# Talk:Marvel vs. Capcom 2: New Age of Heroes

Came here via the reassessment request in the talk page template; bumping this up to B-class. Some suggestions for improvement follow:

It's not immediately clear in Gameplay, unlike the lead, that this game is the sequel to Clash of Super Heroes- you just start comparing the two with only the names to suggest a relationship. This is especially an issue since it's actually the fourth game in the series, and there's no indication of that until the development section
"However, assists come with a drawback; assist characters receive extra damage if stuck by the opponent." - don't start a sentence with however unless you are directly contrasting two things; in this case the fact that assists exist and the fact that they have drawbacks are two facts about assists, not two contraeassting things.
"The arcade version of Marvel vs. Capcom 2 included an experience system" - it still does include one, so present tense
The gamerankings/metacritic section of the reviews table has the reviews scores in... score order? I'd think that date order or alpha order would make more sense. Also, optionally consider adding "(xx reviews)" to each lines to let readers know how many reviewers are included in the aggregate- e.g. "90% (DC, 29 reviews)[51]".
You can skate by with in at GAN, but for a game from 2000 I'd expect to see some reviews from magazine/offline sources- it's pretty noticable in the reviews table, especially, that you're limited on reviews for the different versions because you're restricting it to online reviews. The VG reference library can help, and JimmyBlackwing's guide to sourcing video game articles is a great resource for how to get scans of magazines. This will be a hard blocker for any video game article at FAC from 2000 or earlier.
Ref 28 has the author's name backwards
Basically, though, you're good to go for GAN- you know what you're doing by now with these Vs. articles. Have fun! --PresN 01:59, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Marvel vs. Capcom 2: New Age of Heroes/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Anarchyte (talk · contribs) 02:14, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
I'll do this. Anarchyte 02:14, 5 July 2015 (UTC)


### Main review
#### Overall comments/Misc
Copyvio rating: 45.1%% chance of violation of this page.
This is fine as most of the violated contents are basic words ("Marvel vs. Capcom 2: New Age of Heroes", "Super Street Fighter II Turbo HD Remix", etc).
I suggest you install the duplicate link finder thing and remove some of the undue hyperlinks.


#### Lead
Marvel vs. Capcom 2 is the first game in the franchise to utilize 2.5D graphics; although the character artwork uses traditional 2D-animated sprites, the backgrounds and visual effects are rendered in 3D.
Could this be worded a little differently? Such as; "The character artwork uses traditional 2D-animated sprites, the backgrounds and visual effects are rendered in 3D. This made Marvel vs. Capcom 2 the first game in the franchise to feature 2.5D graphics".
You might wanna hyperlink "2.5D" as some people may not know what it is.


#### Gameplay
Assists come with a drawback; assist characters receive extra damage if stuck by the opponent.
Remove the "Assists come with a drawback;" section, it seems out of place and unnecessary.
Marvel vs. Capcom 2: New Age of Heroes contains a roster of 56 playable characters.
The reference says it's 55 and an "alternate costume". You may want to change that, just personal preference.


#### Development
"The game was the first in the Marvel vs. Capcom series to combine hand-drawn two-dimensional sprites with three-dimensional backgrounds".
"The game was the first in the Marvel vs. Capcom series to combine hand-drawn two-dimensional sprites upon three-dimensional backgrounds" may be better.
I can't find this statement in the reference.
It's on the second page. MvC2 effectively combines hand-drawn two-dimensional sprites with cartoon-like three-dimensional backgrounds. Wani (talk) 04:28, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
The 4th paragraph seems very reliant on one reference.


#### Release
Everything is fine here 


#### Reception
I fixed the only minor error here.


#### Sequel
Everything is fine here 


### Overall 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 lists: 

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:  (Pass)

This is very close to a good article. After these errors are fixed I'll have no problems with passing it. Anarchyte 08:31, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I have two additional comments. Source 2 is an unreliable source. MobyGames should not be used. You should also use the work field (|work=) for 1UP.com, Polygon and Eurogamer instead of the publisher field (|publisher=) as they are websites and should be italicized according to MOS:TITLES. AdrianGamer (talk) 16:20, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
@AdrianGamer: Just a quick verification, would it be "|work=[[Engadget]]|publisher=[[AOL]]"? Anarchyte 00:24, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
With MOS:TITLE, Online magazines, newspapers, and news sites with original content should generally be italicized , so, if Engadget is a website of similar style, it should be italicized. AdrianGamer (talk) 02:56, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
@AdrianGamer: Is it safe to pass the review now? Wani has fixed all the issues I stated in the review. As for MobyGames, it's only being used for release dates, wouldn't it be fine to use? Anarchyte 03:33, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
MobyGames features user-submitted content. There may be some inaccuracies. So, no, it should not be used, even just for release dates. AdrianGamer (talk) 04:01, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Drat...it's gonna be a nightmare trying to find articles verifying the earlier dates. Oh well. I'll start looking. Wani (talk) 04:32, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
IGN lists the release dates in the 'Game Details' sections on the sides of their reviews, such as here and here. Is that okay to use? Wani (talk) 04:42, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, these could be used. AdrianGamer (talk) 06:43, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
I've successfully replaced MobyGames with other sources (easier than I thought it'd be). Still need to replace the publishers with work fields. Wani (talk) 19:02, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Done. Wani (talk) 20:12, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Issue 7 of Official Dreamcast Magazine, from September/October 2000, contains a review of the game that can be found here. Everyone is allowed to add it if desires to do so; I'll just tage Wani because I know he or she has a particular interest on it. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 02:36, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Marvel vs. Capcom 2: New Age of Heroes. 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/20150526011309/http://marvel.com/news/video_games/18576/marvel_vs_capcom_2_mobile_app_announced to http://marvel.com/news/video_games/18576/marvel_vs_capcom_2_mobile_app_announced
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150701021452/http://marvel.com/news/video_games/8427/marvel_vs_capcom_2_showdown_spotlight_amingo_vs_blackheart to http://marvel.com/news/video_games/8427/marvel_vs_capcom_2_showdown_spotlight_amingo_vs_blackheart
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150206203933/http://marvel.com/news/video_games/7770/marvel_vs_capcom_2_returns to http://marvel.com/news/video_games/7770/marvel_vs_capcom_2_returns
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151106052108/http://www.screwattack.com/reviews/review-marvel-vs-capcom-2-iphone to http://www.screwattack.com/reviews/review-marvel-vs-capcom-2-iphone
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
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
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) 04:12, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Was the arcade version released in the West? Stein256 (talk) 00:19, 17 February 2024 (UTC)