Talk:Mario Party (video game)

message: may i suggest that something be added to the articel stating that unlike other games which are blamed for being formulaic like madden, Mario Party tends to provide more reason to own more than one version of the game (i.e. new boards, the frequent change up of features from game to game). in fact, my favoirite mario party game is mario party 3 and i remember people saying that 2 was better. 
Playwrite 13:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: innovation

message: That looks like a picture of Mario Party 3 to me.  —Casey J. Morris 03:30, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)
:Disregard.  I'm mistaken.  —Casey J. Morris 03:31, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)
:You know, I remember when the game first came out. I saw a picture of it in an ad, with the caption "Mario Party 3." (because of the die) I said to myself, "Pfft. Yeah. Like that'll ever happen." Guess I'm not psychic.  CrossEyed7 22:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture

message: I've been rotating the joystick just like how the article describes it, and it does cause blisters. Dashwarts 00:39, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought that section of the article was vandalism at first. I'd imagine rotating the stick like that would wear it out quickly.Some guy 05:54, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oddly enough, I remember when this happened to me. I was younger and it did leave a substantial blister. -Domovoi 18:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rotation controversy 

message: The article was a real mess, but I went through and tried to clean it up some. Description of the gameplay was sort of scattered around in the introduction, with no apparent logic. The tense was all over the place as well, and there was a dumb section at the end about the new features this brought to the Mario Pario series. I fixed those problems and went into a few basics about gameplay, but I haven't played the original in so long I can't remember many specifics, so somebody else should look into that more. Some guy 05:54, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup

message: Made some major changes to the gameplay section, and got rid of the embarasssing comment on Wario ("who the game is hopelessly rigged against") Also minor enough changes to other sections, just rewording to make it sound more professional. I put down the prices for minigames in the minigame house though I'm not 100% sure, if anyone could correct/confirm that'd be great. Things that still need to be done:
Descriptions of boards: This seemed like a good idea: Do we need a description of what each board entails, it's distinguishing features etc.
Descriptions of minigames: As it stands some have descriptions and some don't. Either we write descriptions for the rest of we get rid of the descriptions altogether. 
qeee1 22:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Further Cleaning done

message: What do you think is the possibility of getting this article up to good or featured status? I've done a lot of work on it and would like to see it there. I'm probably gonna apply in a while, but first what do you think still needs to be done?Qeee1 10:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite a bit of cleanup, but it could be done.Jgamekeeper 07:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Possibility of good/featured article status

message: So apparently the game is no longer "hopelessly rigged against [Wario]". It is still, however, just plain "rigged" against him. Is this vandalism, or am I just utterly oblivious to some sorta vindictive easter egg that makes Wario get bad rolls, or something? 85.65.116.80 17:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I say we remove it. I've noticed nothing against him and there aren't any sources stating otherwise. Jgamekeeper 06:30, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was the one who first removed it, but it's since been added again. I thought it was a joke, as I have never noticed anything to say the game was rigged against Wario. 159.134.255.50 16:22, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it done? When I played MP, Wario almost always on. I might've even said that "The game was rigged so that Wario would win everytime". But, of course, no.
GamePlayer623 01:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rigged against Wario? 

message: "It should be noted that some Mario Party games still receive critical acclaim. The GBA version of Mario Party was awarded with a decent rating, as well as a "Game of the Month" award on IGN.com."
This sentence is misleading. Really, IGN gave the game 6.0, which isn't really all that great, and they commented that it was a pretty weak game of the month. I'm removing that sentence. The Legend of Miyamoto 16:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mario Party Advance comment 

message: CROSSPOST
: Please see Talk:Mario Party 8#Request for comment: Lists of mini-games. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 11:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mario Party articles RFC 

message: This section is in some serious need of clean-up. 68.20.22.66 23:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  story 

message: :Image:Marioparty1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Marioparty1.jpg

message: :Image:Marioparty1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 05:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Marioparty1.jpg

message: Is it really necessary to mention characters that appear in future Mario Party games? Surely they should only be mentioned in relative articles. Tarkyn 24 04:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I'll get rid of that part now. AR Argon 06:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And apparantly it's already been done. AR Argon 06:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Characters

message: I just changed the boards lineup to one I made while not signed in, because the punctuation and grammar of the previous entries was unacceptable and sounded too much like an advertising. When all is said and done, Wikipedia provides information, not cliffhangers that entice you into being interested about something. It wasn't vandalism, and I'm not sure how anybody could think it was, apart from someone outright defending their own entries :( Jryfle (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 01:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boards 

message: The sources referenced in the article don't include any specific mention of a lawsuit against Nintendo. They only mention consumer complaints and a subsequent investigation by the office of the New York State Attorney General. A source should be found on such a lawsuit against Nintendo, or else the section might need to be renamed (the same section on the Mario Party series) article is named "Controversies").--gonzy (talk) 17:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Only in America could such a case even be considered for legal action. It would be like sueing the woodcutter for providing a dangerous product because little Johnny had decided to warm his toes by standing in the fire whilst telling mommy that his feet were slowly turning into carbon. Thankfully however, as stated in the Gamespot ref, sanity prevailed and "no case was actually filed"; hence no lawsuit. I therefore suggest simply renaming the section 'Controversies' as in the Mario Party article and removing the parents filing lawsuits statement and incorporating the Gamespot reference.1812ahill (talk) 03:31, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Rewrote section and renamed to 'controversies'.1812ahill (talk) 04:45, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lawsuit section: lawsuit? 

message: I am proposing to rename this Mario_Party and renaming Mario Party Mario_Party_(Series), as that is what is normally done when a series and the first videogame in that series share a name. Is that something possible? Salvidrim (talk) 00:47, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename Proposal 

message: I know that this is a very premature comment, but I would like to say that Mario Party 64 is not a good name for this game. Several decades from now, when the series continues to its 63rd game, the title can mean a fan-predicted sequel (or perhaps an official sequel if we continue only a little farther than implied by this statement.) Georgia guy (talk) 01:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: A search reveals no mention of Mario Party 64 in reliable sources. Fact removed.  Salvidrim! 01:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mario Party 64 

message: Noticed that this article doesn't have a development section. I'm unsure if there will is enough publicly available info that is citable from serious sources to add one that is comprehensive of the full game, and not just its music. That said, recently a few video game news sites have been covering how then freelance composer Yasunori Mitsuda made just about 200 Jazz tracks, which were declined and had to be scrapped after he was informed that the genre actually desired was Big band Jazz.https://www.nintendolife.com/news/2022/11/random-yasunori-mitsuda-reveals-almost-200-songs-were-scrapped-from-mario-partys-soundtrackhttps://nintendoeverything.com/mario-party-composer-says-nearly-200-songs-were-scrapped-from-the-soundtrack/ Mbrickn (talk) 17:41, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Development section 

message: The screenshot currently used in the article is in incorrect aspect ratio. AFAIK Mario Party 1 didn't have widescreen support. Mika1h (talk) 18:32, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Screenshot 

message: The redirect Doh I missed 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  until a consensus is reached.  Utopes (talk / cont) 20:22, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Doh I missed]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]