Talk:Marvel Heroes (video game)

Villains
The list of villains includes Havok (comics), who normally is a hero on the X-Men and recently Uncanny Avengers. I haven't seen him in the game and I don't see any proof he is a bad guy. The villain list may be incomplete, some bad guys are rare.Frmorrison (talk) 19:35, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Browser based?
Can anybody clear up where that information came from? Thanks. 24.42.224.102 (talk) 15:58, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps someone was thinking of the browser-based game on Facebook called Marvel: Avengers Alliance that came out in 2012. This game has always been a normal Windows game.Frmorrison (talk) 14:44, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Voice Cast
The game's credits are now public, and the voice cast is as follows:

April Stewart - Jean Grey, Psylocke Brian Bloom - Captain America, Daredevil Chris Cox - Colossus, Hawkeye Christopher Daniel Barnes - Symbiote Spider-Man Danielle Nicolet - Storm, Ms. Marvel Dave Boat - Thing, The Hood, Shocker Drake Bell - Spider-Man Fred Tatasciore - Hulk, Juggernaut, Blob, Mandarin, Beast James C. Mathis III - Black Panther, War Machine, Luke Cage James M. Connor - Cable, William Stryker Julianne Buescher - Black Widow Kari Wahlgren - Emma Frost, Boom Boom, Clea Kate Higgins - Scarlet Witch, Jocosta Logan Miller - Nova Marc Worden - Iron Man, Punisher Matthew Yang King - Human Torch Nolan North - Deadpool, Pirate Deadpool, Tombstone Rick D. Wasserman - Thor, Bullseye, Cloak, Wizard Scott Porter - Cyclops Steve Blum - Wolverine, Rocket Raccoon, Mr. Sinister, Taskmaster, Sauron Tara Strong - Squirrel Girl, Moira MacTaggert, Dagger James Arnold Taylor - Magneto Jim Cummings - Kingpin Kat Cressida - Elektra Lex Lang - Dr. Doom Andrew Kishino - Living Lazer Ben Diskin - Rhino Crispin Freeman - Pyro, Gorgon, Ka-Zar Dave Wittenberg - Toad, Vision Liam O'Brien - Electro, Nightcrawler, Havok Minae Noji - Lady Deathstrike Neil Kaplan - Sabretooth, Venom Nick Jameson - MODOK, Dr. Strange Robin Atkin Downes - Grim Reaper Roger Rose - Mole Man Tom Kenny - Dr. Octopus, Morph Tasia Valenza - Madam Hydra Travis Willingham - Green Goblin Brett Pels - Pepper Potts, Sersi Carlos Alazraqui - Forge Cynthia McWilliams - Misty Knight Rick Pasqualone - Madrox, Gambit Vic Mignogna - Watcher Cat Taber - Shanna, Rogue Clark Gregg - Agent Coulson Emerson Brooks - Bishop Enn Reitel - Jarvis James Sie - Jimmy Woo Jim Ward - Professor Xavier JP Karliak - Iron Fist Kari Wuhrer - Maria Hill Keith David - Nick Fury Mary Elizabeth McGlynn - Jessica Jones, Moondragon Mary Faber - Jean DeWolff, She-Hulk Michael Beattie - Northstar Michelle Arthur - Valkyrie Richard Epcar - Madison Jeffries Phil Buckman - Ghost Stan Lee - Agent Lee Tim Blaney - Ben Urich Wally Winger - Hank Pym, Mr. Fantastic, Ikarus

But since the addition of "unsourced" (read: sourced using YouTube) videos is traditionally frowned upon, particularly by anons, would someone be willing to make note of these on the appropriate character and actor articles in my stead? (Or, at the very least, confirm whether a video of the in-game credits is sufficient sourcing?) -- 69.14.66.237 (talk) 02:56, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * See GAMEGUIDE, generally speaking, a list of the actors providing voices for video game characters is not appropriate for this article. If those actors have a Wikipedia page, I think you could mention their voice work for this game and source the YouTube video, assuming it came from one of the official channels of Marvel, may be acceptable as primary source if their authenticity can be confirmed, or as a secondary source if they can be trace to a reliable publisher. The worry is the video could be changed or it is copyrighted material that should not be uploaded.Frmorrison (talk) 19:35, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That's what I'm saying. I'm not looking to make a list on this page; I'm looking to add all the actors to the character pages, and all the character credits to the actor pages, but I needed help finding a citation that wasn't just video of the credits on YouTube. -- 69.14.66.237 (talk) 03:12, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Article Split
I'm fairly sure Marvel Universe Online and Marvel Heroes are completely different games - MVO eventually became Champions Online, a full 3D downloadable game. Marvel Heroes is a browser-based Diablo game. I think these need two separate pages. Grill (talk) 18:43, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I believe they are the same game, the title has changed a few times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UAVercingatorix7 (talk • contribs) 01:54, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Marvel Heroes is not the same game as Marvel Universe Online
The whole section claiming Marvel Heroes is the same game as Marvel Universe Online needs to be removed.

They are not the same game.

Marvel Universe Online went on to become Champions Online.

Marvel Heroes is a completely different game from a completely different development company.


 * You are right, but this is Wikipedia, so I'm just shaking my head and ignore this… it's basically lost at this point. --jae (talk) 20:37, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Marvel Heroes (video game). 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/20120119214810/http://multiplayerblog.mtv.com/2011/12/20/marvels-mmo-reveals-official-name-and-new-spider-man-image to http://multiplayerblog.mtv.com/2011/12/20/marvels-mmo-reveals-official-name-and-new-spider-man-image/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130510045726/https://marvelheroes.com/news/news-articles/marvel-heroes-athene-livestream-preview to https://marvelheroes.com/news/news-articles/marvel-heroes-athene-livestream-preview

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:52, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Character list
The recent addition of a character list is inappropriate per #6 of WP:GAMECRUFT. WP:GAMECRUFT says:

"Lists of characters lacking secondary sourcing: Following from the above, excessive in-game details on characters is strongly discouraged. Standalone lists of video game characters are expected to be (1) written in an out-of-universe style with a focus on their concept, creation, and reception, and (2) cited by independent, secondary sources to verify this information. While character lists can include some plot summary specific to the character, these plots should not be rehashes of the video game(s) in which they appear but instead broad strokes that simplify the plots of individual games. If these requirements cannot be met, it is instead more appropriate to reduce the list to one to three paragraphs of prose within the "Plot" or "Synopsis" section of the game or series article. It is almost never appropriate to create a standalone list of characters that appear within a single video game as these can be described in the game's article."

There's no "focus on their concept, creation, and reception", and the source is a youtube video which is not appropriate per WP:SPS. The long and short of it is that this information is simply information for the sake of information, with nothing to show how or why it's relevant in the larger scope of the article. By the way, you can see a similar list of voice actors being deemed inappropriate per the same guideline in the entry further up the page, oddly enough also using a youtube video as a source. Eik Corell (talk) 16:15, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

-

I think showing the characters is relevant to larger scope of the article because this game relies on the concept of character crossover. So it would be important to showcase and present this and differiated it to other games. But that's just me.

The bottomline is the rule is very vague and can be subjected to different intepretation.

Honestly, I do not see any problem with this. I do not see any "excessive" detail both in information and formatting. It is a very straight forward enumeration. I do not see adding this would be detrimental to the aticle as a whole.

Unless you have something else going on personally, I do not see a lot of people woulb be bother by this at all. In fact I think, the effect is the opposite. I can see a lot of people would be curious to know who has been playable on this already closed game. Since tha game is no longer accesible. Which is both helpful and informative.

Again, I believe the current format recent addition is not "excessive" by any strech of the imagination.


 * It's excessive for the exact reason you specified: It's a straight forward enumeration; a list of every single character, with no information to show how or why said list is relevant to the average reader. Lists presented without any information are indiscriminate information (WP:IINFO). WP:GAMECRUFT is an extension of that which deals specifically with information clutter in video game articles, be it cast lists, voice actors lists, weapon lists, or character lists. The point is to avoid precisely these kinds of lists where things are just being listed for the sake of listing information. If you look at the character section right now, most of it is sourced information that's not presented in a list kind of format, but in prose like the rest of the article. It shows examples of a few characters, talks about customization, etc, and it already links to other articles like Marvel Universe, which readers can check for this in-depth information. While the characters are in the game, knowing the name of every one of them is not really necessary to understanding the subject matter. The current character section is quite adequate, and adding a complete list doesn't achieve much else than lengthening it. Eik Corell (talk) 02:01, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

"knowing the name of every one of them is not really necessary to understanding the subject matter"

It is not about forcing readers to know every character's name it is about presenting them the data and information. Which what encylopedia supposed to do.

"The current character section is quite adequate, and adding a complete list doesn't achieve much else than lengthening it."

Again, it is subjective and your opinion. How do you guage this? How do you know that with a complete list "It does not achieve much"?

Like i said, for some people, if not many, this could be very helpful and informative and even enhanced thier reading experience. Maybe not for you, but like myself, I find it very insightful.

It is good to have information like this especially when the game no longer exists. And that is why wikipedia exists it the first place, to promote sharing of knowledge. But that is just my opinion.

I also wanted to clarify that we are just talking about the current format recent addition.

Which, I think is very reasonable. The list is not about game items or irreverant inventories etc etc that are very specific for the game.

It is a basic playable character section. It is not a complex concept for the average reader to understand.

There are TONS of video game artciles that features playable character section. why are they still up?

