Talk:Yoshi's Story

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Famicom style controller This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
Low This article is on a subject of low priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
A request for a screenshot has been made to help better illustrate the article. (VG images department)
VG To-do:
Wikitendo logo This article is part of WikiProject Nintendo, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Nintendo related merchandise and video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article is on a subject of mid priority within Nintendo for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.

Contents

[edit] NO DAMN EMULATOR SCREENSHOTS

This game is not properly emulated, and people coming here reading this article and do not know that will think the game has shitty graphics. I demand that the screenshot in the article be replaced with something more authentic and proper. 85.166.153.184 14:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)



[edit] Levels section

I removed the Levels section as it was poorly organised, NPOV, and inapporpiate tone. --FlareNUKE 08:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] added info

I added a ton of info a few minutes ago, please check it out and see if I did anything wrong... CJ 22:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Purple Yoshi?

That's a myth, right?

I have yet to see any solid evidence (screenshots, videos, etc.) of it, so I have marked it as a myth in the article. --Poochy 08:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The article is really unclear on this fact. it mentions the purple yoshi as playable, and then later says that it's a rumour. This needs to be defined.--The Sporadic Update 06:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I swear to God, I saw the purple yoshi described in an unofficial manual for this game. However, the stress is on "unnofficial," so I still wouldn't call this reliable proof... I don't know why they'd put it in if it didn't exist, though! 71.166.56.84 20:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lucky Fruit

The current article states "At the beginning of each level, a Lucky Fruit is chosen." Although the way I remembered it, in the main game at least, the lucky fruit is chosen at the start of the game and remains so throughout all 6 pages. It has been yeas since I played it, but I'm certain I remember it this way. I'm changing the article untill someone proves me wrong.

— Kjammer ⌂ 06:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


I change the article myself, and can verify you are correct. I also edited the fruit section now all of it is correct. (I know; I checked) Evils Dark 04:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Critical Reception

A reception area should really be added to the article, if anyone's up to the task.

[edit] Reception Area Needs Re-writing

I threw out the entire Reception bit. Why? Because it's far, far from NPOV. For example: "Due to poor stage design...", "a relatively small number of levels" (actually, it's somewhere around 30, which is more than many 3D platformers of that era), etc., are all matters of the writer's opinion. Few references are given, and the whole thing runs on like a review of the game rather than a simple discourse of the facts. References to the game being focused on young children--even so far as going to call them "kiddies"---are entirely in the writer's opinion and are in fact an insult to the thousands of people who enjoyed the game as teenagers and still do now. Also a point of contention is the "Nintendo still struggles with this stereotype" bit. And? How is this relevant to the article? In fact, if this game had been as much of a failure as this writer seems to believe, it wouldn't seem fit for Nintendo to continually include homages to it in the form of Smash Bros. stages (each Smash Brothers game to date, including Brawl, has at the very least featured music from Yoshi's Story).

I suggest a re-write. Anyone up to the task of doing a fair write-up of this game's reception?

Billy'sShears

[edit] Reception

I created the Reception segment to bring attention to Yoshi's Story's impact on the industry. What many people that did not live through the Nintendo 64's era don't understand is just how influential Yoshi's Story was to the public.

The truth is that Yoshi's Story, while an amusing diversion, is not a good game when standing on its own or against its predecessor, Yoshi's Island. I understand that it's a touchy subject for Nintendo fans, but there's no positive way to report it.

If it's taken down, the article will only be censored and inaccurate. I'm a large Nintendo fan and have stood by the company since the original Nintendo unit. However, I understand the reality of Yoshi's Story and what its release sparked. If the article is erased or edited again, I will fight harder to keep it online.

Why censor history and cause such a disservice to fans and those seeking concrete information? Yoshi's Story is a large piece of gaming history. It's not just Yoshi's Story, it's Yoshi's Island 2. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.124.214.146 (talk • contribs)

The problem is that, as written, it has no references and appears to be original research. If you can back up the text with reliable sources then it can stay. -- MisterHand (Talk to the Hand|Contribs) 19:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reception Replaced.

The Reception section was returned to its original form because a lot of effort by multiple people was done to properly assemble Yoshi's Story's complete history. I feel that removing every aspect of these efforts is unusual and detrimental to Wikipedia's cause. All the other additions were placed back in, as well. The only omission was the "GBA port," since that particular piece of software was meant solely as a tech demo for the GameBoy Advance.

Everyone is encouraged to contribute to a Wikipedia article, but, please, don't remove something simply because you don't like it. The information is sourced and considered accurate, which is why it was there when you found it. Removal will only lead to a full reposting at a later date, when someone from the team realizes you deleted something you weren't supposed to. - EliotAndrews (Talk) 17:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Reception controversy.

I don't care if you guys are upset. I think the article is positive enough considering the game. Come on guys, get real on this one. Yoshi's Story was a horrible game with mediocre everything. The reception paragraphs fit and I say they stay.

Really, guys why is there a Yoshi's Story Cult dedicated so much to hiding these truths anyway? Are you guys hoping more people will waste money on this game by reading a positive wiki page? Get real.

I bought Yoshi's Story back in 1998 right at it's launch. You know what I paid? The full US $59.99. And I went on to regret it more then any other game purchase I ever made. Everyone in my neighborhood felt the same way, and none of us could return it because for the same reason: we had "unsealed the box." I sold mine for less then $20 on Ebay, which I thought (and think) is totally unfair. That's just my experience, sure, but that horrible experience was shared worldwide.


Worldwide, people!


We all thought this game was going to be big, and we paid bigtime for it. Just because you liked the game doesn't prove anything. You're not thinking of anyone else, and, believe me when I say this, you're in the minority.

I'm not in favor of sugarcoating this article. Reception stays as is even if I have to check on the page every day. - Nijon76, 1:09, 21 November 2007. (UTC)

[edit] Yoshi's Story Wiki Project Team.

Dear Wikipedia Users,

The Yoshi's Story Wiki Project Team is proud to announce that the "Yoshi's Story" article meets both Wikipedia's and the group's quality standards. Therefore, the Yoshi's Story page is considered complete and only minor edits will continue past this point. In addition, actions will be taken to ensure that the information is kept up-to-date. Protection procedures will be undertaken to prevent the negative effects of "Deletionists" and "SPAMmer's." Through these efforts, we hope to uphold the quality of our previous efforts while creating and upgrading other articles on the Wikipedia website.

The Yoshi's Story Wiki Project Team would like to thank all its supporters and other individuals, online and off, that contributed to the success of this project. This particular project took 4 months of researching, writing, and editing to ensure that all statements were correctly referenced and every fact was properly supported.

As an added note, we'd like to remind users to be patient with this article. As fans of the game, the Yoshi's Story Wiki Project Team understood that Yoshi's Story was not perfect, and it was difficult reporting the reality of the game's situation. However, deleting our hard work does not take that history away. For example, we could delete World War II off Wikipedia, but that does not mean we can deny the atrocities that occurred. On a much smaller scale, this concept holds true for Yoshi's Story. So, please, read Yoshi's Story with an open mind, and remember that not all games are perfect. Please don't take our 4 months of work away to make yourself feel better. On that note, we will continue to keep an eye on Yoshi's Story to ensure that the quality we fought to maintain will remain accessible to all.


Signed,

The Yoshi's Story Wiki Project Team - EliotAndrews (Talk) 14:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC).

EliotAndrews, you can't just make up a "Wiki Project Team" on the spot and claim that the "Project" (i.e. you) has deemed the article complete and no longer open to editing. For someone who claims to want to prevent one-man operations, you sure are possessive towards this article.
You seem to think people keep deleting your work because we don't agree with it and we want to censor reality. Wrong. We keep deleting your work because it fails Wikipedia's core policies (WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV). Everything you wrote may be 100% accurate; that doesn't mean it belongs in Wikipedia. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. For example, the article says "Probably the hardest aspect for Nintendo fans to stomach was the original MSRP of Yoshi's Story"; this may be true, but where is the reliable source—such as a magazine or newspaper article written by a prominent critic—that says it's true? Unsourced opinion will continue to be deleted from this article unless you can provide reliable sources to back each claim up. Punctured Bicycle (talk) 14:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Does the reception section need to be rewritten?

EliotAndrews has written most of the reception section. However, it largely fails Wikipedia's core policies of WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV. Attempts to improve the article by removing or altering text in the reception section have been reverted by EliotAndrews. This edit suggests to me that EliotAndrews is unwilling to discuss the issue, so I feel a request for comment is needed. Punctured Bicycle (talk) 20:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

It needs a lot of editing and more sources. The tone in many sections is inappropriate, anything attributed to 'fans' needs a direct citation from a reliable source or to be removed - skimming fans' reaction from blog-posts/forums/conversations is original research. The article certainly isn't complete and it's going to take more than minor fixes to elevate it through the rankings. I'll have a look at it when I've got a minute and try to find some more sources. Someone another (talk) 15:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Existing cites tweaked. There's nothing horrendously wrong and it can certainly be fixed, but a lot of the commentary needs removing or rewording and citing. For instance, describing reviews for one system as 'callous' is totally inappropriate, we should be reporting what the reviews are saying not trying to decide which are more relevant or harsher. A box for scores would also be of benefit. If we work together I'm sure we can improve the article and submit it for further comment/rating. Someone another (talk) 16:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

(remove indent) On balance, whenever dealing with someone else's work it's important to see that taking out large sections and citing misc. guidelines in edit summaries looks like the guts being ripped out of a body of work for ephemeral reasons, leaving a bloody mess with an unclear plan for improvement and expansion. It's a good idea to use baby-steps, removing or tweaking small amounts of content in single edits and leaving explicit reasoning in edit summaries so other contributors can get a handle on what's going on. I just did so with a redundant table and subheading - it wasn't a general clean-up, it simply didn't need to be there so out it comes. It's also good to locate and cite sources as you go, tweaking redundant wordage but shoring up statements, leaving something more appropriate and expanded rather than something that's just been stubbed. Someone another (talk) 17:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The edits made and the additional sources are a vast improvement. Whilst I understand Eliot's disappointment due to expectations of being able to maintain the section as-is, the improvement of articles is something we share as contributors and removing inappropriate original research/synthesis is very much part of that improvement. Hopefully we can work together and hammer the article into shape for a 'B' rating, from there GA could be possible. Someone another (talk) 18:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rewriting.

As much as I hate to see the work of my team rewritten, we all agree that the Reception section could use a more friendly "feel" to it. In addition, we've all grown tired with how other Wikipedia users have responded to the Reception section. Punctured_Bicycle represents the most extreme, immature of reactions.

In the case of Punctured_Bicycle, his previous edits were simply "mass deletions" of our previous work, leading to tedious re-postings. Efforts to suggest actual edits lead to the same activity, and we received several threats of account deletion in place of constructive discussion. Neither side responded in a mature fashion, admittedly, but the larger issue is that the Reception section, as well as the rest of the article, required a lot of work, dedication, and research. Therefore, we've been adamant in our stand that the content, at the very least, should stay online until properly worded. We would be grateful if Wikipedia users could honor this request.

We're going to clear up any citing issues left by Someone Another, and create a neutral article. However, we'd appreciate it heavily if Deletionists would refrain from cropping the Yoshi's Story page; Please show respect for the work that people put into these pages. Wikipedia users share these articles, but that doesn't give anyone the right to remove information without due cause. - EliotAndrews (talk) 02:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Some comments from a disinterested party: No, there is absolutely no need for a "friendly feel" to the article. In fact, that's a hallmark of poor encyclopedia writing. It's also inappropriate to speak for other editors by saying "we". You do not have a "my team", and it comes across as very proprietary and condescending to refer to other editors in that manner. - JasonAQuest (talk) 15:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Supposedly the members of the "team" he or she is referring to are all editing under the account User:EliotAndrews. Punctured Bicycle (talk) 17:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not going to respect work that fails Wikipedia's core policies WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV. I'm going to remove it, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. I have every right to do so. Punctured Bicycle (talk) 17:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reception.

Some work has been done to incorporate the current edits into the essay itself. If anything we didn't catch has been mistakenly overwritten, please add these edits back in.

We're still searching for a few sources, and we deleted any "Citation Needed" tags that were placed on sentences that were meant as "lead-in's" to the next paragraph. The Reception section is still far from done, but efforts have begun to rewrite what needs to be rephrased. We would like to thank all those that are supporting us during this time. - EliotAndrews (talk) 02:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

This is not supposed to be an essay. There should be no central thesis, even though the article in its current state is pushing one ("the negative impact Yoshi's Story had on the market and 'Yoshi' franchise"). "Lead-ins" should be supported by sources like anything else. Despite your recent edits, the section is still largely unsourced, rife with original research, and is not fairly representing all significant views; the whole thing should be scrapped and we should start over, in my opinion. I have found numerous reliable sources that treat the game positively. I will try to incorporate my sources later. Punctured Bicycle (talk) 17:36, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:VG assessment

This is still Start-Class. The two main things which stand out to me as issues are length (some parts too long, some parts too short), and references (not enough of them). Here are some more detailed comments:

  • Sources are a major issue - there just aren't enough for them. WP:CITE.
  • Lead section doesn't mention the game's critical reception - per WP:LS the lead section should summarise all of the article. Additionally, the lead section shouldn't contain any information which isn't elsewhere in the article. Currently the second and third paragraph seem to include information which isn't elsewhere in the article. They also seem to be unsourced.
  • Gameplay section is too long and reeks of game-guide-ness. This is further enforced by the lack of sources. The basic rule of thumb for writing Gameplay sections is that if there's information in their which is only useful to someone who plays the game, then don't include it. Perhaps a good strategy to suggest is to first look at any reliable sources discussing the game, and only using information from these sources to write a gameplay section. If you find there are major gaps, then feel free to plug them using the game's manual; remember that primary sources such as the manual should only be used as a last resort.
  • Plot section is rather thin on the ground - give a summary of all the story rather than a back-of-the-box-blurb. This information can again be sourced using the manual as well as in-game dialogue, but as with sources for the Gameplay section secondary sources are always preferred. If you're stuck for sources, try scouring through the game guides at GameFAQs, IGN and the like (sites which would be considered reliable sources).
  • When compared to other articles, the Reception section here is quite long and convulated. I'd suggest a complete re-write: first, give an overview of how well the game did, giving Metacritic/GameRankings aggregate scores. Then, tell us who thought it was good and why they thought it was good. After that, tell us who didn't like the game and why. That's a general guide for writing a section like this. Have a look at the Reception sections at WP:VG#Example articles for a better idea of what to include.
  • Unless there are zero sources available, a Development section would be vital. Again, the best way to get an idea of what to include here is to look at the example articles. The GBA information, when properly sourced, would fit into this section snugly as a subsection.
  • The "Additional Notes" section is nothing more than a trivia section - it needs to be merged into the rest of the article, which shouldn't be too difficult. If sourced, the first point could go into Development section. I'm not sure if the second point is notable enough to fit in the article at all - it seems like nothing more than an Easter Egg. The third point is unsourced and doesn't really seem notable enough for inclusion in the article (after all, it's only a rumour, and a rumour which wasn't correct).

If you have any further questions don't hesitate to ask. Hope this helps, Una LagunaTalk 19:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll try to catch some of these issues, having a broader view of the big picture is also most helpful. Merry Christmas. Someone another (talk) 16:06, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Reception Section needs more of the old info.

I agree that the info didn't sound Fanboy-Friendly and it needed more then one side. Plus it was too large. But I think the way it was removed was unnecessary. Punc B didn't have to sound so obnoxious, especially when the article didn't violate all the rules he was accusing. I believe that with a little re-writing, the information could have stayed. I also say how additional edits by anyone other then Punk B were taken out. That's not the Wikipedia way and I stand by that. To me, the article is censored and I wanted people to look at this Discussion section and see what could have been.

While Nintendo brought a Yoshi game early in the Nintendo 64's lifespan, critics were generally displeased with Yoshi's Story. As a spiritual and literal successor to Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island, the game was drastically downsized in size and scope. Critics cited many omissions, from the removal of smart, complex level designs and graphical details to the complete absence of vehicle morphing. Joe Fielder of GameSpot noted that Yoshi's Story "was obviously designed so that younger players could play through quickly and feel some sense of accomplishment."[1] Well-known publications and websites, such as GameSpot[2], awarded the game a "5.3" for "Mediocre", and All Game Guide and Game's Domain both awarded Yoshi's Story a "5.0" out of 10. However, currently, Yoshi's Story maintains a "Meta Score" of 65 (out of 100) on the MetaCritic website[3] and a 68 (out of 100) on GameRankings.com[4]. While the price of the game didn't deter customers, the lasting impression has become timeless among Nintendo fans.

Probably the hardest aspect for Nintendo fans to stomach was the original MSRP of Yoshi's Story[5]. In the United States, Yoshi's Story's MSRP was $59.99, which, at the time, was $9.99 more than an average game for Sony's PlayStation console[5]. This figure was coupled with the fact that, due to Yoshi's Story's early release in the N64's lifespan, the price of the console itself was still fresh in consumer's minds. Despite these issues, Yoshi's Story still sold well in the marketplace; Yoshi's Story sold over 2 million copies worldwide[6], earning it the Player's Choice re-release. Despite this, fans and critics were displeased with Yoshi's Story's core aspects, including the gameplay.

