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

Who's responsible for crappy Netflix performance on Verizon?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Matthew Wilson@pm I doubt it. Google seems to be distancing themselves from G+07/25/2014 - 9:31pm
Papa MidnightGoogle+ Integration is coming to Twitch!07/25/2014 - 8:41pm
MaskedPixelanteThis whole Twitch thing just reeks of Google saying "You thought you could get away from us and our policies. That's adorable."07/25/2014 - 2:52pm
Sleaker@james_fudge - hopefully that's the case, but I wont hold my breath for it to happen.07/25/2014 - 1:08pm
SleakerUpdate on crytek situation is a bit ambiguous, but I'm glad they finally said something: http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2014-07-25-crytek-addresses-financial-situation07/25/2014 - 1:07pm
E. Zachary KnightMan Atlas, Why do you not want me to have any money? Why? http://www.atlus.com/tears2/07/25/2014 - 12:06pm
Matthew WilsonI agree with that07/25/2014 - 10:45am
james_fudgeI think Twitch will have more of an impact on how YouTube/Google Plus work than the other way around.07/25/2014 - 10:22am
IanCWelp, twitch is going to suck now. Thanks google.07/25/2014 - 6:30am
Sleaker@MP - Looked up hitbox, thanks.07/24/2014 - 9:40pm
Matthew WilsonI agree, but to me given other known alternatives google seems to the the best option.07/24/2014 - 6:30pm
Andrew EisenTo be clear, I have no problem with Google buying it, I'm just concerned it will make a slew of objectively, quantifiably bad changes to Twitch just as it's done with YouTube over the years.07/24/2014 - 6:28pm
Matthew WilsonI doubt yahoo has the resources to pull it off, and I not just talking about money.07/24/2014 - 6:15pm
SleakerI wouldn't have minded a Yahoo purchase, probably would have been a better deal than Tumblr seeing as they paid the same for it...07/24/2014 - 6:13pm
MaskedPixelanteIt's the golden age of Hitbox, I guess.07/24/2014 - 6:08pm
Matthew Wilsonagain twitch was going to get bought. It was just who was going to buy it . Twitch was not even being able to handle the demand, so hey needed a company with allot of infrastructure to help them. I can understand why you would not want Google to buy it .07/24/2014 - 5:49pm
Andrew Eisen"Google is better than MS or Amazon" Wow. Google, as I mentioned earlier, progressively makes almost everything worse and yet there are still two lesser options. Again, wow!07/24/2014 - 5:43pm
Andrew EisenI don't know. MS, in my experience, is about 50/50 on its products. It's either fine or it's unusable crap. Amazon, well... I've never had a problem buying anything from them but I don't use any of their products or services so I couldn't really say.07/24/2014 - 5:42pm
Matthew WilsonGoogle is better than MS or Amazon.07/24/2014 - 5:33pm
Sleaker@AE - I've never seen youtube as a great portal to interact with people from a comment perspective. like ever. The whole interface doesn't really promote that.07/24/2014 - 5:28pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician