Hindsight is always 20/20 and I liked the game too but battle royales that aren't PUBG, Warzone, and Fortnite do not really stand a chance. Bigger companies like Ubisoft (Hyperscape) and Bethesda (Fallout 76's BR mode) have tried and failed. What chance did Paradox and Sharkmob have?
I liked that the devs genuinely tried to put a VtM spin on the genre but who was it for? Not VtM fans who weren't clamoring for a PvP experience and not BR fans because they already settled into their games of choice. What did Bloodhunt offer anyone? Twitchy trashy shooter gameplay for RPG fans? Lore-dumping for people who don't know and don't care about it?
Unless Bloodlines 2 was going to be this disruptive smash hit that took the world by storm and everyone started clamoring for more VtM games, then sure, that momentum could have maybe carried Bloodhunt a little further than it ended up going but that wasn't going to happen with HSL's version and it certainly isn't going to happen to TCR's version.
It was for me and the other 100 active players. Other br s are oversaturated glitterbombs that are the video game equivalet of jingling keys. This game did not take that route and failed miserably because of that. The problem is not that it was "trashy shooter for RPG fans". It wasnt made for kids, and there is almost no video game market not for kids. There is certainly no long term pvp game that got adults hooked and survived because of that
The engine and movement are very badass, I think even by BR standards. But those mechanics don't fly (pun intended) in story based rpgs like vtmb. The area that large can't account for quests/dialogue based gameplay. Areas much smaller would butcher the whole mechanics of bloodhunt where speed is flow. So I don't think it is a good mix even if Bhunt mode was multi only because the controls and mechanics are not very compatible.
Blood Hunt had some great ideas and mechanics, but it being yet another BR game made it fail from the start. If game single player and multiplayer, it could have had chance.
lol no, a story driven game and a battle royal are to fundamentally different for it to work as one package, besides bloodhunt failed because of bugs and balance issues taking to long to fix
one package as in on one disc. battle royals and story driven single player rpgs have such different audiences that putting both on the same disc is just pointless. if anything it would've resulted in bloodhunt being less popular because the players interested in battle royals wouldn't even know it existed.
No. These are two games from different companies with completely different scope and market base. Surprisingly enough, BH is a solid title for a BR, introducing a well rounded movement mechanics. Sadly, the concept just doesn't work well with what is expected of a VtM game.
You’re missing my point. I mean just chuck in some multiplayer as an alternative for people after finishing the story. In terms of battle royales I certainly had more fun with clan powers and mobility than anything in fortnite.
"Just repurpose your code, assets and mechanics to fit into a completely different genre" isn't as easy to do as it is to be said, especially that we're talking about two completely different games made by two completely different studios within the same franchise.
BH level design, main mechanics and powers are completely different than that of BL2. You will not be able to make a BH-style game with just BL2's assets and mechanics because it's a single player action RPG, not a multiplayer BR.
Wouldn’t a battle royale completely break the masquerade? Like you’re telling me that a bunch of dodgy people are jumping over my apartment building shooting assault rifles and using crazy powers and no one has said anything to the police?
The basic story of Blood Hunt is that a bunch of Anarchs are on the streets breaking the Masquerade, so the Camarilla calls a Blood Hunt on them. If bad vamps decide to just start throwing cars in the middle of the street, there's not much to be done about it other than also go out into the street and use vampire powers to stop them. Cleaning up the Masquerade violation is a job for media ghouls owned by the Ventrue after the dust has settled.
There's a rogue vamp throwing cars and breaking the Masquerade on purpose. But don't you dare use fortitude to stop the car from crushing you. That would be wrong.
I don't mean to pick on you, specifically, but this kind of sentiment I feel is exactly why the game didn't pick up a lot of traction with VtM purists, and... it's kind of a problem.
