Why You Can’t Shoot Civilians In Battlefield 3

By Alec Meer on August 30th, 2011 at 5:34 pm.

Spotter's guide - visible gun = not a civilian.

I’ve just come back from a fascinating and noisy day at EA DICE, seeing and playing Battlefield 3 with the winners of our recent competition. I have quite a few BF3-related posts due over the next couple of days as a result, but let’s start off with the game’s executive producer Patrick Bach talking about why he believes it can be tricky for games to present more authentic situations, such as a Battlefield level containing innocent, unarmed civilians. He reckons that, given the option, many gamers can’t resist an opportunity to be bad – and, he fears, game-makers would be the ones blamed for their players’ naughtier choices. For instance, shooting one of said innocent, unarmed civilians…

Responding to victorious RPS reader/compo entrant Joe O’Connor’s question as to whether Battlefield 3′s story would delve into the moral arguments around war, Bach argued that “Games are where movies were in the 30s or 40s, when it went from a technical spectacle to ‘hey, wait a minute we can actually use this to tell something, be political’ and things like that. I think we are on the verge of seeing things like that.”

However, potentially holding that back is that “if you put the player in front of a choice where they can do good things or bad things, they will do bad things, go dark side – because people think it’s cool to be naughty, they won’t be caught…

“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.”

This is something Bach wants to avoid, because while the choice to do that ‘bad’ thing would have been the player’s, “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.” While not explicitly mentioned, the spectre of Modern Warfare 2 and its notorious ‘No Russian’ level seemed to this correspondent to loom large here.

So, Bach admitted that there was a degree of self-censoring necessary to limit potentially disagreeable player behaviour. “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.”

Importantly, “That doesn’t mean that I don’t want people to feel that war is not good,… We are trying to do something that is more mature. Mature not being gore –some people confuse the two. That’s childish actually, to want more blood.”

Bach hinted that something in Battlefield 3′s singleplayer narrative would involve a more thoughtful look at the nature of war, but wouldn’t be drawn on any specifics as yet.

“I think games need to grow up a bit,” he felt, but was sure that “They will grow with gamers. There will always be games for children – I want games for grown-ups, games I can play. As long as I’m in the business I will make games that I want to play.”

More comments from Bach tomorrow, plus a preview or two of the stuff I’ve played and seen here.

__________________

« | »

, .

255 Comments »

  1. Teddy Leach says:

    Actually, it would be more mature to let you shoot the child.

    Actually, there’s a thought. How long do you think it’ll be before games offer a commentary on the issue of child soldiers?

    • Stellar Duck says:

      Aside from whatever the hell Metal Gear Solid 2 was trying to say about it?

      I don’t know.

      But I know I’d like to play a game that tackled it. Not quite as much as I’d like to play my imaginary Space Cop game, but it’s up there.

    • Hindenburg says:

      Cavia did that years ago with the first Drakengard. You had to kill a whole army of child soldiers. You also had a pedophile priest as a companion, tho. The game also was kind enough to include an optional sidequest for a bonus weapon that involved killing a separate cluster of child soldiers.

      Cavia is odd like that.

      There’s a terrific Let’s Play of the game, written by The Dark Id, iirc, in the lparchive. Fun stuff.

  2. deadly.by.design says:

    This is similar to one of the reasons why Bethesda doesn’t put children in their games, right? (prior to FO3 & upcoming Skyrim anyway…)

  3. Pattom says:

    Is anyone deeply upset about this? Ignoring the question of self-censorship, the Battlefield series has always been about bringing Hollywood-style action up to the scale of real warfare. The consequences of your actions aren’t moral but tactical (as in, an “evil” decision wastes resources that could be used to your team’s benefit: driving a tank off to capture an abandoned CP when one of your own CPs is under heavy attack, for instance). I just don’t see what including non-combatants would bring to the game.

  4. cairbre says:

    I think in all seriousness that it is the right decision. Games are supposed to games. Could a FPS really hope to explore the horror of war when you spend your time gunning down hundreds of people to throw children and civilians into the mix would seem to me to be more vulgar than anything else.

    Maybe this topic could be dealt with with respect and dignity in games but not in the FPS genre. I play games for escapism not to horrify myself. The logical conclusion of all this would be to have a Norway type simulator or some other offensive type of game. It would almost be like making a movie glorifying fascism which most right minded people would find offensive too.

    When I play BF multiplayer killing the other players is more like paint ball than murder. They respawn and away you go again.

    • Wulf says:

      Oh, hey, another RPS gamer who thinks like I do.

      …that’s so rare that it’s mildly unnerving. Did some nefarious ne’er-do-well clone me?

      Jovial shenanigans aside, I completely agree with you, 100%. And to be honest this is why I prefer games that aren’t near-earth, too, because I want the violence to be abstracted. It’s weird… I can’t play a World War game. I can’t. I just can’t do it. I have mental blocks that stop me from doing it. I can’t play a fantasy game where I go around slaughtering kids and animals that I know to be defenceless. I can’t do that either.

      And yet I had no trouble playing Unreal Tournament III. Why? It’s an e-Sport. I knew that there were respawners and that everyone came into this game knowing that they’d end up popping out of them again. It was a very consensual experience. In Champions Online the lore is that you can’t kill anyone, there’s a team of precogs who’re constantly monitoring the world and teleportation systems are ued to pull injured people (good or bad) off the field of battle, where they’re rushed off to hospitals and then either releaed or arrested and plopped in a prison like Stronghold.

      Compound this with the fact that you can have really silly powers (like a hippie who attacks with the power of love) and this doesn’t set off my inner coward so easily. It’s funny. I’m a very open-minded person in that you can show me almost anything without it bothering me, providing that it doesn’t involve causing real suffering to people who didn’t consent to be in that situation. The closer something gets to that, the more unnerving I find it. It’s sort of like an uncanny valley effect.

      The more you abstract things, the more silly they are, the more I find I can engage in escapism without having to deal with pseudo-ethical dilemmas in the back of my head that have nothing to do with story. Though I’ll admit I don’t find games quite so unnerving if you have the option not to kill, at least. In New Vegas I actually did a playthrough where I didn’t kill anyone thanks to a mod which let me loot unconscious bodies. Now how many people say that they can do that?

      So what I’m getting at is that I can understand where you’re coming from. I’m a little more on the easily squicked side than you, though, so… it takes more of an abstract to make me feel comfortable, but I can totally understand what you’re saying because I use that abstract myself. I think games really should be rather silly in this regard and they shouldn’t glorify either suffering or the ability to bring harm to people or creatures whom have no way of stopping you.

      In Prototype even I went for Black Watch as much as I could and avoided civilians. I just let out my day’s frustrations on soldiers because they’d just keep popping out of those doors. It was silly. It was like they had cloning facilities in those little installations they had. I tried to leave the everyday people as much alone as possible. And my favourite thing in the game was grabbing hold of a military helicopter with a Mr. Tickle arm. And even THEN I wasn’t killing people but rather absorbing them into my hive consciousness. Which was an interesting abstract in and of itself.

      I guess I’m just weird about this. It’s not something I can explain easily. But I’m in a position where I can understand what you’re saying.

    • Lambchops says:

      @ Wulf

      Strange, I wouldn’t have thought Prototype was your type of game!

      As for abstraction i feel no need to justify arseing around killing people in games through some sort of in game rational. For me games exist in their own world where I just see them as . . . well . . . games I guess. Even games depicting real events, wars and so on, still feel vastly separate from reality. I guess, as the guy who started this part of the thread whose name has slipped my mind and who I apologise to said, a game would have to go to pretty extreme levels (and most likely be based on real events to) for me personally to really get affected by it.

