| JA:what we *wont* be getting[message #3506]
|
Fri, 25 June 2004 20:55 
|
|
 Alpha Male |
 |
Messages:29
Registered:April 2004 |
|
|
Ok,this may be a bit of a paradox in a wish list,but some things will probably wont make the transition to the new game and i am wandering if they will be missed:
-The Gore=rotting corpses,heads exploding and gaping wounds in torsos death animations,decapitations.Somethng tells me this is defenetly out of the picture these days as gaming industies want to avoid controversy.
-Any direct references to Sex, and alcohol might just disapear,maybe even smokes. it
Report message to a moderator
|
Private 1st Class
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: JA:what we *wont* be getting[message #3514]
|
Sun, 27 June 2004 01:02 
|
|
| TrooperThorn |
 |
Messages:61
Registered:November 2002 |
|
|
@Slayer:
I totally agree with you. For me JA is like a action movie that I get to play out by controlling the mercs. Their wit, morbid sense of humor, and faults makes it entertaining. I have read many posts where people want realism in the game. The more I read and thought about it the less I was in agreement. Realistic if you get shot in the real world you are going to go into shock and be incapcitated pretty quickly unless it's a light fresh wound, than you have to worry about infection. Forget body armor.
As for a few exploding heads, bodies that turn into crispy critters, vultures picking at the bones, that's not so bad. Chances are you will see far worst on the nightly news.
It's a game. A war game. A shooting game. Things get blown up, soldiers get shot. As I recall there are options that allow you turn some of that stuff off if it offends you. Jagged Alliance has been out for years now. I don't recall any big outrage in the public over the aspects of it's animations. Maybe I missed it, I don't know.
I say the game is good the way it is. Leave it alone. Tweak the things that need to be tweaked and leave the rest of it as is. Sure, maybe some of the things can be toned down. I personally do not find these aspects of the game to be as offensive as some of the aspects of other games I have seen out there. Why is it ok to go around shooting and chopping up zombies and the walking dead, but not ok to shoot up a red shirt or elite enemy soldier? I don't see that big a difference. It's all depicting violence. If you don't want violence in your games then play the non violent games.
Report message to a moderator
|
Corporal
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: JA:what we *wont* be getting[message #3523]
|
Fri, 02 July 2004 01:57
|
|
| Cybro |
|
Messages:3
Registered:March 2003
Location: Estonia |
|
|
Quote: Without it....its not JA and just another game... Quote: JA1 was a great game as well - without gore & exploding heads. You took my words.
Many things you think about, it is not Jagged Alliance anymore, just a JA based game- many of those things where not in JA1.
looking how different JA1 and JA2 are, JA3 might be something new- but why complain?
has anyone complained JA2 does not give right JA feeling?
JA3 could be like JA1 instead of JA2 and still it is true pure Jagged Alliance
Report message to a moderator
|
Civilian
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: JA:what we *wont* be getting[message #3525]
|
Sat, 03 July 2004 08:13
|
|
| robsmith77 |
|
Messages:3
Registered:June 2004
Location: United Kingdom |
|
|
I would be seriously unhappy if the politically correct psychos have anything to do with JA3. I want blood and gore, exploding chests and heads, macabre humour, crows picking at rotting corpses. OK, I'm not sure I want arms and legs flying everywhere as that is not very nice (in fact it's bloody distressing), but I really thought that the level of "violence" was just about perfect in JA2. Why change something that works? It's only a game after all.
Report message to a moderator
|
Civilian
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: JA:what we *wont* be getting[message #3528]
|
Thu, 19 May 2005 02:05
|
|
| LegacyOfApathy |
 |
Messages:101
Registered:September 2004 |
|
|
Well, I've never seen it happen in real life (thank god)
But, after a head gets shot by a 9mm bullet, a hallow-point, a shotgun shell, or a high caliber sniper round. I doubt it would keep much of its normal shape. In fact, I think a sniper round would kinda annihilate the head altogether. A nasty spray of blood and bone and brain matter. ugh.
Its hard to tell sometimes, but Jagged Alliance, and computer games in general, are fantasy. Not reality. If you took it too seriously, it would be impossible to enjoy the game. Do you think about the greiving families and children you made ophans after killing those redshirts? Probably not.
eee.. Sorry if I seem somewhat moody lately.
Report message to a moderator
|
Sergeant
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: JA:what we *wont* be getting[message #3533]
|
Mon, 25 July 2005 02:59
|
|
| hoioh |
|
Messages:2
Registered:July 2005
Location: Holland |
|
|
Hmmm.. I really thought i was registered at this forum but seeing as my nickname isn't used allready I've either been removed due to lack of posting or I never registered at all...
anyway,
I see everyone really agrees on the topic and i have to say i agree with most here.
my two cents:
Variety is the soul of pleasure.
i hope the mistland developers keep that in mind
Report message to a moderator
|
Civilian
|
|
|
|
| Re: JA:what we *wont* be getting[message #3534]
|
Tue, 02 August 2005 06:04
|
|
| KIA |
 |
Messages:92
Registered:November 2002
Location: Virginia (USA) |
|
|
The "real" reason why developers tend to eliminate blood splashes, etc. is because the German laws prohibit any depiction of blood or viscera in videogames. Germany is a big market, therefore they have no intention of even developing a game which cannot be marketed in Germany. The common practice is to use a software-toggle for US markets and to software-disable the splashes in the German market. Simple problem, simple solution. I like to have the option to customize my games and parents or people with different values should have the right to customize their game to their tastes too.
As for the philosophy behind removing the gore, I personally believe it should be left in. The act of shooting another human being should never be trivialized. "Bloodless" movies of the 1950's and 1960's led one to believe that death was a quick, clean solution to all problems. If you're really anti-war and anti-violence, you should be insisting that the true results of the violence be revealed in it full nauseating detail. Nothing like the stench of old meat to make one retch up their own mortality. But this is a game. The head-popping graphics, mercenaries' quips and comments, etc. tend to distance one from the violence just as soldiers who are on the front lines tend to impersonalize conflict to retain their sanity. I, for one, think a very good balance between the real horror of war and the potentially trite nature of a perfectly sanitized version was struck by Sir-Tech. If you've got something right, don't change the formula.
Report message to a moderator
|
Corporal 1st Class
|
|
|
|
| Re: JA:what we *wont* be getting[message #3535]
|
Fri, 05 August 2005 14:57
|
|
| Doc Croc |
|
Messages:91
Registered:September 2003
Location: VT |
|
|
Kia brings up an exceptional argument. Especially in terms of how they could potentially satisfy several geographic markets. If I remember correctly JA2 was a significantly better seller in Germany than it was here in North America so ignoring either one could be a fatal marketing error. Personally I thought the amount of violence in JA2 was just about right. It was just enough to make you think about the frailty of life without going over the top. Somehow I think that the popping heads and flying bodies would have lost some of their effect if every hit scored something special like that.
Report message to a moderator
|
Corporal 1st Class
|
|
|
|
Blog
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
.
