Talk:Super Mario Run

"Endless runner"
A thought, based on something someone noted to me in person the other day. Is endless runner the best term to use if the game has a defined end and, as such is not endless? I mean, it basically plays the same as one, it just has a defined end. Most sources don't call it "endless runner" outright, but call it variants like "auto-runner". That's not a recognized genre though, nor is it something I can illustrate through use of wiki-links. Or maybe we should have it like auto-runner or something like that?

Thoughts? I'm open to suggestions. Sergecross73  msg me  19:52, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Change instances to "auto-runner", but still link to endless runner, maybe? ~ Dissident93  ( talk ) 20:23, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I've gone with that for now. Sergecross73   msg me  16:05, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Ideally, the endless runner article should have a subsection about "auto-runners", but this is better than it was previously. ~ Dissident93  ( talk ) 00:08, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Old conversation, but since Super Mario Run isn't endless, I'm going to change the "endless runner" in the lead to "auto-runner". (and remove the category) Awsomaw (talk) 13:17, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

DENA as the game's developer
The game is being developed in-house by Nintendo, as stated in this Time article where Miyamoto says "The team that’s developing Super Mario Run is actually mostly comprised of the original Super Mario development team. So [Takashi] Tezuka-san is the developer and I’m the producer. We’ve brought together the developers at Nintendo who know the side-scrolling Mario games best, to work with them to develop the best side-scrolling Mario game for a mobile device."

For future reference, DENA was only announced to be an assistant for them, and from what I understand, they only provide some networking-related services, as Nintendo is unfamiliar with the practice of mobile app development and did not have the logistics for them set up at the time. ~ Dissident93  ( talk ) 08:33, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * FYI, I think some confusion has been created because yesterday video game analyst Serkan Toto claimed that he spoke to someone who said DENA was actually developing the game, and some sources started picking up the rumor and discussing it. While he's a reliable analyst in general, he's not in the position to confirm something like this exactly. Sergecross73   msg me  12:37, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Hm, well I'd still take Miyamoto's word (and previous announcements) regarding this. ~ Dissident93  ( talk ) 18:32, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I completely agree, I was just letting you know the background on it. Sergecross73   msg me  19:10, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the analyst chooses what lexicon to use. He first said DeNA is "developing the game" and Nintendo is only doing "quality assurance". Then, he rephrases and says DeNA is "programming the game" and Nintendo is "designing it". As a journalist, his first statement was erroneous. We don't know if DeNa is doing SOME programming, ALL the programming, or completely co-developing the game (program, graphics, sound), or entirely developing the game on their own (highly unlikely). That's always one thing that we have to be sure of - accuracy and irresponsibility of loose claims. Ajcalderon13 (talk) 15:24, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * His statements conflict with previous statements regarding DENA's involvement in Nintendo's mobile lineup anyway, so until Nintendo clarifies, we shouldn't consider it as a fact. ~ Dissident93  ( talk ) 22:22, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * An IP added earlier that "開発協力・運営協力" (Joint development and cooperation) means that DeNA belongs as the developer, but I still don't think this is enough to place them in the infobox. First of all, we already knew that these Nintendo mobile games were being assisted on by DeNA, and this conflicts with previous statements from both companies regarding their role with the games. We need more direct statements from either company before we can say for sure that DeNA actively contributed a large part to the game's development, beyond just mobile networking services. ~ Dissident93  ( talk ) 20:36, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I imagine that, if its true, it'll probably make headlines, as I don't think the general public thinks DENA is developing the game for certain. An outside company being the primary developer for a Mario game doesn't strike me as the type of detail you'd have to dig for - it seems like something that'd be a top story on your typical IGN/GameSpot/Eurogamer mainstream websites. Sergecross73   msg me  20:40, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * According to US Copyrights Gov - Nintendo handled programming, audio, text, and visuals. It also credits SRD (an internal programming company that works inside Nintendo) for additional programming, and DeNa for additional graphics as well. The database is quite thorough in authorship information, and this corroborates that Nintendo handled a majority or significant portion of the game in-house. 14:17, 28 December 2016 (UTC)Ajcalderon13 (talk)

Persistent internet connection


So it was announced that the game is always online, in order to combat piracy. Two things: would this fall under Gameplay or Development; and would this warrant early protection of the article given the high amount of vandalism SimCity (2013 video game) received on similar news? --ThomasO1989 (talk) 17:02, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I think either would be okay depending on how it's presented. If it's more about Nintendo announcing it, and/or explaining or changing it at all - dev section. If it's how it may affect gameplay - gameplay section. As far as protection goes, is wait for now, partially because I think the industry/user base has gotten more tolerant of the concept in the last few years, especially with mobile games, and partially because I keep a pretty close watch on the articles, along with Dissident93 and some others, so I'll be prepared to protect as soon as issues occur. Sergecross73   msg me  17:11, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't see this before I added it, but I did add this to Dev, since Miyamoto explains their reasoning (but which also ties to a number of other things I added about N's switch to mobile and protecting its first-party characters). I don't think it needs mention in gameplay. --M ASEM (t) 18:05, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

