Talk:Super Smash Bros. (video game)

Video games B‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game

B

This article has been rated as B-class on the project's quality scale.

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

mines

I would say that the proximity mines in goldeneye are not related to the ones in SSB. I think that should be removed (and the section made longer) Playwrite 23:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SNES Origins?

I remember a long time ago I read that Super Smash Bros. was being developed for the SNES or Super Famicom but was cancelled for later development for the Nintendo 64 version. I was wondering if anyone knew anything about that. I've been looking online for something about it, but I think it'd be interesting to get some information on the SNES version. Has anyone else heard this?

Consider this:

Since Super Smash Bros. contains the Pokémon franchise, I think that the upwards ring out into the background is derived from Team Rocket's infamous "launch into the sky and disappear as a little dot". Any thoughts? Oh, and I think the same goes for Melee as well. --Geopgeop 13:46, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. But that's me :P Adam Marx Squared 19:56, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely not related. Andre (talk) 20:00, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The "star" effect is famous in Anime in general; not just Pokémon. OOZ662 18:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I improved the relevance and diction of the Character section, but I left the cleanup tag because it still needs work. Is all that stuff about the "pro circuit" really relevant to most readers? I think more specific info about items and attacks would be a big improvement.' 68.42.164.153 20:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia section?

There's not a trivia section? one thing i find interesting is that the entire game is kinda based off of Hal's Kirby Super Star for SNES. The master hand is just a boss called "Bam Bam Rock" and uses all the same attacks.

The controls are very similar and you'll notice many similar attacks and enemies from the game.

Trivia sections are evil, because they are by nature not encyclopediac. Nifboy 22:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mothra?

Is it true that you can unlock Mothra? I don't think so myself, but at the time of my writing this, there is no refernce to the unlockableness of Jigglipuff.

Mothra instead of Jigglypuff? Whether this is not true or I have hallucinations. I have changed that lately, but some IP keeps including that. --Yuuki Mayuki 06:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jigglypuff is unlockable (I have it on my game) but, Mothra is not. During the opening song it shows all the main characters in thier environment (or fighting someone else in thiers). Then thier is a flash of the silowettes (ceck speeling) of the unlockable characters. When you unlock a unlockable character it is no longer a sillwette but a plain character picture i have unlocked all the characters and there is no other silowette for Mothra.

P.S. What is Mothra?

H-BOMB 18:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mothra is a giant flieing moth(or catapillar) from the Godzilla series of movies. P.S. it is insane to think she would be included.Qwerasdfzxcvvcxz 17:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doc Strange 08:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... i think this guy means that Butterfly pokeman...

Failed GA

Not having sources is enough to fail this article, but there are other problems:

Story: One paragraph is not enough for a section. Additionally, it should not speculate. It may be enough to say, "The game's introductory video depicts Master Hand..." and not speculate as to whatever "story" the game has.
Gameplay/General mechanics: One paragraph is not enough for a section.
Gameplay/Controls: Wikipedia is not a how-to. The CVG project suggests that "if the content only has value to people actually playing the game, it's unsuitable." This entire section is game guide material, which doesn't belong here.
Gameplay/Items: Again, too short for a section. Merge these three subsections together.
Characters: An awful mess. The names of moves are guide material, and unsuitable. The charging nonsense is just that.
Secret Stage: Not only is it one paragraph, it's the only bullet point there. Bullets are for lists, and lists have more than one item in them.
Non-playable stages: A misnomer, since they are played in 1P mode.
Criticism: One-paragraph section again, no references (which are vital to reception sections), and reads like an advertisement.

So! That's why you fail GA! Nifboy 00:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism

This section is not notated very well (at all) and is very contradictory. It states that there is very little criticism, but goes on to say that many hated the simplified controls and 'outdated' graphics. If no one objects I'm just going to delete this section. --Thaddius 14:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found this while looking and it does say that the graphics aren't amazing and that it isn't a 'fighting' game, but it does not criticism these aspects. I'd like to hear at least another person's views before I delete this altogether, or at least integrate it somewhere else. --Thaddius 16:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd go ahead and delete it. Besides, the graphics are simple because of all the things going on in the screen at once. :/ M2K e 20:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Any kind of criticism (or, for that matter, praise or reaction, which would be a better section title) section absolutely needs sources for basically every statement in it. Nifboy 22:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many game reviewers noted the weak single-player mode. I believe that is worthy of note. People get so caught up in the multiplayer matches that they forget the single-player mode even exists. The Legend of Miyamoto 02:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Many" is a weasel word. Please find a reviewer(s) who said it. Nifboy 05:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you asked. Quoth Gamespot's review of Super Smash Bros. Melee, "One of the original Smash Bros.' weaker areas was its single-player modes, or lack thereof. Aside from a halfhearted "story" mode, there really wasn't anything compelling, outside of the multiplayer game." [1]

IGN also made somewhat negative comments toward the single-player mode. [2]

Pit

I'm very interested in seeing a source for this claim that Pit was supposed to be in instead of Jigglypuff. Can anyone help me (and this article) out? --Xubelox 20:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]