Talk:Warcraft III: Reforged

Semi-protected edit request on 6 February 2020

The reception was not average or mixed. It was disastrous. The metacritic score on the summary page is also wrong. 2003:C2:A70B:3BA6:DC28:F4DA:9DDE:19B (talk) 17:53, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: The critic score is still 60/100 and Metacritic still describes that as "average or mixed". We do not source user reviews directly, per WP:USERG. -- ferret (talk) 18:28, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to mention that there are certain exceptions to this, e.g. the recent Star Wars movies. The talk pages for TLJ were extremely long, but they finally decided that the negative fan reception was notable enough to mention it in the article. It's slowly becoming precedent that if something has an extremely significant fan backlash and a lot of news coverage about said backlash, it should be mentioned. 83.137.6.164 (talk) 04:29, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Fan reception in lede?

Because there's been one user this week attempting to include it, and protection on the page expires tomorrow so no doubt there'll likely be IP's attempting to do the same going forward, can we get a consensus in writing over whether it is appropriate for the player reception to be included in the lede? I'm inclined to feel it shouldn't be; as noted in my edit summaries it's mostly just as a result of overblown backlash from fans, rather than across the board from critics as well. -- Wikibenboy94 (talk) 12:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

The question is not whether it's overblown or not but whether it's significant. And considering how much coverage it generated, I do believe some form of mention is appropriate. Regards SoWhy 12:13, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Negative player coverage has been a big part of the post-release sourcing. -- ferret (talk) 14:49, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Included the player consensus in lede. -- Wikibenboy94 (talk) 15:58, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Revert of my edit regarding Blizzard's failure to deliver on promised updates

Hi, I put in a sentence noting that Blizzard's promised ". . . plans of progressively releasing updates that would significantly improve the game in the long run. . ." in an effort to note that, to this date, the promised updates have not arrived. My sentence was removed, and rightly so since I did not add in any references for my statement. However, how am I supposed to cite this? Should I link to the Warcraft 3 Reforged official forum where there are numerous threads from aggrieved players asking when (or if) the updates are coming? The way the article reads now, it feels like something of a cliff-hanger, and the viewer is left to presume that Blizzard planned and probably, eventually, delivered on these promises. Any help in figuring out how to source something that doesn't really have a reliable source, save for the obvious fact that no patch to the game has included any of the features removed from the original game (Warcraft 3: The Frozen throne) has arrived. Another thing I would like to update is the ongoing issues with the game including high latency among cross-realm matchmaking games, stuttering (dropped frames) during gameplay, and the constant issue of desyncing (crashed games) during custom map gameplay. The problem is. . . reliable sources don't really report on these things; rather, the source of information comes from the player-base itself. Is there any protocol for sourcing this? I noticed that the gameplay section as an Update Needed flag on it, but I don't know how to provide these updates using proper references when the references are mainly from player-created threads on the official forums. Thank you. Krakaet (talk) 12:27, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Simply put, you can't. Wikipedia is built on sourcing. If all that's available is user generated forum posts/threads then we can't include it. -- ferret (talk) 15:40, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying, but it's...verifiable. What about referencing each individual patch (the patch note thread (from Blizzard's own CSR) since that statement was made to note that those "updates that would significantly improve the game in the long run" weren't made? The patches that have been released have included normal balance changes. Not the significant improvements that everyone has been waiting for, such as returning features that were already in the original game. I'm just trying to improve the article by noting, objectively, that, over a year since that statement was made, the promised updates have not come. Krakaet (talk) 16:39, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

It's WP:OR to take a list of patches and from that say "But none of the patches included these fixes.". The patches support the content they changed. To make direct commentary on the promised Blizzard made is synthesis. Right now what we have and quote is that Blizzard claims they would work on it. We don't say they have, simply they claimed. Open ended things like this are always tricky, but without a source explicitly calling it out it's difficult to properly source a "As of x, y, z features have not been released." -- ferret (talk) 16:54, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't like it, but I accept that we have to allow the statement that they plan to do so. The other issue I had was with the gameplay section. The gameplay section needs updating, but. . . outside of the initial reviews from release which point to general gameplay that was integral to original Warcraft 3, and, perhaps, some sources which talk in nebulous terms about "buggy gameplay," there doesn't seem to be a way to specifically address ongoing gameplay issues which, at this point, pending fixes, are integral gameplay features. As I say, the only source is the players, themselves, at this point. The game is dead and no media outlet will be reporting on it anymore, at this point. Krakaet (talk) 00:40, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Gameplay issues/bugs are not part of a Gameplay section, since they aren't intended design. They would belong in Reception, if they were being commented on. Chronicling such issues is best done on Fandom/Gamepedia where user/player submitted content is appropriate. Here, we have to have secondary reliable sources. -- ferret (talk) 01:08, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

"Review-bombed" ??

