Talk:Street Fighter IV/Archive 1

Story

"While no details of the story have been revealed yet, it was revealed in the January 2008 issue of EGM that the game will take place in between Street Fighter II and Street Fighter III making it (storywise) a sequel to the former and a prequel to the latter."

There has got to be a better way to word this sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.4.65.157 (talk) 08:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Lock the article

Here comes the vandalism. JAF1970 17:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Good work keeping things clean. Things seem to have relaxed now. Let's keep a close eye on everything until more game details start flowing in. --Nekotaku 18:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Just pointing out that the article has been removed. It isn't the best choice for citations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.148.115.85 (talk) 18:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

GamesRadar has indeed pulled the article for some reason. Can anyone find another source that confirms the Capcom press conference and its contents? --Nekotaku 18:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Would this link be sufficient as a replacement? http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3163721 --Nekotaku 18:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Lock please, and trailer was released.

The official site is "announcement" enough. JAF1970 22:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

http://www.gametrailers.com/player/26535.html--MrBubbles 20:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Link You Need

There's a good one on QJ.net.

http://ps3.qj.net/Video-teaser-trailer-for-Street-Fighter-IV/pg/49/aid/105272
http://ps3.qj.net/New-games-announced-in-Capcom-Gamer-s-Day-event/pg/49/aid/105264

YW. ShinraiTS4 21:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Added a Clean .png of the Logo

'Cause I'm cool like that. WtW-Suzaku 01:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

New info and characters

It's too soon to create a list of characters. The initial 4 are mentioned in a simple sentence - when a fuller roster is revealed, then we can list it. Just 4 is too few to provide an entire list for. JAF1970 (talk) 15:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Official Press Release

It's only available to members of the game media, so I can't link to it, but I can copy/past it. It confirms everything from the 1-up article, though it states it a bit more clearly. I'm gonna rework the article a bit to incorporate the information more cleanly, using the 1-up article as a referance, since I don't think the press release can really be referanced.

Capcom Kicks Off The Next Generation Of Fighting Games With Street Fighter™ IV

The Next Round of the Definitive Fighting Game Experience Combines 3D Graphics with Classic Street Fighter Feel

SAN MATEO, CA — December 6, 2007 - Capcom®, a leading worldwide developer and publisher of video games, today officially announced development of Street Fighter™ IV, the next iteration of the genre-establishing fighting game series. This marks the first new entry announced in nearly eight years, following the acclaimed Street Fighter III Third Strike.

In its amazing twenty year history, Street Fighter has revolutionized the fighting genre and created a global legacy like no other. Few details have been released on the new game, outside of a heart-pounding preview trailer that set the gaming community on fire when it was released in October on the official website, StreetFighterWorld.com.

Capcom is proud to announce the return of four classic “World Warriors” in Street Fighter IV: returning favourites Ryu, Ken, Chun-Li, and Dhalsim. The characters and environments are rendered in stylized 3D computer graphics (CG), while the game is played in the classic Street Fighter 2D perspective with additional 3D camera flourishes. The traditional six-button controls for the game will return, with a host of new special moves and features integrated into the input system. Mixing tried-and-true classic moves and techniques with all-new, never-before-seen gameplay systems, Street Fighter 4 brings a brand new fighting game to fans the world over.

Everything that made the legendary Street Fighter II a hit in arcades, living rooms and dormitories all over the world has been brought to bear here, with even more surprises. With the inclusion of Capcom's latest advancements in new generation technology, Street Fighter IV promises to deliver an extraordinary experience that will re-introduce the world to the time-honoured art of virtual martial arts.

Features:

   * 2D/3D fighting environments
   * Classic Street Fighter characters re-imagined for a new generation of gamers
   * New special moves that go beyond any Street Fighter fan's wildest imagination
   * Amazing locations never seen before in a Street Fighter game
   * New gameplay elements provide new challenges for both newcomers and the most seasoned Street Fighter pro.

For more information, visit http://www.streetfighterworld.com

ABOUT CAPCOM

Capcom is a leading worldwide developer, publisher and distributor of interactive entertainment for game consoles, PCs, handheld and wireless devices. Founded in 1983, the company has created hundreds of games, including best-selling franchises Resident Evil, Street Fighter, Mega Man and Devil May Cry. Capcom maintains operations in the U.S., U.K., Germany, Tokyo and Hong Kong, with corporate headquarters located in Osaka, Japan. More information about Capcom can be found on the company web site, www.capcom.com.

Capcom, Resident Evil, Mega Man and Devil May Cry are either registered trademarks or trademarks of Capcom Co., Ltd., in the U.S. or other countries. Street Fighter is a registered trademark of Capcom U.S.A., Inc. All rights reserved. All other marks are the property of their respective owners.

And there you go! There's also a higher-res version of the logo, but I think the one I uploaded before is fine. WtW-Suzaku (talk) 23:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

SFIV News from EGM

Could somebody add this to the article in a "encyclopedic" way ?
-Producer is Yoshinori Ono, who worked on SF Alpha, SF III, and oversaw Capcom Fighting Revolution

-Ono wants it to be the "second coming" of SF II. Wants it to feel like "homecoming" for SF II fans.

-Online play is planned with potential for microtransactions such as new characters and stages

-The look is not really similiar to the teaser trailer. A "cartoon-shaded style that manages to evoke SF II reimagined in 3d"

- runs in 60FPS

- Gameplay sticking with 2D- Ono wants to "preserve the strategic nature of SF II"

-camera doesn't budge

- Trying to get "as many SFII characters in as possible"

- Takes place after SFII Turbo and before SF III

-Controls are traditional- "in its current early state, the game feels remarkably close to Super SFII Turbo"

- Game is more aggressive- more about attacking than defending. Many of the SF III and Alpha gameplay systems have been scrapped.

- Producer says they haven't decided what platforms or even if there will be an arcade version. Version Shane played was running on a P.C

- Ono suggests Capcom could make a PS2 or DS version if "they deem the market suitable"

-Ono not enthusiastic about making it an exclusive- wants to get it out on as many platforms as possible
(From Neo Gaf)Master Bigode (talk) 21:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Lack of Research

This entry makes it's references solely on the Electronic Gaming Monthly article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.107.39.149 (talk) 04:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

How many other sources exist at this point? -Toptomcat (talk) 22:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

None. That is the whole point. Whoever keeps making changes to the platform(primarily JuJube), STOP. The only source of info is EGM and it doesn't even state that it's only coming to PS360. the developer said they want to bring it out to as many platforms as possible, not take the usual ps360 route, so why keep it at that? Wait for more Info. Blackbird3216 (talk) 23:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Where can I buy a PS360? Sounds hot :p JAF1970 (talk) 20:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd imagine the same place that you can buy a Wii60. --DaveJB (talk) 13:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

New character revealed

http://www.jeux-france.com/images1_4_23471.html

Shouldn't it be mentioned in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.107.4.202 (talk) 11:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

PS3?

Is this a PS3 title or what's the deal? I seriously doubt it's going to be an arcade game only, knowing Capcom's history. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 15:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Totally unconfirmed; so far all we've heard about platforms is that an arcade version is on the way, and that Capcom was considering as many platforms as possible, including the PS2 and DS if they thought there was enough demand. -- VederJuda (talk) 15:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, the graphics simply doesn't look good enough for being the PS3. By the way, do you still have the source where Capcom mentions it going multiplat? Thanks. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 16:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's one from Kotaku: [1] -- VederJuda (talk) 17:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Isn't this coming out on the PS3, 360 and Wii? http://search.ign.com/products?query=street+fighter+4 --WhereAmI (talk) 00:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Capcom hasn't even confirmed if it will be ported to a home system or not. - Master Bigode from SRK.o//(Talk) (Contribs) 02:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Akuma is confirmed??

So far, there is no evidence that he will appear in Street Fighter IV; no pictures, no magazine articles, not even a statement by Ono or any person involved in the production of the game.

Therefore, I removed his name from the "confirmed characters" list. When there is a reliable source about his inclusion, then we can add him back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.107.4.202 (talk) 12:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The info is from an French magazine, called Consoles+, which states that Akuma will play a major role in this game's storyline.details Unfortunately, I can't read French, so I can't say if it's fake or not. - Master Bigode from SRK.o//(Talk) (Contribs) 15:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, then. I'll add him back to the list, and also the link of this news to confirm it. Thank you for the information! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.107.4.202 (talk) 17:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Please god let akuma be in there! (Dan would be nice too) What is it? lp lp for hp hk or something like that? its been so long... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.167.204.104 (talk) 00:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about it to much. From what I read about Bison coming back from hell, and the story takes place after SSFII Turbo. It is very very most likely that Akuma will appear in this game. Lasttiger (talk) 00:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Minor cleanup

Article looks good - just tighten it a little. JAF1970 (talk) 20:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject videogames assessment

Hello, this post is in response to a request at the videogame project assessment department. I've rated the article as start-class low importance, it's evolved beyond a stub, though more solid details are going to be needed for the article to progress - keeping the article stable and referenced in the meantime is as much as anyone can do. There's little else to suggest at this point in time, when the article has developed further please resubmit the article for assessment. Someoneanother 15:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Game Apparently Released

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hInWDDXr3jk GameCreator (talk) 18:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

It's a demo playable at the AOU 2008. The complete game isn't released yet considering it's not finished. FightingStreet (talk) 19:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

StrategyWiki link

I think it is entirely unreasonable that people insist on removing the link to the StrategyWiki link to the SFIV guide. Yes the game is still under development. But if the argument that the link is no good because the game is under development, than the whole article on WP is just as worthless, and yet it is allowed to exist. The whole point of a wiki is that when new information becomes available, an article and/or guide can be immediately corrected. So there's no legitimate reason to deny users with a link to the StrategyWiki in case they wish to update information that falls outside the scope of WP, such as moves or character bios. While the game is not officially released, the information could still be very useful to any player who is lucky enough to play the game at a test location. I insist that the decision to remove the link be reversed, as other people have clearly been in support of its usefulness. Plotor (talk) 15:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Um, no legit reason? I think the one that said "the game isn't done yet and can change at any time" that was mentioned more than once is legit enough. Every thing in your guide can be turned obsolete in seconds.

