No Shooting Civilians in Battlefield 3

There's a Battlefield 3 interview on VG247 talking with lead designer David Goldfarb, discussing the single-player campaign in the military shooter sequel. Also, Rock, Paper, Shotgun has news that while there will be civilians in Battlefield 3, players will not be able to fire upon them, which recalls the controversial "no Russian" mission in Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 that involved a civilian massacre. They have word on the topic of collateral damage from DICE executive producer Patrick Bach:
“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.”
View : : :
69 Replies. 4 pages. Viewing page 2.
Newer [  1  2  3  4  ] Older
49.
 
Re: No Shooting Civilians in Battlefield 3
Aug 31, 2011, 16:29
49.
Re: No Shooting Civilians in Battlefield 3 Aug 31, 2011, 16:29
Aug 31, 2011, 16:29
 
No, he just wants to sanitize war to pretend like it's a good thing. Well, burning some enemy soldiers to death with a flamethrower is perfectly fine, just don't shoot any civies! Well how the hell he doesn't know they aren't collaborators or even terrorists?

I'm with George Carlin when he says it's all fair game or none of it is. The notion of ethics is laughable when put up against the universe in the first place. The concept of an ethical war is just so much more comedy.
"The horse I bet on was so slow, the jockey kept a diary of the trip." - Henny Youngman
48.
 
Re: No Shooting Civilians in Battlefield 3
Aug 31, 2011, 16:22
48.
Re: No Shooting Civilians in Battlefield 3 Aug 31, 2011, 16:22
Aug 31, 2011, 16:22
 
He's pretty clear that the focus around the game will be on the violence, like it was for a long while with MW2.
He doesn't want to deal with that.
47.
 
Re: No Shooting Civilians in Battlefield 3
Aug 31, 2011, 16:11
47.
Re: No Shooting Civilians in Battlefield 3 Aug 31, 2011, 16:11
Aug 31, 2011, 16:11
 
Beamer wrote on Aug 31, 2011, 15:55:
Forza 4 is going to limit the top speed of the cars to 55mph because Turn 10 doesn't want to be blamed for gamers speeding and crashing their real life car(s).

Bad analogy.
Should Forza 4 allow you to slam your car into the stands and decapitate people like it's the 1955 LeMans? Or would that distract from the game and not be sensible to include?

The people making this game don't want the focus, both in the game and around the game, to be on killing civilians. Accept it. This is their game, not your game.

Where does Bach say this is his reason?

This comment was edited on Aug 31, 2011, 16:20.
46.
 
Re: No Shooting Civilians in Battlefield 3
Aug 31, 2011, 15:55
46.
Re: No Shooting Civilians in Battlefield 3 Aug 31, 2011, 15:55
Aug 31, 2011, 15:55
 
Forza 4 is going to limit the top speed of the cars to 55mph because Turn 10 doesn't want to be blamed for gamers speeding and crashing their real life car(s).

Bad analogy.
Should Forza 4 allow you to slam your car into the stands and decapitate people like it's the 1955 LeMans? Or would that distract from the game and not be sensible to include?

The people making this game don't want the focus, both in the game and around the game, to be on killing civilians. Accept it. This is their game, not your game.
45.
 
Re: No Shooting Civilians in Battlefield 3
Aug 31, 2011, 15:49
45.
Re: No Shooting Civilians in Battlefield 3 Aug 31, 2011, 15:49
Aug 31, 2011, 15:49
 
Forza 4 is going to limit the top speed of the cars to 55mph because Turn 10 doesn't want to be blamed for gamers speeding and crashing their real life car(s).
44.
 
Re: No Shooting Civilians in Battlefield 3
Aug 31, 2011, 15:32
44.
Re: No Shooting Civilians in Battlefield 3 Aug 31, 2011, 15:32
Aug 31, 2011, 15:32
 
Wouldn't it be more mature to have in game consequences for shooting civillians?

Not if it isn't what the game is about. For some games choice and consequences are a good thing. For some it's a distraction.
43.
 
Re: No Shooting Civilians in Battlefield 3
Aug 31, 2011, 15:30
43.
Re: No Shooting Civilians in Battlefield 3 Aug 31, 2011, 15:30
Aug 31, 2011, 15:30
 
“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.”
The player COULD shoot that child. Wouldn't it be more mature to have in game consequences for shooting civillians? Say you are haunted by it thoughout the game when you kill civillians or you get repremanded by your superiors for it? Or you create people who want revenge. Get put on trial for war crimes etc? Those are far more mature ways to handle it, all you need to do is create some consequences and you have a much more mature game.

I don’t want to see videos on the internet where people shoot civilians
Yeah are you living under a rock? Why do you think so many civilians die in wars? It's because the combatants SHOOT them. Look at Afghanistan and Iraq, we kill civilians and to sanitize that from a game that is supposedly based on "modern" warfare is whitewash that ignores reality. So much for a realistic game.

q[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.”
Yes, because depicting a non sanitized version of war is something that must be avoided at all costs. You don't want people to feel thta war is not good? Well that may be why you want to portray war in such a sanitized manor.

He should have been honest and said "We are afraid of negative publicity and that is why we aren't allowing civillians to be shot." Not the bullshit quoted.
42.
 
Re: No Shooting Civilians in Battlefield 3
Aug 31, 2011, 15:08
42.
Re: No Shooting Civilians in Battlefield 3 Aug 31, 2011, 15:08
Aug 31, 2011, 15:08
 
Alamar wrote on Aug 31, 2011, 14:32:
All this talk reminds me of the parade mission on Syndicate... Who's remaking that game btw?

Allegedly it's Starbreeze Studios.
Stephen "Blue" Heaslip
Blue's News Publisher, Editor-in-Chief, El Presidente for Life
Avatar 2
41.
 
Re: No Shooting Civilians in Battlefield 3
Aug 31, 2011, 14:32
41.
Re: No Shooting Civilians in Battlefield 3 Aug 31, 2011, 14:32
Aug 31, 2011, 14:32
 
All this talk reminds me of the parade mission on Syndicate... Who's remaking that game btw?

A friend of mine loved that mission, because he could go through and wipe out the crowd with his RPGs (or whatever it was called back then... bazooka? gum? : )... Perhaps he was sick... Or perhaps he could recognize the difference between reality and cartoons...

-Alamar
Avatar 22996
40.
 
Re: No Shooting Civilians in Battlefield 3
Aug 31, 2011, 14:18
40.
Re: No Shooting Civilians in Battlefield 3 Aug 31, 2011, 14:18
Aug 31, 2011, 14:18
 
american soldiers shoot unarmed civilians in real life all the time. hell they even use there gunships to do it. and oddly enough as seen in the leaked video of the us reporters and bystanding civilians getting guned down and haven missles fired at them by a gunship and getting away with it. dont seem like that far of a stratch from realty. Given the shiz we never get to see thats probly happened. look at vitnam that was pretty much a civilian shiz storm killing spree!
39.
 
Re: No Shooting Civilians in Battlefield 3
Aug 31, 2011, 13:22
39.
Re: No Shooting Civilians in Battlefield 3 Aug 31, 2011, 13:22
Aug 31, 2011, 13:22
 
space captain wrote on Aug 31, 2011, 12:57:
so "lame" is not "right or wrong"? seems a bit disingenuous dont you think? i would consider "lame" to be a pretty negative connotation in the context you present here

The justifications they provide are lame, not the actual decision to design the game in a specific way.
Avatar 51617
38.
 
Re: No Shooting Civilians in Battlefield 3
Aug 31, 2011, 13:19
38.
Re: No Shooting Civilians in Battlefield 3 Aug 31, 2011, 13:19
Aug 31, 2011, 13:19
 
McSterls wrote on Aug 31, 2011, 12:25:
Isn't shooting civilians really a moral decision that should be left up to the player? Building a realistic shooter like BF3 appears to be means that collateral damage and friendly fire can and should happen. I'm not aiming for the civilians, but if someone takes a round so be it.

The "no russian" mission in Call of Duty was to kill civilians, that was the purpose of the mission.

Actually, technically speaking the purpose of the "no russian" mission in MW2 was to frame the Americans as the aggressors on the innocent Russian civilians thereby setting up a Red Dawn style Russian invasion of America, or something like that, I don't really know because I lost the crazy assed plot part way through. But that's why they cap your character at the end of the mission (I think).
37.
 
Re: No Shooting Civilians in Battlefield 3
Aug 31, 2011, 12:57
37.
Re: No Shooting Civilians in Battlefield 3 Aug 31, 2011, 12:57
Aug 31, 2011, 12:57
 
Verno wrote on Aug 31, 2011, 12:44:
I'm not saying that's right or wrong, its their game but the excuses the give guys are just lame.

so "lame" is not "right or wrong"? seems a bit disingenuous dont you think? i would consider "lame" to be a pretty negative connotation in the context you present here

but, no no no - it must be different.. especially if consider yourself to be immune to any sort of fallacy or "lameness"
36.
 
Re: No Shooting Civilians in Battlefield 3
Aug 31, 2011, 12:44
36.
Re: No Shooting Civilians in Battlefield 3 Aug 31, 2011, 12:44
Aug 31, 2011, 12:44
 
McSterls wrote on Aug 31, 2011, 12:25:
Isn't shooting civilians really a moral decision that should be left up to the player? Building a realistic shooter like BF3 appears to be means that collateral damage and friendly fire can and should happen. I'm not aiming for the civilians, but if someone takes a round so be it.

The "no russian" mission in Call of Duty was to kill civilians, that was the purpose of the mission.

Oh for sure, make no mistake they are basically imposing their morals on the player. I'm not saying that's right or wrong, its their game but the excuses the give guys are just lame.
Avatar 51617
35.
 
Re: No Shooting Civilians in Battlefield 3
Aug 31, 2011, 12:35
35.
Re: No Shooting Civilians in Battlefield 3 Aug 31, 2011, 12:35
Aug 31, 2011, 12:35
 
I'm sticking by my statement, though:

If they don't want to deliver a stiff penalty for firing on non-combatants, effectively making them into annoying CPU cycle stealling wasted eye candy/litter, why the hell are they in the game to begin with?
"Never start a fight, but always finish it."
Avatar 55075
34.
 
YOU CANT HANDLE THE TRUTH
Aug 31, 2011, 12:34
34.
YOU CANT HANDLE THE TRUTH Aug 31, 2011, 12:34
Aug 31, 2011, 12:34
 
shponglefan wrote on Aug 31, 2011, 12:29:
But it's NOT a realistic shooter. It's nowhere near close to realism.

Human society itself is nowhere close to realism. They want just enough to justify all the rest of the fake bullshit they engage in on a daily basis, in everything they do.
33.
 
Re: No Shooting Civilians in Battlefield 3
Aug 31, 2011, 12:29
33.
Re: No Shooting Civilians in Battlefield 3 Aug 31, 2011, 12:29
Aug 31, 2011, 12:29
 
McSterls wrote on Aug 31, 2011, 12:25:
Building a realistic shooter like BF3 appears to be means that collateral damage and friendly fire can and should happen.

But it's NOT a realistic shooter. It's nowhere near close to realism.
Avatar 54594
32.
 
Re: No Shooting Civilians in Battlefield 3
Aug 31, 2011, 12:26
32.
Re: No Shooting Civilians in Battlefield 3 Aug 31, 2011, 12:26
Aug 31, 2011, 12:26
 
Verno wrote on Aug 31, 2011, 12:22:
BC and BC2 had singleplayer campaigns as well. Unless you are counting them separately like I tend to

Oh, definitely counted them seperately. Their SP campaigns were the best ones of the "modern story shooters", IMO.

I was more thinking BF1942, BF:V, BF2042, BF2...

^D^
"Never start a fight, but always finish it."
Avatar 55075
31.
 
Re: No Shooting Civilians in Battlefield 3
Aug 31, 2011, 12:25
31.
Re: No Shooting Civilians in Battlefield 3 Aug 31, 2011, 12:25
Aug 31, 2011, 12:25
 
Isn't shooting civilians really a moral decision that should be left up to the player? Building a realistic shooter like BF3 appears to be means that collateral damage and friendly fire can and should happen. I'm not aiming for the civilians, but if someone takes a round so be it.

The "no russian" mission in Call of Duty was to kill civilians, that was the purpose of the mission.
Avatar 23265
30.
 
Re: No Shooting Civilians in Battlefield 3
Aug 31, 2011, 12:22
30.
Re: No Shooting Civilians in Battlefield 3 Aug 31, 2011, 12:22
Aug 31, 2011, 12:22
 
BC and BC2 had singleplayer campaigns as well. Unless you are counting them separately like I tend to
Avatar 51617
69 Replies. 4 pages. Viewing page 2.
Newer [  1  2  3  4  ] Older