Talk:Diablo III/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Controversies: linux ban

As early as June 22nd, and possible earlier, Blizzard has been banning accounts that have used Linux as their operating system, emulating windows with Wine so as to run the game. [1] Blizzard has defended this by claiming it violates their terms of use for Diablo 3. [2] However, according to the terms of service, these users should not be banned for their use of linux. [3]

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

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

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

Blizzard's response on this topic actually says that Wine should not cause a ban, and they have been unable to replicate false positives related to Wine usage. Their stance so far is that all reported bans that they have reviewed have been true cases of cheating. [4] Compare this to a few years ago when Warden was making false positive bans on Cedaga users, which Blizzard unbanned. There's nothing suspicious to speculate about a non-supported OS and non-supported software potentially causing Warden to have false positives. Speculation is not included in Wikipedia. -- ferret (talk) 17:14, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Semi-Protected YAY!

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

Mike Morhaime's letter

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

Blizzard Admits End Game Is Not Sustainable

http://ca.ign.com/articles/2012/07/05/blizzard-admits-diablo-iii-endgame-isnt-sustainable Why isn't this is the development section? Or should I cite blizzard themselves?

http://us.battle.net/d3/en/forum/topic/6019511928#17 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.71.156.206 (talk) 15:51, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Please put new sections at the bottom of the talk page, and sign your comments with ~~~~. In regards to this, it may go along with the section above concerning Mike Morhaime's letter. Together they may work for a new paragraph at the bottom of the development section. It's not necessarily notable though, as so far we don't know what they plan to do, just that they see an area for improvement. It may need to wait till a more concrete plan is known. -- ferret (talk) 15:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I think its notable in terms of providing the article some balance. Every review claims the game is flawless but blizzard themselves are admitting there are aspects that could be improved. It should be included to illustrate that blizzard is still polishing such a polished and complete game. It should be included to show that blizzard is going above and beyond the call of duty to ensure that the game is perfect. Perhaps it could be worded along the lines of "even though the game has an average of 85% scores based on professional reviews blizzard is still hoping to improve end game sustainability". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.71.156.206 (talk) 16:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

No, it should not be worded that way. That wording is deliberately attempting to add bias and a non-neutral point of view to the statement. If included, it should simply state along the lines of "On date xyz, Blizzard announced plans to make future adjustments to end-game content in response to player input." This is a neutral statement that covers the relevant details. -- ferret (talk) 16:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

If the game has a review of 85% that, by it's very definition, means it isn't 'flawless'. Flawless would be 100%. Please stop using superlatives to push your agenda. Wrel (talk) 16:38, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I found this whole topic to be specious. This is a result of an 'MMO-community-turned-to-regular-RPG' backlash that was unwarranted from the start. Games have always had an end. Diablo 3 has an end. MMOs do not have an end, and thusly, new content has to be created time and time again to keep people playing, to in turn keep them subscribed to the game. I have read a similar article ( http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2012/07/blizzard-admits-diablo-iii-is-a-game-that-ends/ ) and it seems that it's mostly and MMO community who feels all games should keep getting new "end game content" the same way MMOs do. No one griped when Mario or Zelda or Metroid gave you a "Game Over" screen. But now in the post-MMO era of entitled gamers, people play a game, beat a game, and then gripe that "there should be more". Wrel (talk) 16:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Wrel are you trying to present your research as a valid way to determine what should and should not be included in the article? I find it odd that the diablo 3 article does include any negative reaction to the game. The simple fact of the matter is that any negative comment from RS's have been excluded. Why is this article so slanted towards being totally positive? Even in the Godfather article there are some negative comments and that movie is "flawless" 100% on rotten tomatoes. Can you please explain your agenda in terms of keeping this article so slanted? Do you hold activision-blizzards stock? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.71.156.206 (talk) 17:33, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Again, the anon IP ignores when the negatives included in the article are specifically pointed out. You're the one with an agenda. -- ferret (talk) 18:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

First, it wasn't 'research', it was an article I had read. How is me providing a counter-point to your links any different than you presenting the original link? A quoted article from a Blizzard employee seems to be rather relevant, given the circumstance.

If you don't like the article being 'slanted towards being totally positive' then find some reliable sources that are more critical. You seem to think I'm some totalitarian, dictating what should be said about this game. I'm not, please try to accept that.

Here are some negative comments about Diablo 3 that I have found:

Initially the launches were hindered by heavy server load with many users getting various errors, including the error 37 which reads; "The servers are busy at this time. Please try again later (error 37)". These issues made the game unplayable for those affected while some others experienced in-game bugs. Despite assurances from Blizzard that the problems leading to the connection errors during Diablo III's launch had been resolved, Eurogamer reported on May 31, 2012 that these errors were still ongoing, and had reappeared after patch 1.0.2 was released for the game. Many fans complained that the ongoing problems has caused them to lose their hardcore (permanent death) characters.

The release was also the source of a minor controversy in Australia when retailer Game went into voluntary administration the day before the release, and so was unable to honor pre-orders or offer refunds. In response to this, Blizzard Entertainment offered affected customers credit in purchasing the digital version of the game.

Rock, Paper, Shotgun gave mixed commentary during the game's beta period, praising the actual game itself by stating that it is much more direct than its predecessors and intuitive in its interface. However, it said the playing experience is spoiled due to lag in single-player mode caused by a lack of an offline single-player mode. Following the game's release, it reaffirmed its displeasure at the always-online DRM and offered a mixed opinion that the game was enjoyable but added "nothing new" to its genre.

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

A GameArena critic questioned how Blizzard managed to "fail so spectacularly at creating reliable networking for Diablo 3" before going on to point out the lack of competitive multiplayer".

Five seperate criticisims about the game in question. Where did I find all this information, you might ask? The Diablo 3 Wikipedia page. The very page that you are saying is saying nothing but glowing, positive responses in an attempt to slant people's opinion.

