Talk:Overwatch (video game)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Archive 1 Archive 2

Adding info about similarity to tf2

When you search Team Fortress 2 vs Overwatch, you get results. There should be a See Also or citation of the style close to tf2. Know what I am saying? Coolcam6578 (talk) 21:45, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

There's a few reliable sources that mention it, but I'd like to wait till the real reviews come out on release day, there should be some more specific comparisons made and we can link it then. -- ferret (talk) 22:05, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

minor correction, can't add myself

"Due to the cancellation of Titan, Overwatch became Blizzard's second attempt at launching a new franchise since StarCraft in 1998."

I think this word ignores Diablo, which launched in 1996. 156.110.130.58 (talk) 21:48, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

How so? Diablo was before Starcraft. It says "Second since StarCraft". -- ferret (talk) 21:59, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
I think Overwatch would "become" the third. I think you're taking "second since StarCraft" to mean it went StarCraft first then Overwatch second (in an arbitrary listing), whereas I read it to mean "Blizzard's second overall attempt" and the main topic of the sentence is Blizzard's total number of new franchises (which Overwatch is the 4th). Maybe it could be reworded so it's clear to both of us? 156.110.130.58 (talk) 14:24, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm taking "second since StarCraft" to mean "After Starcraft, there was Titan (first attempt since, which failed), then Overwatch (second attempt since)". The sentence is already in the context of Titan's cancellation, with two franchise attempts since Starcraft (the last successful), starting with Titan (1st) then Overwatch (2nd). -- ferret (talk) 14:27, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Ohhh, okay. Yeah that makes sense. I guess I was taking it out of context. Cheers 156.110.130.58 (talk) 14:34, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 May 2016

There is a spelling Mistake at the last bit of info under "Related Media" about the brothers. "third episode Dragons about Nanzo vs. Gengi brother conflict was released on May 16." is what is there now. The names of the brothers are "Hanzo" and Genji" The sentence also could be re-worded, something along the lines of " The third episode Dragons about the conflict of the Shimada brothers, 'Hanzo' and 'Genji' was released on May 16th" 66.163.5.29 (talk) 23:14, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Done -- ferret (talk) 23:26, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Sexualized female characters

I feel it is important in a game where the developers have specifically called out the idea that they are trying to "portray diverse, non-sexualized representations of genders" to show this statement alongside the blatantly hyper-sexualized images of female characters from the game. Before someone simply undoes the change, please talk about whether or not anything added about the sexualized images from the game is incorrect or subjective.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Purpleloropetalum (talk • contribs) 02:26, 15 November 2014‎ (UTC)

We require a reliable source for additions like this. What you have added is your personal views (Original research) based on several images. -- ferret (talk) 02:45, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
These are reliable sources; two are from the game's actual website (Overwatch official website) and the other two are clearly from the game. How can I make the sourcing more official than the official website? This is an honest question; how can I fix the sourcing so that these images which are obviously from the game are more official somehow? Additionally, these comments are factual, not subjective; these aren't my personal views, these images speak for themselves. It is a fact that the developers specifically said they were trying to show non-sexualized representations of women and then made sexualized representations of women. How can I make this more official? To me it's like calling the sky blue and then someone saying I don't have a source for that. I honestly want to understand.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Purpleloropetalum (talk • contribs) 12:21, 15 November 2014‎ (UTC)
That's not how Wikipedia defines a reliable source. The comments are subjective, as they rely on the viewer's perspective, in this case yours. Please read WP:Reliable sources and WP:Original research. What you need is a reliable source, such as Polygon or IGN, to cover how the images do not appear to fit with the statements made by Blizzard. I will also leave a welcome template on your talk with other information on Wikipedia policy. -- ferret (talk) 14:18, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
The comments are not subjective; these images are sexualized. Saying they are is completely neutral because it's an objective fact. Should I link to something that talks about how an image is sexualized and/or sexist? The images are also from a verifiable source, as I said above. Finally I still don't see how it is original research because from what you are saying, it sounds like unless someone says "the sky is blue" in an article somewhere, that means it's not blue. It's not part of the original Polygon article that was quoted (although it's in the comments) but the hypocrisy is clear to anyone who actually looks at the images, and it's worth pointing out as part of the cultural discussion surrounding a game, especially since the developers have been quoted several times about their desire to be less sexist while standing next to blatantly sexist imagery.
So far I've found one semi-source - this Kotaku article mentioning that although they said the images were trying to be less sexist, "...Overwatch's women are mostly super slim and clad in cat suits, so... yeah." http://kotaku.com/blizzard-admits-to-over-sexualizing-women-trying-to-do-1656383872 - and some blogs that talk about it, but I'm guessing those aren't considered ok. I'll try to re-work the edit to use that.
Those are the facts, but the bigger picture is worth looking at as well. At this exact moment, many game-related sites are a little hesitant to mention anything about sexism in gaming thanks to the whole gamergate scandal and the massive negative feedback it brings, and there are going to be lots of people who will deny the images are sexist simply because they refuse to let anything be said along these lines. This makes it all the more important that something is said and the hypocrisy of a huge, AAA company claiming sexist images aren't sexist is clearly documented in a neutral and specific way. Purpleloropetalum (talk) 11:17, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
The Kotaku source is what you needed. Even then, I will be removing the images you're linking to because that is not how we source things. The images themselves are not a source, they offer no commentary. Please understand I don't have a position on any of this, I am simply trying to ensuring Wikipedia policy is met. You should make sure you read WP:V, because in a way, you're absolutely right. If a published reliable source doesn't tell us the sky is blue... then we don't know. :) It's an extreme and silly example but is basically how it works. -- ferret (talk) 14:25, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

