I don't see why not. It's an option. If people don't want blood it could be a simple matter to turn off. But leave the gore in for people that naturally want it.
Poll: The a blood on/off option be available in violent games
- Thread starter KnightOfHearts
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I happen to know that adding in a no-gore option is about as easy programming-wise as game programming gets. Some people like it, some people don't. The choice is yours. Everyone is happy.
Options are always good. 
Those who wan't to play the game for the excellent gameplay, can do so without too much gore. And those who don't mind the gore (or are really into it), have that option too.
Those who wan't to play the game for the excellent gameplay, can do so without too much gore. And those who don't mind the gore (or are really into it), have that option too.
Hmmm... It depends if the gore is part of the kill animation or a seperate entity. If the game was built a certain way then yes it can be very easy to sinply not call teh resources but if the gore is simply part of the kill animation (lets say the gears chainsaw kill for instance) then removing it could be a massive pain in the hole.WalrusPowers said:
Yes, I believe there should be.
Now I myself love blood and gore, it gives me the satisfaction of knowing I killed my enemy's ass in a gratuitous fashion i.e. using the boomshot or the torque bow or the lancer in Gear of War. But not everyone likes blood and gore in their games and if they want to turn it off then who are we to judge them.
Now I myself love blood and gore, it gives me the satisfaction of knowing I killed my enemy's ass in a gratuitous fashion i.e. using the boomshot or the torque bow or the lancer in Gear of War. But not everyone likes blood and gore in their games and if they want to turn it off then who are we to judge them.
that would be censorship, which i think is a pretty bad thing when it comes to art (yes, video games are an art form, screw off). i think games should be played the way the developers intended. besides, what is the point of buying an M-rated game if you have something against it being mature? its like buying a playboy magazine and complaining about all the tits.
but hey, i suppose having the option to turn gore off is fine.
but hey, i suppose having the option to turn gore off is fine.
I've got no problem with blood/gore but don't particularly want my 4 years old brother watching it, saying that he loves watching me play gears and space marine...
I personally think that Soldier of Fortune's (the first one) mature content system was one of the best. It could be adjusted to suit pretty much anyone and you were able to password lock it, thus you could strip out all the nasty adult stuff and let little Johnny play it. Since it's awhile since I played it, I can't remember if there was swearing in it and if that could also be censored.
Failing that, use the same system that Brutal Legend did. i.e. Give the player the choice to turn off the blood/gore and cussing right at the start and leave them the choice to revert it in the menu for the rest of the game, should they change their mind.
CAPTCHA: and namoses. Oh yeah.
Failing that, use the same system that Brutal Legend did. i.e. Give the player the choice to turn off the blood/gore and cussing right at the start and leave them the choice to revert it in the menu for the rest of the game, should they change their mind.
CAPTCHA: and namoses. Oh yeah.
Yes. Sometimes blood is just too distracting in games. I mean, the violence is fine but if the blood is going to be everywhere it gets kinda annoying. Also, my 8 year old brother loves playing games like Dragon Age and I like being able to turn off the blood. At least until he is a little older anyway.
When games these days bare an 18/M logo, parents seem to atribute this to more of a suggestion than law when buying for their whiney ass offspring, so how about a compulsory blood filter?
Gamer tags record your age, which is used by the system to prevent children from paying games that are too old for them (hint hint parents, see the parental system on your child's distraction box once in a while) how about it turns of certain features or blood if they are too young?
By the way I'm not saying that all parents are responsable for children playing games that are too old for them, it's partially the gaming industries fault for providing no decent alternative.
And no I'm not bitter about any particular matchmaking. I'm just tired about them whining about the ass kicking they deserved.
How about games use the same age recognition technology to disable the microphones for under 15s in online matchmaking?
Gamer tags record your age, which is used by the system to prevent children from paying games that are too old for them (hint hint parents, see the parental system on your child's distraction box once in a while) how about it turns of certain features or blood if they are too young?
By the way I'm not saying that all parents are responsable for children playing games that are too old for them, it's partially the gaming industries fault for providing no decent alternative.
And no I'm not bitter about any particular matchmaking. I'm just tired about them whining about the ass kicking they deserved.
How about games use the same age recognition technology to disable the microphones for under 15s in online matchmaking?
I didn't say that you didLukeje said:
All I said was that some people may like certain parts of the game and may find it more playable without blood/gore.
Yeah it's still violent
Big difference between hitting something with a sword and then your enemy falling over to
hitting something with a sword and watching it blow up in a massive explosion of bloody glory don't you think?
You're in luck! [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dudebro:_My_Shit_Is_Fucked_Up_So_I_Got_to_Shoot/Slice_You_II:_It%27s_Straight-Up_Dawg_Time]Golem239 said:
Indeed, and this is why games haven't really lived up to the technological possibilities of "different types of blood". Basically, as is my experience with games, blood comes out in spurts. The bigger the gun, the bigger the spurt. But otherwise, it's all just varying sizes of spurt. Many games have 'body part damage' (Fallout, Soldier of Fortune, AvP), but these are generally Ken Doll style detachments (arms rip off at the shoulder in one clean slice, etc.) There's not enough nuance over how the human body is damaged, and injuries (IRL) vary wildly depending on so many factors. Not just 'type of gun' and 'part of body', but things like distance, angle, position of the victim, bullet-type, wind speed, clothing/armour worn, general demeanour of the victim in question. A multitude of chaotic factors with massively interrelating relationships. That's why it's more realistic to have the victim react the right way. If you were to shoot someone, say, in the shoulder, they would drop like a friggin' stone. Harder, in fact. The only moviefilm I've ever seen it done that way is Insomnia, and no game, as far as I'm aware, employs this. There's no staggering or Terminator-esque recoil; a human being, when shot, hits the floor with such speed and force, only my wife's underwear can go faster, when Ryan Gosling comes on screen. Naturally, it would make games less exciting (having to shoot that average guy fifteen times in the head before he dies is *so* much more fun than a single bullet catching his elbone and him squealing and writhing on the floor as you saunter up and finish the job.) The blood, as well, would not spray in a comical jet; depending on the type of weapon used, it would probably be several seconds if not longer before you even saw it spreading out in pools across that crisp, white shirt of your fallen foe.Golem239 said:
The way I see it, blood does not (necessarily) add to realism or immersion, unless you're making Theme Hospital 2: Theme Harder. Did Max Payne have blood? My mind says no, but I'm in no position to investigate, having Flash disabled at work.
