Talk:Mega Man 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Article should be deleted[edit]

I would like to argue for the removal of this article. It is wholly unnecessary, as Mega Man 9 is not a "confirmed" game. A rating by the Australlian OFLC is no proof at all of a games existence. For one, a game must exist in a format which can be rated, typically close to market release. If and when a new Mega Man game is close to release, it would be rated by CERO, as Capcom, a Japanese company, is highly likely to release the game in Japan before internationally. If the game was ready for an Australlian rating, the game would already have been confirmed by Capcom.

The game has been rated for an Australian release as a precaution for the eventual time it will be released. There is more than enough reason for this. --Reploidof20xx (TALK) 06:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I still see no merit for this article. I remember a multitude of games which were rated and/or trademarked that were absolutely nothing. Capcom has not confirmed it; CERO has not rated it. You cannot rate a game that doesn't exist. OFLC would need physical media to rate, otherwise to hand out a rating without regard to the content would be counter-productive to their purpose. There is no confirmation, nothing but rumors and a meaningless rating. This game does not exist yet, and we have no proof it will.
Capcom has not confirmed it publicly, CERO has not confirmed it publicly. It may still exist, in some form or another. --Reploidof20xx (TALK) —Preceding comment was added at 08:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That very well could be the case, but it is as you said; unconfirmed. That's what I'm saying. An unsubstantiated rumor with so little even rumored information doesn't warrant an article on Wikipedia. If anything, a small subsection on the main series page. Also, just for fun: reploids didn't exist until 21XX.
OFLC may very well have seen the game. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I guarantee that they haven't, and there's a number of reasons why. In the absence of any RELIABLE sources ("it was in the new Nintendo Power" isn't a reliable source, "it was on page X of issue Y" or "here's some decent-quality scans of the article announcing it" are reliable sources), I'm forced to assume it's a clever hoax. It's particularly damning that full-size (yet still low-quality) scans of the screenshots from the article are everywhere, but the article itself is nowhere to be seen - it's very, VERY easy to fake 8-bit Megaman screenshots. Sourcing is complicated by the fact that once one videogame news website takes it as fact, most of the rest posted their own articles based solely on what the first site posted, without doing much real fact-checking of their own (since only the biggest and best have the resources to actually come up with their own content); as such, it's very easy for a well-crafted prank to spiral out of control and take the internet by storm. It's also quite suspicious that the first people to find out about this game were apparently the Australian government, then US consumers, while the Japanese still don't know; it's out of the usual order. And even if it isn't fake, Wikipedia is supposed to publish well-sourced facts only, not rumors and conjectures. Wikipedia policy tends to lean toward deleting things that aren't well-sourced, preferring to have less information but be definitely accurate than to have lots of information at the expense of possibly allowing in rumors, conjecture, and flat-out wrong information. It seems like the usual policy would be to clear off the rumors (pretty much everything) until they can be proven and properly sourced. At the very least, perhaps y'all should hold back from plastering references to this theoretical game all over every OTHER Megaman article until you've got real proof? 65.33.206.108 (talk) 03:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, it's still a grain-of-salt possibility that the game does indeed exist. More importantly, there's been no confirmation that it is a hoax. Believe me, I was tempted to add the "hoax" tag to the article, but Nintendo Power has made it a point to get the facts, since they are an official source. Until such confirmation is made that it is indeed a hoax, we need to assume that the game does exist. Besides, it was decided to keep the article, if I understand correctly.Brittany Ka (talk) 14:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For any onlookers, I have to point out that "it was in the new Nintendo Power" is not a reliable source as it does not specify the source well enough (providing the readers something more reliable than just our word is the point of verifiability) but neither it is a reason for deletion by itself (deletion has to be based on what the article can become - an over-vague source should be investigated further, within reasonable limits, before being rejected.) Confused yet? Then drop me a line so that I can confuse you more. --Kizor 13:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
MYTH BUSTED 76.95.40.6 (talk) 22:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmation of existence[edit]

Today, scans from nintendo power confirming the exsistance of Mega Man 9 as a wiiware title appeared on the internet, along with an interview from Keiji Inafune himself. I believe that that is enough to save this page from removal, as well as put to rest various rumours.

I'm taking out the rumors. It obviously isn't a retail release for Wii, so they were false. ChozoBoy (talk) 19:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roll is first[edit]

Splash Woman is not the first female Robot Master, DRN-002 Roll is.

