Talk:Super Mario 64/Archive 2

Nintendo DS, not a platform for this game

The Nintendo DS is NOT a platform for this game, the Super Mario 64 DS is a different game and has many differences, this article is for the N64 game. please do NOT list the DS as a platform for this game.SuperWiki5 16:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Deleted reception paragraph

I removed the paragraph under the reception paragraph as a glaring example of Point of View problems. It was completely unsourced, unattributed and made a highly contentious point. Most of the rest of the article would seem to indicate that Mario 64 represented a bold new direction for the series, and was not much like previous games in the series at all. At best the article should attribute some sources and counterbalance it with an opposing view. Frogacuda 04:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Please sign your messages and put them at the bottom of the talk page. For what's it's worth, I have responded to this issue at User talk:Frogacuda. Andre (talk) 04:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikibooks

If you have time why not help with writing a player's guide for Super Mario 64 on Wikibooks? Gerard Foley 15:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Well that book was deleted along with the rest of the videogame books. I have started to write my own guide from scratch in the Public Domain at WikiKnowledge if anyone wants to help with that instead. Gerard Foley 15:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

More on development

This should be incorporated: http://www.miyamotoshrine.com/kong/features/mario64/index.shtml - Fredrik | tc 03:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Oooh

omg. look at google video there is a luigi is real thing there. Whoa

Thats some bad grammar you got there. And its pretty easy to make a screen shot/video that streches mario out a little and makes him green... Wesz 12:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

reply to Oooh

Dude, search for that on youtube. the guy who did that is a hacker. he hacked into Super Mario 64 and editied his face. recently he has mad the world's one and only Super mario 64 level editor, Toad's Tool 64 (we need a page on wikipedia for that.) His username is starxxon. It's all made up. He even says that in the video description. spinninggoomba has spun here.

WP:FARC

The article Super Mario 64 includes:

1. Limited references concerning the history and the development of the game. The references in the article are not formatted correctly.
2. Furthermore, there are no references concerning other aspects of the game. Example: Shifting Sand Land is somewhat reminiscent of Super Mario Bros. 3's Desert Land. Citation? The "Rumors" and "Impact" section requires citations as well.
3. Far too many fair use images.
4. The "basic controls" section could do with some trimming.
5. Is the "remakes and sequels" section necessary?
6. The spoiler warning is quite lengthy.

—Eternal Equinox | talk 00:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I've dealt with #2 #3 you threw out #5 and I dealt with #6. Number 1 i'm working on, and #4 is not a valid issue. You should have posted a cleanup instead of doing a FARC Seraphim 04:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Removal of spoilers tag

The list of levels does not consist of "Plot and/or ending details" which is what the spoiler tag is used for. While playing the game you are not suppossed to be surprised by any of the main levels. What would be considered a spoiler is explaining how to find Shifting Sand land, but since that is not mentioned, there are no spoilers that I can see. Seraphim 23:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the list of the levels featured in the game certainly adheres to the title of "spoiler warning". Perhaps one reading this article does not want to know that about the levels in the game? We cannot be careless and need to patch up all loose ends. —Eternal Equinox | talk 03:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

In the game if you hit the start button you get a list of all the levels in the game. It is not a spoiler, and there is no way you can consider a level list to be giving away "Plot and/or ending details" which is what the spoiler tag covers.Seraphim 04:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Unreferenced Rumors

I just removed the Rumors section. Wikipedia is not a place for rumors or speculation, however, I realize that the rumors were posted to adknowledge that the rumors exist which does fall inline with wikipedia standards. With that said, we cannot add unverifiable information to articles, and the rumors section definatly needs some references added. I'll post the content of the section here, and whoever added the rumor can add in a reference, and then once it's all referenced we can add it back into the article. Here it is:

Because of Super Mario 64's great popularity, rumors spread like wildfire after its release.

The most infamous rumor is that Mario's brother Luigi is an unlockable character in the game. This rumor was fueled by a blurry texture on the pedestal of a statue in the castle courtyard that some think reads "L is Real 2401" (or alternately, 2041), for which various speculative explanations have been proposed by fans. Others believe the text to read "Eternal Star," which makes sense since the texture appears on the pedestal of a star-shaped statue. The phrase "Eternal Star" has been used by Nintendo in other games, most notably as an unlockable board in the first Mario Party title. Luigi is a playable character in the Nintendo DS version of the game.

Photoshopped pictures of Mario with a green tint have been presented as evidence of Luigi being playable, but no one has been able to accomplish this feat in the game. Nintendo has consistently denied Luigi's playability, and never commented on the meaning of "L is Real 2401." However, in one Nintendo Power April Fool's issue, the table of contents said that this cryptic phrase would be discussed on a page whose number did not exist in the magazine.

The suspicious texture also appears in Dodongo's Cavern in The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, a game which recycled and revamped the graphics engine from Super Mario 64. The artists may simply have reused the texture as a joke, knowing the fuss it would create amongst keen-eyed fans. Several other out-of-the-way Mario references exist in that game.

Thanks Seraphim 04:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Just a thought, could "L is Real 2401" mean "Luigi is real to April First"? Just an intrepration, but, makes sense... 65.96.98.74 22:03, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Recent removals

Please discuss your removals before doing them unilaterally. Do not remove sections - find references, don't kill the entire section. Andre (talk) 13:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I, for one, feel that it has not been established that we have too many screenshots on this page. Though the line about Desert Land and the rumors section need references, they should not be removed out of hand. We will locate references for them. Andre (talk) 13:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Um.... Look up 1 section on the talk page called "Unreferenced Rumors". Right now someone is trying to get the page's Featured Article status removed. All issues need to be dealt with immediatly so people don't post Remove decisions and then never check back again. Seraphim 17:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with Andrevan here, that the first choice should be fixing text, not removing it. Fredrik Johansson - talk - contribs 17:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you 100% that the first choice should be fixing text not removing it. However the first choice should also have been posting a cleanup tag on the article, not creating a nomination to remove this as a featured article. But Eternal_Equinox did http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_removal_candidates. One of his reasons was alot of uncited text, specifically the rumors section. Since no part of the rumors section had any references that is an extremely valid point, and people would have to vote for removal of the article's featured status. Most people don't go back to re-check their votes a few days later, I removed it to here to prevent people that view the FARC's only once from voting Remove. There has been too much work put in this article, for it to loose featured status. Once the FARC is over i'll gladly put the rumors section back in and tag it with references needed, however right now this was needed since one of the biggest reasons for removing featured article status is that they have tags all over them. I also suggest you all vote on the FARC nomination, since it's "your" article that will be loosing it's star.Seraphim 19:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Eternal Equinox doesn't have authority. He's just a user, and at the moment there's little risk of this article losing FA status. Please stop removing the text, and let's discuss how to fix it. Andre (talk) 22:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• You are also a user so I don't follow your message. —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll leave it up for now. But if the FA vote gets another remove vote (becomes tied) I will have to remove it again. There is a much greater risk then you believe. There is a FARC vote going on, that right now is 3-2 for keep, that is not "little risk". I'll tag the section as needing references. Seraphim 22:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

What I meant by that message was, your criticisms and the FARC nomination are not necessarily important. Any user can make them, and doing so does not necessitate authority. Because of Seraphim's reaction, I was unsure if he was aware of this. Andre (talk) 15:44, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand understand what the FARC nomination is. If that passes, this page looses it's FA status. It doesn't matter who nominates the page. Seraphim 20:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Uch, so much talking on such a minor topic. Nevertheless, I agree with Andre. But who is this Andre? Bcem2 01:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Article Status?

What is the current article status? Is is a featured article still or not? And where is the star if it is? User:Judgesurreal777 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.2.166.217 (talk • contribs) .

Yes, it's still featured. The templates at the top of this page explain it. I still see the star. Pagrashtak 03:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

There is something funky with the star on this page. I see it about 1/2 the time I come here for some strange reason. *shrug* It is still a FA. Seraphim 08:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

High Resolution Screenshots

Bowser start of snow level Big Boo's Mansion Fortress The monkey that steals Mario's cap Dire Dire Docks 2nd snow level Rainbow Road with Wing cap

Placing them here so they're not forgotten. Do what you want with them except deleting them. I'm using some of the best hardware avaliable to render them. Renegadeviking

I don't think high-resolution screenshots are appropriate here since the game doesn't look like that on the Nintendo 64. Emulator screenshots are fine IMO, but the configuration should be as close as possible to the original hardware. Fredrik Johansson 11:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

That's why it's called high res instead of low-res. I promise you no body will be confused. Renegadeviking

I've converted the included images into links, since images claiming fair use can only be used in the article namespace according to Wikipedia's fair use policy, item 9. A few comments about these screenshots: High-resolution screenshots should be avoided in favor of low-resolution screens, which appear the same in the article and make a stronger fair use argument. (Fair use policy, item 3). Retouched or enhanced screens are typically not as useful as the original screen; the raw screens give the user a better idea of the game. These enhanced screens, while pretty, will mislead the reader and also weakens the case for fair use. Pagrashtak 03:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Luigi model

While it's known that Luigi is not a playable character in the game, there is a model for Luigi hidden in the game. Somebody looked through the ROM and found the polygon data and was able to produce this: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1531148774953443944

Should this be added anywhere in the rumors section?

You can't even be sure this is even true. M2K e 02:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I did this video. I reverse-engineered the polygon data and distorted Mario's head, then changed the suit and hat color to green, then the red M to a green L icon. The Luigi model is not in the original game, I modified it. I'm currently building a Super Mario 64 editor, and Luigi is nowhere to be found in the game. There is an unused animated beta Yoshi egg though...

Do you have a website for this project? It'd be a nice reference to prove, once and for all, that Luigi is not in Mario64. -- Bobdoe (Talk) 03:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I, for one, just watched said video, and I shall point out that Mario's icon is at the top left. I would reccomend editing that. P.S. Tell me the program at my talk page.--Sheenfanficker

flying 1-up mushrooms

There flying mushrooms in this game, like the outside the castle in 3rd tree from the waterfall. Why do these mushrooms chase you? Why did the programmers design the mushrooms to chase you?

So you wouldn't have to go through all the trouble of chasing them. The Legend of Miyamoto 20:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

What? That makes me laugh! Zman42 (talk) 22:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

List of levels and FAR

Hi all - as you know, this article is currently undergoing a minor Featured article review to tighten up the language. (I want to emphasize that this is NOT a nomination for the removal of featured article status.) One issue that's come up is the list of levels - is it too crufty? Is it too long? Should it be spun off into its own article? Should it be converted into prose, and if so, how? Input from people who regularly edit this page would be absolutely wonderful; you can comment here. Cheers! The Disco King 13:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Glitches

An anon added a long list of SM64 glitches to the article, but I've removed it. This is exactly the type of cruft the FAR listed above is meant to address. The section was also unsourced. -- Amcaja 22:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair use images

I've counted 13 fair use images in this article, which seems a little excessive to me (especially since this is meant to be a featured article). It would be good if someone could sort through the screenshots and take out the ones that are least useful.--Kingston Jr. 12:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and I've reverted to the version where you removed some of them. Each image in this article needs to be directly related to something in the text. I can buy that seven or eight images do this, but not 13. Also, the reversion to the article before your cuts also deleted a bunch of {{fact}} requests for source citations, so I've put those back, too. — Amcaja 15:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. If the screenshots were free images then there wouldn't be a problem, but since they're not we should follow the policy for fair use images set out in WP:FU, which states that "the amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible". Given that this is supposed to be a featured article I believe the article should follow this policy to the letter. Aside from that and some minor unsourced info here and there, it's a pretty good article.--Kingston Jr. 17:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Bowser's voice?

According to the article, Bowser was voiced by an uncredited Issac Marshall. However, according to an issue of the The Mushroom Kingdom Mailbag (the second "the" is deliberate in this case), the user "Stealth Yoshi" proves (via an audio sample) that Bowser's low-pitched growl is the same as the shrill laugh of a Boo, only slowed down by a factor of about 8. (It is important to note that both sound bytes originated in this game.) Does this mean that he also provided the voice for Boo, or has the article simply been misinformed? --Ppk01 19:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

A benchmark for all 3D games

"Super Mario 64 was considered so revolutionary that many consider it the benchmark for all later 3D platformer games and 3D games in general"

The source provided for this sentence ([1]) does not mention anything about the game being considered a benchmark. Its very weasel worded anyway, but I've removed the source and tagged it with 'citation needed' instead of taking it out completely.--58.169.31.200 01:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

"Nintendo basically set the standards for how 3D space would be navigated within video games with Super Mario 64." That seems pretty clear to me, but just to make it crystal I've changed the wording to "set the standard." Andre (talk) 05:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

This seems totally wrong. There are a lot of different control types. I.e. Croc or Crash Bandicoot use totally different navigation types. 84.178.73.248 17:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be changed. "Many" is not composed of a single gamespot article. And besides, Jumping Flash! did this a year before mario 64.--58.169.0.94 08:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not about that -- it's about setting the standard, influencing and inspiring other games, as diverse as GoldenEye. Control schemes are not the issue. Andre (talk) 21:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

This has been changed a while ago, but I just wanted to comment here on the reasoning. Saying that something "set a new standard for how 3D space is navigated in a game" is a very different thought that saying it "Set the standard for all 3D games." The latter implies it's a standing benchmark of quality which is NOT what the article was trying to say. The article was more discussing about the way analog movement was used in conjunction with a dynamic, intelligent camera, something which HAS been important to the development of 3D gaming (perhaps not all 3D gaming, but a large portion, all the same). The point made in the article was articulate and accurate, so I changed the wording to more reflect that feeling. Frogacuda 21:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Rumours quote -- is it unnecessary?

The quote I'm referring to is the "Headless Snowman 64" game article. It's not exactly a rumour, but a joke about Luigi not being in SM64. Is it worth keeping it there? 143.238.194.33 10:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

FA status removed?

How did this happen without the removal discussion being advertised? Andre (talk) 19:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Which is to say, how did we go from FAR to FARC? Also, it seems like there have only been two or three people weighing in on the discussion to remove it. I'm going to revert the removal for now until this is explained. Andre (talk) 19:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The FA status was removed because according to what Deckiller said in the FFXII article's talk page, it lacked inline citations and had serious lead and POV issues, and little work was done to fix those issues in the 1+ month given. Sjones23 20:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Missing Famitsu review

Geez guys, you've got reviews from every country except Japan. Get this worldwide view straight. Famitsu gave the game a 39/40, which is an impressive feat. I can't just add that though, as someone still has to find a source for it (and I don't want to help as I rather want to review the article).--SeizureDog 08:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

GA Review

This is my review of this article for a GA status:

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

5. It is stable.

   

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

   a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

7. Overall:

   a Pass/Fail:

Semi-protection?

Can we see about getting this page put on semi-protection for a while? The GameFAQs crowd seem to have learned how to escape from their cages as of late and are determined to junk up pages related to video games here. None of the offenders have made edits while being logged in, though, so preventing anonymous edits for a while should clear the issue up. erhudy 06:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Too Little Awards Shown in Wikipedia

In the page, there is little awards shown for Super Mario 64. As of other 790 reviews and awards of which 97% are 10 out of 10, best game ever made, greatest game of all time, game of the year, best design, best coordination, and best controls. I would love to hear other opinions or add more awards.

- February 2007- The Legend of Miyamoto

Remakes and sequels

Should there be anything on how Super Mario Galaxy is considered the true sequel by some fans?

Notice what you said. It is considered to be a sequal by fans. Not Nintendo. The fans. This makes the statement original research which is prohibited on Wikipedia. So no, there shouldn't be anything about it unless Nintendo makes a statement saying that it is. --pIrish 19:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually at E3 Nintendo's President Regi (I don't know the full name) stated "in one sense this is the first worthy sucesser to Super Mario 64." I don't know how to link sites so here's the address-http://www.gametrailers.com/player/25574.html it was on the 'Top Ten games to buy besides Halo 3' video. If y'all could link it then that would be much better. Thanx. SxeFluff 19:24, 7 October 2007

Once again, thanx for whoever linked it.[[User:SxeFluff--SxeFluff 23:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)]] 18:16, 17 October 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by SxeFluff (talk • contribs)

Trivia

The trivia recently removed needs incorporating into the article body if possible. I'm a fan of tagging the trivia section for incorporation, rather than zapping the lot, but here's the points removed :-

• The golden rabbit, Mips, is named after the Nintendo 64's MIPS processor.
• Speeding up Bowser's maniacal laughter results in the high-pitched laugh of a Boo.
• Several things change when Mario collects all the stars. Bowser's final battle speech is different, Yoshi appears on the castle roof and grants Mario a new triple jump, the beach cannon is unlocked, and the Big Penguin in Cool Cool Mountain gains weight.
• Without using coin-duplication glitches, there are 2092 coins in the 15 worlds. Two particular coins (Snowman's Land's narrow wooden path leading to the snowman's head, and near Tiny Huge Island's cannonball hole using big Mario) are each members of a 'coin line', but they were accidentally embedded inside walls. They can be seen by manipulating the camera to view inside the wall.

