Remove ads

Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines 2

An awoken elder having to caught up with modern times and regaining(or just gaining) their power is such a Requiem plot point that I wonder if being Requiem would have gone better. Hell, the lesser amount of Clans would fit in
 
Last edited:
I mean this could all still turn out perfectly fine but at this point I kinda doubt it ?

The trajectory seems to be discarding what made Bloodlines a cult classic and going for something with more mass appeal. It might still be a perfectly enjoyable game but I'm not holding out much hope for the sort of experience that STILL has me replaying Bloodlines every so often.
 
hghwolf said:
I mean this could all still turn out perfectly fine but at this point I kinda doubt it ?

The trajectory seems to be discarding what made Bloodlines a cult classic and going for something with more mass appeal. It might still be a perfectly enjoyable game but I'm not holding out much hope for the sort of experience that STILL has me replaying Bloodlines every so often.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

You replaying bloodline again doesn't make them any money so you can see why the economics don't lean that way :V
 
I was always skeptical whether a Bloodlines 2 was actually gonna be able to capture that original magic, since a lot of it really felt like a combination of Fuckit We're Going Under Anyway and Accidental Blundering Into It, but all I needed a sequel to be was just a decently fun WRPG experience as a bloodsucker, and everything I've seen does not fill me with confidence it will pull off even that.

Ya know, presuming this game ever actually comes out.
 
I mean honestly the magic of Bloodlines came in with how well it conceptualized the vampire world and how you interact with it. The actual specifics of the mechanics and having an RPG system always seemed ancillary to me to the game's quality, and in some cases a detriment.

So long as their writing and worldbuilding and setting design sensibilities are on point then this will have a shot at living up the original.
 
Reveen said:
I mean honestly the magic of Bloodlines came in with how well it conceptualized the vampire world and how you interact with it. The actual specifics of the mechanics and having an RPG system always seemed ancillary to me to the game's quality, and in some cases a detriment.

So long as their writing and worldbuilding and setting design sensibilities are on point then this will have a shot at living up the original.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The issue is that you can't really separate the RPG mechanics and the broader sense of immersion/narrative experience.

Part of what made Bloodlines so memorable was that it very much was not a Bioware style RPG, your protagonist was special but in the kind of 'I'm a disposable pawn that for some reason manages to keep on surviving suicide missions' way that was just VTM to its very core. Going from that to "I'm Vampire Shepard and this is my favorite store on the Citadel Seattle" is different from the original in a way that in no way enables the same narrative strength and is even less a cause for confidence.

I don't think developers who feel the need to force a Voiced Protagonist on us in 2023 are likely to have the writing chops and imagination to make a world remotely as good as Bloodlines 1. And frankly that's not them failing at some impossible idealized fanboy standard, Baldur's Gate 3 exists. We know that kind of immersion focused game can not just be produced but also do well for itself in the modern day. This is just The Chinese Room showing themselves to prefer aping Bioware instead of the game for whom Bloodlines 2 is named after.
 
Fourthspartan56 said:
I don't think developers who feel the need to force a Voiced Protagonist on us in 2023 are likely to have the writing chops and imagination to make a world remotely as good as Bloodlines 1.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

If I might ask, what is it about a voiced protagonist that makes it particularly terrible?

Personally I'm entirely neutral about it, because whether the protagonist is voiced or not really does not seem to matter for immersion for me. There being any character customization (cosmetically) is what I was looking for, since the original Bloodlines 1 literally only let you choose gender and clan.

Bloodlines 1 also famously had a few questionable voice acting decisions, mostly in the Chinatown segments. So I doubt Bloodlines 2 will be any worse.

My general point is I'm not saying whether Bloodlines 2 will be good or not due to its voiced protagonist, but that I don't think it will be worse than Bloodlines 1.

Besides that, Bloodlines 1 also famously had bad bugs, bad gameplay near the end, and again there's Chinatown. So personally I suppose I would like Bloodlines 2 to at least show me a decent setting (whether The Masquerade or The Requiem is fine, since I'd like to know about both), a good story in that setting, and acceptable gameplay. I don't think Bloodlines 2 would need to follow Bloodline 1 that closely in the details for that; my interest in it (and Bloodlines 1) was mostly due to being interested in the World Of Darkness setting.
 
Adloquium said:
If I might ask, what is it about a voiced protagonist that makes it particularly terrible?

Personally I'm entirely neutral about it, because whether the protagonist is voiced or not really does not seem to matter for immersion for me. There being any character customization (cosmetically) is what I was looking for, since the original Bloodlines 1 literally only let you choose gender and clan.

Bloodlines 1 also famously had a few questionable voice acting decisions, mostly in the Chinatown segments. So I doubt Bloodlines 2 will be any worse.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It's terrible because of how it impacts immersion.

With a silent protagonist you have the complete ability to project yourself or the character you're RPing into the gameplay experience. This turns the game into essentially an engagement between writer and player. The writer ultimately determines what happens and what options there are but the lack of a voice gives room for people to 'fill in the blanks' so to speak. This is artificial but all fiction is artificial, the effect it produces is very real and is why games like Bloodlines 1 have the cult status they do.

When you add a voice actor to the mix it inherently skews the equation against the player, because the duality of player-writer is replaced by player-writer-VA. Just look at Mass Effect, I loved Jennifer Hale as Commander Shepard but part of that enjoyment was derived from how Commander Shepard in a very real way was a defined character (or more accurately- two defined characters, one red and one blue). That wasn't a bad thing for the kind of game Bioware wanted to make but the kind of game that Bioware wanted to make was very much not the same kind of game as Vampire the Masquerade Bloodlines. You were exposed to the world but you weren't immersed in it. At least not in the same way.

So when I said voice acting could harm the experience I'm not talking about the quality of the VA work (though that too is a major risk for voicing a protagonist) but how it changes the fundamental nature of the story. Now it's totally valid to prefer that kind of Bioware esque game but I don't think we should ignore that Mass Effect and Bloodlines are not the same game. They're fundamentally different and by aping the former while ignoring the latter the devs are going against the original game's design. Which may be able to appeal to people who didn't like Bloodlines 1 very much like yourself* but is an extremely disappointing move for those of us who liked Bloodlines because it was Vampire The Masquerade Bloodlines and not just because it existed in the Vampire the Masquerade setting.

*Because this isn't necessarily obvious in text I want to make it clear that I don't mean this in a snide manner. I believe Bloodlines is a masterpiece but I don't believe in the slightest that anyone who dislikes it is dumb or something. That's 100% valid.
 
Last edited:
If freaking Starfield can have a non-speaking protagonist I don't see why this game can't. It's quite clear that there's a huge amount of people who loved a non-voiced protagonist.

It would also be much, much cheaper overall. The PC is the one with the most lines written. No voice means you can focus more on NPCs instead.
 
Fourthspartan56 said:
Now it's totally valid to prefer that kind of Bioware esque game but I don't think we should ignore that Mass Effect and Bloodlines are not the same game.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Out of interest, is the idea of a voiced protagonist considered to be a particularly "Bioware esque" thing? I ask because the first thought I had was actually Cyberpunk 2077, mainly because it's the game I'm playing now with a voiced protagonist.
 
Adloquium said:
Out of interest, is the idea of a voiced protagonist considered to be a particularly "Bioware esque" thing? I ask because the first thought I had was actually Cyberpunk 2077, mainly because it's the game I'm playing now with a voiced protagonist.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I would say it is.

There's a reason that when Bethesda revealed that that Fallout 4 would have a radically simplified dialogue system and a voiced protag people immediately made the connection with Bioware. Mass Effect (and to a slightly lesser extent Dragon Age) have been RPG juggernauts and have made a massive impact on how the concept of a 'modern RPG ' has been viewed in the West. That's why it took until Starfield and Baldur's Gate 3 to really start seeing a return to silent protags, people just accepted that the Bioware way is how you do things. Or rather the people who made/funded the games did. That's part of the reason some people like myself are reacting so badly to this move. It harkens back to the bad old days where one particular RPG was dominant and everything else was shafted.

Cyberpunk 2077 is kind of its own weird category where it's obviously building off of CDPR's experience with the Witcher series where their protagonist was very much a well-defined fixture of the setting and where vocal work played a major role in conveying dialogue. This probably is more arguable but in my mind I kind of view them as their own thing.
 
Last edited:
Avernus said:
It's more expensive and time consuming to create, so it limits both the amount of available dialogue and the ability to mod anything in. Something that only gets worse the more voices you add.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

That would imply it would be more cost-effective and player-friendly to have no voice acting at all, for any character.
 
Adloquium said:
That would imply it would be more cost-effective and player-friendly to have no voice acting at all, for any character.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Lots of RPGs do this? Not voicing minor characters is a well-established genre convention.

Not voicing the protag just means you get the benefits of a silent protagonist and can distribute the resources saved to either other characters or re-invest it in some other aspect of the game. One can argue that the opposite is a worthy sacrifice but claiming it doesn't exist is untenable.
 
Fourthspartan56 said:
Lots of RPGs do this? Not voicing minor characters is a well-established genre convention.

Not voicing the protag just means you get the benefits of a silent protagonist and can distribute the resources saved to either other characters or re-invest it in some other aspect of the game. One can argue that the opposite is a worthy sacrifice but claiming it doesn't exist is untenable.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I asked because I know there have been many criticisms towards games regarding lack of voice acting, eg to FFXIV for various cutscenes. Whereas "voice acting is a cost" makes it sound like it would be better in terms of resources distributed to have no voice acting at all, for any characters major or minor.

So I suppose there is some point at which there is "enough" voice acting, above which would be a sacrifice but below which would receive criticism.
 
Disco Elysium, pre-Definitive Cut, was heralded as one of the best written RPGs ever made despite only having very few voiced dialogue at all. With the Definitive Cut and voicing every line, it's even better. But most noticeable the protagonist's lines isn't voiced at all.

However, one huge thing I've noticed with Disco Elysium's success you 100% need those voicelines when it comes to streamers and LPers. Having to read every line of dialogue is extremely taxing for someone playing the game for an audience and the vast majority of people I know who are fans of DE only became fans after those extra voicelines are added.

So while you can 100% coast by a non-voiced protagonist, it's a lot harder to do so with no voice acting at all, at least when it comes to RPGs.
 
Fourthspartan56 said:
I would say it is.

There's a reason that when Bethesda revealed that that Fallout 4 would have a radically simplified dialogue system and a voiced protag people immediately made the connection with Bioware. Mass Effect (and to a slightly lesser extent Dragon Age) have been RPG juggernauts and have made a massive impact on how the concept of a 'modern RPG ' has been viewed in the West. That's why it took until Starfield and Baldur's Gate 3 to really start seeing a return to silent protags, people just accepted that the Bioware way is how you do things. Or rather the people who made/funded the games did. That's part of the reason some people like myself are reacting so badly to this move. It harkens back to the bad old days where one particular RPG was dominant and everything else was shafted.

Cyberpunk 2077 is kind of its own weird category where it's obviously building off of CDPR's experience with the Witcher series where their protagonist was very much a well-defined fixture of the setting and where vocal work played a major role in conveying dialogue. This probably is more arguable but in my mind I kind of view them as their own thing.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I don't really agree with this idea of voiced protagonists being a Bioware characteristic. Of the 'Golden Age' of Bioware games - Baldur's Gate 1 and 2, Neverwinter Nights, KOTOR, Mass Effect, and Dragon Age Origins -* all protagonists were unvoiced except Mass Effect. A voiced protagonist becoming standard for Bioware, namely with the rest of the Dragon Age series, only came after Bioware had solidified their status as the western RPG developers.

* I'm not sure if Jade Empire is included in this 'Golden Age' but it too had an unvoiced protagonist.
 
The main problem with a voiced protagonist for something like a bloodline remake is that it fixes your character's voice in a game where you'd expect the ability to customize who they are. You might be able to record 2 voices to have gender options but that's about it. But then, it's pretty clear from the information we got that they're making a game with a much more defined than customizable protagonist, so that makes sense.
 
With a voiced protagonist, there's little chance of having something like a Malk playthrough like in the first.
 
Teutonic_Thrash said:
I don't really agree with this idea of voiced protagonists being a Bioware characteristic. Of the 'Golden Age' of Bioware games - Baldur's Gate 1 and 2, Neverwinter Nights, KOTOR, Mass Effect, and Dragon Age Origins -* all protagonists were unvoiced except Mass Effect. A voiced protagonist becoming standard for Bioware, namely with the rest of the Dragon Age series, only came after Bioware had solidified their status as the western RPG developers.

* I'm not sure if Jade Empire is included in this 'Golden Age' but it too had an unvoiced protagonist.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
To be clear, I wasn't arguing that it was some eternal characteristic of Bioware. I was strictly referring to the modern era, the one that drove the voiced protagonist craze. Old Bioware didn't do that but as you note it wasn't the Bioware that was as hegemonic as later Bioware.
 
We have the first Clan reveal. The Brujah.

www.paradoxinteractive.com

Brujah - Paradox Interactive

Paradox Interactive is a world leading PC games publisher known for games such as Cities: Skylines, Europa Universalis and Crusader Kings.
www.paradoxinteractive.com www.paradoxinteractive.com

Hmm, so one of the DLC Clans will be playable in the main story and the other will be its own thing. I can see an argument for it (Clans are sufficiently distinct lore-wise that it makes sense for one to have its own story) but I'm generally not a fan of that kind of segregated content. When I buy DLC for an RPG I want to expand the main experience. Anything else tends to feel pointless and isn't really something I usually go back to when replaying RPGs. The Chinese Room has already mentioned there will be multiple endings so it seems they do want to encourage replayability, I think it makes more sense if all DLC content similarly benefited the main game.

Oh well, at least one does. 50/50 isn't a terrible split for this sort of thing. And who knows, maybe the Clan side story will be good enough to be justify its lack of impact on the main plot.

As for the rest, there's not much to be impressed or offended by. Most of it is just lore and isn't really new for anyone capable of opening the White Wolf wiki. The few seconds we see of gameplay looks flashier then Bloodlines 1's Disciplines but that doesn't say much, I love Bloodlines but its combat was never what made it good. Going above that very low bar is not really an accomplishment.
 
Renu said:
They're locking clans behind DLC?

Fucking Paradox. Well, that saves me money at least.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Locking X behind DLC is the Paradox way.

Seriously what other company makes non-service games with DLC subscriptions, holy shit

Anyway four playable clans is pitiful. Let me make a wild guess as to the other three now :

Tremere, Ventrue, Toreador

Brujah's for fighty people, Ventrue for talky people, Tremere for casty people and Toreador for shooty/hybrid people. It'll be some basic bitch path Tremmie too.

God forbid we have any of the interesting clans.

Outside chance of the Toreador being a Nossie instead for sneaky people but that would require way more work, just like a Malk would, so I'm not seeing that happening.
 
Last edited:
Renu said:
They're locking clans behind DLC?

Fucking Paradox. Well, that saves me money at least.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
That's one way to frame it, alternatively an equally (if not more) valid way to describe it would be the devs promising to expand the game even after it's done.

If it lets them implement more more exotic Clans then that would already put it above Bloodlines 1. Paid content can be done poorly but it doesn't have to be, it's simply a question of how substantive it is vs how much it costs.

hghwolf said:
Seriously what other company makes non-service games with DLC subscriptions, holy shit
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I wouldn't call them non-service games, Paradox games are essentially the strategy game version of live service games.

Instead of making a limited number of expansions/DLC they instead focus on developing their games for extended periods of times with regular content drops. That's very much the spirit of live service games, just without the battle pass (so far lol).
 
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top