't ported to the NES until '85. I stand corrected! --Eric 02:05, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hang on a second! I remember The Mario Bros were on a monochrome LCD game in the early eighties (much like the Doney Kong Version) To elaborate, it was a fixed view (not even side scrolling) game with controls for Mario and Luigi either side of a stack of conveyer belts loading boxes. This predates NES and must have been around 83. It does not matter how the game was played compared to today's version the franchise began earlier and whether it was the arcade, LCD version or wharever needs to be clarified. Dainamo 11:39, 31 Jan 1983 (UTC)

Mario Bros. was among the first Nintendo games for the Famicom, it was released in September 1983. [1]

Surely that would be Donkey Kong (1981)? The gameplay doesn't really bear much resemblance to the Super Mario games - but it is a platformer, and features Mario as the central character. 217.34.39.123 12:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

POV statment

Thanks to the anon who removed the unsourced POV statement "It is considered by many to be one of the greatest games of all time." I have posted a note to Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/January 31, 2005 asking for an admin to remove it from the main page as well. HI If an admin is reading this here, though, would you be so kind as to remove it? Thanks. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 03:19, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

Reading further down, I see some cites for the popularity of the game. I still think the sentence is inappropriate for the introductory paragraph, though. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 03:24, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

I agree, this entire article is soaked in Nintendo-centric POV. Comments such as "As the first 3D game in the Mario franchise, Super Mario 64 defined the 3D platformer, much as the franchise's original game, Super Mario Bros., defined the 2D sidescrolling platformer." are completely inappropriate on Wikipedia's main page. GRider\^talk 22:44, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Have a look at our article on Miles Davis. In the very first sentence, you'll find that he "was one of the most influential, innovative and original musicians of the twentieth century". Is that Miles Davis-centric fanboyism? Does such a statement violate the NPOV policy? No, and WP:NPOV explains why:

By "fact," we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." In this sense, that a survey produced a certain published result is a fact. That Mars is a planet is a fact. That Socrates was a philosopher is a fact. No one seriously disputes any of these things. So we can feel free to assert as many of them as we can.

The keywords are "serious dispute". No one seriously disputes that Miles Davis was one of the most influential musicians of the twentieth century. Likewise, I haven't read a magazine that claims Super Mario 64 wasn't the defining 3D platformer. I agree that references should be provided for such assertions, though, but here they should be added to the "reception" section, not the lead section. Fredrik | talk 23:20, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I added references and restored some of the text of an earlier version. Andre (talk) 00:16, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

Maybe these should be moved to the "notes" section? Fredrik | talk 00:38, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think it looks bad to have five external links cited in the intro. I'd say pick one or two, and either remove the others or move them to another spot in the article. Everyking 01:05, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

GRider has reverted again without any explanation except what I have challenged above. Content disputes must be resolved by seeking consensus through discussion. Until GRider he shows willingness to discuss, I am going to revert his edits. Fredrik | talk 19:59, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As will I. To GRider: I think you don't understand that we're not saying the game is fun, or good, or unique, which you could dispute. We're saying it was hugely influential and it changed the face of gaming. The conventions of 3D platformers today stem largely from Super Mario 64. I think you would have a lot of trouble disputing this, but at any rate it's a well-established fact, as many of our sources say. As an analogy, in 10 or 20 years I'll probably be saying that George W. Bush and his administration revolutionized the world. I'm a staunch libertarian/liberal Democrat who was pro-Gore and then pro-Kerry, but that doesn't mean I can't admit George W. Bush is a really influential guy, and as a source there's his TIME Man of the Year bit (which is about being influential and important, not being good or poltically skilled). Andre (talk) 21:18, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

Screenshots (2)

I have a TV Tuner which I play my N64 and other consoles on, would that do? And, sorry about starting a new section; I thought the section was getting too big and cluttered. Also, what screenshots are needed? -- A Link to the Past July 2, 2005 08:03 (UTC)

From what I've read of the original Screenshots thread, it seems that screenshots close to the current emulated screenshots would be ideal, so the captions still match. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 3 July 2005 13:07 (UTC)

So, what, is that a yes or no? I'm kinda an idiot, so you'll have to be blunt 'bout that. -- A Link to the Past July 3, 2005 19:29 (UTC)

It's a yes. Please recreate the scenes in the existing screenshots and take captures of them. You can even overwrite the existing files without touching this page using the upload function. The existing screenshots are really nice, but just a little bit too clear to give the reader an accurate impression of the rendering power of the N64. Your screen captures would solve the problem. Thanks a bunch in advance. --Carl 4 July 2005 02:10 (UTC)

I can do every shot, except for the Yoshi-on-the-Castle shot. Truth be told, I can reach about every area that are shown in the screenshots, except for that 120 Star shot. Never could get all of those Stars, and never could reach the top of the Castle through that Wall Jump Trick. -- A Link to the Past July 4, 2005 20:14 (UTC)

Other languages

Does anyone think that we should take this information and attempt to improve other SM64 articles? -- A Link to the Past 20:52, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Edits by User:The-

User:The- removed the entire "Impact" section, arguing that it should go into an article about 3D gaming. I agree that the section could be trimmed, but SM64 was central in the development of 3D games and this certainly needs to be covered in depth. Removing the details about the courses was entirely unjustified. Why should it be put on a separate page (which hasn't happened anyway)? As for the reference to Mario Kart, no other Mario Kart games had been released at the time. Fredrik | talk 10:58, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

The descriptions of courses belongs on Wikibooks. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:34, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. Course walkthroughs belong on Wikibooks, the encyclopedia article should describe the game and the courses are part of it. Fredrik | talk 17:50, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

This is one of, if not THE only, Mario article to actually have a description of every level in the game. This is not content for an encyclopedia. No offense to the article writers (who wrote it well), but I'm surprised this content got past the voters. Look at Wario - while not a game article, it doesn't go crazy with his powerups, or some character list. Mario, as it is, has an excessive amount of powerup descriptions (although that's my doing, I changed it from the even worst list of powerups). - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:02, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, Super Mario Sunshine has similar level description, and Super Mario Bros. for example describes all levels although in less space because there is less variety. The course information is relevant and useful because it describes the extent of the game's virtual universe, and how many different concepts the designers were able to incorporate.

I think the guiding principle for including details is whether they contribute to the bigger picture. The fact that there are 2093 coins, or that five of them are located beneath the bridge in Bob-omb Battlefield, clearly don't, but the breadth of the content and the functional aspects of the gameplay are. On the other hand, the level information must not necessarily be covered in a bullet list.

I would however agree entirely that the secret, cap, and Bowser courses don't need to be covered with as much detail as they are (i.e. it would be sufficient to say something along the lines of "Mario encounters Bowser three times along the way; in the 'Dark World', 'Fire Sea' and finally in the 'Sky'. By beating Bowser in each course, Mario is granted a key to unlock a new floor of the castle."). Fredrik | talk 18:33, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Fredrik. Andre (talk) 19:34, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

I admit I was wrong removing the Impact section, but still think I was right in removing the course descriptions. The- 16:40, 8 December, 2005

Removing cruft

I think you stripped far too much from the Rumors section, and the other sections. Please put some back. This is a featured article, remember. Andre (talk) 22:42, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. I thought the elaboration on "L is Real 2041" was especially interesting. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 23:44, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Wild, unsourced speculation along the lines of "Some have suggested that in the year 2041 Nintendo will unveil the secret" and "many have thought that in a Bowser stage, where Bowser's flames give off coins, this could be possible, although nobody has managed to get more than 1000 coins" is not informative. Fredrik | talk 11:11, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

FARC

While I don't want to get in bad with anyone, I feel that this article is no longer up to FA standards. If the cruft can't be eliminated, I'll be forced to, 'Kay?

For one, trim or remove the level list, unless you can explain why it's needed (considering a lot of the levels you cannot even access until a certain point in the game).

Delete IMDB link. IMDB is not a good source of information in regards of video games.

Flesh out sequels a bit.

Flesh out the many "Sentencegraphs" (sentence-long paragraphs). That applies to TWO sentence-long paragraphs as well!

Cut out two of the images (Kicking a Goomba, Carrying a penguin, etc.), and move the remaining image to the right.

And there you go. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:11, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with you, in general. Andre (talk) 02:12, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Courses

Please keep them. They aren't an attempt to lengthen the page - they provide useful information and exposition. Andre (talk) 03:37, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. Link (Legend of Zelda) is different because the enemies and allies can be described in other articles, but we really don't need a separate article for the courses. Unless we create a page called "Courses in Mario games", which on the other hand would be an interesting topic in itself. Fredrik | talk 11:14, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Beta image

The beta version image is preferable to the Dire, Dire Docks image. First, the original image was placed in the "Courses" section, but there are too many images to fit comfortably in that section, so it got "shoved" downwards into the Development section. It is more relevant in the Development section. Second, the Docks image being older or being in a featured article doesn't necessarily make it best. Articles don't become frozen after they're featured; if the article can be improved, it should be. - Evil saltine 01:58, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

• This is probably a dumb question, but can we use a screenshot that a wikipedian did not take or get explicit permision to use? -- Bobdoe (Talk) 08:51, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
  • If you're thinking of the beta image in particular, I believe it was taken by Nintendo (because I've seen it in more than one magazine). I doubt we could get their explicit permission, but we can claim fair use. Fredrik | talk 14:10, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I liked the Docks image. I think it should be re-added in elsewhere, though the beta one can be kept as well. Andre (talk) 18:58, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Two phrases from the lead section that I don't like

I don't like "flagship killer game", because it seems to say the same thing twice. And I don't like "redefined", because the 3D platform genre at that time wasn't really defined to begin with. Fredrik | talk 19:38, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Flagship and killer game are different. A flagship product is the one produced and promoted by a company over all others, and a killer game is a system seller. Though many killer games are often flagship games as well, not all are, necessarily. I agree about redefined though - I just switched it to plain old "define." Andre (talk) 19:48, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

I'm aware of the difference, but it sounds awkward nevertheless. Perhaps it can be reworded. Fredrik | talk 20:01, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Images

Here's the full list of images of this game:

• Image:Super Mario 64 box cover.jpg
• Image:Super Mario 64 jumping.jpg
• Image:SuperMario64--N64--Screenshot.jpg
• Image:SuperMario64--N64--Screenshot2.jpg
• Image:SuperMario64--N64--Screenshot3.jpg
• Image:N64 Super Mario 64.jpg
• Image:N64 Super Mario 64 bowser tail.jpg
• Image:N64 Super Mario 64 whomp fortress.jpg
• Image:N64 Super Mario 64 lethal lava land.jpg
• Image:N64 Super Mario 64 shifting sand land.jpg
• Image:N64 Super Mario 64 metal.jpg
• Image:N64 Super Mario 64 flying.jpg
• Image:N64 Super Mario 64 invisible.jpg
• Image:Mario64 - Dire Dire Docks.png
• Image:L is Real 2041.png
• Image:N64 Super Mario 64 cool cool mountain.jpg
• Image:N64 Super Mario 64 diving.jpg
• Image:N64 Super Mario 64 kicking.jpg
• Image:N64 Super Mario 64 start.jpg
• Image:Super mario64 02.jpg
• Image:Yoshimario64.jpg
• Image:Lakitu cameraman SM64.png

We should delete those that serve no purpose for this article. Fredrik | tc 02:24, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

SM64 DS merger

When did this happen? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC))

It happened after A Link to the Past decided to go with with the usual "merge without discussion/consensus". The Prince (talk) 16:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

After doing some digging, I've found some sources for the reception and development sections of the DS game. The development isn't anything too in-depth, but I'd say it's enough to warrant a section. I still have a few sites to check so I may find some more. Any objections to splitting it back out? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC))

I would not be surprised if there were enough material for a separate article. Pagrashtak 18:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I support it. SM64DS is definitely notable enough for it's own page. The SM64 article should be reverted back again once the split has been done, though. The Prince (talk) 18:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Some of it is from Super Mario 64 2. Quick question, what's the difference between Super Mario 64 2 and Super Mario 128? If they are related, perhaps the two should be merged. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC))

I don't think they are quite the same thing why they are both mentioned as sequals to 64 Mario 128 was never mentioned to be for the 64DD implying that they were two sperate unreleased products. --76.71.215.109 (talk) 17:19, 18 October 2008 (UTC) I think Super Mario 128 was a working title or hype title for Super Mario Sunshine

I recreated the DS article from the redirect. It looks like it could make GA, so I'll try to rewrite and expand on it more later. But at the moment, this article needs some attention for Version 0.7. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC))

Wikipedia is not a fanboy website.

Someone is repeatedly removing criticisms just because he does not like it.This clearly violates Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.Do not vandalize this page.--133.2.9.161 (talk) 05:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I assume this is Handsome elite/Dr90s, if not please correct me. While I can understand how you would want this article to be as accurate as possible, the article does already include some negative content in regard to the game, albeit a small amount. Though the reason for the small amount was because the game was so well received.

However, the main reason for the information's removal is the reliability of the sources, per WP:Reliable sources. Nintendorks looks to be a privately owned blog, done by an non-notable person (i.e. someone who is not an industry expert). This does not satisfy Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion. Game Revolution may or may not qualify as reliable source, but I'd rather not take a chance with a Featured article. The FA criteria has been getting tighter and tighter lately and I see no reason to include some information that is actually already covered in the article—criticism about the camera—with a source that someone could use to take this article to WP:FAR.

I'm sorry things happened the way they did, but I still stand firm on my stance. Nintendorks does not constitute a reliable source, and unless you can demonstrate Game Revolution as a reliable source, I do not think it should be included. Thank you for starting a discussion here to talk this out, and I hope you have a good day. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC))

Metacritic score is influenced by both Game Revolution and Nintendorks.[2]Metacritic announces they uses only reliable reviews.Nintendork is not a privately owned blog, and not done by an non-notable person.Game Revolution and Nintendorks are both enough reliable.Adding criticisms improves this article as this article becomes more neutral, which is required in wikipedia."the shifting camera angle took getting used to" is not criticism and not enough information, there is a need to show readers bad points about the camera.--43.244.132.168 (talk) 15:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

While Metacritic may consider them to be reliable, they do not seem to qualify as such on Wikipedia. As I've stated before, "Nintendorks looks to be a privately owned blog, done by an non-notable person." That does not meet Wikipedia's guideline for a reliable source, per WP:V#SELF. If it not a blog, please explain why. As I've also stated before, "unless you can demonstrate Game Revolution as a reliable source, I do not think it should be included." It is privately owned and used on Metacritic, which are both good points in its favor. However, I could not find any information on their editorial oversight, and its Wikipedia article is under examination for its notability. Both of those are strong points against it in my mind.

In regard to the criticism, there is another comment in addition to the "getting use to" comment, "by present day standards the camera system 'would almost be considered broken'". And further down in the next section is information how the game is indirectly linked to the demise of the N64. So while Wikipedia is meant to be neutral, it is also suppose to portray the information as accurately as possible while being verifiable by reliable sources.

Now, while I'm happy to discuss this with you, continuing to edit while a discussion is still ongoing is not the best practice and can lead to your IP address(es) being blocked. If you want to discuss this further, that's fine, but controversial content should be removed while discussions are taking place. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC))

"Nintendorks looks to be a privately owned blog, done by an non-notable person." is just your opinion, and no evidence is shown. Metacritic is more reliable than you--43.244.132.168 (talk) 16:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Game Revolution is included in Template:VG Reviews.It is obvious they are reliable.--43.244.132.168 (talk) 16:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The first item listed on the main page is:

"DRCs 06-17-08 06.17.08 - Brandon
Blee blah bloo bleep.
Mr. Face say read more » "

There is no information that states who owns the site, a company owned website would display text or a logo to designate this. And, the authors only go by first names. It looks like an awful lot like a personal blog to me. And while this is an educated assumption, there is no information to state otherwise. If you can provide such information, instead of simply asserting that it is reliable, then we can discuss this further. But without it, I'm sorry to say see no reason to include it.

In regard to Game Revolution, there are several websites listed on the VG Reviews template that should probably not be on there. It is an unprotected template that anyone can edit. There have several discussion on WT:VG about the number of sources on there and their reliability. As I've stated before, "I could not find any information on their editorial oversight, and its Wikipedia article is under examination for its notability." (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC))

Let me get this straight: You consider Nintendorks reliable, but not Gaming Age? Why? You have not yet given one single good reason why the sources are reliable/not reliable. And why can't you just drop this one; is it so important for you that the article contains excessive information from Game Revolution and Nintendorks? If everyone thought the way you did, the reception section would eventually be as big as the article itself. You can't include every single source, just because you consider it reliable. You have to keep in mind that users like me and Guy have worked on this article to include the most important criticisms and praise, to make the article as comprehensible as possible. This is an FA, and adding excessive information for your benefit is not good for anyone. Sorry if I seem a little big rude, but it had to be said. The Prince (talk) 07:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

IP 43.244.132.168- While I understand the reasons behind you edits, I still have to disagree on the grounds that the sources do not look to satisfy WP:Reliable sources. Because of this I have removed the content and I kindly ask that please stop adding in such sources. A general sweep of the article is planned, during which I will look at the current sources for criticism about the game. If you happen to find other sources, you are welcome to post them here so we can check them against Wikipedia's reliability guidelines. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC))

That Game Revolution and The Video Game Critic do not look reliable sources is just your personal opinion. Over 140 articles use Game Revolution as reference.[3]Obviously your opinion is a minority opinion. Furthermore, If your criteria are adopted, it results in numerous sources considered unreliable, and nemerous information being removed. Your edits seem to be based on fanboyism.--43.244.132.168 (talk) 15:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you have not provided information to establish the sites' reliability. I have already stated above why I think Game Revolution is questionable. The video game critic looks to be owned and operated by a single person with no editorial oversight listed, which is the equivalent of a blog. I understand how this can be frustrating, but these are Wikipedia's guidelines. And while we're editing here, we have to abide by them. If you want more opinions on this matter, you are welcome to post on the Reliable sources Noticeboard and the Video games project talk page. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC))

what is editorial oversight? Please show GameSpot' editorial oversight as an example. Which page of GameSpot shows their editorial oversight?--43.244.132.168 (talk) 16:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Editorial oversight is a process in which content is checked for accuracy and reliability, and allows for corrections.

In regard to GameSpot, as a subsidiary CNET Networks, which is in turn a subsidiary of CBS Corporation, GameSpot falls under their editorial oversight which can be found here. Their reliability is furthered by the fact GameSpot has been sourced by other publications and some of their content is mirrored on Yahoo! Games. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC))

Actually, now that I think about it, I've seen Game Revolution been used quite a few times in GA/FA articles. AoEII just recently passed FA status with GR in it, and no one seemed to have a problem with it's reliability. I'm not saying we should include it or that it's a reliable source, I'm just spitballing. The Prince (talk) 09:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed it in Shadow of the Colossus yesterday too, but its FAC was a few years ago. My main problem with it is I can't seem to find much info about the site itself on http://www.gamerevolution.com/ or its parent site http://www.craveonline.com/. Also, User:Ealdgyth, the FAC sources guru, didn't post a check of the sources at the AoEII FAC. But User:Karanacs did do a sweep.

Hmmm.... I guess we should probably get some feedback at WT:VG. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 12:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC))

strategywiki is obviously has no reliability. Ownt.com is not a reliable source. It has no information on their editorial oversight. nsider is Privately Owned, not reliable. discuss before adding contents with no reliability.--43.244.132.168 (talk) 15:19, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

After the discussion at WT:VG, it looks like reviews from Game Revolution are suitable for sources. I've added the content from there back in and also included a review from Next Gen magazine. I plan to do some tweaking of the Reception section later to iron out the flow of the writing.

I'm sorry things have worked out this way. And hope this result is a happy mid point for both sides. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC))

New Play Control! version?

Someone (using an IP address) added that this game will be re-released for the "New Play Control!" line of Wii games. The New Play Control! page has also been updated with this information (by a separate IP address user). Is this true? A quick Google search turned up nothing to confirm this, and it doesn't seem to fit, as "New Play Control!" games are all former GameCube games, not N64 games. -Sesu Prime (talk) 10:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

It should be removed now. Thanks for bringing it to the talk page. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC))

Star Fox 2

According to Dylan Cuthbert of Q-Games in this documentary, some programming elements done for Star Fox 2, such as the camera and platforming programs, were adapted and reused for the development of Super Mario 64. Should this info be included in the article? Parrothead1983 (talk) 02:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Use of Emulator Screenshots

I think the use of images that are obviously from an N64 emulator cannot possibly be justified here. The page is about the N64 version and thus the graphical capabilities (or rather limitations) should be noted, not those of a higher resolution version. HolyB144 (talk) 13:21, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you can tell whether or not they are from an emulator. It doesn't matter either way. The game would still have the same graphics. Emulators don't magically make the graphics better just because they are on your computer. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 13:57, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 6 October 2011

In Impact and Legacy, there should be a brief reference to the Paper Mario L is Real theory. It was noted in many gameing websites.

Whatamidoingtoday (talk) 17:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Bility (talk) 17:34, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

User unlikely to do so, he is indefinitely blocked. Salvidrim (talk) 18:12, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Cuthbert: "Super Mario FX" was never in production

Hi! I was searching through a fansite when I found a page discussing "Super Mario FX"...

http://www.snescentral.com/article.php?id=1032 - http://www.webcitation.org/6B3583nxh

The Super Mario 64 article uses this IGN article (Archive) as a source, but the above site argues that IGN likely had sourced it from an interview with Shigeru Miyamoto in a Nintendo Power issue (Archive) (I can't tell exactly which year and day it is) but that IGN got what the interview said wrong. The IGN article does not say where it got its information.

"If you read the IGN page, it is obvious that they were looking at the above article (which mentions the five year development schedule). The only problem is that if you actually read the article, it simply states that he got the idea for making a 3D Mario game while making Star Fox (which was in development five years previous to the publication of the article), not that he was actually developing a Super FX Mario game. Nintendo announced Project Reality in August 1993 - only a half a year after the initial release of Star Fox. It is implausible that Miyamoto would work on a Super FX Mario game while also working on the Nintendo 64 hardware."

So he proceeded to contact Dylan Cuthbert on Twitter, and got this: http://twitter.com/#!/dylancuthbert/statuses/165596909413728256

• Fansite operator: "I'm researching unreleased SNES games, was a game called "Super Mario FX" ever in development?"
• Cuthbert: "no, that was the internal code name for the FX chip"

So that means that the name "Super Mario FX" has nothing to do with Super Mario 64, and that the IGN source is faulty, correct? WhisperToMe (talk) 04:19, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I just informed the fansite owner of this discussion, to show him that I am initiating this discussion after reading the content on his site. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Since there was no further input I went ahead and did the edits. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Platform List

Why isn't the Nintendo DS on the platform list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joruto (talk • contribs) 10:41, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 June 2012

Reference #50, the link to GamePro's article on games.net is dead, and should be marked as such. Derektom14 (talk) 05:54, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• Archived here. Salvidrim! 06:14, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Soundtracks and audio

There is a current discussion going on here Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Discussion about how Soundtracks, and audio are presented in the articles. Other users wanted to start a discussion on it, and the results will effect this page also, so if your interested please contribute to the discussion. (Floppydog66 (talk) 07:57, 12 December 2012 (UTC))

Interesting quote

I stumbled across an interesting quote that neatly summarized the game's legacy. I'll leave it here in case anyone wants to incorporate it into the article, or just so you can read it.

Super Mario 64 was not only the first true 3-D video game, according to LucasArts vice president of product development Peter Hirschmann, but also the game that established a number of conventions--"such as how you navigate a 3-D space and how a camera moves in 3-D space," Hirschmann says--which game designers still use today.

— Vanity Fair

CaseyPenk (talk) 17:44, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Music

Even though this is a featured article, shouldn't there be more about the sound track? Perhaps with a few samples? JACOPLANE • 2008-02-13 18:28

Technically, if the content isn't reported on by a reliable source, then it isn't notable enough to be included in the article. Music and soundtracks in video games are not always required for comprehensiveness unless it was well received, done by a famous composer, or something else notable. Though it would certainly help round out the article. I'll see what I can find out and hopefully add it in. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC))

If information about the soundtrack is needed, I suggest VGMdb and, specifically, Super Mario 64 original soundtrack page: http://vgmdb.net/album/137. The data there is as correct as can be, I have a copy of the album. The page has full scans of the booklet and all that is needed including composer info, tracklist and release date. Jousto (talk) 23:30, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I understand the following comment does not belong in music. But I could not find another spot. I hope this will suffice. You've seen "L is real 2041"? 2+0+4+1=7, which might have something to do with the seventh game by Nintendo? No, it has to do with 7 in ANOTHER GAME. Another game where L is real, like in Luigi's mansion. The seventh portrait ghost is Madame Clairvoya. Speak to her 2041, and she will say "L is real, isn't he?". THAT'S your big secret. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.202.127 (talk) 20:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Key sentence factually incorrect, misleading and nonsensical

Paragraph 2, 1st sentence: "As one of the first three dimensional (3D) platform games, Super Mario 64 features free-roaming analog degrees of freedom, large open-ended areas, and true 3D polygons as opposed to two-dimensional (2D) sprites."

"features free-roaming analog degrees of freedom" - I have no idea what this means.

"large open-ended areas" - 'Large' is fairly subjective and 'open-ended' I disagree with. The areas in Mario 64 are definitely finite in terms of game-play objectives and geometry.

"true 3D polygons as opposed to two-dimensional (2D) sprites" - True 3d polygons are indeed featured, but so are sprites (You have a picture of some further down the page!) To say 'as opposed' is misleading.

Ultimately this sentence is supposed to act as a lofty intro to Mario 64 but when scrutinised contains no meaningful information. I would edit it myself but feel that I cannot do justice to the article nor the game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christuborg (talk • contribs) 18:33, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Every single "world" has boundaries to it, which the player cannot venture beyond. This is also true of the courtyard and the area around the castle. Even when flying, if you try to move past the boundary, you'll get bounced back by an invisible wall. So, no -- there are no "open-ended" areas. Source: playing the game.76.113.25.252 (talk) 06:29, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I had seen that myself just recently. I was surprised because there are a lot of sprites even just in the world itself, such as all trees being flat, and everything that's supposed to be a sphere actually being a circle. I hope I corrected it adequately. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 02:57, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Someone's Deleting my SUB HEADINGS!

I am going to put the sub headings back on. why the hell. the article is good at that point. it's best at that! 72.181.218.180 (talk) 16:38, 14 February 2014 (UTC) Jct400thz (talk) 16:39, 14 February 2014 (UTC) that was me. ugh i keep forgetting.

Your subheadings are non-standard and sound like a game guide. "Advanced Mechanics" and "Power-Ups" are really not encyclopedic. Andrevan@ 16:45, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

These headings are really unnecessary. There's no need to separate into subsections. Only saying "the article is good at that point" is not a strong argument to including them. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 17:07, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh. I guess I should agree with that. I though that adding sub-headings made enough sense, but I guess i was wrong. I'm sorry for adding the sub headings, and making a doubled message. that was a network incident. 72.181.218.180 (talk) 16:36, 15 February 2014 (UTC) aw poop! Jct400thz (talk) 16:38, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

L is Real

Firstly, can anyone even prove the plaque reads "L is Real 2041"? I saw gibberish. But people will see anything if they look hard enough. If it says "L is real", which, to be perfectly honest, I don't think it does, then it was a joke, that the game's designers obviously thought would never be found. Did I hear something about "L is real 2401" or "2401 Eternal Star" in Legend Of Zelda? Any information will be helpful. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.202.127 (talk) 15:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

All the reliable and verifiable information we have is in the article. Please see the Rumors section. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC))

There must be more to it. How can you even prove it says anything. Then again, if there's nothing to it, maybe Nintendo should just say that that's NOT WHAT IT SAYS? And that's apparently not the only mention of "L is real". I heard something about it being scrawled onto a wall in Luigi's Mansion. HAs anybody seen this. I don't want to drop the issue until I understand it. But thanks Guyinblack25. At least you tried. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.202.127 (talk) 21:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Removed speculative comments leaning towards an internet forum discussion. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC))

A second possibility is that it says 'Eternal Star', referencing Mario Party. This is supported by the statue itself. A very throughout analysis of this was done in this webpage http://eternalstar.50webs.com/ . ~ Aurora — Preceding unsigned comment added by AuroraDragon (talk • contribs) 23:13, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Wii U Virtual Console

Super Mario 64 is now available on the Wii U Virtual console . The article should be updated to reflect this. Lionelbee (talk) 00:31, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Miyamoto interview

There's a Miyamoto interview in the Feb 1996 issue of Next Generation (magazine) that might be useful for the dev section.

"Shigeru Miyamoto: The Master of the Game". Next Generation. Imagine Media. February 1996. p. 46. Retrieved April 2, 2015.

czar ⨹ 19:54, 2 April 2015 (UTC)