Battlefield 3 won't present players with an opportunity to harm civilians, as developer DICE isn't comfortable with giving players the option to carry out evil deeds.

"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 dark side - because people think it's cool to be naughty, they won't be caught," executive producer Patrick Bach told Rock, Paper, Shotgun.

"In a game where it's more authentic, when you have a gun in your hand and a child in front of you what would happen? Well the player would probably shoot that child."

While this is clearly the choice of the player, Bach is all too aware of the backlash this could have on the studio.

"We would be the ones to be blamed. We have to build our experiences so we don't put the player in experiences where they can do bad things."

Modern Warefare 2's notorious 'No Russian' level wasn't mentioned, but clearly this had some influence on Bach's thinking.

"Me personally, I'm trying to stay away from civilians in games like Battlefield because I think people will do bad. I don't want to see videos on the internet where people shoot civilians. That's something I will sanitise by removing that feature from the game."

This isn't the first time Bach has displayed a strong sense of morals. In previous interviews, Bach has revealed that it isn't his intention to drum up controversy with Battlefield 3 - this "isn't a tasteless war game", he said.


Whilst also serving as a very slight jab at Activision and Modern Warfare 3, this touches on a much deeper issue: where does blame lay when evil acts are committed in games? With the player, who ultimately presses the buttons to execute the decision? Or with the developer, which gives players the opportunity to do so in the first place? We're interested to hear your thoughts on this one.