A mystery. The VTMB2 that was true kin to VTMB exists.

[Blahblahblahblah]

I believe that there is a playable version of VTMB2 built by Mitsoda and Hardsuit labs that was heavily developed and almost ready to be released. Some of the side quests weren't completed maybe and it had a few bugs but it was close. A team of developers worked on it for years.

I believe that this game was the true inheritor of the VTMB style but was buried for that very reason; It had too many dialogue options. It didn't appeal to young children. It wasn't as linear as they wanted. It had goofy dance moves that looked and felt like VTMB... old, so they scrapped it and instead decided to build something more streamlined and more accessible for children who don't have the patience to read so many dialogue options.

They have never been interested in what the fans of the old game want. They wanted a game that 10 year old's could enjoy on a PlayStation. That VTMB2 for grownups is almost completely built and is likely just sitting there on some hard drive somewhere begging to be finished.

Why do I hold these beliefs?

*A team of developers, I believe the number was around 50? worked on the game for around 5? years. This is enough time for a team that big to complete a game or at least produce a ton of content. The original game took 3 years I believe to be completed.

*Outstar, a representative for the company claimed to have played through the game.

*My reason for thinking that they don't care what the fans want is from reading what the fans write and seeing what the developers actually make.

*The original game was financially a failure on release. It would be a reasonable decision to be afraid of releasing a game that felt like the original.

*Brian Mitsoda wrote " I’ve been in charge of the narrative since the beginning, working long days and sometimes weekends to deliver a successor to Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines, and I’ve never been led to believe that I hadn’t succeeded. "

He said that he worked on it for almost 5 years.


If I'm right, it really frustrates me to think that the real vtmb2 is hidden in the shadows, perhaps missing some skin but as dangerous as a diseased nosferatu. Am I wrong? Do you believe that the crew over at Hardsuit labs spent those 5 years playing spin-the-bottle and produced only the skeleton of a game? Why do you think that? If you think I'm right, could anything be done to get the real game in addition to this new build or do you think it should remain in torpor?

[Clever Name]

Diposting pertama kali oleh Blahblahblahblah:

Do you believe that the crew over at Hardsuit labs spent those 5 years playing spin-the-bottle and produced only the skeleton of a game? Why do you think that?

Foremost, I would say that it's unprecedented to fire creative leads on a game that's supposedly close to wrapping up development.

It's even more implausible to fire the entire development team. Yet, both unlikely events happened.

We must then believe that the HSL version of the game was nearly complete, and Paradox gutted everything in a semi-crazed fear that the game wouldn't sell well enough.

Okay, operating from that assumption, we then must believe that 'not selling well enough' is somehow a worse outcome to Paradox than a 'total write off, total loss' scenario, which is what was going to happen if they didn't find another studio to finish the game. Which almost did occur.

So, I pose this question:

How would it be in Paradox's best interests to cancel the game at a total loss, rather than allow HSL to finish it?

Or, to fire HSL, hire a new developer to finish the game, thereby greatly extending development time and money.

Either way, Paradox loses more by delaying or cancelling the game, than by allowing HSL to deliver a possibly substandard game.

Diposting pertama kali oleh Blahblahblahblah:

If you think I'm right, could anything be done to get the real game in addition to this new build or do you think it should remain in torpor?

I would like to play the HSL version, just for the hell of it. But we'll never be allowed to.

[Hao Zhao]

Paradox spent millions of dollars on the old Bloodlines 2. If they cancelled it months before release, it must have been an abomination. For them to justify flushing all of that money down the toilet with no return on the investment, the game must have been truly un-salvageable.

[Blahblahblahblah]

Diposting pertama kali oleh Hao Zhao:

Paradox spent millions of dollars on the old Bloodlines 2. If they cancelled it months before release, it must have been an abomination. For them to justify flushing all of that money down the toilet with no return on the investment, the game must have been truly un-salvageable.

I don't understand how it would even be possible for them to work on a game for 5 years and then at the end say "wait, this game is un-salvageable". It doesn't make sense in my brain. I mean, didn't they look at it after a year and then after 2 years and after 3 years and after 4 years and they must of thought something like "ok, this is coming along, lets keep funding it." What could possibly be wrong with it that wouldn't be worth fixing after 5 years? The only thing that makes sense to me is that they saw that they just wouldn't make back their money on it so it wasn't worth spending more money on it and it would make paradox and vampire the masquerade look bad. I don't think that that translates into "un-salvageable" in the sense that the hardcore fans of the first game wouldn't like it but only in the sense that they wouldn't make enough money off of it.

[Hao Zhao]

Diposting pertama kali oleh Blahblahblahblah:

Diposting pertama kali oleh Hao Zhao:

Paradox spent millions of dollars on the old Bloodlines 2. If they cancelled it months before release, it must have been an abomination. For them to justify flushing all of that money down the toilet with no return on the investment, the game must have been truly un-salvageable.

I don't understand how it would even be possible for them to work on a game for 5 years and then at the end say "wait, this game is un-salvageable". It doesn't make sense in my brain. I mean, didn't they look at it after a year and then after 2 years and after 3 years and after 4 years and they must of thought something like "ok, this is coming along, lets keep funding it." What could possibly be wrong with it that wouldn't be worth fixing after 5 years? The only thing that makes sense to me is that they saw that they just wouldn't make back their money on it so it wasn't worth spending more money on it and it would make paradox and vampire the masquerade look bad. I don't think that that translates into "un-salvageable" in the sense that the hardcore fans of the first game wouldn't like it but only in the sense that they wouldn't make enough money off of it.

Computer software is a very fragile thing. For all we know the game was a completely unstable mess that crashed every 15 minutes. For all we know the game was broken all over and HSL didn't have the talent/means to fix it. For all we know, HSL just couldn't meet their deadlines and Paradox was tired of being grifted by bad faith promises (this would be the reason why Paradox cancelled Magna Mundi). There could have been any infinite number of reasons why Paradox said enough is enough.

[Blahblahblahblah]

Diposting pertama kali oleh Hao Zhao:

Computer software is a very fragile thing. For all we know the game was a completely unstable mess that crashed every 15 minutes. For all we know the game was broken all over and HSL didn't have the talent/means to fix it. For all we know, HSL just couldn't meet their deadlines and Paradox was tired of being grifted by bad faith promises (this would be the reason why Paradox cancelled Magna Mundi). There could have been any infinite number of reasons why Paradox said enough is enough.

Is it plausible that on year 4 Paradox went to check on the game and every 15 minutes the game was crashing and they said "seems fine, lets greenlight this for another year." ?

[Blahblahblahblah]

Diposting pertama kali oleh W.R. Winter:

reading op in Nicolas Cage's voice

This is so implausible to the average mind that I feel like I can say it here and no one will believe me anyways, so I might as well tell you. I am Nicholas Cage and also Dracula. Renfield was mostly a documentary. That's why I'm so fascinated by Vampire the Masquerade Bloodlines which is also mostly true facts. You might be wondering if I've just violated the masquerade by telling you. I have but I'm Nicholas Cage so I can do that.

[Hao Zhao]

Diposting pertama kali oleh Blahblahblahblah:

Diposting pertama kali oleh Hao Zhao:

Computer software is a very fragile thing. For all we know the game was a completely unstable mess that crashed every 15 minutes. For all we know the game was broken all over and HSL didn't have the talent/means to fix it. For all we know, HSL just couldn't meet their deadlines and Paradox was tired of being grifted by bad faith promises (this would be the reason why Paradox cancelled Magna Mundi). There could have been any infinite number of reasons why Paradox said enough is enough.

Is it plausible that on year 4 Paradox went to check on the game and every 15 minutes the game was crashing and they said "seems fine, lets greenlight this for another year." ?

It's plausible that the devs could have been gaslighting Paradox promising them that the stability issues would be fixed followed by the devs breaking that promise over and over, yeah. It's plausible because that's exactly what happened with Magna Mundi. lol

[Blahblahblahblah]

Diposting pertama kali oleh Clever Name:

Diposting pertama kali oleh Blahblahblahblah:

Do you believe that the crew over at Hardsuit labs spent those 5 years playing spin-the-bottle and produced only the skeleton of a game? Why do you think that?

Foremost, I would say that it's unprecedented to fire creative leads on a game that's supposedly close to wrapping up development.

It's even more implausible to fire the entire development team. Yet, both unlikely events happened.

We must then believe that the HSL version of the game was nearly complete, and Paradox gutted everything in a semi-crazed fear that the game wouldn't sell well enough.

Okay, operating from that assumption, we then must believe that 'not selling well enough' is somehow a worse outcome to Paradox than a 'total write off, total loss' scenario, which is what was going to happen if they didn't find another studio to finish the game. Which almost did occur.

So, I pose this question:

How would it be in Paradox's best interests to cancel the game at a total loss, rather than allow HSL to finish it?

Or, to fire HSL, hire a new developer to finish the game, thereby greatly extending development time and money.

Either way, Paradox loses more by delaying or cancelling the game, than by allowing HSL to deliver a possibly substandard game.

Diposting pertama kali oleh Blahblahblahblah:

If you think I'm right, could anything be done to get the real game in addition to this new build or do you think it should remain in torpor?

I would like to play the HSL version, just for the hell of it. But we'll never be allowed to.

The only thing I can think of is that Paradox was afraid that the game would not only underperform and not be worth whatever money it would take to finish but underperform to the point where it damaged them just like Bloodlines did to Troika games. Bloodlines was the last game that Troika games made. I imagine that that thought, the fate of Troika is something Paradox is well aware of. I think that Bloodlines 2 looked too much like Bloodlines 1 and that's why they scrapped it though I'm happy to change my mind if I can find good evidence to the contrary.

I am incredibly impressed by the fact that it took 5 years for them to make this decision. I find the incompetence astounding. For 5 years people must have been checking in on the game and seeing the progress and making the calculation of whether or not the game should continue to be financed. I cannot imagine any scenario where there was not a game that was developed that although flawed is now simply tucked away but perhaps that is simply my lack of imagination and maybe someone has a really good reason why I should think that they really produced nothing viable after 5 years.

[Blahblahblahblah]

Diposting pertama kali oleh W.R. Winter:

personally I think Wild at Heart is your quintessential performance

Thank you. I enjoyed that playing that role immensely. I'm glad that you enjoyed it.

[Lamiosa]

In these times I would not wonder if publishers deside to throw away a game, which goes perfectly by the lore and please the fanbase, just for political reasons.

[Blahblahblahblah]

Diposting pertama kali oleh Hao Zhao:

It's plausible that the devs could have been gaslighting Paradox promising them that the stability issues would be fixed followed by the devs breaking that promise over and over, yeah. It's plausible because that's exactly what happened with Magna Mundi. lol

And a better solution than finding a team that could fix the bug was to completely "remake" a game that took five years of work? I suppose that it's possible but I don't think that it's likely. I think that it's more likely that they did some consumer testing and determined that it would have the exact same problem that the first game had, that it didn't appeal to a wide enough audience. That's why the new game seems to go in a different direction than the last game in story and playstyle.

[Clever Name]

Diposting pertama kali oleh Blahblahblahblah:

The only thing I can think of is that Paradox was afraid that the game would not only underperform and not be worth whatever money it would take to finish but underperform to the point where it damaged them just like Bloodlines did to Troika games. Bloodlines was the last game that Troika games made. I imagine that that thought, the fate of Troika is something Paradox is well aware of. I think that Bloodlines 2 looked too much like Bloodlines 1 and that's why they scrapped it though I'm happy to change my mind if I can find good evidence to the contrary.

I am incredibly impressed by the fact that it took 5 years for them to make this decision. I find the incompetence astounding. For 5 years people must have been checking in on the game and seeing the progress and making the calculation of whether or not the game should continue to be financed. I cannot imagine any scenario where there was not a game that was developed that although flawed is now simply tucked away but perhaps that is simply my lack of imagination and maybe someone has a really good reason why I should think that they really produced nothing viable after 5 years.

Comparing Paradox to Troika is not going to work. Paradox has more reliable revenue sources than Troika ever had. One failed game wouldn't kill the whole company. Even writing off the whole WoD IP and selling it for a loss probably wouldn't do irreparable damage.

As for why Paradox went along with Bloodlines 2, in spite of red flags along the way, there are multiple explanations possible. I feel like, based on the way developer diaries trailed off right after Covid lockdowns began in 2020, progress on the game more or less came to a halt. Paradox probably didn't like that.

If Paradox felt like the game was flawed, and no meaningful work was being done to remedy it, that could explain why the project leads were fired before the entirety of HSL.

[Hao Zhao]

Diposting pertama kali oleh Blahblahblahblah:

Diposting pertama kali oleh Hao Zhao:

It's plausible that the devs could have been gaslighting Paradox promising them that the stability issues would be fixed followed by the devs breaking that promise over and over, yeah. It's plausible because that's exactly what happened with Magna Mundi. lol

And a better solution than finding a team that could fix the bug was to completely "remake" a game that took five years of work? I suppose that it's possible but I don't think that it's likely. I think that it's more likely that they did some consumer testing and determined that it would have the exact same problem that the first game had, that it didn't appeal to a wide enough audience. That's why the new game seems to go in a different direction than the last game in story and playstyle.

It's not as simple as bringing in someone else to fix it. Learning how to read someone else's bad spaghetti code is a monstrous task. You know where exactly nothing is and you have to learn how each specific system was coded and how all systems interact with each other and you have no help to do it because the old devs are fired. You have to teach yourself how to sort through their work.

Once again, this is not a hypothetical. Paradox has done this before. Go read about Magna Mundi. lol

[Blahblahblahblah]

Diposting pertama kali oleh Hao Zhao:

It's not as simple as bringing in someone else to fix it. Learning how to read someone else's bad spaghetti code is a monstrous task. You know where exactly nothing is and you have to learn how each specific system was coded and how all systems interact with each other and you have no help to do it because the old devs are fired. You have to teach yourself how to sort through their work.

Once again, this is not a hypothetical. Paradox has done this before. Go read about Magna Mundi. lol

I hear what you are saying. You make a good point.

[Clever Name]

Diposting pertama kali oleh Blahblahblahblah:

I think that it's more likely that they did some consumer testing and determined that it would have the exact same problem that the first game had, that it didn't appeal to a wide enough audience. That's why the new game seems to go in a different direction than the last game in story and playstyle.

Now, this is potentially a valid point.

Because it does seem like TCR's version is going out of its way to scrap most of the mechanics we saw from HSL's version.

But, if it's just a mechanical cleaning up (of mainly the ostensibly bad combat in HSL's version), why would TCR radically change so many plot elements? That's presumably what took so long to develop anew.

If the story was strong--or at least the dialogue--in HSL's version, and the combat was the weakest part, since as you said, this would mirror the original Bloodlines, why, then would Paradox want or allow TCR to engage in a slow, costly redo of large portions of the plot and presumably writing?

Having to read too much is not an automatic death sentence for a game. Baldur's Gate 3 is the most recent example of this.

Since TCR redid both the combat and the story... we can and probably should assume that both were flawed.