Depends, I liked Carmageddon, but I don't like those horror-FPS games you see so much these days. But that's also because of the suspense, can't realy handle it. I had sweaty armpits while playing Star Wars: Jedi Outcast

Then again, Carmageddon wasn't realy that much gore. You drove way to fast to see any of the mess you left behind

Edit: Damn spelling.

Daft Vader - I am your father.
sS - Noooooooo! I demand a DNA-test.
---------------------------------------------------------------
They call me spammer, but you may call me Master.
It's better to chase a rabbit then to catch a hare...

Edited by - Nickless: Episode V on 13-12-2003 20:07:59

I don't mind it now that rating systems have been included with games. It makes it easier to know for which group the games are targeted and the gore factor should reflect that.

Sir Spectre

except when its a game like WILL ROCK or SERIOUS SAM

Do you call those gore??

The nicest game I played on the subject of Gore was SOF II, And I liked it
And I agree with Sir Spectre, just put the Gore level on the appropriate age scale
Thats what I liked about the first SOF, it had a filter that could be locked so it had dual age purposes

I've never really cared for excessive gore, I mean it doesn't really offend me or anything but i'd rather see efforts put into making the gameplay better than making graphic death scenes. For example soldier of fortune was probably one of the most graphic games ever, but also one of the most generic. Gamers don't wow over big guns and guts like they used to, we are a more sophisticated bunch these days. Sure I can understand some people finding gore kinda cool, but it certainly doesn't make or break a game.

doesn't bother me at all, in fact i like games that have gore in them, SOF and SOF 2 were the best ones for gore I think

What's the point in living if you can't feel alive?

@Mustang, I don't like excessive gore, but realism is getting better and better, as long as it keeps to reality I don't really mind it. I wouldn't let kids play some of them, but I would. An example of excessive gore for me were the Mortal Kombat series. Unnecessary and unrealistic.

Sir Spectre

I agree with Sir Spectre, here. (and I'd better not get slapped with one of those "I agree with...do you" sigs.)

In most games, blood and gore adds an element of realism. In some, however, it just goes over the top. I mean, an upper cut doesn't spray that much blood everywhere (ie Mortal Kombat).

---------------------------------------------------------------------

is it not that in many cases the gore content, simply by the extent of it, is (sadly) often sufficient to shift enough copies of the game to make a profit? that it's easier just to make it "nasty" enough for the target audience, rather than put any other content in other than, and not always, pretty graphics?

I'd say that there is, amd has been for a long time, too much "gore" in games, myself I don't really object to it on principle or because I'm squeamish, but because it's just a cheap and rather sh*te way of making a game sellable; regardless of whether there's any other redeeming fertures in the game or not.

I agree with Mustang. If you like the gore in a game thats great, but if you think its horrible DONT BUY THE GAME. I have games that have gore and games that dont. Its the overall feel to the game and the storyline that really decide if its a good game or not.

I obviously agree with the guys on the rating, I like gore sometimes, sometimes i cant stand it. But theres nothing I like more than when blood and gore has a point behind it. Like in MAFIA, Violence is not what the game is about, but violence is needed to carry the story along, like in one of the cutscenes, you see a guy hitting another guys really expensive car. The guy from the expensive car (a mobster you have to "whack" in the mission) take the other guy out of the car (a guy with a really poor car, like, a working class guy) and then grabs him by the back of his head and beats his head repeatedly on the hood of his car. Leaving the guy bloody and the hood with blood over it, while a cop on the other side of the street simply turns the other way. Now, it was done with style and aggression, so it wasnt pointless violence, and it made it feel tragic and sad, so you just couldnt wait to pop a few bullets in the guys ass. Violence can also be kinda funny sometimes aswell, but it all depends on the type of violence, realistic or over-the-top are two types.

In Grand Theft Auto you shot a guy in the head, it popped off and a 3 foot long fountain of blood squirted out (this happens for other limbs too) so its not terrible, your not gonna sit their and say "oh my god thats gross" in fact, on the contrary youll probably chuckle. But then theres the violence in one of my current favorites called Manhunt, which is disturbing, but still required for the story, which gives it a nice twist, so all in all, gore in games should stay, because many find it a integral piece of the realism experience, besides that, theres always rating.

PS: Who else thinks Manhunt is awesome? the way the use the USB headset rules, but..... lets be honest...... whos hasnt wanted to choke someone with a plastic bag? (or clock someone in the head with a good ol brick for that matter)

"Talk Is Cheap Because The Supply Far Exceeds The Demand"

Perhaps another way to ask the question is whether the gore in a game is what will get you to buy the game. If it is not what gets you to buy the game, would you still buy the game without the gore?

I really don't see the value in gore. To me it is not realism. A realistic game with gore in it, to me, should make me feel something other than entertained. It should disturb me and probably make me feel guilty about it. Since that won't sell games, the gore is not made to be THAT realistic, it is made to be entertainingly realistc. I think that making gore entertaining is twisted.

After all. It's a game.

Edited by - Indy11 on 14-12-2003 07:03:11

Depends on the game - if it's an FPS, realistic death is a must - otherwise you feel like you're killing puppets - they just fall down - no blood, no guts, etc. There's not much difference if you use a sniper rifle or a frag grenade. I liked SOF - especially if you shoot someone in the throat - nice
So, in short, I'm for gore if it adds realism to the game, but if it's just for its own sake, it could be amusing for some time, but not for long.

Just remember...if the world didn't suck, we'd all fall off.

My princible is that good gore is gore that you can create only if you want to (ex. halo wacking dead bodies spews blood).

bad gore is when it is Totaly exesive and unreastic (ex. Mortal comat which was disscused earlier).

and the things that fall between are normaly games that you can trun gore off (ex. dungeon siege 2 copies of the game were sold, one rated T and pacthed for no gore, another rated M and un pacthed with massive amounts of gore, and UT2003 wich you could turn gore on or off with an option).

and finally the games with out gore, In them you seem not to notice there is no gore there just isn't and you exept it.


If life is unfair how come I haven't won yet?