Bloodlines and RPGs

[fable]

Troika's closed its doors. Bloodlines did very poorly by all accounts, yet it was arguably a very interesting and creative RPG that deserved to do better--at least as well as KotoR2, which has been described as a "kiddie RPG."

Where did Bloodlines go wrong? What hurt game sales so badly? Will the industry shy away from White Wolf games in the future, or even intelligent RPGs? Can we change this situation in the future, or is "mass producing the lowest common denominator," once the goal of television fifty years ago, now the inevitable goal of computer gaming?

I'm starting off this thread to discuss these subjects with a selection of posts from another thread that's been closed. (Sorry for the formatting; I screwed that up. So I've indicated at the start of each post who was the original poster, and who was quoted.) Please feel free to add your comments where pertinent, especially if you've taken part in that other thread. Thanks.

[fable]

Faust: I'd have to agree that's in unlikely for Bloodlines sales to ever go beyond the mediocre status at this point. While RPGs tend to sell better over the course of time than other titles, the initial period after release is generally the top sales period. My inclination is that Bloodlines will never go much beyond the mediocre status. Still, I suppose its possible for it to sell as many as, say, Arcanum over the course of several years (depending on what Bloodlines figures are to date. I imagine the 72K figure was a pre-New Year figure). I wouldn't bank on that, though. Still, I didn't read the comments as purse defensiveness. It probably is premature to definitively talk about a game's final sales figures when it's still relatively new.

Out of curiosity, what kind of figures do you imagine Troika was looking for out of Bloodlines? The game was obviously designed for a relatively limited audience. I can't imagine they were hoping for too much. Still, I'm gathering, that Troika was much more focused on fulfilling their own development vision, rather than thinking toward marketing. Not necessarilly a bad thing, Isuppose, but it can lead to some bumps in the road as we've seen..

[fable]

Fable:The rule-of-thumb I've been told over the years (for what little that's worth) is that RPG games break even at 200,000 units. This is old news, however. I imagine costs are so much greater now than when this little item was repeatedly handed to me, back in the 1990s, that either games would have to cost considerably more, or a much larger number than 200,000 units would be required to break even. When I toured Microprose back in 1994, they had roughly 30 people working in house. When I toured Bethsoft in 1998, then had more than 80. I'm told by a friend who works in Bethsoft these days that between in-house and sourced-out materials for Oblivion, the team is over 100 for their next project. So how many copies are needed to balance this? And how low do you keep your salaries, in the meantime?

It's a real misfortune to those of us who enjoy RPGs that Troika went under. Not so much because of their games (however much we may like individual titles), as because of the inevitable lessons the mainstream corporate gaming community is going to draw from this. I'm sure you can hear it now: "Those fools at Troika thought you could RPGs that didn't appeal to kiddies, and didn't include elves and that crap. They included complex puzzles, and they appealed to adults. Well, we all know adults don't play games, only kiddies do, and only sound people of business should make them. And nobody should make RPGs for anyone who's outside grade school!"

I hope as you do that Bloodlines sells more over the coming year, but I don't hold out hope anymore than you in this. If figures were bad for Bloodlines but at least consistent across the first six months, that would have been news Troika might have used in PR releases to leverage against additional funding for their company. It would have been positive news, along the lines of showing a game that was continuing to do business and could be expected to eventually make back its investment. Obviously, they didn't have figures like this. I suspect the numbers were tailing off. But at this point we'll probably never know, at least, not until I can get Boyarsky drunk at the next E3 convention.

[fable]

Celacena:VtMB is quite a complusive and immersive game, but I stumbled upon it by accident - I saw it was rated 18 and liking Blade/John Carpenter etc - I thought I would give it a go. marketing pretty much failed - I had not heard of it before I chanced to buy it.

I have played it through a few times and very little remains unknown, so I can help most people with probs. I can't think of a game I have understood so deeply, so quickly.

that might be part of the problem - the game has a good AI for you enemies and combat etc is fun - there are also some good dialogue options BUT it is very linear and prescriptive - to get the max XP there is a route to follow. it may be fun, but there is a clear route.

compare this to Morrowind - there is a route and an outcome, but you can play without bothering to go down it. I played a character for months without bothering with the main quest having completed the main quest in different ways with different characters.

OK so I know how to become an uber-character, so it has lost its appeal a bit, but that took many months. with VtBM I am wondering whether to reclaim the HD space after a few intense weeks. I can complete the game pretty effectively and quickly now and get impatient with the cut scenes.

the concept of an 'adult' game with an erotic edge (come on admit that vampires are natural soft-core fetishistic!) works but the game is too finite and needs sequels/expansions to get the most out of it. with the demise of Troika, I just can't see this game going on. I can't see it being taken up, which is a shame because at the heart of this game is a very good idea - that of a reluctant vampire with various skills/abilities than he/she can use to survive the machinations of others and remain hidden.

[fable]

Faust:I guess I don't really see this as a valid comparison. There are many things that Bloodlines could be criticized on, but I'm not sure that not being as open ended as Morrowind is one of them.

Bloodlines is a very different type of game than Morrowind. It's true that Morrowind can be played for countless hours. Ultimately, the game is based around the idea of exploring this expansive world and developing your character in a myriad of directions. VtM Bloodlines lacks that freedom (though, I'd argue has quite a bit of freedom in it, in various place),but strives to be a more cinematic experience. I mean, it's trying to tell a good story where your decisions do ultimately matter, but aren't the only thing of importance (very true to the WoD, actually). The game, however, is far more centered on NPCs (which are much more alive and interesting than Morrowind NPCs) and extremely original "areas", rather than quantity or complete autonomy.

For what it is, therefore, I don't think it's *that* short. Given the game could have stood to be a bit longer. The game is probably around 40-50 hours in duration the first time through. Given, it's much quicker once you know where everything is (or are using a walkthrough), know the answer the various puzzles, and know where the dialogues are leading. While I'd love the game to be twice that length, all the content is interesting (there's no countless hours of boring leveling or such of) and, ultimately, I think that's a passable length for a game of its type.

For me, I tend to prefer more story driven games like VtM, PST, or KoTOR, even if they do ultimately fall into a trap of being linear. I think, however, that both types of games have a place in the RPG market. Still, you probably are very well right, in suggesting it doesn't have the momentum to be propelled to exceptional sales at this point.

[fable]

Fable: Actually, I like the game quite a bit. I just can't see that if everybody got their friends and relatives to buy Bloodlines, it would change anything, since the game has been on the market roughly 6 months, with very poor sales--sales that by an extremely conservative estimate would have to quadruple or more to make back their investment. It's return-on-investment that drives the game market. I think we can have more constructive use of the forums than try to force a sequel in an impossilble situation from game companies who perceive V:TM as a pariah at this time.

We could, for example, consider the demise of V:TM, and the reasons for this. I would like to suggest a serious consideration of a variety of factors (marketing strategy, age of RPG players, game bugs, reviews, etc) for consideration. We might also consider whether RPGs other than action hybrids are (at least, in the short term) going to dominate the market as a result of the failure of V:TM, and the loss of Troika.

[quote="Faust]One thing I would disagree with Fable on is the notion that HL2 would not appeal to the same audience as Bloodlines. I would agree that this is partially true. Hardcore RPG fans tend to be reluctant to play any type of FPS. Still"]

But wouldn't you think that most people who play RPGs control battle strategy in a pause/play mode? And don't you think that the FPS realtime genre stands in opposition to this? Consider: you can stop the game anytime in the KotoR series, the BG series, the IWD series, and numerous other RPGs, give commands to all your party indvidually after evaulating their situations, and then set things moving, again. Can you do this in most FPS titles? Doesn't the lack of this--the kind of hair-trigger gameplay they foster--augur against the same kind of player?

[fable]

Faust:I didn't mean to say you didn't care for VtM Bloodlines. I probably inadvertedly implied that. I suppose I assumed from your comments you were indifferent toward the game. My apologies. I think you are very much correct (as is apparent from my other posts) that the relative failure of Bloodlines and Troika does raise some questions for the industry, that might be interesting for us to address in further depth.

[Quote=Fable]But wouldn't you think that most people who play RPGs control battle strategy in a pause/play mode? And don't you think that the FPS realtime genre stands in opposition to this? Consider: you can stop the game anytime in the KotoR series, the BG series, the IWD series, and numerous other RPGs, give commands to all your party indvidually after evaulating their situations, and then set things moving, again. Can you do this in most FPS titles? Doesn't the lack of this--the kind of hair-trigger gameplay they foster--augur against the same kind of player?[/quote]

I would agree that the ability to pause and make tactical decisions is an important aspect of a perfect RPG (heck, I cut my teeth on turn-based games). Still, I wouldn't call it the heart of an RPG for all of us. For example, while I enjoy strategy and the all important pause button, those are of lesser importance to me than an engrossing story, the ability to explore and interact with a living world, and "grow" my character(s). If I can have those things, I'll get over less than ideal game play issues. Still, i'll drop that point, because its not really the issue for me.

By the same token, true hardcore RPG purists, are relatively small in number. The lionshare of gamers enjoy dabbling in hot flavor of the month RPGs (i.e. Final Fantasy, Fable, KoTOR, even Baldur's Gate in its day). However, the next game they purchase might be a FPS, a Racing Game, Sports Game, or Adventure title. In short, most gamers prefer variety or sampling in genres, more than you or I probably do.

So even though I think you're basically correct in arguing that FPS is really counter to the gameplay RPG fans prefer, you're imposing a level of "consistency" onto an audience that is probably not appropriate.

[fable]

Fable:No harm done. Since my remarks have been addressed to the sales of the game, it was difficult to tell how I felt about it, although I think one or two compliments are buried somewhere in this thread.

[quote="Faust]I would agree that the ability to pause and make tactical decisions is an important aspect of a perfect RPG (heck"]

I never meant to imply that pause/play was the "heart of an RPG," but rather, that it was an important feature computerized RPG games. Much in the sense that any player, in charge of a team, would expect to control the intelligent reactions (such as the game allows) of all team members in combat, as they would, off the battlefield. Like you, it's character development, exploration and interaction with ones teammates, the environment, and NPCs that drive an RPG forward for me. My point was simply that since many RPGers aren't arcade specialists and prefer entering each character's reaction on the battlefield, a realtime FPS model is antithetical to this.

[quote="Faust]By the same token"]

We may need to consider finding better, more accurate terms for different kinds of gamers. After all, if by RPGers we mean everybody from hardcore PNPers to kids who play Diablo and believe it is an RPG (which it isn't), then our definition of an RPGer is too amorphous to act as a useful tool in any discussion. My memories of past conversations with PC-based RPG designers included comments that they felt RPGers didn't usually play many other types of games; but again, that begs the question, who is an RPGer?

[quote="Faust]So even though I think you're basically correct in arguing that FPS is really counter to the gameplay RPG fans prefer"]

Perhaps. Certainly Richard Garriott would agree with you, since he was convinced by the late 1990s that the future lay in non-stop action-RPGs, although his previous audience for the Ultima series had been hardcore. However, it should be noted that when he attempted to move his Ultima series from a standard pause/play RPG model to an action-type, he alienated his core RPG audience tremendously and lost a lot of sales--not just in the extremely buggy Ultima IX, but the earlier Ultima VIII. So clearly we're talking about at least two different markets, here, with potentially different demographics. Is it possible, do you think, to design an RPG that would appeal equally to both? And if this "consistency" isn't possible, then are we doomed to a series of KotoR-like kiddy RPGs, and action-based Gothics?

[john_jaxs]

From the thread "Help a Sequel get made"

So Fable this is what you call fair use of your positition you twist my statements and when I provide proof that you did you quickly come up with language and spam as a reason to remove my post, So I am guessing that no one can point out you twisiting other people's statements but you can take their's and change them to something that they did not say:

"John, I removed your next to last post for flaming and spam. I warned you what would happen, and you really pushed it. I hope I don't have to warn you again about language and spamming in these forums. Eventually it could mean the loss of your posting privileges."

Here is my post from the thread "Help a Sequel get made" anyone who read this see if goes with Language and spamming as Fable makes it sound like or am I simply just stating that fable has twisted my statements and using opinions to disagree with him:

John, 70,000 people don't read these boards, despite their popularity: perhaps 1500 in all forums combined, on a semi-regular basis. I don't think 70,000 people regularly read the top three Bloodlines boards combined together, or come near that figure; perhaps 5,000, probably less. You're expecting every person who bought the game to somehow discover your message; that seems very unlikely. Then on top of that, they're to get at least two friends to buy Bloodlines, six months or more after it's been out: an unprecedented situation. There is no game that has taken off like that before; no game that has trebled or quadrupled its sales in the second six months' of its initial release compared to its first six. I've asked you this before, and I have to ask it, again, since you keep bringing up this idee fixe of yours. Find me some games that have done this, so we can see the possibility of Bloodlines doing the same. If you can't, then please stop reiterating this theme. There are better, more achievable goals for you to put your laudable energy in.

I didn't say that 72,000 people read these boards, you said this:

"I just can't see that if everybody got their friends and relatives to buy Bloodlines, it would change anything,"

You stated everybody I made the point that this goes againest what you said that it you can't see that it would change anything, if 72,000 people got all there friends and relatives to buy the game that would more then quadrupled the sales, as you need at least two relatives to be born with, but you leave out the fact that I even disagree with your above statement with saying as follows:

"Okay I am not saying that everybody could get their friends and relatives to buy the game, but if they could then 72000 people if you are right about 200000 mark on making even would only have to suggest to 2 other people each, now I'm not saying that it would be possible as that is alot of people,"

You stated it was hearsay only after I asked for your source. You did not offer this information until it was asked of you. Here is your original remark: Also Valve made it strick that any marketing of Bloodlines would not overshadowed Half-Life 2s marketing and would not even try to overshadow Half-Life 2s marketing, they also would not allow Troika to come out with Bloodlines before Valve came out with HL2." As you can see, this is stated as if it was a fact rather than a few people simply speculating (hearsay). It's easy for anybody to read back in this thread and judge who said what, and why; then make up their own minds.

You stated:

"This is the information you've provided, thus far: 1) It's "public knowledge" that Valve sabotaged the marketing of Bloodlines, a few of us know this because we discussed it and decided it was accurate."

You wrote the above statement after I admitted that it was hearsay, so wouldn't that mean that you already knew that it was hearsay yet you said that I wrote it as "Public Knowledge", I never said that it was public knowledge also anyone can look back and see that, even me stating this as a fact wouldn't mean that it was public knowledge you wrote public knowledge.

I also have to ask you at this point to cease turning this into a personal attack by appealing to others for judgment against me. You are welcome to disagree with my views or anybody else's, but personal attacks are not allowed in these forums per our forum rules, and it also approaches spam (useless posts that don't further the discussion). If you persist, I'll remove those future posts that go over the line. I would do the same if it was anybody else who was subjected to something similar to this, and I have, in identical situations. We should move onto the discussion analyzing went wrong with Bloodlines, and whether indeed non-kiddie RPGs even have a future in the computer gaming industry.

Where am I attacking you personally, I have not asked anyone to pass judgement againest you, I am not even the one that brought up your credability that would be your pal Aegis that brought that up, now that I pointed out to him and Faust that you twisted some of my statements to fit your points and that one of your points have a month to becomes valid and that another person even agreed with me on some points and that now that I provided a quote from idmb stating that "Bloodlines" could not be released before Valve's Half-Life 2 (2004) (VG) because both games made use of Valve's new graphics engine technology and Valve wanted their own game to debut first.", you say that I am personally attacking you that is stupid, you can point out what is wrong with my statements, but I can't to you, I have used the posts to help make a sequel which is what the topic was original about I have made no statements againest you personally or againest your credability execpt that "As for creditability on posts that only shows that he was here longer then I have been." which this only shows that you been here longer then me I didn't say that you had no credability or that your credability was bad, and am not the one that even brought those up.

Now on to something else:

So quote from Ageis "He has provided facts, and has a history of doing so (just do a basic search on any of the discussions he's posted in on GB). And yes, that is a relevant point, as it means he has a lot more credability than you do." Not only is he judging your opinions as facts because of past threads, but he makes a personal attack at my credability when you stated that "I would do the same if it was anybody else who was subjected to something similar to this,", but his post stayed on so I wonder do you only help banned statements that prove you wrong or do you ban all statements on personal attacks because that would be one but you didn't take it off, and wouldn't twisting my statements make that a personal attack as that would be writing something that I did not.

[Aegis]

[QUOTE=john_jaxs]
So quote from Ageis "He has provided facts, and has a history of doing so (just do a basic search on any of the discussions he's posted in on GB). And yes, that is a relevant point, as it means he has a lot more credability than you do." Not only is he judging your opinions as facts because of past threads, but he makes a personal attack at my credability when you stated that "I would do the same if it was anybody else who was subjected to something similar to this,", but his post stayed on so I wonder do you only help banned statements that prove you wrong or do you ban all statements on personal attacks because that would be one but you didn't take it off, and wouldn't twisting my statements make that a personal attack as that would be writing something that I did not.[/QUOTE]
This has nothing to do with the actual discussion on hand, but it must be said. In discussions in which one party refuses to back up statements with any sort of facts, period, credibility becomes a key factor. You have yet to gain any credibility, whereas Fable has continously earned it by backing up his statements. The fact that you see that as a personal attack shows that you really lack a level of maturity required to discuss this topic, or that you have invested yourself too much emotionally to adequetly discuss it.

[fable]

Back to the subject at hand:

1) Where did Bloodlines go wrong, resulting in its poor sales? However you slice it, whatever figures you believe, Troika closed because of Bloodlines. Let's analyze what failed, and what suceeded.

2) Are we likely to see very few intelligent RPGs in the future? This has been the plaint of some of the better, smaller developers for the last few years. They're increasingly doing work for other, larger companies who want mainstream product for the largest possible market.

2) What could be done in the future to secure better sales for an intelligent RPG? What can we do? What can anybody do?

Your thoughts, please.

[txa1265]

1) Where did Bloodlines go wrong, resulting in its poor sales? However you slice it, whatever figures you believe, Troika closed because of Bloodlines. Let's analyze what failed, and what suceeded.

I think that they produced an excellent game. Immersive, with lush characters and environs. I was totally taken in by a world I've never experienced (I only played Redemption *after* Bloodlines, and had never heard of the White Wolf thing), music I don't listen to, and a seedy atmosphere that I generally eschew.

But, the game lacks a few things - particularly the polish and production values of HL2, but also a bug-free delivery.

Also, someone mentioned how 'out there' Arcanum was - how it was a very limited interest game due to the basic premise, and that the music was somewhat off-putting. I actuall found that comment off-putting - I found the game intriguing due to its' quirkiness, and the music was absolutely charming. They went on to say the anything with a Vampire theme is automatically 'audience limiting'.

2) Are we likely to see very few intelligent RPGs in the future?

Yes. The gaming market has clearly voted with their wallets for HL2 as 'highbrow', Madden whatever as the entertainment, Everquest/WoW (i.e. MMORPG) as what a RPG should be, and the MP-fragfest o' the day as 'the future of gaming'.

KotOR 1 & 2 have done pretty well, sales wise, and they deserve to have done well based on being very good games, but how much of that is the fact that they were based in the Star Wars universe? I wrote off 'modern rpg' based on th eone my wife got me for a gift - Diablo. It was only when I got NWN for Mac in August '03 waiting for KotOR that I got the bug ... what would have happened otherwise?

2) What could be done in the future to secure better sales for an intelligent RPG? What can we do? What can anybody do?

See, when I first played Gothic 2 just over a year ago I thought - *this* is it ... here is a game that combines action, story, characters and thought. This is where things should be going. So I see the horizon as of last E3 - VtM: Bloodlines and Dungeon Lords ... what great possibilities. And Bloodlines is a fine game - my favorite game last year. And hopefully Dungeon Lords will be a good engrossing story along with the visceral combat. *That* is where I feel you will grab gamers. Fallout and Planescape: Torment aren't going to convert Counter-Strike kiddies, they will further alienate them from RPG.

Mike

[Faust]

[QUOTE=fable]
1) Where did Bloodlines go wrong, resulting in its poor sales? However you slice it, whatever figures you believe, Troika closed because of Bloodlines. Let's analyze what failed, and what suceeded.[/QUOTE]

It's difficult to say why exactly Bloodlines failed.

Some surface level considerations. It was not a conventional RPG. First of all, the game sought to bridge genres. It utilized the engine of a popular first person shooter, and effectively sought to create a hybrid game that spawned across at least three genres - RPGs, Action RPGs, and FPS. The end product was very good. However, did this genre hopping ultimately lead to its problems?

Secondly, the game was one of the most "adult" games in terms of content that we've seen in some times. Beyond graphic violence, which was considerably less than some titles but still present, use of vulgar language and explicit sexuality (exemplified in its use of the porn industry, and emphasized by its superior graphics) permeated the game. The 18 rating it had was well earned, and definitely alienated a portion of its potential audience.

Moreover, the game explored some relatively mature themes (though certainly not as explicitly as some White Wolf material has before), of humanity versus inhumanity. There's a distinctive face put onto your evil deals. The game, like all White Wolf material, is a bit of a morality play. It explores our own most vile instincts, and poses some fairly interesting questions about the line between human and monster. While fascinating from a philosophical or psychological angle, it's a theme that is not as flashy (or flippant) as some RPG fans prefer.

The question this point leaves us with, is whether there were ways to make the game more teen friendly, without ruining its spirit. I'd suggest there were.

Thirdly, the game was not traditional in scope or look. The game was set in the relatively confined area of modern day L.A. There were no dragons to slay, or elves to befriend. The RPG audience, as a whole, seems to be more skeptical of "modern era" games. I do not fully understand this, but the commercial failure of Bloodlines seems to reinforce this traditionally held notion. One wonders, if the game had been "Dark Ages" whether it would have faired better.

Finally, the game seemed to fail due to poor advertising and bad timing. It launched at the same time period as other prominent RPGs as Knights of the Old Republic II (though it was only on X-Box at the time), and other prominent PC games such as Half Life 2 (whose engine it utilized. I think its safe to hypothesize, that some put off buying Bloodlines until after they had purchased HL2), and during the reign of such giants as Sims 2 and new MMORPGs like EQ2 and WoW. It was easy for the game to get lost in the shuffle. Moreover, .the game received very limited advertising.

[QUOTE=fable]

2) Are we likely to see very few intelligent RPGs in the future? This has been the plaint of some of the better, smaller developers for the last few years. They're increasingly doing work for other, larger companies who want mainstream product for the largest possible market.[/QUOTE]

It does seem likely that the lackluster sales of games like Bloodlines will have a negative effect on the industry. My inclination is that it will affect the industry in terms of setting and content. I would be very surprised to see another "modern era" or "horror" RPG created in the near future. Likewise, I would be surprised to see RPGs crafted that attempt the type of intricate (or at least "new") game play that Bloodlines offered.

My inclination is, rather, that we'll see the continuing of the trend that games such as Final Fantasy and KoTOR have been exemplars of. We'll see cinematic games continue, many of which will have interesting and engaging storylines that many of us will enjoy. And, as KoTOR and Fable have offered, we'll see increasing numbers of choices and customization be offered. However, there will be little challenge, or "bucking" genres taking place in the games. Combat will continually be made to look flashy, but be relatively easy. And, moreover, advancing in the story will generally not require a great deal of thought no matter how intricate the story is.

[QUOTE=fable]

3) What could be done in the future to secure better sales for an intelligent RPG? What can we do? What can anybody do?[/QUOTE]

I'm not completely sure how to best combat the present state of things. In my estimate, many things could have been done to make VtM Bloodlines more of a success. Namely, I think making the game more teenager friendly (chiefly through rethinking some of the sexual and language issues), be more careful with its release date, and having a more careful advertising campaign could have really bolstered sales considerably. Perhaps, it would have never been the success a KoTOR or HL2 is, but I honestly belive it would have been at least a modest success if it had done these things (or aimed itself at being a console game, as well).

As such, while I agree that the failure of Bloodlines will send the message to the industry "only kiddie games are going to sell!", I think that is the incorrect message to take from the failure. The message it should send is "this was a good game that could have been handled much better." As such, I think there is hope if developers come to understand that. The features, in my mind, that people are truly responding to in KoTOR and Final Fantasy, are engaging NPCs and a fascinating story (though, certainly, not all the FF have achieved that). VtM Bloodlines basically had these things, along with a much more fun combat system and significantly more mystery than the before mentioned games. It just suffered from mismanagement, bugs, and, perhaps, an excess of adult themes. My hope is that future developers will come to understand that its failures transcend the final product, and not be too discouraged in making games in the same spirit.

[Celacena]

where did I go?

(I had a post on the 'banned' thread in which some people got dangerously close to libel IMO and, knowing the barrister in the Demon case, I can vouch that internet libel is about as good idea as [Neverland remark self-edited out])

Anyhow, the comment that I made there was that I stumbled upon the game and recalled no publicity about it. Had I not been in the mood for an RPG and had I not been a fan of vampire movies, I might never have played it. So - 4/10 for publicity.

atmosphere : 8/10
evocative - somewhat negative, but intriguing.

adaption/innovation : 8/10
sufficiently unusual concept

combat : 9/10
combat system works well and available options ensure enjoyment and ability to try tactical variations.

control system : 8/10
fairly easy to work.

linearity : 6/10
pretty linear main quest.

entertainment : 9/10
lots of humorous asides and oblique references/lampooning.
the 18 rating is deserved and without the adult content, the game would be much poorer.


play 'just another' segment addiction : 8/10
side quests make it easy to play - just a bit longer

hard-disk space durability : 6/10
linearity and limited scope for variation makes it likely to come off the hard disk sooner rather than later.

bugginess 4/10
quite a few problems - beta testing must have been a joke or the pressure to release just too great. could spoil it for many.

I think the game was fundamentally entertaining, but prematurely released and under-marketed. It needs a lowish price for the lack of long-term durability, IMO. the engine and some characters could be re-used, but a sequel seems unlikely to me.

[weemer]

vampire bloodlines.

I am very sorry the game had poor sales. its all about the money, so this is definitely negative industry reinforcement.

i am new to video games and this was my first rpg. shooters are my favorites, so the mixture of shooter and rpg was fantastic. i love this game, and i thoroughly enjoyed the mature themes. i was driving people at my office crazy as i could not stop talking about it. i am now hooked on rpgs.

i am playing kotor now ( i said i was new) and although the story is pretty good, the passive combat mode SUCKS! I HATE it! this game was so highly touted, and it gives me more appreciation for bloodlines. i got kotor two for as a gift and if the combat mode is the same, i am thinking star wars commando would have been better.

i will try morrowind soon, based on the opinions i have heard in these forums. hopefully it has a first person shooter mode for combat.

[Celacena]

shooting in the 'Wind

MW has several perspectives - you can play it as first person and there are some projectile weapons (and magic).

I have enchanted some rings to be supercannon - you look like you are shooting flak rounds with some of the damage types.

MW is the best fantasy RPG I have played. (Vampirism is a curse in that game - I wouldn't recommend you stay one).

[Faust]

[QUOTE=weemer]I am very sorry the game had poor sales. its all about the money, so this is definitely negative industry reinforcement.

i am new to video games and this was my first rpg. shooters are my favorites, so the mixture of shooter and rpg was fantastic. i love this game, and i thoroughly enjoyed the mature themes. i was driving people at my office crazy as i could not stop talking about it. i am now hooked on rpgs.

i am playing kotor now ( i said i was new) and although the story is pretty good, the passive combat mode SUCKS! I HATE it! this game was so highly touted, and it gives me more appreciation for bloodlines. i got kotor two for as a gift and if the combat mode is the same, i am thinking star wars commando would have been better.

i will try morrowind soon, based on the opinions i have heard in these forums. hopefully it has a first person shooter mode for combat.[/QUOTE]


I am really not a big fan of FPS, but I enjoyed the interface as it worked out in Bloodlines.

KOTOR is painfully easy, so combat can be a drag for those of us who enjoy RPG style combat, even. It does get more entertaining when you get a lightsaber, so if you're still in the early portions of the game, you might hang in there.

Other games that combine FPS and RPG elements are the Deus Ex titles. I've only dabbled in them, but they are very popular. You might enjoy them if you like that style of play.

As Ive said before, Morrowind has never captured me in the way it has others. I recently quit my second attempt to play the game. I think the environments and story elements just seem so redundant and dry to me. I'm going to give it another shot one of these days, I'm convinced I should like that title more. Personally, however, I found combat a fairly weak feature of the game. It's awkward and not terribly interactive. Still, you may enjoy the title thoroughly.

[irene]

morrowind

i play a lot you will truly enjoy morrowind and its mate bloodmoon. many many quests to perform a thinking puzzle game. might also enjoy Curse... have fun...first time poster girl

[Opalescence]

I think the biggest problems lie in the fact that RPGs in general do not make a lot of money. And let's face it, the industry is interested primarily in the bottom line. At the moment, I'm pinning my hopes on BioWare, the lone developer that's still going strong who seems firmly set on making good RPGs (and has plenty of hit games already under its belt, like the Baldur's Gate series, KotOR, and to a lesser degree, in my opinion, Neverwinter Nights). Troika's dead, and this may indeed make publishers a bit leery of publishing RPGs for awhile, but I doubt that a company with Bioware's presence, finding a publisher would be much of an issue, even given the current atmosphere. As for poor Troika, I think its demise was as much to do with poor internal planning and marketing as it was to the fact that RPGs don't make so much money. As I recall, Computer Games magazine's top ten selling computer games list listed only one game that might be construed a "true RPG", namely KotOR 2 (and, incedentally, KotOR 2 is made by Bioware, the company I'm pinning all my hopes of the future of RPGs on).

I highly doubt the death of a game can destroy a genre, or even the death of a developer (although I WILL miss Troika, it gave me Arcanum after all). As long as Bioware's around we have some glimmer of hope that RPGs will not be edged out by the so-called "action-RPG" crowd (they may as well drop the RPG in their name, for goodness sakes Diablo is NOT an RPG). And lest we forget, there are also a few other developers in the wings, like Bethesda (let's hope Oblivion turns out well)!

Although, as a final note, I must admit that RPGs seem harder hit than any other genre (other than, say, the simulation genre, whose only real company, let's face it, is Maxis. Anybody know what Maxis is up to these days, by the way?). First it was Interplay, now it's Troika. We're losing good developers, that much is true. Here's to hoping Dragon Age doesn't fail us!

[Aegis]

Just a note, KotOR 2 was done by Obsidian Entertainment, not Bioware. Bioware simply gave them the engine to make the game.