Playable characters are the main components of the game. It is just as important as the sypnosis, plot, gameplay, release date or other general aspect of the game.

I have seen far worse, and I am sure you do too, from other video game articles, I have seen cluttered formatting, much much longer lenght, no concrete or credible sources etc. etc. And even those are still there and not being taken down.

Is this really the worst offender of cluttering? excesiveness? in wikipedia? recent addition.

You seem to treat all lists, as if they are all the same. Without considering their varying degree purpose and how it was presented.

So, adding the list will completely make the article incomprehesible? absolutely not. It is verifiable basic information about the game. In other words it does not really hurt, it may be even enhancing it.

All this really boils down because you don't want them in.

Do not take it personally but seems like your opposition to this is due to personal vadetta of some sort and not from logical and sound reasoning.

With that, I rest my case.
 * Content like this is indeed present in many articles and it's a recurring problem, hence why WP:GAMECRUFT exists. Wikipedia is not supposed to provide information for the sake of information -- As it states, "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. As explained in § Encyclopedic content above, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia.". WP:GAMECRUFT is basically the video-game specific version of this more broad guideline. The way it relates here is that listing all these characters provides no deeper understanding of the game. Instead, the list sits in isolation even to the character section it was appended to, as it has no sources indicating how or why any one -- or all -- of the listed characters are notable/worthy of mention. For in-depth / trivial information like this, fan sites/wikis are the more appropriate venue. That's not to say that Wikipedia does not have lists of characters, but per #6 of WP:GAMECRUFT, such lists are supposed to be properly sourced and if this is not possible, reduced to prose within their relevant section of the article, and this is already done in the plot section. Eik Corell (talk) 05:45, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

-

You keep quoting rules which you do not provide specific example and explanation. And just following up with subjective broad explanation like "characters are not notable/worthy of mention." Why they are not worthy?

So you think a list of playable characters does not add "encylopeic value"? Again, that would be your subjective opinion.

Then by your defenition, why not just take off list of actors in movie articles? List of songs in album articles? List of Players in a NBA team article? List of cities, List of ingredients ... As a matter of fact take of any list you see in Wikipedia

Because like you said "they are information for the sake of information." Which I do not think you understand.

Again, please differentiate list by list.

If this list had been recent addition about game items, like crafting items, weapon items, Or any obscure list or whatnot. The yes, it would be WP:GAMECRUFT.

But this is "Playable Charaters" which is one of the main components of a game, the reason why you see them in almost every game article. So many people do not find this "Trivial" at all and for that alone it has an "Encyclopedic Value"

If going by the guidelines as yo said it:

Standalone lists of video game characters are expected to be

(1) written in an out-of-universe style with a focus on their concept, creation, and reception, and (2) cited by independent, secondary sources to verify this information.

recent addition

BOTH were met in this list.

It is written in style with focus on thier concept. In which a standard enumaration of the characters or a list without any "excessive details" or any kind that is attached it. Simple but infromative and valuable information.

AND It has independent and secondary that is verifiable.

You deleted the list with a verified source and yet you left the section with full of unverified claims? and that is OK with you? As you describe it as "adequate."

How did they get the Marvel Heroes features more than 100 characters? where is the source for this?

"At the game's release, there were 21 playable characters. As of July 2017, there were 63 playable characters." where is the source for this?

"Every player can play all heroes up to level 10, with the exception of the hero most recently added to the game." Where is the source for this? and seem too much of infromation for average reader right?

"Players can also unlock Team-Up characters, a concept based on the Marvel Team-Up comic book series." where is the source for this?

"Team-Ups can be acquired using Eternity Splinters or via the game's store." What is Eternity splinter?

I can go on...

As a matter of fact there are a lot of things going wrong in this article and a simple playable characters section should be the least of your concern.

So clearly you do not really care about the quality of the article here at all but more on the ego you have that you think you have the complete understanding of this matter WP:GAMECRUFT that you seem to focus on and enforcing very badly. Again, do not take it personally, I just find it odd.


