No Civilians Will Die in Battlefield 3

[kouriichi]

"I think everyone will shoot civilians, so instead of taking the high road, and making there be consequences, which would be expensive and time consuming, were going to go the cheap and easy road and remove civilians all together."

Basically, hes trying to take the moral high ground, by pretending that there are no civilian casualties in war, and that ignoring the issue makes them better then Activision.

Honestly, this makes me think they currently fear losing the pissing contest.

 

[kurupt87]

What's mature is not glossing over issues of reality because some people might be offended, ya fucking moron. Of course it comes at no surprise that this is a producer speaking, who basically has nothing to do with the creative part of making games.

In the meantime, DICE's decision is something definitive and progressive, and makes an interesting contribution to the debate over the place of real-world morality in war games.

I don't understand. How is this progressive?

This is caving to the most idiotic form of outrage out there, and this heavily mirrors what happened with Bioware and their handling of sex.

...multiplied by...

So instead of being progressive and making the player choose to practice caution with repercussions while engaging the enemies in a area with civilians.

They remove all the civilians and let you go bullet and grenade crazy.

Not like trying to capture the stress of combat where you wouldn't know who your enemy is and who is a civilian.

Maybe shooters where everyone is your enemy is too generic these days.

Twats in suits will be twats in suits.

I also think @xitel hit the nail on the head with his/her comment on the EA vs Acti mudslinging contest going on.

 

[EvilestDeath]

They do know that this will encourage people like me to want to modify the game just to get videos of us killing civilians right? Oh believe me, if nobody else will (Pssshhh I bet a lot will) I will. Oh and increase the gore.

Next step will be to make Battlefield 4 even more realistic and sympathetic where after the war your character will have to go through 8 levels of recovery in a mental ward suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and delusions of all the people he killed that were being used as puppets while there country refused to make peace by using words instead of humans as toys in their arguments.

Who else is looking forward to Battlefield 4? I hear they will be using the new FrostBite engine to show off the details in the lighting effects in the dark room when the main character returns home and late at night beats his wife to death in a severe case of domestic abuse after she "accidentally" spoke of the teenage boy he had to kill in the war. It will be so realistic!

 

[Xan Krieger]

Remove something the players want to kill? Next thing you know he'll remove other players so there is no violence because he clearly thinks violence is bad.

 

[Shadow-Phoenix]

So instead of being progressive and making the player choose to practice caution with repercussions while engaging the enemies in a area with civilians.

They remove all the civilians and let you go bullet and grenade crazy.

Not like trying to capture the stress of combat where you wouldn't know who your enemy is and who is a civilian.

Maybe shooters where everyone is your enemy is too generic these days.

Not only just that they have effectively taken out the reality of the game by having those civilians removed there is no negative repercussion within the game for you to see where you went wrong.

It's easy not to shoot civilians in most games unless going gun toting crazy is your idea of a route to victory but i like having them there to make me think the situation over twice and it gives off a realistic feeling within the game that i must kill my targets without harming the virtual civilians.

By taking them out of the game completely a portion of that realism is also taken out of the game itself.

 

[archvile93]

I like this choice, because I believe the producer is right: most people would happily gun down civilians if given the chance because, "Hey, it's just a game." And don't tell me they won't. When talking to my friends about shooters and RPGs and the decisions they made, I'm sometimes shocked that they choose the options they do. "It's just a game man," is the defense they always give me.

Besides, it's not like there were any civilians in player-controlled areas in other popular shooters (save "No Russian") and they did just fine. I don't understand why this is such a deal breaker for so many people. Do you get upset when you can't kill children either?

So, what exactly is wrong with gunning down defensless people that don't exist? I've been doing this in other games pretty much my entire life and have yet to go on a homicidal rampage. I guess I'm just weird like that. Second, Battlefield games never had civilians before (due to being pretty much all multiplayer and plotless), so why bring it up now? It just seems like a spineless company trying to please the moral guardians who would never buy it anyway, at the cost of the game quality. I can't help but feel this guy is essentially saying, "You horrible, murderous, psycho gamers can't be trusted not to enjoy hurting things that don't even exist, much less feel and think, so we'll remove them so you don't get ideas, you psychos."

 

[Zeekar]

This is kind of silly, but I don't really care?

I do sort of find it questionable that he in essence said that anyone who would think it was fun to gun down the civilians was immature/bad. It's a game -- It's not a developers job to shove their morality down our throats. Statements made in a subtle way, non-destructive to immersion are always better than something like this.

That said, Bad Company had a whopping 0 civilians in it's single player campaign, so why was this statement even necessary? Were we expecting to have civilians to shoot?

If Battlefield 2 had this, do tell. I only ever played Bad Company, so I'm not familiar with the rest of the franchise.

Edit: It's a good thing every video of BF3 I see makes me want to jump out my window and fly around the world so fas that time speeds forward somehow, because every word of news that comes out about it is something negative.

To EA and Dice: Shut the hell up and let the vision of your outstanding game stand on it's own. Dogfights in jets, man!

 

[Corporal Yakob]

The city enviroments are going to be very weird, populated entirely by soldiers and nothing else. I'm not saying you should make a civilian massacare game but civilian casualties are simply a fact of war, always have been and always will be (unless some sort of super advanced targeting technology is developed in the future and even then....).

 

[hawkeye52]

Isn't this just following their standard advertising campaign of demonising CoD to try and make them seem the sensible shooter. I don't particularly care about this feature because there is no Battlefield game previously with this feature so not including it is like having to state the fact that they arn't including the ability to nuke every single country in the world simultaneously.

 

[UnderCoverGuest]

Keep it up, EA. The more you and InfinityWard 2.0 bugger up your respective franchises, the more and more I'll enjoy playing ARMA III.

 

[Zhukov]

Huh... that's odd choice. Can't say I particularly care one way or the other though.

Also, am I the only one (ugh... pardon the cliche) who never kills civilians? Who doesn't regard games as a psychotic power fantasy?

 

[CD-R]

Here's the thing regular Battlefield games didn't even have single player campaigns. They were never about trying to tell a story, or make a statement, or anything like that. They were online multiplayer first person shooters where everyone got together and attempted to blow the crap out of each other with tanks and jets. It was never explained why the European Union was fighting the Chinese, who or what exactly the Middle East Coalition is, or why the Russians are fighting the Americans, because they didn't need to.

Even the Bad Company games didn't have anything like that. Bad Company 1's single player campaign was a character driven story about four misfit soldiers, done in the style of a buddy action comedy. You drove tanks on golf courses and flew gold plated helicopters through hostile territory. You didn't experience the harsh realities of war you did stuff like this.

Spoiler

I thought it worked very well. Not sure why they decided to deviate from that formula in Bad Company 2. I just hope if they ever make Bad Company 3 they retcon out all that nonsense about secret WWII EMP super weapons and South America.

tl:dr

You were expecting a deep and compelling story from a Battlefield game?

 

[General BrEeZy]

its because civilians are all incompetent and effing stupid lol, the AI i mean, it tends to fail spectacularly.

 

[Arizona Kyle]

Ah, even war has to be sanitised. Wouldn't want our little adults learning that guns kill people, would we?

Are they specifically trying to destroy Battlefield?

Hmmm ....

removing BF3 from every on line distribution platform but Origin

requiring PC gamers to download Origin to buy/play... Then selling their info to third parties

Removing dedicated servers for PC

Hyping No Civ's

Oh most likly locking multiplayer for used game buyers

.... Anyone else got anything to add?

 

[Madara XIII]

Kinda Lame if you ask me.......Bite me. I'm serious

What game mechanic I would preferably like is that they fix the whole issue of
[HEADING=2] EVERY GODDAMN ENEMY KNOWS WHERE YOU ARE MECHANIC[/HEADING]

I'm sorry, but can't we add just a little bit of stealth to be rational. It's not like if one guy sees you then everyone within a 5 mile radius knows where the h3ll you're at. (Not referring to radios or coms)