Red Steel with no blood?
TVG
reports that Ubisoft's Revolution launch title, Red Steel, will avoid gratuitous violence. Despite influence from
Tarantino's Kill Bill film series and sporting a name that seemingly implies blood-soaked katana,
Red Steel will likely be released blood-free.The omission will help land the game a Teen-rating, which will increase the consumer demographic and extend the unofficial 'kid-tested, parent-approved' Nintendo theme to the Revolution. If you're at all disappointed by this toned-down development, just keep in mind that blood isn't necessary for a visceral experience.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
iceatcs @ Apr 12th 2006 2:59PM
No No, i need blood!
Kevin @ Apr 12th 2006 3:05PM
I can't say I'm opposed to this. I know some people will say "OH NOEZ NINTENDOS TEH KIDDIE NO BLOOD LAWL", but in most games, I usually disable blood anyway, if there's an option to do so, a.k.a. Metal Gear Solid.
Kevin @ Apr 12th 2006 3:06PM
Well, i'm sure this game is going to be pretty sweet, but this sort of thing is just annoying and will alienate the older, 21+ gamers
Sam @ Apr 12th 2006 3:07PM
Nintendo has to get out of this image of child only games, wether the people that think this are right or not, wrong move.
Einhanderkiller @ Apr 12th 2006 3:07PM
No blood...
Well, I guess it can't be THAT bad. Black didn't have blood, but I wasn't really that annoyed by it.
JPRacer @ Apr 12th 2006 3:09PM
Blood or no blood I don't care if the game is good and innovative. And too much blood is less realistic.
unreal mccoy @ Apr 12th 2006 3:09PM
Golden Eye had minimal (if any?) blood, but nothing beat dropping baddies from 300 yds with the sniper rifle...
ronnie @ Apr 12th 2006 3:11PM
I sprays of blood makes it teen. In Oblivion you can burglarize a house feed off the persons neck and then murder them in their bed. But they don't have a blood spray effect to its Teen.
ronnie @ Apr 12th 2006 3:12PM
Uh, first sentence in my post should have been:
It is stupid that sprays of blood makes it teen.
ronnie @ Apr 12th 2006 3:13PM
should have been "...make it mature"
I really just suck.
Justin @ Apr 12th 2006 3:16PM
And what caused them come to this conclusion? And how do they know that it's going to be rated teen? In other words, what is their source?
JRM @ Apr 12th 2006 3:18PM
uh oh! I think Ubisoft forgot to read their history books--specifically, the part about Mortal Kombat for the SNES.
I mean, This is not the only launch title for the revolution. Give us gamers a break! How do you use a blade and not draw blood when you cut through skin? There has to be a balance, at least.
Jose @ Apr 12th 2006 3:19PM
James R.-W.
So no blood, just guts, got it!
Rob @ Apr 12th 2006 3:20PM
What's the point? If your game lets people blow away baddies with guns and slice them up with a katana, you've already established a game world that is pretty violent. It's just going to be anti-climactic to horizontally swing a blade at someone's neck and not see at least an appropriate, realistic amount of blood. I'll agree that games don't need blood to be good, but I think this particular game is going to feel pretty awkward without it.
And why do they need to promote this kid-friendly image anyway? I'm sure there will be plenty of games available at the Rev's launch that will appeal to all ages. The 360 launched with a few kid-friendly games like Kameo and PGR, as well as more violent games like Quake 4 and Condemned:CO. If all the games on the Rev's launch day are squeaky-clean (or toned-down for no reason), that's going to throw a lot of people off the Nintendo train.
Flying Caveman @ Apr 12th 2006 3:20PM
Sword fighting with the no blood. I suppose it's not that big a deal.
Marcus @ Apr 12th 2006 3:21PM
I am pressing
A, B, A, C, A, B, B
As soon as the Ubi logo shows up and if I don't see red when I'm done, I'm returning the game - by smashing the box into the craniums of its creators.
ResidentGamer.com @ Apr 12th 2006 3:24PM
Nintendo needs to come up off that HIGH ass pestal they be up on. Give us some Blood damnit!!!
Kris Aubuchon @ Apr 12th 2006 3:25PM
How can you think not having blood is a wrong move? What's the logic there? It's very obvious that this game isn't going for the "is it real?" look. (but it is really nice)
Blood is just uneccessary, and most of the time blood is just ridiculous looking in that type of setting. It's fine in some uber-realistic WWII game, but why add it where it's not neccessary. I doubt after playing this game for a few minutes you'll find yourself thinking "Oh man this game needs sprays of blood".
It's also a very strategic marketing move. Based on my experience of working at a game store I know that a parent almost never thinks twice about a "T" rated game, but the "M" throws a red flag for almost any parent.
If you find yourself needing blood in games so bad that you are willing to discredit one without it, I think you are a very sad example of a "gamer" and need to rethink some things.
Justin @ Apr 12th 2006 3:27PM
TVG:
"Despite the influences and the apparent change in opinion towards more mature content by Nintendo, TVG has learnt that the game will not feature gratuitous violence and is unlikely to feature blood as a result."
Okay, where did they "learnt" this from? The only official quotes they give are ones that have given conformation of the games existence and nothing more.
ResidentGamer.com @ Apr 12th 2006 3:34PM
17: HELLO!!!!! What do you think made Kill Bill funny. All that comic blood spraying all over everywhere that's why people loved it. When The Bride chopped off an arm and all that comic blood spreayed out it was cool. WE WANT BLOOD
MrCHUPON @ Apr 12th 2006 3:35PM
I, for one, couldn't care less. Another reader pointed to Black as an example of visceral gameplay without blood, and I must tip my hat to Medal of Honor: Allied Assault (among others) for the same thing. Still, it's worth mentioning that it will continue to reflect poorly (whether deservedly or undeservedly is a different argument) on Nintendo's rep. K from Men in Black said it best: "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." People will be all over this if they see it, forgetting the other T-yet-violent games, and say, "NITEDO TEH KIDDAY". I hope this doesn't diminish the game's sales, and as a result, third parties' willingness to develop for the Rev.
fawazr @ Apr 12th 2006 3:36PM
Lots of First Person Shooters don't show blood. BLACK was bloodless as was Medal of Honor. When those games omit splattering blood, it doesn't make much news. But when Nintendo omits blood, they're being "too kiddy." Yeah, there's a double standard here. In light of The Escapists Wal*Mart story, I just dont see big retailers okaying a Revolution launch title chock full of blood.
P.S. That Wal*Mart article was a real eye-opener. I find it near impossible for the Revolution to remain the "Revolution" with Wal*Mart having so much veto power. If Bill O'Reilly or Shawn Hannity gets offended by the system's name and stirs middle America into a frenzy, the system will be dead in the water (or Blue Ocean).
Paul @ Apr 12th 2006 3:41PM
I think blood is importatn for a sense of reality.
Even Ocarina of Time, rated E, has blood. Blood sprays are just freaking stupid, it's like everyone in the world has 540/440 blood pressure, anyone cuts them and the blood is spraying out like a fire hose. That is stupid, but realistic blood is not. When someone is cut or shot, there should be at least splotches or drops of the substance, and blood should flow out from a dead person a little. It should be very subtle, but it should be there is if it is trying to represent a game where you fight the Yakuza.
Now Mortal Kombat where you hit "light punch" and five gallons flies out is just stupid, but blood can be used effectivel and subtly for enhancing immersion.
Jose @ Apr 12th 2006 3:42PM
The style of this movie screams out "Samurai Epic Throwback." It seems like the character will be a sort of Samurai Yakuza in modern times. He uses his gun, but sticks with the sword for effect. But the way these types of films have been directed has seemed to necessitate very exaggerated sprays of blood, and dead bodies lying on blood pools. Without the blood I'm affraid that those looking for that cinematic experience will see this as a glaring omission.
Tony @ Apr 12th 2006 3:42PM
At a few other sites, the idea that TVG is basing this solely on the scans is pretty common. I personally agree with it because, really, what remotely important thing has TVG divulged first in recent memory?.
Whether or not it's true, who knows. I don't see how it matters. For what is essentially a no-name game that will be stacked with potentially another 19 titles at the system's launch, having it as close to E as possible is probably the best marketing move they can make.
Patrick C @ Apr 12th 2006 3:45PM
Nintendo needs (read absolutely must) make some concessions to the older gamers that are still interested in them. Releasing an inherently violent game without blood is just stupid and there is no way, IMO, that you can spin that for the better.
RE4 was the right path and if Nintendo has already forgotten that they are done. I was concerned that the Rev might end up being a brilliant console held back by Nintendo's "please the moms and dads" policies. It's looking like I may be right.
CapAmerica @ Apr 12th 2006 3:45PM
I think what Ubi sees is that with a M-Rating they will only sell x copies but with a T-Rating they can sell 5x as many.
Sales of M-Rated games was down 30% this year. I blame the Hot Coffee scandal for that. But Ubi most likely sees that and figures its better to remove the blood and get a T rating then add the blood get a M rating and sell less copies.
Also think about the fact that kids can go and buy a T game and Not get carded but with a M game they are required now at most stores to show ID that they are over the age of 17.
Artimus @ Apr 12th 2006 3:47PM
The blood comment is entirely the site's own assumption based on the game not being centered around ridiculous violence. All they were told was it "will not feature gratuitous violence" and the blood comment is merely conjecture.
On a roll today Joystiq. Which rumour will you post as fact next, JRW?
jayntampa @ Apr 12th 2006 3:47PM
12. uh oh! I think Ubisoft forgot to read their history books--specifically, the part about Mortal Kombat for the SNES.
That doesn't apply here -- the problem in that situation was that the was taken out of a game that already had it! This is a brand new game that will never have had blood.
Blood is pretty much irrelevant. It's up to the developers to decide how their game should play and what it should look like -- if they decide from the beginning that they want to shoot for a T rating, more power to them.
I mean, just adding blood to get an M and say its for adults is dumb ... it's like adding a sex scene to Harry Potter to get the rating up :P
Artimus @ Apr 12th 2006 3:48PM
And may I also add there is ZERO indication that blood or no blood has anything to do with Nintendo. If anything it more likely is Ubisoft trying to appeal to a broader audience.
Stop blaming Nintendo for a decision they had nothing to do with. Blame the controversy over M rated games and its ability to make publishers nervous. Or blame Ubisoft.
Pikachelsea @ Apr 12th 2006 3:49PM
Good to know that slicing people's heads off or riddling them with bullets slips under the rating radar as long as there's no bodily fluids leaking out. ZOMG ANYTHING BUT THAT.
Justin @ Apr 12th 2006 3:52PM
Yes, JRW had an excellent "fact" based article on the New Super Mario Bros. game. (Sprinkle sarcasm liberally, please.)
Tirol @ Apr 12th 2006 3:53PM
Patrick C,
If you are so concerned with the "blood" just simply don't buy the Revolution. And as Artemis said, this is merely a speculation. Truthfully, the game sounds great either way so just wait until the actual details are released.
mark @ Apr 12th 2006 3:53PM
Maybe they can have some cheat to unlock blood like Mortal Kombat on SNES.
Paul @ Apr 12th 2006 3:58PM
Well of course there is no blood, because in this game you fight ROBOTS. Do you know the frenzy that would be caused if these robots had blood? People would be lining up the streets saying "NO BLOOD FOR OIL!"
funkonaut @ Apr 12th 2006 4:01PM
I didn't read anywhere in the article that Nintendo was responsible for a decision made by Ubisoft.
If you're gonna bitch, bitch at Ubisoft, not Nintendo.
Justin @ Apr 12th 2006 4:02PM
Hey James, Paul just supplied you with another article.
mercatfat @ Apr 12th 2006 4:03PM
"If robots bled... People would be lining up the streets saying "NO BLOOD FOR OIL!""
paul, your comment totally wins.
i almost wanted to do that after watching Short Circuit again.
Kamalot @ Apr 12th 2006 4:04PM
I don't need blood in a game to make it good. Take a look at Soul Calibur. Would adding blood to Soul Calibur make it a better game?
Sword fighting without blood is fine by me. In fact, I don't remember seeing much, if any, blood in the Lord of the Rings movies. They had plenty of swordplay too.
Jose @ Apr 12th 2006 4:06PM
Okay, what I think they may be hinting at here would be that there will be no gratuitous violence. What I mean, by the summary of the story, is that you may start out killing and shooting everything in sight, but as the game progresses, you will need to learn discretion to further the game. Simply killing someone from whom you need to retrieve information vital to furthering your objective will not work, so essentially, gratuitous violence is eliminated, as all violence is necessary.
Kinda like the fact that Jack Bauher never commits gratuitous violence in the show 24, as it is all necessary to the security of our great United States.
Derek @ Apr 12th 2006 4:07PM
Sorry people, but the "kiddie image" dis on Nintendo is getting so goddamn old. Didn't RE4 come out on Gamecube? Last time I checked, that was one of the most violent games in existence. And I also agree with the comment made about Goldeneye, it was probably the best shooter ever, but blood was few and far between. The lack of blood did not diminish its value in any way. Oh and another thing...Will someone please fire this moron Ransom-Wiley? It seems like his goal on this site is to piss people off with his airheaded opinions instead of just reporting the facts. Sorry James, we don't give a damn what your feeble little mind thinks.
mark @ Apr 12th 2006 4:11PM
Maybe they will make a DS version - they could call it Dry Steel.
Marc @ Apr 12th 2006 4:11PM
This isn't bad at all. I don't need to see blood to know I hit a guy, because I'm good at FPS. Besides, some great games have little or no blood (i.e. 007 series).
Feep @ Apr 12th 2006 4:13PM
This is just some silly conjecture, but it'll suck if it's true. If we want those M-rated Revolution games, though, Sadness (by NIBRIS) is looking amazing...a psychological thriller with heavy adult themes, and it's all in BLACK AND WHITE. That's just about the coolest thing I've ever heard.
me @ Apr 12th 2006 4:13PM
this game is moving away from the kiddy image that nintendo is wrongfully known for. its a slice and dice game that was severely lacking from the gc. for anyone to say that the omission of blood is nintendo being kiddy really needs to pull that kcid out of their ssa.
Exo @ Apr 12th 2006 4:15PM
people, the game is called RED Steel
R
E
D
Steel.
1. Lots of Teen rated games have blood.
2. This isnt a kids game anyways. Little kids will barely be able to grasp the fact that its more important not to kill in this game.
Designerbradr @ Apr 12th 2006 4:17PM
Right on Artimus! Everyone stop raping Nintendo for a decision Ubisoft made (if this is even true).
This may be a game exclusively for the Rev, developed in consort with Nintendo engineers and bigwigs, but shame on all you self-righteous, butter-molesting, hyperactive sadists.
If the game is about respect earning it and keeping it and becoming an honorable marksman/swordsman, why do you need blood to satisfy your indulgence in experience? Answer: Your parents never loved you enough and now you have an insatiable urge to drink blood straight from the carton, shoot squirrels from your bedroom window while twiddling your toes, and watch re-runs of Family Ties.
Stop freaking out people. Periods...
MosquitoControl @ Apr 12th 2006 4:19PM
Doesn't bother me, but bad for business. Let's just face facts - blood sells. And I'm shocked Nintendo didn't learn the lesson from MK. The lack of blood in the much-superior SNES version made the Genesis a true contendor.
"P.S. That Wal*Mart article was a real eye-opener. I find it near impossible for the Revolution to remain the "Revolution" with Wal*Mart having so much veto power. If Bill O'Reilly or Shawn Hannity gets offended by the system's name and stirs middle America into a frenzy, the system will be dead in the water (or Blue Ocean)."
How did O'Reilly and Hannity get mixed into this?
If you want to single political type figures out, it's the liberals that hate violence in the media more than the conservatives. Just ask Hillary Clinton or Joe Lieberman.
Princess Zelda @ Apr 12th 2006 4:21PM
This game is being devolped by UbiSoft in France. Does UbiSoft studios in Europe ever put blood in their games?
Doesn't the European country's have strict rules against games not having blood in them?
BlackYoshi @ Apr 12th 2006 4:22PM
Regardless what you think, this will be used against Nintendo if it is true, just like Mortal Kombat not having blood was used against them. I really have no problem with realistic amounts of blood (blood really doesn't gush out of sword wounds) or if its used in a comic way (like Kill Bill or in the GTA games, where its so ridiculous its meant to be sort of silly.)