Why Civilians are Off Limits in Battlefield 3

August 30, 2011 -

Rock, Paper, Shotgun has an interesting article on Battlefield 3 that explains why you can't shoot civilians in the game. Apparently EA decided to make it so that players couldn't just gun down innocents in the game. It's an interesting policy considering that some might consider taking away that option as removing some of the realism that games such as Battlefield 3 and Call of Duty Modern Warfare 3 are promising.

The game’s executive producer, Patrick Bach, said that players often want to engage in provocative behavior:

“In a game where it’s more authentic, when you have a gun in your hand and a child in front of you what would happen? Well the player would probably shoot that child,” he told RPS.

While the choice - if it was in the game - to kill the civilians would be the player's Bach also worries that his company and his product will ultimately take to blame for it in the media.

“We would be the ones to be blamed. We have to build our experiences so we don’t put the player in experiences where they can do bad things,” he added.

Bach admits that there is a degree of self-censoring in the game to limit player behavior.

"Me personally, I’m trying to stay away from civilians in games like BF because I think people will do bad. I don’t want to see videos on the internet where people shoot civilians. That’s something I will sanitise by removing that feature from the game."

Bach added that the games he makes are for grown-ups and that he thinks "games need to grow up a bit." Perhaps shooting a civilian in the face is a bit childish, but it's also harmless fun because his game is rated "M" for mature and therefore not for children in the first place.

Source: RPS


Comments

Re: Why Civilians are Off Limits in Battlefield 3

Since wars are made out of fluffy la-la- flowery goodness... Everyone knows that civilians are immortal and can never suffer in a war...

EA: Since you are too afraid to get bad press, why don't you start making Bejeweled and Farmville games instead... I don't think you would be sorely missed by any real gamers...

Re: Why Civilians are Off Limits in Battlefield 3

If he wants to censor his own game for fear of upsetting moral supremacists, fine, but this crosses the line:

Bach added that the games he makes are for grown-ups and that he thinks "games need to grow up a bit."

Setting aside the pretention to being mature, the fact that so called infantile games like Modern Warfare 2 (since that's his apparent assumption here) exist don't preclude games like Battlefield 3 from existing.  They're both there on the same platforms harming nobody, so stop acting like they cramp your ability to make "mature" games.

Re: Why Civilians are Off Limits in Battlefield 3

This is bullshit.

Granted, I'm no fan of this series in the least, in fact, I'm looking forward to the day such games no longer sell as well, so that the industry as a whole can finally fucking move on from the FPS trend. It's way past time to do so, as far as I'm concerned.

But this is still bullshit.

And what a big surprise that EA would be the one to pander to the assholes who complain about violent video games all the time. And yes, that's exactly what this is. Bach even admits that he doesn't want to take the heat. Pussy.

Hopefully this encourages other developers to give gamers what they want, rather than piss them off, because it's the gamers who fuel the industry, not the fuckers who think they can dictate what types of entertainment we're all allowed to enjoy. We're the ones that matter, not the anti-gamers.

Re: Why Civilians are Off Limits in Battlefield 3

I am more worried that this type of "moral injection" into their top franchises becomes a habit, and well effectively turns their games into watered down crap. Here is for hoping that the producer had a lapse of judgment that doesn't snowball into something completely stupid.

Re: Why Civilians are Off Limits in Battlefield 3

Looks like they want to sell some copies to Germany.

Re: Why Civilians are Off Limits in Battlefield 3

"We have to build our experiences so we don’t put the player in experiences where they can do bad things"

A developer telling me what's good- and bad behaviour in a game where killing people is the core gameplay just feels a bit strange...

Re: Why Civilians are Off Limits in Battlefield 3

*nods* given the moral content of the game, it feels very... I don't know.. icky.. for the game company to hand such ethical decisions to me on a platter.

Re: Why Civilians are Off Limits in Battlefield 3

I say allow the player to shoot a civilian, but when it occurs the player fails the mission due to unnecessary civilian casualties.

Re: Why Civilians are Off Limits in Battlefield 3

Something like that...  Christ, it's hard enough getting a clear line of fire in a FPS multiplay even with friendly fire off, enforcing fire discipline (and having consequences for your actions) would elevate the tension in sections where civilian casualties are a distinct possibility.

And if some asshat goes around mowing down civilians because he thinks it's funny, good on him, it's a freaking game, the graphics don't care...

/thinks back to some of my sprees in Postal...

Re: Why Civilians are Off Limits in Battlefield 3

"Bach added that the games he makes are for grown-ups and that he thinks 'games need to grow up a bit.'"

So Bach's idea of a "grown-up game" is one that doesn't allow players to make poor, immoral or unethical decisions? It seems to me a true grown-up game would have better ways to deal with the problem of players shooting civilians, such as by court-martialing players who engage in such behavior.

Re: Why Civilians are Off Limits in Battlefield 3

hmmmm wonder how menny posts this will get

 

 

 

 

---

am dyslexic and have a learning disablement from when i died as a baby and sustained brain damage do to lack of oxygen pleas pardon my bad spelling and grammar-

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Poll

Should 'Hatred' have been removed from Steam Greenlight?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
ZippyDSMleeMaskedPixelante: I'm itching to start it too but I will wait till the patch goes live. >>12/19/2014 - 7:52pm
Adam802Leland Yee and Jackson get trial date: http://sfbay.ca/2014/12/18/leland-yee-keith-jackson-get-trial-date/12/19/2014 - 5:24pm
MaskedPixelanteNevermind. Turns out when they said "the patch is now live", they meant "it's still in beta".12/19/2014 - 5:07pm
MaskedPixelanteSo I bought Dark Souls PC, and it's forcing me to log into GFWL. Did I miss something?12/19/2014 - 5:00pm
Matthew Wilsonhttp://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/12/republicans-may-have-plan-to-save-internet-providers-from-utility-rules/ this is intreasting. congress may put net nutrality in to law to avoid title 2 classification12/19/2014 - 2:45pm
Matthew Wilsonhttp://www.polygon.com/2014/12/19/7421953/bullshit-cards-against-humanity-donated-250k-sunlight-foundation I have to admit I like the choice o organization. congrats to CAH.12/19/2014 - 1:51pm
E. Zachary KnightIf you are downloading a copy in order to bypass the DRM, then you are legally in the wrong. Ethically, if you bought the game, it doesn't matter where you download it in the future.12/19/2014 - 12:06pm
InfophileEZK: Certainly better that way, though not foolproof. Makes me think though: does it count as piracy if you download a game you already paid for, just not from the place you paid for it at? Ethically, I'd say no, but legally, probably yes.12/19/2014 - 11:20am
ZippyDSMleeAnd I still spent 200$ in the last month on steam/GOG stuff sales get me nearly every time ><12/19/2014 - 10:55am
ZippyDSMleeMaskedPixelante:And this is why I'm a one legged bandit.12/19/2014 - 10:51am
ZippyDSMleeE. Zachary Knight: I buy what I can as long as I can get cracks for it...then again it I could have gotton Lords of the Fallen for 30 with DLC I would have ><12/19/2014 - 10:50am
MaskedPixelantehttp://www.joystiq.com/2014/12/19/marvel-vs-capcom-origins-leaving-online-storefronts-soon/ Speaking of "last chance to buy", Marvel vs. Capcom Origins is getting delisted from all major storefronts. Behold the wonders of the all digital future.12/19/2014 - 9:59am
MaskedPixelanteSeriously, the so-called "Last Chance" sale was up to 80% off, while this one time only return sale goes for a flat 85% off with a 90% off upgrade if you buy the whole catalogue.12/19/2014 - 9:37am
E. Zachary KnightInfophile, Tha is why I buy only DRM-free games.12/19/2014 - 9:37am
MaskedPixelanteNordic is back on GOG for one weekend only. And at 85% off no less, which is kind of a slap in the face to people who paid more during the "NORDIC IS LEAVING FOREVER BUY NOW OR FOREVER HOLD YOUR PEACE" sale, but whatever...12/19/2014 - 9:28am
InfophileRe PHX's link: This is one of the reasons the digital revolution isn't all it's cracked up to be. There's also the flip side where Sony can block access to games you've bought if they ban your account for unrelated reasons. All power is theirs.12/19/2014 - 8:52am
MaskedPixelantehttp://uplay.ubi.com/#!/en-US/events/uplay-15-days You can win FREE GAMES FOR A YEAR! Unfortunately, they're Ubisoft games.12/18/2014 - 6:29pm
Papa MidnightAh, so it was downtime. I've been seeing post appear in my RSS feed, but I was unable to access GamePolitics today across several ISPs.12/18/2014 - 6:06pm
james_fudgeSorry for the downtime today, folks.12/18/2014 - 5:54pm
PHX Corphttp://www.craveonline.com/gaming/articles/801575-sony-refuses-offer-refund-playstation-game-fraudulently-purchased-hacker Sony Refuses to Offer Refund for PlayStation Game Fraudulently Purchased by Hacker12/18/2014 - 1:43pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician