Blodhemn

Agreed. It seems like the only drawback of a free Source is for the modding that has to be done, which the same can be said for any engine that isn't already specifically designed for a certain task. I wonder if they could use the existing work from Bloodlines, or if they'd rather start from scratch. And the other issue is from a production standpoint - one would assume that a first person engine is going to require more resources, which equates to more money, etc - but I'm not exactly so sure about that. At least the engine is free.. Along with the facial animations, the lighting in Source always looked realistic to me - not too overblown with visual effects, lense flare and all of that. Couple that with the modern environment and real world textures, the look of the game is still relevant. Some of the textures are even more high res than games being released today. I would be so bummed if a sequel turned out to be isometric that I doubt I'd even play it.

Eh, I don't pay attention to pop culture so none of that affects me. Resident Evil plots are so cliche as well with bio-mega corp world takeover. The series has been done to death, not even counting the copycats. I have a similar interest in wanting some games more familiar, there's a void in the action/rpg genre that leaves plenty of room for interesting titles, but unfortunately they're costly to make. I'd rather a new Bloodlines game not even be attempted if all can be mustered is an archaic isometric, turned based design.

Vampires aren't cool anymore, so give me sword and sorcery... in space! Lol!

Eh, there comes a point where too much choice just doesn't work for a video game. If a team focuses too much on the sim factor, then the game will more likely consist of bulk bland quests/characters as a tradeoff. Bloodlines had the perfect balance of fun quests/characters/story/choice for me. Think that was the point they ran out of money heh. That, and the game is so top heavy in content, which was a welcomed change to the slow crawl to start most RPGs. I can't imagine being able to carry out that level of quality to the end. Exactly...

Bloodlines game, in a modern setting of FPS proportion. Anything, in a modern setting. Alpha Protocol sequel would be welcome, but very doubtful due to little fandom, interest, money, etc. The safest best is still magic n elves in an old, fantastical realm that's been done to death. But I'm done with those games..

I feel the opposite. Witcher 2 has the most bloated, overly wordy dialogue, which makes Bethesda written games come off as a work of literary art. I'd say it was the single worst game I've ever played for dialogue. I see no reason for someone to play it if they didn't like the first game. Save your time for something else...

I liked the idea of the combat, but yeah, it's like they didn't take into account that none of the styles were deep and it became easy far too quickly, as you said. Also agree that it was a transition stage for Bioware in the way of combat and with the sentiment that RPG companies could make good with hiring outside talent for better combat, but you know that'd bring out the angry RPG nerds who hate change. I liked what they did with the ME series. A new JE with bigger maps and polished, challenging combat would be great, but I don't see it happening. The setting is just too different for most people - not enough post apocalyptic dust nor medieval fantasy staff jousting.

It's not like Jade Empire was a perfect game - the story wasn't that good, combat was too easy and simplistic, but it did have great music, nice setting and fun characters/voice acting. A new game, with better mechanics, would be interesting.

I just go with Strength stat = 1 and try to carry as little as possible. By the end of the game you're left with tons of weapons and items you'll never use, so why hassle with weight the entire game? FO3 gave me a nonstop inventory crash bug towards the end of it and I had to unload all my junk to make the game even run. Kind of ironic, I guess...

I guess it's a good match but I can't envision it being that fun to do, really. Seems like something that's implemented to support the maybe not so engaging core gameplay. It's Bethesda, that's how they do it. Generic but vast, very vast. I just finished a FO3 run, including DLC, so I don't need to play another Bethesda game for several years. But I just started up a new game for New Vegas..

They stretched it too thin and made it a boring city management minigame where you have to unlock all sorts of things instead of just letting you go wild and build whatever you want. Don't know why game designers waste resources with these "features". I can't even be bothered with crafting in games - pseudo realistic, time consuming filler gameplay that takes me out of the game world moreso than feeling like I'm doing something mechanical in it.

I wasn't really disagreeing with you.

Nah, just saying a game like Bloodlines worked because of all of the elements - a mixed bag that worked itself into a flawed gem. I see it as pointless to nitpick a feature when the end result was a great experience regardless. Is it somehow supposed to be an even better game? Different, sure, but better? Hard to imagine - flaws and all.

Yeah, that's a different point of view than say, nitpicking.

Yeah, but "shoot the core themes of your source material in the foot" generally doesn't make a good adaptation. Like... in a D&D game, you kind of expect at least some dungeons and possibly a dragon or more. The expected core experience is centered around exploration of hostile territory and killing monsters to take their stuff. Conversely, in Vampire, you expect lots of scheming and backstabbing and desperate clinging to the remains of your Humanity, where combat is usually a fail state and the result of your ineptitude at the aforementioned activities. Desperately clinging and scheming? Yeah... try making a 30 hr game consisting of nothing but that. It's not happening, and if it did, it'd most likely be full of it's own set of issues, and be worse off, but hey, that's all good because it's true to source. Tabletop GMs have done campaigns spanning multiple years about vampire politics, so I'm not particularly worried that a 30 hr game by the top narrative designers of the industry would somehow fail to stay entertaining. I'm pretty sure PST had at least 30 hours' worth of content consisting of nothing but talking to people. Of course I'd rather have them shoot for a 10-20 hour long experience with a ton of reactivity and replayability. Yeah, because games like PST are just a dime a dozen, aren't they? I don't think it's just quite as simple as that.

Yeah, but "shoot the core themes of your source material in the foot" generally doesn't make a good adaptation. Like... in a D&D game, you kind of expect at least some dungeons and possibly a dragon or more. The expected core experience is centered around exploration of hostile territory and killing monsters to take their stuff. Conversely, in Vampire, you expect lots of scheming and backstabbing and desperate clinging to the remains of your Humanity, where combat is usually a fail state and the result of your ineptitude at the aforementioned activities. Desperately clinging and scheming? Yeah... try making a 30 hr game consisting of nothing but that. It's not happening, and if it did, it'd most likely be full of it's own set of issues, and be worse off, but hey, that's all good because it's true to source.

I'm just not a stickler for sticking to source material, no matter what. They're different mediums, and usually that requires some workaround. The combat isn't the best part, I think everyone would agree, but it really isn't more combat heavy than most games and it does kind of serve a purpose.

You guys act like Bloodlines wasn't good or something, just because it was combat heavy in parts. What about the rest of the game? You know, where it had better quests, lore and believable/interactive world than any game since?

Right... that's what we need, a realistic vampire sim...

The combat? Eh, it doesn't get as repetitive as pure FPS and it's not as slow and nonsensical as turn based. A Jack of all trades.

Ah I see, no problem. I usually do the same. Also, I don't think story is all that important, Bloodlines wasn't anything special on the whole in that regard, but the quests were so unique that they made up the story as it went along - something Obsidian could use some work on, and is honestly hard to pull off. Bloodlines was *down to earth* as far as story goes, and that was refreshing. The individual quests were almost episodic in scope, which just made for an extremely fun and different experience from the start. Only towards the end did the game get tiresome with repetitive combat, otherwise it was full of original quests in unique locations and situations.

So you want as little combat as possible, but when there is combat you want it turn based? I don't get it. If you don't want much combat for this type game then why should it matter? Also, turn based combat would take away from some of the *scares* and immersion that Bloodlines had, same goes for isometric view. First person, real time/action combat makes more sense for this game. Not everything needs to be old school just for the sake of it, and there's plenty of those type games out there already for the people who like them. I do agree that story/dialogue matters more than combat in this universe, but the latter is still quite important as well. Much of Bloodlines player builds were built around it, for example. The shooting was pretty weak for a shooter but still, you could do it if you wanted. The combat was about as diverse as you'd want, pretty diverse for a shooter and likewise hands on for an RPG. It was the best of both worlds.

I doubt that Obsidian can deliver production values expected of first person games.Unless Paradox is willing to invest in the project we will likely get another nostalgia cash-grab. Wot. New Vegas seemed to handle pretty well. Source 2 engine is free too, so they could use that if they wanted (although I doubt they would since Tim Cain is probably traumatized from the nightmare that was developing while S1 was still in dev). Hell, they could still use Source 2013. That engine still delivers on impressive facial animations. That's what I was wondering also. Is Source that bad to deal with that RPG makers don't want to bother with it, unless it's already modded for specific RPG elements? If it's free then I guess all that's left is the time consumed with modding and bug testing(heh).

I doubt that Obsidian can deliver production values expected of first person games.Unless Paradox is willing to invest in the project we will likely get another nostalgia cash-grab. Yeah, most likely the case. I can't say I've ever been hopeful about a Bloodlines sequel, though I've wanted one. An isometric version would be the final nail in the coffin.

Please don't ruin it by using an isometric engine. Bloodlines is one of my favorite games, but I doubt I'd even bother if it's turned into turn based gaming. The first-person immersion with the characters in a modern day city environment is one of the best things about it. Leave isometric to the medieval fantasy/D&D/post apocalyptic crowd.