to all PC gamers, consider buying something else than LA Noire.. Skyrim maybe... LA Noire is dissapointing.. its good but u will get that 'i wont play it again' feeling...
I hope that these items are just available to players who pre-order straight away and the rest of us have to unlock them the normal way coz I would really like to be able to use that flash suppressor
There's no need to add civilians or some lame targets in the game. We'll have enough CoD n00bs running around and w00kies as stationary practice targets, so it's almost like having "civilians" in the game. Plus you won't be a bad guy because you killed a "little girl" ;)
I have to say, I think the presenting quality of Start/Select has risen in the last few weeks. Presenters have become more humorous. A thumbs up from me. I'm not surprised alot of gamers like doing evil things in games. Why do you think the GTA series is so popular? Roll out GTA 5 already! :D
I think they should have civilians in-game.. many modern combat games feel empty with out them, by the way... i`m sure most of you have played Fallout 3 or New Vegas and have shot or eaten innocent people! i did!
The thing that sucked about civilians in MW2 is I tended to shoot them on accident, rather then on purpose. But I quite often would shoot them on accident, which makes having a rule where "You kill a civilian and you get BANNED!" style thing really stupid.
So EA wants their game to be more authentic, so it's removing civilians? Isn't that going the wrong direction? I'm pretty sure EVERY warzone in history has had civilians running around. And I don't appreciate EA saying that we gamers would take the evil choice. Am I the only guy out there who likes to do the good guy stuff in my games? Did everyone else out there go bad Karma in Fallout 3 and dark side in KOTOR? No? Well there you go EA. Give players the choice, and you might be surprised at how often players will chose to do the right thing.
@V-Mack don't worry you will be to busy blowing up buildings and driving tanks and helicopters and jets to worry about that.
Mw2 no russian mission was all to get publicity for the game and EA and DICE are basically saying we will let the game sell it self
Sadly, there is a element of truth to Bach's comment - there's a lot of people that think the Internet shields them from any possible repercussion, and as a result think they can act like total idiots with impunity. It's not even a new phenomenon, as documented by Penny Arcade back in 2004 - http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19. Just where do people think trolls, those people that ruin it in the multilayer FPSs etc. come from? Why do they act like they do? Because they can, basically - all Bach's doing is trying to remove the possiblility at all from BF3. Which is pointless, if you think about it - if a idiot wants to be a idiot, they'll find a way.
@Benifited I only played Noire for 30 minutes and I was not impressed, and GameSpot gave HL2 a better score than it. Try to back up your comments with some facts next time, would you?
Yeah because GTA created a bunch of serial killers. Come on, I don't need EA telling me what is right or wrong, I can figure that out myself and know the difference between a game and reality. They at least could have kept them in the single player to make it more realistic and at the very least made them invisible to gunfire and kept them out of multiplayer.
Man I still cant believe their is a mission were you are urged to kill civilians,you would think its some kind of terrorist recruiting tool.
i don't think they should take out civilians out of the game's when the game is a first person shooter like BattleField3 or Modern Warfare 3 that lean more on the realistic game play, because then the game seems empty when you're moving through a city for 25 min and you don't see 1 civilian running for their lives. Im sure there have been certain circumstances where a civilian has actually been helpful to a military personnel or a police officer in giving out information from what they have seen so the good guys can have an idea of what they are going into or better prepare them selves for whats to come down the road . If they want to make people behave in games then they should just create in the game a way of punishing the player for killing civilians or friendly, because its the most important time for kids to learn while there young that there are rules in every society for hurting innocent people. It becomes more difficult to teach an old dog new tricks than it is a pup.
Games do NOT need to be "realistic" to be good!!!!! Not a single game that isnt a simulation game of sorts, can be called realistic. I'm glad civilians wont be in the game they have no reason to be there. Much like how I dont want to watch my character go to the bathroom or watch him scratch himself just to make the game more "realistic".
It's called friendly fire that's what happens in real war sometimes, where some civilian is there at the right moment and gets shot, For those people that do it for the hell of it should be punished for shooting people but please do not take the reality of BF3, if you do that the game will be no good!!! BF3 should be like the real thing that happens out there in war, that's my opinion!!! you should put a system in the game to target people that are just shooting innocent civilians for the hell of it so they could get a time out, if they do it a second time banned the player, please do not take out the realism of the game, PC gamer here! Also what i would like to see is cross platform play!
@lacee148 Yea, it's true no one played Paragon in ME. Wait a second, no it's not. http://www.masseffectsaves.com/ Look at all those paragon saves. Not to mention most of my friends went Paragon (for first playthrough at least) and only did Renegade second, if at all. Is there some stat I'm missing where 90% of people play Renegade and not Paragon?
I prefer that a game take longer to come out and be a finished product. Most companies rush things now and days. And as far as battlefield 3 goes, im fine with no civilians but blood in multiplayer would be much better
Let's add civilians and give them guns to defend themselves, that way if you shoot them, you would have a reason. they had a gun.
It took Valve 6 years to make Half-Life 2 which is arguably 12 hours, no one complained about that when it was released and Valve has come nowhere near administration. Try another excuse. P.S. Half-Life 2 has much better facial animation than L.A. Noire, by the way.
... that Patrick Bach is a moron. If it's true than nobody gain paragon in Mass Effect or nobody plays Flable as good hero. EA, I think you choose a bad way to advertise a new Battlefileld. I had more fun with Battlefield than Call of Duty but this is too much for me especially because Activision said they do not want this kind of "war of words". I think a non-gamer may say something like this but not a game developer. If the violence is necessary for story telling then it's OK. In movie industry everything is OK then why is it so difficult in this industry?
I never used to kill innocents in games - I would walk through that level on cod with my finger off the trigger. Now I run around games like fable, shooting running civilians with ease so my character can be 'evil' and I can do that side of the game. It's not my fault for being heartless - the games want me to be! And now they say I'm messed up? Don't blame the creation, blame the maker.
I don't care about civilians, they just get in the way so it's a good thing there out in battlefield 3. But blood in multiplayer should be in, u have a gun, you shoot some1 what happens, blood. It let's me see that iv hit someone in the game. But in the end it's not a big problem as long as the gameplay is spot on.
I think that blood in mutiplayer should be battlefield 3 but if some people dont like that kind of thing why not place it as a option where you can turn it on or off as you like.