Red Steel Gets Bloody - Wii

[Kamalot]

Prior to E3, it was reported that the Ubisoft title, Red Steel (http://redsteelgame.us.ubi.com/), would be a bloodless (http://www.joystiq.com/2006/04/12/red-steel-with-no-blood/) game. The title involves wielding a katana and lots of ‘brutal’ gunplay.

Kotaku now reports (http://www.kotaku.com/gaming/ubisoft/red-steel-to-have-red-blood-175860.php) that Red Steel will, in fact, sport blood.

In regards to the blood, there will be blood - just not in a graphic way. I believe you can have blood spurt and then disappear and still receive a teen rating. Regardless of that point, the game is all about the controller and it's movements
Personally, I'm of the belief that blood does not make a game better. Given the option, I turn it off. Adding blood isn't about enhancing gameplay, it is about being graphic. Want graphic violence? Watch the news.

[Franjo]

I'm not for or against it....but sometimes it's just silly. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't a Mortal Kombat come out that had sweat instead of blood when you were punched to the face?

[RandomViolence]

Personally, I'm of the belief that blood does not make a game better. Given the option, I turn it off. Adding blood isn't about enhancing gameplay, it is about being graphic. Want graphic violence? Watch the news.

Sorry, but this caption is ridiculous. If the point of a game is immersion, which it often is, removing immersive elements defeats the designer's intentions. In this case it's blood. Would you remove the blood from Silent Hill? Resident Evil? Hell, even in shooters it often DOES serve a gameplay function in that it announces when you've hit an enemy.

Not sure, man. Your preference is your preference, but don't hide it under false pretenses.

[Dr Quincy]

It does seem a little daft that fatally hacking a person with a samurai sword or shooting them dead with a pistol would warrant a less severe rating for the absense of blood.

[jacktion]

Sorry, but this caption is ridiculous. If the point of a game is immersion, which it often is, removing immersive elements defeats the designer's intentions. In this case it's blood. Would you remove the blood from Silent Hill? Resident Evil? Hell , even in shooters it often DOES serve a gameplay function in that it announces when you've hit an enemy.

Not sure, man. Your preference is your preference, but don't hide it under false pretenses.

Well, you start off on the wrong foot and it goes downhill from there.
The point of a game is not immersion. People don't say "OhMyGod! Katamari 5 is coming out! I can't wait to get totally immersed!!" People just want to have fun. They want to control a little avatar and do things that they can't do in real life.

I don't think it would matter if you removed the blood from Resident Evil or Silent Hill. When I think of those games, I don't say "Wow that game had blood that was so close to real blood! Therefore it is a good game!" The games were just fun by themselves. If they didn't have blood it would not affect the end result one bit, except for people like you who love blood for some reason. Ya darn blood-lover!

And for your third point, if the only way that you know you've struck your enemy is by blood flying out, then the game needs some work.

If we had a photorealistic game and you cut someone in half and they were dry that would be odd, but most games are so far off from that level of graphics that we don't need to worry about it. Even Silent Hill and Resident Evil still look "cartoony" to the average person. They would not be mistaken for live film anytime soon.

[feeble]

well it also depends on how the gore and blood is used

in say a realistic ww2 game, you would expect blood and gore, as its their to enhance your experience.

[Kelegacy]

Sorry, but this caption is ridiculous. If the point of a game is immersion, which it often is, removing immersive elements defeats the designer's intentions. In this case it's blood. Would you remove the blood from Silent Hill? Resident Evil? Hell, even in shooters it often DOES serve a gameplay function in that it announces when you've hit an enemy.

Not sure, man. Your preference is your preference, but don't hide it under false pretenses.
I'm always for blood. There is a difference between being realistic and being gratuitous.

Kamalot turning off the blood in games is a sign that's he's a PUSS! Look it up, it's true.

[Mr.Green]

The point of a game is not immersion.
Depends wich game, depends wich people. Don't assume everyone thinks like you and in this case, I'd say you're in the minority. No blood in Silent Hill? Come on! Might as well remove the aliens from Halo. Jeez. People will say just about anything to try and make a point.

[Pantsmonkey]

This games main selling point according to frenchy is the ability to shoot Gangster style I hate ubisoft for spending no doubt 9 hojillion hours trying to get something that will probably annoy us. Dont add a twist mechanism to an already sketchy FPS, when it maps 3D it will recognise tiwsts and a flick down on the zapper gun analogue will reload your chamber.

2 or 3 crappy non specific body part wounds for shame. If I cannot slice a dudes head of and bring forth a spurting ord of clarret ALA Scorpion in MK2 then WTF are you doing ubisoft. I want to slice my name into that Wooden YukSu Statue they practise kung fu on. and I also want 2 handed melee scenes that show of the smarts of Gyro Aware AI

Gyro aware bots will step shit up a level. The reason bots don't pwn is because they are programed to play like we do with control now. A few years of Gyro and you will be getting legitimatley railed out out of the air by Xhero.

There is no distinct damage areas the wounds dont even appear on the body it like you have been hit by something in a game of house of the dead arcade. Realism -10

Why bother showing blood on something that doesnt even animate being hit with the sword?

*EDIT* Everyone should watch frenchy get destroyed by that guy in the balconie, GANGSTER STYLE , Meh...

Red Steel E3 Demo (http://youtube.com/watch?v=VLuAOa8ObQo&search=red%20steel)

[bean19]

I like games where you can redecorate rooms in the blood of your enemies. . . In fact, that sounds like a really fun gameplay idea. :)

[Eran Hawke]

Like Soul Calibur would be a good game if only it had blood. Time Splitters ToTaLlY needs blood or it just isn't FUN! Advance Wars? How can you have a WAR game without little crimson spurts and giblets from the little dudes. Don't even get me started on why goombas don't squish into red goo when you junp on them.

Blood isn't necessary unless you want to gross some people out. It does not make a game more fun, unless you get your jollies from watching things bleed.

Sicko. :P

[RandomViolence]

Well, you start off on the wrong foot and it goes downhill from there.
The point of a game is not immersion. People don't say "OhMyGod! Katamari 5 is coming out! I can't wait to get totally immersed!!" People just want to have fun. They want to control a little avatar and do things that they can't do in real life.

Think about it like this. Removing blood from a violent or graphic game is like adding a super high-poly normal-mapped character into Katamari Damacy. It's out of place, and it's not right. You're absolutely correct that people want to do things they can't do in real life, but sometimes those fantasies require making the game environment as close to reality as possible.

I don't think it would matter if you removed the blood from Resident Evil or Silent Hill. When I think of those games, I don't say "Wow that game had blood that was so close to real blood! Therefore it is a good game!" The games were just fun by themselves. If they didn't have blood it would not affect the end result one bit, except for people like you who love blood for some reason. Ya darn blood-lover!

I'm not saying that blood is a make-or-break deal, but it you removed any trace of blood from horror games (which they do use effectively to convey mood) they would be less scary, less nerve-wracking to play, and thus be a less complete experience.

And for your third point, if the only way that you know you've struck your enemy is by blood flying out, then the game needs some work.

It's not the ONLY way, but it certainly helps make things more clear. Therefore, having it there helps enhance the gameplay.

If we had a photorealistic game and you cut someone in half and they were dry that would be odd, but most games are so far off from that level of graphics that we don't need to worry about it. Even Silent Hill and Resident Evil still look "cartoony" to the average person. They would not be mistaken for live film anytime soon.

It doesn't have to be mistaken for live film, it has to be immersive. Imagine playing Resident Evil 4 with no blood. If I see a polygon chainsaw going through my character's chest, okay that sucks, try again. If I see a polygon chainsaw spewing blood from my character's chest as it rips through my ribcage, I'm avoiding those fuckers if only because I don't even want to SEE that again.

Here's an example screenshot.

http://cubemedia.ign.com/cube/image/re4cube_031704_x28_1079603884.jpg

Now, doubtless that's over the top and cartoony, as massive blood sprays do look in games. Despite this, details like the blood add to create a complete game world. I can't imagine playing through it without blood. It would seem so sterile, so counter to the mood it sets out to create that it would negatively affect the game to lack this element.

[bean19]

Eran Hawke - The thing is. . . well FPS games really work to create immersion, and Time Splitters is an aberration. People rightfully expect blood in a game about Yakuza, gun-play, and sword-fighting. . . especially if it is named "Red Steel". IT'S RED BECAUSE OF THE BLOOD, YO!

[AntB]

I think blood adds to realism, which then adds to the immersion factor.

Obviously this isn't really necessary in games where realism isn't one of the goals.

But some games, like fear AND resident evil the game would suffer from the lack of blood.


BLOOD. PUSSIES. YOU GIRLS CRY WHEN YOU GET A PAPERCUT?

[Eran Hawke]

Right. Resident evil wouldn't be as gross without blood. So blood is in the game to gross people out. That does not add to gameplay.

[RandomViolence]

Right. Resident evil wouldn't be as gross without blood. So blood is in the game to gross people out. That does not add to gameplay.

I don't like your terms, but if we break it down like this:

Resident evil wouldn't be as gross without blood. So blood is in the game to gross people out.

Yes.

That does not add to gameplay.

No.

[absolut taco]

I like games where you can redecorate rooms in the blood of your enemies. . . In fact, that sounds like a really fun gameplay idea. :)
Half Life multiplayer did that pretty well...

This red steel "little blood" bullshit, is the same thing that ruins movies. You make action movies and you can shoot hundreds of people, and as long as you don't show blood, you'll get a PG 13 rating. One drop of blood, you're in R territory.

If you're gonna make a game with guns and swords, don't aim for a T rating. I get way more immersed in Brothers in Arms than I do in Call of Duty, and it's because of blood, language, and overall grittiness of war is captured so much better. I prefer playing CoD, but that's beside the point.

[absolut taco]

Here's an example screenshot.

http://cubemedia.ign.com/cube/image/re4cube_031704_x28_1079603884.jpg
Damn! I can't wait to play Dead Rising, so I can do similar things!

[Soap]

Zombies without Blood is akin to Candy without Sugar.

Now if you substituted the erupting blood with say...a nest of roaches erupting from the body instead...color me sold (and grossed out)

[Uncle Ben]

Immersion has nothing to do with blood to me, or graphics in general.
You can put whatever you want on that screen, it's not going to convince me I'm "in the game." Immersion to me is convicing gameplay, where I feel I'm actually controlling the character. I know you always control the character, but I'm sure everyone here can remember when it just didn't feel right. Like you were trying to steer some distant robot with bassakwards controls. blood I can take or leave.

[Venkman]

In the case of silent hill, finding streaks of blood on the ground leading somewhere definitely adds to immersion. In that case, being graphic is necessary to convey horror and death.

I would rather see a bloody game that tries to make you feel the gravity of your actions. I rented Dead to Rights and returned that game in disgust. Do I really need to put someone in a head lock, put a gun to their temple, and double tap with a spray of blood?

Damn.

[torrefaction]

Well, you start off on the wrong foot and it goes downhill from there.
The point of a game is not immersion.

This is a metric fuckton of crap. I play games these days specifically for immersion. If I didn't care about immersion, I wouldn't own a 360. Maybe, at one point in time, this could have held true. Not anymore. Games are about submerging you in a virtual world, and this holds true for all games except casual/arcade games. I have an HDTV and a 5.1 surround sound system in a dark room so I can be IMMERSED in the experience.

And another thing, Silent Hill, Resident Evil, and The Suffering (I threw that in myself) were atmosphere driven games. It was about the feeling that things really were wrong. Blood helps evoke that. You don't take away a tool for that. And besides, what the hell is wrong with blood? Kids bleed, they know what it is. It's like freaking nudity. You people have such fucking double standards.

And for your third point...that's crap. Games have been leading to a lack of HUD's for a reason. Realism. And if you shoot someone, they bleed.

[Zaro]

After blood we need to see how it hurt our ennemis.
We need to see how they suffers. It break my immersion when i shot people in the knee and they don't fell and cry and plea me to kill him.

[RandomViolence]

After blood we need to see how it hurt our ennemis.
We need to see how they suffers. It break my immersion when i shot people in the knee and they don't fell and cry and plea me to kill him.

Wha? If this is meant to be sarcastic humor it failed miserably. If not... seek professional assistance.

[Kamalot]

So blood can create atmosphere with the intention of making people afraid. It can also be a clue in gameplay, streaks of blood indicate where something has gone, been dragged or indicates the scene of a crime/accident. All of this I can understand and won't argue with.

I don't think adding blood to an already fun game adds a lot of value. I don't play games where I demolish baddies and wish there was more realism. Can you imagine Dead or Alive where the characters actually ended up bruised and bleeding?

Someone else brought up Soul Calibur, which is a perfect analogy. The game has you slicing up opponents with swords, yet no blood. Does the game NEED blood? It sure would make sense, no? Yet I bet you would find that lots of people would be turned off by bleeding characters.

Analysing the situation, I find that I didn't turn off the blood in Resident Evil 4, but I do in many other games. I'll admit that RE4 didn't even cross my mind. There isn't much in the horror genre I enjoy. Resident Evil 4 seemd to rise above the other titles of the genre.

[torrefaction]

So blood can create atmosphere with the intention of making people afraid. It can also be a clue in gameplay, streaks of blood indicate where something has gone, been dragged or indicates the scene of a crime/accident. All of this I can understand and won't argue with.


They didn't do this QUITE as well as I would've liked, but another game that brings in my point and yours (at least, the first paragraph :) ) is Condemned. Use a black light to find the blood, take a sample. Granted, it was very on-the-rails investigation. But, the potential there is pretty huge.

Realism makes realistic games more fun. Blood is realistic. It also drives home action. CliffyB said in an interview that without blood, there'd be no visceral way of knowing you were really taking a guy out/hitting your target in GoW. Could you imagine GoW without blood?

[torrefaction]

I don't think adding blood to an already fun game adds a lot of value. I don't play games where I demolish baddies and wish there was more realism. Can you imagine Dead or Alive where the characters actually ended up bruised and bleeding?


I want to note that I agree with this point. Blood for the sake of blood would be pretty inane. I don't want to see the katamari crush the life out of the people you roll up. Dead or Alive has a cartoony feel to the fighting...so that'd be lame. But getting bruised and cut up in Fight Night Round 3. Absolutely neccesary to get at what they were trying to do.

Would I like to see a sort of Fight Club game (done right!)? Absolutely. I'd love if I could have a visceral street fighting experience. It would make for an incredible game. Imagine a first person melee (Think Dark Messiah of M&M) where if you get hit in the nose, your vision goes white, because your nose got popped. And then you did the same, and you see the blood fly, indicating the enemies nose is broken, and he's blinded by pain. Blood can make for good gameplay mechanics in realistic games.

[Zaro]

I don't care about blood in games. I play games with blood or not.
I like it in two case. It the same thing about Red Steel.

But, it make me wonder where realism must stop. Probably the same
limit movie have.

Edit: Killer 7 cannot be the same game without blood. But it don't help at immersion. It's like Kill Bill so much blood make it irrealiste, and funny in the same time.

[Deadend]

I think blood would be good in Red Steel, as it is trying to be a gritty shooting game with violent melee and based on movies where there was blood.

Think about Kill Bill, when there was a sword fight would it have been the same without blood?

I think Blood belongs in some types of games, mostly those claiming to be "realistic" or "gritty". Such as World War 2 shooters.

Games that do not try and be realistic such as Soul Calibre, do not need blood, as even though that would be realistic, it would also be realistic for whoever gets the first hit to win, as the other person was just cleaved in two.

[Dracula-X]

Red Steel seems to be a game in a serious vein (that is, not in a campy or cartoon-like way), I find having some blood would seem appropriate, given the violence of gun & swordplay. If I had a choice to play RS with or without blood, it would most definitely be with blood.

[captainspankypants]

Some games NEED blood, obviously. Anyone who claims the opposite is being deliberately obtuse. Resident Evil and Silent Hill have been mentioned a million times, anything in the horror genre is probably a safe bet, DOOM 3, etc. Without blood it would be impossible to make the game.

And yes, some people do play for immersion. Keep your mind open to alternate points of view.

On a side note, I didn't know that Red Steel didn't have blood until I read this. It seems surprising that it wouldn't. Someone else said it very well: guns, swords, "Red Steel," what do you mean there's no blood? The swordplay would feel like you're beating on a manaquin with a stick.

[Zurik]

So you want to play a game about killing people, but don't want the blood? Maybe you don't really want a game about killing people. Let's not pretend this is some sort of game where the violence takes a backseat. You have a controller that aims and swings your weapons.

[Kamalot]

So you want to play a game about killing people, but don't want the blood? Maybe you don't really want a game about killing people. Let's not pretend this is some sort of game where the violence takes a backseat. You have a controller that aims and swings your weapons.
You ever play TimeSplitters?

Fun does not need blood to be fun.

[Zaro]

I always found blood more immersive when it was always on the floor with corpse. I always said to myslef "Man, what happen here!". When i shot character, blood made me near nothing. I don't remember seeing such blood in Resident Evil 4, but i remember seeing a dead man on a chair with full of blood under him in F.E.A.R.

[serion]

Personally, I'm of the belief that blood does not make a game better. Given the option, I turn it off. Adding blood isn't about enhancing gameplay, it is about being graphic. Want graphic violence? Watch the news.

I have to say, I really enjoy the silence after an intense gunfight when the dust settles and blood is splattered everywhere....really feels like I thoroughly "pwned" the guy.

I don't need to see blood fly out when I jump on something in Mario, but come on, any FPS or...first person...sword swinger....just crys out for spraying blood.

[kid cabelgo]

so what about Goldeneye? The most blood that involved was red spots on the guys when you shot them. Speaking of that, did anybody ever piss off their friends in multiplayer by unloading on their corpses after they died just to make them completely red? That was always fun...

[torrefaction]

so what about Goldeneye? The most blood that involved was red spots on the guys when you shot them. Speaking of that, did anybody ever piss off their friends in multiplayer by unloading on their corpses after they died just to make them completely red? That was always fun...

Your talking a different day and age. And there was blood, as you said, to indicate that you hit your target. Blood doesn't have to be excessive. And again, a different day and age. We're in the age of immersive gaming, whether people like it or not. A realistic shooter without blood is simply not an immersive or realistic experience.

[Rook34]

I think that if they ARE going for a realistic type of environment, and immersive where you can shoot anything, etc., then not having blood is a self-defeating purpose. Now, I can't say I've ever seen anyone get shot, but it seems that most games go way overboard on the blood factor (even though it is also very cool sometimes, like God of War - fuck yeah) so it should be interesting to see how realistic they went. There's the old saying also : "Less is more". Alfred Hitchcock understood this in his movies and he didn't use much gore either. The reactions of enemies can be far more realistic if done right, than adding excessive gore, too.

A game like this though, does need a little something in the bodily fluid department... :p

[Zaro]

...The reactions of enemies can be far more realistic if done right, than adding excessive gore, too.


It's true. I remember in Time Splitter when i shoot their head, they cover it with one hand , and how they jump on one leg when i it the other. It's a good detail attention despite it's not a realistic game.

[Zeal]

I played the game and it sucked so whatever.

[Zaro]

I played the game and it sucked so whatever.

To bad for you!

[Johan]

If the point of a game is immersion, which it often is, removing immersive elements defeats the designer's intentions. In this case it's blood. Would you remove the blood from Silent Hill? Resident Evil? Hell, even in shooters it often DOES serve a gameplay function in that it announces when you've hit an enemy.

I agree with what I've quoted above...and I like the irony of 'RandomViolence' supporting blood in games. That seems to fit, too. ;)

[PixelSamurai]

Not only do I agree with everything RandomViolence has said, but I think I need to pick me up some Resident Evil 4.

Also, I don't care about Red Steel. It's a fairly mature setting (Yakuza) and it's rated T for TEEN. What a waste. That's almost like making a PG-13 version of Kill Bill. The Wii will need some real mature titles if it intends to attract more mature gamers. This neutered stuff won't cut it.

[Cool AN]

In a game called Red Steel, that is about shooting guns and cutting people with swords, there needs to be blood.

[ProfPuppet]

I remember playing an old shooter game series called Delta Force, and the enemies, when shot, would only release very tiny puffs of rusty smoke. Meant to simulate kinetic force of bullets misting the blood I assume, but... I loved it. A lot more than the blood everywhere you get in a lot of shooters. Not all games should be like that, but if Silent Hill 4 had no blood but the sound effects were better (talking to you, whatever fucktard put burping sounds on the nurses) I'd be okay with it.

[Thenetcase]

Sorry, but this caption is ridiculous. If the point of a game is immersion, which it often is, removing immersive elements defeats the designer's intentions. In this case it's blood. Would you remove the blood from Silent Hill? Resident Evil? Hell, even in shooters it often DOES serve a gameplay function in that it announces when you've hit an enemy.

Not sure, man. Your preference is your preference, but don't hide it under false pretenses.

I'm right there with you on that one...
I hate games that have an unrealistic amount of blood because it takes away from the immersion for me. However, NO blood is even worse if it comes to hacking off someone's arm (Oblivion) or filling them full of bullet holes (Gun).

Oh well.. just my opinion.. but that's the way I see it....

Thinking so you don't have to...

[JazGalaxy]

I too hate when people cite "immersion" as a reason for buckets of blood. They will even take that and say it's "more realistic".

I do like blood... or sweat or whatever... because it enhances the game. I can't pin down just why, this second, but it does for me. I feel the same way about reactive damage... which is what I've just now decided to call it... as I do about sound effects. You just want your action to have a consequence. I really don't care what. I wouldn't have liked Soul Blade or Tekken any more if they had had blood instead of flashing lights, but then by the same token, I owuld have liked MK a whole lot less if NOTHING came out when you hit a guy. Blood, sweat or whatever.

[deathfan]

weren't they making, sorry, porting RE4 for PC or did i imagine that

[deathfan]

i don't know why I still play battlefield 1942... but anyway. wouldn't it be better if when I shot two soldiers lying on the ground with the main cannon on my matilda tank... wouldn't it be better if they didn't go flying into the air. physical structure intact.

i would bitch about why there isn't a great smoking/dusty/body part littered hole in the ground but yeah.

sometimes blood is the win... if it's there as part of the product. mortal combat blood is stupid. resident evil blood is a necessary part of the end product. mario doesen't need blood, it isn't based in reality and theres no referencec point to really go by.

shit even OOT had green circles flying off the deku plants when you slashed them.

[Kamalot]

even OOT had green circles flying off the deku plants when you slashed them.Ahhhh! Noooooo!

Turn of the sap! It makes me queasy!

It is in the Options..."Show Sap Effects" :D