Talk:Vampire: The Masquerade – Bloodlines

Consensus count for the Unofficial Patch

I think the PC Gamer article is a very adequate source, better than the Rock Paper Shotgun article. Eik Corell (talk) 20:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

And it would look something like this -

Community patches have been released as add-ons to the game, in order to fix errors and bugs that were not corrected by Troika due to the scope of the game and the subsequent closing of the developer, as well as to restore unreleased additional content found in the game files.. (Check page source).

Eik Corell (talk) 21:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Added reflist czar ♔ 20:34, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Remove the Patches-scrolls link under WP:NOTLINK and leave the PC Gamer link and I'm fine with it. Arglaar (talk) 21:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest to either keep the TPS link or the RPS link in case the magazine links are added, because they don't contain any accessable info on where to get the patches. Also the 2009 link is from the PC Zone and not the PC Gamer. Wesp5 (talk) 22:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The RPS link is listed elsewhere in the article. It will still be there if it is removed from the patches section. If they still are unable to find the link, there are multiple search engines where an uninformed player might be able to find that information out if they wanted to.

Wesp, please read the WP:NOTLINK section again. Just because we CAN link to the location of a file, doesn't mean we SHOULD. From the earlier discussion we had on this topic, that sort of information is better served by a fan page or a gaming site page. Something more akin to a wikia article. Also, please remember to preface your replies with colons (:) so that the talk page indents your reply correctly to the message that you are replying to. I went ahead and added the correct colons you should have added here. Arglaar (talk) 22:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I think including the Patches Scrolls link as the primary source is the way to go. Per WP:PRIMARY, primary sources are generally discouraged, but if they have been reliably published, the primary source can be included. The link is the primary source, and it has been published in reliable sources, so I can't say that including the main link would amount to link bloat. Eik Corell (talk) 23:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

According to this you've said right here, Eik, the information provided by the people supporting Tessera would support his actions as a primary source concerning the TPG, and they have provided at least two online sources, in my mind, of verifiable content. The 'Unofficial Patch' debate team has provided only one online source (and I believe it was actually Tessera who initially provided the link. Ironic, wouldn't you say?), which I find questionable at best, considering the content of the article mentioning the community patches as an afterthought. This strikes me as inconsistent. I don't see any problem with the GameBanshee article (and apparently neither does FisherQueen, one of the moderators here) in spite of the broken link, though that may be because I make frequent visits to the site, so that may make me biased. However, by your own admission, the Kotaku article should be cited, without further dispute. It is clear to me that something's amiss on this page, and it's not the content, but the people controlling it. In a previous discussion that has since disappeared, there was mention of a PC Action article that featured Tessera, and I dug it up, with the help of a pair of editors from the magazine itself. The article itself isn't necessarily directly relevant to Bloodlines, but it also establishes Tessera as a primary source of similar repute to Wesp5. I don't think I want to get any more involved than I already have, because it feels like if I do, I'll get sucked into one of the sides of the underlying conflict between Tess and Wesp so I think I'm going to leave it at that. I'd suggest you sit back and look at your own discussion posts to make sure you aren't getting sucked in as well, Eik. This be Claen'tor, signing off. (talk) 19:28, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Wow, much ado! I've read through this discussion and feel like I'm missing something. I hope I'm not out of line, but it seems like this page is suffering from a bit of over-policing. There are obviously two after-market patches for the game. What is the harm in having a reference to both? Why is the mentality here that there can only be reference to one? Anyone, ie me, looking at Wikipedia about the game are going to want to know about both. I've checked the citations and clearly, without a doubt, both exist. Isn't that the whole point of the references? The pillars of Wikipedia are "verifiability" and "no original work". No one has posted anything original in the article. The references are only to the existence of something. As for "verifiability", policy requires that anything challenged or likely to be challenged, including all quotations, be attributed to a reliable source. I don't think anyone can honestly say the existence of either patch is being challenged by anyone. Furthermore, the citations seem more than adequate to "verify" their existence. Exactly what end is being served by nitpicking the level of quality of citations? It just seems really over the top to me, especially since I can see absolutely no damage at all in having both citations up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GameOnYou (talk • contribs) 05:55, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Right now I'm focusing on this particular patch, and I'd prefer not to be involved in the process of adding sources for the other one, since my neutrality is a bit compromised. I'm gonna stick to this particular issue, and then see what happens with the other one as far as citations, sources, etc, but I'm probably gonna stay out of it. Eik Corell (talk) 20:45, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd prefer to see the RPS link rather than the patches-scrolls one, but that works. Thanks! Fin©™ 10:41, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Alright, Who supports the inclusion of the text in the beginning of this discussion to be added into the article?

Support, first source acceptable per WP:PRIMARY as it has been reliably published, and the two other sources because they've been listed as reliable sources. Eik Corell (talk) 20:45, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I support this. Wesp5 (talk) 22:18, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

As long as all the fan made Patches are getting recognition then I'm good with it. There are at least two others out there but I'm uncertain if they are still being supported, because nothing has been posted about them in sometime. As far as links to sites like fileplanet, tessmage, patches scrolls and the such, they would be a nice addition but, all fan made patches most be referenced not just one, besides people can all ways follow a link in the article or run a search to find it, as long as the article or its link is posted. Schu2 (talk) 02:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The main article clearly states that several community patches exist, even although it didn't need to, so anyone unsatisfied by the one found on The Patches Scrolls should be able to search for the other unreferenced ones themselves. Wesp5 (talk) 07:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Support without the link. As I said above. The use of a primary source is unnecessary, we already have reliable sources which have it. As an external link I support it's inclusion. As for why we don't include both, because the second hasn't received the attention the first has. We're not a link repository and only include notable links.--Crossmr (talk) 12:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Support, per Crossmr's reasoning. Ravensfire (talk) 14:37, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Hadn't even thought about it as an external link instead of a main source. Makes sense, so I support that. Eik Corell (talk) 14:47, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I've unprotected the page. Please don't edit war over something as trivial as this in future, folks. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 15:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

And there we go, I've introduced the changes that were agreed upon above. That's one patch out of the way, so to speak. Eik Corell (talk) 17:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I really don't see the harm of a quick mention of the true patch, given that its existence is what helped push Wesp to release a basic version in the first place, and some of the fixes were incorporated into his work. I know there's bias on both sides, and a huge amount of bad blood, but I think there should be at least a passing reference to it. I can try to dig up sources, but I know it was covered, mostly by fan websites. I don't want to edit-war this, so can we just at least leave the passing reference in the article? Coolgamer (talk) 19:17, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

It's not a fan site. The first patch is mentioned because it is notable, it restores and expands content and htere's mention of its criticism. A patch existing in general is not notable, fan or otherwise. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:40, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

It literally does no harm. The patch mentioned would not even exist in its current form without the other. There is no reason that a sentence or two cannot mention it given how much space is dedicated to the other existing patch. I'm not pushing for a dedicated section or direct link. As a repository of knowledge, a simple sentence should be fine. Coolgamer (talk) 20:56, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

The other patch is literally just a patch. Thus it is not notable. The other one is because it's had wide coverage and has an impact on how modern people can play the game. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:12, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

The other one has user created content which amounts to a mod, not a patch. One could argue that modifications to games could be referenced on every game article given enough coverage. There is a huge difference between a patch and a mod. Simply mentioning the mere existence of an actual patch should not even be an issue. I've found media mentions of the true patch from various sites (pcgamesn.com, for one, from as late as 2017). Even the pcgamingwiki, steam forums, and gog forums bring up both choices. Basically, it boils down the the simple fact that there are two patches that have been accepted by the mainstream community, and I am disturbed at how slanted this article is towards one particular choice. There is no logical reason NOT to allow even a passing mention. I'm willing to take this into arbitration if needed. Coolgamer (talk) 22:19, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Then take it to arbitration, until then you can knock off your edit warring. Given the source you added already exists in the article and explicitly states the patch you're eager to add is stolen from the Spahl patch, I'm not sure it's a great defense of its inclusion either. The crux of the issue is that one patch/mod has significant coverage on multiple sites, the other is a derivative off shoot based on complaints. It doesn't warrant inclusion, this isn't a guide nor is it here to settle some kind of fanboy quarrel over which group has the cooler patch. Saying that a patch exists purely for fixes when there is discussion of spahls patch with coverage that it can just fix things or add additional content means it's being added only for some kind of personal gain on your end since you're pushing it so hard. I have no interest in who has the better patch, just what is notable. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:34, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

