Battlefield 3 Controversy

[Dog Pants]

Here is an article on why Battlefield 3 won't let you shoot civilians. It's basically because EA/DICE don't want to have to deal with the media backlash, and think it's a pretty stupid thing to do anyway. I read it and thought "yeah, that makes sense. A real soldier probably wouldn't even consider shooting an innocent person in cold blood*", and later that not giving people the option is the more mature thing to do. However, the comments were overwhelmingly negative against the decision - one poster even insinuating he wouldn't buy the game because of it. I'm pretty amazed by that, but what do you bummers think?


*Probably.

[Roman Totale]

If I wanted to shoot civilians in the face I'd play GTA or Saints Row etc. Can't say I've ever felt the need to shoot civilians in the BEEF games though. I suppose the ones whinging about it are the ones that got raging murder hard ons for the airport scene in whatever CoD game that was.

[Thompy]

I reckon if they released the game without this announcement, no one would think twice about it. It'll hardly be the first shooter to not allow you to shoot civs (Half Life 2 springs to mind). As Roman says, this ain't GTA, and civs are not any kind of target.

It's probably just the fact that they've stated it, so now people are latching on to the reason why they did it, and in this case it's to protect against Fox News (supposedly) and so people feel like calling them out on it.

Bottom line: makes no difference to me.

Edit: Wait. It's hard to make out, but is this a case of no civs in at all? I presumed it was that they were in but you couldn't shoot them. If it's the former then I really don't see the issue.

[shot2bits]

Battlefield games have civilians?

Im assuming thats in the single player part of the game and i play beefs for 5punky shenanigans with guns and havn't touched the single player part of any beef game so it doesnt effect me at all, i still dont see why there would be any reason for fuss though, wasnt the single player side of all battlefield games before Bad company just offline multiplayer with AI anyway? so its not like its something that was present in all the previous games in the series thats just being pulled for this increment, and as you guys said if you want to go on a virtual killing spree you can play something like GTA.

[buzzmong]

My general view is thus:

Civvies aren't really needed in most action based fighty games, if they're in, then there are two choices:

1) They should be put out of harms way before the player is let off the leash (ie, they should only appear in scripted sequences or cutscenes) if you don't want them to be shot.

2) Have them in the game and have it so they can be shot and die. Quite easily. This can be accompanied by a fade to black like and a message like HL1 did. Or have some other penality like guards or everyone turning hostile. Obviously this depends on the context of the game.

Do not however make them invulnerable. It annoys me greatly. Much like invisible walls, it breaks the immersion.
Although this is a moot point because as far as I'm concerned, Battlefield games don't have a single player.

I shoud also point out I fully understand the choice DICE have made on it, purely because a lot of the world media is run by bastards, and America's media is at the forefront of commercialised news.

[deject]

Wait, that's an issue? Who the fuck cares about that? People who get pissed off that they can't shoot virtual civilians in a game kinda worry me.

[Mr. Johnson]

It could just be done in the same way many singeplayer FPS games do it, when you aim at friendlies you automatically lower your sights. Which I'm guessing is what a real soldier would do.

[buzzmong]

Wait, that's an issue? Who the fuck cares about that? People who get pissed off that they can't shoot virtual civilians in a game kinda worry me.

For me it's not the fact they're civvies. They could be friendly soldiers as well. It's just the fact if they're in game, and if I can't do it, it just feels like I'm being forced not too, the same feeling I get when I run into invisible walls due to level makers being over enthusisatic with the clipping brushes rather than actually solving the problem with more geometry or altering what's already there.

Mr J mentions a good point though, with automatic lowering of guns, but if you pay attention to what's happening you'll spot that the civvies won't often (if at all) be in situations where you actually need to use your weapons.

[deject]

I don't think the problem has anything to do with immersion in the game world though.

[Joose]

I reckon if they released the game without this announcement, no one would think twice about it.

This. Theres shitloads of FPS's out there where you cant shoot civvies/innocents/whatever. I don't remember it ever being an issue before.

[Dog Pants]

It could just be done in the same way many singeplayer FPS games do it, when you aim at friendlies you automatically lower your sights. Which I'm guessing is what a real soldier would do.

I agree, that was my first thought. To add some context though, this wasn't an announcement, it was a question posed by a competition winner. I also think that if it had never been mentioned there wouldn't have been all this controversy.

[buzzmong]

From reading the RPS comments, the bit that's sparking debate seems to be the reason why it's not in the game: the media backlash.

Not because of the developers moral stance, or an ethical choice, but simply the fact if they do include anything like that it'll generating false controversy which they don't want to deal with.

[Dog Pants]

That seems to be the focus of the argument, but I suspect the real reason is that they just never had any plans to put them in. But there seems to be plenty of people complaining that they want the option, which seems petty, and a few who seem to want complete freedom to commit war crimes, which is a little disturbing.

