Criticism section of SC2 wikipedia page - Page 2
Forum Index > SC2 General |
Ryhn
United States509 Posts
| ||
kajeus
United States679 Posts
On May 30 2010 14:40 madsweepslol wrote: Vandalizing? LOL do you understand the concept of user generated content at all? There's the classic problem here of whether marginal nerd rage on TeamLiquid is currently "noteworthy" or not. I mean, I can't add my own personal criticisms of Obama to the Obama page under "criticism". There needs to be major, noteworthy criticism first -- and it generally needs to stand for quite some time and become "history" first, as well. | ||
jacen
Austria3644 Posts
On May 30 2010 14:35 alexanderzero wrote: I don't think this is proper material to be put on Wikipedia. It is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a Starcraft fans soapbox to complain about features they want to see in Starcraft 2. Wikipedia is having a hard time meeting the standards for a reputable source of information, this is not going to help. criticism to topics is noteworthy and can also be found to other topics on wikipedia or even printed encyclopedias. hell, modern warfare 2 has a separate controversies article on wikipedia! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_surrounding_Call_of_Duty:_Modern_Warfare_2#Criticisms | ||
Half
United States2554 Posts
On May 30 2010 14:44 koppik wrote: The main issue is that it's designed to elicit a reaction from Blizzard. Writing a criticism section is by itself fine. You'd need more than a thread on an internet forum to justify writing the section, however. Perhaps for the time being, but really as soon as a fansite makes a official statement, its 100% legit. gogo tl?. Who the hell wrote "angst"? How about "concerns?". Already fixed. On May 30 2010 14:45 kajeus wrote: There's the classic problem here of whether marginal nerd rage on TeamLiquid is currently "noteworthy" or not. I mean, I can't add my own personal criticisms of Obama to the Obama page under "criticism". There needs to be major, noteworthy criticism first -- and it generally needs to stand for quite some time and become "history" first, as well. Four Thousand People. There are entire articles to organizations with less impact and less people. | ||
kajeus
United States679 Posts
On May 30 2010 14:46 Half wrote: Four Thousand People. Their are entire articles to organizations with less impact and less people. Uh? If you can prove that four thousand people are on board with the criticisms you list, then you have a pretty solid case for noteworthiness. | ||
koppik
United States676 Posts
On May 30 2010 14:46 Half wrote: You really need more than one, but you definitely need one. Like, the CoD:MW2 criticism section has about ten sources from major video game journalists.Perhaps for the time being, but really as soon as a fansite makes a official statement, its 100% legit. gogo tl?. The big, overriding issue though is that Wikipedia is not a platform for activism. It's not a soapbox. | ||
kajeus
United States679 Posts
| ||
jacen
Austria3644 Posts
On May 30 2010 14:51 kajeus wrote: Uh? If you can prove that four thousand people are on board with the criticisms you list, then you have a pretty solid case for noteworthiness. did you bother to read the initial post? this link: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=128014 takes you to a poll in the OP that has the question "Do you like the direction bnet 2.0 is taking?" 4516 - NO 284 - YES though this IS an internet poll, you still have to be registered to vote which raises it's significance drastically. On May 30 2010 14:55 kajeus wrote: Moreover, the single source is a TL forum post with a couple of polls. It seems so amateurish. :-/ the issue is also discussed in the largest german sc/bw/sc2 forum: http://starcraft2.ingame.de/forum/showthread.php?t=187979 feel free to link the thread on wiki. it may take some days for me to bother registering on enwiki to link it myself. | ||
Half
United States2554 Posts
On May 30 2010 14:51 kajeus wrote: Uh? If you can prove that four thousand people are on board with the criticisms you list, then you have a pretty solid case for noteworthiness. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=128014 4500 against it in the poll, 200 for it. though this IS an internet poll, you still have to be registered to vote which raises it's significance drastically. And the fact that it so unilateral. Were not talking about 60-40. Not even 80-20. This is 96-4. Among a sample size of fans of 5000 people. | ||
Talic_Zealot
688 Posts
But recently the forums have turned from healthy criticism to pure hatred and disregardment of any good qualities, which makes me sad and/or angry. Do you people don't want the game to succeed? I do. And I see all the potential that this game has for being as good or a better competitive game than the original SC:BW. Bnet 2.0 is constantly undergoing big changes, but instead of seeing this people just dig the same hole. I can go on probably allot more but I'll just stop and say: If you don't like the game just wait a while or don't play it and with that don't hate on it. If you don't want the game to succeed, DIE! | ||
jacen
Austria3644 Posts
On May 30 2010 14:55 kajeus wrote: Moreover, the single source is a TL forum post with a couple of polls. It seems so amateurish. :-/ and yeah: http://forums.battle.net/thread.html?topicId=24702011004&postId=246997284897&sid=5010#0 though these forums probably will vanish after release, so why bother linking them on wiki? | ||
wankey
98 Posts
| ||
Froadac
United States6733 Posts
| ||
jacen
Austria3644 Posts
On May 30 2010 15:08 Froadac wrote: This pretty much rules out the poll, and even the forums: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RS#Self-published_and_questionable_sources i disagree as the opinions of the users expressed in the poll is not "self-published" by tl.net. | ||
