Talk:Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines article.
Article policies
Famicom style controller This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Low This article is on a subject of Low priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
VG To-do:

Contents

[edit] Needs clerifying

In the opening section theres a sentence that goes "Bloodlines is notable for being the first game along with Half-Life 2 to use Valve’s Source engine, which allows the game to be played from either the first-person or third-person shooter perspective." That doesn't make any sense... I assume that means its the first game to use the Source Engine, behind Half-Life 2, which would make it the second game to use it. If thats the case, then lets just say that its the "second game to use Valve's Source Engine". However, someone unfamiliar with both games may take it to mean "Bloodlines and Half-Life 2 are the first two games to use the Source Engine and allow the player to switch between the first and third person view", which is of course a false statement. Anyways, i just think someone should rewrite that sentence so its more clear.71.197.14.47 04:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The game was released at the same time as half life, so along is accurate. I think it reads fine, although maybe some 2 in-game screenshots to show this might help.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamyoursaviour (talk • contribs) 11:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Messerach really a vampire?

Are you sure that Messerach really is a vampire? He of course could be a vampire lying in torpor, but isn't it far more likely that he simply is a mummified human? I think that would fit into the idea of all beeing a big april fools joke by Jack far better, wouldn't it? Genesis

That's actually a bit of a topic around VtM forums. However, as far as the game goes, its significantly more likely that its just a mummified human. Johansen points out why when you meet him, I believe. CABAL 13:20, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Then I will change it until we are proven wrong, I think. Genesis 05:42, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Delay confirmed?

In this article it is stated as a fact that the release was delayed because of HL2. However, I know only of rumors saying so and I haven't read any official statement which confirms it. There should be offered some proof for it in the article, until then all such statements should be marked "supposedly". --Arny 08:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Although Bloodlines could not be released before Half-Life 2, the production suffered from many problems. Even if Half-Life had been completed sooner, Bloodlines would not have been released sooner -- or not much sooner than it was. In fact, one of the articles supposedly being cited as proof that HL2 caused Bloodlines being delayed, is actually about a (never-executed) idea to withhold Bloodlines until the following year. I made extensive changes to the article to correct the bias that HL2 delayed Bloodlines, and pulled all the development-related stuff into a single Development section, and cited two interviews with the game's producer about the game's development. Primogen 16:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I found the following at [1]: Terra-Arcanum: The Internet abounds with rumors of Half-Life 2 delays. Allegedly, there is a clause in the contract that Bloodlines can only be released after HL2. Is this true? Does it mean you will have to delay the release of Bloodlines if HL-2 is delayed? If so, how long after HL2's release will we have to wait? Leonard Boyarsky: We aren't at liberty to reveal details of Activision's contract with Valve. All we are saying is that Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines is planned to ship in Fall 2004. Now his secrecy to reveal contract details and the shipment on the same day as HL2 tells me that there is something fishy there. They must have known that releasing a game using an older version of the HL2 engine at the same day as HL2 would hit the sales, especially as their products are known for bugs which Valve's aren't. -- 10:48, 14.9.2006, Werner Spahl (yes, the guy doing the patches ;)

The question is: would Bloodlines have shipped any sooner had HL2 shipped sooner? Primogen 20:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Obviously, since the game had gone gold and reached its 1.0 version while still in limbo. The first patch was added to the gold master during the delay. Prior to its release, numerous websites reported Activision was under contractual obligation not to ship Bloodlines before HL2 was out (which is why it was released the same day): note on contract Bloodlines developer stating their release date was fall, not winter 2004 -- Jordi·✆ 07:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aren't we forgetting something?

Has anyone notcied that this article says practically nothing about the actual gameplay? It's full of story details and character bios, but gives little to no discription of how the game actually plays. Someone really needs to clean up this article.--Tenka Muteki 22:44, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


The article is also missing an entire section on the clans that you can play as in the game. Isn't that kind of important?IvytheMalk 07:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Endings

