|
|
 |
| [Sep 12, 2011, 09:40 am ET] - Share - Viewing Comments |
Slate - Battlefield 3: Why aren't there any civilians in military video games. Misunderstanding that BF3 does.
By removing civilians from the picture, developers like Bach are trying to reap the benefits of a real-life setting without grappling with the reality of collateral damage. In sparing themselves the challenge of making their games deeper and more involving, they're the ones holding back the medium. While video games have come a long way since Mega Man, Battlefield 3's sanitized environment suggests that players are still limited to the same two basic actions: running around and shooting.
Post Comment
Enter the details of the comment
you'd like to post in the boxes below and click the button at
the bottom of the form.
 |
| 9. |
Re: Op Ed |
Sep 12, 2011, 21:09 |
Ruffiana |
|
|
FFS, you put civilians into a shooter and they're either A) unkillable, which is dumb or B) killable, which means everyone kills them and the anti-game pundits have a fukin field day trumpeting the mass-muder simulators.
It's a no-win situation. Let's get the basics of a 'deeper and more involving' game experience before we start throwing civilian cannon-fodder into our games. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
.. ..
Copyright © 1996-2013 Stephen Heaslip. All rights reserved.
All trademarks are properties of their respective owners.