I could play an RPG that has not blood, no gore, no sex at all if the game is fun.

If a game like that (seducing someone, and so on...) existed 90% of those who would buy it would be searching for cheap porno, or wouln''t buy it because they think it''s just cheap porno. The other thing is that although we have the technology the render gillion polygons per second we are still lacking a proper technology to simulate human beings and how they behave. The game should have much more developed form of interaction between the characters that just choosing between three choices what to say.

Blood = fear, gore = hate, sex = desire

the only thing yur missing is some form of depression
then you''ve got all the basic emotions covered with their most extreme & graphic depictions

quote: Original post by deClavier
Blood = fear, gore = hate, sex = desire

the only thing yur missing is some form of depression
then you''ve got all the basic emotions covered with their most extreme & graphic depictions

Add "goth" then

quote: Original post by deClavier
Blood = fear, gore = hate, sex = desire

the only thing yur missing is some form of depression
then you''ve got all the basic emotions covered with their most extreme & graphic depictions

Okay, so how about Blood, Gore, Sex and Suicide?

ha

you know what''s funny, I''ve heard that suicide is how Diablo ends
who would''ve guessed?

Well I''m mostly a FPS guy, but I play RPG''s once in a while, anyways, I feel that the whole "Realism vs Fantasy" is stupid
you play rpgs because there fantasy, if you dont want fantasy in a rpg you should look into first person shooters.
for example: what kinda game would Final "Fantasy" be without the "Fantasy"? That may just be a trendy game, but still my point is, rpgs are based on fantasy, reguardless if the charactors are super sajin Goku like.LOL
well Thats just my opinion.

yodaman, you''ve got a point there. By the way what do you call a game which is a RPG without the fantasy and FPS without the killing? RLS (=Real Life Simulation)?

quote: Original post by yodaman
Well I''m mostly a FPS guy, but I play RPG''s once in a while, anyways, I feel that the whole "Realism vs Fantasy" is stupid
you play rpgs because there fantasy, if you dont want fantasy in a rpg you should look into first person shooters.

True, but in the past RPG''s were mainly game and less visual. Either 2D (bard''s tale series), isometric (later Ultima''s). Nowadays an RPG is either first person (Morrowind) or free isometric (Neverwinter Nights).

Neverwinter nights has some blood splattering on the floor when you attack someone with a sword, Morrowind just flashes the screen borders red when you get hit, or flashes a red mist on a monster temporarily. Yet when they die they leave an intact corpse.

It would perhaps be more fun if a fight splattered some blood on the ground or walls. It would deter you from entering a fight against a stronger opponent. Now it''s OK in an RPG to fight someone, let that monster cut you with a sword, and you retreat at 10% health (almost dying), drink a potion and you''re OK again. This would be most effective in a 3rd person, or 1st person over-the-shoulder view. Maybe it would deter people from playing a genocidal maniac who annihilates entire species by killing hundreds of them in a row.

This could be regulated with options, as some people might not appreciate a fullblown realistic RPG where you can cut off heads, get smeared with sprays of blood when you chop off an arm, or soak the walls and carpets of your palace in blood after defending yourself from an attack.