Talk:Bloodborne

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 January 2021 and 26 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): SammyD 621.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:11, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Terrible read[edit]

"Upon awakening there on the night of the Hunt, the player is forcibly inducted into the ranks of the Hunters and cryptically told to "seek Paleblood"." This just reads terribly. Forcibly inducted? Ranks? What ranks? Cryptically? Was there any sort of consensus on changing the previous wording, which seemed perfectly fine and had been there for at least many months? 47.33.200.43 (talk) 07:59, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Don't think so. If this is from that editor who kept introducing WP:GAMECRUFT to the article, then it should be reverted to the last stable version. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:03, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Souls series[edit]

Shouldn't this be listed under the Souls series? The trailer shows it to be a spiritual successor, having similar gameplay etc., but set in a slightly more modern world. (As I'm not used to adding new entries here, please revise this to fit with the standards of Wikipedia.)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.97.213.155 (talk) 09:44, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, because even if it were a spiritual successor, we don't categorize fiction like that. See WP:INUNIVERSE for details. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:54, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why? If it was hypothetically stated outright that it was the spiritual successor to the Souls series, you'd not mention that? ~ Dissident93 (Talk) 20:08, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It could be listed as a "related game" in a navbox, but it is not part of that series. That limits how much connection we can draw between the two different properties. For example, we would not add it to a Souls category, nor would we include it as an official member of the series in a navbox. Spiritual successors are a legitimate topic in the article and in a navbox, but they must not be confused with official sequels or remakes. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:09, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. Then yeah, I agree. ~ Dissident93 (Talk) 00:23, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks for clarifying and explaining the rules on such things :-) 145.97.213.155 (talk) 10:20, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand. Demon's Souls and Dark Souls are not truly a part of the same series/franchise. Their Lore isn't a part of the same universe. They aren't sequels. The intellectual property isn't even the same holder. Bloodborne is as related to Demon's Souls as Dark Souls is. Why is Bloodborne not a part of the Souls series?--Grimakis (talk) 17:43, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect. Bloodborne is NOT as related to Demon's Souls as Dark Souls is. Dark Souls was stated to be the spiritual successor to Demon's Souls, and Demon's Souls has been grouped together with the Souls games by official sources as the first game in the Souls series. Bloodborne has been kept distinct by official sources. Osh33m (talk) 16:35, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SCE Japan Studio as a co-developer[edit]

SCE Japan Studio producer Masaaki Yamagiwa stated in June of 2014 that "Bloodborne is a new collaboration for us, being developed by FromSoftware and produced by SCE Japan Studio". Do people not understand the difference between a game developer and a producer/publisher? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 08:51, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism "PC version"[edit]

It seems as though this page is going to be very often (already has) been vandalized with the claim that a PC version will be released, even though it has been stated by officials that this will never happen. What should we do about this? Osh33m (talk) 20:15, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Osh33m: Just keep reverting anything that major without a source? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 00:56, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
that would be a very tedious process for us dedicated editors. Osh33m (talk) 21:43, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how big of an issue it is Osh33m, but maybe you should add a hidden note? —DangerousJXD (talk) 22:18, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DangerousJXD OK, done. Osh33m (talk) 14:43, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with List of Bloodborne characters[edit]

The game's characters aren't particularly notable. I think that a section in the Bloodborne page can include all the details here. AdrianGamer (talk) 10:23, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:02, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree. —DangerousJXD (talk) 08:06, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - There needs to be significant coverage on these characters for this article to be separate. --The1337gamer (talk) 09:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looking over this again I think that it would be more appropriate to open AfD on the list article. There's nothing to merge and it's only a list of 2 characters. Doesn't seem like it is even worth redirecting. --The1337gamer (talk) 13:50, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with The1337gamer. The list of two characters only gives information about one. AfD it. --Soetermans. T / C 22:05, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Two characters?! Agree with an AfD now. Two! Preposterous! —DangerousJXD (talk) 22:12, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Armour[edit]

"Armour was also not included as it was felt that it would clash with the game's setting." Can someone clarify this? Armour is in the game. I don't know what this could be referring to; the outfits in the game are armour. They have their different strengths and all that, is that not armour? Is it comparing it to the armour in the Souls games or something? I never played them so I don't know how different it is. —DangerousJXD (talk) 07:45, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed it for now. —DangerousJXD (talk) 08:45, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The armour/outfits in the game provide less noticeable damage reduction than in the souls games, though damage reduction is less necessary with the implementation of the rally system replenishment. The difference is also noticeable enough when with clothes versus being naked, and when wearing armour good against fire when facing, say a fire monster. It is present in game and though its different than in the souls games it most certainly is a part of the game and should be included, I would say the combat section of game-play would be a good spot to put in the edit.--Kipras Is Present (talk) 15:43, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you are responding to, as the original editor removed the claim that armor does not exist in the game (which we all would disagree with). ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:08, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For the plot: "Paleblood"?[edit]

Are there any sources, in-game and otherwise, explaining or at least even hinting at what "Paleblood" is? —017Bluefield (talk) 23:39, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can not find anything. I can find plenty of opinions, theories, and speculation. It's a complicated story. I don't recall anything specific when I played it (there could be something, it's been a while since I played it). Maybe a mention of Paleblood being a mystery would be best? A bunch of the plot section needs work. I'm not good at working on plots. —DangerousJXD (talk) 00:19, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The story needs to be fleshed out.[edit]

The plot section is missing critical details, like the encounter with Mergo's Wet Nurse, which is necessary to trigger Gehrman's offer.

I added this in but DangerousJXD immediately reverted it.

DangerousJXD, rather than getting in an editing war, I encourage you to re-add the details yourself. As it stands, the section is incomplete.

