Jump to content

Talk:Tatsunoko vs. Capcom: Ultimate All-Stars/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

The Page Title

Seeing that the title include "Ultimate All-Stars", I made some changes to the page, only to have them reverted because despite the title, the page include info for BOTH the Ultimate All-Stars and Cross Generation of Heroes versions of TvC. So shouldn't the page simply be called "Tatsunoko vs. Capcom"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.59.25.219 (talk) 01:16, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 09:02, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Tatsunoko vs. Capcom: Ultimate All-Stars → Tatsunoko vs. Capcom — This article covers so much about both the CGoH and UAS versions of this game that I think that just "Tatsunoko vs. Capcom" would be a better title. Or separate articles could be made, but then that would be too much. Thoughts, anyone? Especially from you, FullMetal Falcon (if you're reading this), since you're focusing on this article at the moment. The Stick Man (talk) 23:18, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Based on title policy, this doesn't seem warranted. Also, its still a work-in-progress, so future copyedits may shift focus further away from CGoH. « ₣M₣ » 00:16, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Makes sense. Never mind, then. The Stick Man (talk) 03:40, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Checking up...

User:FullMetal Falcon asked me to give this article a look-through, so here I am:

  • Lead:
    • I don't see the need for the Japanese (タツノコ VS. CAPCOM CROSS GENERATION OF HEROES) element.
    • "In accordance with both the Wii and prior Vs. series entries, the game features a simpler control scheme than other games of its genre."—"In accordance" doesn't mean much. I assume that it's simpler because of the Wii's motion controls, but it's not clear.
    • "speculated the commercial repercussions of releasing it for a different platform."—speculated what about it being released for a different platform? That it would do better? Worse? It did poorly because it wasn't on multiple platforms?
  • Gameplay:
    • "...among other things".—If it's important enough to mention, mention it explicitly, otherwise leave it out.
    • "players may perform normal, special and hyper moves, "—The linked terms aren't helping much. How about leaving it at "moves" that can be strung together? The later explanations do a much better job at introducing special and hyper attacks without the confusing wikilinks.
  • I think the [cn 1] note is going a little too far in explanation.
  • On a technical aspect, it probably makes more sense to just delink the footnotes present in the cast list, as they are most likely visible on the same screen and the jumping is more likely to confuse readers (you could also use symbols rather than numbers, like {{Star Trek: The Motion Picture set costs}}.
  • Development:
    • "when Tatsunoko Production asked Capcom to develop a game with their characters"—T.P. asked Capcom for permission to develop a game with Capcom's characters, or for Capcom to develop a game with their characters? This sentence needs to be cleared up.
    • "Taking into consideration the Wii's simplistic nature"—meaning what again?

Other than that not much stuck out for me. It could probably do with a copyediting pass, but there weren't glaring issues on my runthrough. For File:Tatsunoko vs Capcom Gamefight.jpg, you could probably get away with a slightly larger image, but you need to explain in the purpose what specific gameplay elements are being presented (if it's a facet that has a direct callout from a review, that's probably your most defensible option, so link it in the FUR). Cheers, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:02, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Character Table

I strongly disagree with the removal of the character table. Sure, it could afford to be a little cleaned up, but considering that the whole point of the Vs. Series is to let players fight using the major players of two different companies, it seems kind of silly not to actually include those characters as part of the article. Furthermore, almost every other fighting game article on Wikipedia includes a roster list, so it seems odd that this would be the only one left out.

Instead of just putting it back as is, though, I think it should be cleaned up so it only lists the characters on each side, not the series or voice actor, similar to the way it's set up on the Marvel vs. Capcom 3 page. Those who have character pages can link to them, and those without can just link to the page for their respective series. It gets the essential information across, and it doesn't take up a colossal amount of space or detract from the rest of the article. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 02:33, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Specifically, something like this...
Tatsunoko characters Capcom characters
Ken the Eagle Ryu
Jun the Swan Chun-Li
Casshan Alex
Tekkaman Morrigan Aensland
Polimar Batsu Ichimonji
Yatterman-1 MegaMan Volnutt
Karas Kaijin no Soki
Doronjo Roll
Hakushon Daimaō†‡ Saki Omokane†
Ippatsuman† Viewtiful Joe†
Gold Lightan PTX-40A
Tekkaman Blade†§ Frank West†§
Joe the Condor†§ Zero†§
Yatterman-2†§
† Wii-exclusive character
‡ Exclusive to Cross Generation of Heroes
§ Exclusive to Ultimate All-Stars
Thoughts? -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 23:38, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
While the whole point of the game is to let players fight using the major players of two different companies, I disagree that the article needs it. Wikipedia is not meant to be a game guide. Such detail is typically found in game guides and instruction manuals. And just because other fighting game articles have character lists does not mean that that is the way to write them.
As you've already summed up, the point of the is let players fight using the major players of two different companies. Wikipedia's point is to convey that point in layman's terms, and summing it up in a single sentence does that. That being said, however, I think an external link could be added that lists every character. (Guyinblack25 talk 20:46, 7 March 2011 (UTC))
It looks like the Official site already in the external links section lists all the characters in the game. (Guyinblack25 talk 20:53, 7 March 2011 (UTC))
If there's no other comments, I plan to remove the list some time this week. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC))
I really don't think you should have taken this out, especially in a game like this, with characters from two different companies and several different TV shows and games. I actually logged in earlier today to find out more about where these different characters are from, and saw that it was missing. I also think it's very relevant since there are characters who were added in different versions, and that one was removed because of licensing issues.Legendman (talk) 00:34, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Just a comment on the site: There's no profile on Yatterman-2. Is that a problem or is it nothing big? Also, unless I'm reading this wrong, character lists for fighting games is game guide material? TheStickMan[✆Talk] 01:22, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
I'd say it's a problem, considering part of the reason behind removing the table was because the site provided a "complete list"... -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 04:51, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
The relevant characters are explicitly mentioned in the article. The others were apparently not as notable by comparison. Given that virtually every game guide and manual I've seen for a fighting game has a character list, I'd say yes that such content is game guide material. That level of detail only benefits gamers, but is needless, and is some times clutter, to the layman. I'm sorry that the article is not as useful to gamers anymore, but the official website in the external link provides the information you seek. (Guyinblack25 talk 04:04, 27 March 2011 (UTC))
I'm holding the TvC manual in my hand as I type this; none of the five characters who appear in the Ultimate All-Stars version are even mentioned in it (IIRC, the same is true of Cross Generation of Heroes' Wii manual), nor are they identified on this page, and as mentioned before, at least one character is missing from the official website. Furthermore, according to WP:VGSCOPE, character lists don't fall under the banner of "Inappropriate content". I also really doubt 26 characters, when organized by parent company and series, is "cluttered", especially compared to something with a roster size like MvC2 or the Budokai Tenkaichi series. In the end, is the fear of not reading like a manual really applicable when not even the manual contains that information? -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 05:15, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
A few things:
  • Whether this game's manual has the content or not is irrelevant because most other game manuals and (as far as I know) every game guide does.
  • Just because something is not explicitly discourage does not mean that the principle of the guideline does not apply. Per WP:NOTSTUPID, "Wikipedia is not a very long list of terrible ideas. We cannot anticipate every bad idea any one of us might have."
However, given that some of the characters were added to the US release, I does make sense to mention them in the localization section. Especially since some gaming sites covered the addition.[2][3] But a full list is still something that I think unneeded. Such level of detail is a benefit to gamers, but adds unnecessary information to the layman. (Guyinblack25 talk 14:52, 28 March 2011 (UTC))
Since this game also includes a lot of characters that never or rarely appear in video games, including a list of the characters not only benefits gamers but also fans of the Tatsunoko side of characters. And saying now that whether the manual contains a character list or not is irrelevant is a bit weird since you brought it up and use it as justification for removal. Also saying that all relevant characters were included in the article is doubtful, since this was probably written with the knowledge that a character list was also included. Furthermore since the inclusion of characters varies from arcade to japanese home console to international release, a character table is a fairly easy way to show these changes. It would not make much sense to not mention the standard cast of characters but then list the additional characters under the localization section.IchiGhost (talk) 10:49, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Replies to your points:
  1. I understand your desire to include the characters, but according to your comments (and everyone else's above), the motivation is for fans of the game or the related games and cartoons. And our audience is more than just the fans. I still maintain that such details are excess for the layman. Summary style works best for the layman to understand the topic.
  2. In regard to the game manual, I brought up all game manuals in a generalization. For every game manual you show me that doesn't include characters, I'm sure I can show you more that do. Regardless, such content is in about every game strategy guide I've seen. So even if I'm wrong about what I said about game manuals, do you think I'm wrong about game guides?
  3. I didn't write the article, so I'm not sure one way or the other. You can ask the primary contributor if you like.
  4. The easiest way to show that the different versions have different sets of characters is to say "the different versions have different sets of characters" in the prose. The full details of the changes are more a concern to gamers and fans than the to layman.
  5. I think it makes sense to mention the new characters because they were not originally included. Similar to how Hakushon Daimaō, Phoenix Wright, and Franziska von Karma were omitted. They were design choices.
If the characters were essential to understanding the plot of the game, I'd say something different. But players pick characters because of their move set, which is purely gameplay oriented. As such, the real significance to them amounts to excessive gameplay details, which we avoid in our Wikipedia articles. With out any major differences to characters, it's easier to summarize them.
Something to consider if you'd like to find a way to include the character information. If you can find development information about them, then you can mention them in the "Development" section by describing the design choices Capcom made. That's something I did in Robotron: 2084 with a section for "Enemy designs". Maybe FMF stumbled upon that information in his research. (Guyinblack25 talk 14:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC))
Players do not only pick characters based on their movesets, but also, especially if they are laymen, based on just their looks or their affection for the character. Some even choose what games they buy based on the included characters, again especially laymen. On behalf of the game manuals, a lot these days do not include a cast listing anymore, although i can not speak on behalf of this game. Speaking of game guides, yes there are some that list the characters, however this sometimes just includes unlockable characters and almost never gives an overview over the cast depending on versions. Of course you are right, wikipedia's audience is broader than just gamers and cartoon fans. However if we exclude all information that may exceed a laymans knowledge, we could shorten the article by half. Is a layman going to care which game modes are included or what characters were left out because of design choices? Doubtful. Should the included combo options be listed, since this is material that surely is covered in game manuals and guides too? This is all just a question on how low you set a laymans interest and level of knowledge.IchiGhost (talk) 15:21, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Correct, players do not only pick characters based on their movesets. Some players pick based on looks or affection. However, the more a player plays, the choice gravitates to more utilitarian purposes. Players retain characters based on what they believe to be effective to win matches. It eventually boils down to move sets and the gameplay aspects. So while I agree with you that aspects other than pure gameplay dictate character choice, I don't believe that holds true in long term and wide-spread usage.
I think we have different definition of a "layman". I don't mean gamers not interested in fighting games. I mean people that don't play games regularly. While I understand that gamers want to know this stuff, Wikipedia is not a gaming website, and its audience is much broader than that of gamers. We have to tailor the article to everyone.
The combo information is included because some basic gameplay information is necessary for comprehensiveness. It is summarized, just like the character information. The basics of all the game's aspects are covered in the article, just not in the detail that fans are happy with. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC))
Since you agree that only advanced players base the usage of their character on movesets and it is clear that a layman chooses a character just from stuff like name and appearance, including character information is therefore useful to him. And i too mean people who do not play video games regularly when i say layman. When i invite someone to play who rarely or never plays, he or she is not gonna care that a "player may complement an air combo by switching characters in mid-air to increase damage" or that you can do a "Baroque Combo". They are more likely going to care which characters they can choose. If for example, a mother comes here because her kid wants this game is not going to care if Phoenix Wright was not included because of design restrictions. Just like you call stuff like combos and modes "basic gameplay information" some people will argue that listing all available characters is basic information to them. You said we have to tailor the article to everyone, but that therefore also includes fans. Listing playable characters is neither excessive nor does it make wikipedia a gaming website. IchiGhost (talk) 19:47, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
In regard to "advanced players", that is not what I said. Most every player initially picks the character arbitrarily. However, as the playtime increases, choices are based more on effectiveness. This is the case for advanced, intermediate, and beginner players.
Regardless, I believe that you are approaching this from the stand point that the reader intends to either play or buy the game. Wikipedia is not intended to function as advertisement, a buying guide, or game consultant. While I concede that this does still happens, it cannot supersede the site's primary function.
Yes some laymen do play games, but an encyclopedia is written from the layman's perspective to ensure that the topic is understood. Knowing every character in the game does not further the basic understanding of the topic. Even though fans are part of the audience, it is impossible to cater to everyone's needs and wants because some run counter to others. We find a suitable middle ground that mainly on the grounds for comprehensiveness.
Again, I understand were you're coming from. I considered this version of Victorious Boxers: Ippo's Road to Glory to be what a video game article should look like. I even agree with you that it would be helpful and convenient to be able to go to Wikipedia and find such information. Hell, I still check sometimes in the hopes that the content hasn't been removed. But that's not what the site is shooting for. We're on Wikipedia's playground, and we have to play by its rules.
In summary, aiding players pick characters or consumers buy a game are not sufficient reasons to add excess details like a character list to the article. Sorry, but I'm not convinced it's the appropriate thing to do. (Guyinblack25 talk 21:26, 30 March 2011 (UTC))
I am curious how you define an advanced player then. As his playtime increases a player can hardly be called beginner. I neither intend to buy nor play the game, yet it interests me what characters are included in the game. Then again, i am no layman. Furthermore since you so rightfully said, wikipedia is written from a laymans perspective but why do you believe a layman would consider listing advanced combo possibilities and never realized characters, yet exclude characters that do appear in the game? Both informations are hardly furthering the "basic knowledge" on the subject. Right now, every fighting game article i checked out features a character listing. Surely this does not mean it is the right way to write an article, it just strikes me as odd that this here is the one article where it is inappropriate. IchiGhost (talk) 22:56, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Why would someone who is uninformed about the subject care about what characters are included? As is, the main site sufficiently provides information on the characters. Wikipedia needn't provide such information. As for the notion that no one would care about the exclusion of Phoenix Wright, this would ring true for all development information. In theory, no layman would care about how it was created. However, it provides important history about the game and its development and production. The list of characters is only of value to people who know what they are. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 23:17, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
This is like the only traditional fighting game that has reached FA-class, I wouldn't use others as examples. Also, not all techniques are mentioned, just the ones most commonly used and discussed by critics. That doesn't mean the section is perfectly balanced though. « ₣M₣ » 23:21, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
I think this would've been avoided if this series had its own page, then dump such lists onto it. What's our stance on that? Is that acceptable—like what the Smash Bros. series page has? SSBB has its own character list there, so whatever its worth :P , I added one to the TvC boxart. « ₣M₣ » 23:21, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
I believe that no franchise fighter should have a characters list. Games like Mortal Kombat and Street Fighter get away with it because they can have a traditional character list, while MvC, SSB, and TvC consists of characters that couldn't have a list together. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 23:34, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
You say developement information is something no layman would care about, but say it is important. Yet you use the point that no uninformed reader would care about selectable characters as justification for its removal. Who decides what information is important? Especially in a game like TvC, where characters that rarely appear in game like the Tatsunoko characters, or characters that never appear in the same game together, like the Capcom side, such information is something i would consider important. IchiGhost (talk) 10:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
I say that because Development has strong links to fan interest. However, the section is there because Development sections are necessary to give a complete and accurate history of the game's creation - this is vital content to any such product as a video game, film, or book, for the readers to understand how the product came to be. It is not important, however, to list what characters are in a game, as the only importance such a list could possibly have is as a reference table for fans with a vested interest in the subject. Your last point points away from important more simply to interesting, and we don't include based on how interesting something seems to be. Using your argument of inconsistency in featuring development information but not characters, why not also include stages? The stages often have visual and audio themes to them that would cause great interest in having such a list on this article. The only difference between stages and characters is that we decided that stages were not important to be included. The only difference between stages and characters is related to gameplay, in particular movesets, which qualifies as game guide content. We can use the same reason for why we removed stages for why we removed the characters. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 10:38, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
The whole basis of this game is the coming together of characters owned by different companies, therefore saying which characters appear is important. This does not hold up to stages. It is also weird that apparently covering how a game came to be requires intricate detail, while what eventually ended up in the product is not as important. It just makes no sense covering what characters were left out, but say which characters actually made it into the game is unimportant. Again, is it important that Phoenix Wright did not make it? Is it vital for an uninformed reader to know that this character was left out? No, it is just interesting.IchiGhost (talk) 14:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
We're starting to get off on tangents. If you want to discuss the merits of a development section and real world information about a game, feel free to continue the discuss on my talk page.
I agree that an important aspect of the game was that different characters are brought together. That piece of information is not omitted from the article and the reader can grasp it without knowing every character in the game. If characters were not mentioned at all, I'd agree. But a number of character are explicitly named as well as their original series. And as FMF pointed out, File:Tatsunoko Vs Capcom box artwork.jpg includes a list of characters. How will a full listing of the characters in the article further the idea that the game includes different Tatsunoko and Capcom characters? (Guyinblack25 talk 15:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC))
I am not against the development section, i am just pointing out that you defend intricate detail that might not interest uninformed readers in there, yet oppose detail elsewhere. IchiGhost (talk) 16:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Please forgive the misunderstanding then. A little history might be helpful.
Development and Reception sections were added to our articles when we took them to WP:FAC years ago. Reviewers commented that "real world information" was needed for true comprehensiveness. Prior to that, most game articles were basically well-written game guides and included information like levels, items, characters, story, etc. Such content has gradually been diminished in favor of real world information in the form of the game's production and reception. That is why you'll see more details in a section like the development because they took place outside the game in the actual development studio. This is all intended to write articles that meet Wikipedia's rules, which in turn are intended to create an encyclopedia. So while I agree that the information is interesting, such information still amounts to game guide information that we try to avoid for the various reasons mentioned throughout this thread.
That's not to say that there aren't ways to include the information anyway. File:Tatsunoko Vs Capcom box artwork.jpg and Robotron: 2084#Enemy designs are good examples for how to include it and still be within policies and guidelines. (Guyinblack25 talk 17:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC))
Would it be okay to expand the "Playable Characters" section then a bit to include all the video game/cartoon series that are featured? Or would that too be considered game guide material? — Preceding unsigned comment added by IchiGhost (talk • contribs) 19:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
I prefer summary style and think that three is plenty, but would include an extra series each from Capcom and Tatsunoko in the spirit of compromise. However, I'll leave that decision up to the article's primary contributor, FMF.
Here's a summary of the series and characters that are already in the article. Bolded names explicitly appear in the article.
  • Street Fighter
  • Mega Man (Zero and Roll)
  • Viewtiful Joe
  • Lost Planet: Extreme Condition (PTX-40A)
  • Rival Schools (Batsu)
  • Dead Rising (Frank West)
  • Golden Warrior Gold Lightan (Gold Lightan)
  • Gatchaman (Joe the Condor)
  • Yatterman (Doronjo and Yatterman 2)
  • Neo-Human Casshern (Casshan)
  • The Genie Family (Hakushon Daimaō)
  • Tekkaman Blade (Tekkaman Blade)
The series that are not mentioned either explicitly or via character name are:
  • Hurricane Polymar
  • Karas
  • Gyakuten! Ippatsuman
  • Tekkaman: The Space Knight (though I think the Blade mention should count for this too)
  • Darkstalkers
  • Onimusha
  • Quiz Nanairo Dreams
(Guyinblack25 talk 19:45, 31 March 2011 (UTC))