Roll is a housekeeping Robot, not a Robot Master. Signed by (75.41.228.51 (talk) 04:50, 28 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]
All DRN-series (and DWN-series, among others) robots are Robot Masters. This includes DRN-000 Proto Man, DRN-001 Rock/Mega Man, DRN-002 Roll, and DRN-00X Mega Man X. WiteoutKing (talk) 06:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No offense, but that statement is too broad. The term "Robot Master" refers specifically to a boss character that Mega Man fights in the game, DR/WN series or not. That said, it's inaccruate to refer to Proto Man, Mega Man, and Roll (and by extension, X) as "Robot Masters" simply because they are DRN series robots. Although you fight Proto Man in the third game, he doesn't count as a "Robot Master". Roll is one of the "good guys", so that doesn't make her one either, and even if you were to "fight" her in some future game (that isn't this one), she still wouldn't be. For these reasons, Splash Woman IS the first female robot master, since she is the first female boss character that Mega Man fights.Brittany Ka (talk) 14:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Robot Master" is the term for an advanced Robot using the A.I. developed by Dr. Light and Dr. Wily, not a term for Dr. Wily's Robots. Therefore, Roll, being one of the advanced robots with that A.I., DOES COUNT as a Robot Master. This includes Bass and ProtoMan as well. It should be noted that NONE of the MegaMan 6 Robot Masters belonged to Dr. Wily nor Dr. Light (or Dr. Cossack for that matter), but by possesing the Advanced A.I., they qualify as those. It's an issue similar to the term "Maverick", which commonly Fans use to reffer to the X Games Bosses, whereas a "Maverick" is a machine that rebels against humanity. Even X-Series Mettaurs count as Mavericks! 201.127.16.165 (talk) 03:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The term Robot Master just refers to the stage-ending boss characters, and was either coined by Capcom or Nintendo Power back in the day. The term Robot Master does not exist in the Rockman series. They are simply called bosses. Therefore Roll (as well as Mega Man, Proto Man, etc) is not a robot master.

From the Wiki article "Robot Master": "In the Mega Man original series, a Robot Master (AKA "Super Robot") is a special kind of robot or android that possesses a very advanced level of artificial intelligence. There are roughly one hundred thirty six Robot Masters. The Robot Master AI system is jointly credited to Dr. Thomas Light and Dr. Albert Wily. Most Robot Masters possess a unique identification code, consisting of a two-letter "series code" followed by one of N, No, or #, then a three-digit "serial number"." WiteoutKing (talk) 18:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also From the article:
Proto Man, Mega Man, and Roll are all Robot Masters, but they are not usually thought of as such by fans due to their standing as main characters, and the fact that they seem even more advanced still. (74.183.38.88 (talk) 21:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

First of all, other Wikipedia articles aren't good enough for trying to prove such a point. Second, this is getting really tiresome. I just reverted an edit that called Splash Woman the first "antagonistic" female Robot Master. Roll is not a Robot Master, end of story. To that end, if people wish to continue vandalizing this article in this or other ways, I don't know about anyone else, but I'm going to request protection for this article. Like I said on the Jem article way back when, it's going to stop, one way or the other. Brittany Ka (talk) 09:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, spoken like a true neckbeard.Utils (talk) 21:21, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Threathening to request protection for an article because people don't agree with you doesn't seem like such a good idea(nor is calling it "vandalism"). As i have always understood, Robot Masters are antagonistic characters(who are robots) from the original Megaman series. Therefore, Roll cannot be a Robot Master, or at least not in the series that is relevant to this article. However, if other articles state otherwise, than that can be used as proof to support the theory that Roll is a Robot Master. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moccamonster (talk • contribs) 12:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, after thinking about it a little more, I just remembered the "3O" (three-Oh) tag for requesting third opinions. Instead of requesting protection, I have added this tag. Now, until this third opinion can be established, I would like the current version of the "Robot Masters" paragraph to be left as it currently is. Brittany Ka (talk) 13:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, alright, great idea, let's leave it how YOU want it just because you SAY so. 24.17.83.230 (talk) 14:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem we're having here is that there are two ways the "Robot Master" term can be thought as. It can be either-

A term in Fandom, used to refer to Boss characters(other than the Guardians within Dr Wily's Hideout and Dr Wily himself, etc etc) in the Original MegaMan Series (which Will include Megaman 9)
A term in the Megaman Universe (apparently) used to refer to A Class of Robot