Finally, please don't tell me where my agendas are coming from; I know them far better than you seem to be grasping. Sorry to inform you, I don't own nor play the game we're discussing. I'm not a rabid fan boy trying to defend his favorite game, as you are alluding to. Wrel (talk) 18:33, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Just an observation: I'll quote from the article I linked. The one that I was told does not include any negative reaction about the game, and only said slanted, positive things.

Blizzard, to its credit, seems to be a bit more sympathetic to these kinds of complaints than I am. In a surprisingly forthright reply on the thread, Community Manager Bashiok admits that simply farming new items from enemies is "just not enough for a long-term sustainable end-game."

Funny. It has the exact quote the annon IP started this whole Talking Point about. He must have overlooked that little bit when he was busy not reading it, nor anything I wrote, and telling me I had an agenda. Wrel (talk) 20:00, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

End game failure

More articles that should be reflected on the main article ... http://www.joystiq.com/2012/07/27/diablo-3s-long-term-planning-failures/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.23.249.61 (talk) 12:43, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

NPOV dispute - Reception

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There are two questions at hand:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am quite disillusioned about the neutrality of Wikipedia. Sspalfilter (talk) 21:05, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Your help truly is appreciated here, Sspalfilter, but if you don't like the way Wikipedia works this might not be the place for you. --Soetermans. T / C 11:30, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Metacritics' abysmal user ratings

http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/diablo-iii/user-reviews

Why those ratings (more than 6,400) aren't in this article?. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.23.249.61 (talk) 18:14, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Because they're unreliable. Read the rest of the talk page if you want more information on what that means. -- ferret (talk) 18:30, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I've started a FAQ with that question at the top of the page. Anyone else, please feel free to expand or change it to cover all the perennial topics. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 19:02, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Good idea. Would it be worth linking to WP:SPS in some manner as well? Sergecross73 msg me 19:12, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

And perhaps Wikipedia:VG/GL#User_reviews. -- ferret (talk) 19:15, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Both very good ideas, done. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 19:26, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

And how can we reflect on the main article the myriad of reliable critics on Internet (one example: the joystick article posted) related to non-existant endgame and extreme dependency to AH & RMAH?. The main article should have a 'Critics' section, otherwise is a poor attempt to promote the game. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.127.207.152 (talk) 12:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

More proofs, even from Blizzard: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/118274-Blizzard-Admits-Diablo-III-End-Game-Failure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.127.207.152 (talk) 12:28, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the end-game issue has reliable coverage and should be included, though I would like to know a bit more of their plans to address it first. I'll see about adding mention in the Development section sometime today, as that's the appropriate place to mention how the game has been changed or is planned to be changed post-release. We probably need to include some information on the 1.1 patch and PVP as well. -- ferret (talk) 12:53, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

If you had read the Talk page, you'd have noticed the entire section about that very article itself. Wrel (talk) 14:41, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Another critic of a reliable source regarding mods: http://www.pcgamer.com/2011/08/01/diablo-3-mods-expressly-prohibited-by-blizzard/. The main article seems wrote by Blizzard's Staff. Please, throw some honesty on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.23.249.61 (talk) 14:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I see no problem with adding new criticisms from reliable sources, just as long as it's written to accurrately portray what the source is saying. (I don't add it myself because I'm not especially familiar with the game myself, just Wikipedia policy...) Sergecross73 msg me 14:44, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

For the record, I misread the above comment regarding mods. Don't consider me one of the people in favor of adding info regarding mods, I hadn't seen that word in there. My comments have merely been generalities regarding reception in general, not especially regarding mods. Sergecross73 msg me 23:44, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

You're good, Serge. All you said was that you weren't against criticism from a reliable source, which all of us are in agreement with. You weren't commenting on the subject being presented. It just so happens that it wasn't a valid criticism. Wrel (talk) 01:56, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not adding the Mod source. It's from August 2011, well before the beta or the release, and no one has mentioned it as a major issue since. Unless you have a release era source that shows the lack of mods as a flaw, that one is too stale to include. -- ferret (talk) 15:06, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

The PCGamer link you post here is a year old and isn't even a criticism. So what are you talking about? The 'reception' area in the current article is at least 50% negatives, if not more. And there is also the 'Controversies' section. So, again, what are you talking about? --SubSeven (talk) 15:57, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Mods have never been part of the Diablo franchise, I don't know why lack of them would be a credible criticism now. Unless it's yet again a case of "Game X had this feature, why doesn't Game Y?" in which case, we might as well list that Blizzard doesn't plan on including robots, race cars or skateboards either. Wrel (talk) 15:54, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Mods have never been part of the Diablo franchise?. Hahahahaha ... "Better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than to open it and remove all doubt". http://phrozenkeep.hugelaser.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=161 & http://phrozenkeep.hugelaser.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=167 & http://modsbylaz.hugelaser.com/. etc, etc, etc. Well, do what you want with this article, it's a shame xD.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.127.207.152 (talk)

Mods have never officially been a supported part of the Diablo franchise. 100% true. -- ferret (talk) 11:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

For the love of God, put new comments on the bottom. Like ferret said, mods have never been officially a part of the Diablo series. And unless a outside source decides to mention it, then we can mention it. Also, your words seem to lean towards a personal attack. --Soetermans. T / C 11:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I've honestly resigned myself to the fact that people come to this page and simply do not even attempt to read the Reception or Controversies section; they don't even look to see if they exist. They come here, look at the small box of aggregate scores, see that the game is rated mid-80's and come to the Talk page to ask the same damn questions over and over and over, and let us know how we're all agenda-pushing, stock-owning Blizzard employees trying to whitewash out the negative reviews. Wrel (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Totally agree. Perhaps those sections are tl;dr and we should cut them down? hehe. DP76764 (Talk) 17:03, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Metacritic, if not editorially consecrated, is a democratic forum. If the game had had a positive reception, the negative reviews would by now have been washed out by outraged fans. As this is not the case, I absolutely do not understand what the agenda is here. Wootini (talk) 20:28, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

There is no agenda, other than following WP policy. What I'm always confused by is the idea that Wikipedia is somehow censoring information by not reporting the user scores, when anyone can just go directly to Metacritic and see the information there. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 20:42, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

What I am confused by is that Metacritic's "critic" score gets reported, but not its user score in a case where they are so horrendously disparate. Wootini (talk) 20:44, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

For the same reason we don't report the score of fifty random people off the street. It's not a reliable source. You should read the release, reception, and controversies sections completely, then determine if there are reliable sources reporting information that we're lacking. Someone else mentioned the auction house problems, which I think could be a good addition, and the article you included above has potential, but we have to keep things properly weighted. We can't just add a laundry list of every single complaint anyone has ever had about the game. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 20:58, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Auction house issues

Celebration of a protected status of this article really just ends up being a back-patting exercise for people tired of having the discussion about meta-critic reviews, while dodging the glaring issue of this article that's recognized instantly by anyone familiar with this game's history post-release: frustration over a range of issues not covered in the article, with a rather convenient reason to exclude the central criticism that's come out about the game after the first month: the auction house. Because most professional reviewers only played the game through once, and on the initial difficulty setting, they weren't alerted to the problematic nature of the game for the continuing Diablo 3 community, in that players are essentially forced into using the auction house and real money auction house in order to progress and enjoy the game in higher difficulty settings (the end game). I understand Wikipedia's insistence on refusing to name forums, metacritic, and other aggregate user reviews as reliable sources, but the consequence of filtering out the fan response post-release are that this article does not accurately reflect the reality of the game and the reason for its sharp rebuke within large segments of its fanbase. The omission of criticism of the Auction House is the most startling example of this, and honestly has become the "elephant in the room" concerning this article. The recurring theme from players and gaming commentators alike that "You can't progress past a certain point without the Auction House," should be something that's at least addressed in the article, especially considering there's an entire section devoted to the Auction House, and to Reception, yet neither mentions this very common and widely held belief about the game. Additionally, there's nothing concerning the prevalence of bots and exploits that overwhelmed the game post-release and essentially ruined the in-game economy for many players, an economy that the gameplay experience largely revolved around after a certain period of time. The sources from mainstream gaming publications such as IGN, Gamespot, PC Gamer, etc. are sparse on this topic, but I've already mentioned as to why this is the case (reviewers not sticking around long enough to experience it), and why arguably the largest criticism of Diablo 3 is omitted by this article, but before someone screams at me for not providing sources: http://www.digitaltrends.com/gaming/blizzard-ceo-promises-diablo-iii-fixes-on-the-way-but-offers-few-specifics/ http://www.digitaltrends.com/gaming/blizzard-says-diablo-3s-inferno-mode-cant-sustain-long-term-play/ --Legalysis (talk) 22:52, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think anyone here is trying to intentionally suppress information. I actually think the auction house concerns could be valid and worthy of inclusion, but I don't think it's been discussed here before, so it's not like the idea has already been rejected. Both of the sources you've provided are by the same writer. While he appears to be a good source, it would be nice to get another source to fill in the details some more. In short, I'm open to adding more information about auction house issues. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 19:28, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree (that there needs to be additional WP:RS on this). This topic seems like it's going to be a long-term trend for the game and it may take a while before a large enough body of sources come out to support inclusion. DP76764 (Talk) 21:22, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not alleging anyone is intentionally suppressing criticism over the auction house specifically. Unlike others who have raved over the exclusion of metacritic reviews, I'm not convinced those responsible for keeping these sources out are share-holding Diablo 3 developers intent on silencing dissent. There are valid reasons why metacritic may be deemed unreliable, though I do believe there may be a better policy overall concerning review sites of its ilk and the Wikipedia approach to aggregate user reviews. This article is simply a good example for the consequences of total exclusion, as is the special case for Diablo 3 where few, if any of the reviewer sources deemed reliable according to Wikipedia criteria will make the effort to cover this topic months after release and after the initial review has already been released. In short, I think there's a balance that might be struck between total exclusion and inclusion- and perhaps this article isn't the best forum to raise this issue. I just see a problem when valid concerns and areas of criticism are completely omitted because mainstream reviews don't have a wide enough scope in respect to length of time spent with the subject matter (in the case of a persistent online community). "Limiting instructions" to use a legal concept, would seem a preferable approach to user reviews from aggregate sites than total exclusion. --Legalysis (talk) 16:27, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Reception

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

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

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

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

I'd also shy away from the Amazon reviews for now. They're clearly coloured by the connectivity issues that have plaged the game. If you read the [http://www.amazon.com/Diablo-III-Standard-Edition-Pc/product-reviews/B00178630A/ref=cm_cr_dp_qt_hist_one?ie=UTF8&filterBy=addOneStar&showViewpoints=0 one-star reviews], you'll get stuff like this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So if I put on a fancy shirt and tie and have a smug elite manner of speaking... spend a crap load of money on a business website that reviews products... I can be relevant as a human being with an opinion? Do I have to speak to the thought police first before we can have both views listed on a "neutral" Wiki article? User reviews, I tell ya completely irrelevant, all some thousands of them. Wow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.242.75.98 (talk) 17:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

