Wed, Aug 31, 2011 | 03:32 BST

No civilian casualties in Battlefield 3

Battlefield 3 executive producer Patrick Bach has said DICE isn’t comfortable giving players the option to act out evil deeds in-game.

“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,” Bach told Rock, Paper, Shotgun at DICE HQ in Stockholm, an event also attended by VG247 readers.

“In a game where it’s more authentic, when you have a gun in your hand and a child in front of you what would happen? Well the player would probably shoot that child.”

Bach said that although players make the choice themselves, it’s DICE that would get a bad rap – conjuring memories of the airport level scandal which plagued competing series Call of Duty: Modern Wrfare 2.

“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. That’s something I will sanitise by removing that feature from the game.”

Bach suggested the Battlefield 3′s treatment of combat isn’t anti-war, but is more mature than a balls-out action fest. This echoes earlier comments when, asked what the next big thing in gaming is, the developer told VG247 that he thinks games need to grow up a bit.

Battlefield 3 is due on PC, PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360 in late October.

Thanks, Gamefront.

34 comment-trail-alt Posted in: EA, PC, PS3, Shooter, Xbox 360
Tags: , ,

34 comments

#1

ELMatador11
31/08/11, 5:19 am

I will not be buying BF3 now because of this.

#2

muffinmn100
31/08/11, 5:32 am

Pre-order cancelled. This is outrageous.

#3

stretch215
31/08/11, 5:58 am

@1&2 you guys are joking, right?

#4

NightCrawler1970
31/08/11, 6:23 am

@3 LOL…

#5

GrimRita
31/08/11, 7:05 am

I might actually buy it now because of this.

/not

#6

HauntaVirus
31/08/11, 7:07 am

Hey DICE, why not let us choose how we want to play the game..thanks bye.

#7

Chockster
31/08/11, 7:17 am

I got the impression that there was one reason behind this: Patrick wants to spend time making games, not dealing with irrelevant mainstream “BF3 in civilian massacre horror” press.

#8

Jackie
31/08/11, 7:29 am

i’m with 1&2 and i’m serious

#9

Anjiro
31/08/11, 8:07 am

Yeah because the press MW2 got about it really hurt their sales…

#10

YoungZer0
31/08/11, 9:02 am

@9: Morale is the factor here. IW’s “No Russian” Level was a cheap, cheap shot to get attention.

#11

endgame
31/08/11, 9:19 am

holy f**king shit he is right. almost all of u prefer to play mw games where u can shoot civilians. u ppl r seriously messed.

#12

StolenGlory
31/08/11, 9:33 am

Riiiight, so the main reason why you whiners were you going to buy BF3 in the first place was because you thought you could kill civvies and not because of EVERYTHING ELSE that the game offers.

Your priorities are seriously fucked.

#13

Fin
31/08/11, 9:36 am

@11

Bro, you can say “fucking”, it’s ok.

Also, “Well the player would probably shoot that child”. Urrrrr, no?

#14

Christopher Jack
31/08/11, 9:51 am

Well it seems to be encouraged in games like Saints Row, I don’t enjoy the ones that take themselves too seriously.

#15

YoungZer0
31/08/11, 9:52 am

@13: Brah, you’re so naive.

#16

Yoshi
31/08/11, 9:57 am

What happened to “Play it your way” DICE? What the fuck are you doing? You say one thing to limit the shit out of this game then say another thing to contradict yourself all together… make up your fucking minds and go rename this Bad Company 3…

#17

OrbitMonkey
31/08/11, 10:04 am

Pfft, the guys wrong on so many levels… the future of gaming is pointlessly killing civilians, in 3D, with MOVE/Kinnect support :)

#18

StolenGlory
31/08/11, 10:07 am

@17

I lol’d :)

#19

OrbitMonkey
31/08/11, 10:14 am

@6 & 16. Wtf are you two on about? You thought BF3 was gonna be a civvie murder fest as opposed to a modern combat semi-simulator? Erm you ever play any games In the series before?

Still if your arse Is so sore at losing the NEVER AVAILABLE chance to kill unarmed npc’s I suggest you check out Postal, GTA or Saints Row.

#20

KillerDD
31/08/11, 10:49 am

If you want to senselessly murder innocent civilians you can go and play MW2.

I really don’t care one way or the other, I rarely ever shoot the innocent people in games. The first time I played the airport mission in MW2 I didn’t kill anyone (well, except for the police shooting me!)

@13 What @15 said! You’re being naieve!

#21

silkvg247
31/08/11, 12:05 pm

FFS I wanted to go into a civilian village, rape the women, men and children, pull their intestines out of their mouths and tie them together in a big knot then hang them from a tree.

NOT BUYING NOW.

#22

Fin
31/08/11, 12:12 pm

I meant I wouldn’t shoot the child, unlike you nutbars! :p

#23

Yoshi
31/08/11, 12:37 pm

@19 Not at all, however this way they’re making the decision for us by saying this. If they didn’t say anything then this conversation wouldn’t be valid. But as they have it makes you think.

#24

OrbitMonkey
31/08/11, 1:02 pm

^ The only thing It makes me think, is their are a lot of people making a issue over something that Is a complete non-issue.

If killing civvies was normal for fps I’d understand the rage, but this is simply not the case is it? I mean if the guy had said theirs no dinosaurs, would be hearing butthurt gamers whining they’ve been robbed of the chance to kill a T-Rex? Don’t answer that, I know the answer Is yes :/

Simple fact Is BF3 is their work of fiction, not yours & moaning about some perceived lack of content is bizarre. “Oh no Skyrim has no lazer guns! You said I could play it how I want Bethesda!”

#25

Ireland Michael
31/08/11, 1:24 pm

My mind is completely blown by this thread.

Some of you people are seriously fucked up, and completely out of touch with reality.

#26

NeoSquall
31/08/11, 1:25 pm

@24 Maybe he raised the “civilian issue” because he’s considering videogames as a whole and not just FPSs.

#27

Christopher Jack
31/08/11, 1:45 pm

@25, Well the lack of civilians in urban areas is out of touch with reality.

#28

Ireland Michael
31/08/11, 1:51 pm

@27 No it isn’t.

Have you ever seen a real war-zone? The streets are usually barren. People are not going to go outside when the risk of having their faces blown off just by crossing the street is a very realistic fear,

#29

NeoSquall
31/08/11, 1:53 pm

@27 Not in a official war theatre.
Guerrilla may be fought in populated urban areas (like in the recent north african rebellions and in Syria), and even there civilians don’t dare to go outside like Michael pointed, but official battles require prior evacuation of civilians from the areas.

#30

Christopher Jack
31/08/11, 2:04 pm

@28, How come there’s always countless reports of civilian casualties?
Also, I never said they were wandering the streets, that’s absurd, but as I understand, you can enter & destroy building but I have the feeling that they’re going to typically limit how much freedom we have inside the buildings.

#31

NeoSquall
31/08/11, 2:16 pm

@30 Because there’s always the idiot civilian that doesn’t evacuate and gets killed.
This or it’s just an insurgent that is stripped of arms upon death by his allies and counted as a civilian casualty afterwards.

#32

OrbitMonkey
31/08/11, 2:39 pm

^ Er no, its rather simple really…

Bombing + High calibre rounds + urban areas of strategic importance = civvie dead

#33

Ireland Michael
31/08/11, 2:41 pm

Most of you don’t have even the slightest idea of what actual, real urban warfare is like, do you?

Hint: It’s not like Call of Duty.

#34

StolenGlory
31/08/11, 2:46 pm

@33

Indeed. I would hazard a guess that there would be a lot more to it than a 3D version of Whack-A-Mole.

Leave a Reply