I don't know if I agree that it "greatly" affects immersion. If I shoot a dryas elk with an arrow and it falls down, I don't need to see blood to know it is dead. It's lying on the ground, an arrow is sticking out of it, and I have the option to harvest its meat, organs, horns and hide. I'm not particularly averse to a splash of red around a wound, but I don't think it's vital to my gameplay experience.

There is also the matter of technical hurdles. There are quick and easy ways to give the impression of blood during an attack, but if you're looking for persistent gore, that's a whole other layer of work they'd need to do.

You mention there are some people with a genuine aversion to blood. In that way it also comes down to a matter of tone. What is the tone of the story. How should the player feel about their accomplishments? What do they want you to be immersed in? What will the ESRB label this game and how will that narrow the playerbase? Being able to toggle it on and off is another technical hurdle, but if it is always on or off they aren't "forcing a preference" they are dictating the tone of the game--something they do with all of their world-building choices. It's impossible to avoid.

Caspian has said he doesn't want the tone of the game to rest on gore and sex, but rather the stories and adventures we build together. If you're looking at visceral brutality, I don't think that's what this game is about. I also think that there are numerous opportunities to increase immersion already, and that once we're in the game nobody will truly miss immersive bleeding.

I find it hard to believe that as immersive as CoE is there won’t be some blood to show someone has been wounded.

That being said, I agree with Bombastus that the tone they’re going for probably doesn’t require extensive blood and guts either.

I imagine SBS will find a happy medium that makes sense for their vision of the game. It will make some happy and others disappointed, I imagine, but whatever decision they make will do that.

I care more about gameplay than immersion so for me I don't need to see blood but I would like to see some sign of damage if I don't kill the deer, like a limp or scratches.

there is always a level of too much or too less. The point is finding a realistic middle ground. I agree that it makes sense to have blood and such in a game that tends to be realistic. But several games exaggerate a lot with blood... I dont want CoE to turn into a spladdermovie, where shooting a deer with an arrow makes it explode and leaves the whole forest soaked in blood. Realistic blood, sure, go for it. But nothing more than that.

I totally get your point and I think there will and should be blood but also like you I don't think there will be gore to the extent you described. We're looking at a game where for real world reasons, death for PCs has to be averted. The Devs have talked about irrecoverable bodies before and I believe a body destroyed by high levels of gore and damage would count and therefor not be possible. What I wouldn't mind though (both development time wise and immersion wise) is a Skyrim style blood and damage system where blood becomes visible on the model as more damage is done. I could also see more blood spurting etc during a coup de gras as well. Blood on swords is a must for me too, and having 3 or so textures for blood on each weapon would be nice.

Blood on swords definitely a must. Some realistic blood spatter and sputter would be nice as well. We won't have amputations, so sadly that's not a possible effect. EDIT: forgot to add disease related physical harm. But other then that I say we don't need much more gore then that. Too much of a hassle for too little gain anyway, aside from not really fitting with the tone.

That said I am looking forward to see how they'll make being a Butcher a "challenging and skill based activity with depth" like all occupations are supposed to have. Here's a player that spends his game time killing, gutting and cutting apart animals all day long. That sounds like a nightmare to keep challenging and entertaining without it being a total horror fest. I do not envy the person designing the gameplay for that one, that's for sure. xD

I am a big fan of horror in general, so the bloodier the better. :)

I totally agree with Hieronymus. Love Horror and gore BUT also would be perfectly alright watching an animal go down and know it went down because of the physical action of falling, without having to see dripping blood or a pool of blood.

How can I drink the blood of my enemies if their blood doesn't render on screen?

In that case, you'll have to stick 'em with a straw. XD

If combat is done well and moves/skills work very well combat will feel visceral without blood and gore.

When you have blood splatter on the screen or hear “squish” when you walk through a puddle of gore does it really add to the story or the fight or is it just cool cause it’s not something you realistically see on a daily basis?

Any good combat will have blood, it doesn't need much, but there should be blood. Especially true when you puncture an organ, however I can make due with a simple mist and a little blood.

Without blood, (we don't really need to gore mobs) but the wounds should be visible, especially how they describe crime and their hunting mechanics. What, we see invisible blood? Only tracks of a healthy animal? If the alleged criminal was bleeding after being struck, we need to see that for instance to prove it actually happened. We could also track mann, to see where they go with the same hunting mechanic that was talked about in the past. Without blood a bunch of things can be missing from the whole tracking system and all that it's apart of.

Again they have zero plans on making animals fall in their tracks. They won't just fall over, you just found a 10 point drias elk and shot it with a bow, you will want more than just tracks which could be to another, especially if there is a tag limit on the nobles land. You will need more than just tracks for that whole hunting and tracking of criminals to make much sense.

Gore on the other hand it's fine if we don't have severed heads and limbs. But I will be pretty pissed if we ruin a mechanic and make believe a variety of children play this game.

Again, I think the answer to the question lies where it usually does...somewhere in the middle.

Too little graphic representation...game is too cutesy and childish...turns off the hard-cores.

Too much gore and you have a zombie apocalypse that gets a M rating...also limits the marketability.

Some moderate level of realism is necessary, but overkill is off-putting, so you will probably get some mid level that will not be acceptable to either extreme of this community.

And many will then loudly complain that their particular views are not being represented enough. Then somebody will say something derogatory about care bears . And the usual flame war will break out. About par for the course.

I have no personal objection to gore, but I find that most games overdo it rather than settle for realism.

Posted By Poldano at 1:00 PM - Thu Apr 25 2019

I have no personal objection to gore, but I find that most games overdo it rather than settle for realism.

^ This. So many games these days just overkill it to extreme levels. It being realistic would be fine, but if it turns into how much blood horror games use. Well it's just silly then.