Talk:Vampire: The Masquerade – Bloodlines

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Vampire: The Masquerade – Bloodlines is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 16, 2016.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
September 14, 2014 Good article nominee Listed
December 5, 2015 Featured article candidate Promoted
Current status: Featured article

Page protected[edit]

Due to edit warring on both sides over the inclusion of certain external links, I've fully protected the page. I'll keep an eye on the discussion here to see what, if anything, gets agreed upon while the page is protected. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 11:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, but why did you replace the disputed links prior to locking the page? Do you honestly feel that this is acceptable behavior on your part? Can you now see why a growing number of people, myself included, are strongly beginning to suspect that Tessera's claims of bias on the part of the Wikipedia staff are indeed justified? This is highly irregular, to say the very least. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alkanoonion (talkcontribs) 11:14, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
I can't see that in the history? As far as I can tell he locked the article on it's last current edit - which is standard practice. So I'm not sure what is 'irregular' about his actions? --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you serious? He knew that those citations were in dispute. By now half of the world probably knows it, after all of this ongoing debate about it. And still, the overriding issue has not been properly addressed, nor has it been remedied. We have the approval of FisherQueen, a Wikipedia staff member, to include the citations which refer to Tessera's patch. We have highly specific citations in fact, which are indeed superior to those being used to justify the inclusion of Wesp's patch. We have unimpeachable sources and plenty of valid links. So why does this issue continue to be left unresolved by the Wikipedia staff? Anyone who is reading this would conclude that one patch does indeed seem to be getting shut out of the article, for reasons unknown. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alkanoonion (talkcontribs) 11:28, 25 August 2010

As the large grey banner on the article says, protection of a particular revision is not an endorsement of said revision. We have to protect some revision, and it's alway The Wrong Version to someone. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 11:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

He stated that he was locking the article until this issue had been resolved, did he not? Thus he has made it clear that he is aware of the dispute and the reasons which underlie it. To lock the page with the disputed material intact is a clear case of breach of trust. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alkanoonion (talkcontribs) 11:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

When an admin protects a page due to edit-warring, the standard action is to protect it at the last version and let people settle the dispute on the talkpage. That's what Thumperward has done - if he had reverted to an earlier version that would have been taking sides and that's not permitted for an admin in that context. His actions were in line with policy. Your suggested action would have left him open to accusations of taking sides. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

He is taking sides by not including the UGO citation which has already been acknowledged. Why does this issue continue to be ignored? You can keep telling people that black is white all day long, if you want to. But each time that you have been asked -why- the UGO reference for the True Patch, as well as a pertinent download link have not been added to the article in question, you continue to deflect the issue with rhetoric. Why?

It's not rhetoric - the protecting administrator cannot take sides by choicing one version over another, he or she is suppose to protect whatever version of the article exists when they arrive at the article. What is difficult to understand about this? if your version of the article was the last version when Thumperward had got here, that is the version he should have protected. This is standard procedure - how is it taking sides to follow our standard procedures in such situations? I do not think I can make this any clearer or simpler to understand - the protecting admin should protect whatever version exists when he gets there, nothing more, nothing less. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The part which I do not understand is the part where the prevailing party continues to be catered to, and the other party continues to be shut out. The proper course of action would be to remove -all- of the items which are in dispute, until an equitable solution has been reached. That's the way mature and responsible people do things in this world... unless they are operating with some sort of biased agenda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alkanoonion (talkcontribs) 12:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you think this is an exceptional situation. We protect pages every day in the middle of disputes, and every single time it happens someone screams that we have protected The Wrong Version (go and have a read of the page, which was written precisely because this is so common). Quite what agenda Wikipedia is supposed to have here is not clear, even if Wikipedia's admins really were being given instructions on the matter: from a look through some of the stuff written about it, apparently Wikipedia is in collusion with Activision to ensure that Bloodlines players never get to really enjoy the game... because this somehow makes Activision money? Or because the guy who wrote the other patch is slipping up brown envelopes full of money? Anyway, all we're doing here is following a protection policy which was drawn up to be impartial and perfected over far more important disputes than a bug-ridden video game. That's not going to change based on anything said here, so it would be better to concentrate on the actual substance of the dispute. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 12:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

This is ridiculous, first you say, "you must have a reliable source", then when someone cites a very reliable source http://www.gamebanshee.com/news/static/EEZZFFVuVuJxmJgfss.php you say "not good enough" then protect the article. Make up your damn minds, which is it, the game banshee site is just as reliable a source as anything that Wesp5 has posted, and the PC Gamer sources are nothing but foot notes not full articles I say you should remove the patches scrolls link as well, then watch the feathers fly Schu2 (talk) 02:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

So Wesp, now you are dictating on what or how, we can use as "reliable sources", Are you a moderator here now. Seem to me you are. Now to all the "True Moderators", just say so, instead of beating around the bush. Are 'THEY' of are they 'NOT' reliable, I want to here it ALL of you, not just ONE. Yea or Nae, Yes or NO. Which is it. Let me know if they are not. Because, I WILL give more sources, 'NO', I will bombard you with every "bit" of "info" that I have found so far. I will be waiting for your answer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Perez007usa (talkcontribs) 17:22, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a moderator here nor can I dictate what "reliable sources" are. In fact my own patch links got removed here and elsewhere by the same people, because I didn't know enough about Wikipedia protocols. I'm learning the hard way and so should you. Wesp5 (talk) 08:30, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

To Wesp5;I quest your in the same boat as we are, "If the shoe fits"... I still haven't heard from the Wiki people about the sources. Two says yes, others says no. Which is it? Oh! by the way, my Encyclopedia Britannia has footnotes all over the place. I will be waiting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Perez007usa (talkcontribs) 17:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Consensus count for the Unofficial Patch[edit]

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.[1][2][3]. (Check page source).

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

  1. ^ "Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines Official and Unofficial Patches" - The Patches Scrolls
  2. ^ Barter, Pavel PC Zone, page 16, 2009
  3. ^ PC Gamer UK, page 105, 2008.
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 (talkcontribs) 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)

Soundtrack[edit]

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)

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)

Tessmage links[edit]

I have entered Tessmage.com into the patches. ALL sabotage and drama seems to come from the Unofficial Patch camp and Wesp5's crew. As someone who's tried and likes BOTH camps, I feel the article should show BOTH patches in the essence of fairness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BazYat (talkcontribs) 21:36, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Sabotage? Please, assume good faith. I'd really not repeat the crap that is above, but consensus should be gained on a particular link before it is added to the article. This is exactly how drama is avoided, we call it the bold, revert, discuss cycle. You were bold, got reverted, now it should be discussed. I believe the patches-scrolls site was linked as a compromise, as it contains links to various patches and mods and is independent of them. Tessmage.com is mostly porn. Bad porn. What little information that was there was deleted after the operator threw a wobbly over this Wikipedia page and the free advertising they were denied. LxRv (a.ka. Rehevkor) 21:52, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

"Tessmage.com is mostly porn. Bad porn."

I beg your pardon..? Where exactly is this "porn" of which you speak..? Are you inferring that Tessera's nude artwork, produced entirely by hand, should universally be regarded as "porn..?" Despite the fact that the very same artwork has been recognized and published within a major European gaming publication..? Because if that is indeed your attitude (as it clearly seems to be), then I would advise you to stay out of art museums. They frequently feature nude paintings and sculptures, some of which are inferior to the quality of the artwork which can be seen on tessmage.com. But let's just get this issue out into the open once and for all, shall we..? Because you have just revealed the underlying reason for why there has been such an obvious level of bias and hostility being displayed here, against the True Patch and its authors. The fact of the matter is: you do not wish to see any references and links to an external site which features nudity, due to innate feelings which have arisen out of your own rather sad case of sexual repression. Do not bother to deny it, any of you... because your consistently irrational behavior throughout this entire conflict has made it quite clear that my assessment is essentially correct. And of course, it also makes it quite clear that acting in "good faith" is the last thing on your minds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.199.44.165 (talk) 02:14, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

For all the reasons in previous discussions, no. They're in the archives, please read through them and respond to the points made there. Ravensfire (talk) 02:38, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
One person's artwork is other's porn. Go figure. That's just one person's opinion, but consensus is still against including the link regardless. Also, until you retract that curious personal attack I have nothing more to say to you. Яehevkor 12:03, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Please note - Editor BazYat is engaging in meatpuppetry here[1], and the IP 68.199.44.165 is the banned editor Tessmage, the author of the patch they want to include mention of. Eik Corell (talk) 18:39, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
*Yawn* Usual crap from Tessmage who whines because everyone doesn't kowtow to him and he can't get his way. RBI the whole mess. They know damn well the criteria. Ravensfire (talk) 23:50, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Regarding Grünfeld Bach[edit]

I have edited this part, because at no point in the entire game it is disclosed where exactly Grünfeld Bach originates from. Please keep in mind that there are several Countries in Europe where german is spoken; For instance, Austria, Liechtenstein, Switzerland, etc. Judging from the accent alone, it is not clear if German is his first language anyway, he might be as well dutch, swedish, etc. Furthermore it isn't disclosed whether he's catholic either, although it's fairly obvious that the cult is based on catholic christian values. I've kept that part, since it's already ambigious as it is.

