# Talk:Super Metroid

This review is transcluded from Talk:Super Metroid/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
GA review (see here for criteria)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS): 
Would it not be possible to state, under gameplay, what type of game it is, i.e. a platform game, or what the game class is now called? If for some reason the image is not available, it makes it utterly impossible to know (it could easily have been an FPS, or instance, after the discription).
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars etc.: 

It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 
I will pass the article, and trust you to address my one concern posthumously. Hopefully this will save us both time and effort. Thanks you for yet another quality article. Arsenikk (talk) 21:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
I have marked the game as action-platform and used a reference. Gary King (talk) 21:53, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I notice the box art for the game lacks any rating at all, how then is it concluded that the game carries a K-A rating in the info box? Doesn't the game, like many SNES games, predate the ESRB rating system? I understand rereleases on the VC getting the E rating, that makes sense, but where is the K-A for the original coming from? In fact, a search of the ESRB's website reveals only the VC version, no rating is listed for the SNES one at all.76.226.200.238 (talk) 00:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The ESRB rating is given because of the Virtual Console re-release.  The game has not been changed in any way for its VC release, so technically the rating does stand for the SNES version and not a derivative. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 03:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
What? Sounds like original research to me. As stated above, the ESRB doesn't acknowledge a rating for the SNES version, and the box art has no rating, so I corrected the article. And by the way, the "Everyone" rating wasn't implemented until around 1998, four years after the game's release. -sesuPRIME 12:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
According to Nintendo's site, the version put up on VC is the original SNES version as it was released in 1994 (verify).  Doesn't that mean that the rating applies to the SNES version?  They did not release a different game on Virtual Console - it's a re-release of the same game.  (And of course the box art isn't going to show a rating - the ESRB didn't exist at the time the box art was made.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Well that just means that the 1994 game would have a rating of E, not necessarily that it would have one of K-A.  The latter is a foregone conclusion considering the two generally translate to each other, but foregone conclusions are still original research without an obvious citation. Arrowned (talk) 01:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

According to the link given (http://www.gamerankings.com/snes/588741-super-metroid/index.html), it is the 9th highest-rated game on Game Rankings. It has 96%, so I don't see how it could have jumped from position 19 to 9 from when the article was written, so here I am writing this comment waiting for someone else to agree before making any change! --BahaFura (talk) 23:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah you're right, I've changed it to reflect that. Either I typed it in wrong or some games that were ranked higher than this game were recent games, so they still had votes coming in and those new votes brought down their scores. Gary King (talk) 00:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Super Metroid Mother Brain tank.png
I don't think this image is representative of the gameplay in Super Metroid. The game is about exploration as well as action and while it defiantly shows the action it does not show the exploration (if you study this image too hard you notice that this particular image is missing a lot of the available pick-ups meaning that whoever took this just tried to get to the end of the game as soon as possible with no exploration). I understand that it may be difficult to find a suitable image that shows action and exploration. Maybe this one would be better placed in the plot section as it shows the story leading up to a climatic moment? yettie0711 (talk) 11:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I never thought about it, but I guess you have a point. How about this or this? I think the first one represents the game's ominous atmosphere very well and the second shows one of the many vertical tunnels the 2D series is known for. Alternatively, this screen from the end of the game shows a vertical tunnel and has all the items in place. Thoughts? -sesuPRIME 22:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Your image links don't work. Gary King (talk) 23:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Eek! I had to clear my browser's cache to see what you mean. Anyway, I've fixed the links. -sesuPRIME 04:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
The last one's the best, if you really want to replace. I like the current image primarily because it has Mother Brain, though, who is a crucial character in this game. Gary King (talk) 04:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, Mother Brain is already pictured once in the NES game's article and twice in Zero Mission's article, so it would be nice to be more variant in my opinion. -sesuPRIME 04:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't think we should be comparing to other articles. Most people who come to this article will only be reading this one and not related articles, so I think it's important to show the most relevant screenshots possible. Gary King (talk) 04:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I'd imagine a lot of readers will be jumping around to the various Metroid articles if they've looked up this one. Anyway, I think Yettie's concerns are legitimate. You say you like the third image best? Why not replace the Mother Brain image with that one and mention the heavy emphasis on exploration in the caption? -sesuPRIME 05:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Okay go ahead, I don't mind it. Ultimately, I usually don't feel too strongly about images one way or another, as long as they serve some purpose. Gary King (talk) 05:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I uploaded the image and was writing the caption when I realized it isn't of Samus exploring at all, it's of her getting the hell off of Zebes! -sesuPRIME 08:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for not adding another comment sooner. I think the image you are talking about is much better. It shows that Samus has explored the planet and is now racing to get out of there. In my opinion, it's showing that while the game is slow enough to be explored there are also fast-paced action moments with the small explosions. We could add a caption explaining something similar too.yettie0711 (talk) 14:26, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
(←) I'm gonna have to disagree with that. A screenshot of Samus exploring Zebes (i.e. running or jumping, but not in combat) with all the items collected would be ideal, as that is how vast majority of the game is spent. This website, however, doesn't appear to have what I'm looking for. -sesuPRIME 22:52, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps this article could have 2 pictures in it? One could show more of the action, while the other could focus on the exploration. That way, readers will have a more well-rounded mental image of what Super Metroid is like. Abodos (talk) 04:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Why is 480p and 480i mentioned for the resolution on Wii and SNES respectively?
The SNES original should be in 256x224 (240p NTSC),  and I'm almost positive that Virtual Console games default to the native resolution (even when the console is set to 480p rather than 480i), hence games will necessitate many HDTVs to be reset to display the different video mode. (or not work at all in th ecase of soem which can't work with 240p) I'm completely positive this is the case for several other VC games.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.245.22.252 (talk) 07:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC) 

Well, I'm not sure how it works elsewhere, but on my TV, any time a device changes its output resolution (like the Wii switching between 480i and 480p), the TV shows a message saying what the new input format is.  It never does that when I launch any Virtual Console game - the console stays in 480p the whole time.  The game's internal resolution is not inherently tied to the output resolution of the Wii - if the game's resolution is lower than the Wii's output, it's stretched to fit the screen, hence the blockiness.
One other clue that the Wii itself is still displaying at 480i or 480p is that you can hit the Home button to bring up the Wii's default "Reset // Wii Menu // Controller Options" display, which looks exactly the same on all VC games.  That menu is typically at a much higher resolution than the emulated game behind it.
The standards "480i" and "480p" did not exist (or at least were not called such) at the time Super Metroid was made, but the SNES hardware converts the 256x224 image in its frame buffer to a standard NTSC signal, causing a similar stretching/scaling effect to what the Wii does internally before sending its signal out.  Thus, the output format of the console is technically 480i, since that is the NTSC "standard-def" standard.  All NTSC output devices are required to conform to that standard - sending an image in a different format either requires special support for that format (in which case it would be labeled and marketed on the display), or it simply won't work and could cause damage to the display. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 10:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
That said, I think notes about the game's resolution are probably unnecessary, since the NTSC output signal is a standard, the resolution of the console itself is a property OF the console (the game doesn't change the console's frame buffer size or output format in any way), and the output formats of the Wii are independent of the game and are properties of the Wii hardware.  (And as with all VC games, at least in the NTSC region, the Wii doesn't switch from 480p to 480i, or vice versa, when starting a game - the only thing that usually changes is going from 16:9 to 4:3 aspect ratio.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 10:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm not positive about the Wii switchig modes (it most definitely switches from anamorphic 16:9 to 4:3 though, hence requiring the TV mode to be changed or have a stretched immige, unless you play your wii normally in 4:3). "240p" is kind of a tweak to nomal NTSC video (as 288p is for 50 Hz PAL), basicly displaying individual feild on top of eachother, rather than staggering every other field for an interlaced display, so both are still 60 Hz, it's just that with 240p, you've got one field per frame. It's very easy to see the difference on a Standard Definition CRT. 240p will have static horizontal lines with small gaps in between, 480i will have what look like jiggling or scrolling horizontal lines. As a side note, that's why multiplayer splitscreen in sonic 2 looks all squished, it uses the normal graphics, but in 480i, thus doubling the vertical resolution while maintaining horizintal resolution. (thus the game looks squished vertically -or stretched horizontally) The SNES was capable of interlaced display, but only in a couple graphics modes I think, but only 1 or 2 games used it.
I'm positive that VC games play in their original resolutions, at least when the wii is set to 480i. It's clearly visible on a Standard Definition CRT. (which are oly capable of displaying 480i or 240p -except PAL sets with 288p/576i 50Hz)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.245.19.37 (talk) 06:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
See, I would be VERY surprised if the Wii performed any switching on the physical display mode (other than possibly going from 480p to 576i in PAL - that was discussed on Talk:Virtual Console).  The games play in their original resolutions, yes, but the image produced by the emulated hardware is stored in the Wii's own frame buffer and sent out to the TV in the same way that the Wii OS and Wii-specific games are.  The "240p" image you're referring to is just a 240-pixel-high image stretched into a 480-pixel-high space, but the Wii itself doesn't change the nature of the signal it's sending out.
The Sonic 3 mode you're referring to uses a hardware trick that the Genesis was capable of to "compress" its normal image into an interlaced image with double the resolution.  This graphics mode was supported on numerous computers (the Commodore 128 and Amiga could both do it, and the Amiga and Genesis have some significant pieces of hardware in common).  Basically, all that's really going on there is a creative use of double-buffering and blitting to the screen, "racing the beam" as it were.
The behavior you described on a standard-def CRT is almost right: A typical "240p" system is still outputting 480i, but is either repeating the same image for the second field in any given update or is sending the next update to that field.  On an interlaced display, the difference in fields is subtle enough due to image persistence both on the screen and in the viewer's eye that you just see smooth animation.  But the same signal on a non-interlaced display will very clearly show what's going on, since it persists one field on the screen while updating the other.  Any animation that runs at 60 FPS will appear "striped" or "shredded" due to the de-interlacing going on.
In the Virtual Console discussion, I brought up Bomberman '93 as a good example of how the Wii behaves when running Virtual Console games, at least in NTSC.  The game has an intro sequence that involves the entire background shaking horizontally at 60 FPS.  If my Wii is set to display at 480i, my TV shows that sequence horribly shredded.  At 480p, the same sequence animates properly.  That to me says that the Wii's output doesn't change at all - all it does is translate the game's image into the Wii's own format.
It's important to note the difference between a frame buffer and output hardware.  All of the consoles emulated in Virtual Console have frame buffers, and internally those buffers contain the entire image that's meant to be sent to the screen.  The output hardware is responsible for reading that buffer and sending the relevant portions of it to the screen via the signal.  As such, the frame buffer doesn't have a concept of interlaced or progressive - interlaced or progressive scanning is done in the output circuit when it generates the signal.  (Obviously, a console can be programmed to fill the frame buffer in creative ways to deal with interlacing, like with the Sonic 3 example.)  In emulation, the frame buffer is read directly rather than being sent through an emulation of the console's output hardware.  (There's no reason to emulate the process of transmitting an NTSC signal into some sort of emulated display, which then just receives the signal and re-translates it again for the Wii.  All that would do is add overhead.)  So the Wii is then responsible for translating whatever image is in the buffer into something it can display, and that basically means expanding the image to fill the screen and sending it out along with whatever else the Wii is doing. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, are you making these comparisons on a proper SD CRT TV? Deinterlacing on HD sets will tend to butcher soem SD content (especially 240p), and yes, the "240p" mode is kind of a tweak to the 480i display. It most definitely is displayed as a proper "240p" immage on my SDTV (which obviously can't display 480p), and brining up the wii menue switches to a normal 480i screen (and anamorphic once again -as that's what my wii is set to). The compressed 480i mode in sonic 2 most definitely works properly as well. Interesting with your experiences with 480p mode, that would seem to imply that the wii definitely displays VC games in proper 480p and doesn't switch modes, that's good. (I havn;t had much chance to test 480p, the wii is kind of embedded in our entertaiment system currently, so not convienient to set up with a VGA monitor or HD set) (BTW, are you the same KSkunk as on Atariage?) — Kool Kitty89 — 14:35, 19 January 2010

I found that comment a little too conspicuous given the background check: Yokoi was credited only as "general manager" in the game, and also was not part of or mentioned in the most expansive developer interview which otherwise lists all of the main staff members. Looking further into it, the Gamasutra article that is referenced is an introduction to 20 games rather than an in-depth feature on Super Metroid, and the author even links to our Wikipedia article...the old revision of which lists Gunpei Yokoi, Yoshio Sakamoto, and Makoto Kanoh in the exact same order as in his article, all in the "designer" field of the infobox (back when we did not have individual fields for directors and producers yet). I think this is just a case of Wikipedia -> Gamasutra -> Wikipedia. Prime Blue (talk) 17:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

In the absence of other sales sources, VG Chartz cites ~570,000 copies sold for North America, ~710,000 copies sold for Japan, and only 120,000 copies sold in Europe.  This makes the claim that "the game sold poorly in Japan, but fared better in North America and Europe"  very suspicious.  The original citation for this claim is a Gamesradar article, but the article itself gives absolutely no sources for this information.  I realize that VG Chartz is not supposed to be used as a source on Wikipedia because they refuse to publish their own sources for sales figures, but I think a sales tracker such as them would be a more reliable source than any form of un-cited video game journalism, a field notorious for its spread of unchecked rumors.  If someone could obtain sales figures from something like NPD Group for North America and some other source for Japan that would be a lot better.  MathUDX (talk) 21:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any information on sales figures from NPD or Enterbrain on Google whatsoever. Gamesradar's "The History of Metroid" doesn't show the figures, but this is the best and reliable source we had in this article. -- Hounder4  (T) (C) 22:00, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Maybe the claim itself should be omitted for now then until a more reliable source on the subject can be found.  I don't see any reason to trust Gamesradar's claim more than VG Chartz's sales figures. MathUDX (talk) 22:10, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
The VG Chartz's sales figures is not trustable on WP. WP:VG/RS listed Gamesradar as a reliable source, many agree to that. Again, there's no evidence of sales data in reliable sources. Why is the article in need of sales figures? -- Hounder4  (T) (C) 22:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
VG Chartz is not trustable on Wikipedia from a technical standpoint, you've outlined that several times now.  But in terms common sense, of course actual figures are going to be more trustworthy than the Gamesradar source with zero sources of its own.  Please try to see it my way.  In a debate with anyone outside Wikipedia, there is absolutely no way the uncited Gamesradar source would stand up as proof that the game did better in North America (let alone Europe) than Japan when faced with VG Chartz's raw numbers.  I'd like to get to the truth of the matter here, and it's misleading to leave such an assertion on the article as long as the conflict between sources remains unresolved.  At the very least, the phrase should be changed to something along the lines of "according to Gamesradar..." and perhaps the conflicting source represented.  I'm trying to contact the author about his source in the meantime. MathUDX (talk) 01:06, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
VGChartz is unreliable. If another reliable source states a fact, then the fact is verifiable and is to be what the article reflects. Salvidrim! 17:01, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Gamesradar's claim is unverifiable without its own source to back it up. 174.45.176.7 (talk) 19:09, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
As per WP:VG/S, GamesRadar is a reliable source.  Whether you agree or not with the facts is irrelevant to the encycolpedia.  If you believe the GamesRadar is not a reliable source at all and should be removed, please open a discussion at the proper venue with your evidence showing GamesRadar alleged lack of reliability. Salvidrim! 19:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
So you're saying I should take Andy Robinson's claim that Super Metroid sold more copies in the West than Japan based completely on faith when tangible sales numbers exist which would state the opposite?  That doesn't sound like a commitment to factual accuracy to me.  Furthermore, the claim on the Wikipedia article attempts to extrapolate more information from the Gamesradar article than was actually stated: the only thing actually mentioned is that the game sold better in "the West" than Japan.  It does not make any specific mention of North America or Europe. 174.45.176.7 (talk) 19:48, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
I am saying facts put forward by a reliable source should be in a Wikipedia article. Facts put forward by sources which consensus has deemed not reliable shouldn't be.  I am not specifically arguing about this one fact; though I would agree that rephrasing "the West" as "NA & EU" may be a bit of extrapolation. Salvidrim! 20:06, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
VGChartz is not a reliable source and should not be used here on Wikipedia. Period. GamesRadar is a reliable source, and it should be used unless there's a valid reason why it shouldn't be. (And not because it doesn't compare well against VGChartz numbers. As in, another reliable sources says something that conflicts it, and we'd have a reason to believe that hypothetical other source to be more reliable.) Sergecross73 msg me  21:11, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
I agree in this case. If source 1 which has been deemed reliable by consensus says something and source 2 which has been deemed unreliable by consensus says the opposite the answer is not to disregard source 1 for source 2. Obviously, if other reliable sources can be found that corroborate what source 2 said that would be a different story but that has not happened here.--70.24.208.34 (talk) 23:42, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Gamesradar's piece seems to be more of a suposicion more than anything, Donkey Kong Country, the PlayStation and the Sega Saturn couldn't have caused the game's poor sales, all of them came out more than 8 months after the game, more than enough for it to have it's complete commercial run. Super Famicom games kept selling more than PlayStation and Saturn games until '97, the system was still in 1994. By the time the article came out it was well known that Metroid wasn't popular in Japan given the very poor sales of the Prime games, Fusion and Zero Mission so it's more like the writer just guessed rather.
I've seen Media Create's data and they say Super Metroid sold more than 500k units in Japan, it definetly didn't sell poorly there.
The comment about sales in Japan should be removed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.112.83.85 (talk) 04:29, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Recently, I encountered an IP editor who was trying to add that the game is "selling at least one million units" without providing a source that backs it up, He started this on 20 March 2014 and 25 August 2014. He did this again twice this month. Sergecross73 semi-protected the article afterwards because of this. The IP then responded in User talk:75.85.53.61, explaining about his edits. He says that the edit "he edit didn't need a source" because Player's Choice is based on player's reception, and it is "in the title of the [Player's Choice] label itself." Right, I kindly ask the following question: What's the point of adding this without the need of sources if it's in the label? As of now, no third party (reliable, at least) sources on sales for this game has been found. If there is something editors should go by, it's the sources; not someone who explicitly adds sales in their own research or looking on what's on the box (i.e. Player's Choice label). --  Hounder4 23:13, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. If what the IP is saying is true, then he should be able to provide a source backing it up, simple as that. It's how the website works. Sergecross73 msg me 14:40, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I feel that AGDQ (and maybe SGDQ, if it's relevant) should be covered. I mean I can't guarantee that there are enough reliable sources to cover it, but I mean, during AGDQ2015, people donated around $230,000 to cancer as a back-and-forth between two groups wanting to either save the animals or kill the animals, and I believe the donation incentive of saving/killing the animals has earned more than half a million since AGDQ has been going. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 06:57, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

That's the team credited as "Produced by" at the very end of the Super Metroid end credits. According to IGN, Deer Force was an ad-hoc developement team made of members of Intelligent System, and constituted specifically for creating Super Metroid. Should we credit them as "Developer", or at least mention the name somewhere in the article? Hell Pé (talk) 13:54, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, @Hell Pé. However, while IGN is considered a reliable source per WP:VG/S, the article on  Intelligent System (from which you provided) cannot be used in this article because it was contributed to by N-Sider. N-Sider is not considered a reliable source, as explained in both WP:VG/S#Unreliable sources and this archived message. If you see a text saying "Through a partnership with site www.n-sider.com" on certain IGN articles, then you'll know that N-Sider has contributed those articles and they should not be used as sources. – // Hounder4 // 22:09, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Notwithstanding the hidden warning, I've made a small expansion of the article's plot section, and re-worked/moved some story/gameplay related details of the article's subject.  The basic editing ideas I've introduced in a single edit are bulleted below for easy reference; I anticipate some natural pushback, hence this lengthy talk section.  I appreciate that an encyclopedia meant for general public use shouldn't have excessive detail/fan theories/etc in plot sections on fictional media, so I've created this talk section in parallel with a bold edit, for general discussion.  I think that the "imprinting" detail of the edit is very important to the game's story, the other elements less so, as explained below.

1) The large Metroid imprinted on Samus, a central plot element
It seems to me that this is a very important story element in the game, and the "imprinting" nature of the relationship between Samus and the "large Metroid" is a well-documented, verifiable detail (as done in the edit related to this talk section).  Thus, even if editors should disagree with the below lesser points, this is the one detail of the edit which I would most strongly defend as warranting inclusion in the article's plot section, per Wikipedia policy and good common sense.  It's also an opportunity to bluelink to the psychological/biological concept, for a reader's broader understanding of a given concept (imprinting) through a specific context (a noted video game).  This "imprinting" aspect is currently referred to in other Wikipedia Metroid-related articles such as this, and seems to me particularly important in the case of this game's story/plot.   Variants of the word itself, "imprinted/imprinting" occur in the citations I've (re)introduced/stressed at the appropriate spots, buttressing the point.

2) "Metroids" in general: a) energy-producing, b) more than one...
2a) The game's introduction mentions the "energy producing" abilities of a Metroid, which may benefit mankind.  At the game's climax, a Metroid is shown to heal Samus (thus confirming the scientists' findings, as I write).  I think that the above connections are sufficiently obvious and significant as in-game plot elements that they are both worth mentioning in the plot section, and don't necessarily need citation (though cites are almost always preferred as a general rule), per WP:VG/PLOT.
2b) The game itself explains that there is only one Metroid left, yet Samus fights several enemies at the end which are clearly Metroids (from which the "large" Metroid is differentiated).  So, I've introduced a clause indicating the "other" Metroids, leaving their method of procreation unspecified, because this is verifiable (game itself per above) and pertinent to story as related in the plot section's language (Samus fights Metroids then there's this OTHER BIG Metroid, which is different/special, why?  Because the imprinting, a central verifiable story element, 1), and so forth...)

3) Mention of "Hyper beam" as game's final weapon
Although illuminating philosophical discussion about the game's "Hyper Beam" and its relationship to the story has previously occurred on the article's talk page (which led to its inclusion in the plot section), I think this bit is too technical for the basic story/plot section, so I've moved it to a gameplay treatment elsewhere in the article.

4) Mention of Dachora/Etecoons "optional happy ending"
Likewise per above, the friendly characters are a minor detail and not central story elements.  So I thought it better to move their treatment to gameplay.

5) Super Metroid as "titular character"
This one has at least one supporting reference, in the sense that a game reviewer refers to the large Metroid as the "Super Metroid".  For this reason, I think the association warrants mention at least once somewhere in the article, even if not in the plot section.  On the other hand, I can see the other point of view which might find such language extraneous.  This one is more down to editorial taste, I suppose.

6) Ceres-the real planet?
The game's science station, presumably in the vicinity of Ceres, may refer to the real dwarf planet of our solar system, especially since it is described as being in an asteroid belt.  If it does, than it may be worth bluelinking same, but it isn't clear to me if the real location is meant, so I left this bit out and raise it here for discussion.  Are there any sources which indicate that the game's "Ceres" is the same thing as the real "Ceres", which would justify a bluelink? MinnesotanUser (talk) 06:24, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

There was alot of cut content from Super Metroid like the fact that Samus was originally gonna appear naked when she dies.
Can I include the fact that during Super Metroid's Development, Samus was originally going to appear naked and had a voice sample? GeekFreak98 (talk) 16:17, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

GeekFreak98, sure, if you have a reliable source for that info. Popcornfud (talk) 16:53, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

The redirect Torizo has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 1 § Torizo until a consensus is reached.  QuicoleJR (talk) 23:21, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

The redirect Golden Torizo has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 1 § Golden Torizo until a consensus is reached.  QuicoleJR (talk) 23:22, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Super Metroid and Castlevania: Symphony of the Night are known as the pioneers of the Metroidvania/search-action genre, but this game is only listed as an action-adventure title. Future games in the series such as Dread are listed under the genre as well as Symphony of the Night, so I was curious: should this game be listed under that genre as well or does the genre only apply to the subsequent games after the term was coined and made notable (in other words, post-SOTN)? Superhylia (talk) 03:06, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Given that even Castlevania II: Simon's Quest has Metroidvania in its Infobox, I am in favor for listing all Metroidvania-style Metroid games as Metroidvanias starting with at least Super. MonstoBusta2000 (talk) 03:36, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

There is a ton of stuff written into the Gameplay section that is more appropriate for a strategy guide, including detailed descriptions of every ability, how two beams are mutually exclusive, and how to achieve the "best" ending. Most of these details are not essential to understanding the overall game. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:26, 7 July 2025 (UTC)