So it's either:
"A: It's awesome!!! 'bite the head of a bat'".. and should be in everything
B: Hate it, shouldn't be in anything at all.
Where's the in between choice? like "it's ok if it's done right, sadly only one game has done that, ever and nobody knows it" :(
C: It's ok, if done right. Sadly only one game has done it right
I'm sort of torn. Does it add to the immersion, or does it remind you that you're viewing it through a camera lens (or in the case of a game, that there isn't even a real camera), and then through a television, computer monitor, or projector screen.
I guess it all depends on how its done. In Metroid Prime 1 & 2 I love it (though it's not the alien blood effects that are cool, it's the liquid draining off Samus' visor as she leaves a pool of liquid.) It doesn't work for everything though, in some movies and games it's pretty gratuitous and masturbatory, and I think most of us can tell when a blood-splatter on the screen is unnecessary.
It works in District 9 really well, because of the pseudo-documentary-sorta style of the whole thing.
It works in District 9 really well, because of the pseudo-documentary-sorta style of the whole thing. "i loved how they did that. it added a cool feel to it.
on topic: <3 blood splatter. i believe the first time i ever saw blood splatter on the screen was in Vice City, and i wanted moar of it. all games should have it (even non violent games), but not over done, of course.
"So it's either: "A: It's awesome!!! 'bite the head of a bat'".. and should be in everything and B: Hate it, shouldn't be in anything at all. Where's the in between choice? like "it's ok if it's done right, sadly only one game has done that, ever and nobody knows it" :( C: It's ok, if done right. Sadly only one game has done it right "
I dont like flip flop choices
I hate it unless it's in FPS games. Otherwise... well are you supposed to think that there's a camera lens?? I know it fits some games' styles, but for serious games that are in 3rd person, well... why? I guess "Because we can" is what I assume the developers are thinking.
I dunno, I find it kind of annoying and takes away the realism.
In some ways it's kind of cool, like Gears of War when you're chainsawing some dude. But in FPS' it's kind of stupid because supposedly it's the eyes that you're looking through and I'm sure blood doesn't splatter on the side of your eyes when you get shot. >_>
It's dumb in first person shooters like Killzone 2 and Modern Warfare 2. I don't mind it in 3rd person games, as the whole point of that perspective is that its like a camera following the character; a camera which can be obscured by stuff like water, dirt and blood hitting it. If you actually got blood and water in your eyes you would be blinded for a good while.
I think it can be amazing if done right, see games like Star Wars Republic Commando...probably the best example of it. I can't really think of a game where it was so bad it was distracting from the experience, but there are games out there that just don't really need it.
" @buzz_clik said:I'd agree with you if it weren't for the recent appearance of this page.Don't really think so since it doesn't serve any real purpose bar an aesthetic but minor one. "
" Should there be a specific Concept page for Blood Splatter On Screen? "
Yeah im in agreement with "if it's done right it's awesome" theory. The ones I know so far are Gears and Left 4 Dead 2, which are done really well. While it technically makes no sense, as people don't run around with glass panels in front of them, it just makes it feel more like the blood is actually "there" if that makes any sense.