Revisiting VtM: Bloodlines

[RaggleFraggle]

My argument was the same from the start and you even quoted it yourself.

Ok, sorry, it was late and my eyes were tired. My mistake.

 

[Harthwain]

Well, younger people liked it who hadn't read the books before. Jackson almost does the same things to Frodo and Gimli that Johnson does to Luke, like he destroys a large part of their character.

Not just "younger people who hand't read the books before". People who read the books (young or otherwise) liked it as well. I read the books and I had a whole bunch of criticisms for some parts of the movies (some stronger than others). My brother read the books and even made a detailed list of stuff that the movies got wrong, but he - too - liked the movies overall. By comparison, I couldn't stand the newest Dune movie.

I could agree that Frodo's character suffers in the movies (as well as some other characters, especially Denethor, who was one of my favourite characters in the book), but I am not sure why you'd put Gimli alongside Frodo.

But back to Bloodlines, memorable characters were certainly a big part of why Bloodlines became a cult classic! The WOD served as a nice canvas, but the lore wasn't what made Bloodlines greatl!

It made sense at the time to use an already established PnP system/setting. Other cRPGs did this as well (Icewind Dale and Baldur's Gate come to mind). Even Fallout used GURPS, before developers were forced to make a last-minute changes and named it SPECIAL. That's how it was done back then. Now, with internet being widespread and full of information, it is easier to make your own system and promote it to create your own brand/IP, instead of using someone else's.

But I would still argue that in the beginning it was Vampire: The Masquerade that promoted Bloodlines (at least initially). It was later when Bloodlines started promoting Vampire: The Masquerade (to the point where Bloodlines' popularity overtook the latter). I mean, this is exactly why we have Bloodlines 2 and not "Vampire: The Masquerade: X" as it is the case with other games.

As for what made it great... I would say the concept of having vampires living in secret among humans alone is good enough. Then there is the fact of Bloodlines being really a mash of various elements. You have politicking vampires using humans as pawns while fighting their own inner secret wars. You have classic vampire hunters who simply want to eliminate the vampires (who also have to act covertly). You have other secret organizations (Fu Syndicate). You have various mystery (Mr. Ox) and horror elements (the zombies, the gore tapes). It is easy for everyone to have your pick.

 

[Wesp5]

My brother read the books and even made a detailed list of stuff that the movies got wrong, but he - too - liked the movies overall. By comparison, I couldn't stand the newest Dune movie.

I agree about the newest Dune movies, they strayed even farther away from the books, but while the LOTR movies a great fantasy flicks, I never really liked them because they are bad book filming and easily could have been so much better!

I could agree that Frodo's character suffers in the movies (as well as some other characters, especially Denethor, who was one of my favourite characters in the book), but I am not sure why you'd put Gimli alongside Frodo.

In the books he is a honourable dwarf, in the movies he becomes stupid comic relief for which Tolkien already intended Pippin. Like he tries to destroy the one ring, falls from a horse, gets thrown by his beard and whatever else I forgot!
Even worse things happened to Radagast in the Hobbit, clearly Jackson didn't care one bit about Tolkien's work if he could bend it to get some more laughs or more money! Making three movies out of the Hobbit is proof enough for it.

 

[Wesp5]

3 seconds is a bit low and not that useful.
I guess 6 seconds will make it powerful, but not completely broken.

This is what I thought, but there is a bug somewhere which turns these 6 seconds into much more! I decreased them to 3 and it seems fine and sometimes more than 3 as well...

 

[Harthwain]

I agree about the newest Dune movies, they strayed even farther away from the books, but while the LOTR movies a great fantasy flicks, I never really liked them because they are bad book filming and easily could have been so much better!

Agreed.

In the books he is a honourable dwarf, in the movies he becomes stupid comic relief for which Tolkien already intended Pippin. Like he tries to destroy the one ring, falls from a horse, gets thrown by his beard and whatever else I forgot!

He has some funny moments, but I never thought they were destroying his character. Trying to destroy the One Ring is there to show the audience why it has to be thrown into the Mount Doom specifically. Falling from a horse is inconsequential. In the throwing scene he isn't thrown by his beard and it is a mark of bravery that he is willing to get thrown in the midst of the enemies (he also shouts his war cry from the books, if I am not mistaken), so I am fine with that particular modification. Besides all that he remains pretty faithful to the books.

Even worse things happened to Radagast in the Hobbit, clearly Jackson didn't care one bit about Tolkien's work if he could bend it to get some more laughs or more money! Making three movies out of the Hobbit is proof enough for it.

I am with you on that one. Hobbit is not really worth watching, in my opinion.

 

[Wesp5]

Trying to destroy the One Ring is there to show the audience why it has to be thrown into the Mount Doom specifically.

Of course that was Jackson's intention, but any dwarf would know that the One Ring can't be destroyed in that way, so it really makes Gimli look like an idiot. Maybe Pippin could have tried but certainly not a dwarf!