Organic Aesthetic: Gratuitous Violence, to be or not to be?

[CarbonBasedLifeform]

Gore does it fit into the GW universe?

We've already got the names. Decapitate. Sever Artery. Bludgeon. Gash.

Anet has already gone very, very close to entering the mature territory with Nightfall. The Tormented area is pretty gruesome. But, this had a purpose... albiet very creative purpose. Domain of Pain was too much to handle for a former gw player friend of mine, and i could understand why. Though, I found it beautiful, in a creepy morbid way. It totally set the mood of the end game, and it worked.

How would you feel if they took it a step further? ex. introduce blood effects. Blood trailing behind whirling daggers...

Would it take away from the experience?

Or would you welcome the immersion?

I personally would not mind it as long as it was tastefully done (i.e. Nightfall).

[Tru Reptile]

Having some blood is fine. I'm not against gore, it's just that I don't like when developers use it just for the sake of using it. So yeah, I think some gore could work just fine if it's done in a manner that isn't distracting (no buckets o' blood like MK).

[Dark Wolf]

I do not mind blood at all. Actually, I'm a big fan of horror games like Silent Hill so I love gritty, creepy, violent, dark, gore, disturbing, etc. There are some areas indeed in Nightfall and Factions where it is creepy indeed and very well done, including creepy mobs like the Afflicted. One place in Factions in particular (the tunnels) where I felt I was suddenly in Silent Hill, and where I had to shake myself; "You're playing GW, You're playing GW". I do not want GW2 to turn into Silent Hill but I wouldn't mind some blood shedding when you fight... and some creepy areas with scary mobs with creepy music on top of that.

[Nochtflamir]

Some blood would be ok, but it really isn't necessary for me to have fun.

[kyln]

I personally would not mind it as long as it was tastefully done (i.e. Nightfall).

I detest the DoA and RoT. In my opinion, they are an eyesore and I hate having to play there.

I personally don't find such areas as "tastefully done". Some things can't be done for entertainment and remain tasteful, but that's taste for you, everyone has a different one. I much prefer the UW, Ring of Fire, parts of Echovald, or some dungeons for the darker area type look.

That being said, if you are talking about blood in combat animations, I don't see why there can't be a violence slider in graphics options. That way, those who want to see it can, and those that don't can avoid it.

[Aiiane]

CBL, please stop starting every single title of yours with a "pseudo-tag" format. It throws people off who are looking for actual tags.

[Tom Nook]

Wouldn't mind seeing blood introduced.
Can't really see the point of introducing gore though.

[Arkhan The Black]

I always hated the fact that there was no blood in GW1. I also agree that the RoT was pretty well done in manner of disturbing'ness.

[raspberry jam]

I wouldn't have a problem with it, would probably even like it as long as it's done in a suitable manner. Though if they add that it might be a good idea to have an option to turn it off, like the chat filter.

[Lamuness]

I don't mind it, but the game doesn't need it. It's just more dev time that the devs don't need to be spending.

[Arkhan The Black]

Actually I rather see the devs spending as much time as needed to make the game the best they can, rather then rush it so fans can play GW2 as soon as possible.

[Gorani]

No to blood & gore. I like GW because it does not use the cheap trick to get people interested in the game. Take a look at AoC and all the splatter effects. They are useless and don't make the game any better.

PS: Using skill descriptions like "Eviscarate" does not force the Devs to throw internal organs at your screen.

[Akirai Annuvil]

It would take away from the PG13 rating >.>
As for me, if gore is added in a suitable manner it adds to a game and is a good thing. If it is added randomly, then it's a bad thing.

[Arkhan The Black]

I always though GW combat was kinda sucky because lack of blood myself.

[Gmr Leon]

I wouldn't say that the gameplay is hampered by the lack of blood, to be honest. However, if you implement skills that actually involve such things as fooling with Hamstrings, causing Gashes, or the like you should show the physical effects on the body.

..Then again I'm of the opinion that Vampiric Bite should show your Necromancer biting the enemy or Life Siphon slowly drain the color away from their screen. That or their character, but the former is easier to notice.

[Heartwork]

I'd quite like to see another area like the Domain of Pain, it's my favourite looking area in the entire game because of how brutal and grotesque it looks. It really helps build the 'You're pretty much ****ed' mood.

I wouldn't mind gore in GW, but not gratuitous amounts, like a little blood when you attack something in melee, but that's about it. Otherwise then you just get it to stupid levels, and imo over the top gore is only good when it is done EXTREMELY over the top, like in God of War.

[Raiala]

Rather keep the PG13... Afflicted and RoT are still fine, but no internal organs flying anywhere, okay? Nothing disgusting.

[Flamefang of Arnor]

Well, personally i don't mind blood in most games.... some gore, a little mind you, is ok...Rather keep the PG13... Afflicted and RoT are still fine, but no internal organs flying anywhere, okay? Nothing disgusting.
the only problem i may have is if it goes too far and gets the game rated "M" which could create problems for my own and others purchase of the game. also since many children's TV shows and advertisements have more blood and gore than some "T" games it shouldn't be an issue really. Blood is fine and would be a cool addition to GW 2.

