Talk:Super Mario Galaxy/Archive 5

message: A 4th archive was made, the page was 73 KB long. Feel free to ressurect any dissucssions on the archived page.→041744 01:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a lot of current discussions which were archived. I was going to put them back on the talk page, but I don't know what people exactly want. Drumpler (talk) 01:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If people want something they can dig it out themselves and copy that thread here, as with all talk pages and archives. JayKeaton (talk) 01:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does anyone object to adding MiszaBot functionality?  It's fairly easy to set up, and archiving tasks could be restricted to very old threads to ensure that active discussions aren't accidentally moved.  --jonny-mt(t)(c)I'm on editor review! 02:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Talk:Super Mario Galaxy/Archive 4| Archive 4]]

message: Is there any indication as to how many of the promotional coins Nintendo minted? Drumpler (talk) 02:30, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If there is is i couldn't find it. I doubt nintendo would post online. Besides that kind of iniformation does not really have a place in the article→041744 14:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is relevant. The coin was included with pre-orders of the game. It is very relevant. Drumpler (talk) 08:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Promotional Coin 

message: The statements in regards to Ocarina of Time are unnecessary bias, and in light of such statements OoT is at 98% while Galaxy is at 97%. I highly suggest you remove any mention of OoT and GameRanking rank as it leads to unnecessary misinformation. Which it is at this point since Galaxy is not higher than OoT in the percent.
OoT's page
http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages2/197771.asp
--HeaveTheClay (talk) 16:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's number two on both Game Rankings and Metacritic, contrary to the article. So remove that bit. --Jedravent (talk) 01:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutral Point of View problem 

message: Considering the fact that you can unlock Luigi has nothing to do with the actual storyline of the game, why exactly is it there?  He's just an unlockable: it's as silly as say, for example, putting "When you collect all 3 green stars you unlock the trial galaxies" in the plot section.  Yes, I know Luigi is a bit more important than the trial galaxies in terms of documentation but I still don't think it should be announced in the plot section. Jez MM (talk) 14:16, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is just a sentane (well 2)! Luigi needs to be noted in the article, he fits bet in the plot only other place would be gameplay but that is mainly for how the game all works.→041744 02:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Luigi in the plot section 

message: I am only curious because, since when we read that Super Mario 64 is the greatest launch game ever, and Twilight Princess 2nd, is it actually now that Super Mario Galaxy is now 2nd or perhaps first, because almost every review we read is them saying that Super Mario Galaxy is actually "the" greatest game ever made, and also said to be better then Twilight Princess also but from what I wanna get to is that is, Super Mario Galaxy now either the or the 2nd best launch game ever, because I would like to know if any of you guys have any information about that? 
From Milos Warrior"
:Super Mario Galaxy isn't a launch game, so no need to worry about that. -- POWERSLAVE 03:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Would this be true 

message: This plot summary is way too long for something that really doesn't need a detailed plot summary in the first place. I really think this could be narrowed down to a paragraph, at most. Reading this article shouldn't be a replacement for playing the game and finding out for one's self. Anyone else agree? --iTocapa t 21:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I initially just threw up a plot summary in the hopes that it would be whittled down over time to the bare essentials.  I would greatly appreciate it if someone did me the favor of gutting my work (although let's leave in the ending for the time being; there's already too much strife over that at WT:SPOILER). --jonny-mt(t)(c)I'm on editor review! 02:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If no one has gotten to your expaaaaaansive plot summary by tomorrowish or friday, I will tame it. (Nice to-do list by the way.) clicketyclickyaketyyak 08:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I did some quick run-through edits of the Plot section. It's hard to cut down because it's very well-written and so I don't want to take anything out! I think I saved a lot of space with edits to the Gameplay section though, so the article as a whole isn't too long. Cut down the Plot section by 11 lines. More? clicketyclickyaketyyak 17:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Condensing plot summary 

message: Thanks, I now know about the 121 stars in Galaxy.
Is it worth adding spoiler tags to the plot section?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by DogGunn (talk • contribs) 11:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (1)Wikipedia does not use spoiler tags (2)where it is obvios there will be spoilers (like the plot section). If you didn't want to get spoiled DON'T READ THE PLOT. (i might tell luigi is playable, but you would probaly disilike me with passion). So no spioler tags.→041744 13:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoiler Tags 

message: I just got the game today so I'm trying to avoid editing (and going beyond skimming) this article for now, but I noticed that the Star Bits are very likely based on konpeito, a type of Japanese confectionary. Right now I think this could be trivial, and possibly original research, but this may give more context on the game mechanic of using Star Bits. Does anyone with a Japanese version see what it has to say about it..? - Zero1328 Talk? 10:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They're referred to as スターピース ("star piece") in the Japanese version, and the in-game explanation is that they're , or "stardust".  Although you're definitely right about the resemblance, there's no mention in the Japanese version of the game (at least not that I found) indicating a solid connection, which means that unless you can find a verifiable source noting that the star pieces were designed to resemble konpeito, it's original research.  Good eye, though! --jonny-mt(t)(c)I'm on editor review! 13:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bits of in-game text imply the connection in the English version. It being a type of food is the most obvious, but there is also a Toad at the game intro mentioning the resemblance to candy, and a mention in the storybook saying that it tastes like honey. - Zero1328 Talk? 01:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

text: The Chronicle is indeed reliable, but we have to be sure this little tidbit isn't given undue weight.  If you're going to add it in, I would just suggest a small blurb somewhere mentioning it (ideally one tied to existing information about star pieces or what have you). --jonny-mt(t)(c)I'm on editor review! 15:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay, so I got a bit carried away when I added it in and did some pretty extensive editing to the article up to the Plot section. Hopefully, I added in the konpeito business in an unobtrusive way. I stuck it in the Environmental Mechanics section (like Zero was talking about) when mentioning the ability to feed Star Bits to Hungry Lumas. Is this what you had in mind? clicketyclickyaketyyak 16:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That looks fine by me. It's a fairly minor piece of info, so I think that's enough. - Zero1328 Talk? 01:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Konpeito 

message: The article claims that Mario can jump higher in low gravity. I think this is inaccurate, I don't remember any case where the gravity clearly had an effect on the height of a jump (if you landed on the same planet). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.243.150.56 (talk • contribs) 
(1) sign your comments with [~~~~]. (2) I belive that it ment that Mario could jump higher in this game than in SM64 and SMS, not becuase of the gravity, that's just how they designed it.→041744 15:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I just realized I've created another topic on this same thing, I'll leave it I guess. 041744 I don't think that is right. It says that it varies between objects. It makes no reference to SM64. Ergzay 07:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I never really noticed any change in jump height (though i could be wrong) on any object. I was stating that mario can jump higher in this game than the other to 3D games.→041744 13:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jump Height 

message: "Super Mario Galaxy features the most power-ups and transformations of any 3D Mario game to date."
Not by my count:
SMB3
1. Super Mushroom
2. Fire Flower
3. Raccoon Suit
4. Tanooki Suit
5. Frog Suit
6. Hammer Bro. Suit
7. Star
8. P-Wing
SMG
1. Life Shroom
2. Fire Flower
3. Bee Suit
4. Red Star/Flying Mario
5. Boo Suit
6. Spring Mushroom
7. Ice Flower
Did I miss anything? I didn't want to remove it myself, because it does have a citation. 153.42.168.174 03:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You missed the invincibility star in SMG, which brings the count to 8.  But you should also note that the passage you cited refers to 3D Mario games only (i.e. Super Mario 64, Super Mario Sunshine, and any derivatives), which means the cited statement is still correct. --jonny-mt(t)(c)I'm on editor review! 03:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that the article is correct as written despite the observation since Super Mario 3 was not a 3D game, and the article specifies that SMG has most power-ups of a 3D Mario game, which it does by virtue of having more effects than Mario 64 or Super Mario Sunshine. (64.198.88.126 (talk) 02:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most power-ups? 

message: "The varying degrees of gravity also have an effect on Mario's ability to jump as he jumps higher in low gravity, which is similar to Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door, and is used to pull Mario towards certain planetoids while in mid-flight." The article seems to claim that the gravity varies, which in my experience does not. All things pull equally and you can jump just as high on anything as anything else. Now because some objects are smaller you can begin to orbit them using a long jump or if there are multiple objects you can stay flying for a good 5 seconds or more by having yourself repeatedly grabbed by different objects, but there is no varying gravity. If no one says anything I'll be removing the references to gravity changes. Ergzay 07:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On some of the smaller planets and certainly on the black hole planets the gravity does indeed vary in degrees. JayKeaton 19:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Varrying Gravity 

message: In the plot section, it has the second-story about how Rosalina became the Luma's mother. It tells the entire story, and I find it quite annoying because it is like when you are trying to look up reviews for a book, and you accidentally come across a site that tells you the ending, and then reading the book is no fun. It is the exact same case here. Some people are looking around for SMG reviews, and they check this article, and the entire second-story is given away. I know some people would say, "Nobody would accidentally do that," but it does happen sometimes. It has happened to me once or twice, and I find it extremely irritating. I just think it should tell the beginning, but not the ending. Is it really necessary to tell people that Rosalina's mother was actually telling Rosalina that she was dying, or that the comet that goes to Earth every hundred years is actually a Luma taking Princess Rosalina to see her mother's grave? I think shortening that section is a little change that will make the article much better, and it also shortens the plot section, which someone mentioned earlier. So, does anyone agree with me? Epass (talk) 00:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia has a sitewide disclaimer that specifically permits spoilers in the content.  That being said, the issue of handling those spoilers is undergoing fairly active discussion at WT:SPOILER, which you're more than welcome to join (be warned, though, it's a long and involved discussion).  As such, there is no current consensus for the censoring of spoilers in articles, so the best bet for avoiding them is simply to not read the "Plot" sections of articles on topics you don't want spoiled. --jonny-mt(t)(c)I'm on editor review! 01:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too Much About The Rosalina Second-Story 

message: I just read the plot section, and it says that Mario is blasted when trying to save Peach by Kamella, 'a female counterpart of Kamek, who has been confirmed as a boss in the game'. I'm pretty sure that's false, seeing as how 'Kamella's' article links back to Kamek's character section...Well, I mean, Kamella's mentioned there, too, but I don't see any actual proof that Kamek is replaced by a girl in this game. And isn't Kamek's female counterpart Kammy, anyway?
Okay, nevermind. I found proof that Kamella does exist, but she's definetley not the one who blasts Mario in the intro. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.86.240.248 (talk) 14:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, he appears as a boss twice (so far). If you need the galaxy names, I'll be glad to dig them up for you. --jonny-mt(t)(c)Tell me what you think! 00:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Because Nintendo hasn't said it was Kamek. The "Mario communities" opinion in this regard is of little importance and isn't a reliable source. (although I'd like to believe it is Kamek, personally ;)). Drumpler (talk) 14:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kamella?? (Revived Discussion) 

message: The current plot synopsis implies the Luma at the end of the extra ending is the one given to Luigi in the second story, but this seems to be purely speculation.  Think about it: the remains of the mushroom ship are on the gateway galaxy planet in the ending, yet not in Luigi's story, AND the Princess has already magically been captured again, along with all the power stars in Luigi's story.  I'm pretty sure Luigi's tale is supposed to simply be an "alternative" story rather than a new one.  The Luma in the extra ending is clearly Mario's one, and his appearence is simply to signify that he also survived the black hole ordeal. Jez MM (talk) 01:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Still, this is all speculation, not noteable is our own logic.→041744 22:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Luigi's Luma 

message: I am really finding it hard to get my head round the relatively low sales due to the fact that it's practically impossible to pick up a copy of the game in London (Amazon UK and Play are both sold out).  Was there a low print run of the game, low orders?  There must be something on this somewhere? Ajmayhew (talk) 10:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  UK Sales 

message: Putting aside one sentance that is taking up all our time I should also clarifiy to improve the reception section we should list what aspect certain reviewers liked as opposed to just "best mario/wii game". We still can include those but that would be part of a conclusion yet in most articles, the bulk is about differing aspects. This goes for both pros and cons. Stabby Joe (talk) 20:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are saying we put in something like "Many reveiwers feel the game was X" and then provide like 5 refs I would support that, just find sevral reliable rescources and corrosponding statements.→041744 22:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well in the best cases, it goes like this: "Upon release X recieved favourably/postive etc etc... Many reviewers completmented the gameplay with Y noting etc etc" and then there being like 1 or 2 different sources and multiple aspects in the same way, both pros and cons. Check Age of Mythology and Shadow of the Colossus for good examples. Stabby Joe (talk) 22:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reception expansion 

message: A 5th archive was made when the page was 51 KB long. Feel free to resurrect any discussions on the archived page. Wikipedian06 (talk) 06:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, one of the threads archived was just finished a few hours ago.  Unless there are any objections, I'm adding MiszaBot functionality for automatic archiving of threads older than 15 days so we can avoid this in the future. --jonny-mt 06:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that there have been no objections, I've added MiszaBot functionality for automatic archiving.  Old talk threads will now be archived 15 days after the last comment has been made--the format for the new archive pages is "Archive for [Month] [Year]" --jonny-mt 11:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Talk:Super Mario Galaxy/Archive 5| Archive 5]] 

message: This game has been out for a month and I still see a rating of RP. It's really not that important to the article but some one needs to put the finished box art with the rating on it on the page. I'd do it myself but im no good with computers, hell I don't even know if im signing this proproly.Zabbethx (talk) 15:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 35px Done. clicketyclickyaketyyak 17:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Pic 

message: "Some obstacles, when halted long enough by the second player, are automatically destroyed"
I used to think this, until I realized that the obstacles weren't being automatically destroyed, they were destroyed only when another (moving) obstacle or enemy crashed into them (which often releases a LOT of star bits). I play as 2nd player quite often with my wife as Mario, and I can't recall experiencing a situation where one was automatically destroyed without being crashed into, like this claims.
Corfe83 (talk) 00:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  My younger brother and I are always switching to each other's files and helping each other out, whoever's file it wasn't would be 2P and would hold enemies off and collect star bits while P1 would ficus on the game.  And no matter how long either of us would hold the enemy, it wouldn't be destroyed unless 1) P1 destroyed it, or 2) Something else destroyed it.--Shroopliss T/C\U 03:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

text: The sentence looks fine to me :)--Shroopliss T/C\U 20:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible Error? 

message: In the article, the cover of SMG is shown with Mario sailing through space with planetoids below him. But the version I know has Mario doing a flip on the cover. Which cover is the proper cover? And if they are both, why is only the first one shown in the article? Personally, I think you should state which cover it is, and tell about the alternate cover somewhere in the article. Thanks, Epass (talk) 14:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The one shown is the proper cover--as for the other cover, my Japanese version of the game uses that as the cover for the instruction manual. --jonny-mt 15:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The covers are very simular and by wiki standards we should post the one relevent to its origin... HOWEVER being it from Japan, we need English instead so the one we have now is fine. In other cases however games made in Canada or the UK should have the Canadian or British covers, just like certain methods of spelling are applied to these topics. Stabby Joe (talk) 14:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two Covers? 

message: Is there any link that lists every award SMG has got? Like their official site? Because the table is already to big and doesn't look particularly presentable or organised. Of course it will after the reception text has been expanded but the table is fine at this point. We've listed pretty much the basic important sources. If you look at the page for Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, you'll see it has a link for its awards because of course you can't list everyone is gets on a single page, let alone table. The refference can go by the statments about GotY awards in the intro. Stabby Joe (talk) 15:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Awards link? 

message: So around January 3 I went and removed some false information about a supposed cooperative mode you apparently unlock when beating the game with 120 stars using both characters. This doesn't happen, and the cooperative mode is never locked to begin with. This was reverted pretty quickly with a comment accusing me of "vandalism". Now, of course, the information is gone (because it's false, and it's no more or less false than when I removed it the first time) Why, then, was it "vandalism" when I removed it? Are only certain users allowed to correct inaccuracies on this page? 71.179.249.210 (talk) 00:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Co-Op Mode? 

message: The UR MR GAY meme will die eventually like every other. It is not notable, just an excuse for childish laughs. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 06:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a "meme."  It's something that's evident on the cover, although apparently it won't last; if Nintendo holds true to their threats to reprint the cover without the "sparkles," then it will surely become notable information.  For right now, though, I don't think it's quite notable enough to be relevant to the publication of the game.  I can see how it's right on the line, though - lots of places have picked up the revelation of what the stars spell out.  --Bishop2 (talk) 22:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I think all three of you are right: it is a meme, it won't last, and it is a coincidence. Unless anything else happens, we should just let it go.--CM (talk) 03:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

text: You don't realize it, but by talking about it, we are making it a meme. By mentioning it, arguing about it, and discussing it, we pass on the fad and spread it. By denying its existence, we are validating it, hence a meme. That's why we should just drop it.--CM (talk) 03:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't realise it, but denying somethings existence does not make it a meme, it's certainly not how Dawkins defined a meme anyhow. Nor does dropping it make it go away. It is a part of history now and I believe it should be mentioned in the encyclopaedia. Coincidence or not, meme or not, it is there. I'm not really understanding the defensive stance that is being applied here. Wikiqueenwiki (talk) 00:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The naming of the Wii has been shown to have some significant controversy; this has not. Noone here has yet provided any evidence that Nintendo has even acknowledged this, nor that this has had any affect on things such as sales or overall opinions of the game. As you indicated when you added the information, this is trivia. There is no plausible context in which this information can be presented as important. See WP:TRIVIA and WP:HTRIV for more information. Dancter (talk) 03:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough, point well made.Wikiqueenwiki (talk) 09:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Look, here's how it works. When the new cover comes out, add to the article "The cover of the game was changed due to an inadvertently humorous grouping of stars that singled out the letters "UR MR GAY" " 
Lots of other articles have it JUST LIKE THAT for their packaging mistakes or naughty slipups. That the cover is changed MAKES it notable. Things-happening is as important as people-talking.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.122.63.142 (talk) 21:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Does anybody bloody read anymore?  Barring reliable sources showing genuine attention by Nintendo, this, like SIHULM to its list, can't be placed in the article.  Further, a cover reissue can be for any number of reasons; we cannot assume (iff it gets changed) that the cover was changed because of the sparkles. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 21:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  UR MR GAY meme discussion, continued 

message: I'm reading this conversation, and I am getting SIHULM Sickness all over again.  So, I am simply going to reiterate what I have said in regard to that meme on Talk:List of Pokémon (241-260) - it applies just as well to this one. No reliable sources - Nobody, anon or registered, has appeared with reliable sources. [...]4chan, other wikis, Encyclopedia Dramatica, etc. are not reliable sources for Wikipedia because they are anonymous (making it impossible to trace a statement made there to its source), they do not engage in content reviewing to make sure only truth is in there, and items there are prone to rapid change. -Quote from Talk:List of Pokémon (241-260)/Archive01#SIHULM; originally posted by User:Jéské Couriano on Talk:LoP (241-260)at 6:53 PM 10/23/2007 (UTC) Show evidence that Nintendo has received and acknowledged information that it exists or that there is an actual controversy going on over this alleged message, or stop bringing it up, please. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 06:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Bloody heck

message: From the Plot section- "She then departs, although the Luma who traveled with Mario is shown to be alive and he is hiding in one of the Toads ships."
The luma is hiding in the young girl's ship, not the toads'.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 33LB (talk • contribs) 19:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot error? 

message: It's obvious that we don't want UR MR GAY in the article. There is clear consensus for that. But labeling any addition (even with a reference!) as vandalism and blocking those who repeatedly add it without telling them what they're doing wrong is rediculous. (This is probably the first time I've ever seen "vandalism" sourced.) Not everyone (especially IPs) reads the talk page. It may just be that they come to this article to learn about this particular bit of trivia, see it isn't mentioned, and decide to put it in themselves. Is it so bad to leave a note on their talk page or in the edit summary that there's consensus against it's inclusion and if they disagree, come discuss it? The blocked IP is irate and I can't say I blame them. Please tell me this isn't going to become the norm. I apoligize for ranting but this really got on my nerves. Bleeding Blue 00:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think they deserve what they're getting. I've seen too many posts on gaming message boards about the MR. GAY "subliminal message." Every one of them was made by a badly-disguised troll who quite clearly had the full intention of annoying people. I vote to continue the zero-tolerance policy. Wikipedian06 (talk) 06:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Insanity 

message: People are attempting to add in interpretation of what the ending means.  Please realize that unless this can be cited through a reliable source, discussion of the various interpretation of the endings is considered original research and must not be included. --MASEM 23:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The plot is way too long the way you want it. Mario 3D games aren't known for their plot, but their innovative gameplay. That's why it got trimmed down to one paragraph. For examples, see Super Mario Sunshine#Story and Super Mario 64#Story, and please don't bring the original plot back. The Prince (talk) 13:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

text: No, it's not. It's excessive, and we need to follow Wikipedias guidelines (WP:PLOT). If you continue reverting, I'll get an admin to block you. Please cooperate. The Prince (talk) 15:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

text: The whole Rosalina/Luma side-story is not of interest to the main story. What Rosalina did as a child is not relevant to Mario saving the princess, or any of the game play for that matter. Afterall, several reviewers thought that subplot was out of place to begin with. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 16:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot description of ending 

message: The "new" version of the plot section is terrible and has no detail. It sounds like something that Nintendo would put on the back of the box of the game. I'm reverting to back to the old version. Knowitall (talk) 13:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See #Plot description of ending for my reason. The Prince (talk) 13:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

text: The plot section is meant for telling the basic story of the game, not transliterating every event that occurs (i.e. Mario must play hide and seek with the rabbits; the scene cuts to Mario, Peach, and Bowser). If the basic idea can be told so that a person unknowing of the game can understand it, then a completely detailed synopsis is unneeded. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 15:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's right. Games like FFVII and FFX are known for having a detailed plot, and therefore they have bigger plot sections. It's as simple as that. The Prince (talk) 15:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we at least say how it ends and stuff, instead of it being like a "Back of the game box" description? It seems so lazy this way, like its a newly created aricle and it still needs to be expanded. Why is Wikipedia so insistent on REMOVING information recently? Anyway, make it like the Sunshine story section (with another quick paragraph discussing what actually happens in the game) and I can accept that. I cannot however accept a teaser paragraph that does not even say how the game ends or what happens at any point beyond the very beginning of the game. Knowitall (talk) 22:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

text: It was too long, so I reverted your edits. Please attemt to keep it concise. The Prince (talk) 12:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree. Nice work on the gameplay section as well, Thomas. The Prince (talk) 19:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good work Thomas, I like the new plot section and good work with the gameplay section. Knowitall (talk) 21:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who keeps deleting the plot? 

message: Seeing the vandalism on this article, should we consider asking for protection of this article? Moccamonster (talk) 20:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good idea. I'm getting tired of reverting all these IP addresses. The Prince (talk) 21:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection? 

message: Should the article talk about how this game has caused nausea in some players?
http://us.wii.com/iwata_asks_vol1_page2.jsp
http://episteme.arstechnica.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/174096756/m/987007468831/p/3
http://forums.gametrailers.com/showthread.php?t=245668&page=4  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.244.234.39 (talk) 22:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nah, not notable enough. The last two links are forums, which can't be used as sources. The Prince (talk) 23:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And besides, it's either a joke (which i think it is) in the first link or personal issues like in the latter two. Moccamonster (talk) 17:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nausea? 

message: === Won ===
* Amazon.com  (merchant; not really notable)
* Edge 
* GAME (UK) (merchant)
* (GameFAQs) (readers' poll; doesn't really matter)
* Gamespot 
* Gametrailers 
* IGN 
* Kotaku 
* Nextgen 
* Nintendo Power 
* PALGN 
* Yahoo! Games 
=== Didn't Win ===
* 1UP.com (Bioshock) 
* EGM (Bioshock)
* Eurogamer (Portal) 
* Gamepro (Call of Duty 4)
* Game Informer (Call of Duty 4)
* Game Developers Choice Awards (Portal/Orange Box) 
* Interactive Achievement Awards (Call of Duty 4) 
* Spike TV (Halo 3)
* X-Play (Bioshock) 
* TOTALS: CoD4-3; Bioshock-3; OB/Portal-2; Halo 3-1
Wikipedian06 (talk) 04:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We can't list all of them, the more notable sites like IGN, GameSpot etc are already there so we shouldn't have much of a problem. What we need is a link that has all it won like Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion. Nor is it worth mentioning what it didn't win or hasn't been mentioned yet... Stabby Joe (talk) 15:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I posted this purely for information because someone else had been wondering. I agree that only the big ones should be mentioned in the article, though none of these are exactly trivial, either. Wikipedian06 (talk) 08:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a link with most, if not all of them? Because that way we can post it next to the statments that say it won awards. No way in hell can we mention al the above, just like we don't mention all the reviews. Plus, an award from Nintendo Power wouldn't be game of the year since they arelimited to one company, mor elike Nintendo game of the year. Stabby Joe (talk) 15:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This list makes it rather clear that it has won the most GOTY awards. I'm adding the line "The game has received extremely positive reviews from the gaming press and won more game of the year awards than any other 2007 release." back into the article. Knowitall (talk) 23:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You can add that up but we will need a citation that does list them all. Alot of the time its on their offical site. Stabby Joe (talk) 13:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't need a citation that lists them all if we have links to all of the individual GOTY awards it has won. It has clearly won more GOTY awards then any game this year. Knowitall (talk) 22:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, I can get several citations but they're all blogs I think. Knowitall (talk) 22:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, my point is we don't list them all. If we do it will take up way to much space and will make the page unpresentable. Every page I've come across always does this but ends up mentioning the awards from the most notable sources with a link for all of them, we can't mention everyone. Its not hard, most of the time you can find its official game or publisher's website. I don't know why you're making a fuss over something so reasonable that other game articles do. Stabby Joe (talk) 00:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't find a page listing that though, besides blogs. If we know that it has won the most GOTY awards, why do we need a source? Also, this is the best thing I could find.  Knowitall (talk) 03:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be better for a link because it its such a bold claim and only people here who are most likely SMG fans know how many it won but everyone else will be skeptical because theres no way we can list them all... we know how many it won but this article isn't for us if you get my point. But I've just thought of something, first off do these blogs have links of their own? And secondly awards season isn't over yet so maybe we can get something after?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stabby Joe (talk • contribs) 14:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Game of the Year]] Roundup 

message: * 1UP.com (Bioshock) 
* EGM (Bioshock)
* Eurogamer (Portal) 
* Gamepro (Call of Duty 4)
* Game Informer (Call of Duty 4)
* Game Developers Choice Awards (Portal/Orange Box) 
* Interactive Achievement Awards (Call of Duty 4) 
* Spike TV (Halo 3)
* X-Play (Bioshock) 
* TOTALS: CoD4-3; Bioshock-3; OB/Portal-2; Halo 3-1
Wikipedian06 (talk) 04:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Didn't Win 

message: :We can't list all of them, the more notable sites like IGN, GameSpot etc are already there so we shouldn't have much of a problem. What we need is a link that has all it won like Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion. Nor is it worth mentioning what it didn't win or hasn't been mentioned yet... Stabby Joe (talk) 15:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I posted this purely for information because someone else had been wondering. I agree that only the big ones should be mentioned in the article, though none of these are exactly trivial, either. Wikipedian06 (talk) 08:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a link with most, if not all of them? Because that way we can post it next to the statments that say it won awards. No way in hell can we mention al the above, just like we don't mention all the reviews. Plus, an award from Nintendo Power wouldn't be game of the year since they arelimited to one company, mor elike Nintendo game of the year. Stabby Joe (talk) 15:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This list makes it rather clear that it has won the most GOTY awards. I'm adding the line "The game has received extremely positive reviews from the gaming press and won more game of the year awards than any other 2007 release." back into the article. Knowitall (talk) 23:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You can add that up but we will need a citation that does list them all. Alot of the time its on their offical site. Stabby Joe (talk) 13:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't need a citation that lists them all if we have links to all of the individual GOTY awards it has won. It has clearly won more GOTY awards then any game this year. Knowitall (talk) 22:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, I can get several citations but they're all blogs I think. Knowitall (talk) 22:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, my point is we don't list them all. If we do it will take up way to much space and will make the page unpresentable. Every page I've come across always does this but ends up mentioning the awards from the most notable sources with a link for all of them, we can't mention everyone. Its not hard, most of the time you can find its official game or publisher's website. I don't know why you're making a fuss over something so reasonable that other game articles do. Stabby Joe (talk) 00:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't find a page listing that though, besides blogs. If we know that it has won the most GOTY awards, why do we need a source? Also, this is the best thing I could find.  Knowitall (talk) 03:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be better for a link because it its such a bold claim and only people here who are most likely SMG fans know how many it won but everyone else will be skeptical because theres no way we can list them all... we know how many it won but this article isn't for us if you get my point. But I've just thought of something, first off do these blogs have links of their own? And secondly awards season isn't over yet so maybe we can get something after?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stabby Joe (talk • contribs) 14:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion 

message: The Development section is extremely sparse, as it mostly covers the release date log of the game, rather than the actual development itself. I suggest that more info regarding the ideas around the game should be added. Two things I can think of are how the spherical world concept originated in Super Mario 128, and how the first proto-type came to be-- Miyamoto trying out different versions of the game, commenting on how "spicy" or "delicious" different versions felt. The Iwata Asks interview goes into detail about the development very much, I suggest that this be a very good source of info for later edits. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 17:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Thomas. Why is it bad that the development section becomes long? That's what is needed; more real-world content, and less in-universe content. The Prince (talk) 17:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have any problem with long. I said "extremely long". With that, i mean like 2 pages covering the every bit of detail(and with that i mean EVERY bit). 86.88.117.225 (talk) 18:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Development Section 

message: "Nintendo's moustached mascot dethroned Ocarina of Time as the highest rated game of all time, averaging an astonishing 97.8 percent across 35 different review scores" Still though, that is only 35, I don't kno whow many critics rated OOT. Radiohumor (talk) 18:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's true. Mario Galaxy did surpass OoT at 31 reviews vs. 31 reviews (in fact, all the way up to 52 vs. 31), but due to alleged data manipulation by the GameRankings editor, this is no longer the case. Because of these concerns, we (the editors of WikiProject Video Games) have come to a consensus to stop citing rankings entirely. Wikipedian06 (talk) 02:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well actually it was just you who thought there was a conspiricy, DON'T try and pass off what was widely discredited as fact to users who don't know why. What we did agree on however is mention of rankings is considered BIASED in wiki pages. Stabby Joe (talk) 12:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  According to issue 234 of Gamepro, Super Mario Galaxy is the highest rated game in history 

message: There seems to be a disagreement on the number of Power Stars available in the game. I personally argue that the game offers 242 to collect, total. First Mario gets all 120 stars, and then Luigi gets all 120, making 240. Then, for each brother, a new star is opened, giving 242. I would consider Luigi's star collecting to be slightly different due to the increased difficulty. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 17:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Does the last star count for both brothers? In that case, it would be 242. Moccamonster (talk) 14:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is generally accepted that there are 121 stars that all can be gotten twice.→041744 03:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  242 Stars 

message: This article looks great, and the game has been out for a long time. I used to edit the article before it came out, and the article has come a long way since then. So, I nominated it for ga status. Epass (talk) 16:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That was inappropriate. The article still needs a lot of work on the development and reception sections. You should have discussed this first. The Prince (talk) 16:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The game has been out for over 3 months. All major problems have been addressed. It doesn't have to be super-mega-perfect, it's just GA, not FA. It isn't under heavy editing anymore, so if there is something that needs fixing, it should be fixed, not just talked about. Epass (talk) 17:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you read this you'll probably understand that it's not ready yet. The "Sales performance" section also needs to be trimmed. And why are you implying that GA doesn't need to fulfill certain criteria? Before the things I mentioned are improved, this article is not GA material. The Prince (talk) 17:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I meant that I don't think the article is good enough for FA, but it is for GA. I suggest you add a template to the sales performance section. If there had been a template I would have not nominated it. I will withdraw my nomination and add said template to the article if you would like. I don't enjoy being in arguments. Epass (talk) 17:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I added the two templates that I found describe the problem best. If anyone can find better ones, don't hesitate in changing them. Epass (talk) 18:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd approve it if the article didn't include guide content as it does. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is fine. I don't really see any game guide content in the article, at all. It's just information about the gameplay of the game, which is a good thing. Game guide content is "To get this star you must blah blah jump on the goomba blah blah" Knowitall (talk) 21:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "To get this end-game bonus, you must collect all of the stars". How many featured articles discuss end-game bonuses, and for the ones that do, how many have more notable ones than this? - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe I'm insane, but I think that's fine to say what the SECOND CHARACTER YOU CAN PLAY AS IN THE GAME IS. Perhaps you can remove how to unlock him, but I really don't see it as game guide content.  Knowitall (talk) 21:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a secret character, it's not like we're presenting two equal characters, like we would if we were writing of the original Super Mario Bros. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Maybe you could say Luigi becomes playable if certain conditions are met or something like that. I agree that Luigi should be mentioned somewhere. Epass (talk) 18:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Nom 

message: I know Zero Punctuation did a review on this game, but I wanted to see if it fit into your Reception section. People are divided on reviews being part of a Wiki, so I wanted to ask first. If you want to see the video prior to posting (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/editorials/2768-Zero-Punctuation-Super-Mario-Galaxy) If you think it will add to the Wiki, I'll be happy to set the link. JPalumbo (talk) 22:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we need more reviews since that part of the article is pretty messy, but i don't know what other people think of this. 217.166.85.2 (talk) 09:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say not to add it, as Zero Punctuation is by no means an official review; it's more a Windows Movie Maker version of It's the End of the World as We Know It (And I Feel Fine). -Jéské (v^_^v :L13 ½-Raichu Soulknife) 09:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zero Punctuation? 

message: Okay, let's discuss. What's your reason, besides "you cannot censor me" to add spoilers, as well as game guide content, to a section that the reader would have no expectation of any being in said section? - A Link to the Past (talk) 15:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please show me a guideline that backs up you statement. If you can't find one, it's just your opinion on how things should be done. And if you're saying that I was the one who said that quote, you're wrong. I said that "Wikipedia is not censored". There's a difference. The Prince (talk) 17:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So, fun idea, you know how Wikipedia also requires rationale? Well, see, since you don't provide rationale for making a spoiler in a section that never at any point implies that there will be a single spoiler in it, and since there's absolutely no rationale for even mentioning the spoiler, why can't I remove it? I actually provide an argument. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you read the article he linked? "On Wikipedia, however, it is generally expected that the subjects of our articles will be covered in detail. Therefore, Wikipedia carries no spoiler warnings except for the Content disclaimer." There, that will end this.→041744 03:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So basically, if I merge plot into gameplay, you cannot revert it, because that would be censorship. Don't link to guidelines and say "it may not be a good reason, but this is my reason! Read it plox". So, c/p the entry that explains why it's necessary to mention it in the article at all. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "On Wikipedia, however, it is generally expected that the subjects of our articles will be covered in detail." This good of an entry? Moccamonster (talk) 11:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a reason to include anything that can be said about Mario Galaxy, not this particular detail. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I have to agree with The Prince. Articles SHOULD include the full plot in detail. There are many reason for doing this. One reason would be that, for example, two friends are in an argument over an aspect of the game, for example, does bowser die? One should be able to go to wikipedia, and check that. Another reason, and probably a better one, is for research and hypothesis. If someone was to write a paper on the predictability of video game endings, they don't want to have to buy the game, play it, then figure out how to make it into a hard copy for their paper, they should just be able to go on Wikipedia, and look up the information they need. The storyline, ending, and other important details and plot SHOULD be included in the article, with an Spoiler disclaimer visible at the very top, of course. C. Pineda (クリス) (talk) 03:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoilers 

message: In the Music section, the quote "A normal MIDI style is used during the fight, but when Bowser becomes vulnerable, a chorus style of the song is used." is technically incorrect. it is not a "MIDI" style. 
i have ripped the streams from the mario disc and the boss music is actually two orchestral pieces which line up exactly, when the boss is vulnerable a choral piece is used. during normal gameplay the percussion score is used. the wii simply jumps to the same point in the different tracks to create the effect, but is isn't a 'midi' track which would imply the music was being generated by the wii's sound chip 'live'. it's just not true. i will make the edit if you want, but i thought i'd add it to the discussion incase anybody thinks it's vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.92.190.234 (talk • contribs) 
:Go ahead. It's a good thing you brought it up on the talk page first. The Prince (talk) 15:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, good arguments have been delivered, so as far as i can see there are no problems with changing it. 86.88.117.225 (talk) 20:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Since the album is Japan-exclusive, the tracks are translated directly from the original track names, thus retaining the transliterated Japanese names, like King Bone, so it should be kept as it is. Interestingly, when the English track names are attained online (at least through iTunes), it actually does provide the localized American name next to the Japanese one (e.g. "Ota King (King Kaliente)", "Boss Kamek (Boss Kamella)", and so forth), so the English track titles in the article are the official English titles to those tracks anyhow. I was lucky enough to get my hands on a copy so I can verify this. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 20:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, thank you. I'm a bit of a newbie, as you can see. 82.32.90.49 (talk) 10:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Speaking of the music section, is there really any need of including the platinum cover image? I think it's redundant as it's almost identical to the other one, and therefore doesn't really add anything to the article. Removing it will also get rid of the white space. The Prince (talk) 19:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Music 

message: Upon its review on March 23, 2008, this good article nomination was quick-failed because it:
contains cleanup banners including, but not limited to, , , , , etc, or large numbers of , , , or similar tags
thus making it ineligible for good article consideration.
This article did not receive a thorough review, and may not meet other parts of the good article criteria.   I encourage you to remedy this problem (and any others) and resubmit it for consideration.  If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to have it reassessed.  Thank you for your work so far.— Epass (talk) 11:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Be honest, this article has flaws, firstly a short reception. 17:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Failed "good article" nomination 

message: The Intro states SMG sold 5.19 million copies as of March, yet the Receptions section states 5.19M sold in 2007. Am i missing something or does this imply SMG hasn't sold a single copy in '08? :P  Darrek Attilla (talk) 10:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, never noticed that before... Anyone got a sales chart or something? Moccamonster Talk 15:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedian06 performed an incomplete revert. The figure is for 2007, as stated and referenced in the Reception section. Dancter (talk) 18:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mario Galaxy Sales 

message: Does this actually add anything to the article? Apologies to whoever wrote it but its not particularly well written and having characters assisting you in the game isn't really a significant part of the gameplay (certainly not on a par with the power-ups for instance). I'm sure Mario 64 and Sunshine had NPCs that helped you get star/shines, although I can't think of any examples right now. :)  Darrek Attilla (talk) 10:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not important, so i already deleted it. As you said, "helper characters" are normal in Super Mario games. Moccamonster Talk 16:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Helper Characters 

message: The article mentions this several times, for example in the second paragraph, it says "Levels take the form of Clusters of Planetiods (incorrectly labled Galaxies)while gameplay is updated with a variety of gravity effects and new power-ups."
Is this necessary? In the game, instruction booklet, etc they are constantly referred to as "galaxies", not "clusters of planetoids" (which is what the article refers to galaxies as from this point on). Whether this is deemed a "correct" definition or not doesn't really seem relevant to the article. 68.57.54.195 (talk) 21:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree: not only is it unnecessary, it's easier to just say "galaxy" as "cluster" sounds confusing. Since whoever also changed every mention of "galaxy" into "cluster" in the main body, I restored the original text. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 07:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparantly, the japanese definition of a galaxy is anything in space, including planets and sattelites. But Galaxies is easier, this is ok as far as i can see. Moccamonster Talk 20:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Incorrectly labled as galaxies" 

message: I've deleted the paragraphs about Luigi and the Toad Brigade - the plot section should summarise the plot without going into great detail about extraenous characters that are unimportant to the overall story. 212.64.224.241 (talk) 14:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot section 

message: Should we mention the Super Mario Galaxy DS hoax that was floating around the internet for a while? The 'L is Real' Hoax was mentioned in the Super Mario 64 article, why not this one? --Randoman412 (talk) 20:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's completely trivial, just like the L is real. Besides, the DS hoax is less significant. 217.166.85.2 (talk) 07:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It should at least be noted that it exists. Just say something like "There's a possibility DS game is in the works, but it is highly unlikely. The first revelation of this was this video: [video link]". That's just my opinion, though...16_BIT_MARIO1  —Preceding undated comment was added at 14:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: To suggest one is in the works without one actually being made is speculation. This is a fan video and nothing more. It does not deserve being mentioned. -Sukecchi (talk) 01:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  DS Hoax 

message: Shouldn't it be mentioned that the game plays quite different from 64 and Sunshine, and focuses far far less on exploration and instead on linear paths?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by KnowitallWiki (talk • contribs) 21:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Exploration and linear play? Super Mario 64 and Super Mario Galaxy have similar gameplay. The castle and obervatory serve as the HUB from which worlds with different levels can be accesed. Linear gameplay would be that the player is required to finish the levels/worlds in a particular order. Moccamonster Talk 08:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Super Mario 64 is far more focused on exploration. It plants you in this level and you try and find the star. Galaxy is far more linear, it puts you in the level and you follow the clearly marked path to the star. They are very different takes on the 3D Mario game. Knowitall (talk) 21:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. Sounds like something we can put in the article. 217.166.85.2 (talk) 07:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Different gameplay