Talk:Event 41: The FINAL Final Battle

Right

The article says that Sonic will hardly ever knock your character out during this match. Well, please explain why about half of my deaths were due to Sonic using one of his smashes on me? He is not only annoying; he can give you a quick kill if you turn your back on him to fight Giant Mario or Snake! LOAP

Well, it could have happened to you, but the article's information isn't about a single player. It is about the average of players. For example, an article about another event might say: "This is an easy event" but it doesn't mean that it is easy for everyone. Or some players say that event 40 is harder than event 41, but I think event 41 is harder. See what I mean? Xeze (talk) 15:55, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Strategies

Should we include them on our pages? It seems more like the kind of discussion that would happen on a forum. I mean, we should only mention strategies that have use in proffesional play, besides that, its unproffesional and unencyclopedic. Paradox Juice (talk) 01:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The FINAL Final Showdown?

If this is a name somewhere, we need to put that down.--MegaTron1XD 23:27, 2 December 2010 (EST)

The info about the reception in the community

Why do you want it removed, or want a citation? Awesome Cardinal 2000 15:40, 30 July 2013 (EDT)

It's a question of highly subjective fan reaction, and thus would definitely need a citation in order to merit being in a mainspace article like that. Miles (talk) 15:42, 30 July 2013 (EDT)

Any such citations would be lost by now, buried in SmashBoards's search feature or deleted by AiB's pathetic attempts to recoup server space. That said I am certain that at one time this was widespread common knowledge, having vanished from easy research due to people not caring about Brawl's events in general (in fact, I think this was considered the posterboy event for how Brawl's events suck compared to Melee's). Toomai Glittershine The Cloronic 16:52, 30 July 2013 (EDT)

That's exactly the problem with information regarding fan and community knowledge into factual articles. When I was on Zelda Wiki (my username was K2L), whenever I wrote a Reception section for a game article, I had provided a sub-section for Fan Reception, citing the reader reviews of IGN and GameSpot. Since those are recorded within the site, they helped me build up a proper section summarizing the likes and dislikes of the majority of consumers. Maybe the same could be done in this wiki's game articles. Even the most common and noticeable knowledges have to be addressed via external references. Also (and keep in mind this a very friendly advice, not a provocation), reasonings like "I think this was considered the posterboy event for how Brawl's events suck compared to Melee's" don't help at all. It's already bad enough that any kind of reception is put unsourced (to not say shoehorned) in most articles just to deliberately give readers the impression that a game did absolutely everything wrong, when not everybody agrees with that vision. --186.88.91.189 17:04, 30 July 2013 (EDT)

"just to deliberately give readers the impression that a game did absolutely everything wrong"

Don't strawman, no one is trying to "deliberately give the impression that Brawl sucks at everything", they're simply reporting on an aspect of the game that got criticised. And "not everyone agreeing" is completely irrelevant; if we were to have information on the wiki on the basis of "everyone agrees", there would be no information for us to place on the Wiki. Omega Tyrant 17:15, 30 July 2013 (EDT)

Bump, if no farther comment is made, I'll readd the reception note, since no one refuted what Toomai stated. Omega Tyrant 12:31, 1 August 2013 (EDT)

Again, it needs an external reference. That's the main problem. And pretexts like "widespread common knowledge" and "any citaion is already lost" won't get a free pass. --186.88.91.189 22:04, 1 August 2013 (EDT)

You should provide a reason why it needs an external reference. Awesome Cardinal 2000 22:18, 1 August 2013 (EDT)

The rationale is that it's a subjective opinion attributed to the majority. The problem is that it's been a long time since people have generally cared, so getting hard evidence either way is difficult. Toomai Glittershine The Multifaceted 22:29, 1 August 2013 (EDT)

It's either finding that hard evidence, or leaving out of the article that statement. And the reason why it needs an external reference is because, like all statements, it can be contested. And when something is contested, references are provided to back it up. And you know what? I have actually been looking through several sites, blogs and forums about this opinion that this event sucks (I mean, EVERY single thing from Brawl appears to suck, with nothing that redeems it, so it SHOULDN'T be difficult to find specifically that), and I haven't succeeded. You say it's because "it got lost" or "people stopped caring", but for me it's simpler than that: It's a made-up thing. Which, again, is why an external reference would help as it would prove that it's a real opinion. This is a wiki, Jesus Christ, you should know better. --186.88.91.189 23:54, 1 August 2013 (EDT)

If it's been so long since anyone cared, why is it relevant to the article? Mr. Anontalk 00:23, 2 August 2013 (EDT)

"I mean, EVERY single thing from Brawl appears to suck, with nothing that redeems it"

Dude, did you not read what I said earlier about this? Cut it out with that passive-aggressive bullshit, it seems like you're just being whiny about people having criticism of Brawl, and are purposely trying to cut out Brawl criticism from the Wiki because you don't like people criticising your favorite game. It's getting difficult to treat you seriously, when you keep doing this shit. Also if you didn't notice, the vast majority of users on this Wiki prefer and play Brawl, so really, cut it out with the "you're all biased against Brawl" shit.

You want a citation? Here you go. The first post states "WHAT A CRUMMY LAST EVENT!!!", and the subsequent posts agree with it. You didn't search if you couldn't find that (all I did was type event 41 into Smashboard's search).

For another, I found this review of Brawl, which specifically states the following:

"Ditto for Event Mode in Brawl. Melee's event modes were unbelievably creative, whereas Brawl's events come off as very uninspired. On top of the number of events reduced from 51 to 41, most are either bad upgrades from their Melee counterparts, or just bad outright. In Melee, the final event was an always-fun fight against Giga Bowser, Mewtwo and Ganondorf. In Brawl, it's a fight against Giant Mario, and regular-sized Solid Snake and Sonic. It's Nintendo's "we think we're twice as big as everyone else" message more than a final fight, and the rest of the events aren't much better."

In my search, I seen nothing that said anything positive about Brawl events compared to Melee's. And I can certainly vouch that in my time in the community, the inferiority of Brawl events is a very common opinion (and like Toomai said, this is the "posterboy" for the claim).

Also, we're not Wikipedia, we are a very community driven Wiki that don't require citations on everything (especially when such a citation is usually impossible). And when multiple users that are far more involved with the Smash community than you and others can vouch that something is a common opinion within the community, in all likelihood it is. "CITATION, CITATION, STOP SAYING BRAWL SUCKS, CITATION!" does not refute that it's a common opinion.

"If it's been so long since anyone cared, why is it relevant to the article?"

That is completely irrelevant Anon, we cover things from a historical standpoint, and something fading from the present mindset does not mean we don't cover it. Omega Tyrant 13:03, 2 August 2013 (EDT)