3 Battlefield


  • B0ssman96 - August 31, 2011 9:57 a.m.

    Does this mean that we can't shoot the dog in the first trailer that was shown of the campaign?! Say it aint so DICE!!! I get the whole no shooting civilians thing even tho I guess DICE has never heard of collateral damage! But whatevs... I still wanna shoot dat dawg tho!!! lol
  • spencertucksen - August 31, 2011 12:50 p.m.

    This is why they made that decision. 15-year olds who do that. I'm not saying I killed random people in Prototype just to see the physics, but and I'm not an animal lover by any means. But really....why shoot dogs in games? With the obvious exclusion of games like CoD where you have to, or else your ass will die.
  • Mfchimichanga - August 31, 2011 1:39 p.m.

    Very good point. I zapped people in prototype out of morbid curiosity and boredom. I know the distinction however between AI and real people
  • EnragedTortoise1 - August 31, 2011 3:43 p.m.

    I'm 15, and if civilians were shootable, I wouldn't care at all. Hell, I felt bad during the evil playthrough of Infamous 2.
  • mastereper - August 31, 2011 9:53 a.m.

    Although it will take out from the authenticity of being in an actual mordern combat scenario, I'm pleased with this decisions I tend to feel terrible about accidently shooting non-combatants excepts when playing games like Gta or Saints Row because in those games Im playing not as a soldier whose job is to protect & serve but a cold blooded thug. In MW2 I didn't shoot any civies during the controversial level because it just felt wrong.
  • cosmiccatnip - August 31, 2011 9:46 a.m.

    I find it funny that we don't think the same when we play as the "bad" side in any multiplayer game. Who's to say that the "Terrorist" side is good or bad, when the other side is the one grenade spamming a rural neighborhood.
  • TheIronMaiden - August 31, 2011 9:28 a.m.

    I think this is a good call from the devs. They definitely have the right idea as I tend to pick bad choices in games because I will get away with it haha. It's good that they addressed in a way that everybody can understand although I'm sure theres still some people out there thinking "Man thats buuuuulllllll I still wanna kill me some civies," idk, I work at a gamestore..lotta interesting folk...
  • MidianGTX - August 31, 2011 9:28 a.m.

    For the sake of realism, I agree. The aim of the game isn't to kill civilians. In Call of Duty it made sense as you were essentially part of a terrorist squad for that mission, but BF always has you playing as one of the "good guys".
  • NeonTheSalmon - August 31, 2011 9:17 a.m.

    Seems fair to me. I found that level in call of duty where you shoot all of the civilians really troubling, I guess it was ok because you didn't have to shoot any of the civilians. Bu when you had to shoot the police, it just felt wrong.
  • anthony-boese - August 31, 2011 9:16 a.m.

    I for one Completely Understand Where the games producers are coming from on this. Having Said that I think games have come so far with freedom of choice to step back would be an unwise option. Perhaps the better route would be to have consequence for civilian casualties. Further the realism.. You shot a civilian court marshal and discharge Game over.. or You loose valuable xp needed to progress in the game. I think there is enough brutality out there that blocking it doesn't stop the problem the player will just find another game.. hurting their revenue. I think what they are really trying to say is we don't want to walk the Line that MW2 did.

Showing 21-30 of 30 comments

Join the Discussion
Add a comment (HTML tags are not allowed.)
Characters remaining: 5000


Connect with Facebook

Log in using Facebook to share comments, games, status update and other activity easily with your Facebook feed.