--Oscarthecat 15:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The MIPS fact was previously incorporated, but removed for some reason. Andre (talk) 17:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

List of enemies

I think there should be a list of enemies added to this article, or at least a link to this page: Mario series enemies 209.103.228.155 04:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

2041?

Hey everyone I think there is a connection between the L is Real rumor and the release date of Super Mario Bros. What I did was I divided 2041 by 64 (referring to nintendo 64) and got 31.890625. I then rounded that to 31 and multiplied that by 64 to get 1984 which is a year off from the release year of Super Mario Bros. in Japan and the U.S. This is just a guess about what the rumor means or if it means anything at all. Tell me your opinion on this.--Coolkid602006 21:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

No, there is no connection. Andre (talk) 22:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Dang...Last night I kept thinking about what this could be and I moved the numbers around to get 4/1/02 which is

April fools day 2002. And in April fools day 1998 nintendo power magazine they faked a page about it. Tell me your opinion on this.--Coolkid602006

There is no meaning to the number 2041, numerological or otherwise. Andre (talk) 01:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The third word looks a lot like something in Katakana beginning with コイ... Prime Blue 14:47, 5 June 2007 (GMT)

Koi, as in love? You're right; it does look strangely like katakana... -- RattleMan 19:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

What does it say under that line anyway? Also, perhaps 2401 has something to do with the information signs.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.218.13.211 (talk • contribs)

Andrevan, how come you deleted that paragraph of the rumour section? Now the article no longer mentions "Eternal Star". I think it's wrong to only mention "L is Real" without a possible alternative, because joe average might come here (or one of the zillions of site that mirror wiki), see that there's no given alternative explanation to the blurry text, and take it to mean that "L is real" is the best explanation that anyone has come up with. Doesn't this kinda... "promote" the rumour? The other explanation I can see for the revert was that you disagree with my throwing down random numbers on the page without a source. However, I don't think you'll find any citation online about coin counts; at least, none that isn't from an avid SM64 gamer such as myself or someone that knows me. Maybe a screen shot of the Score screen would help? It's not so much original research as it is unanimous knowledge amongst hardcore SM64 players that there are _not_ 2041 coins in the game, no matter which way you count them. The "2041" symbolising coin totals (or a date) are by far the most common interpretations I've come across, and I think it's important to at least clarify that the obvious one, coins, is baseless.

On a side note, is it just my version of the game, or does Mario need 31+ stars to fight Bowser #2? At 30, he can open the star door. But the blue water blocks the way to the hole. Mario has to push the water back by collecting the submarine star. Perhaps the sentence needs to be changed to reflect that it refers to star doors, not Bowser fights. alexpenev 12:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately that paragraph lacked sources or references, and thus could only be understood as original research. If it was taken from a source, feel free to put the paragraph back with the appropriate citations. Andre (talk) 20:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The verifiability guidelines are for things that are challenged or likely to be challenged. Presenting a sensible alternative to a nonsense rumour doesn't seem like something that would ever need to be challenged, wouldn't you agree? If you'd prefer, I can reword it in a way to make it sound like "Eternal Star" is an alternative proposition. That way, it can't be challenged since it's not an assertion, and yet the article would present both sides of the "debate". As for coin totals, I think there was a strategy guide years ago that listed some, but they were wrong anyway (truth be told, professional "publications" on gaming usually know far less than the top-tier fans, and they get stuff wrong quite frequently.) The most accurate list is http://www.gamefaqs.com/console/n64/file/198848/26788. Does a fan-written FAQ that gets published on GF without review count as a valid citation? alexpenev 08:17, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I can't say I quite agree with your premise. Verifiability isn't about being challenged, it's about accuracy and being able to verify that accuracy. The guidelines are clear that we need references for everything in Wikipedia that isn't common knowledge. I think the FAQ is an OK source for the totals, but I do think that, as written in the version I removed, the usage of the totals was inappropriately detailed. I also still think we need some kind of reference for where the phrase "Eternal Star" comes from -- as it is now, it's guesswork or random forum gleaning. Andre (talk) 18:50, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I know it's in wiki's benefit to have a ref for everything, but I also know that in reality there doesn't exist a reference for many things. I think the closest you'll get to a "reference" is that Nintendo has used the phrase Eternal Star in Mario Party, which means that at some point in time, someone somewhere in the company saw a meaning behind juxtaposing the words Eternal and Star. It'd be an open and shut case if MP had come first, but it was unfortunately released after SM64. alexpenev 16:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Right, so we can't use it in the article. Andre (talk) 18:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

But 31.890625 should be rounded to 32. ;-) And then nothing of this does work^^. :-p --82.207.190.228 16:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Hate to burst your bubble, but it's 2401, not 2041 Zman42 (talk) 22:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Respond to 2041?

31.890625 should be rounded to 32. Then take 32 x 64 (super mario 64) you get 2048. Then add 2+0+4+1 you get 7. Now, subtract 7 from 2048 you would get 2041. 76.110.82.251 22:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

wait... Why add 7 to the original 2041 and then subtract 7. [[User:SxeFluff|--SxeFluff 01:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)]] 20:29, 7 October 2007

I have no idea. 76.110.82.251 (talk) 18:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The Popularity

Im just curious but instead of saying ' one of the greatest' it's actually THE greatest, couldn't I just change that? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Milos Warrior (talk • contribs) 11:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

No. Because that is an opinion. And unless every human being on earth agrees that it is the best the answer remains no. [[User:SxeFluff|--SxeFluff 01:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)]] 20:33, 7 October 2007

The Greatest Game of all Time

Look, I know everybody keep saying that Ocarina of Time is the best, but this is it because they've putted in honor to Twilight Princess. On this page and the greatest game of all time page, Mario 64 is not recognized, putting less awards, vandalism, and poor source of showing awards.Mr. Mario 192 1 May, 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry. This is as tragic as 9/11 for sure. Especially since everyone KNOWS that LoZ:OoT is the best, and because there are no other opinions out there. Yes I'm being sarcastic. If Super Mario 64 is your choice then lets all applaud. Don't get frustrated over nothing. There's probably some idiot that thinks E.T. for the Atari kicked ass. The 'Greatest Game of All Time Page' is just the most obvious choice IMPORTANT sources picked. And be for real, Ocarina of Time was the shitz. [[User:SxeFluff|--SxeFluff 01:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)]] 20:45, 7 October 2007

Blurry Image in Luigi's Mansion

I think this should be removed as it does not say anything close to what the statue in SM64 says. I did a close up on it and the one in Luigi's Mansion says "The Skeleton lies here" Angry Sun 18:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

What the hack does that mean??? Zman42 (talk) 22:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

star doors

the article says there are three star doors (8, 30 & 50) and behind each one is a bowser level. i could be mistaken, but aren't there four doors (8, 30, 50, 70) and behind all but the third is a bowser level? if this is the case, what's the best way to rephrase it so it's still readable? Djchallis 14:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The fourth door has no star requirement. You can enter it with 50, so they're 8, 30, 50 and 50. The last is technically 0, but it carries over the 50. alexpenev 01:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Giga Bowser

Last time I played Mario 64 (in which was in like 1 year), I was on the final battle against Bowser. After I defeated him, suddenly he appeared again in the Giga Bowser form. I know it's strange but I swear I haven't used any Gameshark or any other cheat codes. It just popped up. Maybe you guys know. I say that on Melee, Giga Bowser's symbol is the Smash Bros. symbol. But it should be the Mario series symbol. I don't know but if it's true should we include in the article. Mr. Mario 192 19:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Please stop posting this. It's not pertinent to the article, verifiable, or sourced. Andre (talk) 19:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

What? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.110.82.251 (talk) 01:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Kewl. [[User:SxeFluff|--SxeFluff 01:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)]] 20:50, 7 october 2007

Priority and Rating

What are the priorities and ratings of this article, shouldn't we include it?? Mr. Mario 192 14:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

They're up at the top of this page. Andre (talk) 19:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Reception

I think we should expand the reception section. Put a table with the scores, with a brief information of all reviews beside the table (just like in the Ocarina of Time article). It's too much disorganized. There are lots of scores that do not appear on Wikipedia or Gamerankings and Metacritic (which is the reason they gave SM64 a 94% due to the lack of search of scores. --Mr.Mario 192 02:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. That along with an additional amount of sources and this article will be ready for FA again. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC))

Assessment edit summary

Er, ignore my edit summary - I edited this article, thinking I was editing Halo 3's talk page. But SM64 still should be top importance. - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Luigi/Mario Galaxy Spoiler

Considering the game hasn't been released yet, I think it's a good idea to either take out the sentence in the Rumor section regarding Luigi being unlockable in Mario 64, or label the section with a spoiler warning.

209.136.181.131 14:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)Litigation

Technically, those are not reason enough to remove that content because Wikipedia is not censored. However, given the information and lack of citation/source, it has been removed based on being speculation/original research. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC))

Eternal Star

WTF is 'Eternal Star'? And what does it have to do with L is Real 2041. [[User:SxeFluff--SxeFluff (talk) 18:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)]] 12:38, 19 November 2007

I believe that phrase is explained above in another discussion. See Unreferenced Rumors. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC))

Then on that subject, couldn't anyone take a pic of the statue and make a close up on it? Because i've look at the statue and i can't make ANYTHING out of it. Eternal Star seems way to differet from L is Real 2401 either way, so I doubt it says either of those.[[User:SxeFluff--SxeFluff (talk) 21:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)]] 3:41, 20 November 2007

Weird sentences

I read through this article and came across two sentences that I couldn't understand: "At the time, 3D games generally allowed for either character-relative controls in which the player could rotate the character, or screen-relative controls in conjunction with a fixed camera, which were a logical extension of 2D control. Super Mario 64's controls were fully analog, and interpreted a 360 degree range of motion into navigation through a 3D space relative to the camera."

I think these sentences should be simplified, as it is hard to understand the meaning of them. The Prince (talk) 14:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Without the original source to compare it with, I'm a little wary to change it. But you're right, it needs to be reworded somehow. I guess let's just try to preserve the meaning of the sentences as best we can. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC))

If the sentences don't get changed, it's not a big deal. I think this article is getting to look very good. Is there any chance for it to reach FA at its current state, or does it need more improvements? The Prince (talk) 15:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I think we should at least try to re-word it; if it doesn't come out that great we just leave it as it was. As far as going for FA, I'd say it's pretty close. It's come a long way since early October, heck it's come a long way just this week. There are a few other things I'd like to try to source and tweak, but that could probably be done during the FAC. I'm sure there will be some issues brought up by other editors that we missed, but they shouldn't be too hard to address. It wouldn't hurt to get another pair of eyes to do a copy edit of the prose either. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC))

Anyway, the rewording- I think the main idea of the above statement is that before Mario 64, game controls were more rigid. Though I'm a bit lost on the part about "screen-relative controls in conjunction with a fixed camera." I'm not sure what is meant by this. Do you know of a game that had controls like that? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC))

As I can't understand the sentence, I can't say I do. The Prince (talk) 16:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmm...... ? Well, if we can't understand it, then I bet the average read won't be able to either. How about we keep it simple and remove it.

"The Nintendo 64's analog stick allowed for more precise and wide-ranging character movements than the digital D-pads of other consoles, and Super Mario 64 used this in a way that was unique for its time. The game's controls were fully analog, and interpreted a 360 degree range of motion into navigation through a 3D space relative to the camera. The analog control also allowed for subtleties of movement like controlling the speed at which Mario runs."

How does that sound? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC))

I think "screen-relative controls in conjunction with a fixed camera" would be like the shot just outside the Temple of Time in Ocarina of Time. The camera cannot be moved to view objects from other angles, and D-pad or stick input directs the character relative to the screen and not orientation. That is, pushing up moves the character up the screen and not forward in the direction the character is facing, as in the overworld of the same game. However, I would support rewording, as it is not immediately clear. Pagrashtak 16:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes, and I imagine that "character-relative control" would be a GoldenEye 007- or Wolfenstein 3D-style of control. So the basic thought is that before Super Mario 64, 3D games were limited to the pivot/forward/back/sidestep-style of control common in the FPS genre, or free-motion in a 3D-space limited by a fixed camera. Does that sound about right? Pagrashtak 16:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

That sounds right to me. Thanks for the comment. The Prince (talk) 16:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, that makes some more sense. I figured the character-relative controls was something like a FPS or a fixed third person camera. So you're saying that games like FFVII, FFVIII, Onimusha and early Resident Evil games have screen-relative controls. Am I interpreting this correctly with my choice of games? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC))

No. FFVII has screen-relative controls for most of the games, but not the original Resident Evil. Pushing up moves the character forward in the direction he or she is facing, so that's character-relative control with a fixed camera. Pagrashtak 17:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok I get it now. It's the direction of movement relative to either the controlled character or the camera angle. I get it now. How does this sound then?

The Nintendo 64's analog stick allowed for more precise and wide-ranging character movements than the digital D-pads of other consoles, and Super Mario 64 used this in a way that was unique for its time. At the time, 3D games generally allowed for controls in which the player could either control the character in relation to a fixed camera angle or in relation to the character's perspective. Super Mario 64's controls were fully analog, and interpreted a 360 degree range of motion into navigation through a 3D space relative to the camera. The analog control also allowed for subtleties of movement like controlling the speed at which Mario runs.

Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC))

I think it's a lot better, especially for those who don't have any knowledge within video gaming. The Prince (talk) 19:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I guess let's use this until we find something better. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC))

I have a question; as the old criticisms were struck out with a line, does that mean that they were all addressed? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I assume so, though a fresh set of eyes to copy edit the article never hurt. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC))

FA Review

Are we ready to request this??? --Mr.Mario 192 (talk) 22:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

IMO it's pretty close, but it could probably go up as it is and do alright. Just trying to find some more stuff to beef it up more to improve its chances. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC))

I've done about all I can to beef up/clean up the article. If someone wants to give it a quick read to catch any errors or areas for improve go for it. Then we can go for FA. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC))

Games tm

There was a huge article about SMG and about the impact, legacy, and success of SM64 on Games tm and I thought there were excellent stuff to put on the article (including an overview on the "Mystery of Super Mario 128"). Could we do this, this may help a lot????? --Mr.Mario 192 (talk) 19:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely, even if it doesn't provide any new content, the additional citations it could provide would certainly help. Do you have that issue? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC))

Sorry, I didn't had time to buy. Maybe somebody could do the job for me..... --Mr.Mario 192 (talk) 17:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you know what issue it is. If it's a recent release I can maybe see if it was brought over to the US at my local bookstore. The only other option I think is to check the VG Magazine archive. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC))

It's the newest issue, with Mario carrying Earth and on the bottom saying "WORLD DOMINATION: Mario proves his worth on Super Mario Galaxy". --Mr.Mario 192 (talk) 18:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll check it out. I may not have any luck because I only see European game magazines where I am rather sporadically. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC))

Actually, you are lucky, because the magazine is from the UK. --Mr.Mario 192 (talk) 21:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Addition to "Impact and Legacy"

Gabe Newell, co-founder of Valve Corporation, has called Super Mario 64 his favorite game of all time, saying that while Doom convinced him that video games were the future of entertainment, it was Super Mario 64 that convinced him that video games were art.

References

Semi-protected edit request on 30 November 2019

i notice that it says super mario 64 is only on the nintendo 64 and ique player, but i know it can be played on the wii u virtual console Justwannahelp1234 (talk) 07:41, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. - ChrisWar666 (talk) 01:00, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 May 2020

In 2019, fans decompiled the original ROM image into C source code, allowing the game to be unofficially ported to any system and run natively, rather than through emulation. The following year saw the creation of an unofficial Windows port, with support for widescreen displays and 4K visuals.[108] Nintendo subsequently enlisted a lawfirm to remove videos of the ported game and its listings from various websites.

change to:

Fans decompiled the original ROM image into its source code which was publicized in 2019.

Removed unsubstantiated claims and original content. This was so poorly written it should never have been published in this state.

Look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_commercial_video_games_with_available_source_code for sources. "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable" 2001:56A:F043:4600:810A:AAE8:2452:B841 (talk) 08:25, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Wikipedia pages cannot be used as references on other Wikipedia pages. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 15:50, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I think you forgot to read my suggested edit. My point is that the entire paragraph is completely unverifiable and its sources are not legitimate. I found one legitimate source on the page I linked to. Please alter or remove the unverifiable content from the paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:56A:F043:4600:8C1B:C139:8D9:8145 (talk) 01:45, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Usage of the link to "decompiler"

In the section noting that the game was "decompiled," the article currently links to the page for "Decompiler." This is a bit misleading, however, because no real program to decompile was used. Rather, this was manual work. I don't know if there is a better page available to attribute there, but I don't think the current link is correct.

71.61.5.228 (talk) 18:25, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

This article is being recorded.

Just to let you all know, I have begun recording this article over the next few weeks. I have a script prepared (which my recent edit reflects), and I will be checking back over the next few days to see if any other sections of the article chnges. So, if there's an edit you've been itching to make, I would get on that. Thanks. Jwarlock (talk) 18:49, 30 May 2020 (UTC)