As far as the "whole article being worthless given the game isn't done", do a comparison: everything here is related to real world information, and would be expanded if need be thusly. There's no need to remove any of it. Comparatively, if they, say, changed a moveset for a character you'd have to remove the old one from your guide, which is a stark contrast. I for one think your guide is a good idea, but I don't think now is the time for it. Apparently others agree.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

BTW, there's a command list right above the Taito Viewlix control panel. - Master Bigode from SRK.o//(Talk) (Contribs) 15:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't information in this article been updated and corrected in the past? What makes you think that this is the only source of information that is capable of being updated on the fly? If this article can be updated in a matter of seconds with news that Balrog and Sagat are in the game, why do you presume that the StrategyWiki guide will be prone to rapid obsolescence? The guide can be updated just as quickly, and you still haven't addressed the issue that the information made currently available in the guide can be useful to players who are visiting test locations. I've seen the command list, they are the usual incomplete three to five moves that can fit in the space provided and still be legible. The guide on SW contains a full up-to-date list of moves, which will be maintained in the event that a move list changes. To reiterate: Just because the game can change at any time does not mean the guide can't change just as quickly, or did you forget that that's the whole point of a wiki? Plotor (talk) 15:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the guide isn't particularly "useful" considering only a handful of people can actually play the game as of now. FightingStreet (talk) 15:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, you're opinion is respectfully and duly noted. Others may (and do) disagree. I still don't see how that is a valid reason for denying the link to the guide. If the link will be present in the future, what real harm does it do to include the link today, so that contributors can be made aware of it's existence. The whole purpose of StrategyWiki is to give editors a place to include information that has been, and continues to be, regarded outside the scope of permissible Wikipedia content. Plotor (talk) 15:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Because until it's done, the information of today may be wrong tomorrow, and there is no guarantee you or anyone else on StrategyWiki would keep it 100% up to date until that time. To reverse your question what's the harm in waiting? Why *must* it be added now at all costs? Truthfully at this time your insistence seems more in line with advertising your own guide. I'm sorry but that's all I can see here as the reason for all this.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Ugh, this is ridiculous. The same exact thing could be said of this article. All the points your using to invalidate the link to the SW apply equally to everything written on Wikipedia. There's no guarantee that you or anyone else on Wikipedia will keep it 100% up to date until it is released. However, there is in all likelihood a very high probability of that being the case, and as such, the same is true for SW. As long time fan of the series, and with all due respect, not to rub this in anyone's face, but as someone with direct ties to some of the producers at Capcom who I converse with regularly, I have no intention of letting the guide fall out-of-date with the most recent public knowledge about the game. I would be lying if I said that part of my intention was not to advertise the guide, but StrategyWiki is the appropriate place for video game information that is not technically appropriate for Wikipedia. If the guide can be advertised, then more people will be aware of a) where to find additional information, should they be seeking it and b) know where they can contribute information which can help keep the guide up to date. In essence, your conclusion that the link should be removed will help make it more difficult to remain up to date, so if you were truly concerned about the guide staying current, you should be more inclined to include the link, not less. Plotor (talk) 17:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I've said my peace on the subject (though if you wish to claim you speak with Capcom producers regularly I will suggest proof of the matter to further support your stance there. Other than that I have nothing more to say; you aren't really proving a counter argument, and a location test period for a game that doesn't even have the entire roster is not the best time to be sitting down with a strategy guide. Really, just wait until the game is done. Jeez.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, under what jurisdiction are you entitled to make the decision over whether or not the link should be included, and I am not? Why is my contribution to provide the link less valid than your edit to remove it? Plotor (talk) 19:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:EL. FightingStreet (talk) 21:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

a) That's not exactly an answer to my question as to why your call on the issue takes more precedence than my own, and b) I can find several points in that article that bolster the fact that it is a legitimate link, including but not limited to:

1. Point number 3 and 4 under What should be linked.
2. Point number 4 under Links to be considered.
3. You will also note that under point number 13 of Links normally to be avoided, StrategyWiki is in fact one of the open wiki sites included in the Meta:Interwiki map.

I'm having trouble finding a justification for your decision based on anything beyond spite. Plotor (talk) 21:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

StrategyWiki is not only for game "walkthroughs," they also cover all the minutiae that doesn't belong in wikipedia that people looking up information about the game may still find useful. It isn't a crystal ball and doesn't tell what will be there in the future from rumours, it consolidates all the released information about a game in a more wiki-like format. Beyond that, it will have essentially the same drawbacks and benefits as wikipedia itself. I have readded the link now, it would be beneficial to get some other peoples views on the issue. -- Prod (Talk) 17:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Why isn't the story up in the article? Contradicting Rufus? Akuma not listed. Gouken in odd place. Ono SF2 characters.

1)The storyline for SFIV was revealed at AOU 2008...

http://arcadeheaven.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/aou2008-sf4d.jpg

http://arcadeheroes.com/2008/02/15/aou-pamphlets-of-street-fighter-iv-blazblue-jubeat-more/

...yet whoever wrote the current Wiki article wants to act as if no story information has been revealed yet.

2) Rufus has been revealed, and is listed in the character section, but just above it the character info states that only 3 new characters have been revealed. Pretty contradicting and confusing to people who are trying to get accurate information on SFIV.

3) Akuma was confimred by Consoles+, he's listed in the FAQ section of Capcom's official BBS forums (which the Capcom employees on there can edit) yet he's not listed in the article.

http://www.capcom.com/BBS/showthread.php?t=21031

4) There's mention of Gouken being in SFIV, but not under the Character(s) heading, but rather the setting, as if Gouken was a stage or location or something.

5) In the 1UP interview with Ono he states that in terms of SF2 characters that they were focusing on the twelve characters from Street Fighter II Turbo, yet this article implies that all 17 characters from Super Turbo could be in the game, which isn't the case.

Actually, Akuma wasn't confirmed. Consoles+ saw some akuma sketches, but this doesn't mean he's in the game. - Master Bigode from SRK.o//(Talk) (Contribs) 21:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The Capcom employees on their official forums haven't stated that to be the case. If there were any incorrect info about SFIV in the FAQ on there, they would correct it, not to mention Consoles+ also stated that Akuma would play a major part in the storyline. That kinda goes beyond just seeing sketches of him, they would've had to have been told that information. - TAS 7284 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.92.199.157 (talk) 11:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Reference #14 - used to confirm Sagat and Bison - doesn't seem to link anywhere. I'd change the link myself but this page looks quite complicated and since I haven't contributed myself I don't want to accidently screw anything up. I thought I'd better mention it here. Is that forums link strong enough to confirm all of the characters it lists? I'm not a member myself. Dunjohn (talk) 19:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

not dead!?

didnt akuma kill m.bison? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.217.77.232 (talk) 13:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

He did. Ono decided to retcon it. More than likely this happens a lot closer to SF2's time now, probably before the tournament even ended. But that's just speculation on my part.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Street Fighter IV takes place one year after the Street Fighter II tournament, according to the AOU pamphlet of the game. 88.161.129.43 (talk) 19:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Found the page in question: "yokunen" -> "the following year" 88.161.129.43 (talk) 19:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

In SF story what is true today tomorrow isn't. I think nobody can do a SF story; the only thing possible is to show the various retcons that were made during the game releases. Anyway, this seems to follow more the EX universe than anything else. 84.90.24.156 (talk) 20:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

It has already been explained on the official Capcom Japan and USA websites that Bison did die and went to hell and back (in a new body). They also stated that you have to finish the game to get a more detailed explanation. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 21:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

To get a more detailed explanation of why this game is just a SFII rehash, if you ask me...--Kim Kusanagi (talk) 18:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Exactly141.149.42.76 (talk) 12:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's a rehash at all, but rather a continuation of SF2 that completely explains what hapened between SF2 and 3. Especially seeing as how there alot of things to be explained here. Fan's desperately wanted answers and now they get them with all the characters they love and more yet they still can't be happy. Please, don't do the simple minded/never satisfied thing I'm seeing so much of on Youtube. Just wait for the game to come out. Please? Sabishii_Kage (talk) 05:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

There was no need to explain what happened between SF2 and SF3. Shadaloo is shut down, someone else steps in. I'm sick and tired of these conspiracy theories that people keep making up between Gill and Bison. I am a hardcore SF player and I don't need answers for questions I never made, and I find disgusting how much of a throwback the game engine and roster is turning out to be. I don't need to wait until they release a piece of crap to label it as such.--Kim Kusanagi (talk) 22:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

People are assuming this will be the only game between SF2 and SF3, which may not be true… so, any link with SF3 might not happen at all 84.90.24.156 (talk) 20:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Whoa whoa, I mean I agree with you somewhat, I guess. Maybe it is that simple. However, maybe it's not. And I didn't say there was a connection to Gill and Bison, I was saying that the characters from SF2 disapeared out of nowhere except for some. Yes AT THE TIME it was because they wanted a brand new game with new characters but now they have explaining to do whether they like it or not (They are including SF2 characters after all). And who is Q? What's Remy's (And Gill's) connection to Alex? Yes I know Alex was considered by Gill to be the next Messiah but I think there might be more to it. Why are Necro's abbilities suprisingly similar to Dhalsim's (Stretching limbs, mid-air plumetting foot driling moves)? Things like that. Not to mention if Shadaloo is just "shut down" and Bison was defeated what's keeping him from ressurecting himself like he has done before. Now they show that he has so NOW they can show how he's not going to be able to do it again. And what's wrong with the character roster and the game's engine? People keep coming up with all of these negatives for the game like this and THAT is the only thing that I find "disgusting". Back in the day people would have just been happy that Capcom was trying their best to make the next Street Fighter, now if everyone is not happy and every little thing isn't perfect to them then the game is considered pointless and crappy. The graphics ARE good, the engine looks solid and seems to make 2D work perfectly in 3D unlike the EX or KOF MI/2006 series, and the new characters (So far anyways) are at LEAST entertaining. I mean we need negatives to make the game better but you can't just sit there and ONLY focus on negatives. I have friends who see this game and it makes them feel happy and excited, but then we have completely negative people like you who ruin it for them. Not to mention this is only a first attempt at next gen SF so give them a break for God's sakes. Thing's like this keep me from being a video game developer... As for the other comment: As I said you may be right but you also may be wrong. So far I'd say it is the only one. We'll just have to wait. Sabishii_Kage (talk) 10:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

"They are including SF2 caracters after all". No kidding! This is SFII all over again, and anyone who says it is not is a blatant idiot for not realizing it has the same chars, same stages, same BGMs and same damn engine. Why can't Ohnoes get over SFII is beyond me, but what is evident is that he's an imbecile. Who's Q? Who's Remy's dad? Who cares? Do we need a PREQUEL to learn such trivial facts? Why are Necro's skills similar to DahSlim? WTF? Why are then Remy's skills similar to Guile's then!? Why are Ken's similar to Ryu's! They aren't even that similar to begin with and then again, so what if they're alike! It's for gaming reasons! How can Bison revive WITHOUT a soul? Oh yeah, with OHNOES stupid retcons! And since he has the control now he's gonna make that stupid red pajama man unkillable and appear in every CRAPCOM FG until he retires or dies from the company. And no, I cannot accept first tries in a SF game. It has to shine from the start and not rely in consumers buying updates, this is not 1996 anymore. The graphics are Budokai-ish, the engine is stupid, the storyline and cast is idiotic, CRAPCOM is not doing their best to make this game good and I'm offended that a stupid SFII-only scrub is in charge of making this game and diregarding the much better SFA and SFIII series.--Kim Kusanagi (talk) 22:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Minor Edits

Bored and hopped up on rockstar so I made some edits.

1) Ono confirmed to EGM in their June 2008 issue that DIMPS is in fact developing SFIV, despite Capcom's earlier insistence that DIMPS was not involved in the project. Discussion can be viewed here: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=288496&highlight=dimps+sfiv

2) The correct spelling of Taito's 16:9 HD LCD cabinet is VEWLIX, not VIEWLIX. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.191.217.246 (talk) 11:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Seth and Rufus

Famitsu has revealed the official artworks for Rufus and Seth: http://www.famitsu.com/game/news/1215415_1124.html

Since Abel, El Fuerte and Crimson Viper already have their artworks in this page, shouldn't Rufus and Seth have their ones as well? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.107.4.202 (talk) 17:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. If you're bothering with putting the new character artworks on the page why has nobody added Rufus and Seth? Sabishii_Kage (talk) 07:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

PC Version

I have another question. What about the announced PC version? Will it just have the arcade cast of characters or will it share the console version's cast? Anyone know? As for speculation of whether Akuma, Dee Jay, Cammy, or T. Hawk hitting the console version there is no doubt. If Fei Long is then no doubt the rest of them are as well. It wouldn't make sense to a lot of SF fans if they just suddenly disappeared after SSF2T. The people behind SFIV have been interested in getting in as many characters as they can and besides, Akuma is a fan fav that has been strongly rumored/wanted and Capcom is interested in putting in more female characters which no doubt, is probably going to include Cammy. Rest assured the SSF2T cast is probably all going to be in here. But we'll have to wait for official sources just to be sure. Still, anyone know about the PC versions cast? Vgamer101 (talk) 03:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Even More New Characters!?

I know this is very vague, but I came across a forum with this page linked to it: http://www.capcom.co.jp/sf4/mobile/index.html If you scroll down the page you can see small mug-shot art of characters from SFIV Notice after Crimson Viper? It looks like there are even more new characters to be announced. I know it's in Japanese and all, but if I come across a better translated/legit page about this I will get back to you all. Sabishii_Kage (talk) 09:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Kakuto already showed that I think. It turned out to be background appearances for certain characters, instead of everyone revealed in one shot.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

You are right but they haven't been identified yet. Lasttiger (talk) 21:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

All right, should I delete this section I created or what? Probably just waisting space. Sabishii_Kage (talk) 18:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

No, leave it. Prevents someone from asking the question again and everyone having to repeat themselves.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

From what I can see, that's looks like the last of the roster. All though Akuma isn't listed, he is still probably in it. Lasttiger (talk) 20:05, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Yea, I agree. People keep asking about Akuma and nothing has been confirmed but you can tell he's bound to be in there; whether it be consule exclusive or downloadable. Sabishii_Kage (talk) 23:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing since that Fei Long and Dan along with Dudley, Necro, R. Mika, Sakura, and Ibuki. Those are going to be the console characters. But other than Akuma and the other original Street Fighters, pretty much everyone else is going to be new in the arcade version. Lasttiger (talk) 05:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I looked in to that, and some of those are actually background characters.Lasttiger (talk) 20:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh I see. Well hoplefully not ALL of them are =/ Thanks though. Sabishii_Kage (talk) 03:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Concept Art does not equal character confirmation,

Until Dan and Fei Long have actually been confirmed as characters, they should have no place in the article as confirmed characters. Any arguments? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.59.150 (talk) 19:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

From what I've read around, apparently Famitsu did indeed confirm them as console characters. That's a bit beyond just concept art, no?

Agreed. All concept art usually means anyway is that they have worked on the character's model and animations/moves/story to the point that they are without a doubt GOING to be in the game. The creator has confirmed the characters however; that's plenty enough to add it to the page in my oppinion. Sabishii_Kage (talk) 21:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

It is hard to tell people that they are in the game. Find many sources but they won't accept it through their thick skulls/ Here is the official site. If he doesn't believe me, then this guy is being selective 76.102.134.232 (talk) 00:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

http://www.capcom.co.jp/sf4/cs.html

Yes. Either way, Fei Long hasn't been in a game forever. Lasttiger (talk) 03:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, my apologies then. The only source I'd seen, or that I'd seen referenced in the article was the concept art source. 86.148.59.150 21:03 2 June 2008 (GMT)

They are NOT confirmed. These are just rough sketches used as place-holders to symbolize the Alpha series and the New Challengers from Turbo; the names "Dan" and "Fei Long" don't even appear on that official site you linked to. Source: [2]. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 11:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Pretty much the usual crap from Ono then...I'm not surprised. I'll work this info in.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

They are in the Fucking game! Quit removing them! I read the news and the official website! What more proof do you need? 76.192.217.84 (talk) 18:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

And if you check the sources, Ono's saying they aren't confirmed. I just think they don't know what they hell they're doing really, but the Ono statement is more recent, so we'll see.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry! They are most likely in it, keep your fingers crossed! Lasttiger (talk) 20:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't he said in the video interview that, they will be in? It's also featured in some japanese gaming magazine, right? So, what's the reason it's still not confirmed? --TaZaR 11:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

You guys do realize he didn't say a peep about Fei Long. Only Dan. Lasttiger (talk) 23:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Rufus Based Off Of Saturday Night Slam Masters Character?

A person I was talking to on Youtube through video posting claims that he heard that Rufus is based off of a character from Slam Masters. He said he forgot what the name of the character is but he said the similarities between the two are quite obvious. Anybody else heard anything like this before? And if so which character does he mean? I don't doubt that it's true myself though seeing as how Biff Slamkovich from Slam Masters in my oppinion looks suprisingly like Alex and shares a move (Flash Chop) with him. Sabishii_Kage (talk) 05:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

He does look like Jumbo, but the moves are completely different. It's all speculation unless a source can verify. Truth be told, I think he's more a jab at obesity than anything :\--Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow thanks for the quick reply! Ok just wanted to know. Yes I agree for the most part. I personally enjoy his character: He's an overweight American using (What sems to be) Kung-Fu who thinks he has the ability to defeat Ken. But no, people for now; possibly from now on will just continue to know him as "That fat thing". Poor Capcom, nothing they can do is good enough for some I guess. If I get a legit website about the Slam Masters thing I'll post it. Sabishii_Kage (talk) 06:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Poor CRAPCOM? It is not that they do things that nobody appreciates, it's that they want to kill SF by ripping off and rehashing themselves--Kim Kusanagi (talk) 22:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Buying Wallpapers, Colors, And "Stamps". Also Character Customization

http://www.gamemanx.com/street-fighter/street-fighter-4-update-bison-vega-and-rufus/2008/04/12/

Found this page and it caught my interest. I'm not sure if any of you find this to be a legit source or not. Even more than what's in the title is also mentioned. Let me know what you think. Sabishii_Kage (talk) 06:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Console Characters

Unless a better link is found, the link provided does not confirm 'console characters'. Only concept art. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.83.119.165 (talk) 03:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thread already started a few paces above this one. Lasttiger (talk) 08:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

How Many Characters Are There Going To Be in SF4? (W/o Console Characters?)

Because It looks like this is the last of the Roster if you ask me. Lasttiger (talk) 20:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Character roster

So SFIV has finally been released in Japanese arcades and that's the base cast? Reason I'm asking is that I know July 2008 was supposed to be the Japanese arcade release for it, which is now, and I seen the intro video with Akuma in there, but not in gameplay videos. He's in there right?

Just as well, Capcom is taking votes on their blog for new characters in the home releases. Is it any kind of idea to maybe recreate the third column for characters exclusive to home releases or is there something in the text of the article mentioning the possiblity of exclusive characters? I didn't read the whole article. Vgamer101 (talk) 01:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

C class

It's extremely difficult for an unreleased game to have all that high a rating. There's just no conclusive info. JAF1970 (talk) 07:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Well there is more citable information available, but as it stands it has more for it than simply start-class material. How can C be "that high a rating" when it's a notch above start and below B?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 07:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

How Many Characters Are There Going To Be in SF4? (W/o Console Characters?) ==

Because It looks like this is the last of the Roster if you ask me. Lasttiger (talk) 20:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

There's a reason this was archived: it isn't a forum, and speculating will do nada for the article.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for that useless bit of information Lasttiger (talk) 14:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC) Useless or not, he's right. Go to CRAPCOM's website, LameFAQs or LameSpot for further info. Wikipedia hasn't to provide you with such info.--Kim Kusanagi (talk) 16:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Guy ,Charlie,Akuma and Gen should be in the game as well as Grimmjow!!!Grimmjow E6 (talk) 15:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that AT LEAST Akuma is going to end up in the main game roster by the time the game's finished.

Furthermore Kim you seriously have an anger/hatred issue (or at least you talk with hatred). Just because Capcom doesn't do what YOU like (or gamefaqs or gamespot) doesn't mean they deserve to have you bash them. And to go on with my earlier argument sense I can't edit older discussions: Yes, some people might like a prequel to explain things. Ryu and Ken's moves are the same because they where trained by the same master, unlike Necro who has nothing to do with Dhalsim. As for Remy yea good point, hints why many people thought he was Charlie's son. And just because you think Bison is "That pajama wearing guy who keeps comming back" (wherever the heck that childish crack came from) doesn't mean other people do. I love Bison; he is one of my favorite 2D fighting bosses of all time. So what if it seems like Budokai? Budokai's engine is a very well made 2.5D engine. The graphics ARE good and the gameplay looks very solid. I'll argue that untill it is released and hopefully after as well. However at least fan's who didn't like the game still wouldn't bash it before it was even realeased. Also fine, if you want to be like that then go ahead, you must be dissapointed often I guess. Video Game companies are not going to be able to make every little fan happy. It's THEIR company so they can do whatever they want to do; get over it. Or hey, don't get over it, complain some more. I'm a huge Capcom fan and I can accept this game even if it sucked, so why can't you? Capcom Fighting Evolution wasn't great, but I didn't whine and complain about it. Then again, with a name like Kim Kusanagi you could very well be an SNK fan that came here to bash the latest Capcom game, but anyway. I love SFA and III too, but someone could EASILY do the same thing as you and say that Alpha and III are past their prime. I can't wait to play this game, and that game is the new addition to the SF series that has less than half the origonal SF team working on it and STILL looks good: Street Fighter 4. Sabishii_Kage (talk) 11:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I cant WAIT to play this game either but i REALY wish that capcom would put Grimmjow as an easter egg or a second to last boss......,Grimmjow E6 (talk) 00:20, 13 July 2008 (UTC).(you know the most badass character from bleach the anime)

It's Street Fighter IV, not Soul Calibur 4. Capcom doesn't even own him, do they?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Namco develops and publish soul caliber while capcom develops and publishes street fighter...,Grimmjow E6 (talk) 23:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC).

That's not the point. This isn't a forum to list what characters you would like to see in the game, especially out-of-nowhere characters from popular anime. NeoChaosX (talk, edits) 08:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I know that smart one, and besides it would be cool if he is a character with street fighter but stemming away from that,I checked one of the external links on the street fighter 4 article and it has a website with magazine scans of Dan and Fei Long as well as the new boss of street fighter 4 Seth [3] check it out it is most likely legit add it to the character confirmation on the said page if you see it neccissary......,Grimmjow E6 (talk) 15:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC).(I know you at least thought thats a good idea..Grimmjow and akuma=awsomeness!)

