Talk:Diablo III

Reception

I hope it's okay... I added that Amazon Reviews are 1 star... but I'm not sure how to add it to the reference section.

http://www.amazon.com/Diablo-III-Standard-Edition-Pc/dp/B00178630A

albabe - The Writer/Artist Formally Known as Al Gordon 02:35, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

If you want to reference properly, I suggest you read this first. It's pretty straight-forward once you get the hang of it.

I'd also shy away from the Amazon reviews for now. They're clearly coloured by the connectivity issues that have plaged the game. If you read the one-star reviews, you'll get stuff like this:

he who gives up $60 for games with draconian DRM like Diablo 3 deserves endless error messages and an inability to play the game

Blizzard's servers have been consistently down in the two days since I purchased this game, which means that I have been unable to access the content that I thought I had purchased. The software is there on my hard drive (it took at least an hour to install!), but I cannot access it. I paid a not inconsiderable sum of money for ... nothing.

I'm not even attempting to give this product a fair review. Why? Because I can't even play it. It's pretty much that simple.

I found that in the first five reviews on the page. Now, I'm by no means a fanboy here. I've never played a Diablo game before, so I'm not trying to push a point-of-view. I just think that these reviews are entirely ephemeral. Once the server issues are resolved, public opinion of the game will change, and this will be reflected in the reviews. Give Blizzard the time to sort things out, then wait about a week, and you will find something that is far more representative of the game. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:11, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that's necessarily the issue. If a reliable news source reports on negative initial reception, then it's worth adding. Just the amazon reviews by themselves are not enough. Of course, it's also quite possible (likely, in fact) that the reception will improve as time goes by, and that can be added as well. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 16:05, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

This is entirely reminiscent of the release and reaction around Spore (2008 video game); online only DRM, Amazon campaign, etc. I recommend a read through the Reception section of that article as a guide to how we should handle this article. If, in the future, this receives as much sourced coverage as that game did, it should be mentioned. Until then, though, it's just some random people complaining and not something that should be included here. $0.02 DP76764 (Talk) 16:19, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Amazon reviews are not reliable at all. A good chuck of those reviews are people who haven't hardly played the game as it has only been out for a few days raging because the servers could nbot handle 10 million people trying to log in at the same time. Point being anyone with or who can create an Amazon account can write a review. Amazon reviews are a JOKE. Not reliable at all. --0pen$0urce (talk) 16:49, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I provide Exhibit A to back up 0pen$0urce's claim. Just look at these 'reviews' on Amazon. http://www.amazon.com/AudioQuest-K2-terminated-speaker-cable/dp/B000J36XR2 Wrel (talk) 17:21, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Regardless, these are sentiments from real people. Even if they're written by the uneducated or trolls, the game has received a large amount of criticism nonetheless and it should be documented in order to keep the article unbiased. Picking a few bad apple reviews as a means of discrediting all user criticism--and there is quite a bite--seems heavily biased to me. Nilbog (talk) 20:39, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

If the game has received lots of criticism elsewhere then quote THAT. A poor source is not made better by unsourced claims of "someone else said it too!". Unless you can find a source on someone digging through the Amazon reviews and compiling a grade based on reviews that aren't just giving it a one because of connectivity issues, the Amazon reviews are useless. - Alltat (talk) 08:20, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

5,000 + negative reviews with a consensus by public carries infinitely more weight that a single 'reviewer' from a cookie-cutter web site. If you'd like, I could create 10+ game review websites, create 10 different reviewer personas, create 10 different reviews of Diablo 3 in a few days and then link them.

Or we could just stop all the nonsense come to the logical conclusion that yes, while some reviewers are raging against DRM, it's still a review of a product. What source of authority has determined that IGN is a reputable source? It's like watching MSNBC give favorable treatment to Barack, or Fox to Romney. OF course they are going to give good reviews, because that's the source of their income.

Or have I found myself YET another article on Wikipedia that's been protected via the 3RR from all criticism? Yet another article that's out there for the world to see, but which is only the truth as seen by a couple of guards who are in agreement? 75.150.245.242 (talk) 19:58, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

It's not complicated. Just find reliable sources discussing the negative reception from players. I don't think there's a conspiracy to keep out information. You just have to do the legwork and find good sources for this stuff, is all anyone is asking. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 20:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate the lengths and breadths that editors will go to to provide reliable sources for information. The struggle to keep the information encyclopedic and verifiable is a worthy one. However, there may need to be exceptions carved into WP:RS for certain situations. One of these situations might be found here: The overwhelming majority of critical reviews from reliable sources for this particular game title come from interested parties. GameSpot, Gamasutra, Joystiq, Forbes, MaximumPC, even Arstechnica gave some pretty flowery reviews for Diablo III. By all accounts each of these 'Reliable' sources either arose from conflict of interest (Kyle and Eric at Arstechnica and Forbes respectively (they work for magazines that have paid advertisements from the production studio under review and have a history of glowing reviews for games that advertise on their sites)) or Gamespot and Joystiq's reviews which were little more than straight line Astroturfing. Thus calling into question the objectivity of any review of any game from those studios by those supposedly 'Reliable' sources and this title in particular.

Therefore I suggest that when there is a reasonable and logical doubt as to either the veracity or the interest of a third party reviewer as a reliable source that there be some mechanism (preferably verifiable itself) to allow more weight be given the NON professional reviewers if the preponderance of opinion in the aggregate reflects a different position than that of the professional as the professional is subject in review to rose colored glasses syndrome as any other reviewer professional or not. I realize this sounds an awfully lot like a slippery slope, but how else to document that which has already reached a consensus in the real world but is being purposefully set aside by 'Reliable' sources because it may harm said 'Reliable' sources bottom line? Not trying to facilitate an editing nightmare here but there has to be a point at which we as editors stop and say to ourselves: In light of the considerable evidence to the contrary, this 'Reliable' source on this matter seems to be showing signs of favoritism or at leas a lack of objectivity for reasons other than the content of the item under review. Marlberg (talk) 18:14, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Declaring the reliable sources unreliable, and the beyond-a-doubt unreliable sources to be reliable, is quite the stretch. That's a great deal of OR about the RS's, and unless you have some sort of source or proof to demonstrate that a COI has occurred... User reviews are clearly unreliable, beyond a doubt, for numerous reasons that have been stated over and over and over. -- ferret (talk) 18:32, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd love to see some of this 'considerable evidence' you mention. Regardless, even if you could invalidate every current RS used, that would not then be a license to start using NON-RS sources in their place. I would also submit that discussing the merits and definition of reliable sources doesn't belong on this page. (side note: I've seen this argument numerous times before: "there aren't any RS's that support my cause, therefore I will challenge the definition of RS in order to cloud the argument and try to build up my non-RS sources instead."; not buying it!) DP76764 (Talk) 19:21, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

All those reviews are not all about DRM... and the whole appeal to authority nonsense is equally ridiculous to the appeal to the masses. This smacks into blind ignorance of what is going on right now, but hey let "neutral" Wikipedia continue to be as hilarious as Fox New's "Fair and Balanced." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.242.75.98 (talk) 16:00, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Fact: based on this (http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/diablo-iii) URL from meta critic which is cited as a reliable source, user scores are only 3.8 based on 6 306 ratings. From my knowledge of statistics this is an ample sample size to balance out anomalous reviews. Please provide me a valid reason why only the meta score based on professional reviews is being used. Also why is this article locked? And why don't we question where blizzard gets its numbers for units sold? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.71.156.206 (talk)

See the (ad nauseum) discussion that already exists. MC is a reliable source for industry review, NOT for user reviews (which are generally irrelevant). Or, feel free to keep beating this horse. DP76764 (Talk) 03:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes but it is you who keeps beating the dead horse. The article has no balance whatsoever in regards to user based reviews which are almost unanimously less encouraging than "professional" reviews. Why is there no balance in the reception location whereas in every movie article it is balanced with the good and the bad. Even for films which are universally acclaimed wikipedia will still mention negative reviews such as the godfather article.

Reference for Lying Cop-out needed.

Blizzard has stated[citation needed] that the Witch Doctor is not another version of the necromancer and that they may incorporate the necromancer in a future expansion.

They stated it before release because serious players were really pissed off about this. It cannot be proven, since you would have to obtain evidence that the Blizzard spokesman had the aim of getting people who were on the fence to buy the game under the hope that a future expansion would have the Nec they demand. If you read carefully, "MAY incorporate" absolves them of all commitment.

Is there really no place in that character class section for this very contentious issue, even without reference?

Seriously, this entire entry should be locked once an UNBIASED review of it is incorporated; the negative along with the positive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.254.128 (talk) 23:10, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Highly doubtful. If there are so many sources, then please start providing them. No sources, no speculation/opinion. DP76764 (Talk) 03:32, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think I even understand the premise. What is the 'lie'? Where is this "I want my Necromacer" outrage that is supposedly 'very concentious'? Wrel (talk) 13:38, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

___________________________

Here are some:

yea i'm right pissed there is no necro in d3......no valid argument for him not to be in it...also the blizzard excuse... by Military » Mon May 28, 2012 (sic) http://townsgame.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=3094 ________________

This was my first time buying a pre-order game from Blizzard, and my last one. Thanks Blizzard u guys RUINED my favorite game, DIABLO and DIABLO II!For god's sake... NO SKILL SPOINTS? NO SINGLE-PLAYER WITHOUT BEING ONLINE?? MAX LEVEL 60???? NO NECROMANCER????? What if i want to play D3 on a vacation house or in my country house that don't have internet connection? I can't... and that's ridiculous. PLEASE STOP FOOLING PEOPLE AROUND AND GIVE US WHAT WE WANT, DIABLO. (sic) http://eu.battle.net/d3/en/forum/topic/4551576514 __________

replacing the necro with a witch doctor was the stupid things ever. (sic)

...character wise this is the one thing that made me upset. The witch doctor isn't near as dark or interesting of a character compared to the Necromancer. This is a step backwards... (sic)

They could easily do a necromancer, and make TONS AND TONS of people happy. I have issues with the game but my biggest disappointment with the game is no necromancer. (sic) http://us.battle.net/d3/en/forum/topic/5271504898?page=5

my one massive complaint about D3: No Necromancer. Voodoo doesn't even feel like it fits. https://us.battle.net/d3/en/forum/topic/5149539377?page=2 _______________

it doesn't feel like DIABLO if you can't summon Skeletons with swords & shield fighting Evil.. I don't want to stick to Diablo 2, i want to summon skeletons in Dablo 3 with this new Graphics... (sic) http://forums.d2jsp.org/topic.php?t=54081722&f=68&o=20 ________________________

I think because of how important necromacy is in Diablo... I wonder why instead of a necromancer, we have a god damn witch doctor instead. (sic) http://forums.d2jsp.org/topic.php?t=54081722&f=68

The non-inclusion of the Necromancer in Diablo III was greeted with a great deal of protest by loyal fans, and as a result Blizzard has repeatedly had to explain why they made the decision.

"There's a lot of people on our team who aren't happy with our class choices..."

...it's impossible to know how much this is a serious consideration and how much it's just saying something consoling to keep Necromancer fans on board.

So the big lie would be Jay Wilson: Feedback from the community is always a focus for us whenever we make decisions. http://www.diablowiki.net/Necromancer After all the complaints about no Necromancer, this sentence is obviously full of bull chips. It's designed to appease people who don't think. Given the amount of complaints, if it actually WERE a focus for their decisions, there WOULD be a Necromancer class now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.254.128 (talk) 04:36, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I would not exactly call forum posts reliable sources to be used in an article... Dhuum (talk) 07:07, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeeeaaaah, again, user comments on public forums are NOT reliable sources for material. On top of that, your personal interpretation of one developers comments, and speculation in regards to it, is absolutely something that should not be added to Wikipedia. Thank you, drive thru DP76764 (Talk) 14:31, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeeeaaaah the issue was "serious players backlash". Seems people that take the time to post could be considered serious players. How are you going to get a reference for what people WANT included otherwise? Make up a petition and then present the exact same data you can find by reading their posts? Please - by all means, give an alternate method of superior data gathering. Interpretation of someone's comments are what is done in legal cases all the time. It also appears in several Wiki articles: someone famous makes or has made a statement and alternate proof is given. So, Yeeeaaaah, try again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.254.128 (talk) 18:00, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Right, gotcha. So, a few players (out of several million) constitute "serious backlash" now? Sounds like a minority viewpoint to me. Oh, or are you saying that the views of "serious players" matter more than everyone else's? Feel free to review how to source things properly; that should give you some good pointers. Spoiler: trying to figure out what people might have wanted is not something we do around here, nor is interpreting/analyzing things (just because it exists in other articles doesn't mean it should be included here). What you would need would be an outside, reliable, 3rd party source who does the all the research; then you could quote the results here. Lacking any such sources, you will fail to persuade anyone that this material is suitable for inclusion. Thank you, drive thru DP76764 (Talk) 19:25, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I went and got some examples for those who desire references, wiseass; but since you want to present a THIRD PARTY who you feel is 'reliable' in getting the exact same info AND citing it, thereby making it valid - fine, done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.254.128 (talk) 13:26, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I did ask for some cited examples of where exactly this issue was being decried, so I thank you for doing the digging to follow up and provide me with some.

After reading your first post, I was a bit sceptical about a possible inclusion of this information. As Dp76764 had stated, a lot of the comments initially felt like more 'fan backlash' over a change in the game's intellectual property which is entierly within their right to change as they see fit. However, I see you made note of Jay Wilson's comments about this issue, which means it was at least recognized by the game's Design team. This would be a bit more than typical fan backlash; more along the lines of the Operation Rainfall campaign, where the fan's wishes were acknowledged by the parent company, making it a bit more relevant.

I do, however, have an issue with the way it's been written up. It seems to pigeon hole the argument so it looks as though Necromancer is the only class that has been met with resistance, and no one cared about the omission of the other five classes. To me, it feels that you yourself were a Necromancer fan and are upset that the class isn't in the game, and have constructed the paragraph from that bias point of view. I think if this were re-written to use more blanket verbage as an umbrella that would cover all of the omitted classes, opposed to making it seem as if only one class has been met with resistance. After all, the quote you used says "class choices"; plural, meaning that there were more than one choise in dispute. Wrel (talk) 16:39, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

It's the class you find the most comments on. In fact, I haven't come across any other PO'd about dumped class threads. Doesn't mean they don't exist, but they sure aren't very visible if they DO exist. I notice the entire Necromancer controversy is entirely missing now. g-r-eee-at reporting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.254.128 (talk) 04:29, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

That's because it isn't a real controversy that's notable in any way. -- ferret (talk) 11:20, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Battle.net account security

Is there even any point in having this section? Every new PC game has people accounts getting hacked. It's all hearsay and speculation. Until a reliable source says otherwise, either via an official announcement from Blizzard or a security firm confirming an internal issue, then it should all go.--Barbwrecker (talk) 11:30, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree. This point has been brought up a few other times and been removed for much the same reason. If someone can't provide an official acknowledgement of the problem other than "well I was hacked, so there's a problem", then I don't see it as encyclopedic or noteworthy. Wrel (talk) 15:17, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

This has gotten added back again. The new section left all the speculation without any counter points from Blizzard, so I added that to the end. Blizzard has repeatedly stated that the speculation of session spoofing is false, and that no accounts with authenticators have been compromised. I won't say the section shouldn't exist, there's certainly coverage, but in the grand scheme of "persistent games with logons" being hacked, it's probably pretty close to undue weight. Every F2P or MMO style game faces this issue. -- ferret (talk) 23:41, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

The existing section now at least has a Blizzard comment on the issue, making a bit better than it was written up originally. While the issue itself is still generic and not game-specific, the fact that Blizzard commented on it makes it a bit more pertinent than it was before. Wrel (talk) 15:36, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I found an interesting article that includes information about the security problems as well as launch issues and a discussion of the auction house: here. I think there is some good information there that could be used to flesh out a few areas. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 17:39, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the section. Please propose new additions related to hacks/account security here with a source before re-adding. As before, the opening statement of this section still applies. The section was started by Hervegirod (talk · contribs) and expanded by Ferret (talk · contribs) (above).--Barbwrecker (talk) 19:43, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

My latest edit

I added criticism sourced to three RS. I know that one of them is technically a blog and could be seen as a WP:SPS but it is still a RS as it is covered under the exemption of "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Metacritic does state that they are an expert source by linking to them as a critic. All three sources are linked to by metacritic under critics thus all three are undoubtfully RS. Unique Ubiquitous (talk) 14:07, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I do not believe Metacritic necessarily conveys "reliable source" status to a critic, and also believe the addition of this, as well as the positioning of the comments as the 2nd major sentence/paragraph of the reception, are clearly an WP:NPOV issue. I have posted on WP:VG/S seeking further comments on Metacritic conveying "reliable" status. If the project deem this as suitable, I'm fine with their conclusion.

However the section still needs written to clear up bias issues, as both of the reviews also had many positives. For example, it currently reads that CPU Gamer scored it 7/10, gives three whopping negatives, and doesn't explain any of the positives CPU Gamer saw in the game that resulted in the 7/10. They praise the game play and innovation in the skill system. The paragraph is clearly positioned to portray negatives immediately at the top of the Reception section. -- ferret (talk) 14:23, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Right, I did highlight the negatives from these articles as their other, positive, ideas of the game were already presented by other reviewers. There was a clear lacking of criticism of the game in the reception, I feel a much better balance has been reached. For the placement, I'm not sure what to do, perhaps we could give them sub sections of positive and negative recepetion, I would be fine with a positive reception sub section preceeding a negative reception sub scetion, it just seems natural. Mixing the pos/neg together kinda looks silly in my mind as many reviews offer completely contrasting reviews - eg. map variability. Unique Ubiquitous (talk) 14:56, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Positive and negative sections, or alternatively "Criticism" sections, are generally frown upon. They provide undue weight or bias by either section appearing to have more text or more reference.

The real issue here from a bias point of view is a giant block of negative sitting at the very top. I don't believe this paragraph even needs included, as they don't really provide any balance, just harsh criticism written in an angry fan tone.

Either way, the project has so far stated that Metacritic cannot be used as a measure of reliability as Metacritic does not clearly disclose the reason they add critics to their list or the methodology. The critics must be reviewed on their own, and appear to be unreliable without the Metacritic reasoning. I will wait a little longer for comments but plan to revert to my edits unless a compelling argument is made. I suggest you visit WP:VG/S to get your voice heard. -- ferret (talk) 15:09, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

How come "harsh criticism written in an angry fan tone." is so despised around here yet the gushy we love Blizzard in a ignorant fanboy tone is so accepted? If you do remove the fair criticism you will be causing a major balance upset. Please tag the section if you do remove the balance. Unique Ubiquitous (talk) 15:33, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the current reception has a fanboy tone. --SubSeven (talk) 17:32, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

"If you do remove the fair criticism you will be causing a major balance upset." That's the whole point; we can't validate the fact that Metacritic is fair criticism. I'm getting the feeling from you that you feel anyone who is against the inclusion of fan-ratings is some Blizzard fanboy white-knight looking to defend his favorite game from all the bad words people are saying. That isn't the case. Yes, there are some honest-to-goodness legit reviews on those sites, but there is also an incredible amount of slop in there as well, which negates the encyclopedic nature of the review. Hell, on 4chan there was a thread started by some people who were anti-RMAH who all got together to down-rate the game on multiple different accounts to impact the game's score. Combine that with 1-star reviews that state "I won't even buy this game until they add Necromancer" or "I cancelled my preorder on Diablo 3 when I heard the WoW team was working on it" and it starts to paint a picture as to why people keep saying that these reviews do not reflect fair criticism. Wrel (talk) 15:58, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of balance, if the majority of WP:RS reviews are positive, then the majority of the Reception section should also be positive. I believe that that's how things work around here. DP76764 (Talk) 16:53, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Article About Metacritic Reviews

Reading the preceding talk page posts, since this area appears to be controversial, I wanted to run my proposed edit by the Talk page first. There's an interesting article that discusses D3's low Metacritic scores and contrasts them to the higher favorable scores given by professional review websites. I suggest we add it as the subject matter in the article is very germane to the Reception section. http://www.cinemablend.com/games/Diablo-3-Flooded-With-0-10-Metacritic-Scores-Over-Always-DRM-42600.html

--Idag (talk) 16:55, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Any other sources discussing it? Would be tricky to add to the article, while keeping it neutral.--Barbwrecker (talk) 19:55, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Taking my time

I'll edit this multi-person, notable, reliable, actually critical review in when I get time, just posting some quotes from it now, maybe someone can choose some of the best ones for me or comment beforehand, or maybe even threaten to block me for an umpteenth time for editing the article. [1]

• 4:48 "complain that [the auction house is] the game at 60"
• 4:52 "I fizzled out, which I know a lot of people have, somewhere around mid 40s, seems to be a dying off point, think that's about when you start questioning, why are you going to play through all this stuff again?"
• 5:06- complains that the "junk" that was cut out of D2 for D3 was the actually good stuff, creating unique special characters..."well what's the point? Are we just going to get to max level and just keep grinding over and over?"
• 6:16 "unless you really like grinding that exact same loot over and over, in that exact same fashion, with the exact same circumstances almost everytime..." I would finish the quote but the guy clearly meant to say a 'not' where he did not so...
• 6:37 "It has none of the stuff from Diablo II that attracted me at all"

This review will help balance the reception section, the entire video does present both sides about equally and finally with some intelligence, I would add in their positive statements - though they are mostly just "I am addicted/I am still playing/I'm good at grinding" rather than rationalized statements, but the balance is clearly upset in favour of the positive side so there is no need. Unique Ubiquitous (talk) 03:26, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

These are one off comments, if there's any chance of these going in the article, you'll need similar comments from other sources. For example the drm 'always-on' is mentioned in many sources, which is why it is discussed in the article.--Barbwrecker (talk) 19:59, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Controversies: linux ban

As early as June 22nd, and possible earlier, Blizzard has been banning accounts that have used Linux as their operating system, emulating windows with Wine so as to run the game. [2] Blizzard has defended this by claiming it violates their terms of use for Diablo 3. [3] However, according to the terms of service, these users should not be banned for their use of linux. [4]

This results in the users game becoming effectively useless, and their money wasted.

Some have claimed this as "not controversial", however, this is subjective, as it is very controversial for users who do not wish to shell out the money for a windows operating system. It is due to the action of Blizzard that I believe something more may be going on. All I have is speculation regarding that, but the repeated bans of users of other operating systems is very suspicious. At the very least, these bans are controversial due to it not violating the TOS. AndrewRayGorman (talk) 17:02, 3 July 2012 (UTC) AndrewRayGorman

Please review the policy about weight of coverage in articles. A tiny minority (linux players) of a subset of readers (those who play) is darn near negligible/trivial. What you'll need is reliable, 3rd party coverage (b-net forums do not count as such) before this is even remotely notable. DP76764 (Talk) 17:13, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Blizzard's response on this topic actually says that Wine should not cause a ban, and they have been unable to replicate false positives related to Wine usage. Their stance so far is that all reported bans that they have reviewed have been true cases of cheating. [5] Compare this to a few years ago when Warden was making false positive bans on Cedaga users, which Blizzard unbanned. There's nothing suspicious to speculate about a non-supported OS and non-supported software potentially causing Warden to have false positives. Speculation is not included in Wikipedia. -- ferret (talk) 17:14, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Which is why I did not include speculation in my edit on the actual article. Only what I could solidly find. However, your source is very biased towards the disposition that Blizzard is not at fault with this. In other words, Blizzards word on the issue outweighs the concerns of linux users. Dp76764, I am pretty sure 45 pages of comments and concerns on the official Diablo 3 forum makes the issue notable. AndrewRayGorman (talk) 17:35, 3 July 2012 (UTC)AndrewRayGorman

It's simply not a controversy. You made the claim "it is very controversial for users who do not wish to shell out the money for a windows operating system". That's 100% on the user, not the developer; the game is not supported on Linux, period. If I want to play Halo, but don't want to shell out the money to buy and Xbox, I'm out of luck. If you want to play Diablo, but don't want to shell out the money to buy Windows, then you're out of luck. That's the way the world works, it isn't a controversy.

Beyond that point, if your claim is that it's controversial that they were perma-banned for emulating Windows, I don't really bite on that either. With the absurd amount of claims of battle.net IDs being hacked in new ways all the time, what is one supposed to think when they see someone connecting remotely into the Diablo servers running software that's being run by other emulated software with another OS running behind that? No thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wrel (talk • contribs) 18:00, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, regardless of how many pages of comments, user complaints on a public forum are NOT a reliable source (as I mentioned before). Please familiarize yourself with what the guidelines here are about sources. DP76764 (Talk) 18:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

NPOV dispute - Reception

Multiple sources which show clearly a large number of low user ratings for this game have been removed repeatedly, including CNN. It appears that the reception section seems to only allow positive feedback listed. The section is called 'Reception,' yet some members are excluding large numbers of users' opinions and ratings for this game. The section is not called 'Critic-only Reception,' and the inclusion of thousands of users' online voiced opinions seems logical, along with with CNN's coverage of the negative feedback as well as numerous other websites' coverage.

I feel that with an accurate depiction of the reception of the game, this article will benefit by being factual and more true to the ideals of what a neutral section is intended to be. Sspalfilter (talk) 17:47, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Please put new sections on the bottom of the page, thanks.

We've been over this repeatedly, only reliable, outside sources can back those statements up. Forums and Metacritic are simply unreliable here. An outside third-party source would be very welcome of course, but I've been checking the article from time to time, and I have yet to see a source like that. You claim that a source like CNN has been removed, can you back that up with a ref? --Soetermans. T / C 14:31, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

The negative reception is possibly mainly caused by the player's anger over the server overload, thus making it unreliable as opposed to professional reviews. Regards.--GoP_T^C_{N 14:40, 15 July 2012 (UTC)}

Here is a huge CNN feature on the game that just came out a few days ago. It goes into quite a bit of detail about poor player reception:

"Blizzard was plagued with server issues from the very start. "Error 37," a server busy error, quickly became the buzzword among players, indicating problems logging in. Indeed, Blizzard acknowledged the problem and warned players it could take several login attempts before they could connect.

"For a while, the error became an Internet meme, sparking many funny postings about the frustrating message. While the company worked quickly to resolve the initial issues, the Internet lit up with players proclaiming their hatred of Blizzard and frustration with the always-logged-in requirements.

"Maintenance time and patch updates have also revived harsh feelings among some "Diablo III" players. Forum boards reached their limits after players voiced their displeasure. There are more than 4,200 Diablo III forum threads, most discussing some aspect of the game that, in players' opinion, is broken."

I would say that type of coverage is definitely worth adding to the article. Reception doesn't include just professional reviews; it includes the entire reaction to the game as reported by reliable sources. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 15:14, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

The CNN article appears to cover issue that are already in the article, such as downtime. It doesn't really cover the Metacritic review situation, which is what anon IPs add most often. There's a Forbes article already in use that covers the online-only and DRM aspects. There's also a Gaming Blend reference in use that addresses the idea of player entitlement and 0/10 review scores. A GameArena reference is in use that refers to the immediate downtime issues of the network at release.

In short: There is no NPOV issue, there is only a percieved "Why aren't Metacritic User Score rating shown?????" issue. And MC User reviews are unreliable, and as has been endlessly debated, should not be included. -- ferret (talk) 15:39, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with ferret. I don't see harm in adding the CNN ref as another source though, or explicitly mentioning it instead of say Gaming Blend. (I thought there is a guide line on preferring mainstream media instead of subject-specific ones, but can't recall which one). --Soetermans. T / C 21:29, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

The preference is for the most reliable sources. If a game magazine publishes its own worthy research and the main stream media parrots this research, then we should cite the game magazine for the information and the media to indicate its significance. If a game magazine's "research" isn't worthy, then the rest doesn't matter. Rklawton (talk) 21:47, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Any way you cut it there are now numerous legitimate unbiased sites with coverage of the fact that there is a backlash of dissatisfied gamers, and yet any mention of this on wikipedia is immediately removed. This is called bias, and is against the underlying concept of neutrality, in my opinion. It feels like this page is an advertisement. Mentioning unrest in a country should not be considered vandalism, why is mentioning verified, online-provable, publicly reported discontent in a gaming community? Sspalfilter (talk) 21:40, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

There are two questions at hand:

1. Is the backlash reliably sourced?
2. Is the backlash not trivial?

Only if the answer to both these questions is "yes" then this information should be included in the article. Rklawton (talk) 21:47, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

The third question actually: Are these facts already included in the article? The answer is actually yes. But proponents of this "player discontent coverage" want the player reactions to be front and center and more prominent than the reviews from critics. The latest edit I reverted removed the lead sentence entirely (Which listed the critic review scores with no specific praise) and replaced it 5-6 sentences of "players hate this, players hate that". Again, the discontent of players, the DRM/Always On issues, the network issues during release, etc, are all covered in reception already. What's not covered is the specific user-based Metacritic score. -- ferret (talk) 22:34, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way, Sspalfilter, but everything concerning its reception is covered about the game. As ferret has stated, everything you claim is missing and/or removed from the article is still explicitly mentioned - and I still have to see any evidence that someone took a source like CNN out of the article. Roughly one-third of the reception section consists of this:

Some users have voiced criticism about the game's strong digital rights management which requires what is known as persistent online authentication, resulting in the lack of an offline single-player mode. Players also took out their anger on developer Blizzard. Their actions have been described as a legitimate display of discontentment with game features.

Erik Kain, a Forbes contributing writer, stated that the requirement to remain online is not necessary for single-player mode and that Blizzard is abusing its position as a "juggernaut" and is setting a worrying precedent for the gaming industry. Diablo III senior producer Alex Mayberry was quoted as stating during development questions and concerns about DRM: "Obviously StarCraft 2 did it, World of Warcraft authenticates also. It's kind of the way things are, these days. The world of gaming is not the same as it was when Diablo 2 came out."

Gaming Blend countered negative journalism aimed at the game's fanbase. It claims that the industry at large is far too defensive of production companies' actions to the point of accepting backward steps in game availability. It dismisses the existence of "entitlement" saying that while a large portion of 0/10 reviews do not reflect the quality of the game, they nonetheless reflect the dissatisfaction with the product.

To me, this seems a fair mentioning of user reception. So I'm removing the dispute tag, as it now gives off the wrong signal, but do feel free to add more sources on its reception. --Soetermans. T / C 13:16, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

(side note): It was I who removed the CNN article the first time it appeared here. It was perhaps not the best undo, but given the slippery slope nature of people piling user reaction critiques into this article, I felt it was wiser to remove that bit of honey before it attracted flies. I also felt that it was dubiously written and seemed to be pushing an agenda. $0.02 DP76764 (Talk) 17:16, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

You are correct to have reverted it, DP. Just to break it down:

After playing the game for many hours - many hours? , users how many? have reported several how many? problems with the game, including "running out of things to do," what does THAT mean? which was confirmed by a Blizzard employee, unsourced common errors http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/subcultures/diablo not a RS, missing features WHAT features and imbalanced difficulty no source. There are more than 4,200 Diablo III forum threads, most discussing some aspect of the game that, in players' opinion, is broken.http://edition.cnn.com/2012/07/10/tech/gaming-gadgets/diablo-iii-player-reactions/index.html CNN would be a RS, but "most discussing some aspect of the game that, in players' opinion, is broken." is very ambigious.

Might look appealing because that it is CNN, but its article doesn't seem to add anything new to the article on Diablo III. --Soetermans. T / C 22:07, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, I just read the reception. The prose could use some work, but it's pretty clear what people do and do not like about the game. I think we should remove reviews that rely on just the first act of the beta and replace them with more comprehensive reviews. Otherwise, we're most of the way there. Rklawton (talk) 22:42, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the way the new CNN article was used was pretty WP:COATRACK-y, but it has some good material, and could be used to shore up some of the reception and release sections. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 01:32, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I'm not sure how to properly format my responses. I'm not sure you read the article Soetermans, as the source of the blizzard employee agreeing is the CNN article, 'In response to a forum post, "Bashiok," a community manager for Blizzard, said the company recognizes that players are probably running out of stuff to do. However, he said, it isn't going to be able to release new content every couple of months.' .

Look I don't want to bash Diablo 3; in fact I play it every day. But the fact is there is a large amount of people who have voiced online discontent with the game, which is notable because it's much more extreme than any previous Diablo game, which is why CNN and various other sites have mentioned it. Coming onto wikipedia and finding all of this information being blocked seems quite an advertisement. Unfortunately a lot of the problems with the game become evident only after beating it 3 times in succession, getting harder each time. I doubt any reviewer did that before writing their review, as the game can be quite long, especially for a casual player. The game is actually in a quite unbalanced state right now, which is not terribly atypical for Blizzard games during early release times, but the complaints often are pointing to obvious bugs and flaws in the game. I guess I don't know how to convey this properly but, if it's true and verifiable, with sources of CNN, and Blizzard employees themselves, along with the official forums of the game, and countless other sites, who is trying to stop it from being public and why? Sspalfilter (talk) 20:03, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be ignoring everything other editors have written here in response to you. No one is trying to "stop it from being public", and almost everything covered by the CNN article exists in the reception already. -- ferret (talk) 20:14, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I, on the other hand, haven't played it at all. I'm just trying to make sure this article has a neutral point of view, 's all. I did read the CNN article, with my bold comments I was trying to point out that is was poorly written. --Soetermans. T / C 15:01, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

On a sidenote, did everybody notice how quiet it has become with the article, since the semi-protect four days ago? --Soetermans. T / C 15:06, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Semi-Protected YAY!

No sarcasm here, while I want to believe gamers including myself will understand someday that this is not the place to come and vent your frustration over a game, likely that will never happen. There are probably literally thousands of blogs and review sites devoted to games which are the ideal place to do such. I noticed similar problems with the SKYRIM article. I also think just because one writer writes a scathing review or blurb about one detail of the game this does not qualify as reason to add it to the article. Research and see of articles are saying same or similar and make sure you source and that source is reliable. I make this point because when someone just decides without sourcing or putting in a little effort to apply an edit then runs off to play the game or complain on other sites. I think this article is better, and hopefully it stays locked for a while, so people have to own there edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 0pen$0urce (talk • contribs) 18:08, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Mike Morhaime's letter

Any need to include at this time? Ars coverage. -- ferret (talk) 12:04, 20 July 2012 (UTC)