VS. The issue: which is more disrespectful and inappropriate - gore in WWII games, or the lack of it? The lack of it, as in the original Call of Duty, has a cartoonish detached feel. The presence of it, as in Call of Duty: World at War, has a sense of impropriety and tastelessness. Not showing gore in war games could be construed as downplaying and cushioning the atrocities of war, whilst showing them can seem to be glorifying or revelling in them. Discuss.
Love that map in CoD 2 This is actually something I was thinking about pretty recently, I only started W@W a couple months ago. I think it depends more on the mentality of the person playing the game. "Whoa awesome you can blow their legs off!!!1!" Or "Holy crap that actually happened to people". I know I was a little freaked out the first time I flamethrower'd a guy and saw the crispy remains, but also once I realised a sniper rifle will take off arms I started aiming for the arms more. In the end I think it has more of a place in these kind of games than the like of FEAR etc, because it did actually happen. Any vets (or relatives of vets) care to weigh in?
Some gore is okay as long as it doesn't turn into a grindhouse splatterfest. To be honest, I think gore is pretty low on the list when it comes to experiencing these events in a tasteful and accurate manner. Engine limitations, development time, artistic presentation and storyline/exposition erode any historic worthwhile the game may have had. Many WWx based shooters play by numbers, with gamers floating through a brown landscape, mashing the fire button until the game ends; while the horribly outdated notion of boss battles and endlessly respawning enemies dissolve any remaining shred of historical credibility.
*Shrugs* it's all about choice I guess. I don't see it as disrespectful (since it's true and happened), and it's not like we're forced to play games with gore so I don't really see it as a biggy.
W@W did a pretty good job of including gore, it wasn't insanely bloody but at the same time it depicted the atrocities in some of it's harshness(bouncing betties or molotovs especially). I don't mind gore personally as long as it's tastefully done and not done to add that "extra bloody" appeal to the game.
@Elton, that's precisely how I feel about gore, that it's acceptable if it's realistic and accurate. On the subject of W@W though, my qualm was that it wasn't. I blew both a guy's legs off with one shotgun shell. It felt more like Soldier of Fortune and less like history :/
End of level events which are purposefully more difficult, such as taking on a tank single handidly in a town square or holding the line for X minutes.
True, W@W wasn't the most realistic when it came to gun based gore, but some parts were done okay, such as the flamethrower and some explosions, although it was a bit overdone, it's not as bad as say...FEAR or some games where buckets of blood come out of people.
I don't think gore is offensive if its not to OTT. I don't like it though when they change history too much to match their plot or for other reasons. I know its not a game but U571 really bugged me for Americanising everything to make it sell better.
Agreed on W@W being pretty good with blood. It really helped add the horror or war feel, such as throwing a grenade into a room and running in after only to see a bunch of mangled bodies, some with skin ripped off their torsos and organs showing for example... I felt it was an acceptable level of gore for a realistic game. Like olimorgan above, historical accuracy catches me more than blood. Sometimes I would rather actually sit back and watch NPCs do things if it means I'm not some impossible one man hero. W@W was pretty bad for this, making the player seem like some great soldier surviving through all sorts of varied events along with the prodigal Russian buddy. Sure, some soldiers really did see a lot of different battles and could be seen as great war heroes, but were they always the guy to go and get the bazooka, and plant the C4, and fire the mortar etc? It takes away some of the appeal of being historical game.
i'm pretty sure that's what would happen if you got shot in the legs with a shotgun anyway. guns do a lot more damage to flesh than video-games tend to show us.
You can display the horrors of war without needing gore for example the D-Day mission in CoD2. Bulets flying everywhere and you're lucky to survive to the cliff. Once you're over that then there's the vast field of trenches and tank guns streached below you with yet still more bullets whipping past you.
SOF had some insane Gory & Gibb moments, i loved that game. It was well OTT however it seemed to fit just fine. I also don't believe Gore or Gibbs in any way is offensive. DEVS should make an on/off switch like there is in Half Life. If you don't like it, simply turn it off!
This is true, you don't really need gore to express the harshness of war. Fond memories of St. Petersburg in COD2.
Cerebral Bore Cheesecake! That game was seriously fun, it had some great technology for its time, too. Hardly a World War shooter though.
One of the few games I've actually finished...ah the memories! First online shooter too! +1 about St. Petersberg, brilliant design. The first time you play it anyway Also agreed that you don't need gore, but it definitely won't make a level nice and friendly and cosy either.
SoF2 had the same amount of destructiveness that bfbc2 has with buildings on the enemies its was indeed over the top but first time seeing it was always wtf.
