An earlier statement from one of the Paradox PR reps (before release):
"I actually played Bloodlines 1 quite recently, and it is a good game, but it is also an old game, and there are many things that would not fly today," Lilja said. "But I understand why people were super psyched by it in 2004, because it had a lot of cool [elements], and the feeling of being a vampire is really strong, regardless of other features. But I think people, they remember their feelings about it. And if they replayed it, I think they would see that it's a competently good game by 2004 standards, now that it's patched.
Seems like their approach to Bloodlines 2 isn't much of "high flyer" in the year 2025.
In defence of the PR rep, they were open about Bloodlines 2 not having much to do with the original and that it was more of vampire themed linear action game.
But in that case, why would you have internal targets of 2M+ initial sales if your plan is to have a radical departure from a well known cult classic RPG known for its roleplaying and strong writing?
Not replying to you but to that statement, they’re absolutely wrong. I’ve never finished Bloodlines, life keeps getting in my way and I keep losing my save file (this is not unique to Bloodlines, there are several other games that are in the same bag). My point is every few years I start a new save on the OG bloodlines, and that game still holds out great, sure graphics are outdated, but other than that it’s a great game even by today standards, and while I haven’t played bloodlines 2, I’m fairly confident from everything I’ve seen it’s a worse game by every metric that matters. These people think that graphics can overcome anything, but that’s one of the least important parts of the game.
To be fair, the first part of the game is by far the best. The unofficial patch adds back in a heckton of content in the late game, but even then, it feels sparse. I have very fond memories of exploring Santa Monica though. The game felt huge and exciting, even playing it for the first time in 2019.
Damn, I should try install it again. I’m running Linux now, and if I recall, I had some problems getting it working. I should take another crack at it.
To be fair, the first part of the game is by far the best. The unofficial patch adds back in a heckton of content in the late game, but even then, it feels sparse.
Maybe, I don’t know how far into the game I got since I never finished it. But I don’t think it ever felt empty… Although the damn zombie mission is one I hate and has made me quit the game in more than one occasion.
I’m running Linux now
I have been running Linux only for over a decade, so I can confidently say the game runs, and in Steam is just hit play.
They fought to change the name since the beginning because they knew it would be impossible to deliver a real sequel and while this name might get initial sales it would cause blowback killing the game almost immediately…
Which is exactly what happened.
Like, they’d have loved to make Masquerade 2, but they weren’t given the time or funds to make it.
The worst part is that this failure will probably kill any chance of The Chinese Room getting to actually take a proper swing at this, from scratch, with time and a real budget. It really feels like if they were allowed to do that they would hit it out of the park. Bloodlines 2 is a much better game than the review scores suggest, mostly weighed down by the expectations people put in the Bloodlines name.
Chinese Room is clearly a bad fit for Bloodlines. They have zero experience with RPG games.
They make good walking-sim style gaming experiences with strong atmosphere and world-building, but they've never made any RPGs. Bloodlines was a living world full of dynamism (remember the Voerman twins missions?).
Their gameplay also tends to be subpar. The original Bloodlines had some flaws with gameplay (combat), but you still had a lot of different gameplay options and approaches.
Why shouldn't people have expectations for a strong roleplaying experience and player freedom for a Bloodlines game?
They absolutely are, in terms of gameplay. Ozzy Mandus and The Crank Hog Machine sacrificed most of the gameplay Frictional’s Amnesia became known for. There are no light mechanics. Barely any physics puzzles. The pigmen are braindead, which removes the challenge and the tension. Even if it’s a better story and atmosphere than The Dark Descent, it’s a lesser game. Even Still Wakes The Deep only goes as far as “throw the object to make the thing look away” when you’re not just responding to non-diegetic prompts.
You can make the argument that walking simulators have a place in the gaming landscape, and you’d be right, but by their nature, they are the exact opposite of what Bloodlines 1 was and what Bloodlines 2 should have been. Why Paradox decided it was a good idea to entrust with it a studio that has only made things that it never should have been is a fucking mystery to me.
Those two studios for the game because it was Hardsuit’s idea to make the game in the first place and TCR barely kept Paradox from canceling the have after they kicked Hardsuit out of the project.
I think it basically went like this (simplified):
Hardsuit: “Hey Paradox, we wanna make Bloodlines 2. We have everything worked out, we have the best possible writers involved, and it’s a real passion project; here’s our pitch.”
Paradox: “Wow, that pitch convinced us completely! You get all the green lights in the world!”
Hardsuit: “Now keep in mind we’ve never done a project on this scale before so we’ll need plenty of time—”
Paradox: “We set you on an extremely aggressive schedule. Surely that’ll motivate you into delivering perfection!”
Hardsuit: “That’s literally the exact opposite of what we need.”
Paradox: “But it’s the exact non-opposite of what you get. Now chop chop, we already gave the release date to the press.”
Hardsuit: “We’re not getting the game done in that timeframe.”
Paradox: “No problem; we’ll delay a little bit. Surely nobody will mind.”
Hardsuit: “It’ll take more than ‘a little bit’. We told you that—”
Paradox: “Okay, sure, whatever, the game’s canceled now. Don’t call us back.”
TCR: “Hey, can we try to salvage this? We really wanna see this made. But we’d like to throw away all of the writing, characters, and gameplay. Everything except the setting, really.”
Paradox: “Okay, sounds reasonable. But make it snappy.”
TCR: “We’d also like to change the name because what we can deliver won’t really be a proper sequel to—”
Paradox: “Bloodlines 2 it is. Good discussion. Glad we talked about this.”
TCR: “That’s literally the exact opposite of what we asked for.”
Paradox: “Can’t hear you; too busy launching the sequel to one of the most beloved cult classics in the action RPG genre.”
Customers: “Well, this is a pretty bad sequel. Decent game but they really shouldn’t have called it Bloodlines 2. We’re disappointed.”
Paradox: “The only logical course of action is to swear to never release a non-strategy game ever again because nobody appreciates our art.”
With the second paragraph I agree, it’s a bad fit for a sequel and this is consensus (probably, I didn’t enjoy Bloodlines much), even TCR thinks so. But is this a scale? Is Bloodlines 1 a lesser game with subpar gameplay because it’s systems weren’t as complex as other CRPGs? “Game” is just the term we stuck with, it doesn’t mean that the fidelity of the gameplay, the mechanics and dynamics is paramount. If I value narrative, and it is, has become, a narrative medium, I very well might think that A Machine For Pigs did a better job.
I enjoy walking sims (Soma is one of my favourite games of all time) in general and TCR's releases as well.
That doesn't mean one can't recognize that TCR tends to struggle even with relatively simple gameplay and that a game like Bloodlines requires strong gameplay design/implementation skills.
While I loved the atmosphere of Still Wakes the Deep, there were many situations where weak gameplay undermined the ambiance and immersion.
I hope I was able to at least share my own reasoning (even if you don't agree). And I think we can both agree that TCR does not have any experience in RPG games.
I want to enjoy the game, but I keep getting got by campers spamming grenades or that one submachine gun. I haven’t even been able to unlock any new weapons or gear beside the base ones because of that, or another map to play on. I’ve played for an hour and 52 minutes, and I really don’t know if I should keep trying or just give up and refund it.
Solo? Try talking to people. I’ve found that almost everyone in solo matches are likely to be friendly if you talk. (There’s also a communication wheel if you don’t want to or can’t use a mic.)
Groups tend to fight 95% of the time though. At extract it’s often OK, but before then not really.
Regardless, it sounds like you just might not be used to the genre. You can rat, and play really safe, avoiding high loot areas where players are likely to be. Alternatively, just pay attention. There’s almost always signs players are around. If you see ARC with yellow or red lights, there are players there. If you see open containers or doors, or destroyed ARC then players have been there. You can also hear footsteps and looting pretty well. Just pay attention and you usually won’t be jumped.
I don’t feel like campers are an issue in the game though. I haven’t experienced it. There are people who will spot you with the third person camera who it may feel like are camping, but they’re almost always just being observant while looting and spotted you first. It’s not like they’re waiting at extract for you. I haven’t seen that once yet and I’ve played a lot of matches.
You might be interested in Zero Sievert. If you already own (or obtain) Escape from Tarkov there’s an amazing Single Player Tarkov mod that is legitimately probably the best way to play the game.
For the PvE aspect, the third person is great. The AI are an actual threat, and having the camera to look around corners or see around the player really helps.
For PvP I think it’s a negative. It promotes safe play and gives an unfair advantage to certain situations.
Overall, I think it’s a wash. Personally, I’d slightly prefer first person, but they’ve made third feel very good. I think you need to try it before making a judgement, and try it with an open mind without an opinion already formed. I thought I’d be more annoyed with it than I am.
Thank you, do not need to try it, as the view has been presented before… You are missing the gist of my message. I am talking about controlling someone, which should instead “be” someone.
You aren’t someone when playing a video game besides yourself. A third person view doesn’t suddenly make people unable to feel as if they’re playing as that character any more than a first person view does. For example, people can have a similar feeling even from books, with no agency.
You’re making a weird argument based on some purity metric. Either way, you’re playing a video game and controlling a character in the game. Neither view let’s you be that character. Both let you be immersed and inhabit their role in the world.
(I’m sorry, I should have specified my sarcasm) It’s a thing the creator of Death Stranding made up to troll journalists who kept asking him what type of game he made.
I…don’t know what an extraction shooter is. Until I’m corrected I will assume everyone is a dentist trying to collect teeth from their opponents.
Take on missions, collect loot, leave the area. If you die, you lose everything on you. At least as far as I know, I don’t play any but have seen some escape from tarkov videos.
You mean other than extraction? Sure, arcade like L4D series, rpg like fallout series. Team death match like Quake or COD series, survival like RUST or 7 days to die. There’s lots.
You decide what gear to bring with you, get dropped into a map in some fashion, find loot, and try to make it to an extraction point alive. If you die, you lose what you brought with you and anything you found. Add in some AI enemies and PvP, and it can be fun. I feel that the most challenging part of making these types of games is finding that sweet spot between risk and reward. If it’s too punishing, you’ll feel frustrated, like you’re wasting your time. Too easy and it’s boring. ARC found the sweet spot. Very responsive ai enemies, working proximity chat for pvp to call a truce, very well designed maps, just enough help to keep you going back for more, great audio design, and extraction mechanics that result in some tense moments. I’ve played 4 or 5 raids on only one map and so far each time was been unique, tense, and fun. This is my first time playing an extraction shooter and I picked a great one. I’m usually pretty bad at pvp but this one just feels good.
‘One of the biggest’ You mean ‘one of the only’? Extraction shooters aren’t common that I’m aware of unless I’m out of the loop. The only big one before this I was aware of was Tarkov.
The Cycle yes, but an extraction shooter is defined as a game you loot items that you then extract with to use in future runs or sell. Hunt and Helldivers doesn’t have that mechanic at all.
You can make the argument that Helldivers is more of a mission based shooter, and many people will agree with you.
Hunt is absolutely an extraction shooter. You take gear into a raid, fight other players, collect money and even their guns, fight a boss and collect the bounty when you extract.
No, not at all. Extraction shooters require you to take in gear, which you can lose. Find loot or better gear and extract with it. If you die during the mission you lose pretty much everything, high stakes are required. DRG has no stakes, you just go and complete a mission for some progression.
Someone said not Hunt. I disagree. I would say it is.
There is Zero Sievert, which is single player, Gray Zone Warfare, Arena Breakout Infinite (it’s an Asian game with Kernel level AC, so I can’t play it on Linux), Escape from Duckov recently, The Cycle (which I think is dead), and I’m certain I’m missing some.
It’s not a huge genre, but there’s still quite a few.
I don’t think there’s anything about the genre that requires multiplayer. My favorite way to play Escape from Tarkov is the Single Player Tarkov mod, for example. It’s the same game, but without wipes or other players (I play it for no wipes).
How do people feel about this company using generative AI? That was a concern of mine around The Finals; they’ve defended the decision on voice acting and it made me wonder where else they’re using it.
EDIT: Learned some new things from the responses, certainly an interesting situation. I’ll consider them.
Embark released blog posts about how they’re integrating AI into their development workflow back in 2019/2020. The entire studio was founded by former Dice devs bc they were burned out with game development and had quit, then realized they could build tools and pipelines that allowed them to focus on the fun parts of game development, and got together to form Embark and do exactly that. Their vision preceded the vast majority of the public’s awareness of AI, and was not influenced by the current wave of LLMs and generative ai.
If you want to hate feel free that’s your prerogative, but be aware that anything Embark makes is going to be built on tools and pipelines that deeply integrate some form of AI/ML, and just stay away from anything the studio makes. It’s your loss really because their games are the first in a long time (in their genres) that I can feel the love the devs poured in seeping from every single aspect of the game, but again it’s your prerogative.
To defend the voice acting in The Finals - they obtained the consent for all the voice actors they use, and they pay them a commission for each new line they generate. It’s believed that one of the reasons they made that decision was to have things like improvised dialogue possible by the announcers (Scotty and June), for example.
They definitely aren’t cheating people out of money, fortunately.
ign.com
Gorące