why so many bad reviews?

[Los Serpent]

why is there so many bad reviews? i've played the game for 10-15 hours so far and it's really good to me exepct a few glitches and minor thinks.

[Smurky Turkey]

Because a lot of gamers expected/hoped for it to be something it is really not. It is not a Bloodborne like game with amazing combat (the combat is kinda meh actually) and it does not have a world like Vampire Bloodlines filled with branching quests and options.

I like what it does offer, but it does have some annoying issues that you need to accept in my opinion (like the combat, technical issues, static world and some real pacing problems).

[MoJean]

yeah because people compare it to the game Bloodborne and expect great combat. Instead they ignore the great story it has but many Bloodborne gamers don't have time for that and want to fight only

[Deus Sinistro]

Tbh the story was really bad and weak.

[Adepta Sororitas]

Just a lot of stupid scum who only need multiplayer games / battle Royale games, and single-player games and they do not need.

[Mick]

Bad reviews....I've read nothing but praise for this game, Myself, I got as far as the hospital and getting my own room (Santuary) and won't share opinion, yet. I'll just say it's not what I thought it would be, but not too bad either.

[Gloomseeker]

Wrong expectations mostly.

I also suspect that more and more people are drawn to the RPG tag but don't necessarily enjoy what is actually the essence of RPGs (i.e. story and dialogues rather than simply gaming mechanics involving levelling up and builds).

[BurningFalcon]

The story is not the best, though the idea is great.
The combat-system is horrible, and it's kinda funny that I have to read here, that some of the players wanted something like bloodbourne. While in a different topic, someone said everyone complaining about the combat system is just because they never played something like bloodbourne and just want to play something easy like the Batman games where you only press one button to kill everyone.

The combat system is bad, because it's only really playable if you use a controller, and that's nothing I want on my pc. You can use a controller if you want, but making a game unnecessary harder if you don't use one, is just a no-go.

It's also kinda stupid that you're a damn vampire with a sword and pistol (and some vampire-skills) and are down with 2-3 hits, but your human enemies take 5-10 hits.... and there are tons of enemies, as if this game was a hack 'n' slay. And if there would be skalls and werewolves(?) they'd simply gang up against you, because why not?

They only way to really improve (level up) is by "mesmerizing", which is total nonsense, becase mesmerizing is just a 'nice' phrase for killing them.
And of course, all the vampire-hunters, skals, and werewolfs don't give you as much experience as a random towns(wo)man. And that's because... they couldn't think of anything better as a good/evil system.


I played (and finished) games like TES:Oblivion, Bound by Flame, Dragon's Dogma, Fable 1-3, Witcher 1-3, Knight's of the old Republic 1&2, Jedi Knight: Jedi Academy, Dragon Age 1-2, Neverwinter Nights 2, Vampire The Masquerade Bloodlines, and many other games.
And Vampyr is NOT a good RPG in my eyes.
Only a good idea, which was not well executed.

But of course, that's just my opion and thus highly subjectively

[Corselia]

For me Vampyr is more a story game than an rpg. I loved it because its diferent than a point and click

[The_Daleatron]

i prefered the story well what i managed to play the combat was and still is abysmal after patches it has no reason to be there really seems out of place outside of boss fights. no idea where ppl are getting this idea ppl expected bloodborn from, i expected a vamp rpg. like most ppl.

[Caesar]

Played it for 25 hours and decided to stop. I didn't like the hit or miss choice system, it made me ruin districts and it's frustrating, limited and vague. Didn't like the story either, the premise is interesting but the unfolding of the story is mediocre at best. There are other detail that I didn't like about the game but still I wouldn't give it a negative review. I believe a mostly positive score is exactly what the game deserves.

[Mr. Hanky]

It didn't have sparkly vampires, the werewolves weren't shirtless and ripped, and the bosoms didn't heave.

[spectre199]

this is a story driven game with a pretty good story imo

[Uriel]

Simple : the game is chocke-full of good ideas, and none of them actually work properly.

The story is rather bland, but it's by far the best part. Combat is an epic fail. The "morality" system is the worst blunder, though. So, it's not about IF we kill, but WHO we kill, right ? Yeah, except killing a serial killer who burns people alive makes the place worse, somehow.

You want the "best" ending ? You kill absolutely no one, even the bad guys. So much for a complew system of morals, eh ? It's just the decades old "fight the beast within you" with zero subtlety. I've seen World of Darkness fanfics with more finesse than that.

Oh, but of course the "kill no one" only apply to peaceful citizens and serial killers who are ok to talk with you. You are entirely free to slaughter masses upon masses of vampire hunters and citizens-turned-monsters with zero consequence. Which is kinda good, as you will absolutely have to. You cannot not fight.

[Puerco]

Is this like vampire the masquerade redemption?

[Uriel]

Originally posted by Puerco:

Is this like vampire the masquerade redemption?

Absolutely NOT. I'm surrpised anyone remembers this very old games from the 90's though :) Assuming you're indeed talking about Redemption here and not Bloodline, which came years later.

It's basically the exact opposite :

- Vampyr is a RPG driven by an arguably not so good story, while Redemption was an action game where the story was mostly there to justify action.

- Mechanics are half-baked and half-thought, were Redemption had refined and thought out mechanics, albeit much more simple.

- Redemption didn't really have choices, your character did the chosing for you, while Vampyr only has choices. However, the only thing that truly matters is how many people you will kill, no matter who or why or when, the result is always the same : ending gets worse. In that respect, they are similar, as in redemption Kristof really wanted to avoid becoming a monster.

- Combat in Redemption was satisfying, while it's a tedium in Vampyr. Granted, Redemption was ALOT more combat oriented.

- Redemption is a party game where you command several vampires at once, and give limited tactical orders, from a top-down view. Vampyr lets you control one character, and one only, from an over-the-shoulder perspective