Talk:Diablo III/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

The language in the following paragraph should be changed.

"Blizzard offered an "annual pass" for World of Warcraft, where players must maintain an active account in that game for one year from the day they sign up. Those who accepted the offer will receive Diablo III as a free digital download when the game is released, as well as guaranteed beta access for the next expansion to World of Warcraft (now known to be Mists of Pandaria)". First when it is no longer the next expansion it will need to be changed. Secondly When this deal was offered there was no air of mystery surrounding the name of the next expansion. It was known at the time the offer was made. "(now known to be Mists of Pandaria)" really makes it seem an after thought to the above offer with the annual pass.24.115.19.178 (talk) 01:19, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

montly subscription required to play?

i got an email that offer 3 months free play for owning a world of warcraft account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.59.120 (talk) 20:27, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to the internet. (there's been no mention of a subscription) -- Fyrefly (talk) 21:22, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

please dont insult my experience. i got a second email about it recently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.59.120 (talk) 05:09, 20 February 2012

Perhaps it's a fraudulent phishing attempt? Without an official notice on a Blizzard website, this is entirely dubious. DP76764 (Talk) 16:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Seeing as the StarCraft II physical copy was shipped with two 30-day trials of world of warcraft, you can expect the same be bundled with Diablo III's physical copy. There will be no monthly fee for Diablo III itself though, it is an instanced MMORPG like White Knight Chronicles, Dark Souls and Demons' Souls, all of which do not have monthly subs, and only require you to buy the game. I believe blizzard will go this route too. 68.190.116.202 (talk) 23:15, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Artisans

In the latest update, Jay Wilson has mentioned that the mystic artisan will be pulled, though it might be re-introduced in a later patch/expansion. I do not understand the reasoning behind this edit: [1]. Unflavoured (talk) 10:25, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Many editors, including myself, won't be up to date on the latest D3 news. When I saw the edit, I naturally checked the Artisans page on the official website, and it was still listing three, so I reverted. As with any changes to established fact, you should cite the source for your change. If there's been an update in the last few days, and you had cited it in your edit, then I would have assumed that the official website just hadn't been updated yet. Without that information, I assumed that the official website was the most reliable source. – RobinHood70 ^talk 20:04, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Was not my edit, it was IP. But I did read the update, and thought you reverted for some other reason. Unflavoured (talk) 08:46, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Ooops, sorry, hadn't noticed that it wasn't your edit. But yeah, that's all it was. As you've probably noticed, I re-added the info with the update as a source. – RobinHood70 ^talk 05:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Ratings

In the infobox, two of the ratings (the other two say 15 and M) say "37". Are they supposed to, and if so, does that mean that those organizations think that you should be 37 years old to play Diablo 3 or what? Dhuum (talk) 08:57, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

From what I could see, it was just IP vandalism. Dhuum (talk) 08:59, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Release date?

Some are angry about how the game has been dumbed down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.27.58.1 (talk) 11:42, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

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? she likes to eat assholes . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.234.216.31 (talk)

It was released in a parallel universe on that date. Annoyed with fanboys (talk) 04:58, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

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)

Apparently, the release probably wont be in 2011 according to a press release from Blizzard, here's the source: http://eu.blizzard.com/en-gb/company/press/pressreleases.html?id=3008082 - Alexj25 —Preceding undated comment added 00:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC).

It says very clearly on this Blizzard Press Release http://eu.blizzard.com/en-gb/company/press/pressreleases.html?id=3008082 that it is expected to ship early 2012. Since this is the one piece of information that everyone is most interested in (I mean myself of course!) surely it deserves mention in the article. In fact I think I'll put it there now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.254.244.149 (talk) 16:03, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Already mentioned. Unflavoured (talk) 16:09, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Now that it is released, should we shrink or entirely remove the Beta section?Alexj25 (talk) 12:22, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Feedback

I came to this article to find out what kind of game Diablo III is. I struggled to find anything describing what you actually do in the game, instead mostly just reading about comparisons to Diablo II and how Diablo III has been in development for years. A complete article really should treat the reader as if they had never heard of the Diablo series and give a better introduction to what it is. --220.244.219.2 (talk) 02:06, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

You mean like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diablo_%28series%29 this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.3.229.37 (talk) 16:46, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Gameplay description outdated

Runes wont be dropping from monsters, they are unlocked by level. There will be no pvp upon release. It is 4 players max per game and there are no skill trees. Stats are allocated automatically.Gems will provide stat customization and there will be infinite skill swapping around. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.71.156.206 (talk) 16:22, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

And if the previous diablo games are of any indication, there will be no pvp raid system like Demons' Souls and Dark Souls, instead bringing back the much loved pk toggle button from Diablo and Diablo II. 68.190.116.202 (talk) 07:33, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I've updated the skill rune section, but I don't see any other incorrect information regarding the other topics you mentioned. -- Fyrefly (talk) 14:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I updated the picture of the inventory window. It was outdated and not accurate anymore. Alexj25 (talk) 18:34, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Reception so far, mostly one sided and does not touch on the causes.

The comment about being "pissed off" comes off as too opinion based. I think that comment should be replaced with it's current Amazon.com review ranking, current metacritic user review ranking, and the issues that cause it to be ranked as such. Obviously the server problems and not being to be played offline are the biggest ones but there are many other complaints as well. Currently it comes off as people throwing a fit about not being able to play. While this is a big part of things it is certainly not the whole picture. There is a great deal of disdain for the simplification of the game, the graphics being lesser than they should be (even for a low entry bar game), and terrible story amongst other things.

The only reputable sources listed are two overwhelmingly positive gaming sites that do not provide a balanced view in the least. I feel as if I'm being sold a car. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.32.197.150 (talk) 21:26, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Somewhat funny that the heading of your comment is one-sided, all I have to say is say one thing positive about the game, I dare you.--0pen$0urce (talk) 21:53, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

The reason the reception is so 'one sided' is because all of the offical critics agree; they like the game. What else is there to report? Just throw in nerd-rage posts by impatient kids who can't log in? You brought up the fact that the story is terrible and the graphics are bad. Hate to break it to you but that's all opinion. Find some official, credible game reviews that bring up your points of poor graphics or terrible story, and you might have something worth citing. Wrel (talk) 16:22, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree and besides, the technical problems are not related to the game's reception and they have been listed in the Release section where they should be. Unless there are reliable sources we can quote, there's no reasons to nitpick everything about the game just to find another POV. Alexj25 (talk) 20:06, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Cheating in Singleplayer mode

Any info about cheating in SP? (offline mode) Unknown (talk) 18:06, 19 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.167.128.27 (talk)

I don't think there's an offline mode. Rklawton (talk) 18:55, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

1. Singleplayer mode is online.
2. Encyclopedias are not the place to seek information about cheating.

Sincerely, Akjar13 (He's Gone Mental) 09:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Single player mode cheats for the original diablo and diablo ii should be allowed however, both games are offline, but can be played over LAN connection via the battle.net interface. Any cheats that work also on battle.net should not be included. Cheats like "thereisnocowlevel" should be allowed, since it relates to the developer and only works in SP. Edit: since it seems that SP characters go into multiplayer as well (verify?) this means that all cheats should not be allowed. 68.190.116.202 (talk) 23:13, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Battle.net was not required to multiplay Diablo I and/or II over a LAN (aka Local Area Network). As long as the two (or more) computers could successfully ping each other you could multiplay via a LAN without going through BNet.

Diablo III is the first version which attempts to combat duping and hacking by requiring you be logged into a BNet account even if you want to play single-player-only, hence the extensive negative criticism. By "extensive" I refer to Amazon's 592 1 & 2-star reviews versus the 326 1 & 2-star reviews (as of writing). The Internet's vocal minority has spoken, Blizzard, and they are not happy...even if your servers couldn't cope with the demand on D3's Launch Day ;) Kwazimoto69 (talk) 18:52, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Gameplay section

The Gameplay section in this article is terrible for someone who doesn't already know what Diablo is like. It talks about the graphics and how it doesn't need DirectX 10, even though that has nothing to do with gameplay ... and then goes on to talk at great length about all the new features and how things are similar to previous Diablo games, without ever giving an overview of what the gameplay is actually like and what it entails.

It needs a rewrite. The gameplay section should be an overview of the gameplay, not a comparison to previous Diablo titles. 92.239.227.129 (talk) 07:22, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 20 May 2012

The word "company's" [sic] in the second sentence of the last paragraph in the article needs to be changed as such, for grammar:

It claims that the industry at large is far too defensive of production companies' actions to the point of accepting backward steps in game availability.

Wax (talk) 10:08, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

You are right, done. --SubSeven (talk) 18:27, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Some twit keeps removing the scrapped Dervish class. -__- 70.54.155.127 (talk) 05:55, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

some people keep coming here from Montreal exposing there IP, name calling, and crying about some supposed class that was scrapped early in development.--0pen$0urce (talk) 16:19, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Gameplay modes

This should be listed as Online Multiplayer, not Online Single Player and Online Multiplayer.

Even when you are on solo you are in a multiplayer game which friends can always join, therefore either there is no Single Player, or a lot more games need to have Online Single Player added to their modes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.119.255.250 (talk) 16:48, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

No, okay, just no. In "solo" you are NOT in multiplayer, you desperate Blizzard shill employee (whoops, perhaps you should have realised we can see your IP). In SINGLE PLAYER ("solo") you have the option to switch to multiplayer at any time. The fact you are given that option means you are NOT IN MULTIPLAYER. The very existence of that option means you are NOT palying multiplayer. Until you choose the option to switch to multiplayer, you are in single player mode...by yourself...with no other players. Try to 'into logic' next time, kay. 203.59.133.123 (talk) 09:04, 18 May 2012 (UTC) Harlequin

It took me 5 seconds to Google his/her IP to find out that s/he is located in Washington DC, with an IP registered to the US Department of Transportation. Blizzard is located in Irvine, CA. Please take off your tin-foil hat before you declare people as "desperate Blizzard shill employees". To think, you actually made the comment that you can *see* his/her IP, and didn't even investigate your claim. Wrel (talk) 16:59, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

You can disable auto-join, meaning you can play online in single-player without anyone joining. 83.70.170.48 (talk) 15:49, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

IIRC, auto-join is disabled from the start. You have to go into your game and select the "Make Public" option before any outside players other than those on your friends list are allowed into your games. Wrel (talk) 16:52, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Biases in reception

Only taking into account critical reviews is completely stupid, as thousands have voiced outrage about many aspects of this game all over the internet. Something should definitely be added to take into account the criticism of users. I feel a lawyer at Blizzard might even be intentionally editing this article repeatedly to make the game look good--which is extremely important around launch time.

Whenever I added the game's metacritic user score, it got deleted almost immediately. This really should be a part of the article, though, as it's extremely important to note the large amount of negative user feedback this game has received on launch both for historical purposes and for the sake of keeping the article unbiased.

Oh--and if you tell me thousands of negative reviews is less legitimate than the six professional reviews on MetaCritic made to make this game look good--that's a total joke. Stop it, Blizzard. Just stop it. We know you're doing this at this point. Either the reception area should be removed entirely or it should take into account all perspectives.

Nilbog (talk) 20:37, 17 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nilbog (talk • contribs) 20:33, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Just do a google news search to find some articles about player response, and use them as sources, as long as they're reliable. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 20:55, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

If I recall, there were only 200 reviews on Metacritic at the time that the user score was publicized, and almost all of them came from users who had just registered new accounts. At the same time there was a large campaign on 4chan's /v/ board to abuse the system and give the game a low Metacritic score. This is not meant to say that those reviews are or are not legitimate; we'll never know. The fact that all of those reviews could be forced is the inherent problem with using Metacritic as a source: it's basically an unedited composite of anonymous users' comments with a numerical value attached to each one. Any source must follow an editorial process to be deemed reliable. 97.79.10.188 (talk) 02:10, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I found some articles from reputable sources. Someone else has already added Forbes, who were critical of the game's DRM. Some reviewers have voiced their disdain at lag in single-player mode and as mentioned above, you only have to search online for reputable sources. As long as you can verify what you say per the usual requirements, it's okay.Vision Insider (talk) 05:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Yelling at Blizzard and calling out their lawyers on a Wiki Talk page? Paranoid much?

Here's the problem with the thousands of angry voices: they are angry voices. I'm painting with a broad brush here, but I think most of you will see where I'm coming from. People today seem to be the most self-entitled brats around. I'm not excluding myself from that steriotype, but in situations like this it becomes glaringly appearant how silly they can get at times.

The two things people react the most negatively to is stability and change. As we have stated, Diablo III became one of the most preordered games of all time, meaning a LOT of people were chomping at the bit to play it on May 15th. Enter the server stabilty issues. Now all these people take to the net to decry their beloved game because they can't log in the very second that installation finished. AKA: zero experience with playing the game but they want to let you know just how much Diablo and Blizzard suck because "I'VE BEEN WAITING SINCE 2001 FOR DIABLO 3 AND NOW I CAN'T LOG IN!!!" How objective is that guy's review?

Now enter nostalgia. People remember glowingly 'the way it use to be' when it come to games, and any diversion from that formula is met with vehement backlash before they even give it a chance. Many of the user reviews speak directly to this, which is clearly skewing the frame of mind. A few good examples of this would be the change between Dragon Age & Dragon Age 2, the change made in Command and Conquer 4, and almost any of the Final Fantasy games starting with FFVII. People jump into something new, find out it's not 100% what they remember, or 100% what they were expecting, and suddenly it becomes the worst thing to ever be released and everyone who made that game should be fired. All because "well in Diablo 2 I could pick where I spent my stat points and in Diablo 3 I can't!!". That's not a review of the game.

I'm getting long winded, but I hope I've maybe let you understand why these 'reviews' are hardly an encyclopedic source, and after all, thats what Wikipedia is supposed to be. If you find a negative review of the game where the game is reviewed in a bubble, with nostalgia removed and silly 'the servers were down when I wanted to play' or 'Skyrim has better graphics, wtf this is 2012' objectivity, then by all means provide it. The problem thusfar has been that those reviews don't seemd to be coming up too often. No one here is making edits to try and drum up sales for the game. Wrel (talk) 12:12, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

First off, regardless of who it comes from, a review is personal opinion and is in its very nature biased. A large proportion of the Diablo 3 community has been displeased with the game. Whether this stems from problems at launch or otherwise, such weight from the sheer number of complaints means that these critical reviews should have some form in the reception section, perhaps as a seperate sub heading. Whilst a large proportion of the negative reviews I have read seem to derive from early launch problems, which have since been resolved, I have also found that the largest bulk of negative reviews debate the games originality, gameplay, usability (in regards to what is often critiqued as "constrictive" DRM) and lack of overall quality despite its elongated development time. (often such reviews draw comparisons to the Duke Nukem Forever development) While you may argue that the problems at launch have been dealt with, and therefore reviews focusing on early problems should be ignored; later reviews which focus negatively on game quality should carry some weight in the reception section.

Long story short, I feel that people who negatively perceived the game are being marginalized in the reception section, which at a glance, (though I have read it thoroughly) appears to greatly validate positive reviews and due to this marginalization, at present, is probably a biased section requiring some review. I should also make note that of over 4000 reviews at Metacritic by users, the average weighted mean is around 4/10, whereas reviews by quote/unquote "top critics" puts the score at a little over 8/10.

If I may make a personal point about reviews, its that they are by far and large, wayyyyyyy to positive these days. It seems that reviewers are far more willing to put up with inferior products of recent.

Finally, I find Wrel's arguements above hilarious. You have written a completely biased and one sided opinion of what constitutes a review. You state "All because "well in Diablo 2 I could pick where I spent my stat points and in Diablo 3 I can't!!". That's not a review of the game." I don't even need to pick your writing apart, its full of opinion and one sided nonsense, please put more thought into your writing when next you attempt it, though I hope that is not too soon. As you say yourself Wrel, "How objective is that guy's review?" 124.185.44.245 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:13, 22 May 2012 (UTC).

"A large proportion of the community"? Uh, says who? User reviews are not (usually) notable and are almost always unreliable. It's not a matter of debating the definition of what a 'review' is either; it's a matter of conforming to what Wikipedia policy dictates in terms of what material should be included. User reviews do not fall into the category of reliable sources (though coverage by RS's of phenomenon like that would be includable), and rightly so. Please take some time to review the policies here on sourcing material in a reliable manner. DP76764 (Talk) 05:10, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you might have not seen the forest, for the trees. The Sub-Heading my comment was posted in was titled 'Biases in Reception'; of course I'm going to talk about baises.

I am not some white-knight fanboy, taking to the internet to defend his favorite video game from the bad things I don't want people to hear. Have you gone to Metacritic or Amazon? Have you seen the reviews? Not just the numbers, have you actually *read* what people are saying? Go ahead, I'll wait. These 'reviews' have almost nothing to do with the game itself, and are driven by A) complaints that the server is offline or B) complaints that "it's different than Diablo 2 and I don't like it". Now, if you want to compare and contrast differences between this game and other games in the series, that's a valid point. But that would take a much more level-headed, objective person to do, and those two adjectives are the exact opposite of all the rage-votes people are leaving on the websites in question.

That's why Wikipedia policy uses official reviews instead of user reviews; offical reviews generally have the clarity and maturity to set aside preconcieved ideas and to objectively review the game 'in a bubble', so to speak. By that I mean review the game for what it is, not "oh I could do it in Diablo 2 and now I can't" which is exactly what I said in my previous post. But somehow you took that as me being bias and one sided. Because I value an objective review that actually reviews the game (regardless if it's a positive or negative review), opposed to a review from an angry, self-entitled gamer who can't log on to a server and wants to vent. You're right, I'm such a hack. /rolls eyes Wrel (talk) 15:11, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 May 2012

Please change the word feature to features in the following sentence since it is grammatically incorrect: The proprietary engine incorporates Blizzard's custom in-house physics, a change from the original usage of Havok's physics engine,[11] and feature destructible environments with an in-game damage effect. Neatpit (talk) 01:44, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Done. Voyaging^talk 04:23, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

SMS Protect

SMS protect (Mobile Alerts) wasn't added as a result of recent account hacking incidents, it was available earlier even before D3 launched. Someone should correct this in the text. 95.180.98.99 (talk) 14:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Removed the addition for this very reason and for it not being a notable event in the release (or directly pertaining to this title). DP76764 (Talk) 14:30, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

One of the worst videogames launches

Diablo 3 is being recognized as one of the worst videogames launches ever (lag, crashes, hacked accounts, queues, content being cleared on the first days ...). Somebody should add this to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.235.118.165 (talk) 13:10, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

By whom? You? Sorry to break it to you, but your opinion isn't notable enough to constitute a wikipedia source. :> --Smoochiekins (talk) 14:19, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Being one of the best selling games ever and breaking records on Amazon and Blizzard store sites it's no wonder there were issues when the servers went up on launch. Lag can be due to your own network issue, I myself have not experienced any issues. I haven't also crashed a single time, a lot of this depends on your own PC environment (drivers, other programs, viruses?)... Hacked accounts don't get hacked by getting onto Blizzard servers but by the owners fault of disclosing their account info either by having a keylogger installed or simply sharing it with everyone or falling for scam mails, not Blizzard's fault at all, they already provide an authenticator for free. Queues do not exist for Diablo 3. Content being cleared within first few days is not relevant to the quality of the game, you can pretty much get to the end of any game if you play it straight for 24 hours and people did that and more for Diablo 3. 95.180.98.99 (talk) 14:18, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I typed something very similar to everything that was said above but you guys got to it before I could post. I agree, nothing in the list you pointed out has much to do with a video game launch. Also, for the actual issues people faced on launch day (servers being offline for maintence for most of the first 24 hours) have been talked about in the last 20-some posts in the talk page, thanks for noticing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wrel (talk • contribs) 14:34, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

It may be the worst launch ever or it may not, but that should not detract from the actual quality of Diablo III (Dusty Hayes (talk) 07:45, 23 May 2012 (UTC))

Weasel words

The article has a weasel word down in the Reception section, and possibly other spots. Please rectify ASAP. 07:13, 23 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.166.178.16 (talk)

You'll need to be more specific. DP76764 (Talk) 16:57, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Sales numbers

Maybe someone can add the new information about sales numbers http://investor.activision.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=676112 95.180.98.99 (talk) 14:43, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Reception?

Reception section put in with no sources and seems to be based in OR or the authors personal sentiments. I would suggest reverting or cleaning it up and sourcing~ I would do it myself, but I'm not really in a position to log in from work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.3.229.37 (talk) 16:52, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree that we should wait for sources as well. And the "I, along with many thousands (if not millions) of people who bought Diablo III, one of the most anticipated games for 2012, am very pissed off at not being able to play the game," quote might be a bit too much for the Release section. I believe that just giving the reference along with the other two is enough, we already stated that there were many problems with the releases, the 'pissed off' people aren't relevant to the article. Alexj25 (talk) 20:54, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

It was released yesterday! Isn't evaluating critical or audience reception after only one day rather premature? ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 21:02, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I Completely agree Robin Lionheart, other than a few beta testers no one and I mean no one has played all the way thru on every difficulty as of yet.--0pen$0urce (talk) 21:55, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Anybody care to look up some more sources on the "always online" aspect? Right now there are a lot of quotes criticizing it, but only a brief quote from the developers defending it, despite the fact that it's not that strange. It's also referred to as DRM, which is not entirely true. It's not just that you have to authorize the game, but you actually have to play it online. The main stated reason being that storing the characters on Blizzard's servers prevents hacking, which is a requirement for the future real money auction house (RMAH) feature. Allowing offline play would mean no RMAH, which would mean third party sites selling items. I don't have any sources stating it in these words, but someone should be able to find something. Right now the entire section (minus one short quote) reads like a long rant about it. - Alltat (talk) 08:14, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Hiding facts

Please, anyone, revert this edit --> "Release: account theft during release of a new title is fairly normal; this appears to be a routine security reminder (not notable))" due to hiding critical information about Diablo 3 extremely security problems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.37.229.166 (talk) 14:23, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

See the next section. Barring an external source, this is a non-event and not worth including in the article. Also, Battle.net security has nothing directly to do with D3 itself. Thank you, drive thru DP76764 (Talk) 14:29, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Technically, it's not a security problem with the game; it's a security problem with the users. People are getting their account information stolen by means of trojans and scams. The game service itself has not been hacked, and all the claims from people saying they got hacked despite having an authenticator were debunked, as there are logs of when their account was hijacked and when they added the authenticator. You can't expect Wikipedia to mention every rumor. - Alltat (talk) 08:29, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Readers need to be informed of all the facts if there's is a security issue user or game, readers should be informed to protect them selves keep this acticle objective please(Dusty Hayes (talk) 12:16, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't really know if Wikipedia is the place for that, as Alltat stated. It's not a matter of objectivity, it's a matter of relevance. From anything I can gather, there's nothing specific to Diablo 3 that is facilitating hackers from accessing your Battle.Net account. If you have trojans or fell for a scam, that's the user's fault, not Diablo 3. Wrel (talk) 13:19, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I just like to point out that the world of warcraft acticle has a security concerns section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_of_Warcraft#Security_concerns highlighting such issue's this should in no way effect the quality of the actual game or to be used to bash D3, its only there to highlight and inform the reader who wants an objective acticle on D3. Dusty Hayes (talk) 13:57, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

And that section exists because WoW has been "directly targeted with trojans being specifically crafted to capture account login details". No such situation has been documented with D3, therefore a section like that is irrelevant to this article. DP76764 (Talk) 14:43, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Just saying that's all. Also this article is not a blog about the subject. It is not a place to post personal reviews. Or complain/compliment about gameplay. Just a needed reminder based on recent edits and discussions. Also see NPOV.--0pen$0urce (talk) 19:40, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Player Reception Section, Really?

Is this needed? Appears to lack NPOV one article by one journalist who publishes his own column in Forbes I do not believe consents a reliable source. Not 100% of the world is going to be happy but again wikipedia is not the place to forward a narrow view of a subject. All edits are supposed be from a NPOV, which this and the editors who created this section raise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 0pen$0urce (talk • contribs) 15:36, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from, but it's also an issue of WP:WEIGHT. There has been a lot of coverage about player frustration over the launch, and there has been an ongoing discussion of it. Plenty of other sources are out there. Check the Forbes link, and you'll see it links to a few other sites that discussed the launch day problems and the response. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 19:42, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

The player frustration roots in the first few hours of the launch. Look at most of the complaints, all about error 37 and not being able to log in the first few hours. Since launch day the game has run smooth. I have played about 27 hours myself. Criticism section is fine.--0pen$0urce (talk) 16:16, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand where you are coming from. All critical reception is opinion. Critical reception is a biased point of view. It's hardly a narrow point of view if criticism is widespread. Linking directly to, say, Metacritic comments is not wrong due to bias but rather because Wikipedia is meant to be a tertiary source. However, if you link to an article that mentions player outbursts, then that is okay as you're still maintaining the site as a tertiary source. However, if you're issue is that you don't link bias in the articles, then no critical reception section should be included. Vision Insider (talk) 07:52, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

It appears that the negative "Player Reception" is especially notable for this game. And as such it should be included in the lead. http://techland.time.com/2012/05/18/diablo-iii-and-always-online-gaming-bad-for-us-and-here-to-stay/ "I know many of you are angry", "But with Diablo III, Blizzard’s ambiguity about the game’s modus operandi and post-launch technical incompetence are a double-whammy.", "yank a solo player out of the game simply because the server goofs and drops the connection. What a mess.", "Blizzard should have sold it as such. It’s paying the price in low-starred Amazon reviews and savaged Metacritic user averages for not doing so.". Here we have a RS source (Time) acknowledging Metacritic averages and linking them to player dissatisfaction. spam checker sucks bigggo203.214.44.219 (talk) 01:31, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Wow that was hard to read. I don't think most people are saying we shouldn't include critical negative reception. But to use intentional down-voted ratings when compiling an aggregate score of the game is what people are objecting to.Wrel (talk) 04:41, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I see WP guidelines as saying "Accurately reflect what the RS sources say". Time is an RS source. And it directly refers to the Metacritic averages (without expressing any qualification as to their accuracy). 124.148.164.7 (talk) 12:26, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I feel that the problems that affect players since release are fixed or are being worked on according to various posts on the forums and that it shouldn't be noted in the reception of the game. They are already included in the Release section as they should and these are release issues. I'm sure the reception of the game from the player community will be entirely different once the major issues have been fixed. I believe that a lot of the negative ratings on the websites are due to the technical problems that prevented people from playing the game. Hence, they can't really give an appropriate rating on a game they haven't played. Alexj25 (talk) 05:55, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be a "Controversy" "Technical issues" or "DRM-related criticism" section like in Mass Effect 3 & Assassins Creed II ETC ETC acticles instead of a "Player Reception Section"??? (178.208.196.48 (talk) 14:01, 20 May 2012 (UTC))

Yes, that's a good idea. The 'Reception' section should be dedicated to how the actual game and its playable content has been received, not how the DRM and technical issues are causing troubles. Maybe we could merge the 'Release' section and rename it into 'Release & Controversy' since the content might not be enough to spread it between 3-4 different sections. Alexj25 (talk) 23:35, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Or better yet, just make a Release header, put Reception in under that as a subheader, and make another subheader under it was well called Technical issues, and put the DRM trouble in there. --Smoochiekins (talk) 00:49, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Check other game articles, Release and Reception are usually have there own headers. have some continuity. Reception is incomplete, review compilers are going off of user reviews, very few critical review have been released as it is premature.--0pen$0urce (talk) 16:16, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

The key point is to get the user reaction to the server issues and DRM seperated from the critical reception. --Smoochiekins (talk) 16:42, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

DRM trouble? What trouble exactly, that a small but very vocal swath of people playing this game are upset because they had to pay for it?--0pen$0urce (talk) 18:14, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

The trouble that is currently described in the reception. "Some users have voiced criticism about the game's strong digital rights management which requires what is known as persistent online authentication, resulting in the lack of an offline single-player mode.[82] Players also took out their anger on developer Blizzard.[83] Their actions have been described by various commentators as either another instance of gamers showing a sense of entitlement, similar to player response to Mass Effect 3, and legitimate displays of discontentment with game features.[82]" Despite being poorly worded and in need of a rewrite, it is properly sourced. However, it should not be listed in the same section as the critical reception. Nor should, for that matter, the article from Forbes as it is not a review - heck, it's even grossly misplaced as the article is from August '11 and thus has little to do with the actual launch issues. So we need to find somewhere else to put those bits. --Smoochiekins (talk) 12:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Critical reception does not mean reviews and reviews exclusively. Formal reviews form part of the discussion, yes, but the section isn't "Critical Reviews" but rather "Critical Reception." This means how the game is received and discussed in many different media. Professional discussion concerning aspects of the game, such as DRM, forms part of critical reception.

I notice that one of the current quotes within this criticism section comes from a Blizzard employee. Even though this is a different point of view and provides balance, it's not appropriate as the game developers can hardly offer a neutral point of view. If a media outlet says the same thing, then that's fine as it'd be a neutral third-party.

Vision Insider (talk) 03:42, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Gotta say I am impressed with the degree of civility on this discussion. Feels like the consensus is a criticism section is in order. However a criticism section has to proceed with caution. The reception is incomplete, I don't see many genuine reviews from the known sources because very few have played through the game. Meaning getting to level 60, and I do not believe as of today no one has beaten Inferno. Bottom line, my advice is read the Wikipedia pillars, and come from a NPOV. If you are here because you're mad at blizzard because you waited at Gamestop and ran home and couldn't log in and this is just another stop in your rants across the web about why you are mad at this game, came to the wrong place.--0pen$0urce (talk) 16:16, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I think it's worth mentioning that the battle.net forums are flooded with legitimate complaints about Diablo 3's gameplay and how the later difficulties of the game seem severely underdone when compared to say, Normal. Just saying since I see a lot of mention about Amazon and Metacritic, but nothing about the bnet forums (less release-day trash, but a lot more legitimate complaints about gameplay, shallowness of characters in the story, etc) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eezstreet2 (talk • contribs) 04:13, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

BNet forums flooded with complaints? Stop the presses!! --SubSeven (talk) 05:41, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

CB: Seriously, this entire D3 entry should be locked once an UNBIASED review of it is incorporated: that means the negative along with the positive. How can an entry be so overwhelmingly positive when there are hundreds of references out there that are negative? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.254.128 (talk) 23:13, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Plot

The phrase "Players will have the opportunity to explore familiar settings such as Tristram" has little to do with the actual plot of the game. Suggest removing or moving to a suitable place in the article. Jordynmagz (talk) 14:55, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Now that the game is out, I suggest somebody take the time to write this up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.85.2.55 (talk) 02:44, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

It feels like the new plot is quite long and has major spoilers in it. I believe we should trim it down Alexj25 (talk) 17:59, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I didn't write the plot section and agree that it could be shorter. However, this being an encyclopedia that is apathetic to a person's sense of having the plot "spoiled," I believe in accordance to what has been done in other articles that the plot description be complete and contain important events, including certain "spoiler" conclusions. (Improvjam (talk) 19:10, 17 May 2012 (UTC))

I just took a stab at this, but don't know that it's substantially shorter. Open to further edits. (Improvjam (talk) 19:45, 17 May 2012 (UTC))

The character is not called the Nephalem, implying a title. It is almost akin to a silent protagonist in that we do not know his/her name. It is theorised that the character is one of the Nephalem which is a race in the Diablo lore; being the humans that have reawakened their powers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.120.18.132 (talk) 04:10, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Please note in the first paragraph under "Plot" it states "Deckard Cain disappears before his nephew Leah"... Leah is a female character and therefore is his "Niece", not his "Nephew". (talk) 15:04, 21 May 2012 (CST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.113.8.138 (talk)

What is the Wikipedia policy for citations in divulging plots in videogames???--Machinegunetiq (talk) 03:50, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Spoiler. There's no reason to withhold information about the game's plot in the Plot section; it's not really a spoiler if you're actively seeking it out. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:26, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Additional reading suggestion: WP:How to write a plot summary. Citations are needed for interpretation/analysis of the plot, but not for general recountings of it. And indeed, Wikipedia is not concerned with spoilers. DP76764 (Talk) 13:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Game is now in town.