P.S. also i would recommend some sort of blood "on" and "off" for those more sensitive members of the community.

[Arkhan The Black]

I'd quite like to see another area like the Domain of Pain, it's my favourite looking area in the entire game because of how brutal and grotesque it looks. It really helps build the 'You're pretty much ****ed' mood.

I wouldn't mind gore in GW, but not gratuitous amounts, like a little blood when you attack something in melee, but that's about it. Otherwise then you just get it to stupid levels, and imo over the top gore is only good when it is done EXTREMELY over the top, like in God of War.

Didn't really think GoW was that much over the top when it came to blood and gore even if the violence itself is over the top.

[Terenas]

it's mere graphics: if there is time to burn, let the blood be in, with toggle, like 98% of the friggin' games out there.
Brutal skill effects ? yay
brains splattered all around ? meh

[Kalidri]

Part of the reason I play GW is the lack of gore. I don't really want immersion, I want a game. I don't need to feel like I really am causing people harm. Age of Conan looked interesting right up to the point there was lots of blood and decapitation going on. I don't mind that others find it entertaining, but I don't. A slider is a good idea as long as there is a "none of that please" option.

[Flamefang of Arnor]

I pretty much agree with the above... i don't mind blood but gore, brains and other internal components of the human and non-human body flying about is a lil' too much.

P.S. Can't wait until GW2!!!!!!

[Rob Van Der Sloot]

I both agree and disagree with Kalidri.

I like blood and violence, especially as seen in Ages of Conan, but it has to fit the setting. GW isn't such a setting in my opinion. Bloodshed would make GW feel very different, and I'm not sure if I'd like it.

[Walks With Angels]

I would not say it really fits the GW setting and, more importantly, it nowhere near justifies an increase in rating.

We have seen a fair few failing and stone dead mmos in recent years - no sense reducing GW2s potential customer base for a few red pixels.

I cannot say I have researched the issue, but I imagine AoConan is going to need a completely goreless / boob-free version to even be released in South Korea, China, Australia, etc. - goodness knows how much development time ( = $$$ ) that is going to cost them.

[Tom Nook]

I would not say it really fits the GW setting and, more importantly, it nowhere near justifies an increase in rating.

We have seen a fair few failing and stone dead mmos in recent years - no sense reducing GW2s potential customer base for a few red pixels.

I don't think a bit of blood would necessarily lead to an increase in age rating though.

[Heartwork]

Didn't really think GoW was that much over the top when it came to blood and gore even if the violence itself is over the top.

Off topic poast but I really want to answer this.

Since when is impaling a Kraken's head through a bridge not brutally awesome?

Come to think of it, the most 'gorey' game I think I've ever played is 'Call of Cthulhu: Dark Corners of the Earth' but it was used in such a way that it really helped the game, because hell, you're pretty much defenseless in it and seeing things that have been/are being brutalised really builds that atmosphere. Like when you're on the Sea Cutter and you have to go fetch a medkit, and as soon as you walk into the infirmary you see a Deep One tearing out the organs of a wounded soldier and throwing them pretty much right at your face.

So you know, if gore is implemented well or it helps the game in some way, then I'm all for it. If it's over the top and purely for entertainment, then hell yeah. But really if it serves no purpose, it's pretty pointless. Admittedly though the Domain of Pain is probably my favourite area in all of GW because of it's aesthetic and hey, I've brought this post somewhat on topic.

[Arkhan The Black]

Said there was nothing wrong with GoW awesomeness. It is just that Kratos kill tons of monsters in so many epic ways it eventually gets old (or maybe I am just jaded?). I have played games with more blood and gore though.

[Lamuness]

I don't really care about the age rating, but the game really doesn't need gratuitious violence and/or blood. This game isn't being sold as a game that lets you cut people in half like GoW or even GoW (God and Gears respectively) is. We don't need another game to put blood just because everyone else is putting blood. If I see a head roll off my character or any other character, I'd be turned off to this game because it isn't what this game is set or made for. It's tacky.

[Xycury]

blood doesn't work for GW and I don't think GW2 will be a deal breaker without it.

it'll just mean less people buying GW2 if they decide to move to Teen instead of PG13

AoC it works... GoW it works... games like that it belongs, but I don't think it retracts from a game because it's not there.

Blood doesn't make immersion, only more reality in a FANTASY game...

[Derrick the Nomad]

It wouldn't make any sense.

[Arkhan The Black]

blood doesn't work for GW and I don't think GW2 will be a deal breaker without it.

it'll just mean less people buying GW2 if they decide to move to Teen instead of PG13

AoC it works... GoW it works... games like that it belongs, but I don't think it retracts from a game because it's not there.

Blood doesn't make immersion, only more reality in a FANTASY game...

A Fantasy setting has nothing to do whit the lack of blood in GW1. But as stated most likely to keep the rating low. Also reality in a Fantasy game doesn't have to be a bad thing, it makes the Fantasy world more believable IMO.

