Search
William Friedkin recommended Ordet (1955) in Movies (curated)
Guillermo Del Toro recommended Vampyr (1932) in Movies (curated)
Guillermo Del Toro recommended Häxan (1922) in Movies (curated)
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated the PlayStation 4 version of Vampyr in Video Games
Oct 23, 2018 (Updated Oct 23, 2018)
Atrocious Combat (3 more)
Piss-poor Voice Acting
Shabby Graphics
Soooooooo Boring
One Of The Worst Games Of The Generation
When I picked up Vampyr, I really wanted to like it. This was one of those underdog games that come out a couple of times per generation. When it was first announced and shown, it was met with groans and cringes, then when it released back in June it was received surprisingly fairly well, getting 6's and 7's across various websites.
I eventually got around to picking it up a couple of weekends ago. For the life of me, I do not understand what the reviewers that scored this game a 6 or a 7 were thinking. This game is utter garbage.
In previous things that I've written, I've spoken about the bar consistently being raised in modern gaming and how there is no longer any place for sub par mediocrity in the landscape any more. Well, this is a prime example of a game that does not belong in 2018, It would even have been dated if it had dropped in 2008. Frankly, it doesn't belong in this generation. I have played PS2 and even PS1 games with better gameplay than this trash.
When I first booted up the game, it was pretty slow to start. It seemed pretty dialogue heavy, yet the voice acting was pretty poor. I powered through it, telling myself that there are other games that start off slow and awkward and end up being great once you get stuck in. Then I was introduced to the combat. My God. I genuinely couldn't believe how stiff and awkward and dated it felt. It is so easy and monotonous as well, to the point that any fun drains almost instantly. I can confidently say that it is by far the worst combat I have experienced out of any game I have played in 2018.
The gimmick that the game's marketing seemed to be pushing leading up to it's release, was that every character in the game is important and has an extensive backstory, from main characters to randomers on the street. My question is; why should I give a shit? The vast majority of these characters have nothing important or relevant to say and the vocal performances are so dire, you find yourself button mashing the square button to skip through all of the required dialogue that you are forced to sit through.
The plan was to fly through Vampyr this week and be finished for when Red Dead Redemption 2 is released on Friday. Two and a bit hours into Vampyr, I decided that it wasn't even worth doing that and life is too short.
Overall, the most impressive thing about this game is how much Dontnod Entertainment managed to fuck up a fairly interesting premise. Do yourself a favour and avoid this game like the plague. The only reason that it isn't getting a 1 is because The Amazing Spiderman 2 also came out this generation.
I eventually got around to picking it up a couple of weekends ago. For the life of me, I do not understand what the reviewers that scored this game a 6 or a 7 were thinking. This game is utter garbage.
In previous things that I've written, I've spoken about the bar consistently being raised in modern gaming and how there is no longer any place for sub par mediocrity in the landscape any more. Well, this is a prime example of a game that does not belong in 2018, It would even have been dated if it had dropped in 2008. Frankly, it doesn't belong in this generation. I have played PS2 and even PS1 games with better gameplay than this trash.
When I first booted up the game, it was pretty slow to start. It seemed pretty dialogue heavy, yet the voice acting was pretty poor. I powered through it, telling myself that there are other games that start off slow and awkward and end up being great once you get stuck in. Then I was introduced to the combat. My God. I genuinely couldn't believe how stiff and awkward and dated it felt. It is so easy and monotonous as well, to the point that any fun drains almost instantly. I can confidently say that it is by far the worst combat I have experienced out of any game I have played in 2018.
The gimmick that the game's marketing seemed to be pushing leading up to it's release, was that every character in the game is important and has an extensive backstory, from main characters to randomers on the street. My question is; why should I give a shit? The vast majority of these characters have nothing important or relevant to say and the vocal performances are so dire, you find yourself button mashing the square button to skip through all of the required dialogue that you are forced to sit through.
The plan was to fly through Vampyr this week and be finished for when Red Dead Redemption 2 is released on Friday. Two and a bit hours into Vampyr, I decided that it wasn't even worth doing that and life is too short.
Overall, the most impressive thing about this game is how much Dontnod Entertainment managed to fuck up a fairly interesting premise. Do yourself a favour and avoid this game like the plague. The only reason that it isn't getting a 1 is because The Amazing Spiderman 2 also came out this generation.
Josh Burns (166 KP) rated the PlayStation 4 version of Vampyr in Video Games
Jun 21, 2019
Great story (2 more)
Great Atmosphere
Adaptive gameplay
Protect or Prey on the people of London in Vampyr
Vampyr is a mixed bag that may not be for everyone. It really depends on the types of games you like on this one (as with Until Dawn).
The game draws inspiration from a real epedemic called the Spanish Flu, which for whatever reason, gets way less attention than the Black Plague. You play as an esteemed doctor who gets turned into a vampire after returning to London from being in World War 1. The game just drips in atmosphere as you travel the nearly abandoned streets and docks. It channels gothic horror but with a tasteful dose of modern genre updates. It has a very good story that reminds of a bit of Mary Shelley's book Frankenstein in the fact that you do not like what you are, or what it has caused you to do.
Now, this game is largely what you make it to be. The people of London all have fleshed out backstories, personalities, and many offer side quests, trade options, or useful info on certain things. You can either bond with then and work to keep them healthy, or you can feed on them and grow stronger. Your choice on how you handle this can dramatically effect the game. You gain a large amount of experience from feeding on them, even more if you gain their trust first. If you take that route it can take the game from challanging to being easy. There is are a lot of options when leveling up, without feeding you will not be able to max everything out. Another thing that depends on play style, is that there is a ton of talking if you choose to help tje people and gain their trust. This isn't a requirement, however. So the game can be very deep and story driven with a lot of dialogue, or it can be more of an action game, depending on what you do.
On that note, as a pure action game, I'm not sure if it would hold up for most. The combat mechanics are quite basic, attack, dodge, and a few specials, and ranged attack with gun. It's fun enough when not taking the feeding route because you still have to be strategic but if you feed a lot and are extremely powerful, I don't see it being very fun.
The game also features light crafting in the form of upgrading weapons, making blood, stanima, and health injections (same as potions in most games) and medicine for the people. It's semi open and semi linear. You have a map that you can go anywhere on, but only in certain buildings and some streets are blocked off. In fact, navigation can be infuriating at times because of dead ends, doors that need to be unlocked from the other side, and objective markers sometimes being in the wrong spot on the map. I spent a half hour trying to get into a mansion before looking it up and finding out the marker was wrong and I was at the wrong building.
So in conclusion: if you like games like the 1st Mass Effect where story, characters and dialogue are the focus of the game with a healthy dose of combat that isn't amazing but gets the job done, then you'll love it. If you want to just run arpund and hack shit up, it might not be for you.
The game draws inspiration from a real epedemic called the Spanish Flu, which for whatever reason, gets way less attention than the Black Plague. You play as an esteemed doctor who gets turned into a vampire after returning to London from being in World War 1. The game just drips in atmosphere as you travel the nearly abandoned streets and docks. It channels gothic horror but with a tasteful dose of modern genre updates. It has a very good story that reminds of a bit of Mary Shelley's book Frankenstein in the fact that you do not like what you are, or what it has caused you to do.
Now, this game is largely what you make it to be. The people of London all have fleshed out backstories, personalities, and many offer side quests, trade options, or useful info on certain things. You can either bond with then and work to keep them healthy, or you can feed on them and grow stronger. Your choice on how you handle this can dramatically effect the game. You gain a large amount of experience from feeding on them, even more if you gain their trust first. If you take that route it can take the game from challanging to being easy. There is are a lot of options when leveling up, without feeding you will not be able to max everything out. Another thing that depends on play style, is that there is a ton of talking if you choose to help tje people and gain their trust. This isn't a requirement, however. So the game can be very deep and story driven with a lot of dialogue, or it can be more of an action game, depending on what you do.
On that note, as a pure action game, I'm not sure if it would hold up for most. The combat mechanics are quite basic, attack, dodge, and a few specials, and ranged attack with gun. It's fun enough when not taking the feeding route because you still have to be strategic but if you feed a lot and are extremely powerful, I don't see it being very fun.
The game also features light crafting in the form of upgrading weapons, making blood, stanima, and health injections (same as potions in most games) and medicine for the people. It's semi open and semi linear. You have a map that you can go anywhere on, but only in certain buildings and some streets are blocked off. In fact, navigation can be infuriating at times because of dead ends, doors that need to be unlocked from the other side, and objective markers sometimes being in the wrong spot on the map. I spent a half hour trying to get into a mansion before looking it up and finding out the marker was wrong and I was at the wrong building.
So in conclusion: if you like games like the 1st Mass Effect where story, characters and dialogue are the focus of the game with a healthy dose of combat that isn't amazing but gets the job done, then you'll love it. If you want to just run arpund and hack shit up, it might not be for you.