I am advocating gore for the sake of it. I'm an adult, the issue of violence in games is less important to me since I don't have children. But when I do I won't let them play GTA, for example, at least until I judge that they have the moral and psycholigical maturity to deal with it.

But as an individual I want to see gory rewards for achieving in a game.

In the games I design I try to always reward the player, for any achievement, no matter how small. The best rewards are something funny or violent, because they resonate the strongest, with the most basic human instincts.

It sounds melodramatic but its true - when someone is playing your game / map you're setting it up so that they enjoy doing so. Gibbing a zombie or blowing its head off so that it wanders around on hands and knees looking for it are equally good rewards, but the second one requires much more work. And so the first becomes more common.

I enjoy violence in media; its a safe outlet for one of the most basic emotions and the protect the children nonsense spouted by such people as everyone's favourite idiot (JT) is like white noise.

Its just a shame to see a developer, long famous for thier aggressive style, taking the safe road in order to increase thier market share.

I spose I'm a bit pissed off about the mainstreaming of everything; it's a place where having a story for your game actively hurts it (for example), at least in the eyes of marketing and management. 

sell to a wider market. Lots of gamers are in the teen demographic, meaning they technically can't go into a store and buy any M-rated id games.

When a publisher pushes for a teen rated game, they want to sell to more people. There's never any other concern. id is likely the same way. 

could be just growing up.
The guys have kids themselves now and don't find excessive gore as fucking cool as it used to be. Sigh.
Why does everybody demand gore from them? It's not as if they have always done it. They did three dooms and three quakes with gore and that's it, move on! 

gore is awesome 

is like the Old Grey mare -- it ain't what it used to be. Back when Doom and Quake were first around it was something new, disturbing and unlike most other games I personally had ever seen (outside of The Immortal, which was one of the goriest Genesis games ever). It sent a signal that this wasn't some kiddie game, wasn't some puff piece. But that has been played to death now, with everyone else following suit, so why not take the other side of the road now? 

let�s be honest, id sold out with Doom 2, and if you think that�s wrong let�s talk about the "Doom Master Levels". 

I don't see how a dismissal of gore is any sort of growing up if the actions of the game are ones that would nonetheless generate gore in real life. They are still keeping violent acts in the field of entertainment. They described an element of the gameplay as "run and gun." This is the same element we experience in Quake, Doom, Unreal, or even Contra. In Contra we saw a lack of blood and gore, at least the first one (didn't follow the franchise), but there was no mistaking the fact that the game is largely comprised of running and shooting things until they reach their demise. This does not change whether or not you see blood and guts. Call of Duty reduced heavy artillery and mounted machineguns to issuing small puffs of blood at best. But you were still mowing down humans, and at the level of detail and style presented in the game, it seemed less genuine for it to be so sterile about the violence. Imagine Band of Brother's without any blood, or actual visible damage when someone dies. Their body remains in defiance of what just occurred to them.

I will maintain that if you are damaging the flesh of something in the game, and it is of significant damage to draw blood, it should draw blood. Rage better not allow for headshots or similar, as that could cause a problem. I will stand by Soldier of Fortune/2 on the aspect of the fact that it does mince words on what you are doing in the game, you are shooting people, often with powerful weapons. Not Nerf Guns (though the demo of Nerf Blast Arena or whatnot was kind of fun). It is not that violence is disturbing, or cool, but that it is part of the game world. Blood spraying from a damaging hit, or decapitations from a large blade to the neck follows as naturally to me as picking up shells goes to your shell count and firing the shotgun removes from the shell count.

Violence and gore go hand in hand. If you don't want gore, don't put violent acts in the game. Don't want chunks of flesh sprayed? Don't model and code rocket launchers, chainsaws and whatever else.

I have no problems with id doing a non-violent game. I am concerned with the fact that they have spoken against have a great deal of gore, when they say that 50% of the game will be running and gunning. Maybe the other weapons are wiffle bats that can only hit toes, and spitwads to demoralize your opponent into not fighting you anymore. 

I thought they'd be doing some non beat/shoot game but apparently that is not the game.

In commander keen the animals were stunned if you shot them, not killed. 

http://gametrailers.com/player/23179.html?type=flv

Its the editor for id tech5 being shown off by Carmack, mainly the art/megatexture side of it. 

I play quake because I like shooting cartoon monsters.
I once played halflife, untill after three days I got sick nightmares of shooting real people.

I'm not a ill-temperd guy, but I just can't make it to shoot a more than realistic object of a human. Sorry, maybe it's the pacifist in me that has overcome the patriot. 

Arguing about how much blood should be in another first person shooter is like arguing about how many people should get shot in the next Death Wish sequel. Same shit, different day. 

Think it is an interesting debate. By people on this forum, at least. 

...if you have already decided your game will involve shooting people, it is not childish to show blood when you shoot them. In fact it's rather stupid not to, and it breaks the consistency of the game world, like being able to blow up tanks or robots or whatever, but not some shitty wooden door that's locked because there isn't really a room there.

I do agree that id's art direction is pretty immature usually though. They still haven't grown out of having skeletons on fire in space suits in their games, I guess that's the scariest thing they could think of at the time they made doom 3.

I think the original Doom and Quake are exempt from this though, Doom because the style was consistent and fit the technology at the time, and Quake was genuinely pretty dark, it didn't seem like they were throwing in satanic references to be cool. Quake 3 didn't even have a coherent artistic style, and Doom 3 can be cut some slack because it's a remake of a much older game of course, but there's a lack of real creativity, hell is still the same old pentagram-y fleshy pillar place where lots of stuff is on fire, probably some blood too, maybe the blood will be on fire? Even Painkiller did something more interesting.

I am definitely not convinced by Todd and John C. on Rage so far... they are saying they're getting so creative and building it up, but what we've seen is pretty average, and the idea of combining buggy racing with a FPS and rpg elements sounds just really stupid. For an example of actual creativity, you could look at something like Bioshock, which is set in on a crazy art deco underwater colony in the future FFS, and looks like nothing before it, incorporates gameplay ideas that have never been seen before, with some awesome behavioural systems and A.I. It's not just Quake Wars with go karts and some half-baked fallout plagairism. 

there is a 50 minute long version on fileshack. Pretty high res too. Clocks in at 850mb.

http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/48300 

I am liking that I chose the 150k capped option that apparently doesn't support download programs, and am still getting it through DAP at 240k. 

Until something fucked up and crashed the download. Oh well, fuck fileshack and it all. 

I was listening to The Fragile and thought that The Very End of You would make a great title for a QW map, but couldn't shake the feeling someone had already used it.

turns out to have been q3tourney6, the worst map ever. >( At least "Starfuckers, Inc" isn't taken. 

I have a great name for a map...

"Coriolis Farce" 

the Van de Graaf Generator
the Van Allen Belt
the Van der Waals Force
the Van Oortmessen Thing 

Just thought of that one, its so silly, I love it... Probably work better with Q3A than Quake though, its rockets are all "goofy and spinny" 

Sounds pretty cool: http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6598&Itemid=51

Might at least breathe some fresh air into the world of first person games. 

Scariness: Well I find some of the Quoth monsters pretty scary. But I also found Q2 monsters scary, at least the concept behind them. I find cyborgs damn scary, especially if they want to make you like them (Trek Borg.)

Doom: Pentagrams are just silly, especially if you don't have a christian education. You're just like, WTF? Is that all? I'm very glad that Quake doesn't rely on them. The flaming skulls and skeletons and giant spiders were idiotic, but that was OK because Doom was just a cool game. The pinkies and Hellknights used to scare me at the time.

Hell, at least the christian version of it, is pure bullshit anyway. There are no sins. Fire crap is just to scare little children... now if we take Greek Hades, or Vikingtime Hel, or grave mounds, or Egyptian graves with mummies, then we're talking.

=) 

go make fitzquakeworld plz 

....sounds like headbob hell to me. 

zquake is pretty much a fitzquakeworld afaik. :)