PDA

View Full Version : Battlefield 3 Mature Gameplay


Jasonixi
09-01-2011, 08:17 AM
Battlefield 3 will not allow you to kill civilians and is trying to make gamers feel that maturity is not more gore. I think this is a very intelligent decision and I am in favor of it.
Here is the article:
http://pc.ign.com/articles/119/1191583p1.html

the1stwasted
09-01-2011, 10:40 AM
Fron article.
"I think games need to grow up a bit. They will grow with gamers. There will always be games for children, but I want games for grown-ups, games I can play."

Problem is that MP will be full of the same children that play all the COD games.

Omerta
09-01-2011, 10:42 AM
I'd prefer a friendly fire implementation whereas if you accidentally shoot 3 friendly's you get a mission fail or something along those lines.

Gamma_Stardust
09-01-2011, 10:50 AM
I'd prefer a friendly fire implementation whereas if you accidentally shoot 3 friendly's you get a mission fail or something along those lines.

^^ this pretty much!

DeltaElite121
09-01-2011, 10:55 AM
I'd prefer a friendly fire implementation whereas if you accidentally shoot 3 friendly's you get a mission fail or something along those lines.

Yeah, that's definitely NOT fun.. especially if AI is wonky.

Jasonixi
09-01-2011, 11:45 AM
Lol. I hate those cod newbs who will come to ruin bf3 for me...

CTAsasin
09-01-2011, 11:53 AM
Fron article.
"I think games need to grow up a bit. They will grow with gamers. There will always be games for children, but I want games for grown-ups, games I can play."

Problem is that MP will be full of the same children that play all the COD games.

Meh, I would worry about this, but I know people who are addicted to BlOps who refuse to touch Battlefield games because they're "too complex" -_-. As much as that sort of sentiment jaratees me off, it makes me glad they're sticking to their "simplistic" games.

DeltaElite121
09-01-2011, 11:56 AM
Meh, I would worry about this, but I know people who are addicted to BlOps who refuse to touch Battlefield games because they're "too complex" -_-. As much as that sort of sentiment jaratees me off, it makes me glad they're sticking to their "simplistic" games.

Those same people are the ones who whine about everything. They stick to "simple" because it's the only thing they're good at. Funny you mention this, because every person I knew that regularly sucks at other (more difficult) FPS's "owns" in games like MW2.. Why? Because there's no strategy involved outside of finding a place to camp, and reaping the benefits. That's not skill, that's circumstance with a little luck of the draw.

-B.A.Frayd-
09-01-2011, 12:38 PM
Battlefield 3 will not allow you to kill civilians and is trying to make gamers feel that maturity is not more gore. I think this is a very intelligent decision and I am in favor of it.


I couldn't possibly disagree more strongly.

First of all, let's get one thing clear: There apparently is some kind of reality distortion affect going on here, because BF3 is a only a game. It's not real life, and no "civilians" are being shot in a video game.

Secondly, restricting gameplay and the decisions that a player makes in a game is not taking a more "mature" approach to game design. Taking away choices, and making moral decisions, is what a parent does to a child in order to instill the parent's values on the child.

A more "mature" design decision would be to program negative repercussions for the player should he decide to undertake actions in a game that the military would determine to be unacceptable. This type of design would allow the player a realistic freedom of choice and reinforce the immersion factor of the game, while effectively keeping the gameplay flowing in a direction that the developers intended.

Personally, I don't need Dice to determine my morals for me.

Having stated that, I believe that Patrick Bach's decision has much less to do with "maturity" than it has to do with BF3's ESRB rating, and hence, their ability to sell BF3 to the widest possible audience - immature children included.

DeltaElite121
09-01-2011, 12:46 PM
I couldn't possibly disagree more strongly.

First of all, let's get one thing clear: There apparently is some kind of reality distortion affect going on here, because BF3 is a only a game. It's not real life, and no "civilians" are being shot in a video game.

Secondly, restricting gameplay and the decisions that a player makes in a game is not taking a more "mature" approach to game design. Taking away choices, and making moral decisions, is what a parent does to a child in order to instill the parent's values on the child.

A more "mature" design decision would be to program negative repercussions for the player should he decide to undertake actions in a game that the military would determine to be unacceptable. This type of design would allow the player a realistic freedom of choice and reinforce the immersion factor of the game, while effectively keeping the gameplay flowing in a direction that the developers intended.

Personally, I don't need Dice to determine my morals for me.

Having stated that, I believe that Patrick Bach's decision has much less to do with "maturity" than it has to do with BF3's ESRB rating, and hence, their ability to sell BF3 to the widest possible audience - immature children included.

It should also be mentioned that this statement was more of a "in your face IW, we are better". I actually think that IW confronted that situation properly, but they executed it wrong (that whole terrorist airport scenario). The end result was negative PR and hysteria over nothing.

CowHide
09-01-2011, 01:31 PM
*edit*

Husker_
09-01-2011, 02:40 PM
They won't let me shoot civilians? BOYCOTT!

cloropad
09-01-2011, 04:25 PM
I couldn't possibly disagree more strongly.

First of all, let's get one thing clear: There apparently is some kind of reality distortion affect going on here, because BF3 is a only a game. It's not real life, and no "civilians" are being shot in a video game.

Secondly, restricting gameplay and the decisions that a player makes in a game is not taking a more "mature" approach to game design. Taking away choices, and making moral decisions, is what a parent does to a child in order to instill the parent's values on the child.

A more "mature" design decision would be to program negative repercussions for the player should he decide to undertake actions in a game that the military would determine to be unacceptable. This type of design would allow the player a realistic freedom of choice and reinforce the immersion factor of the game, while effectively keeping the gameplay flowing in a direction that the developers intended.

Personally, I don't need Dice to determine my morals for me.

Having stated that, I believe that Patrick Bach's decision has much less to do with "maturity" than it has to do with BF3's ESRB rating, and hence, their ability to sell BF3 to the widest possible audience - immature children included.

Very good points. Maybe we should send them an email telling them this. Hopefully they reconsider.

LastSon
09-01-2011, 05:07 PM
Lol. I hate those cod newbs who will come to ruin bf3 for me...

Don't sweat it my man (or woman). Have you ever been in a MP server where a CoD <insert insult here> says something bad about BF vs CoD and it instantly turns into a witch hunt on the moron who made the statement? Hilarious. They eventually leave and everyone gets back to calling each other noobs, haxors and children. LOL

lazy6pyro
09-01-2011, 05:37 PM
They won't let me shoot civilians? BOYCOTT!

Rumor is that Origin is the cause of it.

-B.A.Frayd-
09-02-2011, 12:19 AM
It should also be mentioned that this statement was more of a "in your face IW, we are better". I actually think that IW confronted that situation properly, but they executed it wrong (that whole terrorist airport scenario). The end result was negative PR and hysteria over nothing.

Good point, I hadn't considered the whole MW2(?) airport terrorist controversy. Although I haven't played MW2, I salute IW for including that segment in their game.

More games need to push back the boundaries to where they were before the ESRB highjacked the industry. Otherwise, at some point all us gamers will be left with is a very Hollywood-like every-game-is-rated-PG13. In other words, bland garbage.

Husker_
09-02-2011, 12:37 AM
I don't think that not being able to kill civilians somehow equals bland garbage. That is quite a stretch. And I'm pretty sure that BF3 will be rated M, for language and violence.

Saying that they are restricting "choice" by not letting you shoot civilians is a stretch, too.

I wonder how the ESRB "hijacked" the industry? The industry is a bit stale, I admit, but more due to developers looking for mega hits than trying any real sort of innovation. Look at Guitar Hero, COD, Rock Band, etc etc. These titles suffer from lack of innovation and try to skate by on re-skinning the same old stuff. I don't think the ESRB has anything to do with it.

I also think that plenty of games push the industry--you have plenty of games that feature "mature" and "adult" content, so I don't see what the ESRB has to do with anything.

H E X E N
09-02-2011, 03:57 AM
I don't know. I've never really experienced any real moral decisions in FPS games anyway. Most of them are set up to the point where you have no choice... "Do this, or fail the mission."

Games that really get me to stop and think are games like Mass Effect, Mass Effect 2, and more recently, Deus Ex: HR. These games are more about the story and character development and tend to pull a bit harder on your moral strings.

FPS's are pretty bland in comparison, not because they want to be, but because of the way the game is structured and how it's played. Pure FPS's are all about shooting and killing opponents, that's its bread and butter. It's hard to convey morality when your one, and usually only solution, is to kill.

I'm not saying it can't be done, but I have yet to experience it in an FPS.

Ace Quat
09-02-2011, 06:12 AM
i just noticed that over the last two decades blood&gore has been more and more dimished in fps games. when playing the doom series or any other early unreal games, you could see that your opponents usually exploded in red clouds once you shot them and limbs flew everywhere. whereas in todays games, you won't even see bullet holes on your victims' bodies. of course some games still provide a very bloody experience (one of them redorch1 with very detailed destruction of corpses).

i am not saying i am all for extreme violence & gore in fps games, i just observed this^ lately. probably as frayd said, this was done to maximize potential sales (and thus increase profits) in order to reach every gamer out there - not only hardcore fans, but also casuals, and even the younger audience between 12-17 years that normally couldn't buy high-violence titles

however, being mature shouldn't mean that mature persons need to renounce violence and gore, rather, they should point out morally correct ways how to deal with violence. after all, we are regularly surrounded by violence in the media (news of cruel crimes, from war zones). there's no point in entirely removing violence in our games, it would be still present in other forms.

of course, i don't want to fanatically kill civilians in bf3, no i don't, but i'm afraid that with this message dice is going to convey a wrong picture about an apparent zero-violence-policy in games. because our wars and conflicts in reallife won't get more humane with this, that's for sure

-B.A.Frayd-
09-02-2011, 01:06 PM
i just noticed that over the last two decades blood&gore has been more and more dimished in fps games. when playing the doom series or any other early unreal games, you could see that your opponents usually exploded in red clouds once you shot them and limbs flew everywhere. whereas in todays games, you won't even see bullet holes on your victims' bodies.

This is exactly the kind of thing I was thinking when I stated that games are becoming more bland, Ace.

My ideal game would be BF with more gore and realistic body damage.
For example: You and a squad-mate are sneaking behind some shrubbery when suddenly you hear a thump. The next thing you know, your buddy's head is gone and a pulpy mess is left in it's place as his body slumps to the ground, the victim of a sniper's bullet.

Now, I can understand how some people would not be up for this kind of imagery, but for some reason I never lose track of the fact that I am playing a game and this kind of realistic detail creates an immersion factor for me that really intensifies the experience.

DeltaElite121
09-02-2011, 01:11 PM
This is exactly the kind of thing I was thinking when I stated that games are becoming more bland, Ace.

My ideal game would be BF with more gore and realistic body damage.
For example: You and a squad-mate are sneaking behind some shrubbery when suddenly you hear a thump. The next thing you know, your buddy's head is gone and a pulpy mess is left in it's place as his body slumps to the ground, the victim of a sniper's bullet.

Now, I can understand how some people would not be up for this kind of imagery, but for some reason I never lose track of the fact that I am playing a game and this kind of realistic detail creates an immersion factor for me that really intensifies the experience.

I think Soldier of Fortune is probably what comes to mind first for me. I'm all for realism, but our media is always looking for someone to put their finger at for the problems we have with violence. We just happen to be an easy target, so they jump all over it (like going to the Supreme Court to attempt at banning them... nothx). Nevermind our TV shows often depict much worse, so I find it humorous the more I think about it.

-B.A.Frayd-
09-02-2011, 01:58 PM
I think Soldier of Fortune is probably what comes to mind first for me. I'm all for realism, but our media is always looking for someone to put their finger at for the problems we have with violence. We just happen to be an easy target, so they jump all over it (like going to the Supreme Court to attempt at banning them... nothx). Nevermind our TV shows often depict much worse, so I find it humorous the more I think about it.

Excellent point. Hence the establishment of the ESRB and the PG13'ing of video games.

A lot of this mentality is a result of ignorant people who are still living in the 80's who think that only children play video games, and if something is in a game, it's really targeting "our children" for amorality.

S7ELI7S
09-02-2011, 01:59 PM
This is exactly the kind of thing I was thinking when I stated that games are becoming more bland, Ace.

My ideal game would be BF with more gore and realistic body damage.
For example: You and a squad-mate are sneaking behind some shrubbery when suddenly you hear a thump. The next thing you know, your buddy's head is gone and a pulpy mess is left in it's place as his body slumps to the ground, the victim of a sniper's bullet.

Now, I can understand how some people would not be up for this kind of imagery, but for some reason I never lose track of the fact that I am playing a game and this kind of realistic detail creates an immersion factor for me that really intensifies the experience.

Yes! Exactly, it creates a authentic, intense war atmosphere, something that the Battlefield series is trying to reflect.

We should have a rule, as stated earlier. 3 civilians down - restart level. Or, instead of being Marines, they could be Black Water mercenaries, then their won't be any legal problems lol. actually, I shouldn't joke about that. actually, I think he was referring to people like me in his post.

Grr! I want freedom! They are just Pixels!

shotbirds
09-02-2011, 03:49 PM
and the medics role is to reanimate the dead

nhcarpenter
09-02-2011, 07:38 PM
Good point, I hadn't considered the whole MW2(?) airport terrorist controversy. Although I haven't played MW2, I salute IW for including that segment in their game.

More games need to push back the boundaries to where they were before the ESRB highjacked the industry. Otherwise, at some point all us gamers will be left with is a very Hollywood-like every-game-is-rated-PG13. In other words, bland garbage.


Hollywood wise anyway, This new trend of "take out the gore - so we can get a pg-13 rating" is just a horrible trend. It ruins potentially great films while still exposing younger kids to innapropriate subject matter.

Of course I'm still way more upset about the wrecking good films part. Governing what the kids see is a matter of parenteing.

NHC

H E X E N
09-02-2011, 10:10 PM
I think Soldier of Fortune is probably what comes to mind first for me.

Yes! SoF II is the absolute best. When people ask me, "what is the most violent game you have played?", it's a simple response.

GTA series? Pshhhhh

GT what? Is that a car?

Excuse me while I continue to carve out the inside of this guys head with my knife. If any of you have not played this game, get it. It's pretty poor quality with lots of errors and a cheap story, but the gun play and violence is some of the best I have seen. And yes, you can carve out peoples faces.

I want a modern game to take advantage of that "Ghoul" technology they used. Awesome game.

Rhodsie
09-03-2011, 05:41 AM
I thought No Russian was an awesome level, just for including it Activision went up a notch in my view. Most publishers would have said no way after the PR department gave them a lashing. Also, the second half of that level is actually really fun, once the FSB shows up. :)