The difficulty of Yoshi's Story was simple and forgiving, giving older players little to appreciate. For example, a single playthrough only required an hour of continuous play. This was a large disappointment to the 10+ hours provided by Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island. As another example, the "final boss" fight provided the player with an endless supply of health items. This prevented even the youngest players from losing a game life. Through these inclusions and the aforementioned omissions, Yoshi's Story failed to live up to the high expectations set by the game's predecessor. However, Yoshi's Story is credited with a much broader effect it had on customer's perceptions of Nintendo.

Yoshi's Story's release marked the beginning of the ongoing issue that Nintendo had a "focus on children" instead of all ages during the Nintendo 64 era[7]. While Nintendo had been known to censor and downgrade dialog to ensure a broader audience appeal, this did not prevent games, such as Final Fantasy VI, from being released outside Japan. However, with the release of Yoshi's Story, consumers started noticing a more "childish" trend that would put all other Nintendo titles under scrutiny[7]. This issue would later resurface during Legend of Zelda: Wind Waker's development, when the game's cel-shaded graphics became a controversy among fans of the previous two games, Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time and Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask[7]. Since these debates, Nintendo has set up exclusivity agreements with companies, such as Konami and Capcom, to bring franchises like Metal Gear Solid and Resident Evil (respectively) to Nintendo's consoles. This has continued through numerous other methods, such as the character Solid Snake appearing in Super Smash Bros. Brawl. Despite these impacts, Nintendo has continued to show support for Yoshi's Story by releasing it for the Virtual Console on the Wii. However, being re-reviewed after the Nintendo 64's time, editors were much harsher to the game.

Yoshi's Story's Virtual Console sales have highlighted the appeal of the franchise and fan reception. Yoshi's Story made second place on the Virtual Console downloads behind Super Mario Bros. on the week of its release. However, the Virtual Console reviews of Yoshi's Story are generally low[8][9]. When GameSpot reviewed the Virtual Console version of the game, it received an even lower score of "4.0"[8] In addition, GameSpot's Virtual Console review gave Yoshi's Story five negative descriptors: "Derivative," "Shallow," "Short," "Stripped," and "Too Easy." IGN Editor Lucas M. Thomas wrote a review for the Virtual Console version stating that Yoshi's Story's gameplay is "nonsensical" and "unengaging."[9] Thomas commented that Yoshi's Story's "system of grocery-hunting was far and away removed from the style of play presented in the SNES Yoshi's Island, and far and away removed from that game's sense of fun."[9] In addition, the absence of Baby Mario and 50+ levels made the "premise [feel] disconnected. Boring."[9] In the end, Thomas felt that Yoshi's Story was "not the sequel to Yoshi's Island that it could have been."[9] This more contemporary review further verifies the negative impact Yoshi's Story had on the market and "Yoshi" franchise.

"Yoshi's Island 2" was the original title of Yoshi's Island DS."
"Yoshi's Island 2" was the original title of Yoshi's Island DS."

When Nintendo began marketing Yoshi's Island DS, it was obvious that the game was meant to stand apart from its 64-bit predecessor. Nintendo initially titled the game "Yoshi's Island 2," disassociating Yoshi's Story's presence from the general chronology. However, 2 weeks prior to the game's US release, Nintendo switched to the "Yoshi's Island DS" title. Aside from Yoshi "sounds" and allowing HAL Laboratories to create themes from the game for their Super Smash Bros. series, Nintendo has ceased directly referencing Yoshi's Story. In addition, it has been confirmed that the latest Smash Bros. game, Super Smash Bros. Brawl, will feature a Yoshi's Island themed level in place of a Yoshi's Story-styled stage. These situations have highlighted Yoshi's Story's effect on Nintendo and the "Yoshi" franchise.

  1. ^ http://www.gamespot.com/n64/action/yoshisstory/review.html
  2. ^ http://www.gamespot.com/n64/action/yoshisstory/index.html?tag=tabs;summary
  3. ^ Yoshi's Story (N64:1998) Reviews. MetaCritic. Retrieved on 2007-12-22.
  4. ^ Yoshi's Story Reviews. Game Rankings. Retrieved on 2007-12-22.
  5. ^ a b Jake Richter (2004-02-14). The Nintendo 64. The Richter Scale. Retrieved on 2007-12-22.
  6. ^ VGChartz (2007-12-15). Yoshi's Story Sales. VGChartz. Retrieved on 2007-12-15.
  7. ^ a b c GameCubicle.com (2001-08-21). Miyamoto Interview. GameCubicle. Retrieved on 2007-12-22.
  8. ^ a b Frank Provo (2007-09-24). Yoshi's Story review. GameSpot. Retrieved on 2007-09-25.
  9. ^ a b c d e Lucas M. Thomas (2007-09-18). Yoshi's Story Virtual Console Review. IGN. Retrieved on 2007-09-20.

I posted this here because I think the old version should be here so that people can still read and discuss its place on Wikipedia. I think the article was censored to appeal to the fanboy masses, but I also think it was biased and therefore incomplete. With more information and sourcing, I think a lot of this could have stayed. Discuss, and thank you for reading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nijon76 (talk • contribs)

Nice user page. Punctured Bicycle (talk) 15:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

What specifically has been removed that you feel should stay? It's no good just looking at bulk, since removing redundant wording, repeated statements etc. is all part of editing. Reeling off insults on your user page is not helpful, even less so when there are no specific points raised. Could we just stop with the whole 'wiki avenger'/'fanboy' thing, there's a lot it involved with this particular article and half the time it's not apparent who's being referred to. Let's just look at the text and the sources.

The only text which seems to have been removed is that about the 'descent into childishness' and the price affecting sales, neither of which were supported by the sources cited if I remember correctly. I'm adding a references section here so we can look at the sources. Someone another (talk) 01:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's start with this statement, which is the lead premise of a paragraph:
"Probably the hardest aspect for Nintendo fans to stomach was the original MSRP of Yoshi's Story."
The statement begins with a weasel word, uses an inappropriate informal term (stomach) then ends with a citation that does not mention Yoshi's Story at all, the reason being that it wasn't even released at the time the article was written. The suggestion that the price had an adverse affect on sales is an editor's opinion, not the opinion of the source's writer, therefore it is original research and was therefore rightfully removed.
Next line: "In the United States, Yoshi's Story's MSRP was $59.99, which, at the time, was $9.99 more than an average game for Sony's PlayStation console[5]."
The same source is being used to price a game, when said game has not been released and is not mentioned. The article does not mention the price of PS games at all, let alone compare N64 games to PS games in terms of cost. The statement is no more covered by the used citation than if a random newspaper article had been cited. It also attempts to gel this idea that the cost of Yoshi's Story had an effect on sales, which is synthesizing an argument by colliding separate points together in order to advance a position which has not been presented by the source material.
Next sentence: '"This figure was coupled with the fact that, due to Yoshi's Story's early release in the N64's lifespan, the price of the console itself was still fresh in consumer's minds."
Only in the contributor's head. The statement is totally unsourced and is trying to tie up the other two sentences which have been shown as unverified. The entire premise of price VS. sales is unsupported by relevant citations and should not be in the article till it can proved. As a side note, it is vital that cited sources actually back up the text they're being used to quote, failing to do so draws a big question mark over the article. Someone another (talk) 02:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Now let's look at the 'childish' slant, which starts with this statement: "Yoshi's Story's release marked the beginning of the ongoing issue that Nintendo had a "focus on children" instead of all ages during the Nintendo 64 era[1]."
It is being stated that Yoshi's Story was the genesis of a focus on children by Nintendo. The Miyamoto interview cited does not mention Yoshi's Story or even the character Yoshi. At all. The interview does not feature any wording which mentions, at all, a period of Nintendo focusing games at children. The issue of childish visuals arises when the interviewer asks "Do you think the new graphic style used in The Wind Waker will attract a new audience to the game? Conversely, do you think older gamers may be turned off?", Miyamoto's answer focuses only on Wind Waker, not even another Zelda game is mentioned in his response. The interviewer has posed no question or made any assertion about Nintendo having a streak of aiming games at children, the interviewer has not connected any other game outside the Zelda series to Wind Waker's graphical style. All that has been asked is about the reaction of people to the new graphics style for that game. Another example of a citation doing anything but back up a statement.
"While Nintendo had been known to censor and downgrade dialog to ensure a broader audience appeal, this did not prevent games, such as Final Fantasy VI, from being released outside Japan."
Prove it. As well as being uncited, this statement is totally undermined by being preceded by a statement which unverified. Again, the argument falls flat.
"However, with the release of Yoshi's Story, consumers started noticing a more "childish" trend that would put all other Nintendo titles under scrutiny[1]."
False. The citation (again) does not mention Yoshi's Story, Yoshi or Nintendo's games in general. The reactions are reserved to Wind Waker, and even then they are press reactions not consumer reactions - "I was startled by the response we got from the press when we showed it off the first time. They all said, "Oh, so is Nintendo now taking Zelda and trying to aim it only at kids?". This has absolutely sod-all to do with what's being presented to the world as verified fact and deserved to be nuked on sight.
"This issue would later resurface during Legend of Zelda: Wind Waker's development, when the game's cel-shaded graphics became a controversy among fans of the previous two games, Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time and Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask[1]."
How is it resurfacing when it hasn't been verified as happening in the first place? Even if a slither of evidence had been provided in previous statements, controversy surrounding Wind Waker's graphics is a separate issue which shouldn't even be brought up unless significant evidence can be found linking the two. Issues of Nintendo cutesifying their games should not be given extensive discussion in the article of this game unless genuinely reliable sources highlight it as hinging on Yoshi's Story.
"Since these debates, Nintendo has set up exclusivity agreements with companies, such as Konami and Capcom, to bring franchises like Metal Gear Solid and Resident Evil (respectively) to Nintendo's consoles. This has continued through numerous other methods, such as the character Solid Snake appearing in Super Smash Bros. Brawl."
Uncited, hinged on info that's uncited or incorrectly attributed.
and finally "Despite these impacts, Nintendo has continued to show support for Yoshi's Story by releasing it for the Virtual Console on the Wii. However, being re-reviewed after the Nintendo 64's time, editors were much harsher to the game."
'Show support'? It's a product, they're selling it. Unless someone somewhere makes anything more of it than that the fact that it's been re-released isn't directly related to the above issues. Pretty much all of this 'support' and 'franchise' material is uncited opinion presented as fact. No cites to back up anything in this statement. The virtual console review statement does not belong in that paragraph and duplicates what is said elsewhere.
Again, we have a large lump of text which doesn't actually do anything except lead the reader down places it shouldn't. If there are more statements in the pre-rewrite section which you'd like to discuss then please specify them. Someone another (talk) 03:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I still wonder... think we can do a friendlier reception...?

Yo. Huge Yoshi Story fan-boy Power_Box here. In case you don't remember, I started off by carelessly deleting parts of the YS reception section. I learned my lesson from you guys quickly and tried to make a "compramise" edit. It worked for a while. I think it's time for me to start looking at it again though.

First I want to say something to... Nijon, was it? I know you said this two months ago and you've tried to make a few changes since then, so if what I'm about to say bothers you, I apoligize in advance. You especially believe that the negatives of Yoshi's Story's reception should be made very clear? I understand what you're saying. You yourself were one of many people who got it expecting something amazing and getting something completely different... and short in terms of story. Yes, I won't argue with you here. Many people hate Yoshi's Story, and shortness was usually the first reason why.

But the people who actually like it aren't in a "minority" and are more than a "cult," I believe. Look around, there actually are a LOT of people who love this game and find it dear to them, just like me. Check out those review sites... critics say 5 or 6 out of 10. But the players themselves usually give an avarage of 7.5. And there's the Player's Choice factor. If so many people hated the game and it held such a great negative impact on Nintendo... it would have gotten stuck with all those other "un-noteable" games, yeah? Yet it's in the same league as all those other titles like Super Mario 64 and Legend of Zelda Orcarina of time. I'll admit now, it's safe to say the world doesn't consider Yoshi's Story better than those games, and just because a lot of people bought it and supported it in the beginning doesn't mean they liked it in the end. But even so, it sold 2 million copies... "1 million" doesn't seem like a big amount when written like this, let alone "2 million", but it is. And it signifies that the game had a lot of support that stuck.

Now, about Mister PuncturedBicicle... I think I speak for a lot of people here when I say I don't agree with his edits. How about we bring the old article back but have it toned down some more? Who says the reviews and Nintendo's latest actions truly "varify Yoshi's Story's effect on Nintendo"? I think that's the reason why he's been doing what he's been doing. Actually, I think that's the main reason I carelessly deleted parts of the article myself at first! Like I said, I don't support his actions. But I think removing or changing those few sentences might save this entire article.

That was simply my suggestion. I hope you guys consider it. Thanks. Power Box (talk) 22:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Yoshistory.jpg

Image:Yoshistory.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)