Talk:Vampire: The Masquerade – Bloodlines/Archive 1

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)

I would also like to add that right off the top of my head I can think of Morrowind, which you were able to play in first and third person, seems like an utter failure on the writer's part, ill see if i can edit it now. Nevermind, it seems it is worded differently since the last time I read it 0.o —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.86.72.124 (talk) 17:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

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)

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 : 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)

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)

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&middot; ✆ 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&middot; ✆ 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.
 * Actually, when you side with Regent Strauss, you don't get to open the sarcophagus, as Strauss appears and takes it away to be locked up. Also, the First Camarilla ending is just Lacroix's side. Not nessicarly the Camarilla. Ceil-Sama (talk) 02:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Endings edited to make note of the fact that when the player opts to let LaCroix open the sarcophagus, they leave the office, allowing for the character's survival. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.247.171 (talk) 17:03, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

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

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&middot; ✆ 12:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

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.

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

And now an opposing point of view...

You are complaining about the blame being laid solely upon ActiVision's shoulders. And as a defense for ActiVision, you are merely doing the opposite: laying all of the blame solely upon Troika's shoulders. Both points of view are one-sided and smack of an agenda at work.

My personal opinion is that art does not work on an assembly line, yet try telling that to any of the stuffed suits at Activision (or any other large publisher, for that matter). And it is quite clear that Troika was shooting very high when they conceived of Bloodlines. When you are dealing with a group of people who are as creative as Troika were, then the entire issue of imposed deadlines and business models and all of that other corporate crappola becomes the anathema to the creative process. Imagine if Rembrandt were trying to paint his masterpiece... and every day, you took your grueling 180-mile round trip to kick him in the pants and yell "PAINT FASTER! WE HAVE A DEADLINE, DAMMIT!" An extreme analogy perhaps... but hopefully you can see my point.

I am in the camp of those who feel that ultimately, ActiVision undermined Troika's creative efforts and forced them to produce an unfinished game. And I am also aware that ActiVision completely copped out on supporting Bloodlines after it had been released. Yes I am aware of both sides of the issue, but I also know that deadlines and corporate business models are the primary reasons for why there is such a lack of quality and originality in most modern day video games. Everything is devolving into formulaic, assembly line tripe because of that environment -- and publishers like ActiVision and EA are amongst the primary offenders. Chalk it up to greed, I suppose. There seems to be an awful lot of that in the world of big business these days, eh..?

Given the environment in which Troika were forced to operate, I am frankly amazed that Bloodlines turned out as well as it did... bugs notwithstanding. It just goes to show you that superior writing and a non-formulaic approach can be worth a lot more than deadlines and hype. Surely there is a lesson to be learned from this debacle... but I refuse to accept that the entire Bloodlines story starts and stops with Troika.

For the record, my alias is "Tessera" and I am one of the producers of fan-made patches for Bloodlines, as well as other mods. I am a grown man who is as old or older than many of the people who developed the game. And as a result of repairing the numerous bugs in Bloodlines, I am intimately familiar with the nuts and bolts of its construction. An examination of the game's files has revealed many problems -- and one huge problem in particular: Bloodlines was rushed, and then released before it was finished. There is no doubt about it. I feel that if Troika needed more time to complete it, then they should have been given that time. But they were pushed by unreasonable financial concerns -- and instead of a GOTY masterpiece, we ended up with a diamond in the rough. And that is a bloody shame, because it could have been avoided if their publisher hadn't been so insensitive. 24.186.133.194 (talk) 06:44, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

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.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fatfool (talk) 20:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

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 preceding unsigned comment was added by 158.39.26.67 (talk) 20:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC).


 * 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)

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)

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).

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)

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)

Greetings. "an essentially unfinished game with numerous remaining bugs" I feel this sentence is much too strong. I know that to authors and users of the 'unofficial' patches it probably seems like it now, but as someone who has only just discovered the patches and is yet to install any of them, having completed the game as Tremere, Malk and Gangeral, I strongly feel the 'unfinished game' wording is... in need of changing! I truly love this game, and feel that this phrase is a little unfair to the people who wrote it and may even put off potential new players! FSBDavy (talk) 05:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Calling the game "unfinished" is considered a violation of WP:NOR and WP:NPOV unless a citation is provided from a third-party source indicating that this viewpoint is held by others. Calling the game "unfinished" without source could also violate WP:BLP with regards to the progammers. I'm going to remove the wording now in fact. 23skidoo (talk) 12:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)