Talk:Super Smash Bros. Brawl/Archive 21

message: In my opinion, whenever there are new editors here who revive dead topics, they are told "we already discussed this in the archives" or "that is answered in the FAQ" but I don't think either one is working. In my opinion, we should do away with all those archives, and revise/clarify the FAQ.
Discussions of old aren't really helping, especially now that the Dojo provides new information every weekday. The only purpose of those archives is to sit there idly, looking huge and intimidating. No one wants to dig through 20 massive archives to find what has or hasn't been established. That's why the FAQ is better because it is organized, easy to navigate, and it answers the most common questions. But, it could still use some work. Basically I'm asking, do you believe we should get rid of the archives and expand the FAQ in its stead? -- POWERSLAVE 02:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I admit that extending the FAQ to answer common questions from the talk page archives is a very sensible idea, I'd just like to point out that Wikipedia custom/current consensus says that archiving talk pages is preferred, and to never delete them except in special cases.  My vote, therefore, is updating the FAQ while leaving the archives intact. Arrowned 02:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, but I would recommend shortening the number or archives by merging them. While we have them archived by page, we COULD have them archived like...June 2007 - September 2007. That would make it at least a LITTLE easier. Dengarde ► Complaints  02:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Arrowned and Dengarde, sounds like the best option to me. R-RockMan.EXE 04:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's how it's usually done. bibliomaniac15 04:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I converted the archive box into a handy-dandy collapsible box and categorized the archives by month. bibliomaniac15 22:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New editors not using archives 

message: As anyone who reads the Dojo updates would know, the most recent update included information previously unknown about the Subspace Emissary, in particular that it has co-op. I was wondering, should we change the "single player" section's name to something more appropriate, like Story/Adventure Mode, or include co-op in the title somehow? Oh, not to mention that the section itself needs updating, too. ;) 72.225.211.5 08:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since technically it isn't a single player mode, I don't think it should be labeled as such too. Probably Story Mode or something, but not Single Player. InsaneZeroG 14:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  With co-op confirmed.... 

message: Can someone with access to the relevant Tips & Tricks magazine from around August 2006 please confirm the bit about Sonic being mentioned by Miyamoto? This is a case of mind-boggling bad sourcing. We were formerly citing a GameSpot union post (made by a GS user, not a staff member), which in turned referenced nintendorevolution.ca, which in turn referenced qj.net, which has a low-res screenshot and claims that they picked up the story from the Nintendo NSider forums. If the NSider forums weren't down, I wouldn't be surprised to find the chain continuing through a half dozen more sources :) --- RockMFR 23:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sourcing problems w/ Tips & Tricks 

message: Our current image for the section on The Subspace Emissary is zoomed a bit too far out. Could somebody with the necessary software crop and re-upload the image so that it focuses more closely on the two characters and the primid? You Can't See Me! 05:08, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm on it. Dengarde ► Complaints  05:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done That looks a little better at least. Dengarde ► Complaints  05:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: if that's the same picture i'm seeing then i have to say, my god the quality on that picture is damn poor! That kind of picture should not be on wikipedia, please change it to one where you can actually see who's there witohut reading the caption. sorry if it's just my pc loading the pic wrong.....and that button to place your signiture isn't working. ~TailsClock  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.189.184.233 (talk) 11:08, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

text: the picture is fixed now.--TailsClock 11:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You must have a REALLY big screen, because now the quality is even worse. Dengarde ► Complaints  16:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I chose that particular image because it actually shows the status and whatnot (even that of an enemy), which is really important to demonstrate the gameplay of that particular mode. Almost every other image lacks the stats (we haven't even seen the Pokémon Trainer's, which is said to have stamina for his Pokémon). — NES Boy 17:10, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

text: That's what it's supposed to look like. -Sukecchi 20:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, what it's supposed to look like is how it looks on the site.  With the butchered image that's put up, it doesn't come across as actual gameplay.  You need Mario and Pit's damage meters and the Primid's meter to look authentic.  (Zojo 18:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, thats how it's supposed to be. The full image is FAR too zoomed out to be used. Besides, it doesn't need the full image to be authentic. Dengarde ► Complaints  18:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TSE image 

message: I have replaced this image with this one because the original was a bit outdated (Mario, Pikachu, and Wario's series icons had been changed a bit since it was originally added to the Dojo). — NES Boy 17:06, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I made the text smaller and I stand by your motion.--MrBubbles 17:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't tell the differences, can you point them out please?Blindman shady 21:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gameplay image 

message: ...but I was in Nintendo World and saw the box art for Super Smash Bros. Brawl. It was the blue one, with Mario close up and Pokémon Trainer on the left. Unfortunately, I can't show you a picture. =/ Just wanted to bring this up. Oubliette 01:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We still don't know if it's the official box art. Why don't we just wait until december 3rd, so we can find out for sure.Green Kirby 01:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Talking about what I said?Green Kirby 02:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pretty sure he was, Green Kirby, would it have made sense in regards to Oubliette's statement, now would it? Anyway, whether what you saw was indeed the official box art, or not, you are not a verifiable source, so your point(however good intentioned it was.), is moot. Yoshiguy 03:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Going by the description, I think what Oubliette is talking about is that one boxart we've been speculating for a while. Lemme go through the archives and find it... :Edit: This one. Fits the description Oubliette gave us.Dengarde ► Complaints  03:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did somebody Shoop da Whoop? InsaneZeroG 04:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah, I guess he was. My first good review!Green Kirby 03:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Shoop da Whoop? What's that supposed to mean?Green Kirby 04:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's an internet meme that serves as a synonym for "editing/creating a picture in image manipulation software such as Photoshop."  Actually the full explanation is more complicated than that, but that's the gist of it. Arrowned 04:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Even if it is official, it may change. Lets just wait until december 3rd so we can find out for sure.Green Kirby 06:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. If the only thing on the current boxart is the logo, we might as well just show the logo for now. Should this actually be the boxart, we can easily upload a new image on the third of December (or whenever the final boxart is revealed). You Can't See Me! 06:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I felt sort of guilty bringing this up without any internet source. =/ But i'm not trying to mislead. Still, Green Kirby is on to something. While it's definitely a boxart from them, it might change. By the way, that "estarland" is blocked from where i'm currently browsing Wikipedia, so I can't tell you if that's the picture I meant. Oubliette 14:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Please let's just wait. When you think about it, December 3rd is'nt that far away.Green Kirby 21:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Well there's still nothing wrong with putting it up if Nintendo proves to you that it IS a boxart. Oubliette 02:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Very true. However, until we get such proof, we're better off leaving it out of the article. The world's hungriest paperweight 03:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

text: YeahGreen Kirby 04:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not sure how to prove this by word... 

message: I would like to remind you all that Ashely's Theme is NOT confirmed as the Wario Ware stage music. For all we know it could be music for a different stage. I would like something about the music added to the FAQ. OBEY STARMAN 15:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's technically a song FOR the Wario Stage. Remember that stages will have multiple songs? -Sukecchi 17:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I just reverted an edit on the Wario Ware page/SSBB 

message: The NA release date on this page says "TBD".  What happened to December 3rd?  Was there news that changed that or something?  --IntriguingPotato 08:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's been delayed. Wikipedian06 09:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well that's good and all, but did it say that anywhere?  A source would be nice.  --IntriguingPotato 11:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Forget what I said before, but someone could have mentioned that you need to look at the sidebar on the left to see the "Release Date: TBD". Anyway, the correct thing for this page to say is "TBD". I am now even more sorry for my rant, because I was wrong. Zenintendofanatic 14:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The page is still there because that was an old blog update, and they forgot to remove it. Plus, the developers have once stated in an interview that Japan will get the game first. Wikipedian06 17:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Son of a bitch! I mean, December 3rd is long enough! They're just playing games with us now! If there was a chance they would'nt be able to finish the game by December 3rd, they should'nt have said it!Green Kirby 17:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WHERE was it stated that Japan will get it first? You seriously need to back up your info before you start spewing crap. NintendoDSKing 18:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

text: They have'nt said.Green Kirby 18:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Eh, I've had differences with Wikipedian before, but I don't necessarily see him doing anything wrong right now. If Sakurai stated that Japan would get it first, then that's just statement, not pessimism. I would like to see a source, though. You Can't See Me! 22:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

