Good effort but not Vampire the Masquerade Bloodlines

[ravenswald1]

As with most RPGs I compare them to Vampire the Masquerade Bloodlines (VTMB). I judge a game on replayability and with VTMB I can come back and play year after years ever since its rather uninspired but promising release back in 2004. I still enjoy it (helped in no small way by the work of the community such as WESPE).

Will I be playing Vampyr every year? Probably not.

Despite having a lot in common with VTMB, good voise acting, storyline and atmosphere it fails in some critical areas.

1. Side quests are very limited and not really fulfilling. Sidequests should broaden the characters journey or help them in some way or broaden the world we are in. Witcher 3, VTMB side quests do that. The ones in VAMPYR by and large fail to really make the character feel they have achieved or learned much. One of the longest, Occult Occulus, seemed interesting but was really just another paper hunt with no resolution. And that was the problems none of the side quests seemed to matter, either to the respective NPC or to the world at large.

2. Combat - VTMB and even Witcher 3 is far more basic than Vampyr but it was enjoyable. There are too many buttons to mash to get your combos going and as a gent getting on I found it more annoying than immersive. I ended up in most Boss fights just running around the area waiting for Abyss to refressh then turn, cast, and unload my shotgun or pistol into the Boss before running again. Boring. Fighting in the streets was both repetitive, and not worth the bother unless I needed items like blood. The miniscule xp you got for even fighting an enemy 6 levels above you wasn't worth the pain of being taken down. It happened too often which also made combat tedious.
I finished the game feel a tad depressed - and yes the final, epilogue quest, was also really over drawn out for what it did, good intentions not withstanding.

3. Not killing, theiving and keeping London Healthy - Why did I bother and how did I still get this achievement? Yes I didn't kill any NPC by fanging them but, due to poor choices I ended up having to Kill Nurse Crane, Sean, the Paxton Sisters and Dyson, converted Edgar into a vampire and let Dawson Die - How did I not kill anyone?? I slaughtered 100s of the Guard of Priwen. I spent one night cleaning out every street of both Priwen, Skals, Vulkod and Ekon (I needed the xp small though it was) and there were absolutely no consequences. VTMB I feel did it better with humanity points. Unless it was a combat situation every death was a humanity loss - also where were the London Police? The ability to murder was too easy.

Same with theft. It should have been much more difficult to obtain items in a persons home. I initially didn't steal inside a persons home then realised I was missing out and stripped them blind with no consequence. Huh?

I also kept all the districts healthy with none lower than Serious (and Pembroke at Sanitised) but that too had no reward. Why did I bother?

4. Unlike many I never suffered a crash (which is more than can be said for VTMB when it was released!) and only towards the end while travelling through the streets did I find the animation glitching a bit but this disappeared as I fought The Red Queen. So well done for that.

5, Role play - I enjoyed playing the doctor, for awhile, going around healing every district but this soon wore and became tedious and there was no feeling of reward. Surely people would be more forthcoming if I healed them constantly but there was no effect other than xp. In VTMB you could intimidate, persuade and seduce NPCs for different reactions but there is none of this here. Also the only reason to learn all the NPCs secrets was to make them more juicy to eat but you received nothing if you were never planning to munch on them. This was annoying. I undrstand that the difficulty rating was set by how few or how many NPCs you killed but I got through the game without doing that first time and once I got the hang of fighting bosses (and never locking them!) I found them fairly easy by playing the annoying hit and run tactic. A missed opportunity.

One of VTMBs greatest strengths is its 7 classes and two sex player characters. Each class travelled through the game in a different way, and being male and female also could have a, smaller, affect. Being Dr Reid only is limiting. If there is to be a DLC please have new charcters with their own missions. A big ask but I see this as the only way this game will have a longevity such as VTMB has.

Overall- this was a good game but with little replayability. I would like to return to this world and explore the Ascalon Club (Camarilla/Ventrue), The Guard of Priwen, The Brotherhood and the Sewer Skals (Nosferatu anyone?) or as a foreign vampire out for a bit of bloody fun (Sabbat).

7/10

[jack_of_tears]

Good review, I think I agree with everything you've said here, though I'd give it a 6, I think - the combat was too tedious and the fetch quests were unrewarding by any metric.

[Vampire Detective]

Well, VTMB is a pretty deep RPG. More akin to the old school RPGs. It's a much older game, and it was in a different time. I get that people want to compare the two because Vampires and RPGs, but Vampyr was never meant to be anything like VTMB.

I played VTMB, back when it was fresh and new and later on, like in the past year. Apples and oranges.

I'm enjoying Vampyr, a lot. My gripe about it are the framerate issues and bad camera work.

Glad to hear that you think this is a good game and enjoyed it.

[Argenis]

VTMB banktupted their company, and while it's great that it happened, that's a super AAA title versus Vampyr which didn't have that budget and development time.

3 massive years for VTMB versus a bit over a year for Vampyr, and not to mention that one has an original story (Vampyr) versus the already healthy lore of stories from VTM for Bloodlines.

All in all, unless someone is going to make another VTM or a Van Helsing RPG, you can't really compare Bloodlines to anything else, even remotely. The voice cast alone of VTM is insane.

[shiv]

i think this game is a classic case of ambition over experience. i dont think the developer had the necessary skills, experience, wisdom, money or a large enough team to match their ambitious plan. This was their first attempt at a semi-open rpg, and its certainly a good game but you can really tell that it was their first try at this kind of game and their inexperience shows.

but its NOT a bad game, its a really good game - i just lament would it could have been. I would love to see a second vampyr game. They'll do a lot better second time around I'm sure.

They're a developer well worth watching in the future. I've loved every one of their games thus far, and they'll only get better as they learn more and continue to grow and expand their budget and their ambition... they just overreached a tiny bit this time :)

[LordBlade]

@shiv

I agree. I think the game is okay, it's pretty fun to go through at least the once. Don't know if there's really any drive to play again though, as not much will change.

But I think the game does have a lot of promise. All they need to do is build on this foundation.

For one, make the NPC's much more alive. Give them large wandering zones (that are safe), with the chance of dangerous encounters that you can save them from (that triggers when you're close enough in districts that have dropped in safety). Give them actual reactions to all the stuff we find out. If we know someone's a drug addict, give us a way to get them into rehab (or make money being their new supplier). And if an NPC is bad (like some of the blatant murders we ignore), killing them should IMPROVE the districts (not make it worse as that make no sense).

[satanswombat]

Loved VTM and liking this game so far. VTM2 would get my money without question But I'm happy to fund the genre in the meantime :D

[Dingor]

Even to compare VTMB and Vampyr is insult to Bloodlines. It's much more of Redemption than Bloodlines, but even so loses in terms of atmosphere and replayability. Vampyr is just an Action with slight rpg-elements, but not an RPG. You don't really have much choice not only in ways of how to complete quests, but even in dialogs. It's just a long and straight road from one already written by scenarists script to another. I can't call a game when you can't play the role (and choose how to) yourself an rpg. No social skills nor dialog options for persuation or bribe... It's one of the most important thing for rpg. You can't just add some combat skills and say "Look guys I made a new rpg!". You can't persuade bosses not to fight (like Mary) - only cuz some script writer not allow you to and cuz you're not a persuative person (but you can make some random guy to speak all about himself and believe in you like you are a god). RPG not even about classes, but about different play styles: ok we have badass Reed and goodie Reed. And they are no different when they interact with people (the bad one just eats them after talking) and they have different eyes. Not much of a choice if you ask me.

[ravenswald1]

Thanks all for your comments. I gues this was a case of frustration needed some vocalisation after I completed the story.

Dingor yes it has a feel of Redemption (and I find that game pretty much not repeat playable as well)

Vampyr has a lot of promise and I did enjoy playing it BUT the pointless and endless combat which had no repercussions or impact on the world or Dr Reid, as well as the deaths of others he had being dealing with before certain things happen have no impact on the character. Nurse Crane, Sean and the Paxtons you do get to know and if you make the wrong choice you end off having to kill them and there are no repercussions. LordeBlade has this same feeling.

Still I've enjoyed it and hope they can add to it in the future.

[Malkav0]

Good review but you missed the point: the game was not trying yo be VTM:B. The main aspect of VTM:B being the multiple ways to deal with a situation + stealth elements + heavily modified dialogues by powers, it's obviously not even an attempt. At the very best it retained some good and popular ideas (rats, having a way to avoid ennemies) and that's all. Vampyr decided to tell its own story in its own way, being character-centric, it was not aiming to reproduce paperboard RPG elements. It achieved its goal and it's fine, the game is good. You shouldn't have expectations like VTM:B when there's no reason to ^^v VTM:B is still on my PC and as many players I, too, have the illness "I'll play this every year", it's still, to this day, on of the best sensation a game ever brought me :p Still, I had a wonderful trip in Vampyr ^^

[ravenswald1]

Hi Malkav0 I kind of think it has been inspired by if not trying to top VTMB (imo). Vampyr has a specific story with a specific character in mind like Geralt in the Witcher series. That is fine however is it where games of this type should be heading or should they be like Fallout and Elder Scrolls where you create your own character and the game makes you the protagonist. CDProject seem to understand this with their next project Cyberpunk 2077.

However I am judging Vampyr not only on its focus on a single white male proteagonust but the game play. It doesn't look at how vampirism affects the doctor in anything but the most general ways. Yes he is affected by it but how is he so accepting or able to fight all these opponents - Skals, Vulkods and Vampire Hunters not to mention Gods of old. This should have been built up more like is done in VTMB. You can avoid fighting in most of the core mnissions and a lot of the side missions, usings your other abilties and talents.

This is under utilised in Vampyr. I would have liked to have been able to have the doctor explore the science behind vampirism piecing together how it works, consulting and picking up clues - being a world renowned doctor of hemotology. Also leaving the game open for Reid to return but that pretty much is closed by the ending (VTMB is also annoying for that as well). Look I still rate this game highly and I did enjoy it, plaing it solidly every night for the past week - bumped Total War Warhammer II Dark Elves right off the screen in that time. (Also my play through as a Nosferatu in VTMB - back tonight to show Ming Xiao what sort of slug she truely is). And that's the disappointment here. I am going back to VTMB now. I'm gong back to TW:W2. I finished Witcher 3 then immediately restarted the game and played it right through again because I wanted to get another ending. I don't feel that need or desire to do the same for Vampyr.

Will I play it again? Maybe. Well I play it if there is a new DLC - definitely. I bought that game a year ago and have patiently waited its arrival. I want to see it succeed. Its not bad and I hope they can develop on it. I would really like to learn more of the Ascalon Club. Or a female vampire determined to get into the club - the ultimate sufferagette. I can only hope.

[Herbert]

Things have to be streamlined nowadays. 90% of gamers suffer from ADHD, there is no way for them to enjoy something deep. Us 10% dont make the market, sad as it may be, but its something we need to realize. I basicly quit gaming altogether. I like that Vampyr doesnt fit the current pixel survival rogue like mold, but its still not the kind of game I'm used to. Thats fair, but these games now are for a different generation of human beings.

I am waiting for DMC 5. And until then I am playing TCG with real people in local stores. Way more fullfuilling honestly.

[JefferyNothing]

I think the title of this thread is where you're going wrong. Its obvious the game was never meant to be like VTMB. People keep comparing these two and they're nothing alike. The word "Vampire" and that its a computer game is all they share in common.

[ravenswald1]

Hi Serull. Is it thought? Look at Witcher 3. Or what seems to be coming in Cyberpunk 2077 - this last is an RPG game turned into a computer game. This is a AAA game designer for RP Gamers as well as those who like scifi games. My depressed feeling when I finished Vampyr was that there was so much that was teased but not relised/ This is especially true of the West End and the Ascalon Club but also in the SAewr Rat Skal city. The only characters you can interact in these two environments are Lord Redgrave and Old Bridget. You never got a real glimpse into either Vampire Society. No Mitnick, No Imalia (VTMB Nosferatu) to give you quests that would have shown you that these poor wretches had lives before they were turned. Or find out how Lord Redgrave served the preservation of the Empire. The Dawson quest really isn't much and gives you no real incentive to do what Redgrave told you to do. I don't know. Just feel an emptiness that could and should have been filled. I don't regret buying the game and I enjoyed probably the first half but as the second half failed to deliver.

[Fairy(Scary)TaleTimes]

Gotta complain about about the constant comparisons being made to VtMB, they share little in common other than the vampire theme. May as well liken Vampyr to Nosgoth or Bloodrayne.

Argenis.
VtMB is 14 years old, hounded with development, staffing and release problems with repeated conflict from Activision and Valve.
I think you'll find that both VtMB and Vampyr share similar development time of close to three years.
As for the triple AAA budget, I don't know the numbers but VtMB had a staff of 37, yet Vampyr filled its rank with 60 which grew to 80 for the project if that gives any indication of the Budgets.
Even the notion that a clearly lacking game could be given a free pass because it was shilled out in less than a year with a high price tag makes me shiver.

I've easily pointed out many of Vampyr's flaws reguarding it's gameplay, making Vampyr little more than a box of irrelevant gimmicks. Every single "Pro" towards this game can easily be met with five "Cons".
So at it's current asking price it is not worth the money, at halve price it would be.

[Irx]

I also find it lacking that the whole levelling mechanic is about combat only. There are no social, exploration or any other types of progression. Which is kind of limiting for game that supposedly has a major focus on a social aspect and not combat.