Talk:Diablo III

Necromancer dropped?

Why not add that the Sorceress too? The witch doctor is a fusion of Necromancer and Sorceress as evidence of the skills/attacks.

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.149.20 (talk) 00:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd say that it's a combination of Necro and Druid, but because that's my opinion as of now, it won't be put in the article. 58.165.27.1 (talk) 13:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Just a gentle reminder: this is not a forum. If you have questions about the necro, there's a nice fat link to click on :p JAF1970 (talk) 18:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Who is asking anything about the Necromancer? My question pointed out that there might be some redundancy in the article. If one charatcer is mentioned to by absent, than why not mention the other(s)? ... This topic was made before the Wizard (Sorc) class was revealed. I suppose it could be deleted.

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.112.186 (talk) 07:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Deckard Cain

Can we really be sure that Deckard Cain will be in the game? From what I've seen in the official site, he is an important character, alright, but apparently he will die at the starting sequence. I think there is no certainty in the fact that he will be a NPC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thereallarkas (talk • contribs) 12:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Well if does die at the starting sequence, technically he's in the game (Unless you mean in a cinematic, which wouldn't make much sense for Blizzard to make a low poly model for him..)

But I have not seen any evidence of his death. --FrostedBitesCereal (talk) 16:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

He might die during the course of the game, but he appeared alive and well in Blizzard's official gameplay video. You have to escort him out of a dungeon. Awakeandalive1 (talk) 16:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

fact

I request a reference or tag for "Additionally, there will be class-specific quests to go along with the main storyline quests.", it's probably already in one of the links - but there are a lot... Anyone know. I assume it's true?

It was briefly mentioned in the debuted game play demonstration. dude527 (talk) 02:25, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

ok (I vaguely remember) - as long as it's true thats ok..(can get a reference later if needed). Thanks.87.102.86.73 (talk) 02:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

neutrality

Has the neutrality issue been sorted out yet? The 'fan response' section looks a little less relevent now than it did a few weeks ago, maybe in a few more it will be totally forgotten.

What are the options.

1. just leave the neutrality tag there and wait for the problem to sort itself out (I favour this)

2. remove the tag (I have no objection)

3. remove the fan response section and the tag (I have no objection)

4. remove the tag and leave the fan response section in place (I have no objection)

5. something else.

Also I note that I call into question any suggestion that the labelled section "Although reception of the initial announcement and gameplay ...."" is actually not neutral in the context of the article. I find it neutral. I claim to be of sound mind and neutral..

What I do question is its relevence - ie is it notable enough for inclusion, or does it just represent a blip in the overall scheme of things?

I suggest wait and see to prevent any edit-wars etc. Any thoughts?87.102.86.73 (talk) 02:15, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, given that articles are being written on fan reaction regarding the color choice and online petitions have been created to pressure Blizzard into reverting back to the original color scheme, I think the issue is pretty notable. — Dorvaq (talk) 15:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

No, what would be notable is if the design choices negatively affected the sales of the game, if the publisher didn't sell as many as they projected. The game hasn't been released, it doesn't even have a release date. Gh5046 (talk) 23:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The information is notable, and neutral. As per WP:OR, and WP:V, it is notable. And as per WP:NPOV, it's neutral. Allow me to elaborate.

From WP:NOR: "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought . . . "Original research" is material for which no reliable source can be found. The only way you can show that your edit is not original research is to produce a reliable published source that contains that material."

From WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth"

From WP:NPOV: "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources."

Those 3 jointly, put together an allowance of what's already typed. We have many reliable sources, and have provided citations; so the information is verified, and published information, not original research. The content is neutral because the policy says "representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources," which we have done, little to no reliable sources have provided coverage on any but the complaints on the visuals. Therefore, this section is neutral. dude527 (talk) 00:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Please indicate why you think this is notable. Also, re-read the quote you provided from the third page. The section isn't neutral as it makes a single uncited statement that reception "was generally positive," then goes on into a lot more detail about how it wasn't, with six citations.

It needs to be balanced out. Until it is do not remove the tag. Gh5046 (talk) 04:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

This is notable because it has been given coverage by many different reliable sources. It's verifiable because there are citations for it. It will be neutral when I take a look at the citations and fix it up. dude527 (talk) 04:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. This isn't the only time it has been discussed: 1 2 3 4

Removing any mention of positive reception completely unbalances this. I'm reverting your changes. Gh5046 (talk) 04:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, verifiability does not make something notable. It is verifiable that Britney Spears went shopping at M. Fredric back in June, but that doesn't mean it's worthwhile mentioning it in the article about her. Gh5046 (talk) 04:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

It is neutral. WP:NPOV says "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." Nothing about a positive point of view has been mentioned by published sources, so we are indeed displaying all the significant views. dude527 (talk) 05:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

To answer your question Gh5046, I believe the fan reaction alone is notable enough regardless of actual impact on game sales. Think about the issue this way; how many other games out there can you think about where fans came together and voiced their disapproval with a particular game aspect, through an online petition with over 50k signatures, even before the game hit store shelves. My point is, the fact that the game in garnering so much negativity from longtime fans alone, especially before the game is released, is notable enough. I'm sure there's more, but I can only think of another game series where fans reacted similarly before the next installment of the game was released and that's Ultima IX. — Dorvaq (talk) 13:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, plus it's neutral. It isn't saying "the game's graphics suck balls," it's saying "many fans believe the games graphics suck balls," and it's a valid, unbiased statement since we're only using cited sources to provide coverage. dude527 (talk) 14:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay I may be blind (Too much coffee) but the reference seems to point to an online petition. Although can that really be sourced? Since there could be bots and other exploits to increase the signature count. Just pointing that out since it does seem a bit silly referencing an online petition...at least to me. --FrostedBitesCereal (talk) 00:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

We don't reference petitions, we reference reliable sources that cover the issue. dude527 (talk) 00:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Referencing a source that references a petition does not make the petition reliable. In other words, if a newspaper prints invalid information it doesn't become valid just because the newspaper printed it. Gh5046 (talk) 02:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

That's not a factor. I will quote some things for you again. From WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth," "From WP:NOR: "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought . . . "Original research" is material for which no reliable source can be found. The only way you can show that your edit is not original research is to produce a reliable published source that contains that material," the petition doesn't have to be true unless we referenced it directly. If a reliable source provided coverage, it's reliable, even if it's based on an online petition. The threshold for inclusion is verifiability. If a reliable source provides coverage on the subject, then it's verifiable, therefore within the threshold. Many reliable sources have provided coverage, there this information is reliable, whether true or not, it's been published by a reliable source, so it can be contributed to the article. dude527 (talk) 02:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, if you question the reliability of all of these sources, you're insane. I've read the petition, and a lot of these sources cover the information provided in the petition correctly. I will take a quote to prove the significance of this to you. From WP:RS: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves." The information that is currently on the page, and the citations provided, match up, they support each other, Wikipedia states all the citations reasons. The citations also take the information from the petition, and it's all true, therefore (as per reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy) the information currently in the article is reliable. As per WP:NPOV: "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources," it's neutral, as this is the only point-of-view any reliable sources have published. If you still question the reliability of this information, or the neutrality of the article, you either A) are dead-set against mention of all of this, or B) do not understand Wikipedia rules. Tag removed. dude527 (talk) 02:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Citing an author who used the petition as a source of information makes what that author wrote unreliable.

Go ahead and keep the section in there, I have stated before that I'm fine with keeping the section. Even though I disagree about its notability I won't press the issue at this time.

Neutrality is my biggest concern here. As it is currently written it only covers the negative fan response and absolutely nothing about positive response. Fix it or leave the tag until someone else does. Gh5046 (talk) 05:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The article isn't neutral, but i disagree with you; I accept it as it is even though i feel that it favours the POSITIVE side, even thou the last paragraph is well written; The art design section actually has three quarters of it pointing the POV and excuses of the art director (positive), and only one quarter, the last paragraph, pointing the FACT that MANY people are unhappy. MANY, because EVERY closed pool made oficially by Blizzard and fan sites have come with results against the original art direction, as if the 50k+(petition) werent enough to be many. As i see, it covers more positive than negative right now, opposing the rules of neutrality based on the size of reported sides.Atriel (talk) 02:19, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you, Atriel, except the fact that it is neutral. It's neutral because WP:NPOV states to give a factual perspective of every side of the argument for which a reliable source has provided coverage. We don't say "oh the graphics DO suck," we say "many fans agree the graphics suck," and we have references to back it up, neutralizing it, as it is not the opinion of a Wikipedian, but a reliable source covered it. This person wants to provide coverage on the positive aspects, but doesn't seem to understand that we can not unless a reliable source provides coverage on it. I gave up trying to convince him, because when I asked him to explain the issue after removing the tag, I got hit with "the issue is not resolved," no real explanation. And I don't want to start an edit war, you know? Let me restate this, in bold: If a reliable source provides more coverage for positive then negative, so do we. In that case, it's not a violation of WP:NPOV. However, when we add our own opinion, it then violates. dude527 (talk) 02:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

heheh :) i actually agree that it is neutral as is (to settle down)Atriel (talk) 02:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Heh, yeah, if you look back up in this talk section, I actually provided a lot of evidence supporting this. If you want to see. dude527 (talk) 02:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I accidentally hit return when reverting your change. Please notice on the tag that it says, "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved." The dispute is not resolved. Gh5046 (talk) 05:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

No, it doesn't make it unreliable. The sources say facts, even if opinionated facts, it is still FACT that people don't like it. We can't add anything for positive, as no reliable sources provide coverage, and if they did, they would be opinionated too, so you're suggesting we remove the section? dude527 (talk) 05:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I would be nice if the section said a little more about the art and design - it seems untidy jumping straight into a quote without any written info.87.102.86.73 (talk) 10:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Removed last paragraph, i don't think statistics should be added, as they change VERY quickly. I suppose you could mention the 'closed survey' that blizzard requested, although speculating about the outcome (i.e. quoting stats to prove one way or another) is rather misleading. I also think you should keep 'although the response was largely positive' because it WAS largely positive, fans were pretty much only disgruntled with the art direction, which makes up only a portion of the game. If it wasn't largely positive then would there be as many game sites dedicated too it? I've kept the 'several websites reported that fans felt disgruntled with the art style used' and refrained from saying 'most fans' or 'some fans' just keeping it with 'fans', as i think we can agree that it is leaning towards the majority, and that it is only really fans (who have played diablo 1 & 2) that are jumping up and down like bunnies on steroids about the art direction. Also, i've put the first section at the start so it gives the readers a little time to read a broad over view of what the section is about, before jumping right into the quotes and defense of it all. Other than that, i think the section is pretty much almost all encompassing and just about as neutral as it's going to get. I think adding more too it would only add more weight to the 'for' or 'against' section, rather than adding any new information. --Tyraz (talk) 01:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if the response was largely positive. From WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." That means something could be true, but we wouldn't post it, if it's not verifiable with reliable sources, and so far, reliable sources have only covered the negative response. Therefore, adding "generally positive" un-balances the article, because it's original research about our own opinion, no reliable sources say reception was generally positive. Plus, the whole fan response IS in the "Art direction" section, and it wouldn't make sense to add that the reception of the entire game which hasn't been released yet was generally positive in a very focused section. We could add as much information either way as we want, provided there's reliable coverage. We could have an entire section pointed to the negativity of the fan response, and nothing about the positive. It would be valid if that was what was covered by a reliable source. We go as biased as the sources we have do. Only adding our own opinion dis-balances it. dude527 (talk) 03:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The criticism and statistics are related strictly to the media already shown, that everybody is criticizing, and that raised proven controversy affecting the majority of fans of the series. I came up with verifiable and reliable FACTS that shouldn't be ommitted or hidden. I will re-write using your ideas soon. Also, from the VERY FIRST day the game was shown and from the Paris board, heated discussion arised about the art, filmed and documented by interviewers, proving that your statement of "the response was largely positive" is false overall (not entirely of course), and the game is being awaited and covered everywhere mostly because of the huge cult following created by the previous games of the series. Atriel (talk) 04:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

"Why fix what's not broken?" This article is fine as is. dude527 (talk) 04:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

repeated references

some references are repeated.. eg 'colour is your friend', also refs No.17,18.

Also ref 12 WWI08: Diablo 3 design fundamentals doesn't seem to be relevent to what it's linked to.

also implying that players may still play solo, but will be better off playing with others in group situations.[6] from gameplay section seems speculative.. and the reference "Oli Welsh (2008-06-28). "Blizzard announces Diablo III". Eurogamer." doesn't say anything of the sort. Please remove this. Thanks

Anyone want to sort all that out.. Thanks.87.102.86.73 (talk) 02:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

external links

I'll add the 3 links that appear in DMOZ to the external links section. It makes little sense to ask the user to go to DMOZ, so s/he can go to a site.

1. Diablo 3 News - Tracks Diablo 3 news and covers info on gameplay, characters, story, and demo.
2. Diablo Fans - Fan site containing news, forums, image gallery, and links.
3. Diablo III Community - A growing community site for the upcoming Diablo III. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krasimir (talk • contribs) 11:07, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Before adding external links, you might want to have a look at the policy on external links. Make sure you have a solid reason for adding them, as they're quite often removed. Wikipedia is not a directory of external links. Gazimoff ^Write_Read 11:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

removed: Engine: Havok Physics

"Engine" should mean game engine and not component [physics, audio, networking, AI] engines. See Crysis and Half-Life (video game) for examples of actual game engines in the engine field. The Diablo FAQ just says "Diablo III runs on a custom 3D game engine for ... .. "

Alright, but you didn't need to make a talk page entry unless someone contested it. Good eye anyways. dude527 (talk) 21:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

It used to say 'custom graphics engine, havok physics'

eg http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Diablo_III&oldid=224987736

Why remove it.87.102.86.73 (talk) 11:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Because it hasn't been confirmed that its havocs yet? Duct tape tricorn (talk) 00:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

No it's not that http://www.blizzard.com/diablo3/faq/ "What’s new about Diablo III compared to the previous Diablo games? .... Diablo III is powered by a new graphics engine that can display characters and hordes of monsters in lush, fully 3D environments. Powerful special-effects systems and Havok-powered physics...."

Or search for "diablo 3 havok" .87.102.86.73 (talk) 20:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

http://www.custompc.co.uk/news/602856/updated_diablo_iii_to_use_new_havok_physics_engine.html

http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2008/06/30/blizzard-snubs-nvidia-diablo

etc etc 87.102.86.73 (talk) 20:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

HELLO!

Quote from gameplay section "..also implying that players may still play solo, but will be better off playing with others in group situations.[6].."

This seems speculative.. and the linked (No.6) reference "Oli Welsh (2008-06-28). "Blizzard announces Diablo III". Eurogamer." doesn't say anything of the sort.

Anyone want to sort all that out.. (Instead of arguing the toss over pointless changes)? (looks like the edit war has stopped)87.102.86.73 (talk) 20:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

One of the gameplay videos has a developer saying something like "Diablo is first and foremost about teamwork" or cooperation or something. This statement looks accurate to me, and would fit with the mechanics of Diablo 2 which puts a premium on cooperative play (better xp, synergistic skills, etc). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.66.229.30 (talk) 03:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Character classes

Blizzcon just announced the Wizard. Third class. Uses a crystal ball for magic and projectile attacks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.160.237.20 (talk) 18:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Two of "seven classes" have been unveiled so far: Barbarian and Witch Doctor.[2][11] Players may choose gender for each class, a change from the fixed class genders in the previous two games.[5] - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQMBIRipp5A during the voiceover, they state there is 7 classes.AzraDark (talk) 01:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, they state "several," this discussion has already occured before. Plus, the official Diablo III FAQ says five. We use the official site's references over secondary ones, and we use written references over spoken ones. dude527 (talk) 02:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

While it doesn't seem to be official, and thus may not be of immediate use, the Korean language version of the character classes page on the Diablo 3 website shows a fourth class in the spread, which is called "Monk". I thought I might note this as it does not seem to have been brought up yet.--208.120.239.143 (talk) 17:47, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

publisher

Remove 'Publisher' section, at the moment that it is published by Activision Blizzard is highly doubtful, refer to Starcraft talk page. --139.80.123.38 (talk) 22:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

New Link and Info

This directly addresses the fan made images, so I think it should be included in the article: http://multiplayerblog.mtv.com/2008/08/04/diablo-iii-designer-turns-tables/ 24.196.146.119 (talk) 20:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure it won't be. This article's supposed "art direction" section is only there in the first place because people wanted to push their petition. Try adding the link and some selected quotes to the article and see what happens... I'd argue that it's just as relevant to include Penny Arcade's discussion of the same, but of course the petitioners will probably just delete any mention of that too. Remember: in their minds, "NPOV" = their opinion, and nothing else. 68.175.49.98 (talk) 01:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not so sure i agree. Blizzard has usually involved their users in the development process (just look at Starcraft 2 for evidence of this), this has been further highlighted by their discussion at length in BlizzCast, and in terms of NPOV: information is presented (relatively evenly) from both sides, and the language is neutral. It would seem that no matter what the outcome, the question will remain up too, and possibly after release, and we are likely too see more, not less of the issue (especially at BlizzCon and possibly future Q&A or BlizzCast releases).

Although that being said, i see your point; however i think it has extended beyond the 'petition pushers' phase where it really WAS just a petition, although now there is active discussion throughout the community with developers and game review websites really looking into the issue. Now it is no longer the 'petition pushers' but the developers and game reviewers who are questioning and/or justifying the current direction. The question that will probably arise next is: has the decision to make the new acts darker been a direct or indirect result of the original petition/petition pushers?--139.80.123.34 (talk) 02:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Gameplay info

MTV - Discusses gameplay issues like health potions and mob attacking. Very useful stuff. JAF1970 (talk) 16:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Shacknews also discuss the art direction, although it is rather more of a balanced view, as you can actually SEE what they're all talking about. Its relevant because it pretty much encapsulates the issue (and makes no sway ether way as to if it is or isn't right... although i think from the comments section, it is rather self evident that there is ALOT of controversy about the state of play... with about a 50:50 split) I've added reference too it as well, as i think it adds balance to the section. Currently about 70-80% of the article represents Blizzard's response, with the only reference, in passing, to the original source of the dispute.--139.80.123.34 (talk) 03:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it is relevant to the art direction controversy, but be careful about drawing any conclusions from the comment section. You have severe sample biasing because people who are interested in a darker game are more likely to continue seeking out information, and post about, what others see as an aging issue. Seeing as how this is an article about the game, and not about fan response as a whole, there is little reason to give it much more space than it already has. As others have said, any mention of the controversy will probably not appear in the article after the game has been out and the article has gone through several changes. Arrow of Thyme (talk) 14:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd disagree, to the extent that it will remain an issue all the way up too, and after release: with many questioning if, in fact, it DID alter the look and feel of the game. Ether way, it will probably remain in the final article after release as part of the 'development process': stating if it did or didn't affect the development and final release of the game.--139.80.123.34 (talk) 02:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Next Gen Consoles

According to the blizzard website, diablo 3 will also becoming out on next gen consoles.

I am at work at the moment so I dont have the exact citation, but this needs to be updated on the page Olog-hai (talk) 04:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Source? JAF1970 (talk) 07:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Definitely this needs sourcing. The Diablo III FAQ clearly states Windows and Mac with no mention of consoles. There is also nothing in Blizzard's news section to suggest otherwise. --Stormie (talk) 09:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

they specifically said it wasnt coming out on xbox iirc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.84.255.50 (talk) 18:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Where do they say that? Reference? - Ilyushin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.251.156.185 (talk) 22:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Quote sizes

Most of the Art and Direction section is taken up with 3 quotes basically saying the same thing, but from 3 different people. The quotes don't really do blizzard's response justice, and seem fairly reactive. Blizzards BlizzCast is a much better response, but is obviously too big to quote. Currently there is a pretty big overlap in terms of new information in the quotes (and the sheer size the quotes take up in the article); they also seem a little too 'reactive' rather than the informed BlizzCast response. Someone should look into fixing this up.--Tyraz (talk) 03:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Screenshot

That screenshot doesn't look isometric to me. It just looks like a regular bird's eye view found in lots of 3D games. SharkD (talk) 10:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Classes

Joystiq I'm not as much in tune with Diablo III so I'm not going to update the article, but at least the Wizard class is confirmed. JAF1970 (talk) 17:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Video of Wizard in action JAF1970 (talk) 18:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Game info

Interview - some salient stuff here. ie. waypoints. JAF1970 (talk) 16:50, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

new class, Wizard, new rune system announced.

http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/55258 71.56.152.104 (talk) 02:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Skill Trees/Create 'Playable Characters of Diablo' section

Barbarian Skill Tree revealed The Barbarian Skill Tree has just been revealed. Maybe we should add the barbarian skill tree? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danieljepsen (talk • contribs) 19:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Uhh... that would be rather unencyclopedic and would take up a ridiculous amount of space simply to say 'The Classes will have Skills'. Looking through the Diablo series articles, it seems we rather lack a certain consistency. It seems that all three games have similar Classes, but different names. Instead of adding all this in-depth information, would it not be better too make a 'Playable Characters of Diablo' and outline the specifics there? Also it would serve as a medium too compare (since thats what many seem to be doing in the current critical environment) and contrast the Classes across the series. The Barbarian, for example, has been relatively consistent throughout the three series as the 'tank'; furthering this concept, you can spread out and show how the game/gameplay has really progressed in terms of skills and gameplay, touching on the 'playable' nature of the 'Characters' of the section, and how the series has evolved.

Getting to the point though: Such detailed information doesn't really deserve too have so much of the article. And given the current environment, it would probably be best if we created a 'Playable Characters' article instead of having to put up with the inevitable 'criticism of characters'; which has the same effect as a news paper report. Instead the information should be put in a context where the reader can compare for him/herself the differences in classes.

This is MUCH preferred too saying "on the 17th of whenever, the general public complained that the new class was much the same as the old class" ect ect--Tyraz (talk) 08:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Articles that contain info, but that you don't have time too add yourself

Considering the recent popularity URL's without people adding the information too it, i figured I'd make a thread so people can add the URL's that they feel would contribute to the article, but can't be added too 'external links', or that they don't have time too add themselves.

http://www.shacknews.com/featuredarticle.x?id=1024 This links contains WAY too much info for me to include in the article, so if anyone is interested in an interesting read, and is prepared to analyze and add it too the article, then by all means do so.--Tyraz (talk) 08:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Additional story information

I found an interview that tells us a little more about the story. I can't add it myself, but if someone would like too, here's the link. http://www.kotaku.com.au/games/2008/07/the_man_behind_diablo_iii_talks_plot_lore_and_battlenet-2.html--24.255.171.220 (talk) 23:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Updated splash page

I put the current Diablo 3 site splash page. JAF1970 (talk) 21:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Playstation 3?

The advertisements I have seen show this is coming out for Playstation 3 as well. Isn't that true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.230.167.170 (talk) 23:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• New discussions go at the bottom of the page please. Also, it looks highly unlikely there will be a console version: [1] Better plan on getting a real game machine: a PC! DP76764 (Talk) 00:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
• I see. However, for those of you who know anything about a PC, you would know that the Playstation 3 is one and can use any USB keyboard or mouse natively. So again, I wonder if there is any more solid information than that. --63.230.167.170 (talk) 01:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)Ffoxian

System requirements

somebody deleted system specks, this lead my checking the sources. I have to say I agree with the deletion. the source is diablo-iii-to-be-launched-before-christmas-2009 which notes that it gets all its info from Kaputic. The wording of the article at Kaputic is "The system requirements are likely to be:". All this (along with release date) seems to me to be rumor and speculation. If there is no place in the article about probable release dates, why should the same sources on system requirements be written as fact. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 17:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

• Sounds fair enough to remove those. I restored the first deletion as it appeared sourced and such. They seem a little low, anyway (why would they write for DX9 video cards? sheesh). DP76764 (Talk) 17:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Online play more important than single?

http://diablo3x.com/diablo-3/player-styles/singleplayer suggests that online play is the focus of the game, with single player coming in second. Could we change the infobox to 'Mode(s): online multiplayer (over Battle.net), Single-player' to reflect this? Squogfloogle (talk) 05:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

/* Art direction and design */ - Remove the 'he agree's, she disagree's

I feel that the Art Direction and design section is getting a little over run with quotes... And i would know, since i condensed most of them to make them fit into the article... Most of the issues and concerns are raised and stated in the opening paragraph. And then the only block quote following addresses why blizzard feels they cannot implement them. The two following paragraphs, while attempted to follow some continuation through the connection that "is the new look faithful to the Diablo series", have a series of developers from both sides, pretty much arguing whether or not what was said in the first paragraph is true or not.

The issue is a two fold one: both that the two final paragraphs don't provide any further information (unlike the block quote which refutes the feasibility of the proposed changes on 'decent systems', rather than if the proposed changes are in fact true or not) and simply provide a 'battle of the developers' style blow by blow account. And the second is that the whole section is beginning to take undue precedence over the whole article. I simply propose a sentence or two at the end of the opening paragraph indicating to what degree developers agree with the validity of the 'unfaithful to the Diablo series for the above stated reasons' claim, and stating that there is, infact, disagreement on both sides to the degree in which the claim is true.

Now to the MASSIVE NPOV issue that has been raised earlier, the two final paragraphs are of same contextual basis, and are broadly just 'back and forwards' without raising any new information other than 'this developer agree's' and 'this one doesn't'. And the remaining block quote is largely unaltered and is more information heavy rather than POV heavy, and feel it should remain. This change should bring the size of the section to about half, and the POV will remain largely where it was prior to the changes, with minimal effect on the amount of information given.--Tyraz (talk) 04:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

We all know that by the time the game is released the controversy will be removed by fanboys anyways, videogame articles are always a mess.--142.68.47.178 (talk) 15:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately I have to agree with you. And as you may have noticed, now there are TWO partitions, each claiming that the current direction is/isn't good, and each having developers to back up their claims.