That is one is used by people in the real world, and one is used by people in the World where the MM games take place (i.e. Not our World, unless this all begins in the next couple of years). One term is commonly used, while the other is fairly unknown (I think I've probably heard the idea before, but I have no idea where the idea actually comes from? Is it the actual games? The Cartoon? Some form of Comic? Maybe even Fan comics?). Since this is the Real World, the former use is more common, And that is clearly the use of the phrase intended by the writer; I vote for that Roll does not count in as a Robot Master in the paragraph in question, and that Splash Women is indeed our first female "Robot Master". If this was the Wikipedia Centred on Megaman, then saying Roll is the first female Robot Master would probably indeed sound better (the same way on the Wookiepedia, things within the Star Wars Universe are Stated as Fact, rather than fiction). Though if you want to be really pedantic, shouldn't it be Robot Mistress? And Can we really talk about Robots having Gender anyway? (And yes, I know there are probably images all over the Internet that say "Yeah baby") etc etc... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.143.178.131 (talk) 15:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In her Wikipedia article she is not specifically stated to be a Robot Master, and until we have a source that can confirm or denie this, we will have to state that she is NOT. Moccamonster Talk 16:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is hardly worth the argument being devoted to it. Look in any Rockman guidebook, you'll see no mention of Robot Masters, just boss robots, boss characters or simply bosses. Therefore, the burden of proof is finding a legitimate source that explains the meaning of Robot Master, most likely an old guidebook, instruction manual or gaming magazine - preferably one endorsed by either Capcom or Nintendo. If any of these say that Mega Man, Roll, etc are Robot Masters, then you have something. Any uncited explanation given on a fansite, a fan fiction or another Wikipedia article just won't cut it. --12.35.96.66 (talk) 18:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why not simply dodge the debate over the meaning of "Robot Master" altogether and simply describe Splash Woman as something along the lines of "the first female end-of-level boss"? Then it won't matter whether or not Roll is first. DonaldHays (talk) 19:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a problem with stating that Splash Woman is the first female robotic antagonist(since there was at least one human antagonist(Megaman Star Force 2). Moccamonster Talk 21:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, something like that. State the same information (Splash Woman has the unique quality amongst original franchise bosses of being a female) without touching the disputed terminology (who is and is not a Robot Master) and everybody gets to go home happy (I hope). DonaldHays (talk) 00:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't know what a Robot Master is, you probably shouldn't be writing anything about a Mega Man Classic article. There really is no need for any debate, Roll's designation (not to mention backstory and relation to other characters, particularly Mega Man) should make it pretty obvious that she is a Robot Master. It goes without saying.

What does not knowing what a Robot Master is have to do with qualifying to edit this article? That's like saying that if you don't know how a car works, you can't use it. Besides, is there really any definition of the term Robot Master? Moccamonster Talk 08:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This entire debate is idiotic. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. To that end, since we can't come to any kind of agreement or consensus, I've decided to edit the Splash Woman statement to say that she is the first female "boss character". It's the only way to make this article NPOV, and to stop any edit wars that might go on. I have however, left in the Robot Master link for convenience. I must ask that it be left like this, otherwise, I'll have to ask for the article to be protected...for real this time. Brittany Ka (talk) 10:06, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Robot Master article states in the original MegaMan series, that a Robot Master is a robot who possesses an advanced level of AI(referring to the other "bosses" in older MegaMan games). These new characters are obviously in line with the Robot Master series, and Megaman 9 is part of the original MegaMan series. And you can't ask protection on the basis that people do not agree with a certain solution on which no consensus has been reached. Moccamonster Talk 13:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Brittany Ka (talk) 13:59, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, read the story for the original mega man game. It explains how Dr. Light made several robots for different tasks (Elect man for running a power plant, Guts man to lift things, roll for housekeeping, etc). At this point of time, there was no difference between Roll and the end game bosses, except they had different tasks. Dr.Wily later stole the robots who was useful for fighting and reprogrammed/brainwashed them into doing his bidding. Unless somebody wants to argue that this reprogramming made them into robot masters somehow, Roll is really the same. And if I remember correctly, there is even a game which lists her as a robot no different from protoman, mega man, guts man, elecman, etc. 85.165.180.37 (talk)

And where exactly is this information? Here is a transcript of the original Mega Man's manual: http://blue-bomber.jvmwriter.org/index.php?title=Mega_Man_Manual There is no mention of robot masters, or Roll for that matter. What I find troubling is that not one person arguing that Roll, Mega Man, etc are robot masters has ever provided an actual source for this information. The Robot Master article itself cites absolutely nothing: no manuals, guidebooks nor game text. The definition of robot master there sounds made up. Once actual source material for this is presented, and it's agreed that said source material is valid, no one has any room to argue that the main character androids are robot masters. 24.251.128.154 (talk) 23:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what I think. No matter who is right or who is wrong, "Splash Woman is the first female boss character" is more straightforward and less awkward-sounding than "Splash Woman is the second female robot master (Roll was first)". It's likely that people coming on here with no real idea what a Robot Master is would just be annoyed and confused by that, so can we leave it with the one that doesn't sound really hair-splitty? Please?--Yuefairchild (talk) 05:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

masters Bubbleman, Aquaman, Iceman were girls regardless of there name cuz they are gay. i'm sick of ppl not recognizing lgbt in media. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fixeditverygood (talk • contribs) 10:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the consideration of Roll, there's also Tron Bonne. She was the antagonist in Mega Man Legends. Say what you want about the game, but it 1. was Mega Man, and 2. Was Capcom. They've done the female thing already, get over it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barf314 (talk • contribs) 16:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inafune Anecdote[edit]

I think this needs to be removed from the article, as it really doesn't contribute anything except his thoughts on the game's development; it doesn't talk about the game's development at all. For that reason, I think this paragraph reads like a magazine article. However, I'm not removing it right away because I want to know what the rest of you think, and thus because it might contribute in a way that isn't immediately apparant to me.Brittany Ka (talk) 16:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I take it back. The anecdote is from the NP issue, so I'll leave it be. Brittany Ka (talk) 19:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese Information[edit]

I added the info for the release date and title of Rockman 9. This info I saw on GoNintendo. Being that I'm at work now, I cannot cite the specific article (I'm unable to access GoNintendo here). Go ahead and cite/format appropriately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.35.96.66 (talk) 16:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citing[edit]

The Autumn release date for the US was confirmed in issue 231 of Nintendo Power, but I can't seem to get cite it correctly in the infobox. Thanos6 (talk) 01:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Listen, the Fall/Winter date is in bloody Nintendo Power. I just can't get the cite to work properly. Someone who can put it there, because I'm sick of seeing a "failed cite" in this article. Thanos6 (talk) 04:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Splash Woman stage image[edit]

I believe the rainy image being used to demonstrate Splash Woman's stage is actually from Tornado Man's stage. It has the same black bars at the bottom. Furthermore, it's arguable that of the 14 released screens so far, there are two for each stage except for Splash Woman, which there are none of. --24.251.128.154 (talk) 17:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Posting screenshots along with what we suspect is the appropriate stage name is purely speculative at this point. -- TRTX T / C 17:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
IT should also be noted that none of the other eight bit meagman games have a screenshot for every stage either. --76.69.168.11 (talk) 17:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re-confirmed to be on all three systems[edit]

Yep,now confirmed again to be on all 3 systems. [1]XLS724 (talk) 01:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yeah, until Capcom comes out and says, "Whoops, that trailer was errenous!" :P
    Seriously, this game's platform status keeps going back and forth, it's hard to take anything too seriously (for me, at least). Would be great if it was on all three platforms, so everyone has a chance to play it, regardless of what system they own. Yet I have some doubt in the back of my mind about the end of that trailer being 100% accurate. --BPM (talk) 10:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, about that erounous stuff, it might actually be just a mistake, since Capcom has said several times that it's just a WiiWare only title, and it's easy to make a mistake with those trailer screens. Moccamonster Talk 12:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should just wait 'til E3 for the official word before an edit war happens. If I were you I'd lock the page up for a while.Zabbethx (talk) 12:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that an "edit war" is already going on. This one IP address keeps saying that IGN made the trailer. However, we need to assume that the trailer comes from Capcom themselves. I think we need to assume that the game is going to come to all three systems, until Capcom makes a formal announcement to the contrary, which will probably be at this year's E3. Brittany Ka (talk) 23:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well,maybe we should only put Wiiware on the Table,and in the Article,say something along the lines of,"While WiiWare is the only formally announced system of release,the most recent trailer has said it to be on all three systems,despite several earlier de-confirmations."XLS724 (talk) 05:17, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we do that it will look like speculation. I agree with Brittany Ka, we should just wait untill Capcom (un)confirms something, and until then, we have enough information to assume that it will be released on all 3 systems. Moccamonster Talk 08:48, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Capcom told IGN that it will come to all 3 systems. There is no edit war. Oscar22|Oscar22 10:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oscar22 (talk • contribs)

Well its [the trailer] on the official block http:://blog.capcom.com now so I assume its pretty official (74.183.38.88 (talk) 19:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Something ocurred to me just now while I was visiting the official Japanese site (which only lists Wii as a platform): it may be both Wii-exclusive AND multiplatform. It's possible that the game may be Wii-exclusive in Japan, but multiplatform in the U.S.. However, I've decided not to add it to the article since it's just unsourced speculation at the moment (and thus hasn't been confirmed one way or the other). Perhaps they'll say something at E3. Until then though, we must still assume that "multiplatform" applies to both territories. Brittany Ka (talk) 18:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robot Masters[edit]

"Like the previous eight games in the original series, Mega Man must face eight new Robot Masters."

Its a small line, but it bugs me since the game is megaman 9 and even with the link to the series that includes Rockman and Forte people are going to think its a typo and should be 7 because they will assume some one forgot the original series. Can we just change it to possibly one of the following 

Like most games in the original series, Mega Man will face eight new Robot Masters

Mega Man must face eight new Robot Masters

or Just drop the sentience as eventually the section will be longer and each robot master will have a few words describing them.

