Do you think violence and gore adds to a game

[JackKrauserFtw]

Questions in the title, shoot away

Personally I feel that used properly, blood and gore can add a deeper sense of realism and help immerse the player, however I feel that this perfect amount is very hard to hit, as for me at least, there is a fine line between immersive and excessive, and if its a choice between excessive and none at all, I'll choose none every time. However I feel that sometimes if done well, excessive gore can be a good thing, a good example for this is L4D2, it is a very gorey game no doubt, but the gore is 'clean' (as in doesn't clutter up the screen), and in general looks very nicely done. A good example of bad excessive gore is the new Splatter House game, where they have simply gone for quantity over quality, lots and lots of blood without much realism or substance, just blood for the sake of blood.

Your thoughts?

 

[ramboondiea]

i think it depends on what the player wants from a game, if you just want gritty realism, and moderation etc, then the truer the gore is the better, if you just want to smash shit up then games like splatterhouse in all the excessiveness do the trick.

 

[megaraccoon]

depends on the game for example it adds realism to metro 2033 but is next to useless in a game like halo wars in my opinion.

 

[Lono Shrugged]

From serious sam to fallout 3 I cannot think of a single game that was not made more fun by adding loads of gore.

On the flipside From mario to goldeneye I cannot think of a single game made less fun by not adding gore.

 

[oplinger]

I think blood and gore is never done right. However, it does add to the game. If I'm shooting a tiny metal projectile through someone's eyeball, I think it should bleed. Should their head explode into chunky kibble? No probably not. But I find excessive more fun than no blood and gore. No blood and gore is just....weird.

 

[Brawndo]

Depends on the game really. For your average FPS, it's visually satisfying to see pink mist with a good headshot or blood stains on the wall. I like a moderate amount of blood and no dismemberment - anything more and it's just ridiculous or trying too hard (example: Soldier of Fortune). For zombie and horror games, dismemberment and gore are appropriate, even though it can gross me out after awhile

 

[Yarpie]

If it serves as a way to enhance the story telling, sure. If it's used simply as a crutch to desperately try to enforce the notion that the game is adult, edgy and mature, then no. At that point I find it more juvenile than anything else.

 

[The Fork of Truth]

If it should be there, put it in. Left 4 Dead 2 would look stupid without it. However, it shouldn't be over-done.

 

[Shoggoth2588]

Yes yes yes. I just played a demo of Jurassic: The Hunter (I think) and the 'gore' in that was laughable (and not the good kind). Sure, I'm using real guns to shot these dinosaurs but I didn't realize dino-blood was neon red.

The Bloody Mess perk in Fallout 3 is gibbed to ridiculousness. So why do I keep picking it?

BECAUSE IT'S DAMN FUN.

You make an excellent point.

 

[Betancore]

Depends on the game. Not every game requires violence and gore, but to some games, it adds to the experience. I think I read this in PC Powerplay, regarding the censored version of L4D 2 - they said that it was like watching a horror film with the curtains open and the sunlight pouring into the room.

 

[VondeVon]

Gore bores.

 

[ComicsAreWeird]

If you ask me if Pacman needs gore i´ll probably say no. But if the plot of a game requires gore, sure why not?

Now i´m imagining a Pacman gore-fest and it looks oddly entertaining, heh.

 

[VanillaBean]

Like you said it all depends on tone. For example it works great in Fallout 3 witch has a rather dark hopeless tone. While with Super Mario 64 blood and gore wouldn't have the same effect.

 

[GaryH]

It largely depends on the game. I wouldn't say that "violence and gore" add to a game but, depending on the game, "action" most certainly does. If the gameplay and the setting call for the action to be violent, then it stands to reason that violence would improve the game. Adding to that, some violence needs gore to have any impact; particularly in games that are aiming for a more "photo-realistic" style. I dislike the term "realism" but fatal injuries tend to bleed in real life and without the gore your enemies may aswell be ragdolls. (See Censored L4D2 example mentioned above)

Gore can also improve a game if its theme/genre/story allows for it. I can't imagine a survival horror title without the slightest bit of gore in it, for example.

 

[ProfessorLayton]

Depends on the game. Think what Gears of War would be like without it's over the top gore? Better yet, play it with the gore off and see how boring it becomes. Sometimes the gore makes the game. Gore for the sake of gore is fine in my book, so is gore for the sake of realism, so long as it fits in the game.

Exactly. Gears of War is not the same when they don't explode into pieces upon a close range shotgun blast to the chest.

Honestly, though, some games really don't need it but some games do. Simple as that. I really don't think you could take Mass Effect as seriously if, during the combat, everyone got diced up Prototype style.

 

[Rattler5150]

Violence, gore, blood, do not add to a game that has no story. In much the same way, special effects, eye candy do not add to something thats not there.

there has to be a solid story line first, then effects, blood, ect.

 

[Psycho_Juice]

Like everyone has said before, depends on the game.
I can list heaps of games where gore makes the game more interesting or shocking.

However there is one game I can think of where gore is actually vital to gameplay.

Dead Space.

For those who haven't played it, to effectively kill the evil aliens (necromorphs)
is by dismembering their limbs with improvised weapons.