Vampyr is a game that is incredibly close to being really really good and just falls short. Conceptually I love it, intricate characters and quests whose health and survival is tied into how well off each district is, while also giving you the option of killing them to become more powerful. It's great and honestly I like how that system works but there are a lot of aspects where the game's rough edges get in the way.

In a similar vein to Dark Souls the combat should be purely skill based, you really shouldn't ever need to kill NPCs for upgrades assuming you're good enough. But this isn't really the case, you can absolutely beat the game without killing NPCs (I didn't kill any on my playthrough) but the combat is really clunky and as you run into harder bosses and enemies you often are killed from jank rather than mistakes. I can't count the amount of times I got hit by an enemy even after clearly dodging far out of the way. It really left something to be desired, and I think if there's ever a sequel, combat is the number one thing that needs to be worked on.

The atmosphere and setting is really where this game shines, as death and chaos consume London, with you barely holding everything together. There's never a moment when it feels like everything is okay or safe, every zone is constantly on the verge of plague and mass death.

The story and side quests often add to this but they end up being more of a mixed bag. At points the writing is brilliant and at points it's incredibly lacking.

For example one quest focused heavily on a drunk, whose past is something that he seems to be trying his best to forget. As you talk with him and explore all of his dialogue you learn that he's an anarchist who has become a pacifist, wanting to achieve his goals through non-violence. Eventually you'll be sent on quest to visit a memorial in the city and when returning you realize that the reason he's a pacifist is because he accidentally killed several people with a car bomb. Completely innocent people who weren't supposed to be there but were killed because of his actions. This quest is does such an excellent job of giving so much depth to this character, showing how his past actions have shaped and changed his world view. It's genuinely fantastic.

Unfortunately not all the writing is like this. In another area, there's a character whose protesting against a millionaire who's central to the story and controls the district. If you talk to the protester about him, at one point you're character brings up his philanthropy and how this is undoubtedly a good thing. There are quite a few counter arguments against this you would expect a character like her to bring up but instead her response is essentially "I guess you're right". You would think someone protesting would have a good enough grasp on politics to counter this but no, the conversation ends and you're left with a feeling that the writers really just didn't know what they were talking about.

I think that's the problem with a lot of the writing, sometimes it's truly great and interesting and full of a depth and richness that I would expect from the best RPGs. But sometimes it's clear that the writing just isn't as smart as it thinks it is and it leads to underwhelming and uninteresting plot points that feel like they needed a lot more time to flesh out.

This game is certainly fun at points, and probably worth picking up on sale but it mostly just makes me interested on possibly getting a sequel that has better combat and better writing.