RTW: Have they removed all traces of blood for the rating?
Grackle
bloody battles? Not that I'm complaining, but with all the attention to
visual realism, it does seem that it should have at least been an optional
'feature'.
Leo
blabbed:
Haven't played rtw, so can't answer. Just standing on a
soapbox here for a minute.
I've always thought it to be counter productive to take blood
and violence out of various media. By taking it out, what you end up
w/is media that still portrays violence, but no longer portrays the
*results* of violence. How many of us grew up w/gi-joe and
transformer cartoons where entire armies would battle it out, w/out
anyone ever getting killed, and always for some noble ideal against an
enemy who's sole cause is to promote 'evil'. Reality isn't like that
and its the wrong message to give, especially to kids. If one is
worried about how impressionable youth are, one should make sure that
they understand the *consequences* of violence. One should put more
blood and death into these cartoons, not take it out. Better them to
learn the consequences to violence from the media than from practice.
I loved the japanese cartoons I also grew up with - robotech,
starblazers. They were a great counterpoint. Main characters died
left and right! These shows were also not too realistic, still kids
shows, and still a story and therefore still limited by the structure
of a story, but it was shocking to me as a kid when I first saw a main
character die in a cartoon, never to come back again, a character that
had been around in the show for a very long time. Made the story
better and more engrossing too. Was nice to see a show as a kid that
didn't try to show us kids a pretend world where violence was about
good guys w/halos over their heads beating back skeletons dedicated to
evil in a giant war involving giant weapons, but somehow never
resulting in anyone getting killed (maybe one or 2 get killed
occasionally, but of course, only to come right back, even stronger
the next season).
Leo
Sierro
comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic was:
I disagree.
In certain FPS games like Solider of Fortune blood and guts played an
important descriptive role. You killed someone up close and the lack
of blood and guts screamed censorship.
In Rome: Total War however, the game is about strategy and warfare.
Yes on a man to man level this includes horrific levels of violence,
but not on the epic scale, where it is about army vs army etc. The
lack of blood is of no consequence and indeed not needed here. Anyone
who thinks RTW is lacking because of no blood and guts needs their
head examined imo.
Raymond Martineau
>
>In Rome: Total War however, the game is about strategy and warfare.
>Yes on a man to man level this includes horrific levels of violence,
>but not on the epic scale, where it is about army vs army etc. The
>lack of blood is of no consequence and indeed not needed here.
The blood on a specific unit can be an indicator on how well a specific
unit is fighting. While there wouldn't be any massive blood splatters, it
can just as easily be implemented by adding in subtle tones in small areas
to indicate that a unit has been wounded.
However, this does take up a bit of memory and is generally requires more
than it's worth at this stage in time (at least not until locational damage
is implemented.)
> Anyone
>who thinks RTW is lacking because of no blood and guts needs their
>head examined imo.
Sure, why not? Anyone using Win98 to play RTW, even though it is an
operating system supported by the developer, needs to have their head
examined as well.