Talk:Super Smash Bros. Brawl/Archive 19

HALT! STOP! DISCONTINUE! Before asking any questions, please read this handy FAQ to make sure your question(s) has/have not been answered. Thank you.

Archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15

gameplay section picture

Could we have a different picture for the gameplay section? The picture of Mario begining his Final Smash doesn't represent the general gameplay. I don't have time to upload a picture myself, which is why i'm asking.Tuesday42 11:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there is one avible. Anubiz ♦ 12:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe a picture from one of the posts about characters? --MunchableSandwich 12:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Can we put the Goldene imge up plese. Anubiz ♦ 12:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

It's just wario Dodging a goldeen. not much exiting about that. Perhaps a pic of mario using his special move to get pack on the stage?--Demonworks

Get one under the What is Smash? update on the official site. Showing the damage percentages of the character's is a true gameplay screen. (Zojo 16:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC))

If at all possible, can we find one that's at least 300px wide? I don't know that they have any, but it'd be nice... —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 19:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Theres far too much new gameplay details to pick out a certain pic that represents all aspects. The mario picks represents one of the more major new gameplay introductions, the Final Smash, which was neither in melee or the original. I'd just leave it for now. But I suppose a better pic would be the one of mario, link, pikachu, and kirby reaching for the smash ball[1], I prefer that one a bit. If someone else finds a better pic though, of Final Smash or something else that represents the gameplay better i can be made to change. 68.195.110.145 19:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

But it's not a reason to remove an image. The article looks bad without one. --myselfalso 19:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

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

Request

Okay when people are discussing on here can I request two things? One: Indent your posts. If you want to see how the formatting is done, I'll direct you to the powerhouse of discussions: WP:AN/I. While not perfect, people try to indent on every post, unless they need to respond to a particular post several lines back. Resetting the indent is either done for that reason or if the indenting becomes too far in. I'm not perfect, and no one is, but at least make an effort. Second: please try to spell correctly. I'm a terrible speller, but the spelling has reached a point where it is impeding on the general understanding of what is trying to be said. I know no one cares in forums, I get that, but here, what you say may be quoted later, responded to, or read. Nothing ever disappears here. If you blank it, it is in the history and will be restored, if an admin deletes it, other admins can still see it. I'm not great, no one is, but at least make an attempt. Okay down off the soapbox now. --Clyde (talk) 18:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. It's getting tiring trying to decipher bad spelling and trying to find out what message goes where. (Course, I'm not one to talk about spelling. I once said "My d*ck got stuck in my playstation". Haha!) Dengarde 18:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

firefox v2 has built-in spell checking (underlines words as in a word processor). i highly advise those with bad spelling to use it (+ it's better than internet explorer, for those who didn't know). Djchallis 10:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Why is Gameplay in front of Characters

I'm not going to revert it rule because I would break itMarioman12 18:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe according to this it is supposed to be.--Clyde (talk) 18:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Mario kart stage name

I think that it should say the mario kart stages name "mario circuit". i know the name hasnt been announced but the track is called mario circuit so why shouldnt the stage name be mario circuit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.54.203.149 (talk • contribs) 15:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Because that would be speculation.DurinsBane87 19:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Well it should at least say that the stage is on mario circuit, even though the stage name hasnt been confirmed.

We already Do Dengarde 19:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

actually it just says: "a Mario Kart course similar to the Figure-8 Circuit from Mario Kart DS." ill change it too: a Mario Kart course on a track called "Mario Circuit", similar to the Figure-8 Circuit from Mario Kart DS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.54.203.149 (talk • contribs) 15:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's see: No Speculation. But, A banner says "Mario Circut" in the Trailer. Angry Sun 19:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

why did it get deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.54.203.149 (talk • contribs) 16:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Because TTN just wasn't satisfied. He acts like he is an almighty god. And if things aren't going his way he does something to make it o his way. Angry Sun 20:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey, no personal attacks. If you've got a problem with TTN, take it up on his talk page instead of here. Gurko 20:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Truly It doesn't matter. If you wish to add please proceed. It won't be considered speculation if the name Mario Circuit was in the trailer, which it is. I mean, if this unofficial stage can't be given it's name fairly, why should another stage such as the Pokemon Stadium or the Halberd. The names haven't technically been "confirmed" or that nonsense. Nowadays I'm not even sure what confirmed means on Wikipedia. But back to the topic, it's no big deal. 68.195.110.145 20:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

im about to add it, but the stages section seems to be deleted. vandalizm? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.54.203.149 (talk • contribs) 17:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

It has been merged to avoid more of this "place every single little stage" thing that people are doing. TTN 21:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

What makes you think that will avoid it? Knowing how people are about this article it'll happen anyways. Dengarde 21:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The speculation was supposed to have been moved a while ago when I raised the Fire Emblem issue. It had been but now it's all gone Pete Tong again. It was at a stage when only Delfino Plaza and Battlefield had been named because they're the only confirmed ones but someone's readded it all. Ashnard _Talk 21:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

IMO, this article should follow similarly to Super Smash Bros. Melee. The characters and levels should be subsections of the gameplay section. That having been said, this should only happen once we really have enough information to do that. And we won't have enough information until the game is released. --myselfalso 21:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

There's a sense of pointlessness to editing here considering the stream of new information. I guess this article can only have any semblannce of something decent once the game is released. Ashnard _Talk 22:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Archive

The talk page was 66kb long. Time to archive. --myselfalso 23:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Developer?

The development section now says that the developer is Sora. First, where is the reference for this? And second, if it is true why isn't it on the "Developer(s)" part of the information box? It still reads "TBA". Unknownlight 00:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

It does? Where? ;o --Guess Who 01:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

It's gone now. It seemed to be added by 82.9.127.199 (comparison here). Unknownlight 04:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't even know why anyone thinks Sora is the developer... it's just idiocy. 07:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I remember reading (I think on the main site) that Sora was established solely for the purpose of SSBB. I think thats why. Dengarde 07:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

And maybe the fact that Sakurai founded Sora and Sakurai is currently working on Brawl.--Viridis^{talk|contributions} 07:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Sora was founded quite soon after Sakurai left, before Nintendo approached Sakurai about Brawl (which was post E3 2005). The old main site talked about a new studio being founded just for Brawl, but only referred to it as "The Studio". This has been brought up many, many times before. The developer cannot be Sora, or HAL. --Guess Who 08:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

It's a big, hodgepodge of a team. You got people from everywhere. Why not put under Developer "The Studio" and add the reference to it from when Sakurai called the developement team, "The Studio." (Course, now he just mentions Sora all the time so that might be "The Studio" now.) (Zojo 17:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC))

I agree with Zojo. We should put "The Studio" until a name is officially given, since Sakurai has called it "The Studio" himself. --myselfalso 17:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

This sound familiar, maybe because I suggested it up back in Archive 7... FMF|contact 18:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Can someone find a statement from Sakurai when he called them "The Studio" so we can use it as a source? --myselfalso 14:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Zojo. We should put "The Studio" until a name is officially given, since Sakurai has called it "The Studio" himself. --myselfalso 17:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

He has already confirmed that the studio name is Sora, go ahead and check it out on the site. As for the source for "The Studio", I don't think it's necessary we need it. However, as there is a development section in the article, I suppose it can be in there, but I stand by opinion. --Lostmeatthelost 21:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

That's fine with me, since it's already in the article. --myselfalso 21:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

If you're talking about where it says (Sora Ltd.) next to his name, that's his JOB. It isn't necesarily the company developing the game. Compareit to if you see a quote somewhere in a magazine or something. The ..?quotist's?.. proffesion usually follows their name.DurinsBane87 21:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm in the newspaper business (I'm the Editor-in-chief of Harrisburg Area Community College's newspaper The Fourth Estate), and we usually do Name (business). Or in the college case...name, age, major. Anyway, I would find it quite odd if he is developing this game with another organization while running another...that having been said, in the world of bands and music, some musicians have been known to be in multiple bands at once. (Take for example Jerry Garcia. While he was in the Grateful Dead, he was also in the Jerry Garcia Band. So, while I find it odd if Sakurai worked for two organizations at the same time, it's not like there aren't millions of people...if not a billion or two...who have more than one job.) --myselfalso 21:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, consider that while WE know who he is, people who play these games more casually might not know him. That being said, many of those people would visit the site, and see a quote from "some random guy." Having the company he works for would give his quote more meaning to those people. DurinsBane87 21:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, it's a hodgepodge of people who probably wouldn't be working together otherwise. It was a group created to make Super Smash Bros Brawl. "The Studio" is the only name they've been called. (Zojo 22:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC))

Can we find a link for "The Studio"? User Tuesday42 (talk · contribs) continues to remove "The Studio" from the developer row in the infobox. --myselfalso 04:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Citation found via google cache:[2]

Weekly Famitsu Column "Masahiro Sakurai's Thoughts About Games" Reproduced with permission from volumes 130-vol.132

Until the day comes when I can announce the team's name, I shall simply refer to them as "The Studio." - Page 3, possibly vol 132, but that's just a guess

- Zero1328 _Talk? 06:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I do want to argue about how ridiculous this is, but my computer keeps crashing.Tuesday42 14:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps coming out in July?

I went to Hastings today and for some reason I saw a TBA list with Brawl marked as coming out in june. I asked the employees about the source and they said that they get the info from their company. Does anyone think this is possible? If so, is there info we don't know....? --24.183.231.30 06:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I seriously doubt that Brawl would come out in June. If it was, then the site would have alot more info. My best guess, by how the site's being updated, is that it will be released somewhere around september-october.

But, never believe what stores say. Why would Nintendo just secretly tell Hastings, and not the rest of the world? --Kenny2k 06:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

please, no more release dates. if they have one, it'll be from Nintendo themselves or an official Nintendo site. anything else is expected to be speculation &/or rumor. FyreNWater 07:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

It's exactly as you say. Many stores may put in a speculated date instead of TBA for various reasons, so it can never be used as a source. - Zero1328 _Talk? 08:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't know. I was just wondering.

I personally think that Brawl will be released Nov. 23, 2007... Unknownlight 15:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

It's also a way, I believe, for stores to get you to reserve it now. They want to seal the deal with the customers but someone's not going to reserve a game that they have no idea when it's coming out. Any store's date is false (unless an official site has said it.) (Zojo 18:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC))

We had a discussion about this on one of the archives. Its been over 3 months since the date Best buy originally put up, and its not on shelves. 75.46.121.48 01:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Yoshi Series

In the Characters section,since they used the Yoshi Icon on DOJO! should we put something like:"Although not directly confirmed by Sakurai,the 'Egg' icon used by Yoshi in previous Super Smash games appeared on the site,confirming at least one character from the Yoshi series." XLS724 17:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

No this is fan speculation. FMF|contact 17:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, saying Yoshi is in is like saying Sonic is in. Except, with Yoshi, we have solid evidence on the official site. We can't say hes in for sure, though, because 'pedia is crazy about speculation nowadays.

I'm sure he'll have his own article on the site soon. --Kenny2k 04:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

This'll be no standard and efficient ground for Yoshi or another Yoshi character(If there is another)'s presence. I'm sure if Sakurai had a site like DOJO! for Melee he would've had icons for Balloon Fight and Mach Rider as well, just from the presence of their songs. A stage from a Yoshi game pretty much confirms Yoshi, but this is a bit too close to the edge to call it wiki standard. I'm sure that this Yoshi nonsense will come to an end soon. Sakurai has almost somewhat been building up to Yoshi's revealing, what with Yoshi's Island today and the song last week, and that little hint hint in the song description. In any case, I don't want to hear any arguing. We all know Yoshi is in the game, and we can all keep that nice good feeling inside of ourselves for now. Putting Yoshi on this article will not make his presence any more true. In Tupac's words, that's just the way it it is. 68.195.110.145 00:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the Gameplay merge

Although it was once whole stages and gameplay were merged there are two reasons why I disagree with this merge.

