Talk:Marvel: Ultimate Alliance 2/Archive 1

Storm

It's confirmed in the article that Storm will be in the game as well, in the same sentence that describes combining powers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.193.116.163 (talk) 20:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Storm has been confirmed and should be added to the list. 72.129.226.113 (talk) 11:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We need a solid reference to add her to the article as confirmed Teancum (talk) 15:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Grey

it's confirmed in the article that Jean grey / phoenix will be in the game as well as being playable character there are 460 + signatures wanting her to be init so she is —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.131.9.162 (talk) 11:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. It has to come from an reliable source. Don't add her unless a reliable site says for sure she's in there. --Teancum (talk) 13:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Civil War

Is there a source that says the game will deal with events from Civil War? 12.37.71.151 (talk) 04:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the claim. I read the only link provided and it made no mention of "Civil War." I've also read other articles and they do not mention it either. Prior to adding the information again, please source it. Saying "it has been reported" is not a source. Say who reports it, or don't include inuendo. Agrippina Minor (talk) 23:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it said the same thing about Civil War being in the game on the Secret War (comics) page. I deleted it. 58.175.169.47 (talk) 13:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC) Spider-Josh[reply]

Sourcing Confirmed Characters

Guys, unless a source talks about how a character plays, they're seen in a trailer, or an article says they're flat-out confirmed, they're not. Teancum (talk) 15:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm conceding on the Luke Cage issue, as it's more than likely that they specifically mentioned him and not some of the other characters that went due to the fact that he was playable. To make things fair for all, from now on please check any of the sources provided before deleting a confirmed character. Luke Cage (semi-confirmed) and Green Goblin (100% confirmed) were removed even though the sources were there. Also at some point we'll need to split Confirmed Characters into Playable and Non-Playable, but that can be later down the road Teancum (talk) 13:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest rather than just citing sources in general for the Character List, instead cite the source after the character mentioned. That way we know where every character has been mentioned. Planewalker Dave (talk) 13:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It would save a lot of time. IronMan54 (talk) 03:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the green goblin has NOT been confirmed —Preceding unsigned comment added by Williamdunlap646 (talk • contribs) 15:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you check the sources? One specifically mentions Green Goblin. The section is not called Playable Characters, it's called Confirmed Characters, so even if he's not playable, he's confirmed. Teancum (talk) 21:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of confirming playable characters, where is the source confirming Cable, Fury and Bishop as only NPCs? There has been no such announcement that I've seen, and nothing is cited. Sure, they're presented in an article in a light which could be viewed as showing them relating to the story in an NPC-style capacity, but we've seen that done with Doc Strange in the last chapter of act one in the first Marvel Ultimate Alliance, and DIRECTLY after this part he became playable. It seems to me that at this stage we have no idea if they're playable or not, and thus they shouldn't be referenced "† As Non-playable characters" but instead as having their playability still in question. 64.231.77.39 (talk) 22:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I specifically didn't say whether they were only NPCs. Right now we know that they're NPCs, but that's all. If they get confirmed as playable we can change that, but for now we only know that they are NPCs. Teancum (talk) 04:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read what's there again. They're cited "As Non-playable characters." If you say they're non-playable, that means you can't play as them. We don't know if you can't play as them, thus we don't know if they're non-playable. The phrasing is entirely misleading and should be something more like "playability uncertain." I realize what you going for there, but you didn't achieve it with what's actually on the page. 64.231.77.39 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True, but it's probably better to err on the side of NPC versus playable. If they're in-game, then we know in some way, shape or form they're an NPC, because even if they're unlockable later (like Dr Strange was) they're a NPC up to that point. I originally had Not yet confirmed as playable but that created to much confusion. Once we know more I'll update it, but for now we know that at least for some part of the story they aren't playable. Teancum (talk) 19:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to update the character list but I had a little trouble with citing. If you look at Marvel Ultimate Alliance 2 on IMDB you will see that someone has been credited as doing the voice for Nova and Speedball/Penance.--Calzone03 (talk) 14:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem -- the cites have been updated. Just remember (to everyone) to put the source up in the table header with the rest of them. -- Teancum (talk) 16:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you go to the new website (not unleashfusion.com but www.marvelultimatealliance.com) there is a big panoramic pic you can scroll through. It looks like a photoshop of a bunch of screenshots. If you go all the way to the left you can see some characters that we haven't added yet including the Shocker. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calzone03 (talk • contribs) 19:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that's the armored characters that the heroes fight at the end of Secret War. KidKon —Preceding undated comment was added at 22:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]

What happened? Last I knew Goblin and Venom were confermed playable. Did that change? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calzone03 (talk • contribs) 06:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No source ever actually said they were playable, but there was an edit war changing it back and forth. Now that it's over I've set it to what's correct. --Teancum (talk) 10:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Terrible Tinkerer has been anounced as a villian. http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/989/989263p1.html Sorry I can't do it on my own. I always site things wrong and my edits end up getting taken down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.30.131.154 (talk) 06:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Input Methods

The article speculates "keyboard, mouse, gamepad", but the listed platforms are console only. I was just going to delete keyboard and mouse, but then I thought "why are we even listing input methods?". I'd like to delete the whole thing, but don't want to mess with it if we're following a template here. Anyone have a preference? CPitt76 (talk) 06:57, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The characters table

Why in the world are we blanking it? It still falls under Wikipedia guidelines, and is no more at fault than a track listing for a guitar hero game. Teancum (talk) 15:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Possibility" of combos

This line was recently removed as speculation: "The trailler at E3 shows the possibility to combine more than one character move to create a combo." I believe the reason it was removed was because of the word "possibility", however in the context it was written, I'm pretty sure the word is being used to mean "opportunity"/"availability" as opposed to "what might happen". The issue of Game Informer described that each character pairing was able to produce a combo move and listed several available combos that were demonstrated.

So, I have to ask: was the line removed because it was speculatory in terms of its sources (i.e., do we trust the magazine article) or because of the word "possibility", which at a glance makes it seem that way. If it's the former, do we have objections to putting the sentence (or a tweaked version without that damning word) back in? Planewalker Dave (talk) 08:53, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a better word choice. It's important data, as that's the whole point of the word Fusion, but possibility does seem a little ambiguous. Teancum (talk) 12:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid an edit war...

Please read up on all of the references given in the article. A lot of edits are getting reverted due to folks not reading the Game Informer article. So please, before reverting things make sure another reference doesn't cover it. Also, some of the references are only used once, though they apply to much more of the article. (Case in point, the different fusions that can happen -- I referenced the Comic-Con '08 trailer, but I had also previously referenced the Game Informer article) Teancum (talk) 12:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Link to Game Informer article as requested by Asgardian. Planewalker Dave (talk) 07:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Online play

Does anyone know if online play is comfrimed for this game?--YOSHIANDLINK1 (talk) 23:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No word yet, but the previous game had it, as well as X-Men Legends 2 (same engine) so I'd say it's a fairly safe bet. Teancum (talk) 02:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

VA Info

Steven Blum informed me that he will be reprising Wolverine in this game. But we won't add that info yet. Rtkat3 (talk) 5:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't get it. Do you know him personally or something? Teancum (talk) 10:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

His E-Mail is Barpp1. He first contacted me to inform me about him not using his old aliases anymore. Rtkat3 (talk) 9:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

"Fusions"?

"At the moment this is very pertinent to the article". Is it? I mean, what do we gain from a list of what fusions we know exist? Up until now I'd pretty much assumed that they'd be a fusion for every pairing. And even if I'm wrong, does this list really provide any important information? Isn't it enough to say that some pairs of characters can fuse their powers? Planewalker Dave (talk) 21:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dr.Doom

"Activision also revealed that the story involves a global assault based around Latvia. So you can count on Doctor Doom being in the game." http://uk.xbox360.ign.com/articles/890/890421p1.html .--Lbrun12415 03:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But he hasn't been mentioned in any articles (aside from speculation in that article), so we can't add it to the wiki itself --Teancum (talk) 12:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure we can its right there.--Lbrun12415 19:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plus it says this on the list "† Yet to be announced as either Non-playable or playable." so this means Dr.Doom was announced but, we waiting for more information.--Lbrun12415 19:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's different. They're clearly speculating about Dr. Doom --basically saying "Since Latveria is in the trailer, we bet Dr Doom will be in there". The other characters under "† Yet to be announced as either Non-playable or playable." have been specifically mentioned as seen in-game. --Teancum (talk) 19:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give you this one but, I have seen Dr.doom in this game once i find the link i'll show you..--Lbrun12415 19:50, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would be strange to see him in the game, since we can assume that he's still being tortured by Odin. (190.12.156.120 (talk) 03:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Hercules

Hercules has been announced along with a storyline styled on 2004's Secret War and the more recent Civil War crossover which seen hero pitted against hero!

http://www.oxmonline.com/article/previews/m-r/marvel-ultimate-alliance-ii-fusion