Talk:Blood III
[edit] Merging/Less Conjecture Request
Blood III does not exist. You can't have an article for something that doesn't exist. There's no Wikipedia article on Quake 5, even though there's people who want Quake 5. This article is nothing but guesses, conjecture, and wishful thinking - not fact. Stuff about obstacles to the sequel should go in Blood II. - User:TheWallflower
So another debate begins on our little Wiki. You are right User:TheWallflower, Blood III does not exist as a game. However this article is not about a game called Blood III but the concept around it, that and Monolith did basically promise a sequel at the end of Blood II: The Chosen ("Enjoy these answers and more soon... we promise"; Doom 4 is a game in-development that has its own Wikipedia article and there are articles and sections for games that were announced and never released such as a game based on Priest). This article mentions some of the loose ends and notes from the Blood II back story that were never realized inside that game (and as in the quote were promised to be answered later on), as well as the numerous fan reactions to the open ended story of the Blood canon (based on the numerous threads on discussion forums and mailbags). I can find quotes about people suggesting what this article describes, this was researched. Though it is true that as this article does not talk about a game per say it could possibly use a different title, any possible suggestions? There are some minor notes about the concepts mentioned in this article on the Blood II: The Chosen article, but this article goes into much deeper detail than would be possible as a section and also it puts it into a community perspective (and it has been an extremely important aspect of that, also leading to some fan works being centered around it as mentioned in paragraph two). After all this Wiki is for more than anything else, a place to document and organize the history of the Blood games and fan community. Also a little tip, when you place the "Needs Attention" tag please say that the article has been marked as lacking in areas and add a base description of the complaints, put your argument on the talk page (this also makes it so who is the one questioning the quality of the article is listed). Your opinion does not quite make up Blood Wiki policy ;-). Thank you for your diligence, I will be awaiting any comments and ideas. Gideon 18:13, 12 September 2008 (EDT)
The Super Mario Bros. movie ended on a cliffhanger - that doesn't mean there's an article on Super Mario Bros. 2 (the movie). Every James Bond movie ends with the tagline "James Bond Will Return" - that doesn't necessarily ensure a sequel. The Planet of the Apes remake barely ended, and the Robinsons are still Lost in Space. Just because they promised a sequel doesn't mean there will be one. And none of the aforementioned movies's sequels have articles on the wikipedia.
Why? Because the Wikipedia guidelines state that users should only add verfiable and factual information. None of the information in this article fits the bill. This article has no sources with editorial control. In fact, the only source of documentation is reference to the original. This is an encyclopedia of facts - not original thought, and articles about things that don't exist is not suitable (see this article on "[is not a crystal ball]"
When Blood II delivered their epilogue, they didn't mention the term 'Blood III' at all, meaning they may not have intended the story to be continued in a sequel - it may have been in an expansion pak (which it was, although not conclusively). This is what Half-Life 2 is doing. If Atari does decide to do Blood III, it may be an expansion pak (unlikely, but then, it's unlikely they will make a third game either).
Blood III is a valid concept, but it's not a tangible concept. Unlike Doom 4, there are no formal plans for a Blood III, no announcements. The reason the Priest game has a page is because there is documentation for its development - there's a GameSpot page, a GameStats page, and a dedicated webpage (that is now 404'd). It's cancelled now, but it was being developed at one time, even to the point there were screenshots. Blood III has nothing like that (unless you can find it).
The bits about loose ends and fan reactions (how someone can have a reaction to something that doesn't exist is beyond me) are irrelevant to the article - these are personal opinions and unsubstantiated lists. And neither has enough detail to warrant a whole article. Loose ends should go in the Blood II main article, just like the mistakes are in the Nightmare Levels article. If you want to talk about it in a community perspective, then focus on the articles that do that, like Blood TC and Transfusion - they are tangible products.
By the way, I don't appreciate your sarcastic tone in these debates. The wikipedia discussion pages are built for this exact reason - to debate and argue what should be included and what shouldn't. If you can't take the heat, get out of the wiki. TheWallflower 10:46, 15 September 2008 (EDT)
Hello again, first of all I am surprised that you thought of my demeanor as sarcastic. My intent was far from it, it was more of a whimsical statement about how it proves that the Wiki has grown up since last January when we founded it (eg: having active debates, if only between a few members yet). Though this shows one of the underlying problems of Internet chats in that it is hard to display the context and tone the speaker wants to impart. As you say: the purpose of discussion pages are to wrinkle out problems and possible inaccuracies (and to weed out totally useless information such as "A Bloodite called B100d's toe was stubbed on March 2nd 2004 CE") among the sites myriad of users. Like all democracies (and that is what a public Wiki is: a democracy of content) debate is of course an integral component and I am quite proud at how we have strived to maintain it here (in no small part to your contributions as well).
Now on to the good stuff, this debate runs down to one main point "Blood III does not exist as a game, you can't write about what does not exist". Well the main thing that inspired me to create this article in the first place was reading through the talks about how upset some Bloodites where about the lack of a sequel, and what they would like to put into one (this is also where I first read the proposal of a fan made Blood sequel, sadly the community has not inspired enough enthusiasm towards this) on the Transfusion forums. The article is mostly about the community reactions and discussions on the concept (from the Planet Blood mailbag to modern threads). Now I believe that I may safely say that Blood III talk and new offical Blood content rumours (which this article is also about) make up a large amount of the content on Blood forums (if you wish I can dig up some links). This makes this a "Internet Community Phenomena" which is even Wikipedia article worthy, for reference lets take for example the "Editor War" between GNU Emacs and Vi that happened (rather jocularly) between the "Hacker Community", or just this entire Wikipedia category "Internet Culture". The Blood debates are generally centred on activism about how the community could support a new game, what they want in it, and what else they can do about it. The focus and title of this article might be a little of from this goal, so we might want to change the name and organization a little. Though if we could find some other "Community Phenomena" typically unique to the Blood community we could make a larger article which would be good. The main focus here is on this community anomaly, which is finite and it also describes the few finite things that exist over the conceptual idea of a sequel to Blood II (or at least are notable coincidences). Again I wait for further thoughts. Buneous Noches! Gideon 00:57, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
If you insist on keeping an article on Blood III then you must make it factual. You must point to the evidence of this cultural phenomena. You must talk about the attempts to make a sequel - either fan made or official. This would likely point to websites and communities which have their own pages.
You cannot post rumors you found in a forum (unless those rumors have some documentation behind them). You cannot talk about what might or might not be in it, or issues to resolve, or "wishlists". You cannot use generalities (like "It is also not uncommon on Blood community forums to hear rumours about a new sequel to Blood"), you need to point out the specifics. You cannot call it Blood III - this refers to the game, not the phenomenom. You must call it something like the Blood III Project, or Blood Unofficial Sequel, or Future of the Blood Series. You cannot point out fan fiction that acts as a sequel to Blood - they are not in the same vein, and it is not canonical. To be a proper Blood sequel, it would have to be a video game. TheWallflower 10:41, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
The matter has been resolved by a policy vote, with the uncontested majority voting in favour of keeping the article. You can find the results of this vote here. Tchernobog 21:20, 24 November 2011 (CST)