(By the way, if you found grammatical mistakes, it's better to correct them than delete everything.)

I encouraged you to have another crack at it. Go ahead. You don't need to say the plot needs work, that's super obvious. The information that needs to be in the plot section is hard to determine. It's a complicated story. That's why the section is messed up. —DangerousJXD (talk) 00:24, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I added the most important part back in (the part about Mergo and the note about branching paths). —DangerousJXD (talk) 00:40, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is the most comprehensive thing I've found that talks about the plot. It isn't reliable enough to be used as a reference but it has a lot of information. —DangerousJXD (talk) 01:25, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding article[edit]

The reference I added with this edit has some good information in it. You can expand the development section, add a pre-release subsection in the reception section, you can add a little information on new game plus to the gameplay section, and you can probably get something for the release section. Nothing in there for the plot though. Just saying in case anybody wants something to do it. I probably will do some of the above myself. —DangerousJXD (talk) 22:40, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here are two more links that can be used as references and would be helpful in adding to the development section. [1] [2]. —DangerousJXD (talk) 07:04, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Here is something else you can get information out of for the soundtrack. —DangerousJXD (talk) 08:34, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think another picture for the gameplay section is in order. One showcasing the Hunter's Dream or the Chalice Dungeons perhaps? —DangerousJXD (talk) 10:21, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Bloodborne to Souls section of Template:FromSoftware games[edit]

Can we add Bloodborne as a spin-off to the Souls section of Template:FromSoftware games? —017Bluefield (talk) 06:31, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's fine how it is now but I wouldn't have a problem if it was listed like that. Bloodborne is considered its own thing and not related in anyway to the Souls games (at least that's what they say). —DangerousJXD (talk) 09:39, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, since it is not officially a Souls game. Having it listed as a spinoff just bloats the template. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 11:36, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A note on references[edit]

Just noticed that references: 7, 14, 17, 19, 24, 31, 33 are from IGN's Wiki which is an unreliable source as it is user submitted content (see at WP:VG/RS). They'll need replacing. --The1337gamer (talk) 22:14, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed all the IGN wiki references. Luckily, they were all additional references so more references aren't needed. I will probably eventually find references to replace those references. All this time I thought they were reliable. The thought that they might not be reliable was a thought at one point, but the fact it's IGN made me think they were good. Thanks for telling me this. —DangerousJXD (talk) 22:53, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Open World[edit]

@2601:582:C001:F344:1CE6:A0F8:8BBF:6379 This game is not open world. IGN's review, for one, calls it semi-open. However, semi-open is not actually a category. Semi-open world generally gets thrown in with the games that are not open world. Eurogamer, which is the site you are sourcing, calls it open world in its preview, but not in its review. For the sake of consistency, reviews generally supersede any previews linked in the article, as long as they are by a verified source. Thus, Eurogamer's review is their final opinion of the game, and any previews that were previously written by the same publisher, are generally disregarded hereafter. Thus, since they neglected to mention the open world, it means it doesn't have an open world. Dohvahkiin (talk) 23:34, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bloodborne. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:36, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Plot Ambiguity Issue[edit]

I wanted to make an few inclusions concerning the plot and how a majority of it is meant to be gathered from visual storytelling, item descriptions, NPC encounters etc. Alongside this I wanted to add that a large part of the plot is meant to be inferred from what players find and see in the world. I feel that this is an important detail that I have not found much coverage of in any talk page or edit history of the game, though this information is common knowledge among a lot of people, especially gamers, it is significant enough to be mentioned perhaps somewhere at the end of the plot section. If anyone has any objections or perhaps constructive notes on why or why not this info should be added please let say so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kipras Is Present (talk • contribs) 16:23, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any secondary reliable sources discussing this? That's pretty much a requirement to include the content. See WP:VG/RS for a list of vetted sources. -- ferret (talk) 16:49, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are sources regarding this about Miyazaki's general game design and writing style, but I'm not sure if we should apply the same sources to here when they are mainly discussing the Dark Souls games. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:40, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If I were to make the edit I would make a point to say that this element of ambiguity used by Miyazaki in his storytelling has been present and carried over from the Dark Souls Trilogy and Demon Souls, though I understand there has been a bit of controversy regarding grouping this game with the Souls series so I would also be sure to respect that this game is a separate ip. As for secondary sources I would primarily be pulling from a written interview on The Guardian linked here, [3]. Though I realize the souls series is already mentioned, linked, and stated as being something the game borrowed many elements from, I felt it necessary especially because this is a separate entity from the other games and for it to not mention this uniqueness in storytelling when it comes to video games is an important detail being overlooked.--Kipras Is Present (talk) 16:23, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It could work in the dev section, as the game was still directed and lead by Miyazaki and features many of the same design choices from the Souls games. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:01, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Will do, thank you for the input and approval.--Kipras Is Present (talk) 02:22, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Recent lead edits[edit]

Saying "the amalgamation horror themes during the progression of plot" (which doesn't even make much sense, is this praising the horror themes or the plot?) when we already mentioned "atmospheric environments" as being praised seems highly redundant to me, if I'm understanding this correctly. Saying "Lovecraftian themes and environments" would instead include both of these statements, so I made the change. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:51, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Monsters or Beasts?[edit]

Throughout the game the mobs are referred to as beasts, not really monsters so much. Is it worth changing or is it incorrect? TheFirstVicar4 (talk) 22:24, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comic Book Series[edit]

Since detailed information on the comic book series by Titan Comics doesn't fit here, can a page be created specifically for the comics? I feel that there is enough information for a page. WeiWenn (talk) 00:05, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine for it to be here. Independent notability of the comic series is unlikely to be met. We don't need full plot summaries or anything besides. -- ferret (talk) 00:56, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bloodborne&oldid=1210191997"