No Civilians Will Die in Battlefield 3

[Grospoliner]

I am disappointed. I think the game should include them so we as gamers can illustrate that not all of us are willing to shoot unarmed civilians in a game. This would be a great protest tool against the unfair media bias that has been levied against gamers and gaming both as a section of our societies and as individuals.

If I had the skills and knowledge to do so, I would mod MW2's opening scene just so the player could shoot and kill the terrorists.

I hate being restricted in gaming since it is supposed to be an interactive medium rather than just a movie or a book.

 

[REPTILE 0009]

Is there any pleasing you guys?

 

[uppitycracker]

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.

It's the opposite of progressive. It's basically taking a step back and saying, "You know what? We really need to hold their hands through this moral ground and censor it, rather than treat them as if they were mature themselves."

The industry can't grow and mature if you pretend the audience is anything but.

 

[Ethan Asia]

All the things they've done make it seem like they DON'T want people to buy BF3...

 

[Zulnam]

Why are people so pissed off about this? How did this even become an issue? Did Battlefield games -ever- have civilians in them? I mean, yeah, MW2 had that airport thing (which was about as realistic as aliens coordinating traffic in Singapore), but this doesn't mean that it will be a future feature for every realistic game. MW1 had that "you die because that's how the story goes" thing, so MW2 tried to do it's own signature.

 

[Rawne1980]

"People will want to do this, so we are removing it".

People also want to shoot guns in that game, you removing them too Bach you tool.

I can sort of see why they are removing the civilian killing side of things but there is a way of phrasing things and thats not it.

Also not all of us are certified lunatics that will kill civilian shaped pixels and then think "you know what, thats just put me in the mood to grab my rifle and pop into town on a killing spree, be back for supper dear just off to massacre some locals".

 

[Dissentient]

Why whould anyone care? Singleplayer in BF3 is unnecessary anyway.

 

[similar.squirrel]

Just like real warfare, eh?

Why don't they just penalise players that kill them by having their squadmates insult and then gun them down? Removing something morally reprehensible isn't really the solution, because the mere act of its removal doesn't really drive home the point that it's morally reprehensible.

Same thing with killing children in Fallout 3. In the previous instalment, you were saddled with a boatload of bad karma and hunted down. Surely that says more about infanticide than a tyke walking away unscathed from an explosion.

 

[kinapuffar]

I'm sure all of you want a real war simulator where you spend 9 hours a day guarding a supply shack no one ever uses. Then goes on a mission after being there for 3 months, shoot three insurgents, get shot and sent home, after which you spend years in therapy trying to cope with seeing a bunch of children blown all over the road.


Who do you think'll take the blame for all the assholes going around mowing down children and civilians if they were in games? Not the individuals themselves, that's for sure.
It's the industry that takes the hit. You fucker sit at home acting like assholes and the people who make games have to go on FOX News and defend your immature bullshit.

Then some psychotic fucktard goes and shoots up his school, and the gaming industry gets blamed for it.
"GTA made him do it!"

THAT is why there will be no civilian killings in the game. Because you fuckers can't handle it.

 

[Dissentient]

Well there goes the last tiny little sliver of interest I had in the game.

You're saying that you are not interested in BF3 multiplayer?

 

[Fujor]

this is dices thinly veiled attempt at a dig at Activision. nothing more.

Internet rage is nice and all but how many FPS games out there have civilians? some obviously but not all. it's hardly a central mechanic to an FPS game.

so why are people getting mad about a completely superfluous aspect of a game that never needed it?

also skirting around the media controversy isn't the worst thing ever you know, it's not to the detriment of the game or the industry.

 

[Fujor]

Why whould anyone care? Singleplayer in BF3 is unnecessary anyway.

This. very much so. I'll play it. enjoy it.

but really, people getting upset about a battlefield single player??? bizarre

 

[xdiesp]

For 60 years our wars have been precisely that: killing civilians defending their homes. Instead they brainwash you with games like this, which tell you we're out to get heavily armed evil henchmen keeping our friends in prison.

 

[Dissentient]

Setting my testicles on fire
Seeing how far up my arse I can ram a running chainsaw before I pass out
Debating politics
Trying to make sense of what comes out of Washington, DC.
End all war
Hold a public office
Pass a kidney stone
Rip my own arm off and beat myself to death with it


So no, I never was interested in BF3 MP.

Ok, I can say exactly the same about BF3 SP so there's no point in arguing.
BF3 is all about multiplayer and SP is just made to make game sell better.

 

[Redlin5_v1legacy]

Wouldn't it be good if instead there were, I dunno, consequences for shooting civilians on purpose? Splash damage attacks would get an angry comment from your commander and if enough of it happened you'd be put into custody by some angry MPs in a cutscene and your game session would end. If you shot them in cold blood, your allies put you down.

Just like real warfare, eh?

Why don't they just penalise players that kill them by having their squadmates insult and then gun them down? Removing something morally reprehensible isn't really the solution, because the mere act of its removal doesn't really drive home the point that it's morally reprehensible.

Same thing with killing children in Fallout 3. In the previous instalment, you were saddled with a boatload of bad karma and hunted down. Surely that says more about infanticide than a tyke walking away unscathed from an explosion.

Invincible civilians make me think that if I stripped off the uniform, put on civvies, dropped the gun and picked up a suitcase I could survive anything outside of a cutscene.

 

[Use_Imagination_here]

Great problem solving. People might do something bad in games, so we're just going to remove the opportunity and pretend that it doesn't exist because realistic war games are much more fun with less realism.

 

[Dissentient]

Great problem solving. People might do something bad in games, so we're just going to remove the opportunity and pretend that it doesn't exist because realistic war games are much more fun with less realism.

Implying that BF3 is a realistic war game.