Talk:Diablo III

Deckard Cain

Can we really be sure that Deckard Cain will be in the game? From what I've seen in the official site, he is an important character, alright, but apparently he will die at the starting sequence. I think there is no certainty in the fact that he will be a NPC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thereallarkas (talk • contribs) 12:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Well if does die at the starting sequence, technically he's in the game (Unless you mean in a cinematic, which wouldn't make much sense for Blizzard to make a low poly model for him..)

But I have not seen any evidence of his death. --FrostedBitesCereal (talk) 16:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

fact

I request a reference or tag for "Additionally, there will be class-specific quests to go along with the main storyline quests.", it's probably already in one of the links - but there are a lot... Anyone know. I assume it's true?

It was briefly mentioned in the debuted game play demonstration. dude527 (talk) 02:25, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

ok (I vaguely remember) - as long as it's true thats ok..(can get a reference later if needed). Thanks.87.102.86.73 (talk) 02:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

neutrality

Has the neutrality issue been sorted out yet? The 'fan response' section looks a little less relevent now than it did a few weeks ago, maybe in a few more it will be totally forgotten.

What are the options.

1. just leave the neutrality tag there and wait for the problem to sort itself out (I favour this)

2. remove the tag (I have no objection)

3. remove the fan response section and the tag (I have no objection)

4. remove the tag and leave the fan response section in place (I have no objection)

5. something else.

Also I note that I call into question any suggestion that the labelled section "Although reception of the initial announcement and gameplay ...."" is actually not neutral in the context of the article. I find it neutral. I claim to be of sound mind and neutral..

What I do question is its relevence - ie is it notable enough for inclusion, or does it just represent a blip in the overall scheme of things?

I suggest wait and see to prevent any edit-wars etc. Any thoughts?87.102.86.73 (talk) 02:15, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, given that articles are being written on fan reaction regarding the color choice and online petitions have been created to pressure Blizzard into reverting back to the original color scheme, I think the issue is pretty notable. — Dorvaq (talk) 15:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

No, what would be notable is if the design choices negatively affected the sales of the game, if the publisher didn't sell as many as they projected. The game hasn't been released, it doesn't even have a release date. Gh5046 (talk) 23:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The information is notable, and neutral. As per WP:OR, and WP:V, it is notable. And as per WP:NPOV, it's neutral. Allow me to elaborate.

From WP:NOR: "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought . . . "Original research" is material for which no reliable source can be found. The only way you can show that your edit is not original research is to produce a reliable published source that contains that material."

From WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth"

From WP:NPOV: "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources."

Those 3 jointly, put together an allowance of what's already typed. We have many reliable sources, and have provided citations; so the information is verified, and published information, not original research. The content is neutral because the policy says "representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources," which we have done, little to no reliable sources have provided coverage on any but the complaints on the visuals. Therefore, this section is neutral. dude527 (talk) 00:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Please indicate why you think this is notable. Also, re-read the quote you provided from the third page. The section isn't neutral as it makes a single uncited statement that reception "was generally positive," then goes on into a lot more detail about how it wasn't, with six citations.

It needs to be balanced out. Until it is do not remove the tag. Gh5046 (talk) 04:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

This is notable because it has been given coverage by many different reliable sources. It's verifiable because there are citations for it. It will be neutral when I take a look at the citations and fix it up. dude527 (talk) 04:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. This isn't the only time it has been discussed: 1 2 3 4

Removing any mention of positive reception completely unbalances this. I'm reverting your changes. Gh5046 (talk) 04:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, verifiability does not make something notable. It is verifiable that Britney Spears went shopping at M. Fredric back in June, but that doesn't mean it's worthwhile mentioning it in the article about her. Gh5046 (talk) 04:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

It is neutral. WP:NPOV says "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." Nothing about a positive point of view has been mentioned by published sources, so we are indeed displaying all the significant views. dude527 (talk) 05:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

To answer your question Gh5046, I believe the fan reaction alone is notable enough regardless of actual impact on game sales. Think about the issue this way; how many other games out there can you think about where fans came together and voiced their disapproval with a particular game aspect, through an online petition with over 50k signatures, even before the game hit store shelves. My point is, the fact that the game in garnering so much negativity from longtime fans alone, especially before the game is released, is notable enough. I'm sure there's more, but I can only think of another game series where fans reacted similarly before the next installment of the game was released and that's Ultima IX. — Dorvaq (talk) 13:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, plus it's neutral. It isn't saying "the game's graphics suck balls," it's saying "many fans believe the games graphics suck balls," and it's a valid, unbiased statement since we're only using cited sources to provide coverage. dude527 (talk) 14:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay I may be blind (Too much coffee) but the reference seems to point to an online petition. Although can that really be sourced? Since there could be bots and other exploits to increase the signature count. Just pointing that out since it does seem a bit silly referencing an online petition...at least to me. --FrostedBitesCereal (talk) 00:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

We don't reference petitions, we reference reliable sources that cover the issue. dude527 (talk) 00:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Referencing a source that references a petition does not make the petition reliable. In other words, if a newspaper prints invalid information it doesn't become valid just because the newspaper printed it. Gh5046 (talk) 02:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

That's not a factor. I will quote some things for you again. From WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth," "From WP:NOR: "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought . . . "Original research" is material for which no reliable source can be found. The only way you can show that your edit is not original research is to produce a reliable published source that contains that material," the petition doesn't have to be true unless we referenced it directly. If a reliable source provided coverage, it's reliable, even if it's based on an online petition. The threshold for inclusion is verifiability. If a reliable source provides coverage on the subject, then it's verifiable, therefore within the threshold. Many reliable sources have provided coverage, there this information is reliable, whether true or not, it's been published by a reliable source, so it can be contributed to the article. dude527 (talk) 02:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, if you question the reliability of all of these sources, you're insane. I've read the petition, and a lot of these sources cover the information provided in the petition correctly. I will take a quote to prove the significance of this to you. From WP:RS: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves." The information that is currently on the page, and the citations provided, match up, they support each other, Wikipedia states all the citations reasons. The citations also take the information from the petition, and it's all true, therefore (as per reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy) the information currently in the article is reliable. As per WP:NPOV: "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources," it's neutral, as this is the only point-of-view any reliable sources have published. If you still question the reliability of this information, or the neutrality of the article, you either A) are dead-set against mention of all of this, or B) do not understand Wikipedia rules. Tag removed. dude527 (talk) 02:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Citing an author who used the petition as a source of information makes what that author wrote unreliable.

Go ahead and keep the section in there, I have stated before that I'm fine with keeping the section. Even though I disagree about its notability I won't press the issue at this time.

Neutrality is my biggest concern here. As it is currently written it only covers the negative fan response and absolutely nothing about positive response. Fix it or leave the tag until someone else does. Gh5046 (talk) 05:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The article isn't neutral, but i disagree with you; I accept it as it is even though i feel that it favours the POSITIVE side, even thou the last paragraph is well written; The art design section actually has three quarters of it pointing the POV and excuses of the art director (positive), and only one quarter, the last paragraph, pointing the FACT that MANY people are unhappy. MANY, because EVERY closed pool made oficially by Blizzard and fan sites have come with results against the original art direction, as if the 50k+(petition) werent enough to be many. As i see, it covers more positive than negative right now, opposing the rules of neutrality based on the size of reported sides.Atriel (talk) 02:19, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you, Atriel, except the fact that it is neutral. It's neutral because WP:NPOV states to give a factual perspective of every side of the argument for which a reliable source has provided coverage. We don't say "oh the graphics DO suck," we say "many fans agree the graphics suck," and we have references to back it up, neutralizing it, as it is not the opinion of a Wikipedian, but a reliable source covered it. This person wants to provide coverage on the positive aspects, but doesn't seem to understand that we can not unless a reliable source provides coverage on it. I gave up trying to convince him, because when I asked him to explain the issue after removing the tag, I got hit with "the issue is not resolved," no real explanation. And I don't want to start an edit war, you know? Let me restate this, in bold: If a reliable source provides more coverage for positive then negative, so do we. In that case, it's not a violation of WP:NPOV. However, when we add our own opinion, it then violates. dude527 (talk) 02:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

heheh :) i actually agree that it is neutral as is (to settle down)Atriel (talk) 02:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Heh, yeah, if you look back up in this talk section, I actually provided a lot of evidence supporting this. If you want to see. dude527 (talk) 02:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I accidentally hit return when reverting your change. Please notice on the tag that it says, "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved." The dispute is not resolved. Gh5046 (talk) 05:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

No, it doesn't make it unreliable. The sources say facts, even if opinionated facts, it is still FACT that people don't like it. We can't add anything for positive, as no reliable sources provide coverage, and if they did, they would be opinionated too, so you're suggesting we remove the section? dude527 (talk) 05:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I would be nice if the section said a little more about the art and design - it seems untidy jumping straight into a quote without any written info.87.102.86.73 (talk) 10:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

repeated references

some references are repeated.. eg 'colour is your friend', also refs No.17,18.

Also ref 12 WWI08: Diablo 3 design fundamentals doesn't seem to be relevent to what it's linked to.

also implying that players may still play solo, but will be better off playing with others in group situations.[6] from gameplay section seems speculative.. and the reference "Oli Welsh (2008-06-28). "Blizzard announces Diablo III". Eurogamer." doesn't say anything of the sort. Please remove this. Thanks

Anyone want to sort all that out.. Thanks.87.102.86.73 (talk) 02:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

external links

I'll add the 3 links that appear in DMOZ to the external links section. It makes little sense to ask the user to go to DMOZ, so s/he can go to a site.

1. Diablo 3 News - Tracks Diablo 3 news and covers info on gameplay, characters, story, and demo.
2. Diablo Fans - Fan site containing news, forums, image gallery, and links.
3. Diablo III Community - A growing community site for the upcoming Diablo III. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krasimir (talk • contribs) 11:07, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Before adding external links, you might want to have a look at the policy on external links. Make sure you have a solid reason for adding them, as they're quite often removed. Wikipedia is not a directory of external links. Gazimoff ^Write_Read 11:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

removed: Engine: Havok Physics

"Engine" should mean game engine and not component [physics, audio, networking, AI] engines. See Crysis and Half-Life (video game) for examples of actual game engines in the engine field. The Diablo FAQ just says "Diablo III runs on a custom 3D game engine for ... .. "

Alright, but you didn't need to make a talk page entry unless someone contested it. Good eye anyways. dude527 (talk) 21:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

It used to say 'custom graphics engine, havok physics'

eg http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Diablo_III&oldid=224987736

Why remove it.87.102.86.73 (talk) 11:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Because it hasn't been confirmed that its havocs yet? Duct tape tricorn (talk) 00:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)