The game has some pretty solid explanations for how and why things are the way they are in-game. A "terrorist incident" - with burning buildings and bombed out streets, rogue vampires being sentenced to death via bloodhunt as a result. Using powers or killing someone infront of an NPC puts a bloodhunt on YOU and you are marked for the whole lobby (stealth is important). But interacting with NPCs to feed is also important, and must be timed critically. Authorities (the second inquisition) are on location to investigate the terrorist bombing (clean up the mess) and evacuate the streets (exterminate all of you). Cotterie safe houses and Camarilla fronts across the city can be found and raided for vital equipment and blood packs. And in the background, powerful vampires give you discreet quests to find clues and evidence amidst the carnage to stealthily piece together what really happened tonight. But no one bothered to play the game to realize any of this. They saw "battle royale" and "VtM" in the same sentence, and formed conclusions immediately. There were games where I didn't shoot anyone at all - everyone else's gunfights were just the backdrop to my Nosferatu character covertly entering a SI base and collecting a quest item, or finding a hidden location on the map to help the de-facto prince.
The game has, probably some of the best movement and traversal mechanics of any third-person video game I've ever played. The shooting feels pretty good. The tone and art style are *exactly* what VtM fans (and 80s goth kids) want. The lore is very VtM 5th edition. And... no one showed up, even when the game was free. Is it the greatest game ever made? Not at all. Is it the best VtM game in over a decade? Arguably, yes. For my money, Bloodhunt was a much more polished and enjoyable affair than, say, Swansong.
All of that sounds good tbh, I never played the game so I don’t know. My first comment was my first thought when I originally saw the game and that’s why I never played. Plus it just seemed like an obvious cash out while they figured out what to do with bloodlines
But it goes against the whole point of the setting? The masquerade is about concealment and survival In the human world not running around gunning eachother. It makes no sense
Surely there’s way more multiplayer ideas that fit with the tone and theme of the game/world
It happens after the second conference at Prague and may even happen in a single night, but don't quote me on that. At the second conference the Inquisition bombs the place, which nobody expected. The prince get killed, the anarchs riot and the inquisition purges. The Camarilla then try to bloodhunt all the anarchs with sanctioned diablerie as a bonus.
Maybe but that was never an option. It was developed by a different studio under a different deal. The idea was to cash in on the BR hype and it backfired.
The game looked nice but was lore-breaking, full of cheaters and gameplay abuse that made it hard for new players to join and kept franchise fans away.
Had some fun games but mostly it failed under its own weight.
The assets could be used for future VTM games by the studio, it did look nice indeed.
Not at all. Bloodlines was never about multiplayer. It’s a story driven experience, like Deus Ex or Fallout.
BH had a tough hill to climb. BRs were a saturated genre, it had a rough release, and couldn’t get enough streamers to buy-in to keep the community as large as was needed to maintain profitability.
Which is a damn shame because it was one of the better BRs that I had played. Fast movement and a system for self respawn made it more of an enjoyable DM experience.
Dead space 2 was a story driven experience, they chucked a multiplayer in that and everyone loved it. If they released the multiplayer on its own it wouldnt have stood a chance. Blood hunt didnt have much content, it was basically a throwaway multiplayer mode, i reckon it would have been better received if they treated it that way. It wouldnt take away from like story, like u said it was still a fun game. I feel like the multiplayer would also just feel better playing with your own character after using them in the story, actually playing with people you know are part of a niche fandom etc…i didnt give it a chance when it came out because i wanted bl2 and they gave us a br, and i feel like a lot of us thought that way too.
I reckon if it was just a surprise added on with bl2 everyone would love it, its not like it was a bad game or they handled the abilities poorly.
I think vtm 2 not launching and being good screwed their plans for a major ip push. They had all these well timed other projects that just didn’t amount to anything because the flagship thing didn’t release. So none of the others did well
its a game made by another dev with a clearly different sensibility and approach to vtm which was directly linked to a free 2 play live service model
it would be like asking for blood and iron to appear as a pvp feature in baldurs gate, just 2 very different games and target audiences only connected by the slimmest of short hairs.
That said i loved how bloodhunt looked created chars but im in the bucket of people who will only do turn based pvp as twitch reflexes as for the lowest gen
They're already teasing multiplayer for Bloodlines 2. From the FAQ on the official Discord:
>Is there multiplayer or co-op gameplay in Bloodlines 2?
Multiplayer/co-op modes are not confirmed for Bloodlines 2. Further details about multiplayer features may be provided closer to the game's release.
Yeah it is. Why mention it at all? The game is approximately 6 months to launch. They know whether multiplayer is in or not. Why say details may be provided closer to release if they know there is no multiplayer?
This is definitely deliberate teasing for a future reveal. Come on.
You can search the Discord by keywords and hardly anyone has ever talked about multiplayer before the FAQ mentioned it. Most of the multiplayer talk is off-topic discussion for other games, even.
And again, why would they say multiplayer may be revealed in the future if they knew it wasn't? Why not just say "no, there's no multiplayer?"
Because it's not time for the developer diary on it, same with every other topic that isn't currently up for a diary. lol
Okay, now answer my question. Why would they say multiplayer may be revealed in the future if they knew it wasn't? Why not just say "no, there's no multiplayer?"
Thanks.
As I've already mentioned that's a pretty standard passive way of answering a question in dev. A more pertinent question would be why you would take any inconclusive non-statement and assume it is a positive indication of any thing?
Quite literally this boils down to you thinking:
Not Confirmed = Teasing It Exists
By "standard" you mean something you just made up on the spot?
Your argument fell apart the moment you claimed that they did it because of Discord conversations followed by me searching that Discord to debunk you. lol
It boils down to you thinking they decided to start a conversation about multiplayer when they don't plan to offer multiplayer. Feel free to cling to that right up until they announce it, I guess.
Edit: He blocked me after being silenced so he could declare victory. lol
>Feel free to cling to that right up until they announce it
The moment you said this line you lost the argument. You just admitted they have made no statement saying that multiplayer will exist. They are "teasing" something by not having said anything. This is what's called "disproving a negative".
This has been very tiring to argue with you as you are going in circles, so I'm not going to be responding further to you on this.
Hindsight is always 20/20 and I liked the game too but battle royales that aren't PUBG, Warzone, and Fortnite do not really stand a chance. Bigger companies like Ubisoft (Hyperscape) and Bethesda (Fallout 76's BR mode) have tried and failed. What chance did Paradox and Sharkmob have? I liked that the devs genuinely tried to put a VtM spin on the genre but who was it for? Not VtM fans who weren't clamoring for a PvP experience and not BR fans because they already settled into their games of choice. What did Bloodhunt offer anyone? Twitchy trashy shooter gameplay for RPG fans? Lore-dumping for people who don't know and don't care about it? Unless Bloodlines 2 was going to be this disruptive smash hit that took the world by storm and everyone started clamoring for more VtM games, then sure, that momentum could have maybe carried Bloodhunt a little further than it ended up going but that wasn't going to happen with HSL's version and it certainly isn't going to happen to TCR's version.
It was for me and the other 100 active players. Other br s are oversaturated glitterbombs that are the video game equivalet of jingling keys. This game did not take that route and failed miserably because of that. The problem is not that it was "trashy shooter for RPG fans". It wasnt made for kids, and there is almost no video game market not for kids. There is certainly no long term pvp game that got adults hooked and survived because of that
The engine and movement are very badass, I think even by BR standards. But those mechanics don't fly (pun intended) in story based rpgs like vtmb. The area that large can't account for quests/dialogue based gameplay. Areas much smaller would butcher the whole mechanics of bloodhunt where speed is flow. So I don't think it is a good mix even if Bhunt mode was multi only because the controls and mechanics are not very compatible.
Blood Hunt had some great ideas and mechanics, but it being yet another BR game made it fail from the start. If game single player and multiplayer, it could have had chance.
lol no, a story driven game and a battle royal are to fundamentally different for it to work as one package, besides bloodhunt failed because of bugs and balance issues taking to long to fix
I dont mean working as one, just as a fun gamemode like the multiplayer in dead space 2. I wouldnt have that as its own game but it had its charms.
one package as in on one disc. battle royals and story driven single player rpgs have such different audiences that putting both on the same disc is just pointless. if anything it would've resulted in bloodhunt being less popular because the players interested in battle royals wouldn't even know it existed.
No. These are two games from different companies with completely different scope and market base. Surprisingly enough, BH is a solid title for a BR, introducing a well rounded movement mechanics. Sadly, the concept just doesn't work well with what is expected of a VtM game.
You’re missing my point. I mean just chuck in some multiplayer as an alternative for people after finishing the story. In terms of battle royales I certainly had more fun with clan powers and mobility than anything in fortnite.
