Battlefield 3 exec sees gamers as inherently "bad"

Battlefield 3 Executive Producer Patrick Bach thinks gamers will always do evil when given a choice, but does taking that choice away solve the problem?

[crazytown99]

Okay, but what's *wrong* with making the "bad" decision? As long as gamers can separate fantasy from reality, I don't see the problem.

[Yi-Long]

... but I don't want developers self-censorsing themselfs and thus taking away from the 'realism' by not alloweing me to shoot civilians, just cause they don't 'want' me to... (for whatever reason...)

If you don't want us gamers to not shoot at innocent bystanders, then just make it so that you get 'fired' from your team or whatever (as in, Oh you shot an innocent bystander: game over!) which takes you back to the last checkpoint...

You're on the battlefield in populated areas. There would be innocent bystanders in real life, so to then take them out of the game as to not offend anyone, is just stupid.

I'll still buy the game ofcourse, but still, like I said, I hate this kind of dumb self-censorship some developers come up with to impose on their customers.

[radphil]

I feel that the self-censoring is there to protect themselves.

Last thing needed right now is the media jumping all over them like idiots. The problem being is that intelligent people know not to put blame upon them, but when we're in a sue-happy world, and people can't make decisions for themselves, I can understand as to WHY they would do a few things like this.

[Yi-Long]

... I just don't agree with them or their reasons.

If stupid people want to make a big fuss out of it, I'd just shrug my shoulders and go: "just don't buy it then".

They shouldn't be altering/censoring their product just to please the few dumb people who might get upset.

In fact, I find this kind of self-censorship and their reasoning for doing so very disrespectful towards me as a mature consumer.

[evrfighter]

what's more bad. playing a game and making a so called bad decision. Or overseeing a game, going against all your morals to allow these bad decisions to be made in the first place all in the name of money.

[ryhanon]

I'll preface this by saying that while I don't think this sort of thing will in any way fundamentally affect the game for good or ill, I do still find it to be interesting discussion with regards to the direction of gaming as a whole. So, that having been said, please understand my following comments are not specific to Battlefield, but gaming in general.

The problem I have with the censorship (and frankly anyone that wants to approach this from a religious or moral standpoint should have the same problem), is that by eliminating the *option* for players to make this decision you are eliminating any moral choice at all. You're making that choice for them, denying them the capability of thinking for themselves, in essence denying them their free will.

There was a similar article recently regarding Bethesda's decision to deny the player the ability to kill any children in Skyrim. This spawned very similar arguments. Many approached it from a religious / moral standpoint, arguing that it is immoral to kill children or innocents and therefore the game should not allow you to do so. Again, this eliminates the players free will to make a moral choice of their own.

So I would ask those who would argue in favor of this sort of censorship, what is a person learning by having all of their moral decisions made for them? If we have no option to make the "wrong" moral choice, but are instead forced into making the "correct" moral choice, where is the opportunity to grow and learn anything about morality? Are we in fact being moral at all if we are forced down the path of morality? Is the act of forcing one down a moral path itself a moral thing to do?

While I'm not a religious person I think the biblical parable of Adam and Eve makes for a good example of what I mean. In the story, God tells both Adam and Eve not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, going so far as to explain to them exactly what would happen if they chose to disobey. What God did *not* do, however, is deny them the free will to disobey. According to the story, this one morally "wrong" choice has arguably lead to every bad thing that has happened to mankind since. However, consider the alternative, if Adam and Eve had been denied that choice they'd essentially be denied free will. They'd be little more than slaves.

[pixelsword]

As far as a certain number of gamers are concerned, it's a world in which they blow off steam, or would experiment with situations they would never consider in real life so therefore, to them...

http://www.youtube.com/watc...

[Gxray]

You can't ever win with the media or people though. If they allowed it, then the headline would be "Battlefield 3 Allows You To Kill Children" and it'd get a ton of bad press and people would hate just as much as they are now. That's not what they need.

[DaTruth]

There are no children, animals innocents or civilians in these games; they are just colourful lights in patterns!

There are no moral choices in these games, just like there is no moral choice in swatting a fly!

Nobody will mourn for these colourful light patterns and nobody will care if they die, they will just respawn! There is no loss to anyone!

If I saw these things in videogames or movies happening to real people in life, I would be mortified! But since it is just colourful light patterns I could care less and actually laugh at the simulated broken bones of the colourful light patterns!

[jimmywolf]

@ryhanon long winded post about nothing more then we should be able kill who we want long it not real? great choice their just cause you feel you part the 99.9% the world who not abuse the option does not mean that their wont be one who would take it too the next level an use it in reality it better too remove the option then wait an see who will go too far then censor it just cause you fill entitled does not mean the world should agree an suffer

[SilentNegotiator]

I don't care if I'm tossing babies onto a freeway or rescuing paraplegics from a raging river....in a video game. So long as the game is well designed and fun.

Just because I run over civilians in GTA or Saint's Row, doesn't mean I'm "bad"....it means I'm enjoying hilarious ragdoll physics and the challenge of evading police.

[ryhanon]

@jimmywolf

I'm not sure I understand your argument. It's a little hard to follow given your complete lack of punctuation or any discernible sentence structure, but I'll take a stab at it anyway.

I think you're missing the point of my argument. I'm not trying to say that it's ok to kill whoever we want just because games aren't real. I'm not making a moral argument at all. I think anyone here would agree that it's morally wrong to kill children and innocents, even in a video game. That is, provided they don't subscribe to the idea that just because it's a video game it's completely devoid of any moral imperative - an idea, I might add, that I find preposterous.

That isn't to imply I'm not guilty of it either. I've killed my fair share of innocents and children in any number of video games. I'd be willing to bet everyone reading this has done the same. That's not even the argument. We've all done it, sometimes willingly, sometimes because the game demanded it, sometimes by accident, sometimes just to test the boundaries of the game, to see how it would react.

My point is simply that to deny us the freedom to make that moral judgement ourselves, to impose moral ideals upon us without allowing us the free will to choose for ourselves, is to deny us any opportunity to make a conscious moral choice. If the choice has always been made for us, it dilutes the very meaning of morality itself.

Also, regarding this bit:

"99.9% the world who not abuse the option does not mean that their wont be one who would take it too the next level an use it in reality it better too remove the option then wait an see who will go too far"

It seems as if you're arguing that by giving players the freedom to perform an immoral action in a video game they are more likely to enact these same immoral behaviors in the real world. Not only do I disagree with this assertion, but so do numerous studies on the topic.

[Dee_91]

i didnt even pull the trigger on MW2 during that airport shooting scene
but on like my 3rd playthrough on veteran I was throwing grenades and everything lol
Gotta realize its just a video game and no matter how vulgar it may get its there to get a reaction

[ATi_Elite]

I didn't shoot the civilians in the first play through of MW2. (second play through only cause i thought the story would change)

I never shoot civilians in ArmaII. GTA....well your the bad guy so your suppose to shoot civilians.

Video Games are fantasy and allow us to taste the sweetness of evil without Jail time!!

[Hufandpuf]

That's why they're not including them, you did it either way.

[stu888]

I shot the civilians in MW2 who were crawling around injured to put them out of their misery.

I'm about justice in gaming. If a girl is getting kidnapped on Red Dead, I will rope up the guy and stick him on the tracks and watch the train finish him off.

I am evil on Gears though, especially online... but then again the locust are such horrible beings that they deserve it. When they've been downed online: Rev the chainsaw, rev, rev, cut through him.

[Dee_91]

@ ati i clicked disagree by mistake meant to click reply

but yea i did the same thing and i agree

[thesummerofgeorge]

I like having the choice. That way you can be the good guy the first play through, and a murderous prick the second, third and fourth. Let gamers decide how they want to play for themselves, thank you very much.

Censorship (if you can call it that) like this is a slippery slope, as far as I'm concerned.

[Heartnet]

tbh no is fully pure :) should be making bad and good decisions throughout the games cycle :) if your only making one type of choice then ur not being honest ;)

[snipes101]

I always take the good route in a game. I don't like being mean.

[BeOneWithTheGun]

I always start out that way but then somewhere along the line I might get bored or irritated and the sniping begins. Deus Ex case in point. I did so good until China and then I just shot everyone in my way lol

[snipes101]

Yea I'll make saves sometimes then go on a killing spree directly after. Then just load and go back to my peaceful ways :). I did the same in Deus Ex in the Pod Hotel. Climbed into a vent with a crossbow and went to town.

[superrey19]

Wasn't there a post on n4g a couple weeks ago bringing this quote up already? old news...

[ATi_Elite]

Dude there's always a post a couple weeks ago of the same exact post your reading on N4G...sometimes even a couple days or hours ago!!

[superrey19]

i know i know, i'm just sayin.

[RedDead]

It's just a better experience sometimes to play the bad guy. Kotor anyone(gave you a great reason half way through)? Although he ain't really talking about it this kind of way but still

[banjadude]

For me... I'm too much of a goody-two-shoes. I just... can't be evil, unless it's my second run through, etc.

[Chaotic_Lament]

The second-playthrough is a chance to commit all of those war crimes you were too much of a p***y to commit the first time.

[banjadude]

HA! So true.
But, I have this weird mentality that, I get the most of a game's story, if I choose the Good path first.

[GTRrocker]

The whole point and fun of video games is doing things that you can't or don't want to do in real life. Just look at GTA. Those games would suck if you played as the cops.

[kcuthbertson]

Lol I can only imagine...

[ainsz]

I don't know, looking at how stupid the cops are in GTA IV and how mental they are in the ps2 games I think they're atleast having quite a lot of fun.

[peowpeow]

La Noire without the plot lol

[Ser]

Not me...I usually tend to do what I, myself, would do in a situation in games with moral choices. (That means I'm in the "good" karma.)

[just_sayin]

i enjoy being evil. Being good suck i want to kill not save.

[ainsz]

It's a good point, on my first playthrough of inFamous I played the good karma side simply because it felt more me, then I played the evil side basically to get the full experience and to eventually platinum the game.

Additionally, on my first play through of Heavy Rain, when I had the chance to shoot and kill someone I just couldn't bring myself to do it, it was epic. Man that game Is emotionally engrossing!

[TitanUp]

i choose the good side most of the time.

[aksmashh]

The first game i played (in a longtime) which i felt like i was the good guy was infamous 2

On GTA or any FPS i thought of it as collateral damage

[Brixxer600]

When a game gives me the choice of being "Good" or "Evil" i always say i'm going to be "Evil" , yet i can't bring myself to do it , i always end up going down the "Good" route.

[BALLARD32]

He's pretty much right though. People like to do things they can't really do. Thats why they play games.

[yewles1]

I didn't know Frederic Whertham was still around...

[EdwardS087]

OMG, please... We act 'bad' in games because we can--they're games. This is in no way a reflection of our own morality or ethical standards. What we are in games is not what we are in real life--we play to fantasize. The ones who can't see the difference are psychotic in their own right. The shooting scene in MW2? So what? Its a game. Manhunt? So what, its a game. If we are visually/emotionally effected by an entertainment medium--why are we subjected to the 'news'. Tanks blowing shit up. People getting bombed. Death. Violence. How many times have you seen the Twin Towers getting hit by planes? Is it really necessary to show that non-stop? The news utilizes fear to scare the public. The military uses games to train soldiers to kill. We are a De-sensitized society as with religion crumbling away, church attendance way down--we are realizing/accepting who we are: a primitive, tumultuous and violent species. I prefer to keep these tendencies while playing my games. Take these elements away? Why? That it will solve the fundamental elements that make our species violent/tribal? This is just pretentious dribble--the whole violence in video games crap has got to go. Stop staring at gamer's backs with a judging eye and have a look at what our species has been doing since the dawn of our existence.

[Mr Tretton]

"We are a De-sensitized society as with religion crumbling away, church attendance way down--we are realizing/accepting who we are: a primitive, tumultuous and violent species."

Uh, the human world has been very primitive and violent throughout history with religion strongly intact.

[ainsz]

Indeed, religion has provoked many historic acts of violence. Why just look at assassins creed! Jk/ I wasn't joking in the first sentence though...

[MrChow666]

yeah, going to church wont make you a better person and not going dosnt make you evil, thats ridiculous reasoning

[EdwardS087]

You misinterpreted what I meant. What I meant was that with the religious-blindfold removed (pretentious beliefs of a better place, judgment of our ethics/morals) we are starting to actually see what the human race is. Religion has enforced a false sense of entitlement; a belief we are a superior people that can earn 'God's' favor by doing X/thinking X. With religion crumbling away, we see what we truly are. I believe religion has done more bad for the world than good. But, we're getting away from games here, off topic lol

[Mr Tretton]

In games you have the chance to do things you wouldn't, couldn't, or shouldn't do irl. So of course most people are going to take those chances. It's just a game.

[Chnswdchldrn]

im usually a good guy in vidyagames

[LightofDarkness]

Yeah, that's why the majority of gamers are playing through Deus Ex right now and not killing anyone. :/

[omi25p]

My total kill count for video games since i start playing them has to be in the Billions right now. Yet in real life i havent so much as punched someone.

[tickticktick]

This coming from the makers of a war simulator.

[Volomon]

Wasn't there a report or article saying the opposite?

[RegorL]

Some players...

So lets put some civilians in the game. If your team happens to kill civilians they will turn against you - knifing you... or whatever... [I suggested this to DICE long time ago]

Good or bad idea?

Now I think it is a bad idea! Why?

Because someone on your team WILL take pleasure in killing civilians, every time you play...
Like someone always kill their team mates if they can...

Team kill should return first, when this works as it should (with punishments for the individuals that likes to team kill - blocked until support unlocks you manually, and especially no negative scores!), then civilians can enter the scene...
But even at that point there isn't really any point in child civilians (child solders is a disturbing reality that I really would not miss in a game)

[Mrmagnumman357]

In a way this reminds me of the book 1984. Instead of giving us the freedom to make our own choices, they take away the option of morality and makes us conform to their standards. Either way im getting BF3 day 1!

[artdafoo]

People online will always try and get away with anything to give themselves an edgeover someone else period. Spawn killing, glitching, hacking so as far as that goes, the devs should always make sure they keep parching their games to combat these evil dowers.

[KFox109]

Meh. Sure, players WILL shoot civilians, but it's not really an issue. To be entirely honest, the whole point of playing a video game is to escape into a different world where the consequences aren't real. It's part of the role playing experience that is inherent in all video games. Besides, most of these people who like to "do naughty things" are not going to replicate it in real life. They main reason they do it in the first place is because they know it's morally/ethically/socially unacceptable in a real life scenario. It's human curiosity, if you will.

[Bonerboy]

Like Micheal Jackson "bad"?

[kesvalk]

ppl need to remember that, most of the time, the bad choice is the only choice...

and even when there is a good option, it will give you so much additional work that you may just choose the bad potion because you can't really care to spent the next 1 hour trying to save someone just to get nothing in return...

everyone i know that played the first bioshock choose to redeem all the little sisters...

[Hufandpuf]

I want to play as the US ARMY and kill civilians. How does that sound? Don't use mw2 as an excuse because they were Russian.

[Pro_TactX]

I only shoot civilians if they have an attitude, with the exception of MW2. In MW2 I shot civilians because all the NPCs were doing it and it seemed like a good idea at the time.

[kingme71]

Why don't 99.99% of us shoot people in real life? Because we have to live with the guilt, we know it is morally wrong, we risk going to jail, we might have to face up to it in the afterlife (if that is your belief), we know it devastates families and friends and probably 100 other reasons.

Do any of these reasons factor into our decision making when deciding or not to shoot a colorful grouping of pixels with ones and zeros for a brain? Sorry, but you can say all you want about moral reasons in a video game, but they simply do not compare to the real world. In a video game your decision making is based solely on how it affects your outcome in the game. Do I harvest the Little Sisters? Do I become the bad Cole? Do I play as Renegade in ME? What if the game rewarded you two fold for playing as a morally black character and you had a better overall gaming experience? What if it opened up new areas that the goody two shoes never gets to experience? Would you play as the bad guy then? Of course you would. You are making the decision based on how you want to enjoy the game, not some higher level moral system that pertains to real life.

[L6RD7BLU3]

Like I always say I feel no remorse over polygons and pixels!

[SlaughterMeister]

My first playthrough on any game that offers moral decisions, I always choose the "good" path.

[ME1989]

The ****?

That's why it's a GAME. Games are meant to be fun, if people want to be "bad" to digital characters, why stop them? I think we have the intelligence to differentiate virtual actions from reality.

[AO1JMM]

Its a videogame so yah.....

[Derpy]

I enjoy playing a good person in my games, but I do admit that it is more fun to be good when you don't have to be. I don't think playing a good character in a game like Infamous would be half as fun as it was if you were forced to be good.

[KendrickGLS]

I love games that gives you moral choices!

[KendrickGLS]

I like how in The Suffering the moral choices you make effects the whole story. It's my favorite horror game, and always will be. It's an old game that's on the original Xbox, ps2, and pc for any of you who never heard of it. The Suffering Ties That Bind is a lot better than the first game. Righteous!

[Tachyon_Nova]

I disagree with him anyway, for example me and everyone I know who has played inFamous 1/2 played through as a Hero first and then maybe went through as Evil just for the experience.

[TyrannoTaurus]

I chose to play Infamous 2 as the bad guy and there were a couple of moments where I kinda felt bad about it, lol.

[Hayabusa 117]

I can see where Bach is coming from but I think he's "wrong" to censor for us, especially when it comes to basic things like killing civilians when it's been done 100 time before :p

First of all, let's gain some perspective here shall we? You aren't actually "killing" anything. It's a bunch of pixels and code projected into our heads through light. They AREN'T living things, they have no emotion and they do not feel pain. That matters because we as gamers know this: we know the difference between a real child and a virtual one (at least most of us do anyway).

The enticement for shooting the child is one of curiosity, not because we're evil. In Bioshock I played through the game saving all the little sisters but that didn't stop me trying to shoot/blow up the little sister earlier on. The reason I tried was because I wanted to see whether or not the game devs allowed it to happen. If i discovered it was possibl, my curiosity would have been satisfied and I doubt I would have killed anymore especially since they give upgrades :p

In the case of the Russian mission in MW2, I did kill the civilians, specifically because I wanted to prove the first point I made: they are just a bunch of pixels and "killing" them holds no consequences what-so-ever. This was mainly because everyone made such a big deal about that mission I naturally tended to a more rebellious response. After a while I got bored of killing them (they don't fight back, and killing them gives you no additional reward to letting them live) and I ended up shooting the suitcases instead because it was more fun: they explode in a shower of clothes! It was new to a COD game!

That leads me to the next point: the best way to stop gamers from making the inherently bad choice is to give them more severe consequences. In Halo for example, you can kill your marine buddies (handy when they're annoying you) but if you kill 2 of them, the others turn on you and you typically end up dead. Obivion: attack an innocent by-stander in the open and guards chase you down. Most shooting games I've played with civilians have it so that if you kill a civilian/team mate the mission fails. In reality one of the reasons we don't go arund shooting people is because we fear the consequences: so add a game world consequence and you'll deter people from "behaving badly".

