Talk:Diablo III/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Delay in PVP

Can we include in the development section a note about the new delay for pvp?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2012/12/29/diablo-3-pvp-delayed-yet-again-games-you-should-play-while-you-wait/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.71.156.206 (talk) 17:19, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Console development sounds like game is not released.

Console development "Blizzard is considering a concept design for consoles, reportedly even hiring staff for a console version,[47][48] while stating this concept will not affect PC/Mac release dates.[49]" Diablo III has been released while a console version has not. This means the console version did not affect the PC/Mac release dates. It "will not" is a future tense which is no longer valid since the game has been released. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.209.241.193 (talk) 12:40, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Requesting update on game development

The game development section is not up to date because it does not include the new information that the PVP arena mode is not going to be implemented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Odin156569 (talk • contribs) 20:52, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to take a stab at it. :) -- ferret (talk) 22:13, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Diablo 3 director quits

After eight months of Diablo 3 release, Jay Wilson (Lead designer) has quit. Source: http://kotaku.com/5976857/diablo-iii-director-jay-wilson-has-quit . This, and the critical reception of the game, should be added to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.23.249.61 (talk) 20:49, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to add Jay Wilson's departure to the Development section. Critical reception already exists in the article. -- ferret (talk) 01:43, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, critical reception section already exists but it should mention the actual poor state of the game. The departure of the main developer after only eight months should tell one thing ... or two. But hey, wikipedia is not primary source, is it? ;). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.23.249.61 (talk) 19:17, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't tell us anything , since we don't do original research here. But, actually, Jay Wilson was the project lead on Diablo 3 for several years. --SubSeven (talk) 20:44, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 January 2013

Hello,

I have updated the news about pvp being added to the game. I will also add that Jay Wilson has stepped down as game director.

Thank you,

Odin156569 (talk) 18:08, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Diablo 3 article needs editing, why is it still locked after 8 months?

As an extensive player of D3, with about 500 hours of in game time, as well as a lot of knowledge about the player reception, I can tell you this article is both misleading in some areas and completely inaccurate in others. There is a typo in the first paragraph, the plot summary is horribly over bloated, and the critical reception part needs to be clarified. There are plenty of articles on the web about the terrible reception Diablo 3 received from players. Please unlock the article, as 8 months has gone by, and the article needs to be edited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.116.189.31 (talk) 02:41, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to leave edit requests on the talk page or get an autoconfirmed account. The user reception won't be included though, for the same reasons it's been debated over and over again. See the FAQ for further details. The protection is in place due to the persistent vandalism the article saw after numerous previous protections expired. -- ferret (talk) 03:01, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to move the "This article's factual accuracy may be compromised due to out-of-date information." message at the start of the article. Keep ommiting the poor player reception of the game is ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.23.249.61 (talk) 21:35, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Ferret is right that the reception will never be included because the discussion goes back to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources/Archive_6 about how to determine which online reviews are considered an RS with the conclusion that only the whole score and not the components for only the professional reviews can be used (for metacritic). CPUGamer did not meet the list for RS and was deemed "weak" unreliable. On the other hand I already have a edit request submitted for about a week now and nothing has happened. There has been quite a bit of game development that his article does not capture and that is my biggest gripe. Blizzard finally announced a PVP system very different from the one they allowed players to play with at press conferences. Odin156569 (talk) 16:05, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I've fixed the typo in the lead and just finished a rewrite and trim of the plot. The plot is still a fair bit long but I removed a lot of unnecessary details, especially specific quest details. Odin, now that you're autoconfirmed, you can make the edits from your edit request yourself. Just remember to keep a neutral point of view. -- ferret (talk) 16:56, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Why was my plot edit undone and replaced with yours? Mine was succinct, if rough, and yours has to many unnecessary details. That Tyrael is the aspect of justice or that Imperius is the aspect of valor is not at all relevant to the plot. You could have expanded on mine if you felt that it didn't have enough details. Please explain. Rugos (talk) 01:31, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Made the current plot slightly smaller, removed unnecessary details. Also find it a bit hypocritical to have my 4 A.M. sp/gr criticized by someone who spells particularly particularily. Act 3/4 had no major details because nothing of consequence happens in them. The fact that plot was bemoaned by fans was more than just longing for throwbacks from the days of D2. Rugos (talk) 02:00, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I reverted your edit because of excessive grammar and spelling issues. It's a bit different from a single spelling mistake on my part. I suggest not editing at 4am if you're unhappy that someone might revert it. Regardless, I did use your edit against the original in my rewrite. Trimming act 4 to simply "The hero goes to heaven and beats Diablo" was too excessive and more detail was warranted there. -- ferret (talk) 02:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I went through my edit and found 3 spelling mistakes. 4, if you include my usage of their when trying to be gender neutral. I don't believe that's excessive. As for grammar, I admit that my English isn't 100%, but I don't think there were any huge faults that ruined the whole thing. As for the lack of content about act 4... (I assume you have played the game and know that) there is really no plot at all within act 4. Kill demons for minor reasons as quest objectives, which is what was reflected in the version before mine, and then ascend and kill Diablo. If you wanted to add or subtract a sentence or two to the act 4 summary, you didn't need to get rid of it. The rest of the plot summary was (imo), not lacking in any of the important plot details, or had any that weren't relevant to the overall plot. What was it you thought was either lacking or in to much detail in my summary? 70.27.153.117 (talk) 04:18, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

PS3 & PS4

Announced at Sony Playstation Meeting 2013 that this game will be available for the PS3 & PS4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.99.181 (talk) 00:57, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Mana regen

I know this is a really small detail but the article says "the Witch Doctor uses Mana, which regenerates slowly" which is inacurate. I didn't alter it because I don't have a source stating otherwise, and the statement in the article is indeed sourced, but I've played as both a witch doctor and a wizard, ,witch doctor's mana regen is 45 per second, wizard's arcane power regen is 10 per second, which the article describes as "a fast regenerating power source". I don't know if this was altered during a patch or not, I don't doubt the source was accurate at one time, but now it just seems odd. It's a pretty minor point so I figured I'd bring it up here in case it was just overlooked. 208.54.85.207 (talk) 04:18, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

The thing is, the witch doctor's abilites cost much more mana than the wizard's abilites and the witch doctor's mana pool is much bigger than the wizard's, so percentage-wise, mana regenerates slower than arcane power. Dhuum (talk) 10:02, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

the article needs more information on the console version

according to the box of the xbox 360 version it supports 2 to 4 player via system link and up to 4 players on 1 system when not using system link. just to be sure i checked the game directly and it does in fact offer system link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.64.62 (talk) 23:05, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Console release reception

Needs to be added. I only skimmed the Reception section, but I didn't see any reception for the console release. --JDC808 ♫ 05:18, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, to this day there is almost no information about the console-version. I'd do it but sadly my english isn't good enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.88.117.166 (talk) 06:00, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Gems section of gameplay

Is the 'Gems' section of Gameplay really necessary? I haven't played the game since the beta but it doesn't seem like a majorly notable point. Samwalton9 (talk) 19:31, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I've removed it as it seems to be full of excessive gameplay detail, if anyone objects feel free to put the section back in. It still needed less detail than was in it previously regardless. Samwalton9 (talk) 08:34, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I've added some basic gem info into the section on gameplay. Basically just saying that some items have sockts, which can be used to upgrade and customize items by adding gems for various stat bonuses. -- Gordon Ecker, WikiSloth (talk) 01:29, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Leah

Leah isn't actually Cain's niece, she just calls him "uncle" as a term of affection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.179.39.8 (talk) 19:25, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

The tone of the article misleads

You would draw from the article that the game was an overall commercial success and an overall critical success.

The first, yes; thanks to the carry over from the love of the second and first versions.

The second, no, no no.

Diablo III was acknowledged to have fundamental flaws by the developers, prompting the major reworks of "Loot 2.0" etc.

An article written by a savvy player would be better than wikipedias's corporate drivel.

And they ask for donations? Those days are gone.2605:6000:1800:6D:E5F2:C1D:84EC:AB9 (talk) 05:33, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

That's nice, but the critical reception is pretty high too. Yes, the game was an overall success. No, that doesn't mean it was problem free. -- ferret (talk) 15:08, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

DRM note in Mode(s) field

Please stop adding DRM notes to the mode(s) field. The template is only intended to have Single-player and/or Multi-player in this field. -- ferret (talk) 00:19, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Classes

The second paragraph says that the player can choose from six classes, but that is not correct. The sixth class, Crusader, is only available with the "Reaper of Souls" expansion pack. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.53.56.26 (talk) 22:24, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

The character specific description notes that the crusader is only available in the expansion. Attempting to segment all features from "Classic Diablo 3" and the expansion would lead to a very fragmented article as much of these features have been blurred and significant changes affect both the base game and expansion. I think it's clear enough to list six characters in the first paragraph, and make the expansion only distinction for that specific character. Apriestofgix (talk) 19:06, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

This section is 2 years old and long since addressed. :) -- ferret (talk) 19:22, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

External link to community site

WP:ELNO allows community site links if they're official. This one (http://battle.net/d3/en/) is not only official, it's maintained by the game's makers. As a result, I can see no ELNO based reason for removing it from the article. Rklawton (talk) 15:25, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Rklawton:, where in WP:EL does it say that a community website is okay? There's WP:ELMINOFFICIAL, that says "More than one official link should be provided only when the additional links provide the reader with significant unique content and are not prominently linked from other official websites". WP:ELNO. No. 10 says "Social networking sites (...), chat or discussion forums/groups (...)". Have you checked out the website? The tabs gameguide, rankings, media, forums and buy now don't seem particularly useful to me. The official website already covers the game, with the links below "Learn more about Diablo III" link to the community site. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 07:48, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

One link goes to the game and the other to community news. There's a link to the community page at the bottom of the game page, but it's not very obvious. Since they are both official sites and they have different domains, I don't see a problem with listing them both. On a related note, shouldn't external links go above references? Rklawton (talk) 14:21, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Isn't the game page sufficient? As far as I know, external links come after references. I'm mostly familiar with video game-related articles, and that's the WP:VG/MOS layout style. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 14:42, 10 March 2016 (UTC)