Vampyr - vampire action-RPG from Life Is Strange devs

[Latro]

Isn't life is strange the movie with lesbian teens?

Yes, but you can choose between two different endings.

dumb and dumber

 

[DosBuster]

They weren't lesbian, in fact you can go for a Hetero relationship if you so choose.

If you think girls kissing is "taboo" or "lesbian" you haven't been outside in a long time lol

 

[---]

Don't worry, many people here haven't been outside in a long long time...

 

[Martius]

Of course half (or more) of the people in this thread probably didn't neither play it, so who cares?

Probably because of remember me. If anything because that I doubt I will try another game from this studio.

 

[Morgoth]

E3 trailer:

 

[Bubbles]

Gameplay footage:

 

[Excidium II]

Might pirate if it's not denuvo.

 

[LESS T_T]

http://www.pcgamesn.com/vampyr/vampyr-pacifist-run

Vampyr lets you kill anyone in the game... or no-one at all

DONTNOD's next game really, really isn't Life Is Strange. Vampyr is set just after the first world war, in a time of disease and death, and you play a doctor-turned-vampire trying to survive. Revealed today, you can be as brutal as you like in doing so - either wiping out the entire NPC population of the game, or keeping them all safe at cost to yourself.

"This is the golden rule - you can take the lives of everybody in the game," explains narrative director Stéphane Beauverger. "There is no exception, even if it’s your own family. You have a mesmerise ability that allows you to lead someone into the shadows to do so. [To do that] the mesmerise level of your character has to be equal or more the mind resistance level of your target. So you can’t kill everyone at the beginning of the game."

But as you progress and level up, your lethality increases along with your other stats. "At the end of the game, you have the possibility to kill everyone" explains Beauverger, also saying that your character is not a very nice guy. "You are a predator that has to take lives. You are not the real hero, the real heroes are the vampire hunters that try to take you down. You have to deal with the fact they consider you a beast, a monster, you have to face that, you have to prove to them by your actions that you can be trusted, that you are not someone who is completely heartless."

Art director Grégory Szucs adds that "You are very much in charge, you are not watching a TV show and being disgusted at the heroes actions - if you do something disgusting it’s because you chose to do it." That's where the options come in. If you want, you can complete the whole game without killing anyone - but it won't be easy.

"You have the right to feed on the rats if you want," says Beauverger. "You will get no experience points, you will just get blood, so you will stay very weak, but you can try to do that."

Which do you think you'll go for?

Quite more RPG-y than I thought, huh.

Edit: more detailed preview: http://www.zam.com/article/685/vampyr-brings-an-innovative-rpg-leveling-system-to-e3

 

[Lhynn]

Looks like shit. Why would you even bother with this?

 

[Jaesun]

That's pretty shitpostery of you Lhynn Did this place finally get to you? I always expect better from you....

 

[Bubbles]

If you want, you can complete the whole game without killing anyone - but it won't be easy. "You have the right to feed on the rats if you want," says Beauverger. "You will get no experience points, you will just get blood, so you will stay very weak, but you can try to do that."

A story driven game where XP is based entirely (or almost entirely?) on kills sounds kinda like the anti-PoE. The Codex should approve.

 

[thesheeep]

So, nobody will play that way because you'd lose XP.
Same way no sane person plays evil characters in most games as you lose the XP of all the do-gooder quests.

If that is a "choice" I rather have less choices.
"You can choose to be shitty". Wat?

 

[Jrpgfan]

Combat looks like generic arcade hack n' slash. Weren't the devs going for a more "realistic" approach with this game or am I thinking another game?

 

[ArchAngel]

So, nobody will play that way because you'd lose XP.
Same way no sane person plays evil characters in most games as you lose the XP of all the do-gooder quests.

If that is a "choice" I rather have less choices.
"You can choose to be shitty". Wat?

Well it will be a challenge run for 2nd playthrough or something. I am sure people didn't play Bg1 first time in solo ironman runs.

 

[thesheeep]

Well, for that, the game has to be good enough and offer more choices than just "don't kill humans" to play through a second time.
Which is not exactly guaranteed

 

[Zombra]

So, nobody will play that way because you'd lose XP.
Same way no sane person plays evil characters in most games as you lose the XP of all the do-gooder quests.

If that is a "choice" I rather have less choices.
"You can choose to be shitty". Wat?

Nonsense. Plenty of players out there like to be the good guy; the problem is that games always reward being good and punish puppy kicking, and there aren't that many people who play as Stupid Evil just for the sake of it.

"Crime doesn't pay, but you can choose to be a criminal anyway" is a dumb "choice" like you said.
"Crime pays, will you be good despite that?" is much more interesting.

 

[makiavelli747]

DONTNOD's next game really, really isn't Life Is Strange

It sounds exactly like Life is Strange - a mature story, with details and believable characters in a childish theme/setting. Thus it won't be a real horror, but more like a cartoon in dark setting.

 

[Doktor Best]

Accompanying text:

May 24, 2016

Vampyr images depict the protagonist's duality: can you be both a savior and a monster?

Vampyr, the new action-RPG from acclaimed game-development studio DontNod, releases new images today depicting the duality of the central character. Set in London, 1918, Vampyr promises to offer a unique and deeply immersive experience, and a strong and engaging narrative steeped in vampire mythology.

In Vampyr, players take control of Dr. Jonathan Reid, a newly formed vampire who is torn between the Hippocratic Oath he swore as a doctor, and the bloodthirsty need to kill due to the monster within. While London suffers from the Spanish Flu pandemic, your first reflex as a doctor would be to help and heal people... but it will be impossible for you to ignore your inner, violent, nature of Vampyr - first and foremost, you are a lethal predator.

As a Vampyr, you have to accept your need to sacrifice people to survive. Feeding on people will be the basis of your character progression, as it will allow you to learn supernatural Vampyr powers and talents that will be useful in persuasion, locomotion, survivability, and combat. So the dilemma that's offered to you isn't "should I kill people?" but more "who will I kill"? And this decision won't be without consequences. Killing one person will create a rippling effect on London's ecosystem and you will have to live with both the repercussions and their death on your conscience. Decide to feed on a renowned doctor from the city hospital, and progressively see the health condition of the patients drop.

Every life saved and every life taken by Reid will have deadly ramifications to London and the people around it. When Vampyr releases in 2017, players will be asked: how far are you ready to go?

Sounds like lots of railroaded choices. I am pretty sure in 1918 London you could kill 1000 random commoners through the city and make no dent on it functioning. Unless your vampire powers depend on who you feed from.
I can bet the streets will be eerily empty of commoners :D

Well the text isnt about random commoners but people in important positions. Im sure draining a generic streetwhore or generic hobo will have less consequences.


Also, let me remind that Jack the Ripper only had a confirmed kill count of 5 and he operated much earlier when police forces were strictly divided in districts and didnt really give a fuck about murder cases of prostitutes. Yet the case spawned worldwide attention and some claim its media attention inspired early development criminology (which was born around the same time). So killing thousands of victims leaving bitemarks (with the dracula mythology already being present in modern pop culture) would have led to pretty much attention back then.


@Discussion: Pacifist runs have always been a challenge to rpgs, we should be happy that theyre implented.
And i also agree that doing good should pose hurdles to jump and not throw "moar exp, moar gold, everybody loves you and sucks your cock" at the player.

 

[Lhynn]

That's pretty shitpostery of you Lhynn Did this place finally get to you? I always expect better from you....

Looking at the screens and the gameplay and i see absolutely nothing worth playing.
I see a dude larping Louis from interview with a vampire, but without the likability. Its all so dark and shitty and gritty it looks miserable, not a single interesting character presented, not a single view at the character system, not a single nothing. And im fully expecting the game to be about this dudes misery and crying and moaning when the fucking cunt can summon shadows to toy with and break his enemies and gets to live forever.
I would have callled it shit the day before i even registered on the codex.

 

[ArchAngel]

Accompanying text:

May 24, 2016

Vampyr images depict the protagonist's duality: can you be both a savior and a monster?

Vampyr, the new action-RPG from acclaimed game-development studio DontNod, releases new images today depicting the duality of the central character. Set in London, 1918, Vampyr promises to offer a unique and deeply immersive experience, and a strong and engaging narrative steeped in vampire mythology.

In Vampyr, players take control of Dr. Jonathan Reid, a newly formed vampire who is torn between the Hippocratic Oath he swore as a doctor, and the bloodthirsty need to kill due to the monster within. While London suffers from the Spanish Flu pandemic, your first reflex as a doctor would be to help and heal people... but it will be impossible for you to ignore your inner, violent, nature of Vampyr - first and foremost, you are a lethal predator.

As a Vampyr, you have to accept your need to sacrifice people to survive. Feeding on people will be the basis of your character progression, as it will allow you to learn supernatural Vampyr powers and talents that will be useful in persuasion, locomotion, survivability, and combat. So the dilemma that's offered to you isn't "should I kill people?" but more "who will I kill"? And this decision won't be without consequences. Killing one person will create a rippling effect on London's ecosystem and you will have to live with both the repercussions and their death on your conscience. Decide to feed on a renowned doctor from the city hospital, and progressively see the health condition of the patients drop.

Every life saved and every life taken by Reid will have deadly ramifications to London and the people around it. When Vampyr releases in 2017, players will be asked: how far are you ready to go?

Sounds like lots of railroaded choices. I am pretty sure in 1918 London you could kill 1000 random commoners through the city and make no dent on it functioning. Unless your vampire powers depend on who you feed from.
I can bet the streets will be eerily empty of commoners :D

Well the text isnt about random commoners but people in important positions. Im sure draining a generic streetwhore or generic hobo will have less consequences.


Also, let me remind that Jack the Ripper only had a confirmed kill count of 5 and he operated much earlier when police forces were strictly divided in districts and didnt really give a fuck about murder cases of prostitutes. Yet the case spawned worldwide attention and some claim its media attention inspired early development criminology (which was born around the same time). So killing thousands of victims leaving bitemarks (with the dracula mythology already being present in modern pop culture) would have led to pretty much attention back then.


@Discussion: Pacifist runs have always been a challenge to rpgs, we should be happy that theyre implented.
And i also agree that doing good should pose hurdles to jump and not throw "moar exp, moar gold, everybody loves you and sucks your cock" at the player.

Ripping open people is much more noticeable than people dying from lack of blood. Also why cannot you drain them part way like in Bloodlines?

 

[BobtheTree]

This game certainly has potential. Always dig a game where you can kill everyone or get through the game without killing a single person. Combat looks a bit Bloodbornesque, which I certainly think is a good sign.

 

[Echo Mirage]

It doesn't look bad. But I'm still annoyed they went with a fixed character. Being able to create your own character with some varied options for backgrounds would have been great. Each character could have different ways of dealing with situations and missions. And even used weapons based on their backgrounds. They could have even played on the society of the age. As if people see some guy running from a mob he has probably done something to piss them off. And people wouldn't react that much. But as a young lady in a nice dress you would be able to call for help and people would call for the police. Meaning the hunters would need to employ other tactics to deal with you other than outright attacks such as sending lone assassins or setting ambushes in isolated areas away from any kind of help. Opening up many possibilities beyond that.

But oh well. I just hope Paradox delivers at least something like what I'm looking for now that they have the rights to Vampire the masquerade. Its a small hope. But better than none.

 

[Zombra]

Also why cannot you drain them part way like in Bloodlines?

Bloodlines is the best game ever, but sweetheart vampires who don't kill anyone shouldn't be the default. It's great to see a game take on the fact that they are monsters that eat people - that's kind of the whole point - and if they refuse to eat they'll be weak as shit.

 

[BobtheTree]

It doesn't look bad. But I'm still annoyed they went with a fixed character. Being able to create your own character with some varied options for backgrounds would have been great. Each character could have different ways of dealing with situations and missions. And even used weapons based on their backgrounds. They could have even played on the society of the age. As if people see some guy running from a mob he has probably done something to piss them off. And people wouldn't react that much. But as a young lady in a nice dress you would be able to call for help and people would call for the police. Meaning the hunters would need to employ other tactics to deal with you other than outright attacks such as sending lone assassins or setting ambushes in isolated areas away from any kind of help. Opening up many possibilities beyond that.

But oh well. I just hope Paradox delivers at least something like what I'm looking for now that they have the rights to Vampire the masquerade. Its a small hope. But better than none.

Sounds like you should just go play VtMB again.

 

[thesheeep]

"Crime doesn't pay, but you can choose to be a criminal anyway" is a dumb "choice" like you said.
"Crime pays, will you be good despite that?" is much more interesting.

I don't know, really.
I just cannot imagine people willingly passing the chance to grow their character stronger just in order to "be good". And I'm not even a min-maxer.

Then again, we don't really know enough to argue this, do we?
If the game is piss easy, being strong is not a requirement - which makes the whole discussion somewhat pointless.
Maybe they are blowing up this whole morale thing far too much, too. So maybe it only makes a minimal difference in the end.

In any case, though, if you offer a player the possibility to be weaker on purpose (outside of maybe sandbox/procedural/roguelike games where it is part of the fun), there should be some gain.
"Just" for the challenge and maybe a different ending slide for a game that seems mostly story driven? Hm... hardly seems worth it.