[Nickface]

As someone who works in the media here I can understand where EA is coming from. The media--here in the US especially--is increasingly shortening stories and soundbites just so they can get more stories out there. Combine that practice with less than ethical newsrooms (like Newscorp) who will often sensationalize or try to make their stories fit into a message and you have a problem. It was evident when the CoD airport came out. The story was promoted as "THE GAME WHICH LETS YOU KILL INNOCENT CIVILIANS" or "CARRY OUT A TERRORIST ACT." Those kinds of teases are made to shock the viewer into watching. When the story does air, it's a 20 second story based on another article, often written by a person who doesn't know anything about video games.

All it would take for a mini shitstorm to brew is for a handful of angry parents to call a news organization and say "this game let's you murder innocent people!" If one news outlet picks it up, then another might which might snowball and what was "There are consequences for your actions" would become perverted into "YOU CAN GO ON A MURDER SPREE, KILLING WOMEN, CHILDREN AND JESUS HIMSELF." When the story reaches the zenith of mass panic, they'll move on to the next bout of hysteria--damage having been done and once again setting back gaming as a legitimate gaming platform.

As far as killing civilians goes, I don't really see the need for it. Some games do it and some don't. Recent Fallout games kind of have a hybrid where you can kill anyone you want... except children. I think the most disturbing thing are the people that go out of their way to mod the games to make people killable. I just think to myself "Really? That's what you want to do with your spare time?"


I'm kind of reluctant to do the singleplayer in any primarily multiplayer game from the "modern war" era because of the "Bro factor" anyway. That shit just annoys the piss out of me.

[friznit]

Interesting aside to this, I've recently been wrestling with a similar issue in a persistent Counter Insurgency scenario in ArmA2. The mission runs for 3 to 4 weeks real time and by necessity has to have lots of civs around - that's kinda the point - you risk getting bummed by IEDs, car bombs or rag heads local chaps with guns. To resolve the issue of players simply murderizing whole fucking villages, we've implemented a reputation system. Everytime a civ is wounded or killed when BLUFOR are nearby, or you steal a car, kill a cow, damage a building etc, the BLUFOR rep drops in that village. If it goes low enough, the civpop get progressively hostile, from crowding around, throwing stones, packing small arms all the way to joining the insurgency and getting funky with suicide bombs themselves. You can improve your rep by recovering wounded civs, fixing their vehicles...and that's about it for now, although there's more reconstruction stuff planned.

Having this sort of thing wrapped around the regular run and gun add a whole load of immersion and challenge. It certainly makes you think twice about launching artillery in a built up area.

[HereComesPete]

Shooting civilians causes cancer! But eating two civilians a week cures it!

[Pnut]

Shooting civilians causes cancer! But eating two civilians a week cures it!

Are you working for the Daily Mail now Pete?

[HereComesPete]

Get out of my country you foreigner! You cause cancer!*


*I wish, spacktastic sensationalist headlines can be knocked together in a few seconds and I bet they pay well.

[Dog Pants]

Interesting aside to this, I've recently been wrestling with a similar issue in a persistent Counter Insurgency scenario in ArmA2. The mission runs for 3 to 4 weeks real time and by necessity has to have lots of civs around - that's kinda the point - you risk getting bummed by IEDs, car bombs or rag heads local chaps with guns. To resolve the issue of players simply murderizing whole fucking villages, we've implemented a reputation system. Everytime a civ is wounded or killed when BLUFOR are nearby, or you steal a car, kill a cow, damage a building etc, the BLUFOR rep drops in that village. If it goes low enough, the civpop get progressively hostile, from crowding around, throwing stones, packing small arms all the way to joining the insurgency and getting funky with suicide bombs themselves. You can improve your rep by recovering wounded civs, fixing their vehicles...and that's about it for now, although there's more reconstruction stuff planned.

Having this sort of thing wrapped around the regular run and gun add a whole load of immersion and challenge. It certainly makes you think twice about launching artillery in a built up area.

Good idea, I like it. Despite a recent and slightly ranty email to PCG about this (unwisely after reading that My Lai article I linked in the OP), I've nothing against people putting that stuff in, especially if it's well implemented like how Friz suggests. Although I do find strange suggestions of incentives such as "kill too many innocent people and your CO will get upset" strange. Upset? If you want realism try having your arse booted into prison for murder. And it's all relative. In GTA4 it's part of the whole ethos of the game. But to be demanding that it be in BEEF or face the combined rage of the Internets is just a bit weird to me.

[FatherJack]

Perhaps they could put in killable civilians but make you sit through a lengthy unskippable court martial cut scene after each round.