Talk:Super Mario 64

Glitches
Recently (22 days ago), someone discovered a glitch in Super Mario 64 that allows you to beat the game with 0 stars in under six minutes. For proof, go to http://tasvideos.org/1017M.html. You'll be able to see the video. So, will someone add this to the article? Quate 14:34, 29 December 2007 (EST)


 * Since it's a glitch, I don't think this is worthy of a mention. 20:22, 29 December 2007 (EST)


 * But the 16 star glitch is mentioned in the article, so perhaps replace that with this? Quate 21:12, 29 December 2007 (EST)


 * Well, why not. Just go ahead ;) 06:56, 30 December 2007 (EST)

Storyline... error?
"Peach and two nearby Toads walk into the castle. Mario starts to do so himself, but then pauses and turns around to look at the sky." IMO Mario looks at the player, thanking him for help in his journey. Am I right?
 * Mario previously shows a piece sign to the player after Peach kisses him. As I remember it, Mario looks at the Lakitu Brother who flies away after his broadcast is over. Perhaps somehow has to check the ending though. - 12:13, 8 January 2008 (EST)

Since Lakitu never really mentions the player, he mentions the 'viewers' watching mario at home, I wouldn't say this game breaks the fourth wall until the very end. At the beginning, the player floats around the castle at a 3rd person perspective of Lakitu. Thusly, we can't be considered the viewers. our sight seems to just follow the exact sight of the camera throughout most of the game. Before the credits, Peach kisses him, and he looks at the camera and spins around and gives a piece sign, like he collected a star. In the very, very end, a cake is shown, the cake that Peach baked for Mario. He tells the audience, "Thank you so much for-a playing my game." That's the only moment the game breaks the fourth wall, and mentions the players existance.


 * Well actually, they're the Lakitu Brothers, so one could have recorded the intro while the other explained what was going on to Mario. But I don't really think it matters, Lakitu was really just a convenient way to explain running the camera to little kids.   09:45, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

Mini-Game
The Mini-Game Face Lift in Mario Party 2 should be mentioned, or what do you think?

Could mention it here instead. 12:49, 20 January 2008 (EST)

o.O this face got a name? Mentioned it there. Thanks for the information

Other Method
When you fight Bowser, their is another way of beating him. If you throw him off the edge enough, he is defeated. It is harder in the sky, but I think it still works. I know this because I thought that was how you were supposed to beat him (well, me and my dad).
 * Seriously? I never knew that. I'll probably test it on my 64 later. (I used to think you had to throw King Bob-Omb off the edge to beat him too :P)
 * I tried and did it at least 10 times, he never died. Is it a joke ?

Koopalmier 07:44, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

Tezuka's wife
According to this interview, a character in this game was based on Tezuka's wife. The character seems normal when Mario is facing it, but then turns aggressive when Mario is turned away. Does anyone know of an enemy like this in the game? Don't forget it could be one of the bosses as well... 18:55, 28 February 2009 (EST)


 * Boo? --

Yes, it is Boo, it was mentioned in the Official Nintendo Magazine,- User:Zedxclon
 * I forgot to mention that it said the character shrinks away when you face it... and now that I think about it, the Boos do do that. I suppose we should mention that in both the game and the enemy's article.  00:55, 1 March 2009 (EST)

More in depth in sm64 Sub levels.
Should the sub levels within levels (like the volcano in Lethal Lava Land be placed right after the overview or after the star missions? I think putting them right under the initial info would be better but i need some opinions.

Trivia
I feel that this should be removed from the trivia section:


 * The title screen of the game features the ability to grab Mario's face with the hand cursor and distort it in various bizarre ways.

Trivia in and of itself is usually of no interest to an article, though I can understand why they should stay on this particular Wiki. But this little tidbit offers nothing. I'm sure everyone who has played Super Mario 64 knows that you can play around with Mario's face. It's a given.

I mean, if there was an interesting citation as to why this minigame was implemented into the final game the trivia would be better for it. But there's not. We're stuck labeling normal gameplay "trivia". Does anyone else feel it should be removed? Redstar 07:01, 21 March 2009 (EDT)


 * That piece of "trivia" should actually be merged into the main article I feel...something along the lines of "before selecting a game file, players can play will Mario's face, etc. etc." And I believe the point of the Mario face title screen is to give players some type of familiarity with the new N64 controller.  I believe it says this in the Super Mario 64 instruction manual.  I'll dig through my stuff and look for it. --


 * I feel the same way. Usually it would go under a "Gameplay" section, but seeing that there isn't one for this article I wouldn't recommend creating one unless we planned on restructuring the article itself. The main paragraph would probably do well for this, though the subject matter would cause a leap unless written into that section the right way.


 * I might also have the instruction booklet, but I won't be home for at least a day and even then I have booklets for random games like Yoshi's Story and Super Mario All-Stars. Be ironic if I'd be lacking one for the most mainstream Mario game of our generation. Redstar 10:31, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

Vandalism
There is vandalism on the page!!! --Landfish7 14:39, 31 March 2009 (EDT)

nevermind --Landfish7 14:39, 31 March 2009 (EDT)

Boss?
Are you sure about Chain Chomp being a boss? Sure, it gets you a star but you don't exactly battle it, and it doesn't disintegrate and leave the star like the other bosses. You just free it. So is it really necessary to put Chain Chomp in the bosses section?

Mistakes and Grammar Errors
Do we really need this section? None of the listed errors seem particularly notable. -- 17:01, 23 June 2009 (EDT)