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 :

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Matthew WilsonSF have to build upwards they have natural growth limits. they can not grow outwards. ps growing outwards is terable just look at Orlando or Austin for that.04/16/2014 - 4:15pm
ZippyDSMleeIf they built upward then it would becoem like every other place making it worthless, if they don't build upward they will price people out making it worthless, what they need to do is a mix of things not just one exstreme or another.04/16/2014 - 4:00pm
Matthew Wilsonyou know the problem in SF was not the free market going wrong right? it was government distortion. by not allowing tall buildings to be build they limited supply. that is not free market.04/16/2014 - 3:48pm
ZippyDSMleeOh gaaa the free market is a lie as its currently leading them to no one living there becuse they can not afford it makign it worthless.04/16/2014 - 3:24pm
Matthew WilsonIf you have not read http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/04/introducing-steam-gauge-ars-reveals-steams-most-popular-games/ you should. It is a bit stats heavy, but worth the read.04/16/2014 - 2:04pm
Matthew Wilsonthe issue is when is doesn't work it can screw over millions in new york city's case. more often than not it is better to let the free market run its course without market distortion.04/16/2014 - 9:36am
NeenekoTrue, and overdone stagnation is a problem. It is a tricky balance. It does not help that when it does work, no one notices. Most people here have benifited from rent controls and not even realized it.04/16/2014 - 9:23am
ZippyDSMleehttp://www.afterdawn.com/news/article.cfm/2014/04/15/riaa_files_civil_suit_against_megaupload04/16/2014 - 8:48am
ZippyDSMleeEither way you get stagnation as people can not afford the prices they set.04/16/2014 - 8:47am
Neenekowell, specifically it helps people already living there and hurts people who want to live there instead. As for 'way more hurt', majorities generally need less legal protection. yes it hurt more people then it helped, it was written for a minority04/16/2014 - 8:30am
MaskedPixelantehttp://torrentfreak.com/square-enix-drm-boosts-profits-and-its-here-to-stay-140415/ Square proves how incredibly out of touch they are by saying that DRM is the way of the future, and is here to stay.04/16/2014 - 8:29am
james_fudgeUnwinnable Weekly Telethon playing Metal Gear http://www.twitch.tv/rainydayletsplay04/16/2014 - 8:06am
ConsterTo be fair, there's so little left of the middle class that those numbers are skewing.04/16/2014 - 7:42am
Matthew Wilsonyes it help a sub section of the poor, but hurt both the middle and upper class. in the end way more people were hurt than helped. also, it hurt most poor people as well.04/16/2014 - 12:13am
SeanBJust goes to show what I have said for years. Your ability to have sex does not qualify you for parenthood.04/15/2014 - 9:21pm
NeenekoSo "worked" vs "failed" really comes down to who you think is more important and deserving04/15/2014 - 7:04pm
NeenekoThough I am also not sure we can say NYC failed. Rent control helped the people it was intended for and is considered a failure by the people it was designed to protect them from.04/15/2014 - 7:04pm
NeenekoIf they change the rules, demand will plummet. Though yeah, rent control probably would not help much in the SF case. I doubt anything will.04/15/2014 - 1:35pm
TheSmokeyOnline gamer accused of murdering son to keep playing - http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Crime/2014/04/15/21604921.html04/15/2014 - 11:50am
Matthew Wilsonyup, but curent city rules do not allow for that.04/15/2014 - 11:00am
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician