More Red Steel info and teaser site launch
So the latest
word on the web is that the Ubi-confirmed launch title
Red Steel will not have any blood, a game which features violent themes of gun and swordplay through a
first-person perspective via the Revolution's remote. When we first announced
this unconfirmed project of Ubi's, we had no idea such a major part of the gameplay would be censored.The game's teaser site has also launched, should you want to check it out.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Exo @ Apr 12th 2006 11:05PM
um the game not haveing blood is only a rumor. Ubisoft has said no such thing about it.
and considering its called RED steel, as in, a bloody katana, I have to say there is no reason to belive it wont have blood unless ubisoft actually comes out and says so.
David Nguyen @ Apr 12th 2006 11:22PM
If any Red Steel developers or producers are listening, we would rather want a M-rated game with blood than a T-rated game without it. Why cennsor a game jsut to get a bigger audience? All you're going to do is lose all the hardcore gamers. Just look at how Driv3r turned out! They didn't put any blood in the game so that it could be T-rated, and guess what? It still ended up being M-rated! Those dumb bastards.
Tirol @ Apr 12th 2006 11:23PM
Just for the record, it is SPECULATED that it will not have blood. Not factual.
Artimus @ Apr 12th 2006 11:26PM
"...we had no idea such a major part of the gameplay would be censored."
I was going to post a rant on this and then realized it was ironic. Very, very subtle but a refreshing take from Joystiq's ridiculous over-reaction earlier today.
RevFB >>>>...>>>>>>>>...>>>>>>>...>>>>>>>...>>>>>> Joystiq
David Hinkle @ Apr 13th 2006 12:40AM
Please guys, do not read too much into it. Yes, I know it is a rumor, hence the "latest word on the web" and "would be censored." I am not trying to assume that Ubi would do anything, just commenting on the rumor. Thanks for reading and I really value the comments...keep 'em coming!
Oh, and Artimus? You rock! :)
sam @ Apr 13th 2006 6:45AM
Black
BF2
Goldeneye
What do they all have in common?
NO BLOOD
and did people buy them?
YES
Exo @ Apr 13th 2006 7:17AM
Maybe you should play goldeneye again, and this time wear glases
Marc @ Apr 13th 2006 7:33AM
If it doesn't have blood who cares? A lot of games have no blood but are still fun to play, like the 007 series. HEY, do ya think a 007 game could be a launch title!
Eric @ Apr 13th 2006 8:17AM
I played BF2 and I never realized it didn't have blood until Sam pointed it out. I guess I was just so engrossed in the gameplay and the intensity that it never mattered...imagine that.
KaptainK @ Apr 13th 2006 10:28AM
the new prince of persia has blood, which is in no way neccesary to the gameplay (none of the other ones had it and they were better) this is the team that makes prince of persia right. and you all seemed to have ignored a few comments on here. Like the one about the blood on the sword in one of the screenshots. or the fact that the official red steel website has a 16+ rating picture in the corner, or the fact the game is called RED STEEL. Don't blame it completely on ubisoft is this game doesn't have blood. It could jsut as easily have been nintendo's decision, they did work closely with ubisoft on this game. they are the ones who took the blood out of mortal kombat.
i'm not the type of person who thinks blood=fun game, smash brothers melee is one of my favorite games, and i don't believe blood would make it any better (it would probably make it worse)but come on, one of the big draws for me and this game was eventually beating it and getting the secret super sharp katana that slices people into bits. 007 didn't need blood, but come on, it's a samurai sword fighting game... not having blood would be a dissapointment. i'll still probably pick this one up even if there is no blood, but blood would definately enhance the experience for me. It doesn't matter so much for the gun play, but i don't want to be slashing somebody up and have some gay yellow and green flashes flying everywhere (think soul calibur) this isn't zelda, this isn't sould calibur its a mordern day samurai sword fighting game where you fight yakuza mobsters. IT NEEDS BLOOD nintendo wants to satisfy everyone, they need a game for the bloodthirsty masses at launch. (Eternal Darkness didn't help them too much tho)
the ubisoft representative in this article even said it's based off of kill bill, an uber-violent sword fighting movie.
