Serious Business: Red Cross offended by videogame War Crimes.

[AndyFromMonday]

Censoring stuff in the name of political correctness is always fun.

 

[Tohuvabohu]

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.

Oh. Gotcha.

The pushing for new laws part is the real shitsucker of the topic for me.

However, I do think that videogames can be a strong tool for teaching real life lessons if they want to. If they red cross wanted to advise a developer on how to adhere to humanitarian laws, it would be great. I would be all for that. Videogame developers and the red cross working together to bring forth humanitarian realities into videogames? I LOVE the sound of that.

But it seems like the Red Cross is more interested in stomping into a Development process and stopping all fictional forms of humanitarian abuses in videogames. That's what it seems like to me, especially with the whole pushing forth a new law thing.

And that goes back to my earlier post: Why single videogames out for this and not other forms of media? Is it just because of the interactivity?

 

[Korten12]

I have to go with the Red Cross on this one. You cannot look at modern war games without thinking about how tasteless it is.

I don't, because it's a game. So you really can't say "You cannot."

 

[Ryank1908]

I'm a little torn here. On the one hand, the Red Cross looks at some of the violence in videogames and applies 'the player' as a generalisation. If you don't have the choice to do it, then it is, at that moment, a work of FICTION, and using that device to tell a story. Movies and books do it all the time. Stop giving videogames a very specific and negative kind of special treatment - it is a medium of entertainment, as are many others. I didn't stab the rat in BF3 because I thought it would be lulzy. I had to.

On the other hand, with Yahtzee's latest Extra Punctuation in mind, I sort of agree; there's a lot of abject brutality in games that simply seems tasteless to me. With Battlefield and such, then sure - it's war. Even 'No Russian' was used (very effectively) for shock and emotional impact. On the other hand, there's a lot of just unnecessary violence in games that are just trying to be edgy, and coming off as juvenile. Whether it's damaging is not for me to say, I'm not a child psychologist. But it is tasteless, and I find it very hard to sympathize with those who enjoy it. This is, of course, a message sponsored by subjectivity, as always.

 

[Tohuvabohu]

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.

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

Next TF2 update

Soldier changes:
If you taunt after killing an enemy, you are immediately kicked from the game and put on trial at the Hague.

I have to go with the Red Cross on this one. You cannot look at modern war games without thinking about how tasteless it is.

They can be. And that's why I choose not to play a great many of them. It doesn't make me want to tell the developers "I think your games are tasteless, so you cannot make them."

I'm a little torn here. On the one hand, the Red Cross looks at some of the violence in videogames and applies 'the player' as a generalisation. If you don't have the choice to do it, then it is, at that moment, a work of FICTION, and using that device to tell a story. Movies and books do it all the time. Stop giving videogames a very specific and negative kind of special treatment - it is a medium of entertainment, as are many others. I didn't stab the rat in BF3 because I thought it would be lulzy. I had to.

On the other hand, with Yahtzee's latest Extra Punctuation in mind, I sort of agree; there's a lot of abject brutality in games that simply seems tasteless to me. With Battlefield and such, then sure - it's war. Even 'No Russian' was used (very effectively) for shock and emotional impact. On the other hand, there's a lot of just unnecessary violence in games that are just trying to be edgy, and coming off as juvenile. Whether it's damaging is not for me to say, I'm not a child psychologist. But it is tasteless, and I find it very hard to sympathize with those who enjoy it. This is, of course, a message sponsored by subjectivity, as always.

I view the slew of modern war shooters stem from a lack of creativity. When it comes to making a game, all the setpieces are already there.
One side vs another.
Use real guns.
Use real vehicles.
Use real locations.
No imagination involved.

However, "extreme" violence has been pretty childish for a very long time, long before realistic war shooters. Mortal Kombat, Unreal Tournament, etc.

I'm just glad no one showed Resident Evil 5 to the Red Cross.

 

[Darks63]

So instead of using money donated to them to go help in war torn countries, they used it to play video games huh kind of a slap in the face to those who donate to them FOR HUMANITARIAN WORK.I mean really they are worried about the rights of imaginary people whats next books have to apply international law as well is so bye bye warhammer.

 

[Grospoliner]

Well I guess we should just censor everything that everyone gets offended by shouldn't we? Of all the ironic things that a "human rights" group could say they pick the worst one. Of course they're probably starved for attention and are trying to drum up donations, but somehow advocating censorship of free media seems like the worst possible idea they could have latched onto.

 

[Siege_TF]

Rainbow 6 titles? They're still making Rainbow 6 games? I thought that franchise died out a long time ago, or did they pick up all the games they reviewed from the 'ten dollars or less' bin at Gamestop?

 

[Llil]

You know what, it does sound interesting. A more realistic military shooter (like Operation Flashpoint or Red Orchestra for example), where you would be encouraged to play by the real world rules. Maybe something similar to SWAT4, where you're penalised for killing suspects instead of arresting them, especially if they aren't resisting arrest, but instead, the penalties would come from things like killing POWs (unarmed enemies) etc.

Of course all games shouldn't be like that which is why I think Red Cross is wrong in this, but it could be used to make a more interesting simulation type game.

 

[Furioso]

People will continue to say this kind of crap to video games, just remember, books get banned in parts of the states pretty routinely so count your blessings (though it always makes those books more popular)

 

[Something Amyss]

Next TF2 update

Soldier changes:
If you taunt after killing an enemy, you are immediately kicked from the game and put on trial at the Hague.

Spawn-Camping is now considered disproportionate force and servers will now send the CIA to your door.

They can be. And that's why I choose not to play a great many of them. It doesn't make me want to tell the developers "I think your games are tasteless, so you cannot make them."

Yeah, looking into international legal regulations is taking things too far.

One side vs another.
Use real guns.
Use real vehicles.
Use real locations.
No imagination involved.

Don't forget "use real factions with the serial numbers filed off."

It's usually terrorists from Generikstan vs the US. If you're saucy, Russia or some "red" country, real or not.

Personally, I want to fight the last remnants of an ancient order of angry chefs.

 

[Dandark]

I would be fine if all they wanted was to encourage developers to use humanitarian laws in their games and therefore inform and educated the player about them and what is generally accepted as right and wrong.

However it sounds like they are pretty much singling out video games because they are a new medium and saying "No extreme violence for you, Games are going to turn everybody into raping genocidal dicators".
I also would of thought they had something better to do, maybe the very things people donate money to them to do.

 

[ediblemitten]

Wow, someone got offended. And by something as incomprehensibly stupid as this. I... I just... wow...

 

[Adeptus Aspartem]

Can someone answer me the question, how far books and film are restriced by that stuff?
How can you pick up "hot topics" and show flaws in human nature if you've to be political correct in everything you do?
Where's the controversy in that? It would simply mean, that games would immediatly stagnate and could only picture what would be "socially acceptable" or some bollocks.

I agree though, the usually "Hurr we US, you bad russian, boomboom" is kinda disrespectful and maybe developpers should put more consideration when choosin' which faction shoots which in the buttocks.

 

[Micalas]

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.

It's more realistic that there are people breaking these humanitarian laws because...well look around at the world.

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

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.

Oh. Gotcha.

The pushing for new laws part is the real shitsucker of the topic for me.

However, I do think that videogames can be a strong tool for teaching real life lessons if they want to. If they red cross wanted to advise a developer on how to adhere to humanitarian laws, it would be great. I would be all for that. Videogame developers and the red cross working together to bring forth humanitarian realities into videogames? I LOVE the sound of that.

But it seems like the Red Cross is more interested in stomping into a Development process and stopping all fictional forms of humanitarian abuses in videogames. That's what it seems like to me, especially with the whole pushing forth a new law thing.

And that goes back to my earlier post: Why single videogames out for this and not other forms of media? Is it just because of the interactivity?

I'd argue that the interactivity could be a part of it, but it should also be acknowledged that films and books do at least seem to follow such laws more often. Those that don't are generally brainless summer blockbuster types, and even some of those still mention international law (I believe Iron Man mentioned the Geneva convention or something of that sort). I really can't think of an occasion where a game has dealt with the subject material though. Some would even have some huge plot holes in them if they so much as acknowledged the existence of these laws, such as the Modern Warfare franchise. The interactivity just means that the ideas of the Geneva conventions can be better shown.

 

[The Lunatic]

Video games trivialize war, this is completely the point.

It's a simulated war for entertainment where nobody gets hurt (At least not physically, your social skills may go down the drain however.) and thus the reality is completely lost.

So yes, given it's an organization like The Red Cross, it's basically like saying "Vegetarians aren't keen on eating meat".

 

[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.

It's more realistic that there are people breaking these humanitarian laws because...well look around at the world.

It would also be more realistic if games even acknowledged they existed. Believe it or not, this is my real main issue with the Modern Warfare franchise, which's plot would not function if it didn't happen in some magical world where the Geneva conventions do not exist.

 

[Micalas]

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.

It's more realistic that there are people breaking these humanitarian laws because...well look around at the world.

It would also be more realistic if games even acknowledged they existed. Believe it or not, this is my real main issue with the Modern Warfare franchise, which's plot would not function if it didn't happen in some magical world where the Geneva conventions do not exist.

I see what you're getting at. It's not that people couldn't break these laws in game. It's having your character punished if they do so. The game America's Army is probably as close to that as you're going to get.