      Films are like this for me to an extent as well. A war film could show me some shocking bit of brutality but as long as I had some strand inmy head saying “this is fictional” then it wont bother me. Show me something like the torture scene in The Last King of Scotland and that disconnect is gone and there’s a bit of me that goes “somebody actually did this to another human being” and it makes me exceptionally squeamish and uncomfortable (my friend was watching the film another time and as much as it’s a fantastic film i felt compelled to leave the room when that scene was on). I know i’m getting sidetracked from what you guys are talking about now but I genuinely think I’m more likely to be struggle with reading or watching the news than playing a game, even if the game sounded much more brutal on paper. That disconnect from reality is important.

      Could someone make a game more connected to reality. Yes. Would it be a worthwhile and meaningful endeavour. Perhaps? Would I want to play it? Probably only once if at all. Though that wouldn’t be a bad thing if it made it’s point successfuly and well, but as has been pointed out above, this may require an extreme lack of taste, particularly in the FPS genre. I think FPS games can make points about the nature of war but they are likely to either be watered down by the gaminess of it all or rendered tasteless (and most likely unprofitable) by being too visceral. The points at which these aspects occur will be different for all gamers (you can clearly see a difference between mine and Wulf’s) and with the space between them where the endeavour will succeed probably fairly narrow for each individual, it will be nigh on impossible for a game developer to find the balance between taste and realism for all of them.

      Hmmf, this post might possibly be longer than Wulf’s and probably nowhere near as interesting! Clearly my tiredness has led me to the commenting equivalent of wandering accent syndrome, and I was always shit at accents! Remind me just to stick to puns next time.

    • jaheira says:

      Is that really the lore in Champions Online? That is farcically contrived. I’m literally vocalising my laughter.

  5. Heliocentric says:

    My only meaning input is that Atom Zombie Smasher actually presents killing civilians as a practical application of force at times and I did indeed kill civilians, but it wasn’t for the lulz.

    • Lambchops says:

      Indeed, those poor yellow dots suffered pretty badly at times.

    • Heliocentric says:

      I killed unarmed people in my recent play through Assassins creed brotherhood to use their corpse/poisoned flailing self as a distraction. Hitman: blood money would often throw you in situations where witnesses were bad. Every RTS i can think of (except company of heroes as it lacks noncombatants) has good reasons to kill unarmed enemies.

      SWAT 4 just let you tazer innocents in the balls.

  6. Bungle says:

    Still an Origin exclusive? Yeah, NOT INTERESTED!

    • Kaira- says:

      You can still buy it from elsewhere than Origin, mind you.

    • Balobam says:

      Yeah, I’m going to buy it retail and have to put up with Origin, all I can hope is that it doesn’t suck and works well.

      Arkham City on the other hand… GFWL? That’s enough to put me off buying it at release, just wait for it to be like £5 or £10 like I did with AA.

      Seriously, that GFWL sucks so much dickitude it’s not even fair

  7. Paraquat says:

    I can’t help but feel that they would have been better off with some limp pretext for omitting civilians from the game altogether, because this way nobody comes out looking good. Gamers are portrayed as a bunch of frat-boy buffoons, whilst the designers have to make dubious excuses that amount to “people are inherently bad.”

    If they are trying to make an ethical point, they’re wasting their time. Just a personal opinion, but I can’t think of any just wars, let alone a just war in the modern era, and I don’t even want to get into the moral implications of picking up a gun and killing another person, civilian or soldier. It is a game, and to attach any moral conceits about distinguishing between combatants and civilians is just misguided.

