Talk:Super Smash Bros. Brawl

Archive

1. 1

Sorry, Havoc

I didn't put that there. I don't know how that happened, but I know I didn't do it. I just edited the picture not the "Final" thing.-Ivy73 01:47, September 2, 2010 (UTC)

Fail. Havoc did not direct it at you in any way. He just wondered why it was there.--MegaTron1XD 01:49, September 2, 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Just noticed it when you edited the image near it. I didn't blame you for it. Going through the page history it seems that's been there for a while. --Havoc'48 01:52, September 2, 2010 (UTC)

A Change from Melee to Brawl

There's something about Brawl, besides tripping, bothers me. Hitstun has been reduced right? When I do a multi-hit attack, it's escaped with Smash DI, correct? Well, besides that, I'm discovering that most multi-hit moves make a character, motionless or otherwise, escape out of it, even if the opponent doesn't DI. Some examples are: Sonic's up-smash, Lucas' n-air, Luigi Cyclone, what have you. I perused the SSBB character pages many times to easily extrapolate that some multi-hit moves (although there are exceptions) in Brawl are harder to trap a character with. It has to be the new, if unfavorable, physics that cause this discrepancy. Wouldn't it be easier on the characters if they had no multi-hit attacks? Lili Rochefort 1965 (talk) 18:32, 5 January 2011 (EST)

I don't really know what you're trying to say here; first of all this page is for discussion of how to improve the Brawl page, not as a forum or place to just talk about anything, and secondly some multi-hit moves in Brawl are actually very difficult to escape because they have reduced SDI ability. (Also, Luigi Cyclone is actually designed to not multi-hit.) Toomai Glittershine The Incomprehensible 18:42, 5 January 2011 (EST)

Falco's standard attack,[if held down] is a multi-hit.Sandvich9 (talk) 23:36, 5 October 2012 (EDT)

A question

I was wondering, does anyone here know if there will be a new super smash bros game? Mesprit, Uxie, Azelf. Mesuxelf 11:38, 18 January 2011 (EST)

There's been precisely zero confirmation of anything of the sort. Miles (talk) 11:55, 18 January 2011 (EST)

Precisely? So there has been a little bit of info about it? Mesprit, Uxie, Azelf. Mesuxelf 12:01, 18 January 2011 (EST)

None. Zilch. Nada. 0. Precisely means exactly, if that wasn't clear. Miles (talk) 12:45, 18 January 2011 (EST)

Oh, Sorry! I thaught that it ment Practicly. Mesprit, Uxie, Azelf. Mesuxelf 12:50, 18 January 2011 (EST)

Actually, there is. Nintendo Direct already confirmed that.Sandvich9 (talk) 23:38, 5 October 2012 (EDT)

Wii Remote

Wii remote should be Wii Remote. If I change it, content will be deleted because the page is large. Blindcolours Stop smiling, it makes me happy. 19:01, 9 September 2011 (EDT)

Thank you Anon. :) Blindcolours Stop smiling, it makes me happy. 19:28, 9 September 2011 (EDT)

stages

Shouldn't a "stages" list be included in this page? Just like SSB and SSBM have?--Kombatgod (talk) 20:31, 31 December 2011 (EST)

Lost Characters from Melee

I think the sentence which implies that Toon Link replaced Young Link, as well as the others should be removed as it is not confirmed in-game or by the developers of the game, as well as leftover data on Brawl's disc disproving the fact for Ike and Lucario. Anyone agree or disagree? Yiran (talk) 22:38, 3 January 2012 (EST)

All the sentence is saying is that for each character removed, a character from the series replaced them, replaced meaning that another character was in for each removed. The sentence can easily be confused for saying that so and so is the replacement of so and so due to "similiar" movesets. Regardless, in the context used by Pichu and Pokemon Trainer, one can see that those characters are the new representives of the series, rather than replacements for characters. That sentence makes no sense, but just use Pichu and PT to see things. MegaTron1XD 23:02, 3 January 2012 (EST)

No, that sentence is saying the characters were replaced, which as pointed out by Yiran, is not supported by ingame data, nor have any confirmation from the developers. That sentence certainly should be rewritten. Omega Tyrant 08:55, 4 January 2012 (EST)

Well, Melee had more characters. But i'm sad that they took Mewtwo out of the lineup.Sandvich9 (talk) 23:43, 5 October 2012 (EDT)

Brawl is worse than Melee

I can name several reasons why Melee is better than Brawl. NOTE: The following, unless indicated, will refer to Melee.

1. Requires less technical skill and prediction.
2. The gameplay is faster, giving players more potential skill.
3. Wavedashing and L-cancelling, combined with increased hitstun, gives characters more combo ability in Melee than in Brawl.
4. More techniques.
5. None of the attacks, specials, smashes, etc. cause significant hitlag, making it harder to DI.
6. No tripping.

Short reason: More offense. Avengingbandit 04:07, 5 January 2012 (EST)

Dude take that to the forum, and all the things you said are OPINION as these xhanges isnt always bad. Bright side, more character, stages, modes storyline etc... :o Lucas-IV- CREEP 04:25, 5 January 2012 (EST)

We are not listing your opinion on this page as fact. And can I already tell you, your claims that Melee requires more prediction and has "more techniques" is just wrong. Now read SW:TALK, and do not use talk pages to spout your opinion of the article subject again. Omega Tyrant 05:41, 5 January 2012 (EST)

I just want to get my opinion out. And OT, it's LESS prediction, not more prediction. Melee has more techniques (wavedashing, L-cancelling, spikes) but does Brawl have that? NO! But fine. I'll take this to the forum. Avengingbandit 13:10, 5 January 2012 (EST)

SW:TALK. We do not care about your opinion. Omega Tyrant 14:01, 5 January 2012 (EST)

This belongs on your user page, or nowhere at all. Read SW:TALK. Meta Ike 14:49, 22 July 2012 (EDT)

Brawl is the BEST in the series [so far]. But, I was sad when I found out Mewtwo wasn't there.Sandvich9 (talk) 23:48, 5 October 2012 (EDT)

By giving an opinion that does not offer anything in regards to improving this article, you are also violating SW:TALK. Toast ltimatum 09:14, 6 October 2012 (EDT)

ESRB Rating

I got a question that maybe everyone can help me figure out. Why was Brawl rated Teen? It's not as violent compared to a Call of Duty game. No blood was in the game either. The only fluids that came from the characters that doesn't hurt other characters would be Yoshi's spit. If you know why it was rated Teen, please edit.Sandvich9 (talk) 12:14, 1 January 2013 (EST)

Probably because of Snake's weapons, and maybe ZSS' sex appeal. But no one really cares and this question does not improve the article in any way, so you should refrain from asking rather pointless questions.-- PSIWolf The one and only! 12:44, 1 January 2013 (EST)

Or maybe just the inclusion of fighting. BlueRidiculous (talk) 12:49, 1 January 2013 (EST)

Please do not continue this pointless discussion. You can't even be right, seing as SSB was not rated T.-- PSIWolf The one and only! 12:50, 1 January 2013 (EST)

The reason was reportedly because the ESRB found the violence in both Melee and Brawl to be more realistic than that found in the original game.

in b4 PSIWolf bitches out at me. 65.49.14.55 13:42, 1 January 2013 (EST)

(Not indenting this because it essentially addresses everyone) Please take this to the forums or IRC. The talk page here is for discussion of the article, of which the ESRB rating is a very small and minor aspect. Mr. Anontalk 13:45, 1 January 2013 (EST)

I wouldn't call this completely irrelevant, as the reasons behind Brawl being rated T (when many expected E10) could be argued as relevant content for the article (problem though is that it would verge on speculation territory). So don't necessarily jump the newbie for asking it. Omega Tyrant 14:31, 1 January 2013 (EST)

As I recall, the T box is labelled with "Cartoon Violence", "Crude Humor", and "Suggestive Themes". The crude humour is clearly due to Wario (farting and nose-picking) while the "suggestive themes" is probably related to ZSS's outfit and related cutscenes/codecs. That said we have the E10+ Mario Strikers Charged, which had Wario in about the same capacity, mildly suggestive outfits and animations, and a reasonably equivalent level of violence. Maybe the one thing that pushed Brawl over the edge is a hidden distinction between "sports violence" and "combat violence"? Not really much to mention. Toomai Glittershine Da Bomb 17:00, 1 January 2013 (EST)

Character pages

So we have the pages for characters that appear in multiple Smash games styled like 'Falco (SSBM)/Falco (SSBB)', in addition to the normal 'Falco' page. But should redirects like 'Falco (Melee)/Falco (Brawl)' also be created?--PSIWolf a.k.a. Luna! 08:56, 20 April 2013 (EDT)

The likelihood that someone would search that is very low, since it's not official or commonly used by the community. Character (SSBB) is really just a SmashWiki thing. Awesome Cardinal 2000 09:11, 20 April 2013 (EDT)

HQ images

found this site called Spriters resource, and in the brawl section of the website it has renders and images pulled right out of the game. I figure you guys would want to have access to the backgroundless .png version of the brawl character renders for the wiki, instead of the current .jpg format ones you currently have. If you want I could start uploading images, but if you'd rather have someone else do it thats fine.
Ixbran (talk) 19:16, 13 June 2013 (EDT)