First, it's true, I used to have anger related issues. So what, big deal. About the second thing, when you screw things up, you deserved to be bashed and even physically punished. And no, no one formulates questions about uncovered things. CRAPCOM is trying to create a plothole where there weren't any. They could have perfectly created new interesting characters to replace the old boring ones but NOOO we have to put our stupidest employee in charge who also happens to play only SFII and suck at the rest. Third, Budokai is not any good at all. Fourth, just because you produce anything, it means you can poo your product years later, that's ridiculous, you're just a suck up yes man if you swallow anything they send to you and put aside your taste, pride and dignity. You aren't a serious gamer if you didn't criticize the multiple flaws in CFJ. Fifth, SKN sucks huge dog balls with their craptastic series, so the name doesn't mean anything. Last, that "half of the staff" is fake BS. Get your facts straight.--Kim Kusanagi (talk) 16:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Um that is your opinion i belive DBZ tenchaichi 3 and the last of the original bodikai for the PS2 bodikai 3 is just as good as virtua fighter, tekken, DOA and other well known fighting games. So come into reality and notice that everything you think is fact that is just base on what you think is highly unimpaortant and is mediocre in the eyes of others that actually do research on the subject. You havent even stated anything about the game itself you just started of by saying “thats a crappy series″ OR its “not any good″ LOL. Anyway even if you did your research with hardcore evidence that say these games “suck huge balls″ or is “poo″ and the games are a “craptistic series″ and user Sabishi Kage is indeed a “suck up″ and a “yes man″ that is not neaded here on wikipedia. And also if you two are going to start an edit war over something that is not even related to this article and is childish as Kim Kusanagi paragraph maybe you two should exchange your yahoo user names or myspace user names or whatever to argue. BUT not here on this DISSCUSSION PAGE. And Kim Kusanagi “when you screw things up, you deserved to be bashed and even physically punished″......WOW you need therapy about child hood realated issues buddy, mabey its because of your dad, your mom or possibly your grandfather beating on you? That is obviously some words said by someone that needs help mentaly most likely due to incidents done when you were a child. I mean, who say or even type something like that? You have only added a useless sentence to this page until you came up with this paragraph that shows you have anger issues, you used to get beaten on and you belive what you say goes without any research (more clearly without say) “Get your facts straight″ LOL ......,Grimmjow E6 (talk) 05:17, 2 August 2008 (UTC).

If you are a serious FG player (of course you're not), you know how badly DBZ sucks. And it does NOT by any means feature high level play like VF or Tekken. Stop pretending. BTW, my aggressive nature is not due to childhood related issues, because I was raised just fine, and I was taught to call things by their name. Ono is an imbecile and I would say it straght in his face if I had to meet him. I've done more than what you think to get my facts straight by checking every freaking source available and if you want to learn more, look for me at gamefaqs.--Kim Kusanagi (talk) 01:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Gentlemen, this is not the appropriate place for this argument and you are both in breach of Talk Page Guidelines. If you can find some reputable citations for your points of view, by all means include them. SupernautRemix (talk) 11:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Rest assured, I've given him directions for further talk, I won't touch this subject again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kim Kusanagi (talk • contribs) 18:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

You have simply argued your opinion (which I disagree with) in a rude and simple minded way while resorting to things like saying I need help and my childhood was screwed up. My parents are practically saints compared to most parents and I love them very much. You don't know anything about me but obviously I guessed many things right about you. And my facts are perfectly straight thanks. Yes, I am a serious FG player but not in the "everything has to have certain amounts of combos and quickness or whatever, or the gameplay isn't tight enough!" like you are. So no there is no further need for talking, I'm through with you as well. Sorry for instigating an argument in discussion. In the words of Hugo: "The eeend!" Sabishii_Kage (talk) 00:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Some fixings needed

• The references need to be in the proper format. That doesn't mean absolutely using the template, just in the style for references of that particular sort. Some are missing publisher info, date info, there's no need to mention a page is in html format, etc. Arcadia scans should preferably point to the issue they came from in the body of the ref as a result, etc etc...
• Someone should montage the new characters together into one image. This article is going to have serious problems with GA and beyond if it has too many fair-use images. :\
• Could probably use a copyedit by now.
• The following needs mention and citation in the article (unless they're there and I overlooked them): english voices and the ability to turn them on or off per character, the shown optional outfits (Chun-li's dress, Blanka's safari attire), that bit about how the characters would take visible damage and Ono later came back and said it couldn't be done seems to be missing too.

Well?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Console-only characters

Not console-only, they'll be in every home version of the game, including the PC port. And I also think it's not "only", there's a chance that the arcade version will be updated with these characters too, tho it's not confirmed yet as I know. --TaZaR 21:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

There's actually nothing citable saying the PC version yet however. It's only listing the PS3 and 360 versions as far as I can tell.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The original news post (that the whole dan/fei long confirmation stuff based on) from http://www.capcom-fc.com/sf4/ says "Xbox 360／PLAYSTATION3／PC version". --TaZaR 23:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Did Anybody Catch the Recent ANN News?

According to Anime News Network, it seems that for the first time in the Street Fighter history. That Ryu will be getting a dubbed voice actor. Over the years, he's had a seiyuu do him. Zeta Nova 18:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC).

Cammy

IGN has confirmed that Cammy is in the game. It was confirmed at Comic-Con. [4] It is not stated which make of the game she will be in, though given her popularity, I have placed her in the returning characters section. --PlasmaTwa2 07:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

On second thought, I moved her over to the console/home section. If the game has been released in Japan already, it remains to be seen if she is playable in that. She could be playable in the American arcade (If there is one), but right now console seems like the best bet. --PlasmaTwa2 07:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious that she'll be in the game, but it's still not officially confirmed by Capcom, just like Akuma and Gouken, so I think Cammy shouldn't be added until that to the article. Tho the comiccon stuff about the poll and trailer should be in, definitely. --TaZaR 19:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Cammy is NOT officially confirmed yet. Ono stated that she won the Capcom-Unity poll and said he would attempt to convince his team to place her in the game, but made no guarantee that she'll actually be in the game. When she's confirmed, she'll be added, but let's not jump the gun. Jonny2x4 (talk) 20:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

He also said that the game already has an early version of Cammy. And the video had Cammy's storyline in it, and Ono said, they wouldn't highlight a character in a video, if they won't add it into the game. So yes, there's a slight chance for that she doesn't makes it into the game, but from what we know it's 99% sure, that Cammy's in, so let's add her back to the list. --TaZaR 16:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TaZaR (talk • contribs)

Oh, and it seems like someone deleted any mentoin of Cammy from the article. Why is that? --TaZaR 16:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TaZaR (talk • contribs)

99% sure is not enough. JuJube (talk) 17:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

So, so 1% is enough to remove everthing about Cammy, even that she won the poll, which was OFFICIALLY announced, and appeared on many well known gaming websites? Great, really. But anyways, she became confirmed today together with Gen. --TaZaR 18:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TaZaR (talk • contribs)

With a game like this, nothing's certain till it's in stone my friend.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

That's okay, and I can understand the reason of removing Cammy from the confirmed character list, but why removing every reference of her, including that she won that poll, and that they have a working verion of her at their studio (Ono mentioned that)? Why is that for? But it seems like who did it doesn't read this discussion page, so I'll will never get my answer... --TaZaR 14:43, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Console Characters

That's NOT Gouken in the end of the Ryu vs Akuma anime short. Gouken does not white hair or a ponytail. That's obviously Shen-Long or Goutetsu. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.208.56.80 (talk • contribs)

Uh, it is him. Ono even answered a question on why he would be featured in the animation like that if he wasn't playable. NeoChaosX (talk, edits) 00:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Gouken IS in the animation, but that's not him Shoryukening the waterfall. Uh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.208.56.80 (talk) 00:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Gouken has white hair. And for the ponytail - it never occurred to you that they could've updated his character design for this game? NeoChaosX (talk, edits) 02:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

But Gouken doesn't have a pony-tail (at least, not obviously) in any of the other scenes in which he appears in the anime, whereas Shen-Long AND Goutetsu (who are arguably the same character) have a white pony-tail in ALL of their canonical appearances. But, yes, Gouken's hair is white in this anime, unlike most of his appearances. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.208.56.80 (talk) 03:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Big deal! Just because he didn't a ponytail doesn't mean he couldn't grew one afterwards. Either way, this discussion is not relevant to the article.Jonny2x4 (talk) 23:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Release Date?

Apparently, according to Amazon.com, SFIV will be released on Feb 3, 2009. Shouldn't this be mentioned in the article?

-Serpentine —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.161.100.189 (talk) 10:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

No. Stores are not reliable sources for release dates; they always give estimates to when a game may come out to drive up interest and pre-orders. Wait until Capcom officially announces a release date. NeoChaosX (talk, edits) 13:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Now on Gamespot the game's release date will coincide with the new movie, The Legend Of Chun-Li. Link —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.161.100.189 (talk) 11:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

There should be no release date for North America in the arcades yet, all the machines that have shown up in American arcades have been frakensteins so to speak, the SFIV board put in a different cabinet. The game has not yet been officially released in the country. Sam Smith UK —Preceding undated comment was added at 23:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC).

Sorry I rolled ya back. The source on the statement seems to confirm that this is indeed a trial release. Arcade cabinets are not a profitable American industry so it's not a big surprise that SF4 would be released in all Japanese head-to-heads thus far. JuJube (talk) 21:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "boxersagat" :
  • {{cite web |url= http://blog.capcom.com/archives/968|title= New SFIV Content in Location Test Machines|accessdate=2008-02-29 |last= Killian|first= Seth|coauthors= |date= [[February 29]], [[2008]]|work= |publisher= Capcom US}}
  • {{cite web |url= http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3166765|title= Sagat, Balrog in Street Fighter IV|accessdate=2008-02-29 |last= Pigna|first= Kris|coauthors= |date= [[March 3]], [[2008]]|work= |publisher= Ziff Davis Publishing Holdings Inc.}}

DumZiBoT (talk) 08:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Akuma's Nationality

All though it is supposidely Japan and his name sounds Japanese, his wikipedia character profile says unknown so that needs to be left as the pirate flag on his conformation.Lasttiger (talk) 23:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• The game articles list where the character's stage is, not where they are from. I don't know about where Akuma's stage is, though. JuJube (talk) 01:26, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
• Sources i've read stated that it was unknown.Lasttiger (talk) 06:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

You must be reading odd sources then, as he's always been shown to be Japanese.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 07:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

It's true that Akuma is fairly obviously Japanese, but all official sources list his birthplace as "Unknown". JuJube (talk) 07:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

• I know it is obviously Japanese. But sources declare "unknown" so that is where we keep him at. It's like Raven from Tekken is obviously American

but since he is listed as unknown, that is where we keep him at. Lasttiger (talk) 19:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

• • Agreed. But the unknown flag icon is more appropriate than the cartoony pirate one. ^---SilentRAGE! 03:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
• I suppose so Lasttiger (talk) 19:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC).

Infinite combos

1Up story JAF1970 (talk) 15:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand how IGN regards that as news exactly, given other true infinites are still readily known in other games (i.e. Ivy in SC4).--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

List of voice actors

Personally I don't feel that belongs in the article...it's kinda unsightly and really something coverable by the articles and character list instead...--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Many anime, TV shows and movies have cast lists for the main characters in their articles, why shouldn't a video game? NeoChaosX (talk, edits) 04:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Isn't Gouken and Sheng Long the same like Gouki and Akuma?

According to http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3170130, they are. Whitereflection (talk) 17:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Nope. Sheng Long was a mistaken translation by Capcom USA that EGM used for their April Fools joke. Gouken's name has always been the same regardless of region since SSF2T. NeoChaosX (talk, edits) 18:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Gouken home only?

