Bloodlines 2 Links

[DarkProphet]

Okay I'm sorry but this is getting ridiculous... what the actual fuck do y'all mean by "wokeness"? What is it you're afraid of? Two women kissing? A trans man making an appearance? You getting to pick your character's pronouns (because somehow more choice is a bad thing now)?


Please stop with that bullshit. Because let's be clear, here... it is bullshit. Pure, unfiltered, uncut, uncontaminated bullshit, of the most... fragrant... variety.


If the ability to pick your players' pronouns is such a fucking sin to you, maybe just don't play... and go away.

You ask what we mean, then you immediately build a strawman argument with a list of things we have not stated, and proceed to make a statement to us to "Please stop with that bullshit," as though we have already responded to you when we have not, going on to define the level of "bullshit" you think our argument which we have not presented is, doing so with vitriol.


Read your own post in which you pretend to want a discussion, judge "our opinions" (i.e. ones you pulled out of your ass without asking us), then suggest we not play a game we've been wanting for over a decade, and go away. Creating strawman arguments for others and telling them maybe they should go away is unethical and intolerant, respectively. You're trying to take the moral high ground and have ended up in a pit of your own digging.



If you decide to start over and not make another sleazy post like that one, then I might be inclined to actually have a discussion, but for now, I'm simply tolerating your presence and taking your post at its apparent value: a flagrant dismissal of differing opinions and intent to drive people off, under the false pretense of wondering what we mean.



In fact, I have a quote from someone that is fitting for how you acted in your vile post. Here it is: "Please stop with that bullshit. Because let's be clear, here... it is bullshit. Pure, unfiltered, uncut, uncontaminated bullshit, of the most... fragrant... variety."

[NateHevens]

Yeah that's nice and all, but that's what the people complaining about "wokeness" are talking about.


So fine. I'm wrong. What is it you actually mean, then?

[Wesp5]

DarkProphet already mentions one: "After all, they talked about how they want to respect the mentally ill, and here we have a Malkavian dancing around corpses he's strung up like puppets."
Also Cara Ellison, one of the writers, talked about trigger warnings to avoid having sensitive players seeing things they couldn't handle. And now they put such a horrible scene into the new trailer!

[fylimar]

I don't know about the trigger warnings - I mean, this is a horror game and the WoD is a grim setting. Just remember the snuff tape mission and Andreis Home (well... both of them actually) - this is stuff for nightmares. In my opinion, if you are sensible, you should not play a horror game - or maybe watch a Let's play before playing to see, if the games will suit you. There are so many games out there to choose from.
As for the Malkavian, Mr.Damp: I have a mental illness myself (anxiety), but I don't feel triggered in any way by Mr. Damp. His behavior can also come from having a low humanity, after all, most Tzimisce don't have mental illnesses, but still do despicable things (referring back to Andreis living home). I would probably be mad (no pun intended), if every Malkavian turns out to be a murderous sociopath, but I highly doubt, that will be the case.

[Wesp5]

I don't know about the trigger warnings - I mean, this is a horror game and the WoD is a grim setting. Just remember the snuff tape mission and Andreis Home (well... both of them actually) - this is stuff for nightmares. In my opinion, if you are sensible, you should not play a horror game - or maybe watch a Let's play before playing to see, if the games will suit you. There are so many games out there to choose from.

Exactly. This is the reason why so many people were confused when Cara Ellison talked about it. Why soften the WoD up for sensitive people? The game ratings are there for a reason. They can always watch or read Twilight if they want sparkling vampires ;)!

[fylimar]

I don't know about the trigger warnings - I mean, this is a horror game and the WoD is a grim setting. Just remember the snuff tape mission and Andreis Home (well... both of them actually) - this is stuff for nightmares. In my opinion, if you are sensible, you should not play a horror game - or maybe watch a Let's play before playing to see, if the games will suit you. There are so many games out there to choose from.

Exactly. This is the reason why so many people were confused when Cara Ellison talked about it. Why soften the WoD up for sensitive people? The game ratings are there for a reason. They can always watch or read Twilight if they want sparkling vampires ;)!

Yes - or Anne Rice  . No, seriously - I never have heard that a Resident Evil game (for example) had to give out trigger warnings before quests (and I would really have appreciated it before meeting Black Tiger ... kidding of course) and they are dealing with very disturbing stuff too. I think, it isn't too much to ask people to get some informations about a game before buying it. I'm not sure about some games either, so I watch playthroughs, read critics and then decide. I don't know, how they handle the trigger warnings - if they give a general warning at the start of the game, it would be ok for me, but if a trigger waring pops up with every quest, that would be immersion breaking (and tbh: very spoilery). I know, people can be really dumb (there is a reason for warnings of hot content on coffee cups), but is it really too much to ask people to inform themselves about the WoD before diving into it?

[Highwayman667]

*cracks knuckles* Alright boyz and gurls... let's tango.

I can agree that it's a pretty edgy move to include a snuff tape quest in a videogame. Snuff tapes in real life are probably some of the most cruel and horrific pieces of content one can ever be fortunate not to come across; we are lucky that most of them are fake, and it's quite a horrid thing that some of them are even real at all. So it was a bit scary when you found such a thing in a videogame, it certainly served its purpose in both the story and the gameplay.

Was it likely to be emotionally damaging to the audience ? Absolutely not.

Why ? Because what we see in the snuff tape is not actual human violence. We just see some cartoonish creatures chasing down a woman and then "eating her". That is not likely to remind anyone about an instance of violence or sexual abuse that ever happened in their entire lives because nobody is killed by creatures or monsters.

IF, however, such a thing were to happen in Bloodlines 2 (for example: a quest where a thinblood is on the run after committing rape) then it is reasonable to assume that a person might be emotionally hurt from the experience and thus it is sensible to warn them of such a thing. We're not just talking about ugly walking heads now, we're talking about rape.

What would be the mistake here ? I think we all agree it would be to receive a trigger warning RIGHT before the quests with sensitive content begin. Would there be a problem however, with a letter from the developers before, or after the character creator, about the nature of the content depicted in the story ? I think not.
Thus to me, trigger warnings are ok... IF properly placed. And why is the ratings system not enough ? Because it's never worked, it's too vague and it's not really its function; its there to warn parents and guardians with minors under their care, not victims of violence or abuse.

[fylimar]

As I said, a general warning is OK, but I don't want a warning before a quest. I like to be surprised. And I did find the snuff quest horrifying, yes Andrei video was about his ghouls (who were humans and vampires before), supernatural creatures, but while chasing down the video, you did come across a 'rel' snuff movie company, so that might have triggered someone. I really don't care for myself. If I find a game, movie or book too disturbing, I just stop and put them aside. I know, it might be worse for people, who had real life bad experiences, but I think for them, a general warning about graphic and/or sexual violence should be enough, I guess. And as I said, there is always the possibility of waiting for a critic or watch a Let's Play to get a feeling for the general tone.

[Highwayman667]

As I said, a general warning is OK, but I don't want a warning before a quest.

I think we all agree that none of us wants that, but even a general warning is still a trigger warning to some extent. In the end it's purpose is to protect people from events in the story that might trigger feelings or emotions that are associated with deeply hurtful experiences. This is very likely not big of an issue really, it's more likely that the words "trigger warning" have been way too maligned by the internet community.

I really don't care for myself. If I find a game, movie or book too disturbing, I just stop and put them aside. I know, it might be worse for people, who had real life bad experiences, but I think for them, a general warning about graphic and/or sexual violence should be enough, I guess.

I agree on that end, but there's a difference between scary imagery and a trigger for a traumatic event.


I remember when I was watching "A Serbian Film" and I saw the "baby scene". It was probably the first time I needed to stop a movie because of how fucked up what I saw was; it was probably the most disturbing scene I had ever seen in a movie up to that point. I wasn't hurt however, nor was I reminded of any bad experience I'd previously had, and there is a key difference. IF SOMEHOW we got trigger warnings before quests, I would certainly be a little mad because as you've all said, it takes away from the surprise and the immersion that the game provides. It's an unlikely event though, as the trailer recently demonstrated.

[Wesp5]

I agree on that end, but there's a difference between scary imagery and a trigger for a traumatic event.

In that case don't give me trigger warnings and don't get me realistic traumatic events as well. The WoD is about supernatural stuff, so just give us absurd and dark stuff like in the trailer that shouldn't realistically trigger anybody...

[Highwayman667]

In that case don't give me trigger warnings and don't get me realistic traumatic events as well. The WoD is about supernatural stuff, so just give us absurd and dark stuff like in the trailer that shouldn't realistically trigger anybody...

That could also be a solution, even though I'd wonder how the story would reference real horror and cruelty with that approach.

[NateHevens]

Okay. Trigger Warnings.

Full disclosure: I'm someone who supports and encourages the use of things like trigger warnings, content warnings, etc in general. I think they're incredibly important in giving people more information about what they're getting into, and whether or not they want to continue with whatever it is. A soldier suffering from PTSD is definitely going to appreciate a trigger warning for anything that could potentially trigger her war-based PTSD...

And it makes me laugh when people complain about them when we already get them all the time to begin with and have for several decades already...

After all, what is a rating statement if not exactly that:

-Rated R for (reasons here)
-Rated TV-MA for (reasons here)
-Rated M for (reasons here)

Those are trigger warnings. Like... that's the definition.

I genuinely do not believe that they're going to throw trigger warnings in the middle of the game, but if they do, there'd be ways to do it without breaking immersion, like lines of dialog from an NPC about how dangerous someone or something is. And before anyone tries to make fun of that, things like that are done all the time. Hell... I'm playing Breath of the Wild on Switch and NPCs have noted the danger of Link's quests several times. The game isn't stopped; it's just a natural progression of the written dialog.

For example (warning: BotW spoilers)... there's a character who wants to see gear from the Hyrule Royal Guard in the game. She knows she can't, though, because the gear is only found in Hyrule Castle, which, in BotW, is in ruins and haunted by the big bad Ganon and several other in-game enemies.

Said NPC straight up says how dangerous the castle is. It doesn't stop the game for an on-screen written trigger warning; it's just part of the natural dialog of the game. Hell... you wouldn't notice it if you were only half paying attention. Yet it's right there, in the game, disguised as basic dialog from an NPC.

And yes, it absolutely counts as a warning, as that's literally what it is. And dialog like that is perfectly normal in games. (Spoiler warnings, BTW, are also in the same category.)

It's in movies, as well. Did anyone see Blade 2? Nyssa takes Blade to a vampire club/safehouse, and literally warns him that he'll see things like feeding before they go in. It's literally a trigger warning, by definition, but was slipped by viewers as a piece of dialog one character says to another. And I don't recall anyone ever complaining about it.

Bloodlines 2 ratings statement will serve as the trigger warning to viewers. If they put them in the game, I believe very much in the ability of the writers (especially Brian Mitsoda) to easily and artfully disguise them in the dialog in ways you'll find impossible to complain about. They won't break the immersion because they won't pause the game any more than dialog usually does. Even simple things like "be careful; he's dangerous" is entirely natural dialog that also fits the definition of a trigger/content warning, and I'm sure we'll see at least something like that once...

[Candy Narwhal]

The thing is, I think people hear the term "trigger warnings" and expect them to be applied as they sometimes are in YouTube video essays and whatnot - like, given right before the sensitive topic is brought up.

This, obviously, does not work in a video game context, at least not without breaking immersion. For this reason, it is safe to assume they would never put trigger warnings in front of quests, so it's a silly thing to be worried about...

I could see them placing a content warning at the beginning of the game though, like, right before the main menu, in the same way that (mostly older) horror games have done in the past.