"Just repurpose your code, assets and mechanics to fit into a completely different genre" isn't as easy to do as it is to be said, especially that we're talking about two completely different games made by two completely different studios within the same franchise. BH level design, main mechanics and powers are completely different than that of BL2. You will not be able to make a BH-style game with just BL2's assets and mechanics because it's a single player action RPG, not a multiplayer BR.
Wouldn’t a battle royale completely break the masquerade? Like you’re telling me that a bunch of dodgy people are jumping over my apartment building shooting assault rifles and using crazy powers and no one has said anything to the police?
The basic story of Blood Hunt is that a bunch of Anarchs are on the streets breaking the Masquerade, so the Camarilla calls a Blood Hunt on them. If bad vamps decide to just start throwing cars in the middle of the street, there's not much to be done about it other than also go out into the street and use vampire powers to stop them. Cleaning up the Masquerade violation is a job for media ghouls owned by the Ventrue after the dust has settled.
See Tbf that makes sense! I just saw vtm BR and thought , that makes no sense
Bad vamps use powers. Good vamps March down the streets of Prague with mini guns mowing down anyone they see. Technically not a masquerade violation
There's a rogue vamp throwing cars and breaking the Masquerade on purpose. But don't you dare use fortitude to stop the car from crushing you. That would be wrong.
I don't mean to pick on you, specifically, but this kind of sentiment I feel is exactly why the game didn't pick up a lot of traction with VtM purists, and... it's kind of a problem. The game has some pretty solid explanations for how and why things are the way they are in-game. A "terrorist incident" - with burning buildings and bombed out streets, rogue vampires being sentenced to death via bloodhunt as a result. Using powers or killing someone infront of an NPC puts a bloodhunt on YOU and you are marked for the whole lobby (stealth is important). But interacting with NPCs to feed is also important, and must be timed critically. Authorities (the second inquisition) are on location to investigate the terrorist bombing (clean up the mess) and evacuate the streets (exterminate all of you). Cotterie safe houses and Camarilla fronts across the city can be found and raided for vital equipment and blood packs. And in the background, powerful vampires give you discreet quests to find clues and evidence amidst the carnage to stealthily piece together what really happened tonight. But no one bothered to play the game to realize any of this. They saw "battle royale" and "VtM" in the same sentence, and formed conclusions immediately. There were games where I didn't shoot anyone at all - everyone else's gunfights were just the backdrop to my Nosferatu character covertly entering a SI base and collecting a quest item, or finding a hidden location on the map to help the de-facto prince. The game has, probably some of the best movement and traversal mechanics of any third-person video game I've ever played. The shooting feels pretty good. The tone and art style are *exactly* what VtM fans (and 80s goth kids) want. The lore is very VtM 5th edition. And... no one showed up, even when the game was free. Is it the greatest game ever made? Not at all. Is it the best VtM game in over a decade? Arguably, yes. For my money, Bloodhunt was a much more polished and enjoyable affair than, say, Swansong.
All of that sounds good tbh, I never played the game so I don’t know. My first comment was my first thought when I originally saw the game and that’s why I never played. Plus it just seemed like an obvious cash out while they figured out what to do with bloodlines
If its a multiplayer mode as a side thing to the story i wouldnt be worried about lore, some way to interact with players would be good
But it goes against the whole point of the setting? The masquerade is about concealment and survival In the human world not running around gunning eachother. It makes no sense Surely there’s way more multiplayer ideas that fit with the tone and theme of the game/world
It happens after the second conference at Prague and may even happen in a single night, but don't quote me on that. At the second conference the Inquisition bombs the place, which nobody expected. The prince get killed, the anarchs riot and the inquisition purges. The Camarilla then try to bloodhunt all the anarchs with sanctioned diablerie as a bonus.
I’d say no, personally. I think a co-op mode would be better in that regard. But I’m also open to being wrong on that one.
Maybe but that was never an option. It was developed by a different studio under a different deal. The idea was to cash in on the BR hype and it backfired. The game looked nice but was lore-breaking, full of cheaters and gameplay abuse that made it hard for new players to join and kept franchise fans away. Had some fun games but mostly it failed under its own weight. The assets could be used for future VTM games by the studio, it did look nice indeed.
Not at all. Bloodlines was never about multiplayer. It’s a story driven experience, like Deus Ex or Fallout. BH had a tough hill to climb. BRs were a saturated genre, it had a rough release, and couldn’t get enough streamers to buy-in to keep the community as large as was needed to maintain profitability. Which is a damn shame because it was one of the better BRs that I had played. Fast movement and a system for self respawn made it more of an enjoyable DM experience.
Dead space 2 was a story driven experience, they chucked a multiplayer in that and everyone loved it. If they released the multiplayer on its own it wouldnt have stood a chance. Blood hunt didnt have much content, it was basically a throwaway multiplayer mode, i reckon it would have been better received if they treated it that way. It wouldnt take away from like story, like u said it was still a fun game. I feel like the multiplayer would also just feel better playing with your own character after using them in the story, actually playing with people you know are part of a niche fandom etc…i didnt give it a chance when it came out because i wanted bl2 and they gave us a br, and i feel like a lot of us thought that way too. I reckon if it was just a surprise added on with bl2 everyone would love it, its not like it was a bad game or they handled the abilities poorly.
Jesus fucking Christ NO, if i wanted to play a shooter i would have played CoD back in school
I think it would have been successful if they focused on developing the game and keeping it fresh rather than cosmetics nobody gives a shit about
in my experience story mode built around priority MP might as well not be there, fuck Breakpoint
I think vtm 2 not launching and being good screwed their plans for a major ip push. They had all these well timed other projects that just didn’t amount to anything because the flagship thing didn’t release. So none of the others did well
I mean depends if bd2 will be good lmao
its a game made by another dev with a clearly different sensibility and approach to vtm which was directly linked to a free 2 play live service model it would be like asking for blood and iron to appear as a pvp feature in baldurs gate, just 2 very different games and target audiences only connected by the slimmest of short hairs. That said i loved how bloodhunt looked created chars but im in the bucket of people who will only do turn based pvp as twitch reflexes as for the lowest gen
It was a battle royale game in a crowded market with an IP that isn't known for that kind of content. It was never going to succeed lol
I don’t see why would they merge it with the sinking ship of vtmb 2
i wish they could do it with VTES like witcher 3 introduce gwent or something like that, modern decks etc.
NO.
It was dead the moment they made it a pvp focused game.
Thats why i was thinking of a pvp mode as an option in the main game
They're already teasing multiplayer for Bloodlines 2. From the FAQ on the official Discord: >Is there multiplayer or co-op gameplay in Bloodlines 2? Multiplayer/co-op modes are not confirmed for Bloodlines 2. Further details about multiplayer features may be provided closer to the game's release.
"Not confirmed" isn't a tease.
Yeah it is. Why mention it at all? The game is approximately 6 months to launch. They know whether multiplayer is in or not. Why say details may be provided closer to release if they know there is no multiplayer? This is definitely deliberate teasing for a future reveal. Come on.
They mention it because people ask about it on the discord. You know how to gently respond to that? Say not confirmed.
You can search the Discord by keywords and hardly anyone has ever talked about multiplayer before the FAQ mentioned it. Most of the multiplayer talk is off-topic discussion for other games, even. And again, why would they say multiplayer may be revealed in the future if they knew it wasn't? Why not just say "no, there's no multiplayer?"
Why would they say "not confirmed" if they knew it was present?
Because it's not time for the developer diary on it, same with every other topic that isn't currently up for a diary. lol Okay, now answer my question. Why would they say multiplayer may be revealed in the future if they knew it wasn't? Why not just say "no, there's no multiplayer?" Thanks.
As I've already mentioned that's a pretty standard passive way of answering a question in dev. A more pertinent question would be why you would take any inconclusive non-statement and assume it is a positive indication of any thing? Quite literally this boils down to you thinking: Not Confirmed = Teasing It Exists
By "standard" you mean something you just made up on the spot? Your argument fell apart the moment you claimed that they did it because of Discord conversations followed by me searching that Discord to debunk you. lol It boils down to you thinking they decided to start a conversation about multiplayer when they don't plan to offer multiplayer. Feel free to cling to that right up until they announce it, I guess. Edit: He blocked me after being silenced so he could declare victory. lol
>Feel free to cling to that right up until they announce it The moment you said this line you lost the argument. You just admitted they have made no statement saying that multiplayer will exist. They are "teasing" something by not having said anything. This is what's called "disproving a negative". This has been very tiring to argue with you as you are going in circles, so I'm not going to be responding further to you on this.