Talk:Bubble Bobble (video game)

Opinion

"The game featured 100 levels, each with intriguing puzzles and twists." Sorry but that is just no true.

Care to provide a more accurate comment? Homer Jay 15:19, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)

The game is simple. I guess they're implying that the puzzles and twists aren't really "intriguing" as each level is fairly similar to the one before it, unlike in, say, Rastan, where you have a completely different and more challenging level each time you progress, whereas with this game the progressive levels are (as such) mostly the same. (Garrett, 21:27, 12 Apr 2005, GMT)

Actually, each level has got some special feature (e.g. bubble trajectories, too short bubble popping time, very short hurry up time or even no hurry up time at all, very fast or very slow bubbles, bubbles that "drop" instead or rising, special bonuses etc. but not all are equally intriguing, that must be said. EpiVictor 13:29, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The game description does not state the most crucial aspect of the game; which is to shoot bubbles at enemies, thus trapping the enemy inside - and then 'popping' these bubbles before they decompose, releasing the enemy. Currently the synopsis just says the gameplay is 'avoiding enemies and popping bubbles' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.15.17.33 (talk) 21:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

That is covered. If you can find a better way to convey all the information while remaining succinct, feel free to re-write it. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 21:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Ports

this game was also ported to the TI calculators, the port is very impressive, check it out if you have one... 136.186.1.118 03:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone know if this game will show up on Wii virtual console? 193.180.229.50 22:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Acclaim conversion

Can anybody properly justify the comment "Examples include even comparatively recent versions such as the (1996) PC/Playstation/Sega Saturn version by Acclaim: it had completely wrong game physics (too fast dropping speed, barely working shoes, bubbles going through walls, different jumping physics and many non-implemented techniques) or different (hence, wrong) behaviour for some monsters (especially the time-up monster)"? To me it appears to be an exact emulation of the arcade original give or take the bodged fix to allow the start button to work which prevents the code for alternate versions of the 100 levels working. In particular dropping speed doesn't appear too fast, the shoes give an easily distinguishable moving and falling speed, bubbles cannot travel through walls (e.g. on level 99 you still have to be extremely careful in positioning to drop past and bubble the monster in the enclosed hole without hitting him and loosing a life) and the Bubbas act exactly as the description of them in this article. ThomasHarte 17:25, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I not got time to read through all these (I've owned an arcade PCB for the last 15 years, so I have some knowledge of the game), but bare in mind that many similar complaints for the recently released Wii/Xbox-360 games were made (and can be found on sites such as xbox.com) from people who assume the very different NES version, with it's technical deficiencies was the original version of the game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.15.17.33 (talk) 21:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Well if you read some reviews from that time you will see most of them are very critical and negative,and not without a good reason. They start from relatively mild "the physics are wrong" comments, down to "even the packaging is wrong" bile and venom-laden rants. I have played the game myself, and compiled a list of "wrong" aspects of the game, which just add up to those found by Carl Chavez at the time (Carl Chavez runs the venerable www.bubandbob.com portal about Bubble Bobble, and I happened to be cooperating with him for my New Zealand Story project, back then). With this, I don't exclude that the e.g. Saturn or PSX versions could be entirely different from the PC/CD-ROM one, but the latter one largely gave the impression of an incomplete product and the negative aspects far outweighed the positive ones.

Here's the Gamespot's review of 1996 about the game, I will copy&paste some older Carl Chavez review of the game (cannot find it online, it was a long time ago, sorry :-) ) as well as my own list I sent him long ago about the matter. Then it will be up to each one's discretion and experience to judge the reviews. EpiVictor 10:28, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I found the original Carl Chavez's review from 1996's "www.bubandbob.com" site.

It has been saved to txt so I will just paste it here in preformatted form. WARNING: this review contains some obscene language.

REVIEW: Bubble Bobble / Rainbow Islands Enhanced CD-ROM (PC version) 

Before I begin, I'll have to admit that I am somewhat biased against Acclaim
since they already screwed up the conversion of another arcade game I liked a
lot: NBA Jam / Jam TE (which, coincidentally, I co-wrote the FAQs for, as well
as for most of the Bubble Bobble series). The SNES and Genesis versions played 
like a farm animal trying to avoid a horny, deranged escaped convict.

Now, I'll just cut to the chase: WHAT THE FUCK?! This is a poor excuse for a 
conversion, Acclaim, and I agree with the programmers: this was not ready to 
be released! (If you don't know about the programmers' dispute, check out 
Gareth Hall's Bubble Bobble Page.) 
Everything I wrote about the Saturn version applies to this game, and more. 
Here's a list of the problems I discovered in the first 5 minutes of playing 
Bubble Bobble: 

1.  Like the Saturn version, you and the monsters jump up and fall down too 
quickly. It looks like they're wearing rocket shoes. 
2. If you pop the last guy just as "Hurry Up!" appears, the game will count 
each bubble you popped at that moment for 10 points -- as the game is 
temporarily paused! My points skyrocketed but shouldn't have... 
3. The Bubble and Jump button placements are reversed! Bubble is supposed to 
be the left button, and Jump is supposed to be the right button. On the 
gamepad and joystick I used, the buttons were wrong. 
4. The keyboard controls are kind of weird, and they are non-configurable. 
As on the Saturn, the enemies still look like light is hitting them wrong, 
and Bub and Bob look like they're from the Amiga version. No offense, Amiga 
users (I own an A500 and A1200 myself), but if you've seen the horrible Amiga 
version you know what I mean. 
5. I got EXTEND bubbles for killing only two enemies at once. That's wrong; it 
should be at least three... 
6. There's no way to enter the original codes (BJBJBJR$, LJL$LBL$, etc.) at the 
title screen that I could find. 
7. The music's a bit different. They tried a little harmony by adding an extra 
musical layer to the basic song; it mostly works but sometimes the mix sounds 
weird. 
8. You can't skip the opening screens. This means you have to wait about 30 
seconds after running the game until the selection screen appears. 

I tried to get to the first diamond room, but I died on level 13 so I quit 
Bubble Bobble. I wanted to see how the Rainbow Islands conversions fared. 
For the simple reason that Rainbow Islands is even better than Bubble Bobble 
(gasp!), I played it for over 30 minutes. Anyway: 
1. The codes work on the title screen. YAY! 
2. The Jump and Bubble buttons on Normal and Enhanced Rainbow Islands are 
correctly configured. YAY! 
3. The theme music is the non-controversial version. The first part is not as 
catchy as the Amiga's original "Somewhere Over the Rainbow" rip-off (which 
caused some legal problems way back when), but the whole second half of the 
song is the same ("Tom-ay-to, tom-ah-to,. pot-ay-to, pot-ah-to, hey!"). 
Unfortunately, the music plays at a very low volume. The volume control in 
the game menu only controls the sound effects. 
5. The graphics are very pretty on the Enhanced version, but the music does not 
play at all! I was hoping for an Enhanced soundtrack. 
6. Jumping physics are screwed up on this game, too. 
7. I killed the 1st-level boss (Giant Spider) before it even touched the
ground. 
I think the rainbows are powered up too much when they fall; I defeated the 
3rd-level boss (Giant Vampire) with double rainbows at single speed. 
8. I assume that the credits were unchanged. I can't believe that Graftgold 
and Andrew Braybrook would allow create such a poorly programmed product. 
Nevertheless, Graftgold, rather than Acclaim and Probe, is listed in the 
credits. Perhaps the programmers, knowing that Acclaim would have been 
responsible in the future for causing their names to be unspoken in 
Bubble-Bobble-fandom, decided to remain anonymous. 

Now that I've gone over the game's problems (and a couple of compliments),I
will say that the compilation is playable. I'm judging the game from a purist's 
perspective. There is no doubt the game is playable, but the lack of attention
paid to the game is to me disrepectful to video game players who remember the
good old days. 

Even the packaging is wrong. It has '70s-style artwork on it, even though the
games are from the mid-eighties. It calls the games "retro", even though Bubble 
Bobble and Rainbow Islands are two of the most playable games of all time
(Rainbow Islands is a two-time winner of Amiga Power's Top 100 Amiga games!
Parasol Stars was #18 a couple of years ago...). 

And why is it on CD-ROM? There's no impressive raytraced intro, no special
music tracks that can be played from an audio CD player, it only takes 10MB on
my hard drive... the only thing it uses the CD-ROM for is copy protection (you
cannot run it solely from the hard drive).

If I were to assign the game a percentage (50% being average), I'd give this
CD-ROM a 40%. No noticeable improvements, many noticeable omissions, no
advantage of the CD-ROM format. Buy it if you're a die-hard Bubble Bobble fan
(like me), or if you've never played Rainbow Islands and want to experience one
of the best games of all time Acclaim-style. I hate Acclaim. Avoid the game
otherwise. And don't buy it unless it's under $30.00!!!

Bugs of 1996 Acclaim PC-CD/ROM conversion

These were also taken by 1996 Carl Chavez's BubAndBob site, but for some reason they cannot easily be traced online. I'm uploading this from my archive:

Bugs in Bubble Bobble PC PC-ROM

Here's a list of verified bugs in the first release of the Bubble Bobble 
PC CD-ROM.
Hopefully there will be a patch, since the EXTEND bug can kill you (for
example, if you need a T to get EXTEND and the T is floating above a monster)
and there are sound card problems. 

Last updated 11 December 1996. 

1. EXTEND bubbles do not always appear on player's side when popped. 
2. EXTEND bubbles sometimes appear on the Bub's side when popped by Bob 
  (and vice versa).
3. Dragons don't flash after getting the heart, don't appear to speed up.
4. Mighta (ghost)'s rock went through Bob once 
5. Bub had 32 potion items, Bob 24;Both players received 100,000 points 
  (instead of 100,000 points for the one who has more potion items and
  50,000 points for the one who has less.
6. 10-point score per popped bubble accumulates if a group of bubbles popped
  when "Hurry Up!" appears .
7. 500-point jump bonus with purple ring is awarded per jump button press 
   instead of per jump. Thousands of possible points with an autofiring jump 
   button. :( 
8. Some walls can be fired through, even though they're not supposed to be
  fired through (example: levels 18 and 26, among others, are easier now 
  because you can shoot through walls and get the enemies behind them).
  Similarly, mighta rocks are going through some walls instead of breaking
  on them. 
9. The bubble-blowing sound can be played by pressing fire after a bomb goes 
  off or a potion bonus round is completed, although no bubbles can be blown.
10. Points for group pops and giant point items sometimes appear on Bub's side 
   when popped by Bob. 
11. When popping multiple enemies, sometimes more than one banana appears.
  (instead of going banana, peach, lemon, watermelon... it goes banana, banana, 
  lemon).
12. When you "ride" a water torrent and hit an enemy trapped inside a
    bubble,the enemy becomes a diamond instead of a fruit.
13. This is a weird one: on my machine at home, it plays at normal speed but
   the sound driver doesn't work well with my sound card. At my work machine,
   it plays sounds correctly but it plays slowly. 
14. Enemies who break out of a bubble while floating through a wall cannot be
   recaptured when they get trapped inside a wall. So far I've had to quit 
   only one game; other people have been more unlucky! 
15. When using the cheat mode, if you press F3 to skip a level when "Hurry Up!"
    appears, all creatures trapped in bubbles will move on to the next level 
    with you. This means that you can stock up on trapped monsters and pop more
    of them at once in order to get more points and EXTEND bubbles. However, 
    if you end up allowing more than 8 free creatures, or if you pop 9 or more 
    trapped monsters at once, the game will crash.

More bugs

These are bugs I found myself, and the text is copied from an old email of mine to Carl Chavez. It might be written in a somehow personal and colloquial style and has a lot of grammatical errors, but it still conveys the useful info, I believe. Here goes:

1) Skel's behaviour is even more wrong than it was in the Novalogic version.
There,if you remember,Skel started chasing you IMMEDIATELY,with NO STOPS and
at FULL SPEED.
 On the new version,Skel pauses a bit at the beginning,then starts chasing you
with NO STOPS,and at the same speed.Skel also never rises from the top of the
screen to emerge from the bottom,nor viceversa,while in the arcade that was 
one of his deadliest tactics against you! (this feature seems disabled in
general,see note 5)

2) The necklace bouncing spark (that bounces around killng enemies) still looks
EXACTLY like it did in the old NovaLogic version: WRONG (and poor...)!
In the arcade it looked almost magical...

3) Most rounds which had got walls with stripes (like 22,50,etc.) now have 
plain coloured walls (While even in the novalogic version they looked
correctly)

4) The fire from the firebubbles generates only and always THREE fires(only on
one occasion they generated FOUR),while in the arcade a single fire could light
up over a half-screen width.
On the novalogic version,fire behaved like a liquid (making it more deadly).

5) Bubbling yourself through (going through the ceiling to emerge from the 
bottom of the screen while riding on a bubble) is impossible.Try it!
This makes a lot of rounds very difficult,if not IMPOSSIBLE...I dare not think
what will happen if you ride an enemy bubble for this: it could just pop or...
even "vanish"!

6) Fire and Thunder bubbles lack the static animation they had in the arcade,
fires don't animate till they touch the ground and thunders don't flash
yellow-orange when on the loose...No version that I know of has this feature,
but hey,this is the year 2000,is it so difficult and power-consuming to apply?

7) The extend screen sucks!
 The music and SFX are quite out of sync,it lacks the stars that blinked around
the popped letters,and the extend screen itself is SLOW! (on my 486DX/40,while
the EMULATED version of SMS BB,runs much faster ON THE SAME SYSTEM!
Not to mention that it  has got the best extend screen I've seen...)
Except from that,when you were awarded the life,a tinkling sound used to
play... where is it now?

8) It seems that the game,apart from buggy,is also VERY poorly coded:
When I get a potion,the game SLOOOWS DOWN a lot! 
Only when most items are picked up starts the game to regain SOME speed...
Please note that this happens with a 486DX/40,while the old version and ALL
emulated versions I have,do not have this problem (they usually run much
faster, and I mean on THE ABOVE system!)
The same problem arises when in secret rounds,stars fall,giant thunders cross
the screen,etc. and generally,when there are a lot of objects on the screen.
This happens in the arcade too but only with lots of bubbles,and the arcade
was designed in 1986 and is based on Z80 8-bit technology,while the PC version
runs anyway on 32-bit hardware (since it uses protected mode...),and any 486
PC can run much more complex and demanding games than a simple old-style
platformer...

9) Oww,here comes a really BAD one: In the arcade,when you make the two
pre-last digits of your score the same,eg. 550,660 etc. and popped myself a
bunch of enemies,then NO MATTER how many enemies,empty bubbles,extend
bubbles, fire  bubbles etc. there were,the "trick" would always work (you
know which...).
This works the same way on the SMS version,and there was no such feature on
the old Novalogic version.
On the "new" version,all that I've mentioned heavily influences your score
when popping enemy bubbles.When the bunch is kind of separated in two or more
sections,then 10 points per section are added (e.g. on round 2,the 4 bubbled 
enemies split into a 1-3 formation,although they are popped together,and add 
20 points,so you have to pop'em with scores such as 420,640,860,etc. to get
the trick to work...in other rounds and with more bubbles,it might not be that
simple!)

Also,every extend bubble in the bunch adds 10 points,and so do special bubbles.
At least that's how I think it works.
You realize that you have to think a bit too much to calculate how to work
out your score in...real time! Not really what you need when chased by Skel
and trying to pop these last damned,ready-to-pop bubbles (and do the trick!)...
Please note that even the above notes are not 100% correct, since I have
even popped a bunch with only 2 enemy bubbles,and I was given 20 pts!
This game is hopeless!

10) In the arcade,if you blown 10 bubbles and then popped them together,you
would get 10*10=100 pts.If you do the same on the new PC version,you'll
only get 10 points!
Bubble bunches are always worth 10 pts,even if they have 10-20 bubbles!
(this partially explains bug Number 9!)

11) Thunders pop enemy bubbles,and generate first a diamond,then the rest of 
the popped enemies become sometimes fruits,sometimes diamonds.
So do the flames from the red cross.

12) After a bomb has blown,the screen's background doesn't become grey.

13) Many flashing effects in the game seem to have been disabled:
E.g. when you get the heart,the fire from the Super Sockets (which looks like
it did on the old novalogic version:static and with a creme colour...),the 
bubbles with your girlfriends that appear on some rounds accompanied by huge 
monsters,the killer spark from the necklace,the thunder flashes...all of these 
should have been flashing in some way but they don't (at least the heart does
(wrongly)!).

14) Ahh,here is a bad,BAD one: if a water stream carries away many  monsters
at once,then you will also be awarded multiple bubble popping bonus!
E.g. if you kill 4 monsters with a water stream,then the number "8000!!" will
proudly cross the screen,as if those monsters were in bubbles and you popped 
them together...
Also,it works the same way for thunders,fires and fire from the red cross!

15) If there are two well distanced bubble bunches with 2 bubbled monsters
each,and first blow one,and while the dead monsters are flying,you blow the 
other one,how many points will you get? 2000 + 2000=4000 ? NO! You will get 
8000!! It seems that multiple bubble bunches,when popped quickly one after 
another even if they are too far away to blow by "chain reaction" are 
considered a single bunch."Quickly" sometimes means over 2 sec!

16) On the round that Bub appears as a bonus (round 93 I think?),he doesn't.
Some pink birds appear instead.

17) While carried away in a water stream,you can't fire bubbles!

18) I was on round 22,and hadn't even tried to bubble any of the monsters...
an aqua cross appeared,and instead of 4 blue diamonds I got:
a banana,an orange,a lemon and a waterlemon! Now how's that?

19) When you get a candy cane,clear the stage and you're don't collect the
big item immediately...it will "vanish" very soon,before the round ends!
Unacceptable! It didn't happen like this at all in the arcade and it doesn't
in ANY other version I know of...

OK, so that's all so far. Please note that these apply to the PC/CD-ROM version of the game of 1996, bundled with "Rainbow Islands Enhanced", and a lot of comparisons were deliberately done with the older 1989 Novalogic version of the game, as well with other versions avaiable at the time, including the Arcade one.

What made my (and others') judgement so harsh is that this was essentially a 32-bit conversion of a 10-year old (in 1996, it is almost 20 by now) game, which performed extremely poorly on a much more capable system and was lacking in too many aspects. This is not meant to be a personal attack towards Acclaim, TAITO or anyone else involved with the game, but just exposing the facts. EpiVictor 11:00, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Bugs (conclusions)

You seem to know what you're talking about and have clearly spent more time investigating the topic than I! But a lot of the problems noted in the PC version appear to be explained by the poor adaption for that format. The Saturn conversion is clearly quite different in some ways.

I don't have the knowledge to answer many of the points raised, but I can address some:

• the PC version clearly has very poor timing and/or synchronisation issues. Perhaps this could explain the apearance that many things are running at the wrong speed?

• the PC version has different Bubba actions. I have uploaded a very poor quality video of a Bubba on the Sega Saturn [1] (although a moment of idiocy made me call it a Monsta on that page, no Monsta is in the clip) clearly showing pauses in his movement pattern. I would strongly argue that the text of the wikipedia article needs some alteration as it highlights Bubba as being incorrect on all Acclaim versions.

• the Saturn version uses a mapping that puts bubble on B, jump on A and C so the player can play with jump to the left or right of bubble at their discretion. Irritatingly the Saturn Bubble Symphony plays with the controls exactly the other way around (B to jump, A or C to bubble) but that's another story!

• a lot of the criticisms are about the new graphics, which is fair enough or about the irritating start CGI/menu screen which comes before the user has managed to select Bubble Bobble as their game of choice.