KaptainK again @ Apr 13th 2006 10:32AM
gunfighting games don't need blood, but this is a swordfighting game people, if you slice someone with a sword is it going to leave a mark on them, will it be a red mark. what if i slice someones neck full swing with my katana, wouldn't this decapitate them. blood=realism blood isn't essential in many games. but if there isn't blood in this game i'd be dissapointed
KaptainK again and again @ Apr 13th 2006 10:36AM
making a game teen rated might make it sell better BUT...do you think gta would have sold as well without blood? gta kind of sucks i know...but stilll making a game teen rated doesn't guarantee more sales. The rev launch needs something mature rated. Nintendo is always talking about satisfying everyone. How bought attracting all those people from the Sony and Microsoft camp who think nintendo is kiddy.
heat @ Apr 13th 2006 10:45AM
this gets me so excited for e3 (27 days!!!!). who cares about BLOOD?, we're nintendo fans. censorship is bad though : i cant see nintendo, with all of its alleged efforts to end the kiddie image, making them do this.
i really dont believe ratings contribute to sales,,,,but
Rob @ Apr 13th 2006 2:23PM
First, who said that it was Nintendo's decision to remove the blood? Who knows for certain that Ubisoft originally put blood into the game? Does anyone who has commented (or will comment) know for certain that Nintendo censored?
Second, if you *need* blood to make a game better, I'll just let your comment stand as is. That speaks volumes alone. I'm almost tempted to say that you're the reason why Nintendo is inventing the Revolution in the first place: because people who whine about blood not being in a game are a *minority* of potential buyers. But I won't say that.
Derick @ Apr 14th 2006 12:11AM
Gosh, if what sells a game is blood (and that is what many of the posts have said) then this industry has come to a sad point.
to the person that says:
"I won't buy that if it doesn't have blood"
You are an idiot.
KaptainK @ Apr 14th 2006 10:39AM
Rob...the potential customer base who enjoys blood is not a "minority" as you have said. Why did games like GTA and Mortal Kombat sell so well? Would these games have sold so well without the blood? I'm not like a blood activist or anything, i mean blood doesn't make a good game, but if i'm playing a game called RED STEEL where you fight mobsters with a samurai sword it would seem kind of strange not to have blood.
Probot @ Apr 14th 2006 3:03PM
"Why did games like GTA and Mortal Kombat sell so well?"
You're looking at this the wrong way. You don't know exactly what kind of game this is yet, so you can't compare it to two of the most violent.
A better question would be "If Oblivion had blood, would it have sold better?" That game had swords in it, and from all accounts, it doesn't have much blood. And the game is selling perfectly well.
Blood would not have improved it. Blood would not have made it more "hardcore." Blood would not have given it any more of a market.
If a developer thinks that adding blood to a game will make it better, I'm not going to buy a game from them. If a gamer (like posters in 2, 10, 11, 12) thinks that adding blood to a game will make it better, I'm not going to listen to their opinions on anything.
Personally, this rumor has no merit whatsoever. Just because the game won't feature gratuitous violence doesn't mean it won't have blood. Even if they were going for a Teen rating, a certain amount of blood and gore is allowed.
And even if it doesn't have blood, it still won't matter because it wont change the game experience whatsoever.
This shouldn't even be news. I don't want to surprise anyone, but MOST games don't have blood. There's no reason to even comment on this, except that it's the only confirmed Rev game and you (and all Rev-centric publications) need stories.
Rob @ Apr 14th 2006 6:11PM
KaptainK, you asked why GTA and MK sell so well. I would not put a one-to-one comparison between "Blood = Sell." Certainly, blood is in both games. But is it *the* reason these games sold well? From my memory of junior high when MK came out, my friends wanted it because it was a shocking game with graphic blood and gore, so bringing up MK is a good *touch? GTA is also a respectable point (though, even if it didn't have blood, I'm sure it still would have sold well). But one could argue that Super Smash Bros. Melee lacked blood, and it has sold through the roof. Blood doesn't appear to me to be a good variable to argue the selling value of a game.
But here's where Nintendo departs from the rest of the industry. Nintendo does not want to appeal just to those people who would spend $50 for a game with sex and violence, but genuinely *fun* games that appeal to a much broader demographic. Before, Nintendo seemed to focus primarily on kids and gamers. But they're doing something new with Revolution, going for girls, old folks, you name it. I digress.
The bottom line is, I would have a hard time imagining anybody who would choose to not buy Red Steel due to its lack of blood. Some may not like it, but will they buy it? Likely, *if the game is truly enjoyable.*
Merlin @ Apr 14th 2006 10:11PM
Dude, the game is called RED STEEL. It's about a guy who has to fight off a bunch of gang members. HE SLICES ENEMIES WITH A SWORD AND BLOWS THEM APART WITH A GUN. Why the devil wouldn't you have blood? Obviously blood doesn't MAKE a game great. But it adds to the "mature rating" allure of adult-oriented games. And don't say we don't know what this game is about. There was a freaking 11 page spread on it in Game Informer, and this website posted a link to a detailed summary of that article. The story was detailed out. It's a violent game, with an emphasis on gratuitous violence especially in the first 1/3 of the game.
Blood ADDS to the game. No one has ever said it MAKES the game. To assume that means you're a total failure at debating.
Probot @ Apr 15th 2006 8:07AM
The game will have blood. That's just a no-brainer. None one should even try to argue otherwise. Unless the steel is red because it's magical, it's safe to assume a certain amount of blood will be in the game.
But, on a slightly related topic, blood rarely improves games. It might attract people to a game, but it will not improve it. Mortal Kombat one of the few (very few) games that wouldn't be the same without the over-the-top gore.
But overall, blood is a graphical frivolity that serves only to attract a certain segment of the market, though I can't imagine anyone over 13 being attracted soley because of that.
KaptainK @ Apr 15th 2006 2:13PM
Probot said-
"You're looking at this the wrong way. You don't know exactly what kind of game this is yet, so you can't compare it to two of the most violent.
A better question would be "If Oblivion had blood, would it have sold better?" That game had swords in it, and from all accounts, it doesn't have much blood. And the game is selling perfectly well.""
I know what kind of game this is, it's a first person samurai sword fighting game inspired by kill bill, which also focuses on gun play. It's not a game like oblivion where you fight mythical creatures in a magic cave. It's a game called Red Steel focused on realism where you fight yakuza mobsters in modern day Japan.
Halo doesn't really need blood, it would be the exact same game without it, but this game wouldn't. I'm talkin bout hackin off limbs. I've been waiting for the game where i can hack off someones limbs with a sword. (does that make me sadistic)
I think some of you may have misunderstood my comments. I'm not saying blood=good game, but it does enhance the experience of some. If they are going for true realism then blood would be almost essential. but this really is a non issue because the game is going to have blood in it. TVG is a little biased against Nintendo and probably just wanted attention and they definately got it. All they did was start a stupid rumor. go to the red steel website, and look at the rating in the corner "16+" which equates to a Mature rating here in the US.
KaptainK @ Apr 15th 2006 2:36PM
scratch that 16+ equals mature in the US comment. I went to the European game rating website and found that they also gave a 16+ rating to call of duty 2, which is rated Teen here in the US. Blood or no blood i'm buying this game. I don't know why everyone thinks making this game Teen rated will help the sales. The best selling games on PS2 and XBOX were rated Mature (Halo, GTA) Now try to imagine if they tried to make Resident Evil 4 with a Teen rating. Resident Evil 4 without blood...don't try to act like it would be the same experience without it.
Brian Lugo @ Apr 15th 2006 4:14PM
who cares if it doesnt have any blood as long as i freggin get to use the effin SAMURAI SWORD!!!!!! >_
X_Arre @ Apr 16th 2006 6:19AM
I agree. Blood certainly does not make or break a game. However, blood definitely adds realism. It would be a very dumb thing to do to leave out blood in a sword/gunfight game. You can afford it in a pure shooter (007) but if you're up in a mobster's face, physically swinging the sword at him, and he falls to the ground unscared, that would ruin part of the experience. The revolution's controller is supposed to make you feel like a part of the game, make it seem more real. Having no blood in this game would be a dissapointment, but I'd buy it either way. If Ubisoft took away realism to "get more sales", they need to think a bit more.
Probot @ Apr 16th 2006 7:09PM
"I'm talkin bout hackin off limbs. I've been waiting for the game where i can hack off someones limbs with a sword."
This is exactly what I mean when I said you don't know what kind of game this is. There is nothing to imply that "hacking off limbs" will be an option in this game.
There have been swords in other real-world-based games, such as Metal Gear Solid 2, but you still didn't get to hack of limbs. It wasn't a technical issues, it was a stylistic one. And you don't know what style of game this is. It might be Kill Bill-themed. It might not. We won't really know until E3.
"However, blood definitely adds realism."
I don't buy the realism argument because someone hunting down Yakuza bosses with a katana is still fantasy.
"If Ubisoft took away realism to 'get more sales', they need to think a bit more."
If that is the case, they made the perfect choice. Sales is the number one priority of any game company. It's not art, it's business.
I don't know why we're still arguing really. We all agree the rumor is bullshit. This game will have blood. Whether it has over-the-top violence that sadists like KaptainK crave, that remains to be seen.
X_Arre @ Apr 17th 2006 10:01AM
"I don't buy the realism argument because someone hunting down Yakuza bosses with a katana is still fantasy."
I'm not talking about situational realism, video games will always break down to fantasy. I'm talking about anatomical realism. If you *were* hunting down Yakuza bosses with a katana you would see blood come out of their wounds. I don't want unnecessary bloodspray every time you slash or shoot someone, just the necessary amount to make it believable.
"If that is the case, they made the perfect choice. Sales is the number one priority of any game company. It's not art, it's business."
I really don't think that the rating noticeably affect the sales. Almost everyone I met in my childhood (from 6 years old to 12) played rated M games. In fact, my eight year old cousin is addicted to GTA. My point is that younger gamers will get their hands on it either way.
"I don't know why we're still arguing really. We all agree the rumor is bullshit. This game will have blood. Whether it has over-the-top violence that sadists like KaptainK crave, that remains to be seen."
I agree, let's all get off this out-of-nowhere rumor and actually talk about the game. I just felt like I had to wrap that up.
KaptainK @ Apr 17th 2006 5:53PM
"There have been swords in other real-world-based games, such as Metal Gear Solid 2, but you still didn't get to hack of limbs. It wasn't a technical issues, it was a stylistic one. And you don't know what style of game this is. It might be Kill Bill-themed. It might not. We won't really know until E3."
well except for the fact that an ubisoft representative said it was inspired by kill bill. I never said it would be a kill bill themed game, it was just inspired by it. This isn't metal gear solid 2, just like it isn't oblivion. It's a first person game where you use guns and samurai swords to fight mobsters. Like i said before, I WOULD BUY THIS GAME WHETHER IT HAD BLOOD OR NOT, but blood would add to the experience, just as it does in games like GTA, Mortal Kombat, and Resident Evil. Blood surely doens't make or break a game. If this is a good game it would still be good without blood, but i see no reason why they would choose to go without it.
As far as hacking off limbs go, i'm not talking about that type of over the top violence throughout the entire game. When i first mentioned slicing people to bits with a sword i said "one of the things i thought about when i saw this game was beating it to get the super sharp katana at the end that slices people to bits" that way when the one player experience gets stale i can still have fun slicing people in half with a sword. Kind of in the same way it's fun to just go kill random pedestrians in GTA after you've beaten the game. Go ahead and make me out to be the bad guy or a "sadist" just because i think blood and the option to later on hack off limbs in the game would be a good idea.
""If Ubisoft took away realism to 'get more sales', they need to think a bit more."
If that is the case, they made the perfect choice. Sales is the number one priority of any game company. It's not art, it's business."
and who even says making this game rated teen is going to help sales, if nothing else this decision would hurt sales, especially if there are no other AAA mature rated titles at launch.
now i have a friend who buys complete garbage games like 25 to Life because he thinks it's cool that the police's heads explode when they get shot. That's not me, so stop trying to make me out as some kind of 14 year old kid who burns ants with microscopes or something. I'm an adult who owns the Gamecube, plans on buying a revolution and knows that games like Pikmin are not for little kids. Having a samurai sword that lets you slice people in half wherever your virtual knife cuts at, sounds like a fun addition to a game which is going to be great as it is. and i think blood would add to the gameplay experience. Am i the only person who thinks this? Or does everyone agree with probot?
Antibot @ Apr 17th 2006 6:34PM
@KaptainK
First of all, calm down. You seem really stressed out. You're taking all this way too seriously. And that sadist crack was just a joke, playing off your own comments.
@KaptainK and X_Arre
I never said a Teen rating would translate to better sales. I just said if the company ever makes a decision, any decision, they felt would increase sales, their motives shouldn't be criticized.
If this proves to be over-the-top like Kill Bill or something, that's fine by me. I was just saying we don't have enough information to make that judgement yet. I'm going to wait till E3 before I get excited.
"If you *were* hunting down Yakuza bosses with a katana you would see blood come out of their wounds."
If *I* were hunting Yakuza bosses, it'd be more likely that they'd see blood coming out of my wounds.