Does the amount of blood&gore in a game matter to you?

[maddawg IAJI]

Depends really. Left 4 Dead 2 did the gore system right. You immeaditily notice it as you fight the zombies yet it's not so much that it ends up running the game.

Gears of War 2 overdoes it a bit, but the entire game is made up along that gore system.

 

[lolandrew4]

As long as it's reasonable amount

 

[SmartIdiot]

Not really, besides after playing Fallout 3 you stop noticing blood and gore anyway especially with that perk...

 

[MGlBlaze]

I don't really care, as long as it's not overdone. When it's overdone it becomes tasteless.

Until it Crosses The Line Twice (TVTropes, look it up if you don't know it) and becomes SO overdone as to just be strangely hilarious, but that's a fine line to walk for me.

Generally, I like to see it kept reasonable.

 

[lacktheknack]

Considering that I live at home with... incredulous parents, yes it does.

Although it can be used as a tool of immersion.

 

[Booze Zombie]

If I'm playing a shooting game or a game based around "realism", gore, blood and other mature themes are expected and if they're not there, I'll wonder why the game devs even bothered making such a game if they were going to treat us like we couldn't handle a bit of "real life".

 

[AT God]

I never get bothered by gore in games because its only disturbing if you sit and stare at it, even in L4D2 even though their are quoted by valve 47 different places to shoot a zombie to cause a suprisingly violent fleshwound it doesn't really affect you within 3 frames of your kill you have 12 more zombies walking through the dieing zombie. Now, games like Manhunt can be seen as exaggerated but then again if you can't stand violence you shouldn't play a game that is called Manhunt and has a picture of some insane killer with a hockey mask on the cover. I do notice and am annoyed by games that are dark enough to require blood, games like Medal of Honor don't need blood since they are less dark and more cinematic, but try playing Unreal Tournament with gore disabled and see how quickly you give up.

As for realism, realistic gore doesn't really exist, if it did it would be lame, getting shot doesn't make blood spray out like it does, it can but normally they just bleed out. If you want realism watch a documentary, video games are fantasy, not simulators. There is no WWII nazi killing simulator, any gore is probably exaggerated. Saying that its a good idea to have every game load the "Bloody Mess" perk physics or the TF2 gibs isn't smart, but if you want gore in a game it wont be realistic.

Basically, if you want a shooting game and you are worried about the gore, instead of doing what the ESRB does to rate games by closely examining the amount of detail in each kill, just shoot and move, seeing some red pixels on a wall never corrupted children or destroyed the world.

 

[McKay]

I watched by bf playing MW2 and I found it slightly annoying that the screen would become obscured by blood/red haze when you were close to death. This didn't bother me too much in the first MW because it was kind of subtle.

But no, the amount of gore in a game does not bother me at allm unless it's totally overdone in a game that doesn't need it.

 

[rokkolpo]

ofcourse it defines the game.

prince of persia warrior within wouldn't be the same without the nice cut in half motion.

in fact it would be prince of persia the two thrones.

 

[Aerodyamic]

I want to see cool rag-doll physics, chunks of buildings disappearing, and crap blowing up. If I get to see some brain-chunks, blood-spray and violent limb-removal, all the better. It's not going to be a deciding factor in a game purchase, unless the game really should have brain-spatter/blood-spray/amputation and smoking giblets... like zombies games, Fallout games, etc.

Hell, most FPS games kinda seem lame without them, honestly.

 

[kiteboy]

it was awesome in fallout 3

i never tire of using a sniper rifle in VATS to the head with the bloody mess perk on

eyeballs EVERYWHEEEERE!

 

[cleverlymadeup]

it really depends on the game/movie whether or not it fits. however certain games and movies do need a large amount of gore.

if you have a good slasher movie, then you need a lot of gore and blood, if not they tend to be pretty lame and dumb

 

[Awexsome]

It's hard to screw it up really.

Most games have a little bit of it when someone gets bludgeoned or shot or whatever and that's cool.

Games like Gears, LFD2, or Fallout 3 have large amounts of it but it just seems more like a fun little gag than anything. I didn't activate the Bloody Mess perk until after I beat Fallout so the funny limb-detaching headshots wouldn't start making me crack up until after everything important had been done.

 

[Therumancer]

Yes, and no.

It depends on the game in question. For a game intended to have dark or horrific elements I believe there should be blood and gore as relevent to the situation. If I feel a game has been censored away from such things I will rarely choose to support it. Despite the rave reviews for example I did *NOT* purchuse Silent Hill 2 when it was released because of the way the devs/producters caved in to complaints over the demo.

In some generes however blood and gore are not relevent to the game or plot. A few works like "Dragon Age: Origins" having actually suffered from poorly implemented attempts. I for example had one of the "Sex scenes" (in the whore house) where my character stripped down and was covered with blood while he did the deed in one of those true "WTF" moments since the blood splatters apparently transferred from his armor to his underwear clad body. The splatters also looking stupid in some of the scenes, and occasionally made me think that someone at Bioware must be a Hemophille or something. That's not "realistic" it's absurd and while it might work with some games, this was not the right genere.


I also feel that it is possible to get too ridiculous with violence and blood and while this can work with some things (like horror comedies in the vein of "Dead Alive") I tend to feel that being too excessive and ridiculous has become a form of censorship just as much as not putting the stuff into the game to begin with would. For example, unless the game is attempting to convey a "cartoony reality" I do not expect to be blowing people into six seperate pieces with a couple of bullets, or launching human beings 200 meters into the air. That's not "ragdoll physics" that's a Bugs Bunny cartoon.

Ideally in most games I think graphic violence is appropriatly going to be a realistic depiction of what would happen with a given stimulus. The amount of cinematic enhancement should depend on the game genere.

It should also be noted that in most cases when I talk about violence and gore in games, generally what I want with say a horror or "Dark fantasy" game is going to be to feel like I've walked into say a Clive Barker or Edward Lee novel or whatever. Newborn babies being stuck on meathooks and stuff along those lines is what I want to see, you know stuff that is nasty and makes even the jaded go "WTF". If your being dark or horrific that is what they are going for. Simply having a few dead bodies or skeletons here or there is just "meh" for the most part.

I guess what I'm saying is that too many games that are going "M" rated nowadays seem to be trying to interpet that not as me feeling like I'm experiencing a horror novel through an interactive visual medium, but instead walking through a carnival funhouse designed for tweenies.

Not my most coherant post I suppose, not sure if I'm properly conveying how I think things should be.

 

[Robert632]

no. why would it? gore is just a way to sell, wether it be no gore, lots of gore, or "realistic" gore.

 

[JelloKZ]

It kinda freaks me out a bit. I can take blood more than gore, but still... *shudder*.