Talk:Diablo III/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Diablo III. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Diablo III has been announced. Unlock?

Diablo III has been announced. Please unlock or something. [1] [2] 85.82.180.82 (talk) 10:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. --Chris S. (talk) 10:32, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

3

Minor note - I don't know how to redirect, but Diablo 3 should go here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.120.208.68 (talk) 10:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

This has been fixed. Plrk (talk) 15:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Sweet, the game hasn't even been announced for an hour and people are already trying to vandalize the page. Jklharris (talk) 10:48, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I foresee that vandalism will be a problem, so I've gone ahead and partially protected the article for 2 days. --Chris S. (talk) 10:57, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Was just about to request protection =) NeoDeGenero (talk) 11:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi NeoDeGenero, you inadvertently claimed that I was responsible for the vandalism regarding the game being developed by "Shrivelled Knob Entertainment". This was done by someone else and not me. I guess the page has been updated so rapidly, it's hard to keep track! Bernie bernbaum (talk) 11:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeh I know, you changed it back just when i was about to change it back. Thus, i've reverted my change. So it is correct again after my last change. =p NeoDeGenero (talk) 11:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Wrath of Lich comparison

Looking at the WoW: WotLK (no announcement, *sniff*) article, I may have to protect this page indefinitely. Either I or another admin will have to take care of that after the current 2-day protection period is over. Fun fun! ;-) --Chris S. (talk) 11:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I've added this to my watchlist, I recommend that other interested users do likewise. --Stormie (talk) 13:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm watching it as well. I hope that it'll calm down over the next few days, although we'll see how it goes Gazimoff ^Write _Read 15:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Added to watchlist, as well. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 18:50, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Number of Character Classes

Alright, I noticed that one of my changes was reverted, so to avoid an edit war, I want to clarify. According to the developers at the WWI, which seemingly would be the people who'd have the most current information, they haven't decided on a final number of character classes there will be. Definitely from the way they talked it sounded like they would end up with something closer to 7, but because they didn't say anything solid I don't want to end up putting in speculation. Jklharris (talk) 14:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Editing to add, I saw the note about what the FAQ said, but for some reason almost all of the D3 website won't load for me (stupid flash >.<). Since I know thats whats going to be brought as the counter argument, could I request that someone copies the text here just so I can see it?Jklharris (talk) 14:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

To quote the press release here:

Diablo III will pick up the story twenty years after the events of Diablo II. Mephisto, Diablo, and Baal have been defeated, but the Worldstone, which once shielded the inhabitants of the world of Sanctuary from the forces of both the High Heavens and the Burning Hells, has been destroyed, and evil once again stirs in Tristram. Playing as a hero from one of five distinct character classes, players will acquire powerful items, spells, and abilities as they explore new and familiar areas of Sanctuary and battle hordes of demons to safeguard the world from the horrors that have arisen. The first two characters classes -- the barbarian and the witch doctor -- were shown as part of the announcement at the event today in Paris.

Hope this helps, Gazimoff ^Write _Read 15:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Currently the FAQ and the official site lists the number as five, so lets stick with it for the time being. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 18:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

During the gameplay demo movie on the web site, the narrator clearly states that the Barbarian is one of seven characters, and that should probably be noted in this article. The web site FAQ says five -- but considering the history of the franchise, one might speculate that the other two characters are indeed in development, but being planned for release in a future expansion pack. -- Mecandes (talk) 18:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but i hear the word several, not seven. I won't change it myself as i'm not logged in but if someone else agrees with me they could change it. -Matt

I agree, it's one of several. The official press release also states five classes, as well as third-party sources. I'd suggest going with what the printed sources say for now.Gazimoff ^Write _Read 20:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Just to play devil's advocate, I could also link several printed sources (including IGN, who we've used extensively already) that quote the lead developer as saying that they haven't decided as a final number. However, I do agree that the FAQ is pretty clear, and while I could say something about typical Blizzard and having a little bit of conflicting information, I'll instead just say that my edit was wrong and that leaving it as two of five for now will probably be the right decision. Jklharris (talk) 07:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Since the information is still a bit blurry, I've changed it to just "Two of the classes", not specifying the number. Revert if this is undesired. -Anonymous

Since the FAQ says "five", "five" is what this article should say until someone produces a reliable source for the number not being finalized. --Stormie (talk) 03:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I've found an article that says there are going to be five, which can fall under 'several' so it makes sense to think that's correct. Tyciol (talk) 23:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Returning characters note

In the trailer you can see that both Deckard Cain and Tahla are alive. And i suppose that big red demon is Diablo once again? Or could it be someone else —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.233.245.115 (talk) 16:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Tahla? I'm not sure I know that name, or am I just being dense? (Dragonhelmuk (talk) 20:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC))

The Barbarian is also the same one from Diablo 2. I think this should be added somewhere in the article--201.217.66.196 (talk) 04:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC) I think be "Tahla," he meant "Anya," or "Malah". But I didn't see anyone CONFIRMED officially to be either in the cinematic trailer, OR the game play video. Only Cain. dude527 (talk) 05:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Anya?

Confirmation, the red haired girl is Anya right? She was confirmed to be alive if you check the Gameplay video. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.233.245.115 (talk) 22:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

IGN

Would it be okay, if I linked the game to IGN. Only it says I must post it on this talk page before submitting any changes, and a lot of other games have IGN linked. --EclipseSSD (talk) 19:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

We already link heavily to IGN through the references, so this may be a bit over the top for now. Gazimoff ^Write _Read 20:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

IGN is a reliable sources. --SkyWalker (talk) 07:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Protection was ridiculous

I redirected this name to the Diablo II article about a week ago, and then someone deletes it, how ridiculous, since it was just going to come out. Tyciol (talk) 21:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

So why are you whining?. It is over. --SkyWalker (talk) 07:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I think everyone arguing against deletion in the recent AfD should feel pretty smug right about now. JMalky (talk) 17:59, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Obviously. Tyciol (talk) 23:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Fairly useless trivia

I'm not going to add it since it isn't necessary at all, but the chat gem is on the Diablo III page at Blizzard. Use that information however you want (possibly add it to the "chat gem" section in Diablo II. BrainRotMenacer (talk) 08:47, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

3d engine

"Like other games in the series, Diablo III will use an isometric, overhead view to present the game to players." You might want to check for yourselves, but I think the engine is true 3d presenting an 'isometric like' viewpoint - ie in isometric projection there is no parallax or true perspective, whereas diablo 3 has perspective corrected visuals....87.102.86.73 (talk) 13:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

(eg for an example of the difference compare visuals of

perspective corrected: Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance (http://images.google.co.uk/images?hl=en&q=Baldur's%20Gate%3A%20Dark%20Alliance&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi)

with

isometric infinity engine eg baldur's gate 2.

Could someone signed in please correct this, thanks.87.102.86.73 (talk) 13:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I've just double checked the source for the ref here:

2:53 -- Overhead isometric view is key for Diablo. "If you can click a mouse, you can play Diablo," says Wilson. He says the game must have a smooth difficulty curve, like in Diablo 2. Blizzard wants to attract casual users to the game.

— Charles Onyett, IGN

If we can find sources to confirm your statement, then we can easily correct the section with a supporting reference. Hope this helps, Gazimoff ^Write _Read 13:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Just to butt in - that's IGN's blogger describing it as isometric ( a loose term ) not somone from blizzard?87.102.86.73 (talk) 14:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

we can´t link this can we? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kyUPqqXYx8A is a DIABLO III CINEMATIC TRAILER. Prietoquilmes (talk) 13:57, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't think we're allowed to link to youtube videos of copyright material. We'd need a journalist's article, developer interview or similar to do the job. Gazimoff ^Write _Read 14:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Quote:

What engine is Diablo III running on? What graphical enhancements are included? Diablo III runs on a custom 3D game engine for rendering full-3D characters and environments...

http://eu.blizzard.com/diablo3/faq/#2_1

I'd suggest something like

"whilst retaining the overhead viewpoint of the previous games, diablo 3 now renders the enviroment in (perspective correct) 3d"

.. Obviously I was thinking of the hair splitting definition of isometric - clearly the viewpoint is still 'isometric like' - but I think has subtle parallax that gives clues to the eye/brain to prevent the problems described in Isometric_projection#Limits_of_axonometric_projection. Check some of the screen shots - bridges and verticles seem to have a vanishing point; but it might just be me...87.102.86.73 (talk) 14:10, 29 June 2008 (UTC) (By the way the old 'ruler on the screen' trick confirms it's not a true isometric projection eg measure this:[[3]])87.102.86.73 (talk) 14:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Note: from Isometric_projection#"Isometric" projection in video games and pixel art quote: "games that use perspective projection with a bird's eye view, such as The Age of Decadence and Silent Storm —are also sometimes referred to as being isometric, or "pseudo-isometric"." - I'd guess that "bird's eye view" is a better term to use here.87.102.86.73 (talk) 15:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Birds eye is head down. Isometric is at a 3/4ths angle. Diablo is far from a birds-eye viewpoint. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.215.10.1 (talk) 16:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you're right - still it's not isometric.. maybe 'isometric' (note the quotes..) eg Scare_quotes#Neutral_distancing 87.102.86.73 (talk) 17:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

This is the first Diablo game in true 3D. The fact that you people are leaving it as "isometric", which it isn't (the fact that you can CHANGE YOUR VIEW should make that obvious), is a joke. I'd fix it, but some moron protected it, so I volunteer you to do it. Go on, wikipedo, get to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.10.7.101 (talk) 18:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

If there's something wrong, give us a reliable source to reference and we can update it. Wikipedia works on accuracy, not truth, and needs sources to quote when declaring information. Everything has to be verifiable, but we're not allowed to use original research to make a conjecture or educated guess. Give us some sources or links that say it in lack and white, and we'll update it. Many thanks, Gazimoff ^Write _Read 20:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the problem here is one of editing - the game can be described as 'isometric' even one of the blizzard team in a video did just that.

But the article links to isometric from the description - which gives the impression that the game is isometric in the purest sense..

Why not change the link from isometric to isometric if you see what I mean, and better still add those Scare_quotes#Neutral_distancing I mentioned .. neutral is good right? For a lot of people 'isometric' will mean 'fake 3d', ie not perspective corrected. Hence the request.

I provided above the quote[4] that mentions that the game is true 3d, you couldn't print that in 2008 about a simple isometric game.

Did that make sense.87.102.86.73 (talk) 21:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Yep, Although I'm wary of using primary sources too heavily, I've modified the sentence to reflect the FAQ while I hope retaining what the journalist from IGN meant to say. Hope this helps, Gazimoff ^Write _Read 22:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Clarification from the video; It is clear that the game is in full 3D perspective, but with the camera set at a distance equal angle position (e.g x:100, y:100, z:100 pointing at the origin x:0, y:0, z:0) with a small field of view (zoomed). This is somewhat similar to an isometric view but not the same. I just want this clarified, lest people begin to misunderstand what isometric is exactly, and that is: A projected view where all axis are equally foreshortened and do not converge at a vanishing point. I mention this because I do not want wikipedia to spread further the misunderstanding of technical terms, even if this misunderstanding is sourced to a blog. Sysrpl (talk) 00:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Well whoever changed it - Thanks, but , the current text is a little 'clunky'.. If anyone could make it scan a little better....

Thanks anyway.87.102.86.73 (talk) 10:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

By the way if anyone wants to change that text I found this

A new game engine means that the game is rendered in perspective correct 3D, whilst retaining the viewpoint found in older isometric games

as a description on another games wiki page - see no reason not to copy it - I think it reads better?87.102.86.73 (talk) 10:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Trouble is, unless we have a reliable source that explicitly states perspective corrected 3D, we're performing original research. Referencing other gaming wikis is a bad idea, as they're often not seen as reliable sources, while copying text can lead to copyright problems. Hope this helps, Gazimoff ^Write _Read 11:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I understand - my main concern is similar to that of User:Sysrpl above - that we don't give false or misleading information; either way.

By the way are you sure that the clearly non-true-isometric (and clearly perpsective corrected) screen shots don't count?? (as a reliable source) I mean - it's not in black and white - but doesn't really require a genius to say what they can clearly see?87.102.86.73 (talk) 12:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Mmmh Wikipedia:OR#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources makes it clear that photographs/video are acceptable as primary sources (and we have such from the publisher) - So I'd suggest that screens are good enough evidence.. Of course it all depends on whether oe not you think that it is directly and explicity obvious from the screens that the 3d engine is perspective corrected...87.102.86.73 (talk) 12:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC) ie Wikipedia:OI#Reliable_sources

Even with well-sourced material, however, if you use it out of context or to advance a position not directly and explicitly supported by the source you are also engaged in original research

.. any interpretations?87.102.86.73 (talk) 12:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

personally say I'd say that it's clear that it's perspective corrected from the published images, that it fits in with

only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge..

(emphasis mine)..?87.102.86.73 (talk) 12:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Anything which requires an expert eye to tell/interpret needs a source to reference it. Anything else is OR Nil Einne (talk) 19:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think being able to tell that an image is perspective correct is expert at all - in fact I'd suggest not being able to tell would suggest some sort of retardation.87.102.86.73 (talk) 02:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be completeting missing the point. Deciding what is the 'correct' term for the view used in Diablo III does indeed require some thought as it requires precise understanding of the terms and how they are applied. This is amply demonstrated by the discussion that has already taken placing arguing whether it's isometric or perspective correction or whatever. If this really matters, then we can presume, particularly given how noteable Diablo III is that some reliable source will desrcibe it. If none does, then we can presume it doesn't matter for whatever reason. If you still don't understand, your welcome to seek a third opinion as to whether it's appropriate for you to describe what the view being used is based on your own intepretation of screenshots Nil Einne (talk) 11:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia - the only place on the internets where a picture of a ball can be shown and people still demand sources about how and why that's a ball, exactly.

It's not isometric. End of story. I can see it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.10.7.101 (talk) 08:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Reference's link number 1 is dead

It shows an 404 error and in the text this link is referenced twice.Ordago (talk) 18:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The correct link click (Changed /us/ to /en/). Someone please make that change. --David Munch (talk) 18:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Seems to be working fine now. The ref is on their US website, while the link above is on their European one. They both seem to be identical though.Gazimoff ^Write _Read 20:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Page

The main page should Be "Diablo III", not "Diablo 3". Both Diablo II and Diablo I are referred to this way. let's be consistent —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.136.249.166 (talk) 19:29, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The page is called Diablo III. Diablo 3 just redirects to it. Hope this helps, Gazimoff ^Write _Read 20:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Audio

I'm not too keen on citing this as a reliable source as it's a forum. Is there anything else available that we can use, preferably from a third party? Many thanks, Gazimoff ^Write _Read 22:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The link is clearly labelled 'eminence staff/admin' so it's solid enough, and no I can't find it anywhere else at present. Just a matter of time before a more 'official' ref truns up.87.102.86.73 (talk) 10:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Also the music sounds a lot like the sound track of Battlestar Galactica. Has anyone informations about the composer? -- 80.121.49.188 (talk) 12:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Probably Matt Uleman again, though I can't find anything saying Blizzard tapped him for the third game. 97.87.24.50 (talk) 14:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Diablo wiki

Hi guys. Could I add a link to the Diablo Wiki, hosted by Wikia? Users can submit the "fancruft" there and will help the wiki grow.--Richard (Talk - Contribs) 18:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the big question here is 'are you the only one' and 'are you the obvious choice' eg oblivion has a link to the uesp wiki - which is not problematic - but that wiki is clearly by far the best wiki for oblivion...is this the case for you.87.102.86.73 (talk) 21:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I would definitely add it. We need somewhere to direct people to if they're keen to add game guide material that isn't suitable for Wikipedia. Per the Wikimedia Foundation's mission statement "encouraging the growth, development and distribution of free, multilingual content, and to providing the full content of these wiki-based projects to the public free of charge," a GFDL wiki like those hosted by Wikia is a perfect place. --Stormie (talk) 21:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Is it in yet? Seeing as you've already 'been chosen' for the diablo 1 & 2 pages it looks reasonable to put in here. Somebody add it then...87.102.86.73 (talk) 02:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:EL states that open wiki's should not be linked unless they "have a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors." It only has a small community an does not show a substantial history of stability. The amounts of edits made has been very sparse and only seems to have been stepped up recently. Let it grow into something substantial, then it can be added.--Fogeltje (talk) 09:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

What features Diablo 3 has been confirmed to have (i don't have tildes)

Features

Diablo III is claimed to continue where Diablo II left, with the easy interface, fast-paced action, and visceral gameplay. Adding to this, there will be new features to improve the ease of interaction between the player and the game. Some key features mentioned are^[1]^[2]^[3]:

- Five powerful character classes to choose from, including the barbarian and witch doctor

- Brand-new 3D graphics engine enhanced with spectacular visual effects and Havok physics

- Numerous indoor and outdoor areas detailing new regions in the world of Sanctuary

- Interactive environments with dangerous traps and obstacles, and destructible elements

- Randomly generated worlds bolstered by scripted events for endless and dynamic gameplay

- Vast assortment of fiendish monsters, with unique attack patterns and behaviors

- New quest system and character-customization options for the ultimate action RPG experience

- Multiplayer functionality over Battle.net with support for cooperative and competitive play

"Fan Reception" Section

This section is completely ridiculous. The bullet "list" is really just making one point that could be summed up in a single sentence.

- Gothic and obscure scenarios, cryptic, dark and shadowy dungeons

- Graphically realistic world with realistic, dirty and muddy textures

- Realistic armory and weaponry without over-sized and exaggerated proportions like big shoulder guards

- A macabre, dark and realistic art style

- Light radius, as Diablo dungeons have always been characterized with the combination of a light radius system with shadows, everything that resides outside of the character vision sight is shadowed.

L2P. I'm not going to delete the section because I'm guessing it's some pissed off anti-WoW fanboy who is going to defend its right to be there to the death and I don't feel like getting into an edit war, but if someone else could please explain to him why it's absurdly written and even if written well it probably shouldn't be in there / will hardly matter in a manner of months that would be great.

The game actually looks more cartoonish compared to the original Diablo games. But does the wiki really need a petition section? no, not really. The game will not come out for a couple of years so it will be fixed by then. Only problem is that the Diablo people are more dedicated than then wiki people so therefor the petition should stand until things has cooled down and then remove it. maybe in a few months or so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.160.65.215 (talk) 17:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

No offense, but that's purely opinion. I personally don't think it looks any more or less cartoonish than the previous games, nor any more or less colourful; it's definitely not lighter or brighter, from what I've seen, since the whole desert region of Diablo II was about as sun-bleached as you can get. Either way, The petition section was deleted, per the point made below (about Wikipedia prohibiting that sort of posting). Awakeandalive1 (talk) 20:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree, this section is silly and very misleading. How many fans are upset by the new look? I would be wary of giving more time than needed to a small vocal minority. Not to get into a debate about it, but there have been many large sites lambasting the "how it looks vs. how it should look" pictures that people have made, along with showing screenshots of Diablo I and II for comparison (they aren't as dark and gritty as you remember!). I don't think this is the proper place to defend the screenshots that we have seen, but I do question the place of the criticism in this article. It is one of the largest paragraphs on the page and it doesn't contribute very much information about Diablo III nor does it give us an accurate idea of what percentage of fans are upset. These kinds of online petitions are started for all sorts of ridiculous things. Should the Heinz article include information on the petition to bring back the gay commercial? Why doesn't the Google Earth page have mention of the petition to rename the Arabian Gulf? Both of these petitions are among the largest on the site that hosts the Diablo III petition and hold hundreds of thousands of more signatures. The problem is, online petitions can be started by anyone and signed by anyone, so many petitions are frivolous and the legitimacy of the petitions come into question (this comes from Wikipedia's own article on online petitions). Do we have any votes to keep this section? 24.196.146.119 (talk) 17:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

There are allot of people that don't like the current look. allot more than the +15.000 that signed so far. All of the big websites out there and not only Diablo sites says the same thing. www.gamingeye.se, replayers.com, Gosugamers.net, teamliquid.net etc. And I agree with them as well. The game would look allot better if it was darker and more realistic.

Is this fact or opinion? How do you know more fans are upset? How do you know all signatures on an online petition are valid? The big game sites are of course reporting on what people say, but aren't necessarily agreeing. I won't remove the section, but it is obviously too long. I removed the redundant bullet points, as they are already summed up in the preceding paragraph. I also removed the criticism of the music, because really, the only source is some post on the Diablo III forums. I could make a post there complaining about the skill icons and then should it be included here? I also added the official response from Blizzard regarding the art. Also, please sign your posts. 24.196.146.119 (talk) 18:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't care about the section since a petition shouldn't be on wiki. What I am arueing against is this notion that it is a minority who thinks that Diablo 3's current artwork is to cartoonish. 89.160.65.215 (talk) 19:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed one of the captions is "Diablo III will retain a similar look and feel to earlier games in the series." which seems to contradict what is being stated in the Controversy section. We should try and clean this up sooner rather than later. 24.196.146.119 (talk) 17:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

It has been said in Wikipedia rules: Wikipedia should not advertise, or even mention petitions. If you want to add a controversy, go for it. But don't add mention of petition. dude527 (talk) 19:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Great point. And with that, it's gone! 74.201.136.2 (talk) 20:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, would linking to said petitions or articles who mention the petitions in the title count as advertising? Because looking at the reference section still feels like I could easily end up at a petition page. Jklharris (talk) 08:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I renamed the section "Fan Reception" which leaves it open for points from both sides of the aisle. I also pared down the POV complaints, and put them in context. Awakeandalive1 (talk) 20:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Many fans might be changed to some fans because "more than the +15.000 that signed so far" << i really doubt this means 15.000 people,you know, i send the same mail ten times....Prietoquilmes (talk) 20:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Good point. Feel free to spruce it up a bit. We also need some positive fan responses, as well as actual reviews and critical responses, to balance things out. Awakeandalive1 (talk) 20:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I think this is a big improvement. I like that it now says "some fans claim that Diablo III..." since many people argue that Diablo II was pretty damn coloful if you actually go back and look at it (see the screenshots on the thread at Something Awful). I would be up for removing the neutrality disclaimer if we don't have any complaints in the next few days. 24.196.146.119 (talk) 20:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

To keep the quote you just put back in, you need to put in the article what it's referring too. Note that reviewers are disappointed with the lack of light radius (which would be your colour contrast), and feel that the dark gloomy feel was what they wanted. Your quote, in isolation, makes no sense if you don't properly address what it's referring too. I suggest you ether balance the quote and add in what it refers too, or remove it. --Tyraz (talk) 13:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

validity of petition/criticism etc

Let's get this in perspective. For example here http://kotaku.com/5021118/diablo-fans-petition-against-diablo-iii gives the news about some fans dissapointment with the colour scheme. Read teh comments to the story if you will. My impression would be that most responses are 'what a bunch of asshats..', or 'don't really agree'

There's a response to the comments though ie here http://kotaku.com/5021491/diablo-iii-producer-+-color-is-your-friend or here http://multiplayerblog.mtv.com/2008/07/02/diablo-iii-art-direction/ ..again read the comments and judge for yourself just how widespread the complaint is..

Also the references for this section are no good at the moment. 87.102.86.73 (talk) 21:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

And phrases such as "Most of the die-hard fans" or "some fans claim" ... see Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words

"Blizzard has finally announced Diablo III, and fans all over the world cheered before getting down to business - complaining" quote from kotaku —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.102.86.73 (talk) 22:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

"The reception of fans to the initial announcement and gameplay footage has been varied" should read "almost entirely positive" or “mostly positive” or something along those lines. I don't have any sources, but apart from a handful of people in one thread on one forum there hasn't been any negativity. The fact that every gaming news site went ballistic with excitement at the media release should be testament to that. A few people moaning isn’t enough to justify the use of the word "varied" or every game would have a "varied" response; there will always be someone who will whine about something. Apart from a bit of forum drama, have there been have reputable gaming news sites saying anything negative? Xep (talk) 22:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

There's no way you'd be able to find a reliable citation for an official reception by fans. There will always be the battle of perception between purists and supporters. What should be noted is the volume of buzz, not the consensus of that buzz, because there's no honest way to judge that. ~Pesco^{So say•we all} 22:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no way to find reliable citations about reception, so maybe it will be better to leave it blank than to write something as untrue as "mostly positive". As i can see in many articles about the artistic branch Diablo is taking, there are much more CON comments than PRO, so many people are unhappy with the new colors. I play Diablo since D1, and none of my ex-Khan and ex-GAT pals liked D3 looks

.Atriel (talk) 18:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The opinions of you and your friends constitute, at best, original research; at worst, nostalgic opinions. The game isn't even out yet. The "learned opinions" being cited all seem to be coming from a few people who saw the gameplay trailer (which contained MAYBE two small areas). I could easily site as many OTHER people who think it looks great. Personally, I don't see any validity in the "too colourful" or "too cartoonish" arguments; I just reinstalled Diablo II and it's FAR more cartoony than anything we've seen so far, the character models are FAR more unrealistic, and it's very, very colorful with lots of light (during the in-game "daytime"). Imagine if I were to blog that, have people respond who agree, and the cite that in the article! Let's wait until we've at least reached the Beta or the actual release of the game before we start declaring what the majority of fans are saying about this unreleased game. Awakeandalive1 (talk) 19:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I think we should mention the fact that the alleged lack of a light radius is a bogus claim, a light radius is clearly visible in the Diablo III 'Classes' gameplay video on gamevideos.com. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 23:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The light radius we're referring to strictly altered your vision. You couldn't see anything outside of your light radius, no enemies, items, etc. In Diablo III, you can clearly see enemies that are outside of your light radius, it's well-lighten. dude527 (talk) 01:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, just reinstalled Diablo II last weekend and the light-radius is essentially the same (even during the night phase). I can clearly see enemies and objects outside the light radius, in some cases with greater detail than the ones visible in the trailer. Beware nostalgia and the frailty of human memory... Awakeandalive1 (talk) 16:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

There are some darker areas in the trailer in which no details can be seen, and in D2 you can see things outside your light radius in outdoor areas and illuminated portions of indoor areas. The claims that there is more illumination in D3 seem to be correct, however the claims that D3 has no light radius system have been refuted, and I think we should explicitly mention that fact. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 01:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Ahoy weasels

The current state of the section is full of Weasel Words. "Most of the die-hard fans criticized.." - ridiculous, it is completely impossible for anyone to measure that "most". "some fans claim that..", "Others criticized..".

You can source complaints about the colourful and cartoonish style to the kotaku.com or g4tv articles about the petition. But where does the claim that fans blame it on the departure of the Blizzard North team come from? --Stormie (talk) 22:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

fan section

I've changed that section (see above) to art direction and design, removed the weasel words, but left in a mention of the petition.

Hopefully this section can now be used for constructive (and well cited) texts concerning the design/graphics of this games. Hope this helps.87.102.86.73 (talk) 22:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

No, it has already been stated, petitions, advertising or mentioning, do not belong on Wikipedia. take out the petition part, and it'll be fine. dude527 (talk) 23:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, this section should not be titled as such, as it has more of fans complaining about the art direction, then the info of the direction itself. I'll revise it. dude527 (talk) 00:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Your "info" about the art direction was pure personal opinion, when you say things like "shown in the game play trailer" it's pretty clear you're engaging in Original Research. --Stormie (talk) 00:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

current page

I've sorted out the missing references as best I can, and 'castrated' the "fan reaction" section, replacing it with something better.

As such this is as far as I got http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Diablo_III&oldid=223183641

Hope this is ok for now? Any complaints? I'd certainly appreciate any feedback that it's ok since then I can go away to other things. Thanks.87.102.86.73 (talk) 23:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep that's a great improvement, nice work! --Stormie (talk) 23:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Try not to remove other people's comments in the discussion page, Stormie.

Huh, weird, I didn't get an edit conflict warning but for sure it was an edit conflict. --Stormie (talk) 05:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I like the changes, but I am seeing some weasel words being added and removed right now... at the moment it says "however many many fans were left disgruntled" so I think we need to word that portion properly to avoid inviting vandalism. 24.196.146.119 (talk) 04:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure quoting (and giving so much of the page) both the lead producer, and art director (representing the 'official Blizzard view') and then completely removing all mention of the specific problems sighted in both the petition, and various sources referencing both it and the problem represents a positive bias towards the producers, and neglecting the vast majority of forums (although they shouldn't be quoted), news and game sites (search "Diablo 3" in Google News for verification on how much of a 'minority' the criticism really is). If your going to quote the Blizzard representatives directly, then you should also quote what some of the key issues with the game are (both positive and negative). Although, as it stands, i think is would be a misrepresentation quote one source of criticism (unless that source was quoted by various other sources, like the petition... prehapse we could find where the petition originated? because there is defiantly a lot of reputable sites referencing it.) Although at the moment remove both, or finding both the Blizzard representative AND the 'pros and cons' sort of approach. Only quoting and referencing industry is very dangerous and misleading, almost skewing it completely towards the creators, and not those who the game is created for! Games are created for gamers, not some 'ancient form of worship practiced by developers' that we 'just happen to appreciate'. The fact that gamers like and play games, and that games are developed for them is NOT incidental. Their opinion matters just as much as developers.--Tyraz (talk) 07:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The section title is 'art direction design' - as such fan comments talk a second fiddle to the people who are actually making it.

When are pin-heads like you going to work out that wikipedia is not a vehicle for your pathetic whining?87.102.86.73 (talk) 12:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

If you will accept advice try this a. go find another game you like. b. read the comments of other people all over the well ie - you will see that many outside whatever forum you originated in are very happy with the current build. c. Note that developers do not exist to specifically service you - if you want a game made that meats your specific needs I suggest you do it yourself, that would be a lot easier and a lot more productive87.102.86.73 (talk) 12:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Pfft, clearly your simply ignorant of the facts? Your allowed to quote from a "Notable Reviewer", who have just as much say as a developer. There is a lot of talk about it, and i'm not saying that the changes are good or bad. Wikipedia is here for neutral information. There is more than one notable reviewer, as the sources can prove, so i think it is you who is whining on this occasion. I have evidence that there is dispute within the gaming community from notable reviewers along with news reports stating it. All you have is your own little whining voice about how it's not fair that you like the game and others don't. You fail to realize that you are not a notable reviewer, and they are. And if the games arn't made for gamers, who ARE they made for? --Tyraz (talk) 13:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

OK look, this is getting ridiculous, the whole quote is not needed, i took out the information he had said, and quoted that, the bits in between were cut because i felt it gave too much significance to a small point which was 'colour is your friend' and the reasons why. His long nostalgic quote of lord of the rings gives nothing to the article. Now your just getting into petty edit wars. This has got to stop. I will stop editing the section, provided you justify why the whole quote needs to be in there, and not read

"In response to this, lead producer Keith Lee has stated he felt "color is your friend", and feels the color helps to create a lot of highlights in the game so that there is contrast, claiming that "it allows you to see what a creepy dungeon can be like but if everything is dark it doesn’t allow you to have a lot of contrast." "

Please make the changes you feel necessary to the quote, justify it, and end this stupid edit war.--Tyraz (talk) 13:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I put it in because I felt it was very relevent to the art and design section, being from one of the blizzard team, and directly about the colour/contrast issues. Please see my comments below, and also please read what I've said about neutrality on the computer reference desk as well.87.102.86.73 (talk) 14:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Planet Diablo link?

Planet Diablo is a good fan site with some interesting Diablo III coverage. Can we add a link to it under External Links?

http://www.planetdiablo.com/diablo3

Karmachu (talk) 03:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC) karmachu

Fan sites not usually. Wiki's maybe yes.

Also the FAQ at the above site is copied directly from blizzard's site - which is an infringment of copyright unless they have permission.

No.87.102.86.73 (talk) 12:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

reference please

"Developer interviews place the new threat to the world of Sanctuary to be that of the other two lesser evils Azmodan and Belial"

can some one supply a web link if possible that backs this up. Thanks.87.102.86.73 (talk) 12:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

request

When adding links to the article please add a description as well. The easiest way to do it is like this

<ref>http:mywebpage.com description text</ref>

just leave a space between the url and the description; which could be the article title, or something that says what the contents are about...

For more expert use you can consult Wikipedia:Citation templates. Cheers.87.102.86.73 (talk) 13:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

sections

Please leave the section 'art direction and design' as a section covering that topic, not as an excuse to continue the debate about the fan reaction, please.87.102.86.73 (talk) 14:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

OK look, this is getting ridiculous, the whole quote is not needed, i took out the information he had said, and quoted that, the bits in between were cut because i felt it gave too much significance to a small point which was 'colour is your friend' and the reasons why. His long nostalgic quote of lord of the rings gives nothing to the article. Now your just getting into petty edit wars. This has got to stop. I will stop editing the section, provided you justify why the whole quote needs to be in there, and not read

"In response to this, lead producer Keith Lee has stated he felt "color is your friend", and feels the color helps to create a lot of highlights in the game so that there is contrast, claiming that "it allows you to see what a creepy dungeon can be like but if everything is dark it doesn’t allow you to have a lot of contrast." "

Please make the changes you feel necessary to the quote, justify it, and end this stupid edit war.--Tyraz (talk) 13:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I like the quote in full because the second part with the analogy to the lord of the rings covers issues relating to contrast, the first part is only about colour.87.102.86.73 (talk) 14:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

If you could ignore any issues over the quote for the moment, can I ask do you still have problems with the articles neutrality, or is that ok now?87.102.86.73 (talk) 14:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I recommend reading Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style specifically Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Quotations if you haven't already —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.102.86.73 (talk) 15:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Also please leave the 'art direction and design' section named as it is, not 'art direction and design reaction' - the article is about the game, fan reactions are a valid topic in context, but that is not an end in itself.87.102.86.73 (talk) 15:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I've read it, and accept that your use of the quote is fine. I just don't think the whole thing adds too the article. a lot of the quote is nostalgia and corporate bullshit. Also i think at the top "The reception to the initial announcement and gameplay footage was overwhelming positive, nonetheless some were left disgruntled" and the mentioning of the petition afterwards has been changed for the worse. "Overwhelmingly positive" is almost DEFIANTLY wrong. Look up Diablo 3, and 1/3 articles points to the art direction as a potential problem. 66% is not overwhelming. This is not my view. It is the view of a lot of reputable websites (including the sources sited). If nothing else, the word 'overwhelming' should be changed. Mentioning or giving credit too petitions is not in the benifit of the article (read the edit about the petition above).

lol and disgruntled fans is exactly what they are... most of them are whining little bitches, although the fact remains, that it is most defiantly NOT overwhelming. --Tyraz (talk) 14:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Most of the "fan reactions" and criticism are just nostalgia and "bullshit" too. They mostly seem to be people mis-remembering the game, or imbuing it with some sort of holy reverance. The article is about the game, its production, design, and eventual release. Maybe once there are actual reactions from multiple reliable reviewers, then people can make a special page for "Fan reactions to Diablo III," but as it stands most of them are complaining about a game they haven't played yet, which hasn't been released yet, based on brief footage and screen-shots which are entirely up to individual interpretation (sure looked like there was a light-radius to me, for instance) and are grounding their complaints in their fond memories of a game nearly a decade old, which many of them haven't played in years. We need more reliable, balanced sources, granted, but how on earth are a bunch of "forum trolls" equivalent to a respected professional reviewer or even the game developers themselves? We don't even have sales numbers; the game has only been announced for a few days at this point. The developers quotes are relevant because they put into context what THEY were trying to do; they're the ones producing the product which this article discusses. I think a "fan reactions/critical response" section will work better once the game has actually been relased, but for now it just seems...puerile. Awakeandalive1 (talk) 16:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Although i don't agree with the quote, as i think most of it doesn't add new information about the game, i will leave it for the sake of keeping the peace. Although i urge you to look for another official blizzard response that isn't so wordy and nostalgic. --Tyraz (talk) 15:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

(edit confily)'overwhelming' maybe too strong a word - I'll change it to 'largely'. (I see you already have). I've read a lot of the previews etc and a lot of comments/discussions attatched to those - and I've got to say that people there who are vocal have been positive about the game (in general) - I also saw a lot of dismissive and negative comments regarding the complaint, and very few posts complaining.eg the article linked to in the wikipedia page: see comments

Also you mentioned on my talk page "The fact still stands, that i got my direct quote from a Game Review removed". Can you post that here on this talk page, I or someone else may have removed it, but I can't find it in your edit history? maybe you weren't signed in? Please bring it up in a new section, so we can see if there is anything extra worth adding.

Also I've changed 'In response to this Lead Producer.." removing 'in response to this' - the articles I've read simply link the two, but it is not true as far as I know that this statement is in direct response? See the article linked to in the wikipedia page

quote from writer "I got answers in Paris last weekend before people were really asking the question."

Please be careful when editing, so as you do not make assumptions in error.87.102.86.73 (talk) 15:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I quoted from this website http://www.gameplanet.co.nz/news/131952.20080702.Diablo-III-petition-created/, as i thought it was pretty well written, and condensed the petition, highlighting most of the general issues. Although i thought it was too long, and in itself yielded too little additional information. for example, if i had added: "And most importantly: An independent and renewed artistic direction, not a recycled art direction taken from the Warcraft world, Diablo never was meant to be as cartoon'ish as Warcraft, they shall have independent and distinct styles, this isnt happening in Diablo 3, at first sight it looks like a remake of World of Warcraft, graphically and artistically speaking."

Then fans would get a skewed view that the game ISN'T independent right now (which it isn't fully.. because of the nature of Blizzard development) also, it would draw too much attention to the fact it was a WoW replica (which it most defiantly isn't) rather than pointing out what they actually wanted.

I think the same of your quote right now, i broke up that quote into precise, informative sentinces, where as you left it as one ugly "Colours are your friends" (and a whole lot more bulshit) quote that took up half the section.--Tyraz (talk) 16:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I remember now - I replaced that with a link to the kotaku piece about the petition.. The niggle I had was that "Blizzards counter-offer to appease them with free copies of Wrath of the Lich King upon release was not accepted." in the text is a joke? and may be misleading.. or is it true?87.102.86.73 (talk) 16:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)\

I'd say it's pretty clearly a joke. Definite irony. But you're right: people are stupid and more than likely will take it seriously. Awakeandalive1 (talk) 16:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

How about this one http://www.actiontrip.com/rei/comments_news.phtml?id=070108_6 same info, no joke, ok to change?87.102.86.73 (talk) 16:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. It seems to be more of a blog than a review site (the horrible grammar and idomatic language are a dead give-away) but as far as for linking...I guess it's better than linking to the petition itself. But it sounds more like the blogger is criticizing the complaints and the reviews. This might be better placed as a section of "support" rather than "criticism." Anyone else have any thoughts? Awakeandalive1 (talk) 16:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Can't find a better one.. I'll wait and see if it's possible to unblock the petitions.

Found this http://uk.pc.ign.com/articles/885/885161p1.html which explains blizzard's reasoning for the art direction, could be a good source should anyone want to expand the section.. (but please don't go crazy and write tons of words...)87.102.86.73 (talk) 17:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

query

Quote from article

"Several game review websites have mentioned a variety additional issues, included the game's apparent resemblance to the World of Warcraft series, lack of a 'light radius' as seen in previous games, "colorful and cartoon-like" visuals and "out-of-proportion" character figures and armour."

All these are clearly mentioned in the petition, so why does it say "game review websites"? 87.102.86.73 (talk) 16:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The text originally read 'additonal complaints included..." - any explanation of this change? - the petition seems to me to be the primary source?87.102.86.73 (talk) 16:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm seconding the complaint here. How does a petition equal "several game review websites"? Unless you've got links in store, don't edit that section. Awakeandalive1 (talk) 16:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Well not really... unfortunately it can only be a primary source that our primary source has, because otherwise you'd have every guy with a grudge against something making a petition and quoting it... It's not so much the fact that there's a petition thats important, its that several reputable sources wrote articles and conferred with what the petition stood for. In this case, i know it's tedious, although if you directly quote it here, where do you draw the line?--Tyraz (talk) 16:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Which would be cogent and relevant if the section included links or quotes FROM reputable articles. Instead it just has one link to a petition and dubs that "several game review websites." One petion does not equal "several game review websites." It just reflects the reactions of some fans, many of whom may not actually realize what their signing; that's why I included it under the rubric of "disgruntled fans." Awakeandalive1 (talk) 16:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The petition link is blocked by wikipedia, but it would make sense to have it as the reference, rather than linking via another page. I think the block on petitions only applies to those in 'external links' - I'll see if I can get that changed at the help desk - does that make sense? see Wikipedia:Help_desk#blocked_petition.

The petition is the primary source right?, and the other articles simply reference that (secondary sources?)87.102.86.73 (talk) 16:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep. They're just three links either to or quoting from one petition. They're really more *about* the petition as an internet phenomena than they are about the game-which-is-to-come. Awakeandalive1 (talk) 16:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Art direction and design

The way I see it the section title (above) is correct, and any criticism in the section doesn't change the title. If the critical responses become major then a change could be considered.

The other section headings don't read "Development and studio closures", "Character classes and unnecessary changes from diablo ii", "Gameplay and carpal tunnel syndrome" etc etc. (joke)

For those with shorter memorys/less time here I'd like to point out that many high interest articles start out with people trying to add criticism sections, but they never survive eg articles on oblivion,wii,xbox 360 etc..

In the future it may be realistic to add a 'reception section' eg The_Elder_Scrolls_IV:_Oblivion#Reception .. when the game is actually released....87.102.86.73 (talk) 16:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Hooray another island of sanity in the sea of madness! I agree wholeheartedly. When the game has been released (or is even in open-beta) a fan reception section will make more sense. Right now it just seems pointless and more like masturbation than information. Awakeandalive1 (talk) 17:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

As there is nothing happening now I intend to go away and come back again when more news comes out, whenever that is. Hopefully in the mean-time the article will be relatively stable, but judging from past experience I've learnt to accept random spamming of fan pages, and speculative conclusions randomly into the text.. O well, never mind, Best wishes.87.102.86.73 (talk) 18:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

This needs to be removed simply because it blows a very small problem out of proportion. Just because 3 or 4 thousand people dislike color and made a petition about it is of no consequence here, especially when it will have absolutely no effect on the final product. That's right, petitioners, your crying will not change the art direction for a game that has been in development for over 4 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.215.10.1 (talk) 14:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the petition should be removed. It's not relevent to the game. JAF1970 (talk) 04:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

nope not really, it can be perceived as a stage in the development process of the game, and the fans reactions to these developments. As Blizzard often stated that their development of their projects are often influenced by the fans, most notable and recent examples are from Starcraft II. I think it should be left in there, or at least mentioned, as it may influence the development of the game, especially with so many signatures in the actual petition. NeoDeGenero (talk) 14:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not allow mention of petitions in articles. dude527 (talk) 19:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

- Hmm, the kid does have a point tho, how are readers suppose to get useful information out of the article beyond 'people dislike it'. With just the typical wiki platitudes it does sound rather pretentious and childish since they're complaining about what most people would consider 'petty' (i mean if you really wanted it darker, you could just turn down the gamma on your monitor right?). So SHOW people what exactly it is they're all so hopping mad about? http://media.1up.com/media?id=3567647&type=lg Is a good picture illustrating the exact problem people are disputing; pulled from this site: http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3168512. The site itself is a more reliable source, and actually contains some decent information and depth into the issue.Size down the size, and put it in the art direction section?--Tyraz (talk) 02:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't even think it warrants that. This is an article about the game itself (STILL unreleased); if you guys want to start a related article about this not-yet-two-weeks-long "controversy" then by all means do so, and include a link to it at the bottom of this article. But to create a whole section within the Diablo III article proper, complete with supposed "reference" material about an over-blown dispute regarding a game that was only just announced...well, it's just silly, especially given that it would take (and has taken) up more space than REAL information about the product itself. Awakeandalive1 (talk) 16:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I can't remember who added that Kotaku article referencing "Color Is Your Friend", but that article and the comments in the thread responding to it don't seem to say what you thought they did. Granted, they mention the petition, but that thread itself is a HUGE counter to the claims posted that the majority of the fan response has been negative...and many of the people in the "pro-color" thread have more cogent and well-thought-out arguments than "I REMEMBERZ DARKGAME, MAKE ME DARKGAME NOW PLZTHXBY." In fact, you could use the pro-color thread as a reference for the "positive fan response" sentence in the Wikipedia article. Hmm... The article also contains several links to at least one new "Pro" petition started in response to the "Con" petition. Most of the "Pro" people seemed willing to just roll their eyes at the "whiny frothing fanboys" (see the Kotaku article thread) and wait for the game's release, but with the "Con" petition receiving so much press coverage the "Pro" camp appears to have begun organizing with similarly annoying tactics. Keep an eye out for any articles referencing the "Pro" petition because as this article stands, those seem par for the course when it comes to addition of sources. Awakeandalive1 (talk) 19:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

- "However fans supportive of Blizzard's approach have been equally vocal, fearing that Blizzard will be swayed by the complaints of detractors." Detractors is a VERY subjective word. Keep the wording neutral. You can mention there are people who dislike the changes, but saying those who are 'complaining' (another subjective word) are detractors is completely your view, and changes from person to person. Change the wording. I know what your getting at, and i've seen it too, and your right it does need to be mentioned... possibly in the 'positive response' part towards the top after the game officials commented on it (something about some fans agreeing with the blizzard official response about art and direction... although i don't think we need to get into 'i hate hate haters' kind of response. It's obvious they're in the 'generally positive' 'party' if you will, mentioned right at the start "Although reception of the initial announcement and gameplay footage was generally positive", you defiantly need to make it more neutral for a start, although i don't think it even needs to be there. If not, im sure i could find a petition petitioning against those who are petitioning against the petition... The fact there is a petition is not the point. Its about art direction, and what the direction is. NOT about if people are 'voting' for or against some petition that isn't suppose to even be mentioned. If it stays, then there is equilly some chance that a edit will pop up about some people disliking the people who dislike the changes, and fearing that THEY TOO will be listened too. Until you can suggest a reasonable explanation as to why this 'i hate hate haters' edit should stay, I'm removing it.--Tyraz (talk) 03:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

First off, "Complain, v. 'to express dissatisfaction, pain, uneasiness, censure, resentment, or grief; find fault'" and "Detract, transitive v. 'to speak ill of'." Those are objective terms, describing exactly what the parties are engaged in, though if you see them as too loaded I certainly understand that there might be some idiomatic associations linked to them. But the words themselves are not subjective. Second, my whole point is that people are demanding we mention some objections made by people two weeks after the game was *announced*; if the negative responses get mentioned, then so do the positive, otherwise the whole section about fan response should (as I've been arguing from the start) be excised until such a time as people have actually PLAYED THE GAME. It's not an "I hate hate haters" edit; it's there for the exact same reason the mention of negative fan response is, and it's just as justifiable. But if it's been removed, I'm removing the negative fan response assertions -- I honestly don't think they add anything to the article, and their mere existence in it seems like a violation of NPOV since they take up more space than some of the discussions of actual game content. Does that seem fair? I think so, but is there some other way we can have mentions of both positive and negative fan response at this point? Anything we do will just lead to an edit/revert war. Awakeandalive1 (talk) 16:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

As I predicted, it's just turned into an edit/revert war. People who want to mention the postive response have their additions either deleted or altered to the point of unintelligibility; people who want to mention the negative response insist on making their own section the keystone of the article; and people who want balance or seek the maintain Wikipedia's NPOV stance are being ignored by both sides. I shudder to think what'll happen when the game is actually released! The section on art & design is about BLIZZARD'S REASONING AND APPROACH, not supposed fan responses. If it'll make you lot happy, I'll turn the "fan response" section into it's own little section again -- that way we won't keep getting POV pro/con nonsense injected into the quotes from the people who are actually MAKING the game. Awakeandalive1 (talk) 18:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I feel kinda sorry for editing so many times the article, but i have my point below; Every pool i´ve read, even the asked by Blizzard to D2Fans and the oficial one, has the majority disagreeing with the art direction as is now. As such, having only the POVs from Blizzard art direction team makes the article POV unbalanced in favour of the minority, and omiting relevant info. I'd like to see if anyone can bring just one pool showing a majority happy with the "colorful" art direction. ANOTHER POINT: many times you edited the article, you have used heavy POV words referenced nowhere, leading to greater reaction, such as "monotonous", "tedious", etc Atriel (talk) 00:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, those weren't POV terms. That's what the interviewed parties *said* they were trying to prevent. The problem here is that anyone who disagrees with their decisions is going to see their reasoning as "biased" when posted in the article (vis. the people who thought including the GAMES' DEVELOPERS' statements broke the NPOV stance). It's better now, but that last sentence still feels weasely and unnecessary. As many, many people have mentioned, people who post on internet polls don't somehow represent the majority of fans; they only represent the people who frequent those websites and feel like responding to polls. As I said above though, this page is just going to be an edit/revert war until the game actually hits (and I shudder to think what it'll turn into then). I for one am sick and tired of trying to make sure both viewpoints are aired here. You lot can go ahead and make this one big "I hate/I love Diablo III" party. Except for slight edits with regards to style and ACTUAL release information that's RELEVANT to the article itself, I'm out. Awakeandalive1 (talk) 13:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, it's starting to become a bit of a joke... The group of people trying to say 'there isn't a problem' are editing the article to the point where they have removed the problem, and left the 'pro-art direction' section there. You refused to put in the picture which is what everyone is arguing about (http://i31.tinypic.com/2zta5o7.jpg) which was pulled from the petition website, http://media.1up.com/media?id=3567647&type=lg which was pulled from a media commentating site, and now, from the "quoted reputable website" http://kotaku.com/5021118/diablo-fans-petition-against-diablo-iii) Look, you've removed "Although reception of the initial announcement and gameplay footage was generally positive, many fans felt disgruntled, , calling for what they believed would be a "darker", "more realistic" look. They criticised the game's apparent resemblance to the World of Warcraft series, the purported lack of the "light radius" from the previous games, and what they termed "colorful and cartoon-like" and left all the quotes that deny that this is the case.

This has totally taken away the entire meaning from the section, leaving readers wondering what exactly it is (or more to the point why officials are commenting) what exactly they're referring too. You obviously feel passionate enough to acknowledge there is a problem, so bloody show the picture everyone (that means ALL reputable sources on games that have covered the issue) has shown. It's not bias, or misleading because it shows EXACTLY what each side is arguing for. Leaving the article as is not only skews the readers towards the 'keep the same colour' view, but confuses them as they don't even know what everyone is so up in arms about (even the person who is about to claim its 'not a reliable site, dispite the fact that Kotaku was specifically mentioned as being reliable).--Tyraz (talk) 03:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

It's either we leave the fan response out completely, or say "Fans felt disgruntled by what was used," I will not allow you to describe why fans felt disgruntled, as that violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, as someone could read it, look at the pictures, and say "hey that's true". Wikipedia is not supposed to have any text on it for which fans can form an opinion on something, it's purely about factual information. dude527 (talk) 03:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

No, 'why' is EXACTLY what needs to be in. it dosn't violate wikipedia's neutral viewpoint. if it said what they thought was 'good' then yes it does.

"(outdent) You might also want to look at the Wikiproject Videogames Sources page, as there's further information on what generally makes a reliable source for a videogame article. In a nutshell though, forums, polls and blogs are generally considered unreliable, but articles reporting on them can be reliable. In this case, ActionTrip and Kotaku are reliable, and as theyr'e doing the research into the fan reaction, we can reference the article in order to comment on this without performing orignal research. Hope this helps, Gazimoff WriteRead 10:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC"

Please read and understand the videogames section before editing. Actually i think you've given a reason why it SHOULD be included, rather than shouldn't. If someone reads something, and finds it to be true, then the Encyclopedia entry (and it IS an encyclopedia entry, not a 'stat book') then it's served it's purpose. Although, this further illustrates your hypocrisy, as you've left what the Producers said, leaving people to say 'hey thats true'. There is no basis to your reasoning, therefore I'm putting it back in.

Please, leave it out until a valid consensus is reached, which means we reach middle ground. All you do by putting it back in before a consensus, is start an edit war. I'm no hypocrite, because if the producers make an official statement to a reliable source, then it's considered noteworthy. But in this case, where it's just fan response to a 10-minute game play trailer, I think this does majorly violate the neutral point of view because the game has not been released yet. I think we should wait before we at least have a game play demo before we add a fan response section, all this section is doing right now is starting edit wars, and it should be left out. I mean I saw a guy below who said that some fans not liking it, is fact. And the reason they don't like it, is fact. Therefore it should be added. But I like it, and that's fact. I also like it for many reasons, and that's fact. So does my friend, and a couple of other gaming friends. So does that mean, in retrospect, that we should add the positive response to the article? No, because only the negative reviewers are speaking out. The people who like it have nothing to speak out against, and, despite sources, I strongly believe that thus really violates the POV. If you pick up an encyclopedia and read it, you won't find anything that's supposed to help you decide if you like a product. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, isn't it? dude527 (talk) 17:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. I mean, when I linked the responses in the kotaku article which SUPPORTED Blizzard, the "anti" camp couldn't WAIT to take it1 down. Also, i think it's important to remember that an internet poll only reflects the views of those people who A) check the website regularly, B) care enough to pay attention to the poll, C) actually vote in the poll, and D) think the poll matters. A large percentage of people out there think that fan response is unlikely to accomplish anything, either pro or con. What about them? Are we REALLY expected to believe that the majority of Diablo franchise fans are obsessively checking the boards, forums and associated sites for the sequel of a game that came out nearly a decade ago? I LOVED the first two entries in the Diablo franchise, but all I've done is check out the official website: I could honestly care less about all the other things being posted on-line. It's enough for me (and pretty much every other Diablo fan I know in real-life) that they're putting out a sequel, and honestly, most of the fans I've met in real life think the new game looks great. My main concern is that the article remain neutral, supporting neither the pros nor the cons. I may think the new one looks great, and others make think it looks horrible, but the important thing is that we maintain the NPOV stance. Sadly, people who feel strongly about something tend to think that they are looking at it objectively, so it's probably a pipe-dream but I still think the NPOV policy is worth fighting for. Awakeandalive1 (talk) 17:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

One thing I'm not getting, though, is that you guys are trying to tell me that the majority of fans were disgruntled, yet when you add that back to the article, you say "the initial reception was generally positive [..]," then you go on to say "SOME fans felt disgruntled [...]," if you're going to make an argument, at least be consistent with what you say, and the content you contribute. I don't know why negative response is considered noteworthy, but positive isn't, but I'm just not going to stand for this, as per POV, it IS taking a negative standpoint on the game, it's starting many unnecessary edit wars, it's not encyclopedic in any way, there's no way you can accurately tell me that the MAJORITY of fans were disgruntled, and it's generally causing a lot of trouble. I think it should be taken down for the sake of neutrality, consistency, and the god-forsaken edit wars that are going on. dude527 (talk) 21:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Art direction and fan response - edit warring.

Please note that criticism sections and similar, such as the Fan Response one in this article are generally discouraged because they create bias away from a neutral point of view. If you have a disagreement about the contents of the article, please discuss it using the talk page here, or the one at Wikiproject Video Games for a wider opinion across the videogame community. Please note that blindly reverting without discussion is considered edit warring, which can ultimately lead to removal of editing privilidges. All editors are encouraged to build consensus before making contentious changes to an article. Many thanks, Gazimoff ^Write _Read 21:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I second that. The fan section was biased, Wikipedia is supposed to display no opinion, but it was, and so it had to go. dude527 (talk) 21:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The article is no longer biased if it shows the biases from majorities, according to the own Wikipedia policy of majority/minority NPovs (that also ignores POVs from insignificant minorities). Majority: http://www.diablofans.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10294 , http://www.diablofans.com/forums/showthread.php?t=9283 , http://www.battle.net/forums/thread.aspx?fn=d3-general&t=223&p=1%EF%BF%BDpost223 And also, it is nothing but fair to report a real controversy caused by the drastic changes in art diverging from the previous games, that was ill-received by the majority. I think that the article is ok as is now, also these and several other pools dismiss the false theory of a "vocal minority" against the current art direction. In fact, the vocal minority might be here in favour to the current art direction.Atriel (talk) 00:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think majority/minority is for us to really decide. At this point, adding a reception just isn't ethical, as we've seen maybe ten minutes of game play footage, and we haven't even played a demo. 2 of 5 character classes have been released to us, not a whole lot of beasts or bosses you fight have been revealed. The game play footage we've seen has revealed two scenarios, very opposite of each other; one being dark and dank, the other being fairly bright and exotic. Two very different scenarios, and the only reason that the people who want this art direction to be halted are more vocal, is just that, they want it to be halted, and stopped, while the satisfied people just don't complain, and then there's a middle ground upon which the non-commenters stand. Therefore, it's not valid to say "the majority" or any other generalizations of that sort, because you just can't judge it based on who vocalizes and who doesn't. I think the whole point of the neutral point of view on Wikipedia is that the article should not influence the decisions people make on whether or not they like the game, and shouldn't influence them at all, and I know for a fact that this article did, which IS a violation of Wikipedia's NPOV policy. If you find a way to change the paragraph so that maybe it says that some people take issue with the art direction, that's great, I encourage it. Just don't state exactly what people find wrong with the art direction, as that is a violation of Wikipedia's NPOV. dude527 (talk) 02:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't decide anything about majority or minority. The three pools I posted, both (as you can read in the sites) requested by Blizzard to the greatest Diablo fansites as closed pools, show the majority and the minorities. Have you read all the links i posted? more than 50% (52% in BNET, 51% in DFans post 1, 44% (against 37%) in another) want the game with darker style, and there are minorities that want even a Final Fantasy stile graphics. These were CLOSED pools, from people registered and involved somewhat in Blizzard community. Every Diablo fansite has heated discussion and mixed reception. Hundreds of titles about the new art everywhere. And all based ONLY on the video and pics. You're simply going against official numbers and trying to hide major critical reaction everywhere, and staying quiet is unethical in this case. I have an ethical solution. To put "Reception to the current released videos and pictures showcasing limited gameplay and art from the game" so to be clear that the bad reception is related to what was released. BTW, the dark and dank cenario is brighter than half of the open areas in DiabloII. I've read twice the NPOV article today, and it is ok to cite referred allegations of a controversy on a non-derrogative way. I'll try to re-write this way now. When the demo comes out, another reception will be writen, of course, but now it is about what is released, and that everybody is criticizing everywhere.Atriel (talk) 05:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Those polls are forum polls, which are not reliable sources as per WP:Reliable sources and WP:Verifiability. -- Silver Edge (talk) 06:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

