Vampire: The Masquerade, Bloodlines

[TMA_1]

Well I beat it finally. I got into it for a long while and then just stopped, lost interest in it. Finally I forced myself to finish it and I have to say, it was disappointing.

The graphics are pretty darn cool, and some of the stuff and things that are involved in the game are really neat. At the same time though it doesnt hold a candle to the first game in my opinion. It seems like it is the type of game that people who didnt play the first would think it is pretty cool, but not for fans of the first game.

The story of Vampire: THe Masquerade, Redemption was so important to the game, and gave it the atmosphere and feeling that made it what it was. It is one of the greatest stories for a video game ever in my opinion. It just seemed like Bloodlines didnt focus as much attention to the story, and the story that it had was so weak compared to the original. Did anybody else get this feeling?

[Egeides]

No, since I didn't play it ;D

But I'd be happy to know what you see a being great of th storyline, as I saw good comments about the game and have a certain interest about this "vampire idea" which is brought once in a while these day (Ann Rice being predominant here, Bram Stoker seeming like an amorce, and old legends perhaps as some kind of proto-version of this total power-oriented nihilism).

[Dante]

Couldn't the old thread have been used...?

Anyways, I liked the new game. It had the look, it had the action, it had plot in my opinion. It did seem a little rushed, both in that there were a few bugs and that the story took place over such a short timespace, but that wasn't so much of an issue, really. I actually liked it better than Redemption (which I never completed anyway), because there was much less focus on a specific character. Your character could be whoever you wanted them to be, right down to choosing Clan. The previous game stuck us playing Christoph (Christpohe? Kristoph?), the angst/remorse-filled nun-fancying fallen angel. The thing that really pissed me off about that game was the wretched protagonist. At least Bloodlines gave us some variety.

Overall, I liked it. Only played it through all the way once, but gone back plenty of times.

[TMA_1]

well the cool thing about the Redemption is they go into the specifics of vampire history. I am not a huge vampire fan, though I loved bram stoker's dracula, I am not into the whole goth vampire trend. That is what amazes me about Redemption. Though the game has it's problems, especially later on when you jump hundreds of years into the future, it still is totally overshadowed by the amazing story. Obviously this came from the fact that it was originally a pencil & paper rpg.

The history of the vampires is complex. When Cain killed his brother, God put a curse on him, and the curse in the story is vampirism. He and lilith, a demon, went into hiding in the land of wandering (nod) and eventually sired many sons and daughters. From his offspring came the thirteen vampire clans. These clans ruled for many years and grew powerful. It would not last forever though.

Cain saw the decadence of the vampires, and knew that God would judge the world for their sins. It was too late though for forgiveness though, and God sent the deluge upon the earth to clense the world of the curse of the vampires.

Some vampires survived though, and after the flood the vampires went into hiding, holding onto their clan kinship and power. To protect themselves though they ruled by controlling the human leaders of earth behind the scenes.

I could go on even further, but you probably get the taste of things already. It is an awesome game and an awesome story. I highly suggest it.

I didnt think to go to the old post as it is pretty far down the rung. Give me a break sheesh.lol

[Dante]

Yes, I know the story. That's from the franchise, so it isn't unique to the first game. The second game used that story as well. What's the difference?

[TMA_1]

the difference is that the second game didnt put nearly as much emphasis on the story, as I have said before a few times. The first game told the story with great music and atmosphere. The second game really focused on a more specific event that didnt reveal nearly as much as it could have. It also tried to pander more to the cyberpunk/goth crowds in my opinion. Just wasent as interesting to be honest. It was tiring to play as the mission system was not rewarding at all. It felt jumbled together and unready, and the battle system, although kinda cool in some cases, was still bad. It was a lot better than in the first game though.

[lowzeewee]

http://www.dune2k.com/forum/index.php?topic=14776.0

[Dante]

Yes, yes, and this one too. That's already been dealt with.

The first game didn't tell the story, it used it. Granted the religious imagry was toned down in Bloodines, but for some of us that can only be a good thing. I agree that the focus of the game was perhaps a bit too narrow, confining it to one location in a constricted time space. That could have been improved on. As for pandering, just because it shows a culture, does not mean that it becomes part of it. The imagry was appropriate to the setting. It's true that Bloodlines does have a lot of 'rough edges,' and the game would have been immensely improved had they been smoothed out, but overall I think we're better off without the cumbersome inventory, dialogue, and combat system of Redemption.

I did rather like the scenery though.

[Caid Ivik]

Do you know someone how to help that ghost in the Ocean Hotel mission?

By the way, if any of you would be a tougher Masquerade fan - http://quizilla.com/users/Venatius/quizzes/Which%20Vampire:%20The%20Masquerade%20clan%20do%20you%20belong%20in%3F/

  ;D