Because of the similar situation to here, I was hoping that I could get further input on Talk:Super Smash Bros. (series) about the inclusion of a characters list. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:35, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Re-evaluating the playable character list

I intend to restore a playable character list to this article, for the following reasons:

  1. There are other FA-class video game articles with lists of playable characters.
  2. Portions of the article are awkward to read without the reference of a character list.
  3. The Super Smash Bros. (series) article kept its character list after a discussion about removing it; it is unclear why the situation is different for this article.

I would be happy to discuss this with anyone who disagrees, so that we can achieve consensus. However, if there is no opposition, I will restore the list after a few days. JEB215 (talk) 02:59, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I have restored the character table. However, I'll be keeping tabs on the talk page, if anyone objects to the table and wants to discuss it. JEB215 (talk) 02:58, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
As noted in the section above- I disagree with such character lists. In response to your points:
  1. Please provide links to those FA-class video game articles.
  2. What portions of the article are awkward to read?
  3. Super Smash Bros. (series) is about the series as a whole rather than an individual game. The list was kept in the series article as a compromise. Part of the deal was to remove the lists from the individual game articles in the series. Also, it is a GA-class article, which does not have as high a quality standard as an FA would.
If you don't respond by tomorrow, I'll post at your talk page. (Guyinblack25 talk 21:46, 5 December 2011 (UTC))
Hello, I apologize for the delayed response. In response to your questions:
1. At least nine FA-class articles describe all of the playable characters in brief and link to other Wikipedia articles with further detail - Final Fantasy VI, Final Fantasy VIII, Final Fantasy IX, Final Fantasy X, Final Fantasy X-2, Final Fantasy XII, Final Fantasy XIII, Golden Sun, Planescape: Torment.
At least six others provide lesser detail on the characters, yet still link to Wikipedia articles that detail the playable characters - Kingdom_Hearts, Kingdom Hearts (video game), Kingdom Hearts: Chain of Memories, and Kingdom Hearts II (all linked to Characters of Kingdom Hearts) and Super Smash Bros. Melee and Super Smash Bros. Brawl (both linked to Super Smash Bros. playable characters).
Also of note is that Characters of Final Fantasy VIII is a FA-class article, and its only purpose is detailing the playable (and non-playable) characters of that game. (Compared to these, a simple list of characters, as restored to this article, seems quite modest!)
2. Three sections in particular read awkwardly without knowledge of all the playable characters.
First, the Playable Characters subsection itself, which seems to take a halfway step of noting some but not all of the characters' features and origins; it seems it would be simpler to list all of the characters, and allow readers to seek out further information on those characters and franchises in linked articles (as in the character table).
Second, the discussion of character selection (under Development), which notes omitted characters, but fails to list any of the characters that were retained. It is harder to understand deletions when you have no idea what was included.
Third, the Localization subsection, which notes the characters that were added for the North American release; it seems odd that a description of added characters is notable, but a description of the characters in the original version of the game is not.
3. Respectfully, I did not get the impression that any compromise was involved - instead, the discussion page seemed to indicate a consensus to keep the character list. If this compromise was constructed on a different discussion page, I would appreciate a link so that I may read it. Further, although the Smash Bros. series article is GA-class, two of its component games are FA-class (as noted above) and both of those link to the article with the character list.
In short, I believe character lists are useful because they give greater context for the rest of the article, as well as providing a simple way to enable further research by interested parties. Omitting such an element adds unnecessary difficulty in using the article as a reference.
I shall endeavor to keep tabs on my talk page so that my next response will be faster. JEB215 (talk) 03:57, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Responses to your points:
  1. Every article listed above is a role-playing game that has a lengthy plot. Any article about a work of fiction requires plot information to be comprehensive, and a basic understanding of the main characters is part of that. It just so happens that in video games, the main characters are typically playable (the goal is not to detail the playable characters, but provide an overview of the plot). Regardless, none of them present the information in a list but rather in prose to give context to the plot.
    Fighting games typically have a very simple plot that is not as heavily character dependent and such detail does not further the reader's understanding.
  2. Awkward sections:
    1. You didn't explain why the "Playable characters" subsection reads awkwardly. Is it because you expect an exhaustive list? (Which by the way, is located at File:Tatsunoko Vs Capcom box artwork.png, per a suggestion in the section above.)
    2. Examples of what was included are mentioned in the "Playable characters" section and elsewhere in the article.
    3. The characters described there are to explain the differences between the regional releases and describe the localization process. If the process didn't add new characters, then none would be discussed. What do you suggest to help make this more clear to the reader?
  3. I am looking for the archived discussion. I was not a part of it (or the last discussion to try to remove the list), and will have to ask someone else.
  4. Another response to a common point you mentioned in two of yours- Whether the articles link to another article about characters is irrelevant. Articles are meant to be written in a summary style, which naturally leads itself to not every detail being mentioned (or if the topic is notable and can be comprehensive on its own, then as a stand-alone article). In regard to Characters of Final Fantasy VIII, it's only purpose is not detailing characters. The article describes character development (as a whole and individually), merchandise, and reception. The topic is a stand-alone article because the topic is independently notable and comprehensive from it's parent topic (FFVIII).
In response to your closing statement, the article provides external links to websites that provide a complete list of characters. And I have to ask what kind of reference are you referring to that would require such level of detail? Only a game or purchasing guide comes to mind. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:36, 13 December 2011 (UTC))

I have unidented my response for easier reading, and I have included your previous responses in bold italics so that I may respond to them more directly.

Every article listed above is a role-playing game that has a lengthy plot. Any article about a work of fiction requires plot information to be comprehensive, and a basic understanding of the main characters is part of that. It just so happens that in video games, the main characters are typically playable (the goal is not to detail the playable characters, but provide an overview of the plot). Regardless, none of them present the information in a list but rather in prose to give context to the plot.

First of all, it is incorrect to say that every FA-class article I noted was a role-playing game with a lengthy plot. The Super Smash Bros. games are not role-playing games - they are fighting games, like Tatsunoko vs. Capcom.

Second, you may believe that "the goal is not to detail the playable characters, but provide an overview of the plot", but even if we assume that is the case, then why do characters receive their own subsections in the FA-class articles I cited? (Note these subsections are separate from elements such as "setting" and "story".) And why do these articles link to additional articles specifically devoted to detailing each game's characters? I would also remind you that one of the FA-class articles is Characters of Final Fantasy VIII. That article's status alone indicates that a description of the characters in a game is more than acceptable for FA-class articles.

Third, you are correct that the playable characters are presented in prose format. Nevertheless, in all but a few of the FA-class articles I cited, that listing is complete and includes all of the playable characters. In addition, further character details are provided in separate but linked articles (one of which, as I already noted, is FA-class itself). (In those few cases where the listing is not complete in the game's article, the complete listing is still provided in the linked character-focused article, so the information still has a place on Wikipedia.)

Fighting games typically have a very simple plot that is not as heavily character dependent and such detail does not further the reader's understanding.

Although this game does have a "very simple plot" compared to the Final Fantasy games I cited, there is still a plot, and that plot is centered around the playable characters. In fact, the very purpose of a fighting game is to progress through the game with one or more of the available player characters, and engage in battles with the game's other playable characters, up until the final battle (which may be against another playable character or a special "boss" character). Such a plot, as simple as you may deem it, is still very "character dependent".

As for whether "such detail does not further the reader's understanding", that's purely your opinion. I think such detail is very useful for furthering the reader's understanding, so I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on that.

You didn't explain why the "Playable characters" subsection reads awkwardly. Is it because you expect an exhaustive list? (Which by the way, is located at File:Tatsunoko Vs Capcom box artwork.png, per a suggestion in the section above.)

I did in fact explain why the Playable Characters subsection reads awkwardly. You may not accept that explanation as sufficient, but I have given it nonetheless. Do you believe the Playable Characters subsection accurately summarized all of the playable characters without providing a list of those characters?

As for the roster listed within the text of that image's description, there are two problems:

  1. There is no way for the reader to know that list is there; the article does not indicate that such a list is located within the image description. (I didn't even know that was in the image description until you linked it, and I'm obviously much more focused on this article than the average reader.)
  2. The list you linked does not specify that these are playable characters, but merely describes the characters in the cover image. Further, one playable character is missing from that image (Yatterman-2), one character exclusive to the original Japanese version of the game is absent (Hakushon Daimao), and two characters displayed in the image and list (Boyacky and Tonzura) are NOT playable characters. Therefore, that list is not exhaustive and does not accurately represent the roster.

Examples of what was included are mentioned in the "Playable characters" section and elsewhere in the article. The characters described there are to explain the differences between the regional releases and describe the localization process. If the process didn't add new characters, then none would be discussed. What do you suggest to help make this more clear to the reader?

The localization process did add new characters absent from the original game, so a comparison between the original available characters and the new additions is more than appropriate. Such a comparison requires that the original available characters be listed.

Furthermore, why wouldn't the playable characters be discussed as part of the development and localization process? What makes that particular aspect objectionable?

I have already demonstrated what would make this more clear to the reader - providing a list of playable characters, which the reader can refer to while reading the rest of the article.

I am looking for the archived discussion. I was not a part of it (or the last discussion to try to remove the list), and will have to ask someone else.

Fair enough.

Another response to a common point you mentioned in two of yours- Whether the articles link to another article about characters is irrelevant. Articles are meant to be written in a summary style, which naturally leads itself to not every detail being mentioned (or if the topic is notable and can be comprehensive on its own, then as a stand-alone article). In regard to Characters of Final Fantasy VIII, it's only purpose is not detailing characters. The article describes character development (as a whole and individually), merchandise, and reception. The topic is a stand-alone article because the topic is independently notable and comprehensive from it's parent topic (FFVIII).

Not every detail needs to be mentioned in a summary style article, but the presence of these character sections in FA-class articles indicates that - at minimum - a basic but complete list of playable characters is considered a vital detail of such summaries. Why do you think Tatsunoko vs. Capcom should be held to a different standard?

Further, Characters of Final Fantasy VIII may not have a description of character details as its sole purpose, but it's still plainly its main purpose. This once again indicates the accepted importance of listing a video game's playable characters in a FA-class article.

In response to your closing statement, the article provides external links to websites that provide a complete list of characters.

That information exists on external sites does not suggest that said information should be excluded from Wikipedia articles. (In fact, virtually all Wikipedia articles contain information that originated from external sites or references.)

Furthermore, the external links do not, in fact, describe a complete list of characters; as with the image, the official site omits Yatterman-2 and Hakushon Daimao. Nintendo UK's site not only fails to describe more than a few of the characters, but it also refers readers back to the official site (which, as I said, has an incomplete roster). The other two external links do not appear to list the characters at all.

And I have to ask what kind of reference are you referring to that would require such level of detail? Only a game or purchasing guide comes to mind.