The article being linked to support mention of the "true patch" is primarily about another unofficial patch. To use this article to include mention of it by name seems to me a case of undue weight. Eik Corell (talk) 21:15, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Soundtrack

Added some templates to the soundtrack section. In particular I'm concerned about the statements on the "full soundtrack". This is available in mp3 format just by navigating to the music subdirectory of the game's install. I assume that this is what appeared on BitTorrent trackers. The word 'leaked' makes it sound like it appeared on BitTorrent trackers before the game's release, hence the 'when?' template. If that's not true, I'd say that it's not notable that the full soundtrack appeared on BitTorrent trackers, any more than it's notable that anything else appears on BitTorrent. I'm not 100% sure it would be notable even if it is true, but a reference to clear this up would be helpful: if there is no reference, it is pretty much by definition not notable. --Thegooseking (talk) 09:22, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

FYI I've removed the Massive Attack comment again. I went around with an editor a couple of years ago on this. It's speculative, not documented. That a few users believe it's a dub of Massive Attack doesn't make it so, and, IMHO, doesn't justify inclusion in the article. -FeralDruid (talk) 02:22, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Going one step further here and calling it absolutely trivial info along with being speculation. Eik Corell (talk) 06:16, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

"Rik Schaffer's Interview on Outstar's Bloodlines stream!" here Rik Schaffer was invited in a streaming chat of a walkthrough and, asked about the Massive Attack fan theory (at the 29th minute, /watch?v=EMgWn92KWPI&t=29m ), he replied "Yep. When I started the project, that was the placeholder track they had in for like a year. They were married to it, but couldn't get the rights. They said make something similar. I hate copying artists, but made it kind of my own." Okay, maybe it's just someone pretending to be him, but I think it can be confirmed somehow. Still it's a valid reference, not some famboy rant (my favorite one was "my cousin heared similarities so it must be true" :P ). Hope to have been helpful — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.60.174.207 (talk) 18:39, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Maybe, and i repeat maybe, this article should list the songs Rik Schaffer composed for the game, even the leftovers appeared on the Wesp Patch. Come on, you can't denying their existence! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.5.14.25 (talk) 14:07, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

The game's time-frame

Seems like the 80s or early 90s not 21st century. Look at the computers! 2600:1012:B147:3F8A:DD02:B0DA:738D:2DF0 (talk) 05:04, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Jeanette's design

Hi. I have read somewhere that Jeanette's design appearently served as an inspiration for DC character Harley Quinn's modern design. Is there any truth to this? Are there any official reliable sources confirming this or anything? Thanks in advance for the reply. 85.24.174.14 (talk) 20:22, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Endings

In the description of the game's endings, it looks like one ending is exclusive to the Tremere clan, which is not entirely true. This ending can also be reached by other clans, although the conditions for this are quite specific. Essentially one has to gain Maximilian Strauss' trust, which is obviously much easier for a Tremere. In order to do so one has to visit him quite early, fulfill his part of the plaguebearer quest (and choose the correct reward from him...), learn about gargoyles, then later ask Strauss about the one in Hollywood and do his gargoyle quest. Also one must always be polite to Strauss and neither join the Anarchs nor betray any of Strauss' secrets to anybody else. Easy to miss one of these conditions. --141.113.242.115 (talk) 08:01, 12 January 2024 (UTC)