Naturally this means that more often than not there are quotes stating "Ex Blizzard Developer A [usually Bill Roper] believes the series doesn't remain faithful to the original, and isn't dark enough"... with the other side [pretty much any current Blizzard developer] stating "Well, when WE looked back on D2, we saw heeps of vibrance, and doing it the way you want to makes it look dull and flat". Now I can understand if the reasoning behind this is that we are all idiotic humans, who cannot click on blue links and make those sorts of judgments for ourselves. But as the fact of the matter remains that, with the aid of a standard mouse, anyone can click on the Diablo series link and see for themselves if it remains faithful/vibrant/flat/whatever-the-hell-else to the original, or if it infact it looks too much like World of Warcraft. Now compare this kind of quote with the only block quote left in there; which states why they have chosen the direction they have, in terms of both contrast and performance issues, and therefore adds value to the section, not just opinions.

To put it simply: if the information/quote provides about as much information (and is as credible) as your own opinion, then it's probably not noteworthy, regardless of if the individual who said it is or not.

Too many Trolls, not enough bullets.--Tyraz (talk) 02:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

You're missing the point here, which is that it's both interesting to people seeking background information on Diablo that one of the original Diablo team members have expressed their opinion on the subject, and also fully relevant to the sub-category. Saying "with developers on both sides arguing both for and against the current direction" lacks the level of description which Wiki articles exist to give. Which developers? From where? Why is it significant? These are the details which you're attempting to deny this article, and I believe it's because you're the fanboy warned about above. Reading someone like Roper say what he considers the difference to be is not the same as being told what YOU should think the difference to be, and if you thought opinions of Diablo devs had no place in the article (which would be your own misguided opinion) then you'd have removed Jaw Wilson's quote, which you obviously did not. While we're in the realm of addressing nonsense: since having a standard mouse gives us the tools to research things outside of wikipedia for ourselves, let's delete the whole website. Why have information on these pages when people can find it all elsewhere for yourself? That's how silly your attempted justification for hurting this article is. I'm adjusting your ridiculous edit and hope that in the future you will separate your fanboyism from this article, and all articles, where it doesn't belong. Beegor (talk)

Ok. Dude. Look at the external links, named 'for' and 'against'. If you can find out a better way to put a decent level of context and justice to a quote while not doubling the size of the article then so be it. To be quite honest, the fact that its 'interesting' to know what other people think isn't exactly the revelation of the century. For example I find that my friend Bob HATES BLIZZARDS GUTS interesting. Call me crazy, but I was of the impression that facts and information rather than opinions were prevalent in encyclopedia articles (and please don't get snarky and say 'its a fact that this guy has this opinion'). I'm saying, in order to keep this section relatively sane, that only quotes that contain information should be added. Further, if you disagree what the external link that is, on the ether 'for' or 'against' word, then change that instead! Paraphrasing such a complex issue will not do it any justice, which is why the external link is there! While this might not be a perfect solution, its the best we can come up with to stop the section exploding into views and counter views; like it has done in the not so distant past. If you believe you have a better one, that keeps the section in relative proportion to its importance to the article as a whole, then please: enlighten us! --Tyraz (talk) 21:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

This isn't about enlightening any "us," it's about enlightening "you," you being the only one person who has made it their personal crusade to edit this section biasedly. That having further information out there makes the sub-category longer (by about 10% [and maybe 2.5% on this already very tiny article], which isn't doubling it) is NO reason to deny that information, and is a ridiculous reason. You still haven't merged the Jay Wilson quote into the "for and against" section, and that you've chosen a two contrasting formats depending on which person's opinion it is strongly alludes to biased motivation on your part. The purpose of WP is to be NEUTRAL. That means the same treatment for all sides of the issues. I think what you are doing is on the verge of what WP calls "vandalism," and would be the kind of thing someone would contact a moderator over if it wouldn't be such a waste of their time over a video game. For NEUTRALITY, if you want to sum the section up as "for and against," then the Jay Wilson opinion is also going to be merged into that line so that the format is complete. If you're going to post one side's opinion, then there's going to be both sides' opinions posted. The latter is the better format as it is much more informative and 100% relevant to the sub-category's topic, which is the significant and debate over the new art direction. Beegor (talk)

Ok, I accept that you are trying to make a point here, and want Bill Ropers opinions to be included, so will leave it. For the record, I didn't add in that quote ether. The difference between that quote by Jay Wilson and yours is that Wilsons talks about technical aspects like contrast and system requirements which are game specific. These things are objective facts. While that Bill Roper quote (OR for that matter, a multitude of Wilson's other quotes) simply has stated that he doesn't think it 'rings true' with diablo series is which can be checked by the reader. So look, you can add quotes from Bill Roper as long as they're relatively objective (for example, he stated that Blizzard North prefers a more narrow, dark color scheme and understands that Blizzard Irvine usually uses a much broader one, which is a reason he feels it is untrue to the series. This is an objective fact that could be added.)

Also, if you want to go down the neutrality argument again.. just look above (there's loads about it).. And the opening statement is largely 'against', while Wilsons quote could be seen as 'for'... But thats not really the main issue here. I have no problem with you adding quotes from other people, just make sure they're relatively objective.

Finally, I'm not fighting my own crusade of my own viewpoints, I'm simply trying to make sure this article doesn't end up like so many others, with the eventual splitting of a 'criticisms of Diablo 3' article created when this section turns into a massive behemoth that swallows up the whole article is created. So if you can find a relatively objective quote by Bill Roper (i.e. the limited color pallet argument is valid), then by all means, add it. But remain cautious, because the standard you set will be the standard others use when they're adding their respective 'for' quotes.--Tyraz (talk) 00:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The quote that was taken out is commented out here, which is relatively objective. You may also add yours for comparison feel free:

I'm not particularly involved, but I was asked to give my 2 cents, so I will. I personally think it's all irrelevant. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and thus exists to give a history on relevant topics. A history on relevant topics does not include, "'I agree,' says the nice developer man." Whether it's nice or interesting to read about things like that is neither here nor there; it has nothing to do thus far with the development of the game, which is the sub-section this section is rooted in. Because this sub-section has its roots in the section regarding the development of the game, the quotes and text should naturally follow suit, and be relevant to the development of the game. In other words, how has this criticism affected the game's development? Critical commentary regarding the developer's willingness or inability to adhere to the criticism is, in a word, relevant. However, saying who agrees without warranted explanation is unethical. We don't exist to give a level of detail down to who specifically agrees or disagrees; only to give the level of detail that there was a negative response that affected the development of the game (or how it didn't). This "he agrees, she agrees" is irrelevant, and should be removed. The Guy ^(edits) 00:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Nothing in the Art Direction sub-section contains any information that has altered the development of Diablo 3, but is instead noting the controversial reactions towards Blizzard's chosen art style. Since art direction is a component of development, I guess that's why it was placed there. It could be made its own section, but I'll leave that to someone else if it's in their interest as I don't think something must have necessarily affected development for it to correspond well to the topic of development. Beegor (talk)

