Alliedassault - View Single Post

-DJK- · 06-12-2001, 06:23 AM

"The feature isn't suddenly left out, it was never there"

Uh, what first person shooters have YOU been playing??

"and if it was excluded to make room for new and inovating features then that's a good thing"

Not really. You act as if blood was just some stupid fad that is out of style or something. Just because blood has been in other games, doesn't mean it's not STILL a vital part of games that portray combat. Adding new things is great, but removing some of the things that continue to add to realism, such as blood, gore and bullet holes is just plain stupid.

"games aren't going to get any better if they all stick to the same plan."

As I said, people still bleed when shot, and so games should keep including blood, ESPECIALLY games that claim to be realistic.

[This message has been edited by -DJK- (edited June 12, 2001).]

	(#34)
-DJK- is Offline Senior Member Posts: 108 Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Buffalo, NY USA	06-12-2001, 06:23 AM "The feature isn't suddenly left out, it was never there" Uh, what first person shooters have YOU been playing?? "and if it was excluded to make room for new and inovating features then that's a good thing" Not really. You act as if blood was just some stupid fad that is out of style or something. Just because blood has been in other games, doesn't mean it's not STILL a vital part of games that portray combat. Adding new things is great, but removing some of the things that continue to add to realism, such as blood, gore and bullet holes is just plain stupid. "games aren't going to get any better if they all stick to the same plan." As I said, people still bleed when shot, and so games should keep including blood, ESPECIALLY games that claim to be realistic. [This message has been edited by -DJK- (edited June 12, 2001).]