Please, try not to jump unto conclusions here too much, and research these little things before adding them. Wheatstack (talk) 06:39, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Vampire: The Masquerade – Bloodlines/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Czar (talk · contribs) 12:53, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I'll get to this latest by this weekend czar  12:53, 2 September 2014 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


Please respond below my signature so as to leave the original review uninterrupted.

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
    multiple clarity issues noted
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    mostly okay but some unreliable sources cited
    B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
    some MINREF issues noted
    C. No original research:
    several aggregate claims about reviewers aren't coming from a metareview and at the very least aren't directly cited to the sources whence the claim originates
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    some files need to be reduced in size
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    I think these issues are surmountable. Good work
  • Lede looks good and complete at first read
  • Link jargon in Gameplay, e.g., RPG, character, attribute points, specific attributes, skills/powers, stealth, hub/level, artificial intelligence, etc. (the more links, the clearer for unfamiliar readers)
  • Optional: clarify "three available areas" as skill trees or some other idea because it's hard to understand the paragraph you're setting up, whatever you choose should be used every time (e.g., "three areas" → "three available areas")
  • feats section is unclear—why would you have success or failure in using firearms, brawling, etc.?
  • The explanations are generally good, but some sentences should be recast for clarity, such as "During character creation each upgrade costs one point, with their cost increasing when the game begins." perhaps as "The cost of upgrading an available area increases with the duration of the game." Not sure if that's right, but there you go
  • Perhaps give this section a copyedit for clarity? I don't think it's a big deal, but it would make me feel better. I'm holding myself back from tweaking it myself
  • The attributes talk is dry without knowing what the attributes are for. Might be worth either putting the synopsis before the gameplay or actually incorporating more of the objectives and setting of the game into the gameplay section. It would be good to not have to introduce the clans twice.
  • Plot looks okay, though it wouldn't hurt to simplify it one or two levels. Is the player-character the fledgling?
  • The article could use a GOCE copyedit. Here are a few to rephrase: "but that October Valve experienced", "highlight their madness, without", "by some of the game's fans This resulted in two patch" (also needs citation), "GameSpot and GameSpy called the dialog was sharply written", "vulgar language worked; written as real people, such language"
I see now that the article was recently copyedited... so I'm not sure what to say. I still think it needs further work.
  • "it was considered appropriate to allow the player to belong to one of its clans (simplifying the plot)" → "the team simplified the plot by letting the player belong to one of the LA clans" etc.
  • No "spring" (Avoid "seasons")
  • Why is Damsel mentioned? She isn't mentioned elsewhere
  • Time of Judgment is italicized
  • I'm noticing a lot of missing commas, e.g., "During character creation the game had an optional"
  • and unnecessary hyphenations, e.g., "more-stable", "superbly-crafted", "nearly-flawless", "single-character", "well-written"
  • "melee-on-range" ranged?
  • parallelism: "one focused on disciplines" → "discipline-focused character"
  • Dev section becomes a bit of a slog towards the end of design. Outside GAN scope, but something to keep in mind for 1a professional brilliance later
  • WPVG consensus is to only include tracklists when the soundtrack has some notability of its own
  • Consider converting the many parentheticals into notes with {{notelist}} since they become distracting
  • Consider for the future actually citing to the individual pages of a review (that are compacted into megafootnotes here), since that aids in verifiability. Imagine me trying to track down a fact on three different pages now?
  • "The game has been called a flawed masterpiece." I think this is a bold enough claim to warrant direct citations
  • Titles of press outlets are italicized per WP:ITALICS: "Online magazines, newspapers, and news sites with original content should generally be italicized". Also the ones that can be linked should be on their first usage
  • "wonderfully imaginative missions": direct quotes need direct refs per WP:MINREF. I think this is the only one in the whole article that was missing one. Nevermind, also RPS in the last ¶
  • Eurogamer/EuroGamer: pick one
  • Consider wrapping the sales section into the first ¶ of Reception—that's where most editors put it. The section is small on its own.
  • "This was considered a poor performance" by whom?
  • Images need to be reduced in size (length times width less than 100,000 pixels). Why does it mention 400px? (That isn't in the guideline)
  • Unreliable or possibly unreliable sources: Game-OST, OVGuide (user-contributed?), What Culture (user-contributed), GameBanshee. I'm also not so hot on those interview blog sites, but hey.
  • Some things to consider: varying sentence structure to use less "comma gerund" constructions (e.g., "structure, allowing" or "every skill (allowing") and to use "that" instead of "which" (which usually comes after a comma)

