Serious Business: Red Cross offended by videogame War Crimes.

[Tohuvabohu]

http://kotaku.com/5863817/war-crimes-in-video-games-draw-red-cross-scrutiny

My apologies if this was already posted somewhere.

Usually I don't give much attention to the opinions of alarmist organizations on videogames, but today I've come across this certain article and it's left me feeling very very confused. It's also made me laugh, and feel a bit ashamed.

And this particular tidbit just about sums up my emotions:

"The project looked at the actions of players and non-players in 19 games, including top shooter franchises like Call of Duty, Battlefield and Rainbow 6 titles., examining whether the developers established or followed the international humanitarian laws set forth in the Geneva and Hague conventions."

So... yeah. I'm at a loss of words right now.
I mean, for fucks sake. The Red Cross? At least they seem to be practicing tact on this and not stepping on the toes of gamers. But it is rather insulting to the medium as a whole, especially to the work of developers.

So escapists, what exactly do you think about this whole thing?

 

[Chickenfeed]

[Deleted] Didn't read your source

 

[Jasper Jeffs]

It's funny because just yesterday on Skyrim I walked into an imperial camp, I killed everyone and found a tent for the wounded in the back, at first I was like "hmm, should I?", then I realised it was a video game and blew them all to pieces.

The article is retarded, surely if they're applying this to video games they should also look into other mediums like ummmmm, I dunno.. films and books? Their efforts would be just as pointless.

 

[theonecookie]

Bah there trolling right I mean haven't that got better things to be doing like looking after real people not fake ones next you'll be telling me they looked at all the war films of the past decade to

It also looks like there after getting some laws passed about this too which makes it seem all the more insane (and they say gamers cant tell the difference between reality and fiction)

 

[Gecko clown]

But you don't understand games are...um... different to all that... stuff because... well... art... and... film... and... and... people who run these things don't like games because they don't understand......... yeah you're right it is retarded.

 

[Quoth]

Almost the same argument as people killing children in Skyrim. Personally I enjoy killing innocents in computer games be they FPS, RPG, Flight Sims, GTA hell I'll try and mo down a family on a platform playing rail simulator games.

Why? Because it's make believe and no one really got hurt. Whats more its a welcome vent for all the times I got cut up on the road, or barged in to on the road, or had to wait an extra 5 minutes in a shopping queue while window licker 1 fumbled in his purse for the odd coin, or had to listen to some little SOB cry whilst waiting for a train / bus / taxi.

I'm so full of rage.

Except I'm not.

Sometimes I just like doing things in games that I'd never do in real life. Most of the time I wish these do-good gits would just sod off and waste their energy on something meaningful.

Freedom of imagination is paramount. Next thing someone will be telling Steven King he's no longer able to sell horror stories because it's infringed on the fictional rights of non existent character!

 

[Lazy Kitty]

...It's a videogame, none of it is real.
Regulating videogames in this way would be like regulating dreams. (Getting sent to jail for having a dream where you infringe on these humanitarian laws.)
Bits of data are not animal or plant, they're not self aware and they're not alive.
They're definitely not human, so humanitarian law shouldn't apply.

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

Here's a good question, why would it be a bad thing for the Red Cross to do this? Most of the article makes it sound like their course of action is going to be to advise developers on how they could incorporate international law into their games. It would mean that many games would become more realistic. I can't believe that everybody is bickering and moaning because these guys think games should incorporate the rules by which war is waged. I think that more games following these rules could be pretty cool.

Edit: Enforcing games to follow this through law would be bad and that is not what I am advocating and it is not necessarily what the Red Cross is advocating.

 

[Tohuvabohu]

OT: Another organization drumming up news by acting dumb. Move along children.

But this isn't some no-name organization with nothing better to do with their time other than rousing hysteria to get on the news. It's the Red Cross. Whatever happened to those war-torn countries with genuine humanitarian disasters? How could they possibly spend any time focusing on this?

I used to think they were an organization with a great cause. Now I think they're a fucking joke. What a shame.

The article is retarded, surely if they're applying this to video games they should also look into other mediums like ummmmm, I dunno.. films and books? Their efforts would be just as pointless.

I wonder why videogames keep being singled out from all other forms of media. Which can depict the same exact things, except in some ways be even stronger than games when movies and film use real people whereas videogames is pixels.
I figured any smart person can draw that conclusion and drop the subject. But I guess the Red Cross is not that smart?

