# Talk:Marvel vs. Capcom 3: Fate of Two Worlds

Add another category to page
Goodsson2 (talk) 12:06, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

 Not done. Specify what category you want. TheStickMan[✆Talk] 13:42, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

So we know for a fact Capcom's going to be revealing something at Comic-Con this week, and the rumor being paraded by multiple sites is that of a "Super" style expansion. In addition, Lupinko, the guy who leaked the entire MvC3 roster months in advance, claims he's going to be revealing the whole roster even before Capcom's panel. Between these two things, whether or not either proves to be true, there's inevitably going to be a lot of false or unverifiable info added to this page by anons and registered users alike, if not outright defacement depending on how things develop. Given this page's history of vandalism, should we request protection for MvC3 and MvC Series now, or wait and see how things pan out? -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 00:47, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

We might as well wait. I remember asking for protection in advance for some other page and was told to wait until things got serious before asking again. TheStickMan[✆Talk] 01:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
So, the artwork of the other eight characters was leaked (or at least what appears to be the actual artwork). What do we do now? WaninokoZ♪♫♪ 18:11, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
First of all, WHERE ARE THEY I WANT TO SEE THEM SO BADLY FULL OF HYPE RIGHT NOW. Second of all, I think we're going to have to wait until official reveals, as usual. Maybe I'll add a warning. TheStickMan[✆Talk] 18:22, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Check out Eventhubs. It's on their front page. WaninokoZ♪♫♪ 18:24, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
First thing's first: semi-protection and a warning on the page until we make a decision. We don't want anons constantly adding those guys if we don't want 'em on yet. As for the newbies, it's DEFINITELY official art, as it was taken FROM Capcom's website. Normally I'd say no since we've never added leaked content before, but this is PRETTY significant, almost as bad as when Magneto and MODOK leaked. For now, I think we should keep 'em off until Capcom puts the official word out, but we should probably look into policy about this sort of thing further. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 18:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
I'll get around to requesting protection, but I wanted to ask: Are we going to separate Ultimate into its own article and request protection for that? Or should I just request protection for Vanilla MvC3? TheStickMan[✆Talk] 18:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Protection for Vanilla is a must in either case. As for a separate article, between the new characters, stages, and feature set like spectator, there might be enough to justify it. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 18:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Right, it's done. Hopefully an admin will take pity on us. TheStickMan[✆Talk] 18:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
...okay, putting a new twist on the situation, IGN's reporting on the leaked characters. Since they're obviously established as a legit source for VG stuff by Wiki standards, do we add the characters now and use them as the citation, or continue to leave 'em off? -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 18:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
They did say that "Capcom has not confirmed these as final." They admit that these aren't official. I still think we should wait. TheStickMan[✆Talk] 18:50, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
By the way, the protection request was rejected. I'll have to wait until things start getting disruptive before I ask again. TheStickMan[✆Talk] 23:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Capcom's acknowledged the leak and confirmed its legitimacy. Given the circumstances, I think it's okay to add them. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 00:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Anyone know if Shuma-Gorath and Jill are still DLC characters, or are they included on-disc? When I was watching the Ultimate MvC3 Live Stream, they weren't on the selection screen.WaninokoZ♪♫♪ 03:19, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
The UMvC3 reveal trailer has them as DLC still. TheStickMan[✆Talk] 03:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Came here via the reassessment request in the talk page template. Bumping this up to B-class; some suggestions for improvement are below.

The table in Playable characters seems odd, since it creates so much white space in the text, but now that I look at Tatsunoko vs. Capcom: Ultimate All-Stars I guess it's standard for fighting games. The sorting is still strange, though- if you just flip between the Marvel and Capcom columns, the Modok/Magneto lines just switch places- looks like 'M.O', because of the dot, should be before 'Mag'. Also, why are Marvel and Capcom italicized in the table?
"Similar to Street Fighter IV, Capcom's design philosophy for Marvel vs. Capcom 3" - this sentence is saying that the design philosophy is similar to the SF4 game (rather than to that game's design philosophy). Try rewording it.
Development doesn't really talk about the game's place in the series- i.e. that it's the 3rd MvC game, or the whateverth in the series as a whole. Other than not doing a arcade version, what changed between MvC2 and MvC3? (Or between MvC3 and whatever game was released last before it)
"Mad Engine, Inc." - Wikipedia doesn't use company types (inc., ltd.), so this should just be Mad Engine
I know some people do it, so this is just preference, but I don't see what the first mini-paragraph in reception adds- those numbers are already in the reviews table
Speaking of the table- GI's score formatting is off from the others, and you should consider adding how many reviews are included in the metascore (e.g. "86% (X360, 56 reviews)")
2-sentence paragraphs are frowned on; maybe consider combining the awards and sales paragraphs with the first "overall reception" paragraph, or at least with each other if you remove that one.
Is Capcom-Unity a reliable source? And if it is run by capcom, rather than as a fan website, are you using it reliably? I didn't poke too much, but I looked at ref 13 and it appeared to be a blog post with nothing saying who "jgonzo" was. If it is reliable, expect to have to defend it at GAN.
It's Capcom's community website, run by its employees (they write the blogs too)...so, I think it counts as reliable. Wani (talk) 20:28, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Other than that, this is pretty ready for GAN. The "medium" issues I mentioned were the whitespace around the table (I don't do fighting game articles, so I didn't know that was a common thing) and the Capcom-Unity cites. --PresN 18:29, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Marvel vs. Capcom 3: Fate of Two Worlds/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: AdrianGamer (talk · contribs) 16:18, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


### Comments
It is the fifth installment of the Marvel vs. Capcom franchise, the first in the series to be exclusive to consoles - Exclusive to consoles does not sound notable enough to be mentioned in the lead
Ryota Niitsuma, who had previously worked on Tatsunoko vs. Capcom: Ultimate All-Stars, and utilizes the same simplified three-button attack system. "Should be "which" instead of "and". (I am assuming Ultimate All Stars to have that simplified three-button attack)
More than 2 million units were shipped worldwide a month after its debut, rendering it a commercial success- by whom? (The publisher was not mentioned before)
 using characters with unique fighting styles and special attacks. and Each character has their own unique ending sequence - Personal opinion, not necessary for you to change it, but I prefer "different" instead of "unique". It sounds more neutral 
"snap backs", which force the current opponent off the screen and replaces them with one of their other teammates - should be "forces", if "snap backs" is a gameplay mechanic
Pick between "players" and "the player" for consistency
Other offline modes include Versus Mode, in which two players engage in combat; - Do they fight against each other or something? If it is, it can be represented more clearly
License Cards keep track of player tendencies based on fighting style, record player points and total number of wins and losses - should be "players'"
In regards to characters who did not originate from fighting games - Example?
As a result, several unplayable characters from the Marvel and Capcom universes, such as the ... make cameo appearances in the stages and Arcade Mode endings - can specify that it is the campaign stages.
The gap in the playable characters section does not look nice. If you could fill in more stuff to it, it would be better. If there is nothing that can be added, then just leave it there. 
The game was first publicly announced at Capcom's Captivate press show in Hawaii on April 20, 2010, after the company's imposed information embargo expired - "after the company's imposed information embargo expired" does not sound necessary. It is something that apply to all video games
The urge to reach out to new people also stemmed from the recent boom of Marvel characters as a result of their success in the - new players, not new people
Inafune is the "global head of production", not the president of Capcom
The release of the pack coincided with the release of the Shadow Battle DLC - Should be Shadow Battle DLC
What about reviewers' general impression on the game?
Could you clarify this for me? Is "Reviewers praised Marvel vs. Capcom 3 for its simplified, yet deep gameplay and diverse cast of characters" not enough in that regard? Wani (talk) 18:30, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
I mean reviewers' overall impression on the game. Whether the game as a whole is good or not. Something like "Marvel vs. Capcom 3: Fate of Two Worlds received critical acclaim." Then use the scores from Metacritic. Something similar to that of the first paragraph of the reception section of Injustice: Gods Among Us.
Ohhh, I see. Gotcha. Wani (talk) 04:34, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Shipping and selling is actually something different, so "the company announced that this expectation was met," should be removed
The workfield for all 1UP citations should be 1UP.com instead of simply 1UP
One source is a redirect, while 2 external links are dead
You should use the work field for Eurogamer, 1UP.com and Joystiq since these are websites and should be italicized according to MOS:TITLE.
Some close paraphrasing, especially with the WatchMojo source
Funny thing is, I'm 95% sure that WatchMojo actually copied from this very article a while back...which is another problem in and of itself. I've replaced it with another source, but should I still reword everything? Wani (talk) 17:36, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Source
These keep track of player tendencies based on their fighting style. [...] Cards also record player points and total number of wins and losses, and allow players to see the positive and negative points of their play styles.
Article
keep track of player tendencies based on fighting style, record player points and total number of wins and losses, and allow players to see the positive and negative points of their play styles.
Source
which is used to launch opponents into the air, swap characters while performing combos, and slam the opponent into the ground
Article
to launch opponents into the air, swap characters while performing a combo, and slamming opponents into the ground.


#### Review
Here is the review  
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

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: 

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section: 

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary: 

C. No original research: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 

B. Focused: 

Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 

Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 

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: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 

A great article. The only problem with the page is the close-paraphrasing I mentioned above. If they are fixed, the article is good to go!  AdrianGamer (talk) 04:25, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

If WatchMojo really copied from the article, then it is fine. With all other issues fixed, the article is good to go. Congratulations, Marvel vs. Capcom 3: Fate of Two Worlds promoted to GA. AdrianGamer (talk) 03:53, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Marvel vs. Capcom 3: Fate of Two Worlds. 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/20160305152323/http://www.1up.com/reviews/marvel-capcom-3-review?pager.offset=1 to http://www.1up.com/reviews/marvel-capcom-3-review?pager.offset=1
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: 5 June 2024).

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) 05:37, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Marvel vs. Capcom 3: Fate of Two Worlds. 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/20151108175848/http://www.1up.com/news/marvel-capcom-3-gameplay-details to http://www.1up.com/news/marvel-capcom-3-gameplay-details
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151123120939/http://www.1up.com/previews/capcom-finally-unveils-marvel-capcom to http://www.1up.com/previews/capcom-finally-unveils-marvel-capcom
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: 5 June 2024).

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) 04:13, 20 January 2018 (UTC)