Talk:Vampire: The Masquerade – Bloodlines/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Unofficial Patches

I've removed the third paragraph, discussing the "controversy" between the authors of the unofficial patches. It is irrelevant to the article, which is supposed to discuss the game. The first two paragraphs, discussing the existence of the unofficial patches, is fine. -FeralDruid 02:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, people should know about the claims and counter-claims. Ego Felem Amo 04:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Why? What relevance does it have to the article? This article is supposed to be about the game, not about the drama going on between the authors of a series of fan patches. -FeralDruid 18:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I see someone else removed the third paragraph, after Bloody Rose put it back in. However, there were sentences then added to the end of the 2nd paragraph, to continue the controversy. I've removed them, a) as I see no reason why it should be noted that the 2nd patch's numbers were one higher than those of the 1st patch, and the "another controversy" comment was out of place. I'm sorry, but I really do get the impression someone at Planet Vampire is trying to keep the drama alive here on Wikipedia. Again, this is not the place for it. -FeralDruid 16:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

While I agree this is not the place for it, I don't expect it to stop, as the bickering between Tessera and Wesp (and each of their respective groups of proponents) has been going on since the very first "True Patch" was released. I'm curious, though, why you bring Planet Vampire into it. There's lots of drama over there, I'll grant, but by specifically mentioning the website name, you make it sound like the site itself is in some way culpable for these changes.--Rob 03:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The only reason I mention Planet Vampire is that it seems someone keeps adding NPOV comments about Tessera. Note that I am not involved in either site, and don't use either set of patches. I just want to keep the bickering crap out of the article. It has nothing to do with the GAME, which is what this article is about. -FeralDruid 03:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, but again, Planet Vampire per se has no relevance here. I'm sure the same people all use Hotmail or Google or what-have-you, and that's no more or less relevant than Planet Vampire. I'll grant that they're continuing an argument here which was started over there, but that same argument has spanned many other Vampire-related sites as well. Looking at it in that light, I don't particularly see Planet Vampire as any more relevant than any of the other sites this debate has appeared on. --Rob 03:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I've kept a part of the paragraph, but deleted the rest. Ego Felem Amo 22:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I removed the whole issue about the claims that something was stolen because this is just speculation. The version number skipping and including insulting textures on the contrary are facts which might make sense to be put up again as they clearly show the policy of the one patch crew towards the the other and may give people additional info on which patch to choose. Wesp5 07:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Look, you need to stop including the "this is before the "basic" version of the unofficial patch" in the "True Patch" section, and you also need to stop including terrible grammar in your "corrections." Ego Felem Amo 17:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I know this is a difficult issue, but both sides need to step back a bit here. Bloody Rose, can't you see it's not only advertising/spammy, but also kinda silly, to put things like "it is still the only option for people who wish to play a patched version of Bloodlines without any of the aforementioned changes" when the article already mentions another "option", that of the basic unnofficial patch? We should just all leave it as it is and only state the basic neutral facts: there are essentially 3 fan-made patching options. They all attempt to fix bugs and restore some content. One (the unofficial patch) goes further and also changes gameplay to fix issues of balance and consistency. The other two do not do this: the true patch, which is a seperate project, and the basic patch, which came later and is a variant of the unofficial patch. Can't we just do that without dragging the silly conflict into it? (And, if I can just play devil's advocate for a second... saying the basic version came later is if anything supportive of the true patch. It shows the basic version was inspired by the true patch team's efforts, who came up with the idea first.) Also re: grammar, you can fix that if you want. Although I must say your practice of putting hyphens at the end of sentences is kinda odd grammar/punctuation too. --86.135.81.217 17:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

But bringing the "Unofficial Patch" into the "True Patch section is not an advertisement? Come on, there is no reason the sentence about the release dates needs to be included - and, by the way, the "Basic" Patch still contains changes so your rational is flawed. Ego Felem Amo 18:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Wesp5 is the creator of the "unofficial" patch series, currently version 4.2. As such he does not possess a neutral point of view when he edits information on "The True Patch", the only patch available that is not his own. Please note this. --Steeal 18:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

By the same token, I'm about 99.99% certain that Tessera, one of the creators of the "True Patch", is also here under at least one name, if not more. Just looking at the change history should give you a fairly solid indication of who it is. Since I don't know that for fact, however, I will not state it as such. --Rob 04:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you trying to claim that I'm Tessera? If so, you are completely, and utterly, incorrect. Ego Felem Amo 22:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll leave it to others to decide who's who. To me, it's blatantly obvious. But regardless of who I might think is Tessera, the point remains that neither Tessera nor Wesp, nor any other biased writer should feel that they have the right to edit the description of the other one's patch. Only a neutral party should be doing so, and they should stick to a basic description of the intent of the patch and not get off onto tangents about rumours and suspicions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RobinHood70 (talk • contribs) 02:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The hyphens are grammatically correct, as they are used to insert more information about a subject into a sentence without making it overly long. Ego Felem Amo 23:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but you only need one if the hyphenated text extends to the end of the sentence. For example:

The hyphens are grammatically correct - they are used to insert more information about a subject into a sentence without making it overly long.

as opposed to:

The hyphens are grammatically correct -they are used to insert more information about a subject into a sentence without making it overly long-.

Of course, technically it's an Em Dash, not a hyphen. See Dash#Em_dash. --86.144.101.167 23:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I would double check that, as I have always been told that you need to have one at both ends if you are going to use them in the aforementioned manner - although your way is also correct.Ego Felem Amo 23:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The dashes aren't needed, when a simple "and" will solve the problem. Also, I've removed the "adult-only" comment regarding tessmage.com, as it doesn't strike me as particularly relevant. -FeralDruid 23:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I've never seen that hyphen-period thing before in my life, and I don't think you'll find it being used anywhere else on Wikipedia. --86.144.101.167 23:50, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Do I care if it can be found on Wikipedia? No, I do not. Also, Tessmage is an adult website in every sense of the phrase. Ego Felem Amo 00:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I adjusted the description of the unofficial patch to reflect the changed installation priority that is now valid from patch 4.4 onwards. I also wonder why someone removed a lot of the previous details because I think it should at least be mentioned what the restored content is actually about. Wesp5 (talk) 09:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Can the supporters of the "true" patch please stop editing the chapter about the unofficial patch! I have an agreement with Tessera himself to not touch his chapter if you don't touch mine, so please honour this! Wesp5 (talk) 13:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Can both sides please stop and leave this section as an unbiased notice of both patches. Ie, don't start calling one a "mod" within the details of the other. This site is for information and not bias. Broken bottle (talk) 06:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Tessera Vandalism

Whoever's been vandalizing information about Tessera's patches has got to stop. This does not belong on Wikipedia! -FeralDruid (talk) 19:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Bloody Rose please stop changing the info on the unofficial patch! As I already said, I have an agreement with Tessera to not write anything here about the other patch and I honor this, so please do it as well. If you don't believe me ask him yourself! Wesp5 (talk) 13:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Enough is enough! If you Tessera supporters have no honor to stay true to the word of your leader, I will keep altering both patch chapters again to stay neutral. If you want to fight the patch war over again, do it on some Bloodlines board and not Wikipedia! Wesp5 (talk) 02:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe if you could have kept your goons under control this would not have happened. Ego Felem Amo (talk) 03:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no goons and I never noticed any vandalism to the "true" patch here. But I agree that this has to stop both ways! So please can we revert to the status quo that was valid for a very long time with you writing nothing about my patch and I nothing about yours? I'll try to restore the article to that state now and hereby ask anyone from both sides to not modify or describe anything about the other patch! 217.184.102.232 (talk) 09:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Bloody Rose stop it! Not only are you offending against the Wikipedia rules themselves, you are also misrepresenting the facts. There is no reason to delete the mentioning of the "basic" patch as this is what it is called in the installer. Also please point out to me any "radical" changed gameplay of the "basic" patch that is worse than adding the most powerful ranged weapon, the SWAT rifle, into the "true" patch and swap weapons around at the Leopold Society! I will post at GameFAQ about this to make people aware what happens here. Wesp5 (talk) 19:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

And why do I care about GameFAQ? Ego Felem Amo (talk) 01:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I choose GameFAQ because some "true" patch users are on there which might have cared. But I can live with the current version so if it stays that way, it's fine with me. Wesp5 (talk) 10:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I have removed BloodyRose's most recent edit (multiple times), because I do not want his?her? opinion that the patch contains "radical" changes. The text, as is, is fine, saying that it contains only bug fixes. It does not need BR's opinion regarding radical changes. -FeralDruid (talk) 19:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Cry me a river Druid. Ego Felem Amo (talk) 19:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Once again, leave the bias out of the patch descriptions. It doesn't help anyone. If you can't do that, then I suggest the entire section on these patches be deleted. Broken bottle (talk) 03:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It's currently unbiased, but for some reason The Bloody Rose continues to insert into the Tessera section a comment that the "true" patch contains no Wesp edits. It's an unnecessary comment, since it's clear the first paragraph discusses Wesp's patch, while the second paragraph discusses Tessera's patch. I just can't figure out why s/he keeps putting the comment back in the article. -FeralDruid (talk) 22:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