On hold for a week, more comments in template up top czar  23:08, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments[edit]

  • Lede looks good and complete at first read
  • Link jargon in Gameplay, e.g., RPG, character, attribute points, specific attributes, skills/powers, stealth, hub/level, artificial intelligence, etc. (the more links, the clearer for unfamiliar readers)
  • Optional: clarify "three available areas" as skill trees or some other idea because it's hard to understand the paragraph you're setting up, whatever you choose should be used every time (e.g., "three areas" → "three available areas")
Changed all to "three areas". This what you meant? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:39, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
That's fine. I can't think of anything better (though I imagine they have a name somewhere...)
  • feats section is unclear—why would you have success or failure in using firearms, brawling, etc.?
"The points spent on Attributes and Abilities combine to to determine a player's success or failure in performing tasks such as using firearms, brawling, and lock-picking; for example, determining how accurate or how far the player can shoot, or if they can can hack a computer"? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:15, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Right, that's what I meant was unclear
  • The explanations are generally good, but some sentences should be recast for clarity, such as "During character creation each upgrade costs one point, with their cost increasing when the game begins." perhaps as "The cost of upgrading an available area increases with the duration of the game." Not sure if that's right, but there you go
"During character creation each upgrade costs one point, with an ascending cost for each additional level when the game begins."? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:15, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
"During character creation, each upgrade costs one point. The upgrade cost increases as the game progresses."
  • Perhaps give this section a copyedit for clarity? I don't think it's a big deal, but it would make me feel better. I'm holding myself back from tweaking it myself
  • The attributes talk is dry without knowing what the attributes are for. Might be worth either putting the synopsis before the gameplay or actually incorporating more of the objectives and setting of the game into the gameplay section. It would be good to not have to introduce the clans twice.
See point 4 above. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:15, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Plot looks okay, though it wouldn't hurt to simplify it one or two levels. Is the player-character the fledgling?
It says this right before the plot "The main character of Bloodlines (controlled by the player) is an unnamed fledgling vampire, transformed at the start of a game and belonging to one of the clans."
It's confusing for someone new to the series. I'd recommend replacing "the fledgling" with "the player" in the plot section, or otherwise clarifying once or twice. Not a big deal, though czar  21:56, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
I'd question it being confusing unless you skip the setting section, but how about "In Los Angeles, an unnamed human is killed and resurrected as a fledgling vampire." -> "The game begins with the player character, an unnamed human, being killed and resurrected as a fledgling vampire."? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:16, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Sounds good czar  22:29, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
  • The article could use a GOCE copyedit. Here are a few to rephrase: "but that October Valve experienced", "highlight their madness, without", "by some of the game's fans This resulted in two patch" (also needs citation), "GameSpot and GameSpy called the dialog was sharply written", "vulgar language worked; written as real people, such language"
I see now that the article was recently copyedited... so I'm not sure what to say. I still think it needs further work.
  • "it was considered appropriate to allow the player to belong to one of its clans (simplifying the plot)" → "the team simplified the plot by letting the player belong to one of the LA clans" etc.
  • No "spring" (Avoid "seasons")
  • Why is Damsel mentioned? She isn't mentioned elsewhere
  • Time of Judgment is italicized
  • I'm noticing a lot of missing commas, e.g., "During character creation the game had an optional"
  • and unnecessary hyphenations, e.g., "more-stable", "superbly-crafted", "nearly-flawless", "single-character", "well-written"
  • "melee-on-range" ranged?
  • parallelism: "one focused on disciplines" → "discipline-focused character"
  • Dev section becomes a bit of a slog towards the end of design. Outside GAN scope, but something to keep in mind for 1a professional brilliance later
  • WPVG consensus is to only include tracklists when the soundtrack has some notability of its own
I think the soundtrack is notable, it's not a million seller but a lot of the music was popular and the reviews note the music as a positive component, plus one was written for the thing and another has its own article. Considering it's small status, I don't think this is a detriment to the article. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:35, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
That's fine czar  19:20, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Consider converting the many parentheticals into notes with {{notelist}} since they become distracting
  • Consider for the future actually citing to the individual pages of a review (that are compacted into megafootnotes here), since that aids in verifiability. Imagine me trying to track down a fact on three different pages now?
  • "The game has been called a flawed masterpiece." I think this is a bold enough claim to warrant direct citations
  • Titles of press outlets are italicized per WP:ITALICS: "Online magazines, newspapers, and news sites with original content should generally be italicized". Also the ones that can be linked should be on their first usage
  • "wonderfully imaginative missions": direct quotes need direct refs per WP:MINREF. I think this is the only one in the whole article that was missing one. Nevermind, also RPS in the last
  • Eurogamer/EuroGamer: pick one
  • Consider wrapping the sales section into the first ¶ of Reception—that's where most editors put it. The section is small on its own.
  • "This was considered a poor performance" by whom?
  • Images need to be reduced in size (length times width less than 100,000 pixels). Why does it mention 400px? (That isn't in the guideline)
The typical rule of thumb I have been given in the past and which has passed FA is that no one side should exceed 350px. The first two images have now been reduced but I'm concerned about reducing File:Vampire The Masquerade Bloodlines - Character Sheet.jpg as it's already bordering on unreadable. If it isn't readable it's fairly pointless. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:18, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
I didn't tag that one because I agreed. Not sure how it stands up with NFCC or even whether it's important to have visualized, but I'm okay with the images for the sake of this GAN. FAC will be a bit more rigorous, yadda yadda czar  20:35, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Unreliable or possibly unreliable sources: Game-OST, OVGuide (user-contributed?), What Culture (user-contributed), GameBanshee. I'm also not so hot on those interview blog sites, but hey.
  1. Game-OST seems ok, it's just backing up the track order, but if I must remove it would Amazon be allowed as I can't find another ordered listing for it, just the announcement for the tracks that'd be on it. EDIT: Forget Amazon, it isn't on there - REMOVED FOR NOW
  2. GameBanshee is apparently owned by the now defunct UGO Networks. So I think it is reliable despite its appearance.
    There were WP:VG/RS conversations about its lack of reliability so I wouldn't assume that czar  22:02, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
  3. OVGuide is a legit site, and as far as I can see it's content is not user submitted.

    Source: John DiMaggio on Freebase, licensed under CC-BY
    Other content from Wikipedia, licensed under CC BY-SA
    — [2]

    This is what I'm going off of czar  22:02, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
    Ah, fair enough I didn't see that. Removed.
  4. I'll take a look at WhatCulture. - Removed
  • Some things to consider: varying sentence structure to use less "comma gerund" constructions (e.g., "structure, allowing" or "every skill (allowing") and to use "that" instead of "which" (which usually comes after a comma)

Question[edit]

Czar, can you give me more info on this "several aggregate claims about reviewers aren't coming from a metareview and at the very least aren't directly cited to the sources whence the claim originates"? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:46, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I had a disagreement with another editor recently, who argued that statements like "Much of Bloodlines' criticism focused on technical problems when it was released" cannot be made without pointing to a source that said exactly that (which is to say that it would be original research to make such a deduction by summarizing multiple sources). I'm not going to press it, but I'd at least recommend having immediate citations for verifying such claims. Wanted to run it past you—it's not necessarily holding up the GAN czar  21:59, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Done. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:19, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Pinging Czar. Dr Czar. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:11, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. Saw your edits, will have more time to clean up over the weekend, if that's okay czar  23:14, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Made a few final replies. While I still think parts of the gameplay can be clarified (and some other broader points on prose outside the GAN scope remain above), I'll leave you to tweak at your leisure (ping me on the talk page if you want input) because the current draft of the article is more than sufficient for the GAN criteria. Good work! Good article czar  14:53, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Image in Development section is too small to see anything[edit]

In the section on Development, there is a picture showing the changes that occurred in the development process. However, it's too small to make out anything, especially in the upper part, since the maximum size is 219 × 350 pixels. I see that the images in the citation are much larger. Is there some reason why we can't use a larger version? -Thunderforge (talk) 00:14, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

WP:NFCC#3. --Izno (talk) 00:37, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
I assume you're talking about minimal extent? If so, then is it still minimal extent if you can't see anything in it? I can't see anything in Jeanette's face in the upper part. I think it needs to be a bit bigger to convey the information. Not a whole lot, but big enough to at least see the whites of her eyes. -Thunderforge (talk) 01:32, 16 November 2016 (UTC)