Talk:Marvel vs. Capcom: Infinite/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: TheJoebro64 (talk · contribs) 20:57, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Still more of a DC guy than a Marvel fan, but glad to take a look. JOE BRO  64  20:57, 16 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Lead
 * The third paragraph is a bit out of weight compared to the other ones. I don't think this is necessarily a big deal, but just wanted to point this out.
 * There's more stuff I'd like to put in the third paragraph, but it's time dependent. I'll add a sentence about sales once we figure out how good or bad they were (in terms of their two million sales target). Capcom will probably also release an updated version for Infinite, à la Ultimate Marvel vs. Capcom 3 and Street Fighter V: Arcade Edition, in the future, which would pad it out further. Wani (talk) 21:24, 26 November 2017 (UTC)


 * The game received reviews ranging from mixed to generally positive You should avoid "mixed to positive" phrases, according to WP:VGG. It doesn't really make sense, and simply saying "mixed" implies that some reviews were positive.


 * Gameplay
 * You might want to explain the Hyper Combo Gauge before explaining the Counter-Switch. Some people might not be familiar with MVC's mechanics.
 * The types of Infinity Stones don't really need to be noted; the examples are enough.
 * According to Producer Mike Evans and Associate Producer Peter Rosas, the development team examined the strengths and weaknesses of each returning character and adjusted them by providing new moves and abilities, hoping to make every fighter viable.[11][19] In terms of roster selection, characters were chosen based on two aspects: their potential interactions within the story and their gameplay style.[19] The developers sought to include a variety of different character archetypes, from small, nimble characters, such as Strider Hiryu, to large, brawler-type characters, such as the Hulk.[19] The Marvel characters' designs were proposed by Capcom's research and development team in Japan, who took inspiration from both the characters' comic book and film appearances.[20] Marvel staff members worked closely with the team, providing feedback to maintain the authenticity of their characters' portrayals.[19] While speaking at E3 2017, Evans explained how they picked the roster based on which characters Marvel was currently pushing or planning to push in the future.[21][22] This seems like it would fit better in development, not gameplay.
 * Moving all of that to the development section will leave only a couple short sentences left in the playable characters sub-section. Is that okay? Wani (talk) 23:28, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it's fine. The table is good information so those sentences will suffice. JOE  BRO  64  23:35, 26 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Story
 * Would "plot" be a better name for this section?
 * The characters who are listed in the chart don't need to be linked in the story section.
 * I would also suggest trying to trim this section. In my articles I try to keep the amount of plot to a minimum, only keeping the most significant details.
 * I've trimmed it a bit. Is that good enough? Wani (talk) 01:23, 27 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Development
 * See my third point in gameplay.


 * Release
 * Don't need to link the DLC fighters, since they're linked above.


 * Reception
 * Per Manual of Style, all the websites should be italicized.
 * As with the lead, "mixed to positive" is an awkward phrase; just go with "mixed", "average", or "lukewarm".
 * Game Informer, Eurogamer, and Destructoid are linked more than once.
 * Ditto for Disney and Marvel.
 * Marvel Studios? That's only linked once. Wani (talk) 23:56, 26 November 2017 (UTC)


 * The game received praise for its gameplay, including its changes to the series' traditional tag team system and the addition of the Infinity Stones. Generalized statement lacking proper refs.
 * Same goes with the opening paragraphs of the following paragraphs.
 * The generalized statements are supposed to be supported by all the sourced sentences that come after them. Do you want me to invoke the same footnotes or something? Wani (talk) 23:49, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's what I mean. In the other GANs/FACs I've been involved in, everything (including the generalizations) is supposed to be backed by reliable refs (except the plots). JOE  BRO  64  00:08, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

If I am not back within a few days with a completed review, please ping me. JOE BRO  64  19:41, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Hey there. Just chiming in to see how you're doing. Wani (talk) 20:11, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I've been busy. I've started putting down some points; I'll finish by the end of the weekend. JOE  BRO  64  20:20, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No sweat. I've been really busy too. Just take your time. Wani (talk) 00:59, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, that took me a bit longer than expected. Overall, this article is in fantastic shape; once my points are addressed, I'll pass this. JOE  BRO  64  20:16, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, besides the lingering question I have for the plot, I believe I've addressed all of your concerns with the article. Thank you very much for taking the time to review my nomination. On a side note, since you mentioned you're more of a DC fan, I have also recently listed Injustice 2 at GAN as well, if you're interested. I'd certainly appreciate it. Wani (talk) 03:08, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Great! The plot is much better in size so I think this is a pass! JOE  BRO  64  11:12, 27 November 2017 (UTC)