In the US, the game has been released, so I removed references to Blizzard revealing some Demonhunter skills. Gprobins (talk) 00:41, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Citation link dead

The first citation, citing the composer(s?), has a broken link. Moberg (talk) 13:05, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Controversy/battle.net section

Lets discuss, not surprised a unconfirmed account created this section this a mere single citation. Most versions of this section have lacked NPOV including current. Did some article scanning and no confirmed reports of the mobile authenticator have failed. Will fix that, but the security issues likely lie with the user's system, not battle.net. Show me a solid report of battle.net being compromised including authenticator and OK. Only the dial-in authenticator is known to have issues.I have a feeling this article will be semi-protected again real soon.--0pen$0urce (talk) 21:34, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. There is definitely some unsupported information be reinserted into the article over and over. I trimmed back the excessive commentary again, but feel free to change it further however you want. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 21:58, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Voice acting cast information request

would it be worth noting some prominent voice actors took part in this? I know Tarsh the Miner (voiced by David Lodge) the male Wizard is voiced by Crispin Freeman, just for starters. This is just a thought is all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.203.194.161 (talk) 05:00, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Also James Hong voiced Covetous Shen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eezstreet1 (talk • contribs) 00:43, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Story

Gamefront's CJ Mizzori made several solid points about how Diablo 3's story fell short. I think it's worth mentioning, as GameFront is a fairly trustworthy source. http://www.gamefront.com/diablo-3s-story-what-went-wrong/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.72.196.141 (talk) 18:10, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Also, IGN made a video which can be used as a reference to player comments here: http://www.ign.com/videos/2012/06/01/diablo-iii-comment-comeback — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.72.196.141 (talk) 18:26, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

The GameFront review looks decent; I'd support a 1-line summary of it being incorporated. Video of random user comments though? No different from random user comments on a message board; should not be included. DP76764 (Talk) 15:16, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I added the Gamefront review, but some vigilante user took it down and cited it as being spam. Wtf? Eezstreet1 (talk) 01:53, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Genre(s)

The Genre(s) need change to MMORPG. It's game mode likes Guild wars , So I think it need to be sorted as MMORPG.

1.A massively multiplayer online game (also called MMO and MMOG) is a multiplayer video game which is capable of supporting hundreds or thousands of players simultaneously. By necessity, they are played on the Internet, and feature at least one persistent world. They are, however, not necessarily games played on personal computers.

2."Some MMORPGs require payment of a monthly subscription to play. By nature, "massively multiplayer" games are always online, and most require some sort of continuous revenue (such as monthly subscriptions and advertisements) for maintenance and development"

3.Popular MMOGs might have thousands of players online at any given time, usually on a company owned server.

4.Most MMORPGs are deployed using a client–server system architecture. The server software generates a persistent instance of the virtual world that runs continuously, and players connect to it via client software.

5. By nature, "massively multiplayer" games are always online, and most require some sort of continuous revenue (such as monthly subscriptions and advertisements) for maintenance and development.

82.241.99.247 (talk) 16:21, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

There are only four people in a game at any time and no persistent world. --SubSeven (talk) 17:06, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Disagree(with IP): IP seems to be confusing persistent/mandatory authentication with multiplaying. This game is in no stretch of the imagination an MMO (and I even have a hard time considering it an RPG). DP76764 (Talk) 17:25, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Not trying to be a jerk, but not much of what you listed here is substantial. It's almost like you didn't read your own points, or you haven't played Diablo III.

1.A massively multiplayer online game (also called MMO and MMOG) is a multiplayer video game which is capable of supporting hundreds or thousands of players simultaneously. By necessity, they are played on the Internet, and feature at least one persistent world. They are, however, not necessarily games played on personal computers.

We get this. However Diablo III is not a persistant world with thousands of simultanious players. It's thousands of individual worlds with a limited number of players (4) in each one.

2."Some MMORPGs require payment of a monthly subscription to play. By nature, "massively multiplayer" games are always online, and most require some sort of continuous revenue (such as monthly subscriptions and advertisements) for maintenance and development"

You're right, some MMOs do charge monthly. Diablo III does not.

3.Popular MMOGs might have thousands of players online at any given time, usually on a company owned server.

Again, you're right. But so do First Person Shooters, sports games, racing games, etc. Simply having a 'multiplayer' option to a game does not classify is at an MMO.

4.Most MMORPGs are deployed using a client–server system architecture. The server software generates a persistent instance of the virtual world that runs continuously, and players connect to it via client software.

Once again, you're correct, but that's not pertinant to Diablo III. See Point 1.

5. By nature, "massively multiplayer" games are always online, and most require some sort of continuous revenue (such as monthly subscriptions and advertisements) for maintenance and development.

This is the same info you said in Point 2. Word-for-word, actually.

Sooo... yeah. Wrel (talk) 20:21, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Removal of sourced information

It is a fact that the user score on metacritic is 4.0/10. Please stop removing this sourced fact. Your opinion on the worth of individual scores is inappropriate. Aggrergate user scores are commonly sourced on wikipedia such as IMDB scores. Unique Ubiquitous (talk) 03:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Please review the discussion(s) above. User reviews are not reliable nor (usually) pertinent. They may become so in this case (as they have for other games), but we'll need to wait for a WP:RS to report on it first. DP76764 (Talk) 03:49, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Is Forbes an RS? [2] Unique Ubiquitous (talk) 03:53, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

It's not the source, it's the objectivity. Even the forbes article relates the story from the subjective view of the upset, entitled fans. They had an agenda going into it, therefore their score of 4.0 wasn't an objective review. Wrel (talk) 11:17, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

With more variety of sourcing like that, we may eventually have enough material to cover that aspect (fan backlash) of the release (see: Mass Effect 3, Spore, etc), but I still do no support adding in specific scores along with the professional reviews. DP76764 (Talk) 15:08, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

So Wrel, you are suggesting we delete all non objective reviews...perhaps you do not understand what objective means? The fact that users voted the game very poorly in contrast to "professionals" as noted in a RS is notable and must be included in the reception. You can't write a reception section whilst ignoring the reception by the actual users. Unique Ubiquitous (talk) 16:42, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, actually, you can write a reception section while ignoring actual user reviews (it may seem counter intuitive, but this is usually how this site works). Once the reception fiasco gets some coverage by a variety of reliable sources, then it will be notable. Seriously, take a look at the Spore and Mass Effect 3 articles to see how they handled those 'player backlash' events. I suspect that this article should handle this topic in the same way those articles did. DP76764 (Talk) 17:14, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Objective: A statement that is completely unbiased. It is not touched by the speaker’s previous experiences or tastes. It is verifiable by looking up facts or performing mathematical calculations.

Subjective: A statement that has been colored by the character of the speaker or writer. It often has a basis in reality, but reflects the perspective through with the speaker views reality.

Explain to me how a subjective review is encyclopedic. People who leave negative reviews loaded with openly subjective criticism is not what Wikipedia is for. I havn't suggested we delete anything, I simply said subjectivity isn't encyclopedic, regardless of how loud it may be.Wrel (talk) 18:41, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

We can't verify the Metacritic user reviews in that final score of a 4, Unique Ubiquitous. Whether it might be an aspiring video game critic giving it an 8/10 with a well-written review or an upset fan going I HATE BLIZARDD NOW I WANT MY MONIE BAKK and giving it a 1/10 we don't know.

And considering the internet community is always more vocal when something SUX AZZ, we really cannot add any user reviews, whatsoever. As has been pointed out, similar discussions have been going on Wikipedia. But unless, say, Kotaku or GameSpot has a news article about the negativity, then (and only then) we can mention it, but not listing it as a valid reception source. --Soetermans. T / C 19:34, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

"Professional" reviews are just as subjective as anyone else's reviews. No human or machine has ever given an objective review - it's not possible. Soetermans, I have already posted a link to a RS' article commenting specifically on the negative reaction from users, it was my second comment in this thread. Thus, I take your comment as supportive of adding a comment noting the negative reception by players. To Dp, well just because other articles are garbage, and we all know most articles are, does not mean we need to follow them, we can think about it ourselves. Diablo III received a good response from critics and a poor response by users, both of these facts are notable and verifiable. There is no reason to exclude either of these points. Unique Ubiquitous (talk) 20:41, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

You can add prose indicating that Metacritic was bombed with negative user reviews and use that link as a reference. What we need to avoid is listing the Metacritic user score alongside other critical scores as if it's a legitimate score, which it's not. The Metacritic user reviews are not vetted in any way. We have no way to know if they are honest attempts at a review, or if those users even actually played the game. Technically we don't even know if they're actual people, or an army of phony accounts. --SubSeven (talk) 22:59, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Fine, but I do want to point out that a number of "professional" reviews at Metacritic were posted on May 16th, when the game had only been up for what a couple of hours... Unique Ubiquitous (talk) 23:38, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think any mention of metacritic user review/rating should be made in the article. It not reliable or notable and many titles get a negative feedback from people as soon as they find a small problem, it doesn't take much to get a bunch of people on the internet to constantly rate a game 0/10 or 10/10. It does not accurately represent the quality of the game. As someone has previously said, if notable action has been taken due to negative fan critism like with Mass Effect 3 where players rallied to encourage Bioware to change the games ending, then this can be included with a reliable references. Also note that reception section of article needs re-writing, most of the prose is taken from articles giving initial responses as opposed to full reviews being made.The1337gamer (talk) 23:56, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

UniUbi, I think you are deliberately misinterpretating my words. I said we really cannot add any user reviews quite literally. You'll find that WP:RS will disagree with you I'm afraid, per the arguments we've presented above. The only way a mention of user reception will find its way into the article is if an outside source picks up on it.

For instance, the Mass Effect 3 reception: video game magazines and websites were very positive about it, giving it 8s, 9s and 10 here and there. It wasn't met with the same enthusiasm however with the common gamer - they were disappointed and felt betrayed by developer BioWare, so as a way of showing their disapproval they went online. Currently, it holds a 4. Out of 3307, 1033 are negative. But Wikipedia shouldn't mention it, for one thing we're not a democracy, let alone a ochlocracy. But of course eventually video game sources did pick up on it and they mentioned it and that is what we reference. That's how Wikipedia works. --Soetermans. T / C 17:49, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

You didn't listen to what I said, I hate talking with wikipediots, I'll just go back to editing the article next time I'm free. Unique Ubiquitous (talk) 20:59, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

(side note): Attacking/insulting other editors is hardly the best way to persuade them to your position. Also, editing without building a consensus will probably only earn you a ban or two. Good luck with that! DP76764 (Talk) 21:16, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I did actually. I'm sorry you feel that way. I don't like being insulted for no apparent reason though, so you got a level 1 warning coming your way.

On a sidenote, I've been editing Wikipedia for over six years, with a total of 9,196. Your first edit as a registered user was April 9 this year, with a total edits of 87. I'm not saying I know Wikipedia better than you, but my advice? Please read the guide lines before editing. Good luck. --Soetermans. T / C 13:27, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Over 9000 edits! Well I think that's just SUPER! Unique Ubiquitous (talk) 12:31, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I think so too. Now please stop your unconstructive sarcasm and personal attacks. --Soetermans. T / C 14:27, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

My latest edit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reference for Lying Cop-out needed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

___________________________

Here are some:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Battle.net account security

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article About Metacritic Reviews

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

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

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

Taking my time

I'll edit this multi-person, notable, reliable, actually critical review in when I get time, just posting some quotes from it now, maybe someone can choose some of the best ones for me or comment beforehand, or maybe even threaten to block me for an umpteenth time for editing the article. [3]

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

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

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