Maybe it could be moved into a critical reception section. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 07:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Why do i get the impression that we're tip toeing our way towards a 'criticism of diablo 3' article...--Tyraz (talk) 00:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that's because you're a fanboy who would like to deny the existence of negative impressions of D3 on this page, and who is paranoid that saying negative things is what this issue is all about. If there was notable criticism of Diablo 3, why would we even want to deny its mention here? An encyclopedia doesn't exist to be a marketing tool. Beegor (talk)

I think the real question is of how relevant this is anyways. Again, what makes this topic notable enough to warrant mention, not to mention its own section? As it's written currently, it's an unencyclopedic pile of "This was criticized, that was criticized. Whoop dee doo." We need to fix it up. The Guy ^(edits) 21:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

According to the video game article guidelines, every video game article should include a reception section, and currently, the game's reception has been focused on the art style. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 04:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, I've moved the art direction and design section from the development section to a new reception section. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 05:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure an upcoming video game without a confirmed release date can be spared a reception section -- don't be absurd. Besides, WP Video Games do not contain policies; they contain guidelines, not guides. Nobody says, "you MUST do this!" as we do for original research and the likes. These guidelines are not bright line. But still, this is irrelevant to what was being discussed: the actual content of said section. The Guy ^(edits) 05:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

That's for the best, as an aside, should we really be using a lead developer recently hired from Relic as the main supporting viewpoint to the change versus one of the most influential developers in the business and a former leading force in the company and Vice President of the branch that made the original two games? Do we have a supporting viewpoint from someone else within the company with a little more history and knowledge to draw upon rather than them admitting to having to go back and look at the games to understand the issue? Just a suggestion. Revrant (talk) 20:05, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I have to point out that in the art direction section, it says that some developers agree and disagree with the changes. The disagree link, however, is an interview with Bill Roper, who is not a D3 developer. He doesn't even work for Blizzard any more. That needs to be made more clear. 72.135.113.235 (talk) 07:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Release date?

Someone added 09/09/09 as a release date on the main page, without a reference, and with a recommendation not to delete it. Since the date seems pure speculation to me, perhaps remove it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.234.216.31 (talk)

Yes, people are constantly adding that nonsense. Don't worry, it is constantly removed. DP76764 (Talk) 15:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I propose removing the "TBA" as well. It may be rather obvious that it will be announced, but as of now, we have no references to say that the date will eventually be announced, and so it's original research. To top that off, having a release date section is irrelevant if we don't know the specific date. We're not a constantly-updated archive of gaming news, and "TBA" is about as unencyclopedic as you can get, so I propose we remove it. The Guy ^(edits) 21:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. But it's been a hot topic for a while and will probably be snuck back in. DP76764 (Talk) 17:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Done. --Explodicle (T/C) 17:38, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record, it seems all video games articles on WP for game which haven't yet had a release date announced use "TBA" as the date, so I think it's become somewhat standardized. Also, I just checked the "video game article guidelines" WP section that Gordon Ecker previously linked to, and in it it says 'If the game is announced but no release date is given, state this as "TBA".'Beegor (talk)

Even if it's in the WP Video Game guidelines, it's still overpowered by the rules (not guidelines, see the difference) of Wikipedia: no original research, verifiability, etc. If we had a reliable source to confirm an upcoming announcement date, it could be managed. But we don't, so it can't. WP Video Games is not as important as following the main rules of Wikipedia. WP Video Games is not bright line. The Guy ^(edits) 05:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I for one think there should be a release date and TBA. First off, I don't think putting down TBA constitutes original research--I would like to see that proposition defended--and I suspect (since I am at work right now) that if you looked at the D3 website they will have a Blizzard standard we will release it when its ready answer. On top of that you are making the weird case its a reasonable expectation that D3 would be released without an announcement.

Lastly it makes the block appear incomplete--all readers will know it has to be released at some point and we aren't providing them the information that we don't know yet.--YuriPup (talk) 20:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it certainly constitutes original research, without a source. Anything without a source constitutes original research. If we took a source that said, "it'll be released when it's ready," and put "TBA," we'd be interpreting the source. If we found such a source, the only information it provides is "when it's ready," and I'm sure I'm not alone in thinking it would be absurd to put that anywhere in the article. I don't expect D3 to be released without an announcement, but I don't think it's within our power to say, without positive confirmation, that there will be an announcement. Again, I'm not saying I believe it's true; in fact it's very likely there will be, but again, no source. Also, things happen, too; games drop into development hell, etc, etc. I'm sure that there will be an announcement, but I don't speak for Wikipedia, which is based solely on sources. I don't see how forgoing it makes the infobox look incomplete, and you're incorrect, yet correct at the same time: we won't be providing them with information we don't know on a personal level, sure, but we would be providing them with information we cannot confirm with a source. I believe that that's prohibited. It all comes down to sources, sources, sources. The Guy ^(edits) 23:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually you have us arguing the wrong thing. Release date is only what day it is going to be released--regardless of announcements, press releases, or other media events. So, assuming the game is successfully release, there is a release date. And our knowledge of release dates is definite--its a known unknown (we know we don't know it). This knowledge should be reflected in the article. It can be easily sourced that we the public don't know because the devs aren't telling us. Considering that for those who follow Blizzard games their release schedule of "when it's ready" is a mantra, I think that would be quite reasonable to have in their article--it speaks to their design ethos.

A logical question when reading about a game under development is when does it come out? Its probably one of the most common questions asked about game. You can't get that vital piece of information from this article at the moment. And with a couple of quick looks, there D3 is the only game that doesn't have a release date listed. So consistent users will wonder why the inconsistency.

Lastly the fact that most things which don't have a release date say we don't know that fact (look at A Dance with Dragons, for example) lends evidence that you are taking no original research to places it wasn't meant to go. And I still haven't checked the D3 faq from home to provide the when its ready source. Grrr.--YuriPup (talk) 12:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

http://www.blizzard.com/diablo3/faq/#3_1

When will Diablo III be released?

It's too early to estimate Diablo III's release date. As with all Blizzard Entertainment games, our goal is to create a game that is as fun, balanced, and polished as possible. We intend to take as much time developing Diablo III as is necessary to ensure the game meets our own high expectations and those of our players. We're aiming to release Diablo III on both Mac and Windows simultaneously in as many regions as possible, and to localize the game in several languages. We'll have more details to share about countries, languages, and specific dates as we get closer to release.--YuriPup (talk) 21:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

game.co.uk have Diablo 3 available for pre-order and also have the release down as some time in 2010. JordanGreen09 (talk) 20:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

As of April 2nd, and prior I am sure, Amazon.com has it available for pre-order, so fair to expect it in 2010. 69.237.185.202 (talk) 11:39, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Careful with that there speculation, Amazon.com and other online stores are notorious for posting made up release dates for games with TBA schedules. MMhm (talk) 11:45, 2 April 2010 (UTC)\

This isn't even up for debate: stores always set general release dates to make pre-sales go better. They are not an official source and rarely do they know anything the public doesn't. Besides, Blizzard already said at their shareholders meeting that D3 would not be out in 2010. For certain. At the same time, they did NOT confirm a 2011 release either. 71.238.69.88 (talk) 04:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Further, the current release date in this article says 2011, and the reference is not credible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.3.40.105 (talk) 21:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

the source for the leak is http://www.mmogamesite.com/news/blizzard-product-slate-leaked.html Reaper ahhh (talk) 08:52, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I changed the release date to TBA, since Blizzard doesn't have a release date, http://diablo.incgamers.com/blog/comments/blue-2011-not-out-of-the-question-after-all/ http://forums.battle.net/thread.html?topicId=27797319652&pageNo=5&sid=3000#82. Fedryktulu (talk) 19:48, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

The leak source appears to be credible. Blizzard has confirmed the game "Titan", and the releases so far correspond with the leak. For the time being it's the best we have, Blizzard rarely updates FAQs. --Bloodknight (talk) 08:00, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Even if the leaked document is real, that doesn't mean anything, since Blizzard said on the conference call for the last quarter that they didn't know if they were going to release Diablo 3 this year. Besides, blizzard is not really good at predicting dates. The only thing puting Q4 as release date does is giving people false hopes. We don't know, I'm changing the date to TBA.Fedryktulu (talk) 21:01, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm certainly in agreement with "TBA". See my reasoning below in the Leaked Roadmap section, particularly in regards to the "reliability" of using an "a gamer, speaking on condition of anonymity" as a source. – RobinHood70 ^talk 22:10, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Saw on Wal-mart today, they have the game on pre-order and an expected release date of 8/10/2011. http://www.walmart.com/ip/Diablo-III-PC-PC-Games/14018467 Darius Sinclair™ 18:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darius Sinclair (talk • contribs)

As you can see from the conversation above, pre-order release dates mean very little, if anything at all, when it comes to actual release dates. I wouldn't be surprised if, in many cases, the dates are inserted randomly by some manager just because their system requires a date to be entered. – RobinHood70 ^talk 23:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The Monk was in Diablo:Hellfire

"The Barbarian, previously featured in Diablo II, is the only class that Blizzard is planning to bring back for the initial release, but former classes may appear in future expansions"

The Barbarian and Monk both first appeared in Diablo: Hellfire, but only the Barbarian appeared in Diablo 2. Xep (talk) 19:29, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

If you'll remember, the Monk was the only new class added in Hellfire. The Barbarian and Bard classes were planned and made, but cut last-minute. The Guy ^(edits) 03:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

That wasn't my point. The Barbarian isn't the only one returning now. Xep (talk) 12:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Hellfire isn't in print anymore, though. Blizzard doesn't acknowledge it as canon. Plus Sierra made it, not Blizzard. The Monk isn't one of Blizzard's returning classes, but Sierra's. I think the bottom line, though, is that Hellfire is basically abandonware. The fact that the Monk appeared in it is therefore pretty insignificant. The Guy ^(edits) 19:36, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't really matter whether or not Hellfire is considered canon. Look at this way, if Hellfire never existed then there would be no Monk in Diablo 3. Xep (talk) 22:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I would say it matters quite a bit whether or not the team who produces this franchise considers that external expansion canon. And who are you to say that there would be no Monk in this installment if not for Hellfire? You can't honestly say that Blizzard had to have taken the class from Hellfire or it couldn't exist, and they absolutely did not simply do it of their own accord. You can't say that, but that's exactly what you're saying. The Guy ^(edits) 20:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

So you're saying they just happened to create a new class with the same name, style and gameplay as a class in hellfire? What are the chances? It's a returning class in exactly the same way the barbarian is. The monk has been seen in a previous game, whether or not that game is canon is irrelevant. Xep (talk) 01:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Uh, hello? Whether or not Hellfire is canon is extremely relevant. It's not canon; it doesn't count. There was no Monk in the canonical Diablo games. Simple as that. --Nate D. (talk) 03:50, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

That's a technicality. A side-issue at best. The fact is the Monk in Diablo 3 has been seen before, it could be another franchise altogether and would still count. Xep (talk) 13:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

agree with Xep, seen befor therefore not new. seems to me to be nit picking to argue the case through franchise or not. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 17:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

What it factually is is irrelevant. The only relevant thing is commentary official sources provides. In this case, this post from a Blizzard person indicates their opinion; that it is not a returning class that they simply updated, like the Barbarian. This Monk class is apparently different, but happens to share the name. There you go. The Guy ^(edits) 20:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

my thinking is that the battle.net general discussion forum on Diablo III may come under WP:SPS. I think it advisable to await some more official sources. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 23:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:SELFPUB: Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

1. the material is not unduly self-serving;
2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

Nowhere does the post involve claims about third parties, nowhere does it meander to an irrelevant subject, seeing as it's a admin labeled "Blizzard Poster" and adorned with all sorts of Blizzard things on his profile on the official forums for B.net (run by Blizzard) I see no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity, and the article would most definitely not be based on such sources. In this case, the self-published source is absolutely fine. The Guy ^(edits) 00:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm a bit late to this discussion but I'll put in my own two cents. The apparent similarities of the Sierra monk and the Diablo 3 monk are not relevant because a fantasy monk is an archtype which will follow certain well defined tropes. He is fast, unaromored and lightly armed melee fighter which enhances his physical prowess with meditiative will based magic (like ki blasts). This is how it works in D&D, video games, literature, etc. So claiming the Diablo Monk is a return of the Sierra monk on those grounds is like saying the Diablo Monk is Ryu from Street Fighter.

Further, I agree with the separation of the companies and Blizzards ability to claim something is not canon. Similarly, if people made extra levels for Half-Life 2 with the Source editor and Valve really liked one of the characters and incorperated them into Half-Life 3, Valve would be fully within their rights to say that its that characters 'first appearance' in a Half-Life product. 198.161.174.222 (talk) 19:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it should be considered as trivia, and included in a trivia section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.17.212.57 (talk) 22:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

New inventory system dropped, old one brought back.

As evident by screenshots from Blizzcon, the tetris style inventory is back, is someone going to edit the article and remove the bit where it says it has a new inventory system? I won't do it in fear of spelling/grammar errors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.224.215.162 (talk) 20:24, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Needs a better source than just someone who 'saw it at a con'. DP76764 (Talk) 20:28, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I checked the source (#7) for where it says that at first it had a new inventory system, but it was recently reverted back to the old one, but it doesn't say anything about that in the article at all.--WikiDonn (talk) 04:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Article on Gamasutra

Here, has some good info, not sure if any of it is new, though. JACOPLANE • 2009-09-21 19:48

Pseudo-Reception Section

This edit essentially restores the Reception section but puts it into the Development section instead. On its own, I can see the logic. Some of the content in the restored section is another matter, though. Why is it notable that a fan created a mock-up of what he'd like to see? That smacks of self-promotion to me. Would it not be enough to say that there are disputes within the community about the artistic direction and just leave it at that? —RobinHood70 ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree. This "controversy" is just a reaction from some unknown number fans, a vocal minority, and it is the sort of backlash that most sequels get while in development. Nothing makes this issue any different nor is there any chance that this section will still exist once the game is released and a real reception section is created so we might as well lose it. It is given undo space on a wiki since it has no bearing on the actual creation of the game. Leave it for the fan sites. Arrow of Thyme (talk) 02:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

As the only feedback in nearly a month, I'm calling it the closest thing to consensus we're gonna get, and I've removed the paragraph. —RobinHood70 ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

PC only or not.

I've been checking back to this page many times, and I've recently noted what seems to be another editing war and a source that seems very very doubtful that claims that Diablo III is being planned for other consoles as well. I doubt the source because the site has a few bizarre pieces of information, such as saying that Diablo III has been released and is an online multiplayer game and that Blizzard is based in Paris, or something along those lines. It'd be nice if a definitive claim from a reliable source could be given on the subject of whether or not Diablo III may be planned for other systems such as Diablo I was. I'm too 'timid' to edit it myself and call BS on the source. --66.204.21.253 (talk) 20:20, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

The source is a valid and reliable. Give it another read and you'll see that it simply states that they're considering consoles, which matches the article. Also, while Blizzard is located in CA (Which the sources notes), the parent company Vivendi IS located in Paris. I didn't see anything suspect in my read-through just now, and Bloomberg is a large respected publication. ferret (talk) 20:35, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I realized about half an hour after I said this that, yeah, it is in France. And I feel kinda stupid for making that mistake on my half, I appologize. But I still have a problem with how everything is worded. It may or may not be right but it just seems.. off. It says Diablo 3 is a multiplayer online game with wizards and demon hunters has been developed for PC... Is this just the use of a translator making it sound really odd? I'll trust it if it's continued to be vouched for, but something a little more formal and solid would be nice. Perhaps I'm just paranoid about a possible hoax. I would search for a source that backs it up (if I found one I would believe it, likely) but my internet refuses to let me visit sites that have any links to or from them that have any kind of game involved. Aside from that site, it seems. No clue why. 66.204.21.253 (talk) 17:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you should check out Bloomberg and Bloomberg_L.P., which is the source currently in use. This is a respected U.S. publication in the financial sector. It's not an "entertainment" or "gaming" news site, which is why it's not filtered probably. The article isn't a translation to my knowledge. ferret (talk) 14:06, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I suppose that's why. I've just never really heard of Bloomberg, or a lot of things it would appear, and that combined with how jagged the description of the game was I felt it was possibly just a hoax. And I thought a translator may have been in use because in my own experience with them, languages tend to translate into a rough version of the other. I was expecting something a little more... formal, I suppose. I'll take your word that it is a reliable source, though if a source under the same subject comes directly from Blizzard... It'd just be nice to get their voice sourced, as well. Most of the people who likely view this page probably would like to see something they recognize more closely. And since I haven't heard of it myself, I suppose others have not as well. Thank you for clearing this up, Ferret. 66.204.21.253 (talk) 16:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Leaked Roadmap

Can I get a second opinion on whether or not we should leave the target date given in the leaked roadmap in the infobox, please. (See this version of the page.) To my mind, it's not even remotely official, as it's not an announcement made by the company and we have no way of knowing how accurate the leaked information is. Even if it was accurate, it's at least 8 months old, depending whether they were using M/D/Y or D/M/Y dates. At this point, all we really know for certain is that there was a purported leak and someone resigned shortly thereafter for reasons that may or may not have been related. For now, I've reverted the change. – RobinHood70 ^talk 00:57, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The link shows a release date chart with years and quarters. So it has releases marked in on the chart at, for example, Q4 2011 (for diablo iii). the information is clearly not completely accurate -- for example WoW brazil was some years back -- I remember because I was playing WoW and had to decide. On the other hand, the startcraft ii release was spot on. --71.191.173.80 (talk) 22:13, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The fact that Q4 2011 is the unreliable release date that was leaked is itself a reliable information seen in numerous sources, and it is highly relevant to this article. It should be kept. --Jules.LT (talk) 09:35, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand your reasoning. Last I heard, Blizzard had not confirmed that it was a genuine leak, so for all we know, the leak could be false. That would make the information speculative at best, totally made up at worst - either way, it fails WP:RS completely. Even if they have or later do confirm that the leak was genuine, the graph used is 8 or 10 months old and there has been no official announcement, so we have no way of knowing if they're still on-track for that date, or if there are known improvements/delays that have completely altered that date. For now, I'll leave the edit, but I'd really like some explanation of why the leak should be considered a reliable source. – RobinHood70 ^talk 22:28, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

The question in my mind is not the status of the leak but rather the reliability of bgr.com. If bgr.com is a reliable news site then the info should stay. A leak is newsworthy (even reliable) if the media says so rather than the source. A good example of this is the leaks of wikileak: these leaks become notable once the press takes them up, regardless if the U.S. government (or other source) confirms the leaks as authentic or not. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 10:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

It's actually a double-sided issue, I think. There's the question of whether the fact of the leak happening is reliable, and if it is, then it should definitely be reported (though probably more at the Blizzard page than here), but there's also the question of the accuracy of the leak in terms of citing it in terms of the release date. – RobinHood70 ^talk 12:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

In relation to wikipedia, I'm not sure I agree. Take the wiki guide line "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth; that is, whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.". What I think this means, in this case, is that if bgr.com (or others who publish the information) is/are a reliable source(s) then the information should be included. It would be wrong (and somewhat promotional), in my view, to only include information that has been published or confirmed by Blizzard. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 12:28, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

(←) I just noticed that BGR.com indicates that MMO Game Site was their source, so I've changed the reference info to match. I'm really skeptical about MMO Game Site's report, though, as their source is "A gamer, speaking on condition of anonymity". So...an anonymous gamer sends you info and you rush it to press? Heck, that was going on on this article long before MMO Game Site ever reported anything! Still, for the time being, I'm apparently the only one objecting to this source, so I've left the info as is with the revised reference. – RobinHood70 ^talk 18:31, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Console version in the works

I recently read blizzard has hired programmers for a console version on a reliable site i will put up a link in a few hours if you don't belive me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 254Jackson (talk • contribs) 10:11, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

The article already mentions a possible console release. -- Fyrefly (talk) 14:18, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes but hiring staff is better detail il add it