Is Gouken for Home only or for arcade as well?Lasttiger (talk) 16:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Still waiting to hear who the time released character is today. They announced one would be and the Gouken news followed shortly afterward. Just gotta wait and see.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Alright, according to Capcom blog info and a youtube video now he is available in the arcade game, from the looks of it boss only at the moment. Vid.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

They will probably make him playable in a week or two. This game will be perfect if they just squeeze in T. Hawk And Dee Jay. They probably will add them to. Lasttiger (talk) 18:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

That's just speculation. In the post before the Gouken one, Ono says that the home version only has three characters so far, Fei-Long, Dan and a third character (obviously Cammy, but Ono has yet to revealed she'll be in the game to Japanese media for some reason).[5] If they add one more character, I think it'll be Alex (seeing how he's in the Tatsunoko game). Jonny2x4 (talk) 23:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I dunno. It's feels odd to leave out T. Hawk and Dee Jay if Cammy and Fei Long Appear in this game. He should just do it. Every fan of SSFFII Turbo would be happy then.Lasttiger (talk) 06:29, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Not that odd when you consider T. Hawk has never really been popular and Dee Jay was American made.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

T. Hawk is the most forgettable character of SSFII Turbo but he's still a classic character. Dee Jay is awesome! I really just want Dee Jay to be honest If I had to pick one of the two.Lasttiger (talk) 19:18, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

English voice acting

I'm curious considering there's no source for this. Is the actual game itself going to have English voice acting (i.e: all the characters speak English during battle when they talk before battle or perform Special Moves) or is the English voice acting just for the animated cut-scenes that are going to be featured in the game? Jonny2x4 (talk) 02:03, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Cammy and Gen citation

Sorry guys, I managed not once but twice to screw the thing with the reference list. I'm a little rusty and inexperience on Wikipedia editing so could someone maybe input this link of citation for me?:

http://www.ripten.com/2008/11/04/new-street-fighter-iv-screens-cammy-and-gen-duke-it-out-with-the-rest-of-the-gang/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vgamer101 (talk • contribs) 05:02, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

We've already got a perfectly workable source for the Gen and Cammy confirmation, why replace it? NeoChaosX (talk, edits) 05:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Rose

I posted a sourced statement that rose is selectable, and it got removed by NeoChaosX.
My reference is this image.
http://img98.imageshack.us/my.php?image=sf4rosedf2.jpg
Please don't remove it again.
Uker (talk) 19:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Except that aside from that piece of media, there hasn't been any other confirmation of her appearance - no announcement from Capcom, no articles in Famitsu or other major gaming media, nothing. For all we know, that's a really well-done Photoshop, but since we don't know whether it's real or not, she shouldn't be listed. Additionally, if you had actually read that whole section you're editing, Akuma, Gouken and Seth being playable has already been mentioned so there's no need to repeat that fact. NeoChaosX (talk, edits) 20:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, my bad on the repeating of the bosses' statement, but about the pic... Photoshop? Not on a true screenshot, but on a photo of an actual screen? A photo that BTW, is far clearer than any other available photo of the character selection screen featuring Seth, Gouken, Gouki and Akuma? Anyway, I won't edit again. I've had it. Later. Uker (talk) 20:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

While I don't doubt she's in there given the game's track record, it's best to wait for something really official.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I won't add Rose again to the list of home exclusive characters; however, I suggest checking the following video: http://br.youtube.com/watch?v=q6xOrw6rBVs&feature=related Her face is pretty visible from 0:00 to 0:01 (only a second, I know, but YouTube has the pause button, right?). There is also another video with the same selection screen; it's a little blurred, but we can see her icon, and clearly see Fei-Long and Cammy, who weren't in game demonstrations before: http://br.youtube.com/watch?v=bF3abjzihyY So, I think she should be added back to the page. But that is just my opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.107.4.202 (talk) 16:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Restated Rose. I'd like to think that in presence of footage of a functional game that shows her in the character selection screen, you don't need a memo from Capcom, do you? Uker (talk) 19:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Character contrapositions?

Do you think character contrapositions are somehow worth commenting? ie: Ryu/Sagat, Chun-Li/Vega, Guile/Abel, Dhalsim/Honda, Blanka/Balrog, Bison/Viper, Sagat/Ryu, Ken/Rufus, Zangief/El Fuerte. Uker (talk) 16:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Unless a reliable source writes something about such a trivial detail, no. NeoChaosX (talk, edits) 17:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Is it Yoshinori Ono or Ono Yoshinori?

Okay, I don't want to get into an edit war with User:Uker but this is bugging me. Uker, what's your source that Yoshinori is the producer's last name and not his first? As far as I know, most Western game publications have printed Japanese names in Western order, and those same publications have printed the producers name as "Yoshinori Ono" when writing about him, which seems to indicate Ono is his last name, not Yoshinori. NeoChaosX (talk, edits) 22:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. The reason is that in eastern cultures, people's names are usually written family name first, given name last. See here. Let me know if I can further clarify on the matter. uKER (talk) 20:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

But as I said, most Japanese names are written in Western gaming publications as first-last (e.g., Shigeru Miyamoto, Hideo Kojima). Since the producer's name has been written as "Yoshinori Ono" in such places as Electronic Gaming Monthly/1UP.com and Edge, it should be obvious that Ono is his last name, not his first. Or has this site been misspelling the names of Miyamoto, Kojima and other Japanese figures? Do you have the kanji of Ono's full name to prove that his name is "Ono Yoshinori" and not "Yoshinori Ono", or are you just changing it around because of that rule? NeoChaosX (talk, edits) 20:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

You don't have to get harsh. I think I'm not being so. The kanji version I have for his name is 功統 大野, but I don't recall where I got it. I'll try to look up the name in capcom.co.jp and confirm. uKER (talk) 21:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Reverted to Ono. I couldn't find any mention of his name in Capcom's japanese site, but some Google searching of his surname along with 'capcom' seems to indicate that the name is indeed ONO Yoshinori (family name, given name). uKER (talk) 23:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Online feature

According to the official site (and the Japanese Wikipedia article), the arcade version of the game itself already has an online feature. In fact, it uses the NESYS card system. Jonny2x4 (talk) 02:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Timeline setting vs character roster

I've come into a dispute with user Jonny2x4 on whether the timeline setting for the game is a determinant factor to its roster.

He insists in stating that "The game is set between SF2 and SF3, thus its roster is that of SF2', plus 4 new characters" (which makes 75% of the roster from SF2).

I know there's a relationship, but it's not that SF games necessarily adopt the roster of the game they precede. At the time of its release, SF3 was a sequel to SF2 and its roster has nothing in common with that of SF2, except for Ryu and Ken.

The reason for SFIV's character selection is that SFIV was somewhat meant to be a hi-tech reedit of SF2 (I haven't had the time to look for a source). Initially, they were headed to recreating the SSF2 roster, but they finally dropped the SSF2 characters and set for SF2'. uKER (talk) 20:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't really care whether how the characters section is worded (just as long as we don't have any more anon users adding nonsense to the article like putting home version-only characters in the arcade roster). Anyway, Ono describes the game as a "sequel to II rather than III" and that the character roster is "II Dash with the feeling of Super X". Although he doesn't state the game's story setting is the reason for the character roster in the arcade version. Here's the Famitsu interview Jonny2x4 (talk) 02:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

There has to be a better way to write this:

Chronologically set between the Street Fighter II series and the Street Fighter III series, Street Fighter IV was initially meant as a return to the series' roots, ie Super Street Fighter II Turbo, which Ono considers to be "the king of Street Fighter games".

A less fanboyish one biased to a single SF game,even with OHNOES being a SFII-only scrub and all...--Kim Kusanagi (talk) 19:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Fixed, considering that I don't recall Ono actually saying anything remotely resembling that in the interview. Even if he did and that was his actual opinion, I don't see the point of pointing that out other than the editor.Jonny2x4 (talk) 17:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

It was me (not any fanboy of any particular game) that originally added this. If you did watch the interview cited as a source, you'd see he literally says it. I think it's a relevant point stating the direction the designers took while developing the game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uker (talk • contribs) 16:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Character List vandalism

I know this isn't important but somebody put Goku and Galactus on the character list! I'm sorry I had to state it, but this was kind of funny! lol —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vgamer101 (talk • contribs) 22:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

It's been taken care of. And please remember to put new talk section at the bottom of the talk sections and sign them, thanks. NeoChaosX (talk, edits) 23:00, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

There has been a lot of Character Vandalism. Like I saw T. Hawk And Dee Jay Added to the roster list. I wanted to cut whoever put their names on the roster list nutsack off for bringing my hopes up on their appearences. 24.7.125.67 (talk) 06:33, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Arcade Hardware

Why is there absolutely no mention of what arcade hardware this is running on? 79.66.107.221 (talk) 19:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Did you actually read the article? The arcade board is listed in the infobox at the top of the page, as well as in the Development section. NeoChaosX (talk, edits) 21:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Is this game a "dream match" ? I couldn't find that information in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.139.122.64 (talk) 00:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Official interview that may help

Anime News Network made an interview with the Street Fighter IV staff[6][7]. It could help with the development section. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 11:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Seth Page

Currently, it points to the Egyptian god. It should point here Seth_(Street_Fighter). That's not a page yet, though. Someone should make it. 76.93.41.50 (talk) 12:29, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

DLC Championship Mode

While it's existence is confirmed it's details I think are not. "The first expansion pack, titled "Championship Mode", will be free of charge and provide players with a replay mode, a new points system and an enhanced tournament matching system." This has not been cited and and till such occurs perhaps it should be changed to something less detailed? Something like: "The first expansion pack, titled "Championship Mode", full details as of yet are not confirmed." Something to that extent. There is talk of putting in a lobby system like in HD Remix and all sorts of other speculation. I do think the fact that it was free was confirmed but still a citation to such would be nice. 147.70.36.80 (talk) 18:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Bonus Stages?

If I'm not mistaken there isn't supposed to be any. Yoshinori Ono said in the Top Secret Podcast Episode 32 on BionicCommando.com that there weren't going to be any. I may have accidentally misheard this and got it wrong, but they may not be in there. Vgamer101 (talk) 00:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Correct. They were in the game but removed before release for the reason which I call bullcrap. The reason being it wastes time in which arcades could be making more money from the players. 147.70.36.80 (talk) 18:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Famitsu interview with Ono published 2/18

Famitsu.com has just conducted an interview with Yoshinori Ono, in which he reveals a few of his hypothetical plans for SF IV. Apparently T. Hawk and Dee-Jay were once modeled for the console versions, but were left out in the end. Contrary to what is reported in secondary sources, there's no plans for a Hawk/Dee-Jay expansion pack, but Ono says he will bring them back in the future if there's enough demand for them. Jonny2x4 (talk) 14:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

They Will Probably Add Them Eventually. If they don't become downloadable content, it's a safe bet that they will be added into the SFIV franchise. We will very likely see more than one version of SFIV. Lasttiger (talk) 19:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Saying "they probably will" is still speculation.Jonny2x4 (talk) 19:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Remember, he said that if reception is high, he's going to make SFV, not a IV update like they did in the past. --Ryu-chan (Talk | Contributions) 19:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually in the interview I posted, he says that it's likely he might make a Street Fighter IV Dash if there's enough demand for it. There's apparently a "Championship Mode" online update already planned for a Spring release. Jonny2x4 (talk) 22:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

But he's never made a 4 update. Either way if they do get added, it probably won't be for at least another 4-6 months. I really hope Dee Jay gets added. I could care less about T. Hawk. Lasttiger (talk) 21:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

So he plans on doing the whole update thing again? Or is it going to be a sequel like alpha 3 is to alpha 2 and third strike is to 2nd impact? --Ryu-chan (Talk | Contributions) 18:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

He plans on making a dash version update, but only for download content. Lasttiger (talk) 22:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

But its only a hypothetical plan, not an official one yet. Ono has a habit that whenever he is asked about an unannounced project, he says he has no plans for it, but will go through it if "enough users demand for it" (he stated the same thing about Vampire 4 and Capcom vs. SNK 3). Jonny2x4 (talk) 13:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

True. But It would be a hell of a lot easier to add T. Hawk and Dee Jay In SF4 than to make a whole new game about Capcom vs SNK 3. Snk and Capcom's contract expired in 2004 and they still haven't renewed it yet. We will not see a Capcom vs Snk game for at least another 5-10 years. As For Dee Jay And T. Hawk, they could put them in a lot easier since it isn't making a new game (just adding new characters). Lasttiger (talk) 00:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

" I could care less about T. Hawk." - You could care less? If I see that bad grammar one more time... It shows what you know about Street Fighter, because one 360 grab character in a new Street Fighter is bloody ridiculous.He's the first character that needs adding. 86.129.25.56 (talk) 14:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, well I may suck at street fighter, but you suck at getting pussy.Lasttiger (talk) 22:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Straw Poll as per discussion above

As seen in the discussion above this topic is very debatable. Recently the following statement was removed from the downloadable content section of the page: "Street Fighter IV producer Yoshinori Ono has stated that T. Hawk and Dee Jay may be downloadable characters if players make their voices heard.". The debate is whether or not this should be on the page. Some may claim it is speculation of a future event and others may claim that it is words straight from the game makers making it noteworthy. So NeoChaosX figured that a straw poll is the best bet at reaching a conclusion. Choose to Support the addition, Oppose the addition, or stay Neutral and if possible give reasoning so we can debate this out. --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 20:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Support, If stated directly by the makers I do not consider it crystal ball, and I think it s very noteworth seeing as this is something many would be interested in. --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 20:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Oppose, at best this information belongs to the development section, since it talks about content that was planned for the console ports of the game, but were not included in the released version. Ono's statement is nothing definite and a lot of video game developers tend to mention plans that don't necessarily come to fruition when they're interviewed. Adding his statement as it is was something that could come to fruition is speculative by itself. How do we know they'll be release as a DLC and not as part of an upgraded version of the game? So no, no and no. Jonny2x4 (talk) 15:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Oppose per Jonny2x4. Took the words right out of my mouth.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Oppose, So far, this subject has only been on the web since the day after SF4's American release. I'm beginning to doubt we will see them at this point since it hasn't been brought up again even this month. So yeah, I mean Ibuki was supposed to be in the game but she didn't make it either. Lasttiger (talk) 22:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

B-class assessment

After looking through the article and comparing it to the list of B-class criteria, I've decided to change its rating to B. In my opinion it fulfills all of the requirements for B-class (but not GA-class). The following points could be implemented to help its path to GA:

• The lead is short, especially when the overall length of the article is taken into account.

• The lead generally does not require inline citations unless something is super-controversial.

• The article, while generally accessible to non-gamers, could use a little more explanation so it's not quite so heavy on video game conventions.

• The gameplay section is a little too detailed. Coverage should be broader.

• The Characters section is a little list-heavy and unwieldy. It might be better expressed as prose with a link to a "Characters of Street Fighter IV" article. Home versions is also list-heavy.

• Development could definitely be larger, especially on such a recent game.

• More inline citations could not hurt, especially for sentences like these:

• "Street Fighter IV is currently released for PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360, with a Microsoft Windows version in the works as well."

• "In addition to the The Ties That Bind animated film included with the collectors edition of the game, UDON will be publishing a 4-part comic book based onStreet Fighter IV, with the first issue currently scheduled for February 18."

• "Giant Bomb gave the game 5 out of 5 stars."

• The article could use a good copyedit/prose polish.

• Layout is decent, but could be improved. For instance, "Home versions" could be "Release" and include "Related media".

— Levi van Tine (t – c) 09:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposing merging the anime into here in some fashion

Street Fighter IV: The Ties That Bind isn't going to end up a full article as it's just a 65 anime bundled with the game and not a stand-alone release. People aren't reviewing the anime however. I'm not saying give it a full paragraph, but a slight discussion about the thing should suffice and then redirect the article to here.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 09:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like a plan. There should be a section for the anime in this article. GamerPro64 (talk) 21:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Image in the infobox.

Personally, the image on the infobox should be the arcade version's original poster/pop card. For starters, the arcade version will always be the original platform in this case and the Xbox 360 (as well as the PS3 and Windows) will merely be derivative ports. Having the console cover art seems show a bit of a console-over-arcade bias. At the very least, lets wait until a finalized cover artwork is published and not one that has "Rating Pending" on the corner.Jonny2x4 (talk) 16:24, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

1. "Pop card illustration"? Are you serious? 2. WP:VG = box over posters, cards, etc. Most VG infoboxes for arcade titles show the screenshot if there's no game box, if anything, there should have been a screenshot of gameplay instead of that card anyway. Show me where a poster is used anywhere else in VG to begin with. JAF1970 (talk) 16:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Pop card is just a fancy arcade terminology for the poster used next to cabinets. As for articles which uses arcade posters over home version cover arts, pretty much every other Street Fighter articles besides this one (Street Fighter, Street Fighter II, Final Fight and Street Fighter III). Also Soul Edge uses the flyer/poster art, as does Tekken 2, Tekken 3 and Tekken 5: Dark Resurrection (although, some of the other articles in the same series use home version cover arts).

I feel arcade games are no different than theatrically-released films. The arcade versions are the FIRST versions of the game released, followed by whatever home versions is released (if there are any). If this article was about a popular theatrically-released film, then it would be probably seem odd to place the cover artwork of a home video version of the film and you wouldn't have any arguments. On the other hand, you seems to think its okay to replace a poster promoting an already-released arcade version with an unfinished cover artwork for a yet-to-be-released console version, as if the arcade version of the game didn't exist or didn't matter. Jonny2x4 (talk) 17:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm with Johnny on this one, the original version takes precedence. --erachima talk 17:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm also with Johnny on this one: why would we want pre-release Xbox 360 pics over official already-released arcade pics? Perhaps this discussion could be revisited once the Xbox 360 version is actually released and therefore the pic is official? --Oscarthecat (talk) 18:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Because it's on the OFFICIAL SITE? JAF1970 (talk) 18:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The tentative status of the box art is a side issue, SFIV is not primarily a console title, it's an arcade title. Therefore it should primarily use the arcade art. --erachima talk 19:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts on the matter exactly.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, "primarily an arcade title" is 1. false, because there will be far more copies of SF4 sold on home release, 2. want to check the other "primarily arcade titles" listed? For one, none of them posted a poster in the infobox. They either posted 1. a gameplay screenshot, or 2. the home release box. JAF1970 (talk) 14:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Um...Jonny2x4 pointed at several pages using the arcade art, by Capcom and Namco. In fact I really think SC2 should too, as the current setup is rather unsightly. Sorry guy but the consensus is against you, so please calm down.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

To throw in some additional consideration: in the past, the arcade version might well have been the primary version, but now in the late 2000s, this is no longer the case. Capcom's release of SFIV in the arcades was half-hearted at best, with it only coming out in a small handful of countries (in contrast to, say SF2 or Tekken, which was a major money-spinning cabinet on every continent). It's quite clear that they were simply using the arcade version of SFIV as a beta testing ground for the main (home) release. Not only does the arcade have an unfinished roster and missing cutscenes, but it was built on hardware that would facilitate a speedy conversion to home platforms. Furthermore, EVO, America's biggest fighting game tournament, uses the PS3 version, so that very much is the default. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.18.195 (talk) 17:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Controversy over Downloadable Costumes

Reading through the update history, I take issue with the removal by NeoChaosX of the mention of the costume controversy. It is stated "need a reliable source (not a forum or blog) for that)". Firstly, I'd say that you won't get an official Capcom source that mentions anything negative, so it's an impossibility. Secondly, and more importantly, I'd say that discussions in forums ARE the controversy. We have countless examples (I could link well over 10) of people expressing their unhappiness with this move, and so that in itself proves the matter. These are direct primary sources that back the statement up. It shouldn't matter whether they are "just" message boards or blogs, as they illustrate exactly the point that is being made. Large numbers of everyday people are the ones complaining, so we should accept the words of large numbers of everyday people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.22.96 (talk) 11:54, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

For the purposes of citations though, you'll need an actual reliable source like Kotaku for a reference. Blogs and message boards do not cut it by wikipedia's standards.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:25, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

So what exactly is required? An editorial piece on gamespot that talks about their own message board?! Seems a bit contrived, not to mention extremely unlikely. Surely the type of reference would depend on exactly what was being established? If there's talk about a certain topic, then the talk itself seems self-evident proof. If I were to state "infinite combo videos have surfaced", would a YouTube video link be enough? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.22.96 (talk) 18:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The standard of reliable sources are pointed out at Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Reliable source examples. Most forums and blogs aren't reliable sources because any person can post on them and there's no outside fact-checking to make sure whatever posted there is accurate.NeoChaosX (talk, edits) 19:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if it's accurate or fact-checked or not. It does prove there's controversy. It doesn't matter whether the whingers on a forum are justified or not. Such a link would prove the statement at hand (ie that the move is controversial and has inspired debate with the public). I don't see how you can disagree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.18.195 (talk) 17:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Fight Pad

Does any know any sources that actually talk about the uses of this pad? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.40.36 (talk) 19:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean 'uses for the pad'? You mean besides playing videogames? Uker (talk) 05:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Patches: character changes

Is there a source for the stated patched changes to characters (Fei Long's chicken wing kick startup, Sagat's ultra damage)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.83.92.133 (talk) 05:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Removing "Online Activation"

I'm removing the "Internet Connection Required for Online Activation" part in the Windows System Requirements.

It's said here: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055551178&page=2 that even though Capcom is using SecuROM to copy-protect the retail copies, they won't implement online activation or activation limits. Specifically, this part:

"Retail copies will use SecuROM As DRM but will not require online activation or have any activation limits. Digital distrubition DRM is dependent on which distabutor you buy from. The Steam version will use standard Steam DRM for example."

Whoever said it did require online activation was obviously trying to scare people into not buying the PC version.

-By WarMasterXX —Preceding unsigned comment added by WarMasterXX (talk • contribs)

Hm. An online forum isn't exactly a reliable source for this type of information. However, since there was no source for the claim that the game will have online activation either, you did the right thing in removing that line. One last thing, remember to sign your talk page messages with 4 tildes (~~~~). NeoChaosX (talk, edits) 03:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Countries

Does anyone know what the flags/countries of the characters are?CK6569 (talk) 02:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

there is a list under the list of street fighter characters--"I am an oktau and a baka at times but deny proven facts and you got a fight" comment added by Dragonmaster88 (talk • contribs) 02:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

time setting

It says in the character area "Chronologically set between the Street Fighter II sub-series and the Street Fighter III sub-series, the playable character roster of the arcade version includes the cast of the original Street Fighter II (all twelve characters, including the four Shadaloo Grand Masters), and four new characters. Akuma from Super Street Fighter II Turbo also appears as a hidden playable character, as well as a secret opponent, for a total 17 playable characters. Additionally, the game includes two CPU-only characters: Seth as the game's standard final boss, and Gouken as a secret opponent, which makes for a total of 19 characters." There was no References for this. should it be removed? 75.72.39.172 (talk) 01:40, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Why would it need to be removed? If you know anything about the game, you know it's true. That is, in no way controversial. So the way to go, if anything, is sourcing it, not removing it. --uKER (talk) 03:03, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

what do you mean if you know anything about the game? can you elaborate? i'm... ahem, not very bright. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.39.172 (talk) 03:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Talk about low self esteem. What I mean is that the statement is a known true fact. Instead of removing it, we should source it. That's all. --uKER (talk) 04:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Limit breaks

(B R D) Three video games share a rule:

• The video game Final Fantasy VII unlocks a special move for a character who has taken a given amount of damage.
• The video game Capcom vs. SNK 2 unlocks a special move for a character who has taken a given amount of damage.
• The video game Street Fighter IV unlocks a special move for a character who has taken a given amount of damage.