To 69.234.130.169: "If things like 'Gave roof guards sniper and assault rifles instead of shotguns and uzis' are bugfixes, then something is seriously wrong with the heads of the people in the White Wolf community." That sounds perfectly reasonable to me, given that shotguns and uzis are short-range weapons. What grunt in his right mind would use a short-range weapon up on a roof? Sniper and assault rifles are much more realistic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dominar Rygel XVI (talk • contribs) 12:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

If you had bothered to look at the edit before reverting it, you would see that the edit was to note that the "True Patch" made such uncontroversial changes. Why did you revert it if the only reason you're going to give for doing so agrees with the change? And your use of the word "realistic"...never mind. 69.234.130.169 (talk) 13:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see the benefit of commenting on "uncontroversial changes" considering both sets of patches have had their share of controversy. Please leave the exiting wording as is. I continue trying to keep this section neutral, and IMHO, a comment about uncontroversial changes does not reflect neutrality. -FeralDruid (talk) 20:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, saying the True Patch is only bugfixes is also both non-neutral and incorrect. 69.234.130.169 (talk) 04:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying that your "uncontroversial" comment is more neutral and correct than the current wording? I don't use either the Tessera or Wesp patch, so can't verify your claim, but Tessera's patch notes say they contain only bug fixes. Is this not correct? -FeralDruid (talk) 18:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Look at the current patch notes: one of the changes is "Gave roof guards sniper and assault rifles instead of shotguns and uzis [sic]". The whole "only bug fixes" thing isn't really the case, it's just moronic elitism. 69.234.153.223 (talk) 01:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Poorly balanced gameplay counts as a bug. --86.135.183.201 (talk) 01:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

No it doesn't. bug means, "unintended game problems". Those guards where given their weapons for a reason. Swat rifles are not balanced, (as those weapons are to powerful for that part of the game) which is why they have the weapons they have. Shotguns are still good for long range cause of their large blast radius (at least one pellet will hit the target). Troika wouldn't make such changes to their game if they would still be releasing patches to this day. So I don't see how saying the "true patch only fixes bugs" is correct or not, a brief description can be given for both mods, and yes they are both "mods not patches", the only thing that is classified as patches are those from troika, Wesps may be called "unofficial patch" but thats just the title of the mod, its still a mod (and it modifies many gameplay elements which is not what patches usually do). And Tessera's True patch isn't "the true Patch" its just another mod. Neither Wesp nor Tessera is getting special treatment, and I don't know who started this cyber bullying pissing contest but its really got to be removed from this wikipedia, as wel as anyone making constant changes that don't follow wikipedia guidelines to be banned ASAP. Frankly I'm surprised that even discussion on this matter is tolerated... I would delete all of the comments here as they only encourage arguments and more Wikipedia vandalism. The Unbeholden (talk) 03:31, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Please note that you are responding to a message left months ago and the current line of discussion comes close to violating talk page policy per the banner at the top of this page. If you feel certain discussion regarding mods is inappropriate for Wikipedia articles, "Be Bold" can apply. Discussion as to the merits of certain mods, etc. has no place here and some of the posts earlier in this thread should never have been allowed back in April. 23skidoo (talk) 15:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

More details on the soundtrack

The table on the page show some great information. But some tracks have no information about where they are used; and some of them don't even appear in the list. For example, there's no information about the song used in Vesuvius. Likewise, there's nothing told about "outdoors" songs, which are played in the background while the player is on the streets. If someone knows more about them, or has a reliable source, please contribute. I'd be very happy to find out more about them, and I'm sure there are more people like me. Kojiroh (talk) 22:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem with doing so is that it'd all be original research. I can tell you which songs are played in which areas, but... I can't site any sources other than perusing the game. -FeralDruid (talk) 23:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Characters Page Deleted

