Paradox has bought White Wolf, plans on giving "some fresh blood" to the WoD/Vampire IPs

[Ninjerk]

Cockring DLC

 

[Lacrymas]

It's paradox, of course they are doing it for the money

The one thing I don't get is why they think they can sell a lot of stuff with the WoD name if they are doing it for the money. Is it very popular? I'm genuinely not informed about the numbers. Considering Bloodlines sold something like 70 000 copies.

 

[Irenaeus II]

They could do some cosmetic changes in CK2 and release it as Vampire Princes.

 

[Roguey]

The one thing I don't get is why they think they can sell a lot of stuff with the WoD name if they are doing it for the money. Is it very popular? I'm genuinely not informed about the numbers. Considering Bloodlines sold something like 70 000 copies.

Did well enough over time, enough to believe something that's actually good with a modest budget would sell decently enough within a few months http://steamspy.com/app/2600

 

[Xor]

I can't think of any studio I actually trust to develop a true successor to Bloodlines. This can only end in tragedy.

 

[Lacrymas]

Did well enough over time, enough to believe something that's actually good with a modest budget would sell decently enough within a few months http://steamspy.com/app/2600

Huh, almost 500k copies isn't bad and that's only on Steam.

Now I'm pretty sure it will sell, because a lot of people (obviously) get wet over anything WoD related. What they are going to do with it is the question mark above all this. I don't trust Obsidian to do it justice, soooo, like Xor said, this can only end in tragedy. I'm 99% certain they are going to go with the Vampire ruleset. I doubt they are going to do something VtM: Redemption style, so the only guess I have is an inferior and mainstreamized-to-the-point-of-idiocy Bloodlines.

 

[Roguey]

There was nothing good about Bloodlines's gamplay nor was there anything particularly great about its writing.

 

[Kem0sabe]

The one thing I don't get is why they think they can sell a lot of stuff with the WoD name if they are doing it for the money. Is it very popular? I'm genuinely not informed about the numbers. Considering Bloodlines sold something like 70 000 copies.

Marketing. Remember when no one remembered what syndicate was but then that fps got huge coverage because mainstream sites told gamers that they should feel nostalgic for something most of them never played.

You can bet that paradox will be pulling every pr trick they can to make sure people know that WoD is something they should be excited about.

 

[Lacrymas]

There was nothing good about Bloodlines's gamplay nor was there anything particularly great about its writing.

Then you can imagine how awful Paradox's attempt is going to be.

 

[Infinitron]

I see people still don't get that Paradox owning White Wolf doesn't mean that future World of Darkness games are going to be Paradox games.

 

[Irenaeus II]

There was nothing good about Bloodlines's gamplay nor was there anything particularly great about its writing.

 

[Hegel]

I'd love to play a Vampire game, however very few people are informed of this abyssal nerdish trait which, if publicly acknowledged, would demean and lower my standing among my peers.

 

[Lacrymas]

What made VtM:B good is the context of the lore. It also had above-average writing for the industry. Vampire has neat ideas that can be explored in general and that is what Troika used. A Gothic setting ripe for philosophical debate, interesting history, somewhat complicated politics, huge span of time etc. It also had Nosferatu and Malkavian :p I thought the other clans were a bit underdeveloped, especially Toreador (compared to Malkavian and Nosferatu that is). So, yeah, the good thing about the game comes from outside of it :p

 

[Azrael the cat]

I find it hard to believe the ending wasn't truncated in some way. It happens to almost every RPG, and Bloodlines is one of the more notorious cases of a troubled development cycle Obsidian Entertainment.

Lol.

---

Joking aside, though, I think the game development/management philosophy of linearly going from the start of the game to the end is not working. Completely excusing who is at fault, there is always going to be trouble at the end of development. What do they call it - the grind? One example of trouble could be just some random, extraneous wrench that gets thrown in the gear at the end of development. Another example of trouble is simply underestimating how long it would take to finish the game. To be honest this happens when you're a kid in grade school... you know, that rush at the last minute to get things done? (And I don't mean procrastination).

One key concept is the "safety factor." This is a term I know from mech. engineering, and maybe a synonym would be "padding." When designing something, you first decide at what amount of stress and/or at what duration of use your intended product will fail. Then you multiply those required values by a "safety factor" of, say, 3. This is for decreasing risk as much as possible/feasible. While a design based on a the original values theoretically should work as you planned... Well, theory != just as planned. So if you don't have some padding, some safety factor, for your development time - that your milestones are exactly based on when things are due, then you take a massive risk. And if you did have padding... it probably wasn't enough. Cost effectiveness, I don't think is decreased. You spend more time and resources at the beginning, then you can (hopefully) tone things down as you near the end. Moreover, you'll likely end up with a better product which will sell better.

Shit, when I managed some team projects, I would lie to my team about when the my uppers wanted things due LOL.

Now, I actually mentioned first that developing in a linear fashion may not be the best method. At least, it's not the only method. Sure, a novel writer may have more flexibility in time, depending on how much ramen he can afford. But game developers have a time limit. Obviously, if you design the endgame last, your endgame is going to run into the time limit instead of your introduction. Almost every gamer can all see that the endgame is very important. But it's not just about gaming. The "stages" of a game are not that different from simple literary elements. You have an introduction/exposition where it is very important to "hook" the audience. You then you have a series of escalating problems that eventually lead to the climax. Then you have a resolution and some events that lead to the resolution.

Well, in a game, several of these are more important than the others, and the pacing is a bit different than a book. (A) The introduction is clearly important as fuck, no need to explain. (B) The climax of a game is typically the most important experience to the gamer, and in a game it typically is just before the ending of the game. I would say that while the escalation to the climax is important, the climax is more important. The only bottom line is that you don't want the escalation to bore, annoy, or other-wise turn off the gamer. (C) The resolution/ending itself is less important than the climax, but only to a moderate degree. The stuff between the climax and the resolution typically are short or almost don't exist in a game. Because it's not really gameplay.

The above leads to the conclusion: The most important parts of the game are the beginning, the very-near-the-end climax, and the ending. (Again I say most important, not at all that the rest of the game is unimportant). Now, this is what happens in a linear philosophy: beginning -> mid-beginning -> mid-game -> unexpected shit happens/development is slower than expected -> less time available for mid-end game -> climax suffers & ending suffers.

So why not a priority system instead? Rough example: develop beginning & begin preliminary design of climax -> finish design of beginning and "insert the alpha" into game, design most of the middish-game, design climax further -> finish design and and "insert the alpha" of the mid- and climax/endgame simultaneously (in a perfect world).

In that example, you still up implementing the endgame near the end of development... but you begin the design of the end early and you heavily work on the design of the end throughout the process. My perception could be wrong, but I perceive developers not emphasizing the game development of the climax and the ending enough. The gamer has a great time when he plays the game, true that experience slowly gets worse...





And then you have a sewers level.

I always figured the 'rushed ending' trend had nothing to do with games being developed in linear start-to-finish order (to my knowledge, that isn't what happens anyway), and everything to do with linear 'highest priority to lowest priority' development. The start is what the reviewers are going to play, and that's going to be what sells the game. Most players won't reach the end, almost no reviewers will reach the end during their review play-through, and by the time news of an awful/rushed ending gets out the peak buying period is over. Especially tempting if you're working on a publisher contract, where you don't get a cut of the long-term sales anyway, only a bonus dependent on the sales for the first 2 weeks.

 

[Beastro]

The new Onyx Path books are terrible so I really hope we don't wind up with them drawing on the upcoming Vampire "4e" that's set after a Gehenna that somehow doesn't end the world (What is event the point?).

Could work if it focuses on a wrecked, spent Earth inhabited by what few managed to survive but are left to slowly fade out in a irreversibly fucked world. Brings to mind the future setting of Chrono Trigger where you can see what happens if you fail to stop the big bad in it.

While the previous setting revolved around the End of the World always been around the corner, now it's over and done with and those left are just struggling being the last embers knowing they'll all fade, but struggling to be the last.

The challenge would be to limit the setting and not allow it to drag on at all or have too large a plot (since there's nothing left to fight for besides base survival ) it would totally undermine the thematic point of it.

In the end I do agree it's a setting that's the rare one in bad need of a reboot, if only to free the lore from the corner it got worked in, of which there are several trapping it.

I'd love to play a Vampire game, however very few people are informed of this abyssal nerdish trait which, if publicly acknowledged, would demean and lower my standing among my peers.

What made VtM:B good is the context of the lore. It also had above-average writing for the industry. Vampire has neat ideas that can be explored in general and that is what Troika used. A Gothic setting ripe for philosophical debate, interesting history, somewhat complicated politics, huge span of time etc. It also had Nosferatu and Malkavian :p I thought the other clans were a bit underdeveloped, especially Toreador (compared to Malkavian and Nosferatu that is). So, yeah, the good thing about the game comes from outside of it :p

The issue is "they can be fun games, so long as they avoid the usual stereotypes and railroading Vampires get shoved into that now includes multiple types that are all shit.

Toreador are underdeveloped because most of what they are is just the hot, captivating vampire stereotype while Nosferatu looked into the old fashion, but under appreciated pariah vampire and took a look at how they'd act and behave as a group and as individuals in the modern world, while Malkavians are a fairly fresh take on vampires all together that had a neat take on having a scientist stuck with supernatural madness still sticking to his craft and looking at everything with a sceptical eye.

Also note those two do things that most Vampire settings fail to do and that is to stick on them very overt downsides to being vampires that can't be easily glossed over. If anything, Vampires and other supernatural settings fall easily into the trap where a supposed curse has no downsides in much the same way in Pillars of Eternity you're told your Watcher powers are a death sentence, and yet you only enjoy benefits playing through the entire game.

Even then, in a game like VtMB, even Malkavians have no downside as their madness angle is played up too much as being a greater insight into the world around them that undermines the would be curse they suffer under. It works in the game and for laughs, but in the end it makes them just a new refreshing kind of "cool" vampire, and cool vampires were old by the time Dracula was in his heyday on the silver screen.

I'm not saying all vampires should be as fucked as Nosferatu, but the downsides to other clans should have as much verisimilitude as their monstrous appearance.

 

[Mangoose]

I find it hard to believe the ending wasn't truncated in some way. It happens to almost every RPG, and Bloodlines is one of the more notorious cases of a troubled development cycle Obsidian Entertainment.

Lol.

---

Joking aside, though, I think the game development/management philosophy of linearly going from the start of the game to the end is not working. Completely excusing who is at fault, there is always going to be trouble at the end of development. What do they call it - the grind? One example of trouble could be just some random, extraneous wrench that gets thrown in the gear at the end of development. Another example of trouble is simply underestimating how long it would take to finish the game. To be honest this happens when you're a kid in grade school... you know, that rush at the last minute to get things done? (And I don't mean procrastination).

One key concept is the "safety factor." This is a term I know from mech. engineering, and maybe a synonym would be "padding." When designing something, you first decide at what amount of stress and/or at what duration of use your intended product will fail. Then you multiply those required values by a "safety factor" of, say, 3. This is for decreasing risk as much as possible/feasible. While a design based on a the original values theoretically should work as you planned... Well, theory != just as planned. So if you don't have some padding, some safety factor, for your development time - that your milestones are exactly based on when things are due, then you take a massive risk. And if you did have padding... it probably wasn't enough. Cost effectiveness, I don't think is decreased. You spend more time and resources at the beginning, then you can (hopefully) tone things down as you near the end. Moreover, you'll likely end up with a better product which will sell better.

Shit, when I managed some team projects, I would lie to my team about when the my uppers wanted things due LOL.

Now, I actually mentioned first that developing in a linear fashion may not be the best method. At least, it's not the only method. Sure, a novel writer may have more flexibility in time, depending on how much ramen he can afford. But game developers have a time limit. Obviously, if you design the endgame last, your endgame is going to run into the time limit instead of your introduction. Almost every gamer can all see that the endgame is very important. But it's not just about gaming. The "stages" of a game are not that different from simple literary elements. You have an introduction/exposition where it is very important to "hook" the audience. You then you have a series of escalating problems that eventually lead to the climax. Then you have a resolution and some events that lead to the resolution.

Well, in a game, several of these are more important than the others, and the pacing is a bit different than a book. (A) The introduction is clearly important as fuck, no need to explain. (B) The climax of a game is typically the most important experience to the gamer, and in a game it typically is just before the ending of the game. I would say that while the escalation to the climax is important, the climax is more important. The only bottom line is that you don't want the escalation to bore, annoy, or other-wise turn off the gamer. (C) The resolution/ending itself is less important than the climax, but only to a moderate degree. The stuff between the climax and the resolution typically are short or almost don't exist in a game. Because it's not really gameplay.

The above leads to the conclusion: The most important parts of the game are the beginning, the very-near-the-end climax, and the ending. (Again I say most important, not at all that the rest of the game is unimportant). Now, this is what happens in a linear philosophy: beginning -> mid-beginning -> mid-game -> unexpected shit happens/development is slower than expected -> less time available for mid-end game -> climax suffers & ending suffers.

So why not a priority system instead? Rough example: develop beginning & begin preliminary design of climax -> finish design of beginning and "insert the alpha" into game, design most of the middish-game, design climax further -> finish design and and "insert the alpha" of the mid- and climax/endgame simultaneously (in a perfect world).

In that example, you still up implementing the endgame near the end of development... but you begin the design of the end early and you heavily work on the design of the end throughout the process. My perception could be wrong, but I perceive developers not emphasizing the game development of the climax and the ending enough. The gamer has a great time when he plays the game, true that experience slowly gets worse...





And then you have a sewers level.

I always figured the 'rushed ending' trend had nothing to do with games being developed in linear start-to-finish order (to my knowledge, that isn't what happens anyway), and everything to do with linear 'highest priority to lowest priority' development. The start is what the reviewers are going to play, and that's going to be what sells the game. Most players won't reach the end, almost no reviewers will reach the end during their review play-through, and by the time news of an awful/rushed ending gets out the peak buying period is over. Especially tempting if you're working on a publisher contract, where you don't get a cut of the long-term sales anyway, only a bonus dependent on the sales for the first 2 weeks.

But see, I'm completely agreeing that the start is very important, and that's what sells the game. It's the "mid-game" does tend to be overemphasized over the "endgame." What would be better is that the beginning is kept what it is - the hook, which grabs the audience - but then the game should escalate towards the climax. The method would not be de-emphasizing the beginning, but by recognizing when you have hooked the audience enough and thus can dip content to a degree, and then ramp it back up. A lull, if you will. You have a strong beginning that hooks in the audience, then they're going to keep asking for more despite a lull because it's acceptable that drama and action take some gameplay time to build (again, the strong beginning is indeed necessary to capture the audience beforehand). It's the pattern of the common novel or movie. A strong beginning, and then a "dip" which allows for escalation towards the other important section of the content.

However, what we see is decreasing curve. The game starts out well but then decreases and decreases and decreases after that. Why not a strong beginning, and then at least a more balanced ratio of effort for the rest of the game? Better would be a reverse-bell-ish-curve with a tolerable/shorter low end.

Besides, what we see in the highest rated games (AAAs I mean) is that their best levels are not in the beginning. Not at all. The beginning of the game sets the story up, gets you pumped, often with cinematics and scripted scenes. Then you start playing, experiencing the setting keeps your interest and gameplay is slow and simple at this point but tolerable enough that the player keeps going. The action ramps and hopefully doesn't turn into retarded alien bullshit like in Crysis.

This does matter for brand loyalty. While I love my experience in DOS, it does make me question whether I want to invest time in DOS2. The motivation of finishing DOS1 was mostly (1) I gotta see how the story ends and (2) Well I got this far, might as well finish.

 

[Lacrymas]

Toreador are underdeveloped because most of what they are is just the hot, captivating vampire stereotype

Some of them are artistic geniuses. Being hot and captivating opens up some doors that will be closed to the other clans (maybe not Ventrue, depends). I also think they are the only ones who don't exude an eerie aura to mortals? The downsides are a mixed bag tbh, I'd say that the Nagaraja's downside is pretty major. Tremere has no downside, so they force one upon themselves, but it's weird, they can make it interesting though. Making a game too centered around the downsides will be a completely different narrative and the gameplay would be significantly slower (which isn't a bad thing). I'd love to play as a Tzimisce, especially a very alien one. Like all things in this life, it depends on how well-thought-out the whole thing is going to be.

 

[Kem0sabe]

Sunlight and day and night cycles should play a bigger role in a vampire game, also maintaining cover, trying to pass off as human. Bloodlines was extremely easy to feed, get blood, always night.

 

[Roguey]

(Almost) no one wants to play a RPG with a time limit, not happening.

 

[Irenaeus II]

Well, fuck them. Good ideas, Kem0sabe

It would be interesting to play a "post-apoc" Vampire game indeed. Just make it similar to AoD.

 

[Lacrymas]

Setting it after Gehenna is going to cheapen the event. Some people criticize the lore because of its focus on this apocalypse, but I thought it worked. It had an effect of an overarching narrative that works up to something and it affects all creatures, unifying the entire plot. Post-Gehenna would ruin the entire premise and it would be pointless. I also think we have enough post-apocalyptic games and the themes explored are always the same. Bringing in vampires into the mix won't change anything. I know people hate this, but I'd like to see it set in the dark ages. The medieval section from VtM:R was my favorite. Although exploring the setting before that would be cool too. Constantinople under the rule of Michael, the Dracon and Antonius for example. Renaissance is good too, just something that isn't Victorian era to modernity.

 

[Zombra]

Sunlight and day and night cycles should play a bigger role in a vampire game, also maintaining cover, trying to pass off as human. Bloodlines was extremely easy to feed, get blood, always night.

Eh. What do RPG players do when they want to sell stuff at the shop and see the sign that says "Closed until morning"? They sigh with annoyance and press the "rest until morning" button (or if that's not an option, they go make a sandwich). Assume you sleep during the day, just like it's assumed you are doing basic and reasonable things for survival in 99% of other games. Vampires going out in the daytime isn't what the genre is about. As for the ease of feeding, vampires are predators and humans are prey - it's really not necessary to make it much more difficult and demanding than going to Burger King - you did have to be a bit careful to not be seen, but come on, eating is routine if you're a vampire in a city. What's next, a punishing "tie your shoes" minigame? Sure, you could have a specific scenario where there's a time limit or something and you have to navigate to a quest location without going outside because it's daytime, and that could be interesting once or twice, but being unable to change locations half the time just to remind you vampires have weaknesses is not good gameplay. It's not like Bloodlines forgot to remind you that they have issues.

 

[Ninjerk]

Christ. Of course "Vampires going out in the daytime isn't what the genre about," but weakness during the daytime is the whole other side of the Vampire coin. I'll concede that it complicates development, but you don't take the vampire concept and remove its primary weakness. Have we learned nothing from Twilight?

 

[pippin]

The problem about Twilight wasn't the daylight, it was the general faggotry of a fanfiction-tier story with Mary Sues as characters.

John Carpenter's Vampires had vampires walking on daylight, and although it was a so-so edgy action film, it could be more adaptable to VtM's world.

 

[Zombra]

You don't take the vampire concept and remove its primary weakness.

Sure you do. If I play a game about being a shark attacking swimmers, I'm not going to be interested in long sequences where I have to flop around on land.

The "vampire concept" at bottom is a bunch of weird metaphors about the dark side of humanity. They represent the evil in our hearts etc., and have weird and scary unstoppable powers to make them invulnerable to everything but the triumph of the human spirit. Flip the dynamic around by making a vampire the hero and you've already ass-backwarded the entire point. When you do choose to make that jump, it's stupid to not frame a protagonist with the conventions of a protagonist, i.e. not so far out of their element that they are unrecognizable to themselves ... unless of course you are doing a "stress-survival" type story like about a guy trapped underwater or something. That could be an interesting game I guess ... vampire trapped outside with nowhere to dig a hole, how do you survive when the sun comes up? But it wasn't the story Bloodlines wanted to tell, and it's not going to be the story anyone who picks up the license will want to tell. Vampires who hang out in sunlight are dumb - not only is it a dumb story beat, but the characters themselves would have to be morons. No one wants to play as a hero that dumb.