A shirt and tie? A smug manner of speaking? Spending money? What? You seem to have a disconnect as to the difference between a reliable and an unreliable source. How many times must it be stated that unreliable sources are not encyclopedic? How many more times must people come to this Wiki page, not see anything listed about how "This game SUCKS!! I got an Error 37 for like TWO WHOLE HOURS! I give it a 0 out of 10! Why is my gripe not known by the WORLD?!" and decide that Wikipeda isn't complete until their complaint is listed first? If we want to talk in silly, steriotypical superlatives, I can play too. Or we could simply acknowledge that MetaCritic provides a subjective review, not and objective reivew, and why that is why it is not a reliable source. Wrel (talk) 18:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that they are not all Error 37 OMGWTFBBQ sauce, they are legitimate issues and the only place they are being OBJECTIVELY expressed is in forums, other review sites that users can submit and so forth. Just because it isn't coming from an official source within a specific closed community doesn't mean it isn't legit, and this elitist BS is irritating. Wikipedia could do fine by just saying "Metacritic and every fat cat thinks Diablo 3 cures cancer, user reviews disagree, extremely." Holy crap though, there isn't even mention of that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.242.75.98 (talk) 16:26, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes but it is you who keeps beating the dead horse. The article has no balance whatsoever in regards to user based reviews which are almost unanimously less encouraging than "professional" reviews. Why is there no balance in the reception location whereas in every movie article it is balanced with the good and the bad. Even for films which are universally acclaimed wikipedia will still mention negative reviews such as the godfather article. Also, this reputable sit has it at 7/10. Why isn't that little neat box filled with this 7/10? http://www.cpugamer.com/reviews/diablo-iii-review It is only filled with 8+ (4/5 or 80% or 8/10) where is this 7? Why is it not included? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.71.156.206 (talk) 10:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

To quote Shakespeare: 'Once more unto the breach'. First, I find it a bit hard to blame DP for beating the horse, when it was not he who brought the issue up yet again, no? You asked why MC wasn't being used, and he replied. Second, you could have looked at any of the five or six other threads on this very talk page asking the same question about MC reviews, and that it's the general editor consensus saying that while yes, MC may be a reliable source for some articles, it is not in this case. Even Blizzard has stated they are aware people took to the internet in protest, not to provide an accurate review of the game. That's not encyclopedic, no matter how you slice it. It's happened before to other games, and it will happen again, and in all cases, MC hasn't be referenced because it's simply not a reliable review. Wrel (talk) 12:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

To specifically address the CPUGamer article, that site is not considered reliable as it does not pass the reliable source criteria. This was discussed over at WP:VG/S a couple months back. Hence, it is not included. -- ferret (talk) 13:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Lets start off with a plato quote:

"At first, when any of them is liberated and compelled suddenly to stand up and turn his neck round and walk and look towards the light, he will suffer sharp pains; the glare will distress him, and he will be unable to see the realities of which in his former state he had seen the shadows; and then conceive some one saying to him, that what he saw before was an illusion"

What is this the scientolgy article? CPUgamer is used by pc game rankings for its aggregate score. Your telling me that the components of the score are not as valid as the whole? Well then why the hell don't we analyze every "professional" review on meta critic for bias? Why do we use MC's professional reviews without analyzing the components when I am trying to get one of these valid components to show up separately to give some balance. If game rankings does constitutes a valid source yet has no trust worthy components then how can it be considered valid as a whole? Your telling me the whole is greater than the sum of the parts and that is a lie in this case. We should give this article some balance in regards to what the components of the whole say. If the parts are invalid then we cannot accept the whole. If the whole is valid we must accept the parts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.71.156.206 (talk) 23:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Correct. Not every review included in MC's critic section is considered reliable. Being included in Metacritic does not grant reliability to a source. This article is balanced, as the NPOV section below can show you if you read it. You have a bone to pick that the particular score rating for metacritic user reviews aren't included. You won't win this argument, and it has nothing to do with Diablo III. We do not include metacritic user reviews in any articles. -- ferret (talk) 23:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes I accept that but you are side stepping the CPUgamer issue. How can you include a source such as PC Game Rankings yet say that a part of the source is unacceptable. Above you claim that CPU gamer is not a valid source. Then how can PC Game Rankings be used if parts of it are invalid? This part is not a user score but a professionally written review. How can we include the whole but exclude parts? Then the whole cannot be used. I am not talking about user scores I am talking about the professional reviews. The article should include at least one professional review which is below the 85% range because they do exist. All I am asking for is for one professional 7 to be included on the list to make the article not seem so slanted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.71.156.206 (talk) 01:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

For a score to be included in the rating box, it has to be used in the prose. So for a < 7 rating to appear there, we need a critic that is a reliable source that we can also use in the prose. CPUGamer has been determined to be an unreliable source at this time, and so cannot be included in the prose or the infobox.

If you feel there's a larger issue with using Metacritic or GameRankings critic scores, feel free to bring it up at WP:VG/S. WP:VG/S is the place to bring up your concern with those sites, not the Diablo III article. -- ferret (talk) 01:17, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I've just checked Metacritic, and there's only 5 critic reviews below 80, out of 85 reviews. At least 2 of them I know are explicitly declared unreliable (CPUGamer and Armchair), and the other 3 don't look much better. At least one looks user submitted in actuality, and the other two are foreign language so I can't really dive into them too deeply right now. -- ferret (talk) 01:24, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Well then I guess the GameRankings score is too low. If you remove the seven out of the average it bumps the score up even higher. So why are we using an unreliable score that indexes unreliable sources? I fail to see how the whole of the GameRankings or MetaCritic scores can even be used at all when the components are flawed. The flawed scores should be removed which would push the average even higher. Why do we even tolerate a semi-biased score and present it as gospel? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.71.156.206 (talk) 02:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

If you feel there's a larger issue with using Metacritic or GameRankings critic scores, feel free to bring it up at WP:VG/S. WP:VG/S is the place to bring up your concern with those sites, not the Diablo III article. Yes, I copy and pasted that. -- ferret (talk) 02:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, as a third-party viewer to the CPUgamer discussion, it appears that the the connection isn't being made. Ferret is saying the source is noted as a non-reliable source so it should not be included, whereas you, 24.71.156.206 (sorry, you aren't logged in and I only have an IP to refer to you by), are feeling like it is not being included because it is 'too low of a score' and would hurt the game's average score.

I can only speak for myself, but I don't think Ferret is in the least concerned about the score of the game; be it a 100% or a 10%. It's simply the fact that the source cited (in this case CPUgamer) is not reliable, not that they didn't score the game high enough. The day people start editing for *those* reasons, then we all have the right to cry foul, but I don't believe we're there yet. Wrel (talk) 11:54, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Wrel I've already taken the discussion over to the video games project article WP:VG/S but what it comes down to is you CAN'T HAVE YOUR CAKE AND EAT IT TOO! Either you reject metacritic and gamerankings as flawed because they cite cpugamer to create their average or you should be able to include cpugamer in the box with a lower LOWER! score of 7 to get some semblance of balance to the article. Every single professional reviewer absolutely loved the game? NOT SO! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.71.156.206 (talk) 14:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad the conversation is being continued on the other side of things, and I'll make sure to follow it to see where it leads, but I think you were still missing what I was saying. I don't think I'm trying to 'have my cake and eat it too', my sticking point is against user-generated reviews of all sorts. I'm not out to defend the score of a game and keep the game rated nice and high for some weird, personal reason; if the reliable critics dislike it, so be it. I just prefer reliable sources over unreliable. If that means some of the sources on this or other reviews go away, then go nuts. I just get sick of the daily "WHY U NO LIST METACRITIC ON HERE???!!! THIS GAME SUX!!" edits that people think are valid reviews, without understanding the difference of an objective vs subjective review. Wrel (talk) 15:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Wrel all reviews of a piece of art are subjective. One person may look at the Mona Lisa and dismiss it as "old" and another will view it as a "classic". We cannot objectively measure how one person's brain reacts compared to another and claim one is right and the other is wrong. All I am pointing out is that reliable critics do have concerns with the game but such concerns are not aired on this article and that stinks of bias to me. When debating the merits of a piece of art both sides of the argument should be articulated and neither should be suppressed. Also if Metacritic or Gamerankings is reliable the components of those sources should be reliable too. In this case CPUgamer is deemed unreliable so the whole of the Metacrtic or Gamerankings should be taken with a grain of salt. Perhaps they shouldn't be used at all because some of the "objective" measures which comprise its components are deemed unreliable. I agree any nut on the internet shouldn't be allowed to write terribly negative things about games for no good reason but even blizzard themselves have responded to the large amount of negative player reviews. So why is this article so cheery about the game's reception when there are known issues with game mechanics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.71.156.206 (talk) 16:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I again point you to the section on this talk page titled NPOV. Many concerns about the game ARE included in the article, and no bias exists. You declare the article to be "cheery" but nearly half or more of the reception alone deals with backlash over the DRM and always online issues, player 0/10 backlash, and other issues. What concerned with the game, specificly, with reliable sources, do you want included in the article? I'm not going to reply again on the topic of MC/GR since that discussion is occurring over at WP:VG/S. -- ferret (talk) 16:08, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with various posts below. Regarding reception there needs to be some details regarding the actual players' overwhelming negative feedback of the game. Horrible drop rates, issues with the game's highest difficulty, lack of viable character builds, etc. etc. The Diablo III forums will provide more than enough info. Teufelswulf (talk) 15:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC)Wulf

Responses go at the bottom, not the top. The forums and user responses are not a reliable source, and that's a simple fact on how Wikipedia works. -- ferret (talk) 15:16, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Then Wikipedia is broke. Where's the reliable source I can submit that too? I recommend that they should just put a .com on the end of their website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.242.75.98 (talk) 16:42, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

It could be that you misunderstand what the Wikipedia-specific definition of a reliable source is. It means a source that has some kind of editorial oversight, for starters. A forum is the same thing as a street corner, for all intents and purposes. Anyone can come along and say whatever they want. This is not a case of elitism, this is a case of WP trying to only report verifiable facts. We don't lead here, we follow along behind and collect information. There are a million places online where the complaints of players are being heard and discussed at length, but WP has a different mission. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 16:50, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

There's no point in pointing that out, Torchiest. It's been done, and even when it's pointed out to the Anon IP and the SPAs that the network issues, DRM issues, the 0/10 reviews, etc, are ALREADY IN THE RECEPTION SECTION, they ignore it and claim the reception contains nothing but 100% positive reviews. They're agenda pushing and nothing more. -- ferret (talk) 17:09, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Now that the game and reception has aged, it is likely time to review this article. Suggest unlock and better research into the reception. Numbers on continued play would be wonderful, but blizzard doesn't seem to be releasing them.

Also, gameplay section teeters over the edge of neutrality. It reads more or less as a release you'd expect from a PR person. Phraseology as well as content matter in neutral presentation (improvement this, wonderful that). Also, game play is not a simple extension from previous versions, as section claims. The game experienced drastic, controversial changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TruthisNeutral (talk • contribs) 08:04, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

New sections go to the bottom. Provide specific examples where the gameplay section needs rewritten or has outdated information, with reliable sources to back, and I'll help get it done. There's currently nothing in the reception section that needs rewritten. -- ferret (talk) 13:47, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I just tried to add the fact that Metacritic user reviews are at 3.8/10 to the Reception section and was pointed to this discussion. That's great and all, but how are those reviews "not reliable"? How are the Amazon reviews no indication of the quality of the game, while the commercial reviews of people with a stake in pleasing publishing companies are? What on Earth, Wikipedia? There is no mention of the gripes of millions of players in the entire article. I thought this place was supposed to be objective, not a place to echo commercial outlets. Where's the vote? Mine is on mentioning this. Wootini (talk) 20:05, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

