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

How do you usually divide up your Humble Bundle payments?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Matthew Wilsonthe lose of nn would not be good for us, but it will not be good for verizion/comcast/att in the long run ether.04/24/2014 - 2:16pm
Matthew Wilsonsadly yes. it would take another sopa day to achieve it.04/24/2014 - 2:13pm
NeenekoI am also confused. Are you saying NN would only become law if Google/Netflix pushed the issue (against their own interests)?04/24/2014 - 2:10pm
E. Zachary KnightMatthew, you are saying a lot of things but I am still unclear on your point. Are you saying that the loss of Net Neutrality will be good in the long run?04/24/2014 - 2:06pm
Matthew WilsonOfcourse it does I never said it did not.though over time the death of NN will make backbone providers like Google, level3 and others stronger becouse most isps including the big ones can not provid internet without them. they can peer with smaller isps04/24/2014 - 1:54pm
E. Zachary KnightMatthew, and that still plays in Google's favor over their smaller rivals who don't have the muscle to stand up to ISPs.04/24/2014 - 1:45pm
Matthew Wilsongoogle wont pay becouse they control a large part of the backbone that all isps depend on. if verizon blocks their data, google does the same. the effect is Verizon loses access to 40% of the internet, and can not serve some areas at all.04/24/2014 - 1:14pm
Neenekolack of NN is in google and netflix interest. It is another tool for squeezing out smaller companies since they can afford to 'play'04/24/2014 - 12:57pm
Matthew WilsonI have said it before net nutrality will not be made in to law until Google or Netflix is blocked, or they do what they did for sopa and pull their sites down in protest.04/23/2014 - 8:02pm
Andrew EisenGee, I guess putting a former cable industry lobbyist as the Chairman of the FCC wasn't that great of an idea. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/24/technology/fcc-new-net-neutrality-rules.html?_r=204/23/2014 - 7:26pm
Andrew EisenIanC - I assume what he's getting at is the fact that once PS3/360 development ceases, there will be no more "For Everything But Wii U" games.04/23/2014 - 5:49pm
Andrew EisenMatthew - Yes, obviously developers will eventually move on from the PS3 and 360 but the phrase will continue to mean exactly what it means.04/23/2014 - 5:45pm
IanCAnd how does that equal his annoying phrase being meaningless?04/23/2014 - 5:09pm
Matthew Wilson@Andrew Eisen the phrase everything but wiiu will be meaningless afer this year becouse devs will drop 360/ps3 support.04/23/2014 - 4:43pm
Andrew EisenFor Everything But... 360? Huh, not many games can claim that title. Only three others that I know of.04/23/2014 - 3:45pm
MaskedPixelantehttp://www.joystiq.com/2014/04/23/another-world-rated-for-current-consoles-handhelds-in-germany/ Another World fulfills legal obligations of being on every gaming system under the sun.04/23/2014 - 12:34pm
Matthew Wilsonhttp://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/04/steam-gauge-do-strong-reviews-lead-to-stronger-sales-on-steam/?comments=1 Here is another data driven article using sales data from steam to figure out if reviews effect sales. It is stats heavy like the last one.04/23/2014 - 11:33am
Andrew EisenI love RPGs but I didn't much care for Tales of Symphonia. I didn't bother with its sequel.04/23/2014 - 11:21am
InfophileIt had great RPGs because MS wanted to use them to break into Japan. (Which had the side-effect of screwing NA PS3 owners out of Tales of Vesperia. No, I'm not bitter, why do you ask?)04/23/2014 - 10:52am
RedMageI'm still disappointed the 360 never broke into Japan either. It had a bevy of great RPGs in the late 2000s.04/23/2014 - 9:48am
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician