# Talk:Paper Mario: Sticker Star

If I recall correctly, this will only be released in Korea... --Evildevil (talk) 19:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

For several days this has been on yet is not tagged for speedy deletion. Is this because there is confirmation?
Even still this article needs a lot more work, even though it has only just been announced (if true)
Someone link to confirmation please? Thanks, LuGiADude (talk) 09:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Should this be an article as it was previously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.54.20.144 (talk) 21:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Rubbish. The article itself says "rumoured" and last I checked, Wikipedia does not do rumours. Sorry! LuGiADude (talk) 16:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

If the article isn't going to be redirected back, then it needs to moved to a new name. SNS (talk) 05:16, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
I think this should be moved to Paper Mario 3DS, under this name, it's just like a reference to that rumour. Shadow King618 (talk) 02:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Who ever moved this to "Paper Mario DS" is, to be honest, a complete freaking retarded moron. Firstly, this is NOT even a DS game. So, why you couldn't have left "Paper Mario 3DS" alone, instead of redirecting it to "Paper Mario DS", I just don't understand. Either "Paper Mario 3DS" or "Paper Mario (Nintendo 3DS game)" would be suitable. Not "Paper Mario DS". If it was a DS game then maybe "Paper Mario DS", or even "Paper Mario (Nintendo DS game)" or something like that, but it's not. Again, whoever moved this to "Paper Mario DS" is a retard.--The Ultimate Koopa (talk) 17:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

It was never moved to Paper Mario DS. It was originally created there, presumably because the page already existed as a redirect to Mario role-playing games. A separate page also existed at Paper Mario 3DS though, so it's kind of odd that the incorrectly named article is now the one being used to build an article... Reach Out to the Truth 04:05, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Leaked release date - http://www.cubed3.com/news/14285

Gamestop handed me their data for upcoming releases for the Nintendo 3DS.  On it, it says that the release date for Paper Mario 3D is May 2nd, 2012.  Can anyone find confirmation on this somewhere that we can cite?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.145.244 (talk) 20:30, 13 December 2011 (UTC) 

GameStop and other retailers make up dates. They have to have some tangible date to tell people for some reason. Blake (Talk·Edits) 20:36, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
I just contacted the manager at my Gamestop to confirm the information's source (press release or otherwise). That is not a final release date -- it is just a placeholder date so they can start taking in pre-orders. Salvidrim! 20:37, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
To note, they give the same release date for Luigi's Mansion 2 and Animal Crossing (3DS). Salvidrim! 20:39, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Yup, retailers in general really shouldn't be used for future release dates. Sergecross73 msg me  21:10, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
The page on WP:VG that talks about sources has a section about retailers. Quote: "Retailers are considered reliable sources for release dates {...} only for games that have already been released. {...} Retailers posting future dates for games not yet released raise a red flag as to the legitimacy of the statement, and should not be used unless confirmed by a more reliable source." Salvidrim! 23:06, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
The release date i've heard is November 30, 2012.
Acdrybones 13:44, 24, February 2012 (UTC)

"Things you've heard of" and rumors are most certainly not encyclopedic. Is there a reliable source stating the information? Salvidrim! 18:50, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh for crying out loud. Stickers DO appear in gameplay. NINTENDO has videos on it. IT HAS BEEN PROVEN. I CAN PROVIDE LINKS IF YOU WANT. IT IS NOT A RUMOR. Please fix this. 67.174.105.246 (talk) 18:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
A sticker shop appears here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4OHZXdtavE 67.174.105.246 (talk) 18:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Videos/trailers cannot be used as sources, as they are often ambiguous and lead to speculation, which is not allowed. What may be appear "proven" or obvious to you may not make sense to an average person watching the video by itself. If any of Nintendo's trailers actually stated in plain English that the stickers are used as power-ups, then it could be considered a valid citation. Otherwise you need a reliable source that explicitly states the fact. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 18:42, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Oh yeah Mario GRABS A STICKER AND USES IT AS A POWERUP BUT IT'S NOT "PROVEN" THAT IT'S A POWERUP?! WHAT SORCERY IS THIS?! 67.174.105.246 (talk) 18:44, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
To clarify my rage: Mario grabs a sticker of a boot and doublejumps on enemies.
He grabs a sticker of scissors and cuts up enemies.
HOW THE DAIRY COW IS THIS NOT PROVEN?! 67.174.105.246 (talk) 18:46, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Did Nintendo actually say these things or did you only deduct them from only watching the video? That's original research. You can't assume that everyone else will come to the same conclusion. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 18:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Thomas is absolutely right. Wait until Nintendo officially announces it. Read WP:VERIFY or WP:OR if you don't believe us. Also, youtube can't be used for a source, as it violates WP:SPS. Sergecross73 msg me  19:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Nintendo won't announce it until the bloody game comes out! 67.174.105.246 (talk) 19:29, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
So be it. It's better to have information that comes from the source than from those who are nowhere involved with it. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 19:46, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
So... the video is nowhere involved with Nintendo? Because it's a Nintendo video, you know. 67.174.105.246 (talk) 04:45, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Of course the video's involved with Nintendo. The person claiming what's going on in the video is not. See the difference? --ThomasO1989 (talk) 04:52, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
""The person"?! Talking about me to me? Really? Anyway, tell me what you think Mario's grabbing if it's not a sticker. Here's a description: Mario peels a piece of paper off of a sheet of paper. The piece of paper then sticks to the background, and peels off when you use it up. After a while, it flies off, and is officially used up. TrollGlaDOS (talk) 06:55, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Well, if it's so obvious, you should have no problem finding a source to back it up. Sergecross73 msg me  12:53, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Sources: Super Mario Wiki, multiple Nintendo videos, IGN, E3, etc. TrollGlaDOS (talk) 00:04, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
I've removed the information from the article because it did not include an in-line reliable source. Please review our policy on verifiability. Salvidrim! 00:08, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Rightfully so, as Mario Wiki is not a reliable source, and none of the IGN and other sources specifically call them stickers. Sergecross73 msg me  01:47, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Told you so. TrollGlaDOS (talk) 06:06, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

At the time, it was unconfirmed, and you or anyone else failed to provide proof otherwise. Now, it's been confirmed, and the article has been adjusted according. Everything was handled correctly. Sergecross73 msg me  16:25, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I see no source, but I'm assuming this was announced at the E3? Salvidrim! 17:15, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it was. Sergecross73 msg me  17:15, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Why has it got BBFC Rateing it should be pegi A Candela (talk) 23:56, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Should probably go somewhere into Development Section that Shigeru Miyamoto interfered constantly in the game's development. Sources: http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/11/29/paper-mario-vs-nintendos-shigeru-miyamoto and http://www.kotaku.com.au/2012/12/miyamoto-convinced-the-paper-mario-sticker-star-people-to-ditch-the-story/ --68.6.182.39 (talk) 06:52, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, I think using terms like "executive meddling" and "interferred" doesn't quite comply with keeping a neutral point of view, the sources/information would be good to add to the article, yes. Sergecross73 msg me  13:22, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to use the European cover instead since it's almost identical to the original Japanese cover (minor differences) and therefore more faithful to its original feel and mood than the American counterpart which is completely changed? See this comparison for reference: http://i.imgur.com/h7O64bP.jpg GonbeFAN (talk) 09:23, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Somehow the description I added to the change I did got cut off, so I'm pasting it here:
'Changed to European cover because of it being way more faithful to the Japanese cover art, and this being a Japanese game. ( to compare : http://i.imgur.com/36zPoRe.jpg ) The American cover art probably was changed because of NOA thinking it'd fit better for the American market. While the Japanese and European covers are better representations of what its original Japanese creators intended. (Case in point: Kirby) I already made a comment on the talk page over two weeks ago, but nobody replied yet. If anyone has any objections to this change, please put it on the corresponding article's talk page first so it can be discussed properly instead of having an edit war.' GonbeFAN (talk) 22:18, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

"NOA thinks [the existing one] is better for the American market" is completely unfounded and is not a good reason to change to a different box art. "European box art is more faithful" is way too subjective. Per WP:STOPCHANGINGIT, there's no need to replace the existing one, as it is already high quality and serves the exact same purpose in the context of the article. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 17:04, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Dear Sergecross73,
This game according to the article is an RPG, but according to Gamespot and IGN Sticker Star is either an RPG or an Adventure game, respectively. These two sources conflict with each other into what to make of this game. Here's why:

•The battle system rewards no XP after any battle, even though the battle are turn-based to some extent. No rewards except stickers come out of the enemies, therefore no incentive to battle.
•No XP means no level ups. The only way to actually level up is to find +5 heart containers, contrary to the RPG formula.
•Exploration and puzzles are necessary to complete the came, like in an RPG. However, an Action/Adventure game has this too.
•A Zelda game, an action-adventure series, is comparable to this, except the turn-based combat. That's how the game plays out.
•No stats, like in a Zelda game, but unlike a true RPG.
Here are the reasons this game should be labeled an Adventure game. Please take them into consideration. If not there has to be a reason why, but I can't comprehend it right now.

Sincerely, FDJK001 (talk) 21:08, 30 May 2015 (UTC).
Hi there, FDJK001. What makes you want to convince me of this? Looking at the page history, I don't think I've edited this article in over 2 years, and I don't recall having any opposition to labeling this an adventure game. I mean, we should label it whatever reliable sources are calling it. As long as there's a source like GameSpot or IGN calling it adventure, I have no problem with adding it. I think removing RPG altogether is something people would probably keep on adding to the article, because it does have some attributes of an RPG (turn based battles) and the other games in the series were RPGs, but I won't stand in your way if you want to take on that uphill battle. Sergecross73 msg me 22:28, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
My apologies, Sergecross73, I meant to call your attention considering barely anybody actually reads these talks; usually I call the last administrator that comments on the talks. I myself haven't been in this page for two years. No offense intended.
It's just that this game does have some role-playing elements, but so does Metroid because of its exploration and its necessary upgrades but common sense tells us it just isn't a role-playing game by formulaic definition.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by FDJK001 (talk • contribs) 08:06, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Its no problem, I was just surprised to be tagged on this, that's all. But yes, I understand what you're saying, and agree, and so do sources. "Adventure" would be fine, though I think "Adventure, role-playing" would probably be the option that would lead to less conflict in the future. Its your call. Sergecross73 msg me 14:15, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

The reception section seems a bit disproportionately positive. And yeah critic response was positive enough, but among fans of the Paper Mario games, I've noticed Sticker Star is almost unanimously disliked. Enough so that the reaction to Color Splash was primarily negative (which is mentioned in its article.) Should there maybe be a sub-section for fan reception or even just a little blurb at the end of the reception section? I don't really edit Wikipedia much or anything but it just felt weird that the article didn't mention anything about that hahaha

We don't talk about reception by fans unless reliable sources talk about reception by fans. Reach Out to the Truth 04:32, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Paper Mario: Sticker Star. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120610061437/http://www.screwattack.com/news/paper-mario-sticker-star-plans-be-star-highlight to http://www.screwattack.com/news/paper-mario-sticker-star-plans-be-star-highlight
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120621082703/http://www.toonaripost.com/2012/06/entertainment/nintendo-all-access-3ds-software-showcase-overview/ to http://www.toonaripost.com/2012/06/entertainment/nintendo-all-access-3ds-software-showcase-overview/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:47, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

 A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Kersti. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 13#Kersti until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Captain Galaxy (talk) 16:55, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Paper Mario: Sticker Star/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 22:19, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I hope to get to this before Christmas Eve. ♦ jaguar 22:19, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Lead
"published by Nintendo for the Nintendo 3DS console" - including 'console' here seems superfluous, I'd remove it
 Done.
"which is heavily incorporated into its gameplay mechanics" - link game mechanics for those unfamiliar
 Done.
"The game received generally favorable reviews." - this needs to be expanded upon. The lead must summarise the article—a short summary of what critics liked and disliked about the game would be apt. I usually style something like: The game received generally favourable reviews; critics enjoyed x, though some noted/disliked x...
 Done. I remember I was gonna wait until I made the reception section to write this, and never did, I guess.
Gameplay
"The player has limited inventory space, and larger stickers take up more room" - I think this might read better as The player has limited inventory space, with larger stickers taking up more room
 Done.
Development
"Additionally, the developers were asked by Miyamoto" - this is the first time Miyamoto has been mentioned in the article's body, a casual reader might have glanced over his introduction in the lead or not know who he is generally. I would link Shigeru Miyamoto
 Done.
"...asked by Miyamoto to, "As much as possible, complete [the game] with only characters from the Super Mario world."" - this could be paraphrased to improve flow: asked by Miyamoto to complete the game only using characters from the Super Mario world "as much as possible". or something similar
 Done.
"Producer Kensuke Tanabe furthered on how only one percent of players" - 'furthered' isn't a good choice of word here. 'Further explained' or 'elaborated' would be better
 Done.
Reception
I'm noting the slight lack of coverage in the reception section. The table includes many good reviews like IGN and ONM, though most reviewers' opinions aren't included in the text. While its level of depth is acceptable for GA, I would still recommend fleshing it out somewhat and making use of the good sources you have. A comprehensive reception section is a must for FA.
I'll get to this soon, as I'm gonna be busy for a while. Hopefully in the next two days.
Overall this is a well-written and solid article. I couldn't find many issues with it prose-wise and the sources all check out. My only concern is the barebones reception, though for GA it is acceptable. Still it would of course benefit from a slight expansion. I know you're busy with a FAC and another GAN at the moment, so no rush getting to this one. I'll leave this  On hold. Good work! ♦ jaguar 11:38, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Jaguar, I don't have any intentions to go on with a FAC for this article, but I did flesh out the reception a bit more. I also addressed your other concerns. Happy holidays! Le Panini [🥪] 06:15, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
Thank you Le Panini. This is a very solid GA now, definitely meeting the criteria. Good work, happy holidays to you too!  ♦ jaguar 16:21, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Is there anything we can do (within the rules of Wikipedia) to make the description of this game's reception more accurate? In the grand scheme of things, this game absolutely did NOT receive favorable reception. Most people dislike this game, and those who do enjoy it are generally a small minority. It has been noted, still to this day, as the least favorable Paper Mario game and is still used to compare against the later improvements that Color Splash and Origami King made. Yet, the opening says the game received "Generally favorable reviews", and the majority of the Reception section talks about positive reviews.
I don't think it's fair to say generally favorable reviews if we're just looking and like ten or so big name corporate reviewers. Many poorly-received games get unusually high reception close to launch. Being this was the first new Paper Mario game in a while, and reviewers seeing it as "New" and a "Breath of Fresh Air" tends to taint the early reviews as unfairly positive. If you take a cursory look at something like Gamefaqs you'll see that the majority of player reviews are negative. It's fine to note the positive reviews the game has had, but I feel it's extremely misleading to keep referring to the game as having "Generally Favorable Reviews" when it simply hasn't. Shadow2 (talk) 01:10, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Shadow2, While you are correct in some aspects there are some things to keep in mind. For one, the "generally favorable reviews" description comes from Metacritic, a review aggregator. This averages out every critical score and declares how much they liked it based on a scale. "Generally favorable reviews" is about 75-85, anything above is "critically acclaimed". Secondly, the critical reception summarizes opinions that were common throughout multiple reviews. If two or three reviewers thought the same way about one thing then it's included in the text as a "reviewers thought this way" format; that's how I like to organize my reception writing, see here for a breakdown.

To start, what's currently in the article is, actually, mostly negative. The article covers (currently) four main points that were common among the reviews:
The sticker mechanic; in the paragraph covering these, some of the critics liked em' and some of the hated em'; "The introduction of stickers received mixed reception by critics".
Graphics and worldbuilding; positives all around. But let's be honest, all graphics are stunning nowadays.
Removal of RPG elements; nobody shuts up about how much this sucks.
Combat; standard combat was declared too easy and boss battles were declared too hard.

However, you are right about how longlasting reception goes unmentioned, and as the main editor of the article, I know that can be fixed. Let's fix it!

If you visit the Paper Mario series article, which incidentally I also wrote ( I'm the Wikis Paper Mario guy, that article does a much better job at explaining the game's later reception. There's a lot of sources I used there that you can pull from to write a good "Legacy" section over here. For example, Nintendo Life and iMore rank it as the worst game in the series, for example. USGamer bullies every game in the series except TTYD, too. That's the juicy stuff that you can find and include in this article. Now, I don't want to do this right now because I'm taking a break from this series for the time being (working on Super Mario Odyssey), so if you would like to improve the article by all means go ahead and make these improvements I suggested! Panini!🥪 12:38, 10 September 2021 (UTC)