All of your questions have already been asked and answered (multiple times) in the discussion above. Though I will challenge you to PROVE the claim of "millions of" gripes. Please point us to where that is accurately quantified, assuming it's not just hyperbole/exageration. DP76764 (Talk) 20:10, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I will point you to the previously mentioned Metacritic and Amazon reviews. Find me a game of 'untarnished reception' with similarly negative Metacritic and Amazon reviews. You will not. It's a disgrace that this isn't even mentioned in a single sentence on Wikipedia. If you need a reference, which I know you will insist on: http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2012/08/20/diablo-3-team-spars-with-series-creator-online/. This mentions severe design flaws with authority. Wootini (talk) 20:20, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Please read the FAQ question at the top of this talk page, which specifically addresses your concern. The article you've linked is interesting, and perhaps something can be used from it, but that's nothing to do with the information you tried to add. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 20:38, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I must respectfully ask that a moderator take another look at this issue, as it seems that the same several people continue to prevent users from editing this page to reflect a more balanced opinion on Diablo III's reception among its users. For example, if there continues to be connectivity issues over three months after the game's release—and if this is noted in numerous customer reviews across a broad range of retail, game review, and discussion board sites—why is every attempt to add any inkling of this information to this page repeatedly blocked by the same few users? For that matter, why are user reviews of people who submitted their reviews immediately after release (i.e. critics) favored over those of people who continue to play the game and report on its persistent issues? It is patently ridiculous that the first line of the Reception section misleadingly cites the 88/100 rating in the "Critics" section of Metacritic, yet the 3.8/10 rating by the users of Metacritic on the very same page cannot be shared because of the same Wikipedia users blocking its addition every time. Moderators, please. ]] | [[User talk:Name|Talk (talk) 21:50, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Can you find a reliable source discussing ongoing connectivity issues? That's all you need to do. We don't include Amazon user reviews because they are not reliable sources. Anyone can say anything they want in those reviews; there is no editorial oversight. If you find an appropriate source (such as a news article), you'll find it a lot easier to add content without having it challenged and/or removed. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 21:54, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

FYI - We don't have moderators here - we do have administrators but we only do boring maintenance things, rather than deciding on what is included in articles. Everyone has equal say in what is included, but you have to have a reliable source for what you include. SmartSE (talk) 21:59, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

This is ridiculous, wikipedia is becoming tyrannical with what content is displayed, a reception is a reception, and the overwhelming majority of people who reviewed this game UNANIMOUSLY GAVE IT A NEGATIVE REVIEW, for wikipedia to parade only critical reviews, and not even MENTION this is just disturbing, please create atleast one FAIR review page or I will never visit this site again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unnamed1012 (talk • contribs) 07:02, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

See above for reasons why not. Sorry that you won't ever visit Wikipedia again. See ya! --Soetermans. T / C 09:20, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.

If you wont take THOUSANDS of reviews from multiple verifiable sources, then it's not a site worth visiting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unnamed1012 (talk • contribs) 10:25, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry unnamed, but Wikipedia actually does try to be neutral in its reception, whether you believe it or not. The THOUSANDS of reviews you mentioned are user reviews - and that's a big no-no. If you don't agree, fine. You can either a) try to change Wikipedia's policies or b) stop complaining and go somewhere else. I hate to be a rude ass, but we've been over this time and time again, Wikipedia does not add user reviews, end of story. If GameSpot, Kotaku, GameTrailers or even more preferably a mainstream media outlet like a newspaper mentions it, then and only then we can add it. See the guide lines for an introduction to Wikipedia's goals and rules. Just because you made a user account two secons ago doesn't mean you can have it your way, you know. --Soetermans. T / C 10:53, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

http://www.gamefront.com/users-bomb-diablo-3s-metacritic-score-over-multiple-bugs/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2012/05/16/upset-fans-take-diablo-3-down-a-notch-on-metacritic-are-they-entitled-gamers/ http://venturebeat.com/2012/05/15/gamers-rip-diablo-iii-a-new-hellhole-on-metacritic/ http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Blizzard-Diablo-Error-37-blizzard-PC-Gaming,15663.html http://www.egmnow.com/8bitenvy/diablo-iii-metacritic-user-score-people-dumb/ http://nerdreactor.com/2012/05/16/diablo-iiis-always-on-drm-has-metacritic-users-unleashing-hell/ http://www.destructoid.com/metacritic-user-reviews-tear-diablo-iii-apart-227545.phtml http://n4g.com/news/1001834/metacritic-vs-diablo-iii-do-the-users-have-a-point#c-6532457 http://www.gigagamers.com/diablo-3s-not-looking-good-at-metacritic-user-scores/

ENOUGH FING SOURCES?

let's see: forbes check, gamefront check, destructoid check,tom's hardware check.--Unnamed1012 (talk) 11:49, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Just to copy and paste:

Rock, Paper, Shotgun gave mixed commentary during the game's beta period, praising the actual game itself by stating that it is much more direct than its predecessors and intuitive in its interface. However, it said the playing experience is spoiled due to lag in single-player mode caused by a lack of an offline single-player mode.[92] Following the game's release, it reaffirmed its displeasure at the always-online DRM and offered a mixed opinion that the game was enjoyable but added "nothing new" to its genre.[93] 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.[94] Players also took out their anger on developer Blizzard.[95] Their actions have been described as a legitimate display of discontentment with game features.[94] Erik Kain, a Forbes contributing writer, stated that the requirement to remain online is not necessary for single-player mode and that Blizzard is abusing its position as a "juggernaut" and is setting a worrying precedent for the gaming industry.[94] Diablo III senior producer Alex Mayberry was quoted as stating during development questions and concerns about DRM: "Obviously StarCraft 2 did it, World of Warcraft authenticates also. It's kind of the way things are, these days. The world of gaming is not the same as it was when Diablo II came out."[96] Gaming Blend countered negative journalism aimed at the game's fanbase. It claims that the industry at large is far too defensive of production companies' actions to the point of accepting backward steps in game availability. It dismisses the existence of "entitlement" saying that while a large portion of 0/10 reviews do not reflect the quality of the game, they nonetheless reflect the dissatisfaction with the product.[97] While Gaming Blend disliked the always-online DRM, it did give the game a positive review. It stated the game includes interesting opportunities for experimentation and has great appeal for replaying over and over. The review concluded the game is "smooth and entertaining."[98] A GameArena critic questioned how Blizzard managed to "fail so spectacularly at creating reliable networking for Diablo 3" before going on to point out the lack of competitive multiplayer.[99]