 * Wikipedia's policy on lists is MOS:LISTS. From there on, MOS:PROSE catches my eye - You can see which box the current additions fit into -- the "list with no content" box. In order to make the list of characters conform to the prose version, you would need sources and additional information on how each character is worthy of mention. On the subject of sources, youtube videos again are not reliable, third-party sources because they're user-generated content, i.e anyone can make a video, a blog or a forum post, but that doesn't make the video or the creator notable. WP:IINFO comes into play again here: Even if it was an official video, simply being true or verifiable using said source doesn't warrant inclusion by itself. About determining whether something is notable or worthy of mention in this case is simply whether mentioning it brings any better understanding of the content in the article, and I don't understand what you mean when you say that the list does "focus on their concept, creation, and reception, and (2) cited by independent, secondary sources to verify this information.". The articles themselves do this, but the list itself has none of this. This, rather, would be an example of such a section that focuses on these three things. Going way back to the average reader thing, I can give a practical example: In the list, there's a character listed: Cyclops. But cyclops is not described anywhere in the plot section. Even if they were, per #5, 6 and 7 of WP:GAMECRUFT, mention would still be best suited to the relevant sections such as plot or reception. Maybe the character does have a role somewhere somehow, I wouldn't know, but in light of the plot section as it stands, there seems to be no reason to mention them separately from said section, again other than simply doing it for the sake of doing it -- the WP:IINFO thing. You're completely correct in mentioning that along with confusing information (the eternity splinter thing) there are sources missing for information in the character section, and this kind of info is prone to vandalism, for example someone changing "63" to "64" or "level 10" to "level 11". I would assume the 100 thing specifically might have used the source linking to a game guide on marvelheroes.com, but that site is gone. Regardless, without sources, all of this information could be completely fabricated, purposely or inadvertently misrepresented and so on. Eik Corell (talk) 22:47, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

-

Again, you already established that the quality of the article is really not your concern here. So explaning semantics to prove your point does not give you anymore credebility and nitpicking on a reasonable basic list is just odd.

Please do not make this simple matter complicated.

And this is Vandalism? recent addition, please give me a break.

I do not think the community is bothered by it except you.

The list of playable characters is very standard. And I do want to repeat it again that ALMOST every video game article has it.

Why don't you take them all down? And let see what the community say about it. You are free to do it like what you did here.

I am asking you to delete every single one.

Why don't you take down all the list of actors in all of the movie article there is? or plays? All the listed songs in and Album? All the list of players in a sports team? etc etc

because according to your explanation they are not "Prose."

It really boils down because you don't want it that way. It is your own personal preference and simply you do not like it that way.

Wikipedia has no LAWS but only GUIDELINES. If you want to make your own online encyclopedida then by all means start one.

Again do not take it personally.

But to make you feel better. I will help you delete ALL the list there is in Wikipedia starting with video games then movies then every list that are not "prose"

If anybody complains I will just redirect them here. And reference you.
 * It seems we're a bit stuck here, I've asked for some other editors' opinions here on WP:VG's talk page for some outside perspective. Eik Corell (talk) 02:20, 17 April 2020 (UTC)


 * is correct. A long list of in-game characters is trivial. See WP:VGSCOPE No. 6. soetermans . ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 12:12, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, WP:VGSCOPE No. 6 only covers character list articles, not lists of characters within game articles; note in particular the line "It is almost never appropriate to create a standalone list of characters that appear within a single video game as these can be described in the game's article." [emphasis added] Also, this particular article is in a different situation because the playable characters are notable outside of video games, meaning it makes sense to list them for similar reasons to why we list actors in movie articles.--Martin IIIa (talk) 14:52, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You seem to be right about #6. With that said, 5 and 7 seem to be the ones that apply. I don't know what to think about comparing comic book/universe characters to actors though, partly because I'm not familiar with movie article guidelines, but primarily because it seems like if a list of characters is to be included, it should be proportional and relevant to their role within the subject matter. Does the character play a main role in the plot, are they a side character, or are they simply DLC-ish additions, i.e a character you can play but who's otherwise isolated from the story. Given that the plot section already mentions a lot of the characters, just as the the character section provides some examples and a link to the Marvel Universe article, I don't see the benefit in mentioning a complete list, even if the characters by themselves may be iconic. This is to say nothing of the lack of sources, which seems essential in showing that how or why they're notable that I was talking about. Eik Corell (talk) 20:52, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think the character's role in the plot should be a determinant in whether or not they're mentioned in an article. If anything, it should hinge on the character's prominence in the game. This is analogous to how movie articles list cast according to their prominence in the film, per WP:FILMCAST. (For example, Dirty Rotten Scoundrels (film) includes Ian McDiarmid, Dana Ivey, Meagen Fay, Frances Conroy, and Louis Zorich in the cast list even though none of them are significant to the film's plot.) This makes all the more sense with video games, which commonly have no plot to speak of. I find it hard to imagine that there are no sources covering which playable characters are in the game. If I dig one up, will that satisfy you?--Martin IIIa (talk) 14:52, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm still on the fence, WP:GAMECRUFT #7 mentions unlockable characters at least as not being appropriate. Granted I haven't really come across the argument of comic book characters being notable in the same way you mentioned before, so I'm honestly not sure. Having a look at some other video game series article with notable or widely known characters, I noticed one way I think might be appropriate: In the bottom of the The Walking Dead franchise article, there's a category that lists the other titles in the series but also all the characters. If instead it's presented within the article, I think we should try to avoid the "list with no content" on MOS:PROSE. Maybe one of those two solutions might work, what I'm concerned with if we implement it is how long and what the cutoff point is. Eik Corell (talk) 18:52, 19 April 2020 (UTC)