159
rate

DICE says NO shooting civilians in Battlefield 3 BF3

August 31, 2011 in News comments 14

Dice clams that they do not want people able to shoot civilians in BF3 because of call of duty modern warfare 3 mission No Russian. In that mission you shot unarmed civilians. So dice is making it so you can not shot civilians.

DICE wants you to concentrate on fighting the enemy and not killing innocent civilians
He then went on to say that he didn’t want to see videos on the internet after the release of the game depicted gamers shooting civilians and said “That’s something I will sanitise by removing that feature from the game”.

so what do you think about this should Dice remove you from being able to shoot at civilians
websod via videogamepride.com »
Favourite this article Add source
| More
Report!
News story attached to:

Comments

Register as a member to subscribe comments.
  • 1
    websod Aug 31, 11
    would not be shocked if EA/Dice people try to shine light on MW3 doing stuff they think is "wrong"
  • 1
    Red 9 Aug 31, 11
    I tend to agree with them on the idea that some games let you kill civilians without consequences. The MW2 airport scene was basically a turkey shoot with no consequences.

    They don't necessarily mean it shouldn't be allowed, just that there should be consequences when you do it. And I think that if you can't properly justify having shootable civilians in your game, you shouldn't really bother having them at all. Unless you're like GTA, in which case just do it like Driver did; make civilians miraculously jump out of the way every time.
    • 1
      Drogo Baggins Aug 31, 11
      Well, I actually consider there to have been several consequences in MW2 for your character killing tons of civilians.

      For one thing, an army of a SWAT Team attacks you and you have to fight your way through them. Sure, you manage to get through it, but it's still a consequence. It's not like you just get to kill a bunch of innocent people and simply walk away.

      On top of that, you may live through the battle with the police, but you still don't survive the situation. You pay with your life for trying to work (under cover, I might add, as in you're actually a good guy) with terrorists, all after helping them slaughter a bunch of innocent people.

      I couldn't imagine if my last act in life ended up being something so terrible. Even if I had good intentions in my endgame, I'd know I'm dying a monster after that, especially if I can't actually live out my plan and fulfill my goal of taking down people who do things like that on a daily basis.

      And even, to add to all of that, his body gets left behind, making the world believe that America has made a senseless act of terrorism against Russia. In other words, for trying to help in bringing down the bad guys, he mistakenly makes his own country look like terrorists.

      Really, in several ways, I've always thought that your character ends up paying some gigantic consequences for that scene. I don't know where so many people get the idea that the scene was just thrown in for fun. I actually found it all quite dramatic, and it really reminds the player what kind of people he/she is must contend with in the game. Merciless, heartless people.

      This is making me want to play through MW2's campaign again.
    • 1
      Seproth Aug 31, 11
      Play "No Russian" start a massive invasion on US, no consequences.


      Are you *bleep*ing high?
      • 0
        Red 9 Aug 31, 11
        I hope you and Drogo realize that almost no gamer usually pays attention to the subleties of a story like you do. I'm talking about immediate gameplay consequences, not scripted plot points. The average gamer is going to run through that airport mission and shoot every civilian they see, and skip the cutscene afterwards, because their gameplay/stats aren't going to be affected by it.

        There should be some kind of gameplay consequence for killing civilians like that. Seeing as you were an undercover American in that mission, killing civilians should just result in a mission restart.

        Killing civvies should never be seen as some kind of casual thing, regardless if it's just a game.

        Also, you don't have to call me "*bleep*ing high" just because something I say doesn't agree with you.
        • 0
          Drogo Baggins Aug 31, 11
          quote Red 9
          There should be some kind of gameplay consequence for killing civilians like that. Seeing as you were an undercover American in that mission, killing civilians should just result in a mission restart.
          Russian #1: Hey, what is this bullshit? This new guy, does his gun not work or something?

          Russian #2: Yeah, New Guy, what the *bleep* is problem? Why don't you help kill civilians.

          New Guy: Uh... yeah, I'll get started in a second...

          Russian #1: New Guy seems... TO BE A SPY! KILL HIM NOW!

          What an odd scene that would be.

          Seriously though, it was just part of the story. I don't think the player should have to face a consequence for it. It would be like making the audience suffer an electric shock or having the movie start over when John McClane kills a German who begs for his life in Die Hard 3.

          I mean, for Christ's sake, it's just a damn video game. We should be allowed to do immoral things in them, otherwise I think it really harms the integrity of the art.

          Where do we draw the line anyways?

          Killing anyone is widely considered to be immoral, so what, we should just drop killing entirely from video games? We might as well drop drug dealing, stealing, all forms of violence and sexual content too. Hell, let's drop cussing as well. It's bad for the kids after all.

          Then bad guys can't exist anymore, so I guess good guys will be pointless. Hooray for puzzle games, I suppose, because that's all we'll get after that mess.

          Also, just because most gamers are too lazy to pay attention, that doesn't automatically make what's there to see non-existent. The consequences are there, even if some people are too dumb to see them.
        • 1
          Seproth Aug 31, 11
          I do because you're straight up wrong. You said it had no consequences, but if World War 3 isn't a consequence than god damn, I don't know what is. I also would not call the linchpin of the story a subtlety of the plot. Otherwise you're saying almost every gamer played no russian and then went...."Why are the Russians invading the US?"

          You're told specifically to fit in at any cost, that involves killing civilians. If you take it lightly than that's your fault, not the game itself. You've clearly missed the point of the mission, sure you're slaughtering civilians, but it's a necessary evil to prevent a war, unfortunately you fail regardless of your actions, and the war starts anyway, but you wouldn't know that going in.
  • 2
    Shinobi_razor Aug 31, 11
    shooting civilians really has no place in this kind of game IMO. in a sandbox like GTA thats one of the main draws but theres just no need to do it in a game like this. i dont think the airport scene was a really good idea either, that could have been summed up in a cutscene, then when you see that it would make you want to kill every one of those terrorists you see.
    • 1
      Seproth Aug 31, 11
      I think you're approaching this from the wrong perspective. It's not about the desire to shoot civilians, or making it your goal. It's about civilians being in the way, or making a break for safety when you as a soldier are on edge worried about an ambush. The thing is making there be a tangible reason for why you would not do it in game, in real life you'd feel terrible for shooting someone just trying to survive, but people's empathy is heavily dampened on a computer sprite.

      Honestly though I see this as being bullshit, and more Battlefield vs. CoD crap. Like EA is taking the high road or something.
      • 1
        Shinobi_razor Aug 31, 11
        its more theyre not putting it in cause theres no reason to come up with a scenario where it would be "ok" to do it. what was the point of even playing as the Russians in MW2 in the first place? all it really was was Activision going for the shock factor and the free advertising they would get, not to mention more brownie points with 12 year olds who think that sort of thing is awesome.

        i dont get why youre so adamantly defending the idea of a needless civilian shooting section in a game.
        • 0
          Seproth Sep 1, 11
          I disagree with you entirely on the No Russian mission. Regardless of that though, if there's no civilians in the game it's perfectly fine, but if there are, and I *bleep* up and shoot one on accident (because I'm not going to do it intentionally) they should be shot. Otherwise it's going to make me realize I'm playing a game.

          Basically, I want to feel like it's my responsibility to not harm civilians, and therefor I'll be careful not to. If it doesn't matter cause I can just unload into them freely it takes challenge and strategy from the game, not to mention realism.
        • 0
          Shinobi_razor Sep 1, 11
          theres a huge difference between what they did in MW2 and simply putting civilians around to "get in the way" and the goal is not specifically to shoot them. what i understand is in that level in MW2 they all but outright told you to shoot anything that moved whether civilians or the SWAT team or whatever was trying to stop you. if you just accidentally capped some fool who was hanging around when a gun fight broke out, thats different. yeah, that guy SHOULD die or be wounded if you shoot him, but you should incur some kind of penalty that would deter you from doing it again. there should be no reason for a level where shooting civilians is encouraged or at least not at all frowned upon.
  • 1
    Gamesta100 Aug 31, 11
    I don't usually kill civilians in games even if I can so I don't care about not being able to kill them.

    Hell I will sometimes reload a previous save even if I accidentally kill a civilian.

    The only time I kill civilians is when I'm playing GTA.
    • 0
      Seproth Sep 1, 11
      quote Gamesta100
      Hell I will sometimes reload a previous save even if I accidentally kill a civilian.
      I actually sometimes do it too, although it kind of ruins the point. You're supposed to live with your actions, not change them. One of the reasons I loved Heavy Rain, cause you really couldn't do that.

This news story is archived and is closed to comments now.