Pictures

The gallery is messed up, the pictures don't match the text 84.168.86.138 09:07, 10 December 2013 (EST)

Appears fine on my browser. What internet browser are you using? 108.194.146.62 09:16, 10 December 2013 (EST)

Character table links

Right now in the table of characters, clicking on the images of the characters (which take up the large majority of the real estate in each cell) takes you to the page for the image, not the page of the character who you were likely attempting to navigate to. I realize this is currently the standard, but I think that standard is silly. It is far more user-friendly if the images take you to the pages that they represent instead of to their media pages. I'm looking for a few agreeing voices/discussion, and if there's consent, I can go through and change the table to make it more friendly and save numerous clicks. This applies to similar tables. I made the table for the PM character list and linked it so that the images took you to the character pages. Comparing the two, I find that taking you to the proper destination is more friendly. Ryxis (talk) 23:27, 29 December 2013 (EST)

I would not mind that. I agree that sometimes the over-linking of images is annoying, but in this case it'd be an improvement. — Jigglypuff the Magic Dragon (talk) 12:31, 30 December 2013 (EST)

What I don't understand is why this would be necessary if links to the character pages are right under their pictures? BRAWLS OF FURY 15:39, 30 December 2013 (EST)

To minimize the amount of clicks a typical reader will have to do to reach the page they want, I think. Scr7(talk · contribs) 15:47, 30 December 2013 (EST)

I think this is a good idea, however, since it seems a bit unnecessary to have two things that link to the same page right next to each other, I think it would also be a good idea to unlink the names of the characters (and probably the stages too since their images ought to be linked) while the images can be linked to what they represent. BRAWLS OF FURY 00:10, 31 December 2013 (EST)

I don't agree with removing the links in the character names. It's not like we're desperate for space and can't handle the tag around the character names, so I see no reason to remove them. Sure it's redundant, but users are used to seeing blue links and it makes these tables easier to navigate. We need to decide on a standard for these tables for consistency's sake. Right now, Brawl has image links and no character links, but every other game has both. Ryxis (talk) 08:57, 1 January 2014 (EST)

I will assume that the linked images were intended for the typical reader since you left no rebuttal that would say otherwise to Scr7 or I and that everything else Scr7 said is also true for the same reason. I will define "typical" as being synonymous with "usual" and "common" so that we could also say "common readers". Since the linked images were intended for the typical reader because the typical reader would click on the images to go to the characters page, I thought that linking to the characters page in the names is unnecessary and should be removed since it wouldn't be used by the typical user. There are also links in the names of the characters in the section titled "Voice actors". With there being several links in the article to the characters pages and typical users clicking on the images in the table cells (not the names) it shouldn't be hard to navigate the article or the table. You also said that this would "save numerous clicks". If we leave the linked names in, the typical user may also click on the image and the linked name thinking that they linked to different pages since it would be unnecessary/wouldn't make sense to have the links right next to each other, and the typical user making numerous and unnecessary clicks also went against the idea of adding the linked images. Finally, I think that leaving the linked names in would be bad style per SW:MoS:

"Generally, only link to an article once. If "damage" is mentioned five times on a page, it should only link to damage the first time. The exception is if the page is very long, in which case it can be linked again near the start of a later section. ".

This is what I would consider a long article. That is why rather than having the links in the same place, I got rid of the unnecessary links that were in the same place and left the ones that linked to the same pages in a different section. I would also be fine with fixing the other articles to be more like this one for the sake of consistency. Also, claiming something along the lines of "There's no reason not to" is a bad premise since that doesn't justify doing so/mean that not doing so is the inferior option. BRAWLS OF FURY 18:40, 1 January 2014 (EST)

We went over this and you never really gave a reason as to why we should get rid of the links in the names. It makes it easier to navigate. No, it doesn't make it hard to navigate or confuse people to have both. And yes, some people will use one while some will use the other. Not everyone expects an image to be a link, so some people will go to the name to click there. Some people will naturally click on the image, so it makes sense for that to link as well. Seriously, why are you so passionate about there not being links in the names? It's just more navigable and user friendly. And I don't think the cited portion of SW:MoS applies in a table, which is reminiscent of a menu more so than a book. That portion of the manual of style just means you shouldn't link ever instance of the word Fox to the Fox page in an article about waveshining. Ryxis (talk) 01:57, 27 January 2014 (EST)

"And I don't think the cited portion of SW:MoS applies in a table, which is reminiscent of a menu more so than a book."

You think correctly. Since Wikipedia says so also, I will amend the Manual of Style to make it more clear since no user should ever be forced to assume what a guideline means. Since this is what the Manual of Style means, I will discard my other points and leave the links in the names. BRAWLS OF FURY 15:25, 27 January 2014 (EST)