Talk:Suicide Squad: Kill the Justice League

Suicide Squad logo

Can someone add the circular cross Suicide Squad logo? That should be covered under {{PD-simple}} since it is a simple intercrossed pair of words inset into a circle. -- 65.94.169.16 (talk) 05:26, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Release

People need to stop changing release from Spring to Early 2023, Sefton Hill Specifically said Spring 2023 not early 2023!!!!!!! 2604:CB00:29E:FE00:906:61E0:CAE9:ADB9 (talk) 19:39, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Please see MOS:SEASON. Thank you. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:02, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

People need to stop thinking that the games coming out May '26 cause it's not It's been delayed Gamingmaster83 (talk) 13:39, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 March 2022

I want to Edit and protect it til more accurate info is released. The release information is wrong, its Spring not early 2023 Gamingmaster83 (talk) 23:05, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done We purposely avoid using seasonal terms, due to the fact that seasons are not the same in all parts of the globe. "Early 2023" is sufficient. --Masem (t) 23:06, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

To add, while Jason Schreier at Bloomberg has claimed this has been further delayed, we have no official word yet, so it is inappropriate to mark it delayed until WB or Rocksteady affirms it. Masem (t) 13:44, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Delayed

With permission, I would like to update this and say that the game has been delayed indefinitely now. I have the proof right here.

https://www.ign.com/articles/suicide-squad-kill-the-justice-league-reportedly-delayed-again Iacowriter (talk) 16:42, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

No, any claims of a delay by Bloomberg or by anyone else needs to be verified and to be confirmed by WB or Rocksteady themselves. Because there's a possibility of being untrue and still be released on May 26. TheDeviantPro (talk) 01:11, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Lol, If everyone is reporting it including IGN Then it's true and it is delayed Rocksteady is going to confirm it sooner or later because there are no pre orders It's not on any of the retailers. PlayStation network has no release date and it isn't even listed on Gamefly. Gamingmaster83 (talk) 14:37, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Then wait until Rocksteady confirm it. OceanHok (talk) 15:51, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Everyone was reporting on the Bloomberg report which again, doesn't confirm anything until WB or Rocksteady announces the delay. If it is going confirmed at a later date then there is no harm in waiting until then, otherwise it's just jumping the gun. TheDeviantPro (talk) 03:12, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

So is Writing in the description Tell people not to edit Until it's confirmed Gamingmaster83 (talk) 05:01, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Everybody just needs to relax No more adding or subtracting anything starting now. Until it's confirmed Gamingmaster83 (talk) 05:41, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

OceanHok (talk · contribs) and TheDeviantPro (talk · contribs), Gamingmaster83 is edit warring and I've already hit my 3RR. I've reported Gamingmaster83 at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 05:58, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

And I'll do the same to you I'm not warring you are. All they gotta do is look at the log and say that you're making a big deal on nothing Gamingmaster83 (talk) 06:01, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Please do, I'm not stopping you. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 06:13, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Characters

Is the description about Switching characters During combat true Cause I heard otherwise Gamingmaster83 (talk) 06:39, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Section blanking from 65.184.237.37

Is there a reason you completely blanked out the section, 65.184.237.37? Political discussion in gaming is by no means unheard of. The Last of Us II and other video game articles also have sections about their politics. ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 18:54, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

While political discussion (or discourse, depending on who you ask) isn't unheard of, the paragraph in question cites the same source twice, which makes it seem like it's not a large part of the public reaction. Just my two cents on the matter though, I don't know the ins and outs of Wikipedia policy. 204.187.25.166 (talk) 19:54, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Sockpuppeting

IP's from the same approximate location are removing information about the title's technical issues. I'm requesting that the article is silver locked for the time being. ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 19:36, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Reception

Both Political Analysis and Batman's portrayal sections only include one citation. More than just one would be preferred, and to me, Political Analysis currently does not seem noteworthy enough, especially with TheGamer's reliability being "Situational." detria^skies 19:51, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

1.) The Direct and other gaming websites also mention the controversy surrounding Batman's death.

2.) Right-wing backlash to the politics of games is briefly mentioned in many articles. (The Last of Us II.) It's something that should be mentioned in the article. ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 20:02, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

It fine to mention it as long as it doesn't violate WP:WEIGHT. Ideally there would be more than one source to support that backlash is widespread and notable. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:13, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

1.) The Direct doesn't seem like a particularly noteworthy source either. What other gaming websites?

2.) The Last of Us Part II had, as far as I can tell, a much larger overall backlash. It also contains multiple citations from larger news websites (Polygon, Vox, etc.), and was more detailed in specifying who was saying what. 204.187.25.166 (talk) 20:14, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

1.) "News posts and original content after August 2020 are considered generally reliable. Several editorial staff have bylines highlighting their experience working with other reputable video game media outlets such as VG247" is what the guidelines state. How is it not reliable in this instance.

2.) Three sentences in an article seems proportional to me. No one's suggesting that an essay in the article is dedicated to it. ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 20:25, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

The mention of reception in the lead is a mess as it stands. The source for the review round up did not round up any review and is more about the consequences of a paid early access. Additionally, IGN and Forbes' previews are being cited as if they were launch reviews, while falsely attributing story arc critcism to said previews. Rakewater (talk) 21:08, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

WP: SYNTH doesn't apply when covered the aggregate viewpoint of reviews. The issue would be attributing those views to IGN and Forbes. ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 21:33, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Still, they should not be used as a source in the lead's context as it is, since they have not mentioned the critcism written in it. Let alone that a preview is being cited as a source in the context of launch reviews.Rakewater (talk) 21:56, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

“Some players bewailed about the appearance of a pride flag reading "we support all heroes," and whined that the game is "woke".”

This is not a sentence which belongs on Wikipedia. Players ‘whine’ about Pride flags all the time, doesn’t make it significant. Jamesifer (talk) 20:32, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

The word "whine" has been removed per WP:NPOV. The sentence is reliably sourced. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:43, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

The inclusion of Batman's fate in the 'reception' section reads like a fan venting their anger, not a necessary inclusion.

"killing multitudes of people" are the words of someone getting their feelings off their chest. The reception section is for the reception of the game, not the plot. I have removed it, but someone has come back to restore it; there is no reason for its inclusion. TheJamesifer (talk) 21:08, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Whilst I do think that section should be more neutral and less, like you said, like someone getting their feelings off their chest, I do think there should be a section about the audience reception towards the story. It’s definitely created a mixed response similar to Joel’s death in The Last of Us Part 2, especially in regards to Batman’s death. AlwaysBi (talk) 23:33, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

On the other end, we don't know if this will be a long-term point of contention and not a kneejerk reaction, especially when the game isn't officially released to the general public yet. Rakewater (talk) 00:59, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

True, but with this being Kevin Conroy's last performance and the lukewarm reception pre-release, it’s safe to say the bad taste is already in everyone’s mouth if they heard about it. Additionally, people will watch the scenes on YouTube and TikTok if they don’t plan on buying it, which is likely a lot of people. DumbDiamonds (talk) 02:34, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree that there should be a section on reception to the story, but stating Batman’s ultimate fate does not belong in that section. Saying that fans were not happy with elements of Batman’s story is one thing, but the actual circumstances of his death belong in the plot section. As it stands, it unnecessarily spoils the story because someone was unhappy with it. TheJamesifer (talk) 06:24, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

WP: SPOILER goes into this. ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 15:27, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Thing is, the fate of Batman isn’t why people are upset, it’s how that fate is granted to him. The fact that discussing it necessarily spoils it is unfortunate, but sweeping the main issue in dispute under the rug just because it’s a spoiler seems… petty. Surely this isn’t the only time something in Wikipedia had a conclusion that many people severely disliked for articulable reasons? 76.131.150.18 (talk) 05:10, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Reception in main body

There are not nearly enough reviews out at the moment, nor do the contents suggest, to label the reception overall as “strongly negative.” 24.101.26.94 (talk) 22:27, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Eh - steam store has no reviews on it yet, as it hasn’t actually started shipping there - still early by a day and a half, but the discussions there are, at a glance, polarized, including more than a couple that are extremely negative. I’ve no idea where Google gets their review data from, but at present it’s got 1100+ reviews. Personally, I’m seeing no issue in waiting for reviews from multiple credible sources to become available, but being honest here, I think the writing’s already on the wall, and a delay in mention here is more a show of respect to the interested parties than anything else. 76.131.150.18 (talk) 06:22, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Steam reviews are sitting at around a 7 right now. Google reviews are especially susceptible to review bombs because there is no verification of purchase. Huskago (talk) 21:07, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

We dont use steam reviews because they can be susceptible to review bombing or other nonsense, unless those scores are specifically called out by reliable sources. Masem (t) 21:12, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Cited parts of the article have been completely deleted because of NPOV objections, removing any mention of its troubled and difficult development, criticism of genreshift, or widespread agreement that it is significantly inferior to previous entries in the serious, even from positive reviewers.

Many also seem to miss that video game reviews are much more lax than movie, songs, and other mediums of entertainment, treating it more as a school grade (40-100% being possible scores in the vast majority of instances) than a bell curve (with 50% being the average). "Mixed to negative reviews" is entirely in line with WP: NPOV and can be cited from the Bloomberg source. ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 22:38, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Many also seem to miss that video game reviews are much more lax than movie, songs, and other mediums of entertainment, treating it more as a school grade (40-100% being possible scores in the vast majority of instances) than a bell curve (with 50% being the average). "Mixed to negative reviews" is entirely in line with WP: NPOV and can be cited from the Bloomberg source.

This is entirely quite literally a violation of WP:NPOV, where you are stating that 40% is "negative" which is your opinion. Rambling Rambler (talk) 23:01, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Metacritic classifies 40% as a "negative review" for video games. It's not an instance of original reaearch at all. ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 23:14, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

It's is when it, at the time, already had an 80% on the site. You deliberately, as detailed further in the below subsection, introduced the word "negative" into the summary of aggregate scores, which is a violation of NPOV given your justification is you consider it as "negative to mixed". Rambling Rambler (talk) 23:18, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Bloomberg says it is "mixed at best" (meaning mixed to negative is the predominant viewpoint of critics.) It's not my wording. ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 23:29, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

It explicitly is your wording. A singular writer at Bloomberg saying "mixed at best" is not enough for you to write "the game received negative to mixed reviews". Rambling Rambler (talk) 23:33, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

What else would it be there? The only thing below "mixed" is "negative". ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 00:09, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

It's one writer's opinion in Bloomberg that it was "mixed at best". That is not enough for you to make the general claim "the game received negative to mixed reviews". Rambling Rambler (talk) 00:12, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

"Widely considered inferior to the previous Batman: Arkham games" and "mixed-to-negative reviews" classified as NPOV pushing

@Rambling Rambler: keeps deleting any mention of it being considered "widely considered inferior" to the other Batman: Arkham games or the reality that it has received "mixed-to-negative reviews" in the article. (Claiming that it is a WP: NPOV issue.) Bloomberg, Metacritic, and other review sites all uniformly stating the title has gotten exactly this, with reliable sources provided for all of these claims.

• Changed the wording to imply that only fans are upset with the narrative decisions in the game surrounding Batman. This is despite the fact that critics (such as here) have also heavily criticized the handling of Batman's death in the Arkhamverse.

• Removed the widespread comments of critics that it was substantially inferior to Origins, Asylum, City, or Knight, claiming it would be bias to state this.

• Removed any mention of the graphics, character models, and other aspects of the game being praised, or any mention that the repetitious gameplay and conclusion of character arcs established in previous games was panned.

There's no reason to object to the wording. ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 22:32, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Metacritic states "Mixed or Average", Bloomberg states "early reception has been mixed at best". So claiming the game received "negative to mixed" (which is what you actually claimed in your edits) is obvious WP:OR.

Changed the wording to imply that only fans are upset with the narrative decisions in the game surrounding Batman. This is despite the fact that critics (such as here) have also heavily criticized the handling of Batman's death in the Arkhamverse.

The article you have linked there clearly states that it was first published FEB 2, 2024 7:12 PM, while the edit of mine you are complaining about was made on 31st January. So you are deliberately misrepresenting my edits.

Removed the widespread comments of critics that it was substantially inferior to Origins, Asylum, City, or Knight, claiming it would be bias to state this.

You provided no sources to support that assertion, further violating WP:OR.

Removed any mention of the graphics, character models, and other aspects of the game being praised, or any mention that the repetitious gameplay and conclusion of character arcs established in previous games was panned.

As can be seen in my recent edits ( [1], [2]) I have fairly tried to represent the actual critical reception of the game at this time with sources.

Quite frankly you are making completely unfounded allegations about my edits, and have conducted a campaign of edit warring and POV pushing on this article for the last several days. Rambling Rambler (talk) 22:55, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

The article you have linked there clearly states that it was first published FEB 2, 2024 7:12 PM, while the edit of mine you are complaining about was made on 31st January. So you are deliberately misrepresenting my edits. Would you object to me removing "fans" from the section now? Provided that the IGN article is added into the article. Other citations are also possible, and the handling of Batman's death was criticized in sources before Jan. 31, but IGN is the highest quality source to cite.

Bloomberg states "early reception has been mixed at best". So claiming the game received "negative to mixed" (which is what you actually claimed in your edits) is obvious WP:OR. "Negative" is the only thing it could be. What else is below a "mixed review" in this instance? It logically can't be "positive" from that. "Mixed to negative" is perfectly in line with NPOV.

I have fairly tried to represent the actual critical reception of the game at this time with sources. Why would you remove the fact that it had a difficult development process? It is a key aspect of the video game and should be mentioned. ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 23:28, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

"Negative" is the only thing it could be. What else is below a "mixed review" in this instance? It logically can't be "positive" from that. "Mixed to negative" is perfectly in line with NPOV.

It doesn't used the word negative. You are still the one inserting that word based on your interpretation.

Other citations are also possible, and the handling of Batman's death was criticized in sources before Jan. 31, but IGN is the highest quality source to cite.

Except you didn't cite any. Stop dodging the question.

Why would you remove the fact that it had a difficult development process? It is a key aspect of the video game and should be mentioned.

What are you even on about.

Can you just frankly stop it with this attitude of claiming stuff without evidence, and then when challenged claiming it's backed up by "sources" you don't actually cite. Rambling Rambler (talk) 23:32, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

What is the basis for the claim that the writing and story has been (almost always) praised? There's not a consensus and the title has received significant backlash online. A brief mention does not go against WP: NPOV. ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 06:52, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Rambler never said the writing and story have been (almost always) praised. You're not just taking things out of context, you're making things up. Stop. 204.187.25.169 (talk) 23:26, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

RFC: How should the game's story and writing be described in tbe lead?

How should the game's story and writing be described in tbe lead?

1. The game's story, particularly its conclusion of narrative arcs established in previous Batman: Arkham games related to Batman, was controversial and received significant backlash online. or a similar sentence.
2. ...There has been praise given towards the game's writing... or "there has been praise given".
3. Mention reactions to the story, writing, and conclusion of character arcs established in previous installments in the lead, but wording used should be dissimilar to both Option #1 or Option #2.
4. Do not mention reaction to the story, writing, or conclusion of character arcs in the lead paragraphs for now.

Which option best represents Wikipedia policy and the current consensus of reviews/reactions? ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 05:57, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

• Where's the previous discussion as required by WP:RFCBEFORE? InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:34, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

  On the talk page above. ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 06:50, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

  That's a two-day old discussion with two participants and five comments. WP:3O and WP:DRN are more appropriate venues than RfC, per WP:RFCBEFORE. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:56, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

  Frankly @InfiniteNexus, as below I'm of the mind at this point that this user isn't interested in really coming to a consensus and there's no point of further engagement. They've gotten into multiple disputes on this article over the last several days with multiple editors where their behaviour is to simply just repeatedly bludgeon what they want into the article, namely that the game is an overall critical flop (selectively sourced or with no sources at all), with it being observed by multiple people now that they'll openly misrepresent policy to create an aura of legitimacy.

  It speaks of WP:TENDENTIOUS, bordering on WP:NOTHERE, and if it continues I'll probably take it to ANI or a similar venue. Rambling Rambler (talk) 18:29, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

• Given the game's live service nature and overall narrative that doesn't seems like it's reaching the completed conclusion. I believe the best options is to omitted any mention regarding the writing altogether. Or simply mentioning that the game has been criticized for its writing but don't elaborated further. 27.55.73.120 (talk) 09:05, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
• Multiple video game article simply say that a game received negative/mixed/positive reviews in the lead and leave it at that, so we could do the same and save everyone's time. Rakewater (talk) 12:28, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
• Comment - Are you seriously now doing a bad-faith RFC to further try and railroad your demand that the lead should be entirely dominated by your NPOV violation demand to say the game was poorly received overall because Batman died, even though it's against Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section?
  For context, here's what the lead read before [3]:
  "Kill the Justice League was released worldwide for PlayStation 5, Windows, and Xbox Series X/S on February 2, 2024, to mixed reviews, with some reviewers giving praise towards the game's writing while criticism was pointed at the live-services elements and repetitive gameplay."
  Which was a concise and accurate description of the critical reception section as it stood:
  "IGN called the plot a "genuinely good DC comics story", but criticised the repetitive gameplay and "tired and dull" mechanics. Push Square in its review concluded that while they found the game fun and better than other "live service" games, it was still a lesser product than the Arkham games that had come before. Forbes' review singled out the campaign as a point of criticism, stating that it's "not good. And gets increasingly worse as time goes on it" along with criticising the story, though did praise the graphical fidelity on display in cutscenes. More positively, Video Games Chronicle concluded that the game was "much better than the marketing would have you believe", enjoying the writing and gameplay but believing it was let down by its live service elements. Kotaku also concurred in its review, expressing that the game was fun and well-written, though criticizing the repetitive mission design and live-services endgame that they regard as ending the game on a sour note.
  Creative decisions related to the fate of Batman were the subject of online controversy, with some fans on social media claiming it was a disrespectful sendoff to the character and to Kevin Conroy's legacy, though it was later revealed that it would not be Conroy's final appearance as the character. Writing in IGN, Jesse Schedeen opined that they considered Rocksteady's handling of Batman poor, describing it as a waste of potential compared to how the character was last seen in Batman: Arkham Knight."
  If you were truly wanting other people's views on the issue you would be honestly showing both conflicting options, instead Option 2 is deliberately changed to appear the lead should only say there was praise for the writing despite it being far more nuanced than that. Furthermore you would also have restored the article to before your latest POV-pushing. Instead you have violated WP:ONUS, attempted to involve an admin to resolve the issue while continuing to edit the page[4] , and overall demonstrate a complete inability to compromise WP:IDHT. Rambling Rambler (talk) 12:43, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

"Each character have access to 2 weapons classes" on Gameplay section

This is false. Each character actually have access to 3 weapon classes. You can also equipped same weapon classes for both firearm slots. For instance, Deadshot can choose pistol, sniper and assault rifle. Source.

27.55.73.120 (talk) 09:19, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Critical Reception section.

@Wikibenboy94 can I ask that you reconsider the removal of SR as a source. I agree with you that it has been adjudicated as "situational" but looking at discussions of it as a source the concerns seem to be mostly due to BLP issues. Given this is a game review I think for now, unless specific reason for removal is shown, it would be suitable for inclusion. Rambling Rambler (talk) 15:46, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

The PC version now garnered enough reviews to get a separate rating on MC, 72% as of now, so the box should list that score. Mentioning Opencritic´s score is also relevant. The main number is the same as on MC but just 28% of critics recommend it. Such a shockingly low number on a AAA game is noteworthy and rarely seen: https://opencritic.com/game/14351/suicide-squad-kill-the-justice-league — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:1F:8703:2001:41FC:4ECB:E725:42BD (talk) 20:47, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Updated Rambling Rambler (talk) 23:13, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

WP:PROSE says that prose comes first and tables are supplementary and the video game project guideline WP:VG/REC reemphasizes the same principle for the table {{Video game reviews}}

• This template is not required. It supplements the reception section; it does not replace it."
• Every single-site review source should be used within the reception section. The reviews table supports the text. It is not to replicate the function of external review aggregators.

If you are going to add to the table, add text to the Reception section.

If you're going to remove from the Reception section, then also remove from the table.

Removing from the Reception section without also removing from the table is inappropriate. -- 193.178.96.170 (talk) 14:08, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Typo

please change suggets to suggest

I'm not being emotional I sometimes just like to correct typos from time to time.

Thanks for the synopsis. Koldijk (talk) 05:24, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

the article isn't protected, you are more than able to correct the typo KarmaKangaroo (talk) 07:36, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Sweet baby inc

An editor adding information about consultants Sweet Baby Inc working on this game.(diff) This edit was reverted ([5]) because an unreliable source was used as a reference. The same information is clearly posted on the projects sections of the Sweet Baby Inc website (projects hover over image to see text "We worked on: Scriptwriting (Banter, Cut Scenes, Barks, Audio Logs, Etc.)").

The edit was factually correct and entirely neutral, it could be restored based on other sources. It can still be excluded if editors believe it is unimportant or of low relevance. -- 193.178.96.170 (talk) 13:25, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Maybe Kotaku counts as a reliable source? "they joined just to write in-game ads, audio logs, and NPC “barks,” CEO Kim Belair tells me over video call." [6] -- 193.178.96.170 (talk) 13:45, 13 March 2024 (UTC)