To name a few: Works discussing the reinterpretation of anime characters in different media. Magazine articles, journal articles, or documentaries on the history of fighting games, crossovers, Tatsunoko Productions, Capcom, or the Wii. Works discussing the use of multiple licensed characters in video games, and the process of choosing characters and elements for inclusion in those games. And so forth. JEB215 (talk) 06:42, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I worry that the discussion will become too broad, so I'll try address your points concisely.
  1. First bolded point
    1. I assumed that the first paragraph were your main examples. Sorry for the confusion.
    2. Characters are described in more detail if it will provide better context for the plot. But there is nothing that requires us to have a character section if it is not warranted. Each topic should be evaluated to determine if a subsection is needed. Topics differ and may require a different layouts (be careful to compare apples to oranges). Character descriptions are acceptable in FAs, but are only required if they further the general reader's understanding.
    3. While I can appreciate the desire to have an informative encyclopedia, completeness is something that can be impractical. That is why all FAs strive to be comprehensive, which is inline with the site's Wikipedia:Summary style guideline. That is also why we apply WP:GAMEGUIDE to articles like this. Such level of detail can be summarized and still convey the same message to the layman.
  2. Second bolded point
    1. Fighting games by design are centered around gameplay (combat); the plot is almost always secondary. Though fighting games provide modes to progress, the purpose is still the combat. And though plots (for all works of fiction) are character dependent, it does not supersede the gameplay in a fighting game. As such, the appropriate level of weight should be given to that aspect.
    2. Fair enough, but I think that is central to this disagreement.
  3. Third bolded point
    1. I did not see something that jumped out to as an explanation, which is why I asked for clarification. I gather that you believe that the section is suppose to list all the characters, and that is your explanation for awkwardness. If that's correct, then I do not think
    2. The file description pages are there to provide more information to readers. It is an extra feature (and actually a loophole I suggested to include the full character list somewhere on Wikipedia) that Wikipedia makes an effort to educate readers about. If each character in that image is a playable character, then we can update the description to indicate that.
  4. Fourth bold point
    1. Simply stating that "Character 1 and Character 2 were added to the game and Character 3 was omitted" is a comparison. It is concise and to the point without burdening the reader with excess detail.
    2. It is not objectionable at. If you can add information to the development section from a reliable source about the creative process behind selecting the characters, please do so. To my knowledge, nothing along those lines was available. The article's primary contributor could clarify that.
    3. I disagree, but I guess agree to disagree.
  5. Sixth bolded point
    1. Details are provided in articles to help explain the summarized information. Just to clarify, I'm not opposed to including a good number of the characters in the article. My gripe is it being presented as game guide content. See the previous thread I participated in above. In response to your other comment, the character details are relevant to the plot in those articles. The aim was not to provide all the playable characters, but rather give context to the plot, which can be quite confusing in some RPGs. I consider this game different because it is a fighting game that focuses less on a plot that is much simpler by comparison.
    2. I disagree with you assessment. Even though the topic of a group of character is notable, it still does not delve into excessive details. The page exists because the topic as a whole is notable enough to be a stand-alone comprehensive article. It also does not indicate importance, rather a practice. As such, each topic should be evaluated on its own merit. Previous examples can serve as a template, but are not intended serve as a precedent.
  6. Seventh bolded point
    1. External links are included in articles to provide readers with further details that Wikipedia does not provide. Such practice also suggests that articles are not intended to provide every detail of a subject. Regardless, the information is excluded from this article per WP:GAMEGUIDE.
    2. That is unfortunate that the links does not provide a complete listing. However, the omission of two characters on an external link is not a reason to include a full list of characters in an article.
  7. Last bolded point- While I would be very proud if such works used our articles as a reference, I must point out that most experts would be expected to do more research than simply reading the Wikipedia page. This article would provide good direction by providing a summary of the topic and more reference to research, but that is all. Even then, other websites would be a much better resource for such game guide info.
In short, I don't see any reason to keep the list in the article because it is game guide information. (Guyinblack25 talk 22:43, 16 December 2011 (UTC))
For conciseness's sake, I will distill my response into key points.
It's clear that you consider a playable character list "game guide information" which is unnecessary for assisting the reader's understanding. I'll address the "game guide" angle later, but first, I'm curious... a list of playable characters provides readers with insight into the game's plot (as light as you deem it), helps flesh out the context for the game's development and gameplay, and serves as a convenient method for directing further research on the topic. It seems obvious that this is helpful for the reader's understanding of the article's subject. So, in light of that, would you mind clarifying why you think a playable character list wouldn't help readers' understanding? I don't understand your stance in this regard.
You also note that you are not opposed to listing "a good number" of the characters. I'm glad to hear that, but why is "a good number" acceptable but a complete list unacceptable, when the only difference is a few more names? Why should we set out to make this article an incomplete summary when it's not necessary? Why wouldn't we want to make it as useful a summary as possible?
Now, going back to the "game guide" angle... you believe that policy is against lists of playable characters, which you deem mere "game guide" information. However, I cannot find such a prohibition in WP:GAMEGUIDE or WP:VGSCOPE. There are many other specific game elements listed there as inappropriate, but playable character lists are not among them.
Besides that, if listing all of the playable characters is inappropriate and against policy, why are the playable characters listed in the FA-class video game articles I cited? Why is one FA-class video game article specifically focused on listing the playable characters for a single game in great detail? These are FA-class articles, so one would expect them to exemplify Wikipedia's policies and standards.
In short, it seems clear to me that playable character lists are very useful and quite acceptable for video game articles, and widely accepted by such articles' standards and practices. Short of some extremely compelling reason why this article should be an exception, I think it should have a complete playable character list.
That all said... you noted at one point that a problem you have with playable character lists is their "being presented as game guide content". Does this mean you might find a complete playable character list more acceptable for this article in another format? If so, do you have any suggestions about such formatting? I think this may be an area where we can find some common ground... JEB215 (talk) 01:50, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

That opening paragraph

There seems to be a lot of hassle concerning the way the opening paragraph is written, so it's time we talked things out instead of childishly undoing each other's revisions.
To plead the case of my version:

  • Summarised better: Like I've said many times over, the opening paragraph is intended to be a summary, and as such things should be kept simpler compared to the content in the main article. There's no point explaining about gameplay mechanics and the particulars of 2.5D perspective if it's literally going to be explained three lines later. Things such as reception and development are given in more detail in the main article anyway, so these things only need to be skimmed over, if even mentioned at all, in the opening.
  • Better wording: There's better ordering of phrasing in the manner I typed it. For example: how I mentioned Tatsunoko Production as part of the crossover at the start of the paragraph, as opposed to just mentioning them when it comes to the localization help.
  • Less over-explanation: We don't need to overexplain what 2.5D means or even what a fighting game entails. We have the article links for that. You don't step into a Mario article and expect 'Mario is a game where you move left and right and jump on platforms' do you?

Care to explain your case without throwing any tantrums?Wonchop (talk) 02:29, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Says the person that got reverted by two editors so far and had to put up a hidden comment on the article. I'm not going to explain how to write a lead, nor will I entertain your example of a completely different and simpler genre. There are plenty of example articles for you to use as guidance, WT:VG for questions, etc.
Sure some sentences about gameplay can be revised, but that overall edit was mediocre and too broad-based for me to sift through. « Ryūkotsusei » 02:19, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tatsunoko_vs._Capcom:_Ultimate_All-Stars/Archive_2&oldid=1092069693"