But here's the thing... Almost all of the characters, male or female, are super slim and wearing catsuits. There's a bit of a double standard here. 82.13.151.196 (talk) 17:49, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 May 2016

Hero has been released, this needs to be change to put it in past tense and not future tense. 82.13.151.196 (talk) 17:46, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Done Izno (talk) 18:20, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 May 2016 (Reference 34 change)

Change Reference 34 from the Polygon article (http://www.polygon.com/2016/4/6/11376814/overwatch-tracer-pose-butt-replacement) to an archive of the official statement made by Jeff Kaplan on the Overwatch forum (https://web.archive.org/web/20160411114236/http://us.battle.net/forums/en/overwatch/topic/20743015583?page=11). Not only is the Polygon written with a bias, it also does not contain the entire written response by Jeff Kaplan explaining the reasoning behind his decision. HFsteady (talk) 04:56, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Your edit would remove what is generally held to be a reliable source in favor of an unreliable source (taking into account WP:SPS and WP:SELFPUB). Please establish consensus for this change. Izno (talk) 08:10, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 May 2016

Overwatch should be considered a MOBA(Multiplayer Online Battle Arena). It fits the criteria of a MOBA. It's online,multiplayer,it takes place in arena, and there is battle that occurs. FortyP9 (talk) 17:44, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. I haven't seen any sources that refer to it as a MOBA, any more than TF2 is considered a MOBA. Please don't bring the MOBA versus ARTS "because the name makes no sense" stuff here. -- ferret (talk) 18:43, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2016

In the the final paragraph near the end of the pages introduction, it is stated that the game was well received by critics, yet when we look at the reception section of the article it is stated that the game received critical acclaim, which based on the reviews presented on the page, it did. As such the section of the introduction which states that the game was well received by critics should be changed to the game having received critical acclaim, which is more in line with what is stated in the reception section and also more in line with the reviews the game received.

Wikipedier2016 (talk) 18:33, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Done -- ferret (talk) 18:36, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Wired

please change ((Wired)) to ((Wired (magazine)|Wired)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:541:4305:c70:5823:6997:57b1:e338 (talk • contribs)

 Done --MASEM (t) 15:13, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Music sub-section

I could try and write a small music sub-section under the development one, if nobody else gets around to it. This interview with Neal Acree could be used to kickstart it. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 09:02, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Edit Request: Music Composers

Neal Acree is not the only composer for Overwatch's music. As a matter of fact, Derek Duke composes for the majority of the music, if the Official Soundtrack is any indication, alongside Neal Acree & three other composers, making a team of:

- Neal Acree - Adam Burgess - Sam Cordon - Derek Duke - Cris Velasco

Source: Overwatch Collector's Edition Soundtrack on iTunes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.49.139 (talk) 12:08, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

  • We only list the lead/primary composers in the infobox. All the others had very minor roles, per the soundtrack which you already mentioned. Once a music sub-sction gets written in the actual article, they will be mentioned. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 09:09, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Toxicity Issues

Saw this article today and wasn't sure if the topic was significant enough to add an additional section to this page. I thought I'd post it here first to see what you guys thought. Cheers Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 22:20, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Source has already been included under reception I believe. -- ferret (talk) 22:24, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Ah, I must of missed it, thank you! Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 17:28, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Pornography subarticle merger discussion

There is a consensus that the contents of Overwatch and pornography should be merged to Overwatch (video game). User:Maplestrip/Overwatch porn paragraph seems to be reasonably well agreed as the mergeable content, but can absolutely be worked on. I've moved it across already. Sam Walton (talk) 12:14, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I think this is self-explanatory. The relationship between Overwatch and pornography isn't notable enough to warrant it's own page; and should either be merged with Overwatch or deleted. --OCCullens (talk) 23:03, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

This... is not actually the talk page of Overwatch (video game) or Overwatch and pornography, but regardless, the topic has gotten a lot of media attention over a longer period of time, and various aspects of the phenomenon have been discussed by reliable sources. I don't believe it is as self-explanatory as you make it out to be. Merging this to Overwatch (video game) would result in either a severe loss of reliably sourced information and/or a severe case of undue weight. ~Mable (chat) 12:01, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Please note I have copied the two comments above from Talk:Overwatch. The merger discussion was started at the disamb page instead of here. -- ferret (talk) 14:01, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I made previous comments on the pornography page that I think it's unnecessary. It's explaining that Rule 34 exists. Blizzard's response (specifically, having originally stated they wanted to encourage fan works but keep it T-rated, and the takedowns subsequently) are important, but going into the quality of the porn fan works, even if it can be sources, seems well beyond encyclopedic purpose. --MASEM (t) 14:07, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't see how a pornography page works. This sounds like something for the fan base reception part of this article and does not really need a standalone article. AdrianGamer (talk) 14:22, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
What kind of content guideline would this article's scope go against, exactly? ~Mable (chat) 14:56, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
It's not so much any content guideline (though WP:UNDUE and WP:POVFORK would come close) simply that editorial discretion makes sense. A standalone article to highlight one relatively small aspect of a major game seems out of proportion. The issues with Overwatch and porn need to be discussed somewhere, but a separate article is not really needed. --MASEM (t) 15:38, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
That's a call for reliable sources to make, Masem. If multiple RSs are covering that precise aspect of the general topic with enough depth to satisfy the WP:GNG, it is not a POVFORK, as long as you include the views of all significant parties (which Overwatch and pornography seems to do, including the Blizzard's attempts to take down the content and all). Diego (talk) 11:13, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Based on Masem's reasoning. I feel Overwatch and pornography spends a lot of time explaining animated pornography and what it is, and less any real Overwatch connection. Even the first paragraph of Background suggests there isn't much notable here, stating that almost all high profile VG franchises have similar. I think it could be merged down to just two paragraphs, noting its apparent popularity, and Blizzard's (apparent) efforts to issue C&Ds. -- ferret (talk) 23:13, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Topics the article describes: character models getting ripped from the closed beta; a spike of popularity shortly after the release of the open beta; the reason why Overwatch specifically makes for "good porn"; experiences of members of the Overwatch porn community; popular use of the Source Filmmaker tool to animate character models; popularity of futanari; how Overwatch porn is generally several seconds long and intended to loop indefinitely (though some creators are working on longer stories); quality of the porn as described by multiple critics; takedown notices (and some community backlash?); people pointing at the porn as "proof" that the game will have longevity. I just don't want all that information to be deleted from Wikipedia just because other video game franchises also have porn scenes and Wikipedia is somehow above it. Apparently, news outlets love to look at the situation of Overwatch in particular. Just in the past week, a few new news articles have been written. ~Mable (chat) 08:48, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose based on Maple's reasoning; I believe that there is enough information to warrant the separate article. All the information in the article is valid and properly sourced, so it can stand alone as an article. If it were to be merged, it would either 1) create the problem of undue weight by including all the info included in the separate article or 2) not do the topic justice by excluding a lot of information that is, again, valid and properly sourced. Soulbust (talk) 09:35, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
    • The problem right now is that the topic itself is undue weight on the nature of OW porn. There are aspects of the topic that are proper to include since they were topics of serious discussion, which are generally already included. But when getting into the "quality" of the porn, I'm finding that the sources of that start delving into click-bait territory, and less serious discussions and more edging on mockery of the subject, to a point. And that very few other sources have actually focused on that compared to the broader issues of it just existing and subsequent takedowns. --MASEM (t) 14:18, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support: per Masem and Ferret above. There is not much reason to split it out from the article and they can be easily merged into this one. AdrianGamer (talk) 13:33, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Merge: People using Rule 34-type artwork for game characters and extracted models in Source Filmmaker is nothing new. This only became notable because Overwatch is extremely popular and had tons of articles written about it, but I don't see any valid reason for this to be a separate article. If this was officially sponsored by Blizzard, I could see a case for it remaining separate, but that isn't the case here. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 09:07, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Having tons of articles about an aspect of a topic which is extremely popular is the precise reason why we create WP:SPLIT articles like that one. The arguments made by those supporting the merge are the conditions that WP:WHENSPLIT list as reasons to create a new article, with the additional material that doesn't fit in the main one. Diego (talk) 11:39, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Move Overwatch animated media to something like Overwatch in other media then before merging. I'm not a fan of having a massive porn section on Overwatch (video game), an already sizeable article about a mainstream, family-friendly game; yes I know that Wikipedia is not censored but WP:UNDUE still applies. Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 05:59, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
The UNDUE aspect would be considered in the merge, as we already briefly discuss the pornography issue in the main article, and all this would add is a trimmed sentence or two, to this existing discussion, such as discussing the quality of the porn, are really unnecessary and UNDUE. The clear point was that Blizzard was trying to encourage fans to make art, but strongly requested they keep it Teen-rated, and when porn started to come, takedown notices followed, suggesting that this was part of Blizzard's effort to keep the game "clean". --MASEM (t) 14:25, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
That doesn't seem to be the main point at all, though, and was only something that started happening recently... If I had to trim the whole article down to one sentence, I'd say the core is that the work are produced in Source Filmmaker and tend to be only a few seconds long. After that I'd probably note that some reviewers see it as a good sign for the longevity of the game. I'm also not sure how the demographics are less important than Blizzard's response. ~Mable (chat) 23:37, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Except the fact that sourced content would have to be removed and trimmed should this page be merged to Overwatch (video game) due to WP:UNDUE is exactly why I oppose it being merged there in the first place. My proposed solution above minimises such problems. Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 12:13, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
In case it wasn't clear, I created this as a separate article because of WP:UNDUE: describing all the information in the original article would constitute as undue weight. Also notably, I'm planning to expand the article with new sources once I come home, assuming it still exists then. ~Mable (chat) 13:22, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't really understand how you could claim the sources are clickbait when the titles of each and every source seems pretty reasonable for that article's subject matter (i.e. "'Overwatch' Pornhub searches jumped 817% during the shooter's open beta" and "Overwatch's Director On Competitive Mode, Controversies, And The Future" both go into information that one would assume they would by just reading the title, as it goes with the other 10 sources on that article). And sure other games have had Rule 34 content made of them, but none has had the type of media attention and focus that Overwatch Rule 34 content has IMO Soulbust (talk) 18:11, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
I personally think the idea that dozens of sources write about this topic without any of them taking it seriously is rather sad. Is it so difficult to believe that reliable sources are just interested in this topic and think their readers want to read about it? Is this not interesting? ~Mable (chat) 09:06, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
The reason I came to that conclusion is because much of the coverage is from Kotaku, a tabloid that commonly puts mature related content to draw hits. Many of the other sources came after said article(s) and can be thought of as responding to them. However, discussion of it clearly arrived first as a way to create a salacious clickbait article versus actual notability.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 13:10, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Merge but pare down. It's way, way too much fanwankery to just dump directly into the video game article. A single concise paragraph will cover it, and it should contain nothing but salient reliably sourced facts, not all the WP:INDISCRIMINATE crap that's in there now.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  11:34, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
    • What is indiscriminate? The paragraphs of prose sourced to VentureBeat? Kotaku? Eurogamer? Metro? Why do all of these arguments sound so much like "I don't like it" to me? The article doesn't contain any kind of content listed at WP:INDISCRIMINATE; there's no plot descriptions or raw data, just history, development, and responses... ~Mable (chat) 12:52, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose a merge to Overwatch (video game) per WP:GNG. There are multiple, high quality sources which cover the topic in detail (and expand over almost three months, so it doesn't fall under WP:NOTNEWS), therefore widely satisfying the requirements established in policy for an independent article on the topic. The arguments that the reporting in these reliable sources is "fanwankery", "clickbait", "manufactured controversy" or "mere illustration of Rule 34" seem particularly weak, as the reliable sources are precisely expanding on this aspect, so they deem it significant. And it seems to me the claims that it should be merged because WP:UNDUE, have interpreted the policy backwards.
Now I could see an argument for merging it into Overwatch animated media (thus expanding the topic of that article to cover non-official media as well) per WP:PAGEDECIDE, and agree to it for the sake of consensus, provided that most of the content in Overwatch and pornography referenced by the reliable sources is kept. Diego (talk) 11:13, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Methinks the ultimate subject matter of the article is lacking in significance. The article admits that most of the so-called clips are only several seconds, and of poor quality, there have been barely any reactions from the creators either. Ultimately you have to use common sense and not blindly add anything that was ever mentioned by any game journalist ever. In my opinion, it needs to prove that it had a larger and more lasting impact compared to the vast majority of other video games that had lewd things made about them by fans.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 08:21, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Merge Just....why? I get that it's gotten coverage from outlets, but that doesn't really make it something that people should know about. The point of this could be surmized in a couple sentences: "Overwatch has had pornographic material made by fans. This is not unusual as many fans enjoy creating pornographic content." Done. What else needs to be said? EDIT: A bit of thinking later and I realize I should probably support the inclusion of it, as opposing the merge would mean that the page will still stand despite whether I think it's insignificant or not. Sethyre (talk) 08:38, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment/Leaning Merge I had to laugh when I saw this page. Nevertheless, it's probably better off being merged into Overwatch or better still Rule 34. It's a bit too risqué for Overwatch and would probably need to be reduced in size significantly. LCrowter (talk) 21:52, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

July sources applied

I finally got back home, so I finally got the chance to add in the new sources. I'd like to get some new opinions as the article has been expanded a bit. see differences. I don't think recentism still applies as well as it did before. ~Mable (chat) 12:02, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I still think it's far less about recentism and more about UNDUE coverage of the topic. That there have been issues with porn and Overwatch is necessary, its sufficiently covered, but compared to everything else about the game (and taking out things like strategies, and the seemingly daily updates on patches etc. that RSes are putting out), its a very very minor aspect that should not be overblown, given that Rule 34 exists in the first place. --MASEM (t) 14:45, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
WP:UNDUE seems to support creating a separate article when dealing with a topic that is much smaller in scale than the main topic, with lines such as "Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a 'see also' to an article about those specific views" and "In articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space." I guess what I want clarification for is, which specific lines in the WP:UNDUE guideline does Overwatch and pornography transgress? ~Mable (chat) 15:07, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
While UNDUE is under NPOV because it more often than not applies to points of view, I point to the first sentence Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements. Here, the separate article on this is giving excessive depth of detail/quantity of text to a factor of the overall coverage of Overwatch that has only been touched on by a few sources. Enough that it should not be omitted but not enough to really stand out as a separate article. --MASEM (t) 15:14, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
"... that has only been touched on by a few sources" - what constitutes as a few? Because there are at least a few dozen news sources out there by reliable sources that can be found with a Google News serch. I just find it so painful that all this information will just get deleted from Wikipedia when there's so much interest in the topic among news sources and so many interesting aspects of it to discuss > ~ < ~Mable (chat) 15:21, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Masem, with respect, that's a weird way to read WP:UNDUE; by that reasoning we couldn't have hardly any articles on pseudoscience, as all them are minor aspects of the scientific phenomena that mainstream academic papers cover in length. In fact, if the "fan-made porn" aspect has such a minor role with respect to the video game coverage, WP:UNDUE would recommend against mentioning it at all at Overwatch (video game).
UNDUE covers the prominence of some aspect of a topic when included as part of the main article about it; it doesn't limit the amount of topics we can talk about as separate articles. That corresponds to WP:Notability, which is satisfied for topics that pass the WP:GNG. Diego (talk) 11:17, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Actually, if you examine the coverage, one of the things that Blizzard has been vocal about is making the Overwatch environment very friendly and avoiding the issues that befall other communities. They have done many steps in game to try to discourage griefing behavior, etc. They have also made it clear they want to flourish a fan community but with the same concept, and so when Overwatch porn came out, they obviously reacted a bit upset about it. As such, that there was Overwatch porn and there was reaction to Blizzard by it is a valid bit of discussion within this article. But to go into the quality and nature of how it was made as a fan-made work noted only by a few sources is UNDUE. It's the same manner that we're ignoring the 100s of articles written on Overwatch strategies that are in the RSes, as that's UNDUE and NOTGUIDE type material despite the fact it can be readily sourced to some of the best RSes out there. --MASEM (t) 13:59, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
But the thing is that it's UNDUE only in the context of the "Overwatch (video game)" article, not when presented as a notable topic on its own article; that's what the UNDUE policy means.
The argument of "move the content to Overwatch (video game), but then remove the content because it's UNDUE there" seems just a way of sidestepping a proper AfD discussion that wouldn't succeed because Overwatch and pornography doesn't meet any of the requirements for deletion.
The content at Overwatch and pornography satisfy all content policies, as it's verifiable, covered in depth by many reliable sources, and doesn't meet any of the criteria at WP:NOTEVERYTHING - except for WP:NOTCENSORED; removing it by juggling the rules would be against WP:NOTPAPER - we shouldn't reduce the length of content that is already written and well sourced for concerns of size of content, if there's a place where it can be properly placed; there's lots of room to cover a summary of the details that RSs have considered significant. UNDUE does not offer justification to go against the WP:PAPER policy. Diego (talk) 15:26, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Deletion would not make sense because there is appropriate content about the issue of OW and porn that should be discussed, no one is talking about trying to ignore it; merging to retain contribution history is a must. It's just that the standalone article goes into an excessive amount of detail on fan-created works coming from sites that are edging on clickbait trends, when everyone knows otherwise that rule 34 exists (so that there was porn is of no surprise). As pointed out above, several of the sources on that article are riding the coattails of other sources, so really the number of sources is actually a lot less. It's the overall reaction/response to it that is of encyclopedic interest, and that can be summarized in paragraph on the main OW page. --MASEM (t) 15:42, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

How do you define what is excessive in terms of policy? So far what I've seen are arguments of people complaining that they don't like how the reliable sources are covering the topic, but that's an invalid argument because we're expected to follow the sources; the sources themselves are commenting that this is an application of rule 34 ("It’s not unusual for people to make porn of video games"), but they nevertheless have covered it in a full feature story, so they're conferring it notability. The one argument that would have merit is the one found in WP:NEWSORG that the several references were republishing exactly the same newsreel, but this is not what is going on here since each source is providing its own take on commentary and professional review of the phenomenon. Diego (talk) 16:21, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

There's a lot of articles on OW and porn that point back to Kotaku's larger work, which does happen frequently, that other works want to highlight something a different work did (giving credit but still drawing readers), so a number of those sources in the article exist only because Kotaku did their expose.
The other factor is the article itself; if you took out everything that is reiterating what OW is, and the existing response to the porn on the OW article, you're left with maybe 6 or so sentences on the separate article (subjectively). That can be summarized into an additional sentence or two into the existing article, avoiding the unnecessary fork for just the few extra sentences that can be offered. I note that there hasn't been enduring coverage of this area either, which also begs to its notability (OW remains relevant of course). Maybe at some point there will be an article on the OW fanbase, at which point that information would make sense as part of it, but it stands out like a sore thumb to separate it out and get into that much fine detail on what is otherwise not a surprising aspect of a fanbase. -MASEM (t) 16:40, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
In response to "several of the sources on that article are riding the coattails of other sources", I explicitly tried to stay away from this, in such a way that nine of the used sources have a good amount of unique content. The biggest perpetrator currently used in the article is how PCGamesN reported basically everything there is to know about Blizzard taking down fanworks. Other sources just basically copy-pasted from them. There are much more sources not currently used in the article, but they also don't have much new to say. What we're left with seems as a good amount. As for the current article reiterating what Overwatch is... I literally can only find one sentence that does that, and that's in the start of the background section, in the same paragraph that quickly sums up that rule 34 works are common on the internet. The rest is all about the porn: why this game in particular is so popular, how the majority of it is made, what kind of content is popular, and how people (including Blizzard and the game's designer) responded to it. The article features both praise ("that much pornography of [Mei] is fairly body positive ...") to criticism ("female characters were commonly portrayed in a submissive manner"). Neither of these comments were made by Kotaku, and one was made forty days after Kotaku's in-depth piece. ~Mable (chat) 08:47, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Looking for more feedback

