The "PC Games" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
This is an old topic but...
Before I start, I would like to say that I am not against violence in computer games. I was one of those who got cheap thrills out of the likes of mortal kombat when it came out.
I admit to liking a certain amount of realism to my games, blood flying everywhere, screams of pain etc, especially in a FPS. I'd even go as far as to say I expect it nowadays.
But do you really need THAT much gore to make a game enjoyable. Take GTA3 for example, it is violent enough to be realistic, but not over the top like some games. Games like Kingpin, Soldier of Fortune and Carmageddon 2 are almost completely based on the idea of disembowelling people, and although sometimes funny, should it not be a sign of a bad game that dwells on excessive violence? I think if you were to remove the violence from these games, they would be less than great. Of course, violence always sells, but if you are playing a game purely for the violence, is that not a bit twisted? I suppose the majority of the world is a bit twisted then....
Games like Halo, Metal Gear Solid 2 and the like are amazing games, based around violent themes, but still manage to let you play without seeing someones insides, and are they poor games? I think not.
Just an idea
Before I start, I would like to say that I am not against violence in computer games. I was one of those who got cheap thrills out of the likes of mortal kombat when it came out.
I admit to liking a certain amount of realism to my games, blood flying everywhere, screams of pain etc, especially in a FPS. I'd even go as far as to say I expect it nowadays.
But do you really need THAT much gore to make a game enjoyable. Take GTA3 for example, it is violent enough to be realistic, but not over the top like some games. Games like Kingpin, Soldier of Fortune and Carmageddon 2 are almost completely based on the idea of disembowelling people, and although sometimes funny, should it not be a sign of a bad game that dwells on excessive violence? I think if you were to remove the violence from these games, they would be less than great. Of course, violence always sells, but if you are playing a game purely for the violence, is that not a bit twisted? I suppose the majority of the world is a bit twisted then....
Games like Halo, Metal Gear Solid 2 and the like are amazing games, based around violent themes, but still manage to let you play without seeing someones insides, and are they poor games? I think not.
Just an idea
The Nintendo release of Mortal Kombat featured green blood instead of red.
Did it play any differently? No.
Certainly, as long as there is something there, of whatever colour, you get the feeling of having inflicted damage.
For purposes of realism then, gore is all well and good, but gratuitous gore put in as a selling point for a game is just plain sad. Games should put the focus on gameplay, realism where applicaple and gore only where it follows the function of the game (the old "form follows function" argument).
Put it this way. If two version of a game come out, one with green gore, and one with red, but the red one is more expensive, which would you buy?
Bearing in mind that the only difference between the two is the colouring of something completely superfluous, and surpluss to actual gaming requirements (hence completely irrelevant), surely paying more just to have a marginally more accurate colouring pallette is obsessive, and points to an abvious flaw of character.
Did it play any differently? No.
Certainly, as long as there is something there, of whatever colour, you get the feeling of having inflicted damage.
For purposes of realism then, gore is all well and good, but gratuitous gore put in as a selling point for a game is just plain sad. Games should put the focus on gameplay, realism where applicaple and gore only where it follows the function of the game (the old "form follows function" argument).
Put it this way. If two version of a game come out, one with green gore, and one with red, but the red one is more expensive, which would you buy?
Bearing in mind that the only difference between the two is the colouring of something completely superfluous, and surpluss to actual gaming requirements (hence completely irrelevant), surely paying more just to have a marginally more accurate colouring pallette is obsessive, and points to an abvious flaw of character.
This is an old topic but...
Before I start, I would like to say that I am not against violence in computer games. I was one of those who got cheap thrills out of the likes of mortal kombat when it came out.
I admit to liking a certain amount of realism to my games, blood flying everywhere, screams of pain etc, especially in a FPS. I'd even go as far as to say I expect it nowadays.
But do you really need THAT much gore to make a game enjoyable. Take GTA3 for example, it is violent enough to be realistic, but not over the top like some games. Games like Kingpin, Soldier of Fortune and Carmageddon 2 are almost completely based on the idea of disembowelling people, and although sometimes funny, should it not be a sign of a bad game that dwells on excessive violence? I think if you were to remove the violence from these games, they would be less than great. Of course, violence always sells, but if you are playing a game purely for the violence, is that not a bit twisted? I suppose the majority of the world is a bit twisted then....
Games like Halo, Metal Gear Solid 2 and the like are amazing games, based around violent themes, but still manage to let you play without seeing someones insides, and are they poor games? I think not.
Just an idea
Before I start, I would like to say that I am not against violence in computer games. I was one of those who got cheap thrills out of the likes of mortal kombat when it came out.
I admit to liking a certain amount of realism to my games, blood flying everywhere, screams of pain etc, especially in a FPS. I'd even go as far as to say I expect it nowadays.
But do you really need THAT much gore to make a game enjoyable. Take GTA3 for example, it is violent enough to be realistic, but not over the top like some games. Games like Kingpin, Soldier of Fortune and Carmageddon 2 are almost completely based on the idea of disembowelling people, and although sometimes funny, should it not be a sign of a bad game that dwells on excessive violence? I think if you were to remove the violence from these games, they would be less than great. Of course, violence always sells, but if you are playing a game purely for the violence, is that not a bit twisted? I suppose the majority of the world is a bit twisted then....
Games like Halo, Metal Gear Solid 2 and the like are amazing games, based around violent themes, but still manage to let you play without seeing someones insides, and are they poor games? I think not.
Just an idea