Blood in battle

**dgard20** · March 28, 2018, 08:56 AM

I apologize if this is wrong area or mentioned before. but I would really like to get a blood effect in battle. Can anone help ?

**Hev E Metal** · March 28, 2018, 09:39 AM

There is a Blood and Gore DLC on steam for very little cost. I think $2 US? Its not bad to ise.

**Daruwind** · March 28, 2018, 12:30 PM

Its adding blood effects and some animations like severing limbs...basically it is way how to sold game to younger people and effects to older ;-)

And don´t take steam rating seriously. Many believe this should be free or in base game...

http://store.steampowered.com/app/259800/

**Welsh Dragon** · March 28, 2018, 02:31 PM

Originally Posted by Daruwind

Its adding blood effects and some animations like severing limbs...basically it is way how to sold game to younger people and effects to older ;-)

And don´t take steam rating seriously. Many believe this should be free or in base game...

http://store.steampowered.com/app/259800/

It's also a ton of additional work on nearly every unit model in the game to allow for decapitation and dismemberment.

And yeah, the number of reviews from people complaining they have to pay extra for something that is extra is... yeesh.

All the Best,

Welsh Dragon.

**PrimoTw** · March 28, 2018, 08:47 PM

I know right, who would think a game focused on war and battles shouldn't include blood and dismemberment as an 'extra' isn't?

**Daruwind** · March 29, 2018, 01:01 AM

Technically it is game about tactics,strategy,economy AND battles. Depends on your point of view...each player probably has different order of importance to him. Plus taking into math that different states/areas around the globe have different laws about games and different ratings....it makes quite sense to have this small DLC as extra so the rest of game is not shifted into worse rating.. ;-)

**Welsh Dragon** · March 29, 2018, 05:45 AM

Originally Posted by PrimoTw

I know right, who would think a game focused on war and battles shouldn't include blood and dismemberment as an 'extra' isn't?

There are plenty of blood & gore soaked games on the market, but only a couple of minutes research shows Total War generally isn't one of them. In fact outside of the red filter on units in Medieval 2 and the Blood & Gore type DLC, blood has been almost completely absent, and gore has been absent.

And I don't object to people who think a wargame should have blood & gore. I object to people who think this game should not only have blood & gore, but we should all pay for it. Far better and fairer in my view for those that actually want it to be the ones to pay, while those that don't (or can't,) don't pay for something they do not want or can not have.

Originally Posted by Daruwind

Technically it is game about tactics,strategy,economy AND battles. Depends on your point of view...each player probably has different order of importance to him. Plus taking into math that different states/areas around the globe have different laws about games and different ratings....it makes quite sense to have this small DLC as extra so the rest of game is not shifted into worse rating.. ;-)

Exactly. I play Total War games because I enjoy strategy and tactics, not wallowing in blood, gore and offal. If Total War had Blood & Gore at the sort of levels we're talking about, I simply wouldn't be playing it and never would have. It ruins games for me, and is the reason why I haven't bought some games in the past and am unlikely to buy some games in the future.

So by keeping Blood & Gore as a separate paid DLC, I think it's fairest for all involved.

All the Best,

Welsh Dragon.

**KamenLily** · March 29, 2018, 08:42 AM

Those silly ratings.
In another dimension, CA games have a simple option in the menu to turn gore ON/OFF.
And Steam doesn't pull games because fear of witch hunting.
And EA doesn't sell lootboxes!

**PrimoTw** · March 29, 2018, 11:22 AM

Originally Posted by Welsh Dragon

So by keeping Blood & Gore as a separate paid DLC, I think it's fairest for all involved.

Originally Posted by KamenLily

Those silly ratings.
In another dimension, CA games have a simple option in the menu to turn gore ON/OFF.

Certainly...

**Welsh Dragon** · March 29, 2018, 12:03 PM

Originally Posted by KamenLily

Those silly ratings.
In another dimension, CA games have a simple option in the menu to turn gore ON/OFF.
And Steam doesn't pull games because fear of witch hunting.
And EA doesn't sell lootboxes!

I don't see age ratings as being silly. They exist for a good reason, to protect young people from experiencing stuff they're really not old enough for, and to give users and responsible parents an indication of what content is in a particular game, allowing them to make an informed decision about whether to buy and play. Yes there needs to be some leeway, because not everyone reaches maturity at the same point, but I still think it's a far better system than not having them.

As for the others, I'm not sure what you're referring to with the Steam example, and I'm not a fan of lootboxes, EA or otherwise.

Originally Posted by PrimoTw

Certainly...

Even if age ratings weren't an issue, I still think doing it this way is fairer. People that want Blood & Gore pay for it, and those that don't want it don't pay for it.

Including it as standard or "free" DLC, even with an On/Off switch, means I'm either paying £2 more for the game just so it can include something I don't want, or it's the same price, meaning its value to me has reduced because that's £2 of my money going towards the Blood & Gore that I don't want, that could be going towards incorporating something I do want. I already have that issue with multiplayer in most games. I'd happily pay less for a version of games that didn't include multiplayer, for the simple reason I don't play multiplayer and it really doesn't interest me.

I think DLC offers the possibility for more control over what we are actually paying for in gaming. Blood & Gore DLC is to me a good start, and one I would like to see more companies adopt. It opens up more games to more people, whilst still allowing those that wish to revel in blood & gore to enjoy it how they want it (as long as they also pay for it.)

This way we can all get to play the game how we want.

All the Best,

Welsh Dragon.

**KamenLily** · March 29, 2018, 12:31 PM

We, as human being, have the incredible ability to take a good concept, run with it and make it unnecessary over-complicated and ridiculous.
We have the ratings, many games/whatever are changed accommodating them, so many decisions all for what? The average parent will give GTA V to Little Timmy for his birthday.
As I said, in another dimension things would surely work. In this one? We're very silly.

About the DLC thing. I don't know. With the level of detail that the Total War games depicts battles one would think that blood is the normal thing. Not something that should be added. A setting in the menu could let you choose between not blood, blood and Mortal Kombat with armies.
But, well, things doesn't work that way in this time and age. And anyway, it's not a big issue.

**Noble Lancer** · March 29, 2018, 01:07 PM

> make a game called Total War
> charge people for the most visible thing of total warfare

What's the point debating this when the DLC got universally hated both for Rome II and Attila anyway, not like CA will charge less (also charging different prices for different blood DLC makes the excuse of "you need to own a credit card before you can have blood in the game" ridiculous)

**Welsh Dragon** · March 29, 2018, 01:14 PM

Originally Posted by KamenLily

We, as human being, have the incredible ability to take a good concept, run with it and make it unnecessary over-complicated and ridiculous.
We have the ratings, many games/whatever are changed accommodating them, so many decisions all for what? The average parent will give GTA V to Little Timmy for his birthday.
As I said, in another dimension things would surely work. In this one? We're very silly.

To me that's more an example of bad parenting than a bad system.

Originally Posted by KamenLily

About the DLC thing. I don't know. With the level of detail that the Total War games depicts battles one would think that blood is the normal thing. Not something that should be added. A setting in the menu could let you choose between not blood, blood and Mortal Kombat with armies.
But, well, things doesn't work that way in this time and age. And anyway, it's not a big issue.

I think it really depends on what you are comparing it to. I mean are we talking normal in games, normal in strategy games, normal in TBS/RTS/RTT hybrid games, normal in Total War etc? I think it's better to have a variety of different games doing things in a variety of different ways, over having everyone doing the same thing because it's "normal."

And I agree, to me it's not a big issue. For some it's essential. Which is why I like having the choice.

*

Originally Posted by Noble Lancer

> make a game called Total War
> charge people for the most visible thing of total warfare

What's the point debating this when the DLC got universally hated both for Rome II and Attila anyway, not like CA will charge less (also charging different prices for different blood DLC makes the excuse of "you need to own a credit card before you can have blood in the game" ridiculous)

Because it's not universally hated. In fact in Shogun 2 (first game to have it) the Blood Pack DLC even has a Positive Rating on Steam Reviews.

It's only after that, with the release of the Rome 2 Blood & Gore DLC, that some people suddenly decided to complain they had to pay extra for something that was (and still is) extra. I'd happily go back to the days when Total War games didn't have Blood & Gore at all, because I think it's a total waste of time, money and resources that would be better spent elsewhere, and not only adds nothing to the game but actually reduces my enjoyment of it. But others like it, hence why I support them doing it in this way.

If it has to have Blood & Gore to be Total War, why wasn't its absence an issue for the first 13 years of the series? To me it's ridiculous to act like we're being deprived of an essential part of the game, when the series simply didn't have it for most of the life of the series.

All the Best,

Welsh Dragon.

**Noble Lancer** · March 29, 2018, 02:09 PM

We can also go back to the graphics of the time if that's what you prefer! 100% of the entire 18 reviews for the blood DLC of Shogun 2 agrees with you, and 65% of more than 1100 reviews for the blood DLC of Rome II and Attila disagree with you, because people all suddenly decided to unreasonably complain.

**Welsh Dragon** · March 29, 2018, 03:17 PM

Originally Posted by Noble Lancer

We can also go back to the graphics of the time if that's what you prefer! 100% of the entire 18 reviews for the blood DLC of Shogun 2 agrees with you, and 65% of more than 1100 reviews for the blood DLC of Rome II and Attila disagree with you, because people all suddenly decided to unreasonably complain.

I'd rather stick with Rome 2 level graphics personally.

As for "more than 1100 reviews?" I just checked, Rome 2 Blood & Gore has 594 on Steam, and Blood & Burning has 511, and it doesn't take much to find the same people leaving the same negative review for multiple "Blood & Gore" DLC. So you've either doubled the figure or added them together, neither of which is a fair comparison.

These figures also don't represent those who didn't choose to leave a review. And they certainly don't represent those who didn't buy the DLC. (594 reviews for Rome 2 Blood & Gore out of 2,600,000+ owners of the base game doesn't exactly seem representative.)

So yes, Shogun 2's Blood Pack reviews don't prove it was universally liked. But neither does Rome 2's or Attila's prove it's universally disliked. Which is kind of the point.

For some Blood & Gore improves the game, for others it makes it worse. If you're the former you're more likely to see it as being something that should be in the game, if you're the latter you won't, and a lot of people are going to fall in between those two extremes. Offering Blood & Gore as an optional paid DLC gives everybody a choice they wouldn't otherwise have to play the game how they want to.

So is it unreasonable that some want it as standard? No. But neither is it unreasonable that some don't, or that CA chooses to offer it in this way. Which as I've already said is to me by far the fairest way to do it for all involved.

I hope they continue to offer Blood & Gore as a paid DLC, and will be very disappointed if they make it standard. Others feel differently? Fair enough. Let's agree to disagree.

All the Best,

Welsh Dragon.

**Theramines** · March 29, 2018, 06:18 PM

The blood dlc is about half the cost of a beer in Oz, so I don't really care. And, honestly, if a few dollars/pounds is make or break for someone, they really need to put computer games lower on their order of priorities. Perhaps it's a matter of packaging because apparently a lot of people who play games are relentlessly unable to fathom the concept of spending money on something that costs money in a capitalist driven economy. Release the game in bronze, silver and gold editions or something like that and include blood in the silver edition upwards and make them R18+. Throw in some trinkets for the gold edition and voila expectations managed.