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

Whose next half decade of superhero films are you most looking forward to?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
MaskedPixelantehttps://twitter.com/DanSlott/status/527814374459977728 One More Shot at Marriage.10/30/2014 - 8:44am
E. Zachary KnightApparently, it is ok to review a games art on whether or not you like the style, but not ok to review a game's story or theme based on whether or not you like or agree with it.10/30/2014 - 8:40am
MechaCrashComics never change because the people in charge now read comics when they were kids, and keep reverting comics to what they remember. As long as that cycle holds, change will be slow at best.10/30/2014 - 8:18am
Neeneko@ MechaTama31 - That is the big reason fansubs were tollerated for so long in the US, japanese studios kept watch to see which ones became popular via those networks.10/30/2014 - 8:11am
quiknkoldJournalists shouldnt be bigger than the stories they report or products they review.10/30/2014 - 7:48am
E. Zachary KnightHere is some food for thought for gamergaters who want politics out of games journalism. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20141026/06425828942/journalists-need-point-view-if-they-want-to-stay-relevant.shtml10/30/2014 - 7:18am
quiknkoldI didnt say all games are like that, Conster. Princess Peach was....different. though I had fun with it.10/30/2014 - 7:00am
james_fudgehttp://www.somethingawful.com/news/gamergate-with-cats/10/30/2014 - 5:20am
MechaTama31AE: Japan's doujin scene illustrates an interesting potential solution to that problem. Let people play around with the characters, and keep an eye on things to see what people are buying.10/30/2014 - 12:07am
ConsterI bought, played and liked the game (unlike Smash Basketball *shakes fist*), but that felt iffy to me.10/29/2014 - 10:52pm
Consterquiknkold: if Super Princess Peach had been Super Prince Peach instead, do you think emotions would've been a mechanic?10/29/2014 - 10:51pm
quiknkoldcore meaning Colossus, Storm, Wolverine, and Nightcrawler10/29/2014 - 8:51pm
quiknkoldMatthew, those core x-men were together for almost 2 decades, until one would always be dead so they couldnt have them all together.10/29/2014 - 8:51pm
quiknkoldmore of an unknown. background characters mostly, who had a book but it was mostly a waste. they bring in this powderkeg of diversity and boom. now they could do the same thing and with the right artist and writer and mystique to it...10/29/2014 - 8:50pm
Matthew Wilsondoes it though? they always seem to return to the original cast in a year or two.10/29/2014 - 8:49pm
quiknkoldWhen I think of the perfect catalyst of a melting pot hero team, I think of the All New All Different X-Men. A Russian, A African goddess, A Canadian Berzerker, a German elf, and Cyclops. and all have withstood the test of time mostly cause the x-men were10/29/2014 - 8:49pm
Andrew EisenOne reason is because the money people are often afraid it won't sell. "A new IP AND the protagonist is gay?! That'll never work!" Showing that diverse characters can work in popular IP is simply a place to start. The indie scene is another.10/29/2014 - 8:47pm
Matthew Wilsonisnt that the point? why not just make new heroes that are different races, sexual orientations, and genders to start with?10/29/2014 - 8:46pm
Andrew EisenYep, progress is a lot slower than it should be (especially for something that shouldn't have been a problem in the first place).10/29/2014 - 8:45pm
quiknkoldrelevent. Hazmat and X-23. while Reptile, Mettle, Rockslide, Anole, Hellion, Dust, Mercury are all relegated to background characters with zero character enhancement. or they are dead10/29/2014 - 8:45pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician