Talk:Diablo III

Diablo III has been announced. Unlock?

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

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

3

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

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

Vandalism

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

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

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

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

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

Wrath of Lich comparison

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

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

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

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

Number of Character Classes

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

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

To quote the press release here:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Returning characters note

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

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

Anya?

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

IGN

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

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

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

Protection was ridiculous

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

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

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

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

Fairly useless trivia

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

3d engine

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

(eg for an example of the difference compare visuals of

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

with

isometric infinity engine eg baldur's gate 2.

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

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

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

— Charles Onyett, IGN

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

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

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

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

Quote:

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

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

I'd suggest something like

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

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

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

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

I think you're right - still it's not isometric.. maybe 'isometric' (note the quotes..) eg Scare_quotes#Neutral_distancing87.102.86.73 (talk) 17:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reference's link number 1 is dead

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

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

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

Page

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

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

Audio

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

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

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

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

Diablo wiki

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

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

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

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

Features

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Controversy Section

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

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

- Graphically realistic world with realistic, dirty and muddy textures

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

- A macabre, dark and realistic art style

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

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