Talk:Super Street Fighter II Turbo HD Remix

Merger proposal

I don't think SSF2T HD really deserves it's own article.It's just a remake after all...
Discuss.Master Bigode (talk) 21:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, there's enough changes in the new game worthy of discussion (overhauled graphics, updated gameplay, etc) that a new article makes more sense than simply expanding Super Street Fighter II even more. —Locke Cole • t • c 14:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment Super Street Fighter II Turbo had far more changes.Master Bigode (talk) 13:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

No, it didn't. See below for how I believe these articles should be organized (specifically broken into three articles). —Locke Cole • t • c 01:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Disagree I agree with Locke.--SkyWalker (talk) 09:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Disagree There is enough information to warrent it's own article.--EclipseSSD (talk) 17:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree I see little point of this article, since the core game is supposed to be unchanged. I would prefer to merge this and Super Street Fighter II into the Street Fighter II article. Jonny2x4 (talk) 04:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree It could be merged into the Super Street Fighter II without losing any information quite easily. --Sin Harvest (talk) 11:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Support It's just a graphical enhancement with few new features - nothing that can't be added to the article on Super Street Fighter II. --Jtalledo (talk) 13:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Disagree Once the game comes out, like any game, it should have it's own article. There will be much more to add to this page once everyone plays the game. Look at flOw or Calling all Cars or Undertow, those are all XBLA or PSN games with their own articles, this is just another game that should have it's own as well.--dragging a alake (talk) 18:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)User:draggingalake

Comment: Why don't we have an article for every Street Fighter game then !?Master Bigode (talk) 01:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment - no, we shouldn't have any article for every game out there. Wikipedia is a general interest encyclopedia, so it shouldn't cover just any game released. And we shouldn't have one for a mere enhanced remake like this one. --Jtalledo (talk) 21:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

There's enough of a change both in gameplay and in graphics (and I believe there's even changes to the music and other audio) that a separate article makes sense. It's just a wee bit more than a simple enhancement.. Besides, Street Fighter II is turning into a mess because of all the merging going on. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, let's make things simpler and keep these in separate articles. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you've noticed or not, but all the info in this article was merged into the Street Fighter II article a long time ago, and nobody complained about it. And no, the Street Fighter II article is not turning into a mess.Master Bigode (talk) 22:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I did notice. But yes, it is a mess-- it's over 30 KB in size now because of all the merging that's gone on (and more importantly, because of all the stuff crammed in to that single article that really ought to be expanded in to separate articles). That's my definition of a mess. IMHO, there should be three articles:

1. Street Fighter II should cover all of the CPS-1 games (The World Warrior, Champion Edition and Hyper Fighting)
2. Super Street Fighter II should cover all of the CPS-2 games (The New Challengers, Turbo and Hyper)
3. Super Street Fighter II Turbo HD Remix should cover this very large departure from Super Street Fighter II (totally redrawn artwork, new music, totally rebalanced gameplay complete with new moves, etc).

These articles can all potentially cover much more than they do (development of the title, choices in design, etc) that they don't really cover in depth right now. And simply because we lack that kind of detailed information now doesn't mean we shovel everything in to one article (thus making it a confusing mess). —Locke Cole • t • c 22:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, What about this:

1. Street Fighter II as a disambiguation page.
2. Street Fighter II(CPS), article with info on WW, CE and HF.
3. Street Fighter II(CPS 2) or Super Street Fighter II(I prefer the former): info on Super and Super Turbo.
4. List of minor Street Fighter II ports or List of Street Fighter II ports: info on minor ports such as the SNES and PC ports.
5. List of major Street Fighter II ports or List of Street Fighter II remakes or simply Street Fighter II remakes: info on Hyper Street Fighter II, HD Remix and Super Turbo revival.Master Bigode (talk) 01:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I wouldn't call the SNES and Genesis versions "minor ports", since they were the only legit home versions for quite awhile. Secondly, calling a Super Turbo a "remake" or a "port" (unless its the 3DO or PS/Saturn versions) are completely misleading, since it basically Super SF2 with faster gameplay. Jonny2x4 (talk) 04:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

"Minor ports" because they are just normal ports of the game, adding nothing "new" gameplay-wise.And I was talking about Super Street Fighter II Turbo Revival, the GBA game, not Super Turbo.Master Bigode (talk) 00:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Except for the List of... ideas, this sounds similar to what I suggested except for the naming convention used. I'm not a big fan of putting the hardware used in the name of the article (plus I don't think this meshes well with Wikipedia naming conventions). I could see splitting off the ports into their own article if you really think there's enough to warrant it (but I wouldn't break it down into major/minor). —Locke Cole • t • c 02:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I think Master Bigode was being sarcastic. --Jtalledo (talk) 02:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I thought so as well, but I was trying to assume good faith. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I wasn't being sarcastic.Master Bigode (talk) 00:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The Japanese wiki page is WAY BETTER organized than the mess that are the English articles and I think the English Street Fighter II article could follow its example. Super Street Fighter II doesn't really mention anything that isn't already covered by Street Fighter II and the content of Super Street Fighter II Turbo HD Remix could be merged as well. Here's how I think the article.

• Overview
  • Basic rules
  • Controls
  • Special moves (sure-killing techniques)
  • Combos
  • Characters
  • Revisions to the gameplay
• Lineup (arcade versions)
• Ports
  • Consoles (SNES, Genesis, PC Engine)
  • Portables (Game Boy, Game Boy Advance)
  • Computers (X68k, DOS)
• Reception
• In other media
  • Movies
  • Television
  • Comics
  • Others
• External links

If anyone has any objections, feel free to ask. Jonny2x4 (talk)

That layout looks good. --Jtalledo (talk) 04:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems good, but we'll need to cleanup the ports section first, because it's huge.Master Bigode (talk) 00:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I like the layout and have no objection, but I will just point out that some users may say the special moves and combos section is fancruft and remove the content, I personally don't have a problem with it though.--Sin Harvest (talk) 05:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Release date?

Does anybody know when this game is being released? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.101.235.102 (talk) 12:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

David Sirlin said in an interview that it will come out Summer 2008 and in a post made at Shoryuken.com forum he said it will be available before Evo 2008 which takes place in August. But no specific date has been given at this time. 213.114.174.190 (talk) 13:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Heard it will be out eight weeks after the beta.It was due for release a year ago. Why do street fighter games always get delayed for so long? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.101.234.63 (talk) 09:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

There's a countdown on streetfighter.com... is this it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.148.130.84 (talk) 04:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

It will most likely be released in August is my guess.Lasttiger (talk) 02:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Date in article is wrong, XBLA games come out on a Wednesday so should be 26th —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.208.114.175 (talk) 19:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

This was released on the Playstation network tonight, Nov 25th and is verified on the PS Blog —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neomagus26 (talk • contribs) 04:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

GameSpot

GameSpot Hands On Preview - useful information to fatten the article. JAF1970 (talk) 16:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Remixed Music

How exactly does everybody here feel about OverClocked ReMix as a citable source? There's more than a few discussion topics in their forums (plus a recent interview with McVaffe by DJP) that confirms OCR is the one handling the soundtrack without pay, but it's a moot point if people don't feel it passes WP:SPS or WP:SELFPUB without a confirmation from Capcom to back it up. Arrowned (talk) 22:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• I got it. We haven't officially mentioned that we did the job pro bono, so technically there's no source on that. I'll add one once we do an interview or something to that effect that counts as a 3rd party source. - Liontamer (talk) 21:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Overhauling the sprite overhauls

Someone needs to mention the shifts in graphical style in game development, particularly how several sprites released (the Ken one currently featured) are now obsolete. Compare http://ps3media.ign.com/ps3/image/article/859/859193/super-street-fighter-ii-turbo-hd-remix-20080312081927885.jpg with Ken currently being shown. At least take that one down or add a footnote. 72.155.211.249 (talk) 22:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• I added a clarifying adjective in the existing caption. Once a few editors have time to go through all the information on this game, the article'll be pretty thorough with all the content re: the graphics, character re-balancing, play-testing, music, etc. - Liontamer (talk) 21:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Box art

Not to sure what the deal is with the box art, but cropping off the platform makes the image inaccurate. So far the preference seems to be for using the artwork that is for the platform the title was first released on. See Flock!, Age of Booty and 1942: Joint Strike (which were all released before the PSN version and feature the XBox 360 artwork). —Locke Cole • t • c 18:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

• Agreed. "Box art" includes any additional branding or insignias related to a platform. The PSN release was first, so it does indeed make sense to use the PSN art. - Liontamer (talk) 06:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC) (Assistant Soundtrack Director, Super Street Fighter II Turbo HD Remix)

The only reason that those articles have Xbox tags on them is because those articles are relatively not tended to by editors. A more reasonable example is BioShock, it was released on Xbox then on ps3. BW21.--BlackWatch21 20:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

It ceases being actual box art when you start trimming portions of it. That's also a form of original research. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean it ceases to be a box art? Take a look at any of the halo articles or gears of wars articles and you will see that all the covers are neutral. BW21.--BlackWatch21 11:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

That's not what people see on store shelves when you remove identify system logos. It's original research because you've constructed something that isn't verifiable or accurate. —Locke Cole • t • c 14:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not designed for selling products off of shelves. Wikipedia is designed to provide correct information to users and to have a box art that is PS3 when it was released for Xbox is sending the wrong message. Even if it was released after PS3. BW21.--BlackWatch21 23:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

There are WP:VG guidelines (WP:VG/GL) for this situation. Which basically boils down to say that images without console branding are prefered over images with branding, especially when the game has been released on more than one platform. But above all, remember the purpose of the boxart. It is there to identify the game, not the platform. - X201 (talk) 09:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I've removed a portion of WP:VG/GL which conflicts with WP:NOR (I may have missed other portions which also conflict). Modifying the released box art is original research, and is not allowed on Wikipedia. —Locke Cole • t • c 11:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Personally I think you're interpreting it too strongly. But I'll raise the point at WP:VG to canvas the views of others. - X201 (talk) 11:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Locke Cole, you can't just change the Guide lines because you don't agree with them. BW21.--BlackWatch21 22:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

"It ceases being actual box art when you start trimming portions of it. That's also a form of original research." What kind of stupid logic is that? I mean first of all, this is a download game; there is no "box" to begin with. Secondly, cropping is absolutely not a form of "research", original or otherwise. And third, the Playstation Network logo adds nothing to the artwork, and is clearly just tacked on. It is standard for video game articles to try to be as console neutral as possible, so I vote for the crop.--Remurmur (talk) 21:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Cropping images ARE allowed. Wikipedia:WikiProject Video_games/Article guidelines#Screenshots and cover art says to use a neutral cover. This usually means taking the Xbox 360 cover and cropping the top part off (or a PS3 cover and cropping off the left side). This IS allowed, you just have to mention it on the image's description page. The best solution is to take the Xbox Live Arcade cover and crop off the top part. TJ Spyke 20:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I was unaware that WikiProject guidelines could circumvent official policy this easily. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not circumventing any policy. There is no rule stating that pictures can't be cropped. TJ Spyke 22:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Can anybody capture screenshots?

192px|thumb|right|Ryu and Ken fighting on Guile's stage I say we need to update this image with a 4th part at the bottom... It is currently missing a key component in the full comparison (new HUD, and this stage has a slight foreground change).

Preferably in 4:3 aspect ratio (and maximum resolution). I could do the update (if I had the capture ability), or the capturer could do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.18.209 (talk) 23:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)