do you think they're going to delay 2024 to 2025?

[Coffee Break Hero]

Are we living in early access 2024?

[Clever Name]

Just to explore the 'Puritanical Paradox' theory a bit more:

If they wanted to expand the scope of likely Bloodlines 2 customers, why not just dial it all the way back to a Teen rating? Why eliminate some forms of graphic violence, but not all? Why keep a Mature rating if you're that desperate to put the game in as many people's hands as possible?

Even looking at what would need to be done to market the game in, for instance, China, the limitations are almost laughable in the context of a vampire game:

"Dead bodies must “disappear” quickly (fade away or otherwise), and pools of blood of any color must not be included in the game."

We already know TCR's version of the game keeps bodies around, with only the Tremere passive being able to dissolve them. I guess in a Chinese modified version, all clans could get the dissolve perk. But then what about the head crushing and other violent finishers? Just eliminate those altogether?

Hmm... there is a possibility that the lack of melee and firearms (for the player) would make the game easier to modify for a Chinese release.

Then there's the political issue. The Chinese obviously don't want politics in their games, and the HSL version of the game almost certainly would've made current-day political references.

As far-fetched as it seems, if there was any major attempt to sanitize BL2 from the HSL to the TCR version, I'm more inclined to think the game was modified specifically to be sold in China; rather than modified for the rest of the gaming world that's already completely desensitized to sex and extreme violence.

There is very little profitability to be had from excising sex and violence for a game intended for a Western market. But if you throw the Chinese market into the mix, all of a sudden the standards completely change.

[Clever Name]

Originalmente postado por Goofy:

Wednesday (Usually, usually comes after Tuesday.) Ill bet when it rarely happens some serious crap goes down. Sorry struck me as hilarious to put usually or even every now and then

In theory, the Earth could be grazed by an exoplanet, go retrograde, and then the days of the week would reverse.

Or Superman could do it. That too.

[Triple G]

Originalmente postado por $CRWD:

Originalmente postado por Triple G:

How is Mark Rein-Hagen a bigot? What he's guilty of (upon looking him up) was not reading the room and trying to be an edge lord.

If you are unfamiliar with the term and not being rhetorical, I don't mind answering this question.

Originalmente postado por Triple G:

Regardless nothing you said addresses anything I posted, which was corporate behaviour. Since neither of you has any experience in this area and I do perhaps you should not base your opinions on what you think must be right in your tummy and defer to those who have real world experience.

You erroneously claimed that Paradox would profit from in-game references to Nazism when two people have pointed out that it was already incorporated into Brujah lore in the past. I elaborated Clever's claim and then raised the dilemma of incorporating bigoted ideology, even as a matter of principle, as it regards profit and as it regards being a customer. These internet discussions make it too easy for you all to be antagonistic, and accusatory. You don't know anything about us or our experiences. And if you took care, you'd realize we already spoke on the issue of shareholder-driven development and market considerations for this game at length.

No, I said if a corporation THOUGHT including nazi's would double their sales they'd do it. This was to highlight their utterly amoral nature. Next time read what the person wrote, not just the response someone else made to it.

[Triple G]

Originalmente postado por Clever Name:

Just to explore the 'Puritanical Paradox' theory a bit more:

If they wanted to expand the scope of likely Bloodlines 2 customers, why not just dial it all the way back to a Teen rating? Why eliminate some forms of graphic violence, but not all? Why keep a Mature rating if you're that desperate to put the game in as many people's hands as possible?

Even looking at what would need to be done to market the game in, for instance, China, the limitations are almost laughable in the context of a vampire game:

"Dead bodies must “disappear” quickly (fade away or otherwise), and pools of blood of any color must not be included in the game."

We already know TCR's version of the game keeps bodies around, with only the Tremere passive being able to dissolve them. I guess in a Chinese modified version, all clans could get the dissolve perk. But then what about the head crushing and other violent finishers? Just eliminate those altogether?

Hmm... there is a possibility that the lack of melee and firearms (for the player) would make the game easier to modify for a Chinese release.

Then there's the political issue. The Chinese obviously don't want politics in their games, and the HSL version of the game almost certainly would've made current-day political references.

As far-fetched as it seems, if there was any major attempt to sanitize BL2 from the HSL to the TCR version, I'm more inclined to think the game was modified specifically to be sold in China; rather than modified for the rest of the gaming world that's already completely desensitized to sex and extreme violence.

There is very little profitability to be had from excising sex and violence for a game intended for a Western market. But if you throw the Chinese market into the mix, all of a sudden the standards completely change.

I didn't say they were puritans. I said they didn't like the macabre, general nastiness of the story, and were afraid of the blow back from the less politically correct elements i.e. Malkavians and mental illness. It has nothing to do with run of the mill video game violence.

[warb]

HSL claimed the narrative was all but complete and that they'd recorded most of the dialog. If significant late changes to game or narrative were required that's a lot of work and expense to redo. Push back then disruption and chaos. Or Paradox arbitrarily determined the project did not meet their expectations and cancelled it. Like they've been doing a lot recently. Sometimes after launch.

[Axus]

I wonder if a Bloodlines game that was unapologetically dark and twisted, and kept the narrative level of Bloodlines 1, would actually sell poorly today. Obviously corporations are risk averse and must maximize profits, but I wonder if a game like that would actually sell poorly. I guess it would be a risk, but -- couldn't there be enough marketing studies and panels, etc ahead of time to get a good sense of whether gamers would be interested? Is it a fear of being cancelled by people who would not play the game anyway?

It seems like gamers would be into a game that almost totally shirked the woke filter. But maybe not - are young gamers really into that? I don't even know. These companies must be doing a lot of studies before committing to a game design... they are, right?

One thing though is any game with dark elements must have impeccable writing -- I always cringed at the HSL Bloodlines marionette family torture scenes with Damp dancing because it didn't seem interesting - it seemed like gore done shallow-ly.

Of course marketing it overseas is a big deal - is that primarily why companies sanitize games more now?

I've just never seen much evidence that gamers today would revolt a game that was designed at the level of Bloodlines 1. On the contrary, it feels like gamers today would be refreshed by the studio's audacity -- like Baldur's Gate 3's sex and nudity. So what is this risk aversion? Is it simply incorrect? I guess, even if gamers have an appetite for dark elements, it is harder to implement that stuff in a cool, interesting way.

[Clever Name]

Originalmente postado por axmcquax:

It seems like gamers would be into a game that almost totally shirked the woke filter. But maybe not - are young gamers really into that? I don't even know.

The people who originally played BL1, as opposed to people who've heard about it only after it'd become a 'cult classic', should all be pushing 40 on average. That age group is probably the last that doesn't deeply care about pronouns and trigger warnings (one way or the other, hating them or embracing them).

Younger people--what little I know about them--appear to be split into antithetical camps of extremely pro- or extremely anti- whatever we want to call the current cultural climate (for the record, I loathe using the term 'woke').

To cater to one half of the youth (under 30, say) demographic--and that's assuming they're roughly split 50/50--is to automatically antagonize the other half. So at this point I would say a developer is damned if they do, damned if they don't. Flip a coin and pick which half of the culture war you're going to piss off.

I think it would've been smarter to ignore the youth demo and hyper-focus on the 35-50 group for Bloodlines 2.

Originalmente postado por axmcquax:

One thing though is any game with dark elements must have impeccable writing -- I always cringed at the HSL Bloodlines marionette family torture scenes with Damp dancing because it didn't seem interesting - it seemed like gore done shallow-ly.

Yup. Never liked Mr. Damp myself. His prominence in the marketing is one of the reasons I had doubts about the creative direction in general. It's one thing to have him as an oddball NPC in a one-off quest, it's another to make him a central driver of the plot (which he seemed to be).

Originalmente postado por axmcquax:

Of course marketing it overseas is a big deal - is that primarily why companies sanitize games more now?

It would be sensible (and also devoid of artistic principles) to develop games from the ground up so they could be easily modified for sale in the rest of the world, plus China. It'd expand the potential customer base by an absurd amount to deal in both markets, almost guaranteeing a break-even scenario as the worst possible outcome (unless you're churning out total garbage that somehow manages to alienate both audiences).

It could explain the many head-scratching decisions that TCR has made with Bloodlines. Design choices that make little sense as being desirable in the Western market, but could be quite desirable in China, since gamers there have different preferences and habits, above and beyond the government censorship requirements.

Originalmente postado por axmcquax:

I've just never seen much evidence that gamers today would revolt a game that was designed at the level of Bloodlines 1. On the contrary, it feels like gamers today would be refreshed by the studio's audacity -- like Baldur's Gate 3's sex and nudity. So what is this risk aversion? Is it simply incorrect? I guess, even if gamers have an appetite for dark elements, it is harder to implement that stuff in a cool, interesting way.

Western gamers wouldn't revolt, no. BG3 isn't just edgy with sex, it also has quite a lot of repulsive, ghoulish elements to its storytelling, and that could've turned off the squeamish. I consider myself pretty inured to gore and depravity, but even I have no interest in doing a Dark Urge playthrough (despite the glowing reviews I hear of it).

I think BG3 was successful because it hyper-focused on its fanbase and thus it didn't need to worry about overseas viability. It could push the envelope exactly as far is it wanted to, because the developers knew their fanbase well. That intimacy is what's completely lacking with Paradox and most other companies.

If you're out of touch with your fans and don't know/care what to give them to make them enthusiastic, then yeah--maybe it does make sense to try to expand the game's market to Eastern and Western markets to hedge your bets.

[$CRWD]

Originalmente postado por axmcquax:

I wonder if a Bloodlines game that was unapologetically dark and twisted, and kept the narrative level of Bloodlines 1, would actually sell poorly today.

Its success would've ultimately depended upon how well it was able to read and adapt to market trends. 5-10 years ago, shareholder-driven projects and the kind of monetization characteristic of them were a lot more tolerable. Back then, you'd see a decent amount of support for an "unapologetically dark and twisted" game that featured some amount of gross monetization. But that was 5-10 years ago, and prior to some of gamedev's most notorious blunders and botched releases that have become formative experiences for a lot of Zoomers & Alphas. These days, those decisions come with diminishing returns: brand damage, reduced sales, a customer base that is even further radicalized against games filled to the brim with monetization, i.e. a social/market contagion, etc.

If by "unapologetically dark and twisted" you mean the game Mitsoda and Cluney initially envisioned and not simply aesthetics-wise, then absolutely, they were working on a project that would've succeeded.

[Triple G]

Originalmente postado por axmcquax:

I wonder if a Bloodlines game that was unapologetically dark and twisted, and kept the narrative level of Bloodlines 1, would actually sell poorly today. Obviously corporations are risk averse and must maximize profits, but I wonder if a game like that would actually sell poorly. I guess it would be a risk, but -- couldn't there be enough marketing studies and panels, etc ahead of time to get a good sense of whether gamers would be interested? Is it a fear of being cancelled by people who would not play the game anyway?

It seems like gamers would be into a game that almost totally shirked the woke filter. But maybe not - are young gamers really into that? I don't even know. These companies must be doing a lot of studies before committing to a game design... they are, right?

One thing though is any game with dark elements must have impeccable writing -- I always cringed at the HSL Bloodlines marionette family torture scenes with Damp dancing because it didn't seem interesting - it seemed like gore done shallow-ly.

Of course marketing it overseas is a big deal - is that primarily why companies sanitize games more now?

I've just never seen much evidence that gamers today would revolt a game that was designed at the level of Bloodlines 1. On the contrary, it feels like gamers today would be refreshed by the studio's audacity -- like Baldur's Gate 3's sex and nudity. So what is this risk aversion? Is it simply incorrect? I guess, even if gamers have an appetite for dark elements, it is harder to implement that stuff in a cool, interesting way.

You're forgetting that the people who run these companies are old men who are always behind the curb in terms of where the culture is. That's why you see companies like Warner Bros. making looter shooters even though that fad is long passed. Most are not even gamers and instead base their decisions on these ridiculous metrics that are actually based on magical thinking. It's the same in most entertainment fields.

[$CRWD]

Originalmente postado por Triple G:

You're forgetting that the people who run these companies are old men who are always behind the curb in terms of where the culture is. That's why you see companies like Warner Bros. making looter shooters even though that fad is long passed. Most are not even gamers and instead base their decisions on these ridiculous metrics that are actually based on magical thinking. It's the same in most entertainment fields.

Exactly. And that's more a consequence of the isolated lives they live. Their only reach is the people they invite into their circles. They don't actually interact with any other demographics outside of it or observe cultures.

[Axus]

But aren't these big decisions based off of statistical analysis? They must be getting some metrics that support their investments. I'd just expect most gamers to poll that they'd actually like a game with dark elements like BL1. But maybe I'm wrong about that.

[Triple G]

Originalmente postado por axmcquax:

But aren't these big decisions based off of statistical analysis? They must be getting some metrics that support their investments. I'd just expect most gamers to poll that they'd actually like a game with dark elements like BL1. But maybe I'm wrong about that.

It's all voodoo. These ridiculous metrics they use theoretically minimise risk but I've never seen what their scientific basis is. I've also seen the deep denial these people use when proven wrong. For example no one wanted to make Deadpool because their metrics said R rated comedies don't make money. Then is was a huge hit and they said "oh well that's only because ______" insert BS reason. It takes a lot of failure before they learn their lesson.

[$CRWD]

It's also important to keep in mind that data and traditional market fundamentals only get you so far. Whatever data Paradox uses for their grand strategies and RTS' have useful predictive abilities, but these predictions depend on axioms, just like the judgements one would make without data. In other words, even statistical analysis has epistemological limits. A great example: the history of crypto markets, and the varying amounts of success some "meme" coins have experienced, when fundamentals had no framework to even describe what was happening. This is why you have to not only rely on data. but ethnographic/demographic study. You make your understanding of your market as robust as possible, and you don't just bring in developers that have a mechanistic, operant conditioning behavioral background in gamedev; you balance views like that against the views of actual fans and developers tapped into the psyche of the fanbase. If you do not have this, you quite literally have no business making anything for them.

[$CRWD]

Originalmente postado por Triple G:

Originalmente postado por $CRWD:

If you are unfamiliar with the term and not being rhetorical, I don't mind answering this question.



You erroneously claimed that Paradox would profit from in-game references to Nazism when two people have pointed out that it was already incorporated into Brujah lore in the past. I elaborated Clever's claim and then raised the dilemma of incorporating bigoted ideology, even as a matter of principle, as it regards profit and as it regards being a customer. These internet discussions make it too easy for you all to be antagonistic, and accusatory. You don't know anything about us or our experiences. And if you took care, you'd realize we already spoke on the issue of shareholder-driven development and market considerations for this game at length.

No, I said if a corporation THOUGHT including nazi's would double their sales they'd do it. This was to highlight their utterly amoral nature. Next time read what the person wrote, not just the response someone else made to it.

Firstly, it should go without saying that an exclusively profit oriented Publisher is going to try to capitalize on trends and meet the demands of that market, whatever those demands maybe.


However, the paragraph which contained your statement about including Nazism, consisted of multiple sentences with Paradox as their subject. When you use "they," a grammatical antecedent, in such a paragraph and towards the end, it functions as a call back to a previous subject. It does not function as some nebulous or ambiguous hypothetical corporation, but specifically Paradox which you spent your entire paragraph talking about.

Whether one follows the grammatically consistent reading of your paragraph, or the grammatically incorrect reading, the answer doesn't really change. In the current era of our market, incorporating Nazism or any controversial themes comes with too much risk for a shareholder-driven project. They'll have weighed the risks against costs and potential profit, and simply forgo anything controversial altogether -- including nudity, campy violence, sex, etc.

You're more likely to see Nazism and such themes included in a small developer project, or a project that is entirely developer led -- vision-first-profit-second -- in other words, by those who have less to lose, or who are willing to take on more risk/disregard loss. You see many 18+ single-installment games by unknown developers here on Steam with projects that feature Hitler, Furries, and so on that gain virality and some degree of success as "meme" games.

I would also advise against imploring others to read when 99% of disagreements are because of a misunderstanding or miscommunication. Simply re-reading something when it defies grammatical convention or is being used in a personal way isn't going to change one's interpretation.

[Clever Name]

Originalmente postado por W.R. Winter:

Originalmente postado por Clever Name:

Your previous point was that Paradox is risk-averse (by the way, it's not 'risk-adverse'; 'adverse' is a negative condition, 'averse' is avoidance. If you insult my reading comprehension, I'm much more inclined to notice your lack of it), but yet they allow their name to be placed on books with human sacrifice, necrophilia, and black magic. How could BL2 be more controversial than that?

respectfully Clever your idea of "controversial" is kinda laughable. suffice to say that is not a rhetorical question.

No, you're missing the point just as Triple G did. This was the argument I was (successfully) refuting:

"I didn't say they had a problem with run of the mill video game violence, I said they had a problem with the hyper violence and nastiness... in other words the story and some elements were too gruesome."

By any measure of debate logic, it's absolutely wrong to make a claim like the above quote, while Paradox is writing books that can be classified as 'gruesome' and 'nasty.'

I'm not saying human sacrifice and black magic are controversial in an era where god is dead (for the majority of Western people in most wealthy nations, i.e, the primary producers and consumers of said fiction). There will always be a small minority of somebody taking offense at something, but it gets no mainstream attention.

This is a debate of precision, and there is a precise point to be made about what Paradox may have objected to, and for what reasons it did so.

The only reasons Paradox would've destroyed a game and fired a studio (HSL) would be that the game either was broken or so loaded with controversial material it was too much to edit out. For the sake of this argument, let's eliminate the 'too broken' reason and go with controversy. Which kind, though?

It can't be anything that Cara Ellison would've been on board with. You believe she had no influence on Mitsoda (I disagree); even if that's the case, she wouldn't have worked on a project that was blatantly anti-LGBTQ or sexist or racist or whatever. She already openly insulted the original Bloodlines over those perceived flaws.

Thus BL2's controversy potential, by mainstream liberal Hollywood Disney standards, was zero as far as I'm concerned. This includes even the possibility of Malkavian issues. Mitsoda already pussied out and did a mea culpa over his writing of Malks in BL1. He wouldn't do it again.

It makes far more sense to me that, after delays, Paradox decided it wanted to be able to sell the game in China, because that could be immensely profitable. Naturally Mitsoda and all of HSL would object to this huge change in standards mid-development, as making the game China-friendly would require massive cuts, edits, and rewrites. Paradox fired both Mitsoda and Cluney over their resistance and decided to try anyway, and ultimately failed. Hence the necessity for TCR to rebuild from scratch (mostly).

Note that I'm not presenting the above scenario as one I'm absolutely convinced is real; I'm offering it as something that's superficially more plausible than believing Paradox suddenly got cold feet over nipples and gore.

Cutting out violence and sex for an intended Western-exclusive market is utterly retarded and I refuse to accept it as a possibility. And I'm not reiterating the point again, consider the subject dropped.