Battlefield 3 Mature Gameplay

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Omerta

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]

Originally Posted by Omerta

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.

Lol. I hate those cod newbs who will come to ruin bf3 for me...

[CTAsasin]

Originally Posted by the1stwasted

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]

Originally Posted by CTAsasin

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-]

Originally Posted by Jasonixi

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]

Originally Posted by -B.A.Frayd-

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]

*edit*

[Husker_]

They won't let me shoot civilians? BOYCOTT!

[cloropad]

Originally Posted by -B.A.Frayd-

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]

Originally Posted by Jasonixi

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]

Originally Posted by Husker_

They won't let me shoot civilians? BOYCOTT!

Rumor is that Origin is the cause of it.