Well, the Characters of Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines page has been deleted, so it's time to put them back into this article, where they started in the first place. I wonder how long it'll take before a second break-out list needs to be created (sigh). -FeralDruid (talk) 07:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• I have gone ahead and put a truncated version back into the main article. It needs to be further edited down. Even as an early contributor to the list, it did get to the point where there was simply too much detail and even some speculation, which was probably what triggered the AFD. WP is not a game guide, so the character list should have the barest information possible. I'd even go so far as to suggest it be changed to a chart. I might do so myself if time permits. What the chart should have is name, places encountered, a one or two sentence descriptor and perhaps the name of the voice actor, too. 23skidoo (talk) 17:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree with FeralDruid's latest edits. This article must not include player speculation -- in my opinion that was a contributing factor in the character article being killed. Stick to the basic character description. Speculation is for fan discussion forums, and uber-detailed biographies of the characters should be reserved for websites devoted to the game. 23skidoo (talk) 12:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
    • For whatever it's worth, I just now came to this article to learn about the game, and the first thing I thought was "boy, that character list sure makes this hard to read. It'd be nice if it were split." Simply speaking as an impartial observer. I'm not sure even aggressive paring of the character descriptions would be sufficient; there are simply too many. I won't act without consensus, but I will suggest maybe putting the whole thing in a show/hide template. If there are no objections I believe I'll do just that. Marvose (talk) 01:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
      • The show/hide template is not used for this sort of thing. It's only used for templates including multiple links to related articles. It cannot be used for article text. The list was split off for the very reason you mentioned, but the community consensus is that it is not suitable for a separate article. Therefore short of losing the information completely, the only options are A) a chart or B) little more than a list with no additional information provided. Personally I think someone should simply create a Wikia site devoted to the game and abandon Wikipedia altogether with regards to this topic, but that's just me. 23skidoo (talk) 01:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Game Guide

This is too much game-guidish information showing up in this article. I've just removed one small section in which an author whited-out a section describing various actions the player make take with respect to the end-game. For details such as that, the player may visit the various fan sites or other sites providing walk-through information. Further, I don't think it's appropriate to be placing on Wikipedia sections of articles that need to be selected in order to read white text. -FeralDruid (talk) 09:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree on the white-text-thing. It's covered by WP:SPOILER to be avoided.

As for the removed part, I respectfully disagree. While I understand that most details should be left out of Wikipedia and rather left to related wikis and game guides, the fate of a major character is not one of those. The section does not tell the reader how to play the game or how to reach those endings (which need further, complex requirements to be met) but just informs what happens to the character and how this is influenced by the choice of the player. It also serves as a prime example for the fact that is mentioned somewhere above in the article, i.e. that the game's story can be influenced by the player. SoWhy 10:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Subtitles

How do I turn on subtitles 207.233.35.175 (talk) 00:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

You have to go to the main menu, then to options, then Audio, there would be a box where you can turn subtitles on Ceil-Sama (talk) 04:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Taxi Driver

The small section on the Taxi driver seems to be incorrect. The Taxi Driver at the end has a different voice than the other, though I'm not too sure if they have different character models. Can someone either correct this, or tell me I'm wrong? I'm confused on this matter Ceil-Sama (talk) 04:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• If you feel it's wrong, please do correct it. The taxi driver does seem to change his voice somewhat, but in terms of how he looks we never really get a clear look at him, and he might have been disguising himself earlier. 23skidoo (talk) 04:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Sheriff

Once I learn how (lol) and/or do a little research, I'll be tagging the Sheriff's entry as Original Research- unless it's stated in game or canonized elsewhere he is of unknown clan. No matter how obvious it appears, it is not a fact. So I'll either tag it and/or change the entry depending on the results I get. Thanks 141.157.193.170 (talk) 17:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

You are correct, I removed all that speculation and OR from the paragraph. In the spirit of WP:NOR, you should remove such text on sight if it's speculating like in this case. Regards SoWhy 18:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh ok, thanks for the help anyhow. I haven't yet finished the game and minor queries didn't reveal what the Sheriff was. Thanks again. 141.157.193.170 (talk) 18:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

It's no biggie, but I was under the impression the Sheriff's clan was identified early in the game, possibly by Jack during the training mission or by another character? The game guide that was published might also say. 23skidoo (talk) 18:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I played it again 1-2 months ago (with the tutorial) and I never heard it and anyway, the description was purely speculating about it, just assuming the clan from a power used. If you got the game guide, you might want to research it but I couldn't find any reliable sources online. Regards SoWhy 21:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The Sheriff's clan is never mentioned in-game. Nor is Pisha's. People speculate within the article what their clans may be, but that's OR. IMHO, if anything, the article should only say their clans are unknown. -FeralDruid (talk) 01:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I haven't been able to locate my copy of the game guide yet. Question is whether a game guide, even an authorized one, counts if such information is given seeing as the game itself makes no reference. What does Jack say about the Sheriff when he first appears right at the beginning? That's the only place I would have imagined a clan being mentioned. I agree I remember nothing about Pisha's clan being referenced. However in both cases it also needs to be noted that in-game dialogue differs depending on choices made, clan played, etc. So can anyone say definitively that if you don't play Clan X, and do A,B,C in order that you don't get somebody making such a reference? Someone playing Nosferatu gets a completely different game than someone playing a Ventrue with all their stats maxed. Can anyone here say they've actually played every permutation of this game? (Of course, there are methods of extracting the dialogue files, etc. so it's quite possisble for other methods to have been used to check information). 23skidoo (talk) 12:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I've played every clan, and recently re-started it again with a Toreador (having not played in several months). At no point is the Sheriff's clan mentioned. During the Tutorial with Jack, he only refers to the Sheriff as "magilla gorilla". -FeralDruid (talk) 09:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Massive Attack

Smirkingeddie has twice added comments to the Soundtrack section, claiming that the theme music is a dub of Angel by Massive Attack -- most recently referencing a video on YouTube as evidence.

While they have the same beat, the music, to my ear, sounds very different. Further, there is no credit to Massive Attack given in the booklet, as licensed music, nor does the theme music appear in the licensed music folder within the game itself. Nine songs are credited, and this is not one of them.

There is not, in my opinion, sufficient evidence to support the claim, so I have again removed the edit from the article. -FeralDruid (talk) 17:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

    FeralDruid: "While they have the same beat, the music, to my ear, sounds very different."

Definition of "dub" from dictionary.com:

"A mostly instrumental style of music originating in Jamaica, produced by remixing existing recordings to emphasize bass and drum rhythms and adding audio effects"

My post did not deserve to be deleted. It could be added that it is arguable.

It is a prevalent view that this is a dub:

idlethumbs.net forum

"doesn't the main menu music sound exactly like Massive Attack's Angel?"

"I actually assumed they'd licensed 'Angel' and taken the vocals out."

"I'm still of the opinion that it's so close, it must be a licensed non-vocal version."

episteme.arstechnica.com forum

"If Massive Attack's 'Angel' wasn't credited, then a lawsuit is in order. Or... it would have been, had Troika not self-destructed."

"The opening of the Main Menu song is very, very similar to that of 'Angel'."

"Wow, you're right!"

"...it sounds exactly like Angel."

hitselfdestruct.com game review

"...the theme music was criminally similar to 'Angel' by Massive Attack"

lucasforums.com

"It's based on Massive Attack's Angel"

youtube.com forum

"Whether or not this track is a remix of 'Massive Attack - Angel' is debatable"

"why is the song so similar to massive attack's angel????"

"I thought the exact same thing! It's almost the exact same song with some filtering and added effects."

"it'z Massive Attack's music without tha voice, an' a bit simplified fer tha soundtrack."

"sounds like angel of massive attack"

"So so much like angel."

(Italian) ebay.it posting of game.

"Do not forget the sound of great atmosphere, from the opening theme on the notes of 'Angel' of Massive Attack."

(French) blogs.wefrag.com

"As for the soundtrack of Vampire Bloodlines (which is one of my favorite games all platforms combined) I'm really stuck on the fact that the menu music is really pumped about the shameless Angel by Massive Attack."

(Serbian) yumetal.net forum

"But the main song (vampire_theme) was stolen through ... Abnormally like a Massive Attack - 'Angel' ..."

(Bulgarian) hardwarebg.com forum

"Sound - put different headphones - no bass are not, there is one piece of MASSIVE ATTACK - actually the topic in Vampire: The Masquarade - Bloodlines is exactly him."

I just asked my room-mate to compare the tracks and he says it is definitely a dub.

Smirkingeddie (talk) 22:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I know what a dub is, and the beat is the only thing this song has in common with Angel. That it may or may not be based on Angel, as discussed in web forums, is not relevant. I do not hear Angel when I play the theme music, nor is there any credit to Massive attack in the documentation. Wikipedia requires fact, not speculation. -FeralDruid (talk) 00:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

For reference, Verifiability. -FeralDruid (talk) 01:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Forums and roommates aren't acceptable as references; see WP:SPS and WP:OR. —LOL ^T/_C 23:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)