Forums / Games / Halo Infinite

Bring blood back in halo infinite.

OP WillyMcFly

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 2
  4. ...
  5. 3
Hoping that "your" part wasn't aimed toward person given I did state that, as the first thing in fact, that I agreed with such being unrealistic in case of a SPARTAN headshot.

And later on in the original reply I agreed on realistic bloodsplatters being small but you just cut the rest of the reply off but it can still be seen in original reply for those that are interested.
It was "you" as in people in general. Also, I didn't comment on the rest of your post because it was speculation I didn't have anything to add to.

And one of my reasoning for some form of blood and/or gore in games set on war is pretty much that there should be some visuals that show some form of consequences to the killings performed in said setting, the blood/gore shows the horrors of war instead of showing puppets cleanly falling over.

And for some, it can add visual emotional moments. Like seeing ally in vulnerable or dying situation creates weight & sadness instead of endless senseless killing.
It even shows the shade of grey in situations where enemy has been injured.
Of course, if your game is about the horrors of war, and you need mortal wounds to make the player feel sad and hopeless, then that's a completely valid reason. The problem is that this is so incongruous with the tone of Halo (especially of classic Halo) that it's not even funny, since Halo isn't about the horrors of war. Characters are joking left and right, you spend most of your time killing funny looking aliens speaking English in high pitched noises. And frankly, I want it to stay that way. I'm fine with spin-offs doing spin-off things, but as far as the main games go, the tone is one of the reasons I fell in love with Halo in the first place, and I don't want it to go away.

As for the rating itself, I agree that there is no sense in craving for certain ratings for games but that also means that lower ratings shouldn't be aimed towards if it restricts artistic choices. Best would be to design a game & see what rating it gets.
It's funny. 343i has never said to have aimed for a specific rating. This is just a story the community came up with.

And on the flipside, I haven't really heard sensible points from people who want to remove the blood/gore from games, it's mostly "all this blood from the things I shoot in a game looks obnoxious".
Talking about twisted morality, killing in games is fine but showing any visual consequence for it is not okay.
Well, I haven't really seen such people, so I couldn't tell. If you look at the situation, there are mostly two groups of people: those who think Halo needs more blood for whatever, and those who are just fine with whatever the current level of blood is and don't see an issue. This third group you're talking about seems largely nonexistent in these threads.

It's a game about war and I would personally like to avoid glorifying it with too much of a clean environment.
Painting the walls red isn't going help you much with that if the characters keep thinking it's all fine and normal, and the "good guys" are totally unambiguous. This is the basis for most games about war, and most films about war. Many stories you wouldn't even think of glorify the "righteous war" where the good guys and the bad guys are so blatantly obvious that you don't even notice. But does that matter? At the end of the day, it's a fictional war that's just a set up for the classic good and evil trope. Cheering for the good guys and enjoying the fights doesn't mean wanting to sign up for the military and believing real war is cool. People can tell the difference between reality and fiction, which is why glorifying obviously fictional wars is fine.
If flood is to return i would like to see it be grotesque again with gory body horror like 1 and 2 than the rather tame take from Halo 3. Covenant should be bloodier, though i'm against dismemberment, maybe drones though. Flood should be all filters off, very visceral.
I personally found the flood in Halo 3 to be much more grotesque than in Halo CE and Halo 2. There was more dismemberment and their severed limbs would roll around on the ground. Also their character models were more detailed and they could infect living NPCs. A lot of their sound effects were creepier as well in my opinion.
tsassi wrote:
It was "you" as in people in general. Also, I didn't comment on the rest of your post because it was speculation I didn't have anything to add to.

And one of my reasoning for some form of blood and/or gore in games set on war is pretty much that there should be some visuals that show some form of consequences to the killings performed in said setting, the blood/gore shows the horrors of war instead of showing puppets cleanly falling over.

And for some, it can add visual emotional moments. Like seeing ally in vulnerable or dying situation creates weight & sadness instead of endless senseless killing.
It even shows the shade of grey in situations where enemy has been injured.
Of course, if your game is about the horrors of war, and you need mortal wounds to make the player feel sad and hopeless, then that's a completely valid reason. The problem is that this is so incongruous with the tone of Halo (especially of classic Halo) that it's not even funny, since Halo isn't about the horrors of war. Characters are joking left and right, you spend most of your time killing funny looking aliens speaking English in high pitched noises. And frankly, I want it to stay that way. I'm fine with spin-offs doing spin-off things, but as far as the main games go, the tone is one of the reasons I fell in love with Halo in the first place, and I don't want it to go away.

As for the rating itself, I agree that there is no sense in craving for certain ratings for games but that also means that lower ratings shouldn't be aimed towards if it restricts artistic choices. Best would be to design a game & see what rating it gets.
It's funny. 343i has never said to have aimed for a specific rating. This is just a story the community came up with.

And on the flipside, I haven't really heard sensible points from people who want to remove the blood/gore from games, it's mostly "all this blood from the things I shoot in a game looks obnoxious".
Talking about twisted morality, killing in games is fine but showing any visual consequence for it is not okay.
Well, I haven't really seen such people, so I couldn't tell. If you look at the situation, there are mostly two groups of people: those who think Halo needs more blood for whatever, and those who are just fine with whatever the current level of blood is and don't see an issue. This third group you're talking about seems largely nonexistent in these threads.

It's a game about war and I would personally like to avoid glorifying it with too much of a clean environment.
Painting the walls red isn't going help you much with that if the characters keep thinking it's all fine and normal, and the "good guys" are totally unambiguous. This is the basis for most games about war, and most films about war. Many stories you wouldn't even think of glorify the "righteous war" where the good guys and the bad guys are so blatantly obvious that you don't even notice. But does that matter? At the end of the day, it's a fictional war that's just a set up for the classic good and evil trope. Cheering for the good guys and enjoying the fights doesn't mean wanting to sign up for the military and believing real war is cool. People can tell the difference between reality and fiction, which is why glorifying obviously fictional wars is fine.
Thats good then, thanks for the clarification.

Incongruous to Halo? As in same Halo that portrays the near hopeless struggle of survival against alien onslaught with later on even the flood being introduced? And while I can agree with that in case of beginning part of Halo with just the covenant, though mostly grunts (as comedic relief material), the flood was what first brought a horror of war aspect to Halo, the first Halo game, with twisted corpses with screaming human faces slashing & turning other humans which seem pretty horrified about the turn of events, some even being driven insane, though most allies that are encountered are capable of still working.
You know, the "funny looking aliens with high pitched voices". Though overall it could be "most of the time". But that depends on your view as of what is "classic Halo" and how long does it take to finish different missions, true that flood appears usually some missions in the game but later missions can take longer so id say "most of the game" is relative.

And "characters are joking left & right" is not really anything that would go against blood/gore for toughest conditions require most sense of humour to just push through the obstacles, humour also works as moral booster in such situations, which Johnson includes in his "pumping up" of the marines, as example, when in Halo 2, before you got the tank you might have noticed how the marine was turning pretty hopeless before the speech and ended up carrying on with Chief.

But if "realistic" blood/gore doesn't fit to Halo then there is the option of absurd to extent of humorous option like with the classic Halo games, either way, towards "realism" or "humorous", blood/gore to an extent works as inclusion.

And did I mention anything of 343i when I mentioned aiming towards ratings? I fail to see where I claimed such in my post being aimed at what they would have done.

It's more about agreeing that no-one should crave or aim towards certain ranking of a product, I simply added the possibility of other side to it. And with that I mean in case of future.

And if the "other side" is largely about being fine with current level of blood, then could you mean that they oppose the return of nearly comedic effect of blood, are they fine with pretty much any design choice concerning this aspect, are they against adding other "realistic" blood/gore aspects or what? There are possible subcategories.

If it's the middle one then that would mean with added blood effects, those who have asked years for return of the aspect would be fine while people who basically don't care about the aspect would be fine too. No conflicts there.

Though if it's the former, then it's pretty close to no-effects with minimal effects. From which I haven't really heard any sensible counterarguments yet. Mostly the comments are about personal "feels" about the effect.

If it's the latter then it's a bit hypocritical with wanting some "realistic" aspect but denying others what such goal would bring to the opposing side of blood/gore discussion.

And even if the side I mentioned is not that big of a group, the earlier statement is still valid.

But you can give an example of any "large" side to this discussion, I gladly think of the aspect and various points to it.

And "classic good and evil trope", what with the slave creatures known as grunts being forced to fight in wars of others, humanity fighting itself with army fighting both covenant & insurrectionists? Other mans terrorist is other mans freedom fighter so to speak.
Just to mention a couple of examples.

And even though I agree with that videogame about fictional setting (or even otherwise) wont make a sensible person think that war is cool. Dont you think that playing with such concept as "glorifying war" is playing with fire?
If not at least we can agree to disagree.

