Why Aren't There More Civilians In Military Video Games? 431
Jeremy Erwin writes "A columnist for Slate asks why there aren't any civilians in today's military shooting games. Quoting: 'Mostly, they don't want to face the consequences of players' bad behavior. In an interview with the website Rock Paper Shotgun, Battlefield 3's executive producer Patrick Bach explained that he doesn't "want to see videos on the Internet where people shoot civilians. That's something I will sanitize by removing that feature from the game." Bach believes that video games are serious business but that players' irreverence is holding back the form. "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 [to the] dark side because people think it's cool to be naughty, they won't be caught," he said.'"
(Note that there are civilians in Battlefield 3, you just can't kill them, accidentally or otherwise. Despite this, the author's point stands: "By removing civilians from the picture, developers like Bach are trying to reap the benefits of a real-life setting without grappling with the reality of collateral damage.")
Because then... (Score:1, Informative)
... every one of those games would be a thematic variation on GTA. Like this [wikipedia.org]. People don't want reality, they want to be entertained.
Re:Duh. (Score:4, Informative)
Thats kind of the point though your killing pixels...most know the difference enough that they want to keep fantasy and reality separate. However, a "more realistic" war-game might be a good idea just to show the real horror and consequences of war...just dont expect it to sell well and dont expect any good press no matter if it was made with good intentions.