But one editor seems to think that while comparison of corresponding rules in SFIV and CvS2 is fine, comparison of corresponding rules in SFIV and FFVII is too "far-stretching". How so? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 19:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

You're comparing SFIV to a game from another genre and another company. Lots of games have gameplay mechanics resembling that of others, but it's not worth a mention. CvS2 I guess is fine since it's another fighting game from Capcom. --uKER (talk) 21:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

If CvS2 was the first fighting game to give a special move for taking damage, then would it be more appropriate to discuss non-fighting-game precedents in CvS2's article? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 22:49, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the fact is not worth mentioning at all, unless you found something that proved a given game was in fact the first game to implement it. Out of a five minute search, I found out that Fatal Fury 2 (1992) "introduces Super Special Moves, a powerful type of Special Moves that can only be used when the player's life gauge is at 25% and flashing red", which needless to say is much more tightly related for being in a fighting game, and much older than Final Fantasy VII which is from 1997. Despite this, I still regard the comparison with Fatal Fury as not worth mentioning. --uKER (talk) 00:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

About removal of PS Home section

Yeah, I had added a PlayStation Home section in the article not too long ago and the person that removed it said it was not needed. I would like to know why it is not needed? I mean, it's good information to know where the game has expanded to. Just with the past content update that Home received, the Japan version added a themed game space for Street Fighter IV, plus in the Japanese version they have a costume of every character from SFIV for users to purchase and a costume of every character except Seth in the other three versions of Home, and another great feature that was added a couple or so months ago was game launching, which not a lot of games do that with Home, currently only 11 to be exact. One other thing I almost forgot, when obtaining 5 of the trophies in SFIV, you get Home rewards, which not a lot of games do that, currently only 6 do and one of those is a PSP game. So I would just like to know why this section is not needed. JDC808 (talk) 08:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Still no answer? JDC808 (talk) 16:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Gen isnt mentioned

why isnt Gen even mentioned in the characters section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xgladar (talk • contribs) 05:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, so are Dan, Fei Long, Sakura, Cammy and Rose. No, really, you're looking in the wrong section. Doing a search for "Gen" in the page wouldn't have hurt anyway. --uKER (talk) 18:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Juri

who's juri? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.224.208.87 (talk) 14:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum, sorry. This is not the place to ask that question.--uKER (talk) 14:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Super Street Fighter IV

Doesn't really need to be a distinct article, since more or less it's still Street Fighter IV with an upgrade...--Kung Fu Man (talk) 11:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't mean it doesn't deserve its own article. I say wait and see. If there aren't any major gameplay changes shown or announced then merge it and give SSF4 a large section at the bottom. But if the gameplay is going to be different in some way than leave it on its own. Besides, Tekken 6: Bloodline Rebellion was never integrated with Tekken 6's article and even Super Street Fighter II (which is in the same vein as this game) stays separate from Street Fighter II's and the gameplay didn't even change much until Super Street Fighter II Turbo. SuperSonicTH (talk) 12:44, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree on it not meriting a separate article, at least for the time being. The currently existing information could well be made into a section and eventually separated if enough information came up to justify it. --uKER (talk) 13:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I would support a merge. I don't think that Tekken 6: Bloodline Rebellion and any of the Street Fighter II (including HD Remix) variants deserve separate articles either. Apart from additional characters and visual tweaks, there's nothing that merits separate articles for any of these updated editions. --Jtalledo (talk) 22:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

If every episode of a television show warrants an article entry all its own, so should each iteration of a videogame... and for what it's worth, you're wrong about what articles on these subjects could discuss: assuming the information is available, there's the potential for information on not just the game, but its development and other aspects of the iteration (sales, reception, etc). —Locke Cole • t • c 06:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Um...what? Not every episode of a television show gets its own article. I think the only exceptions we've seen of that are Simpsons and South Park, but both have cultural impact per ep.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 10:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

If you're a video game player, so does Street Fighter. SuperSonicTH (talk) 12:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I think it's premature to discuss a merger when the game hasn't even been released yet, so we're not entirely certain if it will be a minor update or if it will include as yet undisclosed changes. Can we table this proposal for now and revisit it after the game has been released? —Locke Cole • t • c 06:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Right... —Locke Cole • t • c 06:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Wait and see, but id still watch the article because people keep spewing lies on there.--Dr. Pizza (talk) 08:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Emotional impact is not a measurement of whether a topic merits an article. If there's not more than ten lines of info about it, it doesn't matter if it turns your world upside down. It still belongs in a section in the main game's article. --uKER (talk) 13:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree SSFIV doesn't warrant a page of its own at the moment (if ever). Definitely wait and see what's in the game and then decide if a second page is needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.69.247.218 (talk) 15:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there's a need to wait to decide on the merge. We already know what's going to be in the game:

• Gameplay tweaks - worth noting in passing, specific details don't belong in Wikipedia
• Tweaked graphics - worth noting in passing
• New characters - can be added to the existing character list

So unless the game gets turned into an RTS title or something, there's no need for a separate article. It's just another version of the same game. --Jtalledo (talk) 03:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The title is notable enough to warrant its own article. And again, there may be opportunities to include details on how this sequel was developed, which would probably be too large to include in a subsection (and again, this assumes you wish to ignore entirely that it's already notable enough to warrant an article of its own). —Locke Cole • t • c 06:46, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

i think it should stay a seperate page. it's basically a new game. i know some would say upgrade but ultimate mortal kombat 3 was an upgrade and that has a seperate page to mortal kombat 3 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicericenice (talk • contribs) 04:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I just merged the article. Besides the image, there wasn't much to bring to the article. There was even several bits of information that were here and not in the SSFIV article. So there, I call out to people intending the game to have an article of its own, to at least expect there to be enough information to merit separating. --uKER (talk) 04:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted your merge as premature. The game isn't even released yet, and there is additional opportunity for expansion. Prematurely merging the article will stifle attempts at expansion. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

What was premature was the creation of the article when there's practically nothing yet to be said about the game. --uKER (talk) 06:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The article's creation was premature. The lion's share of development was done for the original release. Some would say, well, there might be enough content for a new article. In that case, the info should have been added to the main Street Fighter IV article first, then put into a new article if the main article got too large. --Jtalledo (talk) 22:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Between sales information, development information and anything else that might be changed between the original and this sequel, I think it's a foregone conclusion that a separate article is the eventuality here. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Disagree, it's quite common for articles (called "stubs" here on Wikipedia) to be created on new subjects and then expanded as information is made available and verified. What's strange here is the inclination to force the topics to be merged together when it's clear that a separate article will be the ultimate outcome. This keeps the edit histories clean (edits relating to one subject aren't merged with edits for another subject), keeps a clear distinction for readers between what's being discussed and what is another subject altogether, and keeps things simpler for editors. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Stubs are created when the content doesn't deserve to be lost, but it doesn't fit anywhere else. Here we have a perfectly good place for the information until it merts an article of its own. And it's not a fact that it'll get an article. Go see if Super Street Fighter II Turbo, Street Fighter EX Plus, EX Plus Alpha, EX2 Plus or EX2 Plus Alpha have articles of their own. Heck, none of the SFIII games have individual articles. --uKER (talk) 10:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you understand the notability criteria. Please go read WP:N. This game will get an article at some point simply due to its notability. It has widespread coverage in notable publications and online resources, and as more information becomes available it will become difficult to keep it as a mere section of the original game. —Locke Cole • t • c 13:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The article looks nice, but if you are saying it is more or less like Pokémon Platinum, then I suppose it should be merged into this article. Putting it up for AfD is silly though since it is notable enough for an article. Merge discussions are for when an article that is notable enough for its own article being merged to create a better article in the process. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 13:08, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed if you go the AfD route they'll just dogpile and go "no this article should be kept" which will be taken as "DON'T MERGE" by a closer. The admins have recently made it clear AfDs aren't for merge discussions more and more.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:16, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd say the closest case is MK Gold (a home-only upgrade to MK4 with a bunch of new chars), and it doesn't have a separate article, only a section in the Mortal Kombat 4 article. --uKER (talk) 23:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Status quo

I see there are now two editors who are using editing as a means to enforce their point of view. I don't know how to say this more plainly: there was an article at Super Street Fighter IV, the proposal was to merge it to this article. That proposal has not attained consensus here. Forcing it by performing the merge anyways is an act of bad faith that sets aside the various opposing statements above, and is only going to make this worse for all involved. If you want to edit war, be my guest, but I think you'll find that it won't work out as you'd hoped. —Locke Cole • t • c 13:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The voting here ended up with 5 votes for merge vs 3 votes for keep. Now what would it take for you to give it up and realize that the majority is for the merge? --uKER (talk) 15:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow, one day of !voting and you think that's how consensus is reached on Wikipedia. I see a lot of useful discussion above, with some well made points being totally ignored in favor of just forcing the issue through edit warring. You realize that a normal AFD discussion isn't just a vote, and it doesn't just last for a day, it lasts for a week.. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't about majority. It's about doing what's best for the article. We all have to reach common ground and make a decision. --Ryu (Talk | Contributions) 16:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, again, what would you suggest to do so? Although not in the best way (through AfD) I called for voting on the matter and when it got closed it showed the most people were for merge. What's your take? --uKER (talk) 18:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

OK sheesh, it looks like these two people are willing to improve the article to the point where it's independently notable. Well, I'm waiting...--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm also waiting for two responses from Ryu, who just keeps coming in and saying "Oh, no, that's not the thing to do" without proposing anything useful instead. --uKER (talk) 00:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm willing to wait and see what is released and relevant to an article on the topic rather than forcing it in to a section where editors may feel adding more would bloat the entire article. Of course with all this bickering (and now edit warring) over maintaining the full article, I'm sure the message has been sent to anyone that might have been tempted to add more: "go away". As an aside, I saw at least two other unique people above saying to wait and let the full article exist/expand, but those voices (along with mine and others) are being ignored entirely. My suggestion (humbly proposed here) is to remove the merge proposal tag for now, tighten the existing content in the Street Fighter IV article down to the bare minimum, and allow the Super Street Fighter IV article to expand/exist until at least a month after the game is released. If the article is still light on content at that time, we can revisit the merge proposal (which I would very likely support). But as it is, with the game only recently being announced, I think it is premature to force this in to a subsection of a larger article (and risk suppressing expansion because editors will feel the article is too large and unwieldy as it is). —Locke Cole • t • c 03:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Locke. uKer, I said time and time again we should wait and stated my reasons. I find it both ignorant and insulting that you'd ignore that and say that I'm not proposing 'anything useful'. To me, it seems like you have some twisted personal reason for wanting this merge so badly, especially with the scarce information we have, consider it was just announced. I've been on here for years and noticed how things work. If an article has too much information, we cut it down. If it has too little, we merge. If something hasn't come out yet and we have little information, then we keep the article separate and wait. Now you can do that, can you? An example of the last one was Dragon Ball Z: Budokai Tenkaichi 3. It was a separate article last year. The when the game came out in November, we merged all the games together, which we now know as the Dragon Ball Z: Budokai Tenkaichi (series). The practice worked wonders then and it will now. Doing it your way will make more work for us in the future if we have to separate it. And trust me, cutting an article down to merge size is easier then rewritting a whole one. Trust me. --Ryu (Talk | Contributions) 14:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• Some people are talking about waiting. Yes, we should wait. That is, people should have waited until more details about the game came out before jumping the gun and creating a bare bones article about it. A perfectly good article already existed in which all this content could have been added. Now we're waiting until the game comes out, and once it comes out, all the good arguments for merging go out the window when everyone says, "Well, it's been released and it's different because x and y and it's sold z units so we should keep the articles separate... to avoid the confusion... etc." --Jtalledo (talk) 00:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• Except what you're proposing doesn't make sense: they are two distinct games. Two titles, two different UPCs, two different discs, two different sets of reviews and sales figures. Two different sets of development history (though to be fair, part of it shared with the original title). I think the VG articles are the only area of Wikipedia where I see this insistence on consolidation/merging at play. Other parts lean the opposite way more often than not, creating stubs and expanding as possible until such time that it's clear that either a) the separate article was warranted or b) that it would be easier on readers to merge them. Speaking of "b", it's significantly easier on readers looking for information on Super Street Fighter IV to have just that lone article to deal with, rather than the various subsections that exist in this article (which may or may not be relevant to someone actually reading the encyclopedia). —Locke Cole • t • c 09:16, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I've given up on this nonsense but it's funny how this Locke Cole guy keeps doing what he wants despite him being the only one interested in Super SFIV having a separate article. --uKER (talk) 15:51, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the five people above who supported "wait and see" were all me under doppelganger accounts... And Ryu Ematsu (talk · contribs) (directly above, in this subsection) is a figment of my imagination too. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:12, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

For me, I just don't want to go through all the work of combining them, then separating them when there's proof that there's enough info. It's too troublesome. That's why I chose the opposite, via wait and combine if there's too little. You guys really shouldn't make this personal. Remember, we as wikipedians have to put the articles best interest first. --Ryu (Talk | Contributions) 23:46, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Street Fighter IV iPhone

It's apparently supposed to come to the App Store tonight (3/9). I tried to fix it myself, but I got confused, lol. Here's the source[8]. (rct2guy (talk) 03:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC))

Two characters, E. Honda and C. Viper were added in a recent update. Okay to add without a link, as Cammy and Zangief were? Darkprincealain (talk) 22:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Character lists

As I'm sure many of you are aware of, the listing of voice actors, unless specifically notable, is against the guidelines proposed by WP:VIDEOGAMES. I do like the character lists in table form, but you have to admit that the voice actors are just a poor excuse to have more columns to justify those tables. I'm not suggesting we remove the tables, but at least put some valuable information, such as a brief description of the characters or something. --uKER (talk) 04:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Where does it say it's against the guidelines because I don't see it. --Ryu (Talk | Contributions) 06:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

And isn't the list Gamecruft?Tintor2 (talk) 14:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Here. Item #10: Cast lists. --uKER (talk) 16:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems the list has to be rearranged to prose.Tintor2 (talk) 17:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

It says "However, if characters are listed in a table, cast should not be listed separately.", so there's no reason to change it. --Ryu (Talk | Contributions) 17:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Ryu. There's nothing against tables with character lists. It's even mentioned as a valid thing to do in the guidelines. Only the voice actors are not notable information to mention. As I said before, I'd rather have a brief description of the character instead. I'd say prose lends better to story-driven games, but not to fighting games where games are 90% defined by its roster. --uKER (talk) 18:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Well the characters names are already linked to other profiles, so adding some of their story would somewhat clutter the article. I still think it should remain the same. The story itself was generic and rather short if you ask me anyways. I'm still a bit confused to how it really ended. And what happened to Bison afterwards. They'll most likely add it to the new one, but for now it should remain the same. --Ryu (Talk | Contributions) 18:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

What I suggest is adding something like "Juri - A South Korean tae-kwon-do fighter who works as an spy for SIN | El Fuerte - A Mexican luchador and wannabe cook.", etc. --uKER (talk) 19:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with this. My reasoning is the same. --Ryu (Talk | Contributions) 14:29, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Then we're back to square 1. The voice actors are not suited for the article. What do you suggest? --uKER (talk) 15:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, okay. Let me try to explain this again. It's perfect the way it is. For character description, they are not needed because every characters profile is listed in List of characters in the Street Fighter series. That's right, even the new characters are listed. As for voice actors, you showed us item ten. It say "Cast Lists: Generally speaking, a list of the actors providing voices for video game characters is not appropriate. Exceptions to the rule would be games where the voice cast is particularly notable, such as actors reprising their roles in a video game translation of a movie, as in the case of X-Men Origins: Wolverine. In this case the character cast follows the general standard for listing a movie cast, with minor adaptations for the game's article. However, if characters are listed in a table, cast should not be listed separately. If actors/actresses must be added to the article, typically they should be done in the article prose, and generally in the development section." That in turn destroys your arguement. There are several articles that have a casting list. Are you seggesting that we get rid of all of them? Should we delete all the voice actors pages as well? In the end, there's no reason to get rid of it. Just because you think that it's not 'suited' for the article doesn't mean that we have to agree. --Ryu (Talk | Contributions) 15:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I see you're having a really hard time understanding the guideline. The guideline says that voice actors should not be listed unless specifically notable. Then, IF NOTABLE, meaning VOICE ACTORS SHOULD BE LISTED, and should there be a character list, the voice actors should be listed there and not separately. What's your reasoning to think that the existence of a character list table makes voice actors OK to mention? --uKER (talk) 15:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

"There are several articles that have a casting list." The ones that should be taken as examples are GA and FA, not any B-C-start article per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.Tintor2 (talk) 14:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, you're right. I misread it. I thought it was saying that voice actors were okay as long as they were in a table. I still don't think we should add a description though. Only one of them is reprising their role and it's Yūji Ueda as Blanka. He was originally Blanka and Balrog in Street Fighter II. --Ryu (Talk | Contributions) 15:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, glad we're finally getting somewhere. Now, any suggestions? I'm still for the short descriptions. Them being listed in the "list of characters" article is no problem. It would only be a short description which would serve the same function as article sections linked to their main article. --uKER (talk) 16:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Well I still figure us having the characters linked to their profile is good enough. Look at the Tekken 6 article. It has a list of characters without the voice actors, but the profiles are still linked. Though it's also true that the character split into two categories (New and Returning Characters) to our four (Returning character, console characters, new character, and boss/hidden character) and the game has more characters than Street Fighter. At this point, it would seem best to replace the voice cast with a short character bio. Like I stated before, only one person returned. That doesn't make it notable enough. But if we do have a small bio, should we do it with all the Street Fighter articles? --Ryu (Talk | Contributions) 12:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I, for one, wouldn't have a problem with it and would be willing to help make the change if deemed appropriate. --uKER (talk) 13:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Do anyone have any objections? --Ryu (Talk | Contributions) 16:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

It's been about six days and no ones objected. So it's safe to say that we can proceed. --Ryu (Talk | Contributions) 03:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

"Eagle One Animated Comic" error

I hope I have done this correctly. If not, I apologize. I just figured that the SFIV Wiki is highly guarded and that correcting any info may be met with undo force were I not to provide sufficient proof of the error beforehand.

The error is featured here:

"Those who pre-ordered the game at Best Buy received a DVD with an Eagle One animated comic (this is not the same as The Ties That Bind that comes in the collector's editions of the console versions).[6]"

Though the info is linked directly from the Capcom Unity website, it is incorrect there as well. The bonus DVD given out in the "Limited Edition", which is what the people who pre-ordered received IS the exact same thing as the "Ties That Bind" DVD that came with the 360/PS3 versions.

This can be verified if you can find a Best Buy that still has the "Limited Edition" in stock. I found one a while back that had a stack of them still, they all come with and mention on the front of the box the "Ties That Bind" anime movie.

Confused, I even contacted Eagle One Media about this "Animated Comic" mentioned in the Wiki. Here is their response:

"That information is incorrect. DVD was not included in the game."

They go further to mention this about the DVD that IS included with the game:

"You can also buy the dvd on its own at virtually any online site such a Best Buy, Amazon, FYI, etc."

I can provide a scan of the cover of the "Limited Edition" version, which was a Best Buy exclusive(as I mentioned previously, it states that it is, indeed, the "Limited Edition" and then has a rectangle ad under the SFIV title that states "Bonus DVD Movie Included: Street Fighter - The Ties That Bind Feature-Length Animated Movie").

Digital Man (talk) 08:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC) DM

Confirmation of Hakan

User Ryu Ematsu insists on removing the statement about Hakan being confirmed by the latest trailer. I never said he had been officially confirmed. I just stated that Hakan was hinted at by SEVERAL MAJOR sources (cited in the article) in a piece of leaked information that has proven right in everything it said, and now an official trailer has a voice talking about oil. Now my question is: what's not suitable for mention? The information leak? The trailer? What's the deal? --uKER (talk) 18:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

As I stated before, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. In this case, it'd fall under, and I qoute:

"2. Individual items from a predetermined list or a systematic pattern of names, pre-assigned to future events or discoveries, are not suitable article topics, if only generic information is known about the item."

I personally believe that Hakan is going to be a playable character and was hinted, but it doesn't belong into the article until Capcom officially anounces him, and by name none-the-less. --Ryu (Talk | Contributions) 19:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

You're wrong on Capcom being the only source for information. Wikipedia honors lots of other sources and to name one, EventHubs (which I cited) saw fit to publish that information, so I still don't see why it's not good to publish here. --uKER (talk) 20:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

BTW, about the WP:CRYSTAL point you cite, you don't seem to be interpreting it properly. It refers to "predetermined lists" (such as progressive titles in a movie franchise or chapters in a TV series) or "systematic pattern of names". The information in question doesn't fit any of these. --uKER (talk) 03:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I never said Capcom was the only source. I said 'official'. Adding him is pure speulation at this point. Intil Capcom officially confirms him, he should be included yet.

"Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced. It is not appropriate for editors to insert their own opinions or analyses. In forward-looking articles about unreleased products, such as movies and games, take special care to avoid advertising and unverified claims."

--Ryu (Talk | Contributions) 07:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

SO...

...nobody has a problem with the picture of Abel blowing Ryu? 99.140.176.26 (talk) 10:14, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey there, thanks for your no content, useless piece of commentary. If you have anything to actually contribute to the conversation, please feel free to post it here. Otherwise, never post anything ever again on the internet.Pierrelarcin3 (talk) 17:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Characters with High jump

The article says only C. Viper and Dan with air taunt, but Ibuki also has one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.240.230.39 (talk) 23:16, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Character list

Its missing Cammy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.237.205.220 (talk) 02:27, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

That list refers to the arcade version. Down in the home version section, she's mentioned. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 02:35, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

One question

Is there any information about game development chronology?--Gleb95 (talk) 13:29, 9 December 2013 (UTC)