 

[Korten12]

Here's a good question, why would it be a bad thing for the Red Cross to do this? Most of the article makes it sound like their course of action is going to be to advise developers on how they could incorporate international law into their games. It would mean that many games would become more realistic. I can't believe that everybody is bickering and moaning because these guys think games should incorporate the rules by which war is waged. I think that more games following these rules could be pretty cool.

Because, then ALL games would have to follow it by law. That's where the moaning appears.

 

[Rude as HECK]

I would imagine this is more of a publicity stunt rather than a serious policy recommendation. Although, I have been thinking recently of what a game that took into account human rights and other forms of international law. A brave developer could no doubt have fun with the concept.

 

[thelonewolf266]

Why does the link seem to lead to this very page for me?

 

[Tohuvabohu]

Here's a good question, why would it be a bad thing for the Red Cross to do this? Most of the article makes it sound like their course of action is going to be to advise developers on how they could incorporate international law into their games. It would mean that many games would become more realistic. I can't believe that everybody is bickering and moaning because these guys think games should incorporate the rules by which war is waged. I think that more games following these rules could be pretty cool.

At first glance, I thought the article was about the Red Cross researching how well current videogames do at depicting adherence to geneva and hague conventions and humanitarian laws. Since realism is becoming more important, especially in war games, it could be an interesting thing.

I thought "Hey that's pretty cool."

Then I read this:
"If they agree those standards should be applied, the International Committee of the Red Cross says they may ask developers to adhere to the rules themselves or "encourage" governments to adopt laws to regulate the video game industry.


^Fuck.No.

I could go on, but that's at least that's how I feel about this. How do you feel about that particular statement?

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

Here's a good question, why would it be a bad thing for the Red Cross to do this? Most of the article makes it sound like their course of action is going to be to advise developers on how they could incorporate international law into their games. It would mean that many games would become more realistic. I can't believe that everybody is bickering and moaning because these guys think games should incorporate the rules by which war is waged. I think that more games following these rules could be pretty cool.

Because, then ALL games would have to follow it by law. That's where the moaning appears.

Did you read the rest of my post? I said that I thought it would be a good idea if they advised developers, not pushed for new laws. That would be bad. I knew I'd get a reply like this when I posted that. Should've just cleared that up in the original post. I'll go edit it right now.

 

[Rude as HECK]

Ok, this thread has just given me an idea: I may consider writing my Master's dissertation on the portrayal of humanitarian, human rights, and other forms of international law in media.

I'd seriously consider it...

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

Here's a good question, why would it be a bad thing for the Red Cross to do this? Most of the article makes it sound like their course of action is going to be to advise developers on how they could incorporate international law into their games. It would mean that many games would become more realistic. I can't believe that everybody is bickering and moaning because these guys think games should incorporate the rules by which war is waged. I think that more games following these rules could be pretty cool.

At first glance, I thought the article was about the Red Cross researching how well current videogames do at depicting adherence to geneva and hague conventions and humanitarian laws. Since realism is becoming more important, especially in war games, it could be an interesting thing.

I thought "Hey that's pretty cool."

Then I read this:
"If they agree those standards should be applied, the International Committee of the Red Cross says they may ask developers to adhere to the rules themselves or "encourage" governments to adopt laws to regulate the video game industry.


^Fuck.No.

I could go on, but that's at least that's how I feel about this. How do you feel about that particular statement?

I felt it was bad, which was why I never said that would be a good thing. I just edited my post to make that more clear.

 

[Something Amyss]

While the Movement works vigorously to promote international humanitarian law worldwide, there is also an audience of approximately 600 million gamers who may be virtually violating IHL

I didn't know international humanitarian laws covered non-existent people. You should probably complain about all those fictional genocides in movies, too, though they're not as interactive.

Anyway, so what? I think that if you tallied up all my gaming kills, I'm a bigger monster than Hitler (apologies for the Godwin's Law invocation, but seriously). So what? I haven't killed anyone in real life. I'm non-violent. I was raised by two conscientious objectors. My dad was threatened with deportation and stuck with it.

And despite being a pair of dirty hippies, they're okay with my fictional "war crimes."

I would imagine this is more of a publicity stunt rather than a serious policy recommendation. Although, I have been thinking recently of what a game that took into account human rights and other forms of international law. A brave developer could no doubt have fun with the concept.

Imagine a game where you lose points for teabagging a downed enemy soldier.