User:Skinrider points that the player has choice to 'remain neutral'; I didn't get that option while playing. The number of endings (four) comes from the fact that while choosing to support Camarilla, one can either take the side of LaCroix or confront him with the help of Tremere Regent. Please correct me if I missed this 'neutral' ending. Elenthel 22:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I know of and have played the following endings:
  • Camarilla (?): side with Prince LaCroix
  • Camarilla: side with Regent Strauss
  • Anarchs: side with Nines
  • Kuei-Jin: side with Ming Xiao
  • Independent: side with no-one
In every ending except the LaCroix and Kuei-Jin endings you can chose to open the sarcofagus yourself or not. The independent ending is similar to the Anarchs ending except for the (enjoyable) end, if you chose not to open the sarcofagus. -- Jordi·✆ 23:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
The Regent Ending offers a choice to open the sarcophagus? I've browsed Regent's dialog file, it suggests otherwise... unfortunately I've no opportunity to play it through at the moment. Elenthel 21:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Not sure anymore, been a while since I last played it. It is a different ending than the LaCroix one in any case. -- Jordi·✆ 00:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
"Of that I have no doubt". I mentioned above that I count two Camarilla endings. And the fifth does exist, as the script files clearly indicate five different final Story_State values.

[edit] Edit boxes

I'm not sure whether it's just me, but the position of the edit boxes for the intro and gameplay are in a weird posiiton. Can somebody who knows more about how to use wikipedia please fix this. --User:203.206.96.242

[edit] Sabbat and Anarchs

71.55.167.79 wrote that Sabbat are descendants of Anarchs. Is it true? I never met such information in the game. Elenthel 22:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Nor in the VtM source material. The only uncontested note on Sabbat origin is that it is in its origin anti-Camarilla, and related to early mediæval death cults. Possibly 167.79 intended to state that the Sabbat in their origin were, like the modern Anarchs, mainly opposed to the Camarilla and had no real ideology of their own. -- Jordi·✆ 12:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ankaran Sarcophagus - "edited to remove unwarranted spoilers"

This text was found at the bottom of the Ankaran Sarcophagus section. First - most of the page from storyline down is tagged as containing spoilers - please make note of the removal in the discussion section. Second - this is probably inappropriate for the body of the article - again, save it for this page.

[edit] Sales performance and post-release

This whole section strikes the wrong tone in its current form. It reads as an extended justification for the game's sales numbers, and is rife with uncited speculation. "In Troika's defense" and suchlike ... why is it Wikipedia's job to defend Troika? For that matter, many (perhaps even most) fairly good-quality games bomb in the marketplace, so why does this even need explaining? - Stellmach 19:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

There appears to be a lot of fan venting in this section. I don't see the relevance of the Michael McCarthy quote -- according to the game credits, he was an assistant artist and therefore not a significant player on the creative, management or business side. I'm not sure why his speculations about Troika's overall financial well-being had it been able to use Steam has to do with the Vampire game itself. Nor do I see what the embeeded quote in the game -- "why hasn't this game shipped yet?" -- gives any indication of WHY the game didn't ship sooner. Primogen 01:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I moved around some sentences in this section for clarity and flow. Now the section doesn't have as much rambling and redundancy -- all though there is still an angry tone and unsubtantiated information (I also added more cirtation requests). I now see the point of the McCarthy quote -- the irony is he is suggesting Valve's Steam system as an alternative of not distributing through a publisher even though their use of Valve's Source engine in Vampire gave them so many problems and might have contributed to Troika's demise (although I thought Trokia's demise was due to them not being able to get another project funded). I'm making that irony more clear, and moving the bit about the "Why hasn't this game shipped yet?" line to the Development section, where it is more relevent. Primogen 16:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

As someone who worked on the game, I cannot directly work on this article, especially the section in question. I'd recommend however, providing a counterpoint to the Troika quote by the main ATVI Producer on the game which is in the first article linked at the bottom of the page (David Mullich)

I was then assigned to produce Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines, which was already a year or more into development without an Activision producer being attached to ensure that everything was running smoothly. As a result, things were in a pretty sorry state when I came aboard: an unfinished design and game engine, technical problems with the multiplayer code, many game levels that were created and then thrown out, and so on.

"My job was to work with the developer, Troika Games, to get the game back on track and bring it to completion. I eventually wound up staying onsite at Troika, which required me to drive a 180-mile round-trip commute each day through the worst of Los Angeles traffic. I'd usually leave my house at 7am and often wouldn't get back home until 2am that night, and this went on for six months until the game was finished. It was a very grueling project, and I was happy when it was all over."

The game was a mess, start to finish. Multiplayer was cut shortly after we got our "first playable build" and we were getting code released candidates that implemented new features. I've worked with over a dozen developers from the QA side and never had I seen a dev that seemed in such disarray that late in the game's development. Unfortunately I have to post this anon (minus the ATVI IP Address), but as someone who worked on the game, the section should either be deleted or more research needs to be done finding out exactly what went wrong with Vampire.
In the end, a product was delivered to the marketplace that was buggy and Troika was unable to meet the deadlines they had agreed to. And that falls squarely on Activision? Certainly Troika had already demonstrated an inability to meet deadlines and fix bugs with the barely-functional Temple of Elemental Evil. While the people at Troika certainly were a creative bunch and good storytellers, I seriously doubt being able to self-publish would have solved all their problems. They likely would have quickly run through their funding before delivering any sort of product. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thom Denick (talk • contribs) 22:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

We should evaluate Troika's track record as a company and then come to an objective, reasonable conclusion. Troika had a track record of releasing buggy games and then blamed the problem on the publishers -- three different publishers for three different games. All three Troika games suffer the same three problems: bugs, bugs, and bugs. In fact, Troika's pattern of behavior goes all the way back to Black Isle, when Tim Cain, Leonard Boyarsky and Jason Anderson created Fallout and Fallout 2. Fallout and Fallout 2 also debut with a huge amount of game-stopping bugs and unplayable quality.

It was a Troika and Black Isle's tradition to release products with poor quality control. Those guys have never released a stable products - that is their modus operandi, which they now carry over to Obsidian. Activision, on the other hand, does not have a reputation for releasing buggy products. Troika/Black Isle/Obsidian do.

Fallout and Fallout 2 succeeded despite their buggy, unoptimized debuts because sloppy quality was the norm in the PC gaming industry in the 1980s and 1990s. Unfortunately for those guys, time has changed. Gamers today are spoiled by high production value and strict quality control. Gamers in general have become much less tolerant of buggy products. When Bloodlines debut with Fallout-style quality, the game was promptly and harshly lambasted for its technical and playability problems.

So, look at the track record, and you should come to an informed conclusion. The problem was Troika's, not Activision's, nor Sierra's, nor Atari's. ktchong

I think the entire section should be move to Troika's main entry because all the defense has more to do with the company's downfall and failure than this game. ktchong

[edit] This game is Not a sequel to vampire the masqurade: Redemption

as said above, its not a sequel but takes place in the same world of darkness universe.

heck, none of Redemption's characters appear at all and Redemption's story was tied up at the end.

[edit] Caine "not being in the game"

I noticed something in the trivia section: "Though Cain does not appear throughout the game going into the game sound files Cain sound files can be found which are actually the lines of the Taxi driver who takes the player to the different areas of the game." I believe this to be false, as while playing the game as a Malkavian the character does indeed believe the Taxi-driver to be Caine himself. I also believe he was in one of the endings of the game. However its a long time since I played, so I may have missed something. If anyone else remembers it this way, I suggest it be re-written.

The taxi driver is clearly alluded to as Caine, and shows as a Vampire under Auspex, but it is more likely this is Jack's Malkavian friend from the source books who pretends to be Caine. No positive identification of him is made in the game except by the insane Malks. -- Jordi·✆ 09:55, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, the sentence was mangled anyway, so I rewrote it without the disputed part: "The sound files containing the Taxi Driver's dialog audio are all named with the prefix "Caine", implying that the character is intended to be the father of all vampires." Primogen 19:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed POV Material

I removed the following material, it being blatantly POV:

The previous statement may be misleading, as John Carmack pointed out recently in an interview that Steam does not save game companies money. Valve takes as much of a cut as a real publisher would of a developer's revenue.

Carmack and ID are one of Valve's biggest competitors; anything he says should be taken with a pinch of salt, and an objective party's word would be better here as a reference. Certainly, for every Carmack, one could quote someone like Introversion, who said "During the first three weeks Darwinia sells more copies through Steam than Introversion have managed from their website since March [in 9 months]"

In addition, this requirement provides even less rationale for a larger well established game company like id Software to provide their games on Steam thereby paying a double royalty, each hefty, to their own publisher and to Valve as well. Carmack interview about Steam service

"...this requirement provides even less rationale for a larger well established game company..." Yes, but Troika wasn't, so this is irrelevant to a discussion about them, only to a discussion about iD.

There is some irony in McCarthy's choice of Valve's Steam content delivery system as a distribution alternative, given that delays and other problems resulting from use of Valve's Source engine in Bloodlines was probably an additional factor Troika going out of business shortly after the game's release.

"Was probably..."? Completely POV. Certainly, an interview with producer David Mullich doesn't even mention Valve or Source. Rather, Mullich blames "an unfinished design and game engine, technical problems with the multiplayer code, many game levels that were created and then thrown out, and so on."

P. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Paulmoloney (talk • contribs) 10:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

Just a small comment to the above: Rather, Mullich blames "an unfinished design and game engine", the unfinished engine is clearly Valve's fault and I think there is an interview somewhere in which a Troika employee describes their problem to stay with the constantly changing Source engine. Anyway, I removed the whole section as it comes across like a big advertisement for Steam which it already was in the McCarthy interview, because he is planning to release his own game on Steam. Regarding Bloodlines though, I doubt Troika would have been able to develop it at all without money from a real publisher like Activision, so these speculations have no place here. It also neglected Direct2Drive although Bloodlines was released much earlier on it than on Steam. Wesp5 12:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Differences from common vampire beliefs

Is the section talking about how the vampires in this game differ necessary? Isn't this covered in other Vampire:The Masquerade/World of Darkness articles? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.71.194.105 (talk) 20:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Spoilers

I don't see any spoilers tags, but the section about endings definitely contains ones. Sorry I don't know tags for spoilers in this wiki so please if somebody could.. --78.61.94.98 14:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The spoiler tag was removed by an admin according to the Wikipedia policy on spoilers (WP:SPOILER). ‘Spoiler warnings are redundant when used in "Plot", "Character history", "Synopsis", or other sections that are self-evidently going to discuss a plot or similar.’ But thank you for bringing it up. —LOL 11:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Patches

I just noticed that Tessera or one of his supporters added info on their "true" patch. I removed the wrongs bits and the advertisement from it and corrected and added some infos to the unofficial patch section, especially on the "basic" patch. Wesp5 12:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

While it is true you "cleaned up" the patch section, is is not true that your merely "removed the wrong bits." What truly happened was a complete and utter deletion of any mention of not only Tessera's patch , but the controversy surrounding your "mods." (Ego Felem Amo 18:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC))

I didn't delete any mention of the "true" patch and regarding the controversy, maybe we should mention that Acrimonious used my patch as a base without permission for his first versions? Contrary to that Dan allowed me to continue his work (I can cite his message if needed), the restored stuff in my patch is not from some "game resources" but really from the Bloodlines files (look for yourself if you doubt me) and the basic patch does not include "all the changes" (just check it's readme)! And regarding the "true" patch, I think it should say "contains less gameplay changes and fewer restored content" like I edited, because (I'm citing from the readme of the 4.04 patch now): "* Restored some missing lines from Heather's opening dialogue, including Malkavian lines where appropriate." That's restored content right there and new homemade content as well. "* Hid Bertrum's CD from non Nosferatu." That's removing an object that was available to every clan before. "* Gave roof guards sniper and assault rifles instead of shotguns and uzis." That's swapping weapons and therefore changing the gameplay. "* Added zoom sway effect to SWAT sniper rifle, and increased based damage." Besides changing weapon stats here, the SWAT rifle is restored content not included in the 1.2 version in the first place. Wesp5 08:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry then, I assumed you deleted the information when, evidently, someone else did. About the Patches, I believe that the 4.04 patch is superior to your patch in some respects; however, I also enjoyed some aspects of your patch, like the real weapon names, that I have personally re-modded into the game. However, I also loathed some of the changes included in your patches, like the non-zoomed version of the Jammie-Sue (sp?), and so I picked the 4.04 patch. Anyhow, I can discuss the issue more if you can provide me a link to a form you're on... (Ego Felem Amo 04:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC))

We can discuss any issues about my patches at the www.planetvampire.com forums as Tessera banned me from his. Regarding e.g. the Jamie Sue, I removed the zoom mode because it shows no scope on the model and using the "unofficial" patches you get the zoomed SWAT rifle almost at the same time if you are clever. I re-edited a little bit about my patches here because multiplayer support really was in the game files, including human hunter clans exclusively for this. I also edited the restored content usage back for the "true" patches as I thought not restoring such content was actually the aim of the patch and the main difference to mine. Wesp5 07:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)