• of the bugs you mention, I've only ever seen one (an extend bubble being awarded to the wrong player) and in my student house we played this game pretty much two or three times weekly for a year. Contrary to your opinion that some rounds are impossible because you cannot jump off the top of the screen back onto the bottom (which appears to hold in the Saturn version), we did beat it.

Otherwise, thankyou for such a lengthy explanation of the issues with this particular conversion! So many times I post to the discussion pages on wikipedia about what I see as errors or inaccuracies in articles and get either no response or abbreviated ones that don't really explain. ThomasHarte 12:14, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

No Problem :) Honestly however, the PC version of that game bundle was surely the worst amongst all conversions, by two points of view:

• As a 1996 PC DOS Game. It was coded very poorly and was quite lacking in performance ( read the bits about items and potions). It was a shame seeing a 32-bit 486 CRAWLING to a simple platformer. Compare it e.g. to Jazz Jackrabbit, Doom or Duke Nukem 3D. Also, it wasn't even a Windows 95 game to justify the lack in performance.

• As a Bubble Bobble conversion. Considering the year it was coded (1996) and the machine specs it required (486, 8 MB...) it is one of the worse (if not the worst) Bubble Bobble conversion ever. It had simply too many bugs and omissions not justifiable by lacks in hardware, and the game mechanics were also very grossly done (to the point that it appears just an update of the 1989 Novalogic conversion, at times).

• Don't forget it was essentially an unfinished product (at least the PC version) and especially Bubble Bobble, and a patch was never released for that matter.

About the other games in the pack, well, they were more robust (but Rainbow Islands, on the PC version at least, lacked the secret Mirror islands).

The last criticism can be also directed, although softened and edulcorated, towards the console versions of the game. I just hope the Bubble Bobble remake released with Taito Memories will be better and have nothing to do with this one... EpiVictor 20:03, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

With 25 titles, it at least seems likely that Taito Memories is an emulation rather than a bunch of people reimplementing. Anyway, given especially the video clip I provided above, is there consensus that the current article text "Examples include even comparatively recent versions such as the (1996) PC/Playstation/Sega Saturn version by Acclaim: it had completely wrong game physics (too fast dropping speed, barely working shoes, bubbles going through walls, different jumping physics and many non-implemented techniques) or different (hence, wrong) behaviour for some monsters (especially the time-up monster)." is inaccurate, for example in lumping the Saturn version with the PC for "especially the time-up monster"? ThomasHarte 14:45, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I doubt they are emulations. E.g. by looking at a Bubble Bobble screenshot for the Nokia N-Gage here and it appears that Bubble Bobble classic has got a color background and lives are displayed in the upper part of the screen, under the score, so at least that is definitively a remake. Don't know how other versions will be implemented, though. About the PSX and Saturn conversions...well my 2 cents are that they must be a bit better than the PC version (for the sake of the console vs PC supremacy of 1996) but else they are largely the same SC and share some of the most annoying aspects. Maybe you could rewrite the sentence so it implies that the PC version is the worst of the bunch. EpiVictor 17:45, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't really be desperately happy rewriting in any meaningful manner unless I could properly compare my Saturn copy with an arcade original. Having established that it doesn't share all the failings of the PC doesn't really help! But I may perform some slight editing. As concerns "Taito Memories", the n-gage version comes with only 3 games and the machine only has a 104Mhz ARM processor with no graphical acceleration hardware so quite probably is an entirely different product from an entirely different programming group that merely shares the name. In particular [2] shows a screenshot that is clearly the original Bubble Bobble, and [3] strongly hints at that (a low resolution, 8 colour title screen reading (c) Taito Corporation 1986). Also it's very easy to add backdrops and so on to emulators that weren't on the original hardware, I've done it myself in some of my emulators. ThomasHarte 18:12, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Hmm not to be an ass or something :-) , but that could very well be an "archive" image, an arcade photo or even a picture taken from an actual emulator e.g. M.A.M.E. Sorry, but I am always a bit on the defensive side when I hear about "officialy made emulators" because in most cases (especially in the past) they just turned out to be complete remakes, and in most cases they shipped along with "enhanced" versions. I also haven't been able to determine in a clear way:

• When will Taito Memories, either volume 1 and 2 be avaiable?
• For which systems?
• If there is any version actually avaiable right now. EpiVictor 22:04, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

It could be an archive image, but seeing shots that appear to be the original on two different non-affiliated sites (in two different languages) looked hopeful! Anyway, a quick scan of the internet reveals that both Taito Memories discs seem likely to stay in Japan only but Europeans (like me) will get "Taito Legends" for PS2, XBox and PC, which contains 29 games including Bubble Bobble and Rainbow Islands but unfortunately skips Fairyland Story and Kiki Kaikai. A complete list of games is here. ThomasHarte 22:50, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Quick additional note: the collection will also be quite cheap (£20) and this site is another showing a clearly unimproved image from Bubble Bobble. Also, perhaps you can completely ruin my illusions, but Williams/Atari Arcade Classics (i.e. the disc including Defender, Robotron and Joust) is a real emulation, right? ThomasHarte 22:54, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for the long time...if memory (and archives) don't fail me, those early "emulation" packages were, in their majority, remakes. E.g. Microsoft's "Return of the arcade" collecton looked suspiciously similar to Namco's Museum, but it was a so-called close-observation remake, not an emulation. In those days (1995-1997) performance issues still made it problematic to market include a fully emulated game, even if 8-bit, in a commercial package (e.g. MAME could not achieve full framerate on a 486-class machine, on many 8 bit games). Now...I'm sure that Williams Arcade Classics was one of the few collections actually featuring the "true" ROMS under emulation these days...don't know about Atari however, and about Namco's Museum on the PSX. EpiVictor 16:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Edits on Port Bashing, I mean, Comparison ;)

To keep the language more in line with Wikipedia's ideal of neutral point of view (NPOV), I've softened the language slightly on the port comparison section without changing any factual details:

• The section still makes it clear that many changes are regarded by the majority to adversely affect the gameplay experience

• I avoid repeating that same judgment in later sentences that detail the differences, so that the sentences are more objective

(It's helpful to keep in mind that the judgment is partly biased towards those who have played the arcade version. It is conceivable that someone who's first experience is with a differen version of the game might reach different or even opposite conclusions when comparing with the arcade version. Moreover, we have no sources regarding the true intentions of some of the game behavior in the arcade version (eg. say, "kissing"), so we can't be 100% certain that some arcade behaviors aren't bugs rather than fully intended behavior.)

I believe the consensus will agree that the change does not affect the spirit of the section but will provide a better appearance of "balanced" treatment expected for an encyclopedia entry.

Aside: I'm not entirely sure about the comment on the PC version regarding diagonal jumping. Isn't the same possible on the arcade version with a combination of jump + left/right? Just curious.

131.107.0.73 00:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, the single-key diagonal jump is surely possible on the 1989 PC version by Novalogic. To make a diagonal jump on the arcade you need free space to "run" and jump, and will only go through walls in certain places, not just everywhere. On the 1989 PC version, it will happily go through walls even if you are parked close to a wall and with no movement...eseentially, you can clip through walls at anytime :-) And...the kissing trick works well in both good conversions, and in "official" bubble bobble sequels e.g. Bubble Memories, so it's unlikely that it's "just" a bug. It is even displayed in the "HOW TO PLAY" screen! EpiVictor 11:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Beluga vs Blubba

Which title is correct? The first monster refers to Beluga, which I assume means Blubba (do to the order of names mentioned, and that he is a whale), so should I list Beluga as an alternate name to Blubba, or just change the reference to Blubba? Tyciol 15:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, here's the enemy names taken from Bust-a-Move for Super Nintendo:

• Bubble Buster
• Stoner
• Beluga
• Hullaballoon
• Coiley
• Incendo
• Super Socket
• Willy Whistle
• Rubblen
• Baron Von Blubba - NES Boy 00:15, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I provided a link to the NES manual. Hopefully that should state most enemy names. Also, I changed the enemies section to contain only the names in the NES manual, as well as the enemy names from Bust-A-Move for the SNES (see above). --Addict 2006 21:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Wait. They're the same! However, that's just it. ----Addict 2006 21:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Sprite formatting

It's difficult to get the Image:Ghost.gif and Image:Baron.gif enemy sprites to show up properly on the article since they're mostly white and blend in with the page background. I added an HTML background color to help make them more visible -- does anyone know an easier way to do this, perhaps in wikitext? Stratadrake 09:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• How about... {{Click-Inline|image=Baron_(Bubble_Bobble)_(modified).gif|link=:image:Baron.gif|width=34px|height=34px}} ...and... {{Click-Inline|image=Ghost_(Bubble_Bobble)_(modified).gif|link=:image:Ghost.gif|width=34px|height=34px}} ...just for the purpose of this article. You could always use {{Click-Inline}} for redirecting the images to the unmodified versions? — CuaHL ☺ 18:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Missing Info...

There is some info missing about the arcade version trick to get started with all the power ups combo of joystick moves and buttons... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.84.103.213 (talk • contribs) .

I've added this information now in an edit from the 7th June. Oenone575 21:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Music

Has anyone seen these remixes? They are class

http://remix.kwed.org/index.php?search=bubbleJHJPDJKDKHI! 14:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Do we know the composer of the original theme? Drutt (talk) 10:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Seems to be a fellow named Tadashi Kimijima [4]. Drutt (talk) 10:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Copy to a gaming wiki

This article has been copied to StrategyWiki:Bubble Bobble. -- Prod-You 03:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Last boss' real identity

Quoting from Grumple Gromit description: In Super Mode, the last boss is not the real Gromit, but Bub and Bob's parents who were turned into it by a mysterious villain (whose identity is revealed in Rainbow Islands). I checked Rainbow Islands and couldn't find anything related; can someone add pointers to the identity of the villain?

The name of the Boss in Bubble Bobble is 'Super Drunk'. He's a large version of one of the later enemies. At least this is what the NES version describes.

The canon Japanese name is "Super Drunk", while "Grumple Gromit" is taken from one of the western attempts at localizing the game (similar to Skel-Monsta being called "Baron von Blubba"). The original Japanese names of all enemies are written in the ending of the game though.

The identity of the final boss as the parents (yeah, both of them) is revealed when beating super mode in a 2P game. The boss turns into a huge bubble dragon which is then transformed back into a man and a woman with the words "Mama" and "Papa" on their shirts. The ending text says "You could help your father & mother! They were controled[sic] by someone. Who is he? No one knows of it! The truth is in the darkness forever.... 193.8.36.130 (talk) 14:13, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Image Rationale

I've tagged many of the images in this article as needing rationale. If they do not receive fair use rationale with a period of a week, they will most likely be deleted. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 16:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Development notes that are not development notes

Despite the section header, some lazy wikipedians seem to be using the section as a kind of hazy "bubble bobble in popular culture" dumping ground. Should those items be budded off into such a forbidden section or just removed as, uh, not development notes? Pseudo Intellectual (talk) 15:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Extend - N

In Taito's PC port, however, killing Z monsters will cause the Z-th letter of the word to appear — making the N extremely hard to get because there's only few levels where you can easily pop five enemies simultaneously. This is probably a bug.

Was N really harder then D (6 simultaneous bubbles one would presume)? Nil Einne (talk) 12:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Dinosaurs or dragons?

I'm 99% sure that the player characters are supposed to brontosaurs, which would make them dinosaurs, not dragons. I'm struggling to find a reliable reference for this though. Can anyone assist? Oenone575 (talk) 10:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

As a collector of Bubble Bobble memorabilia, I can say with confidence that they are, in fact, "Bubble Dragons." Nijon76 (talk) 00:25, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

The player characters basically look like cute, chibi versions of Godzilla, but to try to draw a parallel between these characters and other fictional characters, dinosaurs, dragons or other creatures based solely on appearance is original research unless there are reliable sources that draw those parallels. In this case, we'd want something from the developer/publisher of the game that said "Yes, these are dinosaurs, not dragons", or "They're meant to look like baby Godzillas", etc. Without that, appearance is speculation and OR, and should not be included.

Nijon's point that they're officially called "Bubble Dragons" in series canon is probably the best one here. If there's any dispute, though, we should point to an official source for that term as well, even if it's in a promotional flyer for the game, the game's manual, the game itself, etc. This is a case where a primary source would be appropriate. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Release Dates

I noticed that someone (or, perhaps, a group) had a field day editing this page, "dumbing it down" to less than the essentials. The worst aspect is that everyone that expanded the once-detailed page was charged everyone with vandalism. Did any of you realize that the release date for the Nintendo version, November 28, 1988, is a critical date for Bubble Bobble fans?

