Talk:Super Mario Odyssey

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): DarianAfkhami.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:55, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Shelderpy.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:55, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Duplicate dates in the lead

@TheJoebro64: There was a discussion about this very thing a year or so ago (I'll link to it later), where the consensus eventually settled on just going with one or the other date formats and not both, with the first one being used being preferred (similar to date formats). As the article has always said October 27, 2017 and never had the year in the opening sentence AFAIK, you are directly going against this. I've noticed you seem to do this on most of the articles that go through GAN/FAN, with your argument being that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. And I don't mean offense, but I've noticed from the GAN/FANs I've personally been a part of that many of the reviewers weren't aware of intricacies of MOS:VG (more back when it was just the article guidelines) and other WT:VG/local page consensus discussions. The only way I can accept the date being included in the opening sentence is if it has local consensus for it, and not just because 1 or 2 non-WP:VG members who are doing the review prefers it. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 17:11, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

A bit too angry... JOEBRO64 20:17, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Why the hell are you so bitchy about including the generic year in the first sentence of the lead? First it's not "preferred". You prefer it based on your own personal bias so you think you can go around and try to mislead people. Second stating the generic year in the first sentence and then the exact date over a paragraph later is not the same thing and doesn't serve the same purpose. Btw if you're referring to this discussion, if anything the consensus was that it was fine to include the year in the first sentence followed by a more exact date. OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is totally irrelevant because it is just an essay. And the vast majority of recently-promoted FA-level articles (i.e. Final Fantasy VII, Super Mario World, Donkey Kong 64, etc.) use this format and I was not involved in those articles. I really don't see you pick a fight with me every time you disagree. JOEBRO64 19:24, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Sorry that I was a bit uncivil in the first response—I shouldn't have let my steam off there. I just don't see what the problem is with including the release year in the first sentence. If the release date was in the very next sentence, then I'd agree, it's redundant. But it serves a different purpose the way I edited it: the first sentence should have the most important information of the article (genre, console, publisher and/or dev, etc) and the year of release is pretty dang important. It tells the reader what era the game came from. Additionally, the first sentence is sometimes the only thing that pops up in a preview, so I feel it should have this stuff in it. As I previously mentioned, it's not redundant to the second release date because it serves a different purpose. JOEBRO64 20:17, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I get that, but if the main reason is to include the date in the opening sentence for previews or whatever, then why not just add the actual date there? "Super Mario Odyssey is a platform game developed and published by Nintendo, which released for the Nintendo Switch on October 27, 2017." gives all the fundamentals without duplicating anything a few sentences later. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 19:57, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't oppose that. However, the "which released..." is a bit wordy, how about "Super Mario Odyssey is a platform game developed and published by Nintendo for the Nintendo Switch on October 27, 2017"?. JOEBRO64 20:04, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, "being published" followed by saying a certain date could be understood by some as it is no longer being released (matters more for other types of media than video games, but still). However, it's better than listing the dates twice for no real reason, so I support it just on that. An alternate proposal would be to have the developer and published in another sentence: "Super Mario Odyssey is a platform game by Nintendo, which released for the Nintendo Switch on October 27, 2017." and then somewhere later on: "It was published by Nintendo and developed internally by their EPD division." ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:16, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

But, 'which released' is not a grammatically correct rendering of the intended meaning. 'appeared on' is more correct, or, with more words, 'Which was released for'. 141.92.67.45 (talk) 10:21, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

• Gaming terminology almost never uses "appeared on", but yes, the rest of your statement is correct. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 19:09, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Forcible Marriage?

Is it REALLY necessary to link that out in the lead? I'm pretty sure the plot device isn't meant to be a commentary on the evils of forcible marriage/slavery throughout history. Linking to it seems a bit much, "forcible marriage" is quite easy to understand in the context it's in (which part wouldn't you understand?), and trying to "connect the dots" to a real life historic tragedy seems WAAAY over the top.... 70.91.35.27 (talk) 18:24, 6 November 2018 (UTC)TF

Agreed, per WP:OVERLINK. Sergecross73 msg me 19:02, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Use art book as a source?

Hello. I'm thinking about the possibility of using The Art of Super Mario Odyssey as a source to include development concepts in the article. Thoughts? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:50, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, of course. Sergecross73 msg me 22:06, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Sjones23, of course. If you don't have it, I saw it at my local B&N not too long ago, so I'd be glad to get it. JOEBRO64 22:30, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I got the book, actually. We should mention the book's release in the appropriate section as well. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:31, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

"I'll Be Your 1-Up Girl" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect I'll Be Your 1-Up Girl. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 18#I'll Be Your 1-Up Girl until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:24, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

One of the greatest games ever made claim

The claim that SMO is one of the greatest ever made to backed up with a wiki article that doesn't even mention SMO. X-Editor (talk) 21:36, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

• Removed. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 22:19, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, but it's not wrong... Panini!^🥪 12:41, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

This game was not the first in the Super Mario series to feature a track with vocals.

The idea that Odyssey was the first Super Mario title to feature songs with vocals is false. Super Mario Run was the first. I have now provided multiple official audio-visual sources.Swordofneutrality (talk) 20:14, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure it really matters which Mario game had a vocal song first. I'd rather move in the other direction and not say whether it was first or second. It's just a bit of trivia. Sergecross73 msg me 20:36, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

No, which one was first doesn't impact the article much. As long as the article isn't claiming something that's false. Swordofneutrality (talk) 21:36, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Discussion about open-world gameplay

The January 2017 direct claimed that Mario Odyssey is the first Mario 3d game since Sunshine to feature open-world gameplay, while Galaxy 1 2 were 2D-3D hybrid platformers like 3D Land and 3D World. Do Galaxy and Galaxy 2 feature some open-world courses, like 64 Sunshine and Odyssey? 95.215.116.145 (talk) 13:03, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Neither Galaxy game is commonly classified as open world as a whole, no. They're also not really like the Land/World games. Galaxy games, while largely 3D and having some freedom, are much more about following set paths through levels. I think all of these games are pretty well developed and explain this pretty well already. Sergecross73 msg me 13:08, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

But, Odyssey has ? blocks like in Galaxy games. Are you sure Super Mario Galaxy 1 and 2 are not true 3D Mario? In my view, the gameplay of both Galaxies looks pretty much a hybrid approach of sandbox and linear according to someone. What do you think of that reply? 95.215.116.145 (talk) 18:08, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Statements like "in my view" and "according to someone" (which is it?) don't make for a strong case here and you don't address any of the points Serge makes. Whether Odyssey has ? blocks has absolutely nothing to do with it being classified as open-world. This is completely original research. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 18:45, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

This is also very correct. Sergecross73 msg me 18:46, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Well, you're talking about 2 separate things here. Yes, they're definitely 3D. But they're not open world. Sergecross73 msg me 18:46, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

One more thing, I've already left you a warning, but given your other edits it doesn't seem like you're discussing this in order to suggest improvements to the article. Wikipedia is not a forum. We're not here to discuss the subject matter itself. ThomasO1989 (talk) 18:55, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

We'll.. I'm sorry... But someone's opinions need to be sometimes respected, right? (note: this had nothing to do with mario odyssey). We just talk about the gameplay. 95.215.116.145 (talk) 14:37, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

It's not about respecting opinions, it's about being in the wrong venue. If you just wish to discuss your views on video games, go join Reddit or Gamefaqs or various social media groups. Wikipedia talk pages are strictly for discussing how to write Wikipedia articles. Sergecross73 msg me 15:04, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Nintendo Switch 2 release?

On June 5, 2025 Nintendo released an update for 12 Nintendo Switch games that gives them Nintendo Switch 2 features. These are completely unavailable on the original Switch, and could be considered a different version. Should these be considered new releases, or are these some other type of release that can’t be defined as a new release? So long, and thanks for all the fish (talk) 23:40, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Generally speaking, if a game gets a formal "Switch 2 Edition" release, (like Tears of the Kingdom) then it's considered a separate release, but if it just gets a generic update (Pokemon Scarlet) then it's not considered a separate release. Sergecross73 msg me 00:27, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Lead expansion revert

@Daisylover2005: Taking this here as I don't want to cause an edit war. But firstly, I would greatly appreciate if you didn't accuse me of flat out not reading the lead before reverting (as seen here). Because not only did I read both versions before reverting, but this is a blatant WP:BADFAITH assumption.

Anyways, almost everything that you added simply is not relevant for what is meant to be a brief summary of the article. For example, "It is the seventh 3D installment in the Super Mario series", is trivial information that doesn't help actually address the subject. Furthermore, your revision of the first paragraph goes less into detail about what the game actually is, and more about it's release details (see MOS:BEGIN as to why this is bad). You even put the release date of the Nintendo Switch 2 update before the main game release date is ever mentioned in the lead, which... why? You also addded "although its motion controls received some minor criticism". This is one reviewers opinion, nobody else discusses it in the reception section, so this isn't due weight.

The only thing that seems appropriate is the addition of development info and it being one of the best selling games of all time, but the latter isn't mentioned whatsoever in the article and therefore qualifies as original research - the fact Odyssey is included on the best selling games page isn't relevant, and the former feels to excessively detailed for what MOS:LEAD and, more specifically, MOS:INTRO, recommends. λ NegativeMP1 18:01, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

I agree that most of Daisylover2005's expansion is inappropriate for the lead. The paragraph about the developers' personal experiences, Pauline, and the theme seems too much detail for the lead. Each of these three points is mentioned only briefly in the body of the article. And I don't see the point of swapping the ending of the first two paragraphs; it seems to flow better in the older version. CodeTalker (talk) 19:33, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

I also agree. And as a side note, Daisy, I believe I've reverted some of your other WP:LEAD additions on other articles as well, for similar reasons. You're a pretty new editor. I recommend maybe stepping away from intro-expansions for a bit until you learn the website better. It can take a while to learn all the ins and outs of Wikipedia, and I'm not quite sure you quite got a handle on this yet. I don't think you're ready yet, especially considering you keep trying to do it on high visibility, already-well-developed articles too. Sergecross73 msg me 20:02, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

@Sergecross73 Thank you for your feedback. Yes, before I continue editing, I'll be sure to look into what goes into a helpful article so I can develop some correctly instead of making the same mistakes on others. I will take your word and avoid editing intros for the time being until I learn what correctly goes into one. I am sorry about my behavior on editing articles, and I hope you have a pleasant day as well. Thank you for your time. Daisylover2005 (talk) 22:01, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello @NegativeMP1. Let me start off this message by apologizing for my recent actions. I have stepped away from the website for a couple days following what had happened. I have pondered my behavior, and upon this thread's creation, have felt immense shame for how I acted toward established editors. There has been a lot I have been going through recently, and instead of properly addressing it, I sometimes unintentionally project my frustrations onto others as a defense mechanism, especially when my edits get reverted. That was wrong of me, and for that I want to apologize. I will work on my emotions as I continue to edit this site. If I have any thoughts or questions as I edit, I will make sure to reach out by sending a message asking a civilized question. I will work on myself and my abilities to edit so I can provide helpful edits in the future. Once more, I am sorry for acting flagrantly toward you or any other editor on this site. Thank you for your time, and I hope you have a wonderful day. Daisylover2005 (talk) 21:54, 4 July 2025 (UTC)