Hi, just noting that this sentence "On release, the game was review-bombed by users on Metacritic, reaching the lowest score ever for a Blizzard game, . . ." cites a source for the obvious fact that it got the lowest score ever for a Blizzard game on Metacritic, but I don't see any support in that article for the accusation that it was "review-bombed" which has a connotation that the negative reviews were somehow coordinated in order to harm Activision-Blizzard's reputation as opposed to being a genuine result of fans of the franchise being beyond disappointed with the game. Is there precedent for using this term "review-bombed"? What standard must be met? Any game that gets overwhelmingly negative responses from its fans can automatically be said, on Wikipedia, to have been "review-bombed"? I just don't see support for that claim in the Bloomberg article cited. I am open to input on this one. Thank you. Krakaet (talk) 00:43, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi. @Ferret -- can we have a quick chat about this issue? I was hoping to have some discussion here before my edit was reverted with just a revert comment. Admittedly I am a novice Wikipedia user so I am not sure how this works, but every time I have made an edit on a page thus far, I have been scolded to post in the talk section first and get consensus.

I am not sure I am in a position to question whether the article you referenced from usgamer.net is a "reliable source" (although I can say, anecdotally, that this is the first time I have seen this website and I have been playing games for a couple of decades at least. However, I would like to discuss whether this article actually supports that this was "review-bombed" According to the wikipedia article on the subject, Review bomb refers to a very specific phenomenon when large groups of users target a game for negative reviews in an attempt to harm the sale or popularity of the game. Like I said in my post above, I don't see ANY article that actually supports this claim, even if they use the term "review bomb" somewhere in the lede or body, that this specific phenomenon occurred where the game was targeted for any reason other than GENUINE dissatisfaction with the product itself. In other words. . . the game clearly "bombed" based on the reviews, but I don't see support that the specific phenomenon of "review bombing" as Wikipedia defines it is evident in any article I have seen so far. Cheers, looking forward to hearing from you Krakaet (talk) 22:10, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Now that I look at usgamer.net, I'm not sure it actually is a Reliable Source per Wikipedia:Reliable sources, specifically the section on News Organizations, but I appreciate your input. It is not one of the many major gaming news website like IGN or PCgamer. If you posit that it is RS, I would further cite the bullet point "* Whether a specific news story is reliable for a fact or statement should be examined on a case-by-case basis."

I'm not 100% sure that this news story is reliable to support the claim that the specific phenomenon of review bombing, as Wikipedia defines it. Notwithstanding the fact that "review bomb" is never used in the body of the article, itself, I'm looking at the sentence that reads "Of course, there are worse games than Warcraft 3: Reforged, but this is how some in the community feel their voices will be heard." herein, the editor appears to be. . .well. . . editorializing. Rather, he is stating his OPINION of how he THINKS the community feels. I find it hard to believe that it is reliable to believe that one editor for a minor gaming review / news site can speak for how all gamers feel or even this subset of gamers who reviewed Warcraft 3 Reforged on metacritic. Krakaet (talk) 22:45, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

USGamer is undoubtedly a reliable source, long established at WP:VG/S. It was rolled into its sister site, Eurogamer, some years back. USGamer uses the term "MetaBomb" to refer to review bombing as well as saying review bomb directly in the article's title. The entire point of using secondary sources is that they perform analysis and interpretation of events, that we should not do on our own. Even then, it's EASY to find more sources making this claim: Polygon covers review bombing, highlighting W3R, Kotaku highlights W3R, GameIndustry covers it too. These were all in the top ten results of a search I performed without digging any deeper. -- ferret (talk) 00:57, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

At some point the stick should be dropped as well. -- ferret (talk) 01:32, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

What is "the stick"? Anyway, I think I'm beginning to understand what Wikipedia is about, much to my chagrin. The goal of wikipedia is to publish information which has been asserted by a majority of sources. . . not to actually publish accurate information, as there is no room for, as you put it earlier, synthesis. My point is this: just because a reliable source makes a claim, are we to blindly parrot the claim? Is that the mandate here? Even if we can interpret the specific articles on these sources as being editorial content and not to be interpreted as accurate statements? Like I mentioned earlier, WP: RS leaves room for interpretation with the clause "Whether a specific news story is reliable for a fact or statement should be examined on a case-by-case basis." so is there no impetus for us to interpret whether a specific news story is reliable for a fact? Should we not phrase this as saying that a site or multiple sites report that the game was review bombed rather than making a statement that it WAS review bombed? I posit that most of these articles, at least those that you have presented, are not NEWS STORIES as we traditionally understand them. It's a single editor making a claim. Krakaet (talk) 01:41, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Sorry for the repeated replies, but I was looking over the articles you linked again. What concerns me is that there doesn't seem to be a common definition of what review-bombing actually IS among these sources, which makes our job more difficult. In other words: GameIndustry's author uses the term to refer to the overwhelmingly negative views on Metacritic (which is accurate), but the Polygon article states that review bombing is "waging malicious campaigns with the intent to lower the rating of a game" but then goes on to say, of Warcraft 3 Reforged, "While customers are clearly reacting to the quality of Blizzard’s latest real-time strategy remake, in many instances review bombing campaigns have more to do with political or cultural issues. "

So, again, I'm sorry to belabor the point. I want to make sure that we are following not just Wikipedia:Reliable sources, but also the doctrine of Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth which states that, at least at some level, we are striving for accuracy. In other words: what is accurate here? Are the review of Warcraft 3 Reforged simply overwhelmingly negative? Or are they review bombs in the sense of being a part of Polgyon's definition of it as "waging malicious campaigns with the intent to lower the rating of a game"? I'll end by saying this: do we have no responsibility, as editors, to scrutinize the content of an article we intend to use as a reference? In the case of the Pologyon article, the author literally contradicts themselves by first defining what review bombing is, then going on to define Warcraft 3 Reforged reviews as being outside of the definition of review bombing. According to the RS bullet point under News Organizations: "Whether a specific news story is reliable for a fact or statement should be examined on a case-by-case basis." our job is to actually read and scrutinize what we are citing. . . not to simply look for key words in the article. Krakaet (talk) 02:08, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

I've asked for more opinions from WP:VG. -- ferret (talk) 03:19, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

• OK I read this discussion and reviewed the sources. There is hard consensus among the sources ferret provided that Warcraft III: Reforged was "review bombed". We can't dispute that. Now, I think where we may have an issue is with the definition of "review bombing" at review bomb. The article says that it is done "...in an attempt to harm the sales or popularity of a product, a service, or a business." I'm not sure all sources would agree on that. Krakaet, I'm hearing you say that the low scores for Reforged were out of genuine disappointment with the game, rather than out of any attempt to do harm to Blizzard. So maybe, that phrase should be removed from review bomb. I would support that. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 06:03, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

  Hi TarkusAB, nice to meet you. Yes, this is what I am saying. Even among the sources used in the Review Bomb article, at the very least it seems to be mixed. . . at the very worst, what the authors of the cited sources say in their articles is that review-bombed games received overwhelmingly negative reviews from the player base, however the authors don't necessarily attach the inference that it is due to an attempt to harm the company directly as opposed to genuine dissatisfaction in the game. I would not dispute that the sources DO give us consensus for a definition of review bombing that has to do with overwhelmingly negative response from a game's playerbase, but I don't think we have sufficient consensus for the second part of the definition "...in an attempt to harm the sales or popularity of a product, a service, or a business." Krakaet (talk) 12:36, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

  That's a discussion that needs to happen at Talk:Review bomb though. This talk page cannot (or rather shouldn't) try to establish consensus about a different article. -- ferret (talk) 15:37, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Fan remake as StarCraft 2 custom map "Azeroth Reborn"

There is a remake of the WarCraft 3 campaigns in the Starcraft 2 engine, it's called "Azeroth Reborn". I don't know if it is relevant enough, i just wanted to leave it here:

• Website
• Page in WoWpedia (fandom)

2A02:810B:C040:1DF4:BC6D:8162:A398:686B (talk) 16:54, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Not without reliable secondary coverage. Neither of these links are. -- ferret (talk) 17:51, 12 July 2023 (UTC)