I don't know about you, but that does seem like a fair and balanced reception section. Feel free to add more sources though in a few days, when your account is old enough. My advice? You better work on your tone and style, you will get nowhere on Wikipedia with odd threaths never coming back and claiming Wikipedia is tyrannical. I for one am not going to add those sources in just because you want them there. --Soetermans. T / C 11:52, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

"that does seem like a far and balanced reception section.", "I for one am not going to add those sources in just because you want them there", so it has nothing to do with whatever perceived slight you have against me or whatever fetish you apparently have for blizzard inc. even though I just presented sources of reputable nature, you refuse to acknowledge what? their validity? I find your audacity quite astounding, furthermore your tone is not much different from my own save your attempted eloquence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unnamed1012 (talk • contribs) 12:00, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

The issue is that you, unnamed1012, like so many before you, refuse to acknowledge that the Reception actually DOES cover many of the complaints and DOES mention the lower user review scores. What you're really looking for is to tilt the balance and make it non-neutral, likely due to having a bone to pick with the game yourself. Anyone reading the article in a neutral tone can see how multiple critics highlighted major issues and that the user review scores were tanked. IF they want more information on the user reviews, they can then click the Metacritic reference and go read them their selves. -- ferret (talk) 12:19, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

"Gaming Blend countered negative journalism aimed at the game's fanbase. It claims that the industry at large is far too defensive of production companies' actions to the point of accepting backward steps in game availability. It dismisses the existence of "entitlement" saying that while a large portion of 0/10 reviews do not reflect the quality of the game, they nonetheless reflect the dissatisfaction with the product.[97]"

If this is what you're talking about how about we edit it to display accurate information and statistics such as the source of data (metacritic) and size of the pool (thousands of reviews) so that it doesn't convey a simple vague sentence out of context with virtually no meaning to reflect the actual criticism, or perhaps you're too content on guarding this from edits as you have done much in the past, regardless of your opinion I will however edit this with the correct,reputable and verifiable sources I see fit.::::--Unnamed101 (talk) 12:26, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

And we'll revert your edit as appropriate based on Wikipedia policy, if necessary. Based on your posts here, I can almost certainly say that will happen, but maybe I'll be surprised. User reviews are not reliable sources, and the article already covers the actual complaints of the users (Which many critics had as well) and the fact that review bombing occurred. If you really want to improve the article, it needs quite a bit of work in the Development section under "Post-launch improvements" ... The last three patches brought a fair number of changes, many in response to user complaints, that needs to be included. -- ferret (talk) 12:46, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I could have sworn I just said that I'd do it well within wikipedia policy, and yet you say you will revert them, I think we can safely assume you have either an emotional or monetary stake in what is posted here, please do enjoy my edits however and if you revert them for no reason, rest assured I will indeed contact an administrator.Unnamed101 (talk) 13:01, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I said we will revert them as appropriate based on policy, if necessary. Not that we would blanketly revert. Going against established policy on the topics of user reviews, undue weight, and neutral point of view isn't going to fly. I have no investment, and I do not even play the game any more as I found it lacking in replay value. New editors seem to think because we adhere to Wikipedia's standards that we must somehow have an investment. -- ferret (talk) 13:10, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

This route isn't going to work, Unnamed. User reviews are unreliable, which you were told before hand. You are not sourcing a specific author or statement. You cannot use them directly as a source. -- ferret (talk) 11:50, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

A specific author is being cited, and therefore it can and does apply, and even if they are unreliable as sources under WP:RSOPINION they can be cited, I'll compromise and add .Unnamed101 (talk) 15:31, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Adding the unreliable source tag is not a permanent solution. It is a maintenance tag added temporarily so the source can be vetted, and either determined to be reliable or removed if not. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 16:32, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:RSOPINION has to do with a reliable source writing an opinion piece, and how that opinion can be referenced. It does not apply here in any way. --SubSeven (talk) 16:37, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

To add to that, the author is already a reliable source, and WP:RSOPINION is to cover when his/her opinion is being expressed. It does not make reliable sources out of unreliable authors. -- ferret (talk) 16:41, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to voice in here and say that I am disappointed by this article's lack of information about how badly this game has been received by users. The user score on metacritic is 3.7/10, vs 88/100 critic score. Surely that is noteworthy. I actually came to this article specifically looking to learn more about this disparity, only to find that it isn't even mentioned in the article. Most of the opinionated articles I've read about Diablo 3 seem to be pretty critical of a number of things (all-online gameplay, server crashes, a real-money auction house which is argued to be bad for a number of reasons...), all of which seem to have been carefully sidestepped by this article... Is this the path of neutrality? Furthermore, I think the notion that user reviews are 'unreliable,' and thus not worthy of mention is absurd. They certainly need to be taken with a grain of salt, and within context, but I posit that that should be left to the discerning reader. The alternative feels like censorship to me. Cowpig (talk) 05:34, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not even sure this warrants a response. It seems pretty clear you didn't even read this section, the article's Reception section, or make an attempt to understand how WP policies function. As many before you, you also provide a laundry list of supposedly sidestepped critiques of the game, which are all mentioned in the reception section already. Maybe the people who want user review scores included should stop side stepping that fact. -- ferret (talk) 12:16, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I could not agree more. Is there anything else we can do to make it any clearer that this has been addressed and discussed to death? Maybe add more to the FAQ or put a big notice at the top of the talk page? Might be hopeless since people keep ignoring everything that has come before. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 15:10, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

So many people are complaining about it... must mean they're all idiots and there's nothing wrong with the article! Cowpig (talk) 15:56, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

The level of SPAs and drive by IPs that complain about the user review scores has nothing to do with Wikipedia policy. WP isn't about "voting." User reviews are unreliable source, period. If a reliable source happens to cover the score, then that's something that can be included (Oh wait, it already is). .... Why am I replying? We've been over this dozens of times. -- ferret (talk) 16:02, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The user reviews from Metacritic are mentioned in the article's reception section. I will quote the entire paragraph here for your benefit:

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

What would you like to see changed about that? —Torchiest ^talk_edits 16:05, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Jay Wilson's apolgoy and end game not sustainble

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2012/08/23/was-jay-wilsons-apology-to-david-brevik-sincere-or-just-pr-spin/

Here is a link from a trusted source discussing the recent apology the game designer made for his dispariging comments to a former game developer. In his official blizzard forums post he talks about the issues the game is currently facing such as that end game is not sustainable.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2012/08/23/diablo-iii-director-jay-wilson-apologizes-to-david-brevik-for-facebook-comment/

This is the second time that Jay Wilson has addressed this issue. Could Ferret or Wrel please explain to me why this can't be included in the article? I think ferret said that having end games is something new and that games like Zelda woudld just deliver and end message at the end of the game and that MMO's have introduced this new form of entitlement. I disagree whole heartedly because diablo 2 did have an end game. The end game was to grind for items or rebuild your characters with better skills and stats. Diablo 3 destroyed that replability aspect by making re rolling characters un necessary.

Anyways although the article does have some negative comments on the game in whole its not providing an accurate picture of what the game is actually like. The fact that the developers keep making public messages about improving the game should be included. This way when people read this article they will know that this iteration of the game is not what it will always be like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.38.59.161 (talk) 19:15, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

The fight between Jay Wilson and David Brevik has no place in this article. The article does need updates regarding the 1.0.4 patch though, Paragon levels, legendary weapon changes, and Blizzard's other efforts to address community complaints. What you attributed to me as saying about end-game above is inaccurate, I have only suggested that players expecting MMORPG style end-game, with tiers and new content, had misplaced expectations. Not that there was no end-game. -- ferret (talk) 21:34, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I had to paraphrase what you said because that discussion seems to have gone mysteriously missing. I would really appreciate if the development section was updated to say that the developers have recognized aspects of their game that are not quite where they should be and are working to get them there.

Just takes an editor to handle it. The article is protected to due persistent vandalism and attempts to add unreliable information or bias. If you want to you can use your sandbox to write an updated Development section. If you do so, let me know and I'll then add it to the article for you if the protection stops you. Make sure you source everything reliably (Forbes is good, but the Brevik fight isn't really notable). See if you can find IGN, Arstechnica, Gamespot, Eurogamer, etc, articles that talk about the recent patches or Blizzard statements. Basically everything that's happened in 1.0.3 and 1.0.4 needs to be covered. -- ferret (talk) 18:27, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Would just like to squeeze this in here if anyone is looking for a RS for the post 1.04 commentary, as well as a mention of the auction house. Would do it myself but don't feel comfortable creating articles as such a new user. http://www.pcgamer.com/2012/08/29/editorial-did-patch-1-04-fix-diablo-3s-endgame/ --Legalysis (talk) 23:36, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Voice Actors

Why is there no listing of voice actors? 129.1.215.96 (talk) 02:28, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Is that at all notable? --Soetermans. T / C 14:58, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

If the actors are notable, it surely is. If not, then it's of lower value, but I'd personally still not mind, if the info was available. -- Nazar (talk) 16:35, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Cast lists are generally not included in Video Game articles. If a notable actor is involved, it is generally mentioned within the prose itself. -- ferret (talk) 16:48, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello, from a DR/N volunteer

This is a friendly reminder to involved parties that there is a current Dispute Resolution Noticeboard case still awaiting comments and replies. If this dispute has not been resolved to the satisfaction of the filing editor and all involved parties and no further comment is made at the opened filing, it may be failed and suggested that the next logical course of action be request for comment. Please take a moment to add a note about this at the discussion so that a volunteer may close the case as "Failed". If the dispute is still ongoing, please add your input. Amadscientist (talk) 10:14, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Permanent ban section

The reason I added the Joystiq source was not to reference the entire section, but to show that the announcement was noted by independent sources. The Blizzard source still referenced the rest of the details. Does anyone else think it should be included? —Torchiest ^talk_edits 04:23, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 11 December 2012

Wrong use of "it's". Should be "its" (without apostrophe) in this text in the opening paragraph:

  " although it's digital rights management ..." 

38.124.20.254 (talk) 21:34, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 22:35, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

"critical reception" paragraph should include current fanbase disaffection regarding diablo 3

It should be pointed out in the "Critical reception" paragraph that this game, despite being released about 7 months ago, is still heavy criticized by the vast (vast!) majority of players every day on the forums. This is relevant because Blizzard games have always followed a growing trend in the months post their release. No evidence of this whatsoever regarding Diablo... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Y3k (talk • contribs) 03:47, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion. I would advise reading through the archives to get an idea of what previous discussions have determined on this subject. The primary issue is that we need reliable sources to add such material, and in fact, we already have a decent amount about fan reception in the article. If you find any more recent sources stating that players are still upset, or upset over new things, you can present them here for discussion. Thanks. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 04:31, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I can't believe it. Blizzard forums are usually such beacons of positivity. --SubSeven (talk) 07:37, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Error 37 should have it's own section on controversy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.162.213.254 (talk) 13:24, 1 January 2013 (UTC)