text: First off, so what if Japan is developing it? Japan also developed Resident Evil 4, and that got released in Japan more then a week after being released in the US. Where it's being developed doesn't matter. Second, Sonic is proof of...well...Sonic. Nothing else. Theres no logic in thinking "OMG Sonics in! This means the games delayed!". Makes no sense. Theres no proof that the release date has been pushed back, only a little evidence. Dengarde ► Complaints  22:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'll try to find the link. No, I'm not making things up -- I clearly remember that's what Sakurai or Miyamoto said. Wikipedian06 02:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC
"The American release date of December 3, 2007 still holds." 
 WikiBone 13:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Interesting. But only because it conflicts with the Dojo, which still says TBD. SSBD seems like the most reliable source for this info, so let's stick with Dojo. The world's hungriest paperweight 15:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  North American Release Date 

message: "Despite Sega's Sonic the Hedgehog being the most requested third-party character[citation needed], in an interview with video game website IGN, Nintendo Europe marketing director Laurent Fischer response to if Sonic will be appearing in Brawl was "That's not on the cards at the moment."[41]"
Seems a little out of date. 153.42.168.174 18:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps the sentence should be broken up/reworded to specify the time in which it has taken place and the fact that it is pretty much wrong. That sentence reminds me of the "Steve didn't pull the barb out" statement. However, this is about the events that has taken place during development of the game. Though Laurent Fischer has made such a sweeping statement, is it even notable enough (doubt Fischer is involved in anyway with Smash) to be included? « FMF » 18:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

text: This conversation is pointless. Honestly, do you really have to complain about every little thing? As far as I'm concerned, It's fine the way it is. Quit complaning.Green Kirby 02:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. That quotation was taken from an official source and was relevant to the game's development. That section is about the game's development, not the final product. You Can't See Me! 02:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sonic "not in the cards" statement 

message: I went to Gamestop to reserve Super Smash Bros. Brawl, The guy told me this was a good idea becouse the game is going to come out with LIMITED RELEASE. Is this true? Or did he have no idea what he was talking about? 
If it is, It should be added to the article.   The Wii Guy 03:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Honestly, I don't think a retailer employee is the best person to turn to at this point, especially with all of the confusion surrounding the game's release in the first place. You Can't See Me! 03:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It depends on what he meant by "limited release". If he meant what it sounds like to me, that they will be releasing relatively few copies, then I'm guessing that he's full of hot air. Why, may I ask, WHY would Nintendo have a limited release for one of their most(if not the most.) anticipated games in recent memory?! "But Yoshiguy, what if they want to increase the rarity of the game so that it will be more sought-after?", said the random wikipedian playing the devil's advocate. Well, random wikipedian playing the devil's advocate, so many people would purchase the game anyway, that it would be a terrible marketing move. Does that really sound like Nintendo anyway? Oh and if I have misinterpreted "Limited release", please disregard my comment. Yoshiguy 03:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He could've just used the wrong terms and meant "we're only getting x copies for our first shipment, and considering the hype you should reserve now because all the non-reserved copies will be gone in ten minutes."—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 03:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the above comment nailed it. This game is going to sell out like crazy and at least for a short while supply is going to lag behind demand. The "Limited Release" comment was probably referring to the fact that his store won't be getting a lot of copies in the first round of shipments. -Zomic13 04:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Limited Release? 

message: Some of them have got to go, per WP:NFCC#3 and WP:NFCC#8. hbdragon88 04:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Who cares? If anything there should be more images.Green Kirby 05:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what you're thinking, but if a policy states an article is violating a rule it HAS to be fixed. Wikipedia has rules. -Sukecchi 09:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I see nothing in said policies that require us to remove them. Dengarde ► Complaints  06:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: NFCC#8 states that images should only be allowed on given that they "significantly increase readers' understanding"; to be honest, I'm not sure that half of the images do that. Still, that doesn't necessarily mean I agree. Understanding is subjective, so as long as we're not using a 20-image gallery of pre-release screenshots, we're in the clear. If I remember correctly the whole beef with Non-Free images about a month ago was against the use of nonfree images on lists, not standard articles; I asked Durin about it, and recieved this reply. Notably, he pointed out that image amount matters little in itself and that context is more important. You Can't See Me! 07:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Six images 

message: DON'T TOUCH THEM UNLESS NEW RELEASE DATES ARE POSTED TO THE DOJO.
* The DOJO is the only site that can be referenced. Third party media sites are UNRELIABLE and should NOT be used as sources. No exceptions.
* As of now, the only set date is Japan's 1-24-08. It is NOT known whether other regions are getting the game earlier or later. Please do not speculate.
* Apparently quite a few people didn't know what "TBD" meant. I've seen that question asked several times on prominent gaming forums. Therefore, I've written them out as "To be determined" so that there's no confusion. 
Wikipedian06 10:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is incorrect. The major gaming media sites are reliable sources and using them as references is very much encouraged. Release dates do not have to come from official websites. --- RockMFR 18:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They may be reliable most of the time, but the official site should always overrule any gaming news or fan sites. InsaneZeroG 19:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with the Dojo website is that the previous release date was announced on July 12 and if the release date had been changed then that would count out using Dojo as a reliable source until a more up to date edit is made on that site to confirm the date in a present tense. Until then I will only consider that sites' release date partly reliable due to the date of when the release date was announced. Just remember how long it took to add Solid Snake to that site after he was originally announced to be in the game. -Adv193 23:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Final notice regarding release dates 

message: I know we have dissused this MANY times, but Lucas deserves to be in it, we don't need to describe his intire backstory in Smash Bros. Universe, (maybe mention his backstory in Inclusion of Characters, like with Snake?) but because he has this backstory, he deserves to be mentioned. 
P.S. Why the heck is Pit notable? Claycrow 12:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pit is notable because he has only been in two games, Kid Icarus and Kid Icarus: Of Myths and Monsters. He hasn't been seen in over 10 years. Fangz is hungry :3 13:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pit's mentioned because at the time that part of the article and examples of characters from previously unrepresented series were needed, Pit and Wario were basically the only confirmed examples. Since then any alterations of the examples have been quickly reverted so mention of him has remained. With regards to Lucas, he probably should be mentioned under inclusion of characters as the only currently confirmed example of a Japan-only character. Also agree that some mention of him having been scheduled to appear in Melee might be worth noting, if someone can find a source- have seen it mentioned around the Web but not by any official sources MarkSutton 13:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes Claycrow, we all know you don't like Pit. It says on your user page.Green Kirby 17:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Is adding Lucas really important?  Brawl isn't the first Smash game to feature Japan-only characters. (although Marth will soon no longer be Japan-only) Arrowned 20:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

text: No you can't. Do not add or change examples.Satoryu 22:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Characters

message: Media Event liveblogging: Nintendo Media Summit 2007
Now pray tell why would you revert it the first time? Maybe it was because I didn't have close tags.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by MrBubbles (talk • contribs) 16:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to point out that the character selection screen lacks Kirby and Zelda, both previously non-secret characters.  It's also worth mentioning that characters from the same series are grouped together in the previous titles, yet Mario and Peach are on opposite sides of the screen and Diddy isn't next to DK.  And what's that empty square?  I say it's fake. TwilightPhoenix 17:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ...uh...no. It's like that because it's a DEMO. They probably didn't include Zelda because they don't wanna reveal Sheik, And probably not Kirby because they don't wanna reveal his different forms. The blank space could be "RANDOM"( Scratch that, I can read it clearly. is IS Random), and they may not me grouped together because not all the characters are unlocked. Remember how in Melee, Pikachu switched places on the board after unlocking Luigi? Dengarde ► Complaints  17:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Ice Climbers are missing  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.163.39.74 (talk) 20:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

text: To suggest previous starter characters would be hidden is speculation.  Not to say it couldn't change, but it is unlikely and doesn't belong in the article.  And characters may switch places, but it really does not fit with the previous games for the starter characters to be apart like that.  In the original, Mario and Luigi were next to each other, as was Pikachu and Jigglypuff.  In Melee, Mario, Peach, Bowser, Yoshi, were all on the same row.  Link and Zelda were next to each other as well.  When all characters were unlocked, Mario, Peach, Bowser, Yoshi, Luigi, and Dr. Mario all held the same row, Fox and Falco were next to each other, Link, Zelda, Young Link, and Gannondorf were all near each other, Pikachu, Jigglypuff, Mewtwo, and Pichu were in a row, Marth and Roy were adjacent.  The above linked picture seems to have them in a fairly random order if you look for related characters to be near each other (Diddy and Donkey adjacent by the corner, Mario and Peach at seperate parts of the screen).  In other words, it looks really dang good, but this situation in regards to the picture is very much like the "official" box art that was discussed earlier.  We cannot use this image.  TwilightPhoenix 00:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Well it is like I am implying, to simply wait for the official release and confirm the main and hidden characters and avoid using any speculation unless there is strong evidence that to back it up. The other point I was trying to get at is to state that it is possible for previous main characters to be pushed to hidden character status. Remember in Melee where Captain Falcon and Ness where moved to main character staus. Besides I would never put in speculation into the main article either-Adv193 00:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are many videos on the net the prove that this image is real. The one on the bottom right is one of them. We CAN use this image Dengarde ► Complaints  00:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I'm not sure how reliable the random videos are (I'm lucky if I can view videos on my campus network), the below proof of the box art would make the image in question misleading to use (assuming it is genuine).  There are characters who are in the boxart do not appear in the starting roster of the above image, which could confuse people who are not as familiar with Brawl as we are.  And on a side note, I think reading these talk pages for the past few months has perhaps made me too skeptical of third party sources.  TwilightPhoenix 05:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

text: If only. I fixed the thread title anyways. You Can't See Me! 22:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

text: February 2007??? It's February 2008 :o - Looler  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Looler (talk • contribs) 23:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nintendo Media Summit 2007 confirms the release date for February 10, 2008 

message: Go to http://press.nintendo.com/loginSplash.jsp?id=9713 and enter "guest" as the username and "nintendo" (lowercase) as the password. You'll see the official boxart-the one all the retail sites have been using-as well as the 2/10/08 release date. ShadowUltra 02:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In hindsight, this can explain why certain characters were released before others. InsaneZeroG 02:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is the date? And InsaneZeroG, I left you a meassage on your talk page.Green Kirby 02:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He just said the date, it's 2/10/08. DurinsBane87 02:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (sigh)Green Kirby 03:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But on Dojo, it still says TBD.Green Kirby 03:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The site's the press page, meaning that they are technically above Sakurai when it comes to news. InsaneZeroG 03:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Plus, I think they only update at midnight. Hopefully the new release date will be on the Dojo in a couple hours. The world's hungriest paperweight 04:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah, its up there now. February 10. Everyone learn to deal with it. The world's hungriest paperweight 15:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I've added the boxart to the article, along with a note pointing to this discussion should people need to see a cite.  The infobox table doesn't seem to want to shrink in width, though. Arrowned 03:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

text: If it is changed later on, then we can simply change it as well (and I'm sure all the screenshots on this page will be replaced in time too).  Since we have a first party source, the current one is reliable enough to use. TwilightPhoenix 15:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Ah, but was it official? Or was it reliably referenced? No. While it did show up, if was not official or sourced so there was no way of knowing if it was official or not. InsaneZeroG 19:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nintendo press room confirms box art 

message: Shouldn't we list Brawl as an action game, seeing that DOJO! says it is? --(trogga) 19:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Be Bold, buku. -Sukecchi 20:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But I got reverted. --(trogga) 20:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, but Nintendo also classifies it as an action game. Also, the one-player mode doesn't seem to have fighting. --(trogga) 23:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genre 

message: I thought it was comfirmed to be rated E according to the website. --Coconutfred73 21:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I don't believe either's been confirmed (do correct me if I'm wrong, I probably am). — Malcolm (talk) 22:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the displayed boxart, the rating is still pending. Anyways, the website announced that it would be present at the E for All expo, not that it was rated "E for Everybody". You Can't See Me! 22:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

text: (EC) Yeah, T's confirmed (log in as username "guest" and password "nintendo" if necessary). — Malcolm (talk) 22:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not surprised, what with Snake's videos and all.  Besides, wasn't Melee rated T as well?  141.133.160.52 22:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The original was "E", but Melee was "T". As stated above, I can confirm that the press site states T.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zomic13 (talk • contribs) 22:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Teen?