Half
United States2554 Posts
On May 30 2010 15:08 Froadac wrote: This pretty much rules out the poll, and even the forums: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RS#Self-published_and_questionable_sources TL is none of them. And it's about itself, because its judging the community reaction so obviously one would use a community site. So even if it was, it would be about itself. The Opinion of Teamliquid.net is obviously a good source on the opinion of teamliquid.net. Considering we are the largest fan website concerning SC2, its fairly solid. Also...omg Teamliquid doesn't have a wikipedia page. We have millions of hits. Gogo power rangers. | ||
Wargizmo
Australia1237 Posts
Rob Pardo indicated in a June interview that LAN support would not be included in StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty.[52][53][54] Removing LAN has the effect of forcing players to connect through Blizzard's servers, Battle.net, before playing multiplayer locally. This has created a large amount of protest mainly in the form of online petitions, and calls for boycotting the game.[55] It has been reported that Blizzard is considering implementing a system whereby a LAN connection is possible after first authenticating with Battle.net.[56] It should be noted that a similar controversy occurred over the game Half Life 2.[57] In the original StarCraft, as well as many other multiplayer games, LAN is still ideal for use in tournaments for the exceptionally low latency.[58] StarCraft II has been criticized for its lengthy development time. Wired Magazine in its annual Vaporware Award, ranked StarCraft II first among the delayed technology products of 2009.[63] Starcraft II is now set for a July 27, 2010 release date according to Blizzard.[64] For further reference you might want to also look at the Wikipedia page of Modern Warfare 2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Warfare_2 A short paragraph in the 'Development' section reads: Infinity Ward announced on October 2009 that the PC version of Modern Warfare 2 would not support the use of user-run dedicated servers or in-game console commands. Such announcement was received poorly by some members of the PC community,[26] a negative response that eventually drew Infinity Ward's own response on the matter in an effort to put the community at ease.[29][41] So yeah, word it better, reference more than one source, possibly a post on BNet's official forums as well as TL.net, and throw it in the Development section rather than giving it its own headline, possibly underneath the rest of the stuff about BNet 2.0, and it will probably stay in there. In fact as far as references go, a forum poll on a site most people have never heard of is probably not adequate, if you can find a news article on a well known gaming website about the community backlash regarding Bnet 2.0 then it's probably a better source than that one post. | ||
Renaissance
Canada273 Posts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle.net | ||
Grend
1600 Posts
SC2 Forum should change its name to Blizzard Criticism. | ||
Soulish
Canada1403 Posts
While Blizzard boasts some of the most loyal fans in the gaming industry, they have recently come under heavy criticism.The main concern revolves around the Battle.net 2.0 platform and a recent interview with Frank Pearce, one of the founders of Blizzard. One of the biggest requests has been for LAN play[82][83] with over 250,000 fans signing a petition (via petitiononline.com) requesting that Blizzard include LAN support. For a while it was speculated that there would be a semi-LAN mode, in which clients verified with a server. However, in an interview Frank Pearce made it clear that there would be no LAN support in StarCraft 2.[84] Also, in the same interview it was stated that people wishing to play people in areas other than their own would have to buy additional copies of the game How about this? Blizzard has recently been heavily criticized for the direction it seemed to be taking with its Battle.net 2.0 platform and the StarCraft series in general. There are several notable flaws within the system, such as the lack of chat rooms, lack of cross-region play, and lack of LAN. There was a petition in 2009 consisting of over 250,000 fans that strongly urged blizzard to include LAN play in StarCraft II. However Frank Pearce, one of the founders of Blizzard, stated that there will be no LAN due to piracy issues. He also said that gamers who wished to play in other regions will have to buy additional copies of the game and it's respective expansions as well, despite the fact that the original intent of the region lock was so that latency would not interfere with gameplay quality. it would be nice if someone incorporated at least some of my writing into the wikipedia article. I can't do it myself D: its confuuusing | ||
Fraud
Canada108 Posts
On May 30 2010 15:08 Froadac wrote: This pretty much rules out the poll, and even the forums: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RS#Self-published_and_questionable_sources this. The concept behind wikipedia is you write an article based off work that has been reviewed by someone, is notable (having coverage in reliable sources), and in a neutral point of view. Yours is neither, and is using wikipedia as a soapbox. Your edits will be removed as they are in violation of wikipedia's publishing rules. Wikipedia is not your blog. Criticism sections are reserved for criticism done by the media generally. If someone wrote a post online about a bunch of people whinging about sc2's problems that's one thing. A video game review is completely different. Not even sure how you can criticize an unlaunched product anyways. | ||
| ||