  8. Berzee says:

    I can tell them you’re a spy, and they waaaaaaauuuuugh

  9. Brumisator says:

    “I think games need to grow up a bit, (but we’re sure as hell not going to try to help it along)

  10. Jason Moyer says:

    “if you put the player in front of a choice where they can do good things or bad things, they will do bad things, go dark side – because people think it’s cool to be naughty, they won’t be caught…”

    Someone should call up Bioware or someone that allows civilian casualties in their games and tracks stats to see how true it is, because I’m calling BS. Yes I’m playing DXHR and the first thing I did in Detroit, after making a quicksave, was see what happened if I snapped a bunch of people’s necks. That’s because it’s rare/fun to actually have that option and to have the world react to it. I think in the main, people tend to play light side/good in games that give you the option, and I suspect that the evidence would back that up.

  11. The_Great_Skratsby says:

    It boils down to the experience the developers are intending.

    Obviously not Civilian Massacre Collateral Damage Action 3.

  12. LMAOMOBILE says:

    there aren’t civilians wandering around a 64 player air map. so who cares.

    • ankh says:

      Would be cool if there were though. It would stop tanks/engineers from just shooting random rockets into buildings and hoping for some kills. “-120 Civilian Casualties” Messing with your stats, now that’s real consequences.

  13. Terribleperson says:

    The military killing civilians happens every day. And in the game.

    If Mr. Bach’s comments had been media criticism instead of games marketing, i would have to admit he was right. The American media does get all pissy if you are killing civilians in a game, but they kind of let it slide if you drop a bomb on a wedding party in Afghanistan. I think it goes something like this:
    rich civilians >>> pretty white girls who are missing >> God fearing civilians > civilian pixels > other white civilians >> non-white american civilians >>>>>> non-white civilians who live far far away

  14. Lazaruso says:

    I’m so angry that they won’t let me shoot civilians in a game!

    I wonder what that says about my mental health.

  15. TsunamiWombat says:

    This is a non-controversy. A controversy to be generated by the fact there IS no controversy. Worse then that it countinues to play to the trope that videogames can’t touch certain subjects for some reason. They are out and out acknowleding they don’t want the negative hype, justifying that kind of outcries existance by acknowledging it, and giving it power over them.

    Whats funny is they competely miss the point of WHY gamers do things like shoot children – not out of some perverse blood thirst or even the desire to be ‘naughty’, but to see if they can. To press boundaries. People want to explore. If you allowed such a thing, and had immediate harsh negative consequences for it, people would LOVE it. They would call it an “artistic gamble” and proclaimed that it portrayed the “tragedy and honor of war” all without deviating from the simplistic fps gameplay that helps it sell so well. It would immediatly become a casual shooter fans game and an artsy fart smelling artiste fans game. CoD bro’s and Braidheads could enjoy it equally.

    Instead they just shuffle ackwardly, and in their nasally plaintive little voice, “Oh sir we’d never let someone shoot an innocent person in our games you shouldn’t do that because it promotes violence or indecent behavior”.

    And whats more annoying is not only are they selling themselves and their industry short in an attempt to be a media’s little Starling, tacitly accepting and embracing the image of games as immature entertainment, they’re using it as a means to try and garner hype and take a jab at another franchise. Look how much better we are than they are, look how much more MORAL we are.

    • Lambchops says:

      Controversy just seems to be part of the marketing hype for this genre these days, they’ve been pretty clever this time in that they’ve managed to use someone else’s hype generator and save them the bother of putting some sort of flaming rag in there themselves. Heck I guess they’ve even got the advantage of picking on the controversy of the better selling game (Modern Warfare sold more than Medal of Honor so we’re going to hark on about no civilian deaths rather than no playing as the Taliban. Unless they are saving that one for later!).

      I suppose Codblops (eschewing my usual distaste for ludicrous acronyms as I absolutely love typing blops! Blopsy, blopsy blops!) refrained from that sort of nonsense, so maybe I’m being a bit harsh. Only a tad though!

  16. Shooop says:

    They caved into political correctness on MoH, renaming the aptly-titled “Taliban” to “Op-For” in mutliplayer. Hardly surprising they’re a bunch of wussies.

    But with Origin still being fucking spyware what PC gamer actually cares about this game anymore?

  17. Metonymy says:

    The first time I went on a civilian killing rampage was Doom3, and at the time I was laughing like a complete idiot. I also enjoyed ‘complete purge’ runs of Fallout 3 and NV. I briefly considered modding in killable children, but I just didn’t care that much. I’ll just save them for later.

    Killable civilians is essential for any real role-playing game, preferably along with much more serious consequences for your actions. (Try killing every everyone in Oblivion. You punishment is being driven insane by the guard chatter.)

    Call of Duty games aren’t RPGs, they are egoshooters for 12 year olds, so the relevant question is ‘who cares how they are designed?’

  18. Big Murray says:

    I think he’s missing the point slightly. It’s you, as the developer, who has the job of making sure the player regrets doing that bad thing if they do it, by virtue of your game and narrative design.

  19. AlexTaldren says:

    Yeah, but the real important question is why we won’t get any gay relationship options. I’m angry about that. When will developers stop being heterosexual, white males?!

    In all seriousness, these are the types of issues that aren’t a big deal until we make them a big deal. We ask for realism and freedom in our games, but they can’t be everything to everyone.

  20. Diziet Sma says:

    Ah it’s refreshing to hear a developer say this:

    “Mature not being gore –some people confuse the two. That’s childish actually, to want more blood.”

    • Buttless Boy says:

      It’s a shame that some folks equate gore in fictional media with negative personal traits in real life, whether that’s childishness, sadism, or whatever. There’s never anything wrong with what someone enjoys in fiction. What matters is how they behave in reality.

      (and yeah, I realize that probably wasn’t what you meant)

  21. poop II says:

    its a shame because a game that captures those scenes in generation kill where they have no idea if the car speeding towards them is a happy family or a bomber would be hella rad

  22. Shortwave says:

    Every time any official word is sent out about Battlefield 3 I dislike it more, and more, and more, and more..
    And more. Again.. And again..

    Releasing information is suppost to create hype and fans no?

    HEY GUYS YOU ARE TO DUMB TO MAKE MAPS AND MOD OUR GAME.
    HEY GUYS YOU ARE TOO IMMATURE TO HAVE SERIOUS “LIFE” CHOICES IN GAME.

    They should really start leaking information like..
    No DLC and, in-game server browser.. Mods, maps.
    Cool Mods that will be created! You know, that kind of stuff that actually sells games on PC. BLEHQ!

    FUUUUUU!! KJH!

    One of the biggest things I looked forward to as a child gamer was how realistic games would be in the future.. As in REAListic. I dreamed of the day I’d see guts flying in the battlefield. Am I bound to shitty ragdolls forever? Piss off. No guts no glory.

  23. pipman3000 says:

    how can it be a realistic game about war if you cant gun down civilians out of boredom

  24. vagabond says:

    The possibility that we form a warped view of what combat actually entails if the bulk of our exposure to “war” is via heavily sanitized computer games, that this causes us to treat the experiences of veterans with less empathy than we otherwise might if we had a more realistic view of what they had gone through, and that that causes real people suffer as a result; gives me pause for thought.

  25. DOLBYdigital says:

    This discussion is quite pointless. He mentions wanting more mature games which I agree doesn’t mean more gore but does mean more serious decisions with consequences. Not should I shoot this ‘bad guy’ with a shotgun or a rifle… So his decision to not include innocent people equates to making his game have no tough decisions to make, no consequences in the game to affect…. just shoot, shoot, shoot

    Its like he doesn’t realize that the ‘bad guy’ you are shooting at could be an innocent civilian pushed to defend his home and family from invading armies after they raped his daughter and kidnapped his son…. (ok that may be pushing it too far but sadly this can happen in this disgusting world of crazy war pigs, I would love a game to surface that kind of story about your ‘enemies’)

    It just seems odd to hear him talk about this while making BF3. I would understand this coming from someone working on a serious shooter where consequences and decisions matter…

  26. bill says:

    Good for you Mr Bach.

    Too many comments and no time to read them all, but i see with sadness that the first one is the inevitable idiot-driven complaint. Hope the other 200+ aren’t the same.

    Games don’t work well for that kind of thing (though they might for other things) because they are consequence free. Its more realistic to have soldiers that DON’T go around slaughtering babies than letting them do it in the name of some misguided player-freedom.

    If the game did have consequences, like the first child/civilian killing by your character resulting in his arrest, court-martial and the deletion of all your saved-games and inability to play the game ever again – then that might be cool once, but in general it’d be annoying.
    Especially as NPCs tend to get in the line of fire and the game has no way of knowing if it was intentional.

    Everything he said was a grown up and reasonable response.

  27. One Pigeon says:

    Apologies if this has been posted before but 5 pages of comments is a huge load of text to read.

    Project Realty mod for Battlefield 2 has an excellent punshing system for killing civilians in it’s insurgency mode (players can choose to play as civilians themselves).

    If a civilian performs any tasks useful to the insurgency team, such as manning a weapon emplacement, reviving teammates, driving a vehicle, then they can be killed with no punishment. But if they have not performed any of these tasks and are shot then the other team loses a heavy amount of intel (vital in insurgency mode) and the player responsible has their entire score set to -100. Ouch.

    Clever use of civilians can be game winning for the insurgency team as they make excellent scouts/martyrs.

  28. Saiko Kila says:

    So the civvies will be also immune to stray shots and detonations? Because if that is so, then THIS is a desensitization of soldiers, which some people accuse US (or other) government of doing, with help of such games. Players would be shooting indiscriminately, especially using heavier weapons, because there would be no reprise. Which I suppose works the same way on real battlefields, with real soldiers, like Afghanistan…

  29. Nallen says:

    Oh for God’s sake. It’s a computer game made to produce cash for shareholders and you guys are talking about the realities of war and defending the art form. Get a fucking grip, they are avoiding a media shitstorm and rightly so.

    Besides, clipping a civi with a round and getting ‘game over: you must not shoot civilians’ is a pain the arse. Or perhaps you think the game should role on because wantonly mowing down the populous is part of the reality of war too.

  30. YeOldeSnake says:

    The facts is that if they put civilian deaths in the game , and find a suitable way to punish the player for doing so , they could counterargue the media by simply saying: “Yeah , we do have such deaths , but look at how we actually endorse the player NOT to take such actions”.
    Their removing civilian deaths by your hand is similar to germany’s stand towards videogames which feature nazis. Why are you shooting at the enemies anyway? Its because their hostile actions put you and civilians’ lives at stake. Removing such possibilities of performing such actions yourself is like denying civilian casualties even exist.
    And i would have to agree with the people who want civilian casualties in the game , which would bring upon you an elaborate method of punishment.

  31. AmateurScience says:

    Would anyone have actually noticed a lack of civilians if he hadn’t mentioned there was going to be a lack of civilians?

  32. Monkeh says:

    He wants gamers to grow up, yet he doesn’t think we are mature enough to handle gruesome events within games? I for one wouldn’t shoot the civilians on purpose, so therefore killing one by accident would make me feel kinda bad. :P And well IMO, that just adds to the emotional value of the singleplayer campaign.

    • Nallen says:

      He thinks the media isn’t. Quite correctly.

    • Monkeh says:

      Where do you see him mentioning the media?

    • Ergates_Antius says:

      This is something Bach wants to avoid, because while the choice to do that ‘bad’ thing would have been the player’s, “We would be the ones to be blamed.”
      He doesn’t use the word “media” but it’s clear what he’s referring to.

  33. sneetch says:

    I seem to recall failing missions in games before if I shot innocents, it was a fairly large part of some games that I dimly recall, what was wrong with that?

    Mind you, I don’t care that there are no civilians in this game any more than I’d care that there are no goats or dogs or cattle: they’re not required for it to be good.

  34. innokenti says:

    Seems like a very reasonable stance to me. As a developer they’re saying “We don’t want that in our game, we’re not comfortable with that, we want to explore other things.” That’s an admirable and understandable stance when explained. So it’s nice to hear from them.

  35. Ergates_Antius says:

    Is that true of all games where you can’t shoot civilians (i.e. nearly all of them) or just this one?

  36. goldrunout says:

    I don’t know. I think shooting unarmed people is one of the worst things that someone can do in real life. Thus I don’t do it ingame. I can distinguish between reality and videogames, I just consider it a terrible thing to do also in fiction. I can’t imagine myself shooting a child, in any possible world. Therefore I agree with DICE’s decision. Would you really shoot a child in a videogame??

  37. pipman3000 says:

    Am I the only person in the world who doesn’t go around murdering the shit out of children?*

    * …And in games too!

  38. Viggo says:

    Why, Patrick Bach, must you act like a massive tool? You didn’t think any of those answers through.

    ““if you put the player in front of a choice where they can do good things or bad things, they will do bad things, go dark side – because people think it’s cool to be naughty, they won’t be caught…”

    Dark side? Naughty? Cool to be naughty because you won’t get caught… I’m simply stunned ):

    ““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.””

    You talk as if it’s out of malice… or dark sidedness, if you prefer…

    I shot the children (Though they can’t die!) in Fallout 3/New Vegas for the same reason I shot the adults. Curiosity. What happens?

    You’re making it sound like people are using it to live out sick fantasies.

    Actually, the way you’re using childish terms, it sounds like you’re trying to hide your own desires. You remind me of those people who everybody thinks is a nice, quiet person, till the day they go on a killing spree. That, or you’re one of those overzealous Westboro Baptist Church nuts in disguise.

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

    Your game is portraying war… is shooting people a good thing? There’s (AFAIK) team damage in the game, does that mean killing your fellow soldier is a good thing? Or is this part in relation to the movies/political thing?

    “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.”
    The nerve you have… calling people childish with this kind of attitude.

    “We are trying to do something that is more mature. Mature not being gore –some people confuse the two.”

    You said something clever! +2 points for you!

    “That’s childish actually, to want more blood.”

    God dammit Bach! -100 points for you.

    Why is wanting more blood/gore/dismemberment childish? Dead Space used “tactical dismemberment” without it being childish. Horror games can benefit from blood and gore. Other genres could too in the right context.

    Sigh ):

  39. ResonanceCascade says:

    Gormless corporate drones made Mirror’s Edge then?

    Ha.

  40. Pigeonreaper says:

    Seems like this has been poorly handled. In my eyes, Battlefield isn’t supposed to have civilians in it- the games have always been about two properly tooled up military forces knocking crap out of each other. Which is great; it makes for a visual spectacle as well as a compelling game, especially in competitive multiplayer. These are the things that make the game entertaining, and I don’t see that the introduction of civilians, while it might add authenticity, has any real place in this.

    That said, I’d certainly have preferred that they had just said “we didn’t feel that would improve the game” or “we saw no good reason to spend man-hours to include this” than giving us some bogus preachy horsepoop.

  41. DarkByke says:

    killing randoms in GTA got boring fast. is it necessary for battlefield? no it’s not… let’s trim the fat, it doesn’t hurt my gaming experience with it in there or not.

  42. Big Daddy Dugger says:

    Real life soldiers shoot unarmed civilians all the time, they should allow it in game for immersion reasons.

  43. dellphukof says:

    Way to stand up to the libernazis there. Wouldn’t want to offend anyone by shooting the wrong blob of pixels, or even think about it. Virtual is the worst kind of crimethink.
    seo service
    Please, gaming industry suits, tell me more which experiences I can and cannot have with a game I bought with my hard-earned money. Tell me which thoughts are good and which bad. Living my own life is teh hard.