Talk:Criticism of World of Warcraft

message: First of all, instead of immediatly jumping to a admin page, these pages are to discuss stuff.
Second, as a gay person myself, I do not see the problem with the text of  User:144.35.254.12 although some fine tuning can be done.
Finaly, both of you are close to three reverts cool down. KimvdLinde 00:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some finetuning has been done now. KimvdLinde 00:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Gay rights

message: This article needs more citations, as it is now, it's a work of POV. Havok (T/C/c) 09:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The majority of this article is still POV, speculation or hearsay.  I'm not saying that it's not true, or that most players wouldn't agree with it, but that's not the standard required by Wikipedia.  I've just added about twenty requests for citations; I could easily have added twice that.  If I bother to come back here, it'll be to remove everything that's lacking a citation, which means about half of the article in its current state. -- Rogerborg 22:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations

message: Was its own article but was about to be deleted.   Seems to have some value so merged into this article.  However it might make sense to put under Criticism or Exploits headings--Esemono 05:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really see the value of having this in the article. Also, it doesn't have a citation or source. --Hetar 17:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I was very surprised that I didn't find Shamen even mentioned in the criticism page... Granted, such criticisms may be somewhat irrational, but they still exist. I constantly hear (in-game) complaints about how rigged shaman are, and I have to agree . Oh well. --HantaVirus 12:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A criticism that I have often heard is that Blizz engineers must all roll Shamen, which is why that class is so often able to avoid being nerfed in patches. ...*I kill a shaman*...*Self-rez*...*Frost shock*...*I begin to cast BLINK (yes, the "instant cast")*...*Windfurry tripple crit for 1300, 1900, 900*...*I die.* --HantaVirus 13:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't meen to be rude. What does "blizz engineers must all roll shamen" mean? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Riphal (talk • contribs) 23:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It suggests that shamans are the class most played by the game developers, that supposedly being their motivation to make the class extra powerful; to give themselves an edge over other players. It is usually said more tongue-in-cheek when referring to how powerful shamans are, than as a literal criticism. Much as I personally recognize this though, I'll have to agree that a citation is needed to mention this as serious criticism. Invariably, any competitive game will have people on both sides claiming that the other has an unfair advantage after they loose, and this is most certainly not limited to shamans (or even to World of Warcraft as a whole) with other classes/races, like hunters, warlocks, paladins, undead etc. all having been mentioned as being "overpowered" at some point or another. So if shamans being overpowered is to be mentioned as a serious criticism, I'd agree it needs a source. Frostlion 09:20, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Frost Shock

message: Can someone find a citation for the critisism that "Several points in the show poke fun at how World of Warcraft players have no lives, eat junk food, and are overweight." If non can be found, I'm removing this from the article as it adds nothing, is WP:OR, and almost sounds like an insult to anyone who plays WoW. Havok (T/C/c) 07:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  South Park 

message: What about the very common criticism(more common than any on the page) that World of Warcraft contributes to video game addiction?
Am I the only one who think's this is missing? i kan reed 16:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can find a reliable source for it, sure add it. It is a common problem, but us saying it is one dosn't help this article I'm afraid. Havok (T/C/c) 18:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unmentioned topic

message: The quote from the good Dr. was removed from World of Warcraft due to not being reliable. Even with the sources. Thoughts about this? Seems it was re-added by someone, and now it's all good. :P Havok (T/C/c) 21:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand why this section is here. Game Addiction itself is marked as controversial on its page. The person who originally made the quote about 40% subsequently retracted it, and another person with similar credentials at the same institution further deprecates it. If there is no data, and merely speculation by a single source, why keep the section? RickManion 16:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since noone who's watching this page has issued an opinion, I'm going to change this page in about a week or two. I think I'm going to move this section to the "other criticisms" section, and put in something like: "Like many other Online Games, some psychologist are concerned that many World of Warcraft players may suffer from game adiction." I won't use either of the statistics from Dr. Orzak, and I will try to find a citation that doesn't even reference her work. Hopefully a more moderate and similarly prominate psychologist has weighed in on this. Richard Manion 01:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think addiction should be part of this page as one, it got it's own page, two, it's not a critisism of World of Warcraft, but of the whole genre and also the whole gaming industry.81.225.4.84 14:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If we could find some information that backs up the idea that WoW creates more addictions than other similar games, it would be great to add. It backs up my personal experience - I've got a handful of friends who are pretty much out of commission (no college, job, etc.) due to WoW addiction.128.187.0.164 16:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I disagree. Since WoW is specifically referenced and the incident generated a large amount of controversy, I feel it is appropriate to include it. The content also exists in the main article World of Warcraft. I would strongly encourage you to participate in the discussion started on WikiProject videogames here before continuing to remove content so that consensus can be reached. Many thanks, Gazimoff WriteRead 21:36, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Game addiction 

message: I think it should be noted the amount of Critisism of WOw's PvP, and how it is very poorly done and fore the msot part a joke.
I think it is also important to say that though Blizzard has tried to make the game fun for casuel players, it really is not past level 30 and is from around that point on based mostly on grinding and farming.
Those are more opinions then criticisms by the definition many of the editors here will use (in specific and especially Havok), and that view isn't entirely inaccurate with what you're proposing to put up with this. However if you can find a valid source article or study or comparison for those feel free to add a section. Just keep in mind when adding it in your own words you need to use it from the source and not add unsupported opinions/views. I would think given the wealth of WoW sites both positive and negative out there you'll be able to find something somewhere. [Sunday, 2006-11-19 T 23:42 UTC]
Plesase take a look at the Guild Wars article. The critasism section is full of horrible insults of the game, and whenever anyone trys to add notes of soultions Anet has made to fix these problems they are shot down. On this article however, every peice of critism has a note saying "Blizzard had fixed this problem" or "these comments are unfounded" and the like. Either the Guild  Wars article needs to be allowed to contain the same type of notes or those notes in this article need to be removed. It is majorly biased.--68.192.188.142 02:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The PvP is really mostly opinion, and the grinding could be a critisism of all MMORPGs, not WoW specifically.81.225.4.84 14:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

text: It would be incorrect to assert that there is no controversy over WOW's implementation of PVP, as there are literally hundreds of threads from both subscribers and blizzard employees in the official forums that have discussed these issues, not to mention the fact that Blizzard has implemented specific patches and changes in order to address these criticisms. The section is well-cited, and would therefore appear to be a worthwhile contribution, especially given the title of this article. Simply not liking the fact that controversy exists does not make it any less true nor is grounds to remove it from WP (see WP:IDONTLIKEIT). Mjharrison (talk) 18:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  PvP and Grinding 

message: I recon that a new article is required, which looks at mmorpg addiction in more detail. i think it should include information on
*the ever quest/'evercrack subject
*urban myths
*university students
etc.
what do you think
Evildoctorbluetooth 16:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: MMO addiction

message: If you search "Giant Communist Robots", it sends you to this page. Is there any reason for this? I can see nothing related to giant communist robots on the page. 211.28.214.169 04:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to ask... *why* were you searching for Giant Communist Robots? Toby Douglass 12:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Giant Communist Robots was a guild on Mal'Ganis.  A GM decided their name violated the TOS, and were renamed Giant Censored Robots for obvious reasons.   Barrakketh 11:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Giant Communist Robots 

message: I believe this article should stay on real-world issues. This section, like the already-removed "Game Design" section, merely states a negative opinion about an in-game aspect, namely that effort is rewarded more than skill. Opinions differ about this, and many players certainly find this enjoyable.
The title of this article is "Criticism of World of Warcraft", it should not be confused with "Why people do not like this game". To explain the difference, in the article on Rap, you can write "Various politicians, journalists, and religious leaders have accused rappers of fostering a culture of violence" (and that sentence is indeed there). You should NOT write "Various people think rap is bad because there is no melody".
For instance, you could mention the fact effort is rewarded more than skill IF you link it to the addictive aspect of the game, i.e., "Time spent is rewarded => people play too much for better rewards". In that case, you put it (with a citation) in the section "Game addiction", because addiction is bad, and it concerns society as a whole, so it is encyclopedic. The game mechanics themselves are off-topic, as whether they are bad or not is a matter of opinion. Ratfox (talk) 05:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Removing "Game Mechanics"

message: Apologies, I'm new here. I was following advice from Atama after posting this on the talk page of the main WoW entry. Is it worth putting in an entry about the amount of spam that was generated after free trial accounts were launched and about the community solutions that were put together to reduce these problems (spam filter addons etc)? 
Is it also worth including a note on the legal action that Blizzard started in May 2007 and completed in February 2008 against In Game Dollar in an effort to reduce the amount of in-game spam? The injunction can be found at http://virtuallyblind.com/files/Peons_Injunction.pdf. Gazimoff (talk) 08:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see how Gold Selling/Spamming occurring on WoW is a legitimate criticism of WoW itself. I thnik it should be removed until it can specifically be tied to WoW. This is a general criticism of most MMORPGs, not WoW.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.175.18.130 (talk) 18:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Gold Selling/Spamming

message: The following text was added under Game Addiction. I know I'm not the best at grammar/spelling, but this needs some rework. It also needs citations or links to source material.
Dr. Dragusin Lazar Mihai, psychologist from Municipal Hospital of Craiova, Romania has a different personal oppinion regarding game addiction. In his view, a major part plays the poor competition in the MMO niche and its not related at all to the game addiction and Warcraft. "World of Warcraft is simply the best game in this market segment, so obviously players are attracted to the best product existent so far. I made several psychic researchs regarding World of Warcraft players, and so far from 47 cases I found only 1 case of severe addiction and psychic trauma, a player who calls himself "Weirdo" and has symptoms of acute dissociated consciousness and dual personality (homo duplex) combined with extreme violence, subject in crysis moments is able punch walls untill his knuckles heavy bleeds, break different surrounding items and manifest seriously violent behaviour towards almost anything. But I cannot say that these type of problems are common regarding the mass of players, so we should look at it like an isolated incident."
If some references can be found, I'm happy to help reworking the language to make it workable.Gazimoff (talk) 22:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paragraph on Dr. Dragusin Lazar Mihai 

message: I've been thinking, Gazimoff, after you noted the lack of images, and I think the image (screenshot) from Make Love, Not Warcraft qualifies as a good fair use image to use here. User:Krator (t c) 14:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I uploaded a couple of images, both of living people. Both got removed. I was told to either take my own pics of them or ask them for a free use picture. Oh well...Gazimoff (talk) 00:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

text: As I'm reading the article, nothing in it requires any imagery to make it understandable to readers (see WP:NFCC); if free imagery is available and would be appropriate, feel free to include it.  —  pd_THOR | =/\= | 16:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Indeed, it would be for illustrative more than explanatory purposes to show the people involved with the article. Having said that, the original biographies would also probably need images as well. Gazimoff (talk) 16:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: Went ahead and gave the article B class. The information is cited well and handled correctly, and split into smooth subsections. You should probably tweak a few of the areas of the page in terms of wording but nothing major stands out at this time.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm upping the importance. This is a key topic to one of our top importance game articles, so I'm changing importance to high. Overall its a good job, but I would ask if there has been any response on Blizzard's part to much of this criticism. -- Sabre (talk) 10:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm fairly certain there has been. I'll have a look through over the next few days to see if I can add some balance to the article Gazimoff (talk) 11:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  VG Project Assessment

message: Merge.I think there is a problem with notability of this article. I think it's content should be added to World of Warcraft, that would highly improve the World of Warcraft article.Gears Of War 13:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As per the taskforce work, and discussions on WP:VG, we are already on the case :) Gazimoff WriteRead 14:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm in favor of condensing the article down, per Wikipedia is not a soapbox.  "Criticism of" articles are rarely more than just well-written bitchfests about what's wrong with a particular game or technology.  There have definitely been a few real, notable scandals/problems with WoW that have had far-reaching implications on the MMO genre as a whole, but gripes about software instability are almost never notable, unless it's a case where the company was caught installing malware on people's computers, etc.  There's a lot in this article that could just be tossed, as far as I'm concerned.  And it may very well be that once the unsuitable stuff is tossed, what remains would be much easier to merge with the main article. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So toss it. Outside faces are always welcome; bring the passages that are of issue to the talk page so we can go over why they should (not) be included. --Izno (talk) 21:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: For those interested, I have a sandbox up at User:Gazimoff/wow sandbox. Feel free to chip in with merge work - I'm performing some general article cleanup at the same time. Many thanks, Gazimoff WriteRead 21:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: I've redirected the article following a content merge. Hope everyone's happy with this. Many thanks, Gazimoffmentor</span>]]/review) 12:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect