ShirtNShoesPls (talk | contribs) →Reception in main body: Reply Tag: Reply |
Rambling Rambler (talk | contribs) Tag: Reply |
||
Line 107: | Line 107: | ||
There's no reason to object to the wording. [[User:ShirtNShoesPls|ShirtNShoesPls]] ([[User talk:ShirtNShoesPls|talk]]) 22:32, 2 February 2024 (UTC) |
There's no reason to object to the wording. [[User:ShirtNShoesPls|ShirtNShoesPls]] ([[User talk:ShirtNShoesPls|talk]]) 22:32, 2 February 2024 (UTC) |
||
:Metacritic states ''"Mixed or Average",'' Bloomberg states "''early reception has been mixed at best''". So claiming the game received "negative to mixed" (which is what you actually claimed in your edits) is obvious [[WP:OR]]. |
|||
:''Changed the wording to imply that only fans are upset with the narrative decisions in the game surrounding Batman. This is despite the fact that critics (such as [https://www.ign.com/articles/kevin-conroys-batman-is-completely-wasted-in-suicide-squad here]) have also heavily criticized the handling of Batman's death in the Arkhamverse.'' |
|||
:The article you have linked there clearly states that it was first published '''FEB 2, 2024 7:12 PM,''' while the edit of mine you are complaining about was made on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Suicide_Squad%3A_Kill_the_Justice_League&diff=1201572391&oldid=1201543194#mw-diffpage-visualdiff-cite_note-:8-57 31st January]. So you are deliberately misrepresenting my edits. |
|||
:''Removed the widespread comments of critics that it was substantially inferior to Origins, Asylum, City, or Knight, claiming it would be bias to state this.'' |
|||
:You provided no sources to support that assertion, further violating [[Wikipedia:No original research|WP:OR]]. |
|||
:''Removed any mention of the graphics, character models, and other aspects of the game being praised, or any mention that the repetitious gameplay and conclusion of character arcs established in previous games was panned.'' |
|||
:As can be seen in my recent edits ( [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Suicide_Squad:_Kill_the_Justice_League&diff=prev&oldid=1202480077], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Suicide_Squad:_Kill_the_Justice_League&diff=prev&oldid=1202499757]) I have fairly tried to represent the actual critical reception of the game at this time with sources. |
|||
:Quite frankly you are making completely unfounded allegations about my edits, and have conducted a campaign of edit warring and POV pushing on this article for the last several days. [[User:Rambling Rambler|Rambling Rambler]] ([[User talk:Rambling Rambler|talk]]) 22:55, 2 February 2024 (UTC) |
Revision as of 22:55, 2 February 2024
![]() | Video games Start‑class Low‑importance | ||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Comics: DC Comics Start‑class Low‑importance | ||||||||||||
|
Suicide Squad logo
Can someone add the circular cross Suicide Squad logo? That should be covered under {{PD-simple}} since it is a simple intercrossed pair of words inset into a circle. -- 65.94.169.16 (talk) 05:26, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Release
People need to stop changing release from Spring to Early 2023, Sefton Hill Specifically said Spring 2023 not early 2023!!!!!!! 2604:CB00:29E:FE00:906:61E0:CAE9:ADB9 (talk) 19:39, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- Please see MOS:SEASON. Thank you. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:02, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- People need to stop thinking that the games coming out May '26 cause it's not It's been delayed Gamingmaster83 (talk) 13:39, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 25 March 2022
I want to Edit and protect it til more accurate info is released. The release information is wrong, its Spring not early 2023 Gamingmaster83 (talk) 23:05, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Not done We purposely avoid using seasonal terms, due to the fact that seasons are not the same in all parts of the globe. "Early 2023" is sufficient. --Masem (t) 23:06, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- To add, while Jason Schreier at Bloomberg has claimed this has been further delayed, we have no official word yet, so it is inappropriate to mark it delayed until WB or Rocksteady affirms it. Masem (t) 13:44, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
Delayed
With permission, I would like to update this and say that the game has been delayed indefinitely now. I have the proof right here.
https://www.ign.com/articles/suicide-squad-kill-the-justice-league-reportedly-delayed-again Iacowriter (talk) 16:42, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
No, any claims of a delay by Bloomberg or by anyone else needs to be verified and to be confirmed by WB or Rocksteady themselves. Because there's a possibility of being untrue and still be released on May 26. TheDeviantPro (talk) 01:11, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- Lol, If everyone is reporting it including IGN Then it's true and it is delayed Rocksteady is going to confirm it sooner or later because there are no pre orders It's not on any of the retailers. PlayStation network has no release date and it isn't even listed on Gamefly. Gamingmaster83 (talk) 14:37, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- Everyone was reporting on the Bloomberg report which again, doesn't confirm anything until WB or Rocksteady announces the delay. If it is going confirmed at a later date then there is no harm in waiting until then, otherwise it's just jumping the gun. TheDeviantPro (talk) 03:12, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- So is Writing in the description Tell people not to edit Until it's confirmed Gamingmaster83 (talk) 05:01, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- Everybody just needs to relax No more adding or subtracting anything starting now. Until it's confirmed Gamingmaster83 (talk) 05:41, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- Everyone was reporting on the Bloomberg report which again, doesn't confirm anything until WB or Rocksteady announces the delay. If it is going confirmed at a later date then there is no harm in waiting until then, otherwise it's just jumping the gun. TheDeviantPro (talk) 03:12, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- OceanHok (talk · contribs) and TheDeviantPro (talk · contribs), Gamingmaster83 is edit warring and I've already hit my 3RR. I've reported Gamingmaster83 at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 05:58, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- And I'll do the same to you I'm not warring you are. All they gotta do is look at the log and say that you're making a big deal on nothing Gamingmaster83 (talk) 06:01, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- OceanHok (talk · contribs) and TheDeviantPro (talk · contribs), Gamingmaster83 is edit warring and I've already hit my 3RR. I've reported Gamingmaster83 at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 05:58, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- Please do, I'm not stopping you. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 06:13, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Characters
Is the description about Switching characters During combat true Cause I heard otherwise Gamingmaster83 (talk) 06:39, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Section blanking from 65.184.237.37
Is there a reason you completely blanked out the section, 65.184.237.37? Political discussion in gaming is by no means unheard of. The Last of Us II and other video game articles also have sections about their politics. ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 18:54, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
- While political discussion (or discourse, depending on who you ask) isn't unheard of, the paragraph in question cites the same source twice, which makes it seem like it's not a large part of the public reaction. Just my two cents on the matter though, I don't know the ins and outs of Wikipedia policy. 204.187.25.166 (talk) 19:54, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Sockpuppeting
IP's from the same approximate location are removing information about the title's technical issues. I'm requesting that the article is silver locked for the time being. ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 19:36, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Reception
Both Political Analysis and Batman's portrayal sections only include one citation. More than just one would be preferred, and to me, Political Analysis currently does not seem noteworthy enough, especially with TheGamer's reliability being "Situational." detriaskies 19:51, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
- 1.) The Direct and other gaming websites also mention the controversy surrounding Batman's death.
- 2.) Right-wing backlash to the politics of games is briefly mentioned in many articles. (The Last of Us II.) It's something that should be mentioned in the article. ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 20:02, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
- It fine to mention it as long as it doesn't violate WP:WEIGHT. Ideally there would be more than one source to support that backlash is widespread and notable. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:13, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
- 1.) The Direct doesn't seem like a particularly noteworthy source either. What other gaming websites?
- 2.) The Last of Us Part II had, as far as I can tell, a much larger overall backlash. It also contains multiple citations from larger news websites (Polygon, Vox, etc.), and was more detailed in specifying who was saying what. 204.187.25.166 (talk) 20:14, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
- 1.) "News posts and original content after August 2020 are considered generally reliable. Several editorial staff have bylines highlighting their experience working with other reputable video game media outlets such as VG247" is what the guidelines state. How is it not reliable in this instance.
- 2.) Three sentences in an article seems proportional to me. No one's suggesting that an essay in the article is dedicated to it. ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 20:25, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
- The mention of reception in the lead is a mess as it stands. The source for the review round up did not round up any review and is more about the consequences of a paid early access. Additionally, IGN and Forbes' previews are being cited as if they were launch reviews, while falsely attributing story arc critcism to said previews. Rakewater (talk) 21:08, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
- WP: SYNTH doesn't apply when covered the aggregate viewpoint of reviews. The issue would be attributing those views to IGN and Forbes. ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 21:33, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
“Some players bewailed about the appearance of a pride flag reading "we support all heroes," and whined that the game is "woke".”
This is not a sentence which belongs on Wikipedia. Players ‘whine’ about Pride flags all the time, doesn’t make it significant. Jamesifer (talk) 20:32, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
- The word "whine" has been removed per WP:NPOV. The sentence is reliably sourced. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:43, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
The inclusion of Batman's fate in the 'reception' section reads like a fan venting their anger, not a necessary inclusion.
"killing multitudes of people" are the words of someone getting their feelings off their chest. The reception section is for the reception of the game, not the plot. I have removed it, but someone has come back to restore it; there is no reason for its inclusion. TheJamesifer (talk) 21:08, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
- Whilst I do think that section should be more neutral and less, like you said, like someone getting their feelings off their chest, I do think there should be a section about the audience reception towards the story. It’s definitely created a mixed response similar to Joel’s death in The Last of Us Part 2, especially in regards to Batman’s death. AlwaysBi (talk) 23:33, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
- On the other end, we don't know if this will be a long-term point of contention and not a kneejerk reaction, especially when the game isn't officially released to the general public yet. Rakewater (talk) 00:59, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
- True, but with this being Kevin Conroy's last performance and the lukewarm reception pre-release, it’s safe to say the bad taste is already in everyone’s mouth if they heard about it. Additionally, people will watch the scenes on YouTube and TikTok if they don’t plan on buying it, which is likely a lot of people. DumbDiamonds (talk) 02:34, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
- I agree that there should be a section on reception to the story, but stating Batman’s ultimate fate does not belong in that section. Saying that fans were not happy with elements of Batman’s story is one thing, but the actual circumstances of his death belong in the plot section. As it stands, it unnecessarily spoils the story because someone was unhappy with it. TheJamesifer (talk) 06:24, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
- WP: SPOILER goes into this. ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 15:27, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
- Thing is, the fate of Batman isn’t why people are upset, it’s how that fate is granted to him. The fact that discussing it necessarily spoils it is unfortunate, but sweeping the main issue in dispute under the rug just because it’s a spoiler seems… petty. Surely this isn’t the only time something in Wikipedia had a conclusion that many people severely disliked for articulable reasons? 76.131.150.18 (talk) 05:10, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
- WP: SPOILER goes into this. ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 15:27, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
- I agree that there should be a section on reception to the story, but stating Batman’s ultimate fate does not belong in that section. Saying that fans were not happy with elements of Batman’s story is one thing, but the actual circumstances of his death belong in the plot section. As it stands, it unnecessarily spoils the story because someone was unhappy with it. TheJamesifer (talk) 06:24, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
- True, but with this being Kevin Conroy's last performance and the lukewarm reception pre-release, it’s safe to say the bad taste is already in everyone’s mouth if they heard about it. Additionally, people will watch the scenes on YouTube and TikTok if they don’t plan on buying it, which is likely a lot of people. DumbDiamonds (talk) 02:34, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
- On the other end, we don't know if this will be a long-term point of contention and not a kneejerk reaction, especially when the game isn't officially released to the general public yet. Rakewater (talk) 00:59, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Reception in main body
There are not nearly enough reviews out at the moment, nor do the contents suggest, to label the reception overall as “strongly negative.” 24.101.26.94 (talk) 22:27, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
- Eh - steam store has no reviews on it yet, as it hasn’t actually started shipping there - still early by a day and a half, but the discussions there are, at a glance, polarized, including more than a couple that are extremely negative. I’ve no idea where Google gets their review data from, but at present it’s got 1100+ reviews. Personally, I’m seeing no issue in waiting for reviews from multiple credible sources to become available, but being honest here, I think the writing’s already on the wall, and a delay in mention here is more a show of respect to the interested parties than anything else. 76.131.150.18 (talk) 06:22, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
- Steam reviews are sitting at around a 7 right now. Google reviews are especially susceptible to review bombs because there is no verification of purchase. Huskago (talk) 21:07, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
- We dont use steam reviews because they can be susceptible to review bombing or other nonsense, unless those scores are specifically called out by reliable sources. Masem (t) 21:12, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
- Cited parts of the article have been completely deleted because of NPOV objections, removing any mention of its troubled and difficult development, criticism of genreshift, or widespread agreement that it is significantly inferior to previous entries in the serious, even from positive reviewers.
- Many also seem to miss that video game reviews are much more lax than movie, songs, and other mediums of entertainment, treating it more as a school grade (40-100% being possible scores in the vast majority of instances) than a bell curve (with 50% being the average). "Mixed to negative reviews" is entirely in line with WP: NPOV and can be cited from the Bloomberg source. ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 22:38, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
- We dont use steam reviews because they can be susceptible to review bombing or other nonsense, unless those scores are specifically called out by reliable sources. Masem (t) 21:12, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
- Steam reviews are sitting at around a 7 right now. Google reviews are especially susceptible to review bombs because there is no verification of purchase. Huskago (talk) 21:07, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
"Widely considered inferior to the previous Batman: Arkham games" and "mixed-to-negative reviews" classified as NPOV pushing
@Rambling Rambler: keeps deleting any mention of it being considered "widely considered inferior" to the other Batman: Arkham games or the reality that it has received "mixed-to-negative reviews" in the article. (Claiming that it is a WP: NPOV issue.) Bloomberg, Metacritic, and other review sites all uniformly stating the title has gotten exactly this, with reliable sources provided for all of these claims.
- Changed the wording to imply that only fans are upset with the narrative decisions in the game surrounding Batman. This is despite the fact that critics (such as here) have also heavily criticized the handling of Batman's death in the Arkhamverse.
- Removed the widespread comments of critics that it was substantially inferior to Origins, Asylum, City, or Knight, claiming it would be bias to state this.
- Removed any mention of the graphics, character models, and other aspects of the game being praised, or any mention that the repetitious gameplay and conclusion of character arcs established in previous games was panned.
There's no reason to object to the wording. ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 22:32, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
- Metacritic states "Mixed or Average", Bloomberg states "early reception has been mixed at best". So claiming the game received "negative to mixed" (which is what you actually claimed in your edits) is obvious WP:OR.
- Changed the wording to imply that only fans are upset with the narrative decisions in the game surrounding Batman. This is despite the fact that critics (such as here) have also heavily criticized the handling of Batman's death in the Arkhamverse.
- The article you have linked there clearly states that it was first published FEB 2, 2024 7:12 PM, while the edit of mine you are complaining about was made on 31st January. So you are deliberately misrepresenting my edits.
- Removed the widespread comments of critics that it was substantially inferior to Origins, Asylum, City, or Knight, claiming it would be bias to state this.
- You provided no sources to support that assertion, further violating WP:OR.
- Removed any mention of the graphics, character models, and other aspects of the game being praised, or any mention that the repetitious gameplay and conclusion of character arcs established in previous games was panned.
- As can be seen in my recent edits ( [1], [2]) I have fairly tried to represent the actual critical reception of the game at this time with sources.
- Quite frankly you are making completely unfounded allegations about my edits, and have conducted a campaign of edit warring and POV pushing on this article for the last several days. Rambling Rambler (talk) 22:55, 2 February 2024 (UTC)