Talk:Ultimate Marvel vs. Capcom 3

Ultimate Marvel Vs. Capcom merger

Shouldn't this be kept with the original game? Super Street Fighter 4 never got asseverate article from street fighter 4 right? Plus this article is so short it might as well stay with the main games article.

If you had bothered to check, there is an article for Super Street Fighter IV. And I believe that Ultimate is different enough from Vanilla to have its own article. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 13:32, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

UMvC3 cover art

http://www.google.co.id/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=ultimate+marvel+vs+capcom+cover+art&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&channel=suggest

Confirmed — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScottKazama (talk • contribs) 14:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

We know. We just need an OK-to-use picture. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 14:30, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm having trouble finding a platform-neutral photo. Can I simply crop the image a bit, or is that against some sort of regulation? Also, if we can't get a good picture of the box art up, why not just use the Ultimate Marvel vs. Capcom 3 logo on their main website? WANI ^♪♫♪ 22:52, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I doubt this is going to be the final cover; seems like it's just Shinkiro placeholder art. Still, we can always replace it if need be. I'd say just crop the console logo off the PS3 version, and that'll do nicely. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 23:21, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

So which do you think is the better choice? Replaceable box art or official logo? WANI ^♪♫♪ 23:50, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, I went ahead and uploaded the Shinkiro box art. Good enough? WANI ^♪♫♪ 00:24, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 00:37, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

So, do you think we can switch back to the Shinkiro art or show both covers because quite frankly, this new cover looks ugly.Jalamala (talk) 01:11, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I've read on Unity that the Shinkiro art will be on front as the "main" cover art, but we don't really have to change it. And it can't really be removed because it's "ugly". TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 02:32, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Really? Because I was led to believe it would be the other way around, with the Brooks art being the primary cover and the Shinkiro art being on the reverse. If the latter really was primary, I probably wouldn't have changed it. (But yeah, "it's ugly" isn't an excuse...) -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 02:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes. The blog said "The front of the game's coversheet will feature the art of Shinkiro." I think we can keep this image for now, but when we find another image of Shinkiro's box art with the game's rating, then we should probably switch it back - for identification purposes. WANI ^♪♫♪ 03:18, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

reception

Reception has a paragraph on criticism. I think it's missing something obvious: the fact that the game was released 6 months AFTER a fully priced BETA version. There's also the fact that people wanted Strider in the first version, only to be told he didn't fit in, and then told he fits in perfectly in UMVSC3. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.41.215.163 (talk) 03:18, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

You are welcome to add to the reception section, as long as you have a good source. Yes, I think your first point is a concern raised in many reviews, so that would be fine to address. However, I believe adding stuff about character inclusion would become too subjective, so we should stray away from that kind of criticism. WANI ^♪♫♪ 03:36, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Licensing Issues

My understanding is that the digital version of the game was removed from PSN/XBox stores due to licensing issues, which is also the reason why we haven't seen a MvC4. Can anyone add an acceptable source, as I can't find one, and I think it's a pretty important part of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki-kun (talk • contribs) 05:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

As far as I know, no sources exist that explicitly state that there were licensing issues. All that was reported on was Capcom removing them from the PSN/Xbox stores. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 15:31, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Reassessment

Came here via the reassessment request in the talk page template; bumping this article up to B-class after the recent revamp. While normally I'd give some pointers to further improve the article, at this point I'd basically have to do a GA review- and in fact I urge you strongly to go ahead and nominate this article at WP:GAN. A couple minor points that I noticed, though- you're not supposed to put punctuation inside of a quote unless you're quoting a full sentence, which means all the quotes in reception lik highlighting the series' "unique blend of structured insanity." should be 'highlighting the series' "unique blend of structured insanity".', etc. Also, ref 46 has the wrong title (since it's currently a copy of ref 45). Good job! --PresN 19:13, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ultimate Marvel vs. Capcom 3/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: AdrianGamer (talk · contribs) 17:10, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Body

• Similar to its predecessor - Predecessor or predecessors?
• a crossover fighting game co-developed by Capcom and Eighting. - Which one is the lead developer?
  • I believe it's Capcom, but how exactly should I word the sentence? Wani (talk) 04:40, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Something like "Ultimate Marvel vs. Capcom 3 is a fighting video game developed by Capcom in collaboration with Eighting."
      • I just put down what you wrote. Wani (talk) 19:28, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
• After the events of the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami disrupted the development schedule for downloadable content for the original game, the additional content was created into a standalone title for a discounted retail price. - Is the standalone title Ultimate Marvel vs. Capcom 3? The lead does not mention about it.
• The game utilizes the same tag team-based fighting mechanics as its predecessor - Does previous installments include this features? If they are, it should be in plural form.
• Since it is an updated version, I would prefer the gameplay section to focus more on the new features introduced instead of the old features in Fate of Two Worlds. I recommend you to condense it. A great example for this would be the gameplay section of The Last of Us Remastered.
  • I tried condensing it a little bit, without sacrificing too much flow. Is this good, or should I keep trimming the section? Wani (talk) 04:45, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
    • It is better now. You can further highlight the differences between the two versions if you plan to promote the article to FA. AdrianGamer (talk) 05:24, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
• The “X-Factor” mechanic, which grants increased damage output, speed, and health regeneration for a limited time upon activation, also reappears - Then when it was introduced?
• remained available for download up until all DLC content for the game was removed from online stores in December 2013, as well as the last paragraph of the development section - Is there a reason why it was removed?
  • There's a lot of speculation regarding this, but neither Marvel nor Capcom have gone on record explaining the reason for their removal. Wani (talk) 17:02, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
• The second paragraph of the playable characters section sounds like something from the development section instead.
• The update, titled Ultimate Marvel vs. Capcom 3, would add new characters, stages, modes, story elements, and other enhancements to improve the game's balance and online functionality. - Both the Ultimate Marvel vs. Capcom 3 and Fate of Two Worlds articles do not mention anything about the game's story, or even setting.
• At the 2011 Tokyo Game Show, Capcom video game producer, Yoshinori Ono - Wikilink Yoshinori Ono
• Did Capcom released the planned DLC for Fate of Two Worlds alongside with Ultimate Marvel vs. Capcom 3? If it is, it isn't represent clearly in the article.
  • The planned DLC for Fate of Two Worlds was packaged with Ultimate Marvel vs. Capcom 3. Any additional DLC beyond that was released only for Ultimate, and not the original. Wani (talk) 17:39, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
• Information with the pre-order bonuses, Costume Pack, the game being delisted, can be split to a "Release" section.
• Besides the lead, the article never mention when the game was released.
  • Got another question. The official North American release date for the PlayStation Vita version is February 22, 2012, the same date as the console's official launch. However, those who ordered the limited edition bundle were able to get the game on February 15, a whole week earlier. Which date do I list in the infobox? Maybe both? Wani (talk) 05:45, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
    • You should use the main release date in the infobox, while the limited bundle release date can also be mentioned in the infobox with the use of notelist, similar to Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare. AdrianGamer (talk) 05:51, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
• IGN's Steven Hopper complimented the graphics, stating - You can just call him "Hopper", as his full name was mentioned before.

References

• It is The Escapist publishing source 2, 36 and 32, not The Escapist.
• You should use the work field for Source 7 as The Guardian is a magazine.
• The original publisher for Source 8, 34 and 25 was Joystiq, not Engadget.
• You should use the work field for Source 40 as Polygon is a website
• iPLAYWINNE and Eventhubs are not reliable sources
• You should use the work field for Source 52 as Game Informer is a magazine
• You should use the work field for Source 53 as GamePro is a magazine
• There is really a lot of primary sources used in this article. Source 3, 5, 10, 16, 18, 22, 23, 26, 35, 38, 39, 63, 64 are all primary sources. You need to find replacement for them. Cut the number of primary sources to only 6 or 7.
  • Done. If I counted correctly, there should be about six primary sources remaining. Wani (talk) 04:34, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Images

• Change the current template to Template:Non-free use rationale video game cover for File:UMvC3 Alternate Cover.jpg and File:UMvC3 Cover.jpg. Create a talk page for the alternate cover file
• Don't leave some fields n.a. in File:UMvC3 screenshot.png. It does not have a |image has rationale=yes tag in the licensing section as well.

Review

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and y:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Generally speaking it is a well-written article. However, the article's over-reliance on primary sources is relatively severe here. AdrianGamer (talk) 12:59, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

• All current issues have been addressed. Any other concerns/suggestions for improvement? Wani (talk) 13:37, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
  • With all the issues addressed. Article Ultimate Marvel vs. Capcom 3 is ready to promote to status. Congratulations! AdrianGamer (talk) 15:53, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ultimate Marvel vs. Capcom 3. 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/20111017072800/http://www.comicsalliance.com/2011/10/15/ultimate-marvel-vs-capcom-3-panel-nycc-2011/ to http://www.comicsalliance.com/2011/10/15/ultimate-marvel-vs-capcom-3-panel-nycc-2011/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121010075248/http://www.capcom.co.jp/ir/english/business/million.html to http://www.capcom.co.jp/ir/english/business/million.html

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) 22:27, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Ultimate Marvel vs. Capcom 3. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.1up.com/reviews/ultimate-marvel-vs-capcom-3-ps3-xbox360
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304212854/http://www.gamesradar.com/ultimate-marvel-vs-capcom-3-review/ to http://www.gamesradar.com/ultimate-marvel-vs-capcom-3-review/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110723212954/http://www.marvelvscapcom3.com/us to http://marvelvscapcom3.com/us/

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) 08:08, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ultimate Marvel vs. Capcom 3. 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/20150626155610/http://marvel.com/news/video_games/16654/marvel_and_capcom_unveil_new_ultimate_marvel_vs_capcom_3_box_art to http://marvel.com/news/video_games/16654/marvel_and_capcom_unveil_new_ultimate_marvel_vs_capcom_3_box_art

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) 12:12, 21 January 2018 (UTC)