I previously made the change from eight to seven then it was changed to nine and some one has corrected it again to 8 based off the original series page. Its current correct, but I assume some megaman fans might not count rockman and forte since its a gameboy game and has multiple characters, plus the article even says its not a direct sequel which lines it up for spin off arguments. Just trying to find a compromise that might help lower squabbles over a single word in the article. (74.183.38.88 (talk) 19:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)).[reply]

...Rockman & Forte wasn't for the Game Boy originally, it was a SNES game. WiteoutKing (talk) 19:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last time I checked that was never released in North America and that would make it for the Super Fam. I usually expect the English Wiki tp specifically mention Japan only releases if it chooses to talk about them. I think its in error to talk about a game that was mostly played on emulators until recently like it was released on the SNES. And to further complicate matters R&F only has 6 news bosses. It reuses Astroman and Tengu man so its still a false statement to say the past 8 games had 8 NEW robot masters. (74.183.38.88 (talk) 21:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Calling Megaman and Bass (or Rockman and Forte) part of the original Megaman series is like calling Final Fantasy 10-2 part of the main stream Final Fantasy series. I also have to agree that M&B only had six new bosses. Since no one can agree, though, I suggest making the statement a tad more general: 

 "Like most games in the series, Mega Man will face eight new Robot Masters."

(71.229.26.63 (talk) 22:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I'm a little confused as to what's going on here. Megaman NINE did have EIGHT previous games. If you for some reason count Rockman and Forte, that makes it nine previous games. Where exactly is the idea that there were seven previous games coming from? In addition, it doesn't matter whether you count Rockman and Forte or not. The original Megaman had only six robot masters, and so the "most" idea is required if you want to keep the sentence at all. Fiveinacan (talk) 09:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem was the paragraph mentioned "eight robot masters", so that doesn't include the original Megaman as that only had six; but Megaman was remade on the PSP and two new robot masters were added to bring it up to eight. The confusion was over how many of the previous games had eight robot masters, so they rewrote the whole thing to not even bother counting how many games there were, as it was a pretty petty detail. -- VederJuda (talk) 14:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I took the liberty of removing the dispute tag since the disputed material has (rightfully) been removed due to irrelevancy. Jeff Silvers (talk) 13:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Box art[edit]

Apparently, this is official. I know this is a digitally distributed title, but given that the art exists nevertheless, care to add it to the infobox? --Shadow Hog (talk) 15:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing how the box differs from the game itsself(Megaman in particular), i don't think this is the real box art, nor do i think there will be any, since it's a downloadable title. Moccamonster Talk 17:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's intentional on Capcom's part, though. Take a look at the original Mega Man's box art, and you'll see exactly what I mean. And I'm positive Capcom made that, so it's very real, if very odd for a game that won't come in a box. 1up doesn't lie about these things. --Shadow Hog (talk) 18:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, IGN has put it up and also claims that it's the box art. The IGN image appears to be of higher quality, but their logo in the bottom right corner complicates things. If it can't be used as the box art on this article, it at least deserves mention as part of the promotion for the game. -- Comandante {Talk} 22:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A better image without the logo. Interestingly, it looks like the official "box art" was printed on T-shirts given to those who beat the Mega Man 9 demo at E3. -- Comandante {Talk} 00:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should just wait for a confirmation from CapCom to clear things up. Moccamonster Talk 08:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. To that end, I have removed the "boxart", since the game IS a direct download and therefore can't actually have any "boxart". Brittany Ka (talk) 13:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, these can be used as promotion images, and titles downloadable on a console always have a title(which is pratically the same as boxart) with them. So, it isn't "boxart", but it can be the title-image(just to call it that). Moccamonster Talk 21:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The NES-styled box cover was printed on the Capcom staff's shirts, as a joke. Besides, Dr. Wily isn't the visible villain who is unleashing deadly robots this time round, according to the storyline; hence the image is inaccurate. --Reploidof20xx (TALK) 08:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not a joke. "It was quickly decided by the marketing group that if we were going to release a game that looked like it came from 1987 that we should run the whole marketing campaign as if we were working in the games industry in 1987." They'll be selling t-shirts with this art on it sooner or later, according to that blog post, which is by a member of Capcom's staff confirming they did this on purpose. Arrowned (talk) 20:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So the question isn't whether it's official - it's whether we should actually put box art into the infobox for a game that, for all intents and purposes, would otherwise not have box art. Personally I'm all for it, pending a better scan of the image in question, although I can empathize somewhat with the other side in this case.
Still, if not the infobox, somewhere in the article under "Promotion" would work (I mean, tons of Wiki articles have that section, right?). It'd fit like a glove there, for sure. --Shadow Hog (talk) 04:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I imagine that the logo will look something like this for Wiiware (fan made, copy/paste job by me). 20:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.26.124.207 (talk)
Yeah, a marketing or promotion section would work. Though then there should be more things then just the boxart, also maybe how it was shown/advertised at E3, or any televion commercial. Moccamonster Talk 07:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the meantime, I'd like to suggest an alternative to the infobox issue: a screenshot of the game in-action. Plenty are available by now, and this is a tactic often used for games from the 8-bit era and back that have Wikipedia articles but don't have easy to find boxarts (or never had boxart to begin with). Arrowned (talk) 12:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
...except looking it over, it seems Wikipedia really hates box art, period? Christ, this site really HAS gone downhill when we can't even illustrate a game's boxart, which, IIRC, no game company has ever minded. --Shadow Hog (talk) 15:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding of the matter is that images uploaded to en.Wikipedia have a bit less strenuous ruling than images uploaded to Commons, which is why things such as fair use rationale templates for pictures exist around these parts. Images uploaded to Commons must be free of public domain, unless the copyright owner doesn't care. Arrowned (talk) 19:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to know... how can a downloadable game have a boxart? 201.127.9.254 (talk) 17:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Moccamonster already explained, several comments up, that "it isn't 'boxart', but it can be the title-image(just to call it that)." We tend to call it a boxart because that's what it's most equivalent to. It's just semantics; no big deal. Arrowned (talk) 19:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now the boxart makes sense: http://www.capcom-unity.com/johndmoney/blog/2008/09/16/mega_man_9_retail_package alby13 (talk) 22:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As another subject, while technically of higher quality and of correct perspective, I'd point out that the new image happens to have a watermark on it. Has anyone found any similar images that lack this watermark? I don't recall if such was specifically addressed, but as I understood Wikipedia's style, watermarked images would actually be less-desirable for use than low-quality images. Nottheking (talk) 00:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of intentionall glitch-option?[edit]

