Review Arcanum & Vampire: Bloodlines-- Lost Classics of Troika Games

[Roguey]

Did not watch but if he hates Bloodlines then that's cool with me because it's a bad game with bad systems and bad content and perhaps Brian ought to have stuck with making a proto-The Walking Dead.

Furthermore

 

[Burning Bridges]

If he could customize his character in VtmB it would probably look like this:

 

[Don Peste]

Please, Tim, rebuild Troika and kickstart a new game.

 

[uaciaut]

Cliched charachters and writing is one of the last things I would associate Bloodlines with.

Are you serious? Almost every character in the game is a really shallow stereotype. What saves them is the excellent voice acting giving them more personality.

Pretty much any character of any game you've ever played is cliched if you look at it with an overly critical eye, most often it's about presentation, development and depth. I never thought most of Vtm's characters were to be taken too seriously, like the guy says they present a contemporary LA in an "LA" style of presentation, most characters seem to be archetypes of people associated with LA life. But then he starts grasping at straws and whining about poorly implemented engine (which is true but not that relevant to the overall quality of the game to begin with, not unless you're really critical of graphics which doesn't seem to hold for his analysis of arcanum), player getting a naked poster of some chick in his haven (who the hell gives a fuck and what kind of idiot would say it is vital for immersion and/or realism), etc.

Basically he sees the game for what it is, with its' plot that feels like a failed-script of a hollywood has-been scriptwriter and then tries to analyze it like it's a competitor for Arcanum in seriousness, approach and story, which doesn't make sense.

And just because he wanted (like many "mature" players) the guy in the sarcophagus to be some real elder or some shit and he doesn't get to see it doesn't mean the ending's bad, i actually enjoyed the ending and thought it went well with the style of the game.

P.S. why am i seeing everyone's avatars as a pic of the same asian chick? D:

 

[clemens]

Did not watch but if he hates Bloodlines then that's cool with me because it's a bad game with bad systems and bad content and perhaps Brian ought to have stuck with making a proto-The Walking Dead.

Furthermore

*sigh* will someone finally ban fucking roguey or what ?

 

[BlackAdderBG]

This news is a trap!DO NOT WATCH THE VIDEO!

 

[Jvegi]

I wanted to write how those tweets are not just cries of an asshole who "doesn't get it", but a valid complaint about simplistic writing in video games. And some of them are valid.

Most are just cries of an asshole.

 

[Shadenuat]

There are really two problems with Bloodlines and obviously lacking character visual customization is not one of them. They are:
1) Sewers
2) Most of finishing line (jade statuettes and storming La Croix building)

So wait, you know, it's really one problem:
1) Shitty Dungeons
Replace Shitty Dungeons in Bloodlines with something on par in quality as it's more detective and exploration levels and you have great gaem
Same with Arcanum
Replace it's shitty dungeons with something better and you also get a lot better game. Even if you don't balance combat/abilities in VtM/Arcanum, unique enemies with better AI would make that less noticeable.

I'm not sure if Shitty Dungeons TM happened because Troika just didn't know when and where to cut, or because they didn't have enough money, or they needed games to have more HOURS in them, but there you have it. You feel awesum running around, but then shitty dungeons.

 

[Vibalist]

And just because he wanted (like many "mature" players) the guy in the sarcophagus to be some real elder or some shit and he doesn't get to see it doesn't mean the ending's bad, i actually enjoyed the ending and thought it went well with the style of the game.

Yeah, I agree with this. That the sarcophagus turned out to be nothing but an elaborate trap, rather than a catalyst of the apocalypse, went really well with the style of the rest of the game, where it was established time and again that vampires and their internal power struggles can be as dangerous as any exterior threat and that the main character is not necessarily a hero who is out to thwart some great evil, but just another piece on the chessboard.

I never found the ending disappointing, I found it clever. The only thing I disliked was how short the endings were. The game ended too abruptly without closure for many of its characters and such.

 

[hiver]

Does this seem like a FPS/RPG hybrid to you:

- i can never miss the opportunity to comment (and quote - repost haha) on this.

Maybe the best game of Troika never got the chance to come out huh?
So pretty. (how nicely would it run on todays rigs eh?)

Though, to be true it was supposed to have first person PoV too.
But since this is barely an alfa of slice of something, i always figured out we would managed to dissuade them from that and save tons of money-time-resources on that.

Anyone in Obsidian thinking about what they will be doing after PE, its patches and additional content, plus those other games they might be doing?
No, seriously. Just get Boyarsky cause, he probably did everything he could for D3 already, - either on some short term contract or maybe even full position (as much as that exists i the business anyway)
And then you move Tim in some basement room, stop paying him and just leave him alone for several months. Then after that slowly let others going in to see whats going on and then, if they want chip in freely, after hours and instead of sleeping and so on.


I mean seriously. Do it.

 

[Murk]

Look man if you're going to put a fucking camera on top of your fridge then at least clean that shit so I don't have to stare at a stain of god knows what.

 

[snoek]

ohh Arcanum... as soon as I hear those violins I'm back there

 

[Clockwork Knight]

Kat Chatstain

Who's that? Googling her name only brings circlejerking twitter / tumblr / facebook posts.

 

[Raghar]

(and it's only a bizarre stroke of luck that Nines survives the werewolves

He killed his own werewolf. Do you remember the head in one ending?

 

[Lhynn]

I love bloodlines, got nothing against a sexy cliched story about the night of LA in a fictional setting where blood is the main currency. Stupid fucking highbrow shits ruin it for everybody i tell you, they forget that a game is supposed to be fun(usually), and they criticize stuff because its not to their taste, instead of doing it by the products own merit.
At no point did that retard bring up the excellent atmosphere on bloodlines, or the rich environments, the sense of a living breathing town that had its scene long before you got there.

And someone tell that fucking retard that vampires are meant to be sexualized, they are meant to be shallow husks, that is their fucking tragedy.

 

[Irenaeus]

Dude is a fucking idiot

 

[Azrael the cat]

(and it's only a bizarre stroke of luck that Nines survives the werewolves

He killed his own werewolf. Do you remember the head in one ending?

I remember it, but Nine's own shit-scared reaction indicates that it wasn't exactly the likely outcome (and he's messed up to the point that he's taken out of the Camarilla v Anarchs fight; even with Isaac getting the rest of the Anarchs to go all-out offensive, the best they can do is start enough shit to buy the player cover).

 

[Commissar Draco]

Isaac Abrams that's was a Yid, He also didn't even mentioned Max Strauss another well flashed and NPC but went straight after TITS; All those White Knight Mangina Hipsters are perverts deep inside.

 

[SophosTheWise]

I love bloodlines, got nothing against a sexy cliched story about the night of LA in a fictional setting where blood is the main currency. Stupid fucking highbrow shits ruin it for everybody i tell you, they forget that a game is supposed to be fun(usually), and they criticize stuff because its not to their taste, instead of doing it by the products own merit.

1.) No it does not necessarily. It only ruins the fun if it's badly done. You can have absolutely stellar writing in games, as proven by The Chinese Room. Of course their games are not meant to have a linear narrative, so it's probably not possible to transpose their writing 1:1 on an RPG. But it simply serves as an example. Good and literary writing is possible, it simply takes a lot of work. Writing is not only the aesthetic of it (though it's a big part), it's also content. Highbrow doesn't mean that every character is inwardly disintegrated. It means that their motivations are meaningful and not simplistic. To achieve that takes more than just a creative writing class.

2.) What does "the products own merit" even mean. Why do we drool on reviewing games "objectively" while knowing that reviewing any cultural product is not in any way quantifiable? Man, I hate those percentage-grading. It's stupid beyond belief. Every reception of a cultural product is subjective, hell even looking at it is an act of a subject. Find the guys that you can agree with, find the guys that offer interesting thoughts on a subject and read their reviews. Not some pseudo-objective idiots.

 

[Lhynn]

1.) No it does not necessarily. It only ruins the fun if it's badly done. You can have absolutely stellar writing in games, as proven by The Chinese Room. Of course their games are not meant to have a linear narrative, so it's probably not possible to transpose their writing 1:1 on an RPG. But it simply serves as an example. Good and literary writing is possible, it simply takes a lot of work. Writing is not only the aesthetic of it (though it's a big part), it's also content. Highbrow doesn't mean that every character is inwardly disintegrated. It means that their motivations are meaningful and not simplistic. To achieve that takes more than just a creative writing class.

2.) What does "the products own merit" even mean. Why do we drool on reviewing games "objectively" while knowing that reviewing any cultural product is not in any way quantifiable? Man, I hate those percentage-grading. It's stupid beyond belief. Every reception of a cultural product is subjective, hell even looking at it is an act of a subject. Find the guys that you can agree with, find the guys that offer interesting thoughts on a subject and read their reviews. Not some pseudo-objective idiots.

1) when talking about highbrow shits i meant that kind of gamers, you shit.
2) who was talking about reviews? if you are going to criticize a product, any product, you need to be objective. calling it sexy and cliched and saying those things are bad because they hurt your sensibilities is not being fucking objective, its being fucking daft and thinking you are too clever. Weapons not being balanced because unarmed progression is linear and guns starting being shit and then becoming great it late game is also good design, having both weapons kind of being the same trough the game would be shit design, also boring. Not everything is subjective, there are things that are shit, and things that arent shit, and im an objective prick, so if you need an unbiased idiot am the guy. As an example, attack of the clones was shit, it was universally thought of as shit, bland, boring, slow piece of shit, the empire strikes back was good, it is not the subjective opinion of a single jerk, it is the universal consensus, because that movie has been seen from start to finish several times and people with no life have been breaking it appart to identify whats so good about it, make a list and show it to film makers for them to try to imitate to a degree.
The fact that you believe objectivity does not exist and that you should only hear the opinions of people that agree with you has to be the dumbest motherfucking thing ive read this week, and ive been on youtube recently.

 

[Roguey]

Kat Chatstain

Who's that? Googling her name only brings circlejerking twitter / tumblr / facebook posts.

A non-passing transwoman indie game developer.

 

[SophosTheWise]

1.) No it does not necessarily. It only ruins the fun if it's badly done. You can have absolutely stellar writing in games, as proven by The Chinese Room. Of course their games are not meant to have a linear narrative, so it's probably not possible to transpose their writing 1:1 on an RPG. But it simply serves as an example. Good and literary writing is possible, it simply takes a lot of work. Writing is not only the aesthetic of it (though it's a big part), it's also content. Highbrow doesn't mean that every character is inwardly disintegrated. It means that their motivations are meaningful and not simplistic. To achieve that takes more than just a creative writing class.

2.) What does "the products own merit" even mean. Why do we drool on reviewing games "objectively" while knowing that reviewing any cultural product is not in any way quantifiable? Man, I hate those percentage-grading. It's stupid beyond belief. Every reception of a cultural product is subjective, hell even looking at it is an act of a subject. Find the guys that you can agree with, find the guys that offer interesting thoughts on a subject and read their reviews. Not some pseudo-objective idiots.

1) when talking about highbrow shits i meant that kind of gamers, you shit.
2) who was talking about reviews? if you are going to criticize a product, any product, you need to be objective. calling it sexy and cliched and saying those things are bad because they hurt your sensibilities is not being fucking objective, its being fucking daft and thinking you are too clever. Weapons not being balanced because unarmed progression is linear and guns starting being shit and then becoming great it late game is also good design, having both weapons kind of being the same trough the game would be shit design, also boring. Not everything is subjective, there are things that are shit, and things that arent shit, and im an objective prick, so if you need an unbiased idiot am the guy. As an example, attack of the clones was shit, it was universally thought of as shit, bland, boring, slow piece of shit, the empire strikes back was good, it is not the subjective opinion of a single jerk, it is the universal consensus, because that movie has been seen from start to finish several times and people with no life have been breaking it appart to identify whats so good about it, make a list and show it to film makers for them to try to imitate to a degree.
The fact that you believe objectivity does not exist and that you should only hear the opinions of people that agree with you has to be the dumbest motherfucking thing ive read this week, and ive been on youtube recently.

Hail, King of Overreaction!

1.) I do not understand what you want to say here. Being a little bit clear would help.
2.) You were talking about criticizing a product, weren't you? In context of gaming, that often means review, be it user reviews or critic reviews. Once again, objectivity does not exist. One reason being that you are a subject who is observing something. If a subject is observing something through its own eyes and its senses, it's subjective. It's not exactly a controversial philosophical subject, honestly. Of course you're probably labelling this idea as pretentious shit, but it's worth thinking about it. Also, reviewers who believe they're objective are either full of shit or stupid. Also you're confusing universal consensus with objectivity. Universal consensus (which does never, ever exist. A more or less general consensus does) is a bundle of subjective opinions (think Hume's bundle theory, maybe?) which happen to coincide and which probably influence themselves.
3.) I did not say that you should only listen to people who agree with you. What I meant, and maybe it was poorly phrased the first time (apologies, I'm not a native speaker) that people who tend to think the same way (not contentwise but thought-structure-wise (don't know how to properly phrase that, sry)) can probably give a better insight into the way you're probably going to play and experience the game. Secondly, find the guys with interesting thoughts, that may add to your own "classification" an perception of a game.

 

[Grotesque]

No, seriously. Just get Boyarsky cause, he probably did everything he could for D3 already, - either on some short term contract or maybe even full position.

Boyarsky Leonard is held captive in the Blizzard basement while 3 bitches suck on his dick and an asian midget regularly injects him with heroin so once a week he could scribble for two seconds also a story for the expansion for Diablo 3.


After Boyarsky completed the Troika saga I bet he doesn't want to hear anything about conducting the economic side of a business/game anymore, not now and not in his life - ever.

 

[Rake]

the empire strikes back Skyrim was good, it is not the subjective opinion of a single jerk, it is the universal consensus

.

I just want to leave that sitting here. I don't disagree with the general idea of what you said, but the mass consensus means shit

 

[Lhynn]

Hail, King of Overreaction!

1.) I do not understand what you want to say here. Being a little bit clear would help.
2.) You were talking about criticizing a product, weren't you? In context of gaming, that often means review, be it user reviews or critic reviews. Once again, objectivity does not exist. One reason being that you are a subject who is observing something. If a subject is observing something through its own eyes and its senses, it's subjective. It's not exactly a controversial philosophical subject, honestly. Of course you're probably labelling this idea as pretentious shit, but it's worth thinking about it. Also, reviewers who believe they're objective are either full of shit or stupid. Also you're confusing universal consensus with objectivity. Universal consensus (which does never, ever exist. A more or less general consensus does) is a bundle of subjective opinions (think Hume's bundle theory, maybe?) which happen to coincide and which probably influence themselves.
3.) I did not say that you should only listen to people who agree with you. What I meant, and maybe it was poorly phrased the first time (apologies, I'm not a native speaker) that people who tend to think the same way (not contentwise but thought-structure-wise (don't know how to properly phrase that, sry)) can probably give a better insight into the way you're probably going to play and experience the game. Secondly, find the guys with interesting thoughts, that may add to your own "classification" an perception of a game.

Shit as an adjective, as in you are "shit for being highbrow and being uncapable of apretiating anything that isnt to your particular brand of tastes", and ruining it for everyone that does not agree to your apretiation of the subject matter. The dude is shit because he thinks bloodlines being immature is a bad thing, he is incapable of apretiating stuff he does not like, he cant see how some people would like it.

Universal consensus is that when you die and 20 years pass, chances are you wont be farting, universal consensus is that gravity exist, universal consensus is what we like to call facts.
The things the dude pointed out in his vid video where either stuff thats been talked about to death, without bringing anything new to the table OR personal preference. Neither of which is particularly interesting to me or anyone that is looking for an objective innovative contribution to the subject matter.

No, no, no, the best way to understand what is good and what isnt is to listen to people you normally disagree with, to get a fresh point of view. Some games, movies, books, i didnt like, but that didnt mean they were bad, identifying whats so good about them even if the final product is not particularly enjoyable to me is something that im interested in.
Why the fuck would i listen to someone with similar tastes to my own and my same point of view? to listen to what i already know? to look for some validation on my way of thinking? to have someone decide for me what i should buy? that is pathetic.

Rake there is a difference between popular consensus and universal consensus. and yes, skyrim was good and incline when compared to its predecesor. the writing was shit, the world too small, the characterization awful, the combat not particularly good. But all in all it was an enjoyable experience when modded (yes, i know, its not a valid thing if you gotta mod it, but its the only way to judge it without shitting all over it and calling it a day).