And one reason why most of the time I don't go around killing everything that moves in a video game is because it actually breaks the immersion. We all want to feel immersed in the game world, that's why we play it. Go around killing every NPC is going to detach yourself away from the experience the developers intended and hence make the game less immersive. Ultimately if the NPCs are done well, have character and feel life-like, then I care about them and I don't want them to die. I'll even reload a save point to make sure they live :)

I could go on forever about this subject but I think it's a shame BF doesn't allow civilians to die: that definitely takes away from the realism of the game. Are players going to try and shoot the "innocents"? Certainly, at least to see if it's possible. Are they going to kill every civilian in the game? I doubt it. Keeping the civilians safe is just as much part of the game as killing the bad guys.

[bub16]

Personally i act good in games where im given the choice, i find it harder then being evil. and if alot of people are choosing evil. well what can you expect. the games are the only place where its legal to kill people and be a bad ass

[SH0CKW4VE]

The bad decision in a video game?!

Im a grown man, I think I can make my own decisions and if they have consequences I can live with them.

I dont need to be mothered Dice.

Ah that "No Russian" Misson, I gunned everyone down but did the SWAT burst through my door?

Would I do it in real life? NO

Theres virtual and then there is reality.

[BlueEye]

I'll admit I did shoot the people in MW2, and in Ultimate Spider-Man for the PS2 I often went rampaging with Venom hunting people down for fun and destroying cars and killing the police, and it was fun.

But when I play games like Fallout 3 or Fallout: New Vegas I usually go with Good cause playing Bad just kinda sucks. The one thing that ever gives me bad karma is stealing some things here and there.

[IM_A_NINJA]

That's funny because even in a video game I never do any evil sided things because I always feel bad about it. So in KOTOR 1 and 2, Fable, Infamous, Mass Effect and any other game where you can choose your morality, I'm always a good person..like I try to be in real life.

Still I don't really appreciate anyone lumping every gamer together. I mean there are hundreds of millions of gamers out there and of course there is going to be some that are going to do bad things, regardless.

[sarshelyam]

I don't know, it's a fairly generalized commentary. Take any game I play that gives you choice, I'll always start good...but some games, Jade Empire for example, through my actions I grew so attached to the characters that I couldn't bring myself to play through it making evil decisions.

So then, do I offset the perception of how gamer's should be seen? I certainly feel my actions in the games are what most would choose, so really, who's right here?

[taijutsu363]

Dont we always make bad choices in life anyway limiting it in games only makes it less of a triumph "Being good is only as satisfying when you have the choice to be bad."

[aliengmr]

I don't think this is a black & white issue. That players will choose one or the other. Im play the good guy, I can't help it. But I fully admit to killing some of those beggar women in AC. Their fault for not getting the hint.

I think the guy is wrong. Given the choice most people would do the right thing, whether in real life or a game. Only the game allows us you explore those dark places with in ourselves. But people aren't like Bruce Banner, where the right stimuli produces the Hulk. I know Bach is trying to hold the moral "high ground", but in doing so is insulting the people he wants to sell games to.

If they want BF3 to be free of bad moral decisions, fine. But framing it in such a way that the reason for doing so is provide a moral "barrier" so gamers won't act on their evil instincts, is a bit insulting. It implies that gamers are simple-minded and would never take a moral choice in a game seriously, and that he must do something about it.

[SuperBeast811]

Really?huh in both fable 2 and 3 and infamous 1 and 2 I always played the hero first it just came more natural even in fallout 3 I didnt blow up megaton until my second playthrough

[KendrickGLS]

In the No Russian mission I didn't shoot any civilians, and I didn't want to kill the swat team, but they became a problem so I had to erase them. Being evil, or neutral can be fun, but I still prefer to be good in games. Just look at Fable, Fallout, and inFamous. Without moral choices those games would be a lot less fun. Battlefield is a fun, and hard game that is made by a soft company lol. Don't worry DICE you can wipe the tears away now. Righteous!