BTW, shouldn't we publicize this as a RfC now that it has taken the form of a straw poll? Diego (talk) 15:32, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, to be fair, there are three vocal people (you, me, and one other person) going against a large group that seem to agree that the content should simply be merged. I think we're better off trying to save as much content to be merged here as possible by drafting a paragraph ^_^; ~Mable (chat) 08:50, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
I've created this draft to show that it could be possible to merge all the content, though I think this would contribute to undue weight in the main article and I'm sad at the strong loss of detail. ~Mable (chat) 09:02, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
As Satellizer suggested, using Overwatch animated media as the merge target wouldn't have much problem of undue weight even if keeping a larger amount of content, as the topic is more directly related. Diego (talk) 09:47, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, but as someone else noted at an earlier point in the discussion, the "animated media" article primarily exists to discuss about a more specific topic: Blizzards cinematic trailers and teasers. I think the porn specifically would stand out as a sore thumb there, especially if it's the only fan works to be described. ~Mable (chat) 09:55, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
It's not the first video game porn parody, nor the first to get some articles from VG publications. We don't have articles for all the Warcraft porn and such. This still boils down to at most a paragraph of rule 34 trivia in the long term. -- ferret (talk) 13:30, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
@Ferret: I wouldn't call the paragraph I designed short, though I still haven't gotten any feedback on it either. ~Mable (chat) 07:50, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I've been looking through various policies and essays today in order to bring up better arguments for why this article shouldn't be merged, because apparently, the ~12 unique sources it has still doesn't make it meet everyone's Heymann Standard. Looking through the list of arguments to make, I believe have thus far brought up the reference count and that it therefore meets notability guidelines. I do not believe that the lack of other similar stuff existing is a useful reason for merger. I have pointed out that sources keep coming, with at least a few coming out every month. I've seen sources like Hardcore Gamer mention the situation as an example in unrelated articles as well, suggesting that there is value in knowing about it as a cultural thing that exists. I definitely wouldn't say that this notability is "temporary" in some way. There are multiple events discussed in the article, from PornHub publishing data to the recent Brazzers thing. Looking through the "arguments to make" list, I can't think of any good argument to merge this topic. Well, people seem to be under the impression that you can sum this whole thing up in three sentences, yet nobody seems interested in looking through the paragraph I made and say if it is properly sized for inclusion in parent article or not. Personally, I think it would be undue to be included here, and I believe it trims out too much information. Does anyone have any kind of input on this? This merger discussion has been going on for ages and I would actually like to see if I can bring Overwatch and pornography to GA-class. It meets all the criteria, after all... ~Mable (chat) 12:39, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Here's my quick take based on a skim of the above ream of text (with hopes to stave the Wikipedia cliché of spending more time arguing about video games and pornography than items of wider cultural import): (1) Again, without having read it in depth, there appears to be a consensus to merge the older version discussed above. (2) I am personally hesitant to agree with that consensus. (3) There is clearly enough sourcing from mainstream publications here—the question is where the content should live. (4) My main issue is that of summary style. If the link between the game and pornography was important, why is it not covered in greater depth in the article? If this topic is worthy of spin-out into its own article there should surely be more written in summary in the main article, if not into a full subheading. (5) If the content is deemed too minor for the main article, we have an immediate indicator of the notability of the topic. (6) An alternative to all of this: repurpose the article into one about Overwatch fandom, which does have representation in the main article. Keep the main article's section dedicated to the main points about fans and fan-created work, and spin-out the rest into a separate article, with the pornography fan work as a component. But resolve the issue of why the content isn't better represented in the main article and automatically get your answer for notability (though I'm a fan of the alternative). czar 17:30, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Closing?

What's the next steps for this? What avenue does it need to go to in order to get a closure decided? -- ferret (talk) 12:44, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Some 'outside party' should read through the discussion and come to a decision, be it merging the content from the proposed paragraph into the main series article, into the animated media article, not merging at all, or some other solution. I don't know if there is a place to request for a closure? ~Mable (chat) 12:46, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
I've made a request at WP:PM to see if we can get an uninvolved editor to close. -- ferret (talk) 18:18, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed Merger Content

Maplestrip had proposed the following paragraph as the content that would be merged here: Draft.

I've seen Maple ask several times if other users had reviewed this content, and I have just read it myself once I found it. I think it got lost in the shuffle and was hard to pick out the blue link. My personal opinion is that this draft is good for inclusion in the main article under a dedicated subsection of Reception, or a dedicate paragraph at the end of the Fan base subsection. For completeness, I also maintain my position that the content should be merged. -- ferret (talk) 18:27, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you so much for responding to it! ~Mable (chat) 19:37, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
I would start with that as a merged paragraph in whole, but I then think there's a few lines already in the present article to work into that. For example, I think the need to restress that Blizzard wanted to maintain a open for-all-ages community, and hence their stance on what does exist. But that will be easier to see once this is brought in, assuming that the merge !vote is for it. (Needless to say, I do support merging this in). --MASEM (t) 20:18, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
I based the paragraph on what was already in the article. It would replace the two lines that are currently in the article. ~Mable (chat) 18:48, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 November 2016

I don't know exactly where but somewhere in the page(preferably the bottom of the intro paragraph, which stated the beta release and E3 presentation) add "Overwatch was free on all platforms from November 18, 2016 to November 21, 2016

Coda The Portalmaster And Stealer Of Souls 15:20, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

 Not done They have done free weekends before, and will likely continue to do free weekends in the future. Unless it's tied to, say, a sales boost (as the free open beta is noted for), it's not really important. --MASEM (t) 15:22, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

PBS Idea Channel video

The PBS Idea Channel has a lengthy video on dissecting how OW's character design/miniminal narrative led to the fandom latching onto certain characters, and into that the so-called "shipping" of characters, and how that itself led to the porn aspects of OW. I'm not yet sure how to add but it should preceed the para we have on pornography or lead that off. --MASEM (t) 15:24, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't think Idea Channel is usually proper to use unless their videos are covered by other reliable sources. I mean, not that they don't have decent editing in their team, but YouTube videos are generally not well-liked as sources. I know PBS themselves don't exert any editorial control over their YouTube properties, anyway. ~Mable (chat) 23:24, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
True, but Polygon did cover the video. And here I think that to use the video, we'd attribute the claim that because the OW characters are so latch-onto-able, that such shipping and porn exists. The Idea Channel is a reasonable authorative source on the study of fandoms and memes, though anything more concrete/objective would need an RS --MASEM (t) 00:34, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
True. We already have plenty of sources saying that much, though. I mean, the first half of the video is mostly regurgitating existing sources and applying it to shipping fan art as well, while the second half gets more philosophical and wouldn't have a place in this article. The impact of the cosplay reference kit, for example, would be too intricate a detail for this article. If only we had a separate article on this topic to go into more depth /wink wink. This line at Polygon is pretty nicely put, though: "Blizzard often seems to go out of its way to make these characters feel like they belong to the fans, and the company implicitly encourages those fans to take up that emotional ownership and build upon it." ~Mable (chat) 09:38, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

On the capitilization of Overwatch League

All sources I find for it capitalize both words [1], [2], [3]. etc. It's similar to the LoL league in the titling. --MASEM (t) 02:46, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Overwatch Sombra ARG

The recent release of the newest hero, Sombra, was hinted at and eventually revealed through a series of puzzles that existed both within and outside of the game. This is considered to be an ARG, which is unofficially defined by the r/GameDetectives subreddit as "An ARG usually uses real-world clues to take players on a journey outside of any traditional entertainment medium. This often involves a chain of leads which is advanced through based on investigative work by participants. In the majority of cases, anyone with an interest should be able to participate. It is common that an ARG will be stumbled upon accidentally, with no direct confirmation by its organizer (or 'puppet-master'); however, clues along the way should confirm its existence. These clues often include various puzzles and cryptography." [4]

A section about this should probably be placed in content section 3.2, Characters, or 3.3, Post-release development if the section were to be implemented onto the page. I personally think it should be included considering some major video game news sites such as Kotaku and Engadget and seeing how widely covered it was it should probably be added. ~ (talk) 01:31, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

It is covered in more detail at Sombra's own article. -- ferret (talk) 01:59, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Meaning of Best of Three

Map types

Each Overwatch map has a specific game mode that it supports, which include:[13] 

   Assault: The attacking team is tasked with capturing two target points in sequence on the map, while the defending team must stop them.[3][4]
   Escort: The attacking team is tasked with escorting a payload to a certain delivery point before time runs out, while the defending team must stop them. The payload vehicle moves along a fixed track when any player on the attacking team is close to it, but will stop if a defending player is nearby; should no attacker be near the vehicle, it will start to move backwards along the track. Passing specific checkpoints will extend the match time and prevent the payload from moving backwards from that point.[3][4]
   Hybrid (Assault/Escort): The attacking team has to capture the payload and escort it to its destination, while the defending team tries to hold them back.
   Control: Each team tries to capture and maintain a common control point until their capture percentage reaches 100%. This game mode is played in a best-of-three format.

Correction Best of three means the team got 2 wins will win but in the case of Control maps the team got 3 wins will win so it is not best-of-three it is best-of-five 3:1;3:2;3:0 with maximum of five maps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.110.2.2 (talk) 06:16, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

It is best of 3 in casual matchmaking, best of 5 in competitive play. This is noted in the competitive play section. --MASEM (t) 06:18, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

PlayStation Awards 2016

Overwatch won a "Users Choice" title in PlayStation Awards 2016, should this result be listed in Accolades section? I think PSA is not a small award. --04:30, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I would note that it is just the Japanese vote. I'm not discounting it but needs to be pointed out. Frankly Man (talk) 11:35, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 January 2017

i suggest the correction of a grammatical error 'effective' (second article occurrence) to be changed to 'effectively' 71.35.160.1 (talk) 22:37, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Done Stickee (talk) 22:42, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Is it good

[1] It is a good game 0Styx0 (talk) 14:06, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

It's no exaggeration to say that Overwatch is one of the more anticipated games in recent memory (at least since the recent release of Doom). Blizzard Entertainment's team-based, class-based first-person multiplayer shooter is their first new franchise in 17 years — perhaps you've heard of their previous titles: Diablo, Starcraft and Warcraft? To put it another way, Overwatch is a game where you and a cast of colorful characters with contrasting and complimentary abilities go around shooting each other in mildly futuristic locales around the world.[2]

References

  1. ^ https://www.reddit.com/r/Overwatch/comments/3qzw8d/how_good_is_overwatch/
  2. ^ http://digg.com/2016/overwatch-review-roundup
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. -- ferret (talk) 14:12, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 February 2017

Change the Control map format to state that it is a best-of-three in quick play and best-of-five in competitive play Noprocking (talk) 00:26, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done This different is clarified in the competitive mode part of the gameplay section. --MASEM (t) 00:37, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Genre(s) and Mode(s) -> Genre and Mode edit request

I would like to change the Genre(s) and Mode(s) to Genre and Mode, respectively. Cocohead781 (talk) 22:38, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done That is something that comes from {{Infobox video game}} and can't be set on a per-game basis. --MASEM (t) 22:52, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Overwatch and pornography returns

I have continued expanding a draft of the Overwatch and pornography article that was previously merged into this one. The current version of this draft can be found by following this link. I think it is easily of appropriate notability to move back into the mainspace. Sources haven't slowed down with their documentation of the topic. I don't think it's quite GA level anymore, but I'm still fairly happy with it. I figured I would ask here rather than just being bold, seeing as how controversial the article was back in the day. I'm looking forward to be able to trim the porn section from this article, as the details are simply undue for the main topic. ~Mable (chat) 18:17, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

error under the section 'Narrative and Setting'

>"Citing a desire to keep its game styles "simple", and because it contradicted its emphasis on accomplishing goals as a team rather than trying to achieve large numbers of kills, Overwatch does not contain a traditional deathmatch mode."

this is no longer true. A deathmatch mode (8 man free-for-all AND 4v4 deathmatch) were both recently added to the game. [5] there are many other sources about this being true but they all say the mode sucks. https://www.google.com/search?q=overwatch+deathmatch&oq=overwatch+deathmatch&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.5049j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

anyways. I suggest the last portion of the sentence gets omitted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:589:8000:722D:D419:8963:E2D:9F81 (talk) 03:16, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

No, that's fine to say in original development, the "deathmode" aspect was not a focus, and then to say they added it later. There's no contradiction. --MASEM (t) 03:39, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Article bloat

This article is massively bloated, in comparison to other video game pages. Is it possible to split some of the sections into their own articles, such as Gameplay of Overwatch and/or Development of Overwatch, to combat this? I know one of the article's longtime editors @Masem: did something similar for No Man's Sky (Development of No Man's Sky). ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:19, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I'd probably do a separate "development of" (there's definitely notability in that alone just going after last Blizzcon interviews) and include that and the marketing section. I'll tackle that soon(ish). --MASEM (t) 22:13, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, although I think something could still be done to the gameplay section, which is larger than some entire game articles. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:43, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

'Gameplay' section slightly outdated

"Once ready, the player can use this skill at any time which may last for a few seconds (such as increased attack strength or immunity to attacks) or be a single powerful action (such as resurrecting any recently-fallen team members)..."

A past update to the game removed a character's ability to resurrect all their team members at once, yet the article still mentions this ability. The text should be changed to avoid confusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.213.147.32 (talk) 03:22, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

I replaced it with Zen's ultimate, which is unlikely to change but implies the same type of buff. --MASEM (t) 03:38, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

There are 5 new heroes that have been added now!

This should be updated now that we have Moira! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lionclaw49 (talk • contribs) 02:26, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 December 2017

Change the sample gameplay picture to a more recent one- it's very outdated. RollTime (talk) 03:26, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

How is it outdated? --Masem (t) 04:11, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:29, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 December 2017

Typo: "seasonable" -> "seasonal" in the "Development" section and add a link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overwatch_seasonal_events Granzymes (talk) 04:59, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

 Done --Masem (t) 05:06, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

New category

We need the cat Category:Video games containing loot boxes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.225.15.47 (talk) 17:54, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Designers on Overwatch

Mike Elliott was a Senior Technical Director for Overwatch but not a "Designer." He has since moved onto other projects within Blizzard.

[1] [2]

Stevenkhoo83 (talk) 23:15, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://overwatch.wikia.com/wiki/Michael_Elliott
  2. ^ http://www.mobygames.com/developer/sheet/view/developerId,109232/
Neither Wikia or Mobygames are reliable sources for this kind of information. -- ferret (talk) 23:22, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Was he originally credited as such in the game's credits? I added them at launch, and we don't normally remove people if they leave the company later. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 02:13, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Overwatch_(video_game)/Archive_1&oldid=1214636667"