[DarkProphet]

Highwayman, I would contend that not giving trigger warnings for the snuff film because it's a bunch of misshapen monsters is actually worse than not giving trigger warnings for a rape. The point you made is that it's monsters and it's snuff, and the player wasn't killed IRL before, so it wouldn't trigger them. What about anyone who has been sent a video of a loved one being executed without a trial in a foreign country? What about anyone who saw or heard about his or her mom, sister, aunt, cousin, niece (or the male variants of these), etc. actually being murdered in a snuff film in the past? Just because the thing hasn't happened to the player personally, doesn't mean it can't be "triggering."

As I said, I would say it's even worse, because for the atheistic players - of whom I am sure there will be a fair number - rape can be overcome as a "mind over matter" situation (though difficult), since it is a terrible experience, but one that is still possible of being "beaten" by the victim's mind...whereas a loved one dying in a snuff film has the loved one still dead. You can try to "get over it," but someone dying is still someone dying. That person - to an atheist - is gone forever, and you will never have another conversation with that loved one again in reality.

Also, it would be too long of a trigger warning before a game to list all of the possible triggers. Actually think of every single thing that could "trigger" someone in Bloodlines 1, whether you agree with the triggers or not, and imagine how long that list would be. It would be an ocean of words and completely out of context.




Nate, as for what I mean, I actually would like to directly address one of the things you brought up: choosing pronouns. Yes, that actually is a bad thing, in my opinion. Why? Oh, not for any political, religious, or other reason one might expect, but because there are various situations in Bloodlines 1 where choosing to be male or female makes a big difference in dialog for players, making each playthrough more interesting. For example, if you talk to Mercurio about Jeanette as a male character, he lewdly proclaims "Jeanette's got a body built for bedrooms." However, if you're playing a female character, Mercurio is clearly uncomfortable talking about Jeanette in that way around you, and he begrudgingly tells you about it after a little dialog. If you let the player choose from a dozen or so pronouns, that scene can't happen like that.

Also, Jeanette herself greets the player and it is an energetic, aggressively teasing intro, with "You smell new, little boy," or "You smell new, little girl," and I'm sure that's a very memorable line for players of both sexes (including "like fabric softener dew on freshly mowed astroturf," that comes next =p). If everyone can be "zi" or whatever pronouns they choose, lines like "You smell new little boy/girl" won't exist in Bloodlines 2 since neither will apply. Just saying "You smell new, like fabric softener dew..." does not sufficiently encapsulate Jeanette's sucker-punch of an aggressive tease right off the bat by calling the player "little boy" or "little girl." It just establishes that she's weird instead, thus completely changing the scene. Could it have been written another way to pull it off well? Perhaps, but the more words that she's "forbidden" from saying, the less teasing things can be. They can't possibly afford to pay the voice actors/actresses to do the plethora of different pronouns of dialog lines that would be necessary to deal with this situation, so instead we are going to get replies that will be the same across all playthroughs as it pertains to your sex/gender. So in truth, by giving "more options," we get less outcomes.

If one were to say "But Mercurio is being sexist!" I would say "Yes, and having him be super politically correct in the early 2000s despite being about 50 years old while working for a criminal organization of immortals nightly would likely leave him not caring about political correctness and likely clinging to some of the older trappings of sex/gender roles and the like." In his formative years, the overwhelming majority of females were likely unsettled or insulted hearing such things from him, while the overwhelming majority of males were likely not outright upset by him saying things like that back in the day." It doesn't mean I approve of or disapprove of Mercurio. It means he's a well-made character and not a device made as a real-world political activism mouthpiece.

Fat Larry has some similarities, referring to a male player character as "playa" and treating him differently from a female player character, whom he calls "baby girl" since he's a flirty, quirky guy who likes the ladies a whole lot. In game mechanics, he's nothing more than a shop that gives you a brief, minor sidequest with no supernatural ties/lore, but Fat Larry's dialog differences between males and females make him one of those experiences that really sticks out between different playthroughs based on your sex/gender selection. That can't happen with Bloodlines 2 because of the pronoun selection since the non-male/non-female choices would require a ton of extra recorded lines.

Also, the pronoun selection is technically pointless except in quest logs and e-mails/texts. Why? As I just said, there's no way they can afford to cover a bunch of different pronouns in the dialog. Just look at Fallout 4 with Cogsworth and saying the player's name. He's the only character who does it. It was done to impress players, but it's purely a one-off gimmick that was too expensive to pay various other characters to do it as well, or we would've had that for the other characters, too. Heck, Bethesda had to have far more leeway on budgeting for Fallout 4 than Hardsuit Labs does for Bloodlines 2.

While I hope they had enough money to pay for male, female, and "other" (i.e. three total versions of sex/gender-relevant lines) from voice actors and actresses so that players choosing male and female can get some flavor from their choices, I'm not holding my breath that they'll have the money for it or risk the political "cancel culture" fallout of doing so.

Just imagine if male and female characters get vivid lines specific to each, while the pronoun choices other than "he" and "she" lose out on all of those lines. The "games journalists" will write hit pieces saying that the game does the LGBTQ+ community dirty and how that Hardsuit Labs and/or Paradox clearly aren't "allies" and that they're favoring "cis" folks, and thus are transphobic. This isn't a stretch. Political correctness stories come out all the time crapping on creators who try to be "inclusive" but didn't serve the journalist's political agenda sufficiently to his or her satisfaction.


Now I'm delving into the "woke" aspect a bit, as to what I was referring to before. So, continuing from the above paragraph, let's look at an example. Have you heard about the Borderlands 3 Guns, Love, & Tentacles DLC? I'm sure Gearbox had nothing but good (and profitable) intent when they decided "Hey, let's make an H.P. Lovecraftian planet with silly, creepy quests, and the entire mission is to help two likable gay men in love get married. Welp, apparently this dead H.P. Lovecraft guy was a racist and a homophobe. A journalist from GameSpot then took it upon himself ( https://www.gamespot.com/articles/borderlands-3-guns-love-and-tentacles-dlc-hand-wav/1100-6475340/ ) to publicly defecate on Gearbox's "progressive" DLC by implying that Gearbox needed to somehow mock H.P. Lovecraft's racism and homophobia, and that since it didn't do that, Gearbox totally failed and the DLC is "problematic." He also gripes about the villain claiming the gay characters' love is lesser than the love between herself and her husband, but um...SHE IS THE VILLAIN. She's supposed to be evil and the object of the player's frustration. Also, she doesn't say it's because their gay or make any such insinuations.

This also happened when journalists got epic hard-ons about Far Cry 5, wanting it to be all about real-world political messages when that's not what Far Cry 1, 3, or 4 were really about (I hated 2 and didn't finish it). This asshole ( https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/29/17176308/far-cry-5-review-xbox-ps4-pc ) is clearly butt-hurt that the game doesn't make the villains be racists to make social commentary about White Nationalists, when there's no evidence that the villains were ever supposed to be racists or White Nationalists. He admits the game makes political one-liners dissing Trump and such, but it is "a game for cowards" (his words) as it didn't go the distance and become a piece of political activism for the journalist's agenda. So the developers put a couple of pro-Left jokes in the game, and journalists call their game "a game for cowards."

Here's another prick ( https://www.polygon.com/2018/3/27/17165252/far-cry-5-story-characters ) who knocks on Far Cry 5 because it doesn't take up the cause for the political agenda he wants it to. There is a phrase that's been coined: "the Left eat their own." People do something "progressive," but it's just not progressive enough, according to some jackasses, and those jackasses then proceed to put out publications attempting to shame the developers for having the gall to do something in favor of the Left...but not take it far enough to stick it to the opposition.

I don't want to see Hardsuit Labs' writers put out something A) not woke enough that gets them shamed into oblivion to the point that it hurts their sales, or B) so woke that they "get woke, go broke" because the game ends up being such a piece of political propaganda/activism that it's no longer an attempt at a good game, but focuses the majority of its efforts on "owning the deplorables."


Given the cool trailers, Option A seems more likely because Hardsuit Labs gave a rather PC interview about choosing pronouns, "punching up, not down," etc., so the journalists might be itching to give this game the Left-Wing sniff test, as it were, writing articles in the most well-known gaming publications sullying the game for having the "audacity" to include pronouns and a couple of Trump jokes, but not going far enough and making things about race, transphobia in America, and the mentally ill not being represented just right. Lacking the clout and prior brand recognition of Gearbox or Ubisoft, Hardsuit Labs will have the misfortune of people buying into bullshit article headlines and making unfair judgments about the company that might hurt stock prices, game sales, and influence the writing in future games, etc.

Of course, I think the ultimate conclusion is that people shouldn't bother listening to the hard-reaching, bitter ramblings of games journalists trying to find something to bitch about when a developer actually did something progressive and the journalist should "take his/her win and walk away." Nothing's generally ever good enough for them unless it goes so far that it seems as though it may repel the "deplorables," because these folks don't want everyone to get along. They don't want minds changed. They don't want reasonable discussions. They want in-your-face fuck-you-if-you-disagree-with-us presentations lacking any subtlety and for games to be real-world political activism first; and maybe fun if that's still possible.

I play games to visit an alternate reality where vampire politics are the only politics that matter, where all human politics are largely an afterthought, and I can be faced with murder/life-saving decisions and temptations in a cool power fantasy of mystical beings interacting with others in a cool setting. Being preached at and very unsubtly told by a game's hack writers that I am a bad person because I disagree with their politics is not why I play games. Unless the player's real-world politics/beliefs are to kill people who try to mind their own business without not hurting other humans, then I see no reason to openly try to insult and villainize the player.


Similarly, I wouldn't want a developer on the Right to try to shame and push away people on the Left who play their games. We're here to have fun someplace where real-world politics aren't a big deal. Imagine if you were playing a game and suddenly the characters start talking about abortion in a pro-life angle, and anyone with pro-choice arguments is portrayed as an idiot or a villain, and the player has to support pro-life decisions in the game and it's obvious that's the only right answer per the writing and all else is belittled. Same with pro-gun arguments. Nationalism arguments. Arguments in support of building "the wall." Pro-religion arguments. Arguments of the inferiority and superiority of the values inculcated by certain cultures in America. The list goes on.


It would be pretty repulsive stuff to someone on the Left side of the aisle, even if the person isn't being overly sensitive, as the writers are taking what was supposed to be a fun escape from reality into a world of vampires, and turning it into a preachy, heavy-handed tirade making those players legitimately feel unwanted and hated by the world they're being immersed in. This is not how you change minds. This is not how you make people feel wanted or even tolerated. This is how you piss people off and get them to stop buying your games and further entrench themselves in the opinions you oppose, simply out of sheer spite of the bastards who had the nerve to take a dump in their happy place (video games).


If you want to see what happens when a writer/creator goes too far to the "woke side," go to YouTube and search for "Bit trailer." It's a new trailer (just a few days old) for a vampire movie, and it goes out of its way to denigrate males. Could you imagine a trailer like this with all male vampires talking like this about females? Imagine the backlash from the Left. Also, the protagonist is a trans woman. Not really part of my argument, but I'm sure it scores all kinds of points for the writer/director/producer folks.

[Candy Narwhal]

Oh, good grief.

Who's saying that the pronoun choice won't affect dialogue, suddenly? If you've chosen she/her pronouns, then doubtless the NPCs will treat you as feminine, and vice versa.

(based on the perfectly realistic assumption that if you've chosen she/her pronouns for them, you will want your character to be treated as feminine)

Besides, there are plenty of ways to write great dialogue without being gender-specific - talk about shitting on Brian Mitsoda's craft, to imply otherwise.

I do think a certain subset of people will be very upset, though, to find out that you can make a fairly masculine-looking character with she/her pronouns that will be treated as feminine by NPCs...

Spoiler alert, those people will most likely not be on the "progressive" side of the political spectrum either. They're going to be the real problem, in the end - not some desperate Kotaku writer looking for clicks.