• 1) With subsections, casual readers can quickly access to whatever they looking for, whether it be for stages or items, they can quickly get there by clicking on the menu.
• 2) For us editors, if we want to make an immediate change to a certain, it would be a lot easier to click on the [edit] right next to the section instead of having to scroll down on the huge wall of text. magiciandude (Talk) (review) 20:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

We're going with a standard format: list gameplay elements under gameplay and create subsections if needed. Only characters needs its own subheading. TTN 20:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

And why is it only characters? magiciandude (Talk) (review) 20:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

It is a large enough topic to warrant it. The rest flow nicely in gameplay (or they will once we can fill it with better information.) TTN 20:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I beg to differ however, if someone is looking for something more specific than gameplay, then instead of scrolling all the way down, he/she could just use the subsection to get there faster. I don't know about you, but I don't like scrolling down on a wall of text just to find or edit to just a specific topic. magiciandude (Talk) (review) 20:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Go look at some of our featured game articles. They only split sections if it will help improve the flow of the article. In this case where much of the information will be cut eventually, it isn't necessary. TTN 20:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Except that all of those featured games have been released. There isn't a single featured article on a game that's not out so I don't see how this should follow those featured articles yet. magiciandude (Talk) (review) 20:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a video game. The others are video games. They all contain gameplay elements. How is the actual content any different? What real reason do we have to ignore them (besides your own preference)? TTN 20:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I know that they have gameplay elements, but using Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask as an example, it still has subsections (in fact, more than this article does). However, the reason that LoZ: MM doesn't have a list of every item or quest is because the game is already out. We wouldn't need to add content to that because Wikipedia isn't a walk-through, there is an article on items and characters on Majora's Mask, and it would make the article to long. But with Brawl, a game that still has barely any info, is different because there isn't different articles on specific things here. Not only that, but it's too early to generalize anything until the game comes out. Why merge when we don't know what new info we will be getting. For all we know, anything can have a drastic change from Melee to Brawl. And no, looking at the history page, from May 06 to now, the whole gameplay wasn't merged. The items and abilities had it's subsection just like the stages did. magiciandude (Talk) (review) 21:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with keeping the sections merged. I had mentioned this (probably in Archive 14), based on other gaming articles. Just because a game is not released does not mean we shouldn't follow in the example of other good or featured articles. The fact that it isn't released would suggest that there wouldn't be enough information for subsections at all. Only one new stage has been announced; a number of newcomer characters (Pit, Wario, Meta Knight) have been announced. This is why I believe that the characters section deserves to be a subsection and the levels does not. As far as I'm concerned, an article should not be written in the mind of convenience for the editor, but rather for the convenience of the reader, to make it the best article possible. More so, we can't have different standards for not-as-of-yet released games, because those standards could be all over the map depending at what stage of development the game is in. Not to mention the fact that it's a bit bureaucratic. I believe the way it is now is much better than how it was a week ago. --myselfalso 21:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I see, since I can't argue two against one, I guess that's an instant defeat for me. magiciandude (Talk) (review) 21:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

If it makes you feel any better, I agree with you. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 01:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Falco Lombardi

Guys, on the "Hugely Anticipated Brawler" talk it was said that on the next NP issue they were going to reveal something new. Well, on the newest issue on the calendar part it was saying something about a character most rumored bearing the name of "Fabio". I think they mispelled Falco, but I don't think that this "Fabio" is the most rumored character. Maybe they revealed another charater. Remember, this is just my opinion. I would like to hear your opinions about it. Mr. Mario 192 16:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.193.117.66 (talk • contribs) 16:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

If a published work states something, we by default assume that it is true in terms of encyclopedic value and must wait for an official correction if we want it to change. I doubt that Fabio is the most rumored character (Fabio who?), but we'll go with that for now. Besides, "Fabio" and "Falco" are pretty far off. You Can't See Me! 20:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmm ...Fabio...Falco..well anyways this seems more of a type of thing for a forum but i'll answer it anyway. i cant find any characters besides the "I cant believe its not butter" guy with the name Fabio. Maybe it is Falco we wont know apparently till the next issue.--User:Entei-Anubis

This is just pure speculation, but I remember a game called Iron Sword that I thought Fabio did the cover for. I am not sure. Tinkleheimer 21:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, let me get things straight, did it actually say that in the issue. You all checked? And it said it for Super Smash Bros Brawl in the calendar section and Fabio was mentioned?? Well unless they were just joking and they thought people would get the joke then it should be true and I suppose it could be mentioned. You're positive?? This issue?? The one with the Resident Evil cover?? In the calendar section it says the words "Super Smash Bros Brawl", "Fabio" and "Next Issue" in some sort of serious and not joke like manner?? I'm sorry but I just can't believe it since they haven't revealed anything truly worth noting in a long time. Still check again very carefully. Nintendo Power is a reliable source and if they say this so called Fabio will be revealed next issue than it's true. But YOU ALL checked??? EVERY SINGLE ONE OF YOU that's posting checked?? I would but I don't have an issue in front of me. Those of you who do confirm it. 68.195.110.145 21:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Fabio. Are you sure it's Fabio? Isn't Fabio a supermodel or something? I highly doubt that a person from real life would be in Brawl (and anyway, one of the rules is the character must have originated from a videogame. Fabio originated from the real world). Unknownlight 22:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Fabio is usually in many of the jokes from Nintendo Power. FMF|contact 23:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

--myselfalso 23:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

--JMJ 00:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

It was a joke. A joke. There's no meaning behind what they said. It doesn't reveal anything. It's just flavor text. Flavor text is regularly worded in a jokingly way. Disaster Kirby 03:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Which issue are you talking about here? First of all, I've gotten Nintendo Power since the first issue, and I don't remember a "calander part". Second, can some post exactly what it said? I'm looking at issue 217, and I see nothing. --Kenny2k 03:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I wish someone would post its exact words, instead of a vague summary. JMJ 15:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, Fabio was a joke. A while back ago they hade a doctered screenshot from melee with John Madden vs Pikachu. They're just joking about Fabio. I have the issue and I laughed after reading it because it was intended as a joke.(Zojo 22:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC))

Fool us once shame on them, fool us twice shame on us. --User:Entei-Anubis

I'm mad. Now I'm just plain mad. They get us all hyped up for no specified reason and then SOMEONE just has to shut us down. Now I'm praying with all my heart that somewhere in the world of nintendo there lies the most obscure character ever, waiting for his time in the spotlight. But now because of you those prayers are shattered. First with the "Highly Anticipated Brawler", than "Fabio" next thing you know you're gonna show me a photoshopped pic of a nude Pamela Anderson being a newcomer and her final smash is gonna be forcing the head of the opponent in between her largely glorious(dot dot dot) s, letting out nice moans all the while until they suffocate. Gee thnx a lot guys...

Calm down, I'm sure that this isnt the end of the jokes and lies, but we need to be calm,cool,and collected or this article is going to go right into the garbage bin. And please dont get out of hand with the elaboration. I still cant get that mental picture out of my head. --User:Entei-Anubis

Ok, I admit I went a little overboard. But it is enough to drive someone mad. And besides, you know you like that mental pic. XD

.....indeed......--User:Entei-Anubis

Article citations from Smashbros.com

As a heads up, it would be best to find alternative references from the media (especially Famitsu) since Smashbros.com is always subject to change again. Just a reminder - use the cite web template for the citations and fill out as much fields as possible. FMF|contact 23:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

hey, this is a really good idea. gives those constant editors something constructive to do. if had more time, i'd run through and find alternative links for sources. i guess i'll run through and find broken/relocated links to be fixed. FyreNWater 20:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Heres a crazy idea

You know, just about everyone who looks at this article is looking at it so they can get as much info as possible about the game. Heres what I say we do: Lets put everything about everything on there, and continue to do that until the game is released.

Once the game is out, we totally rewrite the article and make it like the other video game articles.

I mean, we're going to have to rewrite it anyway. --Kenny2k 04:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

If they want to know, they can go to the official site, they get the info before we do. This is an encyclopedia, and this is an article in an encyclopedia. And it will remain that way, regardless of WHY people look here. DurinsBane87 04:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

here's a response: NO. an encyclopedia uses solid facts, not speculation. FyreNWater 08:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I did not say anything about speculation. Read my post again, FyreNWater. You missed the entire point.--Kenny2k 21:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

They got a point. If you want to know everything about the game, go to the official site. The only thing we're good for right now is a few quoates and developement history. (Zojo 22:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC))

Adding in everything (rumors and all) about the game would turn this article into a fansite. Also, some information about SSBB, such as rumors about the game, are non-encyclopedic. --myselfalso 22:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Alright, alright. I'm just sayin'... --Kenny2k 04:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Do us all a favor, please...

When you say "(magizine/website) said somthing about (characters/items/stages/other stuff), can you please post a link or the exact text of the article? --Kenny2k 07:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Or simply not mention it full stop. Magazines normally talk out of their rears. EG: NGAMER mentined in one issue that they'd like to be able to play as Kamek and Bowser Jr. This does not mean that Bowser Jr. and Kamek are playable!! - sometimes it feels like I'm trying to teach kids the difference between a videogame and reality. Oh wait... 195.195.15.250 10:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC) Mojanboss

The only magazine that can be trusted is Nintendo Power. BassxForte 00:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, while Nintendo Power is owned by nintendo, they usually don't know and/or tell anything before we know about it. They're in the dark until we are most of the time. Nintendo just publishes them-they don't give them the inside scoop on things. Purplepurplepurple 02:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

That isn't true anyways. other notable magazines can be trusted. If "The Studio" gives GameInformer a tour of the studio, or talks to them about some gameplay element, it's perfectly citeable.DurinsBane87 03:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Music Section

Speaking of music, what does everyone think of adding a section for music under Development, mentioning the wide collection of composers and the tracks that have been displayed on the site?--Viridis^{talk|contributions} 08:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

A listing would be unencyclopedic, but I'm all for the mention of composer variety. - Zero1328 _Talk? 10:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

No, it doesn't seem right, it would take up most of the article. OBEY STARMAN 11:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't really think it would take up most of the article, a few sentences is more than sufficient. To show the range we only need to give a few examples at most. - Zero1328 _Talk? 11:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

If we do, we should atleast the song they just released today on the site, Metroid: Boss Battle Music (Ridley Fight). OBEY STARMAN 12:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

We should mention that there's a wide variety of proven composers, but i think it would be far too much to mention specific songs. The only particularly notable thing about the music IS the wide variety of composers. Making a Ridley theme in the game isn't particularly ground breakingDurinsBane87 12:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

True. It could lead people astray into thinking that Ridley is in the game (I hope he is, but there's nothing to confirm this, as usual). Joiz ^A. Shmo 14:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Sakurai did make a big deal about the number of musicians...at most that should be mentioned. No specific people or songs. Though, it may be worth mentioning that Sakurai is putting out music samples on the official site. (Zojo 23:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC))

Could I add two links

Two links I wanted to add are: http://www.supersmashbros3.com, and http://home.comcast.net/~scotty1996/Brawlrules.html could I add these?--Scotty12 13:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

They look like fansites, so no. But you can argue against me if you want. I didnt look too deeply into them. DurinsBane87 13:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

New Enteries go at the bottom. No, they're both fansites...bad fansites. Thanks for asking before, though. -Sukecchi 13:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Can I add just http://home.comcast.net/~scotty1996/Brawlrules.html because there is no where else to access it.?--Scotty12 13:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean there's no where else to access it. This is an encyclopedic article. Why would the link be useful to the article? DurinsBane87 13:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Why?

Why does the official brawl site have the ridley fight from metroid when sakurai didnt mention ANYTHING about brawl!! why is that? Did he forget that hes working on brawl, not metroid?--Demonworks

The music is going to be in the game. Be sensible. Joiz ^A. Shmo 15:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Ridley!

Everyone, Ridley is NOT, I repeat IS NOT confirmed. No more of this practicly" crap. His music doesnt really mean anything, they could use it for a variety of things. It doesn't belong in the article!! DurinsBane87 18:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't reply to this unless it has to do with something other than proving why Ridley is confirmed or why he has a better chance than Sonic. TTN 21:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Just because there's his fight music in it doesn't mean that he's a playable character or boss. They had Mach Rider and Balloon Fight music in Melee but neither were characters. (Zojo 22:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC))

Kraid's theme was in Melee, but it turned out to be a stage. It doesn't mean anything. OBEY STARMAN 22:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

We can hope STARMAN, we can hope.--User:DOOMtech

Guys chill, we don't want 3RR in here; that's when things get really messy. Please just leave it in (I guess I see his reasoning for saying it), but no general forum or dicussions from now on.--Clyde (talk) 02:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Release date

Even I am reluctant while writing this, because release date suggestions are frowned upon. But to me, AOL looks like a reliable source. Take a gander at this [http://www.gamedaily.com/articles/_a/game-reviews-from-the-future/20070607201309990001. Winter huh?? Should it be mentioned? Si or No? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.195.110.145 (talk • contribs)

No, this is just as unspecific as all the other release dates we've seen. We all know it will be coming out in fall or winter. Joiz ^A. Shmo 19:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

o ok now lets just end the discussion here before someone lectures me about no release date being given. I just thought it was from a reliable source and wanted to check it out with u guys. If we all know it'll be in winter, and it's somewhat confirmed, should we put that in the release dates? You know, just Winter 2007 rather than TBA 2007?? 68.195.110.145 21:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Thats totally wrong. Sakurai called me today and told me it's coming out on October 27, 2007. --Kenny2k 21:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

How about the only reliable source is Dojo right now? I'm pretty sure that's where we'll hear anything new about the release date first. Notice that the site has a catagory "Notices." (Zojo 22:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC))

If it IS coming out in 2007, then there are 201 possible days it could be released (as of June 13). However, I'm more than sure that its not coming out this month, so you could say theres 184 possible days... --Kenny2k 06:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Masahiro Sakurai

Exactly where is there anything on that article that is a valid reference to why it's called "The Studio"? It's not even mentioned. Dengarde 23:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Good point. Can anyone find anything where he refered to the team as "The Studio"? The only source I can recall is the official site before it's makeover. Still, even if a source is not found it can only be changed to UNKOWN. (Zojo 23:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC))

I just noticed this...

In the second trailer, Kirby smashes Mario and Link up, sending them off the top of the screen and KOing them, right? Well, in the first two Smash Bros. games, when you get sent off the top of the screen, you either fly away in the background, or hit the TV screen. In Brawl, if you go off the top of the screen, you explode just like if you go off the left/right/bottom of the screen.

Just wanted to point this out. Do you think it should go into the article? --Kenny2k 04:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

nope. DurinsBane87 04:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't really seem like pertinent information at this current time. Perhaps after the game is released, such a note could be added to a 'Differences' section (if there is one)? Disaster Kirby 05:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and it may be changed in the final version of the game. --Kenny2k 05:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I think this was mentioned in one of the archives. They probably didn't implement the "fall into the horizon" at that point in development. I doubt they would remove it JMJ 06:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Upper-screen explosions were in Super Smash Bros. Melee if I remember correctly. They usually occur when you send someone up to the top fast (i.e. the wireframes and the Marios in Super Mario 128 are two examples that I can verify). Since they almost never occur during regular play (most enemies are "bulkier" and tend to exit the top slowly, opting into either the forescreen or backscreen deaths), it's not surprising they aren't well-known...but this is assuming I'm correct. Thus, adding in that info isn't too helpful because it's already established in a previous game of the series. EDIT: Plus, we haven't established if indeed the forescreen/backscreen deaths from Melee (and to a lesser extent the N64 original, because it only had backscreen) were taken out or not. Jake52 My own private island 07:33, 14 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)