>>725309361
You don't need to really do anything very special to make a VTMB 2 that will be eaten by the rabid fanbase wanting for more. You need like 12 memorable quests, some good weapons there and then, like 6 (4 at the absolute lowest) memorable characters, some dudes having funny accents.
A sewer. A badly designed sewer.
Uh. An inventory. Skills. Character sheets. Weapons. Skill checks. Hacking would be nice. Emails and stuff. Lockpicking would be extra nice. Then it'll be an average 7/10 most VTMB fans would agree don't quite match the original, but is still a worthy successor.
The issue is not TCR created an average game people would talk about in ten years and fondly says it isn't at the level of the first bloodline. The issue is that TCR created an utter piece of shit.
4chan Search
5 results for "cb0fea69d59709622b2c20d2d2bbd88c"
So question:
Is ghouling someone (And keeping them a ghoul) just objectively wrong? What with the forced love and obediance and subjecting them to, well, the life of a ghoul (which typically ain't that great even at the best of times).
Or is it just very morally questionable and too complex of an issue to judge on anything but a case by case basis?
For example I feel Ghouling Heather wasn't wrong, like at at. You were literally saving her life. However KEEPING her as a ghoul after she tracks you down? That is certainly a lot more questionable. Perhaps not immediately, objectively wrong but also far from right too, let alone the best option for her, even disregarding the unmodded outcome.
On the other hand, say there's a very old ghoul, one who would turn right to dust shortly after missing a vitae feeding, that has now been orphaned. They are already a ghoul, it was done by someone else but now staying a ghoul is the only way to survive. Is taking them as your own to maintain that state for them a mercy or still wrong, given they're just trading one slave master for another, no matter how well you may "take care of them"?
Is ghouling someone (And keeping them a ghoul) just objectively wrong? What with the forced love and obediance and subjecting them to, well, the life of a ghoul (which typically ain't that great even at the best of times).
Or is it just very morally questionable and too complex of an issue to judge on anything but a case by case basis?
For example I feel Ghouling Heather wasn't wrong, like at at. You were literally saving her life. However KEEPING her as a ghoul after she tracks you down? That is certainly a lot more questionable. Perhaps not immediately, objectively wrong but also far from right too, let alone the best option for her, even disregarding the unmodded outcome.
On the other hand, say there's a very old ghoul, one who would turn right to dust shortly after missing a vitae feeding, that has now been orphaned. They are already a ghoul, it was done by someone else but now staying a ghoul is the only way to survive. Is taking them as your own to maintain that state for them a mercy or still wrong, given they're just trading one slave master for another, no matter how well you may "take care of them"?
>>723881334
As a Malkavian Heather calls you "my little crazy buddy buddy" or something I don't exactly remember instead of "master" in a raspy, longing voice. This, naturally, makes a Malkavian playthrough unplayable.
As a Malkavian Heather calls you "my little crazy buddy buddy" or something I don't exactly remember instead of "master" in a raspy, longing voice. This, naturally, makes a Malkavian playthrough unplayable.
>>723583294
Maybe the most cogent and intelligent thing you've ever said, Lacroix.
Maybe the most cogent and intelligent thing you've ever said, Lacroix.
Why is she so perfect bros?