in less than a month it will be Timesplitters 2 is already out. it's been out for atleast a month. I have Timesplitters 2 for gamecube. it has no blood. | |
I thought that Resident Evil (the first one) was fun for a half hour. Then it got boring. and each sequel gets more and more repetitive. I don't think they have offered too much different gameplay than the first one. Maybe they did, but I'd rather watch a horror movie than play the game.
| |
k dis the people that made byond popular...and keep it expanding...**waits for some post about dbzers**
| |
OneFishDown wrote:
Maybe we think differently than you. Maybe I like games with blood, it makes the games more realistic. Some games over-use gore, some games use it appropriately. Some companies target a younger audience and choose to remove blood from their games. I don't care if a game is violent but I don't like it when companies try and make thier game less violent by replacing blood with sweat or replacing people with zombies. But a game without graphic violence isn't childish. I'd just love to see an 8 year old try and play ZAngband. I also don't see Tetris as a childish game just because the blocks aren't bleeding. Civilization 2 isn't a childish game either but it doesn't have blood. I could go on all day listing games but hopefully you get the point that a game doesn't need blood/violencde to be non-childish. | |
Console-bashing on all sides is getting extremely irritating.
| |
I never said that games without blood were childish. I said that blood makes a game more realistic when used properly. the Pro Skater games had blood, but I think they got rid of the blook in the N64 versions. Ot maybe there was a cheat to turn blood on. They had that in mortal combat (for SNES) I think.
| |
I haven't played it yet but I think Resident Evil has gore. It has a little. not really allot, but yeah, resident evil does have gore, which was the main reason I got the gamecube since all the resident eivls are for it. But why in the world would you base a desicsion of why something is good based on it having blood? The same reason as why would it be a good decision if it has capcom on it's console. | |
Most of my posts about this subject show the good sides of all of the consoles. I think they are all good. All have their good and bad points. Thats why I don't see the point of bashing any of them.
| |
Thrakkiss wrote:
Console-bashing on all sides is getting extremely irritating. Well I'd be console bashing too but I've only played a GC. I'm not touching a PS2 since it's made by Sony and that's the only reason I have against it. And I feel that an XBox is just a poor man's gaming computer. But bashing Square and people who think games without violence are childish never gets old :). | |
Watching horror movies you mean? Yes I do have fun. Zombies jumping through walls at you isn't entertaining, good horror movies are.
| |
OneFishDown wrote:
I never said that games without blood were childish. I said that blood makes a game more realistic when used properly. the Pro Skater games had blood, but I think they got rid of the blook in the N64 versions. Ot maybe there was a cheat to turn blood on. They had that in mortal combat (for SNES) I think. heh I hardly think people losing more than twice thier weight in blood is realistic :). Blood is a cool effect but not one that'll make me run to the store to get a game the instant it comes out. Blood and other cosmetic things are cool but never outweigh good gameplay. | |
hmm, I wonder why...