I stopped trying to make Wikipedia a reliable place for just this reason, and anyone that remembers when Wikipedia had information on it, should reverse this trend with me. Nijon76 (talk) 00:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

There's also wikipedia policy against long lists of items, which is why they were "dumbed down" and moved in to the standard ports area already in the always preferred prose format. If you want, add dates in there. This is precisely why it was done on properties like Pac-Man and Space Invaders as well, a couple ports is fine but when a property has been ported to many platforms it gets to long. And the infobox here is primarly about the arcade platform. Likewise, there is policy against game guide material, which most of the material you just tried to add falls under. You're trying to forcefully revert in previously removed game guide material, including already deleted images, and that kind of conduct doesn't go very far here. And quite frankly, your statements above insult previous editors via a lack of assume good faith, and promote a big warning sign for the forceful editing you're attempting which I'm hoping doesn't move more towards disruptive editing. Your user page ranting about wikipedia nazi's leaves me to believe I'm hoping for to much. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 02:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I too was quite upset when all the content was removed from the Bubble Bobble page, initially on the 12th October with the meaningless and unexplained comment of "Cleanup", and then subsequently on 21st October with a comment relating to StrategyWiki (I'm not sure why this required a further huge amount of content removal to take place). I was also similarly baffled that no one had attempted to restore the content until today. The content seemed to me to be entirely relevant and an excellent accumulation of information on the game. I considered re-adding it but couldn't face the rounds of arguments that would no doubt ensure, so I left it alone.

The whole incident has rather put me off of editing Wikipedia however. I still don't understand why the information should be removed, despite Marty Goldberg's comments above. The definition of "encyclopedia" according to Dictionary.com is "a book or set of books containing articles on various topics, usually in alphabetical arrangement, covering all branches of knowledge or, less commonly, all aspects of one subject." How can we be covering all knowledge or aspects of Bubble Bobble without detailing the game's enemies, or its power-ups, or its endings and secret rooms? These are fundamental parts of the game. They're not a guide to playing the game, but are a fundamental description of what the game is and does.

Wikipedia is full of thousands of "stub" pages requesting for more information to be added. The Bubble Bobble page had a substantial amount of useful and accurate information provided, and over the last six weeks that seems to me to have been reverted back to little more than stub status. I think the page is a huge wasted opportunity now, divulging nothing of the game itself to anyone that reads the page without already knowing all about the game. If someone can explain to me why the page is better now than it was at the beginning of October, I'd really appreciate it. I won't be joining in any "reversion wars", but I'd definitely like to see the content re-added. Oenone575 (talk) 13:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Please read What Wikipedia is not and in particular Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook or textbook. --Pak21 (talk)

I am well aware of the text about Wikipedia not being a manual, guidebook or textbook. As I already stated in my text above: "How can we be covering all knowledge or aspects of Bubble Bobble without detailing the game's enemies, or its power-ups, or its endings and secret rooms? These are fundamental parts of the game. They're not a guide to playing the game, but are a fundamental description of what the game is and does." Your response doesn't add to or answer any of the points I made, as far as I'm concerned.

If I were to describe a car, I would realistically expect to have to include information about the steering wheel, gear stick, seat belts and other control mechanisms. This doesn't make the description a guide to driving. It makes it an accurate and complete description of a car. The current Bubble Bobble page contains a woeful absence of information, as would a description of a car which didn't tell you anything about what was inside it. Which is all the more tragic considering that it was so hugely informative up until recently.

There are a number of sites elsewhere on the web that unquestionably do contain manuals and guides to the game. I see very little overlap in their content and the content that was present in the Wikipedia article. Oenone575 (talk) 14:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

While the fact that Bubble Bobble has a variety of enemies is a fundamental part of the game, the exact details of how they move and what they look like are not. That's just trivia, and not part of an encyclopedic article; while it's of interest to a gamer, it doesn't give someone reading the article any real idea of how the game differs from (say) Donkey Kong. To quote the "Content" section of WP:NOT, "merely being true or useful does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia." Wikipedia does not attempt to cover every detail of a topic. I'd suggest taking a look at some of the featured articles on computer games (eg BioShock), and note what that's got in it (lots of information on the development and critical reception) and adding some of that kind of information here, as there isn't a single reliable source quoted in this entire article. --Pak21 (talk) 14:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Please also take a look at the VGProj Article Guidelines, which are based on WP policies and have been established by community consensus. Among them is a list of rules as to when it's appropriate to add details that go beyond a basic description of the game, console, etc. For example, we normally don't describe weapons in games, but you kinda HAVE to describe how the Portal Gun works in Portal to understand the game as a whole, since it's the central play mechanic for the game. This does not mean, though, that we would describe in detail each of the weapons in Halo, since they all serve the same basic function and are individually not very notable.

The main aim here is to ensure that we have enough information for an average person (one who is not expected to be a gamer intimately familiar with, in this case, the Bubble Bobble series) to understand what the game is about and what its significance is. Bubble Bobble does deserve a little more attention than many articles because of its overall significance and popularity in the industry. But it still hasn't had nearly the impact that games like Pac-Man and Space Invaders did. I think a basic description of the gameplay mechanics (trapping enemies in bubbles and popping them, collecting items and powerups, and moving from level to level when the level is clear of enemies) is all that's needed to understand the game as a whole, as well as summarizing the plot/story and describing the game's cultural and industry impact via reliable sources. We definitely do not need information on cheat codes, enemy movements, gameplay strategies or details about what's different in each console and computer release compared to the arcade version. (Stating that there were some differences is appropriate, but we don't need a big rundown on exactly WHAT changed - trust me, the average layman isn't going to care.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 16:17, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I would like to thank those that have come forward so far recommending the re-evaluation of the page. I believe Nijon76's methods are a bit brash, but it speaks volumes about what Wikipedia has become. I don't mean to be antagonistic, but I have come across users like Marty Goldberg that do cite general policies on Wikipedia while forgetting the fundamentals of what make an encyclopedia so great. The comprehensiveness of an article is what makes it a good read or not, and the Bubble Bobble article, even at half its size, could have still provided people with the information necessary to understand the series' legacy. Wikipedia is failing because of people who prefer "Stub" articles over complete works.

As fans know, Bubble Bobble is a complex case. Many people played the Nintendo (NES) version first, and its differences from the arcade version were pivotal to fan perception. If we're going to discuss Bubble Bobble, we must bring up its accompanying versions, as well. I don't recommend a guide either, but I want an article about Bubble Bobble, not a scatter-shot summary of its history at the arcades.

I recommend the adding of some of the previous materials. If Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it will support this decision. Amber Sand (talk) 04:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I resent that comment, I'm on here editing articles every day for improvement and trying to move them towards WP:WIAGA, WP:FAC and WP:FA status - which by the way is the actual goal of articles here - not to be what a fan might consider a "good read" or a collection of everything in detail about the game. There is no "forgetting", there is understanding how Wikipedia works or not understanding. The "general policies" as you call them, and article guidelines by the video games project, are here specifically for the purpose of promoting good and reliable encyclopedic content. I think some fans of games seem to think these pages exist more as fan sites rather than the encyclopedic nature they're meant to be, or possibly even think "encyclopedic" means a detailed listing of all elements and aspects in a game or subject. It does not. The FAC process is much more scrutinized than the process my self and other editors have applied to this article so far. So if you're having a hard time with these types of scrutiny, I'd hate to see what the actual peer process would do to you. And nobody is suggesting a "stub" article, I suggest you take a look at some of the other articles in the video games project that have recently reached featured status such as Donkey Kong last year and Space Invaders this past September. As can clearly be seen by those two articles its certainly possible, as Keifer mentioned, to touch on various aspects of the game without going in to the excessive detail that was being force edited back in. And I'd hardly call any of those articles stubs. And you'll also notice the lack of long listings of ports and dates in info boxes, which was the other concern in this article.

And while we're on the subject of "general policies", statements like "many fans played the NES version first" and further comments on being "pivotal to fan perception" constitute WP:OR unless you can find a notable and verifiable source that would justify that sort of slant, otherwise it also violates WP:Undue weight. The main platform, in this case the arcade version, is always given the main slant of the article since the game was developed on that platform and introduced to the public within that platform to begin with. Other platforms can certainly be discussed as well, but you need to find valid references to qualify them for the extra weight you want to give. A perfect example - I was first introduced to the game via the arcades, so that shoots the claim of the NES version's weight. Quantifying with terms like "many" is simply using weasel words in absence of hard, concrete data - which an encyclopedia needs and which I think you'd be hard pressed to find. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 07:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Could you provide some reliable sources (ie not just random comments on a blog or forum) which state that (eg) the differences between the NES and arcade versions are important to fan perception? As you are hopefully aware, one of Wikipedia's five pillars is that of verifiability. Cheers --Pak21 (talk) 07:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, I think it's a valid point that if a significantly larger percentage of gamers played the NES version before ever seeing the arcade version (something that was true in my case as well), this could be something of interest to the article and the common reader, as it marks a significant shift in the way/order in which arcade ports were introduced. But as has been mentioned, we'd need a reliable source for that before it can be included in the article - otherwise, we have no way of verifying that it's really a fact and not just someone's perception. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 16:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Again, I read Marty Goldberg's comments and I see "'WP:' this, and 'WP:' that," but I don't see any dialog. The problem with Wikipedia is that terms like "Weasel Words" and "Undue Weight" are nothing more than trump cards. I've been the victim of Wiki-Trumping in the past; Someone believes him- or her-self to be the authority over Wikipedia, and coddles articles until everyone else gives up on contributing. Anyone that edits even the slightest details gets his or her edit reverted and, perhaps, a bolded message is added to the Discussion tag. I refuse this; I'm here to edit the article to my liking while still abiding by Wikipedia's Guidelines. I'm trying to be civil by having a dialog, but I'm always confronted with the same people: Those that use Wikipedia Trump Cards to ensure that their version is upheld.

Wikipedia is dying because people do what you're doing, Marty Goldberg. They're supervising articles like they themselves wrote it for their blog. However, this is Wikipedia; It's for all of us. I follow the guidelines, I source my material, I'm knowledgeable about the subject, and, therefore, I have earned my right to edit. I'm a writer myself, so I know how to appease "suits" that have "guidelines." Marty Goldberg, you're not my employer. Being part of a Wiki-Project does not immediately make you a higher-tier editor. If I have to sink to Nijon76's level, I will do so; I will not be intimidated by someone with an unwarranted sense of self-importance. Relatively speaking, Bubble Bobble is too important a subject for me to see it downsized just to make other people feel like they're "contributing" to a higher plane of Wiki-Excellence. Amber Sand (talk) 05:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia IS for all of us, you are right, but it is not without rules. And the policies Marty is referring to have been agreed upon by a large portion of the working community on this project, and extend beyond just the video games sub-project. He's right to point to those policies, and you'll note that I did too. It's not that we're trying to bite newcomers or be the Wiki-Police or anything - it's that there is an established standard of what makes a good article, and the kind of extra info that's been repeatedly added to this article moves well away from that standard.

Nobody is telling you that you can't edit the article. Marty is not asserting ownership over the article, and he's not trying to get people to go away. He's trying to help keep the article in good condition, according to the policies and guidelines that most of us have agreed to abide by. If you genuinely disagree with these standards and want to change them, please open a consensus discussion in the main VGProject Talk Page, the Article Guidelines Talk Page, or the relevant policy page if you feel it's something that affects Wikipedia as a whole. We're always open to well-reasoned and civil discussions, with the idea that policies and guidelines are not set in stone and can be changed. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, I'd like to add that threatening to "sink to Nijon76's level" is basically threatening to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point, something that may get you blocked for disruptive editing. Two wrongs don't make a right - keep that in mind before you "sink" to anyone's level, please. Thanks. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Yah - what Kiefer all said. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 18:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Since this is starting to get repetitious, I'll simply state my point again with, hopefully, better clarity. Wikipedia has rules, rules that I follow effortlessly. However, certain individuals and these "Project Teams" have become an aggressive policing squad. Therefore, even if I were to edit an article, I'm confident it will be reverted by someone either or by a team of people, both of which treat the page like their own work. In both cases, these individuals are exercising authority they do not have and undermining Wikipedia's true purposes: To be an encyclopedia and a resource anyone can edit. I would truly like to make a difference on the website, as people still consider it a potential resource. However, due to users like Marty Goldberg, I believe my edits will be listed as "Vandalism" and promptly removed. Amber Sand (talk) 20:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Alright, a this point you're just repeating the same ridiculous accusations about me, even when you've been told by others its not the case, and its now degenerated in to violation of WP:NOTSOAPBOX. Very specifically, point blank, everyone is allowed to contribute to Wikipedia. That however does not mean everything that's contributed is automatically accepted or does not have to meet the policies and guidelines set out by consensus, as you have been explained by all of us. And the flip side of everyone being able to contribute is that everyone is also able to "police" articles to make sure content is up to the previously mentioned standards. And knock off the personal and untrue attacks - there is not one entry in the edit history of Bubble Bobble where I've called anyones attempts at adding material "vandalism". All you've done so far is throw out personal accusations, and state how you don't care about policies and guidelines if they interfere with you're view on what content should be here. Wikipedia is not a personal fan site, and in fact everything Wikipedia is not is pretty clearly laid out. The fact that your only contributions here to date have simply been on this talk page on this content subject, doesn't lend a lot of credibility to your stated positions and is looked down on suspiciously as well. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 04:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

This whole dispute is becoming tedious. Amber Sand, you aren't actually discussing the content issue here at all - you're just complaining that other people are "policing" the page unnecessarily. As Marty pointed out, Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and what you're doing is bordering on tendentious editing. Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information, meaning that it is subject to quality guidelines and various policies that govern what kind of content is admissible. The standards we're working with have been established through consensus and through many discussions, and in this particular case, the consensus was to focus the article on the game's original release, present enough information that an average, non-gaming reader can understand it, and to cut down on trivia and non-essential information. The game does have an extensive port history, but that's already covered in a section devoted to that information.

Amber, you are invited to participate in a discussion here, but you need to stop attacking other editors if you want anyone to take you seriously. Otherwise, you're going to end up getting blocked to prevent further disruption. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

This seems to be the exact same stuff I see everywhere else on Wikipedia. What it boils down to is this: Whomever has the resources, doppelganger accounts, and "official group" backings gets to exercise the most "authority." Anyone that disputes here uses their doppelgangers to berate someone until they give up. This person is advised to throw out Wiki-Guideline Descriptors, like "WP:This" and "WP:That." To further his or her own agenda, anyone else that does this should be accused of using "weasel words." It's all about who has the most time to lose. Amber Sand has a point, but since he/she can't defend the page 24/7, he/she loses.

You guys brought Wikipedia down. It's no wonder no one cares about Wikipedia anyone. Nijon76 (talk) 20:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Exactly who are you accusing of being a doppelganger of another user? If you're saying that User:Wgungfu and I are the same person, you are sadly mistaken. And, as I said before, NOBODY is trying to get you to stop contributing to Wikipedia. What we ARE trying to do is to keep you guys from being disruptive. I don't know how many times I have to repeat that point to get it through to you, and honestly it's getting pretty tiresome. It's also getting tiresome to see the same old complaints from people who are working against the agreed-upon consensus - just because they don't get their way, they start accusing the established majority of forming a cabal to suppress the minority and to make Wikipedia a worse place. (Frankly, if I made a buck for every time I heard that, I could retire right now at the age of 31.)

Why don't you actually try discussing the content instead of accusing people of stuff? It'll get you a lot further toward your goals. And while you're at it, stop playing childish games like blanking my user page, okay? Thanks. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 04:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Jemima?

What is the source for the music being a folk song called "Sing, Jemima, Sing"? This is suspicious. Do a search - on ANY search engine - for such a song, and the only things that come up are "Bubble Bobble" links. You'd think if it were a "popular" folk song, there'd be a lot more than just "Bubble Bobble" links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScatteredFrog (talk • contribs) 20:16, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I concur.... I've never seen this reference before, and I love the theme tune.... So an actual 'real life' tune that had the same melody would have been a nice find on the internet...

However, it seems that, in the almost infinite online polyverse, no such song exists...

Who can offer some proof of such a song???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.208.221.249 (talk) 00:41, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Release image

Hi @Lowtrucks:,

It's great that you're very interested in Bubble Bobble. Thing is, images still need to adhere to guidelines on images, even if you created it. It's a huge image that shows the release of the Bubble Bobble games, but it does not say anything that can't be explained in text. Which it already is. Listing all the released in an image does not communicate any new or relevant information. --Soetermans. T / C 13:12, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Bubble Bobble series chart is relevant, because it lists ALL Taito Bubble Bobble official and licensed games. This section lists only most important releases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lowtrucks (talk • contribs) 13:25, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

First, let's keep it in one section. Second, what is keeping you from actually completing the section? --Soetermans. T / C 13:26, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

@Lowtrucks:, if you like, you can easily make a list or a table of all Bubble Bobble games. Having it in an image is unwieldy, and is not easy to edit for other users. I'm taking the image out again, per WP:VGIMAGES. --Soetermans. T / C 10:46, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

@Lowtrucks:, reverting for no reason won't help, so I've issued you a warning for that. You can add whatever table you like. Having an image of every game released is not useful. I also do not appreciate the fact that you're reverting the other edit, reinstating WP:ELNO. You do not own this article, you know. --Soetermans. T / C 11:11, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

@Lowtrucks:, please stop reverting and start talking. --Soetermans. T / C 11:16, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

FYI. WP:3RR and WP:Edit warring seem to be in play here. WP:BRD. Resolve the content dispute here and get on with it. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:33, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

As i said, Bubble Bobble series chart is relevant, because it lists ALL Taito Bubble Bobble official and licensed games. This section lists only most important releases. That's why i reverted Soetermans edits. Lowtrucks (talk) 11:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Again, you can add a list or table, we do not need an image of a release chart. --Soetermans. T / C 13:50, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

@Lowtrucks: I'm removing legacy and the rewording again. It hasn't "inspired" sequels that have the same gameplay elements. You can add a table of a release chart, the image has no place. If you don't want to add it, fine, but it still fails WP:VGIMAGES. --Soetermans. T / C 15:04, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

User:7&6=thirteen, I've tried talking to Lowtrucks repeatedly. I'm saying put into a list or table, because a picture of a series chart fails WP:VGIMAGES. but their only two responses here are right here, saying it is relevant. Lowtrucks has a total of 119 edits, most of those concern Bubble Bobble. The image in question was also created by them. I'm saying this is ownership by Lowtrucks. --Soetermans. T / C 15:11, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I brought back Bubble Bobble Series chart. Now it's in SVG format, so can be easily text-edited, if needed. Lowtrucks (talk) 02:24, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

We have a template for video game timeline. The image is not really necessary, and it is not user-friendly. (text is small, all CAPS, no wikilink, confusing etc) @Lowtrucks: What is stopping from creating a new page Bubble Bobble (series)? You can go ahead and create one, and list all the Bubble Bobble official and licensed games there. (supported by reliable sources, of course) AdrianGamer (talk) 15:57, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Apparently, there's more. Lowtrucks actually keeps making these unnecessary tables. --Soetermans. T / C 08:49, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

@Sergecross73:, sorry to bother you with this, but after bringing Lowtrucks to AN, the article was only protected for a little while. They're still re-adding their unencyclopedic image of a release table, despite offering other options to include the information. I'm saying this is ownership. --Soetermans. T / C 11:29, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh, they've made similar release tables for other articles. Should we just delete them and be done with it?

• I'll be blunt and up front about this. These charts look crap and should be removed. You can't see a damn thing on them when they are on the article, even when zoomed in to maximum on a web browser. They are totally useless. --The1337gamer (talk) 22:46, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you @The1337gamer:, I couldn't agree more. I'm not familiar with deletion of Wikimedia files though, do you happen to know how get this deleted? --Soetermans. T / C 10:57, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: and @The1337gamer:, any idea how to delete the chart images? --Soetermans. T / C 13:15, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't really go on the Commons often, see if they fall under some criteria here Commons:Deletion policy. --The1337gamer (talk) 12:46, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bubble Bobble. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160919022109/http://www.arcade-gear.com/Press/Gamest/Gamest.htm to http://www.arcade-gear.com/Press/Gamest/Gamest.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:17, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Bubble Bobble (series) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 18:07, 17 February 2024 (UTC)