Talk:Vampire: The Requiem

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Role-playing games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of role-playing games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Role-playing gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Role-playing gamesTemplate:WikiProject Role-playing gamesrole-playing game articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Horror Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

Pasteau, Cyril (September–November 2004). "Vampire: The Requiem". Backstab (in French). No. 49. FC Publications. pp. 14–15.
Sautriot, Marc (May–June 2017). "Vampire : Le Requiem". Casus Belli (in French). No. 22. Black Book Éditions. pp. 54–57.

Vampire: Movie[edit]

- I found a source for the un-verified claim at the bottom of the article that New Line Cinema had purchased rights to make a Vampire: The Requiem movie, didn't know how to source properly, sorry, I just put the link in that section of the article - after the claim, if someone could fix it for me, that woudl be really appreciated. Sorry about the trouble. Revoranii 13:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Simply add a set of square brackets [] around the link.Darker Dreams 15:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bias[edit]

"This is an alteration which has not met with the approval of all of the game's original fans, seeing the "reboot" of the game to be a final solution to the greed that drove White Wolf to publish numerous, ill-advised supplements of their games. The in-game mythology became so convoluted over time (and due to poor editing and attention to continuity) that the entire Storyteller system in general and Vampire: The Masquerade game collapsed under its own weight. The reboot has been seen by many purists as yet another marketing ploy to reintroduce the game to a new generation of gullible consumers and sell the same books all over again. However, the re-boot does in fact correct a number of the issues that eventually led to the collapse of the original game, and adopts a footing that allows the Storyteller to adapt the game to a history of his or her choosing."

This section of the opening paragraph isn't necessary, and is highly biased. Shouldn't opening paragraphs to articles be neutral overviews of the article? If you feel it's necessary to keep this, it should be placed in a "critisisms of V:tR", instead of the opening paragraph.

I removed most of the introduction, as it was extremely critical of the "reboot." I do think the issues within it should be mentioned, but with counterpoints, and at a later part of the article. I may replace the criticism/opinions section somewhere further down the page soon, but if anyone wants to do it right now, be my guest. --Vyran 20:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Closer to the original"?[edit]

I'm not sure what to tag this with, but I'd like to point out that the claim that V:tR is closer to the original V:tM is pure drivel; I like both games, and have got the First, Second and Revised V:tM books from the "old" WoD. Yes, this is what White Wolf claims, but since when was WikiPedia supposed to be a PR outlet for them?

It could certainly read something along the lines of "The current line manager feels that ...", but unless someone can point me in the direction of a statement by Mark Rein•Hagen and/or Jonathan Tweet to the effect that they feel that V:tR is closer to what they intended when they made V:tM and Kindred: the Embraced, then this statement is either NPOV or unsourced. Not sure which, though, so no tag from me. All I've seen so far comes from the new people.

There are a handful of similarities to the original; the primary one being less cohesion in vampire society (each city an island unto itself, practically), making it less work to handle a fairly local chronicle.

It's still a radically different game in terms of actually playing it. I'm not talking about systemic differences (a game system should reflect the setting, not define it) or that lot. But the stuff that originally made V:tM into a different kind of game from games like Nightlife, is almost entirely different. Zuiram 00:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since the statement that it was closer to the original in theme was not backed up by any thematic evidence, it hardly qualifies as research. There are differences listed in that section, but none of them are thematic issues, they are mechanical/setting issues. 64.50.201.98 19:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On Origins[edit]

Changed this because it was, simply put, wrong. The Lancea Sanctum does NOT claim Longinus was the first vampire--the centuries younger Ordu Dracul certainly does not claim that Dracula was the first--and Caine is no more likely to be the first vampire than anyone of a hundred other mythological figures that could theoretically be connected to vampires.

Template:Fictional Setting[edit]

I'm not sure the template Fictional Setting is useful. See Template talk:Fictional Setting for the discussion I've tried to create on this point. — OwenBlacker 19:22, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)

VtR vs VtM clans[edit]

The clans in Vampire: the Requiem are quite different than the ones they share names with in The Masquerade. The links should not lead to articles about the later game.

they can when there is info about the VtR version of them. separate pages would be nice with consistant naming (clan name (vampire: the requiem) is my suggestion) when someone feels like creating those and adding actual info. Boneyard 13:11, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How much data does Requiem use from Masquerade? -- Psi edit

not that much i believe, from background stories to basic gameplay things have changed. in the case of the description of the clans someone wanting to find info on the requiem clans can just skip the part of the masquarade variation of it. it's not perfect but it works. once i have some time i will create seperate pages for them. Boneyard 28 June 2005 07:44 (UTC)

You could just divide those clan pages into two sections unless you plan on having a lot of information for each game. That would make it easier to compare the different versions. --Vyran 28 June 2005 20:22 (UTC)

It brings back the Six Traditions and three of the clans (with slight changes, like the Venture having Animalism). A lot of terms are re-used, as are the basics of vampirism established in Masquerade. --Vyran 28 June 2005 20:22 (UTC)

I've moved all information pertaining to the new clans of Requiem into a Clans in Vampire: The Requiem article, which should hopefully solve this problem. I suggest doing the same for whatever information there currently is on the Covenants. -- Supermorff 11:13, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Factions[edit]

Is it just me, or did they kind of demo this style of character creation in Demon: The Fallen? It seems like all of the new WoD has the two thing (what you're born to and what you choose). Onikage725 23:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fan Sites[edit]

Tossed my Fansite on the fansites link, hope that isn't a faux pas, but we are passionate players of the nWoD system. --Eclypsed 06:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Short descriptions added to the Covenant disciplines.[edit]

I added short descriptions not unlike those found next to the other disciplines. If anybody has a reason they shouldn't be there, or sees any mistake in them, please feel free to fix it and explain it, if you don't mind. 4.234.51.41 18:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Differences between VtM & VtR[edit]

The whole section "Differences from Vampire: The Masquerade" veers far from any attribution. In particular, parallels between covenants & sects & criticisms of the original clans (such as "...rather than rely on playing 'the last member of a dying race'; a problem which some felt had become endemic among certain players.") seem like original research to me. The bit at the bottom about Biblical Myth being the default canon of VtM itself is pretty arguable as well. Are there statements by Achilli or other developers that can be cited? Otherwise I'm advocating a intense edit on the section. --mordicai. 20:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "last member of a dying race" problem is, I would say, true, but isn't really appropriate for wikipedia as it constitutes original research. However the Caine backstory is the default canon & this could be easily referenced from any number of sources; The clan novels series (as I recall, Beckett meets Caine towards the end) would probably be the easiest. Someone else want to put in a reference (I don't have access to the books where I am now)? -- Ajedrez

I slapped on OR tag on that section. Surely there are some reviews of the game which can form the basis of this section? I'd assume that any decent review would have compared it to the previous edition. --Starwed 06:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plot summary[edit]

This article has been tagged as mostly plot summary. It covers a lot of information about the game story and uses a lot of direct quotes from the book. While this is handy when I don't have my manual around, this is copyrighted material. It would be difficult, but I think the article should include much more on the real-world impacts of the game such as its reception and its influence on other games. The history channel actually did a documentary on the modern vampire which included about five minutes focused on Vampire: The Masquerade. This would be a good place to start gathering data. Svenxix (talk) 01:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]