But I have yet to see anything that would counterargue adding blood/gore to the game/series either in way of seeking "realistic" or "humorous" goals.
Though I dont either claim that you would belong in any group, you just seemed to originally tackle the surrealism of huge bloodsplatters but I would be interested to hear your "side" to this discussion too.
Incongruous to Halo? As in same Halo that portrays the near hopeless struggle of survival against alien onslaught with later on even the flood being introduced?
And Portal portrays an AI forcing an imprisoned human through various potentially lethal tests. Or how about Mario? A man desperately going after a violent stalker who kidnapped his girl friend. People still consider these to be pretty light hearted games, because the thing being portrayed at face value ≠ the tone of the game. The tone of the game is a result of the actions and reactions of its characters, the artistic portrayal of the world and its inhabitants, musical choices, and all other aspects of story telling.

You can of course ignore all that, and not agree that at least Bungie's Halo games don't take themselves very seriously, but let's just say that genocide is not the first thing on my mind when I'm being chased by a conga line of suicide Grunts in Halo 3.

And while I can agree with that in case of beginning part of Halo with just the covenant, though mostly grunts (as comedic relief material), the flood was what first brought a horror of war aspect to Halo, the first Halo game, with twisted corpses with screaming human faces slashing & turning other humans which seem pretty horrified about the turn of events, some even being driven insane, though most allies that are encountered are capable of still working.
And the body horror of Flood is about the only place in classic Halo where gore has been consistently used to fulfill a narrative purpose. With that said, I think this is a pretty weak case for the "horrors of war". I mean, what makes war so horrible is otherwise civilized beings commiting atrocities to each other–the fact that we can be so compassionate to our own, yet so cruel to all others. That's all kind of moot when the Flood is literally a disease that only seeks to spread. The Flood is horror, no doubt, but it's the horror of a disease, not of war.

And "characters are joking left & right" is not really anything that would go against blood/gore for toughest conditions require most sense of humour to just push through the obstacles
I can tell the difference between emotionally distraught characters pulling through with the help of dark humor, and writers making characters say funny things for comedic effect. All comedic writing in Halo is of the latter type.

But if "realistic" blood/gore doesn't fit to Halo then there is the option of absurd to extent of humorous option like with the classic Halo games, either way, towards "realism" or "humorous", blood/gore to an extent works as inclusion.
I'm fairly certain that Halo CE—the game people most often refer to when they talk about blood in old Halo games—only has such absurd blood splatters because of texture detail limitations. The decrease in sizes of blood splatters over the years correlates with the increase in console perfromance. I don't think Bungie were particularly going for any sort of absurdist violence.

If it's the middle one then that would mean with added blood effects, those who have asked years for return of the aspect would be fine while people who basically don't care about the aspect would be fine too. No conflicts there.
Ultimately, what 343i decides to do with the blood, unless it's completely silly, I probably won't care. I just find the discussion surrounding the topic incredibly frustrating for a couple of reasons. One is the people thinking that Halo should be this gritty, dark, violent game about the horrors of war, which I inherently disagree with. Another are the people who seemingly only want more blood, apparently because it's the edgy grown up thing they remember from their childhood. Third are the people thinking it has anything to do with realism. The fourth are the people who confuse the ESRB rating into the discussion, as if it mattered.

If everyone could reasonably argue for the narrative purposes of their particular point of view (even if it's the "gritty dark game" view I disagree with), I would find it significantly less frustrating.

And "classic good and evil trope", what with the slave creatures known as grunts being forced to fight in wars of others, humanity fighting itself with army fighting both covenant & insurrectionists?
This observation would carry more weight if the social status of Grunts was a significant plot point of the games. But as it, I don't know if this is ever even hinted at in the games, and it's certainly never raised as an issue the player should be aware of when we mow down endless waves of Grunts. As far as the games go, it's all about humans fighting genocidial religious nuts. The best we get to see the other side is in Halo 2. And even there it's not like there's any nuance to the war (because there really isn't), but more like a portion of the religious nuts learning the truth while simultaneously losing their high status in the nut club, which causes them to make friends with the good guys. It's pretty black and white as it gets: good guys fight bad guys, some of the bad guys become good guys, the good guys win with the help of the new good guys.

Dont you think that playing with such concept as "glorifying war" is playing with fire?
Nah, not really. Then again, I've grown up in a society where there is a whole popular genre of media glorifying violence, so I couldn't really tell how the alternative is.

But I have yet to see anything that would counterargue adding blood/gore to the game/series either in way of seeking "realistic" or "humorous" goals.
Though I dont either claim that you would belong in any group, you just seemed to originally tackle the surrealism of huge bloodsplatters but I would be interested to hear your "side" to this discussion too.
I don't inherently think there's any issue with blood and gore. I just don't think the Halo I enjoy benefit anything from it. As I've already said, Halo isn't a gritty dark game about war, and I don't want it to be. On the other hand, it's also not a parodic game that uses absurd violence for humorous effect. The truth is, I value Halo as a fairly mild, fairly easily digestible action adventure game. I'm not bothered by significant amounts of blood, but I don't need it either. As for gore, I don't see value in limbs flying off, and I'm afraid it would change the tone of the game, so I'm against it. Generally, people looking for more gore aren't looking for a similar tone as I am.
tsassi wrote:
Ultimately, what 343i decides to do with the blood, unless it's completely silly, I probably won't care. I just find the discussion surrounding the topic incredibly frustrating for a couple of reasons. One is the people thinking that Halo should be this gritty, dark, violent game about the horrors of war, which I inherently disagree with. Another are the people who seemingly only want more blood, apparently because it's the edgy grown up thing they remember from their childhood. Third are the people thinking it has anything to do with realism. The fourth are the people who confuse the ESRB rating into the discussion, as if it mattered.
Best paragraph I've read all morning. Personally I feel like Group 2 is the most prominent in terms of why there is this push for increasing the amount of blood/gore in Halo games.
Other than blood and a bit of swearing Halo was never really that bad in comparison to other rated M games in my mind. It did open the door though for some of the more iconic lines in the games and not have really much if at all any cringy diologue.

A small example in H5 when Cortana is talking to the species of the galaxy, she finishes her speech and buck says "well...crap" even though the tone definitely felt more serious, that line just felt cringy to me.

Example in the other department. Pretty much anything about Sgt. Johnson in the old games was just amazing which he had probably the most swearing in the game, but it felt more natural and comically relieving at points.

As for blood I could care less if its in the game. CE was over the top looking at it now, but it was part of its charm i guess. The later games didn't have it as much due to the games becoming more realistic I would think.

At the end of the day it really doesn't matter to me, just some small gripes but as long as the story and gameplay is good, who really cares.
tsassi wrote:
I'm fairly certain that Halo CE—the game people most often refer to when they talk about blood in old Halo games—only has such absurd blood splatters because of texture detail limitations. The decrease in sizes of blood splatters over the years correlates with the increase in console perfromance. I don't think Bungie were particularly going for any sort of absurdist violence.

Ultimately, what 343i decides to do with the blood, unless it's completely silly, I probably won't care. I just find the discussion surrounding the topic incredibly frustrating for a couple of reasons. One is the people thinking that Halo should be this gritty, dark, violent game about the horrors of war, which I inherently disagree with. Another are the people who seemingly only want more blood, apparently because it's the edgy grown up thing they remember from their childhood. Third are the people thinking it has anything to do with realism. The fourth are the people who confuse the ESRB rating into the discussion, as if it mattered.

If everyone could reasonably argue for the narrative purposes of their particular point o
This observation would carry more weight if the social status of Grunts was a significant plot point of the games. But as it, I don't know if this is ever even hinted at in the games, and it's certainly never raised as an issue the player should be aware of when we mow down endless waves of Grunts. As far as the games go, it's all about humans fighting genocidial religious nuts. The best we get to see the other side is in Halo 2. And even there it's not like there's any nuance to the war (because there really isn't), but more like a portion of the religious nuts learning the truth while simultaneously losing their high status in the nut club, which causes them to make friends with the good guys. It's pretty black and white as it gets: good guys fight bad guys, some of the bad guys become good guys, the good guys win with the help of the new good guys.

Nah, not really. Then again, I've grown up in a society where there is a whole popular genre of media glorifying violence, so I couldn't really tell how the alternative is.

But I have yet to see anything that would counterargue adding blood/gore to the game/series either in way of seeking "realistic" or "humorous" goals.
I don't inherently think there's any issue with blood and gore. I just don't think the Halo I enjoy benefit anything from it. As I've already said, Halo isn't a gritty dark game about war, and I don't want it to be. On the other hand, it's also not a parodic game that uses absurd violence for humorous effect. The truth is, I value Halo as a fairly mild, fairly easily digestible action adventure game. I'm not bothered by significant amounts of blood, but I don't need it either. As for gore, I don't see value in limbs flying off, and I'm afraid it would change the tone of the game, so I'm against it. Generally, people looking for more gore aren't looking for a similar tone as I am.
Portal doesn't have other humans to observe & mario doesn't have beginning in it's history where it would have had blood in it.
Quite something to compare a puzzle game with only robots being observable & a platformer for the whole family to an FPS with it's own twists in lore & somekind of history with classic videogame hitmarker, basically.

And like you said, it's up to the personal view what people seek from a game, I could primarily go for older Halo type (Halo 2, most likely) but I wouldn't mind grittier version either though I think it's unlikely.

And Bungies games didn't definitely take themselves seriously but it's more about the future with Infinite & what type of setting would fit it's storytelling. I just dont think it's the best way to portray a game set in war by cherry picking the most toned down bits.

And horrors of the disease? Thats pretty shallow observation of flood given they do gain intelligence with the gravemind with it's own twisted sence of morality.
"Do I take life or give it? Who is victim, and who is foe?"
It makes it seem like gravemind is going through it's own things & what exactly happens to the victims after the assimilation otherwise? Would you also categorize that it's not an act of war if one nation attacks others with unmanned drones?
And how would things end if flood theoretically wins? Some form of dormant flood or intelligent network of graveminds?
And does gravemind care of all it's assimilated beings like humans would of others, would gravemind see killing flood as atrocity?
The parasitic horror is just part of the story of flood.

And the humor has definitely been of the latter type but the question is, should there be in any point, the former type? Even maybe as a method of saving those crazy/suicidal marines?

And I dont think there is just much value in simply believing what Bungie wanted or not, it could be the truth, partial truth, or not at all. Bungie as a studio consists of various people with likely various viewpoints so I dont think believing that other people though in some way adds anything really.
So im not claiming otherwise either but from here, there is really going nowhere. Unless you happen to be somekind of mindreader focused on every Bungie employee in the past.

And if something something along Halo 2 isn't something "completely silly" in your mind then my primary goal would meet with your "being fine with" state, dark & gritty would be my secondary which is where we part ways on opposite sides.

But, likely unsurprisingly, I stand by that in my view Halos setting would fit for darker visualization better than what some would refer as "peashooter". But primarily, I hope for something Halo 2 type. In case of blood effects on covenant.

And I think grunt genocide has been mentioned in a terminal which is not "rub in your face" type information but still, in-game.
Though for long time, it has been just basic shooter but in later games, it seems like some emotion has been put into the story, even in case of enemies. Such empathy, though hasn't become too influential in gameplay.
But then was then, with little available lore, there is form of innocence, but now lore has expanded in quite a gray zone without the visuals matching it creating form of imbalance.
Though if the setting gets lighter & more black & white again, something less in gameplay would fit in again, though I wouldn't go lower than Halo 3. Thats pretty much the treshold for me.

And Im not certain what you would classify as "glorifying violence form of media" but if you watched 80's action films set on war, then I don't think they would be much different from what I saw as a kid.
But the question is, do you mean something of serious tone or something like "commando" which was perhaps glorifying violence but with a humorous twist?
But in most cases that I recall, those movies all showed some form of effects or consequences (body imaginery), unlike anything that is toned down now in Halo.

But I can respect that ending, in the end, it's a discussion about personal preferences & thoughts of what would fit the brand we care about & in what situation.

Though, in the case of flood, I hope you can agree that limbs could fly off as it's additionally a form of tactical gameplay aspect of literally disarming them, that is, if they could hypothetically return at some point.
Though for them, there is their own discussion.

Also, had to snip a bit because of character limit.
I think we have some philosophers in this thread.

Halo CE had tons of blood and the comical effect of a blood going everywhere from a grunt is part of what makes Halo CE so fun. For me it was comical relief and made it really feel like I had big powerful guns, it also made a statement at time when games like Ghost Recon and Rainbow Six had next to no blood halo screamed

LOOK AT ME SHOOT THINGS BLOOD AND BULLETS CASINGS EVERYWHERE. WATCH OUT THE BIG BOYS ARE HERE.

I seems we every Halo the games have been getting more and more toned down.

Halo CE went big in peoples hearts because it was a big game that didn't pull any punches.

Someone mentioned limbs, I still remember the satisfaction in CE on Legendary on original Xbox of de-arming a bunch of flood, and having them running around following me unable to injure me having no arms.

Halo CE broke all the rules at the time and thats what made it so great. I don't know if anyone else in this thread is old enough to have also played the ORIGINAL Halo Ce on a duke on Xbox original but you could melee corpses until there was so much blood the game became a slide show. it was hilarious.
Portal doesn't have other humans to observe & mario doesn't have beginning in it's history where it would have had blood in it.
Quite something to compare a puzzle game with only robots being observable & a platformer for the whole family to an FPS with it's own twists in lore & somekind of history with classic videogame hitmarker, basically.
You either didn't understand, or ignored the point why I brought those games up. Nothing to do with blood, nothing to do with observers. Just that the essential premise of a game does not determine its tone.

And horrors of the disease? Thats pretty shallow observation of flood given they do gain intelligence with the gravemind with it's own twisted sence of morality.
"Do I take life or give it? Who is victim, and who is foe?"
It makes it seem like gravemind is going through it's own things & what exactly happens to the victims after the assimilation otherwise? Would you also categorize that it's not an act of war if one nation attacks others with unmanned drones?
And how would things end if flood theoretically wins? Some form of dormant flood or intelligent network of graveminds?
And does gravemind care of all it's assimilated beings like humans would of others, would gravemind see killing flood as atrocity?
The parasitic horror is just part of the story of flood.
When the Gravemind comes after the fact, and when the whole Flood is a single hivemind, when it's the ultimate disease emobdied by an abnormally poetic mushroom... yeah, it's going to be a tough sell that there's any moral conundrum in killing Flood. Certainly, the games don't pretend there is. The Flood doesn't exactly have a way of life outside of consuming all life in the galaxy.

And Im not certain what you would classify as "glorifying violence form of media" but if you watched 80's action films set on war, then I don't think they would be much different from what I saw as a kid.
You know, the usual stuff: heroes solving problems by beating people up, heroes solving problems by hacking people wtih swords, heroes solving problems by shooting people with guns.

But the question is, do you mean something of serious tone or something like "commando" which was perhaps glorifying violence but with a humorous twist?
But in most cases that I recall, those movies all showed some form of effects or consequences (body imaginery), unlike anything that is toned down now in Halo.
Doesn't matter. I'm speaking very broadly: if you're showing people solving problems with violence, you're ultimately glorifying violence. If you're making art of violence—e.g., with cool fight coreographies—you're glorifying violence. Now, I'm not the one saying there's anything wrong with any of this, just pointing out that glorifying violence really permeates our media.
tsassi wrote:
I'm fairly certain that Halo CE—the game people most often refer to when they talk about blood in old Halo games—only has such absurd blood splatters because of texture detail limitations. The decrease in sizes of blood splatters over the years correlates with the increase in console perfromance. I don't think Bungie were particularly going for any sort of absurdist violence.

Ultimately, what 343i decides to do with the blood, unless it's completely silly, I probably won't care. I just find the discussion surrounding the topic incredibly frustrating for a couple of reasons. One is the people thinking that Halo should be this gritty, dark, violent game about the horrors of war, which I inherently disagree with. Another are the people who seemingly only want more blood, apparently because it's the edgy grown up thing they remember from their childhood. Third are the people thinking it has anything to do with realism. The fourth are the people who confuse the ESRB rating into the discussion, as if it mattered.
If everyone could reasonably argue for the narrative purposes of their particular point of view (even if it's the "gritty dark game" view I disagree with), I would find it significantly less frustrating.

I don't inherently think there's any issue with blood and gore. I just don't think the Halo I enjoy benefit anything from it. As I've already said, Halo isn't a gritty dark game about war, and I don't want it to be. On the other hand, it's also not a parodic game that uses absurd violence for humorous effect. The truth is, I value Halo as a fairly mild, fairly easily digestible action adventure game. I'm not bothered by significant amounts of blood, but I don't need it either. As for gore, I don't see value in limbs flying off, and I'm afraid it would change the tone of the game, so I'm against it. Generally, people looking for more gore aren't looking for a similar tone as I am.
i just slapped some paragraphs together then composed my comment out of sequence so sorry if it reads off.

I don't think i fit any of those 4 camps, the first is the closest but even then not accurate. What i enjoyed about 1-3 especially was the interactions between Covenant, Flood and Forerunner. Flood making the game more horrific and Forerunner making it more ominous and otherworldly, the benefit was how it rounded out the tone of the game. The Flood were grotesque and what was achieved in both CE and 2 through gore gave it that horror dimension.

As for the covenant at least some level between 2-3-Reach made combat feel like you were fighting organic beings, same goes for the marines when they died, coupled with the AI behaviour, dialogue, spawns and mission design made the encounters feel more lively than any game i've still played to this day, nothing to do with edginess, nor explicitly for its realism per se but for its believability and liveliness, by encompassing different elements and how they were composed made it feel less cardboard, stiff, 2d and void of character, games that strictly go for realism still fall into those holes because they lack a personality or charm, blood and gore being one piece of that building block. Old doom is a game none would call realistic, but i feel was the first and best example of this until Halo appeared

I don't think Halo evokes any strong sense of feeling like aggression / parody on GoW, suspense in L4D, humour in Borderlands or horror like Resident Evil etc, but has a good mix of different tones, moods, themes and pacing, supported by the design of the gameplay, models, art and music/audio, a well rounded game..the new ones have just sanded off some of the character and not added any personality in return.

I don't think the amount of blood in CE and 2 was absurd, it was stylised but not to a point of absurdity, even 3, ODST and Reach have far more blood and gore than 343 games. The scale you propose is definitely not linear, one i don't think correlates completely with texture quality. 343 games have less blood than many other current shooters, the detail of the blood isn't that stellar, even by comparison to the older games. You could make a similar case for the physics in Halo, something of a trademark to the series, it also being toned down as time moved forward, though i don't see the rationale in not wanting to preserve it and putting effort in to make it more of a staple.

the level is arguable, but the heavily suppressed and bland approach currently used is uninteresting and has only worked to remove a characteristic the game once had. Somewhere between what 2 and 3 had would be the ideal tone wise imo.
I'm all for this. Not crazy level of blood gushing out everywhere, but a somewhat realistic amount.
WillyMcFly wrote:
Halo 5 lacked human blood in it. I’m guessing they did it to lower the ESRB rating to T. I don’t believe, the lower the age rating is, the more it will sell. Alot of parents buy GTA V for their 8 year olds lol. My point is, most parents these days don’t look at the ESRB rating so the sales increase because of the T rating would be very little.

I want to see blood return to halo infinite. It just doesn’t feel right when you shoot another player and no blood comes out.
They will return once the created are defeated . They basically infected cortana with logic plague to weaken their hosts and are waiting for the right opportunity to return. We will see this in the later stages of the game.
tsassi wrote:
Portal doesn't have other humans to observe & mario doesn't have beginning in it's history where it would have had blood in it.
Quite something to compare a puzzle game with only robots being observable & a platformer for the whole family to an FPS with it's own twists in lore & somekind of history with classic videogame hitmarker, basically.
You either didn't understand, or ignored the point why I brought those games up. Nothing to do with blood, nothing to do with observers. Just that the essential premise of a game does not determine its tone.

And horrors of the disease? Thats pretty shallow observation of flood given they do gain intelligence with the gravemind with it's own twisted sence of morality.
"Do I take life or give it? Who is victim, and who is foe?"
It makes it seem like gravemind is going through it's own things & what exactly happens to the victims after the assimilation otherwise? Would you also categorize that it's not an act of war if one nation attacks others with unmanned drones?
And how would things end if flood theoretically wins? Some form of dormant flood or intelligent network of graveminds?
And does gravemind care of all it's assimilated beings like humans would of others, would gravemind see killing flood as atrocity?
The parasitic horror is just part of the story of flood.
When the Gravemind comes after the fact, and when the whole Flood is a single hivemind, when it's the ultimate disease emobdied by an abnormally poetic mushroom... yeah, it's going to be a tough sell that there's any moral conundrum in killing Flood. Certainly, the games don't pretend there is. The Flood doesn't exactly have a way of life outside of consuming all life in the galaxy.

And Im not certain what you would classify as "glorifying violence form of media" but if you watched 80's action films set on war, then I don't think they would be much different from what I saw as a kid.
You know, the usual stuff: heroes solving problems by beating people up, heroes solving problems by hacking people wtih swords, heroes solving problems by shooting people with guns.

But the question is, do you mean something of serious tone or something like "commando" which was perhaps glorifying violence but with a humorous twist?
But in most cases that I recall, those movies all showed some form of effects or consequences (body imaginery), unlike anything that is toned down now in Halo.
Doesn't matter. I'm speaking very broadly: if you're showing people solving problems with violence, you're ultimately glorifying violence. If you're making art of violence—e.g., with cool fight coreographies—you're glorifying violence. Now, I'm not the one saying there's anything wrong with any of this, just pointing out that glorifying violence really permeates our media.
The setting of the game not 100% determining it's tone is something I can agree with, I just hoped you would have used some less exaggerated & more related to the type of games in history of Halo type.
Though even in what could be turned (and usually is turned) into something really lighthearted, they can have their own exaggerated mix with contrast value. Though usually those sort of games seem short-lived or less popular than the usual settings.

And the thing about the flood, just mentioned that there are other sides to it than just fighting a disease.
Though there are just too many sides to flood to keep it as sideline in discussion.

And that sounds about what popular hollywood movies have been, the usual indeed.

And I think it does matter, if the action glorifies violence there needs to be somekind of counterweight for it, in usual cases for the least. Just what I think.
even 3, ODST and Reach have far more blood and gore than 343 games. The scale you propose is definitely not linear, one i don't think correlates completely with texture quality. 343 games have less blood than many other current shooters, the detail of the blood isn't that stellar, even by comparison to the older games.
Until Halo 5, Halo 3 was the one with the least amount of blood in the series. Halo 4's was similar to Halo Reach except it despawned extremely quickly (which makes sense for a game that came out at the end of the Xbox 360's run).

If we're looking for between Halo 2 and Halo 3, we're basically talking Halo Reach/4, or Halo 2A at the most.
Halo 5 does have blood though.And before Halo 5, Halo 3 was the game with the least amount of blood, and everyone seemed fine then.
Blood spilled after killing the enemy does not count.
Check out how Halo 2 Anniversary did it PERFECT: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDKqrzMuHiE&feature=youtu.be&list=PLDfrsfmqhSRbhAtRlX_hKWnWcQw88gaob&t=322
I agree. More blood so it's more realistic.
Chimera30 wrote:
tsassi wrote:
Ultimately, what 343i decides to do with the blood, unless it's completely silly, I probably won't care. I just find the discussion surrounding the topic incredibly frustrating for a couple of reasons. One is the people thinking that Halo should be this gritty, dark, violent game about the horrors of war, which I inherently disagree with. Another are the people who seemingly only want more blood, apparently because it's the edgy grown up thing they remember from their childhood. Third are the people thinking it has anything to do with realism. The fourth are the people who confuse the ESRB rating into the discussion, as if it mattered.
Best paragraph I've read all morning. Personally I feel like Group 2 is the most prominent in terms of why there is this push for increasing the amount of blood/gore in Halo games.
Which you have no evidence at all to support such a claim.
tsassi wrote:
So if "realism" would be to take away more early game type bloodsplatters, it would also bring with it explosive damage & other rather gory aspects.
Sure, it might. I'm just saying that trying to justify your craving for absurd blood splatters with realism is disingenuous. People should just be honest and say that they want more blood because that's what all the games for grown ups have, or whatever. I've never actually heard a sensible explanation for this obsession with violence for sake of violence and high age ratings.
The assumptions you make are astounding. Way to paint over the community you moderate over in a single stroke, as people who you think unreasonably want an aspect of the game to change, and casually dismissing their concerns.

We get it, you (incorrectly) think Halo has never really displayed a speck of gritty realism: that Halo is more a light-hearted comedy than a story of a desperate struggle, and that blood is unnecessary.. and further, anyone who wants more blood- be it for the atmospheric quality it can infer (see the original Halo: CE, 343 Guilty Spark level for amazing examples NB: even with blood in the game, I cannot recall such use of blood in any other Halo [thus making the presence/absence arguably insignificant if blood is to be used in the way it has outside of Halo CE]) or for any other reason a community member may advocate for more blood are just upset, unreasonable, and wanting to "glorify violence".

Have you actually anything constructive to add, or are you just going to continue to add fuel to the fire and attack people who want something that you previously said "won't matter [to you] at all unless the do something absurd"?
Quote:
I'm just saying that trying to justify your craving for absurd blood splatters with realism is disingenuous.
I agree with you. Also make Halo Infinite rated M.
Vicex EMS wrote:
The assumptions you make are astounding. Way to paint over the community you moderate over in a single stroke, as people who you think unreasonably want an aspect of the game to change, and casually dismissing their concerns.
But if I can't generalize and paint simplistic stereotypes, how do I hold on to the belief that my views are superior to everyone else's?

Vicex EMS wrote:
We get it, you (incorrectly) think Halo has never really displayed a speck of gritty realism
Hello, pot. My name is kettle.

Vicex EMS wrote:
and further, anyone who wants more blood- be it for the atmospheric quality it can infer [...] or for any other reason a community member may advocate for more blood are just upset, unreasonable, and wanting to "glorify violence".
May I point out that—if this is in reference to my very good conversation with MIKA95VARTSU—I was actually the one for glorifying violence, if you reread the conversation. So...

Vicex EMS wrote:
Have you actually anything constructive to add, or are you just going to continue to add fuel to the fire and attack people who want something that you previously said "won't matter [to you] at all unless the do something absurd"?
I think the discussion I referenced above was fairly fruitful and enlightening to me, and I hope readers will be able to concur that it was quite constructive with interesting points being made on both sides. I would certainly be satisfied with this topic if all comments were as insightful as those of MIKA95VARTSU.

For no particular reason, I will now quote some insights from this thread:
Quote:
shooting someone and no blood [sic; all Halo games have blood splatters as pointed out by Vegeto30294] comes out is like power rangers
Quote:
Man I miss the g(l)ory days.
Quote:
BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD.
Quote:
Well, the Blood is what makes most of the Halo games 'M' for mature.
Quote:
Bring back blood Xbox style. Blood everywhere
Quote:
I want to shoot someone and a blood [sic] goes everywhere
Quote:
I agree. More blood so it's more realistic.
Quote:
I agree with you. Also make Halo Infinite rated M.
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 2
  4. ...
  5. 3