[Lamuness]

But that's the point of having it fantasy, where things can happen that don't normally happen anywhere. Blood and gratuitious violence has always been a gimmick for people to sell their game. In the case of GW, they don't need it, why spend manhours on that if you don't?

[Trinity Fire Angel]

well, it;s a rated G game, +12. So i don;t think there can be any blood in order to satisfy all the different country's ratings around the world

[Arkhan The Black]

But that's the point of having it fantasy, where things can happen that don't normally happen anywhere. Blood and gratuitious violence has always been a gimmick for people to sell their game. In the case of GW, they don't need it, why spend manhours on that if you don't?

No it has nothing to do with Fantasy because blood is mentioned quite a lot in GW. Hell there is even Necromancer skills (which you can tell by the skill icons) that involves slicing open arteries.

It is censure not Fantasy.

[Akirai Annuvil]

So.
The general consensus can be summarized thusly:
- Blood and gore can add to some games with the right setting.
- Guild Wars 1 does not have such a setting.
- Guild Wars 2 will have a similar setting.
____
* Guild Wars 2 should not feature blood and gore.

Or thusly:
- In general, blood and gore ups to the age rating considerably.
- Guild Wars 2 should have a fairly low age rating.
____
* Guild Wars 2 should not feature blood and gore.

Either reasoning seems valid and supported throughout the thread.

[Arkhan The Black]

Don't really care if GW2 has blood or not but I know me and a lot of other people would like it better if there was blood in it.

[Lamuness]

You only call it censure because you think they don't want to put it there for the reason that it will raise the age requirement or whatever. But really, if you had an active choice not to put something in because it didn't fit well, would that be censure? Would you put a naked statue randomly in the middle of your house? While the statue may look nice, unless you had some ultra-rich house, you probably wouldn't put it there, and/or waste your money buying it. It's not because the statue was naked. If you do end up putting it there, that's just bad taste, my friend.

Don't really care if GW2 has blood or not but I know me and a lot of other people would like it better if there was blood in it.

Case and point of using blood as a selling gimmick.

[Gmr Leon]

An interesting idea a friend and myself discussed when formulating our "dream MMO" was to have two copies of the game be sold. One that has no gore, no blood, no decapitation or the like for the younger audience. The other has gore, blood, decapitation, more sexual things, and the like for the older audience.

Both games would be run so that each customer who bought either copy could interact with each other. That way one side gets all the grime they could ever want and those who don't want it, don't have to see it.

The issue here, however, lies in the manpower. It would take far too many people and time for it to be as productive as would be liked.

[Arkhan The Black]

Case and point of using blood as a selling gimmick.

Oh please games are already gimmicky enough even without blood. It is just that I am one of those twisted people who has great appreciation for graphical violence and think that all games that removes blood are to Carebear.

[Rob Van Der Sloot]

I disagree. It's an artistic choice if you want gore in your game or not. Super Mario would look pretty odd if they added gore. It's really not an age thing. Besides, if they wanted they could also just add an option of turning "gore" on or off. The thing is, maybe you wouldn't want gore to begin with.

http://www2.hku.nl/~rob3/goreonoff.jpg

[Fluffball]

GW is an idealized, beautiful, surreal world.*

I don't mind seeing bits of brains on the wall and bones sticking through skin, but that belongs in a world like Diablo (I, II got a little cartoony.) Diablo is a horrifying, dark, twisted world, and exactly where I'd want to see a little boy get his leg ripped off by bare-breasted, slutty demons dripping blood from their mouths.

Pre-searing is a great representation of GW, and there is no blood in this world, IMO. I think it's almost an artistic decision, although in reality it probably had to do with sales.

* I read a great quote in an article about the GW character art, warning players to expect questioning their sexuality when they saw how insanely beautiful everyone is. :D

[Walks With Angels]

I disagree. It's an artistic choice if you want gore in your game or not. Super Mario would look pretty odd if they added gore. It's really not an age thing. Besides, if they wanted they could also just add an option of turning "gore" on or off. The thing is, maybe you wouldn't want gore to begin with.

http://www2.hku.nl/~rob3/goreonoff.jpg

Is that image from Moonstone, the old comedy gore fest ?

Re : Fluffball's reading - I hope they do manage to inject a higher level of character beauty, but it would seem pretty tricky with Asura, Norn and Charr all confirmed.

[nudge]

Pre-searing is a great representation of GW, and there is no blood in this world, IMO. I think it's almost an artistic decision, although in reality it probably had to do with sales....

Pre-searing does have an affect on you. Pre-searing is a place of wonder and dreams. The transition to post-searing is almost like a physical blow.

Personally I would like see more artistic and beautiful places like pre-searing. And a lot less drab, dreary and uninspiring places like the RoT.

Not much point fighting for Ascalon as it is now .. who would not go to war to maintain Ascalon as it was?

[Canter]

Me (Ascalon FTW!) >,>


I'm satisfied with the lack of gore in GW now, I like it (it's relaxing ^^), but I wouldn't mind an on/off option :)

[Rob Van Der Sloot]

Is that image from Moonstone, the old comedy gore fest ?


You are correct. :cool: