DICE won't let you shoot BF3 civilians

By Robert Purchese Published 31 August, 2011

"I think people will do bad."

Battlefield 3 won't put civilians in harm's way because, DICE believes, players tend towards doing "bad things".

"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," BF3 executive producer Patrick Bach told Rock, Paper, Shotgun.

"Me personally, I'm trying to stay away from civilians in games like Battlefield because I think people will do bad.

"I don't want to see videos on the internet where people shoot civilians," he said. "That's something I will sanitise by removing that feature from the game."

Bach asked, rhetorically, what would happen in a "more authentic" war game where a player had a gun and was confronted by a child. "Well the player would probably shoot that child," he answered.

In that scenario, Bach believes DICE "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 said.

Tonally, Bach believes games are where films were in the '30s or '40s - discovering they can be political. He believes Battlefield 3 is a mature game that offers a glimpse at the perils of war. "Mature not being gore," he clarified. "That's childish actually, to want more blood."

Video games still need to "grow up a bit", and Bach believes they will as their audience - and their makers - also mature.

Modern Warfare 2 was famously lambasted by mainstream media for allowing players to gun down civilians while playing a double-agent role as a Russian terrorist. The topic was even brought up in Parliament.

Tom Bramwell flew out to DICE this week to see a brand new single-player level of Battlefield 3 on console. His new Battlefield 3 preview will be published momentarily.

Picture of Robert.

About Robert Purchese

Bertie is Eurogamer's Senior Staff Writer. When he's not hunting down news stories he's often found playing with his kids or gabbling about fantasy games and strange online worlds.

Read more articles from Robert by visiting the Robert Purchese archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (101) Latest comment 6 months ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • Silent-Hal #1 6 months ago

    Wouldn't it be better to penalise players for doing so instead - that way they'll make an effort to be less careless and it may make the game more interesting.

  • Lusterpurge #2 6 months ago

    /cancels preorder

  • kassmageant #3 6 months ago

    another shot at CoD and it's no-russian controversy? still don't see the point of it - what EA is planning to do, go to some mainstream media and say ' look, our game is good for psyche, because you kill only armed soldiers, not innocent civilians!"

    from technical point of view, making civillians not-killable is just easier to program, so they can be accused of being lazy but hiding it under mask of some kind of moral superiority : P

    EDIT:

    so i understand that all people that gave me negative comment believe that real soldiers bullets are magically not harming innocent civilians? charming : P no-russian was sick, wrong, and probably most realistic part of the game where a snow jet ski jumped a 50 m gap. cause war is dirty and ugly, i think what EA doing here is wrong cause they try to suggest that there are clean and dirty wars. if they want games to be more mature, how about implementing some age filter for online play, so i won't have to play with bunch of teenage idiots whose favourite adjective is " gay" : P
    Edited by 2 at 31/08/11 @ 14:05

  • -cerberus- #4 6 months ago

    I bet americans will have a hard time dealing with this. After all, to them shooting innocent civilians and throwing puppies off a cliff in real life has become a well-respected tradition.

  • randompanda #5 6 months ago

    I have no problem with not being able to kill civilians. Reading his excuses though, and his reasoning that all gamers would instinctively want to shoot children is bordering on offensive though, as well as stereotyping his customers.

    Combine that with his turns of phrase "because I think people will do bad." and "where they can do bad things" in the context of a video game about killing people, and I actually wonder if this guy is actually 12 years old.

  • Timotei #6 6 months ago

    "/cancels preorder"

    You sad, sad person.

  • username84 #7 6 months ago

    I think this guy has a point. Even if you disagree he puts forward a balanced argument.

  • Bradach #8 6 months ago

    @tjtj
    Seriously? I found that level uncomfortable at best. I'm not squeamish but it just wasn't fun.

  • Architect_z #9 6 months ago

    What if the civilians team up with the bad guys? Does that mean we're doomed as they cannot be killed?

  • Bennicus #10 6 months ago

    THEY AREN'T REAL PEOPLE

    (i.e. who cares what colour the polygons are that I'm "shooting" ? I've been shooting them for years and so far have managed not to murder anyone IRL.)
    Edited by 1 at 31/08/11 @ 11:34

  • MiniAmin #11 6 months ago

    This is such a missed opportunity, this could be so cathartic. Why can't we kill traffic wardens, obnoxious bus drivers and people who only remove their wallets at the very last second in shopping queues?

    Some civilians deserve to be represented as ugly pixels so we can shoot them. Make it happen!

    Edit: I'm joking - this isn't a serious post.
    Edited by 1 at 31/08/11 @ 11:51

  • geeza2020 #12 6 months ago

    "/cancels preorder"

    "You sad, sad person."


    I'm just guessing, but I think that was a joke, you sad, sad person.

  • SneakyGun #13 6 months ago

    It's perfectly fine that they don't have civilians that can be shot, but the reason they give is just stupid. Videogames don't make you do the things you do in the game. It has been proven multiple times. They don't make you lose sense of the real world morals and rules. Also why would it bother you seeing videos on the internet of fake stuff shooting other fake stuff?

  • MaFlippinHeadHurts #14 6 months ago

    Fair enough to be honest

  • M_of_the_sys #15 6 months ago

    "We have to build our experiences so we don't put the player in experiences where they can do bad things,"

    Isn't killing a bad thing in general?

  • Tomahawk #16 6 months ago

    Good for DICE taking the moral high ground here. Their game is not about killing civilians get over it.

    I always had a problem with the No Russian level, it was pointless and just for the sake of controversy and it's exactly these type of controversies that will negatively effect gaming in future.

  • cw- #17 6 months ago

    @kassmageant
    from technical point of view, making civillians not-killable is just easier to program

    Actually it's more effort, you have to add a variable to differentiate between killable and non-killable NPC's, where as if everything is killable, you only have to create the different models and death animations (no extra work between soldiers/ civis)

  • jetsetwillie #18 6 months ago

    this is one of those things where if they had not said anything nobody would of notice. but now of course the internet has to act like its a big deal and something to get worked up about and bitch like a girl over.

  • Bradach #19 6 months ago

    @tjtj
    But why did you find it the most fun you had? or was that comment just to provoke a response so you could actually make your point?

  • schnide #20 6 months ago

    I imagine the majority of the EG comment crowd will cry "but it's not fair, let me choose!" but think of it from the developer's point of view - they choose what goes into the game. They design every single aspect. How do you think they'd feel putting civilians in and having to work on death animations for (albeit digital) innocents? Making sure that NPC's limbs came off right? Knowing that people might enjoy that? And if, heaven forbid, it did later come out that some whackjob used it as A KILLING TRAINING SIMULATOR (copyright Daily Mail) even if we all know that invidividual was already sick in the head long before BF3 came out?

    I'm surprised by my own take on it, but I sympathise. If you need to kill NPCs in a game to enjoy it, there might be something a bit wrong with you.

  • FogHeart #21 6 months ago

    "Kids, don't kill civilians in video games because that's bad, m'kay. And if you do it that means you're bad. It's a bad thing to shoot civilians, m'kay, so don't do it, because that would be bad..."

  • revan8 #22 6 months ago

    Pathetic comment. I generally play a good character, mass effect, deus ex, dragon age etc etc. Deus ex hardly killed anyone and helped most bystanders.

  • AHiFi #23 6 months ago

    Everyone seems to be talking as if the civilians are indestructible, but, correct me if I'm wrong, is he not saying that civilians have been completely removed from the game?

  • jablonski #24 6 months ago

    Good one him.

    Seems he totally understands his audience - morals-free teenagers in the most part.

  • FireMonkey #25 6 months ago

    @Kassmageant - "from technical point of view, making civillians not-killable is just easier to program"

    Flawed logic. When everyone else in the game is killable how exactly is it easier to make some characters not killable? It is less lines of code and therefore easier to allow everyone to be killed.

    Damn cw- got there first.
    Edited by 1 at 31/08/11 @ 12:22

  • George-Roper #26 6 months ago

    @tjtj

    Why is it okay to kill innocent people in GTA but not CoD?

    Cus dey is gangsta, innit!
    Edited by 1 at 31/08/11 @ 11:48

  • the_dudefather #27 6 months ago

    no problem, it's more fun to stab them

    KIDS, KNIFE CRIME ISN'T COOL

  • telboy007 #28 6 months ago

    I went through the entire no russians level shooting over civilians heads, I just couldn't do it. Even if it is just a game. O_o

  • supanova #29 6 months ago

    I'd like to see a feature where if you were to shoot civilians, then you lose gamer points/trophies - cause and effect. games could have consequences..

    Perhaps link it to Facebook as a civilian killer... or not if you choose not to go down this path.

    war is not so black and white, civilians do get killed, if you knew that a building had civilians and enemies sheltering in there, would you quicky call in air/artillery strike or reconsider your tactics knowing that there would be collateral damage in a strike and you'd lose gamer points/trophies if civilians were also killed...
    Edited by 2 at 31/08/11 @ 11:59

  • CaptainKid #30 6 months ago

    Bad things?
    Dice to blame?

    We are still talking about a videogame right?

  • Bravestinsane #31 6 months ago

    Why not add punishment to it,

    Was talking about it with my friend actually where you could choose where to drop into the city, choose where to put the missile strikes and you were rewarded for causing few - none civilian casualties and severly punished for fucking up and causing loads.

    I don't think Gore is "childish" as he puts it, i love gore, i love killing people in games, yet im 21 and have never got into a fight in my life, its stupid and childish im old enough to distinguish between fantasy and reality, i will shoot someone in the face watch his blood splatter all over the place and laugh casually as it happens in a game. In real life i wouldn't dream about punching someone in the face let alone shooting them.

    Personally i think a urbanised "busy" city looks bland and bare where the only people running around are soldiers, and no civilians.

    They wan't this to be realistic and represent current affairs, well news flash, US and UK forces bomb cities and have killed hundreds of civilians who were caught in the cross fire, put it in the game and frown upon it, show that its bad.

    Stop trying to glorify war with soldiers killing soldiers, show the other side, of innocent people dying, getting killed, blown up, make it sad, make it so the audience feels for these people and wan'ts to help save them.

    17/60

  • Bigglesworth #32 6 months ago

    This is a cop-out. People have forgotten that games are a form of escapism, the modern-day equivalent of playing Cops&Robbers and shooting your friends with your fingers.

    That said, he has a valid concern: if they allowed people to should civilians without consequence then yes, they probably would be blamed for it.

    The important thing though is "without consequence", and this is why their decision is a cop-out. If you want to deal with this problem, deal with it properly. If the player starts shooting civilians, then he gets arrested or shot by his teammates: game over. The player will soon learn.

    Assassins Creed handled this with desynchronisation I believe. Kill two or three civs and hey presto, game over. So I understand, anyway; I never killed enough civilians to find out.

  • Captain_Jono #33 6 months ago

    I respect his reasons. EA doesn’t want any more moral outrage (apart from the carefully choreographed moral outrage produced by their PR machine).

    But doesn’t that make Battlefield 3 an artistic relic right from the get go? Modern warfare (the thing, not the franchise) is all about asymmetrical conflicts with enemies hidden within the general population (Iraq, Afghanistan). Take civilians out of the equation and you’re not making a game about war anymore, You’re making a game of cops n’ robbers. Presenting the conflicts of today as a fight of goodies versus baddies without anyone else getting caught in the crossfire; is that really any less morally bankrupt than allowing players to open up on a crowd of civilians?

  • kangarootoo #34 6 months ago

    "from technical point of view, making civillians not-killable is just easier to program"


    Pardon?

  • FogHeart #35 6 months ago

    I think you should be able to kill a civilian, but as soon as you do, the screen fades to black, and you come back in a quiet jail cell and you can't quit the game for a few minutes. The gaming equivalent of the naughty step.

    Do it too many times and you end up sharing with a huge bull of a man who, in a surprisingly gentle, lisping voice, tells you to take your pants down. The screen goes black and white and grainy.

  • Ikaros_O #36 6 months ago

    Aw he knows us too well :)

  • FireMonkey #37 6 months ago

    @tjtj - "Why is it okay to kill innocent people in GTA but not CoD?"

    Is it not true that in GTA if you 'kill' any civilian in GTA and at some point they will be rescued by an ambulance and revived? If so you never killed them just really badly wounded them.

  • TeeHee #38 6 months ago

    so no accurate portrayal of the US marines then? *hides*

  • Bluetooth #39 6 months ago

    Fact: in every war since the dawn of time, more civilians/non-combatants have been killed than soldiers/combatants.

  • Freek #40 6 months ago

    I think GT4 proves him wrong. The discussion about that game often went in the direction of "becuase the world and characters are so believable it feels wrong to go on a rampage, that isn't fun anymore".
    In cartoony GTA and Saints Row going crazy is cool, because it's a fake world. But as games are getting more real, so does your reaction to them.

    "No russian" diden't work becuase CoD has become a silly cartoon over the top game. But a well realized believable world with in game consequences to "friendly fire" and colatoral damage is interesting. And the Battelfield singeplayer campaign could be a place to explore those themes.

  • Spong #41 6 months ago

    What a crock of shit. Are we entering a nanny state for gaming or what?

    For a start, he's still glorifying murder, implying by omission that killing 'the bad guy' is morally correct.

    Secondly, as Bennicus nailed in caps-lock, they're not real people, it's a bloody game. It's about escapism, it's about being able to do the shit you know you can't do in real life. On that basis, I'm not surprised that, when given the choice, most people would blow away the innocent civilian. It's a guilty pleasure we all have for the kind of reasons that MiniAmin stated (even though he/she claims their post was a joke).

  • kangarootoo #42 6 months ago

    I'm surprised this is such a big deal for everyone. Its hardly a core mechanic.

    As for all the talk about penalising shooting civilians, or other such gameplay mechanics, there is hardly a compelling case for a developer to devote time and money to such things. This is a military shooter, not some "moral compass development suite". I think the devs of BF3 have enough demands on their time without having to spend manhours catering for people wanting to shoot civilians (people that for the most part won't even notice or care in the end anyway).

    The discussion seems to have turned into one about which games successfully implement the shooting of civilians in a tasteful way, and which don't... but isn't that somewhat missing the point.

  • FireMonkey #43 6 months ago

    @Kangarootoo - "I'm surprised this is such a big deal for everyone. Its hardly a core mechanic."

    Me too. Most games don't allow you to shoot the civilians, so why this being no different would cause so many people to get worked up is odd. I bet if DICE never mentioned it then no one would have complained.

  • kangarootoo #44 6 months ago

    I wonder if stating that players won't be able to bake cakes would get the same response? A thread about how "cooking mama managed it, so BF3 devs are just lazy".

  • bad09 #45 6 months ago

    It's no big deal but this guy seems to make a bigger issue of it that there really is, guess we have the daily mail crew to thank for that.

    Don't know why people are marking tjtj down, "No Russian" was wicked fun in MW2, I like it when they try to run and you catch their leg then finish 'em off! :)

    Just as running people over or beating them to death is fun in GTA, just as slapping Mudokens to the ground is fun in Oddworld, just as beating up a kid in a lower year is fun in Bully, just like knifing that annoying begger in AC is fun, etc, etc...

    It's naughty but it's nice...and more importantly it's not real!

    / twitches, polishes gun

    Edited by 2 at 31/08/11 @ 12:58

  • Seoh #46 6 months ago

    But isn't the enemy in this game some sort of Terrorist group and they are civilians. Civilian casualties are an eventuality in warfare to remove that aspect means you're rose tinting the reality of front line fighting.

    At least there is a shred of honesty here where he talks about not wanting to see it on you tube but i suspect its out of legal more than ethical ramifications.

  • fkh #47 6 months ago

    Isn`t part of the appeal of playing games that you can do things there that you wouldn`t do in real life?
    To censor the gameplayers behavior based on majority morals does not sound much like a free society.
    Edited by 2 at 31/08/11 @ 13:08

  • DrStrangelove #48 6 months ago

    They obviously (and understandably) want to avoid bad publicity of the sort that MW2 got. Also, the ability to shoot unarmed civilians is not helpful at getting a favourable age rating for your game.

    I have no problem with that. I'm not usually averse to over-the-top violence, but I found MW2's choice to seek enjoyment in a stage where hundreds of civilians get massacred by terrorists (and you're free to join the "party";) rather tasteless, to be honest. Even more so given the massive mainstream spread of this game. You can't tell me it wasn't meant to be fun, otherwise they wouldn't have put it in.

    Patrick Bach's clumsy choice of words may anger some people, but I think in principle he's right.

  • CARL05 #49 6 months ago

    "if you knew that a building had civilians and enemies sheltering in there, would you quicky call in air/artillery strike or reconsider your tactics knowing that there would be collateral damage in a strike and you'd lose gamer points/trophies if civilians were also killed... "

    Well, American military do most of the time.

  • Pehmu #50 6 months ago

    I really couldn't care less. Even if I was allowed to slaughter unarmed civilians in BF3, I wouldn't do so because I simply can't come up with a single motive to do so. I never even bother to find out whether I could kill civilians in games.
    "For fun" isn't enough for me. For some people going postal in GTA and creating massive chaos is good entertainment they could do for hours. I can do mindless killing for only about 30 seconds, then it gets boring.

  • tankboi #51 6 months ago

    It would have created a much more interesting experience if they had included civilians but your avatar lowered his gun if pointing at them. This way, if your in a firefight and a civi is between you and the enemy then you would have to position yourself in a way that could fire around the civi...or even save the civi as the enemy probably won't give a hoot and shoot anywhere, so you would have to draw their fire.

    I am talking about SP btw, although if they have counter-insurgency modes in MP then it could be a very interesting mechanic. Hostage taking could complicate matters further! I want more things in my shooters to think about, rather than shoot first, ask questions later.

    Damn you Deus Ex for making most other gaming experiences shallow and meaningless!

  • tankboi #52 6 months ago

    and what's the bet that Activision are quickly finding a way to include civilians in COD as we speak?

  • mattk84 #53 6 months ago

    Seeing as they pushing for realism with BF3 this seems an odd choice. Why not simply remedy it by making it a 'game over' scenario so that you have to start again?

    I can kinda understand why he has taken this decision. I saw a very one-sided debate on TV once talking about GTA and when the scenarios are described I can see that they would sound horrible to a non-gamer.

  • kassmageant #54 6 months ago

    @ cw-

    hm, good point, but we don't know just how exactly they're going to implement this civilian immunity - it might lead to stupid-looking situations, like blowing a rocket next to them, and they will just don't give a fuck : ) - in game as pretty as this one, it will be painful to swallow

  • Bullet_Tunnel #55 6 months ago

    in games i always do the "good thing", eg fallout, never killed anyone who didnt shoot first, as its usually not fun for me. However, if in real life, if there was no fear of prison, i would be wasting media brainwashed, authority dependant sheeple left and right. Killings not a bad thing, it just depends on who you kill and how. ;) and the only difference between terrorism and war, is that war has "offical"paperwork to back it up and make it "legal". and one persons freedom fighter is ALWAYS another persons terrorist.

    read up on world history, instead of masturbating over katy perry of femshep.. fuckwits
    Edited by 1 at 31/08/11 @ 14:43

  • Talk_Show_Host #56 6 months ago

    What a bunch of shit. Yeah, we can't let players run amok because we are doing a game that is politically correct. You know, the kind of a game where a declinining super power invades other countries and kills everyone in order to save it's economy.

    Yeah, that's an ethical, family game.

    Developers should keep their mouths shut when talking about things like that.

    Now I won't buy your game you hypocrites.
    Edited by 1 at 31/08/11 @ 13:48

  • dfunked #57 6 months ago

    "We have to build our experiences so we don't put the player in experiences where they can do bad things," he said.

    Last time I checked my moral compass, murdering ANYBODY was a pretty bad thing to do, and you've gone and built a game around doing exactly that...
    Edited by 1 at 31/08/11 @ 13:51

  • Zyklonbzombie #58 6 months ago

    I wouldn't have given it a second's thought if they didn't mention it. I find some of the accusations a little insulting though - would "probably shoot the child"?

    The game is a mildly jingoistic military shooter in which you repeatedly shoot brown people. And as fun as it'll be nonetheless, it doesn't sit comfortably to claim that this core element of the game is somehow 'moral' in contrast to gamers just pissing about shooting everything. Games like Postal (as an extreme example) are tasteless, but due to the sheer indiscrimination of the violence,they never 'condone' it. DICE are essentially taking it upon themselves to say "violence is bad ....unless it's against this type of person". As vile and nationalistic as the CoD franchise is, at least they occasionally point out that war is actually a bit shit, for everyone.

  • kangarootoo #59 6 months ago

    "Yeah but non-gamers have no point of reference and therefore no right to talk about it as far as I'm concerned"

    What does that even mean? What does it mean? "You don't play games so you don't understand why shooting kids is funny"?

    I'm not saying ban this sick filth. I honestly don't much care if BF3 lets you shoot civilians or not, but lets at least try and think stuff through before we say it. If only to keep up appearances.

    This whole "you aren't a gamer so you don't understand" thing is completely and utterly meaningless. Its a massive diversion technique that some gamers use to defend their hobby against constructive critisism. Its not defending games by stating why they are legitimately doing XYZ, but instead it is attacking the authority of the critic to speak. Classic ad hominem, and the enemy of intelligent discussion.

    If the best defense we cam muster for gaming is a different flavour of "shut up, thats why", we are fucked.

  • FireMonkey #60 6 months ago

    @Zyklonbzombie
    Don't blow things out of proportion. In wars people fight against other people so in a war game you have to fight against other people too. Someone will always get offended.

  • Bullet_Tunnel #61 6 months ago

    @tjtj, lol...i do jest, but to me it raises lots of ineresting questions about life/death and he taking thereof....To me its all down to "Good and Evil", and even that is subjective, depending on which side your on.. but i have one thing to ask...

    To all the "killing is bad" crowd...Just a question, if you stumbled upon a peadophile raping a child, yours or anyones, would it be a bad thing to murder him/her on the spot?, and who says its bad?, the government?(do what they like regardless, kill left and right, even their own slaves-and see your life as a number to add to their own gain). god?(if he does exist, in whatever form we decide at the time-according to race-who has had more people die in his name, and who the population in the west, as a vast majority, dont follow the rules set by him anymore, therefore-adhering to the "though shall not kill" is a bit bullshit. or from a self formed belief from within your heart/soul-which will be dependent on life experience, level of intellect, and exposure to media propagana. And is your decision based on fear of losing your own freedom, your access to heaven being denied, or the fact you cannot make decisions without some outside influence-like Heat magazine?
    This is not posed as a question trying to offend, i just want to see how intelligent peeps are, or are they just doing what they think is right because of years of being told what is right by corrupt people with hidden agendas, or the fear that an invisible man wont let you finger holly valance for eternity when you die.
    Edited by 1 at 31/08/11 @ 15:02

  • metalangel #62 6 months ago

    ArmA lets you shoot civilians. You really don't want to in the context of the story (esp. in Takistan, as it will turn local militia groups against you) and from a gameplay perspective it's DULL.

  • geeza2020 #63 6 months ago

    bullet_tunnel - the fact that you think ANYBODY takes serious life lessons from the media in any form (HEAT magazine being the example you gave), tells me that you are probably quite young and angry about the world being unfair and not being able to do what you want. Sorry, life's hard, its not fair, but thats the way it is. Get over it.

  • intpleeus #64 6 months ago

    Wait, what? How do we know the civilians are innocent? I mean, what are they doing in a warzone in the first place? Perhaps they are spies trying to pass for civilians. I say, "shoot first, and ask questions later."

    More seriously, it seems difficult to do an intelligent and mature war game that doesn't involve "collateral damage." If one cannot even accidently kill innocent civilians, then it would be like the shoot-outs in The A-Team where nobody ever gets shot. Sure, the game may still be good fun, but would it be a serious and intelligent take on war? Probably not so much, since the deaths of innocent bystanders is a not too small part of what happens in major wars and a reason to abhor them.

    Perhaps DICE might find a middle-ground: do not let the player kill innocent civilians directly, but at least make it possible for innocent people to die as a consequence of the player's decisions.
    Edited by 1 at 31/08/11 @ 15:01

  • Kaonazhie #65 6 months ago

    Yeah these endless ALPHA TANGO CHARLIE DELTA SHOOT THAT HOSTILE BRAVO BRAVO games aren't childish at all - they are the perfect way to advance video games as an artistic medium(!) Battlefield 3 is totally a unique take on war games and not just EA desperately trying to get some of the bloated COD pie. (Yes I know Medal of Honour and BF are older than COD.)

    This guy sounds like a pretentious goubemouche. I'll stick with my super violent/bloody games such as Gears of War and Ninja Gaiden, thanks.
    Edited by 1 at 31/08/11 @ 15:10

  • Bigglesworth #66 6 months ago

    @Bullet_Tunnel
    This is a very naive outlook. The simple fact is that we are all members of a civilised society (yes, we really are), and as such its unlawful to kill except under clearly prescribed conditions.

  • kangarootoo #67 6 months ago

    @tjtj

    Ok, several points.

    "I would never get into a debate about Marquis de Sade because I've never read his stuff"

    That is no reason not to get into a debate. The first thing you can do upon joining the debate is ask questions, and hope you aren't greeted by the same "no right to talk, fuck off as far as I'm concerned" response you levelled.

    Second, subjected aren't divided into clear sections. You don't have to play games to understand many of the issues raised in them (are films, books, games and stage plays all so different that the subjects explored within them cannot be discussed collectively?).

    The idea that only a gamer can understand what I shall for the sake of argument call "killing of innocents" in a video game, and only a film buff can understand the "killing the innocents" in a film, and only a board game fanatic can understand "killing of innocents in a board game" is surely obviously guff. We aren't talking about a physics simiulation game here, where only the initiated can embrace even the basic concepts.

    Thirdsly, the principal I made about ad hominem stands regardless. If someone asks us to justify violence in games, we should be able to justify it one way or another. Their initial understanding isn't relevant, if we present a clear case in support, as in presenting that case we improve their understanding. To say "you don't understand so I'm not going to tell you (besides clearly being a ludicrous standpoint) does one thing more effectively than anything else - it tells the outside audience "this person clearly doesn't feel able to justify or defend that video game, and if they feel it is indefensible there is no reason why I shouldn't continue to think so".


    Of course there are ignorant idiots out there dismissing games without doing their homework, but when faced with stupidity the very last thing we should do is seize the excuse to join it. Be better.
    Edited by 1 at 31/08/11 @ 15:12

  • mAc062 #68 6 months ago

    Kill em all let god sort em out :p

  • DAN.E.B #69 6 months ago

    Sounds like an excuse to have baron emty streets
    Much easier to code and moral high ground too win win
    tho I did think the COD level was morally wrong in every way
    like its been said already have punishments for civilian casulties keep it gritty and realistic not an other generic shoot anything that moves affair.

  • Bigglesworth #70 6 months ago

    @tjtj
    Only so far as you accept the validity of international law =)

  • danidrums #71 6 months ago

    AL Gore is "childish"??

  • Bigglesworth #72 6 months ago

    @tjtj
    Which is all well and good, but the law's the law.

  • intpleeus #73 6 months ago

    The real issue here is that some people, when given the option of killing innocent civilians, will choose to do so. They will not do this because of some utilitarian calculation about saving more lives in the long run, but because they are indulging a psychotic impulse -- they just get a kick out of abusing power. I am not talking about videogames here; this is what happens in real life.

    There are people who will behave similarly in videogames, and other people find that disturbing. The game is not "supposed" to be enjoyed in that way. People want to prevent others enjoying things like that. A movie can unambiguously portray such behaviour as despicable, heinous, and evil through the use of standard directorial techniques. A videogame, on the other hand, is far less scripted. The only full-proof way to prevent people enjoying a game in this objectionable way is to rig it so that such acts are impossible within the game. That may detract from the game for everyone else, but a lot of people seem to think the trade-off is worth it.

    As a solution to the problem, it's a bit like banning alcohol to prevent drink-driving.

  • Zyklonbzombie #74 6 months ago

    @Bullet_Tunnel: I'd go as far as to say all non consensual killing is bad. Even in cases where it's unavoidable (i.e. reasonably proportional self defence), it's not "good", merely a tragic necessity. I'm always puzzled by the notion that retribution is a reason to kill someone. By it being retributive, you are, by definition, doing it for the sense of satisfaction - which puts you morally in the same sphere as anyone else who kills for that reason. So if someone walked in on a child molester and killed them without a rational excuse (i.e. they made a life threatening attack), then they are simply a murderer.

    Obviously artists can make whatever moral statements they want, and perhaps DICE aren't deliberately making one at all. Making this distinction, for the reasons quoted in the article, simply doesn't resonate with my values regarding human life. I'll still buy the game, and I'll still enjoy it. It's not a big deal, just an interesting discussion.

  • intpleeus #75 6 months ago

    Most of the reasons people give for opposing games that allow one to kill innocent civilians and pedestrians (e.g. turns people into violent psychotic killing-machines) are just rationalisations. I think they're mostly bullshit. People object to these games because on a gut level, they instinctively dislike the idea that some people will get a kick out of killing virtual innocents. They just find that disturbing and "know" that something must be done to stop it. Moreover, since they do not play games themselves, they do not suffer any of the downsides to such prohibitions.
    Edited by 1 at 31/08/11 @ 15:41

  • geeza2020 #76 6 months ago

    What system would that be then? None that I've ever been a part of thats for sure.

  • kangarootoo #77 6 months ago

    @tjtj

    Absolutely. The lack of WILL to discuss something rationally doesn't mean the ABILITY isn't there. Of course, news channels (channel in the widest sense) are at heart selling a product and they can't do that if they don't keep peoples' attention. Balanced debate can be pretty dry for spectators, so they go for drama and conflict, and a few lies, diversions or misrepresentations won't get in the way of a good headline.

    Which unfortunately brings us to one of my modern dislikes - the idea that a balanced debate is two opposite but equally uninformed viewpoints battling it out. Balanced in the sense that a seesaw is balanced if you saw it in half.


    Anyway, I can completely understand why DICE are taking this route. They are making an entertainment product, and they don't want to risk bad publicity. Its their investment, their risk, their profit margins. They don't owe it to us to make their game a certain way. Companies make decisions like that every day - just because sometimes we agree with the decision doesn't mean the thinking behind it was any more altruistic. ANd in the end, it really won't matter to players of BF3 (not that we shouldn't discuss it, as we have been doing - its what these pages are for :) ).

  • geeza2020 #78 6 months ago

    Welcome to the human race :)

    And I wouldnt say locking up a murderer is a "wrong", the whole point of having a penal system without the death penalty (like we have here in the UK) is that we arent lowering ourselves to the level of murderers by killing people who kill others. The US is a whole different can of worms that I wont go into here.
    Edited by 1 at 31/08/11 @ 16:10

  • metalangel #79 6 months ago

    DICE had no problem with you playing a wanted criminal who shot and/or beat the crap out of cops in Mirror's Edge. Oh, but they were cops for an evil regime!

    So can we have evil children and it'll be okay to kill them?

  • dirtysteve #80 6 months ago

    And it's still veiled and not-so-veiled shots at COD.

  • Bullet_Tunnel #81 6 months ago

    nice bit of debate thanks, by the by, geezer 2020as an ex soldier, who has killed on command, and killed innocent people as a result, i think i can think a bit deeper than an emo kid sorry.

  • anomagnus #82 6 months ago

    More people have died as a result of politics and economics than religion.

    The total death count, if you include disease and poverty from WW1 and 2 was 121 million.

    Some 23 million died directly or indirectly under stalin as part of his cosolidation of power

    Under Mao Ze-Dong, anything up to close to 80 MILLION people were killed or died as a result of the policies enacted

    Pol Pot 1.7 million

    Kim Il Sung 1.6 million

    These are just some of the top of my head. I haven't even mentioned the horror that is africa.

    In short guys, its not religion thats killing people. Its civilization thats killing in numbers that would have beggered belief even 150 years ago.

  • geeza2020 #83 6 months ago

    bullet_tunnel - I wouldnt survive in the military, I dont like being shouted at by sexually repressed killers :p

    But sorry if I caused offence, you just sounded a lot like I did when I was about 19/20, pissed off that the system allows for all the horrors in the world to carry on, while people in the West gorge themselves on celebrity lifestyles and fast food and soulless corporate rubbish. Then I realised that it was pointless to worry about such things, as I cant even begin to affect the way the large corporations run their businesses, and I also cant change the way people want to live their lives, and if it makes them happy to watch dancing on ice, and read about Geordie Shore or The only way is Essex - as long as they arent directly and knowingly harming anyone else, whats the problem? Go out, get laid, forget about other peoples idiocy and enjoy your life. I was pretty miserable until I realised that. Sorry to condescend, you're probably in your 30's lol :D

  • Zyklonbzombie #84 6 months ago

    @geeza: Ideally, offenders would be locked up, if one can reasonably presume they are a danger to society or themselves, and let out when (and if) one can reasonably presume they're no greater risk to the public than your average citizen. No sooner, no later.

    The current system involves locking offenders up for a set amount of time, in shit conditions (a playstation and access to mars bars does not equal living like royalty, by the by) until society has deemed them to have suffered enough to "pay" for what they did. It's a bizarre currency of suffering, which pretty much undermines any effective ways to study, understand, and prevent crime. Thankfully, the justice system is slowly becoming more rational (the Scandanavians are certainly heading in the right direction), and reoffending - and crime itself - is pretty consistently declining, despite what Sky News and the Daily Mail would like you to believe.

  • Averice #85 6 months ago

    BF3 - so realistic it's politically correct!

  • ISmoke #86 6 months ago

    So let me get this straight; We play as American soldiers yet we can't do friendly fire OR shoot civilians?

    And here I was thinking that dice were going for the realistic approach.

  • kongzi #87 6 months ago

    personally I don't really believe anyone is served by games steering away from that kind of stuff, but I've never been the sqeamish type. The issue I have with military shooters is exactly that it's all faceless military gung ho shit, that's gonna give kids a very skewed perspective on wars..seeing only the cool stuff and bromance. I'd like to see a game that makes you deal with the real consequences of war one day. That would make a lot of kids reconsider their fetish for anything military. But Bach's saying that games are where movies were in the 30's is right on the money in that regard.

    edit: which is another way of saying that he is the modern day Lenie Riefenstahl in a sense.
    Edited by 1 at 31/08/11 @ 17:22

  • metalangel #88 6 months ago

    @kongzi: heard the latest TA radio ads? A breathless soldier describes all the cool training and activities they're doing. The voice then changes and says they're actually an actor, the real soldier is too busy "hanging out with their mates" and "putting what they've learned to use". Same as games, a skewed view of what being a soldier involves.

  • spamjavelins #89 6 months ago

    Big woop. Don't read into it too much, or you'll sound like an arse....oops too late! My god, how can people get wound up about such an inconsequential part of an otherwise excellent looking game?

  • Zyklonbzombie #90 6 months ago

    Don't dismiss a perfectly civil, unheated discussion as people getting "wound up", simply because it doesn't bother you personally, or you'll look like an even bigger arse ...oops!

  • 32768Colours #91 6 months ago

    Whilst I don't have a problem with what he's saying in essence - because they would be held accountable for repercussions, I do take exception to the notion that I would gleefully shoot every last civilian that crossed my path.

    I've played enough games where you're offered a moral choice to know that I frequently take the more righteous path than simply going on a killing spree. But then I know a lot of people don't think that way.

    Some games - like inFamous or Fallout for example - offer different story paths for being bad or good, but in a real world setting that kind of branching could be considered highly inappropriate.

    Perhaps then, rather than avoid the killing of civilans, there could two options in a game. One, where civilians are invincible and another "simulation" mode where the genuine ramifications for shooting innocents could be portrayed; the player character facing an abrupt and unceremonious court-martial rather than the actual game ending? At least then there would be no glorification of senseless killing and games may actually take a step closer to reflecting real life.

  • irrelevanthuman #92 6 months ago

    Umm, its not real, is there anything else to say?

  • RSene #93 6 months ago

    Oh thanks, God! Looks like at least someone on the industry keeps the good will and the good sense...
    I'm totally agreed with you...

  • TetsuZaemon #94 6 months ago

    I can't add anything which hasn't already been said.

  • HiredGoonage #95 6 months ago

    The Modern Warfare episode was indeed uncomfortable, and I've been gaming since the 70's. It wasn't fun at all.

    It's patronizing and political to assume people would shoot in-game civilians, but in my opinion, likely an accurate assessment. A certain percentage of the gaming population will want extreme gore/violence - where do you, as a developer, draw the line? I'm in favour of the devs taking some responsibility.

  • HugePS3Fan #96 6 months ago

    @ Cerberus

    "I bet americans will have a hard time dealing with this. After all, to them shooting innocent civilians and throwing puppies off a cliff in real life has become a well-respected tradition."

    ...seriously? 37 people +1'd this?

  • sourc0r #97 6 months ago

    why not build in some kind of body count: if the play kills more than 3 civilians it's game over. i mean, cod used to apply this in a similar way to prevent too much friendly fire. taking them out completely seems a bit of a rather radical move.

    and no, i generally don't do bad things in video games.

  • ShiroBen #98 6 months ago

    I'm a total goody-good, in real life and in games, but in this case ... I don't know, does it mean that there just won't be any civilians in the game, or that they'll be invincible, or your gun won't fire when it's pointed at them, or what? Probably the best thing would've been to just keep quiet about the whole deal. Now it has become a Thing.

  • mixpython #99 6 months ago

    Could they not have given a bit more depth to the civilians back grounds, and just said that all the civilians walking around were rapist and pedophiles, Because surely they are more worthy / deserving of a cruel and violent death then 99% of soldiers that arent also rapists or pedophiles too. Therefor removing the "moral responsibility" from slaughtering these walking polygons! :b

  • Kikizosan #100 6 months ago

    ""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," BF3 executive producer Patrick Bach told Rock, Paper, Shotgun."

    Tell that to everyone complaining that you have to kill the bosses in the new Deus Ex, when they've made pains to not kill any other NPC in the game. He's seriously underestimating gamers here. Generalising about player types is just not a good idea. Taking choice away from players is a bad thing.

    Surely, it adds to the game's immersion if you can choose to kill anyone, just as it would add immersion if you were arrested by MPs, received a dishonourable discharge and got locked up for war crimes. I guess since it'd be a waste of dev time doing the latter, it's just easier to disallow the former (but a simple mission failed for killing virtual innocents could solve that).

    This smacks of mollycoddling and just trying to avoid potential bad publicity, when he should be focussed on making his game as good as it can be. Being able to shoot civilians does not inherently make the game better, but giving the player more freedoms and more choice, and showing appropriate consequences for their actions, will increase the immersion the game can create, and prove to be a better game in the long run.

  • Kikizosan #101 6 months ago

    @Bradach: "Seriously? I found that level uncomfortable at best. I'm not squeamish but it just wasn't fun."

    Er, it wasn't meant to be fun. It was meant to make you think and feel something. Sure, it was ham-fisted, but the fact that it made you feel squeamish means it did what it was designed to do.