Troika Games no longer exists....

Roshambo said:
Redemption? It almost had no story to it. In fact, it was perhaps one of the shittiest stories I have ever had the misfortune to play through three times in.
Yes, it did. For example there was this all world of the Tremere. The librarys, caves, all the magical items.
When in Bloodlines there was just about 1 tremere and only like maybe 2 or 3 magical items.

Roshambo said:
White Wolf isn't all about mindless hack and slash, despite how people treat their licenses, and the games shouldn't be compared cross-genre wise. VTM:R was a pitiful hack and slash game with a static and predictable story, with actors in the game that were so dead, they might as well already have a stake in them, where Bloodlines has far more complexity to it.
Ok, the acting might have been better. But as for the story. In Bloodlines you're just a guy who get's turned illegally and for that you have to work for the prince. As in Redemption you're a knight from the crusade who get's turned and then he has to think about his faith when there's a war among vampire clans.
I think the good side was many weapons and enemys, you could kill other vampires and ghoulds and many other things. Find different items from all over the place and there were big catacombs and worlds.
In Bloodlines there are smaller locations and much less items.
On the other had, it did had many different ways to complete missions and the music was good.

Also let's not forget that Redemption took place in the medieval times and the modern times. When Bloodlines just took place in the modern times... I personally liked Redemption more because of that.
About the story, I really think that you can't predict being buried under some rubble for 300 years and then waking up in the Society of Leopold.

Roshambo said:
Really, you should get to the part where you tell Cai...err...the taxi driver where you want to go, and where you put your loyalties. It explores the dilemma and situation of the Cainite race far better than the pitiful story of Redemption.
I didn't like that part much. I mean everything you did during the game just get's thrown out the window and everything you'll do and be is going to rely on these questions.
I really can't say much about that because just after answering these questions and going to Chinatown, the game crashed and I haven't played it anymore.

Maybe because of the long loading times I couldn't really get into the story...

Roshambo said:
Of course, all single-player games have to have their design skullfucked for multiplayer. :roll:
The desing in Redemption was good imo, and it had multiplayer.
Well maybe the desing in Bloodlines would have suffered... but I read from somewhere that they already had multiplayer done for it, but it had just too many bugs to release. So... I guess the design was already at the multiplayer level... or whatever.. :P

Roshambo said:
The direction you're going, it probably wouldn't be the brightest thing to do around here.
Ok, sorry, I'll shut up now...
 
jee7 said:
Yes, it did. For example there was this all world of the Tremere. The librarys, caves, all the magical items.
When in Bloodlines there was just about 1 tremere and only like maybe 2 or 3 magical items.
WHich has absolutely nothing to do with story, but with atmosphere building (which I thought Redemption did quite well during the medieval fase). More items has jack shit to do with the story.

jee7 said:
Ok, the acting might have been better. But as for the story. In Bloodlines you're just a guy who get's turned illegally and for that you have to work for the prince.
How's that for oversimplification. That's just the start of the game. If you get any further in the game many things will be revealed, and the story will slowly be shown. The story really has a lot more to it than just the premise. This should be obvious to anyone who actually played the game in full.
And besides to that, Bloodlines contained a shitload of sidequests with real stories behind them. The haunted house, for instance. And my personal favourite: the
jee7 said:
As in Redemption you're a knight from the crusade who get's turned and then he has to think about his faith when there's a war among vampire clans.
Redemption is a bit standard with its story, the good man turned into a vampire who then has to struggle with his faith. The problem is that the character development is basically non-existant. While the story could've been quite good, all that happened was that you were fighting for the Brujah, killing things. The character you play never shows any progress whatsoever, while that could've been one of the strong points of Redemption. Instead, in the end, it depended on your humanity, which was basically the amount of evil answers you gave and the amount of innocents you killed.

jee7 said:
I think the good side was many weapons and enemys, you could kill other vampires and ghoulds and many other things. Find different items from all over the place and there were big catacombs and worlds.

In Bloodlines there are smaller locations and much less items.
On the other had, it did had many different ways to complete missions and the music was good.
I love how you're completely confirming Rosh here. This has jack shit to do with roleplaying, which is what White Wolf's games are about, but solely with Diablo-esque hack-n-slash. That's all good and well, but the fact that that's why you liked Redemption better than Bloodlines shows that you should really not compare the two. Bloodlines is an RPG. Redemption was a hack and slash game. The only thing they had in common was their setting.



jee7 said:
Also let's not forget that Redemption took place in the medieval times and the modern times. When Bloodlines just took place in the modern times... I personally liked Redemption more because of that.
About the story, I really think that you can't predict being buried under some rubble for 300 years and then waking up in the Society of Leopold.
Now that could've been one of the strong points of Redemption. Again, it was poorly fleshed out. You went from fighting a big foe in the middle ages to fighting a big foe in modern times. It's a far cry from Bloodlines' much more intricate story.

jee7 said:
I didn't like that part much. I mean everything you did during the game just get's thrown out the window and everything you'll do and be is going to rely on these questions.
I really can't say much about that because just after answering these questions and going to Chinatown, the game crashed and I haven't played it anymore.

Maybe because of the long loading times I couldn't really get into the story...
True, it was a way of giving an extremely linear storyline a bit more dynamic. That was probably the weakest point of Bloodlines: its linear storyline. The non-linearity in everything surrounding the storyline quite made up for that, though.
But compare this to Redemption. That game was a lot more linear.

jee7 said:
The desing in Redemption was good imo, and it had multiplayer.
Well maybe the desing in Bloodlines would have suffered... but I read from somewhere that they already had multiplayer done for it, but it had just too many bugs to release. So... I guess the design was already at the multiplayer level... or whatever.. :P
Bloodlines was about the single player experience and about roleplaying. Redemption was about hack-and-slash and the multiplayer experience.
 
So Redemption is good because it's a third-rate Diablo clone skullfucking the White Wolf universe (such wonderful *depth* behind the Tremere you mindlessly kill</SARCASM>), with multiplayer, while Bloodlines is poorer because it actually offers role-playing at the expense of stupid trendy crap that obviously compromised whatever good design Redemption might have initially had behind it?

Oookay...
 
Roshambo said:
So Redemption is good because it's a third-rate Diablo clone skullfucking the White Wolf universe (such wonderful *depth* behind the Tremere you mindlessly kill</SARCASM>), with multiplayer, while Bloodlines is poorer because it actually offers role-playing at the expense of stupid trendy crap that obviously compromised whatever good design Redemption might have initially had behind it?

Oookay...

Lotsa people play game for the fun, not the story and gameplay Rosh.. That's why Diablo has more people playing than Fallout... :cry:
 
how is a game fun without gameplay, story & so on?

a game might be fun if it has no gameplay but an awesome story, a game might be fun if it has no story but awesome gameplay. however i fail to see how a game can be fun without any of those characteristics...
 
zioburosky13 said:
Lotsa people play game for the fun, not the story and gameplay Rosh.. That's why Diablo has more people playing than Fallout... :cry:

Yeah, and apparently jee7 is yet another retard beating off while gibbering about their "phat lewt".

You should really see some of the PMs the retard has been sending me. They set new records of stupidity.
 
Hell, don't mind his privacy on OUR account.

Diablo II was fun, but the myriad issues of higher level play just grew to be too irritating.
 
I remembered one of my 'hardcore-diablo' friend never touch Fallout before until I introduced to him. And he kept asking me where's the orc :shock:

I showed him the ghoul... :lol:
 
Back
Top