Talk:Diablo (series)

Info

If anyone can add more information go ahead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eoghan1234 (talk • contribs) 21:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Assessment as of 2008-12-13

There's...really not much article here. Seriously. Look at the other Blizzard-related series articles and you'll see a huge contrast in what information should be in place at the very least for a skeleton. At this time, it's going to remain Stub-class.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:38, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

It's still barely over Stub-class. Again, look at the info in the other articles. Those kinds of resources should be readily available to cite for this article.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:14, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Can someone look a this again? I've added some detail per other Blizzard game series pages. Open to more detail. Game summaries still need a LOT of work. Improvjam (talk) 17:07, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Overthrown

I want to add an image but I don't know how. Could someone add an image please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eoghan1234 (talk • contribs) 20:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:VG assessment

After request for assessment, I've upped this to start. However, I think that the direction that this is going in is seriously flawed, and although the subject is plenty notable, you aren't going to get this ranked as a quality article by going this way. The article doesn't describe the series, it describes the fiction in the series and the gameplay mechanics only players of the game would really understand with a few extra bits thrown in, which is entirely the wrong place for this. You're lacking a proper introduction, having the disambiguation-esque list that the article was created with. There's plenty of original research, a lack of sources, and fan opinion. Burn the original research, chase the fan opinions out the village with a rusty pitchfork, and bring in reliable references from places like IGN, PC Gamer, and other journalists in the industry. Ultimately, this article should provide a general reader (read: someone who knows absolutely nothing about the series but has a rough idea to what the genre might be) a basic overview of the entire franchise, from a real-world perspective: the products, the development history, the reception and the impact of this series on the RPG genre. My best recommendation is to look at other series articles that are rated as either GA or FA, base your structure on them and follow their lead on how to approach the series. The closest related article would be StarCraft series, for obvious reasons, which is rated GA. You might also consider looking at Halo series (GA) and Final Fantasy (FA). Don't follow the example of the Warcraft series article, otherwise this article won't really get anywhere. If you need further advice, don't hesitate to ask me, I can provide a third-party outsider perspective to help you guys bring the article up in quality. -- Sabre (talk) 00:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Diablo Template

I think that a Diablo series template should be created but I'm confused on how to add it to a page. Eoghan1234 (talk) 17:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Huh?

This article needs some revision for objective point of view and lack of citations. I edited the Hellfire section since it seemed poorly written. I don't remember being an insectorid race called "the slithid in the Warcraft series", and many players being "angered" over the change in gothic feel didn't seem to fit in very well. Please look at what you're writing, people. Umma Kynes 18:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ummakynes (talk • contribs)

I agree the Hellfire section is bad, mostly conjecture and BS.

Although the circumstances around the development and abandonment of Hellfire are worthy of note, I know of no source material to use for citation. Everything I know about it is what I learned from the developers who were involved. Kid Bugs (talk) 03:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Diablo 3: The True 3?

I didin't think it was true, as there is no references and the style of writing the editor used, so I deleted it. Signed, Guest —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.109.41.96 (talk) 03:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Various edits

i edited some various ambiguous/factually incorrect points in the Diablo 3 and "Gameplay" sections. 129.3.106.127 (talk) 16:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Nephalem

"Due to the Worldstone, the Nephalem's power has been slowly drained with each generation, therefore making any new offspring weaker and weaker." This quote doesn't make much sense. why does the Worldstone cause this to happen? I don't know enough about the series to edit this. should be more specific. 129.3.106.127 (talk) 16:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

action RPG?!

Excuse me, but what kind of joke is that? Diablo is a hack and slash. Even more, it's a synonym of hack and slash. It's all about wandering around and killing monsters, with absolutely no choices in storyline, quests or dialogues. Therefore, there are absolutely no roleplaying in it. So please, change the article(s) to reflect that fact, replacing "action RPG" with "hack and slash". Really. - ZuTheSkunk (talk) 09:48, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

It is stated on the site of blizzard that Diablo (3) is a action-RPG. So not a joke at all (http://eu.blizzard.com/en-gb/games/). You have to choose your skills and level them up. Your char level with exp points. You have to chooche witch items you utilise and so on. Did you ever play diablo? STrek77 (talk) 18:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Diablo (series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120408191641/http://www.ign.com:80/videogame-villains/74.html to http://www.ign.com/videogame-villains/74.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:27, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Immortal

Hey, we all get it. The gamers are upset about the mobile game. But this is the article about the entire series, spanning a 20 year history. The mere announcement of the mobile game and its backlash is undue weight to be included in the lead. This isn't the place to keep pushing about that. It's more than adequately summarized in this article and the details belongs at the main article, not here. -- ferret (talk) 20:41, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Good source here for future Diablo games

Kotaku's state of Diablo. I know it involves insider information but Jason Scheier has been spot on before, I don't see much reason to doubt what he says, but still if used, I'd make sure to state soemthing like "According to Kotaku...". --Masem (t) 21:01, 21 November 2018 (UTC)