There's also WP:No original research. If a reliable third party source mentioned the fan reaction then we could cite that source. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 06:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

According to WP:Reliable sources(and i've checked that before my previous post), forum sources aren't verifiable in self-published or open forum postings, not the case of any of these closed pools, whose source in two cases are from a site recognized and asked by Blizzard (Blizz sent that request to every fansite, to start pools related to art design, some days ago) and the third was a Battle Net pool started by an admin. This makes the three pools here in the talk page, but not in the article yet, reliable and verifiable. Also, pool |= forum posts; Forum posts were added in the reliability rules because they showcase the view of only one person or could be forged, not the case of the above links.Atriel (talk) 06:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) You might also want to look at the Wikiproject Videogames Sources page, as there's further information on what generally makes a reliable source for a videogame article. In a nutshell though, forums, polls and blogs are generally considered unreliable, but articles reporting on them can be reliable. In this case, ActionTrip and Kotaku are reliable, and as theyr'e doing the research into the fan reaction, we can reference the article in order to comment on this without performing orignal research. Hope this helps, Gazimoff ^Write _Read 10:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Diablofans.com link?

Diablofans.com should be included in the external links of this article as it is the only fan site linked to on the official Diablo3.com site homepage (on the right side). It is also the original Diablo 3 fan site which owned the diablo3.com domain before transferring it to Blizzard Entertainment. Can we add it to the External Links section? Gobe (talk) 05:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Unnecessary, like you said, it is already linked to on the official Diablo III website. It is also linked to in the Open Directory Project link. --Silver Edge (talk) 06:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view For those who keep removing the section detailing 'what' it is that people dislike about the art direction, read the rules before further editing. The fact there are people who dislike the article is fact. What they dislike exactly is also fact. How the producers responded, and what they said is also fact. Detail what the dispute is, and what official stance is.--Tyraz (talk) 09:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but the article still isn't neutral. It's not going to be netural until the game itself has been out for a while, and even then there'll probably be plenty of edit/revert wars. But since we all know people are just going to carry on their disparate "I Love" and "I Hate" Diablo III crusades, let's call a spade a spade and mark the article (or the section) as having disputed neutrality for the time being. The reality is BOTH sides are continually disputing the neutrality of the section. Awakeandalive1 (talk) 16:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The fan response section gives undue weight to critical responses to the game. Having half a line saying the response was "generally positive," then the rest of the section detailing what isn't liked with seven different references, isn't the best way to cover this issue.

I'm fine with keeping the section, but not as it is currently written.Gh5046 (talk) 20:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:CRIT for further information on why criticism sections are generally discouraged and that any critical analysis should be integrated into the article as a whole in order to show a balanced tone, without giving undue weight to any particular viewpoint. As it stands at the moment, although the content itself is valid, it should be integrated into the section on art direction and not split off on it's own, as it promotes a particular point of view through giving one side of an opinion undue weight. Gazimoff ^Write _Read 21:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree, although i'm not entirely sure why it was removed from the art and direction section. As the fan response is about the art and direction, and the producers response was in the art and direction section. A 'fan responce' section is just as valid as a 'producers responce' section (which is in essence what is in the art and direction section currently). I agree that the neutrality is defiantly disputed. And i'm still at a loss as to why putting in the picture that shows both sides (taken from, and quoted by, several reputable sites) has been received with such hostility? it shows the 'pro current direction' view, AND the 'make it darker' point of view. Unless its a case of the former trying to say the latter doesn't exist..--Tyraz (talk) 22:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I never saw the picture being referenced, but if it's anything like the ones I've seen circulating then it's probably because the picture was just an amateur's attempt at retouching a pre-existing picture which would again beg the question: does this really warrant its own section in the main Diablo III article? Couldn't people who object to Blizzard's chosen art direction just make a separate article? Also, that would seemingly violate the NPOV section and give undue weight to the early "fan" criticisms. Awakeandalive1 (talk) 17:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Ugh, this article was better weeks ago. While we are adding in fan response, why not put in a fan-response-response section mentioning all the people talking about how stupid the art criticism is. Here is a useful link: http://www.somethingawful.com/d/news/diablo-hate-internet.php 24.196.146.119 (talk) 20:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Believe me, we tried posting links to rebuttals, to "pro-Diablo III" petitions, etc. etc. They are every bit as relevant and the inclusion of criticisms DEFINITELY requires mentioning the supporting factions to maintain NPOV. Somehow the complaints against the art direction were proclaimed relevant, while support for the art direction were dubbed irrelvant. Give you three guesses as to who made THAT decision... In the end I just gave up since it's clear this article has been hijacked. Awakeandalive1 (talk) 19:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Just to check in really quickly here, there's nothing wrong with including criticism when it's backed up by reliable sources. That's what this article does. The problem is when it's given undue weight. Undue weight can be given either by the prominance of the information or how much information is included. If people are really uncomfortable with the criticism, an option is to reduce it to a quick sentence "... some fans felt the graphics were unrealistic." Or, alternatively, increase the amount of positive response in the article. For an example of how to do this properly, see Playstation_3#Reception. I'm not sure if there's undue weight on the criticism in this article, but that's only something that can be gathered by looking at reliable sources and seeing what they all say about the game. And yes, there's lots of coverage on this game despite the fact that it hasn't been released yet. Randomran (talk) 19:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The picture that is quoted is (http://i31.tinypic.com/2zta5o7.jpg) which was pulled from the petition website, http://media.1up.com/media?id=3567647&type=lg which was pulled from a media commentating site, and now, from the "quoted reputable website" http://kotaku.com/5021118/diablo-fans-petition-against-diablo-iii) all quote that picture. Therefore it is reliable —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyraz (talk • contribs) 01:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

With none-free images such as screenshots, artwork and so on, a different policy called WP:NFCC applies. There are ten criteria which each image has to satisfy in order for it to be permitted under fair use laws. Interpretation of these can be fairly strict, with non-compliant images being removed. Now, it could be argued with the screenshot we already have, together with screenshots in the other articles in the Diablo series that the comparison image that was proposed does not aid the reader's understanding more than the prose already does. Hope this helps, Gazimoff ^Write _Read 08:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I hope they don't ruin the atmosphere by keeping the cartoony look. The previous games had a dark style to them and now it's all cartoony-colored. Just letting you know, a lot of people dislike that so it is NPOV to keep it. William Ortiz (talk) 01:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not. The section gives a negative outlook to the game, therefore disbalancing it. dude527 (talk) 01:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

[1] [5]

[2] [6]

[3] [7]

[1]

[2]

[3]