On that review table...
As a note because I see a revert war brewing: while the article is in this "development" mode and not at any GA/FA/PR, we are allowed to have reviews in the table that are not used in prose. The goal ultimately is to use each review in prose and that must be met by the time you go to GA, but at this point, where we're floating up to B-class, it is completely fine to data-dump the reviews and hold off writing the reception until one has a better picture of how to write it. --M ASEM (t) 15:43, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, that was precisely my understanding of things as well. Pinging to make sure he sees this.  Sergecross73   msg me  15:50, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Exactly since this isn't a GA article adding review links in the Reception section is fine. --Frmorrison (talk) 19:06, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's a good argument, since ideally we should be creating the article from the ground up as a (potential) GA. Despite that, we shouldn't be removing valid stuff just because it's too early to have a proper section on it. ~ Dissident93  ( talk ) 21:42, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

is it okay if I add a link to "always-on drm"?
My edit was undue'd. Joeleoj123 (talk) 13:43, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It looks like was the editor who objected to your addition. I'll let him explain, as I'm no expert in DRM and I'm not entirely sure what the difference is in this case. Masem?  Sergecross73   msg me  14:17, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * First, it was being added to the lede, which is not the right place for it. The always-on Internet connection is described in the body (including the reasons why and reaction to that), but the issue is that it is not clear if it is true DRM or the requirement for a server connection (like an MMO); Nintendo certainly doesn't call it DRM, so we should avoid that term if that's not what it really is. --M ASEM (t) 16:11, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * From what I've read in stuff like this, it appears to be both. But looking at sources, many third party sources mention the requirement, but few actually call it DRM explicitly I suppose. (Most hits seemed to only have DRM in the user-generated comment sections rather than the articles themselves.) Sergecross73   msg me  16:22, 16 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm going to fail this for now. The reception section is really what needs the most work and can't be ignored. I also have a feeling that "Commercial" section might need to be cleaned up in tone as it sounds to report-like. I'm optimistic that this will become a GA soon, just needs more time in the oven. Don't give up.Blue Pumpkin Pie Chat Contribs 18:19, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

In Popular Culture or Variations
Saw this on Yahoo Sports http://sports.yahoo.com/news/pirates-bring-classic-video-game-life-new-pnc-park-videoboard-235742291.html, seems that the Pittsburgh Pirates have brought this to life! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.225.120.2 (talk) 11:12, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Reviewer comparison
For my own reference, I will have to create myself a table that conveniently lists the opinions of reviewers. I would rather do that than edit the article directly while comparing the reviews, which in the latter cass could become quite ugly.  Free Media  Kid!  10:00, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I decided to move this section from the GA nomination page to the main talk page. The recent GAN failed, and I wanted the problem regarding the lack of reviewer statements to be more obvious, so I had to move this table, which now includes Pocket Gamer and Polygon reviews.  Free Media  Kid!  06:56, 20 September 2020 (UTC)


 * From a VG project standpoint, we don't do reviews this way, that's too consumer oriented. Either we hit the major high points of each review, or, and a better approach, try to identify common reviewers' high and low points pulling in a few key quotes from various reviews to support those as one goes through that. But definitely not by the table approach above. --M asem (t) 13:42, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * This is not what I have been thinking. What I have been thinking is that I would create myself a table that I could later use as a very, very rough summary of the important notes to consider when editing later. Feeling that my drastic edits might render the section seemingly rushed or ungrammatical, I would rather just build the table here, translate that into prose in my sandbox, and then blend that content into the article. To be honest, I had not been thinking about using the sandbox until reading this comment, but I should understand what Reception sections ought to look like, based on my experience. It probably would have helped to clarify the meaning of the table, but as I read the reviews, it helps me to remember what I have read of them, and I feel somewhat more motivated by doing it. I had not thought of it, but my approach does seem rather unusual, as it probably would have been made perfect sense out of if I had simply moved it to my sandbox.  Free Media  Kid!  10:59, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it’s a little out of the ordinary, but as long as it’s leading to constructive editing to the article, I’d say it’s fair game. Worst case scenario, you could just move it to your sandbox, though this article doesn’t have much in the way of dedicated editors, so I doubt there’d even be enough input to force that to happen. Sergecross73   msg me  12:34, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I do not know what I was thinking when I moved the section here. Something has been telling me that I would be doing all of the editing, so if that is the case, I had no reason to move it here, except to more publicly display it. Then again, it does leave the section open for suggestions.  Free Media  Kid!  02:02, 26 September 2020 (UTC)