http://www.destructoid.com/capcom-intentionally-putting-glitches-in-mega-man-9-for-nostalgic-effect-98275.phtml CapCom has confirmed that they will put an option for intentionall glitches in the game, i.e. flickering sprites when there are too many sprites on the screen. Is this notable enough to put in the article? Moccamonster Talk 18:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, since the source doesn't appear to be reliable anyway. That is, it may likely just be speculation on the site's part. So, I would advise against adding it to the article either way, until a more credible and reliable source can be found. Brittany Ka (talk) 11:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, i wasn't quite sure if the source was reliable or not. Moccamonster Talk 13:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We should try to find a good source for this as it makes sense to put in the article. alby13 (talk) 22:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's already in the article, has been for nearly a month now. Second paragraph under Development, last sentence. The citation used there is a Gamasutra interview with Hironobu Takeshita, MM9's Producer. Arrowned (talk) 01:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First three Robot Masters fully revealed[edit]

http://blue-bomber.jvmwriter.org/community/index.php?showtopic=1710

The above link shows the official artwork of Concrete Man, Tornado Man and Magma Man along with their descriptions and the weapons Megaman receives from them. I don't know if it's necessary to mention any of that in the article yet... I just thought I'd bring this up. --Burai (talk) 12:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bot report : Found duplicate references ![edit]

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

  • "NintendoPower" :
    • {{cite journal |last= Hoffman |first= Chris |authorlink= |coauthors= |year= |month= |title= True Blue |journal= Nintendo Power |volume= 231 |issue= August 2008 |pages= p. 20-22|id= |url= |accessdate=2008-06-30 |quote= }}
    • Nintendo Power

DumZiBoT (talk) 15:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Auto's Shop Items Revealed[edit]

The shop items have been revealed on the official Mega Man 9 homepage. Should it be noted on the wiki as to which items do what? We would need a translator to translate the Japanese text to english. 98.26.124.207 (talk) 03:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It really shouldn't. Wikipedia is not a game guide. I'm already conflicted over the links to images of the Robot Masters (no other Mega Man-based article on Wikipedia links to or includes pictures of all the bosses for identification purposes, besides maybe a single screenshot of one boss battle just to show how boss battles work), but something like this is clearly too much. Arrowned (talk) 06:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While the item list isn't suitable content, two of the items may be worth describing: the Costume and Hairstyle Book items. [2] --Reploidof20xx (TALK) 08:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robot masters notability[edit]

Because Wikipedia is not a game guide, we need to consider removing all of the robot master information. This is a relatively active article among Mega Man games, and with the release may become even more active, so I have added the {{Copy to gaming wiki}} template in that section. When one has done so, or after about a month, we should remove the information entirely. Lumaga (talk) 04:17, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. No other article for any single Mega Man game on en.wikipedia has a list of bosses; that's what Robot Master is for. Though the MM9 bosses haven't been added there, likely due to not knowing their series number yet. In the meantime, that info could be put on Talk:Robot Master, as well as the page for MM9 at Wikia's Mega Man area. Arrowned (talk) 04:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think I should note that the reason no Mega Man game article has a list of bosses, is because it appears Lumaga removed them shortly before posting this message, so the point is moot, if not an indication of bias.
Just to add my opinion, I think the Robot Masters are a pretty major element in each Mega Man game, so they definitely can't have zero mention in the main article. The simple list of the Robot Master, with perhaps their weapon, has been pretty sufficient and concise so far. Anything further should go in Robot Master, and the real source of debate about WP:GAMEGUIDE belongs there. - Zero1328 Talk? 06:49, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A robot master list with weapons would go against the guidelines from WP:GAMECRUFT, specifically point #6. Without weapons, you're left with a list of robot master names which doesn't seem to add much to the article. And you're right that Robot Master is probably in more need of trimming, but that's not an article I want to focus on right now since it's a much bigger task. Lumaga (talk) 07:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes a concise summary is appropriate if it is essential to understanding the game or its significance in the industry. Make of it what you will. Anyway, like I said, the Robot Masters are a major element of the Mega Man games. I feel that this definitely can't be argued. Instead of going on how to get rid of it, we should think of how to make it fit more naturally into the article, and/or wrap context around it. It's a bit of sketchy reasoning, but the weapon name can add a bit of understanding to the Robot Master, and is the most concise thing out there. And perhaps the creator can be added to the table? It adds more context and will justify a place under the Development header. The reason I said this talk belongs in Robot Master is because ultimately, the reasoning can and probably should be applied there. - Zero1328 Talk? 08:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I seriously have to wonder who keeps plaguing Wikipedia with all of these utterly ridiculous, unnecessary, prohibitive, useless and often nonsensical limitations on what information is "valid" and what "isn't". All of these useless and silly arguments about what Wikipedia "is" or "isn't" is what helps make Wikipedia ludicrously over-complicated, and completly ruins it, with these ugly boxes and lectures that make the site and 80% of articles look unprofessional and irritating.

Wikipedia "is" a source of encyclopedic information. Simple.

This will often vary on the subjects of it's articles. As long as there's not a full walkthrough of the game put on here, I find it quite stupid to keep the names of boss characters and Robot Masters off the page. Especially since, not only is it ifnromation that those looking up Mega Man 9 will want to know as basic infomration, they are essential and entirely notable to the Mega Man series as a whole, and it's all relevant information.

It's not like you see a Walkthrough or a guide of cheat codes here, so stop with all of the useless bureaucracy and meddling into a page for lack of anything else to do. It obviously seems to me to be a clear attempt for a bored wandering Wikipedia nazi to throw their weight around and trying to validate their own self-worth with asinine, self-imposed pot-stirring when it's absolutely not necessary or wanted. The only thing it really does with any effectiveness is put up yet another haughty ugly box interrupting a decent article with a sense of smug superiority.

A list of Robot Masters is basic information to a Mega Man title. People will come here expecting to see a list of notable boss characters, while Cheat Codes and Walkthroughs are things that would NOT be generally expected. That is the fine line between relevant and irrelevant information. Thus, Robot Masters should stay. I can't imagine why or how these even became an issue, aside from someone obviously being bored.

Wow, here's some required reading. Lumaga (talk) 06:31, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a discussion about including Robot Masters in Mega Man articles at the Video Game project talk page. If you have an opinion, please remark here. Lumaga (talk) 06:31, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is just ridiculous: "Hornet Man is the supervisor at a flower theme park. He knows everything there is to know about flowers from all over the world." And the weapons are pure gameguide material.--Megaman en m (talk) 18:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As evidence that Robot Masters are not necessary, Mega Man 2 was recently promoted to Good Article status. Lumaga (talk) 15:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pic of the robot masters[edit]

http://www.gpara.com/files/contents/p_l1219596407.jpg

While we most likely can't use this version of the image, it does show the heads of all the Robot Masters. And from what we know and with a little educated guessing, from left to right, it would be Galaxy Man, Magma Man, Hornet Man, Splash Woman, Plug Man, Jewel Man, Tornado Man, and Concrete Man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drkirby (talk • contribs) 17:48, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'educated guessing' is Original Research, which is against the rules. We need a source to confirm the names. Moccamonster Talk 21:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to IGN we can know for sure which one is Magma Man, Tornado Man and Concrete Man. (Thanks for finding the image of the Robot Master's faces). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.207.32.37 (talk) 21:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Release Dates, Confirmed?[edit]

According to GameFaqs, under the Wii Section, there is a release date for the 12th for Japan.

Over in the XBox 360 section, they have a release date set fr the 24th for the US.

Have both of these dates been confirmed? Where is the source of these given dates? Because the 12th is a Friday, and the 24th is a Wednesday. NA Wiware titles always get released on Mondays. But I'm unsure about how Japanese handles Wiiware release dates. I looked around elsewhere online, and couldn't find any news sources giving these exact dates. May want to look into this. 98.26.124.207 (talk) 02:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought Japanese VC releases were on Tuesdays, and European releases are on Fridays. I don't know where that date (12th) comes from, but it's Nintendo who makes the final decision on VC release dates. -- VederJuda (talk) 12:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bosses shown in full in Megaman 9 soundtrack[edit]

Ok, I think this is a reliable enough source to use for the bosses of the game. They are found inside the CD guide, pictures of which can be seen here: http://www.siliconera.com/2008/09/12/rockman-9-original-soundtrack-includes-staff-comments-boss-gallery/

Also, as a quick side note, they are labeled DRN and not DWN.

--Drkirby (talk) 18:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EU Release Date[edit]

Its out now in the EU. --82.45.60.218 (talk) 23:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sales within the first week?[edit]

http://news.vgchartz.com/news.php?id=2162
Should it be noted on the page that MM9 has sold about $60,000 within the first day, then at $140,000 within the first week? 98.26.124.207 (talk) 06:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, because #1: VG Chartz is not a trustworthy/verifiable source (see "Questionable Sources" near the bottom of Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources#List), and #2: Christian Svensson, Capcom of America's Vice President of Strategic Planning, [flat out said] that "any numbers you've seen or quoted are not correct", and that media outlets were possibly making them up. Arrowned (talk) 14:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DLC section[edit]

If the article is going to include downloadable content, it needs to be in the context of the real world. Otherwise, it doesn't really satisfy the notability requirement. Wikipedia is not a game guide or an indiscriminate collection of information. The section should be written in prose and show notability. One way to relate this in a real world context is to explain how this particular game's DLC was received by fans. Many fans did not like the additional charge for this game's DLC (for whatever reason, I'll never understand). Now, of course, this would all have to come from a reliable source. Lumaga (talk) 19:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There, I deleted the prices and rewrote all the sentences. I hope it fits Wikipedia now.--Megaman en m (talk) 20:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chronological order in series[edit]

There does seem to be some evidence that Mega Man 9 is in fact set before Mega Man 7, aside from the obvious 8 bit graphics (like Mega Man 1-6). The ending only shows the endings of Mega Man 1-6. Also, Roll noticeably has her pre-Mega Man 8 design. Finally, in one of the final cutscenes, the blueprints of Bass can be seen on one of Dr. Wily's monitors, who is introduced in Mega Man 7 for the first time. Bass is also noticeably missing, aside from his blueprints being seen on a monitor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.175.136.127 (talk) 21:51, November 22, 2008

I was under the impression that ending showed all nine games, including MM&B, just with the post-NES games rendered in 8-bit style. Regardless, I recall Capcom reps saying it took place after 8, though I could be misremembering. Arrowned (talk) 02:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia[edit]

A little gem I found in Megaman 9 whilst playing it yesterday:

In the introducing cutscene to Megaman 9, Dr. Wily displays a bank account number for people to donate money etc. etc.. The number (198-712-17) is the release date of Megaman 1. Probably not notable, just thought I'd like to point that out.
~~NaN 16:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Downloadable Content?[edit]

We should really have a list of available downloadble content so that people know what each piece of content entails. Also, include any prices. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.175.171.124 (talk) 06:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No we shouldn't. This isn't a consumers guide, and we can't name prices per WP:GAMECRUFT.--Megaman en m (talk) 10:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'm inclined to disagree, at least when it comes to naming the specific pieces of content. As an example, I'd cite Halo 3 as an example; it mentions, what I believe, to be each piece, including its release date, yielding a fleshed-out section. It's worth pointing out that "in spite" of this, the article is a featured article. While including prices would be against WP's style, actually mentioning each download, I think, would be within it. Nottheking (talk) 22:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"8-bit engine"[edit]

Since the game is available through the Wii's WiiWare service, rather than the Virtual Console emulator, (as well as being available on XBLM and PSN) as well as the "inherent" lack of the NES's limitations, I'm inclined to say that this game isn't "8-bit" at all; it may make use of much of the same code to control gameplay, and use lower-resolution and bit-depth images, I'd think that the program is clearly written for a 32-bit hardware architecture. (namely, that of the 7th-generation consoles) Hence, I question the validity of the un-sourced statement in the infobox that the game's engine is "8-bit." The cover art's statement of "8-bit fidelity engine" is just as much a parody of the covers of old as the rest of the image is. Hence, it would either make more sense to perhaps have the name re-direct to "parody" or alternatively, not be there at all. Nottheking (talk) 22:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It was made in 8-bit style, but it's not truly 8-bit (i.e. the code is not true NES 8-bit), and I believe several reliable sources indicate this already. –MuZemike 02:31, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Secret[edit]

Why hasn't anything been mentioned of the so called "Mega Man 9 Final Secret?" Capcom has confirmed it themselves that it exists. Despite the fact that no one has found it yet, shouldn't something at least be mentioned? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TopHatProfessor1014 (talk • contribs) 00:07, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mega Man 9. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:14, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mega Man 9. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:48, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mega Man 9. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:04, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1up.com review[edit]

I've tried, and failed, to find an archive of 1up.com's review of the game. It's listed a a perma-dead link on this page. An archive needs to be found. Otherwise, it should be removed from the page. Harizotoh9 (talk) 01:37, 28 April 2019 (UTC) Found. Link restored. Pretty sure 100% of 1up.com is archived, just that you have to play around with the url and try to find one that works. Harizotoh9 (talk) 15:24, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mega_Man_9&oldid=1203957978"