aluminiumtrioxid

It worked in the Witcher series, in Alpha Protocol, in Mass Effect, in PST... making a C&C-heavy game with lots of factional intrigue that sells itself on the strength of its writing (which it would need to, otherwise the whole factional intrigue/social interaction focus simply doesn't work) is already hard enough without having to worry about ways to plug the PC into the whole mess and how to make certain disciplines work.

Obviously I'm not advocating for a complete adaptation of the rules, that would be stupid. But maybe saying "this discipline that about half the clans has doesn't actually do what it's supposed to do, unless you're a member of a very specific clan", or "**** it, figuring out ways for investigative/social/utility disciplines to be actually useful in the game is hard, let's change them so they let you kill people even faster" is equally stupid. I mean, sure, I get why they did it (combat content is cheap to make and yields a better "time investment on part of the designer"/"time investment for the player to get through it" ratio, not to mention that the publisher would've thrown a ****fit of epic proportions if they saw they were making a proper Vampire game with a heavy focus on intrigue and social interactions at the expense of monster-filled sewer levels), but that doesn't make it a good adaptation. So you you're just cherrypicking? No, I'm saying they did a **** job of actually adapting the ruleset to the realities and needs of computer gaming while preserving the spirit of the original. I'm curious how would you have made it, keep in mind that every feature is a timesink and that you have limited production time and resources. I probably would've gone with a fixed protagonist in the vein of Witcher, which neatly sidesteps the issue of hard-to-adapt disciplines (just pick a clan with fairly straightforward stuff). The core idea of the game is extremely solid (there's a plot that kinda looks like it's going to have apocalyptic consequences, but in reality, it's very mundane and limited in scope). I'd probably have put a much bigger emphasis on factions, intrigue and social interaction (with the disciplines that heavily lean on those seeing a ton of opportunities for play), and the player's choices fundamentally shaping the outcome of events like in Alpha Protocol. Of course, back when Bloodlines came out, none of the games that pretty much introduced these concepts to CRPGs have existed, so realistically, most of them wouldn't have had occurred to me. I really don't want to give the impression that I think Bloodlines' production was fundamentally botched. But with the development of the medium and better tools at our disposal today, I'd definitely expect a more faithful adaptation if there ever was a Bloodlines 2.

Obviously I'm not advocating for a complete adaptation of the rules, that would be stupid. But maybe saying "this discipline that about half the clans has doesn't actually do what it's supposed to do, unless you're a member of a very specific clan", or "**** it, figuring out ways for investigative/social/utility disciplines to be actually useful in the game is hard, let's change them so they let you kill people even faster" is equally stupid. I mean, sure, I get why they did it (combat content is cheap to make and yields a better "time investment on part of the designer"/"time investment for the player to get through it" ratio, not to mention that the publisher would've thrown a ****fit of epic proportions if they saw they were making a proper Vampire game with a heavy focus on intrigue and social interactions at the expense of monster-filled sewer levels), but that doesn't make it a good adaptation. So you you're just cherrypicking? No, I'm saying they did a **** job of actually adapting the ruleset to the realities and needs of computer gaming while preserving the spirit of the original. I mean, ****, Bloodlines probably has a worse talky bits to killy bits ratio than PST, which is fundamentally a D&D-adaptation. A game adapted from a system centered around killing things and taking their stuff offered more opportunities for roleplaying and social interaction than the game adapted from Vampire, the granddaddy of intrigue-based tabletop RPGs? Doesn't that sound ass-backwards to you?

Obviously I'm not advocating for a complete adaptation of the rules, that would be stupid. But maybe saying "this discipline that about half the clans has doesn't actually do what it's supposed to do, unless you're a member of a very specific clan", or "**** it, figuring out ways for investigative/social/utility disciplines to be actually useful in the game is hard, let's change them so they let you kill people even faster" is equally stupid. I mean, sure, I get why they did it (combat content is cheap to make and yields a better "time investment on part of the designer"/"time investment for the player to get through it" ratio, not to mention that the publisher would've thrown a ****fit of epic proportions if they saw they were making a proper Vampire game with a heavy focus on intrigue and social interactions at the expense of monster-filled sewer levels), but that doesn't make it a good adaptation. On the other hand, as a long-time Numenera player, I can actually say with some confidence that from what we've seen so far, TToN is remarkably faithful to the spirit of the ruleset that spawned it.

Ayupp, the 20th anniversary edition and following products assume the Gehenna and much of the events leading up to it never happened.

So you don't really want a Vampire RPG. What is the point of making a game with known IP if you just change everything? Just a money grab. You don't need to change anything to make the game balanced, you need to design your game around the diverging capabilities different clans bring to the table. Refraining from pointlessly changing how the system works in the name of maximized killing capacity for everybody like Bloodlines did would be a start. I don't think you would be a good game designer. I'm sorry, what? The changed disciplines in Bloodlines were a ****ing travesty, not to mention the gaping plothole it caused (namely that in-universe, pretty much every fledgling with Obfuscate 3 can replicate the "I am Nines Rodriguez" trick, thus making his appearance at the dead Primogen's estate an extremely flimsy casus belli). Bloodlines was a decent game (and more importantly, it worked as a horror rpg), but a good Vampire adaptation it ain't. I get that you're a fussy cat but you must understand that tabletop doesn't translate well to video game. Asking for it just shows a lack of understanding of game development and the limitations of production and the medium. *cough* InXile seems to think otherwise. Maybe you've heard of this cool new game called Torment: Tides of Numenera? But I'm sure your game designer experience and insight is much more valuable than theirs.

Oh, that is just precious Weirdly, he is right in many places, but where he goes wrong is the idea that being a "social justice stormtrooper" is an inherently worthy pursuit.

Actually, Requiem has Malkavians (they're a bloodline). Also, Paradox has the rights to both old and new World of Darkness, so if a Vampire game were to be made, I'd wager it'd be more likely to use Masquerade's systems because brand recognition yadda yadda. Requiem's system is kinda retarded though. Reducing Malkavians to a bloodline instead of a clan... ew. Also Paradox probably wants to use videogames as a way to make the PnP game more popular, hence it'd make sense for them to use Requiem instead of Masquerade since that's the current version. Requiem's clans represent fictional vampire archetypes. You have your misshapen monsters (Nosferatu), feral hunters (Gangrel), alluring seducers (Daeva), regal rulers (Ventrue) and sneaky predators (Mehket). "Mad vampire" is simply not a robust enough fictional niche to be on par with these; thus, bloodline. You do realize that currently both Masquerade and Requiem are ongoing lines with products printed for both, right? Moreover, that a new edition of Masquerade is already being worked on?

Actually, Requiem has Malkavians (they're a bloodline). Also, Paradox has the rights to both old and new World of Darkness, so if a Vampire game were to be made, I'd wager it'd be more likely to use Masquerade's systems because brand recognition yadda yadda. Wow, such a perfect summary of Masquerade.

I hear Life is Strange is pretty good on the "your choices actually matter" front. It's not like the medium is inextricably tied to weaknesses of one particular studio's take on it.

I doubt that Obsidian can deliver production values expected of first person games. Yeah, that's the thing I'm most concerned about as well. Frankly, I think a lot of WoD properties are better suited to the Telltale treatment than to CRPG conversion, but I suppose something in the vein of Tides of Numenera could work.

So you don't really want a Vampire RPG. What is the point of making a game with known IP if you just change everything? Just a money grab. You don't need to change anything to make the game balanced, you need to design your game around the diverging capabilities different clans bring to the table. Refraining from pointlessly changing how the system works in the name of maximized killing capacity for everybody like Bloodlines did would be a start. I don't think you would be a good game designer. I'm sorry, what? The changed disciplines in Bloodlines were a ****ing travesty, not to mention the gaping plothole it caused (namely that in-universe, pretty much every fledgling with Obfuscate 3 can replicate the "I am Nines Rodriguez" trick, thus making his appearance at the dead Primogen's estate an extremely flimsy casus belli). Bloodlines was a decent game (and more importantly, it worked as a horror rpg), but a good Vampire adaptation it ain't.

So you don't really want a Vampire RPG. What is the point of making a game with known IP if you just change everything? Just a money grab. You don't need to change anything to make the game balanced, you need to design your game around the diverging capabilities different clans bring to the table. Refraining from pointlessly changing how the system works in the name of maximized killing capacity for everybody like Bloodlines did would be a start.

By... having relative parity between character options? How terrible that would be, indeed. The problem with the constant combat balance in PoE was that Sawyer made everything equally awful, instead of everything equally OP and fun. How lucky that in an even halfway competently done Vampire game, combat shouldn't really happen all that often to merit an obsession with broad lists of character options that need to be meticulously balanced against each other.

By... having relative parity between character options? How terrible that would be, indeed.

Dunno about you, but I'd rather have a balanced Vampire RPG than one that isn't.

It's a valid observation, although I wouldn't phrase it as "Masquerade has more soul". More like "Requiem gives you the perfect toolbox to craft your own vampire story, while Masquerade tells its own specific vampire story which has these weird gonzo elements I personally find somewhat jarring". And of course there's the mechanical superiority bit. Requiem 2E is a thing of sublime beauty on that front.

Heresy. But... it really is? Requiem is exactly like Masquerade without the stupid cruft built up around it that's completely incongrous with the emulated genre (ninjavampires! fairy vampires! tentacle-y shadow rape monster vampires! Masquerade has ****ing Time Lord vampires for ****'s sakes.) Forsaken is about badass occult investigators instead of furry ecoterrorists. Awakening... okay it's totally a personal taste thing, but Ascension's mix of pretentious "your beliefs shape the world" wankery and shallow "rawr rawr fight the system" punk ethos drives me insane, so a Mage game without those is extremely welcome, even though going by the core only, it can seem a little bland. The fact that it's actually capable of delivering horror and mechanically a ton more sound than Ascension's "PHENOMENAL COSMIC POWER... itty-bitty dice pools" spellcasting system are just icing on the cake. Changeling: the Lost is a Changeling game I actually want to play, so it would win over Dreaming even if it was nothing more than that, but it also manages to be possibly the best game in the nWoD lineup. It's wondrous and horrifying and beautiful. Wraith doesn't really have a nWoD analogue but it's nigh-unplayable anyway, so there's that. I mean, I like Wraith, but its sorta-kinda successor, Geist, works far better as an actual game you sit down to play with your friends as opposed to read occasionally and sigh wistfully for sessions that will never be. Unless your friends are really into goth stuff and wrist-slitting, I guess?

Actually, you're right. Trinity and Scion are owned by OPP. As far as I know, this is the full extent of properties actually owned by them, though. On the other hand, this means all other stuff is fair game, and all the other stuff is really, really high quality. A game based on Demon: the Descent ("a roleplaying game of techgnostic espionage"), for example, could satisfy my yearning for an unofficial Alpha Protocol sequel, just for starters...

DO WANT. I'm not even that excited about the possibility of a Bloodlines sequel, actually. If I'm reading this right, they acquired the rights to all White Wolf properties, including the - IMHO vastly superior - new World of Darkness line, the Trinity continuum (a superhero RPG with mature storytelling done by Obsidian? yes please.), frikkin' Exalted... oh boy. Nerdgasm imminent.

My feelings are hurt, post reported. TN, escort that white cishet-****lord out of this forum. He doesn't need to be your audience anymore. Donate to my patreon. No, but seriously. According to your post, your main problem with people who - according to you, but let's accept the idea for the sake of argument - want to change society from top-down and with force is that these particular people can't accept an objective morality to base their views on. Which implies that others who'd want to do the same, ie. change society with force, but do this while accepting the idea of objective morality - however wrong-headed their particular version of such might be - are completely fine as far as you're concerned. "One of the most insanely idiotic things I've ever heard" doesn't even begin to cover it.

Irony. Taking one paragraph out of its context and treat it as a point in itself. Very good, have you ever considered entering the field of Journalism? I'm hardly well versed in the various views of the members of the Frankfurt school but from what I understand many of their critiques centred around the fact that capitalism commodifies everything; music, art, fashion and so on are all subject to the process of mechanical reproduction, wherein they are stripped of any meaning or originality and reduced to mere products of consumption leaving society with a "vulgar" and "degenerate" culture bereft of any kind of meaning or originality. ...Do you seriously expect somebody who honestly believes the Frankfurt School is the root of society's ills to be actually familiar with the Frankfurt School's actual philosophy?

I can not believe you just said all that. 1. What is expected is a bare minimum. Stay quiet, if you can't be sympathetic. 2. The authenticity of their beliefs excuses nothing. Some people believe you need to have your head cut off because you don't believe what they believe. To them it's a serious thing too. This is not a conversation reasonable people should even be having. I will not treat anyone who gloats at a man with a terminal disease over some petty internet squabbles as anything other than a piece of sh*t. I will also at this point not entertain the arguments to the supposed seriousness of anything John Bain has ever done that would deserve such treatment under any context due to their abject lunacy. Yeah. I mean, what the hell. I find TB to be a deeply clueless man whose insights even in his supposed field of expertise are shallow and superficial at best, and who regularly wastes his audience's time with using ten words when even one would suffice. But terminal cancer is an inexorably advancing, extremely painful form of death. Nobody deserves that. Not even people with far more serious "sins" than being clueless and insensitive.

You actually make it sound like a decent game! Now, I tried the demo and walked off decidedly unimpressed due to the terrible graphics and the fact that the only thing making me yawn more intensely than post-apocalyptic environments is pseudo-Roman environments. Also, I found the writing to be not strong enough to compensate for these - admittedly largely subjective - shortcomings. So, does it get better later on?